Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[Theunis]

You seem to specialize in irrelevancies, outhouse. Why not try reading something written by a theologian, something like Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart?

One must investigate all things and not only those that please him.
Delusions are found as a psychosis in people in all walks of life. It is like a sickness; it does not ask who or what you are; irrespective of the person it just invades your mind or body!

 

[Theunis]

Malarky my new friend. That is nothing but a bunch of 7 dollar words strung together so that you can put ranch dressing on and call word salad.

No such thing as a intelligible universe.



False again.

No mythology or theology describes the concept as such. Your are requiring leaps of imagination.



You cannot employ mythology and call it reason. A person well educated on philosophy cab argue forever and ever. And never once provide a decent credible conclusion.


I deal with history, what is known with many degrees of certainty and plausibility. Men create gods, they always have and very well may continue to do so.

Only men factually defines these concepts that have mythological origins.

And the more you study, the more mythology you will factually uncover.


I would suggest a study in the evolution of Canaanite mythology if you would like to understand how the abrahamic god concept was defined.

Now that is a new one - referring someone to something you say did not exist!

Look who is talking ! Has someone again cornered you and now your own malarky, synicism and skepticism must hold sway ?

 

[outhouse]

Why not try reading something written by a theologian,

Many of my professors are theist

 

[outhouse]

I think that you do not wish to grasp the fact that there are many thoughts and sayings in the bible that are still applicable in our times and they, because of this, have stood the test of time.

yes I know, its why I study this

and I have never said differently


you new guys assume way to much, on topics you seem to know little about

 

[outhouse]

So why attack theism

I only address historical errors, fanaticism and fundamentalism, and a few scientific errors.

Basically I stand for academic knowledge.

Why would you attack knowledge?

 

[Theunis]

you new guys assume way to much, on topics you seem to know little about

Now, now; New to a forum does not mean we are new to life and religious thoughts. This is an assumption on your part if you think and say so.

>>"Why would you attack knowledge<<" -Because your knowledge may be outdated

 

[outhouse]

This is an assumption on your part if you think and say so.

It is not an assumption when you have done so blatantly

Because your knowledge may be outdated

You don't have the biblical education to know the difference.

Guess how I know that?

 

[Reflex]

One must investigate all things and not only those that please him.

That's my point. Outhouse seems to do no more than parrot popular atheist authors like Sam Harris and personify what Francis Bacon said:
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

 

[Shad]

You missed the point me - saying he used the dust of the earth was merely indicating an existing element of earth and not to dust being the actual element.

Post hoc rationalization. Dust is a general terms in which the material can be and not be part of the human body. Only after someone else discovers what these elements are do you claim "that is exactly what dust means". The same can apply to "QM is made of stuff" if I wait long enough for someone else do actually do the hard work in discovering what QM is made of do I claim that "stuff" is what the other person discovered. You missed the point that dust is not an element but a general term.

I think the dust of earth is allegoric and may also indicate, in the greater scheme of things, the insignificance of much of the things found on this mud-ball, situated on the outskirts of the Universe, that we live on.

That is your opinion based on post hoc rationalization. The same can be applied to my QM "stuff"

Hmm maybe you should look at the writings concerning the Annunaki, It is said they did some gene splicing from their own DNA onto the DNA of earth creatures and in doing so created the first man and woman not as "mules" but capable of reproduction.

I do not read pseudoscience based on mythology and more post hoc rationalization.

 

[outhouse]

Outhouse seems to do no more than parrot popular atheist authors like Sam Harris

Sorry, never read a word the man said. So you assumed wrong yet again.

This is the problem with a little philosophy, empty arguments just to argue

Francis Bacon

Ancient work. I could care less. It is now now out of context

I am certain you have no ability or knowledge that challenges me. I was hoping more form you.

 

[McBell]

That's my point. Outhouse seems to do no more than parrot popular atheist authors like Sam Harris and personify what Francis Bacon said:
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

Philosophy is a blind man looking in a dark cellar for a black cat that isn't there.
Or something like that.

 

[outhouse]

Philosophy is a blind man looking in a dark cellar for a black cat that isn't there.
.

Made all the guys at work laugh on that one just now

 

[Theunis]

Post hoc rationalization. Dust is a general terms in which the material can be and not be part of the human body. Only after someone else discovers what these elements are do you claim "that is exactly what dust means". The same can apply to "QM is made of stuff" if I wait long enough for someone else do actually do the hard work in discovering what QM is made of do I claim that "stuff" is what the other person discovered. You missed the point that dust is not an element but a general term.

That is your opinion based on post hoc rationalization. The same can be applied to my QM "stuff"

I do not read pseudoscience based on mythology and more post hoc rationalization.

Your opinion of post hoc rationalization, in my opinion holds no water. It merely amounts to a plain rejection of something that does not conform to your opinion.
I have always considered this reference to "the dust of the earth" to be an element of earth. As such it has no relevance to the definition of "dust". How about a humanoid ape as an existing element of earth?

Your reference to pseudoscience once again only indicates your rejection of things that you have no knowledge of and your inclination to not study all things. To reject things by saying it is mythological is surely meaningless for it is leaning on a crutch of ignorance of that which may or may not have been and in the same breath voicing an opinion that it never was.

 

[Theunis]

That's my point. Outhouse seems to do no more than parrot popular atheist authors like Sam Harris and personify what Francis Bacon said:
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

I agree that it seems to be the case.
I also get the impression he at times says "silly" things merely to see how the other person responds.

 

[outhouse]

It merely amounts to a plain rejection of something that does not conform to your opinion

The problem is much of what you posit, is all unsubstantiated rhetoric. Its the same as ancient aliens is a credible historic and scientific tv show.

What if reality does not conform and reject your opinion? I know academia does. Do you hate all knowledge of just the knowledge that goes against your cherry picked version of it?

Your reference to pseudoscience once again only indicates your rejection of things that you have no knowledge of and your inclination to not study all things.

No pseudoscience describes exactly what you propose. You cannot make up science and make it work for biased conclusions

To reject things by saying it is mythological is surely meaningless

Rhetoric . That means we don't know what literary prose has mythological, and which does not. That is factually false, we do know.

Many things have mythological foundations, it snot up for debate, you do not get to refuse them and hold credibility.

 

[outhouse]

I agree that it seems to be the case.

Sorry you have already admitted to following pseudoscience, that leave little room for credibility.

 

[Theunis]

It is not an assumption when you have done so blatantly

You don't have the biblical education to know the difference.

Guess how I know that?

No bull. How nice. My guess is you know nothing of my knowledge and to cover up your ignorance you become flippant.

 

[outhouse]

My guess is you know nothing of my knowledge

You have already admitted to a certain amount in previous post.


But honestly sir, its easy to see what level you reside at. We are like a big family here, we see literally thousands come and go from all walks of life globally.

Most people have almost no credible education on these topics, and its painfully obvious. No one is saying you have no knowledge, or lack of quality.

But your not a biblical scholar, nor amateur historian. You seem to have trouble judging people based on your assumptions here.

 

[Theunis]

The problem is much of what you posit, is all unsubstantiated rhetoric. Its the same as ancient aliens is a credible historic and scientific tv show.

What if reality does not conform and reject your opinion? I know academia does. Do you hate all knowledge of just the knowledge that goes against your cherry picked version of it?

No pseudoscience describes exactly what you propose. You cannot make up science and make it work for biased conclusions

Rhetoric . That means we don't know what literary prose has mythological, and which does not. That is factually false, we do know.

Many things have mythological foundations, it snot up for debate, you do not get to refuse them and hold credibility.

Your own rhetoric says that you cherry pick because I keep saying one must study all things which negates what you say.

How about updating your knowledge concerning the so-called pseudoscience of present day DNA splicing.

Pray tell me how, when a where does your "god" named academia reject my opinion?

How can reality reject what I say when I have repeatedly said All Realities are my reality !

Go back to agnosticism that says all things may be possible but that they hold back their conclusions until it is proven to be so or otherwise.

 

[outhouse]

You will not make philosophical excuses for pseudoscience.

It is not just about the conclusion that determines your pseudoscience. It is the method you use to reach the conclusion.

Science is observation, and where there is nothing to observe, your NOT allowed to make a conclusion.

You remind me of someone who thinks ancient aliens is educational