Brian2
Veteran Member
But you don't know so it is a belief that no gods or pixies did it. It's a belief that it just happened naturally.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Life From Dirt?
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
But you don't know so it is a belief that no gods or pixies did it. It's a belief that it just happened naturally.
Brian2
Veteran Member
But you know what he means.
God made more mistakes than a good engineer or a biologist would have made. Think of Coccyx. Forgot to remove the last bone.
There are worse problems than the coccyx. That is just a vestigial tail isn't it? IMO our bodies were made by God through evolution, with all the problems that leaves us. But that does not mean that the universe and life is not designed to be as it is.
When God had finishe He said it is very good, meaning imo that it was just as He wanted it to be.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
I've long since resolved not to argue and debate with skeptics about my personal experiences with the paranormal. I think it's pointless to argue and debate with people who have already decided not to believe, in spite of any sufficiently validated evidence that they can't rationally explain or debunk, whether they personally witness something or review authentic evidence collected by other people. In my experience, diehard skeptics won't believe in anything supernatural or believe anyone else who talks about their experiences until they have had an up-close and personal experience with something supernatural themselves that they cannot rationally explain and logically debunk (as I explained in another thread here). In other words, you or I could talk to them about paranormal phenomena until we are blue in the face, but they won't believe us because they haven't personally witnessed it for themselves.
Over the years, I've come to believe in the adage "seeing is believing" when it concerns diehard skeptics believing in supernatural phenomena. However, I also believe that some supernatural phenomena occur in the physical world that neither modern science nor sacred religious texts (such as the Bible) or any religious dogma can rationally explain or logically refute. I've been investigating the paranormal for sixteen years, and during this time, I've met a lot of people (both believers and skeptics) who were unwilling to invest the time and resources necessary to authentically validate any potential evidence of paranormal activity. On one hand, I've met people who believe in the paranormal and would typically take any noise or other activity as undeniable proof. On the other hand, I've met people who don't believe in the paranormal and would dismiss any noise or other activity without a second thought. In any case, neither the believers nor the skeptics would conduct an honest and thorough investigation that could validate their belief or deepen their skepticism.
I think that some believers are too open-minded and unwilling to investigate further in order to determine if the activity they witnessed can be debunked, whereas most skeptics are too close-minded and unwilling to investigate further in order to determine if the activity they witnessed is genuine and can't be debunked by a natural explanation. They typically refuse to accept the possibility that what they experienced could in fact be paranormal. I believe that there must be a balance between belief and skepticism when investigating a suspected haunted location, and I strive to achieve this balance whenever I'm investigating a location (read my post here). I've had plenty of skeptics (both atheists and theists) participate in paranormal investigations with me. If one or more became argumentative with me, then I firmly told them that they witnessed what everyone else participating in the investigation had witnessed and could decide for themselves whether to believe or not. It doesn't make sense to me to argue and debate with skeptics in an attempt to convince them to believe in anything supernatural or in suspected paranormal phenomena. I've never tried to persuade any skeptics to believe, as I do. I have forty-four years of personal experience with paranormal phenomena, so their skepticism doesn't deter me from continuing to investigate haunted locations or from sharing my experiences on this forum. It's fine with me if they don't want to believe in paranormal phenomena. It doesn't make any difference to me.
I'm not sure why you keep trying to convince her (and others) to believe me or you. What difference does it make to you, whether they believe or not?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Your question betrays your irrational approach to the subject.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
To be fair, when @Brian2 tries to search a scientific subject on google, likely google's algorithms will only serve him / her links to creationist nonsense on the first 5 pages of search results...
Google tends to keep people in their bubble of "interest" based on their browsing history.
@Brian2 will not get the same results as you with an identical search on his / her own computer.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Is it also a "faith" believe to "not" believe that the underwater springs are the result of extra-dimensional unicorns peeing?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That is no more a statement of "faith" then it is to say that no extra-dimensional leprechauns are needed.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Is it also a "faith" believe to "not" believe that the underwater springs are the result of extra-dimensional unicorns peeing?
If you don't believe they were involved then you believe they weren't involved.
Brian2
Veteran Member
True, they are both statements of faith.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
False.
Rookie mistake made by every single black & white mind with dogmatic tendencies.
Have you heared about the gumball machine analogy?
Summary: there's an unknown amount of gumballs in a gumball machine. You have no way to count them.
Claim: "there is an even amount of gumballs!"
Response: "I don't believe that claim" (meaning: I don't accept it as a true-ism)
Does that mean you'll believe a claim that says there is an uneven amount of gumballs?
Answer: no.
Court case analogy.
A defendant is either guilty or innocent.
Yet only the claim of guilt is discussed.
When a defendant wins the case, the ruling is "not guilty". It is not "innocent".
I rule god "not guilty" of existing.
I rule extra-dimensional unicorns "not guilty" of existing.
And the reason is simply because no proper case has been made to accept the claim of guilt.
That's all.
Nobody goes around making claims like "it wasn't unicorns, it wasn't gods, it wasn't leprechauns, it wasn't....."
To list them all you'ld be there to the end of time with a potentially infinite list of things your imagination can produce. Including made up words even.
Your black and white thinking here, is in fact nothing more or less then a pathetic attempt at shifting the burden of proof.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Brian2
Veteran Member
BUT getting back to post #2,505 (arguably where this started), saying that "the earth makes them on its own" is a statement of faith and the faith is called naturalism and probably goes even deeper.
Then I go on from post to post working with and answering according to the faith that @Subduction Zone showed by what he said.
Then you come in and go off on the usual tangent about the difference between "I believe God does not exist" and "I do not believe God exists", using the example of extra dimensional unicorns peeing".
But of course all these silly mocking examples don't really help your case because most of us actually believe spaghetti monsters and unicorns don't exist and can honestly say that and no, that does not mean that the burden of proof is on them or me to prove that,,,,,,,,,,,, and by saying that you believe God does not exist, that does not put any burden of proof on you,,,,,,,,,,, and by me saying that I believe God exists, that does not put any burden of proof on me.
But if someone says that God is not needed and they really mean that they don't know if God is needed or not, that is either a freudian slip or a way to be provocative and argumentative or a way to be dishonest and make false statements in a debate that probably means nothing to them except poking fun at theists,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or something else.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I see what you're saying. Not to get too far off track but there are some on the forums who claim to have communication with unseen spirits. How do you feel about that?
My question really revolves as to the various religions in different cultures with different gods and goddesses. Did evolution bring about such because gorillas and chimpanzees do not report such experiences. I don't know too much about it but I wonder if gods like Zeus and Ishtar, for example, communicated with people and then they wrote down their experiences as if they were real?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, it does not. My question is really why you think humans alone report experiences with unseen spirits but gorillas and the like do not.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Translation: "in an attempt to completely dodge every point you just made which exposed my dishonest debate tactics, let's try and talk about something else"
No. It's a statement of fact. We can observe the earth making all kinds of environments and chemicals all the time. Environments that are both good as well as bad for living things. Chemicals that are both organic as well as inorganic.
No gods or unicorns required. Just physics and chemistry does the trick.
Exactly. And I did that to make a very specific point about a very specific error you made.
But as usual, you seem to be doing your very best to avoid addressing said error.
It helps my case a lot, if you could bring yourself to approach the point with intellectual honesty - and without strawmen.
Do you feel like you need "faith" to believe magical extra-dimensional unicorns don't exist?
If your answer is yes, would say you need the same amount of "faith", MORE "faith" or less "faith" to believe such unicorns DO exist?
Be very honest in your answer and then try to motivate your answer. WHY do you feel like you need the same amount / more / less faith to believe such unicorns DO exist as opposed to them not existing?
Here's another question: how many times have you caught yourself saying "X doesn't exist" while nobody before that brought up X or claimed X was real?
Assuming your answer is "never", what do you think is the significance of that? And what does that say about the initial position of the burden of proof?
As a sidenote, I could also challenge you to find me a quote of me explicitely saying "I believe no gods exist".
Nope. In this particular case ("earth creates those environments") it is a statement of fact that no gods are needed.
That doesn't mean that no gods can be part of it. It just means that they aren't needed. And they aren't.
We factually see earth creating environments and chemicals all the time. And we require no more then physics and chemistry to explain the process by which such occurs. Hence, no additional entities (like gods, unicorns, what-have-you) are needed.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And I showed how that was not a statement of faith. Maybe you did not understand what you posted when you said this:
"I believe God made the building blocks for life and the ideal natural environment and was necessary for the design also."
The "building blocks for life" are amino acids. Please note you did not say "the building blocks for solar systems". Then you could arguably be talking about matter. But the "for life" part already assumes that matter exists. I linked an article that describes how their formation is observed in nature even today.
You should have just owned up to your error. Trying to make false statements about others relying on "faith" only makes your error worse.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
No, I don't. He needs to explain the kind of dust and the conditions which turned it into RNA/DNA.
Who allowed evolution to make mistakes. You mean he planned faults (underline mine)? Very dastardly of him.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes it does.
The fact that you asked that question in the negative, does.
The word "not" betrays the dishonest approach.
Negative claims like that are pretty much always impossible to demonstrate - especially when it concerns unfalsifiable stuff.
It's quite obvious that you are alluding to the obvious answer of "no, we can't prove that" as some kind of "AHA!" moment, as if not being able to prove that there are no extra-dimensional pixies steal cookies from the kitchen, somehow means that extra-dimensional cookie stealing pixies are an actual rational suspect for the missing cookies.
It's beyond ridiculous.
Did you even read your own statement? It has nothing to do with the absolute nonsense you are talking about here.
For starters, gorilla's don't talk, so how could they report anything?
Secondly, pretty much all animals exhibit a proneness to superstition - especially those animals that tend to be seen as lunch by other animals.
Furthermore, most animals are also very capable of hallucination.
Third, for all I know, mostly only humans are capable of abstract thought. You like to think that makes us "special", but the truth is that it doesn't make us any more special then any of the unique traits of other animals makes them special.
Every species has unique traits. That's kind of what makes them a seperate species........................
So not only is your "reframed" question seen as a rather pathetic attempt at covering up your previous fallacious statement, it's also quite pathetic in its own right.
Do you understand the difference between subjective 'faith' and science based on objective verifiable evidence.
I detect a severe problem of English comprehension.
The subject of the thread is "Life from dirt?" and not the subjective belief in unseen spirits.