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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Thank you for providing that reference. It is unfortunate for you that it says the opposite of what you were claiming. As well, it is unfortunate that you didn't finish it and read it again. You will find much there that would displace your misconceptions.
You seem to think that the term "strawman" is some sort of magical refutation. You appear to be using the term incorrectly. Pick out one of your usages of that accusation and show how he used a strawman.
But to do that would require a degree of precision of thought that is not evident in this poster. The modus operandi seems to be, rather, deliberate woolliness in order to give the impression that the notions vaguely hinted at are in some way scientific, or at least consistent with science.
It has nothing to do with genetics.you mean so what that chimps don't build hospitals? I guess their genetics didn't warrant a need for it.
IOW, your "argument" here is nothing but an argument from incredulity.
The only "misleading" thing here, is your a priori dogmatic beliefs.
I found it in this article: What makes you alive, What is consciousness, and Why life wants to survive?
You've made that claim. Taken literally, it has been rejected. Intention is a quality found only in conscious animals. To my knowledge, you have never attempted to falsify that, just to disregard it and repeat yourself.
Once again, if one means literally, then you are correct, but your objection trivial. Unconscious objects don't select any more than they intend. Unconscious nature selecting is it following physical law passively, as when nature "selects" whether water will be vapor, liquid, or ice.
Now you're getting it. Unconscious things don't intend, select, or plan.
Trees may have a purpose for those wanting shade, fruit, or lumber, but they have no purpose of their own - also a consequence of unconsciousness. Purpose exists only in conscious minds and informs how they plan, intend, and select.
What makes them evolve are the laws of physics in a setting where life if possible.
You've never indicated why you consider that idea meaningful. How does agreeing with you change anything for the better for those who don't? How has that idea served you besides getting you into this fruitless (for you) discussion?
And also passively and unconsciously "selected" according to the laws of physics and ambient conditions on earth.
That is a good point, because if someone disagrees with another, he should be ready and willing to provide reason. Insted of saying things, no, you're wrong, or you need education, etc. Things like that, right?
I'm not sure what you mean by dogmatic because there are variances in understanding and wording. I did not say my faith is dogmatic, you did, and therefore might want to define what you mean by that. I will say that whatever scientific posits stemming from what is considered as evidence by some for their theory is in opposition to what I BELIEVE the Bible says (because not everyone believes the same things from their interpretation of the Bible) I do not accept a statement opposing what the Bible says...thank you for your opinion but as I explained above, it would be necessary for you to explain what you mean by saying my "dogmatic" beliefs and why you say it's the "only misleading thing here." Thank you.
Furrthermore, when I was in school (as an example) there were questions of very important tests about evolution. And I believed in the theory of evolution at the time since I did not know anything showing the theory may not be true. Those particular theories changed as the years wore on, and even now theories change by scientists. So what's accepted today by scientists and their followers may not be accepted tomorrow.
Why not begin with the standard meaning? Dogma is a set of beliefs taught uncritically, which is to say, using indoctrination (assertion without evidenced argument), which is also to say that they are taught dogmatically. It is now your dogma, and you promulgate it the same way - unevidenced assertions, incredulity fallacies, and the like.
This is you saying that your beliefs are dogma and that you believe them dogmatically without using those words. You consider your beliefs incontrovertibly true:
First of all, there are statements in the Bible which can be interpreted in different ways, thus some statements are not dogmatically interpreted by everyone. I state that I take vaccines, I appreciate fire extinguishers which I am pretty sure scientific endeavors helped develop. I have questioned rightfully imo the accuracy of dating processes of science among other things. Yes, my faith in God supersedes anything science wants to declare in opposition to what the Bible says. Romans 3:4 - "Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”
That depends. If the person being addressed constantly demonstrates ignorance than no, there is nothing wrong with that especially if a remedy is offered.
And you still don't.
Theories do change (that's why they are far more rational than blind faith) but some things have so much evidence that they become beyond reasonable doubt. The basics of the theory of evolution is one example.Those particular theories changed as the years wore on, and even now theories change by scientists. So what's accepted today by scientists and their followers may not be accepted tomorrow.
Basic Christian dogma is that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is the only god, that it created the world including man who alone is created in God's image and possesses an immortal soul, that consciousness survives death, that man is sinful and in need of redemption and salvation, which was made possible by the crucifixion of the now-risen Christ for those who believe that by faith, and perdition for the rest.
That's what makes your beliefs dogmatic. They're faith-based, acquired through repetition without evidenced argument (indoctrination), and believed uncritically even in the face of contradictory evidence.
None for you, perhaps. I've already explained the problem with you offering your opinions as meaningful, or that because you find something unbelievable, others should reconsider their positions. You are not an authoritative source. You haven't learned the science or the principles of critical thought. I understand that you don't consider them important, but that's what invalidates your opinions for those who have learned what you have not.
Of course you did. And had you not accepted that dogma as fact, you wouldn't have any problem with the science. That's how confirmation bias works. Accept a belief a priori on faith and THEN examine the evidence in the light of that belief now held dogmatically.
I believe that God decides what He will look at and He is not looking at everything that happens all the time. Many people believe that God sees and knows everything, every detail, in advance. One example of this is in the garden of Eden. People will argue that God knew that Adam and Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit. But the Bible does not bear that presumption out. He gave them a choice. To say he knew what they would choose befordhand is making the situation very difficult to understand. in light of what He was saying. I do not ascribe to the viewpoint that God knew Adam and Eve would eat from the tree He told them not to eat from.
The basic principles underlying the theory have not changed. Details have been added.Furrthermore, when I was in school (as an example) there were questions of very important tests about evolution. And I believed in the theory of evolution at the time since I did not know anything showing the theory may not be true. Those particular theories changed as the years wore on, and even now theories change by scientists. So what's accepted today by scientists and their followers may not be accepted tomorrow.
OK, lets say that God turned off his omniscience for a while. Are you saying now that he could not reason at all and see who was to blame? He still screwed the pooch.He made Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil according to the myth. God created the serpent and allowed him into the garden:
It is not a given that Adam would have succumbed to Eve's invitation. That is why Jesus was the equvalent of Adam, not Eve. Eve was deceived the Bible says. Adam was not. He willfuilly chose to eat the fruit, knowing he would not be equal to God, but it seems reasonable to me that he loved Eve so much that he chose death rather than go on without her.