McBell
Unbound
Bull ****.
You started with a biased conclusion and went from there.
That you do not/can not see it is most revealing.
-
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!
Verifiable evidence for creationism?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
You started with a biased conclusion and went from there.
That you do not/can not see it is most revealing.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
The assumption that the bible states that Adam was the first "man" by scientific definition is the problem there -that he was the first humanoid on earth -or even that the creatures spoken of in Genesis were the first on Earth.
Religious people have assumed that, as well, but it is not actually stated.
There is much in the bible to suggest otherwise.
The first two verses of the bible also leave a great deal unsaid -as does the rest of it.
McBell
Unbound
Faith requires no proving.
Thus making it a convenient safety net.
Safe from what?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
no really....dead things don't beget the living...
God does it
that's what I believe.....
safe!
McBell
Unbound
everything.
Accountability, support, reality, logic, reason, competing faiths.....
Truth?
McBell
Unbound
yes, even truth.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Lol this is hilarious. Yes, we start with some ''conclusions'', everyone does. Is it biased? It's no more biased than any other perspective. What do you think subjective ideas are, if not biased?
McBell
Unbound
Interesting that you dodged the question then, is it not?
And proving points to truth.
It would seem the whole concept of safety is redundant, except to point at some other truth.
McBell
Unbound
the subjectivity of truth makes it a rather interesting endeavor.
And a false one.
McBell
Unbound
Thus the reason for the safety net, no?
I don't understand. Are you saying that truth's failing is the reason for faith?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I didn't dodge it.
You were
/Not being clear as to what bias
/Not being clear as to how that bias might manifest itself
/Not being clear as to why you think I have a bias
/Not being clear as to how a ''bias'' could affect the arguments in the first place
You really didn't say anything. You jumped to some vague and arbitrary conclusion, and then expected me to refute it as if I even knew what /other than vague insinuations/, you were talking about.
it was goobtlygook, there was no reason to ''answer '' it in the first place.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
I can justify. simple.
You started out as biased by labeling it "creation", which inherently would call for a creator.
A non biased start would be existence, everything, the universe, etc.
By choosing specifically, the word creation, where there are better words to start with, you front loaded your end goal into the very start of your argument.
This is bias.
Now, lets see if you're just projecting.
I just gave you the simple reason that I could call your argument biased.
What's your reasoning for calling my position biased, based on what I've said so far in this convo?
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Just answered this one specifically in #58 for ya. Let me know if you have any question about it.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Because it is incorrect. /I, wouldn't 'start' at creator/creation in the conclusion, (you assumed I did or have for some reason). The position I presented utilizes a creator idea, however the argument /evidence, does not 'start' at a creator. You were reading the position as if it was the argument. You don't know what 'biases' I have or don't have, but you actually are using that as an argument.
Last edited: