Who said I deny them? I don't believe in evolution but that doesn't mean it can't be possible. Also gravity seems to make enough sense so I accept that. Just because I believe in a God doesn't mean I deny these things.
It was just an example that personal beliefs dont change the facts. Evolution indeed is a fact, theory of evolution can be questioned, as its a theory which simply explains how evolution works.
I'm really not going to go into this nor do I want to. But I will say, those who don't have respect for something, will never understand that something. And seeing as you lack respect for anyone who's religious means that you don't understand it.
I do understand them, as ive been religious once (mainly because school presented them as facts). But they really dont have any part in reality, they are just beliefs and there is zero evidence to support the claims they make.
Don't say no it's not, because it is. You spew double standards about religion like no other, it goes this way for religious people while it goes that way for nonreligious people. Go look up the definition of a double standard, you really need it.
I do understand the meaning. The difference what you think about reality and what i think is that i actually have evidence to support my view, while you only have faith. It doesnt really matter how far science goes and how accurate answers it can provide, you can still believe that there is god behind all of it. If you were to talk with another religious person who supports different religion, then it would be a double standard to talk trash about your religion, but thats not the case here.
Just because you deny facts like evolution or gravity
Who said I deny them? I don't believe in evolution but that doesn't mean it ca… moren't be possible. Also gravity seems to make enough sense so I accept that. Just because I believe in a God doesn't mean I deny these things.
I'd like to hear your explanation.
I'm really not going to go into this nor do I want to. But I will say, those who don't have respect for something, will never understand that something. And seeing as you lack respect for anyone who's religious means that you don't understand it.
No its not.
Don't say no it's not, because it is. You spew double standards about religion like no other, it goes this way for religious people while it goes that way for nonreligious people. Go look up the definition of a double standard, you really need it.
You're missing the point. We weren't even having that conversation. A "pretty good idea" does not = something that is known. You're also looking more at a question of "what" happened, opposed to "how" it happened.
Again though, we weren't having that conversation at all. We were simply talking about you comparing believing in a religion to believing in fairy tales. Believing in a creator is a completely reasonable and logical stance, considering it is potentially a completely valid answer to not only our very existence, but also the existence of the universe. Religion relies on that basis. Fairy tales really have no logical basis of their own. For example.. the story of Hansel and Gretel is just that, a story.
The question of our origin is an always prevalent question, with no known answer.
Well actually there is. We have pretty good idea h… moreow it happened.
Just ignore all the pointless mockery about religion (which happens sometimes) and focus on the scientific material.
Basically we now know we live in universe that doesnt need good, which makes god unnecessary.
Santa can be replaced with any other fictional character from unicorns to thor.
A "pretty good idea" does not = something that is known.
All we have is pretty good ideas how universe works. There are no such things as absolute facts in science.
Believing in a creator is a completely reasonable and logical stance
We live in universe which doesnt need god for anything, so how is its logical to believe that a supernatural being is actually behind all of it? Gods have always been used to explain something which could not be explained back then, so why hang on to them once we have the answers we want? Its like claiming that computer work because of magic and not because the complex components inside it.
Fairy tales really have no logical basis of their own. For example.. the story of Hansel and Gretel is just that, a story.
How come? They are made my by man, just like all the religions, so how do they differ? They both make extraordinary claims but provide zero evidence to support it. Bible is collection of stories which has been chosen, so what makes it more unique than any other book?
You're missing the point. We weren't even having that conversation. A "pretty good idea" does not = something that is known. You're also loo… moreking more at a question of "what" happened, opposed to "how" it happened.
Again though, we weren't having that conversation at all. We were simply talking about you comparing believing in a religion to believing in fairy tales. Believing in a creator is a completely reasonable and logical stance, considering it is potentially a completely valid answer to not only our very existence, but also the existence of the universe. Religion relies on that basis. Fairy tales really have no logical basis of their own. For example.. the story of Hansel and Gretel is just that, a story.
All we have is pretty good ideas how universe works. There are no such things as absolute facts in science.
I'm just going to ignore this, because, as I said previously, it really doesn't have anything to do with the rationale that we were looking at in regards to strictly comparing the reasoning between believing in religion and the reasoning behind believing in fairy tales.
We live in universe which doesnt need god for anything, so how is its logical to believe that a supernatural being is actually behind all of it? Gods have always been used to explain something which could not be explained back then, so why hang on to them once we have the answers we want? Its like claiming that computer work because of magic and not because the complex components inside it.
Are you purposely completely avoiding the actual point behind everything that I said? As much as I would like to debate these things, we're only comparing the reasoning of believing in religion to believing in fairy tales. Regardless of whether or not you find legitimacy in the reasoning behind religion or not, the fact remains that the reasoning differentiates from that of believing in fairy tales. They are not equatable beliefs.
How come? They are made my by man, just like all the religions, so how do they differ? They both make extraordinary claims but provide zero evidence to support it. Bible is collection of stories which has been chosen, so what makes it more unique than any other book?
I had already addressed this my last post to you..
"Believing in a creator is a completely reasonable and logical stance, considering it is potentially a completely valid answer to not only our very existence, but also the existence of the universe. Religion relies on that basis. Fairy tales really have no logical basis of their own. For example.. the story of Hansel and Gretel is just that, a story."
There is no foundation of logic in believing in the story of Hansel and Gretel (other than there being no proof of the story being false, of course). Religion has a reasonable foundation.. simply based on it actually being entrenched in a theory of reasonable causality (belief in a creator). To put this in perspective, we can look at some of the actual logic behind it:
Things exist
It is possible for those things to not exist
Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist
Something can not bring itself into existence, considering that it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical
Since the universe exists, it must have a cause, therefore there must be an uncaused cause of all things
The uncaused cause is God.
This is just one example of particular reasoning behind the overall thinking behind believing in a Creator, which religion stems off from. Again, I'm not asking you to find the reasoning behind the argument of a creator to be legitimate, I would only like you to understand how it is completely different from the relatively baseless idea of believing in fairy tales. Fairy tales don't have the same reasonable base that religion has. Even if you want to personally believe that the stories told in the Bible are completely made up (not taking into consideration that some would argue the stories aren't meant to be taken literally anyway), that doesn't mean they are equatable to fairy tales.
A "pretty good idea" does not = something that is known.
All we have is pretty good ideas how universe works. There are no such thin… moregs as absolute facts in science.
Believing in a creator is a completely reasonable and logical stance
We live in universe which doesnt need god for anything, so how is its logical to believe that a supernatural being is actually behind all of it? Gods have always been used to explain something which could not be explained back then, so why hang on to them once we have the answers we want? Its like claiming that computer work because of magic and not because the complex components inside it.
Fairy tales really have no logical basis of their own. For example.. the story of Hansel and Gretel is just that, a story.
How come? They are made my by man, just like all the religions, so how do they differ? They both make extraordinary claims but provide zero evidence to support it. Bibl… [view original content]
A "pretty good idea" does not = something that is known.
All we have is pretty good ideas how universe works. There are no such thin… moregs as absolute facts in science.
Believing in a creator is a completely reasonable and logical stance
We live in universe which doesnt need god for anything, so how is its logical to believe that a supernatural being is actually behind all of it? Gods have always been used to explain something which could not be explained back then, so why hang on to them once we have the answers we want? Its like claiming that computer work because of magic and not because the complex components inside it.
Fairy tales really have no logical basis of their own. For example.. the story of Hansel and Gretel is just that, a story.
How come? They are made my by man, just like all the religions, so how do they differ? They both make extraordinary claims but provide zero evidence to support it. Bibl… [view original content]
Regardless of whether or not you find legitimacy in the reasoning behind religion or not, the fact remains that the reasoning differentiates from that of believing in fairy tales. They are not equatable beliefs.
Why? Why cant i for example believe that Tolkien's stories didnt in fact take place in our reality long ago? Its just the same as believing in fairy tales.
There is no foundation of logic in believing in the story of Hansel and Gretel (other than there being no proof of the story being false, of course). Religion has a reasonable foundation.
Some stories of course are less beliveable than others. Its the same thing with religions. Do you consider flying spaghetti monster as false deity. If so, why?
What you are basically saying is that its completely logical to believe computer works because of magic, not because the engineering on components inside it.
All we have is pretty good ideas how universe works. There are no such things as absolute facts in science.
I'm just going to ignore… more this, because, as I said previously, it really doesn't have anything to do with the rationale that we were looking at in regards to strictly comparing the reasoning between believing in religion and the reasoning behind believing in fairy tales.
We live in universe which doesnt need god for anything, so how is its logical to believe that a supernatural being is actually behind all of it? Gods have always been used to explain something which could not be explained back then, so why hang on to them once we have the answers we want? Its like claiming that computer work because of magic and not because the complex components inside it.
Are you purposely completely avoiding the actual point behind everything that I said? As much as I would like to debate these things, we're only comparing the re… [view original content]
Why? Why cant i for example believe that Tolkien's stories didnt in fact take place in our reality long ago? Its just the same as believing in fairy tales.
I already explained why in detail. I am honestly tired of the circular discussion. There is no point in debating if you're just going to 100% ignore all reasoning given to you.
Could you please take me up on my actual reasoning? I don't mean to sound harsh here, but go back, actually look at my explanations, and then either agree or form a counter argument. These one sided conversations are honestly incredibly frustrating. I'm just repeating myself over and over again. Unless you actually address my explanations to you, this conversation is going to go nowhere.
I also edited my last post a little before you got a chance to see it, so check that out as well.
Some stories of course are less beliveable than others. Its the same thing with religions. Do you consider flying spaghetti monster as false deity. If so, why?
This is really off course in regards to what we were actually discussing. I'm not going there right now. It has nothing to do with proving that believing in a religion is a different concept from believing in fairy tales.
What you are basically saying is that its completely logical to believe computer works because of magic, not because the engineering on components inside it.
Regardless of whether or not you find legitimacy in the reasoning behind religion or not, the fact remains that the reasoning differentiates… more from that of believing in fairy tales. They are not equatable beliefs.
Why? Why cant i for example believe that Tolkien's stories didnt in fact take place in our reality long ago? Its just the same as believing in fairy tales.
There is no foundation of logic in believing in the story of Hansel and Gretel (other than there being no proof of the story being false, of course). Religion has a reasonable foundation.
Some stories of course are less beliveable than others. Its the same thing with religions. Do you consider flying spaghetti monster as false deity. If so, why?
What you are basically saying is that its completely logical to believe computer works because of magic, not because the engineering on components inside it.
Could you please take me up on my actual reasoning? I don't mean to sound harsh here, but go back, actually look at my explanations, and then either agree or form a counter argument. These one sided conversations are honestly incredibly frustrating. I'm just repeating myself over and over again.
Your so arguments arent very convincing. You treat your fairy tales more superior than other fairy tales, so how could i argue anything here?
Not even a little.
Yes you are. We live in universe which doesnt need god as explanation for anything, yet you still consider it as logical possibility.
Why? Why cant i for example believe that Tolkien's stories didnt in fact take place in our reality long ago? Its just the same as believing … morein fairy tales.
I already explained why in detail. I am honestly tired of the circular discussion. There is no point in debating if you're just going to 100% ignore all reasoning given to you.
Could you please take me up on my actual reasoning? I don't mean to sound harsh here, but go back, actually look at my explanations, and then either agree or form a counter argument. These one sided conversations are honestly incredibly frustrating. I'm just repeating myself over and over again. Unless you actually address my explanations to you, this conversation is going to go nowhere.
I also edited my last post a little before you got a chance to see it, so check that out as well.
Some stories of course are less beliveable than others. Its the same thing with religions. Do you consider flying … [view original content]
Could you please take me up on my actual reasoning? I don't mean to sound harsh here, but go back, actually look at my explanations, and the… moren either agree or form a counter argument. These one sided conversations are honestly incredibly frustrating. I'm just repeating myself over and over again.
Your so arguments arent very convincing. You treat your fairy tales more superior than other fairy tales, so how could i argue anything here?
Not even a little.
Yes you are. We live in universe which doesnt need god as explanation for anything, yet you still consider it as logical possibility.
You would think you would start to wonder why essentially all of your discussions with people around here go nowhere...
I'm done here. I've wasted enough time as it is.
Well seems like im one of the few who heard about the 55k potato salad kickstarter. Its still pretty damn sad that people actually think that someone would want to seriously talk about potato salad vs liver casserole on twdg forums.
Well seems like im one of the few who heard about the 55k potato salad kickstarter. Its still pretty damn sad that people actually think that someone would want to seriously talk about potato salad vs liver casserole on twdg forums.
Well seems like im one of the few who heard about the 55k potato salad kickstarter. Its still pretty damn sad that people actually think that someone would want to seriously talk about potato salad vs liver casserole on twdg forums.
Sorry to respond here, but if we take it seriously then its a joke, but when we say its a joke then you say its serious for nutricion and thats how every topic where you respond to goes
Comments
It was just an example that personal beliefs dont change the facts. Evolution indeed is a fact, theory of evolution can be questioned, as its a theory which simply explains how evolution works.
I do understand them, as ive been religious once (mainly because school presented them as facts). But they really dont have any part in reality, they are just beliefs and there is zero evidence to support the claims they make.
I do understand the meaning. The difference what you think about reality and what i think is that i actually have evidence to support my view, while you only have faith. It doesnt really matter how far science goes and how accurate answers it can provide, you can still believe that there is god behind all of it. If you were to talk with another religious person who supports different religion, then it would be a double standard to talk trash about your religion, but thats not the case here.
You're missing the point. We weren't even having that conversation. A "pretty good idea" does not = something that is known. You're also looking more at a question of "what" happened, opposed to "how" it happened.
Again though, we weren't having that conversation at all. We were simply talking about you comparing believing in a religion to believing in fairy tales. Believing in a creator is a completely reasonable and logical stance, considering it is potentially a completely valid answer to not only our very existence, but also the existence of the universe. Religion relies on that basis. Fairy tales really have no logical basis of their own. For example.. the story of Hansel and Gretel is just that, a story.
All we have is pretty good ideas how universe works. There are no such things as absolute facts in science.
We live in universe which doesnt need god for anything, so how is its logical to believe that a supernatural being is actually behind all of it? Gods have always been used to explain something which could not be explained back then, so why hang on to them once we have the answers we want? Its like claiming that computer work because of magic and not because the complex components inside it.
How come? They are made my by man, just like all the religions, so how do they differ? They both make extraordinary claims but provide zero evidence to support it. Bible is collection of stories which has been chosen, so what makes it more unique than any other book?
... get out!
I'm just going to ignore this, because, as I said previously, it really doesn't have anything to do with the rationale that we were looking at in regards to strictly comparing the reasoning between believing in religion and the reasoning behind believing in fairy tales.
Are you purposely completely avoiding the actual point behind everything that I said? As much as I would like to debate these things, we're only comparing the reasoning of believing in religion to believing in fairy tales. Regardless of whether or not you find legitimacy in the reasoning behind religion or not, the fact remains that the reasoning differentiates from that of believing in fairy tales. They are not equatable beliefs.
I had already addressed this my last post to you..
"Believing in a creator is a completely reasonable and logical stance, considering it is potentially a completely valid answer to not only our very existence, but also the existence of the universe. Religion relies on that basis. Fairy tales really have no logical basis of their own. For example.. the story of Hansel and Gretel is just that, a story."
There is no foundation of logic in believing in the story of Hansel and Gretel (other than there being no proof of the story being false, of course). Religion has a reasonable foundation.. simply based on it actually being entrenched in a theory of reasonable causality (belief in a creator). To put this in perspective, we can look at some of the actual logic behind it:
This is just one example of particular reasoning behind the overall thinking behind believing in a Creator, which religion stems off from. Again, I'm not asking you to find the reasoning behind the argument of a creator to be legitimate, I would only like you to understand how it is completely different from the relatively baseless idea of believing in fairy tales. Fairy tales don't have the same reasonable base that religion has. Even if you want to personally believe that the stories told in the Bible are completely made up (not taking into consideration that some would argue the stories aren't meant to be taken literally anyway), that doesn't mean they are equatable to fairy tales.
[removed]
I think it's safe to say, we have officially run out of things to talk about.
And Liver Casserole come to mamaaaa! [clicks]
Why? Why cant i for example believe that Tolkien's stories didnt in fact take place in our reality long ago? Its just the same as believing in fairy tales.
Some stories of course are less beliveable than others. Its the same thing with religions. Do you consider flying spaghetti monster as false deity. If so, why?
What you are basically saying is that its completely logical to believe computer works because of magic, not because the engineering on components inside it.
I already explained why in detail. I am honestly tired of the circular discussion. There is no point in debating if you're just going to 100% ignore all reasoning given to you.
Could you please take me up on my actual reasoning? I don't mean to sound harsh here, but go back, actually look at my explanations, and then either agree or form a counter argument. These one sided conversations are honestly incredibly frustrating. I'm just repeating myself over and over again. Unless you actually address my explanations to you, this conversation is going to go nowhere.
I also edited my last post a little before you got a chance to see it, so check that out as well.
This is really off course in regards to what we were actually discussing. I'm not going there right now. It has nothing to do with proving that believing in a religion is a different concept from believing in fairy tales.
Not even a little.
Your so arguments arent very convincing. You treat your fairy tales more superior than other fairy tales, so how could i argue anything here?
Yes you are. We live in universe which doesnt need god as explanation for anything, yet you still consider it as logical possibility.
You would think you would start to wonder why essentially all of your discussions with people around here go nowhere...
I'm done here. I've wasted enough time as it is.
Probably liver casserole. Her and Kenny used Jane's.
[removed]
youre not offensive you good good
your not my dad."
I was talking about him being offensive but okay...
You were one of few.
Well seems like im one of the few who heard about the 55k potato salad kickstarter. Its still pretty damn sad that people actually think that someone would want to seriously talk about potato salad vs liver casserole on twdg forums.
Are you still having a cry?
Your first mistake was assuming people wouldn't want to seriously talk about potato salad vs liver casserole on twdg forums
I guess my first mistake was assuming that people arent stupid.
[removed]
Sorry to respond here, but if we take it seriously then its a joke, but when we say its a joke then you say its serious for nutricion and thats how every topic where you respond to goes
I'll try not to shed a tear while you're gone.