28 May '16 21:49>1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy do atheists "believe things without evidence?"
Good question. How would a theist know? Why do theists believe things without evidence?
Originally posted by moonbus
Theists think they do have evidence, and Christians often cite the Bible as evidence (of events of the past, such as miraculous healings). Of course, they have rather different criteria what counts as good and reliable evidence, compared to accepted criteria in historical (not specifically Biblical) research generally. Not to mention what counts as good and ...[text shortened]... lots of Jews and pagans witnessed alleged miracles by Jesus and his Apostles were not converted.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have many times started threads asking for a definition or explanation of the 'soul' invariably no theist wants to give one. Perhaps you could give it a go. Every definition I know is not separate from the brain.
I have many times started threads asking for a definition or explanation of the 'soul' invariably no theist wants to give one. Perhaps you could give it a go. Every definition I know is not separate from the brain.
[b]What makes you think that your understanding of what a loving God should desire is the correct one?
The word 'loving'.
Not i ...[text shortened]... there is. But you need to try and understand that difference so that your questions make sense.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am sure a lot of people believe all sorts of stupid things.
I think a lot of people would agree that the mind and the soul are separate entities.
http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/mindandbody.htm
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd it is noted that you have not given a definition for 'soul'.
I am sure a lot of people believe all sorts of stupid things.
And I not that the article you link to says the mind and brain are separate and not that the mind and soul are separate. And it is noted that you have not given a definition for 'soul'.
We can discuss this in more detail if you like, but it appears you are only interested in repeating over ...[text shortened]... now everything there is to know?
No, I never said that. What gave you that ridiculous idea?[/b]
The historicity of the exodus continues to attract popular attention, but most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about it recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence.[4] The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[5] and most archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[6] The opinion of the overwhelming majority of modern biblical scholars is that the exodus story was shaped into its final present form in the post-Exilic period,[7] although the traditions behind it are older and can be traced in the writings of the 8th century BCE prophets.[8] How far beyond that the tradition might stretch cannot be told: "Presumably an original Exodus story lies hidden somewhere inside all the later revisions and alterations, but centuries of transmission have long obscured its presence, and its substance, accuracy and date are now difficult to determine."[3]
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI don't agree or disagree, I just want a definition to work with. The dictionary definition is too vague to be useful. Is your consciousness part of your soul? When you make a decision, or think, is that your soul or your brain or some combination of both?
Do you disagree with the dictionary definition?
Originally posted by FMFNo, that's even worse, because it's doubly incorrect, as well as nonsensical.
Would you settle instead for: "What made me change my mind was simply a realisation, in my mind, that the whole Christianity thing didn't make sense"?
Originally posted by SuzianneYou can only claim it to be incorrect if you claim to be able to mind read the person
No, that's even worse, because it's doubly incorrect.
Originally posted by SuzianneYou really should give this 'logical thinking' thing a try, it would make your life so very
No, that's even worse, because it's doubly incorrect, as well as nonsensical.
It's like saying, "What made me change my mind is that I changed my mind."
That sounds like something you would say. Oh, I guess you did.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOh, please. 99% of that thread was mental masturbation. And the other 1% was when I tried to point that out.
If anyone is interested there was an excellent thread... [well the OP was excellent] dealing
with the problem of evil and why it's a very convincing argument as to why there cannot be a
loving omnipotent god which I will link to.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/an-inductive-argument-from-evil.158939
That would be a good starting point to read if you are interested in that argument.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo. There is no "realization". He just decided it wasn't true. No "realization" involved.
You really should give this 'logical thinking' thing a try, it would make your life so very
much easier.
No it's not at all like saying ""What made me change my mind is that I changed my mind.""
It's saying "I realised this claim didn't make sense, therefore I stopped believing it"
Which is entirely different.
Originally posted by SuzianneNo, that is simply your prejudice against logic and reason.
Oh, please. 99% of that thread was mental masturbation. And the other 1% was when I tried to point that out.