Life cannot be produced from matter.Out of interest, let's say (purely hypothetically, of course) that human beings did discover a way of creating life from matter.
It never was produced from matter.
It never will be produced from matter.
Its common sense and truth - that life comes from life.
Would a single thing you believe in change?
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI see this as a ridiculous guestion; but of course one would have to
Out of interest, let's say (purely hypothetically, of course) that human beings did discover a way of creating life from matter.
Would a single thing you believe in change?
conclude that life can be created from matter. The point is that
God did not create life from matter; but God already had life and
imparted it to the matter He created.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsYou say this as a statement of fact.
I see this as a ridiculous question; but of course one would have to
conclude that life can be created from matter. The point is that
God did not create life from matter; but God already had life and
imparted it to the matter He created.
To make a statement of fact you need to have evidence, nay proof, that the statement is
correct.
You not only have no evidence to support this statement, you couldn't possibly have any
evidence for it.
Which means you are claiming as fact that which you can't possibly know and you should
(unless exceptionally deluded) know you don't and can't know this.
Which means you are either lying or incredibly deluded.
As I for one have explained many times what constitutes evidence and proof and how you tell
I have to conclude you are lying.
Also all life is entirely made of, and from matter.
Atoms formed into molecules arranged in labyrinthine forms, all obeying the laws of physics and
chemistry perfectly with no discernible difference in any way shape or form from matter that isn't
part of a life form.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou can conclude what you will and I have concluded you have a reprobate
You say this as a statement of fact.
To make a statement of fact you need to have evidence, nay proof, that the statement is
correct.
You not only have no evidence to support this statement, you couldn't possibly have any
evidence for it.
Which means you are claiming as fact that which you can't possibly know and you should
(unless excepti ...[text shortened]... scernible difference in any way shape or form from matter that isn't
part of a life form.
mind. Therefore, I do not give a damn what you conclude.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou would conclude that, but I was asking Dasa.
I see this as a ridiculous guestion; but of course one would have to
conclude that life can be created from matter. The point is that
God did not create life from matter; but God already had life and
imparted it to the matter He created.
The reason for asking was that, with Dasa, I do not believe for a second that this would change one iota of his beliefs. So maybe not such a ridiculous question.
He would either argue that the evidence was false, or that it did not matter. Not a cat in hells chance would it encourage him to re-examine his beliefs.
His post therefore purports to put forward an argument for why he believes why he does, and why we should believe was he says. When in fact anything that were to challenge his view would be dismissed for one reason or another, irrespective of evidence.
Now that is dishonest.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsYou don't give a damn about the truth either.
You can conclude what you will and I have concluded you have a reprobate
mind. Therefore, I do not give a damn what you conclude.
And reprobate is the wrong word.
I have very strong principles that I verifiably stick to...
You just don't like them.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsWell I have to ask the question do you come to these forums to try to convert everyone to your religion,
Sorry for my harsh comment. But you just leave me with a bad taste.
to discuss it only those who agree with you already,
or to have discussions with people of a diverse range of opinions and beliefs?
All I was pointing out is that you make claims of fact and knowledge that you can't possibly have.
You have beliefs and faith that they are right.
Now we have different views on what kinds of things people should believe and why...
But I don't see why we can't agree that statements of fact should actually be demonstrable as facts,
and not simply beliefs backed simply with faith.
I would point out that you routinely denigrate and insult atheists (as well as theists from different faiths)
and treat/talk about atheists as though they were the lower dregs of society.
Talk such as '...even an atheist could understand...' and the like spring to mind, quite apart from the outright
insults, and claims of lack of, or substandard morality.
This leaves a rather bad taste in the mouth as well.
I rather suspect (and your posts strongly suggest) that you very much look down on atheists and atheism.
Not just disagree with but look down on.
This is not a good starting point for civil discussion and debate.
Now it must be said that I look down on your religion, (and any/all other religions) but I don't inherently look down
on those who follow it.
I recognize the attraction of religion, and the power of indoctrination. (whether your faith is right or not the way people
get initiated into it is by any definition indoctrination)
And so don't 'pre-judge' those who follow it and thus when I hear someone say they follow a religion I don't immediately
think 'idiot' or some other derogative.
I know some exceptionally smart people, some of them scientists of the highest calibre, who still believe in a god of some sort.
I think they are wrong, but I don't think they are stupid.
You however give the distinct impression that when you hear the word atheist you do jump to idiot/Satanist/evil/ect.
If that isn't true then you might want to consider your tone, but I rather suspect it is.
I am led to believe that pastors/preachers in America paint unflattering/libellous/and just plain wrong pictures of what it means
to be an atheist (as well as many religious followers) which explains your point of view.... but doesn't excuse it.
Perhaps your time on the forums, and we all [me included] might do well to do this, might be better spent trying to understand
all the other perspectives out there.
Do you for example still think that atheist means someone who claims to know god doesn't exist...
as you did when you first started posting?
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeYes, I have heard atheists claim that God does not exist. I know
Well I have to ask the question do you come to these forums to try to convert everyone to your religion,
to discuss it only those who agree with you already,
or to have discussions with people of a diverse range of opinions and beliefs?
All I was pointing out is that you make claims of fact and knowledge that you can't possibly have.
You have bel claims to know god doesn't exist...
as you did when you first started posting?
that they can not know this. One that does not know if God exists
is called an agnostic.
You don't care that I insult theists because you atheists have been
doing that for years and laughing about it. What bothers you is that
I routinely denigrate and insult atheists.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsFirst paragraph... wrong... sigh...
Yes, I have heard atheists claim that God does not exist. I know
that they can not know this. One that does not know if God exists
is called an agnostic.
You don't care that I insult theists because you atheists have been
doing that for years and laughing about it. What bothers you is that
I routinely denigrate and insult atheists.
If you believe in god and claim to know he exists then you're a "gnostic theist".
If you believe in god and don't know if he exists then you're an "agnostic theist".
If you don't believe in god and don't know if he exists then you're an "agnostic atheist".
If you don't believe in god and claim to know he doesn't exist then you're a "gnostic atheist".
Second paragraph...
Well I am bothered that you routinely insult and denigrate atheists (again very Christian of you)
But I also care about you routinely denigrating or insulting anyone, including theists.
Why you think routinely insulting or denigrating anyone is compatible with your religion and of your
'loving' god is part of what I don't like about religion.
You can use it to justify anything.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell yes, but it's a common 'debating' [in it's basest form] position to set up your argument with the implicit
The funny thing about Dasa's argument about life coming from life being obvious to all is that it is blatantly false. It took rigorous scientific experiments to show that abiogenesis is not common, and it has never been scientifically proven that it does not happen.
assertion that you have to be an idiot to disagree, hence the other side is an idiot and you should pay them
no attention.
Also the number of times 'common sense' has been shown to be wrong is one of the best reasons for science
not claiming anything unless it has been rigorously scientifically investigated.
No matter how 'obvious' it might otherwise seem.
Originally posted by googlefudgeJust as you insult and look down on Faith.
"Now we have different views on what kinds of things people should believe and why...
But I don't see why we can't agree that statements of fact should actually be demonstrable as facts,
and not simply beliefs backed simply with faith."
I would point out that you routinely denigrate and insult atheists (as well as theists from different faiths) ...[text shortened]... but look down on.
This is not a good starting point for civil discussion and debate.
Faith is immensely more powerful than "evidence" or "proof".
But you look down on it.
Yes, not just disagree, but look down on.
This marks the difference between the theist and atheist.
Atheists cannot respect Faith. In fact, they laugh at it and insult it.
And to theists, that's rather sad.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneFaith is immensely more powerful than evidence or proof for what?
Just as you insult and look down on Faith.
Faith is immensely more powerful than "evidence" or "proof".
But you look down on it.
Yes, not just disagree, but look down on.
This marks the difference between the theist and atheist.
Atheists cannot respect Faith. In fact, they laugh at it and insult it.
And to theists, that's rather sad.
The difference between an atheist and a theist is that one believes in god and the other doesn't... that's it.
There are far too many differences between theists and other theists, and atheists and other atheists to
point at anything else as the defining difference.
I disagree that atheists laugh at and insult faith, although it probably is true that few would respect it.
However again atheists are an immensely divers group of people of whom it is extremely hard to generalise.
That said, it is still not the same as laughing at or insulting theists.
There is a difference between attacking [metaphorically] a person and attacking their beliefs.
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, I try to follow after Christ, who was much better than I at giving the
First paragraph... wrong... sigh...
If you believe in god and claim to know he exists then you're a "gnostic theist".
If you believe in god and don't know if he exists then you're an "agnostic theist".
If you don't believe in god and don't know if he exists then you're an "agnostic atheist".
If you don't believe in god and claim to know he do ...[text shortened]... of what I don't like about religion.
You can use it to justify anything.
insult. And I believe and trust in Christ, who knows God exists and that
makes me a Christian.