Countering creation skeptics

Originally posted by Dasa
This cosmos has been created .............................but to sell this creation through the avenue of Christianity is doomed to fail.

Why you may ask....................

Well with respect, the short answer is (Christianity is a false religion) and so to sell the creation story from the Bible is to hope that everyone is listening just like a child wo ...[text shortened]... found in the bonafide Vedic literature specifically (The Srimad Bhagavatam by Srila Prubhupada)

Stating this again and again and again and again is not going to make anyone any-more likely to
accept/believe it.

Like RJHinds [much of the time] you are just spamming the forum with the same assertions of truth
over and over without ever doing anything to attempt to reasonably justify your position.

While insulting everyone who disagrees with you for good measure.

Your current position is indistinguishable from every other theist who claims that "Every other creation
myth is a pack of lies and falsehoods, but MY religion has it down and knows the TRUTH".

Prove it.

And before you start, that means providing sufficient evidence [and not scripture, of any kind] of all of the
following:

That the universe WAS in fact 'created' by an intelligent being [or beings].
Please note that this requires demonstrating not just that it's possible that the universe was created by
an intelligent being or beings, but that it actually was created by such beings.

And that the being or beings in question are the ones you believe in.


And given that we obviously don't believe the above, and don't think that the above is true, you cannot
assert that your religion is "obviously true" because if it were we would not be having this discussion.
We would all already be believers.

Also avoiding calling all of us liars and dishonest for disagreeing with you/your religion would help too.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Stating this again and again and again and again is not going to make anyone any-more likely to
accept/believe it.

Like RJHinds [much of the time] you are just spamming the forum with the same assertions of truth
over and over without ever doing anything to attempt to reasonably justify your position.

While insulting everyone who disagrees with ...[text shortened]... ing calling all of us liars and dishonest for disagreeing with you/your religion would help too.

I have been presenting much evidence that proves over and over again that my God is the Creator of the universe. However, you do not have the faith to believe it. As the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drank, if he does not have the faith that it is truly water."

Of course, I added that last part for emphasis. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have been presenting much evidence that proves over and over again that my God is the Creator of the universe. However, you do not have the faith to believe it. As the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drank, if he does not have the faith that it is truly water."

Of course, I added that last part for emphasis. 😏

MY saying: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have been presenting much evidence that proves over and over again ........you do not have the faith to believe it.

It seems your understanding of the words 'evidence', 'proof' and 'faith' differs significantly from the rest of us.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems your understanding of the words 'evidence', 'proof' and 'faith' differs significantly from the rest of us.

Maybe that is because I am .....

The Near Genius 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe that is because I am .....

The Near Genius 😏

Or maybe it's because you are way far from genius.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Or maybe it's because you are way far from genius.

I suppose you will always be an ignorant skeptic. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I suppose you will always be an ignorant skeptic. 😏

I think the neutral position of an intelligent mind should always be 'skeptical.' This is not an indicator of 'ignorance' but 'rational thinking.'

Even if God exists (he doesn't, but even if he did) he gave you a complex brain with the intention of you using it. Everything should be challenged and tested before it is accepted and assimilated into your thinking. If something is true then it will be resilient to skepticism. Trust nothing. Test everything.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think the neutral position of an intelligent mind should always be 'skeptical.' This is not an indicator of 'ignorance' but 'rational thinking.'

Even if God exists (he doesn't, but even if he did) he gave you a complex brain with the intention of you using it. Everything should be challenged and tested before it is accepted and assimilated into ...[text shortened]... g. If something is true then it will be resilient to skepticism. Trust nothing. Test everything.

The way I see it is that there must come a point in time when the testing must stop and trusting must begin to make any progress to bring one out of ignorance because death awaits.

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
The way I see it is that there must come a point in time when the testing must stop and trusting must begin to make any progress to bring one out of ignorance because death awaits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyR5VGRW1GI

You make a valid point. I do however believe you have jumped the gun and are trusting in concepts that you haven't sufficiently and objectively tested.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You make a valid point. I do however believe you have jumped the gun and are trusting in concepts that you haven't sufficiently and objectively tested.

You can believe that, however, you don't know what testing i have done and are basing your belief on your imaginations of what testing I have done.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You can believe that, however, you don't know what testing i have done and are basing your belief on your imaginations of what testing I have done.

With all due respect, some of the beliefs you have put forward are an absolute nonsense. One of two conclusions can therefore be drawn:

1. Your wheel is missing its hamster.
2. You haven't really considered and taken on board the vast evidence out there that dispute your claims.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
With all due respect, some of the beliefs you have put forward are an absolute nonsense. One of two conclusions can therefore be drawn:

1. Your wheel is missing its hamster.
2. You haven't really considered and taken on board the vast evidence out there that dispute your claims.

There may be a third.
3. Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]There may be a third.

No way i'm clicking that link. (When one considers it is 50/50 that your wheel is missing its hamster).

Originally posted by RJHinds
There may be a third.
3. [hidden] Ghost of a Duke is a numbnuts.[/hidden]

that's 4. Don't worry, I am just counting Hinds being reduced to ad homenims. I took the big chance and looked. It says you are a numbnuts. Actually, I hope my nuts ARE usually numb so that isn't much of a pejorative, eh. I would hate for my nuts to be itchy all the time.....