23 Dec 11
Originally posted by josephwYes. As I have said many times. And you have questioned me directly about it before and I have answered. And you have said you could not remember it before. And I have therefore explained it again before. And so I am not going to type it all out for you again. Sorry. See the thread "I am A Theist" started by "John W. Booth" about 12 months ago.
You are a theist?
What is a theist?
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFFunny I don't remember. I'll look up the thread and see.
Yes. As I have said many times. And you have questioned me directly about it before and I have answered. And you have said you could not remember it before. And I have therefore explained it again before. And so I am not going to type it all out for you again. Sorry. See the thread "I am A Theist" started by "John W. Booth" about 12 months ago.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeol understand and in no way were trying to say this - quite the contrary.
I do not--repeat do not---share any of the views of Dasa. The only thing common between us is being theists and Hindus. As every poster here knows, Dasa calls Vedanta as the true religion and the present version of Hinduism ( which actually dates from the triumph of Adya Shankarachary in reestablishing a refurbished Hinduism and finishing off Buddhism an ...[text shortened]... houghts in the Vedas/Upanishads is cranky and fanatic. It does great disservice to these books.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by josephwPardon me if I don't bother with your query. For you it's a four word question, typed in less than 2 seconds. Then I type away for half an hour, and then you fire back one of your vacuous RJHinds/Dasa type quips. Time wasted. Again. And then a few weeks down the road you ask "Are you a theist?' again. And I say, 'I told you before'. And you say you can't remember, again. 🙂
Funny I don't remember. I'll look up the thread and see.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFPerhaps the things you say are so unremarkable that I find no reason to remember them.
Pardon me if I don't bother with your query. For you it's a four word question, typed in less than 2 seconds. Then I type away for half an hour, and then you fire back one of your vacuous RJHinds/Dasa type quips. Time wasted. Again. And then a few weeks down the road you ask "Are you a theist?' again. And I say, 'I told you before'. And you say you can't remember, again. 🙂
I went through the entire thread, I am a theist, and can not find a single post by you in it.
Maybe that's why I don't remember.
Anyway, I do remember that you are prone to obfuscating and misdirecting thought progression. Perhaps that is another reason why I don't remember anything you say.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by josephwI was posting under the name John W. Booth. I have told you this twice before.
Perhaps the things you say are so unremarkable that I find no reason to remember them.
I went through the entire thread, I am a theist, and can not find a single post by you in it.
Maybe that's why I don't remember.
Anyway, I do remember that you are prone to obfuscating and misdirecting thought progression. Perhaps that is another reason why I don't remember anything you say.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFOkay FMF, a.k.a. John W. Booth, perhaps I have been less attentive than I should be.
LOL. Q.E.D. 😵
I went back again and reread the applicable posts. You are a theist. You believe there is a God, but you don't know Him, nor do you believe God can be known.
Or perhaps you think God can be known, but you don't believe He can be known by or through any agency available in this life.
Maybe you're wrong. By default you rely on your own authority to determine the knowability of God, and reject the possibility that God has revealed Himself either by and through nature, and more directly though human agency.
Seems you are in a vacuum.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelIt is also an undeniable fact that carbon 14 dating is unreliable as a
Assume thats it going to be between 45000 to 55000 years. Ok Even at the lowest reading , it no way can be construed with anything remotely near the year 6000bc, (or whenever).
THEY HAVE FOUND HUMAN BONES IN AUSTRALIA THAT HAVE BEEN CARBON DATED AS BEING 200 000+ years old. This is undeniable fact. Even though they dont know the exact dates , they kno ...[text shortened]... out of my to condense a few points of etiquette , I'h hoping for a "next level" answer 😀
dating method.
http://dawkinswatch.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/technocrati/
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by josephwOn the contrary. Life is wonderful, rich and full.
Seems you are in a vacuum.
[You] reject the possibility that God has revealed Himself either by and through nature, and more directly though human agency.
Not so. I have not rejected the possibility that God has revealed himself. You are being presumptuous. As I said to Suzianne last night, I have not yet met anyone who knows what "God's instructions" are, or that there are indeed any "instructions" for us to known about. I have seen nothing to convince me that there is the do-this-and-you-will-live-forever deal that religionists like, say, you and Dasa and Muslims speculate about and tout.
23 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFA theist can be anything other than an atheist. That avoids admitting
Yes. As I have said many times. And you have questioned me directly about it before and I have answered. And you have said you could not remember it before. And I have therefore explained it again before. And so I am not going to type it all out for you again. Sorry. See the thread "I am A Theist" started by "John W. Booth" about 12 months ago.
what religion you are because a theist could be almost any religion
one can think of. A Muslim is also a theist. So I still think you are
more than likely a Muslim.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI am a theist but I am not a religionist.
A theist can be anything other than an atheist. That avoids admitting
what religion you are because a theist could be almost any religion
on can think of. A Muslim is also a theist. So I still think you are
more than likely a Muslim.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsOn the contrary, it is quite reliable when correctly calibrated and carried out, although it can only provide approximate dating the accuracy of which is affected by numerous variables. It is simply one of a number of different and unrelated dating techniques which all clearly demonstrate that your young earth position is utter twaddle.
It is also an undeniable fact that carbon 14 dating is unreliable as a
dating method.
http://dawkinswatch.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/technocrati/