RE: Atheism is unreasonable
November 21, 2014 at 7:15 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2014 at 7:29 pm by His_Majesty.)
(November 21, 2014 at 6:55 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'll get to this reply in a little bit. In the meantime, youve attributed my points to another member.
My bad...you all look the same to me anyway lol.
(November 21, 2014 at 6:55 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: As for the debate ... are you going to abide the rules this time, or is it going to be another exercise in demonstrating your idiocy?
I was thinking...never mind the debate because when it comes to the Resurrection, there are sub-topics that needs to be addressed, and I don't think I have enough space for all of it.
So what I will do is break the argument down in parts...beginning with part 1, of course. As mentioned previously, I plan on laying this thread to rest and moving on to better things.
(November 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Nope, sorry, still nonsensical; all science is probabilistic, working with the evidence at the time to provide the greatest degree of certainty possible, while acknowledging that absolute certainty is hard to come by. We know that evolution happens, that it's factual, because we can observe it happening, but we can't exclusively rule out intelligent design at any point because it's an unfalsifiable claim, given the strenuousness with which theists cling to it.The reason the intelligent design proposition isn't to be put on an equal level with the theory of evolution currently is because there is no evidence for it at all.
Ok....you can have the last word.
(November 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The content of my work is down in the adults only section of the forum; I dunno that I want to confirm if we have that kind of interest in common.
Let me see whatcha got...we just might.
(November 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Icebergs don't dodge questions nearly as much as you, though. Still waiting on a demonstration of the mechanism that halts genetic change over time...
They apparently don't dodge ships, either.
(November 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Actually, if you read the book of Matthew, I think, there's a bit where Jesus confirms that he's only there to be the savior of the people of Israel, and that all other tribes are like dogs, to which he would not so much as feed scraps. It's Matthew 15:22 onward.
John 3:16 says that "For God so loved the world", it didn't say "For God so loved the Jews".
(November 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: pretty much he only saved gods chosen the jewish it doesn't matter if your a follower of jesus you still have that chance of going to hell
That is about as bad as an interpretation that you will ever get right there.