RE: Theism is literally childish
November 12, 2017 at 8:46 am
(This post was last modified: November 12, 2017 at 8:57 am by John V.)
(November 11, 2017 at 11:30 pm)emjay Wrote: If you say so.
Wow emjay, you're learning every bad tactic in the book. It's not if I say so. The fact is that you say belief in abiogenesis is not a delusion simply form your personal credulity, rather than from evidence. But, when another person says that cause and effect and our common experience (millions of abiogenesis experiments each day, never a positive result) makes a creator more plausible, you label that as delusion.
Quote:Ultimately it's entirely your prerogative if you want to consider me deluded
You project way too much. I'm not hurt by the OP, neither do I find you deluded. Neither side is deluded. They have opposite positions on questions which are currently unanswerable and have been debated for millennia. The problem is that you guys are calling us delusonal.
Quote:for looking to the natural world first, rather than magic, for explanations.
A natural universe beginning from nothing isn't magic?
Quote:Or likewise for looking at psychology first, rather than "spirituality".
How much good is that doing you?
Quote:But if so, you'll have to take it up with science.
Science doesn't have answers for the creation of the universe or the beginning of life.
Quote:Occam's Razor.
Occam was a theist.
Quote:But whether you see me as deluded or not doesn't make any difference to what I've said; it makes me no more likely to see arguments steeped in confirmation bias as credible,
Sure it does - it's just that you choose materialist confirmation bias.
(November 12, 2017 at 8:38 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:(November 11, 2017 at 1:34 pm)alpha male Wrote: ... die out on the next Dec. 25th.
Jesus Christ said that he would return within a generation. And yet you still believe some 2,000 years later. By your logic, Christianity should have died out a long time ago.
Jesus said he didn't know when he was coming back.
(November 12, 2017 at 5:50 am)Mathilda Wrote: Strawman argument and equivocation. No one said that it was inanimate matter coming to life.
Unless you're starting with life, then yes, you necessarily need inanimate matter coming to life at some point.
Would you agree that just after the big bang (assuming you accept that) all matter was inanimate? Now there's life. See the point?