(December 29, 2018 at 11:24 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: As I said, I agree with the chemist, and only you in part. The chemist is also a scientist, and has portrayed himself scientifically. You on the other hand...
No reason to refute someone I already agreed with, so kudos to the scientist.
It's assumed you won't accept scriptures. Doesn't bother me if you don't, because it's obviously your choice. But if you have trouble understanding something, or want to apply things to me, then I guess we can assume a FFA instead rather than trying to find ground that we can agree on.
Atheists, atheism, and the like don't bother me as-is. A kind atheist is just as valuable to me as anybody else, and hopefully they feel the same way about me. On the other hand, nutjob wackos who think they are always right and pretend everybody else is inferior. Well, those peeps I take exception to.
The Christian God is incoherent to you. There's nothing for me to reconcile, and for you to assume there is, well that's your problem, not mine. Next.
bla bla bla
It not a "choice" to "accept scriptures". Can YOU accept the moon is made of green cheese ? No. Same with your "scriptures".
YOU cannot explain what you were asked to explain ... therefore you god IS incoherent, no matter what you say. The reason you think there is nothing to reconcile, is you compartmentalize and rationalize what cannot be explained. If it could be explained, someone would try. You certainly can't.
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell 
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist
