Theists are Insecure

[The Grand Nudger]

You might want to read up on Socrates a bit then, if you think they're equally reasonable claims. I would agree.....to loosely quote Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that means what you think that means".

[Whateverist]

I lead a small Swedenborg study group. Some of the stuff does sound batshit crazy and yet there's something in the general structure of his theology that I find very compelling and has helped me grow spiritually. So don't ask me to defend all the "problem texts" all at once. This is fun, so I plan to hang around. "Same garbage different face." bit of an oversimplification, but I understand the sentiment.

As for "something that happened in the past", I can only say it is reasonable to believe that Jesus was a real person that was really crucified. Every bit as reasonable as believing that Socrates was a real person that was forced to drink hemlock. I don't need absolute certainty to run with an idea. Do it all the time at work and at home. I just need to think that what I believe is reasonable.

Your human right is the right to be the best human you can be. But by choice we inflict misery upon ourselves through our inhumanity to each other.

Oops. The question I posed Chipan I had meant to pose to you. Namely:

"I wonder if your religion leads its adherents to be skeptical of science. I always think it should be easy for a theist to embrace science for what it is. Does your faith teach you that the bible is the literal word of God? My sense is probably no. You guys don't think the earth is only 6000 years old and that people used to ride around on dinosaurs and all that rubbish, do you?"

Personally my biggest complaint with most religions is that they do their adherents a great disservice in many ways. Yours has no history of inquisitions or crusades so go for it. Personally mind/body dualism of a spirit world vs a physical world is a non-starter for me, but if you're not hurting anyone and your outlook doesn't diminish you, have fun.

[ElDinero]

Stop being such a lazy douche and type that exact phrase into google.

I tried this in this very thread a few pages back, regarding why clam shells appear in mountains. Chipan's response was 'Oh right mountains used to be in the ocean, sure ok then'. Basically, because he's such a stupid know-nothing, like you've already said, if it conflicts with already held beliefs he'll throw it out.

Good to see you finally admit, chipan, what I said two months ago, that you refuse to accept the evidence of dating methods because you already have a figure in your head about the age of the Earth. Now to just get you to admit it's a circular argument and that you're a fatheaded idiot. We'll get there.

[KichigaiNeko]

Yep chippy never made it to the science class in high school.

[chi pan]

Yep chippy never made it to the science class in high school.

That's assuming a lot on your part. FYI I took biology, earth science, chemistry, and physics in high school. I also took math up to calculus. Don't try to judge what I have taken.

[The Grand Nudger]

Did you simply lie in order to pass your standardized testing? Was god watching?

[chi pan]

Did you simply lie in order to pass your standardized testing? Was god watching?

What can't accept a creationist who has taken such classes? I took all of those in order from freshmen to senior year (calculus and physics being senior year)

[frankiej]

High school is the easiest shit ever though.

[The Grand Nudger]

Presumably you received passing marks?

[chi pan]

Presumably you received passing marks?

Yes. Progression cannot be achieved through failure. I loved math and science since I was little. Especially physics. I studied particle physics on the Internet when I was in junior high. I knew about quarks, leptons, and bosons before I was in high school. I also read about the grand unification theory, the theories about neutrinos, I can still name all the different types of quarks and which ones make up protons and neutrons. I know the types of hadrons. I don't have anything against science, I just think it should know its limits. It should stick with what we can observe and get out of prehistory. It's a good question to ask but not one science can explain. We are constantly wrong about present theories about how things are but asking about how things were; we cannot test those things. We cannot check.