Jump to content

sdelsolray

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    3,883
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by sdelsolray

  1. A rather plausible explanation is the God you reference does not exist.
  2. Excellent progress, SB! Any new or revisited hobbies or other interests?
  3. A rather plausible answer is he didn't. Imaginary entities cannot create disease.
  4. Tell that to the 230,000 people killed from the Indian Ocean tsunami on December 25, 2014.
  5. I first heard about it as a teenager when someone told me about the Bishop Usher calculations which resulted in a claim that Adam and Eve were created in October of 4004 BC.
  6. Given time, I suspect you will find satisfactory answers to your questions. Be patient. Work hard. Perhaps you could start with where there is no good and/or evil in the world. Does it exist on Mars? Deep in the ocean among the variety of species living there? Inside of a mountain? Good and evil are generally attributed to the behaviors and actions of moral agents, such as homo sapiens and some other sentient species. Quantitatively, nearly all human behavior is neither good or evil, but simply neutral. For example, which foot I use to step out of my front door in the morning (left of right) is neutral behavior. Whether I choose to have broccoli or cauliflower with my dinner is neutral behavior. All that being said, good and/or evil behavior and actions do occur. For the most part, they "come from" humans. The empirical evidence convincingly suggests we (i.e., you, me and other extant humans) come from our ancestors via reproductive processes inherent in carbon based life on Earth. I don't know. The BBT (and/or similar cosmological scientific theories) are certainly plausible, as are other well founded scientific theories. Plausibility does not equate with certainty but simply generates probability. The existence of God is generally based on religious faith, usually instilled through childhood religious indoctrination by trusted adults. Based on your posts so far, I conclude you are infected with religious indoctrination. You assume you uncle's cancer remission was due to magic. Consider it was due to his immune system's action and/or human medical intervention. Is that plausible? Your mother is a nutcase. Learn to ignore her nonsense. That will take time. I suggest you spend time studying other topics. Revelations is mythology, politics and nonsense all rolled into one. Save this question for later.
  7. There's nothing inherently wrong with playing in the theist's sandbox. That being said, there's nothing wrong with occasionally asking the question I posed.
  8. Why are you playing in the theist's sandbox? Just asking.
  9. Knott's interest is writing, as he states below his name in each post he writes. I suspect he is here to practice his writing skills.
  10. I do not believe you. Sure there is. OK. Category error, which results in a poor analogy. Belonging to a particular religion (or not) has nothing to do with being a member of the homo sapiens species (or not). Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Your personal belief is not relevant evidence. Yes, you "know"....laughable. This is inconsistent with your previous assertion, "If you were ever a Christian then you still are." (your words).
  11. Just not in any way you can demonstrate, Mr. Preacher Man.
  12. Yes, WLC should not be underestimated. However, he should certainly be disparaged for his disingenuousness, lying, fallacious reasoning, gish gallops, presuppositionalism and cognitive bias, among other reasons.
  13. You are projecting. You project often. It's rather obvious and quite boring. I do not believe you. Your "God" is simply a projection of your own character and beliefs and nothing more. You spew lazy mere assertions, self-aggrandizing tribalism and incessant hate, all with a sanctimonious and narcissistic flair. The fact that you believe you are special is comical as well as pathetic.
  14. Parsing the passage "faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen" indicates that faith itself is two things. First, it is "the substance of things hoped for", i.e., wishful thinking. Second, that wishful thinking is the "evidence of things not seen".
  15. You are not "discussing". You are preaching. Learn the difference.
  16. It looks like I spoke too soon. Poster Masihi is now proselytizing with a plethora of mere assertions and rejecting responsive posts. So much for poster Masihi's request: It's evident he doesn't.
  17. This "Authentic Christian Believer" has been fairly straightforward in his beliefs and theological opinions, mature in his presentation and has demonstrated patience and intelligence. Nevertheless, many regular Ex-C posters have treated him no differently than the disingenuous, willfully ignorant and ego-driven little shit Christians who often post here. Why?
  18. I don't remember whether it was Ehrman or Carrier who made the suggestion that the New Testament should be read in the order of the individual books' dates of writing and not in the order presented in the Bible itself. The former is chronological. The later is not.
  19. OC has a long history here. Two of his tenets/morals are (i) rational discourse rules do not apply to me and (ii) do as I say and not as I do.
  20. This forum has a long history of folks signing in as new members, making a statement or two, stating they are glad to be here and then disappearing.
  21. A quite plausible and sanguine explanation is that gods, religious dogma, and all related items are simply human constructs, invented by certain humans, written or spoken about by other humans and maintained by humans. These theistic memes exist solely in the individual human brain and are amassed within various humans societies. Of course, not all humans are involved with this.
  22. Well, LuthAMF doesn't know either. He just pretended.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.