several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
In practice though, is not abiogenesis a firm belief among atheists and one which atheistic scientists are hard at work trying to find evidence for.
Why in the world would you expect those on this forum to attempt to claim what other people believe?
Yes, if someone is sincere their belief or non-belief imo should be respected. Why? We are all intelligent adults free to make our own decisions on whether God exists or not.
None of that explains why in the world I should respect the belief.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
better now?
Not really, since you've not quantified "common" or "many". It doesn't really tell me anything.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
The reason why most creationists conflate evolution with abiogenesis is understandable - albeit inaccurate - because the latter is conceptually the logical corolary of the first, even if there's no proof of that hypothesis. Most non-believers rely on that assumption, anyway.
Since you've not talked to most creationists, you certainly can speak for them and claim why they confuse things or what they assume.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Still no answer as to why scientists make the claim that life originated from non-living matter without backing it up.
Not sure why you would say there is "still" no answer since this is the first time on this thread you've asked that.
Anyway, please provide an example of this being generally accepted by and claimed as fact by the community of scientists who study such things and it can be addressed. What can't be done is to accept your say-so that scientists (unnamed and no reference or citation their their words and published claims) they they are doing it.
So, when you provide this, we can deal with it.
Why can't respecting an individual's sincere belief be across the board? It should go both ways...Christian to Evolutionist...Evolutionist to Christian.
Why do you think it's admirable to respect a belief simply because it's "sincere"?
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
I just provided an example on this thread.
No.... no you didn't. You confused abiogenesis with evolution, but you didn't provide an example of a double-standard as you claim.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Science claims many things it can't prove but when it comes to religion we must prove. Double standard.
Provide an example or two, please.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Sorry! I didn't mean to be rational! Where was mybrainwashing"training from infancy" when Viviane needed it?!
I was just giving you a hard time :)
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Atheists/agnostics do not claim that there is no intelligence in our "design." They just point out the fallacy of coming to a conclusion that something exists when there is no evidence to support that conclusion. You can't prove a negative. Either you have evidence of something or you don't.
CAPPY! I was trying to get clambake to come to that conclusion or at least allow him/her to prevaricate enough that it was obvious he didn't know.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Both are unanswerable questions silly.
No no no.... you don't get it. Why do you think the questions are equivalent in quality and nature? Just because two math equations equal zero doesn't mean the equations are the same. Similarly, you are said one question is like the other, not that they have the same answer.
Why do you think the questions are like each other?
But of course science not today but tomorrow will figure it all for us. Progress is being made. Blah blah blah. We have big thick books with really complex answers.
It find it funny how the pro-science crowd often seems to be bigger deists than religious people.
You seem to be conflating a lot of ideas that aren't the same. What does being pro-science have, in particular, to do with being deist, which very few religious people are? In what way do you think progress and answers are blah blah blah?
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Asking religious people to prove the existence of god is like asking an atheist to disprove there being any intelligence in our design.
I ask again, why do you imagine these are the same? You've no need to confuse the Jedi with the WT in order to answer this.
