• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Isn’t faith being central targeting stupid people??

gboisjo said:
Explain
Click to expand...

The idea of abiogenesis was cute back in the day when we thought small life forms were really simple, but we know that they are not. The idea that random non-organic chemicals organized into a complex system that had the ability to do many tasks is just silly. The life form would have to pop some chemicals together that could: consume food; metabolize food, replicate itself to the point that that replication could do all those things, ect, ect

That's not getting into the concepts of cell structure and the microscopic processes that are going on to keep the integrity of the cell. Chemicals aren't going to randomly organized into that. They never will. It's like when people thought that rotten meat created flies.
 
ArtemisBarca said:
Faith: belief in something impossible or highly unlikely.

Isn’t Christianity putting faith at the primary trait they are looking for, telling us to our faces they only want stupid people who will believe whatever they tell them too???


All kinda stuff can be central to your philosophy..

Intelligence, logic And reason, being a good spouse or parent, charity, helping others, making money, exc, exc, exc..

Christianity CHOSE to put belief in the ridiculous as the central pillar of its philosophy..


It sure is funny that every tenant of most religions are exactly what a con artist would say..

But do t worry about it.. just have faith. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


it may not be any ones smartest move but your not dumb just because your religious


YouTube
 
it's just me said:
Do you believe Jesus was who he said he was?
Click to expand...

Odd question to ask someone else when you don't even believe Jesus is who he said he was...lol...
 
Fishking said:
The idea of abiogenesis was cute back in the day when we thought small life forms were really simple, but we know that they are not. The idea that random non-organic chemicals organized into a complex system that had the ability to do many tasks is just silly. The life form would have to pop some chemicals together that could: consume food; metabolize food, replicate itself to the point that that replication could do all those things, ect, ect

That's not getting into the concepts of cell structure and the microscopic processes that are going on to keep the integrity of the cell. Chemicals aren't going to randomly organized into that. They never will. It's like when people thought that rotten meat created flies.
Click to expand...

Ah, the argument from ignorance. Got it. The lack of reasoning to come to the unwarrented conclusion and false claims is noted.
 
RAMOSS said:
Ah, the argument from ignorance. Got it. The lack of reasoning to come to the unwarrented conclusion and false claims is noted.
Click to expand...

Lol...no. Everything I said was 100% spot on. You think you can dismiss it with an off-handed comment, that makes no actual refutation, but you can't. The reason you can't is because you're unable to. But hey...everyone will defend their faith. You're no different.
 
Elvira said:
Odd question to ask someone else when you don't even believe Jesus is who he said he was...lol...
Click to expand...

He's not Michael the Archangel, that's for sure...
 
Fishking said:
Lol...no. Everything I said was 100% spot on. You think you can dismiss it with an off-handed comment, that makes no actual refutation, but you can't. The reason you can't is because you're unable to. But hey...everyone will defend their faith. You're no different.
Click to expand...

You can believe it all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

You build a straw man, shoot it down, and proclaim victory. You also employ the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy. Good Job
 
RAMOSS said:
You can believe it all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

You build a straw man, shoot it down, and proclaim victory. You also employ the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy. Good Job
Click to expand...

There is no strawman fallacy here. I have not taken someone else's argument and misrepresented it, which is what a strawman fallacy is. So here we have you not even understanding the definition of basic words but you think you're capable of refuting my argument. That's cute. Further, it's not a "God of the Gaps" anything. There were no "gaps" mentioned in my comments. There was a singular "gap". That gap is abiogenesis, which is nothing more than fancied up spontaneous generation of life, which has been refuted by actual science. The characteristics of life that I highlight in my comment are part of biology.

The scientific reality is that chemicals will never be able to arrange themselves into a living organism. It's never happened, hasn't been shown to happen, has a lot of evidence it can't happen...but here you are defending your faith because that is what people do.
 
Fishking said:
There is no strawman fallacy here. I have not taken someone else's argument and misrepresented it, which is what a strawman fallacy is. So here we have you not even understanding the definition of basic words but you think you're capable of refuting my argument. That's cute. Further, it's not a "God of the Gaps" anything. There were no "gaps" mentioned in my comments. There was a singular "gap". That gap is abiogenesis, which is nothing more than fancied up spontaneous generation of life, which has been refuted by actual science. The characteristics of life that I highlight in my comment are part of biology.

The scientific reality is that chemicals will never be able to arrange themselves into a living organism. It's never happened, hasn't been shown to happen, has a lot of evidence it can't happen...but here you are defending your faith because that is what people do.
Click to expand...

Let's see you show the claim 'The scientific reality is that chemical s will never be abe to arrange themselves into a living organism' is true. PRove it.

Show the it's never happened. Show the evidence it can't happen.

You make claims based on faith, but can't show to be true.
 
RAMOSS said:
Let's see you show the claim 'The scientific reality is that chemical s will never be abe to arrange themselves into a living organism' is true. PRove it.

Show the it's never happened. Show the evidence it can't happen.

You make claims based on faith, but can't show to be true.
Click to expand...

Ah...now you're trying to make me prove a negative. Who's making the fallacy again? It's never been observed and it's never been replicated. There is no evidence of it happening. Literally there is nothing to support it having happened except a declarative assertion that it must've happened if there was no intervention from some kind of outside source which would be defined as some kind of deity.

So, ironically, you've hoisted yourself on your own petard because it is on you to actually prove it happened. And since you literally have no proof of that, you are admittedly operating off of faith.
Nope.jpg
 
Fishking said:
Ah...now you're trying to make me prove a negative. Who's making the fallacy again? It's never been observed and it's never been replicated. There is no evidence of it happening. Literally there is nothing to support it having happened except a declarative assertion that it must've happened if there was no intervention from some kind of outside source which would be defined as some kind of deity.

So, ironically, you've hoisted yourself on your own petard because it is on you to actually prove it happened. And since you literally have no proof of that, you are admittedly operating off of faith.
View attachment 67282103
Click to expand...

PRove, nonsense. How about providing sources and evidence for your claim. You made a positive claim. The burden of proof is on you. Now you are doing the logical fallacy of 'Shifting the burden of proof'. You also made statements that are demostratable false. For example, you have dirt, which is not alive. Put a seed in there, and the substance of the dirt gets aborbed, and part of a living organism.. where dead chemicals become alive.

Then, of course, it has been shown that there are some RNA that can self replicate in the proper environment, and the variations of that RNA that replicate more effectively become more common in the solution. That could be enough to jump start
dead chemicals into life. RNA world - Wikipedia
 
RAMOSS said:
PRove, nonsense. How about providing sources and evidence for your claim. You made a positive claim. The burden of proof is on you. Now you are doing the logical fallacy of 'Shifting the burden of proof'. You also made statements that are demostratable false. For example, you have dirt, which is not alive. Put a seed in there, and the substance of the dirt gets aborbed, and part of a living organism.. where dead chemicals become alive.

Then, of course, it has been shown that there are some RNA that can self replicate in the proper environment, and the variations of that RNA that replicate more effectively become more common in the solution. That could be enough to jump start
dead chemicals into life. RNA world - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Erm, "RNA World" isn't real, just sayin.
 
humbolt said:
And that begs the question: What's the difference between a rational myth and an irrational myth? Are there rational myths? Is the myth of Sisyphus rational, or are all myths irrational by definition? Can we declare C. S. Lewis irrational, or was he rational in all things but his faith? Can we even separate the two?
Click to expand...

That Germany was about to invade Britain ion 1940 was a myth. But to believe it at the time was by no means irrational. On the other believing in magic or physically impossibie myths is irrational.
 
Fishking said:
Being an atheist is the highest form of belief in the impossible.
Click to expand...

At least you had a try at a clever remark. Better luck next time!
 
Sweden said:
That Germany was about to invade Britain ion 1940 was a myth. But to believe it at the time was by no means irrational. On the other believing in magic or physically impossibie myths is irrational.
Click to expand...

What was once considered impossible is now routine.
 
Fishking said:
Being an atheist is the highest form of belief in the impossible.
Click to expand...

BWAHAHAHAHA

Impossible.. Because faith has nothing to do with it and that is the definition of faith.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
humbolt said:
What was once considered impossible is now routine.
Click to expand...

No it isn’t.....

In all of human history with every single person who ever lived in history putting some time and energy into proving their religion and/or some other form of the super natural and what do they have to show for it??

Only the weakest form of evidence... testimonials lmao..


Not one single prayer or spell that works enough to consider it experimentation...

Not one of the worlds religions shows ANY sign that it is unique and their followers live better lives in any way....




Religion runs society of 200,000 years and it takes us all that time to get past the horse and buggy..

Then science rules society for like 100 years and we go from the horse and buggy to the moon and internet..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sweden said:
At least you had a try at a clever remark. Better luck next time!
Click to expand...

Conservatism 101..

If you do not have a valid counterpoint. Make a pithy comment and pretend somehow you nailed it...

If you didn’t include a counterpoint, you cannot have nailed it.. lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ArtemisBarca said:
No it isn’t.....

In all of human history with every single person who ever lived in history putting some time and energy into proving their religion and/or some other form of the super natural and what do they have to show for it??

Only the weakest form of evidence... testimonials lmao..


Not one single prayer or spell that works enough to consider it experimentation...

Not one of the worlds religions shows ANY sign that it is unique and their followers live better lives in any way....




Religion runs society of 200,000 years and it takes us all that time to get past the horse and buggy..

Then science rules society for like 100 years and we go from the horse and buggy to the moon and internet..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Clearly you haven't lived long enough yet. Maybe you should read more history, and this time try comprehending it.
 
Sweden said:
That Germany was about to invade Britain ion 1940 was a myth. But to believe it at the time was by no means irrational. On the other believing in magic or physically impossibie myths is irrational.
Click to expand...

Could you please post ANY dictionary definition of myth that fits what you are saying lmao...

Fundamentalism 101... use words with broad meanings or multiple definitions, the switch and swap the way you are using it..


“Definition of myth
1a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
creation myths

b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
Moral responsibility is the motif of Plato's myths.

2a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone”

Myth | Definition of Myth by Merriam-Webster

See how you started off using definition 1a for myth, then conveniently swapped to definition 2a to fraudulently make your point..


Christianity 101


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
it's just me said:
He's not Michael the Archangel, that's for sure...
Click to expand...

not sure at all its all faith based an your all powerful all knowing god who wants to spread its message to people wont just talk to every one itself which seems so restarted on its part that it suggests strongly your religion is a man made construct which would explain why it needs people to spread it like any false religion would and why it has fractured into different groups
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom