The Glade 4.0

Dismissing them as myths, without proof, is unscientific.



This argument requries the assumption that God is not real. If God was real, and did put us here, the whole basis for your argument falls apart. You're assuming it's a man made story to explain an event, but neglect the case for if the story was history. These assumptions simply because you cannot comprehend what is not right in front of your face.



Yawn.



Yet you assume you have all the answers. Science and God are not incompatible. Oh nos, Taly! What now?

Then you clearly don't understand religion. At all.

I know, but in a way, it's fun to watch her blather on.

I'm not sure if it's just her desire to troll and try to get folks riled up, or if it's generated from a need for validation of her beliefs. If it's the latter, then that's kind of sad, and I feel bad for calling her a troll.

Taly, neither science nor religion finds answers unless it looks. Relax your stubborn denial and open your mind - maybe you'll find some answers.

I'd like to add at this point that I haven't read this thread, may have skimmed it a little just to affirm that it has shaped up about like you'd expect, but at this juncture it's time for me to assert that I'm right. Taly is not right. I am. And not just right, but absolutely, unequivocally, totally right. And not only is everyone else wrong, but you cannot even fathom the depths and totality of my rightness. However, I'll leave it to other posters to actually state my beliefs, or make inferences based on past postings. In that sense, within the context of this thread I'm much like God, or maybe Khross, or both. Hmm

(Disclaimer: I'm in a weird mood today and work is slooooow)

All your objections can be answered with one reply.

Do you believe in the legends of the Tuatha dé Danann of ancient Ireland? What about Banshees? Bogles? Brownies? Dryads? Fir Darrig? Goblins? Hobgoblins? Leprechauns? Pixies? Spriggans? Sprites? Trolls? Why not? One cannot prove that they do not exist. People have spoken about them and believed in them for millenia. There are grand traditions based on them. We have eyewitness accounts of ancient people seeing and interacting with them. What argument do you have that they are not real? So why don't you believe in them? Simply because you cannot comprehend what is not right in front of your face? (Maybe they are right in front of your face. Pixies can turn invisible at will, of course.)

Because there's just as much evidence for their existence as there is for God.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That's absolutely silly. We're talking about real religions and real deities, not Disney fairy tales.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Or to put it another way...

Not really. I consider the written evidence for God far more credible than any of the things you cited.

You're just creating a false dilemma: "If you believe in any one supernatural thing, then you have to beleive int ehm all because there's equal evidence for all"

The problem with that is that the proclaimation of equal evidence for all is nothing mroe than your subejctive judgement of how convincing the evidence is. Your judgement is not better than mine or anyone else's, and certianly is not correct just becuase you think the amount of evidence is "none". That's just another form of begging the question.

All you're really saying here is that I have to find evidence convincing according to whatever criteria you use. I don't. Your criteria are not better, and they aren't even more scientific.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Because Roberts, in his arrogance is ironically correct and wrong at the same time. Roberts disbelieves because he does not consider the evidence convincing. Yet his statement is intended to imply there is something wrong if one is convined by that evidence, but not other evidence for some other gods which he presumably also is not convinced by.

In other words, Roberts is basically saying "You have to either be conviced by it all or convinced by none because I personally find none of it convincing." It's evidence of nothing more than his own conceit.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm not saying it's a "believe it all or believe nothing" situation. I'm saying that there is no difference in the evidence between these various beliefs. It is no more and no less valid to believe in faeries than it is to believe in God, from the evidence that exists. Would you ridicule a belief in faeries today?

If you would, you're no different than me. You disbelieve in faeries for the same reasons I disbelieve in your God. So stop pretending i'm the one being unreasonable.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Its certainly possible all those things exist. I've certainly seen some things I can't explain, and I certainly believe in spiritual beings both godly and ungodly and its possible those stories are based on such manifestations. However belief in fairies boggins or even aliens hasn't changed my life and eternal destination the way belief in God of creation and the written account of the gospel of Jesus Christ have.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

They're the same thing. From your perspective, they are both equally valid, because you coinsider the evidence equal. I don't consider the evidence equal and so they are not equally valid.



Being different from you is not the issue. I realize perfectly well that you don't consider the evidence for either any different. However, you cannot then pretend that I'm being unreasonable by believeing in God but not in faeries.

You are the one being unreasonable because you keep presenting this as if the evidence were equal for all beliefs, when in fact that is merely your personal assessment of the situation. If you want me to consider you reasonable in disbelieveing all of it, you have to consider me reasonable in making my own assessment of the evidence. Otherwise, all you're doing is demanding that you be allowed to determine what evidence is credible for everyone, and you're not getting that.

You're not being unreasonable by not believing in God; you're being unreasonable by telling us we're being unreasonable becasue we do.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

That there's funny, I don't care who ya are...

That actually is pretty funny.. although I find it rather sad that anyone could think a huge "JESUS" billboard is an effective way of getting their message across.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

First of all, I'm not dismissing any of them. You are dismissing the existence of God.

Second of all, no, that didn't address any of my post. Try again.

Oh, and I very much believe in trolls....

There's quite a few of them in Colorado Springs.

How do you differentiate what's equal/valid, and what isn't? I have no motive in asking the question other than being curious.

How do I personally do it? That would be very difficult to adequately convey, and could not be done in any succinct manner.

The point was that it's different for each person. What one person believes is credible another will not. This appears any time there is not absolute certainty; and frequently appears even when certainty is pretty near absolute. Some people do not consider evidence of the moon landings and Holocaust to be credible.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Specifically regarding credibility, then. How do you justify the writing of the Bible as credible, but dismiss other books, stories or writings which might be just as old or respected? What is it in the bible that tells you, "this is the right one"?

Is it simply because it's the first one you were subjected (for lack of a better word) to?

Not at all. I really wasn't exposed to it much until I got out of college. The churches I attended when I was young didn't spend much time on it (or on.. much of anything really) and I basically didn't go to church in college. I don't "dismiss" other books, I find them less credible.

To put it briefly, I find that the historical documentation of the Bible (after you get to Abraham) is far, far better than any other religious text I know of. Objections to that inevitably revolve around assuming the supernatural parts can't have happened because they're supernatural. I find that it transitions quite seamlessly from the end of the book into the early history of the church.

I don't intend to answer a lot of questions or entertain a lot of discussion with people disagreeing with this. It's my personal, subjective assessment.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Thanks.

I assumed it was McDonald's new Hispanic marketing strategy.

_________________