Originally posted by EladarThat kind of goes against your post of Dec 4:
I never said a person couldn't self identify as a Christian.
"Yeah and Mormons think they are Christians. Doesn't really matter what we believe if we are self delusional."
So, according to your logic, Mormons are not Christian AND they are self delusional, so dissing them twice.
My stance is a bit more general: I hate ALL religions, I want freedom FROM religion not freedom OF religion.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhere did I say the delusional can't be delusional?
That kind of goes against your post of Dec 4:
"Yeah and Mormons think they are Christians. Doesn't really matter what we believe if we are self delusional."
So, according to your logic, Mormons are not Christian AND they are self delusional, so dissing them twice.
My stance is a bit more general: I hate ALL religions, I want freedom FROM religion not freedom OF religion.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI didn't say that. You can say whatever you like. If its rude RHP may delete it. If its wrong, you will be wrong.
But what authority do you say I can't say Mormons are delusional for believing they are Christians?
Of course both you and Mormons are delusional for believing things without reasonable evidence. But Mormons are not delusional for believing they are Christians, because they are Christians by their use of the word. That you assume they are using your definition for the word is your error not theirs.
7 edits
Originally posted by EladarNo neither the dictionary nor the Bible is "the authority" because there IS no absolute authority on the correct meaning of words. What determines the correct meaning of words is not the Bible nor the dictionary but rather whatever is the general commonly agreed accepted meaning of a word. That is just how language works. As I said, "authority" has nothing to do with a definition or meaning we give a word/term. There is no "authority" on that.
So a dictionary is the authority? It is more authoritative than the Bible I suppose.
+ where in the Bible does it specifically say that you must take every word of the Bible absolutely literally no matter how absurd the resulting interpretation including specifically one where evolution is false? The Bible doesn't even mention the word "evolution". To be a Christian, you don't need to believe any of that fundamentalist crap. You can just take the Bible as a book of metaphors and poetry so that, for example, each of those 7 "days" it took to create could have been a million years etc. There really is no need for absurd literal interpretations of the Bible that would be extremely difficult if not impossible for any rational mind to believe let alone logically justify.
Originally posted by humyWhy do you ask about the Bible? Would it not be circular reasoning?
No neither the dictionary nor the Bible is "the authority" because there IS no absolute authority on the correct meaning of words. What determines the correct meaning of words is not the Bible nor the dictionary but rather whatever is the general commonly agreed accepted meaning of a word. That is just how language works. As I said, "authority" has nothing to d ...[text shortened]... remely difficult if not impossible for any rational mind to believe let alone logically justify.
5 edits
Originally posted by Eladar
Why do you ask about the Bible? Would it not be circular reasoning?
Why do you ask about the Bible?
You are the one who brought in the Bible into the conversation, not me.
Would it not be circular reasoning?
what would be circular reasoning? "it" above references what exactly?
Bear in mind that readers of your posts including I are not mind readers so would inevitably not know what you mean unless you actually state exactly what you mean, including what exactly you are referring to, in its entirety.
Originally posted by humyI just said you assume only the natural. The truth of evolution for you is circular reasoning.Why do you ask about the Bible?
You are the one who brought in the Bible into the conversation, not me.Would it not be circular reasoning?
what would be circular reasoning? "it" above references what exactly?
Bear in mind that readers of your posts including I are not mind readers so would inevitably not know wha ...[text shortened]... ually state exactly what you mean, including what exactly you are referring to, in its entirety.
11 edits
Originally posted by EladarI do not rule out the possibility of the supernatural but rather merely currently assign it a very low probability (at least for the kind of supernatural claims typically made but not necessarily any kind of supernatural) given the current evidence available to me. Assigning something a low probability doesn't necessarily mean assuming it false, and in this case I do not but rather think it merely unlikely purely on the current evidence. What has this got to with evolution?
I just said you assume only the natural. .
There being evolution doesn't imply there is no supernatural.
The truth of evolution for you is circular reasoning
Nope. There is evidence for evolution thus I believe there is evolution. If there were evidence that there is no evolution then I would believe there is no evolution. And if there were neither evidence for or against evolution i.e. no relevant evidence then I would have no opinion/belief on it either way and just say I don't know. In other words, I don't assume evolution before looking at the evidence but rather look at the evidence and then see if it indicates evolution or no evolution and believe whichever the evidence indicates. That is just how scientific thinking works. How is that circular?
And if there is evidence of a god then I would believe there is a god ( + there being a god would be a proven scientific theory) ; and if there is evidence of a tooth fairy then I would believe there is a tooth fairy. That is just how scientific thinking works.