Indeed. He claimed that the Bible says the Earth is only 6000 years old, because thats what it adds up to when you add the entire timeframe of the stories together, so anyone claiming any sort of history that spans beyond 6000 years ago, is a Satan conspirator. Then obviously someone mentioned "Well what about Dinosaurs? We have bones dating back millions of years....." to which he responded with that spiel about Dinosaurs and man living together.......Not sure man would have thrived in the time of dinosaurs
Sorry, what doesn't happen? You've lost me. Science may not support the existence or lack thereof of a god, but it can speak to the claims of specific religions. If one were to say, for example, that the Earth was flat, then we could conclude that this particular religion probably wasn't true.
That's a bit disingenuous if you followed the conversation. We were getting nowhere with the tit for tat and I acknowledged this and said to have a conversation there has to be boundaries and a quid pro quo type of thing. Even suggested having "refs" and put forward PNP and anyone who knows us will appreciate we are certainly koy singing of the same hymn sheet on this topic Further to this DMD posted some quotes and made claims based on that and I spent ages saying those claims are unsubstantiated based on his "evidence". He throws a general paganism claim but you are welcome to show me where he backs it up with any evidences
I could just do what you and DMD both do, and instead of explaining how he backs it up with evidence, I could just tell you to read his previous posts where he provides evidence. See how that method of debate is frustrating as ****? Thats why he pisses people off on the politics thread. You seem to adopt a similar strategy by the looks, so I can see this debate lasting forever.
Sorry you said you can apply what a religion says about a topic to someone that follows that religion My initial point was I get christian creationism arguments when I am Muslim and certainly don't believe for example the earth is 4k years old or whatever I agree science can do that to certain claims, but then so does religion The point isn't about discussing certain details, which should be done, its the claims that some put forward. As I said before evolution isn't about how the universe came into being, rather what happened after (simplistic I know) Similarly science doesn't deny or support a creator per se, so to say/imply I trust in science as somehow being "proof/evidence" that there is no God is a false claim
Christians shouldn't even get creationist arguments thrown at them, as it's not necessarily part of the religion. The whole 6,000 years thing definitely isn't part of mainstream Christianity and isn't explicitly stated in the Bible. I can see how science can dispute the claims of some religions, but how can the claims of other religions do that? I don't think that anyone's claiming that science can prove that there's no god or gods.
Except that isn't how things happened. Me and DMD have been having a 121 and the issue with him has been not sticking to the points being discussed With you you jumped in to a discussion and the bit you highlighted specifically mentions the post to PNP. It would have been courteous at the very least to see what the points were rather than asking for a repeat
Firstly, if someone truly does believe that, then its not a false claim to say they believe that. Who are you to tell people that they don't think what they are thinking? You can say you disagree with their claim, but not that it is false. Secondly, who has claimed that? I dont trust in science to show me that there is no god, I trust in science to accurately explain some of the things that religions (all of them) have erroneously attributed to Gods and godly doings over the course of history. Science could never prove or disprove the existence of gods, it can however, disprove or at least cast some doubt on a lot of the things mentioned in holy texts as the work of god, or "miracles". If there is a god, I am 100% certain that none of the Earths religions have gotten it right.
With regards to the first bit I have that thrown at me and I am Muslim and when other arguments get thrown at me and I respond by saying that's not what Islam, in my case as I am Muslim, says its mocked as me not answering or knowing, its tragic really As to how religions can dispute the claims of other religions use the age of the earth argument as an example (not to honintoman on depth discussion or agree with it just to highlight a point). The age of the earth being measured in "earth years" is addressed in Islam which refutes the 6k claim too As for your last point, my point is, for example the whole "I don't believe in God or such fairytale I am an atheist I believe in science"
So you want me to re read 45 pages of to and fro between you and DMD? Yeah no one is gonna do that. You could have just said it again, or referred to the post number, or, there is also something called "Copy and paste". Again, this whole assumption, and DMD is equally as guilty of this, that everyone who pops in to the thread has memorised every previous comment both of you have said, or is willing to slog through 100's of posts of crap to see what you are talking about is just not gonna happen.
No YOUR posted quotes said God did it I explained it using Hagar and Ishmael You are of course free to disagree with that and say paganism but I will need evidence rather than a blanket claim/statement
As I've said, it shouldn't happen. Religions can't disprove the claims about the age of the Earth, though. They may disagree with other religions, but they don't have any way to prove their claims, other than by using science. People offering their opinion on religions being fairytales doesn't say anything about god being disproved by science. I don't think that anyone claims that science has proved that god doesn't or can't exist.
I don't get this line of response tbh, its a discussion and in a discussion its perfectly acceptable to say a claim is false and offer an alternative The funniest thing is you say that then go on to do what you say I shouldn't
I agree with most of that and its kind of what ibwas trying to say Where I disagree with you is the last sentence, there are many a people I discuss with who think science is the realm(for want of a better world) of atheism and comments like how can people believe in a religion when science has shown us the way
That's probably because a lot of anti-science and anti-intellectualism comes from theists. The aforementioned Christian leader who thinks that dinosaurs are a plot by Satan is one good example. The US education system is rife with attempts to undermine science by theists, too. A lot of people believe that science is a challenge to religion, on both sides of the argument. That doesn't mean that science can or has disproved god, though.
2 things, just to clarify Firstly the comment I specifically said have a look at was my response to PNP just before the one you highlighted and questioned me on, which was to Spurlock. It was the one directly before Secondly the DMD issue was in response to a different post about posting habits, where I disagreed with how you were lumping me into a certain category.
In don't agree that a lot of disagreement exists overall tbh, just certain noise gets more attention whether that is Dawkins or the christian guy you refer to. I don't believe a lot of people think science is a threat to religion either, again a case of who is making the noise. Again to use Dawkins as an example I use him in arguments myself but I am aware that many atheists who are high profile find him embarrassing and there have been some interesting debate and articles on the death of that type atheist The type of atheist on fora such as this appears to be a confused one to me
I think its time to come to the universal understanding where you all agree to disagree and leave. How do you know his a Spurs fan?
