Why do so many theists think you must believe in abiogenesis if you don't believe in a god?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

If you can't see the dissonance within your logic, I can't help you. You believe one way and live out another. Contradictions abound. Have a great day and please do something about your anger. It'll shorten your life.

The debate over the existence of a prime mover is older than Aquinas and probably Diagoras.

It's just a philosophical debate. It also doesn't have to have anything to do with diety. It can be a group of scientists creating a simulation you live in.

originally posted by: slowisfast
a reply to: InhaleExhale

I would have been implying not inferring. Which I didn't because I believe in evil. History is certainly a testament to that.

Then you implied that or as I said the way you asked is very easily interpreted that you are.

History is certainly a testament that you believe in evil?

Or are you saying history is certainly a testament to show evil exists?

Evil is a religious concept created by man to be used along side other similar terms that actually describe an action more precisely.


Evil is religious label created to use by God fearing people to call other names to divide themselves from others and to make themselves feel more comfortable about themselves.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Guess if you can't grasp the idea of my using / referring to comments made by you and IgnorantGod as being part of the topic, you believing instead that it is off-topic then I would suggest a course in sentence comprehension. End of debate, I'm not going to read your nonsensical / argumentive replies.

"Sentence Comprehension
Sentence processing takes place whenever a reader or listener processes a language utterance, either in isolation or in the context of a conversation or a text."

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Raggedyman

PMSL!!!
Keep on crying girl, you amuse me even though you can't stay on-topic.
You are comedy gold fella

Oh dear me, am I causing you angst because in don't mind what you believe and I make your op look like it was written by a...well its foolish
Believe what you want, it's none of my buisness
I am not forcing or making you believe anything

If you don't believe in Gravity, the world is flat, that's fine by me
Contrary to your silly op

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: slowisfast
a reply to: InhaleExhale

I would have been implying not inferring. Which I didn't because I believe in evil. History is certainly a testament to that.

Then you implied that or as I said the way you asked is very easily interpreted that you are.

History is certainly a testament that you believe in evil?

Or are you saying history is certainly a testament to show evil exists?

Evil is a religious concept created by man to be used along side other similar terms that actually describe an action more precisely.


Evil is religious label created to use by God fearing people to call other names to divide themselves from others and to make themselves feel more comfortable about themselves.

Evil is part of the social contract more specifically.

Evil is usually something that threatens the social contract of that society. It doesn't have to be religious. It's just part of the categorical imperative for instance.

originally posted by: luthier
The debate over the existence of a prime mover is older than Aquinas and probably Diagoras.

It's just a philosophical debate. It also doesn't have to have anything to do with diety. It can be a group of scientists creating a simulatuon you live in.

The question asked in the op was " why can't theists accept that some people don't believe in God"
It had nothing to do with the existence of God or gods
It's not philosophical at all

The op has a persecution complex or has other issues

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: luthier
The debate over the existence of a prime mover is older than Aquinas and probably Diagoras.

It's just a philosophical debate. It also doesn't have to have anything to do with diety. It can be a group of scientists creating a simulatuon you live in.

The question asked in the op was " why can't theists accept that some people don't believe in God"
It had nothing to do with the existence of God or gods
It's not philosophical at all

The op has a persecution complex or has other issues

Perhaps.

I was just trying to clarify what a creator could be.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: luthier
The debate over the existence of a prime mover is older than Aquinas and probably Diagoras.

It's just a philosophical debate. It also doesn't have to have anything to do with diety. It can be a group of scientists creating a simulatuon you live in.

The question asked in the op was " why can't theists accept that some people don't believe in God"
It had nothing to do with the existence of God or gods
It's not philosophical at all

The op has a persecution complex or has other issues

Perhaps.

I was just trying to clarify what a creator could be.

And maybe that was what the op was after, not really sure myself his intentions, not sure he knew his own
I was accused of not staying on topic, I was clarifying what I understood the topic to be

Irrespective, I addressed only the question in the op and wanted to clarify what I was answering in relation to the op
Please, excuse me and continue, no offence meant, no intention to step on your toes
My reply was unintentionally curt

a reply to: Raggedyman

It's all good. You always seem to be a thoughtful person. I have no prejudice towards theists unless they carry it into something harmful to society.

Humans are always battling between being animals and being conscious. If a set of rules and philosophy helps people not be animals who am I to say it isn't real or is bad for society.

I can't figure out how we evolved to require iodine for instance. So it leaves me open to possibilities however crazy they seem to some people.

a reply to: slowisfast

Lol I'm not angry, I find you hilarious to be honest so thanks for the amusement, even if you haven't posted a single on-topic reply

originally posted by: eNaR
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Guess if you can't grasp the idea of my using / referring to comments made by you and IgnorantGod as being part of the topic, you believing instead that it is off-topic then I would suggest a course in sentence comprehension. End of debate, I'm not going to read your nonsensical / argumentive replies.

"Sentence Comprehension
Sentence processing takes place whenever a reader or listener processes a language utterance, either in isolation or in the context of a conversation or a text."

Lol, so you haven't got any decent argument against my OP either then?
Don't let the door bang your arse on the way out

a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol, more idiotic drivel, keep it coming fella, you amuse me
Angst, pmsl!
It would be good to see you post something on-topic for a change though instead of whining about me and the topic itself.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: luthier
The debate over the existence of a prime mover is older than Aquinas and probably Diagoras.

It's just a philosophical debate. It also doesn't have to have anything to do with diety. It can be a group of scientists creating a simulatuon you live in.

The question asked in the op was " why can't theists accept that some people don't believe in God"

No it wasn't, you can't even #ing read properly ! PMSL again!!!

Maybe the assumption from theists is that agnostics and athiests have thought about cosmology...

The nature of theism is to have a concept of cosmology so they may assume there is a philosophical quandary by non theists as well.

a reply to: luthier

Oddly I use to believe in evolution till I was confronted by the lack of evidence
I could still be persuaded to believe in evolution and be a christian, I Dont believe the bible is all literal or perfect
As for atheists, let's be hounest, I believe effectively in a Jewish "zombie" King, it truly does sound foolish, atheism doesn't seem that illogical when compared to what I believe

The bible teaches Christians constantly to have faith, the reason, because we need lots of faith to believe what we do
So no, I understand why people,choose otherwise and have no problem with their choice at all
Cheers Luthier👍

a reply to: luthier

You could have a point
I just see all too often theists in threads almost desperate to attribute some faith into the perspectives of people who don't believe in gods.
Hence the question in the OP which is making lots of believers butt hurt, it's hilarious, not a decent argument against anything I've posted, just a lolt of whining.

a reply to: luthier

I think the problem is many atheists agnostics and Christians don't spend any time thinking anything at all.
Point in case is quite proximal

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Unfortunately we live in a time where it seems more important to defend turf than try and have civil debate or even figure out your opponents argument. Most of the time is see people make assumptions about an argument and they don't allow space for their "opponent" to even explain themselves.

It's an unfortunate aspect of the Internet I think.

Strangely the big bang was developed by Laimatre a priest. And Mendel was a monk. So obviously theists have had open minds in the past.

I would also say atheists can be very snippy and have not thought out their arguments but rather react to some kind of religious scarring they may have had. Others are not that way just the very vocal ones. Agnostics seem to be chill. But I may be prejudice since I fit in there the most.

a reply to: luthier

Haha yes, defending turf seems to be a good description.
Personally I have no turf to defend, I don't believe in gods due to the lack of verifiable evidence, and same goes for abiogenesis but bring some new evidence to the table and I'm open to change with both.
But it is fair to say I'm faithless, and for some reason that threatens many theists.