Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021
In Reply To
Ancient One 

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,925
Subj: Re: LGBD, please clarify this dispute
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2022 at 02:17:23 pm EST (Viewed 200 times)
Reply Subj: Re: LGBD, please clarify this dispute
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2022 at 10:21:15 am EST (Viewed 183 times)

    It's not *my* evidence. it's *the* evidence.

And if the dictionary said a transwoman was a woman, it's *the* evidence to make it true?


This is how you sound to me: "The dictionary says a transwoman is a woman. It's in the definition! Plus, you didn't even collect the views of transwomen and you ignore that they really believe they're women. You're stupid, I beat you! Just admit you're wrong! LOLOLOLOLOL!"

    No. You've ignored and avoided direct evidence when I've placed it before you. You've sidestepped direct questions. And then you claim victory.

I didn't ignore anything. I read what you wrote. At one point, you even said there's a scientific basis to support that astronomers understand religion more than evolutionary biologists. So, that's what I'm dealing with here.

    And now you're trying to win by narrowing your definition of 'god'.

Omnipresent and omniscient - pretty much how everyone else understands what "God" means despite lame attempts to redefine and erase these two characteristics.

    Your argument was that pantheists hold an entirely naturalistic position. Many of them don't. As soon as you bring a god of any kind in to your belief sysyem(Whether it's an intercessionary being or a passive one doesn't matter). whether you think that god is an abstract external force, or a rock, an idol, a man or a universe, you've introduced a supernatural element.

1) That's not true. To them, there's nothing supernatural since everything that exists in the universe is natural. They don't believe that we discovered everything natural yet. So, if there's a Zeus-like 'god' in a galaxy far, far away, they would consider him natural but unbeknownst.

2) A Zeus-like 'god', unless he's omnipresent and omniscient, is not "God". We're debating whether they believe in "God", not "gods". Remember?

    Here's just one of those pantheist quotes again:

    "...the panentheist also affirms the divine Presence within every speck and particle of Creation as the very substance and Soul of it’s existence".

Which does not counter a single thing I've argued. They still don't believe in an omnipresent and omniscient being.

    Address it. Debunk it. Tell me again they don't believe in god.

They don't believe in "God". Capital G. We all have a basic understanding of what "God" means. Take Star Trek 5, for example (which I know you've seen). Why did Kirk doubt that the god was God? Because he understands exactly like I do.

Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software