Copyright © 2000 - 2020 Boards.ie Limited (Hosted by Digiweb Hosting)
Who's 'we'? And aren't you making some assumptions based on some or other philosophy of knowledge when it comes to what constitutes evidence?* Since the philosophy you employ rests on your believing it to be correct, doesn't all rest on a belief? *for those inclined to reach for dictionary defini
You see no evidence that consciousness survives death of the brain. You believe, presumably, that consciousness resides in the brain. You believe. Based on evidence which you find convincing to you. Your conclusion about theists rests on your decision as to what constitutes evidence. They may not
An early days Christian and I read all that kind of stuff - "who rolled back the stone" etc .. and in so far as it goes it's fine. But that stuff kinda relies on you being a believer first. Then the tracing out all makes good sense. Without that a priori belief your average atheist could (and shou
You reading this Nozz? Intended audience. You sidling up to the altar and stuffing your pockets with wafers is like a priest taking a crafty peek into Playboy!
Can not a minority be racist of a majority (this Irishman is getting close to that point re Americans) I don't see why minority in itself has anything to do with it
So someone slashes up the Mona Lisa. A sacred item in the minds of art appreciation and folk of culture. Fair game?
What proves? The fact that there are inconsistencies? Certainly identical testimony would whiff of collusion. But variance a proof of truth?? How are you reckoning it. When they vary it's natural human subjectivity at work. When they harmonize, evidence of objective truth. Surely there are other wa
But isn't the case, in your belief system (and mine btw) that you have to be able to 'see' before you can discern such things. 'Blind' people, not being able to see, means not even study would allow them to discern. Heck, even a believer is going to have trouble wading through Numbers. And it's not
Hark ... tis the sound of Boris / Dominic /Phil and all the rest who fudge around wafer thin (excuse the pun) technicalities. You know the purpose and meaning of the Eucharist. And you trampled on it. No great crime, we all do such things, being sinners and all
But your position can't be 100% positive whereas a believers can be. It only takes God to exist and demonstrate himself to someone for them to be sure he exists. It's irrelevant that they cannot prove it to you - the issue is whether they can be sure. And so, since you can't be positive, you must
Apologies to mod whose correct snip I inadvertently edited out. Presumably he/she wouldn't object to the following element of the post When you walked up (your action) you took advantage of the good faith being placed in YOU. Your not a kid, you knew what you intended to do and you did it. Expe
Mine too. Except the crooked lines were drawn by me. Unto getting myself into a world of trouble. Pain is what brought to him. He was down at the veru bottom of the barrel. And I navigated my way down to the bottom. There ain't nothing like pain to possibly get your attention
Other. Eternal existence. Either: Eternal life. This, in Christianity, means our moving totally into the realm of God. We experience something of that realm already: if you love, relate to others. If you mourn evil and sickness and death. If you enjoy, learn, experience joy and happiness .. then
Was your body rotting in the grave when you were brought back? My guess is that you lacked some classic signs of life. Which is a different matter
Thanks for the responses. Makes sense: someone promoted from the Championship is going to find it very tough in the Premiership. Good excuse to play more! Thanks folks