Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Ai vs Christian theology
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kylie" data-source="post: 77641285" data-attributes="member: 343110"><p>In other words, you can't even say whether your religious text is meant to be literal or not. So why should I accept any of it as a factual account?</p><p></p><p>I've yet to see evidence of that.</p><p></p><p>And remember, a viewpoint can be logically consistent within itself, and still be inconsistent with reality.</p><p></p><p>I don't see how it's much of an improvement. You have a source that you admit you can't tell if it's meant factually or not, you have no verifiable objective evidence and must rely on subjective feelings (despite admitting that such reliance of subjective arguments is fallacious), and you freely admit that your beliefs are undemonstratable.</p><p></p><p>That sounds like pretty much every religion I've ever heard of.</p><p></p><p>So how is it a "genuine improvement" from most religions?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kylie, post: 77641285, member: 343110"] In other words, you can't even say whether your religious text is meant to be literal or not. So why should I accept any of it as a factual account? I've yet to see evidence of that. And remember, a viewpoint can be logically consistent within itself, and still be inconsistent with reality. I don't see how it's much of an improvement. You have a source that you admit you can't tell if it's meant factually or not, you have no verifiable objective evidence and must rely on subjective feelings (despite admitting that such reliance of subjective arguments is fallacious), and you freely admit that your beliefs are undemonstratable. That sounds like pretty much every religion I've ever heard of. So how is it a "genuine improvement" from most religions? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Ai vs Christian theology
Top
Bottom