The toxic ones that you are ignoring.
So some emotions are toxic and cloud judgment (mine) whereas others are tonic and precipitate clarity (yours)?
Oh how convenient!
The toxic ones that you are ignoring.
So some emotions are toxic and cloud judgment (mine) whereas others are tonic and precipitate clarity (yours)?
Oh how convenient!
No. Your approach (rationale) in addressing a spiritual problem (emotion) doesn't work. Both are needed but the state of the heart is most important. Because not all of us have the same level of intellect but we all understand love, pain, etc.
'Submission' is more to do with humility (heart) rather than comprehension (intellect).
Yeah, that's just garbage.
The rationale is that there is no spirit and thus no spiritual problem to be addressed. The simple, rational explanation works just fine.
OK so who/what/where are you?
Hilarious.
It was. not in your usual mocking self but it was genuenly funny. come on man chill.
A few religious apologists have claimed to me that because of the flaws of the human eyes this proves intelligent design.
Insert Captain Picard facepalm.
Moneymay, some counter questions for you and the other theists in the thread.
Are you afraid of mortality?
Is your only meaning in life to get into heaven via the rules of Islam?
Without Islam do you think that you would descend into a life of debauchery and/or criminality?
It's rather flawed and has a shitty design.It's actually a no-brainer, if you look at the functions and anatomy of the eye it is the most natural, instinctive thought that something that looks designed requires a designer. Blows my mind how anyone, atheist or not, can look at the eye and conclude it's a deeply flawed shitty design.
It's actually a no-brainer, if you look at the functions and anatomy of the eye it is the most natural, instinctive thought that something that looks designed requires a designer. Blows my mind how anyone, atheist or not, can look at the eye and conclude it's a deeply flawed shitty design.
It's rather flawed and has a shitty design.
Just a couple of reservations I personally have, and these are things that apply to healthy human beings, let alone those less fortunate who are born blind:
A) We can't see in the night, while other animals can.
B) If we look at things which are too bright, i.e the sun, it can blind us.
did those things elude god?
Eyes are pretty cool, but ours are obviously not perfect. Nor are they unique. Eyes have evolved (more or less) independently dozens of times, and many of them are "better" than ours. I just don't see what about them would lead someone to assume a designer.
A) At night you're supposed to sleep.
B) Not sure why you'd need to stare at the sun?!
We also cannot see very well under water because the eyes start itching and burning after a while. And talking about burning, our skin is also not fire-proof so unfortunately we cannot walk through fire either. What a deeply flawed and shitty design skin is. We also cannot fly because our arms never developed into wings. Useless, shitty arms. And I could go on and on like that.
The daytime/nighttime split varies across the world. To simply say "you're supposed to sleep at night" doesn't work. Not to mention, sometimes it's simply unavoidable that you'll be awake during the night. Either god created eyes badly, the daytime/nighttime split badly or god didn't design those things.
Why not? The sun is a beautiful thing, and events such as eclipses garner our interest. Why shouldn't we look?
Exploring coral reefs and enjoying amazing landscapes from the bird's point of view are also "beautiful things", so why aren't we/ shouldn't we be able to dive and fly?
Because this is how we've evolved
Yep, because that's now how evolution works. There's no organised endgame, it's just continued survival, if you're lucky.
So, evolution brought you this far, gave you a mind and a language, 'sand an ability to coherently express your concerns and conclusions regarding 'the survival', but didn't equip you with one of the most basic things necessary for survival, such as a fire-proof skin? Instead evolution gave you words and grammar so you can construct a sentence to complain about it. Interesting.
Seeing as there are billions of organisms going about their lives right now without fire-proof skin, I'd say it was not "one of the most basic things necessary for survival".
That's fair enough if you don't see it, but I do.
So, evolution brought you this far, gave you a mind and a language, and an ability to coherently express your concerns and conclusions regarding 'the survival', but didn't equip you with one of the most basic things necessary for survival, such as a fire-proof skin? Instead evolution gave you words and grammar so you can construct a sentence to complain about it. Interesting.
Clearly you don't understand evolution.
Clearly you don't understand that my post is a follow up based on the previous few exchanges with Silva.
You don't explain it though, so how could I? If the explanation is "look how complex it is", which is a bit of a silly argument considering... all of the things we've brought up. Such as how it's not that complex, that well made and certainly not unique.
Yeah you exchanged some right fecking bollocks his way, man.
OMG look, here's the funny Ciderman, bringing in the obligatory amount of curse words into the discussion.
My apologies, you're delicate, I understand. I'll rephrase:
I say, old chap, you seemed to be articulating a considerable degree of codswallop during the aforementioned exchange!
MI5?Is there an intelligent agency behind parasites that harm children?
He said intelligent...MI5?