Seven pairs would have been even harder.
"Genesis 7:2, NASB: "You shall take with you seven pairs of every clean animal, a male and his female; and two of the animals that are not clean, a male and his female;"
"A religion is an initial circular argument with additional argumentation stemming from it."
That is what a tautology is. Then you said it wasn't so therefore your statement makes no sense if it isn't a tautology.
So in a nutshell, a religion is a belief in anything?No, it isn't.
While religion CAN involve a belief in some sort of deity, such a belief is NOT necessary. That's part of the reason why the definition you're providing is very incomplete.
Seven pairs would have been even harder.
"Genesis 7:2, NASB: "You shall take with you seven pairs of every clean animal, a male and his female; and two of the animals that are not clean, a male and his female;"
PoliTalker (08-30-2021)
Hello Flash,
Koalas only eat eucalyptus. That would be nearly impossible to take enough for 7 pairs for 40 days and nights. They would starve. The plants would not live that long.
How would it be possible to take enough water for all the animals? Two humans could not possibly even distribute the water and food daily to all the various animals, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, much less keep the stalls clean.
Has anyone calculated just how many animals there were? And the physical dimensions of the ark? And if it was even possible to fit them all? Much less take food and water? Too fantastic. Not possible. Total fantasy. A fairy tale.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
ignorance is pandemic......Between 1985 and 2010, roughly 40 percent of surveyed adults in the US agreed that "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals". Taking into account the small number of fence-sitters, this suggests much of the nation was evenly divided on the theory.
By 2016, that percentage had, at last, become a majority, reaching 54 percent.
Isaiah 6:5
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
No. It involves a "tautology" (as you're calling it) but it is not in and of itself one.
Religion is simply an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.
One such initial circular argument could be "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is". This circular argument forms the basis of Christianity, a religion. Any additional argumentation relating to Christianity stems back to the basis argument that Jesus Christ exists and is the Son of God. Such a basis argument need not involve any sort of deity or deities, spirits, demons, or the like.
No.
No, you don't.
Okay. As I said, a religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. In the case of Evolution (the theory), that initial circular argument would be: "life as we see it today evolved from some more primitive form". All other arguments for the Theory of Evolution directly stem from this "foundational belief that is assumed to be true", or this "initial circular argument".
No.
You just defeated your own assertion. You defined religion then tell me it isn't the definition. That's circular.
Yes I do. You made a circular definition of religion.No, you don't.
So the adult humans we see were once fetuses is a circular argument.Okay. As I said, a religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. In the case of Evolution (the theory), that initial circular argument would be: "life as we see it today evolved from some more primitive form". All other arguments for the Theory of Evolution directly stem from this "foundational belief that is assumed to be true", or this "initial circular argument".
I guess the theory of crime forensics is also a religion.
cancel2 2022 (09-26-2021)
Bookmarks