Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "People of faith don’t want their beliefs to be ‘hijacked’ by the climate movement" video.

Which God?
3
@bobhawke7373 Well my money is on Zeus, but an each way bet on Jupiter wouldn't hurt.
3
Every poll in the last three years has One Nation at approx 3%, and Pauline Hanson is almost uniformly mocked by 83.6% of adults over the age of 7. By what measure do you mean respect?
2
@frankr7239 So theoretically then you would be fine with putting government above Phronesis's god if it was a statue
2
@frankr7239 Can you be sure though that your god (Jesus Christ) is the god that Phronesis is referring to?
2
@frankr7239 I have no problem with your understanding of your god, my question was how can you be sure that this is the same god that Phronesis is referring to, his/her god may not be your Christian god it could be a Hindu god ie Shiva or they may be a Buddhist.
2
@PJRayment Pure confirmation bias on your part, you only read the first line in both dictionaries and went yep I'm right. Read all the paragraphs. 2. (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. Get your facts straight, and all your cards lined up.
1
@PJRayment Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Matt Dillahunty, Dr Richard Carrier, Sam Harris, Peter Singer and this list goes all. All have debunked the presupposing of a god.
1
@PJRayment Lastly in her statement she provided no evidence, thus providing me with the evidence to claim she provided no evidence.
1
@PJRayment No your definition is your definition I may have other definition, but let's go with the Oxford dictionary meaning and by that definition you are wrong. Webster dictionary perhaps, oops your wrong again. In fact there is no clear consensus on the nature of god in history or in the present.
1
@PJRayment Yes I understand to a certain extent your definition of your god, which I certainly don't argue, my point was others have different definitions that do not necessarily include creation and they are all as valid as yours.
1
Dr Rockso Jupiter is the best.
1
@PJRayment Oh yes he was. He was a Roman God and the historical literature proves it.
1
@PJRayment So yes I was correct. Jupiter is a god by the Romans definition and the Oxford dictionary, however my flippant reply that he was the best is clearly only my subjective opinion.
1
@mariamatusiewicz4280 You have no evidence to make that assertion.
1
@PJRayment What is an apparent leftist?
1
@paullockyer7905 That is an argument from ignorance wrapped up in the watchmaker fallacy, making the entire statement nonsensical.
1
@mikeb4535 Exactly, but how is Bob going to show proof or evidence of the supernatural?
1
@bobhawke7373 Technically you made the claim of pretending to have imaginary super friends. Proving the negative is difficult but can be done by argument. What sort of evidence could someone who believed in a deity provide?
1
@PJRayment Paley's creation argument and watchmaker analogy is full of fallacies, starting with a false analogy and false causes, it may be valid but it is completely unsound. Mostly though by the fact of evolution.
1
@mikeb4535 To stand behind the statement that you can't prove a negative as a reason for believing in a god is in my opinion pretty thin.
1
@hawks1394 It is not a matter about believing, evolution it is a fact. The scientific theory of evolution has shown to be 100% correct in its novel contestable predictions. There is no requirement to believe it as it is virtually undeniable. You may not understand it, but that is simply your ignorance and is a fallacious argument.
1
@bobhawke7373 That's one of the most sensible things I've read so far on the comments here.
1
@mikeb4535 If all religous people reflected your views all would be good, and you would be a morally good person with or without religous belief.
1
@bobhawke7373 Phil is a presuppositionalist. He runs of a script that has a god creator and nothing else is possible. He doesn't openly discuss honestly. It is pointless to engage with him. His entire world view, morals and self worth rely on a Jesus character and a god belief, hence he has no concept that a jesus character is not 100% historically factual, he may have been he may not have been. In a 1000 years time at the current rate of scientific discovery all religious faith will be quaint thing people did back in the dark ages.
1
@bobhawke7373 Not only is Phil reading off a list of replies as per his presuppositionist world view. His reply of proof of God "we exist" in that because there is something other than nothing there must be a god is childlike in its simplicity. Also notice he quickly goes to the hard solipsism argument when confronted with knowledge that he refuses to accept.
1
@PJRayment Presupposing your one god by definition is an argument that had been completely debunked as nonsensical.
1
@mikeb4535 Yes I agreed with you, it was somewhat insensitive, however some of the things said by Theists are as equally bad and often advocate for violence particularly against homosexuals based on their religious belief.
1