GnosticBishop wrote:
Lintar wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Lintar wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
What do you mean by the phrase "when you reach the age of reason"?
There was "THE Age of Reason" in history. Roughly 1750 to 1815. Also known as the "Enlightenment". The Age of Voltaire, John Locke, America's Founding Fathers (like Jefferson) etc.. An age of when reason was elevated to being of higher value than in previous centuries.
But you use the phrase in a strange way that indicates that you dont mean THAT "Age of Reason" (not a one time period of history) but seem to have conflated the phrase with something else (like "age of majority") to mean some kind of developmental phase everyone reaches when growing up, or something like that.
So...WTF are you talking about?
The age of reason is the age at which children attain the use of reason and begin to have moral responsibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_(canon_law)#Age_of_Reason
Regards
DL
What makes you think that none of us have yet reached that age? I'm 49. Do you think I've reached it yet? I reached my 'age of reason', according to your definition, when I was 7.
Where did I indicate in a general way that any here had not reached the age of reason?
That would be a judgement call and the O.P. asks a question and does not judge.
I judge after I get a reply so answer the question and then I will see what kind of reply I judge you to deserve.
Why are you upset at the question?
Regards
DL
I wasn't upset, but it seemed to me that you were suggesting in the original comment that started this discussion that no one here had yet reached that age, which I thought was really odd.
What was really odd was your reading of what I put and then putting your own spin on it, and not even recanting your comment when your own review confirmed that you had made an error.
Regards
DL
Spin? What on Earth are you talking about? I took your post the only way I can - LITERALLY! Your post title asks: "When You Reach the Age of Reason, Will You Reject the Supernatural?", which VERY strongly suggests that those it is addressed to have not done so yet (reached the age of reason, that is). It also does not automatically follow that those people who DO reach "the age of reason" reject the supernatural. Why should they? What materialists dirisively refer to as 'the supernatural' makes more sense - FAR more sense - than the patently absurd notion that, "In the beginning, there was nothing. Which exploded".
I mean, come on! You people (by "you people", I mean atheists, materialists and other such believers in the impossible) like to denigrate people who call themselves Christians, claiming they put their trust in something that just can't be trusted, and which is inaccurate, and so on, whilst openly admitting to agreeing with the likes of Lawrence Krauss ("nothing isn't nothing anymore, it's something", and "by nothing I don't mean nothing, I mean nothing" - yeah, sure, makes a lot of sense) and Mr. Stephen "philosophy is dead" Hawking. "Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest", as someone once pointed out about the (rather poor) state of the underlying assumptions and philosophy that motivates modern-day science, the "free miracle" being the belief, based entirely upon blind faith, that material reality is all there is and it came from literally nothing.
No, even though I am by no means a Christian, if I had to choose between the miracle stories of the Bible and the miracle stories of modern cosmology, I would (gladly) select the former. They make far, far more sense.