Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Off topic, but I would like to point out that "Christian" actually means "follower of the teachings of Jesus the Christ" one does not need to believe that any of the Bible is factual to do that. Though, such people are often embarrassed to call themselves "Christians" because of how much they tend to dislike the other groups of people using that name for their religion.
Jesus taught a lot of things, fundies happen to follow those things best. No matter how contradictory they may be from verse to verse.
Fundamentalist Christians sometimes don't act very Christ-like.
Did you miss the part of the bible where Jesus taught those who follow the laws of the old will be invited in heaven first?
Laws like stoning homosexuals and girls who don't bleed during their first time.
I don't think that Jesus once said, "Don't believe in Science." *wink*
He taught things which you can deduct "don't believe in science" from.
Don't try me, I can play the bible quoting game just as good as fundies to refute any liberal views.
Did you miss the part of the bible where Jesus taught those who follow the laws of the old will be invited in heaven first?
Laws like stoning homosexuals and girls who don't bleed during their first time.
I like people's ability to take DIRECT COMMANDS FROM JESUS and twist them to mean something else. Sorry, Jesus *DID* command, multiple times in red text in my Bible to follow the Old Testament to the very word! Not a single jot of ambiguity- direct commands, clearly and repeatedly stated.
So, if you want to be a good Christian, I suggest you kill your children if they are insolent, and stone...er...pretty much everyone.
__________________ It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first.
I like people's ability to take DIRECT COMMANDS FROM JESUS and twist them to mean something else. Sorry, Jesus *DID* command, multiple times in red text in my Bible to follow the Old Testament to the very word! Not a single jot of ambiguity- direct commands, clearly and repeatedly stated.
So, if you want to be a good Christian, I suggest you kill your children if they are insolent, and stone...er...pretty much everyone.
I'm not a Christian, but here are what some who disagree with you say.
Originally Posted by Matthew 5:17–19
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
There are problems with interpreting Matthew 5:17–19 in these ways. Note, first, that in verse 17 Jesus was speaking of the Law and the Prophets, not of the law only. Jesus did not restrict what he had come to fulfill to the Mosaic Law code. He said he also came to fulfill the prophetic writings.
Not to mention that Jesus didn't exactly teach from the OT. The Bible (including the OT) was written down many, many years after the death (and rising, if you believe that) of Jesus.
The word "Christian" means "follower of the teaching of Jesus the Christ". One does not have to believe that all of the Bible is correct in order to be able to do so (Jefferson, for example, edited his own "Bible" which only had the words Jesus said in it).
Personally, I think it is offensive (not to mention against the rules of this forum) for anyone to question that someone who chooses to call themself a "Christian" is anything but that.
I'm not a Christian, but here are what some who disagree with you say.
I'm not a Christian either, because I understand what the Christian bible and Jesus teach. It's utterly insane, sure there's a few love thy neighbor, give to the poor in there, and a few useful commandments, but the rest...just go and look for yourself.
Not to mention that Jesus didn't exactly teach from the OT. The Bible (including the OT) was written down many, many years after the death (and rising, if you believe that) of Jesus.
What nonsense, the OT existed hundreds of years before the supposed Jesus did. And that is secular fact. Although, you are partially right, because the new testament was written down many years after Jesus supposed existance based only on heresay and self fulfilling prophecy. Along with many other books of the new testament you don't here about from main stream Christians and fundies.
The word "Christian" means "follower of the teaching of Jesus the Christ". One does not have to believe that all of the Bible is correct in order to be able to do so (Jefferson, for example, edited his own "Bible" which only had the words Jesus said in it).
And I will say it again, Jesus taught that the laws of the old testament should be followed.
Personally, I think it is offensive (not to mention against the rules of this forum) for anyone to question that someone who chooses to call themself a "Christian" is anything but that.
Yes these people are Christians. However, it's hard for them to be taken seriously without practicing what they preach.
Even were that true, then the Bible, which is the Word of God (and *no* Christian will disagree with that) is essentially invalid. Thomas Jefferson proved that point perfectly. He removed 90% of the Bible to make it make sense.
If you had to remove 90% of any text for it to make logical sense, I'd suggest that the book is rubbish. And most books don't claim they're written by god- a claim that would usually have people think you're a nutcase.
Imagine if you took everything out of Lord of the Rings except, say, what Gandalf said. Would that make any sense? No, it would not.
__________________ It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first.
So your lesson is that if there are lots of them, then obviously they're right, especially if they're rich and influencial. May I remind you: Hitler won his election in a landslide victory.
Your characterization of creationists isn't appropriate. Scientific dishonesty is hardly similar to mass genocide. Your equating the two points either to your lack of value for human life, or to an ill-concieved argument.
Originally Posted by peter22
I didn't realise America was that regressive. If that's true (and it's probably not), I am honestly terrified. I didn't realise there were that many uneducated, wilfully ignorant imbeciles in your country.
Apparently, 55% of Americans believe that humans were created in their present form. Fortunately, most Americans don't currently favor creationism in the classroom. But that can easily change with some foolish remarks by prominent angry atheists.
Originally Posted by peter22
Scientists are arrogant? Where the hell do you get that from? Maybe they're arrogant to morons, I don't know.
I get the information from being a scientist (I'm an astrophysics graduate student).
Now, I should probably be clear about what I mean when I say that scientists are arrogant. I don't mean to say that they are impolite or unpleasant people. In fact the professors I work for are extremely nice and highly skilled individuals. In theory, science is supposed to only give its blessing to models that have been sufficiently justified. In practice, scientists tend to believe that their models are absolute truth, until they are indisputably debunked. In other words, they tend to be quite sure of themselves. I wouldn't even except myself, here. I, too, tend to blindly accept unsupported ideas as fact. This ethic generally doesn't hurt anyone, but non-scientists seem to get the idea that science can answer virtually any concievable question.
Originally Posted by peter22
Scientists don't have an agenda, so they don't pursue politically-motivated goals.
Yeah right. Tell that to Richard Dawkins. I happened to mention a strong proponent of atheism who uses his position as a scientist to advance his personal agenda, but there's a whole host of scientists out there who have politically-motivated goals. You seem to have a superhuman view of scientists, and that just isn't true. We're people, not gods.
Originally Posted by peter22
As we established, a lot of idiots voting on something doesn't make it right, it just means there are lots of idiots.
It doesn't matter if they're idiotic, and the truthfulness of their claims also isn't relevant. The only thing that matters here is their ability to do advance whatever political agenda they want. Perhaps you should be a political realist.
Originally Posted by peter22
So you're one of a bunch of wilfully ignorant fools? Your last shred of accountability just went down the toilet.
I'm sorry, but your premise doesn't logically follow from the text of my post that you quoted. And that last sentence doesn't make sense. How does one divest one's "accountability" in the manner that you've suggested?
__________________ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18)
Here's the reason why many creationists here don't bother bringing up evidence for creation.
Actually, I already know that there isn't any evidence for anyone's particular god(s) having created anything. That's kind of the point. I've watched creationists skitter around this forum demanding some unattainable level of evidence for the TofE without giving any thought into the enormous hypocrisy inherent in choosing to believe in something without any evidence at all instead.
Originally Posted by Myk101
Because God is unfalsifiable, cannot be tested repetitively, cannot be put in a test tube, basically untouchable - therefore any theory that might include "God" is unscientific.
I'm not asking for someone to falsify the concept of god. I might as well ask someone to falsify ghosts or fairies or leprechauns. What I am asking for is a legitimate reasonable argument for believing that humans were magically created "as is" instead of by evolutionary processes. Seriously, has any creationist given this an iota of thought?
Originally Posted by Myk101
That is because science requires falsifiability and testability. So the conclusion follows quite simply: "God" is not a scientific answer, period.
But why is a god even a viable answer to begin with? Why does this "god" answer deserve serious consideration?
Originally Posted by Myk101
So God is off the list of potential answers from the very beginning.
I wish this were true.
Originally Posted by Myk101
You end up looking for a natural answer, looking for a way that explains our existence without God.
You make it sound as if atheists look for a way to exclude your particular god from our answers. This is one of the classic theist errors. I don't see a reason to consider your god in the fist place. After two years here no theist has been able to present me with a compelling reason to give the existence of any god(s) serious consideration as a viable part of any solution.
Originally Posted by Myk101
So any "evidence" that is presented will always be fitted somehow in the ToE. ALWAYS.
What reason would you give me for including your particular god into how humans came to exist in their present form? Why does including your god into the equation do for explaining things? What is the reasoning?
Originally Posted by Myk101
Please tell me, how many times have the cladistic charts been updated because a species has been found in a different sediment layer than thought of previously (Or the existence of the fossil in the wrong layer been explained by a possible event, like volcano, local flood, etc). If they found a species that was supposed to have evolved 2 mya in a sediment from 4 mya, the charts will be updated and reconciled somehow - but such evidence will NEVER prove ToE wrong.
There are things that could prove evolution wrong but the TofE stands after all these years because it is still valid as the best explanition that fits the evidence. No other reason. As time goes by new information will always refine and sharpen the theory. This is what you are describing. It's part of what makes science the most honest method for seeking knowledge we have PERIOD. What I believe fits the evidence. There is reason for what I believe. What exactly are you offering me as an alternative?
Originally Posted by Myk101
That's because there is no other NATURALISTIC theory that makes any sense. But the problem is that man is looking for an answer without God to begin with.
Still wrong. I'm not looking for an answer without your particular god. I have yet to see a legitimate reason to even consider your particular god a viable concept at all. Give me reason. Please.
Originally Posted by Myk101
Even if God did it and it was pretty clear, we'd still be looking for that natural answer, just so we wouldn't have a God to deal with.
I'm not sure how many times you've been told this but I'll keep telling you the opposite for as many times as you do. Please, consider for a moment what I am trying to tell you. I have yet to meet one single solitary atheist that believes in the TofE simply to exclude your particular god. Speaking for myself, I simply have no good reason to consider your god in the first place.
Originally Posted by Myk101
From there it's pretty clear that creation does not stand a chance against human will and desire.
Theists always seem to think themselves so adept at knowing what human will and desire is. They seem so astute at pointing out when men do things for power and money. Yet go to church and reaffirm the thoughtless beliefs handed to them from men of power and authority as they pass around the collection plate. Sometimes I think that all theists need is a good mirror.
Originally Posted by Myk101
BTW. what "evidence" can there be, aside from God recreating the whole universe in front of us, that would prove ToE wrong?
I'm not asking anyone to prove the TofE wrong. I'm asking for a reason for why I should take creation seriously at all. Why is creation even worthy of this so called debate as an alternative to the TofE?
__________________
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts
"There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages." -- Richard Lederer
So here we have it... two years into my participation here and a few days into this thread and not one creationist can give me reason to take creation seriously.
Who then can fault me if I I conclude that this whole creation vs. evolution "debate" is just faith vs. reason rehashed.
Wake up people. The earth is not flat, the sun is the center of our solar system, and humans evolved into their present state.
If you want to cling to your antiquated beliefs then fine. It is not reasonable to assert that they should be equal to the truth found in the Theory of Evolution. Like your ilk before you that believed with all their being that the sun went around the earth, you too are wrong.
__________________
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts
"There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages." -- Richard Lederer
Actually, I already know that there isn't any evidence for anyone's particular god(s) having created anything.
In other words you know that you will never learn something new, some new evidence that might show you otherwise. You've reached the climax of human knowledge...
I'm not asking for someone to falsify the concept of god. I might as well ask someone to falsify ghosts or fairies or leprechauns. What I am asking for is a legitimate reasonable argument for believing that humans were magically created "as is" instead of by evolutionary processes. Seriously, has any creationist given this an iota of thought?
The first issue is that before even giving "magic" a chance you dismiss it. How can I give you a reasonable argument for believing in creation when it's not even an option in your opinion? I'd be wasting my time, literally.
But why is a god even a viable answer to begin with? Why does this "god" answer deserve serious consideration?
Multiple reasons. I'll bring up 3
1. Let's put it this way. There are known facts, observed and tested. There are conclusions, or hypothesis/theories drawn that are also observable and testable - like gravity and planetary motion, action and reaction, thermodynamics, etc... these are known as "laws". The conclusions/hypothesis/theories made based on preliminary observations can be tested and observed in action, so if your theory was wrong, you know it as soon as you observe something unexpected. I am talking about testing and observing the whole theory, not a fraction of it. We can observe gravity in full action, like thermodynamics laws, electricity, pressure, work and other observed events. Evolution to a higher degree (like genos or family) does not fit this category - it has never been observed in action, only inferred. (I say 'to a higher degree' because that's the core of the debate, not speciation as currently defined, or adaptation or insignificant mutations - Speciation and adaptation are observed and understood, within the framework of creationism).
Science deals with gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence. As such, evolution to a higher degree is not science, but it's inferred from "scientific evidence". Fossils, homology, "vestigial organs", are observable and measurable, but they are the end result of evolution, not evolution on a larger scale in action. God creating has not been observed either, can't be measured or repeatedly tested, like evolution of genos or families. Therefore these 2 theories can be at the same playing field. They are both theories trying to explain where we came from and how come we exist. The only major difference is that one uses a lot of scientific language and the other is straight-forward. But the "scientific evidence" does not necessarily suggest one or the other in an absolute fashion (that is only if you allow a possibility of a creation and/or evolution ; if you don't, then you're left with only one answer - duh)
2. Science can't explain everything. No matter how much you try to convince me or anyone else who observed "miracles", there just isn't a scientific answer to everything. I have seen miracles and got first hand knowledge of them - no matter how much you try to explain it away, it's there. So the least you can do is admit the possibility (or you can think that you know everything, everyone else is crazy and stupid, and that's it). Please tell me, scientifically, why applying cooking oil on a golf-size foot swelling would make it visually disappear after one minute of prayer? It really happened - I'm not lying or making it up. My word before God.
3. The Bible is a very unusual book. It has fulfilled prophecies and a message that transcends generations. A great number of people, including lawyers, scientists and others, believe this book to be real and it's message true. Are they all idiots? Maybe. But again, the least you can do is admit the possibility of it being true.
Originally Posted by Myk101 So God is off the list of potential answers from the very beginning.
I wish this were true.
WHY?
You make it sound as if atheists look for a way to exclude your particular god from our answers.
You just said that you wish it was true...
This is one of the classic theist errors. I don't see a reason to consider your god in the fist place. After two years here no theist has been able to present me with a compelling reason to give the existence of any god(s) serious consideration as a viable part of any solution.
Maybe you just haven't given it even a remote possibility because you just don't want it to be true.
What reason would you give me for including your particular god into how humans came to exist in their present form? Why does including your god into the equation do for explaining things? What is the reasoning?
see above
God in the equation explains a lot of things, but first and foremost it puts everything in perspective. It answers more than "We just exist for no reason, just a mutation in this senseless and unintentional universe - be an animal, please yourself, then commit suicide, what difference does anything make anyway".
Biologically, the answers would be more like "God designed the human eye with a purpose - How does it work? What does it do?". Slightly different than "Human eye evolved. How does it work? What does it do?"
There are things that could prove evolution wrong but the TofE stands after all these years because it is still valid as the best explanition that fits the evidence.
1. Please tell me what would prove evolution wrong.
2. Best explanation if you exclude God from the beginning.
I'm not looking for an answer without your particular god.
Let me remind you of your reply: "I wish this were true..."
Intent, desire...
Theists always seem to think themselves so adept at knowing what human will and desire is. They seem so astute at pointing out when men do things for power and money. Yet go to church and reaffirm the thoughtless beliefs handed to them from men of power and authority as they pass around the collection plate. Sometimes I think that all theists need is a good mirror.
There are black sheep in every camp. Why look at what you consider negative only? What about the good that these "Christians" do?
Once you give the Bible a chance, things might just make sense...
I'm not asking anyone to prove the TofE wrong.
Why not? Please, give me a possible evidence that might prove ToE wrong. Are you even willing to consider that ToE MIGHT be wrong?
I'm asking for a reason for why I should take creation seriously at all. Why is creation even worthy of this so called debate as an alternative to the TofE?
There's more to life than meets the eye. There is a "supernatural" - can't disprove it. So you have to at least consider it.
__________________ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man
In other words you know that you will never learn something new, some new evidence that might show you otherwise. You've reached the climax of human knowledge...
I never said that. I have simply reached a logical belief based on evidence I have and have not received. There is always the possibility I am wrong but that possibility is exceedingly small at this point. I've done my due diligence on this one.
Originally Posted by Myk101
The first issue is that before even giving "magic" a chance you dismiss it. How can I give you a reasonable argument for believing in creation when it's not even an option in your opinion? I'd be wasting my time, literally.
Not so. I simply require a reason to believe magic exists in the first place. The only thing I'm refusing to do is believe something without reason.
Originally Posted by Myk101
Multiple reasons. I'll bring up 3
1. Let's put it this way. There are known facts, observed and tested. There are conclusions, or hypothesis/theories drawn that are also observable and testable - like gravity and planetary motion, action and reaction, thermodynamics, etc... these are known as "laws". The conclusions/hypothesis/theories made based on preliminary observations can be tested and observed in action, so if your theory was wrong, you know it as soon as you observe something unexpected. I am talking about testing and observing the whole theory, not a fraction of it. We can observe gravity in full action, like thermodynamics laws, electricity, pressure, work and other observed events. Evolution to a higher degree (like genos or family) does not fit this category - it has never been observed in action, only inferred. (I say 'to a higher degree' because that's the core of the debate, not speciation as currently defined, or adaptation or insignificant mutations - Speciation and adaptation are observed and understood, within the framework of creationism).
Science deals with gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence. As such, evolution to a higher degree is not science, but it's inferred from "scientific evidence". Fossils, homology, "vestigial organs", are observable and measurable, but they are the end result of evolution, not evolution on a larger scale in action. God creating has not been observed either, can't be measured or repeatedly tested, like evolution of genos or families. Therefore these 2 theories can be at the same playing field. They are both theories trying to explain where we came from and how come we exist. The only major difference is that one uses a lot of scientific language and the other is straight-forward. But the "scientific evidence" does not necessarily suggest one or the other in an absolute fashion (that is only if you allow a possibility of a creation and/or evolution ; if you don't, then you're left with only one answer - duh)
On this count I think the problem is that you don't yet know all the evidence that supports the TofE and common ancestry. But first thing first...
Let me address this notion that if you can't directly observe and test something that you can't scientifically know about it. This is something I've heard before and it's patently false. Nobody has directly observed fusion happening nuclear fusion happening at the heart of a star but we can still know through scientific reasoning that it's indeed happening. Like a forensic detective recreating a crime scene by putting the pieces of evidence together, science can come to conclusions, with a high degree of certainty, about things that lack direct observation.
Now as for something like human primate ancestry we have multiple lines of compelling evidence to show us that we share a common ancestor with other primates. Take a look at this. If you take a look at something like the GULO pseudogene that we share with other primates you'll realize that there is little room for debate on the matter. It's highly doubtful that someone can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why we share this defective gene, broken in an identical fashion, with other primates without invoking common ancestry.
Originally Posted by Myk101
2. Science can't explain everything. No matter how much you try to convince me or anyone else who observed "miracles", there just isn't a scientific answer to everything. I have seen miracles and got first hand knowledge of them - no matter how much you try to explain it away, it's there. So the least you can do is admit the possibility (or you can think that you know everything, everyone else is crazy and stupid, and that's it). Please tell me, scientifically, why applying cooking oil on a golf-size foot swelling would make it visually disappear after one minute of prayer? It really happened - I'm not lying or making it up. My word before God.
Here is another common vein I've heard argued before. The "science can't explain everything" therefore my belief in supernatural magic is reasonable. This is a non sequitur. OF course science can't explain everything. It's what compelled men of antiquity to invent gods to pull the sun across the sky and spirits to drive acts of nature. It's called "god of the gaps" reasoning. What I suggest is far more reasonable is to simply leave it at "we don't know" and (if you really want to contribute to the advancement of mankind) actually work toward finding out. Every time science advances it takes away another unknown and puts another god or spirit out of a job. It's a consistent trend over our history.
Originally Posted by Myk101
3. The Bible is a very unusual book. It has fulfilled prophecies and a message that transcends generations. A great number of people, including lawyers, scientists and others, believe this book to be real and it's message true. Are they all idiots? Maybe. But again, the least you can do is admit the possibility of it being true.
But when you really look into it the facts start to paint a much different picture. When read literally the bible shows that it was written by men of limited knowledge about the universe. So in order to reconcile this fact in light of our current scientific understanding theists turn more and more to allegory to explain away inconsistencies. The only thing that makes a TE different than a YES is which parts they still interpret as literal. This fact speaks volumes in and of itself. The premise that this book is the word of some omnimax entity just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's got bits and pieces from religions that came before it and there is evidence that it is simply a compilation of various works written by various men. Some parts were chosen to make the final revision and some weren't. How does this fit in to the picture?
Originally Posted by Myk101
WHY?
Because there wouldn't be the myriad of problems we are forced to deal with today.
Originally Posted by Myk101
You just said that you wish it was true...
That doesn't mean I actively seek to do away with your particular god in my reasoning. There just isn't a good reason to include it. It does nothing to explain anything.
Originally Posted by Myk101
Maybe you just haven't given it even a remote possibility because you just don't want it to be true.
Maybe you're way off base. Who wouldn't want some benevolent skydaddy that will grant them eternal bliss in the afterlife. Maybe your reason is blinded by what you want.
Originally Posted by Myk101
God in the equation explains a lot of things, but first and foremost it puts everything in perspective. It answers more than "We just exist for no reason, just a mutation in this senseless and unintentional universe - be an animal, please yourself, then commit suicide, what difference does anything make anyway".
This line of reasoning from theists always disturbs me. I obviously don't believe in your god. Do you think that I'm an animal (assuming you speak in the behavioral sense)? Do you think I'm suicidal? It's just part of the psychological terrorism that is theism. You don't need belief in some supernatural whatever to make you act morally. Find your own purpose in life.
Originally Posted by Myk101
Biologically, the answers would be more like "God designed the human eye with a purpose - How does it work? What does it do?". Slightly different than "Human eye evolved. How does it work? What does it do?"
It's very different. The later has much more potential for gaining true knowledge and explanatory power. Like the GULO pseudogene shared by humans and other primates we may find genetic defects when compared with evolutionary ancestors. This is something the former line of reasoning would never allow.
Originally Posted by Myk101
1. Please tell me what would prove evolution wrong.
In light of the current evidence it's pretty much impossible. This only speaks to the validity of the theory. The TofE has already endured countless challenges and passed them all. ID being the latest. Fossils turn up in the right layers, genetic evidence lines up into nested hierarchies... the evidence is all there. Overturn any of those and you will prove evolution wrong.
Originally Posted by Myk101
2. Best explanation if you exclude God from the beginning.
There you go again making it like your particular god is excluded on purpose. You particular god just isn't necessary. There is no reason to even believe your particular god exists much less has anything to to with humans existing in their present form. The evidence points at evolution.
Originally Posted by Myk101
Let me remind you of your reply: "I wish this were true..."
Intent, desire...
I wish these silly superstitious notions that drive people to kill others and rail against science didn't exist. That doesn't change the fact that I don't actively exclude your particular god intentionally. My wish is born out of the years I have studied this matter and found there to me no reason for believing in the existence of your particular god in the first place. Once you understand that you can begin to understand how I look at the lunacy happening all around the world in the name of one man's god or another.
Originally Posted by Myk101
There are black sheep in every camp. Why look at what you consider negative only? What about the good that these "Christians" do?
Once you give the Bible a chance, things might just make sense...
You make the incorrect assumption that I haven't done my homework. I've studied all the orthodox religions. I see the big picture. I find religion to be a system worthy of contempt at this point. It's doing more to hinder the progress of mankind and cause harm than anything else.
When it comes down to it there are simply good and bad people. What gets truly twisted in religion is how people can be motivated to do evil and believe they are doing good.
Originally Posted by Myk101
Why not? Please, give me a possible evidence that might prove ToE wrong. Are you even willing to consider that ToE MIGHT be wrong?
Of course (see above). This is one of the other big differences between people of faith and people of reason. You faith based beliefs leave no room for ever being wrong. All I ask for is the evidence to show me that the TofE is wrong. I'd change my belief without hesitation given compelling reason and evidence.
Originally Posted by Myk101
There's more to life than meets the eye. There is a "supernatural" - can't disprove it. So you have to at least consider it.
Here is the problem in a nutshell. Just because I can't disprove any silly superstitious notion doesn't mean it's worthy of belief by default. Give me evidence and reason why this notion of the supernatural even deserves serious thought? You just say "There is a "supernatural"" but you don't have any reason to really believe that. Just faith.
__________________
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts
"There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages." -- Richard Lederer
Linear Mode
