pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,903
- 17,803
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The universe at the end of this sentence.
- Thread starter AV1611VET
- Start date
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Enough talking about him like he's not here. I see you over there in the corner, AV. 
Anyway, yes. That's absolutely what I'm saying. Millions (if not billions?) of people have no problem reconciling things like the ToE with their religion. It's only the Biblical literalists who run into trouble with science.
Ah, so you're saying The Bible and modern science CAN be reconciled. Excellent!
Anyway, yes. That's absolutely what I'm saying. Millions (if not billions?) of people have no problem reconciling things like the ToE with their religion. It's only the Biblical literalists who run into trouble with science.
Upvote
0
pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,903
- 17,803
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
I see. So you know 'how' God does things? Please elucidate.
Reading Comprehension failure ?
I'll see If I can make it easier for you to Understand.
Q: How did xyz happen ?
C.A: God Did it.
Note That Answers WHO, Not HOW.
That's What I'm pointing out People throw out God Did it as An Answer to a HOW Question, Not A Who Question.
Upvote
0
Selmak
Held in trust
Enough talking about him like he's not here. I see you over there in the corner, AV.
Anyway, yes. That's absolutely what I'm saying. Millions (if not billions?) of people have no problem reconciling things like the ToE with their religion. It's only the Biblical literalists who run into trouble with science.
Ah, good to know. The Bible is not to be taken literally. The words aren't actually true. So which parts do we leave in, and which do we discard? And who decides?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,334
- 52,694
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Enough talking about him like he's not here. I see you over there in the corner, AV.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Ah, good to know. The Bible is not to be taken literally. So which parts do we leave in, and which do we discard? And who decides?
Are you often in the habit of discarding things you don't take literally? Are the Bible's lessons so utterly worthless to you without them being concrete?
This is the problem with religion in America today -- no transcendence. Religious people have mired themsleves so much in influencing this world, they drag what's left of their "faith" down into it.
And who decides? Why, the Church, of course -- the same people who set you on this myopic path.
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Ah, good to know. The Bible is not to be taken literally. The words aren't actually true. So which parts do we leave in, and which do we discard? And who decides?
That's you guys' problem, not mine.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,334
- 52,694
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
There are two things about me that need clarification:
- I only come across as "trashing science" because I address those parts of science that oppose the Bible. If you've known me for any length of time, you'll know that I actually hold science up to a Higher Standard than you guys do; and even claim scientists are gifted to us from God.
- Half of what I come up with -- I have to. As I have said before, you guys don't ask me what's in the Bible; rather, you gear your questions as to what's not in the Bible, trying to pry a constant chain of "I don't know" answers from us; and I don't go that route. I won't think twice about speculating, to avoid being forced to say, "I don't know." Questions like, 'Where did the waters of the Flood go?' will bring out my artistic side. I think it's disingenuous to ask me such questions, then say that 'half of what I come up with isn't in the Bible at all.' If you can't make me look bad one way, you'll make me look bad another; and believe me, I don't need you guys to look bad; I can do it on my own just fine.
Upvote
0
Selmak
Held in trust
Interesting. If I can provide an analogy:
PGP: Hey, the toilet flushes, how did that happen?
Me: The plumber fixed it.
PGP: You answered 'who' not 'how'! Your answer is invalid!
Edit: And the 'reading comprehension failure' thingy was kinda snarky. You didn't use to do that sort of thing back when we hung out in ASA Buddies.
Upvote
0
Skaloop
Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
- May 10, 2006
- 16,332
- 899
- 49
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-NDP
Interesting. If I can provide an analogy:
PGP: Hey, the toilet flushes, how did that happen?
Me: The plumber fixed it.
PGP: You answered 'who' not 'how'! Your answer is invalid!
Edit: And the 'reading comprehension failure' thing was kinda snarky. You didn't use to do that sort of back when we hung out ASA Buddies.
It's not invalid, it just doesn't adequately address the question of how. Now, if you can explain how the plumber did it, that would be akin to explaining how god did it, beyond just "god did it".
Upvote
0
Skaloop
Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
- May 10, 2006
- 16,332
- 899
- 49
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-NDP
Right. Which is why it is not an adequate answer to a "how" question. Even if you accept that the "who" was god, the appropriate response to "how" is not "god did it" but rather "I don't know."
Upvote
0
Skaloop
Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
- May 10, 2006
- 16,332
- 899
- 49
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-NDP
That's fine. But it's not a good argument against it being done through naturalistic processes such as, say, the big bang or evolution. Because if you don't know how he did it, you can't say that he didn't do it that way. Since god could do it any way he chose, it doesn't bring us any closer to understanding how he did it. It's an unnecessary step in the explanatory process to include it. In the words of Laplace, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là."
Upvote
0
Similar threads
