Adam and Eve

[Targ]

Ignoring God's instructions in genesis 1:28? be fruitful and multiply?

That's also below the belt. Not everyone has the means to do so.

 

[marktheblake]

The insults are expected (and biblical) and it just goes to show a persons true colours.

 

[Greg1234]

It's sort of creepy when an adult admits to having an invisible friend. But from an evolutionary psychology viewpoint it's fairly easy to understand. It's funny really,

Its good that the role Darwinism plays in atheism is put on the table, outlined and laid bare. Rather than the concentration on the preparation, trying to imbue it on the arena first, before you unsheathe and begin taking names. It remains the same however. Man didn't come from beast, so there is no "evolutionary psychology" of ignorant beastmen. Only the creator and the implications of man being the result of a creation. You'll have more success using this trite, over used mechanism, on a "TE".

 

[Nostromo]

Its good that the role Darwinism plays in atheism is put on the table, outlined and laid bare..

Darwinism doesn't play a role in atheism just as me not being a mountaineer doesn't necessitate that my favourite pastime must be billiards.

 

[Darkness27]

Darwinism doesn't play a role in atheism just as me not being a mountaineer doesn't necessitate that my favourite pastime must be billiards.

Sure, evolution in general (not really "Darwinism") does play a role in atheism. It's no coincidence that many people see a 'faith vs. science' mentality, because it really is there. Evolution (and science in general) can give people the evidence that they need to go atheistic.

Evolution isn't required for atheists and many Christians accept evolution, but you cannot deny that evolution is part of the puzzle in modern atheism.

 

[Tomatoman]

I've seen the full story before, and it's much more in-depth and detailed than that quick blurb would suggest. And it's not some whacky thing that happened, according to his account. It was a series of events that occured during a particular time of his life, and it lead him to Jesus. Whether you or I place any weight in the story is irrelevent, because it is meaningful for him, just like many other similar stories are to the people who tell them.

Asking for his story just to ridicule it without getting the whole story wasn't necessary, nor even relevent to this thread.

I'll try to stem the howls of outrage by addressing points in this post. I am quite certain that the series of events that AV interpreted as special signs that Jesus wanted him for a sunbeam would strike most of us as just stuff that happened, and whilst probably being significant to him, wouldn't seem particularly out of the ordinary to anyone else. If the events included a spiritual experience of some kind then that would be interesting to interpret, but once again I am certain that any such experience would be fairly easy to explain. This was what prompted me to press him on what happened. When I read the blurb in his signature I just burst out laughing. He was clearly deliberately being extremely vague and had, accidentally or not, made it sound like god had booked him in for an appointment. Heaven forfend that we should tease AV about that. Especially when whatever it was that he thinks happened to him is the reason that he writes hundreds of nonsensical posts on here and completely ignores all the hundreds of carefully reasoned replies you have all written explaining why he is wrong. He doesn't care about logic or reality or what we would call truth because he has had the experience of finding god. That is the root of the problem, and it seems that trying to get to the root of the problem is the best way to extract the cancer. Until he is shown that his own interpretation of events is flawed, then everything else written and posted here in an attempt to show him why he is wrong is utterly futile because he doesn't care: he has found god.

I actually think I have a pretty good guess as to why AV thinks he has found god, and nothing in my post would have done anything other than make him shrug. Teasing him about a couple of lines in his signature that don't explain anything isn't going to worry him. Dissecting a detailed explanation of how he found god, now that would worry him.

 

[Tomatoman]

It's not only fundamental it's absolutely necessary, it you can't convince yourself how can you ever expect to convince anyone else?

Convince anyone else? Isn't faith a matter of personal choice?

I find the idea of a relationship with god silly because it assumes that god has a mind like ours, i.e. specifically adapted to live, survive and reproduce in the warmer, more hospitable regions of planet earth. If there is a god it is damned certain he, she or it does not think in any way we'd recognise, or have a mind like ours. Therefore having a 'relationship' with your god is a cosy way of saying that you talk to an imaginary friend who you have made up to suit your needs. That's why I find it creepy.

 

[Tomatoman]

Its good that the role Darwinism plays in atheism is put on the table, outlined and laid bare. Rather than the concentration on the preparation, trying to imbue it on the arena first, before you unsheathe and begin taking names. It remains the same however. Man didn't come from beast, so there is no "evolutionary psychology" of ignorant beastmen. Only the creator and the implications of man being the result of a creation. You'll have more success using this trite, over used mechanism, on a "TE".

"Ignorant beastmen" is a novel term. I would hazard a guess you have a distrust of any science that tries to understand human thinking. I suppose you like to imagine that your thoughts are spiritual and quite separate from your earthly body that you will one day cast aside. Unfortunately this isn't the case. Your mind spends most of its time doing what it evolved to do: work out how to get food, how to socialise and co-operate with members of your tribe and how to ensure you reproduce. Food, gossip, work and sex. Sound familiar?

 

[Greg1234]

"Ignorant beastmen" is a novel term. I would hazard a guess you have a distrust of any science that tries to understand human thinking. I suppose you like to imagine that your thoughts are spiritual and quite separate from your earthly body that you will one day cast aside. Unfortunately this isn't the case. Your mind spends most of its time doing what it evolved to do: work out how to get food, how to socialise and co-operate with members of your tribe and how to ensure you reproduce. Food, gossip, work and sex. Sound familiar?

Like I told you, man was never beast. Created as man. A phenomenon which depicts the manner of man and that contingent upon and within it. Attempting to group Darwinism with rudimentary rituals like feeding doesn't endow it with the properties of same. And the conscious mind and its relation to the earth is understood without it. Science is inquiry. And in the case of the information which has been handed down the separation also persists. A separation generated through a perception on origins. One side sees that science is getting rid of ignorant beast men's tales. The other sees science catching up with an intelligence consistent with a created intelligent race. Science can be viewed without the Darwinist or the materialists interpretation. The moving blockade erected by him to prevent entry and analysis, tossed aside. The information taken. Bring those arguments you garner to the "TE". You may see your relevance rate jump.

 

[Tomatoman]

Like I told you, man was never beast. Created as man. A phenomenon which depicts the manner of man and that contingent upon and within it. Attempting to group Darwinism with rudimentary rituals like feeding doesn't endow it with the properties of same. And the conscious mind and its relation to the earth is understood without it. Science is inquiry. And in the case of the information which has been handed down the separation also persists. A separation generated through a perception on origins. One side sees that science is getting rid of ignorant beast men's tales. The other sees science catching up with an intelligence consistent with a created intelligent race. Science can be viewed without the Darwinist or the materialists interpretation. The moving blockade erected by him to prevent entry and analysis, tossed aside. The information taken. Bring those arguments you garner to the "TE". You may see your relevance rate jump.

Nope, I haven't got a clue what you're trying to say. Do you talk like this or does this catastrophe of plain English only happen when you try and write things down? What are you struggling to say?

 

[AV1611VET]

What are you struggling to say?

Evolution is wrong.

 

[Tomatoman]

Evolution is wrong.

Is that a moral judgement?

 

[Split Rock]

Evolution is wrong.

Is that a moral judgement?

Since AVET has said evolution is "blasphemy," I would say yes. This of course, is the main problem. Creationists' rejection of the theory of evolution is based entirely on emotion, moral judgement or the fact they just don't like it. It has nothing to do with facts, despite what Creation Ministries like to claim. The thing is, the TOE is based on facts, so you cannot sink it just because you don't like its inferences.

 

[Greg1234]

It has nothing to do with facts, despite what Creation Ministries like to claim.

Keep telling yourself that. Testing done reveals only creationism. Speculations based on the rebuke of these results do not have to be acknowledged.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Keep telling yourself that. Testing done reveals only creationism. Speculations based on the rebuke of these results do not have to be acknowledged.

Every creation myth has been shown to be utterly false, and the reality so much more beautiful and magnificent.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Keep telling yourself that. Testing done reveals only creationism. Speculations based on the rebuke of these results do not have to be acknowledged.

lolque?

 

[AV1611VET]

Every creation myth has been shown to be utterly false, and the reality so much more beautiful and magnificent.

1

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

1

That has literally nothing to do with the text you quoted.

 

[PhoceanCity]

Testing done reveals only creationism.

Are you willing to provide some examples of those testings or is it just some baseless assertion that someone told you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Every creation myth has been shown to be utterly false, and the reality so much more beautiful and magnificent.

I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

That has literally nothing to do with the text you quoted.

It doesn't, huh?

Would you care to explain to me how this 'creation myth' was shown to be utterly false, when you can't even explain to me how it was done?