...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[AV1611VET]

If you put 5% of the effort you waste in your ignorance of evolution toward actually learning something about it, you could have a layman's understanding by tomorrow.

5% ... 10% ... 20% ... what's the difference?

I would still disagree with it; and the more I know about it and disagree, the worse it would be for me.

What if I was omniscient in the field of evolution, and said it was a joke on principle?

Be honest ... wouldn't that just make you guys that much more irritable?

Now I'd probably go from "ignorant" to "traitor" (or "liar").

 

[Alithis]

That isn't a virtue. You are saying that nothing - absolutely nothing - could persuade you to reconsider your theism because of your complete emotional resistance to any thought that may point against that direction.



Honesty also involves being honest with how one's ideas align with the reality of the situation. You are of the view that "There is nothing you can say that would change my mind." I don't share this view because I am aware of the possibility that I may indeed be wrong, and that as new knowledge brings to bear, an honest assessment of the situation would require me to change my thinking.

no - i am of the view that there is nothing that an atheist could say to make me change " my " mind
because i will only see what i have determined in my heart to see - if i choose to change that - i can .but it would not be based on anything an atheists says - it would be based on my choice .i would be choosing to change my determination.
this is why i consider all such argument to be pointless because if a person has chosen to disbelieve in "God" then what is the point arguing with them about it ? when they change their mind - then it would be of value .until then whats the point ?it is endless contention .

you cannot ever convince any one of anything they have predetermined in their heart to accept or reject.

some here have already rejected what i am saying - so be it

 

[Archaeopteryx]

no - i am of the view that there is nothing that an atheist could say to make me change " my " mind
because i will only see what i have determined in my heart to see - if i choose to change that - i can .but it would not be based on anything an atheists says - it would be based on my choice .i would be choosing to change my determination.
this is why i consider all such argument to be pointless because if a person has chosen to disbelieve in "God" then what is the point arguing with them about it ? when they change their mind - then it would be of value .until then whats the point ?it is endless contention .

you cannot ever convince any one of anything they have predetermined in their heart to accept or reject.

some here have already rejected what i am saying - so be it

You are projecting. Just because you refuse to even consider the possibility that may be wrong doesn't mean that everyone else is the same.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are projecting. Just because you refuse to even consider the possibility that may be wrong doesn't mean that everyone else is the same.

Welcome to the world of faith, where showing us evidence to the contrary until you are blue in the face isn't going to do any good.

For every amount of evidence being pushed on us, there is an equal and opposite amount of faith pushing right back.

 

[Ophiolite]

So, you are quite active this evening AV. I really am keen to hear your answer to my questions asked in an earlier post that I then reminded you of in post #704. I do hope you will take the time to respond properly.

Thank you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And your evasion -- but that's not what I'm talking about.

C'mon AV -- I've made this as simple as I can; far simpler than the Bible authors did. There's a glaring similarity between the Israelites at Jericho and the Greeks at Troy.

How does an army bypass the walls? If you're right about who wrote the Bible, then it was God himself who put the clues in there for his more astute followers -- don't disappoint Him.

I thought I'd bring this back up, since AV doesn't want to.

What do the walls of Jericho have in common with the walls of Troy? They're absolutely worthless once you invite the enemy in.

We know how the Greeks got invited into Troy -- wooden horse, and all that. And it's obvious to anyone who's read the Bible how the Israelites could be invited into Jericho.

After all, if their conquest was truly miraculous, why would we need Rahab in the story? She serves no purpose... or does she?

If we take the most superficial view of Biblical authorship and say that God wrote it, then clearly there's something about her that God wants us to know...

... so, what do we know about her?

• We know that she is sympathetic to the Israelites (or, if the "prostitute" story is to be believed, at least easily bought)
• We know that she had the means to hide Israelite agents from prying eyes (Joshua 2:6)
• And we know that, living in the actual walls of Jericho, she could use a rope to sneak them out of the city (Joshua 2:15)

To recap -- "God" has told us that the Israelites had an ally in the city of Jericho who can smuggle men out of (and presumably into as well) the city of and keep them hidden -- which would be even easier if the Jericho soldiers were distracted -- say, by 6,000 enemy soldiers marching around the city blowing their shofars for a week?

Now... why oh why would He want us to know that, if He was just going to knock the walls down Himself?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you reconcile your condemnation of scientists without simultaneously condemning William Paley?

Does this post look to you like I condemn scientists?

People think I'm so dead-set against scientists here, and I'll go overboard to make a point: I'll kiss the feet of a scientist before I kiss the feet of a theologian anyday.

And how can you, as a Christian, condemn one of the most eloquent speakers on behalf of Christianity in the 19th Century, arguably the greatest. I wish to understand your logic on this point.

William who?

Outside of anyone in the Bible, Charles Spurgeon was the greatest preacher to ever walk this earth; arguably, in my opinion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Welcome to the world of faith, where showing us evidence to the contrary until you are blue in the face isn't going to do any good.

For every amount of evidence being pushed on us, there is an equal and opposite amount of faith pushing right back.

That is not a virtue, AV. It isn't something to be proud of.

 

[AV1611VET]

Welcome to the world of faith, where showing us evidence to the contrary until you are blue in the face isn't going to do any good.

For every amount of evidence being pushed on us, there is an equal and opposite amount of faith pushing right back.

That is not a virtue, AV.

Yes, [faith] is a virtue, Archaeopteryx.

Do you even know what the three virtures are?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, it (faith) is a virtue, Archaeopteryx.

Do you even know what the three virtures are?

Absolutely refusing to change one's mind, or even consider the possibility that one might be wrong, when new knowledge brings to bear is not a virtue.

Faith is not a virtue - YouTube

 

[AV1611VET]

Absolutely refusing to change one's mind, or even consider the possibility that one might be wrong, when new knowledge brings to bear is not a virtue.

I don't mean any offense, Archaeopteryx, but please don't tell me what faith isn't, while sporting an atheist icon; and expect me to take it with anything other than a grain of sand.

I define faith as: Believing something, even when science says otherwise.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong ... but I'll let the "Judge of all the earth" decide that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't mean any offense, Archaeopteryx, but please don't tell me what faith isn't, while sporting an atheist icon; and expect me to take it with anything other than a grain of sand.

I define faith as: Believing something, even when science says otherwise.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong ... but I'll let the "Judge of all the earth" decide that.

Do you think I have always displayed an atheist icon? For most of my life I was a Christian. For most of the time I have spent on this forum it was with a Christian icon.

 

[Alithis]

You are projecting. Just because you refuse to even consider the possibility that may be wrong doesn't mean that everyone else is the same.

doesn't mean they are not either - the point is

since i have predetermined in my heart to never agree with atheism what point is there debating it with me .

the original point being - a person will only ever see what they have predetermined in their heart to see -

 

[Archaeopteryx]

doesn't mean they are not either - the point is

since i have predetermined in my heart to never agree with atheism what point is there debating it with me .

the original point being - a person will only ever see what they have predetermined in their heart to see -

You are being very presumptuous. I have not "predetermined in my heart" that I cannot possibly be wrong. You have.

 

[Alithis]

You are being very presumptuous. I have not "predetermined in my heart" that I cannot possibly be wrong. You have.

so you say - but that would make you agnostic -
change the icon maybe .

 

[Archaeopteryx]

so you say - but that would make you agnostic -
change the icon maybe .

Why should I change the icon? There is nothing in the definition of "atheist" that demands I "predetermine in my heart" that I cannot be wrong. I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[Alithis]

Why should I change the icon? There is nothing in the definition of "atheist" that demands I "predetermine in my heart" that I cannot be wrong. I'm an agnostic atheist.

well since God has placed in all the seed of faith and all creation testifies to his existence

you must either see it .
Or you have predetermined in your heart to not do so .
if you have not determined in your heart to deny God then you would not be either atheist or agnostic
but i never anticipate honesty on such matters just endless argumentativeness.

to hold to the stance which you hold - you have determined something- or you would not staunchly maintain it and argue for it .

so - a person will only see ,what they have predetermined in their heart to see .

 

[Archaeopteryx]

well since God has placed in all the seed of faith and all creation testifies to his existence

you must either see it .
Or you have predetermined in your heart to not do so .
if you have not determined in your heart to deny God then you would not be either atheist or agnostic

You are projecting your own way of thinking about it onto others. I have not determined in my heart that I cannot possibly be wrong about theism, but you have. So you assume that everyone else also has, but that just isn't the case.

but i never anticipate honesty on such matters just endless argumentativeness.

As I said earlier, honesty also involves being able to admit when one is wrong. You say that you will never admit error, no matter what knowledge brings to bear on the issue, because you are emotionally resistant to appraising the situation in any other way.

to hold to the stance which you hold - you have determined something- or you would not staunchly maintain it and argue for it .

The difference being that I don't argue with a view that I cannot possibly be wrong.

so - a person will only see ,what they have predetermined in their heart to see .

When you say "person", you might as well say "I", since you are talking about yourself.

 

[Alithis]

You are projecting your own way of thinking about it onto others. I have not determined in my heart that I cannot possibly be wrong about theism, but you have. So you assume that everyone else also has, but that just isn't the case.



As I said earlier, honesty also involves being able to admit when one is wrong. You say that you will never admit error, no matter what knowledge brings to bear on the issue, because you are emotionally resistant to appraising the situation in any other way.



The difference being that I don't argue with a view that I cannot possibly be wrong.



When you say "person", you might as well say "I", since you are talking about yourself.

see .. you are determined not to see it my way - your just not admitting it

 

[Strathos]

I certainly don't look at guides as 'interference,' per se; but if God can guide evolution through the ages, why can't He guide mankind coming from the dust of the earth, as opposed to coming from the seed of an ape? (or orangutan, or monkey, or chimpanzee, or bonobo, or H. ergaster, or whatever the current accredited science college book from Amazon*com says this semester)?

God could have created humanity out of ice cream if He wanted to. But all of the evidence we have found indicated evolution, and I don't believe God would have planted such evidence if it wasn't true.