Hydra009
bel esprit
- Oct 28, 2003
- 8,593
- 371
- 43
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Hi Troof,
After taking this all in, I have a few points to make:
#1 - How do you define "Christian"? If you define it as the YECs do, then yes TEs are not Christians. In fact, extremely few Christians would actually be Christians.
A problem I notice with atheists sometimes is that they adopt some of the same modes of thinking that the fundamentalists do: namely, the same definition of "True" Christianity and viewing mainline or liberal Christians as "compromisers" who aren't "True Christians". I hope that's not the case here.
#2 - No part of evolution, or science in general, states that life is with or without a spiritual component. Notto is right about that. I don't believe that souls exist - but I don't kid myself into thinking that this is a scientific conclusion.
#3 - "Nice idea, but the logical conclusion from this argument is that he put the matter in place and sat back and did nothing else. Then billions of years later he decided that just one species of life on earth should believe that he exists."
Again, this is a creationist argument - that God is somehow lacking if the universe wasn't created on a timescale of 6 days. This is most assuredly bad logic, because for an atemporal being, time is irrelevant.
#4 - I'm puzzled by statements like this "You on the other hand assert that God exists and will not consider that you might be wrong." as it seems like it belongs more in GA than in Crevo. This is common, because evolution/creationism discussions often walk the fine line between religion and science, but try to leave the discussions about whether or not God exists to GA.
After taking this all in, I have a few points to make:
#1 - How do you define "Christian"? If you define it as the YECs do, then yes TEs are not Christians. In fact, extremely few Christians would actually be Christians.
A problem I notice with atheists sometimes is that they adopt some of the same modes of thinking that the fundamentalists do: namely, the same definition of "True" Christianity and viewing mainline or liberal Christians as "compromisers" who aren't "True Christians". I hope that's not the case here.
#2 - No part of evolution, or science in general, states that life is with or without a spiritual component. Notto is right about that. I don't believe that souls exist - but I don't kid myself into thinking that this is a scientific conclusion.
#3 - "Nice idea, but the logical conclusion from this argument is that he put the matter in place and sat back and did nothing else. Then billions of years later he decided that just one species of life on earth should believe that he exists."
Again, this is a creationist argument - that God is somehow lacking if the universe wasn't created on a timescale of 6 days. This is most assuredly bad logic, because for an atemporal being, time is irrelevant.
#4 - I'm puzzled by statements like this "You on the other hand assert that God exists and will not consider that you might be wrong." as it seems like it belongs more in GA than in Crevo. This is common, because evolution/creationism discussions often walk the fine line between religion and science, but try to leave the discussions about whether or not God exists to GA.
Upvote
0