Evolution is just a theory!

DogmaHunter · Nov 13, 2015

Colter said:
You said "That makes no sense." You made a conclusion a before all the facts are in, yet you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, so it becomes then a form of belief or religion when promoted.

1. i'm not making the claim that gods don't exist

2. the burden of proof is with the one who's making the POSITIVE claim. in this case: the theist.

3. you can't prove that leprechauns aren't hiding pots of gold in places marked by rainbows

To be clear, I reject Santa,..... but don't feel the need to go to Santa forums with some BS about just wanting dialogue with them.

You would, if you lived in a society dominated by Santa-believers who are lobbying hard to slip Santa-beliefs into school curriculums and public policies.

You would, if you lived in a society where Santa-believers consider you the root of evil because you don't believe in Santa and by extension have no ethics or morals.

You would, if you lived in a society where Santa-believers apparantly think rapists are more thrustworthy then those who don't believe in Santa.

And lastly, if you think this is the only discussion forum I'm active on - think again. I happen to enjoy discussion with people who believe differently then me. There's no fun in discussion with people who agree with every word you say.

Furthermore, I don't need to explain myself to you and you have no business trying to "tell me" why I am here on this forum. You don't know what my motivations are, so it's best not to pretend that you do.

Colter · Nov 13, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
1. i'm not making the claim that gods don't exist

2. the burden of proof is with the one who's making the POSITIVE claim. in this case: the theist.

3. you can't prove that leprechauns aren't hiding pots of gold in places marked by rainbows

You would, if you lived in a society dominated by Santa-believers who are lobbying hard to slip Santa-beliefs into school curriculums and public policies.

You would, if you lived in a society where Santa-believers consider you the root of evil because you don't believe in Santa and by extension have no ethics or morals.

You would, if you lived in a society where Santa-believers apparantly think rapists are more thrustworthy then those who don't believe in Santa.

And lastly, if you think this is the only discussion forum I'm active on - think again. I happen to enjoy discussion with people who believe differently then me. There's no fun in discussion with people who agree with every word you say.

Furthermore, I don't need to explain myself to you and you have no business trying to "tell me" why I am here on this forum. You don't know what my motivations are, so it's best not to pretend that you do.

I agree with your points about living in a society so dominated by Santa belief or Christian belief, but gosh, it's hard to see where religion in America has much impact on the secular world.....rather I think it's more of a fear that they do.

Also, by the same token, we don't have to explain our faith in God to you. We don't have to provide proofs of anything.

joshua 1 9 · Nov 13, 2015

Colter said:
Flag on the field! God does not, did not, nor will he EVER repent of anything he has done, is doing or will ever do. That right there is a human characterization because the story is mostly human myth used as a device for Hebrew genealogy.

There is a difference between what the Bible calls shadows and types and what Jung calls Archetypes. Also you have allegories and parables. The Bible is not a myth and when people use the word myth it is sort of like using the word Jew. It is used as a deformity term to belittle someone or sometime. It's an attack on the Bible. Also when you use the word "myth" your baiting the discussion trying to get into apologetic which is yet another violation. It looks to me like your trying to break the forum rules.

joshua 1 9 · Nov 13, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
1. i'm not making the claim that gods don't exist

2. the burden of proof is with the one who's making the POSITIVE claim. in this case: the theist.

Your avatior says that your an atheist. If there is no God then there can be no atheism. You have to be against God to be an atheist, otherwise you would be an agnostic. You want to bait Christians with slander and attacks on the Bible which is apologetics. From what I understand we are not here to defend the Bible and apologetics are not in accordance with the rules. God simply does not need us to defend Him, He can defend Himself. This is personal between you and God and it really does not involve us.

joshua 1 9 · Nov 13, 2015

Colter said:
we don't have to explain our faith in God to you. We don't have to provide proofs of anything.

Exactly, God does not need out help to defend Him. "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."

DogmaHunter · Nov 13, 2015

Colter said:
I agree with your points about living in a society so dominated by Santa belief or Christian belief, but gosh, it's hard to see where religion in America has much impact on the secular world.....rather I think it's more of a fear that they do.

You're joking, right?

Also, by the same token, we don't have to explain our faith in God to you.

Indeed, you do not.
Above all, when it comes to the public sphere, I even prefer you to keep it to yourself.
You have no business invoking your "faith" when talking about government policies, about school curriculums, about who can marry who, about sexual orientation,....

Your religion is your private business and I fully support your freedom to believe whatever you like to believe.

But the operative word here is "private".

We don't have to provide proofs of anything.

You do, the second you wish to impact society with your supernatural shenannigans.
You do, the second you wish to convince me of your beliefs.

As long as your private beliefs remain private, you can believe whatever you want without ever being questioned.

However, I will still have an opinion about those beliefs. Which is something I'm entitled to as well. Just like you.

joshua 1 9 · Nov 13, 2015

Colter said:
it's hard to see where religion in America has much impact on the secular world.....

Rom 9 18 "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." The impact on the secular is to harden their hearts. I don't always understand that but if you are not with God then you are against Him. He wants to make it abundantly clear who is with Him and who is against Him. Also it is difficult for God to use people when you can not predict what they are going to do. He wants people that He can depend on that will always be consistently for Him or against Him. He watches over His Word so that His Word will prosper in what He sends His Word to do and accomplish.

DogmaHunter · Nov 13, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
Your avatior says that your an atheist.

Which means that I don't buy into the claims of theists.

If there is no God then there can be no atheism.

No. That should read: if there is not theism, there can be no atheism.

You have to be against God to be an atheist

No. I can't be "against" things that I don't even consider to be real.

To be an atheist, the only thing you need to do is not believe the claims of theism. That's it.

, otherwise you would be an agnostic.

Atheism and agnostic are NOT mutually exclusive positions.
Atheism pertains to beliefs and agnosticism pertains to knowledge.
They are different answers to different questions.

You want to bait Christians with slander and attacks on the Bible which is apologetics.

You can call it whatever you wish.

As far as I am concerned, I see theists making claims and in response I am challenging those claims and asking those theists to support their claims.

If you wish to call that "bait with slander and attacks", go right ahead. But you will only be missing the point.

From what I understand we are not here to defend the Bible and apologetics are not in accordance with the rules.

Good for you. To be honest, I don't even really know what "apologetics" are, nore do I particularly care.

I see claims. I consider the claims to be unsupported. I then challenge those seemingly unsupported claims. That's all that I do.
If you can only respond to those challenges by breaking forum rules.... well, tough luck I guess.

God simply does not need us to defend Him, He can defend Himself.

If you say so. I've never seen any god come down and respond to my challenges though...

This is personal between you and God and it really does not involve us.

If you say so.
But I'm here, talking with humans that demonstrably exist.

joshua 1 9 · Nov 13, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Which means that I don't buy into the claims of theists.

No. That should read: if there is not theism, there can be no atheism.

You can have no theism without God. If there is no God then there would be no theism and thus if there was no God there would be no atheism. In order for you to be against something there has to be something for you to be against. That is why James says: "You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away." Without God we have no substance and the day will come when those without God will blow away in the wind. That is why there will be a resurrection of the righteous just and also a resurrection of the unrighteous unjust people. "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." We know that "He will judge everyone according to what they have done.".

I can't be "against" things that I don't even consider to be real.

That is what I just said. You can not be against nothing. You can only be against something that has substance and is real.

To be an atheist, the only thing you need to do is not believe the claims of theism.

That means you do not exist, your just a vapor and a mist. You have no substance.

But I'm here, talking with humans that demonstrably exist.

Your just pixels on a screen. You could be an intelligent design program because your only existence is to counter something which you claim does not exist. Any computer program can do that. If the claim does not exist then your counter claim does not exist and that mean you have no substance in the real world. You start with nothing and you end up with nothing. I did construction work when I was younger. New and renovation. So I know what it is to work in the real world and what has substance and is real and what is not real and has no substance.

Jimmy D · Nov 13, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
Your avatior says that your an atheist. If there is no God then there can be no atheism. You have to be against God to be an atheist, otherwise you would be an agnostic. You want to bait Christians with slander and attacks on the Bible which is apologetics. From what I understand we are not here to defend the Bible and apologetics are not in accordance with the rules. God simply does not need us to defend Him, He can defend Himself. This is personal between you and God and it really does not involve us.

To be fair, you keep bringing the bible into these discussions, which is fair enough of course, but if you do bring it up as a point in a debate it's obviously going to be questioned by the person you're debating with.

And one more thing, it seems you're letting DogmaHunter get under your skin a bit, take it easy my friend, different strokes for different folks and all that!

joshua 1 9 · Nov 13, 2015

Jimmy D said:
To be fair, you keep bringing the bible into these discussions, which is fair enough of course, but if you do bring it up as a point in a debate it's obviously going to be questioned by the person you're debating with.

There is a difference between a discussion and slander. For example after WW2 the Hebrew people were very sensitive about people using the word Jew, like Black people became sensitive about people using the N word. Slander of this sort is never acceptable.

Colter · Nov 13, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
You're joking, right?

Indeed, you do not.
Above all, when it comes to the public sphere, I even prefer you to keep it to yourself.
You have no business invoking your "faith" when talking about government policies, about school curriculums, about who can marry who, about sexual orientation,....

Your religion is your private business and I fully support your freedom to believe whatever you like to believe.

But the operative word here is "private".

You do, the second you wish to impact society with your supernatural shenannigans.
You do, the second you wish to convince me of your beliefs.

As long as your private beliefs remain private, you can believe whatever you want without ever being questioned.

However, I will still have an opinion about those beliefs. Which is something I'm entitled to as well. Just like you.

I agree with you as far as invoking my religion, once a religion as a religion asserts itself into the political arena with an opinion, then it is no longer a religion, it has become a political party. A persons religion may inform their world view and hence their voting characteristics, but as a body Christianity betrays Jesus' gospel when they to influence public policy.

I am pro choice, pro gay marriage (my dear sister is gay) and pro true science which would include the observations of evolution on an old earth etc.

BUT, secular totalitarianism demonstrates the same boundary violation when it assumes that just because it is secular somehow it's idealism is sacrosanct, unquestionable, the only right way.

Colter · Nov 13, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
There is a difference between what the Bible calls shadows and types and what Jung calls Archetypes. Also you have allegories and parables. The Bible is not a myth and when people use the word myth it is sort of like using the word Jew. It is used as a deformity term to belittle someone or sometime. It's an attack on the Bible. Also when you use the word "myth" your baiting the discussion trying to get into apologetic which is yet another violation. It looks to me like your trying to break the forum rules.

It's not parabolic when the Bible says that God regretted his creation and decided to drown the whole world with the exception of an ancestor of the Israelites, or Hebrews, or people of Judah who we generically call "Jews" who wrote that story about their place in the world while looking down on everyone else.

joshua 1 9 · Nov 13, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
I feel no need to "understand" this book,

Exactly, which means that we can not have a discussion because you have no interest in understanding what we are talking about. It is sort of like the difference between a house and a home. Just because you exchange words does not mean your really having a conversation with people. You build a strawman, then you tear your strawman apart, then you go on to build more strawmen with the intent of tearing them apart also. Around and around you go.

Loudmouth · Nov 13, 2015

Colter said:
I agree with your points about living in a society so dominated by Santa belief or Christian belief, but gosh, it's hard to see where religion in America has much impact on the secular world.....rather I think it's more of a fear that they do.

I can see why that could be for a Christian. You probably see nothing wrong with things like a ban on gay marriage, teachers leading Christian prayers at public schools, or the teaching of creationism in science class. However, all of these are public policies being forced on non-believers through government.

Also, by the same token, we don't have to explain our faith in God to you. We don't have to provide proofs of anything.

You do need to provide evidence if you want to claim that it is more than faith.

Colter · Nov 13, 2015

Loudmouth said:
I can see why that could be for a Christian. You probably see nothing wrong with things like a ban on gay marriage, teachers leading Christian prayers at public schools, or the teaching of creationism in science class. However, all of these are public policies being forced on non-believers through government.

You do need to provide evidence if you want to claim that it is more than faith.

see post #413, we are in a agreement.

Meowzltov · Nov 13, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
There is a difference between what the Bible calls shadows and types and what Jung calls Archetypes. Also you have allegories and parables. The Bible is not a myth and when people use the word myth it is sort of like using the word Jew. It is used as a deformity term to belittle someone or sometime. It's an attack on the Bible. Also when you use the word "myth" your baiting the discussion trying to get into apologetic which is yet another violation. It looks to me like your trying to break the forum rules.

I disagree. Myth is the HIGHEST form of literature there is. Calling Genesis a myth by those who understand literature is a compliment. In a proper understanding of mythology, myth's are not lies but teach eternal truths with symbols. Now anti-theists are idiots when it comes to literature. They are stuck in concrete thinking and don't understand what the heck they are talking about. They THINK a myth is a lie, which is an insult to mythology. So yes, in THEIR case, because THEY mean it as an insult, it is an insult.

bhsmte · Nov 13, 2015

Open Heart said:
I disagree. Myth is the HIGHEST form of literature there is. Calling Genesis a myth by those who understand literature is a compliment. In a proper understanding of mythology, myth's are not lies but teach eternal truths with symbols. Now anti-theists are idiots when it comes to literature. They are stuck in concrete thinking and don't understand what the heck they are talking about. They THINK a myth is a lie, which is an insult to mythology. So yes, in THEIR case, because THEY mean it as an insult, it is an insult.

Myth's can have underlying meaning, yes.

Do you think myth's should be interpreted as being literally true?

Meowzltov · Nov 13, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
There is a difference between a discussion and slander. For example after WW2 the Hebrew people were very sensitive about people using the word Jew, like Black people became sensitive about people using the N word. Slander of this sort is never acceptable.

Today there is no problem with calling us Jews, Jews. I am a Jew. You can call me Jewish, but it actually means I only approximate a Jew, that I am only somewhat a Jew. It is a diminutive of what I am, the way that smartish would be a diminutive of smart or Replicanish would be a diminutive of Republican.

Meowzltov · Nov 13, 2015

bhsmte said:
Myth's can have underlying meaning, yes.

Do you think myth's should be interpreted as being literally true?

Of course not. That would be a misunderstanding of the genre.

Evolution is just a theory!

Code Monkey

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Member

Freylekher Yid

Newbie

Freylekher Yid

Freylekher Yid

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency