Why do you think we are angry? Look at the comment right before yours. That's not an atheist.
But I don't get angry. Why get angry on an Internet forum?
Pronouns? I don't remember getting angry at anyone. I push back a lot, but I'm usually laughing at peoples responses when I do. I don't really let people get away with not providing evidence for their claims--that's sort of my mantra--I have nothing to be angry about. Remember, I don't have to worry about blasphemy or someone upsetting the object of my belief. I'm rather free to enjoy a discussion whatever people say or think. Pushing back and fighting for religious liberty does not necessitate anger. It is the religious who get angry on this forum.Oh, you don't get angry? You may want to watch your use of pronouns a little more closely then.
Pronouns? I don't remember getting angry at anyone. I push back a lot, but I'm usually laughing at peoples responses when I do. I don't really let people get away with not providing evidence for their claims--that's sort of my mantra--I have nothing to be angry about. Remember, I don't have to worry about blasphemy or someone upsetting the object of my belief. I'm rather free to enjoy a discussion whatever people say or think. Pushing back and fighting for religious liberty does not necessitate anger. It is the religious who get angry on this forum.
Is that different from Street Epistemology?You can have your religious liberty. I don't mind about that at all. Be ye liberated!
But as far as mantras go, I guess you and I may simply have two diametrically opposed mantras, because my mantra involves wrecking the hell out of each and every conceptual scheme applied by anyone, to anything, anywhere. Some people may think this is just a tricky philosophical way to apply the Socratic method; but in my case, it's just that I'm into demolishing things to see what remains standing ... it seems to me to be the rational thing to do.
Is that different from Street Epistemology?
I get that. Just letting you know there's an answer in there if you want to see it. There was a bunch of things he said viruses do, which honestly are probably credible, but the pertinent one you'd be looking for is that they kill bacteria, so he concludes that death occurred prior to the fall.I didn't read it because the question it is purported to be answering is not what I asked. I don't care if it has the cure for cancer, blueprints for cold fusion, a formula for the n'th prime number, and indisputable proof that God exists. It's answering a question that I didn't ask, so I didn't read it.
If he would've copy/pasted the relevant information and then credited the author, like a normal person, then I would've read it. He'd rather call names than post it.
I don't get the reason for the sarcasm. You asked a Biblical question and then discredited him because he has bonkers beliefs about science.So you're saying I can trust someone who says the universe is older than 10,000 years old? What's next, I'm supposed to believe that he can tell me how old a rock is with uranium? Let's not be silly here. I'm just trying to figure out whether viruses spawned into existence supernaturally when Adam and Eve ate fruit or whether viruses existed from the beginning as vegetarians.
I get that. Just letting you know there's an answer in there if you want to see it. There was a bunch of things he said viruses do, which honestly are probably credible, but the pertinent one you'd be looking for is that they kill bacteria, so he concludes that death occurred prior to the fall.
I don't get the reason for the sarcasm. You asked a Biblical question and then discredited him because he has bonkers beliefs about science.
There's a multitude of interpretations on how literally Genesis should be taken. I think that guy with the MAD Magazine avatar is the only dude on these boards that this thread is going to address. Which one is right? None of them and all of them! That's the brilliance of the Bible!But you could also say that Lions kill things, meaning that death occurred before the fall. But lions did not kill things, so why would viruses? He obviously doesn't take Genesis seriously.
You still poisoned the well. Just say'n.This guy is irrelevant from the start. It's tangential at best to the topic.
There's a multitude of interpretations on how literally Genesis should be taken. I think that guy with the MAD Magazine avatar is the only dude on these boards that this thread is going to address. Which one is right? None of them and all of them! That's the brilliance of the Bible!
You still poisoned the well. Just say'n.
I was honestly confused about the reason for the sarcasm, but then...I had a chuckle when you called me out for sarcasm while rocking the Moral Orel avatar
I was honestly confused about the reason for the sarcasm, but then...I just got it. I'm dumb. Carry on.
No no, it's good for atheists to call each other out. We operate with logic. But sometimes dry logic is hard for people to chew. You need to add some sauce in there.
It's not my fault if this looks silly but I am making a serious point. And I know some Christians believe this stuff because I sure did. Well, of course, I never phrased my beliefs like this, but I did believe in intelligent design. And unlike Hugh Ross, I didn't believe death existed before the exile from Eden. So I wouldn't have had an answer for how precisely viruses existed.
If you look at my avatar, it is a bacteriophage with a lightbulb replacing the genetic material. This is the type of virus that attacks bacteria. It is a wild over-generalization to say bacteriophages are good or bad because bacteria can be harmful or helpful to humans. Furthermore, when we speak casually of viruses, we typically are referring to a coronavirus. Not the coronavirus Covid-19, but just that virus type. That's the type that typically infects animals. What good do they do for us? How do they exist in a young-earth creationist worldview? Keep in mind that Hugh Ross is not a young-earth creationist, which means he's more or less obligated to deny the doctrine of a deathless initial state of creation, which is why I was ignoring him this whole time.
Hugh Ross has odd beliefs even for Christians. Watch his debate with Kent Hovind. Ross contends that animals - he uses whales as an example - have gone extinct and were then created again by God. Presumably this occurred during one of the "day-ages" of creation. I find this whole game to be stupid. Just go with the literal text of the bible or go with science and justify your faith after the fact. I find Hugh Ross to be incredibly arrogant and insufferable in that he insists that his discipline (astronomy) be taken seriously while denying another scientific discipline (evolution). Seriously, watch that debate with him and Hovind and see him losing interest in what Hovind has to say about astronomy because he knows for a fact that Hovind is wrong, since he has a PhD in astronomy, and then he casually goes on to deny evolution. Hello! Does he not know how he's doing the same thing? Those of us who attended universities and acquired acute knowledge in certain fields are supposed to have learned to respect those in the other fields just as you expect them to respect your expertise, and he is disrespectful of academia on a daily basis.
No no, it's good for atheists to call each other out.
The view that non-human death existed prior to the Fall is very old and well-established in Christianity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?