Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They contend that the Truth is that women have the total right to do whatever they want with their bodies, for instance. Vonsequently, society can not impliment rules in the Social Contract that include women physically conforming to such rules.
Like I said - the kind of God atheists complain about is the same kind of God they seem to want:\
The original post which started this discussion was about whether or not God was "fair" - basically yet another the debate about the problem of evil and suffering.CabVet said:Except that atheists don't "want" a God, they only want you to prove there is one.
God intervened in the book yes. But not in the actual world- takes more evidence to believe something like that.
I don't think your comparison is good btw. Lieutenant Stauffenberg very nearly killed Hitler, who survived the blast only because of a table made of solid oak (yet all others died that where present in the room). Yet your god thought that was a desirable outcome?
Hitler and Stalin were two deeply evil men, killing them would have done a great service to humanity.
The original post which started this discussion was about whether or not God was "fair" - basically yet another the debate about the problem of evil and suffering.
Finding out what kind of God atheists wanted didn't come asking them directly (if I did I would never get a straight answer) but rather, from seeing how they would like the problem of evil to be solved. What they want apparently is to give up free will altogether and have God take total responsibility for everything - to be infantilized. This coming from a group which encourages people to think for themselves.
Other atheists however, claim they wouldn't believe in God even if He was proved to exist.
And yet you think you can have perfection without free will. Obviously it can't be that valuable if you're willing to give it up.
I'll say to you what I said to Begt: trying to discuss God without using the Bible is like trying to discuss evolution without using fossils. <snip>
Repeating yourself didn't with with Astridhere and it won't work with you.
Furthermore, question ("Haven't you ever wondered why Christians practically never use this argument?") is not irrelevent at all. We believe in God, yet we don't automatically assume that He is responsible for everything bad in the world. Why not? Wouldn't it be nice to have someone to blame?
The impression I get with these posts (I've had similar debates with atheists on many other occasions) is that atheists want a God who...
- Doesn't give His subjects minds of their own
- Doesn't allow them to do anything by themselves in case they do something wrong (or if they do something wrong He immediately fixes it)
- Dictates everything to them - including science and morality - instead of letting them figure it out for themselves.
Ironically that's the very kind of God most of them complain about: a kind of celestial dictator.
Evolution can survive without fossils as genetics has progressed to the point that common ancestry is evident in DNA! Fossils are valuable but I would say not vital for ToE!
Is that so?
Then you have a problem with DNA contradicting morphology in many speices eg chimp/human/orang and hippo/whale/pig.
Given the 'life' has a mechanism unlike non life and is all part of a food chain and hence life must be based on similarity, there is bound to be one species closer to another than the rest. If chimps went extinct it would be something else. If all great apes went exitnct it would be another etc etc. All this demonstrates, at best, is which species God used similar genetic designs to create. You assume this means ancestry and hand wave away genetic anommolies as genetic homoplasy.
Indeed if evolutionists are going to zero in on some DNA similarity due to the preconcieved assumption of ancestry, and ignore the rest, they will find what they are wanting to find. However, this is biased science, not really looking for the truth.
Another example would be whale bones found in an area dated to 290 million years. Could whales be that old? Of course not, say evolutionists. So off they go and date the whale bones. What did they find? Inconsistent carbon dates from 190 to 900mya. Why was this? Of course it was contamination. What happened to all the dating that dated the land to 290myo? Hand waved away in one motion.
Michigan's Fossil Whales
Fossils That Are Found in Michigan | eHow.com
Evolutionists have plenty of evidence for creation sitting right underneath their noses but they will never admit it and will always find some convolution to realign evidence for creation with evolution. The truth does not matter to evolutionists. They only want to keep their jobs and find a way to bias evidence, fossil or genomic, to align with evolution, no matter what it takes.
[/FONT]Denial is not evidence.
Oh, here you come again with your sexist remarks full of prejudice. Grow up. I will ask again, what did women in your life do to you for you to hate them so much?
How can a chart which merely states the facts graphically be "full of prejudice?"
They contend that the Truth is that women have the total right to do whatever they want with their bodies, for instance.
Is that so?
Then you have a problem with DNA contradicting morphology in many speices eg chimp/human/orang and hippo/whale/pig.
Given the 'life' has a mechanism unlike non life and is all part of a food chain and hence life must be based on similarity, there is bound to be one species closer to another than the rest. If chimps went extinct it would be something else. If all great apes went exitnct it would be another etc etc. All this demonstrates, at best, is which species God used similar genetic designs to create. You assume this means ancestry and hand wave away genetic anommolies as genetic homoplasy.
Indeed if evolutionists are going to zero in on some DNA similarity due to the preconcieved assumption of ancestry, and ignore the rest, they will find what they are wanting to find. However, this is biased science, not really looking for the truth.
Another example would be whale bones found in an area dated to 290 million years. Could whales be that old? Of course not, say evolutionists. So off they go and date the whale bones. What did they find? Inconsistent carbon dates from 190 to 900mya. Why was this? Of course it was contamination. What happened to all the dating that dated the land to 290myo? Hand waved away in one motion.
Michigan's Fossil Whales
Fossils That Are Found in Michigan | eHow.com
Evolutionists have plenty of evidence for creation sitting right underneath their noses but they will never admit it and will always find some convolution to realign evidence for creation with evolution. The truth does not matter to evolutionists. They only want to keep their jobs and find a way to bias evidence, fossil or genomic, to align with evolution, no matter what it takes.
Can't tell the difference, huh?... you must have at least a Doctorate in Biology.
Either that or you are a complete and utter fool, I favour the latter.
Her icon and her beliefs say otherwise.I just wanted a big build up to telling her she is a fool, but you already knew that, that she's a fool I mean.
What's wrong with that?See what I mean AV? she's completely off the chart.
[FONT="]Simplistic and inadequate replies are a reflection of the simplistic inadequate mind.[/FONT]
Sounds to me like you're all for getting psychological help for us, eh?And what then, Darls, can be said about the mind of an individual who, believes in an "invisible best friend", global floods, zombies, talking animals, demons, fairies, etc etc?
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?