Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[MoonLancer]

And if that turns people off --- then they don't need to be asking me questions.

*edit*
why don't you just be honest to start with rather then making junk up. That's why people get upset with you.

I've made it abundantly clear that if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride; and if that ride means you have to turn your back on God and Christianity and the Bible because you absolutely refuse to accept Genesis 1 as literal --- well --- sorry to hear that.

did god every say to take genesis 1 literally? that's your choice to interpret as you wish, but its aragant to assume its god thats telling you to interperat that way. Many people read the bible in diffrent ways and if you cant show with evidence or through the writings of thelogans of the time of the bible that your way is the correct way, you really just have an opinioin.

 

[juvenissun]

I think, their for I am

or

I am, their for i think

I was, but I still think, and think better.

 

[MoonLancer]

I was, but I still think, and think better.

"I live, I die, but my actions make me immortal"

woot short poetry.

If what your saying is that we should strive to better ourselves, i agree.

 

[juvenissun]

No, if you talked to me and lose your faith because of my arrogance your blood would be on my hands.
Christianity is not based on the literalism of the Genesis account. It is based on the fact that Jesus Christ willingly sacrificed himself in our place. Ignoring all evidence that doesn't back up your literal interpretation of Genesis yet wildly interpreting any other verse of your choosing is incredibly... I cannot think of the words to describe it.

For a Christian, the debate of evolution/creation could have little to do with faith. That is why theistic evolution (TE) still exist. To TE, creationism is as ridiculous as you think it is. But that is not enough to turn a TE away from his/her Christian faith. So if I insisted creationism and it made you lose your faith as a consequence, then please consider to join the TE camp. In fact, the debate of creation vs evolution between YEC and TE is much more in depth and fun.

 

[AV1611VET]

Madam, in Eden, I'm Adam.

 

[juvenissun]

"I live, I die, but my actions make me immortal"

woot short poetry.

If what your saying is that we should strive to better ourselves, i agree.

No. no. You won't agree. I say that "I" will be better off after I died. You may take this as a very selfish thinking.

Who is immortal? George Washington? Billions and billions of people have no idea on who he was. How about Hitler? Is he immortal? In fact, everyone of us is immortal. Because we do not die.

 

[MoonLancer]

No. no. You won't agree.... I You may take this as a very selfish thinking.

In a way. I think you should enjoy yourself and live to be happy. If you live for a lie, you will die sad and empty.

Who is immortal? George Washington? Billions and billions of people have no idea on who he was. How about Hitler? Is he immortal? In fact, everyone of us is immortal. Because we do not die.

Hitler is pretty freakin immortal if you ask me (for all the wrong reasons). books are precise for within them they hold the immortality of others.

 

[Chalnoth]

I think it was a miscommunication/misunderstanding.

Hmm. Sorry. I suppose it was. I've seen those kinds of accusations so frequently and, well, they just amuse me to no end. I guess I was mistaken here though.

I don't know what you are talking about. Faith is illogic. What is wrong with that?

What's wrong is thinking it's likely to lead you to an accurate description of reality.

 

[Chalnoth]

Who is immortal? George Washington? Billions and billions of people have no idea on who he was. How about Hitler? Is he immortal? In fact, everyone of us is immortal. Because we do not die.

Sorry, but I'd rather focus on the here-and-now than some completely unevidenced, hypothetical, and exceedingly unlikely afterlife.

 

[juvenissun]

What's wrong is thinking it's likely to lead you to an accurate description of reality.

Every argument is based on a certain assumptions. Religion is not an exception. The assumptions are illogical. The rests are very logical.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry, but I'd rather focus on the here-and-now than some completely unevidenced, hypothetical, and exceedingly unlikely afterlife.

I did not bring this up. I am simply responding.

But, exceedingly unlikely, huh? Do you know how much money was, is and will be spent on the research of this topic?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Every argument is based on a certain assumptions. Religion is not an exception. The assumptions are illogical. The rests are very logical.

So, it's possible for a bad tree to produce good fruit?

 

[Chalnoth]

Every argument is based on a certain assumptions. Religion is not an exception. The assumptions are illogical. The rests are very logical.

Nonsense. The assumptions can (and should) be examined and re-evaluated just like anything else.

I did not bring this up. I am simply responding.

But, exceedingly unlikely, huh? Do you know how much money was, is and will be spent on the research of this topic?

It's not necessary to spend any money on the topic. We can get drunk. That simple fact shows that an afterlife is exceedingly unlikely.

Why is this? An afterlife requires that there is some component of our personality and/or memory that will survive the body. Except both of these can be changed, and changed drastically, by physical changes to the brain, such as alcohol. If it were true that some part of our personality and/or memory were unaffected by death, we would expect that that part would be impossible to effect by anything less than death, such as simple chemicals or injury to the brain.

And yet this is not the case. The changes that can be made to a person's personality or memories encompass just about anything you could think of, plus a few things that should be surprising to most. One, for instance, is alien hand syndrome. This is caused by a person who has one of a few very particular sorts of brain damage. It could be caused by a severing of the connective nerves between the two halves of the brain (the corpus callosum), or by injury to certain other locations. When it occurs, we get such interesting situations as this:

For example, one patient was observed putting a cigarette into her mouth with her intact, 'controlled' hand (her right, dominant hand), following which her alien, non-dominant, left hand came up to grasp the cigarette, pull the cigarette out of her mouth, and toss it away before it could be lit by the controlled, dominant, right hand. The patient then surmised that "I guess 'he' doesn't want me to smoke that cigarette".

In effect, one person can become two people by the right kind of brain damage. This ability to be affected so dramatically by simple physical changes makes it exceedingly unlikely that any part of us remains unchanged after the most drastic physical change: death.

 

[juvenissun]

So, it's possible for a bad tree to produce good fruit?

The logic conclusion of good or bad is based on the assumption. For example, without God's word, anything could be argued as good.

 

[thaumaturgy]

For example, without God's word, anything could be argued as good.

Oh oh oh! I know this one! Euthyphro Dilemma!

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh oh oh! I know this one! Euthyphro Dilemma!

A simple answer to that dilemma is: both.

 

[BananaSlug]

The logic conclusion of good or bad is based on the assumption. For example, without God's word, anything could be argued as good.

Are all athiests immoral? Can we have morality without the "Word of God"? Sure we can. Look at all the pre-Christian cultures that actually seemed to be more moral than Christians. According to God's word, killing disobedient children is "good". According to God's word, kidnapping young unbetrothed virgins is "good". Under God's word we had things like the Spanish Inquisition, Witch trials (Salem and elsewhere), the slaughter of Native Americans and other tribes, justification of slavery, oppression of women, etc.

One could also say that with the "Word of God", anything could be argued as "good".

 

[AV1611VET]

Are all athiests immoral?

There is a loose definition of "moral", and there is a tight definition of "moral".

Theologically speaking, morals deals with mans' relationship to God, and is vertical; while ethics deals with mans' relationship to man, and is horizontal.

Thus it is not possible, theoretically speaking, to be an atheist and a moral person at the same time.

 

[thaumaturgy]

A simple answer to that dilemma is: both.

Sure, why not? It's all good! I guess that's why it's called a "dilemma".

 

[thaumaturgy]

There is a loose definition of "moral", and there is a tight definition of "moral".

No, there's the "Religious" definition in which the religious claim all good only to themselves. And then there's the other definitions which the Religious would rather ignore. Because then they'd have to admit maybe it's possible for someone to do good without believing in a literal God.

Theoretically speaking, morals deals with mans' relationship to God, and is vertical

Really? Is that absolute?

DEFINITIONS OF "MORALITY"

Morality (from the Latin moralitaser "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

A system of determining right and wrong that is established by some authority, such as a church, an organization, a society, or a government.
www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_definitions.html

Beliefs and practices related to the notion of right conduct or good character.
www.slp.duq.edu/rentschler/ETHIC/Vocabulary.htm

Thus it is not possible, theoretically speaking, to be an atheist and a moral person at the same time.

Uh huh. Well, so long as we can establish a code of "right and wrong" conduct I don't much care if you simply have to have the word "morality" like some pedantic toddler in a sandbox. If all you care about is "owning" some word, you can have it. But I don't see you as having full deed to that word yet.

Perhaps you should provide supporting evidence for your proposition of Morality as somehow requiring God.