Why do you believe in the evolution theory? (2)

[Booko]

You mean if there is a higher power it isn't interested in being sought out and worshipped? It is only interested in us treating each other as we would like to be treated ourselves? What good would that be to creationists?

Yes, perhaps if a higher power exists it is not narcissistic after all.

Why ask what is good for creationists? Rather ask what is good for humanity.

And #notallreligions are inherently tribal. At least one specifically exists to promote the idea that there is only one humanity.

Creationists are a dying breed anyway, which is probably why I ceased spending so much time arguing with them.

 

[Davian]

What do you suppose this means:

Google images suggests:

I spent many years not being sure, but after making a point of finding out -- I am a lot happier knowing that I am loved.

In typical fashion, dodges the question.

Well, I am as concerned about vague religious warnings about vengeful deities as I am about getting a lump of coal in my stocking this Christmas.

No, I was referring to the truth of science -- particularly Evolution.

Then you misspoke; science does not do truth.

Then you have much to learn about the complexities of the evolving mind of Spirit filled believers. It's a handful mate!

Indeed. It would appear to be all a fool's errand.

 

[Davian]

It's a good place to begin, but once you've finished doing that -- what's next?

I do recall you saying that gods were not part of reality.

But, no, I am not seeking religion.

 

[Davian]

No. The gods want your soul and worship. They want obedience. Only God sets us free from all that.

God does not want obedience? We can do as we please?

 

[Davian]

There are gods, but they are demons. From the beginning God created the heaven and earth and there is no other God but Him.

God should really get a better name. So easy to confuse him with gods.

 

[crjmurray]

God does not want obedience? We can do as we please?

Of course. God is going to be very surprised that people have been going around insisting that certain rules be followed in his name.

 

[Davian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-25iBw2EX8

 

[Davian]

...

I did and there is a lighter version of slander, as I said I am only giving you a gentle warning. I realize it might mean a big change for you, to begin showing due respect for the divine attributes of the God of the Bible
...

If you are truly ignorant of the warnings in the Christian sacred texts about these matters, then it might be wise for you (without any assistance from me) to familiarize yourself with what is expected from us -- in as much as our attitude towards the God of the Bible.
...

I now recall where I have seen a variation on this; the Courtiers' reply.

"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics."

The Courtier’s Reply – Pharyngula

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I do recall you saying that gods were not part of reality.

But, no, I am not seeking religion.

I said, '.... somewhere between cosmic time and eternity.'

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Then you misspoke; science does not do truth.

I beg to differ. There would certainly be no point in this forum, if that were true. Science has limitations, but it is not locked out of holding a seat at the table of truth, especially when it comes to religious beliefs and experience (as I have already explained : here)
It has held that seat, but not always has a friendly response from those who insist that it does not have a voice. History teaches us, that when Science speaks about issues such as how our world came into existence, and how it has continued to evolve -- it has a voice which corrects the errors of those who insist that the Bible is the sword of Empirical Truth etc.
There is blood and rust on that sword, and perhaps the best cleaning agent is the truth of Science. My 2p.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Indeed. It would appear to be all a fool's errand.

Not at all. It's a balanced command, that we bear one another burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.
I wanted to explain that to 'dad', but I think that might be considered as a his 'load' -- which he is welcome to carry all on his own.

 

[dad]

God does not want obedience? We can do as we please?

He sets us free for all that demon worship of gods to be free to worship and obey the True God.

 

[dad]

God should really get a better name. So easy to confuse him with gods.

Look for the capitol G.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

<edit video> <edit cut-n-paste>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-25iBw2EX8

Davian,
You already know that I prefer the old school atheist approach to this (namely: religious tolerance), whereas you prefer the new atheist one. If that means slandering the attributes of the God of the Bible, then so be it.

In the words of Stevie Nicks, "Who am I to disagree"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZRURcb1cM

 

[Davian]

I said, '.... somewhere between cosmic time and eternity.'

lol. Where ever that is....

My concerns are only things that are in reality.

 

[Davian]

I beg to differ. There would certainly be no point in this forum, if that were true.

Agreed, but the term 'truth', as it is used by the religionists in this forum, often appears synonymous with 'my religious opinion', the 'truth' of God, the 'truth' of my religion, etc.

Science describes reality.

Science has limitations,

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.

but it is not locked out of holding a seat at the table of truth, especially when it comes to religious beliefs and experience (as I have already explained : here)
It has held that seat, but not always has a friendly response from those who insist that it does not have a voice.

Except the part where they get cable TV and internet access.

History teaches us, that when Science speaks about issues such as how our world came into existence, and how it has continued to evolve -- it has a voice which corrects the errors of those who insist that the Bible is the sword of Empirical Truth etc.
There is blood and rust on that sword, and perhaps the best cleaning agent is the truth of Science. My 2p.

Science works best with clarity, and your "truth of Science" muddies those waters.

 

[Davian]

Not at all. It's a balanced command, that we bear one another burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Unless you are asked to explain it, and have to again play the 'fools errand' card.

I wanted to explain that to 'dad', but I think that might be considered as a his 'load' -- which he is welcome to carry all on his own.

Recall that "jester" position for the forum that you referred to earlier....

 

[Davian]

He sets us free for all that demon worship of gods to be free to worship and obey the True God.

Still slaves, then.

 

[Davian]

Look for the capitol G.

So God is a god, or not a god?

 

[Davian]

I now recall where I have seen a variation on this; the Courtiers' reply.

"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics."

The Courtier’s Reply – Pharyngula

Davian,
You already know that I prefer the old school atheist approach to this (namely: religious tolerance), whereas you prefer the new atheist one.

If that means slandering

Do you hear me speaking this?

the attributes of the God of the Bible, then so be it.

What are these attributes, exactly?

Oh, wait - defining that would be a fool's errand. No harm done then.

With that cleared up, do you still have a problem with evolutionary theory?