- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bill Nye Smears Ken Ham
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:20 pm to TheDoc
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:20 pm to TheDoc
This is my favorite.
This was always an issue for me as Christian. Either huge portions of the bible couldn't be taken literally or God was a deceptive liar.
Then, it occurred to me that since if genesis cant be taken literally then there is no reason to believe in "the fall" since it requires the Adam and Eve story to be true. If death and sickness existed before man even came to being, and human beings lived and died before one eventually fell into sin, then the whole thing cant be true.
Then, if the fall didn't happen, I realized there was no need for a savior at all.
This was always an issue for me as Christian. Either huge portions of the bible couldn't be taken literally or God was a deceptive liar.
Then, it occurred to me that since if genesis cant be taken literally then there is no reason to believe in "the fall" since it requires the Adam and Eve story to be true. If death and sickness existed before man even came to being, and human beings lived and died before one eventually fell into sin, then the whole thing cant be true.
Then, if the fall didn't happen, I realized there was no need for a savior at all.
0
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:25 pm to thetempleowl
Ok, I'm laughing too hard at that link
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:26 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Atheism is a lack of belief based on insufficient evidence. It is a response to a claim of God's existence.
If someone says "I don't believe in unicorns" are they required to provide proof that unicorns don't exist? No, they only need rely on the LACK of evidence anyone claiming they do exist can provide.
This
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:33 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:As I posted earlier, in scientific study focusing on origins of matter or existence, a citation of "claims" is non-pertinent unless one extrapolates those "claims" to hypotheses. If the general premise is that atheists do not hypothesize regarding scientific unknowns, then coincident premise would carry that such atheists are not intellectually curious. As with the previous poster, if that is your assertion, I'd tell you anecdotally my experience with atheists differs dramatically from yours. The point is intellectuals should all be willing to question, and to address such questions with logic.
Atheism is a lack of belief based on insufficient evidence. It is a response to a claim of God's existence.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:42 pm to catholictigerfan
Ah, the "first cause" philosophical argument. This has been going on for thousands of years. Both sides have claimed to prove their position correct through philosophical arguments, but neither side conclusively wins.
And even if there is a first cause, it does not necessarily have to be a God.
And even if there was a God, how can you claim it is the christian one, from the thousands to choose from?
BTW you can't choose what parameters must be proven for not believing in God. The burden of proof lies completely with those who make supernatural claims. It is ridiculous to say not believing in the creation account is a supernatural claim of its own.
And even if there is a first cause, it does not necessarily have to be a God.
And even if there was a God, how can you claim it is the christian one, from the thousands to choose from?
BTW you can't choose what parameters must be proven for not believing in God. The burden of proof lies completely with those who make supernatural claims. It is ridiculous to say not believing in the creation account is a supernatural claim of its own.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:53 pm to klrstix
quote:
Is not this used to illustrate the difference between Macro and Micro evolution?
More pointedly this is an example of Micro Evolution, not Macro Evolution of which primarily applies to this discussion. Is that not correct?
LINK
There is no difference. This is the common garbage line thrown out by creationists.
We have witnessed evolution of species to the point where they are so different they can not interbreed.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:59 pm to RTOTA
quote:Totally irrelevant. Either there is or there isn't. Absent proof, it comes down to supposition and belief.
And even if there is a first cause, it does not necessarily have to be a God.
And even if there was a God, how can you claim it is the christian one, from the thousands to choose from?
You believe there is; you believe there is not; you don't know what to believe, or you're a bit too intellectually challenged and/or timid to field the question.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:02 pm to RTOTA
If nothing else, this discussion has forced everyone to the books. The Argument is becoming much more complex and discerning. The bottom line for me is that each position is convinced of their own validity and there really is no argument that is convincing to those with preconceived notions. I choose to believe in a creator, as it is to me a more reasonable assumption than the alternative. I understand those that feel differently and respect their position. It is ironic, however, that a nation that has been identified as " Christian" permits and allows such debate and those nations who dismiss The notion of God would imprison, or do worse, to some of those who express veiwpoint as are being expressed here
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:02 pm to klrstix
quote:
Is not this used to illustrate the difference between Macro and Micro evolution?
More pointedly this is an example of Micro Evolution, not Macro Evolution of which primarily applies to this discussion. Is that not correct?
There is no difference, they are the exact same processes on different times scales.
As I've said before, believing in micro but no macro evolution is like believing in inches but not feet.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:06 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
There is no difference, they are the exact same processes on different times scales.
As I've said before, believing in micro but no macro evolution is like believing in inches but not feet.
I already covered this and gave the example of the salamanders that evolved into difference species.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:10 pm to RTOTA
quote:
Ah, the "first cause" philosophical argument. This has been going on for thousands of years. Both sides have claimed to prove their position correct through philosophical arguments, but neither side conclusively wins.
quote:
And even if there is a first cause, it does not necessarily have to be a God.
quote:
And even if there was a God, how can you claim it is the christian one, from the thousands to choose from?
Your first few sentences are correct. The next two are irrelevant or, I would argue, should be irrelevant in terms of establishing whether some supernatural force intervened in our universe.
When Richard Dawkins says he believes either (a) something can come from nothing (in math: 1 can equal 0) or that (b) something can be infinite (in math: 1 can equal infinity), he's making an argument for the supernatural, even though he'd squirm if you asked him to phrase it as such. Defying the laws of nature is the very essence of the supernatural.
This is precisely why we can all arrive at deism by logic alone, whether that deity be a god or some form of super science that can defy the laws of nature as we know them today.
Atheism (the positive variant) is as illogical as Theism. Deism is the only one that can be arrived at by pure reason. The other two require faith. Whether that faith has you conclude that supernatural force is a personal god or is not a personal god is completely up to you.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:12 pm to thetempleowl
I dont see evolution, in whatever form you believe it to have occured, as an issue for religion. The real issue is how it began. Scientist have been trying to duplicate conditions to produce one cell of DNA for more than 50 years without success. Some argue that it cannot be done based on the knowledge we now have.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:23 pm to mattloc
quote:
It is ironic, however, that a nation that has been identified as " Christian"
quote:
those nations who dismiss The notion of God would imprison, or do worse, to some of those who express veiwpoint as are being expressed here
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:25 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I have no real issues with someone logically concluding there must've been a first cause and saying that cause was some supreme being well above us.
Totally irrelevant. Either there is or there isn't. Absent proof, it comes down to supposition and belief.
Where I have issue is them extrapolating this into believing in the God people worship. There are no logical steps that lead to such a conclusion. Said Supreme being may well just get a giggle out of creating universes and might be on universe 1,000,000 about now with not a care in the world at this point about any of the beings that may have arisen within the universes he created. Hell, if he has interest, it may well be a similar interest to that we have in a lab culture we're observing. He may just have a "what happens when I put this shite together" thing going on.
That's why I understand the fervor among theists to argue in favor of the obviousness that there "must" be a creator. That doesn't get u any closer to proof of the God of the Bible than before the argument.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:27 pm to mattloc
quote:
I dont see evolution
Maybe you should open your eyes and a science book?
Or just read this link:
Evolution in action
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:28 pm to mattloc
quote:
Scientist have been trying to duplicate conditions to produce one cell of DNA for more than 50 years without success
This is inaccurate. Much research has gone into showing that the early conditions on earth's surface could spontaneously generate the building blocks of life (DNA and proteins) and we have proven that it can.
LINK
Very little research has been conducted on spontaneously generating cells, mostly because the emergence of the first cell from the spontaneously generated building blocks took millions of years.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:30 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
This is inaccurate.
As have all of his posts have been
Very entertaining though
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:31 pm to mattloc
quote:
The notion of God would imprison, or do worse, to some of those who express veiwpoint as are being expressed here
No
quote:
a nation that has been identified as " Christian"
We are not a Christian nation. Most of the founding fathers were deists, spiritualists and atheists.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:38 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
quote:
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
quote:
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
quote:
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
STRING HIM UP
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:39 pm to TheDoc
Maybe you misunderstood my post, I dont believe evolution to relevant to the issue of that of Creation. I believe it to have occured and believe it to be occuring, although on what scale has yet to be determined. I see you dismiss my assertion that aethism is an itegral part of philosiphical veiwpoints that supress freedom of discussion but consider this.....Lenin stated " Atheism is a natural and inseperable part of Marxism." Marxism constitutes the philosophy of government of close to a third, or so, of the worlds population.
Page 9 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News