Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism causes creationism

1…34689…24

Comments

  • #152
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    yawha wrote: »
    New Atheism is only about 7 or 8 years old.

    What "new atheism" though? The only "new atheists" I see are people purporting to be atheists, but who seem to spend most of their time complaining about every other atheist, calling them as fanatical and close-minded as religious fundamentalists, all the while using suspiciously similar negative labels and arguments that religious commentators use when whinging about atheists.


  • #153
    marty1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Whats that got to do with anything? Are you under the impression that something only exists once humans have made up a name for it? Creationism has existed since the bible was written, it was just up to about a few hundred years ago it was just called christianity. And that's only christian creationism, as if you think of the the religions before christianity that had similar creation theories (some sort of deity started everything a relatively short time ago), creationism has been around for millennia.


    Its right there, when you you release the fallacy of thinking that creationism only exists in answer to evolution. Creationism was long the official stance of the catholic church, and the problems of the likes of Copernicus, Gallileo and Darwin in presenting their theories (either political or personal) arose because of the existence of creationism.


    I think raah! is referring to creationism in the sense of the word as we use it today, while you are using it in a very broad sense. In a very broad sense, all Christians are creationists if they believe in creation ex nihilo - out of nothing, and they would say that the Big Bang theory accords with this.

    What is really causing the trouble, as I see it, is literal interpretations of the Bible, a literalism that is unprecedented in religion. According to scholars like Karen Armstrong, mentioned above, before the modern period few understood the first chapters of Genesis as an exact account of the origins of life, and theologians had insisted that biblical texts contradicting science be interpreted allegorically.

    In Judaism and Islam, fundamentalist movements usually are sparked by political issues, but for Christians it's seemingly doctrinal or scientific ones. The issue does relate more to evolution than Galileo or Copernicus, because Christian Fundamentalism (even the term) began in the early 1900s in America and made the news due to things like the Scopes Trial. Fundamentalists dedicated themselves to fighting the teaching of evolution.

    New Atheism has perhaps done nothing to resolve this if it draws battle lines, making both sides more resilient, and also being intolerant of moderates, so the pool of moderates dries up. Karen Armstrong and others have also done a lot of work into studying fundamentalism in all it's forms, and they say that fundamentalism is rooted in paranoia, in fear of being under attack. The problem with New Atheism is that it justifies their paranoia. There are militant atheists and fundamentalists out there that are just the mirror image of each other.

    I also think stories of Galileo being tortured etc are a bit overblown, but that's neither here nor there.


  • #154
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    marty1985 wrote: »
    I think raah! is referring to creationism in the sense of the word as we use it today, while you are using it in a very broad sense. In a very broad sense, all Christians are creationists if they believe in creation ex nihilo - out of nothing, and they would say that the Big Bang theory accords with this.

    My post after the one your are responding deals with this distinction. The difference is implicit vs explicit denial of evolution and, from the point of view of evolution and its supporters, its irrelevant.
    marty1985 wrote: »
    What is really causing the trouble, as I see it, is literal interpretations of the Bible, a literalism that is unprecedented in religion. According to scholars like Karen Armstrong, mentioned above, before the modern period few understood the first chapters of Genesis as an exact account of the origins of life, and theologians had insisted that biblical texts contradicting science be interpreted allegorically.

    Literal readings of the bible are far older than the modern period, it goes back to from when it was written. Dating the creation of the earth using a literal reading was done by Archbishop Usher in 1600s, Alfonso X of Castile in the 1200s and according to the wiki page there: "Young Earth creationism was still the dominant view during the Early Modern Period (1500–1800) and is found typically referenced in the works of famous poets and playwrights of the era like Shakespeare: ...The poor world is almost 6,000 years old."
    marty1985 wrote: »
    In Judaism and Islam, fundamentalist movements usually are sparked by political issues, but for Christians it's seemingly doctrinal or scientific ones. The issue does relate more to evolution than Galileo or Copernicus, because Christian Fundamentalism (even the term) began in the early 1900s in America and made the news due to things like the Scopes Trial. Fundamentalists dedicated themselves to fighting the teaching of evolution.

    You are reading the situations backwards. The reason why fundamentalism arose in the 1900s was not because it only exists in answer to evolution, but because it always existed, but no distinction could be made from other positions until new theories arose in popularity. Creation fundamentalism always existed, but it needed evolution to be recognised as a fundamental position.
    marty1985 wrote: »
    The problem with New Atheism is that it justifies their paranoia. There are militant atheists and fundamentalists out there that are just the mirror image of each other.

    You know, in future I should read full posts before wasting my time responding to certain people, as I thought that you just an honest misreading of the situation but seeing this just makes me see that you are making **** up:
    55708-47021.jpg


  • #155
    marty1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    Mark Hamill wrote: »

    Literal readings of the bible are far older than the modern period, it goes back to from when it was written. Dating the creation of the earth using a literal reading was done by Archbishop Usher in 1600s, Alfonso X of Castile in the 1200s and according to the wiki page there: "Young Earth creationism was still the dominant view during the Early Modern Period (1500–1800) and is found typically referenced in the works of famous poets and playwrights of the era like Shakespeare: ...The poor world is almost 6,000 years old."

    I would have no doubt that some people would have read it literally. The Catholic Church were holding to the principle of accommodation, so my view would be that it arose with the reformation - the Catholic Church had warned against literal interpretations of the Bible, and I'm sure they were trying to protect themselves also. Furthermore, many prominent thinkers and theologians regarded the account of creation as an allegory, including, importantly, Augustine, and the 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days. Of course, I would forgive anyone for having a literal understanding until faced with scientific evidence, at which point I would expect them to adhere to the principle of accommodation.

    To be clear, I was talking about Christian Fundamentalism as a movement, not in any broad sense. It is reactionary, so how can I say it always existed? Literal interpretations would have always existed, but not the Fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalism as we know it arose out of British and American Protestantism. To say it always existed gets close to saying that it typifies all Christian faith, therefore all Christians are fundamentalists and literalists. Fundamentalism is usually a distortion of the faith they think they are defending.

    My remark about fundamentalists on both sides refers to the emotional polemics and diatribes that we hear from both sides, who share common characteristics such as intolerance and seriously reductive ideas of faith, simplistic interpretations of the Bible, and a view that there is only one way to interpret reality (scientism v doctrine), and usually that they alone are in possession of truth.


  • #156
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    marty1985 wrote: »
    The Catholic Church were holding to the principle of accommodation, so my view would be that it arose with the reformation - the Catholic Church had warned against literal interpretations of the Bible, and I'm sure they were trying to protect themselves also.

    Knashers post deals with this. If accomadation was the principle of the RCC, why did Charles Darwin himself come to a literal belief in the bible while studying to be a clergyman?:
    Charles Darwins Autobiography wrote:
    from what little I had heard and thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care Pearson on the Creed and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted
    marty1985 wrote: »
    To be clear, I was talking about Christian Fundamentalism as a movement, not in any broad sense. It is reactionary, so how can I say it always existed? Literal interpretations would have always existed, but not the Fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalism as we know it arose out of British and American Protestantism. To say it always existed gets close to saying that it typifies all Christian faith, therefore all Christians are fundamentalists and literalists. Fundamentalism is usually a distortion of the faith they think they are defending.

    Massive non sequitor. The "movement" has always existed, it is just that before the theory of evolution, it didn't have anything to move against, it was the norm.
    marty1985 wrote: »
    My remark about fundamentalists on both sides refers to the emotional polemics and diatribes that we hear from both sides, who share common characteristics such as intolerance and seriously reductive ideas of faith, simplistic interpretations of the Bible, and a view that there is only one way to interpret reality (scientism v doctrine), and usually that they alone are in possession of truth.

    All of these things are tiny in comparison to the main defining qualities that differentiate militant atheist and militant theist, its really quite irrelevant what they may share when what they don't is so monstrous (as described by the cartoon I posted in the previous post).

    Not to mention that the commonalities you have given aren't really the same on each side, not when you examine what they actually say:
    "Militant" atheists are intolerant of fallacies and bad think that make up religion and one person thinking that there religion is more important than anyone elses. Militant theists are intolerant because they believe their religious book of choice tells them to be.
    "Militant" atheists have simplistic interpretations of the bible because they have actually read it and tried to understand it and see it for the shallow empty misogynistic contradictory mess that is. Theists have simplistic interpretations of the bible because they haven't thought about it at all, because to think about it would have led them to see how their fundamental interpretation is unfounded and contradictory.
    Having the ideas that there is one interpretation of reality and that you are right in your opinion is something shared by damn near everyone on the planet, so to point it out as if it makes two opposing groups nearly identical is ludicrous and disingenuous.
    You are not doing anything to quell my fears that you are only here to spout the same poorly thought anti-atheist fallacies that every theist who bitches about imaginary "new" or "militant" atheists does.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    You mean he that wealthy. Wow. lol

    I'm not sure how one determines "wealthy" in those times (he wasn't living in a place surrounded by servants), but he was significantly better of than a labourer would have been. For a start he didn't work, he simply travelled around the country side having people adore him.

    Do you actually dispute this? Or do you just not like what is being suggested?


  • #158
    marty1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If accomadation was the principle of the RCC, why did Charles Darwin himself come to a literal belief in the bible while studying to be a clergyman?:

    Charles Darwin was a member of the Church of England, no?
    Massive non sequitor. The "movement" has always existed, it is just that before the theory of evolution, it didn't have anything to move against, it was the norm.

    Again, I'm not so sure it was the norm. I guess you're saying literalist views always existed, and I wouldn't deny that. Even if we go back to wiki again, in the page for Catholic Church and Evolution it says "even by 1859, the church did not insist on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis".

    There's also a page on Christian Fundamentalism which is worth a read, I will give it a proper read later when I have time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

    I don't think cartoons are the best approach to the discussion, since they represent a caricature, while attacking abortion clinics is an awful action, I don't think it's typical of all fundamentalists or evangelicals, to use a broader term.


  • #159
    marty1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Knashers post deals with this. If accomadation was the principle of the RCC, why did Charles Darwin himself come to a literal belief in the bible while studying to be a clergyman?:

    My post here replied to Knasher's post.


  • #160
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Everytime I read a piece like Reville's I'm always reminded of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

    They are about to jump off into a river and Sundance is saying that he can't swim, to which Butch asks are you crazy, the fall will kill you.

    The point being don't worry about the small stuff when you have much bigger problems.

    The fixation with the evolution from simpler life forms and the age of the Earth is the small bit of evolution, most believers have managed to adapt their beliefs around such an idea (except in America and Arabia), yet it is what people like Reville fixate on.

    Of course this is like worrying about not being able to swim. Coming around the corner very soon is the fall that is going to kill, in the form of an natural theory of religion within evolutionary psychology.

    That is going to be HUGE and it is something every religious person on the planet is going to have to face and it is going to be much much harder to adapt beliefs around it because it is basically going to say that their religious beliefs are all imaginary.

    It is going to make the Creationism debate look like a polite discussion about the weather
    I agree that the ultimate question is whether Materialistic Evolution is true ... or was life created by intelligence(s) unknown?

    Theistic Evolution is therefore just a distraction from the main issue ... and it seems to exist to provide some consolation for Theists who also want to be Evolutionists.

    Your analogy is quite insightful in relation to the Materialistic/Theistic Evolution issue.

    However, it seems that many Theistic Evolutionists have reduced God's part in it to vanishing point already ... so perhaps, they mightn't even notice if His role completely disappeared ... and therefore your pessism about their reaction to such a situation, may not be justified !!:)

    Anyway, what is this 'natural theory of religion within evolutionary psychology' that is just around the corner ... and which will be so devastating to the Theistic Evolutionists?
    I hope, for the sake of your argument, that it is more than the recent speculations that 'Evolution' has somehow 'caused' people to be 'religious' ... because that hasn't had any discernable effect on the Theistic Evolutionists.

    Indeed, it also begs the question as to why dogs and cats also aren't 'religious', if its true???:eek:


  • #161
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    55708-47021.jpg
    Suicide bombers have killed thousands of people ... and the murder of abortionists is measured in single figures ... while Stalin's Militant Atheists killed millions ... yet you'd never think that this was the case, from your cartoon.
    Perhaps you should consider referring to these facts, in the interest of truth and balance, if you are of a mind to publish this thing again???:(


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,752 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    J C wrote: »
    Suicide bombers have killed thousands of people ... and the murder of abortionists is measured in single figures ... while Stalin's Military killed millions ... yet you'd never think that this was the case, from your cartoon.
    Perhaps you should consider referring to these facts, in the interest of truth, if you are of a mind to publish this thing again???:(

    FYP

    Atheists don't go around killing in the name of a russian totalitarian regime where the dictator is seen as a borderline god.


  • #163
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    FYP

    Atheists don't go around killing in the name of a russian totalitarian regime where the dictator is seen as a borderline god.
    Neither do Saved Christians or ordinary Muslims, for that matter!!!

    ... so, my request to Mark Hamill to please publish the death toll, if he is of a mind to publish that thing again, still stands!!!


  • #164
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,752 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    J C wrote: »
    Neither do Saved Christians or ordinary Muslims, for that matter!!!

    A statement I wholeheartedly agree with JC. The thing is though, the very small minority of muslims who blow themselves up and christians who murder doctors do it all in the name of their respective gods, comparing them to the armies of stalinist russia is rather silly since they carried out their actions not in the pursuit of atheistic ideals but at the behest of a power hungry dictator in pursuit of more power. The likes of Stalin's Russia and Kim Jong Il's North Korea are only considered atheist states because nobody outside of those states recognise Kim Jong Il or Stalin as deities.


  • #165
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    A statement I wholeheartedly agree with JC. The thing is though, the very small minority of muslims who blow themselves up and christians who murder doctors do it all in the name of their respective gods, comparing them to the armies of stalinist russia is rather silly since they carried out their actions not in the pursuit of atheistic ideals but at the behest of a power hungry dictator in pursuit of more power. The likes of Stalin's Russia and Kim Jong Il's North Korea are only considered atheist states because nobody outside of those states recognise Kim Jong Il or Stalin as deities.
    There are probably more doctors murdered every day by jealous husbands, who have found them in bed with their wives, than the total number of abortionists who have been murdered by people claiming Biblical justification for theire acts!!!
    I can't speak for Muslims, but Jesus Christ never asked anybody to murder other people ... He asked them to love their enemies and do good to those who hate them ... and leave any vengeance to Him.

    The fact of the matter is that Soviet Russia was set up as an Atheistic Utopia ... that ended in the starvation and death of millions of innocent people.
    This doesn't mean that your average Atheist is going to kill you ... no more than your average Chrisitian or Muslim is going to do so either ... but 'Atheists in glasshouses' shouldn't throw stones ... and if they do, they should have the decency to publish the figures behind their cartoons ... or expect to be 'pulled up' on them!!!


  • #166
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    I agree that the ultimate question is whether Materialistic Evolution is true ... or did the alternative actually happen?
    ... i.e. was life was created by intelligence(s) unknown?

    Theistic Evolution is just a distraction from the main issue ... and it is there to provide some consolation for Theists who also want to be Evolutionists.

    Your analogy is quite insightful in relation to the Materialistic/Theistic Evolution issue.

    However, it seems that many Theistic Evolutionists have reduced God's part in it to vanishing point already ... so perhaps, they mightn't even notice if His role completely disappeared ... and therefore your pessism about their reaction to such a situation, may not be justified !!:)

    Anyway, what is this 'natural theory of religion within evolutionary psychology' that is just around the corner ... and which will be so devastating to the Theistic Evolutionists?
    I hope, for the sake of your argument, that it is more than the recent speculations that 'Evolution' has caused people to be 'religious' ... because that hasn't had any discernable effect on the Theistic Evolutionists.

    Indeed, it begs the question as to why dogs and cats also aren't 'religious', if its true???:eek:

    Sorry, I don't bother with detail responses to self professed trolls pretending to be Christians.


  • #167
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,752 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    J C wrote: »
    I can't speak for Muslims, but Jesus Christ never asked anybody to murder other people ... He asked them to love their enemies and do good to those who hate them ... and leave any vengeance to Him.

    The fact of the matter is that Soviet Russia was set up as an Atheistic Utopia ... that ended in the starvation and death of millions of innocent people.
    This doesn't mean that your average Atheist is going to kill you ... no more than your average Chrisitian or Muslim is going to do so either ... but 'Atheists in glasshouses' shouldn't throw stones !!!

    It doesn't matter what you think Jesus told them to do its what they think jesus told them to do. Thats the trouble with religions, people are free to interpret them how they see fit.


  • #168
    Atomicjuicer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 290 ✭✭Atomicjuicer


    What bothers me is when atheists try to link their non-belief with science.

    I love science and know more about the current state of scientific development than most of my local peers and I'm a Catholic too.

    There's no data either way so believe what you want. Leave science out of it.


  • #169
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Sorry, I don't bother with detail responses to self professed trolls pretending to be Christians.
    If you have no answers just say nothing ... its better than making unfounded statements that you are likely to be pulled up on !!!:)


  • #170
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Atomicjuicer wrote: »
    What bothers me is when atheists try to link their non-belief with science.

    I love science and know more about the current state of scientific development than most of my local peers and I'm a Catholic too.

    There's no data either way so believe what you want. Leave science out of it.

    So you'll remain a catholic until science disproves a god? How scientifically minded of you.

    Generally when there's no 'data' to support a claim then the claim isn't taken very seriously, or at least that's how it works for everything else in the world apart from religion.


  • #171
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Atomicjuicer wrote: »
    What bothers me is when atheists try to link their non-belief with science.

    I love science and know more about the current state of scientific development than most of my local peers and I'm a Catholic too.

    There's no data either way so believe what you want. Leave science out of it.

    There is tons of data. Religious people either ignore it or simply don't know it exists in the first place (and often don't want to go looking for it)


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    It doesn't matter what you think Jesus told them to do its what they think jesus told them to do. Thats the trouble with religions, people are free to interpret them how they see fit.
    ... and the very same is true for the religion of Atheistic Humanism ...

    ... can I gently remind you, once again, that the death toll is thousands by suicide bombings, one or two murdered abortionists ... and millions of innocent Russians, Cambodians, etc. murdered by people claiming to be Atheists!!!:eek::(


  • #173
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    If you have no answers just say nothing ... its better than making unfounded statements that you are likely to be pulled up on !!!:)
    I'm happy to discuss evolution with Christians and with non-Christians. But I won't discuss any topic with someone pretending to be a Christian for the purposes of trolling an Internet site. It is disrespectful to both genuine Christians and those interested in genuine discussion.


  • #174
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Atomicjuicer wrote: »
    What bothers me is when atheists try to link their non-belief with science.

    I love science and know more about the current state of scientific development than most of my local peers and I'm a Catholic too.

    There's no data either way so believe what you want. Leave science out of it.

    I doubt you'd hold a court case to the same standard, so why does religion, God etc. get a free pass? Surely in the absence of data one should at least be skeptical towards God and religion?


  • #175
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Atomicjuicer wrote: »
    What bothers me is when atheists try to link their non-belief with science.

    I love science and know more about the current state of scientific development than most of my local peers and I'm a Catholic too.

    There's no data either way so believe what you want. Leave science out of it.
    I think that you'll find, if you go to the mega-thread that the jury is in ... and the verdict is that there is no scientific evidence for Spontaneous Evolution ... and mathematical proof for creation by intelligence(s) unknown.

    .... but let's stick with the topic under discussion, which is the claim that Atheism causes Creationism.
    I don't believe that this is so. Creationism was the dominant idea for hundreds of years, when Atheism was a tiny minority belief.
    Equally, the renewed growth in Creationism in recent years, is 'caused' by an objective evalution of the available scientific evidence.
    The recent breakthroughs in our understanding of the complex specificity of genetic information and how it is transmitted and utilised has been a major reason for the growth of Creation Science.
    I think that the key linkages and causal relationships are between :-
    ... Atheism and Spontaneous Evolutionism ...
    ... and between Modern Science and Creationism.


  • #176
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I'm happy to discuss evolution with Christians and with non-Christians. But I won't discuss any topic with someone pretending to be a Christian for the purposes of trolling an Internet site. It is disrespectful to both genuine Christians and those interested in genuine discussion.
    So you're happy to discuss Evolution with people who believe in it ... but not with somebody who has mathematically disproven it.

    ... all the rest is a hypocritical smokescreen!!!:eek:

    Your refusal to discuss anything with anybody that you claim to be 'pretending to be a Christian' obviously doesn't include me ... as the mark of a true Christian is their proclaimation of an unambiguous belief in the Saving Power and the Sovereignty of Jesus Christ ... which I have repeatedly proclaimed.
    ... and I would suggest that you use this yardstick, if you are genuinely as squeamish, as you claim to be, about the Christian Orthodoxy of those with whom you debate, on the internet!!!!:(


  • #177
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Malty_T wrote: »
    I doubt you'd hold a court case to the same standard, so why does religion, God etc. get a free pass? Surely in the absence of data one should at least be skeptical towards God and religion?
    I am equally skeptical of claims for both the existence and the non-existence of God.

    The objective evidence certainly indicates that life was intelligently designed.
    Who this/these designer(s) was/were is a matter of faith!!!!


  • #178
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    So you're happy to discuss Evolution with people who believe in it ... but not with somebody who has mathematically disproven it.

    ... all the rest is a hypocritical smokescreen!!!:eek:

    Your refusal to discuss anything with anybody that you claim to be 'pretending to be a Christian' obviously doesn't include me ... as the mark of a true Christian is their proclaimation of an unambiguous belief in the Saving Power and the Sovereignty of Jesus Christ.
    ... and I would suggest that you use this yardstick, if you are genuinely as squeamish, as you claim, about the Christian Orthodoxy of those with whom you debate on the internet!!!!:(

    You aren't a Christian, you have admitted as much. If you come clean and stop pretending (and stop trolling) we may be able to have a discussion about evolution and Christian faith.

    Until then I've nothing further to say to you. Any further replies will be referred back to the above request to come clean.


  • #179
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    So you're happy to discuss Evolution with people who believe in it ... but not with somebody who has mathematically disproven it.

    Get back in your box and debunk that paper we've been showing you for months that explains in detail why what you've said is completely untrue.


  • #180
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You aren't a Christian, you have admitted as much. If you come clean and stop pretending (and stop trolling) we may be able to have a discussion about evolution and Christian faith.

    Until then I've nothing further to say to you. Any further replies will be referred back to the above request to come clean.
    I am a Saved Christian ... and I have repeatedly said so. Ultimately, the only persons who can verify whether anybody is a Christian are themselves and Jesus Christ.

    ... either way, the sight of an Atheist being squeamish about the Christian Orthodoxy of those with whom they choose to debate, certainly is a sight to behold!!!!

    I have 'come clean' ... as you call it ... and told you that I am a Christian ... so ready, steady, go!!

    ... I can understand your fear of coming up against a Christian indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God ... but please be assured that God is gentle and loving and has a special place in his heart for all repentent sinners.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Get back in your box and debunk that paper we've been showing you for months that explains in detail why what you've said is completely untrue.
    As a certain Italian might say, the evolutionist cat is out of the bag ... and it is currently clambering up the curtains, on its way out of the window!!!:)

    ... as the resident Creation Scientist, on the A & A, I thought you would all appreciate my expert opinion, on the question as to whether Atheism causes Creationism!!!:)

    ... and here it is:-
    In my professional opinion, Atheism causes many things ... but Creationism definitely isn't one of them!!!:D:eek:


Advertisement