Does Evolution give evidence for Christianity?

redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Does Evolution give evidence for Christianity?

Can this clown sling sh1t, or what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdVBfIWE6sg&feature=related

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
LMAO!! Evolution shows

LMAO!! Evolution shows Christianity is batsh*t insane and the bible belongs in the comic book section!!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5090
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well - it's possible christians

 

are descended from howler monkies. That's a connection, isn't it?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Theism > theistic

Theism > theistic evolutionism > deism > atheism.
That's how it went with me, at least.
If evolution is true, there was no Fall, nor a common ancestor that had the same way of thinking about morals as us, from which all of us could have inherited Sin.
Of course, you don't mention that when you give them arguments for evolution, or they would ignore every argument and keep with creationism.


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios wrote:Theism >

Thunderios wrote:

Theism > theistic evolutionism > deism > atheism.
That's how it went with me, at least.
If evolution is true, there was no Fall, nor a common ancestor that had the same way of thinking about morals as us, from which all of us could have inherited Sin.
Of course, you don't mention that when you give them arguments for evolution, or they would ignore every argument and keep with creationism.

You mention theistic evolution.

A Catholic once told me that a lot of Catholics don't like that since they basically ADMIT their religion is a stupid failure but not even having evolution in the bible!! LMAO!! The hardcore catholics say there should be no mention of evolution since it's not in the bible but evolution is so OBVIOUSLY true that even the Pope said evolution is real!!

That's why the Catholic chruch created this "theistic evolution".  The evolution part is true but the theistic part is pure fairy tale!!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13492
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
To answer the title of the

To answer the title of the thread, no.

Evolution is only evidence of Christianity like it is evidence for Thor or Apollo or Vishnu. We didn't evolve to test the claims we make, we evolved like every other species and the only thing important is getting to the point of reproduction.

Evolution produces dipshits who manage to reproduce as much as produces smart people and even smart people who make absurd claims.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:To answer the

Brian37 wrote:

To answer the title of the thread, no.

Evolution is only evidence of Christianity like it is evidence for Thor or Apollo or Vishnu. We didn't evolve to test the claims we make, we evolved like every other species and the only thing important is getting to the point of reproduction.

Evolution produces dipshits who manage to reproduce as much as produces smart people and even smart people who make absurd claims.

In the video Craig claims that since "And the evening and the morning were the second day" can be interpreted as meaning billions of years, Christians have two theories, namely ID and evolution to choose from, and they pick ID in their unbiased view (since genesis can also be interpreted to mean evolution). On the other hand, we atheists want to deny god, I mean the IDer, and thus we are biased towards evolution.
Since the unbiased people (the religious ones) choose ID over evolution, the former must be true.
Obviously.


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Creation Science DebunkedThe

Creation Science Debunked

The scientific arguments of the creationists, while nonsensical, are very intricate and detailed, and can sound very convincing to people who do not have enough scientific knowledge to make a good judgement (such as local school board members). Although the creationists have made many pseudo-scientific arguments against evolutionary science, for reasons of space we can only discuss a few of them here. The creationist failure in these areas should indicate how much credence we can give to the rest of their "science".

Much of the creationist case is based upon intellectual dishonesty. Creationists depend heavily on quotations from evolutionary scientists and writers which they have pulled out of context and twisted to sound like something other than what the writer intended. They also depend heavily on half-truths, distortions, deliberate citation of data they know to be untrue, and outright fabrications.

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/index.htm

 

 

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios wrote:In the

Thunderios wrote:

In the video Craig claims that since "And the evening and the morning were the second day" can be interpreted as meaning billions of years, Christians have two theories, namely ID and evolution to choose from, and they pick ID in their unbiased view (since genesis can also be interpreted to mean evolution). On the other hand, we atheists want to deny god, I mean the IDer, and thus we are biased towards evolution.
Since the unbiased people (the religious ones) choose ID over evolution, the former must be true.
Obviously.

Now I know where some of the stupid non sequiturs about 'atheists' being dogmatic, originate from.

I thought those non sequiturs were simply due to the obvious stupidity of those who were saying them, but, it was due to their stupidity for repeating them from a lying snake oil salesman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQsaiMcPLc&feature=related

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The reverse is true -

The reverse is true -

Christianity, and other religions, are evidence for a form of evolution, namely evolution of 'memes', or cultural evolution, ie evolution of relatively coherent sets of ideas. This was originally a suggestion from Richard Dawkins, as a way to help understand how ideas that seemed to be not beneficial to the species could emerge and develop.

IOW, these ideas only need to be able to appeal to some aspect of our mental life to be copied, ie 'reproduce'. Such copying is prone to small errors, misinterpretation, etc, and those that are most appealing to something in our psychology will be more successful, independently of whether they are good for us as individuals or a society.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The reverse

BobSpence1 wrote:

The reverse is true -

Christianity, and other religions, are evidence for a form of evolution, namely evolution of 'memes', or cultural evolution, ie evolution of relatively coherent sets of ideas. This was originally a suggestion from Richard Dawkins, as a way to help understand how ideas that seemed to be not beneficial to the species could emerge and develop.

IOW, these ideas only need to be able to appeal to some aspect of our mental life to be copied, ie 'reproduce'. Such copying is prone to small errors, misinterpretation, etc, and those that are most appealing to something in our psychology will be more successful, independently of whether they are good for us as individuals or a society.

Thats interesting that the threat of hell survived then cause no one would agree with that. You most appealing wouldnt a system of belief that said everyone is going to get a better life later be more attrative? But maybe that would cause anarchy.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The reverse

BobSpence1 wrote:

The reverse is true -

Christianity, and other religions, are evidence for a form of evolution, namely evolution of 'memes', or cultural evolution, ie evolution of relatively coherent sets of ideas. This was originally a suggestion from Richard Dawkins, as a way to help understand how ideas that seemed to be not beneficial to the species could emerge and develop.

IOW, these ideas only need to be able to appeal to some aspect of our mental life to be copied, ie 'reproduce'. Such copying is prone to small errors, misinterpretation, etc, and those that are most appealing to something in our psychology will be more successful, independently of whether they are good for us as individuals or a society.

I remember reading somewhere, where there is some fundamental law of the Creationist theory that 'everything' came into the universe 'perfectly' developed, and that it can only move in the direction of 'breakdown'.

That NO matter how much time is involved, the 'odds' of anything gaining in 'complexity' naturally, are illogical to assume, as reflecting reality, or actuality.

Like a 'total loss' system.

IOW, everything beginning from the pinnacle of complexity, and can only move towards, deterioration, or towards simplicity. Which they analogue into 'loss' of information.

 

A good example that completely falsifies this, is a diamond.

They will then argue that because a diamond is not biological, that it is not a valid parallel.

It doesn't matter that even if we only have a theory that biological living organisms follow the same rules of mutation by natural selection.

They haven't achieved 1 stitch of evidence to falsify the theory of Darwinian theory of Evolution of the Species.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I believe in theistic

I believe in theistic evolution.

Theists' version of their god always evolves so their bat-shit crazy religion can survive in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


mrOriginal
atheist
mrOriginal's picture
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-02-26
User is offlineOffline
God, being all knowing, and

God, being all knowing, and perfect and in total control......hmm.  Evolution play no part in proving Christianity because it was obviously written by people who had no concept of a micro organism, gravity, A ROUND EARTH.  If the Bible was truly the "word of God"  then surely he would have liked to mention all of the fascinating things we can go see at the Natural History Museum.  Why only take credit for mankind?  If that is true, I hope he loves us more than he loved the dinosaurs....I don't see many of those around anymore....Guess they weren't cool enough, it's probably hard to have a decent conversation with a 50 ton reptile anyways.  There are simply too many inconsistencies and contradictions due to ignorance in the bible, certainly not the product of a perfect, all knowing supernatural God.  There must be a reason that the Bible omits every other life form that we have discoverd via the fossil record.  Oh yah, thats right, it was written by people that didn't know about such things.  It's a pity that so many people fall into these archaic beliefs. 

 

I feel bad in a way for all of the other human beings on the other continents that went to hell because they couldn't catch a plane to the middle east a few thousand years ago so that they could "hear the good news".  I'm sure they were quite content with worshipping the sun, or thor, or allah, or zeus, or something else ridiculous....

Evolution would certainly prove christianity to be right, but God must have been really busy at the time and forgot to tell the guys writing to include even the smallest shred of evidence about what he was doing the first few million years that this planet came to be.  Not to mention our place in the Galaxy or let alone the Universe and the billions of years it took us to reach this point.  k, now im just ranting. sorry...you guys get the point. 

that dude in the video.....well......nice try buddy..keep crackin...

 

mr O.

"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."

Friedrich Nietzsche


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
mrOriginal wrote:...that

mrOriginal wrote:

...that dude in the video.....well......nice try buddy..keep crackin...

 

He's obviously a fraud.

They always crack under pressure.

Here he cracks because he has to think on his feet. He runs his mouth too much, because he's overly confident in his posturing as an academic, and he thinks carpet bombing with words, will cover up the fact that he's trying to think of a clever answer.

He not only completely makes a slew of non sequiturs and complete equivocations. He basically admits that the ancient texts are completely anecdotal, and imprecise, and he actually undermines his position as an academic who is presenting an HONEST scientific counter theory to evolutionary biology.

He incriminates himself as a fraud, and charlatan.

This guy is completely busted.

I intend on making this go viral on the net.

 

Here it is again.

Copy and paste this sh1t anywhere you can.

He can't bullshit his way out of this.

There's no 'misinterpretation' of his comments.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdVBfIWE6sg&feature=related

 

Quote:

" So, I think among educated Christians, its always been know that Genesis, is open to a very wide range of different interpretations, that are quite consistent with different theories of evolutionary biology."


"As a biblical Christian, I'm completely open to follow the evidence to where it leads, and I think that's one of the advantages to being a Christian, is that you can follow the evidence to where it leads, by constrast, the naturalist....for him, evolution is the only game in town.....so in that sense, his mind is all made up in advance...

But, as a theist, I can follow the evidence where it leads." : William Lane Craig

What evidence DO YOU THINK he is he talking about?

Biblical, or scientific evidence?

He's just gonna keep moving the goalposts till CERN with the Large Hadron Collider, or space exploration puts him out of business of BS.

By then, he won't care, stoopid Christians have made this guy such a fucking multi millionaire.

What a fucking scam...

 

Can't these theists understand they ALL have STOOPID stamped on their foreheads?

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I believe in

EXC wrote:

I believe in theistic evolution.

Theists' version of their god always evolves so their bat-shit crazy religion can survive in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

But that would mean you believe in theism and as an atheist you clearly don't so whatchoo talkin bout Willis??

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
mrOriginal wrote:God, being

mrOriginal wrote:

God, being all knowing, and perfect and in total control......hmm.  Evolution play no part in proving Christianity because it was obviously written by people who had no concept of a micro organism, gravity, A ROUND EARTH.  If the Bible was truly the "word of God"  then surely he would have liked to mention all of the fascinating things we can go see at the Natural History Museum.  Why only take credit for mankind?  If that is true, I hope he loves us more than he loved the dinosaurs....I don't see many of those around anymore....Guess they weren't cool enough, it's probably hard to have a decent conversation with a 50 ton reptile anyways.  There are simply too many inconsistencies and contradictions due to ignorance in the bible, certainly not the product of a perfect, all knowing supernatural God.  There must be a reason that the Bible omits every other life form that we have discoverd via the fossil record.  Oh yah, thats right, it was written by people that didn't know about such things.  It's a pity that so many people fall into these archaic beliefs. 

 

I feel bad in a way for all of the other human beings on the other continents that went to hell because they couldn't catch a plane to the middle east a few thousand years ago so that they could "hear the good news".  I'm sure they were quite content with worshipping the sun, or thor, or allah, or zeus, or something else ridiculous....

Evolution would certainly prove christianity to be right, but God must have been really busy at the time and forgot to tell the guys writing to include even the smallest shred of evidence about what he was doing the first few million years that this planet came to be.  Not to mention our place in the Galaxy or let alone the Universe and the billions of years it took us to reach this point.  k, now im just ranting. sorry...you guys get the point. 

that dude in the video.....well......nice try buddy..keep crackin...

 

mr O.

What do you mean by "Evolution would certainly prove christianity to be right" how does evolution prove christianity if that but you mentioned wasn't there?


Gawdzilla
atheist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2011-01-01
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I believe in

EXC wrote:

I believe in theistic evolution.

Theists' version of their god always evolves so their bat-shit crazy religion can survive in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

Shouldn't that be theistic devolution?


mrOriginal
atheist
mrOriginal's picture
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I find it incredibly hard to

I find it incredibly hard to communicate effectively on a forum in the realm of "Sarcasm" .  Please give me a chance to amend the statement you cited so that it will make more sense.  I was, in a sarcastic manner, trying to shed light on the fact that if God had truly spoken to those men who wrote the bible, then why wouldn't he at least tell them about the fossil record, and the many life forms that have existed on this planet long before we humans came along.  If, God, being perfect, he would know all, past, present and future, so leaving the writers of the bible ignorant to the types of things that would potentially discredit its divinty would be a mistake.....So, in a sense, it's obvious that the bible is not built on any form of greater intelligence. 

Now that we can study in detail the origins of life on this planet, unlike the men of the biblical era, it is safe for me to say, that Evolution would certainly prove the creation method had God really spoken to them, because he would have known that in the future, we would hold the knowledge we do now.  I would ask you to read the first sentance of that passage sarcastically to yourself, then see the "but" directly after it. At the time I laughed because I thought it was funny, but  I also have a wierd sense of humor.

To answer your question, Christianity in no way proves Evolution, and vice versa.  It's an oil and water thing.  Even if you foolishly mix them, they still separate on their own....

"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."

Friedrich Nietzsche


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
mrOriginal wrote:I find it

mrOriginal wrote:

I find it incredibly hard to communicate effectively on a forum in the realm of "Sarcasm" .  Please give me a chance to amend the statement you cited so that it will make more sense.  I was, in a sarcastic manner, trying to shed light on the fact that if God had truly spoken to those men who wrote the bible, then why wouldn't he at least tell them about the fossil record, and the many life forms that have existed on this planet long before we humans came along.  If, God, being perfect, he would know all, past, present and future, so leaving the writers of the bible ignorant to the types of things that would potentially discredit its divinty would be a mistake.....So, in a sense, it's obvious that the bible is not built on any form of greater intelligence. 

Now that we can study in detail the origins of life on this planet, unlike the men of the biblical era, it is safe for me to say, that Evolution would certainly prove the creation method had God really spoken to them, because he would have known that in the future, we would hold the knowledge we do now.  I would ask you to read the first sentance of that passage sarcastically to yourself, then see the "but" directly after it. At the time I laughed because I thought it was funny, but  I also have a wierd sense of humor.

To answer your question, Christianity in no way proves Evolution, and vice versa.  It's an oil and water thing.  Even if you foolishly mix them, they still separate on their own....

LMAO!! There is all sorts of things god didn't tell man about.  Events and discoveries have occured that "god" knew NOTHING about but only science had to discover.

Plus WHY would this mythical Arab god Jesus give worms the ability to regenerate their entire bodies but not give humans the ability to regenerate their limbs? He prefers worms to people??

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13492
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

mrOriginal wrote:

I find it incredibly hard to communicate effectively on a forum in the realm of "Sarcasm" .  Please give me a chance to amend the statement you cited so that it will make more sense.  I was, in a sarcastic manner, trying to shed light on the fact that if God had truly spoken to those men who wrote the bible, then why wouldn't he at least tell them about the fossil record, and the many life forms that have existed on this planet long before we humans came along.  If, God, being perfect, he would know all, past, present and future, so leaving the writers of the bible ignorant to the types of things that would potentially discredit its divinty would be a mistake.....So, in a sense, it's obvious that the bible is not built on any form of greater intelligence. 

Now that we can study in detail the origins of life on this planet, unlike the men of the biblical era, it is safe for me to say, that Evolution would certainly prove the creation method had God really spoken to them, because he would have known that in the future, we would hold the knowledge we do now.  I would ask you to read the first sentance of that passage sarcastically to yourself, then see the "but" directly after it. At the time I laughed because I thought it was funny, but  I also have a wierd sense of humor.

To answer your question, Christianity in no way proves Evolution, and vice versa.  It's an oil and water thing.  Even if you foolishly mix them, they still separate on their own....

LMAO!! There is all sorts of things god didn't tell man about.  Events and discoveries have occured that "god" knew NOTHING about but only science had to discover.

Plus WHY would this mythical Arab god Jesus give worms the ability to regenerate their entire bodies but not give humans the ability to regenerate their limbs? He prefers worms to people??

He also prefers bacteria and cockroaches which existed long before humans and outnumber humans.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

LMAO!! There is all sorts of things god didn't tell man about.  Events and discoveries have occured that "god" knew NOTHING about but only science had to discover.

Plus WHY would this mythical Arab god Jesus give worms the ability to regenerate their entire bodies but not give humans the ability to regenerate their limbs? He prefers worms to people??

He also prefers bacteria and cockroaches which existed long before humans and outnumber humans.

Not to mention he gave ants the ability to pick up 20 times their weight, and our spines have trouble simply dealing with gravity...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Brian37

redneF wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

LMAO!! There is all sorts of things god didn't tell man about.  Events and discoveries have occured that "god" knew NOTHING about but only science had to discover.

Plus WHY would this mythical Arab god Jesus give worms the ability to regenerate their entire bodies but not give humans the ability to regenerate their limbs? He prefers worms to people??

He also prefers bacteria and cockroaches which existed long before humans and outnumber humans.

Not to mention he gave ants the ability to pick up 20 times their weight, and our spines have trouble simply dealing with gravity...

It's the burden of sin.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Uh, ok. What about our

Uh, ok.

 

What about our shitty sense of sight, hearing, and smell, compared to other animals then?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Evolution is antithetical to

Evolution is antithetical to the Christian Theistic god simply because it shows that the Christology ( study of what Christ means )rests upon a mistake: the fall of man and original sin. No fall because of evolution (upward through time) means no original sin which means no sacrifice of a messiah is needed.  God created a perfect human (Adam and Eve) they disobeyed and the results were hereditary sin. Evolution starts with simple speciation to more complex forms selected by their natural environment, genetic drift and sexual reproduction where genetic information is uniquely combined.  A god of evolution would be a god that started replicating molecules and watched what happen ( deism). Deism= not-Christian theism. Natural selection of replicating molecules is more plausible than causal deism thus not-deism.  Pantheism views the universe as god. So possibly Einstein. God=natural law.  God then becomes simply a metaphorical term for origins.  God=not-god.  The cloud was a marshmallow of fluff. Cloud=not-marshmallow.  Poetics is not actual definition.  Poetics is symbolic expression of comparison connoting attribution to obtain properties of denotation. emotively.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Uh, ok. What

redneF wrote:

Uh, ok.

 

What about our shitty sense of sight, hearing, and smell, compared to other animals then?

Overloaded with sin particles from the Sun, obviously.

Didn't you know?  Before the water canopy came down and covered up the tallest mountains of the Earth in Noah's time, everyone lived to be 900 years old.  I imagine we lost our original senses due to the same radiation too, after all, we're made in God's image and I'm pretty sure God can smell better than a rat!!!!!!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I've never smelled a rat, so

I've never smelled a rat, so I have no point of reference...

 

 

Yet, somehow......I think this story smells like a rat...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Evolution is

TGBaker wrote:

Evolution is antithetical to the Christian Theistic god simply because it shows that the Christology ( study of what Christ means )rests upon a mistake: the fall of man and original sin. No fall because of evolution (upward through time) means no original sin which means no sacrifice of a messiah is needed.  God created a perfect human (Adam and Eve) they disobeyed and the results were hereditary sin. Evolution starts with simple speciation to more complex forms selected by their natural environment, genetic drift and sexual reproduction where genetic information is uniquely combined.  A god of evolution would be a god that started replicating molecules and watched what happen ( deism). Deism= not-Christian theism. Natural selection of replicating molecules is more plausible than causal deism thus not-deism.  Pantheism views the universe as god. So possibly Einstein. God=natural law.  God then becomes simply a metaphorical term for origins.  God=not-god.  The cloud was a marshmallow of fluff. Cloud=not-marshmallow.  Poetics is not actual definition.  Poetics is symbolic expression of comparison connoting attribution to obtain properties of denotation. emotively.

 

The way I've heard it God just poofed the soul into humans at some point, which is what made them humans and gave them their free will.

 

No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but that's the argument.  Nice and unfalsifiable.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I've never

redneF wrote:

I've never smelled a rat, so I have no point of reference...

 

Everything's always a joke with you, isn't it....

 

God's serious business!

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:redneF

mellestad wrote:

redneF wrote:

I've never smelled a rat, so I have no point of reference...

 Everything's always a joke with you, isn't it....

Is that like, wrong?...

 

mellestad wrote:
God's serious business!

I ain't lettin' anybody off the hook that E-Z buddy!

According to 'whom' is it serious bidness?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:TGBaker

mellestad wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Evolution is antithetical to the Christian Theistic god simply because it shows that the Christology ( study of what Christ means )rests upon a mistake: the fall of man and original sin. No fall because of evolution (upward through time) means no original sin which means no sacrifice of a messiah is needed.  God created a perfect human (Adam and Eve) they disobeyed and the results were hereditary sin. Evolution starts with simple speciation to more complex forms selected by their natural environment, genetic drift and sexual reproduction where genetic information is uniquely combined.  A god of evolution would be a god that started replicating molecules and watched what happen ( deism). Deism= not-Christian theism. Natural selection of replicating molecules is more plausible than causal deism thus not-deism.  Pantheism views the universe as god. So possibly Einstein. God=natural law.  God then becomes simply a metaphorical term for origins.  God=not-god.  The cloud was a marshmallow of fluff. Cloud=not-marshmallow.  Poetics is not actual definition.  Poetics is symbolic expression of comparison connoting attribution to obtain properties of denotation. emotively.

 

The way I've heard it God just poofed the soul into humans at some point, which is what made them humans and gave them their free will.

 

No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but that's the argument.  Nice and unfalsifiable.

I claim that it is falsifiable :

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:mellestad

redneF wrote:

mellestad wrote:

redneF wrote:

I've never smelled a rat, so I have no point of reference...

 Everything's always a joke with you, isn't it....

Is that like, wrong?...

 

mellestad wrote:
God's serious business!

I ain't lettin' anybody off the hook that E-Z buddy!

According to 'whom' is it serious bidness?

Of course it is wrong.  According to God, and it says so in the Bible, which we know it's true because it says so in the Bible.  Obviously.

 

Come on, look at him, he looks like he stepped off the stage at a Lady Ga-Ga concert and people don't even crack a smile.

 

 

Truly, God abhors mirth.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:mellestad

TGBaker wrote:

mellestad wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Evolution is antithetical to the Christian Theistic god simply because it shows that the Christology ( study of what Christ means )rests upon a mistake: the fall of man and original sin. No fall because of evolution (upward through time) means no original sin which means no sacrifice of a messiah is needed.  God created a perfect human (Adam and Eve) they disobeyed and the results were hereditary sin. Evolution starts with simple speciation to more complex forms selected by their natural environment, genetic drift and sexual reproduction where genetic information is uniquely combined.  A god of evolution would be a god that started replicating molecules and watched what happen ( deism). Deism= not-Christian theism. Natural selection of replicating molecules is more plausible than causal deism thus not-deism.  Pantheism views the universe as god. So possibly Einstein. God=natural law.  God then becomes simply a metaphorical term for origins.  God=not-god.  The cloud was a marshmallow of fluff. Cloud=not-marshmallow.  Poetics is not actual definition.  Poetics is symbolic expression of comparison connoting attribution to obtain properties of denotation. emotively.

 

The way I've heard it God just poofed the soul into humans at some point, which is what made them humans and gave them their free will.

 

No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but that's the argument.  Nice and unfalsifiable.

I claim that it is falsifiable :

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

 

Then the argument just gets into fallible human perceptions of good though, or the necessity of free will.

 

I realize you can follow them around on both of those issues, but it isn't fruitful to do so, they don't care about logic unless they can use it to support their dualism.

 

I'm in the middle of a debate about free will on that Catholic forum right now, it just circles and circles.  It comes down to an assumption from intuition, there isn't anything past that.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:TGBaker

mellestad wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

mellestad wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Evolution is antithetical to the Christian Theistic god simply because it shows that the Christology ( study of what Christ means )rests upon a mistake: the fall of man and original sin. No fall because of evolution (upward through time) means no original sin which means no sacrifice of a messiah is needed.  God created a perfect human (Adam and Eve) they disobeyed and the results were hereditary sin. Evolution starts with simple speciation to more complex forms selected by their natural environment, genetic drift and sexual reproduction where genetic information is uniquely combined.  A god of evolution would be a god that started replicating molecules and watched what happen ( deism). Deism= not-Christian theism. Natural selection of replicating molecules is more plausible than causal deism thus not-deism.  Pantheism views the universe as god. So possibly Einstein. God=natural law.  God then becomes simply a metaphorical term for origins.  God=not-god.  The cloud was a marshmallow of fluff. Cloud=not-marshmallow.  Poetics is not actual definition.  Poetics is symbolic expression of comparison connoting attribution to obtain properties of denotation. emotively.

 

The way I've heard it God just poofed the soul into humans at some point, which is what made them humans and gave them their free will.

 

No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but that's the argument.  Nice and unfalsifiable.

I claim that it is falsifiable :

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

 

Then the argument just gets into fallible human perceptions of good though, or the necessity of free will.

 

I realize you can follow them around on both of those issues, but it isn't fruitful to do so, they don't care about logic unless they can use it to support their dualism.

 

I'm in the middle of a debate about free will on that Catholic forum right now, it just circles and circles.  It comes down to an assumption from intuition, there isn't anything past that.

I think that there is a distinction in that my argument entail the actual world as one of the possible worlds whereas the Ontological Argument does not.  We CAN empirically say there is suffering. And we can say and do say a good person capable of preventing evil should do do. It defines the theodicy as a conflict of wttributes with the actual world which is scientifically as well as logically provable.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:mellestad

TGBaker wrote:

mellestad wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

mellestad wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Evolution is antithetical to the Christian Theistic god simply because it shows that the Christology ( study of what Christ means )rests upon a mistake: the fall of man and original sin. No fall because of evolution (upward through time) means no original sin which means no sacrifice of a messiah is needed.  God created a perfect human (Adam and Eve) they disobeyed and the results were hereditary sin. Evolution starts with simple speciation to more complex forms selected by their natural environment, genetic drift and sexual reproduction where genetic information is uniquely combined.  A god of evolution would be a god that started replicating molecules and watched what happen ( deism). Deism= not-Christian theism. Natural selection of replicating molecules is more plausible than causal deism thus not-deism.  Pantheism views the universe as god. So possibly Einstein. God=natural law.  God then becomes simply a metaphorical term for origins.  God=not-god.  The cloud was a marshmallow of fluff. Cloud=not-marshmallow.  Poetics is not actual definition.  Poetics is symbolic expression of comparison connoting attribution to obtain properties of denotation. emotively.

 

The way I've heard it God just poofed the soul into humans at some point, which is what made them humans and gave them their free will.

 

No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but that's the argument.  Nice and unfalsifiable.

I claim that it is falsifiable :

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

 

Then the argument just gets into fallible human perceptions of good though, or the necessity of free will.

 

I realize you can follow them around on both of those issues, but it isn't fruitful to do so, they don't care about logic unless they can use it to support their dualism.

 

I'm in the middle of a debate about free will on that Catholic forum right now, it just circles and circles.  It comes down to an assumption from intuition, there isn't anything past that.

 

I think that there is a distinction in that my argument entail the actual world as one of the possible worlds whereas the Ontological Argument does not.  We CAN empirically say there is suffering. And we can say and do say a good person capable of preventing evil should do do. It defines the theodicy as a conflict of wttributes with the actual world which is scientifically as well as logically provable. Secondly there is not entailment of freewill or not.  The issue is not raised nor essential to the proposition. I do have a freewill defeater of Plantinga's omniscient defense but that really is another issue.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Hmm.  If you ever get

Hmm.  If you ever get anyone to take up in opposition, I'll be interested to see what they say.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:redneF

mellestad wrote:

redneF wrote:

I ain't lettin' anybody off the hook that E-Z buddy!

According to 'whom' is it serious bidness?

Of course it is wrong.  According to God, and it says so in the Bible, which we know it's true because it says so in the Bible.  Obviously.

The maths of that dontz works.

 

mellestad wrote:
Come on, look at him, he looks like he stepped off the stage at a Lady Ga-Ga concert and people don't even crack a smile.

 

 

There's only one other man I know that would have the balls to dress like that in public, and expect people to take him seriously...

 

But, it didn't workz out so goodz 4 himz.

 

 

Looks like some people are not so impressed with that  Poopy fellow, and want to see him having his mugshot taken too, for his crimes against humanity...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Hmm.  If

mellestad wrote:

Hmm.  If you ever get anyone to take up in opposition, I'll be interested to see what they say.

 

The attempt is to disprove the premise that there is a possible world of perfect well being. This usually states that god gave man freewill so he could only actualize the least evil world that has freewill. That is a card trick because they want you to change to their premise. You simply respond that within their premise god entails a perfect world already [(H) Heaven)as well as a possible perfect world [(K) the Kingdom Come in their eschatology).  That is why many theologians turned to process theology or panentheism where god is not omniscient or all powerful but the ground of being.   There are also pantheistic as opposed to panentheistic models which identify god as the universe with the logical conditions (or mental)in some sense divine. You find dualisms and monisms in all the aforementioned. But you can still defeat their freewill defense if you want to walk through their door.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:mellestad

TGBaker wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Hmm.  If you ever get anyone to take up in opposition, I'll be interested to see what they say.

 

The attempt is to disprove the premise that there is a possible world of perfect well being. This usually states that god gave man freewill so he could only actualize the least evil world that has freewill. That is a card trick because they want you to change to their premise. You simply respond that within their premise god entails a perfect world already [(H) Heaven)as well as a possible perfect world [(K) the Kingdom Come in their eschatology).  That is why many theologians turned to process theology or panentheism where god is not omniscient or all powerful but the ground of being.   There are also pantheistic as opposed to panentheistic models which identify god as the universe with the logical conditions (or mental)in some sense divine. You find dualisms and monisms in all the aforementioned. But you can still defeat their freewill defense if you want to walk through their door.

 

 

We could play with it if you want. I don't mean a debate but a think tank where several of us play each others devil's advocate

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism