The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail
Offline Hey all. It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy.
The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading. It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here. The book is written by Becky Garrison.
If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't. So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book? Well, I'm glad you asked. This is a book written by a True Christian. HUH? For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs. Caposkia is my name.
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.
This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white. How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc. She touches on all of this. I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone. If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it. It's not a very long book.
When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress. Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress.
Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end. This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian. I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully. I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God. This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.
This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following.
It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information. It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses. As said, it is from the point of view of a True Christian.
enjoy, let me know your thoughts. I would also request, please be respectful in your responses. I'm here to have mature discussions with people.
- Login to post comments
Offline Interesting.
If you look at the Bible, God has committed acts that would make a human "not of God".
Is God now ungodly?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Cap, I do not know what happened with your font and color, but do try to fix it.
what happened to my font and color? it all looks normal on my end?
did that change it?
Cap, there will always be competing claims, even amongst scientists. The difference between your garbage and the universal tool of scientific method, is that the tool of scientific method is designed to weed out bias. Your claptrap is nothing but psuedo intellectual mental masturbation which cannot, nor ever will lead to things like IPODS or neurobiology.
sure it weeds out bias... but only for those who want to accept it.... as I've said, there's many people out there who won't accept proven science... not because it hasn't been put to the scientific test, but because they just don't want to see it.
All you have is something you want to be real, not something you can prove to be real.
that statement can be applied to your perspective as well, you'll have to do better than that
Again, if you are going to ask me to measure the world with a Kaleidoscope vs a telescope, there is no debate. There is only YOU fooling yourself with wishful thinking.
really? you're the one asking me to use tools that aren't designed to measure in the way you want me to use them.
If what you had in your head was so earth shatteringly true, the foundation of the history of scientific method would be already on top of it and it would be taken seriously and would be taught as universally as entropy and thermodynamics.
hmm... that type of confidence in something in all honesty take "faith"... are you saying you're a faithful man?
I would bet though, that if we did a live scan of your brain while you had your "thoughts" of what you think is and how warm and fuzzy it makes you feel, it would not surprise me in the least if we found higher levels of activity in your brain responsible for releasing the "feel good" chemicals all humans have.
Ok sure... be it that in order to feel warm fuzzies as you claim for God to be present, my body would have to process the feeling in my brain and send signals to my nerve endings.... Sit me by a warm fire after being out in the cold all day and I'm willing to bet you'd get the same reading. does that mean God doesn't exist? of course not. Does it mean he does exist? of course not. Brain waves have never proven anything spiritually either way.
The fact that brain activity happens suggests that something is happening, whether it's by the persons own doing or divine influence is up for debate... why? live brain scans are doing just that, scanning the brain, not scanning for spiritual intervention.
- Login to post comments
First of all, why the name calling? You don't know me from a hole in the ground and I don't know you so there is no need to be immature. Oh, I'm sorry! What do scientists call it today, expanding. Last time I checked stretching is a synonym for expanding.
Stretch is not an ambiguous word. Explain to me how I can make the word stretch mean what I want it to mean.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Typical dishonest Christian argument.
You find some phrase that can be vaguely mapped to some actual contemporary scientific knowledge, and say "see?", the Bible is accuratel!" while ignoring all the crap which is explicitly in contradiction to other things science has established.
Like that the Earth did not exist in any form until 9 billion years after the Big Bang, and there is no sense in which the visible stars are or were 'stretching' over the Earth. The 'stretching' only applies to the space between groups of galaxies.
Light, and the Sun, were in existence well before there was any planet Earth. The stars certainly were not added as an afterthought near the end of the story as Genesis portrays - they were there before anything described in Genesis.
And the Earth had no water on it till it had cooled sufficiently, and there is no reason to believe that water ever completely covered the surface. So the Land has always existed, and the Oceans formed in the lower areas later. The story that the 'waters were gathered together' into certain areas to leave some dry land is totally backward.
Life arose in the oceans before emerging onto land, first plants and then animals. Much much later did birds emerge, altho there were flying reptiles before that, but still long after life emerged onto land.
By the time Man emerged all the families of animals and plants had been around for a long time.
Now tell us how that all fits into the Bible story before you start claiming it came up with any scientifically established ideas.
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
Science is constantly changing are you kidding me. There are new scientific discoveries everyday. The Bible says "stretching" and science says "expanding." I hope you know these are synonyms. There is no reinterpretation going on.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Science is constantly changing because science discovers new information. Science texts have never been changed to be in accordance with the Bible.
It is always the Bible that is reshaped to align with science.
The Bible says "stretched" not "stretching" - that's your interpretation that you are trying to fit into science. The word "stretching" is nowhere to be found.
I imagine if you'd actually read the thing you'd know. Then again, if you'd actually read the thing you'd be an atheist.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The Bible doesn't claim the earth had form the instant the Big Band happened. Verse one says "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth" i.e. all matter, space, time and energy and some of the matter eventually formed into the earth 9 billion years later.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
There is nothing wrong with reinterpreting the Bible. In order for us to understand what the truth is we may have to adjust our interpretation as new scientific discoveries are made to understand the Bible more clearly. That would be the same as reading a book at a young age but not understanding all of it then coming back and reading that same book a few years later as our knowledge of vocabulary increases so we understand what the author was trying to convey in the first place. Your right, the word "stretching" is nowhere to be found. The words "stretched" and "stretches" are. "Stretches" implies a continuous act. Try again to tell me I'm misinterpreting.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
"the heavens and the earth", you twit. Not 'matter'. The earth did not exist in any sense till much later. you are trying to make a myth fit reality. It doesn't.
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
There is when you are using this reinterpretation for disingenuous purposes - like your "the Bible said God stretched (and stretches) out the heavens like a canopy and science says the universe is expanding so the Bible perfectly explained cosmology before science did".
Oh, and thanks again for proving my point. When science changes one piece of information, the whole of the Bible must be reinterpreted to fit. No science book has been rewritten to harmonize with the Bible.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The earth was created, that's not a myth. All the matter in the entire universe was created at the big bang. The earth is made of matter so the Bible is correct in saying the earth was created in the beginning. This fits perfectly with reality AND the Bible but you choose to reject this evidence for a creator.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
The whole of the Bible has to be reinterpreted - WRONG!! The Bible hasn't been rewritten either - WRONG!!
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
It is meaningless to say the Earth was created at the Big Bang. The Earth is NOT just the matter that it is composed of. It is a particular sub-set of the particles of matter in the universe, formed into particular atoms and molecules, which were part of different astronomical bodies before coming together as a particular planet.
Why doesn't it say God created Man right at the beginning? And everything else? That would make just as much sense, they are all made of particles (mostly) formed at the Big Bang. Some particles condensed out of raw energy later, others changed their nature - a neutron can split into a proton and an electron
You are so clearly trying to make the myth of Genesis fit the known facts, and still ignoring all the other blatant errors I pointed out.
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
Bob, where do cars come from?
Re-interpretation is not rewriting.
When you look at "In beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and you say "That means the Bible writers had divine inspiration to predict the Big Bang theory before science composed it" - that's re-interpretation. You're trying to make the Bible fit science (which means you have to change the Bible into a book of cosmology/biology/whatever the theist needs. The closest that you guys got to changing science books to fit scripture was thankfully and mercifully killed in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
I would cal you numbnuts but I'd be insulting anaesthitized testicles needlessly.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
How could the Bible writers predict the big bang when the Bible was written long after the big bang? You make no sense.
I was specifically talking about the expansion of the universe not the big bang. You guys like to change topics very frequently because you know if you stick to one topic with a theist it will be obvious how you have no reason or logic.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Yes that's another example of how you have to reinterpret the Bible to be a science book. You could just as easily say "The Bible said that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain so God told the prophets of the Bible that the universe is expanding before science discovered it".
How could the Bible writers "predict" this? They didn't. it's guys like you who reinterpret the scripture to make your book of myth fit science.
You can reinterpret scripture to say anything. In fact, I expect that you probably have.
I'm still on the same topic. You reinterpret the Bible to fit science because trying to change science tofit the Bible would fly in the face of all the discoveries that have been made. Why do you keep saying you don't?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Expansion - the act of or process of expanding.
Stretch - to lengthen, widen, or distend.
reinterpret - assign a new or different meaning to.
No one is reinterpreting anything. Your make yourself look like a fool. Until you can have a reasonable and honest discussion rather than being dishonest I'm done wasting my time talking to you.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Ah, now you're wasting your time talking to me - the last refuge of the pwned.
You believe that since the Bible says that God stretched out the heavens that the Bible is now a science book and the scientists that discovered that the universe is expanding were wasting their time.
So...is the Bible a science book or a religious text? If you believe the former:
You believe that because the bible says that a bat is a bird should we rewrite zoology?
You believe that since the Bible set "value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter in the Euclidean plane" (borrowed from Wikipedia's definition of pi) equal to 3 all the math books should be rewritten?
That's your logic. Don't blame me if it sounds stupid when it's returned to you.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Irrelevant, because they are clearly designed by conscious creatures, and since they cannot self-reproduce, they cannot have evolved.
Whereas life-forms, which are capable of self-reproduction, and so can evolve from simpler things, only need for some basic self-reproducing molecules to have formed at least once across billions of years and billions of billions of planets, to get started. It has already been shown that such molecules can form under conditions likely to been in existence on an early planet.
Many life-forms contain examples of very poor 'design', which is easily explicable by the limitations of blind evolution, but make no sense if an infinitely knowledgable designer was involved.
So don't try the 'design' argument, the evidence is all against an intelligent God being involved, unless he was playing silly games.
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
You don't even realize how much you are helping us out in this thread. I am hoping that your fellow brethren Caposkia who started this thread can see how ridiculous he is being with his "metaphysics" as an attempt to get around science.
Here is what BOTH of you are doing, and even Muslims and Jews do.
Naked assertion(insert claim here)<=pseudo formula here<=desired outcome
Here is how good logic works
Prior established data independently replicated and falsified=established formula=projected outcome
Otherwise the gods of the Greeks would be real because they were the first to use the word "atom".
DO YOU believe in Allah when someone quotes the Koran and claims it to be science?
No!
And I don't believe you, or any Muslim or Caposkias ridiculous "metaphysics" crap simply because you utter it.
What is universal is what WE have in common, not our pet claims or desires. It is why a Muslim or Jew or you and I can type on these computers. It is why humans have landed on the moon.
YOU are simply trying to fit a square peg into a round hole because the IDEA of a super hero appeals to you. You are not special, neither is Caposikia or any Jew or Muslim in their claims.
What you wont get away with here is trying to retrofit modern science to prop up your magical invisible super brain claim.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
No it's not irrelevant. You admit that cars are clearly designed but you don't want to admit that the universe was designed. The universe is much more complex than a car. I don't have a problem with microevolution. In order for life-forms or basic self-producing molecules to reproduce the first one has to be created. Things just don't come from nothing Bob! That's basic logic and reasoning that a little kid can understand but for some reason you can't get that through your thick skull. You can throw all the science you want at me but that still doesn't help you explain why we are here and how everything got here in the first place. The Bible explains it!
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
As I was telling Bob you can throw all the science you want at me that still doesn't help your position on explaining to me the why and how you and I are here and why the universe is here. Science doesn't have an answer but the Bible does. Simple reason and logic can be used to know there is a creator. Since cars exist we KNOW there are designers who made the car. Since the earth and the universe exists we KNOW there is designer who created it. This is basic logic and reason that a little kid can understand and the Atheist simply can't get around this logic. Anyone who looks at the universe and believes it came from nothing is a fool!
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
It sure is a good thing that no one here believes that the universe came from nothing, isn't it? That's the theistic position - I thought you'd read the Bible.
You may know that the universe has a designer but you can only believe that the designer is the God of the Bible. You only believe that because of circular reasoning.
Why does "I don't know" scare theists so much?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Can you prove there is such a thing as "nothing" ?
No I can't. What's your point?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
You are the one bastardizing science. You would not buy the same crap you are throwing at us if it were some other religion trying to convince you that their god exists.
Why are we here? EASY......EVOLUTION, sorry you don't want to accept that. We are not the inept writers of the bible. why does the universe exist? EASY, natural non-cognitive processes. No Allah/Yahwey/Vishnu or Thor needed.
"design" argument is bullshit. Do you think your feces is "designed"? And what a great "design" we have in that we can choke to death because we share the same HOLE we breath and eat with, but dolphins and whales do not.
Not to mention that cockroaches and bacteria OUTNUMBER humans and have been around a lot longer and will still be around long after our species goes extinct.
Do you really want to think of this "design" argument when your "all seeing" god watches you pee and poo and have sex? Remember that daddy is watching you when you do this.
You fail to consider that a what is what is going on, and "magical super who" IS NOT needed, anymore than Thor is needed to make lighting.
Did it ever occur to you that a WHAT, is what is going on and that a "MAGICAL WHO, with super powers" is not required. I guess Steven Hawkins doesn't know shit when he says, "A god is not required".
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
If things don't come from nothing, where did your God come from? You cannot logically exclude God from that statement. If God came from nothing, or always existed, then so could a completely non-conscious raw 'sea' of energy. If at least one entity can meet some condition, then it is not logically impossible. Logic is not restricted to our 'natural' universe, it applies wherever we are talking about identifiable objects or entities or aspects of reality, and where something cannot be both itself and its opposite.
EDIT: Actually it would be more accurate to ask rather than "can something come from nothing", can "something simply begin to exist". Since nothing can come from nothing - that would arguably be meaningless, because "from" requires an origin, ie not "nothing". Most things are formed by rearranging existing stuff. A new arrangement of things can make a pattern, a structure, which didn't exist before. For a material object, the stuff it is made of existed before, but it as a particular entity, did not. It began to exist. It didn't "come from" any place, or any other thing, altho its parts may well have been put together by something else. There are things which spontaneously tend to form particular structures, such as the many substances which form highly structured crystals when they change state from gas or liquid to solid form. These are referred to as "self-organizing".
As for how the stuff things are made of came to exist, or perhaps simply always exited, that is another question. Energy is something which, in itself, is not tangible or visible in many of its forms, yet particles of matter can form from it. It would seem to be the base of 'existence'. The sum total energy of existence is apparently fixed, but energy can manifest in positive and negative forms, which means new energy can come to exist, as long as it appears in matching amounts of positive and negative forms, which is what is currently understood to be the case in the Big Bang origin of our universe. Just as particles can form spontaneously, but only in complementary pairs.
As for design, there is no evidence that the Universe is designed, especially as compared to a car. The Universe has a lot of disorganized content which serves no particular purpose, unlike a car.
Comparing a car to the universe is like comparing a car to a pile of scrap metal, glass and plastic, with a couple of ants crawling over it.
When it comes to Life, it has already been shown in the lab that basic self-replicating molecules (RNA) can form from natural processes, without being consciously designed.
Living things have many aspects of their 'design' which are very far from perfect, which are easily understandable from the viewpoint of evolution, which is purposeless and only able to proceed by small steps.
But those steps can keep going indefinitely far from the starting point, since there is no known mechanism for checking each generation against some 'standard' form for that creature, so there is nothing we know of that can stop a sequence of 'micro-evolutionary' steps from adding up to 'macro-evolution'.
Quantum mechanics shows that at the level of sub-atomic particles, things do appear to be able to "come from nothing". Logic does not preclude something coming from nothing. Please give me the logical argument for your statement in precise logical form.
OTOH, Logic does show that the Bible cannot be entirely true, because it contains inconsistencies and contradictions, which are explicitly against the prime axioms of logic.
'God' is not an ultimate explanation, since it is even harder to explain than the Universe. Whereas the emergence of the complex things from simpler things is seen all the time, so the emergence of a Universe from the tiniest bit of random energy is not logically impossible. Add in the observations and experiments from Quantum Mechanics, and spontaneous appearance of such a minimal chunk of energy/matter is not precluded by observation. The eternal pre-existence, or spontaneous emergence, of a state of matter-energy as close to nothing as possible, a level corresponding to the inherent 'fuzziness' of reality at that level, seems far more plausible to me than a conscious all-powerful being.
IOW I propose that almost-nothing was what preceded the Universe, which is not in basic conflict with logic or scientific evidence, whereas you insist it had be a God.
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
Everything we know about the "big bang" SHOWS that these motions are of a non-cognitive process, just like a rain cloud does not have a brain to deliberately drop rain. It is true that no one knows what came before the "big bang" but considering every thing that came from it, it would stand to reason that what came before was just as natural and not a thinking brain, anymore than a cloud can think about dropping rain.
Cognition is the EMERGENT property of biological evolution and has nothing to do with the universe. We are a product of a range of climates of conditions and luck over extremely long periods of time, not some comic book super hero by any name.
What humans do is simple anthropomorphism. It is merely projecting human qualities on non-human objects. It is merely imagination and wishful thinking. It wasn't true when humans thought volcanos were gods. It wasn't true when the Egyptians thought the sun was a thinking being for over 3,000 years, and the gods of the Abrahamic traditions are just as made up for the same reasons the other dead myths were. People like the idea of a super hero. It gives them a false sense of importance.
To try to take any myth, even more modern crap like Scientology based on a fiction writer and try to claim it is reality is delusional.
None of what humans have in common which is tested and falsified and independently verified, is based on any religion or myth.
If you really think that a magical invisible super brain with a magic wand did all this, you might as well believe that the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Then what are you even talking about ?
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of all living things it only explains how things change. Macro-evolution has never been scientifically proven to be fact. So no, I don't accept that as an explanation of our origins.
No it's really not!! Choking to death does not imply bad design. Accidents happen, people choke to death unfortunately. Yes your going to choke if you try to breath thru your mouth while your trying to eat something...duh!!! That's what your nostrils are for...duh!!
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
In reverse:
1. Choking to death is not bad design. Needing to eat through the same hole we breathe through and having an easily confused epiglottis is. Hey, if we're going to talk about choking hazards, let's actually talk about why it happens. It's the epiglottis covering the wrong tube, not mouth breathing while eating.
2. Speciation (what you like to call "macroevolution"
has been proven. Google "Observed instances of speciation". It's amusing to me that you can simultaneously approve of and dismiss evolution. Evolution is evolution - the theistic macro/micro difference is BS. "Macroevolution" is just a lot of microevolutions over a longer time frame.
Note: If you are referring to "macroevolution" as "one animal turning into another, completely different animal", you are talking about clade jumping. the existence of such an animal would actually disprove evolutionary theory. If you want to disprove evolution, that's what you should be looking for.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Accidents happen. Right, but there is no need for a magical puppeteer to state the obvious. WHAT I am saying is if your car is designed with bad breaks, is it your fault, or the manufacturer?
However, if there is no magical manufacturer, and the uncognitive process of evolution is what is going on, then "accidents happen" makes sense.
Otherwise I could sell you a car with bad breaks and blame you for what I built and you couldn't sue me.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm sure my response won't blow your mind, but unholy as defined is literally not of God... In other words, anything that's not holy, not sacred or hallowed is not of God.
Anything that is impious, sinful and wicked is not of God.
Anything that is ungodly is not of god, though the third definition eludes to the conversational aspect of the word and is irrelevant to the point here. The idea is that it's not of God.
By a religious standard, there is only 2 sides to the fence and no one can sit on the fence. Either you're of God or you're not. In the case of this forum, the "unholy Grail" is the cup of all that is not of God. I don't believe any atheist on here would disagree that they're seeking everything out that is not of God because the one thing they're trying to prove is that god is not real.