Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Warcraft3 · 08-27-2003, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mathetes
Good for you.

I understand then that you believe that the Universe is billions of years old, because the evidence says so. God may or may not have directed it, but I will not go there.

So what do you think of Magus' position? He is defending, I think, that if the evidence says one thing and God another you have to choose God. In his understanding, you are guilty of taking man's word over God's.

Not trying to tease here or anything. Just curious.

I would argue that if both scripture and nature were written by the same author, then they should at least be non-contradictory with respect to each other.

The irony is that the reason I originally rejected YEC was because I found it to be an unscriptural position.

There are several things in Genesis that make alot more sense if the earth is old and the creation week is not a literal seven day week. I would also argue that death, disease, and suffering are also part of the original creation.

Even the wording of Gods "creating" the animals is somewhat strange and easily allows an evolutionary process. In fact I would say it subtely implies it.

So I dont see it as me taking mans word over Gods... but rather choosing the interpretation that has the most explanatory power with respect to the scripture itself and to nature.

Russ

Warcraft3 · 08-27-2003, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
You believe those who disagree with God get to burn in hell for eternity. You and the likes of you deserve to be treated like crap. As Biff the unclean said, you are a traitor to humanity.

Why form an argument when you can throw around silly insults instead? Good job there............oh.......wait........

Xixax · 08-27-2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
I'm aware that I could be wrong, and I would have no problem with that. But I trust the Bible as God's word, and its incompatible with a 12 billion year old universe, and 4 billion year old earth.

Based on men who wrote it out. If God did "author" anything we could consider genuine and unchanged, wouldn't it be creation itself? The world around us, the evidence and facts, point to a billions of year old earth.

Why would you take books that men wrote and decided were Holy over creation?

Quote:

When I stand before God, i'd rather Him say I was foolish for trusting His Word and putting all my faith in Him instead of humans, as oppose to Him saying I was foolish for trusting Man, and not Him.

Except that you may very well be doing that by ignoring the only thing you can be assured isn't made by men, the "universe" itself. The Bible is full of issues that make it obvious men wrote it.

Quote:

On the same note, why do so few atheists accept that they could be wrong? You state there are no certainties, does that mean you accept that the Judeo-Christian God could exist, and Genesis could be the literal account of creation? Or do you know for a fact that Genesis is wrong and God doesn't exist?

I wouldn't say there are no certainties. ( I know that you weren't making that statement to me ) I exist, of that I am certain. That's just one to start with.

I can state for certain that the God, as literally described by the Bible you believe to be Holy, does not exist. There are entire threads on why his existence is illogical in the other forum. Genesis is wrong, but not for claiming God's existence. It's wrong for arguing for special creation and a world wide flood among a host of other things.

RufusAtticus · 08-27-2003, 02:48 PM

I think this thread has outlived it's usefulness in E/C.

Kevin Dorner · 08-27-2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Yup, I will trust God over man until my death.

... but not beyond it? Interesting hidden meaning there.

(Hey, you wrote it, not me.)

demoninho · 08-27-2003, 03:19 PM

Hey, did everybody miss this one by Magus (emphasis mine)

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
I'm aware that I could be wrong, and I would have no problem with that. But I trust the Bible as God's word, and its incompatible with a 12 billion year old universe, and 4 billion year old earth. When I stand before God, i'd rather Him say I was foolish for trusting His Word and putting all my faith in Him instead of humans, as oppose to Him saying I was foolish for trusting Man, and not Him.

Magus' first step to accepting evolution as a fact?

scombrid · 08-27-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele
[B]Yes you are correct of course. It was a sarcastic jab and I did recognize it as one....which is why I responded sarcastically.....but sometimes sarcastic jabs can be used as arguments (whether they are good ones or not) and given a certain measure of validity. It was used as an argument to a certain degree....even a sarcastic jab is a type of argument.

Well I certainly dont agree that evolution is the cause of society's problems. As far as the jab being "deserved" I must say some people here are far to quick to throw jabs.

I'm glad you don't agree with that, but several prominent evangelists are busy convincing my ignorant under-educated nitwit southern neighbors that this is the case and they eat it up. Once someone is beyond convincing and makes me their enemy (according to D. James Kennedy last Sunday I'm a satan worshiping deceived deceiver that believes Evolution just because I want to pursue erotic pleasures), I see little to gain from being nice.

Quote:

Okay.......this is a load of pure garbage. After your statement about the red-herrigns anti-evolutionists make you then proceed to do the very thing yourself!!!

"Little or no success in combating societal ills" How in the world can you make such a statement? In the real world there are plenty of people who would disagree with you. There are millions of personal testimonies out there from people who have successfully combated the ills of society with the help of the church. Geez---just look at recovery programs for crying out loud---many of them use religion as part of recovery and they have a pretty good success rate. So "little" or "no success" is simply not true.

I didn't even go as far as making the claim that religion caused harm (and in the case of many cults I could substantiated such a claim). Let's see, in the deep south where religion rules the roost unwed teen pregnancy is epidemic and drug use and violence are rampant. Religious rehab is bogus. Do some critical digging on Alcoholics Anonymous. Their success rate is not that great. Given the state of a 90% theistic world, I'd say little success is true and "no" might have been an exageration.

Personnal testimony is worthless.

Quote:

Contribute? Its a poll on when you accepted evolution...I took the poll and commented. How else do I contribute to such a thread?

Wrong thread. This thread is specifically re: Maguss' claim that faith trumps evidence, period.

Quote:

Critical of sarcasm? Have you read my posts in this thread? I believe I said "I do love sarcasm" so where in the world are you getting this "critical of sarcasm" idea from? I responded to a sarcastic jab with a sarcastic post...so it isnt sarcasm Im critical of.

Sorry, poorly worded. You were critical of what you deemed an innapropriate use of sarcasm. I just figured that if you felt sarcasm was innappropriate in the post, you'd be above tit-for-tat as you expect us to me above the tit-for-tat when it comes to our treatment of religion.

Quote:

Im critical of people who are arrogant or use bad arguments. Im critical of people who dont hear you out or are hypocrites. Im critical of people who refuse to see the obvious implications in one post and then miraculously can see it in another post. Im critical of people who always stick up for people on their side of an issue, even if that person is wrong. Im critical of people who engage in pointless back-slapping sessions and pointlessly insult people.

When someone comes here without any understanding of evolution and procedes to spout the fundamentalist party line they deserve insults and it's generally a waste of time to hear them out.

scombrid · 08-27-2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele
Why form an argument when you can throw around silly insults instead? Good job there............oh.......wait........

Argue against what? Maguss has stated one position without support that he interprets the bible 100% literally. That means that he does in fact believe that we are all going to hell.

scombrid · 08-27-2003, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55

On the same note, why do so few atheists accept that they could be wrong? You state there are no certainties, does that mean you accept that the Judeo-Christian God could exist, and Genesis could be the literal account of creation? Or do you know for a fact that Genesis is wrong and God doesn't exist?

I could be wrong but their are so many religions from which to choose and none have solid evidence for their claims.

BTW as an aside:
Evolution is not why I reject the notion of a interventionist deity. I was a theistic evolutionist for years. Granted once I disbelieved I realized that I was injecting god as explanation where none was justified by observation.

Sci_Fidelity · 08-27-2003, 03:32 PM

Posted by Magus:

Quote:

On the same note, why do so few atheists accept that they could be wrong? You state there are no certainties, does that mean you accept that the Judeo-Christian God could exist, and Genesis could be the literal account of creation? Or do you know for a fact that Genesis is wrong and God doesn't exist?

God could exist, but Genesis is definitely wrong.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2003, 02:48 PM	#34
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I think this thread has outlived it's usefulness in E/C.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.