Creationism

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Well all the information (or lack there of) supplied here by the God fearing folk hasn't converted me from being an Atheist, I still think the bible and everything connected to it is bullshit. <ok>

Maybe this guy can persuade me?



You must log in or register to see media





Hallelujah I may now be an Agnostic!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MackemsRule said:
Well all the information (or lack there of) supplied here by the God fearing folk hasn't converted me from being an Atheist
Click to expand...

I agree, the standard of debate from the religionist side has been weak, however Rebel has provided a strong challenge as the existence of a Jesus-like chappy against White Tiger, though this aspect of the debate does not assume support for the claim he was the son of God.

I wrote this earlier - it wasn't well worded but it was with reference to this debate -ie: Rebel & White Tiger have 'chosen' belief, therefore we have a circular argument that neither side can win

Myrtle said:
I'm getting a bit bored of the evidence debate, which has become a bit too circular tbh. There is no evidence of Santa Clause, but that does not mean he does not exist (and the because we cannot prove he doesn't, doesn't mean he does etc)
Click to expand...
- a bit like saying I do believe in Santa Clause because my mummy said he is real.
 
WhiteRoseTiger said:
???

This may be my thread but I've given up on it. I only wanted a simple yes or no answer from everyone to the original question!
Click to expand...

In fairness, you wanted someone to say "Yes, I am ******ed". Who is going to do that without defending their position? it then mushroomed into a general diatribe about Religion.

If you think it is ******ed to have a belief in something that there is no evidence for, then presumably you also think it is ******ed to dismiss something that there is irrefutable evidence for?

Which brings me on to MackemsRule.

"I still think the bible and everything connected to it is bullshit."

Now in making a comment like that, that either makes him:

a) A ******
2) Not equipped with enough information to make such a comment.

Seeing that he thinks that people have been evangelising, I don't know which one it is.
 
Myrtle said:
the standard of debate from the religionist side has been weak,
Click to expand...

I don't think there has been one.
At times during this discussion I have thought about throwing it in, but it is absolutely pointless. I have my belief and most of the anti-side have none. So that too becomes circular.

Of course it is illogical to have that belief in the first place but I can't help that. Lots of the irreligious debate has been illogical too. For example, the stuff about biblical contradictions. People of faith can be absolutely comfortable with that as they either don't know about them (which doesn't really help) or realise the historical context within which they were written and for what purpose.

In basic terms the bible is split up into;

1)a story about the start of it all.
B)A pretty accurate history with a few bits of advice thrown in
iii) 4 tales about the new area manager from in house staff who want to make the area manager look good
four) some more stories about what the area manager inspired the staff to go and do to try and get a promotion.
5) a bit of remote management from the new team who took over from the area manager when he got promoted
vi) Finished off by a prediction about the impending recession by a stoned employee

To top it all off the back end of the manual is gathered together from what a bunch of in House staff though of the Regional manager. Loads of other accounts weren't included at all because senior management wanted to show at least some uniformity.

Citing biblical inconsistency about what people 'believe' when framed against that back-drop isn't going to make much impact. Either we don't know about the inconsistencies so we don't care, or we do know about them and are easily reconciled with them.
 
RebelBhoy said:
In fairness, you wanted someone to say "Yes, I am ******ed". Who is going to do that without defending their position? it then mushroomed into a general diatribe about Religion.
Click to expand...

I think he wanted a debate about creationism -vs- evolutionism, it's a fascinating topic, much of which is unexplored in the 7 pages here.

RebelBhoy said:
If you think it is ******ed to have a belief in something that there is no evidence for, then presumably you also think it is ******ed to dismiss something that there is irrefutable evidence for?
Click to expand...

"a belief in something that there is no evidence for": imaginative maybe, but not ******ed, though quite possibly misinformed and delusional.

"dismiss something that there is irrefutable evidence for" - I'm not aware of absolute truth, at least I have yet to encounter it, however, this scarcely follows logical reasoning. I do hope you're not suggesting there is irrefutable evidence for Jesus?

RebelBhoy said:
Which brings me on to MackemsRule.

"I still think the bible and everything connected to it is bullshit."

Now in making a comment like that, that either makes him:

a) A ******
2) Not equipped with enough information to make such a comment.

Seeing that he thinks that people have been evangelising, I don't know which one it is.
Click to expand...

I cannot defend his position either, but you have selectively quoted him - you naughty boy.

Let me finish with a quote of my own "there is no God" - from which famous book do you think this comes from?
 
RebelBhoy said:
I don't think there has been one.
At times during this discussion I have thought about throwing it in, but it is absolutely pointless. I have my belief and most of the anti-side have none. So that too becomes circular.

Of course it is illogical to have that belief in the first place but I can't help that. Lots of the irreligious debate has been illogical too. For example, the stuff about biblical contradictions. People of faith can be absolutely comfortable with that as they either don't know about them (which doesn't really help) or realise the historical context within which they were written and for what purpose.

In basic terms the bible is split up into;

1)a story about the start of it all.
B)A pretty accurate history with a few bits of advice thrown in
iii) 4 tales about the new area manager from in house staff who want to make the area manager look good
four) some more stories about what the area manager inspired the staff to go and do to try and get a promotion.
5) a bit of remote management from the new team who took over from the area manager when he got promoted
vi) Finished off by a prediction about the impending recession by a stoned employee

To top it all off the back end of the manual is gathered together from what a bunch of in House staff though of the Regional manager. Loads of other accounts weren't included at all because senior management wanted to show at least some uniformity.

Citing biblical inconsistency about what people 'believe' when framed against that back-drop isn't going to make much impact. Either we don't know about the inconsistencies so we don't care, or we do know about them and are easily reconciled with them.
Click to expand...

Well let's not dwell on those adding childish and insulting tags or simply writing things like (assume caveman accent): "you're a ****"

As for Biblical contradictions, well yes they are there and some of them are quite puzzling tbh! But, I agree it's largely a historical account with moral advice, but where it differs from other works of fact or fiction is that there is this God chap and his spiritual avatar who he calls his 'son'. The whole debate so far evades the more obvious question running through the theme of the book - is there a spiritual dimension to life?
 
Myrtle said:
I think he wanted a debate about creationism -vs- evolutionism, it's a fascinating topic, much of which is unexplored in the 7 pages here.
Click to expand...

i think he would probably accept that the question posed was an inflammatory way of posing that question

WhiteRoseTiger said:
Anyone here so ******ed as to think 'God' made the world as it is, in 6 days?
Click to expand...

Myrtle said:
"a belief in something that there is no evidence for": imaginative maybe, but not ******ed, though quite possibly misinformed and delusional.
Click to expand...

again, not my words but those used in the OP. and yes. quite possibly delusional.

Myrtle said:
"dismiss something that there is irrefutable evidence for" - I'm not aware of absolute truth, at least I have yet to encounter it, however, this scarcely follows logical reasoning. I do hope you're not suggesting there is irrefutable evidence for Jesus?
Click to expand...

The Bible isn't just a Jesus resource. To say the bible is "complete bullshit" is to dismiss it as a historical record. Just as an example, the book of Kings has been used as corroborating evidence for a number of archaeological findings. i could quote them to you, but you get the drift.

Myrtle said:
Let me finish with a quote of my own "there is no God" - from which famous book do you think this comes from?
Click to expand...

I'll have a guess at Planet of the apes?
 
Myrtle said:
Well let's not dwell on those adding childish and insulting tags or simply writing things like (assume caveman accent): "you're a ****"

As for Biblical contradictions, well yes they are there and some of them are quite puzzling tbh! But, I agree it's largely a historical account with moral advice, but where it differs from other works of fact or fiction is that there is this God chap and his spiritual avatar who he calls his 'son'. The whole debate so far evades the more obvious question running through the theme of the book - is there a spiritual dimension to life?
Click to expand...

A Spirit only really gets airtime in the NT. Not a great deal in the OT really. there is a whole bunch of divine activity but not really personal spirituality. I read a long time ago now (it may have been 1st April some years back) that BT had sponsored the search for the soul. They had a £10m or £1m (I can't remember which) as a reward for the person who could confirm its existence. I think there is. Most civilizations have a karmic element to it. i won't say they couldn't all have independently found the same conclusion and built a story around it. But I never heard of a lost Amazonian tribe with no collective belief set....then again, Plover birds clean crocodiles teeth without worrying about the spirituality of it all. They do it because its mutually beneficial and maybe the same applies to spirituality.
 
If you believe in evolution (which you should) you would have to believe that the 'soul' evolved and that our ancestors had more primitive versions of the soul and that other related mammalian species have souls too.

So what was the primordial soul and which other animals have souls?

Or is the existence of a soul merely an invention that mankind has used as a crutch to make life seem to have a purpose (like other aspects of religious belief)?
 
MackemsRule said:
Well all the information (or lack there of) supplied here by the God fearing folk hasn't converted me from being an Atheist, I still think the bible and everything connected to it is bull****. <ok>

Maybe this guy can persuade me?



You must log in or register to see media





Hallelujah I may now be an Agnostic!
Click to expand...

I love that video. The person who made it clearly doesn't know that wild bananas look like this:
You must log in or register to see images


and that modern bananas were bred from them by humans. Using selective breeding <doh>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RebelBhoy said:
I'll have a guess at Planet of the apes?
Click to expand...
-either that or the Bible. Try Psalms 20-something - it bangs on about party animals who aren't god-fearing -'for those that say there is no God ...' yada yada.

Please don't quote people in a selectively bias way! <laugh> /;)/.
 
RebelBhoy said:
In fairness, you wanted someone to say "Yes, I am ******ed". Who is going to do that without defending their position? it then mushroomed into a general diatribe about Religion.

If you think it is ******ed to have a belief in something that there is no evidence for, then presumably you also think it is ******ed to dismiss something that there is irrefutable evidence for?

Which brings me on to MackemsRule.

"I still think the bible and everything connected to it is bullshit."

Now in making a comment like that, that either makes him:

a) A ******
2) Not equipped with enough information to make such a comment.

Seeing that he thinks that people have been evangelising, I don't know which one it is.
Click to expand...

So my BELIEF that the Bible is a pile of regurgitated stories edited and re-edited over the centuries to fit in with what the church wanted pushed forward at the time makes me a ******?

May this "******" ask you a couple of questions? (****** is a step up from what the Skunks call me. <ok>)

After all always good to enlighten the unenlightened.

1/ Do you believe The Bible is the word of God? (Or one of those that conveniently dismiss the majority of it that is clearly bullshit.)

2/ Where can I find one of these detestable FOUR LEGGED insects that are not good to eat? (Don't want to eat one just see one. As we only have SIX LEGGED ones here on Earth.)

3/ Will NOT believing in Jesus mean we go to hell?

4/ IF we were made in HIS image how come we have such **** eyesight, sense of smell and strength, compared to the lower animals?

By the way I am not disputing whether Jesus existed, he quite probably did, along with thousands of others at that time making the same claims. Regurgitating the same stories passed down verbally for centuries before his birth.
He wasn't the only one claiming to be the Son of God.
How did he end up the main man?
Probably his followers were better at ripping off the uneducated people at that time, taking and ASKING FOR their offerings to the Lord which conveniently went to themselves.
In essence he was a very good conman amongst lots of other conmen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back