The land of religious tolerance
- Thread starter Mercury
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
183Replies
-
2KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
That bicycle is getting pretty shaky tim as shown below
An article of faith is not required for a belief...and to further it is in regard to essentially Christianity
Article of faith definition
1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) Christianity any of the clauses or propositions into which a creed or other statement of doctrine is divided
The problem tim is you did not single out Christianity you included all religions correct?...or is it now just Christianity?
You are merely tossing your self in yet another box if you choose that route.
An article of faith is not required for a belief.
Definition below
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
But to go further...Evolution is a belief Tim{atheism}...unless you believe we came from somewhere else...which means you would believe in a supreme being/entity or object any fucking way
So tim...you have a belief...its just not religion/ its atheism
To say that atheism is not a belief is a moronic statement
I will refrain from calling you a moron as I have tolerance of those /that have intolerance of those do do not share your belief :
whilst making moronic posts in an effort to keep that bike up on its wheels.
Just for my perverted pleasure can you try to explain one more time how the following is not a display of intolerance
I just love swatting you around...
Last edited by a moderator:
evolution is not a belief, it is a scientific fact supported with overwhelming evidence....lets pick at that scab for a while, shall we?
1. Human DNA and chimp DNA is 96% identical, shopwing that we infact at some point had a common ancestor
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...imp_genes.html
2. Evolution has been proven. By definition it is the change in a gene pool of a population over time. This has been witnessed by scientists for years in both the wild and in laboritories. look at the overwhelming evidence
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
Not all evolutional theories come from "the origen of life" theory where we all started as micr organisms and evolved into walking talking humans. There is micro evolution that takes place all around us on a regular basis. Look at all the species of finches alone that have evolved to adapt to their enviroment.
Evolution is not an attack on christianity either. Why would God put us on this ever changing earth with out the built in mechanisms to adapt?
1. Human DNA and chimp DNA is 96% identical, shopwing that we infact at some point had a common ancestor
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...imp_genes.html
2. Evolution has been proven. By definition it is the change in a gene pool of a population over time. This has been witnessed by scientists for years in both the wild and in laboritories. look at the overwhelming evidence
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
Not all evolutional theories come from "the origen of life" theory where we all started as micr organisms and evolved into walking talking humans. There is micro evolution that takes place all around us on a regular basis. Look at all the species of finches alone that have evolved to adapt to their enviroment.
Evolution is not an attack on christianity either. Why would God put us on this ever changing earth with out the built in mechanisms to adapt?
*I was hoping someone would try this*
Sure it is...while you may try to put parts of the puzzle together but one can not prove the big bang theory{thus why it is called theory}
Nor explain how the shit got there to go bang to begin with
It is your belief there was a common ancestor..you cant prove it.
Fact is you can find chimp fossils to its beginning ..and then you can find human remains etc going back about 5 thousand years...but no period further...now why is it we can find monkey bones to way back when..but cant find the monkey bones during the "transformation period"...convenient.
Incorrect,,it is called the theory of evolution..its a belief..simple.
here you just destroyed your own argument..as even the evolution theorists dont agree...one has one belief another has another belief.
More disagreement that those that believe in god..at least they agree upon the creation.
Not in itself unless one is intolerant of the beliefs of others .
Atheists dont believe in god ..nor does the theory of evolutions
Your post started with "Evolution is not a belief"...it has been proven" or something to that effect
Then practically everything you post below that contradicts your own opening statement
Not that it really matters anyway.
Down to business
The fact remains regardless of ones beliefs or lack thereof is not a required "ingredient" to make intolerant posts regarding those of religion.
For instance if I said "Them darn Amish..crooked tightwad twitheads who care nothing about anything but themselves"
I am just using them as an example and I actually like the Amish...above is just for educational purposes
But anyway that post is a post of intolerance regardless of the belief or non belief of who would write it...Religious creed or lack of from the author is not a requirement to make an intolerant statement.Nor any beliefs or lack thereof
Anyway rob..I need to get to bed.
Will argue tomorrow
Last edited by a moderator:
I made mention that I was not talking about cosmic or macro evolution, but provable micro evolution.
http://www.livescience.com/7929-human-evolution-closest-living-relatives-chimps.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
we do have evidence of earlier human hominoids related to apes in fossils and archeological evidence
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/evolution/facts.html
read this it explains the difference in the word theory in common english vs scientific theory.
[Quote/] Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. There is a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage, and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply 'tentativeness' or 'lack of certainty'. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more compactly. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for predicting anything. When it does make predictions, they prove to be false.)[/QUOTE]
Again I am talking micro evolution in which all evolutionists agree on, not creationistic amoeba to man evolution. Has nothing to do with belief in God. If you truly read your Bible, before Adam and Eve existed there were humanoids, as there were tribes in the wilderness that Cain and Abel married into. Unless you go by the theory that they married there sisters...which is just gross...
Wow.....this thread is officially off track
I'm going with Rob on this new direction.
Man......you should have expected this from debates at another forum.
The event we call evolution is provable with evidence. The fossil records. The history of Earth's biosphere.
The Theory of Evolution is the scientific explanation for the process. There are no better scientific theories nor any theories of equivalent validity. But there are other theories.
The Theory of Evolution is a belief in the scientific sense and not comparable to a belief in the religious sense.
It's an issue of context and and differences in logic. The scientific method vs. theology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
It is called a theory and will always be a theory because any testing or attempts to derive proof statements require time lines that extend far past the lifetime of man and experimentation to prove it a scientific law is not practical. It remains a theory in name only, but is accepted as a given because of the overwhelming scientific logic and evidence behind it. However, the more that becomes known, does reshape the theory over time, but nothing found to date has undermined the concept. It's only brought more precision to the concept.
The big bang is a scientifically provable event. Evidence of the event exists and is measurable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
The big bang theory describes the event.
The big bang is not the creation event for all that exists, matter and energy......it's the expansion event we now realize as the Universe. An early period of it's formation.
These are issues of the reality we live in and why I argue science and religion are not comparable, nor can be used to study each other.
There is no way to empirically study religion and the scientific method becomes irrelevant if empirical study is corrupted with claimed facts not in evidence.
I'm going with Rob on this new direction.
Man......you should have expected this from debates at another forum.
The event we call evolution is provable with evidence. The fossil records. The history of Earth's biosphere.
The Theory of Evolution is the scientific explanation for the process. There are no better scientific theories nor any theories of equivalent validity. But there are other theories.
The Theory of Evolution is a belief in the scientific sense and not comparable to a belief in the religious sense.
It's an issue of context and and differences in logic. The scientific method vs. theology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
It is called a theory and will always be a theory because any testing or attempts to derive proof statements require time lines that extend far past the lifetime of man and experimentation to prove it a scientific law is not practical. It remains a theory in name only, but is accepted as a given because of the overwhelming scientific logic and evidence behind it. However, the more that becomes known, does reshape the theory over time, but nothing found to date has undermined the concept. It's only brought more precision to the concept.
The big bang is a scientifically provable event. Evidence of the event exists and is measurable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
The big bang theory describes the event.
The big bang is not the creation event for all that exists, matter and energy......it's the expansion event we now realize as the Universe. An early period of it's formation.
These are issues of the reality we live in and why I argue science and religion are not comparable, nor can be used to study each other.
There is no way to empirically study religion and the scientific method becomes irrelevant if empirical study is corrupted with claimed facts not in evidence.
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
This was your quote, word for word:
Would you like to change that post?
Your obtuseness is showing... You are an expert at it.
You know what I was asking and it is not what you infer.However, you have surprised me.
I believe that evolution could exist within the Christian framework, but you'd have to believe that evolution was controlled to produce the required end product. That is an unknown.
While you may have an enlightened view, for many people, it's one or the other. The Bible is the wrench in the works. The people who discount science for theology are saying the truth is found with their religion not with science. These ideas come from the Bible which is why prominent religious views are that evolution does not exist and the Earth is 6000 years old. For theology to have significant meaning while adhering to scientific belief, theology terms and conditions need to stay on the vague side. The Christians who hold these funny notions (no evolution, 6000 year old Earth), take literal meaning from it.
The next step of the argument is that if you discount words from the Bible, then how do you distinguish what you can believe? Let's say Jesus existed and he was the Son of God. On what basis can a Christian differentiate between that, the idea that man was created as he exists today? My point is that science is based on fact, while religion is based on untangibles. If the Bible can't be used as a factual-historical book, how can anything be determined about God and what God wants from us? What confidence do we have that Moses came down the mountain with God's Commandments? Might as well read some other Holy Books and get some cross perspective.
Most wise people who do not allow their religion to become blinders will agree with you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your obtuseness is showing... You are an expert at it.
You are locked into your own words with that direct quote, slick.
Would you like to retract it or restate it for 'clarity'? ( backpedaling
)...........................
However, you have surprised me.
I believe that evolution could exist within the Christian framework, but you'd have to believe that evolution was controlled to produce the required end product. That is an unknown......................
This depends upon the pov and Christianity has many.
But from a scientific standpoint.....evolution is controlled in the sense that it only conforms to the laws of nature ......that we commonly think of as scientific laws.
Just because we don't know all the details of these scientific laws does not mean reality does not conform to them.
Reality does conform to the laws of nature....reality is actually a reflection of those laws.
So evolution is a very controlled event as it must adhere to the laws of nature....the laws that that govern the universe....all matter and energy.
There are Christians that follow theistic evolution.....basically that evolution follows a scientifically logical course.....with the laws of nature being an element of creation.....granted by a creator.
So you see, two lines of opposing thought in religious terms, can come to the same conclusion regarding evolution, science and reality.
But of course, most fundamentalists don't agree because they can't distinguish reality from theology.
And most atheists seem to see all Christians as fundamentalists.
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
You are locked into your own words with that direct quote, slick.
Would you like to retract it or restate it for 'clarity'? ( backpedaling
I think not. I was describing your response, nothing more. You appear obtuse when I ask for support of a single deity and you respond by accusing me of promoting multiple deities, a mediocre attempt at misdirection that goes hand in hand with your claims of attacks, rhetoric, and denigrating of your faith.
While I agree with tone of this response, you overlooked the crux of my post. I desire your view on the Bible- Real or not real? Fact or fiction? What to make of those stories? I refrain from mentioning them in fear of being accused of denigrating them.
If the stories can't be believed (or can they?) how can any of its substance be used as a reliable basis for faith, much less God's specific rules to avoid damnation?
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually a lot of Atheists were fundamentalists before becoming atheists.
I was one...
For the first 18 years of my life I was a 100% fundamentalist Christian. (Baptist)
At that point there was zero doubt in my mind that the earth was 6000 years old and God created the earth in 7 days.
Then as I started to experience science and the wonderful world around me I had a lot of unanswered questions. Going to my pastor was of little help. Too many times I was presented with canned responses like, "You need to have faith", "Man cannot know the mind of God", "Satan planted the fossils", etc...
At this point I started to educate myself about other religions around the world and why they believed what they did.
And one of the most profound moments in my life was when I realized that I believed what I did NOT because it was correct, but because of the place and time I was born. A roll of the cosmic dice if it were.
If i was born in Turkey, I would have been Muslim.
If I was born 3000 years ago in Greece I would be worshiping Zeus.
And on and on and on...
So how can ANYONE claim to be right when their own belief is a product of where, when and whom they were born to?
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
As general knowledge increases, so does enlightenment.
Many Christians do have trouble accepting the whole Holy Bible as the inerrant word of God when taken literally.
Most of these on-line arguments over evolution ....and essentially reality, involve a very vocal fundamentalist element that , imo, is much smaller in numbers than their vocal presence implies.
Acceptance is often seen by both camps as a loss of faith to support either their concerns, or their argument of being correct........where it's more likely 'faith' adjusting to reality.
We've seen it in history such as Galileo and the Catholic Church and later in recent history, the Catholic church acknowledging evolution.
This is the soft spot in religious theology......once a physical fact becomes known, it's no longer in the realm of the 'faith' concept.
I think not. I was describing your response, nothing more. You appear obtuse when I ask for support of a single deity and you respond by accusing me of promoting multiple deities, a mediocre attempt at misdirection that goes hand in hand with your claims of attacks, rhetoric, and denigrating of your faith.
While I agree with tone of this response, you overlooked the crux of my post. I desire your view on the Bible- Real or not real? Fact or fiction? What to make of those stories? I refrain from mentioning them in fear of being accused of denigrating them.
If you don't want to clarify, then you are stuck with the words you used and their meaning.
Obtuse....I gave you the link to a group of passages collected at a Bible site referring to one God.
That's not being obtuse, that was a legitimate response and you're only whining from the shellacking I continue to give you
But you did infer other than one God created your spirits in that Earth Simulator scenario with that question......and I even offered you the chance to clarify/restate/backpedal, which you have refused
Slick, you're stuck choking on your own words and too proud to stop looking foolish over them.
I already answered that......allegory and lessons on morality.......and I've already stated I often don't understand their importance, but they aren't part of my core beliefs.......I'm not a fundamentalist.
Why are you blind to those words?
Do you think my answer is going to change to allow a more favorable attack from you as if I'm a fundamentalist?
You are in for a world of disappointment just as GIA was
BTW....since I anticipate your asking me what my core beliefs are, that's not going to happen either as I have no intention of putting them out there for debate and taking a flogging as some narrow minded twit will continue intentionally swapping theology for empiricism.
I'm not a teacher, I'm here to debate the claims of people like you :eek....
I do applaud you for so graciously presenting your religious beliefs for debate.....I'm sure you feel it's unfair, but I've made no agreements with you on reciprocation.
If you remember, which you probably conveniently forgot, you presented your beliefs for debate, no one demanded them of you. You offered them up willingly and .....well....it did seem pretty sketchy......:cool
I told you before, you want to debate Christianity, start a thread on it.........but I probably won't participate.....I don't feel the need to present my beliefs for debate. I know, you say not fair.....well, life can be cruel
More rhetoricWhile I agree with tone of this response, you overlooked the crux of my post. I desire your view on the Bible- Real or not real? Fact or fiction? What to make of those stories? I refrain from mentioning them in fear of being accused of denigrating them.
Want good answers......go see a local minister. Wait a minute....I've recommended that before, several times actually.
Make it a fundamentalist so that we can all hear how you explicitly disparage other peoples beliefs.
I've seen that too, in my circle of friends.
This is one of the frailties of a rigid belief system.
It's actually self destructive.....intolerance from within drives out those that seek understandings, where reality and their faith collide and faith is broken rather than adjusting........issues of being a 'true believer'...all or nothing attitudes.
Not at all in my case.
I actually searched for years to make sense of it and it was definitely NOT an easy transition from fundamentalist to atheist. I tried to search through many other religions and beliefs until I could find something to believe in. Just because my faith in my religion was shaken, my belief in god was not. There were many years where I tried to validate my belief in god even though my religion wasn't cutting it imho.
From my "awakening" when i was 18-19 y/o to my belief today was a good 20 year search/transition. That's 20 years of trying to adjust.......
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
Stone,
You really are insincere. Blurting "rhetoric" every time you hear something you don't like, will only carry you so far. And as far as my "beliefs, offered up", you are imaging them. During my presence in the OTZ forums, I've only acknowledged one standard, Agnostic. Free free to criticize that. Promoting philosophical positions I've taken on hypothetical premises, as my beliefs is your attempt at a misinformation program designed to undermine my positions. The Earth Sim is a premise, not a belief. Maybe one day you'll try real debate and stop stonewalling when someone asks for your beliefs. Keep trying.
You really are insincere. Blurting "rhetoric" every time you hear something you don't like, will only carry you so far. And as far as my "beliefs, offered up", you are imaging them. During my presence in the OTZ forums, I've only acknowledged one standard, Agnostic. Free free to criticize that. Promoting philosophical positions I've taken on hypothetical premises, as my beliefs is your attempt at a misinformation program designed to undermine my positions. The Earth Sim is a premise, not a belief. Maybe one day you'll try real debate and stop stonewalling when someone asks for your beliefs. Keep trying.
Last edited by a moderator:
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members