An Appeal For Justus

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

For the record i never openly denied evolution in still learning myself The impasse comes in when christians and non christians actually have the same view of each other. when of course you Dont need me to tell you this and I, personally am not accusing you just saying I'm sure you heard Christians tell you that you are the one that is ignoring the evidence when you say there isn't any. A Christian will say there is so much evidence you could build a bomb.

 

A non Christian will say that the Christian is the one ignoring the evidence. The Christian will say no there isn't a shred of evidence for evolution. The non Christian will say you are a special kind of stupid aren't you?? there is so much evidence you could build another planet of you put all the documents of evidence.

 

The Christian accuses the atheist of being deceived and denying God and ignoring plain evidence.

 

The atheist accuses the Christian of ignoring plain evidence and denying evolution.

 

See the pattern here?

 

Christian say Show me evidence of this evolution. Atheist shows articles videos point them to a library to scientists to museums etc...when presented the Christian comes back and says that's not evidence.

 

Atheist say show me evidence of this God christian shows articles videos point them to a library to scientists to museums etc...when presented the Atheist comes back and says that's not evidence.

 

See the problem?

 

Both accuse each other of confirmation bias. Both accuse each other of not accepting the evidence presented. Both sides say they have evidence while maintaining the others side doesn't have a shred of it. Both equally convinced the other side is incorrect. Both saying they are being objective about their evidence and accusing each other of using their feelings to sway theor realities

 

Christians are accused of ignoring uncomfortable parts of the bible and focusing on the good.

 

Atheist are accused of ignoring the good parts of the bible and focus on the parts they can criticize.

 

It's an endless silly and vicious cycle.

 

In real life that is why I talk to people on a surface level unless they want to go deeper I just show love and respect anywhere and everywhere I can. Life to short to moan and grime about topics that get us no where.

 

Hence how I have atheists friends and we been this way for 10plus years

[bornagainathiest]

For the record i never openly denied evolution in still learning myself The impasse comes in when christians and non christians actually have the same view of each other. when of course you Dont need me to tell you this and I, personally am not accusing you just saying I'm sure you heard Christians tell you that you are the one that is ignoring the evidence when you say there isn't any. A Christian will say there is so much evidence you could build a bomb.

 

A non Christian will say that the Christian is the one ignoring the evidence. The Christian will say no there isn't a shred of evidence for evolution. The non Christian will say you are a special kind of stupid aren't you?? there is so much evidence you could build another planet of you put all the documents of evidence.

 

The Christian accuses the atheist of being deceived and denying God and ignoring plain evidence.

 

The atheist accuses the Christian of ignoring plain evidence and denying evolution.

 

See the pattern here?

 

Christian say Show me evidence of this evolution. Atheist shows articles videos point them to a library to scientists to museums etc...when presented the Christian comes back and says that's not evidence.

 

Atheist say show me evidence of this God christian shows articles videos point them to a library to scientists to museums etc...when presented the Atheist comes back and says that's not evidence.

 

See the problem?

Both accuse each other of confirmation bias. Both accuse each other of not accepting the evidence presented. Both sides say they have evidence while maintaining the others side doesn't have a shred of it. Both equally convinced the other side is incorrect. Both saying they are being objective about their evidence and accusing each other of using their feelings to sway theor realities

 

Christians are accused of ignoring uncomfortable parts of the bible and focusing on the good.

 

Atheist are accused of ignoring the good parts of the bible and focus on the parts they can criticize.

 

But if atheists can show just one contradiction in the Bible, then it cannot be the perfect and inerrant word of God.

One contradiction is all it takes to destroy the inerrant Bible.  

 

It's an endless silly and vicious cycle.

 

No. It's not.  The Bible has been shown to be contradictory, many times over.  The Christians are simply in denial of this.

 

In real life that is why I talk to people on a surface level unless they want to go deeper I just show love and respect anywhere and everywhere I can. Life to short to moan and grime about topics that get us no where.

 

Hence how I have atheists friends and we been this way for 10plus years

[Ravenstar]

"Are intellectual giants like c.s lewis…"  

​and… I'm done.   bwahahahahahahaha

 

Although very well educated and certainly clever I would not call him an intellectual giant. That I reserve for the likes of Newton, Aristotle, Einstein…Maslow, Schweitzer, Russell, Epicurus, Da Vinci, Bacon, Galileo, Sartre, Locke, Lao Tzu, Mead, Curie, Pythagoras, Socrates, Kant, Hippocrates, J.R.R. Tolkein..  Shakespeare, Homer, …. maybe Proust, Chekhov, Neitschze, Twain, McCluhan, and Kafka. Even Bronte, Heinlein, Wilde and Poe… I would set above Lewis.

 

​Maybe… you should read some of them too, just to balance out your perceptions.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

For those of you who are confused, or just can't be bothered trying to understand, below is a translation of A1's "arguments":

 

1.  Since you don't know which object first gave way to the gravitational pull of another, you could be wrong about the Theory of Gravity.

 

2.  Personal relationships have nothing to do with scientific principles, but since I can't support argument #1, I'm going to cloud the issue with an appeal to emotion.

 

3.  I lack culinary savvy.

 

4.  Since there are people who can spell correctly and form complete sentences, such as C.S. Lewis, and those people believe in god, there's no way someone like me, who can't do such things, is going to deny their claims (aka appeal to incredulity).

 

5.  I'm obviously too much of a coward to stand behind the position I took in argument #1 (not to mention I started back-peddaling away from said position as early as argument #2); therefore, in order to deflect attention away from my lack of intellectual honesty and debating prowess, I'm going to simultaneously attack both sides of the issue.  This will make me appear to be standing steadfastly on a neutral, middle-of-the-road position (when in reality, I think I've made it clear that I have absolutely no idea what the hell I'm talking about... I hope nobody noticed).

 

...

 

I hope this helps.

[Ravenstar]

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Has anyone noticed how the quality and quantity of the current crop of self-professed Christians on this forum are at a rather low ebb?

 

I count three - Ironhorse the Oblivious, End3 the Dysfunctional and Justus the Ignorant.

 

Slim pickins' indeed.

Dn'ot thta frogot t hat trll A1 teh staek sawse.

Thanks Red.....for engaging in my nispelltastic weekend party also Its nice that I'm forgotten by some and remembered by little. Am I rare because I'm too stupid to remember or am I rare because I barely make a difference?

 

In any case

 

Just chiming in my 2cents

 

We all know abiogeneis and evolution is different. However.....

 

It is chronological.

 

Non life to life must come *first*(abiogeneis)

 

Then that life transfer of DNA and diversification happens (evolution)

 

So yes they are different but they are strictly chronological like 123456789

 

 

If we are wrong about the first step the then we could be wrong about the second step if we branched our knowledge from a false or unknown foundation

 

 

If you want to get chronological A1 ...debate cosmology with Bhim, RogueScholar or myself.

 

I think your chronological card has just be trumped!

.

.

.

Oh and in case you want to play the I'm-still-waiting-on-BAA card, please go back to the PM's we exchanged, read the one condition I set down for you and get back to me... here. 

 

That one condition requires something from you.

 

More info when you get back to me.

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

 

See the problem?

 

 

Yes.  The Christian world view redefines everything.  They see evil as good, good as evil, evidence as not evidence, not evidence as evidence.  Christianity is built upon lies so joining the cult forces you to rework the way you look at everything else in the world.

 

I was a Christian for over 30 years.

 

By the way I do not ignore the good parts of the Bible.  Those are the parts that liberal Christians cling to so they can pretend they have a nice God.  I've read them all dozens of times.

[Ouroboros]

My point is evolution is could never have began or exist. If abiogeneis didn't come first.

That's not logical.

 

There are people who believe that God created life first, then evolution happened. Evolution as the tool of God to create species. That means, the beginning of evolution is a separate issue. Believe in a God starting evolution or believe abiogenesis, life from non-life, it doesn't matter, because evolution that happened after is true and we know it to be true.

 

---edit

 

It's important to understand that abiogenesis is only necessary for a full naturalistic understanding of the world. Evolution is naturalistic, but only in the area of how species evolve (develop, come about). Even if astronomy and physics have answers to many things, they don't have answers to all things. We don't know what quarks are made of, yet we understand particle physics. It's the same thing here. We understand evolution even though we don't know yet how it started. We know how a comet can traverse around the sun, but we don't know where it came from. Understanding evolution doesn't require that we understand abiogenesis, but if we have to have a naturalistic support for everything in this world and how it works, then abiogenesis would be required. It's a problem for naturalism, not evolution.

[Ouroboros]

Are intellectual giants like c.s lewis and others willfully blind?

CS Lewis lived a very long time ago. He didn't know about all the information, facts, and experiments we have today. Besides, he was a philosopher and author, not a scientist. Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they know everything and understand everything. What about the intellectual giant like Hawkins? He has a higher IQ than Lewis, so therefore he must be right? No. That's not a good argument, is it?

[♦ ficino ♦]

CS Lewis lived a very long time ago. He didn't know about all the information, facts, and experiments we have today. Besides, he was a philosopher and author, not a scientist. Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they know everything and understand everything. What about the intellectual giant like Hawkins? He has a higher IQ than Lewis, so therefore he must be right? No. That's not a good argument, is it?

And as a philosopher - I think that's not even true. His attempts at argument suck, and he did not publish anything refereed by any philosophers, as far as I know.

[Ouroboros]

And as a philosopher - I think that's not even true. His attempts at argument suck, and he did not publish anything refereed by any philosophers, as far as I know.

Yeah. I can agree with that. He wasn't a skilled philosopher, but he did "philosophize" like we all do. Trying to reason and rationalize things, however successful that might be at times.

[Jeff]

...deleted...