The Problem of evoL

July 7, 2022

9 hours ago, RankStranger said:

False certainty. Claiming belief as if it were knowledge... while knowing deep down in one's heart that those two are not the same thing. Claiming to know things that one does not in fact know. I don't know if that's tantamount to a lie, but it looks mighty close to me. Close enough that I'm not impressed with the people who do this.

I think what we are seeing with Johnny, at this point, is a good example of this. He has made several claims since he came here that simply do not reflect reality. But he isn't exactly lying, in the sense that he is malevolently, intentionally intending to deceive. He is simply pushing the reality that he sees, without realizing or without caring that it is radically different from the reality the rest of us see. It is the "truth" for him; and he's being "honest" in telling it.

I've mentioned before that, for me, integrity means "one-ness" as in an integral part, an integrated system, an integer. Integrity incorporates honesty; but is much more than mere truth-telling. To be "one" means that my thoughts, words, and actions are all in alignment and working in concert. I cannot think one thing and say something else. I cannot say this but act like that. This is not the way to achieve one-ness.

Probing further, if my mind is fractured, as it must necessarily be when impaired by cognitive dissonance, then it cannot work effectively with the other two components of word and deed. I may, at times, be able to achieve enough clarity to have a moment of integrity; but to truly become "one" is impossible until I allow my own thoughts to be honest with themselves and rid my mind of the impairment of cognitive dissonance. This is where christians, and, indeed, adherents to any religion, seem to falter in terms of honesty. Faith impedes honesty; and often supersedes the truth. But it isn't because they are lying, per se; they simply cannot think/know/speak the truth through the cloud of their own thought processes.

July 7, 2022

31 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I've mentioned before that, for me, integrity means "one-ness" as in an integral part, an integrated system, an integer. Integrity incorporates honesty; but is much more than mere truth-telling. To be "one" means that my thoughts, words, and actions are all in alignment and working in concert.

This concept of integrity really resonates with me, as I’ve thought about it often since I deconverted. A minister at my former church - a guy I still like and respect - once preached a sermon on this concept of integrity: going beyond the typical meaning of honesty to this idea of our thoughts, words and actions all being in alignment. Of course he meant it in the concept of being a Christian, but I’ve often thought about what he said in the years since I left Christianity behind. I reacted to his sermon by feeling that I did lack that kind of integrity somewhat, given the notorious cognitive dissonance that I often experienced. I did NOT expect that the CD would be eliminated and that I would gain the prized integrity by making the journey to agnostic atheism. I sometimes struggle to articulate some of the benefits I’ve enjoyed by deconverting, but this is definitely one of them.

July 7, 2022

2 minutes ago, TABA said:

I sometimes struggle to articulate some of the benefits I’ve enjoyed by deconverting, but this is definitely one of them.

Weird how something as simple as being able to tell the truth, even if only to yourself, can be so liberating, innit?

July 7, 2022

4 minutes ago, TABA said:

This concept of integrity really resonates with me, as I’ve thought about it often since I deconverted. A minister at my former church - a guy I still like and respect - once preached a sermon on this concept of integrity: going beyond the typical meaning of honesty to this idea of our thoughts, words and actions all being in alignment.

This concept was a lightening bolt epiphany for me during one of the darker periods of my life back in 2015, many years after my deconversion. I've tried, with some success, to implement it into my life since then.

Had I heard it in a sermon as a christian, I'd have probably ignored it.

July 7, 2022

23 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Neither myself, nor Epicurus, referred to the god of the bible.

You can keep on lying, YOU did.

What book do Christians go by....the bible.

You, "It's almost as if, subconsciously, christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat."

Did you refer to Muslims, or any other belief system based on their books? No. You referred to the Christian's book, the bible.

You, "If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil."

You ARE referring to the God of the bible. On top of that you insist on pretending to know the bible ("It's almost as if, subconsciously, christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat.") as you ignore the video I gave that showed who is involved with doing evil. You are fine with lying.

Again...

In the stance you took, you did. You can try to weasel out of it, but you must go by what you gave overall and I showed that. I'm not making ANY assumptions. You have to learn to live with the words you let out. Come on, you wanting a direct quote when your various quotes make it clear what you're doing, shows what a low standard of integrity you have no matter how much you try to hide it.

You clearly showed that it is your stance. You're referring to the bible that God created everything. I already stated that. If God created everything that included satan and his angels that followed the same, then God would be the 'cause' by giving free will to follow Him or not. Adam and Eve also had that same free will but sinned that allowed evil to the humans God created. If God never created, there would be no source of evil. The God of the bible can't do the evil because the God of the bible says one of the things He is, is love. As I already stated all this. You don't get it both ways. You are clearly referring to the God of the bible. As I already showed, you want to use the bible for your case of evil, but you don't even know what the bible says.

It's was shown before.....

You..."I had an epiphany this afternoon whilst arguing in the Twitter-verse. When presented with Epicurus' Problem of Evil, most people want to say that god is able to prevent evil but free will blah blah... which amounts to able but not willing.

Here's the lightening bolt, though. When you present the Problem of Evil to a person, you are essentially asking them to choose between a god of power and a god of love. And which god they choose speaks a lot about their own personal character. Hmm...

What might it say that most choose the god of power? Serious question, by the way; not rhetorical."

Me...What belief system says such things? The belief system based on the bible, as far as I know.

YOU..."It's almost as if, subconsciously, christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat. This is why, given the option of defending god's omnipotence versus defending his omnibenevolence, they almost invariably choose to leave god's power intact and try to explain evil away with mysterious ways, free will, or some other magical pile of apologist horseshit."

Me...What do Christians base their belief on? The bible.

YOU..."And the 10-year-old girl who gets raped, what about her free will? What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself? If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil."

Then you have the gall to say....Not once have I said that god is the cause of our suffering.

You clearly took this from a biblical perspective, "choose between a god of power and a god of love," "christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat," "most people want to say that god is able to prevent evil but free will blah blah...," "what about her free will?", "What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself? If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil."

What does the bible teach that you are clearly referencing from, that God created all. That God gave us free will. That from that there were those that didn't want to follow God and did evil.

Then I supply a video that shows that God is not all-powerful to stop what was given in free will. You though still want to blame God. Then do that. Do it to your heart's content and IGNORE what the bible YOU are referencing to, actually SAYS. Ignore it. It's clear that is your desire, to make assertions on a book that you don't even know, but you want to claim you know no matter how you're shown to be wrong.

July 7, 2022

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I think what we are seeing with Johnny, at this point, is a good example of this. He has made several claims since he came here that simply do not reflect reality. But he isn't exactly lying, in the sense that he is malevolently, intentionally intending to deceive. He is simply pushing the reality that he sees, without realizing or without caring that it is radically different from the reality the rest of us see. It is the "truth" for him; and he's being "honest" in telling it.

You may be right- I'm not entirely sure. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where this sort of behavior is more 'negligent' than 'dishonest'. Either way I consider it a red flag when I interact with people.

IMO it's a misrepresentation to claim 'belief' as 'knowledge', when they just aren't the same thing. Whether that misrepresentation stems from dishonesty, negligence, arrogance, pride, selfishness, stupidity... I'm not here to judge the evil within the hearts of men. But it's the misrepresentation that I notice, whatever the underlying reason.

Maybe it's not a matter of honesty per se. But it's definitely a misrepresentation of the truth, whatever the motive.

July 7, 2022

I would caution against drawing too fine a line between belief and knowledge. In epistomology a common definition for knowledge is a "justified true belief". The concept of "knowing" something gets difficult to pin down once you're in the minutiae and edge cases.

Sometimes our justified true beliefs still turn out to be wrongly applied and are still wrong.

July 7, 2022

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I think what we are seeing with Johnny, at this point, is a good example of this. He has made several claims since he came here that simply do not reflect reality. But he isn't exactly lying, in the sense that he is malevolently, intentionally intending to deceive. He is simply pushing the reality that he sees, without realizing or without caring that it is radically different from the reality the rest of us see. It is the "truth" for him; and he's being "honest" in telling it.

I'm glad I keep a trash can near me for not only getting rid of trash, but just in case I barf from the irony given in such comments.

Loved your other quotes about the God of the bible you say you were not talking about. Loved other quotes, one showing Walter quoting from a site that was filled with lies and that had the quote Walter used to make it look like Behe just gave a foolish answer but the real story was nothing like Walter tried to get across. When I asked Walter did he apologize, as far as I can see, and admit I could have missed it, he does not want to go there.

I've documented the science fiction I've gotten in replies to me and showed why it's science fiction. Even look at the origin of life. It does not matter how far-fetched it is that life arose on its own, people will go on believing it with silly excuses. They can't provide reasonable evidence for it, thus the excuses.

"He has made several claims since he came here that simply do not reflect reality."

Lying comes easy to you. It's what the atheistic side is all about. Nothing new under the sun.

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But he isn't exactly lying, in the sense that he is malevolently, intentionally intending to deceive.

And you want to be taken seriously?!

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Integrity incorporates honesty; but is much more than mere truth-telling. To be "one" means that my thoughts, words, and actions are all in alignment and working in concert. I cannot think one thing and say something else. I cannot say this but act like that. This is not the way to achieve one-ness.

OK, that's enough irony for me. I'll take a break from this absurdity.

July 7, 2022

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

You..."I had an epiphany this afternoon whilst arguing in the Twitter-verse. When presented with Epicurus' Problem of Evil, most people want to say that god is able to prevent evil but free will blah blah... which amounts to able but not willing.

Here's the lightening bolt, though. When you present the Problem of Evil to a person, you are essentially asking them to choose between a god of power and a god of love. And which god they choose speaks a lot about their own personal character. Hmm...

What might it say that most choose the god of power? Serious question, by the way; not rhetorical."

Me...What belief system says such things? The belief system based on the bible, as far as I know.

YOU..."It's almost as if, subconsciously, christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat. This is why, given the option of defending god's omnipotence versus defending his omnibenevolence, they almost invariably choose to leave god's power intact and try to explain evil away with mysterious ways, free will, or some other magical pile of apologist horseshit."

Me...What do Christians base their belief on? The bible.

YOU..."And the 10-year-old girl who gets raped, what about her free will? What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself? If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil."

Then you have the gall to say....Not once have I said that god is the cause of our suffering.

Did this entire conversation take place inside your own head? I ask because reading back through this entire thread, I don't see any evidence whatsoever that it actually happened. Your first post was about how you're not making a choice because free will blah blah blah. I then asked about the 10-year-old girl and pointed out that you were making a choice that god was able but not willing. I also, at that point, made the claim that god is evil, a claim I am still willing to defend. Your response was that I was making stuff up and by what authority did I speak. You also introduced your regurgitated strawman about everything coming from nothing and posted your video. I countered that you had missed the point, stated that I was speaking from my own authority, indicated that I did not believe your strawman, and admonished you about ad hominemens. You then went back to free will and at that point first introduced the idea that I made the claim that god is the cause of our suffering (in your words, "you make it god's fault with... 'what does god's refusal to intervene tell us about him?'") After which you again presented your strawman about everything coming from nothing and demanded that I explain how we all got here.

That brings us to the bottom of page 2 of this thread. Would you like me to continue demonstrating that the conversation you have quoted several times did not occur on page 3 or on any other page in this thread? Or do you have any evidence you'd like to present to show that the conversation did take place?

The fact is: I never said the god of the bible is the cause of suffering. I did say that god is evil; and I stand by that. But I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who does nothing but tilt toward windmills about claims I have not made.

You've done nothing but make assumptions since the moment you showed up here. You assumed that since I mentioned "christians" I must be referring to the god of the bible; because christians follow the bible. But you don't even follow the bible yourself. You rejected church long ago and do not go any more; when the bible plainly states "forsake not the gathering together of the brethren."

Your own sense of self-worth and ego has gotten in the way of you even being able to understand the simple course of a conversation and you confuse it with the conversations you think you hear inside your own head. Hell, you can't even follow the conversation well enough to know whether I said something or walterpthefirst said it; and Walt called you out on that this morning. But you have the gall to call Astreja out for reading comprehension?

You serve a purpose here, for us, which is why we will keep you around for as long as you serve it. But do not think for a moment that you have accomplished anything beyond what we are using you for. Speaking for myself, you are a good reminder that everyone deserves to be treated with compassion and I am, most certainly, quite often, not as compassionate as I'd like to be.

Good day, Sir.

July 7, 2022

3 hours ago, Krowb said:

I would caution against drawing too fine a line between belief and knowledge. In epistomology a common definition for knowledge is a "justified true belief". The concept of "knowing" something gets difficult to pin down once you're in the minutiae and edge cases.

Sometimes our justified true beliefs still turn out to be wrongly applied and are still wrong.

True enough, and I'm not claiming some divine claim on Truth(TM).

But when somebody is making a divine claim on Truth(TM), I will damn well hold them to a high standard.

July 7, 2022

18 hours ago, Johnny said:

Well, maybe you haven't got the memo, they've been going at this at least from the 1600s.

I didn't think I'd have to point out the obvious, but I guess I need to be more overt... There are two ideas being discussed, biogenesis which is a closed field of study from the 1600s, and abiogenesis which is a current field of study which has only been delved into in depth in the last century. When I say "its a new field of study" which of the two do you think I'm referring to?

Abiogenesis required modern technology and knowledge to allow it to be explored over the last century. The electron microscope is ~90 years old (the first only having a 400x magnification, while modern ones have multiple millions of times magnification), the Urey/Miller experiment was ~70 years ago, home computers ~40 years, the internet ~30 years, the human genome project ~20 years ago and computers powerful enough to run complex modelling and simulations only existed in the last decade or so. Our knowledge has grown exponetially over the last century.

In the scale of time we've hardly got started. You are trying to call the race as run before the starting gun sounds.

18 hours ago, Johnny said:

It's the SAME old tired story with your type. There's a showstopper to what you want to believe and the more they find out about life it does not get better

It's the SAME old tired story with your type. There's a scientfic field of study that conflicts with your beliefs, so you ignore the experts saying its plausible to label it as impossible before the study has completed. Its the same reliance on incredulity that young earth creationists use. Hmm, interesting... what are your views on a young earth?

18 hours ago, Johnny said:

Look how convincing the evidence is against abiogenesis and how we have a law of biogenesis, look at how that does not affect you all here fighting against biogenesis. In other words, look who's calling the kettle black.

I've looked at the evidence against abiogenesis and its not convincing. Yes we have biogenesis, and as already stated that answers a different question and does not conflict with abiogenesis. And no, I'm not fighting against biogenesis, I've accepted it openly.

So the question remains, if tomorrow a group of scientists say they have successfully created life in a lab. The experiment is repeatable, observable and other labs around the world are able to repeat the test successfully, how would that change your worldview? What would that mean to you?

18 hours ago, Johnny said:

God is not "hidden" since His handiwork is ALL over.

Divine hiddenness is a problem Christians have been debating for centuries. Your hand wave response fails to address the problem, a problem which is at the core of many peoples deconversion. The bible claims that god was willing to show Himself and directly communicate to thousands of people, numerous times. Nowdays we see no such thing. The people of the bible didn't have to try and infer gods existence by looking at nature, it is said they had miracles, angelic messengers and in Elijah's case a direct test to prove god. This is what the problem of divine hiddenness refers to and what thousands of people have attempted to address.

18 hours ago, Johnny said:

"the problem of suffering,"

I covered that already. People want to act as if the go by the bible to show God is involved in the suffering somehow but as I showed, they don't even know the bible.

Again a hand wave response to a question that has been causing debates for centuries. These are the questions that really matter, and avoiding them to continue flogging the "where did the universe come from?" horse, is aiming your effort at less important subjects.

Empty answers like "freewill" fail to answer natural suffering, or explain how heaven can be without suffering and yet we are meant to still maintain freewill. Or how the people in heaven can have knowledge of loved ones in hell, but not feel sadness or empathy for their suffering.

If you are raised to believe in an all-powerful, all-loving and active in our world god, then the glaring suffering seen around the world can be a line to deconversion.

18 hours ago, Johnny said:

"the horror of the bible"

From what I've seen here, people can't even get past the first verse about God creating so they make up science fiction to show we got all this naturally.

From what I've seen you can't get past the first verse. No one else is bring up the creation of the universe, that really seems to be your go to argument. Its an argument most people are happy to say "I don't know" and move on with their lives.

That of course completely fails to address "the horror of the bible", which is again a problem that can lead to deconversion. When people read about slavery, genocide, the war god of the OT, murdering children, killing for what we would consider terrible reasons, then they start to struggle to reconcile the brutal OT god with the loving hippy god of the NT. That makes this a subject that actually matters.

19 hours ago, Johnny said:

"the lack of unity within Christianity"

I've had exchanges with a lot of atheistic types and they admit there is no unity in all their beliefs with other atheistic types.

Ah, the great rebuttal "I know you are but what am I?" made famous by pre-schoolers around the world. Atheism answers one question only, so its completely expected that people with completely different worldviews will be under that label. It is not a worldview itself, it only says "I don't believe in god", nothing more. So yes there is no unity in atheism, but there is not meant to be.

There is however meant to be within Christianity, and that is where the problem lays. Christians claim to be following gods perfect word, lead by the holy spirit and following gods objective moral laws, and yet instead of a unified religion we find ten thousand denominations, dozens of different bibles, centuries of arguments over how to read the bible, the great schism, the protestant breakaway, the centuries of bloody warfare over who has the right version of god. Its hard to find a single subject that Christians can agree on, and yet they all claim to be lead by the holy spirit, and come to completely different answers.

19 hours ago, Johnny said:

22 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Becaue these two ideas, biogenesis and abiogenesis, answer two different questions, it is understood that both can be correct at the same time.

I don't see how that is possible.

Well I did explain it, but I'll try again since you see to be struggling with this. Biogenesis answers the question "where does fully formed, multi-cellular lifeforms come from?", with the ancient suggestion that things such as larva, maggots, fleas, worms etc could spontaneously generate from organic matter. This question was clearly answered, and the field of study ceased.

Abiogenesis asks the question "How could you go from chemistry to a self replicating single cell?", this is the open field of study that is being worked on to this day. Are viruses alive? Can you go from RNA to DNA? Are self replicating proteins a building block? Interesting questions, none of which biogenesis looks to answer.

Biogenesis fully formed life, abiogenesis single cell. Those two don't overlap and therefore both can be true at the same time.

19 hours ago, Johnny said:

"There maybe a way for a self replicating cell to be created through a natural process"

It's been shown that way can't happen.

It has not been shown, it is an active field of research and the experts in that field have not ruled this out as perfectly feasible.

July 8, 2022

10 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You assumed that since I mentioned "christians" I must be referring to the god of the bible; because christians follow the bible. But you don't even follow the bible yourself.

I "assumed" this by all the other things you mentioned? No,there was NO assuming no matter how much you deny it and want to lie about it.

YOU..."It's almost as if, subconsciously, christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat. This is why, given the option of defending god's omnipotence versus defending his omnibenevolence, they almost invariably choose to leave god's power intact and try to explain evil away with mysterious ways, free will, or some other magical pile of apologist horseshit."

Me...What do Christians base their belief on? The bible.

YOU..."And the 10-year-old girl who gets raped, what about her free will? What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself? If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil."

Then you have the gall to say....Not once have I said that god is the cause of our suffering.

You clearly took this from a biblical perspective, "choose between a god of power and a god of love," "christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat," "most people want to say that god is able to prevent evil but free will blah blah...," "what about her free will?", "What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself? If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil."

Then you have the gall to try to sweep that under the rug with...

"You assumed that since I mentioned "christians" I must be referring to the god of the bible; because christians follow the bible."

So I "assumed" by you saying, "It's almost as if, subconsciously, christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat. This is why, given the option of defending god's omnipotence versus defending his omnibenevolence, they almost invariably choose to leave god's power intact and try to explain evil away with mysterious ways, free will, or some other magical pile of apologist horseshit."?

You have NO integrity. You write that and boldly lie with, "You assumed that since I mentioned "christians" I must be referring to the god of the bible; because christians follow the bible."

And oh, this was an assumption too that you not only mentioned Christians, but also threw in...."christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat. This is why, given the option of defending god's omnipotence versus defending his omnibenevolence, they almost invariably choose to leave god's power intact and try to explain evil away with mysterious ways, free will, or some other magical pile of apologist horseshit."

You again..."...they almost invariably choose to leave god's power intact and try to explain evil away with mysterious ways..."

There is NOTHING mysterious about it! If you can't get what was clearly said in that video, then you can keep on lying. How you and other people take you seriously is beyond me.

10 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The fact is: I never said the god of the bible is the cause of suffering.

AGAIN, you clearly took this from a biblical perspective, "choose between a god of power and a god of love," "christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat," "most people want to say that god is able to prevent evil but free will blah blah...," "what about her free will?", "What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself? If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil."

Then on top of that you will continue to ignore the real source of suffering and death. Your blah-blah to fill in space with lies does not distance yourself enough from them.

July 8, 2022

5 hours ago, Wertbag said:

I didn't think I'd have to point out the obvious

Well, you sure skipped the obvious.

5 hours ago, Wertbag said:

You are trying to call the race as run before the starting gun sounds.

No, I clearly showed in MANY posts that abiogenesis can't happen. This has been looked QUITE a bit. I nothing new like you want to keep on lying about.

5 hours ago, Wertbag said:

There's a scientfic field of study that conflicts with your beliefs, so you ignore the experts saying its plausible to label it as impossible before the study has completed. Its the same reliance on incredulity that young earth creationists use. Hmm, interesting... what are your views on a young earth?

Where did I show I'm sticking to my belief with evidence showing it's wrong given by ANYONE on this subject you are speaking of, how can life come about when life only comes from life.

Hands down your side is crushed even with this issue then you have the nerve to say that about me. Stick with this and stop running from it your disgusting portrayal of me how I "ignore the experts saying its plausible to label it as impossible before the study has completed."

Stop your LYING because this has been looked at heavily and the more they look at it the more it just adds, life cannot come about on its own. They go by what they see as the simplest life that never even has shown to have existed but still trying to put things in favor of seeing what is even required for the simplest life, they looked at that and see given even unrealistic combinations over an unrealistic time period, it ain't going to happen!!! I put in, this isn't even considering the information that only comes from intelligence that had to be there ready to go too from the very start.

Look, I gave BASIC evidence on just covering the simple topics of why life can't come from non-life and none of you have an explanation how that is not so. I think it was Walter that just threw out odds. For me, I don't have the dishonesty to throw out odds, then on top of that the evidence what life takes was thrown out too.

5 hours ago, Wertbag said:

I've looked at the evidence against abiogenesis and its not convincing.

Then don't be convinced.

5 hours ago, Wertbag said:

So the question remains, if tomorrow a group of scientists say they have successfully created life in a lab. The experiment is repeatable, observable and other labs around the world are able to repeat the test successfully, how would that change your worldview? What would that mean to you?

What question remains? Granted, it's hard keeping up with all the posts, but how does your question "remain"?

"if tomorrow a group of scientists say they have successfully created life in a lab"

This was covered already. Do you believe a cell phone came about all on its own? I don't. It took a lot of work and thought to come up with them. Life is much more complicated. You refuse to see the things needed from the start for it to happen naturally.

I need to shut up rather than wasting my time with people who think such things can just come about on their own. All you're doing is showing you never gave decent thought to this issue. What kind of people don't give common things such as life and how we got it and get curious to looking at it honestly what it is up against?

July 8, 2022

3 hours ago, Johnny said:

YOU..."It's almost as if, subconsciously, christians know the loving father routine is just a facade and god really is a tyrannical autocrat. This is why, given the option of defending god's omnipotence versus defending his omnibenevolence, they almost invariably choose to leave god's power intact and try to explain evil away with mysterious ways, free will, or some other magical pile of apologist horseshit."

Me...What do Christians base their belief on? The bible.

YOU..."And the 10-year-old girl who gets raped, what about her free will? What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself? If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil."

Then you have the gall to say....Not once have I said that god is the cause of our suffering.

Wow. Again quoting this "conversation" that never actually happened.

July 8, 2022

5 hours ago, Johnny said:

No, I clearly showed in MANY posts that abiogenesis can't happen.

You showed your ideas are in direct conflict with the experts in this field. The microbiologists, chemists and PhD holding scientists who are actively researching this have no problem saying this is a plausible hypothesis. You keep claiming it is impossible, while those who have spent decades researching it disagree with you. This is not settled science, it is an open field of research which new developments occurring to this day.

5 hours ago, Johnny said:

Where did I show I'm sticking to my belief with evidence showing it's wrong given by ANYONE on this subject

Because, as above, you are sticking to your claim that this is impossible in direct conflict with the scientists working in this field.

5 hours ago, Johnny said:

11 hours ago, Wertbag said:

I've looked at the evidence against abiogenesis and its not convincing.

Then don't be convinced.

Certainly not by you and not with that attitude.

Let me give you some advice (I doubt you will take it, but its the same advice I've given to others who don't know how to engage in productive conversations). If your intent is to change minds, to convince people that you are correct and to engage in a productive conversation, then you should try a friendly, positive approach. If you start these discussions in a combative manner then you automatically put your audience on the defensive. They are unlikely to pay attention to your message, as they don't see you as a source worth engaging with. As the old saying goes you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Its the mark of a good communicator to make themselves likeable and to transmit their message clearly and positively to their audience. With a different approach you could achieve so much more.

6 hours ago, Johnny said:

"if tomorrow a group of scientists say they have successfully created life in a lab"

This was covered already.

No, I asked you a straight forward, direct question "If scientists successfully created life in a lab, how would that change your worldview? What would that mean to you?" You dodged the question, and I'm quite interested to hear what your answer would be.

You also failed to answer my other question "What is your view on a young Earth?" Is that a belief you hold to?

6 hours ago, Johnny said:

Do you believe a cell phone came about all on its own?

Its always a terrible analogy to compare an inorganic, man-made item, to an organic lifeform. The two are not comparable. We know how cellphones are made, and we know they do not naturally reproduce. Due to this they are not analogist to life.

6 hours ago, Johnny said:

All you're doing is showing you never gave decent thought to this issue.

And once again; The microbiologists, chemists, and scientists working in this field have dug into these questions deeper than either of us ever will. Those experts have spent decades researching this idea and they have come to the conclusion that it is feasible. So they absolutely have "given decent thought to this issue", and with their deep dive into this subject have come to the opposite conclusion to you.

July 8, 2022

21 hours ago, Johnny said:

I'm glad I keep a trash can near me for not only getting rid of trash, but just in case I barf from the irony given in such comments.

I believe you're missing the point please sir. Has nothing to do with you as an individual, but more the condition of us all. Through our circumstances and lives, our particular beliefs are like a Polaroid at any given time. We believe this "picture" because again, our circumstances, our lives, move us to places that we discern as truth because "it worked for us". Given none of us are omniscient, that kind of leaves us in a permanent state of grace for everyone involved. I think all the Prof is saying is that you believe X at this point in your life. Nothing wrong with X, just a less encompassing view, again, given none of us hold more that some fashion of X at any given time. He holds an X view. I do as well. Everyone here does. The key is none of the X's are absolute that we know of...

With that, this should actually bring about compassion for all of us.....the Grace that I think Christ desires.

July 14, 2022

On 7/6/2022 at 8:02 AM, RankStranger said:

That's an interesting take on things. What sort of church is this, if you don't mind me asking?

Kippax Uniting Church in Australia

July 16, 2022

On 7/8/2022 at 1:40 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Wow. Again quoting this "conversation" that never actually happened.

I expected you to continue lying. It's something you're well-practiced at.

On 7/7/2022 at 11:02 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You assumed that since I mentioned "christians" I must be referring to the god of the bible; because christians follow the bible. But you don't even follow the bible yourself.