Welcome to Gaia! ::

Oneiro Itane's avatar

5,450 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Brandisher 100
I only tell people I know very well (save for other agnostics/atheists), and since I only surround myself with people that are intellectual and open-minded, I've never had a problem with it.
commujism's avatar

Man-Hungry Fairy

Everyone knows I'm an atheist; and people who have problems with it, aren't in my life.
Jeevas Crow's avatar

Moonlight Humorist

13,100 Points
  • Survivor 150
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Cool Cat 500
s o a r i n g - a r r o w
I'm an atheist. When I first tell people, I'm normally hesitant; I never know how they might react. Despite my caution, everyone but my parents - as in, people generally my own age - doesn't care. I make jokes about it a lot, actually (more than I should). You should know, I'm in college in New York City, so things are a little more tolerable here. My mother just refuses to accept it, and my father thinks it's a phase I'm going through. It's really annoying, and I feel like they're not treating me as an adult. Which is ridiculous. But now I'm off-topic.


This Devil Wears Converse
You're atheist if you're against all religion in general as a concept.


I wouldn't say "against all religion as a concept". I view it as more of, "I don't believe there is a greater power that created the universe, or that this greater power has sway on my individual life." Using "against" automatically makes me thing of a fight, which I know you don't mean. (At least, I hope so!)
I know what you mean. My parents are pretty much identical to yours in this case. xD But don't think of it as them not respecting you as an adult, try to think of it as them caring for you because you're somebody they love, yeah? Religion is a tricky subject, especially with parenting, because no parent wants to believe their kid won't share afterlife with them. At the same time, when they meet teens or someone on the street who tell them their views on religion the parent doesn't usually feel swayed to disbelieve them if they're not of the same religion just because it's nobody they really care about.

Not that I know you or your family or anything, but that's usually how it goes, I like to think. With my parents, at least, that's how it is, because they're accepting of religious views of other people my age but they hold skepticism against me. I just let them think what they want, since really it's them that should come around to accepting my choices as not a family but an independent person.

Ah, that's fair. Against is a bit of a strong word. ^^ I guess what I was trying to say is that atheism is when someone believes the core essentials of existing religions are incorrect. Or something. It's hard to put into words without just saying "not religious", because agnostics aren't religious either. xDD
spooktea's avatar

Winner

meh, no one really cares, though most of them think i'm agnostic.
If you're an atheist, have you chosen to tell others? What were their reactions?

Where I live, it's sort of the opposite. Being an Atheist or Agnostic is more the norm (Northern Sweden) than being religious, so it isn't much of an issue of "coming out". Everyone that I know either knows me to be Atheist, or I would presume that they assume me to be an atheist. Actually, it's the religious people that get heckled and made fun at around here. Kinna funny, innit?
This Devil Wears Converse
s o a r i n g - a r r o w
I'm an atheist. When I first tell people, I'm normally hesitant; I never know how they might react. Despite my caution, everyone but my parents - as in, people generally my own age - doesn't care. I make jokes about it a lot, actually (more than I should). You should know, I'm in college in New York City, so things are a little more tolerable here. My mother just refuses to accept it, and my father thinks it's a phase I'm going through. It's really annoying, and I feel like they're not treating me as an adult. Which is ridiculous. But now I'm off-topic.


This Devil Wears Converse
You're atheist if you're against all religion in general as a concept.


I wouldn't say "against all religion as a concept". I view it as more of, "I don't believe there is a greater power that created the universe, or that this greater power has sway on my individual life." Using "against" automatically makes me thing of a fight, which I know you don't mean. (At least, I hope so!)
I know what you mean. My parents are pretty much identical to yours in this case. xD But don't think of it as them not respecting you as an adult, try to think of it as them caring for you because you're somebody they love, yeah? Religion is a tricky subject, especially with parenting, because no parent wants to believe their kid won't share afterlife with them. At the same time, when they meet teens or someone on the street who tell them their views on religion the parent doesn't usually feel swayed to disbelieve them if they're not of the same religion just because it's nobody they really care about.

Not that I know you or your family or anything, but that's usually how it goes, I like to think. With my parents, at least, that's how it is, because they're accepting of religious views of other people my age but they hold skepticism against me. I just let them think what they want, since really it's them that should come around to accepting my choices as not a family but an independent person.

Ah, that's fair. Against is a bit of a strong word. ^^ I guess what I was trying to say is that atheism is when someone believes the core essentials of existing religions are incorrect. Or something. It's hard to put into words without just saying "not religious", because agnostics aren't religious either. xDD


I'm actually not too sure of what my family thinks of others. My brother is agnostic, leaning toward atheism, so no problem there. But my dad - a man that, frankly, I don't like - once said, "You're not atheist. You know why? Because when something happens, you think, Oh my God!" I think that comment made the me the angriest. I don't like it when people assert things like that.

I really like what you said about respecting your own choices. I went to a catholic school my whole life (actually, I'm at a catholic college right now), but my entire high school experience they forced the religion down our throats. I understand, the school was based on it, but they never gave us a chance to explore what we believed. They gave us facts to memorize during senior year so we could back up our beliefs. I felt like they were treating us like children.

I have to say, that was not the sole reason I became atheist, but I'd be dense if I said my high school didn't influence me in any way.
ShokushuThere's a moral message any time God or the chosen people are involved. That's the ******** reason they wrote any of it down.[/quote]
Uh, no. A moral message is one reason something would have been written down, but read through the old testament. Most of what was written down before the book of Psalms is just people writing something down because it happened. No reason. No moral. Just plain "This is what happened" history.
Shokushu
Alright, so you're going to dismiss this as old news. Oh neat, you can do that for any argument I bring up since the Bible is an old book. Congratulat
ru8ggune:1="Shokushu
Alright, so you're going to dismiss this as old news. Oh neat, you can do that for any argument I bring up since the Bible is an old book. Congratulations.

Uh, no. I just threw out several possible ideas and told you that I haven't decided on what explanation to go with.
Shokushu
How about instead you actually go to the trouble of checking out what people through the ages have thought about this story and actually present something that's pertinent to the issue of the Bible running counter to science?

You mean like the fact that most scientists in history were creationists? Or that people in the past knew the earth was really round but atheists want people to think they thought it was flat so they make up the flat earth idea (like Washington Irving did with Columbus for instance)? C'mon. I care only about facts, not ideas atheists make up.
Shokushu
"People have known this story wasn't how the world works for a long time" just makes the Bible look blatantly anti-science to an even greater degree when you don't have any explanation to follow it with.
Uh, no. I'm saying that people have tried it later on and saw it didn't work means something miraculous happened at the time. It was a one time event. The Bible does not say it will happen every time rods are put into a feeding trough. It said it happened once. Just like putting trees into bodies of water do not make them sweet, but it did happen once in Exodus. The Bible is not anti-science at all.... but it does report on one time events that happen.
Shokushu
No it's ******** not. Cud is food brought up from one stomach so that it can be chewed before it goes down into another stomach. Rabbits only have one stomach, they don't chew their s**t like cud (they just want the bacteria cultures in it- without the poop they eventually pass out all the bacteria and then they can't digest plant walls anymore.)

Uh, animal droppings contain undigested food... and it's not just rabbits, but lots of creatures have undigested food in their droppings. I have 2 dogs who have undigested food in their droppings as well. Have you ever thought that the definition of cud could have changed?

Shokushu
Shokushu
Birds didn't come before land animals.

This is opinion, not fact. Any hard evidence for this?

Let's just start with Archeopteryx.

Okay... it's a bird. An ancient bird that's dead. What about it?

Shokushu
1 Samuel 2:8 says the Earth is on pillars too, specifically that God put the Earth on them.

1 Samuel 2:8 is Hannah praying. Hannah is using figurative language. I don't think she believed the earth stood on actual pillars, but that's unknown. She means the foundation of the earth (and I'm not sure if she's referring to the planet or just the ground here). Look at context and that answers most questions about Bible verses.
Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
and doesn't have four corners or edges.

And yet even today, we still say "The four corners of the world" even though people today know the earth is round.... well, if you look at history, even the people in ancient times knew the earth was round. The flat earth concept is actually a fairly recent one.... and it seems to have been made up by atheists in an attempt to make fun of Christians from what I can tell. Nobody who lived back then believed the earth was anything but a sphere anyway.

I can't tell if you're trying to be deceptive here or if you're just misinformed.
The Greeks figured out that the Earth was round and any sea-faring (or even just fishing-from-boats) culture would have known it since ships sink below the horizon way before they're so small that you'd stop seeing them. The early Jews didn't know this. The best passage for a round world describes the Earth more like a flat circle, but that's just the kind of thing you'd see from a tall tower or maybe after climbing a tree.

Okay, so you don't think Jews saw ships sink below the horizon? They lived next to the Mediteranean Sea. They would have seen this too. They also had exposure to other cultures, who also knew the earth was round. Nobody back then believed the earth to be flat. A simple look at the sky could tell you it's round. Yes, the Jews knew the earth is round.

Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
Noah's dove found an olive branch- how the ******** did a tree grow that fast after a major purging flood? Would have had to happen with a lot of plants though unless the denizens of the Ark were going to starve, or just carnivore it up and send a lot of species to extermination.

Nobody said where exactly the olive branch came from, but when a flood hits, it doesn't magically vaporize everything. When the waters assuaged, there were remnants of the previous world, so it wouldn't be surprising there would be an olive branch somewhere. Heck, I'm actually surprised they didn't just find one floating about when the world was still covered.

Yes, that is the issue. They would have had to all be buried in silt and such. I'm glad you can agree with me that this doesn't fit science or logic in general.

Uh, I actually do not agree with your false claim. I never said it doesn't fit with science. Why do you think they ALL had to be buried? And you accused ME of not understanding how science works? Have you SEEN a flood? A flood doesn't just bury everything as you claim. In a flood, some things get washed away and float. A branch would easily float in water. You just said everything would be buried, which completely disagrees with science. Some things float. Some things get buried (which by the way, explains VERY well as to how fossils were able to form in the first place, and also as to why we almost never find complete skeletons.... embarrassing problems for the humanists here). Though not everything has to be buried as you claim.

Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
The Earth ******** moves.

Is it Psalm 96:10 where you get this? "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Well I say... have YOU ever tried to move the earth? Can't do it can you? THAT is what it's referring to. Man can't move what God has set into motion. Sorry if you missed the context here.

More like 1 Chronicles 16:30

Hmmm reading this passage, it still looks like it's referring to the fact that people can't move the earth. It doesn't say the earth doesn't move. It says the earth can not be moved... as in we can't move the earth. Then again, Chuck Norris wasn't around at this time razz

Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
Firmament is some backward a** thinking about what the sky is like.

Firmament is just another word for atmosphere. The word atmosphere wasn't invented in those days, so they said firmament.
Then it's still bad because it says God put the stars in the atmosphere/firmament.

Hmm.. upon second look, it DOES appear firmament was another word used for sky. Seems to be for sky, outer space, or atmosphere. It doesn't seem like they had separate words for those, so they just used one word, and it was understood by context.
Shokushu
The grapes from the land of Canaan were so large two men had to carry them on a stick. If you know d**k about the Bible you don't need me to tell you what book that's in.
Hmm I must have just read over that and never gave it a second thought. I'll look this up and get back to you on this.

Shokushu
It SAYS that you WON'T get sick if you obey God.
Try again.

What passage of scripture are you referring to here?

Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
God is as strong as a Unicorn- well actually I guess that makes sense.
That's a simile. Look up that word and you'll understand it's just a comparison being made. Besides... isn't a unicorn just a horse with a horn anyway?
Yes it is. The issue here is that God has been compared to a fictional animal. Did God not know that unicorns aren't real, or is this another one you're going to blame on the people making this stuff up and writing it down?
A horse with a horn can't have existed? Anyways, even if they didn't exist (and I'm NOT saying they do), yes, God was being compared to a fictional animal. What of it? What is problem?

Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
More relevant though is how God isn't going to flood the world again- this conflicts pretty severely with the effects of global warming. Kind of a pointless promise if it doesn't count until all the mountains are underwater but whatever.
Well, the world is still flooded from the first time. 71% of the earth's surface is covered with water.... but you're right. He DID say flood the whole world again... not just parts of it.
So you seriously think it's fine if God only floods us till a few mountains poke out of the oceans? That seriously devalues the promise dude.
Uh, we more or less ARE flooded until a few mountains poke out... but these are called continents. The flood waters are still here. Perhaps as a reminder (but I'm not certain of that). And personally... it's fine if God does whatever he damn well pleases with this planet. HE created it in the first place. Who's to say he CAN'T do whatever the hell he wants to with it?

Shokushu

That's only if you keep redefining microevolution every time we observe something bigger.
We've seen single cell bacteria evolve colonial forms. We've watched species split until they cannot interbreed anymore. We've seen species evolve too many new ways of handling food to count (on a forum- it's all counted in journals, one article at a time, wherever this work gets published.)

But all we really observe is just small genetic variations that happen. We never observe any new kinds of animals form. Microevolution would be defined as small genetic variations within certain kinds of animals. I prefer science just sticks to what we can observe more than speculation.

Shokushu
But you've got a terrible understanding of science if you think we need to sit down and personally watch these things happen. Independent verification using different methods is really powerful, but I doubt I can make you appreciate that.

YES I believe science should be things we can actually observe. Are you believing that science should also be for things we can't observe? Are you wanting me to accept opinions and ideas as fact here?

Shokushu
Anyway the apes of today and humans share some ancestors a few million years back. Get over it. This is established well beyond the point that it is reasonable to doubt it.
Uh, not really. True, the ones teaching college dont' allow any students to question the sacred theory. Any creationist teachers aren't allowed to express ANY disagreement about it. Scientists have gotten fired, ostracized, or have their credentials taken away if they do not agree with the theory. Forrest Mims, Roger Dehart, Nathaniel Abraham, WIlliam Dembski, and Guillermo Gonzalez are just a few I remember off the top of my head. Anyone who questions the theory is AUTOMATICALLY considered to be stupid, ignorant, and does not understand science (you made that assumption about me, and you have no idea how many science textbooks I've read about the subject). The thing is, my job and livelihood do not depend on if people think I know anything or not, but a scientist, however.... his job his life his money depends on what his or her peers think.... so the scientist just keeps his or her mouth shut... or else they lose their job or degree. The reason nobody doubts the theory? They're not allowed to.

Shokushu
If you give a s**t just go look into it (and not on a creationist website. Something respectable please.)
By respectable you mean what? A biased atheist evolutionist site? What is respectable? Having scientists with degrees? Quite a few creationist websites have scientists with high level science degrees. What do you mean by respectable?

Shokushu
But anyway that was exactly what I was talking about. You've just rejected the scientific explanation for how this works. You don't accept the mechanisms, but instead you think that macroevolution can't happen.
Uh, wrong again. I don't reject these mechanisms you mention. Natural selection DOES happen, but it just selects from what is already there. Random mutations DO happen, but there are limits to what can mutate and still survive. No, I do not reject science.... but I only accept as science FACTS, not OPINIONS.
Jeevas Crow's avatar

Moonlight Humorist

13,100 Points
  • Survivor 150
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Cool Cat 500
s o a r i n g - a r r o w


I'm actually not too sure of what my family thinks of others. My brother is agnostic, leaning toward atheism, so no problem there. But my dad - a man that, frankly, I don't like - once said, "You're not atheist. You know why? Because when something happens, you think, Oh my God!" I think that comment made the me the angriest. I don't like it when people assert things like that.

I really like what you said about respecting your own choices. I went to a catholic school my whole life (actually, I'm at a catholic college right now), but my entire high school experience they forced the religion down our throats. I understand, the school was based on it, but they never gave us a chance to explore what we believed. They gave us facts to memorize during senior year so we could back up our beliefs. I felt like they were treating us like children.

I have to say, that was not the sole reason I became atheist, but I'd be dense if I said my high school didn't influence me in any way.
Ah ha ha ha, oh my god. That's so ridiculous it's actually hilarious. xD I could see getting angry at it though, especially since you're saying he really meant it. It was clearly not a well thought out route to take. xDD

Mm, religious schools are crazy. I think the biggest problem is that Catholocism is based in tradition, so they continue teaching the way they have for years and years. Nobody who is Catholic was ever raised with room to question the word of their god, and even though nowadays the climate everywhere else in the Western world encourages that, the schools are too old fashioned to grow with it. That, and Catholic communities continue to flourish because people rarely leave them. If you think about it, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a religious system that people are encouraged to think about leaving. The idea is that they want to "spread the word" to as many folks as possible. That's why they kind of spoon kids their own system and don't encourage anyone to think outside the box.

I was pretty fortunate to grow up in a pretty liberal place, so I never had to go through that. The only people I know who are religious are in my family. Of course, that might also be because of my friend base. xDD

Oh, of course. ^^ I can tell you put a lot of thought into being an atheist. But things like those schools really push it along if it's in you, you know?
Blind Hodd's avatar

Aekea Champion

I'm a Christian and my personal reaction to Atheists is
"huh? oh. ok. let's grab a beer."
Brispir
ShokushuThere's a moral message any time God or the chosen people are involved. That's the ******** reason they wrote any of it down.[/quote]
Uh, no. A moral message is one reason something would have been written down, but read through the old testament. Most of what was written down before the book of Psalms is just people writing something down because it happened. No reason. No moral. Just plain "This is what happened" hist
ru8ggune:1="ShokushuThere's a moral message any time God or the chosen people are involved. That's the ******** reason they wrote any of it down.[/quote]
Uh, no. A moral message is one reason something would have been written down, but read through the old testament. Most of what was written down before the book of Psalms is just people writing something down because it happened. No reason. No moral. Just plain "This is what happened" history.
Except it's not. These are examples of the actions of God. You see what's moral because he's doing it, and you know who he is based on what he does.

Quote:
Shokushu
Alright, so you're going to dismiss this as old news. Oh neat, you can do that for any argument I bring up since the Bible is an old book. Congratulations.

Uh, no. I just threw out several possible ideas and told you that I haven't decided on what explanation to go with.
Oh wow, those were all so unconvincing I thought you hadn't even started trying to defend it.

Quote:
Shokushu
How about instead you actually go to the trouble of checking out what people through the ages have thought about this story and actually present something that's pertinent to the issue of the Bible running counter to science?

You mean like the fact that most scientists in history were creationists? Or that people in the past knew the earth was really round but atheists want people to think they thought it was flat so they make up the flat earth idea (like Washington Irving did with Columbus for instance)? C'mon. I care only about facts, not ideas atheists make up.

Most people in history didn't have the option of not being creationist. The literal interpretations of the whole thing we see from modern creationists are fairly new though, and a result of various spiritual thinkers realizing that belief was on the decline- they decided to create that whole "fundamentalism" view we see today to reinvigorate the belief, and I guess it worked.

But no, the Bible is talking about a flat Earth. This is obvious. To me that's just a particularly old story handed down through an oral tradition and as they started to come into the knowledge that circles better described the Earth they couldn't just update it- the language was all wrong by that point.

My rationalization doesn't work when you have them following an all knowing deity through their lives though.

Quote:
Shokushu
"People have known this story wasn't how the world works for a long time" just makes the Bible look blatantly anti-science to an even greater degree when you don't have any explanation to follow it with.
Uh, no. I'm saying that people have tried it later on and saw it didn't work means something miraculous happened at the time. It was a one time event. The Bible does not say it will happen every time rods are put into a feeding trough. It said it happened once. Just like putting trees into bodies of water do not make them sweet, but it did happen once in Exodus. The Bible is not anti-science at all.... but it does report on one time events that happen.
Quote:

We've been over this. If it was a miracle then you need to account for the moral it teaches or why it was important to God. Since you can't that's not a ******** miracle, some dude thought that was how he got the goofy looking cattle after they were taken away from him and wrote it down that way. This makes sense if there was trickery involved and the jerk wasn't going to tell how he got them so that people would give up on trying to take them away. Throw on some of the usual exaggeration and embellishments and they go from something like curly hair to zebra stripes and polka dots.

But the point remains that you've got to deal with both angles at the same time. You can't just shoot one down then contradict yourself to deal with the other one. Well, that is unless you want to admit the Bible goes against science.

Quote:
Shokushu
No it's ******** not. Cud is food brought up from one stomach so that it can be chewed before it goes down into another stomach. Rabbits only have one stomach, they don't chew their s**t like cud (they just want the bacteria cultures in it- without the poop they eventually pass out all the bacteria and then they can't digest plant walls anymore.)

Uh, animal droppings contain undigested food... and it's not just rabbits, but lots of creatures have undigested food in their droppings. I have 2 dogs who have undigested food in their droppings as well. Have you ever thought that the definition of cud could have changed?

Yes, but it didn't change and the Jews didn't play with so much rabbit s**t that they could tell there was undigested food in it. Rabbit pellets just look like s**t. What a ruminant pukes buck into their jaw looks like they haven't finished digesting the food, much less taking ANY of the water and nutrients out of it. You're out of your mind if you think they used the same word for both of those things.

Quote:
Shokushu
Shokushu
Birds didn't come before land animals.

This is opinion, not fact. Any hard evidence for this?

Let's just start with Archeopteryx.

Okay... it's a bird. An ancient bird that's dead. What about it?
It's an obvious dinosaur. Birds clearly come from a nearby branch of dinosaurs. I'm guessing you're going to try and argue that evolution on that scale doesn't happen (very anti-science of you,) but if you really want to go down that road I can dig up a whole shitload of facts that you're not going to be able to counter- at least without being blatantly anti-science about it.

Quote:
Shokushu
1 Samuel 2:8 says the Earth is on pillars too, specifically that God put the Earth on them.

1 Samuel 2:8 is Hannah praying. Hannah is using figurative language. I don't think she believed the earth stood on actual pillars, but that's unknown. She means the foundation of the earth (and I'm not sure if she's referring to the planet or just the ground here). Look at context and that answers most questions about Bible verses.
No, they don't mean the ground/planet. They mean it's sitting on ******** pillars.If you think that everybody else knew the Earth was a sphere then these two were just stupid. The metaphor doesn't even begin to work if you understand that people can live on the bottom of the Earth without falling off and it's a hell of a stretch at that point as well.

Quote:
Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
and doesn't have four corners or edges.

And yet even today, we still say "The four corners of the world" even though people today know the earth is round.... well, if you look at history, even the people in ancient times knew the earth was round. The flat earth concept is actually a fairly recent one.... and it seems to have been made up by atheists in an attempt to make fun of Christians from what I can tell. Nobody who lived back then believed the earth was anything but a sphere anyway.

I can't tell if you're trying to be deceptive here or if you're just misinformed.
The Greeks figured out that the Earth was round and any sea-faring (or even just fishing-from-boats) culture would have known it since ships sink below the horizon way before they're so small that you'd stop seeing them. The early Jews didn't know this. The best passage for a round world describes the Earth more like a flat circle, but that's just the kind of thing you'd see from a tall tower or maybe after climbing a tree.

Okay, so you don't think Jews saw ships sink below the horizon? They lived next to the Mediteranean Sea. They would have seen this too. They also had exposure to other cultures, who also knew the earth was round. Nobody back then believed the earth to be flat. A simple look at the sky could tell you it's round. Yes, the Jews knew the earth is round.
They were xenophobic though. Doing the whole animal husbandry thing and being shocked by those crazy city folk that figured out crops better and earlier than the Jews. They eventually conquered enough of the local tribes to have their own cities but that was well after they had these backwards ideas stuck in the verbal tradition.

Quote:
Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
Noah's dove found an olive branch- how the ******** did a tree grow that fast after a major purging flood? Would have had to happen with a lot of plants though unless the denizens of the Ark were going to starve, or just carnivore it up and send a lot of species to extermination.

Nobody said where exactly the olive branch came from, but when a flood hits, it doesn't magically vaporize everything. When the waters assuaged, there were remnants of the previous world, so it wouldn't be surprising there would be an olive branch somewhere. Heck, I'm actually surprised they didn't just find one floating about when the world was still covered.

Yes, that is the issue. They would have had to all be buried in silt and such. I'm glad you can agree with me that this doesn't fit science or logic in general.

Uh, I actually do not agree with your false claim. I never said it doesn't fit with science. Why do you think they ALL had to be buried? And you accused ME of not understanding how science works? Have you SEEN a flood? A flood doesn't just bury everything as you claim. In a flood, some things get washed away and float. A branch would easily float in water. You just said everything would be buried, which completely disagrees with science. Some things float. Some things get buried (which by the way, explains VERY well as to how fossils were able to form in the first place, and also as to why we almost never find complete skeletons.... embarrassing problems for the humanists here). Though not everything has to be buried as you claim.

I'm making the story be consistent. If you can't find a floating olive branch THEN it must have all been buried. Floods do deposit a whole lot of slimy crap and sediment as they recede but altogether it doesn't make much sense when you try to work in fossils.

As for incomplete skeletons (and your odd definition of humanist- what do you think that means?) that's because most corpses get picked apart by scavengers. If we had 50 days of rain you'd think tons of animals would get buried whole in mudslides and the like. I could picture a lot of bloated corpses floating around if the water was calm enough to not sink them but either way these would pretty much end up buried whole as well- if you think dinosaurs were around at that point then they would be big enough to pop from internal decomposition but that couldn't account for things like monkey skeletons being scattered just as often.

Quote:
Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
The Earth ******** moves.

Is it Psalm 96:10 where you get this? "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Well I say... have YOU ever tried to move the earth? Can't do it can you? THAT is what it's referring to. Man can't move what God has set into motion. Sorry if you missed the context here.

More like 1 Chronicles 16:30

Hmmm reading this passage, it still looks like it's referring to the fact that people can't move the earth. It doesn't say the earth doesn't move. It says the earth can not be moved... as in we can't move the earth. Then again, Chuck Norris wasn't around at this time razz
No, people can move it easily with shovels or plows. Pick up big chunks of it to move around.
They're not talking about people being unable to move it and you've got to be really doing some mental gymnastics to make yourself think they were.

Quote:
Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
Firmament is some backward a** thinking about what the sky is like.

Firmament is just another word for atmosphere. The word atmosphere wasn't invented in those days, so they said firmament.
Then it's still bad because it says God put the stars in the atmosphere/firmament.

Hmm.. upon second look, it DOES appear firmament was another word used for sky. Seems to be for sky, outer space, or atmosphere. It doesn't seem like they had separate words for those, so they just used one word, and it was understood by context.

They didn't have multiple words for it because they didn't understand that there was a difference between what clouds move through and what planets move through, nor that stars were particularly large or all that far away.

You have to discard the Biblical explanation of the sky if you want to accept science.

Quote:
Shokushu
The grapes from the land of Canaan were so large two men had to carry them on a stick. If you know d**k about the Bible you don't need me to tell you what book that's in.
Hmm I must have just read over that and never gave it a second thought. I'll look this up and get back to you on this.

Shokushu
It SAYS that you WON'T get sick if you obey God.
Try again.

What passage of scripture are you referring to here?

Exodus 15:26 for starters. We can go into other passages that say faith muscles out disease if this is an issue for you though.

Quote:
Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
God is as strong as a Unicorn- well actually I guess that makes sense.
That's a simile. Look up that word and you'll understand it's just a comparison being made. Besides... isn't a unicorn just a horse with a horn anyway?
Yes it is. The issue here is that God has been compared to a fictional animal. Did God not know that unicorns aren't real, or is this another one you're going to blame on the people making this stuff up and writing it down?
A horse with a horn can't have existed? Anyways, even if they didn't exist (and I'm NOT saying they do), yes, God was being compared to a fictional animal. What of it? What is problem?
It is a simile. God was just compared to a non-reality based animal.

But as for unicorns existing it should be easy to find a fossil of one or of some horse-like species with at least a horn nub in the right position. Or maybe just some of the horns people held on to- you'd think at least one dude would glue gems to a unicorn horn.
Yet all we have is narwhal teeth,just like you'd expect with a fictional animal.

Quote:
Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
More relevant though is how God isn't going to flood the world again- this conflicts pretty severely with the effects of global warming. Kind of a pointless promise if it doesn't count until all the mountains are underwater but whatever.
Well, the world is still flooded from the first time. 71% of the earth's surface is covered with water.... but you're right. He DID say flood the whole world again... not just parts of it.
So you seriously think it's fine if God only floods us till a few mountains poke out of the oceans? That seriously devalues the promise dude.
Uh, we more or less ARE flooded until a few mountains poke out... but these are called continents. The flood waters are still here. Perhaps as a reminder (but I'm not certain of that). And personally... it's fine if God does whatever he damn well pleases with this planet. HE created it in the first place. Who's to say he CAN'T do whatever the hell he wants to with it?
God says so. You're right though, he's an unchecked tyrant that can and will break promises whenever he feels like it.

But you've got a poor understanding of continents if you think these are mountains. The whole flat wide area we grow most crops in is very unmountainly. I live in the mountains. This is not the same as most of the continent we're on. You might as well say the water is only in trenches- you wouldn't be twisting the word any harder than what you did with mountain.

Quote:
Shokushu

That's only if you keep redefining microevolution every time we observe something bigger.
We've seen single cell bacteria evolve colonial forms. We've watched species split until they cannot interbreed anymore. We've seen species evolve too many new ways of handling food to count (on a forum- it's all counted in journals, one article at a time, wherever this work gets published.)

But all we really observe is just small genetic variations that happen. We never observe any new kinds of animals form. Microevolution would be defined as small genetic variations within certain kinds of animals. I prefer science just sticks to what we can observe more than speculation.
You obviously haven't looked into what we've observed-
but fine, I'll play along. What then are the criteria for "a new kind of animal"? Be careful because you can easily ask for something that doesn't at all fit macroevolution or I can probably give you a living example. Really narrow range where you don't fall into either trap, so be careful.

Quote:
Shokushu
But you've got a terrible understanding of science if you think we need to sit down and personally watch these things happen. Independent verification using different methods is really powerful, but I doubt I can make you appreciate that.

YES I believe science should be things we can actually observe. Are you believing that science should also be for things we can't observe? Are you wanting me to accept opinions and ideas as fact here?
I'm saying you never learned how to observe.

Quote:
Shokushu
Anyway the apes of today and humans share some ancestors a few million years back. Get over it. This is established well beyond the point that it is reasonable to doubt it.
Uh, not really. True, the ones teaching college dont' allow any students to question the sacred theory. Any creationist teachers aren't allowed to express ANY disagreement about it. Scientists have gotten fired, ostracized, or have their credentials taken away if they do not agree with the theory. Forrest Mims, Roger Dehart, Nathaniel Abraham, WIlliam Dembski, and Guillermo Gonzalez are just a few I remember off the top of my head. Anyone who questions the theory is AUTOMATICALLY considered to be stupid, ignorant, and does not understand science (you made that assumption about me, and you have no idea how many science textbooks I've read about the subject). The thing is, my job and livelihood do not depend on if people think I know anything or not, but a scientist, however.... his job his life his money depends on what his or her peers think.... so the scientist just keeps his or her mouth shut... or else they lose their job or degree. The reason nobody doubts the theory? They're not allowed to.
It's clear that folks like Dembski have been feeding you propaganda.
Here's a different, and much more even handed way of saying that: You get fired if you keep pushing ideas that you can't present suitable evidence for. You get fired if you repeatedly show an inability to fix errors in your methodology. You get fired if you teach students unsupported or anti-factual information (which is very different from teaching about those ideas.)

There's zero scientific controversy about common descent and the evolution of life as we know it from much simpler beginnings. People doing science argue about the fine details like which factor has the bigger impact, but the stuff we teach in high schools (when taught properly) is long past the point that it's worth anybody's time to dispute it- or sometimes a simplification since high school courses don't have enough time to go into certain details.
Lots of religious controversy though.

Quote:
Shokushu
If you give a s**t just go look into it (and not on a creationist website. Something respectable please.)
By respectable you mean what? A biased atheist evolutionist site? What is respectable? Having scientists with degrees? Quite a few creationist websites have scientists with high level science degrees. What do you mean by respectable?
Mainly peer reviewed sources, but these days creationists have put out a few fake peer review journals so you have to be careful.

If you're worried about atheists though then you could look into what Ken Miller has to say on the subject. He's made it very clear that he believes in a god, but he also understands the principles and mechanisms of evolution. If you're sided with the creationists he'll still piss you off, since reality runs really counter to young earth creationism, but he should at least show that the bias isn't an atheistic one.

Quote:
Shokushu
But anyway that was exactly what I was talking about. You've just rejected the scientific explanation for how this works. You don't accept the mechanisms, but instead you think that macroevolution can't happen.
Uh, wrong again. I don't reject these mechanisms you mention. Natural selection DOES happen, but it just selects from what is already there. Random mutations DO happen, but there are limits to what can mutate and still survive.
Right there. You just rejected the scientific mechanism of mutation. This mechanism allows for any combination of nucleic acids and therefore any protein that can be built using our set of amino acids. Also some harder to nail down chemistry but it's mostly just phosphate groups and such. The scientific mechanism allows for unlimited change, so long as it's done via the normal chemistry. Natural selection restrains it to certain functional avenues but never as some sort of limit keeping animals similar to some original stock.

With these mechanisms you can turn a horse into a dolphin given enough time and the right pressure. The mechanisms you accept can't do that so it's only fair to say you don't accept the scientific ones.

Quote:
No, I do not reject science.... but I only accept as science FACTS, not OPINIONS.
I hear this a lot but when I start really displaying the facts the people that say it tend to fall short of that. Are you willing to chain yourself to this conversation and not leave when it become uncomfortable?
*There's a reason I've been fairly crass. If you can't stand that there's no way you can stand the more physical displays that are incompatible with your beliefs. You've lasted this long, care to double down?
fubar0
I'm a Christian and my personal reaction to Atheists is
"huh? oh. ok. let's grab a beer."

Wait, so if I told you I was an atheist, you would buy me a beer? I don't identify as an atheist, but I wouldn't mind a free beer. surprised
Blind Hodd's avatar

Aekea Champion

reddeath26
fubar0
I'm a Christian and my personal reaction to Atheists is
"huh? oh. ok. let's grab a beer."

Wait, so if I told you I was an atheist, you would buy me a beer? I don't identify as an atheist, but I wouldn't mind a free beer. surprised


Most of my friends don't like the taste of alcohol, so anyone who'd make for a good drinking buddy is welcome here.
Shokushu
Except it's not. These are examples of the actions of God. You see what's moral because he's doing it, and you know who he is based on what he does.

Uh, no. Just because somebody does something in the Bible doesn't mean it's a moral thing to do. Sometimes, what's written in the Bible is there because it happened. No reason, no moral. Just a telling of something that happened. Don't overanalyze too much when not necessary.

Shokushu
Oh wow, those were all so unconvincing I thought you hadn't even started trying to defend it.

Reason any of them are unconvincing? You will tell yourself what the truth REALLY is and nothing anybody says will ever change your mind. This is called being close minded. Something Christians get accused of being, even though atheists are probably the most closeminded people I've met. NOTHING would convince you, becuase your brain will not allow you to think maybe you're mistaken about something. I was a psychology major (before changing majors) so I know a few things about how the mind works.

Shokushu
Most people in history didn't have the option of not being creationist. The literal interpretations of the whole thing we see from modern creationists are fairly new though, and a result of various spiritual thinkers realizing that belief was on the decline- they decided to create that whole "fundamentalism" view we see today to reinvigorate the belief, and I guess it worked.

It's not as new as you think, buddy. A common mantra of atheists is that people were primative back then, and now we're in the age of enlightenment so we know better. The fact is, that's just not true. People are more or less the same today as yesterday, and there is very little new today that wasn't there back then (Ecclesiastes 1:10). There were as many non-believers per capita back then as they are now. I'm sorry, most atheists like to believe they are more intelligent today than anyone was back then, but that's simply not true.

Shokushu
But no, the Bible is talking about a flat Earth. This is obvious. To me that's just a particularly old story handed down through an oral tradition and as they started to come into the knowledge that circles better described the Earth they couldn't just update it- the language was all wrong by that point.

Uh, no. That's not true at all. Just about everyone knew the earth was round. I know, atheists love to believe the Jews / Christians all believed the earth was flat, but I'm sorry, real history just doesn't match up to the atheist mantra.
Shokushu
We've been over this. If it was a miracle then you need to account for the moral it teaches or why it was important to God. Since you can't that's not a ******** miracle, some dude thought that was how he got the goofy looking cattle after they were taken away from him and wrote it down that way. This makes sense if there was trickery involved and the jerk wasn't going to tell how he got them so that people would give up on trying to take them away. Throw on some of the usual exaggeration and embellishments and they go from something like curly hair to zebra stripes and polka dots.
So a miracle requires a moral now? Wow. Maybe you should tell all the Biblical scholars so they'll know this too. Although what you suggested could be a possibility. Jacob WAS a trickster and a deceiver, and one possibility I read online somewhere is that Jacob did the thing with the sticks so anyone spying for Laban wouldn't know what the truth is. Seems possible, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

Shokushu
Yes, but it didn't change and the Jews didn't play with so much rabbit s**t that they could tell there was undigested food in it. Rabbit pellets just look like s**t. What a ruminant pukes buck into their jaw looks like they haven't finished digesting the food, much less taking ANY of the water and nutrients out of it. You're out of your mind if you think they used the same word for both of those things.

I don't play with dog droppings either, but I notice they leave behind some undigested food and other materials they didn't digest, which is why my dog tries to eat it (and therefore why I have to brush its teeth a lot). You just have to keep in mind what we mean by cud now, may not be the same thing it means today. Things could have been defined differently.
Shokushu
Quote:
Okay... it's a bird. An ancient bird that's dead. What about it?
It's an obvious dinosaur. Birds clearly come from a nearby branch of dinosaurs.

Uh, no. They don't "clearly" come from dinosaurs. You don't turn scales into feathers and say "Okay, now it's a bird." There are MANY differences between dinosaurs and birds. Feathers and wings don't give a creature power to fly, but the whole bird's body is designed for flight. Bird bones are hollow and very light. To become a bird, a dinosaur would a) have to have its front legs change into wings. b) have scales turn into feathers c) lighten its body enough so the wings can create enough lift to fly.... all three are evolutionary disadvantages btw.
Shokushu
I'm guessing you're going to try and argue that evolution on that scale doesn't happen (very anti-science of you,)

So it's unscientific of me to not believe something we dont' observe, test, study, or have any real evidence for? Is that what you're saying? So I guess science now involves "Just believe what we tell you and don't argue against it" now, huh? Man, I'm sure glad it's not your decision as to what science really is.

Shokushu
but if you really want to go down that road I can dig up a whole shitload of facts that you're not going to be able to counter- at least without being blatantly anti-science about it.
Challenge accepted. Though it sounds like YOU get to decide what is scientific and what isn't. I don't go by YOUR definition of science (which seems to be "believe we all evolved from a common ancestor or you're wrong." wink . I go by what we can actually observe, test, study.... you know, the REAL evidence.

Shokushu
No, they don't mean the ground/planet. They mean it's sitting on ******** pillars.If you think that everybody else knew the Earth was a sphere then these two were just stupid. The metaphor doesn't even begin to work if you understand that people can live on the bottom of the Earth without falling off and it's a hell of a stretch at that point as well.

If I get a time machine, I'll go back in time and tell them what they meant so they can know too. In the meantime, yes, the verse DOES talk about the foundation of the earth. They knew people were on the other side of the earth, but they were not talking about planet earth. They were talking about the ground we're standing on. Earth refers to the ground, not just the planet. Oh wait, I forgot.... YOU make up the definitions now and the people that write the dictionary are all wrong.
Shokushu
Quote:
Okay, so you don't think Jews saw ships sink below the horizon? They lived next to the Mediteranean Sea. They would have seen this too. They also had exposure to other cultures, who also knew the earth was round. Nobody back then believed the earth to be flat. A simple look at the sky could tell you it's round. Yes, the Jews knew the earth is round.
They were xenophobic though. Doing the whole animal husbandry thing and being shocked by those crazy city folk that figured out crops better and earlier than the Jews. They eventually conquered enough of the local tribes to have their own cities but that was well after they had these backwards ideas stuck in the verbal tradition.

Very amusing story, but just doesn't match up to history. The Israellites already knew about tending to crops and such. It's even written in the Torah, which came before they conquered any lands. Ah, nevermind. I forgot, you don't care about facts as much as having the atheist mantras in your head you want to have going such as them being the only people who thought the earth was flat. Why do you cover your ears here and reject the possibility you might be wrong?
Shokushu
I'm making the story be consistent. If you can't find a floating olive branch THEN it must have all been buried. Floods do deposit a whole lot of slimy crap and sediment as they recede but altogether it doesn't make much sense when you try to work in fossils.

Okay... so by that logic, if I go to the beach, and I don't see an iceberg out in the ocean, does that mean there are none in the ocean? Maybe it could be..... somewhere else in the ocean? Same thing here. The dove didn't see anything the first time. That olive branch was somewhere else. Keep in mind, there's a week's time between flights and the ark would drift thanks to worldwide ocean currents and such.

Shokushu
As for incomplete skeletons (and your odd definition of humanist- what do you think that means?) that's because most corpses get picked apart by scavengers.

Humanist: The belief that there is no God, so we humans must be God. That's where the term comes from... though I don't know who made the term up. Anyways, yes, if an animal dies, first scavangers come along (vultures, dogs, etc), then things like ants and maggots... then the elements wash them away.
Shokushu
If we had 50 days of rain you'd think tons of animals would get buried whole in mudslides and the like. I could picture a lot of bloated corpses floating around if the water was calm enough to not sink them but either way these would pretty much end up buried whole as well- if you think dinosaurs were around at that point then they would be big enough to pop from internal decomposition but that couldn't account for things like monkey skeletons being scattered just as often.

Okay, if bloated corpses float around on the ocean surface, they'd get picked apart by sharks and things like that... as well as bacteria and also get ripped apart by waves and such. And perhaps some dinosaurs DID pop from things like decomposition and other natural processes such as waves. Have you ever noticed, we almost NEVER find a complete skeleton in nature?

Shokushu
Quote:
Hmmm reading this passage, it still looks like it's referring to the fact that people can't move the earth. It doesn't say the earth doesn't move. It says the earth can not be moved... as in we can't move the earth. Then again, Chuck Norris wasn't around at this time razz
No, people can move it easily with shovels or plows. Pick up big chunks of it to move around.
They're not talking about people being unable to move it and you've got to be really doing some mental gymnastics to make yourself think they were.

No mental gymnastics are needed. Just some reading of the whole passage instead of just picking a verse and taking it out of context. The planet can not be moved. If it's not talking about the planet, then the ground beneath you can not be moved... well some parts of it can be moved, but the ground will always still be underneath you. Again, you are trying to overanalyze something that's not even being said.

Shokushu
They didn't have multiple words for it because they didn't understand that there was a difference between what clouds move through and what planets move through, nor that stars were particularly large or all that far away.

You have to discard the Biblical explanation of the sky if you want to accept science.

No, they didn't have multiple words for it cause they didn't need them. Firmament was anything above you, basically.... just like we say "love" to mean brotherly love, romantic love, or family love. NOW we have different words for it, but back then, they didn't need to. They just used it to mean anything we see in the sky. I DON'T have to abandon anything in the Bible to accept science, but that attitude right there is the reason why a lot of Christians reject science... because people like YOU tell them they have to. Not cause they want to, but because you keep telling them they have to. THIS is very detremental to science, as it causes science to lose a lot of great minds.

Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
It SAYS that you WON'T get sick if you obey God.
Try again.

What passage of scripture are you referring to here?

Exodus 15:26 for starters. We can go into other passages that say faith muscles out disease if this is an issue for you though.

"Exodus 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee."
It says God won't bring anything upon the people that he brought upon the Egyptians.... meaning he won't bring the same plagues on them as he did on the Egyptians. God won't bring on them plagues of hail, lice, locuts, etc. if they keep his commandments. This verse doesn't even speak to people today, but of the Israellite nation.... JUST to the Israellite nation.

Shokushu
It is a simile. God was just compared to a non-reality based animal.
But as for unicorns existing it should be easy to find a fossil of one or of some horse-like species with at least a horn nub in the right position. Or maybe just some of the horns people held on to- you'd think at least one dude would glue gems to a unicorn horn.
Yet all we have is narwhal teeth,just like you'd expect with a fictional animal.

Yeah, unicorns are buried right next to the common ancestor that humans and apes have.... oh wait, neither of those have been found.

Shokushu
God says so. You're right though, he's an unchecked tyrant that can and will break promises whenever he feels like it.

But you've got a poor understanding of continents if you think these are mountains. The whole flat wide area we grow most crops in is very unmountainly. I live in the mountains. This is not the same as most of the continent we're on. You might as well say the water is only in trenches- you wouldn't be twisting the word any harder than what you did with mountain.

Okay, from what I learned in Geology class, mountains are formed by colliding plates, or things like sea floor spreading pushing more land onto a continent. (yes I am greatly simplifying for the sake of anyone who reads this to be able to understand it). Continents are basically (and I simplify my explanation here) land that's been pushed above the water by collisions that are higher than sea level. Yes, some parts of a continent are not mountainous due to things like erosion, but it's still land that has been pushed up through the ocean more or less.

Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu

That's only if you keep redefining microevolution every time we observe something bigger.
We've seen single cell bacteria evolve colonial forms. We've watched species split until they cannot interbreed anymore. We've seen species evolve too many new ways of handling food to count (on a forum- it's all counted in journals, one article at a time, wherever this work gets published.)

But all we really observe is just small genetic variations that happen. We never observe any new kinds of animals form. Microevolution would be defined as small genetic variations within certain kinds of animals. I prefer science just sticks to what we can observe more than speculation.
You obviously haven't looked into what we've observed-
but fine, I'll play along. What then are the criteria for "a new kind of animal"? Be careful because you can easily ask for something that doesn't at all fit macroevolution or I can probably give you a living example. Really narrow range where you don't fall into either trap, so be careful.

To be honest, I'm not sure what REALLY defines a "kind" except that creatures of the same kind can "bring forth." Now I know this doesn't work for a lot of creatures (such as the ones that reproduce asexually, for instance) and I'm not even calling for any reclassification either. Keep in mind, the words family, order, class, genus, and phylum dont' have any strict criteria either, and the whole classification system is kinda arbritrary. To be honest, I'm not sure where the line is drawn between "is a kind" and "is not of the same kind" but it mostly seems to be around the family / order level in classification, with some parts dipping into the genus level. I'll be honest, I can't find the exact line, but I'm working on it.

Quote:
Shokushu
But you've got a terrible understanding of science if you think we need to sit down and personally watch these things happen. Independent verification using different methods is really powerful, but I doubt I can make you appreciate that.

YES I believe science should be things we can actually observe. Are you believing that science should also be for things we can't observe? Are you wanting me to accept opinions and ideas as fact here?
I'm saying you never learned how to observe.

Shokushu
It's clear that folks like Dembski have been feeding you propaganda.
He hasn't fed me anything. I just read about him and that's it.
Shokushu
Here's a different, and much more even handed way of saying that:

Translation: Here's how the atheists see it and want you to believe is the absolute correct truth, when in fact it's just an interpretation.
Shokushu
You get fired if you keep pushing ideas that you can't present suitable evidence for. You get fired if you repeatedly show an inability to fix errors in your methodology. You get fired if you teach students unsupported or anti-factual information (which is very different from teaching about those ideas.)

If that was the case, a LOT of teachers would have been fired by now. A LOT of teachers have tried to present the belief that we all share a common ancestor when in fact, a lot of misinformation is put in those books to try to convice people of something that there's actually very little evidence for. One thing that comes to mind here is what's called the recapitulation theory... which is claimed to have been dismissed by any atheist who is pressed with facts about what is really true about it... and yet, it's STILL in textbooks today.

Shokushu
There's zero scientific controversy about common descent and the evolution of life as we know it from much simpler beginnings.

As I said before, the reason there is no contraversy is because nobody is allowed to dispute it.... as it would cost a scientist his job or his funding. Scientists aren't deities above common human desires and flaws. Scientists need money to live, and no human, even a scientist is above lying, deceiving, misinforming, or not speaking the truth for the sake of money.
Shokushu
People doing science argue about the fine details like which factor has the bigger impact, but the stuff we teach in high schools (when taught properly) is long past the point that it's worth anybody's time to dispute it- or sometimes a simplification since high school courses don't have enough time to go into certain details.

This sounds like a cop-out to me. Though almost nothing is taught properly in our schools because funding has been cut to the bone and then some. The schools in America are VERY underfunded, which is why one math class I took was taught by a football coach.
Shokushu
Lots of religious controversy though.

Yes there is. I won't argue here.

Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
If you give a s**t just go look into it (and not on a creationist website. Something respectable please.)
By respectable you mean what? A biased atheist evolutionist site? What is respectable? Having scientists with degrees? Quite a few creationist websites have scientists with high level science degrees. What do you mean by respectable?
Mainly peer reviewed sources, but these days creationists have put out a few fake peer review journals so you have to be careful.
Right... all the fake ones are from creationists and all the real ones are evolutionists. No bais here, right? Right? wink Truth is, it's not that cut and dry. Creationists DO publish in journals. They DO have science degrees... and DO produce peer reviewed papers. Although, the atheists scream pretty loudly to try to drown them out. However, I repeat the words of Christ here.... "Seek and ye shall find." If you can't find any peer reviewed creationist articles from scientists with high level degrees.... you just aren't looking, cause I found a lot of them with a quick Google search.


Shokushu
Quote:
Shokushu
But anyway that was exactly what I was talking about. You've just rejected the scientific explanation for how this works. You don't accept the mechanisms, but instead you think that macroevolution can't happen.
Uh, wrong again. I don't reject these mechanisms you mention. Natural selection DOES happen, but it just selects from what is already there. Random mutations DO happen, but there are limits to what can mutate and still survive.
Right there. You just rejected the scientific mechanism of mutation. This mechanism allows for any combination of nucleic acids and therefore any protein that can be built using our set of amino acids.

Right there, you left science in the dust because we've never actually observed that. Proteins BREAK DOWN in nature, they don't build up. The only way proteins get built up in nature.... is something building them up... an animal or a plant for instance. I never rejected genetic mutations, even though you said I do. I just reject the idea that genetic material doesn't just come from nowhere, or from random formulation... but I accept what is ACTUALLY observed in nature, which is all genetic material comes from a parent. THAT is science. ACTUALLY OBSERVING and not just making up ideas of what might have happened.
Shokushu
Also some harder to nail down chemistry but it's mostly just phosphate groups and such. The scientific mechanism allows for unlimited change, so long as it's done via the normal chemistry. Natural selection restrains it to certain functional avenues but never as some sort of limit keeping animals similar to some original stock.
I admit I know very little about chemistry (that is, I didn't study it so much) so I stay away from that topic... instead focusing more on astronomy, physics, and biology... the topics I have studied.

Shokushu
With these mechanisms you can turn a horse into a dolphin given enough time and the right pressure. The mechanisms you accept can't do that so it's only fair to say you don't accept the scientific ones.
And by scientific you mean what? I think you and I have a different idea as to what science is so I'd like you to explain to me what YOU believe science is. What it consists of.... what it is and what it isn't. What is science? Please tell me what you belive science is.

Shokushu
Quote:
No, I do not reject science.... but I only accept as science FACTS, not OPINIONS.
I hear this a lot but when I start really displaying the facts the people that say it tend to fall short of that. Are you willing to chain yourself to this conversation and not leave when it become uncomfortable?
What facts? I've seen very little facts from you, and what facts you DID give, I have met with an alternate interpretation, but they've always been addressed. So far, though, you've mostly given opinions and interpretations... not facts. Opinions are not fact, no matter who those opinions belong to.
Shokushu
*There's a reason I've been fairly crass. If you can't stand that there's no way you can stand the more physical displays that are incompatible with your beliefs. You've lasted this long, care to double down?

Hahaha. No, I think you've been crass because... I'm thinking because I don't think like you do and this bothers you. It seems you want everyone to think and believe exactly as you do, or they're wrong. I have met everything you have presented to me, and I have already shown you that there is STILL no incompatibilities between science and the Bible. I have shown already that one DOES NOT have to give up the Bible to accept science (despite the threats I've been given by atheists). I have shown that the belief of common descent is NOT fact, but is actually opinion, just ONE interpretation of the actual evidence, just one model one can use to explain the untestable past, but is far FAR from being an actual fact itself, as there are too many scientific flaws that people just ignore. Still, if there is anything else you'd like to present, I will meet them head on, using the logic and reason you claim only atheists have.... but in actuality, EVERY human has the ability to reason.... And NOBODY should take what ANYBODY else says as fact without actually looking at the evidence on their own.

Now how about you throw at me some actual SCIENCE instead of atheist mantras and opinions and beliefs.
Enkidu Awakened's avatar

Tipsy Man-Lover

fubar0
reddeath26
fubar0
I'm a Christian and my personal reaction to Atheists is
"huh? oh. ok. let's grab a beer."

Wait, so if I told you I was an atheist, you would buy me a beer? I don't identify as an atheist, but I wouldn't mind a free beer. surprised


Most of my friends don't like the taste of alcohol, so anyone who'd make for a good drinking buddy is welcome here.

Your friends are stupid. Everyone knows that you drink alcohol to get drunk, not to taste it.
Desideraht's avatar

Dapper Phantom

A more recent reaction:
Stalking.

I've had a few Christians stalk me (online only, and not just Gaia) due to things I've said, and they'll sometimes harass me months later just at random, like they saved my contact info for when they have a bad day so they can go atheist-bashing. I do NOT keep a list of Christians to go attack or anything. I don't hunt them down as weak little individuals. I do not opportunistically prey on their every gesture. But sometimes, they are just out to get me (and other atheists), and just say we're doing the same thing. And yeah, a lot of us are-- because we are pissed the ******** OFF! Keep religion to yourself! Don't make it everyone else's problem.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games