Jan, rather than just spouting dumb, theist cliches, like “Darwin stew”, isn't there something you can do on the web to help people in need. You spend alot of time here winding people up.
Jan I tried to work out what you mean when you started talking this way earlier but I can't see what you are driving at. May I ask you to give a definition to each of Darwinism and Evolution and perhaps identify in greater depth the difference you personally see between the two terms. I would really appreciate you taking your time to help me understand you view. Alex
“Ideas” or “excellent perception”, we still have to take the word of mainstream scientists, because we cannot observe it. If you were a respectful person, you wouldn’t make statements like “ if want to be treated with respect”, especially over something as trivial as ‘a difference of opinion’. So far, no one has provided evidence of one type of animal turning into another. In a way that we can see it for ourselves. If it were possible, we would not be having this discussion. That is not to say it is not true, objectively speaking. Just that we are forced to accept it as a fact , from a few. Like I said ask ordinary people, who believe in evolution, how they know it is a fact, and see what you get. You don’t get it. Because you’re not interested in getting it. But if you really wanted to, you could get it. Then at least you would have a proper understanding of what I’m saying. You may begin to see that darwinism is not a fact, whether it is true or not. The majority of people who accept Darwinian evolution, do not have a single fact to back up their belief. They only reiterate what has been spoken by a few scientists. This is why they are likened to priests, and their followers, a congregation. You know it is designed, but you deny an intelligent designer. Even Dawkins admits that it looks designed. Science is based on an intelligible world. Remember, an atheist is a person who lacks, and/or denys belief in God. Not that there is no God. That’s bull-mess. You know it. And I’m not buying it.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The only people feeling hurt around here are the staunch believers in Darwinian evolution, when folk tell them it is not a fact, there is no evidence, it’s a fairytale for adult atheists, and we all know that the world is purposely designed. Most theist could care less for your so called truths, about whatever it is you think you give the truth about. That is the reality. Atheists, or Darwinian evolution does not have a monopoly on science.
Why don’t you give an explanation of what you mean by “a loving God”? At least then we can go back to the topic.
Why exactly have I no conscience? But, God allows us to starve, because according to you, he loves us, so he allows it. He doesn't tell us how to feed ourselves or how to be stewards of the planet, but he makes sure to tell us how to hate gays, keep our slaves and kill our children when they disobey. This is your so called moral, loving God. You've made mention your loving God is just like a loving father, yet a loving father would teach us how to feed ourselves, to be stewards of our land, to not hate others just because they're different, and certainly would not kill us for disobeying. That's why your God is not a loving God, that's why he is immoral and that's why his followers are immoral and unethical.
I don't use the term but hear it from theists who use it ...perhaps some passing theists could jump in and explain what they mean. How can I define the term...mmm...I can only interpreted it as what theists say...God loves you...repeated enough to hint that this God they have invented loves them I guess...so they need to describe their idea of love but it certainly can't mean he sends them flowers or spends quality time with them...from what I can see it must be a tuff love at best...like I am taking one of your children so you will appreciate the ones you have left... Anyways Jan we both know it's not about actually addressing the OP because we both know to seriously do so we end up knee deep in hypocrisy that theists must employ to hide the fact that their concept of a loving God is pure nonsense. We are both here doing our best to expose the hypocrisy of theism whilst having fun avoiding addressing any sensible questions...my excuse is I am suffering and bored...how does one exercise free will not to be a cripple, or blind or deaf? There is no point in addressing the op...it serves only to bring to front of mind that when a theists dribbles the words "God loves you" they are as usual talking a nonsense claim that they can not support in any way whatsoever. Waffle or as you would say just...blah blah blah...I just get sick of theist blah blah blah...why don't they shut up or talk sense. My problem is I want the world to work from a position that the truth is paramount and unfortunately if it was we would lose so much...think of all those preachers and pastors who must be basically unemployable ...what to do with them?...would the advertising industry disappear if truth was paramount? Politics with truth paramount..laughable really. And how many humans could be truthful with themselves analysing why they bought a new car etc ... And Jan I would be grateful if you could answer my question re Darwinism etc. I am genuinely interested which must provide you sufficient motivation to ignore or sidestep my request...you can not win you know..ignore me and I will be disappointed...answer me and I will be disappointed my expectations of you sidestepping were not met. Alex
Yet, the post was based entirely on your words. I don't feel anyways about any god because no gods have ever been shown to exist. The problem is in Scriptures, what men have written about their gods. It shows Scriptures to be man made and demonstrates extensively that God was made in mans image, all written in an age of barbarism, an age long past where we no longer behave that way or believe in the myths and superstitions that were steeped in people back then. Time to wake up, Jan.
So what? I obviously don’t agree with the rest of your post. Obviously you do, or you wouldn’t have said, “But, God allows us to starve,” “He doesn't tell ushow to feed ourselves” “to be stewards of our land,” “to not hate others” “and certainly would not kill us for disobeying.” “that'swhy he is immoral”
What's wrong with it, is it the fact that it was based on your words and made you look the hypocrite? That's all based on what YOU said, Jan, it's YOUR reasoning. The rest is what's already written in the Bible.
Actually, more Democrats than Republicans still failed that question: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-to-go-around-the-sun/?utm_term=.a4f8721a6d26 In the case of Galileo, the scientific evidence available at the time was not at all a slam dunk for the Copernican view. His trial and house arrest by the Catholic Church were not simply a panicked religion fighting back against scientific truth. There were scientists and theologians on Galileo’s side and others against him. Unlike Giordano Bruno, Galileo was not burned. He lived out his life at his comfortable rural estate, Villa Il Gioiello, on the hillside outskirts of Florence. Which, by the way, looks like quite a place. Its name means “The Jewel.” The photo at the top shows a loggia, a room with open walls, overlooking a lovely parklike setting. Of course, as Keas emphasizes, this is still a shameful episode for the Church, but not a simple one! Yet textbooks and the media have portrayed Galileo as a martyr for science, and they continue to do so. His myth goes marching on. As we’ve seen in recent arguments with evolutionists, the mistaken notion remains highly influential: a reasonable adult must either give up religion or isolate it, like a poor sick thing, from science. Not so. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/03/galileo-myth-goes-marching-on/ The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation and that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church So it seems the Catholic Church doesn't, in fact, just accept scientific evolution, that more Democrats still don't know that Earth revolves around the sun (I'm guessing because they trust scientists to know that for them), and that Galileo wasn't just in conflict with the church. You missed one. Accepting that the Bible was given to more primitive people as its primary target audience, where inaccurate measurements, like the cubit, were used and not having the wherewithal to know if a regional flood didn't cover the world. But you also don't specify what is being denied. You seem to presume that the science on any given subject is settled, when that's not something science actually does, e.g. prove or disprove stuff.
Because the alternative is to join the ranks of conspiracy theorists, who are characterised by refusing to believe anything from any "authority", with the exception that they accept their fellow conspiracy theorists as unquestionable authorities. In a nutshell, then, the answer is: you'd have to be a bit nutty, or some kind of fundamentalist to seriously doubt it, in the absence of any rational reason to do so.
There's an irony in Jan's attitude. On the one hand, he would have us believe that he is the skeptic's skeptic. He doubts that the Earth is round because he doubts everything written in the science books. He doubts that the video of Earth from the ISS is real because it comes from NASA, which everybody knows is also populated by those dodgy scientist types. He doesn't think there is any evidence of "Darwinian evolution" because, once again, that's all published in the science books, and we all know how untrustworthy scientists are. But on the other hand, Jan thinks he has Absolute Knowledge about God. When it comes to Jan's holy Scriptures, there is no doubt in Jan's mind that they are all accurate and correct about everything. The only question is how they are to be properly interpreted. That is not a problem for Jan, though, because he has personally arrived at the correct way to read scripture. Moreover, Jan just knows that God is real! No actual evidence is even needed to show that. What we see in Jan is a highly selective skepticism. It is skepticism applied only when it suits Jan do apply it. Many "facts" are taken by him on faith, and many others are denied by him due to his faith. In Jan we see the epitome of inconsistency. His own belief system is not self-consistent. The standards by which he judges different kinds of "knowledge" vary according what he would like to be true. Certainly there are themes within the mess that is his belief system. There are rules of thumb, like deny science and support all religion, but you can never really tell which way Jan's belief will flip until you drill down into the details. A lot of his stuff he just makes up as needed, when the topic comes up.
