Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving



"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:UM%pj.60858$k27.24968@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"LX-i" <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Howard Brazee wrote:

Lots of people accept the Bible without accepting that 6000 year
calculation, figuring that if the word "day" is used to describe
time
before days, it must be a different definition than literalists
claim.

Nope - it just a simple logical deduction. Adam was created as an
adult; therefore, it makes perfect sense that the rest of creation
(AKA "the world") was also created as mature, and is "older" than
6,000 years, even though it may have only actually *been* around
~6,000 years.

True. Assuming God did create the universe in 6 days, which is more
logical?

A. God created everything without the "implied prehistory" you
suggest,
and Adam couldn't see a single star for 4 years, etc.

B. God created everything with an "implied prehistory", with
everything
already in balance "as if" it had been there. There would be chickens,
eggs, and everything in between. Trees would have rings. Adam could
see
all stars bright enough to be visible.

To my mind, assumption A is illogical, and criticizing the Creation
account on that basis is asinine. :-)

Yet you have no problem with option B?

Even you shouldn't have a problem with B, within the stipulated context.
:-)

I find them both equally stupid and myopic.

I never suspected otherwise. ;-)

There are two viewpoints from which to assess the validity of the Bible,
or any other system of belief. One is to assess it based on external
evidence, and the other is to assess it based on internal consistency or
lack of same.

Really? Such limited black and white dogmatic thinking.

What about a combination of both?

What about probabilities and ranges within both?

What if one contradicts or supports the other?

What if both of these measurements contradict each other?

What about measuring the belief against similar beliefs and observations?

There are MANY ways to assess what we believe, and evaluate it. Usually
this results in small adjustments until we arrive at a working set of
postulates that are adequate for living on Earth in Human Society.

I'm talking about viewpoints, you are talking about conclusions - apples
and oranges. But, anything to take issue with God or Creation, eh? :-)

No Judson, It isn't "anything to take issue with God or Creation". I am not
a hostile atheist seeking to attack God (for the most part He and I get
along fine). Rather, it is the nonsense that you persist in posting here,
fired by your evangelistic zeal, that pisses me off.

It isn't even personal (although I have been very disappointed by some of
your actions on this), it's just you grabbing a free speech forum and using
it as a soap box. If you did it in a park, I'd pass right by and not even
heckle you.

I'll gladly debate IT with you without animosity or rancour, I'll even do
the same on any topic, controversial or not, including Religion. But you
have shown that you are not capable of even looking at counter arguments and
all we get is the same repetitive stream of rubbish, over and over. Frankly,
it is tiresome.

I shouldn't even bother responding, but even when I don't, you still don't
desist.

You can't help it; you are a driven man.

There you are, sword in hand, leading the charge for the Christian Soldiers,
never even realizing that the enemy has gone to lunch.

It's sad.


...Or, you could simply accept the most unlikely fairy story that cannot
stand any kind of scrutiny (internal or external), because it is "Holy
Writ" and you'll burn in a lake of fire after you die, if you don't.

Not really a hard choice for people capable of independent thought and
observation. (It is much more difficult for people who are raised in
ignorance; fortunately, they are becoming fewer in Western societies, at
least, and we hope eventually the whole world...)

The above argument was from the latter viewpoint, which
is why I stipulated the postulate "Assuming God did create the universe
in 6 days". This should, assuming intellectual honesty, of course, allow
even atheists to engage in a fair discussion of such Biblical issues.
:-)

Neither of the above options is sensible even if God DID create the world
in 6 days. That was my point and I accepted your postulate.

There would be no reason for God to "simulate" a "History", any more than
it would make sense for Adam to see Proxima Centauri before 4 years had
passed. Both of your "options" are stupid and myopic. If God created the
universe in 6 days he either did so with or without a "history" built
into it. As both options are ridiculous, we can only conclude that the
Universe was not created in 6 days, or the accounts of the 6 day creation
are inaccurate.

Fine, then please illustrate a scenario where God could have created an
operating "in balance" universe without the appearance of age. :-)

Why? He didn't, and the "age" in the existing Universe is because it is
old.

Criticizing the Creation account on ANY basis is never asinine, although
it is probably pointless.

We might as well argue about how many angels can stand on a pinhead. I
believe the last time anyone did this, the argument went on for some 300
years...

(Does anybody know or care what the final count was...?)

Only an idiot. And your evidence that such stupid human activity is in
some way derived from the Bible is ..., just what exactly?

I wasn't saying such activity derived from the Bible, (when I say "Holy
Writ" I am referring to ANY Holy scripture), but now that you mention it...

1. The Roman Catholic church (a major Christian Sect) claims scripture as a
basis for its catechism and belief.
2. The Roman Catholic church could not exist if the Bible had not been
written.
3. The Roman Catholic church spent several hundred years discussing how many
angels could stand on a pin head.

THEREFORE: The discussion was indirectly a result of the Bible having been
written.

Personally, I don't think they're stupid; I just don't pretend to understand
why they think it was important.

On the other hand, some of the statements you are making here I think are
worse than stupid. It surprises me because I don't think you're a stupid
person.

Is there a
reference to angelic size and density in the Bible somewhere that I
missed? Where does Scripture imply that we should be engaged in such a
discussion?

Don't ask me, ask the Pope...

Don't blame God and Scripture for human stupidity. The Bible says we're
like sheep. Living in New Zealand, surely you know that sheep are stupid
and obnoxious animals, capable of getting lost within 100 feet of a herd
they can't see.

Oh Judson. Living in NZ I know that sheep are far from stupid. Neither are
they obnoxious (in fact many Kiwi kids keep pet lambs and become very
attached ot them).. A couple of weeks ago, while entertaining a visitor from
overseas, I took her to an entertainment at a place called the Agrodome in
Rotorua. They had displays of sheep and dogs (amongst many other rural
things) and there were very intelligent trained sheep there that were
performing on cue without being coerced by dogs or humans. The sheep
obviously enjoyed the performance and were available for people to pet and
be photographed with afterwards. (A bit like humans getting autographs and
being photographed with celebrities). Everyone thoroughly enjoyed the
performance and my friend commented afterwards:" I had no idea that sheep
were so smart...".

Again, without doing any homework you jump to a conclusion.

You believe people are wicked and sinful. The Bible says people are like
sheep. You therefore decide that sheep must be stupid and obnoxious.

How wrong do you have to be before you are able to recognize it?

Some (uninformed) people think that pigs are stupid filthy animals too.

Doesn't mean it is the case.


Even Jesus compared His followers to sheep. Jesus didn't
say they were smart, he said they would hear His voice and follow Him
(John 10:27).

Well, he was pretty wrong about that. An overwhelming majority of the peopl
on this planet DIDN'T do that.

One of the beauties of God's plan of salvation is that
even children and idiots can understand and accept it.

You could remove "even" from that sentence and improve its accuracy many
fold...


Doesn't prevent
them from still being children and idiots. Are you suggesting there
aren't also idiots among atheists? :-)

I neither know nor care. I'm not an evangelist for atheism. What other
people believe is of little concern to me, until they start killing people
who disagree with them, or spend many hours (and thousands of words)
spouting it onto what has to be for the most part, stony ground.

Even Jesus knew when NOT to waste time.


Again, you present a typical straw man misdirection. Would you like me to
trot out the most ridiculous argument ever conducted by any atheist, as
if that was representative of atheist thought, as you just did? Are you
so bereft of valid points that you must resort to such tawdry tricks?

So we won't be discussing angels and pinheads then...

Such tactics illustrate exactly what I've been saying all along: You
aren't the least bit interested in reasoned discussion, and you don't
care what evidence may be contrary to your viewpoint, because you
trivialize and dismiss it, even when you present no evidence or logical
argument to the contrary, as you just did above. It's not just that
you're convinced of your beliefs, it's that you have such contempt for
Christian beliefs.

That is horse***. I have great respect for Christian beliefs, as I do for
most of the World's major religions. I have little respect for zealots, of
whatever denomination.

Where do you suppose that emotion comes from?

I'm not emotional about it, just irritated by the replacement of logical
debate with repetition of Holy Writ. Over and over. The ultimate argument
from Authority, but if I challenge it, I'm hostile to God and Christianity.


If you
think we Christians are so stupid and clueless,

I DON'T think Christians are stupid and clueless; I DO think YOU are
behaving stupidly and cluelessly.


why does that incite
contempt, rather than compassion?

It doesn't.

I have contempt for your apology for an argument. For you personally, I feel
sadness.

And don't think for one moment that only Christians have a monopoly on
compassion.

In my case, though you strongly
disagree with my beliefs, I think you will have to admit that I am
trying to present and defend them honestly.

No. You are trying to present them with a hidden agenda. That isn't honest.
Your zeal REQUIRES you to do this to help ensure your place in Heaven. I
thought for a while you were honest, but after the way you behaved on losing
your challenge, I realize now that is not the case.

As for defending them, no-one would be attacking them if you weren't pushing
them so hard. I am more than happy to agree to disagree with people like
yourself, recognizing that religious belief is a personal and private right
for all humans. But you can't leave it at that. No, you are driven. It's
sad.

I suggest the source of your
(and other Athiests like Alistair) emotional contempt is spiritual, just
as the Bible declares. (John 15:18,19) :-)

I don't hate you. I hate your stupid repetition of Holy Writ as an
argument.

I refute your suggestion (Proverbs 17: 20, 22, 27 - 28).

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.

Loading