Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Denouncing religions ? [New to debate]
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 46 of 89 (390057)
03-18-2007 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by MadaManga
03-08-2007 9:29 AM


Perspective of a former creationist
Hello everyone!
I think that this thread could use some more input from Christian young earth creationists. Although I’m not one anymore, I was until a few years ago, so I think am able to represent that point of view.
MadaManga, post 3 writes:
My opinion on this matter is that Creationism could ultimately be seen as just an attempt by Christians to justify that Christianity is "the One True Faith". It is hard to ignore that the arguements Creationists use against Evolution are in turn used to prove other religions are false.
Christians do not use Creationism to “justify” Christianity, in the same way that Newton did not use falling apples to justify the theory of gravity. Falling apples are evidence for a force-at-a-distance, and a universe created in the way described by Genesis is evidence for Christianity.
You are right - Christians use creationism as an apologetic tool. But this is perfectly natural: if there was substantial evidence that the universe had been created as described in Genesis, wouldn’t this be strong evidence in favor of Christianity? And wouldn’t it rightfully have a place in debates between Christians and people of other religions?
Jazzns, post 5 writes:
Creationism is also a movement to reject the scientific dedication to naturalism which does not regard religion when answering questions about the universe.
The literature of creationism is filled with positive references to science - in fact, one of the classic books on young earth creationism is titled “Scientific Creationism.” In addition, most criticisms of evolution are based on the idea that arguments for it are not scientific. Creationists place science in a position of great respect, and see its correct application as the only way to refute evolution.
What creationists do oppose are a specific set of conclusions whose proponents claim to have produced by use of the scientific method.
Dr Adequate, post 7 writes:
Same old lies, same old nonsense, same old ignorance (I found it by looking for a website mentioning both the Vedas and the Second Law of Thermodynamics) --- but this time it proves the truth of a completely different religion.
No, evolutionism and its ignorant prognosticators are the ones who lie about the Second Law of Thermodynamics!
You should really be more polite.
Quetzal, post 10 writes:
In short, the main debate against Evolution should be that it's an incorrect theory, not that a religion needs to prove itself right.
You're right, of course. If there is going to be any possibility of legitimately arguing against evolution then it must be framed in terms of the invalidity of the theory (or at least major fractions of it). However, that would presuppose there is evidence supporting such a contention (or conversely, evidence falsifying or at least calling into question the mechanisms grouped under the ToE). To date, such evidence has not been produced.
But creationists claim that such evidence has been produced, which is what the debate is about. Creationists say that evolutionists don’t have evidence, and evolutionists say that creationists don’t have evidence - thus the existence of websites such as this one.
Quetzal, post 10 writes:
For them, it's a culture war, not a scientific one.
I think that is partially correct. Creationists believe that the scientific method is valid, but that the findings of many modern scientists are not; the explanation for this involves a dysfunctional scientific culture. The given reasons for the scientific problems are cultural, thus the scientific war is fundamentally tied up with a cultural war - but the scientific war still exists.
MadaManga, post 12 writes:
The most vocal religions are not overtly anxious about the Creationist arguements of other religions which may/may not oppose their religion.
This is true. The argument about biological origins (at least in the U.S.A.) essentially has two sides: evolution and Judeo-Christian creationism. No non-Judeo-Christian religion has significant involvement in the argument. Christian creationists are not anxious about the creationist arguments of other religions because they do not pose nearly as large a threat as does evolution.
MadaManga, post 12 writes:
That Creationism is not considered to be an attack on other religions, as Creationist can not "prove" their theories correct (hence it is not of detriment to other religions).
I don’t think this is true for most creationists. Many do think that their theories have been proven (or very nearly proven) correct. When collisions of religious ideas about origins collide, these theories are certainly used as the basis of arguments against the validity of the other religion.
AZPaul3, post 15 writes:
At least science is being honest in our ignorance. Religions are so sure of their answers (whether they be Yahweh speaking the Universe into existence, or Vishnu growing the universe from his navel or Osiris ejaculating the universe into being) that they are willing to fight wars over it.
Do you hold any beliefs strongly enough that you would go to war for them?
(Note: I do not support the numerous, horrible wars that have been waged for supposedly religious reasons.)
Dr Adequate, post 26 writes:
But then, I've bothered to learn the basic vocabulary of the subject I'm discussing.
ICANT, a brand-new poster, was humble and self-effacing, and this is your response?

* JT is my real username, not JT2, but I can't log into that account...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by MadaManga, posted 03-08-2007 9:29 AM MadaManga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by MadaManga, posted 03-19-2007 9:57 AM jt has replied
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 03-19-2007 11:42 AM jt has replied
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-19-2007 12:29 PM jt has replied

  
MadaManga
Junior Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 31
From: UK
Joined: 03-06-2007


Message 47 of 89 (390192)
03-19-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by jt
03-18-2007 12:57 AM


Re: Perspective of a former creationist
Hello jt,
Thanks for posting - a more creationist view is needed.
jt writes:
Christians use creationism as an apologetic tool. But this is perfectly natural: if there was substantial evidence that the universe had been created as described in Genesis, wouldn’t this be strong evidence in favor of Christianity? And wouldn’t it rightfully have a place in debates between Christians and people of other religions?
I agree that it is natural to use the arguements available to prove your side.
However, the evidence they have is not irrefutably proven. It does not currently have "a rightful place" to make one side of a debate 'correct'. It's current place is more "What if..?"
When it comes to evidence that proves one religion above other the evidence shouldn't be "substantial" - it needs to be irrefutable.
(Though, given that you freely admit you are a former young earth Creationist, I think you might have already come to that conclusion yourself anyway, though I won't assume that).

jt writes:
Creationists say that evolutionists don’t have evidence, and evolutionists say that creationists don’t have evidence - thus the existence of websites such as this one...I don’t think this is true for most creationists. Many do think their theories have been proven (or very nearly proven) correct.
If they are scientists then they can not 'think' their theories are proven, or else their theory would explain all the variable and be irrefutable. The scienctific communciaty would have accepted their theory as fact (which hasn't happened). However, you somewhat said the whole reason there even is a debate is that "nearly proven" is not good enough for some people, so please don't think I'm taking to task about this. Any scientist knows that scientific theories are subject to modifications until an irrefutable law is produced.
Even the theories of Gravity hasn't been totally proven - there is no working Universal Law of Gravity that explains all movement from galaxies to sub-atomic particles - but physical laws are used to make elevators, airplanes, suspension bridges and many other technologies. So while they might not be totally correct they can however be used practically. You can "do the maths".

jt writes:
Do you hold any beliefs strongly enough that you would go to war for them?
(Note: I do not support the numerous, horrible wars that have been waged for supposedly religious reasons.)
(First off - your note is duly noted & thank goodness! I also realise this question wasn't directed at me, but hey, my two cents).
Yes - there are beliefs worth fighting for that are not of a religious nature.
The first is always - you have a right to exist. No one has the right to tell people that for their race/creed/nationality/sexuality/etc they should be dead. I think the potential death of people in war justifies stopping the garenteed death of a people or section of society.
(To be honest, I'm not fond of death penalties and alternative methods to a war should be exhorsted before starting one).
One has to admit - alot of religious wars (past & modern) try to violate this exact right as "just" penalties against unbeliever, immorals and heretics. The fact that any person could consider Genocide (the worst crime imaginable) to be justifiable is sickening and inexcusable.
There are more beliefs to fight for but that one is the most important to me.
Personally, I find discrimination for race/creed/nationality/sexuality/etc immoral, though lots of religions - including Christianity - would argue against me on that one. (For example; homosexuallity is "immoral" thus it is "moral" to discriminate against homosexuals ).

jt writes:
You should really be more polite.
Agreed. Being rude doesn't support your side of the debate - the opposite in fact. It make make you sound unreasoning.
Edited by MadaManga, : Spellings.
Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.
Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.
Edited by MadaManga, : I give up! No more touch ups. If you see a glaring error, I'm sorry!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jt, posted 03-18-2007 12:57 AM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jt, posted 03-20-2007 4:49 AM MadaManga has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 48 of 89 (390209)
03-19-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by jt
03-18-2007 12:57 AM


Re: Perspective of a former creationist
Hi jt, how's it going?
I'll just address the points you brought up from my previous posts, and let others handle their own side of the discussion.
But creationists claim that such evidence has been produced, which is what the debate is about. Creationists say that evolutionists don’t have evidence, and evolutionists say that creationists don’t have evidence - thus the existence of websites such as this one.
I for one would be absolutely delighted if creationists would come up with some solid evidence for their position. Then at least there'd be something to discuss. Unfortunately, the vast majority of creationist argumentarium is based on attempting to poke holes in evolutionary theory, forgetting that the way to validate a theory is NOT to try and invalidate the other guy's, but rather to present positive evidence in favor of yours.
In addition, although you state that creationists hold science in high respect, this respect apparently doesn't extend to actually using the methodology of science. To wit, science makes observations, and then develops a theory that explains them. Creationism starts with a priori acceptance of the Bible, and then seeks factoids that it can shoehorn into the Biblical accounts, usually by being very selective on what it includes, then bending, folding, spindling, and otherwise mutilating the factoid to fit the account. Worse yet, whereas science must by definition include all the observations in its theories, creationism deliberately ignores evidence that doesn't support (or worse, refutes) its claims.
If you have evidence for creationism, please produce it. You'd be the first ever.
I think that is partially correct. Creationists believe that the scientific method is valid, but that the findings of many modern scientists are not; the explanation for this involves a dysfunctional scientific culture. The given reasons for the scientific problems are cultural, thus the scientific war is fundamentally tied up with a cultural war - but the scientific war still exists.
However, the heart of the debate is centered around culture, not science. There IS no dispute over evolution in the scientific community. There is a great deal of debate over the details, but none over the fact.
I think it might be instructive (but, unfortunately off-topic for this thread), if you could elaborate on the cultural aspects of scientific problems - which are not obvious from the "inside" - and especially what you mean by "dysfunctional scientific culture". Sounds like it could be an interesting thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jt, posted 03-18-2007 12:57 AM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jt, posted 03-20-2007 5:03 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 89 (390219)
03-19-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jt
03-18-2007 12:57 AM


Re: Perspective of a former creationist
No, evolutionism and its ignorant prognosticators are the ones who lie about the Second Law of Thermodynamics!
I thought you said that you were a former creationist?
In which case you will realise that this cry of tu quoque rather falls down over the whole not-being-true issue.
You should really be more polite.
If politeness involves overlooking the blunders of creationists, then call me Dr Not-Very-Polite.
ICANT, a brand-new poster, was humble and self-effacing ...
Not noticeably. I do not see the "humility" in dismissing the work of generations of scientists based on a study so cursory that he doesn't know the meaning of the word "theory" or the word "evolution".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jt, posted 03-18-2007 12:57 AM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jt, posted 03-20-2007 5:18 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 50 of 89 (390394)
03-20-2007 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by MadaManga
03-19-2007 9:57 AM


Re: Perspective of a former creationist
MadaManga writes:
When it comes to evidence that proves one religion above other the evidence shouldn't be "substantial" - it needs to be irrefutable.
I think we agree - I believe that it is impossible to prove that one religion is true and another is false. This is partially because the evidence for and against religions is somewhat nebulous (at least compared to the hard evidence for things like gravity), and partially because it is hardly possible to really prove anything.
MadaManga writes:
(Though, given that you freely admit you are a former young earth Creationist, I think you might have already come to that conclusion yourself anyway, though I won't assume that).
I have indeed come to that conclusion (assuming I properly understand what you mean by “that.”)
MadaManga writes:
If they are scientists then they can not 'think' their theories are proven, or else their theory would explain all the variable and be irrefutable.
But most creationists are not scientists, and attach a less strict meaning to the word “prove” than the average scientist. In addition, many do think that their ideas explain (almost) all the variables and are well-nigh irrefutable. Many creationists do believe that their arguments for creationism are proofs.
Holding science in high regard, and understanding science, are not necessarily related.
MadaManga writes:
The scienctific communciaty would have accepted their theory as fact (which hasn't happened).
Which is why creationists question the credibility of the scientific community.
MadaManga writes:
JT writes:
Do you hold any beliefs strongly enough that you would go to war for them?
Yes - there are beliefs worth fighting for that are not of a religious nature.
...
There are more beliefs to fight for but that one is the most important to me.
I am glad you are of such a persuasion, and welcome your 0.2.
This question was mainly meant for AZPaul3, who made (what I think is an invalid) contrast between the willingness of religious people to fight wars over their beliefs and the willingness of science to accept uncertainty. It doesn’t seem that you hold this view, however.

"People who think they know everything annoy those of that do" - t-shirt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by MadaManga, posted 03-19-2007 9:57 AM MadaManga has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 51 of 89 (390395)
03-20-2007 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Quetzal
03-19-2007 11:42 AM


I think we are in agreement
Quetzal writes:
Hi jt, how's it going?
Things are going swimmingly (I am on spring break ) - thanks for asking. How have you been?
Quetzal writes:
I for one would be absolutely delighted if creationists would come up with some solid evidence for their position. Then at least there'd be something to discuss. Unfortunately, the vast majority of creationist argumentarium is based on attempting to poke holes in evolutionary theory, forgetting that the way to validate a theory is NOT to try and invalidate the other guy's, but rather to present positive evidence in favor of yours.
.
Creationism starts with a priori acceptance of the Bible, and then seeks factoids that it can shoehorn into the Biblical accounts, usually by being very selective on what it includes, then bending, folding, spindling, and otherwise mutilating the factoid to fit the account.
I think you may have misunderstood my post (I apologize -- I should made my position more clear). It seems like most of your post is an attempt to correct perceived disagreements, but I agree with almost everything you wrote.
I didn’t mean to say that creationists have produced satisfactory evidence, or convincing arguments, or that they make good use of the scientific method. If I did believe those things, I would probably still be a creationist.
What I meant to say was that most creationists honestly and completely believe those things, without experiencing any cognitive dissonance or related phenomena, or being even the slightest bit aware of committing the trespasses you mention.
Quetzal writes:
If you have evidence for creationism, please produce it. You'd be the first ever.
I already tried to do so and failed, which is a large part of why I am no longer a creationist.
Quetzal writes:
I think it might be instructive (but, unfortunately off-topic for this thread), if you could elaborate on the cultural aspects of scientific problems - which are not obvious from the "inside" - and especially what you mean by "dysfunctional scientific culture". Sounds like it could be an interesting thread.
I don’t think that modern scientific culture is dysfunctional - creationists do. But I do agree that it would be interesting to have a discussion about the cultural problems that science does face (although not dysfunctional, scientific culture certainly isn’t perfect). It would be interesting to hear people’s thoughts about the peer-review process, the faculty system, etc., and how those things could be improved.

"People who think they know everything annoy those of that do" - t-shirt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 03-19-2007 11:42 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Quetzal, posted 03-20-2007 9:41 AM jt has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 52 of 89 (390396)
03-20-2007 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Adequate
03-19-2007 12:29 PM


Politeness needs patience, not overlooking
Dr Adequate writes:
jt writes:
No, evolutionism and its ignorant prognosticators are the ones who lie about the Second Law of Thermodynamics!
I thought you said that you were a former creationist?
In which case you will realise that this cry of tu quoque rather falls down over the whole not-being-true issue.
I am indeed a former creationist - who was trying to make something of a joke. I meant for that remark to be sufficiently absurd that it would be funny.
But anyway, I was trying to make two points: first, that the comment you made would offend the receiving party (I hoped that by putting you on the receiving end of a similar one you would see this), and that you should not use arguments that are so susceptible to being thrown back at you by your opponents (tu quoque). In this specific case, the argument was reversible because it was just an assertion/accusation. This is why assertions/accusations aren’t useful - they can just as easily be used to support either side of an argument.
By the way, the so called “issue” you mention doesn’t seem relevant. At least, it should not be a problem for any reasonably well-adjusted person. (Disclaimer: the previous two sentences should not be taken seriously.)
Dr Adequate writes:
If politeness involves overlooking the blunders of creationists, then call me Dr Not-Very-Polite.
Saying something like “Same old lies, same old nonsense, same old ignorance . ” is not pointing out a blunder; it is pointing out that repeated blunders have annoyed you. This annoyance is understandable, but in the interest of promoting reasoned discourse you should not let it influence how you phrase your arguments. If you aren’t careful, your writing will have a harsh edge to it that will cause your opponents to give your posts less consideration than they deserve.
Dr Adequate writes:
Not noticeably. I do not see the "humility" in dismissing the work of generations of scientists based on a study so cursory that he doesn't know the meaning of the word "theory" or the word "evolution".
This seems like an appeal to authority. By this line of reasoning wouldn’t it be arrogant to contradict anyone who is significantly more of an expert than oneself?
Edited by jt, : I fixed an oops.

"People who think they know everything annoy those of that do" - t-shirt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-19-2007 12:29 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Wounded King, posted 03-20-2007 5:57 AM jt has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 53 of 89 (390399)
03-20-2007 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by jt
03-20-2007 5:18 AM


Re: Politeness needs patience, not overlooking
By this line of reasoning wouldn’t it be arrogant to contradict anyone who is significantly more of an expert than oneself?
Umm, well yes when you don't know what you are talking about. Is there anything controversial in suggesting that it is arrogant to contradict someone who has knowledge and experience in a field about which you appear to know little or nothing when discussing that very field? If you have solid contradictory evidence then there is a case to be made, but in the absence of such a case how would you characterise such behaviour other than as arrogant?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jt, posted 03-20-2007 5:18 AM jt has not replied

  
MadaManga
Junior Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 31
From: UK
Joined: 03-06-2007


Message 54 of 89 (390402)
03-20-2007 6:37 AM


How can one argue against something one has little understanding of?
How would one chose points to argue against? How would one know which points support your side?
Creationists must have some understanding of science, or else they couldn't be arguing against it.

the scientific method is valid, but that the findings of many modern scientists are not; the explanation for this involves a dysfunctional scientific culture.
The scientific culture is inherantly dysfunctional- science is based on questioning and drawing conclusions from any evidence found. Until proven the conclusion is still open to questioning. Hence this loop effect means that scientists can make a variety of conclusions, some of which question each other. This can seems like dis-unity, but it's actually a mark of science in action - no scientist can approach a subject by all views. The idea is enough views with evidence will eventually lead to a proven conclusion.
The scientific culture is a result of the scientific method, if you appriciated the method, you should appriciate the culture it produces.
Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.
Edited by MadaManga, : Adding conclusion

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 55 of 89 (390419)
03-20-2007 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by jt
03-20-2007 5:03 AM


Re: I think we are in agreement
Things are going swimmingly (I am on spring break ) - thanks for asking. How have you been?
Great! I'm having a ball, actually. Talk about a dream job...
think you may have misunderstood my post...
You're absolutely right - I completely misunderstood where you were coming from. Apologies. Just one comment, then, since we are in substantive agreement:
jt writes:
What I meant to say was that most creationists honestly and completely believe those things, without experiencing any cognitive dissonance or related phenomena, or being even the slightest bit aware of committing the trespasses you mention.
I agree with you. However, the things that keep creationism alive and kicking are the pronouncements, pontifications, videos, marketing etc of the major creationist organizations (for the YECs, examples include AiG, ICR, etc, and for IDists the big one is the Discovery Institute). I concur that the "average creationist", especially those that come here, honestly believe what they've been told. It's the big organizations, with their slick marketing, that are the real targets of the debate. They're the ones pushing what jar calls the Christian Cult of Ignorance. Without them - and the pseudo-ammunition they provide their adherents - there would BE no controversy, IMO.
In any event, welcome back - and enjoy your spring break.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jt, posted 03-20-2007 5:03 AM jt has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 56 of 89 (391819)
03-27-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by AZPaul3
03-13-2007 8:38 PM


Denouncing religions ? [New to debate]
All those equations that have worked so well for us everywhere else in the universe just cannot tell us what happened before .0000000000000000000000000000000001 second after whatever it was that did happen, happened. We don’t know. I fear you and I and a whole bunch of people on this planet will never see the answer to this question. But some day we will find it.
If I am correct in what I believe every person that has ever lived will know the answer one day. If I am wrong and evolution is correct it won't make any difference how, when, why, or where it happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AZPaul3, posted 03-13-2007 8:38 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 4:14 PM ICANT has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 89 (391826)
03-27-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by ICANT
03-27-2007 4:02 PM


Re: Denouncing religions ? [New to debate]
If I am wrong and evolution is correct it won't make any difference how, when, why, or where it happened.
I don't understand this reasoning. Evolution as a scientific theory makes no statements or implications about the existence of God or an afterlife. It's the scientific explanation for the diversity and history of living things on Planet Earth, not a theory of cosmology or a refutation of theology.
If evolution is correct - and it largely seems to be - then no conclusions can be drawn about what we will or will not know, after death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ICANT, posted 03-27-2007 4:02 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2007 11:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 58 of 89 (392055)
03-28-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
03-27-2007 4:14 PM


Re: Denouncing religions ? [New to debate]
crashfrog writes:
If evolution is correct - and it largely seems to be
If evolution is correct including the origin of the universe and life on earth (not just things changing over time or different breeds of things) answer these two questions.
Where did whatever it was that the universe started from come from?
Where did life come from?
I don't understand this reasoning.
If I evolved from something then there is no soul or spirit in me so when I die that's it. So what difference does it make where the universe came from or how life began. We are wasting our time looking for answers. We should eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2007 4:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 03-28-2007 11:42 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 61 by Wounded King, posted 03-29-2007 10:25 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 59 of 89 (392057)
03-28-2007 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by ICANT
03-28-2007 11:12 PM


ICANT writes:
If I evolved from something then there is no soul or spirit in me....
Non sequitur.
Your statement seems to suggest that creationists do discount/reject all interpretations of the Bible other than their own and, by implication, all religions other than their own.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2007 11:12 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2007 9:28 AM ringo has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 60 of 89 (392091)
03-29-2007 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by ringo
03-28-2007 11:42 PM


Re: Denouncing religions
all religions
I don't see where I have many options as to what happens at death.
I have heard of reincarnation that means I get to come back and do it again as something else.
What are the other options? Enlighten me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 03-28-2007 11:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by MadaManga, posted 03-29-2007 10:29 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 03-29-2007 12:03 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024