Choosing a faith

candle2, I've had a lot of things to do of higher priority than trying to correct your many bullshit lies.Now I'll respond to your stupid nonsense lies about evolution again. I know that you will not even consider reading any of it, since you never have and never will for fear of losing your carefully guarded willful ignorance. But others will read it and will read responses to your lies.I will also ask the necessary questions, the ones that we have to ask creationists constantly and which creationists are terrified of, such as "What are you talking about?", "What problem is that supposed to pose for evolution?", "What do you think evolution is and how do you think it works?" (last one prompted by the fact that nothing that creationists say about "evolution" ever has anything to do with evolution, so their "evolution" is something entirely different from actual evolution but they refuse to tell us what they're talking about), etc.Yes, I know full well that you will never even try to answer the several questions I will ask, but at least everybody else will be aware of what creationists need to do but refuse to.I will also quote from a Clint's Reptiles video: Clint is an evolutionary biologist and believes in God. His main interest in creationism is to dialogue with creationists to convince them to use valid argument, a "STEELMAN version", instead of the useless and detrimental strawman arguments they always use instead. From that video (24:5):

quote:

---

This video comes from a channel called Bible Explored and it sounds like somebody asked him to define "evolution". This is honestly a great activity to do if you don't want to simply make strawman arguments all day. That is why it was so important for me to create a STEELMAN of young-earth creationism.

​

If I can't explain someone else's position so accurately that they could sign off that I had it right, then why would they have any interest in my criticism of their position? I don't even know what it is.

​

Not to mention the fact that I might end up agreeing with them if I understood their position correctly.

​

It's another thing to disagree with positions that you assume they hold but that aren't their actual positions.

​

So if you are debating someone and you want to have any chance of actually persuading them that they are wrong, correctly articulating their position is basically an essential place to start.

​

I would love it if more creationists would attempt this, but it is also essential to be open to the possibility that you don't have it right. That is unless you just love strawman arguments.

---

BTW, that is also what my own position has always been.That is also how you link to a video. Learn it, live it, love it. And before you start in again with your snowflake whining that my replies are too long, I will repeat that that is due to the length of your content-free bullshit rants, so if you want my replies to be shorter then make your posts shorter. Oh, and please have them actually say something for a change. I mean, Jessica H. Christ! Not even close!First, your attempt to deceive us with that false dichotomy fails immediately. While a true dichotomy can be used to prove something by disproving all possible alternatives (it's also used in some mathematical proofs, where to prove something you assume the opposite and disprove that), but you must know ALL possible alternatives. If you fail to include ALL alternatives (eg, there are ten alternatives but you only list two of them leaving out the other eight), then it is a false dichotomy, which of course fails to prove anything ... except your possible intention to deceive.Except in cases of incompetence, the only reason to use a false dichotomy is to deliberately deceive. Creationism's Two Model Approach is a false dichotomy deliberately crafted to deceive the courts and the public and it forms the foundation of creationism and the fundamental premise of all their claims and arguments: posit two and only two "mutually exclusive" "models", the "Creation Model" and the "Evolution Model", and then prove the "Creation Model" solely by attacking the "Evolution Model" all without ever presenting, discussing, or defending their "Creation Model". In reality, there are a multitude of different models, including all the different creation accounts from all the religious traditions (including multiple ones even within Christianity), each and every one of which would need to be disproven in order to be eliminated (an impossibility since they are all supernatural). But creationists don't include all those creation stories in the "Creation Model", but rather everything other then YEC gets dumped into the "Evolution Model" (H. Morris: "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern."), thus rendering it impossible to disprove.Your assertion also fails because evolution and creation need not be different choices. There is no inherent conflict between evolution and Divine Creation; the only conflicts possible are when religion creates them (eg, by rejecting reality (AKA "the Creation") and insisting on things that are contrary-to-fact (eg, a young earth) ).Your assertion makes no sense at all. But if you think that it is valid, then defend it. If you now realize that it is wrong, then kindly admit it and we can move on. Oh, and also refrain from repeating this bald assertion which we all know for a fact to be false, lest thou engage in the sin of deliberate lying. What the hell are you talking about?Since you are using the lie of calling evolution a "religion", I will use this point to lay out the contrast between science and religion, what they are based on, and how they operate. They are hugely different in those respects.Also, you are using "religion" as an insult with the subtext that religion is bad. In that, you find yourself in agreement with the many anti-religion atheists (I am not one despite having witnessed great harm being done by and for religion). Are you sure that is what you want to do?And since you do not know what science is (or works) and do not realize that it is very different from religion, you make the fundamental mistake (or commit the fundamental lie) of projecting your own religion's problems and shortcomings and failures onto science. Utterly stupidly wrong!OK, listen up! Religion is based on the supernatural, which is outside human ability to sense or perceive. Therefore, no human has direct access to any actual evidence of or for the supernatual; all we can do is imagine what it "must" be along with everything and anything alse about it. That means that all that anyone can "know" or say about the supernatural is all based on stuff that that people have made up. Even claims of "received Revelation" and what that revelation is supposed to have said are nothing but hear-say (and upon being repeated becomes hear-say upon hear-say thousands of times over -- remember the parlor game of "Telephone").On top of that, religion has expanded greatly upon its initial made-up stuff and hear-say through interpretation and making up even more stuff to create vast theologies that go into incredibly minute details, none of which can ever possibly be tested. Indeed, since not everybody in a church would agree with the new made-up stuff, those churches split in two, both of which would later split again and again over successive generations of newly made-up stuff -- that is especially true among the Protestants, whereas the Catholics kept it under control by punishing making up new stuff (Bertrand Russell, from memory: "When a Catholic becomes a freethinker, he will usually become an atheist, whereas when a Protestant becomes a freethinker he will just found a new church."). That is why we find more than 45,000 different forms of Christianity, about 200 in the USA alone.So when two people from two different forms of Christianity disagree on theology, how do we determine which one is right? We simply cannot. That is what we all witnessed in this topic between you and ICANT, both disgreeing vehemently with the other and neither able to support his own position except for shouting ever more loudly bald assertions lacking any evidentiary support. Your battle with each other accomplished nothing at all, except for providing amusement for us normals who know better -- it was for very good reasons that I renamed this sub-topic from "Re: Fundie cat fight" to "Re: Fundie cat fight over made-up stuff".  In sharp contrast, science is based on actual evidence that we can observe and test and that we MUST test, completely unlike the situation in religion (where trying to test what you're told would traditionally get you burned at the stake). Unfortunately, that does not keep you from projecting the inherent problems of your religion onto science, by which you are LYING about science.How science works is that based on observations we develop explanations for how things work (hypotheses) which we can and must test. Mistakes are made but are discovered and corrected through testing. Indeed, our first attempts at explanations will inevitably contain mistakes, so we need to test our explanations in order to find those mistakes so that we can attempt to correct them. Thus, over many iterations, mistakes are eliminated and new knowledge is gained.Everything must be questioned; that is how science progresses. But it must be a real question! "Questions" that are based solely on misunderstanding or misrepresenting the science are not valid. If you were to find a problem in a scientific idea, then you must be able to show that it's an actual problem. Indeed, in science the best path to fame and fortune is to show that a long-held scientific idea is wrong. But, you need to be able to make a very good case supported by good evidence. The standard creationist approach of lying about the science and about the evidence will not cut the mustard.Which raises the obvious question: If creationists do have evidence that disproves evolution, then why do they never ever present any of it? Why do they fight fiercely to avoid presenting such evidence? I will return to comparing science with religion in subsequent replies to your false assertions. But first a quick comparison: A fellow atheist at our monthly discussion breakfasts, formerly a fundamentalist Christian, quotes his pastor as warning him: "You have to stop asking so many questions." Another former creationist, Ed, whose pages I've reposted, told the same story, that his pastor warned him to stop asking questions lest he also become an atheist like this other guy they both knew. First, yet again one of the many questions that you are terrified of answering: "What the hell is an 'evolutionist'?" You will never answer that question; no creationist ever will.Second, what the hell are you talking about? Boards of education and state education offices are in charge of what's taught, with individual teachers exercising whatever latitude they are given (or that they steal, as in the case of creationists sneaking in their false theology). For each subject matter, what is part of that subject is what should be taught. Evolution is part of biology, so it should be taught. Excluding evolution for no good reason would be like excluding irrational numbers from math class because you don't like them; it makes absolutely no sense and serves no educational purpose.The goal of education is for the students to understand the subject matter, NOT to compel belief -- in contrast, religion engages in INDOCTRINATION which does compel belief (please note that creationist "public school" materials compel belief, thus violating the purpose of education). You are yet again projecting the faults of your religion onto others.In the past I have quoted from the California Framework for science education (Message 545) as well as relating real-world cases of creationism being taught in public schools (Message 882, also my page, LIVERMORE 1981: Creation Science in the Classroom - A Case Study). I will refrain from including them here again for sake of brevity, but can repost them if requested to.Also, most classes follow the textbook, so what's covered in the class depends on what's covered in the textbook. There has long been a problem with K-12 science textbooks being deficient and containing many errors because they are not written by scientists but rather by professional textbook writers -- there was an incident in the late 1980's where scientists were brought in to review the new biology textbooks, but the state school board approved the book behind their backs despite its errors. Another wrinkle is that from the 1920's on textbook publishers have been under constant pressure from creationists to remove or play down any mention of evolution, so it's the creationists dictating what's taught, not "evolutionists" (whatever the fuck they are supposed to be!).What the hell are you talking about?As I already described above, science absolutely depends on questions to their ideas as part of their ongoing process of testing and refinement. Suppressing questions is what a RELIGION like yours does, but it is anathema for science.And as I already described above, those questions must be actual questions, not your stupid bullshit creationist lies. If you have actual valid questions, then ask them! Not your usual stupid creationist bullshit lies!And also, please stop with that stupid bullshit lie about evolution being a religion, because it isn't! What the FUCK is wrong with you? STOP LYING!Odd question. How is that supposed to have anything to do with anything? You have any reason for asking it? If you are trying to make any kind of a point, then just state your point. You're not making any sense.Are you trying to "disprove evolution"? How? That question has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. What are you talking about? What are you trying to say?Life exists, so evolution exists, because life doing what life naturally does results in evolution. You cannot separate life and evolution. So regardless of how life came into existence, it still evolves. Creator or no creator (ignoring the question of which Creator?), the outcome is still the same: life exists and it evolves.There is no inherent conflict between Creation and evolution. If you think that there is a conflict, that one precludes the other, then explain that to us, because so far you are making absolutely no sense at all. Scientific research reveals many of the natural mechanisms involved, which raises an old question that you have never answered: if we find that natural processes gave rise to life, do you believe that contradicts "God"? If so, then why and how?We already know that your false creationist theology denies the Creation and hence the Creator. Is this just yet another way in which you deny the Creator?BTW, just because we haven't observed life from non-life doesn't mean that it isn't forming. You're trapping yourself in the impossible position of proving a negative; eg, "Prove that unicorns do not exist on any planet." In order to answer that question, you would need to have complete knowledge resulting from having been and examined everywhere. We do not possess such complete knowledge (more's the pity, since I'm sure that the Edinburgh Zoo would love to get a unicorn, the national animal of Scotland).For example, we do not have the ability to completely and microscopically examine the ocean bottom, especially around the thermal vents. But if new life were coming into existence around those vents, we do know what it would be called: "FOOD!" Any new life forming would immediately be consumed by the life that's already there. OK, where did Darwin say or write that? Given how many times I've seen creationists quote-mine and lie about what Darwin (and many other scientists) had said, we do need to know what that reference came from so that we can go to the source and see what Darwin actually wrote. So tell us already!I can only guess that you're trying to invoke the obsolete idea of spontaneous generation, the long-standing idea that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. Not only does that have nothing at all to do with abiogenesis (your conflating of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is a typical creationist lie), but spontaneous generation was disproven by Louis Pasteur in 1882. Up until 1882, spontaneous generation was a prevailing scientific idea (since it described what they observed and they didn't know of an alternative), but when Pasteur disproved it then that idea was dropped in accordance with the practice of science. Science worked, so what's your problem?Plus, if Darwin was wrong about this (he was also wrong about other things, like how traits are inherited), then SO WHAT? Darwin being right about the fundamentals of how evolution works is not in any manner affected by him being wrong about something completely unrelated.Are you trying to make some kind of a point? If so, then what is your point? Yet again, you are making absolutely no sense at all! BTW, note that Pasteur published in 1882. Darwin died 19 April 1882, early in that same year. I can't find whether Pasteur had published before or after Darwin died, nor how long it had taken for Pasteur to get translated from French to English, etc. Also, we don't know when the source of your quote-mine had been written, but we can be very certain that it was before Pasteur had published.So then just what the fuck are you talking about? So what? The cell is filled with cytoplasm, which consists mainly of cytosol (a gel-like substance) embedded with other structures which are not visible without staining. The practice of staining specimens started in the late 1800's. Darwin died in 1882, a couple decades before the practice of staining. Darwin just saw what everybody else saw, so what?And it turns out that we have gone over this before, so you didn't learn the first time? What kind of fucking idiot are that you are incapable of learning something so simple?Here it is again, from my Message 1860 (07-Jun-2023 9:52 PM): Yep! You're still nothing but a fucking idiot!Oh, and as a retired Intelligent Designer, I can tell you that complexity, especially high levels of complexity, is the natural product of evolutionary processes. IOW, something having a high degree of complexity is a sure sign that it evolved.So just what the fuck are you talking about? If you're trying to make some kind of a point, then what is your point?Or is your only point that you are fucking lying piece of creationist shit? Again, here are the dates so that we can start to construct a timeline:

• 1809 -- Charles Darwin born
• 1822 -- Louis Pasteur born, Gregor Mendel born
• 1859 -- Origin of Species published
• 1865 -- Mendel published
• 1882 April 19 -- Darwin died
• 1882 -- Pasteur published
• 1884 -- Mendel died
• c. 1890 -- Practice of staining specimens
• 1895 -- Pasteur died

So, what else was Darwin ignorant of? Heavier-than-air flight. Jet flight. Rocketry. Orbital satellites. Television. The Internet. Swing.So many things that Darwin was ignorant of! And what does that mean? Absolutely nothing! Except that all those things came after he had died.Again, JUST WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT? Obviously, you have no point. You present nothing but stupid creationist bullshit lies.  All I can figure is that you are yet again, in your willfully ignorant willful stupidity, projecting the severe faults and weaknesses of your religion.Your religion depends on its founder(s) (the chain of founders from YHWH all the way down to the founder of your denomination (or even down to your pastor) ) having been who they claimed to be and having been perfect in their teachings. The sure way to refute your religion, to bring it crashing down, is to discredit any one of those founders. That is because your religion's teachings have no value outside the Authority.And because you are mentally crippled by your willful ignorance, you think that everything works the same way as your religion; you are projecting your religion onto everybody else and that does not work! As I have already explained above.But scientific ideas are not so tied to their source. Evolution through Natural Selection would be no less valid if someone other than Charles Darwin had come up with it; indeed, Darwin had to rush into publication because another naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, had come up with the same idea.It doesn't matter who came up with a scientific idea, because the validity and utility of the idea is inherent in the idea itself. So it looks like you are trying to project your religion onto evolution, to treat evolution as a religion no different than yours (absolute nonsense!) with all its faults and weaknesses.So you are trying to discredit Darwin in any lying way possible with the false belief that we consider Darwin as a god whom we worship as the source of all knowledge of evolution. What a fucking idiot!We know full well that Darwin wasn't perfect, had made mistakes. For example, he was completely wrong about how inheritance worked, so when Mendel's work on genetics became known genetists proclaimed that they had disproven Darwin. But only his ideas of inheritance, not evolution. Then in the 30's and 40's came the "Grand Synthesis" of Darwinism and genetics yielding Neo-Darwinism.And again, science enables us to learn so many new things, whereas religion (especially yours) fights against learning anything. That is what a Law is: a statement of what we observe under certain circumstances. Outside of their necessary circumstances, the Laws of Nature no longer apply.Your bullshit is too stupid to address. It's like that expression: "You're not even wrong." Wrong! We observe evolution every day.You just don't know what evolution is, so you wouldn't recognize it if it came up and bit you.Your ignorance doesn't keep it from biting you; it just keeps you unaware of what's going on (So confusing!). Yeah, so what? Everybody knows that, except for stupid lying creationists.That's what evolution says, you idiot! We've gone over this very point so many times over the past 5 years and you still do not understand it?That's the nested clades that we've talked about. And I embedded some videos from Clint's Reptiles which emphasized that point that you cannot evolve out of your clade. In biology, it's called monophyly.If future dogs have split into several different new species, regardless of how different they've become they will still all be dogs; it's just that the clade of dogs has given rise to new sub-clades, new species.But, if you actually think that your "they produce their own kind" BS is actually a valid objection to -- whatever you're objecting to -- , then present your case and explain it to us! It's really that simple: Just explain to us what the fuck you're talking about.

No, I couldn't care less about your made-up gods. Far less your own silly god who is a crude parody of the Christian god.What I am fighting are the idiots who keep pushing their perverted version of Christianity on the rest of us.As for the "false concept of evolution", it is YOU and other creationists who push false concepts of evolution in the form of gross misrepresentations of evolution and outright lies about it. I push for everyone, especially creationists, learning what evolution really is and for creationists to address ACTUAL EVOLUTION instead of using their stupid creationist bullshit strawman lies.If all you can do is lie about the opposition, then give up because you have already lost. As I quoted zoologist and believer Clint in Message 3811:

quote:

---

If I can't explain someone else's position so accurately that they could sign off that I had it right, then why would they have any interest in my criticism of their position? I don't even know what it is.

---

You have no clue what evolution even is, but rather all you know are stupid creationist bullshit strawman lies. And by your constant lies we know you! (variation of the Matthew 7:20 Test).At least you are now admitting that Satan is your guide.  Ancillary Claim:Consider yet again that your creationism denies and opposes the Creation and how the Creation really is. You even preach that the Creation disproves the Creator, in accordance with Satan's plan.What payment did you take for selling your soul to Satan?

This is a response to Message 1477: Many words have already been spent in this thread discussing the historicity of Jesus, and one of the most common arguments offered in support of historicity is that nearly all theological historians accept it. But this is by definition because there are extremely few non-believing scholars studying Jesus. Not many people study things they don't believe exist. And what Christian theology department would ever hire someone who didn't believe Jesus existed.But there are many, many, many historians who are not theologians, and some of them cover the very region and era of Jesus. As the above reference makes clear, they don't mention Jesus. There were Romans, and prelates and governors and kings and rebels and uprisings, but of the man who performed miracles, who spoke to thousands, who was resurrected after death, flew around Jerusalem witnessed by hundreds, and ascended bodily to heaven, there's almost no mention, and certainly these specific events from the Bible are never mentioned. About the best a Christian believer will get from an actual historian is mentions like, "This is the era when Jesus is thought to have lived and carried out his ministry."This means that actual historians with no religious cross to bear barely mention Jesus. What does get mentioned are things that actually happened, for instance the growing Christian movement.--Percy

I have a lot to say regarding my reply to scoff, but am pressed for time at the moment. It is a bit ironic that I was previously reviewing an online course that I had posted to my Facebook 14 years ago and after listening to the fascinating science behind addiction recovery I just so happened to click on our Forum and see scoffs thoughtless reply to Theodoric and the unsupported assertion(from Aeon Essays) regarding the Historicity of Jesus and, more importantly, the premeditated conclusions which the article suggested that we (the audience) consider.Perhaps we should discuss it. (the link specifically)By the way, Percy...what is this "religious cross to bear" that you mention? I would love to hear a Unitarian response.

Posting from phone and double posted

As I have asked many times on this site. Show us any contemporary historical evidence for a historical jesus.
The article is not an unsupported assertion. The assertion is supported throughout the article. Namely, there is no historical evidence for the jesus character. No one can prove he did not exist. That you expect such a thing, just reaffirms your inability to understand or present a fact based, logical argument. A negative can not be proven.
Instead of more personal attacks how about presenting evidence. Oh yeah that's right. There is no evidence.

A person will find evidence only for what they prefer to be true.

In other words you, you have nothing. But you are more than willing to.manipulate the meaning of words to suit your needs. Your mendacity continues to be truly striking.

"Cross to bear" is a well-known figure of speech. The meaning is non-denominational and unambiguous.--Percy

Feed the hungry
heal the sick
clothe the naked
shelter the homeless
protect the weak

It really is that simple.

I want to avoid confusing Phat. What I originally said: True historians do not have to bear the apologetics burden that theologians do.--Percy

In the end, the historicity of Jesus isn't something even worth arguing over. I'm willing to accept that there may have been someone named Jesus who led a religious movement, even if just for the purposes of moving the discussion along. It really isn't that important of a point. For example, there is no doubt that Joseph Smith was an actual living person, but I don't see this fact convincing swaths of people to convert to Mormonism.What it really comes down to is the claims attached to the person, not simply the existence of that person.

jar gave us the list:Feed the hungry
heal the sick
clothe the naked
shelter the homeless
protect the weakThese are the claims attached to the person. Progressive libertard leftist wokeness with delusions of nice.So sick a creed this person is supposed to have taught that even his self-proclaimed acolytes have abandoned his fantasy story. Christians in this modern American society, like Phat, no longer follow this creed, can no longer identify with it, for it lacks the hate they feel coursing through their hearts.The republican party beckons them in its place:End food assistance (SNAP and WIC) and close school lunch programs.
Dissolve Medicare and defund maternal and child health care.
End family assistance programs.
Push the destitute to shelter in bridge abutments and underpasses.
Use the savings to fund tax cuts for mega-billionaires and multi-national oligarchs.The modern American christian, the republican right, the new religion and creed of hate.

Good for you. I do not feel the same way.