Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[RandomGuy]

Besides the fact that one is a "belief" and the other is not, one could be attributed to an atheists' belief (your second example) and the other possibly to an agnostic (your first example).
Or do you have another reason?

You don't understand what agnosticism is.

Agnosticism is "I believe there is a God, I just don't have any idea what properties God has"

It is impossible to be an "agnostic atheist". You either reject "God exists" (a-theism) or you accept that premise (theism) Agnosticism is a subclass of theism.

It is though, possible to not be convinced something is true, while not having an opinion that it is outright false.

While I don't rule out the existence of were-walruses on pluto, ("not exist"), I certainly see to reason to accept it is true. ("exists")

[DMC]

This is typically a "few screws loose" type troll where the facts are distorted and intentionally misinterpreted to solicit responses. Facts are out there if anyone cares to learn them. Arguing about them here with people who don't care to actually read them isn't productive.

[Blake]

Well, I do need to do a better job of explaining though. It is my responsibility to do so, and it is always a good mental exercise to think about what you believe and why.

Do you agree on that last bit? (just curious, you and I don't engage much)

Which last bit?

[DMC]

You don't understand what agnosticism is.

Agnosticism is "I believe there is a God, I just don't have any idea what properties God has"

It is impossible to be an "agnostic atheist". You either reject "God exists" (a-theism) or you accept that premise (theism) Agnosticism is a subclass of theism.

It is though, possible to not be convinced something is true, while not having an opinion that it is outright false.

While I don't rule out the existence of were-walruses on pluto, ("not exist"), I certainly see to reason to accept it is true. ("exists")

Atheism is more the absence of belief that any god exists. Some atheists reject the premise of a god, some don't feel compelled to even hear the premise.

[Blake]

This is typically a "few screws loose" type troll where the facts are distorted and intentionally misinterpreted to solicit responses. Facts are out there if anyone cares to learn them. Arguing about them here with people who don't care to actually read them isn't productive.

I don't care to change anyone's mind. I like to post facts to solicit responses from the bat crazies.

If that produces entertainment to me and me alone, so be it.

[xmas1997]

You don't understand what agnosticism is.

Agnosticism is "I believe there is a God, I just don't have any idea what properties God has"

It is impossible to be an "agnostic atheist". You either reject "God exists" (a-theism) or you accept that premise (theism) Agnosticism is a subclass of theism.

It is though, possible to not be convinced something is true, while not having an opinion that it is outright false.

While I don't rule out the existence of were-walruses on pluto, ("not exist"), I certainly see to reason to accept it is true. ("exists")

I see where you are coming from in this but below is an example of what I always considered the definition of an agnostic, and not a subset of theism:
ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\

: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

By the way, just so you know, we may not always agree on things on here, but I still appreciate that you seem to always try to keep an open mind when you either discuss or debate a topic down here, unlike most of the others and that is why I usually enjoy it when you are involved with it.
One never knows where one might pick up a glimmer of insight.
This is the same reason I enjoy it more when SBM is in one of these spiritual discussions and/or debates too, he also is aware of many insights.
Rob and a couple of others also shed much insight even though we are often at odds on specifics.

[Blake]

This is the same reason I enjoy it more when SBM is in one of these spiritual discussions and/or debates too, he also is aware of many insights.
Rob and a couple of others also shed much insight even though we are often at odds on specifics.

[xmas1997]

And then to set the record straight:

athe·ist
noun \ˈā-thē-ist\

: a person who believes that God does not exist
Full Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic or athe·is·ti·cal adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly adverb
See atheist defined for English-language learners »

And another dictionary definition:

atheism
  Use Atheism in a sentence
a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism

Related forms
an·ti·a·the·ism, adjective, noun
pro·a·the·ism, noun

[silverblk mystix]

Ugh. I just had semi diarrhea and have a slight headache.

Not to mention, you also forgot to log out of your -cantthinkof - account and back into your "maalox" account!

Be more careful!

[xmas1997]

Lots of straw in this thread

A lot more straw in your head!

[johnsmith]

Link?

Uh huh, I thought as much.
It must be rough going through divorce, but blake is probably free.

See, here's what you don't get, I'm taking an educated guess based on the fact that no employed person could possibly spend the amount of time on here you do, and based on your brilliant posts, I know you're not running a business....you on the other hand just made up the divorce thing which was lame.

[xmas1997]

See, here's what you don't get, I'm taking an educated guess based on the fact that no employed person could possibly spend the amount of time on here you do, and based on your brilliant posts, I know you're not running a business....you on the other hand just made up the divorce thing which was lame.

I'll give you the "lame" part because I did make up the divorce part, but you were consistently wrong about everything else, so I will give you more points for consistency as well.
I honestly think you take everything on here way too seriously because it is always pissing you off.
Try lightening up a little because for the most part I am just kidding and most others are too.
If you want to mistake that for something other than what it is, then that is your prerogative.
I enjoy the occasional discussion on here, and sometimes even the debates, but unless you level an attack at me first, I will give you the benefit of the doubt everytime.
However those who do nothing except attack others on here and have nary a constructive thing to say, such as blake and a few others, deserve no mercy IMHO.

[johnsmith]

I'll give you the "lame" part because I did make up the divorce part, but you were consistently wrong about everything else, so I will give you more points for consistency as well.
I honestly think you take everything on here way too seriously because it is always pissing you off.
Try lightening up a little because for the most part I am just kidding and most others are too.
If you want to mistake that for something other than what it is, then that is your prerogative.
I enjoy the occasional discussion on here, and sometimes even the debates, but unless you level an attack at me first, I will give you the benefit of the doubt everytime.
However those who do nothing except attack others on here and have nary a constructive thing to say, such as blake and a few others, deserve no mercy IMHO.

Funny that once people started making fun of you for taking this place too serious you immediately started telling everyone else they do the same thing....have you noticed how many times you've been accused of using the "rubber, glue" defense? Ya know, the way children use it?

[xmas1997]

Funny that once people started making fun of you for taking this place too serious you immediately started telling everyone else they do the same thing....have you noticed how many times you've been accused of using the "rubber, glue" defense? Ya know, the way children use it?

When they were clearly spewing false accusations and lies?
So now you are also saying you are just kidding and actually never take any of this seriously, similar to me?
Then you know what I am talking about.
The only difference I can see is that it really is no skin off my back, because I always remind everyone that this is just a silly message board, whereas you on the other hand, sure act like it is the end of the world.
Do you get it now?

[DMC]

I believe they occurred "symbolically". Exactly how, when, what, and where is not what is important to the story. It is what the story "symbolized" that is important.
And since I wasn't there at the time, nor were you, nor any of us, what you are asking cannot be answered the way you want it answered, plus you are focusing on the wrong issues.

How does an event happen "symbolically"? If we were remote viewers of this time period, would we be able to see it happen? Or are you saying that it's an important part of a fairy tale with a moral message? I don't get a moral message from a man willing to kill his own son because a voice from the sky told him to. In this day and age, that's delusional and psychotic behavior. When Andrea Yates drowned her kids, she said her god told her to do it. Why is her story less credible than Abraham's?

[Woo Bum-kon]

How does an event happen "symbolically"? If we were remote viewers of this time period, would we be able to see it happen? Or are you saying that it's an important part of a fairy tale with a moral message? I don't get a moral message from a man willing to kill his own son because a voice from the sky told him to. In this day and age, that's delusional and psychotic behavior. When Andrea Yates drowned her kids, she said her god told her to do it. Why is her story less credible than Abraham's?

Well, according to xmas, since you don't believe in God, you're incapable of understanding the true meaning of the Abraham story.

[johnsmith]

When they were clearly spewing false accusations and lies?
So now you are also saying you are just kidding and actually never take any of this seriously, similar to me?
Then you know what I am talking about.
The only difference I can see is that it really is no skin off my back, because I always remind everyone that this is just a silly message board, whereas you on the other hand, sure act like it is the end of the world.
Do you get it now?

Jesus Christ...it's like talking to a wall. You're an idiot man...do me a favor and put me back on ignore. At least when I bothered you enough that you had to ignore me your constant replies towards me made sense.

[DMC]

Well, according to xmas, since you don't believe in God, you're incapable of understanding the true meaning of the Abraham story.

And that may be true, however it doesn't address whether or not the story itself is based on a real event. The mind creates an image of an otherwise unknown en y based on what information it can gather. If that information is based on fairy tales and metaphors, the image itself is no better than a fairy tale or metaphor. Christians don't proselytize the acceptance of metaphors and fairy tales, but the acceptance of a real god as the creator of the universe and the "savior" of mankind (as well as it's creator). It seems all of the information about this creator of the universe is created by man, no different than the god of fire, the goddess of love, Odin, Loki, Thor and Asgard. If it's all just symbolic, it's just men telling you to behave a certain way, and attributing the command to a higher authority because let's face it, who gives a what men think?

I don't expect to get any real responses to any of this. Avante started a thread about it and abandoned it right away when called out. Most of these fools are either fake hard one way or fake mushy both ways. They are too chicken to take a stance, and when they do take one, they lack the mental capacity to explain it. They don't seem to lack the drive to repeat themselves though.

[xmas1997]

How does an event happen "symbolically"? If we were remote viewers of this time period, would we be able to see it happen? Or are you saying that it's an important part of a fairy tale with a moral message? I don't get a moral message from a man willing to kill his own son because a voice from the sky told him to. In this day and age, that's delusional and psychotic behavior. When Andrea Yates drowned her kids, she said her god told her to do it. Why is her story less credible than Abraham's?

If we were viewing as you describe then we would be observing the author of the story, not the story itself.
Why?
Because the story is allegory, that is, the symbolism you are referring to, and as such, I will summarize that it is a popular form of literature in which a story points to a hidden or symbolic parallel meaning.
Certain elements, such as people, things, and happenings in the story, point to corresponding elements in another realm or level of meaning.
The closer the resemblances between the two realms, the more detailed is the allegory.
The best allegories are interesting, coherent stories in their own right and through the story provide new insight into the realm they depict.
Semitic parables, including the Gospel parables, have varying amounts of allegorical elements.
Those with many corresponding elements in both realms are properly called allegories.
Are you still with me on this?

Allegorical interpretation, sometimes called allegorizing, is interpretation of texts that treats them as allegorical, whether or not their author intended them to be allegories.
Allegorical interpretations even of true allegories can be misleading, either in incorrectly identifying the corresponding elements in the referent or in identifying corresponding elements where no correspondence was originally intended.
Either allegorizing error usually detracts from the coherence of the message the author intended.
Such unwarranted allegorizing was prevalent in the later church fathers and often ludicrous in gnostic circles.
Does any of this make sense to you?

To further summarize, Galatians 4, Paul The Apostle reveals both Old/New Testaments are allegorical by saying Abraham's sons Ishmael/Isaac by bondmaid/freewoman mothers Agar/Sarah are allegorized as two covenants (testaments). They are also allegorized as two mountains (Sinai/Sion), even as two cities (Jerusalem below/Jerusalem above).

Now does it make more sense to you that I have gone into such detail that I had to actually refer to the book itself?

[DMC]

If we were viewing as you describe then we would be observing the author of the story, not the story itself.
Why?
Because the story is allegory, that is, the symbolism you are referring to, and as such, I will summarize that it is a popular form of literature in which a story points to a hidden or symbolic parallel meaning.
Certain elements, such as people, things, and happenings in the story, point to corresponding elements in another realm or level of meaning.
The closer the resemblances between the two realms, the more detailed is the allegory.
The best allegories are interesting, coherent stories in their own right and through the story provide new insight into the realm they depict.
Semitic parables, including the Gospel parables, have varying amounts of allegorical elements.
Those with many corresponding elements in both realms are properly called allegories.
Are you still with me on this?

Allegorical interpretation, sometimes called allegorizing, is interpretation of texts that treats them as allegorical, whether or not their author intended them to be allegories.
Allegorical interpretations even of true allegories can be misleading, either in incorrectly identifying the corresponding elements in the referent or in identifying corresponding elements where no correspondence was originally intended.
Either allegorizing error usually detracts from the coherence of the message the author intended.
Such unwarranted allegorizing was prevalent in the later church fathers and often ludicrous in gnostic circles.
Does any of this make sense to you?

To further summarize, Galatians 4, Paul The Apostle reveals both Old/New Testaments are allegorical by saying Abraham's sons Ishmael/Isaac by bondmaid/freewoman mothers Agar/Sarah are allegorized as two covenants (testaments). They are also allegorized as two mountains (Sinai/Sion), even as two cities (Jerusalem below/Jerusalem above).

Now does it make more sense to you that I have gone into such detail that I had to actually refer to the book itself?

So then the story is not based on real events. It's therefore no different than any other work of fiction. Animal Farm, for example, is an allegory. C.S. Lewis' fictional works are allegories. The Matrix is an allegory. If someone were to ask me if they were based on true events, I wouldn't write a novel about allegories. I would simply say no, they aren't.

The word wrangling displays in obviously feeble attempts to preserve some legitimacy to the Bible do more harm than good for the religious cause.

Also, just post the link to Biblestudytools.com instead of plagiarizing it.

[RD2191]

The context for Rob's beliefs are, when asked is it evil to hack babies to death, and the response is:



Bolded words are my emphasis.

This answer is, paraphrased, "It is moral if God is fighting his enemies".

The assumptions that go into this:
God is moral, and dictates what is moral and what is not. i.e. "if God does it, it is automatically moral"

God is moral.
God cannot be immoral.

Therefore
If God does X, X is moral. (X is, by definition, moral, BECAUSE God does it)


X can be anything in this system.

X = Ordering his follower to hack babies to death.

Subs ute X into the above:

If God (orders his followers to hack babies to death), (ordering people to hack babies to death) is moral.

This is what Rob is saying, although he is neither honest enough, nor intelligent enough to summarize it this way.

I will represent this as Robs position.

If it is NOT his position, all he has to do is say "I do not believe that ordering people to hack babies to death is moral".

If it is his position, then he will try to deflect it and call me an idiot.

Simple really.

You type a lot of for not saying anything at all. As a believer God is the ultimate judge on life. As a believer, I know he had justification for doing what he did. Especially during a different time and era. Keep it going, atheists.

[RD2191]

God is evil for killing babies.
I believe in evolution so babies are just animals in my eyes.
Killing animals is evil even though biology insists I do it to survive.
Atheists

[DMC]

You type a lot of for not saying anything at all. As a believer God is the ultimate judge on life. As a believer, I know he had justification for doing what he did. Especially during a different time and era. Keep it going, atheists.

Either there is a god or there isn't. Being a believer doesn't change that fact. If any of you believed as you claim to instead of just wearing it like a symbolic gang sign, you'd not act the fools you act on here as if your god either approves of it, doesn't care or doesn't know.

[RD2191]

Either there is a god or there isn't. Being a believer doesn't change that fact. If any of you believed as you claim to instead of just wearing it like a symbolic gang sign, you'd not act the fools you act on here as if your god either approves of it, doesn't care or doesn't know.

Okay then, God exists.

[DMC]

God is evil for killing babies.
I believe in evolution so babies are just animals in my eyes.
Killing animals is evil even though biology insists I do it to survive.
Atheists

God is real
God created all real things
Evil is real
God did not create evil
Peasants