Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Claire M Binkley on February 12, 2010 at 7:18pm

I believe P.Z. Myers would agree they are. Particularly Biology.

Permalink Reply by Sally Morem on February 12, 2010 at 9:24pm

Really honest Christians, at least, admit that the Biblical descriptions of the creation and the origin of human beings, are wholly mutually exclusive from scientific findings. Those Christians who believe they are compatible believe the Bible is largely allegorical. Fundamentalists believe the Bible is literal.

Actually, if you think it through, an evolutionary universe is wholly incompatible with notions of original sin and the Fall of human beings from an original state of grace, which means the entire reason for Christianity becomes nonsensical. Why have a savior when humans never needed saving?

Permalink Reply by Phil Cook on February 13, 2010 at 1:40am

I have asked myself this when people say we needed saving from "original sin." Original sin? What did I do? And just because the church defines something as a sin, that is their opinion.

Ok, I admit illegal things like killing someone aren't good, and if someone wants to call that a sin, fine. So "illegal" and "sin" are just different words for the same crimes.

Permalink Reply by Sally Morem on February 14, 2010 at 11:30am

I like this joke: If Adam and Eve engaged in original sin, what do we engage in, derivative sin? Are we nothing but a bunch of copycats?

Permalink Reply by Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth on February 16, 2010 at 1:02pm

Sally, of course. And we find sex so delicious! Idiot misanthropes just made up that stupidity.


Carneades

Permalink Reply by Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth on February 16, 2010 at 1:05pm

Gee, sin is a theological term that rational people don't use as it refers to Yahweh's evil commands.He is the Supreme Sinner for the Deluge and the genocides.
Theistic morality is fatuous.

Ignostic Morgan

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on February 16, 2010 at 7:35pm

I have asked myself this when people say we needed saving from "original sin." Original sin? What did I do?

See, it's not about what you do. It's about being punished for what your ancient ancestors supposedly did:

Permalink Reply by Edward Teach on February 16, 2010 at 1:07pm

"Why have a savior when humans never needed saving?"

Good point. The realization of "good" and "evil" as subjective terms, pretty much knocks the legs out from under religion of any kind.

Permalink Reply by Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth on February 16, 2010 at 1:07pm

Sally, you are wiser than Michael Ruse. See the thread contradiction in an agnostic@ Skeptic Society Forums.

Permalink Reply by Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth on February 16, 2010 at 12:54pm

The atelic or teleonomic argument maintains that as the weight of evidence presents teleonomy- no planed outcomes rather than planned ones - God's intent- telos- teleology- then evolution cannot perforce be compatible, and so creation evolution is vacuous!
In his writings Victor Stenger keel hauls God as explanatory and as compatible with science.
The argument from pareidolia notes that theists see intent and design where there are only teleonomy and patterns as peiople see Yeshua in a tortilla.
Know God= No God
And Michael Ruse, naturalist himself, erroneously defends original sin and all that stupidity.
Carneades; ignoostic morgan

Permalink Reply by Sally Morem on February 16, 2010 at 8:40pm

Thanks for the quote from Ruse. Do you have a link to the Agnostic Skeptic Society forums?

Permalink Reply by Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth on February 16, 2010 at 8:50pm

Sally, it's the Skeptic Society. I've his book on Darwin and Design.
Ignostic Morgan
I'm now @ Atheist Bloggers as Inquisitive Lynn and already @ Bloggers as naturalist.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page