Motivation of Atheists and Christ Deniers?

@kellyjay said
That's an opinion, not a fact.

It really isn't.

@kellyjay said
That's an opinion, not a fact.

No, it's a fact. I don't have an 'opinion' about the science of genetics, which proves beyond doubt that we are a species of ape, closely related to chimpanzees, less closely related to orang utans, and so on. Anyone in these more enlightened, informed and understanding times who doesn't see and accept this is choosing not to do so, for irrational and emotional reasons.

@suzianne said
What? That's just stupid.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

27 accounts here and he still can't process that.

@plantermoo said
Right, but in order to satisfy their natural curiosity about the big questions of life and to provide a defense for their atheism in that regard, they use the theory of evolution.

“They”? To whom are you referring ? I don’t (use the theory of evolution to explain anything other than speciation).

@indonesia-phil said
No, it's a fact. I don't have an 'opinion' about the science of genetics, which proves beyond doubt that we are a species of ape, closely related to chimpanzees, less closely related to orang utans, and so on. Anyone in these more enlightened, informed and understanding times who doesn't see and accept this is choosing not to do so, for irrational and emotional reasons.

The trouble you have is suggesting that the commonalities can only occur due to evolutionary processes only, not design, as if design cannot produce similarities as well. You assume much and you are treating your assumptions as if they are factual.

@suzianne said
No, I do not.

That would be as nonsensical as believing science theories without doing one's homework. The bar is just higher for science. That's all I'm saying.

Why would the bar be higher we are attempting to find the truth about things. Truth doesn’t come with different flavors where for example this is a scientific truth and that is a religious truth what is being presented is either true or false.

We either vigorously examine what is being presented or we don’t.

@kellyjay said
Why would the bar be higher we are attempting to find the truth about things. Truth doesn’t come with different flavors where for example this is a scientific truth and that is a religious truth what is being presented is either true or false.

We either vigorously examine what is being presented or we don’t.

Please listen. It's really quite simple. Yes, there are different kinds of truth, "flavors" as you metaphorically call it.

Science is not faith minus god. Science and religion move in different universes of discourse, and they offer different kinds of truth. Science explains mankind's whence, but has nothing to say about his wherefore. Religion is just the reverse: religion posits (and does not explain) mankind's wherefore. The two must not be conflated, otherwise you get into absurdities such as believing the entire universe is only 6,000 years old and all the species on the planet today were together in a boat for several months at sea, with not enough food and water to feed them all. The thing which confuses you, and which has led you grievously astray, is that the religion in question posits mankind's wherefore in a poetic allegory about the past, about a lost paradise from which man was ejected. Didn't happen. Not literally anyway. The point of this poetic allegory is not to explain anything at all about mankind's past (e.g., his biological-genetic ancestry), but to exhort him to change his life, here and now.

Sensible Christians understand this and can easily embrace both evolution as the fact of how we got here, biologically, and Christianity as a reason why we should act in a certain way towards our fellow men, morally. There is no incompatibility there.

You can have your cake and eat it, too. You can accept that evolution really happened, and you can still believe that Jesus saved your eternal soul. Just stop confusing causes (which is the business of science) and reasons (which is the business of philosophy and religion).

@moonbus said
“They”? To whom are you referring ? I don’t (use the theory of evolution to explain anything other than speciation).

It's as daft as thinking all Capricorns are grumpy and will be traveling abroad this week.

I had lunch this afternoon with 2 colleagues who would both describe themselves as atheists. The first doesn't believe in gods but does believe in ghosts, the second thinks we owe our existence to visiting aliens while I advocate for an eternal universe.

Go figure.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
It's as daft as thinking all Capricorns are grumpy and will be traveling abroad this week.

I had lunch this afternoon with 2 colleagues who would both describe themselves as atheists. The first doesn't believe in gods but does believe in ghosts, the second thinks we owe our existence to visiting aliens while I advocate for an eternal universe.

Go figure.

Yeah, just as daft as thinking all Christians think the world is only 6,000 years old.

Verily, verily, the Church is no humble carpenter. I sometimes think the Quakers got closest to the original communities of Jesus' followers in the Levant: no priesthood, no monolithic 'corporation' which tells people what to believe and tortures people for believing something else; just people gathered in His name. Sometimes they sit for hours saying nothing. Sometimes they confess something. And they're pacifists. Makes pretty good sense to me.

@moonbus said
Please listen. It's really quite simple. Yes, there are different kinds of truth, "flavors" as you metaphorically call it.

Science is not faith minus god. Science and religion move in different universes of discourse, and they offer different kinds of truth. Science explains mankind's whence, but has nothing to say about his wherefore. Religion ...[text shortened]... s (which is the business of science) and reasons (which is the business of philosophy and religion).

If you believe you can hold two conflicting opinions as both being true at the same time you are in error. This isn’t metaphorical this is reality!

@suzianne said
The Theory of Evolution IS science, in one of its more pure forms.

As a way to explain changes within a species, yes.

Not as a way to explain the diversity of life on earth today. Then, it’s a fairytale, not science.

@suzianne said
You can look up the genomes yourself. It's not like it's some giant mystery.

This is known as "proof".

Not proof at all. Not even evidence. It’s manipulated data. “Scientists” ignored large sections of both the human genome and chimp genome to arrive at that fraudulent 99 percent similarity.

Don’t believe everything you read, especially when it comes to the theory of evolution.

@suzianne said
Darwin didn't just pull the theory out of his ass, you know. He did the requisite work, despite your claims.

He did the requisite work to explain changes within a species. What he did work for and what he had evidence for are far different from what he claimed.

@suzianne said
What you mean is that you accept the dumbed-down children's version presented in Genesis.

And you're darned right that's not how it's supposed to work with the Theory of Evolution. Scientific standards must be followed.

Darwin didn’t follow scientific standards, not when it comes to his wild guess that the diversity of life arose by the same mechanism that produces changes within a species.

@indonesia-phil said
No, it's a fact. I don't have an 'opinion' about the science of genetics, which proves beyond doubt that we are a species of ape, closely related to chimpanzees, less closely related to orang utans, and so on. Anyone in these more enlightened, informed and understanding times who doesn't see and accept this is choosing not to do so, for irrational and emotional reasons.

You’re believing manipulated data. “Scientists” ignored huge swaths of the human genome and chimp genome to arrive at that false 99 percent similarity. Honest evolutionists know and admit this.