Reasons to be thankful to God

Originally posted by googlefudge
Where did I say that I expect you to respect me?

I oppose everything you believe in and hold dear.

I would be insane to expect you to respect me.

I am not preprepared to respect your position because it's stupid and wrong.
It's utterly irrational and damaging to yourself and society.

Why on Earth should I respect a position that I believe to be wrong, stupid and
dangerous???

How do you even function in society with an attitude like that?

Do you have friends?

Do they all share every single thought you have? If not, why do you consider them friends?

How do you keep a job where your boss may not believe all the same things you do?

How do you move through a typical day without fighting with any number of people you meet because they might have "wrong, stupid and dangerous" ideas?

Does "compromise" mean nothing to you? Do you even entertain the notion that some people may not agree with you on all things? Are these people all "wrong, stupid and dangerous"? How do you sleep at night?

Most of us learned how to get along with people who don't believe exactly as we do in kindergarden.

Originally posted by Suzianne
How do you even function in society with an attitude like that?

Do you have friends?

Do they all share every single thought you have? If not, why do you consider them friends?

How do you keep a job where your boss may not believe all the same things you do?

How do you move through a typical day without fighting with any number of people you m ...[text shortened]... t of us learned how to get along with people who don't believe exactly as we do in kindergarden.

How do you even function in society with an attitude like that?

Rather well thank you.

Do you have friends?

Yes, and good ones.

Do they all share every single thought you have?

No, there are plenty of things about which we disagree.

If not, why do you consider them friends?

People say that there is no such thing as a stupid question, people are wrong.

I could be friends with someone who like the Star Wars Prequels...
I could not be friends with a Neo-Nazi who denied the holocaust...

Does this help you understand?

How do you keep a job where your boss may not believe all the same things
you do?

I keep my job by being very good at it, and working very hard, and being popular
with my customers/clients. I can lack respect for what people believe without
lacking respect for their right to believe it.
There is also a time and a place for discussing certain issues, and work is often not
one of them.

How do you move through a typical day without fighting with any number of
people you meet because they might have "wrong, stupid and dangerous" ideas?

With great ease, see my above answer. Also see above about stupid questions.

Does "compromise" mean nothing to you? Do you even entertain the notion that
some people may not agree with you on all things? Are these people all "wrong, stupid
and dangerous"? How do you sleep at night?

1400 pocket spring mattress with a memory foam top + I leave the window open to
keep the temperature down while I sleep.

Most of us learned how to get along with people who don't believe exactly as
we do in kindergarden

Yes because it's the atheists in society who are trying to impose their beliefs on society and
stop women from being able to access proper medical care and... no wait.




Are you done being stupid now, or do I have to explain about how it is that the opinions
and behaviours people express in one forum may not be the same as those expressed in
all forums they enter?

I don't respect your beliefs. I never have and never will.
I will mock them where they deserve mockery, and I will insult them where they need to
be insulted.
I always have and probably always will.

However, that is not to say that I can't respect you, or your right to hold your beliefs.
However crazy they may be.

And I also choose the time and place in which I EXPRESS the fact that I don't respect your
beliefs. I don't go around knocking on peoples doors, or accosting them in the street to let
them know that they are going to spend an eternity in hell... for example.

Also, you should remember that being an atheist is normal here, people hardly ever talk
about religion in public, it's considered impolite.


EDIT: Also there are multiple meanings of the word respect and I used several of them,
I suspect you are mixing them up.

Originally posted by googlefudge

How do you even function in society with an attitude like that?

Rather well thank you.

Do you have friends?

Yes, and good ones.

Do they all share every single thought you have?

No, there are plenty of things about which we disagree.

If not, why do you consider them friends?

...[text shortened]... ple meanings of the word respect and I used several of them,
I suspect you are mixing them up.

wow! 😕

Originally posted by C Hess
I have claimed no such thing, though logically I'd be willing to defend the abiogenesis
hypothesis, if you'd like me to.

Perhaps--- in addition to being unschooled in the art of adult-level conversation--- you also lack the ability to understand the underlying meanings of your own statements.
This, too, will remain in the forefront of my thinking.

When you ascribe the account of creation/re-creation in Genesis the label "scientifically flat out wrong" it presumes a counter account... one which is scientifically sound or established.

This is well-known by even someone who knows little of science, as evidenced in your willingness to defend a related hypothesis.
The fact remains, you cannot claim something is flat out wrong by scientific standards if science has not settled the matter.

Consider your statement lampooned.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Perhaps--- in addition to being unschooled in the art of adult-level conversation--- you also lack the ability to understand the underlying meanings of your own statements.
This, too, will remain in the forefront of my thinking.

When you ascribe the account of creation/re-creation in Genesis the label "scientifically flat out wrong" it presumes a count ...[text shortened]... cientific standards if science has not settled the matter.

Consider your statement lampooned.

When you ascribe the account of creation/re-creation in Genesis the label "scientifically
flat out wrong" it presumes a counter account... one which is scientifically sound or established.

Wrong.

Take chess as an example.

If you look at a board mid-game you might very well be able to get a host of grand-masters
to look at the board and not get them to agree on what the best possible next move is or
to even be able to say that there is a single best possible next move.

However even a beginner should be able to determine that a move that allows your opponent
to check-mate you on their next turn is a bad one.

One view of scientific progress is that it approaches "The Truth" in a similar way to a sculptor
carving out a statue from a lump of marble. You chip away hypotheses/ideas that are demonstrated
to be wrong leaving something approximating "The Truth" [or in the analogy the figure being sculpted].
And that approximation gets better and better the more bad hypotheses/ideas that get ruled out.

Just looking at it I don't know what the result of 5646156456194*346541346464 is...
But I know the answer isn't 5.

It is not a requirement of refuting a hypothesis that you have a better one.

Never has been and never will be.

Originally posted by googlefudge

When you ascribe the account of creation/re-creation in Genesis the label "scientifically
flat out wrong" it presumes a counter account... one which is scientifically sound or established.

Wrong.

Take chess as an example.

If you look at a board mid-game you might very well be able to get a host of grand-masters
to look at the ...[text shortened]... rement of refuting a hypothesis that you have a better one.

Never has been and never will be.

Ah, still hanging on to the idea that it's better to argue what's not being discussed than acknowledge the truth of the topic at hand, eh?

Are you saying you don't know the difference between accepted scientific knowledge and everything else?
Or are you declaring that a hypothesis is the same as sound, scientific evidence?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ah, still hanging on to the idea that it's better to argue what's not being discussed than acknowledge the truth of the topic at hand, eh?

Are you saying you don't know the difference between accepted scientific knowledge and everything else?
Or are you declaring that a hypothesis is the same as sound, scientific evidence?

Neither actually.

You said something incorrect, I pointed out that it was incorrect and explained why.

That is all.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Neither actually.

You said something incorrect, I pointed out that it was incorrect and explained why.

That is all.

One, you didn't refute anything I've said.
Two, you re-framed the topic.
Three, you offered a pointless and bizarre analogy which literally has nothing to do with either the original topic or your secondary topic.

That is all.

Originally posted by googlefudge

When you ascribe the account of creation/re-creation in Genesis the label "scientifically
flat out wrong" it presumes a counter account... one which is scientifically sound or established.

Wrong.

Take chess as an example.

If you look at a board mid-game you might very well be able to get a host of grand-masters
to look at the ...[text shortened]... rement of refuting a hypothesis that you have a better one.

Never has been and never will be.

Take chess as an example.

If you look at a board mid-game you might very well be able to determine all the possible variations to get to that position. However, one could not tell how long it took to make each of those moves to a scientific certainty.

This is one of the reasons that the theory of evolution is not science, but only an opinion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One, you didn't refute anything I've said.
Two, you re-framed the topic.
Three, you offered a pointless and bizarre analogy which literally has nothing to do with either the original topic or your secondary topic.

That is all.

One, I did not say refute, I said I pointed out somewhere you made a mistake and
explained why it was a mistake.

Two. I did not re-frame the topic, I picked out a particular point you made which
was incorrect and corrected that. The topic it was used in was irrelevant to that.

Three. There was nothing wrong with any of my analogies, I had only one topic,
and you apparently still have not improved your reading comprehension.

You claimed that to scientifically refute a proposed explanation for a phenomena/event/
fact/ect that you must have a counter explanation.

"When you ascribe the account of creation/re-creation in Genesis the label "scientifically
flat out wrong" it presumes a counter account... one which is scientifically sound or established."

This is not correct.

All that is needed to refute a hypothesis is to demonstrate that the hypothesis is inconsistent
with known facts. Or that it is logically invalid, or... insert other failings here.

We don't need to know the correct answer to be able to prove that a proposed answer is wrong.
Just as in my analogy of chess, you can prove that a move that lands you in checkmate next turn
is a very bad one. Without knowing what the best possible move is, or even that there is one.

This making chess a pretty much perfect analogy for what I am describing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Take chess as an example.

If you look at a board mid-game you might very well be able to determine all the possible variations to get to that position. However, one could not tell how long it took to make each of those moves to a scientific certainty.

This is one of the reasons that the theory of evolution is not science, but only an opinion.

Now this is an excellent example of a muddled analogy that doesn't make the
point it was intended to.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]1. Someone else cannot pay [morally] for crimes I commit.
If I have committed a crime then I must pay for it, nobody else can.

Likewise, nobody else is guilty of crimes I commit, and if I have children
then they do not inherit responsibility for my crimes.

The unworkable 'solution' of sacrificing his son, is to solve a problem that
god ...[text shortened]... that it's not clear... I thought that these reasons for being
grateful were quite comical.[/i][/b]

Actually i disagree with some of your thoughts.

Crimes a person commits; can be resolved by another. Example, lieing and gossip. Seemingly a small thing, can be a ruin of anothers life. Let us say, grandfather hated his brother, and he told all his friends and his children lies about the brother. His children carry on these lies telling friends and neighbors. There is a huge rift in the family. Finally, the grandfather's grandson takes a stand. "this is where the buck stops" he states. He puts a halt to the lie that had festered and grown. He takes the time to mend the family. He did not commit the 'crime', but he paid for it and healed what had been. How did he pay for it, you ask? By standing on his own two feet, agaist the prevailing ideas passed down by his parents.

Children can inherit the responcibility of their parents. Financial, debts that are owed. Maybe even personal debts.

Look at mothers who use drugs during their pregnancey. Often those babies will be addicted to those drugs at birth.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Perhaps--- in addition to being unschooled in the art of adult-level conversation--- you also lack the ability to understand the underlying meanings of your own statements.
This, too, will remain in the forefront of my thinking.

When you ascribe the account of creation/re-creation in Genesis the label "scientifically flat out wrong" it presumes a count ...[text shortened]... cientific standards if science has not settled the matter.

Consider your statement lampooned.

You make for one weird conversation. I do believe I've already pointed out
several scientific impossibilities with genesis (in this or some other thread),
but for your benefit, let's just take one: daylight first, then the sun. It is
scientifically settled that the sun is responsible for daylight. There. Have a
nice day.

And for the record, if you consider that a parody on my statement...
well, that's just sad. 😞

Originally posted by RJHinds
Take chess as an example.

If you look at a board mid-game you might very well be able to determine all the possible variations to get to that position. However, one could not tell how long it took to make each of those moves to a scientific certainty.

This is one of the reasons that the theory of evolution is not science, but only an opinion.

Uuuuuh, no.

Originally posted by C Hess
You make for one weird conversation. I do believe I've already pointed out
several scientific impossibilities with genesis (in this or some other thread),
but for your benefit, let's just take one: daylight first, then the sun. It is
scientifically settled that the sun is responsible for daylight. There. Have a
nice day.

And for the record, if you consider that a parody on my statement...
well, that's just sad. 😞

I said this in other posts a while back. I've always thought that science and the bible walked hand in hand.

Skip the 6 thousand year concept.

I am a firm believer in God. And if God wanted to make the earth in 6 days, or 6 thousand years or even 6 secounds, He could do that. But seeing how God works in scripture, it shows us, He doesn't.

God takes his time with everything. And i have no problem with the earth taking millions of years to evolve. It is facinating to me. Just look at the interaction of plants. How did the banana tree know to have fruit, where other plants in the same area have seeds, nuts etc. How did the banana tree know to make the exterior of the fruit to be unedible, and the interior edible.