The Christian Thread

Negoba wrote: A large proportion of the population now put their faith in a cosmology they call "evolution" of which they have an only basic understanding, and many incorrect beliefs. Yet they call it fact as emphatically as those in the middle ages believed the world was flat.

 

Epignosis wrote:   You misunderstand. By "crack me up," it means "you make me laugh," and I mean that in a good way.

I did. Normal things, but one thing makes me (amongst other things that pleases me) smile. Since now, I'll always know what this means.

But this is normal thing in my life, I'm young and life will be full of learning. My desire is to use English language in my work & personal life (hobbies - writing reviews, reading book, movies in original voices...), so I need it.

So, what can cause our country to lack atheism ? Because it's not because we're post-soviet. Take for example Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, or Romania. If you know answer, or do want to think about it, please let me know.

By the way (to continue and respond to your post about Pomot's avatar - yes, it looks little bit like something falling from his nose, but that's disadvantage of contrast picture, advantages lies somewhere else),

your avatar looks quite unfriendly, but seeing your posts with your signature font always makes me smile.

>:- )

Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote:  and so was my Dad             /edit - I'll leave your thread alone now Rob - I'm not here to convert anyone to evolution, just suggesting possible answers a couple of your direct questions I came from monkeys.  I just screech and throw poo.

Edited by Dean - September 18 2009 at 12:42

So I suppose this thread isn't about Christian Vander from Magma, is it ?

by the way, I'm atheist, from country where almost no one believes and also I don't know anyone important in my life who believes.

But I'm not troll, I'll not insult, or offend anyone. I'll not also convert you, even I like converting people's music tastes. I can talk (really, I'm able to)

Epignosis wrote: LinusW wrote: What's your take on it then?  I don't discuss religion or politics.  The worst-case scenario for an ancient Near Eastern person was not pain or suffering (like it is for most Westerners)- it was shame.  The Bible never talks about the pain of Jesus' crucifixion (though it's always implied), but it does talk about the shame of the cross. The Bible also talks about reaping what you sow- sin does not cause God physical pain, but brings shame (dishonor) to God's name. I believe the Bible teaches that those who reject Christ will be put to shame and merely destroyed, not tortured for all eternity. I also do not believe in "souls" surviving the body after death- believe it or not, I'm a complete materalist.  If it ain't physical, it ain't.

LinusW wrote: What's your take on it then?

I don't discuss religion or politics. 



The worst-case scenario for an ancient Near Eastern person was not pain or suffering (like it is for most Westerners)- it was shame.  The Bible never talks about the pain of Jesus' crucifixion (though it's always implied), but it does talk about the shame of the cross.

The Bible also talks about reaping what you sow- sin does not cause God physical pain, but brings shame (dishonor) to God's name.

I believe the Bible teaches that those who reject Christ will be put to shame and merely destroyed, not tortured for all eternity.

I also do not believe in "souls" surviving the body after death- believe it or not, I'm a complete materalist. 

If it ain't physical, it ain't.

LinusW wrote: Epignosis wrote: LinusW wrote: But that's all for me. I'm not trying to crash you thread or anything, but in all fairness you started it I wasn't trying to "start" anything- I just know this forum consists of the intellectual elite of the Internet (minus Slartibartfast), and I didn't want to post in the Atheist thread (wouldn't want to disrupt all their whoremongering and debauchery, now would I?  ), so I thought I'd post my thoughts here and see what others had to say. And I do completely disagree that micro and macro are the same thing (even though Wikipedia- bastion of scholarship that it is- proves me wrong ). In all seriousness, I appreciate your response.  I just wanted to go fishing and hear what others had to say on the subject. Well, in that case you're just a lost cause If you're right I can always complain when in hell

I am! 

And as I've mentioned it before, I don't believe in hell (not the Westernized concept of it, anyway.  Tortured for eternity...what a stupid and unbiblical notion).

LinusW wrote: But that's all for me. I'm not trying to crash you thread or anything, but in all fairness you started it

I wasn't trying to "start" anything- I just know this forum consists of the intellectual elite of the Internet (minus Slartibartfast), and I didn't want to post in the Atheist thread (wouldn't want to disrupt all their whoremongering and debauchery, now would I?  ), so I thought I'd post my thoughts here and see what others had to say.

And I do completely disagree that micro and macro are the same thing (even though Wikipedia- bastion of scholarship that it is- proves me wrong ).

In all seriousness, I appreciate your response.  I just wanted to go fishing and hear what others had to say on the subject.

So far there hasn't been a single creationist "evolution error" that hasn't been either a misunderstanding or simply fabricated data.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" - a famous quote which holds a lot of truth.

I could probably discuss this for ages, since I really don't care much about creationism and intelligent design. I'm perfectly aware that this might be considered a form of fundamentalism. Dealing with all the facts available, evolution as truth is where you end up.

But I study biology at uni, on a programme that makes a point of never leaving an evolutionary perspective out, no matter the problem at hand. When I see some proper counter-arguments, this'll turn interesting again. It all boils down to a question on considering the Bible as fact in the end, something I simply could not do. There isn't a conflict between science and faith, but between fact and religion.

Evolution is a lot easier to grasp if the world is 4.5 billion years old instead of 4000 years old for example .

And Robert, in accepting microevolution you've accepted macroevolution as well. There is no contradiction between the two terms. Once again, a Wiki quote since I'm lazy:

"The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious, as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference).^[3] Essentially they describe the same process.

The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.^[4] Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions.^[5]"

But that's all for me. I'm not trying to crash you thread or anything, but in all fairness you started it

Edited by LinusW - September 18 2009 at 10:30