kyeruu said:
|
2. The bible says waaay to many things that occure exactly has they're written in real life, and now its highly doubtfull that its all coincidence
|
Such as what? We're not talking about relevance anymore, we're apparently talking about prophecies, so the abortion example has no bearing. I'm not sure what you mean, so you want to provide some examples?
Quote:
|
the bible is not bull shit is the mind of god
|
If there is a God, the Bible is certainly not his mind.
Quote:
|
he says "dont this or don't do that" but then you catch him in a bar doing exactly what he said not to do
|
What?
Quote:
|
because his glory would kill you if he showed himself to you or communicated directly with you.
|
Then he most certainly can not be omnipotent, can he?
KagomJack, why don't you bring these people
inside?
Quote:
|
LOL wow. Society grants religion 'immunity' to criticism. How is it then this person is able to write an article criticizing it?
|
Zelaron does not accurately represent society as a whole. Zelaron consists mainly of teenagers and men in their early 20s who are predominantly atheists or agnostics. If I were to post this on a more mainstream forum, I would be severely chastised due to the subject of my article, not because of any flaws in the article itself. I can not think of a better paradigm to portray the concept of immunity to criticism.
Quote:
|
Most of these people that claim they aren't "religious", such as the clown that wrote that above piece, are in fact subscribers to their own belief system.
|
Incorrect. A belief is something that is not based on evidence. Everything I have presented in my article
is based on evidence. The possibility exists that our theories are incorrect, as I have already stated, but they are based on observable facts, unlike religions. If I drop an apple from the air, it is not a
belief that it will fall under normal circumstances, it is a fact in every sense of the word. Of course the possibility exists that the apple may simply suspend itself from the air by magic, but it would be ridiculous to assume that, and even more ridiculous to spend time learning about that possibility.
Quote:
|
Here the writer is flat out admiting that his belief system, Darwinism, also requires a "leap of faith" in that it does not require any physical or scientific evidence to prove the theory as fact. Sounds alot like religions he attacks with his "teapot" analogy doesn't it?
|
You obviously have no understanding of evolution, and apparently an underdeveloped grasp of the English language as well. Nowhere in that paragraph do I imply that recognizing the theory of evolution is a leap of faith. I only state that fossilized evidence is coincidental to evolution, not consequential as is commonly believed. There is a
massive amount of evidence that supports evolution that is consequential to evolution, however fossils do not match that criteria.