Is this the Atheist Fanatics Forums Off-Topic?

[classical_hero]

Fossil evidence is one example.

The fossil record is rather stagnant and we do not see any semblance of change that is required.

About interpreting the Bible. It is really easy, just interpret in the grammatical and historical context that it was written.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The fossil record is rather stagnant and we do not see any semblance of change that is required.

Perhaps.

The main problem is often that many of the objections that ar raised against evolution[me] are often repeated refuted and yet we continue to hear the same arguments over and over again, which does become quite tedious saying the same thing over again, no matter how many times you give an answer and they still will not listen to what you are saying and say that you have not answered the question, even if you have answered it to the letter, since they do not want to hear what the answer is.

You can make this argument about 80% of the topics discussed here. Environment, evolution, politics, economics, evolution, all kinds of social issues, you name it.

It was inevitable.

 

[Shaihulud]

I don't think that this forum is militantly atheist, I can off-hand think of only Curtsibling, and he was quite sensible. I am a Christian, but does not believe the bible as the literal truth, I am also considered a great sinner by some of my more charismatic christian friends.

 

[LucyDuke]

It´s strange that creationists still refer to the fossil record to deny evolution. Darwin himself said that if just one fossil was found at the "wrong place", for example rabbits in Cambrian deposits, the evolutionary theory would fall apart. And yet after all this time, no deviant fossils of that kind have ever been found. The fossil record support evolution, not creation.

no it doesnt god put it their 2 test u

 

[GoodGame]

This is reality?

This is The Matrix!!!!!!!!


Isn't this like the nth time we've had some sort of religion poll? Like are you mono/bi/tri/athei - Theist? Why keep asking over and over again the same question?

 

[Miles Teg]

The fossil record is rather stagnant and we do not see any semblance of change that is required.

How so? If you're looking for clear examples of major evolutionary changes, I'd suggest looking at the fossil histories of birds or whales.

About interpreting the Bible. It is really easy, just interpret in the grammatical and historical context that it was written.

The Bible is quite clear on the fact that the sun revolves around the Earth. (Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua commanding the sun to stay still, 1st Chronicles 16:30, etc.) Do we really have to argue over that too?

 

[Fr8monkey]

There is no way, by a wide margin, that anyone can say the Bible can be the grammatically and historically interpreted as accurate.

 

[illram]

There is no way, by a wide margin, that anyone can say the Bible can be the grammatically and historically interpreted as accurate.

I agree, the grammar in the bible is totally not accurate. I mean try diagramming sentences in Deuteronomy 22. HELLO heard of commas much, I mean for christ's sake...

 

[dwaxe]

There is not enough agnosticism on either side of the debate.
Both sides should be admitting, "hey I don't know," then you could follow it up with a, "but here is what I believe to be the truth" or "here is what I think is most likely to be the truth."

Agnosticism - Because No One Knows! public service message

Both sides are at fault on this, on the internet debates here. Everybody thinks they know.

Agnosticism is independent of being religious or non-religious. I know plenty of religious people who are agnostic, and (I think) I am convincing one of them to stop believing. Virtually all atheists are agnostics.

P.S. Saying "hey I don't know" in an arguments is often (almost always) extremely detrimental in real speech and debate. Which is why atheists and non-agnostic theists don't say it.

 

[Mowque]

(I think) I am convincing one of them to stop believing.

How does one go about building such a argument?

 

[Defiant47]

Agnosticism is independent of being religious or non-religious. I know plenty of religious people who are agnostic, and (I think) I am convincing one of them to stop believing. Virtually all atheists are agnostics.

I don't know for sure whether God exists or not...

But I do believe in Jesus Christ, that he came to us 2000 years ago doing good deeds, was crucified and later resurrected, and that we can achieve salvation and become closer to God by accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. I sometimes go to church and often pray so that I can have a relationship with God.

...yeah, very agnostic indeed.

 

[Earthling]

Virtually all atheists are agnostics.

I can't stress this point enough. It's a horribly common and annoying misconception when people say it isn't so. A few jerks go look up an old textbook definition of agnosticism, assume that because people aren't calling themselves that they don't agree, and then strawmania ensues.

Edit: And of course the worst of all, almost like an unspeakable eldritch horror, is when the sarcastic and inaccurate quoting of Carl Sagan's "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense." This is universally stupid and can only be responded to with the patented refutation of whatever religious position is being debated: "Evidence of incorrectness is evidence of incorrectness."

 

[Defiant47]

How does one go about building such a argument?

One should not believe in something that is unknown and unknowable.

 

[cardgame]

Christian Atheists

- God isn't real, but Jesus is

Interesting.

 

[GoodGame]

Christian Atheists

- God isn't real, but Jesus is

Interesting.

That'd be internally inconsistent unless they're doing a very selective read of the Bible.

 

[Bill3000]

That'd be internally inconsistent unless they're doing a very selective read of the Bible.

...or just believing that Jesus the person most likely existed.

 

[GoodGame]

...or just believing that Jesus the person most likely existed.

Ah I see. But if that's there take on it, then how do they rationalize following the preachings of a delusional philosopher, and claiming they're consistent enough to form a common code?

 

[cardgame]

that's why it's interesting.

 

[Bill3000]

Ah I see. But if that's there take on it, then how do they rationalize following the preachings of a delusional philosopher, and claiming they're consistent enough to form a common code?

Because he was a cool dude?

He doesn't necessarily have to say that he's divine, you know, just merely the messiah, and there were plenty of people who declared themselves the messiah during that time.

 

[Kerozine]

Christian Atheists

- God isn't real, but Jesus is

Interesting.

How'd this come about?