::When you decide to grow up and talk like an adult, then pick the word that makes you happy: God, Marduk, Luck, Shiva, ''g'' (the imaginary catalyst, see [[Atheism vs. Deism]]). Only when you have a word to describe everything can you examine what God means or is. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 19:09, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
^^^ Everwill in both cases you have managed to embody the very (self made) characterization of your opponent in an attempt to do exactly what you are trying to accuse him/her of doing. In case you didn't know, although I am sure you do, FSM is an established critique of theism that this individual did not simply make up here. I have yet to see a theist come close to disputing it as a viable challenge to their own reliance on a flying speghetti monster with a different name. Every single aspect of how FSM theory correlates to "real" religion is dead on. Snarky, ill-constructed shadow boxing around the point being clearly made doesn't make that point go away. Neither do lame attempts to personify your commentary as wizened and somehow graced with more "maturity." You lost the debate as soon as you entered it and offered nothing but ornamental distrations and shameless ineptitude recast as "enlightented" condescension. In fact, if anything you have made the entire point of FSM better than you adversay ever could have. - JBall
So you agree with me that the existence of Ra, Zeus or Marduk is equally plausible as the existence of the Abrahamic God? [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
::When I say the source that says creationists use the scientific account of Genesis, I mean the one that was provided earlier in the debate[http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf]. I really do not understand what umbrage you take over the “scientific account” statement. What makes it so twisted is that you state that saying “Genesis is a scientific account” and that “Genesis is scientifically accurate” imply two different things and that to say that Genesis is a scientific account is misleading. How exactly is this misleading and how does a different syntax (in this instance) imply something else? I am also curious to know why you accept the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke. Accepting the possibility of two different things being dubious has nothing to do with whether or not the two juxtaposed things are related other than in the context of whether or not their legitimacy is dubious. So if you give the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke, you might as well bring up the possibility that the Bible is a collection of faerie tale annals. Why the double-standard?
::In your previous post, you select a quote from my previous post like this: "...if you want to accept ... that Charles Darwin lied in his journal ...". Yes, I indeed said that but you left out that I said that "if you want to accept the assumption" between the ellipsis. I said you only assume so. In an earlier post, you said about Darwin's journal entry: "How do you know that Darwin didn't lie?". Thus, you give the possibility that he lied (although, you don't support this assertion with any facts).
::In the event that you disagree that the Bible is not the stuff of legends, I must ask how does the Bible differ from any other archaic texts that describe things not known to be observed by a scientific consensus such as dragons or leviathans? Sure, it may be held to have historical accuracy. The Nibelungenlied served as a useful tool for historians to uncover the history of the Burgundians. However, the details about Siegfried and the dragon are usually considered to be legends. (One may choose to reject these considerations made by historians and believe the legends, of course.) I'm just curious as to how the Bible differs from such other legendary manuscripts. But if you insist on seeing a legitimate source that agrees with my point about the Bible being the stuff of legends, I feel obliged to reveal one[httphttps://www.britannica.com/eb/article-35341/Judaism].
::Regarding those scripture references, how do you cite the assertion that Bible sceptics merely playing with words? There ''is'' certainly a problem in the scripture. Earth is not round. It is spherical. It is incorrect to say that it is round. Bible sceptics do not "falsely" claim that creationists take the Bible literally. The argument presented in Bible scepticism is that if one were to take Genesis literally, then why not take the songs in Psalms or 1 Samuel literally? After all, the Church took the songs in 1 Chronicles and Psalms literally that state Earth is stationary. If they knew beforehand that Earth does not rest on pillars, why would they put it in a song? In 1 Samuel, it's not even a song. It's a prayer. Why would Hannah state in a prayer that God does something he really doesn't? Then there are fundamentalists that say homosexuality is an abomination because the the Bible says so. However, they tend to ignore some of those passages that give some precepts that would be considered wacky today. If we must follow the passages in the Bible that say homosexuality is an abomination, why don't fundamentalists follow those passages that say we cannot cut our hair (Leviticus 19:27), mix textiles for attire (Leviticus 19:19), eat anything with blood (Leviticus 19:26) (I don't see fundamentalists objecting to restaurants serving rare steaks), women teaching men (1 Timothy 2:12), tattooing, and piercing (Leviticus 19:28). Oh, and let us not forget those many passages that justify slavery and cruel and unusual punishment. My point is that there are parts of the Bible (including Genesis) which are not only scientifically inaccurate, but do not represent even the norms of most Christian fundamentalists today. Historically, there have been fundamentalists who have used the Bible to oppose scientific views such as the Church opposing the astronomical viewpoints of Galileo and fundamentalists who have used the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justified racism with the Curse of Canaan. And today, there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin and fundamentalists who are using the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justify homophobia with passages in Leviticus. It just shows that history repeats itself and I have yet to see how the abuse of dubious Bible passages regarding moral and scientific viewpoints from today's fundamentalists differ from those in the past.
::I am aware of Galileo's faithfulness to Christianity in spite of his clash with the Church, but I didn't know that the Church was adopting secular views which he opposed. That seems quite ironic, especially considering Galileo's situation. Could you cite this assertion? In regards to those passages that contradict science which are now ignored by fundamentalists, they include those passages that say that Earth is stationary. The fact that the Church took those passages literally which resulted in a clash between the Bible and astronomy proves that there are passages which fundamentalists will defend in spite of scientific evidence against them, kind of like creationists today objecting to evolution! [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 22:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
:In the article you provide, it says that the Church rejected Galileo's hypothesis (Copernican cosmology) for a hypothesis that was considered to be un-Christian (Aristotelian cosmology) and then goes on to say how the Church rejected those Biblical texts that contradicted Aristotle. Since the passages that contradicted Aristotle were disregarded by the Church, those same passages must have contradicted the passages that support the claim that Earth is stationary. Thus, the Church would have had the option of accepting the assumption that Earth is not stationary based on a cosmological view supported by the scripture (Copernican cosmology) or accepting the assumption that Earth is stationary based on a cosmological view also supported by the scripture (Aristotelian cosmology). So upon accepting either assumption, the Church would have been inevitably "accepting secularised views" because either one would have contradicted the scripture. [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 02:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]