nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 97:
Line 97: + + + +
Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing (view source)
Revision as of 13:32, May 12, 2007
, 13:32, May 12, 2007Evolution and Biblical God incompatible.
Why are you so dismayed at the support it gives to evolution? As far as scientific theories go it is a very strong one with a lot of supporting evidence. There is no need to abandon god just to believe it. I find it astonishing that so many people cannot accept that just maybe there is a possibility that the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, in fact there is quite a lot of proof that it isn't. Thats not to say that god doesn't exist, although that is my belief, it's simply that the bible was written by humans who aren't perfect.
Why are you so dismayed at the support it gives to evolution? As far as scientific theories go it is a very strong one with a lot of supporting evidence. There is no need to abandon god just to believe it. I find it astonishing that so many people cannot accept that just maybe there is a possibility that the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, in fact there is quite a lot of proof that it isn't. Thats not to say that god doesn't exist, although that is my belief, it's simply that the bible was written by humans who aren't perfect.
Good on him. I honestly mean that, if he is that certain in his faith then that's good. Much better to be certain about what you believe. On the other hand though if he belives that atheism has no case against christianity I would suggest that just maybe he didn't quite understand, or want to understand, the actual arguments put forward in the book. Richard Dawkins was not arguing that god did not exist, all he was arguing was that god is extremely unlikely and that there is no good proof of his existence. But there you go, people are different and they shall stay that way. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:34, 12 May 2007
Good on him. I honestly mean that, if he is that certain in his faith then that's good. Much better to be certain about what you believe. On the other hand though if he belives that atheism has no case against christianity I would suggest that just maybe he didn't quite understand, or want to understand, the actual arguments put forward in the book. Richard Dawkins was not arguing that god did not exist, all he was arguing was that god is extremely unlikely and that there is no good proof of his existence. But there you go, people are different and they shall stay that way. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:34, 12 May 2007
:I'm dismayed because it is cutting its own throat by doing so. Evolution and God ''as described in the Bible'' are mutually inconsistent. Sure, you can continue to believe in "a god", but not the God of the Bible. There is ''no'' proof that the Bible isn't 100% historically accurate, only flawed arguments against it. As far as scientific theories go, goo-to-you evolution barely qualifies, not even being falsifiable. The Bible claims to be written by God, millions of people have believed that it was written by God, many thousands of quite intelligent people are amongst those millions who have believed that, yet you simply assert that it wasn't. That's hardly a convincing argument.
:You suggest that my friend maybe didn't understand. Have you considered that maybe ''you'' don't understand the strength (or lack of) of the arguments? Even another atheist has said that Dawkins' book makes him embarrassed to be an atheist.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)