Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Religious beliefs have resisted change in spite of the evolution of ideas? Yes, they refute any type of evolution and claim perfection in all they believe and do. They deny the benefit of these changes, hence the lie.
Absolute rubbish. Many, many religious paths do not have a problem with evolution, from Hinduism to Taoism to Wicca. Not to mention that quiet a number of Christians believe in evolution. All the way back in the 1870s, the famous protestant preacher Henry Beecher was one of Darwin's theory of evolution's biggest supporters.
To say that all religions believes in literalism and never changes a position on anything is clear sign of someone who really does not know what they are talking about.
I thought I did. Although I suppose I came closer to saying I don't see parallels between FSM and every other theistic religion. Can't could imply there actually are parallels and I just don't see them.
FSM is an intentional satire with no confirmed sincere believers. It's not simply a matter of time either as there are new religions that have managed to accomplish something. That have shown an understanding of human experience and history. FSM is not one of them. Baha'i in its first decade or so did much more useful and interesting in the world as well as having useful or interesting comments on past human religious experiences or human history. FSM has nothing, it is nothing, it does nothing.
I might read the rest of your post for amusement or something, but I have a feeling any further response would waste both our time. (I just read it all, all I have to say is wow! You're not even pretending to read what I'm writing at this point. Just sputtering bile and Youtube videos. It's almost laughable. Waste of time indeed.)
Sincere believers don't make something true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native
The arguments I see here about the faliability of the FSM is based solely in the fact that Christianity has been around longer.
Well gosh, if that is the metric to prove validity, then why are you all not practicing Hinduism, which has been around 5000 years, or Judaism which has been around 4000 years, or Buddhism which has been around 2500 years?
The longer a legend has been around has no bearing at all on the validity of the legend.
What Ash said.
I love how you just ignored your "your the best caller ever" moment...
Religious beliefs have resisted change in spite of the evolution of ideas? Yes, they refute any type of evolution and claim perfection in all they believe and do. They deny the benefit of these changes, hence the lie.
Only the literalist fundamentalists refute evolution. The Protestant movement in Christianity and the 30,000+ denominations evidence that change does exist. In fact, the primitive legends and other belief systems that preceded Jesus were more evidence of the evolutionary nature of our spiritual development. It has been the intransigence of men and the ignoring of deliberate inconsistencies in scripture (designed to point out the Spiritual "meat" once the Carnal "milk" became sour) that accounts for the relative stagnation of spiritual evolution in Christianity. Besides, your use of the word "lie" is inappropriate and condescending. Lies, imply that the person stating them KNOWS them to be untrue.
Quote:
As for your supplied reference from this Wing person, it is (in my opinion) basically refuting the theist point of view and supporting calling it a lie.
Again with the "lie" nonsense . . and I will not be dragged into defense of fundamentalist beliefs because you prefer to debate them. I am here to defend the existence of God and to present a scientifically supportable rationale for the CORE beliefs in Christianity.
Interesting, never heard a xian take this as a positive before?
Usually, I never reply to someone who is so immature that he or she uses the term "xian". I could easily call the anti-theists "angtsiests" instead of "atheists" (implying the teenage level of "there is no gawwwd" angst so many of them display) but, then again, I could also call them all a bunch of "poopyheads" or something equally third grade. So, instead, I stay on the side of maturety.
Anyway, indeed, there is nothing wrong with there being multiple denominatons of Christianity or even multiple religions for that matter.
Quote:
OK, how about you do this for the Nicene Creed? After all, 99% of xians adhere to this in one form or another in their statement of faiths.
First of all, allot of Christians, like the Jehova's Witness and the Mormons, do not follow the Nicene Creed. Second, the Nicene creed, if you actually read it, does not talk about literal interpretation of evolution:
Quote:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the only-begotten, born of the Father before all ages. Light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin, and became man. He was also crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried. And He rose again on the third day, according to the scriptures. And He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father. And He will come again with glory, to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there will be no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets. In one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I profess one baptism for the remission of sins. I expect the resurrection of the dead; and the life of the world to come. Amen.
While it does take a literalists view on Jesus's death and resurrection as well as the virgin birth, it does not take anything more then that literally. It does not say, in any version, "I believe that the world is six thousand years old and that dinosaurs lived up until two hundred years ago". It does not say "I believe that every single solitary word of the bible is literal truth and I therefore do not have to use my brain to see the true allegorical meaning behind anything."
So, the Nicene Creed has nothing to do with creationists literalism or biblical literalism, for that matter.
A bane only by your own definition. As for the rest of your statement, didn't say you do these things but if you start, expect to be called on them.
Show me in this thread where I said atheists go to Hell, other faiths are worthless, or that there should be a state faith. If I did say those things I was wrong, but I'm pretty sure I did not.
Usually, I never reply to someone who is so immature that he or she uses the term "xian". I could easily call the anti-theists "angtsiests" instead of "atheists" (implying the teenage level of "there is no gawwwd" angst so many of them display) but, then again, I could also call them all a bunch of "poopyheads" or something equally third grade. So, instead, I stay on the side of maturety (sic).
Perhaps a lesson in spelling may demonstrate your apparent maturity sonny.
Quote:
Anyway, indeed, there is nothing wrong with there being multiple denominatons of Christianity or even multiple religions for that matter.
I know, both you and Mystic want everyone to believe in some kind of gawd no matter its origins. Well the origins of all gawds are man made. Atheists do not need to belive in invisible entities like gawds, fairies, ghosts, UFO's etc. Generally our lives are fulfilling enough w/o pondering supernatural BS.
Quote:
First of all, allot of Christians, like the Jehova's Witness and the Mormons, do not follow the Nicene Creed. Second, the Nicene creed, if you actually read it, does not talk about literal interpretation of evolution:
I am not talking of JW's or Mormons, they of course follow their own creeds but are all offshoots of the Nicene originally.
Quote:
While it does take a literalists view on Jesus's death and resurrection as well as the virgin birth, it does not take anything more then that literally. It does not say, in any version, "I believe that the world is six thousand years old and that dinosaurs lived up until two hundred years ago". It does not say "I believe that every single solitary word of the bible is literal truth and I therefore do not have to use my brain to see the true allegorical meaning behind anything."
So, the Nicene Creed has nothing to do with creationists literalism or biblical literalism, for that matter.
Well you can chime in with Mystic and present scientific evidence for the Nicene creed which forms the basic fundamentals of xianity
Your gnostic approach to xianity is just more flexible to make crap up as you go along and gnostics are NOT mainstream anyways.
Well if the FSM is a straw man it must be an excellent one, considering all the ire it's causing the believers on this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Usually, I never reply to someone who is so immature that he or she uses the term "xian". I could easily call the anti-theists "angtsiests" instead of "atheists" (implying the teenage level of "there is no gawwwd" angst so many of them display) but, then again, I could also call them all a bunch of "poopyheads" or something equally third grade. So, instead, I stay on the side of maturety. 
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" straw man...
