Can Atheists be Moral?

[Hollie]

We don't think it's brainwashing because we verified it for ourselves.

Haha,no you didn't. You don't help your case by saying stupid shit like this. Just admit it is faith and march under your true flag. Stop trying to put your faith on the same shelf as evidence based knowledge. It will never work. Ever.

I said I verified it for myself as well as others who did it for themselves. I present the arguments here and in the science forum. Can I help it if you're blind because Satan has pulled the wool over your eyes and tricked your brain?

Atheists can be moral and good (doubtful due to too much temptation), but they still end up having the great sin of disbelief in God and violating the 1st commandment.

It's not just atheists who don't believe in your gods but large swaths of people on the planet who believe in different gods. It's a bit arrogant to suggest that gods which have been worshipped long before the invention of your gods are any less godly. It's also arrogant to suggest that the worshippers of those other gods are any more or less moral than those who worship your gods.

 

[hobelim]

I'm not having any issue, merely because your decoder ring fallacy says so.

Yeah, well, lol, your insistence that Yahweh was a meanie says otherwise.

killing thousands of people simply for being gay or having sex sounds pretty "mean" to me.

Did god throw a hissy fit?
a temper tantrum?


has he no self control?

If he is a mythological character in a fairy tale then he didn't do anything. People did,

If you believe that God did these things then you don't believe its a fairy tale and even if you do think its a fairy tale you really need to think a little more deeply about the lessons being taught like any hidden teaching in a fairy tale and the subjects of morality and life and death.



Samson, Son of Meanie, slaughtered thousands of philistines with the jawbone of an ass.

you can call him, the ass, anynameyouwish.

obfuscation, dodging and weaving....

won't help you.


I won't play your game of loony toon semantics.

The god of the bible, fiction or not, is a deranged bastard. Irrational, mean, overly punitive.

I wouldn't worship that turd even if he was real!

I have morals and ethics.

But I understand that chrisitans do NOT have morals or ethics.

Apparently they need a book to tell them who to hate and who to kill.

Without that book who knows what murders they would commit.

Of course you are right. lol.... All that I am trying to tell you that if you think a little more deeply about those fantastical stories than the average Christian you might find an unknown God not directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used that reflects the image of a loving and benevolent father who doesn't care about what you wear or what you eat for dinner, the Father Jesus spoke of, instead of the image of an almighty (yet edible) three in one capricious petty tyrant obsessed with the sex lives of human beings that never existed but for some mysterious reason scares the living bejesus out of Christians which makes them get down on their knees to blubber to for special favors, to worship, and then solemnly eat.

When I cited the story of Samson, Son of Meanie, slaughtering thousands of philistines with the jaw bone of an ass, I was showing that a person can read that and come to the belief that God wants the faithful to be homicidal maniacs, the deranged, irrational, mean, and overly punitive prick, or by applying the least amount of intelligence and effort required to dress yourself you can see that something not so terrible, even funny, is hidden in plain sight, much more there and in every genocidal story than what meets the eye.

You can read the story of Lot and come to the belief that God endorses drunken incest, the immoral bastard, or you can open your eyes and see that the authors were just yo' mama mocking the origins of their enemies in an ancient Hebrew nomadic goat herder sort of way.

Come on now. It's time to put your pants on.

 

[ding]

How do Christians not see that book is designed to brainwash them through fear and at the same time promise of an afterlife?

They can’t realize it’s wishful thinking?

But then the ones who believe in hell tell us it’s us who are wishing he’ll isn’t true.

It really is brilliant. These lying churches have convinced many smart people too. That’s because smart people are only human too. They wish for heaven and they fear the unknown. And if you get them young you can even brainwash an intelligent human.

We don't think it's brainwashing because we verified it for ourselves. We took the leap of faith and believed in God and he revealed himself to us. It's not just the promise of an afterlife, but God's word; It's always true.

For me, what I could not believe were how long people lived to in the Bible. However, one realizes that things were different in ancient times. People lived longer. It was only after Noah's Flood that we only live to around 120 years. You believe in evolution that people are getting stronger, but they're getting weaker. People in the past were sturdier. I recently studied Wilt Chamberlain and he may have been the greatest athlete of our time. He was a Goliath of a man.

Anyway, what if you were the one brainwashed by universe from nothing (quantum particles), abiogenesis, humans from chimps/apes and so on? The majority of the people in the world would have been brainwashed by Satan, master of lies and trickery.

You're not going to believe me and instead go with the majority, so Blaise Pascal had his philosophy of Pascal's Wager. There's more to it than meets the eye, so I'll post a couple of links.

"Pascal's Wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).[2]

Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God, though similar arguments have occurred in other religious traditions. The original wager was set out in section 233 of Pascal's posthumously published Pensées ("Thoughts"). These previously unpublished notes were assembled to form an incomplete treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory,[3] marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism and voluntarism.[4]"

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia

Pascal's Wager (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

.

Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God,

Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God,

The gist of the Wager is that, according to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Reason alone can bring us to the knowledge of God’s existence - Furthermore, the knowledge of God is enough to render us all without excuse before God’s judgment.

^ typical christian theology ... it is christian bible theology knowledge of the Almighty is required for their judgement to be rendered - where as Pascals wager is dependent on the opposite, there being a lack of ability to know for sure a god exists.

* didn't the christian god speak to moses ...

so bond, how can pascals wager be in reference to the christian god rather than zeus



Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

and the wager does not work with the above forgery anyway.

Every Christian proves they don’t really believe every time they masturbate. How could you knowing a god is watching and judging

Exactly. If we really believed that God shares in our experiences then we would behave differently in all things.

But it is a process, not a light switch. Life is a journey filled with ups and downs, backwards and forwards, ebbs and flows.

There are three possible states. We can be moving towards God, we can be moving away from God or we can be static.

How are you more moral that me? I mean besides you don't approve of abortion. Any other ways you are more moral?

When did I say I was more moral than you?

I don’t see myself as moral. Anyone who believes they are moral most likely aren’t.

 

[badger2]

'I am interested in how beliefs about the historical figure of Jesus were formed later in the imagination of others, and came to function with the doctrinal formulations and ritual practices of a particular religious coalition, which eventually came to dominate most of the Western world. The problem is not Jesus who, as best we can tell, was a relatively compassionate revolutionary with good intentions (who, like Oedipus, apparently had mother issues and struggled with alienation from a Father figure). The problem is the way Paul, John and later theologians imaginatively constructed "Christ" as the Son of God, the heavenly High Priest and idealized moral Judge of all humanity. As we will see below, the motivations for such constructions can be illuminated by attending to the human cognitive and coalitional defaults that so easily engender widespread imaginative engagement with supernatural agents (like Christ), which in turn reinforces anxiety about personal and in-group identity.
....
My strategy is to begin from the inside, so to speak, and to work outward, testing Deleuze's suggestive hypothesis that Christianity in particular has a special role to play in the secretion of atheism. What potential movements of deterritorialization, what possible lines of flight can we find already (within [italics]) Christian theology itself? As atheists have learned over the centuries, however, poking at problematic doctrinal reasoning or questionable moral practices in religion has surprisingly little effect. If we really want to dissolve the power of (religious [it.]) repression, we need more leverage; we need to understand the mental and social mechanisms that surreptitiously produce and automatically reproduce this phenomenon across cultures.'
(Shults F. LeRon, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, p. 9)

 

[ding]

 

[Taz]

We don't think it's brainwashing because we verified it for ourselves. We took the leap of faith and believed in God and he revealed himself to us. It's not just the promise of an afterlife, but God's word; It's always true.

For me, what I could not believe were how long people lived to in the Bible. However, one realizes that things were different in ancient times. People lived longer. It was only after Noah's Flood that we only live to around 120 years. You believe in evolution that people are getting stronger, but they're getting weaker. People in the past were sturdier. I recently studied Wilt Chamberlain and he may have been the greatest athlete of our time. He was a Goliath of a man.

Anyway, what if you were the one brainwashed by universe from nothing (quantum particles), abiogenesis, humans from chimps/apes and so on? The majority of the people in the world would have been brainwashed by Satan, master of lies and trickery.

You're not going to believe me and instead go with the majority, so Blaise Pascal had his philosophy of Pascal's Wager. There's more to it than meets the eye, so I'll post a couple of links.

"Pascal's Wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).[2]

Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God, though similar arguments have occurred in other religious traditions. The original wager was set out in section 233 of Pascal's posthumously published Pensées ("Thoughts"). These previously unpublished notes were assembled to form an incomplete treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory,[3] marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism and voluntarism.[4]"

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia

Pascal's Wager (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

.

Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God,

Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God,

The gist of the Wager is that, according to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Reason alone can bring us to the knowledge of God’s existence - Furthermore, the knowledge of God is enough to render us all without excuse before God’s judgment.

^ typical christian theology ... it is christian bible theology knowledge of the Almighty is required for their judgement to be rendered - where as Pascals wager is dependent on the opposite, there being a lack of ability to know for sure a god exists.

* didn't the christian god speak to moses ...

so bond, how can pascals wager be in reference to the christian god rather than zeus



Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

and the wager does not work with the above forgery anyway.

Every Christian proves they don’t really believe every time they masturbate. How could you knowing a god is watching and judging

Exactly. If we really believed that God shares in our experiences then we would behave differently in all things.

But it is a process, not a light switch. Life is a journey filled with ups and downs, backwards and forwards, ebbs and flows.

There are three possible states. We can be moving towards God, we can be moving away from God or we can be static.

How are you more moral that me? I mean besides you don't approve of abortion. Any other ways you are more moral?

When did I say I was more moral than you?

I don’t see myself as moral. Anyone who believes they are moral most likely aren’t.

Like Trump?

 

[BreezeWood]

'I am interested in how beliefs about the historical figure of Jesus were formed later in the imagination of others, and came to function with the doctrinal formulations and ritual practices of a particular religious coalition, which eventually came to dominate most of the Western world. The problem is not Jesus who, as best we can tell, was a relatively compassionate revolutionary with good intentions (who, like Oedipus, apparently had mother issues and struggled with alienation from a Father figure). The problem is the way Paul, John and later theologians imaginatively constructed "Christ" as the Son of God, the heavenly High Priest and idealized moral Judge of all humanity. As we will see below, the motivations for such constructions can be illuminated by attending to the human cognitive and coalitional defaults that so easily engender widespread imaginative engagement with supernatural agents (like Christ), which in turn reinforces anxiety about personal and in-group identity.
....
My strategy is to begin from the inside, so to speak, and to work outward, testing Deleuze's suggestive hypothesis that Christianity in particular has a special role to play in the secretion of atheism. What potential movements of deterritorialization, what possible lines of flight can we find already (within [italics]) Christian theology itself? As atheists have learned over the centuries, however, poking at problematic doctrinal reasoning or questionable moral practices in religion has surprisingly little effect. If we really want to dissolve the power of (religious [it.]) repression, we need more leverage; we need to understand the mental and social mechanisms that surreptitiously produce and automatically reproduce this phenomenon across cultures.'
(Shults F. LeRon, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, p. 9)

.

As atheists have learned over the centuries, however, poking at problematic doctrinal reasoning or questionable moral practices in religion has surprisingly little effect.

not atheist alone but those willing for an Almighty as the guardian of the Everlasting have learned it is not the atheist that is the greatest threat to humanities prosperity but the corruption certain theist have chosen in their gospels without remorse for their errors or the brevity to make the appropriate remedies that is the greatest threat for propelling humanity to its untimely demise.

If we really want to dissolve the power of (religious [it.]) repression, we need more leverage; we need to understand the mental and social mechanisms that surreptitiously produce and automatically reproduce this phenomenon across cultures.'
(Shults F. LeRon, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, p. 9)

^ badger's post - a quote ... thought it was an original.


If we really want to dissolve the power of (religious [it.]) repression ...

good luck - religious repression of atheist or simply religious repression -

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I said I verified it for myself

No, you didn't. You took it on faith and still do. When did you become so embarrassed of having faith?

 

[sealybobo]

'I am interested in how beliefs about the historical figure of Jesus were formed later in the imagination of others, and came to function with the doctrinal formulations and ritual practices of a particular religious coalition, which eventually came to dominate most of the Western world. The problem is not Jesus who, as best we can tell, was a relatively compassionate revolutionary with good intentions (who, like Oedipus, apparently had mother issues and struggled with alienation from a Father figure). The problem is the way Paul, John and later theologians imaginatively constructed "Christ" as the Son of God, the heavenly High Priest and idealized moral Judge of all humanity. As we will see below, the motivations for such constructions can be illuminated by attending to the human cognitive and coalitional defaults that so easily engender widespread imaginative engagement with supernatural agents (like Christ), which in turn reinforces anxiety about personal and in-group identity.
....
My strategy is to begin from the inside, so to speak, and to work outward, testing Deleuze's suggestive hypothesis that Christianity in particular has a special role to play in the secretion of atheism. What potential movements of deterritorialization, what possible lines of flight can we find already (within [italics]) Christian theology itself? As atheists have learned over the centuries, however, poking at problematic doctrinal reasoning or questionable moral practices in religion has surprisingly little effect. If we really want to dissolve the power of (religious [it.]) repression, we need more leverage; we need to understand the mental and social mechanisms that surreptitiously produce and automatically reproduce this phenomenon across cultures.'
(Shults F. LeRon, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, p. 9)

.

As atheists have learned over the centuries, however, poking at problematic doctrinal reasoning or questionable moral practices in religion has surprisingly little effect.

not atheist alone but those willing for an Almighty as the guardian of the Everlasting have learned it is not the atheist that is the greatest threat to humanities prosperity but the corruption certain theist have chosen in their gospels without remorse for their errors or the brevity to make the appropriate remedies that is the greatest threat for propelling humanity to its untimely demise.

If we really want to dissolve the power of (religious [it.]) repression, we need more leverage; we need to understand the mental and social mechanisms that surreptitiously produce and automatically reproduce this phenomenon across cultures.'
(Shults F. LeRon, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, p. 9)

^ badger's post - a quote ... thought it was an original.


If we really want to dissolve the power of (religious [it.]) repression ...

good luck - religious repression of atheist or simply religious repression -

But churches have a decision. Loosen up the rules or lose members. But do they really want those half committed members who don’t even show up unless it’s time to get married or baptized?

The more controlling churches do better.

The Greek Orthodox for years was very liberal and relied on members generosity’s. The new priest is flat out a republican. It’s obvious. And he has made the church more conservative. Muslims and gays are bad.

And this mofo sent home a letter to all members that you’re supposed to be giving 10%. That’s bold.

But I bet it’s effective. **** the c&e’s. The people who only go Christmas and Easter. It’s the devoted ones you want to milk. It’s no longer a numbers game. Religions are turning into cults.

 

[Care4all]

God seared right from wrong in to ALL of us...atheists included my dear.....

A Seared Conscience - Bible Topics and Questions
www.bibletopicsandquestions.com/ArticleDisplay.php?filename...
God gives each of us a conscience. We know right from wrong. The oftener we violate our own conscience the easier it becomes to do that. Our consciences can become worn down and useless, much like that of John Gacy. A conscience that serves its God-given purpose will be one that is in agreement with God*s standards of right and wrong. American ...

 

[sealybobo]

We don't think it's brainwashing because we verified it for ourselves. We took the leap of faith and believed in God and he revealed himself to us. It's not just the promise of an afterlife, but God's word; It's always true.

For me, what I could not believe were how long people lived to in the Bible. However, one realizes that things were different in ancient times. People lived longer. It was only after Noah's Flood that we only live to around 120 years. You believe in evolution that people are getting stronger, but they're getting weaker. People in the past were sturdier. I recently studied Wilt Chamberlain and he may have been the greatest athlete of our time. He was a Goliath of a man.

Anyway, what if you were the one brainwashed by universe from nothing (quantum particles), abiogenesis, humans from chimps/apes and so on? The majority of the people in the world would have been brainwashed by Satan, master of lies and trickery.

You're not going to believe me and instead go with the majority, so Blaise Pascal had his philosophy of Pascal's Wager. There's more to it than meets the eye, so I'll post a couple of links.

"Pascal's Wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).[2]

Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God, though similar arguments have occurred in other religious traditions. The original wager was set out in section 233 of Pascal's posthumously published Pensées ("Thoughts"). These previously unpublished notes were assembled to form an incomplete treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory,[3] marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism and voluntarism.[4]"

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia

Pascal's Wager (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

.

Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God,

Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God,

The gist of the Wager is that, according to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Reason alone can bring us to the knowledge of God’s existence - Furthermore, the knowledge of God is enough to render us all without excuse before God’s judgment.

^ typical christian theology ... it is christian bible theology knowledge of the Almighty is required for their judgement to be rendered - where as Pascals wager is dependent on the opposite, there being a lack of ability to know for sure a god exists.

* didn't the christian god speak to moses ...

so bond, how can pascals wager be in reference to the christian god rather than zeus



Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

and the wager does not work with the above forgery anyway.

Every Christian proves they don’t really believe every time they masturbate. How could you knowing a god is watching and judging

Exactly. If we really believed that God shares in our experiences then we would behave differently in all things.

But it is a process, not a light switch. Life is a journey filled with ups and downs, backwards and forwards, ebbs and flows.

There are three possible states. We can be moving towards God, we can be moving away from God or we can be static.

How are you more moral that me? I mean besides you don't approve of abortion. Any other ways you are more moral?

When did I say I was more moral than you?

I don’t see myself as moral. Anyone who believes they are moral most likely aren’t.

Then this thread should actually be “Can anyone be moral?”?

 

[sealybobo]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

Ding made a good point. Can anyone be moral? He who is without sin step the **** up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God seared right from wrong in to ALL of us...atheists included my dear.....

No, evolution did that. And it didn't do a very good job of it, either. That's why it has taken us 200,000 years to finally puzzle out the more ethical and moral societies we have today. And much of that progress came just since the scientific enlightment.

 

[ding]

.
Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God,

The gist of the Wager is that, according to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

^ typical christian theology ... it is christian bible theology knowledge of the Almighty is required for their judgement to be rendered - where as Pascals wager is dependent on the opposite, there being a lack of ability to know for sure a god exists.

* didn't the christian god speak to moses ...

so bond, how can pascals wager be in reference to the christian god rather than zeus



Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

and the wager does not work with the above forgery anyway.

Every Christian proves they don’t really believe every time they masturbate. How could you knowing a god is watching and judging

Exactly. If we really believed that God shares in our experiences then we would behave differently in all things.

But it is a process, not a light switch. Life is a journey filled with ups and downs, backwards and forwards, ebbs and flows.

There are three possible states. We can be moving towards God, we can be moving away from God or we can be static.

How are you more moral that me? I mean besides you don't approve of abortion. Any other ways you are more moral?

When did I say I was more moral than you?

I don’t see myself as moral. Anyone who believes they are moral most likely aren’t.

Then this thread should actually be “Can anyone be moral?”?

...all the time.

No one is all good or all bad.

 

[ding]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

Ding made a good point. Can anyone be moral? He who is without sin step the **** up.

Christianity is a religion for sinners.

 

[Care4all]

God seared right from wrong in to ALL of us...atheists included my dear.....

No, evolution did that. And didn't do a very good job of it, either. That's why it has taken us 200,000 years to finally puzzle out the more ethical and moral societies we have today. And much of that progress came just since the scientific enlightment.

respectfully disagree! We've had a conscience...at least since the 10 commandments time period!

Did you ever see the 10 commandments movie? When Moses was up on the mountain and gone for weeks, when he came back down I believe with the 10 commandments?, his tribe members had all gone bonkers cuz they thought he was never coming back.... or something of the sort.... it's been decades since I had seen the movie.... I remembered this part... the tribe had made a golden calf to worship and were doing all kinds of immoral things... the voice in the movie stated that, from this point onward, God SEARED right from wrong in to all of man's conscience....

I believe much of what is in the Bible coincides with science and evolutionary things, if you have an opened mind about it and can read further than the short story version in the Bible... ( it would be 10 miles plus high if the Bible covered all of humanity's journey if it was in detail.... it's simply a short story version)

So you and I, actually could be on the same page with this, to a certain degree...

at least to the point where we recognize that the Bible vs your version, both recognize that early on, we did not have a conscience or know right from wrong or it was not embedded in us until later, or in your version... learned over time... or evolved.

 

[james bond]

I said I verified it for myself

No, you didn't. You took it on faith and still do. When did you become so embarrassed of having faith?

I took it on faith to believe in God as I said, but the science in the Bible verified it. Your "faith" in evolution is unverifiable, e.g. humans from monkeys claim or birds from dinosaurs claim. Your "faith" in abiogenesis is unverifiable. Aliens is verifiable, but so far it's been no aliens. That follows abiogenesis is unverifiable. Thus, you're the one who is embarrassed beyond belief.

 

[Hollie]

I said I verified it for myself

No, you didn't. You took it on faith and still do. When did you become so embarrassed of having faith?

I took it on faith to believe in God as I said, but the science in the Bible verified it. Your "faith" in evolution is unverifiable, e.g. humans from monkeys claim or birds from dinosaurs claim. Your "faith" in abiogenesis is unverifiable. Aliens is verifiable, but so far it's been no aliens. That follows abiogenesis is unverifiable. Thus, you're the one who is embarrassed beyond belief.

“Humans from monkeys” is ignorant nonsense spewed by the creationist / Flat Earth cranks from the Christian madrassahs.

Don’t be an accomplice to ignorant nonsense.

 

[ding]

Hollie makes a good case for humans from monkeys.

 

[Hollie]

I said I verified it for myself

No, you didn't. You took it on faith and still do. When did you become so embarrassed of having faith?

I took it on faith to believe in God as I said, but the science in the Bible verified it. Your "faith" in evolution is unverifiable, e.g. humans from monkeys claim or birds from dinosaurs claim. Your "faith" in abiogenesis is unverifiable. Aliens is verifiable, but so far it's been no aliens. That follows abiogenesis is unverifiable. Thus, you're the one who is embarrassed beyond belief.

There is actual science to confirm the transition from birds to dinosaurs.


CC214: Transitional Birds