Atheists Pressure MI School District to Stop Treating the Birth of Jesus as Fact

[Earthling]

Do you doubt what you're told the Bible says? Do you doubt what you assume it says? Do you doubt your faith? Do you doubt yourself?

Yes, in all cases.

You see, I think you don't doubt everything. I think you believe what you believe is right, and doubt everything that challenges that belief. That's what I see as true.

I doubt that.

Yes. It's a very simple question.

What question?

They aren't asking them for the science behind it. They ask, "Do you accept what sciences say about evolution". It's a simple yes or no question, which one would expect to be truthful. You just choose the "no" response, just because you don't seem to consider science to be credible, for whatever unfounded reason that may be.

Do I consider science to be credible? Hhmmm. No more nor less than theology, philosophy, history, or any other endeavor of imperfect man.

I don't think "believe in" applies to the question of evolution.

Nor do I, but it was being used in the thread as such.

Do you accept the science supporting the theory of evolution, is the actual question. It's a matter of accept, or deny. Not "believe". You simply are a science-denier. Most other Christians are not. Only special ones are.

Oh, that's cute . . . I'm trying to determine what basis you use that smiley face so skillfully like the poison pen of the robber barons of old.

I don't deny science. Science is speculation not fact. It's like Jesus. If we Christians didn't believe in sin we wouldn't need the Christ, much like if you atheists didn't believe in science I wouldn't have to keep denying it.

If you have doubts about the question of the Pew research poll, then you should cite them. Do you have the actual question they asked, to see if it may not have been exactly "clear" to the people they asked? So is your defense, "They probably don't really believe in it, because we can't really know what they thought the question was." Is that your actual position now?

I've made several statements as to why I'm inclined to doubt such surveys. There are too many variables dependent upon an accurate reading. Any survey basically says "this many of the people we asked thought this way."

That isn't a very scientific? approach to determining a possible truth, which is why a reliable survey can't very accurately predict anything. Now what does prediction have to do with science, I ask you. It's a small part. How do you confirm that "most Christians asked accept evolution as fact"?

I brought up the possibility of Christ being somewhat significant in the term Christian. If, by accepting evolution as fact how would you reconcile Christ in their alleged paradigm.

This doesn't even begin to address the number of the alleged "Christians" being considered. You can't take a picture of them all together and count a square or percentage of them then divide that square into the whole picture coming up with a vague estimation of the number of them. You certainly can't contact every Christian and ask them getting a literal percentage, even if you assumed they weren't simply trying to appease the general consensus.

No matter how you look at it it isn't that reliable, whether scientific or not and to suggest otherwise certainly isn't skeptical, scientific, accurate, truthful, or inerrant.

Is it.

Since when is the Pew Research Center considered, "the mainstream media"?????

Pew Research Center

Since I quickly glanced at Skwim's chart. Not two weeks ago @Skwim presented a similar chart which determined that a percentage of Jehovah's Witnesses amounting to 300 million accepted evolution. There are less than 9 million Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide.

So then, you don't care that there are others who believe in God, who consider Christianity a valid religious spiritual path, who have no problem with accepting evolution as valid science?

Let me turn the tables on you. How would you react to a survey that said 75% of those who believe, sorry, accept, evolution do so in an entirely inaccurate version of evolution - for example, that we evolved from robot lizards from the future sent back into time by L. Ron Hubbard would you accept it?

If I point out to you that if evolution is true then what need is there for a Christ you don't give a **** until they start ****ing around with what you perceive as accurate, scientific and current scientific theory of evolution.

Don't be so obtuse. What your saying to me, in effect is, what I believe is wrong and stupid and doesn't matter. Join the band wagon because this survey said everyone is doing it.

If you think I'm stupid you might want to rethink that.

You just dismiss that in your claim that real Christians don't believe that, or would say they did if they understood the Pew Research questionnaire properly?

Much more to it than that.

How many times must you paint yourself into this corner before you give up the fight and accept facts?

Until you present some facts. Apparently it will be a while.

 

[Earthling]

A short time ago @metis notified me publicly that he was putting me on ignore. A silly gesture, but I'm going to use his post here because it so beautify makes my point.

Polls I've seen in the past have it that most Christian theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it's viewed that God was behind it all.

There you go. Since so many Christians accept the basic ToE in this manner will you concur that God must have been behind it all?

No? Then why expect me to accept it because all Christians do?

In today's day and age, based on what we now know in regards to the evolution of our universe and Earth, plus our greater understanding of theology, there's simply no reason to believe in the creation accounts as being literal history.

So sin, Adam, Eve, Satan, and Jesus are fantasy. The prophets, the judges, the writers of the Bible, the Bible itself are fantasy. 6,000 years of history, all poof in a cloud of logic because science, which will, without a doubt, completely change what it says about evolution, our universe and Earth, as it has before, demonstrating it was all in error. The big bang, the age of the universe, etc. etc. etc. currently thinks so.

Not me. Sorry.

However, I believe some denominations hang on to their literalism because they cannot admit to their flock that they were wrong, plus some I believe use it to create a we/they dichotomy, whereas the "we" are the good guys with the white hats and the "they" are the bad guys with the black hats.

[White lab coats. They never get invited to parties. Find it difficult to get girlfriends. Think their version of the truth is the only possible one.]

Anyway. I'll say it again. I could be wrong and would gladly accept it if that were demonstrated to be the case.

Metis is right about one thing. It's a they said we said argument. About apples and oranges I would add.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't deny science. Science is speculation not fact.

Science is not speculation. That is a fact.

It's like Jesus. If we Christians didn't believe in sin we wouldn't need the Christ, much like if you atheists didn't believe in science I wouldn't have to keep denying it.

Us atheists? Perhaps you have not been reading my posts where I repeatedly say I believe in God? What atheist do you know who says that? *skillful use of smiley face here*

BTW, to equate accepting science with accepting Jesus, is beyond absurd. I accept both, so there. (another skillful use of the smiley face).

I've made several statements as to why I'm inclined to doubt such surveys. There are too many variables dependent upon an accurate reading. Any survey basically says "this many of the people we asked thought this way."

So basically, you don't trust anything that doesn't meet with your personal approval as the source of authority. Nice. Why do you have any discussions with anyone at all?

That isn't a very scientific? approach to determining a possible truth, which is why a reliable survey can't very accurately predict anything. Now what does prediction have to do with science, I ask you. It's a small part. How do you confirm that "most Christians asked accept evolution as fact"?

I brought up the possibility of Christ being somewhat significant in the term Christian. If, by accepting evolution as fact how would you reconcile Christ in their alleged paradigm.

This doesn't even begin to address the number of the alleged "Christians" being considered. You can't take a picture of them all together and count a square or percentage of them then divide that square into the whole picture coming up with a vague estimation of the number of them. You certainly can't contact every Christian and ask them getting a literal percentage, even if you assumed they weren't simply trying to appease the general consensus.

And yet, your "cynicism" which this is, as it does not qualify as skepticism, has no problem trusting it's all bogus, when you lack supporting evidence yourself that it actually is invalid. You simply dismiss it out of hand, and call that valid. That's not valid.

Let me turn the tables on you. How would you react to a survey that said 75% of those who believe, sorry, accept, evolution do so in an entirely inaccurate version of evolution - for example, that we evolved from robot lizards from the future sent back into time by L. Ron Hubbard would you accept it?

That's ridiculous. That's not a valid survey. Can you prove the survey by the Pew Research Center was invalid? You do realize that if Pew was that shoddy in their work, they would not be paid money or respected? No one would be paying good money to a crap company for statistics that help them do business! Did you reason that?

If I point out to you that if evolution is true then what need is there for a Christ you don't give a **** until they start ****ing around with what you perceive as accurate, scientific and current scientific theory of evolution.

I have no idea what these words strung together here mean. People accept evolution, and Jesus at the same time. Why can't you?

Don't be so obtuse. What your saying to me, in effect is, what I believe is wrong and stupid and doesn't matter. Join the band wagon because this survey said everyone is doing it.

If you think I'm stupid you might want to rethink that.

I would not say you're stupid. Lacking a solid education that utilizes some critical tools that are lacking, yes. But ignorance and stupidity are not the same things. Willful ignorance isn't even stupidity. It's just fear of the unknown and hiding from it. That's a matter of emotional intelligence, not cognitive intelligence. One can be quite intelligent, yet completely ignorant about things. Humility makes the difference in admitting it and being open to learning what you don't understand correctly. Refusal to do that, has fear at its core.

You don't need to deny evolution, in order to believe in God. I embrace both, with joy.

 

[Earthling]

Science is not speculation. That is a fact.

So, science is a tool that man uses to discover what he already knows?

Us atheists? Perhaps you have not been reading my posts where I repeatedly say I believe in God? What atheist do you know who says that? *skillful use of smiley face here*

BTW, to equate accepting science with accepting Jesus, is beyond absurd. I accept both, so there. (another skillful use of the smiley face).

What atheists do I know who says that? I must have seen it in a Pew survey. For my skillful use I shall choose this . . .

Wait a minute . . . I'm talking to a Christian?!

So basically, you don't trust anything that doesn't meet with your personal approval as the source of authority. Nice. Why do you have any discussions with anyone at all?

You keep saying that. No. I don't trust anything until it has demonstrated it's trustworthiness upon my inspection, and yes, that includes anything I read in the Bible, anyone's interpretation of that, including my own and . . . believe it or not . . . science and surveys.

Why are we still talking about this?

And yet, your "cynicism" which this is, as it does not qualify as skepticism, has no problem trusting it's all bogus, when you lack supporting evidence yourself that it actually is invalid. You simply dismiss it out of hand, and call that valid. That's not valid.


That's ridiculous. That's not a valid survey. Can you prove the survey by the Pew Research Center was invalid? You do realize that if Pew was that shoddy in their work, they would not be paid money or respected? No one would be paying good money to a crap company for statistics that help them do business! Did you reason that?


I have no idea what these words strung together here mean. People accept evolution, and Jesus at the same time. Why can't you?

I've explained that to you. Jesus died for our sins inherited by Adam. If we evolved there is no Adam. No Adam, no sin. No sin, no need for Jesus.

And I've asked you at least once, how would a Christian reconcile this obvious contradiction?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I've explained that to you. Jesus died for our sins inherited by Adam. If we evolved there is no Adam. No Adam, no sin. No sin, no need for Jesus.

And I've asked you at least once, how would a Christian reconcile this obvious contradiction?

First, to be clear, I have not believed in any aspect of Christianity since about the time the US had a bald President. But I do know the subject (especially Catholicism) very well. Catholic theologians are great at resolving contradictions.

There is no problem for a Catholic to believe in evolution as the source of the human form. But at some point, two individuals - male and female - were born endowed with immortal souls, something that previously did not exist. This was an act of special creation by God, as are all souls. Those two individuals committed some kind of sin that resulted in hereditary Original Sin. It should be noted that this requires that all humans are descendants of these two individuals exclusively. It also requires not accepting theories that account for the origin of the mental capacities and inclinations that are attributed to the soul by natural evolution.

But as I said, I do not believe any of that stuff anymore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm going to ignore that because you posted it prior to my warning in another post where you did the same. Don't use the word dishonest when you are trying, especially so painfully wrong, to determine what I believe.

Don't do it again or our conversations are over for good. Got it?

You do not seem to realize that there is an "or" there. One can be honest and ignorant and believe in creationism, or one can be dishonest and informed and believe in creationism. One cannot be both.

And in what way am I wrong at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dishonest? Look, I don't call your interpretation of the Bible dishonest just because it is obstanately persisting in it's absence, let alone that I don't agree with it.

Don't do that again.

When you have to reinterpret the Bible because you do not like what it says that is obviously being dishonest. Your interpretation is wrong at best. You are only making excuses for the failures of the Bible at this point.

Dishonest? Look, I don't call your interpretation of the Bible dishonest just because it is obstanately persisting in it's absence, let alone that I don't agree with it.

Don't do that again.

Tell me, how often does a person need to be corrected before he goes from being utterly wrong to being dishonest?

 

[Earthling]

You do not seem to realize that there is an "or" there. One can be honest and ignorant and believe in creationism, or one can be dishonest and informed and believe in creationism. One cannot be both.

And in what way am I wrong at all?

What? Of course one couldn't be both as they are contradictory positions, but they could be either as well as possibly honest, informed and believe in creationism, although I am extremely reluctant to use the term "creationism." I believe in the Bible. Since the writing of the Bible there has been a great deal of adoption by the majority of people who believe in it of contradictory teachings, so I'm cautious in applying the label of Christian to me. Creationism, likewise, as it is generally thought, isn't in line with my Bible based beliefs.

I've told you time and time again, though, that I'm somewhat ignorant on the theory of evolution. You've told me that you are not completely knowledgeable on the subject and others here are more knowledgeable. This implies that to some degree, you are also ignorant on the subject. The implication in you accusation of ignorance, then, can be somewhat misleading. What you really mean to say is that anyone who doesn't accept evolution at least in a basic sense, is "ignorant" as a pejorative. Some would classify that as dishonest but I would rather think that you are just dogmatic and being honestly snobbish about the status of the opposition's education, to which, I say, all the more reason not to place too much value in public education.

Why would you (assuming that you are) conclude that one can't be honest, informed and believe in an intelligent form of Creationism (Link To My Website Genesis Chapter 1) or, for example, respected scientists in various fields, including biology, who don't accept the theory of evolution and believe in the Bible?

 

[Earthling]

When you have to reinterpret the Bible because you do not like what it says that is obviously being dishonest. Your interpretation is wrong at best. You are only making excuses for the failures of the Bible at this point.

Reinterpret? Where is my interpretation wrong? How would you know? What failures of the Bible? Are you suggesting that if my interpretation of the Bible isn't in line with what you are most accustomed to or in line with evolution as, allegedly, you say, the majority of Christians believe in evolution or are you lumping me in with the Jehovah's Witnesses and expanding your criticism on them to apply to me?

Tell me, how often does a person need to be corrected before he goes from being utterly wrong to being dishonest?

A scientist or a theologian?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? Of course one couldn't be both as they are contradictory positions, but they could be either as well as possibly honest, informed and believe in creationism, although I am extremely reluctant to use the term "creationism." I believe in the Bible. Since the writing of the Bible there has been a great deal of adoption by the majority of people who believe in it of contradictory teachings, so I'm cautious in applying those labels to me. Creationism, likewise, as it is generally thought, isn't in line with my Bible based beliefs.

I've told you time and time again, though, that I'm somewhat ignorant on the theory of evolution. You've told me that you are not completely knowledgeable on the subject and others here are more knowledgeable. This implies that to some degree, you are also ignorant on the subject. The implication in you accusation of ignorance, then, can be somewhat misleading. What you really mean to say is that anyone who doesn't accept evolution at least in a basic sense, is "ignorant" as a pejorative. Some would classify that as dishonest but I would rather think that you are just dogmatic and being honestly snobbish about the status of the opposition's education, to which, I say, all the more reason not to place too much value in public education.

Why would you (assuming that you are) conclude that one can't be honest, informed and believe in an intelligent form of Creationism (Link To My Website Genesis Chapter 1) or, for example, respected scientists in various fields, including biology, who don't accept the theory of evolution and believe in the Bible?

When it comes to this topic you have effectively removed yourself as being a valid judge. You refuse to even try to learn why we know that life is the product of evolution. You have told us time after time of your personal ignorance and you refuse offers to help you to learn. Do not make the error of thinking that because I do not know everything that there is to know about evolution, no one man can understand all branches. that I do not have sufficient knowledge to know that we are the product of evolution. What I do not know I can look up. I can learn. You refuse to learn.

At to my claim that one cannot be both honest and informed and be a creationist that is based upon years of observation and could easily be shown to be wrong, if I was wrong. Simply find an honest and informed creationist. As to your scientists that don't accept evolution , most of them keep themselves ignorant of evolution. But with any large enough group you will find some dishonest people. Bring them up one at a time and we can see if you have anything in that list.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reinterpret? Where is my interpretation wrong? How would you know? What failures of the Bible? Are you suggesting that if my interpretation of the Bible isn't in line with what you are most accustomed to or in line with evolution as, allegedly, you say, the majority of Christians believe in evolution or are you lumping me in with the Jehovah's Witnesses and expanding your criticism on them to apply to me?



A scientist or a theologian?

The fall of the temple was not the prediction. That is a reinterpretation when it became obvious that some of the people were supposed to survive to see the "fulfillment of all things" died long before that happened. In fact we are still waiting.

 

[Earthling]

The fall of the temple was not the prediction. That is a reinterpretation when it became obvious that some of the people were supposed to survive to see the "fulfillment of all things" died long before that happened. In fact we are still waiting.

The . . . what?!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That was a response to someone else, dude.

Does that matter? You still said it. Or are we to assume your beliefs change between posts?

 

[Windwalker]

So, science is a tool that man uses to discover what he already knows?

I'm not going to bother with this because you should know better.

What atheists do I know who says that? I must have seen it in a Pew survey. For my skillful use I shall choose this . . .

Wait a minute . . . I'm talking to a Christian?!

Wait a minute... am I talking to a Christian?! Let me try to wrap my mind around this for a minute....

You keep saying that. No. I don't trust anything until it has demonstrated it's trustworthiness upon my inspection

Hahahah! So, do you do building inspections before you go in them? Do you double check the architectural drawings of the bridges you drive over?

Why is it in your imagination, you think you are in any way qualified to inspect? That my friend, is arrogance.

I've explained that to you. Jesus died for our sins inherited by Adam. If we evolved there is no Adam. No Adam, no sin. No sin, no need for Jesus.

That's an interesting interpretation of the Bible. Can't say I see the logic or reason of it, but if that makes sense to you then hang on to it. Just don't let it you lead you into the sin of denialism, which it appears to be doing to you. I'd suggest you rethink the narrative. Other Christians have to where they can hold both faith and reason as extensions of each other, rather than demanding a lobotomy in order to believe in God. Hopefully one day you'll see all this was unnecessary for you.

And I've asked you at least once, how would a Christian reconcile this obvious contradiction?

Would you honestly like to know? I'll spend the time explaining if you are genuinely interested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The . . . what?!

Wasn't that part of your long screed on defending the worst failed prophesy in the Bible?

 

[Earthling]

Does that matter? You still said it. Or are we to assume your beliefs change between posts?

It certainly is possible. Not likely, but possible.

 

[Earthling]

Wasn't that part of your long screed on defending the worst failed prophesy in the Bible?

Could you be a bit more specific? Uh,elaborate? It almost seems you have an aversion for specific reference.

 

[Earthling]

I'm not going to bother with this because you should know better.

It makes perfect sense. Science isn't out to discover what they already know. It is speculation. That's not an insult unless you mistakenly think, as you said, that science is fact. Theory and science isn't indisputable fact. It is speculation limited to current understanding and always subject to change or correction.

So, do you do building inspections before you go in them? Do you double check the architectural drawings of the bridges you drive over?

Why is it in your imagination, you think you are in any way qualified to inspect? That my friend, is arrogance.

If the bridge or building is standing for some time, as it would be in most cases, there would be no need for inspection.

That's an interesting interpretation of the Bible. Can't say I see the logic or reason of it, but if that makes sense to you then hang on to it. Just don't let it you lead you into the sin of denialism, which it appears to be doing to you. I'd suggest you rethink the narrative. Other Christians have to where they can hold both faith and reason as extensions of each other, rather than demanding a lobotomy in order to believe in God. Hopefully one day you'll see all this was unnecessary for you.

Have you read the Bible?

Would you honestly like to know? I'll spend the time explaining if you are genuinely interested.

I tell you what. Let's you and me have a discussion in a new thread.

Something new . . .

Something different . . .

A mystery thread!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Could you be a bit more specific? Uh,elaborate? It almost seems you have an aversion for specific reference.

The one that you tried to claim was fulfilled by Jesus' transfiguration.

 

[Windwalker]

It makes perfect sense. Science isn't out to discover what they already know. It is speculation. That's not an insult unless you mistakenly think, as you said, that science is fact. Theory and science isn't indisputable fact. It is speculation limited to current understanding and always subject to change or correction.

Apparently I was wrong. I do need to explain it to you. Science tests its hypothesis for repeatable results. They makes predictions with it. They test the results. They have others test the results independently. They compare notes. They do research. They do not just make crap up in their heads and call it science. That's what religion does, mostly so.

If the bridge or building is standing for some time, as it would be in most cases, there would be no need for inspection.

Which is actually the time you probably should! If I saw some building from the 1800's standing out in the middle of some field, I sure as hell would think twice about walking inside of it.

Have you read the Bible?

Yes. Cover to cover, and then some.

I tell you what. Let's you and me have a discussion in a new thread.

Something new . . .

Something different . . .

A mystery thread!

Alright. I'll see how I feel about sharing. How interested you really are. I have a feeling however, you'll find the need to prove me wrong, rather than listen....