fayfreethinkers.com

LaWood wrote: Anybody wanna guess a third fundie explanation?

DAR
Your fundies were dumb. Genesis 5:4. Adam had "other sons and daughters."

A better problem: Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? If so, why?

Darrel wrote:Your fundies were dumb.

Aren't most?

Darrel wrote:A better problem: Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? If so, why?

But isn't this incredibly inconsequential? The only thing I can think of that would make this important from a theological standpoint is that if Adam was made in God's image, and Adam didn't have a belly button, then the rest of us aren't really in God's image. Maybe I'm missing something?

Savonarola wrote:

Darrel wrote:Your fundies were dumb.

Aren't most?

DAR
Yes but dumb even by fundie standards.

But isn't this incredibly inconsequential?

DAR
Yes. But it's only "better" in the sense that it is a problem (barely). Or at least interesting.

The only thing I can think of that would make this important from a theological standpoint...

DAR
I didn't mean to imply that the bellybutton thing was "important." However, it has been a longstanding question theologians have wasted some time on.

Here is how the smart fundies deal with the Cain/wife thing.

Savonarola wrote:

LaWood wrote:Anybody wanna guess a third fundie explanation?

God wills things into existence.

And the slightly less popular, God thinks things into existence.


It's really just an exercise of how many different ways we can think of to say, "magic."

god farts things into existence? god shits things into existance? (that would explain Heath, the preacher eh) god does a galactic line of cocaine and the resulting sneeze produced the stars?

(newbie. see u at the june meeting. should i wear my 'sunday-go-to-meetin' outfit?)

By the look of things, I see that it takes more than one of you to dispute one christian, and by the look of things you need time to think up your response, you also say if christians say anything negative about agnostic/atheist that its somehow a personal attack, but by the same token, if you bash christianity its just fee thinking. If it takes more then one of you to prove a point it is safe to say that each one does not make a whole, and they can be considered not complete, at least information wise, if not complete then there is something missing, if you are so set on what you believe then what could possibly be missing from your ideas that could need the assistance of anyone to prove why you think the way you do. Yet you stand on science, and something had to create God, well the same can be said about the big bang, something had to create the item that went BOOM, actually something had to create the catalyst for boom, you see no one is ever going to prove either way 100% fully, something is always going to be missing, meaning the story of creation is not complete, however when we all die, we will have the rest of the puzzle, too bad we wont be able to come back and tell the world what really is beyond life, something everyone has pondered for years, mostly to defend their way of life, or what the think.....
Now faith is what all christians live on, faith is the missing piece of the puzzle for us at least, we are convinced, convicted there is a God, however if you feel to beleive the way you do, that is fine by me, I have learned that to say anything negative is not love, compassion does not mean I beat you tell you believe, I run my words to you tell you see, no compassion is this, letting people be who they are, and loving them all the while...

Hmmmm wrote:By the look of things, I see that it takes more than one of you to dispute one christian,

DAR
I am so glad you have joined us Hmmmm. What makes you think it takes more than one "of us" (whatever that means) to dispute a christian? This forum is open to any and all Christians who would like to participate and discuss their faith and we have never deleted or censored a single post out of over 13,000 posts. Invite your friends, they are welcome.

and by the look of things you need time to think up your response,

DAR
By the look of things? You can see how long it takes a person to respond? We used to have a chat room but haven't used it in a while. If you would like quicker responses we could talk in there and I think you will find I can respond rather quick. Besides, isn't taking time to think about a response a good thing?

Now faith is what all christians live on, faith is the missing piece of the puzzle for us at least, we are convinced, convicted there is a God, however if you feel to beleive the way you do, that is fine by me, I have learned that to say anything negative is not love, compassion does not mean I beat you tell you believe,...

DAR
Well we can all be thankful you are not the kind of Christian that beats people into believing. That's the old way of doing things. Secular society doesn't allow that anymore.

"Faith" is indeed a very interesting piece of your puzzle. I often ask Christians what the word faith means. They usually (I am being serious) don't know. They hear the word a lot, know it is important to have it, but they really don't know what it is when you put them on the spot and ask them what it means. And that's unfortunate. Let me share with you a very short article about faith and how I view it. I hope you take a moment to read it. You may learn something.

And thanks again for adding your polite comments.

***
APPEALS TO FAITH

"By appealing to faith, the Christian wishes to claim the status of
knowledge for beliefs that have not fulfilled the minimum requirements of
knowledge. Indeed, this is the only context in which the appeal to faith
makes sense. But to label as "knowledge" that which has not been rationally
demonstrated is a contradiction, because reason demands that nothing be
designated as knowledge except that which can fulfill its fundamental
requirements.

This is the essence of faith: to consider an idea as true even though it
cannot meet the test of truth, to consider an idea as having a referent in
reality while rejecting the process by which man knows reality. Regardless
of the particular manner in which the Christian characterizes his version
of faith, he cannot escape its irrational bias. His only chance of escape,
to claim that articles of faith can also meet the requirements of reason,
is a dead end, because it renders the concept of faith inapplicable. Faith
is possible only in the case of beliefs that lack rational demonstration.
Since faith must entail belief in the absence of rational demonstration,
all propositions of faith--regardless of their specific content--are
irrational. To believe on faith is to believe in defiance of rational
guidelines, and this is the essence of irrationalism.

Because of this inherent irrationalism, faith can never rescue the
concept of God or the truth of Christian dogmas. Faith is required only for
those beliefs that cannot be defended. Only if one's beliefs are
indefensible--and only if one wishes to retain these beliefs in spite of
their indefensibility--is the appeal to faith necessary. If the Christian
wishes to argue for the rationality of his convictions, he should stick
with presenting evidence and arguments, and he should never appeal to faith
in the first place. The Christian who calls upon faith has already admitted
the irrationality of his belief; he has already conceded that his beliefs
cannot be defended through reason.

If we cannot understand the concept of God, we do not come closer to
understanding it through faith. If the doctrines of Christianity are
absurd, they do not lose their absurdity through faith. If there are no
reasons to believe in Christianity, we do not gain reasons through faith.
Faith does not erase contradictions and absurdities; it merely allows one
to believe in spite of contradictions and absurdities.

The appeal to faith solves nothing and explains nothing; it merely
diverts attention away from the crucial issue of truth. In the final
analysis, not only is the concept of faith irreconcilably opposed to
reason, but it is evasive and quite useless as well."

--George H. Smith, (Atheism: The Case Against God, Prometheus Books 1989, pp. 123-124)

Hmmmm wrote:I see that it takes more than one of you to dispute one christian

Do you always view the world through those rose-tinted glasses, seeing what you want to see without any consideration for the truth?
Perhaps it's precisely because there are so many things wrong with some of these Christian arguments that they can be attacked in numerous ways. For example, Darrel has already responded to you, but my response is not a second dissenter jumping on the bandwagon and echoing everything that Darrel said without adding anything new.
Worse, all one must do to see that your observation is false is take a look around either this forum or this website. More than one of us have gone one-on-one versus a Christian in a formal debate, and it's not like we've turned in lousy performances.

Hmmmm wrote:by the look of things you need time to think up your response

Now I can't tell if you have actual vision problems or just severe reasoning problems. The original post explained that the poster had already called the church.

Hmmmm wrote:Yet you stand on science, and something had to create God, well the same can be said about the big bang, something had to create the item that went BOOM, actually something had to create the catalyst for boom...

Feel free to head over to the Science forum where we've already started discussions about this. Do you seriously think we haven't heard (and dispatched with) this argument before?

Hmmmm wrote:you see no one is ever going to prove either way 100% fully

Perhaps not. But then, science doesn't claim to do so, either. It's always tentative. When the evidence supports the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, it is -- by definition -- unreasonable to reject the conclusion.
Your religion doesn't work this way. Your religion does claim 100% accuracy. When evidence contradicts your religion, you reject the evidence instead of rejecting the conclusion. That, frankly, is asinine.

Hmmmm wrote:however when we all die, we will have the rest of the puzzle

That's your belief, sure. But is your belief correct? What evidence do you have for this belief?

Hmmmm wrote:too bad we wont be able to come back and tell the world what really is beyond life

Ah, so you don't have any real evidence. Why should I accept your belief?

Hmmmm wrote:Yet you stand on science, and something had to create God, well the same can be said about the big bang, something had to create the item that went BOOM, actually something had to create the catalyst for boom...

SAV
Feel free to head over to the Science forum where we've already started discussions about this. Do you seriously think we haven't heard (and dispatched with) this argument before?

DAR
I like how Ingersoll dispatched this over 100 years ago:

"He is perfectly certain that there can be no design without a designer, and he is, equally certain that there can be a designer who was not designed. The absurdity becomes so great that it takes the place of a demonstration. He takes it for granted that matter was created and that its creator was not." --Robert Ingersoll, Why I Am An Agnostic