Atheism V's Theism.

Theists invent and often reinvent their morals throughout their lives, same as everyone, but they have this annoying habit of attributing them to their chosen deity.

 

What he said is exactly right - theists constantly try to punch holes in evolution in order to justify their theistic creationist beliefs. They view their own unfounded views as the default, and evolution as a challenger to that.

 

No, most Christians accept evolution, including the Catholic Church ... uh oh. But atheists need ALL Christians to be literal fundamentalists ... so they ignore reality and proceed like it is so.

 

I never said that, is the problem I'm currently having with you. I was responding to AKRs post about how it is a logical fallacy called special pleading when people say that everything needs a creator but God doesn't. You took the opportunity of seeing a post of mine to jump into a conversation without thinking and then started touting off bull(*)(*)(*)(*) about how I think the Universe came from magic, which was not only not relevant to the conversation, it made no sense since I never said such a thing.

 

Really? TH eten commandments change throughout our lives do they? Stop and think.

 

So, because most Christians accept evolution, that means that there aren't theists who attempt to punch holes in evolution? Yeah... okay, that makes sense.

 

No G, you are not being misunderstood, you are simply losing because you cannot define your position and this cannot support it.

 

Your posts are making no sense and you spend more time crying about other atheists than actually discussing the topic.

 

Is that what I said? Or did I say that all teh Christians who do accept evolution are tired of over generalizing atheists, who complain about generalization mind you, treating all Christians, indeed theists, as if they are fundamentalists and literalists.

Do you insist on strawmen positions? Or just rabid contrarianism?

 

Nce excuse, another one liner devoid of logic, buit I am sure your contributions are right in line. Please re-read criticisms of atheism. And remember, its a debate forum, your faith choice is not off limits, and when you dish out criticism of others faith ... and then turn around and call the criticism of your cultish faith out of bounds ... well, we call that blatent hypocrisy do we not?

 

He never claimed all theists try to poke holes in evolution, he said "theists constantly try to punch holes in evolution in order to justify their theistic creationist beliefs." That is a factually true statement unless you are suggesting that atheists are constantly trying to punch holes in evolution to justify their creationist beliefs (which we don't have).

 

Wow, a stable of a great debater, jump into conversations and project arguments onto people, then declare yourself a winner. Did you just realize I made you look like a complete moron because you didn't actually read what I said so you are trying to jump out now?

 

Yeah, theists .... an overly generalized and all encompassing phrase just like I said. Only theists apparently means fundamentalists Christians and Jews very specifically when an atheist lacking standards and objectivuty just wants to be disagreeable.

See what a lack of standards can do?

 

I think you should look in th mirror kiddo.

You could have simply spelled out your thesis statement - but you cannot, ergo, everyone else is flawed.

Atheism is infallable you see.

 

My thesis statement - Not enough evidence exists to believe that there is a God or that there isn't. Simple, concise, probably easy enough for you to understand. No magic required.

 

You know what, you're right, he should have clarified that he meant young earth creationists or a specific group of "extreme" people (even though I think there do probably exist a large multitude of Christians who do not accept evolution simply because of lies they have been told or because they don't know enough about the subject).

 

Settle down, non-neutral. I'm talking about the theists who do attack evolution, and not just Christian ones. I'm obviously not talking about the theists who accept evolution, whatever their percentage of the whole may be.

 

Funny thing about neutral - he always seems to respond to a stated argument with a misdirection, and he throws in some sort of silly attack against atheists along with it.

 

Yes, yes, I've known this for years. He hasn't changed at all. Stumble into a conversation, project a strawman argument to argue against which often times isn't related to the conversation (and is also very hateful), then runs away when you make him look foolish. Not sure if troll or what.

 

Now that you have been confronted. And of course, when being corrected, its best to accuse the other person of blowing their stack rather than acknowledging that the correction was valid?

Now, lets pretend you are not the first atheists I have debated, and when theist is used for a concept that is Judeo-Christian ... I think the intent of the owrd usage is clear.

Glad to see the admition, but the nihilistic tedancies are all over modern atheism. When cooler, rational heads prevail, well, we find out rather quickly that the threat to evolution is over stated, and that organized atheisms demands for funding to fight theocracy are ... overblown.

That is the point. And such points make no one angry, its called a rebuttal - in a debate forum. Go figure.

 

Oh look, two atheists losing a debate to ONE Christian, and rather than rebut with the logic they claim is theirs, resort to the tired ad hominem and silly accusation.

Calm down gents! Just try to make a logical case rather than regurgitate propoganda.

 

It was your misdirection to imply that I was talking about all Christians. If anyone needs correcting, it's you. As ever.

So you interpreted it as you saw fit and now insist that your interpretation is what I meant.

Who's talking about funding a fight against theocracy? I certainly wasn't addressing such a thing.

 

You wondered whether he's a troll? Believe me, he is

 

Yes, clearly pointing out that term theist is general and hosts categories of religion that have no belief in Creationism, and incorporates entire, indeed the largest, sect of Christianity that overtly and doctrinally accepts evolution was misdirection on my part.

Atheism is infallable. Its not that an overt generalization was made, it that people pointing out the difference between fundamentalists/literalists, and ... say modern attempts in Apologetics to mate ancient revelation with modern science (perhaps), are actually angry? Therefor the general nature of the comment was not actually taking place and the infallable atheist remains unsullen.

So, given that atheists seem to have such difficult acknowledging even minor mistake, how does the concept of a life without atonement work for you?

 

Agh, if only YOU were my judge. Reported.