An Idiosyncrasy of Atheism

[EarlyActs]

They who? Christendom? Christendom is not just Christians. I don't know whom you intend to mock, here.

He had said that most of C’dom accepted evolutionary cosmology.

 

[EarlyActs]

A slight correction, if I may. Pretty much nobody believes that "biological life is explained by evolution." Rather, what is believed is that the "continuity of life is explained by evolution." The theory of evolution presupposes the existence of life. It is a biological theory, hence life is presupposed.

Allow me to use different terms to clearly express the salient point as I understand it: Notwithstanding how life arose, it has nevertheless evolved. Let us assume for the moment that, for whatever reason, we are never able explain scientifically how life first arose. Let us assume that it remains forever impossible to explain. Does that mean life doesn't exist? Of course not. Life is everywhere—and this vast biodiversity is a scientific curiosity. Evolution is one answer, and our best scientific one.

Incidentally, atheists are hardly the only ones who affirm the theory of evolution. The vast majority of Christendom does, too—including yours truly.

Dialectic:
“Atheists are hardly the ones who affirm…evolution.”

It’s quite unbelievable what people will chose to ignore…. I suppose you think Romans 1 is mistaken as well, then? The part about the delusion of worshipping creatures rather than the Creator, bc He might have a moral authority that exposes them?

Is it safe to say that they won’t accept the fact of the God of Genesis creating quickly, completely, thriving? Or have all the atheists I’ve read, from Darwin’s guide Huxley onward, who celebrate the intellectual destruction of Genesis , been sneaking in praise and admiration for Genesis? And being the buffoon that I am, I just missed it?

 

[makesends]

He had said that most of C’dom accepted evolutionary cosmology.

I guess that would depend on one's scope of 'Christendom'. I've heard whole nations, like USA, included, in which case I expect he is right.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It is quite unbelievable what people will chose to ignore. I suppose you think Romans 1 is mistaken as well, then?

Of course not. I am Reformed not only in my theology but also in my apologetics (i.e., presuppositionalism); in other words, I lean in much harder than most Christians into the truths of Romans 1.

Let me add to what I said earlier, which you quoted there: "And atheists are hardly the only ones who exchange the truth of God for a lie and worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator."

Is it safe to say that [these Christians you mentioned] won’t accept the fact of the Gods of Genesis creating quickly, completely, thriving?

This is difficult to answer because I have no idea whether that is a typo or not. So, let me answer it this way:

(1) It IS safe to say they won't accept that there is more than one creator God. For all I know, it was a typo when you wrote "the Gods" there. However, just in case that wasn't a typo, I need to affirm that I'm referring to Christians, who are by definition monotheists.

(2) It is NOT safe to say they won't accept that creation happened quickly, completely, and thriving. Although they don't accept that, it would be wrong to say that they won't accept it. I should think nearly all of them would—I certainly would—if they were shown convincing historical-grammatical exegesis which established that as what the text was saying.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I guess that would depend on one's scope of 'Christendom'. I've heard whole nations, like USA, included, in which case I expect he is right.

To clarify, I am using "Christendom" to refer to all of Christianity, from Roman Catholics to Eastern Orthodox to Protestants.

 

[atpollard]

It is very likely that the person who believes biological life is explained by evolution also is a person who faults God for mistakes and shortsightedness in the human body, as one example.

It is very likely that the person who believes biological life is a special creation of God, is also a person who holds God blameless for birth defects, as one example.

Thus this apparent ‘compartmentalization’ (or double standard) is not unique to atheists.

 

[EarlyActs]

I guess that would depend on one's scope of 'Christendom'. I've heard whole nations, like USA, included, in which case I expect he is right.

Making it even more meaningless to say so.

{edit for insult}

 

[EarlyActs]

Of course not. I am Reformed not only in my theology but also in my apologetics (i.e., presuppositionalism); in other words, I lean in much harder than most Christians into the truths of Romans 1.

Let me add to what I said earlier, which you quoted there: "And atheists are hardly the only ones who exchange the truth of God for a lie and worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator."




This is difficult to answer because I have no idea whether that is a typo or not. So, let me answer it this way:

(1) It IS safe to say they won't accept that there is more than one creator God. For all I know, it was a typo when you wrote "the Gods" there. However, just in case that wasn't a typo, I need to affirm that I'm referring to Christians, who are by definition monotheists.

(2) It is NOT safe to say they won't accept that creation happened quickly, completely, and thriving. Although they don't accept that, it would be wrong to say that they won't accept it. I should think nearly all of them would—I certainly would—if they were shown convincing historical-grammatical exegesis which established that as what the text was saying.

The plural on God was a typo and the fix sat overnight by mistake and was just sent.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The plural on God was a typo and the fix sat overnight by mistake and was just sent.

And it was answered.

 

[EarlyActs]

Of course not. I am Reformed not only in my theology but also in my apologetics (i.e., presuppositionalism); in other words, I lean in much harder than most Christians into the truths of Romans 1.

Let me add to what I said earlier, which you quoted there: "And atheists are hardly the only ones who exchange the truth of God for a lie and worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator."




This is difficult to answer because I have no idea whether that is a typo or not. So, let me answer it this way:

(1) It IS safe to say they won't accept that there is more than one creator God. For all I know, it was a typo when you wrote "the Gods" there. However, just in case that wasn't a typo, I need to affirm that I'm referring to Christians, who are by definition monotheists.

(2) It is NOT safe to say they won't accept that creation happened quickly, completely, and thriving. Although they don't accept that, it would be wrong to say that they won't accept it. I should think nearly all of them would—I certainly would—if they were shown convincing historical-grammatical exegesis which established that as what the text was saying.

So now you are referring to Christians not C’dom. Got it.

Most Christians do not have a high enough or clear enough view of Genesis to treat it truthfully enough to go up against what ‘science’ says it has found. So they say it really doesn’t matter and form some kind of posture in which Genesis is historically false but theologically true.

This is partly due to operating in English, partly to disregarding the ‘spreading out’, partly to missing the POV of location of the text, partly to failing to see what 2Peter 3 is actually saying, partly due to entering magical or imaginary types of light on Day 1.

I urge people to draw a storyboard sequence of Genesis 1 and work out many of these features.

 

[EarlyActs]

It is very likely that the person who believes biological life is a special creation of God, is also a person who holds God blameless for birth defects, as one example.

Thus this apparent ‘compartmentalization’ (or double standard) is not unique to atheists.

That would be a person who understands the invasion of evil into this world is after creation’s innocence.

The rationalist blames God; Romans 5B, Adam.

The thumbs up by Dialectic to what you said means that he has not absorbed the classic Christian answer to this, found in Lewis or in Schaeffers HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT, ch 2, ‘the Moral problem.’

Every fabric of life was ruined by the coming of evil to earth, aka, the fall. The standard is double in no sense at all.

“pain is God’s megaphone to us to urge us to acknowledge our need of Him.”—Lewis.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

So now you are referring to Christians, not Christendom. Got it.

No, I was (and I still am) referring to Christendom, in the sense of all Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. If I was talking exclusively about Christians, Roman Catholicism would not be included (and neither would several Protestant denominations).

I have now made myself abundantly clear. Any further misrepresentations of my views will be treated accordingly, as a violation of the Rules.

Most Christians do not have a high enough or clear enough view of Genesis to treat it truthfully enough to go up against what ‘science’ says it has found.

That is an unjustified ad hominem attack, and a pointless one at that because it leaves my claim unchanged: The vast majority of Christendom affirms the theory of evolution.

So far, you have failed to refute a single thing I said.

 

[makesends]

The thumbs up by Dialectic to what you said means that he has not absorbed the classic Christian answer to this, found in Lewis or in Schaeffers HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT, ch 2, ‘the Moral problem.’

The "thumbs up" means only that the person rating with a 'thumbs up' likes a post, or likes the poster, or likes the direction of conversation or any number of other things. Many of us rate with a 'thumbs up' before responding to a post with an opposing point of view.

You have the habit of aggressive vehemence to the tune of arrogance, condescension, presumption and combativeness —all of which not only are faulty debate tactics, but also run afoul of the site rules. Adjust accordingly, please.

 

[EarlyActs]

No, I was (and I still am) referring to Christendom, in the sense of all Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. If I was talking exclusively about Christians, Roman Catholicism would not be included (and neither would several Protestant denominations).

I have now made myself abundantly clear. Any further misrepresentations of my views will be treated accordingly, as a violation of the Rules.




That is an unjustified ad hominem attack, and a pointless one at that because it leaves my claim unchanged: The vast majority of Christendom affirms the theory of evolution.

So far, you have failed to refute a single thing I said.

You are the most confusing person I have read here or in my stacks.

You want the validation of evolution by Christendom but then you want a proper exegesis of Genesis.

Good luck.

 

[EarlyActs]

The "thumbs up" means only that the person rating with a 'thumbs up' likes a post, or likes the poster, or likes the direction of conversation or any number of other things. Many of us rate with a 'thumbs up' before responding to a post with an opposing point of view.

You have the habit of aggressive vehemence to the tune of arrogance, condescension, presumption and combativeness —all of which not only are faulty debate tactics, but also run afoul of the site rules. Adjust accordingly, please.

Did you not see that he just sided with the people who have no doctrine of the disruption of evil, who see the world as prelapsarian, and thus blame God for evil/pain?

Makesends, I notice you turned silent on Israel’s land promises and then suddenly show up here parroting a guy who seeks C’doms validation of evolution but then says he exegetes Genesis properly. [MOD EDIT: Not relevant to the topic of the thread.]

What is going on?[/color]

 

[EarlyActs]

The "thumbs up" means only that the person rating with a 'thumbs up' likes a post, or likes the poster, or likes the direction of conversation or any number of other things. Many of us rate with a 'thumbs up' before responding to a post with an opposing point of view.

You have the habit of aggressive vehemence to the tune of arrogance, condescension, presumption and combativeness —all of which not only are faulty debate tactics, but also run afoul of the site rules. Adjust accordingly, please.

What habit of aggressive vehemence shows in the Schaeffer HITAHINS reference post, except perhaps your feelings about it?

 

[makesends]

Did you not see that he just sided with the people who have no doctrine of the disruption of evil, who see the world as prelapsarian, and thus blame God for evil/pain?

Makesends, I notice you turned silent on Israel’s land promises and then suddenly show up here parroting a guy who seeks C’doms validation of evolution but then says he exegetes Genesis properly.

What is going on?

This is not a question of taking sides.

When I interjected about Israel's land promises, it was about bad logic, if I remember correctly. Not about taking sides.

But what's going on now, is not just bad logic, but you violating the rules.
--------------------------------------------------------

But to return to the subject at hand:

I don't know @DialecticSkeptic 's reasoning concerning Genesis 1, etc. It might be worth starting a new thread on that, or dealing with it in short-fashion in order to return to the subject of the OP. It is off-topic at this point.

--------------------------------------------------------
Back to the subject of the OP:

Yes, the atheist use this logic to try and disprove a "good" God in their attempt to demonstrate God doesn't exist.

On topic.

“Life is everywhere”

Oh really? The Webb scope just sent back that it found some water in a site 1000 LY away , a nursery of stars. That is hardly what I would call everywhere.


I hope you will absorb my cosmology journal, bc I believe it’s half dozen essential points will challenge you.

I’m not allowed by this site to mention it by name. It is online at bookstores, quarterly. And there is a short ad at YT. The title of it emphasizes a local POV, and affirms the creation week, but not necessarily as the first thing that happened.

Or DM me.

It is being reviewed by the ICC and by the CRS , going about 4 months now. Most people won’t adopt its views until those 2 have appraised it.

Red Herring. Off Topic.

 

[Arial]

To posters:

The thread is quickly degenerating into personal remarks instead of posts relevant to the subject. I suggest the OP restate the subject and direction, and do so without further mention of persons or previous posts and then responses stay focused on the discussion that ensues. If the spats continue, the thread will need to be locked for awhile.

 

[makesends]

What habit of aggressive vehemence shows in the Schaeffer HITAHINS reference post, except perhaps your feelings about it?

Since you didn't link to it nor even give it a post # here, I'm not going back through the last two pages to find it. But I'm not just talking about that—I was referring to your general demeanor here.
--------------------------------------------------------

So, let's get back to the OP.

It is very likely that the person who believes biological life is explained by evolution also is a person who faults God for mistakes and shortsightedness in the human body, as one example.

I like that, because it does point out a certain irony that I have seen too.

I understand that some born again believers can believe also in a certain view of evolution that more closely resembles atheistic evolution than the 6-day week of Genesis 1. And some combine them, somehow.

But as a generality, I think your point is correct, or least applicable: If a person is an atheist or even Deistic, and rejects the Genesis account as irrelevant legend, they are also likely to mock the notion that God has designed anything, by pointing out what seem to them errors (in design, effectiveness, purpose, etc) in whatever actually occurs.

I've argued with some of them, even in other subjects, like God's handling of human events, ending up having to say something along the lines of, "What makes you think you know God's purposes?" (At which they then go into, "Well, Christians say...")

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

You are the most confusing person I have read here or in my stacks.

Okay. But that is still an ad hominem response, because you are saying something about me.

If you continue to flagrantly violate the Rules & Guidelines, this thread may be temporarily locked, as Arial stated. So, please stop.

Please.

You want the validation of evolution by Christendom, but then you want a proper exegesis of Genesis.

Good luck.

I do not seek anybody's validation. I could not care less if the majority of Christendom shares my view or opposes my view. You are talking to someone who believes that humans do not have an immaterial, immortal soul. Guess how popular that view is? And yet I hold it, for I am convinced by the word of God.

So, it is your own unwarranted assumptions about me that are creating this confusion you have about me. Just stop it.