To our Muslim/Christian members & all faiths....

[Astonished]

Haha, I accept evolution and the big bang. I think it's really interesting actually and this looks like a good doc.

Still better than being a YEC nutter. 

My mom was awesome with the COSMOS series. We were political opposites but with that 13 part series, no matter if we watched it together, or she was at her apartment and I was at home, she would call to remind me it was on, then I'd call her or she would call me when it was over. Boy did I enjoy doing that with her. 

Neil is da bomb!

I

Better still to not be any kind of theistic nutter, but when you're right, you're right.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Believing in creationism is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Also you don't need to be a theist to have doubts about evolution. Case in point, Thomas Nagel's "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" You can find it HERE

[Succubus]

Believing in creationism is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Also you don't need to be a theist to have doubts about evolution. Case in point, Thomas Nagel's "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" You can find it  HERE

Thomas Nagel is a philosopher and an apologist for intelligent design. You can find it Here

[Minimalist]

It was to St. Ambrose in the 4th century, among others.  History is a bitch, ain't it?  It doesn't go away when you want it to!

But Scripture established a law that twenty-four
hours, including both day and night, should be given the
name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day
is twenty-four hours in extent. In such fashion, also, is the
generation of men reckoned which is understood to include
that of women, also. Because what is secondary is bound up
with what is primary, the nights in this reckoning are con-
sidered to be component parts of the days that are counted.

Ambrose of Milan 4th century "The Hexameron"

Take it up with him.

[Astonished]

Believing in creationism is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith.

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man. See how meaningless what you're saying about it is when you're talking about something that is entirely dependent upon subjective interpretation (and based on complete goatshit)? There are people who would MURDER you for saying such a blasphemous thing.

Also you don't need to be a theist to have doubts about evolution.

But having doubts if you're completely uneducated on the subject is your own stupid lookout. Those who are well-educated on the subject and don't have an agenda like yours to push are in universal agreement. That's how goddamn fucking strong the evidence is. And it's so simple an elementary school child can be taught and understand it. Really want to paint yourself with a sign that says you're less capable than one of them?

Case in point, Thomas Nagel's "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" You can find it  HERE

Is it even remotely possible that you can give one, just one, reason why anyone should click on that, and expect to find anything other than utter nonsense and/or deliberate fraud? Or are you willing to own up to it and admit this is just a fucking shill for your indoctrination campaign? Do you get a free box of cookies if you meet a certain quota of converts? Talk about diminishing returns.

[AFTT47]

Everybody knows all this, Brian.

The issue with theists is that their emotional attachment to their religion - their faith - overrides their logical mind. They are not incapable of logic, nor are they ignorant. It is simply that when it comes to this subject, emotion/faith > logic for them. We learned this years ago. You are beating a dead horse.

[Brian37]

Believing in creationism is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Also you don't need to be a theist to have doubts about evolution. Case in point, Thomas Nagel's "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" You can find it  HERE

Thomas Nagel is a philosopher and an apologist for intelligent design. You can find it Here

I really hate this dodge. And the more I think about it, the word "doctrine" becomes more absurd. Neo hides behind the word "doctrine" to avoid that back then, people were taking much more of the bible word for word as true. He is cherry picking and he knows it and it is dishonest. 

Tons of theists pull this. When we point out what the writers believed at the time, they ignore it and try to revise it in their head to try and prop it up with modern scientific knowledge. So now they cant use the literal story as true, which people back then thought, now he is saying "it isn't a requirement to believe".

Yep, typical tactic, when you cant prove it it gets chalked up to metaphor. Funny how the bible was taken word for word as being true, but as time goes by the fantastic debunked claims are now hiding behind "You don't have to believe that".

Sure you dont but if the bible can get the 6 day story wrong, what makes these apologists think any of the fantastic claims are scientifically possible?

If you took a black Sharpie to every bullshit fantastic claim in that book to every page there would be nothing left.

---

Everybody knows all this, Brian.

The issue with theists is that their emotional attachment to their religion - their faith - overrides their logical mind. They are not incapable of logic, nor are they ignorant. It is simply that when it comes to this subject, emotion/faith > logic for them. We learned this years ago. You are beating a dead horse.  

No I am not. NEO may never ditch his position. But you cannot make this solely about one person. If someone had not asked  me a skeptical question when I did believe I would not be where I am at now. The person who asked me that question will never know that I am an atheist now. We parted company just a year or so later and I have not seen him since.

I also cannot begin to tell you in my 16 years on line how many times I have run into atheists that were formerly just as deep rooted as NEO is now.

But the other reason it is good to do this, is to allow other atheists to hear arguments they may not be aware of so that when they do run into theists on their own they are better informed and cannot be fooled so easily. I can tell you at the time I first got on line seeking other atheists I didn't know shit and if I had tried to take on a theist without other atheists around me to see what they were arguing I would have bee a much easier target.

[Catholic_Lady]

Everybody knows all this, Brian.

The issue with theists is that their emotional attachment to their religion - their faith - overrides their logical mind. They are not incapable of logic, nor are they ignorant. It is simply that when it comes to this subject, emotion/faith > logic for them. We learned this years ago. You are beating a dead horse.  

I think most theists in the modern world accept evolution over creationism. Or at least intelligent design. But I think creationists are in the minority.

[Astonished]

So what's the excuse for not accepting all reason over superstitious nonsense? I mean, I'm glad it's stacked up in such a way that there are so few genuine creationists that Ken Ham's sideshow is inevitably going bankrupt, but it would be better if the zeitgeist just didn't include that level of unreasonableness that would lead to its construction in the first place.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Is it even remotely possible that you can give one, just one, reason why anyone should click on that, and expect to find anything other than utter nonsense and/or deliberate fraud?

Thomas Nagel is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th Century. His paper, "What is It Like to be A Bat" was an important contribution to philosophy of mind and is required reading in classes on the subject. Before you start accusing other people of ignorance, you might try reading a book. YouTube is not a substitute for actual study from original sources.