(November 27, 2015 at 11:05 am)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(November 26, 2015 at 5:30 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: Tell me about something that wouldn't be logically indefensible as a 7 on that scale. That's why I would call myself a 7. There's a time and place for allowing uncertainty. In this context, I'm perfectly confortable with taking that further step to a 7.

Comfort isn't much of an indicator.  I have no doubt that Drich is mighty comfy as a 1 and would be much less comfortable if he tried to adopt any other position.  

Certainty itself is probably the most comfortable position to adopt.  But uncertainty toward unsupported claims, while less comfortable, creates less distortion in the brain.

It's just a figure of speech. You totally misunderstood what I meant.

7. There is not god and I'm certain.

(November 27, 2015 at 11:43 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: It's just a figure of speech. You totally misunderstood what I meant.

Perhaps you could rephrase what you're saying? Your meaning was not exactly clear to me either.

Ok. What I meant was I'll say I'm a 7 even though I'm technically not, for reasons already described by others, but I'll do it nonetheless in such an atmosphere for the sake of the argument, being that not everyone fully understands those reasons and for those people you might as well say you're a seven if you really want them to understand you. If you say you're a six, then they may think there's place for Jesus in your heart, if you know what I mean.

What god, where. I don't see any god around here.    

That's because you're not squinting hard enough!

(Did you just squint then?)

(November 25, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I believe He created the concept and let nature takes its course. I believe in evolution.

Either you side with the catechisms insistence upon a literal adam and eve specially created by god and from whom we are all descended, or you "believe" in evolution.  To hold both positions to be simultaneously true is ignorance of either the catechism, evolution, or both.  Been down this road before, ofc. Probably ought to mention that I don't hold you accountable for the duplicity of your church. I understand that you believe there is no conflict, and that you believe this because you were told that there is no conflict.

Me, I'd get fed up with being bullshitted, particularly if I'd made it my business to spread the party line. In any case, would it be strange to suggest that you take either proposition seriously enough to understand them? One is an article of your faith, the other is the unifying theory of biology. Both deserve a little more consideration than you've given them. Intelligent design is not evolution, special creation is not evolution, Adam and Eve are not compatible with evolutionary biology. These are as non-negotiable as facts as your catechism is regarding the articles of your faith.

If the evolution you "believe" in includes these things, then you aren't discussing the same thing as those questioning you, or responding to your statements. Perhaps you should use a different word, since evolution is already taken?

(November 28, 2015 at 2:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 25, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I believe He created the concept and let nature takes its course. I believe in evolution.

Either you side with the catechisms insistence upon a literal adam and eve specially created by god and from whom we are all descended, or you "believe" in evolution.  To hold both positions to be simultaneously true is ignorance of either the catechism, evolution, or both.  Been down this road before, ofc.  Probably ought to mention that I don't hold you accountable for the duplicity of your church.  I understand that you believe there is no conflict, and that you believe this because you were told that there is no conflict.  

Me, I'd get fed up with being bullshitted, particularly if I'd made it my business to spread the party line.  In any case, would it be strange to suggest that you take either proposition seriously enough to understand them?  One is an article of your faith, the other is the unifying theory of biology.  Both deserve a little more consideration than you've given them.  Intelligent design is not evolution, special creation is not evolution, Adam and Eve are not compatible with evolutionary biology.  These are as non-negotiable as facts as your catechism is regarding the articles of your faith.  

If the evolution you "believe" in includes these things, then you aren't discussing the same thing as those questioning you, or responding to your statements.  Perhaps you should use a different word, since evolution is already taken?

In the Bible Adam & Eve are the progenitors of the Jews.  They do not represent all of humanity.  In the Bible only Jews are considered "men".  Gentiles are considered "dogs", "swine", "animals".  

The Catholic Bible preaches evolution.  The Protestants deleted it.

I almost forgot! I'm god, and I know I exist because I know everything.

You almost had me for a minute.

(November 28, 2015 at 11:06 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: In the Bible Adam & Eve are the progenitors of the Jews.  They do not represent all of humanity.  In the Bible only Jews are considered "men".  Gentiles are considered "dogs", "swine", "animals".  

The Catholic Bible preaches evolution.  The Protestants deleted it.

Evidence for these claims?