Evolution Trumps Creationism

[pocaracas]

You seem to be stuck on the erroneous assumption that because the majority, millions of people, believe in something that what they believe in must be true.

No, he said that if the majority believe in something, then that belief is not crazy. And he's correct.

Indeed, if the majority of the people in the world do it, then it is considered normal behavior.
If that's the normal behavior, then it is not crazy, not mentally deranged.

It's still an unsupported position...
And, borrowing Vinny's expression, it's irrational.

[Brian37]

No, he said that if the majority believe in something, then that belief is not crazy. And he's correct.

For 3,000 years the Ancient Egyptians thought the sun was a god.

There is a HUGE difference between accepting when people don't know better vs when you correct them, and they still insist on bullshit. Crazy is when the church puts a person under house arrest for pointing out that the earth rotates around the sun.

You are an example of how easy it is to con humanity.

[Drich]

I honestly don't care. The point I was making was that Atheist are by far in the minority. And for a small miniority to say that just because the majority does not think and act as we do make them crazy, in of itself is crazy.

You seem to be stuck on the erroneous assumption that because the majority, millions of people, believe in something that what they believe in must be true. I do not care if billions of people believe in unicorns. If there is no verifiable evidence to support the existence of unicorns, then those billions of people are delusional. Theists are no less delusional for their belief in god, a being for which there is also no verifiable evidence to support his existence.

And your under the assumption that there is no evidence. It would seem to me that 2% of the population is simply in denial of the evidence available.

[Michael Schubert]

Argument ad populum from you Drich? Really?

Correct. It's also called "Appeal to the Majority", in which you claim that something is true because more people say it is true.

If a million people say two plus two equals five, and two people say two plus two equals four, does that mean the former is true? Of course not.

[Foxaèr]

And your under the assumption that there is no evidence. It would seem to me that 2% of the population is simply in denial of the evidence available.

If there was any real evidence to support the existence of god, there would be no need for me to be an atheist.

[Minimalist]

I honestly don't care. The point I was making was that Atheist are by far in the minority. And for a small miniority to say that just because the majority does not think and act as we do make them crazy, in of itself is crazy.

You're crazy with or without us, Drippy. What would you say to an adult who believes in Santa Claus?

[Drich]

Lets see. Millions of people (probably the majority) believed:

In Witches.

Belief in witches did not spawn from Christianity. Witch craft (not the hippy Wiccan BS) was an establish religion. One that the general populace responded very negatively towards.

In Slavery.

slavery built every world power humanity has ever known. To dismiss slavery is to dismiss those who made countries great.

In the inferiority of the Black man.

Not just the black man, but all minorities. Which was true because of the political structure of a given soceity. Whether they be white black Asian or Hispanic. It is a simple observation made from a position of power. For when Spain ruled the world all Anglo races were inferior, why because the spainards restricted what Anglos could do in their regions of control.

The same was true for the Japanese, Chinese, Germans, and Americans, as well as native Americans at certain points in history and yes even the black man where his numbers out number all other races. Like it our not where ever there is a prevelancy of one race or one culture over another then that race/culture will be the primary culture one has to yield his or her own culture to while in that societies space. A lessor man with a chip on his shoulder would say that makes him inferior, when in reality it simple means one is apart of a global community and can share the mantel of responsiablity that comes when ones own culture is in the majority.

Some can do this while others can not. Does it mean that a culture that can not share this title of ethenic majority responsibly and not oppress everyone else is better or worse than one who can? (Careful how you answer.)

In the inferiority of women.

Women simple have different biological roles to play. Different does not mean better or worse.

That homosexuals molest children.
....

If a man molests a little boy that by definition makes him a homosexual pedophile.

How long a list do you want?

You can make the list as long as you like just know that circumstance dictates morality. You are in a unique position to look down at every generation that came before you and find fault with how they lived, never taking into account how you would live in that exact same situation.

Put yourself In The middle of the zombie apocalypse, and ask yourself where your current morals would be? After if you take away the last 300 years of mod cons, that is the time period you are describing, the level of western culture, and a fairly good understanding of the danger and situation you'd be living in if you understood the word zombie to be a metaphore for the the desperate acts poverty stricken men were driven to.

No super cities, no real authority or government over the citizens and their actions. No one to answer to. In that situation where do you think/how long do you think your modern 'morality' would allow you to live? How long before your current 'morals' would see you eaten by a 'zombie?'

[Waratah]

So you have still not shown me where in the parable(not page) is the seeking and knocking.

Here is the translation that your first showed:

5 And He said to them, “Which of you shall have a friend, and go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves; 6 for a friend of mine has come to me on his journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; 7 and he will answer from within and say, ‘Do not trouble me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give to you’? 8 I say to you, though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs. 9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 11 If a son asks for bread[d] from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

<Snipped>.....You asked to see where the Seeking and Knocking was in the parable I showed you where in practice the neighbor sought and knocked, but because it is not spelled out in this particular translation (It was not narrated for you to see) you believe seeking and knock was not apart of the parable, but anyone with basic common sense would say that the fact that this man is out of his house so late at night looking for bread, means he is indeed seeking. The guy had to be seeking in order to ask. For if he were not seeking and he had just asked, the persistant neighbor would have been with in the confines of his own house, when he asked for bread. The fact that he was roaming the streets in the middle of the night meant he was SEEKING.

This the same explanation you gave me before. When I replied you avoided my post. So I and am pasting my seek reply here:

"Seek here is used in the context of FINDING(not getting). In the parable he is not finding, so leaving the house is not seeking in this context."

He asks his friend to lend him 3 loaves. He does not enquire if he has 3 loaves to lend. So therefore he is not trying to find the loaves because he already knows where they are.

In the above section it clearly states that it is a friend, NOT a neighbour. Why do you insist saying it was a neighbour?

Again in the parable He knocked repeatedly. Meant he asked the guy who was in his house over and over and over and over and over again, till he got tired of him asking, got his butt out of bed and gave the pest what he wanted. Christ Identifies this as knocking.. But because in the story Christ did not narrate this knock you will not or can not recognize it...

I am glad you finally agree that there is no knocking in the parable by stating that it was not narrated.
Now I would like you now to show me where christ converts the asking into knocking?

<Snipped>....And because you did these things so often I took the time out of my frustration with your obstinance to not only provide you with a connect the dots work sheet I connected the dots for you and explained them to you.

And when I did the dots I come up with
You would have to agree your explanation of knocking is laughable.

How many knocks will it take to equal an ask(with evidence please)?

---

How many knocks did it take for the neighbor? One more than you are willing to give. Let me put it this way. What if the neighbor disclosed that he would only know for 5 mins before he left? What do you think the guy in bed would have done?

Just to spite the guy for coming over in the middle of the nigh I would think he would have waited Him out.

But because he was persistant and did not put a time frame on his knocking. He got what he wanted.

Allow me to further illustrate. I still knock. and I am flush with 'proof.' It goes beyond 'proof' into relationship at this point. I knock for further interaction, and Time with God.

---

Sorry this is my mistake here. My question should actually be:
[b]How many asks does it take to equal a knock?

Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must seek in luke 11.


Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must knock in luke 11.[/b]

Could not work out quotes. This is drich reply to the above questions.
Again in verse 9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

......<Snipped>

You failed to show me where it says to receive you MUST seek and/or knock. It is you cherry picking. In line 13 it clearly states what you will receive if you ask, the holy spirit.

Please show me what will be found if I "seek"? No assumptions please.

Please show me what will be opened if I "knock"? No assumptions please.

[Drich]

And your under the assumption that there is no evidence. It would seem to me that 2% of the population is simply in denial of the evidence available.

If there was any real evidence to support the existence of god, there would be no need for me to be an atheist.

Again God offers evidence, you simply have chosen to ignore it.

---

Here is the translation that your first showed:

5 And He said to them, “Which of you shall have a friend, and go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves; 6 for a friend of mine has come to me on his journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; 7 and he will answer from within and say, ‘Do not trouble me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give to you’? 8 I say to you, though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs. 9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 11 If a son asks for bread[d] from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

<Snipped>.....You asked to see where the Seeking and Knocking was in the parable I showed you where in practice the neighbor sought and knocked, but because it is not spelled out in this particular translation (It was not narrated for you to see) you believe seeking and knock was not apart of the parable, but anyone with basic common sense would say that the fact that this man is out of his house so late at night looking for bread, means he is indeed seeking. The guy had to be seeking in order to ask. For if he were not seeking and he had just asked, the persistant neighbor would have been with in the confines of his own house, when he asked for bread. The fact that he was roaming the streets in the middle of the night meant he was SEEKING.

This the same explanation you gave me before. When I replied you avoided my post. So I and am pasting my seek reply here:

"Seek here is used in the context of FINDING(not getting). In the parable he is not finding, so leaving the house is not seeking in this context."

He asks his friend to lend him 3 loaves. He does not enquire if he has 3 loaves to lend. So therefore he is not trying to find the loaves because he already knows where they are.

In the above section it clearly states that it is a friend, NOT a neighbour. Why do you insist saying it was a neighbour?

Again in the parable He knocked repeatedly. Meant he asked the guy who was in his house over and over and over and over and over again, till he got tired of him asking, got his butt out of bed and gave the pest what he wanted. Christ Identifies this as knocking.. But because in the story Christ did not narrate this knock you will not or can not recognize it...

I am glad you finally agree that there is no knocking in the parable by stating that it was not narrated.
Now I would like you now to show me where christ converts the asking into knocking?

<Snipped>....And because you did these things so often I took the time out of my frustration with your obstinance to not only provide you with a connect the dots work sheet I connected the dots for you and explained them to you.

And when I did the dots I come up with
You would have to agree your explanation of knocking is laughable.

---

How many knocks did it take for the neighbor? One more than you are willing to give. Let me put it this way. What if the neighbor disclosed that he would only know for 5 mins before he left? What do you think the guy in bed would have done?

Just to spite the guy for coming over in the middle of the nigh I would think he would have waited Him out.

But because he was persistant and did not put a time frame on his knocking. He got what he wanted.

Allow me to further illustrate. I still knock. and I am flush with 'proof.' It goes beyond 'proof' into relationship at this point. I knock for further interaction, and Time with God.

---

Sorry this is my mistake here. My question should actually be:
How many asks does it take to equal a knock?

Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must seek in luke 11.


Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must knock in luke 11.[/b][/size]

Could not work out quotes. This is drich reply to the above questions.
Again in verse 9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

......<Snipped>

You failed to show me where it says to receive you MUST seek and/or knock. It is you cherry picking. In line 13 it clearly states what you will receive if you ask, the holy spirit.

Please show me what will be found if I "seek"? No assumptions please.

Please show me what will be opened if I "knock"? No assumptions please.

The results of a/s/k is the gift of the Holy Spirit.

[Ryantology]

And your under the assumption that there is no evidence. It would seem to me that 2% of the population is simply in denial of the evidence available.

You'll have to actually produce something before we can deny or accept it.