Quick YEC Debunks

[John V]

You are talking about something else all together now.  This isn't about what is usual or making those types of assumptions.  This is about what you can see directly.

No, you can't see the age of the universe directly. You can't see that it took 20 million years for light to get to earth, or that a star was created with light already reaching here. You noted this in your first post - different assumptions generate different conclusions from the same currently observable phenomena.

There are some difficulties with some traditions.   But I don't find that I need to reject one or the other.

How do you address the difficulties I noted?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I accept RR as a Christian, and I daresay he accepts me as one. So, stars and distances don't seem to be stopping either side from believing.

In general, people believe or don't due to matters of the heart. They then use their head to justify their desired conclusion.

It's called rationalizing, and it's phoney.

[John V]

But help is available.  You don't have to live this way.

I seem to be living better than most of the atheists here. Why would I want to change?

---

It's called rationalizing, and it's phoney.

Yes, people want to sin and not feel guilty, so the don't believe and then rationalize their lack of belief.

[Whateverist]

Alpha and RR - big time props to you both for participating in a debate regarding religion here in the open. Nice to see you being real about it and not so overly concerned with presenting a unified front. Hell, we godless disagree on lots of stuff and don't have to PM each other worrying about conveying solidarity. There isn't any reason should have to do that either.

The plain reading of the gospels is that he endorsed a plain reading of Genesis. That's good enough for me.

I am usually the last person who would want to know anything about bible quotes. But if there is actually a quote that directly addresses the manner in which God intended his acolytes to read the bible, I would really like to know it.

[John V]

Matt 19
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus notes that man was created at the beginning - not after billions of years. 

Matt 24
38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Jesus refers to the flood as a historical event.

[Crossless2.0]

Matt 19
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus notes that man was created at the beginning - not after billions of years. 

Matt 24
38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Jesus refers to the flood as a historical event.

Who cares? We're not the ones who think Jesus was god-on-Earth or that every utterance attributed to him is Divine Truth. He was a man of a particular time and place, with many of the same cultural biases and limitations of understanding that one would expect of such a person.

It's perfectly understandable that Jesus and his contemporaries might read Genesis as providing solid historical information about "the beginning". It's less forgivable when 21st Century people continue to parrot such things as anything other than mythical/poetic speculation from the late-Bronze or Iron Age.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, people want to sin and not feel guilty, so the don't believe and then rationalize their lack of belief.

Or maybe we just flat out don't feel guilty about your "sins", alpha, lol.

[John V]

Who cares?

As whateverist asked, he seems to care. If you don't, then feel free to STFU.  

---

Or maybe we just flat out don't feel guilty about your "sins", alpha, lol.

People who really don't care about something don't need to go and start threads like:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53821.html

[Divinity]

The idea that people stop believing so they can sin guilt free is the one of the dumbest fucking ideas out there.

Here's why: Christians already sin guilt free all the fucking time. So not believing in some ancient deity has ZERO to do with the stupid concept of sin. It has to do with a lack of evidence.

[Crossless2.0]

So Whateverist asked a question, and you responded with compelling evidence that Jesus' reading of Genesis can be safely dismissed. Got it.