It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Message to American Atheists

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Oh, I'd hate to do that. The majority of Christians that I know personally are all non-creationists.

Actually, the one close friend I had that was a creationist changed his mind due to conversations with me about how "You don't have to be a creationist to be a Christian".




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Most preists know better now than to try and argue against, and contradict the evidence for evolution. (i.e. allude to design from observing and studying nature)

The best they can do is inferr to "deity" straight past the "intelligent" design/creationist argument, there need be no logic when you are dealing with the unprovable.

This intellectual dishonesty is often referred to by anti-theists and philosophers as the "GOD of the Gaps"

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Most preists are clever enough these days to try an argue against evolution, or try and allude to design from existing evidence.

The best they can do is inferr the God straight past the "intelligent" design/creationist argument, there need be no logic when you are dealing with the unprovable.

You are making no sense, sorry..
Priests are Catholic, Anglican or Orthodox.
None of these groups favour creationism or Intelligent Design, so you're attacking the wrong target, no matter what Lord Sir Professor Herr Dawkins would have you believe.
You seem to have have had all your language skills desert you. Remind me of where you claim to be living again? My vote is American in the UK - as very often, you go all illiterate...



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 



None of these groups favour creationism or Intelligent Design, so you're attacking the wrong target, no matter what Lord Sir Professor Herr Dawkins would have you believe.


That was my point - i never said they favour such arguments or positions regarding God, They would have gotten away with it a while ago, but certainly not now. Many preachers are ignorant of the criticisms of the argument from DESIGN and STILL use them. (I'm not claiming any specific Pope or Minister is still using those arguments)

There are many young-earth creationists out there, not ALL Christians are, but many support their beliefs using scripture.

Thanks for your comments on my language. I'm ENGLISH. Y'know? Born in England, raised in England. Thanks for your lovely comments on my language though; This debate is definetly about frequent abuse of language and not "Faith, Religion and Theology"........
edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware


Thanks for your comments on my language. I'm ENGLISH. Y'know? Born in England, raised in England. Thanks for your lovely comments on my language though; This debate is definetly about frequent abuse of language and not "Faith, Religion and Theology"........
edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Sorry! Maybe you've just had a few too many after-Sunday-lunch drinks! Your grammar got out of hand there, and had I not known where you're comng from I wouldn't have known what on earth you were on about...
Trust me on this - read your post tomorrow and you'll see what I mean.



Most preists are clever enough these days to try an argue against evolution, or try and allude to design from existing evidence. The best they can do is inferr the God straight past the "intelligent" design/creationist argument, there need be no logic when you are dealing with the unprovable.

See what I mean? If I got that from one of my Pre-IELTS students, who are supposed to be upper Intermediate, I would weep inside.
I'd start with the spelling of priest, and then I would point out that 'argue' is the verb but the noun is argument.. Then there's the spelling of infer...
The main point being that priests as I've previously said, don't support ID or Creatinionism.
edit on 12/6/11 by Vicky32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


No apology required; I should really take more time with my posts in future. Thanks for the heads up.

I've taken the liberty to correct, i hope this makes more sense:-


Most preists know better now than to try and argue against, and contradict the evidence for evolution. (i.e. allude to design from natural evidence)

The best they can do is inferr to "deity" straight past the "intelligent" design/creationist argument, there need be no logic when you are dealing with the unprovable.

This intellectual dishonesty is often referred to by anti-theists and philosophers as the "GOD of the Gaps"

en.wikipedia.org...



See what I mean? If I got that from one of my Pre-IELTS students, who are supposed to be upper Intermediate, I would weep inside.
I'd start with the spelling of priest, and then I would point out that 'argue' is the verb but the noun is argument.. Then there's the spelling of infer...
The main point being that priests as I've previously said, don't support ID or Creatinionism.


OK, OK!

I've already corrected myself and explained further.....If you still can't understand the meaning i'll be more than happy to re-phrase.

This is about religion, faith, and theology not "grammar, spelling and formatting"

It's very easy to write a lot about language when you have little opinion or refutation of my theological criticism. I've noticed many of my arguments go unrefuted; and instead personal attacks and obsessiveness over language.

Take it to the "Rant" section of this website.
edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Vicky32
 


No apology required; I should really take more time with my posts in future. Thanks for the heads up.

I've taken the liberty to correct, i hope this makes more sense:-


Most preists know better now than to try and argue against, and contradict the evidence for evolution. (i.e. allude to design from natural evidence)

The best they can do is inferr to "deity" straight past the "intelligent" design/creationist argument, there need be no logic when you are dealing with the unprovable.

This is intellectual dishonesty is often referred to Anti-Theists as the "GOD of the Gaps

en.wikipedia.org...



I've already corrected myself and explained further.....If you still can't understand the meaning i'll be more than happy to re-phrase.

Temper temper! Really..
It's cool that you've corrected yourself, I hadn't seen that when I made my last post, but my theological point remains.
You're still fighting against a straw man!
A minuscule handful of Christians are creationists. No denomination that has priests (as opposed to ministers and Pastor Elmer of Bugtussle Baptist) is creationist.
Like it or not, so quit nit-picking.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Originally posted by Vicky32


Temper temper! Really..


I'm not mad. I don't have a temper. If i did, i wouldn't allude towards it with pathetic flaming faces in my posts. In other words, i don't wouldn't make it obvious.


A minuscule handful of Christians are creationists.


And my point was that MOST priests or believers are wise enough (NOW) and know better than to try and use the creationist/intelligent design argument.

I've stated this multiple times.



It's cool that you've corrected yourself, I hadn't seen that when I made my last post, but my theological point remains.


And so does mine, people who have little knowledge of the "Philosophy of Religion", or science (evolution) are still using the argument from design (Kent Hovind) was just one example, I'm sure if he was out of jail; he'd be preaching his nonsense, despite evidence.

Many African bishops still use it because they are ignorant of the refutations and criticisms over the "argument from design".

Teleological argument

"Kent Hovind" - (LOL!)

Christians ARE STILL guilty, and i have argued NOT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE GUILTY. Hope that point sticks this time.


You're still fighting against a straw man!


No, i'm not - I've explained above regarding the teoleolgical arguments that are still used many many Christian ministers or believers alike.


A minuscule handful of Christians are creationists.


This "minicule handful" is based on what percentage? What study sample of Christian denominations all over the world?

*******SPELLING MISTAKE ALERT***** - It's miniscule, not "minicule" - Sorry, slightly hypocritical of me, but i thought i'd highlight how annoying and pointless it is, i knew exactly what you meant.


No denomination that has priests (as opposed to ministers and Pastor Elmer of Bugtussle Baptist) is creationist.
Like it or not, so quit nit-picking.


I'm only higlighting some of the arguments that religious people use, I didn't specify whether it was in areas where scientific knowledge was abundant but normally where knowledge is greater, superstitious belief is fewer (e.g. volcanoes being punishment from Gods) Superstitious assumptions, not having the knowledge of natural selection, could lead you to an argument from design; easily.
edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Um...the pope recently argued for a form of special creation...humanity was created, not evolved. Everything else...whatever.

Even though humanity is the bit for which we have the most compelling evidence for the evolution of humans.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

I'm not mad. I don't have a temper.

Neither I believe are you English! (Or - you're less English than I am, and I was born in New Zealand. In British English 'mad' means insane, not angry!


Originally posted by awake_and_aware
And my point was that MOST priests or believers are wise enough (NOW) and know better than to try and use the creationist/intelligent design argument.

If that was your point, you signally failed, many times, to make it.



Originally posted by awake_and_aware- It's miniscule, not "minicule" - Sorry, slightly hypocritical of me, but i thought i'd highlight how annoying and pointless it is, i knew exactly what you meant.

Actually it's minuscule! Sorry, I made what my beloved Gianluca would call a distraction error ...



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 



Neither I believe are you English! (Or - you're less English than I am, and I was born in New Zealand. In British English 'mad' means insane, not angry!


I'm as English as they come; perhaps i'll get a spot on ATS live and prove it so.

Anyway, thanks for your input again Vicky, i always find your responses useful

Peace.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join