Originally posted by sinthia
"Because it isn't likely that any such character exists. The word from which we get Satan just means ADVERSARY, the supernatural boogeyman style Satan of modern Christian mythology developed over the centuries and blended with the character Lucifer. There is no evidence for any supernatural entities let alone one conjured from a composite of myths and verses over the course of centuries."
No, that is the typical conspiracy theorist fed garbage. The book of Genesis is pver three thousand years old, and that is verifiable fact. The serpent is Satan.
"Saying that Icke and his reptilians are satanic makes you look just as crazy as Icke himself is."
The point was that Icke himself calls the bloodlines Satanic, yet puts their source down to reptilians, rather than Satan, quite an odditity.
"You might as well be arguing over the color of an invisible unicorn or what style of clothes the naked emperor is wearing."
Or what made the big bang, bang, or the origins of life, or the origins of the laws of physics, or moral law, or missing links.......not everything is materially reducable.
.
Quote: ["No, that is the typical conspiracy theorist fed garbage. The book of Genesis is pver three thousand years old, and that is verifiable fact."]
So the older a thing is, the more is it intrinsically 'true'?
Quote: ["The serpent is Satan."]
Your terminology lacks somewhat in precision: Which snake? The talking one with legs from genesis 2?
But in any case the chronology of OT prevents Satan and any snake at all to be identical. Possibly could Lucifer be the snake. That you're rather ignorant about science/logic is clear to me, but as a representative of a pro bible/'god'/Jesus/christian (?) position, you ought to know the bible better, than what you present here.
Quote: [" Or what made the big bang, bang, or the origins of life, or the origins of the laws of physics, or moral law, or missing links.......not everything is materially reducable."]
The group of people defending materialistic reductionism as an exclusive absolute is fortunately dwindling (as their brainwashed counterpart of blind doctrinal religionism fortunately ALSO is).
I'm in a good mood today, with some spare time at disposal, so I'll (for the first time THIS week) waste some time on explaining to you, why the common versions of the pro-christian argument of 'intelligent design' are worthless. As you possibly have your knowledge on the subject from some manual of 'pro-christian arguments' and thus won't understand much of what I'm saying, is a risk you take, when you use arguments etc, you are not competent about.
If we transgress 'natural laws' as manifested in cosmos and consider an alleged trans-cosmic existence-level, we have some educated guessess implying a break-down of causality as we know it. If there is ANY causality, and in that case .... WHAT is is, we know next to nothing about. Theistic speculations and fabulations on the subject are mostly worthless, as they have no systematic methodology to lean on; any old answer from that direction is promoted to 'doctrinal truth' and these doctrines disagree wildly with each other.
IF there is a trans-cosmic level of existence, and IF it has any causality, the best we with some accuracy can say about it is, that there's 'intent' somewhere.
IF there is a trans-cosmic existence-level, and IF it has any causality, and if this causality has 'intent', why on earth is that 'intent' represented by bible-postulates (which even can't describe cosmos properly).
From a later post of yours:
Quote: ["Bizarre. How can you possibly 'do' science without at least believing that there are laws which behave in certain ways?"]
It's called abstract theories or concepts, which aren't written in stone in visible nature.
Quote (on evolving morals): ["Have they, how? If mind is simply a function of an organic chemical/electrical brain then morals are a result of chemical reactions, not independant thought. To Hitler, his morals were correct to himself - do you share his beliefs?"]
This has also been chewed over endlessly, but here we go: The ethics presented on theist premises, are postulated to be 'absolute'. The main-problem (as always) with this kind of theist argumentation is, that there is NO evidence for arriving at these absolutes except through circle-argumentation. The 'method' is bosh (it's true, because it's true), consequently the answers are also bosh.
A common theist counter-argument is, that an agreed-upon consensus morality, including a great deal of pragmatism, is dysfunctional. And also here fanatical blindness takes over. Theocracies are usually brutal, senseless and fascistic. Real secular, liberal, egalitarian democracies CARE DEMONSTRABLY for its citizens.
Quote: [" I haven't seen any evidence."]
Define evidence.
