Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

+1

The point that we need schools where teachers who KNOW how to think work to lead their students into thinking instead of pushing this behavior and that "knowledge".

In the late 50s - early 60s I had one English teacher, one History teacher, and I think I would say one Math teacher who did more than assign reading and quiz on "book learning"; plus three really good teachers in Linguistics.

There are some of us who will NOT be kept from thinking and inquiring. But it helps a lot if those skills can be modelled and fostered.

With those who will not come into that naturally, I cannot see that it matters WHAT jumble of factoids they learn to spit back.

I find people who "tolerate" atheists so long as they keep it quiet as annoying as people who "tolerate" homosexuals so long as they don't show that they are gay.

And FYI, if you ever meet Richard in person you'll find he is very polite, very inquisitive, and even a tad sheepish. I mean honestly when did being honest become militant? Your faith is irrational, alternative medicines are rubbish, and creationism is a joke.

The world Elohim is used 1400 times in the OT. In the first verse you mention a plural elohim, this is not in relation to the God of Israel, rather it is discussing something different. In this case it is a discussion accepted to be a discussion of angels. Just as during the discourse of Jabob's ladder, the Angels are described in the same way. Elohim hayyim, which you discuss later is being mistranslated by you. It means 'the living God'. Please asptirant, just because you find it on the internet does not mean it is true.

Please 91, just because you find it in the bible does not mean it is true.

The primary word / name / title for God in Albanian happens to be feminine. That does not imply that Catholic and Orthodox Albanians [I do not happen to know how Albanian Muslims talk about God] differ from other Catholic and Orthodox Christians in seeing God as female.

Any working linguist will tell you that GRAMMATICAL gender is not in any straightforward way linked to sex, And a moment thought will tell you that in English the GRAMMATICALLY plural noun "pants" and the GRAMMATICALLY singular noun "shirt" BOTH refer to garments made of one large diameter tube with two smaller tubes sewn on to it.

The conventional use of the plural form for God in Hebrew, however and whyever it arose, does NOT by itself give evidence for polytheism.

And I find atheists that try to force their way of thinking on others to simply be just plain obnoxious.

Although many referents to God indicate a sex I find it curious there is no accompanying being to accommodate that capability and very little curiosity that a being would have sexual capabilities and no fellow creature where it might be useful. Sex, after all, implies procreation which would raise the question of progeny.

I do too, but not nearly as obnoxious as the well-meaning but badly misinformed people who lobby school boards to get equal time for creationism in biology classrooms where it doesn't belong. That is exactly as ridiculous and just as wrong as demanding equal time for the flat earth theory in geology classrooms in spite of all evidence to the contrary. It is that stupid!

What's really sad is how many lies and distortions are spread by the creationist web sites that are supposedly doing this to honor Christ, help lead sinners to salvation, and bring glory to God. All they do is discredit Christianity and harm America, humanity, and the planet by dumbing down our children.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear the discovery institute was ran by atheists trying to bring Christianity down from within..

Considering the immense number of Christians who have no difficulty accepting many of the exceedingly strange dogmas in standard Christianity that would be a hopeless task.

You have clearly misunderstood what I wrote, and are jumping to unfounded conclusions. I said millitant atheists like Dawkins, not atheists in general. I also gave equal criticism to the militant Christians who stand on street corners telling people they are damned, so my statement was balanced. I don't understand why you assumed from this that I must be Christian, as there is nothing in my statement which would indicate my views in either direction.

It is interesting that in responding to my opinon that I find militant atheists unreasonable, you (a self-admitted militant atheist) then produced an unreasonable response. It was aggressive, knee-jerk, devoid of any signs that you had thought about what I said, and formed from a whole set of assertions about me which functioned as a straw man. All this is indicative of poor and emotionally-driven reasoning, especially since none of the assertions you made can be justified from my original statement.

Dawkins militant? Has he done any violence? Or is one militant if he has an unqualified opinion about the weather?

Jerry Falwell was militant.

ruveyn

Perhaps I used the wrong word. I'm thinking of the kind of atheist who is the equivalent of the Christian standing on street corners, ramming his opinion down other people's throats. Would 'outspoken' or 'belligerent' be better choices?

Last edited by CrinklyCrustacean on 11 Jun 2011, 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dawkins is quite outspoken. He will not cut the religious view any slack whatsoever. And it is about time that people spoke plainly on such matters.

ruveyn

Thank you for your clarification; I will rephrase:

I find outspoken atheists such as Dawkins as annoying and unreasonable as outspoken Christians who stand on street corners tellling passers-by they are going to hell.