False dilemma(fallacy). For example: “You are either with Santa Claus, or you are against him!!!!!”

Another option, of course, is that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, in which case, it would be silly to be “for” or “against” said character.

Learning the very basics in these types of discussions should be helpful to you.

You are either with him or against him.

Says who? You? The mythology you believe is real? The particular set of mythological writings you choose to believe is even remotely factual?

None of those are acceptable as a way of making your meaningless statement credible. The entire statement falls apart: the opinion that we are either with or against anything, and the mythological god you opine we are with or against.

I can thing of no better way of summing it up than:
YOU FAIL!

If you fell martyred because your mythological god promised you that you would be a martyr, I’ll leave you with Hundreds Of Proofs Of God’s Existence. #120 and #121.

120. ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (I)
(1) Someone made fun of my faith.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

121. ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (II)
(1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians.
(2) I am an idiot.
(3) People often point that out.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

“Science is NOT evolution, get YOUR facts straight first!” –You’re right. Science isn’t evolution, actually, evolution is involved in science. There. Facts are a little straighter.

“Evolution has revealed proves that God didn’t create life. The evolutionists are scrambling around trying to prove that the shear immense complex diversity that we witness in our world just happened through random chance occurrence. While God teaches He purposely created many `kinds’ to reproduce after their `kind.’ -The evolutionist has yet to prove otherwise.”
–The first sentence there isn’t actually a sentence, I hope you are aware. Also, the evolutionists aren’t scrambling around for anything and I have no idea where you came up with that thought (anger, denial, whatever it is that you go through when confronted with a reality you refuse to accept) because there is no need to scramble when you are surrounded by evidence. Plus, evolutionists don’t need to prove that god doesn’t exist. Prove that he does. Prove that evolution doesn’t. I’ll try to prove that fairies grant me wishes at night… oh wait, I wont because that would be ridiculous.

“We can see that what God says about creation is true for ourselves. So no need for reliance on others interpretations.”
–Where? Where can we see that? You saw god? Who saw god? Oh…the bible? Did god write the bible? No, god didn’t write the bible. Man wrote the bible… otherwise instead of “and God said,” the book would read “and I said.” Since when did people believe that God wrote the bible? What did he write it with? Who did he give it to when he was finished? And why are there so many gospels? God clearly did not write the bible, even if he does exist. Therefore we have absolutely no proof of what god says or thinks, just what man believes he would. This is blind faith.

“Faith in evolution is the BLIND FAITH, as it has yet to produce the evidence it presents as theory and yet is supposed to be supported by facts. And who’s to ever argue against them? Seeing as it will take millions of years to produce a new species, quite convenient how they managed to dodge around that one, wouldn’t you say? -The children’s story of the Emperors New Clothes springs to mind…”
–Umm… no evidence? You are kidding aren’t you? Have you even bothered to look up any information on evolution or are you just so certain of god that you can’t be bothered with any outside information? Clearly the bit of information you’ve found has been gathered from anti-evolution web-sites which do not give clear facts on evolution. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio039.htm That should help.
Also, Christians would like us to believe in something we can not see. Jesus tells us that none are happier that when they are believing what they cannot see… why would that be? For the convenience? We can’t possibly disprove him now because God is hiding? We can’t see him or feel him or touch him or hear him but we are supposed to believe anyway? If this were true then how would we know anything about him to believe in the first place? Please explain.

Answer this for me: If you expect me to prove the theory of evolution, then I’d like you to also work on proving the existence of god. Just because I cannot disprove it, without any actual evidence or reason for it, does not mean that it exists. Also, please explain to me why believing in evolution is blind faith and Christianity isn’t. Explain where the hell dinosaurs fit into all of this. Explain why god never mentions the land of Nod and where the hell all those people came from and when he created humanity. Explain why wearing wool and cotton together is an abomination and why i have to sacrifice two doves to a priest on the last day of my period before I am considered clean. Why should I have to marry a man who rapes me? Finally, explain to me why there are two books and why I should believe some of the first, some of the second, and then discard whatever you have now found to be completely appalling? What am I supposed to believe? If Christianity is whatever the Christians find convenient to believe then god has nothing to do with it. Answer that.

whew.

Nice little post but I must have missed the bit where you supplied evidence for ID/Creationism … you did a nice little rant about the theory of Evolution not fitting in with goat herder’s view of life but scientific evidence seems to be some what lacking wouldn’t you agree. If you have no evidence, which you obviously don’t, then just stop being dishonest and say so.

“I don’t know when I’ll be back, …”

Maybe when you have some evidence for your claims of ‘god did it’ …

LRA, Ok, seeing as you keep telling me I am wrong!.. Tell me briefly how evolution occurred. Tell me what appeared first in the universe and go from there up to the creation of mankind. — Also tell me can science show you how life came into being? Or can it only reveal data that is already at hand? Yes or No? – Is it not the person reading that data that sets about defining what said data means? Yes or No?

Philosophy? You wish to use the realm of Metaphysics to explain morality!? Ok go ahead… This should be interesting… While you’re at it show me how you can claim absolutes and not relativism in regards to morality…

My credential are on no significance. You are the ones who claim you’re fit to judge good and evil here, and have thought to put the morality of GOD on the stand. Therefore it is for you to answer these question not I… I have answered more then once why I believe these posts are of Anti Christ (ian) content, therefore not atheistic… An Atheist can have no view of God, as to do so reveals he must first have some knowledge that God exists. Which makes the argument mute before he begins…

Jabster, it might surprise you to know that unlike your mother I have other and might add more important things to do with my time than spend it at your beck and call… And quite frankly I am actually finding it difficult to find anything much of coherence to reply to here. You’ve clearly not understood anything I have said or even `thought’ to take the time to even try, you’ve gone into mindless attack mode and nothing more… And this appears to be the sum of your defence, which accounts for nothing! So far you all win first prize for the most ignorantly thought-out responses I have ever witnessed! — I thought perhaps it was just because of the content matter but I have looked through some other posts and replies here and yes they are all virtually the same! The followers of these posts have no real defence so they revert to ad-hominem attacks!… Well that’s one way to get rid of people rocking your little boat of single-mindedness and it works for you, so I do see why you use it. -Only don’t attribute peoples lack of response to anything you’ve said as you making a point because you don’t make any! Apart from the very `rare’ exception here by one or two other posters the rest are a pathetic excuse at an answer… Thankfully I have had many a reasonable discussion with people from all walks of life, beliefs and faith and so I am aware the mindlessness revealed here is in the minority group not the majority.

Gravity, isn’t so much a theory as it is a universal law! We know it exists.. We don’t fully understand it but we know it is operation. You can not apply the theory of evolution with the laws of gravity. One is observable and will continue to be so while the other isn’t and never will be… Is life dependent on one species evolving into another? Or is it dependent on procreation?

The evolution theory can not be equated in the same bracket as gravity. As evolution is an un-observable occurrence that is supposed to explain how life occurred in the past that no-one observed or ever will be able to observe and that we do not see happing now in our time, or will ever be able to observe in our time. — SCIENCE DEFINED: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. — Science is reliant on human observation and interpretation which can change at any given time as new evidence arises to the contrary, as has happened countless times within the scientific field as new evidence presented itself to contradict previous hypothesis. Science is science, nothing more. Science is NOT evolution, get YOUR facts straight first!

Evolutionists pertain to only holding to facts that can be scientifically observed, according to the layman, i.e. you and those who argue as you for scientific facts in backing up your belief in evolution, contradict your own ideals. No true evolutionists who actually understand what that is, as I said in a previous post discounts that much of the evolutionary science is hypothesis, and that they are reliant that their faith and trust in new scientific data will hopefully back up their theory in the future. It is people like you who put the blinkers on and choose to call fresh air facts, and hold fast to these invisible facts. You should pay more attention to what is actually being said, and study the data more closely.

How on earth you manage to keep telling yourself that ID creationists can have no scientific bases, is beyond absurdity in its claim. The only difference is we interpret the scientific data as Gods creation. Don’t fool yourself into thinking only atheists are scientists, the first great scientists that paved the way were Christians. And there are, has been and will continue to be many scientists around from all walks of life and faiths including Christianity, it is not restricted to just atheistic denominations! Your comment to the contrary reveals a very narrow, ignorant and dogmatic mindset!

NOTHING.. Evolution has revealed proves that God didn’t create life. The evolutionists are scrambling around trying to prove that the shear immense complex diversity that we witness in our world just happened through random chance occurrence. While God teaches He purposely created many `kinds’ to reproduce after their `kind.’ -The evolutionist has yet to prove otherwise, and nothing they have is substantial in proving otherwise, quite the contrary. A child can make that connection, but by all means you keep your blinkers on if that makes you feel more secure in your belief… So blind faith! Codswallop! Says who, YOU!? … We can see that what God says about creation is true for ourselves. So no need for reliance on others interpretations. We DO witness kinds breading after their kinds. We do NOT however witness one species coming from a completely different one. Faith in evolution is the BLIND FAITH, as it has yet to produce the evidence it presents as theory and yet is supposed to be supported by facts. And who’s to ever argue against them? Seeing as it will take millions of years to produce a new species, quite convenient how they managed to dodge around that one, wouldn’t you say? -The children’s story of the Emperors New Clothes springs to mind…

I don’t know when I’ll be back, I know I’ve asked questions but I’m not really expecting a coherent response, as its like having a conversation with Beavis and Butthead here…

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

@LRA

I always find it amusing how creationists are quick to spout off about how there idea and the theory of Evolution are equivalent in terms of evidence but when it actually comes to presenting evidence everything goes silent.

So where is all this evidence that you speak of? ID doesn’t put forward scientific evidence because it’s not based on science it just says “god did it” — evolution of the other hand has over whelming evidence for it and this is nothing to do with interpreting data differently unless you count ignoring data combined with just making stuff. If you wish please post your evidence for ID and by evidence and don’t mean some tired old argument against evolution but evidence for ID itself.

“Hence it will remain a theory.”

Hence showing you’re even ignorant of what a scientific theory is or choose to try and muddy the waters. Do you also describe gravity as just a theory or is that ok as it doesn’t contradict your goat herder’s sourced holy text.

“Faith in ID creation is as substantiated as the faith needed in belief of the evolutionary theory, to argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest, dogmatically biased and lacking in integrity…”

ID has no evidence evolution does hence ID requires blind faith … to state the above you are either ignorant, stupid or just plain dishonest.

“Therefore this is a personal choice based on our own personal reasons behind that choice.”

No see comment above …

In conclusion you either don’t understand evolution at all or you wish to try and present it in some way equivalent to ID to further you own purposes. Well when ID actually has a shred of scientific evidence in its favour then maybe it will be taken seriously up until that point it will remain as what it really is — a cover used by dishonest people to push creationism by their choice of made up sky fairy.

What next — let me guess you going to show evidence that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old and the great flood really happened?

WRONG again!!!

“LRS, forgive me though those credentials are interesting, they are not applicable at judging good and evil.”

So having a degree in philosophy doesn’t make me qualified to talk about morality?

Well, let’s have your credentials, then.

Faith in ID creation is as substantiated as the faith needed in belief of the evolutionary theory, to argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest, dogmatically biased and lacking in integrity…

LRS, forgive me though those credentials are interesting, they are not applicable at judging good and evil.. If you believe otherwise I’d be interested in hearing how this is so.

Now for those of you here taking offence, I have to ask… If you don’t believe God and Satan exists, why do you take offence? Do you really think its ok for you to slander God and His Holy Word and expect no one to come forward in defence? Come on now, really? If you don’t believe why go to all this trouble!? It makes no sense at all! Can’t you see that!? Why slander someone you believe doesn’t exist? Why use their words that you don’t believe in, to do so? It just isn’t logical…

For someone to pertain to knowing God and actively rebel against, turn against and attempt to turn others against God, is a Satanic act! .. It’s not all about witch craft, as the secular media world portrays Satanism as being, its more basic than that at its core… And starts with one simple question as asked by Satan back in Genesis 3:1 when he asked of Eve, “Did God really say….?” Whereby their ear turned from God’s truth to Satan’s lies, and their act of rebellion took place…

So for those who claim to be former Christians, you do understand what I am saying here, play the ignorant card all you want. But clearly and by your own admission you have claimed to be a former Christian i.e. Believed God existed and once stood by his truth. Since God is eternal your unbelief doesn’t make that truth any less valid. You have turned from Him and nothing more and are insulting Him into the bargain and drawing on others to do the same. No matter what you have now chosen to believe, your teachings here hold Anti-Christ (ian) content. You can surely not be so ignorant as to try and deny this, or think the rest of the world stupid enough not to to be able to make the distinction, one that even an atheist could make.

HAHAHAAAHAHAHAAA!!!

“AND I’m in the process of applying to PhD programs in which I will explore the impact of science on society and culture.”

It’s the devil’s work I tell you!

Oh and I did like the statement … “In Fact the scientific data could just as easily be used in backing up Intelligent Design just as well, as being Gods creation we’re viewing.”

Well firstly no it’s can’t as ID is not a scientific claim on the grounds that it hasn’t got any evidence so it relies on creating confusion about the theory of Evolution (do ID followers not understand that it’s not a binary choice between evolution or creationism?) and secondly linking ID and god sort of gives the game away doesn’t it about the true purpose of the ID movement.

No, Daniel makes the claim that there is NO god. He uses the bible to point out its ridiculous claims. If he know the Koran better, he’d probably do that too. He is an EX-Christian (as am I). His point in writing this blog is to reach out to other ex-christians and to criticize the stupid things people do out of faith rather than reason.