shickingbrits wrote:I enjoy how people don't actual argue valid points but just go straight to conclusions:
See the way logic works is first you must display some, for example you take a point or example in which I did such an act and then you get to come to the conclusion. But it would seem that atheist struggle with a line of reasoning, detecting a jump in logic and reaching valid conclusions. i.e. I haven't been squirming and yet I'm genuine.
shickingbrits wrote:I have never claimed anything is wrong with the evidence for evolution, I claimed that the evidence for evolution is evidence towards God, being that God is everything and therefore anything which is discovered is an aspect of God. What I do deny is that evolution in any way deters from God, it is just the manifestation of his plan.
And I enjoy how you try to explain how logic works, and then use a logical fallacy to justify your views.
Here, let me try:
God is nothing, therefore nothing which is discovered is an aspect of God.
Sounds just as reasonable as your statement, doesn't it?
I'm not saying that evolution disproves God, but it does disprove the Bible as an inerrant source of literal truth. (Actually, the Bible disproves itself through its own numerous
self-contradictions.) I suppose that it could still be the literal word of God, but in that case, God was lying, and why anyone would want to follow a God who lies is beyond me. But I think the more reasonable conclusion is that it is just a collection of stories made up and passed down by ordinary, fallible humans who may have had good intentions about creating a well-ordered society, but did not know a thing about science.
And if the Old Testament cannot be believed, and there was no Adam and Eve or original sin, then Jesus (if he was an actual person) was teaching a lie, and there was no meaning to his death, and the entire story is exposed as a big fairy tale designed to keep people in line. This does not disprove the possibility that there could be a God out there who started the whole universe, but if there is one, then it appears that he* does not care about how he is portrayed, or the accuracy of the words attributed to him, and so it seems unlikely that he would care one bit about whether we believe in him or not.
*
Male pronouns used for convenience only.