If you’re not sure what something means then really oughtn’t to argue for or against it. The only person you’re discrediting when you do this is yourself.


That sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus read out of a New Age magazine, from the same people who think that Native Americans were merely innocent victims. The poor sweet Indians who knew how to treat the Earth with respect, right? The ones who would use the entire buffalo and not waste anything, right? Actually the majority of tribes would farm land until it was stripped of its fertility and then they’d just move on. Your idea of our ancestors allegedly “more in tune with nature” is part the Indian Conservationist myth created by white liberal guilt. Moreover, animals possess instincts, humans do not. So there is absolutely no comparison between a lion or elephant interacting with nature and a human interacting with the IRA.


Then say that from the beginning. Image implies appearance. But you’ve successfully evaded my question. Do you believe your god possesses the physical likeness of a male human being, including facial hair (or does he shave?), limbs, etc.? I’m less interested in thought processes and spirituality here and more in “image”, i.e., appearance.


That is the biggest copout argument I’ve seen in a long time. It also demonstrates your complete ignorance to evolution. If you want to stand against something, learn about it first. I’ll give Russ Tanner credit here despite that I disagree with him because he demonstrates a working knowledge of evolution and with it manages to argue against it. He’s using his knowledge as ammunition to support his argument. You are just talking out of the side of your neck, I’m afraid.


Spoken like a true person who believes because they want to believe, rather than someone who has rationalized why they believe in it in the first place. This whole “You just have to accept God’s teaching and not question it” is so much spin for popular consumption, it’s a means of silencing those who dare to question the all prevailing Christian orthodoxy.



The testimonies of people (conveniently usually found in the US) experiencing alien abductions is also plentiful. That does not, however, make it anything other than a bunch of malarkey.


You continually use anecdotes as evidence. If I tell you that some woman down the street from me claims she saw a tiger talking to her in fluent English, does that mean it really happened?


It’s interesting that so many Christians throughout history have a tendency towards barbarism and terror, typically when it comes to atheists, who have been the subject of their brutality since time immemorial. Given Christianity’s violent history, I’d say that whatever atheists (whom you care not to name) sent to insane asylums were put there unjustly. You are living proof that the Christian religion has long tried to suppress knowledge. You can say that those people who tried to murder Gallileo and others were not “True Christians”, but your treaties here mirrors them.


Wow, that is really something. A FEW old skeletons? You have, throughout this discussion, demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge on the subject of evolution. It is clear in my mind that you deliberately do not want to know anything about it so that your own personal beliefs are not questioned. Have you ever considered that your beliefs don’t have to conflict with evolution? That your God and the concept of evolution can very well coincide with one another?

If you're not interested in something, such as evolution, then don't argue against it in the first place. It should be enough for you to say "Look, this is what I believe and that's final. I'm not interested in discussing the hows and whys of evolution because it's not something that I am well-versed in."