Lounge HQ

Welcome pal.

There is a requirement IIRC.

15

1337 (got told I can take part in without meeting the requirement as I am premium).

Nice updates, I messaged you as I would like to donate.

I would like to start this post by saying that I'm an atheist, but that I try to follow many of the morals advocated in texts like the Bible or the Qur'an, such as forgiveness and whatnot. I'm not, therefore, a Bible-belt pastor from Tennessee, but rather someone that tends to look merely for the 'kernel' of goodness amongst the chaff that I regard religion to be. With that in mind, let's proceed (I'll be playing devil's advocate here, ironically).

I've had a brief read through your replies on this thread, Leader, and logically they don't hold water. You seem very sure of yourself when claiming that 'evolution is not a belief; it's a fact', but forget the one truth of the theory of evolution itself: it is a theory. It has not been proven, but equally it has not been disproven. It remains a commonly accepted theory, just as 'flat earth theory' was a commonly held theory for hundreds-- nay, thousands- of years. Religion, too, is something that cannot be proven nor disproven. It is a theory of how the world came to be, and of how animals came to be. Since you cannot explicitly prove that God does not exist, you therefore cannot tackle the fundamentals behind holy texts, and therefore you cannot prove that religion's theory for how life came to be is incorrect, and evolution is correct.

My reason for quoting this particular post was to emphasise these loggerheads at which we currently find ourselves; you yourself state here that 'science blatantly contradicts it' (it being religion). However, this is a debate, and whilst seemingly for you this is a good enough reason to accept science over religion (you assume that where the two conflict science must be correct because the story is a 'myth'), in actuality this debate-scenario demands more from you than just 'I find the Bible to be a myth, ergo it is wrong where it conflicts with science'.

Let us appeal to the genetics of the word 'myth' for a moment here. There are two definitions. The first is 'a widely held but false belief or idea', and here it is up to you to prove that the creation theory is inherently false; something I have already shown you cannot be done. The second is 'a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events' but the issue with this definition is that it does not support your argument. Why, if we take this definition, does this prove that the creation story in Genesis is fundamentally incorrect? You must prove that by being a myth, the story is inherently wrong, and you have failed to do this. This is because again, this requires you to prove that the creation story is wrong, and so we form this baseless argument on your end of:
>Creationism must be wrong
Why?
>It's based on Genesis
Why does this prove that it's wrong?
>Genesis is a myth
Why does this prove that it's wrong?
>... (I find it disgusting [subjectivity, irrelevant])

Whichever definition of 'myth' we take, then, forces you to prove something that simply cannot be shown, and therefore you're rather stuffed when it comes to 'debunking' Genesis.

Let's make history.

I've finally decided to sign up to see what Lounge HQ is about and it seems pretty alright so far, I was referred by one of my friends on here named True2Marie.