AronRa
Administrator
Once again, a science denier commenting on one my videos decided to start a "polite" conversation by calling me a liar as often as he can and never apologizing any of the times it turned out he was wrong.. Once again, I’m documenting that here for ease of future reference, and on the expectation that he shows up here, considering how much he said he loves this conversation. This format will definitely better suit him than the comments section of YouTube, that's for sure.
2. In Christian theology, God judges exclusively on what his people believe. An evil-doer can get into Heaven if he believes but an unbeliever can't be saved no matter how wonderful or charitable his works are. Gullibility is the only criteria for redemption.
3. While there have been only a handful of totalitarian despots who were atheists, atheists statistically beat evangelical Christians in all the metrics of what you would call morality. I explain that in a couple other videos if you care to see them.
4. My definition of supernatural is fine.
5. You haven't shown that anything I've said is actually wrong.
6. The Bible is absolutely wrong about virtually everything back-to-front, and I say that with 100% conviction because it is a demonstrable fact.
2. (a) In your theology, all sins may be forgiven if you but believe. The only sin that will not be forgiven is the sin of disbelief. So yeah, disbelief is a sin. Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is the one unforgivable sin, and no unbeliever can ever get into Heaven. In fact disbelief is such a sin that your sacred story book says that unbelievers may be murdered on the word of one or two witnesses. Whether you're good or evil doesn't mean squat, only whether you were gullible enough to believe impossible nonsense for no good reason. Because (b) To make that even worse, you're supposed to believe on faith. "Blessed is he who has NOT seen and yet believed". So yeah, gullibility is the only criteria for salvation. If your god existed, it wouldn't want or need your faith. The only thing in the universe that requires or desires faith is a fraud trying to scam you.
(c) We all die. It doesn't matter what your religion is or if you have no religion at all. We all face the probability of lying on the floor clutching our chests straining in agony to take that last breath. No religion save you from that, and that's the only aspect of death worthy of dread or that we should like to avoid.
(d) There is no such thing as sin.
(e) My logic is not self-contradictory like yours obviously is. Mine was the not the misstatement either. Just because I interpret the scriptures better than you do doesn't mean that I misstated anything.
3. You say I don't understand what supernatural means? Let's test that.
"things that cannot be explained by science and seem to involve ghosts, spirits, magic, etc."
-MerriamWebster
"Above nature; beyond or added to nature, often so considered because it is given by a deity or some force beyond that which humans are born with."
-Wiktionary British:
"supernatural forces, occurrences, and beings collectively or their realm." American: "supernatural beings, forces, happenings, etc., esp. ghosts, spirits, and the like."
-CollinsDictionary
"Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. Of or relating to a deity. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. adj. Of or relating to the miraculous. That which is supernatural."
-Worknik
"used about things that seem to come from a power such as magic and do not have a natural or scientific explanation."
-MacMillanDictionary
Now let's see that in context, as it applies to other definitions.
Miracle:
1. Literally, a wonder or wonderful thing; but appropriately,
2. In theology, an event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event. Miracles can be wrought only by almighty power.
Magic: 1. The art or science of putting into action the power of spirits; or the science of producing wonderful effects by the aid of superhuman beings, or of departed spirits; sorcery; enchantment. [This science or art is now discarded.]
—Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
Miracle: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.
Magic: a. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
b. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
—TheFreeDictionary.com
Miracle: an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human and natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
Magic: the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assures human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
—Dictionary.com
I guess I understand supernatural correctly. It is "from beyond" in the sense that it is associated with magic.
4. If we had a couple of hours, you wouldn't be able to show that the Bible ever made any accurate predictions, unless you're talking about such a vague retro-fitted interpretation as people tend to give the quatrains of Nostradamus. I apparently understand Numbers 5 accurately too, and you've already admitted that I can defend that.
5. The Bible is demonstrably wrong about virtually everything, as I said, precisely because none of it was historically verified. You have loads of fanciful stories that take place in real settings or that concern people who occasionally actually existed, even though the stories themselves are false.
"Why is the wailing wall there if there was no temple?" That there was a temple was never in dispute. What relevance does that have to any of the things that are in dispute?
"Why is the fortress of Masada excavatable?" Why should it not be?
"Why would Roman historians admit Israel... a Jewish nation... in fact existed and was destroyed?" Because they like to brag? Do you expect them to keep quiet about that?
"Why have they found David's palace?" Why have they found the tomb of Gilgamesh and the city of Troy? Does either of these discoveries prove the myths based on them?
"Why is it that the OT describes the history of the time it represents beautifully in ways that are often verified by archaeology." Why is it that religious and secular historians and Biblical scholars no longer believe Moses ever existed and now say the Exodus never happened--specifically because none of these things were supported by archaeology. The Bible clearly does not accurately account for the history of the Jewish people. We know for certain that the global flood never happened. The tower of Babel never happened. The exodus never happened. Moses never existed. Isaac never existed. Sodom may have existed, but not Lot, and Jesus apparently never existed either, certainly not as the Bible describes. And we've always known that there was never an Adam and Eve or a talking snake. None of that is real. There were never any resurrected undead wandering the streets of downtown Judea and there was never any necromancer raising an army of the undead either. None of these things really happened. They're not at all historical.
"Aside from the fact that the Roman emperor was convinced enough to convert an entire pagan empire on the strength of the conviction of contemporary practice of a persecuted minority. Why would he do that if there wasn't some truth he could see was necessary to preserve?" Because Christianity is an excellent means of manipulation of the masses. Similarly, Islam is the fastest-growing religion on earth, with a much easier means of conversion than Christianity, largely because it doesn't have anywhere near as much ridiculous dogma for devotees to swallow. It too is an even better means of mass manipulation, forcing the entire populace to submit to the will of its commanders. By your logic, that would make Islam more accurate than Christianity: especially since Islam also cost the Arabic world their status as the leaders of science once upon a time.
You say that much of what I say can be easily shown to be incorrect, yet you've repeatedly failed to do so even once, and your attempts are back-firing. However you have said one interesting thing, something which no believer has ever admitted to me before, and that's significant. You've admitted that if I can prove that you're wrong, that you would change your mind just as I've had to whenever I was wrong. I want to see that put to the test! In your defense of miraculous fables and magical things, do you deny evolution also?
There are no lies or half-truths in this video. The serpent was depicted as a woman in almost every rendering from the Renaissance or earlier, most notably on the entrance to Notre Dame Cathedral and on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. But Satan is irrelevant to that because the serpent apparently wasn't interpreted to Satan until sometime later.I'm sorry where was the serpent depicted as a girl? And where did Satan's biological sex come into the picture? A lot of strange logic in that one? Also has he read Genesis 49:17 where it says "Dan shall be a serpent..."? Serpents can often personify adversaries, which of course, is what Satan means. (Strongs H7854) This whole video is one big Gish Gallop which if you look into it point by point shows that all you have to do to win an argument is memorize a lot of not easily disproven lies and halftruths and say them all before your opponent can get a word in edgewise... which is what happens in most of his debates. he didn't let Ray Comfort get more than a sentence out at a time. And most of his statements were... "Aron let me respond please"
1. Objective means it's demonstrable regardless what either of us would rather believe. Thus we'd both have to accept it and agree on it.First "Objective means we all agree on it" Lie. Or at least entirely untrue. In fact that contradicts the definition of objective. Objective does not mean that. Second, God doesn't judge us by what we believe.. he judges us for our actions. If we believe we may escape that judgement.. at least in the Christian flavor of theology. Fourth: the history of atheists is pretty thin... Really? What about the French Revolution? The Mexican Atheist government? Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot? Fifth: Your definition of miracle is wrong. Supernatural is also a word you don't quite define right. Also your diatribe about the appearance of religions is pretty much completely incorrect in its dates, and it's conclusions. There is so much wrong with so much of what you say I have trouble picking one thing to pick on. And you can say with one hundred percent confidence the Bible is wrong? And God did leave evidence when he interacted with the world, you just reject it.
2. In Christian theology, God judges exclusively on what his people believe. An evil-doer can get into Heaven if he believes but an unbeliever can't be saved no matter how wonderful or charitable his works are. Gullibility is the only criteria for redemption.
3. While there have been only a handful of totalitarian despots who were atheists, atheists statistically beat evangelical Christians in all the metrics of what you would call morality. I explain that in a couple other videos if you care to see them.
4. My definition of supernatural is fine.
5. You haven't shown that anything I've said is actually wrong.
6. The Bible is absolutely wrong about virtually everything back-to-front, and I say that with 100% conviction because it is a demonstrable fact.
1. I am not the one who says "words have usage not meaning". That's Matt who says that; not me. I tend to say that "words mean things". So you don't know what you said you know. I obviously know the definition of "objective". I already explained it. If something is objectively verifiable, then--as your own definition explained also--we'll both be forced to agree on what that is, as would any flat-earther willing to actually employ epistemology or scientific methodology.1. OK I know that you'll say words have usages and not meanings but the dictionary says objective means
"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." so you're wrong. On any level personal agreement (personal feelings or opinions see above) has nothing to do with objectivity. That's why its objectivity. Personal agreement has nothing to do with it. That would be subjectivity. It is an objective fact that the world is round. Not everyone agrees on that despite objective evidence of curvature.
2. Ok so your logic on this one is self contradictory. If God exists believing in Him is not gullibility. If he doesn't exist gullibility is irrelevant. Disbelief is not a sin. Faith in Christ pays your debt to God... a death sentence because you have broken His law. The wages of sin are death, recall? All have sinned and fallen short and the penalty for sin is death. If you can at least muster faith in Christ God will give you a pass but the cost is also repentance which means literally turning from sin. Not saved by works but they come from the attitude of repentance. As for evil doers the Bible regularly says that evildoers have no place in the next world and that would mean unsaved people who are lost in their sin. Those who believe repent and change.
Those who don't, don't. For example 1 Corinthians 6:10. Changing your attitude towards sin is an integral part of being able to interact with God. The deathbed conversion is pretty unlikely to work... Matthew 7:22-23 means that even people who professed to be righteous but weren't truly of the faith will be rejected. Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart and Robert Tilton probably share the same trailer in hell and rightfully so. This is a huge misstatement and I could spend hours explaining why.
3. I recently heard you use the phrase "Hypercosmic Catalyst" If you don't get that means "supernatural cause" then you don't get what supernatural means. Anything outside of the recognized universal paradigm is supernatural, or hypercosmic. You are just incredulous about it, but you don't display a good understanding of hyperdimensionality and the implications of intelligent design it portents. 4. If we had a couple of hours I could show you how most of what you say about the Bible is demonstrably, factually wrong but I doubt you would admit it even with the evidence right in front of you because I have watched you double down for a long time on most of your conclusions. The one about the abortion thing is a real earsore. You really don't get that Numbers 5 passage. You don't get concordance and exegesis in general either, which is why it is so jarring when you try to teach. Leave out the supernatural... your interpretations and readings are wrong and easily demonstrated to be so. I would be ecstatic to show you one by one. Make a point... It is likely I will be able to show you why you are wrong from even a secular textual examination without any "magic".
5. If the Bible is entirely demonstrably wrong about every single thing then why is it that so much it has been historically verified? Why is the wailing wall there if there was no temple? Why is the fortress of Masada excavatable? Why would Roman historians admit Israel... a Jewish nation... in fact existed and was destroyed? Why have they found David's palace? Why is it that the OT describes the history of the time it represents beautifully in ways that are often verified by archaeology. I'm not talking about some silly sulfur by the dead sea being touted as Sodom and Gomorrah I'm talking about actual facts, verified by actual secular historians and archaeologists. Your absolute certainty that the Bible is wrong about everything then it would not connect to any measurable historical period we can identify. It does and it does so very, very well. In fact it names peoples that weren't even known until recently. Discount the supernatural all you want but the Bible represents history and that is a demonstrable fact. Aside from the fact that the Roman emperor was convinced enough to convert an entire pagan empire on the strength of the conviction of contemporary practice of a persecuted minority. Why would he do that if there wasn't some truth he could see was necessary to preserve? He destroyed the empire by doing so. The empire founded in its own mythos by the God of War yielded to the Prince of Peace. What could make that happen that was 100% wrong? They had a perfect religion to keep the masses pacified... why change it to an ethos of pacifism? That would be like Iran laying down their arms and saying... we embrace Christ!
You profess to be honest and about spreading truth. Objectively much of what you say can be easily verified to be incorrect in your Biblical assessments. Demonstrably, in text, and with citation and absolutely undeniable clarity. Would you admit you were wrong if you were shown to be? Because if you show me to be wrong I will admit it. Even if I don't like it, I have nothing to lose.
2. (a) In your theology, all sins may be forgiven if you but believe. The only sin that will not be forgiven is the sin of disbelief. So yeah, disbelief is a sin. Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is the one unforgivable sin, and no unbeliever can ever get into Heaven. In fact disbelief is such a sin that your sacred story book says that unbelievers may be murdered on the word of one or two witnesses. Whether you're good or evil doesn't mean squat, only whether you were gullible enough to believe impossible nonsense for no good reason. Because (b) To make that even worse, you're supposed to believe on faith. "Blessed is he who has NOT seen and yet believed". So yeah, gullibility is the only criteria for salvation. If your god existed, it wouldn't want or need your faith. The only thing in the universe that requires or desires faith is a fraud trying to scam you.
(c) We all die. It doesn't matter what your religion is or if you have no religion at all. We all face the probability of lying on the floor clutching our chests straining in agony to take that last breath. No religion save you from that, and that's the only aspect of death worthy of dread or that we should like to avoid.
(d) There is no such thing as sin.
(e) My logic is not self-contradictory like yours obviously is. Mine was the not the misstatement either. Just because I interpret the scriptures better than you do doesn't mean that I misstated anything.
3. You say I don't understand what supernatural means? Let's test that.
"things that cannot be explained by science and seem to involve ghosts, spirits, magic, etc."
-MerriamWebster
"Above nature; beyond or added to nature, often so considered because it is given by a deity or some force beyond that which humans are born with."
-Wiktionary British:
"supernatural forces, occurrences, and beings collectively or their realm." American: "supernatural beings, forces, happenings, etc., esp. ghosts, spirits, and the like."
-CollinsDictionary
"Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. Of or relating to a deity. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. adj. Of or relating to the miraculous. That which is supernatural."
-Worknik
"used about things that seem to come from a power such as magic and do not have a natural or scientific explanation."
-MacMillanDictionary
Now let's see that in context, as it applies to other definitions.
Miracle:
1. Literally, a wonder or wonderful thing; but appropriately,
2. In theology, an event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event. Miracles can be wrought only by almighty power.
Magic: 1. The art or science of putting into action the power of spirits; or the science of producing wonderful effects by the aid of superhuman beings, or of departed spirits; sorcery; enchantment. [This science or art is now discarded.]
—Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
Miracle: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.
Magic: a. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
b. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
—TheFreeDictionary.com
Miracle: an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human and natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
Magic: the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assures human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
—Dictionary.com
I guess I understand supernatural correctly. It is "from beyond" in the sense that it is associated with magic.
4. If we had a couple of hours, you wouldn't be able to show that the Bible ever made any accurate predictions, unless you're talking about such a vague retro-fitted interpretation as people tend to give the quatrains of Nostradamus. I apparently understand Numbers 5 accurately too, and you've already admitted that I can defend that.
5. The Bible is demonstrably wrong about virtually everything, as I said, precisely because none of it was historically verified. You have loads of fanciful stories that take place in real settings or that concern people who occasionally actually existed, even though the stories themselves are false.
"Why is the wailing wall there if there was no temple?" That there was a temple was never in dispute. What relevance does that have to any of the things that are in dispute?
"Why is the fortress of Masada excavatable?" Why should it not be?
"Why would Roman historians admit Israel... a Jewish nation... in fact existed and was destroyed?" Because they like to brag? Do you expect them to keep quiet about that?
"Why have they found David's palace?" Why have they found the tomb of Gilgamesh and the city of Troy? Does either of these discoveries prove the myths based on them?
"Why is it that the OT describes the history of the time it represents beautifully in ways that are often verified by archaeology." Why is it that religious and secular historians and Biblical scholars no longer believe Moses ever existed and now say the Exodus never happened--specifically because none of these things were supported by archaeology. The Bible clearly does not accurately account for the history of the Jewish people. We know for certain that the global flood never happened. The tower of Babel never happened. The exodus never happened. Moses never existed. Isaac never existed. Sodom may have existed, but not Lot, and Jesus apparently never existed either, certainly not as the Bible describes. And we've always known that there was never an Adam and Eve or a talking snake. None of that is real. There were never any resurrected undead wandering the streets of downtown Judea and there was never any necromancer raising an army of the undead either. None of these things really happened. They're not at all historical.
"Aside from the fact that the Roman emperor was convinced enough to convert an entire pagan empire on the strength of the conviction of contemporary practice of a persecuted minority. Why would he do that if there wasn't some truth he could see was necessary to preserve?" Because Christianity is an excellent means of manipulation of the masses. Similarly, Islam is the fastest-growing religion on earth, with a much easier means of conversion than Christianity, largely because it doesn't have anywhere near as much ridiculous dogma for devotees to swallow. It too is an even better means of mass manipulation, forcing the entire populace to submit to the will of its commanders. By your logic, that would make Islam more accurate than Christianity: especially since Islam also cost the Arabic world their status as the leaders of science once upon a time.
You say that much of what I say can be easily shown to be incorrect, yet you've repeatedly failed to do so even once, and your attempts are back-firing. However you have said one interesting thing, something which no believer has ever admitted to me before, and that's significant. You've admitted that if I can prove that you're wrong, that you would change your mind just as I've had to whenever I was wrong. I want to see that put to the test! In your defense of miraculous fables and magical things, do you deny evolution also?
My reply to this posted below.1. a. I concede that I did not predict you would say that “words have meanings.” I am simply so accustomed to hearing Atheists say that about words to justify equivocation.
b. “If something is objectively verifiable, then--as your own definition explained also--we'll both be forced to agree on what that is, as would any flat-earther willing to actually employ epistemology or scientific methodology.” The condition of accepting scientific methodology or epistemology is not given. Personal acceptance of any objective fact or truth is not necessary for it to be objective. Some people choose to believe things that conflict with objective truths. That doesn’t make them non-objective because some people will never accept even the most well demonstrated things.
2. a. “Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is the one unforgivable sin, and no unbeliever can ever get into Heaven.” Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not disbelief. It is a specific action… it is attributing evil to the Holy Spirit. “Mark 3:28-30: "Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, 'He has an evil spirit'."” They attributed evil to Jesus. This is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It’s in plain text.
b. “In fact disbelief is such a sin that your sacred story book says that unbelievers may be murdered on the word of one or two witnesses.” I would ask for the chapter and verse on this one. I do not recall ever seeing this in the Word.
c. “The only thing in the universe that requires or desires faith is a fraud trying to scam you. “ Love requires faith. How can you become so powerfully vulnerable as to love someone if you can’t put some faith into the hope that they won’t destroy you. How can you know? Faith is not just about believing in deities, it is a prerequisite to many human interactions. You have faith in your doctor, that you’ll wake on the operating table… Faith is beautiful and human. It isn’t scientific, it’s just human.
d. (c) We all die. It doesn't matter what your religion is or if you have no religion at all. We all face the probability of lying on the floor clutching our chests straining in agony to take that last breath. No religion save you from that, and that's the only aspect of death worthy of dread or that we should like to avoid. “ I look forward to laying down and seeing my Lord. In the meantime I have a lot of service to do, not evangelism in general… just service. I owe Him.
e. “(d) There is no such thing as sin.” If there is a God there is. If there is no God then you are correct.
f. “(e) My logic is not self-contradictory like yours obviously is. Mine was the not the misstatement either. Just because I interpret the scriptures better than you do doesn't mean that I misstated anything.” Perhaps you do. Well see.
3. Perhaps here it would be more expedient to define natural before we embark on this. Also, do you fully understand higher dimensional perception? In other words, how many more dimensions would a being have to exist in to be considered supernatural? If a being was four dimensional in the sense we are three dimensional and can only perceive a small slice of time whereas the four dimensional being could see whole timelines at once, if a being was like this… would they qualify as supernatural?
b. You misquoted Websters 1828 in an interestingly specific way. You made Almighty lower case almighty. And you omitted the “as when Christ healed lepers, saying, 'I will, be thou clean, ' or calmed the tempest, 'Peace, be still.'” If you did that on purpose it would indicate a very specific kind of deceptiveness. If you didn’t then you’re incorrect due to copying error.
c. “I guess I understand supernatural correctly. It is "from beyond" in the sense that it is associated with magic.” That is a bit scaled down and the definitions you gave didn’t really add much information. I am not sure you do fully understand the implication of supernatural… you think they are just superstition if I read this right. Any external reality which is not rooted in space/time would be considered supernatural, correct? Does this mean they are unlikely or does the multiverse theory imply they exist? If they exist then supernatural forces by definition could and by all accounts should interface with our world, shouldn’t they?
4. I never mentioned predictions. I never use predictions or prophesy to prove someone is wrong about a Bible interpretation… that’s really not appropriate. Your understanding of Numbers 5 is that it speaks to abortion if I’m not mistaken. You are incorrect. The passage never says shes pregnant and the word you keep saying means miscarriage means something else. I can prove this. The Hebrew word for rot is naphal (H5307) and the Hebrew word for miscarriage (Hosea 9:14) is shakol (H7921). Go to Strongs and verify this. The largest amount of scholarship would agree with this. The Mishneh Torah agreed with this. Unless you are a Hebrew Scholar exceeding the skill of Maimonides you are wrong in your interpretation. Your opinion is indefensible.
5. first you say “precisely because none of it was historically verified” then you say “That there was a temple was never in dispute.” The Bible says there was a second temple. The Bible is right about that. That is historically verified. You are wrong.
b. “Why is it that religious and secular historians and Biblical scholars no longer believe Moses ever existed and now say the Exodus never happened--specifically because none of these things were supported by archaeology.” I hope someday we have time to unpack this one. It will take awhile because it is built on false appeals to majority opinion and false appeals to authority but to explain why will take some time. I could begin by saying that you need to amend it to “some scholars” because an awful lot of them do believe it literally. If they didn’t believe it, why would they read it every Sunday in Temple and consider it the basis of the Israeli nation?
c. “And we've always known that there was never an Adam and Eve or a talking snake. None of that is real.” And we can say for certain that there is no fruit which will immediately and miraculously confer upon you knowledge of morality and good and evil. Does that mean the whole thing is just a fanciful story or is it a metaphor used to explain the incredibly complex process of creation to a Bronze age nomad people who mostly couldn’t read? How could you explain quantum physics to a goat herder who lived before algebra was discovered? We tell children babies come from mommies tummy because they can’t and don’t need to understand sexual creation.
d. “Because Christianity is an excellent means of manipulation of the masses.” Roman religion was hands down better at manipulating the people and scads more profitable. The society lived their religion every day and every moment and spent their whole lives in one temple or another making offerings. Christianity would have been a downgrade in terms of viable manipulation. This is doubtful.
e. “Similarly, Islam is the fastest-growing religion on earth, with a much easier means of conversion than Christianity, largely because it doesn't have anywhere near as much ridiculous dogma for devotees to swallow. It too is an even better means of mass manipulation, forcing the entire populace to submit to the will of its commanders. By your logic, that would make Islam more accurate than Christianity: especially since Islam also cost the Arabic world their status as the leaders of science once upon a time. “ First of all the Islamic Empire led the world in scientific achievement. Algebra is named for an Arabic mathematician. Google “House of wisdom”. Islam was the source of incredible knowledge gains. I am curious why you comment on Islam without having read the Quran. What can you know if you haven’t even read the source material?
Do I believe in evolution? That is a complex question. Which part? Do I believe diversity of species can be explained by processes of Natural Selection and mutation? I don’t know enough about it to competently argue for or against it. I know something about it.. enough to know the evidence is copious and complex to debate. I deny abiogenesis categorically on teleological grounds and I believe that life has an intelligent designer. DNA polymerase is proof of that to me. The rest of the process is beyond my level of knowledge. Could natural selection and Darwinian mechanisms have resulted in the diversity of life we see? I cannot say with authority one way or the other.
I don’t believe that evolution and my faith are mutually exclusive however. I am not a fundamentalist. I don’t have to read it literally when it’s meant to be read metaphorically or poetically. Evolution could indeed be the how but not the why. Part of the problem with communicating with people about Christianity is that I spend as much time debating fellow Christians who believe in things the Word does not say as I debating Atheists about what it actually DOES say!