Darwin's mistake was to assume that observable adaptation to the environment necessarily meant the possibility of massive changes to the organism to such an extent that it would become something entirely new. There is nothing in the fossil record to support that idea.
Nailed it.
Darwin did nothing to push for atheism
I respectfully disagree with your assertion here that Darwin's theory of evolution does not advocate for atheism. While Darwin himself did not explicitly argue for atheism, his theory of evolution by natural selection did propose a mechanism for the diversity of life on Earth that did not necessitate a divine creator. This has been viewed by many as a challenge to traditional religious beliefs and has played a role in the growth of atheism and agnosticism.
they look painted grey
While I'm not doubting the fakery involved with this incident, the answer given as to why he looks grey is because they dowsed him with a fire extinguisher
We're the Terrorists - but we're mostly peaceful and it's for Democracy.
I've come to the conclusion that all "one hit wonders" wouldn't drink the blood.
Almost, if not THE, #1 industry in the world.
Vaxx me harder!
There is no objective "truth".
Is this Objectively true?
But when it comes to moral questions, Truth depends on your moral perspective.
I think the idea that truth depends on your moral perspective is interesting, but I'm not sure I completely agree. Take the universal condemnation of cruelty, for example. Across cultures, people generally agree that cruelty is wrong.
Even societies that are often cruel themselves tend to react strongly when cruelty is directed at them. This suggests that there's a deeper, objective moral standard that goes beyond just personal or cultural opinions.
So, while our moral perspectives might differ, there seems to be a broader, objective truth when it comes to certain moral principles.
โRun away, run awayyyyyโ
Very concise and well thought out response, bud. Thanks for your input.
Cheers
Every word in the Bible "can also mean..." so that argument is no good.
It's true that words in the Bible can have various meanings depending on the context, and translators must carefully consider the context and the range of meanings a word can have. In the case of Isaiah 45:7, while the Hebrew word "ืจึธืขึธื" (ra'ah) can be translated as "evil," it can also mean "calamity" or "disaster," as seen in various translations. This highlights the complexity of translation and the need to consider the broader theological and textual context.
Regarding the assertion that God called bad times, calamity, and disaster "good," it's important to distinguish between the goodness of God's original creation and the presence of negative events or circumstances in the world. In the creation narrative, God declares everything He has made to be "good," indicating the inherent goodness of His creation. However, this does not mean that God creates moral evil or intends harm. The presence of calamity and disaster in the world is often understood within the context of the fallen nature of the world due to sin, as well as God's sovereign ability to use even negative events for His ultimate purposes, such as discipline, correction, or the fulfillment of His plan for redemption.
Ultimately, the idea that nothing exists that God didn't create does not necessarily imply that God is the author of moral evil or that He directly causes calamity and disaster. It reflects the theological concept of God's sovereignty over all creation, including the ability to allow or permit certain events while still holding humanity responsible for their choices.
"...choices made during their lives"
"Choices" regarding the person of Jesus Christ. Wasn't meant to imply works based salvation.
If you want to see a libtards head explode, then ask them if we should require a Vax ID in order to vote.
...then take one step backwards, slowly.
The Hebrew word translated as "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 is "ืจึธืขึธื" (ra'ah), which can indeed be translated as "evil," but it has a broader range of meanings. In the context of this verse, "ืจึธืขึธื" (ra'ah) can be understood more generally as "calamity," "distress," or "disaster." It doesn't necessarily imply moral evil, but rather a negative or harmful event or circumstance.
Some translations render Isaiah 45:7 without using the word "evil." Here are a few examples:
-
New International Version (NIV): "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."
-
New Living Translation (NLT): "I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things."
-
English Standard Version (ESV): "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things."
These translations use terms like "disaster," "bad times," or "calamity" instead of "evil" to convey the idea of negative or adverse circumstances rather than moral evil.
Furthermore, in the creation narrative, God declares everything He has made to be "good" (Genesis 1:31), which would seem contradictory if God were to create moral evil and then call it good.
Understanding the word in Isaiah 45:7 as "calamity" or "disaster" (as the Hebrew word allows) harmonizes with the idea that God's original creation was good and that any negative aspects are the result of the brokenness introduced by sin or as part of God's larger plan and purposes.
How did Satan lose the divine love of God? If evil is the result of the absence of Divine love in the โhuman heartโ, how did angels that fell lose divine love if they donโt have a human heart?
Excellent question!
Thomas Aquinas addressed this very question in his Summa Theologica.
In Aquinas' view, angels were created with intellect and will, enabling them to choose good or evil. When Satan and other angels rebelled, it was due to their misuse of free will, particularly through pride. Unlike humans, angels' decision to reject God was immediate and final, without the possibility of redemption. This separation from God is seen as the absence of divine love in their spiritual beings.
Angels, being purely spiritual beings, make a single, irrevocable choice either for or against God at the moment of their creation. This choice is believed to be final and eternal, without the possibility of redemption or change.
Humans, on the other hand, are seen as having a lifetime during which they can make choices that either align them with God or lead them away from Him. This process of decision-making is seen as ongoing, with the ultimate consequences of these choices being finalized at death. At death, it's believed that humans' eternal destinies are fixed based on their choices made during their lives.
If you're interested in reading more about Aquinas' discussions on the nature of angels, their intellect and will, and the hierarchy of angels, then def check out his Summa Theologica. He also explores the question of evil in relation to angels and humans, including the concept of fallen angels and their irrevocable choice against God.
Hope this helps!
Wonder what they "bounce" the RF waves off of up there??
Rand Paul = Police officer on the curb yelling "Stop speeding! Or else I'll yell 'Stop Speeding' again!!"
swamp-adjacent
KEK!
Exactly, if there were an infinite number of days before today, today would never be reached. Since today has been reached, it suggests that the past is not infinite, supporting the idea that the universe had a beginning.
If you stood on one bank of a river with an infinite number of stones between you and the other side, how long would it take to reach the opposite bank?
More time = more chaos.
Time does not have any creative power at all. If you simply add more time youโre going to get more chaos, not order. Random events tend toward disorder (entropy). This is observable (2nd law of Thermodynamics).
Furthermore, It is impossible to traverse an infinite. If there existed an infinite number of days before today, then we wouldโve never arrived at today. But we HAVE arrived at today, therefore the past is not infinite. The universe had a beginning.
No, theism is not required for agreement on unalienable rights. These rights are fundamental principles that are recognized across different cultures and belief systems. The concept of U.R. is rooted in the idea that all human beings have inherent dignity and worth, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
This appears to be a semantic question that highlights the complexity of language and cultural differences. The terms "God" and "Wralda" may refer to different concepts or entities, but they both imply a belief in a higher power or transcendent reality. The distinction between theism, atheism, and deism is not solely dependent on the label used to describe the divine.
This kind of hyper-skepticism leads to a self-referential and self-defeating circularity. The argument youre making (and almost the entirety of the Truther Movement/Great Awakening Movement) is that the "Deep State" is funding all sides of the argument, implying that any information or knowledge we have is potentially tainted by this alleged control.
However, this raises a crucial question: How do we know that this information about the "Deep State" isn't also part of the alleged control? In other words, if we assume that the "Deep State" is controlling the narrative and funding all sides of the argument, then how can we trust the information that leads us to believe in the existence of the "Deep State" in the first place? Isn't that information also potentially part of the controlled narrative/Matrix?
This creates a kind of epistemological paradox, where we're unable to trust any information, including the information that leads us to be skeptical of the information in the first place. It's a self-referential loop that ultimately leads to a kind of intellectual paralysis.
As I pointed out, this kind of thinking can be self-defeating, as it undermines our ability to make sense of the world around us. If we can't trust any information, then how can we make informed decisions or have meaningful discussions? In essence, this kind of hyper-skepticism can lead to a kind of nihilism, where we're left with no foundation for knowledge or truth.
I've been thinking about this very topic (the foundation of True knowledge in the Great Awakening movement) for a while now. And it' appears to me that if we're not careful, then we'll all end up in some form of Solipsism.
In the context of the Great Awakening movement, the emphasis on questioning everything and doubting the official narrative can be beneficial in encouraging critical thinking and promoting media literacy. However, if taken to an extreme, this skepticism can lead to a kind of solipsistic thinking, where individuals begin to doubt the existence of objective reality itself.
When we start to question everything, including the nature of reality, it can be challenging to find a solid foundation for knowledge. If we're not careful, we might end up in a situation where we're unable to trust anything, including our own senses, and that's when solipsism can become a tempting, albeit flawed, solution.
Solipsism, in this context, can manifest in various ways. For instance, some individuals might start to believe that they're the only ones who truly understand the "truth," while everyone else is deceived or asleep (something affecting almost all of us in this forum). This can lead to a kind of intellectual isolationism, where people become increasingly disconnected from others and the world around them (raises hand).
Another risk is that solipsism can foster a kind of paranoid thinking, where individuals begin to see conspiracies everywhere and doubt the intentions of others. This can create a toxic atmosphere, where people are more focused on uncovering hidden truths than on engaging in constructive dialogue and collaboration (another guilty charge).
I've waxed eloquent. Apologies. I guess I still suffer from a little PTSD from my discussion with @slyver (another pede in here) about this very topic.
I digress.....