I think I already have, and I've used examples of practicing sects of Christianity to illustrate the difference.

Creationists: more reasonable.
non-Creationists: less reasonable.

non-Creationists lack internal consistency in their interpretation. Both groups ignore or hand-waive away grave contradictions aside, but at least Creationists aren't completely making shit up.

Now, of course, non-Creationists are more consistent with the natural world as we understand it, and that in an of itself demonstrates that the Bible is completely worthless as a description of how anything works in the Universe.

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 1:55 AM. Reason : .]

4/22/2014 1:53:46 AM

It's like I'm watching a lesson with a learning-disabled child. You guys are being incredibly patient.

4/22/2014 2:17:16 AM

^ LOL, except that he's 30

4/22/2014 7:39:19 AM

why is it more reasonable to take genesis literally?

4/22/2014 8:27:38 AM

insufferable

4/22/2014 9:42:20 AM

Quote :

"why is it more reasonable to take genesis literally?"

Because as I have explained it is internally consistent with what the authors of the Gospels clearly believed.

It's not consistent with reality, sure. But non-Creationists are obviously just making it up as they go along to try to reconcile the obvious absurdity of the Bible with what they want to believe. (ignoring the idea of a person coming back to life after 3 days and then flying up into the sky with no one documenting it even though it supposedly caused "darkness over the whole land")

4/22/2014 9:54:14 AM

Just to be clear, why does this bother you so much again?

Can we bring circumcised penises into the discussion just to cement your role as ringleader?

4/22/2014 1:01:04 PM

Both sides have it wrong.

My money is on L. Ron Hubbard.

4/22/2014 1:05:37 PM

ohmy already agreed that we live in a computer simulation

4/22/2014 1:10:20 PM

Quote :

"Just to be clear, why does this bother you so much again?"

You're going to have to be more specific about the this if you actually want an answer. But your snark and your fixation indicate that's not really the case.

4/22/2014 1:12:32 PM

4/22/2014 5:48:33 PM

It's not consistent with reality, sure. But non-Creationists arewere obviously just making it up as they go went along when they wrote the gospels.

4/23/2014 5:56:43 PM

what are some other 2000 year old things we can inject into daily life to make things more interesting?

plague?

4/23/2014 6:50:55 PM

Quote :

"It's not consistent with reality, sure. But Creationists were obviously just making it up as they went along when they wrote the gospels"

Well duh.

4/24/2014 8:47:46 AM

there isn't really much creationism in the gospels

[Edited on April 24, 2014 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .]

4/24/2014 9:13:06 AM

so, according to disco_stu, a "reasonable" interpretation is the one that he can most easily attack. You know what logical fallacy that is, right?

Quote :

"Now, of course, non-Creationists are more consistent with the natural world as we understand it, and that in an of itself demonstrates that the Bible is completely worthless as a description of how anything works in the Universe."

Congratulations... You agree that the Bible isn't intended as a scientific textbook, and thus agree with me. We're making progress here!

4/27/2014 4:03:51 PM

It *is* intended as a "How the Universe works" book...it just predates the scientific method by thousands of years so it completely sucks at it.

[Edited on April 27, 2014 at 6:25 PM. Reason : y]

4/27/2014 6:24:32 PM

Quote :

"so, according to disco_stu, a "reasonable" interpretation is the one that he can most easily attack. You know what logical fallacy that is, right? "

Further, I went out of my way to describe what I meant by reasonable (internally consistent). You either cannot read or you are reading my words in the least charitable way possible.

4/28/2014 1:40:21 PM

While I care not for this thread I saw this on my FB earlier and decided to toss it out here for fodder:

http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/

4/28/2014 2:01:12 PM

That's a complete strawman.

Essentially every atheist rationalist will admit that we can't know for certainty that a creator god doesn't exist.

But essentially every god historically worshiped by humans has been debunked by the scientific method.

4/28/2014 2:03:25 PM

science doesn't have to prove it false (see: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

4/28/2014 2:40:53 PM

http://59ways.blogspot.com/2012/02/argumentum-ad-ignorantiam-argument-to.html

Good reading on ^ that subject.

This thread is retarded.

4/28/2014 3:14:06 PM

sweet geocities site

4/28/2014 3:31:35 PM

Too bad they don't burn or boil people for heresy anymore. It would take out 2/3 of the people in this thread.

#thegoodolddays

4/29/2014 11:17:49 AM

That is a really funny humorous witty joke. I too wish death upon people that don't agree with the myths I believe in. Just kidding. No I'm not. Yes I am.

4/29/2014 11:21:46 AM

Read the post I made before this one.

I'm not taking a stance here, I'm with Tom Cruise on this one. ^Was just a joke, but if I'm going to start taking every sarcastic comment made by everybody here seriously...

4/29/2014 11:25:17 AM

5/4/2014 9:52:17 PM

those comments make me confuse

5/5/2014 7:54:03 AM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-religion-not-way-i-think-most-people-want-live_789066.html

Run Kerry for president instead of Hillary or Biden.

What do you think?

5/5/2014 2:54:38 PM