Why do people deny evolution?

Don't call me names, Mr. I Love to Argue, and I won't have anything to say to you.

Quoting so-called scripture is not evidence of anything, other than gullibility.

Still one lion only, living an artificial life.

Your god created murderers and rapists. He created predators and parasite species by the millions. The nature he created is totally a-moral, and as brutal as a Westworld episode.

"Mr. I Love to Argue" is a form of name-calling, Mr. I Love to Argue2.

Ah, so you can dish it out, but you can't take it, eh?

But of course, you're just responding because you love to argue.

Takes 2 to tango.

That's right, and you'd be lost if everyone put you on ignore. How could you get your argument fix then? Funny, when you get irritated, your English improves--most people slip into their native language in such a situation . . . oh yeah, now it make sense.

You think you irritate me honey? Oh no! Not at all. You're all flowers and pearls to me eyes. You, the eternal positive thinker, the level-headed rhetorist, the fount of love and kindness! How could you possibly irritate me?

Uh-huh, that's why, the last time we went through this, you stomped off to sulk, saying "whatever." How very transparent. Your sarcasm isn't working very well.

But then, you got your "I love to argue" fix again, nicht wahr?

Not everybody out there is as cute and tender as you and me, hon. You'd better toughen up and get used to some arguing.

How awesome is it, that although God allows murders rapists and a Whole lotta of immorality, Along with nearly countless false teachings Like evolutionism, these things will soon disappear for eternity!
🎉Then humanity can bathe in the truth, and righteousness 🎉

I can't wait for the time when lions and sheep will have sex with one another...

. I get that quoted Bible verses or other appeals to authority do not impress you (correctly so), but on what grounds do you reject the logical requirement for free will (and its consequences) in religious paradigms?
Or have you chosen not to look for any logic in them?

That would be for another thread. The point I am making here (to a young-earth believer of the most naive nature) is that, if life was designed by some ID or IDs, it was designed as a violent game. Violence is weaved in the system; it makes it work.

That would be consistent with what Jesus said about 'not coming to bring peace, but a sword.' So there is some merit to the idea. But I think he was referring to the clash of ideas rather than physical violence.

That’s why I think the topic is relevant to the OP. I think some people reject dogma from science just as others reject dogma from religion. Argument from authority should never convince anyone.

I think he was speaking metaphorically here, as often. There is a form of violence in non-violence; it's offensive to behave non-violently in a violent word. Something like that...

Then you are saying Jesus was being offensive in recommending 'turning the other cheek.'?

This does not seem consistent with your definition of the previous metaphor.

Yes, that's one of the most offensive things he said. It's a shocking idea, going against our most core instinct: fight or flee, an alternative to which Jesus adds a radically new third option.

(Although some say Hillel had the idea first and Jesus adopted and developed it... BTW I personally see Jesus as a man, as a moralist, a sage or a philosopher, not as a god; i call myself an atheit christian)


You lost me there.

Yes, he was clearly outlining a radically different approach to life, society, self.


It does not matter which of those things he was/is. We can evaluate what he says in order to see if he is delivering a consistent and coherent message. He makes a claim that there is an ultimate 'good' in his way of looking at things. If that is true, then there should be a way to look at his metaphor of 'turning the other cheek' as a good thing and not offensive.

That is the challenge he laid down. Not to accept everything as dogma, but to see the logic and reason in the totality the things he said, no matter if it violates our basic instincts at times. Obviously he is implying that basic instinct is not the foundation on which to build one's POV, if one is to be his follower.

This challenge would apply to the atheist Christian as well as the theist Christian. That's why I said your interpretation of his metaphor was inconsistent in calling it 'offensive'. If you are a follower (atheist or not), it is in your own interest to look deeply enough into his meaning to see why it is not offensive.

I'm not a native speaker, and didn't mean 'offensive' in a bad way. I meant: aggressively counter-intuitive, shockingly avant-guarde, and thus "offensive in the eyes of most of his contemporaries".