Genius of Darwin

[wufwugy]

truth, knowledge, information, fact, etc. those are all literal. if you want to claim that the genesis creation account is allegorical (which it most likely is) then you have to deny any relation to fact. non-literal things/ideas make no predictions, cannot be tested, have no definitions; and those are prerequisites for truths. if we do not have those then we are provided with no truths. do you see how this means that non-literal interpretations of religions tell us nothing?

I haven't claimed anything, other than your suggestion that all Christians hold a literal interpretation of the Bible is false. I'm confused enough about my own spirituality without attempting to debate the issue, except to say that organized religion of any kind is fucked up. But I'm also well versed enough on Theology and Christianity through my Catholic school upbringing (and hardcore in-laws) to say that if your impression is that a belief in the Christian God means a denial of evolution and blind acceptance of Creationism, it's just not the case.

youre confusing issues and not understanding my posts.

religionists believe a lot of things, but only when those things are literal and defined can those things be evaluated for merit. i started this by mentioning the intellectual dishonesty that religionists espouse when they arbitrarily decide what to apply reason and empiricism to and what not to. this is what allows them to believe that they mold their beliefs to new information without ever defining their position and without ever actually molding anything of substance.

a mistake that religionists make is claiming that many understandings from science (evolution is just one of many) dont void the possible existence of A god (which is true), and they fail to apply the scientific method and logic to THEIR god, and they conclude that the possible existence of A god = existence of THEIR god

this all stems from the idea that the supernatural exists imo. there is zero evidence that there exists one thing that is not simply natural, and thus understandable via only the scientific method and logic


let me put it a different way

if the genesis account is allegorical or metaphorical or what have you then it has no factual merit, and beliefs founded on that which suppose they have factual merit are actually equivalent to any belief of anything ever.

if the genesis account is literal then science crushes it and the entire case for chrisitanity collapses since christianity relies upon biblical infallibility.

now there are those who say that chrisitanity does not rely upon biblical infallibility. well good for them since when believing that they create their own religion and cannot call it christianity. people who believe this type of thing should study the history of chrisitanity, or actually the history of judaism.