And the Evolution Believing Near Atheist Before That?

Conciliar Church · Why Catholic at All, Then? · What About an Inkling Reading Protestant, which I was · And the Evolution Believing Near Atheist Before That? · Extra on Helio / Geo

Some latitude on the title, since I compare myself in some ways to Genetically Modified Sceptic, who took opposite road:

An Ex-Christian Q&A (Inside the Ark Encounter)
Genetically Modified Skeptic | 17.X.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4SaMJdfE8Y

I

What Scripture passage would say every individual case of apostasy is for a moral failure?

As to morality outside that of keeping the faith, that is?

II

I thought I were a subscriber, right now I am (again?).

Would you mind answering this question of a subscriber: when you were a Creationist, what were - in some detail, say three topics - your views adding up to "Evolution is a conspiracy"? AND, follow up, what exactly made you change your mind on these three topics?

For my own part, I have never been ignorant of Evolution due to growing up among exclusively Creationists. I was more like ignorant of the Bible up to near nine (some exceptions like Bible Pix versions of Acts and Exodus) due to growing up among majority Evolutionists.

5 Lies Theists Tell About Atheists
Genetically Modified Skeptic | 27.XII.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuNOFH93GHA

I

3:18 Some Protestants might throw this on Catholic converts as well.

You remember the OSAS doctrine? Once Saved, Always Saved? Along with "saved by faith alone" this means anyone who ever had faith eternally keeps it and cannot lose it. And if they believe (as some do) Catholicism is outside the faith ...

II

4:34 As you mention it, some may doubt I was ever a true Evolution and Big Bang believer ... (especially from the Commie side), as they have made similar comments about C. S. Lewis.

a cats

I don't think people are doubting that you ever believed in evolution/the big bang, they were probably doubting that you understood it. There's an easy way to check whether you did - summarise it as best you can then compare it to the scientific consensus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@a cats Sorry, but the people whom I speak of certainly have a knack of being in denial over facts stated by the person himself.

Process : random mutations give raw material for evolutionary pressure by (mainly) natural / sexual selection, which then drives the overall variety of life forms into the more and more varied and with life forms having more and more varied cell types, leading up to, inter alia, men, elephants, whales, mice as we see them today, as well as cods, sharks, jellyfish, algae, conifers and leaf trees, not forgetting ferns and fungi.

Epistemology : mutations and natural selection have been observed, fossils have been dated, filling in the gaps is a safe process for a good scientist.

This I believed, with some added understanding today well after ditching it.

For instance, I recently "dug into" matters like chromosome numbers (going upward is, especially in mammals, difficult), cell types (the medium arrival of a new one is 1 / 3 million years = process not observed), numbers of genes necessary for a functional trait, like retina of blind chiclids is non-seeing due to flaws in two genes out of a total of ten helping to build up a retina, geological column is usually one layer of biota per place, and when not, we deal with marine layers (=> Permian and Triassic critters from Karoo = two biotopes, all from near surface), and buildup of C14 (the old creationist model of a gradual rise with modern rate of production was abandoned by me, in exchange I gained tables where Biblical years stand beside matching carbon years).

III

9:14 Reminds me of a certain guy who had angelic experiences as a Pentecostal, deconverted after diabolical ones, is now an atheist (not guessing how he became an atheist, he told me!) and who refuses to believe me when I state, my own experiences don't matter all that much for rational belief, I have historic reasons to believe Christianity is true.

No no, he just goes on and on and on and ... "you condemn the experiences of others in the name of your own equally subjective experiences ..."

Not much to do with you, but as I had an overdose of him during a week or more, I was not too subtly reminded of him as you stated this ... [at 9:14 : about Christians doing similar to him]

IV

Romans 1:[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: [19] Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Up to Heliocentrism, this actually makes atheism rather awkward.

Demokritos doesn't seem to have studied astronomy very much, and Lucrece (his spiritual grandson) certainly didn't, since he attributed the complex Geocentric movements of the universe and single bodies as a whirl-pool phenomenon.

St. Paul may have made the point, if you take your eyes and inner ears for Earth being immobile, and your eyes for what happens well above Earth, you have to conclude someone with some talent of organisation is responsible for these movements. As well as lots of power. Note the litothetic statements.

Another question is of course, whether accepting Heliocentrism is a real excuse ...

Heliocentrism is not directly born out by what we see, and when I have tried arguing with atheists on why Geocentrism couldn't (on their view) be true and a true proof of God, I get versions of:

they : given the mass of the Sun, and of Earth, Sun could never circle Earth
me : what if angels moved it (speaking of yearly cycle) within an aether that is moved by God (speaking of the daily one)
they : God / angels don't exist.

One version is accusing me of circularity, or saying "prove God exists" / "prove angels exist" - but with Geocentrism I just did that (remains to ask which God and what angels, that's a matter for history).

I reply that it is circular to assume Heliocentrism as the true explanation doesn't need a God, when you cannot prove it is the true one except by starting out to exclude God.

fireandcopper

@Hans-Georg Lundahl have you ever worked with horses? Sometimes they kick, and they change people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@fireandcopper I have fallen off one, what is this to the context?

V

11:25 The Atheists in France fairly sorely need that attitude.

I thank you!

Listen before you speak ... don't belittle others. Wonderful! Music to my ears.