CNN on Religious blogs

I don't want to get into a discussion on this but I thought that it was interesting. Holy Trollers: How to argue about religion online

I have a question. Is it possible to be a Creationist and an Evolutionist at the same time?

Absolutely, although not if you are going to use the term creationist in the way that it is usually used around here. God used an evolutionary process in order to create. Simple as that IMHO.

No. Not if you re going to be intellectually honest with yourself and others

Yes, as long as you don't expect any particular intended outcome; for example you can't think that humans were a desired outcome or that humans could ever be anything more than any other critter or at most, a precocious accident.

I don't understand what the problem is with holding seemingly contradictory beliefs. It's not going to cause a brain explosion; and there is nothing in it at all about 'honesty' since being inconsistent is all a [necessary] part of the human experience.Don't wonder whether it's possible to be a Creationist and Evolutionist at the same time; know it is; believe it is.Have some faith in your own humanity.

Thank you. This explains much about our past interactions here.

I think this falls into the honesty to oneself that I mentioned. Its cool if you feel honesty to oneself isn't important, but it is to me.

I see no conflict in being a cosmological creationist.

Isn't this a copout?

It all depends on whom (or what belief) you choose to be loyal to. I think its a bit arrogant for humans on a dustspeck in the middle of a solar system surrounding one of hundreds of billions of stars--nevermind galaxies---to deny the possibility of a Creator..but it appears some humans are hardwired to trust their own species intelligence at the expense of someOne in charge

GrrrrrrVery few, if any, atheists deny the possibility of a creator god.What we flatly deny is the type of God that religious people believe in - the inteventionist type that needs worshipping and so on.No rational person could totally dismiss the *possibility* of the sort of the non-interventionist God, or even a dead God. But most atheists believe, for various reasons, that it's now vanishingly unlikely.

Caveman: Does not believe in a tree god, but believes in land god.Ancient Greeks: Does not believe in land god, but believe Olympian gods who lived on Mt. Olympus.Egyptians: Did not believe in Olympian gods, but believe in sun god.Catholic church: Did not believe in sun or Olympian god, but believe in miraculous god that run things directly in an Earth-centered universe.Do you follow the pattern? Each culture I listed did not believe in a god that is immediately right in front of them, but they believe in a god that is just outside their understanding.What makes you think you are any different? You're just citing a god that is just outside the boundaries of our current scientific understanding. In other words, how is this different than god of the gaps?Don't get me wrong. I do not dismiss the possibility of a god. What I do not subscribe to is the type of god that needs worshipping at the threat of hell fire.If one day mankind discovers a creator, it will probably be beyond anything we can comprehend. To suggest that a creator of the universe can be dumbed down to a book called the bible is no different than belittling the creator. The creator of the universe is now a petty child-god that gets pleasure out of slaughtering entire cultures of people. I honestly don't understand how religious people can reconcile with an event like the extermination of the people of Jericho. Edited by yenmor, : No reason given.

Not half as arrogant as it is to think that that Creator is interested in you. But we know there is noOne in charge. We know we still have to go to Safeway and buy our own groceries. The only One we can count on to do that is Us.

And your evidence is?How do you know someone is in charge?Finally, exactly how do you know "Who" is in charge?