Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Creationist Shortage

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Shortage
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 415 (668883)
07-25-2012 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Percy
07-25-2012 1:30 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
Not only do fewer creationists join these days, just plain fewer people join these days.
You used to post site statistics back in the day, remember? I suppose you don't really have the time, but I always found that info to be interesting if you need a reason to do it again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 07-25-2012 1:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Percy, posted 07-25-2012 3:16 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(4)
Message 287 of 415 (668885)
07-25-2012 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by marc9000
07-24-2012 8:05 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
The pictures you describe could be strong, unless someone educated in photo-shopping took out his magnifying glass and said uh-oh.
Or someone uneducated in photo manipulation, but with a reason to discredit the evidence - the husband, let's say - could make an accusation of manipulation that was unfounded. Hey, anything could have happened in that motel room with that woman. Getting to the bottom of this situation, or any other - getting to the truth - is going to require careful examination of the evidence. Simply tossing out the very idea of evidence because it leads you to things you'd prefer not to believe is an act every bit as foolish, and self-harming, as the wife who refuses to credit her own "lyin' eyes."
The problem all humans have, religious or not, is that they come to a conclusion first, then work backwards to try to find evidence for it.
This is certainly the first instinct of motivated reasoning. It's a known cognitive bias, you're right. Humans are far from perfect - not only do we tend to jump to conclusions and practice confirmation bias, we lie, we cheat, we harm each other, and we steal and act selfishly. All humans suffer from these temptations - you would describe it as all humans being in a fallen state, but it's the same idea in different words - and only by conscious commitment to a code of conduct can we restrain these negative impulses.
Similarly, one can restrain the impulse to jump to conclusions and seek only confirmatory evidence. One can adopt an ethos of discovery and knowledge generation that, courageously, leads one to base one's conclusions on the evidence regardless of what conclusions one would prefer to be true. We call this ethos "the scientific method", and it's the sole reason that we, as humans, can know anything at all. You've made a very good case why this method is so uniquely trustworthy.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by marc9000, posted 07-24-2012 8:05 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 288 of 415 (668894)
07-25-2012 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by New Cat's Eye
07-25-2012 2:13 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
The problem with the site statistics is that they include hits from indexing by search engines. Several of them read every single page of this website every day, and since there are roughly 44,500 pages it grossly distorts the statistics. At this very moment we're being indexed by Beijing Baidu Netcom, later it will be Google, then Bing, then Yahoo, and who knows who else. Filtering's a bitch.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2012 2:13 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 289 of 415 (668900)
07-25-2012 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by marc9000
07-24-2012 7:42 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
It's important however, to look at the four key paragraphs from my earlier Wintery Night link that you hand-waved away.
I gave them all the consideration that they deserve, which is none. They are nothing more than the typical nonsense that fundamentalists make up without any basis outside of their own projection.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) They want to do something immoral with impunity. This type of person wants to do something immoral that is forbidden by Christianity, like pre-marital sex. They dump Christianity in order to feel better about seeking happiness in this life, apart from God and his moral duties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't really expect anyone in those testimonials to admit this do you? It's much easier to mock Christianity and Christians than to admit to things such as these.
Why shouldn't they admit it? The testimonial I provided for you admitted it; he even went so far as to point out that evolution had nothing to do with his sham deconversion except to serve as a convenient excuse.
This "key paragraph" only repeats your own false claim that atheists only want to be free of the Ten Commandments. Which is a popular lie that Christians, not only fundamentalists, have made up to explain something that they don't understand and don't want to understand: why someone would leave Christianity. You don't want to understand it, because then you would have to think about and evaluate their reasons, which would raise questions that you know you need to fear, the same kinds of questions that had led many to atheism.
What do you base this claim on (ie, that atheists only want to be free of the Ten Commandments)? What is your evidence for it? What objective observations had been made? What testimonials have revealed this to be the reason? What support can you offer for this claim? And how does the fact that you teach this loophole to your children factor into their subsequent deconversions?
Instead, when we read the actual testimonials of ex-Christians (and especially of ex-fundamentalists), we find other factors to be at work. Including the hypocrisy of fellow Christians as they preach those "moral duties" while violating them. Is it really "mocking Christianity and Christians" when you merely tell the truth about them?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) They want to pursue happiness in irresponsible ways. This type of person thinks that God’s job is to save them when they act irresponsibly while pursuing happiness. When God disappoints them by not giving them what they want in order to be happy, they leave the faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those testimonials are loaded with evidence of that.
Please provide examples of that evidence of "irresponsible ways" that you claim those testimonials are loaded with. Please be specific. And refrain from quote-mining again.
Particularly odd is this sentence: "This type of person thinks that God’s job is to save them when they act irresponsibly while pursuing happiness." WintryKnight is talking about people becoming atheists in order to be able to "pursue happiness in irresponsible ways." So if they're already atheists, why would they expect God to save them when they do that? That doesn't make any sense.
And, yes, sometimes the deconversion process starts or is helped along by a feeling of betrayal. Such as in Lithoid-Man's story, wherein the church's theology (eg, prosperity theology) makes promises about what God will do and then that doesn't happen. At the very least, that gets people to start thinking and to start asking questions, even when they only keep those questions to themselves, which leads to seeking answers to those questions, which leads to a cascading effect of more thinking, more questions, more seeking. One of the really big problems for Christians and especially for fundamentalists is that they are taught what to believe, but they almost never learn the basis for those beliefs, where those beliefs came from. One of the things we saw in those testimonials you had cherry-picked was that the individuals started researching into Christianity and to learning where those beliefs came from, which of course greatly hastened their deconversion.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) They want to be loved by people, not by God. This type of person thinks that Christianity is a tool that they can use to become popular. When they first try to articulate the gospel in public, they find that people don’t like them as much, and they feel bad about offending people with exclusive truth claims that they cannot back up using logic and evidence. So, they water down Christianity to get along with atheists, liberal Christians and other religions. Finally, they jettison Christianity completely and focus on making everyone feel good about whatever they believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, obvious in those testimonials. "They want to be loved by people" - plenty of mushiness in those testimonials (and responses to them) to vouch for that.
Yes, emotional needs, human needs, relationship needs. Mushy stuff. Good thing you're inhuman and have no such needs.
But those needs are what fundamentals churches and cults exploit when they proselytize. That comes up in many testimonials where they recount who they had gotten sucked into fundamentalism in the first place. God's love is rather abstract with believers often worrying whether God still loves them (especially true of the youth raised in fundamentalism, which is part of the psychological damage being done to them), but the congregation's love for them is something for which they can get feedback. Churches are communities and joining a church is mainly to satisfy the human needs for belonging. And the hold that those churches have on their members is through the human needs for belonging, which is one reason why cults and fundamentalist churches do what they can to isolate their members from the outside, especially by cultivating a strong "them vs us" mentality.
IOW, there are no Christians, not even fundamentalists, who do not want to be loved by people, with the exception of certain psychopaths and sociopaths. It's just normal human nature that even you are not immune from (unless you're one of those exceptions).
Now, when they first try to articulate the Gospel in public, that is the first test of the strength of their understanding of it. Again, it's human nature to read feedback and to incorporate that feedback. It takes a lot of training to learn to ignore that feedback, as you advocate, but with that training comes the danger of not realizing when you're just plain wrong and preaching total nonsense, such as you repeatedly do here.
And again, as I've been trying to tell you, when you teach that only certain very narrow beliefs can be true and that your religion depends on those very narrow beliefs being true, such that finding any of them to be false requires becoming an atheist, then as believers start to discover that those beliefs are indeed not true (eg, belief that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, belief in Noah's Flood, belief in a blatantly wrong caricature of evolution) they quite naturally will then do as you had taught them and will become atheists. The only way you offer to keep that from happening is to enforce ignorance along with installing defensive mechanisms in the believer's mind to actively filter out anything that could challenge those beliefs (as evidenced by the stories of Lithoid-man's father, my friend at church, Gary, and many testimonials). Children raised in the faith are especially at risk, because they've grown up trusting you and believing navely that what you have taught them is the truth; not realizing the need, they have not installed those defensive mechanisms that keep your mind rusted shut.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) They don’t want to learn to defend their faith. This type of person is asked questions by skeptics that they cannot answer. Usually this happens when people go to university after growing up in the shelter of the Church. The questions and peer pressure make them feel stupid. Rather than investigate Christianity to see if it’s true and to prepare to defend it in public, they dump it so they can be thought of as part of the smart crowd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, obvious.
Yes, since most Christians, including fundamentalists, don't know much about their religion. All they know is what they've been told to believe, but they don't know the basis nor the history of those beliefs. Decades ago, Doonesbury referred to it as "putting in their pew time". There was a book written by a rabbi whose thesis was that most people have a childish view of God and their religion because they're still using what they had learned as children; as the person grew up and matured, they never revisited their religious beliefs to question them so that their religious beliefs could also grow and mature. My personal belief is that everyone needs to periodically revisit and challenge old ideas and beliefs in order to either verify or correct them; unofficial UU motto: "To question is the answer."
And, no, if such Christians are asked questions by skeptics, who normally know much more about Christianity than most Christians, then they would not be able to answer them and, yes, that would make them feel stupid. So doesn't it make more sense to teach them what they will need to know rather than, as one ex-creationist put it, hand them a gun loaded with blanks and send them out to get creamed? Yet again, you should know that ignorance doesn't work, because you keep trying it over and over again without success. Your primary problem is that the only way your fundamentalist theology can survive is through ignorance.
"Rather than investigate Christianity to see if it’s true and to prepare to defend it in public, ..."
That is so incredibly ironic! In testimonial after testimonial, a common thread is that the person undergoing deconversion does exactly that! Because of the questions being raised, they do investigate Christianity and research it and as a result of that investigation come to realize that it's not true. Again, your theology depends on ignorance for its very survival, so the gaining of knowledge can only work to its detriment. Indeed, in TheSecretAtheist's case, a major factor in his deconversion was studying theology.
And the "prepare to defend it in public" part is just plain laughable. I've seen those training materials, which are usually broshures that depict an encounter between a Believer and a non-believer. One of the more infamous examples is the Chick Pub, Big Daddy?, the current edition of which has been attributed to Kent Hovind (I read the original back circa 1970). Such materials are then memorized as scripts to be used in real-life encounters. It's really hilarious to watch the Believer squirm when the non-believer doesn't follow the script; my encounter with a script in which Pascal's Wager is dressed up as a car insurance analogy is recounted on my After-Life Insurance page.
Rather, what happens in college is that fundamentalist students learn that other perspectives exist and they learn about them, along with discovering that what they had been taught all their lives isn't true. Again, it's been found that it's not science that plays such a large role in that, but rather the humanities. You should fear English lit classes far more than evolution.
My position is also clear.
Yes, it is. And also highly flawed and unsupportable. And just plain wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by marc9000, posted 07-24-2012 7:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 290 of 415 (669076)
07-26-2012 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Percy
07-25-2012 8:19 AM


Re: What's the purpose here?
marc9000 writes:
I think something that stands the test of time, particularly with fierce opposition for that entire time, makes it more substantial as evidence. Mormonism isn’t even in the same league with Christ’s resurrection, or the 66 book Bible.
That's roughly the same situation Christianity was in with respect to Judaism in the early years after Christ, and is still in. So I guess Judaism wins out over Christianity?
No, because Christianity has spread throughout the world to a far greater extent than Judaism has, and Judaism doesn’t get the fierce opposition from Judaism that Christianity does. Look through dwise1’s atheist testimony page. Do you see much hatred of Judaism?
Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your criteria, which you chose because it helps you confirm your beliefs rather than because it has any worth.
Perhaps not, because I have evidence for it.
Except that it *is* something we can find evidence for, and since extra dimensions have already been conceived it is obviously not beyond human comprehension. String theory postulates 11 dimensions, and it is hoped that the Large Hadron Collider may eventually find evidence for or against this possibility. The possibility that string theory is a more accurate model of our universe than the standard model is why nobody here thinks that one time dimension and three space dimensions must be all that is possible. As Arthur Eddington once said, "Reality is not only stranger than you think, it's stranger than you *can* think." Although it's hyperbole it does very effectively make the important point, and I'm sure many here on the science said embrace this view.
Christianity does too! If something is stranger than we can think, why does the scientific community always trying to explain it with (what it calls) physical evidence?
marc9000 writes:
Central to Christianity is the mistrust of human wisdom.
Really? So when you become ill you seek a minister rather than a doctor? You pray instead of taking your prescribed medicines?
Uh, yes really. There is a major difference between mistrust and complete disregard.
Well now you're just making things up. The Unitarians don't even accept the trinity.
I was only referring to actual Christianity, not all the various modified versions over the past few centuries that modify and disregard the 66 book Bible according to their personal whims. That may be one misconception you have about me that needs to be cleared up. I'm not one of those who considers any religion better than atheism. False religions are no different than atheism to me.
The Episcopalians allow gay marriage.
Since their beginning, or a more recent compromise under pressure from science? Good luck to them.
And science has nothing against religion.
Unless someone they’ve bestowed a Nobel Prize upon says this;
quote:
Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion, says Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg, should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.
They could prove their tolerance for religion by condemning a statement like that, from one of their heroes. They've done no such thing.
Anyone who understands the nature of science knows that it can't take any position for or against much religious philosophy, and many in science are deeply religious and have no wish to eradicate religion, perhaps the most famous being Francis Collins who headed the Human Genome Project.
Science can't, but those imperfect humans in control of it can. They can discriminate. There is evidence for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Percy, posted 07-25-2012 8:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Percy, posted 07-27-2012 7:44 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 299 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2012 12:39 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 291 of 415 (669078)
07-26-2012 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Lithodid-Man
07-25-2012 8:25 AM


Re: What's the purpose here?
Marc-
If your goal is to find examples of people who have become atheists because they learned about the ToE or because they wanted be sexually active without guilt, I have no doubt you can find examples. But I do think it is a somewhat narrow view to find a few examples and claim an explanatory variable for the whole. My suspicion is that when someone goes through a conversion event, any conversion event, there is a complex story around it that is lost when summarized by "I became X when Y happened...".
I agree. But considering how so many children are raised, from toddlers through elementary school; share, listen to mom & dad, dont say bad words, dont steal, the U.S. Declaration says we were endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights then, middle school to high school biology there is no creator, natural selection doesnt care if you say bad words or steal etc etc. a LOT of the conversion events are largely rooted in the confusion that arises from those conflicting instruction periods.
My father in law went from being devoutly religious to an atheist about 8 years ago. His turning point came about a year after his wife of 40 years was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor, and the effects of a very long, painful, and degrading death were starting (almost three years of ever-increasing seizures, violent and profane outbursts, etc.). What is significant is that his church taught a version of the prosperity gospel, that through clean living, evangelism, tithing, etc. that people would not only have financial prosperity but also long and healthy lives. So while this was happening he went to talk to a church leader for counseling. He was told that while his faith was obviously strong, the fact that his wife was only getting worse was because her faith wasn't strong (it was a lot more complex than that, but I am trying to be brief). It goes without saying that he was livid.
My sincere sympathy, that had to be a tough time for you all.
Now to be fair, when he talked to other church members, they all agreed that the pastor he had spoken to was out of line and insensitive. But (and this is the important part) no one disagreed with the message, just that it was worded poorly and perhaps too soon. So over the next few months he starting finding fault with his church's doctrine, then Christianity in general, and finally all belief in the supernatural.
Please believe that Im not trying to offend you different tragedies cannot be compared. But heres a very good read from Henry Morris that describes the loss of his 39 year old son, who had three small children.
How a Christian Dies (A Home-Going of Andy Morris) | The Institute for Creation Research
What I find fascinating about his ordeal is that he explained to my wife and I (we, at the time, were the only atheists he knew). that for decades he felt like he had a non-functioning part of his brain. He would hear something in church, and would think "Wait, that doesn't sound plausible..." but would immediately bury it and never think about again. These things were mysteries that he wasn't smart enough to understand. But during this tragedy all of it came under scrutiny. His wife's illness and passing was the starting factor, but it was a lifetime of being lied to that ultimately led to his rejection of belief.
So some people lose their faith when put to the test, others dont. Im sure Morris had plenty of support from any minister he cared to consult, but Id say he didnt need much support, he knew the word of God, the 66 book Bible thoroughly enough to not have his faith shaken. JMO.
marc9000 writes:
Again, obvious in those testimonials. "They want to be loved by people" - plenty of mushiness in those testimonials (and responses to them) to vouch for that.
I cannot help but be reminded of the dozens of church testimonials I heard growing up about how they had hit rock bottom before being saved. In retrospect there seemed to almost be a competitivness. The farther they had fallen, the more "amens" and mushiness they would get from the parish.
Point taken. A good message from you, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-25-2012 8:25 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by dwise1, posted 07-27-2012 9:06 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 292 of 415 (669112)
07-27-2012 2:46 AM


marc9000,
If an airline pilot says that they, as pilots, would benefit the human race by pushing people away from religion would you conclude that aerodynamics is anti-God? If not, then why conclude that what a scientist says is somehow evidence that science is anti-God?
The fact of the matter is that conversions from fundamentalist christian to atheism is driven by people requiring an absolute rejection of reason, knowledge, and fact in order to be a christian. It is not as if scientists fudge data so as to counter what christians believe. Instead, scientists report the facts. It is christians who require their followers to hold beliefs that stand in direct contrast to reality. Is it really any wonder that those people, when faced with fact and reality, reject christianity? Buzzsaw inadvertantly spoke the truth when he said, "What true god would inspire a manual full of falsehoods for it's intelligent created beings to live by? ". Indeed. The evidence demonstrates that creationism is false, so how could a literal Genesis come from a true God? That is conclusion that creationism pushes people towards. It is not the fault of science that the facts are what they are. It is the fault of creationism that they expect people to believe stories that are directly contradicted by the facts.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(5)
Message 293 of 415 (669121)
07-27-2012 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by marc9000
07-26-2012 7:36 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
marc9000 writes:
marc9000 writes:
I think something that stands the test of time, particularly with fierce opposition for that entire time, makes it more substantial as evidence. Mormonism isn’t even in the same league with Christ’s resurrection, or the 66 book Bible.
That's roughly the same situation Christianity was in with respect to Judaism in the early years after Christ, and is still in. So I guess Judaism wins out over Christianity?
No, because Christianity has spread throughout the world to a far greater extent than Judaism has, and Judaism doesn’t get the fierce opposition from Judaism that Christianity does. Look through dwise1’s atheist testimony page. Do you see much hatred of Judaism?
Now you're changing your criteria, but let me spell out the problems with your original criteria a bit more clearly this time. With regard to having beliefs that have stood the test of time, is this not the very disadvantage the early Christians had with respect to Judaism? With regard to fierce opposition, don't the Jews have it all over the Christians in this regard?
Now you're saying that the most widespread religion has greater merit, but in its early days Christianity was in the opposite position.
Perhaps not, because I have evidence for it.
No, Marc, you do not have evidence for it. That's the whole reason for this little digression: you're claiming things for which there is no evidence, and you're denying the evidence that does exist. The history of the world has been one of widely held wrong beliefs. Only science is bringing forth a consistent and fact-based understanding of our universe. The Jews are not more right because of their history of persecution. The Christians are not more right because of their success at proselytizing. It is science that is more right because of its ability to develop consistent and verified understandings out of fact and evidence.
Christianity does too! If something is stranger than we can think, why does the scientific community always trying to explain it with (what it calls) physical evidence?
The strangeness to which Eddington refers is not non-physical. He's referring to unexpected discoveries, like quantum behavior or the accelerating universe. Before we uncovered the evidence no one would have guessed that our universe included quantum uncertainty and was expanding faster and faster. This is the kind of strangeness Eddington was talking about.
This is the important point, that science accepts what it has evidence for, whether mundane or utterly fantastic. We accept the possibilities beyond one time dimension and three space dimensions because theories with more dimensions have been proposed that are consistent with the current evidence. As we gather more evidence the standard model might at some point be replaced by one of these theories with more dimensions. No one here thinks one time dimension and three space dimensions is all that is possible. What we believe is that the scientific method is the best approach we have to figuring out what is most likely true about the universe.
marc9000 writes:
Central to Christianity is the mistrust of human wisdom.
Really? So when you become ill you seek a minister rather than a doctor? You pray instead of taking your prescribed medicines?
Uh, yes really. There is a major difference between mistrust and complete disregard.
By what criteria do you accept the science-based findings of medicine to grant it a grudging bit of trust while rejecting other science-based findings? Could I suggest that it's because ignoring the evidence for an ancient Earth cannot threaten your physical well-being, but ignoring your doctor can? That as long as you feel no danger you feel free to accept whatever beliefs of Christianity you like, but as soon as it's a matter of health or even life that suddenly scientific criteria become a lot more convincing?
I was only referring to actual Christianity, not all the various modified versions over the past few centuries that modify and disregard the 66 book Bible according to their personal whims.
You're really going to bring out the, "They're not true Christians" argument? Really, Marc? Has your particular set of Christian beliefs been sanctioned by a global body as the one, right and true Christian religion, or do you, like all other religions, bestow this honor upon yourselves? Why don't all the world's religions get together and decide who's right and who's wrong, and once you've all agreed and have a consistent story you come back here and let us know. Okay?
Science can't, but those imperfect humans in control of it can. They can discriminate. There is evidence for it.
Steve Weinberg, a famous scientist, is against religion. Francis Collins, a famous scientist, is for religion. The people within science are as varied as the human race itself, so why are you focusing your criticism on science instead of people? Plenty of evil people have been Christians, plenty of wonderful people have been Christians, so how much sense would it make to attack Christianity for the evil people in its midst? None, right? So why are you doing the equivalent thing to science?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by marc9000, posted 07-26-2012 7:36 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 415 (669127)
07-27-2012 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Percy
07-21-2012 8:30 AM


Re: Eye Witness Evidence
Percy writes:
......... murders leave behind evidence (blood, fingerprints, hair, etc.), and that evidence has eyewitnesses, and the experiments conducted on the evidence have eyewitnesses, and the data produced by the experiments has eyewitnesses. In fact, the observed tendency is for evangelical juries in states like Texas and Alabama to convict more easily in the absence of eyewitness testimony. Evangelicals seem to place a greater reliance upon this evidence you denigrate to a greater extent than any other group.
Biogenesis, the alleged evolvement of the first organisms into plants and creatures or the alleged zero event of the alleged expansion following were eye witnessed by no one. All were derived from non-physical and non-observable string, relative and mathmatic theories.
None of the above had eyewitnesses of anything pertaining to their alleged happening. All have been derived from theoretic math, relativity and string abstract concoctions, We all are, however eyewitnesses to the firtle and productive tiny nation of Israel, now occupied by the returned Jews, after being dispersed globally.
The restoration of Israel, the return of the Jews from their global dispersement who restored the wilderness of the Gentile nation into lush productive land were all prophesied by Jehovah to Abraham, the prophecies of the OT BC prophets, Jesus and his NT apostles, all prophesied over nineteen centuries before the fact.
We are all eyewitnesses to the emerging numbers and marks monetary systems emerging these latter days after milleniums of exchange by physical valuable portable goods like precious metals, coinage etc throught recorded human history.
The relatively sudden emergence of the Industrial Revolution has been stayed off, as implicated in the Biblical prophecies relating to latter day events.
No secularistic minded archeologist has to falsified the photographically evidenced eye witnesses at Aqaba's Nuweiba Beach. The photographic evidence was photographed by a marine scientist with a ship equiped with all needed for marine archeological research.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Percy, posted 07-21-2012 8:30 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2012 8:50 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 296 by Coyote, posted 07-27-2012 10:52 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 297 by jar, posted 07-27-2012 11:29 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 415 (669131)
07-27-2012 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Buzsaw
07-27-2012 7:59 AM


Re: Eye Witness Evidence
Biogenesis, the alleged evolvement of the first organisms into plants
Say what?? Biogenesis is nothing of the sort. We witness the results of biogenesis every time we see a new born anything.
None of the above had eyewitnesses of anything pertaining to their alleged happening. All have been derived from theoretic math, relativity and string abstract concoctions,
Your response to Percy's point that eyewitness testimony is not essential is to point out a lack of eyewitnesses?
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Edited by NoNukes, : Deleted response to nonsense

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 7:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 296 of 415 (669139)
07-27-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Buzsaw
07-27-2012 7:59 AM


Re: Eye Witness Evidence
No secularistic minded archeologist has to falsified the photographically evidenced eye witnesses at Aqaba's Nuweiba Beach. The photographic evidence was photographed by a marine scientist with a ship equiped with all needed for marine archeological research.
Photographs of underwater shapes are not archaeological evidence.
Archaeological evidence would be, as one example, detailed analyses of the metals involved, with comparisons to other metals from known time periods from throughout the region.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 7:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 297 of 415 (669140)
07-27-2012 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Buzsaw
07-27-2012 7:59 AM


Re: Eye Witness Evidence
No secularistic minded archeologist has to falsified the photographically evidenced eye witnesses at Aqaba's Nuweiba Beach. The photographic evidence was photographed by a marine scientist with a ship equiped with all needed for marine archeological research.
Sorry but so far you have NEVER presented any evidence, photographic or otherwise, that supports or even indicates that the biblical Exodus story in anyway is connected to any imagined beach at Nuweiba.
Unless you can provide a link to where you presented such evidence it appears that you are simply posting yet another unsupported assertion.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2012 7:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 298 of 415 (669142)
07-27-2012 12:05 PM


Moderator Advisory
If Buzsaw wishes to discuss the nature of evidence he must do it in a science thread, not in the Coffee House.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 299 of 415 (669148)
07-27-2012 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by marc9000
07-26-2012 7:36 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
I was only referring to actual Christianity, not all the various modified versions over the past few centuries that modify and disregard the 66 book Bible according to their personal whims.
The no true Scotsman argument rises again.
Apparently it is pretty easy to ignore the true basis of Christianity and to act like a Pharisee. Do you believe that the early Christian Church had a 66 book Bible? Or any Bible at all? Are you suggesting that your brand of Christianity is the real thing, while, for example, the Church at Ephesus, was a bunch of wannabee fakes?
Is your take on Genesis anything like the take of early formerly Jewish Christians? Is there anything that Jesus says that suggests revising that take on Genesis? If not, then how do you decide that your personal take is required to be a true Christian?
Seriously, a Christian is someone who accepts the need for a personal savior and adopts Christ as his savior and Lord and lives a life according to Christ's teachings to the fullest extent achievable. Period. What you describe as Christianity is, instead worship of the Bible in the form canonized by human beings.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by marc9000, posted 07-26-2012 7:36 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 300 of 415 (669191)
07-27-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by marc9000
07-26-2012 7:44 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
Lithodid-Man writes:
If your goal is to find examples of people who have become atheists because they learned about the ToE or because they wanted be sexually active without guilt, I have no doubt you can find examples. But I do think it is a somewhat narrow view to find a few examples and claim an explanatory variable for the whole. My suspicion is that when someone goes through a conversion event, any conversion event, there is a complex story around it that is lost when summarized by "I became X when Y happened...".
I agree. But considering how so many children are raised, from toddlers through elementary school; share, listen to mom & dad, dont say bad words, dont steal, the U.S. Declaration says we were endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights then, middle school to high school biology there is no creator, natural selection doesnt care if you say bad words or steal etc etc. a LOT of the conversion events are largely rooted in the confusion that arises from those conflicting instruction periods.
The problem with your scenario is that science, not even evolution, does not teach what you describe. Oh, those kids do indeed get taught that science and evolution is telling them that there is no Creator and no need for morality, but if science and biology aren't teaching them that, then who is? The very same people who had taught them to not say bad words, to not steal, etc. So when they experience such confusion as you describe, it is a direct result of their religious leaders (which includes one's parents) having taught them that they will experience that confusion. And when their religious leaders had taught them (read "indoctrinated them their entire lives") that they have no other choice but atheism if science and evolution makes sense to them, then whose fault is that? Obviously not the fault of science nor of evolution, but rather of the lies that their theology had taught them.
Why do you (pl) continue to insist on lying to your children in order to set them up to lose their faith? Your actions make absolutely no sense at all!
As long as you persist in such gross and negligent systematic idiocy, the only ways you can keep your children from leaving the faith is to keep them completely isolated from reality or else brainwash them completely. The first is impossible to implement and the second is extremely morally reprehensible.
So, since you believe that learning science will turn your kids into atheists, and that is what you teach them, what are your demands? To close science class and to ban the teaching of science? And you expect the public schools to do that just because one religious minority finds science objectionable for purely sectarian religious reasons? And what about the subject matter that the other sectarian religious minorities object to? The Flat Earth Society is still around (went inactive with its president's death in 2001 and reactivated in 2004), so should the schools also ban the teaching of geography? Or Christian Scientists objecting to health class teaching germ theory ("It's only a theory!") requiring that heretical idea to be expunged from the curriculum? Or any other number of ideas that certain religious minority groups might object to on purely religious grounds? And how the public school system possibly justify and defend acceding to those demands? And not just eliminating entire courses (which appears to be the only thing that would satisfy you), but even keeping the courses but removing parts of them for purely religious reasons.
The primary problem would be legal, as confirmed with the striking down in Epperson vs Arkansas (1968) of the "monkey laws" of the 1920's, precisely the situation described above. But even the secondary problem raised is significant. Most parents what their children to learn and, since our economy and society is so technology driven, they want their children to learn science -- indeed, it was the wake-up call of Sputnik that panicked the US into trying to close the "science education gap", which included upgrading biology textbooks such that actual biologists (as opposed to textbook writers whom the anti-evolution movement had under their thumb since the 1920's) wrote a biology textbook that presented evolution as a cornerstone of biology, which is true, and which teacher Susan Epperson was required by her school to use, only if she did then she would be in direct violation of Arkansas' "monkey law", which would result in her being barred from the teaching profession for the rest of her life, so she had no choice but to file suit, which went to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the striking down of the "monkey laws".
So then, while most parents have no problem with their children learning science and even want them to, you don't want your children to learn science. So what's your solution? From the fuss you've been making about your book list, your solution would be that nobody would be allowed to learn science. OK, your "compromise" position (as I've discussed elsewhere, the usual creationist "compromise" position is exactly the same as having "creation science" taught in the classroom) would be to change the science curriculum so that those things that you object to are removed. Who are you to demand that? Who are you to dictate what everybody else's children can learn? Even if such things were subject to vote, you are clearly in the minority, so you would not prevail.
So, what is your solution? Of course, if you believe that I had totally misrepresented what you want (I do not believe that I did, though I may have been more forthright that you would wish to appear), then do please present just what it is that you want. And then please explain how that could be implemented and how that implementation could be justified and defended.
Now, a large part of why I think that you want to have censorship is your insistent objection to the very existence of the books on your list, in that you don't want anybody to read those books. How could you justify or defend preventing those books from being published? In this case, the fact that yours is a minority view is more pertinent. Just why should publishers listen to one small extreme minority who want to have certain books banned solely for narrowly sectarian religious reasons that are not shared by the far greater majority of the population? Why should you be allowed to dictate what everybody else can read? What about The Flat Earth Society? Don't they have a say? Or the Christian Scientists? Or believers in geo-centrism? Or any number of myriad special-interest groups? Why should any of these small minor minorities, including yourself, be allowed to dictate to everybody else what they will be allowed to read? And what happens when one minority's dictates contradict another's? How is that situation supposed to be resolved?
The answer is the First Amendment. No one group may dictate what everybody else may read, but every single minority group is completely free to publish their own ideas (OK, 9-11 has compromised this ideal, but you know what I'm saying here). Ideally, this creates a "marketplace of ideas", wherein all ideas can be presented and the marketplace will then ideally allow the better ideas to gain more of a following than the less worthy ideas.
You believe that science teaches everyone to become atheists and so you oppose books on science. You also more narrowly blame evolution and so you oppose books on evolution. So just because you have these absurd ideas of what causes atheism, nobody can be allowed to learn anything about science? Bullshit! Those who want to learn science need to have access to books on science. As much as your people need to be kept in ignorance of science (purely because of your own benighted idiotic teachings), everybody else needs to learn science! Those who want to learn about evolution need to learn about evolution!. Just because you want to keep your own people ignorant of evolution doesn't mean that you have any right to keep everybody else ignorant!
Here's the problem that you've created for yourself, marc9000. You've booby-trapped your children's and followers' psyches to self-destruct when faced with reality. Now you want to keep that from happening. How do you do that?
Here's your scenario: you completely isolate everybody from reality for the rest of their lives and for the rest of every one of their children's lives, for however many generations propagate out to the future.
Do you have any inkling at all what that will involve? You will have to place a black hood over everybody's head, as well as block out everything they might hear. Nobody will be able to see anything, hear anything, think anything. You will need to control absolutely everything that they will encounter. That degree of control is impossible for one person, so it will need to be delegated. That means that every single person being black-hooded for Christ will need a handler to guide him through life. What about the handlers? Can they be trusted to wander about unhooded? Of course they they themselves must have handlers. And what about the handlers' handlers, etc, etc, etc?
marc9000, do you not see how untenable your position is?
I have a modest proposal, though radical (by your perspective): Stop lying; teach the truth. If your youth know the truth beforehand, then reality will hold no surprises for them. But you must tell them the truth.
Most of what I had been taught about creationist and fundamentalist apologetics I learned through this article: Creationist and Fundamentalist Apologetics.
The two primary objectives is to harmonize perceived problems that believers have with reality and to show non-believers how reasonable Christianity is. Creationism and fundamentalism fail both goals -- since fundamentalist Christianity has adopted "creation science" as its apologetic, creationism's failure is also fundamentalism's (though fundamentalism's failure goes so much further and deeper).
Creationism's method of "harmonizing" their view of Christianity with reality is to ignore reality. Nobody can successfully ignore reality, so the outcome is obvious (for those to whom it's not obvious, creationism and fundamentalism lose out to reality).
So here's what fundamentalists have to do. Generate an apologetic that takes reality into account. Then use that more truthful apologetic to give your youth a much more realistic view of what to expect. If what you teach them is true, then nothing they encounter in reality could possibly shake their faith. Conversely, if you teach them only lies, then reality will shake them to their core. -- Rorschach: "Two-nothing. Your move."
Please refer yourself to a webpage by a PhD Physics named Allan Harvey, a believing an practicing Christian: Dr. Allan H. Harvey (he calls himself "Steam Doc" because he has specialized in the physics of water). Under his Things I have Written you will find some very interesting and instructive essays that he had written. His essays on the "God of the Gaps" are of particular interest since much of creationism and virtually all of "intelligent design" are based on that false theology.
Read. Learn.
And do not ignore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by marc9000, posted 07-26-2012 7:44 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024