Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do Creationists have faith in a second rate creator?
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 76 of 82 (537023)
11-26-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-26-2009 9:59 AM


Re: apples and orange cones
People believe in the gods that have evolved with their culture because those gods fit properly into a place in their mind where such things exist. Your thesis is that the place itself is invalid, but the arguments you offer are variations that haven't shown themselves to fit as well.
You lay them out in a proper evolutionary chain as "improvements" on Jove/Jehovah, but your chain starts now and leads into the future. The sort of people who believe in literal gods don't live in the future yet. And when they get there, it won't be your variations that they believe in, because you have no intention of doing the work necessary to shape a closed culture over time to become a suitable receptacle for the ideals you propose.
You aren't going to get an answer you can understand about why people believe in something until you make a depth study of what they believe and have believed over long periods of time. Let me ask you this: why do you act just like them? I mean you, not the real scientists in the forum. You, specifically, act like this is a team sport or military action and they are the other side, and therefore everything they do or say is categorically wrong without even bothering to study the question and think for yourself.
Furthermore, anyone who disagrees with you must be one of them! There's no middle ground, everything is black and white and you don't have anything to learn. This is classic fundamentalist behavior. In sociological terms, you are using them as a scapegoat to reinforce your denial, everything you hate in them is readily apparent in you except the specific details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 9:59 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 10:41 AM Iblis has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 77 of 82 (537027)
11-26-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-20-2009 2:17 PM


Re: Holy Writings
One of the points I was making is that there is no more evidence for God of the Bible than there is for any creator I could make up. So the God of the Bible is just as likely to be made up as the ones I list. What further evidence is there for a creator that made the Earth in 6 days than there is for one that made the Earth in 3 days, or 50 days? You could make further slight modifications to virtually every little section of the Bible, so that you end up with a radically different story, and it would be just as supported/unsupported by evidence as the Bible is.
One thing that strikes me is the idea that humans have to make God up. Would it not be more logical to assume that God was around before we were?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-20-2009 2:17 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 78 of 82 (537028)
11-26-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Iblis
11-26-2009 10:23 AM


Re: apples and orange cones
People believe in the gods that have evolved with their culture because those gods fit properly into a place in their mind where such things exist.
I understand that people believe in creators because their parents or others in their community have told them to. This can be seen by the geographical distribution of religions around the world. Most of those people have obviously not thought objectively about the creator they believe in, they have been indoctrinated by their culture. If most people thought objectively about the validity of any creator being real, there would be a much more even distribution of various religions and non-belief around the world.
One of the reasons I ask the question is to encourage such people to think objectively about why they believe in a specific creator and to consider the likelihood of it actually existing. Why should anyone have a problem with that, unless they wish to restrict free thought?
However, I am genuinely interested in the possibility that anyone may come forward and actually make a logical argument, or provide empirical evidence, anything at all that objectively favours the existence of any one particular creator.
I have already said that I am open minded about the possibility of a creator, and that I think everyone should be, unless we can eventually rule out the possibility. So your accusation that I am a fundamentalist in that respect is totally wrong. I am just trying to engage in an objective discussion about what a real creator would be like.
This debate has only descended into an unseemly argument because nobody seems to be willing to answer my point directly. If nobody has an opinion that relates directly to the question I raised, then I'd rather they stayed out of the discussion. We are already at message 75!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Iblis, posted 11-26-2009 10:23 AM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Iblis, posted 11-26-2009 10:49 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 79 of 82 (537036)
11-26-2009 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-26-2009 10:41 AM


Re: apples and orange cones
If nobody has an opinion that relates directly to the question I raised
Almost everyone who has posted in this thread, and particularly the ones you have argued with the hardest, have offered opinions that relate directly to the question you asked.
The reason you can't see that is the same reason a creationist in a begging-the-question thread can't see the relevance of the corrections to their misunderstandings that they are getting sprayed with by both sides in an attempt to shape them up. They have fixed ideas. You have fixed ideas. Understand why you have them, and you will understand why they have them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 10:41 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 11:12 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 80 of 82 (537041)
11-26-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Iblis
11-26-2009 10:49 AM


Re: apples and orange cones
Almost everyone who has posted in this thread, and particularly the ones you have argued with the hardest, have offered opinions that relate directly to the question you asked.
The reason you can't see that is the same reason a creationist in a begging-the-question thread can't see the relevance of the corrections to their misunderstandings that they are getting sprayed with by both sides in an attempt to shape them up. They have fixed ideas. You have fixed ideas. Understand why you have them, and you will understand why they have them.
Well, I'm looking forward to Dr Sing coming forward with his evidence for God's existence that he promised me. Is the fact that I am genuinely interested in what he will present not sufficient for you to realise I'm open-minded.
If you can give me the message number of any other responses that you feel gave me an objective logical or empirical reason for believing in a particular creator, then please let me know and I assure you I will go back and look at it again. Is that reasonable and open-minded enough for you?
If on the other hand you feel that the only explanation for belief in a particular creator is due to someone's cultural background, and that nobody has a completely objective reason for believing in a particular creator, then I will happily agree with you on that point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Iblis, posted 11-26-2009 10:49 AM Iblis has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 81 of 82 (537050)
11-26-2009 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Iblis
11-26-2009 9:43 AM


Re: apples and orange cones
Iblis writes:
Purpledawn's gods evolved; JumpedUpChimpanzee's are designed.
Yes, but JUC designed them as examples Gods that might have evolved if history had taken a different course.
In any case, as things stand one is presented with a whole host of Gods from different cultures. Why pick one above all others?
Of course, the one obvious answer is that humans are given to taking up the mantle of the culture into which they are born, but that weakens the claim that one God is objectively more "valid" than another, unless a God's "validity" is directly related to either the number of followers it has or the predominance of the culture that surrounds it.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Iblis, posted 11-26-2009 9:43 AM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 11:58 AM RickJB has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 82 of 82 (537053)
11-26-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by RickJB
11-26-2009 11:52 AM


Re: apples and orange cones
Thank (any) God at least one person understands my point!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RickJB, posted 11-26-2009 11:52 AM RickJB 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