New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

[Tokzic]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

"...what evidence do we have that god created life? We have the bible! Who was there to observe it? God was there to observe it! So, biblical creation is science."

Circular logic. Fallacy. Invalid argument.

Kind of sickening that he'd do that to kids. I hate bloody religion people who insist on converting EVERYONE THEY MEET. People believe what they believe and trying to convince someone that your beliefs are more right than theirs is entirely arrogant. People like him need to drown.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

There's already been flaming going on in this topic. Aetheists seem to be threatened by Christians on FFR. It's a sad situation. I personally try not to flame back since that goes against my morals, but sometimes I lose control.

Don't confuse our defense of Evolution with an attack on your beliefs. You take it offensively because you can't argue in favor of Creationism without using the God/Faith defense. If you are trying to argue in favor of Creationism with an Atheist, you have to use another technique other that "God is all powerful, I have faith in God."

I am convinced that the Bible is fiction, God doesn't exist, and faith as the antithesis logic, and intellectual freedom. Now present your argument without mentioning any of those, and you won't be torn apart by us heathens.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

1. There are more Christians than Muslims or Hindus.
2. Muslims and Hindus could also technically be deemed Creationists because they believe in a deity and that the earth was created by this deity or deities.

[Tokzic]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

1. There are more Christians than Muslims or Hindus.
2. Muslims and Hindus could also technically be deemed Creationists because they believe in a deity and that the earth was created by this deity or deities.

well you proved us wrong didn't you

being part of the majority automatically makes you right guys

we can't fight this man's inpenetrable argument

[mfelten86]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

It seems like some atheists (NOT anyone in particular), are too arrogant to try Christianity out. I used to be "atheist" and then I went to church with some of my friends and my life changed.

[Relambrien]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

EDIT: WOW there were a lot of posts while I was typing this.

There's already been flaming going on in this topic. Aetheists seem to be threatened by Christians on FFR. It's a sad situation. I personally try not to flame back since that goes against my morals, but sometimes I lose control.

I try to stay out of arguments involving people being angry at each other (simply because I can accept everyone's beliefs, since I don't care about religion at all.), but I feel like I must respond to this.

Now as I'm going through this, keep one thing in mind: What I'm about to say does not represent my personal feelings unless otherwise noted. It is merely how I believe the atheists and evolutionists in question feel.

First off, atheists and evolutionists do not feel threatened by Christians. They are annoyed by you. Instead of questioning the world around you and developing your own opinions via observable evidence, you blindly follow what is told to you by your religious leaders, with nothing but faith to support what you are told. Instead of seeking to understand your world through logic, you instead follow a being that may or may not exist, both options just as likely as the other. You can see how this could be annoying to someone who follows the path of science, which involves gathering evidence to explain the world.

Actually, I made another post earlier that I think explained this pretty well...lemme go pull it up. (I know I'm on a self-quoting spree, but I think this applies to the situation at hand)

Try and imagine what it's like for the hardcore evolutionists and the hardcore religious:

The evolutionists believe that they are helping you by enlightening you to the process of evolution, and by refusing it by saying that God is involved, you are denying yourself the chance to be released from your dependence on a divine being, and are voluntarily living a life of servitude to a being whose existence cannot be confirmed.

The religious believe that they are helping you by enlightening you to the process of creation, and by refusing it by saying that science properly explained it, you shall suffer eternal damnation for defiance of God. In their eyes, they're helping you reach heaven, and you are denying their help, essentially voluntarily sending yourself to Hell.

This is the essence of the argument between evolutionists and Christians. Evolutionists believe that you shouldn't be shackled to a being which may not even exist, and through your voluntary servitude to this being, you are only hurting yourself. Christians, on the other hand, believe that by refusing to accept things as God-created or the like, you are only hurting yourself by essentially sending yourself to Hell.

Each side is annoyed with the other because they refuse to be "saved" by the other side. And as I'm sure you all know, annoyance leads to flaming.

EDIT: Now to respond to posts made while I was typing.

Kind of sickening that he'd do that to kids. I hate bloody religion people who insist on converting EVERYONE THEY MEET. People believe what they believe and trying to convince someone that your beliefs are more right than theirs is entirely arrogant. People like him need to drown.

Consider what it's like from the Christian's side. He believes the only path to salvation is to follow the teachings of Jesus, or else you will go to Hell. By trying to convert you, he is trying to save you from your self-inflicted damnation. If he doesn't try to convert you, he is essentially aiding you in your quest to be damned. By attempting to convert you, he believes he is helping you.

It seems like some atheists (NOT anyone in particular), are too arrogant to try Christianity out. I used to be "atheist" and then I went to church with some of my friends and my life changed.

I doubt they're "arrogant," but more like they're uncomfortable. Going and participating in an event that supports everything you deny has got to be unnerving, wouldn't you think? It would be the same if you were to go to an event where someone explains how there is no God. That has to make you more than a little bit uncomfortable.

[Tokzic]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

It seems like some atheists (NOT anyone in particular), are too arrogant to try Christianity out. I used to be "atheist" and then I went to church with some of my friends and my life changed.

I'm not atheist. I'm agnostic, which is largely different. For one, I refuse to believe that the universe spontaneously decided to start existing, and believing that is even more ridiculous than believing in a divine being in my opinion.

On the other hand, the fact that the most common religion in the US comes from a book that's a metaphor for astrology is laughable.

I don't need to "try Christianity". Going to a church and hearing some old man spew his beliefs at me isn't going to make me believe in what I am firmly against. Religion isn't something you shop for, but unfortunately, people are sheep and think that there are so many set religions and that they must belong to one. It's idiotic.

EDIT: I shouldn't say I'm "firmly against" Christianity. If people want to choose that as their belief system, retarded as I think it is, I'm not against it. It's when they get in other people's faces about it that I am against it. No one outside of your religion cares what you believe in.

[Relambrien]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

I'm not atheist. I'm agnostic, which is largely different. For one, I refuse to believe that the universe spontaneously decided to start existing, and believing that is even more ridiculous than believing in a divine being in my opinion.

On the other hand, the fact that the most common religion in the US comes from a book that's a metaphor for astrology is laughable.

I don't need to "try Christianity". Going to a church and hearing some old man spew his beliefs at me isn't going to make me believe in what I am firmly against. Religion isn't something you shop for, but unfortunately, people are sheep and think that there are so many set religions and that they must belong to one. It's idiotic.

EDIT: I shouldn't say I'm "firmly against" Christianity. If people want to choose that as their belief system, retarded as I think it is, I'm not against it. It's when they get in other people's faces about it that I am against it. No one outside of your religion cares what you believe in.

Agnosticism is a subset of atheism, specifically weak atheism:

Within negative or weak atheism, philosopher Anthony Kenny distinguishes between agnostics, who find the claim "God exists" uncertain, and theological noncognitivists, who consider all God-talk to be meaningless.

It seems that when people say "atheist" they mean "strong atheist," or someone who explicitly states "God does not exist." However, "atheism" as a whole is just an absence of belief in deities:

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.

[mfelten86]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

I don't need to "try Christianity". Going to a church and hearing some old man spew his beliefs at me isn't going to make me believe in what I am firmly against. Religion isn't something you shop for, but unfortunately, people are sheep and think that there are so many set religions and that they must belong to one. It's idiotic.

I was like this too, going to public schools all my life and hearing about evolution and such made me believe that Christianity was just a big "myth" from people passed down over many generations. I thought it was just created so that the Roman Catholic church could get money and whatever they wanted from people.

But when I started attending church voluntarily I realized that I wasn't being a "sheep" as you would call it. I wanted to go because it is showing me how to better my life. And I could either accept it or deny it.

Which brings me to the question, why shouldn't you try Christianity? If you can find a good church who won't pressure you to do stuff that you don't want to do..what is the problem? My church (and I'm hoping that most churches) don't just "spew" you their beliefs. They read scripture and interpret it.

Overall I'm not saying that you have to go to church. I am just saying that I think everyone should give it a shot, what do you have to lose?

[Tokzic]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

I was like this too, going to public schools all my life and hearing about evolution and such made me believe that Christianity was just a big "myth" from people passed down over many generations. I thought it was just created so that the Roman Catholic church could get money and whatever they wanted from people.

But when I started attending church voluntarily I realized that I wasn't being a "sheep" as you would call it. I wanted to go because it is showing me how to better my life. And I could either accept it or deny it.

Which brings me to the question, why shouldn't you try Christianity? If you can find a good church who won't pressure you to do stuff that you don't want to do..what is the problem? My church (and I'm hoping that most churches) don't just "spew" you their beliefs. They read scripture and interpret it.

Overall I'm not saying that you have to go to church. I am just saying that I think everyone should give it a shot, what do you have to lose?

First of all, I used to be Christian, back before I developed my own mindset.

Second of all, how does believing in a fictional identity improve your life?

What do I have to lose? That's obvious - the entire thing would be an enormous waste of time.

EDIT: Rel, that's one one philosopher believes. The actual page for agnosticism in Wikipedia comes much closer to my actual beliefs:

Agnosticism (from the Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.
Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.

Frankly, I realize that there is not enough evidence to fully believe in one or the other, so I'm open to almost anything and realize that I'll find the truth when I die. I believe in the possibility of a divine entity.

EDIT2: Okay that's ugly but I'm not editing out the links.

[Relambrien]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

I was like this too, going to public schools all my life and hearing about evolution and such made me believe that Christianity was just a big "myth" from people passed down over many generations. I thought it was just created so that the Roman Catholic church could get money and whatever they wanted from people.

You received a pretty poor education then. The religion was, in fact, created because people believed Jesus, and it spread. It wasn't until a few hundred years ago that it started getting very corrupt, eventually leading to the Reformation.

But when I started attending church voluntarily I realized that I wasn't being a "sheep" as you would call it. I wanted to go because it is showing me how to better my life. And I could either accept it or deny it.

You can better your life without religion. Once again, this is an example of dependence on a divine being to help you improve your life when it's just as easy to do it yourself without religion.

Which brings me to the question, why shouldn't you try Christianity? If you can find a good church who won't pressure you to do stuff that you don't want to do..what is the problem? My church (and I'm hoping that most churches) don't just "spew" you their beliefs. They read scripture and interpret it.

"Reading scripture and interpreting it" is the same as "spewing beliefs." Both ways, the priest is reading out of the holy book and telling you what he believes it means. "Spew" just has a negative connotation attached to it.

Also, if you don't want to do the sort of things Jesus said you had to do, then no church fits your description of a good church. All should pressure you to do things a good Christian should do, or else they would be very poor churches in my opinion.

The problem occurs when what you want to do clashes with what the church wants you to do.

[mfelten86]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

First of all, I used to be Christian, back before I developed my own mindset.

Second of all, how does believing in a fictional identity improve your life?

What do I have to lose? That's obvious - the entire thing would be an enormous waste of time.

I'm not saying the just believing in a higher power will improve you. But what it teaches. It teaches patience, love, and wisdom.

A waste of time? What else would you be doing with about two hours per week? Blogging?

You received a pretty poor education then. The religion was, in fact, created because people believed Jesus, and it spread. It wasn't until a few hundred years ago that it started getting very corrupt, eventually leading to the Reformation.

You can better your life without religion. Once again, this is an example of dependence on a divine being to help you improve your life when it's just as easy to do it yourself without religion.

"Reading scripture and interpreting it" is the same as "spewing beliefs." Both ways, the priest is reading out of the holy book and telling you what he believes it means. "Spew" just has a negative connotation attached to it.

Also, if you don't want to do the sort of things Jesus said you had to do, then no church fits your description of a good church. All should pressure you to do things a good Christian should do, or else they would be very poor churches in my opinion.

The problem occurs when what you want to do clashes with what the church wants you to do.

I guess I was mis-educated then.

Yes you can improve your life with out a divine being, but God does lead you in the right direction, while believing in you.

And of course the Church WANTS you to follow God, but they dont MAKE you or PRESSURE you.

[devonin]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

And of course the Church WANTS you to follow God, but they dont MAKE you or PRESSURE you.

They kick you out if you stop following.

[mfelten86]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

They kick you out if you stop following.

What church has kicked you out?

[TheMagiKMan]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Look, someones belief is their belief, now my personal opinion for someone to just be magically changed from non-believer into believer, they must have had some flaw in their noodle, because quite honestly, there is no proof. None, not one person can show me absolute proof as to Gods existence. Now, I am not about to get into a giant argument over whether or not God is real, and that our existence itself is so unlikely, and how could it be a coincidence. That is exactly what it is, a coincidence. I know how strange the universe is, Super String theory and 11dimensions and gravity leaking all over the place, I know that is mathematically possible to create a universe within our own, so I will not throw out a possibility of a "divine" creator, but someone has to prove that the creator exists, not the other way around. We already have sufficient evidence that supports that is no biblical version of God, so against all that evidence someone must provide proof.
Churchs, the majority of them are simply out there to recruit members under the umbrella of goodwill and what not. Most give very poor interpretations and preach obedience and fear from the almighty. Now I understand that this is a very large generalizationa dn there are alot of very good christian people out there, but to put your faith into something that is less than insubstantial, it is(as yet to be shown) nonexistent. Now many people I know have lead a good life thanks to churches, and that is all well and good, because many morals from Christianity are good, love thy neighbor, be kind and what not, but to base all your beliefs on a book written over 2000 years ago that has been edited and revised countless times, to put all your eggs in one metaphysical basket is just unsound, it is foolish. Would you base your life on ramblings from a person you met on the street who was talking about demons flying out of pigs and into people, and how the sun revolved around the earth, and how practioners and leaders of his ramblings raped and molested children, no you wouldn't. But, I guess alot of people would, if it was written by a book.