Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Am Not An Atheist!
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 358 of 382 (670279)
08-12-2012 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by marc9000
08-11-2012 10:06 PM


I never did have all that much trust for evolution proponents, and my experiences on forums like these, as well as books and internet reading, have caused my trust to go down even lower. You seem to be mistaking my mistrust with unfamiliarity. Im not alone, many other creationists experience less and less trust of evolutionists once they learn more about just what's going on in the politics of science. It’s the reason they're more likely to label some theistic evolutionists as atheists, and it's my best attempt to answer the questions you posed in your opening messages of this thread.
But when you call people atheists when they are in fact theist evolutionists, this does not actually betoken familiarity with their views so much as willful blindness to their views.
So Science doesn't at all reject its concept, it just rejects that it's a legitimate theory?
Quite. It's like cold fusion: it would take a bold man to say that it is impossible in principle, but it is safe to say that it has not actually been demonstrated.
Same with ID. It is one thing to admit the possibility in principle, another thing to be actually swayed by reading William Dembski making some godawful mistakes about mathematics.
So you believe atheists aren’t opposed to the concept?
Well, only because it appears to be wrong. I also disbelieve in perpetual motion machines, but let someone build one that works and I, for one, would change my stance.
---
In general, you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. You go running off for psychological or political explanations of why scientists, even theist scientists, say that creationist arguments aren't very convincing. But that's actually because they aren't. They're not very good. (How long has it been, by the way, since you've started a thread to argue for one of their arguments?)
If someone wraps themselves in bacon rind and claims to be Joan of Arc, then we need a psychological explanation. But if I put on my socks before my shoes, then we need a cognitive explanation. Before you start explaining how it's because of my unhappy childhood, my latent homosexuality, or my bipolar disorder, you might consider that the reason I do it is because it would be damn silly not to.
Here, let me help you put yourself in the position of a theist scientist. Here's the website of a guy who talks to the Angel Gabriel. Now by your logic, as a theist you ought to endorse this sort of thing, because if the Angel Gabriel exists, that's supporting evidence for the truth of theism. But you don't actually find it credible, do you? If someone were to try to associate his website with theism as a whole, you would think of that as a malicious attempt to discredit the intelligence, not to say the sanity, of theists, wouldn't you?
Well, the IDists are also making mistakes. And this may not be evident to you, but it sure is to anyone who's an expert in the subject-matter. A theist scientist would want to distance Christianity from this stuff, not tie the two together.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by marc9000, posted 08-11-2012 10:06 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-12-2012 6:40 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 359 of 382 (670280)
08-12-2012 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Dr Adequate
08-12-2012 5:21 AM


me writes:
(How long has it been, by the way, since you've started a thread to argue for one of their arguments?)
January 2010.
It's interesting to note that in this thread, which you begin with the words: "Hello, newbie here!", and which was started less than a month after you joined these forums, you write stuff such as the following:
marc writes:
Maybe we’re getting somewhere, you’re right, my problem IS with science, because it’s controlled by atheists!
But wait! You say now that:
marc, now writes:
I never did have all that much trust for evolution proponents, and my experiences on forums like these, as well as books and internet reading, have caused my trust to go down even lower.
Well, perhaps on "forums like these", I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but certainly not on these forums. You came here with your prejudice fully-formed. And since then you have continued to prefer to discuss your prejudices rather than any substantive question such as whether any particular creationist argument is right or wrong.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-12-2012 5:21 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 362 of 382 (670283)
08-12-2012 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by Percy
08-12-2012 6:42 AM


The "first cause" concept in general is just creationist mumbo-jumbo, it has no scientific basis.
You know I asked why you're a deist? I still want to know.
You are going even further than I would ever do. I don't dismiss the "first cause concept in general" as being mere "creationist mumbo-jumbo", and yet I'm an atheist and you call yourself a deist, which surely means by definition that you believe in a First Cause, and an intelligent one at that. So I have to wonder either why you're a deist or why you think you're a deist when you're not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Percy, posted 08-12-2012 6:42 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Percy, posted 08-12-2012 7:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 363 of 382 (670284)
08-12-2012 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by purpledawn
08-12-2012 6:48 AM


Re: Deism anyone?
Oh --- I composed my message 362 while you were composing your message 361. I'll have a look at your link to Percy's explanation and come back to this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by purpledawn, posted 08-12-2012 6:48 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 365 of 382 (670286)
08-12-2012 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by purpledawn
08-12-2012 6:48 AM


Re: Deism anyone?
Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?
You will find your answer there.
OK, I've read it.
It seems to me (I'll read it over again) that he doesn't actually have a reason. He just says that it's a psychological fact about himself that he does believe in God, just like we might say: "Fred is color-blind" or "Harry is gay" or "Jake has Anton's blindness". Percy just does as a matter of fact believe in God, and reason has nothing to do with it and can't correct it.
Percy writes:
In other words, wouldn't reality make more sense if I wasn't the way I am? Wouldn't I be more consistent if I was more the way you suggest?
Sure.
But I'm the way I am, and I'm just trying to describe it, inconsistencies and all.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by purpledawn, posted 08-12-2012 6:48 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 368 of 382 (670289)
08-12-2012 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Percy
08-12-2012 7:23 AM


About why I'm a deist, I have no idea, I just am. [...] As to whether my religious beliefs include a first cause, I would say most definitely not.
Please explain further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Percy, posted 08-12-2012 7:23 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 369 of 382 (670290)
08-12-2012 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by dwise1
08-12-2012 7:36 AM


They usually say "naturalism" rather than "materialism".
And I want to fight against both sides. I believe I shall start a thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by dwise1, posted 08-12-2012 7:36 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 379 of 382 (670407)
08-14-2012 5:28 AM


What's interesting is how justified marc feels creationists are in saying something that isn't remotely true. It is "logical", he says, for creationists to call atheists all those people with whom marc disagrees (though it isn't true, and marc knows this) and the victims of the creationist slander should take "much/most of the blame" (for being slandered).
I think it is fairly fruitless to try to debate with someone who can convince himself that he is entitled to employ in the service of his arguments statements that he knows to be false. And since we equally know these statements to be false, it's fairly pointless for him to engage in debate with us, really.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024