|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,435 Year: 3,692/9,624 Month: 563/974 Week: 176/276 Day: 16/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YECism: sect or cult? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
I think YECism is a cult in the sense of "mind-control cult". They certainly don't want their adherents studying science. They need their own schools, museums, etc. to prevent it.
It crosses sect boundaries - e.g Seventh-Day Adventists and (other) Fundamentalists - not to mention Muslims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
LamarkNewAge writes:
So were astrology and alchemy. Along with creationism, they were disproven by science.
But Creationism itself was a respectable belief until about 1859.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
That's practically the definition of religion right there.
Unbelievers can carry on all they like, we know it's the truth....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
It isn't true. The difference is objectivity. I have noticed that both ICR and EvC claim that the opposing view employs willful ignorance. Again, if true, the question is why? ICR is wilfully ignorant. Their conclusions "just happen" to coincide exactly with their religious beliefs. EvC, on the other hand, has members who are atheists and members who are Christians, including different varieties of Christians. They are all able to set their biases aside when looking at the evidence. The Christians are willing to change their ideas on which parts of the Bible are true and which are not, depending on the evidence. To ICR, the evidence is incidental. It isn't something to learn from; it's a teaching tool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Are those actual cross-references or do they include made-up stuff like Jesus being the Messiah?
Here the graph shows the Biblical cross references from chaper to chapter. The implication is that one cannot pick and choose what to believe in regarding the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I didn't say He wasn't the Messiah. I said that the so-called "cross-references" in the Bible are made up. There have been lots of discussions of that - in appropriate threads. Where is your evidence that He was not the Messiah? You said, "The implication is that one cannot pick and choose what to believe in regarding the Bible." Unless there is positive evidence that the "cross-references" are valid, one certainly can pick and choose. In fact, in the absence of positive evidence for the "cross-references", one is obligated to regard each story individually.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
It's not an "attempt" to tear anything apart. It's reality. If there's no evidence for an elephant sitting on your couch, then you can live your life as if there was no elephant sitting on your couch.
...this constant attempt to tear apart belief with evidence won't fly with me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You have three different things there: An elephant sitting on a couch or creationists attempt to label evidence as 6000 years old is not the same thing as a man who once lived, was seen after his death by hundreds of people, and around whom a legend has grown and thrived to the present day. 1. An elephant on your couch is possible, though not highly probable.2. A 6000-year-old earth is not possible, given the evidence we have. 3. Stories of men who once lived are common but their truth-value is low, especially if they include elements such as rising from the dead. Legends, of course, don't have to have anything to do with reality. Phat writes:
You haven't "exposed" anything. By all means, roll out your evidence that Jesus really existed and then we'll see how silly the idea is.
... this whole silly idea that Jesus never existed and that Long John Silver is as valid of a character as Jesus Christ exposes the sham of relativism... Phat writes:
So roll out your evidence that Jesus is any different from the spaghetti monster.
... the silly arguments which include spaghetti monsters and hypotheticals from the other side. Phat writes:
Sure it will. It has for most members of this forum. Even you have been known to use logic once or twice. Logic will never replace belief. Again, the only time belief has any value is when logic can't produce an answer - e.g. when there is no evidence. And even in such cases, you should NEVER act on those beliefs if your actions go against logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I don't see what that has to do with anything.
One thing I will bring up though is that many of the lecturers against Christian Proof and who speak of pro-atheism or skepticism are themselves getting paid on the lecture circuit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No. If something is "proven", let's say by overwhelming evidence, then anybody who thinks it's a "fantasy" is wrong, wrong, wrong.
One mans proof is another mans fantasy. Phat writes:
No. Evidence can not be subjective. Conclusions based on the evidence can be subjective. But if you want to deny the validity of a conclusion, you have to show why it's invalid. If you deny an objective conclusion in spite of the evidence, like Kurt Wise, you're just denying reality.
Evidence can be subjective if one denies its validity in everyday life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You don't get to redefine reality.
You are just redefining the reality in which you live. Phat writes:
If you don't hear his trumpeting, it's because he isn't there. He who has an ear can't hear what isn't there. If you dont hear his trumpeting, its not my fault. He who has an ear... He who hears what isn't there is often classified as mentally ill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
That isn't true. Scientists often believe in loyalty, courtesy, thrift, courage, cleanliness, etc. Scientists never believe anything. What they don't believe is things that are not evidenced - and especially things that the evidence shows are false. Belief SHOULD always take a back seat to evidence. That's the only real point here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
You could say the same thing about Invisible Bigfoot or Invisible Zeus or Invisible Long John Silver. It's nonsense.
How can you expect an invisible elephant to show visible evidence?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024