Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

Dawn, I did not make up that term, "creation science". It has a definite, predetermined, and well-established meaning. Why are you pulling the idiotic trick of redefining terms? Yes, I know that semantic shifting is an all-too-common creationist method of lying, but why are you unable to control your deceptive impulses for even a second?{ABE: Which I assume means, "Added By Edit".
Dawn, do you remember when I told you what I was taught in logic class (which begs the question of whether you had ever studied logic)? That one of the first orders of business in an actual honest debate was to establish the definitions of the terminology that would be used in the debate? Remember that? Do you also remember how you pissed all over that idea? Which tells us exactly where you stand in the question of honest debates and honest discussion.You will also notice that one of the first things I tried to do in this topic was to call for agreeing to definitions of our terminology, including what is meant by deconversion.So here you have tried to apply your own private definitions of the terminology being used. This might serve as an object lesson in the importance of agreeing upon terminology. Duh? But will you learn that lesson? Of course not! Your kind of dishonest dealings depends heavily on such semantic trickery and the confusion that it causes.
}"Creation science", AKA "scientific creationism", was named by the creationists themselves. Large numbers of creationist clubs and organizations incorporate the phrase "creation science" in their titles and many creationist books incorporate either phrase in their titles.I was just using the correct term for that which I was referring to. You are the one who has no clue what he's talking about.Here, I'll cast another pearl before you; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Science:

quote:

---

Creation Science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism, which attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. Its most vocal proponents are fundamentalist Christians in the United States who seek to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution. The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo"; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last ten thousand years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth. As a result, creation science also challenges the geologic and astrophysical evidence for the age and origins of Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis. Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinian evolution". Proponents of creation science claim that it is a genuine scientific challenge to historical geology, the antiquity of the universe, and the theory of evolution.

​

The scientific community states that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.

​

The earliest creation science texts and curricula focused upon concepts derived from a literal interpretation of the Bible and were overtly religious in nature, most notably linking Noah's flood in the Biblical Genesis account to the geological and fossil record in a system termed "flood geology". These works attracted little notice beyond the schools and congregations of conservative fundamental and evangelical Christians until the 1970s when its followers challenged the teaching of evolution in the public schools and other venues in the United States, bringing it to the attention of the public-at-large and the scientific community. Many school boards and lawmakers were persuaded to include the teaching of creation science alongside Darwinian evolution in the science curriculum. Creation science texts and curricula used in churches and Christian schools were revised to eliminate their Biblical and theological references, and less explicitly sectarian versions of creation science education were introduced in public schools in Louisiana, Arkansas, and other regions in the United States.

​

The 1982 ruling in McLean v. Arkansas found that creation science fails to meet the essential characteristics of science and that its chief intent is to advance a particular religious view. The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 following the United States Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. The court affirmed that a statute requiring the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution is taught in Louisiana public schools was unconstitutional because its sole true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.

---

That is still bullshit. Proponents of design have yet to do the work necessary for it to be considered science, but rather instead have followed the exact same dishonest tactics of creationists, including sham public debates. Swaying public opinion does not make something science; convincing the scientific community does.You have never presented design in a logical manner, but rather just posted unintelligible bullshit. You refused to explain anything, responding to questions with insults and attempts at intimidation. And you refused to offer any support at all for your premises -- in addition to their structure, logical arguments are absolutely depedent upon their premises. And you refused to offer any methodology for detecting and determining design.I've seen your kind of misconduct before, though not in as severe a form. One of the things that creationists (of the "creation science" ilk, of course) really hate is for someone to try to discuss their claims with them. For the originators of those claims, it's because they know that the claim is bogus, but for the followers, they don't know what they're talking about so they literally cannot discuss their own claims. Sometimes, they can't even repeat the claim right. Is that it, Dawn? You don't really understand your own claims so you have to avoid our questions?Edited by dwise1, : minor cleanup in the end aisleEdited by dwise1, : ABE towards beginning about defining terminology

Then you really are not interested in reasons for deconversion. Why create the pretense that you are? By defining it so narrowly, you are excluding most deconversions from examination.We are talking about people with deeply held beliefs and theologies. That means strong emotional and psychological ties to their religion. So you expect somebody to one day start constructing abstract philosophical musings that lead to him dumping his deeply-held beliefs and possibly even his family ties (one frequent problem faced by deconverts)? Are you really that clueless about how humans think and act?Your artifical restricting reasons for deconversion to such a narrow set renders this topic useless. Name the one or two specific philosophical reasons why somebody enlists in the military. Or re-enlists. Or decides to not re-enlist. But more importantly, how would automatically eliminating the vast majority of real reasons help to understand those decisions? It would not, no more than your own artificial restrictions would help to understand deconversion.Since you are obviously not interested in the reasons for deconversion, then could you please come clean and admit what you are after? Your little farce has gone on for far too long.

No No, this proposition has been around since reality and reason itself. people on both sides want to complicate this very simple and obvious reality and propositionsorry to disappoint or make your very lengthy posts on creation, simple, but that is just the reality of that topicAny topic dealing with the nature of things is a logical proposition and can or cannot be demonstrated in the reality of things.design is one that can be demonstrated. Its was around long before man was here to contemplate itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

False!You can't come up with a series of rules to determine which objects are designed and which are not. You have had many chances on these threads, and you have failed every time!If you can't define "designed" you are not doing science.But we knew that all along. You are just peddlin' religious snake oil.

---

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

there are no philosophical reasons, didnt you see stripes, moron"Traaaainnnng Siiiiiiir"Dont you remember francis? he was psychotic. "You touch any of my things Ill kill you". Any of you H...s touch me ill kill you" "Any of you guys call me francis, ill kill ya'"Lighten up Francis", Sergeant Hulka son, you simply dont understand the reasoning process and you have missed the point of the thread.A valid logical argument set out in logical form, is all I was looking for, not all this rehtoric you are putting forwardEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

See Message 10 and Message 65.Two reasonable logical reasons for deconversion.

---

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

Then why haven't you demonstrated it? Why haven't you even tried? Why have you refused to even tell us what would take?I already told you: if you want to promote your ideas, then you must do so honestly and truthfully. Two things that you have yet to be here. Or, I strongly suspect, anywhere else.You're bullshitting again.

Don't you ever understand anything?You're not looking for reasons for deconversion. What it looks like is that you believe that you have an invincibly perfect theology and you want to show it off by having it deflect everything we could throw at it. Your earlier lie (Message 199) seems to have been caused in part by your own confusion. You were trying to put on the pretense of asking why anybody would deconvert, but you kept asking for reasons for you personally to deconvert. I think that latter is what you were really looking for. Like you were daring us to knock you off your perch. Stupid!Enough of your stupid games! Come clean!

what's interesting is that he is also rejecting any biblical perspective, because it comes from a position that does not recognize the inherent truth of everything in the bible (even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff).anyways, i've enjoyed reading your posts here dwise1, looks like you're up.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

Hi dwise1 Creation is a fact.The how and why is what is debated.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Honest enough. Which is actually refreshing.More specifically, I would have stated (italics used to indicate added text) "Creation by a supernatural agent, such as a Creator god, is a religious belief, ... "I have no trouble with religious beliefs per se. I have lost track of how many times I have sworn an oath that I take very seriously, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, both foreign and domestic (service so far has been from 1976 to less than one year from now, when I shall be forced to retire due to age, so 35 years). Part of that Constitution includes the First Amendment, which guarantees religious liberty. I have no trouble with anyone's religious beliefs, will defend their rights to those beliefs, have actively promoted children receiving instruction in their own perspective religions (by actively promoting the religious badges programs promoted by Boy Scouts of America, Inc, even though they had violated their own officially published policies to expell me for being an atheist), and have even performed non-directive peer-to-peer counselling for individual Christians upon those individuals' requests. I do have trouble with those who try to use the government or government agencies to promote their particular religious beliefs. Yes, but just how is that debate to be conducted? Honestly and truthfully? Or deceptively and with guile?I call for honesty and truthfullness. Far too many creationists (especially those of "creation science" and ID persuasion) choose deception and guile.

ICANT, I have a question. It would likely seem off-topic, but then Dawn himself has pulled this topic off-topic so many times already.What is Christian Doctrine on "lying for the Lord"? Lying is supposed to be wrong, but if it is to aid in "the cause of the Lord" (eg, to gain converts through lies and deception), then is it condoned? I mean, absolute morality is absolute morality, but isn't "lying for the Lord" a case of the ends justifying the means (AKA, moral relativism)?

Thats funny, I must be lying because I disagree with you. That says alot about your personalityAre you mad because I disagree with your conclusions. I honestly and firmly believe no argument has been presented in logical presentation, the conclusion of which is irrefutable, that would and should cause a person to deconvertAs I pointed out earlier, most people that deconvert dont have a firm foundation, they dont even understand basics, so the slightest wind would uproot thier shallow roots systemI dont see why you cant just stick with the argument, you insist on making 3/4s of your posts personal attacks and insults.Honestly they are not worth reading. it like trying to dodge punches, while Im trying to conduct buisnessIf you are still IN, perhaps anger management classes are in order. Dude, let that part of it go.In 45 years of this it hasnt phased me, you must understand it wont at this pointDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I know you directed this at ICANT, but explain what it is you think I have lied aboutpersonally I think you just get carried away with your emotions, dont really know how to respond to something, then attack people.What have i lied about. PLEASE, FOR HEAVENS AND MY SAKE, NO LECTURES, (disoratations)just a few lines explaining this assertionDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Indiana? What the frak does Indiana have to do with anything?Please stop wasting bandwidth with such crap messages and get back on topic!