|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But not very surprising.
Think back to when you wandered in here. What is sad at least to me, is that your experience was so totally unnecessary. What seems so often to create "atheists" is that almost everything taught by the CCoI is so false that anyone like you that stops and examines what is being taught, whether it is the science or the theology, really has no choice but to reject both. All I can tell you is that the Christianity that was marketed to you is not the only Christianity out there.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
agent_509 Junior Member (Idle past 4499 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
I'm well aware that there are other Christianities out there, and I've looked at many different ones, as well as different other religions, but none stand up. As I believe I mentioned before examining the facts and coming to accept ToE was a result of becoming an atheist, not the reason I became an atheist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
And as I said up thread, you becoming an atheist is fine, in fact I would say that atheism is the more reasonable, logical and consistent position; I just think it is also wrong. But unless and until someone is presented with sufficient evidence to convince them that GOD exists, atheism is certainly a defensible position.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Pressie writes (in Message 27): Creationists always tell untruths. Always. Dawn Bertot writes:
Well, that's one way of providing support for the claim that Pressie made.Since creationism is an evaluation of the real world concerning its origin and derives all its conclusions in a scientific manner, it follows that your above request is an absurdity Christianity claims the moral high ground it its rhetoric. It has long since abandoned the moral high ground in its practices
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Just a friendly tip; don't get too involved with Dawn. You'll find he's barely literate and a font of ignorance and misunderstanding about science, reason and just about everything else related in any meaningful way to the real world.
But he can be a fun toy to bat about a bit if you're into that kind of thing.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
agent_509 writes: I'm well aware that there are other Christianities out there, and I've looked at many different ones, as well as different other religions, but none stand up. While I am agreeing with you in general, this could turn into a nice off-topic thread elsewhere in EvC. What are those Christianities that even make the best effort at standing up to the reality? Hmmm.......food for thought. Not my cup of tea, per se, but maybe something for others here. continuing: not the reason I became an atheist where would you place yourself on the dreaded Dawkins Scale now? (See my sig)
Welcome back!- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
I'd suggest that you modify your Dawkins Scale to reflect the fact that the claims of logically valid and invalid do not come from Dawkins. At least, I don't think it does, since he considers himself a 6.9.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
agent_509 Junior Member (Idle past 4499 days) Posts: 16 Joined:
|
I'm probably about a 6. I feel there is probably no god/gods, but I accept that there very well could be, and am completely open to the idea if evidence is presented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
ROFL, are you thinking of the same definition of creationism everyone else is? No-one really knows what Dawn is thinking, as the superficial incoherence of his language tends to obscure the more fundamental incoherence of his thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Not only do those labels not come from Dawkins, they don't even make sense. Logical validity refers to the form of an argument. It can't reasonably be applied to a position (even if the position were self-contradictory it would be more correctly be labelled as logically incoherent, but none of the positions listed are detailed enough for that to be a real possibility)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1783 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined: |
subbie writes:
Isn't it curious. I've seen many stories from people who turned away from creationism and accepted science after they stopped simply believing what others told them and looked at the evidence themselves. I've never seen one story about anyone who turned away from science to creationism because the evidence told them so. The closest I can think of is Kurt Wise, but he's the first to admit that he believes the bible despite the evidence, not because of it. Can anyone point me to a scientist who turned from science to creationism because that's where they believed the evidence led them?
Ironically, Answers in Genesis only just this past week featured yet another poster boy for "I Have Seen The LightTM!", purportedly documenting Frantiek Vyskočil's conversion from atheistic science to Biblical creationism. Needless to say, the article is chock-full of misrepresentations of evolution, along with the usual personal incredulity and creationist buzzwords ("amazing complexity", "blind chance", "true science", etc.) that go with it. DWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
There is something about this sentence...I can't quite put a finger on it...
quote: Personally, I believe that God exists. I believe that He has taken the time(since He owns all of it anyway) to have a personal relationship with we humans. I see no problem with using our minds. I also see no conflict between having a belief in a relationship with God and the science of evolution. I only have one question for Dawn. What is the definition of a proper conclusion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
I only have one question for Dawn. What is the definition of a proper conclusion? One that ends with his god being real. That's why the charge of creos ignoring evidence and lying is so apt. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
agent_509 Junior Member (Idle past 4499 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
I see I'll keep that in mind
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
creationism conclusions are derived from the bible No Agent, creationism is a simple logical proposition derived from the ONLY two logical possibilites, of the existence of things, and the only two that existence will allows us, as an explanation. Both of which are derived from a scientific evaluation of physical properties and then conclusions of those evaluations The Bible is an illustration of a greater proposition, which states that it is very much possible, given the only two possibilites of things in existence, that things were created or made That very much acceptable proposition is not derived JUST from scripture, but observation and reason initially Dont confuse the Process of evolution, which is only an explantion of how things WORK, with creationism, the explanation of the origin of things, from only two logical propositions Evolution has nothing to with the ultimate origin of things, it is only a possible explanation of how things work, not an explantion for the existence of things as a whole Most of these fellas here will try and lump the two together and try to make people believe they have offered an explantion for the origin of things, by explaining evolution. They havent Again, creationism is at its heart a logical proposition about the origin of anything. But it derives its conclusions from the very existence of things, in the same way a conclusion of soley natural clauses, derives it conclusions Neither is provable, but both are logical and demonstratable. these are the kind of facts they dont want you to hear, Agent Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024