Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2018 4:59 AM
270 online now:
Paboss, PaulK, Son Goku (3 members, 267 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,392 Year: 15,215/29,783 Month: 1,159/1,502 Week: 157/492 Day: 0/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   AiG's Strategy: Indoctrinate and Isolate
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3176
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 31 of 79 (663765)
05-26-2012 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
05-26-2012 1:28 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
About as good as a Masters of Science from the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School. When the accredidation visitation committee was there, they witnessed the biochemistry class in session. It used the same textbook as a leading university class would, but the instructor was leading the class through the book, page by page, telling them what to cross out because "We don't believe that."

BJU is known for "spring cleaning", as the student body calls it. They take your money and then towards the end of the semester or even when you're just a couple weeks from graduating, they expel you for having committed serious offenses, such as watching "Glee": http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-782503

One response on that CNN page about Chris Peterman's expulsion was from a graduate of BJU:

quote:
I graduated from BJU a long time ago and I wish I had been kicked out because the stigma of that association, never ends. Anytime someone asks where I earned my undergrad, after I tell them, there's always this shocked look and then a number of follow up questions as they try and figure out if I'm one of the crazies or someone who broke free. It is very cult like. You're not only expected to have the identical religious views as everyone else, you're expected to have the same social and political views; the same taste in pop culture, fashion etc. Everyone is even required to cut their hair essentially the same way. Any deviation on those choices is considered a sign that your "heart isn't right with God" and you become the subject of prayer circles. One of my friends was expelled for kissing his girlfriend. Another was expelled because his wife left him. I was permanently banned from campus because years after my graduation I wrote a letter to the local newspaper disagreeing with them on a local issue. Despite it having nothing to do with religion, I was told by the then President that I was siding with Satan instead of with Jesus (simply because I had disagreed with the pious BJ III. Apparently he Jesus are equals).

In the past decade they've loosened up a bit since Stephen Jones became president. They removed the barbed wire from the front campus, they ended their interracial dating prohibition, and they just recently renamed one of their dorms that was previously named after Bibb Graves, an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK. I've even seen some students with facial hair in recent years (girls mostly though - j/k).

Consider yourself fortunate Chris and move on.


Edited by dwise1, : added quote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 05-26-2012 1:28 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(3)
Message 32 of 79 (663767)
05-26-2012 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by marc9000
05-25-2012 8:41 PM


That there's no defined line where science stops and atheism starts.

No, there's not. That's because they are two entirely different subjects, quite distinct from each other. They are not on a continuum.

Taq writes:

Is this why creationists are fighting so hard to get evolution out of the classroom?

marc900 writes:

They’re trying to get atheism out of the classroom – the kind that converted Libby.

You can say this all you like; in practice, creationists are trying to get evolution out of classrooms. Claiming that evolution and atheism are synonymous does not make it so.

Is Libby being honest, is Miller a phony?

They're both being honest, they just hold different opinions, as they are entitled to do.

Now of course Ken Ham is entitled to his own opinions as well, but he is not entitled to his own facts. Since many of the claims made by AiG are counter-factual, he is not entitled to call them educative. That's why people are calling it indoctrination, not because Ham's opinions are wrong, but because his "facts" are in fact falsehoods.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 05-25-2012 8:41 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by vimesey, posted 05-26-2012 4:28 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 39 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 5:19 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
vimesey
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(2)
Message 33 of 79 (663769)
05-26-2012 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Granny Magda
05-26-2012 4:19 PM


Claiming that evolution and atheism are synonymous does not make it so.

Absolutely ! My mother for one, would be very surprised if it were true - she has a first class honours degree in biochemistry from London University and attends church every Sunday


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Granny Magda, posted 05-26-2012 4:19 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 946
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 79 (664020)
05-28-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Coyote
05-25-2012 9:05 PM


Re: On isolation...
A different kind of education, eh? Things like magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?

No, AIG doesn’t actually promote those things, it’s about worldviews. I’m not sure atheists recognize the word “worldview”, because they don’t seem to like their opinions to be on the same plane as others, they want to be superior, they want to be “right” enough to force their opinions on society, similar to the religion of Islam today, or the Christianity of Europe 200 years ago.

But back to the topic: AIG and all the others have to isolate their folks either through indoctrination or other means because their teachings can't stand the light of day.

Creationists realize that science isn’t the only source of knowledge. I’ve mentioned it before once or twice at EvC and haven’t had much of any reaction to it, so I’ll try go into more detail than I have before;

“The light of day” involves more than science. For one thing, creationists recognize the profoundness of the differences of humans from animals. Though some breeds of animals can be considered more intelligent than others, the differences (or comparisons of it) are many levels below humans. Humans have an enormous depth of emotion, and written history, all the way to its very beginning, shows that humans have always had it. Unless one has been programmed by an atheist/evolutionist education to believe that humans used to be just like animals, and gradually became aware of themselves while animals stayed exactly the same, it’s not hard for common sense logic to tell us that humans have always been able to plan ahead, solve problems, and re-arrange matter to benefit himself in ways far above what animals have ever been able to do. Central to Christianity is the belief that humans are a special creation. Light of day observations, (that don’t have anything to do with “magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore etc.”) tend to verify it.

I could write many more paragraphs about what creationists see in the “light of day”, 1)the lack of transitional fossils that evolutionists desperately wish they had, 2)the order and obvious purpose we see in countless different natural systems of the world, from biology to astronomy,3) the lack of scientific ability to naturalistically explain the origins of life, 4)how well the behavior guidelines found in the Bible (money management, relations to others etc.) actually work. Richard Dawkins, on the first page of ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ says “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” If they give that appearance, then that doesn’t have anything to do with magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore etc. It’s logical observances in the light of day.

Then there is the other kind of “light of day”, the clear observances of very mysterious behavior of evolutionists. This thread has many examples. The opening post linked a testimony of someone who was transformed from a Christian to an atheist, by evolution. Very soon after, the standard evolutionist talking point pops up, that evolution and atheism don’t have a thing to do with each other! Let’s see, they’re both about naturalism, they both oppose creation and Intelligent Design, they both agree perfectly with other (sometimes controversial) sciences like astronomy, cosmology, geology, etc. Science/evolution is the only intellectual fulfillment atheism has, what atheist wouldn’t fully support evolution? Atheism and evolution compliment each other, support each other, and in the case of prominent people who support one or the other, they will almost always be passionate about the other. Yet the majority of them will immediately say, if challenged, that they don’t have a thing to do with each other. It’s just something that’s been said over and over enough times to be automatically accepted by the news media and the scientific community. But this kind of political correctness isn’t in the light of day, it’s in the darkness of a very narrow worldview. William Provine, an atheist, goes a long way in making it all understandable;

quote:
I suspect there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty on this issue. Consider the following fantasy: the National Academy of Sciences publishes a position paper on science and religion stating that modern science leads directly to atheism. What would happen to its funding? To any federal funding of science? Every member of the Congress of the United States of America, even the two current members who are unaffiliated with any organized religion, profess to be deeply religious. I suspect that scientific leaders tread very warily on the issue of the religious implications of science for fear of jeopardizing the funding for scientific research. And I think that many scientist feel some sympathy with the need for moral education and recognize the role that religion plays in this endeavor. These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest.
-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 69

It all makes sense how threads like this get started and where they go - the testimony of a religious student becoming an atheist because of a science education makes a statement that most in the scientific community favor, yet if a discussion ensues, if the atheism involved in science education gets brought up, then the desperate backpeddling that happens is easily explained by the few prominent atheists like William Provine who are actually honest.

And see signature, below...

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

I heartily agree with your signature. With a minor word change, more truth can be found; Atheistic belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 05-25-2012 9:05 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 05-28-2012 5:17 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 43 by Briterican, posted 05-28-2012 5:39 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 946
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 79 (664021)
05-28-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Theodoric
05-26-2012 1:18 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
But we all know marc does not consider you a christian.

A very astute observation! Just like I know that not all atheists here consider him a Christian either. (See how I give atheists credit where credit is due?) I’d say he doesn’t entertain his fellow atheists here nearly as much as he thinks he does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 05-26-2012 1:18 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 05-28-2012 6:43 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 946
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 79 (664022)
05-28-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ReverendDG
05-25-2012 9:09 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
marc9000 writes:

People like Libby, Richard Dawkins, and countless others in science education seem to create that dichotomy also.

they do? could you show me somewhere anyone in science has said you either have to be an atheist or creationist nothing else?

How about William Provine;

quote:
Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless. Called Deism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and considered equivalent to atheism then, it is no different now. A God or purposive force that merely starts the universe or works thought the laws of nature has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
-Academe January 1987 pp.51-52

http://nogod.tribe.net/...ce339d-7976-42cd-8f2b-1ff38246e495

"...this view of God is also worthless" - jar's messages make that very clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ReverendDG, posted 05-25-2012 9:09 PM ReverendDG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 05-28-2012 5:17 PM marc9000 has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15401
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 37 of 79 (664023)
05-28-2012 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by marc9000
05-28-2012 4:58 PM


Re: On isolation...
marc9000 writes:

Creationists realize that science isn’t the only source of knowledge.


Scientists agree. The question is: Why do creationists want to call creationism science?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 4:58 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 5:29 PM ringo has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 38 of 79 (664024)
05-28-2012 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by marc9000
05-28-2012 5:10 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
"...this view of God is also worthless" - jar's messages make that very clear.

And I suppose you can provide a link to where I say that I hold the same views as William Provine or agree with his assertion?

Or is this just another example of you misrepresenting my position and posts?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 5:10 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 5:23 PM jar has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 946
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 79 (664025)
05-28-2012 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Granny Magda
05-26-2012 4:19 PM


marc9000 writes:

That there's no defined line where science stops and atheism starts.

No, there's not. That's because they are two entirely different subjects, quite distinct from each other. They are not on a continuum.

The laughable claim that evolution and atheism don’t have a thing to do with each other is probably the most prominent philosophical claim in all of science that really gets the attention of the vast majority of people who have little or no interest in the creation-evolution controversy. It begs the question – “if the scientific community lies about this, what else do they lie about?” This recent level of arousal of suspicion, which is a good thing, can be credited to the Intelligent Design movement. As William Dembski concisely puts it;

quote:
Critics of Intelligent Design resort to a classic defense mechanism: they project onto intelligent design the very thing that intelligent design unmasks in their own views, namely, that Darwinism, especially as it has been taken up by today’s intellectual elite, has itself become a project in theology. (“The Design Revolution”, page 46)

The science that was in “Darwin’s Black Box” clashed with that atheist theology, and the resulting firestorm of criticism of that book made it clear. The only thing that the intellectual elite could do was make rules for something to become science, and try to keep those rules just out of the reach of intelligent design. And, whether they realized it at the time or not, much of their atheist philosophy also couldn’t measure up to their rules. “Testability”, is probably their one rule that causes them the most trouble, because some things about Darwinism, (and its associated “science” of abiogenesis) can’t actually be tested. One example of many concerns the fossil record that is embraced by the scientific community. As Dr Colin Patterson, a senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, puts it;

quote:
Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But SUCH STORIES ARE NOT PART OF SCIENCE, FOR THERE IS NO WAY OF PUTTING THEM TO THE TEST. ‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job . . .’

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/fossils

Quoted from Answers in Genesis from an evolutionist, important bolded and capitalized words provided by me at no extra cost.

If Answers in Genesis were to close tomorrow, If the Discovery Institute were to close tomorrow, if there would never be another court case involving intelligent design, if intelligent design were to completely cease to exist tomorrow, the one thing it has accomplished will stand for generations, that is, making clear, and inspiring questions, about the fact that many of the intellectual elites in today’s atheist scientific community don’t actually have the intellectual justification to do many of the jobs they attempt to do…………with tax money. They’re in control today, but will they be tomorrow?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Granny Magda, posted 05-26-2012 4:19 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Granny Magda, posted 05-29-2012 1:53 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 946
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 40 of 79 (664026)
05-28-2012 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
05-28-2012 5:17 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
And I suppose you can provide a link to where I say that I hold the same views as William Provine or agree with his assertion?

I'VE SEEN YOU MOCK THE SPIRIT OF GOD BY CALLING HIM A "SHE". I've seen you claim that Christ "wasn't much of a Christian", I've seen you claim Christ isn't necessary for salvation, I've seen you agree with rabid atheists on just about everything. I don't expect you to agree with Provine, I'd expect anyone to look at the actions of "Christians" like you and make their own judgements about what he says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 05-28-2012 5:17 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 05-28-2012 6:08 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 05-28-2012 7:13 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 946
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 79 (664027)
05-28-2012 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ringo
05-28-2012 5:17 PM


Re: On isolation...
marc9000 writes:

Creationists realize that science isn’t the only source of knowledge.

Scientists agree. The question is: Why do creationists want to call creationism science?

To balance the current atheism that is in science. If you wonder what that atheism is, check out anything in science that doesn't measure up to the rules that have been established for intelligent design. Abiogenesis, the SETI Institute, or anything in Darwinism that is untestable, yet speculated on and proclaimed as science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 05-28-2012 5:17 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 05-28-2012 5:39 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2012 5:54 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 01-04-2018 10:56 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2018 12:22 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15401
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(5)
Message 42 of 79 (664029)
05-28-2012 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by marc9000
05-28-2012 5:29 PM


Re: On isolation...
marc9000 writes:

ringo writes:


Why do creationists want to call creationism science?


To balance the current atheism that is in science.

If science is so riddled with atheism, I would think you'd want to divorce yourself from science as much as possible. Yet organizations like AiG seem to want their followers to think they have the Real Science. Why not just stick with The Truth?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 5:29 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


(7)
Message 43 of 79 (664030)
05-28-2012 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by marc9000
05-28-2012 4:58 PM


Re: On isolation...
marc9000 writes:

For one thing, creationists recognize the profoundness of the differences of humans from animals.

...but, but, but... humans ARE animals, and anyone in their right mind will recognise that the similarities between humans and the other animals far outweigh the differences. The rest of that paragraph is so full of misconceptions of reality as to be classified as twaddle.

I see a whole lot more nonsense following that, but to address it point-by-point would be quite unnecessary given that there are already existing threads that adequately refute your suppositions:

1)the lack of transitional fossils that evolutionists desperately wish they had

- see RAZD's thread Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process

2)the order and obvious purpose we see in countless different natural systems of the world, from biology to astronomy

- Teleology comes up in threads all the time. Explanations that involve teleology are avoided in science and for good reason.

3) the lack of scientific ability to naturalistically explain the origins of life

- There are numerous threads on abiogenesis, at least two of which were started by yourself. You obviously didn't read those threads, or just chose not to accept the very viable possibilities for abiogenesis that were presented to you therein.

marc9000 writes:

I’m not sure atheists recognize the word “worldview”, because they don’t seem to like their opinions to be on the same plane as others, they want to be superior, they want to be “right” enough to force their opinions on society, similar to the religion of Islam today, or the Christianity of Europe 200 years ago.

I find it ironic that you try to insult atheism by comparing it to religion. Atheists don't go nearly as far as religious people to "force their view" on others. Proselytising is a much more religious thing. Atheists, when they are forceful, tend to be so in response to action by religious organisations that threaten to introduce this week's flavour of mumbo-jumbo into the classroom.

You seem to ascribe to atheists the very worldview that more aptly describes the religious mind, i.e. "It's right and you shouldn't even question it". It is the very act of questioning things that tends to lead one away from theism, even if not always as far away as to qualify as atheism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 4:58 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 44 of 79 (664032)
05-28-2012 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by marc9000
05-28-2012 5:29 PM


Re: On isolation...
To balance the current atheism that is in science.

Yeah, let's balance the imaginary with the false!

If you wonder what that atheism is, check out anything in science that doesn't measure up to the rules that have been established for intelligent design.

There isn't anything in science like ID. There isn't anything in science remotely like ID. And marc, there never will be anything in science like ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 5:29 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 45 of 79 (664033)
05-28-2012 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by marc9000
05-28-2012 5:23 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
Then why did you make the statement that you did?

And of course, Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Jew. That's pretty basic material.

I suppose you can point to some of my actions to support your position?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 5:23 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018