Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 8:59 AM
222 online now:
JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Son of Man (4 members, 218 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,047 Year: 16,870/29,783 Month: 858/1,956 Week: 361/331 Day: 20/69 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
35363738
39
40Next
Author Topic:   The Marketing Of Christianity
Phat
Member
Posts: 11416
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 572 of 591 (829801)
03-14-2018 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 570 by NoNukes
03-14-2018 12:33 PM


Re: Food For Thought
My point is that in my opinion, one cannot simply choose Gods the same way one would choose a new coat. Perhaps you have a point in that attachment is based on continual familiarity and positive reinforcement. I dont believe that all "gods" have the same capability of providing what is needed, but there is no way to prove it. Critics will say that all I have is subjectivity.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2018 12:33 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 573 by jar, posted 03-14-2018 2:28 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 577 by dwise1, posted 03-14-2018 4:04 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 578 by dwise1, posted 03-14-2018 4:04 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 573 of 591 (829802)
03-14-2018 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by Phat
03-14-2018 2:13 PM


Re: Food For Thought
Phat writes:

I dont believe that all "gods" have the same capability of providing what is needed, but there is no way to prove it.

But does the Hindu believe that his gods have the capability of providing what is needed?

But does the Muslim believe that his god has the capability of providing what is needed?

But doest he Jew believe that his god has the capability of providing what is needed?

But does the Taoist believe that his gods have the capability of providing what is needed?

Doesn't each religion make similar claims of their god or gods?

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by Phat, posted 03-14-2018 2:13 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 574 of 591 (829804)
03-14-2018 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by Phat
01-09-2018 2:44 PM


Re: God Unplugged
Hopefully people at least try and believe in a bigger God than the one they can make up. Is your imaginary God bigger than what science can prove? if not, you let the facts get in the way. May as well stick with Long John Silver!

Yes, Man did indeed create God in His own image (having nothing better to base it on). And as each believer tries to figure out this god-thingee, each believer creates his own god based on how well or poorly he understands what other believers tell him (which includes the Bible and everybody's understanding and misunderstanding about it and what it says).

But that is not any reason for you to trivialize and denigrate that endeavor! Believers are quite serious in that endeavor. They are not just making shit up -- that is the purview of creationists. Rather, they are trying to work their way through a non-trivial problem in order arrive at a better understanding of something which by its very definition is beyond human ability to understand.

That is not to say that there aren't any whose gods are trivial. A couple decades ago on our church bulletin board was an AP article, "Childhood Image of God Prevails Among Adults, Authors Say." It was about a book co-authored by Rabbi Jack Bemporad, "Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, to think about God."

The stupid ways of thinking about God are very childish, because most people formed their ideas about God in their childhood and never got around to upgrading them as they themselves matured. An abbreviated list of stupid ways of thinking about God:


  1. God as your personal "cosmic bellhop" granting your every request.
  2. God as "little Mary Sunshine" who will take care of everything for you.
  3. The "proverbial God of Wrath ready to show how much he cares by punishing you, the Marquis de God" who despises sinners so much he exterminates them.
  4. "God the General", a nationalistic god, the leader of jihads.
  5. "God the Master of Ceremonies" who can be hired by anyone to observe all manner of ceremonies.

Creating one's own god should follow the same procedure as creating one's own theology (everybody does that too): think about and be willing to question your ideas so that you can discover what you had gotten wrong and try to correct those errors.

Hopefully people at least try and believe in a bigger God than the one they can make up.

Too few believers would make the effort to believe beyond their limited ideas. However, there are those with the wisdom to recognize their own limitations and so don't try to limit their God as well. Though I doubt that more than a few believers could find comfort in accepting that some (though I would think "many") of their ideas about God could be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 2:44 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15577
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 575 of 591 (829823)
03-14-2018 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by Phat
03-14-2018 11:14 AM


Re: Food For Thought
Phat writes:

Does a man have the same need for his Mother as he does for a random matronly figure whom he happens to meet?


Yes.

I have a cousin who lost both parents within a year when he was about fifty. He didn't find out until after they were gone that he was adopted. His needs were whatever they were and they were met however they were met.

Phat writes:

Could he have chosen anyone else?


Clearly yes.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by Phat, posted 03-14-2018 11:14 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 576 of 591 (829829)
03-14-2018 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by Phat
02-01-2018 2:40 AM


Re: Food For Thought
dwise1 writes:

...but either you believe or you don't -- you cannot choose to believe.

As I was rereading this thread, your statement jumped out...and i disagree with it. In my opinion, belief is entirely a choice. The evidence is not that important nor persuasive to me. And not that there is a conclusive amount of it.

I stand by that statement.

I am not in any way accusing you of lifting out of context, but the context would help others reading this; in my Message 487:

DWise1 writes:

More generally in the case of many if not most ex-Christians, they started thinking and examining and found that they could no longer believe what they were supposed to. In case after case, they tried as hard as they could to continue to believe, but either you believe or you don't -- you cannot choose to believe.

I have read and heard many testimonials by ex-Christians (eg, at www.ex-christian.net). A recurring feature of those stories is how desperately they tried to continue to believe, to keep from losing their faith, but all their efforts were in vain. A lot of those deconversions were very painful, but despite that pain they were still unable to keep from losing their faith. They could not simply choose to continue to believe; they found that option to be impossible.

You really should spend some time on that site to get a better understanding of ex-believers and the deconversion process (the link itself is to the testimonals section of that site). Belief exists and operates on a much deeper level than making a simple arbitrary choice on the spur of the moment, as you are trying to trivialize it. For example, according to you I should be able to choose arbitrarily to believe in "creation science", whereas in reality I could never believe in it because I already know its lies far too well.

Believers who remain, believers, have more of a need to believe than do former believers, who are easily swayed by evidence.

I disagree that it's a matter of need to believe. Former believers had just as much need to believe as current believers, more so especially during the deconversion process as evidenced by the pain of that experience.

Rather, it appears to be more a matter of allowing themselves to see the evidence, followed by their reaction to that evidence. Evidence can have no effect on a person who can engage in denial so deep that they not only refuse to look at evidence but also can deny its existence.

For example, a friend at church, Gary, used to be a fundamentalist Christian, but now describes himself as "a complete atheist and thorough humanist" which he finds far more spiritually fulfilling than his previous faith. As a fundamentalist, he had to constantly practice self-deception in order to blind himself to the daily evidence all around him that showed his beliefs to be wrong. Needless to say, that constant effort finally exhausted him and led him to apply the Matthew 7:20 Test to Christianity itself, which it failed.

In many cases, what the evidence shows to be wrong is just some minor detail which should have no effect on one's faith or even some mistaken idea which really has nothing to do with the religion.

For example, one common factor in deconversion stories is discovering that your religion and your religious leaders (including your parents) had been lying to you all along and/or had betrayed you in some way. One such deconversion story serves as a sad example of the damage a false belief can do. A girl always believed that the books of the Bible were written in the order in which they appear, so when she learned that that wasn't true she decided that they'd been lying to her all along and left religion. While there are a lot of cases in which religious leaders were indeed lying and/or betrayed their members in other ways, this was a case in which the person had added a false belief that had nothing to do with the religion, not unlike my own mistaken belief that I was supposed to believe literally what the Bible says, which had led to my own exit from Christianity -- right choice, but for the wrong reason.

BTW, my main reason for opposing "creation science" is that it is a false belief (a deliberately crafted deception, actually) which is hawked to believers as support for Christianity such that if it proves to be false then so is Christianity. Not only does it have nothing to do with whether Christianity is true, but it is so demonstrably false that many former believers are now former believers -- many became atheists or switched to a saner form of Christianity, and a very few remained fundamentalist but none are creationists any longer.

In the case of "creation science", the evidence shows that what it claims and teaches is wrong. Believers can maintain their faith in "creation science" by ignoring the evidence, even denying that the evidence even exists -- Faith's persistent arguments about geology are a prime example of this. On a certain level, they cannot help but know that their beliefs are false, because otherwise they wouldn't know to engage their selective blindness to the evidence -- I have also witnessed "selective stupidity" in which an obviously intelligent creationist would suddenly be unable to understand a very simple English statement.

The problem is for the believers who don't realize that they must be careful to not look at the evidence. They actually believe that "creation science" is true and so can stand up to any evidence. Most of them grew up in the faith, whereas most of the selectively blind believers had converted into it (or else had already encountered the evidence earlier; eg, when engaging in creationist proselytizing). It is those believers who don't know to ignore the evidence who end up losing their faith because of a false belief that doesn't even have anything to do with Christianity.

There is another group affected/created by "creation science": those who reject the very idea of converting to Christianity because they think they are required to believe in "creation science", something that is so obviously false. Count among them fifth-graders whose teacher, Ray Baird, used ICR "balanced treatment" materials -- at the end of each lesson, the materials pressured the students to choose between "an unknown Creator" (part of the deception) and "atheistic evolution", so they chose atheism:

quote:
"Someone that I know has become an atheist because of this class, because the creationist theory was so stupid, he thought. Well, if religion requires me to believe this, then I don't want to have any part of it."

(JP Hunt, student in Ray Baird's 1980 "balanced treatment" class at Emma C. Smith Elementary School, Livermore, CA, in "Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom", KPBS-TV, aired 7 July 1982)


More info on that class at LIVERMORE 1981: Creation Science in the Classroom - A Case Study.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Phat, posted 02-01-2018 2:40 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 589 by Astrophile, posted 03-19-2018 8:18 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 577 of 591 (829830)
03-14-2018 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by Phat
03-14-2018 2:13 PM


Re: Food For Thought
My point is that in my opinion, one cannot simply choose Gods the same way one would choose a new coat.

Of course not! Who is saying such a thing, besides you? From what I see, you are the one who keeps trivializing belief and the gods.

I dont believe that all "gods" have the same capability of providing what is needed, but there is no way to prove it.

Of course they all do! They all serve the purposes for which we created them. How could they possibly do otherwise?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by Phat, posted 03-14-2018 2:13 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 578 of 591 (829831)
03-14-2018 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by Phat
03-14-2018 2:13 PM


Re: Food For Thought
{duplicate post}

Edited by dwise1, : duplicate; refer to last


This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by Phat, posted 03-14-2018 2:13 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 579 of 591 (829911)
03-16-2018 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by Phat
02-01-2018 2:40 AM


Re: Food For Thought
In my opinion, belief is entirely a choice.

I have given it more thought. I still disagree: belief is not "entirely a choice", but rather it is a conviction. You cannot choose to belief something that you know for a fact is false, but rather you need to be convinced that it is true.

I started discussing creation/evolution online on CompuServe in the late 1980's. At first I thought that creationists didn't realize that their claims were false and that, since Christianity teaches them to love truth and to seek the truth, once we'd point out their errors then they would make the necessary corrections. Needless to say, I was increasingly perplexed by the outrageously dishonest behavior I was observing from the creationists.

Then about a decade later in a Yahoo Groups forum, a creationist finally gave me the epiphany I needed. He had tried to use the horribly false sea-salt claim and I did such a good job of demonstrating why it's false that he explicitly acknowledged that it was false. I asked him what he thought he was trying to accomplish by using such flimsy arguments that are so unconvincing. His reply was that the only reason I find them unconvincing is because I am not yet convinced myself. {light bulb switching on over my head} That explained what the creationists had been doing all along. They don't care anything for the truth nor for honesty nor for Christian doctrine or morality. All they care about is convincing others, but far more importantly themselves. Because the only way to continue to believe is to remain convinced about that which they believe in.

In response on that forum to my epiphany, I wrote a comparison of the fundamental difference beween scientists and creationists, which I later started to convert to a web page (not yet finished) which is posted but not linked to at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/cs_vs_sci.html. The page does a side-by-side, step-by-step comparison, but basically:


  • Scientists are trying to discover how the universe works. They base their research on the research of others, so if that research of others is bad or false, then that would work against their goals of learning how the universe works.
    As a result, they are strongly motivated to verify other scientists' research (eg, the moment the "cold fusion" paper arrived over FAX machines all over the world, physicists immediately started verifying it and found it to be wrong).
    If any scientist is found to have committed a hoax or done shoddy work, then his career is over. The scientific community has a strongly vested interest in ensuring the quality of research.

  • Creationists are not trying to discover anything about the universe, but rather believe that they already have the complete truth which they must 1) defend against scientific evidence to the contrary and 2) convince everybody of, including themselves (many creationists use "creation science" as a proselytizing tool and will testify that that is what had converted them). They made liberal use of other creationists' claims, but it makes no difference if those claims are bad or false, just so long as they sound convincing. Since their goal is to convince, the merit of a claim lies in how convincing it sounds and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is true. A complete and utter lie which sounds convincing will be embraced and repeated by the creationist community, whereas a true claim which doesn't sound convincing will never see the light of day. If a creationist is found to have committed a hoax or done shoddy work, then that does not matter one whit just so long as his claims sound convincing.
    The creationist community has absolutely no interest in ensuring the quality or truth of creationist research, but rather goes for the spectacular convincing-sounding lies.

BTW, that creationist who explicitly admitted that his sea-salt claim was false showed up again. A couple months later on that very same forum I saw that very same creationist using that very same sea-salt argument on a new-comer. When I called him on it he ran away knowing that he had been caught red-handed deliberately lying with the full knowledge that he was indeed lying.
 
 
So to recapitulate the thesis here, belief is not a simple matter of making a rational and arbitrary decision to believe, but rather there is a lot more involved such as becoming convinced of what you're believing. You cannot arbitrarily choose to believe something that you know for a fact is false (possible exception: engaging in unreasonably extreme mental measures which many would rightfully classify as a form of mental illness, yet the end result of which is to deceive yourself into believing that known falsehood to be true). So the key to belief is being convinced, which is not a simple arbitrary choice.

Exposing a believer to incontrovertible evidence that things that he believes are false can have different effects on his belief depending on how he reacts. Every believer will initially dismiss that evidence, but normally it can get the person thinking. The stronger believer will resist that thinking part more, even to the point of not only rejecting that evidence but even denying that even exists -- again, many observers would classify many of those defense mechanisms as forms of mental illness. Regardless, the effect of contradictory evidence would normally not be to convince the believer of something else, but rather to weaken their conviction in their own beliefs such that they start to investigate deeper.

I'm sure that you know who Dan Barker is. Now known as one of America's leading atheists, he was raised fundamentalist and at age 11 was called to the ministry personally by God. In the first part of his book, godless, he tells his story, including his deconversion. I recommend that you read at least that part, since it will show you the process of deconversion.

Barker's deconversion started out in an interesting way. He traveled around with his family in a musical ministry. They would travel from church to church within his denomination where he would give a guest sermon. Like everybody else in his denomination, his views were black-and-white with a strongly and inflexibly drawn line separating right and wrong. Everybody in each other those churches he would visit were the same way, except ... . Every congregation had its strong and inflexibly drawn line, but every such line was drawn slightly differently. What was right in one congregation was absolutely wrong in another, and at the same time what was absolutely wrong to one was perfectly right to another. As long as you restricted your experience to your own group, you will never see that, but Dan Barker's experience was spread over a large number of groups, each with its own unique "absolute lines", so he saw that having a single absolute line between right and wrong that applied to everybody (as per fundamentalist theology) is just an illusion. As he watched that "unblurring" line blurring all the time, he could not help but to become less convinced about such lines. That got him to start thinking and questioning and reading and researching. And now you know the rest of the story (apologies to J. Paul Harvey).

I am not advocating that every believer become an atheist; frankly, I very much doubt that most believers could handle it (especially considering the bizarre falsehoods they had been taught about atheism). I'm sure that you've heard that tired old argument: "There are so many different religions, but only one of them is right." It's wrong, because all religions are wrong, none of the legion of theologies is right, because every single one of them gets something wrong, mainly in their large bodies of detailed statements and descriptions. At the same time, all religions and all theologies are right because they all (ignoring a few possible exceptions) get something right.

You do not hold a single religious belief, but rather a sizable body of religious beliefs accompanied by many mega-beliefs (ie, beliefs about the interdependence of those beliefs, an Achilles heal of creationists). Part of that body of beliefs do get it right, but other beliefs get it wrong. When exposed to evidence that those false beliefs are indeed false, the dilemma for believers is to decide whether his correct beliefs depend on those false beliefs or not. If he can determine that his correct beliefs do not depend on the false beliefs, then he can shed the false beliefs and not only keep his faith, but also have a more mature faith. If he determines that his correct beliefs do depend on those false beliefs, then as he loses those false beliefs he also loses the right ones.

I see creationists as falling into that trap. From what I've been able to observe, they seem to hold firmly to the meta-belief that their entire Christian faith depends directly on their YEC beliefs being true. Therefore when they fight for YEC, they see it as fighting for Christianity. In reality, Christianity does not depend on YEC, but they have trapped themselves nonetheless.

This gets us into another aspect of this question of belief and dealing with contradictory evidence. We can classify creationists into several groups along a long spectrum of how much they've been exposed to contradictory evidence (primarily evidence that their claims are completely and utterly false and nothing but a pack of lies, many deliberate), but at the same time we will find that they all still maintain that meta-belief that YEC must be true in order for Christianity to be true. Their exposure to contradictory evidence starts at zero for creationists who do not venture outside of their own congregation and it goes up as their interaction with the outside world increases as they talk with non-creationists and witness to them and proselytize to them, engage in discussions (both in person and on-line), participate in debates both passively and actively, creating web pages and dealing with feedback replies, writing creationist articles and books, running creationist organizations, etc. Each step along that spectrum, they encounter more and more proof that their claims are false and that their YEC beliefs are false, but their meta-belief that Christianity is false if YEC is false forces them to reject that realization.

Here's where it gets weird. While they cannot admit that the evidence is quite clear that YEC is false, at the same time they choose to act upon that knowledge that they cannot allow themselves to acknowledge. YECs, even ones who are openly YEC, now avoid presenting or discussion YEC claims like the plague. Sure you might get some newbie doing it because they don't know any better yet, but try talking with an experienced YEC. Any YEC with any amount of experience knows that YEC claims are false and hence are extremely vulnerable and will refuse to touch the subject -- unless he feels that you know nothing about YEC claims in which cause you can't get him to stop.

Which raises so many questions of what's going on in creationists' minds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Phat, posted 02-01-2018 2:40 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by Phat, posted 03-16-2018 3:41 PM dwise1 has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11416
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 580 of 591 (829912)
03-16-2018 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 579 by dwise1
03-16-2018 3:03 PM


Re: Food For Thought
I wonder what our member Faith thinks of your analysis? It seems as if you are presenting it honestly...I would be interested in her opinion, but she (also) prefers to steer around these sorts of topics.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by dwise1, posted 03-16-2018 3:03 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 581 by dwise1, posted 03-16-2018 5:37 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 581 of 591 (829915)
03-16-2018 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by Phat
03-16-2018 3:41 PM


Re: Food For Thought
Judging from past behavior, I doubt very much that she would be able to make any rational contribution or assessment.

... , but she (also) prefers to steer around these sorts of topics.

Which is also true of other creationists. There is a very important honest conversation that creationists and non-creationists need to have ... or even just creationists among themselves: just exactly why are creationists doing what they do (including just exactly why they think that Christianity depends so directly and completely on the extraneous claims of YEC) and just exactly what they honestly think the consequences of evolution being true or the earth truly being ancient would be. That would be just the starting point of a series of serious and honest discussions that we need to have in order to get to the root causes of this entire brouhaha so that we can arrive at some kind of solution. And one of the first steps in such a solution would be for creationists to understand what creation is and must be (they add far too many extraneous requirements) and to stop redefining evolution into something that it clearly is not.

I have tried to start those discussions with individual creationists and their response would be run away from that discussion in any of a number of ways; eg, change the subject, go into a ramped-up attack mode, disappear altogether. I don't think that it's simply because they don't want to, but rather that they feel that they must not even begin to think of those questions.

I keep comparing this situation with one in a science fiction novel I read back in college (early 70's, though now I'm back again), Macroscope by Piers Anthony (1969). The story involved a newly discovered particle, macrons, which permeate the galaxy and are affected by whatever they pass through, such that a detector, the macroscope, could reconstructed a scene anywhere in the galaxy. Some alien civilizations had learned to use macrons as a communication medium. There is one message in particular called "the Messenger" which continuously broadcast tutorials for creating advanced technology. But there is another message atop the Messenger, the Destroyer, which would fry the brain of any entity who understood what the Messenger was saying. So the team of scientists have their one non-scientist, Ivo Archer who cannot understand what the Messenger is saying, watch the Messenger and then report what he saw to them so that they can then figure out the science and technology being transmitted.

This is the analogy I see with creationists. Ivo Archer had to access the Messenger and learn all that he could, but he had to be very careful to keep from understanding it (or too much of it) in order to avoid the Destroyer destroying his mind. When employing "creation science", creationists need to learn something about science, even though science clearly refutes their YEC beliefs and claims. If they learn and understand too much, then they cannot help but realize that their claims are false which would lead to them losing their faith. Therefore, creationists must be very careful to learn just enough science without understanding enough of it.

It's a mental defensive mechanism that they are undoubtedly not even aware of, because if they were aware of it then it wouldn't work anymore. They learn just enough to create a false claim and turn a blind eye (ie, "selective blindness") to everything else. For example, the classic claim of the living freshwater clams being carbon-dated to be thousands of years old uses an actual science journal article which also explains the reason for that anomalous date (the well-known "reservoir effect"; the clams were getting "old carbon" from the dissolved limestone in the water). The originating creationist saw the anomalous date but not the explanation for it. I've even seen examples of "selective dumbness" in which an otherwise intelligent creationist suddenly cannot understand the simple English of an explanation. And we have seen many similar examples in the geology discussions with Faith.

But there are also many creationists who do know and understand the science and yet they still create blatantly false claims. They are operating on a much higher, much more extreme, and much scarier level.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Phat, posted 03-16-2018 3:41 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 582 by Rrhain, posted 03-18-2018 1:19 AM dwise1 has responded
 Message 583 by Faith, posted 03-18-2018 5:24 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 582 of 591 (829937)
03-18-2018 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 581 by dwise1
03-16-2018 5:37 PM


Re: Food For Thought
dwise1 writes:

quote:
There is a very important honest conversation that creationists and non-creationists need to have ... or even just creationists among themselves: just exactly why are creationists doing what they do (including just exactly why they think that Christianity depends so directly and completely on the extraneous claims of YEC) and just exactly what they honestly think the consequences of evolution being true or the earth truly being ancient would be.

But they have had this conversation. For example, Christian creationists have mentioned those specific things many times:

If evolution is true, if the universe is ancient, then that means the Bible (as they understand it) is false.

Why is that not sufficient for you? They have their reasons for believing in god (defined as the being referred to in the Bible) and thus to have that book be disproven means this god they believe in might not exist.

You even refer to this yourself: They don't wish to lose their faith. That, too, has lots of meanings in their eyes (suddenly there's no such thing as "good" or "bad," the people they hate due to their faith-based morality are suddenly equal to them, etc., etc.) but it is something they do not wish to experience.

As for the "honest conversation," that's something you can't force on someone. You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. When people are emotionally invested in a position, they don't give it up easily. Pointing out how they are illogically buttressing their arguments isn't going to change their minds in and of itself. They need to be willing to reconsider their position and be happy with their lives afterward, even if that means their lives change.

That isn't easy.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by dwise1, posted 03-16-2018 5:37 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by dwise1, posted 03-18-2018 6:01 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30034
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 583 of 591 (829939)
03-18-2018 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 581 by dwise1
03-16-2018 5:37 PM


Re: Food For Thought
oh fer pete's sake.

Judging from past behavior, I doubt very much that she would be able to make any rational contribution or assessment.

Judging from your posts on this subject, I doubt very much that you could ever be able to grasp the creationist's situation. You don't even understand that they aren't lying at all when they refuse to accept your arguments. I can't speak for every creationist; after all there are some who capitulate to your point of view so clearly they aren't in the same position I consider myself to be, but I'm sure you really don't know how to judge what we are trying to do. And neither does Rrhain.

Phat writes:

... , but she (also) prefers to steer around these sorts of topics.

Which is also true of other creationists.

Some of that in my case has to do with the fact that I'm not familiar with the particular arguments you are talking about. Sea salt, moon dust etc.

There is a very important honest conversation that creationists and non-creationists need to have ... or even just creationists among themselves: just exactly why are creationists doing what they do (including just exactly why they think that Christianity depends so directly and completely on the extraneous claims of YEC) and just exactly what they honestly think the consequences of evolution being true or the earth truly being ancient would be. That would be just the starting point of a series of serious and honest discussions that we need to have in order to get to the root causes of this entire brouhaha so that we can arrive at some kind of solution.And one of the first steps in such a solution would be for creationists to understand what creation is and must be (they add far too many extraneous requirements) and to stop redefining evolution into something that it clearly is not.

As Rrhain said, we've had this conversation many times already. And except for his pejorative spin on it he pretty much covered the issues.

By the "extraneous claims of YEC" I guess you mean particular arguments that don't derive directly from the Bible but give support to elements of the Biblical record, often the Young Earth timing. Any of these arguments could be wrong because they are humanly derived, so if the evidence really is good against them they should be dropped. However, even in these cases the rebuttals may not seem convincing to us so we want to wait until we have a better grasp of the whole subject before we drop it, because of our certainty that the Bible is God's truth.

In my case I have a couple of whole theories about how things worked from a YEC point of view in both biology and geology and since both subjects are fairly complex I'm not going to capitulate to any plausible-sounding rebuttal until I feel I've really mastered it. (I think Morton capitulated without any real reason to). All the snarky mean and usually totally uncomprehending rebuttals to my arguments only serve to keep me on my track too. I change parts of the argument that I decide are going in the wrong direction, but not the overall argument, as opponents make certain aspects of the situation clearer to me.

People who compromise the Bible to fit evolution into it are weak-minded people in my opinion who are selling out God's truth. Far better to take Kurt Wise's position that there seems to be a lot of evidence on the evolution side although he nevertheless believes God's word against it and hopes eventually to find a defense that works.

Many of the "extraneous" arguments have merit in any case. But there are rock-bottom points that cannot be surrendered because we know without a doubt that God has established them: Any accommodation to evolution that requires that death have entered the world before the Fall is wrong, and all the rationalizations dreamed up for it selling out Truth. Any accommodation that denies the worldwide Flood is wrong. Evolution from Species to Species is wrong in the first place since the Bible defines all living things as separately created after their own Kind, all at the same time at the Creation and not evolving from one another. These are nonnegotiables. There may be others escaping me at the moment.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by dwise1, posted 03-16-2018 5:37 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 584 by jar, posted 03-18-2018 7:35 AM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 584 of 591 (829940)
03-18-2018 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 583 by Faith
03-18-2018 5:24 AM


Re: Food For Thought
Faith writes:

But there are rock-bottom points that cannot be surrendered because we know without a doubt that God has established them: Any accommodation to evolution that requires that death have entered the world before the Fall is wrong, and all the rationalizations dreamed up for it selling out Truth. Any accommodation that denies the worldwide Flood is wrong. Evolution from Species to Species is wrong in the first place since the Bible defines all living things as separately created after their own Kind, all at the same time at the Creation and not evolving from one another. These are nonnegotiables.

And that is the very reason that your cult remains willfully ignorant and incapable of discriminating between knowledge and beliefs.

You worship your fantasy of a Bible and ignore what it actually says or actually is; placing the dogma of your cult above all honesty or reality and try to market a perverted Christianity.

There is no "Fall" in the Bible, only in the dogma of your cult; a cult that is totally a human creation.

There are two mutually exclusive accounts of the flood in the Bible and reality shows there was never a world-wide flood during the time humans existed.

The Bible has two mutually exclusive creation myths and both are factually incorrect and in fact impossible.

There is not even such a thing as "The Bible™" since various canons are as small as just five books to one canon that includes over 80 books.

These are all facts Faith and as such are supported by evidence and reality.

The Bible, regardless of which Bible is in question, is simply the product of human beings.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by Faith, posted 03-18-2018 5:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by Faith, posted 03-18-2018 7:52 AM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30034
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 585 of 591 (829941)
03-18-2018 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 584 by jar
03-18-2018 7:35 AM


Re: Food For Thought
Funny I thought the subject was why YECs do as we do, not your opinion of YECism.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 584 by jar, posted 03-18-2018 7:35 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 586 by jar, posted 03-18-2018 8:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 586 of 591 (829942)
03-18-2018 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 585 by Faith
03-18-2018 7:52 AM


Re: Food For Thought
You are correct but the topic is the marketing of Christianity. Why you do what you do explains why you are and will and must remain ignorant and mistaken.

That is not a matter of opinion but rather fact.

Edited by jar, : fix sentence


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by Faith, posted 03-18-2018 7:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
35363738
39
40Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018