Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 31 of 142 (500783)
03-02-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
03-01-2009 8:16 AM


Re: that debunikg movie, it's already here.
Hi Percy, Thanks for your clarifications on the rebuttal film.
For those who have an interest here's the NCSE page on 25 ways to support science education.
Page not found | National Center for Science Education
Threads that help out quite a bit are focused presentations of data with explanations for the layman like RAZD's collection of independent physical data that correlate with one another about the age of the earth.
The creationist attack and way of thinking is a scattered approach at present. Trying to find fault with this fact or that and provide a seemingly valid alternate interpretation. Those rebuttals are easily dismantled by scientists but the layman is often left in the dark unable to understand how the creationist argument is flawed. Perceiving science as atheistic they continue to march behind creationism. Most people, I hope, 'get it' that science has to leave 'God' out of the equation simply because there is no way to collect evidence one way or the other for 'God' or any involement by the same on any level. This does nor mean science is anti-religion, it merely means it cannot address the issue.
The problem that remains for creationism is that 'allowing for the sake of argument' that their individual reinterpretation of individual facts were 'correct' they still don't make any sense when taken together as a whole. There is no cohesive creationist model that addresses all the known facts in any intelligible manner. It is all a mixture of ad-hoc nonsense plied together to support a particular view or literal approach to the scriptures. They are guilty of what they accuse the scientific community of - interpreting facts to support a pre-existing model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 03-01-2009 8:16 AM Percy has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 32 of 142 (500791)
03-02-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by shalamabobbi
03-02-2009 1:14 PM


The creationist
The creationist believes that God created in the begining and that all variation and changes we see today stem from the one time origial creation of all things. We do not believe that God is zapping changes or adding new creatures etc...at this point in time. We believe birds have always been birds, apes have always been apes, fish have always been fish, etc. This is supported in the fossil record. But I understand that you do not wish to discuss this here, so I won't.
In answer to your question, what would I do if macroevolution were proven true, would I compromise my faith? The answer is no. If macroevolution were true, I would have to abandon my faith in the God of the Bible. The way I see it, if God can't be accurate in what he has revealed historically or scientifically, I would have no reason to trust what he has said spiritually speaking either. I mean, if God doesn't know that the earth is not flat or that he did not create life instantly, then he doesn't know much of anything, right? How could I put my faith in His promise to raise me from the dead as He did Jesus Christ when the source of this truth is so filled with error?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-02-2009 1:14 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 2:59 PM Kelly has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 142 (500795)
03-02-2009 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Kelly
03-02-2009 2:27 PM


Re: The creationist
In answer to your question, what would I do if macroevolution were proven true, would I compromise my faith? The answer is no. If macroevolution were true, I would have to abandon my faith in the God of the Bible. The way I see it, if God can't be accurate in what he has revealed historically or scientifically, I would have no reason to trust what he has said spiritually speaking either. I mean, if God doesn't know that the earth is not flat or that he did not create life instantly, then he doesn't know much of anything, right? How could I put my faith in His promise to raise me from the dead as He did Jesus Christ when the source of this truth is so filled with error?
You should propose a new topic on this too.
This is absolutely horrible theology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 2:27 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 3:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 34 of 142 (500797)
03-02-2009 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
03-02-2009 2:59 PM


seriously now...
are you serious?
I feel that I am answering shalamabobbi's question and you are telling me I am still off topic? Are you sure about that? And where did I offer any theology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 3:27 PM Kelly has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 142 (500799)
03-02-2009 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Kelly
03-02-2009 3:06 PM


Re: seriously now...
I feel that I am answering shalamabobbi's question and you are telling me I am still off topic?
It doesn't matter if someone asks or not. Usually, some side conversations don't really disrupt the topic and are okay for a while. When they start dominating the posts they become "too" off-topic.
You're post could very well be in that "okay" zone, but if I respond to your feelings on evolution destroying your faith, then I feel like that would be taking it too far off topic. And then if you responded back to me we would not be talking about "Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism" at all so we'd definately be off topic. I was just trying to be a little pro-active and not even get that ball rolling.
And where did I offer any theology?
Theology is specifically the study of religions but, generally, any talk about gods can be considered theology.
By theology I was referring to when you said that if evolution was proven to you then you'd loose your faith in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 3:06 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2009 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 37 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 3:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 36 of 142 (500805)
03-02-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
03-02-2009 3:27 PM


The Effect of Evidence on Faith
Hey CS
Why don't you propose a topic relating to the effects of evidence on belief and then invite Kelly along for the ride?
I think it would make a really good topic. What would be the effect of abiogenesis, evolution or the BB (for example) being demonstrated in such a way as to make denial all but impossible?
What effect, if any, should and/or does evidence have on faith?
I have done this sort of topic from the more atheistic perspective previously ("Rationalising the Irrational" thread) but to have it covered from the theistic angle would, I think, be very interesting. I would be more of an interested spectator in such a topic.
You get my vote as being the man for the job......Your mission should you choose to accept it.................?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 3:51 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 40 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 3:52 PM Straggler has replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 37 of 142 (500806)
03-02-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
03-02-2009 3:27 PM


shalamabobbi specifically restated the topic of his thread
He did so by asking me this question:
If you do not accept the ToE completely, then this thread for you is about how accepting the entire theory, macro as well as micro, would affect your current theology. Would you modify it or feel that atheism was the only viable alternative left?
I answered him as best as I could. If anyone got any ball rolling, it was shalamabobbi. Since this is his topic, he should know how he wants to discuss it.
I think there are too many limits to discussion here. This inhibits good debate. Maybe no one here is really interested in debate, but rather, simply wants to further perpetuate the indoctrination of a theory they prefer.
Shalamabobbi indicates that those who are willing to compromise their faith are somehow the open-minded and therefore better thinkers. But I disagree. I am showing why compromise is actually done because one hasn't really thought it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 3:53 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2009 3:55 PM Kelly has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 38 of 142 (500808)
03-02-2009 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Kelly
03-02-2009 12:06 PM


Re: That modification has already occured
quote:
It is called theistic evolution, where the believer compromises his faith in order to be in harmony with the evolutionary science he has been indoctrinated with all his life. But this is not necessary. We are not rejecting microevolution. We agree that there is great variety and diversity among species and within species. We disagree at the point where it is claimed that one species has morphed into an entirely new species. Also, we don't teach science in church any more than we should teach religion in a science class.
Do you realize that James Orr, one of the authors of the Fundamentals (from which "fundamentalism" derives its name) was a theistic evolutionist? And that B.B. Warfield (champion of biblical inerrancy) was as well? And that G.F. Wright (another of the original fundamentalists) was open to the idea? I don't think these men fit your characterization of theistic evolutionists as "compromising their faith".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 12:06 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 4:03 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 03-02-2009 6:30 PM kbertsche has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 142 (500809)
03-02-2009 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Straggler
03-02-2009 3:38 PM


Re: The Effect of Evidence on Faith
Why don't you propose a topic relating to the effects of evidence on belief and then invite Kelly along for the ride?
Because I suck at it and it takes too long.
I feel like I'm better at responding than starting.
I think it would make a really good topic. What would be the effect of abiogenesis, evolution or the BB (for example) being demonstrated in such a way as to make denial all but impossible?
I agree that it would be good and would participate.
I just don't know how to start it off properly.
You get my vote as being the man for the job......Your mission should you choose to accept it.................?
Hopefully sombody else will start it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2009 3:38 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 40 of 142 (500810)
03-02-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Straggler
03-02-2009 3:38 PM


Re: The Effect of Evidence on Faith
That would become so complicated, and the minute I would start expressing that faith is based in evidence according to Scripture, everyone would be screaming that I am once again off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2009 3:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2009 3:59 PM Kelly has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 142 (500811)
03-02-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Kelly
03-02-2009 3:39 PM


Re: shalamabobbi specifically restated the topic of his thread
Well shit. I guess he changed the topic.
I think there are too many limits to discussion here. This inhibits good debate. Maybe no one here is really interested in debate, but rather, simply wants to further perpetuate the indoctrination of a theory they prefer.
This is the best debate site on the internet and part of that is due to focused topics. Being "too" focused could be a problem, but not being focused enough is worse. Its a tough line to follow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 3:39 PM Kelly has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 42 of 142 (500812)
03-02-2009 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Kelly
03-02-2009 3:39 PM


Re: shalamabobbi specifically restated the topic of his thread
I think there are too many limits to discussion here. This inhibits good debate. Maybe no one here is really interested in debate, but rather, simply wants to further perpetuate the indoctrination of a theory they prefer.
if you stick it out I think you will find that the opposite is true.
Trying to cover every topic in every discussion just becomes a method of avoiding really thinking any single issue through.
Is the evidence for evolution equally as subjective as that for creationism?
Does the appearance of design necessarily equate to actual design?
What is abiogenesis and is it the same theory as evolution?
What evidence is there for the Big Bang?
Is prediction a necessary component of the scientific method?
Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
None of these questions (or the multitude of other examples that could have been given) can be done justice if every discussion just flits around as every given individual promotes their pet idea regardless of specific relevance.
Stick around. Apart from anything else the creationist contingent need all the help they can get....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 3:39 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 4:07 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 43 of 142 (500814)
03-02-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Kelly
03-02-2009 3:52 PM


Re: The Effect of Evidence on Faith
That would become so complicated, and the minute I would start expressing that faith is based in evidence according to Scripture, everyone would be screaming that I am once again off topic.
No. Not at all. It just needs to be in the right place. The Faith and Bleief forum is the obvious place for such a topic.
Scripture as evidence and related debate is very very much par for the course there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 3:52 PM Kelly has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 44 of 142 (500815)
03-02-2009 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by kbertsche
03-02-2009 3:51 PM


Re: That modification has already occured
Those who adhere to a theistic evolutionary viewpoint have reduced the Bible to being nothing more than an allegory or a non-literal work. They think everything in the bible is therefore just symbolic. True fundamentalists believe that Scripture is meant to be taken literally, except where instructed by the content to take it otherwise. If the creation story is not literal then how does one know what is literal (if anything) in Scripture? Was Jesus a literal person? How does one know the difference between what is literla or symbolic if not through the actual context of the Scripture itself? If Jesus is not literal, then is our salvation literal? Is Heaven Literal? Do you see the problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2009 3:51 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 4:31 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 4:52 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 03-02-2009 6:32 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 51 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-02-2009 6:44 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 58 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2009 9:14 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 60 by GDR, posted 03-02-2009 9:42 PM Kelly has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 45 of 142 (500816)
03-02-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Straggler
03-02-2009 3:55 PM


From what I can tell
There are no creationists here besides myself. Of course they need help then. But I can see that it would become a huge headache for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2009 3:55 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024