Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

I wonder if you'd consider opening or participating in a thread to address that very question. My understanding is that there's no real evidence even for the historical existence of Jesus Christ, much less his resurrection - just evidence of people reading scriptures that say he lived and died, and believing those scriptures even unto martyrdom. (Of course, every religion has its martyrs.)I'm willing to grant you the presumption of an interventionist, albeit not necessarily Christian, God. In other words I'd grant you that the resurrection of Christ is a historical possibility, so long as you'll grant that if it did occur, it's surely an extraordinary occurrence, not an ordinary one. I contend that outside the Bible and other motivated religious scripture there is none at all, whatsoever. It's always rational to assert the least number of unnecessary entities. Since we've observed the random interaction of atoms and molecules give rise to complexity - directly observed it - it's not irrational to conclude that such interactions gave rise to complexity in the past, even in the distant past, with ultimately all living species being the result. Aside from the inherent irrationality of a religion of miracles, if there's no evidence for the central claims of Christianity, faith in Christianity must be inherently irrational.

I don't see any evidence given whatsoever at that link. I see a great deal of evidence that early Christians believed that Jesus was resurrected, or at least were saying that he was.And there's absolutely no evidence at that link for an actual historical Jesus. If Jesus never lived, he can hardly be said to have lived again.So far you're just confirming my impression that there's absolutely no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus or the resurrection.

The oldest of that material nonetheless dates to eight decades after the time Jesus supposedly lived. 80 years! Nobody who wrote those materials could have possibly been an eye-witness to those events, if they even occurred.Isn't that strange? That the revolutionary ministry of an incredibly influential and charismatic Jewish minister, amidst one of the world's greatest and most widespread bureaucracy, went completely unrecorded? That the bureaucracy executed him, via a means reserved for those the Romans wished to make a public spectacle of, and it made no impression at all on anyone who lived and wrote at the time?Sorry. This isn't a topic for the evolution section, we've careened widely off-topic. But can you understand my skepticism, at least, and how I need more than what N.T. Wright provides, which is nothing at all? But that's true of any mythical figure. Yet, mythical figures have been fabricated. Indeed you must believe that all the other religions have fabricated their messiahs; otherwise, why would you not be a Buddhist, or a Muslim? Alive, and had been at Joseph of Aramethea's tomb? Alive to remember it 80 years later? Almost nobody lived that long in the ancient world. Remember, this is the year 33 AD we're supposedly talking about. Average adult life expectancy was approximately 50 years, assuming you survived infancy. When Jesus supposedly rose from the dead, he appeared to at least one but no more than four people (the Gospels are contradictory on this point.)By the time the legend of Jesus was being leveraged to create a new religion, there would have been nobody in a position to contradict the Mark account.

But one whom you don't believe. One whose miracles you reject. One whose ministry you don't accept.The point is, you don't just go around accepting the existence of mythical figures all willy-nilly (unless the mythical figure is Jesus), because you understand that people actually can and have put in the effort to fabricate mythical figures.I mean, how do you explain all the Scientologists, otherwise? Surely you're not saying there really was a Xenu?

I don't. I don't have faith in anything.Faith is irrational, and I choose to live without it. I have trust in certain things, but only because they've earned my trust by being reliable.Faith and trust are not the same thing. Oh, I'm sorry. Weren't you asserting "overwhelming evidence" in favor of your beliefs not two days ago? Now you're back to the "nobody knows for sure, so I'll just choose to believe whatever I want" standard. That's fine, but let's call that what it is - wishful thinking.

I don't have "faith in nothing." I lack faith. I'm faithless.Don't strain your mind thinking about how to play word games with that; just accept that I'm living proof that you were wrong about how "everyone has faith in something." I don't. He wouldn't like it, and I wouldn't like doing it? No faith required to be a good or moral person.

No, you're wrong. I don't have any faith at all in that - I'm constantly under the suspicion that my sense of right and wrong might itself be wrong.Like I said - don't play wordgames. Just accept that I lack any kind of faith, in anything. I have trust, not faith.

Then it's not a function of evidence at all, but a matter of you simply choosing to believe that which makes you feel better about your place and importance in the universe, isn't it?Isn't that just wishful thinking? Isn't that just a head-long leap to the conclusion that you want to be true?Let me ask you this - suppose it were true that life was the result of chance chemistry - a stoichiometric and apparently unlikely outcome of unguided interactions of molecules. Suppose it were true that human thought was an entirely physical process of an entirely physical universe.What evidence would you find convincing of this fundamental truth? What evidence would it take for you to give up wishful thinking and your faith in the Christian God? Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I think the question is not why you think DevilsA should believe in God, but why you seem to think you should.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Why? Why do you think you get a pass for irrational belief?

Considering that's what I just asked you, it seems a little silly of you to ask.You appear to be under the strange impression that your assertions about what exists in the universe are immune from challenge so long as you can pretend you're not asking anyone else to be convinced by them.If that's not the case, then how do you explain your repeated evasion on precisely that basis?

I'm not doing that. I'm questioning whether you have justification for believing what you do.You've not made the case that you do. I don't think you can demand a pass on that.

Then I don't think you should get to pass yourself off as anything but a fundamentally deluded person.

To the contrary. Part of thinking in a scientific way is establishing precisely what evidentiary criteria it would take to cause you to change your mind. Indeed almost every evolutionist has, at one point, told creationists what evidence they would need to present to cause them to change their minds. (J.B.S. Haldane once famously quipped "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian", and that's certainly something that would necessitate a complete re-evaluation of the science of evolution if it were found.)Not once has any creationist, to my knowledge, put forth the criteria that they would find convincing against creationism. Because for creationists it's not a belief about the evidence, it's a belief about religion. You can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't arrive at by reason.That's one prominent way that those on the evolutionist side think differently than creationists. Which actions, specifically? Are you referring to the murders you seem to think scientists take part in? Why don't you present some, then, and see if your prediction holds true? Isn't it possible that the reason no evidence for a "young Earth" has ever convinced any scientist is because that evidence has always been found to be flawed, or an outright fabrication? (For instance, "human" footprints next to dinosaur footprints.) Because there was substantial evidence that Behe was lying. That he had perjured himself before the court. That he had ignored evidence that conflicted with his religious views. That his so-called "science" of ID was nothing more than religion under another name.That was the finding of a conservative, Republican, Christian judge. Hardly someone we would expect to be biased against creationism, but because the judge was an honest person who honestly weighed the evidence before him, he was forced to conclude that:

quote:

---

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.

---

What's your evidence that he erred in coming to this conclusion?

Isn't it possible that it is? I mean, look around this forum and gauge the general level of scientific expertise among the prominent creationists and then gauge it among their evolutionist counterparts.I mean, on one hand we have you, whose knowledge of science is at a junior high level at best, and then there's me, a senior undergraduate biochemistry major. There's Buzsaw, who has no formal science training any of us have been able to discern, and the cranky Minnemooseus, a geology professor at the University of Minnesota.I'm not cherry-picking examples except to pick individuals whose biography I can remember offhand. If you'd like to do a more formal survey I think you'd find the pattern holds, though. The Discovery Institute's famous lists of "scientists" who "doubt evolution" rarely contains any actual biologists, its invariably engineers and doctors (who aren't really scientists at all.) You're right. There's been two centuries of scientific advancement since Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection has had to expand in order to account for new observations (not least of which, the entire science of genetics.) But it's a testament to the robustness of the original theory that evolution by natural selection and random mutation has been able to account for all biological observation. Liberation from what? Religion has never posed any obstacle to people's political and sexual desires. Catholics are still strong liberal voters. Ted Haggard had no trouble preaching sexual "morality" while engaging in meth-fueled trysts with gay prostitutes. The highest rates of divorce in America are in the highly-religious southern states.Revolutionizing the science of biology just to get some space to get your jollies off - you can't really expect us to believe that's how it works, do you? How can that seem reasonable to you? Darwin labored over "On the Origin of Species" for over ten years. That's a bit far to go just for some kinky sex, isn't it? Especially since there's no indication that Darwin was anything but a devoted family man? Why do all that work just for "sexual liberation" and then not take advantage of it? The friskiest teenagers in the country, by rate of STD transmission and extramarital pregnancy, are the conservative, Creationist teens. How does that square with your notion of evolution as a means of sexual liberation? The points have been comprehensively addressed. Since by your own admission creationists have no new evidence, what's left to do but point them to the archive and ridicule them as they go? When our opponents - such as yourself - insist on offering risible notions (like that of a scientific conspiracy dedicated to the murder of creationists) why isn't derision a reasonable response? And enjoys the benefits. But you're the one claiming that it's "an instrument of liberation, a philosophy of meaninglessness."