Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 358 (645266)
12-24-2011 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by agent_509
12-24-2011 8:15 PM


Re: Welcome back!
But not very surprising.
Think back to when you wandered in here.
What is sad at least to me, is that your experience was so totally unnecessary. What seems so often to create "atheists" is that almost everything taught by the CCoI is so false that anyone like you that stops and examines what is being taught, whether it is the science or the theology, really has no choice but to reject both.
All I can tell you is that the Christianity that was marketed to you is not the only Christianity out there.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 8:15 PM agent_509 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 8:35 PM jar has replied

  
agent_509
Junior Member (Idle past 4469 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 05-22-2010


Message 47 of 358 (645269)
12-24-2011 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
12-24-2011 8:31 PM


Re: Welcome back!
I'm well aware that there are other Christianities out there, and I've looked at many different ones, as well as different other religions, but none stand up. As I believe I mentioned before examining the facts and coming to accept ToE was a result of becoming an atheist, not the reason I became an atheist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 12-24-2011 8:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 12-24-2011 8:40 PM agent_509 has not replied
 Message 51 by xongsmith, posted 12-24-2011 10:33 PM agent_509 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 48 of 358 (645270)
12-24-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by agent_509
12-24-2011 8:35 PM


Re: Welcome back!
And as I said up thread, you becoming an atheist is fine, in fact I would say that atheism is the more reasonable, logical and consistent position; I just think it is also wrong. But unless and until someone is presented with sufficient evidence to convince them that GOD exists, atheism is certainly a defensible position.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 8:35 PM agent_509 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 49 of 358 (645273)
12-24-2011 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dawn Bertot
12-24-2011 6:32 PM


Re: Welcome back!
Pressie writes (in Message 27):
Creationists always tell untruths. Always.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Since creationism is an evaluation of the real world concerning its origin and derives all its conclusions in a scientific manner, it follows that your above request is an absurdity
Well, that's one way of providing support for the claim that Pressie made.

Christianity claims the moral high ground it its rhetoric. It has long since abandoned the moral high ground in its practices

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2011 6:32 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(5)
Message 50 of 358 (645278)
12-24-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by agent_509
12-24-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Welcome back!
Just a friendly tip; don't get too involved with Dawn. You'll find he's barely literate and a font of ignorance and misunderstanding about science, reason and just about everything else related in any meaningful way to the real world.
But he can be a fun toy to bat about a bit if you're into that kind of thing.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 7:57 PM agent_509 has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 51 of 358 (645279)
12-24-2011 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by agent_509
12-24-2011 8:35 PM


Re: Welcome back!
agent_509 writes:
I'm well aware that there are other Christianities out there, and I've looked at many different ones, as well as different other religions, but none stand up.
While I am agreeing with you in general, this could turn into a nice off-topic thread elsewhere in EvC. What are those Christianities that even make the best effort at standing up to the reality? Hmmm.......food for thought. Not my cup of tea, per se, but maybe something for others here.
continuing:
not the reason I became an atheist
where would you place yourself on the dreaded Dawkins Scale now? (See my sig)
  1. Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (logically invalid position)
  2. Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
  3. Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
  4. Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
  5. Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
  6. Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
  7. Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)
Welcome back!

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 8:35 PM agent_509 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by subbie, posted 12-24-2011 10:46 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 53 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 11:09 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 52 of 358 (645280)
12-24-2011 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by xongsmith
12-24-2011 10:33 PM


Re: Welcome back!
I'd suggest that you modify your Dawkins Scale to reflect the fact that the claims of logically valid and invalid do not come from Dawkins. At least, I don't think it does, since he considers himself a 6.9.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by xongsmith, posted 12-24-2011 10:33 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 12-25-2011 2:12 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
agent_509
Junior Member (Idle past 4469 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 05-22-2010


(1)
Message 53 of 358 (645285)
12-24-2011 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by xongsmith
12-24-2011 10:33 PM


Re: Welcome back!
I'm probably about a 6. I feel there is probably no god/gods, but I accept that there very well could be, and am completely open to the idea if evidence is presented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by xongsmith, posted 12-24-2011 10:33 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 54 of 358 (645289)
12-25-2011 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by agent_509
12-24-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Welcome back!
ROFL, are you thinking of the same definition of creationism everyone else is?
No-one really knows what Dawn is thinking, as the superficial incoherence of his language tends to obscure the more fundamental incoherence of his thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 7:57 PM agent_509 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by agent_509, posted 12-25-2011 11:26 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(4)
Message 55 of 358 (645292)
12-25-2011 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by subbie
12-24-2011 10:46 PM


Re: Welcome back!
Not only do those labels not come from Dawkins, they don't even make sense. Logical validity refers to the form of an argument. It can't reasonably be applied to a position (even if the position were self-contradictory it would be more correctly be labelled as logically incoherent, but none of the positions listed are detailed enough for that to be a real possibility)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by subbie, posted 12-24-2011 10:46 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 1753 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 56 of 358 (645293)
12-25-2011 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by subbie
12-24-2011 5:43 PM


Re: Welcome back!
subbie writes:
Isn't it curious. I've seen many stories from people who turned away from creationism and accepted science after they stopped simply believing what others told them and looked at the evidence themselves. I've never seen one story about anyone who turned away from science to creationism because the evidence told them so. The closest I can think of is Kurt Wise, but he's the first to admit that he believes the bible despite the evidence, not because of it.
Can anyone point me to a scientist who turned from science to creationism because that's where they believed the evidence led them?
Ironically, Answers in Genesis only just this past week featured yet another poster boy for "I Have Seen The LightTM!", purportedly documenting Frantiek Vyskočil's conversion from atheistic science to Biblical creationism.
Needless to say, the article is chock-full of misrepresentations of evolution, along with the usual personal incredulity and creationist buzzwords ("amazing complexity", "blind chance", "true science", etc.) that go with it.

DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 12-24-2011 5:43 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 57 of 358 (645294)
12-25-2011 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
12-24-2011 7:15 PM


Something about this sentence...
There is something about this sentence...I can't quite put a finger on it...
quote:
all reasoning to proper conclusions is science...
Personally, I believe that God exists. I believe that He has taken the time(since He owns all of it anyway) to have a personal relationship with we humans. I see no problem with using our minds. I also see no conflict between having a belief in a relationship with God and the science of evolution.
I only have one question for Dawn. What is the definition of a proper conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2011 7:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Larni, posted 12-25-2011 8:07 AM Phat has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(4)
Message 58 of 358 (645301)
12-25-2011 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Phat
12-25-2011 4:51 AM


Re: Something about this sentence...
I only have one question for Dawn. What is the definition of a proper conclusion?
One that ends with his god being real. That's why the charge of creos ignoring evidence and lying is so apt.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Phat, posted 12-25-2011 4:51 AM Phat has not replied

  
agent_509
Junior Member (Idle past 4469 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 05-22-2010


Message 59 of 358 (645305)
12-25-2011 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dr Adequate
12-25-2011 1:00 AM


Re: Welcome back!
I see I'll keep that in mind

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-25-2011 1:00 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 60 of 358 (645451)
12-27-2011 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by agent_509
12-24-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Welcome back!
creationism conclusions are derived from the bible
No Agent, creationism is a simple logical proposition derived from the ONLY two logical possibilites, of the existence of things, and the only two that existence will allows us, as an explanation.
Both of which are derived from a scientific evaluation of physical properties and then conclusions of those evaluations
The Bible is an illustration of a greater proposition, which states that it is very much possible, given the only two possibilites of things in existence, that things were created or made
That very much acceptable proposition is not derived JUST from scripture, but observation and reason initially
Dont confuse the Process of evolution, which is only an explantion of how things WORK, with creationism, the explanation of the origin of things, from only two logical propositions
Evolution has nothing to with the ultimate origin of things, it is only a possible explanation of how things work, not an explantion for the existence of things as a whole
Most of these fellas here will try and lump the two together and try to make people believe they have offered an explantion for the origin of things, by explaining evolution. They havent
Again, creationism is at its heart a logical proposition about the origin of anything. But it derives its conclusions from the very existence of things, in the same way a conclusion of soley natural clauses, derives it conclusions
Neither is provable, but both are logical and demonstratable. these are the kind of facts they dont want you to hear, Agent
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 7:57 PM agent_509 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 1:38 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 64 by DWIII, posted 12-27-2011 9:04 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 65 by jar, posted 12-27-2011 10:23 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 66 by Tangle, posted 12-27-2011 5:18 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024