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


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Creationist Shortage

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Shortage
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 415 (668117)
07-17-2012 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by marc9000
07-16-2012 8:26 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
and I've never met an evolutionist and have no idea what one might be
It depends, as always, on the definition of evolution that the atheist wants to use at any given time. Does it mean change over time? Then I’m an evolutionist. Does it mean, common descent-Genesis is wrong-there is no God? — as it almost always does? In that case I’m sure you’ve met many and have a very good idea of who is, and isn’t, an evolutionist.
What about me? I accept evolution, yet I believe in god, and I know that Genesis is wrong. Am I an evolutionist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by marc9000, posted 07-16-2012 8:26 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by marc9000, posted 07-17-2012 9:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 226 by Buzsaw, posted 07-18-2012 7:04 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 212 of 415 (668157)
07-17-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by crashfrog
07-16-2012 8:48 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
If I said that the Catholic sex abuse scandal had convinced me there was no god, would that be evidence that the purpose of Catholic sex abuse had been to advance atheism?
No. To come to that conclusion would have been the result of a very weak faith in God to begin with. It’s not something that you could have written a best selling book about.
Isn't it possible that people can be convinced that there's no god simply by the things that are true about the universe because there's no god, not because the expression of those truths is an agenda to turn people against god?
They could only be convinced of that if they thought that one time dimension and three space dimensions were all there is to reality. Christians believe there is more to reality. So by claiming something as universally true, without admitting that it’s only a belief within one limited worldview, it makes it highly probable that it is in fact an agenda to turn people against God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by crashfrog, posted 07-16-2012 8:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 07-17-2012 8:32 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2012 9:42 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 213 of 415 (668158)
07-17-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by dwise1
07-16-2012 8:52 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
marc, you repeatedly and persistently demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what atheism is nor how people become atheists. You need to learn, not to continue to stew in and spew your ignorant nonsense. Rather than continue to accept the lies that your church keeps telling you, go out and talk with atheists to see what they actually think and believe and how they had become atheists, for what reasons, and what had caused it. A good place for you to start would be the ex-Christian.net forum's testimonial section at http://www.ex-christian.net/...timonies-of-former-christians. Although it wouldn't come up in a search here on EVC, I'm positive that I have posted links to that forum several times before and I'm sure that some of those times have been in response to your clinging to your ignorance. Go forth and learn something for a change!
I learn most of what I know about evolutionists/atheists at these forums. And in the political action of atheism and the scientific community. I've no interest in the honeyed, politically correct mantra that atheists put fourth to try to hide their special interests. The church I go to says nothing about opposing views/politics. The books I've read by Henry Morris (The Long War Against God) and Pamela Winnick (Science's Crusade Against Religion) square with the reality I see in the real world.
marc, I'm quite certain that you will refuse to learn anything and will continue to cling desparately to your ignorance, so I'll conclude with a quote, reconstructed from memory, by a past Governor of Mississippi (circa 1990, give or take half a decade either way) who was defending his campaign for educational reform:
We know that ignorance doesn't work, because we've already tried it!
It's not unusual for atheists to put fourth similar rants to yours. If atheism "works" better than theism, why (since there is obviously more atheism in the U.S. today than ever before) is the U.S. more deeply in debt than ever before?
I actually don't want to discuss that here. I just hope you understand that your worldview isn't perfect, and it isn't something that should be forced on everyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by dwise1, posted 07-16-2012 8:52 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by dwise1, posted 07-18-2012 9:00 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 214 of 415 (668159)
07-17-2012 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by marc9000
07-17-2012 8:09 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
They could only be convinced of that if they thought that one time dimension and three space dimensions were all there is to reality. Christians believe there is more to reality. So by claiming something as universally true, without admitting that it’s only a belief within one limited worldview, it makes it highly probable that it is in fact an agenda to turn people against God.
The problem arises when the "more to reality" is actually a set of beliefs that runs contrary to the physical evidence. What to do then?
Should we not teach heliocentrism because some believe that heliocentrism indicates that there is no God? Should we teach that diseases are caused by germs instead of evil spirits as some believe? Should we not teach anything in science that might contradict a religious belief either held now, in the past, or possibly in the future? Can science teach anything without being accused of attacking someone's beliefs in the supernatural?
What you are pushing for is the protection of dogmatic religious beliefs against the things we discover in reality. I think you are fighting a losing battle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by marc9000, posted 07-17-2012 8:09 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 215 of 415 (668161)
07-17-2012 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by PaulK
07-17-2012 1:57 AM


Re: Wedge Document versus Book List
Of course it is quite easy to explain why the Wedge Document is significant evidence while your list of books is not.
1) Official document versus individuals
The Wedge Document was a product of the Discovery Institute, the leading ID organisation. It was intended for fund raising, thus it can be expected to accurately present the position of the organisation (if it significantly misrepresented it, that would be fraud).
Does/did the Discovery Institute claim it was it’s official document? Or was that determined by the courts? It wasn’t even intended to be made public, it was stolen and made public by two atheist whiz kids. Guess that wasn’t fraudulent.
2) Listing books versus direct quotes.
The Wedge Document is frequently quoted to prove the point. You just list the books on the assumption that something that proves your point must be in there.
I largely list them because of their authors. Their authors are often official spokesmen for the scientific community.
Expecting someone to read even one book to check whether it really does support your point is going too far - and not worth it. Because if they find nothing, what useful discussion can result from it ?
They don’t necessarily have to read the whole book. The title How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist makes my point well enough. It’s called evidence.
So clearly direct quotes from the Wedge Document are far better than your list of books. Your opinion that there MUST be something somewhere in one of those books is just your opinion. It isn't even evidence.
So you look at the titles and summaries of those books, note the names of the famous authors of them, several of them credentialed scientists, and you just can’t believe that there could possibly be a hint of a combination of science and atheism in them at all?
And if you read it, it says the only influence of evolution was to show that there was a viable non-theistic explanation for the diversity and complexity of life. And that was all that was keeping him in the Christian church.
Exactly — atheism, and no evidence, no need for God.
Here's the relevant part of your quote again:
quote:
"the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing."
Evolution undermined the one argument that kept him believing in a God and THAT is the only link he makes between evolution and atheism.
And that’s the only link I’m trying to show. What else did you think I was trying to show?
If Christianity really had a good case it wouldn't rest solely on the argument for design
It doesn’t! — but you’d have to look somewhere besides forums like this to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2012 1:57 AM PaulK has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 216 of 415 (668165)
07-17-2012 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Tangle
07-17-2012 3:49 AM


Re: What's the purpose here?
marc9000 writes:
Evolutionists don’t want to discuss some things about evolution. It’s not politically healthy for them. Admin knows that a sub-forum that welcomed discussion about the atheism in evolution could very well bring in too many creationists for these forums to handle. Combined with an exodus of atheists, it could very well close the forum.
This is cobblers. Evolution is a scientific study like organic chemistry or the physics of sound. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Nothing. You have a peculiarly American, parochial christian fundamentalist view of this. The rest of the world looks on you with vague puzzlement.
"Close the forum" was cobblers, I admit. But vague puzzlement — so you don’t believe that evolution is EVER used as a weapon against religion? You can look at the list of books I presented, then turn right around and claim that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion? The book list is actually evidence for it.
In Europe evolution and religion get along fine - even the Catholic church - the religion I was born into and happily practiced until my teens - accepts it. My own atheism is as a direct result of noticing that the emperor had no clothes - that it was a blindingly obvious myth.
Evolution and religion always get along fine when religion is in the back seat, and evolution is doing the driving. I’m not Catholic, and don’t believe in their compromises with the atheistic scientific community. It seems to result in more atheism, and the political liberalism that goes along with it. There's even evidence for it.
I heard about evolution two years later and didn't even make the link to religion until my (Catholic) biology teacher when introducing the subject of eveolution pointed out that whilst it was different to the Genesis story it was an even greater proof of God's design. (A point that went straight over my teenage head.)
Don’t feel bad, compromises of Christianity with the ToE goes over lots of heads, resulting in increases in atheism. And biology teachers know that.
As for not wishing to discuss atheism in evolution, you're crazy - we're doing it now, start a thread and we'll all pile in.
I’ve no doubt that there will be a lot of piling in.
It might be short lived because it's silly and mistaken, but it will get discussed. Quit whining about forum headings and get on with it.
It will happen in the coming days. See below.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Tangle, posted 07-17-2012 3:49 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Tangle, posted 07-18-2012 3:35 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 217 of 415 (668166)
07-17-2012 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Panda
07-17-2012 5:35 AM


Re: What's the purpose here?
Which is you confirming that you have only read 1 of the 14 books you listed.
If you can't be bothered to read the books, then why should I?
And even if I did, you could not discuss their contents, because you haven't read them.
All I have to do is glance at the reviews and draw upon my knowledge of Stenger’s book, and see that many posters here have thoroughly read the books. The evolutionist/atheist talking points here are all so similar, they have to have a common origin!
marc9000 writes:
7-7-12) this thread, with no new references to the book list.
Which is patently not true.
This becomes obvious when we realise that you are replying to a post discussing your book list!
It was a copy of his previous response, so it was not new! If you’re referring to your current post, you should realize that I was only referring to what was current at that time, not the future. (I love this place)
So...you have a list of books you haven't read. Great!
But I think you'll find that this list refutes your list:
Wild, By Cheryl Strayed
Unbroken, By Laura Hillenbrand
The Amateur, By Edward Klein
Killing Lincoln, By Bill O'reilly And Martin Dugard
Gone Girl, By Gillian Flynn
The Next Best Thing, By Jennifer Weiner
Wicked Business, By Janet Evanovich
Criminal, By Karin Slaughter
Bloodline, By James Rollins
In The Garden Of Beasts, By Erik Larson
(I haven't read them all, but I am sure they contain stuff that counters your arguments.)
You wouldn’t know that by their titles or their authors, would you? I’m sure you’re trying to get giggles from your fellow atheists, but you’re not doing much to boost your credibility with anyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Panda, posted 07-17-2012 5:35 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2012 9:00 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 218 of 415 (668170)
07-17-2012 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by marc9000
07-17-2012 8:55 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
You wouldn’t know that by their titles or their authors, would you?
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by marc9000, posted 07-17-2012 8:55 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 219 of 415 (668171)
07-17-2012 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Percy
07-17-2012 9:24 AM


Re: What's the purpose here?
Hi Marc,
Crash already said it, but it bears saying again. Sure science causes atheism. This is because the more we know the more it conflicts with ideas that are wrong, and science is a great way of identifying ideas that are wrong.
IF your worldview tells you that one time dimension and three space dimensions are all there are to reality, that is. If that’s your belief, you also can’t believe in the resurrection of Christ, can you?
But science doesn't teach there is no God. It simply reveals, for example, that the Earth is billions of years old, not thousands, and that therefore Biblical literalism is wrong. The conclusions one draws from this knowledge are highly individualistic, but that there is no God is certainly one of the many possible.
--Percy
I’m glad you checked in — while Modulous gave me two good existing thread examples for places to further discuss evolution/atheism, I accidentally stumbled upon another (started by you in early 2009, 21 pages, largely off topic, but the thread is still open) that would be the best place for me to make some points I’ve never seen made here before. There were a few good points there by creationists, but I believe I can go much further than they did. I’ll be quoting your opening post. Look for that bump in the coming days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 07-17-2012 9:24 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 07-18-2012 6:57 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 220 of 415 (668172)
07-17-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by New Cat's Eye
07-17-2012 10:43 AM


Re: What's the purpose here?
What about me? I accept evolution, yet I believe in god, and I know that Genesis is wrong. Am I an evolutionist?
Why yes, I would say you probably are! I hope you'll join in the upcoming discussion that I referenced in message 219.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-17-2012 10:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2012 9:49 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 221 of 415 (668182)
07-18-2012 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by marc9000
07-17-2012 8:50 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
marc9000 writes:
so you don’t believe that evolution is EVER used as a weapon against religion? You can look at the list of books I presented, then turn right around and claim that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion? The book list is actually evidence for it.
A gun can be used to bring food to the table or murder a neighbour.
Some people - a very few people - both disagree with religion and have made an excellent living at it. They write books about atheism and one of the things they write is that evolution disproves the Genesis stories. Which it does. You really have to get over that simple fact and move on.
Us atheists have had to put up with the blithering nonsense written by millions of people and practiced in our churches (several of which are planted in every town and village in my country and yours), media, street corners and schools for our entire lives. Please don't complain that a handful of individuals are now saying things YOU don't like. People are free to choose what they believe, even in the USA I think.
But don't blame it on evolution - evolution is simply a fact of our world that can't be denied by anyone that isn't opposed to it as a matter of dogma.
I can't speak for all atheists, but all the ones I know bacame atheists because they saw through the nonsense, not because they learned about evolution.
I also know few fundamantalists. Here in the UK they are fairly scarce, the majority of Christians here have a very mild kind of religious belief - what you call compromise. But on the contrary, their beliefs are in no way compromised by science's adavances.
Your use of the word 'evolutionist' is similar to earlier Christian's use of the word 'heretic' - a thought crime punishable by burning. An evolutionist, if it means anything, refers to a biologist who specialises in the study of evolution, it is not a general statement to be applied to someone who also happens to be an atheist. It's not a synonym. You may as well call atheists biochemists, plumbers or car mechanics - it makes as much sense.
It's possible to be a believer in your God and accept evolution and most of the world does. It's also possible to accept evolution and have no views about god. It's also possible to be a real evolutionist and believe in your god and it's probable that 80% of them do.
I doubt though that it's possible to be a biologist and refuse evolution - that would be like a physicist denying Newtonian gravity; simply a denial of straight facts.
Another inconvenient fact for you is that the owner of this forum, Percy, is both a Christian and what you erroniously call an evolutionist. (Though, he may actually be an evolutionist - a real biologist that is, for all I know.) This forum is built to debate exactly these issues so to claim that the forum is afraid to debate them is pretty much as wrong as it's possible to get - even for a creationist.
Don’t feel bad, compromises of Christianity with the ToE goes over lots of heads, resulting in increases in atheism. And biology teachers know that.
Don't worry, I don't feel bad about it at all - like I said, my atheism resulted from a reverse revelation, not because a biology teacher said something weird about his personal beliefs.
You are railing at evolution and as though it alone was the cause of people's rejection of your myths - it ain't it's just one of the many bullets.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by marc9000, posted 07-17-2012 8:50 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-18-2012 3:50 AM Tangle has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 222 of 415 (668184)
07-18-2012 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Tangle
07-18-2012 3:35 AM


The state of the Percy
I believe Percy considers himself to be a deist. Which, from my perspective, is damn close to atheist.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Tangle, posted 07-18-2012 3:35 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Tangle, posted 07-18-2012 4:37 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 223 of 415 (668187)
07-18-2012 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Minnemooseus
07-18-2012 3:50 AM


Re: The state of the Percy
I believe Percy considers himself to be a deist. Which, from my perspective, is damn close to atheist.
If true, i apologise for my appalling slander.
It changes nought much in the sentence though.....A deist believes in god(s), an atheist doesn't. This forum was created to discuss those two opposites and all the ground in between.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-18-2012 3:50 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-18-2012 5:04 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 224 of 415 (668188)
07-18-2012 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Tangle
07-18-2012 4:37 AM


Re: The state of the Percy
The relevant topic is probably I Am Not An Atheist!, started by Percy.
A related topic: Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? started by Minnemooseus
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add second paragraph and topic link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Tangle, posted 07-18-2012 4:37 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 225 of 415 (668191)
07-18-2012 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by marc9000
07-17-2012 9:00 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
marc9000 writes:
IF your worldview tells you that one time dimension and three space dimensions are all there are to reality, that is. If that’s your belief, you also can’t believe in the resurrection of Christ, can you?
My worldview is that evidence is the best way to understand the nature of the universe. Objects and events (in other words, things that exist and things that happen) leave evidence behind.
There are some things I believe exist for which there is no evidence, such as God, but if I were to get into an argument with an atheist over the existence of God and he said that there's no evidence I would heartily agree with him. And since the atheist and I both understand that science is tentative, neither of us would hold a worldview that one time dimension and three space dimensions must be all there is to reality. I"m sure few atheists here hold any scientific viewpoint as inviolate.
But we do have evidence of an ancient Earth, and of one time dimension and at least three space dimensions, which is more than you can say for a six-thousand year-old Earth or the resurrection of Christ, and that's all that really matters. If it makes you feel better to say that it isn't impossible that the Earth is six-thousand years old or that Christ was resurrected then that's fine, and I think we would likely all agree with you that it isn't impossible, but any claims that the evidence supports such views are simply wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by marc9000, posted 07-17-2012 9:00 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by marc9000, posted 07-20-2012 11:05 PM Percy 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