Summations Only

This forum IS a on a mobile platform. I'm accessing it now on an iPad from Cyprus. I quite often do drop in whilst on a train going into London. I wouldn't worry too much about the platform - content is still king.

I think moderation on this forum is rather well balanced. It allows people of all different views to express their perspective without censoring. I also appreciate that when moderators enter into a discussion that remove their moderator "hats". On other forums they are like "gods" who can't be disputed with or challenged.The only complaint I would have is that there are too many personal attacks and rude, hateful comments (from both sides to be fair). Some creationists may feel intimidated by the amount of "abuse" they have to take on this site, as some people are unwilling to pull any punches and want to make sure that the creationist realizes just how ignorant they are. Sometimes I wish that was reigned in a bit. But I would rather deal with that than censorship just because you don't agree with someone's opinion. Not sure about how the first two affect the situation, but the third surely is a huge factor. There seems to be an attitude that creationists can develop a new type of science that does not rely on preconceived assumptions. They feel they need to distance themselves from the "faith-based" science of evolution and pursue science the "proper way." That leaves participation on forums like this useless to them.HBD

You have only ever repetitively repeated that you have evidence: you have never provided any.Your inability to even attempt to provide a link to your evidence is clearly indicative of a complete lack of evidence to support your claims. I figure it is because defending biblical literalism is an adventure into futility - especially when you have no evidence.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Here's an adventure for you that might be less futile: learn some science.Learn what the Big Bang is before you try to refute it. Learn what evolution is before you try to refute it. Then you won't look so ignorant and people won't feel obligated to point out how ignorant you are.

And the content sucks.

Yet strangely, you're still here. Maybe it's the popcorn.

It's the word-salad that keeps me coming back. Although the 'stupid' sometimes makes my head hurt if I read too much at one sitting.

You've only read reviews of them? No wonder you have no clue! If those reviews were also by fundamentalist Christians (whom else would you ever bother to read?) and of the same caliber as Wintery Knight's tirade against Dan Barker (which completely misrepresented Barker's story), then there's no doubt that you've been lied to yet again.The long established tradition in creationist "scholarship" is to simply repeat what other creationists have said, only claim that their "sources" as your own. Time after time with extremely few exceptions, a creationist will make a claim and cite a scientific source when in reality he had never ever seen that source, let alone read it. A classic example is Henry Morris' moondust claim in his book, Scientific Creationism (2nd ed., page 152), where he cites a "1976" NASA document as his source. In reality, his source was an unpublished work by creationist Harold Slusher which contained a number of glaring errors, including the date of that NASA document which was August 1965 and the volume number (eleven (11), whereas Slusher and Morris both claimed it was two (II). Since the truth of document's date and volume number was printed prominently on its front cover, it is obvious that Morris had never even seen that document let a lone read it; for that matter, I suspect that neither had Slusher, but rather even he had gotten his information from a third unnamed creationist -- this is the same reason why you knew for a fact that you had never read Dan Barker's book, because if you had then you would have known that Dawkins did not co-author it, so spare us your false and hypocritical indignity! In true scholarship, when you find someone referencing a source, you do not trust that reference, but rather you go back to that primary source yourself and read what it actually says. If Henry Morris had done that instead of lying about it in his book, then he would not have been called on it in public (see my page on it at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/moondust.html; I was personally involved in researching that claim).So, instead of blindly trusting those "reviews", read the book! See for yourself what they said and whether they fit into your pipedream of evolution causing atheism. Read the book! But have you read it? I've got many books on my shelf, though there are a few that I haven't read yet. One of them is Dennett's Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Tell me exactly what your review said about him promoting evolution in order to cause atheism and exactly what part of the book that was supposed to have been written and I can go to the primary source and tell you what it actually says. What I was talking about was the fact that Dan Barker and many others brought up about their deconversions: they had already started the process without knowingly having come in contact with any atheists or atheist writings. Rather, they all thought that they were the only ones to have ever gone through what they were going through -- it's a very painful process. Indeed, even after they had become atheists, they still thought they were alone and it was only later that they began to meet others who have also gone through the same thing and they learned that in fact they were not alone. In Barker's case, he finished the process in Southern California and had to travel more than half-way across the country before he could meet another atheist, all the while not knowing that there was an active atheist organization right next door in Los Angeles, Atheists United (remember, this was shortly after 1980; the IBM PC had just come out, the MacIntosh didn't come out until 1984, and public access and use of the Internet didn't start until mid-1990's, so discovering like-minded groups in your area was pretty much a crap-shoot). I first heard of Dan Barker when his speech at an Atheists United meeting was broadcast on radio (they used to have 15 minutes a week), at which he described his isolation as an atheist and shouted at the audience, "Where were you when I needed you?" They were there; he just had no way of knowing about them.Books describing the process of deconverting from Christian fundamentalism do serve the much needed purpose of helping those who are going through that process by letting them know that they are not alone. In the Readers' Reviews for former-berfundamentalist Ed Babinski's book, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists, A Customer wrote:

quote:

---

There are other atheists who are former Christian fundamentalists--I am not alone! Some of them had, as I did, ties to Bob Jones University, perhaps the foremost incubator of fundamentalists. After reading "Leaving the Fold," I felt free to talk openly, for the first time, about my recanting Christianity. I even told my family--incorrigible fundamentalists! I am indebted to Mr. Babinski.

---

The fundamental problem with your list is that it doesn't really address the question of deconversion. How many of those books do actually deal with deconversion? Barker's book does, though you have bought into lies about what he wrote and/or made up your own lies about it despite your not having read it. I can find nothing in Dennett's book that has anything to do with deconversion. I haven't read Dawkins' The God Delusion, but I doubt that he examines deconversion either. Just where did you get that list from, anyway? What is it about those books do you think has anything to do with deconversion outside of your fantasy that evolution magically turns people into atheists, a fantasy that does not at all hold up when examined? No, we would need a better list.This morning I woke up earlier than usual, so I went to amazon.com to look for former-berfundamentalist Ed Babinski's book, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists and immediately found another Leaving the Fold by psychologist Marlene Winell, whose description reads:

quote:

---

This book by psychologist Marlene Winell provides valuable insights into the dangers of religious indoctrination and outlines what therapists and victims can do to reclaim a healthier human spirit.... Both former believers searching for a new beginning and those just starting to subject their faith to the requirements of simple common sense, if not analytical reason, may find valuable assistance in these pages. -Steve Allen, author and entertainer

---

Read the reader reviews, especially the second one by "A Customer" which starts with:

quote:

---

For the person who has been moderately to severely hurt by their christian faith, Marlene Winell's book gives a voice to those whose personal lives have been filled with guilt, fear, shame, and repression, and authenticates their painful experiences with her own, and with quotes from others telling of their emotional trauma's inflicted on them by fundamentalist Christianity.

---

If you ever do go to read the testimonials at ex-Christian.net forum's testimonial section, the emotional and psychological damage that fundamentalism was inflicting on them is a recurring theme. For that matter, since you believe that they only become atheists in order to free themselves from the Ten Commandments, I propose a research project for you. Go out and find testimonials by those atheists who "deconverted" in order to indulge their hormones. Ask them about their own particular "deconversion process". What was it like for them? Did it induce any kind of anguish for them, or did they simply make their decision and then scamper off merrily and gleefully to whore about unhindered? I think we will find a great difference between the sham atheists you are talking about and the ones who truly endured the agonizing process of deconversion. Please, go gather those testimonials.As do all amazon.com pages, that amazon.com page for Winell's book listed other-book suggestions which include such titles as:
Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light by Valerie Tarico
The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth by Valerie Tarico
Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists by Edward T. Babinski
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan Barker
Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker
Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity by John W. Loftus
The God Virus: How religion infects our lives and culture by Darrel W. RayAnd that was without scrolling through the rest of the list, though Barker's earlier book, Losing Faith in Faith showed up after scrolling right a few times. With the possible exception of The God Virus and maybe The Dark Side (even though her other book definitely deals with a deconversion), those books all deal with the deconversion of the author and, in some cases, of other ex-Fundamentalists as well. As such, I would propose that this list is a far better one to work from than yours.Now, back to your specific questions: Why would an atheist want to convert others? On pages 87-88 in Godless, Dan Barker lists the ad hominem arguments Christians have come up in their attempts to find the "true" reasons for atheism (none of which have ever involved listening to and thinking about what atheists have told them) and notes that most of them are the fundamentalists projecting their own emotions and desires onto their atheist opponents. Most atheists just want to be left alone without having their beliefs or their character constantly attacked, vilified, and viciously lied about. They have no problem with others believe what they want, but demand no less from those others. They believe that nobody should have to hide what their religious beliefs are, nor should anybody (including themselves) force their own beliefs on others (a forum member's analogy comparing religion to a penis comes to mind, which ends with: "Just don't whip it out in public or force it down everyone's throat.")OTOH, it is the God-mandated duty of every evangelical Christian to proselytize, which is to say to attack and obliterate the beliefs of others and replace those victims' beliefs with a copy of one's own evangelical Christian beliefs. That is, after all, what proselytizing and inducing conversion is and entails. It is an evangelical Christian endeavor (albeit shared by several other Christian sects and cults), not an atheist one. Now, there may be some atheists -- most likely former evangelicals who still retain that part of the Christian mindset to proselytize, though they could also be like ex-smokers who feel they must campaign to save others for their old filthy and self-destructive habit -- who will try to convert others, but they are very rare. The vast majority of atheists do not seek to convert others, but rather will fiercely defend themselves from Christian attack, and so atheist materials will serve to support their defense as well as to show others that there is a logical basis for their being atheists (as opposed to Christian fantasies of "the true reasons for being an atheist"). And when having to defend themselves against Christian attack or responding to Christian nonsense (such as you keep posting), atheists give religion all the respect that it deserves (meant in the Woody Allen sense).But "legal action against Christian organizations?" What the frak are you talking about? You're just making up nonsense again. Just as an experiment, answer a question honestly. Would you personally, as a fundamentalist Christian, having identified a book as "atheistic", pick it up and read it? I very much doubt it, especially considering that you hadn't read any of the books in your list (you do have one on your shelf, but you have not yet claimed to have read it -- if you do so claim, then you will be required to submit a book report on it, BTW). Not only have you displayed absolutely no interest in learning what atheists actually think, but your theology also bars you from learning other perspectives and from even wanting to. As long as you maintain your faith and refuse to allow any compromise, you would not feel any desire to pick up one of those books.Rather, a non-atheist who would want to seek out and pick up one of those books would have to already have some amount of curiosity about the subject matter (remember, only some of the books in your list have anything to do with atheism; Dennett's certainly doesn't). Since they're already curious about the subject matter, they should seek to learn more. That's what normals do, incomprehensible as that may be for you. More knowledge is better than less, even though in order preserve fundamentalist Christian beliefs the opposite is true, but then that's the problem that you have created for yourselves. College students would be far more likely than 5th and 6th graders. When I was that age (10-11), I had just transitioned from a mixture of books (mostly sci-fi) and comic books to purely books (starting with Edgar Rice Burroughs' Mars novels); around that age, my own sons were into Tom Clancy novels and the like. Philosophical books would not have interested me, nor would they be likely to interest others of that age. Interest in such reading materials would normally have to wait until high school and college.However, we do have a documented case in which 5th and 6th graders did choose to become atheists. In 1981 in Livermore, Calif, Ray Baird taught a creationist "two model" class in the public school, Emma C. Smith Elementary School, using ICR materials (which, according to testimony in the 1981 Arkansas trial, were really the only creationist teaching materials out there) -- see an account of what happened here, and in the transcript of Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom, KPBS-TV, aired 7 July 1982. The way that the ICR lessons were structured was that they would present misinformation and misrepresentations of evolution and then at the end of each lesson pressure the student to make a personal life-long committment right then and there between "Godless evolution" and their "unnamed Creator" (remember, in order to deceive the schools and the courts, "creation science" was playing a game of "Hide the Bible"). IOW, the ICR lessons were nothing more than blatant fundamentalist proselytizing. So in accordance with what the creationist materials demanded of them, a number of Baird's students chose to become atheists. As a fellow student, J.J. Hunt, said in the KPBS-TV program:

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.

---

Was it evolution that turned those students into atheists? No, especially since they weren't even being taught evolution but rather creationist lies about evolution. Was it atheist books or materials that turned them into atheists? No, since it was ICR creationist materials that they were being subjected to. No, the inescapable fact is that it was creationism that turned them into atheists. Though this is a variation on that theme, since it wasn't finally learning what science really is and says thus exposing the lies of creationism that did the trick, but rather it was their seeing what a crock of nonsense creationism is along with the standard fundamentalist false dichotomy that it's either God or evolution and that choosing evolution means choosing atheism (or "common descent-Genesis is wrong-there is no God?" as you put it in Message 1).Those books in your list would not cause 5th and 6th graders to become atheists, but creationism has been proved to. Maybe a minor cause, but a very minor one that would normally only affect those who are already leaning in that direction.At most, learning that there are atheists and learning what they actually think and what they actually are like might open one up to realizing that there are other options -- again, if you are a fundamentalist closed to compromise, this would have no effect on you, but if you are having your doubts ... .Even though Dan Barker's religious experience happened when he was 15, he had been raised in a fundamentalist Christian family all his life. His father used to be a professional swing musician but had to give that up when he converted around the time that Dan was born. Dan's mother used to sing in tongues all the time as she went about doing her housework. When Dan had completed his deconversion and notified everybody of it, his parents came to So.Cal. to talk him out of it. His father had been trained in the seminary and tried his best, but to no avail and Dan calmly and lovingly explained his new position. In response to his mother, he calmly asked her whether she truly believed that he was going to Hell; that was the strongest and most influential thing he said to her. Shortly thereafter, both his parents and one of his brothers left the faith -- one brother is still a fundamentalist, so the rest of the family refers to him as "the white sheep of the family". His mother's quotable remark when she became an atheist (cited by Dawkins in the book's foreword) was: "Now I don't have to hate anymore." His father was finally able to return to his true passion in life, swing music -- for verily it is written: "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" (I'll leave the chorus to the readers).So, knowing that something is possible and that it does not result in the mean, ugly, nasty things that you've been brainwashed in believing could open that something up as a viable option. But as long as you are truly being held in thrall by fundamentalist Christian theology, you would never even begin to realize that. It could only be of influence if the doubts are already there. Which really is the problem for you, isn't it? Creationism is filled with lies about the sciences and especially about evolution. And after you have filled your children with those lies, accompanied with the corollary lies of "common descent-Genesis is wrong-there is no God?" and of the necessity of throwing your Bible in the trash should even one single error be found (etc, etc, etc), then the very last thing you would want would be for them to be able to compare those lies to anything else, most especially the truth! After having lied to them about evolution and the other sciences and about their very faith being wholly dependent on those lies, the very last thing you would want would be for them to find out what evolution and the other sciences really are and what they really teach. Because when that happens, your children will discover that you had been lied to and deceiving them their entire lives and they will abandon you and rightfully so!After having raised your children on a steady diet of lies and deception, the only way you can prevent them from becoming atheists is to protect them from the truth, from reality. You need to keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit, but that will not work because they are not mushrooms! It used to be more possible because you could keep them isolated from the real world. You used to be able to keep them sequestered in fundamentalist communities with minimal contact with others outside that community, but now with the burgeoning growth of fundamentalist membership since the "Jesus Freak" movement of circa-1970 fundamentalists must live and work and interact with non-fundamentalists every day. You used to be able to control what they saw and heard and read, but that is a losing battle now with TV, radio, and the Internet (though you could implement extremely tight parental controls on cable TV). You used to be able to sequester them off into fundamentalist schools and colleges, which you still can, but that becomes prohibitively expensive and the demand to get into those schools exceeds openings, plus that schooling experience does not prepare them for their eventual awakening once they go out into the real world.Rather then having to try to turn them into mushrooms, the real solution is for you to stop lying to them! Work out an apologetic that deals with the real world rather than the one you have now which just denies and tries to ignore reality. Use that new apologetic to teach your children the truth and how to deal with reality. If you were to do that, you would very little to fear from science or from reality. But as long as you do not do that and continue to raise your children on lies and deception, then you will live in constant fear. If you were to apply that new apologetic, you could develop a creationism that does not rely on lies, but as long as you cling to your false creationism that makes your faith depend on lies and deception, you will forever live in fear of reality and you will continue to hate the truth.Your choice, as it has always been. We've been through this before (see Message 205, to which you've yet to reply):

quote:

---

So your churches' false teachings about morality create the very scenario that you want to blame on evolution. Instead of teaching them the true importance of morality and the very real reasons why it is so very important (which it is, despite your (plural) attempts to trivialize it!), you teach them that it depends on whether God exists and that if God did not exist, then morality is meaningless. Then you don your seedy overcoat and hat and from a dark corner whisper sleazily: "Psst! Hey, kid! Lookin' for a good time? It's easy! Become an atheist and you won't have nobody to answer to. You can then do everything and anything you want to, free of quilt, because there's no god to answer to. You won't be responsible nobody! It's easy! You don't even have to actually become an atheist neither; all you need to do is pretend to be one! Give it a try! It'll be fun!" After feeding all those restrictive and arbitrary rules, you then offer them a great big gaping loophole like that and you don't think they'll grab it as quickly as they can? Especially when you also pound them with your false teachings that accepting evolution will turn them into atheists. Since that's your own big hot claim, that evolution turns people into atheists, that makes you personally responsible for the spread of atheism that you hypocritically decry. If you don't like it, then stop causing it to happen! When the ICR was still in Santee, there was a stone mason just down the street from them, who I would assume gave them very good rates on millstones because of the volume business the ICR offered them; you should contact the ICR to find out who's supplying them now that they're in Texas.

---

No, look again. You offered that list of books in support of your claim that evolution causes atheism. I showed you that Dan Barker's Godless does not belong in that list because evolution had nothing whatsoever to do with his deconversion. Therefore, you were wrong to include it in an effort to support your claim. How many other of those books in that list also fail to support your claim? You don't even know what's in those books! What you need to do is to read those books and to quote from them with full citation of the source to actually demonstrate that they support your claim!As for people being converted to atheism by science, that can only happen if they hold the false belief that science disproves religion. Science does not teach that, but rather fundamentalist Christianity insists upon, practically as an article of faith. Since you obviously view the growth and spread of atheism to be a problem, shouldn't you want to solve that problem? The way to solve that problem is not to kill science and to prevent anybody from learning science, but rather to get rid of your false teaching that science disproves religion. Duh? A hatchet job filled with false claims. Why not read the book to learn for yourself? Blithering nonsense that is contrary to fact.Barker was an itinerate minister, which meant that he travelled from congregation to congregation. He also had a long-term committment as a missionary in northern Mexico. Since he didn't have a single congregation to settle him and to pay him a steady salary, he had to depend on love offerings from each congregation. And he had a family, a wife and children, so he was a family man. I was also a family man, so I know that a family man does constantly concern himself with the welfare and well-being of his family and with providing for them. Of course his ability to provide for his family and the worry of whether they could receive enough love offerings to make it to the next congregation was constant. That is, after all, the life of an itinerate minister, regardless of how good a minister he is. For that matter, if an itinerate minister isn't very good, he won't be able to keep that life-style up for very long, whereas Dan Barker was able to keep it going, so that shows that he must have been a rather good minister.What are you, some kind of prosperity theologist who measures how good a minister is by how many Cadillacs and rolexes he owns? I suggest you have a sit-down talk with your own minister about the realities of that profession (ooh! there's that R-word again that you really hate!). Having been involved in the process a couple times in our church, I know that when a congregation needs a minister, their denominational headquarters (or whatever hierarchical structure they're in) will have a list of ministers seeking positions and will provide that congregation with a list of applicants to consider. The congregation (through its officers) will consider the applicants and choose which ones to interview, which will eventually lead to one of those applicants being called to the pulpit. Of course, there are a few other possible scenarios, such as a minister with a large-enough personal following forming his own congregation. Or another form of itinerate minister who runs revival circuses.The point is that for most ministers the only way to have a steady income is to have been called by a congregation, whereupon they receive a salary from that congregation. I am certain that you will find that there a lot more ministers than there are congretations (though large enough congregations, such as mega-churches, which is a more recent development, may employ more than one minister), leaving many to either take on some form of itinerate ministry, do missionary work (which requires financial support), or make a living at something else while doing ministry on the side. Talk with your own minister to learn about the realities of a minister's life. Your nonsense about Barker deciding to become an atheist so he can make it big in that "biz" is just that, pure nonsense.We already know that Barker didn't knowingly know any atheists and certain knew nothing about any atheist organizations when he was going through his deconversion, so that could not possibly have been a motivation. It wasn't until well after his deconversion had become complete and his wife had divorced him (out of respect for her, he simply says that she wanted to be a minister's wife, so when he left the faith she left him, but in his late-80's talk at Atheists United, he had described how the church had pressured her into leaving him), that he first heard of Annie Laurie Gaylor and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (Godless, pp 63-64) when he read a book by Annie (here we are back to how atheist books help other atheists far more than they convert people). He wrote to them and Annie's mother, the foundation president, asked him to write an article for their magazine, which he did. Then Oprah did a show on atheism and had the Gaylors as guests and asked them if they could recommend any other atheists, so they mentioned Dan Barker and Oprah invited him on the show. That was the first time that he had every knowingly talked with other atheists, again emphasizing the isolation in which many atheists have had to live. It was from that show that he eventually was asked to come to work for the Freedom From Religion Foundation.As for atheism being "financially rewarding", I'm sure that them thar TV evangelists rack in all kinds of loot compared to a non-profit organization. Why don't you write to the FFRF to ask Dan how many Cadillacs and Rolexes he owns? Just how many anal orifices do you have that you are able to pull so much nonsense out of them?The first chink came in 1979 (Godless, pp 33-34). The "theistic evolution" was his being informed that a few of the congregation's members believed that Adam and Eve weren't historical people, to which Dan reacted in great shock, "What? And you let them remain members?" But even though that congregation believed in the literal truth of the Bible, they also considered this a small disagreement. It was that first compromise, that first bit of gray in an otherwise black-and-white perspective that led to more bits of gray in other congregations -- after all, reality is that there is no one monolithic fundamentalist Christian theology, but rather each congregation is a bit different and has slightly different beliefs in the black and in the white of their narrow minds, such that the overlaid composite of them all, which is what Dan Barker was seeing by coming in contact with so many of them, ends up with lots of gray areas. That led to him started to ask questions and seeking answers, which led him to thinking, which led to more questions and seeking more answers, which led to even more thinking, which eventually him to his deconversion."Theistic evolution" my eye! Why do you feel so free to lie about such things? Haven't you heard of the Ten Commandments? So why do you feel so free to violate them? Obviously, you don't need to become a fundamentalist Christian "atheist" in order to free yourself from the Ten Commandments! Oh, much more so than you know, or would want to realize.I've brought this up before, but this is a good place to present it again.I once received an e-mail from a creationist, one of the very few cordial ones, in which he proposed a variation on Omphalos. He suggested that since Satan was given dominion over the earth, it was He who had planted all that false geological and fossil evidence to fool us into not believing in God. After a moment of reflection, I responded with a different, far more likely scenario. What he described was an awful lot of work and Satan is, after all, a clever devil. Instead, all he had to do was to create a false religious belief, that if the earth is as we do find it then Christianity is false, and give it to some zealous fundamentalists who will knock themselves out spreading it. Worked like a charm. Clever devil, that."Creation science" is a deliberate deception that is built out of lies. Fundamentalist Christianity has enthusiastically adopted "creation science" and has made itself absolutely dependent on it, such that by demonstrating "creation science" to be false, you also disprove God -- thus creationism achieves what science and philosophy could never possibly do: disprove God. It also is adopting the practice of using lies and deception to serve God.Tell me, marc, according to Christian doctrine, which Christian deity is served by lies and deception? I'd always been taught that that would be Satan. Think about it, marc, Whom are you really serving?

What is evidence? From Dictionary.com;

quote:

---

1) that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

​

2)something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

​

3)Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

---

That, something, and data — pretty vague..hmm, maybe an atheist is writing definitions of words at Dictionary.com! Seriously though, wouldn’t an appeal to more than one of the five human senses constitute some really good evidence? It seems to me that evidence should be capable of going above and beyond any one person’s worldview. I suppose perfect evidence would, but much of what is claimed as evidence actually appeals to only one human sense, and it is often arrived at by someone (or group) that wants what the evidence says to be true. So do claims for evidence in these kind of debates really mean much? That’s where we are. You believe there’s evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth for example, and I believe there’s evidence that evolution and atheism have a very close relationship. Many here believe that a simple theistic evolutionist label is disproof of that. I don’t believe labels are evidence. Since Jesus Christ has been written about far more than any other person that has ever lived, I believe that’s pretty good evidence for his existence, most evolutionists don’t. I don’t believe radiometric dating, or anything else the scientific community has dreamed up, is clear proof that the earth has been going around the sun 4.5 billion times.Evidence claims go on and on — it’s largely a subjective term. So you believe there’s more evidence for an ancient earth than there is for Christ’s resurrection? In your view then, evidence isn’t nearly as much about eyewitness accounts as it is about.radiometric dating? Credentialed people looking through microscopes and telescopes? Not everyone’s going to agree with you, and I don’t think Dictionary.com’s definition of evidence fully supports your view.

If that’s all you want there to be evidence for, then that’s all you’re going to see. A large part of human existence is working with, and observing order and complexity. Order and complexity come about in two different ways, what humans did with their intelligence, and what humans didn’t do, like the origins of life, or the paths of the planets around the sun. With no supernatural, the order and complexity we see that humans didn’t do, had to happen by some sort of mindless rearrangement. When you stand outside on a clear night and see the full moon, knowing that humans didn’t put it there, there’s only one possibility right? An explosion put it there! Explosions can explain a lot of things, can’t they? Is there evidence that explosions can produce perfectly round objects? If atheists want there to be, I’m sure they claim evidence for it. That goes both ways — the Bible accurately records historical details about people, groups, cities, and customs. Archaeological finds continue to confirm these details. If they contradict evolutionary beliefs, the scientific community doesn’t consider them evidence. An ancient earth cannot be observed. Much of what science claims cannot be observed.

So what I say causes you to lose sleep?Not counting those in this thread who haven’t directly responded to me, and not counting Modulous, I have 11 opponents in this thread. Your messages alone contain enough writing for 11 people. If you expect me to respond, you’re going to have to learn to condense it some.

Not in the least. Quite the opposite, actually. As I've gotten older, I'll often wake up a few times during the night and have to fall back to sleep. I slept through the night this time.Besides, you're cutting your own throat and the throats of your religion's next generation, metaphorically speaking, with a dull razor. You're the one to be losing sleep, if you had any kind of conscience. Perhaps if you didn't post such wildly false accusations that you either refuse or fail to support in any way, you'd have more correspondents and fewer opponents. I have made my position very clear, so I'll take that as you making up an excuse to avoid facing the truth that your (plural) false teachings are what is turning an extremely high percentage of your (plural) kids (65% to 80% according to Christian sources) into atheists. Neither science nor evolution have anything to do with their deconversions except to unwittingly trigger the booby traps that you (pl) have implanted into their minds. You are reaping what you have sown.And, also, you repeatedly demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about.Condensed enough for you? Re-read my replies for the support of that condensation. PS
I can't believe that I made such a colossal blunder! Please pardon my mistake. I should have known that you never read my replies in the first place. So that should have read, "Read my replies for support of that condensation."I'll try to be more careful in the future.Edited by dwise1, : corrected blatant mistake with PS

Going back to the OP, "Creationist Shortage" theme:I think the reason for the "shortage" is that creationists come here and make inane statements such as the one of your's that I quoted above.Then, when other posters point out the errors in their claims, they leave in a huff. (I know a lady once who had a license plate, HUFF, so she could... Well, you know.)What you are really saying is that much of what science claims is contradicted by your religious belief, so you won't accept it. Evidence doesn't matter--if your belief says otherwise, that's enough for you.The vast majority of creationists are unwilling to listen to evidence that contradicts their beliefs, and so avoid this place as vampires are reputed to avoid garlic. Hence our "Creationist Shortage."Those who do stick around are an interesting study in sullen and willful denial -- really a self-imposed ignorance -- of many facts that are clearly documented and accepted by those who are in a position to know (i.e., scientists).This shows the accuracy of Heinlein's observation, "Belief gets in the way of learning."

BTW, I was dead serious about that research project for you:

quote:

---

If you ever do go to read the testimonials at ex-Christian.net forum's testimonial section, the emotional and psychological damage that fundamentalism was inflicting on them is a recurring theme. For that matter, since you believe that they only become atheists in order to free themselves from the Ten Commandments, I propose a research project for you. Go out and find testimonials by those atheists who "deconverted" in order to indulge their hormones. Ask them about their own particular "deconversion process". What was it like for them? Did it induce any kind of anguish for them, or did they simply make their decision and then scamper off merrily and gleefully to whore about unhindered? I think we will find a great difference between the sham atheists you are talking about and the ones who truly endured the agonizing process of deconversion. Please, go gather those testimonials.

---

As much as you would wish to ignore the very existence of that request, you really must honor it. Or else admit that your fantasies about why your (pl) children are deconverting and fleeing your religion in droves are completely in error.Please also report on your readings in ex-Christian.net forum's testimonial section. Or else confess that you abhor the very thought of actually learning something rather then your standing operating procedure of pratting on in complete and willful ignorance.

Hi Marc,We often see arguments from creationists that the only acceptable evidence is that of eyewitnesses, but even our legal system is becoming aware of the pitfalls of human memory, plus when you mention eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection you don't really have eyewitnesses but only second hand accounts that include eyewitnesses as part of the story. These accounts are no more reliable or evidence-based than the Mormon account of Jesus's post-resurrection detour to visit the then-natives of North America.But I was only responding to your misconstrual that atheists believe the universe can only consist of one time dimension and three space dimensions. Most anyone who accepts science as the best method of understanding the universe in which we live would not hold any view so dogmatically. We must let evidence, not belief, be our guide. Belief is just our current interpretation of the evidence and must never be held dogmatically.You denigrated evidence in general, but what is it eyewitnesses provide if not evidence? All scientific evidence is eyewitnessed as scientists conduct experiences and make observations, but science goes beyond that and requires multiple eyewitnesses (replication of experiments and observations) and documentation (papers in scientific journals), as well as review and consensus building.This difference between science and religion is expressed in the difference between their respective communities. Religious communities divide into differently believing sub-communities over time while scientific communities come together behind the hypotheses with the best evidence before moving on to the new frontiers of knowledge.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.