Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 61 of 380 (712449)
12-03-2013 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 5:50 PM


Sincerity would have prompted him to realize that you can't construct absolute religious beliefs based around absolute religious entities and then somehow pretend that there is no possible way the teachings of that religion may ever conflict with science
Sure you can. You've already brought up FSM (pasta be unto him).
But what you're saying's not what he said. He said that you shouldn't present as dogma what science has shown to be wrong. Real basic stuff like "god exists" is open game.
The whole "truthness of our faith", imho, is more colloquial than literal.
sure there may be a degree of flexibility manifested, but what about when realities start casting a shadow on the core platforms of a religion?
Like what? That resurrections don't happen? Or that a resurrection could never happen?
Can you appreciate the difference?
Of course you have "I want" lenses on. Faith, which you claim to have, is wanting to believe in something without evidence.
Except that my belief is not based on faith alone. I've landed at the position that god exists, I'm not pushing myself into it.
So the existence of God and Christ aren't off the table for the catholic church?
You think science is going to shown those to be false? How?
The only person you are fooling here is yourself. The Catholic church believes it has the answers for salvation, whether you admit to it or not.
Sure, but that's not something that science is going to show to be false. And who doesn't!?
Alright. You've convinced me.
Yeah!
Catholic Scientist: 1
scienceishonesty: 0
I kid, I kid.
Thank you for the cordial conversation, sincerely.
Despite no evidence whatsoever for Zeus' existence I'm going to exert faith that He really does control the lightning and that there is a place for me waiting when I die on Mount Olympus. It is so exciting to know the truth and be able to have a person relationship with a wonderful God that I just KNOW in my heart of heart exists.
Okay, how's that working for you? Any conviction there?
Does this sound reasonable to you?
It sounds like you made it up to make a point
Faith without evidence is never reasonable no matter what you may tell yourself.
That true's, FWOE is also irrational. But its here.
Certainly not with intellectual honesty or integrity but perhaps it has a rare effect on you where it makes you feel better? I suppose in that way there's no harm.
No, intellectually honest and intellectually integritous and not for reasons for feeling better. Do you doubt the possibility?
So if I wanted to believe in creationism now or ID or something else you'd call a peace of shit, what if it makes me feel better? Does it really make me honest to believe in something because it makes me "feel better"?
Believe in whatever the hell you want. IDGAF. And no, doing it just to make you feel better is not being honest.
I just decided to take the default position of rationality.
I don't think rationality is the default position. Humans are wrought with irrationality, its kept us alive as a species (its better to imagine that noise in the bush was a monster that will hurt you than to take the rational position and wait for further evidence).
It takes training to discard your irrationality. As your OP admits you've learned
If there's no evidence, I'm not going to go out of my way to waste my time.
Well, give it time. Maybe one day you'll find yourself believing in God again.
Maybe you won't. *shrugs*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 5:50 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-04-2013 4:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 380 (712450)
12-03-2013 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
12-03-2013 5:53 PM


Re: Some apology
Sorry, you're deceived.
Er, I mean:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:53 PM Faith has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 380 (712453)
12-03-2013 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 5:52 PM


Re: Some apology
The Roman Catholic Church was no where near as efficient at genocide as the mostly Protestant US. The RCC aren't even in the same class as the Protestants when it comes to stuff like that.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 5:52 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 12-04-2013 4:39 PM jar has not replied
 Message 80 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-04-2013 5:13 PM jar has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 64 of 380 (712457)
12-03-2013 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by scienceishonesty
12-02-2013 11:41 PM


Welcome back. I'd like to offer some comments, but since I have a small window of opportunity I must restrict myself to the first 14 messages which I was able to read this morning.
Over the years I've encountered many former YECs who had started out fervent proponents of "creation science" but then switched sides after they actually started learning about their claims. I can't say that I've seen the opposite happen. For decades I've maintained that "creation science" poses a danger to its followers faith, especially with the extreme black-and-white theology that it and fundamentalist Christianity promote, such that everyone must choose between their form of Christianity or atheism and that if evolution is true then God doesn't exist. Obviously (to the non-fundamentalist mind) such teachings are false and can cause great damage.
I have to agree with Pressie (Message 5) and vimesey (Message 11) that you appear to still be trapped within that mindset. I will offer some comments on parts of your posts.
BTW, so that you might know something about the source of those comments, I have been an atheist for the past 50 years ever since I started reading the Bible and quickly discovered that I just couldn't believe any of what I was reading. I am familiar with fundamentalist teachings and mindset having been a kind of "fellow traveller" in the early 1970's when several friends converted as part of the "Jesus Freak Movement", plus I have been involved in creation/evolution discussions since the mid-1980's. I got involved in "creation science" when an ICR presentation was held at the local university in 1981 (I was on duty that night and could not attend). Surprised that it was still around (I had heard two claims in 1970, one of which I knew to be blatantly false (the NASA moon program story) and the other which I was very skeptical of (living clams carbon-dated as thousands of years old, which is actually due to the reservoir effect)), I thought that there might be something to their claims after all and I wanted to learn more so I started researching it. The more I read, the more I realized that the whole thing was just a sham. I could understand why "creation science" would be so appealing to the fundamentalist mind, but ethically and morally there is no excuse for basing one's faith on outright lies and deception. It was about a decade later that I came to realize through on-line discussions with creationist the extent of "creation science's" pathological stranglehold on the fundamentalist mind.
From your OP, Message 1:
... admitting that I wasn't truly certain apart from wants or desires that the God I had in my mind existed for sure.
The whole idea of a God used to make so much sense to me as a “solution” ...
To start with, all ideas of a God or gods are man-made. Created by fallible, highly limited, definitely finite Man. Even if something exists that could be called "God", the human mind would not be able to fathom it and would instead its own ideas of what that Something is and what It would want of us. All the gods are human creations whose purpose has been to fill in the gaps of our ignorance and to stand for ideas and ideals.
That does not mean that the gods cannot be useful, but at the same time we cannot afford to take them too seriously. The fundamentalist ideas of God are an example of ideas being taken far too seriously. One such fundamentalist idea is that their views of God are the only ones. That is simply not true.
In the end, even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't prove creation.
That is absolutely true. And it has been the creationist argument and the basis for the entire "creation science" strategy, the "Two Model Approach" (TMA). Postulate that two and only two mutually exclusive views of origins exist, the "creation model" and the "evolution model". Narrowly define the "creation model" to be YEC, which means that the "evolution model" then contains every other idea, including "most of the world's religions, both ancient and modern" (as Dr. Henry Morris of the ICR had written to me in support of the TMA). Obviously to anyone at all familiar with logic, the TMA creates a False Dilemma, AKA "false dichotomy".
A major problem that creationist had was that "creation science" was created as a legalistic deception in order to sneak their religion past the courts in the wake of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) which had led to the striking down of the "monkey laws". The only way for that deception to work was to avoid anything that would expose their position as being purely religious. Of course, the moment that they would actually present their "creation model", that would immediately expose their deception; that is exactly what happened with the 1981 Arkansas "balanced treatment" law which defined what the "creation model" was, so the identical Louisiana law, which was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1987, made sure to leave out that definition. As a result, in public debates and presentations, creationists would go out of their way to avoid ever presenting their "creation model", discussing it, or even defending it; it was always their "evolutionist" opponents who had to present it and to try to get it discussed.
As a result, creationist employed their false-dilemma TMA to "prove" creation solely by attacking "evolution". Consider that their "evolution model" is a false caricature of evolution, a hodge-podge steaming mess of out-dated, disproven, and conflicting ideas, including many supernaturalistic ideas from the countless "world's religions, both ancient and modern". What would it take to actually disprove that "evolution model"? A model with interdependent ideas could be disproven by showing that single parts are false, but that is not the nature of their "evolution model". All of those ideas exist independently of each other, so if even one of those ideas turned out to be true, then that would prove the "evolution model" and disprove the "creation model" (the other edge of that sword). So each and every idea would need to be addressed and disproven individually. With so many different ideas, the task of disproving every single one of them would be intractable. Since the "evolution model" also includes ideas that we haven't even come up with yet and hence those ideas could not yet be tested, your disproving of the "evolution model" could never be anything more than tentative. But since a major portion of the "evolution model" is based on the supernatural, on all those non-YEC "world's religions, both ancient and modern", and since it is impossible to examine or test or disprove anything supernatural, that means that it is impossible to disprove their "evolution model". So the most that they could ever do would be to try to instill doubt.
And all the while their "creation model" remains unproven and unexamined. But thanks to the TMA it can still be disproven. All it takes is for one idea about evolution to be true and that will prove the "evolution model", which in turn will disprove the "creation model". Nobody has ever been able to disprove God (or any other god for that matter) nor will anyone ever be able to. And yet "creation science" with its Two-Model Approach does succeed in disproving God.
BTW, "creation science" has long been referred to by its opponents as being a game of "Hide the Bible". With the Supreme Court decision in 1987 officially recognizing "creation science" as being religious and hence not to be allowed in the public schools, we suddenly saw the adoption of "intelligent design" by the creationists as their new deception, a new yet all too familiar game of "Hide the Creationism".
I then realized that I can only either believe in religion or science, since both are completely incompatible with each other - I used to try to make both work for so long until integrity made me realize it just isn't possible and it wouldn't be right to pretend that they can work together.
Religion asserts certain ideas as true and those beliefs outrank anything else in life, including any inconvenient scientific discoveries. That means that if science were to show something within that religion as false, the religious person then has to allow religion to trump the scientific discovery in their mind, making the supposed harmony between the too illusory. This is why they can't work together. The only way for them to be compatible would be for the one embracing a religion to treat the religion as being falsifiable which is inherently not what religion can be - the religious person already has all the answers and already knows that their religion is “true” no matter what. Of course, they really don't, they just want to believe that and shun everything that may say otherwise.
To me, this is an example of your still holding onto the ideas of your former religion. Your statements are not true for all religion, but rather describe a pathology that certain ideas about the nature of religion can lead to.
This quote from Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, PART FIRST, 1794, may help to break the ice here:
quote:
As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into
the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication- after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
  —Thomas Paine
Basically, religion is what Man creates out of that hearsay, among other things. Religion is neither perfect nor absolute nor totally true. It cannot possibly be, nor should anyone reasonably expect it to be, since it is the creation of imperfect, fallible Man. One of my problems with Christian theology, especially of the fundamentalist variety, is that it would require me to believe in human infallibility, which I cannot believe in. Fallible Man created religion. Fallible Man wrote the Bible and all other sacred writings. Fallible Man interpreted and misinterpreted the Bible and other sacred writings. Fallible Man translated the Bible and other sacred writings and, since translation is the act of interpreting what is written in order to write the equivalent meaning in another language, fallible Man also mistranslated those works. Fallible Man in his interpretation and misinterpretation of those writings and in his misunderstanding of oral teachings created the doctrines of his religions which he then taught along with his misunderstanding of those doctrines to each subsequent generation, each of whom misunderstood it in their way and passed that misunderstanding on to the next generation. Fallible Man created the various theologies out of his various misunderstandings and misinterpretations of doctrine. Throughout that entire edifice we can find the pudgy fingerprints left from Man having fat-fingered the entire Holy Mess together.
Even though Christian theology is supposed to be based on Revelation, in reality it is based on hearsay, as per Paine, upon what the original developers of that theology had been told was Revelation. But regardless of whether that Revelation is true or not, the vast body of Christian theology consists of Man's fallible interpretations of that Revelation and his interpretations of interpretations, etc *. Furthermore, each denominational and sectarian split in Christianity leads to more versions of Christian theology which diverge from each other. And when an individual adopts as his own his particular congregation's version of Christian theology, he does so with incomplete and imperfect knowledge and understanding of that theology, compounded by his teachers' own imperfect knowledge and understanding. Ultimately, it is not Christian theology that is believed in and practiced, but rather each individual believer's own person imperfect version of that theology.
Is there such a thing as a completely true theology? No, obviously not. Obviously, all theologies are false, because they all contain false ideas. However, by the same token all theologies (with a few possible exceptions) are true, because they all contain ideas that are true. It's not black or white, but rather a universe of gray out there. So instead of rejecting the entire religion just because you discover parts of its theology to be false, why not reject those false parts or even try to correct them?
Now, a big problem for religion is the general lack of corrective measures. Science has corrective measures built into it, but then science has it easy since you can objectively test scientific ideas and findings. You cannot test religious ideas objectively. Which is a pity, because it is the religious questions that are so much more interesting and important.
{* FOOTNOTE:
Similarly, the style in which parts of the Talmud are written is that each page consists of concentric rings of writing. Innermost is a passage from the Torah. Surrounding that are the commentaries on that scripture written by the first group of rabbis. Surrounding that are commentaries on those commentaries and surrounding that are commentaries on the commentaries on the commentaries.
}
... But of course, we're still trying to find all the answers.
I'm okay with not having all the answers, because it's the honest thing to do. If we can't be honest with ourselves we are already dismissing reason and rationality and replacing it with willful delusion.
Good idea. But to try to find the answers, you need to know the questions.
One thing that a lot of Christian theologies get wrong is that they think that they have all the answers. They don't. But where they're really missing the boat is that religion is not about having all the answers. Rather, the role of religion is to get us to ask the right questions. Seeking the answers is so much more important than having answers and you need to be asking the right questions in order to seek the answers.
Questions are also important in science. Since science is an on-going investigation of how the universe works, the best answers are the ones that raise more questions. That is the main reason why "God did it" is not a suitable answer in science, because "God did it" raises no further questions and stops all further investigation.
For all its flaws, theology has one thing going for it that science doesn't. The questions of science are of limited scope and are relatively easy. The truly interesting and important questions are beyond the ability of science to answer. It is theology that tries to tackle those questions, that has any hope of seeking answers. But as we use theology for this purpose, we need to learn to deal with theology's problems as well.
From your Message 7:
My whole goal all along while I was a YEC was to make both evolution and creation a theory and not a fact, that way I could be equally justified in believing something that we "don't know for certain".
Hopefully you have since then learned what a theory actually is (not some wild guess) and what the relationship is between theories and facts.
From your Message 8:
I formerly embraced the Bible as the infallible and literal word of God. You can't have evolution if you cling on to that belief -- therefore, in order for my version of creation to be true, evolution couldn't be simultaneously true.
That's correct. The question is not the Bible itself nor belief in divine creation itself, but rather what you believe about those things. If you are a biblical literalist and you interpret the Bible in a particular way, then not only are you placing yourself at odds with evolution, but also with the whole of reality. In that case, not only must you deny evolution, but you must also deny things that you see, but cannot admit that you see, in everyday life.
Gary, a friend at church (Unitarian Universalist), once told me his story. He used to be a devout fundamentalist and he used to have to keep his eyes blind to contradictory evidence that was all around him. Finally the effort of that constant self-deception wore him down. He applied the Matthew 7:20 test to Christianity and found that it failed that test. He became "a complete atheist and a total humanist" and describes himself as feeling much more spiritually fulfilled now than when he was a Christian. The only thing he misses is being able to personally express his gratitude to a god.
In order for any theist to believe in evolution they have to be willing to admit that not "all" of their holy book is being literal if it contains a literal creation story that conflicts with evolution.
No, not "any theist". You are lumping in millions of non-Christians there. Rather, you are talking about literalists. And it's not the creation story that conflicts with evolution, but rather their interpretation of it, which would include how literally to interpret it.
The big question is, is the theistic evolutionist willing to lay aside their belief if emerging scientific evidence invalidates the probability of their current beliefs?
Doesn't that depend on what their beliefs are and how they view those beliefs?
As I recall one theistic evolutionist having described it, those beliefs basically boil down to:
1. God created the universe to run by natural processes.
2. Science is the study of how the universe operates.
What kind of scientific evidence could invalidate that?
Now, if a theistic evolutionist were to try to pull the creationist trick of dictating to God how He had to have created the universe and of dictating to the universe how it must work and what can or cannot exist, then that theistic evolutionist's beliefs would rightfully be in danger, just like the creationist's.
The bottom line is, someone can somehow try to make their all-knowing religion and science compatible in their mind, but it really can't be done.
If they follow a false theology that claims to have all the answers, then your statement would be true.
If they follow a proper theology that asks the questions and seeks the answers, then their religion and science can very well be compatible.
Remember, your old theology is not the only one that exists. And most certainly not one of the better ones, as you've already discovered.
From your Message 10:
Then I would argue that you are probably not a devout Christian. Do you know it 100% to be the "truth" or not? If you admit that it might be wrong, then it isn't a religion, it's just some abstract pet idea to make yourself feel better.
I could sit here and say the same thing, well, I'm a Christian but if science invalidates everything then I'll be willing to accept that I'm wrong. I already did that and realized there's no purpose in doing that.
This is yet another example of your old theology continuing to blind you. Your old theology taught you that only someone who holds to that theology could be considered to be a Christian. That is false. In reality, there are a great many Christian theologies, all with certain key similarities and many minor differences. You are fixating on some of those minor differences, which your old theology had falsely taught you were major or even essential, in order to pronounce a Christian to be "non-Christian."
Religion already knows and doesn't need the answer, it understands already (for a fact). Science is constantly seeking truth and making itself willing to adapt and change based on new evidence. Is it really hard to see that there is an inherent conflict?
There may well be an inherent conflict between reality and an authoritarian theology with contrary-to-fact teachings. Obviously, such a theology's teachings are false, so it has much to fear from science.
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science and there should be no conflict.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-02-2013 11:41 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 10:16 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 82 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-04-2013 5:22 PM dwise1 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 65 of 380 (712458)
12-03-2013 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 11:53 AM


Re: on religion.
Thanks for the welcome! I find that the difference between agnosticism and atheism is more just linguistic. I mean, atheism seems to say that it knows for sure that there is no God, but that's not really true. It is just a lack of belief, in the very same way agnosticism is. Both have the same default position: not proclaiming an affiliation in anything other than what we can know. The term "atheism" just strikes people as stronger but I think it means the same thing.
I see the two terms meaning different things. Furthermore, I see agnosticism as a position that is both compatible with theism but also necessary for an honest theist.
My agnosticism is acknowledgment of a simple fact: humans are incapable of actually knowing anything about the supernatural. The supernatural is beyond the ability of our own senses or any of our instruments to detect it. Thus we cannot observe the supernatural, nor measure it, nor test it in any way, nor determine whether it even exists. Since we cannot gain objective knowledge of the supernatural, we cannot know it nor know about it. Acknowledging that we do not really know anything about the supernatural nor can we know, is the only truly honest position to hold concerning the supernatural.
From that position, you have to start making assumptions. A theist would assume that the supernatural exists as well as supernatural entities (AKA "gods") and would start to build up a theology about the supernatural and those gods. Or adopt the stories that others have built up over the years. But to remain honest, the theist would need to he doesn't actually know these things for a fact and that he cannot, but these are the things that he believes and has faith in. No proof, but faith.
An atheist is one who does not believe in the gods. That is the basic definition. From there, there is a wide range of details to the beliefs of an atheist. If he is honest and holds to the agnostic realization, then he would not claim to actually know that the supernatural does not exist, but rather he does not believe that it does. Or he may accept the possibility that the supernatural could exist, but he does not believe that any theists are correct in their pronouncements about the supernatural -- remember, the gods are the creation of Man and it is primarily those gods that atheists do not believe in. While there are a few anti-religion atheists, they are relatively few and mainly the by-product of fundamentalist Christians having deconverted who deal with the pain and suffering they had endured as Christians by lashing out at their former tormentors. But most atheists are quite content to leave the theists to themselves and ask only that the theists afford them the same courtesy. Of course, theists and especially evangelical Christians cannot respect the beliefs of anybody else, so these peaceful atheists end up having to defend themselves. And since in the US for the past three decades the Religious Right in its various forms has been trying to destroy religious liberty and to use the government to impose their religion on the rest of society, atheists and other believers in religious liberty have had to stand up to those transgressors.
BTW, I once saw this on a bumper sticker:
quote:
Militant Agnostic:
"I don't know ... and neither do you!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 11:53 AM scienceishonesty has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 380 (712459)
12-03-2013 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by dwise1
12-03-2013 9:00 PM


I'm not going to quote you in particular. There's really just one insinuation that I'm feeling that I disagree with, and it may be totally unfounded, but:
You seem to be implicating too much planning on the creationists' side, as if they decided that these were the beliefs that would go towards their goal, as opposed to just falling into the ones that they seemed fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by dwise1, posted 12-03-2013 9:00 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 12-04-2013 12:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 67 of 380 (712463)
12-04-2013 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2013 10:16 PM


Well, there are creationist and then there are creationists.
Most creationists we encounter are the sheep (feel free to associate that with "fleecing" if you'd like). They just accept everything that their handlers (eg, creationist teachers, preachers, professional creationists' presentations and publications) feed them and regurgitate it all on us without having digested any of it. IOW, they believe everything that they're told and they don't understand any of the claims. Ever notice that the worst thing you could do to a creationist, something would really anger him, would be to try to take his claims seriously and try to discuss them with him. At first I thought that they knew that their claims were false and they didn't like my calling their bluff, but after a while I came to realize that those creationists simply were incapable of discussing their claims because they didn't understand them themselves.
Those sheep obviously are not party to any strategy planning outside of organizing street or school proselytizing efforts. And even then, they are normally fed pamphlets and the like which are basically scripts for conducting a conversion. Those usually involve hitting the mark with "unanswerable" questions intended to take the mark by surprise, to shake him up, and make him more vulnerable, easier to convert. If the mark doesn't really know much about science or about creationist claims (which is most of the general population), then the creationist can control the encounter and keep them on script. If the mark is knowledgeable, then the creationist loses control of the situation and either desperately tries to disengage or frantically tries to regain control. And the sheep don't come up with those scripts and materials, but rather they are published or researched from published materials. Somebody who is capable of more planning had produced them.
The planning is handled by the higher echelons, by the professional creationists and the highly motivated amateurs who do have some science or technical background. Like the leadership of the ICR and other creationist organizations. For that matter, I believe it was largely Drs. Gish and H. Morris of the ICR who devised the "Two Model Approach" deception. In the foreword of Dalrymple's Age of the Earth, he told of when Gish and Morris visited a USGS research center in the early 1970's. They did not try to hide the religious nature of their materials and the main reaction they got from their audience of scientists was everybody trying to help them by correcting their glaring mistakes in geology and especially their misunderstanding of thermodynamics. In observing them in later years, I found that they would go out of their way to avoid discussing specific topics with scientists, but rather concentrated on tricking local educators into their "debates".
And as I understand the history, at first the ICR made no attempt to hide the religious basis of their material and it was court decisions against them in the early 1970's that established the precedence that you cannot bar the teaching of evolution for religious reasons. That obstacle prompted them to invent the game of "Hide the Bible" in which they superficially scrubbed all their materials of overt religious references and started claiming that their objections to evolution were purely scientific, nothing at all religious about it. That was also the time when they devised the Two Model Approach.
So the planning did take place in the upper echelons, the ravening wolves, and the plans then were passed down to the lower echelons, to the sheep, for actual fielding and implementation. Once all the sheep had the scripts in hand, the entire scam started running itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 10:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 68 of 380 (712478)
12-04-2013 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
12-03-2013 5:41 PM


Re: Some apology
No, the Vatican and the Jesuits are NOT included in "the Church"
Only from the mouth of Faith and other Catholic haters would this line make any sense at all.
It is called Bat shit crazy in these parts.
The Benedictines, Cistercians, Dominicans, Franciscans and all other Catholic orders are included in "the Church", but the Vatican and Jesuits are not.
So lets say a Franciscan or a parish priest goes to work at the Vatican, at what point is he no longer included "in the Church". Does Faith have any clue how the Catholic Church even works?
Edited by Theodoric, : bad spalling

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 12-04-2013 1:26 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 12-04-2013 2:20 PM Theodoric has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 69 of 380 (712482)
12-04-2013 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
12-03-2013 5:41 PM


Double post
double post
Edited by Theodoric, : Internet connection issues big storm

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:41 PM Faith has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 70 of 380 (712492)
12-04-2013 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
12-03-2013 5:53 PM


Re: Some apology
Faith writes:
You don't understand how the Vatican works....
Only Faith understands how the Vatican works, just like only Faith understands how science works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 12-04-2013 1:28 PM ringo has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 71 of 380 (712495)
12-04-2013 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 6:02 PM


Evidence's role in belief vs. knowledge
I think we're using different definitions of "believe" and "faith" and "know"...
But I'm not sure yet.
scienceishonesty writes:
Facts should be something that everyone be persuaded into accepting.
I agree.
But we're not talking about facts. We're talking about believing and having faith in things... these are things you do without facts and sometimes even against facts.
Are you trying to say that any and all belief is a bad idea at all times?
But you can't honestly believe in something for which there is no evidence.
Actually, that's the only way you can possibly believe in something. If there's evidence... then you don't believe in it anymore... you know it.
Like this:
A guy gets told stories all his life that all ravens are black.
The guy believes that all ravens are black, based upon these stories.
The guy looks for ravens and studies them as best he can (he does not have access to the internet).
All ravens he identifies are all black.
Now he knows that all ravens are black, because he has tested and verified the information. He no longer believes that all ravens are black.
One day he gains access to the internet and learns about the existence of albino ravens that are white. He's just never seen one.
He updates his knowledge of ravens and now knows that all ravens are not black.
Knowing things is based on evidence... tests that can be repeated and falsified.
Believing things is based on personal experience or word-of-mouth... things that are not tested or verified.
Once you move into testing and verification (evidence...) you leave the realm of "belief" and enter the realm of "knowledge."
Belief can be right or wrong...
Knowledge can also be right or wrong...
The difference is that one is based on things that can be tested and verified (evidence) and the other is not.
No one can honestly believe in the flying spaghetti monster and neither can anyone honestly believe in any other being or creature for which there is no evidence whatsoever. So in that case, I disagree.
Again, actually... that's the only way someone can believe in the flying spaghetti monster or any other being or creature. If there is no evidence, or if they refuse to accept the evidence.
Once they admit that they are basing their thoughts on the actual evidence... then you can say they can't honestly think the evidence does not exist. But this doesn't rely on your knowledge of there being evidence or not. This relies on their knowledge of the evidence and their willingness to pursue it and their method of going over the evidence.
Like this:
Let's say I was raised by horrible, practical joke-loving parents that always told me the flying spaghetti monster was real.
I would honestly believe that the flying spaghetti monster was real.
Then, one day I decide to go over the evidence.
There is none, and there is evidence that the FSM does not exist.
Therefore, I now know that the FSM does not exist.
BUT...
Let's say that while I was growing up believing in the FSM, I found a lot of comfort from having him around. He, after all, never played jokes on me like my parents did.
So, even now that I'm aware of the evidence that the FSM does not exist... I can still honestly believe in the FSM, despite the evidence to the contrary.
I could even honestly believe that the evidence was incomplete or wrong somehow but we just do not know it yet.
Then, I can honestly say that "yes, all current, rational evidence points towards the FSM not existing. However, I honestly believe that the FSM still does exist, and I hope that one day current science finds more evidence."
The belief may be wrong.
Science may be wrong.
...but this can all still happen, and all still be honest.
But, it seems you actually sort of already agree with all this I've just said, because your next statement is:
Of course, we are all free to believe what we like. I can believe that fairies crawl into my bed at night but that doesn't mean they do.
So, which is it? Can people honestly being in things without evidence?
Or are people free to believe what they like?
Personally, I think this statement is very valid. Yes, we are all free to believe what we like.
Those beliefs may be true, they may be false.
The knowledge we have scientifically may be true, it may be false.
Scientific knowledge has a wonderful track record of being very accurate and reliable.
Beliefs have a horrible track record of being accurate and reliable.
But that has nothing to do with how we utilize each in our day-to-day lives, and how we go about things in an honest way.
Sometimes the priority of "being accurate and reliable" isn't very high. Sometimes other factors have higher priorities.
But there is no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
Sure there is.
Feelings of security.
Feelings of joy.
Feelings of fun.
...and many more.
If you plan on going the rest of you life not believing in things there are no evidence for... you better wipe the following from your resume:
-following a sports team (eventually, there will be evidence that they will lose and lose badly and therefore you shouldn't follow them...)
-trusting a friend when no one else will (no one else trusts them because there's evidence that they shouldn't be trusted...)
-gambling (the house always wins...)
-believing in your own children (evidentially, your children are average and will be average. There's no rational reason to treat them as special or to love them more than other people's kids)
Are you really going to postulate that one must "provide evidence that not believing based on evidence is reasonable?"...
Actually, I've gone further than postulating it.
I've given you 4 reasons just now. Each one proves that what I'm saying is correct... there are plenty of reasons to believe in things without evidence and even despite the evidence.
Just because those reasons aren't important to you, doesn't mean they aren't important to someone else.
You don't get to decide what's important for other people.
It's like saying: I don't believe in science and the reason is because no one has produced evidence that not believing in science is not okay?
No, I'm not saying that "no one has shown that believing despite the evidence is impossible... so it can't happen."
What I'm saying is "here are the reasons why some people will believe in things despite the evidence." And I've given you some reasons.
I've provided evidence for the claims I'm making.
Can you provide evidence for your claims?
Do you still think it's impossible for someone to honestly believe in something with no evidence?
If so, can you provide evidence that this, in fact, impossible?
I'm hoping you'll see the point here.
The point is that "following the evidence" is only important when your highest priority is to be accurate and reliable with your information.
"Following the evidence" becomes less important when other priorities get higher... priorities like making other people feel good, and getting along with others and being a nice person.
It's up to you to be honest with yourself, see what sort of person you want to be, and then decide how to prioritize things according to what you think is best and when.
But blanket, absolute statements like "there is no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence" are easily proven to be false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 6:02 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-04-2013 5:09 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 72 of 380 (712498)
12-04-2013 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Theodoric
12-04-2013 8:53 AM


Re: Some apology
Gosh, Theodoric, CONTEXT CONTEXT for pete's sake. When the Pope "apologizes" for the "sons and daughters" of the Church, for the "children" of the Church it's obvious to all but the besotted that he is NOT apologizing for the Pope or the Jesuits who were the actual perpetrators of the crimes at issue. He means to be implicating nameless Catholics, NOT the power hierarchy. They will NEVER apologize for the enormities committed by the Pope himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 12-04-2013 8:53 AM Theodoric has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 73 of 380 (712499)
12-04-2013 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ringo
12-04-2013 11:15 AM


Re: Some apology
I've been learning a lot about the Vatican that the average Catholic doesn't know because it's kept from them and the material has to be dug up from very old books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 12-04-2013 11:15 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 12-04-2013 2:31 PM Faith has replied
 Message 96 by ringo, posted 12-05-2013 10:41 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 74 of 380 (712503)
12-04-2013 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Theodoric
12-04-2013 8:53 AM


Re: Some apology
P.S. I'm not a "Catholic hater," I keep saying the average Catholic is innocent of all these things and in fact I feel very sorry for all the good Catholics out there who haven't a clue about any of it, especially American Catholics where the Vatican's grasp isn't quite as tight, yet anyway, as it is in Europe and Latin America and other Catholic regions. I MIGHT be called a "Vatican hater" I suppose, after what I've been learning about all this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 12-04-2013 8:53 AM Theodoric has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 75 of 380 (712504)
12-04-2013 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
12-04-2013 1:28 PM


Re: Some apology
I've been learning a lot about the Vatican that the average Catholic doesn't know because it's kept from them and the material has to be dug up from very old books.
But you cannot provide any of the evidence can you?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 12-04-2013 1:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 12-04-2013 2:56 PM Theodoric has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024