Denouncing religions ? [New to debate]

Hello everyone!I think that this thread could use some more input from Christian young earth creationists. Although I’m not one anymore, I was until a few years ago, so I think am able to represent that point of view. Christians do not use Creationism to “justify” Christianity, in the same way that Newton did not use falling apples to justify the theory of gravity. Falling apples are evidence for a force-at-a-distance, and a universe created in the way described by Genesis is evidence for Christianity.You are right - Christians use creationism as an apologetic tool. But this is perfectly natural: if there was substantial evidence that the universe had been created as described in Genesis, wouldn’t this be strong evidence in favor of Christianity? And wouldn’t it rightfully have a place in debates between Christians and people of other religions? The literature of creationism is filled with positive references to science - in fact, one of the classic books on young earth creationism is titled “Scientific Creationism.” In addition, most criticisms of evolution are based on the idea that arguments for it are not scientific. Creationists place science in a position of great respect, and see its correct application as the only way to refute evolution.What creationists do oppose are a specific set of conclusions whose proponents claim to have produced by use of the scientific method. No, evolutionism and its ignorant prognosticators are the ones who lie about the Second Law of Thermodynamics!You should really be more polite. But creationists claim that such evidence has been produced, which is what the debate is about. Creationists say that evolutionists don’t have evidence, and evolutionists say that creationists don’t have evidence - thus the existence of websites such as this one. I think that is partially correct. Creationists believe that the scientific method is valid, but that the findings of many modern scientists are not; the explanation for this involves a dysfunctional scientific culture. The given reasons for the scientific problems are cultural, thus the scientific war is fundamentally tied up with a cultural war - but the scientific war still exists. This is true. The argument about biological origins (at least in the U.S.A.) essentially has two sides: evolution and Judeo-Christian creationism. No non-Judeo-Christian religion has significant involvement in the argument. Christian creationists are not anxious about the creationist arguments of other religions because they do not pose nearly as large a threat as does evolution. I don’t think this is true for most creationists. Many do think that their theories have been proven (or very nearly proven) correct. When collisions of religious ideas about origins collide, these theories are certainly used as the basis of arguments against the validity of the other religion. Do you hold any beliefs strongly enough that you would go to war for them?(Note: I do not support the numerous, horrible wars that have been waged for supposedly religious reasons.) ICANT, a brand-new poster, was humble and self-effacing, and this is your response?

---

* JT is my real username, not JT2, but I can't log into that account...

I think we agree - I believe that it is impossible to prove that one religion is true and another is false. This is partially because the evidence for and against religions is somewhat nebulous (at least compared to the hard evidence for things like gravity), and partially because it is hardly possible to really prove anything. I have indeed come to that conclusion (assuming I properly understand what you mean by “that.”) But most creationists are not scientists, and attach a less strict meaning to the word “prove” than the average scientist. In addition, many do think that their ideas explain (almost) all the variables and are well-nigh irrefutable. Many creationists do believe that their arguments for creationism are proofs.Holding science in high regard, and understanding science, are not necessarily related. Which is why creationists question the credibility of the scientific community. I am glad you are of such a persuasion, and welcome your 0.2. This question was mainly meant for AZPaul3, who made (what I think is an invalid) contrast between the willingness of religious people to fight wars over their beliefs and the willingness of science to accept uncertainty. It doesn’t seem that you hold this view, however.

---

"People who think they know everything annoy those of that do" - t-shirt

Things are going swimmingly (I am on spring break ) - thanks for asking. How have you been? I think you may have misunderstood my post (I apologize -- I should made my position more clear). It seems like most of your post is an attempt to correct perceived disagreements, but I agree with almost everything you wrote.I didn’t mean to say that creationists have produced satisfactory evidence, or convincing arguments, or that they make good use of the scientific method. If I did believe those things, I would probably still be a creationist.What I meant to say was that most creationists honestly and completely believe those things, without experiencing any cognitive dissonance or related phenomena, or being even the slightest bit aware of committing the trespasses you mention. I already tried to do so and failed, which is a large part of why I am no longer a creationist. I don’t think that modern scientific culture is dysfunctional - creationists do. But I do agree that it would be interesting to have a discussion about the cultural problems that science does face (although not dysfunctional, scientific culture certainly isn’t perfect). It would be interesting to hear people’s thoughts about the peer-review process, the faculty system, etc., and how those things could be improved.

---

"People who think they know everything annoy those of that do" - t-shirt

I am indeed a former creationist - who was trying to make something of a joke. I meant for that remark to be sufficiently absurd that it would be funny.But anyway, I was trying to make two points: first, that the comment you made would offend the receiving party (I hoped that by putting you on the receiving end of a similar one you would see this), and that you should not use arguments that are so susceptible to being thrown back at you by your opponents (tu quoque). In this specific case, the argument was reversible because it was just an assertion/accusation. This is why assertions/accusations aren’t useful - they can just as easily be used to support either side of an argument.By the way, the so called “issue” you mention doesn’t seem relevant. At least, it should not be a problem for any reasonably well-adjusted person. (Disclaimer: the previous two sentences should not be taken seriously.) Saying something like “Same old lies, same old nonsense, same old ignorance . ” is not pointing out a blunder; it is pointing out that repeated blunders have annoyed you. This annoyance is understandable, but in the interest of promoting reasoned discourse you should not let it influence how you phrase your arguments. If you aren’t careful, your writing will have a harsh edge to it that will cause your opponents to give your posts less consideration than they deserve. This seems like an appeal to authority. By this line of reasoning wouldn’t it be arrogant to contradict anyone who is significantly more of an expert than oneself?Edited by jt, : I fixed an oops.

---

"People who think they know everything annoy those of that do" - t-shirt