Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 2:03 PM
38 online now:
ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,554 Year: 3,591/19,786 Month: 586/1,087 Week: 176/212 Day: 18/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
232425
26
2728Next
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
Phat
Member
Posts: 12164
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 376 of 417 (849146)
02-26-2019 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by dwise1
02-26-2019 1:48 AM


Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
I think I understand your points. The fundamentalist would basically assert that the whole concept of science originates with the "ye shall be as gods" dogma. They would argue that basically, humans have this inborn rebellious desire to understand all of reality without having to bow to a God to tell us about it. We by nature want to figure it out for ourselves.
dwise1 writes:

My follow-up question for him was why every single creationist claim was so unconvincing, to which he replied that the only reason I found them so unconvincing was that I was not yet convinced myself. Whoa! That revealed to me that truth has absolutely nothing to do with creationism (despite their purported worship of a god who is Truth Incarnate), but rather sounding convincing is their only touchstone.

I think that whenever we believers, myself, GDR,ICANT etc...get into science, we try and use the science to convince ourselves that our beliefs are valid.(measurable,provable) but I can really only speak for myself.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by dwise1, posted 02-26-2019 1:48 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by dwise1, posted 02-27-2019 7:56 PM Phat has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 377 of 417 (849152)
02-26-2019 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by dwise1
02-26-2019 1:48 AM


facts and reality unconvincing to fundamentalists
Of course not, because as believers they have a vested interest in it all being real. So then basically wishful thinking, but wishful thinking that they are heavily invested in.

... to which he replied that the only reason I found them so unconvincing was because I was not yet convinced myself. Whoa! That revealed to me that truth has absolutely nothing to do with creationism (despite their purported worship of a god who is Truth Incarnate), but rather sounding convincing is their only touchstone.

Indeed we have seen here time and again that facts and reality are not convincing to creationists, that they operate on a different paradigm for finding "TRVTH" ... one based on beliefs strongly held. We have also seen that cognitive dissonance interferes as they reject the evidence or the messengers of it.

An interesting article that I ran across on the web:

quote:
Facts don’t change people’s minds. Here’s what does.

If you had asked me this question–How do you change a mind?–two years ago, I would have given you a different answer.

As a former scientist, I would have cautioned you to rely on objective facts and statistics. Develop a strong case for your side, back it up with hard, cold, irrefutable data, and voila!

Drowning the other person with facts, I assumed, was the best way to prove that global warming is real, the war on drugs has failed, or the current business strategy adopted by your risk-averse boss with zero imagination is not working.

Since then, I’ve discovered a significant problem with this approach.

It doesn’t work.

The mind doesn’t follow the facts. Facts, as John Adams put it, are stubborn things, but our minds are even more stubborn. Doubt isn’t always resolved in the face of facts for even the most enlightened among us, however credible and convincing those facts might be.

As a result of the well-documented confirmation bias, we tend to undervalue evidence that contradicts our beliefs and overvalue evidence that confirms them. We filter out inconvenient truths and arguments on the opposing side. As a result, our opinions solidify, and it becomes increasingly harder to disrupt established patterns of thinking.


Sound familiar?

So what does work?

quote:
Give the mind an out

We’re reluctant to acknowledge mistakes. To avoid admitting we were wrong, we’ll twist ourselves into positions that even seasoned yogis can’t hold.

The key is to trick the mind by giving it an excuse. Convince your own mind (or your friend) that your prior decision or prior belief was the right one given what you knew, but now that the underlying facts have changed, so should the mind.

But instead of giving the mind an out, we often go for a punch to the gut. We belittle the other person (“I told you so”). We ostracize (“Basket of deplorables”). We ridicule (“What an idiot”).


... and that is also familiar, frequently seen behavior here, a reaction to frustration that facts don't convince the believers.

So give their minds an out: offer an opening for an alternate/updated belief -- when you first came to this belief you were younger, less informed than you are now, and your beliefs need to grow with your new knowledge.

You are not your beliefs. Your beliefs came/come from other people that may be wrong/uninformed, and should be treated with the same skepticism that you apply to this new information: if they are at fault for providing misleading information, then modifying your belief is not admitting that you are wrong.

Bishop Usher's age calculation as a case in point. It seemed valid at the time and "worked" based on the knowledge then available to the Bishop, but times have changed,the bible does not mention/talk about age of the universe, age of the earth, etc. -- THAT is a purely human interpretation and it used some rather extraordinary assumptions that would not be made today.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by dwise1, posted 02-26-2019 1:48 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Phat, posted 02-26-2019 11:34 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12164
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 378 of 417 (849153)
02-26-2019 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by RAZD
02-26-2019 8:35 AM


Re: facts and reality unconvincing to fundamentalists
I appreciate your input! I know it took a lot to write that long and detailed post. I appreciate you.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2019 8:35 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 379 of 417 (849191)
02-27-2019 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Phat
02-26-2019 7:46 AM


Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
I think I understand your points. The fundamentalist would basically assert that the whole concept of science originates with the "ye shall be as gods" dogma. They would argue that basically, humans have this inborn rebellious desire to understand all of reality without having to bow to a God to tell us about it. We by nature want to figure it out for ourselves.

Sorry, but, no, you don't. I'm sure that you're correct about what fundamentalists would assert, but they have it wrong yet again. It is most unfortunate that they are so convinced of the infallibility of their Man-made beliefs, since that creates huge barriers to trying to communicate with them. Ironically, it was the fundamentalists (especially the Jesus Freaks of the early 1970's) who would preach how fallible everything Man-made is, yet here they are insisting that their Man-made theology is infallible.

My main point is that Man created the gods -- the reason why Man knows everything about the gods and how they think and what they want is because Man also created all the stories about the gods. Opponents to this view would over-simplify it as my accusing them of just "making shit up" (rather, that's how they do creationism). Rather, the creation of the gods was part of Man trying to figure out this world that they lived in works; it was very serious business.

Man's main obstacle in that endeavor is our inability to work with the supernatural: we cannot detect it, we cannot observe it, we cannot determine whether it even exists. Even if some extremely powerful supernatural entity were to exist, one that we would very likely identify as "God", we would still be unable to determine anything about it. So in trying to deal or work with that idea, we created gods as substitutes that we could deal and work with. Even if that supernatural entity were "God", the very nature of God places Him outside Man's ability to deal and work with Him -- therefore every believer ends up creating his own personal version of "God", leading to the idea that there are as many different Christian Gods as there are believers.

So what are we to expect believers to do about that? A mature believer would realize that his understanding of God is guaranteed to be wrong. Since that is all that he has to work with, then, like a working hypothesis, he must use it. Using a working hypothesis requires that you also test that hypothesis so that you understand its shortcomings, which would affect the results you get -- part of what that gets you is a better working hypothesis. Similarly, as a believer using his faulty understand of God, he needs to question and test that misunderstanding so that you can find and correct your errors and hopefully develope a better understanding of God.

Unfortunately, most believers are not mature, so they enshrine their misunderstanding of God as unquestionable dogma. Hence, they never question their misunderstanding, which prevents them from ever correcting their mistaken beliefs. A book from a few decades ago, co-written by a rabbi, was based on the theme of "stupid ways of thinking about God". They found that most believers have very childish ideas about God, because they had formed those ideas as children and had never revisited those childish ideas and hence never tried to form more mature ideas as they matured in most other ways.

Phat writes:

It seems to me that through these arguments, I sense that I am being asked to let go of the spark of hope that philosophers describe as "springing eternal.". Do you really have an equivalent hope in human survival and science to ensure the survival of our species??

Those are two different things.

Your "hope springing eternal" tends to derive from your Christian musings, few of which are rational.

The "hope in human survival and science to ensure the survival of our species" is something altogether different and even potentially anti-Christian.

Remember, what is the Christian model for the future? Armageddon! Everything falling apart and quite literally going to Hell.

So then the only "hope in human survival and science to ensure the survival of our species" that could ever be offered in such a Christian environment would be completely and utterly anti-Christian.

You seemed to have missed this part. My point here was that Christianity has a very definite plan for the future, which has nothing whatsoever to do with ensuring the survival of our species. Armageddon. For a believing Christian to work against that plan would be blasphemous at least, if not heretical.

The other side of that coin would be the creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy. A fundamentalist as the leader of a nuclear power could decide to fulfill prophesy by starting WWIII. Or that leader could decide to ignore environmental emergencies (eg, climate change) and even make things far worse, since the End Times are about to be upon us so the environment doesn't matter. Far more the pity should the Christian model of the End Times turn out to be utterly false, so they would have destroyed the earth and humanity for no reason.

So if you have hope for ensuring the survival of our species, then Christianity is not the model you should be using.

dwise1 writes:

My follow-up question for him was why every single creationist claim was so unconvincing, to which he replied that the only reason I found them so unconvincing was that I was not yet convinced myself. Whoa! That revealed to me that truth has absolutely nothing to do with creationism (despite their purported worship of a god who is Truth Incarnate), but rather sounding convincing is their only touchstone.

I think that whenever we believers, myself, GDR,ICANT etc...get into science, we try and use the science to convince ourselves that our beliefs are valid.(measurable,provable) but I can really only speak for myself.

That wasn't my point. Please refer to my page-under-construction, Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists, for my comparison of science and creationism and how their different goals yield very different results.

Scientists seek to discover how things work, so they depend on actual evidence and testing their hypotheses -- basically, their goal is finding the truth. Their research depends on the research of other scientists, so the validity and quality of that other research is very important, which leads to standards of scholarship and honesty that must be met. Research that turns out to be wrong is eliminated very quickly and scientists who falsify data or create a hoax are ostracized from the scientific community.

Creationists' goal is to support their religious beliefs and to proselytize to others. They will seize upon misunderstood, misrepresented, and/or fabricated scientific sources to create claims which are judged only by how convincing they sound. They do not care one whit how much of a lie their claims are -- even when they know for a fact that a claim is false, they will continue to use it unabated so long as it still sounds convincing (sadly, I have seen this done over and over again, including by that creationist on the Google Groups forum and now more recently here by candle2). If a creationist is caught lying or creating a hoax, then he is actually rewarded for it if what he comes up with sounds convincing -- the only way a creationist can fall out of favor is if he makes a theological mistake.

The end result from these differences is high degrees of dishonesty in the creationist community as they retain and continue to reuse their blatantly false claims despite witnessing those claims being refuted a thousand times (hence PRATT). Sadly, I have witnessed outright deliberate lying and deliberate deception being practiced far too rampantly by creationists. Not only does that reflect very negatively on the underlying religion (ie, Christianity), but it most definitely reveals that theology as being both immoral and promoting immorality.

--------------------------

I see that you are still hopped up on that "Der Ewige Jude"-like propaganda movie, "God is not Dead". What is it about that movie's vicious lies that you love so much?

Edited by dwise1, : Added paragraph "The end result ... "


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Phat, posted 02-26-2019 7:46 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Phat, posted 02-28-2019 12:54 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 382 by Phat, posted 02-28-2019 3:59 PM dwise1 has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12164
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 380 of 417 (849218)
02-28-2019 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by dwise1
02-27-2019 7:56 PM


Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
A mature believer would realize that his understanding of God is guaranteed to be wrong.
OK I read your whole post and contemplated it. It is food for thought.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by dwise1, posted 02-27-2019 7:56 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by dwise1, posted 02-28-2019 3:12 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 381 of 417 (849224)
02-28-2019 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Phat
02-28-2019 12:54 PM


Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
quote:
"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. For if you understand, you have failed."
(Augustine of Hippo)

I started replying before you changed your reply.

If one were to think that they understand God, then that would be arrogant, akin to thinking of oneself as greater than human even approaching being a god oneself.

But being guaranteed to be wrong should not be a bad thing, so long as one continues to work at being less wrong. As our minister would teach, the proper use of religion is not to provide us with answers, but rather to get us to ask the right questions which lead us to seeking the answers. And engaging in that search is how we grow spiritually.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Phat, posted 02-28-2019 12:54 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12164
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 382 of 417 (849231)
02-28-2019 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by dwise1
02-27-2019 7:56 PM


Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
I see that you are still hopped up on that "Der Ewige Jude"-like propaganda movie, "God is not Dead". What is it about that movie's vicious lies that you love so much?
Apart from the stereotypical "angry atheist" meme, I don't see that much in the way of lies. Enlighten me.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by dwise1, posted 02-27-2019 7:56 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by dwise1, posted 02-28-2019 11:52 PM Phat has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 383 of 417 (849235)
02-28-2019 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by Phat
02-28-2019 3:59 PM


Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
Apart from the stereotypical "angry atheist" meme, I don't see that much in the way of lies. Enlighten me.

Really?

The blatantly anti-Islamic tropes? Really?

All the negative atheistic tropes? Really?

The "professor of philosophy" and his hyper-anti-theistic approach in his class? Really?

Whatever actual philosophy class would ever use that approach? Did anybody on the staff of a Christian movie production ever attend any actual philosophy class? Really?

Think about this: what actual philosophy professor would have ever acted in such a manner? None.

There used to be on Netflix a Christian movie about evolution in which the entire narrative revolved around the professor's basic argument of "which came first, the chicken or the egg"?

Really? That is a stupid philosophical argument, not anything to do with evolution. Did anybody on the production staff of that utterly stupid Christian movie ever attend an actual biology class? Really?

OK, now it's your turn. You state:

Apart from the stereotypical "angry atheist" meme, I don't see that much in the way of lies. Enlighten me.

OK, so show us that those stereotypical lies in that film are true. Show us that atheists are only acting out from anger. Show us that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And show us that you are not just a fucking liar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Phat, posted 02-28-2019 3:59 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Phat, posted 03-01-2019 2:55 AM dwise1 has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12164
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 384 of 417 (849237)
03-01-2019 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by dwise1
02-28-2019 11:52 PM


Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
OK, so show us that those stereotypical lies in that film are true. Show us that atheists are only acting out from anger. Show us that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And show us that you are not just a fucking liar.

Why do you sound so angry?
I noted the stereotypes. And no they are not true. I guess that makes some people angry. I never really noticed since the characters seemed acceptable though typecast. I'm not trying to defend the movie, apart from the basic arguments which I thought were not lies. Maybe I've led a sheltered life.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by dwise1, posted 02-28-2019 11:52 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by dwise1, posted 03-01-2019 7:32 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 385 of 417 (849238)
03-01-2019 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by Phat
03-01-2019 2:55 AM


Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
Why do you sound so angry?

Alcohol.

I noted the stereotypes. And no they are not true. I guess that makes some people angry. I never really noticed since the characters seemed acceptable though typecast. I'm not trying to defend the movie, apart from the basic arguments which I thought were not lies. Maybe I've led a sheltered life.

You had originally posted a recommendation for that movie as having inspired you so much. So even though you now are saying that you note the stereotypes and that you know that they are not true, you originally said that you had found those stereotypes inspiring. If you are so enlightened to recognize the lies, then why did you also find those lies to be inspiring?

Frankly, I am sick and tired of theists who smugly insist that they know in intimate detail why atheists are atheists even though what they say demonstrates that they have absolutely no clue. Sorry that you are having to pay the price of their having poisoned the well for you.

There is one local "creation science" activist in particular, a pathological liar (whether attracted to creationism by his own character flaws or corrupted by creationism is unclear), who falsely claims to have been an atheist even though he had admitted to me that he had never stopped believing in God. I could quote his story directly if you wish. He tells of how as a teenager he had used evolution (specifically the Time-Life parade graphic of hominids which has been caricatured so many times) as an excuse to pretend to become an atheist only so that he could indulge his bubbling hormones without guilt. Except he admitted to me that during that entire period of his life he had prayed to God every single night, which is not what an atheist would do, so that nails down that he was only pretending to be an atheist in order to rationalize his pretense -- he even quoted the New Testament, Romans something as I seem to recall, to justify his pretense, even though that still contradicts what an atheist would actually think. He kept accusing me of only being an atheist because I hated God for my son's death 16 years ago (even though I had become an atheist over 50 years ago because I had started reading the Bible and found that I simply could not believe what I was reading -- does creationism really damage the brain so much that one becomes incapable of doing very basic arithmetic to the point of not being able to recognize that over 50 is far greater than 16?); plus what he falsely characterized as me hating God was actually my hatred of him for his vicious personal lies (in particular, he accused me of having attacked his wife when I had never said anything about her, and then when I tried to clear that up he refused all my attempts to identify what he could possibly be talking about while mocking me mercilessly, so, yes, I thoroughly hate him, not God, for being a complete malicious creationist asshole, though his own personal god whom he says is why he's such a complete asshole ("I do this because I loooooove Jeeeesus!") must be even more of an asshole, but that is just yet another case of believers inventing their own personal god as an invisible friend who agrees with them and "coincidentally" also hates everybody that they personally hate). Please refer to my page, Encounters with Creationists -- HINT: I'm not the only one to have noticed this particular creationist behavior. Basically, from what we can determine they cannot possibly support their bullshit lies, so they use whatever thoroughly offensive behavior they can to drive us away from being in their face over their standard lies. BTW, that local "creation science" activist is a dedicated YEC and had "converted" solely because of YEC, yet in 20 years of email correspondence he absolutely refused to go anywhere near any YEC claims despite my repeated attempts to take us there. So then, yes, he knows full well that YEC claims are pure bullshit which is why he avoids them.

Again, I personally apologize to you for your fellow theists having poisoned the well for you, but to quote William Claude Fields from memory: "There comes a time in the affairs of men that you just have to grab the bull by the tail and face the situation."

------------

Postscript:

It can be so frustrating for atheists to try to talk to theists, especially of the fundamentalist variety. They seem to be so entrenched in their views, yet they never openly discuss those views. We cannot even determine what their definition of atheism is.

-----------------

Post-Postscript:

That local creationist wasn't the only one to have had bubbling hormones. Twice in my time as a young atheist (18 to 24 years of age) married women approached me for sex, a young man's wet dream. In the first case, I knew her husband so I could not commit such a transgression against him -- BTW, I was also very strongly attracted to her. In the second case, I did not know her husband, an Air Force member stationed in Japan who stated that his steady diet was lack-a-nookie -- even though I did not know him, I simply could not do that to him.

The first case was a fundamentalist who immediately challenged my moral decision, since I was an atheist. I could not articulate it at the time, but basically it was empathy with the husband -- in the first case, I already knew her husband, but in the second case I did not, but that didn't make any difference in my atheist mind. End of story, I wore white at my wedding and my ex-wife is the only woman I've ever had sex with, all while having been an atheist.

All theists I've shared that with have poo-poo'd it away, but it does show the strength of actual moral values based on empathy against legalistic relativistic morality as proposed by "good Christians."

Edited by dwise1, : postscript

Edited by dwise1, : Typo: had left out "activist" in "creation science" activist

Edited by dwise1, : Post-Postscript


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Phat, posted 03-01-2019 2:55 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Theodoric, posted 03-01-2019 8:26 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 386 of 417 (849239)
03-01-2019 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by dwise1
03-01-2019 7:32 AM


Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
I think a lot of us atheists have similar stories of our experiences with theists and particularly fundies. We see it here at EVC all the time. Phat does not see it but he is no different than all the other fundies.
Not only are fundies math challenged, but evidently their beliefs strip away self-awareness.

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.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by dwise1, posted 03-01-2019 7:32 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Phat, posted 03-01-2019 4:10 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12164
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 387 of 417 (849243)
03-01-2019 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Theodoric
03-01-2019 8:26 AM


Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
dwise1 writes:

but that is just yet another case of believers inventing their own personal god as an invisible friend who agrees with them and "coincidentally" also hates everybody that they personally hate).

I think that believers warm up to the idea of a perfect human who totally does his Fathers will, saves the galaxy, rescues people, and tells us that we too can be like Him eventually.
Theodoric writes:

Phat does not see it but he is no different than all the other fundies.
Not only are fundies math challenged, but evidently their beliefs strip away self-awareness.

I am quite proficient at math. I also am not a creationist and I hesitate to label myself a fundie. I DO believe in magic, however. My Achilles heel is that I prefer fantasy over reality. God is the one adult belief that hints at magic as a possibility.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Theodoric, posted 03-01-2019 8:26 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Tangle, posted 03-01-2019 5:04 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6675
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 388 of 417 (849246)
03-01-2019 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Phat
03-01-2019 4:10 PM


Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
You believe in magic? Ffs Phat...no way, surely?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Phat, posted 03-01-2019 4:10 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Theodoric, posted 03-01-2019 5:30 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 389 of 417 (849247)
03-01-2019 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Tangle
03-01-2019 5:04 PM


Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
He has to if he believes in a god.

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.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Tangle, posted 03-01-2019 5:04 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


(1)
Message 390 of 417 (849252)
03-02-2019 12:31 AM


The topic of religion vs anti-religion debate "is a lot like a rocking chair... it gives you something to do, but it doesn't actually get you anywhere. Write that down." - Van Wilder
Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by ringo, posted 03-02-2019 10:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
232425
26
2728Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019