U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-08-2014, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,047 posts, read 18,589,435 times
Reputation: 18687

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GalileoSmith View Post
There is also the fact that an atheist cannot just dismiss his logical thoughts and simply believe. A person cannot just throw a switch and change opinions for the sake of convenience. Without a sales pitch, additional evidence, etc., the best that could be done is the appearance of a changed opinion.
Good point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2014, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,368 posts, read 2,980,420 times
Reputation: 2032
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalileoSmith View Post
There is also the fact that an atheist cannot just dismiss his logical thoughts and simply believe. A person cannot just throw a switch and change opinions for the sake of convenience. Without a sales pitch, additional evidence, etc., the best that could be done is the appearance of a changed opinion.
I think some Christian groups and most atheists have different opinions about what "belief" means.

I was at a generic Christian meeting where a speaker told people to "just give up" and "quit fighting it" and he basically seemed to imply that we were supposed to use our minds to imagine the God of Christianity exists.

I think, at least among some Christian groups, they think, "imagine God exists" means the same as "believe god exists."

If all you have to do is imagine God exists to get into heaven, that's a choice.

There are still numerous arguments against Pascal's Wager, even if we'd get into heaven for imagining God exists, rather than truly believing.

Last edited by Clintone; 02-08-2014 at 08:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 08:01 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092
This is absolutely fundamental to evangelical methods. There is need to overwhelm the critical faculties, and various evangelical packages are available on application, to do this , from Jesus was attested by Independent historians through Science proves Eden and the flood to Philosophical arguments prove that God must be real (Aquinas and Blaise Pascal are favourite) to Unbelief leads to totalitarian dictators with extermination campaigns.

All this is to get your mind off balance and then brainwash you 'Don't fight it...give in..believe...accept Jesus as your saviour!'

If a carefully wangled presentation (I must cite Ken Ham again - that would be very convincing to those who didn't know better or perhaps were not paying attention) or a Gish gallop or a Lane - Craig argument that the resurrection HAS to be true, get you into a position where you doubts are (temporarily) banished to another part of the brain, then an appeal to get into a prayer and belief mode and buy into Faith can often work. I imagine that, in an atmosphere of sugary gospel - singing and ecstatic hand -clapping an an unctiously appealing evangelist pretty much forcing you down of your knees, the effect can happen.

I'm not saying that means that the Faith is wrong - it is the evidence that tends to prove that, but that is what I find comes up time and again (as often as 'Who made everything, then?') to pray, or ask God to give you guidance or Jesus to come into your heart.

Brainwashing, not evidence. Evidence is only a means to an end. It doesn't matter whether it is valid or true, because the only purpose it serves is to persuade people towards religious belief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 08:11 AM
 
Location: SC
2,967 posts, read 4,191,434 times
Reputation: 6835
The Ham guy's entire argument is based on the fact that he was not there to witness history that science attempts to uncover, therefore it did not happen and no one can prove it.

Yet, his entire belief system tells us to believe in his bible and what it claims has happened in the last 4k years. He was not there to witness bible events, so according to his own argument, there is no way to know it was true. He never met Jesus, so how can he tell us Jesus was real?

The man is the complete definition of hypocrite.

He is basically telling us air does not exist because we cannot see it, and the scientific process that proves it exists is rubbish because we cannot see air, and at the same time telling us that we must believe his version of air does exist and is all around us because he said so. He never saw/witnessed his version of air either. His entire argument makes ZERO sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 09:44 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092
I agree with you but of course Ken ham doesn't see it that way. He accepts (indeed, he laboured the point, wearing his 'I am being totally honest and up front' hat) that he based his belief on the Bible, which he would cheerfully admit he wasn't there to see, though he would probably claim that the contents are Eyewitness.

His line is that Evolution is also a 'Belief', based on an interpretation of the evidence that works at least as well in a Young -Earth creationist model and thus in the end his belief is just as good or valid as the evolutionary one.

This would be absolutely fine, if it was true, but of course it is not. Evolutionary theory arose out of following the evidence, and it has pretty much added to the evidence for it, with DNA and the evidence for feathered dinosaurs (which Creationism totally dismisses as some kind of fantasy) while what creationism does is fiddle and select the evidence to fit what it already believes.

To do this is not valid science method and in fact the Creationist 'science' itself (as per Behe's Irreducible complexity) is not valid and sound science. Then they scream persecution that their Papers are not published in science journals.

Ken Ham has it all wrong and I wonder whether he will review and ponder and finally come to the conclusion that a truly honest and open - minded person ought to - that belief in a god -creator apart, the evidence does not support Creationism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,047 posts, read 18,589,435 times
Reputation: 18687
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post

His line is that Evolution is also a 'Belief', based on an interpretation of the evidence that works at least as well in a Young -Earth creationist model and thus in the end his belief is just as good or valid as the evolutionary one.

This would be absolutely fine, if it was true, but of course it is not. Evolutionary theory arose out of following the evidence, and it has pretty much added to the evidence for it, with DNA and the evidence for feathered dinosaurs
A great deal of science is exactly the same sort of "belief" yet it is only evolution which gets attacked. How do we know that it is 93 million miles to the sun? No one has gone there and back with a measuring device. How do we know that the earth has a molten core? Jules Verne aside, no one has traveled to the center of the planet to check. How do we know about the gravitational properties of black holes? No one has volunteered to enter one to confirm the information.

What we know of the above we learned using precisely the same methodology and applied principles which were employed in developing the theory of evolution. It isn't as though legitimate methodology was used to learn some things, but evolution was entirely assertion and guesswork.

Yet somehow only evolution gets treated as suspect by these creation folks. We hardly need to go past that fact to reject the creationists. When you have someone arguing that all scientific principles and methodology are correct except for those which undermines my faith based assertions......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 08:19 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,699,186 times
Reputation: 4300
I am not really sure what constitutes a creationist argument. They appear these days - like in the Ham Nye debate - to simply attack evolution. They are not offering positive claims or arguments of their own. As such there is nothing to refute or counter.

They assert there is a god - how can one counter assertion except with more assertion?

When they actually come to offer something of substance - then and only then can we either refute their arguments - or accept them if they hold up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 09:04 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092
I argue that Creationism is not really about God. It is about Bible - literalism. It is about insisting that Genesis is true as described, because it is in the Bible.

Indeed, they have no mechanis, evidence or argument of their own. What they always had, was what was in the Bible.

Science comes up with evidence for geological strata over time or the evolution of bioforms over time. The Genesis -literal response is to try to show that the evidence produced can also be made to fit the Genesis account just as well.

That would be ok - alternative explanations of the evidence are welcome. But what we get is a flawed method of cherry - picking the evidence, ignoring the bits that can't be made to fit, and, most seriously, using unsound science to try to make the genesis scenario work. Or indeed to try to poke holes in evolution theory to try to discredit it - the battle cry has been since the time I was a kid - evolution is in dissarray -in crisis, about to collapse.

Yet, when we look, we find the supposed claims that will utterly undermine evolution - like the one about animals and dinos and man all mixed in together are based on the argument from living fossils - which is a fair question in itself (1) was totally blown up to an utterly false claim, which we had to check and show up as grossly over-represented. because Creationists never check this stuff - they merely throw a lot of evolution - stumpers at us, hoping to ..well, I don't know what. I suppose to bamboozle us into accepting what they claim.

(1) yep - have to foopnote that as well. ...though it totally overlooks the Other evidence that shows that many other species evolved and died out. Others evolved and are still living. Yet others did not evolve very much and survive even today. The idea that everything should always evolve, even if they are perfectly happy as they are is another common misunderstanding of the mechanism [Theory] of evolution) .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2014, 03:19 PM
 
Location: On the Edge of the Fringe
4,889 posts, read 3,978,050 times
Reputation: 4138
I think you are on the right track there Arequipa. anything that is different from the literal account of the Creation in Genesis would undermine all that Christianity teaches. Especially Evolutionary facts.
Consider this.
By disproving the garden of Eden myth, we disprove the concept of original sin and the fall of man. Since there was no original sin, there was no need for a "Messiah" to save the world, thus Jesus was not a sacrifice to God and the very foundation of Christianity is based entirely on nothing.....
This not only threatens the theology of the religion BUT the wallets as well. The whole Business of sin and salvation, which rakes in BILLIONS of Dollars.

Science has shown a pattern by which humans have slowly evolved. And we are continuing to evolve ! That is not some hypothesis or theory, it is fact ! It is measurable and demonstrable using everything from DNA analysis to radioisotope markers.

As for the origins of Evil, Jung and Freud have shown how evil arises from the recesses of the human mind, and a number of psychologists have shown how society and family influences, not to mention biochemistry, all contribute to action which we classify as "evil"
Since there is not "Devil" causing evil and sin, there is no need to be protected from him. This again, puts the need for Christian theology out to pasture.

What Christianity fails to offer is proof. Science will not practice that which is not measurable and true. Religion, on the other hand, does not work that way. Religion holds onto outdated beliefs, because of fear and "What if ?"
Science remains ruled by experimentation and proof, while religion by myth.

BUT I will show this.

Please Have a look at this article
Scopus - Cookies Disabled

It is easier to read and understand this one
Genesis 1 GNT - The Story of Creation - In the - Bible Gateway

It is always easier to believe than to think, to have faith instead of knowledge. It is far easier to put all responsibility onto a Creator and Savior, and to not have to waste anymore neural space thinking about it. It is always easier to say "because made it that way"
But we know how well that works. Religion did not take man to the moon, or invent the implantable pacemaker.
Religion did not put the lander on Mars or invent new drugs to cure specific types of cancer.

I choose to follow what works, and if a creationist cannot understand that argument, then they need to ask their god what went wrong.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2014, 06:39 AM
 
Location: "Arlen" Texas
2,384 posts, read 1,558,912 times
Reputation: 9255
I think you mean refutations. If you need help on this, go to youtube and watch Richard Dawkins or the Atheist Experience - I think it's called - it's a phone in radio show in Austin, Texas that has webcasts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top