Creationism - an example

[Fifty]

It is very easy to ridicule christians on your own turf where they are doomed to lose the discussion based on the ground rules alone. To win in an arena where you get to set all the rules, determine the playing field,and how to keep score is not a particularly outstanding achievement. But at least the christians are willing to try. The atheistic, science "proves" all crowd has a self-imposed restriction from ever playing on the christian home field, by their rules. Much to your loss.

yes, but we are hardly attacking Christians or religionists in general. Our only critique here is against creationist "science". Erik Mesoy and Eran of Arcadia are two examples (that I'm aware of, and if I'm not mistaken), of religious people who can laugh at creationist "science" just as we can.

 

[carlosMM]

BJ:
so why do so many Christians come to the turf of science, pretend to play by the rules of science - and thenc ry foul if the utterly lose?

and why do they refuse to discuss their own rules (e.g. the absence of logic and reason in theological debate)?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I know that christians can speak for themselves, but here is my 2 cents on all this.

so why do so many Christians come to the turf of science, pretend to play by the rules of science - and thenc ry foul if the utterly lose?

and why do they refuse to discuss their own rules (e.g. the absence of logic and reason in theological debate)?

In a secular world, science is the path to social acceptance. Science validates belief and when belief is called into question so stridently as it has been in the last 40 years, believers want that validation. They mistakenly believe that if they can show that science supports christian belief, it will convince people christians are correct. They think that proving the story of the flood will somehow prove Jesus was the messiah. Like most of people when the rules are stacked against us and the game goes awry, we ***** and moan and cry foul.

yes, but we are hardly attacking Christians or religionists in general. Our only critique here is against creationist "science". Erik Mesoy and Eran of Arcadia are two examples (that I'm aware of, and if I'm not mistaken), of religious people who can laugh at creationist "science" just as we can.

Yes, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. That can also be great fun. When UNC plays basketball, I prefer a 100-50 score since it validates my "knowledge" that they are the best and "deserve" to win, always.

Bird Jaguar has the right of it, but you can't win it's simply a matter of stating your case.

If you want a win go find a thread that has easy answers.

Debunking AiG isn't easy? Isn't this thread all about winning the debate and all about easy answers. Again I say, your limitations of reason and logic are no less an anchor that keeps you from the glories of the open sea.

 

[carlosMM]

BJ: I have never really seen it this way: that creationists NEED science to prop up their (falling-short) faith! I always see them as misguided, never as weak personalities who need a crutch! And that is why I cnanot understand their adamant refutation of proper science, even where it tags along nicely iwith an intelligent and informed belief system!


thank you, that was an intresting point i have never considered!

 

[Perfection]

The atheistic, science "proves" all crowd has a self-imposed restriction from ever playing on the christian home field, by their rules. Much to your loss.

How so? What makes the "Christian home field" so great?

 

[Birdjaguar]

BJ: I have never really seen it this way: that creationists NEED science to prop up their (falling-short) faith! I always see them as misguided, never as weak personalities who need a crutch! And that is why I cnanot understand their adamant refutation of proper science, even where it tags along nicely iwith an intelligent and informed belief system!


thank you, that was an intresting point i have never considered!

You're welcome. Real faith does not need any props to support it. To say "I believe in Jesus Christ!" is enough. Those of weak faith, however, will rely on props to keep them believing. All the rest of it stems from the need of the socio-cultural christian church organizations of the various sects that need acceptance to raise money and increase congregation size. Individual chruches use a set of accepted dogma to indentify themselves and bind worshippers to the orgainzation.

The christian posters here have bound themselves to specific sets of beliefs that go beyond "I believe in Jesus Christ!", that they identify with their brand christianity.

 

[ironduck]

Nice to see you BJ

 

[Birdjaguar]

How so? What makes the "Christian home field" so great?

It's not great per se, just very different than the one ruled by reason and logic. Limiting oneself to reason and logic is not a great virture, especially when most of human behavior is directed by genes and impulsive irrationality. Spock clearly has diffencies that limit his ability to cope.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

yes, but we are hardly attacking Christians or religionists in general. Our only critique here is against creationist "science". Erik Mesoy and Eran of Arcadia are two examples (that I'm aware of, and if I'm not mistaken), of religious people who can laugh at creationist "science" just as we can.

This is true. I accept good science (including the theory of evolution) because it is based on sound principles that combine all the observations that humans make, subject them to rigorous tests and weed out ideas that don't fit what we can actually observe. Thus science is the sum total of the experiences and knowledge of lots of people.

My belief in Christianity ultimately stems from experiences that are personal and unique to me. Although my faith means more to me than science, it is something that I can't prove to other people. It is also something outside normal human observation, thus I can't use logic to prove that I'm right.

But I can make fun of "Creation science". Trying to use science to prove religious claims is tricky enough, but using bad science doesn't help.

 

[sanabas]

It is very easy to ridicule christians on your own turf where they are doomed to lose the discussion based on the ground rules alone. To win in an arena where you get to set all the rules, determine the playing field,and how to keep score is not a particularly outstanding achievement. But at least the christians are willing to try. The atheistic, science "proves" all crowd has a self-imposed restriction from ever playing on the christian home field, by their rules. Much to your loss.

What restriction? That we don't want to debate faith? As far as I know, when people say things like 'I believe based on personal experience and/or faith, even though there is no evidence I can show anyone else' get very little argument. The ones we get to play with are the ones who want to introduce scientific argument. And ridicule scientific argument. And fabricate evidence. And all the other fun stuff they like to do to help them convince people.

And yeah, AiG is Answers in Genesis. Publishers of 'creation' magazine, one of the funnier things I've read. Also do a bit of tv here, on the christian channel, which is basically footage of AiG people holding lectures, the visual equivalent of their magazine. Can be entertaining stuff.

*edit* Oopsie, didn't notice the 3rd page of posts, apologies for crossposting. */edit*

 

[Birdjaguar]

What restriction? That we don't want to debate faith? As far as I know, when people say things like 'I believe based on personal experience and/or faith, even though there is no evidence I can show anyone else' get very little argument. The ones we get to play with are the ones who want to introduce scientific argument. And ridicule scientific argument. And fabricate evidence. And all the other fun stuff they like to do to help them convince people.

That ws my very point. Faith cannot be easily discussed, let alone debated, in a scientific setting. Anyone can talk facts and evidence even if the facts an evidence is poorly put together. To talk about faith without any experience of it is much more difficult; you have to rely on interpreting other people's experiences or stick to asking questions. Faith can clearly have a significant impact on how people live. Those who reject it as "fantasy", do only themselves a disservice because whatever doors belief opens, are closed to them.

 

[Perfection]

It's not great per se, just very different than the one ruled by reason and logic. Limiting oneself to reason and logic is not a great virture, especially when most of human behavior is directed by genes and impulsive irrationality. Spock clearly has diffencies that limit his ability to cope.

Well, Birdjaguar, I don't think that I and other athiests here limit ourselves to reason. While I believe it is virtuous to base our model of reality on science and empiricism, some of the most important aspects of life rest firmly in the irrational side. My sense of humor, my relationships, my morality, the emotions that drive me to do the things that I do, all are based in the irrational. There's no particular philosophical reason that I should find something worthwhile, I just do, and that's that.

I'm not Spock!

 

[carlosMM]

you're not??????

 

[Perfection]

you're not??????

Nope! I'm more of a Scotty.

 

[.Shane.]

Since we're on this general topic... I present the ultimate evidence of creation... behold THE BANANA in all its majesty.

Sorry, but I found this too humerous to pass.

 

[betazed]

Spock clearly has diffencies that limit his ability to cope.

Hehe, BJ. Easy to say, not so easy to justify.

Deficiencies? Like what?

Can you come up with a scenario where imbuing Spock with emotions will make him better at performing his duties (in both Star Trek and if he were magically transported to 21st Century Earth).

I posed this as a challenge before in this forum and it went unanswered. I will pose it again. Come up with a hypothetical scenario where emotion is better than reason? At best it is probably as effective. At worst it is a huge detriment.

On the whole we would be all better off if we were Spock.

Pefection is not Spock. neither am I. But I sure wish both of us were.

Well, Birdjaguar, I don't think that I and other athiests here limit ourselves to reason.

No we do not. But it would be enough. Most satisfyingly, it would be consistent.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Spock would have less communicational snafus if he were more emotional.

So would I.

But I don't see what this has to do with creationism ... ?

 

[punkbass2000]

I posed this as a challenge before in this forum and it went unanswered. I will pose it again. Come up with a hypothetical scenario where emotion is better than reason? At best it is probably as effective. At worst it is a huge detriment.

I would bet that any such situation would be one where the results are not easily quantifiable.

 

[betazed]

I would bet that any such situation would be one where the results are not easily quantifiable.

OTOH, I can easily come up with quantifiable arguments/situations where reason would be better than emotions.

 

[punkbass2000]

So, for quantity, go with logic, and for quality emotion?