Creationism isn't Right

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
INDY500 said:


America was founded to be a free nation, not a secular one.
Click to expand...



question for you:

since you value freedom, as do i, do you share my concerns about the threat to freedoms not by Islamist fundamentalist terrorism, but by that which will be done in our name to supposedly protect us from it?

or how about abroad? the whole host of ironies: we fought a war free Iraqis from Saddam's torture, then we torture people where Sadadm once did; we fight a war to bring democracy to the Middle East and demonstrate -- not just assert -- the fundamental superiority of Western Values and the Western Way of Life; and then we then enable chaos and genocide through our own logistical shortcomings and our historical blindness.

isn't all this far more dire than "... in god we trust"?
 
Irvine511 said:




so you demand the respect from atheists that you'd never extend back to one?
Click to expand...

faith, not Faith. having faith that the sun will shine so you can bbq at the family reunion, faith that your football team will pull through even though they're down.

They're believe something just to believe it.
 
Irvine511 said:




pot? kettle?
Click to expand...

Wrong argument; Irv. The original poster derided creationsim as believe something just to believe it. I said that you could describe faith in general that way, meaning having a positive outlook. And those people (any people) who do not have a positive outlook would be a pretty sad lot.

So in other words, we believe in things every day just to believe in them. There's nothing at all wrong with that.
 
Snowlock said:

So in other words, we believe in things every day just to believe in them. There's nothing at all wrong with that.
Click to expand...


then i'm not sure what the point was -- i had thought you were equating atheism to a pointless belief, a belief just to believe.

but, anyway ... to add some spice to this: HANNITY VS. HITCHENS!
 
Snowlock said:


faith, not Faith. having faith that the sun will shine so you can bbq at the family reunion, faith that your football team will pull through even though they're down.

They're believe something just to believe it.
Click to expand...

What's your point? You're really stretching the usage of the word. You're really just talking about hoping for those events to happen. There's no need to use the word 'faith' here. I hope that my team wins. Big deal. Doesn't seem relevant to the concept of faith or fideism.
 
Snowlock said:


Nope wasn't. Saying the opposite, believing just to believe is not pointless.
Click to expand...


the above post got at a good point -- aren't you talking about "hope" vs "faith"?

though i'm not sure that this is a good line of discussion to follow at present.
 
DublinGuy said:


What's your point? You're really stretching the usage of the word. You're really just talking about hoping for those events to happen. There's no need to use the word 'faith' here. I hope that my team wins. Big deal. Doesn't seem relevant to the concept of faith or fideism.
Click to expand...

It certainly is relevant. You've never been told, or told someone else to "have faith" or to "have faith in you". They're hoping you'll pull through, or you are. I'm not stretching the word at all.

You Said:

[q]My main point was that the person who said be believed that God spoke to Jesus because it's too great not to "want to believe" seems to have an unusual belief-forming process, and that this idea of believing something becasue you want to seems to be an integral part of how theistic beliefs are formed for many, not all, theists. [/q]

My question is simply why is believe something because we want to believe it so wrong? We do it every day for all manner of reasons religious or not.
 
Irvine511 said:



the above post got at a good point -- aren't you talking about "hope" vs "faith"?
Click to expand...

How much of a difference is there really? You can't have faith without doubt, and you can't have hope without doubt. You're right in that this will wander off topic (hi hannity & whoever), but it goes back to the original poster taking the other guy to task for believing something just because he wants to believe it.
 
Irvine511 said:

the founding fathers, however -- effete secular progressives if ever there were.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. They acknowledged the need for a wall between State and Church. But understood well then need for religious morality in the populace and the nations leaders.
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
--George Washington
Click to expand...

Secular progressives don't believe in absolute moral truths, they believe instead that it is up to the individual to decide right and wrong. Further, they seek to remove God and religion from the public square.
The founders never espoused any of this and in fact warn against such folly.
"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."
-- William Penn
Click to expand...
 
INDY500 said:


No, no, no. They acknowledged the need for a wall between State and Church. But understood well then need for religious morality in the populace and the nations leaders.


Secular progressives don't believe in absolute moral truths, they believe instead that it is up to the individual to decide right and wrong. Further, they seek to remove God and religion from the public square.
The founders never espoused any of this and in fact warn against such folly.
Click to expand...



pulling out random quotes really isn't much for argument making.

i can agree that "morality" is at its weightiest when we can say "God sez ..."

you've also put words that really have no meaning in the mouths of secular progressives -- are they the new "liberals"? the buzzword to get the "(my) faith'n'values" all riled up? yes, many who are secular and progressive (as well as those who are religious, we can do better than reducing everything to us vs. them, can't we) seek to maintain the neutrality of the *public* space in order to ensure that religous freedom, and the freedom from religion, are maintained.

and some of this is negotiable.

am i offended by a christmas tree in a public park? no.

a cross in a classroom? yes.

a menorah in a public park in december? no.

a mandated "MERRY CHRISTMAS" from Wal-mart? yes.

but, ultimately, no, i don't believe in ABSOLUTE MORAL TRUTHS, especially not the contention that they've been written down in a book by GOD HIMSELF.

i believe in ethics and responsibility and morality as i've come to understand it, which is certainly influenced by religion, but is not shackled to it.
 
Last edited:
Snowlock said:


It certainly is relevant. You've never been told, or told someone else to "have faith" or to "have faith in you". They're hoping you'll pull through, or you are. I'm not stretching the word at all.

You Said:

[q]My main point was that the person who said be believed that God spoke to Jesus because it's too great not to "want to believe" seems to have an unusual belief-forming process, and that this idea of believing something becasue you want to seems to be an integral part of how theistic beliefs are formed for many, not all, theists. [/q]

My question is simply why is believe something because we want to believe it so wrong? We do it every day for all manner of reasons religious or not.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just wrote a lengthy reply but lost it before I managed to post it so I'll write a shortened version. I can't fathom believing something just because I want to believe it because philosophy and science are too important to me. I appreciate that others do, however, and while I wouldn't attack them for it, I think that watering down the reasons for our beliefs to "Because I want to" would hinder human progress in the lon-run. With your faith vs Faith distinction, you seem to be confusing the question of a belief IN with the question of a hope THAT. Two entirely separate issues. Regarding blind faith, I agress with Kurt Vonnegut:

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!"
 
Irvine511 said:

question for you:

since you value freedom, as do i, do you share my concerns about the threat to freedoms not by Islamist fundamentalist terrorism, but by that which will be done in our name to supposedly protect us from it?
Click to expand...

You're late arriving to the "tyranny of government" party. Conservatives bought the keg. Of coarse they are both conserns. Freedom vs safety. I want a government that respects individual rights as set forth in the constitution, but I want the freedom to leave my house without fear as well. That goes for terrorism as well as domestic crime.
or how about abroad? the whole host of ironies: we fought a war free Iraqis from Saddam's torture, then we torture people where Sadadm once did;
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Not even close; in deed or in intention.
We bring a war to bring democracy to the Middle East and demonstrate -- not just assert -- the fundamental superiority of Western Values and the Western Way of Life; and then we then enable chaos and genocide through our own logistical shortcomings and our historical blindness.
Click to expand...
That's the way it appears now. What am I supposed to say? All wars look bleak at some point or another don't they? Now, things will only get better or they will get worse but no one wants the current mess.
 
DublinGuy said:


Sorry, I just wrote a lengthy reply but lost it before I managed to post it so I'll write a shortened version. I can't fathom believing something just because I want to believe it because philosophy and science are too important to me. I appreciate that others do, however, and while I wouldn't attack them for it, I think that watering down the reasons for our beliefs to "Because I want to" would hinder human progress in the lon-run. With your faith vs Faith distinction, you seem to be confusing the question of a belief IN with the question of a hope THAT. Two entirely separate issues. Regarding blind faith, I agress with Kurt Vonnegut:

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!"
Click to expand...

But you believe in philosophy and science because you want to. Philosophy at its most base level is nothing more than opinion and scientific facts can change. So you are choosing to believe in something. You're putting your faith in science and philosopy believing they will be your guide.

Keep in mind, this isn't a derogatory post; I'm not saying your way is bad or mines better or whatever. I'm just saying that despite the fact that you wouldn't believe in something just to believe in it; you actually still are doing that exact thing.
 
Snowlock said:


But you believe in philosophy and science because you want to. Philosophy at its most base level is nothing more than opinion and scientific facts can change. So you are choosing to believe in something. You're putting your faith in science and philosopy believing they will be your guide.
Click to expand...



do you know how silly this is?

an inch of snow is an inch of snow is an inch of snow. i don't believe that there's an inch of snow. i take out my ruler, i measure, and i have an inch of snow.

there's nothing to believe or put faith in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
 
A_Wanderer said:
And people thought this thread would get nowhere :wink:
Click to expand...



i can provide the parameters. but i can't do the science like you can.

where have you been all day?

(or has it been night Down Under :wink: )
 
Snowlock said:


You have to at least be equitable in this. Maybe conservatives wouldn't have had to try (and in some cases succeed) to get this into the cirriculum if liberals hadn't tried (and in most cases succeeded) to eridicate God from classrooms, holidays, goverment offices, etc.
Click to expand...
I know the first amendment is such a bitch.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
Yeah, there is. If I tell two people there's a tiger in the bathroom, behind the closed door, the person who believes that is taking a leap of faith,
but the person who thinks that's an absolutely ridiculous suggestion for a bunch of logical reasons is still, without being able to know 100% for sure that there isn't a tiger in the bathroom until the door is opened, basing it on faith.
One just might be a more grounded faith than the other, in that one might be believing it because I say it is so and I don't normally make this shit up, and the other disbelieves based on the grounded logic that (a) where the fuck would I get a tiger from in the suburbs of Sydney (b) how the fuck would I get it into the bathroom (c) why is there no other evidence of it outside the bathroom - no trailer attached to my car, no muddy tiger prints or fur in the hallway, me being in possession of all my limbs (etc etc etc).

Not believing in a religious sense is exactly the same leap of faith as believing -
seeing as if it wasn't, it wouldn't be because you were able to actually prove the non-existence,
but you can't just as much as 'they' can't prove the existence - so it's a leap for both of you.
Click to expand...



If someone wants to go through life wearing depends (diapers) that is their choice

being a skeptic
I will open the door and use the bathroom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Phantom Dreamer
Birth of the Dragon
Replies
2
Views
785
Hewson
Hewson
anitram
Bill Nye (the Science Guy): Creationism is not appropriate for children
2 3
Replies
82
Views
4K
corianderstem
corianderstem
A_Wanderer
OMG A Percentage of Texan Scientists Believe in Creationism
Replies
1
Views
453
purpleoscar
purpleoscar
WithoutSpeaking
Stories For Boys (Chapter 1)
Replies
0
Views
1K
WithoutSpeaking
WithoutSpeaking
N
Evolution, the Bible and the Book of Nature
Replies
0
Views
420
nathan1977
N

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom