Author Topic: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...  (Read 656 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4876
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« on: May 18, 2013, 09:28:42 AM »
These are a series of comments on a local letter to the editor (which I actually approve of) between myself and a young-Earth creationist.  Names have been obfuscated (not that it matters so much, since these are public comments, but I prefer to do this).

Quote from: His initial response to the letter
****, though your letter is basically pointless, at least you didn't call those who oppose the validation of homosexual behavior "haters".
Homosexual behavior will eventually be accepted all over this country, because it is one of the signs of our decaying moral society. It is a pattern we have seen in many civilizations in the past.

Quote from: My comment
Actually, it's a positive sign, that we're slowly surpassing our tribalistic, xenophobic roots. It no more represents decaying morality than equal rights did.

Quote from: His comment
Keep believing the lies you've been taught, *****.

Quote from: My comment
Is that the only response you can muster, to claim that I was "taught lies" which I (blindly) believe in?

Like it or not, and no matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise, the Jews were tribal xenophobes who used things they believed God had proclaimed them to justify all manner of things, from atrocities like genocide because they believed God had commanded it to persecution of things like homosexuality because they believed God hated it.

How is that different than religious true believers who fervently supported things like American chattel slavery and Jim Crow laws because they believed God was on their side? Or what religious true believers like yourself say today about things like homosexuality?

Are you going to even try to answer these questions, or are you just going to say something trite again?

Quote from: His comment
*****, seeing as how you do not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of the God who created all things, you will only believe what you have learned from other sources (been taught) so, you are repeating someone else's description of what they think went on in the past. If I tell you what the Bible "really" says, you will only say that is what I believe. That is true, but the Bible is true whether I believe it or not, so what I am telling you is NOT simply what I believe, it is what God says He says, so,....what else don't you want to know?

Quote from: His comment
BTW, *****, you are wrong in your first statement, since the "Jews" entered Egypt as a family, and became a nation only after the Exodus, during which they were given the Law telling them how to treat foreigners in their land. You should read about it, rather than make some rash statement.
The "atrocities" you ascribe to the people can be clarified if you read about their conquest in the scripture. I'd tell you, but I wouldn't want to spoil the ending for you.
Just because one believes something is morally right, does not make it so. That form of thinking means that there are many truths, it only depends on who one talks to. Since there can only be one truth, what is your source?
Finally, you talk about how people have mistreated others under the guise of being "religious true believers". It does not matter what cloak of belief we try to hide under, we are all sinners, and God sees into the heat of each one of us.
You write,"what religious true believers like yourself say today" and this is what I touched on earlier. It is not what I say, it's what does the Bible say? You get your "Bible" knowledge from other human sources, rather than from the Bible, and then try to tell me I'm wrong. What you're actually doing is saying the Bible is wrong, but you don't know the Bible, only what others have taught you about it.

Quote from: My comment
The reason I don't accept your claims about the Bible is because they assume what they seek to prove or demonstrate. For example, your claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God almost certainly comes from scriptures, in the _Bible_, which state this. In other words, circular reasoning, and it doesn't fly.

If you want to demonstrate that claims from the Bible are true, you have to look outside of the Bible, at things not inspired by it, and you have to show that those things unambiguously and factually support Biblical claims. Until you can do this, there is no good reason to accept those claims as true.

----

You are quite mistaken when you say that I don't know what the Bible says. I've read Exodus numerous times - contrary to your assertion that I had not read it - and thus I do actually know what the Bible says about it. So I know that the reason the Hebrews conquered Canaan - note that it was not actually their land, it belonged to the Canaanites until the Hebrews invaded and took it from them, butchering most of the Canaanites in the process - was because of proclamations they believed to be from YHWH (God), declaring that it was thenceforth their land and that they should exterminate the actual inhabitants. There were at least six or seven cities where they literally exterminated everyone, down to the women and children. How exactly do you 'clarify' such atrocities, let alone justify them?

Since you raised the subject of humanity's supposed 'sinfulness', what it really amounts to is people not obeying orders like good little automatons. The supposed 'fall' was from Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - in other words, being able to understand the concept of morality - and their subsequent punishment was for disobeying YHWH's order not to eat the fruit. Assuming you accept Genesis as literal truth, it strongly suggests that YHWH didn't want humans making decisions for themselves, but instead slavishly obeying his dictates.

That's what this 'sinfulness' really is - doing things other than what YHWH/God wants. What it actually amounts to is doing things other than what religious believers - who assume their conception of God represents the reality - say people should do, thumping their Bibles for emphasis and as proof.

He hasn't responded yet, but it's been less than a day since I posted this.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10361
  • Darwins +183/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2013, 10:20:48 AM »
Good job.  HIs delusion appears to be set in stone.  Ask him if he likes shellfish.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2013, 01:49:52 PM »
awaiting the reply... I love using the Genesis story... they cant fight their way out of that one.

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
  • Darwins +31/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2013, 05:05:24 PM »
IMHO redacted works better than obfuscated.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4876
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2013, 01:23:29 PM »
His latest response.

Quote
When you speak of circular reasoning, how else do you explain origins? Man has made assumptions about the origins of the universe and life, to counter belief in the God of the Bible, with no unambiguos and factual proof. You want (me) to prove the Bible is true, but you can not prove any other "theory" is true, nor can you prove the Bible false, yet you choose to believe the other theories. As for people "slavishly obeying" someone, we all do this in one form or another. You are slavishly obeying your own (mis)conceptions. You insist you can not believe the Bible, and you think man's ideas are superior to the Bible, so you are slave to your own desires.
Pretty sad, if you ask me.  I made reasonable points, and he ducks into the midden of moral equivocation to avoid having to deal with them.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2013, 04:06:03 AM »
pretty typical...

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4876
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2013, 11:17:21 AM »
Here's my latest response (posted yesterday):

Quote
I asked you to come up with evidence from outside the Bible that unambiguously and factually supported the claims that you're advancing...so what do you do?

You go into the midden of moral equivocation, trying to claim that other people (scientists) don't have unambiguous and factual evidence to support various scientific theories, trying to claim that other people "slavishly obey" things, which are pitiful attempts to pretend that "everyone does it".

To address the last point first, my 'conceptions', the things I accept as true, are not personified. I don't try to represent them as universal commands that everyone should obey or else, unlike what you say about the Bible and God. Furthermore, I don't 'slavishly' obey them. I question them, and if I find them wanting, then I correct them. If people can show that I'm wrong on something, to my satisfaction, then I admit it and move on.

When was the last time you did that? For that matter, when was the first time?

Back to the first point, what I want is for you to support the claims you advance from the Bible with things that are not in the Bible. Things that objectively (I originally said unambiguously, but this fits what I meant better) and factually support those claims. Which is how science works, contrary to your misrepresentation of it.

Scientific theories are explanations supported by independent facts and observations. Indeed, if they were not supported by those facts and observations, they would already have been discarded and thrown on the trash heap. Circular reasoning is when someone doesn't have those external facts and observations, and therefore supports them internally (for example, by using the conclusion to support the premise).

If you want to show that your beliefs are not based on circular reasoning, then you need to find outside facts and observations which objectively support them. It's that simple.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4876
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2013, 12:47:07 PM »
And the (probable) conclusion of the 'discussion'.

Quote
You asked me for evidence outside the Bible, yet I had asked you, "Since there can only be one truth, what is your source?" Your answer: "...'conceptions', the things I accept as true,...". This is not truth, this is only your opinion of what you think is true today. Since each individual can do this, it is not truth. There can only be one truth.
If you are so fluent with the Bible, why do you not see the evidence of fulfilled prophesy? How could you miss the historical accuracy in those prophecies? Why is it that you do not realize all real scientific facts and observations also fit the theory of creation? (There are assumptions which distort the understanding of those facts and observations in order to support theories which deny God, but the actual facts fit the Bible.)
Jeffrey, I believe you are an example of those who are convinced they are smarter than God (and most others) and nothing anyone on earth does or says will convince you otherwise. You go ahead and have the last word, I'm done here. See you on another page sometime.

tl;dr - "I'm going to intentionally misunderstand what you said, make a strawman point that isn't even about what you said, declare victory, then leave before you rebut me once again."

Quote
It should have been evident that my statement about conceptions was in response to your accusation that I am " slavishly obeying (my) own (mis)conceptions". That you took it as my 'source' for truth shows one of two things - either that you failed to understand what I wrote, or that you deliberately conflated the two so you could play at being disingenuous.

Of course conceptions aren't a source for truth. They're subjective. But the thing is...your beliefs about the Bible are also subjective. They are your interpretation of it. Which, I'm sure, is why you keep trying to insist that your interpretation is exactly what God meant.

I think that your conclusions about the Bible are a classic example of someone who started from a conclusion and went to find facts to support it. That's why you talk about evidence of fulfilled prophecy, historical accuracy in prophecies, and that all (real) scientific facts and observations also fit creation. That's why you have to exclude scientific facts and observations that don't fit your beliefs about creation as not being 'real'.

Science approaches things differently. It takes facts and observations and then draws conclusions based on them. That's why scientific theories are accurate, albeit incomplete; because they're based on facts and observations that we've already made, and have been checked against reality.

I think if you compare the actual track record of scientific predictions versus Biblical prophecy, you'd find that science wins hands-down every single time. Because those 'prophecies' were not actually fulfilled by the natural course of events. People intentionally acted in a way so as to fulfill them. And that defeats the whole purpose of having a prophecy. It's like someone 'prophesying' an event that they later 'fulfill', by intentional action.

I wish I could say I was surprised by your attempt to declare 'victory' and leave, but I've encountered too many people like you who are only interested in validating what they already believe, rather than in discovering what's actually true. Two guesses as to who I'm talking about, and the first doesn't count.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2013, 01:07:25 PM »
Interesting that fullfillled prophecy is never seen as manipulated, circular.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4876
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2013, 01:52:17 PM »
At least to the mind of the fundamentalist, God must have influenced those human actions that fulfilled certain prophecies.  Indeed, this is actually pretty common - people constantly give credit to God for things that come from within their own minds.

Offline viocjit

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2013, 08:54:11 AM »
This person must study :

1.The big bang
2.The abiogenesis
3.The evolution theory
etc...

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2013, 09:00:51 AM »
At least to the mind of the fundamentalist, God must have influenced those human actions that fulfilled certain prophecies.  Indeed, this is actually pretty common - people constantly give credit to God for things that come from within their own minds.

Yep, until it serves their purpose to go on about "free will"... and see no contradictions there.  Sigh, slapping myself a couple times for once being one of those fundies.
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: A creationist and I have a 'discussion'...
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2013, 10:12:00 AM »
Homosexual behavior will eventually be accepted all over this country, because it is one of the signs of our decaying moral society. It is a pattern we have seen in many civilizations in the past

I think he's saying that homosexual corruption causes the fall of civilization, because they tend to believe that Rome fell, and they were all homosexuals. However, Rome moved to Constantinople, and was later renamed to Byzantine, for some arbitrary reason, by modern scholars. I suppose he's right, in a way. Rome fell, because it became full of Christian perverts. "Relations were further damaged by a schism between the Catholic West and Orthodox East that led to the Byzantine Greeks being labeled as heretics." Sometime around 800AD, Rome was really fucked up by Christian bickering.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.