homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Where to start with creationists ... ? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Where to start with creationists ... ?
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Whatever happened to "seeing through a glass
darkly" being accepted as our status quo in this time here on Earth?

But it's not about us, it's about God.

Is God trustworthy? That's the rock-bottom issue. If the Bible doesn't come down on the right side of the phony dichotomy they have set up, then God is not trustworthy.

The idea that the problem is not with God, nor with the Bible, but with the phony dichotomy, is completely outside their ability to reason. Trying to get them to back up and see the meta-issue is the only way to conceptually tackle it (that I can see), but one they are not prepared to make, having no training in it, and being taught to regard higher thinking as satanic, an attempt to poison and ultimately kill their faith.

Short version: it's a sticky wicket.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's a really bad dichotomy, because in the view they espouse, in order to have the Bible totally true, despite it's being interfered with by being transmitted through human interpreters, the universe has to be full of falsehoods, which cannot have been interfered with by humans. They try to make points about people finding what they go out to find and misinterpreting the world to fit their atheist aims, but even so have to retreat into God creating the universe with the appearance of age when it comes to the distance of galaxies. Which is basically God lying. But they seem OK with that, so long as the book doesn't lie.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055

 - Posted      Profile for Pre-cambrian   Email Pre-cambrian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Short version: it's a sticky wicket.

I never realised that cricket terminology had reached the US West Coast
[Axe murder]

But I suppose the atheist response to the OP question is "Why should I bother?" It inevitably boils down to evolution. For me, on the one hand thousands on thousands of individual discoveries support evolution and related disciplines. On the other side are a few pages of pre-scientific ideas. It's not A versus B as equals; it's that B doesn't even get near the starting blocks.

But then the creationists are going to view me as "lost" so, as I say, why should I bother?

[ 13. August 2014, 23:12: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]

--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."

Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Which is basically God lying. But they seem OK with that, so long as the book doesn't lie.

Odd, that.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

The idea that the problem is not with God, nor with the Bible, but with the phony dichotomy, is completely outside their ability to reason.

To be fair, I remember being back at the (US, Southern) Baptist Student Center when I was in college, and I remember the way a lot of people, and radio hosts on Christian stations, and the like, would react to secular song lyrics--there was a jarring literality to the way they would read and critique them. So, for example, I remember people being annoyed at songs like "Heaven is a Place on Earth" by Belinda Carlisle, because it's not. Never mind that it's fucking poetry, making the point that "in Heaven, love comes first" (golly, that's even good theology)--they just couldn't see past the literal meaning of the lyrics, or even the title. When George Michael did "I Want Your Sex" and the video showed him writing "EXPLORE MONOGAMY" on a woman's body (this was before he came out, of course [Biased] ), people I knew thought that it was bad because "explore" monogamy wasn't strong enough. (Rather than, say, thinking of it as a step in the right direction that they agreed with, or something.) Ditto "Papa Don't Preach" by Cyndi Lauper (never mind the key point of the song: That now that she's unexpectedly pregnant, she is going to keep the baby rather than abort it, and needs her father's help rather than condemnation, which you'd think would make them happy with the not-going-to-abort-the-baby aspect, but no, of course not. [Mad] (It's that sort of approach which hampered Christian pop music for a long time, because if you didn't mention Jesus specifically in a song, if anything was poetic enough to possibly allow for multiple meanings, then it might lead people astray... [brick wall] ) And don't even get me started on songs like "Life in the Fast Lane" and "Hotel California" being treated as in favor of the things the songs are explicitly against... [brick wall]

(Interestingly, "Hotel California" (like "Barracuda") is about bad experiences in the music industry, but even if you don't know that, it's not exactly a pro-creepy-cult song if you pay attention to, well, any of it.)

The point of all of this is that near as I can tell, it's often a problem, not with being unable to read the Bible non-literally, but being able to read, full stop.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a condition of mind which cannot cope with things not being literal.

I wouldn't want to say that people with that attitude to the Bible and to song lyrics do have something like Asperger's Syndrome, but it is a bit similar.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It's a really bad dichotomy, because in the view they espouse, in order to have the Bible totally true, despite it's being interfered with by being transmitted through human interpreters, the universe has to be full of falsehoods, which cannot have been interfered with by humans. They try to make points about people finding what they go out to find and misinterpreting the world to fit their atheist aims, but even so have to retreat into God creating the universe with the appearance of age when it comes to the distance of galaxies. Which is basically God lying. But they seem OK with that, so long as the book doesn't lie.

Okay, I usually stay out of these debates, but this point is rubbing the author in me raw. Why should authors be allowed (nay, expected) to create characters with a largely unknown backstory to add depth to the story that IS told--but God may not? He is an author, a maker, after all. To place creatures in a universe that fairly shrieks newness and betrays its true age (whether that be 15 minutes or 15 eons) at every poke is a piece of clumsiness I'd not expect of the Master Author.

In short, the hypothetical you're discussing is not a case of lying, but of Art.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In short, the hypothetical you're discussing is not a case of lying, but of Art.

A writer is placing characters in an imitation of the real world, in which all real people do have back stories. There's no other creation with back stories that God is imitating.
There wouldn't be a conflict were creationists willing to say that God brought the world into being with a consistent backstory including Darwinian evolution, deep geology, and cosmology. The conflict happens because creationists normally claim that the backstory doesn't include those things.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In short, the hypothetical you're discussing is not a case of lying, but of Art.

A writer is placing characters in an imitation of the real world, in which all real people do have back stories. There's no other creation with back stories that God is imitating.
There wouldn't be a conflict were creationists willing to say that God brought the world into being with a consistent backstory including Darwinian evolution, deep geology, and cosmology. The conflict happens because creationists normally claim that the backstory doesn't include those things.

Then maybe the focus of the argument should be there, instead of on God supposedly lying? Saying "your version of backstory is wrong" might be more fruitful.

As for art imitating life and therefore needing backstory--

Yes, it does, I suppose, for human beings. We are derivative, and therefore our art is derivative too. It could hardly be otherwise.

But for God, I think we're going to have to widen the definition of art a trifle. As he is the Origin, we can hardly expect him to do something derivative of something else that doesn't even exist. But if we keep your definition of art, we are basically saying God can't do art--which is just wrong.

In short, I don't think Art requires derivation from something else. I think it has to do with how you handle the materials you have. And if you are so fortunate as to be capable of creating those materials in the first place, well, that's even better.

The other problem is this: God could hardly create any kind of world that did NOT have a fictional backstory. Try to imagine it for a minute. God thinks, I'm going to create humanity, but I can't have them full grown or that will imply a birth, childhood, and adolescence that never happened, and some people will call that lying. Better make them babies. Oops, that still implies birth and pregnancy. Now how am I going to do that without creating a mature mother... which means she has a "lying" backstory as well..."

You see the difficulty.

Similarly, you could have razor sharp new mountains looking as fresh as the day the tectonic plates did their thing, but that STILL implies a backstory involving tectonic plates moving (from where?) and crashing...

Frankly, I don't think it's possible to create any kind of world that hasn't at least an implied backstory. Heck, with the Big Bang plenty of people are doing their best to ferret a backstory for that, in spite of the technical difficulties involved.

I say, let's enjoy the backstories (real or fictional) and stop giving others a hard time over their view of them.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But what "backstory" are you speaking of? YEC? Believing that is far from harmless.
Or are you saying the billion+ year old universe? Which is science, the same science which underpins our modern world.
Backstory serves the narrative, it is not merely a pretty dress.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Surely, YEC is a dangerous movement, first, because it palpably subverts science, and science education; and second, because it uses lies to spread its message. I used to think that they could be ignored, but not now; they have to be opposed root and branch, and their lies exposed.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When we enter the world created by an artist we know that is what we are doing. We open the book, or switch on the ereader, we settle down to watch a film or TV drama, we go to an exhibition of model railway layouts (which is what I usually think of in this context)*, and we know what we are doing. We can admire the way the author has constructed their world, the detail in the backstory, the skill in manufacture.

In being part of the real world, that does not apply. There is no opportunity to suspend disbelief. By YECs we are told to accept that the appearance of age is a creative fiction without any evidence that that is what it is, except one of the many creation myths. Without the frame, without the book cover, without the step into the world it is not Art. Why would God do this, create a universe which is so good in its making that it fools anyone who looks at it with care into thinking it is real, and then make their salvation dependent on denying the evidence of their eyes, minds and the tools their minds create to better see the way it is made? There is no point in it.

*I knew someone who intended to make a 000 layout which mimicked the geology of Yorkshire correctly. Don't know if he got round to it. Obviously making the actual geology of Yorkshire would be rather better than that. Setting it up to look like a succession of deltas with buried trees, topped by deep layers of marine limestone and thick layers of continental shelf sandstones - having worked out the circumstances under which those would form from scratch without that sort of thing ever having existed. Clever. But I can't quite get my mind round God as a super model railway man.

Incidentally, I don't think God lies. I do think that YEC's teaching suggest that he does.

[ 14. August 2014, 19:13: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090

 - Posted      Profile for Green Mario     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The backstory idea presumably is how people can work in earth sciences and still be YEC - as it must be possible to study the backstory, make predictions from the backstory but still not believe it is the ultimate reality as this is explained by the bible. I see the appeal of the idea; I have pondered it before and also the idea even that the fall changed that backstory - hence millions of years of environmental history changed at the point when Adam fell.

Ultimately while its very difficult to disprove as an idea it seems very far fetched (although the fact I can picture it happening is probably due to exposure to star trek and back to the future as a kid); and it's so unnecessary if we aren't assuming that Genesis is trying to be a science text book.

Martin PC - you have mentioned on this thread and others about modern people going back hundreds of thousands of years. Isn't it true that while some people have had skeletons almost indistinguishable from modern people for 100,000s of years something seemed to change much more recently (about 40,000 years ago) in terms of behaviour - called the "great leap forward". Not sure if this idea has been superseded my more modern archaeology but if Adam and Eve where real historical individuals perhaps this is when they lived (not Neolithic farmers after all)??

Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But what "backstory" are you speaking of? YEC? Believing that is far from harmless.
Or are you saying the billion+ year old universe? Which is science, the same science which underpins our modern world.
Backstory serves the narrative, it is not merely a pretty dress.

I'm referring to rock layers, fossils, light from distant stars, etc. etc. etc. At whatever point God created the world (and I'm not choosing one, so don't start with me), there would have been backstory. The fact that anything exists at all implies backstory (when and where did it come into existence? Tell me a story...).

And of course I know backstory serves the narrative, I'm a writer. I mean, duh. In this case the backstory serves (among many other things) the cause of science, which is part of our past, present, and ongoing into the future, and extremely useful. Not to mention deepening the whole experience of life in this piece of art, that is, this creation.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
When we enter the world created by an artist we know that is what we are doing. We open the book, or switch on the ereader, we settle down to watch a film or TV drama, we go to an exhibition of model railway layouts (which is what I usually think of in this context)*, and we know what we are doing. We can admire the way the author has constructed their world, the detail in the backstory, the skill in manufacture.

In being part of the real world, that does not apply. There is no opportunity to suspend disbelief. By YECs we are told to accept that the appearance of age is a creative fiction without any evidence that that is what it is, except one of the many creation myths. Without the frame, without the book cover, without the step into the world it is not Art. Why would God do this, create a universe which is so good in its making that it fools anyone who looks at it with care into thinking it is real, and then make their salvation dependent on denying the evidence of their eyes, minds and the tools their minds create to better see the way it is made? There is no point in it.

*I knew someone who intended to make a 000 layout which mimicked the geology of Yorkshire correctly. Don't know if he got round to it. Obviously making the actual geology of Yorkshire would be rather better than that. Setting it up to look like a succession of deltas with buried trees, topped by deep layers of marine limestone and thick layers of continental shelf sandstones - having worked out the circumstances under which those would form from scratch without that sort of thing ever having existed. Clever. But I can't quite get my mind round God as a super model railway man.

Incidentally, I don't think God lies. I do think that YEC's teaching suggest that he does.

I think the problem here is you are taking the experience of an external reader and attempting to say our experience ought to match that. In reality, if the situation I am arguing exists, our position would be much more like that of characters in a really good novel--they do not open or shut the book, they do not suspend disbelief, and in fact, if they can see the ragged edges where novel-building ceases and another reality intrudes, at precisely that point the author has failed in his/her mission. The created world is too thin, the backstory has fallen apart, and the characters in the novel are falling through the resulting hole in their reality. Not a good thing.

Let's assume the YEC position for the moment, for the sake of argument (this is not my own position, by the way). You are arguing that flawless backstory, under YEC presuppositions about the age of the world, is a form of lying. This is a fallacy.

Assuming for the moment that the YEC position is correct, you are arguing that the only way God could be not-a-liar is if he were to make the million/billion-year backstory inconsistent, so as to give away its fictional nature. In effect, you want him to introduce the equivalent of continuity errors in a novel or movie--places where a shirt inexplicably changes from red to green, where the author forgets that a character is an amputee and allows him to do something that requires two hands, where the color of another character's eyes changes from chapter to chapter.
But no great artist willingly does this--much less the greatest artist of them all.

In short, you can conclude nothing from the fact that the backstory of the world appears to be flawless. Of course it does; we would expect nothing else. The real problem for both theology and science would arise if we actually DID find continuity errors. I hate to think what that would imply!

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Why would God do this, create a universe which is so good in its making that it fools anyone who looks at it with care into thinking it is real, and then make their salvation dependent on denying the evidence of their eyes, minds and the tools their minds create to better see the way it is made?

Auuuggghhhh. Missed the edit window, drat.

I do not know any YECs who argue that a correct view of Genesis impacts anybody's salvation. Seriously. And I know a lot of YECs.

I do not think God plays games with us where our salvation is lost if we, in all good conscience, try to figure something out and get it wrong because of something he himself has created. That's just not like him. He's not an SOB.

Yes, there are people fixated on Genesis, and on a particular view of Genesis, and no doubt some of them even fear for their own faith should they begin to doubt the particular framework of interpretation they've been taught; but to think some other Christian believer is going to hell simply because they read Genesis differently? Meh.

All I can say is, I've not met one. And though y'all may have met such people yourselves, I'm offering my experience at least to prove that not all YECs are of this ilk.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why would God create a totally consistent back story and then introduce something into the story that subverted the back story?

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Many YECs, especially those who follow the teaching of Whitcombe and Morris, explicitly state that the 'backstory' read by modern science is erroneous. The very claim that sedimentary rocks are the result of a single global flood event in recent history, rather than gradual processes over hundreds of millions of years, is a statement that the 'backstory' is wrong.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And I have met people who have held that it is important to teach people the truth about Genesis in order to save their souls.

Which must mean that if people believe in the way the world looks, they will not be saved.

There has been the idea that fossils were placed in order to test people's faith. (Philip Gosse.) Now that is not art. It is something else.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just dropping in to point out that Slacktivist and Frederick Douglass both feel that you can't win the argument with straight reason. People have to much invested in their image of themselves to give up a bit of that easily.

Douglass' advice was "fire":
quote:
Scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.
As Slacktivist says, how uncivil. But Douglass was trying to overcome the rigid belief in slavery and subservient conditions for real people and you are trying to salvage what is left of real science from people who have chosen to be ignorant. Their "worldview" prevents facts from leaking in.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You know, I've never yet met anyone yet who was converted by scorn and ridicule. If anything, such tactics lead to people digging their heels in.

If indeed some sort of fear lies at the bottom of a particular person's reading of Genesis, AND you really want to convert them, why not attempt to address that fear?

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I do not know any YECs who argue that a correct view of Genesis impacts anybody's salvation. Seriously. And I know a lot of YECs.

I have! Happily, they're not in my life anymore.

Some seem to believe that while it does not mean you are unsaved, it is a dangerous "slippery slope," while others specifically make it a salvation issue:
quote:
Why does this apply to Theistic Evolutionists? Because erring from the truth (what the bible says) means that they knew what the truth was. And since they preferred the lie instead, and called it truth. They were also indirectly calling God a liar as well. What is it that has to be said every time someone brings up: That’s not what the Bible says? What you say not only applies to the word, but also applies to God. That is why erring from the truth is bad, and puts the person who does it in danger of losing salvation.
I'm glad the YECs you know are not like that, but there are definitely others who are--and in the former "slippery slope" case, Ken Ham is in the news a lot popularizing his views, debating Bill Nye, etc.

I well remember the look of anxiety on the faces of the Baptist Student Center people I knew in college who were trying to encourage me to see an anti-evolution film that was being put on. [Paranoid]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I remember being told that evolution was the product of Satan; well, I managed not to laugh.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the issue is at least twofold:

(1) The YEC people themselves who believe their salvation is conditional at least partly in believing in YEC, which produces a strain/tension when they might reach conclusions that the Earth is not 6000 years old (and which has at least appeared to lead to some people giving up on Christianity altogether)

(2) The damage that YEC is doing to the sciences, education, and some seriously practical matters like climate change. At least in the US, there seems to be a connection, and giving in to YEC pseudo-science is actually causing definite harm. (It doesn't help that in the US, the culture of YEC-tyle churches is aggressively right-wing, "pro-business," anti-environmental-laws (some have literally tried to argue that those are a veiled attempt at Earth-Mother-worship-idolatry [brick wall] ) and the like. Yes, really. No, I'm not kidding. This worries me.)

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And of course the high-ranking congressman on the House Science Committee who said that "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior." `

(Side note: Another member is Todd Akin, who made headlines for saying that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape" because their bodies have "ways to try to shut that whole thing down.")

My country is insane. [Waterworks]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Caveats for the above are, of course, that Evangelicals in the UK seem to have a very different approach to various matters, as was discussed on the Evangelical vs Fundamentalist thread, in which if you are a UK Evo, then you are more likely to care about social justice, the environment, and the like. [Overused] [Axe murder] Please come to the US and save us from ourselves!!!

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Argh! Despite my better judgement I've got into a pissing contest with one on Facebook. Idiot, idiot, idiot!

Oi, that's my friend you're talking about! [Biased]
No, I was the idiot for engaging.

I'm now annoyed with myself that I'm feeling pleased that I and that other bloke basically served his arse up to him on a plate. One of the reasons I like to avoid this is the confused feelings I have about the impact on the recipient discovering they've been sold a pup.

[ 18. August 2014, 08:47: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, I get you, Karl - and I know what you mean about feeling pleased...

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Acurisur
Apprentice
# 18151

 - Posted      Profile for Acurisur     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem I have with shooting down YEC's and the Genesis account as literal is that atheists that I debate with will point to Christians who don't believe in a literal Genesis account as hypocrites because they say "How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true and which are false? Either you believe it is all true or you believe it is all false".

Which then creates a problem when you say "Science is right here, but Science is wrong here"

Atheists see it as Science Vs God. Not Science and God.

Personally, I believe the Bible is the infallible word of God. I don't know about a 6,000 year old earth because that's not biblical.

--------------------
Jesus Rules!

Posts: 8 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Acurisur:
The problem I have with shooting down YEC's and the Genesis account as literal is that atheists that I debate with will point to Christians who don't believe in a literal Genesis account as hypocrites because they say "How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true and which are false? Either you believe it is all true or you believe it is all false".

Leading one to wonder, when did Atheists become so rigid and unreflective? Atheists who say shit like that are more dogmatic and less reflective about religion than most religious people. They are, in fact, walking imbeciles in the question of religion. I suspect any atheists who spew this kind of nonsense are more reacting to their religious upbringing than they are drawing conclusions about the world based on evidence and reason.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
TBH I've never heard that line from Atheists. Only Christian fundamentalists. Most atheists I know seem able to cope with the idea that Christianity is not entirely defined by the Bible.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or, even defined by one particular interpretation of the Bible.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Why would God create a totally consistent back story and then introduce something into the story that subverted the back story?

He got bored.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Acurisur:
The problem I have with shooting down YEC's and the Genesis account as literal is that atheists that I debate with will point to Christians who don't believe in a literal Genesis account as hypocrites because they say "How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true and which are false? Either you believe it is all true or you believe it is all false".

like K:LB, I've only ever heard Christians say anything like this.
quote:
Originally posted by Acurisur:

Which then creates a problem when you say "Science is right here, but Science is wrong here"

not sure how it should. First, atheism =\= scientific background. Atheism only requires the belief god(s) do not exist. There is no doctrine or curriculum.
Second, science doesn't work that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Acurisur:

Atheists see it as Science Vs God. Not Science and God.

Of course atheists don't see science and god. They'd not be atheists else.
Not to hammer to vigorously, but the statement "Atheists see it as" is always going to be wrong. Beyond the single defining belief, there are no other guidelines.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've certainly heard atheists chunter on about cherry-picking Christians, but I pointed out to them, rather elegantly I thought, they every time they quote a 'bad' bit of the Bible, they are also beating the cherry blossom to death. But of course, their cherry-picking is different, innit?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Why would God create a totally consistent back story and then introduce something into the story that subverted the back story?

He got bored.
I just assume that he was trolling.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've certainly heard atheists chunter on about cherry-picking Christians, but I pointed out to them, rather elegantly I thought, they every time they quote a 'bad' bit of the Bible, they are also beating the cherry blossom to death. But of course, their cherry-picking is different, innit?

I've heard atheists derisively dismiss religion within minutes of discussing how their horoscope will affect their plans.
What's your point?

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That cherry-picking is unavoidable.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Possibly. But i do think there is a difference.
A person stating a belief should have a more cohesive approach to said belief than is necessary for a non-believer.
And certain bits of any religious text will stand out more to an outsider than others., Within the framework of the religion, so are natural targets.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very cool indeed Mousethief

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
TBH I've never heard that line from Atheists. Only Christian fundamentalists. Most atheists I know seem able to cope with the idea that Christianity is not entirely defined by the Bible.

Christopher Hitchens visited Portland a year or so before he died. As reported in the local paper, he participated in a panel discussion with various people, including some ministers, one of whom made the point that she did not hold some of the positions (YEC etc.) he attributed to Christianity. He said, "Well, you're not really a Christian," something she had probably heard from fundamentalists before, but...

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Particularly "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason.".

But there's reason and reason, no?

I have a beloved family member who is a classical liberal and more ... a holocaust denier.

They got there through reason.

I love the mythos / logos reversal. It seems to echo the penchant for literalizing the OT and symbolizing away the NT, including the sacrament of the beatitudes.

I'm more and more happy with the OT as liturgy. Which is more than creeping in to the NT.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I've heard atheists derisively dismiss religion within minutes of discussing how their horoscope will affect their plans.

As an amusing side note, I once had an atheist roommate (a fairly aggressive one--he knew I was a Christian but he wanted to put up a poster of Uncle Sam being buggered by Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel God "because it shows what religion is doing to this country" [brick wall] ) with whom I had an array of confusing arguments at first about what atheists could and could not believe--every time I said, "but I've known atheists who believe this or that," he'd say "American atheists don't believe that," and we went back and forth until I finally found out that he meant "American Atheists"--the group with that name, and their own logo and so on--didn't believe that--not merely atheists who were Americans... [Killing me]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Acurisur
Apprentice
# 18151

 - Posted      Profile for Acurisur     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Acurisur:
The problem I have with shooting down YEC's and the Genesis account as literal is that atheists that I debate with will point to Christians who don't believe in a literal Genesis account as hypocrites because they say "How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true and which are false? Either you believe it is all true or you believe it is all false".

like K:LB, I've only ever heard Christians say anything like this.
quote:
Originally posted by Acurisur:

Which then creates a problem when you say "Science is right here, but Science is wrong here"

not sure how it should. First, atheism =\= scientific background. Atheism only requires the belief god(s) do not exist. There is no doctrine or curriculum.
Second, science doesn't work that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Acurisur:

Atheists see it as Science Vs God. Not Science and God.

Of course atheists don't see science and god. They'd not be atheists else.
Not to hammer to vigorously, but the statement "Atheists see it as" is always going to be wrong. Beyond the single defining belief, there are no other guidelines.

You haven't spoken to the militant atheists I debate with on IMDB's Religion, Faith and Spirituality Boards then.

--------------------
Jesus Rules!

Posts: 8 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Acurisur:
You haven't spoken to the militant atheists I debate with on IMDB's Religion, Faith and Spirituality Boards then.

Does every website have a set of discussion boards now?? [Confused] This is the movie information site, right? :facepalm:

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Acurisur:
You haven't spoken to the militant atheists I debate with on IMDB's Religion, Faith and Spirituality Boards then.

Does every website have a set of discussion boards now?? [Confused] This is the movie information site, right? :facepalm:
Holy Shit! They do have such a board. Been a subscriber for years and never noticed. [Ultra confused]
quote:
Originally posted by Acurisur:
You haven't spoken to the militant atheists I debate with on IMDB's Religion, Faith and Spirituality Boards then.

So you can find some atheists who argue this way. My point is not all do.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So you can find some atheists who argue this way. My point is not all do.

Has anybody here claimed so?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So you can find some atheists who argue this way. My point is not all do.

Has anybody here claimed so?
quote:
Originally posted by Acurisur:

Atheists see it as Science Vs God. Not Science and God.

Doesn't specifically say all, but near enough.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So you can find some atheists who argue this way. My point is not all do.

Has anybody here claimed so?
quote:
Originally posted by Acurisur:

Atheists see it as Science Vs God. Not Science and God.

Doesn't specifically say all, but near enough.

That's quite a leap, from "Seeing it as 'Science vs. God'" to "They insist that the only real Christians are literalists." Clearly this is an enthymeme.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IME, a lot of atheists would state that there is a "science vs religion" conflict ("religion" being a social construct that exists, as opposed to "God" which, they claim, does not exist - how can you have a conflict with something non-existent?). But, mostly the position isn't that science disproves religion, but they see the main issue as religion interfering with and restricting science.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools