This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

C_Mat: You're a YEC. Can you explain and prove creationism?

#131Moorish_IdolPosted 6/2/2013 11:46:22 AM
Do you really, really, reeeeeally think you and others wouldn't refute his arguments?
#132lastheroPosted 6/2/2013 2:21:08 PM
Yeah, I'm going with Moorish on this one. C_Mat is hardly my favorite person, but he did make it quite clear he had no interest in debating this, so I'm not surprised he never showed up.

I think this is the longest I've ever seen a topic addressed to someone go on without the person it was addressed to.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#133Fingerpuppet(Topic Creator)Posted 6/2/2013 7:13:01 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
Do you really, really, reeeeeally think you and others wouldn't refute his arguments?


Of course some people are going to refute his arguments, but it's his decision to reply to them or not.
---
"Not knowing something is one thing, refusing to know about it while pretending that you do is something I'd call stupidity." -Faust_8
#134black spiderPosted 6/4/2013 11:46:06 AM
Hustle Kong posted...
This seems like an iffy position to hold. Are we all supposed to be theologians before we decide we don't believe in any gods?


That's a good question, actually.

First of all, the thing that bugged me wasn't so much his rejection of evolution but rather the rejection potentially combined with an inability to defend the rejection. If you're rejecting something that is scientifically equivalent with the theory of gravity then surely there's a reason for it. Because you believe in God over all else? Fair enough. Because there's some question that you feel evolution can't answer properly? Fair enough. But surely there is something. Otherwise it just seems like you've decided to reject the theory but still haven't found a good justification for doing so yet.

Second, I think there's a difference between not believing in testable science and not believing in a religion that by definition isn't testable. The general standard for accepting or rejecting science is through science. The general standard for accepting or rejecting a religion is "faith". Essentially a gut feeling, which you either have or you don't. By that standard, I'm fairly confident that most atheists can make a pretty good case for why they're atheists. Because they simply don't have that conviction.

Personally, while I have a very crude knowledge of Christianity, that's really not the reason why I reject the religion. I do so because I don't hold any faith in it. The belief simply isn't there. Such an argument is utterly useless with respect to science but when it comes to religion, I do believe that any and all arguments ultimately boil down to just a gut feeling. A fundamental conviction that simply is, regardless of rationality or knowledge or personal desire.

Christians like to talk about God's love for us and their love for him, and I think that's a rather fitting description. Belief in God is much like love. It's fundamental and it's not something that can be forced. Either you feel it or you don't.
---
You want to try your hand at proving why genocide is inherently bad? - OrangeWizard
#135darkmaian23Posted 6/4/2013 1:53:23 PM
black spider posted...
Hustle Kong posted...
This seems like an iffy position to hold. Are we all supposed to be theologians before we decide we don't believe in any gods?


That's a good question, actually.

First of all, the thing that bugged me wasn't so much his rejection of evolution but rather the rejection potentially combined with an inability to defend the rejection. If you're rejecting something that is scientifically equivalent with the theory of gravity then surely there's a reason for it. Because you believe in God over all else? Fair enough. Because there's some question that you feel evolution can't answer properly? Fair enough. But surely there is something. Otherwise it just seems like you've decided to reject the theory but still haven't found a good justification for doing so yet.

Second, I think there's a difference between not believing in testable science and not believing in a religion that by definition isn't testable. The general standard for accepting or rejecting science is through science. The general standard for accepting or rejecting a religion is "faith". Essentially a gut feeling, which you either have or you don't. By that standard, I'm fairly confident that most atheists can make a pretty good case for why they're atheists. Because they simply don't have that conviction.

Personally, while I have a very crude knowledge of Christianity, that's really not the reason why I reject the religion. I do so because I don't hold any faith in it. The belief simply isn't there. Such an argument is utterly useless with respect to science but when it comes to religion, I do believe that any and all arguments ultimately boil down to just a gut feeling. A fundamental conviction that simply is, regardless of rationality or knowledge or personal desire.

Christians like to talk about God's love for us and their love for him, and I think that's a rather fitting description. Belief in God is much like love. It's fundamental and it's not something that can be forced. Either you feel it or you don't.


But then we get a certain segment of the religious population that tries to do away with things that contradict their "gut feelings". They try to bend reality to fit what (they feel) must follow from their feelings about God. They try to take evolution out of classrooms, let their children die by relying only on faith healing, or propose that all science is false and the Earth and the Sun are the only things in the universe and that the sky really is a giant dome (no lie, I actually have a friend who believes this and laughs when people talk about stars).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm both a former Christian and a former cult member. I know what it is like to believe absurd things and why people do it. I also know that it is far from all religious folks who believe these things and try to enact social changed based on them. But they do exist and their ignorance must be countered.

Personal convictions about the universe and God, as well as respect for that, is absolutely fine. But the fact that there are people walking around today who are honestly still Earth believers or who think that the world is only 6,000 years old or that antibiotics and vaccines aren't needed because "God will provide" is not OK. These people have been failed by the education system and deserve to be corrected for their own good and the good of society.

While it might be possible for someone to hold views like these and not be directly or indirectly harming others with them, I have never once in my life seen it.