Just Watched 'Jesus Camp'

[Seekermeister]

Vic,

edit: and on that note, I typically leave religion threads when Seekermeister enters. I defend freedom of belief, but he's a zealot who is absolutely pointless to argue with. I don't bang my head against a wall.

Bye. The zealot has arrived. But, before you leave, perhaps you could enlighten me...yes, since I do not argue, it is pointless to argue with me. But, at what time do you perceive that I have ignored anyone with something of value to say? If you believe that the fact that I say what I believe is too extreme, then please clarify for me how you differ?

 

[Seekermeister]

Martin,

Actually yes, evolution is pretty solid and very well accepted science, no different in essence from geology or astronomy. The only reason why the fanatical hordes (60% of Americans) object to it is because it belittles their idea of God.

This is purely for my own amusement, but would you mind sharing with me which other areas of science, besides geology and evolution, you don't believe in?

You may find it difficult to believe, but I do not post simply for amusement. I never said that I discredit all of geology, portions of it are quite valid. However, this illustrates the reason that I shall not honor you request, because I see no reason to give you more material for your amusement, especially when you do so badly with what you do have.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin,

Actually yes, evolution is pretty solid and very well accepted science, no different in essence from geology or astronomy. The only reason why the fanatical hordes (60% of Americans) object to it is because it belittles their idea of God.

This is purely for my own amusement, but would you mind sharing with me which other areas of science, besides geology and evolution, you don't believe in?

You may find it difficult to believe, but I do not post simply for amusement. I never said that I discredit all of geology, portions of it are quite valid. However, this illustrates the reason that I shall not honor you request, because I see no reason to give you more material for your amusement, especially when you do so badly with what you do have.

Oh, you may not post for amusement, but I can assure that after the initial bit of surprise and incredulity, most people read your posts for exactly that purpose.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Vic,

edit: and on that note, I typically leave religion threads when Seekermeister enters. I defend freedom of belief, but he's a zealot who is absolutely pointless to argue with. I don't bang my head against a wall.

Bye. The zealot has arrived. But, before you leave, perhaps you could enlighten me...yes, since I do not argue, it is pointless to argue with me. But, at what time do you perceive that I have ignored anyone with something of value to say? If you believe that the fact that I say what I believe is too extreme, then please clarify for me how you differ?

I simply cannot discuss anything with someone when there is no agreement for a common frame of reference. For example, if I point to the sky and say that it is blue, and you disagree and insist that it is red, we can't get anywhere.

Similarly, I can't discuss religion and faith with people who worship a book instead of God. It's as simple as that. It's not that what you say is too extreme, it's that your mind is closed. Not even God could enlighten you should what He said be different than what you read from your precious book.

 

[Seekermeister]

Surprise and incredulity I have no problem with, because if my views were expected or commonplace, they would have no value to anyone, amused or not. I do not find amusement in your's, because they are expected and commonplace for those of your ilk. I would much prefer to find a mind of reason that I could relate to.

 

[Seekermeister]

Vic,

I simply cannot discuss anything with someone when there is no agreement for a common frame of reference. For example, if I point to the sky and say that it is blue, and you disagree and insist that it is red, we can't get anywhere.

Instead of analogies, how about specifics?

Similarly, I can't discuss religion and faith with people who worship a book instead of God. It's as simple as that. It's not that what you say is too extreme, it's that your mind is closed. Not even God could enlighten you should what He said be different than what you read from your precious book.

A Christian does not worship a book...Bible or otherwise. The value of the Bible is that it is the Word of God, therefore is on a different plane than other books. The Word of God is not what we worship either, but if we did not honor and obey God's Word, then we would have no God. But, regardless of whether my views come from the Bible, or are my own, that doesn't mean that they are without credence or value. Have I questioned your beliefs, based on their origin? If so, then you must also be a member in the church of science. If that is the case, then you are correct in believing that we have little in common.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

If science is to be given any credibility, then it must be kept in mind what a theory is. If evolution were fact, it would not be termed a theory...except by those that cling to it devoutly. For if evolution is false, the only alternative answer is that God exists, and those of you with neither understanding or faith couldn't stomach that idea. So, rather than simply echo the same tired mantra, be brave and defend your religion. In this case, it doesn't require a weapon, other than your "tongue", but it must be guided by your mind, rather than simply running loose.

You don't even know what the word theory means and you try to debate science? Gravity is also a theory, do you believe in that, or do you believe in Intelligent Falling? Is the only thing keeping us pressed to this earth the hand of god?

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Arcex,

Evolution? That is a proven fact. Lets try to keep some perspective please.

Apparently, you felt compelled to add yourself to the list of those who are only able to reiterate their beliefs, without supporting them with any substance. While some of the events in the Bible do require a degree of faith, there is some data to support them. With evolution there is not. I have not even heard a scientist claim that evolution is fact, though some of them would certainly like to think so.

If science is to be given any credibility, then it must be kept in mind what a theory is. If evolution were fact, it would not be termed a theory...except by those that cling to it devoutly. For if evolution is false, the only alternative answer is that God exists, and those of you with neither understanding or faith couldn't stomach that idea. So, rather than simply echo the same tired mantra, be brave and defend your religion. In this case, it doesn't require a weapon, other than your "tongue", but it must be guided by your mind, rather than simply running loose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

There are a number of common misunderstandings about evolution, some of which have hindered its general acceptance and form the basis of various objections to evolution.[45][46][47] Critics of evolution frequently assert that evolution is "just a theory", a misunderstanding of the meaning of theory in a scientific context: whereas in colloquial speech a theory is a conjecture or guess, in science a theory is "a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make".[48] Critics also state that evolution is not a fact, although from a scientific viewpoint evolution is considered both a theory and a fact.[49][50][51] A related, more extreme claim is that evolution is a "theory in crisis", generally based on misrepresenting the scientific support and evidence for evolutionary theory.



Wikipedia FTW.

 

[Elfear]

I think there is some confusion here about the exact definition of the term evolution being thrown around. There is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution: I found the following definitions of each (I'm sure there are others out there):

Macroevolution: Any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another.

Microevolution: Any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

I believe that most Christians, and others who do not profess a belief in evolution, are referring to macroevolution, i.e. they don't believe we are descended from apes or any other species. I'll bet that most would profess a belief in microevolution, i.e. color of fur on an animal can change according to the environment its in.

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
I disagree. I see nothing 'intellectually dishonest' about professing to belive or disbelieve something. What you're saying here is that the only logical conclusion one can come to on God is the agnostic resonse of 'no comment' and anyone who comes to a different conclusion is deluding themselves with pro theist/athiest propaganda and ultimately lying to themselves. That is patently false. While i respect that evidence may be insufficient for you to make a decision, that does not mean that evidence is not sufficient for one person to make a decision to be christian/atheist/hindu/etc. Claiming that everyone who isn't agnostic is guilty of 'intellectual dishonesty' is bigoted and offensive imo.

QFT. I believe that is the crux of this argument. Those who wholeheartedly espouse evolution in no uncertain terms have obviously found enough evidence for them to be satisfied with that belief. Those who wholeheartedly believe in God have obviously found enough evidence for them to be at peace with that belief. If you call someone a Whack-job for not believing in what you do than you are subject to the same criteria and the same conclusion could be said of you.

By the way, by using the two above examples of evolution vs. God I'm not trying to say that they are mutually exclusive.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Elfear
I think there is some confusion here about the exact definition of the term evolution being thrown around. There is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution: I found the following definitions of each (I'm sure there are others out there):

Macroevolution: Any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another.

Microevolution: Any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

I believe that most Christians, and others who do not profess a belief in evolution, are referring to macroevolution, i.e. they don't believe we are descended from apes or any other species. I'll bet that most would profess a belief in microevolution, i.e. color of fur on an animal can change according to the environment its in.

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
I disagree. I see nothing 'intellectually dishonest' about professing to belive or disbelieve something. What you're saying here is that the only logical conclusion one can come to on God is the agnostic resonse of 'no comment' and anyone who comes to a different conclusion is deluding themselves with pro theist/athiest propaganda and ultimately lying to themselves. That is patently false. While i respect that evidence may be insufficient for you to make a decision, that does not mean that evidence is not sufficient for one person to make a decision to be christian/atheist/hindu/etc. Claiming that everyone who isn't agnostic is guilty of 'intellectual dishonesty' is bigoted and offensive imo.

QFT. I believe that is the crux of this argument. Those who wholeheartedly espouse evolution in no uncertain terms have obviously found enough evidence for them to be satisfied with that belief. Those who wholeheartedly believe in God have obviously found enough evidence for them to be at peace with that belief. If you call someone a Whack-job for not believing in what you do than you are subject to the same criteria and the same conclusion could be said of you.

By the way, by using the two above examples of evolution vs. God I'm not trying to say that they are mutually exclusive.

Excellent post I am a Christian, and I guess you could call me a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian (though I really don't like all the baggage that comes with those terms). Again and again I hear people referring to evolution as fact. But the truth is that only microevolution has been proven. You simply cannot demonstrate macroevolution, and that's the whole reason it has never been successfully rejected as a theory. The so-called evidences that have been brought up have been either proved false, deliberate lies, circumstantial, or logically flawed. It's amazing, compared to actual sciences, how worthless and full of lies the "science" of evolution is.

The "fossil record" does not prove anything - I could "link" fossils of a human with a mutation (an extra finger, for example) from 4,000 years ago to a different human skeleton from 100 years ago who had an extra finger, and say that the human from 100 years ago is a descendant of the 4,000 year old human. Furthermore, I could probably find similar fossils in between that would bridge the two.

Belief in macroevolution takes a lot of faith, and those who defend it defend it religiously. The funny thing is, real scientists acknowledge that theories, no matter what the theory is, are always subject to revised or even discarded. That is the essence of science, that it is always changing and is never absolute. You only need to look at the many theories over the centuries that were believed by many for the longest time, but turned out to be false. Just because we live in a "modern" era with high tech tools doesn't mean we are any more intelligent or less susceptible to error than our predecessors. The best and truest scientists are the ones who have humility and wisdom enough not to insult others, and aren't lording their arrogance over everyone else.

Yes, I believe in a God. Yes, I do so by faith. I don't care if that makes me a fool in the sight of this world. Truth is truth no matter what the public or common opinion of the day is.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Crono
Excellent post I am a Christian, and I guess you could call me a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian (though I really don't like all the baggage that comes with those terms). Again and again I hear people referring to evolution as fact. But the truth is that only microevolution has been proven. You simply cannot demonstrate macroevolution, and that's the whole reason it has never been successfully rejected as a theory. The so-called evidences that have been brought up have been either proved false, deliberate lies, circumstantial, or logically flawed. It's amazing, compared to actual sciences, how worthless and full of lies the "science" of evolution is.

The "fossil record" does not prove anything - I could "link" fossils of a human with a mutation (an extra finger, for example) from 4,000 years ago to a different human skeleton from 100 years ago who had an extra finger, and say that the human from 100 years ago is a descendant of the 4,000 year old human. Furthermore, I could probably find similar fossils in between that would bridge the two.

Belief in macroevolution takes a lot of faith, and those who defend it defend it religiously. The funny thing is, real scientists acknowledge that theories, no matter what the theory is, are always subject to revised or even discarded. That is the essence of science, that it is always changing and is never absolute. You only need to look at the many theories over the centuries that were believed by many for the longest time, but turned out to be false. Just because we live in a "modern" era with high tech tools doesn't mean we are any more intelligent or less susceptible to error than our predecessors. The best and truest scientists are the ones who have humility and wisdom enough not to insult others, and aren't lording their arrogance over everyone else.

Yes, I believe in a God. Yes, I do so by faith. I don't care if that makes me a fool in the sight of this world. Truth is truth no matter what the public or common opinion of the day is.

Thanks and I agree with your sentiments, especially your last paragraph.

 

[Seekermeister]

Elfear,

I agree that there is a big difference between the two types of evolution, but I prefer the term adaptation, rather than anything with an evolution suffix. However, that does not account for the discussion at hand, because I'm certain that most of those on the evolutionary bandwagon do have macroevolution in mind. I have no problem believing that animals have adapted to their environment, otherwise it would be difficult to understand the variety within a species. But, just to keep it on an even ground, not even this type of adaptation has been proven. The story about the gray and white moths come to mind, they did not come from adaptation, but simply one variety thriving in an environment that the other didn't.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Elfear
I think there is some confusion here about the exact definition of the term evolution being thrown around. There is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution: I found the following definitions of each (I'm sure there are others out there):

Macroevolution: Any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another.

Microevolution: Any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

I believe that most Christians, and others who do not profess a belief in evolution, are referring to macroevolution, i.e. they don't believe we are descended from apes or any other species. I'll bet that most would profess a belief in microevolution, i.e. color of fur on an animal can change according to the environment its in.

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
I disagree. I see nothing 'intellectually dishonest' about professing to belive or disbelieve something. What you're saying here is that the only logical conclusion one can come to on God is the agnostic resonse of 'no comment' and anyone who comes to a different conclusion is deluding themselves with pro theist/athiest propaganda and ultimately lying to themselves. That is patently false. While i respect that evidence may be insufficient for you to make a decision, that does not mean that evidence is not sufficient for one person to make a decision to be christian/atheist/hindu/etc. Claiming that everyone who isn't agnostic is guilty of 'intellectual dishonesty' is bigoted and offensive imo.

QFT. I believe that is the crux of this argument. Those who wholeheartedly espouse evolution in no uncertain terms have obviously found enough evidence for them to be satisfied with that belief. Those who wholeheartedly believe in God have obviously found enough evidence for them to be at peace with that belief. If you call someone a Whack-job for not believing in what you do than you are subject to the same criteria and the same conclusion could be said of you.

By the way, by using the two above examples of evolution vs. God I'm not trying to say that they are mutually exclusive.

That would be all fine and well if you could actually point to any evidence that God exists. Surely, given your statement above, you should be able to provide some solid evidence that everyone in this discussion can then examine.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Seekermeister]

DealMonkey,

There is plenty of evidence, but not the kind that you can put in a testtube or under a microscope. Thus, you would have to find it yourself, but then I won't hold my breath for that either.

 

[SuperFungus]

You want evidence, well lets see.
Well how about morality? I believe that the existance of morality indicates divinity. That some things are universally wrong (like murder, rape, etc) indicates to me that there must be some universal standard, a standard i attribute to God. Of course you may respond saying that morality is an evolved response designed to facilitate societies (or like Vic, deny that morality exists. Wow), and i could tell you that that doesn't work in a micro sense and we have a discussion. But my point wasn't to defend God. It was to establish that a belief in God is often just as valid as disbelief in God and should be respected as such. I think you've missed that.

I also think that in order for you to demand that i supply evidence for God (who says i'm a theist anyway?) it's only fair that you supply conclusive evidence that there is no God. Of course you can't and that's the impossibility of this argument. Perhaps you would supply the theory of evolution, or astronomy as evidence that God doesn't exist, and then i could tell you that none of those are in conflict with a belief in God. And that was my whole point, all the evidence is inconclusive (not necessarily insuficient), you just have to weigh what you get and make your decision and there's no intellectual dishonesty in that.

There exists (especially on the internet) in my expereince a steryotype associated with theism. That theist belief can only be grown out of mis and dis-information and that atheism is somehow ostensibly right. That people who believe in God are deserving of the scorn and ridicule of all those who do not. I think the tone and sentiment of your post indicate that you hold this steryotype and further, I think it's very dissapointing that you are so resistive to letting go of this crackpot-christian steryotype that has no doubt been your easy out for a long time.

 

[SuperFungus]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
I disagree. I see nothing 'intellectually dishonest' about professing to belive or disbelieve something. What you're saying here is that the only logical conclusion one can come to on God is the agnostic resonse of 'no comment' and anyone who comes to a different conclusion is deluding themselves with pro theist/athiest propaganda and ultimately lying to themselves. That is patently false. While i respect that evidence may be insufficient for you to make a decision, that does not mean that evidence is not sufficient for one person to make a decision to be christian/atheist/hindu/etc. Claiming that everyone who isn't agnostic is guilty of 'intellectual dishonesty' is bigoted and offensive imo.

It's kinda late so excuse my poor articulation of this, i hope you understand my point anyways.

1.) That's precisely what I'm saying and 2.) You're actually claiming the evidence is subjective? Wow, that's a news flash to me. I thought evidence was evidence and either you have it or you don't.

Of course the evidence isn't subjective, how you wiegh it towards conclusion and the conclusion you reach is.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
You want evidence, well lets see.
Well how about morality? I believe that the existance of morality indicates divinity. That some things are universally wrong (like murder, rape, etc) indicates to me that there must be some universal standard, a standard i attribute to God. Of course you may respond saying that morality is an evolved response designed to facilitate societies (or like Vic, deny that morality exists. Wow), and i could tell you that that doesn't work in a micro sense and we have a discussion. But my point wasn't to defend God. It was to establish that a belief in God is often just as valid as disbelief in God and should be respected as such. I think you've missed that.

Well, there you go again. You just attributed the existence of morality to God completely at random and without any basis. That's not evidence - that's a joke.

Originally posted by: SuperFungusI also think that in order for you to demand that i supply evidence for God (who says i'm a theist anyway?) it's only fair that you supply conclusive evidence that there is no God. Of course you can't and that's the impossibility of this argument. Perhaps you would supply the theory of evolution, or astronomy as evidence that God doesn't exist, and then i could tell you that none of those are in conflict with a belief in God. And that was my whole point, all the evidence is inconclusive (not necessarily insuficient), you just have to weigh what you get and make your decision and there's no intellectual dishonesty in that.

Excuse me, but you can't prove a negative. I stopped reading everything after that line.

Originally posted by: SuperFungusThere exists (especially on the internet) in my expereince a steryotype associated with theism. That theist belief can only be grown out of mis and dis-information and that atheism is somehow ostensibly right. That people who believe in God are deserving of the scorn and ridicule of all those who do not. I think the tone and sentiment of your post indicate that you hold this steryotype and further, I think it's very dissapointing that you are so resistive to letting go of this crackpot-christian steryotype that has no doubt been your easy out for a long time.

If you'd read what I said earlier, I never said atheism was right. Only agnosticism, and only in the context of being intellectually honest with yourself. I stopped reading after I determined that you weren't listening to me at all.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
DealMonkey,

There is plenty of evidence, but not the kind that you can put in a testtube or under a microscope. Thus, you would have to find it yourself, but then I won't hold my breath for that either.

So you admit you can't demonstrate, nor can anyone replicate, this evidence you speak of?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
Well how about morality? I believe that the existance of morality indicates divinity. That some things are universally wrong (like murder, rape, etc) indicates to me that there must be some universal standard, a standard i attribute to God. Of course you may respond saying that morality is an evolved response designed to facilitate societies (or like Vic, deny that morality exists. Wow), and i could tell you that that doesn't work in a micro sense and we have a discussion.

There is no such thing as an action that is "universally wrong" because the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are relative to one's own set of morals. Look at the issue of abortion. If one assumes that all human lives are inherently equal then abortion is clearly wrong. However, if one assumes that the value in life is not life itself but rather the existence of a consciousness, then abortion is clearly acceptable.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
You want evidence, well lets see.
Well how about morality? I believe that the existance of morality indicates divinity. That some things are universally wrong (like murder, rape, etc) indicates to me that there must be some universal standard, a standard i attribute to God. Of course you may respond saying that morality is an evolved response designed to facilitate societies (or like Vic, deny that morality exists. Wow), and i could tell you that that doesn't work in a micro sense and we have a discussion. But my point wasn't to defend God. It was to establish that a belief in God is often just as valid as disbelief in God and should be respected as such. I think you've missed that.

First, you cannot claim that an intellectual concept like "morality" is evidence of God, certainly not in an argument about topics like evolution or creationism. It's all well and good to look at the mountain of evidence in regards to evolution and say that's not enough proof, that's fine, that's something tangible that can be argued (personally there is no doubt in my mind on that subject), but to then turn around and offer that as evidence (which is so illogical it can't even be argued against) is rediculous.

Second, the same argument goes for the question as to the existence of God. There is no proof for or against, only belief one way or the other. It is a thouroughly intangible subject which cannot be argued in the same sense as a physical process like evolution.

When it comes to evolution or creationism the same inherent problem applies, you cannot offer proof of creationism since the heart of most (if not all) arguments for it state that the earth was created all at once, along with all the evidence that points to the exact opposite of creationism's basic principles. Again, you can't argue against a subject that offers no proof.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
You want evidence, well lets see.
Well how about morality? I believe that the existance of morality indicates divinity. That some things are universally wrong (like murder, rape, etc) indicates to me that there must be some universal standard, a standard i attribute to God. Of course you may respond saying that morality is an evolved response designed to facilitate societies (or like Vic, deny that morality exists. Wow), and i could tell you that that doesn't work in a micro sense and we have a discussion. But my point wasn't to defend God. It was to establish that a belief in God is often just as valid as disbelief in God and should be respected as such. I think you've missed that.

I also think that in order for you to demand that i supply evidence for God (who says i'm a theist anyway?) it's only fair that you supply conclusive evidence that there is no God. Of course you can't and that's the impossibility of this argument. Perhaps you would supply the theory of evolution, or astronomy as evidence that God doesn't exist, and then i could tell you that none of those are in conflict with a belief in God. And that was my whole point, all the evidence is inconclusive (not necessarily insuficient), you just have to weigh what you get and make your decision and there's no intellectual dishonesty in that.

There exists (especially on the internet) in my expereince a steryotype associated with theism. That theist belief can only be grown out of mis and dis-information and that atheism is somehow ostensibly right. That people who believe in God are deserving of the scorn and ridicule of all those who do not. I think the tone and sentiment of your post indicate that you hold this steryotype and further, I think it's very dissapointing that you are so resistive to letting go of this crackpot-christian steryotype that has no doubt been your easy out for a long time.

huh? When have I ever denied morality??

Morality can defined simply: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." -- Matthew 7:12

The rest of your post... well, I'm not sure what you mean. If it is as equally silly to be an atheism as a theism, then it is as equally NOT silly to be either.

God... well, God is not easily defined. I tend to indulge in patheism occasionally, so I understand where you coming from.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: SeekermeisterThe zealot has arrived.

Not so fast...

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
This seems as good of a place as any, so as one whackjob to another, I will repeat a challenge that I have posted before, and not just on this forum. Since so many of you believe that evolution is fact, and shouldn't be questioned,

From a single post it's quite obivious that you're certainly not looking at evolution without some pre-conceived notions. This no point in arguing with religious fundamentalists just as there is no point in arguing with many atheists that seem to dominate the internet. Heh, I really tend to enjoy the thread about religious fundamentalists and how everyone jumps in on them. In reality, they're no different from those they're making fun of.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
DealMonkey,

There is plenty of evidence, but not the kind that you can put in a testtube or under a microscope. Thus, you would have to find it yourself, but then I won't hold my breath for that either.

So you admit you can't demonstrate, nor can anyone replicate, this evidence you speak of?

You apparently speak another language, because I have said the same things several times, so their is no admission involved. But, since clarity is a difficult state for you, I shall reiterate a bit more, the most definitive evidence is spiritual, which is beyond your grasp. This doesn't mean that there is no physical evidence though, but it's resolution depends heavily upon the eye of the beholder. This relates to the subjectiveness remarks of SuperFungus. Since your subjectiveness is obvious, I'm not going to attempt to go there with you.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Tab
From a single post it's quite obivious that you're certainly not looking at evolution without some pre-conceived notions. This no point in arguing with religious fundamentalists just as there is no point in arguing with many atheists that seem to dominate the internet. Heh, I really tend to enjoy the thread about religious fundamentalists and how everyone jumps in on them. In reality, they're no different from those they're making fun of.

There is no one alive without "pre-conceived notions", I have never claimed to be without these, and if I were, I would not pick this forum to acquire any new insights. That is not a characteristic of debate. However, there is nothing amiss in my pointing out this aspect of evolutionists, because I attempting to get them to see this within themselves.

 

[Nebben]

Originally posted by: SuperFungus

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: Vic
I love it when I step away from a thread for a couple of hours and my point is proven for me. Which, in this case, is that the "whack jobs" are a lot more than just the fundie nuts. But what could I have possibly expected from people who think that science is a belief system? (Hint: it's actually a process).

Oh BTW: atheism is by dictionary definition the active disbelief in God, not merely the lack of belief in God. Get your facts straight before you throw rocks from your glass house.

If a person is born into a culture in which nobody ever speaks of, refers to, knows about, or has ever heard of, the idea of God, and he's walking around not believing in God, what do you call him?

As for dictionary definitions, there is more than one listed in any decent dictionary. And if it's such a big deal, I'll go around explaining to people in multiple sentences that I don't believe in God, but I also don't assert that one absolutely doesn't exist.

Such a culture has never existed in all of recorded history. Even ancient cultures prejudicially labeled in these modern days as "polytheistic" had a belief in a one single almighty God who ruled over all the other gods.

That's generally considered to be agnosticism. The only honest belief IMO.

Agnosticism requires knowledge of the concept of God. That would not be the correct label here.

And atheism and agnosticism do not necessarily go at odds with each other.

I'd consider atheism to be as honest a belief as they come, for me, as I don't follow or believe in any deity. If you can please explain to me how that's a problematic term, please do. And do a little more research on the word 'atheist' than looking it up in your Webster. It is very commonly defined (by atheists) as the 'absence of belief' rather than the 'active disbelief', which are not really that far from one another for most people. 'Active disbelief' conveys to me a sense of urgency to run out on the street and tell everyone there's no God, which is pretty far from the actual behavior of most atheists.

There have always been multiple definitions of words like this, and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that, since you profess to have an understanding of the idea. Please don't pretend you're winning an argument with me with something as petty as semantics.

This is ridiculously inaccurate. That is obvious when you look at the roots of the respective words. Agnosticism comes from a gnosticism, or to be in opposition to gnosticism. Gnosticism is the belief in the supernatural. Atheism is a theism, or to be in opposition to theism, where theism is the belief in God. So obviously this hypothetical culture with no knowledge whatsoever of God would be agnostic, whereas atheism requires that the knowledge of the concept of God exist in the first place in order for one to be in opposition of such knowledge.

I don't care about your petty apologist BS. This has nothing to do with "winning" any argument or your precious ego. If you post information that is factually inaccurate, I will call you out on it. Our discussion began you said that any Christian who wasn't a fundamentalist or who didn't believe in creationism was a "half-way there Christian" who "didn't know the OT." When I pointed out that that was factually wrong and cited the 1 billion plus member Catholic church as an example, you fell back on the anecdote of your personal opinions about your brother's faith, I wish I could not care less about. Once that became painfully obvious, you began moving from tangent to tangent in order to protect your precious ego, the last of which is the little semantic trip.
I tell this to everyone here who pulls this same crap. This is not a verbal discussion. You cannot pretend that certain things you posted never occurred. Or would you like me to repost your every word from this thread?

Okay, here's the section from my first post you refer to:

To be honest, I've always had MORE respect for fundies than the halfway-there Christians who just go to church now and then and don't have a clue about the OT (or much from the NT, for that matter). Why? Because although I think both categories are pretty much whacked, at least the average pentecostal/fundie/other variety of fanatic sticks with their story. They may have an entirely off-base world view, but they actually do all of the things they feel they should do.

This is what you just said:

Our discussion began you said that any Christian who wasn't a fundamentalist or who didn't believe in creationism was a "half-way there Christian" who "didn't know the OT."

I'm sorry, please tell me where in that post I said that? Because I very clearly did not. The 'halfway-there' bit did not refer specifically to creationism. I was contrasting fundies to Christians that don't know anything about their faith and don't change anything in their lives to reflect said faith. Which was my point: I view fundies with higher regard than your average sometimes-churchgoer that doesn't have any idea what his beliefs entail. Somehow, you pulled Catholicism out of that, which really has nothing to do with it.

You also either can't come to terms with, or are simply ignoring, the fact that a large number of atheists define their views exactly as I have in this thread. The root words are really fantastic and interesting, but that doesn't equate to the current working definition of the word as far as atheists regard it. If you'd like to invent a new word for me to use specifically, be my guest.

Then a large number of atheists are ridiculously uniformed about what 'atheism' means. Vic is right 100%. Buy a fsking dictionary. Or, if you're too busy (yea, right) go to wikipedia.

Atheism:
"It is commonly defined as the denial of theism, amounting to the positive assertion that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism."

The article does say that some atheists classify 'absence of belief' as atheism but that absence of belief better fits the definition of nontheism (like your hypothetical island person)

Look, I can understand people being uniformed; but when you try and pass yourself off as being informed, get caught, and yet persist in your inaccuracies well then you?re officially a pretentious, all knowing ass. In fact you clearly insist that whatever the definition is you know that a ?large number of atheists? will back you up so now you?re more correct than the dictionary. Sorry to disappoint you but no, the definition of atheism is NOT subjective nor debatable. First off I don?t know where you get off claiming that you get to define the ?current working definition? of atheism. Second, who the hell gave you permission to speak for all atheists about how they define their beliefs? What you need to ?come to terms with? is that you are WRONG. Like 2 + 2 = 5 wrong. Or like your mother?s decision to have children wrong.

Sorry, this kind of thing (ie. belligerent, unapologetic, idiocy) really steams me.

Are you Vic's second account? You seem to have the same style: quoting something I said, and then throwing your own spin on the words I actually typed.

By the way, I would never point this out in anyone's posts unless it were a case like this, with inflammatory remarks directed at me for no reason, but work on your spelling. Insulting someone with words relating to intelligence or knowledge in a post with multiple misspellings doesn't really make a great impression on the ladies.

Don't bother replying if you'd like a response. I'm bored right now, but I'm not this bored.