A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

[Tiberius]

Probably themselves

lol, I gotta love a believer who dismisses atheists while at the same time knowing so little about them that he has to guess at what they are really like.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Ah, so religion requires WORSHIP!

Pray tell, who do atheists worship?

(Would you be interested in having a discussion about this topic in a new thread so we don't continually derail this thread?)

Themselves from what I've seen.
Or rather thier minds. But many religions don't worship anyone. Buddhism for example.

 

[ElishaElijah]

lol, I gotta love a believer who dismisses atheists while at the same time knowing so little about them that he has to guess at what they are really like.

Was it a good guess? Are all atheist the same?

 

[Tiberius]

Themselves from what I've seen.
Or rather thier minds. But many religions don't worship anyone. Buddhism for example.

Okay, so atheists worship themselves.

How about this: You describe for me what a Christian does when they worship God, and then you show me how an atheist does those things to themselves.

 

[Tiberius]

Was it a good guess? Are all atheist the same?

lol, no, it was a terrible guess, and it only serves to illustrate the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Valjean]

And what was the result of this grand idea? Crime went up

Where? Why?
What the city where defunding police worked really tells us about it

I’m not an expert in logical fallacies but this has to be one.

Are these not analogous?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Are these not analogous?

No

 

[ElishaElijah]

Where? Why?

Cities Reverse Defunding the Police Amid Rising Crime

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It can become wrong when it goes against love for our neighbour.

No, there is nothing wrong with lust nor can it ever go "against" anything.

If you are talking about someone who rapes some woman, then rape is what is causing the harm. Not "lust".

Just like freely following our other normal human emotions and feelings with out any self control can lead to wrong actions.

See? You seem to be confusing accepting lust as a natural human desire, with not having any self-control.
Nobody said anything about self-control here. I merely said that there is nothing wrong with natural human desires.

That doesn't, in any way shape or form, mean that I think people should be able to do whatever the heck they want - regardless of any harm the behavior may cause.

So no, rape is not okay.
Lust is very okay.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I’m not an expert in logical fallacies but this has to be one.

It's not.

It's an exact analogy for the argument you provided (that we have no means to scientifically detect such things like faeries etc).
You assume they don't exist, because we don't detect them anywhere except in folk tales, religions and legends.

So they only exist as words on paper and as imagery / concepts in people's minds.
From our perspective, your god is the exact same.

Presumably, you don't consider it "arrogant" of yourself to not believe in faeries.
So why would it be "arrogant" for us to not believe in other such entities that only seem to exist as words on paper and as imagery / concepts in people's minds?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Probably themselves

No, the only thing that makes an atheist an atheist is the lack of belief in gods.

I don't worship anything including myself.

 

[AppieB]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

One could always imagine a narrative where his/her believes could "fit" with the evidence. But do you actually have a good reason to believe the above is correct?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One could always imagine a narrative where his/her believes could "fit" with the evidence. But do you actually have a good reason to believe the above is correct?

Now, let us dive deep.
You are a Westerner, so in all likelihood you have a certain amount of Western cultural beliefs, that you have had no reason to check.

So here is a simple question related to your post and this site made by scientists in regards to evidence and its limits:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

...
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.
...

So if you have evidence against gods, then what do you mean by evidence? Do you mean using science, philosophy or what?

 

[AppieB]

Now, let us dive deep.
You are a Westerner, so in all likelihood you have a certain amount of Western cultural beliefs, that you have had no reason to check.

So here is a simple question related to your post and this site made by scientists in regards to evidence and its limits:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So if you have evidence against gods, then what do you mean by evidence? Do you mean using science, philosophy or what?

I understand the philosophy of science and its limitations. It was actually a question regarding epistemology and what is more reasonable to believe. We have a scientific model of the age of the universe, which is current the best explanation I would think. Unless there is a better reason to believe something else. So my question was: do you actually have a good reason to believe the above is correct?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I understand the philosophy of science and its limitations. It was actually a question regarding epistemology and what is more reasonable to believe. We have a scientific model of the age of the universe, which is current the best explanation I would think. Unless there is a better reason to believe something else. So my question was: do you actually have a good reason to believe the above is correct?

The question is if using evidence for what is reasonable and good/better is possible or if you are being normative/perspective?

There is 3 versions of better:
It is better to use religion about metaphysics.
It is better to use science about metaphysics.
It is apparent not possible to solve such questions without subjective bias.

In epistemology as knowledge (and truth), nobody have so far solved Agrippa's Trilemma and the problem of epistemological solipsism.

 

[AppieB]

The question is if using evidence for what is reasonable and good/better is possible or if you are being normative/perspective?

There is 3 versions of better:
It is better to use religion about metaphysics.
It is better to use science about metaphysics.
It is apparent not possible to solve such questions without subjective bias.

In epistemology as knowledge (and truth), nobody have so far solved Agrippa's Trilemma and the problem of epistemological solipsism.

Maybe I'm not understanding you correct, but I'm not talking about truth or abslote truth/knowlegde. I'm talking about what is reasonable to believe. Whitout being (absolute) certain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe I'm not understanding you correct, but I'm not talking about truth or abslote truth/knowlegde. I'm talking about what is reasonable to believe. Whitout being (absolute) certain.

Yes, I get you. But so far I have never come across reasonable that is without subjective bias. That includes me. Now you might be able to do it, but then you would be the first human in recorded history who can do it without subjective bias.

 

[AppieB]

Yes, I get you. But so far I have never come across reasonable that is without subjective bias. That includes me. Now you might be able to do it, but then you would be the first human in recorded history who can do it without subjective bias.

Ah ok, now I understand. Of course, my perception of reality is subjective, including what is reasonable. But I don't see this as an issue regarding my innitial question to the TS.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One could always imagine a narrative where his/her believes could "fit" with the evidence. But do you actually have a good reason to believe the above is correct?

Ah ok, now I understand. Of course, my perception of reality is subjective, including what is reasonable. But I don't see this as an issue regarding my innitial question to the TS.

The in a sense meaningless answer is that a human in some likelihood have a subjectively good reason to act including this case. I.e. to believe the above is correct.

Now standard religion I have subjectively no good reason to believe in, but that is the point. I am not the judge of other humans. I am another human and I have tried to do objectivity for these matters and I can't. so I state my subjective reasons and leave it at that.

 

[an anarchist]

One could always imagine a narrative where his/her believes could "fit" with the evidence. But do you actually have a good reason to believe the above is correct?

The reason is this: I take my Bible literally, which says that the earth is young. Yet evidence shows an old earth. So this is how I can reconcile those two things, rather than simply dismiss scientific evidence
I value to epistemic value of the Bible over man observed science.