Ever notice anything about this forum?

[Quagmire]

I think we have a difference of opinion revolving around experience here at the forum.

Several participates here insist on some proving...and when none is delivered they insist that God does not exist.

We're in the Evolution vs. Creationism forum discussing the behavior and attitudes of the kind of Creationist this forum usually attracts.

Whether or not God exists, or whether or not some people demand proof one way or the other is a moot point, unless someone tries to introduce the "fact" of God's existence as evidence for the validity of Creationism. As soon as someone tries that they're automatically required to provide proof of that existence or allow the inference to be dismissed.

As soon as the science ...and the equations ....are dropped then a discussion of theology can be accomplished.

So you think we should drop the "Evolution" from the title of the Evolution vs. Creationism forum? Why? We already have a zillion forums in here specifically for discussing theology.

Are you waiting for 'proof'?...I don't think so.....

No, I have all I need. But that proof if for me alone. It wouldn't mean anything to anyone else.

 

[Thief]

We're in the Evolution vs. Creationism forum discussing the behavior and attitudes of the kind of Creationist this forum usually attracts.

Whether or not God exists, or whether or not some people demand proof one way or the other is a moot point, unless someone tries to introduce the "fact" of God's existence as evidence for the validity of Creationism. As soon as someone tries that they're automatically required to provide proof of that existence or allow the inference to be dismissed.

And how would believers speak of creation without God in the picture?


So you think we should drop the "Evolution" from the title of the Evolution vs. Creationism forum? Why? We already have a zillion forums in here specifically for discussing theology.

An odd suggestion.
If the topic is evolution versus creation....neither noun can be dropped.
But neither can God be left out.


No, I have all I need. But that proof if for me alone. It wouldn't mean anything to anyone else.

If your faith in God includes the power of creation....and the forming of Man...

Then perhaps you have something to share?

 

[LuisDantas]

And how would believers speak of creation without God in the picture?

The real question is instead why would they need to mention God at all. Life forms exist. It ought to be possible to study them - to practice Biology - without necessarily appealing to theological claims.

As a comparison, I'm certain that many Theists believe that God wished the Sun and Earth into existence... but that is no reason to demand Theology to replace Astronomy or Geology, either.

Facts are facts. One may quite genuinely believe God to be behind them. But they are still facts and demand no supernatural explanation to be observed and studied.

An odd suggestion.
If the topic is evolution versus creation....neither noun can be dropped.
But neither can God be left out.

Personally, I think it might be a good idea to drop the forum altogether. Evo vs Creo is such a pointless "debate". Its very existence is a distortion, because it creates a false expectation of comparable claims of roughly equal credibility.

If your faith in God includes the power of creation....and the forming of Man...

Then perhaps you have something to share?

He did share something already. His insights about the nature and reach of Faith.

 

[Quagmire]

And how would believers speak of creation without God in the picture?

You're speaking in misleading absolutes here: No one is suggesting that believers should leave God out of the picture while discussing Creationism.

An odd suggestion.
If the topic is evolution versus creation....neither noun can be dropped.
But neither can God be left out.

It was your suggestion.

If your faith in God includes the power of creation....and the forming of Man...

Then perhaps you have something to share?

I think what you're asking is "Then perhaps you have something to prove".
No, I really don't.

 

[Krok]

Except that's not really true. Talk to just about anyone who's active in these battles and ask them "Are all creationists flaming idiots" and I'd be surprised if you get any yeses.

That's why I qualified my statement by saying “visiting forums like this”. I know that the vast majority of theists out there are not like the ones you meet on forums like this.

Yet millions of "normal Christians" support creationism in one way or another.

I know that too. I also know that those millions of “normal christians” don’t pretend that creationism is science. In fact, millions of Christians are very supportive of science and also accept scientific conclusions.

Well, I generally agree that YEC is totally bonkers, but I don't agree that therefore anyone adhering to it therefore should be institutionalized.

They don’t sound like people who should roam the streets to me. They're scary. Completely irrational. They sound too similar to the rantings of those who flew into those buildings.

In my experience, you'll have to look elsewhere for that. I'm not sure where exactly, as I'm currently going through a phase of not being all that interested in arguing the same points over and over and over....but I certainly encourage you to look around. No doubt you'll have to wade through a lot of crazies though.

To me it always seems the same. Theists on forums like this think I want to “prove” that their god or gods don’t exist. They don’t realize that my aim is to get evidence for making a decision on whether their particular god or gods or any god at all exists. They don’t realize that’s why I ask questions and point out inconsistencies. I’m trying to get meaningful conclusions. They think I am hostile to them. I do, however, turn hostile when the answers they give me are dishonest.

 

[Krok]

You should try my thread....
Something about Lying.....

You'll have to be more specific. Which thread?:help:

 

[Thief]

So one suggests no mention of God when discussing creation....
not likely.....

And the other says contrary....go ahead and say so....

and discussing creation without God would be a discussion?

I more than suspect a resistance to ...God behind all things....
is a position resistant.....due to personal feelings....more so than fact.

Leave God out?....why?....
because someday you might have to face a greater Being?

Nullifying the existence of God is quite... futile.
Rebuttal against a Spirit as source of life....futile.

God set all of this chemistry in motion.
Of course something would come of it.

Science without God....is a dead art.

 

[blackout]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru.../113382-ever-notice-anything-about-forum.html

Ever notice anything about this forum?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru.../113382-ever-notice-anything-about-forum.htmlhttp://www.religiousforums.com/foru.../113382-ever-notice-anything-about-forum.html

Nope. I've never noticed anything about this forum.

ever.

It's true.

 

[Thief]

You're speaking in misleading absolutes here: No one is suggesting that believers should leave God out of the picture while discussing Creationism.



It was your suggestion.



I think what you're asking is "Then perhaps you have something to prove".
No, I really don't.

Your rebuttals clearly indicate...we are not on the same page.
Not trying to manipulate.....are you?

 

[LuisDantas]

You'll have to be more specific. Which thread?:help:

Probably this one:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/113253-something-about-lying.html

 

[LuisDantas]

So one suggests no mention of God when discussing creation....
not likely.....

And the other says contrary....go ahead and say so....

and discussing creation without God would be a discussion?

I more than suspect a resistance to ...God behind all things....
is a position resistant.....due to personal feelings....more so than fact.

When you talk about Creation in the text above, do you mean the idea of supernatural creation or its supposed result (existence and beings)?

The first is a matter of faith, and as such it can't very well be discussed. It must either be accepted or rejected.

The second is, by definition, what scientists study. They can't very well avoid studying and discussing it, for there is nothing else available.

When the tires meets the tarmac, is is Creationists who offer resistance due to personal feelings. Scientists just go by the facts.

Leave God out?....why?....
because someday you might have to face a greater Being?

No. Becaused "God wanted so" may sound like an explanation, but in fact it is anything but.

Maybe there is a God. I wouldn't know, even if I have my personal convictions. Maybe His Will makes it so that there is existence and there are beings. Maybe there is a Plan behind it all. It is perfectly conceivable, even if I don't really believe it.

But ultimately it changes nothing. God may want us all to be happy and/or to behave, but we still must do our own homework. Belief in God is no excuse to avoid brushing one's teeth, cleaning one's room. It is no pass for disregarding the way things work in this world. God won't spare one's children of starving if one is a negligent parent just because his Faith is true and sincere. And God won't make Biology knowledge unnecessary or even different from what facts support just because there are those emotionally troubled by the findings of science.

Nullifying the existence of God is quite... futile.
Rebuttal against a Spirit as source of life....futile.

God set all of this chemistry in motion.
Of course something would come of it.

Science without God....is a dead art.

Maybe it is so. But then again, science is not troubled by belief in God. It is rather very much the other way around.

 

[Krok]

So one suggests no mention of God when discussing creation....

not likely.....

So one suggests no mention of FSM when discussing creation…..not likely…

And the other says contrary....go ahead and say so....

And the other says contrary....go ahead and say so....

….and discussing creation without God would be a discussion?

….and discussing creation without FSM would be a discussion?

I more than suspect a resistance to ...God behind all things....

I more than suspect a resistance to…FSM behinds all things….

…is a position resistant.....due to personal feelings....more so than fact.

..is a position resistant ….due to personal feelings…more so than fact.

Leave God out?....why?....

Leave FSM out,…why?....

……because someday you might have to face a greater Being?

… because someday you might have to face a greater Being?

Nullifying the existence of God is quite... futile.

Nullifying the existence of FSM is quite …futile.

Rebuttal against a Spirit as source of life....futile.

Rebuttal against against a Spirit as source of life....futile.

God set all of this chemistry in motion.

FSM set all of this chemistry in motion.

Of course something would come of it.

Of course something would come of it.

Science without God....is a dead art.

Science without FSM....is a dead art.

Which one is your god, Thief? Allah? Zarathusda? Yahwe? Any evidence that Allah exists? Any evidence that Zarathusda exists? Any evidence that Yahwe exists?

 

[Krok]

Probably this one:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/113253-something-about-lying.html

Thanks Luis, found it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Is it just me?

I believe this might be your answer. :sorry1:

 

[Reverend Rick]

It might perhaps shock them out of their safety zone, I guess. That is sometimes constructive if one is courageous or lucky.

But that is an aside, unrelated to our discussion. I am not insulting Creationists by stating that Creationism is ignorant or delusional. I am simply stating the facts as they are.

It is Creationists who are insulting themselves by having access to better knowledge and choosing not to.

Luis, a theory is not fact. I believe you are confusing the two. Trying to "shock" people to see things your way is P-tizing plain and simple.

Science has become a religion to some folks. That said, the creationists have no proof positive either.

As I see it, we are all ignorant of what caused the big bang. If this where not true, the theory of evolution would be fact and not called a theory.

Believing in a theory is faith not proof positive. Is science superior to faith in a sky daddy? Sure. To ignore science's short comings is a very stilted ignorant viewpoint as well IMHO.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, a theory is not fact. I believe you are confusing the two.

Nope. I am talking about the Theory of Evolution.

Biological Evolution is a fact, and a particularly well-demonstrated one.

Maybe you missed the frequent reminders in this forum about the unfortunate confusion between the common usage of "Theory" (which, I believe, came to be largely due to a desire to discredit Evolution) and the scientific use of the same word.

Evolution "is not a fact" in the same sense that ice not being frozen water is also "not a fact".

Everything is possible, given sufficiently loose premises. But as far as it is humanly possible to know, there are facts and Evolution is one of them.

Trying to "shock" people to see things your way is P-tizing plain and simple.

Yes, it is. Not sure why Revoltingest mentioned that, however. I certainly don't see how that shoe might fit me.

Science has become a religion to some folks. That said, the creationists have no proof positive either.

"Either...?"

Sorry, Rev, but that word is very much misplaced here.

As I see it, we are all ignorant of what caused the big bang. If this where not true, the theory of evolution would be fact and not called a theory.

Not really. The big bang has nothing whatsoever to do with Biology, much less Evolution. And as mentioned above, relying on the word theory to conclude that something is not a true fact is misleading as well.

Believing in a theory is faith not proof positive.

In common usage it is. Not in science, where a theory is something that has been demonstrated. When it has been widely demonstrated and never falsified for over a century (which is very much the case with the ToE), to deny its factuality is simple, desperate wishful thinking.

Is science superior to faith in a sky daddy? Sure.

It really depends on one's goals. Faith is needed and important for human motivation, inspiration and behavior. But it doesn't really attempt to explain how this world works when it comes to the Natural Sciences, including Biology.

In that sense, science isn't just superior. It is the only game in town.

To ignore science's short comings is a very stilted ignorant viewpoint as well IMHO.

Yes, it is. However, it is also irrelevant to this matter.

Evo vs Creo has nothing to do with science's shortcomings and everything to do with the shortcomings of our educational system and our religious practice.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Evo vs Creo has nothing to do with science's shortcomings and everything to do with the shortcomings of our educational system and our religious practice.

Are you saying that it is impossible to be a religious scientist?

As far as our educational system being in the toilet, I have to agree with you there. :yes:

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you saying that it is impossible to be a religious scientist?

NO! I am saying that it is silly to deny evolution. It is not a matter of religious faith, or even of any kind of faith.

Creationism is not a religious belief proper. It is just denial of fact, be it by ignorance or fearful stubborness.

Religious people are not supposed to be afraid of finding out the truth, much less to actively fight it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Religious people are not supposed to be afraid of finding out the truth

We are in agreement.

 

[LuisDantas]

What bugs me is why so many people think that the ToE is in some way, shape or form an attempt at "denying God".

The argument has been brought up before and is a very good one. Evolution is, quite obviously, not beyond God's capabilities and not at all denial of God's possible existence.

No scientist can or could ever legitimally say that the ToE proves or even hints that God does not exist, for much the same reasons that finding out, say, how tides or rain work is no denial of God either. It is just studying nature, and neither Atheists nor anyone else should expect God to need protection from the study of nature.