To defeat creationist, must you defeat their religion????

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Really? What did I assume?

This: "I think you probably have such severe prejudices that you cannot engage in a respectful or productive discussion about the nature of religious belief."

Honestly, outhouse is being pretty tame in this debate.

I liked the vid

Thanks. It answers the question pretty well, doesn't it?

 

[outhouse]

Thanks. It answers the question pretty well, doesn't it?

yes it does.

sad thing is,,, its just a quick summary

 

[Breathe]

Show me that some religious people are not brainwashed and I will gladly give up any and all fight.

What about me?

I was not raised in the religions I am today. Religion was something that was not discussed in my house--I didn't find out my father and I had similar religious beliefs until I was 20. Seriously. 20. I didn't find out my mother's religious beliefs until I was 19.

The religions I am, although not exactly rare here, we not ones shoved down my throat by society. Who brainwashed me?

As to some religious people? Deists, UUs, Sikhs, Buddhists.

I do not know those myths

First off, they are scriptures - religious books.

Secondly, it's pretty ignorant to call something you do not know a myth. At least have the decency to go look through the stuff and THEN decide it's a myth.

So effectively, all your religious experience comes from the Bible. You haven't read other scriptures.

Do you enjoy tarring everyone with the same brush?

 

[Caladan]

To defeat creationist, must you defeat their religion????

Of course not. this would mean you have to be proficient in the scriptures, history, religion and politics. I would leave that to the professionals. scholars of Christianity, Judaism. and other proficient academics.
the truth is, that even these people hardly ever use their expertise to engage in such futile practice of intellectual endeavours. they would debate more relevant and important points of academic strife. such as the historicity of the village of Nazareth during the first centuries of the Gregorian year count. the terminology of Hebrew terms, their origin. is it of the origin of Northern Hebrew dialect used by the Kingdom of Israel, or is it a more Judean flavoured, the terminology and use or misuse of Greek terms in the LXX, or the Koine Greek of the New Testament. etc.
If you are not proficient enough in these matters. I would leave it aside. and focus just on the biology. all you need to do in order to defeat an ignorance in a debate is bring up to date case to case examples of biological research, empirical, and field work. and of course back it up, with the well founded research of the past 200 years, which the academy has laboured on.

Even Dawkins. a top leading biologist, who specializes in evolutionary biology. and wrote some of the most celebrated books on biological evolution for the lay man or woman, is having a hard time making great cases in religious debates. simply because he is not familiar with the matters at hand. he is not well travelled in the middle east, and does not have years of interaction with middle eastern Jews or Muslims.

 

[bobhikes]

???

Your problem is in the title of the thread you seek to defeat them.

When ever you seek to defeat someone you will encounter resistance. You will also set up barriers to allowing people to come to your understanding. A lot of it will be irrational to you because you are the tyrant trying to drive others to your view.

Here's an Idea be the sage. Teach others to understand. Allow them to grow at there own pace. Will the world change tomorrow no but it will change and the change will be peaceful.

How many years have we existed and you expect everyone to change in this life time. That is being irrational.

 

[outhouse]

Of course not. this would mean you have to be proficient in the scriptures, history, religion and politics. I would leave that to the professionals. scholars of Christianity, Judaism. and other proficient academics.
the truth is, that even these people hardly ever use their expertise to engage in such futile practice of intellectual endeavours. they would debate more relevant and important points of academic strife. such as the historicity of the village of Nazareth during the first centuries of the Gregorian year count. the terminology of Hebrew terms, their origin. is it of the origin of Northern Hebrew dialect used by the Kingdom of Israel, or is it a more Judean flavoured, the terminology and use or misuse of Greek terms in the LXX, or the Koine Greek of the New Testament. etc.
If you are not proficient enough in these matters. I would leave it aside. and focus just on the biology. all you need to do in order to defeat an ignorance in a debate is bring up to date case to case examples of biological research, empirical, and field work. and of course back it up, with the well founded research of the past 200 years, which the academy has laboured on.

Even Dawkins. a top leading biologist, who specializes in evolutionary biology. and wrote some of the most celebrated books on biological evolution for the lay man or woman, is having a hard time making great cases in religious debates. simply because he is not familiar with the matters at hand. he is not well travelled in the middle east, and does not have years of interaction with middle eastern Jews or Muslims.

thank you

that was a great answer and more along the lines of what i was looking for.

 

[outhouse]

What about me?

that would be why I used the word "some"

no offense to you at all

Secondly, it's pretty ignorant to call something you do not know a myth

Am I, or am I not atheist, I dont believe in any religion. I have yet to see or hear of a religion that does not have a magic man or unseen power greater then man alone.

show me a religion that has no power greater then man alone while following nature and not crossing one line in science that doesnt describe these forces of nature as magical. And I will start reading up on it.

Here is my take

All religions were created by man for man, correct? Yes they were

All religions are created for the purpose of making man feel good with moral guides on how to live in what the people of that time [when written] thought a good life should be lived. [with tips on healing the mind]

The dominating religions today are mythological in nature are they not? Yes they are

so if I left out a small small percentage that fits my example above I do apologize as I overstepped my knowledge.

 

[outhouse]

I see brilliant minds trying to teach creationist. dead fact is, they refuse to learn newhope and wilson are two prime examples. They [our brilliant minds] are waisting their time debating them.

these two examples are not rare, They are in every place I have ever worked and they are in every church on every corner.

maybe ignoring them is better but out of boredom we play.

Do you not think its time to say enough is enough?

the earth is not 6000 years old
there was no global flood
man evolved
people spoke different languages before the tower of babel
woman didnt come from a rib
there was no ark

and on and on and on

is it not time to bury the myths that drag humanity down by stunting its educational potential ???

im sick and tired of having faith fly jets into tall buildings

 

[painted wolf]

peronal opinion

show me a religion based on facts with no magical men, not based on imagination. As A atheist you know I have a lack of belief.

Now for the purpose of this thread, im against a creation story that goes against science, reality and reason.

Sorry, but this isn't simple opinion... it's ignorance. And you are declaring it as fact. :tsk:

You don't know anything about these faiths or scriptures, you are simply assuming and then dismissing them. Much like newhope does with scientific evidence they don't like.

And yes, you have belief... you just place it in other myths and concepts.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

Thats your opinion.

I did ask "show me" if you cannot I understand

 

[doppelganger]

This: "I think you probably have such severe prejudices that you cannot engage in a respectful or productive discussion about the nature of religious belief."

Honestly, outhouse is being pretty tame in this debate.

He jumped to extremely mistaken conclusions and condescending language without any provocation. I simply asked a question.

I didn't assume anything. I made an observation based on his behavior in this discussion.

I would add, that you mis-quoted me in that post. You left off the clause that precedes what you quoted.

Tsk, tsk . . .

 

[outhouse]

You don't know anything about these faiths or scriptures, you are simply assuming and then dismissing them.

This thread is about religions that have a creation story, if they do,,,, they are a myth plain and simple. Correct?

 

[outhouse]

He jumped to extremely mistaken conclusions and condescending language without any provocation. I simply asked a question.

I didn't assume anything. I made an observation based on his behavior in this discussion.

I would add, that you mis-quoted me in that post. You left off the clause that precedes what you quoted.

Tsk, tsk . . .

you stated

You misunderstand the purpose and function of "Creationism."

I think you express a great deal of ignorance about the role mythology

after that I stated

What you fail to realize

Now I could be wrong, if I am show me and i will apologize. But it seems you started throwing out words like misunderstand and ignorance first and then when I replied you used angry lol

you got this

you dont want to get in a whizzing contest with me. you will get wet.

I would bet you know much less real biblical history then I do.

What I hear from you is ,,,, "I lack a real education in real history and science"

after you had already started in on me.


we dont need to argue over small potatoes

more then anything it was a misunderstanding on both our parts as far as im concerned

 

[painted wolf]

Thats your opinion.

I think it's the logical conclusion.

I did ask "show me" if you cannot I understand

I don't claim to know every religion out there... but there are quite a few very interesting native faiths out there, like the Pirahã. They are spiritual, but have no gods, no imagination... they do not accept anything they can not directly observe.

wa:do

 

[Reverend Rick]

Do you have any examples of religion stopping medical advancement?

What do you perceive as "crossing the line of science"? Any examples?


I don't believe we are allowed to "push religion" in schools are we?

We can pray in school in our spare time, (I believe many more prayers are given up on test day).

We can have a Bible club during after school hours.

I guess my questions are not going to be addressed.

This whole thread is a straw man. :sorry1:

Can anyone explain why fundamentalists must be defeated or why they must acknowledge science?

 

[outhouse]

Religion and mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion and mythology differ, but have overlapping aspects. Both terms refer to systems of concepts that are of high importance to a certain community, making statements concerning the supernatural or sacred. Generally, mythology is considered one component or aspect of religion.

The relationship between religion and myth


The relationship between religion and myth depends on what definition of "myth" one uses. By Robert Graves's definition, a religion's traditional stories are "myths" if and only if one does not belong to the religion in question. By Segal's definition, all religious stories are myths—but simply because nearly all stories are myths. By the folklorists' definition, all myths are religious (or "sacred") stories, but not all religious stories are myths: religious stories that involve the creation of the world (e.g., the stories in Genesis) are myths; however, religious stories that don't explain how things came to be in their present form (e.g., hagiographies of famous saints) are not myths.
It should be noted that most definitions of "myth" limit myths to stories.[9] Thus, non-narrative elements of religion, such as ritual, are not myths.

 

[Caladan]

I guess my questions are not going to be addressed.

This whole thread is a straw man. :sorry1:

Can anyone explain why fundamentalists must be defeated or why they must acknowledge science?

There is no explanation. because no fundamentalist 'must' or can be defeated in actuality. and yes. it is a straw man.
there are more interesting and constructive ways to debate evolution and the matters of religion.

 

[painted wolf]

I guess my questions are not going to be addressed.

This whole thread is a straw man. :sorry1:

Can anyone explain why fundamentalists must be defeated or why they must acknowledge science?

I answered you... my address is unaddressed. :sad4:

wa:do

btw... I agree.

 

[newhope101]

I have seen thousands of post where qualified people have debated the creation myth with logic, reason, truth and reality.

The same creationist ignore, plagiarize and repost nonsence. they refuse to learn.

for 150 years science has let them and their myths play at a cost to the betterment of humanity.

I say enough is enough. Its time to go after the foundation in which they base all their beliefs on.

Evolution stands on its own, yet we have roughly a %60 belief in creation.

My take is if you cant make the horse drink, but its really easy to bring the water to them

Is it time in this modern world to expose the religious myths for what they are for the betterment of humanity???

Well Outhouse if 60% of the population still adheres to creation it may be because they are right. Have you ever thought of that in any moment of clarity.

No one wants to drink poison nor rubbish, nor get sucked into the debates your researchers have in turning evidence for creation into a mystery.

I'd say of the 40% that do adhere to TOE, the majority of them could not articulate why..they just do. Where, I'd say, the 60% are more likely to see the truth of creation in the creation itself and do not need a microscope nor some fool telling them that humans were once apes..or chimp like or nothing like a chimp at all. Or brain size is related to walking upright. Oh no it's not so let's make up another plethora of theories to expalin it. It is all mumbo jumbo with many non human primates having the same features now that are purportedly 'human like'.

How much of this nonsense are we expected to swallow before you realise that creationists have good reason to be skeptical and are using the reasoning ability God provided us with to discern the faulty reasonings of mankind and reject TOE?

As I said the hypocricy is rife here. Even deists that uphold TOE will smash creationists. So outhouse if one believes in God and TOE are they 'drinking' the water or are they just less dysfuntional because they still uphold TOE, while believing in God? Perhaps they are more dysfunctional as the Christian TOEers can't say when they became 'special'!

 

[painted wolf]

This thread is about religions that have a creation story, if they do,,,, they are a myth plain and simple. Correct?

Incorrect.

wa:do