|
creationism making a comeback in texas (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Ah, now we have it. Anybody who believes in the divinity of Jesus is a "religious wacko". Good work.
|
Thanks, and yes indeed they are wackos in my opinion..The core beliefs of mainstream christians have just as much factual backing as the Fang people of Cameroon. I consider that wacky.| quote: |
What whoever it was that you chose to quote seems to forget - the cornerstone of Christianity I might add - was that your "fatherless man" was no mere man at all.
Atheists appear increasingly dumb when they conflate radical literalism with contemporary forms of Christian theology.
ffs, you believe in the "myth" that the gold standard is panacea for man's problems - that, like Christianity, is based on zero empirical evidence and goes against the "Cambridge" standard you've thrown forth. |
Ah but there is all the difference in the world between holding a belief that can be debated based on historical data and observing human behavior (economic issues) and holding a belief that not debatable, period. You can debate the merits of capitalism vs communism in a classroom but you can't debate evolution vs "God did it" because the "God did it" side has no evidence at all..nothing to bring forward except the repetition of old myths and faith in events that go against every observable phenomena in the natural world. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Thanks, and yes indeed they are wackos in my opinion..The core beliefs of mainstream christians have just as much factual backing as the Fang people of Cameroon. I consider that wacky.
Ah but there is all the difference in the world between holding a belief that can be debated based on historical data and observing human behavior (economic issues) and holding a belief that not debatable, period. You can debate the merits of capitalism vs communism in a classroom but you can't debate evolution vs "God did it" because the "God did it" side has no evidence at all..nothing to bring forward except the repetition of old myths and faith in events that go against every observable phenomena in the natural world. |
You're a ing dunce. It's called "belief" and "faith" and not "empirical fact" for a reason.
People hate out-spoken atheistic religion-bashers (aka you) for two reasons:
1. You equate any belief labeled religious with the most radical beliefs you've ever heard... yet commonly use non-religious belief in argumentation.
2. You're a complete elitist snob about your belief that no God exists. You can't prove that either, yet hold yourself in such high esteem, that obviously YOUR belief is far superior than the beliefs of others, and you aren't afraid to call others stupid for it.
It's really ing annoying to see you thrash around in some pseudo-intellectual witch hunt when you're obviously talking about something you don't understand. You're not religious? Great. Good for you. Glad you're at peace with that. If I'm wrong about religion, and God doesn't exist, then oh well. I was wrong. If you're wrong, and God does exist, I'm glad you can make peace with that. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
lez you really seem to misunderstand...This whole debate isn't about confusing "faith" with "fact". It is about teaching FAITH as FACT to a captive audience. It's about lowering learning standards so dramatically that the two theories of life (evolution and creationism) are treated as equally viable alternatives. They are NOT equally viable in a scientific sense, and the only way to make an argument against a teaching a theory with no scientific evidence is to point out how absurdly weak it is.
P.S. I'm not an atheist. I'm just against man-made religion..There's a difference. Pure, blind atheism is just as irrational as blind faith. Atheism shouldn't be taught to 6-year olds because there are no cold-hard facts that prove God's doesn't exist. Likewise, theism shouldn't be taught for the same reason. There are however plenty of cold hard facts that prove evolution is a reality, so it SHOULD be taught as fact until contrary evidence is found. The "God did it" hypothesis has no scientific basis. It shouldn't be treated as a serious subject in science and it most certainly should not be taught in the classroom. End of story. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
I'm sorry, do you hate all Christians or just the minority that believe creationism? You're really being inconsistent with who you're attacking. Nobody in this thread has promoted the advancement of creationism as a theory, but you're calling all Christians "wackos"... so... which is it? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| I have nothing at all against creationists who keep their beliefs to themselves. I might think the beliefs are stupid, but it's their right to hold them. The problem comes when they try to imposing them on a defenseless audience. That was the reason pk made this thread (I think)...to draw attention to those shenanigans. |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
...
If I'm wrong about religion, and God doesn't exist, then oh well. I was wrong. If you're wrong, and God does exist, I'm glad you can make peace with that. |
:haha: Pascals wager anyone?
If you're right about God, but wrong about which one, I'm glad you can make peace with that. Its like a needle in a haystack, and by that logic theres reason to assume you're likely worshiping the wrong god all together! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| pascal's wager is only good for children. |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
pascal's wager is only good for children. |
Indeed and I'm wary its the type of nonsense some teachers might hold over the impressionable kids in Texas. |
|
|
| Alex |
Pascal's wager is great... It just leaves out the fact that yes, you might be worshiping the wrong God.
However it isn't a Christian philosophy, it's to distinguish between theism and atheism. Still super problematic of course. |
|
|
| Krypton |
Worship the Great Architect. All religion tries to do is identify who/what that supernatural essence is. I think the Mason's got it down.
If god did it, god did it through evolution, period. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Pascal's wager is great... |
no it isn't. it's basically an idea to make you dishonest ;) |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no it isn't. it's basically an idea to make you dishonest ;) |
I don't see the dishonesty. I see it as being lacking in finding absolute truth, of course.
If you want to use it to determine whether you want to believe in God or not fine, but it wont help in discerning which God is the right one obviously. |
|
|
|
|
