Jump to content


Photo

A Few Questions For The Atheists


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#161 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 January 2010 - 05:30 AM

That's equivocation Ron.  It is quite reasonable to not believe in something for which no evidence exists. Spinach can be shown to exist.

View Post


No equivocation Jason; we’ve had existence in the past… We can prove “said existence” inductively, by (but not limited to): Reading the historical documentation left to us from the authors of said antiquities (i.e. recorded data) interacting with each other both physically and intellectually. Researching the archeological evidences left to us from the lives of those who lived in antiquity. Reconciling the evidences of historical documentation and archeological evidences to test and validate each. Therefore, we know for a fact, using the empirical scientific method, that we have (and have had) existence. This existence is substantive, and yet there are metaphysical and ethereal aspects to our existence that we use to drive the rational of said existence (Thoughts, the “Laws of Logic”, altruistic Love, the “Laws of Mathematics” etc… to name a few). Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.

We know there was something (just like spinach) ,we know there is something (just like spinach), therefore there will be something (just like spinach) due to ALL the logic, reasoning and empirical science. The equivocation is in pretending that there was nothing, and there will be nothing; and saying so with absolutely no evidentiary support. Which, more to the point, is what this OP is about! As I said:

What is even more disconcerting here is the fact that the OP wasn’t about “God”; it was concerning “our origins according to the atheistic world-view”. But, as we look at the base of it, the atheists have come at the question of “Origins” in the same way they come at the question of God.

View Post


An even bigger equivocation is your continual attempts to side track from said OP…

#162 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 January 2010 - 05:41 AM

Show me an experiment that I can do to show that your God exists and you might have a leg to stand on Scott.

View Post


Jason, instead of your continual attempt at equivocation as per the OP rules (instead of actually attempting to answer the OP questions), why don’t you either; open a thread of your own that addresses proving (or disproving) God’s existence, or go to one of the MANY threads that address God’s existence. Here are a few good ones to start with:

http://www.evolution...topic=1957&st=0

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2958

http://www.evolution...topic=2727&st=0

#163 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 January 2010 - 10:22 AM

Q.  From where did we come (what are our Origins)?
A.  BBT
Evidence:  http://www.talkorigi...g.html#evidence
In my own words however, the ones I first learned about where the presence of background radiation and the evidence of an expanding universe.  Combine that with my knowledge and other beliefs and that makes me a believer in it.  The rest can be found in the link.  Is it a cop-out?  I guess it could be seen as that, but I would have to say that my belief in my origins have nothing to do with my atheistic beliefs.  Before I became an atheist my absolute belief was that everything came from God.  Now that I no longer believe in that God I believe BBT is the beginning (of this universe).  Yet even if the BBT were disproved tomorrow it would not stop me being an atheist.  I did not become an atheist because I started believing in the BBT (although it did help somewhat).  Christians have a concrete idea of what their origins are.  The same is not true for atheists.  Falcone might see differently in terms of origins, but that doesn't make us not atheists because we have differing views on the subject.  Xianity cannot do this (to some extent yes).  Yes there are guidelines that still remain that cannot be crossed by either, but atheism has a much wider range than Xianity does.

View Post

The BBT is not evidence of our origins because, due to ALL the evidence we have, the universe was caused. Therefore the universe had an “Originator”, or “Causal Agent”. If this is not a cop-out, then it is a lazy answer, because it is no answer at all. If you are going to go along these lines of argumentum, you have to provide the “causer” of the universe. And, at that point you will come face-to-face with the “faith” built into your worldview. And yes your belief in your origins have everything to do with your atheistic beliefs (regardless of your belief in that faith system), because it IS a part of your belief system AND worldview. And don’t worry, I used to have the same worldview… But it just didn’t stack up to the evidence.

Q.  What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?
A.  Varies
Evidence:  Not applicable

View Post

Empirical evidences are always applicable, regardless of whether or not you accept them. The variability ONLY applies within the contextual and evidentiary proofs. Now, if you have no proofs (or evidences) for the foundations of your worldview, you are living your worldview by faith alone.

#164 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 January 2010 - 05:53 AM

Jason, instead of your continual attempt at equivocation as per the OP rules (instead of actually attempting to answer the OP questions), why don’t you either; open a thread of your own that addresses proving (or disproving) God’s existence, or go to one of the MANY threads that address God’s existence. Here are a few good ones to start with:

http://www.evolution...topic=1957&st=0

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2958

http://www.evolution...topic=2727&st=0

View Post



And, as I've noticed... No new threads, and no refutations to the aditional threads I added links to.

#165 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 February 2010 - 05:38 AM

I cleaned a few posts off of this thread and moved them here:
http://www.evolution...765

#166 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 09 February 2010 - 01:02 PM

That's my bad martemius, I apologize, I thought you were just being sarcastic.
But this does pose a bigger problem (though not for the theist, regardless of stripe); Are you actually saying that you don't understand my questioning the foundations of atheism? Because the thread is set up in such a way as to go to the heart of atheism, and it does so in a succinct and cogent manner. So now I have to ask why you don't understand it!

If that is the case, then you may be correct; maybe this thread isn't for you.

View Post

I define atheism as a person who is opposed to the knowledge of God. (From a biblical worldview/presupposition) It's a heart thing and not a head thing *sad
pray

#167 Guest_TeslaNick_*

Guest_TeslaNick_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 February 2010 - 03:06 PM

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?


I'll answer part one in another post some other time.

Let's address the "foundations to support the atheistic worldview" part specifically. I can think of two pillars that support the atheistic worldview, the removal of either would require an intellectually honest atheist to rethink his views. The first is a lack of believable evidence in a creator being that precedes the existence of the universe and operates outside the constraints of the universe; deciding if evidence is believable or not is immensely personal and not usually objective--this sword cuts both ways, which is the crux of the atheist/theist disagreement.

The second is the observable trend that naturalistic methodologies have provided greater explanatory power with regards to the immediate observable universe than any single theological framework has over any comparable timespan in human history. If we imagine this as points on a line, where understanding is measured over time, we can see a pattern greater and greater understanding of our universe via atheistic (in the sense that it doesn't require the supernatural to be explained) explanations.

Were science suddenly to fail to account for the behavior of the natural world, or convincing evidence of direct involvement of an extra-universal entity in the universe were uncovered, atheists would have to rethink their position. If lightning suddenly only struck Dodge LeBarons on Thursday afternoons, that would represent a breakdown in the predictive ability of science. If Jesus reappeared and could answer questions only a deity could (for example, predicting a gamma ray burst from an obscured star), that would be excellent evidence for an entity that transcends the laws of the universe.


== Below are suppositions tertiary to my main point ==

I doubt any atheist would say that science is perfect and explains the universe completely. There are a lot of things that science has no good explanation for, and phenomena that it might never be able to model perfectly. However, the few holes, unknowns, and inconsistencies are made up by the vast corpus of valuable understanding, without which we would never have this conversation.

I'm going to sneak in one disclaimer here, which is that the atheistic worldview is far less tenable in eras past, where scientific pursuit was far more restricted and knowledge about the mechanics of universe far more limited, and the means by which people were indoctrinated were coarse and brutal.

#168 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 February 2010 - 05:22 AM

I'll answer part one in another post some other time.

Let's address the "foundations to support the atheistic worldview" part specifically. I can think of two pillars that support the atheistic worldview, the removal of either would require an intellectually honest atheist to rethink his views. The first is a lack of believable evidence in a creator being that precedes the existence of the universe and operates outside the constraints of the universe; deciding if evidence is believable or not is immensely personal and not usually objective--this sword cuts both ways, which is the crux of the atheist/theist disagreement.

The second is the observable trend that naturalistic methodologies have provided greater explanatory power with regards to the immediate observable universe than any single theological framework has over any comparable timespan in human history. If we imagine this as points on a line, where understanding is measured over time, we can see a pattern greater and greater understanding of our universe via atheistic (in the sense that it doesn't require the supernatural to be explained) explanations.

Were science suddenly to fail to account for the behavior of the natural world, or convincing evidence of direct involvement of an extra-universal entity in the universe were uncovered, atheists would have to rethink their position. If lightning suddenly only struck Dodge LeBarons on Thursday afternoons, that would represent a breakdown in the predictive ability of science. If Jesus reappeared and could answer questions only a deity could (for example, predicting a gamma ray burst from an obscured star), that would be excellent evidence for an entity that transcends the laws of the universe.
== Below are suppositions tertiary to my main point ==

I doubt any atheist would say that science is perfect and explains the universe completely. There are a lot of things that science has no good explanation for, and phenomena that it might never be able to model perfectly. However, the few holes, unknowns, and inconsistencies are made up by the vast corpus of valuable understanding, without which we would never have this conversation.

I'm going to sneak in one disclaimer here, which is that the atheistic worldview is far less tenable in eras past, where scientific pursuit was far more restricted and knowledge about the mechanics of universe far more limited, and the means by which people were indoctrinated were coarse and brutal.

View Post



There is no substantiation for your posit above without answering OP question one first. That is why the questions were asked in that order. In other words, you cannot put the cart before the horse (No pun intended). Doing so put the atheistic world view solidly in the realm of a faith based philosophy.

#169 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 10 February 2010 - 09:40 AM

....
You can't measure Atheism by the same yardstick you use on Xianity.  There is no bible for atheism, there is no dogma that atheism follows by.  Even if every human on the planet suddenly became atheist there would be no atheist church.  All I can tell you is what I believe as a person to be true to me.  Personally I don't need to know where I was before I was born (did not exist) or where I will be after I die (I will cease to exist).  I don't need a book to tell me that it's wrong to steal, kill or rape (or any number of horrible things).  My morals come to me as a functioning member of society and as a friend to others. 

Also since this is evolution board, how are these question even valid?  Wouldn't it be more valid to ask what an evolutionist and not an atheist thinks about these things?  ;)

View Post

If they say they are an atheist - thats their thesis, presupposition/claim/belief/religion - to them truth is what they want it to be. But maybe you can stand on common ground - find a truth you have in common/agree on, and share God's Word with them!

Does 42 exist? 14*3,7*6; There were 42 generations in biblical geneology.... Talk about 42 then:
http://www.teachingh...7httnumber.html
http://www.thejourna...n-bible/42.html

The number 3 is more fun

#170 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 10 February 2010 - 10:09 AM

There is no substantiation for your posit above without answering OP question one first. That is why the questions were asked in that order. In other words, you cannot put the cart before the horse (No pun intended).  Doing so put the atheistic world view solidly in the realm of a faith based philosophy.

View Post

Answer to question 1: Don't know.
Answer to question 2. What TeslaNick said. More or less.

#171 Guest_TeslaNick_*

Guest_TeslaNick_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 February 2010 - 01:54 PM

This post is seriously tl;dr. Sorry about that.

There is no substantiation for your posit above without answering OP question one first. That is why the questions were asked in that order. In other words, you cannot put the cart before the horse (No pun intended).  Doing so put the atheistic world view solidly in the realm of a faith based philosophy.

View Post


I disagree with your assertion; please, back up your claims with real rhetoric rather than mere contradiction! Why couldn't the foundations of atheism inform the question of origins? Considering that no human has had direct memorable experience of "Origins"--not of birth, not of the origin of the species, not the origin of the planet, and certainly not of the universe--I see no way that one can know "Origins" and have that inform their universal worldview.

Instead, one must arrive at a framework for understanding the universe more generally, and then derive the answer for "Origins" (whatever origin that may be) from that framework. Christians, I assume, take on the ideological framework defined by the bible for more reasons than just Genesis--I hear the whole forgiven sins is a popular reason--but when one investigates what the bible has to say about the origin of the universe, it is rather explicit. In this way, the framework implies the origin, rather than the other way around.

*** Below are comments about the overall structure of this thread, which I don't approve of. ***

If I might address the meta features of this thread for a moment, I have some comments regarding the overall nature of your replies. Before I do so, I should say that I don't wish this to turn into a discussion about "tone," as such things rank quite low on the disagreement heirarchy. With that out of the way:

I've been reviewing this thread, and it seems like you're fishing for some response like a lawyer in a cross examination. I believe this answer is, "I don't know" on the part of a well-meaning atheist who is attempting to answer your questions.

This is evidenced by your posts that harp on the "equivocation" angle--despite the blatant misuse of the term--or those posts that dismiss responses that operate according to assumptions you reject, without providing reasons why you reject them (my own previous post, for example). For example, without any reason why my own response isn't good enough, I have no clear way to defend my position.

I suspect that the reason you're doing this is that you would like to hold this statement of "I don't know" over their head as a rhetorical cudgel in the name of a theistic universe, or perhaps to force atheism into an equivalency with theism. If that's the kind of discussion you want to have, be explicit about it. Let us have a discussion about the equivalency of theism and atheism. But let us cease playing word games and dance around getting nowhere.

An explicit discussion sure beats writing a response in good faith only to have it rejected in two sentences without any supporting statements. An hour of contemplation and 20 minutes of writing is dismissed with a five minute response; this is a process which is not conducive to healthy debate.

#172 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 February 2010 - 04:18 AM

I'll answer part one in another post some other time.

Let's address the "foundations to support the atheistic worldview" part specifically. I can think of two pillars that support the atheistic worldview, the removal of either would require an intellectually honest atheist to rethink his views. The first is a lack of believable evidence in a creator being that precedes the existence of the universe and operates outside the constraints of the universe; deciding if evidence is believable or not is immensely personal and not usually objective--this sword cuts both ways, which is the crux of the atheist/theist disagreement.

The second is the observable trend that naturalistic methodologies have provided greater explanatory power with regards to the immediate observable universe than any single theological framework has over any comparable timespan in human history. If we imagine this as points on a line, where understanding is measured over time, we can see a pattern greater and greater understanding of our universe via atheistic (in the sense that it doesn't require the supernatural to be explained) explanations.

Were science suddenly to fail to account for the behavior of the natural world, or convincing evidence of direct involvement of an extra-universal entity in the universe were uncovered, atheists would have to rethink their position. If lightning suddenly only struck Dodge LeBarons on Thursday afternoons, that would represent a breakdown in the predictive ability of science. If Jesus reappeared and could answer questions only a deity could (for example, predicting a gamma ray burst from an obscured star), that would be excellent evidence for an entity that transcends the laws of the universe.
== Below are suppositions tertiary to my main point ==

I doubt any atheist would say that science is perfect and explains the universe completely. There are a lot of things that science has no good explanation for, and phenomena that it might never be able to model perfectly. However, the few holes, unknowns, and inconsistencies are made up by the vast corpus of valuable understanding, without which we would never have this conversation.

I'm going to sneak in one disclaimer here, which is that the atheistic worldview is far less tenable in eras past, where scientific pursuit was far more restricted and knowledge about the mechanics of universe far more limited, and the means by which people were indoctrinated were coarse and brutal.

View Post


Atheism is a oxymoronic belief. If they truly believed that God did not exist, they would not waste 2 cents of their money, or 2 seconds of their time on it. But that is not what we see, is it? Instead we see a huge mass of people trying to justify their disbelief, which speaks volumes about what they really believe. They know God exists, and to justify their disbelief they have to debate it almost constantly. Because the ones who truly believe this, don't even waste their time doing this.

Example: Time is the only commodity that you can own, and once used you can "never" get back. You can spend it anyway you like. But you can only spend it once. And everyone has to spend it because time comes and goes automatically.

So when I see atheists justifying their disbelief in God. I wonder if they know or realize that the time they spend doing this, they can never get back.

#173 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 February 2010 - 05:07 AM

Answer to question 1: Don't know.

View Post

Which exactly why it is foundationless and therefore faith-based Falcone.

Answer to question 2. What TeslaNick said. More or less.

View Post

Which is why there has been no answer to the OP questions, and therefore renders atheism a foundationless and therefore faith-based world view.

#174 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 February 2010 - 05:38 AM

This post is seriously tl;dr. Sorry about that.

View Post

???????

I disagree with your assertion; please, back up your claims with real rhetoric rather than mere contradiction! Why couldn't the foundations of atheism inform the question of origins? Considering that no human has had direct memorable experience of "Origins"--not of birth, not of the origin of the species, not the origin of the planet, and certainly not of the universe--I see no way that one can know "Origins" and have that inform their universal worldview.

View Post

It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree TeslaNick, without foundational substantiation for your opinion of said word view, it (that word view) is “Faith-Based”. And the lack of direct memorable experience of "Origins" further proves the point.

Instead, one must arrive at a framework for understanding the universe more generally, and then derive the answer for "Origins" (whatever origin that may be) from that framework. Christians, I assume, take on the ideological framework defined by the bible for more reasons than just Genesis--I hear the whole forgiven sins is a popular reason--but when one investigates what the bible has to say about the origin of the universe, it is rather explicit. In this way, the framework implies the origin, rather than the other way around.

View Post

In you above paragraph, you attempt to side step the issue by referring to what Christians believe. This in no way touches the OP questions. If you want to discuss what Christians believe, open another thread and we can discuss it there.

If I might address the meta features of this thread for a moment, I have some comments regarding the overall nature of your replies. Before I do so, I should say that I don't wish this to turn into a discussion about "tone," as such things rank quite low on the disagreement heirarchy. With that out of the way:

View Post

Thanks Nick, I love links like this.

I've been reviewing this thread, and it seems like you're fishing for some response like a lawyer in a cross examination. I believe this answer is, "I don't know" on the part of a well-meaning atheist who is attempting to answer your questions.

View Post

No fishing, or cross examination Nick, just two simple questions that wipe away the dross of equivocation, and get to the root of the matter. And, as I stated in the OP, saying “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer. Unless you further equivocate with an attempt at back door escape clause. If you go back and read the Op posting, you’ll soon realize this.
3- If you don’t know, simply say “I don’t know”! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) “there is no God”; because you said “I don’t know”. This includes making statements like (for example) “there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no God” because; you said “I don’t know”. If you do attempt such, you are equivocating.

This is evidenced by your posts that harp on the "equivocation" angle--despite the blatant misuse of the term--or those posts that dismiss responses that operate according to assumptions you reject, without providing reasons why you reject them (my own previous post, for example). For example, without any reason why my own response isn't good enough, I have no clear way to defend my position.

View Post

You attempt at equivocation in the above just further strengthens the stance of the OP questions. You cannot answer them within the rules of the OP. The questions were simple, succinct and to the point (with emphasis to drive the point home):
Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?
Now, you didn’t even attempt to answer the first one, and drove straight to the second one without the slightest evidence (other than opinion) as your source.
5- If you are going to make any assertions to support your argument, insure they are factual assertions, not simply opinion. Otherwise you are equivocating.

I suspect that the reason you're doing this is that you would like to hold this statement of "I don't know" over their head as a rhetorical cudgel in the name of a theistic universe, or perhaps to force atheism into an equivalency with theism. If that's the kind of discussion you want to have, be explicit about it. Let us have a discussion about the equivalency of theism and atheism. But let us cease playing word games and dance around getting nowhere.

View Post

I suspect you don’t have answers to either question, and therefore find yourself in a quandary because you know you “don’t know”, and you don’t like the implications of not knowing, which makes me wonder about your stated world view in this forum. Having said that, it is nothing more than my observed opinion, and nothing more.
If you wish to start your own thread on anything, please feel free. But you have shown that you cannot do anything but equivocate in this one.

An explicit discussion sure beats writing a response in good faith only to have it rejected in two sentences without any supporting statements. An hour of contemplation and 20 minutes of writing is dismissed with a five minute response; this is a process which is not conducive to healthy debate.

View Post

A healthy debate starts with adherence to the debate rules (in this case, the OP rules), honesty, and further “This above all — to thine own self be true”. A cursory reading of the OP rules and questions would have saved you much typing.





P.S. Your own advice would be good advice for you in this OP as well:

If you choose not to address points made by an author whose tone you disagree with, you may do so. Just say as much.

View Post



#175 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 11 February 2010 - 07:50 AM

Atheism is a oxymoronic belief. If they truly believed that God did not exist, they would not waste 2 cents of their money, or 2 seconds of their time on it. But that is not what we see, is it? Instead we see a huge mass of people trying to justify their disbelief, which speaks volumes about what they really believe. They know God exists, and to justify their disbelief they have to debate it almost constantly. Because the ones who truly believe this, don't even waste their time doing this.

Example: Time is the only commodity that you can own, and once used you can "never" get back. You can spend it anyway you like. But you can only spend it once. And everyone has to spend it because time comes and goes automatically.

So when I see atheists justifying their disbelief in God. I wonder if they know or realize that the time they spend doing this, they can never get back.

View Post



I hate to say this but I can replace Atheist in every instance with Christian/Creationist/Buddhist/Evolutionist...etc and it will still read the same. Not that I think you have a valid argument, but I just wanted to point that out.

#176 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 February 2010 - 10:07 AM

I hate to say this but I can replace Atheist in every instance with Christian/Creationist/Buddhist/Evolutionist...etc and it will still read the same. 

View Post


Which is kind of making a point Java. They are all based on, for the most part, faith statements that go to the heart of each philosophy.

#177 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 February 2010 - 03:06 AM

I hate to say this but I can replace Atheist in every instance with Christian/Creationist/Buddhist/Evolutionist...etc and it will still read the same.  Not that I think you have a valid argument, but I just wanted to point that out.

View Post


I can see your point. But there are many more people out there that are well educated enough to realize this. And deem themselves some of the most educated people in the world. But yet their obsession with this won't allow them to see this.

#178 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 12 February 2010 - 08:42 AM

I can see your point. But there are many more people out there that are well educated enough to realize this. And deem themselves some of the most educated people in the world. But yet their obsession with this won't allow them to see this.

View Post



Personally I think it is better to try to understand someone else's point of view than it is to just show how you think it is wrong. I think once that understanding exists then you can show them the fallacies that they might have their blinders on to.

I think that is one of the reasons why I like to participate on this board. It gives me a chance to see someone else's point of view. I might not know enough about Evolution to convince someone else about why I think it is valid, but it does challenge me to learn more about it at the same time.

:lol: and thanks for seeing my point. i hope you didn't think I was being flippant when I made it.

#179 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 February 2010 - 09:32 PM

Personally I think it is better to try to understand someone else's point of view than it is to just show how you think it is wrong.  I think once that understanding exists then you can show them the fallacies that they might have their blinders on to. 

I think that is one of the reasons why I like to participate on this board.  It gives me a chance to see someone else's point of view.  I might not know enough about Evolution to convince someone else about why I think it is valid, but it does challenge me to learn more about it at the same time.

:lol: and thanks for seeing my point.  i hope you didn't think I was being flippant when I made it.

View Post


I try and look at things from all angles if possible. Even to step in someone elses shoes if it can be done.

No I don't think you were being flippant. Making me look at it from all points of view keeps me humble enough to see all sides and come to an individual conclusion that is not effected by majority opinion. I doubt you will meet another YEC like myself. I even shock my own side lots of times because I try and get people from both sides to think outside the box. It's boring debating a box. :lol:

#180 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 13 February 2010 - 09:00 PM

I try and look at things from all angles if possible. Even to step in someone elses shoes if it can be done.


:blink: I try not to step in too many other peoples shoes. I wear a 11 Wide, and most peoples shoes hurt too much for me to wear!

No I don't think you were being flippant. Making me look at it from all points of view keeps me humble enough to see all sides and come to an individual conclusion that is not effected by majority opinion. I doubt you will meet another YEC like myself. I even shock my own side lots of times because I try and get people from both sides to think outside the box. It's boring debating a box. :lol:

View Post



Good, good. Even though we don't agree on how things are the way they are, I can tell you I respect your methods.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users