Creationists - Page 4

On January 20 2011 05:19 Chef wrote:

Is it okay for me to think it's ironic when someone trying to paint themselves as insightful starts using Freudian psychology? Even getting beyond this 'defence mechanism' silliness, even just using the word 'natural' like that is offensive. What do you know about what's 'natural' for human beings? Perhaps, maybe, some people just don't want to believe random crap they're told over the internet, regardless of how much proof either side claims to have (but of course can't call upon due to the limitations of online debate).

There are some topics which can be argued legitimately over the internet. There are many which cannot. When you take a really broad, general topic like 'SCIENCE' or 'RELIGION' you invite yourself to an argument which cannot end. I mean, think about if you wrote an essay on 'SCIENCE' or 'RELIGION.' It'd be about 50 million pages long. That's why you're supposed to narrow down your thesis to something that is specific enough for you to do it justice within the constraints of your medium.

On January 20 2011 05:23 ninazerg wrote:
No matter how rational you and your evidence may be, you can't have a rational discussion with anyone about a controversial topic unless you've set it as a pre-condition for your discussion prior to the discussion taking place.

If you just have a spontaneous discussion with a stranger, and you feel heavily mentally invested in that argument, you have to understand that they are also feel the same way about the argument. It then becomes more of a battle of personalities, because both of you want to convince a hypothetical third party that you can present a strong and crushing argument against the opposing party.

If you don't set any pre-conditions for any kind of debate, then it could conceivably go on forever, or until one person just gets so angry that they simply break down and can't continue. You should never count on your opponent breaking first; they are soulless, godless trolling machines sent from Hell, and never run low on coffee or food. They don't take bathroom breaks and aren't persuaded by logic. They only use their own one logic: That you are wrong and they are right.

There's only one thing you should do, then, if you consider yourself to be a sane, rational human being. If you know you're right, then you need to stock up on coffee and canned goods, because you're going to be in an argument for several decades until your opponent dies off from a cancerous brain tumor, or just accept that your debate isn't really that significant in the grand scheme of things, because it won't change anything on the national scale even if you totally and completely crush your opponent and they renounce their beliefs, and also, realize that your debate isn't contributing to the well-being of your life. You may actually be proud and happy with yourself that you just let it go, and in any case, you at least won't need to spend any time being angry about some unimportant person you've never met.

On January 20 2011 05:19 Chef wrote:

Is it okay for me to think it's ironic when someone trying to paint themselves as insightful starts using Freudian psychology? Even getting beyond this 'defence mechanism' silliness, even just using the word 'natural' like that is offensive. What do you know about what's 'natural' for human beings? Perhaps, maybe, some people just don't want to believe random crap they're told over the internet, regardless of how much proof either side claims to have (but of course can't call upon due to the limitations of online debate).

There are some topics which can be argued legitimately over the internet. There are many which cannot. When you take a really broad, general topic like 'SCIENCE' or 'RELIGION' you invite yourself to an argument which cannot end. I mean, think about if you wrote an essay on 'SCIENCE' or 'RELIGION.' It'd be about 50 million pages long. That's why you're supposed to narrow down your thesis to something that is specific enough for you to do it justice within the constraints of your medium.

On January 20 2011 05:28 VonLego wrote:
The ignorant screaming Christian cliche is actually not what Christianity is about anyways, so please don't paint with broad brush stokes. Be a better person than the ignorant folks who make your blood boil.

Also very few Christians actually believe in creationism, but I fail to see where disproof of creationism is a disproof of God. To sum up my concern: Where did the monkey come from?

On January 20 2011 05:35 Haemonculus wrote:

Imho, it's less skepticism of "a" god, and more skepticism that it's "the" god Christians describe.

Doesn't it seem a tad arrogant to so assuredly attribute your own beliefs to the divine? I mean, less than a third of the world's population can be described as "Christian", and even within such a group there are disagreements. To be so very sure that *you* are right, and those other 5 billion people are wrong just strikes me as absolutely absurd.

On January 20 2011 05:50 PrincessLeila wrote:
You can't objectively prove anything unless it's pure Maths, and pure Maths says nothing about God, humanity, creation of the universe... Sometimes I just *know* I'm right, but looking deep inside me, i see that i'm arguing based on subjective values.

Yeah, that's depressing, i know
That's why many people find some help in religion to answer these existential questions. True science can't (and shouldn't try to) answer these existential questions.

And my English sucks...

On January 20 2011 05:55 kerpal wrote:

yeah, your english is terrible, your highness. i've never heard of half those words!
you're right about math/science etc. people keep asking me how i can be a christian if i study physics. i think more of the physicists i meet are christian than the theology students.

EDIT, although your english is actually wonderful, i realise that sometimes i'm overly sarcastic, sorry if anyone misunderstood.

On January 20 2011 06:12 PrincessLeila wrote:


Yeah, I don't know the right English terms for "objective"/"subjective", "existential questions", "values"... It's franglish

On January 20 2011 05:44 kerpal wrote:

well that's a very democratic way of doing things... i'd assume you are a muslim then? they're the largest single group (as i don't think catholics and protestants can really be put in the same category - it's just not safe!)

whatever you believe there are people who believe differently, if you take that stance for all religions then you're saying that they're all wrong, which is saying that everyone who is religious in the world is wrong, which goes round in a circle again.

by your logic atheism is probably the worst position.

On January 20 2011 06:22 kerpal wrote:

you should hear my french. i don't know french for any of those.

On January 20 2011 09:15 Tony Campolo wrote:
I forgot to add... The quote should more appropriately be applied to Creationists. For those who don't believe in evolution - no proof will suffice. My offer still stands that if any Creationists would like an e-book copy of Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth (his latest book on evolution) feel free to PM me your e-mail address. In my experience though, Christians will rarely read anything on science that is not written by a Christian author (who usually has no scientific background). The same applies for when trying to argue against other religions - they are quick to state that they know what other religions (such as Buddhism or Islam) believe and why they're wrong, all whilst never having read a single book by their adherents' authors - instead prefering to rely on the word of Christian authors writing on such topics.