Originally posted by kirksey957Hear Hear! Just as I said in the Do Angels Exist thread... Doesn't matter. Just live the best we can and it will all work out. I just get angry with the effort of "Creationists" who pretend that they are spouting "Science". That is where the anger comes from. Just leave religion to belief and science to measurement. That's a good compromise.
OK, I will ask this question of all on both sides of creation vs. evolution. What difference does it really make in how you think, believe, and live on a daily basis?
mike, this is exactly the same anger that prompted me to tell ivanhoe about the buddhist concept of "mu" that I learned from the gentleman in my avatar. This anger also contributed to the very long post I made on this page looking at the creationist "position". Not exactly Clarence Darrow defending Scopes, but more vengeant than anything god's come up with in this thread.
Originally posted by belgianfreakIf you are really interested in an explanation of modern radiometric dating techniques, check out an article by S.G. Brush "Finding the Age of the Earth: By Physics or by Faith?" in the Journal of Geological Education, vol. 30, pgs. 34-58. This article came out about 20 years ago, but even the methods then used are impervious to the sloppy arguments normally presented by creationist hacks like H.M. Morris.
show me this reasoning, to prove carbon dating. If you can that'd be cool.
remember that I am a scientist looking to believe you proofs, not looking for a flaw to slam back into yuor face 🙂
Royalchicken,
It seems to me that your goal in a debate sometimes is, to score as many points as you can.Then I cannot find any effort on your side at all to try and understand your opponents position. If you are only able to communicate with persons who you consider your equals then there will be a danger of something you can call "Intellectual Incest". I have noticed on several occasions that you are able to bully or ridicule people whom you consider to be lesser people. You are also trying to do so with me. You listen to others in order to determine whether somebody is on your side, yes or no. When he or she is not on your side you try to smother him with words, lots of words because words are your favourite weapons, and you chose words a lot of people do not understand and you are aware of that, but you do not care, because communication and trying to understand other people is not what you're after ...
I know that you will be standing by your previous thesis in every way possible because you are the pot calling the kettle black. You're hearing people talk but you don't listen and what happens when you meet somebody as your opponent with the same attitude ? Well,then it is impossible to score any points at all, because the other does not change his point of view and things become useless in your eyes, and you decide to sabotage the debate,you decide to spoil the fun of others. "If I cannot have it my way, then I'm going to use other means ..."
I have been reading enough posts of yours to know you are able to debate in a way that is acceptable to all participants and then I can truly appreciate your contributions. You know either way of debating ... The choice is yours.
IvanH.
Originally posted by royalchicken
mike, this is exactly the same anger that prompted me to tell ivanhoe about the buddhist concept of "mu" that I learned from the gentleman in my avatar. This anger also contributed to the very long post I made on this page looking a ...[text shortened]... ut more vengeant than anything god's come up with in this thread.
I don't recall you telling me about "mu".
Did I miss that ?
IvanH.
Originally posted by ivanhoeFirst, I have said specifically that it is not my goal in a debate to "score points", or indeed to change anyone's opinion at all. I usually merely present a thesis and argue it to the best of my ability. If someone else makes a point that shows a logical weakness in my thesis, or provides a better explanation, then I will take it into account or even completely change my beliefs. In fact, my first experience in the RHP forums was this very thing, in an ancient P&P thread.
Royalchicken,
It seems to me that your goal in a debate sometimes is, to score as many points as you can.Then I cannot find any effort on your side at all to try and understand your opponents position. If you are only able to communicate with persons who you consider your equals then there will be a danger of something you can call "Intellectual Inc ...[text shortened]... your contributions. You know either way of debating ... The choice is yours.
IvanH.
I don't consider any people to be "lesser people", but I do believe that within some parameters of debate (use of evidence, reason, impersonal discussion), there are greater and lesser ideas. I believe, for example, that IN THIS CONTEXT, faith is a lesser idea. In appreciating the miracle that is the universe, it could be argued that reason is the lesser idea. This is why I suggested originally that this debate is flawed from the start.
I am rarely guilty of word-smothering. I do not try to do this anyway. I try to choose words that best express my argument. If I fail to do this, this is my fault and I should try to be more clear. I also understand that English is not your mother tongue (although you certainly do better in English than I in any other language), and I apologize if I have not taken this into consideration.
An exception to the first would be my long post in this thread. You asked me to show what I meant about the "faithful position", so I provided evidence to support my conclusion.
However, I realize that I can alienate people sometimes. If you can point out to me some instances of my doing this, I will try to clarify what I mean. I apologize if I have offended anyone.
Now, out of curiosity, how many people have similar things to say to me about this, because I really would honestly like to hear?
Incidentally, I apologize for the "mu" business. I thought I mentioned it before, but I forgot to put it in. "Mu" is similar to the state of being "unasked", and is explained by the fellow in my avatar, Robert M. Pirsig, in his book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".
~Mark
Mr. Royalchicken,
Indeed, I spared you the rationale for my beliefs for the sake of convenience: yours and mine. I have a shelf of evidence in my meager library, and do not intend to post it all here 🙂
It always seems to be the case that when I mention logic, reason, and evidence, my claims are immediately dismissed. By what can only be "blind faith" in the non-existence of God (whose non-existence, remember, cannot be proven), people are willing to dismiss "out of hand" (your words, I believe) an oppositing position on the assumption that it is not based on evidence.
Blind faith is not my kind of faith. Indeed, I consider it a sin. How can one love God truly if not honestly? How can one love God honestly if not with a convinced mind?
Truly, my mind outpaced my heart by FAR in my conversion to Christianity. Again, I won't just drop all the evidence here. If you want two sentences to prove my beliefs you'll be disappointed. I can only direct you to the sources which convinced me of the historical reliability of the New Testament.
First, if you have a superstitious disbelief in the supernatural, the excellent book Miracles by C.S. Lewis should give the cure. Important authors and researchers in the field of defending (on rational grounds) the Christian faith include Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, William Albright, F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, James I. Packer, Sir Willaim Ramsay, and dozens of others. This should easily be enough to get you started, if indeed you are interested in examining evidence which may contradict your beliefs. I recommend starting with The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel. It is very readable and I think it makes a perfect introduction.
We all know it's better to do your homework before a debate. If the historical evidence is examined by a fair and open mind, the examiner won't necessarily become a Christian, but will at least admit that Christians aren't completely unreasonable.
This may seem a lazy post: "Go and read from these guys . . .", but this thread has grown too fast for me to keep up. I don't have the time to teach a class on introductory Christian Apologetics (which has nothing to do with "saying sorry" ). Instead I challenge anyone who would debate the soundness of Christian faith (on either side of the fence) to do your homework first. If you refuse, fine. But don't expect a busy person to attend to you with any seriousness.
Anyway, even now my son is anxious for my attention, so I must be on my way.
-huntingbear
Originally posted by huntingbearMr. huntingbear,
We all know it's better to do your homework before a debate. If the historical evidence is examined by a fair and open mind, the examiner won't necessarily become a Christian, but will at least admit that Christians aren't completely unreasonable.
This may seem a lazy post: "Go and read from these guys . . .", but this thread has grown too fast f ...[text shortened]... s.
Anyway, even now my son is anxious for my attention, so I must be on my way.
-huntingbear
Indeed an interesting post. I hope you do not object to my answering it and clarifying a few things, as well as my requests for elaboration on a few interesting things you said.
It always seems to be the case that when I mention logic, reason, and evidence, my claims are immediately dismissed. By what can only be "blind faith" in the non-existence of God (whose non-existence, remember, cannot be proven), people are willing to dismiss "out of hand" (your words, I believe) an oppositing position on the assumption that it is not based on evidence.
I do not have "blind faith" in the non-existence of god. It is my belief, though, that introducing a complex metaphysical conept such as God requires some accumulation of physical evidence or theoretical justification. For example, I accept the conclusions of the theory of evolution because of the empirical evidence that has been gathered in support of it. Similarly, I accept the conclusions of the theory of relativity because I have read Einstein's papers on the subject and followed his reasoning. I have not seen any empirical evidence of god that cannot be attributed to something simpler, nor have I seen any convincing theoretical arguments (although maybe the sources you quote provide them--I do not claim to have read everything) for god's existence.
Blind faith is not my kind of faith. Indeed, I consider it a sin. How can one love God truly if not honestly? How can one love God honestly if not with a convinced mind?
I apologize for making that blanket statement 😳. Apparently you have been somehow convinced, which I respect. I just have trouble accepting such a large concept on the strength of a book of historical events.
First, if you have a superstitious disbelief in the supernatural
See, again we must agree to disagree. I would say that the onus is on the claimant for supernatural phenomena to prove that they exist, for the same reason I outlined above. Perhaps Mr. Lewis has a convincing argument. I will also look for the other books you mentioned, so as to become better informed. However, in almost all cases I have seen, faith has been an impediment to having a fair and open mind.
Will you let your son decide these things for himself, or will you take him to church (I don't know how old he is) from the beginning?
~M
"then I will take it into account or even completely change my beliefs. In fact, my first experience in the RHP forums was this very thing, in an ancient P&P thread." royalchicken.
Hi Mark,
Now that's something I find very interesting . Do you want to tell me about it ? If you do, you can either open a new thread or you can send me a PM. If you don't, well, no hard feelings but let me know so I don't have to keep looking for it.
So you didn't realise that my mother tongue wasn't English. I guess I can take that as a compliment. It has certain advantages to talk or to discuss in a foreign language. For instance, it is easier to express your opinion in a more direct manner, because it is more difficult to confuse the issue using all kinds of skills you have at your disposal in your mother tongue. That explains partly my directness, the other part is that I am always being direct, also in Dutch ...
That's enough for now.
IvanH.
Originally posted by ivanhoeVery interesting. Especially "to talk or to discuss". This is a great distinction to make. Thank you for making it.
"then I will take it into account or even completely change my beliefs. In fact, my first experience in the RHP forums was this very thing, in an ancient P&P thread." royalchicken.
Hi Mark,
Now that's something I find very interesting . Do you want to tell me about it ? If you do, you can either open a new thread or you can send me a PM. If you don ...[text shortened]... that I am always being direct, also in Dutch ...
That's enough for now.
IvanH.
Mr. Royalchicken,
I believe I too should offer an apology. I have often been told that my "tone" in written communication is cold. I'm afraid I have no real gift in my way with words (by the way, I enjoy your poems, especially the one for my new friend Cheshire Cat), and so my posts are quite flat and may come across as curt and abrubt.
We agree on several points. I believe a large amount of evidence (including plentiful physical evidence) is necessary to believe something like the claims of Christianity. I was persuaded, and it was no easy thing. I used to be on your side of these type of debates! (which is not to imply any condescension of any kind. Our beliefs are different, and can't both be right, but that doesn't mean I consider myself any better than you or anyone else. God chose the foolish and the weak, so says the Bible, and I am both).
As for my son, I will do both: leave it up to him and take him to church. Christianity CANNOT be forced on anyone. It is at its very core a voluntary, personal relationship with God. If it isn't freely chosen, it isn't Christianity. That said, it surely will be up to him to become a Christian, or not. I wouldn't force it if I could, and I can't. Still, I will take him to church. He has attended church regularly with us since he was two weeks old (now a year and a half), and so will his younger sibling who is now several days overdue. No one freely chooses Christ of their own volition simply by being physically carried into a church building.
I will teach my children that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on the cross on our behalf, was raised bodily from the dead, and now lives on and offers us salvation from our sins. I will also teach my children that George Washington was the first president of the United States, that King Harold was defeated at Hastings in 1066, that 1+1=2, that the earth revolves around the sun which works its own orbit through the galaxy, etc. etc. If they disagree with anything I teach, then they disagree. I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I will teach them both chess as early as possible, too 😉
I mainly dipped into this conversation to make the point that a person can in fact believe in strange things without abandoning reason. That said, I cannot stand by everything which has been said here by some of my Christian brethren, and I wish some of them would exercise more caution in what they say. You will notice that on both sides of this, or any other, debate, closed minds do stand. Yet also for both sides do open ones contend.
Ah, but my posts do go on for quite a length! Forgive me my long-windedness, everyone. I'm not suited to this format, I think. Anyone who really cares to discuss this topic sensibly, I'd appreciate a message from you. One-to-one is more my style.
-huntingbear
Originally posted by huntingbearQuite a post! Indeed you do have a way with the ol' alphabet. Thanks for the compliment too.
Mr. Royalchicken,
I believe I too should offer an apology. I have often been told that my "tone" in written communication is cold. I'm afraid I have no real gift in my way with words (by the way, I enjoy your poems, especially the one for my new friend Cheshire Cat), and so my posts are quite flat and may come across as curt and abrubt.
We agree on ...[text shortened]... topic sensibly, I'd appreciate a message from you. One-to-one is more my style.
-huntingbear
I believe this is a wise approach wrt the children. And congratulations on the one soon to come 😀!
I mainly dipped into this conversation to make the point that a person can in fact believe in strange things without abandoning reason. [......] You will notice that on both sides of this, or any other, debate, closed minds do stand. Yet also for both sides do open ones contend.
This is an astute point, and I find it fascinating that you (and maybe Kirk) have taken a radically different approach to this discussion, and this I respect. Since this is "not your style", I'd love to talk about this in a game. Send one whenever you like (well as long as your rating's betwee 100 and 3854 😉) and we can discuss more.
Originally posted by kirksey957for me, a lot of difference. Creationism would be acceptance of the existance of God. I don't expect creationism to be proven right, but if someone can show me that it is possible then for me the existance of God is more probable.
OK, I will ask this question of all on both sides of creation vs. evolution. What difference does it really make in how you think, believe, and live on a daily basis?
Although evolution does not exclude the existance of God, if it isn't right then that does leave a pretty big question as to how we got here. That said, the absence of a scientific reason for something never proves the existance of God, only the absence of a working theory.
Originally posted by bbarrthanks, I'll look for it on line (becaue I don't have access to an English study library here). I hope it's understandable to a layman like me
If you are really interested in an explanation of modern radiometric dating techniques, check out an article by S.G. Brush "Finding the Age of the Earth: By Physics or by Faith?" in the Journal of Geological Education, vol. 30, pgs. 34-58. This article came out about 20 years ago, but even the methods then used are impervious to the sloppy arguments normally presented by creationist hacks like H.M. Morris.
...I mainly dipped into this conversation to make the point that a person can in fact believe in strange things without abandoning reason...I totally disagree with this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. One can entertain a "strange" notion as an interesting hypothesis, but to "believe" it is to abandon reason. The christian likes to have it both ways by claiming that he can reconcile his faith with reason, but he cannot. If christianity were reasonable, he wouldn't need faith. The christian falls back on faith precisely because his beliefs are unreasonable.