An account of debating a creationist

Originally posted by Suzianne
DISCLAIMER: An older friend of mine once explained this to me, I'm not old enough to remember it actually being this way, although you can see this in old movies, or tv shows like 'Mad Men'.

Not long ago, smokers were the majority. It was considered polite to offer a cigarette to others if you were going to smoke. It was assumed that most people smoked ...[text shortened]... Christianity becomes 'socially unacceptable' or very nearly so, the time will finally be right.

Interesting observation.

Potentially, one day I see Christians (and other religious people) being persecuted by the "sonhouses" of this world.

Originally posted by Penguin
Of course us atheists, and those of many other religions, since we have no belief in an impending apocalypse brought on by this, see no problem in the decline of Christianity.

I'm not so sure about that. It depends on what replaces it. On the whole, Christianity might be keeping some people in line with beneficial social norms they wouldn't otherwise be in line with. Maybe it will evolve in keeping with what "works" in terms of social benefits. It seems to have evolved past burnings at the stake, and there are charitable Christian organizations that help take care of the helpless. All this is independent of whether it is "true."

Originally posted by Suzianne
I believe we are in that phase of Christianity, especially in America, and possibly in Europe as well, where change is afoot. Christianity is still common, in fact, it is still a majority. But it won't always be that way. It is not yet 'socially unacceptable', but it's getting closer all the time.

According to this lady it is still socially unacceptable to be atheist in some parts of the US to the point where many people hide it:
YouTube

Here in Cape Town, its not a big problem because we have a variety of religions. However, I suspect that many people would find it hard to either change religion or become atheist because their social circle might not take it well. I think the Muslims are the strictest on this and in some instances stopping being Muslim would get you ostracized from your family.

However I am pretty sure that being gay is still far worse than belonging to the wrong religion or no religion even though Cape Town is considered the gay capital of South Africa.

Originally posted by Penguin
Read it while I really should have been working. Brilliant! If only the debate had been recorded.

--- Penguin.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/

this is recorded in full. it is very long, i haven't read it, but it is an example of a proper debate.

Originally posted by divegeester
Funny, that's how I think on sonhouse too; a kind of Paul before his conversion.

he doesn't have to "see" the light and convert and maybe go the other extreme. he just need to chill and acknowledge that maybe agnosticism is a fairer stance and even as an atheist, one could acknowledge the other's right to a belief system.

Originally posted by divegeester
Interesting observation.

Potentially, one day I see Christians (and other religious people) being persecuted by the "sonhouses" of this world.

If only that was all it was. There is a coming Christian holocaust where Christians especially will be hunted down and made to accept the AntiChrist as God and to worship him or be killed. This is also called the Tribulation, laid out in the book of Revelations in the Bible. The ironic part of this is that the atheists will be the first ones to join him, since they will finally have their 'proof' of God, and many of them will be the stormtroopers all too happy to convert the Christians or to kill them in his name.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
he doesn't have to "see" the light and convert and maybe go the other extreme. he just need to chill and acknowledge that maybe agnosticism is a fairer stance and even as an atheist, one could acknowledge the other's right to a belief system.

Why is agnosticism a fairer stance??

Originally posted by Suzianne
If only that was all it was. There is a coming Christian holocaust where Christians especially will be hunted down and made to accept the AntiChrist as God and to worship him or be killed. This is also called the Tribulation, laid out in the book of Revelations in the Bible. The ironic part of this is that the atheists will be the first ones to join him, ...[text shortened]... m will be the stormtroopers all too happy to convert the Christians or to kill them in his name.

None of that makes sense. Why would a Christian not happily accept death rather than accept the AntiChrist as God?
And given proof of the existence of God, why do you think atheists would not become Christian and instead be intent on converting Christians to some other religion or killing them?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Why is agnosticism a fairer stance??

because god is not proven to not exist and most likely, such a being could never be proven. an agnostic allows for a certain degree of uncertainty. the atheist on the other hand is certain while lacking proof.

Originally posted by twhitehead
None of that makes sense. Why would a Christian not happily accept death rather than accept the AntiChrist as God?
And given proof of the existence of God, why do you think atheists would not become Christian and instead be intent on converting Christians to some other religion or killing them?

It is the torture that comes before death that is not happily accepted.

The Instructor

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
because god is not proven to not exist and most likely, such a being could never be proven. an agnostic allows for a certain degree of uncertainty. the atheist on the other hand is certain while lacking proof.

Absolutely. To be a committed atheist is, in my view, to fall into the same trap as being a committed theist. Lacking evidence, a loaded word I agree, the only logical and reasonable stance is agnosticism, although it has been described as a wishy-washy, namby-pamby, flapping about in the middle stance for boneless mediocrities!

Originally posted by Pianoman1
Absolutely. To be a committed atheist is, in my view, to fall into the same trap as being a committed theist. Lacking evidence, a loaded word I agree, the only logical and reasonable stance is agnosticism, although it has been described as a wishy-washy, namby-pamby, flapping about in the middle stance for boneless mediocrities!

Are you agnostic about Father Christmas and fairies?
And what about Gandalf? Are you agnostic about him too?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you agnostic about Father Christmas and fairies?
And what about Gandalf? Are you agnostic about him too?

Please, this is a sensible discussion. Gandalf is a fictional character devised by Tolkien, and as far as I am aware there is no adult seriously postulating the existence of Father Christmas to other adults, outside of a loony bin.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
Please, this is a sensible discussion.

I had certainly hoped so, so please don't resort to trying to ridicule anyone that disagrees with you - or in this case, merely asked you a question for clarification.

Gandalf is a fictional character devised by Tolkien, and as far as I am aware there is no adult seriously postulating the existence of Father Christmas to other adults, outside of a loony bin.
So does agnosticism only become the the only logical and reasonable stance when there is a non-loony adult postulating the existence of something?
Why are those that postulate the existence of Father Christmas worthy of the 'loony bin', when those postulating the existence of God must be taken seriously? What is the key difference between the two postulates?

In what way is God not a fictional character? How did you decide that Gandalf was fictional and God was not?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I had certainly hoped so, so please don't resort to trying to ridicule anyone that disagrees with you - or in this case, merely asked you a question for clarification.

[b]Gandalf is a fictional character devised by Tolkien, and as far as I am aware there is no adult seriously postulating the existence of Father Christmas to other adults, outside of a l ...[text shortened]... is God not a fictional character? How did you decide that Gandalf was fictional and God was not?

I had certainly hoped so, so please don't resort to trying to ridicule anyone that disagrees with you - or in this case, merely asked you a question for clarification.

Apologies - I thought it was a wind-up!

In what way is God not a fictional character? How did you decide that Gandalf was fictional and God was not?

I have not decided that God is not fictional - hence agnosticism. Although every ounce of logic, reason and common sense is shouting that God does not exist, he just may! . Hence, if you like, I am sitting on the fence.
Gandalf, Winnie the Pooh and Frankenstein et al being fictional characters made up by their relative authors only exist for me in the realms of imagination. If you want to believe in a rather stupid talking bear, a man made monster and a wizard - that's fine, but, unlike God, there is no school of thought that believes in them.