What makes Creationism so hard to believe in, and evolution so easy?

[Kukucan]

The explanation I commonly get when discussing evolution with people of faith is "the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being". Then this rule must also apply to God, must it not?

 

If God created us, who created God?

[Queso]

exactly. it's a stupid absurd paradox. god does not exist, and i'm not afraid of saying that.

[Biochemist]

.. instead of forcing my beliefs on them, I explain things to them.

 

For example, I'll explain logical positivism to them (without giving it a name). "If someone tells you there's a magical pink unicorn sitting in the car next to you, but you can't see it, touch it, hear it, or in any way confirm it exists, does it exist?

And you are going to actually contend that this is not "forcing" your belief system on them?

It's kind of interesting to look at their personalities. My oldest, who is an atheist, is very logical. My youngest, who is a believer, is very emotional.

And you chose positive loaded words to describe your oldest, and negative-loaded words to describe your youngest. Odds are pretty good that they understand your impression, and are profoundly affected by it.

[Biochemist]

exactly. it's a stupid absurd paradox. god does not exist, and i'm not afraid of saying that.

If God doesn't exist, why would there be a reason to be afraid?

[Biochemist]

...I'm very uncertain why a lot of Christian harp so much upon that random aspect in QM to begin with. The God portrayed in the Bible is supposed to be a God of order who does not play dice, as Einstein put it.

I actually have never heard Christians address any theological issues related to QM randomness. I was surprised to see LG finally contend that QM is not random, since she claims to not to have "any belief" system, and pretty much sees the proof-by-scientific-method-only as a value system. I was just trying to make this mesh.

[Biochemist]

...Here's one to get you started..one I hope Creationists, ID-er's and the science purists among the group will all avail themsleves of...

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/etcreation.html

No doubt it will lead to a much more enlightenbed and enlightening discussion on the subject.

Amn interesting post, Z, but I think you ought to start another thread on it. I suspect folks here would want you to put it in the Strage Claims forum.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: .. instead of forcing my beliefs on them, I explain things to them.

 

For example, I'll explain logical positivism to them (without giving it a name). "If someone tells you there's a magical pink unicorn sitting in the car next to you, but you can't see it, touch it, hear it, or in any way confirm it exists, does it exist? ...

 

Biochemist: And you are going to actually contend that this is not "forcing" your belief system on them?

 

Yes, I am.

 

Are you going to actually contend that this IS forcing my disbelief in God on them? It's not. It's not even forcing logical positivism on them.

 

 

 

TeleMad: It's kind of interesting to look at their personalities. My oldest, who is an atheist, is very logical. My youngest, who is a believer, is very emotional.

 

Biochemist: And you chose positive loaded words to describe your oldest, and negative-loaded words to describe your youngest.

 

So you are claiming that being very emotional is negative. Right?

 

Biochemist: Odds are pretty good that they understand your impression ...

 

And? I didn't say I HID my opinion from them, now did I? I explained two points of view, not one, and I didn't drive them or force them to either conclusion, they drew their own conclusions.

[TeleMad]

orbsycli: it's a stupid absurd paradox. god does not exist, and i'm not afraid of saying that.

 

Biochemist: If God doesn't exist, why would there be a reason to be afraid?

 

Uhm, orbsycli didn't say he WAS afraid, but that he was NOT. Makes a big difference.

 

Let me explain some simple logic to you Biochemist.

 

1) I don't believe in vampires (don't get cute, you know what I mean).

 

2) I am not afraid of saying that vampires don't exist.

 

Now, how is my statement of not being afraid to say that vampires don't exist in any way whatsoever inconcistent with, or contradictory to, my statement that they don't exist? It's not .. at all.

 

How in any way does my statement of not being afraid to say that vampires don't exist indicate that deep down, somewhere, I believe they do exist? It doesn't ... not at all.

 

So the question "If vampires don't exist, why would there be a reason to be afraid?" is worthless, meaningless, or whatever. Get it?

[paultrr]

Yes, I am.

 

Are you going to actually contend that this IS forcing my disbelief in God on them? It's not. It's not even forcing logical positivism on them.

 

Personally, I do not see anything wrong with expressing one's point of view on any subject as long as the tone at least trys to stay decent. Being emotional on certain issues is a well given. Let's face it some of these subjects are very touchy subjects to a lot of people. I myself get rather negative about Fundamentalism in general, not so much because I do not believe in God, but because of having been one and knowing the way they think. In fact, I would actually be interested if some of the more vocal athiests in this group where at one time raised as believers? I at times sence a simular emotional responce which I've never been positive if its me reading something there or not.

 

The reason I ask is us converted believers tend to be a lot like Ex-smokers. We can be the worst about a subject when it comes to emotions because we have been there and done that, so to speak. I used to pounce on everyone who even tried to introject religious ideas into a conversation. But I began to realize over time that understanding comes from listening to all points of view and that sometimes the best way to do things is explain things in a calmer fashion or at least try and point out problems within their viewpoint as a starting point for better conversation.

 

By the way, don't anyone think I actually agree that religion has not spawned a lot of bad things down through history. It has throughout history. That's part of the reason I distrust organizational aspects to beliefs and world point of views even to the point of having problems when athiests do the same. Organizations have a bad tendency to become dogmatic over time even if not all the people in them think that way. Its one reason I have less problems with people who hold to a personal sort of religion over those who always "preach" the standard dogma stuff. On the personal approach to religion people tend to be less dogmatic and more open in the first place. The organized types of religious people out there tend to approach everything as if its my way or the highway.

 

I also think my own position on the Bible itself is rather straight forward. I do not see it as the word of God in the normal sence of the word. Nor do I believe in a devine special creation. I hold to evolution. I see the Bible as man created with some history and insight to how human's have thought over time. I do not discount everything in the Bible when it comes to history value or value as far as human social development goes. Nor do I lump all religion as being bad. In fact, some of the roots of free scientific thinking have their origin during the era of protestant reform where people of faith began to question what dogma taught them. But I do recognize the bad that's there also. In short, I, see nature alone as the source of our origin and find no evidence of the existance of any God. I think there is generally across nature a cause for everything, even those aspects we tend to view as chaotic or random. However, I at the same time do not think everything is totally predictable either at least from our ability to do so.

 

I say all of this to make some points as clear as possible when it comes to the worldview I have. In a push to shove situation I trust science over faith everytime. I just recognize some limits to what science is capable of doing, at least in the area of physics. Some of the other sciences tend on the surface to be more exact. I think in general chemistry is one good example of such. I'm not a chemist, nor am I a biologists. I find both subjects interesting and did well in them in school. But I perfer physics, especially the area of cosmology.

 

By the way, Telemad, how did you come across that handle?

[Kukucan]

Well said! Though, if society was dominated mostly by those who believe in vampires, then one might fear saying that they do not believe in such things, if they might be treated harshly for it. There is less to fear these days, not like in those witch hunting days.

[paultrr]

Well said! Though, if society was dominated mostly by those who believe in vampires, then one might fear saying that they do not believe in such things, if they might be treated harshly for it. There is less to fear these days, not like in those witch hunting days.

 

Don't discount the tendency within organized religion to invoke forced beliefs. Its there all the time in the background. Germany prior to the rise of Hitler had its own period of openness. All it took was a few in power to change the situation. The same can go for when religious views invoke power through government. Yes, we are not in say the Burning Times anymore. But we could fall back into such quicker than a lot of people tend to realize we could.

[C1ay]

Personally, I do not see anything wrong with expressing one's point of view on any subject as long as the tone at least trys to stay decent.

As opposed to using tautological attacks in place of scientific debate?

[Queso]

If God doesn't exist, why would there be a reason to be afraid?

from being beat up of course! :friday:

[Kukucan]

The reason I ask is us converted believers tend to be a lot like Ex-smokers. We can be the worst about a subject when it comes to emotions because we have been there and done that, so to speak. I used to pounce on everyone who even tried to introject religious ideas into a conversation. But I began to realize over time that understanding comes from listening to all points of view and that sometimes the best way to do things is explain things in a calmer fashion or at least try and point out problems within their viewpoint as a starting point for better conversation.

I used to pounce too, but am now much more mellow. :eek:

 

Don't discount the tendency within organized religion to invoke forced beliefs. Its there all the time in the background. Germany prior to the rise of Hitler had its own period of openness. All it took was a few in power to change the situation. The same can go for when religious views invoke power through government. Yes, we are not in say the Burning Times anymore. But we could fall back into such quicker than a lot of people tend to realize we could.

Man, I hope not. :friday:

[TeleMad]

By the way, Telemad, how did you come across that handle?

 

When I was registering at this new site I decided to use a new handle. I was watching Mad TV at the time so thought "MadTV". But I figured that was copyrighted or something so played around with it some. MadTelevision? Too long. MadTele. Okay, but doesn't sound "wordlike". TeleMad. Bingo! It even has a sort of Cartman-like "hella cool" ring to it.

[Biochemist]

Personally, I do not see anything wrong with expressing one's point of view on any subject as long as the tone at least trys to stay decent.

Agreed. The issue is whether it is reasonable to advocate a position and to concurrently contend that it is not an opinion, but fact. I offer my opinions to folks (including my kids) all of the time. I think I keep opinions and facts separate.

[paultrr]

When I was registering at this new site I decided to use a new handle. I was watching Mad TV at the time so thought "MadTV". But I figured that was copyrighted or something so played around with it some. MadTelevision? Too long. MadTele. Okay, but doesn't sound "wordlike". TeleMad. Bingo! It even has a sort of Cartman-like "hella cool" ring to it.

 

I'd have never guessed that one in a thousand years. Different and unique at the same time. My own a lot of people somehow think has parts of my name in. The first part, Paul does. But the second part harkens back to when I was younger. As a kid I operated a lot on the CB. Today I have a Ham license. But when I first got online and looked for a signature I put my first name together with a shortened version of my old CB handle, Texas Road Runner, or TRR.