Ask a former creationist

[Wedjat]

Why?

It has little to do with the person.
I've said before, he's kind of a jerk, but he's a jerk who I generally agree with.
The problem is the movement he's started. I like that he's pushing for atheists to get out into the public eye, to make our selves known, to reduce prejudice, to spread reason. I'm all for that.
But it's the people that the movement is producing.
There are people who are no longer coming to atheism through logical self-evaluation and scientific inquiry, these people are literally just jumping onto the bandwagon. And then they follow what they perceive Dawkins behavior to be. Dawkins is a fan of "religion should not be immune to criticism" which is fine in a respectful debate setting. But these bandwagon atheists take it as a green light to go around insulting religious people and attempting to scrub out faith wherever they find it, and you end up with people like laconicstudents angry atheist who see's red at the slightest mention of religion.
Honestly they give the rest of us a bad name.

 

[hangback]

But these bandwagon atheists take it as a green light to go around insulting religious people and attempting to scrub out faith wherever they find it, and you end up with people like laconicstudents angry atheist who see's red at the slightest mention of religion.
Honestly they give the rest of us a bad name.

I don't want to take the OP too far off topic but, if someone says to you that they are religious what does that say to you about that person?

 

[Wedjat]

It tells me that I need to be sure to stay off the topic of religion.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Alright, I can see what you mean, and I agree, actually, to a degree. I'm kinda of the belief that ridiculous beliefs deserve ridicule, but yeah, that's another topic. Anyway, that's enough for derailing the thread.

On topic: Did you ever view arguments for evolution with the supposition that the evidence for it was lies on the part of the scientists? Or did you just not know the evidence for it?

 

[dad]

No.

OK. So when we toss out all the fables and stories in the bible, what is left? Anything true?

 

[TheReasoner]

OK. So when we toss out all the fables and stories in the bible, what is left? Anything true?

Why the binary perception dad? *looks at dad's avatar* Oh....

Anyway, we're not talking about throwing the bible out the window any more than you are when you don't believe the literal interpretation of verses indicating a flat world and/or a geocentric worldview. You think Genesis is meant to be read the way you read it, we don't. That doesn't mean we want to throw it out. It means we want to throw your locked perception out. There's a big difference. Knowing that the sun (not the earth) is the centre of the solar system, and the solar system anything but the center in the milky way (and so on) we haven't thrown out the bible. Only a way of reading it which is demonstrably wrong. The truth is still there, even if the people who insisted on their subjective interpretation of the bible - not the bible itself in an objective fashion - is Christianity's holy book get a little flustered. Which certainly was the case when Galileo presented his discoveries.


Sorry to answer for the OP. I hope he agrees with what I (another former creationist) said in this post.

 

[Gracchus]

OK. So when we toss out all the fables and stories in the bible, what is left? Anything true?

How about, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."?

Or how about, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."?

See? It doesn't matter who said it. The truth is not dependent on the source.

 

[Nathan Poe]

OK. So when we toss out all the fables and stories in the bible, what is left? Anything true?

A bit of history and politics here and there, and some very good folk wisdom and practical moral advice.

 

[shinbits]

On topic: Did you ever view arguments for evolution with the supposition that the evidence for it was lies on the part of the scientists? Or did you just not know the evidence for it?

I never believed that scientists lied. I believed that scientists were biased against anything that may contradict a popular theory, precluding any fair and rational look at the evidence.

 

[shinbits]

OK. So when we toss out all the fables and stories in the bible, what is left? Anything true?

I still don't think the Bible is a fable. I believe in it. But the Bible has a lot of supernatural elements, which contradict natural order. Seeking to prove the Bible through naturalistic means is useless.

We know that water can't naturally be turned into wine, or the dead risen from the grave after three days, fully restored. We know that a sea will never naturally split in two so that thousands of people can cross to the other side, closing just in time to kill their Egyptian persuers.

All of this is against what we know about nature. To believe through faith that these things happened is one thing, but fight against naturalistic evidence that contradicts the Bible, even though we accept that miracles contradict nature....doesn't seem reasonable.

Evolution is a well researched, logical and reasonable theory. Creationism isn't.

 

[shinbits]

Sorry to answer for the OP. I hope he agrees with what I (another former creationist) said in this post.

For the most part, I do.

 

[hangback]

I still don't think the Bible is a fable. I believe in it. But the Bible has a lot of supernatural elements, which contradict natural order. Seeking to prove the Bible through naturalistic means is useless.

We know that water can't naturally be turned into wine, or the dead risen from the grave after three days, fully restored. We know that a sea will never naturally split in two so that thousands of people can cross to the other side, closing just in time to kill their Egyptian persuers.

All of this is against what we know about nature. To believe through faith that these things happened is one thing, but fight against naturalistic evidence that contradicts the Bible, even though we accept that miracles contradict nature....doesn't seem reasonable.

Evidence is a well researched, logical and reasonable theory. Creationism isn't.

Common sense at last, well done.

 

[hangback]

How were you able to clear it in your mind about things that were obviously physically wrong about creationism?
the flood for instance or the sun moving around the earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

How were you able to clear it in your mind about things that were obviously wrong about creationism?
the flood for instance.

What does the Flood have to do with creationism?

 

[Freodin]

What does the Flood have to do with creationism?

The Flood is an important part of (some) creationists explanations of the current world.

Every creationist is aware that the observations made on the current state of the world as well as the remnants of the past are not compatible with the Biblical creation account. So they need to explain why it isn´t. These explanations can include "The Fall", "The Split" or the case in question: "The Flood".

 

[shinbits]

How were you able to clear it in your mind about things that were obviously physically wrong about creationism?
the flood for instance or the sun moving around the earth.

Just by looking at scientific evidence. This forum helped a lot, and I've done extensive reading, looking at endless links.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every creationist is aware that the observations made on the current state of the world as well as the remnants of the past are not compatible with the Biblical creation account. So they need to explain why it isn´t.

The reason it isn't is because of what we call catastrophism.

Whenever something seen today doesn't line up with the Bible, then it is because some catastrophe occurred; and that catastrophe could be good or bad.

BUT, in my opinion, it is a mistake for creationists to wander outside of the Creation Events.

I just don't see any rhyme or reason why they would.

 

[hangback]

Just by looking at scientific evidence. This forum helped a lot, and I've done extensive reading, looking at endless links.

I really meant when you were a creationist, how did you square it in your mind.

 

[hangback]

Whenever something seen today doesn't line up with the Bible, then it is because some catastrophe occurred; and that catastrophe could be good or bad.

In other words you try and find an excuse not to believe the reality, in this case you call it 'catastrophism', (that's a manufactured word if ever there was one) a word which meant nothing but you were able to get yourself to believed anyway.
I can understand you having the ability to con someone else but I fail to see how you can con yourself, that really baffles me, unless of course you live completely on the surface and have no depth about you at all, a bit like Hollywood luvvies.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words you try and find an excuse not to believe the reality, in this case you call it 'catastrophism', (that's a manufactured word if ever there was one) a word which meant nothing but you were able to get yourself to believed anyway.

Your lack of knowledge about this subject does not do your view of creationism justice.

Catastrophism vs. Uniformitarianism