Christianity & Evolution Are Compatible...A Reflection

[marktheblake]

gravitist
cellist

they are not in the dictionary, thus i would think that use of such a would might be contrived but not necessarily offensive.

 

[uke2se]

they are not in the dictionary, thus i would think that use of such a would might be contrived but not necessarily offensive.

Do you understand how a dictionary work?

A dictionary lists words in "common" usage. Creationists have been using the word "evolutionist" for so long that it now appears in dictionaries. That doesn't mean it's still a crap word, though, and designed specifically for the purpose of equating evolution with creation.

Basically, it's a similar word to creotard, a word created to indicate that all creationists are retards. We don't use that word here.

 

[Hespera]

they are not in the dictionary, thus i would think that use of such a would might be contrived but not necessarily offensive.

Its not a seriously offensive word, or a serious matter.

however, since it has been brought up, and you have been asked not to use the word, if you continue to i personally, as well as I believe others will, take it as deliberately offensive. so you choose.

and for that matter, this cra[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]imo about how evolution is a religion and an ideology is such a moldy canard, you do yourself a disservice saying such things.

 

[random325nicaea]

they are not in the dictionary, thus i would think that use of such a would might be contrived but not necessarily offensive.

-_- apparently you didn't get the point, not surprising imo.

 

[AV1611VET]

hang on a minute, wont conversationist upset some people like my wife that talk too much?

 

[AV1611VET]

gravity---gravitist---gravatism
cell---cellist----cellism
quantum physics-----quantum physicist-----quantum physicism

do you get the point now?

Yes, I do --- and it looks to me like you're trying to dilute solid terms by dissolving them in a sea of verbosity.

Keep them rare, and you'll keep them usable.

 

[random325nicaea]

Yes, I do --- and it looks to me like you're trying to dilute solid terms by dissolving them in a sea of verbosity.

Keep them rare, and you'll keep them usable.

?
i take you you think it's ok to call everyone who accepts any scientifci theory as a "ist" of something or a believer in the "ism"

"I'm tod, and i believe in gravityism"

 

[AV1611VET]

?
i take you you think it's ok to call everyone who accepts any scientifci theory as a "ist" of something or a believer in the "ism"

No, I don't.

As I said, that would just dissolve words into a pool of verbosity.

Keep the terms:

• evolution --- evolutionist --- evolutionism
• creation --- creationist --- creationism

--- keep those terms rare, and you should have no problem using them in a discussion.

 

[Amoeba]

So what's keeping you from being a Christian now --- (if you aren't one already)?

I hate religion. I cut out the middle man and go straight to the creator. Your posts only reinforce my antipathy of fundamentalist religious dogma. That's not to say I don't go to church but I'm not going to accept without question everything said within that church.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hate religion. I cut out the middle man and go straight to the creator. Your posts only reinforce my antipathy of fundamentalist religious dogma. That's not to say I don't go to church but I'm not going to accept without question everything said within that church.

I'll bet you're not going to accept without question everything said within science either, are you?

Do you hate science?

 

[gaara4158]

I'll bet you're not going to accept without question everything said within science either, are you?

Do you hate science?

I doubt he accepts anything without question. You don't have to hate something to question it. I question my dear old mother's judgment all the time...

 

[AV1611VET]

I doubt he accepts anything without question. You don't have to hate something to question it. I question my dear old mother's judgment all the time...

So he hates religion just for something to hate?

Or is he taught to hate it?

 

[gaara4158]

So he hates religion just for something to hate?

Or is he taught to hate it?

Can you think of any other reasons?

Or are you taught to come up with false dichotomies?

(see what I did there?)

Anyway, it's most likely he hates religion because of what it is: a doctrine of beliefs you are to accept without question. Since we just established that he doesn't accept anything without question, it's easy to imagine what the source of his disdain for religion is.

Your tendency to ask questions in the format of "or are you taught ____" betrays a pesky preconception that I must urge you to abandon immediately, because it's becoming a barrier between you and nonbelievers across which a clear understanding cannot travel.
You see, unlike Basic Doctrine, science isn't all about teachings. It's about methods and research; new facts and data are discovered all the time. Students of science aren't taught to hold any particular beliefs; they're taught what methods of research yield the most valid results and they're taught why. If they can come up with a better way, they're welcome to submit it to peer review to see if they're really onto something. It just happens that the research methods employed by those who claim to have evidence for creationism have all been very sloppy.

So I must implore you to stop asking such loaded questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyway, it's most likely he hates religion because of what it is: a doctrine of beliefs you are to accept without question.

Or what?

What if he doesn't accept it without question?

Let's take Christianity for example. Who is coercing him (or anyone) to accept it without question?

By comparison, can I question science?

I'm sure I can; but his hate seems to stem from his being 'unable to question it'.

And, to be honest, I don't think I'm going to get a straight answer from either one of you; so I may as well just drop it.

So I must implore you to stop asking such loaded questions.

Those 'loaded questions' I have explained about three times now.

They are based on three years of experience, with talking to people who --- just by some sheer coincidence --- happen to be using the same terminology when dealing with religion in general, and Christianity in particular.

Want the list again?

• poof vs created
• magic vs miracle
• [a couple other good ones I can't think of right now]

And the grand-daddy of them all: ignorant, bronze-age, goat-herding nomads.

 

[gaara4158]

Or what?

What if he doesn't accept it without question?

Let's take Christianity for example. Who is coercing him (or anyone) to accept it without question?

By comparison, can I question science?

I'm sure I can; but his hate seems to stem from his being 'unable to question it'.

And, to be honest, I don't think I'm going to get a straight answer from either one of you; so I may as well just drop it.

Straight answer: If he accepts it, he must not question it. If he questions it, he will be accused of blasphemy. In a way, this forum is full of people questioning religious beliefs. Once we question too deeply, though, (such as "but what if God and the Bible aren't true? What if Basic Doctrine is a false doctrine?") we are shunned. You, yourself, /thread whenever that happens.
I'm sure you'd love to drop this, as it exposes exactly what the problem in your reasoning is, and you don't want to see it.

Those 'loaded questions' I have explained about three times now.

They are based on three years of experience, with talking to people who --- just by some sheer coincidence --- happen to be using the same terminology when dealing with religion in general, and Christianity in particular.

Want the list again?

• poof vs created
• magic vs miracle
• [a couple other good ones I can't think of right now]

And the grand-daddy of them all: ignorant, bronze-age, goat-herding nomads.

Please, please, please try to listen to me. Re-read the paragraph preceding what you've responded to and see if you can spot what's wrong with your response.

Spotting people who use the same terminology on one forum is hardly evidence of a common teaching. AV, your methodology is flawed here. And yes, I was taught how to discern valid from invalid methodology

Allow me to demonstrate. There is an imageboard website called 4chan in which users are allowed to post whatever they want anonymously. On this website, the users all use the same terminology. Here's a list of terms used on 4chan:

/b/tard
/b/lackup
/b/rother
samefag
newfag
[insert adj.][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]
cancerous

You get the point. And the point is, similar terminology is not evidence of a common teacher. It's not even evidence that all parties have come across that terminology before. It's most likely that the terminology you're encountering here, like on 4chan, is a result of one or two members coming up with it, and the rest imitating them.

Have we learned something today?

 

[AV1611VET]

You get the point. And the point is, similar terminology is not evidence of a common teacher. It's not even evidence that all parties have come across that terminology before. It's most likely that the terminology you're encountering here, like on 4chan, is a result of one or two members coming up with it, and the rest imitating them.

Have we learned something today?

Yes --- and no offense to your peers (whom I don't even know) --- but your ability to express yourself is pretty good for your age.

I see that in Wiccan Child too.

HOWEVER, you're certainly entitled to your opinion as to where this idioglossia originates; but you probably don't want to know where I said it originates from if it isn't being taught.

In other words, my second choice is even worse.

 

[gaara4158]

Yes --- and no offense to your peers (whom I don't even know) --- but your ability to express yourself is pretty good for your age.

Thank you I actually get that a lot, and (as long as it's not akin to "the Reverend Jesse Jackson speaks so well!") it's always welcome.

HOWEVER, you're certainly entitled to your opinion as to where this idioglossia originates; but you probably don't want to know where I said it originates from if it isn't being taught.

In other words, my second choice is even worse.

The Devil??
You'd rather believe that the Devil is inspiring us to all sound alike than to simply accept a proven social phenomenon?
Why???

 

[Amoeba]

I'll bet you're not going to accept without question everything said within science either, are you?

Do you hate science?

You bet wrong. See, science relies on verifiable facts. Got it?

 

[BananaSlug]

Or what?

What if he doesn't accept it without question?

Let's take Christianity for example. Who is coercing him (or anyone) to accept it without question?

To many of us religion in general is illogical. To compare with Christianity, there are some things that God does/says that is really illogical to us. This is coming from someone who was really gung-ho as a Christian. I started looking at what I believed and read the Bible and it left me with questions and concerns.

By comparison, can I question science?

Of course. Our problem is that many creationists have a poor understanding of science and therefore give poor questions.

I'm sure I can; but his hate seems to stem from his being 'unable to question it'.

Everybody is different. I don't hate religion. I just find it illogical.

And, to be honest, I don't think I'm going to get a straight answer from either one of you; so I may as well just drop it.Those 'loaded questions' I have explained about three times now.

A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.


Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

1. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
2. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

An example of one of your loaded questions would be:

"Where did the matter from the big bang come from?"- you want us to answer "it was always there" simply so you can call us "creationists".

They are based on three years of experience, with talking to people who --- just by some sheer coincidence --- happen to be using the same terminology when dealing with religion in general, and Christianity in particular.

That is because we feel the same way about all religions.

Want the list again?

• poof vs created
• magic vs miracle
• [a couple other good ones I can't think of right now]

Do you accept the validity of Brahma creating the universe? If not why?
Do you accept the validity of the miracle of the Buddha walking on water (Buddhism is 900 years older than Christianity)? If it is not a miracle, then what is it?

And the grand-daddy of them all: ignorant, bronze-age, goat-herding nomads.

Because they were. The scientific age did not come about until people did not have to worry about living from day to day. The Greeks started intellectual thinking and it was culminated during the Intellectual Age of Europe and America. Ancient Israelites had to worry about growing crops and tending livestock. The ancient world was a hard time to live in. They simply didn't have the time or resources to study cellular biology or practise open heart surgery.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Devil??
You'd rather believe that the Devil is inspiring us to all sound alike than to simply accept a proven social phenomenon?
Why???

Because we're not ignorant of his devices.

Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.