Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

[BananaSlug]

At least you get an explanation.

When we ask the same thing from you guys we get, "It didn't happen."

If I remember right I did a whole thread on why "embedded age" is wrong. Your explanation for fossils in coal dealt with ancient supermen who dug the coal out, rolled it in leaves, and stuffed it back into the ground for some reason. We give evidence supporting our position.

 

[BananaSlug]

This whole thread is about intellectuals deriding non intellectuals for their closed thinking, is it not?

No, it was supposed to be about how many fundamentalists look down upon higher education and intellectualism in general.

However, when the boot is on the other foot, and definitions of atheism are found wanting, not on my say so, but by any dictionary you care to mention, who is big enough to say, actually, that looks as if it makes sense?

Atheism- a lack of belief in god(s). Of course even Christians are atheist, they don't believe in Zeus, Odin, Lugh, or any other god besides their own.

Nope, the closed mindset takes over, and I hear over and over, you are wrong and we are right. Not on any evidence, but just because we say so.

Atheists have many beliefs that are not dependent on religion. Saying atheism is a religion is like saying tofu is meat.

Which only goes to show that every faith has its fundamentalists.

Fundamentalist
1. (sometimes initial capital letter

) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.
fundamentalist definition | Dictionary.com


1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>
fundamentalist - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

[AV1611VET]

If I remember right I did a whole thread on why "embedded age" is wrong.

If God can walk on water in violation of science, God can embed age in violation of science.

It's that simple --- and recently I've been awakened to the fact that you guys only want to dispute what you think are these "fringe theories".

You seem to steer very clear of expressed miracles, choosing to go after the implied miracles, instead.

That's because it's easier to accuse someone of making something up, than it is to accuse them of trusting the Word, isn't it?

I notice too that you guys leave TEs alone, even though they think we're mutants made in God's likeness and image via copying errors.

But that's fine with me --- that tells me we're the ones on the front lines --- actually getting your attention.

And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

 

[Nathan Poe]

At least you get an explanation.

And how useful is a false explanation?

When we ask the same thing from you guys we get, "It didn't happen."

Truth is that which is real, AV -- not that which makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If God can walk on water in violation of science, God can embed age in violation of science.

If God can embed age in violation of science, God can lie in violation of the Bible.

It's that simple --- and recently I've been awakened to the fact that you guys only want to dispute what you think are these "fringe theories".

Considering we talk mainly with people on the fringe -- such as yourself -- "Fringe theories" come up often.

You seem to steer very clear of expressed miracles, choosing to go after the implied miracles, instead.

Because we already know where the expressed miracles come from -- mythology.

If Heracles can capture the cerebus, and Odin can hang himself from the World Tree, and Buddha can create a golden bridge ex nihilo, then Jesus can certainly walk on water.

Once you leave the realm of actual events and enter allegory, you really do pave the way for anything to occur.

That's because it's easier to accuse someone of making something up, than it is to accuse them of trusting the Word, isn't it?

Except, AV, as you've proven time and time again, one cannot "Trust the word" (Small w, we're talking about the Bible, not Christ) as someone like you does, without eventually making up piles of nonsense, and trying to pass it off as "The Word."

I notice too that you guys leave TEs alone, even though they think we're mutants made in God's likeness and image via copying errors.

TEs aren't annoying.

But that's fine with me --- that tells me we're the ones on the front lines --- actually getting your attention.

The original function of circus clowns was to draw the audience's attention while the roustabouts set up the next act.

 

[BananaSlug]

If God can walk on water in violation of science, God can embed age in violation of science.

Jesus walking on water is stated explicitly in the Bible. "Embedded age" is not and goes against the very nature of the God you worship.

It's that simple --- and recently I've been awakened to the fact that you guys only want to dispute what you think are these "fringe theories".

"Fringe theologies" that have no actual foundation in the Bible but are made up to try and explain away scientific evidence.

You seem to steer very clear of expressed miracles, choosing to go after the implied miracles, instead.

We don't believe in the expressed miracles either but making up extra Biblical claims to support your interpretation of Genesis is different.

That's because it's easier to accuse someone of making something up, than it is to accuse them of trusting the Word, isn't it?

You've admitted before that you were just making it up because you didn't know the answer.

I notice too that you guys leave TEs alone, even though they think we're mutants made in God's likeness and image via copying errors.

Our argument is not against the existence of a deity (they took away GA) but this forum is for creation and evolution. Unless they say something wrong about Evolutionary Theory we don't have beef.

But that's fine with me --- that tells me we're the ones on the front lines --- actually getting your attention.

Too bad we couldn't have a poll for the lurkers to see who has the better argument, the creos or the evos.

 

[AV1611VET]

Too bad we couldn't have a poll for the lurkers to see who has the better argument, the creos or the evos.

Do you think you could get 450-to-1 odds in favor of evolution?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you think you could get 450-to-1 odds in favor of evolution?

What does that matter?

 

[BananaSlug]

It doesn't matter who is right, I want to know who presents the better argument. I'm obviously biased so I can't vote.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does that matter?

You'll get that after awhile ---

 

[Skaloop]

No, all of this is predicated upon several huge presuppositions; the first of which is that we accept the existence of your brother. Atheism would say, your brother does not exist, and therefore it is meaningless to discuss where he may or may not be; there is no such person.



Not at all. An agnostic would say, you may have a brother, or you may not. I have no way of knowing for sure, and therefore any discussion of where he may or may not be is pointless.

And you have just completely misunderstood my analogy. The question is not about the existence of my brother, but his location. I don't believe he's in Vancouver (atheism) but I can't be sure (agnosticism).

You have a dictionary, I assume? Look for yourself. I am not making this stuff up, just for the fun of it.

I do. But dictionaries differ in their definitions.

If a person does not know, and admits to not knowing, then they are agnostic. This is the position of modern science; it can say nothing of God so does not bother trying.

I don't know, and admit to that. I am agnostic. Although I do not believe that is the position of modern science. I can say some things about god. Perhaps not everything, but it can certainly test some parts. The efficacy of prayer, for example. There should be some statistical difference in, say, the number of Christians who recover from cancer, or win a football game, or arrive home safely compared to non-Christians.

If a person says they believe there is no God, then that is a statement of faith, and is atheism. Atheism is a belief, and it teaches that there is no God.

I believe there is no god. I am an atheist. But as mentioned, I also don't know. So I am an agnostic. Not mutually exclusive, then.

You do not need to take my word for it. Any decent dictionary will be more than adequate. There is no such thing as weak or strong atheism, any more than there is any such thing as weak or strong theism. One either believes, does not know, or does not believe. Certainly the same person may change positions, but only one position may be held at one time.

Speaking as a theist, I am well aware that God is real, and I don't really bother about what other people think. As with you and your brother, if he is real to you, then who cares what other people believe about him or about you?

Again, not about the reality of my brother. But if you can't understand what atheism actually means outside of a dictionary, it's not surprising that you can't understand a simple analogy about it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You'll get that after awhile ---

Ah, so it doesn't.

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Do you think you could get 450-to-1 odds in favor of evolution?QUOTE//////////



hespera sez... Id LOVE to lay anyone any odds they like on the red sea parting. If there was a time machine so we could go check, id take any and all bets. if Av wants to bet his computer that the sea would part.... so much the better.

450 to one odds is for wimps.

i wonder what would happen to the faithful when the red sea just would not part.

Probably be like those who gather periodically to await the end of the world, and are no discouraged when it doesnt happen on cue. What do you think, AV?

​

 

[AV1611VET]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Do you think you could get 450-to-1 odds in favor of evolution?QUOTE//////////



hespera sez... Id LOVE to lay anyone any odds they like on the red sea parting. If there was a time machine so we could go check, id take any and all bets. if Av wants to bet his computer that the sea would part.... so much the better.

450 to one odds is for wimps.

i wonder what would happen to the faithful when the red sea just would not part.

Probably be like those who gather periodically to await the end of the world, and are no discouraged when it doesnt happen on cue. What do you think, AV?

​

I would say many (if not most) Bible students know what I mean when I say 450-to-1 odds.

 

[Hespera]

Good , for a total non answer, AV. So, would you bet 1000 to 1 if we had a time machine and could go back and see if the red sea REALLY parted? Would you pay up when it didnt? Would you give up your book?

Any 'theory' what i would do if the sea DID part? (besides pay up, that is)

 

[AV1611VET]

I think its mental problems, honestly. I think fundamentalists need help on a professional level, really.

And let me guess --- you're a psychiatrist by profession, and you'll be glad to help us out --- for a nominal fee, of course?

 

[Hespera]

god helps, they say, those who help themselves.

 

[mpok1519]

And let me guess --- you're a psychiatrist by profession, and you'll be glad to help us out --- for a nominal fee, of course?

nope. just relaying what professionals have told me. also, what does money have to do with this?

 

[AV1611VET]

nope. just relaying what professionals have told me.

Doesn't sound like professionals I would want to go to.

Ask them the next time if they know what psychoheresy is, and if they know the Bobgans?

(Don't tell them their first names [Martin and Diedre], they should know them already. They're probably the most feared [hated] couple today.)

Anyway, as I was saying, doesn't sound like professionals I would want to go to, if that's their opinion of fundamentalists.

Speaking of "opinions" --- can you tell me how they're taught to score people who see Christian symbols in the Rorschach Test?

also, what does money have to do with this?

Unless they offer their services for free, would you be willing to foot the bill, so you can help a poor fundamentalist get "help"?

 

[gaara4158]

I think its mental problems, honestly. I think fundamentalists need help on a professional level, really. This is me speaking from the bottom of my heart; I think that if your beliefs are hinged on the most ridiculous/harmful of ideas, there might be personal/psychological trauma from their past that one must confront and solve in order to help theirselves before they can ever possibly help others.

If they'd just keep it to themselves, I wouldn't care what they thought about science, logic, and reason... but no, they insist upon indoctrinating their children as well and see it as an act of love. It's kind of scary to live in a country where ignorance and irrationality are seen as virtues :/

I've heard it stated explicitly by fundamentalists that "reason is the enemy of faith" and "logic is the Devil's tool." I even bought into that for a while... I seriously thought logic and reason were evil whenever they went against the Bible. It just goes to show how far people will go to keep their fairy tales alive :/