Matt Damon and Looney Liberal Paranoia About Creationists

[Btodd]

Can't say that for certain. It may be 50/50. People join churches for a lot of reasons. For some people the creation/evolution debate does not matter to their faith.

50/50? This is denial. If you meet 100 atheists, do you expect that around 50 or so will not believe in evolution? People are atheists for a lot of reasons, too. Please answer that.

And this isn't solely about creation/evolution, it's about a literal reading of the Bible, which has more dangerous connotations in regard to foreign policy than American science.

Then you are being discriminatory since Obama's denomination holds YEC beliefs. We don't know what Obama's beliefs are. If we are using your method..assuming beliefs by denomination..then we can say there is a greater likelyhood Obama is a YECEr Why doesnt good old Matt Damon ask whether or not Obama believes dinosaurs roamed the earth 6000 years ago?

Having heard Obama speak about faith, and questions pertaining to it, I feel more comfortable that he's not dogmatic about it (his poor, yet well-intentioned answer to the question of 'when life begins' in regard to abortion is a good example), and don't have reason to suspect him, or John McCain, as believing a literal Bible. His positions alone (abortion, gay rights) spell that out.

But if you can show me that Obama's church states in their official beliefs, like I pointed out with Palin's, and that Obama's denomination is founded on literalism (like I pointed out with Palin's), then you are correct....I would have as much right to suspect Obama as Palin. Pentacostal beliefs are founded on a literal reading of the Bible.


Btodd

 

[NotreDame]

I am greatly amused how some of the supporters of creationism, a belief that defies common sense, try to frame their arguments in the language of the Privy Council of the Court of St. James. As if the reader will decide "Oh, this person is so smart, there must be something to creationism."

So tell me NotreDame, we have already established that a theory is provable by repeated experimentation, what is the theory of creationism?

Amazing...I love the red herring issue you raise here. I think you are profoundly confused! My arguments cannot remotely be construed as a defense of creationism. I will not waste my time answering a question which is not germane to the dialogue.

 

[Btodd]

I addressed the point you made. Even your qualified argument is fallacious and contains flawed reasoning. Illuminating your fallacious argument is not a shallow effort. Furthermore, your point above is moot and irrelevant. Why? Because I addressed even your qualified argument! If you cannot comprehend how and why, logically, even your qualified argument is fallacious, then this is your problem, not mine or any one else's. I did not fail at ignoring ANY of your points as I not only addressed them in my prior post but do so again in this post! (below).

The only "cop" out here is evidently you failing to recognize your argument, including your qualified argument, was addressed, explained why it is fallacious, and refuted, in my prior post.

There is no sarcam, by the way, in my last post, as you erroneously assume. My suggestion you consult some authorities would assist you greatly and hopefully keep you from making these types of bad arguments.

Your qualified argument is still fallacious.



To the contrary, your fallacious argument demonstrates the probability in favor of the statement you made is de minimis. It is not more likely than not a member of a club, organization, group of people, nation, country, fraternity, etcetera has a certain characteristic on the basis the majority has a certain characteristic or believes in a certain characteristic. This statement demonstrates you do not properly understand probability much less stastics.

LOL, that was hilarious. It reads like a parody.

I'm still waiting on you to clarify, without the circus:

1. Is an atheist more likely to believe in Evolution than not?
2. Is a member of Al Qaeda more likely to hate America than not?

You argument suggests that these belief systems have no meaning. If we can't assign any definition to the belief or the believer, then calling yourself Pentecostal, or anything at all, is useless. The very name carries a common set of beliefs with it, or else it wouldn't be necessary to even have the denomination. I really want to hear you or jameswright tell me that I can't possibly suspect that an atheist I meet believes in evolution, but you know the slippery slope you'll be on.


Btodd

 

[NotreDame]

In the same manner, if I tell you I'm an atheist, do you think it's most likely that I believe in Evolution, or is it impossible to assign a probability without my definitive answer? This should clear it up for you. It's not wrong to appeal to probability in the absence of an answer. So to clear it up, I did not say 'Palin is a YEC', but I DID say that it's more likely than not. And in regard to the OP and Matt Damon's words, I want an answer to that question.

Btodd

Since you rely upon this analogy, in more than one post, to more than one poster, it needs to be addressed, as it is terribly flawed.

There are only so many ways in which everything we see came into existence. A.) God created it B.) God did not create it and came about by naturalistic means C). Aliens. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a higher power and consequently, this automatically excludes option A). Meaning we now have a 50/50 chance the atheist believes in either B or C, after all there are only two options.

This is vastly different from belonging to a large organization, such as Assembly of God, or one of its churches, which has various creeds, beliefs, and statements, and asserting an individual member of the church believes or probably believes in a specific tenet, tenet X.

Your examples are non-parallel and JamesWright is correct in stating your argument is flawed, was flawed, and remains flawed.

 

[uberd00b]

Have any journalists attempted to clarify her (Mrs. Palin's) position yet? Seems to me the best way to find out would be to ask her.

 

[NotreDame]

LOL, that was hilarious. It reads like a parody.

I'm still waiting on you to clarify, without the circus:

1. Is an atheist more likely to believe in Evolution than not?
2. Is a member of Al Qaeda more likely to hate America than not?

Btodd

Is a member of Al Qaeda more likely to hate America than not? This question is not even remotely close to asserting a specific individual is more likely to do so.

Your poor evolution analogy I already addressed in a separate post.

My argument does not suggest belief systems are meaningless. This is nothing short of a strawman argument.

If we can't assign any definition to the belief or the believer, then calling yourself Pentecostal, or anything at all, is useless.

Nobody is claiming a belief cannot be assigned to a believer. What is being stated is the method which you contrived to go about doing it is a well documented fallacious and flawed argument. You are not getting anywhere with this strawman argument.

I really want to hear you or jameswright tell me that I can't possibly suspect that an atheist I meet believes in evolution, but you know the slippery slope you'll be on.

If I am on any slippery slope, it is not because of your poor atheist analogy, where an atheist, by definition cannot believe God is the cause for all we see, then has only TWO options left, nature and aliens. Good one! Whew, you got us with this example!

 

[Btodd]

Since you rely upon this analogy, in more than one post, to more than one poster, it needs to be addressed, as it is terribly flawed.

There are only so many ways in which everything we see came into existence. A.) God created it B.) God did not create it and came about by naturalistic means C). Aliens. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a higher power and consequently, this automatically excludes option A). Meaning we now have a 50/50 chance the atheist believes in either B or C, after all there are only two options.

This is vastly different from belonging to a large organization, such as Assembly of God, or one of its churches, which has various creeds, beliefs, and statements, and asserting an individual member of the church believes or probably believes in a specific tenet, tenet X.

Your examples are non-parallel and JamesWright is correct in stating your argument is flawed, was flawed, and remains flawed.

Evolution isn't about the origin of life, silly. One could believe that God created life, OR aliens created life, and still believe in evolution. What I'm pointing out is that these labels for beliefs have actual value, that as long as we're not trying to give the illusion of political correctness, we all assign beliefs to certain labels, and rightfully so. I hardly think that if you met a member of NAMBLA, that you would consider letting him watch your son while you go check out a movie.

Care to wiggle out of that one? Or would you be justified in thinking that a member of NAMBLA might be a bad candidate for leaving your child with for the evening? Let's see how committed you are to this premise.

And let's see Jameswright act as if he found out that Obama had been a member of a radical sect of Islam all these years, he wouldn't be making any 'assumptions' about what that might mean. I can't wait.


Btodd, politically incorrect

 

[jamesrwright3]

50/50? This is denial. If you meet 100 atheists, do you expect that around 50 or so will not believe in evolution? People are atheists for a lot of reasons, too. Please answer that.

You are talking apples and oranges here and your analogies don't apply. Of course atheists are going to believe in evolution. There is really no other option. There is no such thing as a creationist atheist. However, in the spectrum of Christians beliefs there are a number of views on the subject..some people are YECers..some people believe in theistic evolution..to others the debate is really irrelevant since they believe their faith can coexist equally with scientific reality. Are more apt analogy is the one I gave..about the Catholics and whether or not they believe in birth control or abortion.
In this instance you will have a variety of beliefs despite the official cannon of the church.

And this isn't solely about creation/evolution, it's about a literal reading of the Bible, which has more dangerous connotations in regard to foreign policy than American science.

Obama is a Christian. His chuch supports YECism. I have a hard time believing that the church he attends has a liberal interpreation of the Bible. We are not talking about Unitarian Universalists here. Jeremiah Wright doesn't seem to be the type of pastor to be lax on the subject of Biblical interpretation

The beliefs espoused in Obama's church seem to be a lot scarier and have the potential to affect governance than Palin's belief on the earth age

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010012

But if you can show me that Obama's church states in their official beliefs, like I pointed out with Palin's, and that Obama's denomination is founded on literalism (like I pointed out with Palin's), then you are correct....I would have as much right to suspect Obama as Palin. Pentacostal beliefs are founded on a literal reading of the Bible.

Can't find a cathechism on the web site and it appears they took the creationist books off of their website..I tried to do a search..but I am too tired to try more search options tonight..maybe tomorrow..but Chistopher Hitchens..who is hardly a conservative indicated they were sold on there

http://www.slate.com/id/2181460

 

[JoshuaW]

Amazing...I love the red herring issue you raise here. I think you are profoundly confused! My arguments cannot remotely be construed as a defense of creationism. I will not waste my time answering a question which is not germane to the dialogue.

More and more amusing. Now you deny you are defending creationism.

The problem with a high elected official is not so much their belief in creationism, it is that that belief indicates a level of gullibility which is dangerous in a responsible position. If a person believes in creationism, do they also believe in the rapture? Is their foreign policy influenced by what they believe is the coming end of time? Are they influenced by the fervent requests of religious personalities in their inner circle? Are there other obscure biblical references to which they abandon logic and devote their allegiance?

Belief in creationism is not in itself a bad thing, but it is a symptom of a mind incapable of the range of intellectual choice necessary for balanced leadership.

 

[Btodd]

Is a member of Al Qaeda more likely to hate America than not? This question is not even remotely close to asserting a specific individual is more likely to do so.

Answer my NAMBLA example. You'll get this eventually, because you assign probability to labels everyday. Maybe the NAMBLA guy is doing it for shock value, so you shouldn't assume he has pedophile-like desires, right? He's a specific individual, so will you leave your son with him if he satisfies all the other babysitting requirements?

Your poor evolution analogy I already addressed in a separate post.

My argument does not suggest belief systems are meaningless. This is nothing short of a strawman argument.

So, what does 'Pentecostal' mean, in terms of what Pentecostals believe? As soon as you start talking about it, you are equating specific beliefs with the label. And nobody yet (at least not me or anyone I recall) is saying she is YEC. I'm saying that merely being a Pentecostal for almost 30 years goes a long way as a qualifier.

If I am on any slippery slope, it is not because of your poor atheist analogy, where an atheist, by definition cannot believe God is the cause for all we see, then has only TWO options left, nature and aliens. Good one! Whew, you got us with this example!

He still wouldn't have to believe in evolution. Did Lucretius believe in Evolution? Were there no atheists before Darwin? So, it's entirely possible to be an atheist who doesn't believe God created this, who doesn't believe aliens created this, and who doesn't believe evolution is real, either. It's entirely possible to disbelieve in all of those things and still be an atheist.

But even I wouldn't pretend that it means that if YOU were to meet one today, you would be foolish to expect him/her to believe in evolution, because of how widely it is accepted by atheists (let alone theists). It's the difference between idealism and pragmatism.

So to reiterate, I don't know if Sarah Palin is a literal Bible believer, but I suspect she is, and would like to know the answer for certain. Is that so difficult to hear?


Btodd

 

[NotreDame]

And let's see Jameswright act as if he found out that Obama had been a member of a radical sect of Islam all these years, he wouldn't be making any 'assumptions' about what that might mean. I can't wait.


Btodd, politically incorrect

Evolution isn't about the origin of life, silly.

Try re-reading, more carefully, what I said. B.) God did not create it and came about by naturalistic means.

I never mentioned evolution here. Just more evidence you are quite confused.

One could believe that God created life, OR aliens created life, and still believe in evolution

So what!!! This misses the point of why your analogy, in which you referenced ATHEISTS, not evolution, is not parallel to the point you hope to make. Why? Because as I explained previously, to which you painfully and unfortunately ignored, an atheist believes in NON-SUPERNATURAL CAUSES for what we see!

Somehow, you confused yourself into thinking this was about evolution and go off on a tangent about evolution, what it is and is not, and how a person could believe in theistic evolution. Well, so what, yes someone can believe in theistic evolution but NOT AN ATHEIST and it was the beliefs of the ATHEIST at issue in your example. My goodness!!!

I am not going to address your poor Nambla example, and it is terribly poor, quite simply because it is possible it will only add, not reduce, the confusion. But it is a true statement, your Nambla example is not a good one.

 

[jamesrwright3]

]Answer my NAMBLA example. You'll get this eventually, because you assign probability to labels everyday. Maybe the NAMBLA guy is doing it for shock value, so you shouldn't assume he has pedophile-like desires, right? He's a specific individual, so will you leave your son with him if he satisfies all the other babysitting requirements?

This is the most ridiculous analogy I have ever seen. Of course you wouldn't let a member of Nambla babysit your kid. There sexual perversion is a core part of their beliefs and you know where they stand by virtue of their membership in the organization. However, as I have shown, there is no core belief in Christianity regarding origins. The Catholic Church..the original and probably most dogmatic denomination..does not have an official position. They believe science and faith are compatible. We have no reason to believe Sarah Palin is a YECEr..her beliefs regarding this NON-CORE issue of Christianity are not known and we can't assume the worst unless we can also assume the worst about Obama and his church.

 

[NotreDame]

So, what does 'Pentecostal' mean, in terms of what Pentecostals believe?

Btodd

The word "Pentacostal" means a lot of things. This is the point you do not understand. The word "Pentacostal" connotes many different things, just like the word "Libertarian" connotes many different things. However, it is illogical to assert a specific individual, because they are Pentacostal, because they are "Libertarian" means they believe or are more likely to believe in X, where X is a belief among many beliefs in the system. This is fallacious reasoning.

There is of course ONE exception and, unfortunately for you, it has not been mentioned or relied upon.

You'll get this eventually, because you assign probability to labels everyday.

Yes, I do. The difference between you and I is when I do so, I do not do so fallaciously, as you do.

 

[Btodd]

You are talking apples and oranges here and your analogies don't apply. Of course atheists are going to believe in evolution.

Did all of the atheists before Darwin believe in evolution? Of course not, so you are assigning a probability to that, just as I knew you would. And you're justified in doing so, because you know that over 90% (easily) of them would turn out to fulfill your assumption. You still wouldn't know that any specific individual atheist believes in evolution, but you would be justified in suspecting it to the expectation of an answer, should you think it important in a subject.

Obama is a Christian. His chuch supports YECism. I have a hard time believing that the church he attends has a liberal interpreation of the Bible. We are not talking about Unitarian Universalists here. Jeremiah Wright doesn't seem to be the type of pastor to be lax on the subject of Biblical interpretation

I'll wait to see if you can show that their core beliefs are stated as being literal and Creationist, as Palin's church proudly does for all to see.

The beliefs espoused in Obama's church seem to be a lot scarier and have the potential to affect governance than Palin's belief on the earth age

Can't find a cathechism on the web site and it appears they took the creationist books off of their website..I tried to do a search..but I am too tired to try more search options tonight..maybe tomorrow..but Chistopher Hitchens..who is hardly a conservative indicated they were sold on there

As I told you, I find Obama's church troubling, too (for different reasons than Palin's). You're really stretching if you're saying that 'Creationist books were sold there, but I can't show you' in comparison with my, 'Here, they state this as their core belief right on their website'.

Please answer my NAMBLA example. We'll see if it's wrong to to assign probability of belief to a specific person in regard to their membership of a belief system, to the level of wanting an answer to the question before trusting them unequivocally.


Btodd

 

[NotreDame]

You are talking apples and oranges here and your analogies don't apply. Of course atheists are going to believe in evolution. There is really no other option. There is no such thing as a creationist atheist.

I made the same point and while I am not quite sure how it happened, he managed to construe this remark to be a dialogue about evolution.

You can expect the same irrelevant rebuttal.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Did all of the atheists before Darwin believe in evolution? Of course not, so you are assigning a probability to that, just as I knew you would. And you're justified in doing so, because you know that over 90% (easily) of them would turn out to fulfill your assumption. You still wouldn't know that any specific individual atheist believes in evolution, but you would be justified in suspecting it to the expectation of an answer, should you think it important in a subject.

We are not talking about before Darwin. We are talking about the here and now. I am not even sure what atheists believed before Darwin regarding origins. But the bottom line is you can't make any determination regarding Palin's beliefs because of an official doctrine of a church. The Catholic Church officially bans birth control..but most Catholics have ignored it

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4390427.ece

I'll wait to see if you can show that their core beliefs are stated as being literal and Creationist, as Palin's church proudly does for all to see.



As I told you, I find Obama's church troubling, too (for different reasons than Palin's). You're really stretching if you're saying that 'Creationist books were sold there, but I can't show you' in comparison with my, 'Here, they state this as their core belief right on their website'.

Sorry creationist books being sold in their official store shows that they do endorse the belief. A church wouldn't sell book in its official store that goes against it's beliefs. It would be like Obama's church selling a book on the virtues of white supremacy..it wouldn't happen.

Please answer my NAMBLA example. We'll see if it's wrong to to assign probability of belief to a specific person in regard to their membership of a belief system, to the level of wanting an answer to the question before trusting them unequivocally.

Nambla analogy doesn't work

How about this. You answer my question which is more appropriate.
Does being a Catholic make it more apt for that person not to use birth control?

 

[Btodd]

So what!!! This misses the point of why your analogy, in which you referenced ATHEISTS, not evolution, is not parallel to the point you hope to make. Why? Because as I explained previously, to which you painfully and unfortunately ignored, an atheist believes in NON-SUPERNATURAL CAUSES for what we see!

Are you saying there can't be any other cause for life forms developing? What did Lucretius believe in, since he pre-dated evolution? I'm mimicking your point, if you hadn't noticed.....that even though you can't definitively know if a particular atheist believes in evolution or not, you would still expect that to be the case. And so would I, because it's reasonable.

Somehow, you confused yourself into thinking this was about evolution and go off on a tangent about evolution, what it is and is not, and how a person could believe in theistic evolution. Well, so what, yes someone can believe in theistic evolution but NOT AN ATHEIST and it was the beliefs of the ATHEIST at issue in your example. My goodness!!!

The point is that one doesn't have to believe in evolution to be an atheist, but we would all still expect that one does when we meet them. And that's a reasonable enough suspicion to warrant asking the question.

I am not going to address your poor Nambla example, and it is terribly poor, quite simply because it is possible it will only add, not reduce, the confusion. But it is a true statement, your Nambla example is not a good one.

Really? Is sexual perversion the ONLY tenet of NAMBLA? Or do they, like your examples of being Pentecostal, have other tenets that the believer might be basing their membership on?

So why does a Pentecostal get the benefit of the doubt, to the level that even asking the question is subject for outrage? Huge double-standard, if labels don't tell us anything about a specific person who adheres to them.


Btodd

 

[NotreDame]

Did all of the atheists before Darwin believe in evolution? Of course not, so you are assigning a probability to that, just as I knew you would. And you're justified in doing so, because you know that over 90% (easily) of them would turn out to fulfill your assumption. You still wouldn't know that any specific individual atheist believes in evolution, but you would be justified in suspecting it to the expectation of an answer, should you think it important in a subject.

Btodd

This misses why JamesWright can properly assign probability here and it is because, as he stated previously, the atheist is immediately limited to non-supernatural causes AND there are only TWO non-supernatural causes in existence, hence his probability assignment is logical, unlike your own.

 

[Btodd]

This misses why JamesWright can properly assign probability here and it is because, as he stated previously, the atheist is immediately limited to non-supernatural causes AND there are only TWO non-supernatural causes in existence, hence his probability assignment is logical, unlike your own.

You're equating all possible non-supernatural causes with evolution. One can be an atheist, and have no freaking idea how life came about, simply that they don't believe that a supernatural being did it. Your aliens example comes back into play, because Aliens might have created us ex nihilo as well, sans evolution.

But....if you meet an atheist, you will likely (and rightfully) suspect that he believes in evolution. Not because you've done a careful analysis of all the possibilities and found it to be the only one that could apply, but because you know this from real-world, practical knowledge of what atheists commonly believe. Yet, by your standard, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you were to assume an atheist believes in evolution, and even the mere mention of asking them about it would warrant my moral outrage.


Btodd

 

[NotreDame]

The point is that one doesn't have to believe in evolution to be an atheist, but we would all still expect that one does when we meet them. And that's a reasonable enough suspicion to warrant asking the question.

Btodd

This is not the point you made. Perhaps this is the point you hoped to make, or intended to make, originally.

Here is what you said!

I really want to hear you or jameswright tell me that I can't possibly suspect that an atheist I meet believes in evolution, but you know the slippery slope you'll be on.

Neither JamesWright or myself can logically do this because it is logical to suspect the atheist believes in evolution. Why? For reasons I and JamesWright have already mentioned. Atheists appeal to NON-THEISTIC causes. There are only a very FEW non-theistic causes right now for A). How life began on the planet and B.) How life got to where it is today from the very primitive lifeforms. In fact, in regards to A.) there are only TWO non-theistic causes, ambiogenesis (for practical purposes, a field in its infancy) and aliens. In regards to B.) evolution.

Hence, in regards to A.) we have a 50/50 shot of being right, considering there are only two options! Now, in regards to a specific atheist, can I say it is more than 50% he believes in ambiogenesis as opposed to aliens? No. However, in regards to B.) I can assuredly say it is more than 50% likely the atheist does believe in evolution to explain how life today came from primitive lifeforms. Why? Because it is the ONLY non-theistic idea in existence right now!

You really are not getting anywhere with this non-parallel examples.