The unrefuted argument for creationism

[LaSorcia]

So since you was not there would you then think it is reasonable to believe the child's claims it did not eat the chocolate?

Oh, that's chocolate? WHEW!

 

[SkyWriting]

<Staff edit>

If so then that would provide repeatable evidence to at least me,
which I don't have. God does not bend to my will.

 

[SkyWriting]

<Staff edit>

Instantly answered prayer under emergency conditions.
But my heart wasn't involved other than the desire
to help another in need.
"Were you really praying for help for the disabled girl?"
" Yes, I really was."
"Was the prayer answered immediately and dramatically?"
"Yes it really was"
"Why doesn't God answer all your prayers?"
"That would be bad for my ego and the Chicago Bears."

 

[AV1611VET]

<Staff edit>

1. Christian songs, hymns, carols
2. Christian Bibles, books, bumper stickers
3. Christian edifices
4. Christian sayings on public buildings, universities, colleges
5. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
6. UNDER GOD inserted into our pledge of allegiance after-the-fact
   
7. time consisting of BC/AD
8. the Roman Empire and Science Empire investing a large portion of their assets to disprove Him
9. Christian holidays
10. days off work that even atheists enjoy
11. Christian organizations
12. changed lives

If those don't cut it -- try these:

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

 

[SkyWriting]

<Staff edit>

You can't measure supernatural intervention
either in thought or action. You need the
right tools when you measure anything.

You need social tools for social questions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And you feel that you are different?

I think it's safe to say that he probable indeed feels like he is, concerning that subject.
So am I.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think it's safe to say that he probable indeed feels like he is, concerning that subject. So am I.

Speaking for others is a notable symptom I've seen often.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Speaking for others is a notable symptom I've seen often.

I wasn't speaking for others. I said that it's probably a safe assumption - which is not the same thing.

I then spoke for myself and told you: YES, I most certaintly am different when it comes to that subject.


EDIT: I see that you went ahead and changed your post after I quoted it. You added the "...than humans". Which kind of changes the question.

 

[Chris B]

<Staff edit>

I can see how you get there, but I think that's something of a miss.
Given the very clear demographic distributions of religions, down to some very localised variations which can be traced to historical migrations of people (rather than the relevant ideas, on their own) religion gets a massive input and influence from human culture and, despite numerous individual exceptions, this is essentially determined either by the dominant beliefs in local society or by one's immediate family if different from the local majority.
It's not gullibility that produces this effect or a breaking of it but rather the propensity to doubt and question, and the willingness to think about breaking away from the social or family mainstream orthodoxy.
Some societies raise children such that the idea of doubt and questioning is itself difficult to conceive of. Others are somewhat more open to teaching about sceptical thought and the value of a questioning mind.

The gullible however, I suggest, will be largely locked into whatever religion or world view they were raised in.
Having taken one such on board, most often without question, this "first in" will almost always have tendencies to shut the door on any other questioning or consideration of alternate understandings and perspectives.
Shutting the stable door because the stable is now occupied.

Perhaps the people to look for are the ones who have already had to make major changes of mind at least once, due to questioning or due to forced exposure to new information and ideas

We are told that is what it took for Buddha: a new exposure to examples of sickness, crippling old age, and death, breaking through both previous (arranged, comfortable) experience and teaching.

edit for P.S.
Perhaps I had it easy in some respects, here: whether or not I had a large dose of questioning in my make-up (probably I do), I certainly grew up far from naturally in-tune with the thinking of my family or of my local society.
Turns out there were good reasons for me being an "outsider" despite my best attempts not to be.
Late discovered, but that's autism for you.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can't measure supernatural intervention
either in thought or action. You need the
right tools when you measure anything.

Then why don't we claim the same thing for evolution. I guess you would accept it then, now wouldn't you.

 

[Hoghead1]

We know that a vast evolutionary process has taken place, because we can measure the age of the universe and the earth, etc. We can accurately measure c and so we know how old many parts of the universe are.

 

[SkyWriting]

<Staff edit>

Both are a theory that help explain what we actually can see.
The "gullible" theory has not panned out as a viable theory
to explain human thought and behavior regarding religion.

 

[SkyWriting]

We know that a vast evolutionary process has taken place, because we can measure the age of the universe and the earth, etc. We can accurately measure c and so we know how old many parts of the universe are.

My great grandmother didn't know how old she was.
I think you are over confident.

 

[SkyWriting]

EDIT: I see that you went ahead and changed your post after I quoted it. You added the "...than humans". Which kind of changes the question.

I often change my posts within the first 15 minutes, but never with regard
to any responses during the process. Usually spelling errors and the like.

 

[AV1611VET]

I often change my posts within the first 15 minutes, but never with regard
to any responses during the process. Usually spelling errors and the like.

Kudos for proofreading!

 

[DogmaHunter]

I often change my posts within the first 15 minutes, but never with regard
to any responses during the process. Usually spelling errors and the like.

Except this time then, since the addition of the "than humans" really changed the question.

It also loaded it up with not-so-correct assumptions.
The post you responded to was talking about people, theists in particular, which you -through the "than humans" addition- changed into "any human" instead of just theists.

But regardless of all this, the point remains: yes, I am most definatly different from people who have blind faith in things they don't even know about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Kudos for proofreading!

Actually, to be nitpickingly correct about it, "proofreading" is something you do before hitting "post reply".

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, to be nitpickingly correct about it, "proofreading" is something you do before hitting "post reply".

Well, true ... true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Both are a theory that help explain what we actually can see.
The "gullible" theory has not panned out as a viable theory
to explain human thought and behavior regarding religion.

What we see is more than enough to confirm the BB theory.

Cosmic microwave background:

 

[Chris B]

The "gullible" theory has not panned out as a viable theory
to explain human thought and behavior regarding religion.

"Tribalism" seems a much more fertile opening concept.
Also "superstimulus": the production of exaggerated responses and reactions by exaggeratedly stimulating natural reflexes.