Thinking of becoming a creationist...

[Jet Black]

Besides all this, there's not one shred of evidence for evolution. All the evolutionists arguments have been soundly refuted by Answers in Genesis and other good creation scientists. If you're not too afraid it will change your life, you can find all you need to know at AnswersinGenesis.org. You don't even need to buy their helpful books or videos.

you forgot to add "available for purchase online or in any good retail store. Special offers may be time limited only, this advert does not affect your statutory rights"

 

[Mistermystery]

I was thinking... Hovind's got his dino adventure land, AiG's got their museum, ICR has... something, I'm sure... Plus, the hordes of books, videos, speaking engagements, etc, these guys do. Basically, creationism looks like a pretty lucrative racket.

So how does one get started with creationism? Write a book or two, set up a web site, that sort of thing? Or should I try to preach locally and build up a following here before I start getting bigger?

I really figure it can't be *that* hard (heck, look at Hovind). And with an est. audience of around 100+ million in North America alone, creationism is clearly a market that has not been fully tapped.

heck, you got my support.

 

[Mistermystery]

Your post really doesn't do much to contribute to the debate. But I thought your quote at the bottom was very, very interesting. In a nutshell, Creationism's goal is to get people closer to God and provide hope, not to win a scientific debate (though I really like the debate).

wrong, creationism provides lies for people, not hope.

If you are an atheist debating a Christian, there are two possibilities being considered--that you will die and nothing will hapen to you, or you will die and go to Hell for eternity. Let's assume you are almost certainly right, and the probability that hell being real is 1/1,000,000. The probability of an empty void is 999,999/1,000,000. The outcome (cost or benefit) of Hell and Heaven is infinite pain as you are burned alive for the rest of eternity, or experiencing the infinite pleasure of living in Heaven. Now 0.000001 times infinity = infinity (either infinitely bad in the case of Hell, or infinitely good in the case of Heaven). That's the economic payoff a Christian can expect from the first possibility, and the corresponding economic loss to the atheist. The second possibility is that when you die, nothing results. The probability of nothing happening when you die is assumed to be 0.999999. Now 0.999999 times nothing = 0. So the economic result an athiest can expect from his/her beliefs of the second outcome = zero.

1) Wow an honest true blue Pascal's wager. You do know that you are doomed to hell yourself if Islam is correct. and you bring no proof that heaven exsists. Sad thing is that you actually believe this is a correct assumption, which it's not.
2) This has nothing to do with the "evolution" debate you mentioned in your first allinea.

(In previous posts, people have said this argument is flawed because there are other possibilities. True, but if there are other possibilities, then feel free to do the math and stack Christianity against those other possibilities. The fact that other situations might exist does not change the argument vis a vis Christianity and atheism.)

yes it does. Because it's stupid. see also what arikay said.

 

[Physics_guy]

I can't believe someone still uses Pascal's Wager. TruBlue - please look it up. It is so comically wrong that no one here is going to even bother showing you why it makes no sense, but I will give you a little hint: you haven't established that it is a simple two-by-two decision matrix yet!

(In previous posts, people have said this argument is flawed because there are other possibilities. True, but if there are other possibilities, then feel free to do the math and stack Christianity against those other possibilities. The fact that other situations might exist does not change the argument vis a vis Christianity and atheism.)

Think about this again - consider the possibility of a god who doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't believe in any other god. Such a god may condemn only theists to eternal suffering, and leave atheist all alone.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with science or the Theory of Evolution. Move these ridiculously poor apologetics to the GA forum please.

 

[Brahe]

Your post really doesn't do much to contribute to the debate. But I thought your quote at the bottom was very, very interesting. In a nutshell, Creationism's goal is to get people closer to God and provide hope, not to win a scientific debate (though I really like the debate).

If you are an atheist debating a Christian, there are two possibilities being considered--that you will die and nothing will hapen to you, or you will die and go to Hell for eternity. (Pascal's Wager snipped)

Good lord. Did you somehow think that after hearing Pascal's Wager a thousand times and finding it filled with fallacies, the next time people heard it, it would magically become valid and convincing?

Secondly, just what does any of this have to do with evolution? While threads tend to drift, you've made a concerted effort to drag the thread off-topic. Just what's your purpose here?

Thirdly, you chastised the OP for "not doing much to contribute to the debate," yet here you are, spewing forth a terrible argument that's been known to be flawed for longer than any of us has lived! Even worse, you didn't try to stay on topic. You're quite the hypocrite.

Fourthly, how does using mischaracterizations, half-truths, fallacies, and outright lies help get people closer to your god? The only thing I can think of is that you believe your god is a liar. Do you really think we should we all bow down to such a Lord of Lies? Would that be moral, True Blue?

 

[Jet Black]

Your post really doesn't do much to contribute to the debate. But I thought your quote at the bottom was very, very interesting. In a nutshell, Creationism's goal is to get people closer to God and provide hope, not to win a scientific debate (though I really like the debate).

but does it work? If I repeatedly lie to you in order to get you to do something, and then you discover that I have been lying, then the whole foundation of your reason for doing that thing is a lie, and the thing itself becomes tarnished, regardless of whether it is a good thing or not. To lie in the name of God asociated God with lies, and when those lies are exposed, then people will link those lies with God and see Him as a liar. this is one of the reasons false witness is not allowed, because it damages the image of God. Take Bill Clinton for example? do people remember him for his economic policies, or the fact that he resided over some of the best economical times the US has seen (no I don't want a discussion over whether this is accurate or not), or do they remember him for saying "I did not have sexual relationships with....."

 

[madarab]

Pascal's Wager has finally eroded my evil ways and led me to bring the angry, spiteful love of Jebus into my heart. I will now go teach topless South Sea Islanders His ways so that I can escape the soccer hooligan debt collecters that PBS employs.

 

[Blessed-one]

*MOD HAT ON*

You know why I'm posting this. Please ahere to you know what, thanks.

*MOD HAT OFF*

 

[rjw]

Gidday True Blue,

You wrote:-

If you are an atheist debating a Christian, there are two possibilities being considered--that you will die and nothing will hapen to you, or you will die and go to Hell for eternity. Let's assume you are almost certainly right, and the probability that hell being real is 1/1,000,000. The probability of an empty void is 999,999/1,000,000. The outcome (cost or benefit) of Hell and Heaven is infinite pain as you are burned alive for the rest of eternity, or experiencing the infinite pleasure of living in Heaven. Now 0.000001 times infinity = infinity (either infinitely bad in the case of Hell, or infinitely good in the case of Heaven). That's the economic payoff a Christian can expect from the first possibility, and the corresponding economic loss to the atheist. The second possibility is that when you die, nothing results. The probability of nothing happening when you die is assumed to be 0.999999. Now 0.999999 times nothing = 0. So the economic result an athiest can expect from his/her beliefs of the second outcome = zero.

So rather than living my life based on notions that make sense to me, I should somehow live my life based on a notion that makes little sense, simply because the skewed mathematics turns it out that way. If I did believe in your god based on the logic of your mathematics, then how could I still believe in him anyway?

If you think your argument is sensible then consider this:-

There are two possibilities concerning a plane about to drop out of the sky and flatten your house. One is that the plane will fall out of the sky and flatten your house with you inside. The other is that the plane will not fall out of the sky and you are in your house anyway. The probability of the plane falling out of the sky onto your house while you are inside is 1/10,000,000,000. The probability of the plane not falling out of the sky despite the fact that you are in your house is 9,999,999,999/10,000,000,000. Now losing your life is infinitely terrible compared to having your life. Thus 1/10,000,000,000 times infinity = infinity i.e. it is infinitely bad you staying in your house on the remotely small chance that a plane could fall onto it. The other possibility is that nothing happens when you stay in your house. Thus 9,999,999,999/10,000,000,000 time 0 = 0. That is there is no huge loss if you stay in your house and nothing happens.

Therefore, given the infinite loss of you losing your life if a plane does fall out of the sky – why are you not evacuating your house now?

I mean, one can play this game on anything you like to show that, as another poster claimed, you really should convert from Christianity to Islam, from Islam to Christianity, from mainstream Protestantism to JW from JW to mainstream Protestantism; that you should evacuate your house now, that you should stay in your house now; that the US should nuke Iraq, that the US should not nuke Iraq …

As an atheist, I still concede that the supernatural just could exist. However this hardly gives me any reason to change my opinion on the nature of reality, than it gives you reason to run around in ever smaller circles because the logic of Pascal’s Wager can easily tell you to do one thing and its antithesis at the same time, depending on how you construct it.

Regards, Roland

 

[AirPo]

I was thinking... Hovind's got his dino adventure land, AiG's got their museum, ICR has... something, I'm sure... Plus, the hordes of books, videos, speaking engagements, etc, these guys do. Basically, creationism looks like a pretty lucrative racket.

So how does one get started with creationism? Write a book or two, set up a web site, that sort of thing? Or should I try to preach locally and build up a following here before I start getting bigger?

I really figure it can't be *that* hard (heck, look at Hovind). And with an est. audience of around 100+ million in North America alone, creationism is clearly a market that has not been fully tapped.

Charge people to tell them what they want to hear.

 

[Jet Black]

pascal's wager forgets about the God that really likes atheists, even though we don't believe in Him, and the God that tortures christians for a laugh, and the God that lets everybody in, and the God that lets nobody in, and the God who only lets tall people with green eyes in (phew) and the God who......

get my drift? false dilemma fallacy. there are an infinity of potential gods.

 

[True_Blue]

Brahe, when you post next, I would appreciate it if you defined what a lie is, and then explained exactly how I (or God??) lied. Attacking my ethics does not advance your argument and it makes you come across as very emotional.

As I said before, the presence of other religions does not obviate Pascal's Wager. Someone mentioned Islam. I'm about 1/3 of the way through the Qur'an and have yet to read a single clear prophecy, let alone a fulfilled prophecy. The Bible has about 6000 of them, and something like 4000 have been verifiably fulfilled. The Jewish state's birth in 1947 is a recent spectacular example (fulfilled Exekiel 37). If you compare Judeo/Christianity against Islam (and most any other religion) just on the basis of prophecy alone, Islam doesn't hold a candle. You have to use good common sense and reasoning to eliminate the weak philosophies and religions out there, and use Pascal's Wager to compare what's left.

Physics Guy, you say God may condemn only theists to eternal suffering, and leave atheist all alone. Again, there's no point in applying a Pascal's wager analysis to ideas that don't make sense. If God exists, and if God lets people into Heaven who hold a particular set of beliefs, it makes sense to suppose that one of those beliefs is faith and belief that God actually exists. That pretty much has to be the foundation....

Jet Black, you say, what if lets only tall people in with green eyes. Again, toss out all the ideas/religions/philosophies that don't make sense and compare what's left. If you think any of the examples you cite make sense, then more power to you.

Compared to most other religions, I don't think atheism is particularly weak. You guys are all very intelligent and informed, and you're generally doing a good job backing up what you say. Just ask yourself if atheism is really worth it.

 

[True_Blue]

Gidday True Blue,

There are two possibilities concerning a plane about to drop out of the sky and flatten your house. One is that the plane will fall out of the sky and flatten your house with you inside. The other is that the plane will not fall out of the sky and you are in your house anyway. The probability of the plane falling out of the sky onto your house while you are inside is 1/10,000,000,000. The probability of the plane not falling out of the sky despite the fact that you are in your house is 9,999,999,999/10,000,000,000. Now losing your life is infinitely terrible compared to having your life. Thus 1/10,000,000,000 times infinity = infinity i.e. it is infinitely bad you staying in your house on the remotely small chance that a plane could fall onto it. The other possibility is that nothing happens when you stay in your house. Thus 9,999,999,999/10,000,000,000 time 0 = 0. That is there is no huge loss if you stay in your house and nothing happens.

Therefore, given the infinite loss of you losing your life if a plane does fall out of the sky – why are you not evacuating your house now?

Thank you Roland, this is exactly the type of reasoned rebuttal I was hoping to receive. I'll do my best to respond.

At any given time, there's probably less than one chance in a million that a plane will destroy our house (whether we're inside it or not), yet getting killed brings my utility to zero (it is zero because dying instantly is painless, whereas existing in Hell is infinitely painful). So why do we still choose to live in houses? Because we have choices. One choice is to live in the house. Let's say that living in the house is worth $1,000,000. The other choice is to live in a cardboard box. That choice is worth $100 (I'll still have internet access). Now the probability of being killed by a crashing plane is the same in both cases. Therefore, the plane crash possibility cancels out in both cases. And given the choice between living in a house and living in a cardboard box, I'll chose the house every time. That's why most of us live in houses.

You make other points in your post, but I've attempted to address those concerns in my previous post.

Regards,
Dan

 

[Physics_guy]

Physics Guy, you say God may condemn only theists to eternal suffering, and leave atheist all alone. Again, there's no point in applying a Pascal's wager analysis to ideas that don't make sense. If God exists, and if God lets people into Heaven who hold a particular set of beliefs, it makes sense to suppose that one of those beliefs is faith and belief that God actually exists. That pretty much has to be the foundation....

Aww - going back to the simplistic two-bytwo decision matrix. Yeah it may work for you, but it shows that you haven't thought through problem well. It in no way "makes sense" that if a god exist that this being would want/require faith in him. That is a construct of certain (only some) religions - not a logical conclusion.

You have never established your "foundation" as true. Even if you can establish this "foundation" to be probable, it makes no difference to the matrix unless you can prove it absolutely 100%.

Example:
The capricious god may punish all who believe in other gods (like Yahweh) and leave those that have no opinion alone - they never offended him. If you include infinites in your decision matrix than the relative possibility of this god existing versus Yahweh is immaterial - both produce infinite values in both the positive and negative directions on the decision matrix.

That is why Pascal's Wager is not considered a logical reason to believe in the Christian God - because it is so easily shown to be a False Dicotomy Fallacy.

I am sorry if you do not considered responses like mine to be "reasonable," but that may be because you are not being "reasonable," much less logical.

 

[kingreaper]

Brahe, when you post next, I would appreciate it if you defined what a lie is, and then explained exactly how I (or God??) lied. Attacking my ethics does not advance your argument and it makes you come across as very emotional.

As I said before, the presence of other religions does not obviate Pascal's Wager. Someone mentioned Islam. I'm about 1/3 of the way through the Qur'an and have yet to read a single clear prophecy, let alone a fulfilled prophecy. The Bible has about 6000 of them, and something like 4000 have been verifiably fulfilled. The Jewish state's birth in 1947 is a recent spectacular example (fulfilled Exekiel 37). If you compare Judeo/Christianity against Islam (and most any other religion) just on the basis of prophecy alone, Islam doesn't hold a candle. You have to use good common sense and reasoning to eliminate the weak philosophies and religions out there, and use Pascal's Wager to compare what's left.

Physics Guy, you say God may condemn only theists to eternal suffering, and leave atheist all alone. Again, there's no point in applying a Pascal's wager analysis to ideas that don't make sense. If God exists, and if God lets people into Heaven who hold a particular set of beliefs, it makes sense to suppose that one of those beliefs is faith and belief that God actually exists. That pretty much has to be the foundation....

Please provide evidence for this assertion

Otherwise your argument is assuming its own conclusion, that a deity would necessarily be thbe judeo-christian god, and not the Perverse Master, the Meta Perverve Master, snorgle the pummelkin, or any other type of deity

 

[Prince Lucianus]

The second possibility is that when you die, nothing results. The probability of nothing happening when you die is assumed to be 0.999999. Now 0.999999 times nothing = 0. So the economic result an athiest can expect from his/her beliefs of the second outcome = zero.

Why is this times zero, not, let's say 1, and the positive Christian outcome times infinity?
Makes no sense to me.

Lucy

 

[The Bellman]

You have to use good common sense and reasoning to eliminate the weak philosophies and religions out there, and use Pascal's Wager to compare what's left.

Many of us have done precisely that. However, despite your claims of "4000" verifiably fulfilled predictions, Christianity invariably fails. It's prophetic record is about as good as Edgar Cayce's. Certainly, to an unbiased observer, there's nothing that makes Christianity more likely to be true than Islam, or Hinduism, or any other religion I can think of.

 

[madarab]

Pete, to get back to your original topic, the "meme-space" for creationism has been pretty well mined out. They've already picked out all of the low-hanging ideas. I think that for you to be successful at this you're going to have to have a combination of good marketing and innovative ideas. It wouldn't hurt to have some sort of degree (apparently no matter how unrelated to the topic at hand) and a continuing stream of new ideas on the subject to keep your audience always reaching for its pocketbook.

 

[True_Blue]

Aww - going back to the simplistic two-bytwo decision matrix. Yeah it may work for you, but it shows that you haven't thought through problem well. It in no way "makes sense" that if a god exist that this being would want/require faith in him. That is a construct of certain (only some) religions - not a logical conclusion.

You make a good point, Physics_guy. Here's why I believe God requires belief. God created us so that we could love Him. In order to love God, we have to be given the freedom to choose to love Him. Otherwise, it would be forced love, and that's not love at all. So God gave us minds and the capacity to reason and time to make a choice. He requires faith because if He revealed Himself to us fully and completely, He would be depriving us of our ability to choose. We're all debating Creation/Evolution because God has frozen over Mr. Ararat, something that really irritates me. But anyway, that's the logical underpinning of God's requirement of faith. He's given you and I the ability to choose to love Him.

Why have I chosen only two belief systems to compare against? Because I'm a financial analyst and I don't like building incredibily complex models. When I run portfolio optimization models, I usually only compare two stocks against each other, not the entire stock market. And I usually pick my two favorite stocks to run the comparison, not junk stocks.

It's like polls measuring the race for president. I only care about how President Bush and Senator Kerry are doing against each other. I don't care about how the libertarian candidate is doing. I may look at Ralph Nader on occasion, just like I'll consider Islam on occasion, but in the end, it's the Kerry-Bush comparison that really matters.

 

[True_Blue]

Please provide evidence for this assertion

Otherwise your argument is assuming its own conclusion, that a deity would necessarily be thbe judeo-christian god, and not the Perverse Master, the Meta Perverve Master, snorgle the pummelkin, or any other type of deity

Okay...for sanity and simplicity's sake, consider two belief systems shared by people who actually log on to Christian forums. One is Christianity, which says that Heaven and Hell exists, and the requirement for Heaven is faith. The other is atheism. If you find someone who believes in Snorgle the Pummelkin, get him online and we'll test and analyze what he believes.

My point is that a lifetime of believing in atheism has no hope of doing anything for you after you die. If God doesn't exist, you were right all along, but you're still dead... If he exists, He's gonna want to know why you didn't give Him credit for creating you. I'm a Christian and love God, but sometimes He really scares me. I don't want to be put to the question by God.