A Conversation With A Creationist

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
[youtube]A9BfsHsVGNg&feature=g-u-u&context=G251ed9cFUAAAAAAARAA[/youtube]

Long ass video, I don't expect a lot of people to watch it all the way through, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

Here's a little window into a few of our lives. This is how these things go 99% of the time. I'll leave you to make your own conclusions. This is why it gets difficult sometimes to keep composed and explain our side of things, it get's left on deaf ears, people like this simply don't want to hear it. Notable atheists like Richard Dawkins and Hitchens when he was still around develop bad reputations and get labeled "militant atheists!" when they decide to themselves "these people are just fucking idiots, there is no longer any point in trying to do this with logic and reason" and come up with new, albeit with a sometimes IDGAF mentality, techniques. Watch this video, even 5 minutes, if you can still blame them after that for their current positions or way they go about things, I'd like to hear why.

So a little background about the clip, here on the left we've got Kent Hovind's little kid, Eric Hovind arguing for the creationists side, if you don't know who Kent Hovind is;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_hovind

LULZ!

...and on the right is Thunderfoot, notable youtube atheist.
 
O

orangecat

Member
I would have to say that this guy is a fucking idiot and thunderfoot is just as dumb for standing around listening to the idiot.
 
W

Wilksey

Well-Known Member
Who gives a flying fuck what ANYBODY "believes"?

I sure as hell don't.

BEHAVIOR is what concerns me, NOT "beliefs".

If a dude wants to follow whatever religion, be it Allah, Christ, Buddah, the great spirit, karma, or whatever, I gives a fuck, until their BEHAVIOR threatens me or mine.

NOBODY knows how all this shit got started. PERIOD. Not the "scientists", not the "religionists". Nobody.

Sorry to piss on your anti-creationist thread, but people who demonize other folks choice of beliefs irritate me about as much as those who demonize cannabis.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Wilksey said:
Who gives a flying fuck what ANYBODY "believes"?

I sure as hell don't.

BEHAVIOR is what concerns me, NOT "beliefs".

If a dude wants to follow whatever religion, be it Allah, Christ, Buddah, the great spirit, karma, or whatever, I gives a fuck, until their BEHAVIOR threatens me or mine.

NOBODY knows how all this shit got started. PERIOD. Not the "scientists", not the "religionists". Nobody.

Sorry to piss on your anti-creationist thread, but people who demonize other folks choice of beliefs irritate me about as much as those who demonize cannabis.
Click to expand...
Rational criticism does not count as demonization. The lack of critical thought and proper examination is what allows anti-cannabis propaganda to continue influencing policy. These same standards of reasoning and candidness that we strive for in cannabis issues are what atheists apply to theism. Can you think of any good reason why religious beliefs should not be open to doubt? Would it be okay for a physicist or a politician to play the hurt card when his theories or policies are objectively criticized? When we are presented with answers intended to replace our ignorance, is it ever okay to say they should be unquestionably accepted?

I do agree with you about behavior, too bad the creationists don't. A person can believe, preach and celebrate whatever they want so long as their behavior does not intrude. I believe all people should have these basic liberties, however there is nothing I can see that protects the practice of these liberties from skepticism and comment. Much of what creationists believe is deeply offensive to the rest of the world. When you throw in the fact that creationists are actively and aggressively trying to infiltrate science class rooms and thwart the teaching of sound scientific knowledge, skepticism is not only permitted, it is mandatory. Do you consider mis-education of your children a threat? When a belief system entails that the believer evangelize and demand absolute surrender to the idea without any allowance for dissension, isn't it a threat by default?

There is a clear link between behavior and beliefs. We believe a proposition because we trust that it accurately represents a state of reality. From a simple belief like "I tied my shoes this morning" to a complicated belief like those behind chemotherapy, this remains true. Even a superstitious belief, like fear of black cats, follows the mechanism of trusting that it states something about reality. Basic survival demands we be accurate about our reality. Beliefs become principals of action. We rightfully attempt to justify beliefs with some sort of evidence. We seek for them to cohere both logically and comparatively with each other. This is why individuals are able to construct a personal view of the world that largely agrees with others. Even something simple like knowing what I mean when I say words like 'danger', 'upwards', or 'seven' stems from this shared connection. Religious beliefs are not distinct; they are not exempt from this premise, so why should they be exempt from the constraints we apply to all other beliefs?
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
^^ Great post, Heis. Pad, I like how near the end of the video it congratulates the viewer for making it that far ;) It did get exasperating...
 
ThE sAtIvA hIgH

ThE sAtIvA hIgH

Well-Known Member
i started to watch the video but 15 mins in , i grabbed my moniter and repeatidly smashed it over my own head in frustration for 35 minuites .
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Notice that Thunderfoot is able to dynamically demonstrate his position from different angles and avenues, and the creationist can only double down on the same fallacious talking points and school yard mentality. This is something we have been seeing from creationists for decades. No amount of reasoning has ever penetrated the creationist bubble.

Just as shit always attracts flies, the truth will always be covered in lies - Ventana
 
j.GrEeN.<,{'^'},>

j.GrEeN.<,{'^'},>

Active Member
Rational criticism??!?? In this video thunderfoot attempts to spin/deflect the vary things he proposes, within the first 5 min.

Just as shit always attracts flies, the truth will always be covered in lies - Ventana

@ Heisburg:You should apply your own advice about critical thought, and proper examination, if you truly believe these threads initiated on the topic of religion are rational criticism. It seems to me that "DEMONIZATION" is a very appropriate term when describing the intent of most of them.

IMHO, it is possible to use reason and logic to&#65279; have Faith in something that you can't scientifically prove to exist. That is to say that faith is not entirely unfounded. It is created upon the corner stone of an informed decision, by placing together peices of a puzzle to form a bigger picture.

Faith

&#8194;
noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


Does anyone, have all the answers?....No, but we can have enough to make an informed decision.

YOU have FREE WILL to accept, reject or to be indifferent to whatever you choose, we all do....the consequences are of your own choice.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
LIVE AND LET LIVE.
:peace::leaf:

p.s. I am aware that for the most part, this is probably falling on deaf ears.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
j.GrEeN.< said:
Rational criticism??!?? In this video thunderfoot attempts to spin/deflect the vary things he proposes, within the first 5 min.

Just as shit always attracts flies, the truth will always be covered in lies - Ventana

@ Heisburg:You should apply your own advice about critical thought, and proper examination, if you truly believe these threads initiated on the topic of religion are rational criticism. It seems to me that "DEMONIZATION" is a very appropriate term when describing the intent of most of them.

IMHO, it is possible to use reason and logic to&#65279; have Faith in something that you can't scientifically prove to exist. That is to say that faith is not entirely unfounded. It is created upon the corner stone of an informed decision, by placing together peices of a puzzle to form a bigger picture.

Faith

&#8194;
noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


Does anyone, have all the answers?....No, but we can have enough to make an informed decision.

YOU have FREE WILL to accept, reject or to be indifferent to whatever you choose, we all do....the consequences are of your own choice.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
LIVE AND LET LIVE.
:peace::leaf:

p.s. I am aware that for the most part, this is probably falling on deaf ears.
Click to expand...
Thanks for replying, if by falling on deaf ears you mean the non-believers on this forum won't understand what you're actually saying because, I presume, you're a believer and we're not, I'd like to first reassure you that most of us were believers at one point in time, so I think we have a pretty good idea where you're coming from, we've been there. It takes work to become an atheist. It took me years.

"Rational criticism??!?? In this video thunderfoot attempts to spin/deflect the vary things he proposes, within the first 5 min."

I disagree with you on this. Hovind is asking questions that are nonsensical, just like "what does purple taste like?" or "how do you make a square triangle?", his questions, as Thunderfoot points out, are illogical, not to mention pointless. Hovind already agrees with Thunderfoot, he's just bringing up nonsensical hypotheticals to detract from the actual conversation. For example, when he asks how much knowledge Thunderfoot has. How can you quantify ones amount of knowledge? How would someone know that? How would you know how much knowledge we, collectively as a species, know? You can't. He then brings up a completely pointless hypothetical - "well say for instance you only had 1% of the total knowledge, I think that's an overstatement, but let's just say for this example, do you think it's possible that the other 99% that you don't know could contradict the 1% that you do?" - he's making assumptions, again, as TF points out, regarding the whole question. Hovind ignores this and moves on...

"IMHO, it is possible to use reason and logic to&#65279; have Faith in something that you can't scientifically prove to exist. That is to say that faith is not entirely unfounded. It is created upon the corner stone of an informed decision, by placing together peices of a puzzle to form a bigger picture."

But you're discounting all the variables that could render a belief formed on the basis of a personal experience useless. Personal experiences are the driving force that unfortunately create unsound beliefs. We have a total of 5 senses, every single one of them has been proven to be easily fooled, even if you are completely aware of the mechanism that fools it. Our senses can be dishonest pricks telling us what we want to hear, not what's actually the truth. That's why science is so useful, specifically the power of prediction. We don't need to depend on our senses, we've found a way to make the bastards take a lie detector test, so they can't lie! I think this is what makes it so hard for some people to just ingest and accept, if you're being honest with yourself, it somewhat forces you to accept reality, the good, but also the bad. You choose truth over comfort, and once you do, there's no going back. It's standing on the top of a cliff, right before you leap. It's putting the barrel of the gun in your mouth moments before you pull the trigger. It's tying the noose around your neck and kicking out the chair beneath you. But... the destination is indescribable. It's how I think someone, a believer, might feel when they first really truly accept and believe in the idea of their own personal Heaven. It's like the first time you discovered the true benefits of weed! It's.. life changing. :-P

"YOU have FREE WILL to accept, reject or to be indifferent to whatever you choose, we all do....the consequences are of your own choice."

I'm not sure I agree with this either. Check this lecture by Sam Harris out, it talks about free will, and Harris' argument against it. Worth watching;

https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/516693-sam-harris-free-will.html

:peace: & <3 from a deviant non-believer.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
j.GrEeN.< said:
Rational criticism??!?? In this video thunderfoot attempts to spin/deflect the vary things he proposes, within the first 5 min.
Click to expand...
Thunderfoots argument may be in need of some polishing, he has a sort of hippie-esque rambling cadence that makes listening to him more tedious that it has to be. However I was speaking of your apparent contradiction to rational thought as applied to religion while supporting it with drug prohibition. You weren't seeming to direct your comments at the video, but at the very notion of caring what someone else believes. Just as with cannabis prohibition and stem cell research, what people believe can have an impact. It's appropriate to care.
@ Heisburg:You should apply your own advice about critical thought, and proper examination, if you truly believe these threads initiated on the topic of religion are rational criticism. It seems to me that "DEMONIZATION" is a very appropriate term when describing the intent of most of them.
Click to expand...
I have participated extensively in these very threads for several years now. I have paid close attention to what people say and if I see religion being unfairly or illogically criticized, I am quick to point it out. There has been very few occasions relatively, and the bulk of the criticism is justified. There are a few bad apples, but it would be stretch to classify most of these threads as demonizing. Many may point out the demons inherit to religions ideology, but that is simply peer review, and it's demonstrably justified.


IMHO, it is possible to use reason and logic to&#65279; have Faith in something that you can't scientifically prove to exist. That is to say that faith is not entirely unfounded. It is created upon the corner stone of an informed decision, by placing together peices of a puzzle to form a bigger picture.
Click to expand...
As you yourself point out, faith has different meanings depending on the context. The faith we have in evolutionary theory is much different and in many ways opposite the faith religion demands. Conflating different meanings of faith to suit the argument is an error. Logic is elementary to the scientific method, so to use logic to gain faith in something that is unscientific is impossible. I am willing to accept a logical argument for God, but I have never heard one, and religion certainly doesn't provide any. The problem of infinite regress seems to be a huge hurtle any logical argument would have to overcome, and is one intelligent design has made no attempt to solve. Logic demands that we account for our assumptions and identify ignorance, creationism demands that we make as many assumptions necessary no matter how wild and embraces ignorance. The evidence for evolution is extraordinary, the theory has impressive explanatory and predictability powers. Not only is the evidence of creationism non-existent, the logical arguments are some of the most backwards and fallacious ever propagated.

I believe I have read and understood your latest comments correctly. Please do not mistake my refuting them as dismissal, or as falling on deaf ears. I assure you that I am interested in what you have to say, even if I seem to react bluntly.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
j.GrEeN.< said:
Rational criticism??!?? In this video thunderfoot attempts to spin/deflect the vary things he proposes, within the first 5 min.

Just as shit always attracts flies, the truth will always be covered in lies - Ventana

@ Heisburg:You should apply your own advice about critical thought, and proper examination, if you truly believe these threads initiated on the topic of religion are rational criticism. It seems to me that "DEMONIZATION" is a very appropriate term when describing the intent of most of them.

IMHO, it is possible to use reason and logic to&#65279; have Faith in something that you can't scientifically prove to exist. That is to say that faith is not entirely unfounded. It is created upon the corner stone of an informed decision, by placing together peices of a puzzle to form a bigger picture.

Faith

&#8194;
noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


Does anyone, have all the answers?....No, but we can have enough to make an informed decision.

YOU have FREE WILL to accept, reject or to be indifferent to whatever you choose, we all do....the consequences are of your own choice.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
LIVE AND LET LIVE.
:peace::leaf:

p.s. I am aware that for the most part, this is probably falling on deaf ears.
Click to expand...
Thunderfoot does bring up some good points, like malformed questions: What is the color of anger? What does happiness sound like? Just because one puts words together with a question mark at the the end of them doesn't mean it a legitimate question. You're right about the tone of some of these anti-religious threads, some seem more antagonistic rather than seeking rational discourse. But in almost all of them the specific criticisms of religion are warranted.

Whatever it takes to inspire faith, I don't feel logic and reason at the top of the list. When we speak of faith in a religious context, it is belief without evidence. If one had actual evidence, what role would faith play? You state that faith is created upon the corner stone of an informed decision, by placing together pieces of a puzzle to form a bigger picture. This sounds more like science than faith. Which 'informed decision' is faith based upon? I'd really like to know as I've never seen any religious dogma stand up to reason and logic. Of course we don't have all the answers, but the responsible way of making an informed decision is to view all the available empirical data and to go wherever it may lead, not by following our biased feelings and wishes.

As for the Golden Rule, I think most critical thinkers here are adhering to it by starting these threads. If they are incorrect in their reasoning or inconsistent with their logic and people point it out, most are grateful (I know I am) and make the necessary corrections in their erroneous thinking. The goal should not be to defend ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny and skepticism, even the ideas that bring us comfort or meaning, but to eliminate them to acquire a better model of reality...

Edit: by the time I posted this, both Heis and Pad already beat me to it ;)
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
tyler.durden said:
Thunderfoot does bring up some good points, like malformed questions: What is the color of anger? What does happiness sound like? Just because one puts words together with a question mark at the the end of them doesn't mean it a legitimate question. You're right about the tone of some of these anti-religious threads, some seem more antagonistic rather than seeking rational discourse. But in almost all of them the specific criticisms of religion are warranted.

Whatever it takes to inspire faith, I don't feel logic and reason at the top of the list. When we speak of faith in a religious context, it is belief without evidence. If one had actual evidence, what role would faith play? You state that faith is created upon the corner stone of an informed decision, by placing together pieces of a puzzle to form a bigger picture. This sounds more like science than faith. Which 'informed decision' is faith based upon? I'd really like to know as I've never seen any religious dogma stand up to reason and logic. Of course we don't have all the answers, but the responsible way of making an informed decision is to view all the available empirical data and to go wherever it may lead, not by following our biased feelings and wishes.

As for the Golden Rule, I think most critical thinkers here are adhering to it by starting these threads. If they are incorrect in their reasoning or inconsistent with their logic and people point it out, most are grateful (I know I am) and make the necessary corrections in their erroneous thinking. The goal should not be to defend ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny and skepticism, even the ideas that bring us comfort or meaning, but to eliminate them to acquire a better model of reality...
Click to expand...
ahahaha! What the fuck are all 3 of us doing home on a Friday night!?

Our curse... haha
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Tyler is a family man. Al Bundy is expected to be home on Friday night.

You and I don't have an excuse, unless you count dead island on ps3. I had a whole bunch of sex earlier tonight but I don't think anyone but the Kleenex company counts that.
 
delvite

delvite

Well-Known Member
that was err entertaining lol, 1 word for that guy - circle :) where as we are straight lines :) nice post m8y ;)
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
Tyler is a family man. Al Bundy is expected to be home on Friday night.

You and I don't have an excuse, unless you count dead island on ps3. I had a whole bunch of sex earlier tonight but I don't think anyone but the Kleenex company counts that.
Click to expand...
LOL! Yep, I've got my 10 year old boy on the weekends. It keeps me out of trouble. I know this because on the rare occasions I have a free weekend, I can still get into trouble ;)
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
tyler.durden said:
LOL! Yep, I've got my 10 year old boy on the weekends. It keeps me out of trouble. I know this because on the rare occasions I have a free weekend, I can still get into trouble ;)
Click to expand...
Ahh, so your Al Bundy years haven't began quite yet.

So is your boy a man of faith? He voting Santorum?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top