Re: Theist on Theist

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:27:59 -0800, snex wrote:

On Feb 18, 7:14 am, er...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:51 am, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Feb 17, 6:01 pm, er...@xxxxxxxx wrote:

On Feb 16, 10:50 pm, coaster <coaster...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 16, 8:18 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 16, 7:47 pm, coaster <coaster...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 16, 4:33 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 16, 4:23 pm, er...@xxxxxxxx wrote:

On Feb 16, 2:14 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 16, 12:44 pm, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 15, 11:03 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 15, 3:46 pm, "VBM"
<v.mcalis...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"coaster" <coaster...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:6c3ae6c9-
b4d0-4f6c-9af9-2354464a5271@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It's a "Christian eats Christian" world out
there. This creationist drivel is from my
local news paper....

http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-
opinions.asp?id=BFLRNGCAA8M

Good news is we're pretty sure that this guy
and like one other in Madison are the only two
creationists in Wisconsin.

As a theist (and a Christian in particular) such
comments like that article are very distressing.
Luckily, it was in response to another Christian
who seemed more sensible, so the "representation"
is not entirely one-sided.

at least he said "from a four legged mammal to a
whale" instead of "from a grapefruit to a giraffe."

and science aside, which of his claims about the
bible are wrong, and how can you demonstrate that
they are wrong?

The standard Christian believes that anything claimed
in the Bible is factual, except those claims that are
directly refuted by our current scientific
understanding (creation, flood, etc.) or that are
immoral to their current moral standards (slavery,
genocide, etc.).

in other words, his claims about the bible are wrong
because somebody else says they are.

Because _science_ says they are. You seem to agree with
the fundamentalist claim that the only reason people
"believe" in evolution is because someone told them to.
But anyway, if you have a point to make, have you
considered starting your own thread in which you start by
making it. That would be a more valuable use of
everyon'es time than barging in off-topically on other
threads.

so when somebody says "the order of creation in genesis
contradicts the order of creation in evolution," what
scientific experiment was performed to determine that this
was wrong? one could simply *read* genesis, but then that
would fail to falsify the claim.

I too am confused at what your point is. Stop trying to
string together an argument and just come out and say what
you're thinking.

my point is that vbm, as usual, is talking out of his rear end.
he wants to assert that faith is a valid way of understanding
while at the same time denying that the faith of creationists
leads to understanding.

I don't lurk here often enough to know what VBM's argument
usually is but he clearly didn't make any such assertion in this
thread. That's what led to all this confusion. If his ussual
argument is that faith can, in some way, lead to understanding
then I'd have to agree with you. There is no way faith can lead
to understanding the world more clearly. Frankly the idea
doesn't even make sense as faith is neither a method of, nor the
result of observation. Obviously any such understanding would
come from whatever religious doctrine one has faith in otherwise
we might expect all people of faith to come to roughly the same
understanding, which clearly isn't the case.

That's because snex imagines that the job of faith is to provide
understanding, a job which he then points out that it fails to do;
I hold that that never was faith's function in the first place (and
this it is no failing that it doesn't provide truth,) but rather
that it provides a sort of morale boost. Which is off-topic to the
original post and seems to have something to do with snex's
perrenial grinding- ax.

then please tell your fellow theists to stop saying they believe in
god/jesus/whatever *because of faith.*

I see what you mean; there is some sort of failure of language going
on here. I think you (and maybe they) are improperly reifying faith.
The "because" is being used colloquially. It just means "I choose to
believe it because I like the way it makes me feel and have not been
persuaded I should do any differently."

your own bible disagrees with you. see hebrews 11.


tell them to use only reliable
methods to form their beliefs.

What purpose would that serve, as long as our beliefs only help us and
hurt no one?

your criteria is a perfect breeding ground for hate. all it requires is
the redefinition of "human being," which people are quite ready to do
when their religious or political leaders tell them to. my criteria is
that our beliefs should be formed using reliable means. how can that
possibly lead to something like genocide?

Could this be the same snex who wrote
"if you had a desire to murder, and you thought you could get away with
it, why would you not murder? what would stop you?"

and
"if you had a desire to murder, and you were reasonably confident that
you could get away with it, it seems to me that the best course of
action is to get on with the murdering." ?

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/85efc5110b953b87 and
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d7d99a587ed66290

You have made it clear that by your criteria, the decision to murder
is a calculation in two variables, whether you feel like doing it and
whether you expect to be punished. Genocide is simply murder on a large
scale. On the likely-to-lead-to-genocide scale, your criteria score
pretty low, and certainly quite a bit lower than any belief system
that says that killing people is wrong.

John

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Theist on Theist
    ... Madison are the only two creationists in Wisconsin. ... scientific understanding or that are immoral ... wants to assert that faith is a valid way of understanding while at ... methods to form their beliefs. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Theist on Theist
    ... Madison are the only two creationists in Wisconsin. ... scientific understanding or that are immoral ... wants to assert that faith is a valid way of understanding while at ... methods to form their beliefs. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Theist on Theist
    ... Madison are the only two creationists in Wisconsin. ... scientific understanding or that are immoral ... wants to assert that faith is a valid way of understanding while at ... first, and if it doesnt support the belief, to drop the belief until ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Theist on Theist
    ... he wants to assert that faith is a valid way of understanding ... while at the same time denying that the faith of creationists ... why would you not murder? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Theist on Theist
    ... Madison are the only two creationists in Wisconsin. ... scientific understanding or that are immoral ... wants to assert that faith is a valid way of understanding while at ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading