Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#251
#251
IPorange said:
If someone asks questions that they in turn refuse to answer or address relative to their own beliefs, they are being dishonest. You can't ask questions like, "How do you know, were you there?" when you are a theist (and your whole belief system is based off of faith and the accounts of others), and expect to be taken seriously.

And if you don't see that, I don't know what to say beyond that.
Click to expand...

When arguing with a theist then it is a given that they do not know the answers to most of the questions you might ask of them, as you pointed out much of their beliefs are based on faith after all.

Science is a different animal altogether because it seeks to observe and explain everything around us. There are many gaps in science that have yet to be filled in to even science's satisfaction yet it's biggest proponents consider the beliefs of others inferior even when they cannot say with certainty what someone else believes is incorrect, at this point all you can really say with any intellectual honesty is that you believe your views are correct and others wrong, the same thing theists say when you boil it all down.
 
#252
#252
KB5252 said:
When arguing with a theist then it is a given that they do not know the answers to most of the questions you might ask of them, as you pointed out much of their beliefs are based on faith after all.

Science is a different animal altogether because it seeks to observe and explain everything around us. There are many gaps in science that have yet to be filled in to even science's satisfaction yet it's biggest proponents consider the beliefs of others inferior even when they cannot say with certainty what someone else believes is incorrect, at this point all you can really say with any intellectual honesty is that you believe your views are correct and others wrong, the same thing theists say when you boil it all down.
Click to expand...

So, how do you reconcile the fossil record, specifically that of hominids and other pre-humans, with your faith?
 
#253
#253
volinbham said:
I agree with this but the original statement came off as implying the creationist belief is intellectually dishonest because it has a faith component. Referring to faith as one's underlying reason for believing something is not intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I have a biology test tomorrow, and I really need to study, so forgive my sporadic responses tonight.

I did not say that faith was the problem. I said that refusing to answer questions was. They don't say "that is faith, I don't have any further answer", they say "what about this gap - you can't fill it without God!" There is a difference in the two claims. I'm sorry if mine sounded like I meant the latter, but I assure you I didn't.

My problem is with people who enter debates with scientists, and who then refuse to put forth anything, or who ignore direct questions and go on with their gapisms and quote mining.
 
#254
#254
IPorange said:
So, how do you reconcile the fossil record, specifically that of hominids and other pre-humans, with your faith?
Click to expand...

First of all I would have to point out I am not a big fan of literal interpretations in the Bible and particularly in the Old Testament. Second I would point out that these hominids are not "human beings" and that their existence neither proves nor disproves creation. I also believe that it is very possible that sciences theory of evolution describes the process of creation, both current and that described (or attempted description) in the Bible.
 
#255
#255
KB5252 said:
First of all I would have to point out I am not a big fan of literal interpretations in the Bible and particularly in the Old Testament. Second I would point out that these hominids are not "human beings" and that their existence neither proves nor disproves creation. I also believe that it is very possible that sciences theory of evolution describes the process of creation, both current and that described (or attempted description) in the Bible.
Click to expand...

+1

:hi:

Coughs....... The Bosphorus flooding..... coughs......
 
#258
#258
volinbham said:
I'm suggesting that your definition of "arguing fairly" is based on you setting the terms of the argument. Anyone who doesn't agree to your terms is therefore not intellectually honest.
Click to expand...

Which is why he got no responses from me. This is about the 50th time he has tried to set up this debate, then belittled those unwilling to engage in the debate.

He is almost exactly what he claims those who can't understand to be. It's almost funny.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#262
#262
volinbham said:
I agree with this but the original statement came off as implying the creationist belief is intellectually dishonest because it has a faith component. Referring to faith as one's underlying reason for believing something is not intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is when it is used to make tacit claims about how the universe works. Instead of faith, it is far more intellectually honest to say "I don't know, but given what we know, this is the best explanation". That is what this all boils down to. Simply saying a creator is responsible is not valid in the least, no matter how much faith one has.

This is the same game the devout play everyday but don't want to admit it. When somebody says, "God saved me from this tsunami, etc.." they are making a tacit claim about how the universe is at work, going directly and soley on faith...without addressing what he was thinking when he slaughtered 200,000 other people.

At least from my perspective, this is what I mean when I say intellectually honest.
 
#263
#263
Just for the heck of it, a tsunami is a natural phenomenon, so how exactly did he slaughter 200,000 people?
 
#266
#266
BigPapaVol said:
Which is why he got no responses from me. This is about the 50th time he has tried to set up this debate, then belittled those unwilling to engage in the debate.

He is almost exactly what he claims those who can't understand to be. It's almost funny.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Thank You
 
#269
#269
rjd970 said:
It absolutely is when it is used to make tacit claims about how the universe works. Instead of faith, it is far more intellectually honest to say "I don't know, but given what we know, this is the best explanation". That is what this all boils down to. Simply saying a creator is responsible is not valid in the least, no matter how much faith one has.

If you claim that a creator is not responsible then is that not also intellectual dishonesty according to these rules?

This term has an inherent bias towards the scientific method as the source of what is truth.

This is the same game the devout play everyday but don't want to admit it. When somebody says, "God saved me from this tsunami, etc.." they are making a tacit claim about how the universe is at work, going directly and soley on faith...without addressing what he was thinking when he slaughtered 200,000 other people.

At least from my perspective, this is what I mean when I say intellectually honest.
Click to expand...

If your definition of intellectual honesty requires someone to abandon their mindset and adopt yours then for them to do so would be intellectually DIShonest.
 
Last edited:
#270
#270
rjd970 said:
It absolutely is when it is used to make tacit claims about how the universe works. Instead of faith, it is far more intellectually honest to say "I don't know, but given what we know, this is the best explanation". That is what this all boils down to. Simply saying a creator is responsible is not valid in the least, no matter how much faith one has.

This is the same game the devout play everyday but don't want to admit it. When somebody says, "God saved me from this tsunami, etc.." they are making a tacit claim about how the universe is at work, going directly and soley on faith...without addressing what he was thinking when he slaughtered 200,000 other people.

At least from my perspective, this is what I mean when I say intellectually honest.
Click to expand...

You need to state it correct. As for myself, its not how the universe "works", its how it came to be.

Why is saying a creator not valid? Is it because it doesn't fit into your parameters?

Its funny that when a disater does happen that God is blamed by those that do not think He exists. Kind of like having your cake and eating it too.
 
#271
#271
volinbham said:
If you claim that a creator is not responsible then is that not also intellectual dishonesty according to these rules?

No. Primarily because I don't make that claim. And neither does science for that matter. I'm still not sure why this is so hard for some to understand. Go back and read what I said, "I don't know, but this is what the evidence says". All I am saying is given what we presently know a creator isn't the most likely explanation. From my very first post on this site I have always maintained that this is all about REASONS for belief, not the actual belief itself. This should be especially true given the impact religion has on peoples lives. Religion is the one saying there is in fact a creator, because our other method of knowing can't explain A, B, and C phenomenons. And I am saying that reason is intellectually dishonest, at best, no matter the method of knowing you subscribe to.

Honestly VBH, which is more more reasonable? All this talk about philosophy and other ways of knowing is a diversion. Without some sort of bound, anything and everything can be explained simply by declaring it so. And while it may make us feel better, it doesn't do a darn thing to find truth.

This term has an inherent bias towards the scientific method as the source of what is truth.

And this is where we divert, because what you are saying is a method I am saying is nothing more than a personal declaration. Use good reasons for everything religion...NT confirms OT prophecy, biblical teachings with modern day relevance, etc...but when good reasons fail to explain, simply invoke faith and declare it so...or in your case start saying there are other equally credible methods of knowing. All due respect, I think it is a cop out.
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion on this, I really do. I find it worthwhile to discuss. But I don't think we will ever see eye-to-eye on this.
 
#272
#272
BigPapaVol said:
Which is why he got no responses from me. This is about the 50th time he has tried to set up this debate, then belittled those unwilling to engage in the debate.

He is almost exactly what he claims those who can't understand to be. It's almost funny.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I apologized a few posts ago for how I spoke, and I apologize again now. My OP was just trying to be inflammatory to get the thread off the ground. After that, I was a little strong in my tone/choice of words, but I meant no disrespect - at least I meant a lot less than it seemed! :)

Now, as for you in particular, I still don't get what happened. Can we start over please? :mf_surrender:
 
#274
#274
Oldvol75 said:
You need to state it correct. As for myself, its not how the universe "works", its how it came to be.

Why is saying a creator not valid? Is it because it doesn't fit into your parameters?

Its funny that when a disater does happen that God is blamed by those that do not think He exists. Kind of like having your cake and eating it too.
Click to expand...

Like praising an all-powerful, all-creating God for everything good, but for none of the bad?

I've never heard of an atheist blaming God. Never. Because then they wouldn't be an atheist.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top