NoMoreRicers Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 "I can accept any of the arguments about what a "day" meant, though I don't subscribe to "God evolved the world." "Yom" {YVMs) means "Day" as we universally understand it (23H 56M 4S), so I don't have any other explanation. If God is powerful enough to create the entire Universe, then he could easily have created the whole Earth and its ecosystem in no time (literally). Why He even took six days could be questioned, not that we have the right to question His motives."
Guest NateC Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 As a member of a very religious family and a Creationist as a kid, I have never seen a Christian turn from the faith based on rational arguments. Waste of time if you ask me. Sometimes I think the only reason I'm an atheist now is because I was angry at my father and didn't want to be like him.
LovePrevails Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 I don't say anything to them. I ignore creationists. I wish there were as many athiests on the internet engaging with spankers as there are engaging with creationists since creationists are immune to reason speaking to them is psychologically motivated head vs. brick wall slamming that is my judgement anyway I could be wrong
DoubtingThomas Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 As above, there is no way to use reason and evidence to make someone appreciate reason and evidence. At a certain point you simply have to point out the immense double-standard between how they evidence god and how they evidence everything else in their life, then just hope that bomb in their brain ticks off before they die.
Rick Horton Posted February 11, 2013 Posted February 11, 2013 This is a list of questions I asked a guy named Jesse, on Facebook. He wouldn't answer them. He kept distracting, and eventually I told him that if I answer his questions but he wont answer mine then he is not really having a conversation, and the debate has to end. He didn't answer the questions so I ended the debate. Here was HIS question to me: How does your philosophy provide for a moral code? By what point of reference can values be determined? Do you point to reason? I wouldn't think so, since a materialist worldview can't provide for such things. After all, under the materialst framework, we're all just dancing to our DNA. And my dance may be different than yours. According to that worldview, our conduct is governed by a series of impulses; reason plays no role in it. Is it what ever feels moral? Here was my answer: The source of morality? You mean where does it come from? Wow, that's a hard question, but the only real answer I can give you is that rationality is the tool I use to test moral theories. I do however think that humans show great capacity to ignore rationality, and that is where morals get screwed up. My answer is that my moral core comes from my yearning to live a good, honest, honorable life, with dignity, pride, good naturedness, integrity, duty, and reason. The best way for these elements of what I consider to be the most fulfilling way for me to live is by testing them for contradictions, flaws, merit, etc.... by using the scientific method of rationality. Now, here was my questions back to him, which he refused to answer over the course of days, before I just decided to end the debate: How does a belief in an unprovable God lead to better morals? Is it because you require faith over proof, or in other words, that you choose irrationality over rationality. The disregard of scientific method to the preference of a book full of universal contradictions, blood shed, rape, the threat of annihilation in some unproven, un examinable place called hell to all believers in the Jewish faith, and all people of other religions that don't recognize merely ONE of thousands of religious icons? Is it a moral man that tells other men they are going to hell because they don't believe that Jesus, ( a guy that hasn't been around for 2000 years) is Gods son, and that he somehow died by his father's will for us? Are you saying that people of the Jewish faith are all going to Hell, Jesse Craig Dyer? Are you saying that without the belief in Christianity morals didn't exist, and that they can't exist now? Are you saying that only Christians know morality? Are you saying that morals are merely taught by the Bible, and are not inherently appreciated, felt, understood, and recognized by human beings who haven't read the Bible? Are you saying that out of the thousands of religions over time, it is rational to say that Christianity, a 2000 year old religion is more accurate, scientific, reality based, and provable than say Zeus? I know you debate a lot and are into politics so I'm sure you can pacify these questions without taking them personal? I hope so. I'm REALLY not trying to mock you. I'm trying to understand whether or not you are just so irrational that it's no use having this kind of conversation with you. I don't want to bang my head against the wall over and over with Christians in general because they most times want to have it both ways. Science, and faith, They will try and use rational arguments while at the core the line is drawn in the sand with, well, you know that Jesus Christ is the savior, walked on water, rose from the dead, was born of a virgin, etc.... Those are all extremely irrational things to say. So it's frustrating trying to pretend we are in a rational debate when you're eventually going to pin all of your arguments on me by using extreme irrationality. That's not fair to me, and it doesn't get you anywhere either.
DoubtingThomas Posted February 11, 2013 Posted February 11, 2013 Precisely. If they're going to ask you where YOUR morality comes from, then they must have some rational answer themselves. By definition, as theists, they do not; therefor the question is ironic at best and much more likely just a loaded question they were fed by church affiliates. I generally operate under the assumption that the closer you get to having them consider the unreasonable position they hold, the more disgusted they become at the fact they've been decieved, and thus the more they cling to the illusion that they are not being decieved. Most theist deconversions, as mentioned above, hinge on how they feel about their religious leadership (be that a parent, minister, or peer) at a personal level rather than how reasoned their arguments are. Therefor, in the case of a well-liked pastor without a wrap sheet, you're going to have a very hard time getting anyone to admit they've been fleeced.
tasmlab Posted February 11, 2013 Posted February 11, 2013 Oh, but don't the beleivers delight when they see Jesus in the grilled cheese sandwich or the statue of Mary cries? They have no use for rational, sensual evidence until it supports their faith.
Rick Horton Posted February 11, 2013 Posted February 11, 2013 Oh, but don't the beleivers delight when they see Jesus in the grilled cheese sandwich or the statue of Mary cries? They have no use for rational, sensual evidence until it supports their faith. I'd reverse that. They have plenty of rationality until it comes to their faith.
Recommended Posts