Will creationists buy/play this game?

[CormacMacArt]

Urban Ranger - Can you answer two questions for me?

1. What is G.A. Wells field of expertise?

2. Why did you ask about a "Buddhist biologist", in your "rebuttal" and not a "Hindu Physicist" (since I did not mention Buddhists)?

[Urban Ranger]

quote: Originally posted by CormacMacArt on 01-18-2000 09:12 AM Urban Ranger - Can you answer two questions for me? 1. What is G.A. Wells field of expertise? 2. Why did you ask about a "Buddhist biologist", in your "rebuttal" and not a "Hindu Physicist" (since I did not mention Buddhists)?

1. My answer is: it doesn't matter if he can show substantial amount of evidence backing up his hypothesis. G.A. Wells is one of the proponents of the "Jesus as a Myth" theory, but by no means the only one. I can quote a few other names, including Michael Martin, Dan Barker, and Dennis McKinsley.

2. Is there a difference? Since your implication is believers of any other religion would not be able to make similar assumptions, so Buddhism is as good as any.

------------------
If I can't believe in my own eyes, whose eyes can I believe? Yours?!

[Mergle]

UrbanRanger:

My girlfriend likes chocolate. I dislike chocolate. Thus we are both biased regarding chocolate.

Similarly, if you believe in God, your world view is shaped (biased) accordingly. If you believe there is no God, your world-view is shaped (biased) accordingly.

[John-SJ]

Urban Ranger:
"Your statement is also begging the question by simply assuming what needs to be proved true. Since proof of your god is required, you cannot just say that it is the case so. It is a logical fallacy.

Of course you could say, "To hell with logic."

But then you are simply stating that you have no recourse of proving your own correctness.

But why should I be surprised?"

I have never said that I could prove the existence of God, or my own correctness.

Can you *prove* the Big Bang? I thought not, but then, why should *I* be surprised!?!

"Why is rejecting the Judeo-Christianity god a bias? Does it mean it is not a bias to accept this god? If so why? If it is also a bias to accept this god, how could both rejecting or accepting this being be biases?"

Either you are just playing with words or you don't know what "bias" is. So, here's a definition from the "Hypertext Webster":

Bias: A leaning of the mind; propensity or prepossession toward an object or view, not leaving the mind indifferent; bent; inclination.

When you actually know what the word means, your question just sort of answers itself, doesn't it?

John-SJ

[Lock]

COME ON!
Lots of you, as is classic with this argument, are arguing a counterpoint to a point that no one here has made.

You are making gross blanket statements that you believe shows your undeniable logic. This is so foolish. Every person has their own version of the truth, which they believe is undeniable. I myself am somewhere in between but that is irrelavent.


I.E. "All atheists are immoral lazy scumbags who think they can solve the mysteries of the universe with a 30-second thought."
"All creationist/religous people are old ignorant hypocritical fools who believe in the ideals of a child and cannot think for themselves.

3. Both sides sound like idiotic "belief bigots". WE are like two factions both arguing that the world is flat.

They are simply systems of belief. This is proven by the fact that both sides believe that thier verson ot the truth is the only truth and hate being called a system of belief.

Most people accept science as fact in the modern times as they used to except religion in ancient times. How?
Somebody else tells you it is true. 99% of us have not directly observed most of the evidence that a lot of our more advance theories state.
How many of us have looked through a mountain-top telesope lately and did the advanced mathematical theorems that are supposed to prove Redshift and X-Ray divergence? How many of us have powered up our electron microscopes and viewed the inside of a water molecules?

We all have faith, most of us in modern times believe in science, so anytime someone tells us that apples cure cancer we all buy more. We have FAITH that the researchers have not doctored or over-exagerated some findings on apples because the company that funded their resarch was APPLES INC.

People forget how many theories scientists of all fields have had that turned out to be completely wrong but were considered undeniable fact at the time.

And we all know how the churches of the world enforced beliefs they later denied.

Hmm? So chill out. Be humble & wise and understand that none of us can claim to know the "answer to the universe" as it where.
[This message has been edited by Lock (edited February 03, 2000).]

[Bkeela]

"So are you saying that the cross is satanic? Many Christians seem to think that the cross is embedded with power to ward off or even combat evil." - Urban Ranger

You've been watching too many vampire movies I'd say.

Bkeela.

[Pythagoras]

The thing that ticks me off about religous people is they think they have all the answers, or that answers will be provided. How stupid is that? Some guy came by my dorm room the other day asking me if I had "questions that needed to be answered." He blabbed on about how Christ changed his life, and how he had found a truth to really cling to. I'd prefer to not take a strong stance on most things. Stay Agnostic. Never fully lock out an opposing argument, cause once you do you become a close minded religous freak. I would rather be able to argue both sides of many issues well without taking a stance.

That applies to this whole Creationism thing. We got creationist who have accepted the Bible/Jesus for there 'truth.'(hence choosing to ignore the other argument) And scientists who rely solely on observation, calculation, and experimentation. Scientists who have come to NO 100% solid conclusions on the origin of the universe/life, only have argued in favor of potential evolution/big bang theorys based on the EVIDENCE. Go to a cosmology conference people are open minded, throwing ideas back and forth.. go to a creation science conference you find a bunch of misfits bending the evidence to suit there belief structure on which they depend on. Looking for another 'excuse' to believe in creationism.
[This message has been edited by Pythagoras (edited February 06, 2000).]