Why people laugh at Creationists

[Dave Lane]

Taking a lead from Killer Clown I thought I'd create a alternative thread to post some videos I like...

[EDIT New video here]

So on with the show:

Here's the Kent Hovind Theory:



"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

[Dave Lane]

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Why? I think one can believe in creationism while not buying into Jesus, son of god stuff.

If you don't buy into Jesus, son of God then you're not Christian, by definition.

If you believe in the God of Abraham generally, then you could be Jewish or Muslim, as primary religions. There are a host of branches, twigs and splinters off that particular tree though.

Or you could be "religious" in some other sense altogether, which doesn't conform to the various sects. Nothing wrong with that.

Creationism and science aren't necessarily at odds. Whether you believe God caused the Big Bang and set up the base rules of physics, or whether science has it wrong on the Big Bang and God created the entire universe in a different way, that's perfectly fine. He's not really omnipotent*, but causing any of those things would be well within his powers.


*Scholars, even among the devoutly religious, agree God isn't truly ALL powerful. It's generally agreed, for example, that he can't destroy himself, he can't create another God that is in all respects identical to himself (Godself?), etc.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I consider atheists and believers to be two sides of the same coin.

As do I.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Thanks for the effort but that doesn't answer my question.

We can identify/measure any element in the universe, so far as discovered. We understand the building blocks to what we physically see and interact with.

If all that was gone, what would it physically be replaced with? To me it is impossible something higher than us didn't design the conditions we interact with.

You are intellectualizing your way to a religion, which I respect.

Question -- in what space and how do the being(s) that are "higher than us" (agreeing for the moment that it's difficult to quantify such things) exist?

One of the more convenient things about God is that he's insubstantial, existing everywhere and nowhere all at once. I find that too convenient to be particularly believable, but that's fine. Absent such an ability, however, such a being would need to live within the physical confines of the universe, no?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I consider atheists and believers to be two sides of the same coin.

Originally Posted by Donger

As do I.

Same here.

[Saulbadguy]

I think it's pretty obvious there are many natural forces that we can't understand or grasp. It doesn't mean they are spiritual in nature.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I consider atheists and believers to be two sides of the same coin.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Joking?

No, why so?

It's fairly straight-forward. The God of Abraham is neither provable nor disprovable in any way, shape or form. Ardent disbelief of him is really just faith of a different kind.

Now you can argue, as I'm sure you would, that the same argument could be made as to whether insubstantial, invisible SnarkGobblers exist, who require no food nor interact in any way with the physical world known to us except when they, on rare occassion, show their limited powers by sneaking into people's houses and eat one (but never both) of a pair of socks from the clean laundry basket. I get that too.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

They mock what they do not understand.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

They mock what they do not understand.

Yeah, that's a big portion of the reason to why people mock things.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Same here.

I may need to withdraw this. I guess it boils down to whether I'm truly agnostic or atheist, a position I have never really nailed down, mostly because I'm not sure how much it really matters to me, much less anyone else.

[Dave Lane]

Agnostic is a wienie word in my opinion. I think you either believe in a god or you or you don't have a belief in one. I think all Atheists will admit there is the possibility of some "god" like creature that "may" have had some influence on earth or the solar system at some point.

Rejecting the the biblical god(s) is one thing, to say there never was any god or super power being anywhere is hard to deny for any thinking being.

[Dave Lane]

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Agnostic is a wienie word in my opinion. I think you either believe in a god or you or you don't have a belief in one. I think all Atheists will admit there is the possibility of some "god" like creature that "may" have had some influence on earth or the solar system at some point.

Rejecting the the biblical god(s) is one thing, to say there never was any god or super power being anywhere is hard to deny for any thinking being.

Do you mean "hard to accept for any thinking being?" I used to have trouble with the concept of atheist, because I was under the impression that it meant "I believe there is not a god" rather than "a lack of belief in god." I think agnostic is an acceptable term, too, and quite reasonable, though I have trouble accepting the idea that "We cannot know" though little trouble with the idea "I don't know."

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by Literature

Do you mean "hard to accept for any thinking being?"

No not at all, maybe my word choice was poor and I apologize if that was the case.

I mean its hard to take the position that its impossible there ever was a "super being" of some type that may have existed somewhere. I think its unlikely that it caused the big bang or somehow "formed" earth but I have to say I don't know.

The biblical god is easily rejected, in my opinion, with any reasonable thought process applied to it.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

No not at all, maybe my word choice was poor and I apologize if that was the case.

I mean its hard to take the position that its impossible there ever was a "super being" of some type that may have existed somewhere. I think its unlikely that it caused the big bang or somehow "formed" earth but I have to say I don't know.

The biblical god is easily rejected, in my opinion, with any reasonable thought process applied to it.

I thought that is what you meant to say. I think you did say it wrong, but I might be reading it wrong.