do creationists know they are losing or not

I hate it when people use the arguement that we don't know anything. You know what? I think we've known quite a bit, for a long time. I'm amazed that people figured out how to sail as long ago as they did. That they figured out how to break horses when they did. They figured out agriculture. They built the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China.

Meanwhile, some of the great minds of the time were suppressed. Galileo, for instance. And they were suppressed by-yep, religion. The learning was suppressed.

We are told that people that the world was flat until Columbus made his voyage, yet this isn't true. Most people had known for a long time that the world was round. People hypothesized long ago that the earth went around the sun, not vice-versa. Yet it was religion that stuck to these old ideas.

People do know a lot. And we'll continue to know more.

And as for that blue dot picture, putting things in perspective? Yeah, we BUILT the machine and the camera, got it to that point, and then had it take and send us the picture. THAT's impressive. And things are only going to get more impressive as we push forward and continue to learn.
 
wowbagger is right, Evolution has brought changes to creationism. Creationists used to believe that dinos did not exist, fossils were their to test their faith. After overwhelming evidence now they accepted dinos exist but they lived with humans.

It's progress, progress in the same way saying Chris Brown has progressed in his anger management because he is getting into fights with MEN instead of beating up girls.

As for faith and fertility rates, How many of let's say the Duggars will keep the faith. Penn Jillette said it on the big think, reason why we are seeing these subsects of American shrinking because you cannot keep our kids sequestered from society. TV, chipped away at them, Elvis chipped away at them, Malls chipped away at them, but the internet will take them down.

Some kid in some religious family can get on his phone and find this website or a youtube video of Dawkins or Hitchens and see that the faith his parents are pushing on him is total BS. Who do you think we have churches with youth camps that tell the kids that all the things that normal kids enjoy like xbox and etc are SATAN. It is to scare them into being lifelong cash paying customers.

This desperation is not the behavior of a side that is winning. If they were winning, the church leaders would be giving off confidence vibes nor one of fear.
 
Sure I agree we are much better off than 1640 for example. Regarding religion wrecking the world, I think Hindus still have the largest membership numbers and that's never affected me, so I can't see how religion affects unsubscribers. We are affected by where we originated, where we place ourselves and how we interact with happenstance in my opinion
 
Being an American is hugely why I'm not impacted by religion unless I allow it. Of course it influences policies I'm referring to it placing us in the dark ages. Can't say the same for other places, its nice being able to opine with no fear of decapitation
 
Last edited:
el zone said:
...so I can't see how religion affects unsubscribers....
Click to expand...

Say that the next time a political party want to stamp out "false beliefs" and affirm Christianity as the only allowable way of life.

Thankfully, the SGP (state reformed (protestant) party) is just a tiny party, but at some point, it almost seemed like they were going to work together with a larger party to restrict abortions. Again, thankfully it didn't proceed any further than talks, but it could have, and then "unsubscribers" would have been limited in their rights because of religion.

And this is in the Netherlands, not the USA.
 
el zone said:
Sure I agree we are much better off than 1640 for example. Regarding religion wrecking the world, I think Hindus still have the largest membership numbers and that's never affected me, so I can't see how religion affects unsubscribers. We are affected by where we originated, where we place ourselves and how we interact with happenstance in my opinion
Click to expand...
Look at the way women and gays in the middle east are treated, and it's because of the Muslim religion.

Look at how much our research has been held back because of religion in this country. Remember the stem cell debate? That's impeding progress. Believe whatever you want, but don't use those beliefs to hinder mankind. And yet that's what I see, over and over again.

And as for Hindus? I'm not sure how common the knowlege is, but Gandhi only slept with his own wife like 4 times, and always had two underage girls sleep naked with him in his bed. Using religious power much?
 
Mark6 said:
Except this was always true -- fundamentalists always had more children than religious moderates, and religious moderates more than atheists. And there was time when atheists did not exist. So by your logic, atheists cannot exist. Yet in reality their numbers have been steadily increasing. So something must be wrong with your logic.

The answer to conundrum: "Atheists have fewer children than fundamentalists, and hardly any fundamentalist ever gives up God, so how come the number of atheists in the world has been steadily increasing?" is this: Fundamentalists very rarely give up God entirely, but it is quite common for children of fundamentalist parents to be less rabid about their religion -- and for their children to become agnostic or atheist. So there is in fact a steady conversion from fundamentalism to atheism -- it just takes several generations.

The Amish are not overruning Pennsylvania for the same reason
Click to expand...

Although I agree that the children of fundamentalists are often less rabid than their parents, your scenario doesn't take into account modern birth control methods or the welfare state. Although I didn't mention birth control before, it is very important for my predictions.

Intelligent, educated women(and men) are far more likely to use birth control than their reckless, uneducated counterparts. This wasn't available for over 99% of human history. With brainy, educated women(more likely to be secular) reducing their family size through birth control, and uneducated, and/or religious women not using birth control so they end up with comparatively large families, generation after generation after generation, we may begin to see a difference. Israel makes for an interesting case study, with some secularists already panicking over the growth of the Orthodox.

Also, modern medicine in the first world has greatly reduced infant mortality. Those who want large families can usually expect all their children to survive to adulthood. Unfortunately, those who do not want many children but are too unintelligent or reckless to use birth control can also have large families. The decline of the taboo against pre-marital sex also plays a part in this.

Even if the differential reproductive advantage in favor of the religious and less intelligent is slight, they will come to dominate in the future at current rates.
 
Americans religious or not married 12 yr olds just a hundred and fifty years ago accepted by society but that's jacked up about Ghandi I didn't know that. I should not minimize religious atrocities we are spoiled rotten. Free thinking has a chance to rise up and fight it. things were worse long ago and we emerged from that...
 
Zelenius said:
Although I agree that the children of fundamentalists are often less rabid than their parents, your scenario doesn't take into account modern birth control methods or the welfare state. Although I didn't mention birth control before, it is very important for my predictions.

Intelligent, educated women(and men) are far more likely to use birth control than their reckless, uneducated counterparts. This wasn't available for over 99% of human history. With brainy, educated women(more likely to be secular) reducing their family size through birth control, and uneducated, and/or religious women not using birth control so they end up with comparatively large families, generation after generation after generation, we may begin to see a difference. Israel makes for an interesting case study, with some secularists already panicking over the growth of the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
That's only possible because Orthodox Jews in Israel receive a stipend from the government and do not have to work. In every other modern society, including US, this kind of behavior leads to poverty, and children can see the effects of it.

And if they don't, they end up poor, uneducated and politically powerless drones.
 
Texas lol I already agreed there is policy affect but being free to relocate anywhere means if the impact is intolerable I can hit the bricks, it hasn't been
 
You live in Texas and you think you haven't been affected by religion? Man, you're one tough customer. A Rhino would be jealous of your hide.
 
No liquor/dry counties might be one that's purely religious county legislation...but not a big drinker. Being gay in the land of baptists wouldn't be too fun I can clearly see, again not my demographic I'm sure things could be different. I clearly see how it affects those around me.
 
To answer the OP, no, they don't. They tend to re-enforce their stupidity* in a number of ways, including but not limited to: only discussing the evidence with other Creationists, flat-out ignoring the evidence, having so little familiarity with the evidence that they become caricatures of themselves, and repeating ideas they learned by wrote. The issue is that there are two types of Creationism. There are the ringleaders--the Hams and Hovands--who KNOW that they're lying through their teeth, and are doing so to make money and gain prestige. Then there are the masses of Creationists, who honestly don't know what they're talking about and who never put much effort into learning. The latter simply don't CARE about the debate, much as they'd like to argue otherwise--if they DID care, they'd put the effort in to learn what evolution actually is, and any such effort would show Creationism to be a crock of bovine byproduct. The former don't care because lying (and they can't NOT know they're lying) gives them a cushy job.

el zone said:
No liquor/dry counties might be one that's purely religious county legislation...but not a big drinker. Being gay in the land of baptists wouldn't be too fun I can clearly see, again not my demographic
Click to expand...
I'd like to translate this into what it sounds like, so you can see what your statement comes off as (note that I'm not saying this is what you intended, merely what others can reasonably interpret your statement as meaning): "It doesn't impact me, therefore it's fine." The problem is the old "When they came for the Jews" issue--you appear willing to give up freedom piecemeal as long as it doesn't directly impact something you consider important, and regardless of whether others are adversely impacted and the degree to which they're impacted. Given that several states have laws against atheists holding office, and I'm an atheist, this strikes me as rather....callous.

*I don't use this term lightly--it means, when I use it, "not knowing, and actively avoiding knowing, something".
 
Anyone impacted should make their own reactions and form their own unique logic, this happens to be mine. it does no good to discuss what my proof is with you, your response will be negating and frankly you fit the mold of a lot of people I've known who read some books and think they are qualified to quantify the history of genetics and heritability across apes/man. I love how in your mind you are certain of things that happened x years before humanity as we know it.

The fact you can't be humble and live without a full explanation of science is interesting to me. You are certain about evolution because someone told you to be and that's conformable for you, no prob. You could be 100% right I truly believe, I don't have to understand it all. After my study and interpretation of heritability I choose to think we know very little, like when we were always told up until the early 2000's all earthen Dna had common subunits and was phosphorous and nitrogen based, always.

Then they find the microbes with arsenic subunit inclusions and happily restate the rules to fit the new interpretations.

What you consistently accept on first offer I'm expecting to be backtracked soon...if that possibility ends with ape/human transition in your paradigm, and all knowledge of the subject has been had, that's just fine. Its very common, your buddies in the thread are likely just as certain as well.

no apologies for it, but you lump Christians into a group even though some are very open minded. it angers you that I believe yet your views are neutral to me. No matter how my semantics come off, you are primed in your response because my statements share some key words with people/philosophies that pissed you off and will always do so. As soon as you hear Christian, your limits are set.

It is perfectly fine if I want to keep my proofs to myself, that doesn't give you leverage as a believer hater man.
 
Seriously> you never get Christians in here? Diversity schmersity. Everyone post their sex and ethnicity pronto. I got dibs on angry white males 98%.
 
Last edited:
Good debate. The heat would really turn up on me if another much more conservative Christian showed up and read I believe there can be a biological basis for being glbt, it is not an issue of morality or lifestyle, and that non Christians can be saved in the way I believe being saved works.

Not following spoonfed rules is really offensive to some. As a self described philosopher it should provide you additional fodder I won't even adhere to the common teachings of our faith and recite that for your dissection predictably.
 
I'm just trying to draw his buddies out of the woodwork. And I'm awaiting conservative Christian backup from your forum (cricket sounds, silence lol)

Athiests are primed to push back hard against believers, and vice versa, usually. I guess this time the game is fun. His writing style was not atypical, yet I only think my notions are right for me. At least know occasionally you might meet a Christian who does not claim their interpretations are totally right for everyone, they can be in awe to such a degree they can't even readily define their own faith as it unfurls, etc

I'm led to where I am by my origins, where I've been, and how I choose to interact and interpret happenstance. My apologies for second guessing the resident phd.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand evolution, but I'm smart enough to if it was real. Thus, the fact you think it's a fact means you're just having faith in something like I am, because logic is subjective. We're all winners here. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom