and you are missing my point, both creation and evolution are heresay...
therefore, one is any less valid than the other, they are just two totally different stances on the same subject that are from total opposite ends of the spectrum.
an evolutionist and a creationist both have their own reasons for beliefs... but tell me, where is the fossil record with a partial tail ?.... there isnt one, im MY PERSONAL opinion the creationist stand point is a more vaild one and it just so happens to line up with my personal belief system aswell.
just because you cant refute something doesnt mean it isnt true :)
29 comments
"therefore, one is any less valid than the other, they are just two totally different stances on the same subject that are from total opposite ends of the spectrum."
"im MY PERSONAL opinion the creationist stand point is a more vaild one"
So... neither one can be more valid than the other, but it's your opinion that one is more valid than the other?
While we're on it, if we're talking about validity, then we're saying that the conclusion follows from the premises. What are the premises and conclusions of creationism? As far as I can ascertain, they go something like as follows:
P1: God exists
P2: God created the Universe
P3: God created everything in the universe
P4: The bible is the literal word of God
C: God created the universe in the exact manner that was written down (and copied/translated repeatedly) in the bible.
Now, that might be valid, but it's also circular reasoning.
Isn't using circular reason the field of expertise of fundies anyway? Well, that and non sequitur. And appeal to authority (bible). And... hm,. now that I think of it, more logical fallacies than I care to mention. *g*
Their one field of expertise is circular logic reasoning, reasoning and non sequitor. Er, their two fields of expertise are logic reasoning and non squitur, and appeal to authority. Erm. Their *three* fields of surprise are circular reasoning, non sequitur and appeal to authority... and argument from agnorance. Our *four*... no, amongst their fields of expertise are such diverse elements as appeal to authority... non sequitur... damn, I'll come in again!
SCNR
Ever here of Pascal's Wager?
It states the following:
If there is a God -
Believer (while losing out on some earthly pleasures) receives the reward of everlasting life.
Non-believer (while having more earthly pleasures) suffers immeasurable loss.
If there is no God -
Believer loses nothing but earthly pleasures, still lives a moral and enjoyable life.
Non-believer has a more pleasurable earthly life and loses nothing.
The choice is ours. Some Christians are fanatics, some are loonies, some are just plain stupid, but not all of us. I wish it wasn't true, but it is. I also wish that some of you would try a few Churches before you dismissed the word of God. Not all Churches are good, in fact, I would venture to say that a lot are not. But there may be one for you somewhere. I hope and pray you will find the lord at some point in your life.
Re: #4376
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, thanks.
Also, Pascal's wager isn't a sound proposition. How do you know that it's either christianity OR atheism? It could be the god of judaism, or Islam, or Rastafarianism, or it could turn out that Hindu, Sikh, the Norse religions, the greeks, the egyptians, the incas, the shinto, the buddhists...
And with some of them, you'd fare no better, or perhaps worse, than I. Maybe the reason there is a god, and the reason god doesn't prove its existence is because it hates worshippers.
And furthermore, say I accept the wager, and somehow manage to believe just because I'm hoping to go to heaven. Isn't that a bit shallow and selfish, and wouldn't a omniscient and just god see right through that?
One final thought is that, while we both may have a pleasurable life, mine may be all the moreso, as I don't spend any of my time in church, praying to god, or whatnot.
Good points, and I can't logically refute much of what you said. But as it's been said by Kant, "I willingly sacrifice logical knowledge to make way for faith."
Pascal's wager does make good sense for those of us who have chosen a religion, mine being Christianity.
As far as choosing "the safe route," it is a good point you make about an omniscient God being able to see right through what you're doing. That's the beauty of it, most people who start out "God fearing," become "God loving," after they've accepted the Christian lifestyle and Jesus. Not all, to be sure, but most.
As far as your not being "bound to go to Church." That is a personal choice, I actually enjoy going to Church and having fellowship with other intelligent believers, it's not a "sacrifice" in my opinion. Now, if I am going to be true to myself (and my God) then I will definitely not enjoy the pleasures that you may allow yourself (I won't get in to what you may or may not do that I would not because I cannot pretend to know) but to me it's worth it.
Good points, and I can't logically refute much of what you said. But as it's been said by Kant, "I willingly sacrifice logical knowledge to make way for faith."
Pascal's wager does make good sense for those of us who have chosen a religion, mine being Christianity.
As far as choosing "the safe route," it is a good point you make about an omniscient God being able to see right through what you're doing. That's the beauty of it, most people who start out "God fearing," become "God loving," after they've accepted the Christian lifestyle and Jesus. Not all, to be sure, but most.
As far as your not being "bound to go to Church." That is a personal choice, I actually enjoy going to Church and having fellowship with other intelligent believers, it's not a "sacrifice" in my opinion. Now, if I am going to be true to myself (and my God) then I will definitely not enjoy the pleasures that you may allow yourself (I won't get in to what you may or may not do that I would not because I cannot pretend to know) but to me it's worth it.
I personally prefer the Atheists Wager:
If I live a good life, and don't believe in god and there is a BENEVOLENT god, he will likely look past my disbelief in his faith. If on the other hand there is a god who is not benovolent, and who is so petty to restrict a person to his faith, then he will probably not let an very many believers either, especially since there are very few people on earth who always follow every tenet of a faith. And if there is no god at all, I will have lived a finitly more enjoyable life then some one who gave of themselves to their faith.
Frankly, in my opinion, Pascal's wager is not a reason to believe in any religion. If you want to believe or do believe, go ahead and believe but don't do it just because you fear going to hell.
>>Humans. WE have a partial tale. >>Tailbone.
Not to mention that in very early human fetal development a full tail forms. It disappears a few weeks after it appears. I can't imagine any godly reason to briefly put a tail on an embryo, guess Satan must've put it there to trick us into pondering evil-lution. Damn that Satan and his human embryonic tails and dinosaur bones...
>>Humans. WE have a partial tale. >>Tailbone.
Not to mention that in very early human fetal development a full tail forms. It disappears a few weeks after it appears. I can't imagine any godly reason to briefly put a tail on an embryo, guess Satan must've put it there to trick us into pondering evil-lution. Damn that Satan and his human embryonic tails and dinosaur bones...
>>Humans. WE have a partial tale. >>Tailbone.
Not to mention that in very early human fetal development a full tail forms. It disappears a few weeks after it appears. I can't imagine any godly reason to briefly put a tail on an embryo, guess Satan must've put it there to trick us into pondering evil-lution. Damn that Satan and his human embryonic tails and dinosaur bones...
"P4: The bible is the literal word of God
C: God created the universe in the exact manner that was written down (and copied/translated repeatedly) in the bible."
This is so funny! Just these two statements, by themselves, make me laugh: "The bible is the word of god, and god created the universe according to the bible, which is the word of god, who created the universe according to the bible, etc. etc." This idiot could go on forever and ever and never, ever prove anything!
FOrwhatever it's worth I'd like to thank commentor Scott for abeinga friendly and reasonable sort. I'm new to this site myself, and have bee expecting more fundie lurking than there seems to be. Nice of you to pop in and remind me that not all Xians are bat poo crazy. Not the philosophical path for me I'm afraid. I'm going with that atheist's wager myself. But I hope it all works out for you.
ANd Aaron from Myspace....so funny I almost peed.
Personally, I support "live and let live." If someone wants to believe whatever God(s)/Goddess(es), and it makes said person feel good and it doesn't hurt or step into anybody's rights, do whatever and be merry.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.