Creation or Evolution?, Which do you believe in? Options

[FoxBandCutie08]

Yes, this is similar to that other thread waccoon posted above.

Exactly what I believe.

[sadolakced acid]

faith in religion is jumping off a cliff and knowing god will save you, without knowing how or why

faith in science is jumping off a cliff and knowing that your parachute will save you, by knowing exactley how and why.

very little people have true faith in religion these days.

you have airbags on your car? you sure they'll work? why? because you prayed? or because you know they're inspected to a high tolerance?

the fact that little people have true faith in religion-- an absoloute necessity for belief in creationism, since the only documentation is one religious document, means that no one truely believes in creationism.

yes, even the people who assert that it's true and will shoot any evolutionist. they know thier shotgun will work because of faith in science, not faith in religion.

and so i will postulate: in religion, the faithful are the dead.

[*CrackedRearView*]

faith in religion is jumping off a cliff and knowing god will save you, without knowing how or why

faith in science is jumping off a cliff and knowing that your parachute will save you, by knowing exactley how and why.

very little people have true faith in religion these days.

you have airbags on your car?  you sure they'll work?    why?  because you prayed?  or because you know they're inspected to a high tolerance?

the fact that little people have true faith in religion-- an absoloute necessity for belief in creationism, since the only documentation is one religious document, means that no one truely believes in creationism.

yes, even the people who assert that it's true and will shoot any evolutionist.  they know thier shotgun will work because of faith in science, not faith in religion.

and so i will postulate:  in religion, the faithful are the dead.

Congratulations! You're a fatalist! Enjoy your miserable existence!

[NoSex]

Congratulations! You're a fatalist! Enjoy your miserable existence!

1. How does his post, at all, imply that he may be a fatalist?
2. How would this make his existence inherently miserable?
3. What relevance does this have to the debate?

Even if he were a fatalist, and this fact did make his existence miserable, in no way would that refute his argument.

[*CrackedRearView*]

1. How does his post, at all, imply that he may be a fatalist?
2. How would this make his existence inherently miserable?
3. What relevance does this have to the debate?

Even if he were a fatalist, and this fact did make his existence miserable, in no way would that refute his argument.

DISCLAIMER: Before you assume -- I'm not a Christian, rather, I'm an agnostic.

To answer your questions...

1) He denounces faith as something that kills rather than something that makes life a lot easier to live for people. That is undeniably a very fatalistic view of something (faith) that almost always carries a positive connotation. And no amount of response you bring to the table can change my mind on that fact.

2) Fatalism is inherently an "everything is going to turn out for the worst" attitude. Eeyore from Pooh Bear and Friends was a fatalist. He didn't seem very happy at all. Ever.

3) It has lots of relevance in that it shows his position on faith as one that, while it may or may not hold some truth, is utterly depressing. And who wants to be depressed all the time?

In no way am I saying that a belief in evolution is fatalist or depressing. All I'm trying to point out with my previous post is that a belief in evolution combined with an absolutist, fatalist view against faith is depressing.

That can be almost directly compared to a conservative Christian nutcase throwing around terms of eternal damnation and a fiery hell on people who believe in anything other than the Gospel. And, my friend, that isn't good.

[sadolakced acid]

rather; i am not a fatalist. i have quite an optimistic outlook about most things.


i do not denounce faith.

i am quite faithful myself- about science.

and those who have faith religiously are dead becasue, well, god isn't going to stop that train from hitting you.

[NoSex]

DISCLAIMER: Before you assume -- I'm not a Christian, rather, I'm an agnostic.

You're probably an atheist too.

1) He denounces faith as something that kills rather than something that makes life a lot easier to live for people.  That is undeniably a very fatalistic view of something (faith) that almost always carries a positive connotation.  And no amount of response you bring to the table can change my mind on that fact.

For one, I think this is in part a straw man argument of his main points. Whether or not faith makes life easier for people has nothing to do with the validity, the honesty, and the ethical questions revolving around the idea of a spiritual faith. It may also be imoportant to define faith in context.

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Whether or not faith "almost always" carries a positive connotation has nothing to do with this debate. That's an argument from popularity. A very unsophisticated logical fallacy.

Also, in no way does this represent a fatalist view. A fatalist would probably be indifferent in the matter. Let's define a fatalist too.

Main Entry: fa·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -"i-z&m
Function: noun
: a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them; also : a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine
- fa·tal·ist /-ist/ noun
- fa·tal·is·tic /"fA-t&l-'is-tik/ adjective
- fa·tal·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

I'm sorry. But I don't think our friend is a fatalist. You may want to restate your proposition.

2) Fatalism is inherently an "everything is going to turn out for the worst" attitude.  Eeyore from Pooh Bear and Friends was a fatalist.  He didn't seem very happy at all.  Ever.

Ok. Now I know we're talking about something different here.

Main Entry: fa·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -"i-z&m
Function: noun
: a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them; also : a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine
- fa·tal·ist /-ist/ noun
- fa·tal·is·tic /"fA-t&l-'is-tik/ adjective
- fa·tal·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adver

3) It has lots of relevance in that it shows his position on faith as one that, while it may or may not hold some truth, is utterly depressing.  And who wants to be depressed all the time?

I don't think that is at all what his argument is based on. He is trying to show that religious faith is based in nothing but emotionalism. While, "faith" or hope in science is justified and upheld by evidence.

People who hold spiritual faith often pride themselves on the fact that they believe things for which there is minimal or no evidence. They think it's cool to believe those things which are very hard to believe. Why? I could try to explain and pose a theory. But, I won't as it isn't exactly relevant right now.

In no way am I saying that a belief in evolution is fatalist or depressing.  All I'm trying to point out with my previous post is that a belief in evolution combined with an absolutist, fatalist view against faith is depressing.

That can be almost directly compared to a conservative Christian nutcase throwing around terms of eternal damnation and a fiery hell on people who believe in anything other than the Gospel.  And, my friend, that isn't good.

Uhhhm.

[*disco infiltrator*]

So, according to the definition of fatalist, those who believe that God has a set plan and anything that happens in their life is because of said plan are all fatalists?

Yes, so, Justin is definitely not a fatalist; rather, those who oppose his beliefs are.

[*CrackedRearView*]

For one, all of you have completely missed the point. Completely.

But I'm patient, and I deal with imposers all the time.

WHAT I WAS SAYING:

1) sadolakced acid's take on the Christian faith people hold is one that says faith = death. Be honest; his example shows how God "isn't going to stop a train from hitting you." This is 100% true, however -- he's taking a ridiculously far fetched comparison and tacking it onto this debate in any way possible. He's painting Christians as dumb because of their faith -- dumber than they really are. His logic says that the Christian faith gets in the way of human ability to reason -- essentially that all Christians believe they don't get hit by trains because they stay off the tracks but rather because the will of God would have it so. Is this truly defensible? Can you really support this position without, in turn, becoming an imposing stigmatizer?

2) Yes, Christians are, in a sense, fatalist. Yet, are they here in this forum trying (and failing) to show how their opposition is stupid and doomed for death because they believe in something else? And in the past you people have been the ones whining about the oppression of women's rights, the injuries of the Electoral College, and the hypocrisy of the Bush administration's war in Iraq?

These are the people that can't stand the Bush administration and its tendency to impose its beliefs on others? I'm really disappointed because this is the first time I've heard a group of people I really respected calling their opposition stupid and blind.

Like Sammi says, "read the forum rules before posting."

EDIT//

And the only reason I used the term fatalist is because four score and seven years ago in my high school debate career I ran a case concerning homosexuals serving in the military. One citation, from Lawrence J. Korb who is a defense expert, used the term fatalist in describing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military today. He contended that because the policy assumes that our military couldn't function without it, it is fatalist.

Evidently what I was more concerned with was your guys' imposition.

[sadolakced acid]

rather; i'm not saying christians are stupid-- i'm saying christians are not as religiously faithful as they claim.

rather; they are only partially faithful. they will believe god will save them from the storm-- but they will still want the coastguard to come save them.

they will stay inside in a thunderstorm, because they have been taught the science of lightning, and choose not to have the religious faith that god will not hit them with lightning.

the point of this argumetn isn't to say christians are stupid-- it's saying christians are not as faithful as they make themselves out to be, and thus should not have any problem disregarding the word by word explanation of the creation of the earth found in genesis.

really; does it make sense to believe that god made the deer as it is, then read scientific charts that say deers are getting bigger, and then shoot one with a gun that you know will work becuase of the scientific principle behind it?

[NoSex]

For one, all of you have completely missed the point.  Completely.

But I'm patient, and I deal with imposers all the time.

WHAT I WAS SAYING:

1) sadolakced acid's take on the Christian faith people hold is one that says faith = death.  Be honest; his example shows how God "isn't going to stop a train from hitting you."  This is 100% true, however -- he's taking a ridiculously far fetched comparison and tacking it onto this debate in any way possible.  He's painting Christians as dumb because of their faith -- dumber than they really are.  His logic says that the Christian faith gets in the way of human ability to reason -- essentially that all Christians believe they don't get hit by trains because they stay off the tracks but rather because the will of God would have it so.  Is this truly defensible?  Can you really support this position without, in turn, becoming an imposing stigmatizer?

Actually. I think you are the one that missed the point. Your comments seemed so confusing in the first place because you have either mininterpreted, or are currently misrepresenting what Mr. Acid was saying in the first place. I highly doubt he was literally saying that "faith = death."

Read the original post over again. Then refer back to our posts, as well as his new post. Then go back and read your objections.

[*mipadi*]

rather; i'm not saying christians are stupid-- i'm saying christians are not as religiously faithful as they claim.

rather; they are only partially faithful.  they will believe god will save them from the storm-- but they will still want the coastguard to come save them.

they will stay inside in a thunderstorm, because they have been taught the science of lightning, and choose not to have the religious faith that god will not hit them with lightning.

the point of this argumetn isn't to say christians are stupid-- it's saying christians are not as faithful as they make themselves out to be, and thus should not have any problem disregarding the word by word explanation of the creation of the earth found in genesis. 

really; does it make sense to believe that god made the deer as it is, then read scientific charts that say deers are getting bigger, and then shoot one with a gun that you know will work becuase of the scientific principle behind it?

And how does that violate faith? Christians rarely believe that a "hand of God" reaches down to pluck them to safety; rather, they contend that God's influence keeps them safe and sound. One can argue that God saves them by having the Coast Guard rescue them, or by having them stay inside during a thunderstorm. Take action to save oneself does not mean one has a wavering faith; rather, perhaps one is simply acting on God's influence.

[AlexusD]

both.... the bible tells the order and the science tells the facts..

[NoSex]

both.... the bible tells the order and the science tells the facts.. 

But the facts of science don't match with the order of the Bible. So, what now?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Justin (Sr.), the reason I pointed that out is because you called Justin a fatalist as if it was a seriously bad thing when you're criticizing him for criticizing Christian faith when Christians are the actual fatalists. I just didn't understand why you would do that. That makes no sense. I said nothing about Christians being stupid and blind anywhere in there, if I remember correctly.

[Spirited Away]

//Off-topic warning// Sorry-Sorry.

HI JUSTIN!!! I'm so glad you're back!!! I'm not on cB much anymore, but leave a PM and we'll keep in touch. AOL IM is impossible for me.

[sadolakced acid]

And how does that violate faith? Christians rarely believe that a "hand of God" reaches down to pluck them to safety; rather, they contend that God's influence keeps them safe and sound. One can argue that God saves them by having the Coast Guard rescue them, or by having them stay inside during a thunderstorm. Take action to save oneself does not mean one has a wavering faith; rather, perhaps one is simply acting on God's influence.

ahh, but you see, they don't have faith that the building will protect them because they prayed. they have faith the building will protect them because it's made of bricks and science tells them it will protect them.

they don't have faith that a hunk of metal in the sky will save them because they prayed. they have faith that a hunk of metal in the sky will save them because it's a helicoptor, and science tells them that it can fly.

why is it that christians, like the amish, don't trust modern technology? becuase they don't have faith in it.

similarily; a christian, if only religiously faithful and did not believe in science, would never use any technology not mentioned in the bible.

guns? god didn't mention guns in the holy book; therefore, you don't know if it will work or not.

But the facts of science don't match with the order of the Bible. So, what now?

we change science to match the bible.

[*mipadi*]

ahh, but you see, they don't have faith that the building will protect them because they prayed.  they have faith the building will protect them because it's made of bricks and science tells them it will protect them.

they don't have faith that a hunk of metal in the sky will save them because they prayed.  they have faith that a hunk of metal in the sky will save them because it's a helicoptor, and science tells them that it can fly.

Where are these assertions coming from? Many people don't even understand the science behind flight, or the science behind architectural engineering. They do expect to survive because they expect God will take care of them. They believe God will make sure the plane doesn't crash or the building doesn't collapse. Their faith that these things won't happen may or may not be due to a faith in science or a faith in God, but I don't see how you can make a sweeping generalization about all Christians.

why is it that christians, like the amish, don't trust modern technology?  becuase they don't have faith in it. 

similarily; a christian, if only religiously faithful and did not believe in science, would never use any technology not mentioned in the bible.

guns?  god didn't mention guns in the holy book; therefore, you don't know if it will work or not.
we change science to match the bible.

What justification do you have for these assertions? Who says that many Christians don't trust modern technology? Who says they don't have faith in it?

Faith in technology is not completely incompatible with faith in religion; again, one can argue that God influenced man to create certain pieces of technology, and thus expects us to use them to enhance our life, or make our lives safer. Thus, God uses such devices to make us safe.

[sadolakced acid]

rather; no one trusts a blood transfusion because of god. they trust it because of science.

really. sure, you can postulate, but when it comes down to it, no one does.

therefore; anyone willing to have faith in science should similarily accept evolution.

[*mipadi*]

rather; no one trusts a blood transfusion because of god.  they trust it because of science.

really.  sure, you can postulate, but when it comes down to it, no one does.

therefore; anyone willing to have faith in science should similarily accept evolution.

Justin, you're making assertions without any sort of evidence whatsoever, and that's why your argument is weak. You haven't showed how Christians trust blood transfusions, flight, and the lack of a building collapse because of a faith in science, not a faith in God. Most people don't even understand the science behind those things, so they're likely not placing their faith in the science, but in a belief that God, through some means or another, is keeping them safe.

Talk to most Christians—they'll say that God works in mysterious ways, that His means are not always obvious. Sure, maybe that's ridiculous, but that's what they have faith in, not some concept of science.

Sure, there are some Christians who put a lot of faith in science. Some of them might not be that faithful to their religion. Some might believe that science is but one way in which God works, and then they are putting their faith into God and religion, not science.

I don't see where you get this idea that Christians should believe in evolution because they believe in many other scientific concepts, when that may or may not be the case, and may easily be explainable and rectified with science.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Justin (Sr.), the reason I pointed that out is because you called Justin a fatalist as if it was a seriously bad thing when you're criticizing him for criticizing Christian faith when Christians are the actual fatalists. I just didn't understand why you would do that. That makes no sense. I said nothing about Christians being stupid and blind anywhere in there, if I remember correctly.

No, you didn't. And I agreed that in practice, Christians are fatalist. But I said that Justin was directing his cynical fatalism toward Christianity, essentially saying they're stupid by following something that will lead them to death.

They're not sheep, and don't really deserve to be labeled as such.

[sadolakced acid]

my arguement is no more weaker than "the bible says so".

(yea, i know, i'm rolling in the fallacies. but, come on. it makes it more interesting when there are faults in the argument to find.)

i'm making these assertations off of personal observation; i suggest you look for yourself.

i will put forth the amish as an example; they abstain from using technology, yet they are faithful christians.

IF it were belief that technology was the work of god, then all everyone else in the world would be more faithful than the amish.

certainly, this is not the case.

so it must be that it requires no religous faith to use technology.

[sadolakced acid]

my arguement is no more weaker than "the bible says so".

(yea, i know, i'm rolling in the fallacies. but, come on. it makes it more interesting when there are faults in the argument to find.)

i'm making these assertations off of personal observation; i suggest you look for yourself.

i will put forth the amish as an example; they abstain from using technology, yet they are faithful christians.

IF it were belief that technology was the work of god, then all everyone else in the world would be more faithful than the amish.

certainly, this is not the case.

so it must be that it requires no religous faith to use technology.

[*mipadi*]

So how do you jump from "It requires no religious faith to use technology" to "Anyone who uses technology is not faithful?"

[sadolakced acid]

because using technology requires faith in science, contradicting the whole "only believe in me" commandment.