Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-09-2015, 05:29 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(07-09-2015 11:04 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  It's like a broken record.

A creationist I've recently run into spouts of a number of quote-mined Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould snippets and thereby claims they have doubts about evolution.

This nonsense has been around for years and has been exposed so many times before I'm at a loss to explain why anyone would consider trying to put this forward as reasonable - then again I'm dealing with a creationist.

One of the quotes he's used is even provided as an example of quote-mining in Wikipedia!

Why do they carry on trying to use tired arguments? I can see why they might think it would work with the naive or those world view is predicated on faith. But whenever I find a creationist quoting science or scientists, I immediately think to myself...."Here we go again....."

Cognitive dissonance? Delusion? Stupidity?

Doesn't everybody just use the same tired arguments? Are there any new clever arguments against Christianity? Is there a single criticism to made about it, that's not found in the pages of the God Delusion?

Tired arguments seems to be effective on their respective choirs.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tomasia's post
09-09-2015, 09:22 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(09-09-2015 05:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-09-2015 11:04 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  It's like a broken record.

A creationist I've recently run into spouts of a number of quote-mined Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould snippets and thereby claims they have doubts about evolution.

This nonsense has been around for years and has been exposed so many times before I'm at a loss to explain why anyone would consider trying to put this forward as reasonable - then again I'm dealing with a creationist.

One of the quotes he's used is even provided as an example of quote-mining in Wikipedia!

Why do they carry on trying to use tired arguments? I can see why they might think it would work with the naive or those world view is predicated on faith. But whenever I find a creationist quoting science or scientists, I immediately think to myself...."Here we go again....."

Cognitive dissonance? Delusion? Stupidity?

Doesn't everybody just use the same tired arguments? Are there any new clever arguments against Christianity? Is there a single criticism to made about it, that's not found in the pages of the God Delusion?

Tired arguments seems to be effective on their respective choirs.


I think questions arise against xianity from its own history of confusion and aggression within itself and beyond, and because science knowledge move humanity further away from religion.

All religion is false, so they have no real thing to base them on. The kalam was about the best they could do, but it is now too outdated to have meaning.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 09:58 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2015 10:01 PM by RadThadd.)
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(07-09-2015 11:04 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  It's like a broken record.

A creationist I've recently run into spouts of a number of quote-mined Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould snippets and thereby claims they have doubts about evolution.

This nonsense has been around for years and has been exposed so many times before I'm at a loss to explain why anyone would consider trying to put this forward as reasonable - then again I'm dealing with a creationist.

One of the quotes he's used is even provided as an example of quote-mining in Wikipedia!

Why do they carry on trying to use tired arguments? I can see why they might think it would work with the naive or those world view is predicated on faith. But whenever I find a creationist quoting science or scientists, I immediately think to myself...."Here we go again....."

Cognitive dissonance? Delusion? Stupidity?

It's delusion. All the way. They keep making the same old arguments because religion is just that: OLD. And gods an god is a think o the past. Plus, science and reality is subject to change whether we want it to or not. But creationism can receive no new information. If one's mind is set, an he or she is to believe in creation, nothing would change how one thinks things were created.



Unless of course... the lawd says so. Because of that, they just sit and wait for their leader(s) to think of something for them. Besides, nothing beats science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 10:33 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(09-09-2015 05:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Doesn't everybody just use the same tired arguments? Are there any new clever arguments against Christianity? Is there a single criticism to made about it, that's not found in the pages of the God Delusion?

Tired arguments seems to be effective on their respective choirs.

It's the opposite way round. With every new scientific discovery that casts light on our origins or helps explain our universe then the need to provide a supernatural explanation of any description becomes less and less appealing or indeed understandable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
09-09-2015, 10:36 PM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(09-09-2015 05:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Doesn't everybody just use the same tired arguments? Are there any new clever arguments against Christianity? Is there a single criticism to made about it, that's not found in the pages of the God Delusion?

Against Christianity, not really. Against theism in general, yes, since theism by its nature tends to devolve into god of the gaps fairly quickly, and the gaps are getting smaller daily.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 06:29 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2015 06:42 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(09-09-2015 10:33 PM)Silly Deity Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 05:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Doesn't everybody just use the same tired arguments? Are there any new clever arguments against Christianity? Is there a single criticism to made about it, that's not found in the pages of the God Delusion?

Tired arguments seems to be effective on their respective choirs.

It's the opposite way round. With every new scientific discovery that casts light on our origins or helps explain our universe then the need to provide a supernatural explanation of any description becomes less and less appealing or indeed understandable.

No, it isn't. The arguments against christianity and theisms, are just all the same tired cliches and slogans. There's hardly anything new under the sun here. And the popularity of any particular arguments, tends to corresponds to it's shallowness. Like the ones that give atheist a hard on: "who created god?"...."I believe in one less god than you do" .....etc......

If you think the works of the four horsemen, composed a hundred years after Nietzsche is a progression in critical reflection and arguments against Christianity you're kidding yourself.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 06:37 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(09-09-2015 10:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 05:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Doesn't everybody just use the same tired arguments? Are there any new clever arguments against Christianity? Is there a single criticism to made about it, that's not found in the pages of the God Delusion?

Against Christianity, not really. Against theism in general, yes, since theism by its nature tends to devolve into god of the gaps fairly quickly, and the gaps are getting smaller daily.

Are you suggesting some sort of progression, that the more and more we learn about the cosmos and human existence, the more and more we're inclined to believe we weren't created? The more and more we begin to recognize that we're just a cosmic fluke? Do you think the more and more we learn about the cosmos and human existence the more and more we're inclined to believe that God doesn't exist? Atheists are hardly even at that point yet, but you think over time they will be?

And as a side question, do you think the more and more we learn of the cosmos and human existence the more we become prone to nihilism, that it's all just sound and fury signifying nothing?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 06:56 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(10-09-2015 06:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 10:33 PM)Silly Deity Wrote:  It's the opposite way round. With every new scientific discovery that casts light on our origins or helps explain our universe then the need to provide a supernatural explanation of any description becomes less and less appealing or indeed understandable.

No, it isn't. The arguments against christianity and theisms, are just all the same tired cliches and slogans. There's hardly anything new under the sun here. And the popularity of any particular arguments, tends to corresponds to it's shallowness. Such the ones that give every atheist a hard on: "who created god?"...."I believe in one less god than you do" .....etc......

If you think the works of the four horsemen, composed a hundred years after Nietzsche is a progression in critical reflection and arguments against Christianity you're kidding yourself.

I don't want to be mean with you Tomasia, but if there is no new argument against Christianity, it might be because there is nothing new to critique. What do you want us to do? Demonstrate that God didn't create man 6000 years ago (we did that)? Demonstrate that the Earth isn't the center of our solar system (we did that)? Demonstrate that there is no soul (we did that)? Demonstrate that the character of Jesus Christ might be a composite creation based loosely on a preacher of the time much like king Arthur or Robin Hood (we did that)? Demonstrate that everything that Christian have built in their religion and faith was based on a predeceasing cult that targeted the same group of people (we did that)? Demonstrate that human morality doesn't need God to develop itself (we did that)? Demonstrate magic and prayer to be completely useless outside of a placebo effect and even then (we did that)? Demonstrate that faith isn't a good method to acquire demonstrable knowledge (we did that)? Demonstrate that every single religious book, including the Old and New Testament, contain falsehood that were common belief at the time that range from the world is flat, God wield lightning bolts to women are inferior to men and our race is the only pure human race (we did that)?

Seriously, is there anything central to Christianity or any other religion that isn't strongly disputed by evidence, science and historians? Is there no central element certainly, demonstrably true in your faith? If there is not a single one, why should we try to find new arguments to demonstrate that you are wrong? Why try to find new ways to debunk something that doesn't even have a leg to stand on?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like epronovost's post
10-09-2015, 07:12 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(09-09-2015 05:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-09-2015 11:04 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  It's like a broken record.

A creationist I've recently run into spouts of a number of quote-mined Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould snippets and thereby claims they have doubts about evolution.

This nonsense has been around for years and has been exposed so many times before I'm at a loss to explain why anyone would consider trying to put this forward as reasonable - then again I'm dealing with a creationist.

One of the quotes he's used is even provided as an example of quote-mining in Wikipedia!

Why do they carry on trying to use tired arguments? I can see why they might think it would work with the naive or those world view is predicated on faith. But whenever I find a creationist quoting science or scientists, I immediately think to myself...."Here we go again....."

Cognitive dissonance? Delusion? Stupidity?

Doesn't everybody just use the same tired arguments? Are there any new clever arguments against Christianity? Is there a single criticism to made about it, that's not found in the pages of the God Delusion?

Tired arguments seems to be effective on their respective choirs.

I have a totally new argument and so far no one has put a dent in it. Its called the argument from the primacy of existence and it works no matter what side you are on. That's because the truth does not conform itself to our beliefs. Our beliefs must conform to reality. That's the premise it draws its inference from.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 07:25 AM
RE: Why do Creationists keep using the same old arguments?
(10-09-2015 06:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 10:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Against Christianity, not really. Against theism in general, yes, since theism by its nature tends to devolve into god of the gaps fairly quickly, and the gaps are getting smaller daily.

Are you suggesting some sort of progression, that the more and more we learn about the cosmos and human existence, the more and more we're inclined to believe we weren't created? The more and more we begin to recognize that we're just a cosmic fluke? Do you think the more and more we learn about the cosmos and human existence the more and more we're inclined to believe that God doesn't exist? Atheists are hardly even at that point yet, but you think over time they will be?

And as a side question, do you think the more and more we learn of the cosmos and human existence the more we become prone to nihilism, that it's all just sound and fury signifying nothing?

Atheists hardly point at that? we have discussions here on that plenty and it's brought up plenty with scientific studying. It comes up plenty in podcast/discussion shows as well. New scientific achievements do amount to newer arguments because more data is out. Perhaps new prophecys coming out that show they came about unintentionally by some person and it was clear, that would be a new case of Christianity. Even a new Joseph Smith type that proclaims to have knowledge but states things in a twistedly new manner could wind up being new evidence too.

Yes I think that is more and more likely because information is being gathered routinely that harms various justifications some people use for some theistic believes. Scientifically and historically. It does lead to a some moral nihilistic purpose which isn't a bad thing. It doesn't lead to actual nihilism, because it doesn't refute the ability and desire for people to create their own meaning in a religious or existential way still. So it doesn't differ to purely nihilistic views. Though there is as much reason to view it positively that this view of existence could become more aware socially.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: