posted
What I find ironic is that I seem to hear more people on Hatrack mocking believers for their silly beliefs (though they are often more subtle about it than KoM) than I see believers proclaiming to have access to The Truth. They may say that they *think* they have access to The Truth, usually phrased as "I believe _______", but that is *not* the same thing.
We all secretly think that ^^ inside. Else why would we hold the opinions we hold?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: What I find ironic is that I seem to hear more people on Hatrack mocking believers for their silly beliefs (though they are often more subtle about it than KoM) than I see believers proclaiming to have access to The Truth.
I think that's because to some extent an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing kind of happens here. There are so MANY different forms of Christian belief on Hatrack that y'all tend to tone down your attacks on each other in order to go after the atheists. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that's because to some extent an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing kind of happens here. There are so MANY different forms of Christian belief on Hatrack that y'all tend to tone down your attacks on each other in order to go after the atheists. [Wink]
It seems to me this "going after atheists" is usually defending after our beliefs have been attacked in some way. And, no, I don't think it is because there are so many different forms, but because we have learned that people believe different things and it is common courtesy not to belittle the beliefs of others. Some of the atheists on this forum have not learned this.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Isn't Jay getting better? I am not seeing any signs of improvement in KoM.
Here is how it looks to me: There may be a Jay for every KoM, but there are others who are not as "in your face" who express some of the same ideas that KoM expresses. I don't see that element on the believers side. For the most part, believers seem to be respectful of other's beliefs--perhaps because they know that those who live in glass houses cannot throw stones. Believers (most believers on Hatrack anyway) know that they cannot scientifically explain their beliefs. So attacking the beliefs of others opens themselves up for the same behavior in kind.
Because atheists hold few if any beliefs that cannot be scientifically explained, many don't feel the need to be respectful towards beliefs that cannot be so explained.
It makes sense. But it results in the behavior I explained above.
posted
In my experience, what happens here is that most theists are so dismissive of atheism that they don't bother to address it in their posts, chooing instead to frame their discussions exclusively within the framework of belief in god. Since there are so many theists, it's easy to have whole discussions without ever considering that there are people who don't believe in god. The idea of not believing in god is so incomprehensible to many theists that they can forget that atheists even exist.
This can, and does, result in condescention (intentional or not) toward atheists when we do submit points for consideration.
(It's even worse for agnostics, who take flack from both sides. )
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because atheists hold few if any beliefs that cannot be scientifically explained
Not true. Just about everyone, including atheists and agnostics, have some irrational beliefs. It's part of being human, editing your own beliefs can be very difficult, but this difficulty provides continuity of consciousness.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, I don't find the idea of "no God" incomprehensible. I don't think the other believers of Hatrack do either. Indeed, it is common for the rational believer to question their beliefs.
While there may be more believers than non on the face of the earth, do you think there are more believers on Hatrack than non? I wish we could do a poll. I honestly don't know. But the numbers seem pretty even to me. There may even be more non-believers (if you count agnostics).
As for framing discussions as though there is a God, that is usually because of the nature of the discussions. As atheists have said time and time again, it is *easier* to not believe in God than to believe. So there is less necessity to frame things the other way around. It is far more difficult to defend a religious viewpoint than a non-religious viewpoint. That is *why* believers get so much more flack *here* on Hatrack. Out IRL atheists are far more likely to encounter obnoxious, insensitive believers.
Out of curiosity, what sort of flack to agnostics get? It seems such a safe, reasonable position to take, I don't really understand attacking it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: there are others who are not as "in your face" who express some of the same ideas that KoM expresses. I don't see that element on the believers side
I submit, then, that you either have not been looking or, as a consequence of your bias on this issue, have difficulty noticing the phenomenon. Believe me, it's present.
The mere fact that you aren't sure whether non-theists are in the minority on Hatrack suggests to me that you haven't been paying much attention. Seriously, you don't need a poll; the Mormons alone outnumber the non-theists.
quote: Not true. Just about everyone, including atheists and agnostics, have some irrational beliefs. It's part of being human, editing your own beliefs can be very difficult, but this difficulty provides continuity of consciousness.
Actually, I strongly agree with your point here. But those irrational beliefs rarely come up for scrutiny, and the more rational atheists will not try to pass them off as rational, recognizing their own irrationality.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I submit, then, that you either have not been looking or, as a consequence of your bias on this issue, have difficulty noticing the phenomenon. Believe me, it's present.
I can believe this could happen (me not seeing it due to bias). But with the info I currently have, I honestly feel that I have been paying attention and I have not seen it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be fun for you to do a count sometime, Bev. Trust me; Christians on Hatrack are not an oppressed, meekly conscientious minority. Remember, though, that your poll's going to skew a bit left; as we saw nationwide, the Christian Right for some reason refuses to participate in self-selected polls.
quote:While there may be more believers than non on the face of the earth, do you think there are more believers on Hatrack than non?
Yes. By a *massive* margin. I bet there are more Mormons than non-believers, and if you add in all of the other Christians there's no need to even bother counting.
quote:Out of curiosity, what sort of flack to agnostics get?
"Why don't you take a stand instead of sitting on the fence?' Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so Tom edited and beat me to it. I have other things to say, too, but I was trying to be quick. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Trust me; Christians on Hatrack are not an oppressed, meekly conscientious minority.
I never used the word Christian, and never thought Christian. I include all theists in this. "Oppressed" is far stronger a word than I ever implied. All I said is that I don't see believers persecuting non-believers *at all*. (Except for trolls, but that's trolls for ya.) But I see *a little* coming from the other direction. I even explained *why* this behavior makes sense. But I don't think it is a good thing.
quote: "Why don't you take a stand instead of sitting on the fence?'
Has anyone ever even implied such a thing here? I can believe agnostics get this flack IRL. Hey, the world is chok full o' jerks.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Remember, though, that your poll's going to skew a bit left; as we saw nationwide, the Christian Right for some reason refuses to participate in self-selected polls.
Huh, I hadn't heard such a thing. I would expect believers to actually be more likely to check into such a poll on Hatrack. Atheists are more likely to just not care enough.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Oh, I don't think it's a good thing, either. But I'm pretty sure it's a pot/kettle situation, and you don't even seem aware of the blackness of the other "side's" cookware.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agnostics are wimps, but pretty harmless. I don't think I'll even bother to send them to re-education camps, come the Revolution. Just so long as it's understood who was right all along.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, I'll say it to Tom right now! Hey, Tom, why don't you take a stand instead of sitting on the fence?
But basically, I agree with what Tom just posted between when I clicked "reply" and right now:
quote:But I'm pretty sure it's a pot/kettle situation, and you don't even seem aware of the blackness of the other "side's" cookware.
This is very much my experience, and I'll add that there are way more of "you" than there are of "us."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In just the last few days being back on Hatrack I have seen several different people say that they think religion is "silly". I have not seen anyone say that not believing in God is "silly".
posted
No, "silly" isn't usually the word. I've seen Pascal's Wager hauled out a few times to demonstrate that it's stupid to not believe in a God, and I've heard several people over the years suggest that it's not possible to be a good person without faith in a higher power. I've heard one person even suggest that perhaps believing in God makes you more understanding and more supportive of opposing viewpoints, in the face of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.
But I submit that most believers consider a belief in God to be fairly important, and would not generally make light of the lack thereof by calling it "silly."
Perhaps that's your problem, Bev? That even more than openmindedness, you insist that your belief be taken seriously at all times? That's actually quite a common attitude among Mormons, to whom religious humor often feels blasphemous.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've heard several people over the years suggest that it's not possible to be a good person without faith in a higher power.
I have been accused of doing this on Hatrack and have tried my best to be careful about it since.
quote: But I submit that most believers consider a belief in God to be fairly important, and would not generally make light of the lack thereof by calling it "silly."
But do the atheists who say this understand how it effects the believer? (BTW, I see no evidence that this is in any way a "Mormon" thing. Most believers hold their beliefs sacred and don't like it when others make light of them.) How does saying it is not reasonable to not believe in God threaten an atheist, who rely so much on reason for what they do and do not believe? How are they the same thing, as you yourself point out?
The suggestion that atheists cannot be moral *is* a good example though.
quote:In just the last few days being back on Hatrack I have seen several different people say that they think religion is "silly". I have not seen anyone say that not believing in God is "silly".
That's part of my point. Theists don't view atheism as worthy of consideration. It is below "silly."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've seen Pascal's Wager hauled out a few times to demonstrate that it's stupid to not believe in a God,
I've only seen people say that it makes sense to believe in God, but I've never seen anybody say it's stupid to not believe in God.
quote:I've heard one person even suggest that perhaps believing in God makes you more understanding and more supportive of opposing viewpoints, in the face of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.
Whereas you just did the exact same thing, but in the opposite direction.
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Why don't you take a stand instead of sitting on the fence?' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone ever even implied such a thing here?
Not meant rudely, or as a challenge, or as a dare, or to discredit, but I know that I've said and still believe that one cannot always stand at the fork, refusing to make a decision. At some point - and I don't know exactly what that point is, I admit - but at some point, the decision of what parameters to live under has been made, whether deliberately or not. For something so important, isn't it better to choose deliberately?
"You cannot always be torn in two."
[ February 17, 2005, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, things you have said in the past have given me the impression that people who believe in God have done or said some very unkind things to you. I am sorry that that has happened. I really hope Hatrack has not added to that. I have never seen a place that tries so hard to be understanding to all viewpoints.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you have been around *far* longer than I have and I am sure you have seen a lot more examples of this than I have. But as I sit here trying to not be biased about this, I still think that there is more animosity from the a-religious towards the religious *here*.
And perhaps the fact that there are more believers in the world than non and the fact that those that do not believe in God have reached that decision through education and searching, often going against the grain, it is not surprising that there are more rude people to be found on the street that happen to also be believers. I just happen to believe that is not the case on Hatrack.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m so glad you brought up the point about Starlight. Creationists have an explanation for this. But I’m not sure evolutionists have an answer for their own light distance problem: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Russell Humphreys, Ph.D Creationist physicist has a book and video called Starlight and Time talking about the question of distant starlight. In this article he answers some criticisms: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp There are a lot of Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers on this page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp I know this doesn’t answer all questions. But just so you know, I was raised an atheist, came to study creation in great detail and have no doubt at all that creationism is true. Study it out. Pray about it. Ask questions. I know I was surprised.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, agnostics, are a varied group, like any. I don't consider myself to be sitting on any type of fence, as an agnostic. I just believe in God without believing necessarily that one has to belong to a church or subscribe to a doctrine to do so. I believe in God without believing that any one person knows what he thinks.
Often, I call myself a Lutheran Agnostic, because being raised a Lutheran, I proscribe to many of the beliefs of the Lutheran Church.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does that really count as being agnostic? You sound like you have indeed made a decision about the existance and character of God - there, but unknowable.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you expand the meaning that much, it loses meaning. Sitting on the fence with feet firmly on one side is not sitting on the fence - you've made a decision.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's a word one can adopt. I call myself agnostic chiefly because I decided that I wasn't necessarily close enough to Lutheran anymore. Because I didn't know that being Lutheran was my way of being close to God. And I found the definition of agnostic fit me a little better.
I believe there's a God, but I concede that there's really no way to know, and certainly no way to scientifically prove it. Some days I'm closer to the atheistic side of things, most days I'm further away.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I'm not going to fight over semantics. I think that the pool of people who have NOT made a decision about God - in practice if not on purpose - is vanishingly small.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, I think that is definitely true. But an agnostic is not someone who has not made a decision about God. An agnostic is someone who believes you can't *know*. They still can believe one way or the other, even if that belief changes from day to day.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also choose, and I believe that this is probably partially due to my midwestern Norwegian background, not to proselytize.
In my opinion, religion is a private thing, I guess, and whether another person is fence-sitting is none of my business unless they ask for my help. (Edit: Which is not a judgement against anyone else.)
1. 1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
posted
There are different definitions for agnostic. I've seen people that don't know if they believe in God or not as "weak agnostics", and those that believe that nobody can know as "strong agnostics".
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Semantically or linguistically speaking, those are biased word usages. :/ I dunno how much I like those particular words... Which is not to say that that reflects negatively on you, AntiCool.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Relies on old data. Inhomogenities have been found in the CMB. And moreover, their 'argument' against the inflation model is heavily no-gap science :
quote:However, the inflation scenario is far from certain. There are many different inflation models, each with its set of difficulties. Moreover, there is no consensus on which (if any) inflation model is correct. A physical mechanism that could cause the inflation is not known, though there are many speculations. There are also difficulties on how to turn off the inflation once it starts—the ‘graceful exit’ problem. Many inflation models are known to be wrong—making predictions that are not consistent with observations, such as Guth’s original model. Also, many aspects of inflation models are currently unable to be tested.
Um, yes. We are not certain yet just how inflation occurred. There was a time when we didn't know how the Sun produced heat, either, and many creationists used that as an argument for a young Earth. "We don't know how this happens - so goddidit!" Patience, young padawan. All will be revealed in time.
Well, no, as a matter of fact he doesn't. He claims to have answered a bunch of criticisms. When he gets published in a peer-reviewed journal, we can come back to this.
Ho hum. I didn't have time to go through all of that. But the bits I did look at were riddled with errors. Take this one, for example, arguing that Saturn's rings must be young :
quote:Astronomer Wing-Huan Ip, from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, looked into the conditions necessary for a moon to break up. He says the combined mass of Saturn’s rings would amount to a moon at least 100 kilometres wide (Earth’s moon is 3,473 kilometres wide). Ip says that such a moon could be shattered by a comet only two kilometres across. Yet Ip calculates that such a ring-forming collision would not happen in 30 billion years. This is about twice the age claimed for the universe by most evolutionists.
Yes, a collision is pretty unlikely. But hasn't this guy ever heard of tidal stress?
Then there's this little nugget :
quote:But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.
But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium; the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen.
Yes, yes. Note the nice 'one such method might be', showing that that cannot account for all the cooling, and conveniently forgetting to mention all the other methods of cooling. Finally, consider this lot from just before :
quote:It is a great pity that many Christians are willing to ‘re-interpret’ the infallible Word of God to fit a fallible, man-made theory like the big bang. Such ideas are ultimately devised to counter the biblical record, which is firmly against cosmic evolution over billions of years. Those who urge trying to harmonize the big bang with Scripture find it only natural to go on to other evolutionary ideas, such as a ‘primitive earth’ gradually cooling down, death, and struggle millions of years before the Fall, and so on.
Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. This is supposed to be science?
quote:I know this doesn’t answer all questions. But just so you know, I was raised an atheist, came to study creation in great detail and have no doubt at all that creationism is true. Study it out. Pray about it. Ask questions. I know I was surprised.
Uh-huh. It doesn't occur to you that praying is kind of supposing what the answer is? And I have asked questions, all my life I've asked questions, it's what I do best. And the evidence just isn't there for a 6000-year-old Earth. How do you feel about the lake Suigetsu data, where counting annual layers and carbon dating give exactly the same results out to 40000 years of age?
Incidentally, how old are you?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Seriously, for every KoM, you've got a Jay.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
