Jesus Christ is Lord!

Post Reply New Topic

^ If you are here to debate religion, fine, that is what this forum is for. If you are here to preach at us, you'll get a cold reception.

What personal attacks are you talking about Lyra?

freedom against being offended -- not a human right

I'm not aware of any personal attacks against LyraLuthTinu.

^Lyrs mentioned personal attacks toward the OP in page one of the thread.

This (recent?) self-description of YEC puzzles me. It seems like nothing but unabashed relativism. ("My conclusions are true for me because they're consistent with my ultimate principles; my ultimate principles, like anyone's, are embraced through an arbitrary choice that is immune to criticism.") Yet religious literalists have often expressed deep misgivings with relativism, and argued that secularism leads to a fearsome and terrible relativism.

It seems to me a consequence of your implicit relativism that the angle from which you claim to look is not binding on anyone else; it is not the case that there is an objective, non-perspectival standard of rationality that obligates us to interpret the world the way you do. You do not have a claim to absolute truth (a concept that relativism rejects), and you certainly don't think that anyone who rejects your perspective has a claim to absolute truth. We are not in any weighty, authoritative sense required to accept YEC, and we cannot be faulted for rejecting YEC.

If this is in line with your way of thought - and if you recognize that most scientists consider the unique particulars of your scientific worldview to be certainly false, and that their doing so is perfectly consistent with their methods and evidence - then I admit it doesn't seem to me refutable (relativism is perhaps of dubious consistency, but perhaps you can adopt different standards of consistency); I do, however, doubt that it's particularly honest. I would think that a consciously embraced relativism would foster a painful sense of just how arbitrary and unfounded the relativist's values and opinions are, and diminish his/her sense of propriety in submitting his/her beliefs for others' reflective consideration. Maybe the relation is more psychological than logical, but it seems that religious literalism tends to require naïve, dogmatic certitude rather than a self-conscious relativism.

I don't mean for my post to be anything but a series of philosophical/psychological observations, by the way. Sorry if it comes across as needlessly hostile.

I checked the first page and saw no personal attacks. I've read through the entire thread and don't remember seeing anything that made me think, 'Hey, that's taking it a little too far!'

I can understand why someone would feel hurt if their belief system was ridiculed, but that doesn't count as a 'personal attack'.

Last edited by ReticentJaeger on 06 Sep 2014, 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The majority of unfounded claims tend to face scrutiny in PPR. Why should yours be any different?



Not WP's fault, nor is it WP's responsibility.



Even if this were true - which it demonstrably is not - those of us who do not share your views are under no obligation to accept them.



Appeals to emotion do not constitute a valid argument. You are not being excluded from posting, whatever your feelings might be.



It certainly doesn't point to this one.



No, but agreeing with Ken Ham probably does.



AKA the unscientific angle.



Another appeal to emotion, this time followed up with shameless playing of the victim card.



I hope your next post includes something resembling a cogent argument. This one consists entirely of logical fallacies.

Speaking of which:

I too look forward to the day when fundamentalist Christians quit trying to force their beliefs on us. I also look forward to the day when fundamentalist Christians quit trying to legislate their beliefs into law.

Last time I checked the number, 73% of Americans identify as Christian and 85% of the senate and congress identify as Christian.
Quit trying to play the persecuted minority card. Its a very transparent and a factually wrong argument.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guCku3_pK7Q[/youtube]

...sure thing.

Last edited by drh1138 on 06 Sep 2014, 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, people on WP have actually told me that science has proven GOD does not exist. How tragic that science does this to people - to make them develop false conclusions.

I even showed the wikipage for the concept of cosmological "fine-tuning" which is used by religious philosophers in debates as the strongest evidence of creationism:

Wikipedia: "Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that 'There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ?fine-tuned' for life' ....".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

However, upon reading this science evidence, people were confused, how could science have evidence for 'fine-tuning'? Science is suppose to be this religion that proves GOD does not exist. So, they insulted me, told me I was "quoting out of context" and other nonsense, when in fact I am quoting right from the top of the wiki page and quoting the prevailing scientific theory. That shows you how science closes off minds and how only science that supports "no GOD" is "good science" and any science that is evidence for GOD is "bad science".

Nope. As a teacher of literacy, I'm more concerned with what someone is saying than correcting their grammar. And in making points meself, I'll often care more about the point than me own spelling or grammer.

Let's flip it around. Religious people come here and make statements that exclude us non-religious (or ex-religious or other-religious) types. Stating that Jesus is Lord is a grand way to get the heckles up. Telling people that our bias is due to anything other than what it really stems from is making grand assumptions - and nobody likes assumptions being made about them, especially when they're totally wrong. And lastly, when religious people come here and tell us, covertly or overtly, that we will be judged, is making a judgement about us in and of itself.

You may think the same about us non-religious types, but it's pot-kettle with the truth.

If the religious here don't wish to provoke an adverse reaction, then don't make absolute statements. I defend your right to your beliefs, as much as I defend the rights of the non-religious or the other-religious. And I also defend the right for us all to have an argument, even if/when emotions come into it. We are both logical and emotional beasties.

hmmm.. reminds me of the Monty Python sketch...
- "Is this the room for an argument?"
- "No, this is abuse. Argument is down the hall."

One day the tide will turn and the flock of the slave "god" yaweh will realise who he really is and will over throw him and Satan will rule

Ave Satanas Rex!