Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Brownie points

Pages: (4) < 1 2 3 [4] >

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,18:59    Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,15:44) Also, to shed some light on my motivation for starting the thread, much to the contrary of proposed theories, I posted that story as sarcasm.  Personally, I find it pathetic that the SBC or any other organization feel so pressured that they must jump on a brain-dead bandwagon to curry favor.  Just a hint, the SBC doesn't really embrace GW, this is PR, nothing more.  If you follow SB theology, outside of the commandment to tend the Garden, baptists and most fundamentalists believe that God is directly in control and nothing mankind can do or say will change that.  The world will end at God's command and not a moment before and if God chooses to use GW or a rain of fire then incandescent light bulbs and hybrid cars aren't going to change that.  It's PR and that's why it's easier to embrace than evolution because they don't really believe it either. And *that* is quite clearly and irrefutably wrong. Psst. Skeptic. If you die, the world doesn't end. It'll be here no matter how badly we fuck it up. At least until we start playing with sufficiently large quantities of anti-matter. Earth does not require humans. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,19:12    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 16 2008,15:41) well it depends on which baptists you are talking about then i reckon that does make a difference.  these first baptist types that go to church downtown where they work ain't exactly the kinda baptists I like to pick on. I'm talking bout missionary baptists and three wheel baptists, i'm talking about churches being about 100 meters from each other going down the road because they had some sort of doctrinal split a while back and some of em ain't spoke since.  I'm talking the kinda baptist where you could still get the spirit in the middle of preachin and just holler as loud as you could right there with your hand held up high and just holler about it. That's a lot more fun to talk about than our boorish generalizations or some people's argumentum ad mere assertionismus incessantum.  Has anyone here ever went to a snake handling?  Cause they probly weren't baptists there. You talking more about Pentecostals than baptists.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,19:28    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 16 2008,16:31) Quote (Louis @ Mar. 16 2008,16:24) Wait so Skeptic thinks that IF global warming is happening and IF it's god's will that it's happening (which it pretty much has to be according to fundy "theology") then there's nowt we can do so therefore all the people trying to "save the planet" are doing is either wasting their time or sinister population control/red agenda etc? Actually, if I interpreted Skeptic's old-man grousing correctly, I think he's saying that while he thinks that global warming (and environmentalism, and probably evolution) is all a bunch a pointy-headed liberal hogwash, he may not himself ascribe to the "Jesus wants us to burn through the planet's resources as quick as possible so as to hasten the rapture" notion. I *think* he's just describing what the SB's think, not necessarily agreeing with it. Do correct me if there's evidence to the contrary. Quote Just a hint, the SBC doesn't really embrace GW, this is PR, nothing more.   We figured that out. Give us *some* credit. Exactly.  I'm just explaining what the SBs really think.  Don't shoot the messenger, lol. For final clarification, to save Louis from having to go back and look up posts, I am not an anti-evolutionist I just disagree with the proposed mechanism.  Likewise, I don't necessarily disagree with GW, in truth I'm not very interested either way, but I do oppose the hype and find it insulting at the very least.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,19:31    Quote (Reed @ Mar. 16 2008,17:13) Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,07:29) Sorry, Reed, there's so much on here to respond to at the moment your's might have just gotten lost in the shuffle.  Repeat them please and I'll try to get to them. They are still here, no need to repeat them.         Quote Also, in regards to the oft-refuted article, I find it funny that it was published again just 3 days ago. This is a standard denialist tactic. Repeat the same lies frequently to maintain the illusion that there is a real debate. Teach the non-existent controversy!     Quote 4)  Realize that you can not simultaneously hate and blame God for the state of the world and deny his existence. You have utterly failed to understand the objection, or are deliberately distorting it. Pointing out the apparent contradictions in your view doesn't require us to accept the assumptions it is based on. As an apparent believer in God, you have to deal with the whole question of whether God is a giant asshole, and how that squares with the claim that he is also good and loving. Atheism, and indeed other religions such Hinduism and the Greek and Norse mythologies do not, since these views do not depend on an all-powerful benevolent creator. No, Reed, I don't have to deal with that because I don't accept the premise.  That's your rationalization not mine.  Your intellectual conflict does not necessitate one for me. Nerull, what is wrong?

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,20:53    Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,20:31) No, Reed, I don't have to deal with that because I don't accept the premise.  That's your rationalization not mine.  Your intellectual conflict does not necessitate one for me. IOW, 'I go by the name skeptic, but I'm really just a true believer that has accepted my religious doctrines and I don't care that they are contradictory.  I either realize they are so and am not bothered by cognitive dissonance, or I don't realize it because I'm blind to the idea that I might be wrong about something.'

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,22:44    Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,17:31) No, Reed, I don't have to deal with that because I don't accept the premise.  That's your rationalization not mine.  Your intellectual conflict does not necessitate one for me. It's not my intellectual conflict. I find the existence of God to be unsupported by any evidence. Given that, it's only of minor interest that most definitions of God (including yours, to the extent that you have presented it) also appear contradictory. If you'd read the rest of the post, you'd realize that my complaint was about your completely nonsensical response:         Quote 4)  Realize that you can not simultaneously hate and blame God for the state of the world and deny his existence. In any event, your response to my restatement of the question is remarkably content free. Which premise do you not accept ? But who am I kidding, it's clear you aren't interested in a coherent discussion. Before Lou FCD gives this the lock, could you at least clarify whether killing homosexuals and witches is part of the bibles blueprint for a better life ? I'm always looking for ways to improve my life. {eyes Louis and Kristine}

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2008,01:18    I've gone into this elsewhere but for your benefit I'll restate it.  There is only one piece of evidence, in the sense you're using it, that can be applied to the existence of God and that is existence itself.  First Cause.  Everything beyond that is purely faith. As far as your question concerning witches, etc.  You have to look at the Bible in it's full context and to over-simplify it in that way distorts it's meaning or relevance.  The Bible can be viewed as literature, history, theology, metaphor, parable, etc.  A good example is adultery.  In many cultures, past and present, adulterers have been treated harshly.  Our modern sensibilities may reject those acts, and I hope they do, but the underlying message that adultery is bad remains.  Of course, if you ask my wife she fully supports all available punishment for me should the need arise.  Likewise from a theological sense witchcraft and homosexuality are bad things and punishment is a deterrent.  On a personal note, I've always found it strange that believers exercise punishment in this life on things that are not threats to public welfare.  From my perspective, eternal punishment should be enough of a deterrent and punishment that we need not be involved.  Another failing of human nature, I suppose.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2008,05:26    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 16 2008,22:31) Quote (Louis @ Mar. 16 2008,16:24) Wait so Skeptic thinks that IF global warming is happening and IF it's god's will that it's happening (which it pretty much has to be according to fundy "theology") then there's nowt we can do so therefore all the people trying to "save the planet" are doing is either wasting their time or sinister population control/red agenda etc? Actually, if I interpreted Skeptic's old-man grousing correctly, I think he's saying that while he thinks that global warming (and environmentalism, and probably evolution) is all a bunch a pointy-headed liberal hogwash, he may not himself ascribe to the "Jesus wants us to burn through the planet's resources as quick as possible so as to hasten the rapture" notion. I *think* he's just describing what the SB's think, not necessarily agreeing with it. Do correct me if there's evidence to the contrary. Quote Just a hint, the SBC doesn't really embrace GW, this is PR, nothing more.   We figured that out. Give us *some* credit. I think you're right Arden, hence why I framed that bit you quote as a question. The only bit that makes me unsure is the "brownie points" angle. Why on earth would the SB's position, pure PR or otherwise, win any brownie points? It just doesn't fool anyone with half a brain. I return to my original comments about the "point" of this thread. Louis -------------- Bye.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2008,07:07    uhh...sarcasm.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2008,07:30    Quote (GCT @ Mar. 16 2008,16:11) Lou, this horse is dead.  You may as well shoot it. Bang. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Pages: (4) < 1 2 3 [4] >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard