It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Experiment for Brave Christians

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Without dragging this into the nitty gritty can I please address both of you?

You both have valid points. You both are missing a few points the other is making. I won't go into which I think goes to which because I really don't want to alienate both of you.

You both are going at it a bit too hot and heavy for anything but this continued fighting which in the end serves absolutely NO good purpose.

Would you BOTH please at least consider pause4thought's assertion that a cool down time might be in order?

Your both not bad and intelligent people, I think passion is making a mess of things at this juncture though and turning this into nothing more but another pointless endless fight in which you will eventually forget what even started the damn thing, if it isn't at that point already.

Just a thought and my two cents.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]




posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I'd like to return to some points raised previously, but first: thanks WraothAscendant for a tidy bit of mediation.

I'll try to keep things calm. Decorum does seem to promote rational discussion!


...evidence for creation doesn't exist.
demonstrate it.

For post-grad level evidence you could turn to The Journal of Creation or the Answers Research Journal, which I linked to. (A down-to earth layman's presentation of evidence can be found in Creation Magazine or the Answers magazine.)

No need to spend money. Using the site map, etc., you can access masses of previous articles. The Journal of Creation online archive goes back to 1984, for example. This is the link: creationontheweb.com... (although the server is very slow at the moment). Articles written at the popular level are easy to find at www.answersingenesis.org... creationontheweb.com... , etc.

Sorry MIMS - decades of articles and books constitutes a little too much evidence to demonstrate here.

I honestly hope you won't continue with the 'no evidence' delusion.


creation... is not a valid scientific theory.

Does absence of a human theory impact on whether something actually happened? Some people don't need such boxes in order to think.

Thinking outside the box is when you begin to question what is presented as fact through school, but is actually theoretical. The scientific method relies on replicable data to test hypotheses; as the origin of living organisms is not a repeatable event/process science should really only present its deductions in this matter as possible interpretations of observations, not create its own 'orthodoxy' so as to stifle open, honest debate.


it doesn't matter is everyone in the world is wrong, they're still wrong.

Wow MIMS - thanks for that. We've found a monumental point of agreement. Except...


there are more scientists named steve (or a variation of steve) that support evolution than there are scientists that support creationism...

...you are still counting numbers!

You then accused me of faking a quote with this:


This suggests Dawkins remains willfully ignorant - 'Unless you show me conclusive proof I won't consider it evidence; I discount it.'

Any fair reader would recognise that in context I was merely demonstrating the clear implication of Dawkin's 'no evidence' ruse. Also I used apostrophes, not quotation marks, and did not provide a source. (Please read more carefully.)


all i can say is, i don't know why they disagree with me, they just do
and, so far as the science is concerned, they are incredibly wrong.

(They being PhD & research-level scientists, professors, etc., etc.)

No, do not equate yourself with 'science'. You have so far indicated, along with Mr Dawkins, that you are only aware of the evidence that favours your conclusions. The serious thinkers in question have studied evidence that you have not been aware of over the course of recent decades, as well as the evidence put forward for evolution, and come to their own conclusions, which differ from yours.

Do you believe they would change their minds if only they read your posts? -


...not my posts, it's more the resources i tend to give with my posts that they need to read.

So if only they knew what you know they would change their minds!

MIM - If there is one thing you take from this thread, let it be that other people with equivalent or greater education and intellect than yourself will NOT necessarily reach the same conclusions as you when presented with the same information.

I'll just address a couple more of your replies, then move on...



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I demonstrated that your 'high-school-kids' jibe was untrue with this example: www.answersingenesis.org...

Yet you said:


...that doesn't count. we're talking creationism, that's flood theory.

You must have glanced at the article and missed the overarching line of research: the impact of polonium radiohalos on calculating the age of the earth; something I, and many others, have been reading about since the year 2000.

At least read the introduction carefully:


Radiohalos research was a major focus of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project (Snelling 2000). As a result of this research it was concluded that the 238U and Po radiohalos frequently found together in biotite flakes in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously (Snelling 2005). Because of the very short half-lives of the parent Po isotopes, this implies that hundreds of million of years worth of 238U decay (at today’s rates) had to have instead occurred in only a matter of a few days. There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the 238U radiohalos) and the 500 million–1 billion polonium atoms required to generate the polonium radiohalos. However, that much polonium would then have decayed within a few days. A hydrothermal fluid transport model was thus proposed which explains how the polonium was separated from its parent 238U, transported very short distances, and then concentrated in radiocenters close by to form the polonium radiohalos (Snelling and Armitage 2003; Snelling, Baumgardner, and Vardiman 2003; Snelling 2005).

(Source provided above)

Young earth = no evolution.

There are hundreds and hundreds of other lines of research that have provided evidence for a young earth. Are you going to go on pretending such evidence doesn't exist?

Thousands of such articles on the age of the earth and other topics relating to creationism would, as you put it:


require post high school education to refute

- not just this one, which you were referring to.


the link takes me to a subscription page.

You didn't even bother scrolling down the page. (Sigh.)


you could possibly provide a scientific basis for disagreeing with evolution.

Sources of masses of evidence have now been mentioned. I invite you to avail yourself of the opportunity...


it might even be helpful if you could provide me with evidence of an alternative theory that doesn't come from someone with a religious spin in their idea...

So religious implications are ruled out a priori? Funny, I thought we were just trying to discover the truth about the past. This comment strongly suggests you don't want to know the truth if it has religious implications. This would be consistent with comments you have made elsewhere, such as:


bible vs koran is quite the prize fight for which book i most disagree with while still liking some of the teachings...

Source: www.abovetopsecret.com...


go over to the thread i linked you to and we can do a few rounds of intellectual sparring and see what happens.

I'd like to, but I'm currently just weeks away from completing a degree, (this time in a subject related to medicine,) so I'm a bit snowed under...


the flagellum motor just irks me to the point that i have to call shenanigans whenever someone brings it up. it's been thoroughly debunked as an IC part.

In your opinion. Others may believe that refutations to date have been refuted. Personally I intend to check out the posts you mention on this subject and give them due consideration.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Uhm pause4thought how is continuing the conversation that started this crap so that both can jump back in and continue this farce helping?

I think now is a time for reflection rather than more arguments.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 

WraothAscendant: I apologise if that is the impression I gave.

Before the altercation between MIMS & Cons., which got way too heated, there were many points MIMS raised that I consciously decided to leave for a few days, as the water was getting a bit too choppy. I thought that by now returning to the issues previously under discussion people might be able to move on - hopefully having got into a different frame of mind. As I said at the outset (above), I was hoping for an ordered, rational discussion.

I can't agree that the central issue is not worth exploring. I stated there was a lot of evidence worthy of consideration; MIMS dismissed that entirely, and challenged me to provide evidence. As I said above, I wanted to point to decades of research, give relevant links, and let people see it for themselves. Denying it is there is what I regard as farcical. All the same I hoped to continue the debate with an attitude of mutual respect, and actually sent MIMS a U2U last night assuring him that that was my intent. There was actually a touch of humour in my use of the word 'delusion', and I thought it might have brought a wry smile to a few faces. Perhaps I should have stuck a smiley after the sentence just to clarify my intent, so MIMS - this is just for you:


If MIMS would like the thread to turn to other aspects of the book under discussion I'll happily go along with that, for the sake of keeping the peace. (In all fairness, however, I have noticed that the author actually returns to this theme at various points in the book.)



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I Have decided to take your challenge even through I am neither an Atheist or a Christian (I hope you do not mind Madness). I have my copy of 'The God Delusion' and a copy of a 'Bible' and have begun to read both.

If it is alright, I will let you know of my thoughts of both books.

- Kpentia

(I have not read all the post up to this point I Just wanted to address the OP challenge.)



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Kpentia
 


that would still be lovely. expanding the base and getting a view of both sides would be nice

good luck with the bible, though. it's long and a bit tedious (mainly because it's long)



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Let's get this thread back off the ground.

For Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/Wiccans/etc, read either a book espousing an atheistic viewpoint, that of another religion against your own religion, or a religious text from another religion.

For atheists/agnostics/apathetics/etc, read either a book against your specific viewpoint, one in favor of a specific religion, or any religious text.

Please post your reactions on here.

I'll go first. I recently reread the Bhagavad Gita and found some of its philosophical points interesting, though it doesn't really give me any reason to believe in the purely spiritual it does give me pause as to how I examine the material.

I also read some of the works of St. Aquinas and found his proofs of god to be trite and refutable.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



...no the message between the lines is a challenge for people to actually be open minded and think freely instead of simply saying "no, you're tempting blah blah blah"


Hmmm, so what about those of us who were brought up in the public school system and indoctrinated with atheism and evolution from a very young age and rejected it recently?





:bnghd:



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Not this again.

Evolution =/= atheism
The majority of people on Earth who support the scientific theory of evolution are religious individuals. The majority of religious individuals on this Earth support evolution.
It
Makes
Sense

As for public schools teaching atheism...what? I never heard about atheism in public school, not even once. I didn't even know that there were people who didn't believe in God until I went to high school, and that was a Jesuit school. In my suburban public education I learned of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus (well, didn't really cover it in class, my best friend was Indian though), Sikhs, and Buddhists. But never, ever anything about atheists.

Just because a school is religion neutral doesn't mean it's atheism enforcing. In my case, the school system entirely excluded the concept of atheism.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 
I never said Atheism = Evolution. I said Atheism AND Evolution.

(Two different concepts)

Now, answer the question.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I did answer the question. There isn't a single school in the USA that actually teaches atheism. The majority of public education institutions ignore its very existence. If they don't even teach that it exists, how is it possible for a school to indoctrinate you into it?

I'd like to see an example of someone 'indoctrinated' into atheism by public schools.

And, one more, evolution is a concept outside of the realm of discussion. It's like saying "what about those of us who were brought up in the public school system and indoctrinated with Judaism and germ theory from a very young age?"

So how about you explain your question? How did the public school system indoctrinate you with atheism?

On a separate note, how does one indoctrinate someone with atheism? It's a single question that's being answered. It would be like someone saying that they're being indoctrinated with cookies being a nice snack. It's one question, there isn't a set of doctrine and various people are atheists for various reasons.

So the second question, how is one indoctrinated into atheism?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
here's how it goes, buy "The God Delusion" and read it with an open mind. see what happens and share your experience. it's out in paperback and is only 460ish pages.

if you don't want to take up this challenge, i'd like to see why.

conversely, brave atheists could just read "The Bible" with an open mind and share their experiences to make the experiment equitable.

[edit on 3/31/08 by madnessinmysoul]

I have read it (about the same time as you created this thread, years before I discovered ATS. I was not impressed - 'The God Delusion' is riddled with bizarre errors.
Dawkins knows all about evolutionary biology but nothing at all about religion, let alone theology.
Vicky



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 






The biggest problem for atheists is that they have to find a way to explain away Jesus Christ. ...is this even on the topic at all?


Well um ahh iii,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes

Since Jesus is God.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 


...no, it isn't. I put forth a simple experiment for brave Christians and made it equitable by proposing an equivalent side for brave atheists. What does that have to do with reading Dawkins' book?


reply to post by Vicky32
 



Originally posted by Vicky32
I have read it (about the same time as you created this thread, years before I discovered ATS. I was not impressed - 'The God Delusion' is riddled with bizarre errors.


Such as? I'd just like to know more, not being aggressive, merely inquisitive.



Dawkins knows all about evolutionary biology but nothing at all about religion, let alone theology.
Vicky


No, he does actually know more than most people think about both religion and theology. Though, personally, I find the practice of theology to be the driest and most uninteresting of all the humanities. I say this as someone who seems to know a great deal more about theology than Dawkins does. I'm not saying he's all knowing on the subject, but he's not strikingly ignorant.

 


Now, I'd like to actually change the challenge, as it was issued nearly three years ago. I will compile a list of YouTube videos, primarily to make this challenge far easier to carry out. Check back in a couple of days to see them, watch them with an open mind, tell me what you think.

This way the challenge doesn't rely on something that you'd have to spend a great deal of time reading.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join