Are you a creationist?

[Wootah]

Hi all,

The thing about creation is that we do it every moment.

- I look at a lump of matter and make it into my wife every day of my marriage.

- Apparently, there is a bunch of atoms that I recognise every day how to get back to and I call it my home.

The day you are not a creationist, you likely have lost your mind.

Are you a creationist? Thoughts?

[otseng]

Could you be more pointless if you tried?

Your desperation ("what snowflakes?" and "you actually need to be a creationist to debate") is palpable.

Your point is wrong, but you will undoubtably continue to hold it!

or do we just have another religious person being fast and loose with words and their meaning.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make comments about other posters.

Please review the Rules.




______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

It's why I don't believe there are atheists. No one can truly hold that view and I certainly don't think any atheists on this site really drink that cup to the full. I tried. Once. A long time ago.

It's why I believe there's no Jehovah's Witnesses, cause I can't understand why they'd think that way.

Okay, your turn.

[Purple Knight]

It looked to me like an equivocation fallacy designed to make 'Creationism' accepted as fact by foisting the term on things it had nothing to do with.

Dangerously close to. But the problem is that we say we create things, and we think we create things, when we don't. Problem isn't the person using the word this time, so no fallacy. Dangerously close to, but no fallacy. The problem is the word itself and the fact that it doesn't mean what it ought to.

If people generally could sort create in the sense of putting effort into existing things to shape new things from create in the sense of snapping fingers and making things appear where there were no things before, and if there was an easy, good linguistic way to sort them, and the word that could mean either was deliberately chosen when words that were more precise were available, then fallacy. But the equivocation is built into this word, because nobody who has the power to make new words when they are needed knows the difference.

[TRANSPONDER]

It looked to me like an equivocation fallacy designed to make 'Creationism' accepted as fact by foisting the term on things it had nothing to do with.

Dangerously close to. But the problem is that we say we create things, and we think we create things, when we don't. Problem isn't the person using the word this time, so no fallacy. Dangerously close to, but no fallacy. The problem is the word itself and the fact that it doesn't mean what it ought to.

If people generally could sort create in the sense of putting effort into existing things to shape new things from create in the sense of snapping fingers and making things appear where there were no things before, and if there was an easy, good linguistic way to sort them, and the word that could mean either was deliberately chosen when words that were more precise were available, then fallacy. But the equivocation is built into this word, because nobody who has the power to make new words when they are needed knows the difference.

I don't think that was the problem, O Purple sir, not what it was to create, or what was not.The word applies,correctly to the idea whether we actually did it or not. The problem, and the apparent equivication,it seemed to me, was that because we humans created things, or were aware of the act or creating things, that made us believers in the act of creation by humans and thus we were creationists.

The word Creationism means something different. And that was the equivication and the fallacy.

One could I suppose clarify witrh two new terms, 'Human creationism' and God -creationism',but there is no point, because the act of human creation is unarguable. The only reason for the equivocation is attempted confusion in hopes to smugglwe the term into acceptability on a false pretext, and then pretend that creation by a god is now accepted.

I have seen it before. A noxiously saucy anti -atheist on the former boards tried to use a dictionary definition of God

"2. A person or thing of extreme importance."

Since, he said, this was the definition of God, and people or things of importance truly existed, God existed. Of course we got into a fight about which definition applied and whether the definition He preferred had any force with others (Humpty fallacy - 'words mean what I want them to mean').

There was another one who insisted that religions were organisations and because atheism was an organisation (with priests, (Dawkins) Holy Books (Origin of species) and religious events (any meet -up) atheism was a religion. Last I saw he was chopping up his drawing - board.

[Clownboat]

We are either simply part of the world existing for a brief time, in a massive universe, with death waiting and no purpose and meaninglessness and not in control of anything or we can create something and be something. This is atheism on one end and creation on the other.

It's why I don't believe there are atheists. No one can truly hold that view and I certainly don't think any atheists on this site really drink that cup to the full. I tried. Once. A long time ago.

Obviously, people do hold this view, less the meaningless part that was added to poison the well.
For those that are uncomfortable with said view, there are religious options available to fulfill the need to have purpose supplied to them.

What I can't understand is how it is a struggle for some to find purpose in this life and then seem to project that on to others that don't suffer from such a thing. I personally treat this life as something special and have plenty of purpose, because for all I know, it is the only one we will get. The idea of this life being a test for some other life actually would make this life less meaningful as the next would become the true goal. Therefore, could it be argued that atheism supplies more meaning/value for this life than religions in general? Those that struggle to find purpose without religion would obviously not be able to see this and would then be susceptible making claims like we see above.

"No one can truly hold that view" would therefore simply be a projection.

[Purple Knight]

6

I have seen it before. A noxiously saucy anti -atheist on the former boards tried to use a dictionary definition of God

"2. A person or thing of extreme importance."

Since, he said, this was the definition of God, and people or things of importance truly existed, God existed. Of course we got into a fight about which definition applied and whether the definition He preferred had any force with others (Humpty fallacy - 'words mean what I want them to mean').

I have seen people do this so I absolutely believe this happened. I call it definitionalism.

There was another one who insisted that religions were organisations and because atheism was an organisation (with priests, (Dawkins) Holy Books (Origin of species) and religious events (any meet -up) atheism was a religion. Last I saw he was chopping up his drawing - board.

The way I think is best to address attempts to define me into being religious is not to care. When someone draws lines around groups that believe this, groups that believe that, and makes me jump because I want to be inside the category that is called atheism, that's when I have become religious. It's precisely because I'm not religious that I don't care if you draw lines around my beliefs and categorise the beliefs inside as religious ones. I will sit on my beliefs and not jump away from them because of what someone calls them.

Oh, you've come up with a definition of religious that makes me religious? Okay, sure, if it's a useful one I even accept it. I actually have every practical reason to accept it because if you can get everyone to accept it, the First Amendment now protects me and I suddenly have loads of rights I didn't have before.

However I'm not going to jump away from my beliefs because some priest says to. If Dawkins suddenly declares that Jesus Christ is salvation, then to heck with him. I have no faith in him. I don't obey him. I don't think he is holy. And this is why I think there's an important distinction and why I don't see it as the same thing religious people do.

I don't think that was the problem, O Purple sir, not what it was to create, or what was not.The word applies, correctly to the idea whether we actually did it or not. The problem, and the apparent equivocation, it seemed to me, was that because we humans created things, or were aware of the act or creating things, that made us believers in the act of creation by humans and thus we were creationists.

The word Creationism means something different. And that was the equivocation and the fallacy.

I'm not convinced they do mean something different. In fact I'm rather convinced that people who are merely shaping things actually think they are creating things and there's a genuine understanding gap there for enough of the populace that the definition - the way the word is rightly used - is genuinely following that gap, and thus absorbing that flaw.

There have been so few people with the understanding that these things are different that not only have their words have been seen as exceptional, but the man himself seems to be saying he did little to nothing - that the statue of David was always there.
The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.

In any case there is still a case in the OP. We accept that intelligence can create (here meaning shape things into creations). So we accept at least that the universe, or at least some bits of it, may have been shaped. It's weaker but there's still a case.

We are either simply part of the world existing for a brief time, in a massive universe, with death waiting and no purpose and meaninglessness and not in control of anything or we can create something and be something. This is atheism on one end and creation on the other.

It's why I don't believe there are atheists. No one can truly hold that view and I certainly don't think any atheists on this site really drink that cup to the full. I tried. Once. A long time ago.

Obviously, people do hold this view, less the meaningless part that was added to poison the well.
For those that are uncomfortable with said view, there are religious options available to fulfill the need to have purpose supplied to them.

What I can't understand is how it is a struggle for some to find purpose in this life and then seem to project that on to others that don't suffer from such a thing. I personally treat this life as something special and have plenty of purpose, because for all I know, it is the only one we will get. The idea of this life being a test for some other life actually would make this life less meaningful as the next would become the true goal. Therefore, could it be argued that atheism supplies more meaning/value for this life than religions in general? Those that struggle to find purpose without religion would obviously not be able to see this and would then be susceptible making claims like we see above.

"No one can truly hold that view" would therefore simply be a projection.

I actually have trouble believing there are theists - people who genuinely believe meaning/morality is not something we forge ourselves, but instead something supplied for us, in its absolute perfect form, pack-fresh, factory sealed, and the only way we can possibly change or amend it is to make it objectively worse. I think if god came down and told them to do some of the things he told people to do in the past, they would eagerly jump on the train of forging their own meaning and stop being sanitary fairies who only eat meaning from a factory-sealed packet. (I... seriously knew someone like this, who would not eat anything unless it was factory sealed because he thought it was unsanitary.)

I think it's the fact that the landlord is absent that makes people respect him so. The landlord becomes a placeholder for the rules we think are right, and an extra layer of legitimacy. People would, I think, have more trouble with an actual landlord.

[Wootah]

I think it's the fact that the landlord is absent that makes people respect him so. The landlord becomes a placeholder for the rules we think are right, and an extra layer of legitimacy. People would, I think, have more trouble with an actual landlord.

Fwiw the Bible indicates a lot of the evil we do is because we think the landlord is away. It basically says that we killed Jesus, the landlord's son because we thought we could get the vineyard.

The Parable of the Tenants
12 And he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a pit for the winepress and built a tower, and leased it to tenants and went into another country. 2 When the season came, he sent a servant[a] to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Again he sent to them another servant, and they struck him on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 And he sent another, and him they killed. And so with many others: some they beat, and some they killed. 6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7 But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard. 9 What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Have you not read this Scripture:

“‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
11 this was the Lord's doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

12 And they were seeking to arrest him but feared the people, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them. So they left him and went away.

I think a lot of the evil in the world is done because people think no one is watching.

[Tcg]

Fwiw the Bible indicates a lot of the evil we do is because we think the landlord is away. It basically says that we killed Jesus, the landlord's son because we thought we could get the vineyard.

The Parable of the Tenants
12 And he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a pit for the winepress and built a tower, and leased it to tenants and went into another country. 2 When the season came, he sent a servant[a] to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Again he sent to them another servant, and they struck him on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 And he sent another, and him they killed. And so with many others: some they beat, and some they killed. 6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7 But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard. 9 What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Have you not read this Scripture:

“‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
11 this was the Lord's doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

12 And they were seeking to arrest him but feared the people, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them. So they left him and went away.

Why should anyone care what the bible says especially in this subforum where it is not considered authoritative?

I think a lot of the evil in the world is done because people think no one is watching.

How does the support your assertion that humans are creationists?


Tcg

[Wootah]

[Replying to Tcg in post #88]

I think in general people on a debating Christianity website are interested when their thoughts connect with Bible accidentally or not.

How does the support your assertion that humans are creationists?

Yes, I am concerned it might digress too far from the topic.

But to bring it back, imagine a group of people working some random plants and creating a garden and then calling it a vineyard and making wine from the grapes to drink as wine for different social occasions. Seems pretty creationist to me.

[JoeyKnothead]

Fwiw the Bible indicates a lot of the evil we do is because we think the landlord is away. It basically says that we killed Jesus, the landlord's son because we thought we could get the vineyard.

What I find most evil is folks declaring they know the thoughts of a god they can't show exists to even have a thought.

It's nothing more'n an attempt to declare divine authority in one's own opinion.