The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm not questioning the fact that they hold to evolution. I'm pointing to the fact that they do so against the specific dogma of their Church, which holds that suffering and death were not part of man's life until the Fall. Do you deny that?
The Church originally interpreted Genesis literally. Scientific evidence, from a number of independent scientific fields, has demonstrated that interpretation is wrong, a fact that the Church has realised themselves.

They haven't stopped believing, they simply realised they were wrong in how they interpreted those passages (I know you don't accept that that is possible, but that seems more your issue than theirs).

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Hmm, that would be an honest approach if they believed it. But if they are such honest fellows, why not concede they were mistaken in their dogma and admit they are not infallible after all?
I wasn't aware they did claim that that interpretation was infallible. Not everything the Church claim is to be considered infallible, as Kelly can no doubt explain to you.

Kelly1 posted a list of their infallible dogmas, among which is the teaching that suffering and death were not present from the beginning, but only came at the Fall. So you see, they can't just change their mind on evolution; they have to renounce their claims to infallibility, if they are honest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Our desire is for credibility, to educate the children in the truth, not for power.

That is an incorrect statement. I can't say if it is a lie or not, you may genuinely believe that, but the Creationist movement is motivated by power.

See Robin's post 11339.

There is a great deal of money to be made in the appearance of fighting the good fight for God and the Bible.

I fully agree. There are and have been many 'pedlars of the gospel' from the beginning. Judas, for example. You are right to remind us of this. Of course, one finds such people using every sort of charitable cause to make money for themselves. Likewise political causes are exploited by those with no real interest in the welfare of their party or country. 'Causes' are easy to exploit, since they are mostly composed of folk who are trying to do good (as they see it) and so think well of others - can't imagine some hypocrite spouting truths but pocketing the funds.

It is one of my 'hobby-horses' with fellow Christians that they not be gullible. Thanks for the news article. I have been aware of the allegations/counter-allegations for a while. I have reached no decision as to who is guilty, but am keeping an eye on it.

Many good folk are in each organisation, who will not have been a part of any foul-play, but will have been kept in the dark by those at the top. I've seen it before in other organisations, indeed in some churches.

[wolfsbane;56469729]
But we're not going to be an activist ministry in the sense of legislating, litigating, or lobbying key leaders to mandate change in society.
Er, who are "we" Wolfsbane.

Because you have basically described the Creationist movement for the last 100 years.

Creationists have been lobbying state politicians and school boards in the US for decades, and have started lobbying private schools in Ireland and the UK, as well as newspapers and politicians.

Lobbying by Creationists is so prevalent that the EU in the last few years that the EU Parliment has issue a number of resolutions about it.

I think you are mistaking what they are saying here. They are talking about their organisation, a 'ministry', not legislating, litigating, or lobbying key leaders to mandate change in society. Individual Christians may do so, to gain a hearing for the truth - but that is not the same as seeking power, power to ban evolution being taught, for example.

wolfsbane

Evolutionist hopeful for superpower:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5828/

Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels."
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp

wolfsbane

Evolutionist hopeful for superpower II:
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/2008/01/john_mccain_on_teaching_evolut.html

Hot Dog

.....are you now saying that Evolutionists don't accept the scientific validity of the term 'metamorphic rock' .....just like they are unable to accept the term 'spontaneous evolution' as a descriptor of their scientifically disproven idea, that muck spontaneously 'lifted itself up by its own bootstraps' to 'evolve' into Man......
........and BTW the only people proposing (spontaneously) self-transforming machines are the Materialistic Evolutionists......who believe that pondslime somehow spontaneoulsy 'self-transformed' itself into Mankind!!!!!

Its comments like this that have me beleieve that you wear a tinfoil hat

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Kelly1 posted a list of their infallible dogmas, among which is the teaching that suffering and death were not present from the beginning, but only came at the Fall. So you see, they can't just change their mind on evolution; they have to renounce their claims to infallibility, if they are honest.

No, if you were honest you would admit that you are interpreting these passages differently to the way the RCC do.

It only becomes a conflict if one interprets Genesis as you do, as a literal history. Most Christians, including the RCC, don't. "Sin, suffering and death" were not present "at the beginning", but that doesn't mean they have to see Genesis as a literal history.

Your inability to understand this is not a fault with the RCC.

wolfsbane wrote: »

See Robin's post 11339.

Why? Are you Robin?

I respectfully disagree with Robin on this matter. I disrespectfully disagree with you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I fully agree. There are and have been many 'pedlars of the gospel' from the beginning. Judas, for example. You are right to remind us of this.

And you are wrong to put your faith in them simply because they are spouting a message you support (AiG and Ken Ham for example)

wolfsbane wrote: »

'Causes' are easy to exploit, since they are mostly composed of folk who are trying to do good (as they see it) and so think well of others

And people with causes are easy to be lead because they will believe liars who tell them what they want to be true over honest people who tell them what they don't want to be true.

(again AnswersInGenesis and Ken Ham)

wolfsbane wrote: »

but that is not the same as seeking power, power to ban evolution being taught, for example.

That is exactly what it is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Creationism, as most of religion's other consort memes, has evolved to be concerned primarily with its own self-propagation, something which depends heavily upon its perceived credibility and wolfsbane is quite right to point out that credibility is what creationism wants -- it wouldn't be much of a meme if nobody believed it

I (respectfully) disagree. I think Creationism as a movement long ago gave up the hope of credibility as an unattainable goal (they don't have the science to achieve that goal).

They are now (and have always been really, though now it is more conscious decision) concerned with either getting people into positions of power and influence, or lobbying sympathetic people in positions of influence and power.

They want to force the issue on people because they know they can't convince people they are correct.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolutionist hopeful for superpower:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5828/

Indeed.

The key sentence is this one

"Obama may not openly or even consciously support the utilitarian ethic that Singer and most other bioethicists embrace, but his position on infanticide, devaluing certain human life as unworthy of life, has its roots in evolutionary utilitarian thought and defining personhood separately from humanity."

He may not have ever suggested he agrees with them, but heck that won't stop us from linking the two!! :rolleyes:

Wolfsbane I imagine you listen to a lot of right wing talk radio programs ...

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolutionist hopeful for superpower II:
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/2008/01/john_mccain_on_teaching_evolut.html

So, America's (potential) next president believes in evolution. ZOMFG stop the presses!!!! :pac:
Just makes him seem that little bit more rational.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

So, America's (potential) next president believes in evolution. ZOMFG stop the presses!!!! :pac:
Just makes him seem that little bit more rational.

Shows how bad the effect the influence of Christian hardline fundamentalists have had in the last 25 years that this is something that is news worthy.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

........you are correct that Evolution (the Science) isn't a philosophy (moral or otherwise).......but it does 'inform' its adherants that they are a 'freak of nature' and 'glorified pondslime' (with nothing added but time).....so they may be tempted to start acting in accordance with these (invalid) nihilistic ideas!!!!

But surely, if your position that evolution is untrue is compelling and supported by the evidence, they will not allow that science to inform their morality. Why would anyone accept nihilism when everlasting life for all and a grand objective meaning to existence is actually logically true? It is only because Evolution is so convincing and so well supported by every observation made to date that it is accepted.

J C wrote: »

Materialistic Darwinism (the philosophy) is an amoral philosophy where 'might is right' is accepted as the supposed way we all came to exist.....

I've never heard of that specific philosophical movement, but supposing it exists, does it impact on the veracity of the theory of Evolution? That is what we are here to discuss after all. If the theory is false, the derived philosophies are irrelevant anyway.

And you continue to insist on focusing only upon the negative philosophical constructs that follow evolution. Finding equally negative derivations of Christianity is like shooting fish in a barrel. And that you call these things "perversions" comes from the benefit of hindsight.

J C wrote: »

and that is why almost 'anything goes' with such a philosophy......and the only way of avoiding anarchy in such a society is via strong enforcement of all-encompassing fiat law.....which can lead to oppressive prescriptive control and enforcement by society over 'minor' issues (like the right to life of PLANTS)!!!!!:eek:

That's a huge jump. Once again, society survived before Christianity and it is surviving the rise of science and atheism. You say that in the past God's law was inviolate despite the absence of Christianity. If that is true, how could that change due to a scientific finding? Personally I've always thought the notion that God created all people with a plan in mind to be a much better justification of "anything goes".

J C wrote: »

......the point that I am making is that BOTH the science of Evolution and the philosophy of Materiaism are intellectually and morally powerless to determine the immorality of such actions!!!!!

Then the point you are making is irrelevant to this discussion. It does not address the veracity of the theory of Evolution. All of this is yet another diversion from the core issue. It's better than the semantic arguments but it's still crap.

J C wrote: »

......while the revealed Word of God objectively condemns bestiality, eugenics and infanticide as ALWAYS sinful.....and therefore immoral!!!!!

Morality which rejects all of the above exists independently of Christianity today and has done for millennia. If a person's own logic can't tell them what is moral or immoral then they are mentally ill. A book or a social consensus can guide us, show us alternate points of view, but without our own understanding, our empathy, rules of morality are irrelevant.

J C wrote: »

.....it also grants individual Humans dominion over the part of Creation which they own.....and grants them the right to kill and eat plants, which they own.....as they see fit!!!!!
.....but some Materialists want to legally prescribe this God-given right using spurious 'moral' arguments about plants and Humans being commonly descended from primordial pondslime....and therefore somehow 'ethically similar'!!!!!!

There are no major and widely accepted ethical theories which base life values on genetic similarity. If there were, we'd still have little trouble justifying the use of various animals and plants as we see fit. As it stands though, a genetics-only approach would be considered very short sighted.

J C wrote: »

....the Moral Laws of God are universal and absolute in their application....and anybody disobeying them will begin to experience 'negative feedback' just as surely as if they were disobeying God's Physical Laws.
Equally, all Human beings have a God-given conscience that 'tells' them what is right and wrong.....and that is why bestiality and infantacide have been taboo in most (but not all) societies up to now.

If the above is true, then you have nothing at all to worry about. The evolutionist's "God-given conscience" will either show him the correct path or provide him with sufficient "negative feedback" to force him onto it. Those that deviate will tend to be the same sort that always deviate from God's will and get the usual punishment.

So, given that... 1) the moral questions relate only to Darwinian moral philosophies (not the topic at hand and too numerous and varied to make generalisations on), 2) the morality of Darwinian moral philosophies has no bearing on the veracity of the theory of evolution and 3) you believe that God's morality is inviolate and that this explains why Godless cultures follow His laws... it appears that we don't really need to discuss this morality issue further.

So, semantics or science J C?

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Firstly, muck doesn't wear boots.

Secondly, this gives the impression that there was no interim between the primordial soup (or whatever) and mankind. This is rather odd, as the interim is where evolution occurred.

J C likes to use analogies to suggest a myriad of things not actually present in the theory of evolution. It's not clear whether he merely doesn't understand the theory or is being misleading. Could be a bit of both.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You haven't noticed the ridicule Creationism faces from virtuallly ALL the media and academia, and the rich and powerful of this world? It's one thing to ban contraception while turning a blind-eye to its practise, but quite another to insist the world was created by God in 6 days, some 6000 years ago.

The failure of the catholic church to explicitly accept evolution in the past has never, to my knowledge, been a subject of significant public criticism. Scientists may have considered it a failing, academics may have scoffed at it, but its never been headline news. The pressure is there certainly, but it's hardly overwhelming.

Yet the example you cite is very different. The public outcry over the Roman Catholic church's continuing ban on contraception has hit those headlines. It has attracted not merely criticism from scientists and aid workers but outright condemnation. It has attracted the anger of journalists, of the public at large. If, as you suggest, the church is so very concerned with appearances (and so quick to set aside their dogma for that sake) they'd be publicly supporting contraception. "Turning a blind eye" (if that's really happening in an organised fashion) still creates the appearance that they are unyielding and so those appearances are still negative.

Their acceptance of evolution despite their clear rigidity is quite a vote of confidence.

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

J C likes to use analogies to suggest a myriad of things not actually present in the theory of evolution. It's not clear whether he merely doesn't understand the theory or is being misleading. Could be a bit of both.

Yeah, I know, but I figure if we tell him often enough he might either get it or shut up.

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I figure if we tell him often enough he might either get it or shut up.

Three and a half years in and JC's still there -- spontaneous this and materialist that, the strings of full stops, the rows of smileys and all the sorry rest of it -- there's little chance she'll get it now if she's not got it already

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

I (respectfully) disagree. I think Creationism as a movement long ago gave up the hope of credibility as an unattainable goal (they don't have the science to achieve that goal).

Oops -- should have made it clearer that I was referring to creationism's credibility amongst creationism's target market of the uninformed and the impressionable, rather than its credibility within the scientific community who, like gays, are an outgroup who can be profitably vilified as, for example, Ken Ham disgracefully does.

Wicknight wrote: »

They want to force the issue on people because they know they can't convince people they are correct.

I think this thread is testament to the sad fact that they have convinced people! Memes, especially religious ones, are interested in nothing more than their own transmission -- truth is simply irrelevant in this.

Wicknight wrote: »

They are now (and have always been really, though now it is more conscious decision) concerned with either getting people into positions of power and influence, or lobbying sympathetic people in positions of influence and power.

Up to a very limited point, that's true, but bear in mind that creationism is most rife within America, where there's a strong traditional of anti-intellectualism -- tales of persecution by "liberal elites" in academia go down well in Kentucky, Alabama, Texas and so on (as that execrable piece by Ben Stein showed). So the appearance of persecution is useful for sustaining the public's support. The reality of persecution, like the reality of creationism itself is simply a non-issue, as long as people believe that both exist.

And in any case, in a country where around two-thirds of biology teachers do not fully accept the Theory of Evolution and devote so few curricular hours to it, it's quite obvious that creationism is getting by just fine without any support from the curriculum. Acquiring political power is simply unnecessary.

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

Three and a half years in and JC's still there -- spontaneous this and materialist that, the strings of full stops, the rows of smileys and all the sorry rest of it -- there's little chance she'll get it now if she's not got it already

I know, but it's fun to poke.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Indeed.

The key sentence is this one

"Obama may not openly or even consciously support the utilitarian ethic that Singer and most other bioethicists embrace, but his position on infanticide, devaluing certain human life as unworthy of life, has its roots in evolutionary utilitarian thought and defining personhood separately from humanity."

He may not have ever suggested he agrees with them, but heck that won't stop us from linking the two!! :rolleyes:

Wolfsbane I imagine you listen to a lot of right wing talk radio programs ...

I was not directly concerned with his appalling ethics, but with his belief in Evolution over Christianity. I took the key sentence to be :
But it should be no surprise—Obama is an ardent evolutionist, saying, ‘Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels’.

And, No, I don't listen to a lot of right wing talk radio programs. I try to get a fair spectrum, Al Jazeera being one of my favourites.
http://english.aljazeera.net/

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

I was not directly concerned with his appalling ethics, but with his belief in Evolution over Christianity. I took the key sentence to be :
But it should be no surprise—Obama is an ardent evolutionist, saying, ‘Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels’.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. Besides, it's a true statement: there is far more evidence of evolution than of angels. That doesn't mean that angels don't exist, and that's not what Obama is saying. I don't particularly see ardence (ardentry? ardentness? *checks dictionary.com* ah, ardency) in that statement, either.

And, No, I don't listen to a lot of right wing talk radio programs. I try to get a fair spectrum, Al Jazeera being one of my favourites.
http://english.aljazeera.net/

Oh yes, Al Jazeera are famous for their liberal views. Not right-wing at all...

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Oh yes, Al Jazeera are famous for their liberal views. Not right-wing at all...

In comparison to the other regional broadcasters, Al Jazeera really are quite moderate. They're the CNN of the Persian/Arabian gulf, versus a hundred state-owned or state-controlled channels which have more in common with Fox's approach to fairness and balance.

BTW, the core group who originally staffed Al Jazeera came from an earlier Saudi-linked BBC operation which died because of editorial control issues. Most regional governments detest Al Jazeera and it's been banned in several countries there.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Kelly1 posted a list of their infallible dogmas, among which is the teaching that suffering and death were not present from the beginning, but only came at the Fall. So you see, they can't just change their mind on evolution; they have to renounce their claims to infallibility, if they are honest.
No, if you were honest you would admit that you are interpreting these passages differently to the way the RCC do.

It only becomes a conflict if one interprets Genesis as you do, as a literal history. Most Christians, including the RCC, don't. "Sin, suffering and death" were not present "at the beginning", but that doesn't mean they have to see Genesis as a literal history.

Your inability to understand this is not a fault with the RCC.

OK, tell me how an absence of "Sin, suffering and death" can accompany evolution. Are you suggesting the RCC means "Sin, suffering and death" are not literal, but metaphoric?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
See Robin's post 11339.
Why? Are you Robin?

Rats! I've given the game away.:(

And you are wrong to put your faith in them simply because they are spouting a message you support (AiG and Ken Ham for example)

I don't. I remember the example of Judas, etc. I watch for their conduct, as well as their words.

And people with causes are easy to be lead because they will believe liars who tell them what they want to be true over honest people who tell them what they don't want to be true.

I agree - decent people tend to be more gullible than selfish ones. It's a failing they need to be constantly warned of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
but that is not the same as seeking power, power to ban evolution being taught, for example.
That is exactly what it is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings

Only the first of these - from 1925 - was an attempt to ban evolution. As far as I can see, the others were an attempt to have ID taught alongside it as an alternative.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

In comparison to the other regional broadcasters, Al Jazeera really are quite moderate. They're the CNN of the Persian/Arabian gulf, versus a hundred state-owned or state-controlled channels which have more in common with Fox's approach to fairness and balance.

BTW, the core group who originally staffed Al Jazeera came from an earlier Saudi-linked BBC operation which died because of editorial control issues. Most regional governments detest Al Jazeera and it's been banned in several countries there.

I quite like Al Jazeera's programmes, but was surprised when visiting Zimbabwe in January. They were Mugabe's favourite news outlet and give him very favourable coverage. Their correspondent was a Zanu-PF creature called Supa Mandiwanzira and he was rewarded with some very impressive real estate in Harare. Then Al Jazeera tried to fire Mandiwanzira due to his lack of objectivity, so Mugabe kicked them out of Zimbabwe!

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The failure of the catholic church to explicitly accept evolution in the past has never, to my knowledge, been a subject of significant public criticism. Scientists may have considered it a failing, academics may have scoffed at it, but its never been headline news. The pressure is there certainly, but it's hardly overwhelming.

Yet the example you cite is very different. The public outcry over the Roman Catholic church's continuing ban on contraception has hit those headlines. It has attracted not merely criticism from scientists and aid workers but outright condemnation. It has attracted the anger of journalists, of the public at large. If, as you suggest, the church is so very concerned with appearances (and so quick to set aside their dogma for that sake) they'd be publicly supporting contraception. "Turning a blind eye" (if that's really happening in an organised fashion) still creates the appearance that they are unyielding and so those appearances are still negative.

Their acceptance of evolution despite their clear rigidity is quite a vote of confidence.

Seems to me a qualitative assessment. Creation is a subject of ridicule because it is assumed to have been proven wrong; contraception is considered a moral issue, even by those who accept it, and as such not an obvious denial of reality. It's not like the pope was saying the sperm is a baby or something else known to be wrong.

The RCC can retain a lot of its credibility by holding a moral position (even if it is mistaken). That's what people expect of religions. It is even admired by many for its refusal to compromise.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I was not directly concerned with his appalling ethics, but with his belief in Evolution over Christianity.

I would imagine Obama, like most Christians, doesn't see it as an either or situation.

I would imagine he has a strong belief in gravity as well. Not sure a serious person would classify that as a belief in gravity over Christianity.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I took the key sentence to be :
But it should be no surprise—Obama is an ardent evolutionist, saying, ‘Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels’.

Shows how convincing evolution is, doesn't it.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

I quite like Al Jazeera's programmes, but was surprised when visiting Zimbabwe in January. They were Mugabe's favourite news outlet and give him very favourable coverage. Their correspondent was a Zanu-PF creature called Supa Mandiwanzira and he was rewarded with some very impressive real estate in Harare. Then Al Jazeera tried to fire Mandiwanzira due to his lack of objectivity, so Mugabe kicked them out of Zimbabwe!

Wow, you get around the place, don't you? Where do I sign up for this Christianity stuff?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, tell me how an absence of "Sin, suffering and death" can accompany evolution. Are you suggesting the RCC means "Sin, suffering and death" are not literal, but metaphoric?

Literal is dependent on context, as the Bible clearly demonstrates.

As the current Pope said in 1995

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.

I would imagine you believe in the spiritual realm, that exists outside of the physical realm of atoms and matter. It is funny that you have such trouble then with viewing Genesis as a story about the spiritual creation of man.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't. I remember the example of Judas, etc. I watch for their conduct, as well as their words.

Indeed :rolleyes:

Perhaps then you can stop sending us all on wild goose chases to find your point presumingly buried deep in the countless AiG articles you link to.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree - decent people tend to be more gullible than selfish ones. It's a failing they need to be constantly warned of.

Decent or selfish is rather irrelevant.

Non-skeptical, non-rational, wishful people tend to be more gullible than skeptical, rational people.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only the first of these - from 1925 - was an attempt to ban evolution.

Perhaps you should (again) read up on your history. Throughout the 70s and 80s the Creationism movement tried to get evolution banned from the class room in America. This was struck down as being unconstitutional. They then tried to get Creationism taught beside science. This again was struck down as being unconstitutional. They are now trying to the "Intelligent Design" taught alongside evolution.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As far as I can see, the others were an attempt to have ID taught alongside it as an alternative.

You are right. Perhaps though, if you were as skeptical and non-gullible as you claim you would dig a little bit further into the evolution of the movement you seem happy to throw your full support behind.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/legal/bkgrd.htm

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

You are right. Perhaps though, if you were as skeptical and non-gullible as you claim you would dig a little bit further into the evolution of the movement you seem happy to throw your full support behind.

He has a point there Wolfsbane, a healthy amount of skepticism and personal research can be very beneficial.

Wicknight wrote: »

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/legal/bkgrd.htm

Thanks for that link. It should come in quite useful as a resource.

Flamed Diving

I personally know a creationist who considers himself a 'natural skeptic'. That would make him a 'skeptical creationist'.

An oxymoron of there ever was one.

:pac:

robindch

Flamed Diving wrote: »

An oxymoron of there ever was one.

"Oxymoron"? Nah, just drop the 'oxy' bit!

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I personally know a creationist who considers himself a 'natural skeptic'. That would make him a 'skeptical creationist'.

An oxymoron of there ever was one.

:pac:

Often people who want something to be true, but who are faced with a world where most people accept it isn't true, will play the lone skeptic card. They will convince themselves that because they, or the small group of like minded individuals, are challenging an accepted idea, that they are crusaders for the truth.

The problem is that they don't turn this around towards themselves and look at why they are doing this, what motivation they have. They become less of a skeptic and more of a conspiricy person, because believing that you know the truth that everyone else doesn't, can be exciting. Plus in terms of religion the thing you hope is true also normally has benefits.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Often people who want something to be true, but who are faced with a world where most people accept it isn't true, will play the lone skeptic card. They will convince themselves that because they, or the small group of like minded individuals, are challenging an accepted idea, that they are crusaders for the truth.

The problem is that they don't turn this around towards themselves and look at why they are doing this, what motivation they have. They become less of a skeptic and more of a conspiricy person, because believing that you know the truth that everyone else doesn't, can be exciting. Plus in terms of religion the thing you hope is true also normally has benefits.

We only see people as being 'skeptical' if they are skeptical about the same things as us.

If they are skeptical about others things then they are 'gullible' or 'brainwashed'.

That's human nature, sadly.