Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave Hawkins · 07-31-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Dave, you chose to come to a site named "infidels" to make your case. It sounds like you are using that label as an excuse for your failure to convince anyone here.

Excuse? No excuses. I have received exactly what I expected here. I expected pretty much monolithic opposition to my views, no matter what my arguments are ... and that's exactly what I got. There have been no surprises to me at all. I have no expectations that anyone will ever post anything indicative of being convinced of anything I say. And that's fine. I do think some folks may change their minds on their deathbeds or years from now or what have you, but it will be slow. My purpose here is simply to keep on doling out the truth about science and the world and of course correcting my views whenever someone discovers something wrong with them. It's happened a few times. What you do with these discussions is not my concern. It is between you and your Creator. YOU will answer to Him. Not me.

Silent Dave · 07-31-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by ck1

So you think that we are just blindly voting against your god?

Not so - there are quite a number of theists here, and others of us who respect thoughtful theistic arguments.

Dave, you chose to come to a site named "infidels" to make your case. It sounds like you are using that label as an excuse for your failure to convince anyone here.

Remember, the fact that you had to come here is because your side offers no place for us to openly argue with you. Including your own blog.

If you find such a place let us know and we will come. I tried recently to post to a creationist discussion blog and all my substantive posts were blocked, so I see no reason to continue there.

Where did you try to post?

Wuh oh, Dave seems to have presented us with a cunning dilemma!

On the one hand, if ck1 names the particular site he was talking about, afdave will focus his efforts on either proving that that site really is open-minded, or making excuses for why they blocked ck1's substantive posts, and either way the subject at hand -- the conscillience of the dating methods and Dave's attempts to explain it away by suggesting a conspiracy -- will be further derailed.

On the other hand, if we try to get the subject back on track, Dave will accuse us of dodging the question, and of being afraid of YECers, rather than fed up with them, and will use that as an excuse to, again, derail the subject.

Come on, Dave, time to fish or cut bait. Prove the existence of your conspiracy, or admit the conscillience. One or the other. Now.

Silent Dave · 07-31-2007, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Dave, you chose to come to a site named "infidels" to make your case. It sounds like you are using that label as an excuse for your failure to convince anyone here.

Excuse? No excuses. I have received exactly what I expected here. I expected pretty much monolithic opposition to my views, no matter what my arguments are ... and that's exactly what I got. There have been no surprises to me at all. I have no expectations that anyone will ever post anything indicative of being convinced of anything I say. And that's fine. I do think some folks may change their minds on their deathbeds or years from now or what have you, but it will be slow. My purpose here is simply to keep on doling out the truth about science and the world and of course correcting my views whenever someone discovers something wrong with them. It's happened a few times. What you do with these discussions is not my concern. It is between you and your Creator. YOU will answer to Him. Not me.

Fine, we'll answer to him. Now you answer to us. Prove the conspiracy or admit the conscillience.

deadman_932 · 07-31-2007, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Dave preached:
It is between you and your Creator. YOU will answer to Him. Not me.

You better pray your God doesn't exist at all, because you are the one that will fare worst should that God punish wrongdoing. I'd have no fear in facing any God right now, Dave. Others were nearly invariably honest in their dealings with you.

On the other (creationist) side, there's lying, hypocrisy and false accusation among various & sundry things. Take a look in the mirror.

Silent Dave · 07-31-2007, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

Quote:

It is between you and your Creator. YOU will answer to Him. Not me.

You better pray your God doesn't exist at all, because you are the one that will fare worst should that God punish wrongdoing. Others were honest in their dealings with you.

On the other side, there's lying, hypocrisy and false accusation among other things.

Yes, and that's exactly what Dave is guilty of. He should be the one worried about answering to the Creator. What is God going to punish the rest of us for, using the brain he gave us?

Constant Mews · 07-31-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Dave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calilasseia

Could it be that - gasp - the Vast Atheist Conspiracy™ is actually a figment of your imagination? That we are secure in our thinking because we can cite evidence to back up our claims? And that your creationist chums are so scared of contrary opinion precisely because they cannot?

The Bible does not say what Dave claims it does. That he is ignorant of science is not at all surprising. But that as a Christian he should be so stunningly ignorant about the Bible.

But why should I be surprised? Dave has never actually shown any evidence that he understands the Bible or its claims.

Constant Mews · 07-31-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Dave, you chose to come to a site named "infidels" to make your case. It sounds like you are using that label as an excuse for your failure to convince anyone here.

Excuse? No excuses. I have received exactly what I expected here. I expected pretty much monolithic opposition to my views, no matter what my arguments are ... and that's exactly what I got. There have been no surprises to me at all. I have no expectations that anyone will ever post anything indicative of being convinced of anything I say. And that's fine. I do think some folks may change their minds on their deathbeds or years from now or what have you, but it will be slow. My purpose here is simply to keep on doling out the truth about science and the world and of course correcting my views whenever someone discovers something wrong with them. It's happened a few times. What you do with these discussions is not my concern. It is between you and your Creator. YOU will answer to Him. Not me.

In other words you are preaching, which is prohibited here. You are witnessing to people who are far smarter, better educated, and infinitely more rational than you are - that's stupid. And you live in your charming state of denial in order to support your vanity. That's pathetic.

But why post garbage science, Dave? You're witnessing; you're supposed to be posting the word of God - not the word of stupid, ignorant men like Ham and Batten and Austin.

And stop preaching - it is, as I pointed out, prohibited.

RED DAVE · 07-31-2007, 09:55 PM

From afdave:

Quote:

It is between you and your Creator. YOU will answer to Him. Not me.

The ultimate weapon in the believer's arsenal:

GOD IS GOING TO FIX YOUR ASS!

RED DAVE

ericmurphy · 07-31-2007, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Excuse? No excuses. I have received exactly what I expected here. I expected pretty much monolithic opposition to my views, no matter what my arguments are ... and that's exactly what I got. There have been no surprises to me at all. I have no expectations that anyone will ever post anything indicative of being convinced of anything I say. And that's fine. I do think some folks may change their minds on their deathbeds or years from now or what have you, but it will be slow. My purpose here is simply to keep on doling out the truth about science and the world and of course correcting my views whenever someone discovers something wrong with them. It's happened a few times. What you do with these discussions is not my concern. It is between you and your Creator. YOU will answer to Him. Not me.

Dave, I have nothing to fear from your "creator" (who doesn't exist anyway, but even if he did). You, on the other hand, have a great deal to fear from your "creator." You'd best hope he doesn't exist.

Calilasseia · 07-31-2007, 10:25 PM

Ah, the inevitable last resort.

Turn to god or you will burn in hell.

Trouble is Dave, as CM has pointed out, you're not telling us to turn to god properly, you're telling us to accept uncritically the particular species of theological pornography that you have signed up to. Need I remind you again that learned theologians in Europe do not agree with you?

Catholic theologians dismiss a literal genesis (Hat tip to Mitschlag for posting this originally at RDF).

Typical quotes listed in that Times article include:

Quote:

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

Quote:

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision”

Quote:

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

Quote:

“We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

Quote:

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

Quote:

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Oops. Look at that Dave ... they say there are significant dangers involved in a fundamentalist approach.

But then some parts at least of the Catholic Church have learned the lessons of history. Several of those eminent theologians have no wish to see the return of the Dark Ages. Why? Because they understand what a disaster it will be for mankind.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.