Yeah, you have a point there, Miller. Maybe I should rephrase and say that, MOST of them will never have their minds changed by logic and evidence.
I was pretty much always a skeptic, though. I was the kid who argued with his Sunday school teacher, youth leader, parents, grandparents, etc., over some of the problematic aspects of the faith. Long before I had even left it.
So I don’t know what that tell you, but there you go.
I’m not surprised, but then, I indulge in recreational anger by listening to Christian(ist) radio. I have a feeling you would like Fred Clark, of Slacktivist fame. Check him out if you haven’t. Here’s a quote from his recent piece about a bible college firing a professor who dared posit that maybe they should look at the evidence and change their minds:
[emphasis added]
link to Slacktivist
Well, 5 minutes googling says the exact opposite. She says the model for that painting was a man who went to her church who she thought would make a good Jesus, and that most of the money from her paintings goes to AIDS charities. Of course, she could be lying, but there’s no reason to believe so without evidence. As to your other point, there’s a compressed time video of her working on a painting pretty much continuously.
Why would she need a model to paint something that God revealed to her? And she may have used him for the pose, but there’s no denying that the result is a painting of a man who looks very much like the popular western depiction of Jesus.
“We understand them just fine. Thanks to Cyningablod here…so since a deal can’t be made, I guess things get real simple.”
Where’s my robot suit?
What’s a grifter?
I don’t get it? It might be the way it was written or that I know nothing about bible college types? I don’t like Christian radio so I don’t know Fred Clark?
I learned about Charles Darwin, The Big Bang Theory, Genesis, Evolution and took each as it’s own theory. I think it is good for children to get all the different angles.
Fred Clark is a politically liberal evangelical Christian. He is perhaps most famous for a savage and erudite dissection of the Left Behind novels, which is ongoing. He is the polar opposite of Christian radio.
The quoted passage is from his discussion of creationists of the stripe mentioned in the OP. He is noting the irony that these “literal bible-believing Christians” are driven largely by Darwinism. They are much more interested in finding “evidence” for not-evolution than in reading the actual bible and appreciating it as it stands on its own.
As for your second comment, I am compelled to point out that Genesis isn’t a theory. It’s not even a hypothesis.
Thanks, I have heard of The, “Left Behind” books. So Clark is a Liberal Evangelical Christian that does not Christian radio or the books.
I looked up “grifter” and it is a con artist. I hope that the parents are not using her for money. What makes me sad is if she reads this online she is going to be very heartbroken. So far there is no proof that is happening but as with everything else you are guilty till proven innocent. I didn’t post the video so you could discredit her and call her a fake. I posted it because it because for this girl it inspired her Art.
That’s not all the different angles. Here is a list of 57 different creation myths. If we’re allowing Genesis into our science classrooms to “get all the angles,” why are we only including Yahweh and the seven day creation? Why not Mbombo, the giant who vomited up the universe? Or that everything was hatched out of an egg? Or that the first people were released from a clam by a passing raven?
Genesis is just another in a very, very large line of creation myths, none more objectively truthful than the next. There’s nothing special about the book of Genesis, that makes it distinct from all the other stories people have made up about where we come from. But when Genesis is taught in public schools, the government is effectively saying, “This belief, among all the world’s beliefs, has validity to it. It’s a fact, and can be taught as such in our schools, on the government’s dime.”
And that’s a problem, because there’s a law in this country that says the government can’t do that. If you think that it should, you’re going to have to amend the constitution to allow the government to endorse a religion. Which you may be able to do. But the problem with that is making sure the government endorses your religion. After all, the same law that say you can’t teach Christian theology in science class is also the law that says you can’t teach Muslim theology in science class.
They should not be teaching anything in public schools that is against the law or constitution. Science is a slippery slope because a lot of it is not based on facts.
We are really throwing out the baby with the bath water on this.
[URL=“Do You Know What Your Children Are Being Taught in School? | Answers in Genesis”]Do You Know What Your Children Are Being Taught in School? | Answers in Genesis](Creation myth - Wikipedia)
Could you please provide an example of science that isn’t based on facts?
I’m not surprised that creationists find ways to believe what they want to believe. It’s a very human thing to do.
The idea that “the world belongs to the devil” isn’t new, either.
A con artist.
Yes, clearly the people who assume outright, sans justification, that the answers are in Genesis are a well-reasoned unbiased source. If they say godless scientists want to turn our sons gay and give all our daughters abortions, clearly we should believe them without thinking it through.
Either you didn’t read your own cite, or you are literally and without hyperbole mentally retarded.
Personal insults aren’t allowed outside the Pit. This is a formal warning, so please don’t do this again.
I’m moving this to Great Debates because of the tone of the debate and because one poster is essentially witnessing. But insults are not allowed regardless.
Thought experiment for Perceival: I produce a bible that is identical in all respects to the New International edition, except that in my version of Genesis, creation took seven days and God rested on the eighth. I print up a few thousand copies and begin distributing them, spreading the “eighth-day” gospel.
If my bible is a less accurate description of creation than the New International, please prove it.
Perciful:
By linking to Answers In Genesis (one of the largest and most famous “young earth” creationist organizations), you’ve forever tainted any credibility you might have otherwise had in this discussion.
I don’t say that as an ad hom, circumstantial or otherwise. I’m NOT saying, “Your arguments fail because you linked to a poor source.” I’m quite sure you–as an individual–are capable of admirably defending your own beliefs. But on this board, in this discussion, to be taken seriously by other Dopers (that’s my key point, here), it’s not a good idea to quote from the very ideological group whose bizarre anti-scientific dogma, prompted the OP in the first place.
Nicolas didn’t express it well, but his incredulity at that citation is understandable.
The thing that bugs me about these types is they’re not consistent. If science is an evil conspiracy, why don’t they declare that the images on televisions are glamours of the devil and shun them? That ovens channel the flames of hell? That mechanical advantage from levers comes from demons possessing you and granting you strength?
No, these lazy people don’t bother to reject all science; they only do it where it’s convenient. Lazy butts.
I’ve seen worse than what the OP talks about. Consider, for instance, my father. His guiding principles go something like this:
1: Choose a course of action. This can be anything from deciding who to vote for, to deciding what maintenance to do on his house, to deciding what to have for dinner.
2: Some good things happen in his life. These good things are clearly God’s doing, and are therefore evidence that he chose the right course of action, since God’s helping him do His work.
3: Some bad things happen in his life. These bad things are clearly Satan’s doing, and are therefore evidence that he chose the right course of action, since Satan’s trying to put obstacles in his path.
4: Therefore, he can be absolutely certain that the decision he made was correct. Since this has always happened for every decision, however important or trivial, he’s ever made in his life, it’s therefore also clear that he’s never been wrong about anything, however important or trivial, in his life.
Chronos–
I’m very familiar with that system of thinking, too. Have seen it/heard it my entire life.
I am aggravated NO END by theists’ penchant to let God off the hook when things go wrong, but then to turn around and praise him when things go right. It’s bizarre.
It seems very much like a way of projecting God onto an existence that pretty strongly appears, through its random and apathetic disbursal of good and bad fortune, to be devoid of any supreme deity, at all.