dont bother. As is demonstrated on here more than occasionally, you cant bring a a fairy-tale believer to their senses with even the most definitive logical argument against their hogwash. You'll just get a brick shaped bump on your forehead.
Just smile knowingly, nod and then ignore them and enjoy that smug warmness inside from the appreciation that you don't need imaginary friends now you're older than 6. And then never take a decision they ever make at face value.
Now let the battle commence!Posted 7 years agotoys19Member
Stoners pragmatism is pretty wise. I would be tempted to take it a step further, lose the freind, can you really have any respect for someone who is either:
a) clearly your intellectual inferior
b) mentally ill and danger to you and yours
c) probably both
Unless of course you want to keep the friend for the purpose of wheeling out at parties and doing a bit of baiting. But keep Stoners advice in mind, never trust anything they say or do again.
A mate recently split with his new girl after 5 or so years of romance and vigorous humping, she was always religious, he just avoided the issue. When they started talking about getting married, she turned off the goodies because she needed to make herself pure again in the eyes of the lord, and was intransigent about it too. He saw the light.Posted 7 years agoduckmanMember
There is another way;
You could have respect for that person's view,as they should have for yours.But that would not be the Singletrack way.
Stoner goes straight into usual stw abuse mode,however Toys posts a couple of interesting points. Faith equals mental illness and low(relative) intellect.He then suggests said mentally ill person should be wheeled out at parties to amuse people,this is obviously him displaying his own high intellect.If you are going to suggest people are stupid,being able to spell friend would help.
That was a troll,right?Posted 7 years agonickcSubscriber
Religion loses when it tries To take on sceince on it's terms. The bible is one of the greatest pieces of literature the western world has and should be treasured. Ceationism is none if these things, it's an American device to get a particular kind of right wing Christianity taught in US public schools.Posted 7 years agoSaccadesMember
If the clever fellow upstairs made everything perfect and just right on his first attempt, then why did he leave the airlines from the gannet's nostrils to it's lungs?
Most birds have circular breathing, whereas humans (and gannets) have tidal flow, in the gannets case because the nostrils have grown over allowing them to dive into the sea.
So you'd think him upstairs would remove the air lines because it's pretty cramped in a gannets head and keeping the air lines is a bit of a faff.
You'd also think that if he was keeping the airlines in the head as a "standard" feature of birds he'd then make the "blocked up nostrils" a standard feature of all birds going under the water/diving into the sea.
In that case why do penguins/pelicans (both of which dive into the water) have open nostrils?
You could also ask him why whales have vestigages of legs in the bone structure too I guess.Posted 7 years agojulianwilsonMember
You could also ask him why whales have vestigages of legs in the bone structure too I guess.
easy: the Devil put them there (probably the same dark night he was out burying all those 'dinosaur' bones) in order to make us doubt the True Story Of Creation. There will always be an answer in my experience!
I knew a couple of waaaay christian geology/paleantology students at university who were and still are quite happy reconciling their studies with their faith.Posted 7 years agoahwilesSubscriber
there is a book:
(from amazon – other bookshops are available)
which will tell you everything you need to know – except how to convince someone who has based their world view on 'make stuff up and pretend it is true'.
creationism in the face of so much evidence is nothing less than intellectual vandalism.Posted 7 years agoKT1973Member
Evolution is a fact. Religions contradict each other and themselves and don't have a leg to stand on. Who still believes in RA here? Or Thor or Zeus?Posted 7 years ago
Problem is, they will not change their minds. However there is hope on the horizon- the internet. It's spreading the word. We won't see it, but provided the muslims don't take over the world (they won't) and we don't suffer a massive technological setback due to a natural disaster or similar, it should phase out over the next couple of hundred years.
I don't believe in creationism and do think that evolution is the best current description of how life on Earth has developed. This doesn't however make it true. Alot of people on this forum always say that science doesn't allow for true or false answers, it is all hypothesis and evolution is the best hypoyhosis for what evedence we currently have. Also I feel I have to point out although evolution may best describe the mechanism for how life has come to be how it is on Earth now it doesn't really explain how on earth it started. What was the mechanism driving life starting up? What was the mechanism driving the big bang. These processes that are currently happening ie evolution a constantly expanding universe only go as far as expalining what is currently happening or has happened in the past it doesn't explain how any of it started. I also think its worth pointing out you can believe in both creationism and evolution for this very reason. Evolution rationalises the current understanding of the world around us. It doesn't rationalise nor can it how it all began. If you don't take the bible literally then it isn't so daft. Some people just like looking down from their high horse.Posted 7 years agoahwilesSubscriber
why should the theory of evolution have to explain the big-bang? or the origins of life?
evolution explains VERY VERY accurately how life adapts to it's environment.
(more or less random mutations, removal of the least fit by death)
With a planet stuffed full of evidence all of which confirming it.
as for origins of life; abigenesis is one hypothesis being spat on by the religionist – so probably worth looking at.
a theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed by evidence – in this case lots and lots of evidence.Posted 7 years agoIanMunroMember
Indeed as alex says evolution and creation aren't mutually exclusive, there is nothing wrong with the concept of a god as a creator, it's just the literal biblical view of creation that's completely barking. Likewise denying the existence of evolution is pretty retarded.Posted 7 years agotoys19Member
That was a troll,right?
Don't you think the whole post is a troll? But by your definition it was a point of view and you should respect it. You also berate STW abuse mode but happily abuse me. You have the first identifiable trait in a god botherer, rank hypocrisy. Taking the p*ss out of religious types is like shooting fish in a barrel. If the best you can do is try and belittle me by having go at my typo's then you need a bit more fish in your diet.Posted 7 years ago
Has this thread lost track of the fact that Creationism isn't what's spoken about in the Bible, but a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible that most Christians think of as ludicrous?
Or have people become confused by the vocabulary, and got the creation story mixed up with Creationsim?
Just in case there's anyone here who doesn't realise: being Christian doesn't make you a Creationist.
(So if you're trying to refute Creationist beliefs, it doesn't mean you're refuting Christianity or religion as a whole. Effectively, you're just arguing with a bunch of idiots who no-one with a brain takes seriously. Why bother?)Posted 7 years ago
If you don't take the bible literally then it isn't so daft. Some people just like looking down from their high horse.
This always puzzles me. If the Bible isn't to be taken literally and parts of it are not considered true by many Christians, then how reliable is it as a historical source? If the 'scripture' is unreliable, then what exactly IS the basis of Christianity? Then again, how important are the various man-made dogma and traditions of the various churches?
If there is no reliable worldy guide to christianity, there must be another way. I understand that some people have a (at least one-way) personal hotline to god and speak in tongues etc.
Maybe some double-blind testing should be carried out? Or would testing god immediately invalidate the test?
As an intelligent church-going person I know said,Posted 7 years ago
"It's all okay if you don't question it TOO much"
Effectively, you're just arguing with a bunch of idiots who no-one with a brain takes seriously. Why bother?
Because the bunch of idiots have tremendous power in the US and slowly but surely over here. There are already schools teaching Creationism over here (using texts from the US). Bad but not as bad as Steiner Schools imo, schools should be state run, mixed gender and secular.Posted 7 years agoIanMunroMember
Evolution is still a theory. Despite being the mostly likely explanation with mountains of evidence it is still but a theory
There's also a theory of gravity. Despite the fact that it's only a theory I still fall off my bike with alarm regularity 😉
Theories are there to explain and predict observations. Both gravity and evolution are observable facts.Posted 7 years ago
evolution explains VERY VERY accurately how life adapts to it's environment. With a planet stuffed full of evidence all of which confirming it.
Mate I did actually write that in my post. You just cherry picked what you want to try and make me look silly but this is a forum and I think you will find that a forum is a public meeting or assembly for open discussion. Besides I also wrote that I d believe in evolution so what exactly do you prove by agreeing with me on that point?Posted 7 years ago
Your life sounds like a barrel of laughs
Why? Because I ask questions and don't take everything I was told as a child at face value?
Would my life be better if I believed in an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent creator with a very ambiguous good book?
'Science' is updated when new evidence is observed or discovered. It is in iterative process.Posted 7 years ago
Off-topic slightly, but you know the big bang? A big explosion/implosion of gas and whatnot?
Where did the gas come from, what caused it to contract/explode?
nobody knows, but does that automatically prove the existence of the 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit', Allah, The Hindu gods or any other deities?Posted 7 years ago
nobody knows, but does that automatically prove the existence of the 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit', Allah, The Hindu gods or any other deities?
Well, no, who said it did?
But if science can't account for this simple-seeming hole in one of its central theories, how can the rest of science be taken seriously?Posted 7 years ago
But if science can't account for this simple-seeming hole in one of its central theories, how can the rest of science be taken seriously?
Are you serious?
Scientific understanding increases with time. It is not 'true', but is correct to the best of our understanding until it is refined further.
There is no evidence for god(s) or religion. If religion can't account for the simple-seeming hole in one of its central theories, how can the rest of religion be taken seriously?Posted 7 years agoBigJohnSubscriber
As long as you don't mix faith and logic you're fine.
If somebody wants to defend creationism with faith alone, that's OK by me. If they try to have a scientific discussion around it, or to attack evolution using broken logic then just walk away because they will just keep playing the god card.Posted 7 years agoKT1973Member
Dorset_Knob – Member
Off-topic slightly, but you know the big bang? A big explosion/implosion of gas and whatnot?
Where did the gas come from, and what caused it to contract/explode?
My scientific mind demands an answer and I can't be bothered to read any books!
For me, this is the big question. The religions of the world don't explain it though. We still have a lot to learn but we have to go forwards through science rather than backwards through religionPosted 7 years ago
Yiu are very belittling. People are entighteled to their own opinions whether you agree or not. I never said that I do believe in the holy trinity at any point. Nor that I believe in God. I just pointed out that science doesn't no can't offer all the answers and in my opinion looking down you nose at peoples alternative views on God/origins of every thing science has yet to explain makes you as bad as a fundamental christian who does believe in creationism. Every answer will only lead to more questions so 'God' if you will, will always be elusive. No matter how many questions you answer. Nor how many people you have distain for because they don't just accept what you say as gospel. Also smoking crack is very condusive to Catholosism because you can do it and then repent. Just like child buggary.Posted 7 years ago
Logic and science are both great for explaining things.
But they seem to fall short when it comes explaining people. I don't mean the blood and guts, I mean the soul. Allowing for religion seems to me like allowing room for the soul; denying religion seems to be like denying the soul.
It might not make any sense, or be provable scientifically, but why should it be? For proof of the existence of God (who is manifest on this Earth by love, some would say), I look to the work of religious organisations who provide all sorts of help to people who need it.
(And please don't make yourself look stupid by saying 'What about all the wars over religion?'!)Posted 7 years ago
Yiu are very belittling. People are entighteled to their own opinions whether you agree or not. I never said that I do believe in the holy trinity at any point. Nor that I believe in God. I just pointed out that science doesn't no can't offer all the answers and in my opinion looking down you nose at peoples alternative views on God/origins of every thing science has yet to explain makes you as bad as a fundamental christian who does believe in creationism. Every answer will only lead to more questions so 'God' if you will, will always be elusive. No matter how many questions you answer. Nor how many people you have distain for because they don't just accept what you say as gospel. Also smoking crack is very condusive to Catholosism because you can do it and then repent. Just like child buggary.
I'd like this on a t-shirt 🙂Posted 7 years ago
The topic ‘evolution/creationism’ is closed to new replies.