Why do creationists largely use only straw-man arguments?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Dawkins is a tool, but he's basically a red herring. It's not like I've ever praised him or his arguments and I'm the one mocking creationists.

[pbrower2a]

Creationists are more interested in defending the shakiest interpretation of what they think the Word of God than in discussing embryology, biochemistry, paleontology, or genetics. They intend to show the Word of God more powerful than objective science, a very arrogant position.

Let the religious people state that a moral life in This World gets one to Heaven and that an amoral life of exploitation, cruelty, selfishness, and  destructiveness gets one to Hell.  If God is just, then He wouldn't send people to Hell for failing to believe in Him, believing Him without enough fervency, believing in  Him the wrong way, or accepting the wrong Prophet or Savior. would he? But I can imagine a Just God consigning Nazis and Stalinists to a very long time in torment for their deeds.

Morality has value; pseudoscience has none.

[Sbane]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

Your being a jackass, mainly.

oh

Perhaps I would be aided by knowing what your intent is in asking that question.  What, exactly, don't you get?

just read what you wrote aloud and see for yourself. it's actually quite comical imho.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aside from one spelling mistake, one letter omission, and having accidentally repeated a phase, I really don't see what is so laughable.

The real irony is that by pointing out these errors, rather than attacking my actual argument, you are proving my point.

I have to agree with Aizen here. What were you trying to say in that post? Why do you think "scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible"? Also do you think there is anymore "proof" for god than there is for a flying spaghetti monster? Of course the truth is that both cannot be proved by the scientific method, or at least with the scientific knowledge and resources we have currently. Someone out there may believe a spaghetti monster created the universe and they would be just as justified in holding that position as you in holding the mainstream catholic position.

Also I am pretty sure theoretical physics is based more in rational thought than a belief in god, allah, ganesh, moses or the flying spaghetti monster.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

Your being a jackass, mainly.

oh

Perhaps I would be aided by knowing what your intent is in asking that question.  What, exactly, don't you get?

just read what you wrote aloud and see for yourself. it's actually quite comical imho.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aside from one spelling mistake, one letter omission, and having accidentally repeated a phase, I really don't see what is so laughable.

The real irony is that by pointing out these errors, rather than attacking my actual argument, you are proving my point.

     What I'm getting out of your argument is that people like Dawkins attack all Christians as being idiots because of the foolishness of the Creationists among the Christians' number. Am I correct in saying that that is your point?

[JSojourner]

None of it can be proven in a laboratory.

My story is quite simple.  I have read the story of Jesus of Nazareth.  I find his claims to deity and bodily resurrection absurd on their face.  And yet I believe them.  Sure, there is the witness of the Bible.  There are historical witnesses, at least as credible as others of that era. And there are some logical arguments, purely from reason, that might lead me to accept His claims as fact. 

But none of that is going to prove anything. Any of those things can be refuted by someone determined to come to another conclusion.

I can only offer what I have personally experienced of Him.  Am I a goody-two-shoes believer in a fairy tale?  Perhaps.  But I accepted His invitation and, for reasons I shall never fully understand, He welcomed me into His embrace.  I belong.  I am accepted in spite of all my foibles, sins and flaws.   His story is preposterous in the extreme -- so unlike the story of any other guru or teacher or leader.  It is so absurd, I can't help but believe it.

All I ask of my Atheist friends is simple:  be nice about it.  Don't call me names.  Don't insult me.  Don't mistake me for someone dumber than a chicken salad sandwhich just because I believe a Jewish carpenter, who claimed to be God, is risen from the dead and happens to love me recklessly.  I'm no fool.

Well...okay.  Maybe I am. (More on that in a moment.)

The hard part is that followers of this Jesus (including me, sometimes, I am sad to say) are anything but Jesus-like.  We can act like unconscionable pricks. We have done sickening and shameful things in His name.  But it's only fair to point out -- as some of my more fair-minded Atheist friends have -- that we have also done some amazingly generous, kind and loving things throughout history.  At the end of the day, the question I had to answer was about Jesus...not about John Calvin or Martin Luther or the Pope in Rome.  What was I going to do with Jesus of Nazareth and his outlandish claims?

Oh -- and I know it's annoying when we Christians evangelize.  But my usual foe here, Jmfcst, is quite correct.  It's another thing this Jesus told us to do.  Now, when we do it -- we can act like jackasses and condemn everyone to the fires of hell if they don't believe -- we can go door to door and interrupt peoples' suppers, making complete nuisances of ourselves.  Or we can respectfully, lovingly invite those who do not believe into our lives as friends.  And let them know we believe God, in Jesus Christ, loves them.  (And if they say, "Thanks, but no thanks", we can CONTINUE to be friends -- simply for friendship's sake.  Nothing is more disgusting than Christians who treat non-Christians like nothing more than notches on a gun handle.  I have a sister like that -- if she can't convert you, she cuts you off.  Such a shame.)

Anyway, I digress...as usual.  Just know that if you are an Atheist, an agnostic or a member of another religion...I like you, respect you and will fight for your right to believe as you do.  Because my "master" taught me to do to others as I would have done to me.  I will offer you the invitation.  But no matter what, I will be your friend.  I'm hardly there yet, but I am determined to shuffle off this mortal coil having spent more time being a friend...and less time being another "asshole for Jesus". 

That said, a song by Michael Card seems apropos here...


"Seems I've imagined Him all of my life
As the wisest of all of mankind
But if God's Holy wisdom is foolish to man
He must have seemed out of His mind

For even His family said He was mad
And the priests said a demon's to blame
But God in the form of this angry young man
Could not have seemed perfectly sane

When we in our foolishness thought we were wise
He played the fool and He opened our eyes
When we in our weakness believed we were strong
He became helpless to show we were wrong
And so we follow God's own fool
For only the foolish can tell-
Believe the unbelievable
And come be a fool as well

So come lose your life for a carpenter's son
For a madman who died for a dream
And you'll have the faith His first followers had
And you'll feel the weight of the beam
So surrender the hunger to say you must know
Have the courage to say I believe
For the power of paradox opens your eyes
And blinds those who say they can see

So we follow God's own Fool
For only the foolish can tell
Believe the unbelievable,
And come be a fool as well."

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It's fine as long as you realize that & act accordingly. I reacted the way I did because he posited the existence of heaven & hell as a statement of fact. There's a thin line between stating the factual truth of dogmatic elements to those who reject religion as a sort of rebuttal & religious fundamentalism.

[Magic 8-Ball]

The simple answer is creationists rely on straw men because they believe that every word in the Bible went from God's lips to Moses' ears, so Genesis is the literal word of God and there is no room for metaphors and symbolism.  Since things like the fossil record and dinosaurs and man hanging out together don't mesh, conservative Christians use pseudoscience to justify their position.

The thing that I have never understood is why people want to commingle science and faith in the first place, as though they're interchangeable.

Science deals with that which can be observed and recorded.  Faith is supposed the rest, right?  If there was a logical way to either prove or disprove the existence of any god, what need is there for faith to begin with?

Anyway, I digress...as usual.  Just know that if you are an Atheist, an agnostic or a member of another religion...I like you, respect you and will fight for your right to believe as you do. 

That's the way it should be.  And I try to return the favor.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But my usual foe here, Jmfcst...

we're not foes, you've simply removed the offensive stuff from the message of the Gospel and I left it in.

[Coburn In 2012]

When Jsojurner, BRTD, , Eraser and most of the libs talk about religion or anything else it sounds like this  "blah blah blah blah gay rights blah blah love of jesus blah blah blah hatemongers blah blah blah blah balh balh blah its okay to kill children blah blah poor defenseless indians and blacks blah blah blah.

Will you idiots ever get a new song?  You say you are for Jesus christ but you are against all the things he taught.  Stop even claiming to be a christian.  I am not sure I am one or a very good one but I know the truth when I read it or hear it.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Coburn, JS is a better Christian than you will ever be.

[Coburn In 2012]

Coburn, JS is a better Christian than you will ever be.

I honestly don't know if I am a Christian or not.  I trying to learn more about the Bible and the Christian faith tho as I do believe it was the foundation of this country. 

He is the kind of christian tho who picks and chooses his favorite dishes from the table and leaves what he doesn't like.  That's the cowards way.  In for a penny in for a pound  you know?  I think the conservative Christians on this forum are the real ones because they believe the WHOLE thing not just the parts they don't like.

[Devilman88]

Coburn, JS is a better Christian than you will ever be.

I honestly don't know if I am a Christian or not.  I trying to learn more about the Bible and the Christian faith tho as I do believe it was the foundation of this country. 

He is the kind of christian tho who picks and chooses his favorite dishes from the table and leaves what he doesn't like.  That's the cowards way.  In for a penny in for a pound  you know?  I think the conservative Christians on this forum are the real ones because they believe the WHOLE thing not just the parts they don't like.

If you are not a christian then you really don't know true Christianity. Jesus teaches about love and understanding. Love everyone no matter what. Tell them the truth and leave it at that. No once did he ever try to push his views on anyone. He let the truth come to them. All you're doing is making Christianity and yourself look like bigots.

[Tonberry]

He is the kind of christian tho who picks and chooses his favorite dishes from the table and leaves what he doesn't like.  That's the cowards way.  In for a penny in for a pound  you know?  I think the conservative Christians on this forum are the real ones because they believe the WHOLE thing not just the parts they don't like.

It's not wrong to find your own personal worldview, especially if it draws upon the wisdom of the past while rejecting the unfortunate relics that have been left behind from a barbaric past. This behavior creates credible conclusions.

I believe that we should regularly question every moral standard that we have, instead of simply accepting the entirety of a 1000+ page book.

Furthermore, the name of your religion is Christianity, not Biblism. While this is my own opinion, I do believe it makes more sense for one calling himself a Christian to hold the example of Christ to a higher regard than other parts of the Bible, especially when the two are at odds.

And Dan brought up a very good point. People are less responsive to coercion than they are to kindness. Even in terms of its effectiveness, you would do a better service to Christ if you approached others amicably, simply because they would be more receptive to Christ's message.

Coburn, we are not here to try to fool you. Our intent is not to pull you from God's path. We have simply made observations and determined which approaches of Christianity result in harmony and which do not.

[pbrower2a]

When Jsojurner, BRTD, , Eraser and most of the libs talk about religion or anything else it sounds like this  "blah blah blah blah gay rights blah blah love of jesus blah blah blah hatemongers blah blah blah blah balh balh blah its okay to kill children blah blah poor defenseless indians and blacks blah blah blah.

Will you idiots ever get a new song?  You say you are for Jesus christ but you are against all the things he taught.  Stop even claiming to be a christian.  I am not sure I am one or a very good one but I know the truth when I read it or hear it.

You just showed a prime example of a strawman argument. You defined those with whom you disagree with a stereotype that you can easily tear down. You present Christianity in a way more likely to offend than to convince.

Leave theology to adults -- people with the prerequisite education in philosophy.  My suggestion: read Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian so that you can know a liberal, atheist argument from someone who could make a strong moral argument against Christian dogma at its worst. For a first-rate philosopher, Russell is surprisingly easy reading.

[Mechaman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8
Failure

[Scam of God]

The weakling flails and lashes out when his position has been compromised - so, too, does the established interest, once it has been undermined, attack with an increasingly unstable furor and exceedingly less logical coherence. That Christianity today is increasingly seen as the sole domain of a collective of radicals, careless in their arguments and without regard to conservatism in method, is simply and solely the result of a solid truth: it is.

Value systems, like nations, grow stagnant and die - not because 'human progress' renders them obsolete (though it is simple to pretend it is so), but because each such system leads eventually to the conditions that give rise to its own destruction: the multipolar and heterogeneous world of traditional European tradition - and when I consider myself a 'traditionalist', it is the values of this world-order I hearken to - eventually found its fullest expression in polytheistic Rome: in the immediate centuries before Christ, it was commonplace to see, for instance, rabbis dwelling alongside the priests of Sol Invictus and members of the mobedan mobed - and these were competing cults, all of them. In fact, the Latins were every bit our equal in broad-mindedness and tolerance, for the basic structure of their civilization compelled them to be; an intercontinental superpower is not built on marginalizing and alienating those inhabitants of its frontier regions.

But such a situation could not last, and in Rome's great tolerance it fell prey to Christianity: only too late did the Romans understand the dictatorial aspirations of the upstart faith, and their initial reaction - enforcement of the Imperial cult, a curtailing of general religious liberties, and a lack of political will to attempt to assimilate Christianity with Rome's polytheism - served only to turn ill will from other adherents to non-traditional faiths. Devotees of Cybele and Mithras were just as targeted as were the Christians, which led these other counter-cultures to give support to the largest burgeoning anti-Rome movement - Christianity.

The same dialectic is at present in modern Christianism, but in reverse: rather than killing itself to death out of tolerance, it has shut out any possibility for self-renovation through an infusion of new ideas and new readings of Scripture. So thoroughly has the American laity rejected higher criticism that, here, virtually no Biblical criticism is embraced by the great median of believers - even Reinhold Niebuhr, who preaches by and large a simply intensely personal variation of the moral absolutism of American evangelicals, is largely unknown amongst them.

Which is not to say that the Christian experiment among Europeans has been a total failure - but even then it has provided the very tools now turned against it. Christianity was responsible for the burning at Alexandria, but it also encouraged the refinement of epistemology among a clergy who alone were permitted direct access to the Divinity. This epistemology - chiefly developed out of need to parse the literal story of the Bible from its meta-moral meanings - would eventually give way to the really integral elements of our Western methodology of science, which in turn does Christianity in.

The modern fundamentalist Christian, then, on the whole, is simply acting out what is natural to him; really his behavior cannot be expected to be any better. He has a nose, and understands intuitively that his religion is beginning to smell more than a little like dessicated meat. The intelligent among them are now looking for ways to revitalize the religion; the idiots are content to toil away at shoveling the landside; and the few who are really attuned to themselves already are experimenting in new methods of existence, new values and new creations.