|
How to turn a creationist
Ok so I've got a good friend who happens to be a god fearing creationist. Now, she isn't without hope, because I've sensed some doubt in her and she happens to be quite a cool dudette.
Now so I've begun the process of turning her to the correct way of seeing things. But I would appreciate any advice you could give me on how to do it in the most efficient way possible. Now this is a semi long term project, so there is no rush. This is important because of reasons. And also because there is a beer in it for me if I succeed. I've already sort of started by making her somewhat upset today about god and whatevs. So, if you need any more info just ask and otherwise gimme some good tips. I know you guys can do it. PS. she's hawt |
Start this around 2:10
You can start from the beginning, but depending on how interested she is (or isn't) that may not hold her attention long. |
Quote:
Not that I'm a hardwired catholic, not that I go to temple, church, ritual or seance, but as soon as you start believing your theological opinion is the correct one and judging or educating people based on it, you're as bad as those that you're against. In my books, at least. |
Quote:
|
But you should tear it down because it's stupid. Try telling her she's stupid! That always works!
|
Quote:
|
Arguments presented as simple statements of obvious fact are persuasive. It works for theists, right!
In seriousness, no argument should be made under the assumption that (a) the other party knows the things you do, or (b) they necessarily are privy to and/or remember every similar argument you've made in the past. Which brings me to my point. If Oster's creationist friend is showing signs of doubt already, the scientific-and-factual route is probably the way to go. I doubt there's much merit to be gained in arguing from a theological standpoint unless you're secretly a major in that sort of thing, in which case you likely wouldn't need our help to begin with. Point out the erroneous assumptions, about the world, made by creationists years ago, and why they are false. Point out the erroneous assumptions, about the world, made by creationists even today, and why they are false. Imply a pattern about the ever shrinking bubble of ignorance, as I've heard it called. Your goal here is to make her understand that we humans not yet understanding how something works does not mean that a God must be responsible for it. Rather it means we simply do not yet understand how that something works. Just a start. Will require some research but I can only imagine you are prepared for that. |
Explain why you don't feel this way, Liz.
I'm not saying he shouldn't tell her she's wrong, he just needs to know how to approach the subject without being condescending. Acknowledging modern evolutionary theory as scientific fact does not automatically have to conflict with a belief in a higher power. Just cite the reasons why we can trust the scientific theory behind evolution (observeability, testability,) based on our understanding AND examples of how this does not need to contradict her beliefs as a Christian. I'm not sure which denomination Oester's friend belongs to, but there are some specific examples I pulled through Wikipedia. Quote:
Quote:
|
|
First, Seil is right.
Second, tell her that it may not be that the universe was literally created 6000 years ago, but that the entire thing is possibly metaphorical. I mean, think back to when the books of the Bible were being written, they didn't need a scientific explanation of what was going on. They just needed to know that the universe was made, things happened, et cetera. For the same reason there are no dinosaurs in the Bible, there's no evolution: It's irrelevant in terms of the greater picture. One day to God might be a million years to us. It's not to say that God doesn't exist, because he used evolution to populate the world, and make sure that's clear. The above is, incidentally, my own belief on why the Bible says seven days, instantly created. It didn't need to be scientifically accurate, it just needed a quick background, to have understanding of what came next, and to answer where the world came from. Heck, it even got the order right, for evolution. |
I don't have a problem with people believing in ghosts, but I'm pretty sure someone trying to convince someone ghosts exist is still worse than someone trying to convince someone that no that's dumb. Same deal.
|
Not really interested in a religious debate for the same reasons that I'm not interested in being banned.
I'll just say that trying to change someone's beliefs because of a beer bet or because they're hot is wrong. I just get the sense that you think you're 'saving' her from her 'out-dated and medieval' beliefs. EDIT NonCon, just because you don't share the belief doesn't automatically invalidate it. |
Quote:
|
Seduce her, and then just as she reaches climax scream, "WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW" at the top of your lungs.
|
Quote:
|
It's similar to what the second link I quoted says, the Bible teaches everything there is to know about God and Christianity as a faith BUT there's a whole mess of stuff it doesn't cover and that information is better found elsewhere by people who are specialized in those areas. Dialog between these areas is crucial to a full understanding of the universe.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'm pretty sure I was belittling Cracked.
|
ESPECIALLY ones about Cracked.
Quote:
Quote:
Like, I don't even necessarily disagree that trying real hard to make someone shunt their faith is a dick move. In fact I mostly believe it is so long as they aren't hurting anyone over it. But using Cracked as a reference should just be an immediate 'you lose'. In any discussion. |
Basically the way I saw it is that I coulda typed up alla dem words that David Wong did but, y'know, David Wong already did it and I'm not made of time.
I mean, I firmly fall down on the same side of the creationist divide that Liz does, but then again evangelical atheism is one of my biggest pet peeves 'cause it seems a whole lot like being a dick for the sake of being a dick. |
Quote:
I feel that the question of whether God exists is too massive and multifaceted to fully prove empirically one way or another to all people everywhere, so we don't bother with it. The origin of the Earth as explained by Creationism, however, IS something that can be empirically proven false and thus for the sake of making the friend more informed, should be done. This can be done without bothering to try and force her to abandon her faith in God; if she does so, that's her prerogative. However, Oester shouldn't try to force her choice there one way or another. |
Quote:
Like, his comparison between Stalin and Mao's murders and like the crusades or whatever thing religion is responsible for as a parallel doesn't work for the same reason that we don't just say every sociopath killer was a sociopath killer based on their religion (or lack thereof) but do for SOME because some are and some aren't. Mao and Stalin never used Atheism as the reason for their genocides, and their genocides were not a corruption of any belief system, other than Communism, if we want to call that a belief system. The crusades, witch trials, various terrorist activities by christians and muslim alike, etc. etc. all ARE a corruption of a religious belief system. And I mean, that's just in his first section. Quote:
|
Quote:
"Same deal." Means I am comparing belief in ghosts to a belief in religion, which actually isn't too unfair since both believe that when people die their spirit leaves their body. People who tell ghost stories believe it goes and does ghost things, which can take many forms, and people who belief in most religions belief it goes to some sort of afterlife. In fact, I'd go so far to say that if you think believing in ghosts is so unfair a comparison to religion, it's because you yourself have a really dismissive viewpoint of those who believe in ghosts. I'd say that's pretty hypocritical. |
I think there's technically more evidence for ghosts than God, to be fair.
|
Quote:
Things are going okay right now, like, nobody's in trouble, but just a head's up that this is still a thing. |
Quote:
The point was that he thinks he's right, so he thinks it's okay for him to try and knock down her belief system. But he's not automatically right because he doesn't agree with her. In fact, I think that mindset is a little disgusting, coming at it from a different angle: because you don't conform to my ideal standard, my beliefs, my wants, I'm going to try to change you. I think what I take issue with the most is that in the OP, he mentioned that it was for a beer, so I'm thinking he's trying to knock down this girls faith over a bar bet. Quote:
|
But what a person believes regarding the soul's fate after death is a separate topic from what a person believes regarding God as an entity. A person does not need to believe in one to believe in the other. For example, Buddhism's concept of reincarnation can exist entirely without a belief in a deity figure or figure. Additionally, a theistic religion may not believe in some aspects regarding the soul's behavior after death like ghosts; in Islam, the soul is judged and sent to either Paradise or Hell at the moment of death, so there are no opportunities for it to become an earthbound ghost.
No, I don't (generally) look down on people who believe in ghosts. It was mostly my fault for not recognizing how you were using that metaphor. Thank you for explaining it. |
Quote:
And like, I'm not saying going out of your way to stomp on somebody's belief system is a thing you need to do, but I also don't think it's "just as bad" as trying to do the same from the position of religion. I'm not going to pretend I'm familiar with Oster's circumstances enough to offer any meaningful commentary, but I just think Seil's "both are equally bad" post was dumb. |
As a Christian, I am opposed to the idea of converting someone away from creationistic ideas but it's not my place to try and stop you (I know how those debates go). I will point out however that from a non-religious standpoint, trying to further a relationship with the mindset of "She's wrong and I need to tell her she's wrong" is inconsiderate of the other person, because even if you feel that you have overwhelming evidence that you're right it doesn't mean that she will be receptive to debating in the "Why you're wrong" manner.
Discuss both your views with each other, that way it's actually possible to get anywhere with that without damaging your relation, and you may gain more insight than you had before. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Fucking hell people. Seriously? There's no need to be assholes about this. I mean it's all well and good when we're dicks to each other, I guess, but some random person only one of us knows? Because she's hot, and he wants a beer?
The fuck. |
Quote:
|
Seriously, whether or not it's "less wrong," it's still a dickish thing to do.
y'all should know better. Closing. |
secret plots?
Whoa. Did Token just close a thread? Stealth-mod? What did I miss...
|
I mean, all the other religions just don't make any sense!
I think it was something else (one of us closed it, edited that in, or similar).
Anyway, shit like this makes me damn glad I accepted the Doctor as my personal savior. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.