Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

How can you fully experience" something you undoubtedly consider as fictional? 

Recommended Posts

This thread is inspired by a status update posted by Slick.

Slick had apparently visited two Christian-based museums - The Creation (Ohio), and The Ark Encounter (Kentucky).  Just so to show the whole exchanges between us:

https://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/profile/111034-slick/?status=12095&type=status

I, myself have never been to any of these two places (not that there's anything wrong with them)............but I'm glad to see that Slick had even visited BOTH!  It seems his interest to, as he say, "fully experience" them, is quite amazing - one isn't simply enough. :)

I've got several questions that needs clearing up, Slick.

Quote

I'm glad I went as well. One can't fully experience the absurdity of young earth creationist ideas until they are brought to life.

Can you explain.......

Why on earth do you think it so important to "fully experience" something you undoubtedly consider as fictional? 

Edited by Greg
Updated title, to reflect thread topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

Quote

 

In text alone this idea is ridiculous but witnessing believers interact with a life like exhibit makes for an almost hallucinogenic experience.

 

 

 

 

Have you gone to Disney World?   Or, Disney Land?   

Have you seen Mickey Mouse.....and Cinderella.......and all other cartoon characters?  Do you know where they're derived from?

Have you seen these life-like characters  interact with enraptured children........... and tickled pink parents?  

Did you have the same "hallucinogenic experience?"    And that same feeling of warm deja vu as you look back to your own childhood?  Have you not deciphered as you grew up what childhood beliefs you may have had are simply.....fictional? 

 

So, your "concern" for these Christian children you witnessed is kinda hypocritical, to say the least.  You need to reflect back.....to analyze.....and we see that they're not really different from a child who excitedly sits on Santa's lap - and giving his wish list!

 

 

  I'm assuming you have an idea what The Creation museum, and the Ark Encounter will be all about.....so, I don't get your surprise, and this "Aha!" moment you had!  :lol: 

 

You know the text for Mickey Mouse is ridiculous.........and of course, as a Bible-bashing atheist, you consider the whole Bible as  FICTIONAL!

 

Can you explain why you seem so surprise to what you've seen in what you obviously know are THEME  parks?  If the theme parks are both derived from a Book that you consider  "ridiculous," and fictional.........why is it any surprise at all that a segment of it (The Ark as an example), would be any different?  

What did you expect, exactly?

 

What were you hoping for.........

 

What are you........SEARCHING for?

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm glad I went as well. One can't fully experience the absurdity of young earth creationist ideas until they are brought to life.

 

There is more to these visits to these two Theme Parks than just simple idle exploration that involved time, money and planning.

INTEREST.    First, the interest has to be there, right?

 

You seem so..........relieved.   Like as if, you wanted some confirmation, and what you saw confirmed it for you.   It has to do with science.   Your posts show that:


 

Quote

 

"Hilarious to witness the thousands of insane hoops they are willing to jump through to explain how the Earth is only 6,000 years old, how dinosaurs and humans coexisted, how one family kept multiple breading pairs of all of the land animals alive on a boat for a year, etc.

-------------------------------------------------

I was totally expecting the hilarity but was surprised at how sickening it felt to actually witness children being taught to deny scientific evidence. Crap like dragon stories did happen but it was really humans fighting dinosaurs with swords. 

--------------------------------------------------

They have models explaining how baby and miniature versions of animal kinds (part of the explanation of how so many animals could fit on one boat) walked off the ark around the globe to their present locations, through regions they couldn't survive in, while refraining from eating one another. Some presumably learned to swim briefly to get to islands and then promptly lost the ability. Then when arriving in their present day locales the animal kinds rapidly evolved into the many different species of present day animal families and then instantly stopped evolving. "

 

 

I don't know why you hang everything on science........and yet, your atheism directly contradicts science. 

 

Science has definitely not ruled Creation out.  In fact, science - the statement issued by The national Academy of Sciences - leans more towards the possibility of the Biblical God's existence  through -  THEISTIC Evolution.

 

Quote

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

 

So you latched on two theme parks that are founded by a Christian group that takes the Bible literally.  They are THEME parks that take the Bible literally.

We know that, thanks to science, we now can take some of the verses in the Bible literally.   Like the stretching universe, as an example.   And, man is made of "dust."   Figuring out what are figures of speech and what's literal......is key.   But for some of us, whether they're literal or not,  doesn't really matter.

 

 

So.....if you're latching on a theme park to give a much-needed confirmation of some sort for you......I think that's a very shallow way of getting some knowledge.   Obviously you're on a quest........nothing wrong with that.   But you've got to be sensible about it.....

............................and you've got to have an open-mind.

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the point here is, as you seem to be having a conversation with... yourself? In any case, it scares me that people of any religion are permitted to substitute religious fantasy in place of objective facts and/or science. At least at amusement parks we know that everything on display is completely artificial and children are usually astute enough to pick up on that and as they get older can ascertain differences between fantasy and reality. But religion is much different in that it becomes ingrained as dogma and often becomes a justification for social control and in some cases war.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I'm not sure what the point here is, as you seem to be having a conversation with... yourself?

 

Nothing stops me from saying what I want to say - whether there be responses, or not.

 

Quote

In any case, it scares me that people of any religion are permitted to substitute religious fantasy in place of objective facts and/or science.

So, that scares you.

And......? 

How does it affect you if some people believe the earth is 6,000 years old?

 

 

Quote

At least at amusement parks we know that everything on display is completely artificial and children are usually astute enough to pick up on that and as they get older can ascertain differences between fantasy and reality.

Exactly.

 

 

Quote

But religion is much different in that it becomes ingrained as dogma and often becomes a justification for social control and in some cases war.

....just like any ideology.   Not exclusive to religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, betsy said:

1) Nothing stops me from saying what I want to say - whether there be responses, or not.

2) How does it affect you if some people believe the earth is 6,000 years old?

3) ....just like any ideology.   Not exclusive to religion.

1) I'm just wondering what point you're trying to make and whether you're actually interested in starting a debate?

2) I don't care whether adults believe the earth is 6,000 years old, or flat, or whether men have never actually walked on the moon (which one of my grandfathers believed to be the case). What bothers me is that we permit children to be taught fantasy as a substitute for facts and justify so doing on grounds of religious belief. My parents, who were both practicing Catholics throughout their lives, taught us that the purpose of religious hagiography and storytelling was to convey ethical messages and parables or lessons on morality rather than facts. We were told to listen to our science teachers and read our school science textbooks to ascertain facts.

3) Are you in Canada, where we're now told that criticism of some religious beliefs and practices is unacceptable? We're free to criticize any ideology or dogma with which we disagree, with the exception, of course, of religion.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turningrite said:

1) I'm just wondering what point you're trying to make and whether you're actually interested in starting a debate?

 

My questions are directed at Slick.  However, anyone is free to give their opinion.

 

 

Quote

2) I don't care whether adults believe the earth is 6,000 years old, or flat, or whether men have never actually walked on the moon (which one of my grandfathers believed to be the case). What bothers me is that we permit children to be taught fantasy as a substitute for facts and justify so doing on grounds of religious belief. My parents, who were both practicing Catholics throughout their lives, taught us that the purpose of religious hagiography and storytelling was to convey ethical messages and parables or lessons on morality rather than facts. We were told to listen to our science teachers and read our school science textbooks to ascertain facts.

I don't care if it bothers you.    We have rights to religion - and we can impart our values and beliefs to our own children!   Mind your own children.

 

 

Quote

3) Are you in Canada, where we're now told that criticism of some religious beliefs and practices is unacceptable? We're free to criticize any ideology or dogma with which we disagree, with the exception, of course, of religion.

Yes I'm in Canada - and as far as I know, no one is saying criticism of religion is unacceptable......at least, not me.   Why?  Did anyone say you can't?

 

Btw, I'm also free to criticize any ideology.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, betsy said:

My questions are directed at Slick.  However, anyone is free to give their opinion.

I don't care if it bothers you.    We have rights to religion - and we can impart our values and beliefs to our own children!   Mind your own children.

Yes I'm in Canada - and as far as I know, no one is saying criticism of religion is unacceptable......at least, not me.   Why?  Did anyone say you can't?

Btw, I'm also free to criticize any ideology.

You're certain of your certainty, apparently. I prefer my life and views to be governed by facts and I think we'd all be better off were learning about matters like origins of the universe and species left to qualified teachers. Thank goodness my parents, who were observant Catholics, weren't dogmatic. I learned my cynicism about religion mainly from my father, who resented people who lorded their own version of religiosity over others. He grew up in Orange Order Ontario in the pre-WWII era when discrimination against Catholics (and French-Canadians, like his father) was generally prevalent, particularly in smaller communities. While personally religious, he espoused the view that a secular society was the best model with which to accommodate diversity. As for your assertion that you're free to criticize any ideology (presumably including any religious ideology), I could provide some examples to counter your case, but I don't want to raise any lest I be censored by the site administrators. Most of us have learned to self-censor in today's politically correct environment.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, turningrite said:

You're certain of your certainty, apparently. I prefer my life and views to be governed by facts and I think we'd all be better off were learning about matters like origins of the universe and species left to qualified teachers.

"Qualified teachers"......meaning, scientists.  

 

Well, just so you know, here is one fact.....the creme de la creme of qualified scientists has not ruled out Creation by God!  IN FACT, science leans towards its possibility.   They call it, "THEISTIC evolution."  Of course, it's not the literal version of Genesis.


 

Quote

 

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

 

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, turningrite said:

Thank goodness my parents, who were observant Catholics, weren't dogmatic. I learned my cynicism about religion mainly from my father, who resented people who lorded their own version of religiosity over others.

So......why do I have the sense that you're lording your opinion over a particular group of Christians who take the Bible literally? 

How does it affect you in any way if someone believes earth is merely a few billion years old?   What harm does that do to you?

 

You don't agree with their faith, that to you, isn't "science-based".........

............so, based on the public statement issued by the The National Academy of Sciences........ do you think Creation by God, is a possibility?

 

 

 

Quote

He grew up in Orange Order Ontario in the pre-WWII era when discrimination against Catholics (and French-Canadians, like his father) was generally prevalent, particularly in smaller communities. While personally religious, he espoused the view that a secular society was the best model with which to accommodate diversity.

Why is this suddenly about you and your dad?

Though he's entitled to his opinion........I don't care what your dad think is the best model!   I don't think so, and I can point it out why so.          Read below.

 

 

Based from what I've learned from the Scriptures - and speaking as a religious person -  a nation who has fear of God will endure.

 


 

Quote

 

As for your assertion that you're free to criticize any ideology (presumably including any religious ideology), I could provide some examples to counter your case, but I don't want to raise any lest I be censored by the site administrators. Most of us have learned to self-censor in today's politically correct environment.

 

Let me re-phrase that:   Being in a supposedly democratic country that's supposedly adhering to our Constitution.....I should have the freedom to express my criticisms of any ideology (including any religious ideology).

How did we get to this kind of politically-correct Canada?  Through the SECULAR model that you talk about!  

So now you know why I disagree with your father.

 

In keeping with the title of this thread, could you explain......

............why your posts are full of contradictions?

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

betsy: It seems to me that religiously inclined people too often operate within a self-contained model of logic that's intolerant of and impervious to rational rebuttal. In terms of religiosity, the fastest expanding group in Canada is the non-religious, who, once lapsed or so-called "cultural" Catholics are taken into account, likely now comprise an absolute majority of the population. We shall prevail, because logic and truth are on our side. I can see why you are so angry and frustrated because religious dogma is to a great degree grounded in superstition and sentimentalism. Sorry, but in rational terms it's a debate you and other religionists are losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, turningrite said:

betsy: It seems to me that religiously inclined people too often operate within a self-contained model of logic that's intolerant of and impervious to rational rebuttal. In terms of religiosity, the fastest expanding group in Canada is the non-religious, who, once lapsed or so-called "cultural" Catholics are taken into account, likely now comprise an absolute majority of the population. We shall prevail, because logic and truth are on our side. I can see why you are so angry and frustrated because religious dogma is to a great degree grounded in superstition and sentimentalism. Sorry, but in rational terms it's a debate you and other religionists are losing.

Oy.  Good thing I saw your post - didn't get any notification.

That's your opinion.   Your previous posts have quite a few contradictions - something you didn't explain.

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion.  Just don't expect me to take them seriously. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2018 at 2:42 PM, betsy said:

Oy.  Good thing I saw your post - didn't get any notification.

That's your opinion.   Your previous posts have quite a few contradictions - something you didn't explain.

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion.  Just don't expect me to take them seriously. 

 

As I said previously, you're not interested in rational debate. Just remember that you're on the losing side on this, and increasingly so. Religiosity is waning, particularly in the West where it's not likely to make a comeback. Secularism is the basis for progress and tolerance. It is the future. If you want an excellent example, look to Ireland, where people have finally realized that religion only served to control them. Now, they're free.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, turningrite said:

As I said previously, you're not interested in rational debate.

EH?

You made some statements - I pointed out some contradictions.   I asked you to explain them.   You ignored me.

 

....and it's me who isn't interested in a rational debate???  :lol:

Fine.....fine.....fine.   You're entitled to your opinion.   Just don't expect me to take them seriously.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, betsy said:

EH?

You made some statements - I pointed out some contradictions.   I asked you to explain them.   You ignored me.

 

....and it's me who isn't interested in a rational debate???  :lol:

Fine.....fine.....fine.   You're entitled to your opinion.   Just don't expect me to take them seriously.

Your argument about contradictions seems silly to me. There is no rational basis for religious belief per se and certainly no basis other than power and control for organized religion. I don't doubt that some people are attracted to spiritualism as an emotional salve but organized religion has been such a destructive force in human history that it's unfortunate so many still cling to it. The fact that religion is commonplace throughout much of the world only renders it common, but not rational. I don't take the bible literally, and even though I was raised a Catholic I was never encouraged to do so. A famous writer whose name escapes me at this point, once pointed out that it's one of the beneficial attributes of Catholicism that it's generally been able to avoid biblical fundamentalism. In fact, there's a far greater emphasis on the New Testament than the Old, which has permitted Catholicism to adapt to scientific change. Now, if only it would catch up on social change! I don't really care if you don't take me seriously. Just don't ask me or anybody else to take religion seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Your argument about contradictions seems silly to me.

Silly to you, because you can't refute.   They are contradictions.

You carry on about people believing something not scientific - and yet I asked you (on the basis of the statement given by the National Acvademy of Sciences) if you think Creation of God is possible - you didn't answer!   If you don't agree with the NAS, then on what ground do you base your belief?   You're exactly the same as the people you criticize.

 

 

Quote

There is no rational basis for religious belief per se and certainly no basis other than power and control for organized religion. I don't doubt that some people are attracted to spiritualism as an emotional salve but organized religion has been such a destructive force in human history that it's unfortunate so many still cling to it. The fact that religion is commonplace throughout much of the world only renders it common, but not rational. I don't take the bible literally, and even though I was raised a Catholic I was never encouraged to do so. A famous writer whose name escapes me at this point, once pointed out that it's one of the beneficial attributes of Catholicism that it's generally been able to avoid biblical fundamentalism. In fact, there's a far greater emphasis on the New Testament than the Old, which has permitted Catholicism to adapt to scientific change. Now, if only it would catch up on social change! I don't really care if you don't take me seriously. Just don't ask me or anybody else to take religion seriously.

Okay.....read your post.   You're entitled to give your opinion.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 7/9/2018 at 7:10 AM, betsy said:

This thread is inspired by a status update posted by Slick.

I am happy to be so inspirational! 

Quote

Slick had apparently visited two Christian-based museums - The Creation (Ohio), and The Ark Encounter (Kentucky).  Just so to show the whole exchanges between us:

I, myself have never been to any of these two places (not that there's anything wrong with them)............but I'm glad to see that Slick had even visited BOTH!  It seems his interest to, as he say, "fully experience" them, is quite amazing - one isn't simply enough.

I was in the area, they are only about 30 minutes apart and they offer a convenient pass allowing visitors to see both attractions. Though we did have to pay to park at both.

Quote

Can you explain.......

Why on earth do you think it so important to "fully experience" something you undoubtedly consider as fictional? 

I am beyond fascinated by the fact that anyone living in the world today can sincerely accept the young earth creationist belief system. Their beliefs are very much like those of flat earthers, and given the chance I would jump at the opportunity to have a conversation with someone that truly believes the earth is flat and all evidence to the contrary has either been faked or is part of a conspiracy theory to keep us simple people believing we live on a marble.

At the two creationist attractions I was able to see and experience just how otherwise intelligent people are convinced to shut out overwhelming evidence and cling to what amounts to a very laughable story. The exhibits themselves were humorous and silly; but, seeing believers interact with those exhibits and discuss them with their children was a truly worthwhile and frightening educational experience. Watching and listening to some of the people take in the attractions was sort of like watching a David Attenborough nature program where one can observe fascinating species in their natural habitat. I wouldn't pass up a chance to observe lions or hippos in the wild nor did I for creationists.
 

Quote

To summarize Betsy's second post with questions for me:
Disney characters are fake yet they have theme parks why is that so different than creationists having theme parks?

The Disney parks don't call themselves "Museums" and aren't filled with propaganda videos telling you that modern scientists are colluding to keep us from knowing that mice, dogs and ducks can actually hang out together, talk and get involved in hilarious hijinks on a regular basis. On a side note, how can Goofy and Pluto both be dogs yet one acts as a very clumsy person and one acts like an actual pet dog?

Disney and Universal style parks let us interact in a world that is not trying to pretend to be anything but fictional. However, the creationist "museums" are there to explain how man and dinosaurs really did live side by side and every species on the earth had to housed on a giant boat for a year. They aren't trying to be a biblical theme park at all. Around every corner there is text, diagrams and videos explaining how modern evidence is all wrong and how even treating the bible as allegorical will lead to drug addiction, porn, rape, murder, etc.

The Santa story is a little different; for a short period of time adults actively participate in the myth of a living, gift giving, all knowing Santa. However, as soon as natural critical thinking skills develop to the point that children realize this story just doesn't add up we let them know that we all just participated in a make believe experience for their enjoyment and wonder for a little while. We don't go on saying stuff like "well if Santa is actually magic he could then reasonably have the power to stop time and deliver toys to all of the people of the world."  Which is what the religious do and what creationists have done in the form of their two attractions they call museums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 7/9/2018 at 7:49 AM, betsy said:

............................and you've got to have an open-mind.

It is possible that the universe was created by supernatural beings, just like it is also possible that we are all just part of a computer simulation or that we exist in a fishbowl on the desk of a giant zebra-like creature named Kevin. We can't absolutely rule out any of those scenarios; but, some are more probable than others. Since, there is absolutely no evidence for anything beyond nature, supernatural hypotheses are just incredibly improbable.

That brings us to your open mind comment. Accusing the side that follows all of the evidence of not being "open minded" while clinging to a highly improbable position, void of evidence, is just plain silly. I know Ken Ham likes to say "have an open mind", but that doesn't make it acceptable. It's just like racists chiding others for not being tolerant of their intolerance. 

Let's use a murder investigation as an analogy:
Science might suspect the butler did it because the bloody candlestick was found in the butler's quarters. However, as evidence is gathered and it is learned that the butler had an alibi, along with the fact that Professor Plumb's DNA and prints were found on the weapon, science changes its suspicion, follows a path that fits all of the current pieces and moves on to gather more evidence.

Religion has faith that the butler did it. Religion considers the location of the murder weapon as evidence, concocts a tale to explain away the DNA and prints, then ends the investigation. Later Religion states that even science admits that DNA could match more than 1 person (1 in 400 billion times) so if science is on their side everyone should just have an open mind.  If you start already absolutely sure about the conclusion, you do not have an open mind.

Quote

Figuring out what are figures of speech and what's literal......is key.   But for some of us, whether they're literal or not,  doesn't really matter.

Careful, Ken Ham says treating any part of the Bible as not being literally true is the first step towards hell. An exhibit at the Creation Museum explicitly states that masturbation, porn use, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence and murder all follow that first step. I know it sounds silly but on this point the creationists did make one good argument. They state that Christians who do not treat the bible as 100% literal truth can no longer, in good conscience, use the book as the foundation for their ethical positions. Their thinking is that once one picks and chooses the sections that they abide by they are open to the question "well why did you cling to that particular passage when you ignore so many others?"  At that point you become a hypocrite. 

When Bill Nye had a debate with Ken Ham it concluded with the question: What would change your mind? Bill Nye said "evidence", Ken Ham said "nothing". That is the religious open mind.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slick said:

 That brings us to your open mind comment. Accusing the side that follows all of the evidence of not being "open minded" while clinging to a highly improbable position, void of evidence, is just plain silly. I know Ken Ham likes to say "have an open mind", but that doesn't make it acceptable. It's just like racists chiding others for not being tolerant of their intolerance. 

I like your response, and it shows a strong ability to delineate concepts, and good propensity for rationality.  But there is always the last metaphorical commuter that can't be shoved into the conceptual Tokyo commuter train isn't there ?

In this case, you use the term "highly improbable position" which allows for degrees of probability of metaphysical situations that you don't ascribe to.  Certainly an old white man with a beard on a throne in the clouds is improbable, but how about the idea that there is something beyond the material universe that we don't understand ?  Life after death ?  

Considering the idea of 'open mindedness' is more difficult, and more practical when you have to consider ideas that are less improbable IMO.   And, to me, this idea makes me believe that closed-minded atheism is indeed another religion when compared to open-minded agnosticism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2018 at 3:40 PM, Slick said:

I am happy to be so inspirational! 

I was in the area, they are only about 30 minutes apart and they offer a convenient pass allowing visitors to see both attractions. Though we did have to pay to park at both.

I am beyond fascinated by the fact that anyone living in the world today can sincerely accept the young earth creationist belief system. Their beliefs are very much like those of flat earthers, and given the chance I would jump at the opportunity to have a conversation with someone that truly believes the earth is flat and all evidence to the contrary has either been faked or is part of a conspiracy theory to keep us simple people believing we live on a marble.

At the two creationist attractions I was able to see and experience just how otherwise intelligent people are convinced to shut out overwhelming evidence and cling to what amounts to a very laughable story. The exhibits themselves were humorous and silly; but, seeing believers interact with those exhibits and discuss them with their children was a truly worthwhile and frightening educational experience. Watching and listening to some of the people take in the attractions was sort of like watching a David Attenborough nature program where one can observe fascinating species in their natural habitat. I wouldn't pass up a chance to observe lions or hippos in the wild nor did I for creationists.
 

The Disney parks don't call themselves "Museums" and aren't filled with propaganda videos telling you that modern scientists are colluding to keep us from knowing that mice, dogs and ducks can actually hang out together, talk and get involved in hilarious hijinks on a regular basis. On a side note, how can Goofy and Pluto both be dogs yet one acts as a very clumsy person and one acts like an actual pet dog?

Disney and Universal style parks let us interact in a world that is not trying to pretend to be anything but fictional. However, the creationist "museums" are there to explain how man and dinosaurs really did live side by side and every species on the earth had to housed on a giant boat for a year. They aren't trying to be a biblical theme park at all. Around every corner there is text, diagrams and videos explaining how modern evidence is all wrong and how even treating the bible as allegorical will lead to drug addiction, porn, rape, murder, etc.

The Santa story is a little different; for a short period of time adults actively participate in the myth of a living, gift giving, all knowing Santa. However, as soon as natural critical thinking skills develop to the point that children realize this story just doesn't add up we let them know that we all just participated in a make believe experience for their enjoyment and wonder for a little while. We don't go on saying stuff like "well if Santa is actually magic he could then reasonably have the power to stop time and deliver toys to all of the people of the world."  Which is what the religious do and what creationists have done in the form of their two attractions they call museums.

 

Even if they were just a stone's throw from you - you spent your time ON BOTH! :lol:  Lol.   Some places that I consider are a waste of time I will never go to........... even if parking is ALSO FREE!   

Somehow, that suggests you're too easy to bribe?  yellow-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif  Can I interest you with a free pack of doritos to go to church with me? rolling.gif

 

 

 

Yet you seem so surprised with what you found in these museums!   Like, you didn't know what they'll be all about? :lol:

 

Quote

At the two creationist attractions I was able to see and experience just how otherwise intelligent people are convinced to shut out overwhelming evidence and cling to what amounts to a very laughable story. The exhibits themselves were humorous and silly; but, seeing believers interact with those exhibits and discuss them with their children was a truly worthwhile and frightening educational experience. Watching and listening to some of the people take in the attractions was sort of like watching a David Attenborough nature program where one can observe fascinating species in their natural habitat. I wouldn't pass up a chance to observe lions or hippos in the wild nor did I for creationists.

 

Well - they should've been looking back at you, observing you.  Maybe, some were!  

You must've made quite an unusual spectacle - an interesting subject for observing a particular specie - an atheist - out of his natural habitat! rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emo

 

 

 

Quote

........a truly worthwhile and frightening educational experience.

I bet it must be frightening for you.   That I can just imagine.......like a mouse who found himself in a snake den! animated-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif

   Sorry....I can't get over the humor in this.

 

Anyway.....

 

Your status update had given me a good look at you -  I was able to see how a supposedly intelligent person like you, can react - and carry on -  like as if you've just discovered a fossil!   How do you think young earth creationist parents will be with their children as they go through all the displays?  Wouldn't they be like parents going through the natural museum?  Explaining the exhibit to their children?  Some people just have to observe in order to grasp  - due to limitations on their imagination, I suppose.

It's jaw-dropping!  That, what you saw from both places - which never pretended to be anything else but being what they are - YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST MUSEUMS - would be such an "AHA!" moment to you!  

Seems like you never had a clue until then.... what young earth creationists believe.  smiley.gif

OMIGOSH!  Look ma - Holy guacamole!  Young earth creationists believe in these things!  

 

 

You said it yourself  - they are MUSEUMS!  You knew they are MUSEUMS - not really like theme parks such as Disney!

   Like I said before, what do you think The Ark Museum is about?   A museum about ancient ship-building?  yellow-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif

 

And there you were with your status - like you never even imagined you'd find what you found in them!  :lol:

The sweet irony of it!  giggle.gif That's what's so deliciously hilarious about your pretentious update/response (that ironically, was meant as a put-down on young earth Creationists).     It's too tempting for me to let it pass, thus I just had to create this thread, so we can really analyze .......your AHA-moment! :)

 

Of course............ pretentious non-believers will agree with you.

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Slick said:

It is possible that the universe was created by supernatural beings, just like it is also possible that we are all just part of a computer simulation

WHAAAAT?   How is being part of a computer simulation possible?  Do you have any evidence at all?    Even if it's possible......who owns the computer?

 

 

Quote

or that we exist in a fishbowl on the desk of a giant zebra-like creature named Kevin.

How is that possible??  You've got anything at all to back that possibility?  

Lol.  Did Kevin introduce himself to you that you can describe how he looks??   See?   It's atheists - the new atheists - that are irrational!

 

 

 

Quote

We can't absolutely rule out any of those scenarios;

Yes we can.  Unless, you got something to back those up.

 

 

 

Quote

 Since, there is absolutely no evidence for anything beyond nature, supernatural hypotheses are just incredibly improbable.

Not when it comes to "Theistic Evolution,"  the belief that God created the universe and all the processes that made evolution possible!  


 

Quote

 

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

 

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

 

 

Quote

That brings us to your open mind comment. Accusing the side that follows all of the evidence of not being "open minded" while clinging to a highly improbable position, void of evidence, is just plain silly.

Because.....you just think you're following the evidence, but you're not.   Your mind is shut so tight against the possibility that God could've created the universe.  Open it up a little and let some oxygen in..... :D

 

 

Quote

I know Ken Ham likes to say "have an open mind", but that doesn't make it acceptable. It's just like racists chiding others for not being tolerant of their intolerance. 

Focus.  We're not talking racism. 

 

 

 

Quote

Let's use a murder investigation as an analogy:
Science might suspect the butler did it because the bloody candlestick was found in the butler's quarters. However, as evidence is gathered and it is learned that the butler had an alibi, along with the fact that Professor Plumb's DNA and prints were found on the weapon, science changes its suspicion, follows a path that fits all of the current pieces and moves on to gather more evidence.

Religion has faith that the butler did it. Religion considers the location of the murder weapon as evidence, concocts a tale to explain away the DNA and prints, then ends the investigation. Later Religion states that even science admits that DNA could match more than 1 person (1 in 400 billion times) so if science is on their side everyone should just have an open mind.  If you start already absolutely sure about the conclusion, you do not have an open mind.

:lol:

 

You dare bring up comparison with a criminal investigation???  You're the gift that keeps on giving.....yes, let's do that.

 

Quote

Science might suspect the butler did it because the bloody candlestick was found in the butler's quarters. However, as evidence is gathered and it is learned that the butler had an alibi, along with the fact that Professor Plumb's DNA and prints were found on the weapon, science changes its suspicion, follows a path that fits all of the current pieces and moves on to gather more evidence.

 

Read the NAS statement again that was made to the public:

 

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

 

Furthermore, have you ever heard of cumulative evidences???

 

 

Quote

 

Cumulative Evidence

Facts or information that proves what has previously been established by other information concerning the same issue.

Cumulative evidence is synonymous with corroborative evidence.

 

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cumulative+Evidence

 

Here are some cumulative evidences:

 

 

THEREFORE.....UNLESS THE NAS or science, had found something that removes the possibility of God.....the possibility of God (and the precarious position of atheism being just nothing more but wishful thinking).......... remains!

That's why, to be an atheist, is, irrational.   Gotta start a new thread on that.

On one hand you're SOLELY relying on science to support you, and yet on the other hand - you're rejecting it! :lol:

 

 

Quote

Careful, Ken Ham says treating any part of the Bible as not being literally true is the first step towards hell. An exhibit at the Creation Museum explicitly states that masturbation, porn use, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence and murder all follow that first step. I know it sounds silly but on this point the creationists did make one good argument. They state that Christians who do not treat the bible as 100% literal truth can no longer, in good conscience, use the book as the foundation for their ethical positions. Their thinking is that once one picks and chooses the sections that they abide by they are open to the question "well why did you cling to that particular passage when you ignore so many others?"  At that point you become a hypocrite. 

Where does it says in the Bible that everything in it has to be taken LITERALLY?  

Don't you know how many different types of figures of speech are in the Bible?   Do you know what figures of speech are?   Here are some -

 

 

 

 

 

About taking the Bible literally - do you know of any creationists - young creationists included - who still kill animals to sacrifice to God??   Do any of them believe that Jesus Christ literally changed into a lamb?  :lol:

 

Oh boy.  

No wonder you were floored by what you saw at the Ark Museum, and Creation Museum.  giggle.gif


 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Considering the idea of 'open mindedness' is more difficult, and more practical when you have to consider ideas that are less improbable IMO.   And, to me, this idea makes me believe that closed-minded atheism is indeed another religion when compared to open-minded agnosticism.  

Atheism and agnosticism are not part of the same spectrum of belief, instead they refer to a lack of belief and a lack of knowledge respectively.

Like most atheists I am also agnostic. Due to the absence of evidence for gods, goddesses or supernatural beings I do not believe those things exist, hence I'm an atheist. However, since it is very hard to prove a negative I won't say that I know they do not exist, hence I'm agnostic.

I take the same stance on a living megalodon, the flying spaghetti monster or Thor; there isn't sufficient evidence to believe they exist but I can't know absolutely. Even though I am open to the possibility that evidence for the existence of such things could be presented and thus change my belief, I can still speculate on the probability of such an event occurring. Obviously, the possibility of discovering that a gargantuan, prehistoric shark has continued to exist all this time is almost infinitely more likely than actual evidence for a flying spaghetti monster or the god of the bible bible being presented, but we have to be open to the possibility.

EDIT: I didn't realize that Betsy had already created a new thread to discuss this topic. The thread is subtly titled: It's irrational to be An Atheist

Edited by Guest
Redirection to a new thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2018 at 12:46 PM, Slick said:

Atheism and agnosticism are not part of the same spectrum of belief, instead they refer to a lack of belief and a lack of knowledge respectively.

Like most atheists I am also agnostic. Due to the absence of evidence for gods, goddesses or supernatural beings I do not believe those things exist, hence I'm an atheist. However, since it is very hard to prove a negative I won't say that I know they do not exist, hence I'm agnostic.

I take the same stance on a living megalodon, the flying spaghetti monster or Thor; there isn't sufficient evidence to believe they exist but I can't know absolutely. Even though I am open to the possibility that evidence for the existence of such things could be presented and thus change my belief, I can still speculate on the probability of such an event occurring. Obviously, the possibility of discovering that a gargantuan, prehistoric shark has continued to exist all this time is almost infinitely more likely than actual evidence for a flying spaghetti monster or the god of the bible bible being presented, but we have to be open to the possibility.

EDIT: I didn't realize that Betsy had already created a new thread to discuss this topic. The thread is subtly titled: It's irrational to be An Atheist

 

The problem of atheists is that they are believers of evidence/proof. Evidence and proof however are a delusion (a very powerful delusion). Humans mostly rely on faith to get to a truth. Flying spaghetti is the lack of serious human witnessing/testimonies. This lies the fundamental difference between God and flying spaghetti or Zeus.

 

Atheistic thinking is heavily based on the term evidence. They are educated or rather indoctrinated to think that evidence should be the way in confirming a truth. However this is not true in reality. Evidence, other than science, comes scarcely that humans (in majority) don't actually rely on evidence to approach a truth. They rely on faith instead to get to a truth. This is where the flaw of atheistic thinking is, due mainly to the indoctrination of secular education.

Science can be evidenced simply because science is always about a phenomenon which can repeat (infinitive number of times) for humans to do their speculations/observations unlimited number of times. This kind of repeatable truth (i.e., scientific truth) is a very narrow and limited set of truth. Our secular education however mistakenly treats it as the norm of what a truth is. That's why we (atheists that is) keep asking for evidence in backing a up claim in order for it to be considered a truth.

In reality, we can't even back one out of the million meals we ever had with evidence. It is because "what we ate" is not something which can be repeatable as a science is. 7 billion humans (not to count those already died) can't even back up one of his past meals with evidence. That's how insignificant evidence is. We don't practically approach a fact of this kind (not repeatable) with evidence. We approach it with faith instead. You simply tell us what you ate such that we can believe with faith to know what you ate. What we actually examine is your credibility and reliability instead of evidence. If you are a friend I can trust, I swallow it right away without a second thought. This flash of a second in getting to a truth is the efficiency of what faith is, in terms of approaching a truth (i.e., what you said about what you ate)!

Do we have an alternative way to get to know what you ate? Unfortunately we don't. Science/evidence etc. won't tell what you ate, say, on Jul 11, 2012. Someone wrote down what you ate that day and for others to believe with faith, that remains the only way we could possibly know what you ate.

Edited by Hawkins
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
20 hours ago, Hawkins said:

The problem of atheists is......

You are a little confused about everything you wrote in that post. Your understanding of science, the scientific method, evidence and the term atheist is all lacking.

The term atheist describes a lack of belief in gods, that's it. Atheists don't necessarily share any other beliefs or customs whatsoever. Not all atheists are skeptical or scientifically minded, they just don't believe in gods. Atheism is not a belief system and describing it as such would be the equivalent of calling not collecting stamps a hobby. 

Though scientists will create controlled, repeatable experiments when attempting to confirm or deny testable hypotheses, that is not the only way of collecting evidence. Evidence comes in many forms. Right now I can confirm that it is sunny and not raining in my neighbourhood just by looking out the window. I may not have any evidence for what I ate on July 11, 2012, but others will. Some people keep food journals, some people eat the same meals on the same day of the week,  for others that might have been a special occasion like a 40th birthday and they recall going to a certain restaurant and ordering beef wellington. Most though, would have no clue what they ate on that day; but, I doubt many would just have faith that they ate say mac and cheese that day.

Faith is accepting a claim without evidence; which, is an irrational practice for important claims. Rational people require greater evidence for greater claims. If you told me that you ate mac and cheese yesterday, I would accept your word as reasonable evidence for that claim. However, if you told me that a magic being says I should hate gays, avoid cotton/poly blends and slice some skin off of my penis then I would require substantial evidence for the actual existence of this magical being and that these crazy ideas are in fact its wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Slick said:

Though scientists will create controlled, repeatable experiments when attempting to confirm or deny testable hypotheses, that is not the only way of collecting evidence. Evidence comes in many forms. Right now I can confirm that it is sunny and not raining in my neighbourhood just by looking out the window. I may not have any evidence for what I ate on July 11, 2012, but others will. Some people keep food journals, some people eat the same meals on the same day of the week,  for others that might have been a special occasion like a 40th birthday and they recall going to a certain restaurant and ordering beef wellington.

 

 

Just like how the apostles kept journals of events......some of which were written from their varying perspectives!

Much like one who kept a journal of the meal eaten on that particularly day would dwell much on the quality of cheese, or the serving size and the calories that came with it ........... another would just briefly mention the mac and cheese but rave about the side dish, which was grilled peaches topped with crumbled feta and pistachios,  with that delectable vinaigrette on a bed of baby lettuce!

 

 

Quote

Most though, would have no clue what they ate on that day; but, I doubt many would just have faith that they ate say mac and cheese that day.

Yeah, many would rely on faith - faith on what those people who kept journals would've jotted down what they ate on that day. 

If someone who kept journals say, "you had mac and cheese on that day"  -  how else can the one who doesn't recall, argue against it?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...