Raising Children Without the Concept of Sin

[billvon]

Neither do you.

Actually I do. Not as well as some friends of mine (molecular biologists, geneticists) but I do understand the basics. That understanding has come from formal training and informal research over the years.

Again we are seeing the argument from incredulity - "I don't understand it; therefore no one does."

I see what you’re trying to do.
You’re trying to equate something that works with something that doesn’t.

Nope.

Motors work. We know how. We can see them work. But if you don't understand how they work ,it seems like magic - an invisible force doing our work for us!

747's fly. We know how. We can see them fly. But if you don't understand how they work, they seem like magic - nothing but air holding up that massive plane!

Evolution works. We know how. We can see it happen. But if you don't understand how it works, it seems like magic - organisms that look like one thing turning into different ones!

You’re entitled to believe what you want to.
But why call it science?

Because that is what it is. It's in the definition of the word.

I don’t think you understand it.

Again the argument from incredulity.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Again we are seeing the argument from incredulity - "I don't understand it; therefore no one does."

It’s not that.
I just don’t believe you.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But if you don't understand how they work ,it seems like magic - an invisible force doing our work for us!

No it doesn’t.
Magic is when you put Fido into a hat, and Jonah pops out.

But if you don't understand how they work ,it seems like magic - an invisible force doing our work for us!

We know motors, aeroplanes, and evolution works. And no, it does not seem like magic.

Because that is what it is. It's in the definition of the word.

Like I said, you’re entitled to believe what you want. But that is all it is, a belief.

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

@bilvon

Do you believe in God?

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

You’re entitled to believe what you want to.
But why call it science?

Because it meets the criteria, fits the definition, etc.
Same as any other label.

Magic is when you put Fido into a hat, and Jonah pops out.

And nobody is doing that. So magic is not involved.

It’s not that.
I just don’t believe you.

You have repeatedly posted basic misunderstanding, as you did right there with the "magic" bs.
Your claim of disbelief is irrelevant, in that context.

But it is relevant in the context of your agenda here. It is part of what has to be dealt with, explained, in considering why it is that overt Abrahamic theists post with such deep and ineradicable dishonesty on science forums.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because it meets the criteria, fits the definition, etc.
Same as any other label.

No it doesn’t.
Sorry to be so blunt, but it’s true.
Aside from the idea of whale evolution being quite silly. There is no way that you can know that Fido turned into Willy.

You have repeatedly posted basic misunderstanding, as you did right there with the "magic" bs.
Your claim of disbelief is irrelevant, in that context.

Nobody objects to James R’s depiction of theism as belief in magic. So I figure it’s alright to take the piss out of that which you don’t believe in.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

It’s not that.
I just don’t believe you.

That's fine. You work in the realm of belief and superstition; I prefer science. Science doesn't care. You can believe you can jump out a window and fly all you want - but gravity still wins.

Aside from the idea of whale evolution being quite silly. There is no way that you can know that Fido turned into Willy.

Your thinking something is "silly" means exactly nothing. And while we don't know Fido turned into Willy, we do know that Pakicetus turned into cetaceans.

Slime molds are silly; doesn't mean they don't exist.

Magic is when you put Fido into a hat, and Jonah pops out.

Or when you put some magic dust in barley water and beer pops out! Yes, it can seem like magic when you don't understand it.

We know motors, aeroplanes, and evolution works. And no, it does not seem like magic.

Then you are very confused, since you say it's both magic and it's not magic.

So I figure it’s alright to take the piss out of that which you don’t believe in.

Ah. Thank you for admitting that your posting is just "taking the piss."

Do you believe in God?

Yes, but it's nothing that you would understand, given your track record.

 

[iceaura]

Aside from the idea of whale evolution being quite silly. There is no way that you can know that Fido turned into Willy.

That's one reason nobody except overt Abrahamic theists says that's what's supposed to have happened.
And in your case, that half of the fundie two-step - misrepresent, attack personally - is by now simply repetition.

No it doesn’t.
Sorry to be so blunt, but it’s true.

It's false.
And you are counting on your audience granting you a presumption of innocence - a presumption of honest incomprehension - you have long since ceased to deserve.

Nobody objects to James R’s depiction of theism as belief in magic. So I figure it’s alright to take the piss out of that which you don’t believe in.

Pretending to incomprehension at that level doesn't work any more.

 

[Jeeves]

I know I miss a couple of steps dues to an aversion to nonsense, but how do you throw sin into a hat and pull out a whale?
Okay, I get a medium-sized land carnivore making the necessary adaptations over 50 million years (that's one frickin deep hat! long enough to turn a lemur into a man) to become a salt-water carnivore, but I don't see how that's got anything to do with the tabu against knowing right and wrong.

 

[Michael 345]

Reading between the ignored it seems that whales evolved from dogs

Ya right

Just like chickens evolved from brontosaurus

How would it be if instead of KFC we had KFB?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You have repeatedly posted basic misunderstanding, as you did right there with the "magic" bs.
Your claim of disbelief is irrelevant, in that context.

You don’t like that. Do you?
Yet that is how all the atheists that participate here, and the atheists community in general, behave toward theists, and people of religion, almost all the time, without the batting of an eyelid.

Jan,

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, but it's nothing that you would understand, given your track record.

I don’t think you really take into account what I say, as you’re too busy stacking the strawJan ya’ll created.

So why do you reject and deny God, if you believe in God?

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

Yet that is how all the atheists that participate here, and the atheists community in general, behave toward theists, and people of religion, almost all the time, without the batting of an eyelid.

That is your posting agenda: misrepresent, then slander. It's essentially all you do here. And it is universal among your fellow fundies.
The question is why. This characteristic of overt Abrahamic "belief" (claimed) is striking - some kind of explanation is called for.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That is your posting agenda: misrepresent, then slander.

More denial?
Why am I not surprised?

It's essentially all you do here. And it is universal among your fellow fundies.

I’m afraid you have it the wrong way round, it is universal among your fellow lefties.

The question is why. This characteristic of overt Abrahamic "belief" (claimed) is striking - some kind of explanation is called for.

The question is why. This characterstic of overt Lefty “brainwashed victims” (claimed) is striking - some kind of explanation is called for.

Jan

 

[iceaura]

More denial?

"Fellow lefties"?
Misrepresentation, personal attack. Your agenda here.
And remember the damage:

Instead of a discussion of the differences, if any, between raising children with or without a concept of sin*, we are left with the same question: why are the overt Abrahamic theists who post as such on science forums fundamentally dishonest?
The fundie two-step: 1) misrepresent science for the purpose of 2) slandering its defenders and proponents.
Not just Jan: all of them.

*A fascinating question, btw. As is the question of theistic vs atheistic religion, the role of religion in a high-tech society, the role of narrative in scientific thought, and so forth. Too bad.

 

[billvon]

So why do you reject and deny God, if you believe in God?

I don't. I just reject your version.

Yet that is how all the atheists that participate here, and the atheists community in general, behave toward theists, and people of religion, almost all the time, without the batting of an eyelid.

No. It's how they behave towards YOU. Most theists are practical, intelligent people.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't. I just reject your version.

Why?

No. It's how they behave towards YOU. Most theists are practical, intelligent people.

What is the difference between me and what you believe to be practical intelligent theists?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

What is the difference between me and what you believe to be practical intelligent theists?

An acceptance of science, primarily. Typically they do not distort the bible to try to "prove" it is correct. They tend to consider it a historical document of great interest - to be studied for sure, but as a fallible transcription of an oral history of a people.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Fellow lefties"?

You have “fellow lefties”?

Misrepresentation, personal attack. Your agenda here.

I’m responding to misrepresentation. It seems like you can’t take what you dish out.

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

An acceptance of science, primarily.

Present some science , instead of just-so stories

Typically they do not distort the bible to try to "prove" it is correct.

Where have I done this?

They tend to consider it a historical document of great interest - to be studied for sure, but as a fallible transcription of an oral history of a people.

What does that statement mean?

Jan