Where do the questions asked by Christian Fundamentalists go when it appears that alternative opinions are?

Question

winning out against the point they were trying to make?

Answer 1

although i am a believer in the "many paths to the same goal" idea, i am also a little freaked out by fundies of any religion. where do their questions go? they mysteriously disappear into yahoo pagan chat rooms where they type them in large red or rainbow font in order to annoy the people there. fundie questions survive by being iggied. this sends them directly to fundie question heaven where they get two points.

Answer 2

Fundamentalists have the problem of the protestant reformation taking the church creeds without thinking that there might be a problem with "three gods from eternity" instead of the obvious one God we all have, and also the problem of being invaded by Calvin and his followers with predestination and interpreting badly.

Read Swedenborg!

Answer 3

that truly isn't honest. in case you look interior the direction of the previous couple of pages, you will discover greater troll questions asked via atheist/agnostics than via christians, and that they are many times only as pointed and hateful as various the christian questions. i'm no longer able to deny that there are some somewhat mean lively "questions" published via christians, yet on a similar time as you tire of those ... i lose interest with questions like, "do no longer christians understand that they are advertising hate and bigotry?" it somewhat is a loaded question searching for a particular reaction. i'm no longer a biggot. i do no longer hate everyone for their own ideals. we actually all could desire to aim and be slightly greater understanding of one yet another, and shall all of us use to coach slightly greater civility.

Answer 4

They get bumped by crackheads trying to use Yahoo Answers to push their ideologies instead of asking real questions.

Answer 5

No where what you believe is between you and God.That is the difference between Faith in Jesus and religion where if you don't
believe the way religion says then you are to be killed for not
believing their way. Kill the infidels.
In Christ in Love,
TJ57

Answer 6

What questions are you referring to? I read enough of the recycled tripe that passes for answers that I would love to have the opportunity to make a counter-point to your counter-point.

UPDATE - Thank you to Eigelhorn for the follow-up. I still disagree with you but am glad to see that some are thinking and able to respond with a reasonable amount of intelligence. I have already taken up a large part of this particular question so I will not rebut in detail to every response made other than to generally say that the comments I made regarding atheistic views were directed specifically at the posts in this forum.

*****
What question do you think I should ask that you can answer intelligently? That you can respond to without regurgitating the same pablum that I've heard a thousand times and used to spew when I stood among the atheists?

UPDATE - agreed, to a point. The issue is based on the number or juvenile responses such as this post that reek of sarcasm rather than honest discourse. As I'm sure you will agree, many of the responses on this forum seem to be less a a well-thought out opinion than a knee-jerk regurgitation of the same responses posted so manhy times before. I simply question the validity of some respondents due to their seeming lack of ability to formulate coherent, logical thoughts.

*****
I read repeatedly how atheists think Christians are stupid and mindless drones, yet I see no difference in the posts made by atheists.

UPDATE: Look through the posts on this site and see that I speak the truth.

*****
Q. What evidence do you have that God exists?
A. I have plenty in my personal experience and in the lives of countless others. What evidence do you have that God doesn’t exist?

UPDATE: My observation of the effects of God is suspect. Scientific evidence is often determined by observation of a test subject to external stimuli. While there is evidence of mass hysteria and the like, I hold that my personal observation of the effect of God on the lives of people does hold up to logical review as much as observation of people in social situations for a sociologist, or the responses to stimuli observed and discussed by psychologists and psychiatrists. There is enough evidence to show repeatable predictability in all of these situations. Therefore I stand by my assertion.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/indictment.html

*****
Q. What moron doesn't believe in macro-evolution?

UPDATE:
Whether Darwinian evolution from a common ancestor is factual or not has not been proven with sufficient data as to be held true. Many of the criteria, such as survival of the fittest, have been refuted by science itself as we advanced and are capable of determining irreducible complexity. Other data which purports to offer evidence of a species transitioning to become another species also has not been substantiated other than to draw conclusions on data that is incomplete.

Yes, evolution is possible. Perhaps in some respects it is even probable. But to suggest that something could just appear out of nothing and then mutate into the number of variations that exist not only today but through history is not only suspect but borderline preposterous. This also does not explain the Cambrian Explosion. What are we to think of this phenomenon? Is it to be pushed aside in favor of other data that supports Darwinism?

I submit instead that science is ill-equipped to determine the origin of life simply because of the basic precepts that define science. The primary function of science is to be able to observe predictable outcomes based on repeated stimuli in a closed setting. The problem with this is that origin is not repeatable. It has a single beginning and then continues from that point as it expands and contracts in response to the ever-changing conditions.

Indeed, I would go so far as to postulate that as we move closer to understanding, we find that the more we learn the less we truly know or understand. Nowhere is this more evident than in decoding the genomes of humans and other species. As we learn more and are able to absorb and extrapolate this data, we see how futile the Darwinian concept stands up when placed next to intelligent design.

To seriously hold to the belief that everything arose out of caustic chemicals in conditions ill-suited to support life requires far more faith that the belief in an intelligent designer. Doubtless one would not expect an automobile to create itself by extracting iron ore from the earth, randomly mixing it with the correct amount of heat and other ingredients to make steel, then randomly building each part and assembling itself in the exact order while also having rubber, copper, fuel and a lubricant that evolves over time to create an SUV. And to do it repeatedly over time, enhancing each part to create all the models of transportation we have today. Yet that is the very argument that Darwinism uses in its common ancestor theory. If one used that in a scientific context like evolution is discussed, one would be the subject of ridicule and would be dismissed without further thought. How is it, then that Darwinian evolution continues to be the basis for discussion by otherwise rational people?

http://www.apologetics.org/under.html

Thanks again & take care.

Answer 7

I know one was deleted after I made a counter point... I'm sure others have been.

Answer 8

I'm assuming people in this category delete their questions sometimes just like people do in other categories.

Answer 9

Its all crap just live each day for what it brings you could get killed by a suicide bomber tommorow!

Answer 10

"I read repeatedly about how well atheists can think and opine, yet I see little to no original thought - just the same old tired half-truths that are mouthed by the followers of nothing."

One assertion with no backing. I hope you aren't confusing lack of original answers with loss of originality in bringing up PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times).

Of course answers will lose originality if you talk about the same issues and bring up the same questions brought up many times before...

"I read repeatedly how atheists think Christians are stupid and mindless drones, yet I see no difference in the posts made by atheists."

You hang out with the wrong kind of Atheists then. By and large, Atheists do not think people who believe are drones, but simply disagree with their use of faith in the face of logical response. This goes for those who rely completely on faith and ignore reason altogether as well as Theistic Academics who blend faith with reason and wind up with many arguments that are logically valid, but contain premeses that only Theists would accept.

In the end, faith becomes the major stumbling block in any logical debate. However, Atheists accept the Theists use of faith, but disagree on its usefulness.

"It's always the same thing:

Q. Why do you follow blind faith?
A. I don't."

That kind of question would only be asked to those who do actually follow blind faith, or those who are "Angsttheists", so to speak.


"Q. Why do believe a fictional book written over 2000 years ago?
A. Because I have seen the effect it has on lives and felt the power for myself."

This is logically invalid. The proposed "effects" of Religions (and yes, spirituality as well) cannot be divided from having a desirable worldview, or a simple placebo effect. There's no way to conclude the "life- changing" effects of the bible indicate the validity of the book, or merely satisfaction people have in following worldviews they wish to believe in.

"Q. What evidence do you have that God exists?
A. I have plenty in my personal experience and in the lives of countless others. What evidence do you have that God doesn’t exist?"

Wouldn't this be shifting the burden fallacy? The one who makes the claim of deities existing must prove it to others in order for them to expect others to take him seriously.

I would question the interpretation of your personal experiences and the movement of logic you used, if you intend to base an objective proof of deities on your own experience.

As for my own movement of logic, I'm an Agnostic Weak Atheist. Therefore, the lack of evidence leads me to take a skeptical (don't believe, but wont state with certainty a negative) position on deities and wait for evidence in favour of their existence to move to theism.

"Q. What moron doesn't believe in macro-evolution?
A. The one who knows that there is no empirical evidence for either side and therefore goes with the path that requires the lesser amount of faith in incredible stories - creationism."

Does not compute. Can you do any analysis on the phenomena that lead to the creation of organisms by a deity? No.

Can you account for all the inconsistencies that arrive from accepting the presence of all animals in each time period? Not without coming up with numerous, near incredible rationalizations on par with the Omphalos Hypothesis.

Wheras, Evolutionary Theory can account almost perfectly for the phenomena we see in the world today, as is demonstrated below:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"Because the only solid evidence we have that hasn’t been tainted is for micro-evolution (adaptation). That includes last week’s revelation of the recent findings in Darwin’s Finches. Did you even know about that or am I informing you?"

Last weeks findings were for evolutionary progress. Separating them into "Macroevolution" and "Microevolution" is baseless without a genetic barrier, which has never been shown to exist.

What about the many observed instances of speciation?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

"What do you have to offer? And how can you say that someone wins out? Because they agree with you? That's not only short-sighted, it's stubbornly closed minded. What's to say you're right? I reserve the right to be wrong, but at least I'm out here putting my beliefs & opinions on the line. So what's your point?"

Only works if there's no evidence to go one way or the other. In the case of Evolution by Natural Selection. All evidence points towards Evolutionary basis of the origin of species.

As for Theism/Atheism... well, that's another story. It can depend on whether you adhere to logic strictly or move on faith (to certain extents).

EDIT:

"agreed, to a point. The issue is based on the number or juvenile responses such as this post that reek of sarcasm rather than honest discourse. As I'm sure you will agree, many of the responses on this forum seem to be less a a well-thought out opinion than a knee-jerk regurgitation of the same responses posted so manhy times before. I simply question the validity of some respondents due to their seeming lack of ability to formulate coherent, logical thoughts."

This isn't exactly the best place to go for solid discourse. It's overflowing with extremists on both sides of the belief spectrum.

"Look through the posts on this site and see that I speak the truth."

I don't interpret Christianity by Phelps and Dominionists and I'd hope you don't interpret Atheism from Fundy Atheists.

"My observation of the effects of God is suspect. Scientific evidence is often determined by observation of a test subject to external stimuli. While there is evidence of mass hysteria and the like, I hold that my personal observation of the effect of God on the lives of people does hold up to logical review as much as observation of people in social situations for a sociologist, or the responses to stimuli observed and discussed by psychologists and psychiatrists. There is enough evidence to show repeatable predictability in all of these situations. Therefore I stand by my assertion."

The problem here is that Science moves on more than direct observation by the five senses. Indirect observations are frequently in play and rigorous systems of test and retest with bias elimination are what make science golden. You (appear at least) to move on observation and directly conclude miracles, or deities. This doesn't account for possibilities and renders your logic flawed.

There are more possibilities than mass hysteria or delusions. Fundamental affects of our natural cognition and human nature can bias us in many ways. Studying Epistemology, Psychology and Statistics can do wonders in helping people achieve optimum objectivity on these matters. These affects are what are often the causes behind many "observations" of supernature.

I hope I'm not the only one who finds it odd that the definition of miracle has changed to mean unlikely occurances, rather than events that are logically or Scientifically impossible.

"Many of the criteria, such as survival of the fittest, have been refuted by science itself ."

Not the best "coin term" to use but... are you seriously suggesting Natural Selection has been disproven? I can safely reject that claim...

I hope you aren't appealing to the old "Natural Selection is tautological" canard.

"we advanced and are capable of determining irreducible complexity. Other data which purports to offer evidence of a species transitioning to become another species also has not been substantiated other than to draw conclusions on data that is incomplete."

Irreducible Complexity has not been proven to actually occur yet and works on the misunderstanding that complex organs have to form from scratch to the present form seen today. AKA: They assume the intermediate forms of subpart didn't perform other functions than changed functions.

As for your transitional fossils claim, that simply is untrue. A simple google will show you the reasoning behind transitional and is quite sound in morphology and homology.

"But to suggest that something could just appear out of nothing and then mutate into the number of variations that exist not only today but through history is not only suspect but borderline preposterous."

... "Something from Nothing"? I hope you aren't confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolutionary Theory. Evolution By Natural Selection makes no reference of species coming from nothing.

From the original lifeform population, we have adaptive events for the current environment and reproductive isolation mechanisms that separate populations of organisms and allow these adaptive events to change populations into different species. A constant repreat of this cycle leads to branches of species so different from each other they are classified as being of a different genus,plyogeny, order, family, etc.

That's what the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection proposes.

"This also does not explain the Cambrian Explosion. What are we to think of this phenomenon? Is it to be pushed aside in favor of other data that supports Darwinism?"

Unusual, but no serious problem for Evolutionary Theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

"I submit instead that science is ill-equipped to determine the origin of life simply because of the basic precepts that define science."

Evolutionary Theory makes no mention of the Origin of Life. As for Science in general... I wouldn't be so hasty if I were you.

The ideas suggested and the present evidence proposed for Early World RNA Hypothesis are quite promising...

"The primary function of science is to be able to observe predictable outcomes based on repeated stimuli in a closed setting."

That's an odd definition of the Function of Science. I would say that science makes observatons of phenomena, proposes an explanation of the facts collected and tests them.

" The problem with this is that origin is not repeatable. It has a single beginning and then continues from that point as it expands and contracts in response to the ever-changing conditions."

However, you don't need a repeatable origin to observe in order to discover how the origin went about. You seem to be confusing "Observation" in Science with direct observation of the event being described. In this case, the observation is of phenomena we see today (Nested Hierarchies of species, etc.) and with an understanding of the laws that occur we can determine how things occured in the past. We use Inductive Logic to be able to determine what happened in the past with evidence we find in the present.

It's very similar to studies in chemistry. We can't exactly see atoms and how they behave up close, yet we can still identify their sturcture and how they would behave with Inductive Logic and evidence.

" Nowhere is this more evident than in decoding the genomes of humans and other species. As we learn more and are able to absorb and extrapolate this data, we see how futile the Darwinian concept stands up when placed next to intelligent design."

Not at all. It isn't logical to reverse engineer probabilities from the present and use them directly to conclude a designer. In doing this, we forget that with probability comes necessity of the action. If repeated occurances of origin of life were performed and DNA formed every time, exactly like the way we see it now... then we can conclude a designer. Without this repeatability, we are unable to make the rational connection to show this wasn't just one of many possibilities that occured.

Again, I must note that Evolutionary Theory makes no claims of the origin of life, nor of the origin of the universe. Evolution is strictly explianing the origin of species.

" To seriously hold to the belief that everything arose out of caustic chemicals in conditions ill-suited to support life requires far more faith that the belief in an intelligent designer."

Again, not really. We cannot conlude from probability that a designer is needed at all, anymore than one can conlude from throwing a dart at a wall that the unlikelyhood of you throwing it at that exact point (atom by atom) means that you specifically chose to throw it at that point. You could have very well just thrown it any old direction and that particular spot came about as a mere coincidence.

Just because we came from this path our universe took, doesn't mean this path holds any more meaning or validity. This is driven by our need to feel special and appreciate "beauty".

"Doubtless one would not expect an automobile to create itself by extracting iron ore from the earth, randomly mixing it with the correct amount of heat and other ingredients to make steel, then randomly building each part and assembling itself in the exact order while also having rubber, copper, fuel and a lubricant that evolves over time to create an SUV."

A common argument, but...

Do car parts reproduce? Can natural selection act on these parts? Are they naturally attracted to each other in such a way as allowing them to connect would form the SUV? If not then we don't have a valid comparison with Evolution, as all of the above are true in evolution and help to make complexity arise from local and minor laws.