Image

Latest Comments

Home Cathartic Blog So C, why do you hate liberals? Discussion with a liberal: Part IV, Final
    follow me on Twitter
    Discussion with a liberal: Part IV, Final PDF Print E-mail
    Written by Cerebral Debris   
    Wednesday, 10 September 2008 00:00
    This last part of the exchange went into evolution and the term "scientific consensus" that they just love to try and intimidate people with. It was the last discussion we've ever had. LF's statements are in quotes:
    I love this country and I believe very strongly in the Ideals of this country.
    This is a topic we'll cover in more detail as time goes on. I'm glad you love this country, but the political agenda that you support directly contradicts the ideals of this country and our Constitution. Individual freedom isn't possible when government removes those freedoms to regulate equality.
    Life and the Universe is a mystery full of beauty. I’m sorry you can’t understand my belief. If you’ve never experienced it then "I’m sorry.”

    You've yet to tell me what it is you believe. You've told me over and over what you don't believe... but not what you believe.

    Do you seriously think you're the only one who sees life and the universe as mysterious and beautiful? Typical of an arrogant liberal. You're the "enlightened ones", after all.

    Of course I've experienced it... every day of my life. 3 of my greatest experiences with the wonders of life happened with the births of our children. I wish I could completely describe the awe of witnessing the birth of your child. It's fantastic and very much enlightening. There's a peacful and reassuring absolute clarity that comes with looking your newborn child in the eyes for the first time. I hope you experience it one day.

    Ever had a gun held to your head or been shot at? I have- 4 times in my life,in fact. One of those times I was regrettably drunk and don't remember much of it except that my friend bailed me out on that one. The other 3 times were something else. Much like looking brand new life in the eyes for the first time, on the opposite end there's an absolute clarity that comes when you're looking your possible death in the eye. That I hope you don't experience one day. Either way, the experience of both is beautiful and enlightening- each in its own way.

    I marvel at the complexity of God's creation. That coupled with the order that's involved in every aspect of it is inspiring, thought provoking, marvelous, beautiful... and yes, mysterious. Sorry, yes I have experienced it. That's not defining your belief, that's defining the way you view life and the universe... which is a good thing actually. Not enough people seem to really appreciate it. I think we share a bit of common ground on that one.

    Agnostic, I suppose. As I said God could exist but I don’t have any evidence.
    But at least you're not saying that there's no evidence of His existence. Just that you haven't seen or experienced evidence of it. It also depends on what you consider evidence. What might be considered evidence of God's existence by some might be considered evidence of His non-existence to others.
    I don’t expect manifestations from god.
    You should expect them LF. There's nothing wrong with an expectation; depending on how you go about it and the attitude you're willing to have.
    I was a devout Christian for many years. I grew out of it. I decided not to believe everything I’ve been told, blindly. I did have moments of great emotion and feeling. I was convinced but later realized It was nothing. Just my emotions getting the best of me.
    Being emotionally convinced of something isn't the same as having a testimony. There are a lot of devout Christians who are lacking solid faith. True faith is based on corect knowledge. There are a lot misguided and ill informed people who are still devout Christian's. Don’t know the ultimate truth. I’m okay with that. But again, that doesn’t mean I can’t know the teachings of the bible or Jesus. If your response is: you don’t believe so you can’t know - then what can I say? It’s the all-time catch 22! Or, it’s a matter of faith and that’s all.
    I didn't say you don't know, I said it's hypocritical. I'm guessing the Muslims, Egyptians, Aztecs and other pagans and any other deeply religious person would profess to the same amazing unmistakable feeling... So these people didn’t have a “personal manifestation?”
    Don't know. Never asked. I'd have to say that if they have, then they'd have to have converted to Christ. There is, after all, only one God. Reading and understanding the Bible, you already know that. But wait... a Muslim wouldn't be able to convert for fear of being executed.
    Don’t have proof. You’re the claiming the “scientific news of the millennium.” If man-god existed science books would be rewritten.
    Are you referring to the same science books that tell us that God doesn't exist? You're saying to me "prove God exists" and I'm saying to you prove that He doesn't. Oh, wait, evolutionists have been trying- and failed- to do that for years. I forgot. You're also contradiciting yourself a bit. You say you're about absolute truth, yet you also say you don't have proof that "man-God" doesn't exist. How can you make such huge statements without proof... or absolute truth?
    ...So before you throw up your hands and say: "It's all too complicated. God is great! My mistake. You are saying it’s simple. I’m saying it’s complicated.
    ...and I'm saying complicated is relative. What's very complicated for one might be simple for another.
    Humans are fallen and could never comprehend his great creation.
    I've never said that. You mentioned that Christian's reject science. Nope, that's not true. That's just another liberal myth. I believe that science has helped us to greatly expand our knowledge about God's great creation.
    But you pick and choose.
    You want to talk about strict science and picking and choosing scienc? There's strictly scientific theory being offered for debate with the scientific community and it gets rejected, without debate, because it "doesn't jive", The scientific community- much like Washington, the public school systems and a majority of college campuses around the country- is full of elitists who can and do collectively shut out opposition when it "doesn't jive". To deny that is to admit a serious lack of intellectual integrity.
    I’m not anti Christian. And either is the overwhelming majority of scientists who believe in evolution.

    Then why are your political arguments always a slam against the Christian right? Why do you feel a need to "protect your mother" from the Christian right? Why do dissenting scientists get automatically labeled as quacks, or "closet Bible thumpers"?

    You say the Christian right is getting radical. How so? Because we have an opposing viewpoint and differing opinions? Or maybe it's because we aren't surprised at the events around the world and take threats against our beliefs seriously? Maybe it's because we don't just automatically bow down to your science and accept it as the gospel truth without question? Maybe that's what's "radical". Perhaps it's because when Islam declared war on us we took it seriously? Maybe we're called radical because we're such a large opposing thorn in the side of the left, the evolutionists, the man-made global warming alarmists, etc. that they can't simply get us to shut up and take whatever they dish out. So having conviction, faith, and a belief in the Bible gets us labeled radical, or idiots, or crazy, or any other derogatory insult one might dream up. Christianity has been under attack from a number of different fronts for years now, whether through simple persecution or direct threat.

    creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories they are religion and faith and thus have no place in school. You cant argue the validity of evolution but only if you use good science - not faith.

    That's a matter of opinion and debate. Evolution is just a theory after all. The fact that it's a theory leaves other questions and possibilities open. How are those other questions to be explored if they're not allowed to be discussed or even introduced? Do you believe that you are the result of evolution? If so, how can you believe in something that's not conclusively proven, but only theoretical? It takes faith to believe in something you're unable to prove. It takes faith to believe in something you haven't seen.

    You might say 'well, the evidence is there, we just haven't discovered it yet', and that is faith... It's all faith based until the physical oberservable... empirical evidence is discovered. ...yet faith has no business in the classroom?

    All of evolutional theory including the big bang theory itself is based on the presumtion that nothing turned into something by pure chance. It's pure speculation. The root of it all -cosmic evolution and all subsequent evolution following- is based, at its core- on assumption and faith. Yet faith has no place in school? So what you're really saying is that faith in school is fine, when it "jives" with your faith. Claiming the argument is religious or lacks scientific theory is false. Such claims are only intended to quiet dissenters whether inside or outside the scientific community.

    ...and I can argue the validity of evolution all day long. To not argue the validity of something that still, to this day, is as full of holes as it was when the idea was introduced, would be to simply accept what I'm told. Are there some sound theories involving evolution? Yes. By scientific standards there absolutely are. Does that make them conclusive? No... it makes them theories. Are there some solid undeniable facts within those theories? Yes. Does that make them conclusive? No. The debate would be over if that were the case.

    I don’t think you are totally ignorant of science but you reject what doesn’t jive with your faith and that’s not right -- The Scientific consensus is not to be challenged lightly. And just because some wacko published some wacko article in a wacko magazine or journal doesn’t mean you should take it for proof. It should appear in a scientific journal – a real one. (trying to head off you sending me wacko articles by wacko authors in wacko journals/magazines

    It has nothing to with simply rejecting "what doesn't jive". The science that you're referring to is, I'm assuming, evolution. If that's the science that you're referring to then yes, I reject it as the explanation of my existence, and here's why:

    Scientific consensus on a theory is not the same as scientific conclusion. It ceases to be scientific when it becomes conclusive. Throwing around the term "scientific consensus" sounds real powerful and authoritative to those who might confuse that with conclusion, but it's not enough of a statement to make me suddenly say "oh, I was wrong".

    Gee, there's scientific consensus that the theory of evolution is still, well, the theory of evolution. It's not a matter of just not jiving with my beliefs. The theory of evolution directly contradicts my beliefs in every way. If I entertained the therory of evolution it would be an admittance of questioning my beliefs. You're the one who questions your beliefs, not me. Don't tell me it's wrong for me to reject something that's theoretical and inconclusive.

    Ambiguous terms like "scientific consensus" are thrown around to get people to accept something as conclusive when it's not... and that's wrong. BTW, you haven't a clue what I read (aside from the Bible). I don't need articles from "wacko magazines"- whatever they may be- to tell me what I'm telling you.

    I don’t know everything about science that’s why I depend on the scientific community.
    Well, it definitely takes a lot of faith to depend on the fallible and finite nature of humans- even the capable and intelligent.
    If I didn’t, I guess I’d assume the world was flat - I haven’t made any measurements myself and I doubt you have either. So we are left with a set of scientific opinions
    We have to depend on science for solutions to a certain extent... but in the end people are only people; even scientists. With that come the facts of human error, human nature, human wants and needs, human deception, misconduct, both individual and organizational agendas, self interests, political interests, lobbyists and more. All this can and does exist the scientific community. You can deny it all you want, but the scientific community, again- much like Washington- does have its fair share of agenda driven arrogance and elitism. Am I saying that I completely disregard the scientific community by default? No. Not at all. I just meet it with a fair amount of skepticism.
    Yes, teachings from a great man not the Son of God. I know the teachings of Jesus and I don’t think it out of bounds to engage people regarding their faith. It’s my right to have an opinion. What of it?
    But it's out of bounds to engage you about yours? You want to tell me that your faith is your own business and at the same time tell me it's not out of bounds to engage me about mine? I never said you couldn't have an opinion LF. I have mine as well. It struck me as a bit bizarre that you'd use Christ as a tool for chastising. One minute you tell me you don't believe the Bible. The next you tell me you believe Christ lived, but isn't the Son of God. My original question was to bring a little clarity to the matter... which led to all this. You know the teachings of Jesus, but you also think he was a fraud.
    I serve others everyday. I’m filled with empathy and love for all life. It’s my occupation and my passion. I make no distinctions based on faith, religion, color, nationality, sexuality, or anything… I believe it’s my calling to serve. After all:
    I never said you don't. There are a great many millions of people who serve others in a great many millions of ways every hour every day whether their occupation requires it or not.
    “We’re just ordinary people, we don’t know which way to go.” (John Legend.)

    I know which way to go. I have a very clear path and a very purposeful existence full of joy, love, learning, charity, service and a little adventure as time permits.

    That was the last of that discussion. I have other e-mails from libs thatI may share at some point later on.

    Trackback(0)
    Comments (0)Add Comment

    Write comment

    security code
    Write the displayed characters


    busy
    Last Updated on Tuesday, 09 September 2008 09:58