Religion: The Deuce

[darkgold]

To me, Christianity is so poorly defined that it is impossible to defeat. You can prove to most sane people that the world began over 6000 years ago. Christians say that God put those dinosaur bones there and that the mountains arrived in a flood. You can prove to most sane people that each of the stories in the bible has a logical explanation: the plagues of Moses were actually created by a volcano. Christians say that God caused the volcano. They used to believe that God was in space. They don't anymore; now it is another dimension that is impossible to see or know about in any way. By now, most people have become somewhat disillusioned by the Bible. These people, too, can rationalize their disbelief, saying that the bible was never intended to be true, it was only a collection of stories to help us be better people. Each successive claim of evangelists has been successfully disproven, and a theoretically infinite claims remain.

Also, as there is no proof for or against any religion beyond a bunch of small villages in rural areas that had X,Y, Z happen to them because of a god. Thus, impossible to prove or disprove.

[Drumheller769]

Blanket statement about broad topic with no detail. Informative and useful.

*tosses some troll feed on the ground*

[podbaydoor]

It sort of addresses the same thing that I've said over and over every time I click on this thread, though.

Religion can be, and has been, and often is, made up of things that people make up. Once they acquire a dogma and followers, they're in business: it doesn't matter what they made up, all they have to do is get some cultural cachet. Tell the Mormons that Joseph Smith was a con artist and fraud, and they'll indignantly "prove" you wrong because they believe the dogma and the movement. Tell children that Santa doesn't exist and they'll "prove" you wrong (the presents show up, the cookies are eaten). Tell my grandmother that Buddha wasn't a god and doesn't answer her prayers and she'll "prove" you wrong (we survived the earthquake). David Koresh and Harold Camping aren't a separate category of their own - they are on a continuum that scales all the way up to whatever mainstream major religions are going around at the moment: Baal, Shang Di, Zeus, Ra, Allah, God.

[Drumheller769]

Yea, as I talk to more and more people Ive come to realize words will only describe your point of view, or what is commonly help belief( i.e. what the bible says about Christianity, or what a science book says about evolution). Whether you believe in something or not comes down to your own personal experiences and no amount of others words can make you believe something. I've found that is a hard thing to get. We grow up spending a lot of our time trying to convince others of our own points of view.


Trigger violence:

Spoiler:

By belief I mean more than just yea, I read about that in school/church, of course its true. But more like the kids at say Columbine who were asked if they believed in God and then shot if they said yes(I remember reading that in the news back then, I have not fact checked this, Im just using the situation as an example). Its that kind of belief in one thing or another that will shape who you are and how you live your life.

EDIT: By the spoilered statement Im not trying to say that just because you believe something doesn't mean you have to make bad choices. They could have said no. What I am getting at is that your belief should be more than skin deep.

[guenther]

It sort of addresses the same thing that I've said over and over every time I click on this thread, though.

I've seen you make this point over and over, but I don't exactly know what point you're making. People make things up in religion, but then people make things up all the time. And religion certainly has its dogma, but not everyone who participates is all that dogmatic. And people who are not religious can get very dogmatic on very non-religious topics (and we see that over and over on message boards like this). Most Christians I know don't set out to "prove" that God is real, though they will look for and promote things that they believe makes their case more compelling.

David Koresh and Harold Camping aren't a separate category of their own - they are on a continuum that scales all the way up to whatever mainstream major religions are going around at the moment: Baal, Shang Di, Zeus, Ra, Allah, God.

We can put Gaddafi and Obama on the same continuum as well. But just because we can link people with lines doesn't necessarily tell us much about either one.

[DSenette]

Yea, as I talk to more and more people Ive come to realize words will only describe your point of view, or what is commonly help belief( i.e. what the bible says about Christianity, or what a science book says about evolution). Whether you believe in something or not comes down to your own personal experiences and no amount of others words can make you believe something. I've found that is a hard thing to get. We grow up spending a lot of our time trying to convince others of our own points of view.


Trigger violence:

Spoiler:

By belief I mean more than just yea, I read about that in school/church, of course its true. But more like the kids at say Columbine who were asked if they believed in God and then shot if they said yes(I remember reading that in the news back then, I have not fact checked this, Im just using the situation as an example). Its that kind of belief in one thing or another that will shape who you are and how you live your life.

EDIT: By the spoilered statement Im not trying to say that just because you believe something doesn't mean you have to make bad choices. They could have said no. What I am getting at is that your belief should be more than skin deep.

someone's "point of view", and things that are observably and measurably true are two completely different things.

to your bit about "what a science book says about evolution", i truly do hope that's just poor phrasing on your part....it's not "what a science book has to say about evolution" it's what ALL of science has to say about evolution. i.e. it's an undeniable fact of reality.

and it's not about the usage of words, it's about ignoring evidence. observable, repeatable, measurable evidence.

if you want to BELIEVE in anything outside of evidence, or in the face of a complete lack of evidence, or in the face of mounds of evidence to the contrary, that's fine. but the minute you start presenting this belief as anything BUT a belief, and as anything other than completely unfounded in evidence then you have created a problem. and when you take the extra step of taking this unfounded belief and forcing it on others, or using it as justification for doing things to other people, then you've got a really really big problem.

It sort of addresses the same thing that I've said over and over every time I click on this thread, though.

I've seen you make this point over and over, but I don't exactly know what point you're making. People make things up in religion, but then people make things up all the time. And religion certainly has its dogma, but not everyone who participates is all that dogmatic. And people who are not religious can get very dogmatic on very non-religious topics (and we see that over and over on message boards like this). Most Christians I know don't set out to "prove" that God is real, though they will look for and promote things that they believe makes their case more compelling.

, the point is that people making shit up, and then convincing ENTIRE populations to follow the same made up shit to a point that is a detriment to human beings and reality is a bad thing, no matter who is making shit up, or why they're making shit up.

religion isn't really religion without dogma. it's something entirely different. if you've got your faith in whatever, but no specific dogma, then you're not talking about religion.

David Koresh and Harold Camping aren't a separate category of their own - they are on a continuum that scales all the way up to whatever mainstream major religions are going around at the moment: Baal, Shang Di, Zeus, Ra, Allah, God.

We can put Gaddafi and Obama on the same continuum as well. But just because we can link people with lines doesn't necessarily tell us much about either one.

the point of the listing of these other people is that many who believe whole heartedly in the words of the group at the end of the list, tend to also dismiss completely those at the beginning of the list.

it's very very difficult to take the claims of any one "profit" in any one religion as fact while arbitrarily dismissing the claims of any other religion or any other profit.

so, for an illustrative point. i have gathered that you are not a mormon. why not? what are you feelings about joseph smith? the book of mormon? funny underwear?

[guenther]

, the point is that people making shit up, and then convincing ENTIRE populations to follow the same made up shit to a point that is a detriment to human beings and reality is a bad thing, no matter who is making shit up, or why they're making shit up.

Well, doing anything to the point that it is a detriment to human beings and reality is a bad thing. And I agree that people making shit up and promoting it as if it's true doesn't add a lot of value. So I try to avoid that in the churches I visit. And most I've been to have people that will be right up front about when they're making speculations and when they find something to be very clear based on scripture.

religion isn't really religion without dogma. it's something entirely different. if you've got your faith in whatever, but no specific dogma, then you're not talking about religion.

My point is that while religions (or religious groups) tend to have their doctrines, not everyone is dogmatic in how they present it or in how they evaluate different beliefs. Podbaydoor used a lot of examples people "proving" this or that. I was pointing out that not all religious people are like that, and a lot of areligious do precisely that.

the point of the listing of these other people is that many who believe whole heartedly in the words of the group at the end of the list, tend to also dismiss completely those at the beginning of the list.

it's very very difficult to take the claims of any one "profit" in any one religion as fact while arbitrarily dismissing the claims of any other religion or any other profit.

You might find it difficult, and certainly others do as well, but a lot of people don't have this trouble. Accepting what Isaiah said as described in the Bible is different than accepting what that guy over there named David says. Most people are rightly skeptical of anyone calling themselves a prophet nowadays.

And I've spent a lot of time going over why I'm Christian and not anything else, most recently in regards to Demeter. I can dig through my old posts for references if you like.

[DSenette]

, the point is that people making shit up, and then convincing ENTIRE populations to follow the same made up shit to a point that is a detriment to human beings and reality is a bad thing, no matter who is making shit up, or why they're making shit up.

Well, doing anything to the point that it is a detriment to human beings and reality is a bad thing. And I agree that people making shit up and promoting it as if it's true doesn't add a lot of value. So I try to avoid that in the churches I visit. And most I've been to have people that will be right up front about when they're making speculations and when they find something to be very clear based on scripture.

and just like you really love to argue about the broad brush applied to religion, you can't apply YOUR practice to all of religion. ON THE WHOLE, as you have described your application of christianity within the confines of this thread, you are not a member of the christian majority.

religion isn't really religion without dogma. it's something entirely different. if you've got your faith in whatever, but no specific dogma, then you're not talking about religion.

My point is that while religions (or religious groups) tend to have their doctrines, not everyone is dogmatic in how they present it or in how they evaluate different beliefs. Podbaydoor used a lot of examples people "proving" this or that. I was pointing out that not all religious people are like that, and a lot of areligious do precisely that.

the point is the root of the "proof". the basis for the proof for all of religion is not reality. it's not testable, it's not repeatable, and it's not measurable. so you get to wave away a lot of the actual requirements for proof when you're arguing the things PBD mentioned. like granny's explanation of the earthquake. you believe in deityx and that deityx will protect you if you offer it itemz, you offered it itemz and there was a catastrophe that you survived, ergo deityx is alive. ignoring any other evidence that removes the need for that attribution.


there's this actually great trend that's TRYING to take hold in a lot of modern organized christianity (some other religions as well, but, well not so much) where the entire core of the religion, the institution of it, is moving towards the secular. look at the unitarian universalists. they're the least religious religion out there. they don't really do "dogma" or doctrine. you just show up and talk about stuff and share things that you believe. it's basically a secular group that has some kind of belief in god. and it's great. what you end up with is a bunch of humanists that aren't pushing a bunch of unfounded stuff around as fact.

the point of the listing of these other people is that many who believe whole heartedly in the words of the group at the end of the list, tend to also dismiss completely those at the beginning of the list.

it's very very difficult to take the claims of any one "profit" in any one religion as fact while arbitrarily dismissing the claims of any other religion or any other profit.

You might find it difficult, and certainly others do as well, but a lot of people don't have this trouble. Accepting what Isaiah said as described in the Bible is different than accepting what that guy over there named David says. Most people are rightly skeptical of anyone calling themselves a prophet nowadays.

And I've spent a lot of time going over why I'm Christian and not anything else, most recently in regards to Demeter. I can dig through my old posts for references if you like.

why is it "right" to be skeptical of anyone calling themselves a prophet today, but not to be skeptical of someone claiming to be the son of god 2,000 years ago?

no no no....not why you're a christian. i'm not asking you WHY you ARE anything. i asked why are you NOT a mormon. i'm asking for the reasons of exclusion. mormons are christians too. why is joseph smith not correct? what about him is different than jesus? or any other person from the bible talking about jesus? the time period? or specific claims?

[guenther]

and just like you really love to argue about the broad brush applied to religion, you can't apply YOUR practice to all of religion. ON THE WHOLE, as you have described your application of christianity within the confines of this thread, you are not a member of the christian majority.

I'm not talking about on the whole. I'm specifically talking about people making shit up. And while I don't have statistics, I would guess that the majority of Christians (and really the majority of everybody) doesn't like it when someone makes shit up and promotes it as truth.

Also, Christianity is hugely diverse, and you'll find many differing perspectives across the board. But there are some areas where I line up precisely with the Christian majority, and there are other areas where I hold a different perspective. But even though I might differ on things like evolution, I know many people who believe in Creationism and Intelligent Design, yet our beliefs on the whole overlap greatly. So if you want to make a statement about where I stand in regards to the Christian majority, then you really have to say in regards to which topic.

why is it "right" to be skeptical of anyone calling themselves a prophet today, but not to be skeptical of someone claiming to be the son of god 2,000 years ago?

I'd say the former is a lot more dangerous. Koresh had a great ability to directly manipulate people. The words of Jesus, on the other hand, are static and have been filtered by millennia of study that help place it into a relevant and meaningful context. Now people can take what's written in the Bible and use it to manipulate others, but then you have to make a pitch for why your interpretation is better than others (or restrict their access to other interpretations). But once you get people to accept that you are divinely inspired, then there's little justification needed to sell the rest of your story.

no no no....not why you're a christian. i'm not asking you WHY you ARE anything. i asked why are you NOT a mormon. i'm asking for the reasons of exclusion. mormons are christians too. why is joseph smith not correct? what about him is different than jesus? or any other person from the bible talking about jesus? the time period? or specific claims?

Ah, then I did misunderstand. I don't know enough about Joseph Smith to evaluate his claims of being a prophet.

[podbaydoor]

But once you get people to accept that you are divinely inspired, then there's little justification needed to sell the rest of your story.

And that's the entire problem.

There's a reason why a lot of the "atheist" dictators and totalitarian governments still like to cloak their rhetoric and speeches in passionate, religiously-flavored rhetoric, and create cults of personality akin to worshipping themselves as gods. The Mandate of Heaven. Red/Green Books of Sayings. Convince people that you're inspired with the otherworldly fire of Whatever, and they'll believe Whatever despite what's actually in reality.

I read your response to the Demeter question, and if I recall correctly, it boiled down to "that's not my personal experience." But what about the people for whom Demeter was their personal experience? Are you claiming they're objectively wrong about reality the same way they'd claim you're objectively wrong about reality?

[guenther]

And that's the entire problem.

There's a reason why a lot of the "atheist" dictators and totalitarian governments still like to cloak their rhetoric and speeches in passionate, religiously-flavored rhetoric, and create cults of personality akin to worshipping themselves as gods. The Mandate of Heaven. Red/Green Books of Sayings. Convince people that you're inspired with the otherworldly fire of Whatever, and they'll believe Whatever despite what's actually in reality.

Yup, and that's why I call it dangerous. And as you point out, the problem exists both inside and outside religion.

I read your response to the Demeter question, and if I recall correctly, it boiled down to "that's not my personal experience." But what about the people for whom Demeter was their personal experience? Are you claiming they're objectively wrong about reality the same way they'd claim you're objectively wrong about reality?

I don't know that I'd make a case of objective wrongness unless there was some objective evidence. However, I would say that I don't believe that stuff.

[podbaydoor]

The cult of Demeter claims that Demeter leaves the earth to mourn for her daughter in hell once every year, which is why we get fall and winter. Does that conflict with your beliefs about the powers that move the seasons?

[guenther]

Yeah, I guess so. But if there were some modern worshipers, I presume they'd take a less literal stance of that point. If not, then sure, it's objectively wrong.

[Zcorp]

My point is that while religions (or religious groups) tend to have their doctrines, not everyone is dogmatic in how they present it or in how they evaluate different beliefs. Podbaydoor used a lot of examples people "proving" this or that. I was pointing out that not all religious people are like that, and a lot of areligious do precisely that.

All religious people have to do that to -incorrectly- propose that their beliefs are reasonable. Many non-rational non-religious individuals also have unreasonable beliefs. Most of the people in this thread - that are arguing against the benefit of religion - are advocating Critical Thinking skills. We wish to address all systems that propagate poor thinking skills and rely on them to survive. While religious beliefs are not unique in creating or perpetuating poor thinking skills they are a primary offender. An example of a non-religious group that I take issue with is the Center for Inquiry. While individual members of its group seem to be adept at Thinking, judging from interviews the the like, the group itself seems to just sell classes about bad aspect of religion and meets to talk about negative effects and experiences with it. While there is some value in this, a group promoting the ideals they talk about should be trying to build new culture through education to achieve their ideals rather than simply directly attacking something that opposes their own.

You keep going back to this argument that non-religious people do that too, and your right and your point is still a straw-man. We want to help people develop proper cognitive skills. Religion (among other things) gets in the way of that, and religious people often do it directly to increase the following of their faith. Most frequently in their children but not only in their children.

[guenther]

There's a lot in your post I have trouble with, but I'll stick to two points.

While religious beliefs are not unique in creating or perpetuating poor thinking skills they are a primary offender.

I completely don't agree, and I don't think you've ever made a good case for it. You've listed examples of religious groups demonstrating poor thinking skills, but that doesn't put them in comparison to other groups and their quality of thinking skills. And further, this still wouldn't show that the religious beliefs are the problem as opposed to all the other religious or cultural factors. It might be that poor thinking skills would stay without those beliefs, and it could be that better thinking skills can be fostered even with those beliefs. In fact, that's my position. There's nothing inherent in religion (or more specifically Christianity) that limits a person's thinking skills.

You keep going back to this argument that non-religious people do that too, and your right and your point is still a straw-man.

So who's position exactly am I misrepresenting?

[a_toddler]

All religious people have to do that to -incorrectly- propose that their beliefs are reasonable.

Why just religious people? I would say all people would, at one stage have to be dogmatic at some level (I define dogmatic as what google tells me, ie: "Inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true") to justify their beliefs.

With the (rather massive, and admittedly I may have skimmed some of) argument about teaching people how to think critically, one has to keep in mind that this is a skill, which means that there will be some naturally talented at it, others which can be taught it and other still who will never truly grasp it. It is unfair to say that religion squashes/inhibits critical thinking because people are distributed across the board. I can think of many apt critical thinkers who are religious and non-religious people with poor thinking skills and I'm sure you can think of many religious sheeple and non-religious people with good cognitive skills.

[Zcorp]

I completely don't agree, and I don't think you've ever made a good case for it.

I know, but that is your bias blinding you.

And further, this still wouldn't show that the religious beliefs are the problem as opposed to all the other religious or cultural factors. It might be that poor thinking skills would stay without those beliefs...

The core of all religions rest upon unreasonable assumptions. If we are expecting people to behave reasonably these fundamental assumptions of ideology need to be challenged, and not by external sources but by internal ones.

I guarantee you that poor thinking skills will stay without those beliefs. They will not stay if we train people to Think Critically. They are in opposition, in conflict. And despite how many times I show you how they contradict logically you refuse to see that logic, simply stating that 'you don't believe there is conflict' despite my logically proving to you that there is.

and it could be that better thinking skills can be fostered even with those beliefs. In fact, that's my position. There's nothing inherent in religion (or more specifically Christianity) that limits a person's thinking skills.

Acting upon an ideology that requires Faith in Gods existence and that Jesus is our savior is a limit to a persons thinking skills. Borrowing and implementing a small fraction of Jesus's or the Bible's teachings when then those specific teachings are prevalent in every other moral structure, many of which are much older than Christianity, and calling that Christianity is demonstrating those poor thinking skills.

You keep going back to this argument that non-religious people do that too, and your right and your point is still a straw-man.

So who's position exactly am I misrepresenting?

Everyone arguing against you but in this specific instance PBD's.

It sort of addresses the same thing that I've said over and over every time I click on this thread, though.

I've seen you make this point over and over, but I don't exactly know what point you're making. People make things up in religion, but then people make things up all the time.

People making things up, or selling beliefs as fact is disingenuous. It is a problem when religions do it and it is a problem with other things do it. That things outside of religion do it does not make it ok for religions to do it. We are want to debase everything that creates this effect, not just religion. Most specifically this requires focused education on Reason leading into Critical Thinking.


@a_toddler

All religious people have to do that to -incorrectly- propose that their beliefs are reasonable.

Why just religious people?

Are you kidding me? The very next sentence was "Many non-rational non-religious individuals also have unreasonable beliefs. "

[morriswalters]

Atheists might be better off ignoring the faithful, and investigating why we keep inventing Religions over and over again. The question then becomes not why some believe in Christianity rather than the cult of Demeter, but rather why invent either.

[Zcorp]

Atheists might be better off ignoring the faithful, and investigating why we keep inventing Religions over and over again. The question then becomes not why some believe in Christianity rather than the cult of Demeter, but rather why invent either.

Investigating...we are quite aware why people 'invent' Religions. The individual motives are of course varying and relate to survival, attempted explanation of natural phenomena, community and power.

The reasons for creations of religions are quite obvious, there isn't a mystery there.

[DSenette]

and just like you really love to argue about the broad brush applied to religion, you can't apply YOUR practice to all of religion. ON THE WHOLE, as you have described your application of christianity within the confines of this thread, you are not a member of the christian majority.

I'm not talking about on the whole. I'm specifically talking about people making shit up. And while I don't have statistics, I would guess that the majority of Christians (and really the majority of everybody) doesn't like it when someone makes shit up and promotes it as truth.

Also, Christianity is hugely diverse, and you'll find many differing perspectives across the board. But there are some areas where I line up precisely with the Christian majority, and there are other areas where I hold a different perspective. But even though I might differ on things like evolution, I know many people who believe in Creationism and Intelligent Design, yet our beliefs on the whole overlap greatly. So if you want to make a statement about where I stand in regards to the Christian majority, then you really have to say in regards to which topic.

why is it "right" to be skeptical of anyone calling themselves a prophet today, but not to be skeptical of someone claiming to be the son of god 2,000 years ago?

I'd say the former is a lot more dangerous. Koresh had a great ability to directly manipulate people. The words of Jesus, on the other hand, are static and have been filtered by millennia of study that help place it into a relevant and meaningful context. Now people can take what's written in the Bible and use it to manipulate others, but then you have to make a pitch for why your interpretation is better than others (or restrict their access to other interpretations). But once you get people to accept that you are divinely inspired, then there's little justification needed to sell the rest of your story.

wha? why is that more dangerous? because it was in our time? how does the regurgitation of information for thousands of years actually make it more reliable?

i honestly do not understand how thousands of years of separation magically makes the accounts of jesus found in the bible (the only actual reference to these events btw. not to mention the parallels between the accounts of jesus in the bible to accounts of other "religious" heroes from ages before jesus was even thought of that christians regard as myth) more credible. the only difference is that you're not able to personally test jesus. it's easy to personally test the claims of david koresh because you were alive when he was alive.

this is the bit about rational, critical thinking that zcorp is talking about. the part that religion is great at blocking. no matter how rational you want to be about science, or how much evolution you want to accept, it doesn't matter when you get to the root of your belief in a guy that has no more evidence for his divinity than david koresh, joseph smith, or any other person claiming to be a prophet of god, you're not holding a rational belief, and you cannot claim to have applied logic and reason to your belief.

DO NOT read that as "you should abandon your belief", read that as "you cannot claim that it is a rational and logical belief"

no no no....not why you're a christian. i'm not asking you WHY you ARE anything. i asked why are you NOT a mormon. i'm asking for the reasons of exclusion. mormons are christians too. why is joseph smith not correct? what about him is different than jesus? or any other person from the bible talking about jesus? the time period? or specific claims?

Ah, then I did misunderstand. I don't know enough about Joseph Smith to evaluate his claims of being a prophet.

and that still didn't answer the question. why aren't you a mormon?

Yeah, I guess so. But if there were some modern worshipers, I presume they'd take a less literal stance of that point. If not, then sure, it's objectively wrong.

is it more or less objectively wrong than believing that a man was nailed to a cross, stabbed in the side, buried in a rock, then three days later he woke up, walked out, and floated up to heaven?

[guenther]

It sort of addresses the same thing that I've said over and over every time I click on this thread, though.

I've seen you make this point over and over, but I don't exactly know what point you're making. People make things up in religion, but then people make things up all the time.

People making things up, or selling beliefs as fact is disingenuous. It is a problem when religions do it and it is a problem with other things do it. That things outside of religion do it does not make it ok for religions to do it. We are want to debase everything that creates this effect, not just religion. Most specifically this requires focused education on Reason leading into Critical Thinking.

How exactly did I represent podbaydoor's position as different from her actual position? I didn't say anything about what she does or doesn't want to debase. I get your point about it being disingenuous (though I disagree), but that doesn't mean I am misrepresenting her, only that my response to her was unfair (which I also disagree with).

I will go back and address the rest of your post, but I wanted to get more information here first.

wha? why is that more dangerous? because it was in our time? how does the regurgitation of information for thousands of years actually make it more reliable?

I'm not talking about the reliability of the person being right, I'm talking about the danger if the person is wrong. Koresh had a lot of power to directly manipulate people, that's not good.

this is the bit about rational, critical thinking that zcorp is talking about. the part that religion is great at blocking. no matter how rational you want to be about science, or how much evolution you want to accept, it doesn't matter when you get to the root of your belief in a guy that has no more evidence for his divinity than david koresh, joseph smith, or any other person claiming to be a prophet of god, you're not holding a rational belief, and you cannot claim to have applied logic and reason to your belief.

At the core of my belief is my acceptance of an axiom through faith. This means that I gave weight to my own feelings and my own personal subjective experiences when evaluating whether to build the rest of my beliefs on this axiom. I don't have a problem with that at all. And from that base, I can apply logic and reason to the rest of my beliefs. I can critically examine every piece on top of this.

And the idea that this sort of thing limits one's ability to apply skills in critical thinking is testable. I've put this challenge out there before but no one who has made that claim seems to care that they are asserting an unfounded claim as fact.

and that still didn't answer the question. why aren't you a mormon?

Why should I be? What does it matter if I accept or don't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet? I mean you could also ask why I'm not a Baptist or a Catholic. But my Christianity doesn't hinge on me being or not being any of those things. And I personally don't see the point in trying to become one.

is it more or less objectively wrong than believing that a man was nailed to a cross, stabbed in the side, buried in a rock, then three days later he woke up, walked out, and floated up to heaven?

I said I don't claim objective wrongness unless there is objective evidence. Are you saying you have objective evidence that this didn't happen? And I don't mean that this event is unlikely or even in defiance of what we scientifically know. It's a miracle, so the Bible depicts it as typically unlikely or impossible.

[morriswalters]

Really? Funny, I didn't think that was settled knowledge.

[DSenette]

It sort of addresses the same thing that I've said over and over every time I click on this thread, though.

I've seen you make this point over and over, but I don't exactly know what point you're making. People make things up in religion, but then people make things up all the time.

People making things up, or selling beliefs as fact is disingenuous. It is a problem when religions do it and it is a problem with other things do it. That things outside of religion do it does not make it ok for religions to do it. We are want to debase everything that creates this effect, not just religion. Most specifically this requires focused education on Reason leading into Critical Thinking.

How exactly did I represent podbaydoor's position as different from her actual position? I didn't say anything about what she does or doesn't want to debase. I get your point about it being disingenuous (though I disagree), but that doesn't mean I am misrepresenting her, only that my response to her was unfair (which I also disagree with).

I will go back and address the rest of your post, but I wanted to get more information here first.

wha? why is that more dangerous? because it was in our time? how does the regurgitation of information for thousands of years actually make it more reliable?

I'm not talking about the reliability of the person being right, I'm talking about the danger if the person is wrong. Koresh had a lot of power to directly manipulate people, that's not good.

and according to the bible's accounts, jesus had a lot of power to directly manipulate people in his time. as has any prophet that you've actually heard of (protip, the ones you haven't heard of are the ones that DIDN'T have any ability to directly manipulate people). why are they so different?

if david koresh had been giving a message that you actually agreed with (instead of being insane) would your view of his claims divinity be different?

this is the bit about rational, critical thinking that zcorp is talking about. the part that religion is great at blocking. no matter how rational you want to be about science, or how much evolution you want to accept, it doesn't matter when you get to the root of your belief in a guy that has no more evidence for his divinity than david koresh, joseph smith, or any other person claiming to be a prophet of god, you're not holding a rational belief, and you cannot claim to have applied logic and reason to your belief.

At the core of my belief is my acceptance of an axiom through faith. This means that I gave weight to my own feelings and my own personal subjective experiences when evaluating whether to build the rest of my beliefs on this axiom. I don't have a problem with that at all. And from that base, I can apply logic and reason to the rest of my beliefs. I can critically examine every piece on top of this.

And the idea that this sort of thing limits one's ability to apply skills in critical thinking is testable. I've put this challenge out there before but no one who has made that claim seems to care that they are asserting an unfounded claim as fact.

logic and reason that is based on an unsupported, untestable axiom isn't logical or reasonable.

i can accept as an axiom that wood nymps are real, and thus my logical conclusion that knocking on wood is a sure fire way to achieve good luck is reasonable. that doesn't make it an actually logical or reasonable claim outside of my own axiomatic structure.

it's the same with any unsupportable, untestable axiom that's at the base of any other structure. no matter if it's religion or science. if the assumption you're basing everything else off of is faulty, or unsupportable, then everything that you build on top of that is equally faulty or unsupportable.

and that still didn't answer the question. why aren't you a mormon?

Why should I be? What does it matter if I accept or don't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet? I mean you could also ask why I'm not a Baptist or a Catholic. But my Christianity doesn't hinge on me being or not being any of those things. And I personally don't see the point in trying to become one.

it matters because you've accepted one profit over another without giving a logical or reasonable excuse as to why one is correct and one is not other than where your faith already sits.

is it more or less objectively wrong than believing that a man was nailed to a cross, stabbed in the side, buried in a rock, then three days later he woke up, walked out, and floated up to heaven?

I said I don't claim objective wrongness unless there is objective evidence. Are you saying you have objective evidence that this didn't happen? And I don't mean that this event is unlikely or even in defiance of what we scientifically know. It's a miracle, so the Bible depicts it as typically unlikely or impossible.

how is demeter ascending into the heavens every year any less miraculous than jesus doing it once? the cult of demeter describes the event as something only demeter can do. so how is that any less trustable than a claim that jesus was capable of a one-off resurection?

the issue with either claim is that for either to be supportable, you already have to have accepted untestable, unsupportable axioms to make them work.

for you to believe that the seasons are caused by demeter's travels, you already have to accept that demeter exists, and that demeter holds all the powers attributed to demeter. none of which are assumptions supportable or testable with logic or reason or evidence

for you to believe that jesus was capable of being resurrected from the dead, you have to accept that jesus was the son of god, that god exists, that god has the power to resurrect the dead, that there is a heaven to be resurrected to, etc... etc... etc... none of which are assumptions supportable or testable with logic or reason or evidence

[guenther]

if david koresh had been giving a message that you actually agreed with (instead of being insane) would your view of his claims divinity be different

Just because someone's mouth is moving in a way that's pleasing to me, it doesn't mean they're not dangerous or not insane. And Jesus had all the same power to manipulate people and do bad things (or really more power if he's the son of God). But today, Jesus' words as recorded in the Bible are static, and thus are not dangerous like that.

logic and reason that is based on an unsupported, untestable axiom isn't logical or reasonable.

But I could unreasonably build up on that axiom, or just let all my other religious beliefs go unexamined for incoherence or inconsistency. I don't get caught up in worrying about if my core axiom should be called logical and reasonable or not. My axiom is what it is, and I've been very honest and open about what it is. Assigning or not assigning a label doesn't change what it is.

And I agree that whatever I build on top of that axiom is wholly dependent on that axiom. And that's OK by me.

how is demeter ascending into the heavens every year any less miraculous than jesus doing it once? the cult of demeter describes the event as something only demeter can do. so how is that any less trustable than a claim that jesus was capable of a one-off resurection?

Trustable is a completely different topic. How we assign trust to things is largely subjective. Podbaydoor asked me about objective wrongness, and specifically about the idea that Demeter's coming and going causes our seasons. But since we can scientifically look at how our seasons come about we can actually conclude that this is not the cause. This is where religious claims come into conflict with objective evidence, and then we can really assess truth. However, if someone says that regardless of causing the seasons, Demeter invisibly and undetectably comes and goes throughout the year, then that's an untestable claim, and I would not assert objective wrongness.

[podbaydoor]

However, if someone says that regardless of causing the seasons, Demeter invisibly and undetectably comes and goes throughout the year, then that's an untestable claim, and I would not assert objective wrongness.

Then why not also add this to your stable of beliefs, to hedge your bets?

[DSenette]

if david koresh had been giving a message that you actually agreed with (instead of being insane) would your view of his claims divinity be different

Just because someone's mouth is moving in a way that's pleasing to me, it doesn't mean they're not dangerous or not insane. And Jesus had all the same power to manipulate people and do bad things (or really more power if he's the son of God). But today, Jesus' words as recorded in the Bible are static, and thus are not dangerous like that.

abuwha? so, in 300 years, when someone writes the teachings of Koresh down, and spices them up so as to make them more enticing, they'll be ok then?

i don't see how you're making this distinction.

if jesus were to show up today and start talking to you, would his words now become dangerous again?

what exactly is the differentiator between the teachings of jesus christ and the teachings of joseph smith?

logic and reason that is based on an unsupported, untestable axiom isn't logical or reasonable.

But I could unreasonably build up on that axiom, or just let all my other religious beliefs go unexamined for incoherence or inconsistency. I don't get caught up in worrying about if my core axiom should be called logical and reasonable or not. My axiom is what it is, and I've been very honest and open about what it is. Assigning or not assigning a label doesn't change what it is.

And I agree that whatever I build on top of that axiom is wholly dependent on that axiom. And that's OK by me.

and that's why it's unreasonable, irrational, and illogical. this is what zcorp is talking about.

the basis for the core axiom of "god exists" or "jesus is the son of god" etc.. are based on unsupportable, irrational, illogical claims, ergo any other axioms that you build on top of those are equally as unsupportable, irrational, and illogical. so you cannot hold those base axioms AND claim that you have rationally and logically evaluated your religion/faith.

it's not terribly difficult to see where holding such a strong irrational axiom at the core of your very being will make you more likely to accept faulty axioms in other, less important areas of life.

how is demeter ascending into the heavens every year any less miraculous than jesus doing it once? the cult of demeter describes the event as something only demeter can do. so how is that any less trustable than a claim that jesus was capable of a one-off resurection?

Trustable is a completely different topic. How we assign trust to things is largely subjective. Podbaydoor asked me about objective wrongness, and specifically about the idea that Demeter's coming and going causes our seasons. But since we can scientifically look at how our seasons come about we can actually conclude that this is not the cause. This is where religious claims come into conflict with objective evidence, and then we can really assess truth. However, if someone says that regardless of causing the seasons, Demeter invisibly and undetectably comes and goes throughout the year, then that's an untestable claim, and I would not assert objective wrongness.

then you cannot say that anyone who believes that demeter causes the weather changes to be objectively wrong...which you did say.

[Drumheller769]

I think I have tried to get this across before in this thread and probably didn't do a great job. Its not that we believe in Jesus because of some words in a book, or the words of others. Its our personal experiences that give our belief in Jesus more creditably than other similar figures.

Growing up I did the whole Sunday morning church thing, and I had the teacher read all the stories..blahblahblah. But then I didn't really believe, it was just what other people I trusted told me, why would I have cause to doubt? Then I got older went to college and did my own thing. I messed stuff up rather badly thinking that my own ideas were great ones.

When I finally hit rock bottom and prayed because there was no where else to turn, God answered my prayer and turned my life around on the freaking dime. I'm sure some people here have an addiction they would give anything to break, I did too, I was a drunk and couldn't stop drinking, I tried on my own for a year and was not successful. As soon as I prayed, I lost the compulsion to drink and its never come back.

That's the kind of proof that gives the ideas of the bible credibility to me, and I'm sure other Christians have had similar experiences. So its not that we just believe because of words in a book, but because of our experiences.

In regards to why my belief in Jesus is any more valid than the Demeter idea: There are many creationist scientists and non creationist scientists. Since I do not have the expertise to do various experiments myself, nor have I been alive to witness evolution why should I trust either of them more than the other? Thus I am left with the evidence I can see in my own life and others lives to help me determine my beliefs.

[morriswalters]

Ah, manna from heaven. One might ask why God fulfilled Drumheller769's need? Why could it not be served by reason and logic?

[Drumheller769]

Ah, manna from heaven. One might ask why God fulfilled Drumheller769's need? Why could it not be served by reason and logic?

The things I would associate with reason and logic did not help. I.E. Trying on my own to quit, asking friends for advice and help to quit, going so far as to remove all money so I couldn't buy alcohol(I ended up mooching a lot), trying to go to support groups. None of these solutions worked.

[DSenette]

I think I have tried to get this across before in this thread and probably didn't do a great job. Its not that we believe in Jesus because of some words in a book, or the words of others. Its our personal experiences that give our belief in Jesus more creditably than other similar figures.

Growing up I did the whole Sunday morning church thing, and I had the teacher read all the stories..blahblahblah. But then I didn't really believe, it was just what other people I trusted told me, why would I have cause to doubt? Then I got older went to college and did my own thing. I messed stuff up rather badly thinking that my own ideas were great ones.

When I finally hit rock bottom and prayed because there was no where else to turn, God answered my prayer and turned my life around on the freaking dime. I'm sure some people here have an addiction they would give anything to break, I did too, I was a drunk and couldn't stop drinking, I tried on my own for a year and was not successful. As soon as I prayed, I lost the compulsion to drink and its never come back.

That's the kind of proof that gives the ideas of the bible credibility to me, and I'm sure other Christians have had similar experiences. So its not that we just believe because of words in a book, but because of our experiences.

In regards to why my belief in Jesus is any more valid than the Demeter idea: There are many creationist scientists and non creationist scientists. Since I do not have the expertise to do various experiments myself, nor have I been alive to witness evolution why should I trust either of them more than the other? Thus I am left with the evidence I can see in my own life and others lives to help me determine my beliefs.

and you realize that there was a time when you could throw a virgin into a volcano and get a good corn crop right?

confirmation bias is a wonderful thing

[Drumheller769]

Please read my post. Eh...the reply I made to morris was just before you posted. But unless you have an explanation as to why prayer worked and everything else didn't Im going to go with God answered me. And unless you have been addicted to something and have any clue how hard it is to get off of it don't just say well you obviously decided you had enough, its never that simple.

[DSenette]

Please read my post. Eh...the reply I made to morris was just before you posted. But unless you have an explanation as to why prayer worked and everything else didn't Im going to go with God answered me. And unless you have been addicted to something and have any clue how hard it is to get off of it don't just say well you obviously decided you had enough, its never that simple.

i have read your post. did you read mine? when a virgin was thrown into a volcano, and the following year there were good crops, was it pele that made the corn grow?

it is quite naive of you to simply assume that i or anyone else has never been addicted to something so quickly.

do you have any evidence that it was prayer that actually worked for you? some measurable, testable evidence that after throwing you through the shit grinder, god finally decided that YOU above all other people that were swimming in shit and asking for his help deserved to get pulled out of the muck?

or perhaps the old adage of "when you're at rock bottom the only way you can go is up" is true.

that's the bit about confirmation bias that i mentioned. if you had found a four leaf clover, and really believed in the luck of a four leaf clover, then you won the lottery, you wouldn't give two thoughts to what the actual probabilities of winning the lotter are. you would laminate that clover and put it in your wallet

[Malconstant]

In regards to why my belief in Jesus is any more valid than the Demeter idea: There are many creationist scientists and non creationist scientists. Since I do not have the expertise to do various experiments myself, nor have I been alive to witness evolution why should I trust either of them more than the other? Thus I am left with the evidence I can see in my own life and others lives to help me determine my beliefs.

Hey all, apologies for just butting into the middle of the conversation, do let me know if this has been discussed already.

This is a philosophy of science thing. The activity that scientists engage in is wholly different than the activity that religion and creationists engage in. The goals/purposes are different, what counts as meritorious arguments/evidence are different, the methods are different, the rhetoric is different. It's altogether unfair to either of them to put them on the same pedestal and to call them the same thing. It should be uncontroversial to suggest that creationists are actively trying to climb onto science's pedestal, to try and conflate the two.

To understand the views of evolution compared with creationism by a cartoon wherein one has people in religious garments telling you that creationism is true while the other has people in lab coats telling you evolution is true, such that objectively these two activities are very similar things, is fundamentally and gravely misguided.

I could continue on this vein to clarify and give reasons why if this claim is going to be a controversial one. I hope it isn't, but as for the "why shouldn't I believe religious people rather than scientists", when it comes to ontology, it's important to understand the relative activities these groups engage in and their relative merits. For instance, suppose we accept that "a prayer was answered and this had a profound personal impact", accepting this in no way requires accepting an ounce of the supernatural narrative of Christianity. It only requires a belief in something that for lack of a better word we can just call "God". I personally am sympathetic to more internal explanations, as both explanations are perfectly consistent with the evidence and thus Occam's razor and all, but if a supernatural narrative is more compelling to you than so be it.

But from there, I guess it seems to me that once you accept that there is some greater force in the world, something divine, that an ounce of historical knowledge should let you realize that lots of people have held the same convictions, undoubtedly for similar reasons, among many different religions. And it's worth understanding that for all such people, they would feel the same sense of confidence that you have for their own supernatural ontologies, involving however many gods and narratives. So from that alone, I feel a modern understanding of religion should pretty well require that one recognizes the universality of God, which has an immediate corollary of downplaying the literalness of any particular supernatural narrative.

TL;DR There's nothing wrong with believing in God but not also believing that the Earth was made 6,000 years ago, and also there's no reason a deist should not celebrate science's merits and accomplishments. At a fundamental level these ideas couldn't be more separated. And as a practical measure, if you're framing your argument to be you vs. science, you're engaging in something profoundly misguided and ultimately indefensible.

Edit:

The things I would associate with reason and logic did not help. I.E. Trying on my own to quit, asking friends for advice and help to quit, going so far as to remove all money so I couldn't buy alcohol(I ended up mooching a lot), trying to go to support groups. None of these solutions worked.

The secular interpretation would go something along the lines of "obviously there is a religious part of our brains, as evidenced by every major culture ever. People's brains are powerful and not fantastically well understood things. It's not that you 'just didn't try hard enough before', but something about praying enabled you to externalize the conflict, a kind of self-hypnosis (hypnosis, by the way, is in no way meant derogatorily, it's just a part of our minds, it's something we do and are capable of and can have a profound impact on us), which enabled you mentally to let the desire go. Ultimately addiction is, of course, a mental thing, there's no reason why it shouldn't be theoretically possible to let them go under the right conditions. They are powerful and terrible things as well, and will-power alone is often not enough, it takes something cleverer, and for you this thing was a belief in supernatural assistance. Once you managed to successfully externalize matter, you were able to let the addiction go. But that capability was always, ultimately, within you, despite how much pain it caused you and how hard you fought against it"

There is an interesting back and forth between secular and supernatural explanations in terms of being condescending. As a humanist, it's condescending to believe that our accomplishments are anything other than our own (as a society, or individually, as buoyed by society). As a supernaturalist, it's condescending to suggest that you had it in you to get over your addictions all along. But it's misguided to believe that the latter is actually condescending, such an interpretation is naive in the face of experience, because getting over addictions and such are not just issues of desire or willpower. Things are more complicated than that.

[Drumheller769]

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what I said was clear(bad wording on my part). I didn't mean creationists versus scientists. I meant there are scientists that have the same level of experience and degrees who believe in creation as there are ones who don't believe. So in terms of scientific ability and expertise in an area I may not have, why should I believe one of them more than the other?

[Malconstant]

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what I said was clear(bad wording on my part). I didn't mean creationists versus scientists. I meant there are scientists that have the same level of experience and degrees who believe in creation as there are ones who don't believe. So in terms of scientific ability and expertise in an area I may not have, why should I believe one of them more than the other?

In that case perhaps I was unclear. I do not accept your claim that there are scientists who are also creationists (at least, in so far as creationism dictates their research, this in no way applies to someone who believes in creationism as a personal matter, but spends their time as a scientist researching unrelated matters), although I understand that there are creationists who wish to claim to be scientists.

As I said, I would argue quite directly that the activity creationists engage in is something totally different than the activity scientists engage in. They consider different kinds of arguments/evidence to be meritorious, their goals/purposes are different, their methods are different, their rhetoric is different. They are engaging in different kinds of activities and it is wrongheaded to believe they should be considered as two sides of the same thing.

[ShootTheChicken]

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what I said was clear(bad wording on my part). I didn't mean creationists versus scientists. I meant there are scientists that have the same level of experience and degrees who believe in creation as there are ones who don't believe. So in terms of scientific ability and expertise in an area I may not have, why should I believe one of them more than the other?

A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

Please stop pretending like there's a divide. Like there isn't a consensus.

[Drumheller769]

i have read your post. did you read mine? when a virgin was thrown into a volcano, and the following year there were good crops, was it pele that made the corn grow?

it is quite naive of you to simply assume that i or anyone else has never been addicted to something so quickly.

do you have any evidence that it was prayer that actually worked for you? some measurable, testable evidence that after throwing you through the shit grinder, god finally decided that YOU above all other people that were swimming in shit and asking for his help deserved to get pulled out of the muck?

or perhaps the old adage of "when you're at rock bottom the only way you can go is up" is true.

that's the bit about confirmation bias that i mentioned. if you had found a four leaf clover, and really believed in the luck of a four leaf clover, then you won the lottery, you wouldn't give two thoughts to what the actual probabilities of winning the lotter are. you would laminate that clover and put it in your wallet

When you said:

and you realize that there was a time when you could throw a virgin into a volcano and get a good corn crop right?
confirmation bias is a wonderful thing

Writing that in reply to me made me think you were saying that it was easy to break an addiction. If you weren't, I'm sorry I misinterpreted that.

As to your four leaf clover example I would say you should only laminate it if you won again and again. The answer to your question is in how God responds to prayer. Once you are saved he will respond to every prayer, and yes sometimes it may be no, or wait instead of yes. I have had those responses in trying to get a job, find a house, get married, having a kid, buying a car.When I had several false starts at companies that I thought would work and I had to bend over backwards to get into and then they didn't work out I prayed about it. Then after praying and waiting on God I got a job at an amazing company that I have worked at for 4 years now.

Because I have had a response so many times I don't chalk it up to confirmation bias.

And yes, if I had a 4 leaf clover and I won the powerball 5 times in a row, you can be sure I would believe it was good luck and would guard it like Scrooge McDuck.

[LaserGuy]

As to your four leaf clover example I would say you should only laminate it if you won again and again. The answer to your question is in how God responds to prayer. Once you are saved he will respond to every prayer, and yes sometimes it may be no, or wait instead of yes. I have had those responses in trying to get a job, find a house, get married, having a kid, buying a car.When I had several false starts at companies that I thought would work and I had to bend over backwards to get into and then they didn't work out I prayed about it. Then after praying and waiting on God I got a job at an amazing company that I have worked at for 4 years now.

Allow me to introduce you to the magic milk jug. It is a milk jug with supernatural powers to answer your every wish and desire.

All you have to do is ask the milk jug for anything you could ever want. It will respond with an answer of "Yes", "No", or "Wait". You will be able to tell what the answer is by what happens to you somewhere down the line. For example, suppose that you ask the milk jug for $1000. The next day, you get a raise for $1000 from your work. Clearly the milk jug responded "Yes" to your request. Another time, you ask the milk jug for a new job. Six months down the line, after repeated askings, you finally get a new job. The milk jug was just saying "Wait for the right one". Finally, one day you ask the milk jug if you should marry your girlfriend. Coming home that early night, you find your girlfriend in bed with another guy. Clearly, the milk jug was telling you "No."

Should we conclude that the milk jug answers prayers? If not, what do you think is happening?

[DSenette]

i have read your post. did you read mine? when a virgin was thrown into a volcano, and the following year there were good crops, was it pele that made the corn grow?

it is quite naive of you to simply assume that i or anyone else has never been addicted to something so quickly.

do you have any evidence that it was prayer that actually worked for you? some measurable, testable evidence that after throwing you through the shit grinder, god finally decided that YOU above all other people that were swimming in shit and asking for his help deserved to get pulled out of the muck?

or perhaps the old adage of "when you're at rock bottom the only way you can go is up" is true.

that's the bit about confirmation bias that i mentioned. if you had found a four leaf clover, and really believed in the luck of a four leaf clover, then you won the lottery, you wouldn't give two thoughts to what the actual probabilities of winning the lotter are. you would laminate that clover and put it in your wallet

When you said:

and you realize that there was a time when you could throw a virgin into a volcano and get a good corn crop right?
confirmation bias is a wonderful thing

Writing that in reply to me made me think you were saying that it was easy to break an addiction. If you weren't, I'm sorry I misinterpreted that.

As to your four leaf clover example I would say you should only laminate it if you won again and again. The answer to your question is in how God responds to prayer. Once you are saved he will respond to every prayer, and yes sometimes it may be no, or wait instead of yes. I have had those responses in trying to get a job, find a house, get married, having a kid, buying a car.When I had several false starts at companies that I thought would work and I had to bend over backwards to get into and then they didn't work out I prayed about it. Then after praying and waiting on God I got a job at an amazing company that I have worked at for 4 years now.

Because I have had a response so many times I don't chalk it up to confirmation bias.

And yes, if I had a 4 leaf clover and I won the powerball 5 times in a row, you can be sure I would believe it was good luck and would guard it like Scrooge McDuck.

and that's confirmation bias.....all of them....aaaaaaaallll of your examples there.

the volcano example is to illustrate something, that you may have missed.

ancient incans used to throw virgins into volcanoes. they did this to satisfy the god pele. if they threw a good virgin* in the volcano, then pele would give them good crops, if they threw a bad virgin* in, then he'd send a drought.


modern christians pray to god. they do this to communicate to god/satisfy god. if they pray really good* then god will give them what they ask for, if they don't pray really good* then god will not give them what they ask for or smite them for being shitty prayers.

*there is no way to know what is a good virgin or bad virgin, or how exactly a really good prayer differs from a really bad prayer.

[Drumheller769]

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what I said was clear(bad wording on my part). I didn't mean creationists versus scientists. I meant there are scientists that have the same level of experience and degrees who believe in creation as there are ones who don't believe. So in terms of scientific ability and expertise in an area I may not have, why should I believe one of them more than the other?

A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

Please stop pretending like there's a divide. Like there isn't a consensus.

As I cant find any direct link to your poll I will use a wiki article I found that references it: here. It agrees with your numbers, but you can also see that the poll even notes that the organization of scientists that was polled was biased.

Also, the 100,000 who believe in creationism of the 2 million scientists in the US is a large enough number for me to still hold by my point. And since you like polls, here is one that is newer than yours and it certainly shows a divide. here. While this may not be a poll specifically about scientists, I bet it includes some subset of highly skilled people in fields of science.