Four years later...

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2007-07-13 02:42am

I was just Googling my old username (creationistalltheway) to take a stroll down memory lane. This site had the most hits, so I've been reading archives for a while.

All I can say, to anyone who was with me back in '02 and '03 (are any of you left?), is that it's embarrassing to read. I was 13/14 at the time, and somehow had gotten it in my head that, if Christian, you could win any debate regardless of intelligence or maturity.

High school has done many things to me, and while it hasn't altered my faith, it's certainly helped make it more realistic, and at least, open to thought on the matter. I guess I've been "liberalized" in a sense. Just in time for Berkeley this fall.

Of course, none of you cares, since I was just an 8th grader who used a few recycled arguments and then left. I probably wasn't an especially memorable fundie here. But I figured, what the hell. Why not?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-07-13 02:53am

Wow. An FM that went off, woke up, and came back to apologize?

You get a gold star, and good luck in college. Good thing you ditched the dogma; college is where all the old assumptions of how shit works break down.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2007-07-13 02:54am

You probably should have put this in OT or testing. This isn't the place for reminiscing.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2007-07-13 02:55am

You probably should have put this in OT or testing. This isn't the place for reminiscing.

Sorry about that. I wasn't sure where to put this, but if any mod could move it, that'd be great.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2007-07-13 03:52am

creationistalltheway wrote:I was just Googling my old username (creationistalltheway) to take a stroll down memory lane. This site had the most hits, so I've been reading archives for a while.

All I can say, to anyone who was with me back in '02 and '03 (are any of you left?), is that it's embarrassing to read. I was 13/14 at the time, and somehow had gotten it in my head that, if Christian, you could win any debate regardless of intelligence or maturity.

High school has done many things to me, and while it hasn't altered my faith, it's certainly helped make it more realistic, and at least, open to thought on the matter. I guess I've been "liberalized" in a sense. Just in time for Berkeley this fall.

Of course, none of you cares, since I was just an 8th grader who used a few recycled arguments and then left. I probably wasn't an especially memorable fundie here. But I figured, what the hell. Why not?

Good show man. Nicely done. Good luck in college!

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2007-07-13 04:38am

creationistalltheway wrote:
You probably should have put this in OT or testing. This isn't the place for reminiscing.
Sorry about that. I wasn't sure where to put this, but if any mod could move it, that'd be great.

Since it was related to the old Creationism debate that he had when he posted here last, I'd say that it definately should go into SLAM. Especially since its here where his newly won maturity would be most appreciated.

->creationistalltheway
Good luck in college.

Just remember that just because one has a christian faith one doesn't have to believe in young earth creationism.
If you do believe that god created this existance, then you should study the rules of that existance (including evolution) so that you can appreciate it all the more.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2007-07-13 10:48am

I'm still here, and I remember you.

Glad you're doing well.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-07-13 11:26am

Yeah, this deserves some kind of note in the board's records in administration, actually, I'd say.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-07-13 12:14pm

You know, I hate to break up these back-slapping congratulations, but he never actually said he was no longer a young-Earth creationist. He only said that he posted a lot of really bad arguments in favour of that position once, and he was embarrassed about it. It's entirely possible that he's still a YEC, and still just as much of a moron as he was 4 years ago, only with more polished arguments. It's also possible that he's shifted his position slightly to be an old-Earth creationist, or possibly an IDer. And of course, it's even possible that he's actually considered the possibility that science may have some validity. Some clarification from him would be useful.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2007-07-13 12:22pm

Just remember that just because one has a christian faith one doesn't have to believe in young earth creationism.
If you do believe that god created this existance, then you should study the rules of that existance (including evolution) so that you can appreciate it all the more.

I guess I should change my username (thought it wouldn't be as funny), because I've already given up on Young Earth. Science was one of my better subjects in school, and I'd hate to give all that up when the first two, otherwise inconsistent chapters of Genesis, could so easily be read as poetry.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2007-07-13 12:34pm

Moved. SLAM is not an area to go and say "I've given up....".

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2007-07-13 12:34pm

You know, I hate to break up these back-slapping congratulations, but he never actually said he was no longer a young-Earth creationist. He only said that he posted a lot of really bad arguments in favour of that position once, and he was embarrassed about it. It's entirely possible that he's still a YEC, and still just as much of a moron as he was 4 years ago, only with more polished arguments. It's also possible that he's shifted his position slightly to be an old-Earth creationist, or possibly an IDer. And of course, it's even possible that he's actually considered the possibility that science may have some validity. Some clarification from him would be useful.

For the records:

- I am an Old Earth Creationist, and I have no problem with evolution.
- I think the Intelligent Design movement is a waste of time. It's just playing God-of-the-Gaps, and there's no reason to think science won't be able to explain what they now attribute to God, in the future.
- My belief in God is still on the basis of the belief in a personal, spiritual relationship. Of course, you would never believe that is true, and I'd never believe it if you claimed it. But that is my basis, and as such I could never say I am an apologist--I don't think belief is ever caused by a syllogism, and while I hope to defend it with rational thought, I can never prove it.
- Morally, I still believe in the Biblical code, which does include homosexuality--only because it is premarital sex, and by Biblical guidelines of marriage, will always be so. But, I do not believe it is any Christian's duty to try to keep non-Christians from sinning. There is absolutely no reason to do so. The church should only keep the church accountable to Biblical standards. So, I will always vote for gay marriage, gay rights, and the rest.

That's about all I can think of. Do I still qualify as a fundie?
-

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-07-13 12:37pm

Thanks for the clarification, amusingly-named person. That clears up a lot. And no, it doesn't sound like you're still a fundie

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2007-07-13 12:46pm

Do I get to keep the caption?

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2007-07-13 12:56pm

With all the shit that goes on, it is refreshingly nice to hear the occasional case of education and curiosity coming through for someone.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-07-13 01:24pm

creationistalltheway wrote:Do I get to keep the caption?

I favour placing an "ex-" in front of it. And also changing your user name. You're welcome to become a permanent member of this community, incidentally.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-07-13 01:30pm

Well, it's major progress. It would be nice for you if it continued, because removing the tendency to believe random notions with no evidence improves anyone's reasoning capability, but at least you don't appear likely to harm anyone else (e.g. by trying to persecute gays and sabotage science teaching) at this point.

creationistalltheway wrote:- My belief in God is still on the basis of the belief in a personal, spiritual relationship. Of course, you would never believe that is true, and I'd never believe it if you claimed it. But that is my basis, and as such I could never say I am an apologist--I don't think belief is ever caused by a syllogism, and while I hope to defend it with rational thought, I can never prove it.

This is pretty much as far as science could roll back religion, before cognitive science really started to get moving in the late 80s. As long as the mind was still pretty much a black box (psychology wasn't terribly helpful as it was both horribly speculative, rarely predictive and usually not physically grounded) science could only directly invalidate all religious claims on what the physical world was like, i.e. constrain it to metaphysics. All we had to refute 'I believe this bunch of random crap that can never be measured' was Occam's razor, which is only convincing if you're already a rationalist (and just generally has a poor track record of snapping religious people out of it).

Fortunately however we are now progressing well on shattering the black box and discovering exactly where religious nonsense comes from, in the sense of eventually being able to pull up a wiring diagram of your brain and showing you 'look, that mystical feeling you're getting is this patch of neurons firing, and they were created by this self-gratification feedback loop, oh and BTW here's our best model of how that feedback loop evolved in the first place'. Right now this only works with any degree of reliability on people who deeply study cognitive science, but I'm an optimist, I'm hopeful it'll eventually be an effective weapon against the onset of religious delusions in mainstream culture.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2007-07-13 03:04pm

Glad to see some clarification there, and also the moderation on beliefs.

creationistalltheway wrote: - Morally, I still believe in the Biblical code, which does include homosexuality--only because it is premarital sex, and by Biblical guidelines of marriage, will always be so. But, I do not believe it is any Christian's duty to try to keep non-Christians from sinning. There is absolutely no reason to do so. The church should only keep the church accountable to Biblical standards. So, I will always vote for gay marriage, gay rights, and the rest.

Clarification. You would still vote for gay marriage but would not support the church being invovled in marrying or recognizing the marriage of a gay couple, is this correct?

Master of Cards · Post by **Master of Cards** » 2007-07-13 03:33pm

CaptJodan wrote:Glad to see some clarification there, and also the moderation on beliefs.

creationistalltheway wrote: - Morally, I still believe in the Biblical code, which does include homosexuality--only because it is premarital sex, and by Biblical guidelines of marriage, will always be so. But, I do not believe it is any Christian's duty to try to keep non-Christians from sinning. There is absolutely no reason to do so. The church should only keep the church accountable to Biblical standards. So, I will always vote for gay marriage, gay rights, and the rest.
Clarification. You would still vote for gay marriage but would not support the church being invovled in marrying or recognizing the marriage of a gay couple, is this correct?

I think by the way he worded that if you are christian and gay its morally wrong because its premartial sex but if you're not Christian its still a sin but since you don't believe the same thing he won't be on any pulpits.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2007-07-13 03:51pm

Master of Cards wrote:
CaptJodan wrote:Glad to see some clarification there, and also the moderation on beliefs.

creationistalltheway wrote: - Morally, I still believe in the Biblical code, which does include homosexuality--only because it is premarital sex, and by Biblical guidelines of marriage, will always be so. But, I do not believe it is any Christian's duty to try to keep non-Christians from sinning. There is absolutely no reason to do so. The church should only keep the church accountable to Biblical standards. So, I will always vote for gay marriage, gay rights, and the rest.
Clarification. You would still vote for gay marriage but would not support the church being invovled in marrying or recognizing the marriage of a gay couple, is this correct?
I think by the way he worded that if you are christian and gay its morally wrong because its premartial sex but if you're not Christian its still a sin but since you don't believe the same thing he won't be on any pulpits.

More than that, he supports their right to do it to the hilt.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2007-07-13 04:16pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
creationistalltheway wrote:Do I get to keep the caption?
I favour placing an "ex-" in front of it. And also changing your user name. You're welcome to become a permanent member of this community, incidentally.

How about "Reformed Fundie"?

Post by **Dalton** » 2007-07-13 05:53pm

I'd move that this is worthy of a title modification. Kudos.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2007-07-13 05:59pm

Also, look up the usergroup "Knights Astrum Clades" while you're back - you might find some like-minded folk there.

Not that I was here when you were originally posting, but welcome.

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2007-07-13 06:13pm

Dalton wrote:I'd move that this is worthy of a title modification. Kudos.

Agreed. I like 'Reformed Fundamentalist Moron' or 'Ex Fundamentalist Moron'

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2007-07-13 07:59pm

probably wasn't an especially memorable fundie here.

Well, now you're memorable as the fundie who actually did the research and admitted he was wrong, and apologized for anything stupid from the past. Believe me, that's the most memorable kind there is to me.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Four years later...

Four years later...

Re: Four years later...