What do people think of Creationism?

[tesseract]

Yes, lucky there is a female who has you under thumb!

Most people don't need religion to stop them from that kind of thing... But I'm glad it's stopping you!

Nice attempt at bait. Your trolling needs work.

 

[Floor Pie]

I can speak for atheists lack of belief in God due to atheists as a group having their view defined in the dictionary.

Speaking for atheists and dictionaries now?
Does your pomposity know no bounds?

Nice attempt at bait. Your trolling needs work.

Speaking for me now? How presumptuous!

 

[Lebbo73]

No, because you say so.

Everything is because you say so.

What's it like never having been wrong, ever?

You shouldn't have to ask that ?

 

[Riseupaustralia]

You shouldn't have to ask that ?

I was wrong.

 

[Cooldude]

People still giving tesseract air time? Waste of time

If Jesus is here today, he would not be on tesseract's side, quite the opposite really

 

[Floor Pie]

People still giving tesseract air time? Waste of time

If Jesus is here today, he would not be on tesseract's side, quite the opposite really

I'm just pulling apart old lap tops. And installing ubuntu on a few. Helps pass the time being as illogical as him!

 

[Riseupaustralia]

People still giving tesseract air time? Waste of time

If Jesus is here today, he would not be on tesseract's side, quite the opposite really

More chance of me getting to 'heaven' than tess.

 

[Cooldude]

I'm just pulling apart old lap tops. And installing ubuntu on a few. Helps pass the time being as illogical as him!

Don't say that, coz he'll just turn it around and say you're the illogical one

The guy's mug would be next to the word hypocrisy in the dictionary, he has the self awareness of a corpse

The worst kind of stupid is not knowing you are stupid, but has the cojones to call other people stupid

 

[Floor Pie]

Don't say that, coz he'll just turn it around and say you're the illogical one

The guy's mug would be next to the word hypocrisy in the dictionary, he has the self awareness of a corpse

The worst kind of stupid is not knowing you are stupid, but has the cojones to call other people stupid

Haha, yeah. Look at the conversation he and I have been having.
And I'm not even drunk!
I find it pretty funny!

 

[darth_timon]

'Sigh' Right, I know I'm not a mod and I'm not usually the first to call for this, but can everyone take a breath and calm down? I'm seeing this thread spiral closer and closer to the drain, and I think it's only a matter of time before Godwin's Law gets proven right yet again. I know religion is a topic that people can easily get worked up about, but there's heated debate and then mudslinging for the sake of it.

 

[Cooldude]

I can sympathize to a degree, coz it's impossible to have a "discussion" with tesseract without it descending to bat shit insanity without any trace of logic left

I'm happy to discuss religion or Christianity with Christians as long as they have some self awareness and ability to be rational and not just say the most insane inaccurate and hypocritical stuff then has the cheek to call someone else as insane lying hypocrites

The other day I was having a religious discussion with a young girl, very young in fact, she was very eager to show how Christian she is

Talks about how oh everyone has their own personal experiences and upbringing so we can't judge or impose our life values on anyone. Then when the topic switched to Christian forgiveness and grace, she was like, we all should just forgive anyone or everyone who has ever wronged us

Then I point out like, there are instances where it's extremely difficult to do that, like if the guy was a recidivist, or in extreme circumstances like say, if your daughter was r*ped murdered in cold blood with no reason whatsoever, which happens a lot. Then she got all angry and said yeah but you don't have to so negative all the time blah blah blah, then I'm like, I'm just trying to live in a real world and face reality! Plus you just said you shouldn't impose values on other people...

Should've mentioned how hard it is to forgive priests who sexually molest you as a child, but I guess that would've made her even crazier

Then I mention to some Christians on how hypocritical some of them can be, then one of them actually said, yeah we are hypocrites but so what, everyone are, we shouldn't make a big song and dance about it. Then I'm like, but Jesus did make a big song and dance about it....... why cherry pick scriptures and get to pick the moments when you wanna be "Christian" then avoid being one when it doesn't suit you

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Discussing anything with Tess is ....well....ummm.....

I really cant explain it.

I honestly feel sorry for his *wife

*imaginary

 

[darth_timon]

Proof of a divine being can't be had. If faith is considered child-like, that's your prerogative to hold that view.

It's child-like reasoning to completely dismiss the possibility of God when definitive proof, one way or the other, can't be had.

I fear we are spinning in circles here. I do not accept it is child-like to reject the existence of something never demonstrated or proven in any way, whereas I can certainly see why the opposite position can be seen as true (though, I would have it noted that this is not necessarily what I believe).

Metaphysics does deal with the supernatural. As I've previously stated, the word has more than one use, depending on context.

No, I'm not speaking of ghosts. Angels and demons, though, are mentioned and explained in the bible. I am referring to them. They're far from being verified because science can't measure them. As I've said, belief is partly a matter of faith.

It might just be that angels and demons are not verified because they do not exist - the Bible is not infalliable, and written by human hands, subject to human interpretations and flaws. It might simply be an event or events that we lacked the understanding to quantify back then, and so wrote it off to being supernatural.

If you choose to believe in such beings as a matter of faith, that's absolutely fine. That there is no evidence to support their existence beyond writings that are subject to more than one interpretation and human flaws, would lend credence to the idea they never existed, certainly among atheists.

Atheists can take words of books to be true, but just not certain parts of one particular book.

There's the historical record as written in the bible. But atheists conveniently dismiss such inconvenient writings.

The Bible contains some articles of truth, information that can be cross-referenced and verified against other sources. Where it contains articles with no means of verification, no means of testing, no evidence, why should they be assumed as true?

Again, I haven't asked you to prove a negative; I've merely implied that atheists shouldn't make a definitive call wrt God when they can't possibly know for certain.

Proving God exists by empirical means can't be done. I've already established this in this thread. That's why belief is done partly on account of faith in the bible.

And therein lies my point. If God's existence cannot be proven, why is it close-minded to reject God's existence? It is a faith-based matter to believe in God, it is not a faith-based matter to not believe.

This position will spin us back to the metaphysical again, but the metaphysical is again, a leap of faith when dealing with angels, demons, and Biblical/religious texts. The trouble with these is, they are, as mentioned before, one possible interpretation of flawed human thinking - they do not necessarily exist, just because the Bible refers to them.

As established earlier in this thread, you said "To an atheist though, they ARE certain". Now you're saying that "The atheist position doesn't assume God doesn't exist." It can't be both given the inability to empirically measure and thus know for certain if God does or does not exist.

I can't help but feel you've taken me out of context here. What I said was 'The atheist position doesn't assume God doesn't exist. It looks at the available evidence. It sees no evidence for God's existence. It doesn't make 'leap of faith' judgments about supposedly supernatural events.'

Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be that atheists look at the evidence. They see no evidence for God's existence. They conclude God does not exist. That's the end of it to them. The leap is most definitely to believe God exists, especially without evidence.

As I've stated a few times now, the bible has literal as well as 40-odd types of figurative language. I wouldn't agree with those who took the whole bible completely literally, given my studies of the bible.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting you personally believe in creationism. There are however, a great many who take nearly every passage in the Bible literally, and they then go on to mangle science in their attempts to show both God's existence and that their Young Earth theories are correct. Unfortunately, their rhetoric is appealing to Christian fundamentalists, and their use of pseudo-science confuses the masses.

 

[raskolnikov]

I'm going to discuss scriptural issues, not things pertaining to me personally.

Oh...how convenient!

 

[Roylion]

But the bible says its inspired of God, not men.

Well the Bible would say that, wouldn't it? How else to get the masses to go along with some of its absurdities.

 

[evo]

Define 'metaphysical'. Metaphysics is the study of questions of existence and Being, not necessarily whether or not there is a divine being at the heart of all creation. Religious beliefs do not necessarily answer metaphysical questions, or if they do, they answer them only within the scope of that particular religion.

Questions of who we are, what we are for, and what might exist/happen are not the domain of religious beliefs or those without such beliefs. They are questions available to anyone, and they don't have to point to a divine power.

.

I love this part of your response. It's one of the best couple of paragraphs I've read here in ages.

In my experience religious people are the last people one would want to discuss metaphysics. With a few exceptions, the vast majority of them have no idea. That is why they are religious!

 

[evo]

The first axiom is very doubtful indeed. Quantummechanics works with events in nature that are, or at least seem to be, completely random. Particle/anti-particle pairs can come into existence and annihilate again without any apparent cause. Many quantum-processes seem to happen without cause. Saying that everything must have a cause is a very bold thing to do, and would require some major scientific theories. Until and unless these theories are presented, I call the first axiom a falsehood.

this is a pretty controversial claim- if I was lecturing your class I wouldnt use it as argument against ex causa. Any scientist that is seriously arguing that things can arise "without cause" is negating the very method he used to come to that conclusion. Mathematics itself requires that causation chains are 'true'.

One of the philosophy of mind units I took, my lecturer used this same argument against free will. It pissed me off so much I refuted it in my essay even though it supported the position I was taking. To his credit he gave me a HD.

Hume showed that humans cannot perceive 'cause' and 'effect', but construct these notions from past experiences. It is impossible to prove that A was the cause of B. We can only see that B happened after A, anything else is just something we think up. This casts doubt upon the notion of 'cause'.

Not really. Just because we cant discern the specific cause it doesn't follow causation is doubtful.

Edit: on reflection I probably should good this one a bit more respect. It is a while since I read him, do you have a resource handy that supports this argument more comprehesively using Hume.

And just suppose that every thing has a cause, then the argument is still invalid, for the Universe is not a thing, it is the set of all things. And a set cannot be a member of itself, so a conclusion about things in the Universe is not necessarily valid for the Universe itself.

This, however, is an excellent argument!

 

[tesseract]

Oh...how convenient!

It seems that you'd rather turn this issue personal and make it about me rather than the thread's topic. Your attempt was transparent.

 

[tesseract]

I fear we are spinning in circles here. I do not accept it is child-like to reject the existence of something never demonstrated or proven in any way, whereas I can certainly see why the opposite position can be seen as true (though, I would have it noted that this is not necessarily what I believe).

My claim isn't that atheists use child-like reasoning "to reject the existence of something never demonstrated or proven in any way", but rather , that it's child-like reasoning on the part of atheists who dismiss the very possibility of God being the creator when they couldn't possibly know definitively, one way or the other. I've explained this numerous times now, and you're either not seeing the difference or, you're ignoring it.

It might just be that angels and demons are not verified because they do not exist - the Bible is not infalliable, and written by human hands, subject to human interpretations and flaws. It might simply be an event or events that we lacked the understanding to quantify back then, and so wrote it off to being supernatural.

If you choose to believe in such beings as a matter of faith, that's absolutely fine. That there is no evidence to support their existence beyond writings that are subject to more than one interpretation and human flaws, would lend credence to the idea they never existed, certainly among atheists.

It's the possibility that angels and demons exist that atheists completely dismiss. They don't even allow for the possibility, given their definitive 100% stance. Hence my claim that atheists use child-like reasoning.

'The bible is not infallible' is a belief, usually one spouted by those who haven't studied the book themselves. I study the bible, and the more I study the more I come to understand its immense depth. I've come to realize this undertaking is going to take me more than a life time. So, those making claims against the bible usually do so with unrecognized ignorance. We can agree that the bible is written by human hands. If the bible is God's word, and the bible says it's inspired by God, then it's not saying it's man's word. To say that the bible is in part or wholly man's word is to contradict the bible based on belief. And belief is something atheists reject and deny.

Throughout the bible there have been examples of God giving humans knowledge beyond their time. Regardless, though, "It might simply be an event or events that we lacked the understanding to quantify back then, and so wrote it off to being supernatural" is irrelevant unless one is dismissing the bible as being inspired of God, for the bible explains angels and demons in no uncertain terms.

We both understand biblical belief is a matter of faith given human inability to measure the metaphysical. To say there's "no evidence" is to completely dismiss human interaction with angels and demons that have been recorded in the bible. These claims haven't been recorded vaguely either. So, to dismiss these claims as untrue, although one couldn't possibly know for certain, is to defy the lack of belief that atheists claim to have.

The Bible contains some articles of truth, information that can be cross-referenced and verified against other sources. Where it contains articles with no means of verification, no means of testing, no evidence, why should they be assumed as true?

Given that the the last recorded books in the bible were the letters of 1st, 2nd and 3rd John in 98CE, IIRC, there's not always going to be verifiable evidence around to corroborate everything last thing after the passage of 2000 years. What has been found backs up a lot of what the bible says, and more is still being found.

And therein lies my point. If God's existence cannot be proven, why is it close-minded to reject God's existence? It is a faith-based matter to believe in God, it is not a faith-based matter to not believe.

This position will spin us back to the metaphysical again, but the metaphysical is again, a leap of faith when dealing with angels, demons, and Biblical/religious texts. The trouble with these is, they are, as mentioned before, one possible interpretation of flawed human thinking - they do not necessarily exist, just because the Bible refers to them.

As I've explained almost/every time I've answered you that atheists dismiss the very possibility that God exists, even though they couldn't possibly know for certain. This is a close-minded way. If Atheists can't know for certain, why, then, do they unreasonably make a definitive call that God doesn't exist? This demonstrates that it takes belief to completely dismiss God, much like it takes belief to believe in God. 'I don't believe in God's existence' is a belief in itself.

Your position seems to be based on the bible not being inspired of God. That makes you having a belief-based position from the get-go. Given the bible has recorded accounts of human interaction with both angels and demons, it's no longer a matter of passing these events off as "one possible interpretation of flawed human thinking" or the bible just referring to them.

I can't help but feel you've taken me out of context here. What I said was 'The atheist position doesn't assume God doesn't exist. It looks at the available evidence. It sees no evidence for God's existence. It doesn't make 'leap of faith' judgments about supposedly supernatural events.'

Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be that atheists look at the evidence. They see no evidence for God's existence. They conclude God does not exist. That's the end of it to them. The leap is most definitely to believe God exists, especially without evidence.

I apologize if I've unintentionally taken you out context.

Given that God can't be measured by empiricism, a faith-based assumption needs to be made in order to reconcile the absolute certainty that God doesn't exist that the atheists hold fast to, combined with their inability to know for certain as to God's existence.

What you describe is agnosticism. Atheism, on the other hand, draws definitive conclusion when none can be had. Hence their faith-based conclusion.

"Atheists look at the evidence. They see no evidence for God's existence. They conclude God does not exist. That's the end of it to them", but that isn't the end of it. That where atheists would conveniently like it to end, but being that they consider themselves as logical, rational and free thinkers, they're dismissing the possibility that the bible is correct, as well as the possibility that God exists, even if it's not a bible-based possibility. Hence we return to the beginning where I stated that such dismissing of the very possibility makes for child-like reasoning.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting you personally believe in creationism. There are however, a great many who take nearly every passage in the Bible literally, and they then go on to mangle science in their attempts to show both God's existence and that their Young Earth theories are correct. Unfortunately, their rhetoric is appealing to Christian fundamentalists, and their use of pseudo-science confuses the masses.

I openly admit that I believe in God as the creator. What I do not believe is that the bible can be taken entirely as literal.

I don't believe that this issue amounts to God/bible vs science. I'm all for science going about searching for answers.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

So Tesseract, given the identical levels of proof, why would I reject L Ron Hubbard's very convincing religion based on invisible aliens , in favor of Christianity?

Surely hundred's of Hollywood stars can't be wrong!

 

[hardon]

It's the possibility that angels and demons exist that atheists completely dismiss. They don't even allow for the possibility, given their definitive 100% stance. Hence my claim that atheists use child-like reasoning.

well, please do show us how one would approach the claim of angels and demons using adult-like reasoning. given what's in front of us (1 book of ancient mythology and no evidence) show us how to proceed, adult-style.

And belief is something atheists reject and deny.

you need to clarify this point. surely you just mean a specific belief?

Throughout the bible there have been examples of God giving humans knowledge beyond their time.

would it be too much to ask you to provide us with a couple of good ones?

As I've explained almost/every time I've answered you that atheists dismiss the very possibility that God exists, even though they couldn't possibly know for certain. This is a close-minded way.

no. it's a very open-minded position, as we can consider, accept and reject all the available texts, evidence and positions. unlike a bible literalist who must bend every fact of the universe in order to fit the only conclusion they are ever allowed to have.

the "close-minded" claim that religious people make is a pathetic rhetorical device. nothing more. you don't flatter yourself by using it.

I openly admit that I believe in God as the creator.

convince me that there was ever "nothing". that is, convince me that there was ever a state of affairs that required a "creator".

 

[Roylion]

So Tesseract, given the identical levels of proof, why would I reject L Ron Hubbard's very convincing religion based on invisible aliens , in favor of Christianity?

And given the levels of proof required, why not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? There's a website and everything. And being a Pastafarian seems to me to be much more attractive than being a Christian or Muslim.

 

[expires]

I by and large know the US and UK positions on creationism, but can't say the same of Australia. What do people think?

http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/creationism/

The universe is the beginning of the three dimensions. That is the basic view down under.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The universe is the beginning of the three dimensions. That is the basic view down under.

In Australia???

In the begining the Lord did create VB and presented it to Adam, and upon chugging it down Adam did declare " this is ( burp ) bloody good , one is not enough". Thus did the lord createth VB in groups of six , held together by plastic that he created especially for the job.
Upon drinking the VB , the scrag known as Eve became strangely attractive.

 

[darth_timon]

In the Beginning God created Nintendo, and all was good.