Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Creationist survey


  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#35 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 09:30 AM

I think what he is trying to say is that parts (not all) of the bible, when taken figuratively (as they should), can be close to scientific reality, at least as close as a book written thousands of years ago can be. The book was not written for today, or for scientists, but for everyone, so it would make sense that it didn't delve into relativity, or try to explain to people what a billion years meant. For when it was written, and the audience it was written for, it is close to reality.

#36 Stargazer

Stargazer

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 10:45 AM

I think what he is trying to say is that parts (not all) of the bible, when taken figuratively (as they should), can be close to scientific reality, at least as close as a book written thousands of years ago can be. The book was not written for today, or for scientists, but for everyone, so it would make sense that it didn't delve into relativity, or try to explain to people what a billion years meant. For when it was written, and the audience it was written for, it is close to reality.

1. When it was written they knew a tiny fraction of what we know now. Therefor, what we know now but they didn't, is something we can't expect to find in the Bible except if they just made a lucky guess.
2. Surely it's only if we want the Bible to be scientifically correct that we interpret it in such a way? If the Bible can be interpreted in any which way you like it, then it's not much to trust either way.
3. The reason why relativity was not brought up was not because the science populariser of the day wanted to bring it down a notch, it was because they had no idea about it thousands of years ago.

#37 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 11:39 AM

I think that part of the problem is that religion cannot be thought of scientifically, it is more emotional and instinctive (at least for most people). I think that the best example for something that can be true without being a scientific fact came from the movie Contact.

ELLIE
(a beat, then
softly)
You may not believe this... but
there's a part of me that wants more
than anything to believe in your
God. To believe that we're all here
for a purpose, that all this...
means something. But it's because
that part of me wants it so badly
that I'm so stubborn about making
sure it isn't just self-delusion.
Of course I want to know God if
there is one... but it has to be
real. Unless I have proof how can I
be sure?

JOSS
Do you love your parents?

ELLIE
(startled)
I never knew my mother. My father
died when I was nine.

JOSS
Did you love him?

ELLIE
(softly)
Yes. Very much.

JOSS
Prove it.



#38 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 12:00 PM

OK, so I have a few minutes to jump back in. Let's see if I can finish some replies in less than one day (and then rest? lol) And I guess I had not seen these earlier replies to me and will try to address them first.

But that would explain your ability to acccept the bible selectively while pretending the other more than half is not there.

Yes, I do believe in some parts of the bible and not others. Do you really think that something has to be completely true, or completely false?

This question is a red herring. An attempt to change the subject. It is irrelevant what I think regarding YOUR selective acceptance of what is claimed to be the perfect word of an all powerful god. Either it IS or it IS NOT. (Law of Identity)

If you are ready to admit that parts of the bible are bogus, please supply the list of which parts are bogus and which aren't and the external rerfeence source that verifies this listing.

Or is this just another matter of any and every person getting to pick and choose at any arbitrary moment based on what is comfortable at the time?

I choose to believe the parts that make sense, the parts that fit into my view of god, while I ignore the others. I do not believe that the bible was 'divinely inspired', it is merely a collection of different people's thoughts on religion and stories to tell people to try to make them understand a specific point. (from another post) Whether you understand or not, the Bible is not the ultimate source of Christianity. Christ and God are...or is, depending on how you look at it. :) Unfortunatly, your misunderstanding of Christianity is not uncommon, it is all too common among people of all faiths and nonfaiths.

What part of "the ONLY source of information for the biblical Jesus the Christ IS the bible itself!" don't you understand? But we will all give you another chance to show you comprehend history and reality. You claim "Christ and God are" sources of information on themselves. Please provide verifyable resources they have PERSONALLY provided outside of the bible.

Lacking any other verifyable source of revelation (not forgetting that the bible itself is NOT a verifyable source) it is absurd to claim that you have knowledge of something that lacks any SOURCE of that knowledge.

But I understand how someone so desperate to pretend there is support for their personal delusions, and faced with the absurdity of the only source that is claimed to exist (the bible) being so easily shown to be bogus (as you admit) would grasp at the additional arbitrary claims.

And this does not reflect as misunderstandings on MY part. In fact it is my more factually based understandings that show your arbitrary and unsupportable claims to be the misundersrtanding.

Of course, if you think that something must be either completely true or it must be false, I'm sure that you've already rejected scientific and mathmatic equations that are only true most of the time.

Please show us "mathmatic equations that are only true most of the time".

Well start with the list and source which delineates which parts of the bible are factual and which are not. And then we will worry about the other bogus claims.

#39 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 12:01 PM

how do you look at it?
ooo.. be careful with the word believe.
if you take the claim that the bible is the word of god, the omniscient, of course the whole bible has to be completely true.
so what is the use of the bible? you have an a priori concept of god and take what whatever that supports your belief. if you doubt the truth of some aspects of bible, how can you be surre of the truth in other parts of it.

Ewe Tinny! SMACK! Nice job!

Now sub Koran for bible and let me know what YOUR reaction is.

#40 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 12:13 PM

I believe that Jesus was a great man, a person who tried to set the world on a better path, but I do not yet know whether I can accept that he was God.

Once again, show us ANY OTHER contemporary eyewitness source which confirms and the biblical Jesus existed, even as a specific personage, outside of the bible. Show us why you have ANY concept of a biblical Jesus if you do not use the bible as the source.

I do not take the bible as being the word of God, but that does not mean that parts of it cannot contain truth.

OK, I do not take Mother Goose as the word of god, but I accept that there have been girls that wear hooded red capes. However this does not provide the first shred of evidence to support the fairy tale. And no intelligent person would make such a grasp.

Your last point is good, I do often have a difficult time accepting outside information to change my views.

And as such you can never be a Freethinker.

But in that case, I was refering to certain texts in the bible which seem to contradict others. When two ideas conflict, I try to choose which one makes the most sense, hence why I believe more in a God that wants peace and love over a God that wants worship.

What you show us is NOT "choos(ing) which one makes the most sense", it is arbitrarily choosing the one that you had already decided was acceptable. There is nothing in randomly rejecting the hateful/ evil/ vengeful god that shows "the most sense". It only shows an arbitrary personal wish.

#41 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 12:15 PM

Please show us "mathmatic equations that are only true most of the time".

It is my understanding that relativity only works on a macro scale, and quantum physics only works on a micro scale. Since these things aren't all inclusive, would you really consider them wrong? What about Newtonian physics, useful, but not entirely correct?

#42 infamous

infamous

    Visions of grandeur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3962 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 12:16 PM

I think what he is trying to say is that parts (not all) of the bible, when taken figuratively (as they should), can be close to scientific reality, at least as close as a book written thousands of years ago can be. The book was not written for today, or for scientists, but for everyone, so it would make sense that it didn't delve into relativity, or try to explain to people what a billion years meant. For when it was written, and the audience it was written for, it is close to reality.

Very good point pgrmdave; and by the way, just for the record; I'm a bliever, I also believe in natural selection, also in most current scientific data, and the Big Bang, so if I may make the point here, we believers and nonbelievers have a whole lot more in common than some may be willing to accept.

#43 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 12:16 PM

I think that part of the problem is that religion cannot be thought of scientifically, it is more emotional and instinctive (at least for most people). I think that the best example for something that can be true without being a scientific fact came from the movie Contact.


Nobody in this forum has ever claimed that everything that is true is a scientific fact. Science does not have a monopoly on truth.

However, we are talking about the requirement of proof in a scientific context, not in a fictional context.

#44 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 12:18 PM

Yes Tormod; The question of an actual God can't be discussed on scientific terms, proofs of or calculations about will reach no conclusions what so ever. However, we all contemplate issues about other questions in life that gravitate around simular uncertainty. There might even be what some would call scientific speculation that is short on proof. But we still speculate, does't seem to stop this sort of discussion as long as the word God is not used. Science is by definition, the study of knowns in percute of the unknown. We must deal with known facts, there must be a base of understanding upon which to build theory, otherwise we are spinning our wheels. I am a believer, but without proof, I'm illequiped to speak on scientific terms about God. Some might accuse me of having a belief in that which I cannot prove. I confess, I'm busted, what can I say. But I will continue to speculate about his existence, and his will for my life.

Yes, you have a belief for which you fail to be able to provide even the first valid intellectually honest proof for. That is, as I keep saying, your "right".

However you can not claim the same for Science, as you keep trying to do. Your "misery loves company" approach to claiming both science and religious beliefs are approached the same is bogus and as unsupportable as your god myth.

#45 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 12:22 PM

Once again, show us ANY OTHER contemporary eyewitness source which confirms and the biblical Jesus existed, even as a specific personage, outside of the bible. Show us why you have ANY concept of a biblical Jesus if you do not use the bible as the source.


What do you mean by this? Most of the books of the New Testament were not written as scipture but later compiled togeather for the bible. Does that mean that they were more acceptable before they were in the bible, or that because they are in a religious work, they must not have any value?

#46 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 12:48 PM

Do you think that the concept of evolution necessarily contradicts, or otherwise conflicts with, the theological concept of creation?
No. This was an actual defense in the Scopes trial on evolution. Even though he lost the
case, evolution won its preimenance from that day. I myself have gone back to study the
book of Genesis comparing my knowledge (I was 15 at the time) of Cosmology. I found
that they well coincide (thus do agree). So when you a question from a Creation as to
whether you believe, you can yes with glee. :)

1) Which version of Creation? The one in Gen 1 or Gen 2? They contradict each other in terms of process. Which came first, next...

2) Even Gen 1's Creation myth does NOT coincide with our Scientificly supported process. The claim is bogus. Let's start easy so you can follow

Gen 1:1-3 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

So it starts out by stating that the EARTH was created at the very begining of the process. Yet we know that the earth did not exist until WAY after the BB. It goes on to say that god created water before there was light. Yet we know that particles, photons, LIGHT, were some of the first results of the BB. Before even complete atoms and WAY before heavier elements and complex molecules like H2O.

We could look at the other absurdities such as how the "Earth" could BE the "Earth" if it was "formless and empty". By it's very defintion, the Earth must have a VERY SPECIFIC form and be made out of STUFF (NOT "empty") How can something that is "formless" have a "surface"?

Do I need to go on?

Do you think it is possible for evolution and creation to BOTH be valid simultaneously?
Yes, they already do. Creation agrees with Science. This is all a matter of interpretation
anyway.

No one can support a claim that the biblical creation myth and factual science "do agree". It's absurd!

I hope I haven't stepped on FT's toes or anything. It's kinda' obvious I don't agree with you. I do respect you right to express you opinion.

I have both steel toed shoes and a steel jock strap. :-) I also have facts on my side.

However I also respect your right to ignore FACTS if you so choose.

#47 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 01:24 PM

God is the great programmer, science is is program.

We start with someone anxious to pretend there is science behind their religious superstition. And they are willing to completely ignore the established meaning of the word "god" to do it.

So I will also play the same game.

God is the streak left in underwear when you do not wipe properly. Do you want to see god?

Science disclaiming God is a notion that should never be pondered.

Lest one wants to deal with reality.

Any person who says we were not once close to the ape

What does "close to the ape" mean? Neighbors? I am close to some right now. The Zoo is only a few miles away.

because we were created in God's Image

God has genitals? Nipples? 2 eyes, arms, legs, hands, ....

Those who say Earth, habitation and such were created in seven days so science is wrong simply don't appreciate God's means of communicating in a fashion we can understand.

So what other failings does your omnipotent god have? Other than not being able to get his creation to understand what he wants to communicate to them? And at what point would lying about a process that no one knows anything about be more understandable than the facts? To the uneducated barbaric nomads of the OT, a 7 day series of finger snapping is no more understandable than stating millions of years of changes.

time is an idea created by humans.

So what was there BEFORE the first human decided to create time?

Many of us can't contemplate occurences without including time as a factor.

Perhaps because there can not be ANY "occurences" unless there IS a "time ... factor".

I studied religion in college...All over earth people are, by nature, seeking God.

Argumentum ad numerum

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. For example:

"All I'm saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it."

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#numerum

I believe that God's energy is present when people come together for worship.

Ah good! A measurable claim! You are claiming that there is a substantive "energy", which CHANGES it's level of existence based on a physical situation.

Please provide factual support for this physical claim. (not that I figure you will even bother replying to this. Much less trying to support your claim)

I believe, because of three specific experiences, he will answer prayer in serious conditions...if it's meant to be.

Oh man, how funny! So god answers prayers with a positive interference IF what ever it was was going to happen already anyway! Such overwhelming proof! lol!



I love to see people who seek God..no matter how they do it. Another thing, those who believe God will send you to burn in fire if you don't do such and such...God that I understand doesn't like folks to say he is so very egocentric.

According to definition, an Atheist is one who doesn't believe religion is true.....This Webster definition...


From WWWebster, the COMPLETE results

One entry found for atheist.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

You are not doing very well so far! But you sure put a lot of effort into distorting things!

classifies me as an Atheist...but I believe God exists

What can I say? This says it all. A god beleving atheist. I'm getting too dizzy from going in circles to read much more of this post!

everytime I think of the Big Bang and what existed prior to that episode and what exists beyond our universe. That's when I feel God, it's not faith ...it's a known fact.

It's a FACT that you FEEL god? Is he rough or smooth? Wet or dry? This really is all too funny!

If you get chilled when u ponder questions beyond our level of understanding...then u feel him too.

And let me know before I wash my underware if you'd like to see him as well as feel him! LOL!

#48 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 01:29 PM

BTW, I believe is God. I just don't see Creationism and Science in disagreement as
I hear "most" Creationist. I am open at all times and consider each persons arguement.
Logic to me though is a requirement for discussion. When the discussion digress to the
espousing of one's opinion, then I exhibit resistance.

Then you will have no problem PROVING me wrong when I show the divergence between the biblical Creation myth and FACTUAL science?

So far all I have seen from you IS your opinion. No FACTS.

#49 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 01:35 PM

Yes, it fits nicely as long as you change it. Quite a divine text they got there...... Too bad it takes bad excuses, desperate rephrasing and lame apologetics for it to be right. ... It's not a hypothesis, it's a claim uttered for no other reason than to make the word of god to be scientifically correct, and I have serious doubt that changing a few words here and there is enough to make god look scientifically literate.

Hey, I'M the Resident Atheist around here! :-)

'bout time I am not fighting the good fight alone!

#50 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 01:40 PM

I think what he is trying to say is that parts (not all) of the bible, when taken figuratively (as they should), can be close to scientific reality, at least as close as a book written thousands of years ago can be. The book was not written for today, or for scientists, but for everyone, so it would make sense that it didn't delve into relativity, or try to explain to people what a billion years meant. For when it was written, and the audience it was written for, it is close to reality.

Amzing the extent to which a believer will go to apologize for how ignorant the bible is.

If you don't like what it ACTUALLY says, why pretend to follow it?

And I would love to see the list of which parts of the bible need to be taken figuratively and which literally. Lest it be seen as an arbitrary decision based on what won't paint you into too bad of a corner at the time.

#51 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 01:47 PM

I think that part of the problem is that religion cannot be thought of scientifically, it is more emotional and instinctive (at least for most people).

Religion(s) make specific claims. Specific claims CAN BE test SCIENTIFICALLY.

That they fail each and every time is the only reason believers invent these lies to cover up the failure.

I think that the best example for something that can be true without being a scientific fact came from the movie Contact.

Also bogus. LOVE, as an emotion, CAN be proven. We have come a long way in providing metrics to processes in the brain in these regards. Activities in various areas of the brain, certain frequencies of waves, physiological responses, ....

Plus there can be any number of outside verifications of one's love for another.

A novel does not provide PROOF of anything.