Creationist survey

[pgrmdave]

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" - Matthew 5:5

 

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" - Matthew 5:9

 

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, But I tell you, Do not resist and evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Matthew 5:38-39

 

"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Matthew 5:44

 

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Matthew 7:1

 

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12

 

"The second (greatest commandment) is this: Love your neighbor as yourself." Mark 12:31

 

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Mark, 6:37

 

"The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandments there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Romans 13:9-10

 

And the clincher:

 

"Thou shalt not murder" Exodus 20:13

 

I don't know how to correctly quote the koran, but I'll put up some quotes.

 

"To you be your Way, and to me mine."

 

"Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust."

 

Okay, so my argument for Islam was weak, but I'm not very familiar with the teachings.

 

 

Let's see, they are specifically told by their religion to kill, they do so.... Hmmm, boy that's a tough call!

 

Well, what is the difference between a religion that calls for death but repeatedly tells you not to kill, and a song that tells its listeners to kill? Would you hold music accountable for murder?

 

I must admit that I have problems with the churches, all of them, as institutions. But I don't think that other christians don't get it. There are some, in public places, that seem to be unchristian to me, but I feel that most christians are average people, just like most atheists, no better, no worse.

 

As for the history of the church, I agree, but you have to be able to allow an institution to change. Holding the current incarnation of the Catholic church responsible for the Spanish inqusition would make no sense. To argue against modern religion by citing past religion is foolish.

[Freethinker]

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" - Matthew 5:5

...

Well, what is the difference between a religion that calls for death but repeatedly tells you not to kill, and a song that tells its listeners to kill? Would you hold music accountable for murder?

 

Contratulations. You walked right into it.

 

Yes the bible (and koran) are filled with contradictions. But that does not in any way lesson the FACT that the bible (and koran) are filled with positive examples and direct promotion of hate and killing. It just means that it will support whichever action you want to take.

 

But further, the bible has MORE emphysis on negative tenets than positive ones. Just because SOME Christians ignore it does not change the FACTS!

 

Now if you really don;t comprehend the difference between a claimed source of divine revelation which states you will be punished for eternity if you do not follow it and a song, you are in bad shape my friend!

 

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

 

Thanks again for helping me prove it.

[Freethinker]

As for the history of the church, I agree, but you have to be able to allow an institution to change. Holding the current incarnation of the Catholic church responsible for the Spanish inqusition would make no sense. To argue against modern religion by citing past religion is foolish.

Again we see exactly why religion and specifically Christianity is so harmful to society and people's thought process.

 

THis particular angle of biblical discussion was started in response to the promotion of the bible as THE source of Revelation to follow. And the Catholic Church certainly did it very effectively. To try and pretend that by LEAVING the teachings of the bible, the Catholic Church is MORE Christian is absurd and typical revisionist.

 

YEs it IS because of the historically correct implementation of Christianty that we can argue against CLAIMS of "modern religion". Just because YOU choose to ignore the other parts does not mean everyone does. And as long as you provide salient support for the bible, ALL sides will use that as support for ALL sides of it.

[pgrmdave]

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? 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. 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.

[pgrmdave]

To try and pretend that by LEAVING the teachings of the bible, the Catholic Church is MORE Christian is absurd and typical revisionist

 

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.

[TINNY]

Christ and God are...or is, depending on how you look at it.

how do you look at it?

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?

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.

I choose to believe the parts that make sense, the parts that fit into my view of god, while I ignore the others

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.

[pgrmdave]

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. Even if I did accept that, Jesus and God would be seperate facets of the same thing, hence are or is.

 

I do not take the bible as being the word of God, but that does not mean that parts of it cannot contain truth. The bible is no more than another book to me, but it focuses on things that are spiritual more than others. It is also a culturally important book for me, hence why I started with Christianity and not any other religion. It is impossible to accept that the entire bible is true without accepting paradoxes and biases of the writers.

 

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

[Tormod]

I do often have a difficult time accepting outside information to change my views.

It is difficult for most of us, but it seems it is mostly difficult for people when it comes to religion. Porbably because it is faith-based, so they often feel the truth lies "inside" them and that just by adhering to their beliefs they wil be proven right....

 

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.

...but of course, then you can just choose what the truths of the religion are, you are in fact showing why religion is a non-scientific field. I cannot choose the force of gravity to have this or that property. I can wish for them, but that does not make them more true.

[infamous]

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.

[maddog]

If your life depended on it, would you say that God exists?

My life doesn't depend on it, irrelevant. I do believe. The point is what notion

of God do I have that I believe in. Kind of close the 18th century notion written by Kant.

 

Is there any logical reason for being hopeful in today's increasingly "hopeless" world?

Yes. Obviously, look at all the beauty and wonder in the universe..

 

Do you think the horror of the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States can be counteracted by belief in God?

Yes. It is my feeling that we have more control of our future than we give credit for. It

depends on the choices we make and what we believe in.

 

Can the fact of evil possibly be reconciled with the existence of a perfectly good and all-powerful Deity?

This one is a bit complicated, yet the answer is yes. I am saying yes to the reconciling. I

have discovered that enough negative thinking from an energy standpoint can account for

all the evil in the world. It is kind of like an infectious power source. This is my

reconcilliation.

 

Do you believe miracles are real?

Yes. We create our own miracles.

 

If you do believe miracles are real, do you think miracles can be reconciled with the hard core facts of modern science?

Yes.

 

Do you think the founding fathers of modern science believed in a Creator?

Yes.

Isaac Newton was also interested in alchemy if I remember correctly. Galileo Galilei supposedly said that a god wouldn't want to stop humans from doing scientific research (as the church suggested during that time).

Most of the scientist from Bacon to the 20th Century believed in God of some form.

 

Do you think the Big Bang theory of the universe has anything to do with the activity of a Divine Being?

The event itself - yes. Theory is irrelevant to the question, so no.

 

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. :)

 

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.

 

Do you believe there could be a major cover-up in modern science as far as empirical evidence for the existence of God is concerned?

No. Silly question. However, there has been numerous coverups in religion about creative

thought that disagree with dogma for close to 2000 years!!!

 

I never said I was the dieyed in wool Christian type (raised a Catholic as a child). I have

read from the Koran, Bible (multiple versions), Bhagavid Ghita, a couple more and found

them to be similar as though looking at the same object from different points of view.

 

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.

 

Maddog

 

ps: This is a volitile subject. Handle with care.... :)

[ant]

God is the great programmer, science is is program.

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

Any person who says we were not once close to the ape because we were created in God's Image doesn't take into consideration that we increase advancement each Generation and it is a fact God expected us to figure out. 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. He's so huge and time is an idea created by humans. Many of us can't contemplate occurences without including time as a factor.

I am a huge science nut, because of all inquiries I've attempted to answer

results in the realization that we are restricted from understanding, and unable to explain due to limits in our means of communication.

 

All cultures seek to connect with The Great Wonder, and Maybe...just Maybe God (as my culture named him...as best as we could) communicates with us in an Epic sort of way that each culture will appreciate as closely to "God's" means of communicating.

 

I studied religion in college...All over earth people are, by nature, seeking God. I seek him through my craving to understand basics of Biology and Chemistry and seek God further by exploring even further... I don't exactly follow a specific religion...but I don't shun them at all....I believe that God's energy is present when people come together for worship. I believe, because of three specific experiences, he will answer prayer in serious conditions...if it's meant to be. 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 classifies me as an Atheist...but I believe God exists 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. My belief in God is greater than most classified as religious. If you get chilled when u ponder questions beyond our level of understanding...then u feel him too.

[Stargazer]

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. :)

So exactly how does the poetic accounts in the Bible (written by people who did not know more than we do now) and real science agree?

 

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.

Not so. If you would have evidence of a creator, then we can discuss how to interpret them to understand the creator. Now when we don't any such thing, I suppose to say that there is a creator is completely superfluous and therefor not in agreement with the scientific method.

"God did it" is not an explanation of any observations, it doesn't predict anything and it just adds to the mysteries instead of explaining them.

 

ps: This is a volitile subject. Handle with care.... :)

I don't understand why it's a volatile subject.

[infamous]

So exactly how does the poetic accounts in the Bible (written by people who did not know more than we do now) and real science agree?

 

 

Not so. If you would have evidence of a creator, then we can discuss how to interpret them to understand the creator. Now when we don't any such thing, I suppose to say that there is a creator is completely superfluous and therefor not in agreement with the scientific method.

"God did it" is not an explanation of any observations, it doesn't predict anything and it just adds to the mysteries instead of explaining them.

 

 

I don't understand why it's a volatile subject.

Science believes in the Big Bang, but ask them to explain it's cause. You will get many and varied speculative opinions, but no proof. They will tell you that we may never know what happened at or shortly before point zero, but they still believe. Is it more accurate to speculate that some unknown physical law caused the Big Bang than to speculate that God did it? It's not a volatile subject for a believer untill someone denies that creation might be just as well the work of God as some unknown physical cause. If we agree that both cannot be defined at this point in history, why is belief in one or the other so difficult for either party to accept.

[maddog]

I don't understand why it's a volatile subject.

 

Science believes in the Big Bang, but ask them to explain it's cause. You will get many and varied speculative opinions, but no proof. They will tell you that we may never know what happened at or shortly before point zero, but they still believe. Is it more accurate to speculate that some unknown physical law caused the Big Bang than to speculate that God did it? It's not a volatile subject for a believer untill someone denies that creation might be just as well the work of God as some unknown physical cause. If we agree that both cannot be defined at this point in history, why is belief in one or the other so difficult for either party to accept.

 

I see this subject as volitile like to liquids when mixed together can explode, so can when

two or people with different viewpoints. This is not a bad thing, just to know and treat

each other with respect; then differing beliefs can be weathered.

 

There is a joke that goes: "There are people who divide people into two groups and

those that don't".

 

That kinda' is the behavoir on this subject... :) Volatility comes when one's point of view

appears to be thwarted because the other party disagrees. The agreement to disagree

is an imperative to discuss this subject. That is what I meant by Volatility.

 

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. Quite natural really. :)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Sorry, Stargazer -- I missed this post.

 

So exactly how does the poetic accounts in the Bible (written by people who did not know more than we do now) and real science agree?

 

Not so. If you would have evidence of a creator, then we can discuss how to interpret them to understand the creator. Now when we don't any such thing, I suppose to say that there is a creator is completely superfluous and therefor not in agreement with the scientific method.

"God did it" is not an explanation of any observations, it doesn't predict anything and it just adds to the mysteries instead of explaining them.

 

The poetic account I was think in mind when I wrote the earlier post, Genesis. You can

read Genesis and compare the description with the current knowlege in Cosmology and

Cosmogony and you can find the description similar. Now do you remember the Scopes

trial in 1925 of Tennessee school teacher ? Have you ever seen the movie Inherit the

Wind, or read the play (I forget the author). Anyway, in the movie Spencer Tracy played

Clarence Darrow the defense lawyer. He had on the stand the prosecutor, William

Jennings Bryan (who was evangelical preacher as well as a former presidential candidate).

At one point Specer asked the WJB character, "Could it be that time for God be different

than for man ? ... The character WJB says, "Yes" ... I know it was a story and it was a

lawyer, so this kinda' cheapens it a bit maybe... The end result Mr Darrow gets WJB to

admit that God's time (day) could be a billion years for mankind. If you were to accept

this point then Genesis creating the "world" in 6 days and then he rested fits nicely to

science. At that time the solar system creation was found to about 6.52 billion years.

Which I kind of like really... Know why ? Because that means that it is only Saturday

eve (Friday if you're jewish) and God hasn't rested yet. :)

 

Now if you don't accept the hypothesis that a billion years for man is a day for God, then

it all falls apart.

 

Also, understand me, I am not using this example to corroborate the existance of God. I

am showing that the story told can agree with science if interpreted correctly. :)

 

Maddog

[Stargazer]

Science believes in the Big Bang, but ask them to explain it's cause. You will get many and varied speculative opinions, but no proof. They will tell you that we may never know what happened at or shortly before point zero, but they still believe. Is it more accurate to speculate that some unknown physical law caused the Big Bang than to speculate that God did it? It's not a volatile subject for a believer untill someone denies that creation might be just as well the work of God as some unknown physical cause. If we agree that both cannot be defined at this point in history, why is belief in one or the other so difficult for either party to accept.

Well, why would an arbitrary image of an unobserved god be useful at all? Sure, go ahead and believe it, but it would be wonderful if believers realised just how little support they had for whatever they decided to be true. It shouldn't be a volatile subject as it's not difficult at all to agree that some things are supported by evidence, others are "supported" by faith or wishful thinking.

[Stargazer]

The poetic account I was think in mind when I wrote the earlier post, Genesis. You can read Genesis and compare the description with the current knowlege in Cosmology and Cosmogony and you can find the description similar.

Even if they were similar, what does that mean? Absolutely nothing, esepecially since any similarities are there because people want them to be there, and often they need to remove some parts, add others and reinterpret the actual words.

 

Now do you remember the Scopes

trial in 1925 of Tennessee school teacher ? Have you ever seen the movie Inherit the

Wind, or read the play (I forget the author). Anyway, in the movie Spencer Tracy played

Clarence Darrow the defense lawyer. He had on the stand the prosecutor, William

Jennings Bryan (who was evangelical preacher as well as a former presidential candidate).

At one point Specer asked the WJB character, "Could it be that time for God be different

than for man ? ... The character WJB says, "Yes" ... I know it was a story and it was a

lawyer, so this kinda' cheapens it a bit maybe... The end result Mr Darrow gets WJB to

admit that God's time (day) could be a billion years for mankind. If you were to accept

this point then Genesis creating the "world" in 6 days and then he rested fits nicely to

science.

Yes, it fits nicely as long as you change it. Quite a divine text they got there...

I suppose that the theories that distant galaxies were nebulae in our own galaxy are all correct as well, as long as we rephrase it all until it doesn't speak of local nebulae any more but rather distant galaxies. Also, the geocentric worldview fits nicely to the heliocentric view of the solar system - that is, if we consider the possibility that "geocentric" is just referring to a reference point, which is equally valid to have the sun as the reference point. Oh, and maybe they used other words back then? Maybe they meant to say that Sol was the centre of the solar system, but decided not to. Well, I suppose they all were right, then! Too bad it takes bad excuses, desperate rephrasing and lame apologetics for it to be right.

 

Now if you don't accept the hypothesis that a billion years for man is a day for God, then it all falls apart.

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.

 

Also, understand me, I am not using this example to corroborate the existance of God.

Good, because that would be very, very silly.