Creationists V Athiests

[Spider Lad]

Come on... The Creationist story isn't exactly very complicated. My 'God dunnit' comment pretty much sums it up and I think we're (unfortunately) all fairly aware of what the bible says about the matter. However you've only managed to show your complete lack of understanding of Evolutionary theory and the science behind that fact throughout this topic. So Hahahahahaha back atcha.

He's just a stupid kid from a stupid little island nobody cares about. Perhaps education is substandard there and their isolation allows superstition and mysticism to replace it. He might grow up one day.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

their isolation allows superstition and mysticism to replace it.

Say what?

[JT!]

He's just a stupid kid from a stupid little island nobody cares about. Perhaps education is substandard there and their isolation allows superstition and mysticism to replace it. He might grow up one day.

You're trying to provoke him, it's not really going to work. People like Joe see evolution as a means to destroy religion because without creationism the bible would then have to be seen as metaphoric instead of taken literally, and then the shit hits the fan. It all falls down like a deck of cards, creationism is the very bottom corner card.

It's kind of sad really.

[Spider Lad]

You're trying to provoke him, it's not really going to work. People like Joe see evolution as a means to destroy religion because without creationism the bible would then have to be seen as metaphoric instead of taken literally, and then the shit hits the fan. It all falls down like a deck of cards, creationism is the very bottom corner card.

It's kind of sad really.

It isn't 'a means' to anything though. Evolution has no motive in that sense. Scientists may become motivated to direct their arguments or put forward the evidence to certain people but evolution itself is a fact, it happened.

[1a2bcio8]

It isn't 'a means' to anything though. Evolution has no motive in that sense. Scientists may become motivated to direct their arguments or put forward the evidence to certain people but evolution itself is a fact, it happened.

I don't think JT thinks evolution a means in itself but rather the theory is used, beyond what it is per se, as a means against Creationism, which I also think is true. If we are being literal about Christianity, then there's certainly a logic to doing so. It's a good argument.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Just saw this on the BBC site and thought of this thread. Shame the Earth was created 7000 years ago 'cos these little guys can't possibly have existed. Poor little guys.

[1a2bcio8]

Just saw this on the BBC site and thought of this thread. Shame the Earth was created 7000 years ago 'cos these little guys can't possibly have existed. Poor little guys.

Still lovin' it

Is it claimed that the earth is only 7000 years old by some people then?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Is it claimed that the earth is only 7000 years old by some people then?

Unfortunately so...

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Heavens, Earth, and life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a short period, sometime between ca 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account. Some adherents believe that existing evidence in the natural world today supports a strict interpretation of scriptural creation as historical fact. Those adherents believe that the scientific evidence supporting evolution, geological uniformitarianism, or other theories which are at odds with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, are either flawed or misinterpreted.

[Tomm]

Unfortunately so...

Apparently somebody totted up all the people in bible stories, their ages, worked out who was alive at what time etc, and then worked out that the earth must be at least 6000 years old, and not too much more than that. Great.

[Al_Fel]

How many versions of the bible are there? What's the deal with the new testament and old testament etc?

I get the feeling that a lot of Christians believe that god wrote the bible as it is now and in English.

[Fish-Finger-er]

How many versions of the bible are there? What's the deal with the new testament and old testament etc?

I get the feeling that a lot of Christians believe that god wrote the bible as it is now and in English.

and he didnt??

I honestly thought, he went to the census in bethlehem, same as the rest of them, but hed planned ahead(kinda guy he is) hed got a room at a motel just outside of town, and was lay there, and realised, that the drawer next to his bed was empty, and realised there was a huge gap in the market, which is the reason he wrote the bible.

He got the inital copy wrote up on word perfect, and took it on to dragons den, pitching that he had a book that he could place in several million hotel rooms world wide, as well as 1 in most households in the christian world,not to mention the sale of multiple bibles to churches, he gave a quick speech on turnover and profits, spoke of a contract with the holiday inn to supply books to 6000 hotel rooms within the uk and ireland. Promptly securing the £50,000 he asked for, for a 10% stake in his religion.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Fish-Finger-er

[Spider Lad]

and he didnt??

I honestly thought, he went to the census in bethlehem, same as the rest of them, but hed planned ahead(kinda guy he is) hed got a room at a motel just outside of town, and was lay there, and realised, that the drawer next to his bed was empty, and realised there was a huge gap in the market, which is the reason he wrote the bible.

He got the inital copy wrote up on word perfect, and took it on to dragons den, pitching that he had a book that he could place in several million hotel rooms world wide, as well as 1 in most households in the christian world,not to mention the sale of multiple bibles to churches, he gave a quick speech on turnover and profits, spoke of a contract with the holiday inn to supply books to 6000 hotel rooms within the uk and ireland. Promptly securing the £50,000 he asked for, for a 10% stake in his religion.

Incrediblyclose to the true origins of the three main branches of theism we have now. Pitching to people to buy a steak in their religion.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Pitching to people to buy a steak in their religion.

Well it makes more sense than killing thousands upon thousands of pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes in religiously-sanctioned military campaigns doesn't it? Oh, wait... that happened didn't it? Ah well, so long as it was all in the name of God that makes it alright I guess. Go Christians!

[1a2bcio8]

Incrediblyclose to the true origins of the three main branches of theism we have now. Pitching to people to buy a steak in their religion.

Well it makes more sense than killing thousands upon thousands of pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes in religiously-sanctioned military campaigns doesn't it? Oh, wait... that happened didn't it? Ah well, so long as it was all in the name of God that makes it alright I guess. Go Christians!

You chaps are picking on aspects of religion and taking them as the whole of religion, missing the general core and most essential part. It's a gross misrepresentation, although there is obviously some truth to what you say. However, it's like saying that because i had bad experiences with some black people that all black people are bad. At best you're confusing the levels/generalisations at which events relate and at worst you're willfully ignoring facts and/or adopting a faith that all religion possesses only negative aspects. The latter of which is the same as what you so readily chastise other believers for.

It's just the case, like everything in life, that we can use something either to good or bad ends. Religion, like a car, can be healthy or the opposite of that, unhealthy. A car can get me to the hospital in time when I'm ill or I can drive wrecklessly and cause a motorway pile up. Comparitively, religion can guide me in my attitude to life and allow for deeper realisation of the nature of reality or it can be used as a means of populace control, war, profit, etc. But just because both potentials exist doesn't make it one or the other. Yet there seems to be a desire to only represent religion with regards to how its been misused.

You guys literally seem to just be out to bash religion, regardless of what religion actually means.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Shaun H]

Yet there seems to be a desire to only represent religion with regards to how its been misused.

You guys literally seem to just be out to bash religion, regardless of what religion actually means.

I think people have mentioned several times that they realise the positive benefits religion can bring. But would you not agree that in general throughout history the acts of atrocity (and the misinformation of followers as shown in this thread) that have been committed whilst being "justified" by religious means far outweigh the guidance provided to some people that should have otherwise been found simply in human society's culture, not due to the fear of being sent to hell or punished for your sins but for the desire to simply be a good person.

Religion should not be needed in society, there are already comprehendable consequences to right and wrong actions without the requirement of a big guy in the sky that can be taught to members of society.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

It's just the case, like everything in life, that we can use something either to good or bad ends. Religion, like a car, can be healthy or the opposite of that, unhealthy. A car can get me to the hospital in time when I'm ill or I can drive wrecklessly and cause a motorway pile up. Religion can guide me in my attitude to life and allow for deeper realisation of the nature of reality or it can be used as a means of populace control, war, profit, etc. But just because both potentials exist doesn't make it one or the other. Yet there seems to be a desire to only represent religion with regards to how its been misused.

Ah, now wait a second. Taking your car analagy... My use of the crusades as an example isn't like you going out and deliberately causing a pile up in your car. The crusades are like if Ford Motor Company got all of it's employees to each take one of their cars and instructed them to cause a pile up, drive into a que at a bus stop or just go and crash into the first Vauxhall car they found but enduring that the occupant was killed, all in the name of Ford. Now we can all see that's completely moronic but that's pretty much what the crusades came down to- the moronic murder of anyone who disagreed with the Church and refused their version of God. That alone makes me angry enough to want to tell anyone in the street spouting christian crap to f**k off. The (extremist) Muslims are still blowing each other (and anyone else they can get angry at) apart in the name of Alah. f**king morons. I know religion is just an excuse to be shit to each other but I can't help feeling that it really doesn't help matters.

My problem with religion (apart from the fact the basis of it is all a pile of turd which should never be considered as even remotely based in real life) is that over the centuries it has been used "as a means of populace control, war, profit, etc". If a load of deluded people find comfort in the fairy stories they believe then fine but I'll still consider them naive, weak and probably feel sorry for them.

[Tomm]

buy a steak in their religion.

Mmmmm, religious steak.

[totaltrials]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-gen...rles-darwin/4od

A scientist is basically arguing the case for evolution, he has to put up with the whole "because it's obvious" kind of attitude. It's a good watch and watching the Christians he interviews just makes me think "how can they be so stupid" so it's kind of funny in that sense.

It basically sums up everything in this topic, there is no argument or debate regarding evolution, it happened.

[1a2bcio8]

I think people have mentioned several times that they realise the positive benefits religion can bring. But would you not agree that in general throughout history the acts of atrocity (and the misinformation of followers as shown in this thread) that have been committed whilst being "justified" by religious means far outweigh the guidance provided to some people that should have otherwise been found simply in human society's culture, not due to the fear of being sent to hell or punished for your sins but for the desire to simply be a good person.

Religion should not be needed in society, there are already comprehendable consequences to right and wrong actions without the requirement of a big guy in the sky that can be taught to members of society.

I would say that there has been lots of undesirable things done in the name of religion but that religion is not the actual problem and so to blame it, is to miss the point. In the secular world, political ideology easily takes the place of religious ideology as a means of populace control, war, profit, etc. The issue that runs between the two is human confusion and motivation by negative states of being. Now, religion used correctly can dispel confusion which naturally leads to acting out of positive states of being (love). However, for the most part, like you say it hasn't been used like this. This is most unfortunate! But it's not the fault of what religion is supposed to be about - it's origins. And if it hadn't been religion, we would simply have been doing the same things using the name of some other system of thought.

Ah, now wait a second. Taking your car analagy... My use of the crusades as an example isn't like you going out and deliberately causing a pile up in your car. The crusades are like if Ford Motor Company got all of it's employees to each take one of their cars and instructed them to cause a pile up, drive into a que at a bus stop or just go and crash into the first Vauxhall car they found but enduring that the occupant was killed, all in the name of Ford. Now we can all see that's completely moronic but that's pretty much what the crusades came down to- the moronic murder of anyone who disagreed with the Church and refused their version of God. That alone makes me angry enough to want to tell anyone in the street spouting christian crap to f**k off. The (extremist) Muslims are still blowing each other (and anyone else they can get angry at) apart in the name of Alah. f**king morons. I know religion is just an excuse to be shit to each other but I can't help feeling that it really doesn't help matters.

My problem with religion (apart from the fact the basis of it is all a pile of turd which should never be considered as even remotely based in real life) is that over the centuries it has been used "as a means of populace control, war, profit, etc". If a load of deluded people find comfort in the fairy stories they believe then fine but I'll still consider them naive, weak and probably feel sorry for them.

The quantity still doesn't affect the underlying relationship between the parts and wholes of a situation. Like I've just said, we would still be doing the same activities in the absence of religion, they would just relate to some other system of thought. But the fact is, religion used correctly, can stop the problems that you dislike religion so much for.

I spent some time meeting with mormans recently. They were heavily commited to their religion and it was doing a great deal for them. They were motivated toward giving love and help to those around them, regardless of perceived differences between them. They were nothing like the type of Christian you describe that wants to kill somebody for not believing the same as them. There are differences between people in time and space. Then is not now, over there is not here. We need to differentiate and judge on that basis, not judge all from the basis of partial meaning. This doesn't mean putting down no religion but it does mean not choosing an either/or stance where religion is simply only good or bad.

Why not have the same attitude toward Germans for the second world war? Or are you able to differentiate between differences in space and time with that situation?

Edited October 15, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Al_Fel]

If you need a religion to do nice things and be nice to people then that's a pretty sad way to look at the human race. Maybe religion does have good points but its based on a lie.

[1a2bcio8]

If you need a religion to do nice things and be nice to people then that's a pretty sad way to look at the human race. Maybe religion does have good points but its based on a lie.

Well, that depends on how you think of religion. Not everybody considers its stories to be literal but rather a form of myth which can teach you about the problems and solutions of being human. On that basis, the truth of the religious myth needs to be judged, not on if the myth actually happened, but rather if by understanding it and applying it to our situation, if it helps us in some way. This changes the whole meaning of religion. Again, it is worth differentiating between the way people have interpreted a religion and what the religion is really supposed to mean. We need to judge each of these independently. Otherwise it's like judging 'blah' idea on the basis or your friends incorrect understanding of blah. Surely our best judgement of blah arises when we have properly understood what blah is actually supposed to mean?

Edited October 15, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

They were heavily commited to their religion and it was doing a great deal for them. They were motivated toward giving love and help to those around them, regardless of perceived differences between them.

As anal says that is simply common sense. The way any religion tells you how to live your life is nothing more than differentiating between good and bad, right and wrong.

'Don't kill anyone.' Really? Not even one? Ok.

'Don't rape anyone.' Aww, come on, where's the fun in that?!

'Don't eat seafood.' Now you're just getting ridiculous.

Religion tries to provide guidance for people in life and attempts to provide some kind of reason to be good (the promise of a happy afterlife sitting on a cloud). In essence those things should only be needed if you're weak, stupid or just plain ignorant. Anyone else already knows what's right and wrong and tend to live their life accordingly without any religious beliefs.

As I've said before, Ben, please don't take any of these comments to heart- it's simply that you're the sensible person who always speaks sense and tries to see the problem from all directions and so I always end up replying to your posts!

[1a2bcio8]

As anal says that is simply common sense. The way any religion tells you how to live your life is nothing more than differentiating between good and bad, right and wrong.

'Don't kill anyone.' Really? Not even one? Ok.

'Don't rape anyone.' Aww, come on, where's the fun in that?!

'Don't eat seafood.' Now you're just getting ridiculous.

Religion tries to provide guidance for people in life and attempts to provide some kind of reason to be good (the promise of a happy afterlife sitting on a cloud). In essence those things should only be needed if you're weak, stupid or just plain ignorant. Anyone else already knows what's right and wrong and tend to live their life accordingly without any religious beliefs.

As I've said before, Ben, please don't take any of these comments to heart- it's simply that you're the sensible person who always speaks sense and tries to see the problem from all directions and so I always end up replying to your posts!

Likewise There's no (at least conscious) negative intent here, although there is some frustration on occassion but I'm sure we're all sharing that

I can see where you are coming from if we contain Christianity within a literal interpretation and one that excludes transcendental (beyond or further) reality. But the alternative interpretation sees the moral choices as relating not to God as an entity but relate them to the here and now realisation of God. Meaning a realisation of the true nature of existence and all the qualities that flow from you as a consequence (love being one). It does not have to be about moral choice because God says so. This correlates with Buddhism, Yoga, etc. which have moral precepts that begin the path toward enlightenment. The emphasis is on the fact that morally bad choices enforce or increase delussion by crowding the mind with negative states. If I kill, rob, etc. that's where my mind is at (dealing with guilt, worry, etc.) and it's not free to really pay attention to what is true about reality. Put differently, we avoid certain behaviours to free up our ability to concentrate on the nature of reality because by doing so, we find new levels of well being - ones that extend a great deal beyond what most of us are currently possessing.

I guess I am trying to bring an additional dimension into the fold but most likely I'm the only one that cares about mystical/perennial interpretation, separate to the non-literal part of my argument? I also guess that if we exclude that factor and assume it's not true then my argument falls much closer to the rest of you. I just happen to think it relates to the core of all religion. The trouble is it takes lots of motivation and practice to get to grips with it and not many people are interested, which is fair enough.

[Spider Lad]

Likewise There's no (at least conscious) negative intent here, although there is some frustration on occassion but I'm sure we're all sharing that

I can see where you are coming from if we contain Christianity within a literal interpretation and one that excludes transcendental (beyond or further) reality. But the alternative interpretation sees the moral choices as relating not to God as an entity but relate them to the here and now realisation of God. Meaning a realisation of the true nature of existence and all the qualities that flow from you as a consequence (love being one). It does not have to be about moral choice because God says so. This correlates with Buddhism, Yoga, etc. which have moral precepts that begin the path toward enlightenment. The emphasis is on the fact that morally bad choices enforce or increase delussion by crowding the mind with negative states. If I kill, rob, etc. that's where my mind is at (dealing with guilt, worry, etc.) and it's not free to really pay attention to what is true about reality. Put differently, we avoid certain behaviours to free up our ability to concentrate on the nature of reality because by doing so, we find new levels of well being - ones that extend a great deal beyond what most of us are currently possessing.

I guess I am trying to bring an additional dimension into the fold but most likely I'm the only one that cares about mystical/perennial interpretation, separate to the non-literal part of my argument? I also guess that if we exclude that factor and assume it's not true then my argument falls much closer to the rest of you. I just happen to think it relates to the core of all religion. The trouble is it takes lots of motivation and practice to get to grips with it and not many people are interested, which is fair enough.

Sorry buddy, but you're waffling again.

There's plenty of evidence of other animals than us displaying moralistic and altruistic behaviour towards each other. Are you going to attempt to explain that, by infering that they're trying to focus on what's true about reality? Tosh.

If we think along evolutionary lines it becomes easy to understand why this behaviour (or, genes that predispose an organism to this behaviour) can become widespread. Think now, that speciation happens when colonies of an organism are isolated and environmental factors shape the gene pool (natural selection). It is easy to see how displaying these types of behaviour can be advantageous for that gene in an environment when you are only likely to come across other animals that are close enough relatives to you to be likely to share that gene also.

[1a2bcio8]

Sorry buddy, but you're waffling again.

There's plenty of evidence of other animals than us displaying moralistic and altruistic behaviour towards each other. Are you going to attempt to explain that, by infering that they're trying to focus on what's true about reality? Tosh.

If we think along evolutionary lines it becomes easy to understand why this behaviour (or, genes that predispose an organism to this behaviour) can become widespread. Think now, that speciation happens when colonies of an organism are isolated and environmental factors shape the gene pool (natural selection). It is easy to see how displaying these types of behaviour can be advantageous for that gene in an environment when you are only likely to come across other animals that are close enough relatives to you to be likely to share that gene also.

Well, that's an incredibly reductionist account of life and is a type of extended faith in the theory of evolution. You're confusing conceptual theory with actual subjective (non-conceptual) experience. My experience is not evolution although, no doubt, evolution plays a role in what my experience has come to be. But just because my car allowed me to reach the mountains, doesn't mean that my experiencing of the mountains is an experience of a car. Religion regards direct experience, per se and a scientific theory is about experience. Religion allows one to adapt their perception in accord with certain aspects of reality (monism) which cannot be contained within concepts (dualism and thus scientific theory). It's the difference between observing and talking about snowboarding (science) and actually snowboarding (religion). No matter how much you say or watch snowboarding it will never amount to actually doing snowboarding.

Yet again, you have either not understood or taken the time to understand what I actually mean. Which in itself is fair enough. However to just label my ideas as waffle is a bit off. Not too disimilar to the methods that some of the Christians in this thread have been criticised for.