What do people think of Creationism?

[Floor Pie]

tesseract
Here is evidence that Jesus is God.

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

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

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

 

[evo]

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.

.

When they make the sequel it probably needs a few more wizards and goblins and what have you. Perhaps Yahweh could get J K Rowlings* to (holy)ghost write it.

it would probably help if there is also an iPhone app.




*the S was added for the benefit of blackcat's nanna

 

[darth_timon]

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.

The assertion that we cannot know God exists either way isn't really even the atheist view though. To an atheist, there is no evidence of any kind to support God's existence, so why entertain the 'what if' argument about something that there is no evidence for?

In one sense, you're right - there is no absolute means of knowing for certain, but if 99% of the evidence and available data says there is no God, with the remaining 1% being only the vague uncertainty about things we have yet to explain, then why favour the God argument in favour of a position that explains the vast majority of the facts? It isn't child-like to dismiss something that cannot be measured, examined or demonstrated in any way.

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

Let's turn this around for a moment. Do you think it is reasonable to believe in things that have never been proven to exist, in any way shape or form, beyond the Bible and ancient writings?

The irony here is that children are far more likely to believe in something they cannot prove as an article of faith, as opposed to atheists. Kids hold a deep-seated belief in Santa, because adults convince them through various means he exists - this doesn't mean he does.

'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.

The Bible is the Word of God is of course very much a faith-driven argument, not allowing for the possibility that it may be nothing more than the words of human kind, attributed to God without there being any actual evidence to point to God's involvement.

After all, the argument for the Bible being God's word comes from... the Bible! So therefore that argument follows circular logic, using it's premise as the conclusion, and the conclusion to back up the premise. It allows absolutely no wriggle-room for the idea the Bible may be humanity's flawed interpretations of events that, viewed from today's understanding, may have entirely ordinary explanations. That is more child-like than the atheist position.

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 have the Bible's word that God gave humanity knowledge, but this does not mean the Bible's word is infallible. Once again, this is circular reasoning.

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.

Dismissing the Biblical interpretations of angels and demons is not unreasonable. As mentioned before, it's circular reasoning to assume the Bible is the Word of God and therefore infallible. The reason the Bible is taken as the Word of God is because... the Bible says so! Someone could have just as easily written that down in the Bible, and then it gets taken as complete proof, even despite all other evidence.

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.

What exactly out there verifies the Biblical accounts?

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.

Then we have to agree to disagree. Belief in something is one thing. Not believing is not, in my view, a form of belief or faith in itself. Atheists dismiss God because they there is no verifiable means to measure a god's existence, just as there is no means to verify that what is claimed to be the metaphysical (angels, demons and so) is in fact the metaphysical. Such things could, as I have explained, be the result of human interpretations of events and sights with entirely ordinary explanations, a possibility dismissed by proponents of the supernatural, who refuse to consider any other option other than their interpretation of these events.

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.

Therein lies the rub. I've bolded what I feel is the key passage. You're taking the Biblical account of angels and demons as being definitive, just as you take it as definitive that the Bible is the Word of God. To an atheist, just because the Bible says it's the Word doesn't make it so, just as descriptions within it of angels and demons does not mean they exist. Indeed, with nothing else to suggest God, angels or demons are real, why should these accounts being taken as fact, especially when they lack verification?

I apologize if I've unintentionally taken you out context

No worries.

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.

Again, I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. To atheists, empirical evidence is all there is. There is no 'supernatural' argument to be had. You can argue that it is a matter of faith to dismiss the metaphysical - they will argue there is no such thing, at least in the context of angels, demons and such, because there is nothing to support their existence that can be measured.

"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.

They dismiss the possibility the Bible is correct because there is no means of verifying the 'evidence' the Bible presents. It can easily be argued that it is child-like to believe the Bible is the Word of God, that angels and demons exist, and that it is closed-minded to consider no other option other than their existence, especially as we learn more and more about our own existence, and continue to see no evidence to support these things.

 

[Contra Mundum]

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.

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.



This, however, is an excellent argument!

None of this s**t is original - it's a synthesis of their reading materials Evo. I would be amazed there was anyone in the Vatican that still thinks the first cause argument is compelling

 

[SaintsSeptember]

They dismiss the possibility the Bible is correct because there is no means of verifying the 'evidence' the Bible presents. It can easily be argued that it is child-like to believe the Bible is the Word of God, that angels and demons exist, and that it is closed-minded to consider no other option other than their existence, especially as we learn more and more about our own existence, and continue to see no evidence to support these things.

If there were no other explanation for the state of things, then belief in the bible could probably be a logical conclusion, until a more compelling theory presented itself.
However when confronted with a variety of different religions with contradictory explanations, and science tending to contradict all of them on some points, it would seem bizarre to claim that you can "logically" choose the Christian version of events.

Its kind of amazing how this sort of stuff can become popular and spread. Scientology for example, with its "I can get rich If I start a religion".

 

[darth_timon]

If there were no other explanation for the state of things, then belief in the bible could probably be a logical conclusion, until a more compelling theory presented itself.
However when confronted with a variety of different religions with contradictory explanations, and science tending to contradict all of them on some points, it would seem bizarre to claim that you can "logically" choose the Christian version of events.

Its kind of amazing how this sort of stuff can become popular and spread. Scientology for example, with its "I can get rich If I start a religion".

Belief is a powerful force. If you accept Biblical events as being true then this means Heaven - paradise - is real, and who doesn't want to believe in eternal paradise? Plus, we get to see all the loved ones we have lost. That's a very strong pull. We also want to feel our lives have meaning - and for some, religion provides that.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Belief is a powerful force. If you accept Biblical events as being true then this means Heaven - paradise - is real, and who doesn't want to believe in eternal paradise? Plus, we get to see all the loved ones we have lost. That's a very strong pull. We also want to feel our lives have meaning - and for some, religion provides that.

Yes but when we are talking about "child like logic". What is the logic behind the belief. Particularly if you actually want to choose, rather than just believe what your mum and dad told you.

 

[skilts]

Belief is a powerful force. If you accept Biblical events as being true then this means Heaven - paradise - is real, and who doesn't want to believe in eternal paradise? Plus, we get to see all the loved ones we have lost. That's a very strong pull. We also want to feel our lives have meaning - and for some, religion provides that.

It certainly is. On the other hand, most churches look down on this activity.

 

[Cooldude]

Now I could be wrong, coz I try not to follow everything tesseract says, but did he just say that it's child like for the likes of atheists to believe in scientific reasonings without any proof and s**t like that?

“Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:15).

Considering Jesus asks for his followers to essentially have child like faith, tesseract really knows stuff all about the text he's apparently an expert on

Cue he's gonna ******* spin and completely misrepresent those scriptures to somehow suit his own twisted and contradictory views, that's what he does

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Now I could be wrong, coz I try not to follow everything tesseract says, but did he just say that it's child like for the likes of atheists to believe in scientific reasonings without any proof and s**t like that?

“Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:15).

Considering Jesus asks for his followers to essentially have child like faith, tesseract really knows stuff all about the text he's apparently an expert on

Cue he's gonna ******* spin and completely misrepresent those scriptures to somehow suit his own twisted and contradictory views, that's what he does

I think it was more that it was poor logic to be an atheist because there was insufficient evidence of god.

 

[Cooldude]

I think it was more that it was poor logic to be an atheist because there was insufficient evidence of god.

Which is my point, considering Jesus says that basically the same blinkered enthusiasm is needed to enter the kingdom of God, it's ironic for a Christian to say it's child like to believe in stuff that's based on actual research and scientific results (which is actually what he said)

 

[Contra Mundum]

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.

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.



This, however, is an excellent argument!

None of these are mine brother - its a synthesis of the reading material. Being a ridiculously late convert to the folly of the first cause argument I try to dissuade theists in my class from embracing it. Also it sure beats the seductions of the New Athieists

 

[Contra Mundum]

tesseract
Here is evidence that Jesus is God.

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

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

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

That is exactly what the Our Father means - the word Father is "Abba" which means Daddy. Its not child like reasoning because in the end the leap of faith is not about reason

 

[Contra Mundum]

It certainly is. On the other hand, most churches look down on this activity.

You have to stare into the abyss and struggle with it - always struggle. This leads to humilty in the face of all the s**t things done in the name of religion, the dismal kiddie fiddling and the compelling arguments for athiesm. If you don't do that you end up being Pat Robertson.

 

[The rabbi]

You have to stare into the abyss and struggle with it - always struggle. This leads to humilty in the face of all the s**t things done in the name of religion, the dismal kiddie fiddling and the compelling arguments for athiesm. If you don't do that you end up being Pat Robertson.

I think that I would probably end up being a Deist. I would neck myself before taking the Pat Robertson route.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I think that I would probably end up being a Deist. I would neck myself before taking the Pat Robertson route.

Most athiests I know are not prone to totalitarian world views of the "right is right left is wrong" variety. Its great that Frank is taking the wind out of the Santorum's of this world who think that Catholicism is Transubstantiation + Gay Hating + Anti Abortion. Mercy - mercy is the key

 

[skilts]

Most athiests I know are not prone to totalitarian world views of the "right is right left is wrong" variety. Its great that Frank is taking the wind out of the Santorum's of this world who think that Catholicism is Transubstantiation + Gay Hating + Anti Abortion. Mercy - mercy is the key

Such people could be interpreted as an argument against prescriptive morals. No need to think if one follows the holy writ.

 

[Taylor]

Now I could be wrong, coz I try not to follow everything tesseract says, but did he just say that it's child like for the likes of atheists to believe in scientific reasonings without any proof and s**t like that?

“Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:15).

Considering Jesus asks for his followers to essentially have child like faith, tesseract really knows stuff all about the text he's apparently an expert on

Cue he's gonna ******* spin and completely misrepresent those scriptures to somehow suit his own twisted and contradictory views, that's what he does

And the book of Mark was written at least ten years after the death of Jesus. One of the earliest new testament books too.

I'd be taking everything it says with a bucket of salt.

 

[The rabbi]

Most atheists I know are not prone to totalitarian world views of the "right is right left is wrong" variety. Its great that Frank is taking the wind out of the Santorum's of this world who think that Catholicism is Transubstantiation + Gay Hating + Anti Abortion. Mercy - mercy is the key

And that is much the same with the atheist's who are my mates or that I dialogue with. I am a regular visitor at the History web pages of Tim O'Neill (an Australian Atheist and skeptic) and Thony (Anthony) Christie, who has described himself as an atheist until the day he dies. Both strike me as objective in their dealings with religion and particularly the Catholic Church (I am not Catholic).

They avoid the Manichean world view that I find amongst the rabid New Atheists and rabid Religious Fundamentalists. And they are both steeped in the relevant scholarship.

 

[Pessimistic]

How old was jesus when he died/was executed ?

What was the life expectancy in that soceity at the time ?

 

[Long Live HFC]

How old was jesus when he died/was executed ?

33ish.

 

[Pessimistic]

Im guessing he lived an average length life, so the loss was not as big as suggested

Imagine you expect to live to 33ish. I'm thinking that religion has got a lot more appeal to you than the age we live in, where ecpectancy for most of us is much longer, and we are much more educated in science and philosphy etc

 

[Long Live HFC]

he would have lived longer, but he was too much of a jew to fork out for the gym.

 

[Partridge]

33ish.

About tea time.

 

[funk44]

Yep, sounds plausible