10 Dec 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84Why are you sooo hung up on the 6 days Garden of Eden thing? It's just a cultural phenomenon from a time when people thought about the world in that way. The issue of whether it is scientifically true or not was not important at the time. It originally stemmed from poetry and creation mythology. It's the spiritual themes within it that are most important.
Evolution isn't made up by atheists!! Scientists without any religious agenda theorized it and affirmed it over and over again.
Evolution is not atheist dogma. It is among the most conclusive things in science. It doesn't make sense to hold any position without a reason for it and evolution is a big part of the reason why it makes no sense to believe ...[text shortened]... wouldn't say "my accountant works in mysterious ways! I gotta have faith!"
What a joke.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterBecause on what basis do you take truth from the Bible? That's BS. For thousands of years people believed word for word everything in the bible and now when it's shown to be impossible to people talk about symbolic meanings.
Why are you sooo hung up on the 6 days Garden of Eden thing? It's just a cultural phenomenon from a time when people thought about the world in that way. The issue of whether it is scientifically true or not was not important at the time. It originally stemmed from poetry and creation mythology. It's the spiritual themes within it that are most important.
Of course it wasn't scientifically true to people who knew nothing about science! That's why they were able to come up with it in the first place.
The only use the Bible has is as a poem. But don't make my laws based on a 2000 year old poem! What other poem guides peoples every day actions? You hit the nail on the head, IT'S A POEM!
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't think preaching is bad per se. If Christianity is true the only morally responsible thing someone could do would be to convert people to prevent them from enduring a lifetime in hell. Whether or not christianity is true is another story, and you know my opinion!
"I've never heard an atheist preach"-----
Richard Dawkins?
If for the sake of argument you could believe that god didnt' exist, wouldn't you find troubling all the wars in his name?
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI guess you could say the same about the rest of the Bible. But as with all Christians you believe that you personally have the power or intelligence or secret decoder ring for telling which parts are to be taken seriously and exactly how to interpret them.
Why are you sooo hung up on the 6 days Garden of Eden thing? It's just a cultural phenomenon from a time when people thought about the world in that way. The issue of whether it is scientifically true or not was not important at the time. It originally stemmed from poetry and creation mythology. It's the spiritual themes within it that are most important.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadA lot of it is just about taking the time and effort to think about things. The Judaic creation myth was obviously drawn from the culture around at the time and was never really thought of as a scientific truth at the time . Many may have believed it was true but the issue of literal truth was not so deeply embedded and so it would have been seen as a myth but no less true because of that.
I guess you could say the same about the rest of the Bible. But as with all Christians you believe that you personally have the power or intelligence or secret decoder ring for telling which parts are to be taken seriously and exactly how to interpret them.
It depends upon whether you want a kindergarten , highway code Bible all neatly laid out for you or not. I always half expected that seeking God and finding the truth might involve some effort and deep thought on my part , but then I wasn't looking for a straw man.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84I find the wars in his name far more troubling as a Christian than I ever would as an Atheist.
I don't think preaching is bad per se. If Christianity is true the only morally responsible thing someone could do would be to convert people to prevent them from enduring a lifetime in hell. Whether or not christianity is true is another story, and you know my opinion!
If for the sake of argument you could believe that god didnt' exist, wouldn't you find troubling all the wars in his name?
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84This is a bit simplistic isn't it? It's not just poetry , there's a lot more in there. You are just looking for a chance to dismiss it.
Because on what basis do you take truth from the Bible? That's BS. For thousands of years people believed word for word everything in the bible and now when it's shown to be impossible to people talk about symbolic meanings.
Of course it wasn't scientifically true to people who knew nothing about science! That's why they were able to come up with it i ...[text shortened]... at other poem guides peoples every day actions? You hit the nail on the head, IT'S A POEM!
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut when some Bishop makes a similar claim about the Jesus story, you reject it out of hand. Any sane non-Christian reading the new testament would come to the obvious conclusion that a significant proportion of it could not possibly have been written down based on historical methods but was made up either from popular stories or saying at the time or to suit the various writers theological aims or to fulfill old testament prophesies.
A lot of it is just about taking the time and effort to think about things. The Judaic creation myth was obviously drawn from the culture around at the time and was never really thought of as a scientific truth at the time . Many may have believed it was true but the issue of literal truth was not so deeply embedded and so it would have been seen as a myth but no less true because of that.
But your "taking the time and effort to think about things" obviously would not extend to 'core beliefs'. You believe you have the ability to decipher the parts that are valid but do not actually use any formal or logical system for doing so which is why every Christian has a different version.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by Red NightAtheists preach darwinian evolution as a substitute for God.
As an example:
Atheists preach darwinian evolution as a substitute for God. Some religions believe in creationism. Darwin disproves creationism therefore there is no God.
But, one doesn't necessarily follow the other.
Disproving a tenet of a certain religion doesn not disprove the existence of God.
Not true.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe bishop in question was denying that Jesus was ressurected which is a different matter. Despite not believing in Adam and Eve I do believe that God created the universe. I don't think Genesis is there to provide a scientific account and is obviously drawn from ancient creation poetry.
But when some Bishop makes a similar claim about the Jesus story, you reject it out of hand. Any sane non-Christian reading the new testament would come to the obvious conclusion that a significant proportion of it could not possibly have been written down based on historical methods but was made up either from popular stories or saying at the time or to ...[text shortened]... formal or logical system for doing so which is why every Christian has a different version.
Religion has always been closer to an art form as opposed to a science and is opne to interpretations. As I've said before , I have friends who are creationists and although I argue with them about it it's their committment to christ that really matters. Maybe us Christians are less pedantic and just get on with it realising that there will be differences. It's not as if all scientists always agree on everything , infact far from it!!
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84Actually, there are some pretty substantial holes in Darwinian theory particularly as it adresses the question of where man came from.
Evolution is not atheist dogma. It is among the most conclusive things in science.
We have not discovered the missing link and science was shocked to discover homo-sapiens and neanderthals existing in the same place at the same time.
I do not suggest substituting a creationist theory in it's place, but the complete story on man's emergence on this planet is yet to be told.
Darwinian theory and the "big bang" are attempts to substitute flawed scientific answers to the fundamental questions of how man got here and what is his purpose.
They become dogma, plain and simple.
In many ways they merely substitute a new version of God for the old.
I do not seek to convince a Christian to become an atheist or an atheist to become a theist; I merely point out that both sides have dogma and seek to proselytize that dogma to others.
The nature of God is by definition far beyond the power of human's to comprehend. Attempting to understand and quantify this nature is a mistake made by both the theists and the atheists.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by Red NightYour understanding of evolution seems to be pretty poor here.
Actually, there are some pretty substantial holes in Darwinian theory particularly as it adresses the question of where man came from.
We have not discovered the missing link and science was shocked to discover homo-sapiens and neanderthals existing in the same place at the same time.
I do not suggest substituting a creationist theory in it's place, ...[text shortened]... understand and quantify this nature is a mistake made by both the theists and the atheists.
The notion of a missing link went the way of the dinsoaurs 20 years ago. No one is looking for a missing link. There is no missing link.
I agree with you on the dogma and proselytising of both atheists and theists, but you really do need to find out a little more about the science ...
10 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightAnd the 'pretty substantial holes' in the TOE are what?
Actually, there are some pretty substantial holes in Darwinian theory particularly as it adresses the question of where man came from.
We have not discovered the missing link and science was shocked to discover homo-sapiens and neanderthals existing in the same place at the same time.
I do not suggest substituting a creationist theory in it's place, understand and quantify this nature is a mistake made by both the theists and the atheists.
As far as I know nobody is looking for 'the' missing link, because there is no 'missing link'.
And if you read the odd national geographic you would be aware of developments re human spread throughout the world (theories mind you), however they have to stand up to discoveries or they fall. As far as I know the TOE has adapted well to what has been thrown at it. (eg irreducible complexity, eyes, bombadier beetles etc ad nauseum)
As far as I know the TOE does not substitute God for anything. Dogma? I don't think so. You are as free to read about it or marry dogs or refuse blood transfusions or whatever your heart desires. You are right though in your last sentence, in that what is supernatural (by definition) is not explicable by that which studies the natural.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by amannionI'm not a scientist. I leave the science to you. My point was that the science is still changing and evolving and what we "believed" 20 years ago is not what we "believe" today. Thank you for helping me make that point and identifying a hole in my knowledge.
Your understanding of evolution seems to be pretty poor here.
The notion of a missing link went the way of the dinsoaurs 20 years ago. No one is looking for a missing link. There is no missing link.
I agree with you on the dogma and proselytising of both atheists and theists, but you really do need to find out a little more about the science ...
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by Red NightNo probs.
I'm not a scientist. I leave the science to you. My point was that the science is still changing and evolving and what we "believed" 20 years ago is not what we "believe" today. Thank you for helping me make that point and identifying a hole in my knowledge.
That's the nature of science - it changes. No one disputes that. Which is what makes it pretty significantly different from religion, don't you think?