The mindset of Creationists?

[aruvqan]

@Triskadecamus

Creationism is a secular exercise in consolidation of power over churches, and congretation. It has nothing to do will faith in God, only faith in Religious Hierarchy. Left to their own hearts and minds, Christians might go around forgiving everyone, and loving everyone. Where would we be then?

Far more useful to encourage the faithful to expect all knowledge and guidance to come from the clergy, or at least be reviewed by them before acceptance.

Tris

sorry to be chiming in so late …

I tried being nice to a coworker and went to church with them one sunday … i was raised baptist so I actually have a bible. So I got dressed up, grabbed my bible off the shelf and went ready to blend in and be polite.

The preacher never bothered using a bible … everything was taught from some commentary on the bible written by someone I have never even heard of … when I was growing up the church I went to actually cracked open the bible and had a sermon based on a selection that was posted on a board neat the hymn posting and also in the handout. This place didnt even have any bibles, and nobody had a bible, just copies of this commentary …

And apparently because I have the temerity to read the bible without being told how to interpret it, i am being mislead by satan …

there are not enough rolly eyes in the universe for this …

[not saying every fundie is like that but sweet jumping jebus…]

[Latro]

[quote=“Megas_P, post:198, topic:508613”]

You say that for 2000 years the bible was taken literaly. Interesting. Can you provide any documentation in favour of the above? All I have heard untill now is about certain sects and a few condemns during the dark ages.
[/qoute]

Yeah, pull the other one…

I do not know why it is so hard to accept the fact that NOT all believers EVERYWHERE from day one tried to use science in finding/explaining God.

Why is it so hard to accept that what they wrote down was their actual world view? There was no difference between science and religion. It was all the same.
It was their “knowledge”.

[JRDelirious]

As for why the scientists, when they go as far as the at-the-time-current knowledge and theories can take them, should not say, “OK, beyond this, maybe God” when faced something they can’t explain, well
(a) that’s a disincentive for further study, contrary to the principles of natural science;
(b) the record is that so far there has always been some additional development that pushes the boundary a little further; and
(c) the “God of the Gaps” is a lame, weak, unsatisfying god that keeps getting chipped away because of (b) and thus does not fit at least the JudeoChristianIslamic conception of a God who is perfect and immanent.

Of course, there is no need to argue that science proves or disproves a God if you subscribe to the idea that religion is about how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go; but in the same manner the atheist is perfectly right to look upon the observable facts, none of which points to a supernatural world, and make the logical conclusion that ergo there must not be one, until proven otherwise.

Appealing to “how do you know you’re loved”? Doesn’t work for me: that an emotion or experience is subjective only proves that some experiences are subjective, not the existence of a different plane of reality that’s transcendent of the temporal.

@aruvqan

…
The preacher never bothered using a bible … everything was taught from some commentary on the bible written by someone I have never even heard of … when I was growing up the church I went to actually cracked open the bible and had a sermon based on a selection that was posted on a board neat the hymn posting and also in the handout. This place didnt even have any bibles, and nobody had a bible, just copies of this commentary …

And apparently because I have the temerity to read the bible without being told how to interpret it, i am being mislead by satan …

Wow… Messrs. Wycliff, Luther and Calvin would be rolling over in their graves. Though the latter maybe not so much at the deed itself as there was quite a bit of telling people what the right conclusions to reach were (or else) in old Geneva – the Reformation’s claim of “scripture alone, no intermediary priesthood” was a nice slogan but for the vast majority of the people in the pews, it IS someone else telling them what it all means: either some theologian’s commentary or the preacher himself or the Sunday-school teacher shaping the youth’s inclination.

[tomndebb]

@Latro

And there you go again…
Just repeating your ass-backward view of interpretation of the literacy of the bible doesn’t make it true.

For 2000 years the bible was taken literally. You make it sound as if only yesterday some ‘freaks’ appeared out of nowhere suddenly believing every word of it. And your view, it’s just a philosophical exercise, was always what it was about.

When will you stop saying that?

It’s simply not true.

Without getting into the witnessing portion of the posts of Megas P. , I will point out that he or she is much closer to correct on this single issue than you are.

The whole issue of “literally true” is a fairly recent matter–subsequent to the Enlightenment. There is no question that people believed the bible was “True,” but the need to equate that Truth to a correspondence with verifiable scientific fact only arose after a bunch of Europeans began to develop the principles of the scientific method and began to treat the physical sciences and even history and biography as the narrative of facts that could be investgated and confirmed or disproven.

As long ago as the beginning of the fifth century, Augustine of Hippo–who probably did more to influence Christian tradition than anyone other than Paul–wrote:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

This is not a claim that scripture was all metaphorical, simply an acknowledgement that folks tended to be more tolerant of stories about the same event when details contradicted each other because they did not see the presentation of the raw facts as the ultimate purpose of such writings. The phrase “literally true” would have had no meaning for the first 16 to 18 centuries of Christianity, not because it was impossible to conceive of “literal truth,” but simply because that tended to be outside the mindset of people who actually wrote and read. The subject never really came up.

[Latro]

I’m sorry but your quote from Augustine seems to prove my point.
The worldview from the Bible was already hoplessly outdated by the 5th century AD.

The fact that Augustine needs to write this confirms that Christians believed the bible over science.
And were ridiculed over it!!!

Then we have the middle-ages. Christian church has come to power, knowledge is lost. There is no dissenting view from the bible. Dissenters were killed off, knowledge destroyed or locked up in a chest in the cellar of some monastary.
It’s only with the advent of the printed word that people are able to start to think for themselves again. At
first, of course about the bible as people are still pretty devout. This gave us protestantism and the recedent to “think outside the box”, as it were, that was the Church.
The exchange and accumulation of knowledge has started again, outside the grasp of the church.
And then, yes, the subject of truth of the bible started coming up. Duh. Not during that period before when everyone just assumed that the bible was right.

Indeed, by the 17th century the accumulated knowledge is starting to surpass the level prior that of

Christianity. It really takes a flight when these bored gentlemen take up their hobbies.
And now, again, those that still hold the Bible as a guide for their world view are being ridiculed. Rightly so.
Most people, amongst whom you yourself and Megas have retreated from the idea that the bible is the true word of god. It’s an untenable position.

What I don’t understand is why you so desperatly cling to the fact that some of what is in the bible
must still be right. If you ignore enough of it you might just find that one golden straw to clutch at. The straw that, with the insertion of a hefty dose of self made-up stuff (“I am not one of those christians!!”) , would suddenly explain the universe and everything.

[Megas_P]

@JRDelirious

As for why the scientists, when they go as far as the at-the-time-current knowledge and theories can take them, should not say, “OK, beyond this, maybe God” when faced something they can’t explain, well
(a) that’s a disincentive for further study, contrary to the principles of natural science;
(b) the record is that so far there has always been some additional development that pushes the boundary a little further; and
(c) the “God of the Gaps” is a lame, weak, unsatisfying god that keeps getting chipped away because of (b) and thus does not fit at least the JudeoChristianIslamic conception of a God who is perfect and immanent.

Of course, there is no need to argue that science proves or disproves a God if you subscribe to the idea that religion is about how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go; but in the same manner the atheist is perfectly right to look upon the observable facts, none of which points to a supernatural world, and make the logical conclusion that ergo there must not be one, until proven otherwise.

Appealing to “how do you know you’re loved”? Doesn’t work for me: that an emotion or experience is subjective only proves that some experiences are subjective, not the existence of a different plane of reality that’s transcendent of the temporal.

Wow… Messrs. Wycliff, Luther and Calvin would be rolling over in their graves. Though the latter maybe not so much at the deed itself as there was quite a bit of telling people what the right conclusions to reach were (or else) in old Geneva – the Reformation’s claim of “scripture alone, no intermediary priesthood” was a nice slogan but for the vast majority of the people in the pews, it IS someone else telling them what it all means: either some theologian’s commentary or the preacher himself or the Sunday-school teacher shaping the youth’s inclination.

I totally agree with your position that ‘God of the gaps’ theory is lame, as I have stated in a previous post.

I have never claimed that God should step in every time science reaches a dead end.

I also totally agree that atheists can dismiss the idea of God if it does not make sense for them.

Just allow me to say that sometimes logic and/or reason is overrated. What was logical 100 years ago is a complete fallacy now and perhaps what we consider reasonable today might change in a 100 years time.

I have used the ‘how do you know you are loved’ notion to make the point that we accept things (for many, many years) just by intuition/feeling/belief although science cannot verify them, and not to make a logical argument that God exists!

I have said a number of times God cannot be proven beyond any reasonable doubt to exist, using scientifc means.

Glad to see not all atheists/agnostics are intimitated by religion.

[Megas_P]

@Latro

I’m sorry but your quote from Augustine seems to prove my point.
The worldview from the Bible was already hoplessly outdated by the 5th century AD.

The fact that Augustine needs to write this confirms that Christians believed the bible over science.
And were ridiculed over it!!!

Then we have the middle-ages. Christian church has come to power, knowledge is lost. There is no dissenting view from the bible. Dissenters were killed off, knowledge destroyed or locked up in a chest in the cellar of some monastary.
It’s only with the advent of the printed word that people are able to start to think for themselves again. At
first, of course about the bible as people are still pretty devout. This gave us protestantism and the recedent to “think outside the box”, as it were, that was the Church.
The exchange and accumulation of knowledge has started again, outside the grasp of the church.
And then, yes, the subject of truth of the bible started coming up. Duh. Not during that period before when everyone just assumed that the bible was right.

Indeed, by the 17th century the accumulated knowledge is starting to surpass the level prior that of

Christianity. It really takes a flight when these bored gentlemen take up their hobbies.
And now, again, those that still hold the Bible as a guide for their world view are being ridiculed. Rightly so.
Most people, amongst whom you yourself and Megas have retreated from the idea that the bible is the true word of god. It’s an untenable position.

What I don’t understand is why you so desperatly cling to the fact that some of what is in the bible
must still be right. If you ignore enough of it you might just find that one golden straw to clutch at. The straw that, with the insertion of a hefty dose of self made-up stuff (“I am not one of those christians!!”) , would suddenly explain the universe and everything.

Augustine’s quote only proves that certain Christians were misled from early times and Augustine acting as the Church spokesman tried to correct their error.

In the same way that your opinion does not reflect the opinion of your home town or country, if an individual uses the scriptures in a non religious manner does not mean the whole Church was doing so or encouraging this line of thinking. Quite the contrary.

The ‘official’ path of the Church was in the lines ‘Scriptures used to reveal God and how we approach him.’

There are a number of early christian documents stating that, which unfortunately I do not have the time to go look and quote from, right now.

Also Please have in mind that in the 5th century common people knew next to nothing regarding science so Augustine’s letter was probably addressed to the selective few that had some kind of education and not to the masses.

Before the schism, when the church was following a single line of thought all over the known world, the notion of using science to prove God was never practised.

After the first millenia though, different interpretaions of the bible and of certain religious doctranes resulted in what you perceive as religion today, and refuse to accept that it was not like this from the beginning.

‘Pull the other one’ does not make a strong argument for your case.

Do you Know of any doctrine of the early Church that states bible is to be used to explain the natural world?

Also you oversimplify the reasons in the emergence of protestantism some of which had nothing to do with religion.

As far as I am concerned I do believe that the bible is the word of God.
Bible tells us of why God created us, why he has sent his son here and how we should try to approach him.
That’s it and yes I believe every word of that.
I believe Jesus is the son of God, I believe he resurrected and I believe he will come again.
I cannot prove any of these to anyone and I have never tried to do so. I am simply stating that believeing what I believe does not necessarily make me an idiot as you might think.

This is the message of the bible and NOT that God used clay to make people or that he had done everything in six days.

And this is how the Church viewed religion before and this is how it is now. If you grew up in a place were the majority of Christians belived otherwise, then you better study some history to realise when their notions first appear instead of proclaiming ‘It has always been like that’.

Where I come from, nobody ever taught me to use the bible in any other manner than to approach God and there are millions belonging to my denomination who were taught exactly the same stuff.

I feel no reason to justify my beliefs therefore I do not need to construct any arguments to strengthen my position.
When I say that the early church was using the bible as a religious book and not applying it to the physical world I am stating a simple fact. If you do not belive me, thankfully the matter can be resolved with some study, as the doctrines and a lot of documents of the early church are all written down. Feel free to have a look at them and see what you find.

Bible is not a guide about how we view the world but a guide of how we view and interact with God. Always has been, always will. People who deviate from that, well it’s their problem.

Please understand, that (a fair amount of) Christians are NOT using the bible for the universe to make sense. They are using it to learn about God and how to interact with Him.

Why are you so against believers in any case? What makes you feel superior to someone who believes in a higher power?
Or is it that you consider your logic infallible? And anyone who is not contained within the boundaries you think people should act is inferior?

Seems to me you are approaching religion as religious fundamentalist are. Our opinion or none at all.

[tomndebb]

@Latro

I’m sorry but your quote from Augustine seems to prove my point.
The worldview from the Bible was already hoplessly outdated by the 5th century AD.

The fact that Augustine needs to write this confirms that Christians believed the bible over science.
And were ridiculed over it!!!

No. We have evidence that even in the fifth century, there were the equivalent personalities to Duane Gish and Kent Hovind who made a lot of noise and called attention to themselves without actually being representative of the body of Christian philosophers.

Given that there really was no “science” that differed from philosophy, at the time, you are jumping to insupportable conclusions about what actually occurred, based on a desire to see the world in a way that it did not exist.
Note that not one of the cited Jewish or Christian philosophers mentioned here argues for, or even defends, a “literal” view of the Creation story.

[fuzzypickles]

@Megas_P

What was logical 100 years ago is a complete fallacy now and perhaps what we consider reasonable today might change in a 100 years time.

Actually, the basic standards of logic and reason (scientific method, deductive reasoning, etc.) haven’t changed all that much since the days of Socrates and Plato. What has changed is our observation methods, which have become much, much more precise than at any other time in history.

@Megas_P

Do you Know of any doctrine of the early Church that states bible is to be used to explain the natural world?

The Catholic Church threatened Galileo with execution until he recanted his heliocentric theory of the solar system, which conflicted with Christian dogma. Is that early enough for ya?

@Megas_P

As far as I am concerned I do believe that the bible is the word of God.
Bible tells us of why God created us, why he has sent his son here and how we should try to approach him.
That’s it and yes I believe every word of that.

Sounds like you have a very low standard of proof, relying on an ancient book which got half the science & history flat out wrong, and the other half is either inherently contradictory or doesn’t make any sense at all. Not to mention that many of the early Bible stories (esp. Creation and Noah’s Flood) were “borrowed” from earlier Sumerian legends; in other words, God’s a plagiarist.

@Megas_P

I believe Jesus is the son of God, I believe he resurrected and I believe he will come again.

It’s been 2,000 years, and the world is still waiting. If a woman made me wait that long, I’d dump her and find a new girlfriend pronto.

@Megas_P

Why are you so against believers in any case?

We are trying to save your soul.

[Megas_P]

Fuzzypickles I think you need to get your facts straight.

1. Heliocentric theory confronted with what the inquisition/local bishop(s) believed. What inquisition or a certain Bishop or even a bunch of bishops believe is not considered dogmatic. But even if it is Christianity begun spreading from 33 AD, more than a millenia BEFORE gallileo was born, so no, it is not early enough for me. You have to come with something better.

2. Heliocentric theory did not confront with Christian dogma. Christian dogma as it is set down by the seven Ecumenical Synodes mentions absolutely nowhere astronomy.

3. Catholic church does not speak for all Christians.

4. Despite my many, many attempts to make you realise the Bible is not to be used to verify history or science or weather forecast you keep repating “Bible is unreliable because it got half the science and history flat wrong”. Yes it did. May I also add that the bible does not mention anywhere the proper length of your toenails so its bound to be wrong and worthless.

5. Bible and everything written in it makes sense (or not depending on your view point) when viewed as a religious document.

6. Belief is not a quantifiable substance and has nothing to do with science. For some people (me included) the verification of God’s existance through science is not compulsory to believe in a higher power.

7. Ideas and ideologies cannot be scientifically reviewed for existance. Science deals with the universe and its natural laws. Ideas live in a different plane of existance.

8. It is not compulsory to believe. Why do you feel the urge to make arguments to prove the non existance of God?

9. Being an atheist does not make you smarter than any believer.

You cracked some nice jokes though…

[monavis]

@Megas_P

Fuzzypickles I think you need to get your facts straight.

1. Heliocentric theory confronted with what the inquisition/local bishop(s) believed. What inquisition or a certain Bishop or even a bunch of bishops believe is not considered dogmatic. But even if it is Christianity begun spreading from 33 AD, more than a millenia BEFORE gallileo was born, so no, it is not early enough for me. You have to come with something better.

2. Heliocentric theory did not confront with Christian dogma. Christian dogma as it is set down by the seven Ecumenical Synodes mentions absolutely nowhere astronomy.

3. Catholic church does not speak for all Christians.

4. Despite my many, many attempts to make you realise the Bible is not to be used to verify history or science or weather forecast you keep repating “Bible is unreliable because it got half the science and history flat wrong”. Yes it did. May I also add that the bible does not mention anywhere the proper length of your toenails so its bound to be wrong and worthless.

5. Bible and everything written in it makes sense (or not depending on your view point) when viewed as a religious document.

6. Belief is not a quantifiable substance and has nothing to do with science. For some people (me included) the verification of God’s existance through science is not compulsory to believe in a higher power.

7. Ideas and ideologies cannot be scientifically reviewed for existance. Science deals with the universe and its natural laws. Ideas live in a different plane of existance.

8. It is not compulsory to believe. Why do you feel the urge to make arguments to prove the non existance of God?

9. Being an atheist does not make you smarter than any believer.

You cracked some nice jokes though…

As I see it the Bible is interpreted to mean many different things. As an example: the Catholic Church teaches that when Jesus said that generation would not pass away until all things were accomplished,take it to mean the word generation different than Matthew’s first Chapter where he gives the linage of Jesus saying there were 14 generations from David to Jesus, and names each father, just as we would today. Even the Bible scholars translate a lot of books differently than it was, and since there are no original texts one cannot be sure. Hence the divisions.

Faith and knowledge are different,some rely on faith and some on knowledge. Faith is just that Belief, and has nothing (or I should say little) to do with knowledge wither it is in religion or a person, etc. . There are many intelligent people with faith in something and many who are not. Faith comes with desire,and trust in another human being.

[Megas_P]

True the bible can be interpreted to mean many things depending on who is interpreting!

Eastern Orthodox Church gives an entirely different interpratation to the passage you (and some others in this thread) quoted.

Faith is indeed different than knowledge. May i also add that faith comes not only with desire and trust to another human being but faith and trust to ideologies, ethical behaviour and also some gigher power (God).

[Der_Trihs]

@Megas_P

Faith is indeed different than knowledge. May i also add that faith comes not only with desire and trust to another human being but faith and trust to ideologies, ethical behaviour and also some gigher power (God).

Faith is just self indulgence. It is declaring a favored fantasy to be true regardless of the evidence.

As for ethics; faith is the enemy of ethical behavior. You can’t be very good at ethics if you refuse to pay attention to the real consequences of your actions, instead of just having faith that everything will work out as you insist it must.

[Megas_P]

I think that ethical behaviour and faith go hand in hand, there cannot be one without the other.

Of course that depends on how you define ethics and faith in the first place.

Rather a long discussion, but I believe ethical behaviour cannot be analysed by science but is rather subjective. What is ethical in one part of the world is unethical somewhere else. What is ethical today, was unethical a hundred years ago.

Religion provides a benchmarking for your actions as what was ethical according to religion before is still now and will continue to be. Whether you subscribe to those values or not is entirely up to each individual.

As individuals, we all carry predetermined notions and are affected by our ubbringing to develop our likes and dislikes.

It makes sense that if we depend only on oyr own notions of right or wrong, we will be biased and sometimes not really able to distinguish right from wrong.

In any case, as I have already mentioned, this is a rather long discussion which could be better addressed in another thread.

[Der_Trihs]

@Megas_P

I think that ethical behaviour and faith go hand in hand, there cannot be one without the other.

Ah, the old "you need religion to be moral bit.

@Megas_P

Religion provides a benchmarking for your actions as what was ethical according to religion before is still now and will continue to be.

Nonsense. Religion changes its official morality all the time as it is dragged kicking and screaming into civilized behavior by secular forces. And by its need to remain appealing on a marketing level. And religion is always behind the times, morally speaking; it is a drag on the progress of human ethics, not a guide.

Ethical behavior only becomes possible when religion is shoved aside, ignored, or broken to the dictates of the secular. Because only then can reality be taken into account.

@Megas_P

It makes sense that if we depend only on oyr own notions of right or wrong, we will be biased and sometimes not really able to distinguish right from wrong.

And religion adds absolutely nothing better than that. All it does is degrade human judgement and human empathy; to make it less likely they will discern what is good and choose it.

[monavis]

@Megas_P

True the bible can be interpreted to mean many things depending on who is interpreting!

Eastern Orthodox Church gives an entirely different interpratation to the passage you (and some others in this thread) quoted.

Faith is indeed different than knowledge. May i also add that faith comes not only with desire and trust to another human being but faith and trust to ideologies, ethical behaviour and also some gigher power (God).

The idea of a higher power comes from another human being so any belief in anything, is purely a human thought, or idea. It is a proven fact that all we know, think, or believe is of human origin, One can believe a human had conversation with a God (or higher power) but it is just that, faith and trust in a human. If some one came today and said God said to do this or that we would not believe them. Because many thousands of years ago some one said God said something doesn’t mean any God did. It did help to keep the masses in line, mostly out of fear.

The word God itself has many different meanings. and God seemed to tell some people different things, Like Muhammad was believed to have God send an angel to correct what some other person’s said was God’s word. God’s word was decided upon by humans,what He was supposed to have inspired was also decided by humans.
It would seem God couldn’t make up His mind, just as at one point He regretted making man and caused a world wide flood that was at least 29,000 feet deep. Then set an ark down when it was still 15,000 feet deep, but a dove was said to have found an olive branch at that altitude!! Some feat for a tree that doesn’t grow at that altitude to be alive after being covered with 14,000 feet of water for nearly a year!

[Megas_P]

Indeed believing in a higher power is a matter of faith an ideology, and should be treated like one.

Philosophical concepts cannot be proven or disproven by science.

Just because there are many religions does not necessarily mean that they are all wrong, or all correct.

Despite the external similarities between Islam and Christianity, in essence the notion of God in these religions differ greatly.

Some chose to believe Muhammad and some chose to believe Christ. Which is correct? A matter of opinion. Same like chosing between any two other concepts (philosophical or not).

Each religion has its arguments and each one of us is making a choice of which God to believe or not.

Nice of you to point out some of the inacquracies of the flood story in the bible, I can possibly give you a dozen more off hand, but if Noah received a dove with an olive branch or not is irrelevant. This was not the point of the whole flood story.

There are many atheists/agnostics who base their stance on such incosistencies of the bible, whereas I feel that this has nothing (or little) to do with the matter(of them being atheists).

What if the flood story is proven real? What if someone dioscovers a boat at the top of some mountain, or some other hard proof evidance that the flood story is real, what then? Shall I assume that you will become a believer?

Well, if I was an atheist, that would not have me convinced that there is a God. It will just go to say that Hebrew’s story about the flood was real. Period. I’ll probably try to find the next incosistency in the bible and point out that God could not have made man out of clay, because clay cannot be transformed to flesh!

Interestingly enough, though, all ancient civilisqations of the area have a flood story in them, which to me seems to prove that something major has happened in that particular area.

What is this obsession with finding flaws in the bible stories? Of course there are flaws. Hundreds. maybe thousands of them. But not one iota of my faith is based on the literacy of these stories.

The stories are there to make a point, something that the Church made clear from the first centuries of Christianity.

If God exists it makes sence that He will be beyond human comprehension. If we can not comprehend the creation how can we aspire to comprehend the Creator, using science. If our intelleginet is limited how can we comprehend something unlimited?

Having said that, many believers (me as well) chose to explain certain ‘happenings’ or ‘coincidenses’ they come across as Divine intervention and this helps to strengthen their faith. There is no possible way to prove that but sometimes, certain things are too much to be a mere coincidence. People getting cured of cancer overnight, people who could not have children getting pregnant etc etc.

It also helps to strengthen the faith certain unexplained phenomena, such as a body being complete (flesh, skin, the whole works) with full working joints after more than a millenia he died.

Starting fire with no other visible means than prayer (Said fire is distributed with candles around and is not burning or giving away heat for the first minutes or so)

List could go on and on.

Does it prove there is a God? Not the least.

Does it strengthen the believe of people? Bet your head it does.

See, the argument, I cannot prove there is God, therefore I am an atheist does not mae any sense. People could not prove the earth was round when they l;ived in caves, but the earth was round nevertheless.

A logical claim will be 'There is no evidence to support God now, so untill that changes I do not believe in one". Now that, I can accept because at least the one who is making it leaves a possibility now matter how infinitessimaly small it is that he could be wrong, instead of proclaiming his superior knowledge and deducing that there is no God.

It is almost as annoying as people trying to interprete everything that happens using divine intervention.

[Megas_P]

Der Trihs,

even believing in something is an ethical stance. If you disagree with that particular religion’s set of ethical behaviour is your choice, but denying that it exists is not logical.

There are many types of ethics and ethical theories. It is up to each individual which to choose.

BTW can you please mention some ethical stances the Church shanged during the agesm as I am not aware of any?

Could you also please tell me which particular ethical stances you dissagree with in Christianity?

[monavis]

@Megas_P

Indeed believing in a higher power is a matter of faith an ideology, and should be treated like one.

Philosophical concepts cannot be proven or disproven by science.

Just because there are many religions does not necessarily mean that they are all wrong, or all correct.

Despite the external similarities between Islam and Christianity, in essence the notion of God in these religions differ greatly.

Some chose to believe Muhammad and some chose to believe Christ. Which is correct? A matter of opinion. Same like chosing between any two other concepts (philosophical or not).

Each religion has its arguments and each one of us is making a choice of which God to believe or not.

Nice of you to point out some of the inacquracies of the flood story in the bible, I can possibly give you a dozen more off hand, but if Noah received a dove with an olive branch or not is irrelevant. This was not the point of the whole flood story.

There are many atheists/agnostics who base their stance on such incosistencies of the bible, whereas I feel that this has nothing (or little) to do with the matter(of them being atheists).

What if the flood story is proven real? What if someone dioscovers a boat at the top of some mountain, or some other hard proof evidance that the flood story is real, what then? Shall I assume that you will become a believer?

Well, if I was an atheist, that would not have me convinced that there is a God. It will just go to say that Hebrew’s story about the flood was real. Period. I’ll probably try to find the next incosistency in the bible and point out that God could not have made man out of clay, because clay cannot be transformed to flesh!

Interestingly enough, though, all ancient civilisqations of the area have a flood story in them, which to me seems to prove that something major has happened in that particular area.

What is this obsession with finding flaws in the bible stories? Of course there are flaws. Hundreds. maybe thousands of them. But not one iota of my faith is based on the literacy of these stories.

The stories are there to make a point, something that the Church made clear from the first centuries of Christianity.

If God exists it makes sence that He will be beyond human comprehension. If we can not comprehend the creation how can we aspire to comprehend the Creator, using science. If our intelleginet is limited how can we comprehend something unlimited?

Having said that, many believers (me as well) chose to explain certain ‘happenings’ or ‘coincidenses’ they come across as Divine intervention and this helps to strengthen their faith. There is no possible way to prove that but sometimes, certain things are too much to be a mere coincidence. People getting cured of cancer overnight, people who could not have children getting pregnant etc etc.

It also helps to strengthen the faith certain unexplained phenomena, such as a body being complete (flesh, skin, the whole works) with full working joints after more than a millenia he died.

Starting fire with no other visible means than prayer (Said fire is distributed with candles around and is not burning or giving away heat for the first minutes or so)

List could go on and on.

Does it prove there is a God? Not the least.

Does it strengthen the believe of people? Bet your head it does.

See, the argument, I cannot prove there is God, therefore I am an atheist does not mae any sense. People could not prove the earth was round when they l;ived in caves, but the earth was round nevertheless.

A logical claim will be 'There is no evidence to support God now, so untill that changes I do not believe in one". Now that, I can accept because at least the one who is making it leaves a possibility now matter how infinitessimaly small it is that he could be wrong, instead of proclaiming his superior knowledge and deducing that there is no God.

It is almost as annoying as people trying to interprete everything that happens using divine intervention.

It is cerntainly your right to believe there is a being that created all things or any other belief and I would fight for your right to believe it. Most Atheists I know have studied the beliefs about what is claimed as God and found it lacking, that is why they do not believe. They want facts not hopes or beliefs.

There is always the question of who created the place for a God to be,A being first requires a place to be, unless God is both place and being. The idea that a Supreme Being would keep Him or Herself in hiding doesn’t make sense, and the word God has many meanings,some controversial, hence the doubt that such a being exists. There still are many Gods to many cultures and to find one that fits all descriptions is a difficult, if not impossible thing. Even as John describes God as Love, Pauls, description disproves that idea of what love is,so there will always be believers and non-believers. Belief depends on what one wishes there to be. Just as some people believe they were abducted by aliens,some do not believe them!

[monavis]

@Megas_P

Indeed believing in a higher power is a matter of faith an ideology, and should be treated like one.

Philosophical concepts cannot be proven or disproven by science.

Just because there are many religions does not necessarily mean that they are all wrong, or all correct.

Despite the external similarities between Islam and Christianity, in essence the notion of God in these religions differ greatly.

Some chose to believe Muhammad and some chose to believe Christ. Which is correct? A matter of opinion. Same like chosing between any two other concepts (philosophical or not).

Each religion has its arguments and each one of us is making a choice of which God to believe or not.

Nice of you to point out some of the inacquracies of the flood story in the bible, I can possibly give you a dozen more off hand, but if Noah received a dove with an olive branch or not is irrelevant. This was not the point of the whole flood story.

There are many atheists/agnostics who base their stance on such incosistencies of the bible, whereas I feel that this has nothing (or little) to do with the matter(of them being atheists).

What if the flood story is proven real? What if someone dioscovers a boat at the top of some mountain, or some other hard proof evidance that the flood story is real, what then? Shall I assume that you will become a believer?

Well, if I was an atheist, that would not have me convinced that there is a God. It will just go to say that Hebrew’s story about the flood was real. Period. I’ll probably try to find the next incosistency in the bible and point out that God could not have made man out of clay, because clay cannot be transformed to flesh!

Interestingly enough, though, all ancient civilisqations of the area have a flood story in them, which to me seems to prove that something major has happened in that particular area.

What is this obsession with finding flaws in the bible stories? Of course there are flaws. Hundreds. maybe thousands of them. But not one iota of my faith is based on the literacy of these stories.

The stories are there to make a point, something that the Church made clear from the first centuries of Christianity.

If God exists it makes sence that He will be beyond human comprehension. If we can not comprehend the creation how can we aspire to comprehend the Creator, using science. If our intelleginet is limited how can we comprehend something unlimited?

Having said that, many believers (me as well) chose to explain certain ‘happenings’ or ‘coincidenses’ they come across as Divine intervention and this helps to strengthen their faith. There is no possible way to prove that but sometimes, certain things are too much to be a mere coincidence. People getting cured of cancer overnight, people who could not have children getting pregnant etc etc.

It also helps to strengthen the faith certain unexplained phenomena, such as a body being complete (flesh, skin, the whole works) with full working joints after more than a millenia he died.

Starting fire with no other visible means than prayer (Said fire is distributed with candles around and is not burning or giving away heat for the first minutes or so)

List could go on and on.

Does it prove there is a God? Not the least.

Does it strengthen the believe of people? Bet your head it does.

See, the argument, I cannot prove there is God, therefore I am an atheist does not mae any sense. People could not prove the earth was round when they l;ived in caves, but the earth was round nevertheless.

A logical claim will be 'There is no evidence to support God now, so untill that changes I do not believe in one". Now that, I can accept because at least the one who is making it leaves a possibility now matter how infinitessimaly small it is that he could be wrong, instead of proclaiming his superior knowledge and deducing that there is no God.

It is almost as annoying as people trying to interprete everything that happens using divine intervention.

As a post script to my last post: No, if they find a boat in the Mountian at 15,000 feet I will not believe the flood story, as there were many people living in different parts of the world that the Bible writer didn’t know about, and a boat could be built at that altitude. The mountian is always icy at least what I have read, and is hard to get to. Where did all the water go? It had to evaporate and the majority of animals would have no food after over a year , plants couldn’t pollenate and even trees would be crushed with that much water pressure after so long a time, just as now people need pressurized equiptment at that altitude. There would be no grasses for the vegetarian animals and they would have to eat each other to survive, then the matter of them swimming across the oceans to get back to their respected natural enviroments;llamas to Peru,Kangroos to Australia, etc. quite a task, then when they got there what would they eat? Of course there were floods but not the entire world. The people in those days didn’t know about much of the world past their own local area. Much exaggeration took place, the writers wanted to make things look larger,and worse than they were!