If the Creation myth is wrong then what is left to believe in?

philologos

himnextdoor wrote: »

I did. Can you finish this sentence; human sacrifice is to murder what Immaculate Conception is to ....?

And since you are so fond of the dictionary, why don't you look up the word 'gullible'?

? :pac:

himnextdoor

Jakkass wrote: »

? :pac:

plaasjapie

I think we might be miss-communicating. Please forgive my indulgence, as I express my own opinion on this matter.

I will simplify somewhat in order to curb my own verbosity. The premise holds.

I will lay the basic premise out explicitly:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

For example:
For us to believe that a medicine cures cancer, we would test that medicine against a placebo(doing nothing), assigned randomly to a large number of patients.

Then we would measure the outcomes and compare the cases where the medicine was used to the placebo, and decide on the value of the medicine.

If done correctly, we should be able to show that the medicine had an effect on the cancer.

The type of medicine/treatment is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is measurable outcomes.

Based on this example, we can now see that religion can not be proven:
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703%2805%2900649-6/abstract
(name your experiment, it will fail.)

We can of course go further:
When I was a christian, I was a fearful bigot. Now I am an atheist, and reading the voyage of the beagle showed me that racism is a bad thing. I no longer believe in god, and I no longer hate gays. I get my moral compass from postmodern ethics (where morality originated by the way), and I am a better person for it.

So, we measure religion against doing nothing, and doing nothing provides a measurably better outcome for the patient, not to mention society.


Forgive me if I therefore reject religion out of hand, it seems to be a poison to me, not a medicine. And since it can not be scientifically proven, it's contents are irrelevant.

Fanny Cradock

plaasjapie wrote: »

Based on this example, we can now see that religion can not be proven:
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703%2805%2900649-6/abstract
(name your experiment, it will fail.)

We aren't trying to prove religion. We are saying that there is a God and there is evidence attesting to his existence. I find it difficult to understand how you, a self-described "firm believer" (or whatever the phrase you previously used), needs to have this rather basic principle pointed out to you.

As for intercessory prayer trials, show me the control group and on what authority one expects God to answer every prayer - then I'll consider it as evidence against God.

plaasjapie wrote: »

We can of course go further:
When I was a christian, I was a fearful bigot. Now I am an atheist, and reading the voyage of the beagle showed me that racism is a bad thing. I no longer believe in god, and I no longer hate gays. I get my moral compass from postmodern ethics (where morality originated by the way), and I am a better person for it.

All ethics come from postmodern ethics! Are you actually suggesting that ethics began sometime in the late 20th century? Do you care to expand on this?

That you once were a fearful bigot, hated gays and seemingly approved of racism is your problem because it ultimately stemmed from you. But If you really ground your morality in postmodern ethics then you are endorsing moral relativism, and this leaves you on shaky ground when criticising other people's morality.

plaasjapie wrote: »

And since it can not be scientifically proven, it's contents are irrelevant.

You probably need to familiarise yourself with the limits of science. It doesn't deal in proof.

plaasjapie

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We aren't trying to prove religion. We are saying that there is a God and there is evidence attesting to his existence.

You are saying you dont want to prove god exists, but that the evidence proves that he does exist.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand how you, a self-described "firm believer" (or whatever the phrase you previously used), needs to have this rather basic principle pointed out to you.

1 Which principle would that be? That you are not trying to prove god exists?
2 I am an Athiest (or agnostic, if you really want to be picky), I used to be a believer.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for intercessory prayer trials, show me the control group and on what authority one expects God to answer every prayer - then I'll consider it as evidence against God.

Matthew 7:7
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

All ethics come from postmodern ethics! Are you actually suggesting that ethics began sometime in the late 20th century? Do you care to expand on this?

All morality comes from the branch of philoshophy called ethics, and did not have it's roots in religion. Postmodern ethincs being the sphere of ethics I have been exposed to more than any other.

Morality does not come from the bible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ottzw4t7adQ&feature=player_embedded#at=143

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That you once were a fearful bigot, hated gays and seemingly approved of racism is your problem because it ultimately stemmed from you.

No, it stemmed from me growing up in a religion where we were told gays are evil, and whites are the chosen people of god.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But If you really ground your morality in postmodern ethics then you are endorsing moral relativism

I never said I endorse relativism.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

and this leaves you on shaky ground when criticising other people's morality.

Strawman.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You probably need to familiarise yourself with the limits of science. It doesn't deal in proof.

You are mistaken. Hypotheses can be proved depending on what they are.
Maths in particular deals with proofs ALL the time.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

In terms of content -- what you are referring to -- there are a number of items which are unique generally, or which are unique to the myriad groups and subgroups that make up the overall "religion". And there are one or two items that christianity appears to have developed before other religions did, but since the record of most previous religions has been lost or intentionally destroyed, it's impossible to be fully sure that these were original with christianity. Evolution would suggest that they probably weren't unique, but perhaps they were.

No. You would suggest such a thing. That's why you have to backtrack from your statement immediately.

No, evolution would suggest that. It cannot prove it, which is what Robins last statement (which you misinterpreted as backtracking) clarified.

As Wicknight correctly points out, I made a suggestion, then made a balancing suggestion -- no backtracking involved. Do try to read what I write with a more open mind

himnextdoor wrote: »

Why can an atheist not legitimately postulate that since people find faith, Christian or non-Christian, in so many ways that it seems to speak more to human behaviour than a 'One God' or alternatively, that this evidences many, possibly competing Gods?

If you were more familiar with atheists and atheism, then you'd know that the vast majority of atheists already do suggest thusly.

.

Fanny Cradock

plaasjapie wrote: »

You are saying you dont want to prove god exists, but that the evidence proves that he does exist.

I'm saying I don't want to prove that God exists because I see no way of doing such a thing. Similarly, I see no way of disproving the existence of an immaterial, uncreated, atemporal being that lies outside of the material universe.

I maintain that there is evidence for a creator God and specifically the God of the Bible. Similarly, there is evidence against a creator God and the God of the Bible. It what you do with that evidence that determines your particular position on the God question.

plaasjapie wrote: »

1 Which principle would that be? That you are not trying to prove god exists?

Yes. Reread my post if you didn't get it first time.

plaasjapie wrote: »

2 I am an Athiest (or agnostic, if you really want to be picky), I used to be a believer.

I never actually asked what you are. I stated my incredulity that the who proof/ evidence thing should not be apparent to you, a one time firm believer.

plaasjapie wrote: »

Matthew 7:7
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

What has that got to do with control groups?

plaasjapie wrote: »

All morality comes from the branch of philoshophy called ethics, and did not have it's roots in religion. Postmodern ethincs being the sphere of ethics I have been exposed to more than any other.

Do you suppose morality didn't exist before Socrates or whoever popped along? I think you are confusing a philosophy that addresses pre-existing moral values with something of your own invention.

plaasjapie wrote: »

Morality does not come from the bible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ottzw4t7adQ&feature=player_embedded#at=143

It's obvious that certain moral values come from Biblical teachings. But who said morality originated from the Bible? I certainly didn't. I could be argued that this would mean that morality didn't exist until the Bible was canonised some 1600 years ago. That would be a foolish argument. Of course, you seem to think that morality came into existence with moral philosophy so perhaps you are arguing such a thing.

What Christianity teaches is that morality - and we are talking about objective, God centred morality - comes from... God.

plaasjapie wrote: »

No, it stemmed from me growing up in a religion where we were told gays are evil, and whites are the chosen people of god.

I don't hate homosexuals, foreigners or anyone else. You might like to pretend that homophobia and bigotry stems from religion, but the simpler suggestion would be that you allowed yourself to be seduced by some pretty unsavoury stuff. "Whites are the chose people of God" - I've never heard that one before.

I never said I endorse relativism.

If you are endorsing postmodernism as your worldview then you should investigate it.

Strawman.

Look up what a "strawman" means. I didn't misrepresent your argument. But if you feel I di then explain to me how your postmodern worldview doesn't give rise to moral relativism.

You are mistaken. Hypotheses can be proved depending on what they are.
Maths in particular deals with proofs ALL the time.

Yes, that's maths. I'm talking about epistomology and the limits of scientific knowledge.

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

A perfectly reasonable question Amadeus. Creationists have their heads firmly planted in the sand IMO.

This whole debate arose because of a literal interpretation of Genesis. The Genesis story remained unquestioned (afaik) until Copernicus began to question whether the earth was actually at the centre of the Cosmos. At the time Genesis was written there was no science to speak of and the authors we more interested in showing that God is responsible for all that exists and that He is a providential God. The ancient Hebrews couldn't possibly know about the scale of the universe or the big-bang etc so they wrote from their limited experience.

As a Catholic, I believe the big-bang theory and that evolution did and does occur. What I'm uncertain about is how life came to exist. Did it happen spontaneously or did God arrange the molecules to form the first RNA/DNA?

Talking Genesis literally is doomed to failure.

You've just established the OP's objection: Jews and Christians - including Christ and the apostles - have got it wrong on creation for thousands of years. What grounds have they for believing any of their other dogmas are correct?

**********************************************************
2 Peter 3:1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

You've just established the OP's objection: Jews and Christians - including Christ and the apostles - have got it wrong on creation for thousands of years. What grounds have they for believing any of their other dogmas are correct?

Just to clarify, I believe that God created the universe i.e He caused the Big Bang and created all the matter and energy we see around us. But it is very clear from science that the "world" wasn't created in 6 days and anybody who makes this claim really needs to face up to reality.

I believe in evolution but what I'm undecided about is whether God nudged ordinary molecules into a self-replicating primitive life-form to get the ball rolling. I suspect this did happen because the chances of abiogenesis occurring by random chance are so tiny.

The bible isn't a science text!

himnextdoor

kelly1 wrote: »

Just to clarify, I believe that God created the universe i.e He caused the Big Bang and created all the matter and energy we see around us. But it is very clear from science that the "world" wasn't created in 6 days and anybody who makes this claim really needs to face up to reality.

I believe in evolution but what I'm undecided about is whether God nudged ordinary molecules into a self-replicating primitive life-form to get the ball rolling. I suspect this did happen because the chances of abiogenesis occurring by random chance are so tiny.

The bible isn't a science text!

The problem is that to change the text of the Bible to reflect at least some of the modern scientific reasoning would take away from the Bible's infallibillity.

This is probably why the church opposed certain scientific progress and supported incorrect orthodox science.

kelly1

himnextdoor wrote: »

The problem is that to change the text of the Bible to reflect at least some of the modern scientific reasoning would take away from the Bible's infallibillity.

Who says the bible is infallible? That's a very broad statement! Did God really "walk" in the Garden of Eden and take a rest on the 7th day? Since when does God needs rest!? BTW, I'm not getting into a creationist debate here.

bradyle

plaasjapie wrote: »

And since it can not be scientifically proven, it's contents are irrelevant.

can i just point out evolution is a theory...hence its called the theory of evolution... same as the theory of relativity...and while i fully believe that both these theories are correct and based in fact they can not fully be proved however nothing has been found as proving them wrong either and so they are taken to be truths.

However since nothing has ever been able to disprove god exists why do some people have problems allowing others to believe but think its ok for them to stand firm behind other theories such as those above

himnextdoor

kelly1 wrote: »

Who says the bible is infallible? That's a very broad statement! Did God really "walk" in the Garden of Eden and take a rest on the 7th day? Since when does God needs rest!? BTW, I'm not getting into a creationist debate here.

Many, if not all Christians believe that the Bible contains the 'inerrant word of God'.

himnextdoor

bradyle wrote: »

can i just point out evolution is a theory...hence its called the theory of evolution... same as the theory of relativity...and while i fully believe that both these theories are correct and based in fact they can not fully be proved however nothing has been found as proving them wrong either and so they are taken to be truths.

However since nothing has ever been able to disprove god exists why do some people have problems allowing others to believe but think its ok for them to stand firm behind other theories such as those above

Sorry, the theory of evolution in an attempt to explain the facts of evolution.

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

Just to clarify, I believe that God created the universe i.e He caused the Big Bang and created all the matter and energy we see around us. But it is very clear from science that the "world" wasn't created in 6 days and anybody who makes this claim really needs to face up to reality.

I believe in evolution but what I'm undecided about is whether God nudged ordinary molecules into a self-replicating primitive life-form to get the ball rolling. I suspect this did happen because the chances of abiogenesis occurring by random chance are so tiny.

The bible isn't a science text!

You still establish his point: a recent creation by immediate means rather than evolution was the doctrine of the church from the beginning.

And any reading of Christ and the apostles demands such an historical narrative view. The only out is to make the Bible a complete enigma - a tale that may have some history in it, but without any way of telling what is real from what is symbolic.

Indeed, the Bible is not a science text. But it IS an historical record in its narrative. It is not a biology text, but it does tell of sicknesses, injuries and death. Likewise then, it tells of the creation of the world in 6 days, the Fall and the Flood, without discussing how volcanoes operate or tectonic plates, etc. The aim was not to impart scientific skills, but historical truth.

**********************************************************
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.