Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism causes creationism

12467…24

Comments

  • #92
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    God transcends transcendence.


  • #93
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    God transcends transcendence.
    As only an omnipotent deity can. Nay, must transcend, must, I declare!

    /shakes fist petulantly at narrow-minded unbelievers who don't believe in love or beauty

    There, that was easy.

    I'm sure there's money to be made in religion, you know.


  • #94
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    robindch wrote: »
    So you've no idea what your deity did, nor when, nor how, nor why?

    I always think it's funny when people put words in my mouth :)


  • #95
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Dades wrote: »
    Just to point out that what you've done here is ignore all the posts refuting your point about evolutionary theory and picked one irrelevant line in the responses to respond to.

    That is all.

    If you look at my other recent posts you'll see why what I said is critical to this thread. Also the quote was directed to Zombrex who will likely know what I mean, in the context in which it appears.


  • #96
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I've many reasons for not believing in the existence of your god. But it doesn't help that the Bible reads like something made up by ancient middle eastern warlords and priests with no understand of the natural world around them, who were simply trying to justify and consolidate their own power and ancestry.

    Occam's Razor and all that :P

    Anyway, back to the thread. you accept that anything could have caused the big bang, there is no reason to suppose it was your god over anything else, correct?

    Yeah - that poor fisherman called Jesus sure did have a lot of power. You know what, Zombrex? You're right. All of those apostles who preached the Word did pretty well - in fact I think they all ended up as pretty powerful people who got a lot of respect. Right? A cursory look at what actually happened shows your words to be nonsense even from a purely historical perspective. You do realise nearly all of the apostles were murdered, right? That Peter was crucified upside down?

    They don't seem to have done themselves a favour in terms of personal, wordly gain, do they Zombrex...? Wonder why that is.....
    Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.
    (A letter from Pliny to Trajan)


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Newsite wrote: »
    robindch wrote: »
    So you've no idea what your deity did, nor when, nor how, nor why?
    I always think it's funny when people put words in my mouth :)
    I asked a question, not made a claim - do feel free to provide an answer, if you have one :)


  • #98
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    robindch wrote: »
    I asked a question, not made a claim - do feel free to provide an answer, if you have one :)

    I simply said we cannot fully understand Him. You took this to mean I was saying lots of other things.


  • #99
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Newsite wrote: »
    I simply said we cannot fully understand Him. You took this to mean I was saying lots of other things.
    No, I asked you whether that meant that you understood anything.

    Let's take a simple one -- in this post, you appeared to imply that your deity is not subject to causation.

    How do you know this?


  • #100
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    God transcends causation.


  • #101
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Newsite wrote: »
    I simply said we cannot fully understand Him. You took this to mean I was saying lots of other things.


    Again, this supposes there is a him to understand. To my mind there is no such deity.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    God transcends causation.

    Causation transcends God. :)

    It is amazing the weight people will put to ideas just because someone else came up with them, particularly if that person is dead. I genuinely believe that a large number of religious people think these ideas are sound simply because they come from old books written by someone else. Adds a false air of authority to it, Oh its not my idea, it was in this book written by a priest 4,000 years ago in Arabia.

    There is a fallacy name for this but I forget it.


  • #103
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Causation transcends God. :)

    It is amazing the weight people will put to ideas just because someone else came up with them, particularly if that person is dead. I genuinely believe that a large number of religious people think these ideas are sound simply because they come from old books written by someone else. Adds a false air of authority to it, Oh its not my idea, it was in this book written by a priest 4,000 years ago in Arabia.

    There is a fallacy name for this but I forget it.

    Is the guy who came up with hyperactive agency detection dead by any chance? ;)


  • #104
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Seeing as creationism is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis (down to adding up the ages of every human decendant of Adam to get the age of the earth), your argument appears to assert that the bible itself was written in answer to evolution. This is probably why most people thinks its a crock.
    Well the term came into use only after the theory of evolution. And the movement of these groups of people towards this literal interpretation, was and is ,caused by arguments which purported to show that you couldn't accept evolution and religion at the same time, or modern day new atheism.

    Nowhere in this argument is there any suggestion of the bible being "written in answer to evolution".


  • #105
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Causation transcends God. :)

    It is amazing the weight people will put to ideas just because someone else came up with them, particularly if that person is dead. I genuinely believe that a large number of religious people think these ideas are sound simply because they come from old books written by someone else. Adds a false air of authority to it, Oh its not my idea, it was in this book written by a priest 4,000 years ago in Arabia.

    There is a fallacy name for this but I forget it.

    Argument from scripture or argument from authority?


  • #106
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Newsite wrote: »
    Is the guy who came up with hyperactive agency detection dead by any chance? ;)

    That is the advantage of science over religious faith, it isn't about the guy who came up with the idea :)


  • #107
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Zombrex wrote: »
    That is the advantage of science over religious faith, it isn't about the guy who came up with the idea :)

    But it is about the fact that your guy is a mortal human, our guy is sovereign and can do as He pleases.:)


  • #108
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Newsite wrote: »
    But it is about the fact that your guy is a mortal human, our guy is sovereign and can do as He pleases.:)

    So if you want to continue that analogy, your guy is dead too?


  • #109
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    raah! wrote: »
    Well the term came into use only after the theory of evolution. And the movement of these groups of people towards this literal interpretation, was and is ,caused by arguments which purported to show that you couldn't accept evolution and religion at the same time, or modern day new atheism.

    Nowhere in this argument is there any suggestion of the bible being "written in answer to evolution".

    Sure, creationism only came into existence in response to the theory of evolution, but that still predates the "new atheism" by quite a bit. In which case the blame would lie with the theory of evolution and not "new atheism". But so what, should we (including you; assuming you don't reject evolution) entertain silly beliefs about life on this planet simply because we are afraid they will reject science?

    And if the argument that you can't accept evolution and religion at the same time are flawed (which I think they are btw, but I'm hardly in the best position to trumpet that as an atheist), then why the hell are you giving out to us and not explaining it to them?


  • #110
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Knasher wrote: »
    Sure, creationism only came into existence in response to the theory of evolution, but that still predates the "new atheism" by quite a bit. In which case the blame would lie with the theory of evolution and not "new atheism". But so what, should we (including you; assuming you don't reject evolution) entertain silly beliefs about life on this planet simply because we are afraid they will reject science?
    Well my point was that the rise in popularity of creationism was not just a response to the theory of evolution on it's own, but a response to the idea that religion and evolution were incompatible.
    And if the argument that you can't accept evolution and religion at the same time are flawed (which I think they are btw, but I'm hardly in the best position to trumpet that as an atheist), then why the hell are you giving out to us and not explaining it to them?
    If we both accept that the arguments are flawed, then those arguments should be addressed just as much as the arguments of the creationists if we think that the views held by creationists are undesirable. If only for practical purposes, it is damaging to science to turn people against it with spurious value laden arguments.

    And If I ever encounter a creationist, and can get over the novelty, I would argue the position I hold against them. And I'm not so much giving out as just pointing out the obvious fact that creationism is a direct consequence of the over-extension of the theory of evolution into metaphysical territories. And perhaps I was just saying "pfff, that's obvious" or "pfff, I said that on after hours years ago".


  • #111
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    raah! wrote: »
    And If I ever encounter a creationist, and can get over the novelty, I would argue the position I hold against them. And I'm not so much giving out as just pointing out the obvious fact that creationism is a direct consequence of the over-extension of the theory of evolution into metaphysical territories. And perhaps I was just saying "pfff, that's obvious" or "pfff, I said that on after hours years ago".

    I don't think it is an over extension though. The argument is that there does not appear to be any particular intelligent design to living things, of which there are numerous examples available all over the internet, and that is a normal conclusion to make from the advances in studying evolution as it happens over millions of years. This is opposed to creationism which states that life was designed by an intelligent being.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    raah! wrote: »
    And If I ever encounter a creationist, and can get over the novelty, I would argue the position I hold against them.

    We actually have one, who is currently corralled into the "Origin of Specious Nonsense" thread, which stands at about 500 pages. I can't speak for everyone, but I'd be more than happy if you want to take him off our hands.


  • #113
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Newsite wrote: »
    But it is about the fact that your guy is a mortal human, our guy is sovereign and can do as He pleases.:)

    No actually your guys are a bunch of middle eastern farmer who lived a few thousand year ago who decided to document the early oral history of a small off shoot of Judaism.

    The Bible was written by men. You accept what they say to you based on some reason you don't seem to want to go into, but ultimately I imagine it comes down to trusting what they wrote because it fits how you feel such a story should be.

    Would that be a fair assessment?


  • #114
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Wolfsbane is a creationist. His argument is that if the characters in the Genesis, Adam Eve, Cain Able, Noah etc never existed, and the events in the Genesis, creation of eden, Noah's flood, tower of babel, never existed, then this puts the words of Jesus in question since he referred to these people and these events as if they were real people and real events.

    I fail to see how New Atheism is responsible for that :pac:


  • #115
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    raah! wrote: »
    Well the term came into use only after the theory of evolution. And the movement of these groups of people towards this literal interpretation, was and is ,caused by arguments which purported to show that you couldn't accept evolution and religion at the same time, or modern day new atheism.
    I don't agree. New Atheism is only about 7 or 8 years old. Christian Fundamentalism and belief in Creationism is much, much older. All that's different these days is more high profile conflicts between Creationism and Evolution in the media. Maybe it causes more people to question their faith, and for some, perhaps this results in a strengthening of it to the point of abandoning science and believing in creationism, but this would be a relatively new phenomenon, not the cause of literal biblical interpretations at all.


  • #116
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Zombrex wrote: »
    No actually your guys are a bunch of middle eastern farmer who lived a few thousand year ago who decided to document the early oral history of a small off shoot of Judaism.

    The Bible was written by men. You accept what they say to you based on some reason you don't seem to want to go into, but ultimately I imagine it comes down to trusting what they wrote because it fits how you feel such a story should be.

    Would that be a fair assessment?

    The Bible is written by men, but not in the sense that the works of Shakespeare are written by a man.

    Not that the Old Testament is any less valid or important than the New Testament, but you don't mention a man called Jesus who lived less than 2000 years ago, which is but a millisecond ago in the vast expanse of time - a man who historians agree existed. A man who was hated in His day, had no apparent reason as a humble carpenter to teach and speak of what He did - given that this was consistently shown to be of no worldly gain to him whatsoever - and ended up getting him killed by a braying mob representing the dominant religion of the day?

    He sure must have had a good reason (reminding you that what I speak of above is overwhelmingly accepted as historical fact) for doing what He did, right? What could that be?


  • #117
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Newsite wrote: »
    but you don't mention a man called Jesus who lived less than 2000 years ago, which is but a millisecond ago in the vast expanse of time - a man who historians agree existed.

    Millions of men called Jesus exist now, it doesn't really make a difference whether he existed or not.

    Do those historians agree that he walked on water and rose from the dead and turned water into wine?


  • #118
    Shaun Proud Kiwi
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Shaun Proud Kiwi


    I'm going to write a story about aliens in NY and it must be true because NY exists. every last detail.
    i might get my friends to write a few chapters too just to be a bit random. but they're all true too because NY exists and because the book will say so


  • #119
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    Reville is a consistent embarassment to the IT. I've no doubt Ahlstrom finds himself facepalming at some of the stuff he has to let through because his hands are tied editorially.


  • #120
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Millions of men called Jesus exist now, it doesn't really make a difference whether he existed or not.

    And these are similar to Jesus Christ how....?
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Do those historians agree that he walked on water and rose from the dead and turned water into wine?

    I never made claim to that. I said that it is overwhelmingly accepted that He existed. And again, that He did all the things I mentioned and suffered because of these things for no worldly gain - I think it's interesting that you don't comment on this. Does anyone want to venture a comment?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I'm going to write a story about aliens in NY and it must be true because NY exists. every last detail.
    i might get my friends to write a few chapters too just to be a bit random. but they're all true too because NY exists and because the book will say so

    While the argument seems lazy, you actually raise a good point unknowingly.

    The atheists recourse - as evidenced on this thread, other threads, and in your above post - is that 'it's all a bunch of baloney because it sounds like baloney'. This is without acknowledgement of the historical reality of the situation. Jesus and most of his apostles died for what they said. Do you realise the seriousness of that? Ever think there might just be a reason why they went through what they did?


Advertisement