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

12357…24

Comments

  • #122
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I actually agree with Reville here. Atheism does encourage creationism. In my opinion there are a lot of irish people who know nothing about Neo Darwinian Evolution and if they were pushed Intelligent Design would be a far more appealing theory than one that supposedly shows there is no God. When it does nothing of the sort.


  • #123
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,752 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Newsite wrote: »
    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?

    Lots of people have died for many varying reasons throughout human history, that, assuming said people ever existed in the first place, does not automatically make their reasons true, smart or valid.


  • #124
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    Newsite wrote: »
    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?

    You realise you just need to find one person who's died ever for a false cause to prove this is probably not the case- for example all the people who've died in the name of any other religion than yours?

    That's if you'll even grant your assumption that what the bible says is historically accurate, not that everyone does.


  • #125
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,509 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    Newsite wrote: »
    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'.
    Nope, not what was said at all. The ACTUAL point being made is just because it was written in a book and some of the people or places may have existed doesn't mean god exists. Fiction novels are all like this. Does that mean that everything in fiction novels is true?
    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?

    Because they were deluded? Happens all the time.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

    Not to mention the jihadists and suicide bombers. If being killed for a cause is indicitive of its truth then Allah is almost certainly more likely to exist than the Christian God.
    In summary it proves nothing about what they believe.


  • #126
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Newsite wrote: »
    And these are similar to Jesus Christ how....?

    Similar in that they both exist(ed).
    Newsite wrote: »
    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?

    So it's overwhelmingly accepted that he existed (debatable), are you also saying it's overwhelmingly accepted that he died for us on the cross? Because that's news to me, could you provide a link to back this up?

    Is it overwhelmingly accepted that he rose from the dead and did these for no worldly gain? (apart from the whole rising up to that eternal paradise in the sky part)


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Similar in that they both exist(ed).



    So it's overwhelmingly accepted that he existed (debatable), are you also saying it's overwhelmingly accepted that he died for us on the cross? Because that's news to me, could you provide a link to back this up?

    Provide a backup link that disproves it and we can trade links.


  • #128
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Newsite wrote: »
    Provide a backup link that disproves it and we can trade links.
    You're the one making the claim here, not me. If you're saying that it's ''overwhelmingly accepted'' that Jesus Christ lived and then died for us on the cross then presumably you haven't pulled this information from your arse, so a link to your source would be appreciated, assuming your source is not the bible of course.


  • #129
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Newsite wrote: »
    Provide a backup link that disproves it and we can trade links.

    You are the one making the claim that an event occurred.The burden of proof is all on you. S/he is simply doubting that it did, they cannot prove it didn't. After all, you are unable to prove that your non existent brother doesn't exist.


  • #130
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    You're the one making the claim here, not me. If you're saying that it's ''overwhelmingly accepted'' that Jesus Christ lived and then died for us on the cross then presumably you haven't pulled this information from your arse, so a link to your source would be appreciated, assuming your source is not the bible of course.

    You're creating an argument by yourself here. I am merely trying to get you to think about the historical facts of the situation. I'm not talking about the resurrection at all. I thought you might even appreciate talking from the point of view of history.

    'Assuming my source is not the Bible' - that says it all to be fair ;)


  • #131
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Newsite wrote: »
    You're creating an argument by yourself here. I am merely trying to get you to think about the historical facts of the situation. I'm not talking about the resurrection at all. I thought you might even appreciate talking from the point of view of history.

    'Assuming my source is not the Bible' - that says it all to be fair ;)

    The bible is obviously a biased source. Disregarding that fact, surely a single source isn't enough to justify belief in zombies?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Newsite wrote: »
    You're creating an argument by yourself here. I am merely trying to get you to think about the historical facts of the situation. I'm not talking about the resurrection at all. I thought you might even appreciate talking from the point of view of history.

    'Assuming my source is not the Bible' - that says it all to be fair ;)
    I'm not creating an argument, you made a claim and I'm just asking you to back up the claim. Is it ''overwhelmingly accepted'' that Jesus died on the cross for us or not? If it is then why can't you link me to a reputable source that backs that up?

    If you're trying to get me to think of the historical facts then surely you can't expect me to take your word for it? If they're facts then back them up.


  • #133
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I'm going to write a story about aliens in NY and it must be true because NY exists. every last detail.
    Almost off topic and it's been years since I read this book, but I remember it being quite good:

    http://www.patrick-tilley.com/mission/index.php


  • #134
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Newsite wrote: »
    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?
    Ignoring temporarily the unreliability of the accounts, you really think that 13 dead guys means something is true?

    The Korean War saw around 400,000 dead on the North Korean side.

    Does that make what Kim Il Sung says true?


  • #135
    mikhail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭mikhail


    robindch wrote: »
    Ignoring temporarily the unreliability of the accounts, you really think that 13 dead guys means something is true?

    The Korean War saw around 400,000 dead on the North Korean side.

    Does that make what Kim Il Sung says true?
    Is Godwin's Law so potent as to make the obvious riposte to Newsite's latest preposterous statement unpostable?


  • #136
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    yawha wrote: »
    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.

    Ah yes, well I didn't meant to suggest that all literalist interpretations of genesis/rejection of evolution originated from new atheists specifically. There were probably "creationists" around before Darwin, but after Darwin, arguments which purported to show the impossibility of a conjunction of Christianity and evolution, certainly led to the development of alot more anti-evolutionary creationists.

    And it is in this "we have an alternative biology" sense that I use the word creationist. These "we have a new science/biology" people, naturally came along after Darwin, and there are many more of them nowadays.


  • #137
    marty1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    I would agree with Malty T and raah. Historically, I think creationism based on a very literal interpretation of the Bible is a modern phenomenon, stemming from Protestant Evangelicals in America in the early 1900s. The Catholic Church always had a Principle of Accommodation - if science finds a truth that conflicts with the Bible, the Bible has to be interpreted allegorically. Most people a few centuries ago would find the literal interpretations of the Bible baffling. I would imagine that New Atheism, which is only new in the sense that the intolerance of moderates in new, has caused some problems, because it makes those groups of fundamentalists extremely self-conscious. When they're self-conscious of their identity, they become more resilient, reject liberal leadership, erect communal boundaries such as setting up their own media. The whole thing is a mess, and the New Atheism in my view does as much harm as good.


  • #138
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Newsite wrote: »
    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?

    Like most cult leaders, I would imagine it was money, power over people, and the satisfaction of being worshipped.

    Jesus had his ministry funded by wealthy followers. He was adored by said followers and worshipped as if a god. Not bad for a carpenter, no?

    Do you see similarities between that and other cult leaders, such as Jim Jones?


  • #139
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Jesus had his ministry funded by wealthy followers.

    How much did they give him and how much did he make ?


  • #140
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Newsite wrote: »
    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?

    Where are you getting "no worldly gain" from?

    The worldly gain Jesus got from the followers of his cult is in fact described in the Bible.

    Luke 8
    1 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.

    So Jesus cured these women of "evil spirits" and they were so grateful to Jesus that they supported Jesus and the deciples from their own pockets.

    Wow, no one has ever pulled that trick before or since :rolleyes:

    6a0128773aba66970c0120a95eaf43970b-800wi


  • #141
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    How much did they give him and how much did he make ?

    Enough to live and travel around the country preaching without any job or income. So significantly more than most carpenters would have made at the time.

    Not a bad deal. And all he had to do with cure a few evil spirits.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Newsite wrote: »
    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?

    Out of curiosity do you think we should apply that some what ridiculous logic to any other cults and cult leaders, or just to Jesus and the early Christians?

    Jim Jones perhaps, who ordered his entire group of followers to kill themselves (which most of them did including killing their own children) before shooting himself in the face. Do you realize the seriousness of that? Ever think there might just be a reason why they went through what they did?


  • #143
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    marty1985 wrote: »
    I would agree with Malty T and raah. Historically, I think creationism based on a very literal interpretation of the Bible is a modern phenomenon, stemming from Protestant Evangelicals in America in the early 1900s. The Catholic Church always had a Principle of Accommodation - if science finds a truth that conflicts with the Bible, the Bible has to be interpreted allegorically. Most people a few centuries ago would find the literal interpretations of the Bible baffling. [...]
    No, the principle of accommodation only started in the 16th century in response to Copernicus' theory of the heliocentric solar system. Before that a literal interpretation was the only allowed interpretation, and it wasn't adopted by the catholic church in time to help Galileo. Literal interpretation has been generally held for the historical christian church and just hasn't been abandoned by the fundamentalists.


  • #144
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Newsite wrote: »

    He transcends time and none of us can fully understand Him, much less than we can fully understand why we are here in the first place, right?
    that's handy for you.

    MrP


  • #145
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Enough to live and travel around the country preaching without any job or income. So significantly more than most carpenters would have made at the time.

    Not a bad deal. And all he had to do with cure a few evil spirits.

    You mean he that wealthy. Wow. lol


  • #146
    psychward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭psychward


    Newsite wrote: »
    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?

    so that their descendants in the Catholic Church and Spanish Inquisition could murder and torture scientists like Galileo and drown innocent women for being ''witches'' because of what they said.

    If they had the unlimited dictator powers today which they had then theres no doubt in my mind that courageous atheists and scientists like Dawkins etc would be thrown to the Lions which is quite ironic.


  • #147
    marty1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    Knasher wrote: »
    No, the principle of accommodation only started in the 16th century in response to Copernicus' theory of the heliocentric solar system. Before that a literal interpretation was the only allowed interpretation, and it wasn't adopted by the catholic church in time to help Galileo. Literal interpretation has been generally held for the historical christian church and just hasn't been abandoned by the fundamentalists.

    I was just going by what Karen Armstrong's account of the introduction of Copernican theory:
    There were at first few specifically religious objections. Even though some biblical texts implied that the sun moved in the heavens and that the earth was stable, Catholics were not obliged to interpret them literally. They still followed Augustine's principle of accommodation, which had ruled that a scriptural text should be reinterpreted if it clashed with science.

    I think the text mania began with the reformation. The Bible, unlike the church, can't answer questions, clarify earlier statements, arbitrate disagreements or deal with new developments. And in reality, it is only in recent centuries that the average person could read for themselves what exactly is in the Bible.


  • #148
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    marty1985 wrote: »
    I was just going by what Karen Armstrong's account of the introduction of Copernican theory:

    I think the text mania began with the reformation. The Bible, unlike the church, can't answer questions, clarify earlier statements, arbitrate disagreements or deal with new developments. And in reality, it is only in recent centuries that the average person could read for themselves what exactly is in the Bible.
    I think I agree with you there alright. I still think that parallels can be drawn between the rejection of evolution and the rejection of heliocentrism, and so I decided to read through the wiki article on it because I was interested to see how long it took for heliocentrism to be finally adopted. Which got me to this tibit at the end.
    Approximately one in five Americans and Britons believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, according to surveys in 1999, 2006. Approximately one third of Russians believe in the geocentric model, according to a survey in 2011.
    I think we have a long road ahead of us.


  • #149
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    raah! wrote: »
    Well the term came into use only after the theory of evolution.

    Whats that got to do with anything? Are you under the impression that something only exists once humans have made up a name for it? Creationism has existed since the bible was written, it was just up to about a few hundred years ago it was just called christianity. And that's only christian creationism, as if you think of the the religions before christianity that had similar creation theories (some sort of deity started everything a relatively short time ago), creationism has been around for millennia.
    raah! wrote: »
    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".

    Its right there, when you you release the fallacy of thinking that creationism only exists in answer to evolution. Creationism was long the official stance of the catholic church, and the problems of the likes of Copernicus, Gallileo and Darwin in presenting their theories (either political or personal) arose because of the existence of creationism.


  • #150
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zombrex wrote: »
    all he had to do with cure a few evil spirits.
    Hey, I've a book of incantations which are 100% effective against all evil spirits, not just the ones from the dominant local religion!

    Do you think there might be money in this?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    raah! wrote: »
    Ah yes, well I didn't meant to suggest that all literalist interpretations of genesis/rejection of evolution originated from new atheists specifically. There were probably "creationists" around before Darwin, but after Darwin, arguments which purported to show the impossibility of a conjunction of Christianity and evolution, certainly led to the development of alot more anti-evolutionary creationists.

    And it is in this "we have an alternative biology" sense that I use the word creationist. These "we have a new science/biology" people, naturally came along after Darwin, and there are many more of them nowadays.

    I'm really trying to understand your point in all this, but your arguments just keep coming across as being unjustifiable. You now admit that there where creationists (or the equivalent) before Darwins time, but they are different from those after Darwin as the newer ones are specifically anti evolution.....So what?

    Look, you have people you believe something simply because they are told to and then when some new evidence or theory comes along that contradicts it, they blindly deny it because it shakes their world view. But how is that the fault of the new evidence or theory? Evolution didn't create their ignorance and close-mindedness. You cant blame a theory for pointing out when people are wrong, you can only blame those people when they wont engage with the theory.

    That aside, the only difference between creationism post-Darwin and creationism pre-Darwin is that pre implicitly denies evolution while post explicitly denies it. But thats the case with all ideologies before and after counter claims arise. So so what? It just seems so pedantically pointless to point it. All you are saying is that creationists post Darwin specifically deny evolution which is apparently evolutions fault for some reason :confused:?


Advertisement