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

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…1112141617…232

Comments

  • #392
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Festus wrote: »
    Man creates? Funny how those who would deny God seem to take great pleasure in the wonders of mans creativity. I would have thought taking pleasure in showing how wonderfully order things appear from disorder regularly and demonstrating the spontaneous creativity of randomness and probablility collapses would be more their bag.
    Do you doubt that order can arise from chaos?


  • #393
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Festus wrote: »
    Oh, I fully understand why atheists are atheists. Strange thing is why do they insist on trying to convince themselves that evolution made a mistake.
    Science does not try to do anything other than examine evidence and seek explanations for natural phenomena. It does not start with the answers and then select evidence: that is religion.


  • #394
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Do you doubt that order can arise from chaos?


    Would if not be easier just to present the scientific law that states that order arises from chaos and be done with it rather than go into some class of a pole dancer routine?


  • #395
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Science does not try to do anything other than examine evidence and seek explanations for natural phenomena. It does not start with the answers and then select evidence: that is religion.

    I really don't think you understand religion. I think you think you understand the concept of religion that you invented for yourself but it in no way relates to the reality of religion.

    You are also wrong on science. It often does create an explanation for the observable and can come up with wrong explanations or explanations that have to be constantly changed and "made fit".


  • #396
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Festus wrote: »
    Would if not be easier just to present the scientific law that states that order arises from chaos and be done with it rather than go into some class of a pole dancer routine?
    Can you present the law that states that order cannot arise out of chaos? I don't believe such a law exists - if I missed it, please let me know!


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Festus wrote: »
    I really don't think you understand religion. I think you think you understand the concept of religion that you invented for yourself but it in no way relates to the reality of religion.
    How does religion work then? How come there are so many gods?
    Festus wrote: »
    You are also wrong on science. It often does create an explanation for the observable and can come up with wrong explanations or explanations that have to be constantly changed and "made fit".
    Yes, wrong explanations are constantly made - and proved wrong, and a better explanation is provided that fits more of the facts - until enough facts demonstrate that this explanation is inadequate. That is science in action. Working towards the truth.

    With religion (and correct me here please if I am wrong) you start by believing a 'truth' and defending it against all the other 'truths' out there. Bear in mind that you are more of an atheist than I am when it comes to hundreds, maybe thousands of gods.


  • #398
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Can you present the law that states that order cannot arise out of chaos? I don't believe such a law exists - if I missed it, please let me know!

    You can believe in dust bunnies if you wish.


  • #399
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    How does religion work then? How come there are so many gods?

    Different languages. If that doesn't answer your question perhaps take it to a forum where there are people who believe there is more than one God.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Yes, wrong explanations are constantly made - and proved wrong, and a better explanation is provided that fits more of the facts - until enough facts demonstrate that this explanation is inadequate. That is science in action. Working towards the truth.

    Indeed. The more one studies science the closer one gets to God, or to the point where not believing in God becomes an impossibility. (apologies to Lord Kelvin)
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    With religion (and correct me here please if I am wrong) you start by believing a 'truth' and defending it against all the other 'truths' out there. Bear in mind that you are more of an atheist than I am when it comes to hundreds, maybe thousands of gods.

    Allow me to correct you. You start by seeking the truth. There is only one truth. Once found all other lies are obvious.


  • #400
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Festus wrote: »
    Different languages. If that doesn't answer your question perhaps take it to a forum where there are people who believe there is more than one God.
    It really doesn't answer my question. Hindus are equally convinced in their gods as you are in yours. There are many different monotheistic gods too. I am an agnostic with regard to all these gods - you are the atheist. How so?
    Festus wrote: »
    Allow me to correct you. You start by seeking the truth. There is only one truth. Once found all other lies are obvious.
    How come your one truth is different to the one truth of Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jainists, Shintoists and so forth? I'm pretty sure they think they know the one truth too, and they think that you are barking up the wrong tree. They probably pity you somewhat, and hope that you will see the light of their truth.

    As an agnostic, I worry that we can't really know what goes on or has gone on behind the scenes. As a theist, I would worry about the hundreds or thousands of potential (monotheistic?) true gods I never even heard about, never mind following their rules.

    Let me guess - you are a Christian because you were born into a Christian culture, right? Do you have any reason to believe you wouldn't be a Muslim if you were born into a Muslim culture?


  • #401
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ^^ You do realise how bad an argument that is given that most Christians live outside of the Western world? That argument is becoming more and more irrelevant daily as the Gospel moves to differing parts of the world.


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Festus wrote: »
    A theory.

    A theory is not a thing, it is a mental concept. Or to put that another way, it is state the brain is in. The brain that forms it already exists, it is simply put into a particular state when it is considering the theory through the firing of different neural pathways.

    So again can you describe something that beings to exist and what its cause is? It is ok to say you cannot, but then your original assertion has issues.


  • #403
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    ^^ You do realise how bad an argument that is given that most Christians live outside of the Western world? That argument is becoming more and more irrelevant daily as the Gospel moves to differing parts of the world.

    The vast vast vast vast majority of people adopt the religion they were born into. Until that changes the argument is anything but irrelevant.

    Again a parallel is language. The vast vast vast majority of people learn the language of their parents. The fact that some times people learn other languages and even adopt those languages as their preferred language does not change the significance of the original observation. Likewise with religion.

    I appreciate that it is in your interest to pretend that choice of religion in humans is a lot more considered, but it really isn't. For most people they are happy to accept the first religion they come across. This speaks to the truth about religion, it is not the individual religion that matters so much as the general human instinct to think religiously.


  • #404
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    From what I can tell, the countries with a quote on quote "Christian heritage" are the ones in which Christianity is experiencing either numerical or percentage declines for the most part. Many have shown quite well their ability to switch and change based on personal preference (not as if this has anything to do with truth). Indeed, even in the case of many Christians, many may have rejected that understanding for a period of time growing up only to discover it through further consideration. For me, that was the case and for many others it is also. This concept of being "born into" something implies that certain beliefs were literally drilled into people from birth. This is actually rarely the truth, and even if one could "drill" those beliefs into people, it does not prevent further consideration at a later age. Having seen the reality within Christian communities and through talking to people about their experiences, it is actually a lot more considered than you are making out for the most part.

    On the other hand, many in countries without this "Christian heritage" are coming to know Jesus.

    That's why I feel that argument is going to become an irrelevance.


  • #405
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    philologos wrote: »
    ^^ You do realise how bad an argument that is given that most Christians live outside of the Western world? That argument is becoming more and more irrelevant daily as the Gospel moves to differing parts of the world.
    Zombrex has already dealt with your post - nowhere did I suggest Christianity is tied to the West. However, just as the Christian truth of the Gospels is reaching new areas, so Muslims would argue that the truth brought by Mohammed is doing the same. Which truth is true? Both? Neither?

    If you would like to address any of the other points made, I'd be genuinely interested in your views.


  • #406
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    philologos wrote: »
    Indeed, even in the case of many Christians, many may have rejected that understanding for a period of time growing up only to discover it through further consideration. For me, that was the case and for many others it is also. This concept of being "born into" something implies that certain beliefs were literally drilled into people from birth. This is actually rarely the truth, and even if one could "drill" those beliefs into people, it does not prevent further consideration at a later age.
    This argument would make sense if you were not raised as a Christian in a Christian country, and had equal exposure to every religion, and then researched the claims of every faith before reaffirming your Christian faith, but I presume this was not the case?


  • #407
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    This argument would make sense if you were not raised as a Christian in a Christian country, and had equal exposure to every religion, and then researched the claims of every faith before reaffirming your Christian faith, but I presume this was not the case?

    What's a "Christian country"? What should it look like?

    I learned about other faiths. Indeed, as a teenager I just didn't really know very much about this God thing that I had heard bits here and there about made much sense. Even as I did read through the Bible about 5 years ago for the first time, I realised I was by and large ignorant of Christianity in any real sense.

    Therefore, could it be really said that I knew Christianity in a comprehensive manner. I would say no, and I would doubt that any child could fully know about it in a comprehensive manner.

    Your argument is poor in so far as it doesn't consider reality in respect to how people come to know God. It is also poor in that it doesn't consider the global reality that firstly Christianity is in decline in so called "Christian countries". Christianity is growing at a huge rate in so called "non-Christian countries". How do you account for that?


  • #408
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    philologos wrote: »
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    This argument would make sense if you were not raised as a Christian in a Christian country, and had equal exposure to every religion, and then researched the claims of every faith before reaffirming your Christian faith, but I presume this was not the case?

    What's a "Christian country"? What should it look like?

    I learned about other faiths. Indeed, as a teenager I just didn't really know very much about this God thing that I had heard bits here and there about made much sense. Even as I did read through the Bible about 5 years ago for the first time, I realised I was by and large ignorant of Christianity in any real sense.

    Therefore, could it be really said that I knew Christianity in a comprehensive manner. I would say no, and I would doubt that any child could fully know about it in a comprehensive manner.

    Your argument is poor in so far as it doesn't consider reality in respect to how people come to know God. It is also poor in that it doesn't consider the global reality that firstly Christianity is in decline in so called "Christian countries". Christianity is growing at a huge rate in so called "non-Christian countries". How do you account for that?
    I'm sorry, but you are still dodging the point. A Muslim in Saudi Arabia could make the same argument as to why he's not a Muslim because he happened to be born into a Muslim family in a country where Islam is well established. He thinks Islam is the true faith and that you are an unbeliever. He believes this as strongly as you believe. Which one of you is right?

    Of course, neither of you invested time to investigate the claims and 'proofs' of the hundreds or thousands of other faiths...


  • #409
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    A theory is not a thing, it is a mental concept. Or to put that another way, it is state the brain is in. The brain that forms it already exists, it is simply put into a particular state when it is considering the theory through the firing of different neural pathways.

    So again can you describe something that beings to exist and what its cause is? It is ok to say you cannot, but then your original assertion has issues.

    A Movie.


  • #410
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but you are still dodging the point. A Muslim in Saudi Arabia could make the same argument as to why he's not a Muslim because he happened to be born into a Muslim family in a country where Islam is well established. He thinks Islam is the true faith and that you are an unbeliever. He believes this as strongly as you believe. Which one of you is right?

    Of course, neither of you invested time to investigate the claims and 'proofs' of the hundreds or thousands of other faiths...

    Actually, I think you've been dodging mine.

    Firstly, Christianity isn't "well established" in any European country at present from what I can tell.

    Secondly, I'm simply saying that the narrative that atheists present of people uncritically accepting the beliefs of their parents in Ireland, or in other Western countries is demonstrably false at least from what I've experienced and what I've seen of what others have experienced.

    Thirdly, given that Christianity is actually in decline in the West how does this demonstrate your position that most adopt Christianity unquestioningly. Indeed, the latest British Social Attitudes survey here, showed that over 50% of the population are either atheists or agnostics. How does that back up your argument, other than to say that people accept atheism or agnosticism uncritically?

    Fourthly, given that Christianity is actually growing in areas which are not typically or cultually associated with Chrisitanity, surely that has an impact on how credible your argument is. Indeed, most people who are Christians live in areas where Christianity is not typically or culturally associated. Therefore how can you present this fallacious argument. Millions of people become Christians each year outside of the West.

    Finally, you are presenting a logical fallacy by even presenting this argument.
    The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
    The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.

    Surely we should be assessing Christianity on the basis of whether or not it is true rather than whether or not it is culturally associated with X or Y region?

    The question is what logical reason do you have for rejecting the Gospel? - That would provide us with a much more fruitful discussion than the one we are having about origins, which is fading into irrelevance as Christianity is more widely spread across the world than it has ever been before. The idea of a "Christian country" is also as irrelevant as it has ever been before.

    What is most important is what is true. If atheism is true, I've been wasting my time. If Christianity is true, then there are consequences that one will need to consider.

    By the by, I did look into other faiths just for the record. I even read some atheist books - Dawkins and Hitchens in particular. I found their arguments surprisingly weak. I found the Bible convincing in respect to how it compares to reality. Therefore I accepted it. If anyone came and presented an alternative position, I would consider it with respect. So please don't throw that lazy argument around.


  • #411
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    From what I can tell, the countries with a quote on quote "Christian heritage" are the ones in which Christianity is experiencing either numerical or percentage declines for the most part. Many have shown quite well their ability to switch and change based on personal preference (not as if this has anything to do with truth). Indeed, even in the case of many Christians, many may have rejected that understanding for a period of time growing up only to discover it through further consideration. For me, that was the case and for many others it is also. This concept of being "born into" something implies that certain beliefs were literally drilled into people from birth. This is actually rarely the truth, and even if one could "drill" those beliefs into people, it does not prevent further consideration at a later age.

    It is the truth in the vast majority of cases. You are inventing a straw man that people are arguing that you can never change that afterwards. That is not true, a small minority of people convert to other religions, just like a small minority of people decide they don't like English and would rather speak French, moving to Paris to live happily ever after.

    Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people speak the language they are brought up in, and the vast majority of people follow the religion they are brought up in, and that the most significant factor in what religion a person will be is the religion they are born into.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: You might want it to be true, but I've seen little to no evidence of people accepting beliefs uncritically as they get older in life. That's the presumption that new-atheists would take from what you're saying. I'm saying it's evidently false and dishonest to assume that on the basis of what actually happens.

    This argument is irrelevant in the discussion as to whether or not Christianity is actually truth or fiction, which is the discussion we should be having.


  • #413
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    philologos wrote: »

    This argument is irrelevant in the discussion as to whether or not Christianity is actually truth or fiction, which is the discussion we should be having.

    No, we are discussing the fact that creationism is a fiction. I know it gets confusing between the atheism and creationism threads when your trying to keep up with both and the same things keep turning up.


  • #414
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    philologos wrote: »

    This argument is irrelevant in the discussion as to whether or not Christianity is actually truth or fiction, which is the discussion we should be having.

    No, we are discussing the fact that creationism is a fiction. I know it gets confusing between the atheism and creationism threads when your trying to keep up with both and the same things keep turning up.
    Read the whole title of the thread.


  • #415
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    philologos wrote: »
    Read the whole title of the thread.

    I have read the whole bloody thread, it about creationism, moving the goal posts now is a bit pointless.
    From the OP (part 1)
    I wish to open this thread to discuss the Bible and Creationism,


  • #416
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    It really doesn't answer my question. Hindus are equally convinced in their gods as you are in yours. There are many different monotheistic gods too. I am an agnostic with regard to all these gods - you are the atheist. How so?

    As I said, if you want an answer to that you really should be talking to people who believe in false gods.

    I believe in God and have not rejected Him, so not atheist, in fact the opposite.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    How come your one truth is different to the one truth of Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jainists, Shintoists and so forth? I'm pretty sure they think they know the one truth too, and they think that you are barking up the wrong tree. They probably pity you somewhat, and hope that you will see the light of their truth.

    You're inclusion of the Jews in that list negates your argument and shows up your ignorance. The Jews believe in God the Father. However, they rejected God the Son, and so the Holy Spirit is not available to them. One day they will come in to the light. As for the rest, I pray they too along with you will find the Truth.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    As an agnostic, I worry that we can't really know what goes on or has gone on behind the scenes. As a theist, I would worry about the hundreds or thousands of potential (monotheistic?) true gods I never even heard about, never mind following their rules.

    Perhaps as an agnostic worried about such things you should be seeking the truth rather than rejecting it.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Let me guess - you are a Christian because you were born into a Christian culture, right? Do you have any reason to believe you wouldn't be a Muslim if you were born into a Muslim culture?

    Many muslims convert and many risk execution for converting. Had I been born to a muslim familiy and had been allowed to explore other religions including Christianity I have no reason to believe that once I had discovered the truths taught by Jesus Christ I would have converted.

    That a particular religion would disallow the God given free will to choose or reject should be sufficient for most to see that it is not teaching truth.

    It is worth bearing in mind that you and your atheist and agnostic friends should be thankful for being born in to Christian cultures where you have the freedom to reject God.
    Had you been born into a muslim country it is higly likely that once you publicized your rejection of Allah you would have been executed.

    [al-Baqarah 2:217]
    And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh. What this hadeeth means is that whoever leaves Islam and changes to another religion and persists in that and does not repent, is to be executed. It was also proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a person who bears witness that there is no god but Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah except in three cases: a life for a life, a previously-married person who commits adultery, and one who leaves Islam and forsakes the jamaa’ah.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.
    source http://islamqa.info/en/ref/12406


  • #417
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I have read the whole bloody thread, it about creationism, moving the goal posts now is a bit pointless.
    From the OP (part 1)


    The thread has evolved. I have never seen evolution go backwards. Have you?


  • #418
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    No, we are discussing the fact that creationism is a fiction. I know it gets confusing between the atheism and creationism threads when your trying to keep up with both and the same things keep turning up.

    Creationism at its simplest is an assertion that God created the universe and life.

    Can you prove otherwise?


  • #419
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Festus wrote: »
    Creationism at its simplest is an assertion that God created the universe and life.

    Can you prove otherwise?
    Nobody has to, until you provide evidence for your extraordinary claim.


  • #420
    Wh1stler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭Wh1stler


    Festus wrote: »
    How so. Adam was the first homo sapiens. We have no evidence that homo sapiens neanderthalensis used names for each other.

    So where the Bible talks about the creation of 'man', it was not 'humanity' that was being considered but rather a paticular genus?

    Did neanderthals have souls?

    And why are 'man-like' creatures, whom you consider as human, not referred to directly in the Bible as being created before Adam?


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    Wh1stler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭Wh1stler


    Festus wrote: »
    How did physics do it?

    By not waiting for God.


Advertisement