The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C · 17-03-2013 12:37AM

koth wrote: »

So scientists are devoid of professional integrity? Atheism is a singular statement about deites. It states nothing about the origin of life.

Funny thing then that they have an absolute faith commitment to Abiogenesis / Materialistic Evolution that would put many Theists to shame in their walk with God ... and they react to Theistic 'origins' explanations with a mixture of horror and fury.

koth wrote: »

There isn't, but that fact isn't much use to you so you ignore it. It's been repeated frequently that creationists need to start producing evidence to be taken seriously.

The evidence is all there ... but it seems that Atheists refuse to accept it ... this is understandable, because if they did, they would cease to be Atheists and would become Creationists instead!!!!

koth wrote: »

So you want to ban evolution from the classroom because the story of Genesis isn't taught in a science class? Not a very logical way to go.

... it all depends what you mean by 'evolution' ... if its the irreligious idea that life arose without God ... this isn't religion-neutral!!
... and therefore, if we are banning religious instruction from public schools ... then irreligious instruction should also be banned.

koth wrote: »

A baseless accusation. Teaching evolution isn't anything to do with atheism, it's just science. Quite strange that a self-professed scientist wouldn't know that.

... Like I have said, it all depends what you mean by 'evolution' ... if its the irreligious idea that life arose without God ... this isn't religion-neutral!!
... and when science starts supporting irreligion ... it has entered the religious sphere ... and needs to behave in a balanced way, between religion and irreligion ... in any pluralist society worthy of the name.

koth wrote: »

huh? You're saying that thiests would support a move to ban religion?

Where did I say that?

wrote:

J C
... and yet the prime article of Atheist faith (that materialistic processes alone account for the origins of the Universe and life) is taught by law in these schools ... it was a pity when they where busy separating state and religion they didn't go all the way and separate state and irreligion as well.

koth
It's a pity that you don't inform yourself about atheism rather than make things up about it.

OK Can I ask you :-
1. Do you believe that materialistic processes alone, don't account for the origins of the Universe and life?

2. Do you believe that this should be taught by law in public schools ?

koth wrote: »

They're not outlawed in science.

This is very easy to establish one way or the other ... please cite even one paper in conventional 'origins' science that has pursued a 'God did it' hypothesis.

koth wrote: »

State schools require separation of religion and state in the US. This actually guarantees that raising kids as Christian can't be outlawed.

It guarantees no such thing ... especially when the direct oppsite idea to the Christian Creed (that life created itself) is taught by law in these schools.
Like I have said, somebody forgot to separate state and irreligion.

koth wrote: »

IHEU highlights the criminalisation of atheism in many parts of the world.

... I don't agree with criminalising either Theists or Atheists ... but what is under discussion here is the preferential treatment of Atheism ... and not its criminalisation.
Indeed what we are discussing is the criminalistion of Christians, if they teach Creation or ID in public school.

J C · 17-03-2013 12:43AM

koth wrote: »

@JC it would be nice to get an answer to this question.

What's the point ... if Theist-friendly hypotheses aren't welcomed ?
... and have never been funded.

ManMade · 17-03-2013 01:21AM

So in science kids should be taught evolution and creationism as well . So one class studying how life evolved without mentioning god and the other class being told and learning of god making the earth and life in 7 days along with Adam and Eve and the great flood. Doublethink if I ever heard it.

Masteroid · 17-03-2013 04:34AM

J C wrote: »

What's the point ... if Theist-friendly hypotheses aren't welcomed ?
... and have never been funded.

So I ask again,

"Why are you here?"

Masteroid · 17-03-2013 04:39AM

J C wrote: »

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

What I'm asking for is very reasonable ... which is mutual respect for the opinions of all religions and none ... and it's the Atheists and their fellow like-minds who are resisting this ... with all their might!!!

... science can just as easily test the God hypothesis as it can test the anti-God Hypothesis ...

Please define 'none'.

Is atheism a religion or isn't it?

J C · 17-03-2013 10:39AM

ManMade wrote: »

So in science kids should be taught evolution and creationism as well . So one class studying how life evolved without mentioning god and the other class being told and learning of god making the earth and life in 7 days along with Adam and Eve and the great flood. Doublethink if I ever heard it.

Why not ... that is what respect for diversity comes down to ... or are you suggesting that they should only be taught about God and His Creation?

J C · 17-03-2013 10:48AM

Masteroid wrote: »

Please define 'none'.

Is atheism a religion or isn't it?

Atheism is irreligion ... and an implacable opponent of religion ... its nemesis, if you will ... and thus it is firmly operating within the religious realm.
... so if any system is set up to not privelige religion it logically mustn't privelige irreligion either.
The current idea of separating state and religion also needs to separate state and irreligion ... starting with the irreligious belief that life and the universe created itself.

Sin City · 17-03-2013 11:14AM

ManMade wrote: »

So in science kids should be taught evolution and creationism as well . So one class studying how life evolved without mentioning god and the other class being told and learning of god making the earth and life in 7 days along with Adam and Eve and the great flood. Doublethink if I ever heard it.

They already do
Its called the science class and the religion class.

Sin City · 17-03-2013 11:18AM

J C wrote: »

Atheism is irreligion ... and an implacable opponent of religion ... its nemesis, if you will ... and thus is firmly within the religious realm.
... so if any system is set up to not privelige religion it logically mustn't privelige irreligion either.
The current idea of separating state and religion also needs to separate state and irreligion ... starting with the irreligious belief that life and the universe created itself.

Ha ha, cool, you figure out a way to find the middle ground. How does one seperate the state from religion and irreligion.. This is starting to sound like you are struggling to score points in the arguement that you are loosing

Delirium · 17-03-2013 11:29AM

J C wrote: »

Funny thing then that they have an absolute faith commitment to Abiogenesis / Materialistic Evolution that would put many Theists to shame in their walk with God ... and they react to Theistic 'origins' explanations with a mixture of horror and fury.

I'm not aware of any such atheists posting here. Generally they have explained their acceptance of evolution as being based on the scientific evidence.

The evidence is all there ... but it seems that Atheists refuse to accept it ... this is understandable, because if they did, they would cease to be Atheists and would become Creationists instead!!!!

Hopefully one day you might post examples of this evidence so posters can examine the merits of said evidence.

... it all depends what you mean by 'evolution' ... if its the irreligious idea that life arose without God ... this isn't religion-neutral!!
... and therefore, if we are banning religious instruction from public schools ... then irreligious instruction should also be banned.

I mean evolution. The one that makes no argument for or against God.

... Like I have said, it all depends what you mean by 'evolution' ... if its the irreligious idea that life arose without God ... this isn't religion-neutral!!

Explained above.

... and when science starts supporting irreligion ... it has entered the religious sphere ... and needs to behave in a balanced way, between religion and irreligion ... in any pluralist society worthy of the name.

Science should be separate from theology, they're two very different things. You're attempting to inject theology into the science work. This isn't a laudable thing to attempt.

Where did I say that?

I didn't say you did. The question mark at the end of a sentence denotes that I'm asking you a question. Would you care to answer it?

OK Can I ask you :-
1. Do you believe that materialistic processes alone, don't account for the origins of the Universe and life?

that's a purely phrased question. I had to read it a couple of times to try and understand it. I don't know is the answer. So far science has managed to explain a lot of things about life on Earth without appealing to the supernatural. I don't see any need to add an untestable entity to the equation for no reason other than satisfying some religious folk.

2. Do you believe that this should be taught by law in public schools ?

I believe that current understandings based on scientific evidence should be taught in the science class.

This is very easy to establish one way or the other ... please cite even one paper in conventional 'origins' science that has pursued a 'God did it' hypothesis.

Happy to do some searches. Could you tell me what experiments I should be looking for? I currently have no idea what experiments would be attempted to prove "God did it". If you would be so good as to let me know what I should google for, I can begin the search.

It guarantees no such thing ... especially when the direct oppsite idea to the Christian Creed (that life created itself) is taught by law in these schools.
Like I have said, somebody forgot to separate state and irreligion.

No it's not. I'm not aware of any schools in the US that are allowed, because it violates the constitution, to teach "there is no God."

... I don't agree with criminalising either Theists or Atheists ... but what is under discussion here is the preferential treatment of Atheism ... and not its criminalisation.
Indeed what we are discussing is the criminalistion of Christians, if they teach Creation or ID in public school.

Then don't bring criminalisation into the discussion;)

J C wrote: »

What's the point ... if Theist-friendly hypotheses aren't welcomed ?
... and have never been funded.

There's a couple of reasons.

1. I'm not a scientist
2. I don't sit on the board of funding of any group that funds scientific exploration.
3. It would allow me to make an informed decision as to whether you've actually got a case about anti-theist censorship/banning/bias etc.

You can't say that scientists are being blocked from funding, even though they have experiments that they have carried out to collect some preliminary findings, and then state you won't tell us what the experiments are when questioned on it. You're making allegations and refusing to provide evidence. This doesn't make for a productive discussion.

Now, would you like to provide some examples of experiments that would test for the existence of God?

ManMade · 17-03-2013 11:29AM

Sin City wrote: »

They already do
Its called the science class and the religion class.

What secondary school actually teaches creationism or religion? Religion is a free class or movie class or simply taking the piss out of the teacher as he spouts the catholic church's view on subjects like gay marriage/euthanasia/abortion.

ManMade · 17-03-2013 11:35AM

J C wrote: »

Why not ... that is what respect for diversity comes down to ... or are you suggesting that they should only be taught about God and His Creation?

That's doublethink. Evolution is evidence based and godless. Creationism is basically teaching god as fact. We aren't in the Bible Belt. Irish people don't swallow the bible whole anymore.

maguffin · 17-03-2013 11:55AM

koth wrote: »

Now, would you like to provide some examples of experiments that would test for the existence of God?

He (JC) never will...he can't because he knows there aren't any!! He hasn't any solid experimental examples to back up his ever degenerating (dare I say devolving) argument. If such experiments did exist...this thread would have wound up years ago.

If he were a real, true scientist he would be clambering over everyone to present his experimental data..... I mean, this would be Nobel prize material stuff!!

J C · 17-03-2013 11:58AM

Masteroid wrote: »

So I ask again,

"Why are you here?"

Because I'm alive and a Christian ... why are you here?

J C · 17-03-2013 12:08PM

Sin City wrote: »

They already do
Its called the science class and the religion class.

... and Manmade is calling this 'doublethink' ... I'd call it 'half-think'!!!

The solution is for the results of the 'God did it' and 'It did itself' hypothesis to be taught in science class ... with the basic faith positions of religion and irreligion to be taught in Religion Class.

J C · 17-03-2013 12:13PM

Sin City wrote: »

Ha ha, cool, you figure out a way to find the middle ground. How does one seperate the state from religion and irreligion.. This is starting to sound like you are struggling to score points in the arguement that you are loosing

The state seems to be doing a very good job at seperataing itself from religion in American Public Schools ... so it needs to now devote the same enthusiasm and energy to separating itself from irreligion in the form of state mandated indoctrination into the beliefs of Practical Atheism.

Delirium · 17-03-2013 12:16PM

J C wrote: »

The state seems to be doing a very good job at separataing itself from religion in American Public Schools ... so it needs to now devote the same entusiasm and energy to separating itself from irreligion in the form of state mandated indoctrination into the beliefs of Practical Atheism.

Irreligion is the absense of religion, how exactly do you remove the absense of religion from the classroom? Separation of church and state requires the absense of religion from state institutions. To "remove" irrelgion would be to put religion into the classrooms, which is contrary to the separation of church and state.

J C · 17-03-2013 12:21PM

ManMade wrote: »

What secondary school actually teaches creationism or religion? Religion is a free class or movie class or simply taking the piss out of the teacher as he spouts the catholic church's view on subjects like gay marriage/euthanasia/abortion.

... and science class is a mandatory indoctrination into the beliefs of practical atheism ... with the sanction of insufficient points for college, if you don't attend and take it seriously ... it's no wonder that Christianity is in decline and Atheism is in the ascendent.
'My people are lost for the lack of knowledge' as God says in Hosea 4:6

Delirium · 17-03-2013 12:26PM

J C wrote: »

... and science class is a mandatory indoctrination into the beliefs of practical atheism ... with the sanction of insufficient points for college, if you don't attend and take it seriously ... it's no wonder that Christianity is in decline and Atheism is in the ascendent.
'My people are lost for the lack of knowledge' as God says in Hosea 4:6

So now colleges are punishing students for not taking atheism seriously? Are there no depths you won't go to to try and bolster your argument?

So the scientific and academic/educational communities are engaged in a conspiracy against theists? :rolleyes:

J C · 17-03-2013 12:35PM

ManMade wrote: »

That's doublethink. Evolution is evidence based and godless. Creationism is basically teaching god as fact. We aren't in the Bible Belt. Irish people don't swallow the bible whole anymore.

Its 'half-think' ... the artificial segregation of science as 'Godless' and religion as 'Godly' is 'half-think' ... there are some religions that are Godless (like Satanism, for example) ... and science is quite capable of scientifically pursuing 'origins' hypotheses based on God being the Creator of life.

Current 'origins' science is indeed Godless and a creature of Practical Athesim ... Christianity is Godly and believes that God is indeed a fact ... and over 90% of Irish people still describe themselves as Christian.
... and noboody is talking about 'swallowing the Bible' as you have so disparagingly described it ... we are talking here about respecting middle-of-the-road Christianity and its belief that God is a fact ... and that He Created Heaven and Earth, just like the Apostles Creed says.

J C · 17-03-2013 12:40PM

koth wrote: »

So now colleges are punishing students for not taking atheism seriously? Are there no depths you won't go to to try and bolster your argument?

So the scientific and academic/educational communities are engaged in a conspiracy against theists? :rolleyes:

If a student doesn't regurgitate the Atheist version of 'origins' science their marks and points will suffer ... or are you saying that a student who says the God Created Heaven and Earth will get full marks for a question on Abiogenesis?

Delirium · 17-03-2013 12:44PM

J C wrote: »

If a student doesn't regurgitate the Atheist version of 'origins' science their marks and points will suffer ... or are you saying that a student who says the God Created Heaven and Earth will get full marks for a question on Abiogenesis?

Of course not, Genesis isn't part of any science module. It's nothing to do with atheism, it's how the exams are marked. Creationism isn't considered science by the department of education. Why would they give full marks for an incorrect answer?

You're now conflating science and atheism, the very thing theists generally give out to atheists for. Truly a strange situation.

ManMade · 17-03-2013 01:03PM

J C wrote: »

Its 'half-think' ... the artificial segregation of science as 'Godless' and religion as 'Godly' is 'half-think' ... there are some religions that are Godless (like Satanism, for example) ... and science is quite capable of scientifically pursuing 'origins' hypotheses based on God being the Creator of life.

Current 'origins' science is indeed Godless and a creature of Practical Athesim ... Christianity is Godly and believes that God is indeed a fact ... and over 90% of Irish people still describe themselves as Christian.
... and noboody is talking about 'swallowing the Bible' as you have so disparagingly described it ... we are talking here about respecting middle-of-the-road Christianity and its belief that God is a fact ... and that He Created Heaven and Earth, just like the Apostles Creed says.

What is half think ???? Do you know what doublethink is?

You seem to mix up secularism and atheism a lot.

Middle of the road Christians don't subscribe to creationism, they believe in evolution with god. Totally different to what genesis says.

doctoremma · 17-03-2013 02:04PM

J C wrote: »

If a student doesn't regurgitate the Atheist version of 'origins' science their marks and points will suffer ... or are you saying that a student who says the God Created Heaven and Earth will get full marks for a question on Abiogenesis?

It actually seems that there are no lengths to which Atheism hasn't gone in pursuing its Godless agenda.

Your shrieking is descending into hysteria.

When an exam paper asks a student to outline the key pieces of evidence for abiogenesis, they are required to submit an answer that outlines the key pieces of evidence for abiogenesis. If they do not do so, they will be penalised.

The question may ask them to critique some of evidence - how well-controlled were the experiments? and so on. However, what they believe about abiogenesis is not the question. Thus, scrawling 'God dunnit' in answer the 'Please describe the methods and results of the Urey-Miller experiment' will, quite rightly, get them no marks.

When I sat various RE exams that asked me to, for example, outline the basis of religious objection to abortion, I answered the question (and got top marks). This, despite the answers I was giving bearing absolutely no relation to the actual opinion I held on the issue of abortion. Had I scrawled 'Abortion is alright by me' in answer, I would have, quite rightly, got no marks.

It really seems that there no lengths to which religion hasn't gone in pursuing its God agenda.

J C · 17-03-2013 02:39PM

koth wrote: »

Of course not, Genesis isn't part of any science module. It's nothing to do with atheism, it's how the exams are marked. Creationism isn't considered science by the department of education. Why would they give full marks for an incorrect answer?

You're now conflating science and atheism, the very thing theists generally give out to atheists for. Truly a strange situation.

I'm not conflating anything ... and its got everything to do with Atheism/Secularism when the Atheist version (and only the Atheist version) of 'origins' science (that life created itself) is required to be regurgitated in science exams in order to get full marks.
... and this is equally required from Christians, who believe that God did it, in accordance with the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.
What you have confirmed is that Christians have to disavow the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, in order to get full marks in their science exams.
... now that is truly a strange situation, especially in a predominantly Christian country like America.

[-0-] · 17-03-2013 03:21PM

JC, I have a question regarding Creationism.

If you believe the universe to be several thousand years old, how do you explain light from far off stars taking MILLIONS of light years to get to us? If the universe was only a few thousand years old we wouldn't see any stars, right?

J C · 17-03-2013 03:29PM

ManMade wrote: »

What is half think ???? Do you know what doublethink is?

... its a quarter of doublethink.

ManMade wrote: »

You seem to mix up secularism and atheism a lot.

Whatever differences may exist between them, they both seem to be working to the same Godless agenda.

ManMade wrote: »

Middle of the road Christians don't subscribe to creationism, they believe in evolution with god. Totally different to what genesis says.

'Evolution' is something that is all things to all men ... I even believe in evolution (within Kinds and using pre-existing genetic diversity or damaging mutagenesis).
The question I asked was about Abiogenesis ... the belief that life created itself ... a belief that is totally at odds with the Creeds of all middle-of-the-road Christians and the Churches they belong to. A Christian can't say in conscience, that Abiogenesis is true and yet Doctoremma has confirmed that they must do so to get any marks for a question on Abiogenesis.

Doctoremma wrote:

When an exam paper asks a student to outline the key pieces of evidence for abiogenesis, they are required to submit an answer that outlines the key pieces of evidence for abiogenesis. If they do not do so, they will be penalised.

The vaidity of Abiogenesis is denied by the Christian Creed - and you are saying that evidence for it (even though none exists IMO) must be submitted by Christians or they will lose marks. So Christians will be penalised for being Christians and all in the name of 'tolerance' and 'diversity'.

Doctoremma wrote:

When I sat various RE exams that asked me to, for example, outline the basis of religious objection to abortion, I answered the question (and got top marks). This, despite the answers I was giving bearing absolutely no relation to the actual opinion I held on the issue of abortion. Had I scrawled 'Abortion is alright by me' in answer, I would have, quite rightly, got no marks.

The parallel to what you describe would be to ask a student to 'outline the Secular reasons for proposing Abiogenesis' ... and no Christian would have any reason for objecting to answering such a question - and getting full marks in it.

However, if the question is to outline the key pieces of evidence for abiogenesis, when none exist ... and it is directly contrary to the student's faith that God is Maker of all things visible and invisible -then this is asking the student to disavow the Creed of their Faith.
Its like asking an Atheist to outline key pieces of evidence for Creation - which would negate his/her faith in Atheism, if they did so.

J C · 17-03-2013 03:55PM

koth wrote: »

I'm not aware of any such atheists posting here. Generally they have explained their acceptance of evolution as being based on the scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence based on the suppostion that God doesn't exist ... which is an exclusively atheistic belief.
... and the evidence presented for 'life producing itself' is paltry to the point of non-existence.

koth wrote: »

Hopefully one day you might post examples of this evidence so posters can examine the merits of said evidence.

I'll do it when Theistic 'origins' hypotheses are welcomed ... and not before.
Conventionally qualified Creation Scientists and ID proponents will perform their own peer-reviewed science outside of the Godless version until their right to so within conventional science is restored.

koth wrote: »

I mean evolution. The one that makes no argument for or against God.

Evolution is accepted and heavily promoted by Atheists since the dawn of history.
Of course it is a direct insult to God (and in absolute contradiction of both Christian Creeds) to argue that He didn't Create Heaven and Earth and all things therein.

koth wrote: »

Science should be separate from theology, they're two very different things. You're attempting to inject theology into the science work. This isn't a laudable thing to attempt.

Science and Theology are separate already and should remain so.
The point I'm making is that Science should be separated from Atheism, on the 'origins' question ... and if it isn't, then it shouldn't be separated from Theism either ... and must be 'even-handed' in how it treats both Atheist and Theist Hypotheses on the 'origins' of life.

koth wrote: »

that's a purely phrased question. I had to read it a couple of times to try and understand it. I don't know is the answer. So far science has managed to explain a lot of things about life on Earth without appealing to the supernatural. I don't see any need to add an untestable entity to the equation for no reason other than satisfying some religious folk.

... and I don't see any reason to remove testable hypotheses that an Intelligence is the Creator of life, just to satisfy some irreligious folk.

koth wrote: »

I believe that current understandings based on scientific evidence should be taught in the science class.

... and the current understandings of eminent Conventional Scientists who are Theists, is that a Being or Beings of God-like powers did it through a process of Intelligent Design.

koth wrote: »

Happy to do some searches. Could you tell me what experiments I should be looking for? I currently have no idea what experiments would be attempted to prove "God did it". If you would be so good as to let me know what I should google for, I can begin the search.

Please don't bother ... there are none ... because they aren't allowed.

koth wrote: »

No it's not. I'm not aware of any schools in the US that are allowed, because it violates the constitution, to teach "there is no God."

This hasn't stopped them teaching that life created itself by Abiogenesis ... which is in direct contravention of the Christian Creeds - and is effectively a statement that 'there is no God'.

koth wrote: »

Then don't bring criminalisation into the discussion;)[

It was you who brought criminalisation into it.

Originally Posted by koth

IHEU highlights the criminalisation of atheism in many parts of the world.

J C · 17-03-2013 04:13PM

koth wrote: »

Irreligion is the absense of religion, how exactly do you remove the absense of religion from the classroom? Separation of church and state requires the absense of religion from state institutions.

Like I have said, if religion is going to be removed from the classroom ... then irreligion must also be removed.
This can easily be achieved, by removing any reference that denies God from the classroom.

koth wrote: »

To "remove" irreligion would be to put religion into the classrooms, which is contrary to the separation of church and state.

That's an interesting admission that removing irreligion i.e. Atheism from schools is contrary to the principle of the separation of church and state.

... so you are admitting that the 'separation of church and state' is just the copperfastening of Atheism within schools by kicking Churches out of schools.

I see, the clue is in the word church ... it means only church ... glad we have cleared that up.

ManMade · 17-03-2013 04:15PM

J C wrote: »

... its a quarter of doublethink.

Whatever differences may exist between them, they both seem to be working to the same Godless agenda.

'Evolution' is something that is all things to all men ... I even believe in evolution (within Kinds and using pre-existing genetic diversity or damaging mutagenesis).
The question I asked was about Abiogenesis ... the belief that life created itself ... a belief that is totally at odds with the Creeds of all middle-of-the-road Christians and the Churches they belong to. A Christian can't say in conscience, that Abiogenesis is true and yet Doctoremma has confirmed that they must do so to get any marks for a question on Abiogenesis.

The vaidity of Abiogenesis is denied by the Christian Creed - and you are saying that evidence for it (even though none exists IMO) must be submitted by Christians or they will lose marks. So Christians will be penalised for being Christians and all in the name of 'tolerance' and 'diversity'.

The parallel to what you describe would be to ask a student to 'outline the Secular reasons for proposing Abiogenesis' ... and no Christian would have any reason for objecting to answering such a question - and getting full marks in it.

However, if the question is to outline the key pieces of evidence for abiogenesis, when none exist ... and it is directly contrary to the student's faith that God is Maker of all things visible and invisible -then this is asking the student to disavow the Creed of their Faith.
Its like asking an Atheist to outline key pieces of evidence for Creation - which would negate his/her faith in Atheism, if they did so.

You have no idea what doublethink is.
Evolution is religion neutral. That doesn't make it part atheist "faith". To be fair the whole "because goddunnit" answer would make biology exams so much simplier.
God shouldn't be taught in schools and atheism shouldn't be taught in school, religion has no place in schools or science exams. It should be up to each individual to decide what they believe in, it's not the job of the state to push religion in anyway.(Evolution should be taught)

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments