Creation

[maple_leafs182]

I got a question. What is the main reason why people hate the idea of religion. Is it because it leads to a lot of wars and violence?

[betsy]

Science is noone's God, and noone is cliaming it is. As for science turning on atheists... To believe that, one would have to believe that science and faith are opposite to each other... Interstingly enough, a misconception you share with at least a few atheists.

First of all, let me clearly state that I do not think science and faith oppose one another, after all science is knowledge. It is how this knowledge is being used and handled by men that at times, it seems to "oppose" faith.

The lists pf prominent atheists in various field of science in the topic "REJOICE...," some of whom had deliberately set out to do their investigative works in order to disprove The Resurrection, or Jesus, not only discovered some truths that even made them convert. I ask, why would a prominent atheist scientist not just abandon his work and move on to something else? Why did he have to convert? He didn't have to shed his atheistic belief. He could just say there's a possibility and be an agnostic. But why convert? We're talking about prominent people of science here, with careers and egos....opting to not only to admit they're stumped with their findings....but swallow their words and losing face before all, by outright conversion to the very thing they set out to bust.

I can only conclude their findings were so compelling, beyond any doubt.

Then of course there are those scientists who did not convert, but changed their position. Those who became deist and agnostics.

Then there are those who refuses to call it God....and prefer instead to give it a fancier name like Intelligent Design or Prime Mover.

It must be tough for Dawkins. In a way I feel for him. In one interview somewhere which I posted (ATHEIST FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER?), he somehow grudgingly seemed to have agreed to the possibility of God in an interview, if I'm not mistaken. With his popularity, his stature among atheists, with his genius, not to mention the $$$ from books and $$$ from speaking engagements and those debates with religious people....pride must've set in real hard. He said so much, and had taken himself to a point where he couldn't back down....not even to tone down.

You said in one of your post here that no one is saying science is their god. Of course they wouldn't admit to it....probably don't even realize it themselves. I don't mean all atheists. But the way they treat science. It's the attitude. The reaction. The avidness and fanaticism. I'm talking about atheists who pant for the discovery that will prove that there is indeed no God. It is like waiting for their "redemption" which will come from their "messiah" (scientist). In my view, there are those who have their own inner conflict that they try to push down. Thus they wait with bated breaths....hungry for anything that could brings them closer to that "redemption."

The discovery is their "redemption" from that conflict deep inside.

Edited February 1, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

How do I know what you support?

Because I said it. But let me rephrase it. My faith is what tells me God exist. And science is not what proves the existence of God or His non-existence. Knowing that makes me closer to the truth that you will ever be.

[betsy]

Because I said it. But let me rephrase it. My faith is what tells me God exist. And science is not what proves the existence of God or His non-existence. Knowing that makes me closer to the truth that you will ever be.

Canadien, I have to go. Will try to reply later. But need to ask you to clarify about metaphor Genesis.

[Michael Hardner]

First of all, let me clearly state that I do not think science and faith oppose one another, after all science is knowledge.

But faith and knowledge are different things. Your faith is tested when there is NO proof, when there is NO way of knowing, and when science tells us that what we believe is impossible. You rely on your faith to guide you, however you also acknowledge that the knowledge (the science) is correct.

What I don't understand about fundamentalists, is that they want to (basically) eliminate the faith and only base their beliefs on knowledge by attempting to change and debate what the science says. If the science proves that you're right, then it's easy to believe in God isn't it ?

[CANADIEN]

Wow. This statement is not only incorrect, it's bizarre and downright crazy!!

better let the Popes (the current and the last one) know that evolution has been proven wrong. Both (the last one in particular) said there was nothing incompatible between faith and the theory of evolution.

[CANADIEN]

Canadien, I have to go. Will try to reply later. But need to ask you to clarify about metaphor Genesis.

Actually (kicking myself for not remembering my litterary genres right), a better term would be an allegory - a way to describe a reality known through faith, namely, that the Universe is from God, in terms that were understandable. Science will never prove or disprove the existence of God, but it has proven that things did not occur the way described in Genesis.

Edited February 1, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Michael Hardner]

Science will never prove or disprove the existence of God, but it has proven that things did not occur the way described in Genesis.

Pieces of the old testament can be seen in ancient Sumerian legends anyway, which proves that these are just old stories.

[CANADIEN]

First of all, let me clearly state that I do not think science and faith oppose one another, after all science is knowledge. It is how this knowledge is being used and handled by men that at times, it seems to "oppose" faith.

You do not think science and faith and opposite, yous simply reject science that does not conform to your interpretation of things. I stand corrected.

The lists pf prominent atheists in various field of science in the topic "REJOICE...," some of whom had deliberately set out to do their investigative works in order to disprove The Resurrection, or Jesus, not only discovered some truths that even made them convert. I ask, why would a prominent atheist scientist not just abandon his work and move on to something else? Why did he have to convert?

Because, unlike what you are doing with evolution, they do not choose to discard inconvenient truths.

Does not change the fact that they arrive to truth by taking - and I choose the word on purpose - a leap of FAITH. Feel free to show to scientific formula or theory that proves God.

[CANADIEN]

50 years ago scientists were saying that the universe had always been there. And Christians were saying no, it had a beginning.

The two situations (Galileo and what I said) are not comparable at all. It's not a parallel to what I said. Scientists are rejecting evolution. Evolution is a theory that's had its day....it's time it be replaced with something credible. If you don't like God, if you don't like Creatonism, fine....find something that's acceptable to atheists, but it should be credible and logical. Even Darwin had his doubts, and that was 150 years ago and it was HIS theory.

Actually come to think of it, the inquisitors against Galileo are the equivalent of the atheist scientists who won't let evolution go despite the fact that it's been proven wrong.

Evolution has been proven wrong.

Discoveries in recent decades has shed light on aspects of the history of life that would have escaped Darwin, and have even contradicted some of the conclusions Darwin came at as to how evolution works. But this is clearly not the same as proving the theory of evolution is wrong. To prove it wrong, one should come with a SCIENTIFIC theory that totally contradict it. Those two pseudo-sciences called creationism and intelligent design don't even come close to doing that.

Edited February 1, 2011 by CANADIEN

[pinko]

First of all, let me clearly state that I do not think science and faith oppose one another, after all science is knowledge. It is how this knowledge is being used and handled by men that at times, it seems to "oppose" faith.

The lists pf prominent atheists in various field of science in the topic "REJOICE...," some of whom had deliberately set out to do their investigative works in order to disprove The Resurrection, or Jesus, not only discovered some truths that even made them convert. I ask, why would a prominent atheist scientist not just abandon his work and move on to something else? Why did he have to convert? He didn't have to shed his atheistic belief. He could just say there's a possibility and be an agnostic. But why convert? We're talking about prominent people of science here, with careers and egos....opting to not only to admit they're stumped with their findings....but swallow their words and losing face before all, by outright conversion to the very thing they set out to bust.

I can only conclude their findings were so compelling, beyond any doubt.

Then of course there are those scientists who did not convert, but changed their position. Those who became deist and agnostics.

Then there are those who refuses to call it God....and prefer instead to give it a fancier name like Intelligent Design or Prime Mover.

It must be tough for Dawkins. In a way I feel for him. In one interview somewhere which I posted (ATHEIST FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER?), he somehow grudgingly seemed to have agreed to the possibility of God in an interview, if I'm not mistaken. With his popularity, his stature among atheists, with his genius, not to mention the $$$ from books and $$$ from speaking engagements and those debates with religious people....pride must've set in real hard. He said so much, and had taken himself to a point where he couldn't back down....not even to tone down.

You said in one of your post here that no one is saying science is their god. Of course they wouldn't admit to it....probably don't even realize it themselves. I don't mean all atheists. But the way they treat science. It's the attitude. The reaction. The avidness and fanaticism. I'm talking about atheists who pant for the discovery that will prove that there is indeed no God. It is like waiting for their "redemption" which will come from their "messiah" (scientist). In my view, there are those who have their own inner conflict that they try to push down. Thus they wait with bated breaths....hungry for anything that could brings them closer to that "redemption."

The discovery is their "redemption" from that conflict deep inside.

Betsy:

I have been following the discussion here and I am wondering if you will inform me whether you believe in the scientific method. Secondly may I please be advised when it is you believe the earth first originated. Do you believe in the virgin birth?

As you are aware from the posts here there is some scepticism from those with a functioning brain that the belief system you embrace is a rational one.

For the record I am an atheist.

Edited February 1, 2011 by pinko

[dre]

50 years ago scientists were saying that the universe had always been there. And Christians were saying no, it had a beginning.

The two situations (Galileo and what I said) are not comparable at all. It's not a parallel to what I said. Scientists are rejecting evolution. Evolution is a theory that's had its day....it's time it be replaced with something credible. If you don't like God, if you don't like Creatonism, fine....find something that's acceptable to atheists, but it should be credible and logical. Even Darwin had his doubts, and that was 150 years ago and it was HIS theory.

It IS a parallel just a more modern version. If the church in the last hundred years had as much power as it did three hundred years ago, evolutionists would have been persecuted just like Galileo was. In both cases this knowledge is opposed not because of any honest assessment of the theories themselves but simply because they conflict with chuch doctrine, and as such are deemed a threat.

Scientists are rejecting evolution.

No theres no such conflict among biologists. Theres a small numbers of holdouts like there is for any theory and some that say it needs more work, but its relatively uncontraversial. Scientists are NOT rejecting it in any significant numbers, but more and more religious people ARE accepting it. In the US for example 85% of people claim to be christian, but more than 1/2 the population accepts evolution. That means tens of millions of christians believe in evolution and the number is growing fast. Theyre looking through that telescope Betsy! Theyve found a way to reconcile this new information with their doctrines. Many Christians now reject young earth creationism, and the rigid traditional interpretation of what the bible says on creation, and believe instead that god was more of a "shift manager" that watched over the process.

it's time it be replaced with something credible

New theories dont emerge because anybody thinks its "time" for one. They emerge only after lots of hard work. And thats why Im throwing my bet down on the scientists instead of the doctrinists. Doctrinists are lazy fuckers that dont do any work!

if you don't like Creatonism, fine....find something that's acceptable to atheists, but it should be credible and logical

Im not a biologist. Whats "logical" is for me to allow people in this field to do their work and to keep refining their understand of this subject, and see what they find out. This method, while not without its problems is BY FAR the best way we have to increase our understanding of the world around us. Like I said... Im throwing in with these guys because theyve answered literally thousands of other questions to my satisfaction.

And im not in a hurry! Im too busy existing to really care much WHY I exist. They can take all the time they need

Edited February 1, 2011 by dre

[betsy]

But faith and knowledge are different things. Your faith is tested when there is NO proof, when there is NO way of knowing, and when science tells us that what we believe is impossible. You rely on your faith to guide you, however you also acknowledge that the knowledge (the science) is correct.

What I don't understand about fundamentalists, is that they want to (basically) eliminate the faith and only base their beliefs on knowledge by attempting to change and debate what the science says. If the science proves that you're right, then it's easy to believe in God isn't it ?

Science is knowledge. I say that in the context that in my belief knowledge comes from God. That is what I was saying with my statement.

A lot of good came from science, and a lot of evil came from it too....because of men who mis-used, mis-handled or exploited science.

As for the faith part in your statement, yes I agree that faith is tested when there is no proof. I have always maintained that in other topics in the past as well. I stated that I need no proof with my belief in God...and nothing has changed.

In older topics I somehow came across to others as someone who don't believe in science....or have this dis-respect for science in general (with some posters, in their defense of science stated the good that came from science)...because of my stance against evolution and my strong opinion on scientists like Dawkins who support it. I only took the opportunity to clearly state my position on science in my reply to Canadien.

Whereas some atheists who strongly holds on to science to prove them right.....how ironic that now evidently science is only proving them wrong.

When scientists are acknowledging that there was a Creator/Intelligent Design/Prime Mover, which means the possibility of God....that clearly blows away the belief of no-Creator and non-God.

That is why I say I have science to back me up.

Edited February 2, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Betsy:

I have been following the discussion here and I am wondering if you will inform me whether you believe in the scientific method. Secondly may I please be advised when it is you believe the earth first originated. Do you believe in the virgin birth?

As you are aware from the posts here there is some scepticism from those with a functioning brain that the belief system you embrace is a rational one.

For the record I am an atheist.

I'm not a new-earth believer. But I don't believe the geological evidence refutes the Biblical outline of history. That doesn't mean I look at it metaphorically or allegorically.

Yes I believe in the Virgin Birth, that goes without saying I am a Christian. Anyone professing to be a christian who don't believe in the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection is not a Christian.

Of course there's scepticism, otherwise no one will be an agnostic.

Edited February 2, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

betsy

The lists pf prominent atheists in various field of science in the topic "REJOICE...," some of whom had deliberately set out to do their investigative works in order to disprove The Resurrection, or Jesus, not only discovered some truths that even made them convert. I ask, why would a prominent atheist scientist not just abandon his work and move on to something else? Why did he have to convert?

Because, unlike what you are doing with evolution, they do not choose to discard inconvenient truths.

So you admit they converted to Christianity because of It's obvious truth! Thank you very much.

Does not change the fact that they arrive to truth by taking - and I choose the word on purpose - a leap of FAITH. Feel free to show to scientific formula or theory that proves God.

What "leap of faith" are you talking about????

These people were involved in disproving the existence of God....and they were doing their job as scientists and philosophers to do just that!

There were scientific investigations/analysis or whatever it is that scientists do...and obviously whatever or however they did their studies....the findings and conclusions they came to prompted them to the point of outright conversion to CHRISTIANITY!

Therefore I say again:

So you admit they converted to Christianity because of It's obvious truth! Thank you very much.

Edited February 2, 2011 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

They're very entertaining little comic books that are conveniently left lying around on buses and in restaurants or handed out by true-believers.

I used to collect them in my youth. My favourite was the Dungeons and Dragons one.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

There was a nice Muslim-conversion-to-Christ one; the Mohammedan was convinced by the Christian Protestant in about eight pages! By sheer logic, of course. Not bad.

And I saw one that showed exactly that fabled hypothesis: "Adam and Eve riding around on Dinosaurs."

Edited February 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

As for the evolutionary theories, they would've been dropped a hundred years ago had atheists not been so determined to avoid God. Just come up with a viable theory to explain how life began, never mind God. That's all that's required of atheists.

Are you serious?

Your objections to the notion of the Big Bang are one thing; this is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[Wild Bill]

There was a nice Muslim-conversion-to-Christ one; the Mohammedan was convinced by the Christian Protestant in about eight pages! By sheer logic, of course. Not bad.

And I saw one that showed exactly that fabled hypothesis: "Adam and Eve riding around on Dinosaurs."

I saw one years ago dealing with a student in a classroom who questioned his professor over evolution. What actually made me laugh out loud was how the professor was drawn as a screaming, spitting, over the top fanatic while the student was portrayed as a neat, well-dressed and soft-spoken young man, simply asking questions!

These tactics will be around forever however, because they WORK! There will always be people ignorant, or unintelligent, or just mentally stubborn. They are prime targets for these tactics.

[Michael Hardner]

Anyone professing to be a christian who don't believe in the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection is not a Christian.

You can be a Christian and not even believe Christ was God.

[pinko]

I'm not a new-earth believer. But I don't believe the geological evidence refutes the Biblical outline of history. That doesn't mean I look at it metaphorically or allegorically.

Yes I believe in the Virgin Birth, that goes without saying I am a Christian. Anyone professing to be a christian who don't believe in the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection is not a Christian.

Of course there's scepticism, otherwise no one will be an agnostic.

Thanks for responding. Many of your kind suggest a 6000 year time frame for the earth and the intitiation of human life. Are you in this camp or do you accept, as fact, that the earth is billions of years in formation?

[betsy]

Thanks for responding. Many of your kind suggest a 6000 year time frame for the earth and the intitiation of human life. Are you in this camp or do you accept, as fact, that the earth is billions of years in formation?

As I said above, I'm not a new-earth believer. I believe that Genesis is expressing geological time. That time and space were created as part of the universe. Time and space are controlled by God.

[dre]

As I said above, I'm not a new-earth believer. I believe that Genesis is expressing geological time. That time and space were created as part of the universe. Time and space are controlled by God.

What about the talking snake part?

[Smallc]

What about the talking snake part?

Also controlled by God....

[dre]

Also controlled by God....

Life would probably be pretty good if that woman made of man-ribs didnt get conned into eating forbidden fruit by that stinkin' piece of crap talking snake...

But yeah! Those atheists had better come up with some reasonable theories!

[Smallc]

But yeah! Those atheists had better come up with some reasonable theories!

And they'd better have proof too.