Research on Belief in God

[hrotha]

More sophisticated creationists at least have the sense to claim the universe was created in an aged state.

 

[MarkvW]

You do not know that the world is 6.5 billion years old, you are assuming that. It's funny you talk about these different things that you know, but you can't bring evidence. You mentioned various studies and charts of anthropological remains. Please point me to a link, because I have seen and read some, but it was all pure speculation....none of it was sound science. Could you send give me a link? More could be said.... gotta go for now.

What about genetics? DNA? Mutation? Don't they tend to support the evolutionary idea?

 

[rhubroma]

You do not know that the world is 6.5 billion years old, you are assuming that. It's funny you talk about these different things that you know, but you can't bring evidence. You mentioned various studies and charts of anthropological remains. Please point me to a link, because I have seen and read some, but it was all pure speculation....none of it was sound science. Could you send give me a link? More could be said.... gotta go for now.

Since you have already said that the science was irrevocably flawed as to be invalid, nothing I could provide you with would alter that. Nor will I even waste myself trying, because I could not care less to persuade you of anything. My rebuttals were purely in defense of reason.

For this reason, however, I am forced to evidence the paradoxical motivation behind your conclusions, since you have derided the scientific ones. They are based on the Bible, a collection of only moderately honorable, but still primitive, legends, which are nevertheless pretty childish. If you intellectually, today, find that to be a more valid source of knowledge then those "wild speculations" of science you mention, then that's only your regretable loss and certainly not mine, least of all the truth's.

 

[hrotha]

As someone who rather enjoys mythology in all its flavours, I can't forgive you for calling the Biblical myths "childish".

 

[rhubroma]

As someone who rather enjoys mythology in all its flavours, I can't forgive you for calling the Biblical myths "childish".

You'll also then have to not forgive Einstein, who I was paraphrasing. Since he was brought in as a disclaimer.

 

[King Boonen]

I'm wondering why this blatant trolling is allowed?

 

[Christian]

Evolution in a nutshell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LzSX37C5J4

 

[rhubroma]

Evolution in a nutshell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LzSX37C5J4

I don't know, but this seems more apropos to me in light of the current debate. Apart from the framing, which I always find tedious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLeztJkhi4U

 

[Jspear]

More sophisticated creationists at least have the sense to claim the universe was created in an aged state.

I would agree with that.

 

[Jspear]

Please understand that there are plenty of aspects in science where secularist and Christians would agree. Here is a basic definition of science: "Study of the physical and natural*world using theoretical models and data from experiments or observation." What we are really disagreeing on is not observational science - things that can be examined and looked at in the present. We are disagreeing on things in the past....things that science cannot fully explain....things that happened at a time when you and I were not there. You guys seemed shocked that I would think and believe what I believe. But understand the methods and mechanisms that you use to come to the conclusions you do about the age of the world are not observational science. They are not 100% sure fire methods. So, there is nothing absurd with me coming along and representing "Christianity." I know you all think I'm kook's. That's okay....you're all pretty strange as well.

 

[Echoes]

And where do we place the masonic plunderbund of homme d'affairs that is Opus Dei?

Checkmate ! They are masons, you said it yourself and I didn't even know. That means they are atheist !

The truth is that it has been the great monotheistic cults themselves, which having desacralized nature from the Ancient Greeks, have thus placed man above it, making it merely instrumental for his use and abuse. The incipient praxis of our famous Free Market system has its psycho-emotive basis ultimately there.

This is of course untruth. Man is not above anything, Man is humble before God. Christians don't believe in Man, who are weak creatures. Making nature instrumental for Man's abuse ?? This is really the most defamatory comment I've ever read. You probably cannot read one sentence of Fustel's "The Ancient City". Sacrifices and offerings stopped with Christianism. Christianism drew man closer to nature and that is why it has persisted through centuries.

The cult of Man and individualism came with the Renaissance and the revival of some old Pagan ****. That is even the time when the Pagans were sure the sun revolved around the earth while the Christians had no problems with the opposite model !

Oh, Muslims are upright now: your standards slide around more quickly than the most facile postmodernists'. Yours is a cliche with some element of truth to it, however, I'm guessing you haven't been to a mall in the Gulf States lately--or checked in with their rulers. Try a little harder please.

Muslims are not upright ????

I guess you should try a little harder because it's very easy for me to prove that Gulf monarchs are not Muslims. You only need to look at the chronology. The Saud's are Wahhabits. That means they are heretics and want to interpret the Koran their own way. They reject dogmas. Wahhabism has been rejected as heresy several times and probably would have disappeared if it wasn't for the Brits who put them in power after WWI when they destroyed the Ottoman Empire. The Saud went on to destroy the Holy lands and overthrow the Sharif of Mecca in 1925 after a heavy bloodshed. So those you call Muslims are those who overthrew the legitimate representative of Islam and overran Hedjaz. I guess there have been better Muslims in history ! Besides the way they are running the Holy land seems satanical in many aspects ...

 

[rhubroma]

Checkmate ! They are masons, you said it yourself and I didn't even know. That means they are atheist !



This is of course untruth. Man is not above anything, Man is humble before God. Christians don't believe in Man, who are weak creatures. Making nature instrumental for Man's abuse ?? This is really the most defamatory comment I've ever read. You probably cannot read one sentence of Fustel's "The Ancient City". Sacrifices and offerings stopped with Christianism. Christianism drew man closer to nature and that is why it has persisted through centuries.

The cult of Man and individualism came with the Renaissance and the revival of some old Pagan ****. That is even the time when the Pagans were sure the sun revolved around the earth while the Christians had no problems with the opposite model !



Muslims are not upright ????

I guess you should try a little harder because it's very easy for me to prove that Gulf monarchs are not Muslims. You only need to look at the chronology. The Saud's are Wahhabits. That means they are heretics and want to interpret the Koran their own way. They reject dogmas. Wahhabism has been rejected as heresy several times and probably would have disappeared if it wasn't for the Brits who put them in power after WWI when they destroyed the Ottoman Empire. The Saud went on to destroy the Holy lands and overthrow the Sharif of Mecca in 1925 after a heavy bloodshed. So those you call Muslims are those who overthrew the legitimate representative of Islam and overran Hedjaz. I guess there have been better Muslims in history ! Besides the way they are running the Holy land seems satanical in many aspects ...

Gulf monarchs practice the Islamic faith, hence they are Muslims. It doesn't matter if you consider them legitimate or not.

I should not even be responding to one how claims that those among Opus Dei are atheists, but this has become par for the course.

Christians had since the beginning seen the great history of their faith as going back to Genesis iteself (I could cite numerous orthodox imagery that demonstrates that between the 2nd and 5th centuries), in which it is written that man was created in the likeness of God and holds sovereignty over all other species. This is not something which the ancient Greeks contemplated, nor afforded humanity.

Which you call the "cult of Man" in the Renaissance was actually borne out of the late antique Christian syncretic authors such as Fulgentius, which much later became the basis for the humanistic enterprizes of Boccaccio and Petrarch.

 

[Echoes]

Gulf monarchs practice the Islamic faith, hence they are Muslims. It doesn't matter if you consider them legitimate or not.

Debate stopper! I've given FACTS to prove that they do NOT practice it ... Put up or shut up.

I should not even be responding to one how claims that those among Opus Dei are atheists, but this has become par for the course.

It's not my fault if you are saying they are Freemasons ...

Christians had since the beginning seen the great history of their faith as going back to Genesis iteself (I could cite numerous orthodox imagery that demonstrates that between the 2nd and 5th centuries),

It's amazing that we constantly need to repeat ourselves ... The Genesis is Jewish and the Gospel is Christian. Christians don't believe in the Genesis. Jews do. As a matter of fact Jews are also atheist (in their majority), so the Genesis is atheistic. There's no wish to global dominance in the Gospel, Jesus came to denounce that!

Which you call the "cult of Man" in the Renaissance was actually borne out of the late antique Christian syncretic authors such as Fulgentius, which much later became the basis for the humanistic enterprizes of Boccaccio and Petrarch.

Oxymoron.

 

[Tank Engine]

More sophisticated creationists at least have the sense to claim the universe was created in an aged state.

I would agree with that.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. You first ask people for evidence that the earth is older than several thousand years old. If we argue that we can see light from galaxies that are x hundred thousand light years away (at least when they emitted the light), thus the universe is old, that there are fossil remains of creatures that existed before us, then the answer is that god created the universe in an aged state.

You could argue that god can do what he wants and his ways are higher than us. But for me, such an argument contradicts one of the Judeo-Christian characterisations of god, i.e. god is truth. Creating a fictitious pre-history goes beyond not wanting to prove your own existence.

 

[rhubroma]

Debate stopper! I've given FACTS to prove that they do NOT practice it ... Put up or shut up.


It's not my fault if you are saying they are Freemasons ...


It's amazing that we constantly need to repeat ourselves ... The Genesis is Jewish and the Gospel is Christian. Christians don't believe in the Genesis. Jews do. As a matter of fact Jews are also atheist (in their majority), so the Genesis is atheistic. There's no wish to global dominance in the Gospel, Jesus came to denounce that!


Oxymoron.

Look at your paleochristian basilicas of the 4th and 5th centuries' mosaics, or the oriental sarchaphogi of the same period, or the catacomb imagery of the 2nd-5th centuries and you will see scenes from Genesis, the Exodus, the books of Daniel, Numbers, etc.

You don't know what you are talking about. Troll.

 

[hiero2]

Checkmate ! They are masons, you said it yourself and I didn't even know. That means they are atheist !



This is of course untruth. Man is not above anything, Man is humble before God. Christians don't believe in Man, who are weak creatures. Making nature instrumental for Man's abuse ?? This is really the most defamatory comment I've ever read. You probably cannot read one sentence of Fustel's "The Ancient City". Sacrifices and offerings stopped with Christianism. Christianism drew man closer to nature and that is why it has persisted through centuries.

The cult of Man and individualism came with the Renaissance and the revival of some old Pagan ****. That is even the time when the Pagans were sure the sun revolved around the earth while the Christians had no problems with the opposite model !



Muslims are not upright ????

I guess you should try a little harder because it's very easy for me to prove that Gulf monarchs are not Muslims. You only need to look at the chronology. The Saud's are Wahhabits. That means they are heretics and want to interpret the Koran their own way. They reject dogmas. Wahhabism has been rejected as heresy several times and probably would have disappeared if it wasn't for the Brits who put them in power after WWI when they destroyed the Ottoman Empire. The Saud went on to destroy the Holy lands and overthrow the Sharif of Mecca in 1925 after a heavy bloodshed. So those you call Muslims are those who overthrew the legitimate representative of Islam and overran Hedjaz. I guess there have been better Muslims in history ! Besides the way they are running the Holy land seems satanical in many aspects ...

Debate stopper! I've given FACTS to prove that they do NOT practice it ... Put up or shut up.


It's not my fault if you are saying they are Freemasons ...


It's amazing that we constantly need to repeat ourselves ... The Genesis is Jewish and the Gospel is Christian. Christians don't believe in the Genesis. Jews do. As a matter of fact Jews are also atheist (in their majority), so the Genesis is atheistic. There's no wish to global dominance in the Gospel, Jesus came to denounce that!


Oxymoron.

Wow. With this level of blinding brilliance and intelligent discussion, not to mention reasoning and logic, I've almost forgotten why I don't normally partake in these discussions.

'Scuse me, I gotta go find something to read that is a little less like something from Ren and Stimpy.

 

[Echoes]

I haven't insulted anybody on this forum ...

 

[frenchfry]

I haven't insulted anybody on this forum ...

I think your signature should be "holier than thou" (excessively or hypocritically pious).

 

[xanadu]

Strange that, i was just thinking about Johnny Hoogerland or as we call him inj our house 'barbed wire Johnny'

sad to say i am a 90% atheist, just cant bring myself to believe that creation stuff.

From the beginning of time man has contemplated the universe and all it wonders and asked who made all this stuff. And each and every society invented God and i do mean invented. Any one for Zeus, Jupiter, osiris or how about thor. All made up.

But as luck would have it theres this tribe at the eastern end of the med and their God is real... sorry but i aint buying it.

 

[BigMac]

Recently came across this interesting opinion article by Dinesh d'Sousa, mainly about Peter Singer, writen just after the two had debated eachother in Australia. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0132.htm

To understand Singer, it's helpful to contrast him with "New Atheists" like Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins. The New Atheists say we can get rid of God but preserve morality. They insist that no one needs God in order to be good; atheists can act no less virtuously than Christians. (And indeed, some atheists do put Christians to shame.) Even while repudiating the Christian God, Dawkins has publicly called himself a "cultural Christian."

But this position creates a problem outlined more than a century ago by the atheist philosopher Nietzsche. The death of God, Nietzsche argued, means that all the Christian values that have shaped the West rest on a mythical foundation. One may, out of habit, continue to live according to these values for a while. Over time, however, the values will decay, and if they are not replaced by new values, man will truly have to face the prospect of nihilism, what Nietzsche termed "the abyss."

Nietzsche's argument is illustrated in considering two of the central principles of Western civilization: "All men are created equal" and "Human life is precious." Nietzsche attributes both ideas to Christianity.

Deviating from the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins, Singer takes on Nietzsche's position and acknowledges that there is a danger in living in a total atheistic society, that Christian values are part of the West and that atheism, unless there is a 'transvaluation of values', will indeed lead to nihilism. In his mind, Christian values represent the core of Western morality, though he thinks that the notion of anthropocentrism must be dropped and replaced with that of a natural darwinian order, which is animal life on par with human.

Singer resolutely takes up a Nietzschean call for a "transvaluation of values," with a full awareness of the radical implications. He argues that we are not creations of God but rather mere Darwinian primates. We exist on an unbroken continuum with animals. Christianity, he says, arbitrarily separated man and animal, placing human life on a pedestal and consigning the animals to the status of tools for human well-being. Now, Singer says, we must remove Homo sapiens from this privileged position and restore the natural order. This translates into more rights for animals and less special treatment for human beings. There is a grim consistency in Singer's call to extend rights to the apes while removing traditional protections for unwanted children, people with mental disabilities, and the noncontributing elderly.

I think he comes as a Christian atheist. To that he adds his philosophy off animal rights and constructs his moral code. Point: He's an atheist, though understands the importance of Christianity in our society. Question: can we live morally on a fully secular world? Individually, yes. As a community, I'm not that sure. At least for now, I think we're not ready.

Back to Nietzsche. You as atheists, I taking a similar approach, we may not fall in the abyss. But I think we can acknowledge that nihilism is inherent to atheism, i'ts then up to each person to avoid it. Dangerous nevertheless as it is not controlable. Mainly to the individual i'd say. I think that once you consciously reach the state of existencial nihilism, the only line separating you from suicide is the fear of death, and, quite ironically, nihilism itself. So again, I'm not sure we're ready for atheism. I'm certain of one thing, though. If we are, in the future, to live in a full atheistic society, it must be society to meet atheism, not the other way round. So while I think that religion is not harmful to the individual, I say atheism is dangerous. This should not be the base from one's judgement, mainly because not always the truth is good nor what's right is pleasent, and for some it would be pure intellectual dishonesty to act according to this. The point is, to me, that anti-theism is wrong. Atheism is good, for now. But I fear that future generations, if brought up in such environment, won't take long to find some disconnection between being an atheist and adhering to certain values, and eventually fall in the nothing. Is it bad? I'd say yes. But perhaps it's the inevitable future that awaits us. Either way, it seems certain. It looks contraditory as I deny the existence of God myself, but certainly won't campaign against religion. At least not argue that it is harmful. Not anymore.

It's a though position this. Would like to know what's it that other atheists think.

 

[Echoes]

So that's the new way you'd contribute to the tread, as you told me?

Many disagreements but we agree on so many essential things in politics and all that I don't feel like contradicting you, BigMac. You aren't an enemy. I'd rather focus on what we have in common.

 

[BigMac]

So that's the new way you'd contribute to the tread, as you told me?

Many disagreements but we agree on so many essential things in politics and all that I don't feel like contradicting you, BigMac. You aren't an enemy. I'd rather focus on what we have in common.

Admiting the wrongs, yes. I'm sorry if it didn't come out like that, It wasn't supposed to look as if I'm on the offencive, as I'm not. I agree with your second paragraph, though would not mind being contradicted. Cheers.

 

[The Hitch]

I'd rather focus on what we have in common.

Big mac told me that he didn't really believe those things, was just experimenting with forum rules.

 

[BigMac]

Big mac told me that he didn't really believe those things, was just experimenting with forum rules.

Neither does Echoes. It's actually other things. (I know you meant it as a joke )

ps: to the rest of the forum, for the record, I wasn't experimenting with forum rules)

 

[Echoes]

Admiting the wrongs, yes. I'm sorry if it didn't come out like that, It wasn't supposed to look as if I'm on the offencive, as I'm not. I agree with your second paragraph, though would not mind being contradicted. Cheers.

Okay I'll contradict you, but knowing that after all it's minor details.

Anthropocentrism is absolutely un-Christian. The Church has combatted for centuries the freemasonic principle of 'Primacy of Man' because men are "weak".

But when I'm saying that on this thread, I'm called a "troll" (a few posts above).

I might expand though but I'm afraid if I do, I'll get reported again.

Also "all men are created equal" is not Christian and obviously goes against ... evidence. I mean I was not created with Cancellara's power and Sceptic was not created with your brains. I guess Singer referred to "equal rights", which might be correct.

(I know you meant it as a joke )

I think it was no joke. Some sort of a trap. He wants me out of here and forces me to make a misstep. He wants evidence that I am anti-Semitic. It's kinda pathetic, I must say.