Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTheism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5859606162 174>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 15:03
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

That is only illogical to you because you never believed that Genesis had any basis in reality in the first place (even if it is a perfectly logical sequence of events, all be it on an unbelievable timescale). I think Iván's perspective is perfectly reasonable since it leaves science alone to discover the actual mechanism that sparked the big-bang, unlike ID which is far from reasonable, logical, rational, etc. and would not only hamper further scientific discovery, it would prevent it.


Are you kidding? According to Genesis the earth was created before the stars - and the animals before the plants. Then, after the plants, humans are created after God's image, with no relation to the animals. The sequence of events is about as wrong as it could get IMO.

What I have a problem with is when Theists start making up excuses in order to keep their original holy book intact, when in fact it has been proven wrong on countless issues.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 15:05
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

 

Actually I'm quite confident that I made my bones when it comes to offending religious people.Wink

It's exactly because it's important that you're entitled to express an opinion that it should be acceptable to offend people for their religious beliefs. If I think that those beliefs are silly, I should not be forced to bite my lip and/or lie to these people just so they won't be offended. Grown up persons who happen to hold (IMO) silly beliefs should stand by these beliefs and, when confronted with an "attack" in the form of "I think your beliefs are quite silly!" IMO it would be a much more mature reaction to try to counter the argument than to simply play the hurt feelings card and claim that their beliefs should be off limits when it comes to criticism and public discussion. Also, keep in mind that this is a thread specifically about religious beliefs and the claim that they aren't reasonable. If this claim alone offends you, then please stay out of the discussion ... I promise that I won't "attack" your beliefs on "neutral ground".LOL
 
Mike, aren't you the one who's always banging on about free speech, or does that just apply to you? Wink
 
BTW, even if I thought you were a total bampot I wouldn't say so, out of politeness! LOL 
 


Whatever. This misunderstanding me wrong on purpose is getting boring though.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 15:11
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

That is only illogical to you because you never believed that Genesis had any basis in reality in the first place (even if it is a perfectly logical sequence of events, all be it on an unbelievable timescale). I think Iván's perspective is perfectly reasonable since it leaves science alone to discover the actual mechanism that sparked the big-bang, unlike ID which is far from reasonable, logical, rational, etc. and would not only hamper further scientific discovery, it would prevent it.


Are you kidding? According to Genesis the earth was created before the stars - and the animals before the plants. Then, after the plants, humans are created after God's image, with no relation to the animals. The sequence of events is about as wrong as it could get IMO.

What I have a problem with is when Theists start making up excuses in order to keep their original holy book intact, when in fact it has been proven wrong on countless issues.
LOL now who's being too literal (and wrong Tongue) Wink light, water, land, flora, fauna ... vegetation appeared on the third day  - birds and water creatures on the fifth and animals on the sixth, and finally man (also on the sixth) - as the pinnacle of evolution the higher intelligence beings evolved last in both systems. Also, as the view of the cosmos was earth-centric at that time it was logical to create the earth before the sun, moon and stars - inaccurate agreed, but from their perspective, not illogical or wrong.


Edited by Dean - July 28 2010 at 15:53
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 15:33
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

We Have Pathologically Sick People in Public Office: "Tennessee Lt. Gov: Religious Freedom May Not Count For Muslims (VIDEO)"
 
That guy is an idiot, he said Islam is a cult, when that by definition is absurd.
 
A Cult is defined: A new religious movement that has a limited number of followers and whose practices may or may not be mysterious and possible unsavory.
  1. Islam is not new, buy the contrary, is ancestral
  2. Islam has millions of followers in USA is the secong biggest religion
  3. Their practices are not mysterious, is an open religion.

Plus, the cult normally follows the persobnality of a charismatic leader who claims to be the reincarnation of a divinity and creates a community around him, normally when the cult leader dies, the cult also, unless he transmits his "powers" to a successor, what normally doesn't occur, because most cult leaders (I believe all) are egomaniacs.

So Islam is a religion with the same rights as any other religion, and whoever denies that is a bigot.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 15:43
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

We Have Pathologically Sick People in Public Office: "Tennessee Lt. Gov: Religious Freedom May Not Count For Muslims (VIDEO)"
 
because most cult leaders (I believe all) are egomaniacs.
 



Ahhh, OK if that's the main characteristic Richard Dawkins should start a cult. He certainly believes he's the second coming of something and he's already got at least one acolyte.  LOLLOLLOLLOL

Edited by Trademark - July 28 2010 at 15:45
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 15:48
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

We Have Pathologically Sick People in Public Office: "Tennessee Lt. Gov: Religious Freedom May Not Count For Muslims (VIDEO)"
 
because most cult leaders (I believe all) are egomaniacs.
 



Ahhh, OK if that's the main characteristic Richard Dawkins should start a cult.
LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL
 
LOL
 
I won't disagree with  this totally, but remember almost all  (if not all) the cult leaders are egomaniacs, not all the egomaniacs are cult leaders........Other famous egomaniacs  play keyboards in Prog bands. Wink
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 15:52
"I won't disagree with  this totally, but remember almost all  (if not all) the cult leaders are egomaniacs, not all the egomaniacs are cult leaders"

Ok, now i got it.  its always those fine points that trip me up.
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 16:34
I sometimes wish the Chinese were religious. Then people would be a lot more wary about their government's expansion.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 16:46
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

That is only illogical to you because you never believed that Genesis had any basis in reality in the first place (even if it is a perfectly logical sequence of events, all be it on an unbelievable timescale). I think Iván's perspective is perfectly reasonable since it leaves science alone to discover the actual mechanism that sparked the big-bang, unlike ID which is far from reasonable, logical, rational, etc. and would not only hamper further scientific discovery, it would prevent it.


Are you kidding? According to Genesis the earth was created before the stars - and the animals before the plants. Then, after the plants, humans are created after God's image, with no relation to the animals. The sequence of events is about as wrong as it could get IMO.

What I have a problem with is when Theists start making up excuses in order to keep their original holy book intact, when in fact it has been proven wrong on countless issues.
LOL now who's being too literal (and wrong Tongue) Wink light, water, land, flora, fauna ... vegetation appeared on the third day  - birds and water creatures on the fifth and animals on the sixth, and finally man (also on the sixth) - as the pinnacle of evolution the higher intelligence beings evolved last in both systems. Also, as the view of the cosmos was earth-centric at that time it was logical to create the earth before the sun, moon and stars - inaccurate agreed, but from their perspective, not illogical or wrong.


Of course you're right about the plants, and I once again skimmed Wikipedia incorrectly.Wink

Matters are complicated though by a second creation narrative ...
"Before any plant had appeared, before any rain had fallen, while a mist[31] watered the earth, Yahweh formed the man (Heb. ha-adam הָאָדָם) out of dust from the ground (Heb. ha-adamah הָאֲדָמָה), and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. And the man became a "living being" (Heb. nephesh)."
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 17:04
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

That is only illogical to you because you never believed that Genesis had any basis in reality in the first place (even if it is a perfectly logical sequence of events, all be it on an unbelievable timescale). I think Iván's perspective is perfectly reasonable since it leaves science alone to discover the actual mechanism that sparked the big-bang, unlike ID which is far from reasonable, logical, rational, etc. and would not only hamper further scientific discovery, it would prevent it.


Are you kidding? According to Genesis the earth was created before the stars - and the animals before the plants. Then, after the plants, humans are created after God's image, with no relation to the animals. The sequence of events is about as wrong as it could get IMO.

What I have a problem with is when Theists start making up excuses in order to keep their original holy book intact, when in fact it has been proven wrong on countless issues.
LOL now who's being too literal (and wrong Tongue) Wink light, water, land, flora, fauna ... vegetation appeared on the third day  - birds and water creatures on the fifth and animals on the sixth, and finally man (also on the sixth) - as the pinnacle of evolution the higher intelligence beings evolved last in both systems. Also, as the view of the cosmos was earth-centric at that time it was logical to create the earth before the sun, moon and stars - inaccurate agreed, but from their perspective, not illogical or wrong.


Of course you're right about the plants, and I once again skimmed Wikipedia incorrectly.Wink

Matters are complicated though by a second creation narrative ...
"Before any plant had appeared, before any rain had fallen, while a mist[31] watered the earth, Yahweh formed the man (Heb. ha-adam הָאָדָם) out of dust from the ground (Heb. ha-adamah הָאֲדָמָה), and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. And the man became a "living being" (Heb. nephesh)."


Well, that's confusing the Eden story with the Creation story, according to Jewish tradition there were 974 generations of man before god created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden - the book of Genesis condenses this into two chapters and no mention of Adam is made in Chapter 1 and the opening verse of Chapter 2 states: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created" before going into the Eden story.

 

Excuse me while I go a little self indulgent and have some amusment with this (ie feel free to skip the rest of this post while I play for a while Smile).
 
I'm not claiming that the bible authors had some mystical prescience or divine knowledge on the sequence of evolution, just that there is some circumstantial coincidence in the Genesis creation sequence with the evolutionary sequence that is simply based upon a degree of logic that implies that the authors had at least thought about it before putting scribe to parchment. To me it seems perfectly logical to create light, water and land before you start growing food in the form of plant life for animals that in turn will become food for animals higher up the food chain.
 
Drawing the parallels between creation and evolution even closer, immediately following the big-bang all there was were subatomic particles and electromagnetic radiation. Since light is narrow band of this radiation we can be generous and call all this radiation "light", which came into being before any of the elements. As the subatomic particles began to clump together elements were formed in the sequence of the periodic table: first hydrogen, then helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon, nitrogen and then oxygen, by this stage compounds could be formed, one of which was "water" and none of which were minerals, so water precedes "land".
 
We can assume that since we now know the solar system is heliocentric and Sol is one of a number of stars in an insignificant backwater of a minor galaxy we can forgive the small error in Genesis of the creation of the celestial bodies after the creation of "land" (ie the Earth) since based upon their observations the sun, moon and stars revolved around the Earth (and the planets had some eccentric wandering behaviour... "planet" is derived from the Greek for "wanderer") so it would appear logical for them to have them in that order.
 
The same is true of the creation of flora and fauna - they did not have access to the fossil data we have today so created a logical sequence that isn't that far adrift from the evolutionary sequence: plants did come before water creatures, which did come before land creatures. Birds (and reptiles) were an anomaly in Genesis but not an illogical one and one "error" evolutionists made themselves - for example it is only in recent times that we have accepted that dinosaurs were not reptiles but the warm-blooded ancestors of birds, which does place birds before (most) mammalian life on the evolution time-line.
 
Of course this is the point were I diverge from Genesis in that the creation of man in god's image is back to front - before the evolution of man there were no gods - gods were created in man's image(-ination).


Edited by Dean - July 28 2010 at 17:24
What?
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 18:05
Speaking of natural history, DINOSAURS.
 
Even if a theist explains the existence of dinosaurs in light of what is written in Genesis, there is still something absolutely baffling- WHY did god create the dinosaurs? What possible purpose did they serve in his plan for the spiritual enlightenment of human souls etc? I can't see a sensible answer to this question other than the "god works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 18:12
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Speaking of natural history, DINOSAURS.
 
Even if a theist explains the existence of dinosaurs in light of what is written in Genesis, there is still something absolutely baffling- WHY did god create the dinosaurs? What possible purpose did they serve in his plan for the spiritual enlightenment of human souls etc? I can't see a sensible answer to this question other than the "god works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
How else do you create birds from reptiles without an intermediate dinosaur stage? Damn, I meant evolve, not create. Wink
What?
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 18:20

Yes there is the old "god wants to disguise his presence so he's made it look like evolution is true so belief in him becomes a question of faith etc" argument but even some theists feel this is getting a bit tenuous/desperate, particularly when the same people keep pointing to various facts and circumstances in the world as evidence of his existence. This is why I think a theist should openly abandon logic and science and just say "I believe in god as an internal thing and no argument or evidence is required". This shuts me up. However, virtually all theists can not do this because it makes them uncomfortable- the integrity of their own personal values is more important to them than their faith.



Edited by Textbook - July 28 2010 at 18:25
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 18:20
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Speaking of natural history, DINOSAURS.
 
Even if a theist explains the existence of dinosaurs in light of what is written in Genesis, there is still something absolutely baffling- WHY did god create the dinosaurs? What possible purpose did they serve in his plan for the spiritual enlightenment of human souls etc? I can't see a sensible answer to this question other than the "god works in mysterious ways" cop-out.


Well, dinosaures are awesome. So, their existence not only enlightens our souls, but it also explode our souls with the awesomeness of DINO-FRIGGING-SAURS!
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 18:26
Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Speaking of natural history, DINOSAURS.
 
Even if a theist explains the existence of dinosaurs in light of what is written in Genesis, there is still something absolutely baffling- WHY did god create the dinosaurs? What possible purpose did they serve in his plan for the spiritual enlightenment of human souls etc? I can't see a sensible answer to this question other than the "god works in mysterious ways" cop-out.


Well, dinosaures are awesome. So, their existence not only enlightens our souls, but it also explode our souls with the awesomeness of DINO-FRIGGING-SAURS!

Here's an interesting explanation of dinosaurs from a church I used to follow.  The dinosaurs existed in a world before humans.  Life on Earth was wiped out in a battle between the Angels, God, and Lucifer.  The Angels that took the side of Lucifer, who has since been referred to as Satan, are Demons now.  Interesting, eh?


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 28 2010 at 18:27
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 18:28
Not really.
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 18:30
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Speaking of natural history, DINOSAURS.
 
Even if a theist explains the existence of dinosaurs in light of what is written in Genesis, there is still something absolutely baffling- WHY did god create the dinosaurs? What possible purpose did they serve in his plan for the spiritual enlightenment of human souls etc? I can't see a sensible answer to this question other than the "god works in mysterious ways" cop-out.


Well, dinosaures are awesome. So, their existence not only enlightens our souls, but it also explode our souls with the awesomeness of DINO-FRIGGING-SAURS!

Here's an interesting explanation of dinosaurs from a church I used to follow.  The dinosaurs existed in a world before humans.  Life on Earth was wiped out in a battle between the Angels, God, and Lucifer.  The Angels that took the side of Lucifer, who has since been referred to as Satan, are Demons now.  Interesting, eh?


It could make a funny webcomic.
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 18:33
This reminds me of the earth-god theory about how nature is an angel and humanity are demons. We ravage and wreck our eath mother etc but are capable of realising the selfishness and futility of it and going over to the side of the goodies by becoming greenies basically. In this religious concept, looking after the environment is good, damaging it is bad. The dinosaurs were the first wave of demons, a more primitive attempt at wrecking the earth by the forces of evil. Humanity is a more sophisticated attempt.
 
Hey don't look at me, I don't follow this.
Back to Top
UndercoverBoy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 5148 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2010 at 21:16
Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Speaking of natural history, DINOSAURS.
 
Even if a theist explains the existence of dinosaurs in light of what is written in Genesis, there is still something absolutely baffling- WHY did god create the dinosaurs? What possible purpose did they serve in his plan for the spiritual enlightenment of human souls etc? I can't see a sensible answer to this question other than the "god works in mysterious ways" cop-out.


Well, dinosaures are awesome. So, their existence not only enlightens our souls, but it also explode our souls with the awesomeness of DINO-FRIGGING-SAURS!
Tell me about it.  Not only were dinosaurs simply emanating with sheer epic win, but they were also quite the intellectuals



Edited by UndercoverBoy - July 29 2010 at 09:43
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2010 at 00:38
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Well, that's confusing the Eden story with the Creation story, according to Jewish tradition there were 974 generations of man before god created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden - the book of Genesis condenses this into two chapters and no mention of Adam is made in Chapter 1 and the opening verse of Chapter 2 states: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created" before going into the Eden story.

 

This is a very interesting issue that few non-Jewish know.

According to the Talmud (This are some quotes we found when studying Theology 102 in the University) there were 974 generations that existed and not existed, that lived in our world but in a different world.

Isn't this quite interesting?

Seems as some sort of evolution, imperfect (or partially undeveloped) human beings that existed before Adam (The first man created at the image of God)

This is clearly specified in the Catholic support for evolution...Lets see:

1.- The coexistence of BODY AND SOUL, is what makes man a being created at the image of God

Quote

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being, Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

So a terrestrial body without soul, is not the image of God.

2.- There can be 974 or more generations of men before Adam, but the point where man becomes the image of God, is when he receives the soul:

Quote Within the mystery of the risen Christ the full grandeur of this vocation is revealed to us. (Gaudium et Spes, 22) It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis)

John Paul II

3.- Even when the data of the Talmud is not exact, but Jewish and Catholics have a perfect coincidence that some species existed before the first man created at the image of God...In other words, the first man with soul.

So.......Not as contradictory with evolutionist as people may believe.

Iván
 
            
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5859606162 174>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.