Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Nor can we deny that there was a creator.

Yes we can. A "Creator" requires acceptance of an intentional action by an outside agent. One that can make something out of nothing.

There is a reality, so it must have been created.

Unsupportable assumption.

Defining whatever created the universe as "God" is valid.

Not etymologically nor epistemologically, nor for that matter literally.

 

Yes we can arbitrarily assign what ever symbolic representation we like to any letter or combinations of letters. But if we do not agree to use specific words in established symbolic representations, intellectual dialog is impossible. I could arbitrarily decide that "god" means the streak left on underwear if you do not wipe properly. Then yes he does exist, well sometimes! :-)

 

But unfortunately one of the results of trying to stretch the word "god" into any of the wide range of concepts it is sometimes used for, such as yours, is that the believers in formal religions such as Christianity, will then use this stretched "god" usage as claim to a greater level of acceptance than actually exists. Such as when Einstein said god did not shoot dice. We hear Fundies using that all the time to claim Einstien believed in THEIR god. It caused Albert a lot of complications and much effort to stop his words from being twisted.

 

US Founding Fathers like Jefferson used terms like "Providence". And even that is twisted by Fundies to claim belief in "god".

 

If we have any hope of intellectually honest discourse we need to choose words carefully. "God" has specific connotations dealing with intellegent intentional action and existence as an entity, typically with personal involvement.

 

Claiming the universe was "created" implies intentional action. None is either supportable nor valid. "God" implies a specific outside agent. We can choose to use these strings of letters in a mutually understood fashion, or decide to apply whatever arbitrary meanings we like. But only one way provides accurate transmission of intended information.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

I will not be so foolish (and nether should you) as to make any conclusions at all as to the Unknown. For all I, or you, know God may be there. Indeed God IS there. Ether he is real or he isn't. If he is real then he exists everywhere. If he doesn't then he exists in imagination and belief, and that is all that counts when dealing with the unknown.

 

Nor can we deny that there was a creator. There is a reality, so it must have been created. Whether the creation was the act of will or intelligence can be debated, but I would point out that it is human nature to personify natural forces. Defining whatever created the universe as "God" is valid.

Why must it have been created? If there was a creator, and you seem to believe so, then obviously it's not a god, since you're an atheist. Right?

 

As for me being an atheist it's the same reason, I suppose, why I also do not believe in telekinesis or unicorns.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Firmament is the English word chosen to represent the Hebrew word used which indicates something "beaten out" like a metal bowl. It's context is a metal bowl placed over the FLAT surface of water to divide the water into above and below it. It then had holes drilled into it for the stars!

But some creationists don't take everything literally. I mean, they do seem to accept that the earth is round and the heavens is not a metal bowl. For some reason they stick to the other stuff though.

 

Another way in which Genesis makes no sense is that Gen 1 and Gen 2 have conflicting orders of Creation.

 

Well along with claim that the Moon is a SOURCE of light.

 

Oh ya actually lots of things.... :-)

 

Yes, it's easy to see why some people would like the Genesis to be accepted as a science textbook :)

[BlameTheEx]

Tormod

__________________________________________________________________

I'd say that by using terms like "create" or "creation" a conscious act is implied

___________________________________________________________________

 

Maybe, but not by me. But honestly this is a ridiculous implication. how about:

 

"The landscape is created by the weather"

"The explosion created an awful mess"

 

Inanimate things CAN create.

 

I agree that a possibility does not create a certainty. However I was not arguing for the material existence of a God, but the existence of God, or Gods as a useful idea. It seams easier to me to say a thing is in the hands of the gods, than admit I have no control of the matter. More fun to shrug my shoulders and say "God knows" than admit that I don't.

 

Stargazer

_______________________________________________________________________

Why must it have been created? If there was a creator, and you seem to believe so, then obviously it's not a god, since you're an atheist. Right?

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Well, If you want to call a natural force a God I would have to say yes. However I do not believe that creation was the act of sentience.

 

There is good evidence that the universe assumed its present form oh, say about 14 billion years ago. It's a good bet that it was created then. Perhaps created by universes colliding together, or a primal atom exploding. So perhaps God was a pair of Universes debating right of way, or an exceedingly overweight atom with terminal indigestion.

[lindagarrette]

Real Christians cannot be "saved" if they reject Creationism. Unless the Adam and Eve story is true, there is no Jesus dying for our sins. That's why it's so difficult to argue evolution with them.

[BlameTheEx]

Linda

 

An interesting definition of "Real Christians".

 

Personally I would believe that a Real Christian would be a follower of Jesus Christ. To the best of my knowledge he didn't mention Adam and Eve, or Creation. Also he never encouraged his followers to read, or believe in the bible (Old Testament). As evidence, may I point out that he even rejected the 10 commandments, replacing them with 2. Further he replaced the Old Testament's "Eye for an eye" with "Turn the other cheek".

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Well, If you want to call a natural force a God I would have to say yes. However I do not believe that creation was the act of sentience.

 

There is good evidence that the universe assumed its present form oh, say about 14 billion years ago. It's a good bet that it was created then. Perhaps created by universes colliding together, or a primal atom exploding. So perhaps God was a pair of Universes debating right of way, or an exceedingly overweight atom with terminal indigestion.

 

Ah, ok. I thought that if something was created it was created by someone, as an intentional and conscious act.

[lindagarrette]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Linda

 

An interesting definition of "Real Christians".

 

Personally I would believe that a Real Christian would be a follower of Jesus Christ. To the best of my knowledge he didn't mention Adam and Eve, or Creation. Also he never encouraged his followers to read, or believe in the bible (Old Testament). As evidence, may I point out that he even rejected the 10 commandments, replacing them with 2. Further he replaced the Old Testament's "Eye for an eye" with "Turn the other cheek".

 

 

Jesus, if he existed, was supposedly a devout Jew and teacher of the Hebrew theology, which was itself a maze of contridictions. But he didn't originate Christianity, Paul did. Original sin was a necessary prequel. Most people I know who consider themselves real Christians follow the Pauline doctrine since they think being "saved" is the key to an afterlife.

[BlameTheEx]

Linda

 

I'm not sure what you mean by devout Jew. Jesus was a jew, and he was Devout, but does that make him a devout Jew? I think not. His version of religion was heresy to the Jews. They did not accept him then, and they do not accept him now.

 

Paul did a major part in defining the expression of Christianity, but there were followers of Christ in his lifetime, so it's pushing it to call Paul the originator. Paul just took over the movement Jesus started.

 

Regardless, did any of Paul's writings demand adherence to the Old Testament? I know of none.

[lindagarrette]

You are not addressing the topic at hand which is that Christianity requires original sin for it's validity.

[BlameTheEx]

Linda

 

Linda

 

My apologies.

 

Ok. I will address the topic you wish for, although I am puzzled as to how the topic got to Original Sin. I thought it was about Creation

 

To the best of my knowledge Jesus never preached a doctrine of Original Sin. He certainly believe in sin, and redemption, but I can't recall anywhere in the Bible where he claimed people were born with sin. Frankly it would seem quite out of character. Nor for that matter do I know of such a claim in Paul's writings. The Original Sin was, I think, Adam eating the apple. A nice bit of Jewish mythology, but Jesus was out to create his own religion. Did ether Jesus or Paul make any reference to Adam at all?

 

Now, It has been about 40 years since I was forced to study the Bible, and frankly it was rather long to remember it all, so no doubt I am wrong. Still, as you have made the claim, you must have the evidence to hand. Perhaps you could post it?

[Tormod]

Linda (and Blame), let's take the "real Christians" debate out of this topic. Start a new topic for it if you want to pursue it. this thread is getting too diverse.

 

Tormod

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Tormod

__________________________________________________________________

I'd say that by using terms like "create" or "creation" a conscious act is implied

___________________________________________________________________

 

Maybe, but not by me. But honestly this is a ridiculous implication. how about:

 

"The landscape is created by the weather"

"The explosion created an awful mess"

 

Inanimate things CAN create.

 

Blame, you wrote:

 

There is a reality, so it must have been created. Whether the creation was the act of will or intelligence can be debated...

 

Not much left to the imagination as to whether you imply a conscious act.

 

From reading your other posts I (believe I) understand what you are trying to say but I just wanted to point out in my post the possible semantic values of the word "create". Don't get me wrong - I am aiming for the ball, not the player.

[BlameTheEx]

Tormod

 

Ok. that's cool.

 

Linda

 

Don't feel obliged to reply. However, if you want to continue in another thread, I will be happy to continue.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

But some creationists don't take everything literally.

Selective application of biblical texts are part and parcle with the inherant hypocracy of Christianity. The bible is so filled with errors and contradictions they have no choice.

 

But that has not stopped them from using what ever passage they wish at any one time and pretend we must all follow what it says, as they interpret it personally at the point in time.

 

That is but one part of the extreme danger presented by Christianity to society.

I mean, they do seem to accept that the earth is round

Not all followers of scripture do. e.g., the Kpran, which is a continuation of the Abrahamic (OT) belief structure is used in Saudi Arbia to extablish a National Law that the teaching of anything other than a flat earth is punishable ultimately by death. In 1993, Shaikh Abd Al-‘Azeez bin Baaz, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, declared that the earth is flat, and that anyone saying otherwise is an atheist deserving of punishment.

Yes, it's easy to see why some people would like the Genesis to be accepted as a science textbook

There is an excellent little book that explores this in detail. I highly reccomend it to anyone interested in the discussion of Creationism and the effort to force it into the US Public School system. It also addresses a similar issue in the intentional teaching of Patriotism.

 

The book, "American Inquisitors", by Walter Lippman is mind opening to read. Wirten in 1928, shortly after the Scope's Trial, gives insight from a direction you can not imagine. But will change your perspective and understanding of just how deep of a philosophic battle this is for Christians. An absolute make it or break it effort.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

It seams easier to me to say a thing is in the hands of the gods, than admit I have no control of the matter.

I prefer to accept personal resonsibility rather than intentionally promote harmful ideology.

More fun to shrug my shoulders and say "God knows" than admit that I don't. p

Or intentional ignorance.

So perhaps God was a pair of Universes debating right of way, or an exceedingly overweight atom with terminal indigestion.

Or god is the smear in my underwear if I don't wipe properly.

 

Yes we can choose to assign meanings to combinations of letters any way we want. But it has ramifications if we intentionally choose to ignore established, mutually agreed symbolic represenations.

 

This is proven in this thread by the confusion caused in your intentionally deciding to assign a meaning to "god" and "creation" which is not the well established and readily agreed defintions others here use. Instead we waste lots of efforts in posts that serve only to allow everyone else to understand what twist you have choosen for those terms. Rather than the discussion progressing based on everyone just using the terms as we already understand them.

[lindagarrette]

This thread is about why Creationism is being taught in US schools. (Right?) The reason is directly related to Christianity If you took away the first chapter of the Old Testament, there would be no discussion. If you didn't have Jesus dying and being resurected, there would be no controversy because there would be no Christians to defend chreationism. The Adam and Eve (original sin) story is central. As a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, it's the main reason to reject evolution. I think that pretty much covers the issue presented in the beginning of the thread. That's all I have to say. There are lots of blogs out there for arguing biblical inconsistencies.