Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

If it's not authored by god, why should anyone follow it's tenets? Didn't he also warn against false messengers? Why do some still claim "it's the word of god?"

Besides, why would god instruct the killing of thousands as it says in the bible?

To answer the first three, Christ said he would give his spirit to be with us, that we may discern between good and evil. So following the bible exactly is something god no longer intends. Christ even contradicted older scripture with his sermons, and boosted old laws to new levels. In my opinion, it would seem he was correcting some flaws which had crept in.

I must admit that my guesses to the second question would be far too unfounded. I could offer some sad guesses if you like.

SCoates, All my siblings and their children are christian, and I'm a atheist. Our mother started going to a christian church, and all of 'us' converted from buddhism to christianity when we were children. I've always been the black sheep of our family, and always question issues of religion when there are so many contradictions. That's my nature, so don't feel I'm picking on you. I do the same to my sister. I also notice that one of her children is beginning to question his christian religion. It's almost ironic.

Oh, not at all. I'm just having fun. I do however not appreciate lightwizard's attitude. I'm sure anyone can tell he was trying to be insulting.

As for your comments, I take them as debate should be taken. However, I must admit, christianity can be a difficult fort to hold. Are you true atheist, or just want proof before you call yourself anything else?

SCoates,
It looks as though you are going down the slippery slope of believing what sounds good and making excuses for what doesn't.

Since you have jumped back into this thread, would you consider answering a question that I asked you way back on page 11. "What is your opinion about the teaching of creationism in the public school system?"

I'm a 100 percent, devoted, lifelong, atheist. There's nothing in any religion that have shown an improvement in the treatment of their fellow humans by its followers. I have a philosophy of life: treat all living things with respect and dignity. Do I fail? Ofcoarse, but who doesn't? No need for dogma, gods, or other humans telling me how to live my life. I like it this way.

Oh, I had never seen that question. I don't believe it has any place in school. Especially (but not soley) based on the fact that different religions teach such widely different things, it would be biased to choose any one as a set cirriculum.

As for you first comment, there are only so many stands I can take. In your opinion what would be the ideal stand to defend christianity?

Only one, really; treat everybody as you would wish to be treated. Nothing more needs to be said or learned if one follows that teaching.

Good, we do agree on the school issue. As for the ideal stand to defend christianity, I don't believe there is one. That is not to say that the new testament does not have some good parts. I think that too many folks get caught up in the saving themselves parts and overlook the do unto others parts.

mesquite, The "do unto others" part scares the be-jesus out of me, because of people like president Bush. He's killed over 10,000 innocent Iraqis, and he's an admitted christian. brrrrrrr..... I bet ya dollars to donuts all them CEO's and top officers of Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, and them others are mostly "christians."

It's nice to know people who don't consider the iraqis insignificant. I do agree that there are too many who assume the only way to be good is being a certain religion, or are so concerned with being religious that they are not kind (dare I say "inquisition"... not that I want to consider that being religious).

Mesquite, if you're up for it, I would still like to see how you would defend the position. Let's say you're in a college debate class, and you are assigned to defend christianity. You too cicerone, if you don't mind. And I shall attack you. Just a little experiment.

Religious people get around this by claiming that science should be used to shed light on religious intrepretation. Which, in itself, is not such a retarded claim.

However, when each generation radically redefines some of the most central tenets of Christianity - heliocentrism, age of the Earth, views on women, views of gays, etc - it reduces the entire belief system to inanity. In fact, it seems religion is an extension of societies moral trends, not a force shaping those trends, as it seeks to be.

ILZ, Yeah. How does the "wise one" approve the ownership of slaves?

I agree it does seem that way. God must really be annoyed.

God does not get annoyed. God is omniscient, and he already knew about the weakness of mankind.

Omniscient doesn't mean devoid of emotion. I know my newborn is going to cry at night, but it still annoys the life out of me.

If God is omnicient and knew about the weakness of man before he created man, then why did he create the wicked ones, only to then tell them "It would have been better for to never be born." (Mark 14:21) Why would a merciful god create someone who he knew would be miserable and eventually be sentenced to hell?

Or the twin children born connected at the head or chest.

ILZ demonstrates more faith in Science than most religious people put in their faiths.

Creationism (whatever that means) and evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts. Even ILZ has aknowledged that evolution offers no explanation for how life got started, merely how it developed into more complex forms. That it is occurring, more or less as Darwin described it, is beyond doubt. That it offers or even outlines an explanation for the origins of life is another question entirely. There are also some disturbing uncertainties about the rate at which evolutionary development proceeds and the known geological and anthropoligical record - has there really been enough time? The possibility of design in some form cannot be proven, but it cannot be excluded either.

It seems clear that the observable universe began with some sort of singularity. Substantial progress has been made towards the development of a consistent theory to explain the expansion of the cosmos, the formation of stars, etc. since then. Many questions remain, ranging from inflation, to dark matter and the cosmological constant , to quantum uncertainty (many universes?). However physics offers us no insight whatever to the singularity that started our universe (or the current phase of its existence). I see no basis on which to expect that it ever will.

Is then our choice to examine an endless regression of cause and effect and call it Physics, or to consider that there may be an entity outside or independent of the observable universe that created or designed it? I see no meaningful difference between these views. Even Genesis is no more fantastic than the big bang.

Scoates said



Jesus Christ- Sub-editor! Thats a new one.


ci...The Golden Rule...treat others as you would wish to be treated. I can go along with that, except that it sounds suspiciously like a bit of Christian dogma. You'll have us all turning the other cheek next

I ducked out of this discussion some while back because there is nothing I can usefully say about Creationism. I don't even know what it means.

But the issue of how mankind interprets the world around him and explains the unexplainable is interesting. I look at it like this. Primitive man became aware. Something sometime somewhere happened that stimulated early man to be much more curious about his environment than his ancestors. I don't know what that was, it might have been the development of agriculture that allowed mankind to do anything more than live a hand to mouth existence. [or much more likely of course it was a superior race of aliens who zapped monkeys with their knowledge lazer guns and got them writing Shakespeare]. But whatever it was it got man thinking, something which - however much I admire my cat's other abilities- he doesnt do. He sees the moon, but he doesnt wonder. I look at the moon and dont think much either, because its kind of a "been there done that bought the tee shirt experience". Got the (moon) rock! But I think on a higher level than my cat. (point of contention here from Mrs Steve) But when I look at the stars or the milky way and start to think of galaxies and amino acids in interstellar space, then I get that Wow feeling. That sense of awe which makes me feel very insignificant.

I can buy a telescope. I can talk to cosmologists and astrophysicts. I can learn and I can begin to understand what was before unexplainable. It doesn't remove the awe factor when I look at the night sky, but it helps me to understand.

Now primitive man was just as inately intelligent as we are. He had it upstairs to just the same degree. But he didnt have x ray spectroscopy, rockets or mathematics. But his desire to understand- after all some pretty dreadful things happened, famines diseases droughts etc etc - drove him to explain the unexplainable in the only way he could, i.e. through stories, myth, tales of gods and giants, and all sorts of stuff. Creation myths are common all over the world. How else could they explain what was happening? And how could they ensure the bad things didn't happen in future?

So man invented Gods. The gods to explain what no man could. Then someone had the bright idea that there was only one God, and they therefore had to kill everyone who thought differently (yes you might detect a certain cynicism here), and the rest as they say is history.

Now we can apply the most sophisticated tools the best techniques and the most powerful mathematics to give us a pretty good idea about what the Universe is and how it developed. And the more we find out, the more we find how incredible it all is. Our sense of being gobsmacked hasnt gone away, just he oppostite. The universe would not exist had a small set of universal constants been ever so slightly different. {but of course had they been, we would not have been here to observe them, the so called anthropic principle}

But why is the universe explainable? Why is there order and not just chaos. And how is it that we can interpret reality using mathematics which to most people is just squiggles on paper? Its that which makes me wonder most of all.

And strangest of all, the more quantum physicists delve into string theory and estoteric theories of everything the more God-smacked they become. At the extreme of knowlege, science is taking on the flavour of religion. That's got to be interesting.