Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

[RDM]

Unfortunately you are once again incorrect - I've already addressed this comment (you seem incapable of processing so I'll speak slowly for you).

Guess I get to add "patronising" to the list of "positive elmarko1234 character traits".

Out of the three main religions I was referencing, do you deny that Islam/Catholicism/Christianity imply that people who are not of there faith are due for a deserved eternal punishment of torture/pain & suffering (based on current religious affiliation being different to the religion in question?).

Why are you listing Catholicism seperately?

When I said "all" I meant all of the major religions - have you heard me specifically mentioning the bad points of the smaller religions?

Well, that is your problem right there. You used the word "All" when you actually meant "most popular". Do try and be a bit more concise in your future postings it can lead to an awful lot of confusion when you are so sloppy with your english.

I see you are fixating on a point which I've already responded to, makes one think you lack any content & are desperatly holding on this like it will somehow validate your point of view (which you have not done).

Every post you make continues to validate my view.

I could make constant mistakes, misquote, misrepresent & make illogical errors all day - it still would add nothing to the argument or add any validity to the concept of a deity.

Is this directed at me? Because I am completely the wrong target if you want to convice me a diety does not exist.

How about you try to defend the points made as opposed to pick at minor points which have already been resolved.

The problem is though that you, like oh so many other militant atheists, tend to take the very worst examples of whatever faith you want to argue against and use them as representative of all. I could for example choose the Catholic attitudes to homosexuality and gender and say that all Christians are sexist and homophobic, which would be patently untrue. I could take the Crusades in isolation and say "Oh look, nasty Christians, all they do is promote voilence" but again this would be a use of the spotlight fallacy and would ignore many of the secular reasons for the Crusades and ignore the historical situation of the time.

It is interesting that you can happily see the bigotry in others and yet ignore it in yourself.

 

[Glaucus]

But major religions aren't racist anyway.

 

[Xordium]

Because that's clearly what the man who wrote it meant.

Well if he did he would have been correct which is more than you are clearly on this point. Challenging someone else's knowledge when actually it was yours that was deficient. I sense a pattern here ...

 

[RDM]

But major religions aren't racist anyway.

They are if you define race as "Does not worship the same God as me".

 

[Glaucus]

They are if you define race as "Does not worship the same God as me".

Still doesn't hold water even with that definition. They are still welcoming and supportive and what not, or at least should be according to their doctrines.

 

[Xordium]

Not at all. I just have a problem with the notion of taking two things which by their nature are so fundamentally different and calling them 'compatible'.

Keep science to the classrooms and religion to the church. Thankfully, this is a rather popular policy.

I agree in the main but as I have stated before I would like to see creationism discussed in schools as I think it is a good objective exercise to examine how the scientific process occurs, the relevance and strength of evidence, the epistemology of science, etc etc.

I think by challenging such notions when they are presented in such a fashion we can not only better inform children of what we believe to be true or at best so far unproven but also the methodology behind that process.

 

[Nitefly]

Bad bad example then, as it's not shifting goal posts at all. It's simply getting the correct translation. How can you slam that, gob smacking. It's almost like you want religion to stand still and not correct itself, just so you can tear into them.

Ok, I'm going to rephrase in a nutshell my argument since I think we are getting wires crossed here with how I phrased my point in my earlier post:

Is it compatible with science that the sea is blue 'because god influenced it'?

We can use science to explain that blue is the light frequency that persists across empty space. But why blue? Why have any colours? Why anything? Because of god - that's why.

The question in reality has been split up into two components. First, literally why is the sea blue. Secondly, what is the purpose behind the sea being blue. As science doesn't even touch on the latter question with a barge pole I find it a stretch to say that it 'fits' in with the notion of a god, the answer to the second question. Science answers the second question with nothing. It doesn't address it, it doesn't care.

Is that actually what being compatible is? Merely being silent enough to allow submit to quiet acceptance of something that it has never contemplated? I would say 'no' - evolution does not actively embrace the notion of a god. It's as compatible as saying "chalk is compatible with cheese". It just doesn't mean anything and I believe it's misleading.

But yes, I think religion should be taught in classrooms during religious studies lessons.

 

[Glaucus]

For a start up you can't keep switching between compatible and fit as they are slightly different.

Secondly I don't see the problem. Other than your assumption that somehow it strengthens religions (which it doesn't) and thus you attack it.

It's compatabile in the sense science does not give evidence against a deity or even scriptures.
Therefore they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[elmarko]

Well if he did he would have been correct which is more than you are clearly on this point. Challenging someone else's knowledge when actually it was yours that was deficient. I sense a pattern here ...

I admit, my specific knowledge of every single biblical passage is lacking.

I don't need to know the new/old testament/kuran by memory to know the basis is flawed.

Do you need to read every single Star Trek book to think the enterprise isn't a real ship?

The frills & badges on the sides of all religions are completely irrelevant when in actuality you have no reason to believe in anything at all.

My problem is with the kind of mind required which does not value evidence, which puts reason on the back burner, which follows doctrines as opposed to reasoned thought, which separates our species into meaningless groups.

If evidence is not important in deciding what's true & what isn't - then we will never truly progress as species.

The only thing I'm thankful of is as education increases, religion recedes (in almost all countries tested) - let's just make sure education keeps on improving.

 

[Glaucus]

My problem is with the kind of mind required which does not value evidence, which puts reason on the back burner, which follows doctrines as opposed to reasoned thought, which separates our species into meaningless groups.
.

More sweeping generalises, that do not hold true to every person with faith.

And what evidence do you have faith in? Scientific that has many assumptions.

I've said before I think 99% of the population needs faith and spirtuallity. I think it's an evolutionary step built into most of the population. Some fill this with religion, some with supernatural, some with CT and some with a totally misunderstood concept of science.

 

[elmarko]

For a start up you can't keep switching between compatible and fit as they are slightly different.

Secondly I don't see the problem. Other than your assumption that somehow it strengthens religions (which it doesn't) and thus you attack it.

It's compatabile in the sense science does not give evidence against a deity or even scriptures.
Therefore they are not mutually exclusive.

How exactly would anybody prove anything about something which doesn't exist?.

Neurobiology - how exactly does your interpretation of good & evil fit in with our understanding of how the mind works.

When in reality free-will is an illusion & with good & evil being clearly flawed & non-existent concepts - the concept of heaven & hell suddenly become absurd.

 

[elmarko]

More sweeping generalises, that do not hold true to every person with faith.

And what evidence do you have faith in? Scientific that has many assumptions.

I've said before I think 99% of the population needs faith and spirtuallity. I think it's an evolutionary step built into most of the population. Some fill this with religion, some with supernatural, some with CT and some with a totally misunderstood concept of science.

Just because you need to believe in something not everybody else does.

Classic religious argument to try to misrepresent others.

3/10 for effort.

 

[kedge]

Why is the sea blue.

The sea is not allways blue. A better question is ..where did all the water come from?, and man, that is a lot of water.

 

[Glaucus]

How exactly would anybody prove anything about something which doesn't exist?.

Neurobiology - how exactly does your interpretation of good & evil fit in with our understanding of how the mind works.

When in reality free-will is an illusion & with good & evil being clearly flawed & non-existent concepts - the concept of heaven & hell suddenly become absurd.

For a start it's not my interpretation seeing as I don't have faith in any religion, or really in anything. Other than mans ability to adapt and invent, I have lots of faith in that.

Secondly you dont there is not free will, there's lots of competing theories, non are even remotely being close to being proved or tested.

And alive already said many religions do not belive in Hell.

 

[elmarko]

To make a point,

The assumptions made in science have value, they enable the use of predictive models with greater accuracy.

They are not random stabs in the dark, you clearly don't understand the difference between general assumptions/theories & scientific ones.

 

[mrk]

Wait, someone just said Science is a misunderstood "concept"?

Okay that's just the most illogical and ridiculous thing I have read since Britboy's thread and I am un subscribing from reading this thread any further - Although it's been eye watering reading it this far alone...

 

[Xordium]

I admit, my specific knowledge of every single biblical passage is lacking.

I was not challenging your knowledge of the bible I was challenging you for saying this:

It still says god created light before the sun - clearly written by somebody who had no understanding of how the universe actually is.

When the statement was correct and you were wrong.

I was further demonstrating again you seem willing to be critical of the faults in others that you have in abundance yourself. In case you have never read Nietzsche I'll give you the exact quote:

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

 

[Glaucus]

Just because you need to believe in something not everybody else does.

Classic religious argument to try to misrepresent others.

3/10 for effort.

I would love to call you something but I won't.

Bpjuat because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you can just make **** up, especially as I've already told you in this thread several times.

 

[Glaucus]

Wait, someone just said Science is a misunderstood "concept"?

Okay that's just the most illogical and ridiculous thing I have read since Britboy's thread and I am un subscribing from reading this thread any further - Although it's been eye watering reading it this far alone...

No, read it again. People misunderstand the scientific concept.

 

[Xordium]

Neurobiology - how exactly does your interpretation of good & evil fit in with our understanding of how the mind works.

Quite well really if one is to take good as being morally positive and evil morally negative.