Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

That's the point: our world is a "closed" system within which we operate; as such, our understanding of everything is based upon our understanding and our interpretive methods (which are based upon how our brains work); thus, Mr. Xerzicon 4 would see most anything of ours as incomprehensible unless he had a similar thinking capability. Either way, the whole point is that the odds for producing a meaningful strand of letters to us here on earth are huge odds - odds that very much go against random arrangement.

---

So, GATCCGTAGTATCTGATGAAGGAAAGA...ad inifinitum is meaningful to you? Even if this wasn't entirely subjective, it would still be the bridge-player's fallacy. In addition, you are assuming that evolution was somehow trying to produce human beings; that Homo sapiens sapiens is the end-product of evolution somehow. It doesn't work like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

The language is a metaphor for complex, specific things here on earth.

---

In addition, the language is a complex, specific thing here on earth, and one that came about by a process other than conscious design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

In essence, you have argued a straw man, because instead of dealing with the point the analogy is trying to make, you attempted to dismantle the analogy.

---

It's not a straw-man if I tell you why the point is invalid, and then tell you why the analogy is bad. The point is invalid because one string of letters isn't objectively more 'specific' than any other. The analogy is bad, because the language that created the letters evolved, as opposed to being intelligently designed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante

I can accept the idea of evolution as logical, but how does life come without a creator?

---

We don't know. Yet. Implying that this suggests that there is a creator would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

So, GATCCGTAGTATCTGATGAAGGAAAGA...ad inifinitum is meaningful to you?

---

A silly question - another one that flirts with insult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Even if this wasn't entirely subjective, it would still be the bridge-player's fallacy. In addition, you are assuming that evolution was somehow trying to produce human beings; that Homo sapiens sapiens is the end-product of evolution somehow. It doesn't work like that.

---

No I'm not. The word analogy is to suggest the difference between complexity and complexity that contains information. How does it "work" then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

In addition, the language is a complex, specific thing here on earth, and one that came about by a process other than conscious design.

---

Laguage is an agreed upon system of conventions. It does not "evolve" in the way you're suggesting. It "evolves" in terms of change, but not in terms of creation. It is an artificial creation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

It's not a straw-man if I tell you why the point is invalid, and then tell you why the analogy is bad. The point is invalid because one string of letters isn't objectively more 'specific' than any other. The analogy is bad, because the language that created the letters evolved, as opposed to being intelligently designed.

---

The string of letters is more specific if it contains meaningful information. I need you to run down how language "just natrually evolved" instead of being a constructed entity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

No I'm not. The word analogy is to suggest the difference between complexity and complexity that contains information.

---

The genetic code doesn't 'contain information'. It gives you information if you happen to know how to read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

How does it "work" then?

---

Every living speices is equally the end product of evolution, at least for the time being. In a few million years, most of them will be extinct – us included – and there will be a new set of 'end points'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

The string of letters is more specific if it contains meaningful information.

---

Contianing information is a subjective quality. The pledge of allegiance doesn't contain any information if you don't speak English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I need you to run down how language "just natrually evolved" instead of being a constructed entity.

---

Again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

We don't know. Yet. Implying that this suggests that there is a creator would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.

---

Just to help out a little here, is there some part of the above statement that is unclear? If so, while you are trying for a knock-out punch on Cuppa, aim one at me, for I also said that I could not explain God. And that was also a clear and precise statement. What is the matter with you people? An honest "I don't know." and an honest "I cannot explain that." isn't good enough? You'd rather we lie, so as to continue an already pointless argument? God forbid! And it goes against logic as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

I can accept the idea of evolution as logical, but how does life come without a creator?

---

How would a creator come without a creator? Ad infinitum?

By what sound logic would we analogize from a human creating an airplane to an invisible all-powerful person creating a universe ex nihlio - other than just letting the imagination run wild? Such an imagination would be good for writing award-winning science fiction, otherwise what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

I can accept evolution from common ancestry, it is a fairly valid theory; but how would life have come without a creator?

---

If matter/energy is neither created or destroyed and they are in a constant state of transformation then there is no need of a creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Just to help out a little here, is there some part of the above statement that is unclear? If so, while you are trying for a knock-out punch on Cuppa, aim one at me, for I also said that I could not explain God. And that was also a clear and precise statement. What is the matter with you people? An honest "I don't know." and an honest "I cannot explain that." isn't good enough? You'd rather we lie, so as to continue an already pointless argument? God forbid! And it goes against logic as well.

---

My post was certainly not intened as a "God definitely does not exist" statement. I simply assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that Dante was using ignorance of the process of abiogenesis as an argument for design, as has happened on this thread many times before. I have no problem admiting that I don't know how life got kicked off on the planet, and (for that matter) I haven't got the foggiest idea where the universe came from in the first place. A similar argument, in earlier times, might have gone "Well, you don't know how the universe came to be ordered in seven crystal spheres with a golden chain suspending the earth in the centre now do you? A bit hard for you to explain that one, innit? Nobody could reasonably say that happened just by chance, therefore it must have been made that way by God. QED." Of course now we know perfectly well that there's a much better explaination of how the universe came to be ordered in seven concentric crystal spheres; namely: it didn't.

Again I may have been jumping the gun a bit; and again, this doesn't mean that God definitely doesn't exist, it just means that that particular argument isn't a very good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

My post was certainly not intened as a "God definitely does not exist" statement. I simply assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that Dante was using ignorance of the process of abiogenesis as an argument for design, as has happened on this thread many times before. I have no problem admiting that I don't know how life got kicked off on the planet, and (for that matter) I haven't got the foggiest idea where the universe came from in the first place. A similar argument, in earlier times, might have gone "Well, you don't know how the universe came to be ordered in seven crystal spheres with a golden chain suspending the earth in the centre now do you? A bit hard for you to explain that one, innit? Nobody could reasonably say that happened just by chance, therefore it must have been made that way by God. QED." Of course now we know perfectly well that there's a much better explaination of how the universe came to be ordered in seven concentric crystal spheres; namely: it didn't.

Again I may have been jumping the gun a bit; and again, this doesn't mean that God definitely doesn't exist, it just means that that particular argument isn't a very good one.

---

No, no. I understood what you meant, Cuppa. You were just pointing out that because we don't know how life began doesn't prove the existence of God. What I was saying was, your statement "We don't know, yet." was clear and precise. Also saying that it wasn't enough to prove the existence or non-existence of God was clear. My own statement was that "There is no way to explain God that can be tested." That statement is very clear. I just figured that people might fire a salvo at you and if they did, they could also turn the big guns on myself. Both believing diametrically opposite, we have made honest statements. Neither has blasted the other. So why can't people accept honest answers? http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1...ies/QWERTY.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

The genetic code doesn't 'contain information'. It gives you information if you happen to know how to read it.

---

We don't have to be able to read something for it to contain information. A book of Greek aphorisms contains information - that I don't know Greek simply means it cannot communicate to me - but it still contains information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Contianing information is a subjective quality. The pledge of allegiance doesn't contain any information if you don't speak English.

---

Well, because we speak English, the pledge does contain information; language came first - the pledge came later. Therefore, if the pledge shows up randomly in a scrabble box of letters, we would call the odds of such a thing astronomical. You like to use the argument alot that suggests that without a frame of reference (here English) that a specific pattern of meaning would be meaningless. Sure. But since the frame of reference does exist, then I don't think you can so easily bat away the point. Getting rid of the frame of reference can destroy just about any argument (evolution included); but the frames are there, so lets argue from there. Arguing from an essentially "deconstructionist" platform (where all meaning is made arbitrary) totally destroys our ability to consider any argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Again?

---

Language is not a separate entity that "evolves" on its own - it "evolves" through the decisions and usages of human beings. If people did not alter language, it would not alter. It changes because we do; therefore it is not an independent evolutionary entity so much as it is a manifestation of human change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

We don't have to be able to read something for it to contain information. A book of Greek aphorisms contains information - that I don't know Greek simply means it cannot communicate to me - but it still contains information.

---

But the genetic code does not communicate anything any more than the mineral content of a rock communicates to geologists or a speck of ash left in a hotel carpet communicates to a detective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Well, because we speak English, the pledge does contain information; language came first - the pledge came later. Therefore, if the pledge shows up randomly in a scrabble box of letters, we would call the odds of such a thing astronomical.

---

Only because you're defining your target beforehand. The odds of getting any pre-defined string of letters are the same, whether they 'contain information' or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Language is not a separate entity that "evolves" on its own - it "evolves" through the decisions and usages of human beings. If people did not alter language, it would not alter. It changes because we do; therefore it is not an independent evolutionary entity so much as it is a manifestation of human change.

---

It evolves because of human change, the same way culture does. When I was young, I thought that the English language was arbitrarily designed by some person or small group (I pictured, for some reason, a group of men in robes and powdered wigs arguing about it in a courtroom). Now, of course, I know perfectly well that it wasn't designed like that at all, but rather changed progressively over a long period of time. If English and all other languages were invented the way I pictured, it would be analogous to all the species on the planet having been designed by an independant entity, but it wasn't and it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

It evolves because of human change, the same way culture does. When I was young, I thought that the English language was arbitrarily designed by some person or small group (I pictured, for some reason, a group of men in robes and powdered wigs arguing about it in a courtroom). Now, of course, I know perfectly well that it wasn't designed like that at all, but rather changed progressively over a long period of time. If English and all other languages were invented the way I pictured, it would be analogous to all the species on the planet having been designed by an independant entity, but it wasn't and it isn't.

---

I give up.

*Dum-duh-duh-dum! And the winner of the debate: cuppajoe! :D*

I'm sorry. Please excuse me.

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move. I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal. I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc. A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism. With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolescent09

*Dum-duh-duh-dum! And the winner of the debate: cuppajoe! :D*

I'm sorry. Please excuse me.

---

Certainly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

---

Bingo, AP. None of us was there—evidence that seems overwhelming to some is unacceptable to others; some people's solemn belief seems mere fairytale to others. The horse is dead. To continue with the beating is ludicrous, as no agreement will be reached. Let us all agree to disagree or whatever, and let's bury the poor dead horse!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move. I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal. I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc. A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism. With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our language and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

---

I like this guy. Nicely put.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move.

---

An interesting polarization - one that contains believers and atheists on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal.

---

On the contrary, I am well aware as to why there is such widespread belief in evolution (despite the astronomical odds against such a thing happening).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc.

---

You'll need to qualify how these beliefs are "childish" - since "childish" would be defined as (essentially) "immature"; I, for one, am unsure as to how the beliefs you listed qualify as "immature"; they do qualify as illogical and miraculous - yes; but, I don't understand how illogical and miraculous things qualify as "childish" except that that is your term of disparagement which functions to make your position seem more "mature." Care to clarify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism.

---

Would you mind sharing what the "full-baked" beliefs might look like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe.

---

Mind explaining this claim? What exactly exists "outside of time"? What created the matter of which the universe is composed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

---

Probably true - and largely so because the magnitude of the universe is a reflection of the magnitude of God Himself.

Childish in the same sense that the tooth fairy, santa claus, and any other insufficient and inexplicable explanation for 'miraculous' phenomena is created by or given to pre-modern or pre-adult thinkers. Illogical and miraculous explanations seem to satisfy childish minds as explanations for occurrences. When people grow up, they tend to grow weary with such explanations. Some even realise their traditional folkloric and mythological roots.

No doubt the tenuous connection with Mr Claus and the fairy world (the Picts who ran away to hide from us Scots and Norsemen) will be another justification for my Free Prebyterian friends not to celebrate Christmas. Ah but they fairly give the Bliadhn' Ur a whack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move. I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal. I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc. A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism. With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

---

Absolutely brilliant. Even as a strong abiding Christian I find it hard to rival your statements. I agree with you so much... What a purely reasonable and intelligent post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Childish in the same sense that the tooth fairy, santa claus, and any other insufficient and inexplicable explanation for 'miraculous' phenomena is created by or given to pre-modern or pre-adult thinkers. Illogical and miraculous explanations seem to satisfy childish minds as explanations for occurrences. When people grow up, they tend to grow weary with such explanations. Some even realise their traditional folkloric and mythological roots.

---

Neither the tooth fairy and Santa Clause are part of a larger narrative that attempts to answer the questions of existence, morality, human depravity and the solution to the existence of evil and suffering. Try to find comparisons that are comparable.

As far as I'm concerned, the truly "childish mind" is the mind that decides that all of reality should be defined by that mind and that mind alone. Such egocentrism (the idea that human beings are the measure of reality) is really the hallmark of the so-called "childish mind" because children cannot really comprehend that there is a world that exists outside of themselves; as they mature into adults, they realize the complexity of the world, and the necessity of giving place to the reality that other people exist, and that their rather simple view of the world as revolving around them is inaccurate.

Finally, Christianity is not based on mythological/folkloric roots: as C.S. Lewis has correctly said, pre-Christian mythology was the harbinger of Christ: they were the fictional/mythical "echo" of what Christ would manifest the reality of. The so-called "roots" are actually the flashes of light before the actual sound of the thunder arrived.

Quote:

---

As far as I'm concerned, the truly "childish mind" is the mind that decides that all of reality should be defined by that mind and that mind alone. Such egocentrism (the idea that human beings are the measure of reality) is really the hallmark of the so-called "childish mind" because children cannot really comprehend that there is a world that exists outside of themselves; as they mature into adults, they realize the complexity of the world, and the necessity of giving place to the reality that other people exist, and that their rather simple view of the world as revolving around them is inaccurate.

Finally, Christianity is not based on mythological/folkloric roots: as C.S. Lewis has correctly said, pre-Christian mythology was the harbinger of Christ: they were the fictional/mythical "echo" of what Christ would manifest the reality of. The so-called "roots" are actually the flashes of light before the actual sound of the thunder arrived.

---

These are great points, Red. It's amazing how educated the people on LitNet are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolescent09

These are great points, Red. It's amazing how educated the people on LitNet are.

---

Thank you. I am greatful for your kind words. :)

The erroneous belief in evolution is both a by-product of and a cause of atheism. There are those who think it is off-topic to notice the effect this has on communities and societies. The UK (temporary thing) is today darker and worse off as a result of the clouds of atheism. Only in those areas where Christian communities survive is there sustained sacrificial charity and the blood doner units know where to go if they want blood - and it's not into the heart of darkness in the modern UK. Off topic? No way! But bound to offend some as the truth always does

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

The erroneous belief in evolution is both a by-product of and a cause of atheism. There are those who think it is off-topic to notice the effect this has on communities and societies. The UK (temporary thing) is today darker and worse off as a result of the clouds of atheism. Only in those areas where Christian communities survive is there sustained sacrificial charity and the blood doner units know where to go if they want blood - and it's not into the heart of darkness in the modern UK. Off topic? No way! But bound to offend some as the truth always does

---

Discrimination against atheists is seen once again. {edit} Come to the US and watch christians beat up and harass atheists because they don't believe in God. Who's the wrong one there? Are you saying atheists lack morals? {edit}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

The erroneous belief in evolution is both a by-product of and a cause of atheism. There are those who think it is off-topic to notice the effect this has on communities and societies. The UK (temporary thing) is today darker and worse off as a result of the clouds of atheism. Only in those areas where Christian communities survive is there sustained sacrificial charity and the blood doner units know where to go if they want blood - and it's not into the heart of darkness in the modern UK. Off topic? No way! But bound to offend some as the truth always does

---

Just because religion does some good - even if it does a lot of good - it doesn't make it right.

That's the problem. I like and admire many chrsitians and I will be the first to tell you that many christians are good-hearted, generous people. So are many atheists.

I would be enormously surprised if atheists and humanists aren't every bit as generous and good-hearted as christians. The problem is with "apathetic agnostics" or the non-religious who just don't have any interest in the eternal verities. The lowest common denominator of society, if you will. Unfortunately, many christians, as well as being generous and good-hearted, tend to lump those non-religious people in with atheists as a group, which in terms of a descriptor, is fair, but in terms of philosophy, is not.

An atheist - to me (and I am, after all, THE Atheist) - is a person who has looked at the evidence for and against gods and has reached a decision that the "god" option is an empty shell. Much as christians will argue that only xyz are True Christians, I resent being classed with people who are too lazy or too ignorant even to think about these questions.

I know sufficient atheists [as described] and christians to be able to assure you that they are every bit as humanist and caring as any christian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Discrimination against atheists is seen once again. {edit} Come to the US and watch christians beat up and harass atheists because they don't believe in God. Who's the wrong one there? Are you saying atheists lack morals? {edit}

---

You know, Hyper, not every Christian is out to harass you. I have been a Minister since 1982. My stand on this issue has always been clear-- I believe in God and that Creation took place. I believe that God's creatures have since evolved, and continue to do so. I call no one by any bad names, and step in for the defense if others do. If you can point out any place where I have offended, I will make it right with you. That's as fair as a man can be. I stick by my word. You have a nice day. You may rest assured that even though you cannot believe in God (which I do not hold against you, why should I, pray tell?), I will still pray for you. If I cannot show kindness, I am not much of a Christian.

God Bless.

Pen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

The erroneous belief in evolution is both a by-product of and a cause of atheism. There are those who think it is off-topic to notice the effect this has on communities and societies. The UK (temporary thing) is today darker and worse off as a result of the clouds of atheism. Only in those areas where Christian communities survive is there sustained sacrificial charity and the blood doner units know where to go if they want blood - and it's not into the heart of darkness in the modern UK. Off topic? No way! But bound to offend some as the truth always does

---

Without the existence of christians there would be no charity in the world.

Right.

And the four billion plus people on earth who are not christians spend their time either ignoring each other, or callously using each other as merely objects and means to an end.

Right.

.
.
.
.
.

When donkeys fly.

<As far as I'm concerned, the truly "childish mind" is the mind that decides that all of reality should be defined by that mind and that mind alone.>

So I take it, for you, all of reality is not defined by your religious beliefs then?

Creating a wider narrative around silly notions certainly does not improve the prospects of those notions. Besides, what makes you think that there isn't such a narrative associated with a belief in fairies?

To claim that christianity was not based on pre-Christian mythology you would need to demonstrate some kind of immunity to the Roman and Greek influences that would have been a daily occurrence in the days of the gospel writers. Bearing in mind that at least one of the New Testament writers was Roman himself, I would suggest that is a tall order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

You know, Hyper, not every Christian is out to harass you. I have been a Minister since 1982. My stand on this issue has always been clear-- I believe in God and that Creation took place. I believe that God's creatures have since evolved, and continue to do so. I call no one by any bad names, and step in for the defense if others do. If you can point out any place where I have offended, I will make it right with you. That's as fair as a man can be. I stick by my word. You have a nice day. You may rest assured that even though you cannot believe in God (which I do not hold against you, why should I, pray tell?), I will still pray for you. If I cannot show kindness, I am not much of a Christian.

God Bless.

Pen

---

Maybe you don't discriminate against atheists, but many Christians do.

I believe in God as well, but I on the other hand took the leash off my collar.

I replaced the word 'gender' with 'religion' in Judith Butler's Gender Trouble

and nothing happened. It still didn't make sense.

The Bible is nothing more than a code of ethics, which many people claim to live their life by, but don't - me included.

Why does anyone care if God exists or not? It's not like you have to believe that He exists to live by a code of ethics -- and even if you could prove that he exists, then what? Are we going to be contempt and quit living life because we know the end? Is He going to come to my anti-birthday party?

' Oh, Jesus got so drunk and pushed over the poker table. Some weird Freudian problem he has'

The issue seems to be enlightenment - solving philosophical problems is enlightenment for us (see Plato); but should it be? What happens in Lear:

Nothing! x5

and nobody can explain the same word repeated five times.

So find enlightenment elsewhere? Hmm. I wonder where? Maybe in literature? We all like books, right?

I believe in evolution, but not evolution as an answer. I believe there is no answer, and therefore we shouldn't go looking for it since there is no proof. Everything in a sense is relative, and one cannot even proof that existence exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

So I take it, for you, all of reality is not defined by your religious beliefs then?

---

Not by my beliefs, no; by God? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Creating a wider narrative around silly notions certainly does not improve the prospects of those notions. Besides, what makes you think that there isn't such a narrative associated with a belief in fairies?

---

"Silly" to you. Provide me the narrative associated with fairies that attempts to answer to cosmic questions that Christianity does, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

To claim that christianity was not based on pre-Christian mythology you would need to demonstrate some kind of immunity to the Roman and Greek influences that would have been a daily occurrence in the days of the gospel writers. Bearing in mind that at least one of the New Testament writers was Roman himself, I would suggest that is a tall order.

---

Suggest away - because the Bible tells us that God implanted "eternity" in our hearts and an awareness of God; as such, it is perfectly reasonable for Lewis to argue that prefigurations of Christ were anticipations, not models, of the myth-made-real to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Not by my beliefs, no; by God? Yes.

---

Fundamentalism 101: god exists, QED.






.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Provide me the narrative associated with fairies that attempts to answer to cosmic questions that Christianity does, please.

---

But what is the point of it all if you can't verify this cosmic origins that you speak of and you say you does not need verification - so all this is quite meaningless isn't it? You might as well believe in anything - even the Great Elephant Tree in the Sky because you don't have to verify it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

But what is the point of it all if you can't verify this cosmic origins that you speak of and you say you does not need verification - so all this is quite meaningless isn't it? You might as well believe in anything - even the Great Elephant Tree in the Sky because you don't have to verify it.

---

Why don't you address my challenge instead of telling me about the unverifiability of my position (which I have never, for the record, claimed).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

"Silly" to you. Provide me the narrative associated with fairies that attempts to answer to cosmic questions that Christianity does, please.

---

If there were a narrative associated with fairies that attempted to answer cosmic questions, or moral ones for that matter, would that make its account on fairies any more credible?

I could make up that sort of book right now if I wanted to; the only difference between that hypothetical book and any other holly book would be its age and populartity; give it a couple of thousand years and maybe my book would be as credible as the bible.

Besides, why should popularity add credibility to anything?

I watched this show once, that was discussing these things. Anyways, it was a bit interesting because their theory (based on findings and whatnot, I don't recall all the specifics) was that we did pretty much evolve, but that Adam was the first intelligent human being placed on the earth. I found it extremely interesting because this idea sort of put the two theories that have been debated for years together into one. Just thought I might throw that out!
Kari

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guzmán

If there were a narrative associated with fairies that attempted to answer cosmic questions, or moral ones for that matter, would that make its account on fairies any more credible?

---

The point is this: people who claim that belief in God is no more credible than believing in "green men" The Matrix or fairies oversimplify the issue: Christianity is based on God's word - The Bible. People who say it is composed of nothing but "myths" and such really haven't read it closely or considered what it actually does and claims. No other mythical narrative deals with the scope of issues that the Bible does; no other narrative answers our fundamental questions and provides insight into all areas of life; no other narrative offers answers to the questions of existence, morality, sin, human nature, creation and God like the Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guzmán

I could make up that sort of book right now if I wanted to; the only difference between that hypothetical book and any other holly book would be its age and populartity; give it a couple of thousand years and maybe my book would be as credible as the bible.

---

Sure you could - and then what?

No: there is a larger difference that you are conveniently ignoring: the Bible is a unified whole that verifies and validates itself. Your work would be derivative. The Bible is unique in its answers to the questions of where we came from, why we're here, and where we're going. As well, credibility is established by the veracity of the claims. The Bible's teachings on human nature and morality are spot on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guzmán

Besides, why should popularity add credibility to anything?

---

Popularity has nothing to do with it unless the "popularity" has morphed into something more substantial; things don't stay merely "popular" for a few thousand years. Paris Hilton is "popular." The Bible is far more.

I don't know how to quote something on here yet, but to redzeppelin, I do consider myself to be a very religious and spiritual person. And I do believe in God. After reading through this last post, I think that you are forgetting free agency. People that are LDS (mormon) may also feel to other religions that they don't believe in the Book of Mormon because they haven't truly read it with an open heart, or truly considered what is says and claims. Or acknowledge that it offers answers to the questions of existence, morality, sin, human nature, creation and God. I will just take a guess, that you are not Mormon considering I haven't seen you mentioning the Book of Mormon. So what would that mean about you? Everything you are saying about people that find the Bible to be fabrications and myths. They are allowed to think so, that is their free agency to do so. I think though, you are focusing on the wrong thing...as to why someone would put God into the same catagory as green men....and that is lack of faith. You will never be able to prove your beliefs to be true, and there is a reason for that. So someone on here trying to get your to prove it...is really only going to get a smile at your efforts, because it is really impossible. God wants people to believe without proof....He wants them to have faith. Just because the Bible gives us so much guidance and truth...doesn't mean everyone will think so. Just because the Book of Mormon can give so many guidance and truth, doesn't mean everyone will think so.
Kari