The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Does it irritate the religious? Apart from a few folk on here, I've never really come across anyone talking about it. Anyone 'famous' get irritated by it?

Pff, I've no idea. Perhaps the the pope is upset about it?

Jakkass wrote: »

If anything children are born agnostic, they don't have knowledge of anything let alone of God. A knowledge of God is to be learned, just like a knowledge of language, or colours, or numerous other things that a child will not know. Yet it would be lunacy to suggest that a child actively denies that any of these things exist, wouldn't it?

You may have missed my earlier reply to this, but I think it explains things fairly clearly:

robindch wrote:

Last time it came up, I distinguished between default atheism (as babies have, and as you have regarding, say, the existence of a teapot orbiting Jupiter), and reasoned atheism (what people who are able to reason, are able to do). The end result is the same, though the process to reach it is different.

If you can see the difference between the two, then the position isn't quite as idiotic as you appear to think.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...the Bible defines the length of a Day in Genesis 1:-

Ge 1:3 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

It defines the fact that a year is UNCHANGING in Genesis 1 by explaining that astronomical phemomena are to be used to measure time and a year is to be a complete cycle of seasons and a day is to be a complete cycle of light and darkness - just like they are still, in practice, measured today:-
Ge 1:14 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;

Thanks,

Day defined.

Year,still remains undefined, as the question must obviously become - What is a season? All it says is that days, are signs for the seasons, or am I misinterpretating it?

Fanny Cradock

DiarmaidGNR has taken a timeout.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

:eek:Sorry Wicknight, I just can't go on with this. Its insane!

Jakkass wrote: »

It doesn't irritate me at all. It's just well, a load of old tosh :pac:

I think you guys are reading way way to much into this.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It doesn't irritate me at all. It's just well, a load of old tosh :pac:

If anything children are born agnostic, they don't have knowledge of anything let alone of God. A knowledge of God is to be learned, just like a knowledge of language, or colours, or numerous other things that a child will not know. Yet it would be lunacy to suggest that a child actively denies that any of these things exist, wouldn't it?

That would be lunacy but as has been pointed out to you before, not all atheists actively deny anything. If I had never been told about Christianity my position on it would be exactly the same, I don't actively deny its truth but nor do I accept it. The only position you can have on a claim that you've never heard of is not to accept it

Atheism is not a denial of theism, it's a lack of theism just like anemia is a lack of red blood cells and not the denial of the existence of red blood cells. The prefix 'a' comes from the Greek meaning: 'no, absence of, without, lack of, not'

A baby lacks theism, therefore he/she is an atheist

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That would be lunacy but as has been pointed out to you before, not all atheists actively deny anything. If I had never been told about Christianity my position on it would be exactly the same, I don't actively deny its truth but nor do I accept it. The only position you can have on a claim that you've never heard of is not to accept it

Atheism is not a denial of theism, it's a lack of theism just like anemia is a lack of red blood cells and not the denial of the existence of red blood cells. The prefix 'a' comes from the Greek meaning: 'no, absence of, without, lack of, not'

....MOST Atheists have quite strident views on their belief that there is no God ... or if there is one, they wish to reject Him ... often to the point where they could legitimately be described a ANTI-God!!!
....and that is fair enough, if that's what 'floats their boat'!!!

...what I object to are the Militant Atheists, like the ones on this Thread, who advocate active job discrimination against Scientists who don't believe in Spontaneous Evolution ....
The targets of this latter day persecution include Theistic Evolutionists who study Intelligent Design as well as Creationists ... and even fellow Atheists who express any fundamental doubts about the validity of Spontaneous Evolution!!!!

...I am also appalled by the increasing number of Atheists and Secularists who, not only want to eradicate Religious Practice from the public sphere (and thay have largely succeeded in this objective)... but who are now 'hell-bent' on eradicating religion from the private sphere as well, by creating spurious linkages between Religious Education and Child Abuse as well as by open advocacy of discrimination against Creationists and ID proponents!!!!:(:eek:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A baby lacks theism, therefore he/she is an atheist

...NOT SO ... babies also lack any Anti-God philosophy ... so I guess that makes them A-atheists, A-secularists, A-communists and A-satanists as well!!!!:eek::D

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Thanks,

Day defined.

Year,still remains undefined, as the question must obviously become - What is a season? All it says is that days, are signs for the seasons, or am I misinterpretating it?

...according to the Bible, astronomical observation is to be used to measure both a day and a year.

A day is the period from sunset to sunset and a year is the period from the one Winter Season to the next!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...

....MOST Atheists have quite strident views on their belief that there is no God ... or if there is one, they wish to reject Him ... often to the point where they could legitimately be described a ANTI-God!!!

Edit: Apologies, misread this bit of your post yeah some can be described as anti-god alright, but I don't think they technically can be as, as said below they don't see a deity as been real,

Not true, atheists, in principle, don't have beliefs, so they can't be classed as Anti-God. They simply have no stance on god, God is merely seen as nonexistant so why hate him or love him?

...what I object to are the Militant Atheists, like the ones on this Thread, who advocate active job discrimination against Scientists who don't believe in Spontaneous Evolution ....
The targets of this latter day persecution include Theistic Evolutionists who study Intelligent Design as well as Creationists ... and even fellow Atheists who express any fundamental doubts about the validity of Spontaneous Evolution!!!!

Militant, surely isn't the right word.

Well, scientists are not meant to believe in any theory, it just's evidence they follow. Currently, all evidence points towards evolution, but that my friend is science, if noteworthy evidence of ID is presented then that line of inquiry will be followed.

...I am also appalled by the increasing number of Atheists and Secularists who, not only want to eradicate Religious Practice from the public sphere (and thay have largely succeeded in this objective)... but are now 'hell-bent' on eradicating religion from the private sphere as well, by creating spurious linkageges between Religious Education and Child Abuse in the public mind and by openly advocating and implementing active discrimination directed against Creationist believers of both the Christian and Jewish
Faiths!!!!:(:eek:

How, have they succeeded? Maybe, I'm missing something.
Angulus still before news.
Mass is broadcast on tv.
Schools teach the catechism.
First holy communion, confessions,confirmations occur in every school.

I agree, though, not all followers of the faith were bad/molesters, the entire thing really got blown out of proportion.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Not true, atheists, in principle, don't have beliefs, so they can't be classed as Anti-God. They simply have no stance on god, God is merely seen as nonexistant so why hate him or love him?

More tosh :pac:

Most atheists do have a stance on God. They very much do not think that he exists. I still use the traditional distinction between atheist and agnostic to distinguish between someone who does not believe that God exists, and someone who is at least open to the possibility. I don't think any child is in the group of the former even when born at first.

Malty_T wrote: »

Militant, surely isn't the right word.

Just atheist would do me, but a lot of people are starting to regard atheists and agnostics as basically the same.

Malty_T wrote: »

How, have they succeeded? Maybe, I'm missing something.
Angulus still before news.
Mass is broadcast on tv.
Schools teach the catechism.
First holy communion, confessions,confirmations occur in every school.

Angelus is on the news - vote with the remote.
Mass is broadcast on TV - vote with the remote to watch something else. Bear in mind many countries have ecclesiastical programming on a Sunday including Britain with Songs of Praise.
Schools teach the Cathecism - I never attended a Catholic school, so I guess I can't comment.
First holy communion, confessions and confirmations occur in every school - Not every school, just Roman Catholic schools. Initiation rites aren't done in school for the COI.

Malty_T wrote: »

I agree, though, not all followers of the faith were bad/molesters, the entire thing really got blown out of proportion.

Not even most.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wolfsbane, I was writing out a big response to your post but I actually have no interest in it anymore. If people can't look at the insurmountable evidence against creationism that's already out there and come to the conclusion that it's nonsense then there's very little chance of me changing anyone's mind.

I have explained how the eye evolved, I have explained how natural selection works, contrary to the way creationists think it does, I have provided evidence of increases in complexity and beneficial mutations. In short, I have provided conclusive proof that evolution exists and it has not been accepted. Anything else I say would simply be repeating myself

OK, Sam. I feel the same way about the evolutionary religion, but I'm happy to continue pointing people in the right direction.

Why? Because for most it is not just that their scientific understanding that is diminished, it is that their souls are being blinded to their need of a Saviour. Estrangement from God does not end with our last breath - it continues forever in hell.

wolfsbane

I can't remember the author, but I love the quote:

I'm agnostic; I'd say atheist, but what would God think?

Many a true word spoken in jest.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

More tosh :pac:




Just atheist would do me, but a lot of people are starting to regard atheists and agnostics as basically the same.




.

Not even most

Oh I agree, I really have should used 'a minute minority'.

Angelus is on the news - vote with the remote.

Duly noted, not that I object to it when, by Census, Ireland is a majority Christian country.

Most atheists do have a stance on God. They very much do not think that he exists.

This is actually a tough cookie, and we could argue for decades over it. God is non-existant in the 'pure' atheist eyes, so really they should not have a stance.
A lot of modern atheists recognise that it is improbable for there to exist a omnipotent power capable of notable interference in the known universe. These atheists, do however, recognise that the GOD(s) depicted in ancients texts are most likely false.
Probabilities, that is all - no absolutes.

I still use the traditional distinction between atheist and agnostic to distinguish between someone who does not believe that God exists, and someone who is at least open to the possibility..

So, where does the agnostic atheist lie then in your distinction?:p

Edit: Dang forgot, to add that I like 'Songs of Praise'

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

...some are still alive today ... the Crocodile and the Rhinocerous to name two!!!

The Rhinoceros is a mammal.........

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

The Rhinoceros is a mammal.........

...some 'Dinosaurs' WERE warm-blooded MAMMALS!!!:pac::):D:eek:

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

How, have they succeeded? Maybe, I'm missing something.
Angulus still before news.
Mass is broadcast on tv.
Schools teach the catechism.
First holy communion, confessions,confirmations occur in every school.

...not the case in America ... where God is banned from the classroom for over 20 years!!!

....and the Angelus is barely hanging onto it's slot on RTE 1 by the 'skin of it's teeth' ... and it continues only because it has jettisoned any uniquely Roman Catholic aspects to it ... to become a pause for meditation for people of all religions and none!!!!!!

...Sunday services are confined to RTE Radio 252 Long Wave - which most modern radios cannot even receive!!

...commercial radio and TV by and large don't have any religious programming and there is no Sunday TV religious programme other than a 'token' service in the morning ... that's a hangover from the 1960's!!!

...there is a legal BAN on all religious advertising by the Broadcasting Authority!!!!

...the Religious Education syllabus is an inter-faith (including Atheistic Humanism) appreciation course!!!

...and meanwhile, Darwinism is féted both within and without the Mainstream Churches and on all media - while Creation Science is actively shunned!!!!:eek:

...the Secularists and their 'fellow travellers' are having a 'field-day' ... while most churches fitfully slumber!!!:D

...and the coup de grace that is currently underway, is the whipping up of 'worries' about Christian children being taught about Christianity - and it's comparison with Child Abuse!!!!!:(

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

More tosh :pac:

Most atheists do have a stance on God. They very much do not think that he exists. I still use the traditional distinction between atheist and agnostic to distinguish between someone who does not believe that God exists, and someone who is at least open to the possibility. I don't think any child is in the group of the former even when born at first.

Just atheist would do me, but a lot of people are starting to regard atheists and agnostics as basically the same.

You keep telling most atheists what they believe and they keep correcting you. Most atheists you will meet are open to the possibility that God's existence might be proven, they just don't think that the evidence that has been presented thusfar is as compelling as you do. Just because you can't convince them by picking one of thousands of old stories of supernatural events and insisting that this particular one is true with no supporting hard evidence doesn't mean that nothing can convince them.

You have this idea that "don't believe" is synonymous with "totally reject the possibility" but it's not. It's synonymous with "don't accept until supporting evidence is presented". We can't predict the future, we have no idea what evidence might be presented and to adopt the position that no supporting evidence could ever be presented would be illogical and is not the position of most atheists.

I would suggest you look up the concept of agnostic atheism but I've already highlighted it to you. It seems you want to keep your definition of what we believe and that's your right I suppose. Although you say that you spend a lot of your time on boards trying to correct misconceptions of christianity. Well I'm trying to correct a misconception you have of atheism and you won't listen, you insist on keeping your preconceived notion of what other people's opinions are and any time they try to correct you you call it tosh. Hardly seems fair or particularly open minded to insist that you know better what they believe than they do themselves

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, Sam. I feel the same way about the evolutionary religion, but I'm happy to continue pointing people in the right direction.

Why? Because for most it is not just that their scientific understanding that is diminished, it is that their souls are being blinded to their need of a Saviour. Estrangement from God does not end with our last breath - it continues forever in hell.

Evolution is not a religion, it is a fact in exactly the same way as gravity is a fact. You could spend the next 20 years studying the mountains of evidence proving its existence but instead you insist that it's not there. Scientists do not have vested interests here, they accept evolution because every single piece of evidence in existence supports it. If that was not the case or if any actual contradictory evidence existed the theory would be dropped. Darwin did not start out with the idea that evolution was true and then try to prove it, he looked at variations in animals, especially in isolated areas like the Galapagos islands, and came to understand the process of evolution by studying them. The evidence came first and the theory was developed to explain the evidence.

Scientists start with a blank slate and work to find the truth in any situation whereas creationists start with the assumption that the bible is the perfect word of god and throw out anything that doesn't match with that assumption. It's bad science, if you can even call it science

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

More tosh :pac:

Most atheists do have a stance on God. They very much do not think that he exists. I still use the traditional distinction between atheist and agnostic to distinguish between someone who does not believe that God exists, and someone who is at least open to the possibility. I don't think any child is in the group of the former even when born at first.

Regardless of opinions on terminology, the fact remains that the modern "non-theist" movement consists of people who are agnostic regarding the actual existence of god, but adopt atheism as an operational philosophical framework. You are free to define atheists as people who are not open to the possibility that God exists, but you would not be describing many people if you chose to do so.

equivariant

I would like to ask JC and the various other defenders of "intelligent design" or "creations science" or whatever other variations they believe in a question. Do your theories meet Popper's falsifiability criterion?

For example, what evidence would you accept as definitive proof that the intelligent design hypothesis is false? It has to be a simple speicific event or occurrence, not some vague idea such 'existience of intermediate forms' (there is too much debate about what constitutes an intermediate form)

By way of contrast, most defenders of real science (by that I mean such theories as modern evolutionary theory etc) could easily offer up specific events which if observed would falsify that theory (e.g. a 4000 year old dinosaur fossil would completely and irretrievably lay waste to modern paleontology).

Anyway, JC, what event, if reliably observed, would falsify your intelligent design hypothesis?

The Mad Hatter

Mickeroo wrote: »

The Rhinoceros is a mammal.........

Were you not here for this? J C thinks the rhinoceros and the triceratops are related.

J C

equivariant wrote: »

I would like to ask JC and the various other defenders of "intelligent design" or "creations science" or whatever other variations they believe in a question. Do your theories meet Popper's falsifiability criterion?

For example, what evidence would you accept as definitive proof that the intelligent design hypothesis is false? It has to be a simple speicific event or occurrence, not some vague idea such 'existience of intermediate forms' (there is too much debate about what constitutes an intermediate form)

...UNLIKE Evolution, ID and Creation Science are eminently falsifiable....for example, if it could be shown that spontaneous systems COULD, even theoretically, produce a specific functional protein without requiring all of the matter and time in the supposed 'Big Bang' Universe to do so!!!!

equivariant wrote: »

By way of contrast, most defenders of real science (by that I mean such theories as modern evolutionary theory etc) could easily offer up specific events which if observed would falsify that theory (e.g. a 4000 year old dinosaur fossil would completely and irretrievably lay waste to modern paleontology).

...BUT there ARE contemoraneous organisms, that were alive and are found fossilised alongside Dinosaurs that are STILL alive today ... and they are practically IDENTICAL to their fossils!!!!

...so called living fossils, like the Wollemi Pine (or Dinosaur Tree), the Crocodile, the Coelacanth Fish, and MANY MORE organisms ARE THE EQUIVALENT of finding a LIVING Dinosaur ... yet the Evolutionists HAVEN'T pronounced modern paleontology to be 'completely and irretrievably laid to waste'!!!

...I think your suggestion is correct ... and modern paleontology IS 'completely and irretrievably laid to waste' by these findings ... but the Materialist's blind FAITH in Materialism is too strong to accept such an obvious conclusion from the observable EVIDENCE!!!:eek::D

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Regardless of opinions on terminology, the fact remains that the modern "non-theist" movement consists of people who are agnostic regarding the actual existence of god, but adopt atheism as an operational philosophical framework. You are free to define atheists as people who are not open to the possibility that God exists, but you would not be describing many people if you chose to do so.

...if they ACTUALLY WERE 'agnostic' they would keep their mouths firmly shut on the subject of God (as they wouldn't know or care whether He existed or not).
As this thread amply demonstrates Atheists are very vociferous indeed, in their claims that God doesn't exist and/ or even if He does, rejecting Him.

Agnosticism is a very different idea to Militant Atheistic Humanism ... which is a fully-fledged RELIGION, complete with its High Priests, Inquisitors, Heretics and Religious Warfare Tacticians ... as well as it's ordinary Acolytes who unquestioningly accept and repeat each and every Myth that emerges about the supposed Spontaneous Evolution of 'Microbes into Medical Doctors'!!!!:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...UNLIKE Evolution, ID and Creation Science are eminently falsifiable....for example, if it could be shown that spontaneous systems COULD, even theoretically, produce a specific functional protein without requiring all of the matter and time in the supposed 'Big Bang' Universe to do so!!!!

The problem we're facing here is that we've already done exactly that by explaining that complex proteins evolved from simpler ones which performed different functions or similar functions in less efficient ways, that the fact that they could not perform exactly the function they do today is irrelevant because they could perform some function but you just keep repeating the question. You're asking us to prove something that no one ever claimed happened. Why ask the question if you're not interested in the answer?

Sam Vimes

J C, I will accept creationism if you can prove that Chewbacca is a not a wookie because if Chewbacca is wookie, creationism cannot be true

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

Agnosticism is a very different idea to Militant Atheistic Humanism ... which is a fully-fledged RELIGION, complete with its High Priests, Inquisitors, Heretics and Religious Warfare Tacticians ... as well as it's ordinary Acolytes who unquestioningly accept and repeat each and every Myth that emerges about the supposed Spontaneous Evolution of 'Microbes into Medical Doctors'!!!!:eek:

Please,stop using the word Militant.

Agnosticism and atheism are more similiar than you may think, it's irrelevant whether GOD exists or doesn't . The majority (all?) of both groups , will NOT acknowledge any GOD depicted in any of the ancient texts.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Please,stop using the word Militant.

I think it's hilarious when religious people use the term "militant atheist". Militant muslims fly planes into buildings, militant christians blow up abortion clinics, militant atheists write books

In what way are atheists militant?

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Just atheist would do me, but a lot of people are starting to regard atheists and agnostics as basically the same...

I don't understand why though? It's is physically impossible for me to be agnostic towards the god of Christianity or any god because even the smallest amount of thought on the idea shows how ridiculous and illogical it is.
Type "define agnostic" in google you get this:
"someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something" I haven't got that problem with my views on Christianity, Islam etc.
I will concede that I am "doubtful or noncommittal about" the origins of the universe no problem but for me the human created gods are a pitiful attempt to explain those origins. I'll never understand what state of mind it takes for otherwise intelligent people such as yourself to believe such unrestrained rubbish.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...UNLIKE Evolution, ID and Creation Science are eminently falsifiable....for example, if it could be shown that spontaneous systems COULD, even theoretically, produce a specific functional protein without requiring all of the matter and time in the supposed 'Big Bang' Universe to do so!!!!

This is precisely the type of vague answer that evades the real issue. Rather than give a general principle (as you) have you have to give a very speicific event that demonstrates falsifiability. That (I am fairly sure) you cannot do.

...BUT there ARE contemoraneous organisms, that were alive and are found fossilised alongside Dinosaurs that are STILL alive today ... and they are practically IDENTICAL to their fossils!!!!

...so called living fossils, like the Wollemi Pine (or Dinosaur Tree), the Crocodile, the Coelacanth Fish, and MANY MORE organisms ARE THE EQUIVALENT of finding a LIVING Dinosaur ... yet the Evolutionists HAVEN'T pronounced modern paleontology to be 'completely and irretrievably laid to waste'!!!

...I think your suggestion is correct ... and modern paleontology IS 'completely and irretrievably laid to waste' by these findings ... but the Materialist's blind FAITH in Materialism is too strong to accept such an obvious conclusion from the observable EVIDENCE!!!:eek::D

The fact that there are organisms that exist today that exist at the time of the dinosaurs does not contradict modern paleontology at all. You have completely (and I guess deliberately) misunderstood my point.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think it's hilarious when religious people use the term "militant atheist". Militant muslims fly planes into buildings, militant christians blow up abortion clinics, militant atheists write books

In what way are atheists militant?

Not this piece of mythological propaganda again?

Militant atheists imprison Christians in China and pull their fingernails out. Militant atheists execute Christians in North Korea.

Out of hundreds of millions of Christians in the world, how many have actually blown up abortion clinics? In fact, do you know how many people have ever been killed in a bombing of an abortion clinic. One! And the perpetrator of that murder denied his crime was religiously motivated, asserting that he prefers Nietzsche to the Bible.

The percentage of Christians who have bombed an abortion clinic is tiny, virtually non-existent, compared to the percentage of atheists who persecute and kill Christians.

I'll tell you what militant Christians do. Militant Christians get slavery abolished, found leper colonies, fight against racial segregation, dig wells in impoverished villages in Africa, set up organisations like the Samaritans or Oxfam etc.

You are free to argue about creationism with JC to your heart's content. But don't come out with this self-seving nonsense about militant Christians bombing abortion clinics while militant atheists 'write books' .

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Not this piece of mythological propaganda again?

Militant atheists imprison Christians in China and pull their fingernails out. Militant atheists execute Christians in North Korea.

Not this piece of mythological propaganda again. They're militant totalitarian dictator communists who just happen to also be atheists. I'm sure if I tried to use the crusades or George Bush against christianity you'd say something similar. And I'm pretty sure that J C wasn't talking about North Korea etc anyway and was talking about people who reject his creationist ideas

In my lifetime Irish women were treated as lower than dirt because of the influence of the church. My mother personally knows someone who was put in a Magdelene laundry until she was 63 because when she was 21 she went to the cinema with a boy, came back an hour late simply because she lost track of time and her father thought she was a prostitute. But I don't try to paint all christians with that brush or say that's representative of christianty because that would be a straw man

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But I don't try to paint all christians with that brush or say that's representative of christianty because that would be a straw man

No, but you are happy to use the strawman of militant Christians bombing abortion clinics. And while you continue to do so then it is inconsistent of you to object to my corresponding strawman of militant atheists torturing Christians.

You might get away with having your cake and eating it on other fora - but not here.

It would be a fair comparison to say that militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens write books as do militant Christians like NT Wright and Rick Warren.

It would be a fair comparison to say that militant Christians bomb abortion clinics while militant atheists torture people in gulags.

It is dishonest and hypocritical to repeat the atheist mantra about militant Christians bombing abortion clinics while militant atheists write books.