Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?
- Thread starter Tym
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
cdk is one of my favorite youtube people, QUALITY stuff, short and to the point.
angrygranola
Active Member
seriously?
xKuroiTaimax
Well-Known Member
Meh, I am not particularly spiritual or open to spiritual matters besides my christianity. I'm usually the first person to shove science down the throats of the ignorant, but on this one I'm happy to settle on a compromise of the big bang theory and creationism.
Tym
Well-Known Member
How could they compromise? Let me guess, the big bang happened but that's just how god did it?
That's not compromise, that's accommodation. One less gap, so the creationist takes it one step back and says god created the big bang. Completely discrediting the book of genesis, a central tenant of the religion.
If you discard any part of the book of genesis, you might as well throw it all away. Cherry picking what you want to believe out of it and throwing out the rest leaves you in contradiction with your own religion.
If the creation of of the light, the heavens and the earth is wrong, then how can you claim the rest of it valid? Creation of Adam and eve, animals, plants etc..
Then you have to throw out original sin, then why jesus? Then why hell?
Doesn't it make more sense that it's just a myth? Just a story? And not a very good one, there are contradictions all over the place, and other places where it's just out right wrong.
Atheism as a default position is the only rational default position.
That's not compromise, that's accommodation. One less gap, so the creationist takes it one step back and says god created the big bang. Completely discrediting the book of genesis, a central tenant of the religion.
If you discard any part of the book of genesis, you might as well throw it all away. Cherry picking what you want to believe out of it and throwing out the rest leaves you in contradiction with your own religion.
If the creation of of the light, the heavens and the earth is wrong, then how can you claim the rest of it valid? Creation of Adam and eve, animals, plants etc..
Then you have to throw out original sin, then why jesus? Then why hell?
Doesn't it make more sense that it's just a myth? Just a story? And not a very good one, there are contradictions all over the place, and other places where it's just out right wrong.
Atheism as a default position is the only rational default position.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
xKuroiTaimax
Well-Known Member
Who said the beginning of Genesis was entirely literal? After all, Jesus made a point of explaining things in a way people could understand and not be intimidated by (ie. parables) so I assume God would do he same for the poor human writing an account of the beginning of the universe. The big bang itself was meant to be a very sudden thing, right? That ties in fine with the idea of God speaking the beginning of the world into existence pretty much instantly. I don't think anyone would have a good time trying to read Genesis if 90% resembled a physics textbook.
I'm not here to argue, but just saying. Oh, your avatar is adorable btw.
I totally get what you mean about the cherrypicking. There is alot of hypocrisy, hatred, lying, greed and other forms of corruption within the 'church'. That's why I prefer it's just me and my bible, I stay away from all that denominations crap because they just like bickering with eachother for the sake of it and want money. It's kind of egotistical too, because they want to be recognized as a group that's individual seeing as the name of christ isn't 'good enough' for them. And catholics... Not even going there with their murky origins. And for crying out loud where did all those 'positions' and fancy vestments come from. Really? I'm not perfect, but hey.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
How do you differentiate what is and is not literal then?
Tym
Well-Known Member
Guy incognito is correct in asking "How do you differentiate what is and is not literal then". Without evidence for any of it, you are just arbitrarily choosing what is real and what is fiction. Why accept any of it as fact? If you can throw out some of it based on what you can't believe,what makes you believe the rest of it? How do you know you're right? It's just you and your bible, but your bible has all this crap in it. You choose what you believe and what you don't, that is cherry picking. If you arbitrarily choose what to believe and what not to believe, you might as well toss the entire book away..
No genesis, no adam and eve, no eve, no original sin, no original sin, no jesus, no hell, no heaven, no religion. No God.
If people want to just believe whatever they want despite the lack of evidence and having no valid way to discern fact from fiction, that's fine with me. Just keep it out of our schools, keep it out of our government and keep it away from my kids. That's all I ask.
H2grOw
Active Member
I agree with you there. I mean why is it that, no matter what evil you do in this life, as long as you believe as you are told and repent before you die, you get to go to heaven. But someone who lives a good and honest life without harming another, and who's only "sin" is not believing in talking snakes, virgin births, and other such fairy tales, cannot enter.
Luger187
Well-Known Member
or what if someone is a complete dirtbag their entire life? treating people like shit all the time. then the day comes where hes going to die, and he begins to really believe in god. not because hes dying, but because his death made him think about what he did. just because he repented means hes granted into heaven? what about all the people he hurt and things he did?
IXOYE
Active Member
You cannot prove a negative. Therefore no one can prove God doesn't exist. And it's a lot easier to find evidence in support of creationism. Versus what? Darwin? I mean, that old eugenics-fool never even knew what DNA was and I'm supposed to take his views seriously? Meanwhile Holy books declared scientific facts thousands of years before their "scientific discoveries." So, who cares who's laughing? People think they're so "different" to be anti-Creator and it's more pitiful than anything. When typically people don't talk on subjects they know nothing about politics and religion seem to be the exception. Tisk.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Where to start...
Evidence in support of creationism?
Present something. Anything. From where I sit, there is absolutely nothing to support creationism.
Darwin and eugenics... right. What's next, Godwins law?... (even if the man supported eugenics, it wouldn't say anything about the validity of the theory of evolution)
What scientific facts did any holy book discover that wasn't known at the time?
Your last statement is full of irony. Here you are dismissing the theory of evolution, something I'm absolutely sure you know nothing about. How am I absolutely sure you know nothing about it? Because people who understand it know why it's true and don't refute the validity of it because they can't.
crackerboy
Active Member
ISAIAH 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
This statement was made 2800 years ago. Far before anyone ever made any such claims. The next closest in history is [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Eratosthenes.[/SIZE][/FONT]
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
If something is above the circle, and "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" then it stands to reason the author of that passage envisioned a circular earth like a flat disc with the sky as a tent. You cannot sit above a sphere as there is no direction that can be considered 'up.' A sphere would make the tent simile likewise meaningless. Too bad that you cannot just accept this for nice poetry rather than somehow evidence of scientific truths.
Let me ask if this is so clear that the meaning was a sphere, why didn't Xians recognize this prior to Galileo? Just because something is consistent with observation doesn't make it evidence for an explanation. I could describe gravity as angels pushing down on everything at a constant force. That would make it consistent with the observations on gravity but that doesn't make it an accurate explanation.
Also, why do other passages refer to the pillars of the earth?