It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

page: 28
44
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Somewhere in my post I stated that there is a huge difference between evidence and empirical evidence.

Atheists should stick with empirical evidence, and Creationists with both empirical evidence and evidence. We have a broader sight




posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


At least for me when I use the word evidence I always mean empirical verifiable evidence. If its not good enough to be scientific evidence then its not even worth considering when it comes to matters as important as human origins and the god question. The thing about accepting any other kind of evidence is that you're sort of taking quantity over quality when really it should be the other way around.

Personal experience is a good example. Personal experiences are claimed by many religious believers but those subjective experiences have no value as evidence outside of the person who experienced them.

As Carl Sagan said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... so far Creationists don't even have any evidence of the ordinary kind.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


The whole Universe is extra ordinary, the whole universe is connected to GOD.

Anways,

I'm sure you don't want to repeat how the Universe is connected to GOD, I will give you a hint (Universal Laws).

Anyways, you can stick with your empirical evidence, I will stick with evidence + empirical evidence.

Both are good in my book.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

Just to return to the OP for a moment: I think creationism is a sign of sanity. It may fail the logic test, but it is an effective, thus rational, response to a perceived threat.

The picture of man and his place in the cosmos that science presents us is not a flattering one. Some find it repellent and disgusting--unbearable to think you are descended from apes, from vermin, from things that wriggled in mud and floated in swampwater. Crushing to realize that the vast unfeeling universe neither knows nor cares about you, an insignificant speck of no more account in the grand scheme of things than those wrigglers and floaters. What is worse, this picture appears to have done away with God, and along with Him--again, only apparently--done away also with the social and moral certainties on which so many people depend to maintain their own moral and psychological integrity.

Under these circumstances, rejecting the worldview of science is a perfectly understandable defence against moral and psychological collapse. Even doing so unreasonably, to the point of refusing to weigh the proffered arguments and evidence, can be seen as a rational response to the situation, if the alternative is allowing an insight that will make one's life, beliefs and values to date seem pointless and even foolish. Such life-changing epiphanies take years to come to terms with; are you surprised anyone baulks at them?

We who take an empirical, materialistic view of the world and humanity should never underestimate how radical that view is for most people--even, maybe especially, people who rarely talk about such matters, who never wax philosophical over a dining-table or computer keyboard. You know, life is full of sorrow and pain. What gets most people through it is believing that the bad times won't last forever, that life is fair, it will all come out right in the end and tomorrow will be better than today, because there's a God up above looking out for falling sparrows, or a law of karma to see every soul gets its just deserts. This frail armour of self-delusion is all tht keeps them going, and it is no proof against the bludgeon of scientific logic.

Expect them to fight back, to fight hard, and to fight dirty. For many of us, this contest is jousting, a kind of intellectual tournament. They, on the contrary, are fighting with their backs to the wall; as they see it they are fighting for their souls as well as their lives, and for the lives and souls of their children. And despite the power of our superweapon, reality, there are many more of them than there are of us, and they may yet prevail for a season. A cold season for truth and freedom it will be.



edit on 10/12/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I think that believing in Creationism is a failure in critical and logical thinking.

reply to post by Astyanax
 


So basically, you say it's OK to believe in a lie? It's OK not to be able to face the truth? How is it, that some people find it so hard to accept that we're basically animals? That's just the nature of things, that doesn't really explain who you are. We're animals, subspecies called humans.

To repeat myself: The existence of evolution does not mean that there is no "god".

It may just be that the mind of "god" is WAY beyond our understanding. And it's idiotic to argue - and needless to say, kill each other - over something that we cannot possibly understand, explain or prove.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Tryptych
 


I think that believing in Creationism is a failure in critical and logical thinking.

That is not the same thing as insanity.


So basically, you say it's OK to believe in a lie?

Okay according to whom? According to what criteria? From a Darwinian point of view, the only critic who matters is the last man standing. If believing a lie is your best shot at being that man, why should it not be okay?

Do you think anyone could function--could retain, in fact, their sanity--without believing at least one or two lies? I wonder. I'm pretty sure I believe a few. We all operate to some extent on unexamined, probably fallacious assumptions--a very popular one, for example, being 'I know best what's good for me.'


How is it, that some people find it so hard to accept that we're basically animals?

That is an unrelated question, but an interesting one. I don't know the answer. Any ideas?


To repeat myself: The existence of evolution does not mean that there is no "god".

That's not the point. If there is a God behind evolution, it cannot be the Christian God, the one who produced the Ten Commandments and has a special place in His heart for mankind. The God behind evolution would have to be a pragmatist, not a moralist, and a bit of a sadist to boot, to the extent that He took any interest in His creation at all.

Besides, it's no good protesting that evolution is compatible with creation by an external agent; the fundies know that we mostly don't believe in God, that we think belief in God is for people who aren't very smart or haven't grown up completely. And they know that, whatever the theory of evolution may or may not say about God, accepting it as fact means embracing the truths of science--and once you do that, the truths of science will sooner or later push God out of the frame. It takes an unusual capacity for self-deception to be both scientific and religious.


It may just be that the mind of "god" is WAY beyond our understanding. And it's idiotic to argue - and needless to say, kill each other - over something that we cannot possibly understand, explain or prove.

None of which supports the assertion that to be a creationist is to be mad.



edit on 10/12/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

I am fond of Plato myself, he has some timeless insight

Human behavior flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge.


Well Plato was a bit dumb, wasn't he?
He left out the most common cause of all:
- habit.




posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



Nope! Im not religious one bit just spiritual. I hate how people try to put a persons face on god and that one lone entity type made this universe. However I do find it fascinating that your little snitch culture keeps finding new reasons to deem a person worthy for jail or incarceration. Insanity sometimes leads to jail and I don't find it enlightening for you to find new reasons to throw labels around OP!



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Creationism .. that a force created humans.
It could be "God' creating us.
It could be aliens created us through DNA manipulation.
It isn't insane to think it could happen. It is open mindedness.

What is absurd is to say that 'for sure' we were created by a God or an Alien. It's absurd because we simply don't know that's true. There is nothing to back that up. It's also absurd to say that 'for sure' we are just a product of chaos coming together in just the right way and life was an accident. We simply don't know that's true. There is nothing to back that up.

My own thought ... aliens manipulated DNA and here we are.
But of course, I have no proof. It's just what I think based on what we know.
The 'missing link' hasn't been found and won't be. That's the DNA jump caused by the aliens.
God tends to work slowly. Perhaps they did the creation work and he filled in the 'soul' part.
Who knows. Who cares. We'll never know while we are alive. We'll find out after we are dead.

Science will never know for sure. And, for those of faith, you don't have to believe that God created humans like in the Adam and Eve story. It's irrelevant to your 'salvation' or going to heaven. It simply doesn't matter.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
ok, this argument is circular.
Evolutionists are saying look at the facts.
Creationists are simply saying they don't want to. then saying there are no facts (they will look at) to support evolution.

So


here we go..

I think we can all agree with this style of teaching in our schools...sound good?
edit on 10-12-2010 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by TruthAboveIgnorance
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Your post is a perfect example of how belief in a god and the the belief in evolution could co-exist, within someones personal belief structure.

It's odd to me that for some this is almost as bad. Eg: Fundamental Creationists. Or people who take the bible, 100% literally.
edit on 9-12-2010 by TruthAboveIgnorance because: (no reason given)


I have no issue with personal spirituality. I actually recommend it. I personally contemplate and ponder the concept of a greater organization and even unfathomable consciousness throughout the multiverse
Hell, such conversations are my favorite philosophical discussion to have


Religion is part of spirituality and spirtuality is part of religion, no?


Originally posted by SaturnFX
I find -religion-, aka, the established rulebook with deities, angels, "science" and other such stuff to be a distraction to the seeking, a corruption to the search, and an insult to the intellect of those truely wanting to uncover the (potentially impossible) nature of everything (Everything meaning...everything. The cosmos, the potential univeral membranes, etc).


I agree with your assertion but this has to do with universal corruption of religion itself. In other words it is theoretically possible(but uncommon) to be a spiritual gnostic without having anything to do with official religious bodies.

I myself like to lean more on spirituality than on organised religion. It is said that all major religions share a common bond/theme but each religion has its own distinct "flavor", aka attributes. The sad part of being religious is that you must adhere to the basic laws of each church and thus that brings us a multitude of problems. The roman catholic church is the most notorious of the bunch!


Originally posted by SaturnFX
I also love pondering and considering Extraterrestrials (this is relevant).
I therefore am very skeptical of claims...you see, I don't feel the need to call every satellite and flicker of light in the sky a alien and ignore any opposing argument.


If you have spent enough time on the forumns you will have heard that no government wants to reveal an extra-terrestrial presence on earth for fear it might upset the worldwide balance of relgious beliefs. I find this somewhat absurd because many religions have already left the door open for alien disclosure and many cults actively stating that the nephelim and elohim are actually the demons and angels respectively.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
Religion is to the understanding of the greater order in the universe
what
chinese lanterns are to UFOlogy.


Religion, theology, theosophy, spiritualism...what is the difference?


Originally posted by SaturnFX
The faster we can rid ourselves of religion in public discource, the faster we can truely understand the true nature of the cosmos, and who knows...we might just find signs of patterns and order beyond our current comprehension.


The real issue is that religious institutions and the elite are conspiring through satan to corrupt theology by intrinsically seperating each religion and having religious followers of each sect going AGAINST EACH OTHER as though one version of truth is better than another version of truth.

Not only that but many older "controversial" texts have been dropped as official material and thus perverted the cause to some degree. I will not elaborate further because my knowledge is limited!



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Science | Philosophy

when we find a way to merge the two then we will be cooking with gas.
edit on 12/12/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by oozyism
 


What you said there in that quote basically sums up why Creationism shouldn't be in science classes, because we have no evidence supporting the stories. I encourage you to take your own advice - there's no evidence for Creation so leave it alone. Stories are not empirical evidence and right now stories is all Creationism has. Evolution on the other hand has mountains of empirical evidence.


Creationism and evolution overlap each other but technically they are independent branches of study; aka topics!

Both can co-exist and both can feed off each other for the progress of society. The fact they are in opposition is worrisome and is the reason for stagnation. Lets just say creationism= science on steroids and is millenia more advanced! It just lacks empirical evidence because man cannot OFFICIALLY prove certain theories yet.

Of course what goes on in underground laboratories, far from prying eyes, such as cloning animals&humans and developing alien-human hybrids for the covert takeover of earth is "another" matter entirely........




Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
By the way we do know that humans built the pyramids, we're just not 100% decided on which method they used. There are several different methods that have been proposed.


Really? I tend to favor the occult explanation for all the pyramids of earth and in our solar system in general.

Did you know about the pyramids in china, central america, south america and the pyramids on mars?



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Creationism and evolution overlap each other but technically they are independent branches of study; aka topics!


all good science most likely starts with philosophy so it actually creates science.

Evolution is a branch of the philosophical tree...



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 




Creationism and evolution overlap each other


No they don't.

Evolution says that bio-diversity is the product of gradual genetic variation. Creationism says that life and bio-diversity are the project of an supernatural being willing or speaking things into existence. The differences are night and day, one (Evolution) is natural and the other magical. Evolution has evidence in support and Creationism must be believed solely on faith and against all evidence to the contrary.



Lets just say creationism= science on steroids and is millenia more advanced!


Yeah. So where the peer reviewed scientific publications for Creationism? And why is an idea, Creationism, that is thousands of years old more advanced than an idea that is only a few centuries old. Creationism has had thousands of years to find evidence and has found a grand total of none, while in just 200 or so years Evolution has amassed a spectacular amount of data and evidence in its defense. There is nothing scientific or advanced about saying that God formed some dirt into the first man and a rib into the first woman. In otherwords this is not science:





Did you know about the pyramids in china, central america, south america and the pyramids on mars?




Did you know they built buildings with four walls in almost every region as well? No seriously it turns out that rectangles are a common building shape, so clearly aliens or the occult were involved


Pyramids are an obvious building shape, it doesn't take aliens, magic, gods or anything weird to explain why people might have wanted to build them.

Also there are no pyramids on Mars, there are mountains that look a bit like pyramids but that's all. There are mountains here on Earth that look a bit like pyramids as well but that doesn't mean they are. In fact it very well might be that some pyramid builders were inspired by mountains or volcanoes, its a far more likely explanation than aliens, gods, or magic.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Will everyone who has read/posted this thread please watch "Religulous"....not saying its completely right, but creationists are a great way to entertain yourself.

I could slightly believe "something" created life, however, no religion in the history of the world is correct. How can anyone who associates themselves to one religion believe that particular one and completely say another is false..its laughable, they are all false



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 




Creationism and evolution overlap each other


No they don't.

Evolution says that bio-diversity is the product of gradual genetic variation. Creationism says that life and bio-diversity are the project of an supernatural being willing or speaking things into existence. The differences are night and day, one (Evolution) is natural and the other magical. Evolution has evidence in support and Creationism must be believed solely on faith and against all evidence to the contrary.


And that is why I don't think much of mainstream science and mainstream religion.

Both are absurd on face value!

Religion leaves the door open for evolution but evolution slaps the creationist door closed.

Who is clossed minded here???



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Actually it's the other way around. Traditional Creationism claims that everything that exists in the world was created as is and that nothing has ever gone extinct. Evolution at least leaves the door open for a Deistic version of god.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Creationism and to date every religion requires a complete dismissal of evolution to explain the origin of species on planet earth.
They must disregard any and all scientific understanding..that is the actual intent topic of this whole thread.


ABSOLUTE BS!!! And I have explained why.......


Originally posted by SaturnFX
Your discussing something belonging in Cosmology and theoretical physics. Evolution in this thread is about mud to blood...and that is a very exacting science...some holes still, but its a relatively young study...still, within a very short time, tons upon tons of evidence, and proof, has been given.


Only subjective evidence has been given; not really proof! I can take a few cave paintings and claim that as "proof" of gaints just like you can take bones of pre-historic man and claim humans evolved from monkeys.

Its called BIASED RESEARCH and cherry picking data to fit a pre-ordained model; much like the global warming hoax.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


There is no cherry picked data with evolution, there is only data. And it is more than just a fossil record that supports evolution. However, feel free to show me the data that contradicts evolution since biologists have apparently cherry picked facts to support it.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join