Why do people belive in Creationism, how could they think that?

i like phantom chatter's point about the extra layer of atmosphere that would have made us live in to out 800s. however, a flood destroyed this and now we only live to about 70...what a bummer. could you imagine if god hadn't have wanted to kill his people and make a flood then we would have been living in to our 800s. i also like the fact that phantom has tried to link the ancient bible and its teaching of a flood to the same world wide event of our hole in the atmosphere.
the only problem with this is that adam and eve lived till about 900, noah was about 900, enoch was about 365, lamech was about 700. from this it is acceptable to say that everyone in those days lived a very long life to that of what we know today. however, no extra layer in the atmosphere is going to make us live till we are 900. i would love to know exactly how it would because the human body is only capable of living to a certain time. this is because the very few that make it to about 120 years old, can barely walk, are blind and possible deaf. the reason why we age like we do is to do with our genes and dna. they are set up to make us age like we do. the only way people could have lived to 900 would be if the genes and dna were set up to slow down the ageing process by about 10 times. the only problem with this again is that no extra layer in our atmosphere would do this. we already have a protective layer that stops our planet from freezing over from the cold of space, gives us air to breathe, and keeps the uv rays away from us. there is no need for an extra layer in our atmosphere.

Originally posted by shmick25
On the one hand we have people arguing about some texts that were written a couple of thousand years ago, and now we have factual evidence of what happend 3 billion years ago? Come on, give me a break.

I love it! This post was so good it deserves to be posted again!

Sometimes threads like these confuse me. If you don't want to believe in God, fine. No one's making you, it's called free will. But you tell me, what harm is another person doing in worshipping Christ?

Are you sent by the devil, ordered to aggresively dismiss and ridicule any and all religious claims? No, your probably young and naive instead. I was an atheist. I've never been to mass, church (except weddings) and I never had a Bible. So why did I suddenly believe? Did I suddenly decide he existed for no reason? NO! I had proof, proof after proof, and more proof, and like it's already been said, unless you've experienced it, you won't believe it.

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if some board members, on Judgement Day, will be stood at God's throne, still bleating "But you don't exist MAN! the MAtrix proved it! Go science!""

Originally posted by chebob
In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if some board members, on Judgement Day, will be stood at God's throne, still bleating "But you don't exist MAN! the MAtrix proved it! Go science!""

no if that were to happen then there would actually be proof that god existed. i would ask for forgiveness for not believing and say that in my life i somehow never found jesus or god. you said there was proof, after proof, after proof that changed you in to a christian. i would like to know what that proof is. the bible and anything within is not proof. if i wrote a quote that said 'all people living in the 21st century were stupid' and this was found in 2000 years time...it would not be fact that in the 21st century all people were stupid. christianity has nothing to do with the bible, whether that is proved right or wrong doesnt matter because christianity has moved away from the bible. christianity is purely built on faith now, even if the bible was proved wrong beyond doubt then they would still be christians because they have faith. if you are a christian and have a personal relationship with god through jesus has no connections with the bible. the bible merely is people bragging that there is one true god. christians don't need the bible to believe...they just have faith and that is supposed to be enough.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by Murmur
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment-A.E

*taking notes* So you're issue with God is the fact that there are rules to follow. What if I told you these rules would liberate you instead of enslaving you? Allow you to be who you are instead of being repressed by fear, hate, and anger? What if these rules were put into place to make you better and not a 'mindless sheep', slave to the dollar and the rest of the world? Nobody should be blindly following laws. One must consider the purpose. Seek the reasoning, then you'll understand they 'why' of the law. The Bible isn't "The Book of Laws", it's the "Why" behind how we should be.

In your agnosticism, must you 'see' to believe or are you open to other senses to believe? I'm just being curious because I used to be very literal when I was agnostic.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by chebob
In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if some board members, on Judgement Day, will be stood at God's throne, still bleating "But you don't exist MAN! the MAtrix proved it! Go science!""

no if that were to happen then there would actually be proof that god existed. i would ask for forgiveness for not believing and say that in my life i somehow never found jesus or god. you said there was proof, after proof, after proof that changed you in to a christian. i would like to know what that proof is. the bible and anything within is not proof. if i wrote a quote that said 'all people living in the 21st century were stupid' and this was found in 2000 years time...it would not be fact that in the 21st century all people were stupid. christianity has nothing to do with the bible, whether that is proved right or wrong doesnt matter because christianity has moved away from the bible. christianity is purely built on faith now, even if the bible was proved wrong beyond doubt then they would still be christians because they have faith. if you are a christian and have a personal relationship with god through jesus has no connections with the bible. the bible merely is people bragging that there is one true god. christians don't need the bible to believe...they just have faith and that is supposed to be enough.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by shaunybaby]

To give you a short answer (because to go into endless detail would sound like the ramblings of a madman, and the meaning would be lost on cynics):

The proof is neither The Bible or the teachings of Priests. I have never based my faith on either. MY proof is from having prayers answered, visions, signs that have been asked for and shown. I don't kow how any of it works. Why should I, I'm not a holy man, I'm not a scholar. All I have to go by is my own experiences. And I have not only proved to myself he exists, I have proved to a very close friend, through visions and signs that are prayed for.

And how bull#ty does that sound to you? And why? Because you've never experienced it. What I am telling you is akin to Neil Armstrong telling a 13th Century slave "I've been to the moon".

My own personal theory is that you will get your proof, when you have faith and you really WANT to find God. Not when you just put your hands together and say "Oy, God bloke, show yourself or you don't exist". That's the difference, you need to be willing to accept God before you can possibly begin to contemplate him.

Well, wether you accept it or not is neither here nor there, because all I can do is advise. I know what has happened, what I have seen, and although I don't know WHAT God is, I know God IS.

saint for god you've prety much in a very descriptive way said that the bible is a control for the masses. you said it's not a book of laws but simply a book of 'why/how' we should live. if that's not a way to control the masses that believe then i don't know what is. not everyone conformed to the laws the bible wanted people to, just like not everyone today follows the rules and laws made by the governments. surely the main purpose of the bible is not the rescue offered, nor the spiritual guidence, it is the message that says you should lead a good life, follow these rules and you will live forever in heaven. is that not a prize at the end of the day for being a christian...is that why christians go on about how they are right because they want to let god know, they're doing their best to uphold the bible so they can get in to heaven. why is there the need for heaven? why do they have to have a heaven? why can't it be that you are a christian that believes in the bible, has a personal relationship with god, lead a good life yet do not get to heaven because there isn't one. the reason why heaven was created by man?...because otherwise nobody would have wanted to be christian. all religions promoted some sort of after life whether it be reincarnation or a heaven of some sort, is this just a pure coincidence that this is the rescue offered if you believe and have faith. no it's not coincidence...when religions were made they were made so people would get something out of them, which was leading a good life and also an afterlife in heaven.
my quote ''otherwise nobody would have wanted to be christian''...this is not meant to be for those of you who believe now, because you will say i would still believe even if there was no heaven. however, if there had never been this rescue offered then christianity never would have taken off the ground and you would not be a christian now.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i like phantom chatter's point about the extra layer of atmosphere that would have made us live in to out 800s. however, a flood destroyed this and now we only live to about 70...what a bummer. could you imagine if god hadn't have wanted to kill his people

Um, have you read Genesis? These are not things that he wanted to do...

Originally posted by shaunybaby
and make a flood then we would have been living in to our 800s. i also like the fact that phantom has tried to link the ancient bible and its teaching of a flood to the same world wide event of our hole in the atmosphere.
the only problem with this is that adam and eve lived till about 900, noah was about 900, enoch was about 365, lamech was about 700. from this it is acceptable to say that everyone in those days lived a very long life to that of what we know today. however, no extra layer in the atmosphere is going to make us live till we are 900.

How do you know?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i would love to know exactly how it would because the human body is only capable of living to a certain time.

All scientists would. It was my goal for a long time.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
this is because the very few that make it to about 120 years old, can barely walk, are blind and possible deaf. the reason why we age like we do is to do with our genes and dna. they are set up to make us age like we do. the only way people could have lived to 900 would be if the genes and dna were set up to slow down the ageing process by about 10 times. the only problem with this again is that no extra layer in our atmosphere would do this. we already have a protective layer that stops our planet from freezing over from the cold of space, gives us air to breathe, and keeps the uv rays away from us. there is no need for an extra layer in our atmosphere.

Except to live longer, no? Here's my take on it. After about 100 years, humans become a bit arrogant, bitter, and nasty. In fact, I know some people who've got this way after only 30 . It forces us to come to terms with our mortality and not take things for granted in our brief stay here. Think about eternity. Now think about 80 years within it. o/~ "It's just a stitch." o/~ - Apoptygma Berzerk.

*sigh* I'm a "christisan" (in that I believe in God and Christ), I think the bible gives a good message, and yet SHOCK HORROR I don't believe in HEaven. Now, why would I be A Christian and believe in Heaven, wheres the benefit? Thats what your asking, right? Wlell, believe it or not, being with God and having his influence in yor life is prize enough. What happens when we die is ANYONES guess. I don't know, but I'm certain it's not the end. Wether your good or bad, something happens, and we can only theorize as to what it is.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by shmick25
On the one hand we have people arguing about some texts that were written a couple of thousand years ago, and now we have factual evidence of what happend 3 billion years ago? Come on, give me a break.

I love it! This post was so good it deserves to be posted again!

Thanks saint! I hoped someone would approve of my logic!

saint4god...you didnt actualy disprove anything i said let alone argue with it, you just posted some of my quotes...not even doing the whole thing where it stops and says 'if god didn't kill all his people...'' why did you stop it there, that wasn't the main point of what i said. i said 'if god didn't kill all his people then we would have been living in to our 900s. you say to me that i don't have proof that an extra layer of our atmosphere would slow down the ageing process...well where in the hell is you proof of a flood that would actualy destroy this extra layer of our atmosphere??? also chebob in your visions do you actualy see god or are they just visions of say something else?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
saint for god you've prety much in a very descriptive way said that the bible is a control for the masses. you said it's not a book of laws but simply a book of 'why/how' we should live. if that's not a way to control the masses that believe then i don't know what is.

I guess you don't know what is then. I'm sure if you ask someone who spent some time in a POW camp, they could better define the difference between freedom and control. Who then controls me? I'd been a Christian for 15 years but have only been going to church for 1 so it cannot be the church. The only reason why I joined this church is because I have something I want give to it and no, it is not money. I ain't got enough to make any significant impact.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
not everyone conformed to the laws the bible wanted people to, just like not everyone today follows the rules and laws made by the governments. surely the main purpose of the bible is not the rescue offered, nor the spiritual guidence, it is the message that says you should lead a good life, follow these rules and you will live forever in heaven. is that not a prize at the end of the day for being a christian...

A person's deeds do not pay for a ticket to Heaven. I can try to live a 'good life' all I want, but I will sin. The difference is recognizing, acknowledging, and changing from them under God, who wants me to succeed. The way to get to Heaven is in my signature line, check it out. I'm sure many would be surprised just how easy it is. It takes seconds, not years.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
is that why christians go on about how they are right because they want to let god know, they're doing their best to uphold the bible so they can get in to heaven.

Deeds won't get you to Heaven.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
why is there the need for heaven? why do they have to have a heaven?

What are the other options for eternity?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
why can't it be that you are a christian that believes in the bible, has a personal relationship with god, lead a good life yet do not get to heaven because there isn't one.

If this were true, nothing lost. But I can tell you there is Heaven.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the reason why heaven was created by man?...because otherwise nobody would have wanted to be christian. all religions promoted some sort of after life whether it be reincarnation or a heaven of some sort, is this just a pure coincidence that this is the rescue offered if you believe and have faith. no it's not coincidence...when religions were made they were made so people would get something out of them, which was leading a good life and also an afterlife in heaven.
my quote ''otherwise nobody would have wanted to be christian''...this is not meant to be for those of you who believe now, because you will say i would still believe even if there was no heaven. however, if there had never been this rescue offered then christianity never would have taken off the ground and you would not be a christian now.

I didn't want to become Christian because I was trying to get to Heaven. I ran to God because I was being actively pursued by an evil, but very real force. I think it's presumptive to say all Christians are Christians because they want to get to Heaven. It's an awesome promise, but I didn't ask for it.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
saint4god...you didnt actualy disprove anything i said let alone argue with it, you just posted some of my quotes...not even doing the whole thing where it stops and says 'if god didn't kill all his people...'' why did you stop it there, that wasn't the main point of what i said. i said 'if god didn't kill all his people then we would have been living in to our 900s. you say to me that i don't have proof that an extra layer of our atmosphere would slow down the ageing process...well where in the hell is you proof of a flood that would actualy destroy this extra layer of our atmosphere??? also chebob in your visions do you actualy see god or are they just visions of say something else?

You used the word 'wanted' in the phrase - "if god hadn't have wanted to kill his people...". God did not want to kill his people, this is what I was attempting to correct.

I don't have any proof, so there I just don't think it's fair to shoot down an idea without having any reason to believe otherwise. It's call being 'open-minded'. See my arguments about evolution. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just state that there's not substantial evidence for it to be considered fact in the scientific community. New ideas, thinking, not steamrolling.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by saint4God]

[edit on 23-12-2004 by saint4God]

Originally posted by shmick25
Science tries to dismiss faith by providing an answer for everything 'a little like doubting Thomas in the Bible'.

Science makes no claim of the truth of falsity of any faith based or metaphysical positions. It recognizes that science has no ability to understand this 'realm' if it exists.

For instance, how can science explain demon possession?

Er? Psychological disorders can account for bizzare behaviour.

How can science explain the supernatural acts of the witch doctors in Vanuatu?

What supernatural acts have vanuatu witch doctors performed in a scientific lab?

How can science explain evolutions failure in man and their incessant need for belief in a 'God'.

I have no idea as to what you mean by 'failure'. Man's need for supernatural explanations are explainable as psychological and neurological functions. These aren't complete unknowns that pyschiatrists and scientists have no anwers for. And what is religions explanation for any of these things? That god or the devil did it?

How many scientists have given different versions of the effects of Global Warming? Why can't they unit on opinions?

Apparently you don't understand what 'science' is. Why can't the religionists 'unite' on opinion? Does disagreement between baptists and hindus mean that religion is wrong?

but that is a far call from being a creator.

So? What does that matter? Because scientists aren't all powerful gods then people must accept your religion? Or they must abandon scientific inquiry?

hail
So are you telling me that I can just go to the junk yard, get every piece of a mercedes and lay it out for billions of years that it would just somehow manage to become a car

Nothing in the post that you quoted in its entirety made any such claim. What, specifically, do you think you are addressing here? The structure of the universe or evolution of organisms?

Not, what happened in the EARLY universe. why do you keep saying early universe? what was before that.

As i have already stated and would be obvious if you would pay attention, science and scientists make no claim at having information for what was going on before the period known as inflation. There could have been nothing. There could've been a regular old universe that was altered by inflation. There could have been god. There could have been brahma. There could've been dancing elves. You claim to have an answer, that there was god. But you do not have a reason for your answer, only faith.

And how could the universe be heated to create things without something triggering it

Heat is energy. The early universe is described as hot because the enrgy that is spread out across all of it in dilute portions now was concentrated into a small space. There was no requirement of some outside source to 'heat' it.

You're purposefully riding around the subject which is origins i.e beginning

I most certainly am not. I am describing my understand of the scientific theories about the earliest periods of the universe. I have already addressed the issue of 'creation' by stating that there is no information or understanding of it.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
imagine if god hadn't have wanted to kill his people and make a flood then we would have been living in to our 800s.

or, you could just wear sunblock to block that harmful radiation, and live to be nearly a thousand years old....

chebob
No, your probably young and naive instead.

Why is it such a problem for the religious that there are some people that don't beleive in their gods? Every christians understands a certain aspect of atheism, in so far as they reject all the other gods that are out there. Why do they reject the bhodivista or zarathrustra? Is it just because they're hard to say and hard to spell? No, of course not, they don't need evidence to suggest that shiva doesn't exist, they require evidence that shiva does exist. Similiarly, atheists require evidence that the christian god exists, and the jewish god, and all the rest. Atheists are just christians who have applied the rational that everyone is using to all the gods, instead of not applying it to one or a few.

saint
So you're issue with God is the fact that there are rules to follow

"convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver"

i don't know how representative einsteins thoughts are for atheists or agnostics or whatever, but I think that the importance is that he is saying he doesn't beleive that the Old testament sort of god is necessary for morality and the 'dignity' of human beings. That, there could be a god, but it doesn't need to be some 'sky daddy' watching over everyone and saying 'now don't eat pork, but do eat beef, and have sex but only to make children and worship on saturnday but not on thursdays, feast on these days fast on those' and the like.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Apparently you don't understand what 'science' is. Why can't the religionists 'unite' on opinion? Does disagreement between baptists and hindus mean that religion is wrong?

Are you saying there are opinions in science? No one I know disputes that there are opinions in religion.

I believe that there is a God, and that God is the most powerful being in the universe at that point in time.

That's it. The entirety of my beliefs on God.

The God that is here today may not be the God that was here yesterday, or last week, or a thousand years ago, or when this universe started. God is not neccesarily omniscient, nor all-powerful, nor does it neccesarily care about good or evil, or us for that matter. It is merely whatever the most powerful being in the universe is at that point in time.

Do I pray? Yes. Why? Because you never know, and because I am grateful for many things and feel the need to thank someone, even if it goes unheard by anything.

Am I a good person? Yes. Why? Because I believe there is more benefit to it in the long run.

Do I think God is looking out for me? Sometimes. Other times I think it's karma, or merely what goes around comes around. Or just really good luck. It really just depends on the situation.

Do I think God gives two $#!+s about our religious doctrines or evangelism? No. If God even knows who we are, we should consider ourselves lucky. And that God will only be around as long as it remains the most powerful being in the Universe. I liken evangelists to people who insist I watch their favorite TV show. I'll give it a try, once, but if I decide I it's not for me, then stop hassling me about it.

I have no problems with other people's religions though. Anyone can believe anything they want, including creationism, angels, demons, or Cthulhu. or UFOs... It's when they try to shove it down my throat, or kill over it, or turn it into law that makes my blood boil.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why is it such a problem for the religious that there are some people that don't beleive in their gods?

I don't have a problem with it per say, just trying to help. If I see someone on the roadside bleeding I'm going to stop. I'll try to patch them up as best as I can and call an ambulance.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Every christians understands a certain aspect of atheism, in so far as they reject all the other gods that are out there. Why do they reject the bhodivista or zarathrustra? Is it just because they're hard to say and hard to spell? No, of course not, they don't need evidence to suggest that shiva doesn't exist, they require evidence that shiva does exist.

In my case I can agree because I used to be aggressively agnostic. I refused to believe anything unless I saw it. Well, guess who showed up. I would not recommend anyone doing this. I'm sure there are much smarter people out there who searched for God and by doing so found the truth.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Similiarly, atheists require evidence that the christian god exists, and the jewish god, and all the rest. Atheists are just christians who have applied the rational that everyone is using to all the gods, instead of not applying it to one or a few.

I think there's a difference between agnostics and athiests. Agnostics are at least open-minded enough to accept the truth if it were revealed whereas an atheist would tend to deny until the day they die.

saint
So you're issue with God is the fact that there are rules to follow

Originally posted by Nygdan
"convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver"

i don't know how representative einsteins thoughts are for atheists or agnostics or whatever, but I think that the importance is that he is saying he doesn't beleive that the Old testament sort of god is necessary for morality and the 'dignity' of human beings. That, there could be a god, but it doesn't need to be some 'sky daddy' watching over everyone and saying 'now don't eat pork, but do eat beef, and have sex but only to make children and worship on saturnday but not on thursdays, feast on these days fast on those' and the like.

It must be nice to be so proud of yourself and confident in society, but I think doing so is a big mistake. If you were to walk out of your house, your neighborhood and look around, I'm certain your opinion would change. Your life may be a bowl of cherries but there's a lot of people who are suffering through the Hell on earth that mankind has created. Deny ignorance and take a look around your world: www.amnesty.org...

www.clearwisdom.net...

www.wf.net...



Tell me uber-mind, what can you do today to make sure none of this happens tomorrow? Tell me how 'moral' and 'self-governing' humanity is. Tell me how we could possibly not need help with this. Tell me how these people are different than you.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by saint4God]

[edit on 23-12-2004 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Nygdan
Apparently you don't understand what 'science' is. Why can't the religionists 'unite' on opinion? Does disagreement between baptists and hindus mean that religion is wrong?

Are you saying there are opinions in science?

No no, perhaps I haven't stated my position here clearly. Shmick is saying that science is somehow invalid becuase there is a differnce of opinions within it, or even that 'true' science doesn't have a difference of opinion amoung it. This, of course, is not the case. Sceince, when operating well, will have lots of people disgareeing and studying lots of different things. Science operates by trying to disprove old ideas, in a sense.

I don't have a problem with it per say, just trying to help.

I was only saying however in response to the claim that the non religious have a 'problem' with the religious. I do not beleive that this is true. They disagree, but atheists aren't trying to 'convert' everyone by not beleiving in god.

Agnostics are at least open-minded enough to accept the truth if it were revealed whereas an atheist would tend to deny until the day they die.

Theoretically, as I understand it, an agnostic will say that humans can't really know whats going on in the religious world while an atheist will say that they simply don't beleive in any of it. A hardcore atheist might very well see something that can convince them that there is a god, or something that can inspire faith. I don't think its accurate to say that atheists deny god, as if they 'know' that he's there but refuse to acknowledge him because they are uncomfortable with him. I think that the analogy to christians being 'atheistic' torwards the existence of other gods is a good analogy for actual atheists. A christian doesn't need any reason to 'deny' shiva. They simply have no faith in her. Atheists have no faith in any god. Agnostics, in so far as they are different from atheists, have faith in the existence of something, but don't beleive that there can be any knowledge of it.

Originally posted by saint4God
Tell me uber-mind, what can you do today to make sure none of this happens tomorrow? Tell me how 'moral' and 'self-governing' humanity is. Tell me how we could possibly not need help with this. Tell me how these people are different than you.

Please explain how religion prevents any of this. Jihad, Crusade, Inquisition, apostasy, all of it. If humans are fundamentally incapable of doing good, outside of direct control by god, then even with the existence of god and his rules they are going to rape, murder, torture, and kill, and, whats more, they're going to do it over religion. Infact, god is in large part responsible, because he does not give people clear proof of his existence, and this leads to religious differences and religious wars. God almost allways tells people not to murder and kill, but then there are so many people saying god is telling them to do just that.
I don't think that this is an arguement against the existence of god. But, admitedly, its not an arguement against 'non religious' morality.
And, i am not so certain that einstein means that god doesn't exist, merely that god needn't exist as an arbirtrator or judicial officer. He created man, and created man with the ability to be 'good', so goodness, while stemming from god 'ultimately' can be acheived without refernce to him, even tho that might very well be the supernatural 'design' of god. I think that sort of statement is reasonably compatible with what einstein is saying.

Heck, if anything, man's ability to think reasonably about these things seems to justify the position einstein notes above. If god had no intent for it, or whatever, then why design people as such? Why design a rational universe and give man reason, why make -logic- itself, if man is not supposed to exercise it for some divine unknowable reason? Why not just make the universe nonsensical and irrational, and thouroughyl infused with 'faith'?