Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 06-07-2002, 01:45 PM

Typhon:

Excellent post, and analogy with the oxygen thing. It is weird how evolution gets "singled out." No creationist that I know of has a problem with Galileo's theories, although they are still very much at odds with a literal reading of the Bible. As are the round earth, where rain comes from, etc. In addition, Christians throw out many of the laws in Leviticus with no qualms whatsoever. "Those were for a certain time, we know more now about pork, shellfish etc. . ."

Yet biblical literalists still cling to genesis 1. Very strange indeed. I think it's cuz they don't want to be related to "monkeys." It's not a religious belief, it's simple arrogance, disguised as a religious belief.

Rufus - Your favorite post in that thread huh? Are you sure you aren't just biased cuz you think wildernesse is cute?

scigirl

foursquareman · 06-07-2002, 02:48 PM

Hey all. Just to answer those questions (or statements about creationists). I don't think I'm lazy or scared in regards to finding out the truth of the universe. I choose to have faith in God. I believe the bible reinforces itself as fact (except for those parables). As one of you said (sorry I forgot your name), saying God did it can prove anything to the religious (even though it may be a cop out.

Nothing I have seen comes against what I have been taught. And just to clarify, I came here to the boards so I can gain knowledge, but my goal in life is to live the best I can as God intended. I won't insult any of you, I won't force anything on you, I'll just sit in the background and learn. Maybe we can coexist peacefully

. Thanks heaps!

Mageth · 06-07-2002, 04:43 PM

4squareman:

Perhaps it's just an inborn characteristic of mine, but I'm skeptical. In my life, I do not look at an event and ask, "how is/was god involved/necessary in this?" Instead, I look at an event and ask, "how can/could this happen naturally (i.e. without requiring magick/god's intervention)?" And in every case, for every event, historical or current, whether claimed "miraculous" or not, I've found at least one viable naturalistic explanation.

"goddidit" is not necessary to explain any actual event. Or any historical "miraculous" event, either. It's far more plausible to me that someone invented or embellished, say, the genesis creation story and the Noahic flood story, than that they actually happened. I know for a fact that people invent fiction and embellish actual events. I don't know, have seen no evidence, that an omnimax god interferes with the everyday workings of the universe.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Daggah · 06-07-2002, 06:40 PM

Quote:

All of the evidence is thus compatible and consistent with theistic models

What theistic models?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-07-2002, 01:45 PM	#41
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Typhon: Excellent post, and analogy with the oxygen thing. It is weird how evolution gets "singled out." No creationist that I know of has a problem with Galileo's theories, although they are still very much at odds with a literal reading of the Bible. As are the round earth, where rain comes from, etc. In addition, Christians throw out many of the laws in Leviticus with no qualms whatsoever. "Those were for a certain time, we know more now about pork, shellfish etc. . ." Yet biblical literalists still cling to genesis 1. Very strange indeed. I think it's cuz they don't want to be related to "monkeys." It's not a religious belief, it's simple arrogance, disguised as a religious belief. Rufus - Your favorite post in that thread huh? Are you sure you aren't just biased cuz you think wildernesse is cute? scigirl

06-07-2002, 02:48 PM	#42
foursquareman Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 63	Hey all. Just to answer those questions (or statements about creationists). I don't think I'm lazy or scared in regards to finding out the truth of the universe. I choose to have faith in God. I believe the bible reinforces itself as fact (except for those parables). As one of you said (sorry I forgot your name), saying God did it can prove anything to the religious (even though it may be a cop out. Nothing I have seen comes against what I have been taught. And just to clarify, I came here to the boards so I can gain knowledge, but my goal in life is to live the best I can as God intended. I won't insult any of you, I won't force anything on you, I'll just sit in the background and learn. Maybe we can coexist peacefully . Thanks heaps!

06-07-2002, 04:43 PM	#43
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	4squareman: Perhaps it's just an inborn characteristic of mine, but I'm skeptical. In my life, I do not look at an event and ask, "how is/was god involved/necessary in this?" Instead, I look at an event and ask, "how can/could this happen naturally (i.e. without requiring magick/god's intervention)?" And in every case, for every event, historical or current, whether claimed "miraculous" or not, I've found at least one viable naturalistic explanation. "goddidit" is not necessary to explain any actual event. Or any historical "miraculous" event, either. It's far more plausible to me that someone invented or embellished, say, the genesis creation story and the Noahic flood story, than that they actually happened. I know for a fact that people invent fiction and embellish actual events. I don't know, have seen no evidence, that an omnimax god interferes with the everyday workings of the universe. [ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.