Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Darwin claimed that is faith in blind faith evolutionism eventually drove out every last vestige of his acceptance of the Word of God.
More of Othaniel Marsh-ism? "arranging" the fossils along with "stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science"??
Darwin claimed that is faith in blind faith evolutionism eventually drove out every last vestige of his acceptance of the Word of God. Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers all claimed the same thing.
In your opinion. I will agree that it clashes with a literal biblical interpretation, but for those that don't interpret the text literally, it doesn't come at odds with their faith.One thing is for certain - blind faith evolutionism is totally at odds with faith in the Bible as the Word of God.
In your opinion. The majority of Christians are evolution supporters, so unless you want to commit the "no true Scottsman" fallacy, you have to acknowledge that plenty of people comfortably reconcile evolution and the bible in their minds, and retain their faith while being supporters of evolution.There can be no logical and truthful marriage between the two religions regarding the doctrine on origins - as Darwin himself observed.
Darwin had a crisis of faith, yes, when he made his observations, and realized that they did not fit with a literal biblical interpretation. Not everyone can reconcile the two ideas, however, the harder you demand people reject evolution in favor of a literal biblical interpretation, the more you are encouraging a mindset that can't reconcile the two, and that will result in more people losing faith over time than being more flexible about biblical interpretation. I am pretty sure that your god will not care if you think it literally made Adam out of dirt, or made people over time through guided evolution. You still believe Jesus Christ is your lord and savior, and ultimately, isn't that what matters the most?But those 3 are on video tape explaining just how their blind faith in evolutionism destroyed their faith in the Word of God - so also did Darwin document his own rejection of the Bible in favor of his faith in evolutionism.
Faith by definition means that you don't have enough evidence to fully justify supporting an idea, but you do anyways because you have conviction in being right. It is one of the justifications I hear given for why god doesn't make itself unambiguously present 24/7.On the contrary - I have "faith in Christ" - the evidence of things not seen.
Nitpick: science doesn't deal with math, math has proofs. This is just plain fact.I don't have "faith that 2+2=4" -- that is science fact.
We are in the evolution vs creationism debate subforum, of course we are going to ask people that here, it is relevant to the discussion to know what position people take on the matter. If this was a math debate sub forum, you might see people questioning topics like that.You will never find atheists or Christians asking someone if they "believe in 2+2=4-ism" but they ask that about evolution all the time.
It would be if we did have blind faith in it. Do you not realize that we are fully aware that evolution could be wrong? We just know it is currently the strongest theory in terms of evidence for explaining how species change and develop over time. Plenty of evolution supporters dedicate their lives to trying to disprove it, because science arguably progresses more in demonstrating what theories are wrong than it does in demonstrating which ones are more likely to be right. It would be amazing if evolution would be disproven. Some people might be butthurt about it, and that would be a rough change for biology majors such as myself, but the shear epicness of what that would mean, and what new possibilities could become the highlight of our understanding would be exciting.Blind faith evolutionism is a competing religion - and junk-science all at the same time.
in Christ,
Bob
While Hoghead interprets the bible to be portraying hell incorrectly, or that hell is a mistake, I ended up interpreting that the loving qualities attributed to the Christian god are more to please it in a text that is supposed to encourage worship than an accurate depiction of how loving this being is. I base that on its actions of endorsing genocide of multiple cities, flooding the Earth because people expressed their free will in a way it didn't like, and inability to forgive people without getting worship from them. To me, a truly loving being would not punish people for the petty reason of not believing that deity exists.It's true, Bob, that belief in Hell has been a major teaching in Christianity. But is it really true? The Bible also says that God is loving and forgiving; and when you are truly loving you do not seek to coerce others with threats of eternal punishments. Many have left the church, some to become atheists, because they were given a contradictory message: God is supposed to be loving and forgiving, yet may well send the vast majority of the human race to eternal torment.
Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..
Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/
My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...
Anyone help?
God Bless!
The projection is strong with this one.
Don't you realize that every time you use "faith" as a term of derision, you only make yourself look bad?
I hate Dawkins, P. Z. Meyers is a complete tool and a wannabe Dawkins, and I don't even know who Provine is. Atheists are not obligated to defend those of us that lack tact, especially when we disagree with them.
In your opinion. I will agree that it clashes with a literal biblical interpretation, but for those that don't interpret the text literally, it doesn't come at odds with their faith.
While Hoghead interprets the bible to be portraying hell incorrectly, or that hell is a mistake, I ended up interpreting that the loving qualities attributed to the Christian god are more to please it in a text that is supposed to encourage worship than an accurate depiction of how loving this being is. I base that on its actions of endorsing genocide of multiple cities, flooding the Earth because people expressed their free will in a way it didn't like, and inability to forgive people without getting worship from them. To me, a truly loving being would not punish people for the petty reason of not believing that deity exists.
Darwin certainly was, he even went to higher education to be in the ministry. As for the others, it would not shock me if they were raised as Christian. Most atheists were, at some point in their life, religious. People like me that never were are uncommon, and I wasn't raised to be non religious either. Not intentionally, anyways.Well far be it from me to defend their tact or methods. My only reference for them was that they all claimed (like Darwin) to have been raised as Christians.
That's entirely possible, although for many atheists, evolution isn't a contributor to their lack of faith. It certainly isn't for me. To be blunt, figuring out that Santa Claus and the like weren't real on my own as a very young child contributed more to that than evolution ever could hope to. Lesson for all; if you lie to your kids about some mystical beings, and they figure it out on their own, they aren't liable to trust your word for it on similar concepts. Rather than trying to keep the Christ in Christmas, you should probably consider trying to keep the Claus out of it.And they all claim that once they chose belief in the Darwinian doctrine on origins - they could no longer accept the Bible.
Aman777 begs to differ. He interprets the length of the 6 days in Genesis to not be a literal 24 hours, but billions of years. Not saying I agree with him, just that there are ways of interpreting "6 days" as enough time for evolution to occur.Certainly no form of Darwinism begins with 'for in SIX DAYS the LORD Made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day" Ex 20:11. (an example of legal code).
When interpreted literally, for the most part, yes. All the more reason to promote non literal biblical interpretations.One can hardly blame them for "noticing the obvious" point that those two ideas on the doctrine of origins are completely at odds with each other.
Do you have a word of the day calendar? Eisegetical, while perfectly fitting based on its meaning, is not a common word by any means.My reference to James Barr and the "professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities" -- is because that is a group of atheists and agnostics not at all biased in favor of the Bible - yet dedicated to the study of the "literature" and history of it. And they seem to "notice" - the "kind of literature that it is".
A christian T.E. on the other hand has a "conflict of interest" -- he needs to "Discover" that the text written for all the world like a historic account "is not what you see" -- rather it is "what darwinism needs it to be".
Rather eisegetical from the get-go.
in Christ,
Bob
No, but Sweden, a country in which the majority of the population today consists of atheists, has very low crime and poverty rates, and one of the lowest rates of depression. Clearly, religion or lack thereof doesn't affect frequency of conflict or violence. Yes, it can be used to try and justify conflicts, as other atheists on here, including myself, often point out, however, people will always use what they have to justify their horrible actions and get others in on it.You need to pay more attention to the details.
in Genesis 6 you do NOT find a text say "All the world was peaceful - except the majority did not believe that God exists. They were all peaceful - loving - atheists".
It may be 're-imagined' -- that this is what is written there. But that is not the history that is recorded there. Rather a very violent and corrupt state of society had been reached. The fact that only 8 of them bothered to "get out of the rain" indicates just how far they had drifted from the level of "Adam and Eve".
I have been a seeker for over 7 years now. I am not an atheist because I want to be one. I would much rather be wrong, and still end up in hell because I didn't believe, than face complete oblivion of nonexistence. However, the argument you bring up is called Pascal's wager, and it is a well known and flawed argument for belief. The problem with it is that it forces a false dichotomy: in order for its argument to be even worth acknowledging, the only two possibilities that could be potentially correct are atheism and Christianity. In reality, atheism has between a 20-40% chance of being correct, depending on who you ask and suspending the comment that trying to measure that with precision is futile, while the remaining probability is divided millions upon millions of times between not only every religion that has ever existed, but any possibility that could apply to deities that hasn't gained a following before. Ultimately, atheism in general is more likely to be accurate to reality than any specific religion, which will end up with significantly less than 1% chance of being right just because of the number of possibilities.You might be well advised to at least "read" the other side - of the fence before passing judgment on it since it is a life-or-death decision. And of course failing to believe in atheism if the alternative is wrong, is a nothing-risked end result, by comparison. You can only be at massive risk - if the Christian world view is the right one and you are atheist. You can't be at risk at all if you are Christian but the atheist world view is right.
in Christ,
Bob
I have been a seeker for over 7 years now. I am not an atheist because I want to be one. I would much rather be wrong, and still end up in hell because I didn't believe, than face complete oblivion of nonexistence.
However, the argument you bring up is called Pascal's wager
The problem with it is that it forces a false dichotomy: in order for its argument to be even worth acknowledging, the only two possibilities that could be potentially correct are atheism and Christianity. In reality, atheism has between a 20-40% chance of being correct, depending on who you ask
and suspending the comment that trying to measure that with precision is futile, while the remaining probability is divided millions upon millions of times between not only every religion that has ever existed
Building the Ark took centuries, and god told Noah how to do it. Chances are, even if the other people knew what was coming, which they likely did not, they would not have had the knowledge to save themselves.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?