No Such Thing as Atheism.

[Davian]

The same faith you have in believing the theory of evolution, a process you didn't see with your eyes but you believe the "evidence" about it, the same faith you have when you believe the theory of the Big Bang, or Dawkin's multiverse theory, can you touch the theory of the Big Bang or one of the multiverses?
...

The same "faith"?

Let me know when astronomers enter politics and lobby to have hypotheses from modern cosmology carved into multi-ton granite monuments and placed in state judicial buildings.

 

[durangodawood]

The same "faith"?

I know!

Nobody has "faith" in the multiverse that way religious people have faith in God. The comparison makes religious faith look weak and shabby, really.

 

[paulm50]

The same faith you have in believing the theory of evolution, a process you didn't see with your eyes but you believe the "evidence" about it, the same faith you have when you believe the theory of the Big Bang, or Dawkin's multiverse theory, can you touch the theory of the Big Bang or one of the multiverses? No, so you have to accept those just by faith, the same faith that the young earth creationists have when they attack evolutionists and their theory, don't they interpret the same data as the evolutionists? The same evidence? "Evidence" is a word in the wind, we only see in that "evidence" what we want to believe. The New Testament says that the proof for God's existence is in watching the world and how perfect it is, so everytime I watch the world I see God's work, while everytime you watch the world you see a planet, we all see what we want to see.

So allow me to believe the Genesis and the Book of Job, the Holy Synods, the Councils, the Patristic writings while you believe in the modern theories.

I don't need faith to believe in evolution. I can see it with my own eyes. So can you, it's all around us, evolution is a work in progress.

Now present evidence Genesis is right.

I will allow you to believe, just not to post that it's true. They have been disproved by modern evidence, not theories.

 

[paulm50]

I know!

Nobody has "faith" in the multiverse that way religious people have faith in God. The comparison makes religious faith look weak and shabby, really.

This is very true. The Faith in the bible and god is one that stops people searching, questioning and testing. It stops them from seeing the truth.

Science is always searching, questioning and testing. So they find and learn more. Imagine where we would be if science stopped. We wouldn't have got very far. Science has had to fight the church for 100s of years to publish the truth, often at the peril of the scientists.

 

[Wryetui]

I don't need faith to believe in evolution. I can see it with my own eyes. So can you, it's all around us, evolution is a work in progress.

Now present evidence Genesis is right.

I will allow you to believe, just not to post that it's true. They have been disproved by modern evidence, not theories.

Really? Evolution is all around us at the same mode creation is all around us. God said in Genesis He created animals and human beings, the heavens and the earth and I see animals and human beings, the heavens and the earth. I don't see evolution all around me, neither intermediary forms.

 

[Celticflower]

Evolution can be viewed as a tool used to refine creation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe he only memorised Cure Blindness and Heal a few times.

The holy man tradition was long even before Christianity, miracles were their stock-in-trade, and many of them had a dedicated group of disciples. In times when most communication was oral and most people had seen little or nothing of the world, storytelling was advertising, social media, entertainment, education, and more.

Jesus and his disciples were in the right place at the right time with the right message, and it caught on. Instead of the power-talks-to-power, might-makes-right contractual approach the Romans had to their gods, this was an appeal to a community of the common man under a banner of compassion, forgiveness, and a unity of purpose and God - although there's an interesting view that the Catholic patron saints were a cultural nod to the polytheism that preceded Christianity; instead of praying to a god responsible for earthquakes, they could pray to the patron saint of earthquakes instead (Emygdius of Ascoli)

 

[paulm50]

Really? Evolution is all around us at the same mode creation is all around us. God said in Genesis He created animals and human beings, the heavens and the earth and I see animals and human beings, the heavens and the earth. I don't see evolution all around me, neither intermediary forms.

You choose not to see. So here's the proof.

If god created all the animals. Why have so many gone extinct or changed dramatically over millions of years?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't see evolution all around me, neither intermediary forms.

That's because you've rejected reason as a source of epistemological authority, and so you haven't investigated the science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[paulm50]

The holy man tradition was long even before Christianity, miracles were their stock-in-trade, and many of them had a dedicated group of disciples. In times when most communication was oral and most people had seen little or nothing of the world, storytelling was advertising, social media, entertainment, education, and more.

Jesus and his disciples were in the right place at the right time with the right message, and it caught on. Instead of the power-talks-to-power, might-makes-right contractual approach the Romans had to their gods, this was an appeal to a community of the common man under a banner of compassion, forgiveness, and a unity of purpose and God - although there's an interesting view that the Catholic patron saints were a cultural nod to the polytheism that preceded Christianity; instead of praying to a god responsible for earthquakes, they could pray to the patron saint of earthquakes instead (Emygdius of Ascoli)

Agree with most parts, except. Jesus and his disciples were in the right place at the right time with the right message, and it caught on. Paul and Peter were the ones who that applies to. They adapted Jesus's message and said it applied to everyone.

Jesus was a Jewish messiah, the OT is clear on this and what he was meant to achieve. He didn't do that. He did however inspire others to take parts of his message to lands where they were better received. Israel has hardly ever been a Christian State. Unless under the heel of a boot.

The part about saints is spot on. A St Christopher medallion proves that. The sacred relics of saints are more proof.

 

[Wryetui]

That's because you've rejected reason as a source of epistemological authority, and so you haven't investigated the science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Are you ignoring me? I have told you what I meant by "reason" in that article, whenever I was using the word "reason" I didn't meant what you think, because all of you here think that reason is something completely different than in the east. If you are not going to discuss what I told you and what I searched especially for you, I can do nothing...

Anyway, your message can be reversed, if I don't believe in evolution because I haven't investigated science you don't believe in God because you haven't "investigated" theology.

 

[Wryetui]

You choose not to see. So here's the proof.

If god created all the animals. Why have so many gone extinct or changed dramatically over millions of years?

Why have all gone extinct or "changed over millions of years"? I don't see how creating something must avoid the two last things, that's your interpretation not mine.

 

[Wryetui]

And that's not the problem at all, I do believe in evolution, which is something completely scientifical and logical but not in the evolution you mean.

It is obvious that God created the animals with the ability to change in order to get accostumed to this great world He created, and that's evolution, right? That's the evolution is has been observed, but I don't agree with macroevolution, that all things evoluated from "something" in the beginnings of the earth, and that has not been observed at all, that has only been speculated about over some "proofs".

 

[SteveB28]

And that's not the problem at all, I do believe in evolution, which is something completely scientifical and logical but not in the evolution you mean.

It is obvious that God created the animals with the ability to change in order to get accostumed to this great world He created, and that's evolution, right? That's the evolution is has been observed, but I don't agree with macroevolution, that all things evoluated from "something" in the beginnings of the earth, and that has not been observed at all, that has only been speculated about over some "proofs".

No, it's thè conclusion that is reached after examining the evidence - a very large volume of evidence.

But, because you don't like the conclusions we are inevitably led to, you simply ignore the offending evidence.

 

[Wryetui]

No, it's thè conclusion that is reached after examining the evidence - a very large volume of evidence.

But, because you don't like the conclusions we are inevitably led to, you simply ignore the offending evidence.

I think that problem is not mine, it's a problem of the scientific community per all, that they have to reach a conclusion no matter what. As Richard Leowintin said:

"Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. … Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

By the way, I am not creationist, neither evolutionist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think that problem is not mine, it's a problem of the scientific community per all, that they have to reach a conclusion no matter what. As Richard Leowintin said:

"Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them?

The answer to that is 'No, they don't expect you to accept it without serious qualms'. Even physicists working with quantum mechanics find their observations disturbing - one of the discoverers of QM, Niels Bohr, said "If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

But 80 years of experiments have shown that, like it or not, this is how things are. Common-sense and intuition have their place, but they're poor guides to physical reality - our technology is evidence of that; Einstein's relativity is used in satnav GPS, and most modern electronics explicitly relies on quantum mechanics to function; both theories are mind-bogglingly counter-intuitive, but they work in the real world.

 

[paulm50]

Why have all gone extinct or "changed over millions of years"? I don't see how creating something must avoid the two last things, that's your interpretation not mine.

So you're not sticking to the bibles interpretation.

I'm open to the idea a god may have set the ball rolling, crated the big bang, started the process of life on Earth. These are the parts we're still trying to discover.

Obviously they're a long way from what any bible teaches, so none of them had any contact with any creator.

And that's not the problem at all, I do believe in evolution, which is something completely scientifical and logical but not in the evolution you mean.

It is obvious that God created the animals with the ability to change in order to get accostumed to this great world He created, and that's evolution, right? That's the evolution is has been observed, but I don't agree with macroevolution, that all things evoluated from "something" in the beginnings of the earth, and that has not been observed at all, that has only been speculated about over some "proofs".

So we evolved from Apes, and they evolved from other animals. So not created by god.

What else in the OT do you think they made up?

 

[paulm50]

I think that problem is not mine, it's a problem of the scientific community per all, that they have to reach a conclusion no matter what. As Richard Leowintin said.

The only conclusion scientists strive for is the one they're working on. They let the evidence guide them. Creationists decide on the conclusion then look for evidence.

Often churches work the same way. They look for the evidence in the bible that fits their conclusion.

 

[Wryetui]

Fallen man may only talk about the world and fallen things, that's why science is great regarding medicine, or technology, but regarding everything else it is required faith and God. To me, those scientists trying to find things that are clearly beyond their human possibilities is for me just blind men trying to go against a wall. I do not know when will you stop mentioning the Bible because my knowledge and the Orthodox knowledge doesn't come only from the Holy Scripture, but mostly from the Holy Tradition, so stop telling me things about the "Bible", something you did not read and of course you would not understand anyway because I am not telling you things from the "Bible".

 

[Wryetui]

So you're not sticking to the bibles interpretation.

I'm open to the idea a god may have set the ball rolling, crated the big bang, started the process of life on Earth. These are the parts we're still trying to discover.

Obviously they're a long way from what any bible teaches, so none of them had any contact with any creator.
So we evolved from Apes, and they evolved from other animals. So not created by god.

What else in the OT do you think they made up?

paulm, I understand you do not have the enough preparation, actually you have any, for interpreting the Bible and your ignorance is what is talking because you have clearly a poor culture, not you, so please stop teaching me things about the Bible because you don't know anything about it, for me you are like a carpenter teaching me neuroscience.