we see it on these threads time and time again. creationist fundies displaying there complete ignorance and arrogance while despite repeatedly being shown the evidence and proven wrong refute evolution. well maybe you people don't like to here it from us atheists but how about hearing it from a fellow christen?

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBoqKF52FU8

part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBaOFKoLlZk...feature=related

and like the guy says in the video. if your sick of us atheists making a mockery of you and your religion then stop giving us so much ammo! its like we got game shark cheat codes here lol. it doesn't have to be that way! if you wanna believe in god then fine! but stop rejecting reality!

I agree, for several reasons.

1. ID, Young Earth-ism and Creationism have no scientific evidence to back them up. The percieved short-comings of evolution do not by-proxy give opposing ideas any weight. Simply because Creationism is an idea, it doesn't make it as valid as evolution which massively damages christianity's credibility.

3. Because Creationism is obviously driven by religious reasoning, it is morally wrong to teach it in schools. Religion, nor atheism, should never be forced on someone who cannot make a reasoned decision for themselves. I believe this is damaging to society.

4. Scientific research into religion (undertaken by either ID or Creationists) removes the need for "faith" from their religion. Faith has always been the central part of religious practice, and this is therefore very damaging to christianity.

Excellent post, not all christians believe in creationism, or at least do not refute evolution. Why should they, I think they understand that evolution is true...unlike some fundamentalists...

Of course, but all creationists, ID-ist and Young Earth-ists are religious.

since creationism is how life got started and evolution is how life got to the point is how it got to where it is now i don't see how they compete with each other.

Yeah I think its a bit crazy that most fundamentalists, just because of what Genesis says has to take a literal approach to everything. Can't the stories therein be symbolic? I believe in God, but the facts point towards evolution. It doesn't challenge my faith. I think it actually presents a strong case FOR God. Look at how perfectly things HAVE evolved? Is that random? Look at all the cells and atoms required just to form the human eye. Is that by chance? Evolution of this magnitude to me, suggests a Creator.

I definitely agree with your statement.

But it doesn't necessarily suggest a creator to me. Maybe we are just a universe within endless universes. And maybe some kind of conscious beings aren't even aware of us or we are possibly undetectable.

I think because of the limits of our cognitive capabilities/and possibly emotions concerning the universe/and life, makes it seem to many, that a creator was at work.

But there also is no reason as to why a creator would/could have not have created the universe/life either.

Me not know .............

Creationists believe life started as though so they dispute evolution as well.

.....well this depends on what you believe, my own opinion is that God created as a desire for expression and companionship.

It seems that if god desired INTENSE & TRUE companionship on his/her/it's level, then he would have not limited us spiritually on a biological plane of existence in the first place. He is holding us at a loooong arm's length

Just my thought................

Why not spirit beings for companionship.....after all he has angels for that and endless ways he has expressed himself.


He has a HUGE canvas, does he not ?

we are here to learn and grow.

That has to be the greatest thing I have ever read on these forums.

Saved in a .txt to preserve throughout history... Or until I reformat!

That doesn't answer the question.

We can learn and grow on a spiritual plane.

Why school in the physical realm ?

Because God is a physical being and we want to become just like him including being a God.

Where did you obtain this knowledge ?

This would be through my Church. I am Mormon.

Belief does not equate to fact.

One should able to discuss their views of God respectfully without having someone else demand facts. It is a discussion on the net. It is quite impossible to have a discussion when one side demands there is only one set of rules. In the grand scheme of things, culturally speaking, science is great, so is theology which is usually from a religious perspective, so one does not always have to demand we answer questions using only one system and ignore the other. Questions can be answered from any perspective and one is not more right than the other when they are all just world views. All viewpoints are welcome as far as I am concerned as long as we know the difference but knowing the difference is not the same as demanding a difference.

Saying "belief does not equate fact" is really saying my view is superior and yours does not count at all...how intolerant is that? This was the Spirituality vs Skepticism forum I thought and not just the Skepticism forum...

I was just pointing out that just because we believe something, it isn't automatically fact. I believe in God, but thats because its a belief. My faith in God is by no means a fact. Thats what religion is, its faith. When you try to prove God or your religion, you take away the need for faith (not that debating religion isn't fun).

I will say that it would be really short sited of God to put us through something that he hadn't already been through himself. Which also means that he couldn't be Christ because he already had a body.

He was just sharing a view and did not stay it was a fact that everyone has to accept and that everyone else was wrong if they did not. Either way I agree with many of his 'facts' even if they are not scientific fact or accepted as regular facts by others. His first statement seems to be saying this clearly:

Okay, I'm not sure where I want to start with this, or even where I want to go with it cos I have a headache so bear with me lol......


Lets see here, the first part is right, about being here to grow. Why not create us as Spirit beings? IMO, He DID, at one time we were actually one with God, and co-creators with God. We were actually part of His essence, One, yet, individual. Its actually symbolic of how the 'grown up' child leaves the parent's home....its funny how many material things have spiritual parallels. You're so independent now!! But are you??

We were created ABOVE matter, which is why I personally do not agree with mormon theology. Not as part of matter, beyond it. Nor is God Himself matter, or created from matter as many Mormons believe. The nature of 'man' IS SPIRIT. Creation was but more expression of God, AND US. We created along with God (we are co-creators, but not Gods ourselves, I also disagree with that). Somewhere along the line, we became enamored with creation, and made our descent into it. Yes, descent. What once was spirit and eternal, hence became flesh and finite....subject to the laws of time and space. We chose creation over the creator through our own free will, thus we became creation, hence the reason for spiritual growth taking place in the flesh. We descended into matter, the fall of man, and now, through the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, we must RISE ABOVE MATTER to once again be the spirit beings God had intended for us to remain.

When you look at the old testament, and the other sources, you read stories of 'giants' and 'abominations' being in the land. These were the first men, if you will, mutations from the spirit. Our descent into matter was a twisted one. There was no literal adam and eve, the whole story is a metaphor. The tree of knowledge represents the self, the ego and the serpent represents the circular, linear fashion of time.

I just don't believe in this God matter thing at all. We are spirit beings, having a human experience. In Hinduism, there is a saying that the shedding of life is essentially like the shedding of clothes, when we are finished, we will put on new clothes, or new flesh....meaning reincarnation. On earth we are undergoing the darwinism of the spirit. God is not physical, nor are we.

No offense, however to you, Daniel. I deeply respect the mormon church; they have done much good, and are sincere seekers after God, which is, to me, all that matters. It doesn't matter what religious affiliation you claim. We are all the same in the eyes of God. These are just my opinions. Now its time to take some advil....

My view is that God created the humanoid form without the actual consciousness as we consider it. When he breathed life into the nostrils of Adam (mankind) it was only then were we able to be fully realized in the image of God. Evolution plays a great part in that consciousness evolved or rather we evolved into it. The design to bring us about the end product was not chance IMHO but definitely planned and brought about.

Does pure creationism hurt Christianity? Not really. True Christianity gains converts when Spirit calls to spirit. Anything else such as convincing someone to convert or stay through words (talking a good game) is not the genuine experience. The whole Christian church in general as a collective could do with culling away with all those in a dead faith who only believe through words and not through Spirit. We could do away with churches that run as business models are are more worried about the kingdom on earth than the Eternal Kingdom within and to come. Let them go to other religions or none at all for they are what truly hurt Christianity.

we may have been above matter. but we were not alive. that requires spirit and matter. However in our current state we also require blood. In God's state he does not require blood. Mormons agree with you that we helped to create the universe using Gods power.

Lol so we do have some common ground. Cool. I still think, though, that spirit is totally outside of matter, and that we were alive outside of it. Matter is, in part, our creation while we were in spirit....as yes, co-creators with God.

Btw any of you who are interested in this sort of debate should check out my new threat on the 'spirituality religion and beliefs' section. I decided to create it in light of many other debates on Creationism. Its 'The Fall of Man: The Adam and Eve Story In a Different Light'

LOL! I agree with that one.

Spirit is energy. Physical is matter. Life is spirit and Physical but requires more energy to keep going ie food. The state that God is in does not require that additional energy. I addressed this in an earlier post if I remember right I called it the three Energies.

The reason why most christianity is so lame is because it parts away from its mystic element too much. Instead of just being a spiritual philosophy which go about to self-enhance one's relationship with God/universe (which in its highest state is described by mystics as bliss), it ties itself up with mythical stories which they try to say happened in actual time and therefore deserve some sort of religious monopoly.

From a christian point of view, who cares whether we came from adam and eve or through evolution? God is compatible with both. Christians should ultimately be concerned mainly with two things, Loving God with all their heart and their neighbour as themselves. The facts of evolution detract nothing from this. It merely shows that God perhaps works through ways more bizarre than what Genesis describes.

Thank you for posting this R! There is absolutely no reason for science and religion to be throwing punches at each other! There is no reason why Christians cannot believe in science/evolution. Absolutely none! As I've mentioned many times here, even during my 15 year Christian walk, I could not deny the evidence of evolution. To do so would mean having to be intellectually dishonest with myself. So, to have my cake and eat it too, I believed in "Guided Evolution" -- the belief that God created everything and guided it on an evolutionary path to where it is today. To me, not only did that make more sense, but it made the Christian God seem much more incredible and powerful to me. To see it any other way -- simply snapping everything into existence -- made God look simple and small. And that was not the God I believed in. Sadly, hard-core evangelicals have made this into an issue -- an issue that simply makes them look silly. Take a look at Kirk Cameron on the Bill O'Reilly show ...

KC ON EVOLUTION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J0cSnYnFg...feature=related

How ridiculous! It was always an embarrassment during my Christian days to hear such things.

Most kindly,

Sean

honestly there is a way available for anyone to incorporate evolution and god you can make one up and be just fine...i agree there is no reason the two can't find a way to stand side by side......

I have seen some clever avenues from christians on here that do just this......

gosh this guy is his own trip isn't he...lol

my hubby wants me to take his bible challenge the one where he says he will take anyone on and prove his case.....oy vey...

In LDS theology we, our spirit anyway, is made up of a primal material that is above the rest of matter. This primal matter is termed "inteligence" or "the light of truth", it is obviously above simple matter, and would be the "living matter". LDS do not believe that matter was ever created, we believe took of the existing materials and created with that.

As to a literal "Adam and Eve" we believe there was, but when they actually began may or may not have been with the physical creation. We believe the physical body is required for manipulation of the physical. Thus, the physical body was formed and the spirit entered and is, in this life, struggling to learn control of the physical form to override its base tendencies.

In my understanding of Hinduism you began as Brahman, you then to a physical form of minimal capacity, you then moved either to a more advanced form or less advanced form based on your behavior in this life, and this advancement will eventually lead you to a return to Brahman. In LDS theology we moved from Brahman (the light of truth) to an organized intelligence, to a spirit, to a soul (the amalgam of flesh and spirit), we will procede to a state with a more advanced form, and such will continue until we reach a point where we stagnate or continue until we become "like God" (whatever this means, we do not really know, but our detractors like to make it more than it necessarily is.) The difference is that we believe that everything is bound within the sphere of its "creation."

In "creation" for LDS ex nihilo creationism is a fallacy. We do not believe in an "out of nothing" creation, God used existing material and formed existence.

You do not adequately understand our theology, and without proper understanding your complaints against the LDS theological explanation of "creation" fall short. I think that the LDS view of the cycle of life fits very well with the Hindu understanding, minus the possibility of regression upon death/reincarnation. I believe that of the Western religions the LDS theology more closely resembles the Eastern religions views than any other.

you know I'm kinda surprised that the only creationist of sorts that has come on here and said any thing is danielost. then again creationists will normally stay away from discussions were they know they have no room to try and trick people into believing there BS. ether the evidence is to strong and well explained or theres not much there to start an argument with. because thats all they really want! its one of there lowdown dirty tricks! they ignore evidence and act like idiots on purpose just to get one of us (and it only takes one) to spout out some thing that can be taken as an insult to there god and or religion. that way they can say "see those evolutionists are nothing but a bunch of dirty devil worshiping atheists! hell bent on destroying god and Christianity!". its sad that so many of us (my self included) have and will take the bait. in doing so we only farther there resolve and strengthen there web of deception. i now realize this and can see that i was wrong in doing so.

heres a video by the same guy as the first two. explaining this in detail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxP4gI-qNhc

I'm pretty sure danielost believes in theistic evolution. While still technically creationism, theres a big difference between TE and the YEC.

you know I'm starting to see how people can see what science says and look at it from both sides. like the guy said science is completely neutral on the issue of god. some look at the evidence and see random coincidence while others look at it and see a guiding hand. nether side can ever find definite proof of there position because it is inherently an opinion.





its sad that they think there doing gods work when in reality there just slowing down the advancement of mankind. taking your religion literally and not allegorically is a path towards stagnation.

Well said R! I completely agree. Science is not in the business of proving nor disproving the existence of a deity. That's not what science is about at all! Why the fervently religious have to make it into an issue ... is simply beyond me. I will agree that there are some scientists out there who take a hard line that science proves that there is no God -- e.g. Richard Dawkins. While a personal favorite of mine -- and an extremely brilliant scientist -- I think he has stepped over the line here. As I stated above, science simply cannot do this. In fact, science must be neutral. The only way we are going to know if there is a supernatural force beyond this existence ... is when we die. Either we are going to wake up somewhere else, or nothing.

Most kindly,

Sean

Is it not a matter of opinion?

There are many types of christians (or so-called christians) in the world, ID and YEC's are just two of them!

To state that creationism is damaging to christianity is the same as stating that christianity is not reliant on the word of God which underpins its beliefs from the beginning of mans creation. To deny one is to deny the other.

As for evolution, it is a science with many answers (but even more unanswered questions), none of which can account for the fact that humanity is more than the sum of its parts.

What intrigues me really is the need for atheists to go out of their way to tell christians and others that they are wrong, given that they don't exactly provide a worthy substitute for our beliefs.

I decided to add this very interesting insight that was posted on this forum in November of last year by a friend of mine, Magnatude. I think it relevant to the discussion at hand and contributes to my comments above.

Seany P I concur, i so agree on the one has to remain nuetral one doens't by default prove the other......I myself have no issue with the wonder and beauty of the life exepreince or god as some call it ..... what I have issue with is the canons and creeds that profess to know the 'truth' therefore impose it as fact and close the door on any investigations or exploratins otherwise...... .. how can this be....how can one say all things are possible in god then proceed to define god and place limitations and that is what we have IMO........

Click to view attachmentread I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist By Norman L. Geisler (Author), Frank Turek (Author) and David Limbaugh.

or dont its no sweat of my sack lol

and they are the main ones I'm trying to address here.



i find this statement to be a bit of a false dichotomy. are you saying that to deny creationism is to deny the word of god? if so your presenting an unfair choice here. your basically saying that if you believe in god you must also believe in creationism which is in direct contradiction to just about every thing science shows us. i also find this to be one of the most disgraceful dirty tricks creationists use to get people on there side. you have no place to say what is and is not the word of god! thats for every one who choses to follow the faith to decide for them selfs.



like?



your wrong. thats an opinion not a fact.



i never tried to substitute your beliefs here. this thread is about getting people of faith to accept science and showing that it is no real threat to there beliefs.



i do not totally agree with what he said but i think it is a step in the right direction. at least he has come to terms with his faith and science. that much is clear.

They may be the ones you are trying to address here, but they are far from the only ones who exist. I don't find myself identifying with either of these two theories and I am a literalist (some call me a fundamentalist) when it comes to reading the bible.

But then again that just reveals a certain ammount of ignorance when applying the word "fundamentalist", since the word has a totally different root concept than what is applied in todays society.

Have you ever heard of OEC's (Old Earth Creationists) or even RC's (Restoration Creationism)? These are also mainstream christian beliefs as are the others, the difference is that the others are now in vogue but as with all theories, they come and go, just like bell bottoms, hehehe...

Personally I find that Gap Creationism, also known as The Ruin / Reconstruction Theory is the most scientifically plausible way to see the events of Genesis 1 and 2.

Now here is the kicker, the ancient Hebrews before and during the time of Jesus as well as the early christians held to this theory before it was lost in favour of more, shall we say ignorant approaches and that was before the time of scientific awakening.



It may be a false dichotomy to you, but it is nevertheless the truth. If you throw out Genesis 1, you lose the very foundation of the Judeo-Christian worldview. So much so that one in turn loses the need for a saviour and thus the need for the coming of Jesus. These things are interlinked in a very direct way, You can't have the omelet without breaking the eggs.

So if you are saying it is an unfair choice then I have to agree with you, but then again, God didn't exactly ask our opinion on how to do things. As for creationism being in direct contradiction with just about anything that science shows us, well, that depends on whose point of view you are looking at. If you are talking of the YEC's, then yes I agree with you, just don't take it for granted that just because many of us are christian that we have no idea what the scientific method means. It may simply mean that you've never come across anyone who could put creationism into a scientific perspective.



I just had to comment on this statement specifically, I think I was left without a choice in the matter due to the way you worded your grievence.

The truth is that this thread was started by you and it is also true that your approach from the very 1st post was one of putting down christianity, that may not be what you intended but that is the way it came accross. You actually stated it in your thread title "Creationism damages christianity". In other words, if it's outside of what you percieve to be the truth then it is damaging. Remenber, my post is a response to a provocative statement, it isn't a "disgraceful dirty trick" as you stated. If you can't learn to be more diplomatic in your word usage then you in effect force other people to treat you in the same offhand manner.

Secondly, it is not I who am saying what is and what isn't the word of God, all one has to do is simply open the book to see what is written for themselves. It is also not I who decided what is damaging or not to christianity, as I stated earlier, my post is a response not the debate starter.



I'm sure you can cruise the forum to find a long list of threads on this very issue, we have no need to rehash what has been said without end. Suffice to say that evolution is not a religion but it is treated as one by many people. It holds many answers to our origins but not all, not even the most important.



Actually I stated that in the very 1st sentence I wrote on this thread!



It is an opinion, but you must also realize that so is your debate.



I never said otherwise, what I stated was that it intrigued me that atheists cared so much about us "ignorant" christians.

Or is it the discomfort we give them when they come with their readymade pet theories on the workings of the universe, when they don't even know what questions to ask.



You are certainly free to disagree, many others, who defend evolution have not been so bland when reading this for the 1st time. At least I can credit them with a capacity for an honest analysis.