Creationist survey

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

But that would explain your ability to acccept the bible selectively while pretending the other more than half is not there.

Yes, I do believe in some parts of the bible and not others. Do you really think that something has to be completely true, or completely false? I choose to believe the parts that make sense, the parts that fit into my view of god, while I ignore the others. I do not believe that the bible was 'divinely inspired', it is merely a collection of different people's thoughts on religion and stories to tell people to try to make them understand a specific point. Of course, if you think that something must be either completely true or it must be false, I'm sure that you've already rejected scientific and mathmatic equations that are only true most of the time.

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

To try and pretend that by LEAVING the teachings of the bible, the Catholic Church is MORE Christian is absurd and typical revisionist

Whether you understand or not, the Bible is not the ultimate source of Christianity. Christ and God are...or is, depending on how you look at it. Unfortunatly, your misunderstanding of Christianity is not uncommon, it is all too common among people of all faiths and nonfaiths.

[TINNY]

Christ and God are...or is, depending on how you look at it.

how do you look at it?

Yes, I do believe in some parts of the bible and not others. Do you really think that something has to be completely true, or completely false?

ooo.. be careful with the word believe.
if you take the claim that the bible is the word of god, the omniscient, of course the whole bible has to be completely true.

I choose to believe the parts that make sense, the parts that fit into my view of god, while I ignore the others

so what is the use of the bible? you have an a priori concept of god and take what whatever that supports your belief. if you doubt the truth of some aspects of bible, how can you be surre of the truth in other parts of it.

[pgrmdave]

I believe that Jesus was a great man, a person who tried to set the world on a better path, but I do not yet know whether I can accept that he was God. Even if I did accept that, Jesus and God would be seperate facets of the same thing, hence are or is.

I do not take the bible as being the word of God, but that does not mean that parts of it cannot contain truth. The bible is no more than another book to me, but it focuses on things that are spiritual more than others. It is also a culturally important book for me, hence why I started with Christianity and not any other religion. It is impossible to accept that the entire bible is true without accepting paradoxes and biases of the writers.

Your last point is good, I do often have a difficult time accepting outside information to change my views. But in that case, I was refering to certain texts in the bible which seem to contradict others. When two ideas conflict, I try to choose which one makes the most sense, hence why I believe more in a God that wants peace and love over a God that wants worship.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

I do often have a difficult time accepting outside information to change my views.

It is difficult for most of us, but it seems it is mostly difficult for people when it comes to religion. Porbably because it is faith-based, so they often feel the truth lies "inside" them and that just by adhering to their beliefs they wil be proven right....

But in that case, I was refering to certain texts in the bible which seem to contradict others. When two ideas conflict, I try to choose which one makes the most sense, hence why I believe more in a God that wants peace and love over a God that wants worship.

...but of course, then you can just choose what the truths of the religion are, you are in fact showing why religion is a non-scientific field. I cannot choose the force of gravity to have this or that property. I can wish for them, but that does not make them more true.

[infamous]

Yes Tormod; The question of an actual God can't be discussed on scientific terms, proofs of or calculations about will reach no conclusions what so ever. However, we all contemplate issues about other questions in life that gravitate around simular uncertainty. There might even be what some would call scientific speculation that is short on proof. But we still speculate, does't seem to stop this sort of discussion as long as the word God is not used. Science is by definition, the study of knowns in percute of the unknown. We must deal with known facts, there must be a base of understanding upon which to build theory, otherwise we are spinning our wheels. I am a believer, but without proof, I'm illequiped to speak on scientific terms about God. Some might accuse me of having a belief in that which I cannot prove. I confess, I'm busted, what can I say. But I will continue to speculate about his existence, and his will for my life.

[maddog]

If your life depended on it, would you say that God exists?
My life doesn't depend on it, irrelevant. I do believe. The point is what notion
of God do I have that I believe in. Kind of close the 18th century notion written by Kant.

Is there any logical reason for being hopeful in today's increasingly "hopeless" world?
Yes. Obviously, look at all the beauty and wonder in the universe..

Do you think the horror of the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States can be counteracted by belief in God?
Yes. It is my feeling that we have more control of our future than we give credit for. It
depends on the choices we make and what we believe in.

Can the fact of evil possibly be reconciled with the existence of a perfectly good and all-powerful Deity?
This one is a bit complicated, yet the answer is yes. I am saying yes to the reconciling. I
have discovered that enough negative thinking from an energy standpoint can account for
all the evil in the world. It is kind of like an infectious power source. This is my
reconcilliation.

Do you believe miracles are real?
Yes. We create our own miracles.

If you do believe miracles are real, do you think miracles can be reconciled with the hard core facts of modern science?
Yes.

Do you think the founding fathers of modern science believed in a Creator?
Yes.

Originally Posted by Stargazer

Isaac Newton was also interested in alchemy if I remember correctly. Galileo Galilei supposedly said that a god wouldn't want to stop humans from doing scientific research (as the church suggested during that time).

Most of the scientist from Bacon to the 20th Century believed in God of some form.

Do you think the Big Bang theory of the universe has anything to do with the activity of a Divine Being?
The event itself - yes. Theory is irrelevant to the question, so no.

Do you think that the concept of evolution necessarily contradicts, or otherwise conflicts with, the theological concept of creation?
No. This was an actual defense in the Scopes trial on evolution. Even though he lost the
case, evolution won its preimenance from that day. I myself have gone back to study the
book of Genesis comparing my knowledge (I was 15 at the time) of Cosmology. I found
that they well coincide (thus do agree). So when you a question from a Creation as to
whether you believe, you can yes with glee.

Do you think it is possible for evolution and creation to BOTH be valid simultaneously?
Yes, they already do. Creation agrees with Science. This is all a matter of interpretation
anyway.

Do you believe there could be a major cover-up in modern science as far as empirical evidence for the existence of God is concerned?
No. Silly question. However, there has been numerous coverups in religion about creative
thought that disagree with dogma for close to 2000 years!!!

I never said I was the dieyed in wool Christian type (raised a Catholic as a child). I have
read from the Koran, Bible (multiple versions), Bhagavid Ghita, a couple more and found
them to be similar as though looking at the same object from different points of view.

I hope I haven't stepped on FT's toes or anything. It's kinda' obvious I don't agree with you. I do respect you right to express you opinion.

Maddog

ps: This is a volitile subject. Handle with care....

[ant]

God is the great programmer, science is is program.
Science disclaiming God is a notion that should never be pondered.
Any person who says we were not once close to the ape because we were created in God's Image doesn't take into consideration that we increase advancement each Generation and it is a fact God expected us to figure out. Those who say Earth, habitation and such were created in seven days so science is wrong simply don't appreciate God's means of communicating in a fashion we can understand. He's so huge and time is an idea created by humans. Many of us can't contemplate occurences without including time as a factor.
I am a huge science nut, because of all inquiries I've attempted to answer
results in the realization that we are restricted from understanding, and unable to explain due to limits in our means of communication.

All cultures seek to connect with The Great Wonder, and Maybe...just Maybe God (as my culture named him...as best as we could) communicates with us in an Epic sort of way that each culture will appreciate as closely to "God's" means of communicating.

I studied religion in college...All over earth people are, by nature, seeking God. I seek him through my craving to understand basics of Biology and Chemistry and seek God further by exploring even further... I don't exactly follow a specific religion...but I don't shun them at all....I believe that God's energy is present when people come together for worship. I believe, because of three specific experiences, he will answer prayer in serious conditions...if it's meant to be. I love to see people who seek God..no matter how they do it. Another thing, those who believe God will send you to burn in fire if you don't do such and such...God that I understand doesn't like folks to say he is so very egocentric.

According to definition, an Atheist is one who doesn't believe religion is true.....This Webster definition classifies me as an Atheist...but I believe God exists everytime I think of the Big Bang and what existed prior to that episode and what exists beyond our universe. That's when I feel God, it's not faith ...it's a known fact. My belief in God is greater than most classified as religious. If you get chilled when u ponder questions beyond our level of understanding...then u feel him too.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by maddog

Do you think that the concept of evolution necessarily contradicts, or otherwise conflicts with, the theological concept of creation?
No. This was an actual defense in the Scopes trial on evolution. Even though he lost the
case, evolution won its preimenance from that day. I myself have gone back to study the
book of Genesis comparing my knowledge (I was 15 at the time) of Cosmology. I found
that they well coincide (thus do agree). So when you a question from a Creation as to
whether you believe, you can yes with glee.

So exactly how does the poetic accounts in the Bible (written by people who did not know more than we do now) and real science agree?

Do you think it is possible for evolution and creation to BOTH be valid simultaneously?
Yes, they already do. Creation agrees with Science. This is all a matter of interpretation
anyway.

Not so. If you would have evidence of a creator, then we can discuss how to interpret them to understand the creator. Now when we don't any such thing, I suppose to say that there is a creator is completely superfluous and therefor not in agreement with the scientific method.
"God did it" is not an explanation of any observations, it doesn't predict anything and it just adds to the mysteries instead of explaining them.

ps: This is a volitile subject. Handle with care....

I don't understand why it's a volatile subject.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

So exactly how does the poetic accounts in the Bible (written by people who did not know more than we do now) and real science agree?


Not so. If you would have evidence of a creator, then we can discuss how to interpret them to understand the creator. Now when we don't any such thing, I suppose to say that there is a creator is completely superfluous and therefor not in agreement with the scientific method.
"God did it" is not an explanation of any observations, it doesn't predict anything and it just adds to the mysteries instead of explaining them.


I don't understand why it's a volatile subject.

Science believes in the Big Bang, but ask them to explain it's cause. You will get many and varied speculative opinions, but no proof. They will tell you that we may never know what happened at or shortly before point zero, but they still believe. Is it more accurate to speculate that some unknown physical law caused the Big Bang than to speculate that God did it? It's not a volatile subject for a believer untill someone denies that creation might be just as well the work of God as some unknown physical cause. If we agree that both cannot be defined at this point in history, why is belief in one or the other so difficult for either party to accept.