Creationism

I may be confusing myself here. It's a passage I read ages ago, a guy is shown hell where people have six-foot long chopsticks and a table of endless food. They can't eat because they keep missing their mouths. The guy is then taken to heaven, where he asks "Do they get shorter sticks then?" the person showing him (maybe an angel?) says "Oh no, the sticks are the same length, it's just that the people here know that if you feed your neighbor, he will feed you also."

I think it was a Christian passage.

Hilarious.

It follows then that you believe atheists to be better then Theists/Deists.

Even though the remark was not addressed to me, I would argue that Theists/Deists inhibit development of science(s).
It's not at all about being better or not.

Quote from: Althalus on February 10, 2008, 04:14:37 AM

It follows then that you believe atheists to be better then Theists/Deists.

Even though the remark was not addressed to me, I would argue that Theists/Deists inhibit development of science(s).
It's not at all about being better or not.

Absolutely.  Even though the response of the response that was not directed at you was not directed at me, I would like to add something:  The Church is always a few steps behind science, only attempting to catch up when followers start leaving it behind.  Heliocentrism and evolution are the two best examples, even though we are still right in the middle of the evolution transition (the Catholic church has come around!).  Science is a very fluid and adaptive body, sometimes with major upheavals that completely change the way we viewed our world.  Religion, on the other hand, is rigid and stoic and almost entirely unchangeable because of infallible "sacred texts" and traditions. 

Let me add: it will be interesting to see if evolution brings about the destruction of religion because of this inability to adapt. 

I don't think it will destroy the church. It will adapt, either by (like in America) teaching it's own theory (creation science, lol) or by adopting some sort of God-guided evolution theory.

Theres actually no consumption of food in heaven, so I'd have to turn you down.

Wow, sounds like a shitty place.

In his defense, at least it went beyond "You're going to hell, so I'm right."

Horrible horrible video. I didn't want to watch the rest as too much stupidity shortens my lifespan.   

Horrible horrible video. I didn't want to watch the rest as too much stupidity shortens my lifespan.   

Don't worry about it, you're not missing much.

In his defense, at least it went beyond "You're going to hell, so I'm right."

lol, I'm not even gonna give him any credit. I actually would rather him have said that. True I don't have to watch the clips but them being out there makes me angry, lol. Actually, I'll take the Christian route and feel pity for his material mind for he is misguided. Hate the sin, not the sinner right?

Meh, the Christian route is over-rated

that kid is so annoying, I listened to him for about 2 minutes before my ears demanded I close the window.

He goes on and on about what the Bible says, not grasping that everything he says his moot because the vast majority of the Old Testament is false.

I was wondering, how do you know Old Testament is false?  What facts do youuse to disprove it?

Let's start at the beginning with the two conflicting accounts of Creation...

Aren't there more than two?  I love Sumerian mythology and there are many similarities with it and Christian mythology.

Ninhursag: "My brother what hurts thee?"
Enki: "My side hurts me."
Ninhursag: "To the goddess Dazimua I give birth for thee."

Ninhursag: "My brother what hurts thee?"
Enki: "My rib hurts me."
Ninhursag: "To the goddess Ninti I give birth for thee."

I've seen some more of this guys videos, and some responses. His videos are frankly disturbing, but the responses are funny. I reccomend "VenomFangX is a stupid creationist" by TheAmazingAtheist.

Let's start at the beginning with the two conflicting accounts of Creation...

There is no conflict in the account of Creationism.  "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" from nothing.  He spoke and it existed.

Quote from: Roundy the Intellectual Non-Conformist on February 17, 2008, 01:01:21 PM

Let's start at the beginning with the two conflicting accounts of Creation...

There is no conflict in the account of Creationism.  "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" from nothing.  He spoke and it existed.

Read past line 1, Sherlock.

Quote from: Rationalizer on February 19, 2008, 03:28:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Intellectual Non-Conformist on February 17, 2008, 01:01:21 PM

Let's start at the beginning with the two conflicting accounts of Creation...

There is no conflict in the account of Creationism.  "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" from nothing.  He spoke and it existed.

Read past line 1, Sherlock.

OK....And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep.  Is this where you find a conflict?  God created the earth, but had not at this time created light, water, the sky, plants, animals or any other thing that would give the earth form.

A little further...

Here's a hint: the conflict comes from the fact that Genesis 1:1-2:3 tells a different story from Genesis 2:4-2:25.

A little further...

Here's a hint: the conflict comes from the fact that Genesis 1:1-2:3 tells a different story from Genesis 2:4-2:25.

Genesis 2:4-2:25 isn't an account of creation of the earth.  It's the account of God's creation of man and his reckoning of his previous creation. The phrase: These are the generations, means a history or a previous record.      The six days of creation from Genesis 1 end with the creation of land animals.  Gen. 2 is a review of what had already been done.

Quote from: Roundy the Intellectual Non-Conformist on February 19, 2008, 03:51:11 PM

A little further...

Here's a hint: the conflict comes from the fact that Genesis 1:1-2:3 tells a different story from Genesis 2:4-2:25.

Genesis 2:4-2:25 isn't an account of creation of the earth.  It's the account of God's creation of man and his reckoning of his previous creation. The phrase: These are the generations, means a history or a previous record.      The six days of creation from Genesis 1 end with the creation of land animals.  Gen. 2 is a review of what had already been done.

So why does it say God created plant life before He created man in the first part, and after he created man in the second part?

The order isn't important because its an allegorical story.

I thought it referred to the creation of plantlife etc in the past tense in the second part?

The order isn't important because its an allegorical story.

The argument was over whether the story in the OT is false.  If the creation account is just an allegory with no basis in fact then it is false.

And for the record it's a pretty poorly written allegory if it contradicts itself.  Actually, I think it's pretty commonly accepted that the two parts were originally written seperately as two different stories.

I thought it referred to the creation of plantlife etc in the past tense in the second part?

  When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Quote from: Rationalizer on February 19, 2008, 04:05:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Intellectual Non-Conformist on February 19, 2008, 03:51:11 PM

A little further...

Here's a hint: the conflict comes from the fact that Genesis 1:1-2:3 tells a different story from Genesis 2:4-2:25.

Genesis 2:4-2:25 isn't an account of creation of the earth.  It's the account of God's creation of man and his reckoning of his previous creation. The phrase: These are the generations, means a history or a previous record.      The six days of creation from Genesis 1 end with the creation of land animals.  Gen. 2 is a review of what had already been done.

So why does it say God created plant life before He created man in the first part, and after he created man in the second part?

In the second part (2:5) says "and every plant of the field"  and (2:7) "the Lord God formed Man."  The rest (2:8-2:14) is the creation of a specific place.  Who's to say that God did not create all plants and animals in chap. 1 and is now creating a specific place for man on the already created earth.

The creation of man is not an allegory.  It is a true, actual retelling of the creation of the earth.

No, it specifically states that there was no plant life on the earth before God created man (look at the passage I quoted).

Quote

The order isn't important because its an allegorical story.

The argument was over whether the story in the OT is false.  If the creation account is just an allegory with no basis in fact then it is false.

And for the record it's a pretty poorly written allegory if it contradicts itself.  Actually, I think it's pretty commonly accepted that the two parts were originally written seperately as two different stories.

Quote

I thought it referred to the creation of plantlife etc in the past tense in the second part?

  When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 8 Now the LORD God HAD planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed

Had is past tense

But I dunno, who else has argued this?

  When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Was eric religious?