OT: Creationism--a myth or retardation?

[bawang]

The creation story is a 2 part story ( Genesis 1 and 2) and they have different focuses and different purposes.

the biggest controversy that is stirred up is genesis, but that is one of the least important parts of the hebrew scriptures.


it draws away from the fact that the abrahamic religions are not primal religions, they are rational religions. the idea that "idols are just inert wood and metal" speaks way more about the nature of judaism than a talking snake.


king solomon revealed the truth about the abrahamic religions long ago. he said that no one really knows what happens after they die, live your life, but know you will be judged.

[sanjuro_ronin]

the biggest controversy that is stirred up is genesis, but that is one of the least important parts of the hebrew scriptures.


it draws away from the fact that the abrahamic religions are not primal religions, they are rational religions. the idea that "idols are just inert wood and metal" speaks way more about the nature of judaism than a talking snake.

Honestly, the genesis controversy ONLY came to be because of the issue of evolution AND it is ONLY an issue for fundamentalists and those that view Genesis and the bible as to be read as literal AND concrete.
This is actually a MINORITY view ( the RCC accepts evolution for example).
Augustine, in the 4th century, already warned Christians to NOT take Genesis ( in whole) as literal.

[bawang]

Honestly, the genesis controversy ONLY came to be because of the issue of evolution AND it is ONLY an issue for fundamentalists and those that view Genesis and the bible as to be read as literal AND concrete.
This is actually a MINORITY view ( the RCC accepts evolution for example).
Augustine, in the 4th century, already warned Christians to NOT take Genesis ( in whole) as literal.

but you will find almost every argument about religion will come to this. atheists never argue about morality and integrity, they only make fun of the talking snake.

[sanjuro_ronin]

but you will find almost every argument about religion will come to this. atheists never argue about morality and integrity, they only make fun of the talking snake.

Talking snake...talking monkey....tomato...tomahtoe...

[SenseiShellie]

You do realize that the book of genesis is written by at least 34 different people, right? There are 2 accounts of the creation story in genesis one after the other. Why are we even debating this book? Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that if science can prove it, there is no argument.

[Syn7]

a truly intelligent person would be an Agnostic if nothing else!

Can I get a witness?

He said it, not me.

[Syn7]

But to be Atheist only demonstrates their own ignorance.

Yup, it's an emotional reaction to organized religion. Some people are so disgusted with the criminality and greed of organized religion that they just go to the other extreme in order to counter. Purely emotional response no matter how much rationale you throw at it. Whereas an agnostic admits the only truth here. We simply don't know and unless some drastic step in human evolution allows us to expand our minds beyond current boundaries, it is unknowable to who we are today.

[Syn7]

Which Babylonian creation myths was it based on?
Remember that co-relation doesn't equal causation...

Most of Christianity is a takeoff from earlier beliefs. Very little is original, not even the story of the sacrificing son of god. Most of it is Egyptian, but there is a smattering of pretty much everything that held any real sway. But none of that changes the validity or lack thereof. And t doesn't have to be sinister. It is a form of evolution. Those who convert bring their baggage with them and eventually it gets incorporated into the new ideas.

[Syn7]

You do realize that the book of genesis is written by at least 34 different people, right? There are 2 accounts of the creation story in genesis one after the other. Why are we even debating this book? Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that if science can prove it, there is no argument.

The funny part is that nobody here actually believes what is being argued. Nobody here believes the earth is 6000 years old and nobody here thinks the bible is literal. How's that for intellectual circle jerking.

[wenshu]

Yup, it's an emotional reaction to organized religion. Some people are so disgusted with the criminality and greed of organized religion that they just go to the other extreme in order to counter. Purely emotional response no matter how much rationale you throw at it. Whereas an agnostic admits the only truth here. We simply don't know and unless some drastic step in human evolution allows us to expand our minds beyond current boundaries, it is unknowable to who we are today.

Or some people just don't believe in fucking fairy tales.

Since I can't prove that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exist I'll leave it to the truly intelligent people to navigate the sophistries of narcissistic metaphysical anthropomorphism.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You do realize that the book of genesis is written by at least 34 different people, right? There are 2 accounts of the creation story in genesis one after the other. Why are we even debating this book? Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that if science can prove it, there is no argument.

Not sure where you got the number 34, LOL ! but yes, it's been stated that Genesis is the combination of two creation accounts, one by the Elhoist writer and the other by the Yahwist.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Most of Christianity is a takeoff from earlier beliefs. Very little is original, not even the story of the sacrificing son of god. Most of it is Egyptian, but there is a smattering of pretty much everything that held any real sway. But none of that changes the validity or lack thereof. And t doesn't have to be sinister. It is a form of evolution. Those who convert bring their baggage with them and eventually it gets incorporated into the new ideas.

I used to believe that too, then after further study I saw that was not the case at all.
Here is a good place to start:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html

To me, at least, my doubts about the religion I was raised and never really believed, caused me to research and study BOTH sides of the arguments, not looking for what I WANTED to find, but just looking to see what was really there.
It ( the research) gave me and strengthened my faith.
I do NOT agree with organized religion, I think that it has caused more bad than good simply because it places MAN above God or at least in the place of God.
I think people should be free to seek and find their own way in the world and I believe that, given time and a desire for discovering the truth, eventually all people will realize that THEY are the key to finding God and not any organization.

[Scott R. Brown]

Can I get a witness?

He said it, not me.

Don't get too excited!

The implication of the statement was that an agnostic is truly wised compared to an atheist, who is ignorant of his own faith and the limits of reasoning!

Yup, it's an emotional reaction to organized religion. Some people are so disgusted with the criminality and greed of organized religion that they just go to the other extreme in order to counter. Purely emotional response no matter how much rationale you throw at it. Whereas an agnostic admits the only truth here. We simply don't know and unless some drastic step in human evolution allows us to expand our minds beyond current boundaries, it is unknowable to who we are today.

It is only unknowable to those who don't look.

It is like saying an orange does not have any taste at all, while refusing to taste one. You don't know the taste of an orange until you find one and eat it.

If a person wants to know if God exists, the first thing to do is to look for him/her/it and then have the direct experience for themselves. The problem is, it is easier to taste an orange than it is to find God. We call the people who have found God mystics and their reports are very similar across cultures and historical time periods, after accounting for cultural and intellectual influences.

Most of Christianity is a takeoff from earlier beliefs. Very little is original, not even the story of the sacrificing son of god. Most of it is Egyptian, but there is a smattering of pretty much everything that held any real sway. But none of that changes the validity or lack thereof. And t doesn't have to be sinister. It is a form of evolution. Those who convert bring their baggage with them and eventually it gets incorporated into the new ideas.

The virgin birth and son of God motif comes from Mithraism, a popular Persian religion with the Roman soldiers.

Or some people just don't believe in fucking fairy tales.

Since I can't prove that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exist I'll leave it to the truly intelligent people to navigate the sophistries of narcissistic metaphysical anthropomorphism.

That is probably a good idea, since you are attacking a group of people who are not represented here and no one here is making that argument!

[sanjuro_ronin]

The virgin birth and son of God motif comes from Mithraism, a popular Persian religion with the Roman soldiers.

Just an FYI:
Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
A common fallacy:
Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave; he was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a cave behind -- and I suppose technically the rock he was born out of could have been classified as a virgin!

Here is how one Mithraic scholar describes the scene on Mithraic depictions: Mithra "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." [MS.173] Mithra was born a grown-up, but you won't hear the copycatters mention this! The rock-birth scene itself was a likely carryover from Perseus, who experienced a similar birth in an underground cavern. (Ulan.OMM, 36)

The Iranian Mithra didn't have a "born out of rock" story; his conception was attributed, variously, to an incestuous relationship between Ahura-Mazda and his mother, or to the plain doings of an ordinary mortal woman...but there is no virgin conception/birth story to speak of. [Cum.MM, 16]

Also it should be noted that nearly all Roman Mithraic evidence, dates at least a century after the time of the New Testament. It is too late to say that any "borrowing" was done by the Christian church -- if there was any, it was the other way around; but there probably was none.

[Jimbo]

I used to believe that too, then after further study I saw that was not the case at all.
Here is a good place to start:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html

To me, at least, my doubts about the religion I was raised and never really believed, caused me to research and study BOTH sides of the arguments, not looking for what I WANTED to find, but just looking to see what was really there.
It ( the research) gave me and strengthened my faith.
I do NOT agree with organized religion, I think that it has caused more bad than good simply because it places MAN above God or at least in the place of God.
I think people should be free to seek and find their own way in the world and I believe that, given time and a desire for discovering the truth, eventually all people will realize that THEY are the key to finding God and not any organization.

Good points.

Not to single out any religions or sects, but I was raised a Catholic (though not really hard-core), had to go to church every week, and had to go to catechism every week, too, until my late teens. In all that time, I can honestly say that I never "felt" God, nor had any concept of Divine Love. Besides being required to do so, to me, church was about accumulating brownie points for the afterlife. It instilled a sense of guilt and even fear of not going and paying the consequences. I went because I was taught I had to.

I had stopped going, but still believed that way for years until I got into SRF, which opened my mind. During that time and as a result, I also had a particularly powerful spiritual experience. Now I no longer belong to any religion, but that one experience, which was only seconds, trumped all those years of going to church. I didn't hope, I KNEW through experience that a Divine, loving Being is real. When you have experienced something, you no longer need a to believe or have faith, because you know. I no longer needed to carry any spiritual guilt, negative self-judgment, fear, uncertainty, etc.

Too often, religions place importance on the "ism" and the church leaders, etc., who in fact are no closer to God than anyone else. In fact, nobody is.