OT: Creationism--a myth or retardation?

[Scott R. Brown]

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.

Very interesting, thank you for the heads up on that!

[Scott R. Brown]

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.

Exactly, knowledge of God comes from direct experience which is not subject to logical proof or defense.

It is impossible to demonstrate the taste of an orange through logical discourse. Either you tasted one or you didn't!

[Scott R. Brown]

Sanjuro, what is your source for the Mithraic information you posted. What I have found states it predated Christianity and goes has a Hinduism influence.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sanjuro, what is your source for the Mithraic information you posted. What I have found states it predated Christianity and goes has a Hinduism influence.

Depends on the form of Mithranisim:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

[SenseiShellie]

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.

I got it from an introduction to old testament class. I was studying theology and philosophy as a major for a while before I switched.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I got it from an introduction to old testament class. I was studying theology and philosophy as a major for a while before I switched.

I would be very curious to know where that number came from.

[sanjuro_ronin]

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.

I know where you are coming from my friend

[SenseiShellie]

I would be very curious to know where that number came from.

I'll look thru my notes and see if I can find an accurate source for the number. Deal?

[wenshu]

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

Really? I think sophistry is quite well represented.

Personhood is an inherent quality of creation. We know this for certain because persons exist.

If personhood was not an inherent quality of creation, then something was created out of nothing. That is, personhood would have to have occurred absent any cause. Yet everywhere we see effects have causes and nowhere do we see effects occurring without causes. Therefore, personhood has a cause. If personhood was then created, it must have been created by something possessing the qualities of personhood, for how can something be created by a Creator that has no knowledge or understanding of that which he creates. By conceiving personhood, a Creator creates its presence and qualities within itself, therefore a Creator can be said to be a person, because it possesses the qualities of personhood.

Also, it is impossible for something to come out of nothing because nothing is non-existent. "Nothingness" is an impossibility. Why? Because if "Nothing" existed it would not be "Nothing". It exists, therefore it is "Something". Even if it is nothing more than THAT SOMETHING we call "Nothing".

If "Nothing" existed in a hypothetical reality, you and I would not be here to talk about "Nothing" or personhood or anything else. There is no way to verify "Nothing" because only SOMETHING can verify and once you have SOMETHING there is no NOTHING!

In addition, it is clear that anything that is created requires a creator and THAT creator possesses a mind, for indeed it is mind that is the creative force.

Every machine, art work, utilitarian device, etc. occurred because a mind created it. Your life as you live it is a creation of your mind.

Mind creates. Nothing created by man was created absent a participating mind. So some consider it more likely Creation occurred absent a MIND? It is more likely that something that has already occurred will occur again than something that has never occurred will occur even once.

Since we know our minds create, it is more reasonable to presume there is a Creator, than to presume there is not! Our Minds create actively, robustly and with wild abandon and joy! Everywhere around us we perceive objects whose existence we did not create, therefore it is reasonable to presume something else created what we did not!

[Scott R. Brown]

Calling something sophistry does not make it so..... however it is a lazy man's way of avoiding having to think through an argument and responding to it using reason!

[SoCo KungFu]

God in my view is incomprehensible.

Just to knit-pick. This itself is a truth statement requiring proof. By what evidence is there to say that god, should he/she/it exist, is incomprehensible? Not saying you personally, I don't know you. But a lot of people take this stance because they think in it they are relinquishing any source of potential responsibility, that its the logical neutral ground. Its not. It is making a claim.

[SoCo KungFu]

Atheists are a very good example of this. They posture themselves as so much more reasonable, intelligent and clever than religious people because of the simplistic beliefs of some of these groups, but fail to perceive or choose to ignore the foolishness of their own belief system.

There are no truly intelligent Atheists, a truly intelligent person would be an Agnostic if nothing else! The the arrogance of Atheists is in their belief/faith in their own ability to reason without error, and their belief/faith that they have all the information necessary/available to declare with certainty, "There is no Supreme Intelligence that created everything."

Interesting because I find your post one of the most ironically arrogant. Hmmm. BTW, strawman.

You're confusing belief with knowledge. Atheists simply do not believe. That's all that's required. Much like theists do believe; although many believe they "know". The proposition of whether they "know" they're beliefs to be true is an extra. Its also irrelevant. You an know many things but believe you don't. You can believe many things you think are true, but still be clueless in reality.

Atheism is simply stating, there is insufficient reason to consider the existence of god. Until such reason is given, I simply don't believe. Belief is not a choice. Either you've supplied convincing proof or you haven't. Its really simple.

Your rant about atheist arrogance is irrelevant, moreover I'd say atheism less arrogant than claiming you have the answers (totally a priori mind you) and moreover, the rest of us must abide by the baggage your answer carries. Sorta like some of the physical violence from the religious community over the course of human history. Yes lets throw bound up women in lakes, because we know our religion is correct and they're agents of the devil...but I'm getting off point.

The default position on any subject, not just god, is that there is no reason to consider it until there is proof. Creationists have not given proof. Your claim that agnosticism is a more intelligent position is not only faulty, but in your case, the same level of arrogance you seem to deride. But that's pretty common from you I've noticed over the years.

As I said to DJ, agnosticism is actually making a claim. Its not a neutral stance, many incorrectly assume it is. You're claiming it is impossible to learn this answer. By what evidence can you make this claim? Do you have some magic crystal ball that allows you to divine all human knowledge past, present and more importantly, future? By what evidence can you say god is unknowable, undefinable, un-insert whatever -able that agnostics like to insert? This is a self contradictory statement. How can you know the unknowingness of something that you have defined as unknowable?

Can you claim there are no invisible, yet pink goblins that hold us down to the earth by our big toes? You can't feel it because they were the original tai chi masters. How can you claim for certainty? How can you possibly dispute this?

Simple, there is no proof. There is nothing that gives you pause to consider the validity of this claim. That is the ultimate disconnect between atheists and theists.

What's more, because this issue is always tied with science...you can disprove evolution, big bang, big chill, big whatever. You could dismantle the entire foundation of science. And you still would not prove god. I may favor evolutionary science, obviously I study biology. But atheism is not dependent upon that premise (even though it doesn't have anything to do with what occurred prior to life anyways, but whatever), or any other scientific foundation (although having an alternative explanation helps). It is only dependent on the fact that there is no evidence for god. And for a transcendent god I'll go ahead on the limb and state, by nature of its very definition, there's none you could provide. This is ultimately the greatest logical error of this version of creationism. (and I couldn't care less about the trinity, arguments for omni-presence, etc. Those debates are old and boring and frankly lack substance in my opinion, esp when a not insignificant number of modern apologists have given up on trying to reconcile the two)

You all seem to have this notion that we walk around thinking, "Look at that tree. Those stupid creationists think god did it. Oh look, my plasmid transfection turned out. God couldn't have done that, stupid creationists." Honestly, we go the most of our daily lives without even thinking about god or creation. Its not until its thrown in our face that the average atheist has to mentally confront the idea. Much like you go through your day without (I'm assuming) ever considering pink, invisible goblins. Nothing has sufficiently given you reason to. God is no different for the most of us. I know that's hard for some to consider because its what you've held for so long. But truly, god is almost completely nonexistent in my daily life. And that "almost" is only because I live in the south where its thrown around everywhere I go. Really, god is not the default answer that has to be invalidated. Its the claim that creationists must prove for us to even consider. I realize that ****es a lot of creationists off, but tough ****.

You seem to be more ruffled up by the more aggressive atheists. And to that I say, well duh. That's not an atheist problem, that's an any idea problem. When the opposing side has an overwhelming majority and they are blatantly aggressive themselves (to the point of legislating their belief structure), what other response did you expect?

[wenshu]

That is, personhood would have to have occurred absent any cause. Yet everywhere we see effects have causes and nowhere do we see effects occurring without causes. Therefore, personhood has a cause. If personhood was then created

How do you get from "has a cause" to "was created". The implicit assumption here being that all causes require a sentient agent.

You are assuming your proof in the premise itself (see below).

it must have been created by something possessing the qualities of personhood, for how can something be created by a Creator that has no knowledge or understanding of that which he creates. By conceiving personhood, a Creator creates its presence and qualities within itself, therefore a Creator can be said to be a person, because it possesses the qualities of personhood.

Basically all of your syllogisms are some variation of begging the question; you use the proposition to be proved such as "personhood requires a creator" as the premise from which you "prove" it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

If personhood was not an inherent quality of creation, then something was created out of nothing. That is, personhood would have to have occurred absent any cause.

Your premise above, stripped of all obfuscating wordiness is "It is impossible for something to come from nothing."

Immediately followed by your assertion that "nothing/nothingness" is impossible.

Also, it is impossible for something to come out of nothing because nothing is non-existent. "Nothingness" is an impossibility. Why? Because if "Nothing" existed it would not be "Nothing". It exists, therefore it is "Something". Even if it is nothing more than THAT SOMETHING we call "Nothing".

If "Nothing" existed in a hypothetical reality, you and I would not be here to talk about "Nothing" or personhood or anything else. There is no way to verify "Nothing" because only SOMETHING can verify and once you have SOMETHING there is no NOTHING!

You invalidate your own premise.

"Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore there must be a creator."

But if there is no such thing as "nothing" in the first place, if I agree to the central of your many implicit assumptions that a cause requires a sentient agent then the argument that a creator must exist because something cannot come from nothing is superfluous.

Your arguments would have gotten you laughed out of community college Intro to Logic.

[Syn7]

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.

lol. No offence tho...

relax.............

[Syn7]

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.

Disagreeing with organized religion does not validate or invalidate your faith. You seem like you really want to hammer home that you are different. Are you that worried we think you're a card carrying RC soldier? Don't worry, I get it. You did research and made a more informed choice. Congrats. Why do you assume I didn't? Because we have made different conclusions and anyone who is rational with the facts would have come to what you came to? Oh no wait, that would be an assumption on my part.

I'll look at the link, but I will get turned off if it is an argument. I just want facts, I will do the interpretation thankyouverymuch.