• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
This is perhaps the worst and most pervasive argument from ignorance that I have ever seen. It not only advances the idea that if we don't know, then god must have done it, and further, it goes on to suggest that if there is rational evidence that god did not do it, or if there is evidence that it never happened, that is just part of a conspiracy to cover up the "truth!"

Conspiracies-- you have no idea!

Do you think all paranormal activity, like contact with spirits, etc.... do you think it's all faked?!

Because, if you do, you have been fooled, big time!

One example: The dead are dead (as per the Bible: Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 115:17; Genesis 3:19; etc.), yet many people believe they are in contact with their dead loved ones, even interacting and talking with them.

These people who believe they can, since most religions teach the dead are living in another realm, are, sadly, dealing with spirit imposters, intent on furthering the lie that the Devil, through the snake, told Eve, "You positively will not die". Their desire is simply to "mislead" (Revelation 12:9), in any way possible, trying to keep people from developing a relationship with Jehovah, through Christ.

I doubt you'll grasp the enormity of the situation....you'll just scoff. But that's ok, because someday, when the Resurrection comes (John 6:44), I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, as will most of mankind!

Take care.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If the diesel truck creator was as powerful as God, it would be no problem at all.
But why assume a creator is god?
If God is not omnipotent, then there is no way the universe could exist.
Not necessarily. We could have been designed and planted here on Earth by a species that is just as mortal and capable as you or I. Why is it a god must be omnipotent as a prerequisite for the existence of the universe?
The laws that govern everything in it had a law maker.
Evidence?
What laws that you live by had no one to formulate them...implement them...and enforce them?
Gravity, germs, magnetism....I see no reason to assume there must be some intelligent being behind those.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
One example: The dead are dead (as per the Bible: Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 115:17; Genesis 3:19; etc.), yet many people believe they are in contact with their dead loved ones, even interacting and talking with them.
Many people also believe the Earth is flat, that we only use 10% of our brain, and that you can kill someone with a penny by throwing it off the Empire State Building, but none of those things are true.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
A good question from someone who apparently has no concept of what God's original purpose was....

There is another option...one you obviously haven't contemplated....

Since the devil never called God's power into question, omnipotence was never in this equation. The adversary called into question the Creator's right to set rules or boundaries for his creation. It was God's Sovereignty that needed to be defended from a slanderer who accused the Creator of holding back something beneficial from his human children....and lying to them about the penalty.

As free willed beings, all three participants in the original rebellion chose to disobey their rightful Sovereign. Should there have been no consequences? If God had merely dispatched the rebels, what was to stop another 'satan' (resister) from taking up his banner? This issue had to be settled once and for all time, before the Creator could accomplish his purpose, not just for the earth, but for the entire universe.

Once the 'genie was out of the bottle' (a knowledge of evil was unleashed on humanity) there was no sending it back, and there was no better way to prove the rightfulness of God's original command than to allow all the rebels to experience the full consequences of their choices. A knowledge of evil would not benefit the human race in any way. God would allow them to prove that to themselves.

There is a legal case being tried in the courts of heaven. With observers both in heaven and on earth, God would allow the rebels to see that they were wrong in their assumptions. He would use this rebellion to teach the rest of humanity and also his spirit sons, that when you disobey God, nothing good comes of it.

He gave the rebels enough time to try all manner of self rule, but each of them have proven to be a failure. The death penalty for the original crime meant that the devil kept losing his followers, so he had to constantly recruit more....he still is....its just more blatant now that his time is coming to an end.

So all humans have been exposed to the lesson and some (a "few"compared to the whole of humanity) have realized the folly of alienation from God and have endeavored to accept God's means of reconciliation.....the sacrifice of his son.

It appears as if your tunnel vision has not served you well. :oops:

If you are going to criticize something, at least try to get your facts straight. OK?



Funny, I would apply those words to atheists. :D
Just so you understand, given what one can (if one actually looks) observe about the way the world really works, this is plainly made up out of whole cloth. There are no "facts" on offer, just literature. And not just literature, literature that has been carefully crafted to attempt to tie off all the loose ends.

You call my view "tunnel vision." I call yours highly imaginative. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if you threw in a little something from Asgaard, as well, and a couple of elves. It'd hang together just about as well.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Conspiracies-- you have no idea!

Do you think all paranormal activity, like contact with spirits, etc.... do you think it's all faked?!
No. It could be (and most likely is) a mixture of basic misattribution, general ignorance, prevalence of share mythology, wishful thinking, delusion and desperation.

Because, if you do, you have been fooled, big time!

One example: The dead are dead (as per the Bible: Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 115:17; Genesis 3:19; etc.), yet many people believe they are in contact with their dead loved ones, even interacting and talking with them.
Many people also talk to their pets. It doesn't mean anything other than that people develop powerful attachments and have difficulty letting go or of or understanding the reality of those attachments.

These people who believe they can, since most religions teach the dead are living in another realm, are, sadly, dealing with spirit imposters, intent on furthering the lie that the Devil, through the snake, told Eve, "You positively will not die". Their desire is simply to "mislead" (Revelation 12:9), in any way possible, trying to keep people from developing a relationship with Jehovah, through Christ.

I doubt you'll grasp the enormity of the situation....you'll just scoff. But that's ok, because someday, when the Resurrection comes (John 6:44), I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, as will most of mankind!

Take care.
Doomsday talk. Yeah, pretty much just worth scoffing at, really.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Gandhi will most certainly include the JW as the kind of Christians he does not like,

I submit you are completely wrong!

And there you go, speaking for someone else, again!

I look forward to meeting Gandhi, when he will be resurrected. His earnest desire was for peace to prevail everywhere; and when the time comes for him to be restored back to life as a living human being, he will see that his desire will have begun to be completed Earthwide. -- Isaiah 11:9; Psalms 72:7; Isaiah 9:6-7.

Question (if you can remove yourself from your prejudices): Let's say God's time to intervene in the world's affairs does arrive ....would you be willing to live -- here on Earth, forever youthful -- under God's rulership? -- Daniel 2:44; Revelation 21:3-4.

 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
No. It could be (and most likely is) a mixture of basic misattribution, general ignorance, prevalence of share mythology, wishful thinking, delusion and desperation.


Many people also talk to their pets. It doesn't mean anything other than that people develop powerful attachments and have difficulty letting go or of or understanding the reality of those attachments.


Doomsday talk. Yeah, pretty much just worth scoffing at, really.
^ ^ Another one who fails to "grasp the enormity of the situation".

You're flippant reply only adds to the truthfulness of Revelation 12:9: "....who is misleading the entire inhabited Earth." (Although you are at the other end of the spectrum....the Devil doesn't care how or with what lies he misleads, as long as it works.)

He's got Christendom (and most religions) thinking they can even join in the wars of the world and kill their enemy, even their brothers! That's skillful deception!
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I submit you are completely wrong!

And there you go, speaking for someone else, again!
Do you seek to evangelize people to your faith, preach it in order to encourage conversions? Gandhi was completely against all forms of conversion attempts.

"“Today we see competition and conflict among different religions for counting the number of their followers. I feel deeply ashamed of this and, when I hear of people’s achievement in converting such and such number to a particular faith, I feel that, that is no achievement at all, that on the contrary it is a blasphemy against God and the self.”-Gandhi
So, no, Gandhi would not like JW at all.

I look forward to meeting Gandhi, when he will be resurrected. His earnest desire was for peace to prevail everywhere; and when the time comes for him to be restored back to life as a living human being, he will see that his desire will have begun to be completed Earthwide. -- Isaiah 11:9; Psalms 72:7; Isaiah 9:6-7.

Question (if you can remove yourself from your prejudices): Let's say God's time to intervene in the world's affairs does arrive ....would you be willing to live -- here on Earth, forever youthful -- under God's rulership? -- Daniel 2:44; Revelation 21:3-4.
When you truly realize that Brahman is ultimate reality of the universe, and neither sin, nor God, nor Satan are real... would you be willing to attain moksha through the paths of meditation, yoga or faith in Krishna as prescribed in the Gita?
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
First of all, it is impossible to truly know statistically how many scientists question evolution! Statistics don't reflect everything accurately! And when some have defected from the theory of evolution, others have approached them in secrecy to tell them they have questioned it also!

And since when do you think that extreme minority can't be correct? There always has to be a first person to question the status quo, and until others catch on he is in the extreme minority! Charles Darwin was in the extreme minority too! He got a cult following and here we are today! Falsehoods can be reversed however

Don't know if you are atheist or not, but atheists don't believe in God because there is "lots" of religion in the world

When that first person has written a scientific paper in his own field refuting the current status quo that does not do damage to or omit any of the evidence we have, and it has been peer reviewed and tested, then it is always worth taking a look, isn't it? Share with us when you find that person/paper.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
^ ^ Another one who fails to "grasp the enormity of the situation".

You're flippant reply only adds to the truthfulness of Revelation 12:9: "....who is misleading the entire inhabited Earth." (Although you are at the other end of the spectrum....the Devil doesn't care how or with what lies he misleads, as long as it works.)

He's got Christendom (and most religions) thinking they can even join in the wars of the world and kill their enemy, even their brothers! That's skillful deception!
Well, there's no reasoning with this.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Right........It has to do mostly with the fact that they think that a god "poofed" all the animals into existence.

images
Good grief.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Just so you understand, given what one can (if one actually looks) observe about the way the world really works, this is plainly made up out of whole cloth. There are no "facts" on offer, just literature. And not just literature, literature that has been carefully crafted to attempt to tie off all the loose ends.

You call my view "tunnel vision." I call yours highly imaginative. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if you threw in a little something from Asgaard, as well, and a couple of elves. It'd hang together just about as well.
Amusing, to me at least, that Deeje rated this post "funny." One really does wonder why. After all, the Bible does recount tales of talking donkeys, of God's power being able to turn wooden staves into snakes (and worse, Egyptians being able to replicate the trick without God). It talks of healing snake-bite with brass statues, of giants, and of virgins having baby's and dead people getting up after being dead for days (I say people, because Jesus wasn't the only one). All sorts of things that nobody on this earth, or anywhere else we know of today, could reproduce -- but that are accepted as absolute truth.

So why not a rainbow bridge? Why not some Orcs and Ents and Elves? Why not Santa and Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny? They all have the same provenance to me -- the human imagination, coupled with the human inability to let observation, experiment and reality overcome their emotional attachment to their comforts.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Gandhi was completely against all forms of conversion attempts.

He tried his utmost to convert, I.e., influence people to attempt peaceful means to accomplish their goals.

"“Today we see competition and conflict among different religions for counting the number of their followers. I feel deeply ashamed of this"

Yes, competition and conflict have no part in preaching. Thank goodness we don't do that to increase our numbers!

But, as for preaching to others, Jesus did it. Gandhi apparently read about Jesus' life and his preaching in the Bible, and he liked Jesus! We do it just like Jesus did.

So, no, Gandhi would not like JW at all.

Yes. He'd probably even become one! He didn't mind being disliked by others, and pursued his agenda through peaceful means. A lot of similarities! And the Truth about Jehovah God (and what He will do in the near future) is appealing!

When you truly realize that Brahman is ultimate reality of the universe, and neither sin, nor God, nor Satan are real... would you be willing to attain moksha through the paths of meditation, yoga or faith in Krishna as prescribed in the Gita?

But I asked you first. (And my question is easy for anyone to understand. What's moksha?) I guess you're not willing to answer?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Well, there's no reasoning with this.
It's what the Bible states. And we can reason on it! The Scriptures encourage us to reason! -- Acts of the Apostles 17:2-3.

Remember, you're the one that gave the flippant, belittling response, saying it was only "worth scoffing at". That implies an unwillingness to reason! I'm more than ready!

Back to the topic: You hear most theists say, "God is in control." Are you aware that Jesus called the Devil, "the ruler of this world"? It fits the circumstances society as a whole finds itself in.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
He tried his utmost to convert, I.e., influence people to attempt peaceful means to accomplish their goals.
You are shifting goal-posts. We are talking about religious conversions. Gandhi was completely against member of one religion trying to convert members of another religion and opposed all who did this. Therefore Gandhi would be opposed to JW.

You are free to disagree with Gandhi, say he was wrong etc. But my point is that Gandhi would have clubbed you with all the Christians he opposed because like them JW consider other religions (or even other denominations) as false and try to convert people from them. Gandhi considered all (at least most) religions as equally efficacious in their ability to connect a person to God and hence considered all conversion attempts as misguided, a symptom of human ego, and a contributor to human suffering.

""I disbelieve in the conversion of one person by another. My effort should never be to undermine another's faith but to make him a better follower of his own faith. This implies belief in the truth of all religions and therefore respect for them. It again implies true humility, a recognition of the fact that the divine light having been vouchsafed to all religions through an imperfect medium of flesh, they must share in more or less degree the imperfection of the vehicle." - Young India (1929)

""Regarding conversion, I don't mean that it is never justified. But no one should invite another person to change his or her religion. In my view, the belief which underlines such practice, namely, that one's own religion is true and another's is false is an error." (Letter 1932)




But, as for preaching to others, Jesus did it. Gandhi apparently read about Jesus' life and his preaching in the Bible, and he liked Jesus! We do it just like Jesus did.

. As Gandhi correctly noted, Jesus, a Jew, was seeking to reform Judaism itself and calling all Jews to leave legalistic interpretations and to move to a moral and spiritual reformation from within. He, pointedly, had nothing at all to say in the later understanding of the "preaching and proselytization" commission of a supposedly "risen" Jesus or the later activities in Paul or Acts.






But I asked you first. (And my question is easy for anyone to understand. What's moksha?) I guess you're not willing to answer?
No I would not be satisfied with that of course. A mere youthful life in some sort of an earthly heaven would be pale in comparison with being in the state of moksha.

Of course I am happy with describing moksha.

Brihadaranyaka Upanisad:- Moksha as the State of Unconditioned Identity with Brahman

21. That is his form—beyond desires, free from evils, and fearless. As a man, fully embraced by his beloved wife, does not know àṅything at all, either external or internal, so does this infinite being (self), fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know anything at all, either external or internal. That is his form—in which all objects of desire have been attained and are but the self, and which is free from desires and devoid of grief.
22. In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, the worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this state a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble no killer, a Caṇḍāla no Caṇḍāla, a Pulkasa no Pulkasa, a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. (This form of his) is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for he is then beyond all the woes of his heart (intellect).
23. That it does not see in that state is because, although seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.
...

28. That it does not think in that state is because, although thinking then, it does not think; for the thinker’s function of thinking can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can think.
31. When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something, one can smell some-thing, one can taste something, one can speak something, one can hear something, one can think something, one can touch something, or one can know something.
32. It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a second. This is the world (state) of Brahman, O Emperor. Thus did Yājñavalkya instruct Janaka: This is its supreme attainment, this is its supreme glory, this is its highest world, this is its supreme bliss. On a particle of this very bliss other beings live.

The nature of Bliss is incomparably greater than anything that can be enjoyed even in a heaven as you describe

33. He who is perfect of body and prosperous among men, the ruler of others, and most lavishly supplied with all human enjoyments, represents the greatest joy among men. This human joy multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the Manes who have won that world of theirs. The joy of these Manes who have won that world multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of the celestial minstrels. This joy in the world of the celestial minstrels multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the gods by action—those who attain their godhead by their actions. This joy of the gods by action multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the gods by birth, as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. This joy of the gods by birth multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of Prajāpati (Creator), as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. This joy in the world of Prajāpati (Creator) multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of Brahman, as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. This indeed is the supreme bliss. This is the state of Brahman, O Emperor, said Yājñavalkya.
----------------------------------------------
This is not the correct forum area to discuss and quote religious doctrines. So I will minimize such quotations further. Suffice to say that Hindu metaphysics is quite well-defined and I certainly consider it much better formulated than anything in Christianity.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Gandhi was completely against member of one religion trying to convert members of another religion and opposed all who did this. Therefore Gandhi would be opposed to JW

But that's what Jesus commanded! Yes, he spoke only to the Jews, but he told his disciples to 'preach to people of all nations'! -- Matthew 28:19; Acts of the Apostles 1:8.
Gandhi was aware of Jesus' command to preach. Which was to be done peacefully, not by force. That's what Gandhi decried....doing so by force.


You are free to disagree with Gandhi, say he was wrong etc.

But I haven't.

But my point is that Gandhi would have clubbed you with all the Christians he opposed because like them JW consider other religions (or even other denominations) as false and try to convert people from them

(Another strawman. ) No, Gandhi hated the violent actions of the Christians that caused harm and pain to the Indian people. That was what was "so unlike....Christ", not preaching.
I

He, pointedly, had nothing at all to say in the later understanding of the "preaching and proselytization" commission of a supposedly "risen" Jesus or the later activities in Paul or Acts.

So, apparently, he tacitly approved of peaceful preaching.

No I would not be satisfied with that of course. A mere youthful life in some sort of an earthly heaven would be pale in comparison with being in the state of moksha.

we'll, I appreciate your answer. But the Bible speaks of men living forever here on Earth, tranforming it into a worldwide paradise!
I said nothing about heaven.

The nature of Bliss is incomparably greater than anything that can be enjoyed even in a heaven as you describe

It's quite obvious that you aren't very informed about what JW's believe, as the Bible teaches. That's ok, you can learn, if only to understand them.

Suffice to say that Hindu metaphysics is quite well-defined and I certainly consider it much better formulated than anything in Christianity.

It probably is, in relation to mainstream christianity, I.e., christendom. But as I stated above, you aren't very informed about our beliefs, as found in the Bible. All christendom knows and teaches is that "all good people go to heaven." The Bible doesn't say this. -- Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:29; Isaiah 11:6-9; Psalms 115:16, etc.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
But that's what Jesus commanded! Yes, he spoke only to the Jews, but he told his disciples to 'preach to people of all nations'! -- Matthew 28:19; Acts of the Apostles 1:8.
You forget that this verse is claimed to be from the risen Jesus and Gandhi (like most Hindu-s) do not believe in an actual resurrection of Jesus. That is why he only talks about Jesus as a holy person who taught while living (like Sermon on Mount) and does not talk about anything after his death because he does not believe in them. That is what he means when he says he likes Jesus but not the Christians who claimed he had risen etc. He recognized Jesus as a mortal holy man and not as a resurrected messiah.
Gandhi was aware of Jesus' command to preach. Which was to be done peacefully, not by force. That's what Gandhi decried....doing so by force.
No, as the quotes so, Gandhi was completely against any attempt to convert or preach period.



(Another strawman. ) No, Gandhi hated the violent actions of the Christians that caused harm and pain to the Indian people. That was what was "so unlike....Christ", not preaching.
False. Any and every attempt made in any way to convert or preach was opposed by Gandhi, violent or non-violent. Even asking or inviting others to change their faith was unacceptable to him.

"I could no more think of asking a Christian or a Mussalman or a Parsi or a Jew to change his faith than I would think of changing my own."
"one who believes that all religions are equal will have no need to change his religion as it includes other religions. One who has grasped this has no need to change his religion."

"Christian missionaries have been doing valuable service for generations, but in my humble opinion, their work suffers because at the end of it they expect conversion of these simple people to Christianity ...How very nice it would be if the missionaries rendered humanitarian service without the ulterior aim of conversion."

Any act that is motivated by the desire to convert another was deplorable to him, no matter how peaceful.


So, apparently, he tacitly approved of peaceful preaching.
No. He was silent on the things he disapproved of, especially concerning people, religions and cultures. That was his standard manner.



we'll, I appreciate your answer. But the Bible speaks of men living forever here on Earth, tranforming it into a worldwide paradise!
I said nothing about heaven.
Yes. I would consider that a very pale and unsatisfactory existence compared to moksha, as I said.
In Hinduism heaven is any state of existence that is better in quality than the current earthly state and hell is reverse. Where it is located is irrelevant. The description of the new earth in Revelation is description of a heaven, as defined in Hinduism and Buddhism.


It's quite obvious that you aren't very informed about what JW's believe, as the Bible teaches. That's ok, you can learn, if only to understand them.
Does it provide moksha (as described in the sections quoted). If not, I am not interested.



It probably is, in relation to mainstream christianity, I.e., christendom. But as I stated above, you aren't very informed about our beliefs, as found in the Bible. All christendom knows and teaches is that "all good people go to heaven." The Bible doesn't say this. -- Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:29; Isaiah 11:6-9; Psalms 115:16, etc.
I am quite aware of the resurrection and the establishment of the new earth under God's rule as described in the Revelations.
Most Hindu-s will find it an unsatisfactory state of existence as an ultimate objective. Complete, unconditioned, non-dual identity with the supreme essence (Brahman) is the only satisfactory goal of life.[/quote][/QUOTE]
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
No, as the quotes so, Gandhi was completely against any attempt to convert or preach period.

No, you overlook a statement you yourself quoted:

"Regarding conversion, I don't mean that it is never justified."

You should stop being so dogmatic.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No, you overlook a statement you yourself quoted:

"Regarding conversion, I don't mean that it is never justified."

You should stop being so dogmatic.
No I have not. Gandhi is quite clear. If a person, by his own investigation into the various religions decides to change his own religion, that, and only that is justified. Attempt to convert others to one's own religion is never justified. Stop quote mining Gandhi, period.

"Regarding conversion, I don't mean that it is never justified. But no one should invite another person to change his or her religion. In my view, the belief which underlines such practice, namely, that one's own religion is true and another's is false is an error."
 
Top