The Rare Creationist

[Subduction Zone]

I actually don't see why it's funny. It could be true. I believe God created the earth. That's not negotiable to me. How long it took is negotiable. How God did it is negotiable. But surely an omnipotent God, if truly Omnipotent, could create an earth in one nano-second or he could do it over a trillion years. But if God lives outside of time, what does it matter to him and does he measure time? Could he do a trillion years of work in one second and leave evidence of a trillion years of work? Sure he could. So as one who believes God created the earth, as said in the Bible, I see no reason to argue against evolution or a very old earth. Only a foolish Christian/scientist would deny science to protect his beliefs. Let the science lead where it may. And let your faith lead you where it may. I have perfect confidence in the end it will all make sense. It will be universally known that there is a Creator God and he will probably share with us when and how he did it and then with our eyes and understanding fully open, we'll all smile with a big "ahhhhh.... now I get it, it all makes sense...."

Okay, you have your beliefs and some flexibility. That is not totally unreasonable.

Before we go on, can God lie? It appears that you are saying that God could lie.

 

[osgart]

According to the bible faith is evidence of things not seen, and the substance of things hoped for.

The modern definition of faith is not at all a religious point of view. It is an atheist definition trying to supplant and override the real definition of faith.

Faith is confidence toward a known thing, entity, or conceptual reality. Faith is to place trust in knowns.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to the bible faith is evidence of things not seen, and the substance of things hoped for.

The modern definition of faith is not at all a religious point of view. It is an atheist definition trying to supplant and override the real definition of faith.

Faith is confidence toward a known thing, entity, or conceptual reality. Faith is to place trust in knowns.

In other words it looks as if the Bible defines faith as "wishful thinking". There is no evidence in that definition. Maybe the use of that word is just a poor translation of the original. If it isn't the verse looks like nonsense and special pleading.

 

[osgart]

In other words it looks as if the Bible defines faith as "wishful thinking". There is no evidence in that definition. Maybe the use of that word is just a poor translation of the original. If it isn't the verse looks like nonsense and special pleading.

It's a claim that there is evidence of things not seen. It also claims that the substance of things hoped for is evidence that such reality exists.

Anyway people of faith claim to know the truth, and that is more than mere belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a claim that there is evidence of things not seen. It also claims that the substance of things hoped for is evidence that such reality exists.

Anyway people of faith claim to know the truth, and that is more than mere belief.

Actually it says the meaningless phrase of "evidence of things not seen". I don't think they know what evidence is. And hope is never evidence. Have you ever heard pitchers of woo woo New Age nonsense? It sounds exactly like that.

 

[Scott C.]

Okay, you have your beliefs and some flexibility. That is not totally unreasonable.

Before we go on, can God lie? It appears that you are saying that God could lie.

God does not lie. I believe a strict new earth/non evolutionary interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily accurate or what God meant.

 

[Valjean]

According to the bible faith is evidence of things not seen, and the substance of things hoped for.

But this is poetic nonsense. The faithful have no evidence at all, and what is the "substance of things hoped for?"

The modern definition of faith is not at all a religious point of view. It is an atheist definition trying to supplant and override the real definition of faith.

The above definition is nonsense, mate. It's poetry, at best. Nobody uses the word in that sense -- probably because nobody can make sense of the definition.

Faith is confidence toward a known thing, entity, or conceptual reality. Faith is to place trust in knowns.

Faith is unjustified belief -- justified belief being knowledge. If faith were known it would be knowledge. It would be perceptabe; tangible. It would be general knowledge.
Placing trust in knowns is not faith. Faith is trust in unknowns.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God does not lie. I believe a strict new earth/non evolutionary interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily accurate or what God meant.

The problem is that all of the evidence tells us that life is the product of evolution. Planting of false evidence is a form of lying.

 

[tas8831]

none so blind

as he that never
presents evidence but
boasts of having.... watched science TV shows

 

[ecco]

The Atheist "belief" in a godless universe is just that, a kind of pessimistic faith.

Nonsense from a Creationist.

There have been thousands of gods created by man's imaginations. Your OT god and your NT god and your holy ghost have nothing to support their existence - except belief. The very same kind of belief that also convinced supporters of thousands of gods that they were real. Everyone likes to think their god(s) is unique and special and real.

The atheist's belief stems from knowing that all these gods are nothing more than the creations of many imaginings.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think Atheist in general who join “religious forums” are inwardly angry, mean spirited people who derive an adolescent pleasure out of antagonizing people of faith. At least that’s been my experience.

Do you not realize the incredible irony of this post?

 

[Colt]

Do you not realize the incredible irony of this post?

Maybe if I was on an atheist site, but no I don’t.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Maybe if I was on an atheist site, but no I don’t.

You realize that this is a relgious DEBATE forum, right? Not a forum explicitly FOR religious people?

 

[Colt]

You realize that this is a relgious DEBATE forum, right? Not a forum explicitly FOR religious people?

Yes, religious debate on a religious forum.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, religious debate on a religious forum.

Again, you seem confused. This forum is NOT explicitly religious. It is only ABOUT religion. Hence why there are sections on this forum for non-religious, or non-affiliated, beliefs or positions, because you don't have to be BE religious in order to DISCUSS the topic of religion.

Is this a difficult thing to grasp?

 

[Colt]

Again, you seem confused. This forum is NOT explicitly religious. It is only ABOUT religion. Hence why there are sections on this forum for non-religious, or non-affiliated, beliefs or positions, because you don't have to be BE religious in order to DISCUSS the topic of religion.

Is this a difficult thing to grasp?

No more difficult to understand than condescending atheists joining religious forums to mock religious people.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No more difficult to understand than condescending atheists joining religious forums to mock religious people.

What about atheists joing a religious DEBATE AND DISCUSSION forum in order to DEBATE AND DISCUSS religion, then?

I mean, if you find that condescending, then maybe the problem isn't the atheists, but the insecurity you have in your own position? I mean, I read posts on this forum all the time calling atheists all kinds of things, but I never feel the need to say anything like "obviously theists only come to these forums to mock and condescend atheists!"

 

[Valjean]

Yes, religious debate on a religious forum.

Wouldn't religious debate legitimately include debate on the validity of religion and religiosity itself?
Shouldn't a debate begin with an agreement on the premises involved?

 

[Colt]

Wouldn't religious debate legitimately include debate on the validity of religion and religiosity itself?
Shouldn't a debate begin with an agreement on the premises involved?

Yea, sure.

 

[osgart]

Religion is a type of philosophy. All conclusions made in religion are made philosophically.

Naturalists base all their conclusions on what is tangible, and measurable.

It's amazing how alien religion is to a naturalist. Right down to the language both sides employ it is utterly alien.

I see nothing productive about debating it.