Originally posted by whodeyThank you, I will try to get hold of the book. As you say, it will be an interesting read, if nothing else.
Read "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. It will be an introduction to something you apparently are not familiar with, which is old earth creationists.
Essentially he points to ancient rabbinical writers who studied Genesis in it's original Hebrew who came to the conclusion that the Genesis "days" should not be interpreted as literal days. ...[text shortened]... nothing else, it may help open your mind to other possibilities that you never dreamed possible.
What you say is articulate and persuasive. I do not have a problem with any of that, although I perceive a desperate attempt at squaring a circle! My rant is against the young-earth creationists, of which there are many, particularly and mainly in the US who sincerely believe in 10,000 of our "earth" years as being the age of the unverse.
2 edits
Originally posted by Pianoman1I was once one of them. Saying such things probably brands me a heretic like Galileo was. However, no where in the Bible does it say that the universe revolves around the earth. This is plain to see yet in the day of Galileo the interpretation of scripture was much different.
Thank you, I will try to get hold of the book. As you say, it will be an interesting read, if nothing else.
What you say is articulate and persuasive. I do not have a problem with any of that, although I perceive a desperate attempt at squaring a circle! My rant is against the young-earth creationists, of which there are many, particularly and mainly in the US who sincerely believe in 10,000 of our "earth" years as being the age of the unverse.
In no way should this interfere with a persons faith yet both religion and science have demanded that we make a choice. How bizarre and sad this is.
I think Schroeder said it best. Those in the science field have an expertise in the science field and those in the religious field are experts in religion. Therefore, we tend to diss fields we are ignorant about, especially if we perceive they are infringing on our own field of study.
The truly interesting view point is someone who has an expertise in both fields, like Gerald Schroeder. That way we can lay aside our fear of what we don't understand and feel threatened by. Our own self righteous notions of needing to always be right can be temporarily suspended.
Originally posted by Pianoman1PLEASE NOTE! I WOULD PUBLICLY LIKE TO REITERATE MY RETRACTION. OF THE REFERENCE TO SEXUAL ABUSE IN THE ORIGINAL POST. IT WAS TOO STRONG AND IT OFFENEDED MANY PEOPLE, FOR WHICH I APOLOGISE. PLEASE READ "ABUSE" INSTEAD OF "SEXUAL ABUSE"
To teach young children today that the world is less than 10,000 years old amounts to the most awful abuse. To warp young minds with the staggeringly ignorant dictum that faith is more important than evidence is more harmful than sexual abuse. To deny the youth of today access to scientific empiricism because it doesn't corroborate a fable written by a wan ...[text shortened]... love of knowledge. I believe the teaching of Creationism in schools to be a very serious crime.
Pianoman1
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhat part of non-believers thinking maybe a god set up the conditions that led to the big bang, like this god throwing the dice and the universe is what happened but 14 billion years ago.
The notion that God exists but what we see around us was not created by him seems bizarre to me.
Can you explain this to me?
Exactly what is wrong with people believing that?
Originally posted by SuzianneSo what? Yeah, let them answer to God. They were already an atheist and as such were bound for eternal hell. What are you going to do, add 100 years to their sentence? 🙄
This is not good news. If this is true, then at least one person will eventually have to answer to God for what they did here, perhaps more. I suppose it can be hoped that that person (who became atheist) was not a Christian who was turned from God by those in this forum, but rather a fence straddler who might not have turned to God anyway.
Originally posted by Pianoman1There seems to be a lot of knee-jerk pro-atheist thumbing up. You got five of those, and then people noticed that your actual argument was terrible. Then the downs started pouring in.
How right! Though Divegeester's rating is only 999.......(how convenient!)
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination" - Albert Einstein
This thread has been fascinating - I'm so glad I started it. Any thread which can get 5 thumbs up and 4 thumbs down certainly polarises people's spiritual views. A microcosm of the real world, you could say.
Originally posted by Pianoman1So would you say you have changed your opinion due to a debate on the subject, or are you merely retracting it to avoid offence, but still believe it to be true?
[b]PLEASE NOTE! I WOULD PUBLICLY LIKE TO REITERATE MY RETRACTION. OF THE REFERENCE TO SEXUAL ABUSE IN THE ORIGINAL POST. IT WAS TOO STRONG AND IT OFFENEDED MANY PEOPLE, FOR WHICH I APOLOGISE. PLEASE READ "ABUSE" INSTEAD OF "SEXUAL ABUSE"
Pianoman1[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadlet's not dwell on that subject. he used an exaggeration to make his point, it was pointed out that what he said was offensive and he retracted, with apologies.
So would you say you have changed your opinion due to a debate on the subject, or are you merely retracting it to avoid offence, but still believe it to be true?
1 edit
-Removed-I am not sure what you mean. I was contrasting Pianoman1's earlier statement that nobody ever changes their minds in a debate with his apparent change of heart about his OP.
I back off if someone convinces me I am wrong - and it does happen quite a lot.
Do I ever back off about Theism being a delusion? Not until someone convinces me I am wrong.