-
Posts
-
What evidence is there that ” the catholic church rejects the creation myth”? I can assure you the catholic church has done no such thing and still firmly subscribes to the stupidity of the garden of eden. You state” the only believers of God the creator are biblical fundamentalists” which is nonsense as many religions other than christianity believe in that concept including those in the Christian church who accept the bible shouldn’t be taken literally but still subscribe to God being the ultimate creator.
Try the catholic Concordance. The chronology of Genesis is no longer accepted by the Catholic Church.
They do accept that Genesis is true in a different way – a a metaphor for the creation of sin. That’s why they argue that Adam and Eve is a story whihc expresses a truth. and they us the myth in that way to paint a horrifying picture of Heaven, hell and Purgatory.
But they don’t even agree on this.
There are theologians (von Balthasar, for example) who are strongly influenced by Karl Barth’s view that Christ blessed all in hell, and provided salvation. There is a strong implication that Hell ceased to exist on Easter Saturday – an implication whihc has aroused strong resistance, it has to be said.
There isn’t any agreement even on the Gospels. Ever since 1936, the Church has accepted that the Gospels contradict one another in their testimony.
That doesn’t get the Catholic Church off the hook, mind you. It’s still mired in contradiction as a result – and it is on a rather long quest to sort them out.
Are you trying to tell us that you’re an atheist?
huh?
Was that a yes or a no ? are you an atheist?
I don’t accept that the big bang theory implies there is a bigger likelyhood of a “God” or “creator” as you are using newtonian implications of cause and effect contrary to widely held view that something can come from nothing as I explained on the other thread involving quantum physics. It’s far too simplistic to simply say that because many people are taking an educated guess which is what the big bang theory is responsible for , ( the emphasis on theory) it means there must be a God.
The big bang theory points to an origin of space and time. It points to an area where there is no time and no space.
This is compatible with Christianity.
It’s also compatible with atheism. Stephen hawking has been going up and down like a yoyo on God, but from what I understand he’s working on string theory to show how the cosmos came into existence.
There is no reason why spontaneous creation took place.
There is no reason to doubt that the cosmos rests on an elephant’s back, and that the elephant is standing on the shell of a tortoise. Unlikely, but who knows? It’s as rational as the belief that love created the cosmos, and took human form as Christ. And that is as rational as that the cosmos is a cold and indifferent area, and that we are as cold and indifferent to one another.
In short, ‘science’ has advanced beyond the 19th century mechanistic belief in cause and effect (Newtonian mechanics) and has become incrasingly aware of mystery (the ‘dark energy’ which makes up most of the cosmos, dark meaning unknown).
Which is my point. Science doesn’t prove God’s existence, but it is accepting that it can’t disprove it either.
Are you trying to tell us that you’re an atheist?
huh?
Was that a yes or a no ? are you an atheist?
no, I’m not.
Is that important?
It’s relevant to the discussion.
So which God(s) do you believe in ?
Why is atheism not upheld by science?
There is no proof that god does not exist, and there is no scientific process in which you could obtain such a proof. So in this sense atheism is not scientific, and relies on faith as much as belief in a god does. On the other hand, there is not proof that a god exists, and proving that one did would be fairly simple to prove if it had the properties that religion asigns to it. Miracles being the best example. Which is why identify myself as an atheist.
I agree with you totally, drac, but feel that is the starting point, not the endpoint of enquiry.
It was expressed mos clearly by a German philosopher* who set side by side two opposing arguments. The world has a beginning in space and time; the world has no beginning in space and time etc etc. he goes on to demonstrate the truth of all the arguments, and calls them, antinomies. They are all true, and therefore none are true.
The reason for this, he argued, lies in the limits of pure reason – by which he meant Enlightened Reason. Our reasoning is attempting to demonstrate what cannot be demonstrated.
However, he argued that it was necessary to move beyond pure reason, as we must always ask these questions. There’s something in us which compels us to ask them.
*Kant
It’s relevant to the discussion. So which God(s) do you believe in ?
all in good time.
So far I’m looking at this from the point of view of modern ‘science’, to show that Dawkins and atheists aren’t as rational as they think he is.
That doesn’t disprove atheism. As drac has pointed out, atheism can’t be disproved.
It doesn’t prove a God; but it doesn’t disprove a God either.
Proof being in terms of scientific reasoning.
None of you posting on this thread (me included) will ever know the answer to what you’re discussing …. so my question is, is there any point in discussing something to which there is no ‘proven’ answer to and never will be in any of our lifetimes and long beyond ? If so, mind telling me what said point is, besides each of you giving their own point of view on the subject and what influence does it actually have on your lives, considering you even have one?
I’ll call you Blossom or I get confused. You should read the title of the thread. Dawkins claims that ‘science’ has disproved the existence of God, and he uses evolution theory to demonstrate that Christianity is an incoherent and contradictory account of how man (and woman) was created. I’m trying to call that into question by using modern scientific arguments about the origin of the cosmos. Of course, nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God, but that doesn’t end the discussion. To me, it’s a question of trying to move beyond Sunday School Christianity and the sort of atheism which is on the primary school level of ‘there is no Father Christmas’. There is a more adult form of Christianity – more discerning, more hesitant – just as there is a more adult form of atheism. I find this topic to be fascinating. I’m ready to listen to anyone with a serious point to make. I’ll answer any serious point you make. If you don’t make one, then I’ll ignore it.
You state “There is a more adult form of Christianity” but you either believe in the bible and logically embrace Christianity or you don’t.. I fail to see how you can differentiate between the two. You can’t cherry pick parts of a religion that seem more credible and dismiss the less likely aspects as being unworthy- the religion either stands or falls on the very book it’s based on which is the bible.
What evidence is there that ” the catholic church rejects the creation myth”? I can assure you the catholic church has done no such thing and still firmly subscribes to the stupidity of the garden of eden. You state” the only believers of God the creator are biblical fundamentalists” which is nonsense as many religions other than christianity believe in that concept including those in the Christian church who accept the bible shouldn’t be taken literally but still subscribe to God being the ultimate creator.
Try the catholic Concordance. The chronology of Genesis is no longer accepted by the Catholic Church. They do accept that Genesis is true in a different way – a a metaphor for the creation of sin. That’s why they argue that Adam and Eve is a story whihc expresses a truth. and they us the myth in that way to paint a horrifying picture of Heaven, hell and Purgatory. But they don’t even agree on this. There are theologians (von Balthasar, for example) who are strongly influenced by Karl Barth’s view that Christ blessed all in hell, and provided salvation. There is a strong implication that Hell ceased to exist on Easter Saturday – an implication whihc has aroused strong resistance, it has to be said. There isn’t any agreement even on the Gospels. Ever since 1936, the Church has accepted that the Gospels contradict one another in their testimony. That doesn’t get the Catholic Church off the hook, mind you. It’s still mired in contradiction as a result – and it is on a rather long quest to sort them out.
The Catholic church seems to forever alter the boundaries of what it is prepared to accept as credible or being deemed worthy of fitting into their religious framework. Quite clearly technology and science have evolved to such an extent that attempting to perpetuate the myth of the garden of Eden is stretching the boundaries of any credibility so now they are apparently classified as ” metaphors ” when in times gone by they were taken literally word for word as Gospel.
The church will always attempt to provide an answer for everything and when it can’t it comes back to that old classic line of ” God works in mysterious ways” lol
You state “There is a more adult form of Christianity” but you either believe in the bible and logically embrace Christianity or you don’t.. I fail to see how you can differentiate between the two. You can’t cherry pick parts of a religion that seem more credible and dismiss the less likely aspects as being unworthy- the religion either stands or falls on the very book it’s based on which is the bible.
well, that’s an interesting point, and one made by Dawkins.
However, Biblical literalism is no longer accepted by most Christian theologians – the liberal Christians of the 19th century are in agreement with all but fundamentalists today that we have to cherrypick the bible.
We’ve been cherrypicking the Bible from before it was written. There are many, many gospels, including one where the Holy Cross stands up and talks – a bit like a Monty Python sketch. I’m not sure whether it’s the gospel of Thomas or of Peter, but can look it up if you wish.
The Bible we have today is a selection of those Gospels. John wasn’t even part of it for quite a while. Nobody knows when the Bible came together in the form we now have it, but there are parts which don’t fit. The story of the woman taken in adultery was stuck into John but doesn’t belong there. The Council of Trent in the 1540s finally decided that’s where it definitely belongs, but it sticks out like a sore thumb.
Doesn’t mean that Christianity is wrong, though. Just that cherrypicking has been taking place since it appeared in written form – and therefore before.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!