I've read some of this thread, but have not participated in the conversation up to this point. I believe there is a God responsible for the creation of the universe and the life within it. I'm a Christian. I'm not a Catholic, but I find the following piece I've copied from a Catholic website tracks pretty well with my general outlook on the evolution/creation topic: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution
Oregon ranked 5th in least religious states http://www.katu.com/news/local/Survey-places-Oregon-5th-in-least-religious-states-191327441.html
In regards to that bit about god making the universe: So why did it take god 5 days to make the earth, and only 1 day to make everything else in the heavens?
Considering something like 99.9% of the species that have existed on this planet have gone extinct, maybe five days wasn't enough.
Fine tuning? It's much easier to make the soup; it's much harder to make soup into something complex.
Smart ass answer: When I see Him, I'll ask Him. I take the view of the creation story in Genesis that God gave the author the broad strokes of creation in a series of dreams or visions that are recorded as days. I don't take it as a literal description of exactly how things happened, which if you think of it, would be as absurd as trying to explain quantum mechanics to a gnat.
as previously harped on 'due to random forces' and godditit is a false dichotomy. there could be non-random reasons for existence that don't involve an intelligent creator. also many people including most astrophysicists don't believe there is any evidence the 'cosmos' necessarily requires an origin or cause to exist. plus there is a basic position (4) not mentioned with a significant membership that includes people who don't claim to know things they can't possibly know. homo sapien (humans) is a species of the family hominidea, not a subspecies. also there is evidence humans existed in (approximately) their modern form at least 200,000 years ago.
Absolutely this. Especially from an omnipresent God. A day to him could be as relevant to a zillion years to us. And factoring that civilization back then had no idea about the number billion either. And with history being so small; without the technology that couldn't compute to an average lifespan of 40 years; a day is a large number!
Could be possible. I mean trying to tell your 3 year old daughter how fusion works; you may have to use Barney, teddy and the choo choo train. The new testiment is mainly focused on salvation; which still can be interpreted as a allegory as well; but the actual message is pretty sound.
Interesting, and welcome to the discussion e_blazer. So although I am an atheist, I really have no problem with your view. Science does not answer 2 questions which are central to your viewpoint. 1) How did everything (or whatever preceded the big big bang) start, and 2) do we have souls. Since your view does not run contrary to science I think it's a perfectly decent view. I have a big problem with any religious views which if they are correct, invalidate what we believe science to have clearly demonstrated. Science can be debunked, but it must be done scientifically. If your religious view is that gravity does not exist, I say stupid belief. But if your religious view says gravity does not exist in the afterlife, I'm cool with that since it goes to an answer something which science does not. The way I see it, your view still appreciates research, medicine, and the attainment of scientific knowledge. As long as that's the case, we can break bread and laugh together.
You realize the Bible was many stories by men cobbled into one book by men, right? There are TWO creation stories right off the bat: in the beginning, and garden of Eden. There are many stories that could have been included, but the men who decided which ones went into the bible chose the ones they did.
As an agnostic view; it's an absolutely logical view. As the theistic view; we believe that the books compiled were ordained by God. As an agnostic or atheist; this probably seems absurd. To the theist; this is hardly absurd. If god has the power to create the universe; he has the power to direct what books are compiled in the bible.
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/canon.html How did the church decide which books belong to the New Testament? When was the decision made? The answers to these questions constitute one of the most revealing yet least known aspects of early Christian history. This question is traditionally referred to as the formation of the canon. The meaning of the Greek term canon is "norm" or "rule," the standard by which things can be measured. In designating the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as a canon, the church was declaring them to be its "rule" for faith and practice, its "normative" collection of writings. The first list of "canonical" books that names the same twenty-seven writings found in our New Testament appears in the Easter letter of Athanasius , Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, in 367 C.E. He names them in a different order, to be sure. Even so, the first list that agrees with ours was a long time in coming (MEN chose what books and what order, and over 350 years after Christ) http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm 1. In the Beginning: Two Stories of Creation by Doug Linder (2004) In the beginning, about 3,000 years ago*, Jewish desert dwellers in what is present-day southern Israel told a story around campfires about the creation of the first man and first woman. The story they told, and passed on to generations of future desert dwellers, described a pre-creation scene much like the desert landscape in which they daily struggled for existence. From the dry desert dust the Creator forms a man and breaths life into him, and then places him in a beautiful oasis-like garden, abundant with fruits. The Creator takes a personal interest in this first man, and sets about trying to find him a suitable companion. When none of the creatures He first forms provides the man the comfort He had hoped, the Creator makes the first woman. Everything goes well for a spell, in the story told in the desert, but then the Creator is disobeyed and bad things start to happen. Four or five centuries later, five-hundred-plus miles to the east in what is most likely present-day Iraq, a remarkable Jewish writer—whose name we do not know—set about the ambitious task of constructing a primary history of his people. Evil Merodach reigned in this dark time of Jewish exile, around 560 B.C., and the writer hoped that his history would help his people endure their many trials. The writer was most likely a priest, and might have been assisted in his work by other priests and scribes. To accomplish his mission, he acquired at least two pre-existing writings on Jewish history. The prior writings came from different places and different times. One set of writings used the Canaanite term, “Elohim,” as the name of the creator god. A second set of writings, more ancient than the first, used a Judean term, “YHWH” (translated “Jehovah” in English), to describe its deity. The priest wove the two texts together, trying to avoid repetition and altering them where necessary to avoid blatant inconsistencies. The priest confronted an additional problem: the two texts originally reflected views about two different gods in a time of polytheism, but by the time he compiled his history, belief in a single god had become prevalent among Jews. The priest, therefore, sought to remove passages supporting the polytheism of an earlier age—and, except for a few hints here and there, he succeeded. Finally, he added some writing of his own, or of his priestly contemporaries, that reflected the ideas of his own, more mature, period of Judaism. (Written and edited by man) The story the writer put together from the various texts is a compelling one. “The greatest story ever told,” it is now often called. Without question, it is the most significant history—if that term is appropriate for such a blend of real events and legends—ever written. Some of the events he described are consistent with other historical records, but many others—generally those before the time of Saul and David, or about 1000 B.C.—cannot be tested for accuracy, and are no doubt shaped to reflect the priest’s religious and political goals. The history includes dramatic accounts of persecution, escape, exile, sacrifice, and global devastation by a great flood. It tells of a creator god who watches over his people, tests his people, and promises them great things if only they honor his commandments. As any great story must, the history has villains and it has heroes. No figure plays a more heroic and central role in the priest’s work than a prophet by the name of Moses, born in Egypt in the 13th century B.C. Remarkably, memory of Moses survived in the writer’s people through seven centuries—and was, in fact, the inspiration for the task he gave himself. The writer believed that his story would not be complete without an explanation of how things--the sun, the earth, the seas—and life--plants, animals, and humans--came to be. For good measure, the writer decided to include two such explanations. He did so even though the two stories contradicted each other on several points.
I find it really strange that you would put teeth on the biography of a supposed writer 2,000+ years ago, but renounce all the historical evidence of the existing bible; which ironically was told by historials that spent 30+ years of their life in this field. I guess when something works to your advantage than its fine, but if it goes against your argument, you just say its bullshit! Lmao
ack. no disrespect to anyone, but this is just more NOMA-like pandering. from a scientific standpoint how is belief that gravity does not exist in the afterlife any less stupid than belief that gravity does not exist? i'm all for civil discussion and respecting and remaining friendly with people who don't share ones views, but that does not mean that specific beliefs people hold should be respected and lent any credibility if they are demonstratably superstitious and completely unsupported by objective evidence.