|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 22, 2018 1:00:48 GMT
That’s basically another way of asking which members (regular posters here) are theists?
There’s a follow up question I’d like to ask only theists, but I suspect the majority of answers would come from atheists, and theists would ignore the question altogether (because they can’t answer it). So I need to know how many theists are actually here, so I can predict how many will ignore the follow up question (because they can’t answer it).
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 22, 2018 1:37:26 GMT
That’s basically another way of asking which members (regular posters here) are theists? If you're saying that theism = creationism, then you're certainly not using "creationism" in the most commonly understood sense (opposition to evolution). If a theist who accepts macroevolution is still labeled a creationist because he believes that God is the "first cause" in how the universe got here, then the term "creationism" won't have much (if any) value in discussions of religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 22, 2018 1:54:05 GMT
There is a test I have devised for fake evolutionists and crypto creationists :
Ask them if they believe Adam was the first human being. if the answer is yes then you have a creationist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 22, 2018 2:10:29 GMT
There is a test I have devised for fake evolutionists and crypto creationists : Ask them if they believe Adam was the first human being. if the answer is yes then you have a creationist. Are you sure about this? If I believe man evolved from "pre homo sapien" forms, doesn't that mean there had to be a first homo sapien? If so, what's wrong with assigning him a name (Adam)? Why should that make me a creationist?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 22, 2018 2:14:11 GMT
There is a test I have devised for fake evolutionists and crypto creationists : Ask them if they believe Adam was the first human being. if the answer is yes then you have a creationist. Are you sure about this? If I believe man evolved from "pre homo sapien" forms, doesn't that mean there had to be a first homo sapien? If so, what's wrong with assigning him a name (Adam)? Why should that make me a creationist?
lol |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Aug 22, 2018 2:20:15 GMT
Many of us lean towards Gnostic Christianity, which is proven to be Reality, and as such, we believe God is all powerful in the perfect Heavenly realm, but not in what we experience.
My personal take is unimportant, as I live in a confused world of poor information. The internet has been great proof of that. I believe this "world where Satan is prince" is a box he did create billions of years ago. But I don't "know" that. I'm not arrogant enough to think I know what happened billions of years ago. Only a moron is that arrogant. So the reality is that hard core creationists and hard core evolutionists are identical in thought, just on different sides of a hill, adamantly declaring their self righteousness.
As for Man, he couldn't have evolved. Those attributes that enable him to open cans are useful today, but were worthless before can openers. "Man" is proof that evolutionists and intelligent design believers are somehow fooled into a delusion. Man is an inferior animal. He is helpless in the wild. His senses are inferior to almost every animal, especially other primates. There is no way a Homo Sapien could get to a banana before an ape. Man starves if he competes with other primates. There are other logical fallacies to Evolution. Natural Selection is a fact, because it is one by definition, but Evolution is a dream that we just really want to believe in, to make us feel we have something in common with superior animals.
The enemy makes the laws and the world. No real God would make such an uninspired creation, but it was a creation. Whether the enemy did it billions of years ago or less is not important. He's the prince of confusion and division and hate.
We see this in the Bible itself. God is described as good, and he informed the first man not to partake of the fruit of a tree. After partaking of the fruit, all Hell literally broke loose. We know it couldn't be a "tree of knowledge", because man is horribly ignorant and feeble in physical construction. Therefore, it was a "tree of confusion", which gave the Devil dominion. The character who blamed the first man for being a fool, and who punished him so severely, could not have been the good God. Confused, how would "Adam" know the real God? The real God was "blocked" by the action.
All the laws of Physics, all the laws of Motion, all the laws of organic life are so hate filled that only a moron can't see the evil cognition behind them.
How we all got trapped here is something we get "confused" about, which we call the "fall" of man.
Satan made the rules in his "little box world" we experience, and he rigged the game. We see this. God came through against a rigged game with his son, Jesus, to salvage us when we get to leave this inferior world.
Since the Devil and demons make the rules, and they are out to "confuse", then it follows that the truth of Gnostic Christianity can never be organized successfully, and this we see, as even Gnostics disagree. That is why Gnostics attend church with fundamentalists. It's the closest thing we can ever get to Reality. No one cares if a few believe the Earth is young. It doesn't matter. The fact that it incurs such unprovoked hatred from the ignorant masses is absolute proof that they are totally out of control in being influenced by supernatural evil. It isn't their fault. They're feeble minded. Their arrogance is proof of Satan's power.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Aug 22, 2018 2:59:46 GMT
That’s basically another way of asking which members (regular posters here) are theists? A high correlation between theism and creationism is certainly not a given. It may be the case for the U.S. and other places, but in many (most?) it is not. The demographics of this board do lean toward Americans, but to say theism and creationism are equivalent here is a quite of a stretch, especially given the small sample size. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 22, 2018 3:15:30 GMT
Ask the second question.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 22, 2018 9:52:04 GMT
. My personal take is unimportant, as I live in a confused world of poor information. The internet has been great proof of that. I believe this "world where Satan is prince" is a box he did create billions of years ago. But I don't "know" that. I'm not arrogant enough to think I know what happened billions of years ago. Only a moron is that arrogant. So the reality is that hard core creationists and hard core evolutionists are identical in thought, just on different sides of a hill, adamantly declaring their self righteousness. Your personal take is important if you want to answer the direct, question of whether you believe Adam was the first human being. The Bible does not offer "poor information" on this point. Opposing thumbs are often seen as a key evolutionary advantage. Back in ancient times, they lacked tins, but such an arrangement was mighty useful in using stick and stones as tools and weapons. And yet for an 'inferior animal', humankind dominates the planet. From the jumped-up little shrew which was our ancestor, we seem to have done pretty well for ourselves. (Your argument, btw is like saying a shark is inferior as a predator since it cannot survive long out of water.) The modern evolutionary synthesis is a well established scientific fact, whether we want to believe in it or not. It moreover offers a more logical, and greater evidenced, explanation for the descent of life on earth than any other alternatives. Is that not a Scottish god you are talking of? You know that not all of the Bible is to be taken as literal history... right? If so, how would a serpent speak without a voice box? Come to that (especially as the Bible is never written in the first person) how could there be any witness for creation before humans existed? Attributing moral qualities to natural forces and events is the anthropomorphic fallacy. Since the Christian God admits to creating evil in the Bible, to making a world which was not perfect in the first place, and then later expressing personal regret or repentance on the way some things turned out, then it is hard to see how blame can be so easily redistributed. This seems heretical, the suggestion that God's will, or rule, can be overridden. It would be wiser to suggest that the purported devil and demons (even the ones with pitchforks and pointy hats) break the rules instead. But here you seem to offer a contradiction. For, if no one cares, how come, er, the masses express hatred? I don't know either. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 22, 2018 10:29:58 GMT
There is a test I have devised for fake evolutionists and crypto creationists : Ask them if they believe Adam was the first human being. if the answer is yes then you have a creationist. Are you sure about this? If I believe man evolved from "pre homo sapien" forms, doesn't that mean there had to be a first homo sapien? If so, what's wrong with assigning him a name (Adam)? Why should that make me a creationist?
You know how you above said, "If you're saying that theism = creationism, then you're certainly not using 'creationism' in the most commonly understood sense (opposition to evolution)"? Well, the same thing would go here for "Adam." |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 22, 2018 11:25:32 GMT
That’s basically another way of asking which members (regular posters here) are theists? If you're saying that theism = creationism, then you're certainly not using "creationism" in the most commonly understood sense (opposition to evolution). If a theist who accepts macroevolution is still labeled a creationist because he believes that God is the "first cause" in how the universe got here, then the term "creationism" won't have much (if any) value in discussions of religion.
Good point. So I guess I’m just asking who here is an actual creationist? I assume the majority of theists are (when I was a theist, I was also a creationist), but I may very well be mistaken. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 22, 2018 11:35:14 GMT
How did the pair of lions on Noah’s Ark survive for a year on a boat? What did they eat for food? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 22, 2018 11:35:19 GMT
Many of us lean towards Gnostic Christianity, which is proven to be Reality, and as such, we believe God is all powerful in the perfect Heavenly realm, but not in what we experience. My personal take is unimportant, as I live in a confused world of poor information. The internet has been great proof of that. I believe this "world where Satan is prince" is a box he did create billions of years ago. But I don't "know" that. I'm not arrogant enough to think I know what happened billions of years ago. Only a moron is that arrogant. So the reality is that hard core creationists and hard core evolutionists are identical in thought, just on different sides of a hill, adamantly declaring their self righteousness. As for Man, he couldn't have evolved. Those attributes that enable him to open cans are useful today, but were worthless before can openers. "Man" is proof that evolutionists and intelligent design believers are somehow fooled into a delusion. Man is an inferior animal. He is helpless in the wild. His senses are inferior to almost every animal, especially other primates. There is no way a Homo Sapien could get to a banana before an ape. Man starves if he competes with other primates. There are other logical fallacies to Evolution. Natural Selection is a fact, because it is one by definition, but Evolution is a dream that we just really want to believe in, to make us feel we have something in common with superior animals. The enemy makes the laws and the world. No real God would make such an uninspired creation, but it was a creation. Whether the enemy did it billions of years ago or less is not important. He's the prince of confusion and division and hate. We see this in the Bible itself. God is described as good, and he informed the first man not to partake of the fruit of a tree. After partaking of the fruit, all Hell literally broke loose. We know it couldn't be a "tree of knowledge", because man is horribly ignorant and feeble in physical construction. Therefore, it was a "tree of confusion", which gave the Devil dominion. The character who blamed the first man for being a fool, and who punished him so severely, could not have been the good God. Confused, how would "Adam" know the real God? The real God was "blocked" by the action. All the laws of Physics, all the laws of Motion, all the laws of organic life are so hate filled that only a moron can't see the evil cognition behind them. How we all got trapped here is something we get "confused" about, which we call the "fall" of man. Satan made the rules in his "little box world" we experience, and he rigged the game. We see this. God came through against a rigged game with his son, Jesus, to salvage us when we get to leave this inferior world. Since the Devil and demons make the rules, and they are out to "confuse", then it follows that the truth of Gnostic Christianity can never be organized successfully, and this we see, as even Gnostics disagree. That is why Gnostics attend church with fundamentalists. It's the closest thing we can ever get to Reality. No one cares if a few believe the Earth is young. It doesn't matter. The fact that it incurs such unprovoked hatred from the ignorant masses is absolute proof that they are totally out of control in being influenced by supernatural evil. It isn't their fault. They're feeble minded. Their arrogance is proof of Satan's power. I regret drystyx that after your last meltdown here, I am hesitant to discuss anything with you. I’m actually concerned for your mental health and I don’t want to say anything to push you over the edge. So I’m afraid I will be ignoring your responses so that I won’t be tempted to get into a tussle with you about anything. I hope you follow my advice and talk to someone before something tragic happens. Be well, and good luck! No, you're not concerned for him or anyone else except yourself, so you can take your "concern" and jam it. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 22, 2018 11:38:21 GMT
No, you're not concerned for him or anyone else except yourself, so you can take your "concern" and jam it. I actually deleted that post and sent it in a private message instead. I’d respectfully ask you to delete it as well (as it doesn’t need to be blasted here for everyone). Regardless of what you personally think (and I’m generally not interested in your opinion as it doesn’t concern you), I actually do think he is in trouble but that is better off as a private discussion. Try to let the “Christian” in you come out at least once. |
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Aug 22, 2018 11:40:09 GMT
I thought a creationist was a creative cartoonist.  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 22, 2018 12:35:50 GMT
How did the pair of lions on Noah’s Ark survive for a year on a boat? What did they eat for food? They would have food like all the other animals and people would have food. Considering that some of the animals were herds, maybe they ate some of those. It would have had plenty of room for everything that was on the ark, so I can only assume there is actually an underlying question/statement beyond what lions eat, since the answer to that was way too simple....Or maybe you just thought "theists" actually were scared of the question. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,703
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 22, 2018 12:45:32 GMT
If you're saying that theism = creationism, then you're certainly not using "creationism" in the most commonly understood sense (opposition to evolution). If a theist who accepts macroevolution is still labeled a creationist because he believes that God is the "first cause" in how the universe got here, then the term "creationism" won't have much (if any) value in discussions of religion.
Good point. So I guess I’m just asking who here is an actual creationist? I assume the majority of theists are (when I was a theist, I was also a creationist), but I may very well be mistaken. Even in the USA, it looks like it's only a very slim majority: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups
Personally I've only met two theists who denied evolution. One was American. The other had a lot of crazy ideas - her views on evolution were the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 22, 2018 12:49:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 22, 2018 12:56:53 GMT
Good point. So I guess I’m just asking who here is an actual creationist? I assume the majority of theists are (when I was a theist, I was also a creationist), but I may very well be mistaken. Even in the USA, it looks like it's only a very slim majority: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups
Personally I've only met two theists who denied evolution. One was American. The other had a lot of crazy ideas - her views on evolution were the tip of the iceberg.
I've definitely known fundies who denied evolution. And yes they were American. I've also known people from other countries who had a hard time accepting the idea of evolution, but in their case, poor (and/or almost no) science education was to blame, not religion. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,703
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 22, 2018 13:08:26 GMT
I've definitely known fundies who denied evolution. And yes they were American. I've also known people from other countries who had a hard time accepting the idea of evolution, but in their case, poor (and/or almost no) science education was to blame, not religion. Admittedly, I don't know many Americans and the one in question was probably the only one I've ever known well enough to find out her views on such things. Very smart girl actually, but was home-schooled by religious parents. |
|
