[The Revolution ]
Open your mindThe Atheist vs. The Religious
2007-02-28
First I would like to say a few things before I get this rolling. I would not ever tell someone what he or she should or should not believe. I believe everyone has a right to his or her opinion this subject of religion. This post does not reflect my opinion on ALL religious people or on ALL atheists. I will specify whom I mean when I refer to them, for example: "Atheist of this nature, or Christians who believe in this.” I do try to judge everyone as individuals, and not as a group. Now I am going to address this post mainly to atheist, but my following argument will apply to Christians, Muslims, Hindus or anyone religious. Please spare me the comments regarding any of the aforementioned topics.
Whew...(wipes sweat from brow.)
With out further B/S Here is the post:
Atheist by Webster’s definition is "one who believes that there is no deity.” For many, this definition encapsulates their entire opinion. This is the "soul" or "heart" of atheism. While other Atheist would post addendum's to the definition of atheism. I will make a point to show that without the "heart" one cannot define him/herself as an atheist. This post is not meant to directly address any one who falls into the former category. This is for any atheist openly states the existence of a God or god(s) is impossible.
I get the strong feeling that the atheists mentioned above regard themselves as more intelligent than believers. I say this based on things I have read in which atheist refer to religion as irrational or as some kind of delusion. This statement is also based on various atheist websites I have studied as well as from atheist i have talked to. Ironically, I see surprising similarity in the beliefs or non-beliefs of both the atheists and the Christians. This similarity is the leap of faith (for lack of a better term) each must necessarily take when committing to one of these two positions.
The atheist mind is guilty of the same flaws of logic that they would indict on those who believe in a deity. Christians, Muslims, religions of various other natures maintain a belief that there is a god. Organized religion and atheism may seem like polar opposites, yet the reality is this: The religious say, "There is a god." and no one can prove that it is absolute truth. An Atheist says, "The existence of a God or gods is impossible.” Yet no one can back up this statement with irrefutable evidence.
To summarize:
The foundation on which both religion and atheism rest upon is a belief. Both sides require a disregard for known facts. Both hold belief in an unknowable idea. What makes one side more irrational than the other? I fail to understand how anyone could answer that with the least bit of confidence. If you are a Christian or an atheist, and you understand that your religion is founded on belief, and not fact. I have no issue with you.
I can hear the atheist yelling through my computer, so please hold on a sec. I am very familiar with evolution, as well as theoretical physics. I know the a stories about a virgin birth and a 5000 yr old planet seem like a child's fairytale when placed next to a mountain of scientific data, I still maintain that both beliefs are equally whimsical.........READ MORE
Creationism
2007-02-06
To some, the concept of creationism may seem far fetched. Probably due to the fact that science has defined so many of the laws of physics and nature. Then further proven these laws validity through experimentation. Modern science which can define and predict the outcome of events with amazing accuracy, even on a microscopic or particle level. Based on the current what-we-know-and-think-we-understand about the world Scientist endorse theories like evolution, and The big bang theory. Which are heavily supported by physics, that is to say; supported by hard facts and evidence.
Evolution has been proven to occur in on the microscopic level, and only theorized on the macro(animal and large organism) level. We have not been able to observe evolution directly on the macro level. Only through fossil observation, and speculation, although it is very convincing, the evidence it is not air tight. Not solid enough to declare victory. There are missing links.
So maybe by now your wondering which side I am in favor of big bang and evolution or Faith and Divine intervention? The answer to that is: I don't Believe either are correct, but i wouldn't say incorrect either. confusing? ya it is....So I'll try to elaborate.
Lets start the journey :). Creation theory basically says this, god created the earth, universe and everything contained within it in seven days. This is according to the book of genesis. Although it was written by man, the story was told to man by a prophet of God. Creationism states that everything was created roughly 5,000 years ago. For the sake of what I'm trying to prove that will be enough, any more information is irrelevant and wouldn't effect my argument.
I know the first words out of the antagonist mouth is going to be "what about the dinosaurs, and carbon dating?" We'll I recently asked a proud creationist the same question and his answer was this "carbon dating is not 100% accurate" I asked " are you saying that dinosaurs and man roamed the earth together?" "Yes, he replied." and began to talk about recently discovered cave drawing that showed evidence of cave-men and dinosaurs existing during same period of time. So i researched his arguments and found this. A website devoted to the genesis version of creation claims that current dating methods are erroneous. The website provides a bulk of convincing arguments that discredit carbon14 dating as well as anything that dates past a few thousand years. Read for yourself, Anwsersingenesis.org The best argument that creationist have seems to be this: proving all other theories wrong. Maybe creationist don't have to prove their theory true so as long as they can prove yours to be false.
I then turned to the scientific community for information about dating methods. Sure enough, although slightly more favorable to the accuracy of dating methods, they still admit that the data is not rock solid and there are several factors that could distort the accuracy. Yet not distorted to the extent that a creationist would have you believe.
Next I dove into various websites for so-called evidence of dinosaurs and man co-existing. You see, creationist do not deny the existence of dinosaurs, they just have a different perspective of when they lived. One of the most organized websites I found that explained this phenomenon was LivingDinos.com . I found this website to be chuck-full of subjective information as well as senseless propaganda the warned its visitors of The Dangers of Evolution . It is my humble opinion, based on what Internet research has taught me, that the evidence presented to explain how dinosaurs fit into the theory of creationism was very subjective and requires a real stretch of the imagination. Ironically carbon dating, which has a much larger stack of evidence in favoring it, was easily discredited for having to many holes and uncertainties. Go figure.
Many creationist point to claims of the LockNess monster being modern version of a plesiosaur. Yet again the agenda driven protagonist excludes Bigfoot sightings, due to a argument in favor of evolution, in other words: Giving credit to the idea that man descended from ape.
So where does this leave us? Both sides discredit each other effectively, or attempt to anyway. So without further ado here are few things that i believe should be relevant topics of discussion in this debate.
1.Their is no current way to prove " without a shadow of a doubt" that a God or divine creator exist through known science, any so-called proof of this is subjective evidence. Likewise no one can prove that God does not exist.
2.Even if the big bang was hard core irrefutable fact, it still does not rule out god as the instigator of the whole event.
3.The same for concept could apply to evolution, if there was a creator it is possible that the evolution of organisms was according to a Gods design.
In summary I say this: Creationist will never win the debate when their whole argument is only valid so long as they can discredit science. It appears that the more we learn about the way the world works, (dating techniques, rock layer dating, evolution of organisms, etc) The more holes science puts in creationism theory. I propose a new concept for creationist, a foothold which will not be refuted until someone can prove that God doesn't exist.
You must admit that a god is POSSIBLE.
This must be admitted due to the fact that no one can prove that God doesn't exist.
Thus an inability to prove an impossibility, leaves the door open to possibility.
Creationist claim that God created the universe, everything it contains and all it's complexity.
So I ask: Why don't creationist just simply state that "A divine being capable of creating such a complex existence could also create the illusion of age."
This would end the carbon dating debate as well as any time line related discrepancy prior to man. For some strange reason creationist argue as if their God was limited to the physics and laws of nature that he supposedly created. This only creates a battle that gives science the home field advantage.
Time Magazine published an excellent article on this subject in the Nov. edition entitled God Vs. Science. In which atheist/biologist Richard Dawkins said: "....If there is a God, its going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed." I think this quote sums up my opinion on this subject about perfectly.
Created with ShoutPost
