How Stupid Do U Have To Be To Believe In God?

[Sluggo 0]

New here and hope you don't mind my jumping in. First, we must realize that this has a been a debate for much longer than any of us. Second, there are raving lunatics on both sides not just religious ones. Third, I am no expert but love the dialogue.Ok, forget all the details first and lets look at the basics. How did we come to exist? I only know of 2 common thoughts: Evolution and Creation. Well known proponents are on both sides. I choose creation. Yes, there is some percieved baggage that goes along with that choice and I accept that. Faith is the reason for that acceptance. I know it can be called the magical brush that wipes out possible unknown or difficult issues.

There are probably a million stories of creation. Who's to say the Pima native americans are wrong to believe that white ants built Earth? Who's to say that it took God a week? Who's to say it wasn't created last Thursday?Creation isn't an option. It's a category of options.

Here is why I start there. The other option is evolution. Evolution appears to be the way to go if you want a rational explanation for order and exisitance. However, the more we study, the harder it is to connect the dots. Faith is actually more prevelant in the evolution camp.

Please try to understand evolution before bashing it. The more we study, the EASIER it is to connect the dots.

[mcsoupman 0]

There are probably a million stories of creation. Who's to say the Pima native americans are wrong to believe that white ants built Earth? Who's to say that it took God a week? Who's to say it wasn't created last Thursday?Creation isn't an option. It's a category of options.Please try to understand evolution before bashing it. The more we study, the EASIER it is to connect the dots.

Sluggo, I meant no malice. The question is "how stupid do you have to be to belive in God." Well, as I see it, either we "spontaneously" by random chance appeared out of nowhere (evolution) or we were created by some deity, supernatural like being (Creation = God like being). Just pealing it back to basics. Yes there is a whole grip of ideas as to what type of creator there is. I am not talking about that just yet. My point is to just say, if there is no God, then explain to me how we got here.Havn't yet heard about it being any easier to connect the dots. Carbon dating can't put 2 similar dates together on a single item. New stuff can carbon date to 100k years old. The fossil record is never in complete order. Sometimes whole eras are skipped or even out of order. There are no current trans species mutations and in 8000 years of recorded history, there are no records of any.

[crowTrobot 2]

Havn't yet heard about it being any easier to connect the dots. Carbon dating can't put 2 similar dates together on a single item. New stuff can carbon date to 100k years old. The fossil record is never in complete order. Sometimes whole eras are skipped or even out of order. There are no current trans species mutations and in 8000 years of recorded history, there are no records of any.

every statement in that paragraph is creationist propaganda (truth-twisting or outright lies creationists come up with to sell books to ignorant christians). you need to expand your reading on the subject to include some objective material lol.

[Loismustdie 0]

every statement in that paragraph is creationist propaganda (truth-twisting or outright lies creationists come up with to sell books to ignorant christians). you need to expand your reading on the subject to include some objective material lol.

Objective material- what it's gonna say- "True, Carbon dating can be wildly inaccurate. True, it does appear by the fossil record that a buttload of species appeared all at once. True, there are gaps in the fossil record, and really we believe that maybe we have at most access to 10% of what went on thousands of years ago. We can, because of this, put together pieces of the story- but not all of it, and definitely not enough to corroborate what we think happened." Is that about right? To some of the other posters- I cannot prove to you God exists. It is, on some level- on all levels, really- a leap of faith. I call it common sense, which most intellectuals/atheists spit on, mostly because I think that to them, the common in common sense is just not good enough for them. Let's put it simply- to some, it's not the idea of God that is unthinkable, it's GOD HIMSELF. They believe, that if you can attribute good to God, then you have to attribute bad as well, and the world has gotten so bad and so distressed that apparently God no longer cares,which is the farthest thing from the truth. God cares, and works in the lives of people that love him and serve him, and that is it. He never promised sinners anything except punishment. On top of that God obserevs the world- but Satan romes it as a roaring Lion, seeking whom he may devour. The world is Satans realm, make no mistake- the evidence is everywhere. This is harsh- it involves children at times and this is hard to deal with. You know how I do it? Every child who dies in a conflict, of a disease ravaging there nation, because some sick animal ravaged there body- every one is with the angels in paradise, waiting for heaven to rest with God for eternity, with no recollection of how there life ended, which is the best possible way for there tragedy to end. It's still harsh- what about people, adults, who never heard of God, or Christ? Well, we know from the scriptures that if you seek, you will find. Every human being is granted this as a promise from God. So, I have to conclude then that a person who dies in sin- well, that is the life they chose. Just some thoughts.

[Sluggo 0]

Objective material- what it's gonna say- "True, Carbon dating can be wildly inaccurate. True, it does appear by the fossil record that a buttload of species appeared all at once. True, there are gaps in the fossil record, and really we believe that maybe we have at most access to 10% of what went on thousands of years ago. We can, because of this, put together pieces of the story- but not all of it, and definitely not enough to corroborate what we think happened."Is that about right?

Yes, that's right.

[mcsoupman 0]

Objective material- what it's gonna say- "True, Carbon dating can be wildly inaccurate. True, it does appear by the fossil record that a buttload of species appeared all at once. True, there are gaps in the fossil record, and really we believe that maybe we have at most access to 10% of what went on thousands of years ago. We can, because of this, put together pieces of the story- but not all of it, and definitely not enough to corroborate what we think happened." Is that about right?

Thanks for having my back. I forgot the correct use of "buttload." I will do my best to objectively assist you whenever I can.

[MDXS 0]

To some of the other posters- I cannot prove to you God exists. It is, on some level- on all levels, really- a leap of faith. I call it common sense, which most intellectuals/atheists spit on, mostly because I think that to them, the common in common sense is just not good enough for them.

Belieiving in Christianity is not a leap of faith. It's a whole series of leaps. There's the leap of the existance of god, that god has an interest in humanity, that he'll interfere in human affairs, that he did so with Jesus, that he didn't do so with any of the other religions, and that the bible - while demonstably ridiculous in places - is in fact, the word of god. This is simplified of course, but gives an idea of the issue at hand. Maybe, maybe I could take one leap of faith, but not many. Believing in stuff you have little basis for is the antithesis of common sense....at least for me anyway.

[mcsoupman 0]

Belieiving in Christianity is not a leap of faith. It's a whole series of leaps. There's the leap of the existance of god, that god has an interest in humanity, that he'll interfere in human affairs, that he did so with Jesus, that he didn't do so with any of the other religions, and that the bible - while demonstably ridiculous in places - is in fact, the word of god. This is simplified of course, but gives an idea of the issue at hand. Maybe, maybe I could take one leap of faith, but not many. Believing in stuff you have little basis for is the antithesis of common sense....at least for me anyway.

If you start at the premise of God only, then yeah you want to know where is he and why can't I see him. When you hear that you can't see him it feels ackward and untrue. Common sense for me is looking outside and saying, "dang, this is a pretty amazing world." Sure, if I lived in Ethiopia right now, I might feel differently but he sure did get Hawaii right. Personally, I find it hard to believe that we just happened or that a series of atoms collectively joined forces to mutate into a man. Starting there, looking for God is not the first leap. Finding out if and how he is communicating with us might be that first leap.

[Loismustdie 0]

If you start at the premise of God only, then yeah you want to know where is he and why can't I see him. When you hear that you can't see him it feels ackward and untrue. Common sense for me is looking outside and saying, "dang, this is a pretty amazing world." Sure, if I lived in Ethiopia right now, I might feel differently but he sure did get Hawaii right. Personally, I find it hard to believe that we just happened or that a series of atoms collectively joined forces to mutate into a man. Starting there, looking for God is not the first leap. Finding out if and how he is communicating with us might be that first leap.

That's an interesting way of stating it.

[Sluggo 0]

If you start at the premise of God only, then yeah you want to know where is he and why can't I see him. When you hear that you can't see him it feels ackward and untrue. Common sense for me is looking outside and saying, "dang, this is a pretty amazing world." Sure, if I lived in Ethiopia right now, I might feel differently but he sure did get Hawaii right. Personally, I find it hard to believe that we just happened or that a series of atoms collectively joined forces to mutate into a man. Starting there, looking for God is not the first leap. Finding out if and how he is communicating with us might be that first leap.

But that just leads to spirituality, not Christianity.

[mcsoupman 0]

But that just leads to spirituality, not Christianity.

I wouldn't call it spirituality just yet, maybe Theology or Deism. That's my only point so far. I have not made an argument for or against Christianity. Just going back to the question of Why a God? Once we get to a point of, "ok, their might be a God" then one has to come to grips with all sorts of personal worldviews. That's enough for anyone person to handle in single thread.Religious beliefs would take us down a whole other path.

[crowTrobot 2]

Objective material- what it's gonna say- "True, Carbon dating can be wildly inaccurate. True, it does appear by the fossil record that a buttload of species appeared all at once. True, there are gaps in the fossil record, and really we believe that maybe we have at most access to 10% of what went on thousands of years ago. We can, because of this, put together pieces of the story- but not all of it, and definitely not enough to corroborate what we think happened." Is that about right?

Yes, that's right.

no it's not. carbon dating is NOT EVEN USED to age fossils, so (even though it is generally accurate) any inaccuracies are irrelevanta buttload of species first appear in the fossil record in a 50 million year period (not all at once) about 600 million years ago but many scientists think that is most likely just due to something that happened in the environment at the time that made fossiliation occur more easily.there are no unexplained gaps in the fossil record. on the coarse scale the fossil record makes available virtually ALL of the expected transitionals have been found.the story evolutionists put together from the fossil record is corroborated by modern observation and genetic evidence with great precision.for practical purposes evolution is fact, and only the ignorant or those with an anti-scientific agenda think otherwise.

[Sluggo 0]

Well, the first part is right. Carbon dating can be wildly inaccurate when improperly used (and yes, it isn't used to date fossils). A bunch of species did appear at once (over tens of millions of years). Very, very few creatures fossilized, and we've found even fewer. Also, unless we unearth every single creature that ever lived, we'll gaps in the fossil record.Even so, evolution is undoubtably true. None of the above statements invalidate it in any way.

[Loismustdie 0]

no it's not. carbon dating is NOT EVEN USED to age fossils, so (even though it is generally accurate) any inaccuracies are irrelevanta buttload of species first appear in the fossil record in a 50 million year period (not all at once) about 600 million years ago but many scientists think that is most likely just due to something that happened in the environment at the time that made fossiliation occur more easily.there are no unexplained gaps in the fossil record. on the coarse scale the fossil record makes available virtually ALL of the expected transitionals have been found.the story evolutionists put together from the fossil record is corroborated by modern observation and genetic evidence with great precision.for practical purposes evolution is fact, and only the ignorant or those with an anti-scientific agenda think otherwise.

On the coarse scale- coarse being another word for incomplete I presume? Also, bullshit- the story put together is one with holes left and right, including that whole 600 million thing, which is debateable and pretty much every statement you just made is debateable- it wont be, though, because any scientist who jumps ship and admits it's bull **** is ostracized and treated like he just ate your baby. There is absolutely no reason why Creationism and Evolution could not be taught side by side in schools, given your ability to make concessions and leaps of faith for one point of view.

[Sluggo 0]

There is a reason: science classes teach science, not scripture.Lois, the gap argument is irrelevant. Unless fossils of everything that ever lived are catalogued, there will always be gaps. Science predicts the gaps.

[crowTrobot 2]

On the coarse scale- coarse being another word for incomplete I presume?

no. coarse indicates the scale that matters, since obviously if you look on a fine enough scale you will find gaps - not everything that dies fossilizes, duh.

because any scientist who jumps ship and admits it's bull **** is ostracized and treated like he just ate your baby.

actually there are several dignified scientists that question the mechanism behind evolution. however the evidence is currently so compelling that there are no objective scientists in the field that question that it did happen - only "scientists" with a biblical-creationist agenda do that.

There is absolutely no reason why Creationism and Evolution could not be taught side by side in schools

creationism is based entirely on a christian fundamentalist agenda - without that christian agenda THE CONCEPT OF CREATIONISM AS "SCIENCE" WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST. that is reason enough by itself.

[Loismustdie 0]

no. coarse indicates the scale that matters, since obviously if you look on a fine enough scale you will find gaps - not everything that dies fossilizes, duh. actually there are several dignified scientists that question the mechanism behind evolution. however the evidence is currently so compelling that there are no objective scientists in the field that question that it did happen - only "scientists" with a biblical-creationist agenda do that.creationism is based entirely on a christian fundamentalist agenda - without that christian agenda THE CONCEPT OF CREATIONISM AS "SCIENCE" WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST. that is reason enough by itself.

When I was in school, grade school, I was taught both, although neither as fact, just ideas. I see no problem with the presentation of ideas. I have never said to take evolution out of the system- just call it what it is- it's an idea. What exactly are you talking about when you say"christian fundamentalist agenda?" I have on agenda- to protect my daugter from being taught bullshit as fact- that is it. You know, the free thinking society you love to pretend to promote is actually the exact opposite- you do realize that, don't you?This country was founded on freedom including religous freedom. Deal with it.

no. coarse indicates the scale that matters, since obviously if you look on a fine enough scale you will find gaps - not everything that dies fossilizes, duh. actually there are several dignified scientists that question the mechanism behind evolution. however the evidence is currently so compelling that there are no objective scientists in the field that question that it did happen - only "scientists" with a biblical-creationist agenda do that.creationism is based entirely on a christian fundamentalist agenda - without that christian agenda THE CONCEPT OF CREATIONISM AS "SCIENCE" WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST. that is reason enough by itself.

One more thing, actually, two. A coarse scale allows for missing pieces, because admittedly chances are said pieces will probably never be found. Another way to say what you said is" Yeah, well, I guess if you looked closer than you would in fact find holes, but if we did that we couldn't pretend that this is still science." I wonder why you aren't willing to give God this type of walk when it comes to evidence? My second thing is that your quotes around the word scientist proves my point when it comes to scientist that believe in creationism. As much eduacation as the next scientist, but starting with something as small as quotes, looked down on for their views. Way to make me look good.

[Sluggo 0]

What exactly are you talking about when you say"christian fundamentalist agenda?" I have on agenda- to protect my daugter from being taught bullshit as fact- that is it.

Emphasis mine.

You know, the free thinking society you love to pretend to promote is actually the exact opposite- you do realize that, don't you?This country was founded on freedom including religous freedom. Deal with it.

You have the freedom to be religious. You don't have the freedom to force religion down the throats of others (by mandating that schools teach it). Religious freedom is EXACTLY a reason why creation science cannot be taught in schools. There are thousands of creation stories from thousands of religions. Science classes can't just teach your version.

One more thing, actually, two. A coarse scale allows for missing pieces, because admittedly chances are said pieces will probably never be found. Another way to say what you said is" Yeah, well, I guess if you looked closer than you would in fact find holes, but if we did that we couldn't pretend that this is still science." I wonder why you aren't willing to give God this type of walk when it comes to evidence? My second thing is that your quotes around the word scientist proves my point when it comes to scientist that believe in creationism. As much eduacation as the next scientist, but starting with something as small as quotes, looked down on for their views.

There will be gaps in the fossil record if an organism ever dies and isn't somehow preserved in rock. If an organism is eaten, if it rots, if it decomposes, if it's lost forever, it will leave a gap.Which gaps are you concerned about specifically?

[Loismustdie 0]

Emphasis mine.You have the freedom to be religious. You don't have the freedom to force religion down the throats of others (by mandating that schools teach it). Religious freedom is EXACTLY a reason why creation science cannot be taught in schools. There are thousands of creation stories from thousands of religions. Science classes can't just teach your version.There will be gaps in the fossil record if an organism ever dies and isn't somehow preserved in rock. If an organism is eaten, if it rots, if it decomposes, if it's lost forever, it will leave a gap.Which gaps are you concerned about specifically?

Notice you never identified the FACT that evolution as the starting point for creation is just an idea. Case closed. Specific gaps? Lol. Tel you what, you have fun explaining away whichever ones you care to have a reason for.

Emphasis mine.You have the freedom to be religious. You don't have the freedom to force religion down the throats of others (by mandating that schools teach it). Religious freedom is EXACTLY a reason why creation science cannot be taught in schools. There are thousands of creation stories from thousands of religions. Science classes can't just teach your version.There will be gaps in the fossil record if an organism ever dies and isn't somehow preserved in rock. If an organism is eaten, if it rots, if it decomposes, if it's lost forever, it will leave a gap.Which gaps are you concerned about specifically?

And, by the way, I never felt that being taught creation in school was like shoving an 8 inch kielbasa down the poor childrens throat. It's a widely accepted idea WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMMUNITY AS WELL. Now,math? That was definitely shoved down my throat.

[Canada 0]

And, by the way, I never felt that being taught creation in school was like shoving an 8 inch kielbasa down the poor childrens throat. It's a widely accepted idea WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMMUNITY AS WELL.

No need to shout, it doesn't make the lies any truer.Creation is not accepted as scientific in the least. This has been through the US courts a number of times and its pretty clear, creationism or ID or whatever you label you want to present it under is not science. It is not scientific.Court cases with impartial judges focusing on nothing but months of evidence for both sides have occured. Men and women who are intelligent enough to know that oceans don't float away have come to the blatantly obvious conclussion that Creationism is not scientific but a religous concept.Sure there are scientists that believe in the Christian God as well as other Gods, but they know that these are faith based beliefs without scientific backing.If you want to legislate that Creationism must be taught in all schools then you better start clearing time for Voodoo and Wikka as well, because they have just as much right to be taught.

[crowTrobot 2]

Way to make me look good.

at this point that would be impossible.

[solderz 0]

And, by the way, I never felt that being taught creation in school was like shoving an 8 inch kielbasa down the poor childrens throat. It's a widely accepted idea WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMMUNITY AS WELL.

What scientific community are you talking about? You sure there wasn't acid in your communion wine?And thanks for arguing for creationism while using imagery from The Howard Stern Show. That made me smile

[Loismustdie 0]

What scientific community are you talking about? You sure there wasn't acid in your communion wine?And thanks for arguing for creationism while using imagery from The Howard Stern Show. That made me smile

I'm multitalented. There are plenty of scientist that believe in Creation, and gladly put together curriculum books that they know will change in a year- why not throw in other objective material, whether scientific or not? It seems to me that science is not at all about teaching facts, just about teaching science. Most kids don't know the difference. In my mind, the compromise that should be made is this- when the question is asked of where we come from, the answer should be" We don't know. We have ideas- but we don't know. We have pictures of things that we have drawn that we speculate could have happened, but it's in know way proveable, so we don't know. Sorry, can't tell you." That would be alot more acceptable to me.

[crowTrobot 2]

There are plenty of scientist that believe in Creation

name one that is not associated with a biblical-creationist institution. good luck.

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

So what's more likely? That an all-powerful, mysterious God created the Universe, and decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that He simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created Him, so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?