Why do Creationists have faith in a second rate creator?

Hi RickJBWe're obviously on the same side here. And I agree that the argument is going slightly off track. However, the problem with limiting the argument to a few well-known ancient creators is that, if there is just a small group of possible creators, it gives the impression that they are all serious contenders for being a real creator, and that there is some kind of realistic chance that one of them actually is. But I'm showing that the argument can be taken to an infinite number of gods, which discredits any of the ancient gods as being anything special and shows that they are most likely ALL made up, not just all but one of them.

quote:

---

Here they make the ludicrous and illogical conclusion that because the fossil of a thorn was found BELOW a dinosaur fossil it means that dinosaurs and humans must have lived at the same time. Why? Because ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, thorns only appeared on the Earth after the "fall of man". So, as the thorn is in a lower sedimentary layer than the dinosaur, it must have been fossiled after the fall of man, when humans were on the Earth. So the dinosaur died after the first humans were on the Earth.

---

From what I can tell that's apologetics. Arguments made to defend the religious beliefs.This doesn't show that the majority of creationists, in reality, don't appreciate certain facts and discoveries.Quite frankly, I doubt if the majority of the population in the US would appreciate the discovery of a thorn fossil. Until I saw the slide show you provided, I didn't know of it and now that I do, it really doesn't matter in my life. The discovery is more important to those in the field or those with interest in the field than the average population.I'm sure creationist apologetics is annoying and illogical to scientists. I find that Christian apologetics lack common sense, but apologetics don't necessarily reflect the practical application of the believer.ABE

quote:

---

I hope you can see what nonsense this is - using the Bible to prove...er the Bible. If you can, I've no problem with you, although I'm not really sure what kind of creationist you are. But unfortunately, this character John Mackay travels around the world giving lectures and making TV appearences talking this absolute shit. A lot of people are easily fooled by this nonsense.

---

Making up gods doesn't counter apologetics.If you can't tell from what I've written so far that I'm not a creationist, you're not paying attention.Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

quote:

---

Leaving aside quibbles over the definition of "better", the basic question is why anyone should consider the Judeo-Christian God over and above all other options. Why not worship Zeus, for example? It's a fair question.

---

Humanity had that option when Zeus was popular. Some people still worship Zeus.Why did Zeus and the Olympians lose the majority bid?IMO, it was easier to appease one god, as opposed to many. Even Islam came about to change the people over from many gods to one. Consolidation.There will probably be a time when humanity will move away from the need for gods at all.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Well, I didn't think it sounded like you were. Although, quite frankly, if you're not, I've really no idea what you're on about.You have failed to make it clear what your position is. I hope I'm wrong, but you come across as what I call a bureaucratic religionist. That's someone who tries to support religious belief in general, while never actually sticking their neck out and saying exactly what it is they believe. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to do so.

Tragically, from time to time we hear the kinds of stories in the link below that means there is a very serious side to the practical application of believers.Parents in faith-healing case never considered calling a doctor - oregonlive.comThere are countless other types of terrible practical applications.For example, genital mutilation of children every day by Islamic believers.A case in the UK only last week, of a Sikh woman found dying in the street after her hands were cut off for "dishonouring" her husband.Then there is the psychological damage done every day to millions of believers. For example, the fact that my mother goes to bed every night praying for forgiveness, often in tears, because she is so fearful of being punished when she dies. She's never done anything wrong in her life.Then there is someone I know, a Catholic woman, who was told by the Church that her marriage was annulled because it had never been consumated. That was purely on the say-so of her husband, who claimed that their 3 children were all a result of adultery. The Church accepted his word without question, simply because he's a man. How do you think she felt being publically humiliated by accusations of adultery?Those last 2 are just a couple of personal examples, and I don't even live in a religious community.I hope this just gives you a glimpse of the very serious consequences of religious belief.As I think Christopher Hitchens said, there is no good thing done by a religious person that couldn't also be done by an atheist. Yet there are many bad things that can only be done by the religious.

Well, she'd have a good comeback."He claims that he's an impotent cuckold, but in fact he's just a liar."

quote:

---

For example, genital mutilation of children every day by Islamic believers.

---

The OP said God, not Allah. When you speak of creationists and God, I assume Christian creationists.You stated in Message 35: Because I think people should be educated to think for themselves so that they properly appreciate the world around them. I think they will get more out of life if they appreciate the amazing facts that we are discovering.The list of categories you provided suggests scientific facts and discoveries.Your examples don't show facts and discoveries that Christian creationists (not just any Christian) don't appreciate.The question is: Other than the creator issue, what facts and discoveries do creationists not appreciate?

If only ignorant bigots could laugh at themselves, yes it would be a good comeback.Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : typo

I have already made the point that I chose God as the most familiar creator to most on this site, but that I'm sure the principle of my OP could apply to any other religion. I don't really know what you mean. I don't know what belief in God is if it doesn't include belief in a creator. It is the fact that so many Christian, Muslims and those of other faiths actually believe that their creator is real that they feel that they have to follow its law without question. All the examples I have given are a result of people actually believing (or being made to show they believe) there is this all-powerful creator looking over them. The 9/11 terrorists actually believed they were doing the will of their creator. If Christians or those of other faiths do not consider that their deity is actually real, that it actually had the power to create or destroy them, that it is just a myth, then they wouldn't have any reason to believe that they had to be sub-serviant to the supposed will of this creator. So they wouldn't be made to feel permanently guilty, and they wouldn't think it right to carry out barbarous acts.The problem with the creationist nonsense as per the link I gave you is that it helps to feed the whole religious machine, and this filters down through all the various divisions and sects of the churches to give strength and a sense of legitimacy to the whole religious movement.If that hasn't answered your point, please re-define your question.In any case, I think we are going off topic in asking why it concerns me what people believe. I'm happy to discuss this on another thread but it's not directly relevant to my opening question.

Fortunately, we can do that for them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In any case, I think we are going off topic in asking why it concerns me what people believe. I'm happy to discuss this on another thread but it's not directly relevant to my opening question.

---

Your question was: Why do so many creationists latch on to God as being the creator of the universe, claiming he is the perfect, ultimate, highest form of being?IOW, why do religions chose the creator they chose?I've already explained why. Gods were born out of personification of nature and have become part of the culture/tradition.In Message 35 you state: I hope that my position is very clear. I don't see any logical reason for anyone today to think that the character God was a real creator of the universe because there are no valid credentials to his character that put him ahead of an infinite number of other potential candidates for the role of creator.You're not concerned about the past, only about now. Well the past leads to now. I showed you that Creationism started about the 1920's, but of course you don't want to discuss that.In Message 16 you stated: I'm not really the one proposing a god/creator, a super-being. I'm making the point that God of the Bible is nothing special, nothing to shout about. That it is without substance. That it is as obviously made up as my alternative examples.

​

If there is nothing special about God, if he's not perfect, superior, better, etc than anything else, tear him up and throw him away, and I guarantee I'll do the same with my creators.You won't explain why the Christian God must be special, perfect, superior, or better than anything else to be chosen. Since your gods are copies of the Jewish God, there must be something special. There is substance to the Jewish God.The "battle" between the gods of antiquity for supremacy already took place. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam took the lead. If you want to know why, you'll have to look in the past. Christianity spread due to Roman acceptance.Religion is a way of life for many people. If they don't want that way of life, then they will change religion or become religion-free.Essentially you agree with what I've said, but instead of discussing it you keep responding with your personal venting on religion.Since you don't want to define perfect, or supreme or provide the credentials for your gods; and you don't want to discuss the past or creationism, the only thing left to discuss is why it is an issue. Venting is your specialty and seems to be what you really want to do. If you don't want to discuss your personal issues, then stop bringing them up.I would posit that God is the creator because they believe; not that they believe because God is the creator. Judaism doesn't need the creation stories for their religion. Judaism started with Abraham. Do you have any complaints about Judaism or are you mostly upset with the spinoffs?Christianity went to the Greeks and since most of the Jews promoting the Way didn't survive the destruction of 70 CE, the Greeks lost touch with the legends and history of the religion and assimilated pagan religions. When the Protestants broke off, they lost even more history and went more literal with none of the legends and history to explain.Minus the creation stories, the writings in the OT spoke of a nation, not just a religion. The writings carried authority. Gives us an idea of why the other religions lost out. Creationism deals with the conflict between religious beliefs and science. Fundamentalism deals with strict adherence to religious principles. So when you say there's no logical reason for creationists to choose God as a creator, I assume you are referring to science issues not moral issues.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

No. I am referring to both science issues and moral issues.While I appreciate your definitions of Creationism and Fundamentalism, the groups are not totally distinct. I have already acknowledged that creationists come in all shapes and sizes. I'm sure no 2 individuals share precisely the same religious views, so you can't precisely pigeon-hole people with precise definitions.I'm using the term "creationist" to categorise anyone who genuinely believes in a specific creator, as literally defined in the Bible for example.I'm also reacting to the countless Christian and Muslim preachers who I have heard express genuine belief in their creator AND who tell everyone that they must follow their creator's moral code because the creator is "perfect", "supreme", "ultimate", etc. THEIR WORDS, NOT MINE. And while there is a time and a place to be specific about the meaning of words, I think any native English speaker has a general understanding of what they're implying, which is that their creator must be real and must be the only one because there couldn't be a better one.So I'm challenging their choice of creator on the reasons that THEY say they believe, and that THEY say I should believe.I'm pointing out that anyone could, or could have, presented them with any number of alternative creators that would appear to be more capable, intelligent and morally sound than their choice of creator. Therefore, if they think objectively, they should be able to see that there is no justifiable reason to think that, if there is a creator, it is likely to be anything like the one they currently believe in.I understand, as you say, that people are usually led to believe in a certain creator due to their cultural upbringing. I'm trying to make them open their minds and actually think about what it is they're believing in. And I have clearly articulated why it concerns me that they should.Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : punctuation

Sorry, you did not. You proved that YOU do not accurately understand the God of the Bible. (which in highly evident in every single lovely post of yours) Yes, I could (if I was retarded). For that matter, anyone could make infinite changes to the Bible. Yet, will what the Bible says ever change? Will God's intended purpose for each word in the Bible change? Absolutely not. Not even zilch. Even if the Pope made a "doctrine" of his own, that's his doctrine-not the Bible's. Question answered? A meaningful question would be: how then would one know which so called doctrine to believe/rely upon/is credible? Question answered? Yes. How then would one know which one is "the right faith" among many "faiths"? Is that a valid question? So you retort. Not true in reality at all. The God of the Bible has much more evidence for His existence than any other God that was created or will be created by people like you. Yahweh of the Bible created the Universe in 6 six days. Before you say, "well, he was so tired that he needed rest after creating the universe"...he was demonstrating the pattern for how he wants us to work by working six days and refraining from work on the seventh day. He didn't need "rest". Any basis for me to assess this statement's credibility? Just because your friend told you a story and you tell it to me, why should I believe it? Now you say, "likewise, why should I believe the Bible". There is plenty of evidence for you to. Define be nice. What are Huf's attributes? Describe her nature and provide a valid soruce of this description. YOU are not a vilad source please. One, the Bible does not contain "arbitary rules". All rules and reasons are based on God's nature and attributes. How is she different from me? I'm like that too. Why did you not include my name on that list? If this is the criterion, anyone could be God. Seems to me you don't even have a sense of what God should be like. However, I could tell you how Jesus is different from any fanciful "god" you make up. I'm so glad she thinks that! Reading 8 lines of junk about her was enough to make me laugh hysterically. I DO NOT want to laugh more.You have not given me a starting point on how to approach you. Edited by Dr. Sing, : corrected quotes

Hi Dr SingWell, I do at least appreciate that you have attempted to respond directly to my key points, unlike certain others! OK. So just give me some of the best examples of this evidence for God's existence.

quote:

---

Therefore, if they think objectively, they should be able to see that there is no justifiable reason to think that, if there is a creator, it is likely to be anything like the one they currently believe in.

---

Why is it unlikely that a creator would be anything like the one they currently believe in? Objectively speaking of course.