I absolutely accept that a "creator" was involved in converting the universe of pure energy into the universe of mass, and the Earth and intelligent life was somehow involved in that. I reject however, that this "creator" is the being described in the Bible as "God", or "Yahweh", or "Jehovah", or "Jesus". I think that the being or force which was involved in the conversion of the universe from pure energy to physical matter is so different from us that we could not describe it because we would not be able to understand it.
I will call whatever caused the material universe to exist the First Cause, I like this term better than "God".
Actually, we do not agree on the existence of an all powerful, extremely knowledgeable creator of the universe. I said that I believe that something caused the universe to transform from an energy form to a material form, I call this the First Cause. I also believe that the First Cause had something to do with the creation of intelligent life on Earth. I think that this life form is so different from us that we would be unable to understand it. I did not say that the First Cause is all powerful and all knowing. I have no way of knowing or guessing that. There are things claimed by the religionists for their God that make no sense. They claim that He (how can they know that it is a He, why not a She, or an It?) is all knowing, all perceiving, all loving, all just, all strength....etc. Omnipotence is easily disproven. I will not enter into that argument here. So, no I do not believe your statement about the existence of "an all powerful, extremely knowledgeable creator of the universe". I believe something very different.
I will answer your question about the moral values of the First Cause, instead of you providing the answer for me: "Do you also attribute the existence of objective moral values to this creator?". No, I do not. I am not saying that the First Cause does not have moral values, I am saying that we cannot know.
My disgust of the OT genocide and the quite lengthy list of other abhorrent acts comes from my own sense of right and wrong. While I firmly believe that all humans can be quite moral persons if they choose to do so, I am not convinced that the First Cause is moral or gave us this moral ability. Perhaps the First Cause did do this, but we can have no way of knowing. I think that newborns have this sense of right and wrong and it is for the most part brainwashed out of them and replaced with propaganda. "It is okay for us to murder those horrible ....'s because we have right on our side, blah blah blah", is an example of such propaganda. I have met aboriginals who had an extremely sensitive sense of right and wrong, and watching how the mothers interacted with the infants and the young children I am convinced that all humans are born this way. But, I think that modern societies do things that twist this innate sense of right and wrong and replace it with a warped sense. I have made many changes in how I thought about many things over the past 53 years and I know that I was given ideas that were completely wrong by society or societal figures such as parents, teachers, other children, television, radio, etc.
Now I think that this is not that difficult to figure out, but I remember spending a lot of time agonizing over such things, and doing a lot of reading and study and research. And spending a lot of time in the wilderness, alone, thinking about these things.
When it comes to being fined tuned to intelligent life, I don't believe the Earth is as unique as most people think. I just saw on the Science Channel where they recently discovered a planet that is almost identical to earth in almost every way, including the distance from it's sun. But is 100 times bigger than Earth...I believe there are many planets out there that would support human life. Maybe even better than our own. The only problem is they are so far away. And it's taking time to discover them. Stephen Hawking was talking about when we suck the resources dry on this planet, or it starts to die, the possibilty to traveling to other planets to continue the human race. To give you some idea how big the universe is or solar systems, even though they know a lot about this particular planet, it would still take a lifetime (72 years) to get there. There are some potentially habitable planets that are closer. But they say this one is the closest to ours.
What I dont understand is how non believers make fun of the believers based on having "faith" as the core reasons for believing in Christ.
When at the same time it also takes "faith" to believe in evolution.
There is no science to back evolution other then some guy who came up with a story of people coming from monkeys. There is no science behind that.
The thought of a higher being creating the world is no bigger of a leap of faith then someone believing that we evolved millions of years ago from some energy substance millions of years ago out of nowhere.
So if you want to have faith in evolution, dont go making fun of the people who have faith in creation.
They both require faith, and they both have no science behind them.
When at the same time it also takes "faith" to believe in evolution.
There is no science to back evolution other then some guy who came up with a story of people coming from monkeys. There is no science behind that.
The thought of a higher being creating the world is no bigger of a leap of faith then someone believing that we evolved millions of years ago from some energy substance millions of years ago out of nowhere.
So if you want to have faith in evolution, dont go making fun of the people who have faith in creation.
They both require faith, and they both have no science behind them.
I am 100% Atheist when it comes to religon. This does not mean I dont believe in God.
Religion and God are 2 different things.
I am 100% Atheist when it comes to religon. This does not mean I dont believe in God.
Religion and God are 2 different things.
Well the God in the Bible is very hard to describe, and very hard to understand. This is why the Bible is so confusing. The Bible is trying to describe an entity that is not describable in the form of language. This is the reason for such unbelief.
Congrats on the dumbest comment in this thread. Evolution is the cornerstone of the entire scientific discipline of biology. To say there is no evidence is astoundingly ignorant and shows that you haven't put one second of effort into finding out about it. This is also obvious about your notion that evolution claims we came from monkeys. Try to educate yourself on a subject a little more before you spout off something so ridiculous.
Here, read this and then get back to me with hour counterarguments:
Please do not change what I said. What I said was that the Hebrews wrote the Old Testament after the fact in order to provide propaganda to go along with their lies that "God" told them to commit genocide against a very large number of people and steal their land from them. The "God" that they are describing is in no way real and in no way the First Cause. I understand the "God" described in the Old Testament very well. I just know that this character is not the First Cause but was made up by the Hebrews as they attempted to blanket over all of their crimes with the lie that "God" instructed them to carry out these horrific acts.
The Bible is not confusing, it very clearly tells the tale of a group of genocidal maniacs and their continual crimes as they stole lands from the original inhabitants. Parts of the Bible are obvious fables, most of it is painting a false impression on things that either really happened or were presented as really happening in order to create this impression of "God".
Congrats on the dumbest comment in this thread. Evolution is the cornerstone of the entire scientific discipline of biology. To say there is no evidence is astoundingly ignorant and shows that you haven't put one second of effort into finding out about it. This is also obvious about your notion that evolution claims we came from monkeys. Try to educate yourself on a subject a little more before you spout off something so ridiculous.
Here, read this and then get back to me with hour counterarguments:
The religion of Darwinism claims we came from a common ancestor of the monkeys... whoop dee do, you act like this is some major difference. The fact is,
the religion of Darwinism claims humans evolved from nothing. Nothing --> Swamp Goo --> Common ancestor to Apes --> Human.
Takes a lot of faith to believe that bullshit.
And another person who knows nothing about evolution chimes in. Please show me where in evolution it states that we evolved from nothing. We've had this discussion numerous times and you still insist on conflating abiogenesis and evolution. How difficult is it to understand? Why do you continually regurgitate arguments that have long since been debunked?
