You won't find God in the dictionary.

[Belle Rose]

@Reg

In fact most theists are not Creationists and I don’t think I have ever met an atheist who would think otherwise. The only ones I know who think we do are Creationists themselves.

That may be the stereotypical definition of a creationist, but that’s not the actual definition. The way that you are trying to describe and define creationists is a very narrow view. And I’m really quite stunned that you could make the claim that most theists are not creationists (And furthermore going on to say that most atheists agree with you?)….That’s quite a claim. You’ll have to back that one up with some data.

Maybe what you mean to say is that most theists don’t believe the earth is 10,000 years old. That is something else entirely. That is one form of creationism or a creationist point of view held by few people…But again, you’re trying to say that all creationists are the same and that’s not true. Like I said, it seems like these broad generalizations are made quite often from atheists. It is the exact same type of thinking that allows people to claim that just because you’re speak in Spanish you must be from Mexico

[Davis]

That may be the stereotypical definition of a creationist, but that’s not the actual definition.

No. In the context of religion (especially Christianity and most especially evangelicals) a creationist is almost always referred to one who believes animals popped up on Earth as God created them. You are confusing the “actual definition” with what is actually the broadest definition and then claiming the other is sterotypical which in reality is simply how the term is almost always used. You are referring to the most abstract concept of creationism (like the broader term you can read about in the wikipedia article on creationism). Obviously in the broadest sense, 99.9999% of believers in Christianity, Judaism and Islam are absolute hard core believers in creationsim (i.e. initiated by God). I have never ever ever read in religious texts, theology, religion studies or atheist literature…the term creationist being used in the broad sense that you are suggesting is normal.

I also don’t know a single atheists who thinks that all Christians are creationists (i.e. God popped it all into existence). And I myself know have only met a couple of them, all of them were in the USA and I never asked their opinion, it was all blabbed out to me in a conversation I never initiated going places in religious talk I had no desire to even get into. It would be a pretty hard challenge for me to randomly find a creationist in the streets here in Spain. Evolution is overwealmingly accepted in the Christian world (especially Europe/Canada/Australia etc) and is only systematically resisted in parts of the American bible belt, parts of evangelical Africa and some scatterings around the world. If you hear an atheist claiming that all theists are creationists (remember, when they make that claim they are talking about animals popping into existence and Adam naming them) then they are pretty nuts, and you’ll have no problem finding nutcases doing so online. If you can find an academic source or a serious/respectable atheist online who claims all theists (or even most theists) are creationist, please paste the link here. I’d be interested if you know of any academic source that refers to a “creationist” (the person not the concept) in the broadest sense (other than works dedicated solely to theology). Do paste a link or citation if you find one.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 9 months ago by Davis.

[Belle Rose]

@Davis

And I myself know have only met a couple of them, all of them were in the USA

Yeah, that’s doesn’t surprise me. They’re all sitting in the GOP.

When I originally made my point that atheists tend to think that we are all creationists, my point is that I don’t think that atheists accept  the idea whatsoever that evolution can coexist with with creation stories. If we were to take an example…Here’s an analogy for you.

When I was in college, I was studying a foreign language. That was my major. I had a really close friend who is studying chemistry. That was his major. He used to joke with me that he was getting a “real” degree 😂. It was all in good fun. But I think in this analogy, atheists tend to be more like my friend who was a chemistry major. They like the “hard sciences.” If it’s not some type of hard science, it’s thrown out as rubbish. But in my major I had to study a lot of literature. So when I think about for example the creation story, which has been part of human history since humans have been alive in various forms.… I don’t think it’s stupid. It’s just part of how we describe the world. I don’t think it should be looked down upon. I also think there is a scientific explanation. The two can coexist and not be in conflict with one another. Atheists don’t think that way. They tend to only give any credence  to the hard sciences. That’s why they talk about the Bible the way they do. That’s why they say things like the Bible is stupid. I think they’re out of their element and don’t know what they’re talking about.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

In the common usage of the word a creationist is somebody that claims the world is less than 10K years old. They “prove” this with what they call the “science” of Intelligent Design.

Maybe what you mean to say is that most theists don’t believe the earth is 10,000 years old.

Maybe you think I mean anyone who believes the book of Genesis account of Creation? No, that is not what I mean by Creationist.

Muslims and Christians who believe in Adam and Eve but still accept the truth of Evolution are not classified as creationists. The fact that they can don’t realize the “double-think” involved in holding both viewpoints still does not them creationists. But the term “Creationist” as used by evangelical types to describe themselves means people who warp modern science and misrepresent the words of modern scientists in order to “prove” the bible knew all about modern biology and cosmology already.  More often they are called “YEC’s” or Yong Earth Creationists”. I have no time for them or their “science”. They are made idiotic by their beliefs and by speaking them out loud for other to hear them.  These are the people who think the grand canyon is less than 10k years old.  I do my part to help keep their shit out of schools both here in Ireland and in some of the southern States. They actually have schoolbooks showing Moses present at the Declaration of Independence. They are made idiotic by their religious views.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I don’t think that atheists accept the idea whatsoever that evolution can coexist with with creation stories.

Correct to a point as many atheists don’t know about the Theory of Evolution. Before 1859 no atheist did but they still did not believe the Genesis account.  Only theists do. The creation stories of the Bible and Quran say that God created Adam and Eve, Man and Woman, in the form we find ourselves in today. Modern Evolutionary Theory (that Darwin might hardly recognize) tells us we are an evolved species. We were never created like any holy books say. We are evolved from simple life forms over billions of years. We share much of our genetic code with all other life forms in varying percentage amounts, from ocean sponges to bonobos. In fact we humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are related to gorillas.

We cannot be an evolved species from other species and related to all life on Earth while at the same time being created in the human forms we have today as “special” with dominion over other lifeforms. An attempt to find an overall is special pleading. That is why Creationists and Intelligent Design bullshit was invented. Primate Deniers.

At some point everyone considered we always had the same human form. Just as we considered the Earth was flat or that the Sun and the other planets moved around the “special” Earth. We knew no better. But once Science kicked the god answer out of those gaps we found the new answers to be better answers. For a while theists and most Churches did not accept the heresy of the Sun being at the center of our galaxy. 500 years after the Earth was proven to be round there was a large colony of Christians near Chicago officially maintaining that the earth was as flat and four-cornered as the Bible states. Now even 7 year old schoolchildren take this a a given. There is no need to “teach the controversy”. In another couple of generations it will be the same with Evolution (it mostly is already). Intelligent Design proponents will be seen as ridiculous today as “Flat Earthers” are. The only difference is that the religious will have caught up with the atheists who already see Creationism as moronic.

[Belle Rose]

@Reg

We cannot be an evolved species from other species and related to all life on Earth while at the same time being created in the human forms we have today as “special” with dominion over other lifeforms.

I really think it’s a matter of each discipline has to stay in their own lane. Creation stories and oral tradition served an evolutionary purpose as I previously pointed out… The hard sciences that are helping us get to the bottom of evolution, And other disciplines of science that are helping us understand the origins of the universe… Each discipline has to stay in its own lane.

A lot of rhetoric and arguments that I have seen over the years from the atheist intermingles these disciplines in inappropriate ways to make the assertions they do. Sometimes including ideas that are just as extreme as the YEC’s.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 9 months ago by Belle Rose.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

Too late. Modern Physics and Chemistry is now an integral parts of modern Biology. Economics and Psychology and Sociology have become entwined (for the betterment of each disciplines imo) as seen in Behavioral Economics. All the while Mathematics is linked to them all. Even Astrophysics and Food Science are linked. Humanity is better for these overlaps. Even quantum mechanics is helping genetic researchers to find cures for cancer.

Unless you mean just Science and Religion are disciplines that should stay in their own lanes.  I agree science does that. It gives no consideration to religion in its methodologies. It steers well away from religion. The problem is that religion, like the ID brigade keep hijacking Science to suit their own ends, are constantly warning people to mistrust “evolutionists” in the most disparaging terms they can and blame it for turning people away from their gods.

Below is my list of the most useful religious discoveries of the last 1000 years.  Feel free to add to it.

[Belle Rose]

I agree with you as far as that is concerned. I was more referring to the difference between the hard sciences, I and disciplines like literature. You can’t evaluate the two exact same way. The Bible is a book of literature. That’s what I meant by stay in each lane

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

Personally I would never underestimate the importance of literature.

‘A writer’s life and work are not a gift to mankind; they are its necessity.’

– Toni Morrison.

[Belle Rose]

Then why do you ask for evidence about a piece of literature instead of seeing it for what it really is?

[Belle Rose]

Take the creation story in the Bible for example… You know it’s literature so why are you always demanding evidence like it’s something you can put under a microscope?

[Belle Rose]

You take the scientific method of the hard sciences and try to apply that to literature? I don’t think so

[_Robert_]

Take the creation story in the Bible for example… You know it’s literature

As is the resurrection story, the Moses story and Jews in Egypt, parting of the seas, burning bush, Noah and the flood, pigs infested with demons running into the sea, virgin mommy, multiplying loaves of bread, water to wine. There is nothing to any of it except a buttload of old Jewish bullshit stories that unfortunately got scribbled down.

[PopeBeanie]

I never assume a religionist is also a creationist, even when a large number of religionists actually come here to argue their view, who (by nature) are often die-hard creationists who want to “save” us. I can say from several years of experience now that we normally use the term “creationist” to refer to those strongly believing in genesis, who comprise merely a subset of Christians and Muslims.

But yes, when some come here with their own set of alternate facts, even claiming that the consensus of science is wrong or that the consensus of science increasingly leans toward creationism, then I’m willing to say that they’re deluded. And even then, much of the time, I personally try to presume innocence until proven guilty, realizing the possibility that they may just be victims of the culture they grew up in, and even if gullibility plays a major role in their beliefs, this is a symptom of a human flaw that’s unfortunately quite common. We did not evolve to be mathematical, scientific, or skeptical of our own culture, but we evolved to learn how to fit in and play along and move with the flow. That go-with-the-flow human trait helped us survive as a species, long before we even developed language abilities to discuss it.

I believe another couple of common human traits are 1) to presume or at least know how to think like we know we are almost always being watched by other members of our band or tribe, and 2) as cultures evolved, the feeling-of-being-watched (and judged) easily memed into the belief (newly sharable when language and group ceremonies first developed) that we’re always being watched and judged by powerful, invisible forces of consciousness in some form or another. Worshipping and trying to appeal to such higher powers was a logical, community-oriented next step, not to mention a way for those with leadership endeavors to rule their community.

And THEN came writing, a new, powerful way to spread these ideas that could take hold of entire populations, now the size of cities and entire civilizations.

Meanwhile, can I provide any evidence for this purported, human history? No, and any “science” in this area is most certainly merely a soft science at this point. But to me, it makes a whole lot more sense than just accepting-by-default the traditional beliefs, handed down by rote for centuries, all too often forcefully preached “because this is what we’ve always believed” and “you’re a dangerous heathen if you don’t believe in our all powerful God”.

The idea that higher power spiritual force or forces pervade the whole universe does not require a big leap to accept when one is unfamiliar with science and skepticism, and it’s certainly much easier to accept than to try to understand the complex reasons why we feel the way we do, or to explain our own consciousness and feelings of connectedness to other consciousnesses. Only recently has science been able to study emotional and social neuro-networks and centers of the brain, although for years we’ve known how to stimulate the right neurons to induce feelings of connectedness and awe, so those circuits are always there in every human brain, ready to activate, e.g. at a concert, when a baby is feeding at the breast, or maybe even during a church service in anyone longing to belong.

[jakelafort]

Ivy,  close minded and fair minded are not the same. If you were listening to people of the third century pontificate about a flat earth you might think there is value in terms of anthropology but you too (sorry for the assumption) would be close minded as to their assertions accurately describing reality.  And all such nonsense receives a similar dispatch by those who are fair minded.

We all know science is a way to learn about the natural world-best tool we have. Religion is a way to preserve lies and entrench power. Its MO requires the believer to STFU and take it on authority.

As to the bible i recommend a long article that Reg linked.  It shines a light, a very bright light on it.  And now i cant recall the title!

 

[Author]

Posts