5 ms·

It is ironic that the very same creationists tend to exclude Gods from other religions. Why do they firmly exclude the Mayan God, or the Hindu Gods? Why are the

It is ironic that the very same creationists tend to exclude Gods from other religions. Why do they firmly exclude the Mayan God, or the Hindu Gods? Why are their scriptures true but not the others? If there are contradictions in the scriptures of the various religions in the world, then perhaps the creationists "interpretation of that scripture is wrong". The following quote comes to mind: “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts

dropit_sphere 12y ago
I had to engage with the Roberts quote because it made me think. I think he's making a false equivalency. A jump from believing in one god to two gods seems much less significant than a jump from zero to one. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_One_Infinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_One_Infinity) Further, I'm not sure that Roberts understands why the religious reject other gods. Like most things people do, there are a variety of reasons: - Both Judaism and Islam have explicit commandments or statements of faith that reject other gods - Suspicious of foreigners? Deride their religion as unreasonable and obviously contrafactual - Wary of talk of the divine being used as justification for a mortal power play? (And you should be) Add a bias for rejection into your calculations - And of course, extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence
PPLwynSPFJ5p 12y ago
You cannot pick and choose your god. The whole of Christianity - without exception - recognizes only ONE true God, therefore it is unfair (as well as incorrect) to single out 'creationists' alone for excluding other alleged gods. I would have thought it quite obvious why Christians do not worship the Mayan god, or Hindu god - or any other alleged god for that matter. Furthermore, the creationists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible (sadly, some compromising 'Christians' do not) so it is difficult to see how creationists could 'interpret' scripture wrongly. They are reading God's Word straightforwardly, and strictly as God gave it to the various writers of the scriptures through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when God says He created in six days, creationists believe this to be the literal truth, and they do not use human reasoning to then say: "Yes, but obviously what God really meant to say here was that he created over billions of years". Hebrew scholars, the best in the world, all agree that Genesis means exactly what it says - creation in six literal days. There was a time, in Britain, when almost everyone believed the Genesis account to be true. Then, naturalistic 'scientists' started to pronounce differently. Inevitably, the church bowed to the 'authority' of these scientists, and many ministers departed from their faith. Scientists have since revised their opinions numerous times (and have rejected many of their own earlier notions) but unfortunately some branches of the established church have failed to notice this, or to keep abreast of the ever-changing scientific theories, so they remain completely compromised, and firmly stuck in their 1800's position (which was when Darwin & Co put the cat among their theological pigeons). Ironically, most geologists have moved on from the fanciful ideas prevalent in Darwin's day, and now hold to a modern theory called Neo-Catastrophism - which essentially means that a world-wide catastrophic flood of 'biblical' proportions was responsible for laying down the massive rock and fossil layers seen all around the world today (analogous to Noah's flood!) which, of course, is what the creationists - who interpret God's Word literally - have been telling everyone all along! The established church [mainly the Anglicans and Catholics] would have been much better sticking to their biblical guns 200 years ago, because it seems they already had it right. Today, the church is hopelessly divided on the matter of big bang, evolution, morality, etc, and only the creationists are left carrying the torch for God (which is probably why they are so despised, especially among atheists). Of course the established church has only got itself to blame for allowing its misplaced faith in the emerging scientific 'revolution' to take precedence over faith in God, thereby dynamiting its own foundations. I hope this helps.

dropit_sphere 12y ago

I had to engage with the Roberts quote because it made me think. I think he's making a false equivalency. A jump from believing in one god to two gods seems much less significant than a jump from zero to one. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_One_Infinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_One_Infinity) Further, I'm not sure that Roberts understands why the religious reject other gods. Like most things people do, there are a variety of reasons: - Both Judaism and Islam have explicit commandments or statements of faith that reject other gods - Suspicious of foreigners? Deride their religion as unreasonable and obviously contrafactual - Wary of talk of the divine being used as justification for a mortal power play? (And you should be) Add a bias for rejection into your calculations - And of course, extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence

PPLwynSPFJ5p 12y ago

You cannot pick and choose your god. The whole of Christianity - without exception - recognizes only ONE true God, therefore it is unfair (as well as incorrect) to single out 'creationists' alone for excluding other alleged gods. I would have thought it quite obvious why Christians do not worship the Mayan god, or Hindu god - or any other alleged god for that matter. Furthermore, the creationists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible (sadly, some compromising 'Christians' do not) so it is difficult to see how creationists could 'interpret' scripture wrongly. They are reading God's Word straightforwardly, and strictly as God gave it to the various writers of the scriptures through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when God says He created in six days, creationists believe this to be the literal truth, and they do not use human reasoning to then say: "Yes, but obviously what God really meant to say here was that he created over billions of years". Hebrew scholars, the best in the world, all agree that Genesis means exactly what it says - creation in six literal days. There was a time, in Britain, when almost everyone believed the Genesis account to be true. Then, naturalistic 'scientists' started to pronounce differently. Inevitably, the church bowed to the 'authority' of these scientists, and many ministers departed from their faith. Scientists have since revised their opinions numerous times (and have rejected many of their own earlier notions) but unfortunately some branches of the established church have failed to notice this, or to keep abreast of the ever-changing scientific theories, so they remain completely compromised, and firmly stuck in their 1800's position (which was when Darwin & Co put the cat among their theological pigeons). Ironically, most geologists have moved on from the fanciful ideas prevalent in Darwin's day, and now hold to a modern theory called Neo-Catastrophism - which essentially means that a world-wide catastrophic flood of 'biblical' proportions was responsible for laying down the massive rock and fossil layers seen all around the world today (analogous to Noah's flood!) which, of course, is what the creationists - who interpret God's Word literally - have been telling everyone all along! The established church [mainly the Anglicans and Catholics] would have been much better sticking to their biblical guns 200 years ago, because it seems they already had it right. Today, the church is hopelessly divided on the matter of big bang, evolution, morality, etc, and only the creationists are left carrying the torch for God (which is probably why they are so despised, especially among atheists). Of course the established church has only got itself to blame for allowing its misplaced faith in the emerging scientific 'revolution' to take precedence over faith in God, thereby dynamiting its own foundations. I hope this helps.