The Order of Creation

katiesevenfour · Post by **katiesevenfour** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:11 pm

Would anyone be able to shed light on why there are two differing orders of creation within the bible? To my mind it's because it was changed by men over the years and they didn't edit very well and remove their contradictions once the new material had been written. I'm sure there are other views than mine. The orders are as below. In the second account, women are made from a man, not equal to men as in the first account. I would guess because this is a reflection of the times it was written in when men were seeking to dominate women and make them second class citizens, an achievement that still exists to this day in many countries around the world. Not an achievement of God who considers all beings equal regardless of gender, colour, race, religion or sexuality in my humble opinion. It's humans who have a problem with the boiling pot of diversity alive on our planet today, not God.

The Differing Orders of Creation:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:48 am

I think most readers will find they are.

The dispute of the amount of time isn't as relevant as the order of events. It's two separate subjects.

Just like God told the Hebrews they would wander in the desert for 40 days.

And yet there is no actual evidence of it..

He then said I have given you a day for a year... in other words they would be wandering for 40 years.
So .... highly relevant.

Umm no, it never specifies that and it still doesn't make any coherent sense.

Also highly relevant since that makes Gen 1 a very concise history of how God made the earth which conforms perfectly with science.

Incorrect. It's completely at odds with science.. Please try again.

First the earth was without form. Then as the earth began to form out of the primordial solar system, there came to be light.

Genesis only states without form and nothing about primordial solar system ect... See this is where the honesty of your argument takes a suicidal jump off the cliff without a parachute. And to say something exists without form and then begins to form is entirely incoherent. And in terms of cosmology, it literally is incoherent in every way.

Then when the earth began to rotate, the night was divided from the day.

Again, no such thing is discussed in the bible. And what's worse is that you are attempting to paste modern cosmological understanding to people who were largely illiterate and really had nothing more than a simplistic observational understanding of their world and the cosmos. And that is your error to start with.

The first life.. plants... science again says yes. The first earth life was in the sea....science says yes. Next land animals... last man. Science agrees.

Science makes no statement of saying plants were first. Especially not in the context in which the bible states. And nor was man the last.. Science does not agree.

I'm explaining how Gen 2 is different that Gen 1.

So am I.. And no, I was talking about both..

Gen 1 is a concise history of the physical creation over the 6 generations it took to create it.

That's like saying averaging heights is a concise description of a flat Earth while living on a Oblate sphere. Your use of concise here was not very well thought out.. And anyone can get a child's understanding of the cosmos just by taking the time to actually observe it with the intent to understand it. However, even if this child's understanding of the universe gets the order of things correct, it will not suddenly make their magical beliefs any more relevant or real... There is just 1 in 3000 chance to get it right. And sadly, neither GEN 1 or 2 come anywhere near right, or even remotely coherent with science.. Just the despair of distance between galaxies and our observations of supernova over such distances collapses the biblical account entirely. Just like time vs distance can debunk an argument with a flat Earther who thinks the Earth is flat. And if you like, I can explain that in terms of simple math for you.

Gen 2 is no such thing. Nothing about the formation of the earth really... or about the sea creatures or days etc. God is telling us that he created plants before he put them in the earth.

He put them in the Earth? And where were these plants?? Let's just skip your narrative and go with Genesis 2 itself:

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being

.

Streams came up from the Earth? Kinda like it's flood theory and yet we know the core of the Earth is not made of water. And no rain on a planet that can liquid water on it seems to not understand thermodynamics involved with weather. And this conflicts with Gen 1 about water collecting into oceans, lakes, rivers ect.. It also Conflicts with the order of Events in Gen 1 concerning the order in which land came to be.. Lastly, blowing wind at dirt or dust isn't going to magically made it come to life... Sounds like your GOD is trying to give CPR to a dust pile. To say this is concise of modern knowledge is rather stretching it don't you think?

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the groundâ€”trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Sounds pretty stupid to plant a tree of knowledge in the middle of the garden doesn't it? But you do understand the symbology here right? Any knowledge against the religion is evil, and anything for it is good. And the fruit of knowledge is pretty much the symbology that seeking knowledge outside the religion is forbidden. Just like talking snake is anything that doesn't agree with the religious ideology. And where is this so called Garden and tree of life? Funny how that doesn't exist either.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

That's nice.. Perhaps the Garden of Eden was considered juncture where the rivers meet. Rivers are often seen as the life blood of human civilization. However, no evidence of said fairy tale described having any truth to it.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, â€œYou are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.â€�

Took man from where? And yes of course you shouldn't eat the fruit of knowledge because GOD wants you obedient and ignorant. But he can't help but put it there for you to think about while it dangles it's deliciousness.. It's like giving a child matches and telling them not to play with them and then expecting that would favorably turn out... Perhaps this deity didn't think things through..

18 The LORD God said, â€œIt is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.â€�

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

So now we have man before the animals.. This is where the sematics are played with in terms of "Formed", and "Made" in regards to Gen 1 and 2. Since GOD made them and then brought them to man, This is in direct conflict with Gen 1 in regards to the order of things.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the manâ€™s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Never mind actual biology, or how people actually reproduce.. God just takes a rib and makes a woman. And of course it's done in his sleep... And it seems GOD's first attempt at a suitable suitor failed.. Bad attempt at bestiality? Or was this omniscient being just realizing a female version of our species for reproduction? And speaking of Gender, I am curious how GOD's gender was verified, or why said god needs reproductive organs.

Before there was rain or man. He had also already done so with man too. That is why God tells Jeremiah... before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and ordained thee a prophet to the nations. Jeremiah spiritually existed with God before He even formed the earth.... just like the rest of us.

So we all exist in GOD's belly.. So when our star starts burning helium, is our frying the process of digestion? Maybe our universe is in another living being and that the Big Bang was just GOD stuffing food in his mouth.. And now our Universe is just slowly being digested to where some will remain with GOD, and the rest will be passed along like a bad bowl movement.. Yeah, that's what it all means! :/ Or was everything just an idea existing as non-entities.. Cars are spiritually with us in the belly of our stomachs..err umm minds before we make them in the wrong order too...Errr... wait..

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:55 am

You completely failed to show how it does not conform to the order of creation currently given by essentially 100% of all scientists.

You posted a wall of text up there that did nothing to back up your claims btw.. I suggest you back this up considering I can tell you really don't have any knowledge about modern science or cosmology. Clearly you are either dishonest, deluded, or really think we are this stupid.. Or you are just wasting our time "/ Nothing you have stated makes Genesis concise in regards to modern cosmology and astrophysics, biology, biochemistry, geology, archeology, or scientific field for that matter.

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:44 am

You say it is "utterly debunked". Please, feel free to show how. If you want to use scientific proofs, link to the exact data for examination.

Learn how to measure time, speed, and distance.. That's all you need to know to debunk Genesis.. Yes it was that simple, and you can even do it yourself with a good enough telescope and the willingness to actually attempt to measure things... We aren't this stupid. And in regards to time, speed, and distance..., here is probably the greatest observation of our time:

[youtube][/youtube]

And when we see supernova events from things so far away, it's rather obvious as to why Genesis is wrong. I can also use time, speed, and distance calculation in miles per hour to debunk a flat Earth since a flat Earth would require twice the mass area than a spherical Earth. Hence, you can't just unfold a sphere and get an equal area map. And if you tried to use an equal area map, you would have severe distortion.. This same concept applies to to your argument. And I only need simple math to destroy it entirely.

So how far do you think the furthest galaxy is from Earth? And then explain why we can observe events such as supernova in these distant galaxies.. How long do you think our Star will live vs how young you think it is? And then ask yourself again about what a supernova is.. Yes, dying older stars. And then ask yourself why you need a trickster GOD planting evidence against itself to which literally refutes itself. I'm not interested in discussions where people don't bother trying to figure out what's actually true or not. Because let's be honest here, you're not interested in actually knowing.. Am I right? And when you tell me that we know the Earth is oblate sphere while the bible claims you can be at the top of a mountain and see the entire world and every nation, it seems silly that you proclaim yourself to be a biblical literalist. But you have something in common with flat earthers.., you seem to think science is a conspiracy of sorts, and that any empirical evidence given is something to be ignored so you can repeat this over and over again:

Please, feel free to show how.

Now I've debunked just about, or literally every argument you've made (not taking the time to look back to see if I addressed literally every point)... And you seem to avoid having to back yourself up with credible source material. The fact you use source material that's been debunked literally thousands of times over is bad enough, but to continue on like this is even worse. :/

At any rate, here is some source material:

NED-1D (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/NED1D) provides 3,716 accurate, contemporary distances to 1,073 galaxies with modest recessional velocities (that is, less than 1/8 c) published between almost exclusively 1990 and 2006

NED-4D (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/NED4D) gives distance to objects at cosmologically significant redshifts (z greater than 1/8 c)

NED-0D (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/NED0D) provides a listing of over 200 distances exclusively for the Large Magellanic Cloud.

NED-0.5D (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/NED0.5D) six (RA ordered) files provide 15,231 secondary distances to 4,762 galaxies

http://edd.ifa.hawaii.edu/papers/edd_cmdv2.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... .text.html

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611fn1
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r13
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611fn2
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r9
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r1
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r5
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611fn1
http://edd.ifa.hawaii.edu/
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611fn2
http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611fn3
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611fn3
http://archive.stsci.edu/hst/
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611t1
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r2
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r4
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r12
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r11
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... 611t1.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611fn4
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611f1
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... 611f1.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611fn4
http://hla.stsci.edu/
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r3
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611f2
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... 611f2.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r3
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611fn5
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611fn6
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611fn5
http://purcell.as.arizona.edu/dolphot/
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611fn6
http://purcell.as.arizona.edu/hstphot/hstphot.ps.gz
http://purcell.as.arizona.edu/dolphot/dolphot.ps.gz
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611f3
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... 611f3.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r10
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r5
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r8
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r7
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r6
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r7
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611f3
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r7
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611f4
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611f4
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611f3
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611f5
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... 611f4.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... 611f5.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611f3
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r10
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r11
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r10
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r7
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r10
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r10
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611t1
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/115500
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990AJ....100..162D
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/316631
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PASP..112.1397D
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/316630
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PASP..112.1383D
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/133664
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107.1065H
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/173334
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...417..553L
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r6
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/689/2/721
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689..721M
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r7
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/132/6/2729
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132.2729M
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r8
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/124/1/213
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....124..213M
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... aj309611r9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20031411
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...412...45P
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r10
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/661/2/815
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661..815R
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r11
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/500/2/525
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r12
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/444553
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PASP..117.1049S
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138 ... j309611r13
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/138/2/323

And no, I am not going to post millions of possible data links that I could post here.. But I suspect you don't actually care either way..

SailingCyclops · Post by **SailingCyclops** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:15 am

revelationtestament wrote:Also highly relevant since that makes Gen 1 a very concise history of how God made the earth which conforms perfectly with science. First the earth was without form. Then as the earth began to form out of the primordial solar system, there came to be light.

Sorry, you are perfectly wrong! The "solar system" already had our sun in it's center while the planets were forming. The light which the sun produced preceded the formation of all the planets, including earth. Furthermore, unlike the genesis account, the stars in the heavens preceded the formation of the sun, since our sun, a second or third generation star, as well as the accretion disc surrounding it was partially composed of heavy elements which could only have been formed by pre-existing exploding supernovas; other stars. Therefor, the heavens were already filled with stars as the solar system was forming. This is another glaring inaccuracy in the genesis account's timeline.

revelation testament wrote: when the earth began to rotate, the night was divided from the day.

The earth always rotated. It's rotation was caused by the angular momentum of the accretion disc debris it attracted and which swirled down in decaying orbits into it as it gained mass. According to genesis: "5 -- God called the light â€œday,â€� and the darkness he called â€œnight.â€� And there was evening, and there was morningâ€”the first day--" This translates perfectly to one rotation of the planet earth on it's axis, which in it's early development rotated faster than once in 24 hours. By definition, this is a solar day, and it's a solar day which genesis clearly defines as a day.

revelation testament wrote: first life.. plants... science again says yes. The first earth life was in the sea....science says yes. Next land animals... last man. Science agrees.

Yes, but the time frame was already defined as a solar day IE an evening and morning, one rotation of the planet. According to genesis, god created it all in six rotations of the earth; six "evenings and mornings". Science tells us this process took billions of years.

So, NO! The genesis account does not conform in any way with science, it is completely contrary to fact and to observation, and wrong, both in terms of the order of creation and of the time of creation. The only thing "perfect" about the genesis account is it's utter failure to explain creation as it actually happened.

[center]
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
[/center]
Bob

1213 · Post by **1213** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:34 pm

SailingCyclops wrote:
1213 wrote:
TheJackelantern wrote:Not only is the order of creation wrong
How is the order of creation wrong?
The order of creation as outlined in Genesis is incorrect on every point. It states the earth's creation preceded the sun's, which we know is not factual.

It states the stars were created after the earth was (day 4), not factual either.

It states all land animals were created on the same day, not true!

It states there was no death till after "man", not true! Death preceded man.

The creation myth is just that, a myth, an inaccurate and out of order one at that..

Bob

No one can really prove any of your claims. And unfortunately I can't prove that Bible is unequivocally right in this order of creation. Therefore I think it is not useful to continue this.

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:05 pm

No one can really prove any of your claims. And unfortunately I can't prove that Bible is unequivocally right in this order of creation. Therefore I think it is not useful to continue this.

Unfortunately he and science has all the evidence, and this is basically what you are saying. We all know that there is nothing to support the biblical account. Christians know when they are being dishonest in a debate, and they have no shame in it. The reason why this discussion isn't useful is because one side rests it's entire case on 100 percent pure faith based belief / assumption whilst ignoring everything that contradicts it via dishonesty.. But at least we are getting a more honest argument here where you agree you can't prove the biblical account. That's a good first step, and this doesn't mean there wasn't a creator to "This observable Universe" at the instant before the Big Bang. We ourselves could have already made other universes while smashing particles together without even knowing it. But the main point being here is that we, nor any being for that matter, could exist without cause. That the order of creation in the bible is most certainly wrong whether or not a Abrahamic theist can admit it or not. This is simply because reality isn't going to give a damn what any of us believe. Reality will in truth be what it is regardless of what you want it to be. And that is the real truth of the matter.

SailingCyclops · Post by **SailingCyclops** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:11 pm

1213 wrote:No one can really prove any of your claims.

This is patently untrue. There is much EVIDENCE to support every fact I stated. The "proof" of those statements can be found in any high school science and modern history text, chronicling evidence gathered over several centuries of observation and experimentation.

To claim there is no proof that stars existed before our sun ignited, or that the sun ignited before the planets were formed, or that life forms died before the existence of homosapiens, is a blatent denial of science, history, and of reality itself.

1213 wrote: unfortunately I can't prove that Bible is unequivocally right in this order of creation.

Of course you can't. Simply because there is no EVIDENCE to support those claims, while there are reams of evidence to support what we now know to be fact.

1213 wrote: I think it is not useful to continue this.

So I take it by this statement that you concede defeat on the topic at hand? This is a debate forum. The topic is "The Order Of Creation". You entered this debate freely, and now you can't support your position, so you are throwing in the towel. I guess this means you admit that your assertions have no merit and are wrong, is that right?

Bob

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:13 pm

TheJackelantern wrote: Not only is the order of creation wrong

1213 wrote: How is the order of creation wrong?

SailingCyclops wrote: The order of creation as outlined in Genesis is incorrect on every point. It states the earth's creation preceded the sun's, which we know is not factual.

It states the stars were created after the earth was (day 4), not factual either.

It states all land animals were created on the same day, not true!

It states there was no death till after "man", not true! Death preceded man.

The creation myth is just that, a myth, an inaccurate and out of order one at that..

Bob

1213 wrote: No one can really prove any of your claims. And unfortunately I can't prove that Bible is unequivocally right in this order of creation. Therefore I think it is not useful to continue this.

The evidence indicates that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. The Sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago. The galaxy UDFy-38135539 is 13.1 billion light-years away from us. The light now reaching us from that galaxy was emitted before the Earth was formed. Thus at least some stars are older than Earth.

The Genesis account, divides the animals into these categories:

the living creatures that teem in the waters and the birds that fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.
beasts of the earth, cattle and everything that creeps on the ground.

(Genesis 1:20-25)
Biology, the scientific study of living things finds this categorization of no use. One of the largest categories of terrestrial life, the arthropods, contained many species which lived on dry land 386 million years ago. There were no whales in the seas before 52 million years ago. Thus some land creatures existed before some marine forms of life. Oh, and birds did come after the land creatures not before.

SailingCyclops · Post by **SailingCyclops** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:34 pm

TheJackelantern wrote: .... Christians know when they are being dishonest in a debate, and they have no shame in it. ...

I would like to take exception to this characterization on two counts.

First, I do not believe religious people who hold unsound views are necessarily being dishonest. Dishonesty has a lot to do with intent. If one truly believes in Santa Clause, they are not being dishonest in proclaiming their belief. They are merely ignorant. Ignorance is a curable condition, all it takes is education, and only the willfully ignorant, or those of low IQ, are unteachable. It's always best to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Second, by ascribing one's ignorance to dishonesty, you close off the very means whereby they can be taught. By moving the debate from education to an attack on their integrity, the opportunity to teach is lost. All that accomplishes is igniting their natural defense mechanisms, and you enter into a conflict having nothing to do with the issue at hand. Opportunity lost.

Bob

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:02 pm

First, I do not believe religious people who hold unsound views are necessarily being dishonest.

I should have chosen better words there. I was only referring to a specific group whom are dishonest. It's understandable that some have been taught ignorance and that is all they know on these subjects. However, some persist even after being debunked 100's of times. You can note those simply by their unwillingness to learn anything other than what they believe is compliant with their beliefs. And that's the problem. And when they display these things in a debate, it goes down the road of dishonesty and dishonest discourse. But yes, I mistakenly phrased it in a generalizing context, so I admit that error.

Dishonesty has a lot to do with intent. If one truly believes in Santa Clause, they are not being dishonest in proclaiming their belief. They are merely ignorant.

I agree to this.. But at what point does it become intentional ignorance?

Ignorance is a curable condition, all it takes is education, and only the willfully ignorant, or those of low IQ, are unteachable. It's always best to give people the benefit of the doubt.

It's not that simple. Yes it can be curable, but you are talking about people whom have a very strong emotional attachment to their belief system to which can range from family pressure, peer pressure, fear, brainwashing, culture, or the fact that is the only way of life they had come to know.. It's these influences that bring about intentional ignorance to the forefront of a discussion, or the fundamentalist pursuance of Theocritus agendas that include attacking the education system in favor of religious ignorance.

Second, by ascribing one's ignorance to dishonesty, you close off the very means whereby they can be taught.

Anyone can be taught to be less ignorant if they are willing to learn.. Just keep in mind though that they are weighing how much that would change their lives and their understanding of the real world. And that is scary, and I know it is simply because I went through it myself... I realized I don't need religion to be happy, or to love life.. I never felt so free than when I am at the top of a mountain picking my line of decent, or when I am executing it in a cloud of fresh powder that is like flying through pure bliss. There is nothing like it, and yet it's not a religious experience, it's a real experience. I don't have to pretend or fear anymore.., I only need enjoy life and make the best of it whilst I am still alive.

By moving the debate from education to an attack on their integrity, the opportunity to teach is lost.

Well, when they constantly display the lack there of, what can I do but try to have them deal with it. The intent is not to attack them specifically, it's to get them to deal with it. To face it, and with a little luck, grow a conscience about it that seeds the need to have some sort of regard for actual truth. They can gain integrity anytime they wish almost instantly by just admitting where they are wrong.. But that is where the problem lays isn't it? That's the hard part of all this. So maybe my problem is that I come from both worlds, and I have a lesser respect for the one I emerged from simply because I know that many of them know they are being dishonest. After all, I knew I was... So I was once like that, and I simply couldn't continue living that way. Maybe I grew some respect for what is, and not what I want everything to be.

All that accomplishes is igniting their natural defense mechanisms, and you enter into a conflict having nothing to do with the issue at hand. Opportunity lost.

I understand, but these defense systems will be active regardless of what we do or say. It's said that the convincing can only be done by one's self. And that is actually true. I can not convince him or anyone to accept reality, science, or an empirically supported system. So the purpose of my discussions isn't directed that them at all. Hence, they aren't the target audience. And we both know the target audience are those whom might be reading this. And that is because much of religious dogma ectra is targeted to phishing for impressionable minds, minds that have not made a definitive decision on the subjects discussed. I know very well how this game is played, and that is why you see me being very direct with them and not allowing them to get away with it even if they are ignorant of the subjects, or the material they use as source material.. There is a reason why religion feeds and preys on ignorance. It's because it must in order to survive whether or not someone is being honest about their beliefs, or if they even realize they are being dishonest. It's like missionaries that go to places like Sudan. They aren't there to specifically feed the starving, they are there with strings attached. They are there to indoctrinate them, and make them believe as they do even if they believe they are there to feed them.. They don't realize they are trying to capitalize on the plight of others for the purpose of spreading their ideology to which just ends up causing more problems that get people killed :/

http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/pub ... -civil-war

Now if all religion was, was the teaching of loving each other and co-existing peacefully, I wouldn't care how silly or wrong their beliefs in magical things were. But that's not often the case, and the biggest problem is that religion conflicts with reality. There isn't anything anyone can do to rectify that.. So there are two paths to be taken here. Either deny reality, or accept it. It's only ever one or the other. So I like to leave this discussion with this video:

[youtube][/youtube]

And probably the greatest speech of all time:

[youtube][/youtube]

I myself may have quite a road ahead of me to be as tolerant and morally sound as the above, but I find that path somewhere in the deep seeds of practical tolerance for where we do not need to seek to control each other, but to co-exist under common law, and governed by common belief we should live together in best possible system of governance that doesn't hold any particular group, culture, or people down.

So it stands to question if man can survive itself, and truly evolve a secular co-existing world society of tolerance.. If we can not, we will likely be the cause of our own extinction outside the chance threat of a Earth destroying Meteor Impact. But I tell you this day, if I could give my life in exchange for such a perfect world, I would do it now without hesitation or regret. But not in war, or hate in a feud, but as if I had a choice and the option to make it so. Or in perhaps so everyone could stand up top a great mountain in a bliss so rare it can not be said in the limitation of any language. For when the sun rises beyond the furthest peak and the sky turns of colors reflective of every color in the visible range, its the experience itself that over comes our lives without need of fear, or doctrines and beliefs of hate that would otherwise bring us down in darkness of our ugliness to which we can no bare to stare in the reflective mirror. And I wonder how many of us actually really take the time to really look in the mirror and think about what it is that they see. Is this really what you want it to be for all of humanity?

Ignorance, hate, and fear in a drowning bloody pool of tears is not a world I would choose or willingly care to live in.