 |
|
|
|
June 1st, 2012
03:46 PM ET
Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human originsBy Dan Merica, CNN (CNN) - Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup on Friday. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution. Thirty years ago, 44% of the people who responded said they believed that God created humans as we know them today - only a 2-point difference from 2012. "Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982," wrote Gallup's Frank Newport. "All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins." The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents. Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age Not surprisingly, more religious Americans are more likely to be creationists. Nearly 70% of respondents who attend church every week said that God created humans in their present form, compared with 25% of people who seldom or never attend church. Among the seldom church-goers, 38% believe that humans evolved with no guidance from God. The numbers also showed a tendency to follow party lines, with nearly 60% of Republicans identifying as creationists, while 41% of Democrats hold the same beliefs. Republicans also seem to be more black-and-white about their beliefs, with only 5% responding that humans evolved with some help from God. That number is much lower than the 19% of both independents and Democrats. According to Newport, a belief in creationism is bucking the majority opinion in the scientific community - that humans evolved over millions of years. "It would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution," writes Newport. "Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief ... that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature." The USA Today/Gallup telephone poll was conducted May 10-13 with a random sample of 1,012 American adults. The sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Science is essentially a utilitarian tool that can be used for the amelioration of the miseries of the human condition. People here are sometimes confusing "faith" with "probability". Faith in a supreme being does not preclude a critical mind. I do not place personal value in the workings of a microwave. I know that it will probably work if the machinery is correctly made. Personal values are best used for things that are not objective or concrete. Evolution is merely a probable theory, yes, but so is atomic theory. Both are useful tools for biology and physics. Similarly, what does the question "does God exist?" mean? By what parameters? Material? That is simply putting a word designed for objective probability into matters of personal value, a common pseudo-intellectual trip-up. If you mean that God exists as a matter of personal value, of what you wish to do with your life, then I applaud you for taking the hard, brave, quixotic path of self-responsibility. Sartre lives on!!!!!!!
Just do not patronize anyone by telling them what they should do and then saying that your advice was not your decision of belief by throwing the responsibility on God. By the way, everyone has personal values, whether they abstract them into supreme beings or not (the last sentence is my way of saying I'm an atheist).
This should be submitted as proof positive that our educational system is not performing up to expectations.
Support education;reduce religion. 2 birds, 1 stone.
Hello
Has anyone ever studied the human brain, the DNA chain, the human heart, the obvious conclusion is that our amazing machines that are our bodies had a designer. After thousands of years science cannot explain with any certainty why we are here??? Science cannot explain the migration of birds, the migrating patterns of whales, salmon and other sealife, Romans 1:20 says that by the things that have been made and seen, man will have no excuse.
And some people believe in reincarnation. Why is what your book says important? Is it the numbering system that makes it seem official for you?
Adam C: 3:33 1"Don't be dumb. Seriously. 2"Please, just don't be."
Numbering system??? The bible is important because it is a historical book, those Kings and places existed in those periods of time. To those who follow the book, it is a light to their feet, and words of life.
First of all, your argument boils down to: Science hasn't answered this yet, therefore: God. To be blunt: your premise would not necessitate (or even imply) your conclusion even if the premise were true.
Even more egregious, your single premise is false: science can and does explain migration patterns of all kinds of species (which verse in the Bible explained both why species migrate and how they do so? I can't seem to find it...), and it has postulated (eg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg) very plausible explanations for how what we call life could develop from non-living material, using nothing but basic thermodynamic processes.
There's no need for a designer, anymore than each snowflake needs to be carefully carved and sculpted; the basic laws of physics and chemistry are more than sufficient.
Science explains the probable as displayed by objective evidence. That is all science is. It has nothing to do with faith. They live on different planets.
Oh, the Old Testament is a very interesting book, but to me that is all it is, and my life is just as miserable and serendipitous and quixotic as yours, without faith in a supreme being. I must say that I pity people who do not dare to think new thoughts (yes, critical thinking and feeling involves anguish; how hideous!).
Wisdom:
"The bible is important because it is a historical book, those Kings and places existed in those periods of time."
The fact that places mentioned in the Bible have been verified archeologically has no bearing on the veracity of the supernatural stories put forth in that book.
Mount Olympus (and many other places mentioned in their legends and myths) really exists in Greece. Does that mean that 12 gods really live there? Dickens' "The Christmas Carol" fairly accurately portrays the places and conditions of 19th century England. Does that mean that the supernatural visits of Jacob Marley and the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Yet to Come were real? All sorts of fiction and fantasy stories are set in real places.
The Bible is a book which includes *some* history of primitive Hebrew culture, and *some* good advice for practical, beneficial human behavior, but mostly it is a compilation of ancient Middle Eastern historical fiction, myth, legend, superst.ition and fantasy.
There is not a whit of verified evidence for any of the supernatural beings or supernatural events in that book.
@Wisdom, There is a New York, but no spiderman I'm afraid.
There are so many directions to take this, the evidence in creation, miracles, millions that believe, He is real period. You just don't want Him to be.
Wisdom,
"..."the evidence in creation"
- Unverified. Could it be *any* other way (including ways that we don't know about yet)?
" miracles,"
- Unverified. There is no verified evidence for supernatural intervention.
" millions that believe,"
- Not a valid argument. Millions upon millions once believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe (some still do).
"He is real period. You just don't want Him to be."
- No. Sometimes I *wish* that there were someone who could/would magically do things to help us. There isn't.
Some people put as much faith in evolution as religious people put in God. If I had to choose, I would go with God because God is the only hope of eternal salvation and happiness.
That seems logical on its face as long as you do not study any other religions or other belief systems. Because if you did, you'd realize that the choice isn't between god or no god, its between any one of thousands of gods that men have made up through the years, or no god.
So, why you may think your odds are 50/50, they're actually much worse than that.
The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. Yet man continues to focus on irrelevant issues and put his own arrogance and smarts above the things that God has decreed. But things are unfolding as they should and nothing man can do will change that.
Religious people have a never ending supply of sayings that sound profound but actually mean nothing.
44% of Americans are retarded
100% of idiots that troll a religion blog are retarded.
Evolution Sucks!
The truth sucks? Reality sucks? You need fantasy invisible friends instead? You prefer delusion?
Wow.
The only problem with attempting to posit the current complexity of organisms on earth as solely the result of natural selection preserving random genetic mutations in a population, is the fossil record.
The problem with the fossil record is that it does NOT show a gradual change as Darwin predicted, the fossil record actually shows the opposite, showing new species appearing fully formed in the fossil record.[Stephen Gould]
Now, a theistic evolutionist would point to a creator orchestrating natural events such that the necessary mutations occurred at precisely the necessary time, exactly as the bible states "For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return. Genesis
An atheist has to try and explain how, exactly, these necessary mutations, ALL occur, randomly, at precisely the necessary time.
every time
Cause, you see, you can't really argue with the fossil record. It ALWAYS shows fully formed species appearing.
Which is exactly the opposite of what you would expect, if you were relying on random mutation and natural selection.
How, exactly, is it.. that every single time (not just once in a while mind you.. but every-single-time).. species are stable for millions, or 100's of millions of years with the gene pool wobbling about the median shedding these random mutations. then suddenly .. WHAM.. EVERYTHING explodes in one grand paroxysm of necessarily reliant mutations..
doesnt that strike you as extraordinarily odd?
The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.[64][65] When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false
Oh, Chad, tell us more!
@Chad, I have no arguement with theistic evolutionists. (It's not my personal belief, but I respect that people have faith.)
The notion that God guided evolution is a reasoned combination of a belief in God with the evidence of evolution.
So why aren't there more than 32% of Americans who agree with this? Why do 46% of Americans want to take Genesis literally, yet are happy to interpret many other bible passages non-ltierally?
Thanks for posting that Chad. It will be interesting to see any real arguments against it.
"the fossil record actually shows the opposite, showing new species appearing fully formed in the fossil record."
What the hell are you talking about, especially this statement?
And you do realize that not everything about an animal get fossilized right? The fossil record is incomplete, but that doesn't disprove evolution, much to your chagrin.
@Evangelical, you're still here.
You never answered my earlier question: Genesis says "God created man". How was that accomplished? Genesis does not say. Why can't evolution be God's mechanism for "creating" man in his own image?
Chad seems to think the notion of the theistic evolutionist is OK? What say you?
Oh well, no reply again. Gotta run.
"Genesis does not say. Why can't evolution be God's mechanism for "creating" man in his own image?"
Because everything was created in six literal days. Yes, I'm a young earth creationist. Yom in the Bible is a 24-hour period rather than another use of the word "day" like "in my father's day". Yom was used in Genesis to describe each day of creation.
"I'm a young earth creationist."
You're a nut-job.
Darwin did not necessarily predict slow steady change. Indeed, sudden major changes in climate or other survivability stresses would allow mutations already in the gene pool to succeed and flourish quickly. Nothing surprising at all about that. Meteor hits the earth, some species cannot survive the resulting cold, others that can adapt to it, with the mutants that can withstand more cold becoming dominant, alterring the species.
Perfectly easy to understand. Your whole attempt to discredit evolution only shows your ignorance. The problem isn't evolutionary theory; it's your failure (and refusal) to understand based on your ideological prejudice.
@I'm not
I don't believe in evolution. The Bible is quite clear – it says that God created the world in 6 days (not eons, not centuries, not years, not months, not even weeks). I do not buy the lies that science peddles to corrupt God fearing Christians.
@Chad
Your pseudo-intellectual attempt to muddy the water is so far off it's barely worth answering it all. But in my day the fossil record was way less complete. Bodies decompose in a relatively short period and something unusual has to happen for them to be preserved as a fossil.
You write as if we have discovered a fossil of every living thing that ever lived, when in fact it is quite the opposite. For us to find several intact fossils of the same species 100 million years later, you better believe this species was stable and survived for a very long time.
Fasinating stuff...can you recommend any books about what you are saying?
@CHADstaaah
Species or naming species is an arbitrary taxonomic method scientists use to show discrete steps of evolution. The american crocodile and the american alligator are in different taxonomic families, but if you want you can have names for every species of alligators whose jaws are 1 inch narrower and longer until you reach the crocodiles. But facts are when scientists dig up fossils that of an alligators whose jaws are 1 cm longer than normal alligators, scientists would generally still call it an alligator.
When something is extraordinary odd, it doesn't mean it cant happen naturally and therefore the act of God.
The chance for a mega-millions jackpot is 1/175 million and people do win and it is not an act of god.
If the lottery play is to select 20 numbers instead of 6 numbers, the probability to win decrease to 1/1000000trillion and in years of no playing winners until someone will win , it is still NOT an act of god.
Living organisms DNAs are in length of trillions of units. Every seconds, trillions of transcriptions and translations take place, there bounds to be error in the process and it is not an act of god.
Every living thing IS a transitional form. You are a slightly modified version of your parents combined DNA.. Incremental tiny changes over vast periods of time result in new species. Environmental and other external forces favor the continued reproduction of advantageous mutations. Everything else dies off. Over 99% of everything that ever existed has gone extinct. Chad's myopic view of the mechanisms of evolution only showcase his ignorance....along with the 48% who still think creation occurred according to the Biblical pattern.
I can't understand how this could have occurred ...therefore goddidit.
Lame..
@AGEM "Species or naming species is an arbitrary taxonomic method scientists use to show discrete steps of evolution. The american crocodile and the american alligator are in different taxonomic families, but if you want you can have names for every species of alligators whose jaws are 1 inch narrower and longer until you reach the crocodiles. But facts are when scientists dig up fossils that of an alligators whose jaws are 1 cm longer than normal alligators, scientists would generally still call it an alligator."
@Chad "if you are arguing that indeed there is evidence of phyletic gradualism, you should realize that you are incorrect.
Phyletic gradualism has been utterly discarded.
See Gould: Punctuated Equilibrium.
============
@AGEM "When something is extraordinary odd, it doesn't mean it cant happen naturally and therefore the act of God."
@Chad "right, I already noted the characteristic atheist explanation "given enough time anything is possible".
Kind of a convenient crutch to rely on that.. of course then you can posit anything at all and just invoke time as the enabler..
One can only hope that, given time, you'll actually get an education and grow a few more brain cells so those two that you have aren't so lonely.
@WCCT "You write as if we have discovered a fossil of every living thing that ever lived, when in fact it is quite the opposite."
are you appealing to an incomplete fossil record as the explanation?
That was Darwins refuge also..
Gould put the nail in that particular coffin.. noting that year after year we find thousands of fossils, confirming more and more and more the cycle of stasis and rapid change.
@AtheistSteve "Chad's myopic view of the mechanisms of evolution only showcase his ignorance.."
=>really?
ok, how do you explain stasis/rapid change? Can you do better than gould?
@Wisdom "Fasinating stuff...can you recommend any books about what you are saying?"
=>start with this, it is absolutely fascinating reading..
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.asp
"Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" (1972) Gould/Eldgridge
the best part of it is the way Gould excoriates the scientific community for ignoring the plain facts of the existing fossil record.
Francis Collins (former director of the Human Genome Project and a born again Christain wrote a good book: The Language of God.
Would also recommend listening to some debates between william dembski debates which can be found on line.
God Bless!
@Chad
yes, times and chances are the enabler. That“s how one would win a big stuff animal at the carnival ring-over-bottle game, by keeping spending money for more rings to throw not by praying to sky-walker.
The scientific community is large. Differences and disagreements are commonplace. Eventually some will be proven right and others will be proven wrong. That is how science works, rather than just pointing to the bible.
And when you're citing Gould, an anti-creationist himself, you“re committing the worst of all sins for bible lovers like yourself .
godbLESS
@AGEM "yes, times and chances are the enabler."
@Chad ""given enough time, anything can happen".. you think that's good science?"
@AGEM "when you're citing Gould, an anti-creationist himself, you“re committing the worst of all sins for bible lovers like yourself "
@Chad "I used Gould in context to illustrate my point that phyletic gradualism is not reflected in the fossil record.
That was precisely the point of his 1972 paper, right? that was the ENTIRE point of the paper. Right?
how is that a "sin"?
@AGEM –
Chad has just committed another act of dishonesty. Compare the two following post from Chad:
'"I used Gould in context to illustrate my point that phyletic gradualism is not reflected in the fossil record.
That was precisely the point of his 1972 paper, right? that was the ENTIRE point of the paper. Right? how is that a "sin"?'
'As for supernatural vs natural processes, I also believe that the origin of life, and the development of more and more complex life forms on earth in the stages reflected in the fossil record, is the direct result of supernatural intervention (it's called "punctuated equilibrium" )'
Dishonesty and deception at it's best.
Busted!
@Really-O? "'"I used Gould in context to illustrate my point that phyletic gradualism is not reflected in the fossil record.
That was precisely the point of his 1972 paper, right? that was the ENTIRE point of the paper. Right? how is that a "sin"?'
'As for supernatural vs natural processes, I also believe that the origin of life, and the development of more and more complex life forms on earth in the stages reflected in the fossil record, is the direct result of supernatural intervention (it's called "punctuated equilibrium" )'
=>I think you are confused on one point.
"punctuated equilibrium" merely says that long periods of stasis are followed by rapid bursts of genetic change.
The bible says long periods of stasis are followed by rapid bursts of genetic change.
😉
PE is agnostic as to the mechanism of that change. that's the whole point of my comment way back when..
PE contrasts with phyletic gradualism.
The fossil record, and the bible, both characterize the origin of life forms as stasis and rapid change
punctuated equilibrium indeed 😉
I heart you, Chad! Bed me now! Our love is sacred! Our genetic makeup will produce holy babies!!!
@Rachel –
Why have you forgotten the emoticon? 🙂
My bad. 😉 🙂 *>)
I, for one, really want to know who this faux-Rachel is...yes, I know Chad is the original faux-Rachel, but who is the new-and-improved faux-Rachel?
I'm one and the same. I just LOVE Chad.
@Rachel –
...forgot the emoticon again. Rachel, Rachel, Rachel. 😉
8)
46 percent? Satan Romney will delude another third of them, and then the Apocalypse.
I thought you atheists didn't believe in God and Satan. Yet you call Romney Satan. Romney is the Christian's best hope in this election.
But Evangelical, he's a..a.. MORMON!
Where did he say that he believed in magic, Evangelical? And if Romney the Christian's best hope, it's best to keep him off out the White House. Wouldn't want deluded people helping to control my fate.
@Evangelical
One does not need to be an atheist to believe in evolution; equally being a Christian doesn't mean that the creation myth recorded in your bible should be taken as literal truth.
@ kimberwy, to provide one example: While trying to get to the moon, we developed technology that would soon give us the Internet.
Yes, with all the ills the internet has brought us.
You first among them, Eva-crap.
@Evangelical
When the internet has produced a much ill as religion then you'd have some to complain about.
OK – so who created the apes?
They were born. Pretty much the same as you.
Oh dear, another idiot who just cannot imagine that things just have to have someone create them, even though the vast majority of things in the universe were created through natural processes that always have been shown to occur without a being creating them, much less a God creating them..
@Stewart
Prove it! As far as I know everything has a creator except God.
As far as you know?
Wow. That would be quite a minuscule distance, dearie.
Really, what is wrong with you, Evadoofus? Why would you imagine that simply because we don't yet know, and may never know, how the universe came to be, it must follow that 'goddidit'?
The lack of any imagination on the part of fundiots is truly astounding, considering their ability to imagine a god exists.
You want me to prove that the vast majority of things in the universe were created through natural processes that always have been shown to occur without a being creating them? That's pretty much what science is all about. There is an enormous mountain of evidence.
You are the one making the extraordinary claim for which no evidence has ever been provided. Prove that dirt was created by a supernatural sentient being, and not by natural processes. You can't. How do I prove dirt was the result of natural forces? Go to this link and start learning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
I find it very bizarre that a someone who cannot provide even the slightest verifiable evidence of anything he says or believes would demand evidence, especially on a range of subjects that are very well studied and docunted.
Bizarre.
You weren't there millions of years ago so you have no idea if that's now things happened...by natural processes. Because you choose to reject any notion of God, you fall back on what you think happened and treat it as fact.
You weren't there either, Bervin, so instead of actually learning about science, you fall back on belief in a supernatural being to explain what you can't understand.
I do understand it and I reject it.
No, you don't. It's quite apparent from your posts that you don't have a clue.
"No, you don't. It's quite apparent from your posts that you don't have a clue."
I could say the same about your understanding of the Bible.
Bervin: you say you reject science, so I have some serious questions for you.
When you or a loved one is very sick, do you reject science and not go to the hospital, relying on faith and prayer instead?
When you need to travel, do you reject science and avoid cars and planes, and walk instead?
How do you post here if you reject science and the computers and internet it enabled?
You cannot get through more than a few minutes of your day without encountering and using the benefits of science. You have embraced science, and only choose to "reject" a tiny part because of an acient Middle Eastern peasant system of superstition.
@Evangelical
If god doesn't need a creator then why does the universe?
Bervin
"Because everything was created in six literal days. Yes, I'm a young earth creationist."
Bervin
"You weren't there millions of years ago so you have no idea if that's now things happened...by natural processes."
Huh?
"Bervin: you say you reject science, so I have some serious questions for you."
When did I say that? I said that I rejected the theory of evolution. It's that explanation of past events over time that I reject. Don't twist my words. That's like saying if you hate broccoli then you must hate all food.
Bervin, if you have rejected the theory of evolution, why haven't you won the Nobel Prize for your falsification? Can you tell us which peer-reviewed scientific journal has published your falsification? Can you tell us which accrediited university you did your research at.
@Primewonk
I have reviewed the work that has been presented to the general population and I am not buying it. The reverse logic of your statement is that I should blindly accept the claims made by scientists. And you say my views rely on faith. Just because you carry a PhD doesn't mean that what comes out of your mouth isn't pure hokum.
Joe
Bervin, you're simply unable to grasp the concept or facts. I doubt you understand much about science at all.
That seems to be the standard response when I don't agree with the collective groupthink opinion about how to interpret a certain set of evidence based on observational science.
It's the 'standard response' because most of the people here have more sense and more education than you do. Why don't you tell us what your educational qualifications are, Bervy? Have a degree? From what accredited insti tution? In what discipline?
I'm betting you either don't have any college education at all, and if you do, you got it at a Bible College in something that is as far removed from the sciences as possible.
Interesting. So I need to have a formal education in the sciences with probably some type of advanced degree to have any opinion that gets any respect and only if my opinion is in alignment with the stats quo. I'd be willing to bet that if I were to provide you with the credentials that you are looking for and still state that I reject not science but just evolution that you'd still find some justification to continue name calling. That's all you guys seem to have on here is resorting to name calling. You'll notice that most everyone on here who is supporting creationism has shown the utmost respect to you guys when it's clearly not deserved.
By the, I have a BS from a public university.
WHAT UNIVERSITY and IN WHAT DISCIPLINE, you cowardly little dweeb?
And what "respect" have you or your asinine pals shown anyone, twit? You're an insult to everyone's intelligence.
Thank you for proving my point.
No, no. Thank YOU for proving mine. Chickensh!t.
And Bervy? It's 'status quo', ya moron.
Ervin wrote " I have reviewed the work that has been presented to the general population and I am not buying it"
And yet, for some reason you still refuse to explain why.
I'd love to see that, too, PW. But the coward will probably run away before providing a single honest answer.
Our educational system has utterly failed.
I agree. They really should be teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution. ;o)
Why would they teach creationism? It's nothing but religion. Not fact. Not science.
If you want to teach it in a religious school, fine. It has no place in public education whatsoever.
God is the first scientist and chemist,biologist,nuclear scientist,etc......etc......etc....
You sure he wasn't an engineer? Because if he was, he surely did a terrible job.
OK, if I stipluate that God is the source of the sciences, then why do only 32% of Americans believe God guided evolution, when 46% of Americans believe humans miraculously appeared?
deano, he must have been a pretty poor scientist and engineer, considering all he got wrong and how short the lifetimes of his products are.
Come on, get over your silly fictions already. God as described in the bible can't possibly have existed.
The point is that humans didn't "miraculously appear." We were CREATED in God's image.
So you continue to bray, but you have no evidence to support such a belief, Evangel-anut.
@Evangelical, certainly Genesis says "God created man". How was that accomplished? Genesis does not say. Why can't evolution be God's mechanism for "creating" man in his own image?
You will agree that passages have to be interpreted, otherwise you wouldn't eat shellfish or put sour cream on your beef taco. So, why not interpret a "day" as an aribtrary unit of time? Why must a literal interpretation be applied to this part of Geneis, yet parts of other books can be interpreted non-literally?
Oh I get it.This is the blame game.You get to blame a God who you don't even believe in,for the suffering of humanity yet you aren't suffering as they are? You complain but do nothing
You 2 are selfish.You got the life while they don't but you have the guts to complain about the lives of others?
If don't have cancer you don't know what it's like.you can't relate to their level
What are you, ADAB, about 15? Do you have any idea how many people you are posting to who HAVE had cancer? Who have lost parents, siblings, or spouses to cancer? Get your arrogant head out of your butt-hole and figure this out: you are incapable of answering the questions asked of you and your evasions and irrational accusations make you look like the fool you are.
@"At death atheists believe"...
You misunderstand. I respect your right to your faith and expect you to respect my right not to share in your faith.
I only asked you about the incongruity of the concept of a loving God contrasted with all the horrible things that happen in the world. It doesn't make sense to me.
If this makes sense to you and comforts you that your loving God does these horrible things to other people, but you are somehow special, then I am glad your faith helps you in your life.
That sounds about right. This country is doomed.
being an atheist, i cannot understand why any good person would praise a deity that created, but would not stop hitler. yes, i know, the whole free will thing. but why was hitler's free will to murder so many more important than the free will of his vicitms?
You bring up an interesting point. Most Christians believe in an omniscient God. But, in reality, an omniscient being and free will cannot possibly exist in the same universe.
You can have all the free will as long as it is the same as the established religious dogma 🙂
why didn't anyone say no?
You want to blame God leaving the action to just him yet..for years the nazi's murdered,THE world did nothing till a few years after.
Nobody stopped it not even the people of any country there until it was too late.
You claim God did nothing..humans did nothing either
and most leaders during that time period were atheist(NOT including Hitler).They hated religion,banned it from their own country.Stalin was a voiceful atheist who killed twice the number as Hitler.Other atheistic leaders kill the most history as ever seen.
nobody said "No" until the armies came in.The Jews took it but did not rebel.6 million couldn't rebel(some did).
Where are you when a "Muslim" man decides to blow up his own? Where are you when business become corrupt? guess what? You do nothing to help,you can't blame God.
That whole "nice life" is usually the reason why nobody says "No".
For an atheist no offense..you didn't think this through
@"At death atheists believe"...
Why does a loving God give little children terrible diseases like cancer?
Why does a loving God strike down good Christian mid-western towns with tornadoes?
Ignoring the works of truly evil people, why does a loving God permit death to innocent bystanders by accident, disease, or natural disaster, anywhere in the world?
Saying that we "God is so far above us that we cannot understand his purposes" is a trite cop-out. Even the ancient Greek and Hindus have much better explanations for "..it happens" than Christianity. I cannot accept a capricious and vengeful God as being loving. It requires too much cognitive dissonance.
Come on, ADAB, get to it. You seem to value speed. What's taking you so long to answer this question?
Death is natural for every living thing right? Some animals etc live every short lives.Some months days a few years if lucky.Thats natural for them.
How many risked their lives to stop these "horrible" monsters?
You demand that God should stop every bad thing yet typically people bubble wrap their own lives leaving out the lives of others.
If God doesn't exist to you,you really can't blame a being that is not real.You can't rationalize the "why" do the next step would be to put the blame on someone else.
Guess what? If you do nothing,you are just as bad
This is a fallen world. You can't have all of these "Why does God allow..." conversations without entering in the fact that Satan is the ruler of this world. Earth is his dominion. A world with sin and Satan / demons have caused the perfect things that God created to be corrupted. God doesn't cause someone to get cancer. It happens because there is sickness in the world. God doesn't cause people to die. Other people with free will can do horrendous things that impact other "good" people. The biggest trick Satan ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist.
@At death atheists believe, also Christians, like yourself, have been lying about the deathbed confessions of atheists since Christians first appeared. Beliefs aren’t choices in that you can’t suddenly just choose to believe in the tooth fairy, or that you can fly. We atheists automatically reject all claims of unsubstantiated wishful thinking such as the claim without evidence that there is a cosmic Disney Land in the sky.
Nope. Doesn't wash, ADAB. I'm not omnipotent. You claim your sky-daddy is. If he is, why does he allow children to be slaughtered? To die of cancer? To be born with fatal, incurable diseases?
You can't answer because there IS no answer; there IS no god.
And Bervin, you're just plain delusional.
@"At death atheists believe"...
You've not answered my question. Surely a loving and all powerful God would never punish innocents who are faithful to him and pray to him for deliverance from the perils he has brought upon them?
But he does.
How can this be?
Unless he is a capricious vengeful God like those of the ancient Greeks who like to toy with the mortals for their amusement.
Science has already proven why natural disasters from.So why do you continue to blame God when science has already confirmed the "why" natural disasters happen here on planet earth? Why earthquakes happen? What makes floods?
You do it to bash others or the other reason is deeper
@"At death atheists believe"...
You've not answered my question. Surely a loving and all powerful God would never punish innocents who are faithful to him and pray to him for deliverance from the perils he has brought upon them?
But he does.
How can this be?
Unless he is a capricious vengeful God like those of the ancient Greeks who liked to toy with the mortals for their amusement.
God doesn't live in the sky.
Another lie created by delusional atheists
@Bervin, yes, he’s done a very good job proving that he doesn’t exist by being invisible, inaudible, intangible, and his evil works completely unseen. If you make a positive assertion about the material world we live in, you have a burden of proof that requires more than just saying something is real. Where is your proof for such outrageous claims of devils, demons and leprechauns?
ADAB blusters:Science has already proven why natural disasters from.
===
Did that make sense when you burped it out?
I apologize for the duplicated post.
"God doesn't live in the sky.
Another lie created by delusional atheists"
--
As if. Bozos like you are the ones who created said image.
unless Deists have it right and God is like a watch maker that lets nature go its natural course.
"Unless deists are right", says the idiot who never read a book other than the Bible unless it was a romance novel with a shirtless dude on the cover.
The bible gives no location.
Man you atheists aren't as educated in the bible as you claim.
@"At death atheists believe"...
Well, I believe that floods, landslides, storms and diseases are all natural phenomena. They simply are.
But if I stipulate that God exists and he is ominiscient and omnipotent, ubiquitous, and loving, and that if I believe in him and pray to him he will help me, correct?, so why does he not do so?
Call Sylvan, ADAB. Maybe someone there can help you with your reading comprehension difficulties. I doubt it, but you seem to be the sort that believes in miracles.
@"At death atheists believe"...
The "sky" reference is clearly facetious.
Christians believe that God is everywhere, correct? He sees all, and while humans have free will, nothing happens in the natural world without his allowing it to happen, correct? So he permits really bad things to happen to good people, correct?
Why?
Because as seen in the bible,not every cry and whim is answered.You view God as a personal slave master not a creator.
What makes you think the innocent are innocent? People pull that card all the time,yet everyone has sin on their hands.
In fact you basically believe humanity is the center of everything..how strange
Do tell. So an infant born with microcephaly is guilty of sin?
Why don't you explain how that would be, ADAB.
Really, this is amusing. I'll get the popcorn.
"good people"
That's THEIR own standard or your own view on yourself.The "good person" is an actual lie as "good people" can do horrible things.small or big.You imply that the "good people" cant have horrible lives as their just "good people" only judging what people see on the outside,on the inside alone,they are monsters
If you wanna do the "good people" card just know not even they live a perfect live.
"Good people" is only the half truth
How about those microcephalic infants, ADAB? How about the countless children who starve to death in developing countries every day? Those guilty of a sin are they?
@"At death atheists believe"...
"everyone has sin on their hands" ??? Visit a pediatric cancer center and then tell my why God permits little children who are too young to know right from wrong to have cancer.
I know good Evangelical Christian parents whose children have cancer. What did that child do to deserve that?
If babies aren't born into sin what makes us lie cheat steal lust or make people suffer? You leave that out and replace it with this "rational" crap that typically is there to block that thought out.
and yet if you visit them most are more happy then most people? Strong in character? Have the will to fight?
I've met mentally retarded people and yet despite not knowing it THEY are happy.
Ahahhahhahah! "That rational crap".
Pretty much says all that needs to be said about your ability to reason, ADAB. Thanks for playing.
"and yet if you visit them most are more happy then most people? Strong in character? Have the will to fight?
I've met mentally retarded people and yet despite not knowing it THEY are happy."
You are completely delusional. Cancer patients aren't "more happy than most people", you noob. Wherever do you get such pap?
Hmm what if that happened to you? Oh wait! It's not about you! It's about the suffering of little kids yet you aren't suffering as they? You can't feel what they feel but you feel the need to pick of them saying "Why is God allowing that!?" yet it's not even happening to you.
How selfish of you
@"At death atheists believe"...
If you believe "good people do horrible things" your definition of "good" is different from mine. Sure, nobody is perfect. Maybe we're more selfish than we should be or value our possessions too highly or whatever. Do we deserve our town to be blown away by a tornado because we didn't volunteer at a homeless shelter enough?
If God exists, he either causes devastation and disease, or he doesn't care if devastation and disease happen. Either way, it is entirely inconsistent with the concept of a loving God.
"Hmm what if that happened to you? Oh wait! It's not about you! It's about the suffering of little kids yet you aren't suffering as they? You can't feel what they feel but you feel the need to pick of them saying "Why is God allowing that!?" yet it's not even happening to you.
How selfish of you"
-–
Could you be more of a liar if you tried? More deceitful? More evasive? I doubt it, but go ahead and try. You're doing so well.
@At death atheists believe, there are very good evolutionary reasons, which are based on evidence, as to why people lie, cheat and steal. Also, I’m afraid original sin has been disproven with the overwhelming amount of evidence for an old earth and an unbroken chain of life going back billions of years, and not 6,000. No Adam, No Eve, No talking snake! Also, you argument is a “God of the Gaps” argument where you are saying I don’t know and therefore “GOD”.
Selfish of me, because it's not happening to me???
What about "the least of these my bretheren"? Matthew 25.
It was human beings that put him in authority over their country, it was human beings that carried out his evil plans, it was human beings that supported him, it was human beings that agreed with the yellow star on every jew. It was human beings that put every their fellow men , women , and children in those showers with that poison gas. Has man beebn able to change himself or learn from the past EVER??? Why do you think God provided His own son to be a scarifice for us, to offer us a new life. Look what we are capable of without Him, and it's still happening. He gave us dominion to see for a time what we would do with it, He did not create robots to follow Him. Find Him while He can be found.
JUst llook at the number : if GOD truly created human as prescribed per the bible, the number should be 100% not 46%. The number is proof that evolution is only 54% completeD !!!!
Prayer changes things .
Obviously not. I have prayed that you would change this post. Yet you keep spamming the same thing.
SO none of the 6 million holocaust victims Prayed ? and countless outher victims of impending disasters ? Their wireless plan to GOD expired ?
I bet you think all liberals are atheists too, right? /eyeroll
@Jo, since only 16.% of Americans do not have an affiliation with religion, (confirmed atheists represent only 1.6%) it seems hardly logical that all Liberals (lets round up to about half all Americans, by counting Liberal-voting independents) could be atheists.
Prayer SHORT-changes EVERY-thing
atheists,God doesnt answer every cry and whim.
Where were the atheists when Hitler sent nearly 6 million to die?
Can't I accuse the atheists like they accuse God of doing nothing but they also do nothing?!
Sure you can. But you'll be laughed off the stage, dear. Your imaginary pal is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent. Atheists claim to be nothing of the sort. Why didn't your all-powerful buddy do something?
@At death atheists believe, I thought you said Stalin was an evil atheist? And didn’t he liberate some of the camps?
@At death atheists believe, the difference is there is real evidence that atheists do exist as you’re presently corresponding with a few. But try getting a demonstrable answer from your god. Also, atheists are just as altruistic as anyone else on the planet. Can’t you be good for goodness sake, without having to have a supernatural and unproven carrot dangled in front of your nose?
@Timmuh,
It's a pretty safe bet that Stalin passes any tests for "evilness", whether the Red Army liberated Nazi death camps or not, he still has his own Gulag to answer for.
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV, At death atheists believe asked where were the atheists when the Jews were being murdered is all. The fact of the matter is Stalin, despite being a monster, was in charge of an army that liberated many, if not most, of the camps.
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV, the fact of the matter is that atheism is not a worldview with any tenets or dogmas. It is simply a subgroup of skepticism. It asserts nothing and has no burden of proof. Stalin's evil deeds had as much to do with his atheism as they did with his bushy mustache; nothing.
It's amusing how so many creationists deride evolution as "just a theory". Here's a dose of reality and a bit of science education for them. Evolution, like gravity, plate tectonics, etc, is both a fact AND a theory. The fact is, well, we know it happens. It is easily observable and has been repeated often in lab experiments. The theory is, as all theories are, our best attempt to explain how it happens.
Who did those experiments in evolution? What lab recreated it? As far as I know, because it takes millions and perhaps billions of years, the process cannot be recreated and besides none of the scientists involved can really agree on the EXACT process. Bit and snippets of discovery do not a process make.
Haime52, that is a common misconception among those who haven't actually studied biology. Look up Diane Dodd’s fruit fly experiment for a good start. But, there have been many, many such. And examples from nature abound. Like the bacteria that evolved the ability to digest nylon.
There are many doc.mented experiments in evolution. They use species that reproduce very quickly – like fruit flies – to be able to create many generations quickly.
The propagation of beneficial adaptations has been definitively reproduced in laboratories.
WE ARE a lab experiment!
Haime52, Evolution is a fact whereas the mechanism that governs it, natural selection, continues to be refined as we learn more. The discovery of DNA had the possible ramifications of disproving evolution in its entirety, but instead completely confirmed the tree of life. Evolution: FACT!
Haime, why don't you give proof of an alternative?
for millins of years humans kept dying off because their bodies werent smart enough to grow butholes.. but even as silly as that sounds, they wouldnt be able to die if they werent born.
I strongly suspect there have always been plenty of buttholes.