Non Creationists who still use theism

[Desert Snake]

I've noticed some non-creationists still use religious themes/characters in their "religion" ....doesn't make sense to me....if we're trying to get away from all the theological stuff, why use religious terms/deities/ideas??

What's the point??
Does it make sense to then also tell other religious people that their religions are false?

 

[chinu]

I've noticed some non-creationists still use religious themes/characters in their "religion" ....doesn't make sense to me....if we're trying to get away from all the theological stuff, why use religious terms/deities/ideas??

What's the point??
Does it make sense to then also tell other religious people that their religions are false?

Because all are Theists, nobody is 100% Atheist in this world

 

[LuisDantas]

I've noticed some non-creationists still use religious themes/characters in their "religion" ....doesn't make sense to me....if we're trying to get away from all the theological stuff, why use religious terms/deities/ideas??

What's the point??
Does it make sense to then also tell other religious people that their religions are false?

Isn't it rather the opposite? That so-called "Creationism" makes a point of avoiding science due to a perceived conflict?

There is inherently no contradiction in being a theist without engaging in the silliness that is "Creationism". In fact, Theistic religion needs exactly those people if it is to survive.


Or maybe you are talking about some other group of people?

 

[Desert Snake]

Isn't it rather the opposite? That so-called "Creationism" makes a point of avoiding science due to a perceived conflict?

I think it goes both ways, probably equally who knows, but certainly ay least as much in the manner i'm describing.

There is inherently no contradiction in being a theist without engaging in the silliness that is "Creationism". In fact, Theistic religion needs exactly those people if it is to survive.

How does this make sense? So deities that don't or can't create?? Not following you at all here.

Or maybe you are talking about some other group of people?

Well, if someone is non-creationist, why the theism? Why the references to satan etc etc

 

[George-ananda]

I've noticed some non-creationists still use religious themes/characters in their "religion" ....doesn't make sense to me....if we're trying to get away from all the theological stuff, why use religious terms/deities/ideas??

What's the point??
Does it make sense to then also tell other religious people that their religions are false?

Why doesn't it make sense??

I'm an evolutionist that believes evolution and abiogenesis were fostered by higher beings (nature spirits).

That makes me a non-creationists that still uses religious themes/characters. You may not agree but you can't say I am not sensible.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why doesn't it make sense??

I'm an evolutionist that believes evolution was fostered by higher beings (nature spirits).

That makes me a non-creationists that still uses religious themes/characters. You may not agree but you can't say I am not sensible.

Look at the arguments on the forums. You're actually MAKING MY POINT (thanks), because it is very common for people to equate creationism with anti=evolutionism.

 

[kashmir]

As if everyone in the world bases their character solely from a scientific acceptance.
I know many atheists that say that global warming is not real and just politics talking, for example.

 

[George-ananda]

Look at the arguments on the forums. You're actually MAKING MY POINT (thanks), because it is very common for people to equate creationism with anti=evolutionism.

You're welcome. But I think maybe your wording in the OP may be confusing people. What were you trying to say then? What does the 'doesn't make sense to me' in your OP comment supposed to mean?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think it goes both ways, probably equally who knows, but certainly ay least as much in the manner i'm describing.

I very much doubt that to be the case!

How does this make sense? So deities that don't or can't create?? Not following you at all here.

The alternative to "Creationism" isn't atheism or anti-religiosity, or even approach those tendencies in any way. It is simple honesty and humility. It in no way demands doubting the existence of deities, or even specifically of a Creator God.

It is entirely possible - even expected - to be, say, a Christian or Muslim that is 100% certain that God exists and created existence and life itself, all the while not feeling bothered by the Theory of Evolution or the evidence for it.

Well, if someone is non-creationist, why the theism? Why the references to satan etc etc

A non-creationist may believe or disbelieve in God and/or Satan for a variety of reasons or even for no reason, of course.

But I guess I really don't know who you are talking about.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because all are Theists, nobody is 100% Atheist in this world

I'm no alien!

 

[LuisDantas]

Look at the arguments on the forums. You're actually MAKING MY POINT (thanks), because it is very common for people to equate creationism with anti=evolutionism.

People who make a point of calling themselves Creationists are almost never not anti-evolutionists.

 

[Desert Snake]

You're welcome. But I think maybe your wording in the OP may be confusing people. What were you trying to say then? What does the 'doesn't make sense to me' in your OP comment supposed to mean?

Well, it really makes sense to you in generally how it's argued on RF?

Usually it's creationism vs. evolution, period, and it takes a anti=theistic approach much of the time.

Lets just say, we might agree here, but it certainly seems a little odd to me anyways, the way people present things much of the time.

 

[Desert Snake]

People who make a point of calling themselves Creationists are almost never not anti-evolutionists.

True, but you can't assume it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, it really makes sense to you in generally how it's argued on RF?

Usually it's creationism vs. evolution, period, and it takes a anti=theistic approach much of the time.

Sorry, I just don't see it.

Either within or without RF, Evolution is not really anti-theistic, while Creationism (as commonly understood) is fiercely (and foolishly) anti-scientific - even if it often fails to realize that, or fools itself into believing otherwise.

Heck, that is the whole reason why we even speak of Creationism in the first place. It is not and will never be synonimous with the belief in a Creator God.

It is just a fringe (if noisy and influential) movement among theists.

 

[LuisDantas]

True, but you can't assume it.

I don't think I need to, either. It is a matter of noticing the patterns and being fair.

If anything, that is a safer and more reasonable bet than, say, "assuming" that conservatives generally oppose homossexual rights, gun control and free abortion.

After all, conservatism isn't defined in relation to those three points, while Creationism is defined by its rejection of science.


Maybe it should have been named "Anti-Evolutionism" instead and left Creationism to the more literal meaning of belief in Creation as act from the Divine, but that ship has sailed.

 

[George-ananda]

Usually it's creationism vs. evolution, period, and it takes a anti=theistic approach much of the time.

That is often true but there is also a good number of us that don't accept either of the poles. The debate is becoming more sophisticated.

Evolutionism trumps Creationism but I think there are more complex views that trump both.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, those arguments often get ridiculous, imo/

 

[Windwalker]

I've noticed some non-creationists still use religious themes/characters in their "religion" ....doesn't make sense to me....if we're trying to get away from all the theological stuff, why use religious terms/deities/ideas??

Because they are archetypal symbols; symbols of transformation, to use Jung's term. They are not at the core about explaining nature like science does, though historically they were a part of how we talked about the natural world. Understanding evolution informs us about nature, and nature tells us of God. The creationist therefore in denying evolution, is denying knowledge of God. Or at best, their mode of thinking does not allow for anything other than a concrete-literal understanding, and therefore they cannot reconcile faith and reason.

Here's what I see as central to this whole "debate" on both sides of the aisle. Each side assumes creation is an event that occurred in the past, at the beginning of time, and so forth. But in reality, the implications of evolution say this. That creation is a continual unfolding, and evolution is the process through which creative advance into novelty is shown. As Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park aptly put it, "Life always finds a way. It always finds a way". That's creativity. That evolution. And creation is right here, right now, happening moment, to moment. That's how we see God, as the creative force of Life itself, of Being and Becoming. The Creator, is creating; not did create at some point in history and sat back like some man in his lounger after mowing the lawn.

So there is no contradiction whatsoever in seeing God in nature. Evolution is the creativity of God, or Spirit in action. Only those who need to smash into an earlier understanding of mythic-literal thinkers imagine science needs to reconcile with their particular reading of their tradition's scriptures within a certain mental framework. The problem is their framework, cannot allow for something beyond it. It's like trying to put new wine into old wineskins, as Jesus spoke of.

Does it make sense to then also tell other religious people that their religions are false?

You won't hear that from me. Though I do believe there are better ways to understand these thing to be had as they grow into them. Wrong is an incorrect word. They are right for where they are at in their current contexts. Contexts change.

 

[chinu]

I'm no alien!

I know you aren't alien,
But i also know that you are a theist

 

[Willamena]

I've noticed some non-creationists still use religious themes/characters in their "religion"

Perhaps they are still religious.

What's the point??
Does it make sense to then also tell other religious people that their religions are false?

The alternative to Creationism is not falsehood. Non-literal interpretations of religious symbols and ceremonies can offer a much broader and satisfying religious meaning to some people.