why reject christianity

[Trailblazer]

The answer has been given by Abdul'baha, it is not a short answer, but I post it so you can read it if you wish;

"Answer. -- Know that there are two natures in man: the physical nature and the spiritual nature. The physical nature is inherited from Adam, and the spiritual nature is inherited from the Reality of the Word of God, which is the spirituality of Christ. The physical nature is born of Adam, but the spiritual nature is born from the bounty of the Holy Spirit. The first is the source of all imperfection; the second is the source of all perfection.
The Christ sacrificed Himself so that men might be freed from the imperfections of the physical nature and might become possessed of the virtues of the spiritual nature. This spiritual nature, which came into existence through the bounty of the Divine Reality, is the union of all perfections and appears through the breath of the Holy Spirit. It is the divine perfections; it is light, spirituality, guidance, exaltation, high aspiration, justice, love, grace, kindness to all, philanthropy, the essence of life. It is the reflection of the splendor of the Sun of Reality.
The Christ is the central point of the Holy Spirit: He is born of the Holy Spirit; He is raised up by the Holy Spirit; He is the descendant of the Holy Spirit -- that is to say, that the Reality of Christ does not descend from Adam; no, it is born of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, this verse in Corinthians, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," means, according to this terminology, that Adam is the father of man [Abu'l-bashar, I.e., the father of man, is one of the titles given by the Muslims to Adam.]-- that is to say, He is the cause of the physical life of mankind; His was the physical fatherhood. He is a living soul, but He is not the giver of spiritual life, whereas Christ is the cause of the spiritual life of man, and with regard to the spirit, His was the spiritual fatherhood. Adam is a living soul; Christ is a quickening spirit.
This physical world of man is subject to the power of the lusts, and sin is the consequence of this power of the lusts, for it is not subject to the laws of justice and holiness. The body of man is a captive of nature; it will act in accordance with whatever nature orders. It is, therefore, certain that sins such as anger, jealousy, dispute, covetousness, avarice, ignorance, prejudice, hatred, pride and tyranny exist in the physical world. All these brutal qualities exist in the nature of man. A man who has not had a spiritual education is a brute. Like the savages of Africa, whose actions, habits and morals are purely sensual, they act according to the demands of nature to such a degree that they rend and eat one another. Thus it is evident that the physical world of man is a world of sin. In this physical world man is not distinguished from the animal.
All sin comes from the demands of nature, and these demands, which arise from the physical qualities, are not sins with respect to the animals, while for man they are sin. The animal is the source of imperfections, such as anger, sensuality, jealousy, avarice, cruelty, pride: all these defects are found in animals but do not constitute sins. But in man they are sins.
Adam is the cause of man's physical life; but the Reality of Christ -- that is to say, the Word of God -- is the cause of spiritual life. It is "a quickening spirit," meaning that all the imperfections which come from the requirements of the physical life of man are transformed into human perfections by the teachings and education of that spirit. Therefore, Christ was a quickening spirit, and the cause of life in all mankind.
Adam was the cause of physical life, and as the physical world of man is the world of imperfections, and imperfections are the equivalent of death, Paul compared the physical imperfections to death.
But the mass of the Christians believe that, as Adam ate of the forbidden tree, He sinned in that He disobeyed, and that the disastrous consequences of this disobedience have been transmitted as a heritage and have remained among His descendants. Hence Adam became the cause of the death of humanity. This explanation is unreasonable and evidently wrong, for it means that all men, even the Prophets and the Messengers of God, without committing any sin or fault, but simply because they are the posterity of Adam, have become without reason guilty sinners, and until the day of the sacrifice of Christ were held captive in hell in painful torment. This is far from the justice of God. If Adam was a sinner, what is the sin of Abraham? What is the fault of Isaac, or of Joseph? Of what is Moses guilty?
But Christ, Who is the Word of God, sacrificed Himself. This has two meanings, an apparent and an esoteric meaning. The outward meaning is this: Christ's intention was to represent and promote a Cause which was to educate the human world, to quicken the children of Adam, and to enlighten all mankind; and since to represent such a great Cause -- a Cause which was antagonistic to all the people of the world and all the nations and kingdoms -- meant that He would be killed and crucified, so Christ in proclaiming His mission sacrificed His life. He regarded the cross as a throne, the wound as a balm, the poison as honey and sugar. He arose to teach and educate men, and so He sacrificed Himself to give the spirit of life. He perished in body so as to quicken others by the spirit.
The second meaning of sacrifice is this: Christ was like a seed, and this seed sacrificed its own form so that the tree might grow and develop. Although the form of the seed was destroyed, its reality became apparent in perfect majesty and beauty in the form of a tree.
The position of Christ was that of absolute perfection; He made His divine perfections shine like the sun upon all believing souls, and the bounties of the light shone and radiated in the reality of men. This is why He says: "I am the bread which descended from heaven; whosoever shall eat of this bread will not die" [1 Cf. John 6:41, 50, 58.] -- that is to say, that whosoever shall partake of this divine food will attain unto eternal life: that is, every one who partakes of this bounty and receives these perfections will find eternal life, will obtain preexistent favors, will be freed from the darkness of error, and will be illuminated by the light of His guidance.

The form of the seed was sacrificed for the tree, but its perfections, because of this sacrifice, became evident and apparent -- the tree, the branches, the leaves and the blossoms being concealed in the seed. When the form of the seed was sacrificed, its perfections appeared in the perfect form of leaves, blossoms and fruits." Abdu'l-Baha : Some Answered Questions

Thus this is the bounty of Free Will, the ability to choose. The chance to be born again in the Spirit.

Regards Tony

Which chapter is that? I do not recall reading it. I could find it with a search but I am too busy with all these posts... I just rejoined a forum I had left so that adds more work for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The answer has been given by Abdul'baha, it is not a short answer, but I post it so you can read it if you wish;

"Answer. -- Know that there are two natures in man: the physical nature and the spiritual nature. The physical nature is inherited from Adam, and the spiritual nature is inherited from the Reality of the Word of God, which is the spirituality of Christ. The physical nature is born of Adam, but the spiritual nature is born from the bounty of the Holy Spirit. The first is the source of all imperfection; the second is the source of all perfection.
The Christ sacrificed Himself so that men might be freed from the imperfections of the physical nature and might become possessed of the virtues of the spiritual nature. This spiritual nature, which came into existence through the bounty of the Divine Reality, is the union of all perfections and appears through the breath of the Holy Spirit. It is the divine perfections; it is light, spirituality, guidance, exaltation, high aspiration, justice, love, grace, kindness to all, philanthropy, the essence of life. It is the reflection of the splendor of the Sun of Reality.
The Christ is the central point of the Holy Spirit: He is born of the Holy Spirit; He is raised up by the Holy Spirit; He is the descendant of the Holy Spirit -- that is to say, that the Reality of Christ does not descend from Adam; no, it is born of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, this verse in Corinthians, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," means, according to this terminology, that Adam is the father of man [Abu'l-bashar, I.e., the father of man, is one of the titles given by the Muslims to Adam.]-- that is to say, He is the cause of the physical life of mankind; His was the physical fatherhood. He is a living soul, but He is not the giver of spiritual life, whereas Christ is the cause of the spiritual life of man, and with regard to the spirit, His was the spiritual fatherhood. Adam is a living soul; Christ is a quickening spirit.
This physical world of man is subject to the power of the lusts, and sin is the consequence of this power of the lusts, for it is not subject to the laws of justice and holiness. The body of man is a captive of nature; it will act in accordance with whatever nature orders. It is, therefore, certain that sins such as anger, jealousy, dispute, covetousness, avarice, ignorance, prejudice, hatred, pride and tyranny exist in the physical world. All these brutal qualities exist in the nature of man. A man who has not had a spiritual education is a brute. Like the savages of Africa, whose actions, habits and morals are purely sensual, they act according to the demands of nature to such a degree that they rend and eat one another. Thus it is evident that the physical world of man is a world of sin. In this physical world man is not distinguished from the animal.
All sin comes from the demands of nature, and these demands, which arise from the physical qualities, are not sins with respect to the animals, while for man they are sin. The animal is the source of imperfections, such as anger, sensuality, jealousy, avarice, cruelty, pride: all these defects are found in animals but do not constitute sins. But in man they are sins.
Adam is the cause of man's physical life; but the Reality of Christ -- that is to say, the Word of God -- is the cause of spiritual life. It is "a quickening spirit," meaning that all the imperfections which come from the requirements of the physical life of man are transformed into human perfections by the teachings and education of that spirit. Therefore, Christ was a quickening spirit, and the cause of life in all mankind.
Adam was the cause of physical life, and as the physical world of man is the world of imperfections, and imperfections are the equivalent of death, Paul compared the physical imperfections to death.
But the mass of the Christians believe that, as Adam ate of the forbidden tree, He sinned in that He disobeyed, and that the disastrous consequences of this disobedience have been transmitted as a heritage and have remained among His descendants. Hence Adam became the cause of the death of humanity. This explanation is unreasonable and evidently wrong, for it means that all men, even the Prophets and the Messengers of God, without committing any sin or fault, but simply because they are the posterity of Adam, have become without reason guilty sinners, and until the day of the sacrifice of Christ were held captive in hell in painful torment. This is far from the justice of God. If Adam was a sinner, what is the sin of Abraham? What is the fault of Isaac, or of Joseph? Of what is Moses guilty?
But Christ, Who is the Word of God, sacrificed Himself. This has two meanings, an apparent and an esoteric meaning. The outward meaning is this: Christ's intention was to represent and promote a Cause which was to educate the human world, to quicken the children of Adam, and to enlighten all mankind; and since to represent such a great Cause -- a Cause which was antagonistic to all the people of the world and all the nations and kingdoms -- meant that He would be killed and crucified, so Christ in proclaiming His mission sacrificed His life. He regarded the cross as a throne, the wound as a balm, the poison as honey and sugar. He arose to teach and educate men, and so He sacrificed Himself to give the spirit of life. He perished in body so as to quicken others by the spirit.
The second meaning of sacrifice is this: Christ was like a seed, and this seed sacrificed its own form so that the tree might grow and develop. Although the form of the seed was destroyed, its reality became apparent in perfect majesty and beauty in the form of a tree.
The position of Christ was that of absolute perfection; He made His divine perfections shine like the sun upon all believing souls, and the bounties of the light shone and radiated in the reality of men. This is why He says: "I am the bread which descended from heaven; whosoever shall eat of this bread will not die" [1 Cf. John 6:41, 50, 58.] -- that is to say, that whosoever shall partake of this divine food will attain unto eternal life: that is, every one who partakes of this bounty and receives these perfections will find eternal life, will obtain preexistent favors, will be freed from the darkness of error, and will be illuminated by the light of His guidance.

The form of the seed was sacrificed for the tree, but its perfections, because of this sacrifice, became evident and apparent -- the tree, the branches, the leaves and the blossoms being concealed in the seed. When the form of the seed was sacrificed, its perfections appeared in the perfect form of leaves, blossoms and fruits." Abdu'l-Baha : Some Answered Questions

Thus this is the bounty of Free Will, the ability to choose. The chance to be born again in the Spirit.

Regards Tony

So you have nothing. Handwaving so wild it could take one into orbit is not an explanation either.

By the way, can you explain this without the Genesis myth? By relying on that you kill your argument from the onset.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Which chapter is that? I do not recall reading it. I could find it with a search but I am too busy with all these posts... I just rejoined a forum I had left so that adds more work for me.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 118-121

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 118-121

Regards Tony

Thanks... just added to my collection... This is the one I usually cite...

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.”
Paris Talks, p. 60

 

[TransmutingSoul]

By the way, can you explain this without the Genesis myth? By relying on that you kill your argument from the onset.

By refuting a part of the Bible, you have no argument to start with. If you refute it there is no need to talk. I will leave you with that opinion.

If you want clarification, then what was given is by a source that is connected to what is All Truth.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thanks... just added to my collection... This is the one I usually cite...

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.”
Paris Talks, p. 60

That is the short version giving the same intent as the Adam talk, without the direct reference of Adam

As we have been told there are many spiritual mysteries in the story of Adam and Eve.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

By refuting a part of the Bible, you have no argument to start with. If you refute it there is no need to talk. I will leave you with that opinion.

If you want clarification, then what was given is by a source that is connected to what is All Truth.

Regards Tony

Since parts of the Bible are obviously false then you seem to be admitting that all of it is false. Are you sure that you want to do that?

By the way, you need to learn the difference between opinion and fact.

There was no clarification in that post, at best you only had apologetics, also known as lying for Jesus. Have you ever considered a rational approach to your beliefs?

 

[james bond]

Athiesm doesnt relate to darwanism.

I said atheist science. That is today's science where God, the supernatural and the Bible are systematically eliminated due to religion. Compare it to creation science when scientists believed in God, the supernatural and the Bible. The rule scientists used back then was not to use God to explain one's theories. That is the original God of the Gaps warning.

Your argument is specious in that you deny atheists' worldview does not relate to Darwinism nor science.

Gay (sexual orientation) has nothing to do with evolution.

Then what was the big hubub about the gay gene and that it was innate?

Sex does not either.

Wow, this is too ignorant to receive a reply. You just stated that sex was about procreation. Then why the evolution of sexual reproduction?

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia

We can change our actions not our orientation.

One can change their orientation if it is a choice.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm.

I said atheist science. That is today's science where God, the supernatural and the Bible are systematically eliminated due to religion. Compare it to creation science when scientists believed in God, the supernatural and the Bible. The rule scientists used back then was not to use God to explain one's theories. That is the original God of the Gaps warning.

Never heard of "athiesm" in reference to science. We have a museum that goes through darwinism and etc in detail and it doesnt talk about any idea of an existence nor nonexistance of god. That came way later when humans try and still do make sense of be universe. Accouding to history, least European in nature, we werent even monotheists. God had no place.

Your argument is specious in that you deny atheists' worldview does not relate to Darwinism nor science.

Since there is no atheist worldview, yes, I reject it. Atheist reject god so there is no creationalism. How humans evolve could have many theories. I dont generalize.

Then what was the big hubub about the gay gene and that it was innate

I heard of the gay gene. I am gay and Im an athiest so we are not all in the same boat with generalizations. If there is a "gay" gene we havent found it. Our sexual orientation gay and straight (etc) is not fixed. Gay is an identity trait. Homosexuality is the better term if referring to science. It has no gender so it cant be gay or straight.

Wow, this is too ignorant to receive a reply. You just stated that sex was about procreation. Then why the

If you isolate the phrase I get your point. No need to be rude.

1. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with evolution
2. Sex (procreation) does not either. Sex is not a result of where you are gay or straight. If you can Do it, you can continue the human race. If not, you cannot. Gay has nothing to do with it

Gay neandrathals??

One

Straights cant change to be gay. They can change who they sleep with but not who they are attracted or not attracted to.

Can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said atheist science. That is today's science where God, the supernatural and the Bible are systematically eliminated due to religion. Compare it to creation science when scientists believed in God, the supernatural and the Bible. The rule scientists used back then was not to use God to explain one's theories. That is the original God of the Gaps warning.

Sorry, but now you are just making false accusations against others. Scientists do not need to eliminate that which does not exist. You simply do not like the more than reasonable claim that if you want to claim that a god exists the burden of proof is upon you. All of the science that you use in your daily life would be classified as "atheist science" by you. Normal people just call it "science". And there is no such thing as "creation science". Why do you keep repeating that error?

Your argument is specious in that you deny atheists' worldview does not relate to Darwinism nor science.

Hardly, atheists are merely more likely to accept reality than theists. That does not mean that accepting the fact of evolution is a must for atheists, in fact there are some rather strange atheists that do not accept the fact of evolution.

Then what was the big hubub about the gay gene and that it was innate?

So you did not understand the discussion. I don't think anyone has time to explain something that you will not understand. Please note, I did not say "can't". You won't let yourself understand That is not the fault of those making the explanation for you.

Wow, this is too ignorant to receive a reply. You just stated that sex was about procreation. Then why the evolution of sexual reproduction?

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia

One of the risks of quoting someone out of context is that one might not understand the argument and as a result they can't refute it. As you just did.

One can change their orientation if it is a choice.

Yes, if it was a choice. The only people that I have seen claim that it is a choice are very anti-homosexual people. That indicates to me that they are gay and are simply forcing themselves to be straight in spite of their actual desires. I think that they are jealous of those that are not afraid. I am straight, I have no real desire to be with someone of the same sex. I am not threatened by those that prefer those of the same sex. From my extremely non-representational of people on forums I have found that homophobia seems to be a fear of being gay for many of them. That does not mean that is true for the general population of homophobes, but there is some evidence that does support that claim.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I said atheist science. That is today's science where God, the supernatural and the Bible are systematically eliminated

None of those were eliminated. They didn't need to be. They were never in to be eliminated.

Science will include gods in its theories if and when there is a reason to do so, but not before. Scientists have made centuries of progress transforming the world without having to invoke a god.

Where would you stick a god in any scientific theory? Darwin's theory says that evolution occurs when genetic variation is subjected to natural selection, both blind, unguided, naturalistic processes. What's God's job there?

Compare it to creation science when scientists believed in God, the supernatural and the Bible.

There is no creation science just as there is o flat earth science. There is a pseudoscience called creationism, or intelligent design, that looks for gods in nature,. So far, they have found nothing.

Your argument is specious in that you deny atheists' worldview does not relate to Darwinism nor science.

There is no atheist worldview. An atheist need not ever have heard of Darwin or his theory. Atheism is the absence of a theistic worldview. The void can be filled by any world view without gods.Most of us are secular humanists. That would be our worldview, not our unbelief in gods, which isn't even a belief, much less a worldview.

An atheist might be an astrologer. He might believe that the stars fill the role of a god in controlling our lives. He's not a theist, but his worldview is nothing like the secular humanist's.

Stalinists were also atheists. We secular humanists have little in common with them, either, beyond atheism.

 

[Rival]

Hello there, I've came across this thread and I believe that you thoughtful individuals may have some interesting thoughts on secularisation in modern society-
As part of my A-level course we've been asked to collect data around this topic, here's a link to our survey, it will only take 2 minutes and your contributions will be appreciated

Is today's society religious?

Please pass on this link to anyone who may be interested
many thanks

Starting a new thread would be best.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

why many people reject christianity? is there a problem with the teachings and messages? the crucifixion of christ means nothing to them? don't they like a religion based on love? many people want proof. but, if there was proof, ''believing'' would be an one-way street and faith would be pointless. if there was undeniable proof, how would we choose christ as our saviour?

I reject Christianity because it was not the religion of my ancestors nor is it the current practice that Jesus taught...In fact Jesus was Jewish. I'd rather be a Noahide or Muslim than Christian.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Speaking for myself:

why many people reject christianity?

I see no reason to accept it.

is there a problem with the teachings and messages?

Yes, IMO.

the crucifixion of christ means nothing to them?

I see no reason to think it actually happened as described, but if I took it seriously, I would see it as an extreme negative, not a positive.

don't they like a religion based on love?

I don’t think that Christianity is based on love.

many people want proof. but, if there was proof, ''believing'' would be an one-way street and faith would be pointless. if there was undeniable proof, how would we choose christ as our saviour?

Very easily. “Obvious choice” is not the same as “no choice.”

Also, you should know that when I see people trying to make excuses for why I ought to accept their position without justification, I take this as their way of saying “my position has no justification.” Not only does this tell me that I probably won’t be convinced of their position, it suggests that their position isn’t even worth my time to investigate it.

 

[james bond]

Hmm.


Never heard of "athiesm" in reference to science. We have a museum that goes through darwinism and etc in detail and it doesnt talk about any idea of an existence nor nonexistance of god. That came way later when humans try and still do make sense of be universe. Accouding to history, least European in nature, we werent even monotheists. God had no place

Yesterday's creation science was changed in the 1850s by atheist Charles Lyell and his pupil Charles Darwin. Lyell wrote Principles of Geology and the process of uniformitarianism.

"in geology, the doctrine suggesting that Earth’s geologic processes acted in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity in the past as they do in the present and that such uniformity is sufficient to account for all geologic change. This principle is fundamental to geologic thinking and underlies the whole development of the science of geology."

Uniformitarianism | geology

Science started to question creation's catastrophism, i.e. today's earth was formed by Noah's flood. Lyell's English professor taught catastrophism and his pupil atheist Lyell rebelled against it.

If anybody should be saying "Hmm," then it should be me. If you're an atheist, then you should know this stuff. It's your history and part of your science.

Since there is no atheist worldview, yes, I reject it. Atheist reject god so there is no creationalism. How humans evolve could have many theories. I dont generalize.

See, there you go. You deny the atheist "religion." There isn't much point in discussing further until you become more familiar with your own "religion."

I heard of the gay gene. I am gay and Im an athiest so we are not all in the same boat with generalizations. If there is a "gay" gene we havent found it. Our sexual orientation gay and straight (etc) is not fixed. Gay is an identity trait. Homosexuality is the better term if referring to science. It has no gender so it cant be gay or straight.

If you isolate the phrase I get your point. No need to be rude.

1. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with evolution
2. Sex (procreation) does not either. Sex is not a result of where you are gay or straight. If you can Do it, you can continue the human race. If not, you cannot. Gay has nothing to do with it

Gay neandrathals??


Straights cant change to be gay. They can change who they sleep with but not who they are attracted or not attracted to.

Can you?

In a nutshell. Some atheist scientists think our behaviors is based on genetics. Creation scientists think it is based on environment. Since 2005, there is a new branch of scientific thinking based on epigenetics founded from the human genome chart in 2003. The epigenetics show that we have cells whose receptors can be turned on or off. Creationists think this favors God and his wonderful design. Of course, atheist scientists will claim it is evolution. The truth is we do not know what determines behavior. It could be multifactorial or a combination. For example, we had Nikolas Cruz kill high school students and teachers in Florida recently. His behavior can be explained by one of the above, but it's not a clear case of cause and effect. I think free will is still involved to explain why it is not a cause and effect.

Creation scientists think one can change their sexual "orientation." There is no "sexual orientation." That is an atheist science made up term. One was created male or female. One can change via a change in environment. However, the epigenetic factor also plays a role and can change a person's genetic makeup. In other words, it's that person's thinking and behavior that changes their gene switches to on or off. I realize this last piece is strange, but we've just began to use it in our science. It is and will be used in genetic engineering or modification.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

See, there you go. You deny the atheist "religion." There isn't much point in discussing further until you become more familiar with your own "religion."

I was following you up to this comment. Its very uneducated.

Athiesm is Not a religion.

I am not like atheists you meet online. Actually never knew what an atheist was until I came on RF.

What is an athiest religion?

Sounds like your definition of atheist is misguided so what atheism are you criticize?

Haha. Got to ask again cause it sounds silly, what is "my religion"? Who are you comparing me to?

Its not atheists I know that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yesterday's creation science was changed in the 1850s by atheist Charles Lyell and his pupil Charles Darwin. Lyell wrote Principles of Geology and the process of uniformitarianism.

"in geology, the doctrine suggesting that Earth’s geologic processes acted in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity in the past as they do in the present and that such uniformity is sufficient to account for all geologic change. This principle is fundamental to geologic thinking and underlies the whole development of the science of geology."

Uniformitarianism | geology

Science started to question creation's catastrophism, i.e. today's earth was formed by Noah's flood. Lyell's English professor taught catastrophism and his pupil atheist Lyell rebelled against it.

If anybody should be saying "Hmm," then it should be me. If you're an atheist, then you should know this stuff. It's your history and part of your science.



See, there you go. You deny the atheist "religion." There isn't much point in discussing further until you become more familiar with your own "religion."



In a nutshell. Some atheist scientists think our behaviors is based on genetics. Creation scientists think it is based on environment. Since 2005, there is a new branch of scientific thinking based on epigenetics founded from the human genome chart in 2003. The epigenetics show that we have cells whose receptors can be turned on or off. Creationists think this favors God and his wonderful design. Of course, atheist scientists will claim it is evolution. The truth is we do not know what determines behavior. It could be multifactorial or a combination. For example, we had Nikolas Cruz kill high school students and teachers in Florida recently. His behavior can be explained by one of the above, but it's not a clear case of cause and effect. I think free will is still involved to explain why it is not a cause and effect.

Creation scientists think one can change their sexual "orientation." There is no "sexual orientation." That is an atheist science made up term. One was created male or female. One can change via a change in environment. However, the epigenetic factor also plays a role and can change a person's genetic makeup. In other words, it's that person's thinking and behavior that changes their gene switches to on or off. I realize this last piece is strange, but we've just began to use it in our science. It is and will be used in genetic engineering or modification.

There is only one science. Do you mean different theories from creationisms vs. noncreationism?

They can both be scientists. Science that doesnt incorporate god in its theories. Their interpretation of the results is based on whether they apply a god to the equation and results. Science without the supernatural doesnt have a bias approach because there are many gods and many faiths that believe in the supernatual. So, the idea of using gods to, say find the right medicine for an illness sounds more like holistic medicine. They are still looking into holistic medicine.

Most countries and religions dont see science seperated from religion so the "atheist" science you speak of isnt shared by most of the world.

If I believed in god Id agree that god is the source of scientific studies. Since I do not, what do you think Im supposed to believe in before asking me?

Edit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was following you up to this comment. Its very uneducated.

Athiesm is Not a religion.

I am not like atheists you meet online. Actually never knew what an atheist was until I came on RF.

What is an athiest religion?

Sounds like your definition of atheist is misguided so what atheism are you criticism?

Haha. Got to ask again causr it sounds silly, what is "my relugion"? Who are you comparing me to?

Its not atheists I know that.

I think that when someone calls atheism a religion, it speaks volumes about their lack of understanding about the viewpoints of others. They can’t even fathom the idea that people might relate to the world in a way other than their narrow paradigm.

Every one of these conversation I’ve ever had:
What kind of car do you drive?

I don’t have a car.

What?! Nonsense. How do you get around?

I walk, mostly.

Then your feet are your car. See? You do have a car.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Creation scientists think one can change their sexual "orientation." There is no "sexual orientation."

Unfortunetly, they use science to reflect their religious views. Science isnt bias. There isnt anything that is god in a plant, for example. Its just a plant. The god part is humans.

Unfortunetly too creationist dont take homosexuals view into consideration of facts. Non bias science looks at all views. There is no bias in nature. Thats all human.

 

[james bond]

I was following you up to this comment. Its very uneducated.

Athiesm is Not a religion.

I am not like atheists you meet online. Actually never knew what an atheist was until I came on RF.

What is an athiest religion?

Sounds like your definition of atheist is misguided so what atheism are you criticism?

Haha. Got to ask again causr it sounds silly, what is "my relugion"? Who are you comparing me to?

Its not atheists I know that.

It is not uneducated, but based on creation and creation science. Could it be you since you did not know the history of atheist science such as uniformitarianism or Charles Lyell? I think you know about Darwin even though you may not be able to explain the science or his theories.

Sure, it is. It's based on faith that there is no God.

That's your own worldview.

Atheism and the foundations of communism. The US government will give you a tax deduction for an atheist church, but not the latter.

Your definitions are not backed by knowledge, so it could be one reason why you reject Christianity.

I'm comparing you to what I call the base "internet atheists." These atheists usually say you made the claim, so you have to prove it. Others state God doesn't exist because of science (atheist science), but they cannot explain this science. Still others think they are smart by claiming pigeon chess. I'm sure you've heard of them. I've been told that living the atheist life is expensive. One has to fly to conferences in exotic parts of the world or meet in nice bars and restaurants. Some think that atheist movement lacks community unless it's a virtual community.

And how do you know that???!!!???!!!