The One Thing That Bothers Me About The Creation Story

[Internet Jesus]

The one thing that bothers me about the creation story and that is how well it fits when you consider it a metaphor.

 

If you ignore the fact that 'heavens and the earth' implies a flat earth, the moon isn't a light, but a reflector, and that birds came after land mammals, two humans is not enough genetic variation for an entire race to spawn, the bible fails to mention microbes and cells, and the tiny parts of his miracle, and the process of evolution itself is continuing today etc. If you ignore all of that etc.

 

I speak of course of the rising of consciousness of man.

 

"Mankind has started control over evolution ever since the invention of the midwife." A sociology teacher

I argue 'since the invention of the spear' but you understand.

 

metaphorically speaking, the rise to consciousness through biting the apple is an almost spiritual event.

Somewhere along the line an ape 'bit the apple' and chose a selfless deed over a selfish survival mechanism.

That may have even been hundreds of thousands of years after man's walk out of the jungle across Africa and into ancient Mesopotamia for all we know, but morally someone took the first step. I wonder if it gave him a dizzy feeling.

 

Creatures that live in communities seem to survive longer, creatures that are hatched and spread have more variation. We as the mammal homo erectus to homo sapian at one point only cared for our circle of families and mates. As our consciousness grew so did our circles.

Globalization has offered us worldwide consciousness or an even deeper sense of morality, the tiny obligation to each human we're supposed to have.

 

Creationists almost have it correct in this respect.

In that, beasts all around us don't understand the "good" we've brought to them.

or perhaps to us humans delivered from nature, nature tells us that evil is simply that which stalls procreation.

 

 

I'm not implying that we are moral creatures. We have a sense of morality but most human morality is based on a community's survival.

It is rare I see an act of morality for the genuine survival of life outside of ones self.

 

 

Just one more reason I see no god. Most of us haven't made it out of the tick infested jungles of highschool.

If god gave man an apple, he waited a long time for the realization of 'good and evil' to sink in.

 

 

Imagine what the squirrels must be thinking of us humans.

They'll be next, I know, I saw them attack a man in NYC!

[Guest writerwriter]

'heavens and the earth' implies a flat earth,

 

Actually what that implies is that the writer didn't have the slightest concept that there was anything beyond the moon they could see and the land they lived on.

 

"Mankind has started control over evolution ever since the invention of the midwife." A sociology teacher

 

Really? I would say that humans have precisely no control over evolution. If they had, then the stupid argument from creation would not exist at all.

 

the rise to consciousness through biting the apple is an almost spiritual event. Somewhere along the line an ape 'bit the apple' and chose a selfless deed over a selfish survival mechanism.

 

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? It assumes the existence of said apple, which never existed. That story is at best metaphore and has no truth to it.

 

Creationists almost have it correct in this respect, in that beasts all around us don't understand the "good" we've brought to them.

 

This assumes a heirarchy, which does not exist in reality. Humans have not brought good to beasts. We humans are mamals with communications systems, as are whales and apes, etc, but we are not 'better' than those animals. We are as vulnerable if not much more, as we humans tend to kill each other for the most idiotic of reasons; animals much less often commit murder.

 

I'm not implying that we are moral creatures. We have a sense of morality but most human morality is based on a community's survival. It is rare I see an act of morality for the genuine survival of life outside of ones self.

 

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes an exceptional chapter on morality and it's distinct relationship (lack of one, actually) with religion.

 

It is critical to get completly outside the cobbled-together stories in religious texts, as clinging to those is a real impediment to rational thought.

[Internet Jesus]

Actually what that implies is that the writer didn't have the slightest concept that there was anything beyond the moon they could see and the land they lived on.

 

agreed

 

 

Really? I would say that humans have precisely no control over evolution. If they had, then the stupid argument from creation would not exist at all.

 

what do you call a condom?

modern medicine?

genetics?

one might argue that the only difference between us and animals the the consciousness of evolution and the ability to influence it.

 

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? It assumes the existence of said apple, which never existed. That story is at best metaphore and has no truth to it.

 

Obviously the apple is metaphorical.

Imagine the first man to help a wounded animal out of a sense of conscious good will.

It must have truth to it, else why are we typing here today?

 

This assumes a heirarchy, which does not exist in reality. Humans have not brought good to beasts. We humans are mamals with communications systems, as are whales and apes, etc, but we are not 'better' than those animals. We are as vulnerable if not much more, as we humans tend to kill each other for the most idiotic of reasons; animals much less often commit murder.

 

True true, allow me to clarify myself.

We have surrounded animals in intelligence. I am implying that 'good' is the awareness of one's origin and consciousness of another animal's consciousness. This spawns morality. I must say, no matter how bad the worst human has been, our moral end is still a 'good' thing. [if I weren't such a nihilist I would say 'good' were tangible'

 

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes an exceptional chapter on morality and it's distinct relationship (lack of one, actually) with religion.

 

It is critical to get completly outside the cobbled-together stories in religious texts, as clinging to those is a real impediment to rational thought.

 

I've read that chapter over and over.