...anyway, I've given up on debating religion. Somebody pointed out to me the inherent problem in language, and how futile it is to try to use it in arguing things like the bible. Here's an example: Examine the statement: I have a tree in my back yard. Seems like a fact, right? Maybe not, though. Imagine that somebody has a great interest in disproving the idea that I have a tree in my back yard. He could argue: The tree isn't really in your yard, as branches overlap another yard. It's not really your yard. You are a renter. It's not really your yard. It's the native americans' land. It's not really a tree, but a tall bush. It's not yard at all, just a small space behind the house. The yard and the tree don't really exist, but are really just metaphors for god's benevolence. etc. etc. They may in return retort that although it can't ever be demonstrated one way or the other because there are so many variables to account for, they have faith that the tree isn't in my yard. And I should respect that faith. No matter that when I look out my back window there's a god damned tree standing there. Now, instead of asserting that I have a tree in my back yard, try asserting that there's no fucking way a brontosaurus would fit on Noah's ark, even if it happened to be around 5000 years ago.
Brian already asked me that identical question and I've already answered it. Because source is irrelevant, what matters is the substance of what they say. If a crazy person says "Two plus two makes four," I'm not going to say he's wrong just because he's crazy. The teachings ascribed to Jesus (whether he really said them or not is a different question) have a great deal of sense to them. Therefore, it doesn't matter who said them.
I don't understand the angry tone in many of your posts. You believe the universe is created strictly through natural processes. As proof, you offer that there is no evidence that it couldn't happen? Fine, no one is mocking your view or the fact that you are the only one here claiming anything with certainty (that creation is delusion). There is no proof that God didn't creat the universe either, so why are you so quick to label it as false? Why can't you accept that no one here really knows and it's faith regardless of which side you're on.
There is only the One True Prophet, Jimi Hendrix. Although the scripture originated in The Book of Dylan, his version was unlistenable and it is now blasphemous to put it on your iPod. Hendrix showed us that to truly appreciate life, you must avoid the harmonica, play the guitar in an interesting way, and not sing through a clogged nose. Praise be upon him.
Faith, to me, is accepting as true, absent absolute proof, what you believe to be the most likely explanation as to what you observe. If you really think science offers absolute proof on these basic issues, then I would call that self-delusion.
Just as a side note, how cool are these lyrics anyway? "There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief, "There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief. Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth, None of them along the line know what any of it is worth." "No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke, "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate, So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late." All along the watchtower, princes kept the view While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too. Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl, Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl. I think the two riders are actually the joker and the thief, and the prince is watching them from above as they discuss the indignities of being artists. Interestingly, the thief is the one who's relaxed with the situation--seems like it almost foretells music piracy. I suppose the wind represents some sort of social revolution that only the joker and thief seem aware of....
mocking in certain cases to make a point strongly, but if you think my posts are angry you're taking this too personally gaaah you didn't read a thing i wrote. try again.
talking about truth in terms of probability ("most likely") based on observable evidence is definitionally not faith : ) so would i. good thing i didn't say that.
science is just a method for determining probabilities based on external evidence. it's not an internal thought process.
Not true. There's no requirement that you check your brain at the door of a church. The Bible says that there is enough evidence in creation for anyone who is willing to look to see that God exists. However, you'll never be able to offer a scientific test that will prove it. One has to accept that this is one area where we're not going to know with absolute certainty in this lifetime. In the face of that, as I see it there are three options: 1. Accept God's existence on faith. 2. Deny his existence and believe in the origin of the universe and life through strictly natural processes even though science has limitations that ultimately make this a statement of faith of another kind. 3. Simply don't make a choice.
You're right, my apologies. I misread this as saying that believing in creation is delusional. I still find it strange how many people here are so quick to claim that creation, or a creator, is absolutely false when there really is no more proof that the universe and life was created naturally.
You're splitting hairs. What I meant, and what you must surely understand, is that people can use the claims of "science" to justify their personal beliefs just as easily as others can use the claims of the Bible for the same purpose.
not your brain, just your objectivity. "anyone willing to look" is meaningless cult-speak. obviously millions of people look at nature and don't see evidence for god. BILLIONS look at nature and don't see evidence for the intervening manipulating hebrew god described in the bible. if you want to hide god in a corner detached from the physical world you can't disprove him, no. however there is plenty of scientific evidence that the bible contains a LOT of historical inaccuracy and fits a pattern of typical human mythology, and metaphysical claims in it have a probability approaching 100% of being false. so if you want, god in the christian sense most people here are talking about has already been for practical purposes scientifically disproved. if you're accepting that we're not going to know the truth of the origin of the universe in our lifetime that's all you need to say, and all you can say - WE DON'T KNOW. duh. no need to delude yourself one way or the other with "faith".
sure, but that says nothing about the validity of science itself. unlike religious belief science itself has nothing intrinsically to do with faith.
this is a bit of a straw man. i've been reading about and debating this stuff for 15+ years and i've never heard anyone actually say that. they may say the specific gods as described in the bible, koran, vedas etc are absolutely false, or that the evidence indicates an intelligent designer isn't necessary to explain the physical world, or that god is improbable to some extent, but nobody ever claims a creator is "absolutely" false.
This is the type of thing I'm talking about and I'm sure I 've seen many other posts saying similar things It's ridiculous that all religions get lumped together as "oversized cults" and I've seen many posts claiming how religion brainwashes and anyone who has faith in a God is not thinking for themselves. Personally, I'm not very religious, but I am much more religious now than I was 10 years ago. The reason for this, IMO, is that I started thinking for myself. There are too many questions left unanswered by science for me to think there isn't some other factor.
I respect your choice, but that doesn't seem like a compelling reason to believe in religion to me. The so-called "God of Gaps," filling in unknowns with god, is what cultures have done for eons and it rarely seems to have been necessary in hindsight. At one time, thunder and lightning were "unanswered questions," and thus people used god as the answer. Now we can answer questions about the nature of thunder and lightning using scientific explanations, so the God of Gaps is applied to new things. Many of which may well be answered with rational, testable explanations, which will push religion (for those who are inclined) to be about something else. Far be it from me to tell other people what to think, but it seems like an unnecessary exercise to me.
But that goes both ways, doesn't it? If science can prove to me how life can to be, fine, I can accept that. But what if science can one day prove that God exists? At this point, I believe that a creator is the most logical conclusion. Not the story of creation or even some guy sitting in the heavens, but that some force made life and reproduction and evolution possible. Like I said before, I don't claim to know how the universe was created, it just seems thickheaded, to me, to rule out one possibility.
