Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,131 Year: 1,012/14,231 Month: 1,012/1,514 Week: 45/234 Day: 26/19 Hour: 4/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I need an answer
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2944 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 16 of 58 (566051)
06-22-2010 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RyanVanGo
06-22-2010 1:36 PM


Re: Why The Need for Proof?
quote:
Well quite simply, no one ever specifically told me if i was supposed to take the bible literally.
No one told me either. Of course, I don't recall anyone telling me as an adult how to understand a book.
quote:
So if it's ever proven that the earth is 10,000 years old, that's the first step in a whole new series of questions to determine who/what i believe in.
The age of the planet isn't mentioned in the Bible, so the age of the planet is irrelevant to current religion or in determining who to believe. In reality, the people of the Bible didn't know they were on a planet or that there was more than the lands they knew.
quote:
Right now, the reason I've really started to chase this down, is that my belief that the story of Jesus may be not just inaccurate but a 100% complete fabrication. I like the idea that this was the son of God and died for my sins, despite that fact that there is no evidence, besides the bible and folklore (for lack of a more respectable term).
If you like the idea, then go with it. Why do you like the idea? Is it because of a possible afterlife?
quote:
It's a vicious cycle really. I have already questioned and eventually denied almost everything in that book because of rational thought, which soon I'm afraid will cause me to deny the entire book, then deny the existence of God or a god. to the atheist this doesn't matter, but when you go further it means there is no reason, short of self preservation, to obey any sort of morals. It's kind of depressing really.
You're going through a spiritual crisis. Been there, done that. Try studying what the Bible is and not what current religion or you want it to be. Each writing, whether fiction, poetry, or history; had a point to make to the civilization of the time. Remember, it was written for you.
Moral lessons, hope, and information can be passed through poetry, fiction, myth, legends, fables and parables. Lack of a god doesn't change one's moral fiber unless one wishes it to, just as having a god doesn't change one's moral fiber unless one wishes it to. So whatever path you choose is up to you. Don't blame it on a lack of a god. You decide whether you want to be a moral and ethical person or not.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-22-2010 1:36 PM RyanVanGo has not replied

  
hotjer
Member (Idle past 4031 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 17 of 58 (566053)
06-22-2010 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RyanVanGo
06-22-2010 1:36 PM


Re: Why The Need for Proof?
https://www.youtube.com/user/evid3nc3?blend=1&ob=4#p/c/A0...
I will recommend you to watch the seria "Why I am no longer a Christian". Personally, since I am an atheist/agnostic person, his videos helped me to understand the minds of Christians with greater dept than before. Without guessing to much, I guess you will see many similarities in what you are experiencing and what he went through.
To tell you what believers might call a "hidden agenda" then yes; I think, if you are somehow a reasonable person, this will speed-up you deconversion. Now you know it and now you can choose whether you want to watch his videos or not. However, I think you will be a happier person than you seem to be now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-22-2010 1:36 PM RyanVanGo has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3787 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 18 of 58 (566060)
06-22-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RyanVanGo
06-22-2010 1:36 PM


Re: Why The Need for Proof?
Hi RyanVanGo,
Sorry about mistaking your age; I wasn't trying to insult you. This is one of the most interesting threads I've seen on here in a while, because it is written by someone who is asking questions rather than defending something they already know (or believe) is true.
my stance is as follows (for now):
I believe that Jesus died for my sins, that he is the son of God. God created everything and has a divine plan. The Earth WAS NOT created 10,000 years ago. the vast majority of the bible is to give us a way to live and be good to others.
Sounds good to me. I was under the impression that this was what the vast majority of Catholics believed anyway.
By the way, I hope they taught you some science as well as religion at your schools. Basic geology is all you need to be able to see that creationism is exactly what you say it is: a misrepresentation of the facts. I have never seen a cogent creationist argument for the supposed fallibility of radiometric dating.
There's a poster on this forum called Catholic Scientist; maybe he'll share his views here at some point.
It's a vicious cycle really. I have already questioned and eventually denied almost everything in that book because of rational thought, which soon I'm afraid will cause me to deny the entire book, then deny the existence of God or a god. to the atheist this doesn't matter, but when you go further it means there is no reason, short of self preservation, to obey any sort of morals. It's kind of depressing really.
Like Purpledawn said, it sounds like you're having a crisis of faith. I had mine when I was 18, as I stated earlier. Having been a deeply believing Catholic before that, I can identify with the frightening feeling that you've learned something that cannot be ignored but which puts a huge part of your faith into doubt. It can feel like your whole world is crashing down.
For me, it was reading Joseph Campbell. He was a professor of comparative mythology. I'd never been taught about any religion other than my own up to that point, so I didn't know about the similarities of Bible stories to other religions, myths and folklores (for example, the striking parallels between Noah's flood and the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh on which it was doubtlessly based). I hadn't recognised the rich metaphorical language for what it was. In the past, people knew that myths weren't literally true, but that they operated on that poetical kind of level of wisdom beyond knowledge. I'm fond of metaphors so this was one of the biggest eureka moments in my life; but like you, I had no idea where that left my faith.
I even went to see a priest about it, LOL. But only because my parents made me. I didn't want to go and I don't remember what he said.
For a while I was simply an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. Atheism made me feel hollow though. A strong intuition has told me all my life that spirit exists in some way, and that there is more to life than what we perceive. I'm not happy unless I'm searching for that. My views are still not fixed, but I've adopted a little Eastern and New Age thinking, along with some pantheistic inclinations. The joy is in the searching really; I keep waiting for another eureka moment to tell me that I've found IT, the spirituality I'm after, but that may never happen. It is frustrating at times but it doesn't bother me too much.
I don't know if this helps at all but I thought I'd share what happened to me. I'm glad that I didn't end up simply believing the way I was programmed by my upbringing. It's good to question things.
Good luck with your appointment with the priest. You're welcome to tell us how it went

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-22-2010 1:36 PM RyanVanGo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 538 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 58 (566066)
06-22-2010 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RyanVanGo
06-22-2010 1:25 PM


Re: Thanks for the reply
If you are still a Catholic (as your reference later in this post to seeing a priest rather than a pastor or minister suggests), then you might consider what the late Pope John Paul II had to say about evolution:
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical (NB: he is referring here to the encyclical Humani generis of Pope Pius XII), fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
I don't see that any Catholic is obliged to be more hard-line on this subject than the Pope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-22-2010 1:25 PM RyanVanGo has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5558
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 20 of 58 (566070)
06-22-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RyanVanGo
06-16-2010 11:34 AM


Now from the reading and documentaries I've come across, I have simplified the 2 sides down to this:
Evolution: Here's our proof, here's what we know so far, there's a few holes, but we're working on it.
Creation: There's too many holes in evolution, it must be creation.
so the creationism theory says "Evolution isn't all correct, so it must be this" without giving me as much proof as evolution has. please someone show me the proof. Let me put it this way (while watching a documentary by Kent Hovind).
Long ago I heard "creation science" summarized as a book with two chapters:
quote:
Chapter One: Evolution
Chapter Two: Everything That's Wrong with Chapter One
And indeed, that is exactly what the "Two Model Approach" (TMA)of "creation science" is: just attack the "evolution model" (EM) which will then "prove" the "creation model" (CM) without ever having to present, discuss, or defend the "creation model." I have attended, heard, and read transcripts of several creationist debates and presentations, as well as having read a number of creationist books. Especially in the ones from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the very first thing that the creationist would do would be to establish the TMA (id est, that there are two and only two mutually exclusive models for origins) and then proceed to attack the EM while avoiding and even outright refusing to discuss or even present their own CM.
The TMA is an informal logical fallacy called the "False Dichotomy" (AKA "False Dilemma"). Dichotomies can be very useful, but the False Dichotomy is an abuse of that tool. If you truly have a limited number of possibilities, then you can determine the true one simply by eliminating the others; there's a mathematical proof, proof by contradiction, in which you prove something by assuming the opposite and then showing that that leads to a contradiction. But in a False Dichotomy, you leave out many of the choices that exist, forcing the victim of your swindle (which is what it is) to choose between two artificially constructed "choices". It is a con, a swindle, a lie, and a deception.
A very short history. Early in the 20th Century, high school attendence grew rapidly and just as rapidly parents became alarmed at what their children were learning in school. Coupled with political and social changes from WWI, and the spread of both modernism and fundamentalism, an anti-evolution movement took hold. They succeeded in implementing "monkey laws" in four states that made teaching evolution illegal (teachers in violation would be barred from teaching for life) as well as getting school boards and and textbook publishers to toe their line from the 1920's to the 1960's. They became less public in the 1920's, what with the public embarassment of the Scopes Trial and the death of their leader, William Jennings Bryan.
But then our rush to improve science education in reaction to Sputnik led to the reintroduction of evolution in science classrooms which in turn led to a teacher challenging the Arkansas "monkey law" which led to the US Supreme Court striking down all "monkey laws" as unconstitutional. The anti-evolution movement got back in gear and came up with "creation science" as a way to deceive the courts and the public ("No, no! We do not want to bar evolution because of our religious beliefs, but rather we have scientific reasons!"). One of the reasons why they need to use the TMA and to avoid presenting the CM is because that would immediately expose their true motives, which are purely religious.
Instead i need to see proof that the earth WAS formed 10000 years ago, and not only that, but that God is the one who formed it, with his hands, in 6 days. WITHOUT saying that our theories are wrong, but proposing new ones. please. my sanity and spirituality are on the line here.
No, you don't. You are falling for another creationist False Dichotomy. They tell you that you must either believe their CM (which is a literalist interpretation of Genesis, including the Flood and the earth being no older than 10,000 years) or be an atheistic "evolutionist". Either/Or, nothing else allowed! Not even the broad spectrum of different forms of creationist belief wherein most people find themselves.
That either-or choice is fraud, a deception, and a con. Do not fall for their trap! They are lying to you!
For that matter, their attacks against evolution and other sciences are also a pack of lies. Do not be fooled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-16-2010 11:34 AM RyanVanGo has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5558
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 21 of 58 (566073)
06-22-2010 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RyanVanGo
06-22-2010 1:36 PM


Re: Why The Need for Proof?
A rabbi wrote a book some years ago about how most adults have childish ideas about God, because they had formed those ideas in their childhood and then never went back to develop more mature ideas as they themselves matured. They continue to hold on to those childish beliefs and resist any efforts to get them to question them. But we must questions our ideas and beliefs, constantly. Not in order to question God, but rather to question our ideas about God (and other things as well), so that we can see where we have it wrong and so that we can then try to correct it.
A lot of people hold on to their religious beliefs even though they don't really know what those beliefs are based on. For example, a lot of church teachings (both Catholic and Protestant) are not based on the Bible. Furthermore, there are histories to specific beliefs, many of which are far shorter than you may realize (eg, as I understand it, papal infallibility and the worship of Mary stem from the late 19th century).
I would suggest that you do some such studying in order to gain a more complete understanding so that you can make a more mature and informed decision. For example, one atheist's testimony as to why she left Christianity was that one day she discovered that her church leaders had been lying to her all along: the books of the Bible were not written in the order in which they appear! Dumb reason!
Well quite simply, no one ever specifically told me if i was supposed to take the bible literally.
Nor had they me. But around age 12 or 13 I decided to start taking my Protestant faith seriously. I knew that I was supposed to belief what was in the Bible, so I started reading it from the beginning, applying nave literalism even though thinking back I'm fairly sure that literalism was not part of our doctrine. Well, needless to say, it didn't take long for me to realize that I couldn't believe what I was reading. Since I couldn't believe what I was supposed to believe, I guessed that I should just leave, which I did. Right decision, wrong reasons. That was about 45 years ago.
Even though I've been an atheist since then and I do not believe in the Bible having any divine properties, I also believe that it cannot be completely discounted either. At the very least, it (and the OT in particular) represents the accumulated wisdom of an entire people. I also found wisdom in much of the teachings of Jesus, despite the rest of the NT getting rather questionable due to Paul's creation of the religion of the Christ.
I'm mainly recommending that you think things through.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-22-2010 1:36 PM RyanVanGo has not replied

  
zoetherat
Junior Member (Idle past 3039 days)
Posts: 4
From: New Hampshire, US
Joined: 06-22-2010


(1)
Message 22 of 58 (566452)
06-24-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RyanVanGo
06-22-2010 1:36 PM


Re: Why The Need for Proof?
As a child of 12 years of catholic school, and a science enthusiasts I have been torn by the argument for as long as I can remember. Now from the reading and documentaries I've come across, I have simplified the 2 sides down to this:
Evolution: Here's our proof, here's what we know so far, there's a few holes, but we're working on it.
Creation: There's too many holes in evolution, it must be creation.
so the creationism theory says "Evolution isn't all correct, so it must be this" without giving me as much proof as evolution has.
I actually think the problem with creationism is even worse. All humans have evidence that the natural world exists. Believing that any supernatural entity exists in addition to that should require additional evidence. So even if there were no evidence for EITHER side, I still think it’s more logical to lean towards believing that there’s a natural explanation until such a time when there’s sufficient evidence to believe that the supernatural exists.
It's a vicious cycle really. I have already questioned and eventually denied almost everything in that book because of rational thought, which soon I'm afraid will cause me to deny the entire book, then deny the existence of God or a god. to the atheist this doesn't matter, but when you go further it means there is no reason, short of self preservation, to obey any sort of morals. It's kind of depressing really.
I can understand some reasons why ppl would want a God to exist, but I don’t understand the morality thing. I guess I’ve always seen morality as intrinsic by definition. Once you are moral for an extrinsic reason, then it’s no longer morality. It’s either self interest or mindless obedience. The fact that there are no reasons to be moral (outside of psychological/ biological ones) is kind of the whole point. It's something you choose to do because you want to do it.
Edited by zoetherat, : No reason given.
Edited by zoetherat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-22-2010 1:36 PM RyanVanGo has not replied

  
RyanVanGo
Junior Member (Idle past 4503 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 06-16-2010


Message 23 of 58 (566706)
06-26-2010 3:12 AM


I've Come To A Conclusion
I never did go to see the priest. After thinking about this for a long time, I realized that talking to a priest would simply be me trying to be talked out of thinking logically, and jumping back in to the whole "do it because someone else said it" thing. So here's what I've come up with, as best as I can explain it. I apologize in advance if it doesn't make a lot of sense, or if it seems like I've not thought long enough about it.
Evolutionists use simple reasoning and logic to deduce that, based on very clear evidence, the earth is billions of years old or at least WAY older than 10,000 years. There is way too much evidence out there saying that this is true. Yes there are holes in the theory, there are exceptions to the truths we've discovered but that doesn't completely disprove that this way is correct, and to think otherwise is a fallacy in deductive reasoning. Believing that evolution/age of the earth is a FACT is not a religion based on a belief system, but an almost perfect theory based on observed recordable data. We as a human race have evolved to a point that we can collect and organize this data and say "this is what happened, to the best of our knowledge". This is the scientific approach of taking the evidence and drawing a conclusion.
Creationists do in fact use evidence collected but don't use the same approach. There are things present on this earth that suggest a young earth, only not near enough to say "well there you have it, we're right". But based on conversations with Creationists this is generally not how they pose their argument anyway. They use the Bible as a historical text from eyewitness reports to pose their theories. They interpret the supernatural in a way that there CAN NOT be a working discussion with the people who don't believe it. It is a religion but can not be discounted. I know to say "they are not using logic to prove their theory" should say it's wrong, but that's where thinking like an evolutionist ruins the argument again. Because the belief that a lot of people I have spoken to have, is that any evidence pointing to evolution is the work of Satan injecting doubt in to our ever advancing minds. This to an evolutionist sounds like a cheap cop-out, but again, not thinking the same. If the Bible is all fact, and the earth was created in 7 days, and the supernatural exists, and Satan is providing doubt, then all the things evolutionists use as proof will no longer "hold up in court".
I know this is starting to sound silly, it's hard to make this point to both sides at once. but as a creationist if i say "well no your theories on evolution and speed of light in the astronomical and carbon dating are all seeds of doubt planted by Satan" an evolutionist would counter "no you can't use the supernatural to explain something you can't" well you can, because the evolutionist doesn't know the supernatural doesn't exist, we can't test for the existence of God or Satan. you can't. so logically, from a logical standpoint, if you can't prove that something does not exist, you don't have to accept that it does, but, to me at least, you have to accept that there is a REMOTE possibility. yes you have evidence pointing to a world from chaos, billions of years ago, but if the creationist view of "that evidence was placed here, Satan framed you" is admitted, yes your using what may seem like "magic and spells" but it kind of holds up.
my point is, i guess, that no matter how much the 2 sides argue, the arguments will match up. It can't happen, It's pointless to argue 1 side if the other is arguing something wholly different(id est science and faith).
so my conclusion is that I am agnostic. I want to believe that something created us, or at least put the parts in motion, but I'll never be able to prove it. at least this way, however poorly I can pose it, I can argue both sides. because that's what i like to do. I hope that made a shred of sense. It's always been difficult for me to write out thoughts and even now I know i didn't do it right. I'll keep posting on here though, and reading the replies because it's interesting.
Ryan

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-26-2010 3:54 AM RyanVanGo has not replied
 Message 25 by Huntard, posted 06-26-2010 4:14 AM RyanVanGo has replied
 Message 28 by zoetherat, posted 06-26-2010 6:21 AM RyanVanGo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 538 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 58 (566709)
06-26-2010 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RyanVanGo
06-26-2010 3:12 AM


Re: I've Come To A Conclusion
I know this is starting to sound silly, it's hard to make this point to both sides at once. but as a creationist if i say "well no your theories on evolution and speed of light in the astronomical and carbon dating are all seeds of doubt planted by Satan" an evolutionist would counter "no you can't use the supernatural to explain something you can't" well you can, because the evolutionist doesn't know the supernatural doesn't exist, we can't test for the existence of God or Satan. you can't. so logically, from a logical standpoint, if you can't prove that something does not exist, you don't have to accept that it does, but, to me at least, you have to accept that there is a REMOTE possibility. yes you have evidence pointing to a world from chaos, billions of years ago, but if the creationist view of "that evidence was placed here, Satan framed you" is admitted, yes your using what may seem like "magic and spells" but it kind of holds up.
And of course this sort of philosophical doubt can be applied to anything. Maybe I have three legs but Satan keeps fooling me into counting them wrong. Maybe the Bible that creationists keep pointing to doesn't even exist, it's just one of Satan's illusions to distract people from the matchless truth of Allah.
This sort of reasoning gives you room to be agnostic about the age of the Earth, but not particularly more agnostic about that than about any other proposition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-26-2010 3:12 AM RyanVanGo has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1782 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 25 of 58 (566711)
06-26-2010 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RyanVanGo
06-26-2010 3:12 AM


Re: I've Come To A Conclusion
RyanVanGo writes:
so my conclusion is that I am agnostic. I want to believe that something created us, or at least put the parts in motion, but I'll never be able to prove it. at least this way, however poorly I can pose it, I can argue both sides. because that's what i like to do. I hope that made a shred of sense. It's always been difficult for me to write out thoughts and even now I know i didn't do it right. I'll keep posting on here though, and reading the replies because it's interesting.
You could try looking into Deism. This seems to suit your way of thinking. The Deist believes god can be known by studying the natural world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-26-2010 3:12 AM RyanVanGo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-26-2010 4:51 AM Huntard has replied

  
RyanVanGo
Junior Member (Idle past 4503 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 06-16-2010


Message 26 of 58 (566712)
06-26-2010 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Huntard
06-26-2010 4:14 AM


Re: I've Come To A Conclusion
I actually looked in to it quite a bit, and to a degree that's how i was for a long time, but I think there's too much of a gap between the natural and supernatural to be able to even include them in the same argument. as was stated before you can basically use the logic i used before to argue any point, and that's true, even though it sounds ludicrous, how would you know Satan wasn't tricking me in to thinking i had 2 legs when i really have 3, you wouldn't because if he's doing it to everyone, no one would know. why? because we do not yet have the capacity to comprehend the supernatural, and it doesn't cross over to deductive reasoning.
it's because of this thought process I would find Deism difficult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Huntard, posted 06-26-2010 4:14 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 06-26-2010 5:06 AM RyanVanGo has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1782 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 27 of 58 (566713)
06-26-2010 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by RyanVanGo
06-26-2010 4:51 AM


Re: I've Come To A Conclusion
RyanVanGo writes:
I actually looked in to it quite a bit, and to a degree that's how i was for a long time, but I think there's too much of a gap between the natural and supernatural to be able to even include them in the same argument. as was stated before you can basically use the logic i used before to argue any point, and that's true, even though it sounds ludicrous, how would you know Satan wasn't tricking me in to thinking i had 2 legs when i really have 3, you wouldn't because if he's doing it to everyone, no one would know. why? because we do not yet have the capacity to comprehend the supernatural, and it doesn't cross over to deductive reasoning.
But thinking like this will get you nowhere. Sure, everything we see and experience can be an illusion, but why entertain that thought if you have apparently no way of telling? Until you can show that this is an illusion, it's merely a mechanism to postpone facing that which you basically (apparently) already know. That there is no evidence for what you believe. But because letting go of your beliefs scares you, you make up stuff like "well, it could be an illusion!" to try and hold o to them, even though you know there's absolutely no reason besides your preferred beliefs to do so.
It all comes back again to the question I asked earlier:
Do you care that what you believe is true?
Your answer is, apparently, "no". Since you made up this "cop-out", because you are scared of a reality without your deeply held beliefs. So, instead of waiting for evidence to determine what is or is not the case, you grasp at this "we could all be wrong!" straw to try and maintain the beliefs you do not want to let go of just yet. Of course we could all be wrong, which is why my beliefs are held tentatively. You on the other hand take this one step further.
Because we could all be wrong, you argue, I am going to go on believing what I do, despite the fact that there is no evidence for it. I live my life on every other level by looking at evidence first and drawing conclusion after, you say, except in this area. Here I prefer to just take my beliefs, and run with them, even though there is no evidence for them, after all, we could all be wrong, and I could actually be right!
I'm sorry Ryan, but that seems a bit silly to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-26-2010 4:51 AM RyanVanGo has not replied

  
zoetherat
Junior Member (Idle past 3039 days)
Posts: 4
From: New Hampshire, US
Joined: 06-22-2010


Message 28 of 58 (566716)
06-26-2010 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RyanVanGo
06-26-2010 3:12 AM


Re: I've Come To A Conclusion
if you can't prove that something does not exist, you don't have to accept that it does, but, to me at least, you have to accept that there is a REMOTE possibility
I accept that as well. The only thing we can know with absolute certainty is that we exist, as well as perhaps some mathematical and philosophical concepts. Everything else we believe about objective reality comes from evidence and our memories (our mental storage of evidence), and since there could be technological or supernatural ways to falsify either evidence or memories, we can never know for certain that they’re accurate.
However, having said that, we don’t believe in things because they’re possible; we believe in them because of evidence. For all you know, it’s POSSIBLE that I’m God and I created the universe two minutes ago. I made it with the appearance of age, including all living things, and gave you detailed memories of an older life. Being all powerful and all knowing, I created everything EXACTLY as it would be if it was billions of years old, down to the very last detail. Now, can you prove that this didn’t happen? No, you can’t. But I’m guessing you also don’t believe it happened.
Perhaps Loki, the Norse God of mischief, framed OJ Simpson for the murder of his wife using his supernatural powers or perhaps we’re all in the Matrix right now. I could list off a near infinite number of things that you can’t disprove, but which you don’t believe in. We humans base our beliefs on evidence because it’s the only tool we have to figure out what’s real out of that near infinite number of possibilities, and because it appears to work.
So to sum it up-
1) There are very few things we can rule out with absolute certainty.
2) Nonetheless, we base our beliefs on evidence.
So if a Christian told me; The evidence points to an old earth, but I believe in a young earth anyway, my first question would be why, since everyone bases the vast majority of their beliefs on evidence, would they make a special exception when it comes to their religious beliefs? My methodology for determining what is real is consistent, while theirs is not.
so my conclusion is that I am agnostic
Traditionally, atheist is defined this way-
Atheist- doesn’t believe in God
Agnostic- not sure
Theist- believes in God
However, those definitions are very imprecise. I prefer these ones. They treat one’s position on Gnosticism (knowledge) as a separate category from theism (belief).
Agnostic (weak) atheist- doesn’t believe in God but doesn’t know with absolute certainty.
Gnostic (strong) atheist- doesn’t believe in God and knows with absolute certainty.
Edited by zoetherat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-26-2010 3:12 AM RyanVanGo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-26-2010 7:15 AM zoetherat has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 538 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 58 (566719)
06-26-2010 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by zoetherat
06-26-2010 6:21 AM


Re: I've Come To A Conclusion
Traditionally, atheist is defined this way-
Atheist- doesn’t believe in God
Agnostic- not sure
Theist- believes in God
He said "agnostic", not "an agnostic". To say that one is an agnostic implies that the subject of one's agnosticism is the existence of God, but you can be agnostic about anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by zoetherat, posted 06-26-2010 6:21 AM zoetherat has not replied

  
RyanVanGo
Junior Member (Idle past 4503 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 06-16-2010


Message 30 of 58 (566746)
06-26-2010 3:31 PM


i understand
i completely get the points your making. i do. if i can't prove it didnt happen, i should believe in it by my logic. or by process of not being able to prove it's wrong i should give it a chance, even though it's wrong to me.
however, i am basing my belief that there IS a god who did these things based on evidence, albeit very little. The fact is that since man was able to think outside of the monkey mindset we have worship deities. why would this happen with no reason at all? I'm sure there are a few hypotheses as to why, but I'm taking it as evidence that there must have been witness of this, at some point and has been notably more refined as time goes on. this is small evidence, but enough, for me to ACKNOWLEDGE that there is a very real possibility, even though i'm not positive, i like to think so.
now if you really did create everything 2 minutes ago, please let me win the lottery this week.
thank,
Ryan

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Huntard, posted 06-26-2010 4:00 PM RyanVanGo has not replied
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-26-2010 7:24 PM RyanVanGo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023