Over the past several thousand years, man has continuously asked the question of why he existed, and even more importantly, what happens after we die. The obvious truth, that the same thing happens to humans as it does to every other life form on the planet, well, it?s not pretty. So humans invented gods.And when I say gods, I mean lots and lots of gods. Thousands of them. Each of the gods gave pretty much the same explanation of man?s purpose, as well as an answer as to why the earth shook, the stars glimmered, the moon changed phases, and the weather changed seasons. Most gods had supporting evidence of their existence. People ?felt the presence? of Zeus on Mt Olympus, and where do you think that lightning came from, anyway? Miracles were witnessed, gospels were written and embellished over time, songs of praise were written and sung. All gods promised immortality and some form of enlightenment AFTER death, and to varying degrees, all described bad afterlives for those who disbelieve. Most of these gods are dismissed today as mythology, because we know why the earth shakes and why seasons change. The mysteries of the world are becoming apparent, slowly but surely. Additionally, the number of religious wars has resulted in conquorings and conquest, so today there are far fewer gods considered ?real? by anyone than there once were. Still, the gods of today have NO MORE evidence supporting their existence than their predecessors. People ?feel their existence?, ?see miracles? even though NONE have ever been proven, and sing songs of praise. But there is no more support for these gods than there ever was for Thor, Qetzalcoatl, and Hawaiian Tikki gods. I?m no fan of watering down the truth, so here?s a nice absolute. There is not a single reason to accept any of today?s gods that wasn?t used to support the gods we all consider mythology. This leads to one undeniable conclusion: religion and mythology are the same thing. Discuss.
I’ve just come in to these postings. Forgive me for perhaps asking something which may have already been discussed.
I am not intending to be argumentative, but am simply asking basic questions and welcome thoughtful discourse. I’m not intending disrespect, nor do I wish to belittle, antagonize or mock. So forgive me ahead of time if my words lend themselves to those sorts of things. I mean no offense to anyone.
On that note…
Is it possible to prove proof? If “proof” is required for truth, then I should be able to handle proof with my senses. I should be able to prove the necessity of proof. It should be able to be tested by its own standards, in other words.
But I’ve yet to be able to do that. I know the concept “proof” but I’ve never seen it. Proof, in other words, I don’t think, can itself survive the rigors it demands of religion and the existence of God.
Proof cannot be proven, in my estimation. It’s a philosophical construct when it comes to determining the existence of a deity.
I’m not disparaging proof as it exists in testing and retesting in the sciences. No. It’s a valuable tool in this regard.
If proof is necessary for truth, though, we’ve got a problem as I see it and it actually has little to do with religion.
I can’t “prove”, for example, that the Boston Tea Party happened or that George Washington existed, even if I dug up his bones or found tea crates at the bottom of Boston Harbor. How do I know the bones in the grave belong the man in the paintings and the Virginia Ranger of Fort Duquesne fame and first President? How would I know I was looking at royal tea from the British East India Company or that such a company even really existed?
We have written historical, eyewitness accounts (how can I deem those trustworthy?), but nothing empirical which would validate what I seek. Even if I put my hand on an artifact, I have no means by which to judge its authenticity except the testimonies of the authorities & historical records, which are nothing more really than people’s eyewitness accounts.
I can visit the Boston Harbor and Mt. Vernon, but those places don’t prove the reality of Washington and the Tea Party.
Even in life, I tell people who I am. I am living in the flesh, live and in person, but yet I’m continually asked to “prove” who I am when I go to the bank, gym, airport, etc.
Proof, as I read it, seems to be an issue of trust, not empirical evidence.
I would not have to show my ID anywhere if people trusted me when I told them who I was.
I can show them my driver’s license, but that too could be forged.
I can’t even prove I exist based on the criteria people seem to be applying for proving God. Jesus spoke to in the flesh and people who saw Him with their own eyes didn’t believe Him. Even one of the disciples doubted His resurrection.
According to the requirements demanded by proof, my existence thus seems dependent on “documents” and the testimony of other people. But if no one trusts me or those sources then I really don’t exist.
Proof requires trust. Belief or unbelief is not a matter of having or not having proof, it’s a matter of believing or not believing.
For example –
Prove Darwin existed. Prove he traveled on a ship called the Beagle. Prove Darwin wrote Origin of the Species by himself. Prove he believed what he wrote. Prove what he wrote is true.
To do any of these things is to trust in what is written and the historical account surrounding that work.
That’s belief. You trust in the authority what others have said of the past and have chosen to believe it as true.
But you have no proof. At least not the sort you demand of Christians. You have a book with words in it, just as the Christians do. Both books make some astounding claims about our existence. Many people believe them.
But there is no real proof. Again, at least not in my opinion anyway.
DRay,
You’re right, there is no way to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Darwin ever existed. But as far as the belief that evolution is a good description of reality, it’s irrelevant. Evolution stands on it’s own regardless of who’s name is on the title page. It doesn’t need Darwin and it doesn’t need Darwin to have even believed in his own theory.
You say that both books make astounding claims about our existence. This is true. Fortunately for the Theory of Evolution, we can independently research it’s claims and determine for ourselves if the Theory allows us to make accurate predictions. Thankfully it does. By studying and revising the Theory of Evolution we can make accurate predictions about the kind of fossils we might find and the kind of fossils that we will never find. We can also make accurate predictions about how new diseases will mutate and spread as they change during each new generation. The list goes on and on. Unless you don’t believe that these predictions are accurate you have to at least believe that some parts of the Theory of Evolution are useful for making predictions. That does not amount to proof (as defined scientifically), but it does allow scientists to make predictions that will not embarrass them in the future.
On the other hand, Christianity (for instance), requires that Jesus Christ existed at some point and that he is the son of a deity, and that following the cryptic instructions in the Bible will allow you to join him for an eternal party (but only after you die, of course). If any of these things are not true the whole system falls apart, and some of those claims are incredibly astounding. Some would say just as astounding as the claims in the Theory of Evolution. But many of the important claims in the Bible either cannot be researched or have failed to produce accurate predictions when they can be researched.
So you’re right, many many things cannot be proven, all you can ever do is provide evidence. The day the Bible can be used to make accurate predictions about it’s more incredible claims is the day this sort of argument will start holding water. But so far, there is only spurious evidence that Jesus existed, there is no evidence that his deity daddy exists, and all the research behind prayer (as described in the Bible) has come up empty.
Does that amount to proof that the Bible is wrong? No, of course not. But the doubt about it’s claims should already be quite strong, just as strong as the initial doubt about evolution. The burden of proof (if you want, we can call it the burden of sufficient evidence) is still on the believer.
We demand no more of Christians than they initially demanded of Darwin’s theory. It’s not our fault that Darwin’s theory has stood up to investigation much better than the Bible’s supernatural claims.
Thanks for the thoughts again. Yet I’m still curious as to the whole notion of proof itself. It’s not a prerequisite for truth.
At least I don’t think so.
Prediction, though, is not the same as proof. It means perhaps you might have part of the picture, but “prediction” itself implies you don’t have all the facts, but a theory. If you had proof, there would be no need of predicting. We can predict how genes behave but that doesn’t prove evolution is true, it proves how genes work.
There is no fossil record of transitional species, but there should be. If all of this gradual transition of species has been taking place for billions of years, then at least I would think we’d have a great deal of rather odd fossils lying about in great quantities, many transitional species that didn’t make it up the food chain, so to say.
Even the gem of the evolutionary world, the archeopterex, the dinosaur bird fossil, was exposed as a fake several years ago.
The fossil record hasn’t yielded anything.
And trilobites, one of the creatures which appears quite low on the Darwinian evolutionary scale, has eyes, fully formed.
Where’d they come from?
Darwin was troubled by the mechanism of the eye. He himself said so. He believed it was far too complex and too intricate to have formed by countless mutating processes.
Evolution has many rather stark and supernatural claims that cannot be proven.
Such as the theory that all life arose from a singular source, a pool, an organism, etc. That life came through a series of conditions and that this life was the source of all subsequent life.
No one can prove that.
No one has been able to recreate that sort of life in any laboratory, either. They’ve tried, but to no avail.
It remains unprovable.
Darwin himself said that it was possible that his theory could break down. Evolution depends, and in fact requires, a great deal to be true in order for it to work.
Again, we both accept our texts on faith.
It’s not an argument to win, but a premise to realize. We both are on the same page in defending what we believe to be true.
There are things we cannot prove ourselves but believe nevertheless.
I cannot prove Jesus walked on water any more than I can prove George Washington crossed the Delaware.
I cannot prove God created the heavens and the earth any more than an evolutionist can claim how life began.
I see the evidence of existence and believe by faith an account of how it got here.
I can’t prove it, though.
Truth does not require proof, but trust and belief.
“Astounding” is not something which I think is prohibiting either of us from believing our versions of the truth.
I’d say it’s an accurate claim about the Bible’s claims. You bet.
The God who created all this comes down in the form of an unborn child, is born humanly and lives among His creation, suffering and dying for them.
The Word made flesh is astounding, I grant you. I wish more believers would see it that way. Unfortunately it’s become so taken for granted that we (and I include myself) lose the wonder of it and our lives reflect more a fascination with this world than with God and His glory.
Again, I think all I’m trying to see and understand is that the paradigms for accepting what we believe as true are essentially the same.
1. We each have our texts
2. We each believe what those texts say about our existence.
3. We trust in the authorities of those texts without having “proof” in an exhaustive context. In short we have “faith” in what we believe.
4. We accept these texts as truth to the exclusion of other claims, defending and articulating them to the best of our limited abilities.
Thanks again for your thoughtful exchanges. They’ve been tremendously helpful.
Dan Ray
DRay,
“The whole notion of proof” is that it’s only applicable to mathematical models. Only if everyone accepts the assumptions that he mathematical model rests on can anything be proven. So “proof” is not a very useful concept for the kinds of things we’ve been talking about.
Yes there is, quite a lot actually:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
No, it wasn’t. There were questions raised about the authenticity of the fossils, but the fossils were defended with perfectly valid responses. Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx#Controversies
The amount of validity is, of course, my opinion.
Eyes appear to have evolved before or during the Cambrian period, so that’s where they came from.
Indeed he did, that’s why it was important that later evolutionary scientists research come up with a plausible explanation for how eyes could have evolved. And they did just that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
What exactly does that have to do with evolution? Evolution has nothing to say on the topic of the origin of life.
Also, all science is trying to do is come up with a model for evolution that is well supported in the natural world. A formal proof is beyond the scope of a non-mathematical field.
No, it remains unproven, not unprovable. Jumping to conclusions is a logical fallacy.
Darwin did indeed say that. But research has provided evidence and useful predictions that back up the core of Darwin’s views (the specifics have certainly needed to be altered to match current research). Evolution has plenty of evidence to back it up, so there is very little (if any) ‘faith’ involved.
Like what?
Do you make decisions that have lasting ramifications based on the idea that Washington crossed the Delaware? I should hope not. But I’d bet that’s not true of your belief in Jesus.
I’ve seen no formal claims from abiogenesists as to how life began. I’ve only seen theories with little evidence to back them up. Anyone who accepts these theories as the truth is committing a logical fallacy, the same is true of anyone who accepts God’s existence.
That depends highly on the definition of ‘truth.’ If it’s loose enough to require mere acceptance, then you’re correct. But that’s an awfully lame definition.
What exactly is my version of the truth? I seem to recall accepting ignorance rather than jumping to conclusions whenever possible. I hold no astounding beliefs that can’t be backed up.
That’s awfully vague. I have research and reliable predictions. Though they do generally appear written down somewhere.
No, I do not simply believe these things. I study the research and the usefulness of the predictions. Only then does belief come about.
No, I have the ability to study (and in some cases perform) the research myself. Formal proofs are left to purely mathematical models and are not very useful in general. There is no faith in what I believe. I only believe in models that can be shown to make useful predictions.
The only thing I have to trust is that the entire scientific community is not lying. But I don’t have to trust that for long since there is always some independent party around to verify the results. Unverified results are not yet trustworthy. So I suppose my only options are to believe that the scientific process has merit (and that can easily be shown), or be a conspiracy theorist.
I accept theories only if they can make useful predictions. Other theories, even competing theories, are not excluded until their predictions can be shown to be false.
Sorry Dan, I don’t think you have a very good understanding of the scientific mindset or process. You should go back to asking questions rather than making bizarre claims.
DRay,
One thing I forgot to mention:
You’re committing a logical fallacy known as the Equivocation Fallacy when you use the word ‘faith’ as you have.
Read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
The problem is that ‘faith’ has two different definitions that are not interchangeable, but you’re using them as if they were interchangeable.
‘Faith’ as applied to religious though is “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence” (definition from answers.com).
But ‘faith’ as applied to scientific beliefs is “Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing” (from answers.com again). This confidence comes about by examining the evidence and logic presented and making sure it is sound.
So when you try to compare scientific thought to religious thought by saying that they both use ‘faith,’ you’re just comparing apples to oranges since the two kinds of faith are fundamentally different.
In comparing religion to science you’ve ignored the fundamental difference between the two: science requires evidence but religion does not. Any comparisons you want to draw between the two will not make up for this fundamental difference in any meaningful way.
Who or what constitutes “acceptable” evidence?
For there is a host of evidence that validates much of the Bible.
I would suggest its a matter of what sort of evidence one wishes to accept or consider valid.
“No evidence” is not necessarily indicative of untruth.
Evolution, for example has a great deal of fossils to produce. Yet despite the lack of evidence, evolutionists still believe. Darwin thought the fossil record would eventually yield the bones of transitional species.
But it hasn’t.
In spite of this, however, evolution advocates claim there is sufficient evidence to support it.
Darwin does this through expressing his own incredulity with the development of the eye.
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
I agree.
He goes on to suggest, that despite the lack of visible evidence, we ought to believe the eye formed through natural selection anyway.
He urges us to accept the eye gradually formed through natural selection “although in this case he does not know the transitional states.”
Really? Why should I do this?(This is on page 133-134 of the book I have in front of me).
So where’s the evidence of gradual natural selection of the eye? Why doesn’t Darwin need evidence in order to assert this truth? It’s a stretch. I’d like to see it.
Oh, no wait. That took millions of years. We don’t have the luxury of making such an observation.
A convenient rationale.
No one has ever observed the evolution of the eye and no one ever will. Darwin was guessing. Mutating bacteria do not yield eyes. They yield other substances, but not complex life.
Again, “evidence” is in the “eye” of the beholder. Really bad pun intended there, sorry.
Anyway, that’s what I think. I might be wrong.
DRay
DRay
No thinking here. Just a copy&paste of the same mindless drivel creationists have been mouthing for a century and a half, filled with all the standard false facts, outdated facts, facts out of context, made-up facts, non sequiturs, misdirections, misrepresentations of scientific findings and scientific theories, and all the multitude of other reasons why scientists, in the words of Stephen Jay Gould, “regard creationists with a mixture of annoyance and amusement.”
You’ve accomplished nothing by repeating this screed here. Virtually everybody on this blog has seen it and critically examined it dozens of times before, and already knows what nonsense it is.
We’ve seen many religious fanatics come up, so taken with their own self-assuredness that they take it for granted all we need is to hear their words of wisdom and we’ll all immediately see it for the truth you imagine it to be.
Your impatience, prompting you to post this 2nd diatribe before alatham had responded to the previous one, was probably needless. Perhaps, in your fervor, you failed to notice there was an election yesterday? Lots of us are groogy from following the returns all nite; maybe alatham will return when he’s recovered, and resume trying to get thru to your impenetrable mind. If he does, I will continue following your exchanges with interest, but I don’t expect to participate much. I have already offered you the best advice I can — If you want to know about science, then get yourself educated in science — and you have chosen to ignore it.
NotSoFast,
You are so right…though it is a hoot reading the exchanges back and forth. How many times do you suppose alatham will have to tell this guy that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion of the origins of life? Willful ignorance, and it is just too funny.
As I’ve noted before, alatham is a wonder to have that much patience. Andy for prez in 2016!
Yes, Andy is truly gracious.
I’m sorry you think what you do about me.
I’ve enjoyed discussing things with Andy. He at least has told me that he has too.
As in previous posts, I have been attempting to understand what an atheist/agnostic believes about origins.
Andy rightly told me what I was getting into in here. I told him I knew that.
I’ve never got personal with him, nor he with me. We have exchanged a host of ideas and concepts which is what I wanted to do. I am in a learning process of other people’s viewpoints and sharing and contrasting my own with them.
I have expressed my doubts and beliefs and Andy has done the same with me.
I welcome comments, of course. I truly am convinced, however, that no matter what Andy believes, he’s been gracious. If he thinks I’m a fool, he hasn’t let on.
I can’t tell you what to think of me either. I respect your thoughts and perspectives, but I am attempting to avoid being personal or causing offense. I’m sorry you all believe you think my inquiries are mindless drivel.
I realize where I am and what I’m doing. I accept the critiques. Andy told me to expect as much. That’s ok. I’m not trying to tell anyone what to do. I don’t think I’m going to change anyone’s mind.
I am examining my worldview against other worldviews and attempting to understand from a layman’s perspective what the average
“unbelieving” person actually believes and how it compares to what I believe.
I mean no offense by using the term “unbeliever” either.
I’m sorry you think what I’ve written is a diatribe and fanatical.
You are welcome to comment of course, but I am unlikely to respond if you think I’m acting merely in willful ignorance?
Could perhaps you comment on what you think of the passage about the eye in Origin anyway. I am simply trying to find out what the folks think about things like that.
Andy has been a great sport. We’ve jabbed and my exchanges with him have been spirited but tempered with kindness and an acknowledgment I’m addressing another human being.
I hope I can perhaps one day meet him.
He might be a good president.
And yes, I was aware of the elections.
Dan Ray
Tamara:
I have a question for you if you’d like to offer an answer.
If evolution is not about the origins of life, why did Darwin title his book the Origin of Species?
Am I misunderstanding something about the word “origin”?
And, again, to NotSoFast, I have studied science. I’m a teacher. I’ve taught science. Not long ago, I took college courses at a “secular” university in physics, astronomy and biology to better understand the perspectives of an unbelieving world, if you will, on the universe and its existence.
Thanks for your suggestion, though.
DRay
No, but you might have dyslexia of some sort.
The operative phrase is species.
All you’ve done thus far, is regurgitate all the old talking points of the creationists. All these have been addressed (or better yet, debunked) @ length.
Here is the link: http://www.talkorigins.org/
Do some actual research. & stop behaving as if obsequiousness is an adequate substitute for intelligence.
‘Cause it ain’t.
Dearest Krystalline Apostate
Yes, the operative phrase is indeed “species”, sure. But can you help me understand what is meant by “origin” though? I mean I assume that means beginning, doesn’t it? What do you think Darwin meant by that?
I mean no offense of course by what I’m about to say, but I find your advice, if you will, to “stop behaving” rather indicative of religious rhetoric.
How is it you have insight into my behavior? And how is it you know with such precision how I ought to behave?
I have simply asked a question.
I mean no offense but I am again attempting to understand worldviews here, not regulate anyone’s behavior.
I’ve never made the claim that obsequiousness is an adequate substitute for intelligence. I think one can be both intelligent and obsequious.
There is nothing contradictory about the two.
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.
I don’t have dyslexia. But thanks for bringing that to my attention anyway.
DRay
Dray,
Origin of species (evolution) is not the same thing as origin of life (abiogenesis).
Please stop confusing the two as though they are.
DRay,
The complete title of Darwin’s book is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Catchy, eh? Y’know, I wasn’t there at the time, but I suppose he titled his book thus because it is about the effects of natural selection on speciation. The origin of life itself, or abiogenesis, is a completely different subject. I am not going to do your research for you (and you need to do it outside of a creationist fog), and I also heartily agree with KA that you really oughta drop the obsequious act (my opinion).
Thanks.
I guess I’m wondering if you think my obsequiousness is an act then what do you think I’m “really” doing?
I’m sorry if you think its an act, I’m just trying to be personable and recognize I’m talking to people, that’s all.
I’m sorry if I’ve come across as though I were putting on some sort of act.
I’m not sure what other way would serve in a forum such as this.
I apologize.
DRay
Er, preaching your god idea, christianity in particular, to the members of an atheist blog with a thinly disguised pretense of ‘just asking questions.’ It happens all the time, and it gets really, really old.
DRay,
What Tarma said plus tiresome.
DRay,
A word of clarification here; apology, if you like that word:
When I wrote this,
I thought you & alatham were still debating in the other thread, “Volunteerism needed at the Center”. I saw your post in the Last Comments section, and failed to notice that you had moved your exchanges into this other thread.
What I said about creationist drivel, tho, is still true. But I will leave it to alatham to elaborate on that, since he seems able to make such points less “caustically” than I can.
DRay:
I’m unsure just who you think you might be, but a lettered gentleman of the 19th CE you are not.
I’m a guy, so that ‘dearest’ bit is a tad esoteric.
Oh, do stop being coy, my good man. Your little semantic gymnastics change nothing, not 1 jot nor tittle.
See Tarma’s post on the full title. Stop taking items out of context.
Because taking text out of context is a pretext.
You figure out that little sentence on your lonesome.
Aye caramba, the good ole ‘tu quoque’.
We’re in the 21st CE – do try talking like an ordinary chap, not some Victorian PM.
I’m going to have to ask for serious creds – you are, after all, simply words on a blog thread. You’ve taken college courses @ a ’secular’ university? Which 1? Do you know what ’secular’ means? What are your degrees? Where did you matriculate? Because if it’s an unaccredited college, or worse, a religious unaccredited college, like say Biola, you may have pissed away your money.
Evolution is the backbone of modern biology, BTW, so if you took a course in biology, you’d know that (1 would think).
To Tamra:
Preaching? No. I’ve only shared Scripture with Andy. I’ve left it up to him to accept or reject it. If by preaching, though, you mean sharing my worldview, ok. I accept that. Sure.
I can still ask questions, can’t I?
But I didn’t come in here to convince anyone of my sincerity. You may believe what you wish about my motives. I grant you.
I think, however, you might cry foul if I generalized about atheists and agnostics and applied those generalizations to you, wouldn’t you?
I hope you wouldn’t judge me by what others have said or done. I’m not them. As you noted, I am sort of new at this.
And to KA
Ok. I realize “dearest” wasn’t in the best of taste. I guess I assumed wrongly about your gender. Like a newborn in a nursery, it’s hard to tell who’s what in a forum like this unless we make it clear. I’m a guy and now I know you are too.
You come across as quite self-assured and rather arrogant.
But that’s ok with me.
I don’t say this to exalt myself or posit myself as morally superior to you. No. I admit. I am constantly finding myself fighting against my arrogance and I am merely making an observation.
I don’t condemn you, I just felt you could handle an honest opinion since you seemed to offer your opinion that my attempt at sincerity was merely a facade.
I can joust on your terms if you wish.
But it’s all just my opinion.
But like Tarma, it also appears you have likewise been granted knowledge of my “real” motives. Ok. Believe what you will. I am not here to convince you of my sincerity.
You do seem to be adamant about curbing my behavior though. I find that impulse to be rather intriguing, if nothing else. After all, I’m just words on a blog. So what? Don’t respond to me, then. It’s the second time you’ve told me to “stop” doing something.
And whose to say you aren’t a semantic gymnast? You certainly have a style of words which suggest a personality. Perhaps semantic “blacksmith” would be a suitable term, seeing as how I feel like I’m being “hammered” by you through your choice of words.
You have a tenacious spirit behind what you say. I’d think you must be a soldier of some sort? Your prose reminds me of friends I had in the military.
Credentials, huh?
Didn’t know I needed any. I was just responding to the charge that I haven’t exposed myself to “science”.
But I’ll go ahead and guess that they’re going to be wholly inadequate in meeting your standard.
I’ll provide them for you since you asked.
I attended Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee. It is a state accredited, non-religious, non-Christian university. And for two semesters I took geology, astronomy, two courses of biology and physics – all at the freshman/sophomore level, none of which mentioned anything about the Christian faith.
Truthfully, physics was the most difficult of the bunch. My head was spinning much of the time and I had trouble with much of it, but I tried. Biology was a bit less daunting, but it still was difficult. I passed, but not to the standard I’d set for myself. It was humbling to sit under a knowledgeable professors who didn’t give a crud about religion.
I do remember one of my physics professor’s comments though at the beginning of the course. He mentioned to us that “Physics is about rules. Just whose rules we don’t know.”
I pestered him about that throughout the semester! He didn’t like me too much. I told him I thought it was curious he personified the source of the “rules”.
Secular, as I understand it, means not under the control or dominion of the church, in the classical term. In the modern sense of the word, I believe it to mean both not under the dominion of the church and/or influence of theological paradigms.
So here’s to arrogant discourse! It has forged nations and sharpened the courage and tenacity of the bravest and most stouthearted of men! I detect a warrior spirit within you KA.
I admire it.
DRay
I have begun to read the bible, gasp. My plan is to read the Old Testament to the New Testament in its entirety.
I want to learn why there are people who actually believe in a god. What magic powers does this book hold?
And to all people out there doubting my atheist way of life I would like to put your mind to rest. I am quite convinced that my powers of logic and reason are powerful enough to read the piece of work – and I use that term loosely – in a very intellectual manner.
Carbon dating, the evidence of evolution and the shear non-sense that bible holds within its passages, and I am just in the early pages of Genesis, are enough to give the clear free-minded person reasoning that there is in fact no existence of a god.
Give an example of such non-seneschal passages you ask? A passage such as Noah building an ark in the matter of 7 days at the age of 500 years young does seem a bit farfetched. An ark documented as the size of a battleship, I think not.
To give credence to a supposed supreme being that punishes for eating from a tree of “knowledge of good and evil” is ludicrous. And punish females with pain at conception for this act, knowledge will cost you pain is the message I am receiving here. But yet the “faithful” except that this supposed god must shelter you from the truth, ignorance I believe they call it. Or else off to hell with you!
If they looked past what they think they do know – god is the way the light and the something or other- and observe what is known they would see reality.
In short I think it is important if we are to make great gains in the progression of Atheism we do not succumb to mere tolerance of the ignorance of theists. I do not mean that in a forceful way but we must stand firm in our knowledge and beliefs, beliefs that has at times cost people their lives. Again I am not saying to put your life on the line for the cause. But be vigilant at all times. Why should we put the logic of science and reality on the same plane as that of the pure folly and ignorance of a theist?
I just felt the need to vent, thank you if you read this far
I would like to correct a statement I had made in my last post.
I had written that Noah had built the ark in 7 days and before someone points out the error I would like to make note of it myself.
It in fact took Noah 100 years to construct the ark. A glaring error I grant you. Though the impossibility of such a feat of engineering still remains in my mind.
I still stand firmly in everything else I had written. I just wanted to correct that bit of information.
Thank You.
once upon a time our gods were planets…just tiny lights in the sky ; we sacrificed our children to tiny lights in the sky…we so feared our gods,why? we ritualized our fear. we took the blame and the guilt of our survival at the merciless hands of wrathful gods to the extremes of religious behaviour sacrificing human life, atoning to appease..god lights…up in the sky..so,fear the sky.for the lord will return to punish you and to teach you real fear…that holy fear of god.(the mayans depicted the comet as a spiral.this makes visual sense only from the perspective of the target.)
I believe that many here have put great thought into their beliefs but I also believe that many have not. Religion is not government created as one of the first comments I read said. Religion is used as a way for a person to be at peace with oneself. But that point is neither here nor there. The point of my comment is to, not argue, but explain why I believe that God exists and why I am a creationist. Why it makes sense. What do atheist believe created the earth? The big bang theory, I’m sorry makes no scientific sense at all. The big bang theory is that a ball of rock in space exploded suddenly with great force and created the universe, correct. In newtons first law of motion his theory states ‘an object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force’ in newtons law of conservation of mass and of energy newton explains that mass cannot be created nor destroyed. Now if newton is right, then the big bang theory can not have happened unless there was a higher being above such a law that could make such a phenomenon occur. That is what I believe happened. Also, as everyone here is quick to point out, the Bible is inconsistent. I agree with that statement, but what of it? The Bible makes it clear in it’s first few chapters that humans are sinners. It also is easy to see, just in a game of telephone, how humanity changes things, even when they are already beautiful. But as for this comment, I would love to see your comments back, but I would request that while you all have your own beliefs, that you will respect everyone else’ beliefs as well. Thank you