Open Forums for ExChristian.Net [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > I'd believe [this] over [that].

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 17 2004, 07:25 PM

I was thinking about evolution/creationism the other day, in particular, what would it take for me to be an evolutionist. I came to the conclusion that if I were backed into a corner where I had the only the option of believing the devil put the fossil record in place to test us OR in evolution I would chose evolution(1).

If I was forced out of Christianity, I'd likely end up some sort of Wiccan or Pantheist. I don't think I could ever accept the notion that there was a total absence of the divine.

Anyways, I'm busy working on an answer to Rameus and while doing so I began to wonder if anyone here has an either or scenerio they'd like to mention. To to critic it or argue it, rather just a description of where you'd go if forced out of your current world view. Or like in my evolution example above, if [x] became a part of the world view you'd shift to [y].

---------------------
NOTES:
1: By evolution here I mean the 'molecules to man' theory.

Posted by: Asuryan Nov 17 2004, 07:56 PM

If I ceased to be an atheist... if I really should start believing in some kind of divinity, well, I think I would start worshipping the Mother Goddess.

It seems to me like a good belief to have. Believing in a nature-based goddess means that you would be much more respectful towards nature, animals, you should at least be more careful not to waste energy, water and oil. And since I am a feminist (the good kind of feminist, since there is someone whose name I can't remember right now that sees feminists as rabid bitches...) I like the idea of a woman "to rule them all"

Christianity forces in your mind the belief that "God made me to rule and dominate over all other living beings, so I have the right to do everything I want, I am the master of the universe, mwahahahahahah!". It's not for me. Well, nothing about christianity is made for me.

Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 17 2004, 08:14 PM

I can't think of anything that would require me to posit the divine, therefore I don't need a fall back god.

I can imagine coming across a Q like being. However, if there is such a super being it is not supernatural. It is not something that is transcendent.

Posted by: Fyrefly Nov 17 2004, 08:40 PM

I would choose Wicca - I feel some sort of kinship with it.

Posted by: Theosaga Nov 17 2004, 09:22 PM

The thing is, all the things that would make me pick a specific religion would require the creation of a new religion. After all, every time God sneezes, we found another.

(No offense, and I know I am exaggerating a little about the sneezing. Nonetheless...)

Posted by: Slayer-2004 Nov 17 2004, 09:48 PM

"evolutionist?" WTF ? Evolution is not a religion , it is a widely accepted scientific theory . The only people who reject it tend to be either highly ignorant in terms of the evidence that backs it up or they reject it because it contradicts whatever religious beliefs they have ... most of the time both .

There are christians who accept evolution who call themselves theistic evolutionists - I was one of them . Spare non-believers the agony and actually argue about theology , religion , and philosophy in debates about the three . Evolution = biology .

Posted by: Zoe Grace Nov 17 2004, 10:45 PM

QUOTE (Fyrefly @ Nov 17 2004, 07:40 PM)

I would choose Wicca - I feel some sort of kinship with it.

lol i can't believe how many atheists are closet-pagans. ;)

My best friend is an atheist but she celebrates yule with me...because technically all you have to believe in to celebrate yule is the existence of the sun. lol.

Posted by: Tocis Nov 18 2004, 01:11 AM

I can't exactly imagine anything that might drive me away from Asatru (I guess I'm not fundified enough to be vulnerable to anything there

), but I think my next best alternative would be Celtic druidism.

Posted by: Haener Nov 18 2004, 04:46 AM

I cannot possibly comprehend a situation in which I would revert to some religion. As for my views on evolution, since I'm not a biologist I will change my views if and when the scientific community changes them. Though the central thesis of evolutionary theory - evolution occurs by means of natural selection - has stood firm for almost a 150 years now so it's quite unlikely that that will change.

Mad_Gerbil,

I was wondering if you could accept the notion of evolution as put forth by Darwin, that is, evolution of species. Darwin never suggested that man evolved from molecules. Instead, he argued that given a certain biosphere inhabited by certain species, those species will changes gradually overtime by means of natural selection. Eventually this would lead to new and distinct species having evolved. Could you accept this?

Posted by: Asuryan Nov 18 2004, 04:58 AM

QUOTE

lol i can't believe how many atheists are closet-pagans. ;)

Well I didn't say what would it take for me to start worshiping a mother goddess, now, right?

I think that I would require some proof of some sort. Real proof, not just fuzzy feelingness or answering some prayers that could be answered even from simple casuality.

But then it wouldn't be faith anymore... oh well, I guess that's why I'm an atheist. I can't renounce my hate for "believing without proof".

Posted by: Simon Nov 18 2004, 05:32 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 03:25 AM)

I don't think I could ever accept the notion that there was a total absence of the divine.

Whaaa? Ever? Not ever? No matter how strong the evidence?

Posted by: MonkeyBoy Nov 18 2004, 06:22 AM

QUOTE

what would it take for me to be an evolutionist. I came to the conclusion that if I were backed into a corner where I had the only the option of believing the devil put the fossil record in place to test us OR in evolution I would chose evolution(1).

What would it take for you to believe in gravity? As Slayer pointed out, evolution is not a religion or a belief system; it is a scientific theory (which in the realm of science, a theory isn't just something a person made up; it is an idea that has been studied, falsified, reviewed and examined THOROUGHLY) that attempts to demonstrate HOW and WHEN life changed.
That's really all the evolution is; change. Change within a population based largely on said populations' ability to procreate. Of course, this is an "Evolution for Dummies" definition, and if anyone would like to correct me, please do.

How does any of that interfere with the concept of a god? I, along with many members of this board transitioned into "theistic evolutionists" after we began our pilgrimage that led us to where we are today.

As far as what would it take for me to believe again, it wouldn't require that much at all.
I would ask that he/she/it reveal itself to me in a real tangible way. Not through a book, another person or a dream; but something that I can be certain of. Personal feelings/revelation does not count, because I was actually a Deist for a short time, rather recently.
I "became" one because of an emotional experience that I had. You see, I really want to believe.
But short of the above critera being met or a brain injury; ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Reach Nov 18 2004, 06:53 AM

QUOTE (MonkeyBoy @ Nov 18 2004, 05:22 AM)

You see, I really want to believe.

I think that's a major point right there, MonkeyBoy. I think many of the members of this community, not all, but many, truly wanted to believe, struggled with faith or the lack thereof, studied to know more, to understand the mysteries, to decipher doctrinal difficulties and discrepancies and come to terms with the reality of how the Christian life was supposed to be lived. We wanted to believe.

As for myself, I want to have an afterlife in a beautiful world that offers justice for all. I don't want a hell for my enemies but I'd sure like to see some people punished for the atrocities they have committed against humanity, not eternal punishment but the opportunity to right their wrongs and learn from their past mistakes.

A God who loves us is another sweet fantasy but I like to take life and what I can determine as truth, even though open to change, just like I like my coffee, black and no sugar.

I'm not open to a trade. Some people simply go down swinging.

Reach

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 18 2004, 07:17 AM

I'm not terribly interested in arguing the merits of one belief system over another (see the rest of the board for that), rather, I find it interesting to see what sorts of things one might find silly in one's own world view AND what one might imagine themself as being if they weren't currently X.

MONKEYBOY: Are you the MonkeyBoy from theologyweb.com? If you are, why are you stalking me?

REACH: You point about 'going down swinging' is great.

As for the evolution discussion, I don't discuss it since it is an entire world unto itself and pretty much a closed subject for me at this time. I wouldn't wish to discuss it again until I was ready to sit down and reconsider it with some degree of honesty. That would take more work than I'm willing to expend at this time.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Nov 18 2004, 07:29 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 17 2004, 09:25 PM)

Well, not being a Christian doesn't entail that you have to pick something else to practice. There's always the deistic position, where you would at least be able to continue believing in a devine force without actually picking another religious practice. And that's fine.
Assuming that a God exists (in deistic terms), you would essentially keep the idea that a conscious being created all that exists in our world, but you would have the freedom to explore that world without the presuppositions and limitations of fundamentalist religious practices.
In deism, evolution and creation cease to be rivals. Many scientists believe in a god that either willfully started life and/or guides evolution. Of course, they don't record those beliefs into their findings, but they stick to the basic idea that change and selection are the processes at work.
It's all really up to you. Even as an atheist, I'm not completely insensative to why it would be hard to believe that the biological process happened without a guiding force. I have my own way around that, but you don't have to adopt my philosophy to accept evolution.

QUOTE

1: By evolution here I mean the 'molecules to man' theory.

Evolution is not "molocules to man" (or "goo to you" as Answers in Genesis likes to call it), nor is a theory that God doesn't exist. It's a theoretical process; an on-going process that doesn't even necessarily stop at man. Evolution looks at all life, including man, as the modern status quo of organic life, none of which are necessarily the a projected goal.
To say "molecules to man", it sounds to me like you presume that the theory encompasses non-life to life and then early early life to modern life. Only the latter is true. The first part, which would be more accurately labeled as "molecules to life" is a study of biochemistry and has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution axiomatically presupposes the existence of life. It says nothing at all about what happened before.
If you believe in God, you could look at evolution as a theory of what God is doing and how he's doing it.
You should check out Dr. Matthew Rainbow of Antelope Valley College. He's a theist, but he's also a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology. He has the kind of view I just described, where he views the amazing versatility of biology as "the power of God".

QUOTE

Anyways, I'm busy working on an answer to Rameus and while doing so I began to wonder if anyone here has an either or scenerio they'd like to mention. To to critic it or argue it, rather just a description of where you'd go if forced out of your current world view. Or like in my evolution example above, if [x] became a part of the world view you'd shift to [y].

Well, it depends on what you mean by my world view. There are a lot of things that I accept, but none of them are necessarily contigent upon each other. I could believe in a god without disbelieving evolution. I could believe in creation without believing in a young Earth. I suppose one could even be atheistic without evolution. That may seem absurd to some, but there have been naturalistic processes in the past that have been taken for granted and then proven wrong and then replaced with different ones. Rationally speaking, I accept that this could potentially happen.
What I'd really like to see is another naturalistic theory of biology. Not that I'd necessarily accept it, because evolution fits pretty much all of the evidence as far as I can see, but it would be interesting nonetheless.

To answer the question, I don't think I can presuppose where I'd go if certain accepted principles are proven wrong, but I know I would at least consider more than one possibility.

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 18 2004, 07:40 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 17 2004, 06:25 PM)

I came to the conclusion that if I were backed into a corner where I had the only the option of believing the devil put the fossil record in place to test us OR in evolution I would chose evolution.

That is very interesting and something that triggered the event of personal disbelief in the fairy tale of genesis in my life. I had two options too.

Olfactory receptors, the largest gene family in the human genome, give rise to the ability of odor perception. Amazing is that 60% of these genes bear one or more sequence disruptions, that often leads to inactivating of the to be encoded protein. These inactivated genes are called pseudogenes. In contrast, mouse do have only 20% olfactory pseudogenes and a simular amount of OR genes.

It's very easy to test the evolutionary model. The loss of function of OR genes should be integrating over the species. Our common ancestor with the chimpansee would give rise to the same mistakes in the pseudogenes of either. With the gorilla we would share less mistakes and so on.

And this is exactly what we get! These mistakes are genetic fossils. Is there a deletion-mutation - at loci 302 in the OR pseudogene 10AA1p - in the human genome and in the gorilla genome? Than we find the same mutation at the same place in the DNA of the chimp too. Only one discontinuity did I found (11K1p) where the same mistake seems to have occured parallel. But, if you do not believe in common descent - and you are not believing in a god who creates faults in the DNA of the species according to their place in the evolutionary three - than all these faults have to have occured parallel (over 6000 years?) and amazingly enough just how the evolutionary theory predicts. What a coincidence! I am wondering who is 'believing in chance' in that case.

Why smell is less important for human is not difficult to imagine. Some types of monkey social and mating behaviour seems to be influenced by the olfactory system. There are also reasons to suggest that our development of coloured vision did lead to relaxed evolutionary constraints in regard to our smell capabilities. (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:G56qu589OjYJ:email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/pdf1/Gilad_Human_PNAS_2003.pdf+olfactory+genes&hl=en)

I hated this warnings for the devil. It's temptation from the devil that you are searching for truth and listening to non-xians. What a humbug. If the bible and the biblical god are right, I have nothing to fear isn't it? Sexual temptations of the devil. Bullshit! That should be called sexual desires of your own. Doing someones own will, in stead of god's will, comes not from the devil, it comes from your honest self. Xianity is very dishonouring a person. Become a real person, know yourself!

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 18 2004, 08:35 AM

I'd still do what I do now...follow the evidence where ever that leads.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 18 2004, 08:59 AM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Nov 18 2004, 06:29 AM)

I suppose one could even be atheistic without evolution. That may seem absurd to some, but there have been naturalistic processes in the past that have been taken for granted and then proven wrong and then replaced with different ones. Rationally speaking, I accept that this could potentially happen.
What I'd really like to see is another naturalistic theory of biology. Not that I'd necessarily accept it, because evolution fits pretty much all of the evidence as far as I can see, but it would be interesting nonetheless.

To answer the question, I don't think I can presuppose where I'd go if certain accepted principles are proven wrong, but I know I would at least consider more than one possibility.

That is where I become awe-inspired. New discoveries, old ones being added upon and sometimes disproven, are what keeps wonderment alive.

I feel no threat from this, although it may change what I believe, it inspires a new sense of understanding that I never had before. Religious people get this feeling from their faith in god, I get it when I watch Nova.

It doesn't matter where the information leads me as long as there are always new discoveries. So I don't ever see myself being forced out of my world view, because my world view is adaptable. It's not a set course, it changes as discoveries are made.

My only fear is that one day we may know it all and the awe-inspiring moments will cease...what then will happen to wonderment?

Posted by: Rameus Nov 18 2004, 09:22 AM

Mad,

That you do not believe in evolution has nothing to do with it's veracity. Let us be plain here, you don't believe in it because you don't want to yes?

Posted by: SmallStone Nov 18 2004, 09:33 AM

I'm with NBBTB (and others) on this one.

My current world view is based on knowledge (or 'I don't know' where there is a lack of knowledge). It isn't based on my hopes and dreams of what the world should be like or what I want it to be like.

Posted by: SmallStone Nov 18 2004, 09:42 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Nov 18 2004, 10:59 AM)

My only fear is that one day we may know it all and the awe-inspiring moments will cease...what then will happen to wonderment?

I think the concern you've raised is similar to the "Does scientific understanding add to or detract from the beauty of a flower?" question. Sagan argues that understanding enhances the beauty of the flower (don't remember which book) and I tend to agree with him.

This quote by Darwin pops to mind as well:

QUOTE

When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 18 2004, 10:42 AM

QUOTE (SmallStone @ Nov 18 2004, 08:42 AM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Nov 18 2004, 10:59 AM)

My only fear is that one day we may know it all and the awe-inspiring moments will cease...what then will happen to wonderment?

QUOTE

Thank you SS, I will look into some of Sagan's work to help me with my understanding.

Hey, it's happening just as we said! I am on a journey to enhance my worldview.

Whoohoo!

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 18 2004, 10:46 AM

QUOTE (Rameus @ Nov 18 2004, 04:22 PM)

Mad,

That you do not believe in evolution has nothing to do with it's veracity. Let us be plain here, you don't believe in it because you don't want to yes?

No.

When I studied evolution I found the theory entirely unconvincing and silly. If there were no Creationism as a back up I would still think the theory is a load of hooey(1).

In short, if I left Christianity I would not embrace evolution.
I'd end up agnostic on origins.(2)

---------------------------------------
NOTE:
1: Special thanks to Reality Amplifier for re-introducing that term into my vocab.
2: As far as I can tell from where I'm at right now.
3: How did you get to this footnote? It isn't used in the main text.

Posted by: AUB Nov 18 2004, 12:26 PM

When you "studied" evolution which sources did you use? Do you understand and except quantum theory then? Or is that "silly" to you and thusly false?

Also no matter how "silly" any argument or theory seems, evidence is what ultimately settles it, did you acknowledge all the billions of pieces of evidence or just ignore them and go for what "makes sense" to you? Belief is always unnessesary, you know through knowledge, that is all, this is not a choice of unknowns or possiblities, nor is it about opinion, or the best argument. Data is all. If you ignore reality and evidence and simply "follow your heart", you cannot expect us to respect your decision, its emotionalistic bias, not rational thought.

Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 18 2004, 01:29 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 11:46 AM)

QUOTE (Rameus @ Nov 18 2004, 04:22 PM)

Mad,

That you do not believe in evolution has nothing to do with it's veracity. Let us be plain here, you don't believe in it because you don't want to yes?

If so, then how would you explain via your hypothesis, the data supplied by SaviorMachine above?

Do you know about the criteria of adequacy, or do you have some other standard by which to judge an hypothesis?

Posted by: quicksand Nov 18 2004, 01:37 PM

This over That you say?

That's the thinking that Hovnids and Gastrichs and Cook's of this world in order to make all succumb to the Bible as it accords with their narrow-mind and theology.

I like how and why and how better.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 18 2004, 01:39 PM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Nov 18 2004, 08:29 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 11:46 AM)

QUOTE (Rameus @ Nov 18 2004, 04:22 PM)

Mad,

That you do not believe in evolution has nothing to do with it's veracity. Let us be plain here, you don't believe in it because you don't want to yes?

ChefRanden:

I don't currently discuss Evolution beyond general definitions because I've not the time nor the energy to give it the attention it deserves. While that appears to be a dodge (and on some levels it is) I think anything I could say on the matter at this point would be poorly informed and not even worth the time it would take for you (or others) to pound out a rebuttle.

It has been 10 years since I've looked at it seriously and there have been some shifts both in definitions and in both theories (Creation/Evolution). Until I get my knowledge up to date it would be silly for me to discuss it. (This is one reason why I've found definitions in this area interesting)

However, when I am ready to discuss it I'll call upon those here to contribute to my understanding of the topic since I'd be very interested in getting a more honest assessment next time I go round on this issue.

Posted by: I Broke Free Nov 18 2004, 01:56 PM

QUOTE (Reach @ Nov 18 2004, 08:53 AM)

I think many of the members of this community, not all, but many, truly wanted to believe, struggled with faith or the lack thereof, studied to know more, to understand the mysteries, to decipher doctrinal difficulties and discrepancies and come to terms with the reality of how the Christian life was supposed to be lived. We wanted to believe.

For who so ever believeth in Him????

Thank you Reach for pointing out that belief for many of us is NOT a choice. We have been provided the evidence and our brains do the rest. How does one choose to believe in something? You either do our you don't. Why should the Christian God have me suffer for eternity because my mind finds His evidence no more credible than Jack and Beanstalk.

If the Christian God did his job of providing evidence half as well as the evidence for evolution, I would still be singing His praises. I found the evidence for evolution beautiful in its simplicity and it fit the data so well that I had no choice but to BELIEVE it.

When I claimed to be a Christian (Yes, I faked it) I told everyone that I did believe. In fact I was encouraged to, it was called "fake 'til you make it." The only thing that kept me going was that I was convinced that I was the ONLY one doing this and that everyone else had a true testimony of Christ. Now I know the truth. There are huge number of Christians out their faking it to.

Posted by: MonkeyBoy Nov 18 2004, 03:52 PM

QUOTE

MONKEYBOY: Are you the MonkeyBoy from theologyweb.com? If you are, why are you stalking me?

The same one! Actually, you posted this site in one of the forums (I do not recall the context of the post) but that's how I found Ex-Christian.com; so thank you very much!

QUOTE

As for the evolution discussion, I don't discuss it since it is an entire world unto itself and pretty much a closed subject for me at this time. I wouldn't wish to discuss it again until I was ready to sit down and reconsider it with some degree of honesty. That would take more work than I'm willing to expend at this time.

That's cool, Mad. However, you did state in the op:

QUOTE

If the evidence leads to the truth, why would you feel "backed into a corner".?

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 18 2004, 03:55 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 09:46 AM)

3: How did you get to this footnote? It isn't used in the main text.

Ha ha!

How did you get to it?

Posted by: John Doe Nov 18 2004, 05:16 PM

When you break down the god question to its lowest common denominator, it seems like there are only 2 possible answers for any of us: Atheism or deism. (I don't think agnosticism attempts to answer the question at all so I give it an N/A....note: that doesn't mean I don't think N/A is valid because I believe it is). And yeah yeah I know strong atheism, weak atheism, agnostic deist, agnostic theist, blah blah, I am trying to keep it simple here so bear with me.

If I wasn't an atheist I would be a deist, either there is a god or there isn't. To me theism is just deism packaged with a pretty wrapper and big bow on top, and I don't like suprises.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 18 2004, 05:43 PM

QUOTE (John Doe @ Nov 19 2004, 12:16 AM)

To me theism is just deism packaged with a pretty wrapper and big bow on top, and I don't like suprises.

To my way of thinking wouldn't atheism have the potential for the biggest suprise? I may have a brightly wrapped present on the table but you aren't even aware of getting a present until the puppy jumps out of the box, so to speak.

In short, I wouldn't wish to be your shorts.

Posted by: Koal Nov 18 2004, 05:59 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 07:43 PM)

QUOTE (John Doe @ Nov 19 2004, 12:16 AM)

To me theism is just deism packaged with a pretty wrapper and big bow on top, and I don't like suprises.

And you will be in for a huge surprise if you find yourself at judgement day before Allah, pleading him to have mercy on you for not being a Muslim.

Posted by: John Doe Nov 18 2004, 06:42 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 04:43 PM)

Ok well I admit I like puppies so if a puppy jumped out of the box I would make an exception

I guess if I used Pascal's Wager, then yes potentially I could be in for a nasty suprise. But as Koal pointed out, any of us may be in for an equally as nasty surprise depending on which god jumped out of the box at the end of the party. Maybe atheists and Christians both will find themselves standing side by side before an angry and wrathful Vishnu who will then proceed to turn us into plankton, doomed to spend our next life as fish food

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 18 2004, 06:43 PM

QUOTE (John Doe @ Nov 19 2004, 01:42 AM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 04:43 PM)

Ok well I admit I like puppies so if a puppy jumped out of the box I would make an exception

I should think I'd at least be fish.... since that is a symbol of my faith.

<--- happy about being just a 'tad higher on the evolutionary 'scales'.

Posted by: John Doe Nov 18 2004, 07:05 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 05:43 PM)

I should think I'd at least be fish.... since that is a symbol of my faith.

Talk about a nasty surpise: Vishnu decides he detests Muslims just slightly less then Christians and atheists, and proceeds to turn them into the fish that will eat the plankton

Posted by: bob Nov 18 2004, 07:35 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 17 2004, 06:25 PM)

If I was forced out of Christianity, I'd likely end up some sort of Wiccan or Pantheist. I don't think I could ever accept the notion that there was a total absence of the divine.

But MG, does this not back up my assertion that, deep down, believers believe simply because they want to? Regardless of the lack of evidence for the divines existence, believers continue to believe.
Based on your statement, facts are useless in the debate for or against a creator.

Posted by: bob Nov 18 2004, 07:41 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 04:43 PM)

QUOTE (John Doe @ Nov 19 2004, 12:16 AM)

To me theism is just deism packaged with a pretty wrapper and big bow on top, and I don't like suprises.

But then again, for some of us, we have made our choice already, not based on evidence or possibilities, but based on what we consider to be the moral choice. Just as I don't knowingly associate with murderers, I choose not to spend my eternity (if I have one) with your god (if he is real).

If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. --Robert Ingersoll

Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 18 2004, 07:42 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 02:39 PM)

ChefRanden:

I don't currently discuss Evolution beyond general definitions because I've not the time nor the energy to give it the attention it deserves...

It has been 10 years since I've looked at it seriously and there have been some shifts both in definitions and in both theories (Creation/Evolution)...

Then you really don't have enough information to call evolution hooey, and Bob is right in that you believe because you want to, not because it is true.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 18 2004, 08:03 PM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Nov 19 2004, 02:42 AM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 02:39 PM)

Then you really don't have enough information to call evolution hooey, and Bob is right in that you believe because you want to, not because it is true.

ChefRanden:

With all due respect I feel as if that comment is on par with "An atheist really knows god exists, but is in rebellion so he or she can view porn."

I'm trying to be honest here. I've flatly laid on the table the fact I've not seriously looked into the subject for 10 years and I refuse to throw untested/refined material on the table. Furthermore, I've stated clearly that when I'm ready to re-consider the question I'd certainly run the information I find past this crowd for open comment.

I don't know how to be more open and honest than that.
If that is unacceptable, write me off as another spewer of BS and let us part ways in peace.

Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 18 2004, 09:20 PM

Oi, Mad is mad!

I admit that I'm an atheist, because I can view porn, and because I can tell the Spook to suck God's perfect dick, and because I can read Harry Potter (if the books are as bad as the movies, I'm not going to, but I can) and because I can think that Marx had some good ideas, and because I can judge an idea by the criteria of adequacy, and because I can point out to you that your honesty has only gone so far and no farther, and because I can try to push you that extra bit, and still have a good conscience at the end of the day.

Posted by: Emperor Norton II Nov 18 2004, 11:25 PM

Chef, stick with the books. The movies sucked like $10 russian whores.

Posted by: Asimov Nov 19 2004, 01:01 AM

QUOTE (Emperor Norton II @ Nov 18 2004, 10:25 PM)

Chef, stick with the books. The movies sucked like $10 russian whores.

I'll have to go right ahead and disagree with that.

Posted by: Tocis Nov 19 2004, 02:24 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 09:46 AM)

When I studied evolution I found the theory entirely unconvincing and silly.

Define evolutionary theory. What does it say?

My prediction: If you dare to answer at all, you will come up with one of the babblical cretinist strawmen of E. T. which is indeed absurd, because it's been designed to be absurd.

Do you dare to reply?

Posted by: Tocis Nov 19 2004, 02:29 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 07:03 PM)

I'm trying to be honest here. I've flatly laid on the table the fact I've not seriously looked into the subject for 10 years and I refuse to throw untested/refined material on the table.

Yet you have no problem to state your unfounded belief in that something that you admit to know little about. How arrogant is that?

Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 19 2004, 02:50 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Nov 18 2004, 01:42 PM)

Thank you SS, I will look into some of Sagan's work to help me with my understanding.

NBBTB,

Out of all of the people here that have probably never read any of Carl Sagan's works, I find myself most surprised to find out that you, especially you, have never "looked into some of Sagan's work".

Drop what you're doing right now, and go to the library!
I guarantee that you, especially you, will love everything that you find from him.

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 19 2004, 03:03 AM

QUOTE (Tocis @ Nov 19 2004, 01:29 AM)

Yet you have no problem to state your unfounded belief in that something that you admit to know little about. How arrogant is that?

Isn't it disbelieve in evolutionary theory because MG does know much about the thought collection that goes with the opposing genesis story? So he 'knows' a lot of 'colours' and does find it difficult to 'believe' that it are 'merely' electromagnetic waves, with some wavelength, speed and so on. I guess how more a person enjoys experiencing colours how more he thinks that it would devalue his experiences and believes if there are other, rather dry explanations for it. That's not arrogant.

Posted by: Tocis Nov 19 2004, 03:07 AM

Oops, sorry, I meant "unfounded disbelief" of course.

Well, is MG arrogant? To me, yes, because he states his disbelief as if it would be based on facts while he later admits that he doesn't know much about it.

Ummm...

...of course, at least he does admit to his ignorance, contrary to most fundie anencephalos out there.

Posted by: MonkeyBoy Nov 19 2004, 05:05 AM

QUOTE (Tocis @ Nov 19 2004, 04:24 AM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Nov 18 2004, 09:46 AM)

When I studied evolution I found the theory entirely unconvincing and silly.

QUOTE ("Tocis")

Tocis -

I have found in nearly every situation in which I was confronted with a creationist, that a definition of terms usually settled most of their objections. When I believed as a christian (and I was also a creationist), the way that I understood evolution demanded not to be believed! I doubt that anyone here would believe it; so we thought evolutionists were involved in a conspiracy. They had to be, since our definition was so flawed, that no sane and/or thinking person could accept it.

So Mad, I'd like to know, in layman's terms, your definition of evolution.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Nov 19 2004, 05:46 AM

More than garbling the definition to include origins, I find that creationists tend to look at evolution in reverse. They look at the end result, as though there was an intented conclusion of the evolutionary process.
They see the eye as a completed, functioning aparatus, that surely must have had a designer. No natural process could create such a specified organ.

But evolutionists don't see it that way. We look at the selection process, which takes a function that already exists and through gradual mutation becomes more specified based on the environmental conditions. We think of the eye in terms of "Look at how far this process of selection has come."
There's no point at which the eye is completed and starts to function. This isn't engineering. What biologists are discovering (based on an article that was actually posted here not too long ago) is that the eye itself shows signs of having becoming independant organs from light sensative cells of the brain. Light-sensative cells, which by the way are still there.
It became advantageous to have cells that were sensative to the light of our surroundings, so those positive adaptations became selected (by nature; i.e., the environment), and lived on.
And with more positive mutations and selections come more refinements.

That's evolution.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 19 2004, 06:01 AM

QUOTE (Tocis @ Nov 19 2004, 10:07 AM)

I didn't say I didn't know alot about it; I said my knowledge is at least 10 years old and a great deal of change has occured in that time. I came to a conclusion 10 years ago and that is my default value until I pick it up again.

Posted by: Tocis Nov 19 2004, 07:21 AM

And, as you have been asked before on this thread, where did you get your "knowledge" from? It doesn't happen to have been cretinist books / websites or other "christian" sources, hmmmm?

Posted by: rainyday8169 Nov 19 2004, 07:30 AM

I wouldnt even consider religion at all
for any reason
ever
and Im with Slayer here, evolution is NOT a religion
WTF is an evolutionist?
Stupid

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 19 2004, 07:48 AM

QUOTE (Tocis @ Nov 19 2004, 02:21 PM)

And, as you have been asked before on this thread, where did you get your "knowledge" from? It doesn't happen to have been cretinist books / websites or other "christian" sources, hmmmm?

I would read a book by a Creationist and then read the rebuttle by an Evolutionist. I read Philip Kitcher and Stephen J. Gould for rebuttles. There were others, but I don't remember.

I found good points and blatent dishonesty in both camps.

Posted by: SmallStone Nov 19 2004, 10:05 AM

QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Nov 19 2004, 04:50 AM)

Drop what you're doing right now, and go to the library!
I guarantee that you, especially you, will love everything that you find from him.

I'll double that guarantee.

I'm pretty sure http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345409469/qid=1100883895/sr=8-5/ref=pd_csp_5/104-4717927-2153559?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 is the book I'm thinking of. I'll double check over the weekend. He has a tendency to address the issues of beauty and wonderment in all of his works to some degree in my opinion. I think he was pretty awe-struck in general and that bleeds into his writing.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 19 2004, 11:00 AM

QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Nov 19 2004, 01:50 AM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Nov 18 2004, 01:42 PM)

Thank you SS, I will look into some of Sagan's work to help me with my understanding.

Drop what you're doing right now, and go to the library!
I guarantee that you, especially you, will love everything that you find from him.

Darn it Fwee! I dropped everything and ran out of the office screaming about Sagan (they thought I said Satan!) and they told me not to come back. You know when you speak, I jump. Now I have to find another job.

Just kiddin'! I do quiver though when you speak.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 19 2004, 11:09 AM

QUOTE (Saviourmachine @ Nov 19 2004, 02:03 AM)

QUOTE (Tocis @ Nov 19 2004, 01:29 AM)

Yet you have no problem to state your unfounded belief in that something that you admit to know little about. How arrogant is that?

That's imagination and wonderment.

That is basically what I was saying when I stated:

Me

QUOTE

My only fear is that one day we may know it all and the awe-inspiring moments will cease...what then will happen to wonderment?

and SmallStone replied with this:

QUOTE

Do the thorns on a rose detract from it's beauty? No, understanding the purpose of the thorns enhances it's beauty.

Does understanding that the rose is only red because that is the color of the spectrum it reflects detract from it's color? No, it increases the awe of it because the red you are seeing is not present in the dark.

Does wearing rose colored glasses change the colors that are present in the flower? Yes, imagination can create a beautiful color, but it does nothing for the true color and beauty of the flower.

There is no color in the presence of darkness...

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 19 2004, 11:15 AM

QUOTE (SmallStone @ Nov 19 2004, 09:05 AM)

QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Nov 19 2004, 04:50 AM)

Drop what you're doing right now, and go to the library!
I guarantee that you, especially you, will love everything that you find from him.

Thanks SmallStone. I was looking at that one yesterday after you mentioned Sagan. I will have to check it out.

Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 19 2004, 08:58 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Nov 19 2004, 02:00 PM)

QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Nov 19 2004, 01:50 AM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Nov 18 2004, 01:42 PM)

Thank you SS, I will look into some of Sagan's work to help me with my understanding.

Drop what you're doing right now, and go to the library!
I guarantee that you, especially you, will love everything that you find from him.

I don't necessarily "quiver" when you speak, but there's usually
some "twitching" involved.

Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 19 2004, 09:03 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Nov 19 2004, 02:15 PM)

QUOTE (SmallStone @ Nov 19 2004, 09:05 AM)

QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Nov 19 2004, 04:50 AM)

Drop what you're doing right now, and go to the library!
I guarantee that you, especially you, will love everything that you find from him.

Thanks SmallStone. I was looking at that one yesterday after you mentioned Sagan. I will have to check it out.

Yes, Demon Haunted World is a good start. Then, you can move on to Cosmos. After reading the book (Cosmos) you may even want to watch the 10 hour documentary that is available on video or DVD.

I still haven't seen the documentary.

I've heard that there are parts in the book that compliment the series, and that there are parts in the series that compliment the book.

Oh yeah, if I'm not mistaken, Carl Sagan also wrote the book 'Contact' which was turned into that movie starring Jody Foster.

Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 19 2004, 09:05 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Nov 19 2004, 02:09 PM)

QUOTE (Saviourmachine @ Nov 19 2004, 02:03 AM)

QUOTE (Tocis @ Nov 19 2004, 01:29 AM)

Yet you have no problem to state your unfounded belief in that something that you admit to know little about. How arrogant is that?

That's imagination and wonderment.

That is basically what I was saying when I stated:

Me

QUOTE

My only fear is that one day we may know it all and the awe-inspiring moments will cease...what then will happen to wonderment?

and SmallStone replied with this:

QUOTE

Okay, after reading this post, I think that I've officially fallen in love with you.

I just figured that I'd tell you that.

Posted by: Zoe Grace Nov 19 2004, 10:38 PM

QUOTE (Asuryan @ Nov 18 2004, 03:58 AM)

QUOTE

lol i can't believe how many atheists are closet-pagans. ;)

Well I didn't say what would it take for me to start worshiping a mother goddess, now, right?

I think that I would require some proof of some sort. Real proof, not just fuzzy feelingness or answering some prayers that could be answered even from simple casuality.

But then it wouldn't be faith anymore... oh well, I guess that's why I'm an atheist. I can't renounce my hate for "believing without proof".

heh i don't believe the gods are literal beings so I don't really worship anything.

Posted by: Zoe Grace Nov 19 2004, 10:47 PM

QUOTE (Asimov @ Nov 19 2004, 12:01 AM)

QUOTE (Emperor Norton II @ Nov 18 2004, 10:25 PM)

Chef, stick with the books. The movies sucked like $10 russian whores.

I'll have to go right ahead and disagree with that.

Asimov did you see the movie: "Office Space"??

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 20 2004, 05:45 AM

QUOTE (Zoe Grace @ Nov 20 2004, 05:47 AM)

QUOTE (Asimov @ Nov 19 2004, 12:01 AM)

QUOTE (Emperor Norton II @ Nov 18 2004, 10:25 PM)

Chef, stick with the books. The movies sucked like $10 russian whores.

I'll have to go right ahead and disagree with that.

Asimov did you see the movie: "Office Space"??

I did and I recognized it as an instant classic.

"Office Space" is a guide to surviving in the office place much like "The Simpsons" is a guide to surviving family life.

Posted by: MonkeyBoy Nov 20 2004, 05:50 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Nov 19 2004, 01:09 PM)

SmallStone replied with this:

QUOTE

notblindedbytheblight -

I used a simular example, but I used a sunset. After one discovers how sunsets look the wonderfully colorful way that they do, does it remove any of the transcendent beauty? Not at all.
Does knowing how an orgasm occurs lessen the pleasure?
Negatizzle.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 22 2004, 09:58 AM

QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Nov 19 2004, 08:05 PM)

Okay, after reading this post, I think that I've officially fallen in love with you.

I just figured that I'd tell you that.

Wanna come over to my house?

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 22 2004, 10:01 AM

QUOTE (MonkeyBoy @ Nov 20 2004, 04:50 AM)

I love negatizzle!

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 24 2004, 04:28 AM

Maybe I can change - if you would call that change - and become xian, but it will be along the lines of for example http://www.religioustolerance.org/prog_chr.htm. They include people who:

Are repelled by exclusivist beliefs. They reject the concept that only their branch of their religion has the entire monopoly on truth, and that all other spiritual paths are in error. Passing beyond biblical inerrancy, established creeds, and church dogma, they recognize, as author Jack Good has written: "the fingerprints of humankind on all religious documents and symbols."
Value the search for truth, even though it can never be fully possessed. They view it as more important and challenging than the acceptance of those fixed beliefs found in the past by others and imbedded in church creeds.
Who are, as Jack Good describes, "chaos tolerant:" They can handle a degree of disorder, uncertainty, and ambiguity in life and want to be "partners in the exciting search for tentative but satisfying answers to the most pressing problems of existence."
Believe in the Ethic of Reciprocity: that how we treat other people is more important than the specifics of what we believe about God, humanity and the rest of the universe.
Have the ability to absorb rapid change in their beliefs, as they integrate findings from social and physical sciences.

Currently I'm reading "The story we find ourselves in" from McLaren. That's one step in the right direction IMHO. Although I get stucked in the continous coin turning. I still have to decide sometimes if 'liberal religious thinking' is just doublethink [1984] or the 'http://www.ferratermora.org/crit_lecture-in-memory.html way of thinking'. In the first case belief is very important, in the latter continuity, good sense, moderation and irony. Both propose that 'truth' isn't that simple as it looks like. Cases of 'doublethink'(?):

Being able to sin -> being able to express someones own will
God neglecting people -> God favouring people
Death -> God providing some persons eternal life

I can't see it in another way as doublethink by now. Maybe this can change somewhere in the future, but it will need many 'revelations'

Posted by: AUB Nov 24 2004, 05:30 AM

Saviourmachine

Liberal xtianity is superficially morally exceptable, but ultimately its just as irrational and ethically problematical as all faith based world views. It is in some ways worse than conservative or fundy xtianity as it requires far more cognitive dissonance to function, as the bible definitely represents a more fundy view than liberal. Mathew's Jesus is by and large a fire-and-brimstone man, and the rest takes itself way to seriously. Metaphor and allegory maybe but those simple idiots definitely meant literal events and rigid adherence to their commands. Anything but the full extremist is intellectually dishonest, salad bar theism, taking the 5% of the bible they can stomach and ignoring the rest.

You have a choice, ignore reality and go full fundy or embrace the facts and be atheist. Sitting on the fence as either a spiritual ditherer or even more dishonestly a progressive or modernist theist should be beneath any freethinker here, you already know too much about the horrors of xtian doctrine to succumb to that kind of self deception.
A life without mental integrity and empirical moral foundation, with ultimately humanistic ethics but in denial about that, and thusly lacking the rational basis needed for a morality that works. That is what awaits the less fundy theist, most of it is made up of modern secular values, based on enlightenment principles, but they like to think that's what jesus wanted all along. Bull, they just can't let go of faith, even when they’ve left all that it represents behind.

End of rant.

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 24 2004, 12:42 PM

QUOTE (AUB @ Nov 24 2004, 04:30 AM)

but those simple idiots definitely meant literal events and rigid adherence to their commands
...
salad bar theism, taking the 5% of the bible they can stomach and ignoring the rest

If I write liberal xian, I really mean liberal. For example acknowledging Paul as a bastard, cruel things in the bible as evil, crap as crap and the creation story as a tale. Of everything that's written I take what I can swallow (maybe even less than 5%, even if it's written by you

).
Let I clarify, I appreciate for example the http://www.velikovskian.com/index.htm (except the cosmical undertones), that reconciles a bit of the old Jewish history and embeds it in the histories of other countries. In that case this 5% of the biblical scriptures can maybe used to reconstruct history. That would be great.

PS: Yeah I know that Velikovsky is controversial and read e.g. Sagan's "El cerebro de Broca".

Posted by: skankboy Nov 26 2004, 12:03 PM

QUOTE

Anything but the full extremist is intellectually dishonest, salad bar theism, taking the 5% of the bible they can stomach and ignoring the rest.

I have to admit, that I agree with this sentiment. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I ended up leaving christianity. For me, someone who is truly serious about christianity would be a monk or nun. Even if I don't agree with their philosophy, I can respect their committment. The "salad bar" approach (great term by the way) just doesn't jive with the whole "absolute truth" premise upon which christianity is based in the first place.

So all you "wishy-washy" christians, I implore you, become a TRUE disciple of your god and leave "secular" society to the rest of us. If you're right, you lose nothing and have everything to gain. If we're right, then at least you aren't bothering anybody and will get three meals a day...

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 26 2004, 12:43 PM

QUOTE (skankboy @ Nov 26 2004, 11:03 AM)

The "salad bar" approach (great term by the way) just doesn't jive with the whole "absolute truth" premise upon which christianity is based in the first place.

If I would become a salad bar xian, I would also [want to] be a salad bar buddhist [mysteriousness], a salad bar islamist [hospitality], a salad bar jew [philosophy], a salad bar satanist [pleasure].

A real salad bar xian wouldn't accept the "absolute truth" premise as I quoted from 'Progressive Christianity'.

Posted by: skankboy Nov 26 2004, 01:20 PM

QUOTE

A real salad bar xian wouldn't accept the "absolute truth" premise as I quoted from 'Progressive Christianity'.

True, though I doubt many other christians would consider them "true christians". This "progressive" version of christianity strikes me as more of a philosophy than a religion...

Posted by: AUB Nov 26 2004, 08:00 PM

Xtianity as a philosophy I would be willing to tolerate, but as a faith, based on immoral and false doctrine it is beneath contempt. Its all down to reality claims that are bunk, and dogma that is immoral, and leads to suffering, be it a religion or ideology. The bottom line must be what can do harm, if taken to the logical end, any look at left or right wing politics, at any religion and certain philosophies and mysticism's shows they are all in need of restraint. Democratic in the case of politics, or complete abolishment for unreason based faiths.
Why not just follow decent moral principles, for the hell of it? Stuff the ideological or theological justification or rationalisations, you know what's right or wrong, it’s called conscience, and empathy, instinctive features, we've had for a million years longer than we've had philosophy or religion.
You don't need to defend or explain just do good, but if you must have a "backup" for such self-evident virtues, use reason, and empirical facts, not metaphysical or religious arguments, they are lame, and only survive through their follower's ignorance of their debunked status.

Some basic ideas to discern the worthy from the 99% that are not.

If it requires faith (for the most part), it's bogus. (nothing that is supposedly certain lacks proof i.e evidence)

If has not been shown to work on a large enough scale its not worth your life and dedication.

If it a needlessly complicated system built over simple ideas, just cut out the fat.

If it cannot tolerate other views, its tyranny, and absolutist shite. There is no one truth, answer or "way", just greedy monopolising institutions and memes.

If it conflicts with your conscience, leave it.

If it keeps insisting it is truth, without providing anything but words to that effect, it can be guaranteed not to be.

If it cannot explain itself in very simple terms, consistently and without using fallacy, doubt must be given precedence.

If you are discouraged from scepticism, or not allowed to ask as many questions as you like, it has something to hide, or nothing to offer.

And last but not least, only if it still makes sense, and has clear truths and virtue, without any emotion to bias judgement can it be said to be more than placebo.

Posted by: skankboy Nov 26 2004, 08:56 PM

QUOTE

Sounds about right to me. Embrace the metaphor, not the metaphysics.

I spent a long time with no particular world view after leaving religion. It wasn't until I was in college (about 6 years later) and got into history/philosophy that I began to serious evaluate what I believed. Essentially, I found a path that match what I already believed.

Of course, I could also be considered a "salad bar" Buddhist as I don't ascribe to literal reincarnation nor "praying" to Buddha in any manner or form...

Posted by: Asimov Nov 26 2004, 10:50 PM

QUOTE (Zoe Grace @ Nov 19 2004, 10:47 PM)

QUOTE (Asimov @ Nov 19 2004, 12:01 AM)

QUOTE (Emperor Norton II @ Nov 18 2004, 10:25 PM)

Chef, stick with the books. The movies sucked like $10 russian whores.

I'll have to go right ahead and disagree with that.

Asimov did you see the movie: "Office Space"??

Yeppers, Office Space is one of my favs. I should add it to my collection of DVD's.

"What would you do with a million dollars?"
"I tell you what I'd do with a million dollars....two chicks at the same time, man.