[Gothos]

RodeoRanch;360239 said:

I would say something but Stone Monkey expresses everything I think in far more eloquent terms than I could.

So, go Stone Monkey go!



Also, from a moderator point of view, big thanks to everyone for not flaming the hell out each other.

indeed, go go SM!

also, got matches?

[Shinrei]

Too bad that flamer Rodeo had to flame all over the flaming place. Flamer!

[Gem Windcaster]

rofl@Rodeo

@Shinrei, indeed, I almost never enter discussion where religion is a part of it, but hey, I have bad days too *points at own signature*

[Mezla PigDog]

It's clearly very difficult for atheists to cordially argue about religion with the religious. A fundemental part of atheism is that the religious believe in something completely imaginary, which is in itself difficult not to mock.

Finding the theory of evolution to be the most valid explanation for the current mixture of life on the planet also demonstrates a preference for trusting in hard scientific facts above faith. People adhering to the scientific school of thought and the religious just aren't arguing on the same mental plane, so never the twain shall meet.

Which brings me again to my comment about the answer to the original post of why scientists don't engage more with the religious to argue their case from a similar platform. It's impossible. The mindsets for the two types of thought process are poles apart. I think atheists seem bloody minded and closed off to the religious. To the scientific, the religious seem weak minded and irrational and therefore not worth engaging with.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Mezla PigDog;360255 said:

It's clearly very difficult for atheists to cordially argue about religion with the religious. A fundemental part of atheism is that the religious believe in something completely imaginary, which is in itself difficult not to mock.

Finding the theory of evolution to be the most valid explanation for the current mixture of life on the planet also demonstrates a preference for trusting in hard scientific facts above faith. People adhering to the scientific school of thought and the religious just aren't arguing on the same mental plane, so never the twain shall meet.

Which brings me again to my comment about the answer to the original post of why scientists don't engage more with the religious to argue their case from a similar platform. It's impossible. The mindsets for the two types of thought process are poles apart. I think atheists seem bloody minded and closed off to the religious. To the scientific, the religious seem weak minded and irrational and therefore not worth engaging with.

Whether non-religious types can argue cordially about religious topics depends on the individual. Many can and some of those do, Michael Shermer being an example of this. This doesn't always hold true for people posting in online forums however.

Many scientists are devoutly religious, so to say a scientist cannot understand the mindest of someone who is religious is inaccurate. For example, Stephen Hawking is religious and has stated before that for all he learns through science he still believes in God. Even many of those who are not religious can see why some hold to religious viewpoints rather than hard scientific facts.

I do agree with the statement, as an aetheist, that debating with religious types is pointless on some topics. But that's for the same reasons I won't debate gun control with NRA members, I'm not going to change anyone's mind. Which is why I think there isn't much public discourse between the scientific community and religions. Unless there is something at stake (like creationism in science classes), it's not worth each side banging thier collective heads against the wall.

Gem Windcaster;360208 said:

atheism is about being devoted to believe in nothing.

No it is not. Atheism is merely lack of belief in religion. One is not devoted to believing in nothing, one merely does not believe a certain thing.

[Gem Windcaster]

Gwynn ap Nudd;360279 said:

Quote

Originally Posted by Gem Windcaster
atheism is about being devoted to believe in nothing.

No it is not. Atheism is merely lack of belief in religion. One is not devoted to believing in nothing, one merely does not believe a certain thing.

Hey, I was merely generalizing, just like SM was doing just now about religion. Read my post again, please.

Mezla PigDog;360255 said:

It's clearly very difficult for atheists to cordially argue about religion with the religious. A fundemental part of atheism is that the religious believe in something completely imaginary, which is in itself difficult not to mock.

Finding the theory of evolution to be the most valid explanation for the current mixture of life on the planet also demonstrates a preference for trusting in hard scientific facts above faith. People adhering to the scientific school of thought and the religious just aren't arguing on the same mental plane, so never the twain shall meet.

Which brings me again to my comment about the answer to the original post of why scientists don't engage more with the religious to argue their case from a similar platform. It's impossible. The mindsets for the two types of thought process are poles apart. I think atheists seem bloody minded and closed off to the religious. To the scientific, the religious seem weak minded and irrational and therefore not worth engaging with.

There's no such thing as completely different mindsets here. It's not like we live in different dimensions. I think you guys simply have to accept that there are intelligent, reasonable, scientific-minded people that has chosen to believe in something bigger than themselves, and that doesn't make them into alien creatures that think differently in any major way. It's simply not true. And you seem to think that scientists with a faith doesn't count somehow. Where did they go, all of a sudden?

I find the comment about "different mental plane" quite strange. Do you mean to imply that people with a certain faith is below 'scientists' in some way? Are atheists the pinnacle of society? I'm sure that's not what you actually think, but it's not much of a leap with the argument you present.

Finally, I don't feel 'closed off' from atheists. I can grasp their view of the world completely. I just don't agree. If someone comes up to me and says "I don't believe in God and I believe our ancestors were apes", I say "I'm not sure about that, but you're welcome to believe that". If I say to you "I believe in God, that he created heaven and earth", I often get the response "get away from me you brainwashed, irrational moron". It is of course not said in so many words, but I get the message.

Hey, in a weird way, I can put myself in the atheist's shoes. I understand the reasoning behind the arguments, I can follow the train of thought. And most of the time, I can even agree with some of the arguments. But I disagree with most of the conclusions made. Does that makes me an irrational person? Not exactly. You see, that I disagree actually means that I doubt the conclusions. And the reasons for me doubting is supposed to make me irrational. Like science is the answer for life, universe and everything. It isn't.

In summation: I take some answers from science, and the rest of the answers I choose to believe in, until such time comes when that belief is proved to be misplaced.

Still think I am irrational and weak minded? Well, screw you too.

[HoosierDaddy]

Gem Windcaster;360296 said:

Hey, I was merely generalizing, just like SM was doing just now about religion. Read my post again, please.


I find the comment about "different mental plane" quite strange. Do you mean to imply that people with a certain faith is below 'scientists' in some way? Are atheists the pinnacle of society? I'm sure that's not what you actually think, but it's not much of a leap with the argument you present.

I think what Mezla meant, and I obviously can't speak for her, is that there is a fundamental difference in how religious and atheistic people view the world, which makes it very hard to stand in each others' shoes.

Atheists aren't the pinnacle of society. Hoosiers are. Duh!

[Gem Windcaster]

HoosierDaddy;360299 said:

I think what Mezla meant, and I obviously can't speak for her, is that there is a fundamental difference in how religious and atheistic people view the world, which makes it very hard to stand in each others' shoes.

Atheists aren't the pinnacle of society. Hoosiers are. Duh!

LOL! Seriously though, the only difference between my world view and the world view of atheists is that I believe in God. Since atheists, by their own admission (at least some of you here), can't possibly put themselves in my shoes, then why do they make assumptions about what that difference entails? Isn't it quite arrogant to assume that I can't agree on any of your arguments?

The truth is that the difference in my world view has very little to do with every day scientific theories. The difference in my world view mostly covers a hidden world, hidden meanings. Science covers the world I can see and touch, God covers everything I can see and everything I can't - it's a holistic world view in a sense.

It's beyond me why you can't accept that I can be rational and still have chosen to believe in God. Atheists do not have monopoly on rationalism.

[eekwibble]

I chatted to Mezla for quite a while in the pub after the Manc signing and she's an EXTREMELY inquisitive person, in as much as she pulls no punches when she wants to know what people think when it comes to personal opinion.

The convo I remember the best being: 'Which viewpoint from SE's books is the right one?'

Stuff like; Karos Invictad's view (the certain are persuadable) - vs - Silchas Ruin's (I'm so certain I'm un(/im?)persuadable - not that we discussed this, it's just an example).

There are dozens of equally arguable points in this thread alone!

Where do you start?

You can't!

The fact is that 'The Theory of Evolution' and 'Creationism' are so far removed from each other that the question actually makes no sense.

You cannot say that one is right and one is wrong from any single, debatable standpoint. The theories defy debatable logic.

How can you argue that; The Earth is round because we've seen pictures and visited The Moon and the universe is expanding because we've seen evidence of molecular activity in the dust clouds of galaxy's billions of light years away but maybe that's evident because God WANTS it to be that way so perhaps he exists?

Utterly unrelated and utterly un(/im?)provable until God comes down and tells us which is true!

(I still love you though SM! )

[Cold Iron]

eekwibble;360310 said:

Utterly unrelated and utterly un(/im?)provable until God comes down and tells us which is true!

This is not the end of the thought process, it's the beginning. Ask yourself what the above conclusion tells you about the nature of what smart people, who have reached this same conclusion, call god. Until you (not any you in particular, but all of you) have done this you have no place in a religious discussion because all you do is project the opinions of people who influence you. Opinions are not your own until you have challenged them.

stone monkey;359071 said:

I'd disagree, I'd say religion is an arbitrary human stupidity that has been co-opted for the things you believe it does. Religions are opportunistic users of things that are already there.

This is a perfect example. If you can tell me why this is true I will be shocked, I propose that you can't and that this is thus not your opinion, but the projected opinion of someone who influences you. Please understand that firstly I may well be wrong and secondly that I mean nothing personal by this.

[eekwibble]

@CI - I'm not judging one way or the other. My point was that the very focus of the discussion is irrelevent.

Quote

'The Theory of Evolution' and 'Creationism' are so far removed from each other that the question actually makes no sense.

In my own messed up way I'm actually advocating an open minded view.

There's no point in trying to exculpate one view from another though, if 1 totally unprovable idea is put up against an equally unprovable 1.

[Cold Iron]

eekwibble;360333 said:

@CI - I'm not judging one way or the other. My point was that the very focus of the discussion is irrelevent.



In my own messed up way I'm actually advocating an open minded view.

There's no point in trying to exculpate one view from another though, if 1 totally unprovable idea is put up against an equally unprovable 1.

Not true, the point is that it forces you to examine your interpretations. Evolution has a pretty set definition, god on the other hand does not. If you have come to the conclusion that the only way to prove god's existence is for him to come down and prove himself then you need to ask yourself what the hell is going on and why the belief exists at all. As I said, this is the start of the thought process, not the end. If you stop here than you're simply making assumptions that you do not know to be true.

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster;360300 said:

Seriously though, the only difference between my world view and the world view of atheists is that I believe in God. Since atheists, by their own admission (at least some of you here), can't possibly put themselves in my shoes, then why do they make assumptions about what that difference entails?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I think I can put myself in your shoes, because I'm pretty sure I've been there (or somewhere similar) before. That doesn't mean I can predict your future, by any means. You're a different person, living in a different environment, with all sorts of different conditions. I'm assuming you were raised as a Christian since your brother seems to be Christian, but that's about the only assumption I can make, since you haven't gone into detail on your beliefs much.

But this is how it went for me: I was raised in Christianity (Southern Baptist, to be specific). As I got older I realized that my dad was a lot more religious than my mom. When I was a little kid, I believed all of it, Adam and Noah and even Jonah and Job. When I got a bit older, I always won the Bible verse memorization contests that my church had, and around that time I read the whole Bible, realized there were tons of humongous contradictions in it, and that most of it required just a little bit too much suspension of disbelief. But I still believed in god and Jesus and all that. Redemption, heaven, great stuff.

I quit going to church as soon as I was old enough to get away with not going (around 15 or so), but I still believed what I saw as the "core" of Christianity. I had gone through all the bits of religion I was raised with, and the Bible, and discarded a huge percentage of it, holding only onto the beliefs that I felt were important. God exists, he made us, Jesus was his son and died for my sins, if I accept it then I'll go to heaven and the proof of my sincerity would be in my desire to be a good person and do nice things, etc. From the New Testament, I ditched everything except for the red ink bits, and decided that Paul was a scam artist (I found out years later that this was a popular belief among people who quit going to church). I ignored the Old Testament in its entirety with the exception of Solomon, probably mostly because some of the philosophy attributed to Solomon was in stark contrast to the philosophy of the religiously insane (we all know the type), but there was some bit in the Old Testament that said Solomon would be the wisest man ever to live, so I took that as justification to ditch everything else.

I think I held on to that much for several years, but I realized after several years of not going to church that the beliefs were starting to weaken some after not having been to church for so many years. I started getting really curious about other religions, especially the ones that millions of other people believed. I had always wondered about other religions, and how god expected people to convert to Christianity when they were raised to believe something totally different. I didn't think it was entirely fair that I was brought up in the right religion, while so many others weren't. Of course I believed certain things that would give these people an out (I think it was something similar to the end of the Chronicles of Narnia, if that helps) but the curiosity about these other religions prevailed, and I began to see how hard it would be for someone who was raised in another religion to ever change their beliefs, because I knew how rooted my own were. Especially in a religion like Islam, which (similar to Judaism and Christianity) has the same severe consequences for not believing, and not practicing. I learned a lot, through my own reading, and eventually by browsing and discussing on the net, about how religions in general are formed. I learned a lot about how Christianity was formed, and how Judaism was formed. I learned how much of both religions was obviously borrowed from influencing cultures at the times the religions were formed. After a while it became extremely difficult to convince myself that anything in the Bible was what it appeared to be.

Now, you (Gem) may have already reached that point, or something similar to it. For all I know, you're a Deist, or a Pantheist, or something similarly "I believe in god, but that's about it."

But this is what happened to me, probably over a period of about 4-6 years after I got to that point of curiosity about other religions, and history. The more I studied, the more I became comfortable with questioning my beliefs. Questioning those core beliefs of Christianity no longer held the same shock value as it did in, say, my early twenties, when questioning those core beliefs still caused strong feelings of fear, contemplating the possible non-existence of god still caused fear. That fear gradually weakened, though, as I became more comfortable with questioning, and eventually, Pascal's Wager failed.

So what does that mean? For those who don't know, Pascal's Wager goes like this: Perhaps god exists. Perhaps he doesn't. But if he does, we only stand to gain (afterlife and all that - if there is no god, then after death there is nothing). So, it only stands to reason that we should believe in god, since there is nothing to lose from that belief and everything to gain.

Problem is, belief isn't really a choice. I get into religion-bashing, but generally not into the bashing of the individual, unless the individual is being bigoted or something, because looking back on the times when I still believed in god, I realized that it wasn't ever a matter of choice. I believed essentially because I was brainwashed from early childhood to believe, and because the agent of brainwashing was the fear of what happens when you die, and the fact that morals are all tied up with religion. So my fear of death and my ignorance of the unknown worked well together to make that belief real for me.

But eventually I got to the point where the fear wasn't quite enough to make me believe. Too many paths of questioning had shown me over and over again that the existence of god as I saw it was highly unlikely. I can no longer make myself believe that god exists, because I see no rational reason for that belief. So, Pascal's Wager fails, because belief is not a choice.

Questioning beliefs, on the other hand, is a choice. It may be that a certain amount of questioning will eventually shape your beliefs into something different. If you're like most people, then this is probably an ongoing process in your life. It will take you....somewhere. The process of questioning always does.

Some beliefs are easily discarded when evidence to the contrary is provided. Some are more difficult to discard, usually for very obvious reasons (I hate to invoke the Wizard's First Rule here, but that little rule is probably what hooks all of Tairy's readers, because it's so obviously true. The rules get a bit less logical as the series progresses). Very, very few things are easy to believe for those who are intelligent as we all are here when there is no evidence that they are true. Belief in god is one of those things, for obvious reasons.

People who believe in god usually feel like they are in some way enlightened about the mysteries of the universe. Some may believe that everyone else's beliefs are just as valid as their own, but this is rarely the case.

For those of us atheists who are relatively educated and intelligent, it is very difficult to see the belief in god as being anything other than, as SM said, "arbitrary human stupidity". That doesn't mean that everyone who believes in god is stupid, because as I said before, there is little choice involved in belief. But the fact is that no one can come up with a rational reason to believe in god. Pascal's Wager may seem rational on the surface, but really...how rational is it to believe in something for no other reason than that you want it to be true?

This whole spiel likely comes off as being a bit condescending, and I apologize for that (I'll give you some rep in an attempt to make up for it) - it's a bit hard to avoid on this subject. It's obvious that you are probably one of the most intelligent god-believers out there. But moving on....why are we even discussing this here? That's an important question. Your belief in god in particular seems to be relatively benign, in comparison to the beliefs of some fundamentalists. I really don't care all that much that you believe in god, and the subject would never have come up if not for the fact that this thread pits creationism against evolution. The fact that you believe in god and the fact that you question the theory of evolution were both introduced because of the subject matter of this thread.

Now, this is where it gets interesting. You told me in a rep that you're not a creationist. That's cool, but it could mean several different things. Creationists are often defined as those who believe in the strict literal interpretation of the creation story in the Bible (or, as strictly literal as one can manage with the conflicting accounts). You've said in this thread that you question the theory of evolution because it's got all sorts of holes in it. You seem to think that your questioning of evolution and your belief in god aren't really related (that is, that you question evolution because of all the holes in it, and not because you believe in god).

Now, far be it from me to tell you what you believe or why you believe it. But it's difficult to swallow that these beliefs have nothing to do with each other, because there aren't a significant number of atheist biologists/archaeologists etc. out there that question the basic premise of evolution, AND because there are a significant number of religious people out there who accept it, filling what they see as the holes in evolutionary theory with "god", the same way people who believe in god have a tendency to fill in anything "I don't know" with "god". So, the statement you made that I quoted above, that the ONLY difference in your beliefs and that of atheists is that you believe in god, has a ring of untruth to it.

You may not be a creationist, but a lot of the arguments you've put forth in this thread about the theory of evolution are creationist talking points, so it's again very difficult to separate these things when it's obvious that you believe in god and you question evolution in much the same way most religious people do (and when I say "most religious people", I'm not talking about the fundies who believe the earth and everything on it were all created in 6 days).

So that brings us back to the question of why we're even discussing this. Most atheists don't really care one way or the other who believes what. It only becomes a problem at certain points. (not trying to say you believe any of these things...in fact, I'm sure you probably don't believe some of them) "Hey, I believe in god!" Sure, that's cool, I don't, but whatever. "I believe Jesus died to save me from my sins!" That's great too....a bit elitist of you to think I'm going to hell because I can't make myself believe something that's so unbelievable, but whatever. "God hates fags!" Whooooah, you just went too far. Back up. "I bring my kids to church every Sunday!" Eh, I don't like it, but I can't stop you, so whatever. "Evolution is a hoax and we should stop teaching this dodgy science to kids in schools and teach them the Bible instead!" Whoooooooah. You just stepped way over the line.

The reason why atheists have a problem with religion is that it unequivocally encourages irrational thought, because it requires you to believe in something for which there is no evidence. The evidence of this (other than the lack of evidence itself) is in the way that religions have evolved over the thousands of years we can study. Beliefs that are shown to be untrue are eventually discarded, and even when religion itself isn't the source of those beliefs, religious folk are often the last to discard them. It's easy to see why.

The study of evolution isn't what religious people make it out to be. It's science, not a belief system. There are some things that we know about it. There are some things that we don't know about it. There are logical inferences we can make from the things that we DO know about it to fill in some of the "holes" in the theory. If future discoveries support the hypotheses that were made to fill in those holes, then that's great. If future discoveries contradict hypotheses that were made to fill in those holes, then that's great too. These hypotheses fall under the category of "beliefs that are easy to discard when evidence to the contrary is provided."

From a rational perspective, to fill in these "I don't know" holes with "god" is arbitrary. There is no evidence to support filling in those holes with god. It also has nothing to do with logical inferences based on what we know about how evolution works. It's arbitrary. And the belief in god itself falls under the category of "beliefs that are difficult to discard when evidence to the contrary is provided", as is evidenced (along with many other things which may or may not apply to you) by the fact that only people who believe in god have a problem with the theory of evolution.

Therein lies the problem. You might not be one of those religious people that fills in the holes of evolutionary theory with "god", but that's difficult to swallow, based on the points I made before. If it weren't for subjects like this, where people who believe in god make irrational points, then no one would care about religion very much, short of getting irritated at conversion attempts. No one would bother to call religion an "arbitrary human stupidity" if religion were truly benign.

[Cold Iron]

Je-sus.

Cover me I'm going in...

[Terez]

Cold Iron;360338 said:

Je-sus.

Where? :confused:

[eekwibble]

Having an open-minded discussion about the existence of God is absolutely fine. That's entirely acceptable, if not laudable.

The original question (I think, correct me please somebody if I'm wrong) was; which is the 'right' answer; Evolution or Creationism?

The two shouldn't exist in the same sentence!

They're not comparable on any level.

They don't exist on 'opposite ends of the spectrum'.

One defines, as you rightly say CI: A belief!

The other: A workable scientific theory that is 'in essence' utterly unprovable.

Like saying that Illy smells like red just because he's always angry.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Longpost is loooooooong.

[Terez]

eekwibble;360342 said:

The two shouldn't exist in the same sentence!

They're not comparable on any level.

The only reason they're discussed together is that religious people feel that the theory of evolution threatens their beliefs, so they come up with all sorts of irrational arguments to try to paint the theory as being invalid. When religious people stop doing this, then they won't be discussed together any more, but for the nonce, it's a current issue and therefore a valid discussion.

[Cold Iron]

Terez;360336 said:

No one would bother to call religion an "arbitrary human stupidity" if religion were truly benign.

Hm... I could flip that one around pretty easily.

Surely a rational reason for belief in god can come if you revise your definition of god to something that is rationally possible to exist?

What makes you think that the god you decided was irrational is the god that everyone else believes in?

[Cold Iron]

eekwibble;360342 said:

Having an open-minded discussion about the existence of God is absolutely fine. That's entirely acceptable, if not laudable.

The original question (I think, correct me please somebody if I'm wrong) was; which is the 'right' answer; Evolution or Creationism?

The two shouldn't exist in the same sentence!

They're not comparable on any level.

They don't exist on 'opposite ends of the spectrum'.

One defines, as you rightly say CI: A belief!

The other: A workable scientific theory that is 'in essence' utterly unprovable.

Like saying that Illy smells like red just because he's always angry.

You're still missing it. Both are descriptions of the world. Both are valid. That you think one is invalid (ETA: or "just a belief") does not mean it is.