[Terez]

Cold Iron;360555 said:

Hm.. You don't care what it is, but you know it's irrational to believe in it?

You're playing strange games here, dear. Every Christian out there has their own definition of god. It's irrational to believe in god because there's no evidence of his/her/its existence.

CI said:

How can you argue about whether the belief in god is irrational unless you argue about your definition of god?

Who says I can't argue about the definition of god? I just don't see the point, seeing as how there's no evidence for his/her/its existence, and believing in him/her/it/them is irrational, so therefore the discussion of the definition of god is pointless.

CI said:

Or is it your position that the very label god has some inherent irrationality or logical flaw?

Yes, that is my position, because there is no evidence for the existence of god/gods.

CI said:

I'm just saying that belief in god is not necessarily irrational, depending on your definition of god. It's a fairly benign assertion. I see no reason not to make it

I don't see how changing the definition of something for which there is no evidence of its existence makes it any more rational. If someone tells me they believe in Santa Claus, I'm going to tell them it's irrational. If they tell me that they've redefined Santa Claus to mean "a clump of dirt that's on my front porch", that doesn't make it any less irrational.

[stone monkey]

Cold Iron;360524 said:

Like what?

Two quotes come to mind here:
From the Koran: "Slay them wherever you find them... Idolatry is worse than carnage..."

And from Abbott Arnold Amaury at the Siege of Beziers in 1209AD: "Kill them all, God will know his own."

I think we can be fairly sure what the writer and the speaker were thinking in each case.

[Cold Iron]

I'm about to go to bed and I don't want to engage in the religions ugly history debate, I've argued quite extensively in another thread that religion is not a cause.

What I did want to say is that I'm not saying we should all arbitrarily construct a god, I'm saying that it is possible to perceive/interpret the one in the bible in such a way that is completely rational. Simply cease thinking of god as a being or entity and think of it as a concept.

[Cold Iron]

Santa is a concept too, be good and you'll be rewarded. This is true due to our very natures. When we perceive ourselves to be doing the right thing, we associate the good things that happen to us as being rewards for our good behaviour. The opposite is equally true. Santa is simply a personification of this truism. You can now safely believe in the existence of santa rationally, because you understand him to be a concept, an image, a representation of the world and it's mysterious operations.

Adieu.

[Terez]

Cold Iron;360564 said:

I'm about to go to bed and I don't want to engage in the religions ugly history debate, I've argued quite extensively in another thread that religion is not a cause.

Sweet dreams.

CI said:

What I did want to say is that I'm not saying we should all arbitrarily construct a god, I'm saying that it is possible to perceive/interpret the one in the bible in such a way that is completely rational.

Other than the fact that there is no evidence for that god's existence other than the Bible itself, which is chock full of irrational stuff.

CI said:

Simply cease thinking of god as a being or entity and think of it as a concept.

Why? Why not just ditch the concept altogether, since there's no evidence for it?

There was a stage in my religious thinking that (along with other stages) I glossed over a bit, since the post was already getting long, where I would have agreed with you. My definition of god was essentially, at that point, a nice label to slap on anything that seemed mystical to me. I got over it, though.

[Cold Iron]

Terez;360568 said:

My definition of god was essentially, at that point, a nice label to slap on anything that seemed mystical to me. I got over it, though.

Sorry, not what I meant. The evidence for the existence of a concept that attempts to describe the world is entirely irrelevant. You create the concept when you conceive of it

[Gem Windcaster]

There's two points made by Terez that I have to respond to; that belief is not a choice, and that my criticism of the theory of evolution is linked to my faith.

First of all, I am raised is Sweden, and the view of religion in society is probably different than it is in the US (I am guessing that's where you live? correct me if I'm wrong). The people that actually goes to church is a minority, and I am guessing it's the opposite where you live, Terez (correct me if I'm wrong).

Secondly, in my family and for me, there's no such thing as 'one interpretation' of the bible. As long as I can remember we openly discussed everything from the creation to christ to his return. I've been brought up to critically 'test' everything that preechers say. Because it is my choice what I believe.

I made the choice to believe when I was about 16 years old, and I still make that choice every day. Before that I believed, sure, but not in the way that I believed after that. I went through all the questions "what if God doesn't exist" etc. I won't go into why I made the choice that I made, because it's intently personal and I haven't talked about it with anyone else, but I made a choice. So, dear, you're wrong. It's all about the choice.

As for the supposed link between my criticism of evolution and my faith, I can see why it's hard to accept that I can separate them intellectually. But my faith doesn't 'take over' my entire intellectual being. Believing is an active action, it requires resolve and moving forward. I have to do it.

As I have said before, believing in God and the bible doesn't make you adverse to the theory of evolution by default. The bible describes the creation process in only a couple of sentences. What those sentences mean in an aspect of time and space is subject to interpretation. The bible says that for God one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day (paraphrasing from 2nd Peter 3:8). Does it mean that it actually toook God 7000 years to create earth? Not really, it just means that it could have taken any amount of time, as we see time, for God to create earth.

The point is that it doesn't matter. I can easily start accepting the theory of evolution today, and it wouldn't effect my faith. In fact, I don't see how anything could change the way I believe, unless I actively chose that myself.

I just disagree with the interpretations made from the theory of evolution. That doesn't mean I think anyone that accepts it is stupid. I don't understand why people have to resort to that kind of wording when someone disagree with their world view. Just make the choice not to do that. Seriously.

[Terez]

CI said:

Sorry, not what I meant. The evidence for the existence of a concept that attempts to describe the world is entirely irrelevant. You create the concept when you conceive of it

What difference does that make? Why would I create a concept of a god? That's an important question that you seem to be avoiding...

Gem Windcaster;360572 said:

First of all, I am raised is Sweden, and the view of religion in society is probably different than it is in the US (I am guessing that's where you live? correct me if I'm wrong). The people that actually goes to church is a minority, and I am guessing it's the opposite where you live, Terez (correct me if I'm wrong).

Not really. It may have been true that most people go to church some years ago, but now churches are experiencing what they call "empty pew syndrome". There are a good few fundies around here that still go, but most people don't. My dad goes to church, my mom hasn't since I was about 10 or 11 years old.

Gem said:

I made the choice to believe when I was about 16 years old, and I still make that choice every day. Before that I believed, sure, but not in the way that I believed after that. I went through all the questions "what if God doesn't exist" etc. I won't go into why I made the choice that I made, because it's intently personal and I haven't talked about it with anyone else, but I made a choice. So, dear, you're wrong. It's all about the choice.

I don't believe you. Partly because you won't give your reasons for that choice. Intensely personal? I'm sure...but you can't just decide to believe something. There are always reasons behind the belief that contribute to the mindset necessary to believe it.

Gem said:

As for the supposed link between my criticism of evolution and my faith, I can see why it's hard to accept that I can separate them intellectually. But my faith doesn't 'take over' my entire intellectual being.

I never said that it did.

Gem said:

Believing is an active action, it requires resolve and moving forward. I have to do it.

It also requires a mindset that's conducive to the belief, which is why it's not really a choice.

Gem said:

As I have said before, believing in God and the bible doesn't make you adverse to the theory of evolution by default.

I pointed that out already - there are tons of Christians who accept the theory of evolution, and it's this along with the fact that very few atheists who do not (I don't know of any offhand, but I'll assume there are a few out there) that makes it extremely difficult to believe that there is no religious motivation behind your problems with the theory.

[Gem Windcaster]

I just noticed that from my posts it seems like I don't approve of religion bashing - but I do! I just don't like being lumped together with everyone else - religious or not - I am me, for goodness sake, I don't answer for anyone else's beliefs or actions.

Religion as an entity in society has many problems, many faults, and I am just as critical of those faults as anything else I am critical of (It's sad that I have to point it out).

I don't consider myself a very religious person, I am not a fan of rituals just for the sake of rituals, I just want the truth.

[Obdigore]

Cold Iron;360564 said:

I'm about to go to bed and I don't want to engage in the religions ugly history debate, I've argued quite extensively in another thread that religion is not a cause.

I do agree that religion is not a CAUSE for ugly history of humanity. Although agreeing with CI just feels wrong, on the general principle of the thing.

Anyway back to my first post in this thread, Creation and Evolution do not, technically, contradict each other.

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster;360580 said:

I don't consider myself a very religious person, I am not a fan of rituals just for the sake of rituals, I just want the truth.

I still have to wonder, though, why you think you the existence of god is truth. I know you said it's intensely personal, so you probably won't get into it, but I get this a lot from people who believe in god when they're questioned as to WHY they believe in god. So, it's personal...but that's not really helpful to those of us who are trying to understand why people still believe in god. Of course, you could say that it doesn't matter what your reasons are, we're going to say that they're irrational. That's probably true, so there's probably no reason for you to go into your personal reasons. But I still can't think of any rational reason to believe in god...my, I'm repeating myself a lot, aren't I?

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez;360576 said:

I don't believe you. Partly because you won't give your reasons for that choice. Intensely personal? I'm sure...but you can't just decide to believe something. There are always reasons behind the belief that contribute to the mindset necessary to believe it.

Well, what I am really saying is that my choice for believing is just as valid as the choice of being an atheist. But then, I still think it's all about the choice. We have different philosophical views here.

Terez;360576 said:

It also requires a mindset that's conducive to the belief, which is why it's not really a choice.

I don't really understand what you're getting at. Only certain people can make that choice? What I am saying is that I choose to have a certain mindset. Everything starts with a choice imo.

Terez;360576 said:

I pointed that out already - there are tons of Christians who accept the theory of evolution, and it's this along with the fact that very few atheists who do not (I don't know of any offhand, but I'll assume there are a few out there) that makes it extremely difficult to believe that there is no religious motivation behind your problems with the theory.

Of course there are religious motivation behind it! That doesn't make my arguments less valid though, which is what some in this thread seem to indicate. My faith doesn't stop me from thinking. The motivation for making a certain set of arguments are not important, the arguments are.

And come on, it's not like atheists don't have certain motivations aswell when they argue for the theory of evolution. It's just easier to go "Your motvations are not pure - you blasphemer, you have insulted the atheist god!" I could argue that atheists think they are more right than everybody else. But I'll refrain from that, because 1. I don't think it's really true and 2. they just come off like that, also 3. I know I probably come off like that sometimes.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez;360587 said:

I still have to wonder, though, why you think you the existence of god is truth. I know you said it's intensely personal, so you probably won't get into it, but I get this a lot from people who believe in god when they're questioned as to WHY they believe in god. So, it's personal...but that's not really helpful to those of us who are trying to understand why people still believe in god. Of course, you could say that it doesn't matter what your reasons are, we're going to say that they're irrational. That's probably true, so there's probably no reason for you to go into your personal reasons. But I still can't think of any rational reason to believe in god...my, I'm repeating myself a lot, aren't I?

Well, sweetie, it's something that you really have to experience yourself to understand. And even I don't understand it sometimes.

Rationality has very little to do with faith, true, because faith is the choice to believe in something you can't see or touch. It's the very definition of the word. That doesn't make me irrational though. But my faith is irrational, but people seems to have difficulty separating my intellect from my faith.

Sometimes searching for truth requires more than the endeavours of science. Because science is not the answer to life, universe and everything imho.

[Obdigore]

Gem Windcaster;360592 said:

Sometimes searching for truth requires more than the endeavours of science. Because science is not the answer to life, universe and everything imho.

That is your opinion and that is where this whole debate comes from.

You FEEL that science does not give you the answers you want/need, and so look elsewhere. Noone is begrudging you anything, but to say that you disagree with the current scientific theory of evolution without any proof to back up your claims does seem somewhat... flippant to me. As if you disregard the work that scientists do just because you do not like what the evidence seems to point towards. I am assuming that is where the pork eater and the 'Rez are coming from as well.

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore;360596 said:

That is your opinion and that is where this whole debate comes from.

You FEEL that science does not give you the answers you want/need, and so look elsewhere.

Wrong, I think science gives me answers, just not every answer, not all of it.

Obdigore;360596 said:

Noone is begrudging you anything, but to say that you disagree with the current scientific theory of evolution without any proof to back up your claims does seem somewhat... flippant to me.

Wrong again, I think that the theory in itself doesn't prove anything. That's basically all I have said. That is not the same as claiming it is wrong, technically. And I'm not the one that have to prove anything here, I don't need to or have tried to prove or disprove anything.

I have no idea if the theory of evolution is true or not, I just don't think it proves anything. I don't currently believe in it, but that is - by the every definition of the word - not the same thing as knowing. I do not claim I know it is wrong, I've never said that.

Obdigore;360596 said:

As if you disregard the work that scientists do just because you do not like what the evidence seems to point towards. I am assuming that is where the pork eater and the 'Rez are coming from as well.

For the last time, I haven't disregarded anything, I just disagree with the conclusions drawn! And It has nothing to do with what I like - I honestly don't care that much about how the world technically came to be - I still would believe what I believe, it wouldn't change anything.

Mt faith is not some fragile thing that can't take scientific truths. Quite the opposite in fact. Will you please get that into your head once and for all! I just don't think there are any proof here. Seriously, for claiming to be devoted to reason, you guys are being awfully unreasonable.

I realize it's the first time you've encountered this way of thinking, but you have to move on sooner or later. Sheesh.

[Obdigore]

No Gem, when you 'disagree' with the conclusions drawn, without replacing or stating your own conclusions from the DATA that has been presented, you are the one being 'awfully unreasonable'.

Post 602

Gem said:

I don't need or want a theory on how we came to be here. Theories are lame. I also don't need theories to get answers. Is that clear enough for you?

It sounds like you are claiming the theory of evolution is wrong, because you want to believe in Creationism, ID, Flying Spagetti Monster/whatever without any proof of that being existing.

You don't need theories to get answers? Then what DO you think is happening?

As an aside, you did completely disregard the link I posted to the virus adapting to its environment, which is pure evolution. You now claim that you do not disagree with evolution's factual base, but you disagree with the conclusions that have been drawn. The 'connecting the dots' as you put it.

So again I ask, what DO you believe Gem? What is your alternative theory of what happened, how we all came to be, and all that stuff? Do you have one, or are you just pulling a CI and arguing for the sake of argument?

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore;360620 said:

No Gem, when you 'disagree' with the conclusions drawn, without replacing or stating your own conclusions from the DATA that has been presented, you are the one being 'awfully unreasonable'.

Post 602

It sounds like you are claiming the theory of evolution is wrong, because you want to believe in Creationism, ID, Flying Spagetti Monster/whatever without any proof of that being existing.

You don't need theories to get answers? Then what DO you think is happening?

As an aside, you did completely disregard the link I posted to the virus adapting to its environment, which is pure evolution. You now claim that you do not disagree with evolution's factual base, but you disagree with the conclusions that have been drawn. The 'connecting the dots' as you put it.

So again I ask, what DO you believe Gem? What is your alternative theory of what happened, how we all came to be, and all that stuff? Do you have one, or are you just pulling a CI and arguing for the sake of argument?

Partly I am arguing for the sake of argument.

However, I don't have any theories to 'replace' the theory of evolution, and if you like you can actaully take that as I don't really disagree with it, because in essence I don't think it ever can be proved - I don't think we'll ever find out what happened.

You're taking me too literally on some points. Perhaps I should have another theory, but I don't have to have one to disagree.

As far as creationism goes, I have already said I don't set creationism and evolution against each other - if you want, they can be combined.

As for what I believe about what exactly happened - I don't believe anything in particular, except that God is behind it. The actual events and technical theories I don't have a set opinion on. It could technically have happened as described in the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean that it did. Which brings me back to my original point; it could have happened that way, but that doesn't mean that it did. That's all I am saying. No more, no less.

[Terez]

Missed this post:

Cold Iron;360566 said:

Santa is a concept too, be good and you'll be rewarded.

Yeah, and belief in Santa Claus is still totally irrational, despite the fact that there are concepts tied up with SC that have some merit. It's easy enough for us to separate those concepts from the fictional character SC. Why is it so difficult to do the same for "god"?

[Obdigore]

Gem Windcaster;360642 said:

As for what I believe about what exactly happened - I don't believe anything in particular, except that God is behind it. The actual events and technical theories I don't have a set opinion on. It could technically have happened as described in the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean that it did. Which brings me back to my original point; it could have happened that way, but that doesn't mean that it did. That's all I am saying. No more, no less.

Yay! Thank you, that is what I wanted.

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore;360671 said:

Yay! Thank you, that is what I wanted.

Sheesh Obdi, I have no idea what you thought I was really on about. Of course I can't disprove anything. Silly bear. :Hetan: *huggle*