The Faith & Religion mega Thread

While I enjoyed watching Dr. Carl Sagan (RIP), I could never stomach "billions and billions." Spoken as though he knew what he was talking about. Fact is, it was nothing more than hand-waving. Somehow, magical things would happen if only given enough time. But that's nonsense.

As far as evolution is concerned, we know that it is "the origin of species," but we also know that living things only reproduce "after their own kind." Evolutionary species changes are slight. You cannot arbitrarily mix eggs and sperm of different animals – it just doesn't work. We also see that from time a pregnancy results in a miscarriage: presumably the mother's body detects that something is wrong and aborts the pregnancy. So, these are factors that work directly against the notion of the rich tapestry of life forms somehow happening "spontaneously."

So, we are once again left with no answer to our earnest questions. We see a diversity of life forms from mosquitos to whale sharks, and we can't explain how they got there. (But that has never stopped people from doing so anyway.)

Originally Posted by mrmazda You're wrong about that. Everybody has faith. It's only a question of where placed and how much, such as with voting systems, eyes, government, Kellogg's, intelligent design, public water supplies, IPOs, bridges, brake pedals, Paypal, vaccines, and much more.

So you know everyone? I assure you that Faith and Confidence are NOT the same thing and I rely on confidence, decisions based on evidence, for everything that I deem important. It is absolutely commonplace that those of religious faith assume everyone else has faith and that Science and faith are nearly equivalent. They are not. Unqualified assumption is not even in the same ballpark as studied, critical thinking. Faith is a One Stop Shop. You basically just need one book for everything. That doesn't work for me.

Originally Posted by mrmazda 76 minutes to digest all the videos I pointed to and then compose a response too! Wow, you read and watch videos fast! I've spent hundreds of hours absorbing what those links and other sources have to offer. OTOH, I haven't looked at anything the Discovery Institute has to offer except the one .pdf doc I linked to that indicates many scientists do not believe in Darwinism, a doc which is comprised mostly those that have retired or otherwise don't depend on salaries from universities for their livelihoods. It's too expensive for many to come out of the closet on the issue, but more and more have been in recent decades as professors retire from academia, free to support irreducible complexity and Biblical text. Kitzmiller was yet another bad recent SCOTUS case that ignored 1892 Holy Trinity and other clear precedent. Unfortunately, there's no money to be made swimming against the tide, so it takes effort to expose the truth. It must be taken from wherever it can be found, so it won't come from world view interests. Again, not so. 76 minutes couldn't have covered a small fraction of it.

76 minutes? So in addition to assuming everyone has faith, you also assume I have no experience with religious dogma and those who profess it? The list of scientists who disagree with evolution looks impressive ON THE SURFACE, but it is a hack. Some may be self-proclaimed scientists like Ken Ham and that moronic con man who runs the bogus Genesis with dinosaurs museum, and others may be legitimate scientists in distinctly other fields. I have zero confidence that a serious scientist who designs rocket engines is an authority on brain surgery.

I have no need for example to spend several hours reading some bogus shoring up of Flat Earth nonsense any more than I need to spend hours discussing if any unicorns come in purple or if any color unicorns have useful wings. The only people who think such things deserve serious consideration are those who begin with their conclusion and latch on to anything that can be construed to support that view no matter how twisted, convoluted and ridiculous. For example I take no heed of "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live: because I know Magick is fake, doesn't exist, so there are no witches, even though some deranged people might think chanting spells and burning tobacco at crossroads actually changes anything.

There are things which are simply a waste of time and critical thinking is one way to reduce such wastes. Faith just makes one entrenched in such nonsense. It's the first step in any con job.

Originally Posted by enorbet ...At least Lutheran is still Christian but I doubt you would have attended "Lord Odin High School" though Mjolnir might.

Only if they had anvils, gas and coal forges, and powerhammers in the machine shop.

Originally Posted by enorbet I assure you that Faith and Confidence are NOT the same thing and I rely on confidence, decisions based on evidence, for everything that I deem important.

That's a lot of "I"s. Maybe some of them ought to consider the similarities. Maybe it's time for you to provide some cites that make you so confident that the virtually infinite complexity and miracle that is life came from non-life, and DNA happened spontaneously, and without involving a creator to design them and put them in a location in a universe where they can continue.

You basically just need one book for everything. That doesn't work for me.

The Bible is 66 books, from writers that include criminals, kings and warriors, which prior to the printing press were painstakingly and meticulously copied to avoid mistakes, which when found were cause to discard and start from the beginning rather than attempting correction. It covers enough ground that others aren't really needed except for special purposes. It wasn't created to generate money.

You want another book? Have another book, a bit newer, which includes both modern science and faith for examining evidence: Creation By God, Or Evolution From Nothing? (2008)
DVD version for those who can't be bothered to read, and/or because it's less expensive.

legitimate scientists in distinctly other fields. I have zero confidence that a serious scientist who designs rocket engines is an authority on brain surgery.

Veith is a former atheist university professor and very well rounded author and scholar in Zoology, Biology, Archeology, Diet, and the Bible, who's been around both long and physically, so better qualified than most on thread issues.

I have no need for example to spend several hours reading some bogus shoring up of Flat Earth nonsense any more than I need to spend hours discussing if any unicorns come in purple or if any color unicorns have useful wings.

Christians are not categorically flat earth believers. They knew global navigation when they crossed the Atlantic to reach Plymouth Rock in the early 17th century. It sounds like you have no reason be participate in this thread, no interest in learning things new to you, only in scoffing.

Originally Posted by mrmazda That's a lot of "I"s. Maybe some of them ought to consider the similarities. Maybe it's time for you to provide some cites that make you so confident that the virtually infinite complexity and miracle that is life came from non-life, and DNA happened spontaneously, and without involving a creator to design them and put them in a location in a universe where they can continue.

That is a tired non-answer basically in the form "Nobody can prove what it was, therefore the man in the sky did it" - non sequitur. The repeatable objective facts are we keep narrowing it down, learning ever more. In just the last 50 years we have discovered the basic building blocks of organic molecules are essentially everywhere. The discovery of lifeforms miles under the Earth in solid rock, in boiling geothermal pools and around deep sea Black Smokers where pressures, temperatures and acidity are incredibly extreme constantly expand what we view as Life. The old definitions even loosely fit computer viruses since they self-replicate, use and exhaust energy and can evolve. It is beginning to look like Life is basic to advanced chemistry, something the Universe just does given enough time.

Yes Life is something miraculous but so are planets, stars, comets, storms, etc. Nobody claims Life came from nothing since nobody has ever witnessed "nothing". Everywhere we look we find energy fields with particles winking in and out of existence.

And yes more than one "I" seemed essential when describing my position. I take full responsibility for my views, right and wrong, but I don't stay wrong for long.

Originally Posted by mrmazda The Bible is 66 books, from writers that include criminals, kings and warriors, which prior to the printing press were painstakingly and meticulously copied to avoid mistakes, which when found were cause to discard and start from the beginning rather than attempting correction. It covers enough ground that others aren't really needed except for special purposes. It wasn't created to generate money.

I understand that the Christian Bible is a conglomeration spanning many hundreds of years and numerous authors, some with forgotten names, and not only copied, but translated several times, much from the very primitive earliest stages of written language. Possibly it's intent was not to generate money but it was obviously intended to generate power over others. I'll even grant that originally scriptures were likely needed to strike the sparks of civilization. None of that speaks to it's source or it's accuracy 2000+ years later.

Originally Posted by mrmazda You want another book? Have another book, a bit newer, which includes both modern science and faith for examining evidence: Creation By God, Or Evolution From Nothing? (2008) DVD version for those who can't be bothered to read, and/or because it's less expensive. Veith is a former atheist university professor and very well rounded author and scholar in Zoology, Biology, Archeology, Diet, and the Bible, who's been around both long and physically, so better qualified than most on thread issues.

Those books start with an assumption, an assumption without any evidence. They are by nature faith-based. I don't waste my time on assertions with no evidence. any more than syllogisms that include the conclusion in the premise. That is circular "logic" a proven failure.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Christians are not categorically flat earth believers. They knew global navigation when they crossed the Atlantic to reach Plymouth Rock in the early 17th century. It sounds like you have no reason be participate in this thread, no interest in learning things new to you, only in scoffing.

I never said all Christians are Flat Earthers. Not all Christians dance with poisonous snakes or are Young Earthers or Evolution-Deniers either. It was an example of ill-logic. Because you assume everyone has Faith, you will likely never understand the difference between mere "belief" and critical conclusions. I see all the time Evolution-Deniers referring to the scientific as "Evolutionists" as if it was simply a matter of opinion even though they don't refer to those who accept that gravity is real as "Gravityists".

This thread specifically includes doubters and non-believers and I learn new things all the time. I have confidance that mistakes are an important part of the learning process. There's no shame in mistakes unless your agenda precludes the next step, considered, adaptive learning. I don't see that fundamentalists learn much newer than Bronze Age superstition.

Originally Posted by enorbet Those books start with an assumption, an assumption without any evidence (emphasis supplied).

Your presumption. Regardless, evidence is presented that you may not have been indoctrinated with in college. We certainly have amassed an incredible increase in wealth of knowledge in recent decades.

I don't waste my time (emphasis supplied) on assertions with no evidence. any more than syllogisms that include the conclusion in the premise.

As prophesied thousands of years ago for the times we live in now, willing ignorance: presupposing lack of evidence. Evidence is where you find it, but you have to look with an open mind to see it, not a presumption against miracles and creator, which has poisoned science for nearly two centuries. It's a continuous miracle that is life is ongoing. Miracles do happen.

Re:

Originally Posted by mrmazda Originally Posted by enorbet Those books start with an assumption, an assumption without any evidence (emphasis supplied).

Originally Posted by mrmazda Your presumption. Regardless, evidence is presented that you may not have been indoctrinated with in college.

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster Dictionary presume prĭ-zoo͞m′ intransitive verb To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary.

If we postulate that in order to create anything a creator must precede the creation, a creator of a Universe must precede that Universe, especially if that creator is defined as immortal, since the Universe is not immortal. So a creator of the only known Universe had to exist outside the Space-Time that is our Universe. Since as far as we know, no information can get through that SpaceTime barrier we cannot gather any information from whatever is outside our Space and Time. Therefore no objective evidence can be gathered by we humans, whether it exists in some other realm or not. WE can't get to it.

That is "proof to the contrary". It could be so but we cannot prove it and odds against it exist. So your characterization of my presumtion is inaccurate and fallacious. Additionally, in Science and Logic, evidence is either repeatable with similar results or it doesn't qualify as evidence. Instead we have words like "hearsay" for such weak arguments.

Originally Posted by enorbet no objective evidence can be gathered by we humans, whether it exists in some other realm or not. WE can't get to it.

All the evidence we actually need is available. That one refuses on account of defective world view to recognize it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by mrmazda All the evidence we actually need is available. That one refuses on account of defective world view to recognize it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

All the non-evidence YOU need maybe. I just explained what qualifies as objective evidence yet you insist on confirmation bias that somehow this magical conglomeration book from 2000+ years ago manged to breach Space Time and gather information from outside our Universe, a concept they had zero clue about, this hearsay is to you actual evidence. I think it is because it is literally all you have. How is it possible you don't grasp that advertising statements for Snake Oil use exactly the same sort of scam? "Four out of five of our doctors state our Acme Snake Oil is superior to all other fake medications, and Acme will not only cure 3rd stage cancer but protect you in the after life as well and enlarge your penis while you await Paradise". That's what proving the book by the book means. Deny everything that doesn't fit the illusion.

@enorbet: To me, the word "faith" does not necessarily imply a "religious" connotation. I also do not think of it as being in any way a pejorative term. There is nothing here about which to take offense. Personally, I do believe that many people have "faith" in "science," and that is quite to be expected.

@mrmazda: Nevertheless, like it or not, we are "looking through a glass, darkly" about a great many things. We can look for "evidence" and be certain that we have found it – but there's never anything wrong with continuing to be skeptical, because all of us could turn out to be totally wrong. A new discovery could be made tomorrow which turns everything topsy-turvy ... it has happened many times before. So, I never think that it's a good idea to disagree with, or to argue with anyone, whose viewpoint doesn't reconcile with yours. To me, that is presumptuous. Listen to them and embrace their conflicting viewpoints: there may yet be something very important to be learned from them. Don't shut down any(!) conversation.

I think that we are all "blind men" who will never truly understand what an elephant is like. And, to me, "that's okay." Sux to be human and (so far ...) stuck on just one planet, maybe, but here we all are.

I recognize that human beings have taken a very wide range of approaches to the "Big Kahuna Questions" that we all have, and I'm not ready to say that any of those approaches are "wrong." I reserve the right to personally disagree with any of them, but that's my business and not anyone else's. I'm not going to put my opinions and prejudices into anyone else's face. I claim no territory. I'll just say, "How interesting. How very, very interesting." (And actually mean it.)

sundialsvcs - My sincere apologies if I somehow missed explaining that I do agree with your conclusion and statement that "faith" is by no means only relevant to religion. I sincerely doubt that most folks who routinely buy lottery tickets do so because of their religion yet it seems due to some sort of Faith rather than Reason. I DO use faith in a pejorative manner because it seems a correctable mistake to bet against the odds just because of wishful thinking. It seems planning to fail to me.

I hope I've made it clear that I am not "speaking from on high" or "talking down" because I am very much aware of how little we know, especially about the most fundamental things. In truth, we haven't wandered far down from the trees but that doesn't mean it isn't remarkable and wonderful how far we have come on such a difficult, slow trek to knowledge. My concern here is that we don't take too many backward steps and deny what progress has been accomplished.

Another atheist converted, on TBN coming up momentarily.

Edit:
It was an interview with the author of a new book: Confessions of a French Atheist: How God Hijacked My Quest to Disprove the Christian Faith

Originally Posted by enorbet Deny everything that doesn't fit the illusion.

That's exactly what you are doing, except before the fact, evidenced by your abundant use of pejorative terms. I give you refs, you scoff. That's willing ignorance, refusing to consider looking at evidence provided because you have pre-judged its reliability and/or validity based upon the messenger.

Originally Posted by enorbet: I DO use faith in a pejorative manner because it seems a correctable mistake to bet against the odds just because of wishful thinking. It seems planning to fail to me.

And yes, we agree to disagree as to the proper meaning (and role) of the word, "faith."

I want to make it once again perfectly clear in this public forum that I do not "judge you," and I never will. You have neither gained nor lost "altitude."

Perhaps our only difference is what we respectively consider to be "a 'backward' step."

Personally, I don't think that anyone is out to "deny progress," but at the same time I think that there is more than one 'lane' within which "progress" can properly be recognized. The "science" lane doesn't need to try to shut-out the "philosophy" lane doesn't need to try to shut out the "religion" lane. Each one of these 'lanes' has its own distinct "rules of engagement," and within those distinct boundaries I think that we should embrace(!) them all.

I think that each of us confronts – well, our mortality(?) – in very different ways. Or maybe it would be better said, "the hard and maybe-awful limits of our perception." Some of us become scientists. Others become priests. Others become athiests. Most of us probably decline to "become" anything, and just limit our "rants" to political forums. But, if anything can properly be said about "this decision-space," it would certainly be said that "it is multi-dimensional."

mrmazda, pot meet kettle. You don't consider all sources have equal weight. You base how valuable a source is by how it conforms to your bias. Scientifically oriented people weigh sources by objective, repeatable evidence, and lean a bit in favor of "show me" skepticism. Yes I AM willingly ignorant to a degree about Unicorns, werewolves, witches, and supernatural beings as well as Young, Flat Earth as the Center of the Universe because it is non-repeatable, subjective, proven nonsense driven by a need to shore up superstitious Myth from 2000+ years ago. Again, we don't know much, but we do know a great deal more than the average bronze age scholar, let alone average joe.

Look around you. How many things you depend on for basic daily survival and decent health came about through religion vs/ how many from Science? I sincerely doubt you'd last a month circa 10BC, (neither would any of us) and if you've birthed children, some 60+% of them would've died too.