Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Deicide on September 02, 2011, 09:15:23 AM
-
Hitchens once made the remark that he was made such that he could not believe, even if he wanted to and I was wondering if there were people on the board who feel the same way, I certainly do, even as a child I never believed in the stories that were told to me about dead relatives or from others about deities. I always thought mythology was interesting but never believed it and I have come to the conclusion that I am indeed made so as not to believe, for whatever reason (I suspect a combination of social and genetic reasons) I simply cannot and I think many people who are atheists fall into this category but definitely not all. I have a friend who is now an atheist who is going through what appears to be a heart-wrenching experience as he comes to grips with his departure from Christianity. Intellectually I can understand it but I cannot relate to it in any way whatsoever. I thus think that there is a strong genetic component to belief, which is why some of us believe and some of us do not.
Thoughts, opinions?
-
It's actually impossible for me not to believe. I've tried to rationalize an existence that is a matter of happenstance. I've questioned whether my beliefs are reasonable. That the perfection we see throughout our solar system, our planet, our environment, our bodies, etc. has no design; that it was all an accident.
At the end of the day, when I look at the complexity and harmony, there is no way I can conclude anything other than something much greater than me had a hand in all of this.
-
It's actually impossible for me not to believe. I've tried to rationalize an existence that is a matter of happenstance. I've questioned whether my beliefs are reasonable. That the perfection we see throughout our solar system, our planet, our environment, our bodies, etc. has no design; that it was all an accident.
At the end of the day, when I look at the complexity and harmony, there is no way I can conclude anything other than something much greater than me had a hand in all of this.
Maybe there are people who are made to believe then.
-
Maybe there are people who are made to believe then.
I don't know that anyone is made to believe or not believe. We all have the ability to make choices, think, process information, etc.
-
I don't know that anyone is made to believe or not believe. We all have the ability to make choices, think, process information, etc.
Choices? I don't think believing is a choice, well, not necessarily, I mean if Christianity presented evidence that were valid in my eyes I could 'believe' but that would no longer be believing, just accepting.
-
I don't know that anyone is made to believe or not believe. We all have the ability to make choices, think, process information, etc.
Isn't that in fact "made or not made".
If two different people are given the same information and come up with completely different conclusions, it stands to reason that they are "designed" to assimilate the information and create postulates differently.
Therefore, "made to believe or not".
-
Choices? I don't think believing is a choice, well, not necessarily, I mean if Christianity presented evidence that were valid in my eyes I could 'believe' but that would no longer be believing, just accepting.
Sure it is. You have the choice to be a Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, etc. You have the choice to research various religions. You have the choice to read or research nothing at all and use your life experience to make decisions about religious or non-religious matters. Whether what you read, research, or experience convinces you to believe or not believe is a separate issue.
-
Sure it is. You have the choice to be a Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, etc. You have the choice to research various religions. You have the choice to read or research nothing at all and use your life experience to make decisions about religious or non-religious matters. Whether what you read, research, or experience convinces you to believe or not believe is a separate issue.
I have read the Bible, various arguments for its validity put forth by Christian apologists and find none of it very convincing. I think tu_holmes' point is a valid one since obviously plenty of people read the same stuff and find it very convincing and even sufficient evidence.
-
Isn't that in fact "made or not made".
If two different people are given the same information and come up with completely different conclusions, it stands to reason that they are "designed" to assimilate the information and create postulates differently.
Therefore, "made to believe or not".
There could be a variety of reasons why people come to different conclusions after looking at the same information: personality, intelligence, common sense, life experience, stubborness, willful ignorance, denial, maturity, etc.
-
There could be a variety of reasons why people come to different conclusions after looking at the same information: personality, intelligence, common sense, life experience, stubborness, willful ignorance, denial, maturity, etc.
All of those are "made so as not to believe" are they not?
Most of those factors are inherent genetic traits are they not?
The ones that aren't are environmental... You are also made by that.
-
It's actually impossible for me not to believe. I've tried to rationalize an existence that is a matter of happenstance. I've questioned whether my beliefs are reasonable. That the perfection we see throughout our solar system, our planet, our environment, our bodies, etc. has no design; that it was all an accident.
At the end of the day, when I look at the complexity and harmony, there is no way I can conclude anything other than something much greater than me had a hand in all of this.
Factually incorrect statement.
-
I have read the Bible, various arguments for its validity put forth by Christian apologists and find none of it very convincing. I think tu_holmes' point is a valid one since obviously plenty of people read the same stuff and find it very convincing and even sufficient evidence.
What is a "Christian apologist"?
I don't usually argue with people about the Bible. I can only speak about what I've personally experienced and what I see in life. For example, I've read my favorite book (Proverbs) countless times. I have seen the wisdom in that book manifest itself in my life and others, more times than I can count. That's what happens with a lot of Christians. Their personal experiences help validate what they read and study.
In other words, Christianity (or religion in general) isn't just about what you read in a book. It's about your life experience.
-
All of those are "made so as not to believe" are they not?
Most of those factors are inherent genetic traits are they not?
The ones that aren't are environmental... You are also made by that.
No, they're not all genetic. Your personality is shaped in part by your environment at a very young age. Your intelligence is a product of your upbringing, your parents, your own work ethic, etc. Life experience is not genetic. Neither is willful ignorce nor maturity.
-
No, they're not all genetic. Your personality is shaped in part by your environment at a very young age. Your intelligence is a product of your upbringing, your parents, your own work ethic, etc. Life experience is not genetic. Neither is willful ignorce nor maturity.
Way to retype what I fucking wrote you idiot.
I said aren't most of them... then I added environment.
Maturity is not genetic? You age according to something outside of the genetic makeup of human beings?
Leave the science to scientists... Stick with being a lawyer Mark.
-
If bodies are perfect, why are there vestigial organs?
-
People capable of being honest with themselves cannot believe. It's really a silly proposition in the first place.
However, people that have their identities conceived in religion have no choice but to keep believing. They would much rather take a false certainty than stare the universe in the face.
And to speak of perfection is a silly and useless exercise. There is no perfection here. How many times has a powerful injustice won out on the history of man? It is the norm indeed, and not the exception.
I really think it comes down to courage. Maybe the question should be re-framed so as to why some have more courage than others, which is a reality of the human race, to be sure.
-
People capable of being honest with themselves cannot believe. It's really a silly proposition in the first place.
However, people that have their identities conceived in religion have no choice but to keep believing. They would much rather take a false certainty than stare the universe in the face.
And to speak of perfection is a silly and useless exercise. There is no perfection here. How many times has a powerful injustice won out on the history of man? It is the norm indeed, and not the exception.
I really think it comes down to courage. Maybe the question should be re-framed so as to why some have more courage than others, which is a reality of the human race, to be sure.
I actually think it's the exact opposite: when an intelligent person asks himself (or herself) a number of hard questions, and actually tests certain things, it's hard not to believe.
And yes, I do see perfection in so many things: the way our solar system is set up. The sun and moon and how they regulate our planet. The way our bodies function (when we take care of them). It's pretty amazing.
-
I actually think it's the exact opposite: when an intelligent person asks himself (or herself) a number of hard questions, and actually tests certain things, it's hard not to believe.
And yes, I do see perfection in so many things: the way our solar system is set up. The sun and moon and how they regulate our planet. The way our bodies function (when we take care of them). It's pretty amazing.
Why do we have vestigial organs?
-
Why do we have vestigial organs?
I have no idea. You'll have to ask the creator. :)
-
I have no idea. You'll have to ask the creator. :)
It's hardly perfect if an unneeded organ is just hanging out in your body taking up space.
-
I have no idea. You'll have to ask the creator. :)
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Also, what if the teapot is avoiding detection to test your faith?
-
I have no idea. You'll have to ask the creator. :)
Actually, this proves my point exactly.
When something illogical is pointed out, you STILL lack the courage to incorporate it.
You've got a built-in backup that allows you to have eternal life, seeing your dead relatives again, etc. that short circuits the balls to realize that your quasi-theory is false.
In a word, it comes down to courage.
People can always use cognitive dissonance in order to comfort themselves, and indeed they do, but these tricks of logic do not a truth make.
-
In other words, I wish you would have the courage to admit the obvious, but what will happen to you tomorrow?
You must face all those who share your philosophy and tell them that you have changed. Philosophically speaking, you will have to come out of the closet. At this point in your life, that is out of the question.
But that's just half of it. The other half would be abandoning the false comfort you've acquired.
-
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Also, what if the teapot is avoiding detection to test your faith?
That's not a very reasonable example. I'm not even sure how to address it. If you're trying to make an analogy to an imaginary teapot and Christianity, then no, I don't see it.
-
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Also, what if the teapot is avoiding detection to test your faith?
At least attribute the quote to Russell man... ;) It's also one of my favourites.
-
That's not a very reasonable example. I'm not even sure how to address it. If you're trying to make an analogy to an imaginary teapot and Christianity, then no, I don't see it.
Russell's Tea Pot is simple and the analogy is perfect. He is saying that Christianity is essentially a tea pot out in space (or rather its claims) but by dint of history and widespread affirmation throughout history, Christianity and its claims are made 'valid' (though this is only social validation), the substance however is still not there.
I really did not mean to turn this into a debate on the usual.
-
Actually, this proves my point exactly.
When something illogical is pointed out, you STILL lack the courage to incorporate it.
You've got a built-in backup that allows you to have eternal life, seeing your dead relatives again, etc. that short circuits the balls to realize that your quasi-theory is false.
In a word, it comes down to courage.
People can always use cognitive dissonance in order to comfort themselves, and indeed they do, but these tricks of logic do not a truth make.
If your point is that our bodies are not perfectly designed, and the basis for your point is "vestigial organs," then no you haven't proven your point at all. All you've done is created a straw man.
I've looked at a number of aspects of our body and it is just an amazing piece of equipment. For example, I think I posted in a thread on this board the steps involved in childbirth. Just incredible. When I look at the intricate details of our bodies and how they work together, I see perfection. You see "vestigial organs." lol
That isn't to say there aren't abnomralities, etc.
-
If your point is that our bodies are not perfectly designed, and the basis for your point is "vestigial organs," then no you haven't proven your point at all. All you've done is created a straw man.
I've looked at a number of aspects of our body and it is just an amazing piece of equipment. For example, I think I posted in a thread on this board the steps involved in childbirth. Just incredible. When I look at the intricate details of our bodies and how they work together, I see perfection. You see "vestigial organs." lol
That isn't to say there aren't abnomralities, etc.
If there are abnormalities, then how can you see perfection?
-
In other words, I wish you would have the courage to admit the obvious, but what will happen to you tomorrow?
You must face all those who share your philosophy and tell them that you have changed. Philosophically speaking, you will have to come out of the closet. At this point in your life, that is out of the question.
But that's just half of it. The other half would be abandoning the false comfort you've acquired.
lol. Absurd. I'm entirely comfortable with my beliefs. Assuming I were to "change" what I believe in, I don't have to justify what I believe or don't believe to anyone. I don't have to explain anything to friends, family, etc. That's what happens when you have an independent mind.
When someone has doubts about who they are, or what they believe, lack self-confidence, etc. they often attack those with differing viewpoints. That's actually what the atheist movements is all about: attacking those who believe in God.
Someone who is truly comfortable with whatever it is they believe, doesn't need to riducle those who think a different way, or believe in different things. I have a number of atheist and agnostic friends who are like this. They are smart people, who feel good about themselves, and don't spend time fussing about things they dont' believe in.
-
Russell's Tea Pot is simple and the analogy is perfect. He is saying that Christianity is essentially a tea pot out in space (or rather its claims) but by dint of history and widespread affirmation throughout history, Christianity and its claims are made 'valid' (though this is only social validation), the substance however is still not there.
I really did not mean to turn this into a debate on the usual.
So he cockroached his tea pot example from someone else? lol
-
If there are abnormalities, then how can you see perfection?
Because I don't believe our bodies were created with abnormalities.
-
Vestigial organs is one of Darwin's main tenants of evolution. Guess I stole that one too.
It doesn't much matter, the logic remains in both cases.
The point is, you've got built in mechanisms to suspend logic at your will. When you've factually lost an argument, it becomes a part of 'working in mysterious ways'.
Dawkins also makes the great point that religious people will praise science if and when it bolsters their own argument, then dismiss it as irrelevant when it points to gaping holes in their paradigm.
-
Reading 'Open Letter to a Christian Nation', by Sam Harris, just checked it out today.
Full of great stuff as well. I highly recommend it.
-
Ridiculous. No one is winning or losing any arguments. This is just a discussion. And you certainly don't "win" arguments by using absurd hypotheticals. Or asking a question about "vestigial organs."
But I do appreciate the psychoanalysis. Very entertaining to read. :)
Dawkins? Is that the same guy who believes space aliens could have designed life on earth? lol :)
-
Ridiculous. No one is winning or losing any arguments. This is just a discussion. And you certainly don't "win" arguments by using absurd hypotheticals. Or asking a question about "vestigial organs."
But I do appreciate the psychoanalysis. Very entertaining to read. :)
Dawkins? Is that the same guy who believes space aliens could have designed life on earth? lol :)
Who are you to determine what is or isn't valid in this instance?
So vestigial organs aren't valid? According to you? How do you get to be the person who determines value to other people.
-
Ridiculous. No one is winning or losing any arguments. This is just a discussion. And you certainly don't "win" arguments by using absurd hypotheticals. Or asking a question about "vestigial organs."
But I do appreciate the psychoanalysis. Very entertaining to read. :)
Dawkins? Is that the same guy who believes space aliens could have designed life on earth? lol :)
God is an alien, by definition.
I guess you and Dawkins agree.
-
God is an alien, by definition.
I guess you and Dawkins agree.
Yes, Dawkins agrees that intelligent design could have been behind the creation of life on earth. I think it's really funny. :)
-
Made to believe or not: I think it's God's desire that all would choose Him and none would perish, so I feel that "made to believe or not" is pretty complicated.
I do believe that in regard to those of us that believe, that even our faith is a gift of God, so I wonder if He bestows the gift on those that He knows want to believe. Certainly there are those that do not want to believe, I think....
Re: Vestigial Organs: I believe that God created human's bodies "perfect" before their owners chose sin and it entered the world. Could that have something to do w/these perceived "vestigial" organs that are seen as useless or having lost their use? Possibly. From my understanding sin has affected everything in the world.
In addition, are these Vestigial Organs etc. actually useless or is it possible we have we not yet discovered their usefulness?
Those that quote Darwin's Vestigial Organs as a proof against Intelligent Design, which organs do you think are vestigial?
-
Made to believe or not: I think it's God's desire that all would choose Him and none would perish, so I feel that "made to believe or not" is pretty complicated.
I do believe that in regard to those of us that believe, that even our faith is a gift of God, so I wonder if He bestows the gift on those that He knows want to believe. Certainly there are those that do not want to believe, I think....
Re: Vestigial Organs: I believe that God created human's bodies "perfect" before their owners chose sin and it entered the world. Could that have something to do w/these perceived "vestigial" organs that are seen as useless or having lost their use? Possibly. From my understanding sin has affected everything in the world.
In addition, are these Vestigial Organs etc. actually useless or is it possible we have we not yet discovered their usefulness?
Those that quote Darwin's Vestigial Organs as a proof against Intelligent Design, which organs do you think are vestigial?
I am not sure what you mean by not wanting to believe? What does that mean? People who want to believe and can, do so and I know plenty of atheists who would like to believe but cannot (I am not one of them), obviously as I stated at the outset, it is a question of genetics and environment.
-
I am not sure what you mean by not wanting to believe? What does that mean? People who want to believe and can, do so and I know plenty of atheists who would like to believe but cannot (I am not one of them), obviously as I stated at the outset, it is a question of genetics and environment.
I believe that those who truly seek, will "find" Him. Meaning, those that truly want to know the truth about God...to know that He is real and to know Him, will eventually end up believing.
-
I believe that those who truly seek, will "find" Him. Meaning, those that truly want to know the truth about God...to know that He is real and to know Him, will eventually end up believing.
I think for nonbelievers the lack of evidence is the biggest issue, for the ones who would like to believe but require evidence that is the crux of the issue but then that is not believing but accepting.
-
I think for nonbelievers the lack of evidence is the biggest issue, for the ones who would like to believe but require evidence that is the crux of the issue but then that is not believing but accepting.
Lack of evidence showing the existence of God? That may be true, because a number of atheists have had bad experiences and believe if God really existed, He would have helped, stopped their pain, etc.
But I will say the standard used by a lot of atheists is not very consistent. I've discussed this in other threads, but people accept non-faith based beliefs all the time, including the origin of life on earth. In the clip I posted of Dawkins, he pointedly says "I don't know" when asked how life began.
-
Lack of evidence showing the existence of God? That may be true, because a number of atheists have had bad experiences and believe if God really existed, He would have helped, stopped their pain, etc.
But I will say the standard used by a lot of atheists is not very consistent. I've discussed this in other threads, but people accept non-faith based beliefs all the time, including the origin of life on earth. In the clip I posted of Dawkins, he pointedly says "I don't know" when asked how life began.
I don't know is a lot more honest (and we don't know) than claiming that the Judeo-Christian god did it. Scientists say they don't know all the time, in fact it is a 'sin' to claim to know when you don't. I think there is a stigma in our society to admitting ignorance and it is a shame.
-
I don't know is a lot more honest (and we don't know) than claiming that the Judeo-Christian god did it. Scientists say they don't know all the time, in fact it is a 'sin' to claim to know when you don't. I think there is a stigma in our society to admitting ignorance and it is a shame.
How is it more honest? It's just different. I don't know how life began. I know what I believe (God did it), but I cannot prove it.
The fact is the belief in how life originated on earth is a faith-based belief. We don't have evidence. It cannot be tested. It isn't scientific, regardless of which theory you believe in.
I'll bump the thread I created about this, but if you read it, I'm not sure you can find anyone who is able to discuss the origin of life on earth from an evolutionary perspective without mentioning and/or ridiculing God, religion, etc.
I disagree about there being stigma associated with admitting ignorance. It's actually a sign of intelligence when a person admits they don't something about a particular subject, rather than talking out of their rear end. That's a virtue.
-
How is it more honest? It's just different. I don't know how life began. I know what I believe (God did it), but I cannot prove it.
The fact is the belief in how life originated on earth is a faith-based belief. We don't have evidence. It cannot be tested. It isn't scientific, regardless of which theory you believe in.
I'll bump the thread I created about this, but if you read it, I'm not sure you can find anyone who is able to discuss the origin of life on earth from an evolutionary perspective without mentioning and/or ridiculing God, religion, etc.
I disagree about there being stigma associated with admitting ignorance. It's actually a sign of intelligence when a person admits they don't something about a particular subject, rather than talking out of their rear end. That's a virtue.
Evolution has nothing to do with origin of life though.
-
Evolution has nothing to do with origin of life though.
That's not the way it's taught. The "big bang theory" et al. are taught as part of classes that teach macroevolution. At least they did when I was in school.
-
a lot of flawed logic in this thread :-\
-
a lot of flawed logic in this thread :-\
Care to clarify a bit more?
-
a lot of flawed logic in this thread :-\
Tell me about it. lol :)
-
Why do we have vestigial organs?
We don't, just cause you can't pinpoint the function doesn't mean there isn't one, do you have any idea how complex the body is? and literally billions of functions working together simultaneously, we will never learn everything about the body, not in another 1000 years either, silly argument
-
I have an older brother. He and I grew up in a Christian family. Around the age of 35 I started reading about other peoples views on Christianity as well as books for christianity. Eventually I dropped the belief. My brother, who has a higher IQ than I do, is a staunch believer. He is very distressed that I no longer share his personal belief and has tried to convince me of the error of my ways. He has recommended several books which he felt would open my eyes. I read each book but my eyes remain closed. When I recommended some books for him he refused to read them saying he already knew the truth....
I remember one time he was over at my house and I had a copy of Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker on my table. He picked it up, looked at the back of the book, saw a sentence that conflicted with his belief and he tossed the book down saying "Well I can discount that book, because I know miracles happen"...
I can't help wondering sometimes that if he actually read a few books that didn't support his belief with an open mind, what might happen..
-
I think for nonbelievers the lack of evidence is the biggest issue, for the ones who would like to believe but require evidence that is the crux of the issue but then that is not believing but accepting.
I personally find "evidence" for a Designer of Creation in looking at things in nature, our senses (esp. vision), complexities of cell structures etc.
I have an older brother. He and I grew up in a Christian family. Around the age of 35 I started reading about other peoples views on Christianity as well as books for christianity. Eventually I dropped the belief. My brother, who has a higher IQ than I do, is a staunch believer. He is very distressed that I no longer share his personal belief and has tried to convince me of the error of my ways. He has recommended several books which he felt would open my eyes. I read each book but my eyes remain closed. When I recommended some books for him he refused to read them saying he already knew the truth....
I remember one time he was over at my house and I had a copy of Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker on my table. He picked it up, looked at the back of the book, saw a sentence that conflicted with his belief and he tossed the book down saying "Well I can discount that book, because I know miracles happen"...
I can't help wondering sometimes that if he actually read a few books that didn't support his belief with an open mind, what might happen..
Is there anything you "want" to happen w/your brother regarding this? Do you wish he would come to be like you, an agnositic or even an atheist?
garebear and others that accept that we have vestigial organs etc, can you please list the ones that you truly believe are vestigial?
-
I personally find "evidence" for a Designer of Creation in looking at things in nature, our senses (esp. vision), complexities of cell structures etc.
Is there anything you "want" to happen w/your brother regarding this? Do you wish he would come to be like you, an agnositic or even an atheist?
garebear and others that accept that we have vestigial organs etc, can you please list the ones that you truly believe are vestigial?
Good question. I think for 99% of the population I could not care less what they believe or don't. I feel everyone has the right to believe as they want as long as it is not imposed on me.
In my brother's case, about once or twice a year I find myself cornered by him and lectured to for sometimes 2 or 3 hours about why I should believe as he does. I have great respect for him so I politely listen until it gets so late I have to call it a night. I know he means well but I don't look forward to those lectures at all. He wants me to read all his suggested books like I mentioned before, yet refuses to read any I suggest.
So I guess for me I am curious to see what would happen. I know many a brilliant person believes in the bible. The only brilliant person I know personally that believes is my brother. I suspect, that if he did venture out from only reading things that supported his belief, and really dig for the truth, rather than evidence to support his conclusion, he might see I'm not all that dense. If after actually searching for the truth he still arrived at his conclusion, I might give him more credibility.
That was an excellent question and made me think.. thanks BB
-
Good question. I think for 99% of the population I could not care less what they believe or don't. I feel everyone has the right to believe as they want as long as it is not imposed on me.
In my brother's case, about once or twice a year I find myself cornered by him and lectured to for sometimes 2 or 3 hours about why I should believe as he does. I have great respect for him so I politely listen until it gets so late I have to call it a night. I know he means well but I don't look forward to those lectures at all. He wants me to read all his suggested books like I mentioned before, yet refuses to read any I suggest.
So I guess for me I am curious to see what would happen. I know many a brilliant person believes in the bible. The only brilliant person I know personally that believes is my brother. I suspect, that if he did venture out from only reading things that supported his belief, and really dig for the truth, rather than evidence to support his conclusion, he might see I'm not all that dense. If after actually searching for the truth he still arrived at his conclusion, I might give him more credibility.
That was an excellent question and made me think.. thanks BB
Sure! I have my own analysis of what you just wrote but I could be full of beans and it's not for the boards anyway.
Do his lectures push you further away from what he presents or do they sway you either way or not at all?
And you know of course he likely isn't trying to one up you but loves you and is concerned for your eternal soul.
-
Sure! I have my own analysis of what you just wrote but I could be full of beans and it's not for the boards anyway.
Do his lectures push you further away from what he presents or do they sway you either way or not at all?
And you know of course he likely isn't trying to one up you but loves you and is concerned for your eternal soul.
Oh I'm certain he isnt trying to one up me and is concerned for my soul. He can't understand why I don't fear the consequences of being wrong.
I've read extensively on things he talks about. While his arguments appear to him to be rock solid, I know that they have holes in them, or for the sake of argument, are arguable. I recall one time several years ago when I had just dropped my belief, and still had a lot of information in my head (that has since diminished over the years for lack of continued studying). He would give me common apologetic arguments for why the bible was true, I would counter with why they likely weren't based on information I had gathered. I could tell he'd never heard or considered the alternative answers and was quite flustered. We were stuck in a car together and I had no where to go so for a couple hours we went back and forth till finally he got kind of angry and abruptly ended the discussion.
He hadn't mentioned religion to me for a couple years until recently he started up but I think he feels compelled to save me from hell because he loves me... I just feel a little insulted when he does.
-
Oh I'm certain he isnt trying to one up me and is concerned for my soul. He can't understand why I don't fear the consequences of being wrong.
I've read extensively on things he talks about. While his arguments appear to him to be rock solid, I know that they have holes in them, or for the sake of argument, are arguable. I recall one time several years ago when I had just dropped my belief, and still had a lot of information in my head (that has since diminished over the years for lack of continued studying). He would give me common apologetic arguments for why the bible was true, I would counter with why they likely weren't based on information I had gathered. I could tell he'd never heard or considered the alternative answers and was quite flustered. We were stuck in a car together and I had no where to go so for a couple hours we went back and forth till finally he got kind of angry and abruptly ended the discussion.
He hadn't mentioned religion to me for a couple years until recently he started up but I think he feels compelled to save me from hell because he loves me... I just feel a little insulted when he does.
You just gave a great example of a close minded Christians and believe me sir it is even frustrating for Christians, but it sounds like he is being loving. I have read the Quran/koran from front to back, have read all Jewish writings fom the midrash , book of Jubilees, even the book of Jasher, studied most religions and even read the book of Mormons but most Christians wouldn't even look at these books.
-
I personally find "evidence" for a Designer of Creation in looking at things in nature, our senses (esp. vision), complexities of cell structures etc.
Is there anything you "want" to happen w/your brother regarding this? Do you wish he would come to be like you, an agnositic or even an atheist?
garebear and others that accept that we have vestigial organs etc, can you please list the ones that you truly believe are vestigial?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_testis
The appendix testis (or hydatid of Morgagni) is a vestigial remnant of the Müllerian duct, present on the upper pole of the testis and attached to the tunica vaginalis. It is present about 90% of the time.
[edit] Clinical significance
Although it has no physiological function, it can be medically significant in that it can, rarely, undergo torsion (i.e. become twisted), causing acute one-sided testicular pain and may require surgical excision to achieve relief. 1/3 of patients present with a palpable "blue dot" discoloration on the scrotum. This is nearly diagnostic of this condition. Although if clinical suspicion is high for testicular torsion, a surgical exploration of the scrotum is warranted.
Occasionally a torsion of the hydatid of Morgagni can produce symptoms mimicking those created by a testicular torsion; a torsion of the hydatid, however, does not lead to any impairment of testicular function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
Wisdom teeth
Wisdom teeth are vestigial third molars that human ancestors used to help in grinding down plant tissue. The common postulation is that the skulls of human ancestors had larger jaws with more teeth, which were possibly used to help chew down foliage to compensate for a lack of ability to efficiently digest the cellulose that makes up a plant cell wall. As human diets changed, smaller jaws were selected by evolution, yet the third molars, or "wisdom teeth," still commonly develop in human mouths.[11] Currently, wisdom teeth have become useless and even harmful to the extent where surgical procedures are often done to remove them.
Agenesis of wisdom teeth in human populations ranges from zero in Tasmanian Aboriginals to nearly 100% in indigenous Mexicans.[12] The difference is related to the PAX9 gene (and perhaps other genes).[13]
Coccyx
The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis.[7] This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old.[8] The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further.
In rare cases congenital defect results in a short tail-like structure being present at birth. Twenty-three cases of human babies born with such a structure have been reported in the medical literature since 1884.[9][10]
-
I read an anonymous quote today from an atheist.
It said that science is not at war with religion, although religion is surely at war with science. Science destroys religious claims not on purpose, but it is a matter of collateral damage as more and more is learned. Religions actually attack science when they are proven wrong, often with laughable strategies.
If I were to put forth a theory with one hundred propositions, and you learned that I was factually wrong on half of them, why would you be inclined to believe me afterward? That is what religious people do, keep holding onto the comfort of it, even while having to admit, more and more, that they have simply been proven factually wrong.
When it becomes too ridiculous, they will simply claim that it's a parable, or some other such nonsense, and was never meant to be taken literally. If you point out anything to them, you're just considered a gadfly, no matter the amount of evidence.
Willful ignorance in pursuit of identity. This is a matter of lacking courage. If all of your pseudo-answers are abandoned, not only do you have to face the uncertainties of the universe, but the social stigma of religious cohorts who will surely shun you.
-
Also, why do human beings have (like all vertebrates) tails when in the embryonic stage?
Surely, god could have made this perfectly from the beginning.
And to say that the human body is designed perfectly is silly, even if you refuse to believe the overwhelming evidence. What about people who drop dead from congenital heart defects in the prime of their lives?
-
Also, why do human beings have (like all vertebrates) tails when in the embryonic stage?
Surely, god could have made this perfectly from the beginning.
And to say that the human body is designed perfectly is silly, even if you refuse to believe the overwhelming evidence. What about people who drop dead from congenital heart defects in the prime of their lives?
Human sin. Everything was perfect before the Fall.
-
I read an anonymous quote today from an atheist.
It said that science is not at war with religion, although religion is surely at war with science. Science destroys religious claims not on purpose, but it is a matter of collateral damage as more and more is learned. Religions actually attack science when they are proven wrong, often with laughable strategies.
If I were to put forth a theory with one hundred propositions, and you learned that I was factually wrong on half of them, why would you be inclined to believe me afterward? That is what religious people do, keep holding onto the comfort of it, even while having to admit, more and more, that they have simply been proven factually wrong.
When it becomes too ridiculous, they will simply claim that it's a parable, or some other such nonsense, and was never meant to be taken literally. If you point out anything to them, you're just considered a gadfly, no matter the amount of evidence.
Willful ignorance in pursuit of identity. This is a matter of lacking courage. If all of your pseudo-answers are abandoned, not only do you have to face the uncertainties of the universe, but the social stigma of religious cohorts who will surely shun you.
I actually have a friend who is withdrawing from religious fundamentalism. He was a Christian fundamentalist for several years and now that he is not, a lot of his social contacts have been lost, etc.