Losing my religion. - Page 2

OnyxCougar · 10-13-2003, 09:21 AM

I'm in agreement with Whit on this one.

Believing in any God is faith.
NOT believing in any God is faith.

Believing in creation a la Genesis is faith.
Believing in the Big Bang is faith.

Adam and Eve/Noah and his sons. Faith.
The whole Theory of Evolution is faith.

No one can prove any of it happened, so you have to choose what seems like the best option.

It's good that you won't let any one tell you what you should believe. But, like Bruce said, shifting to the other extreme probably isn't going to put you closer to where you want to be.

juju · 10-13-2003, 10:14 AM

Actually, evolution is pretty much considered a fact by scientists nowadays.

xoxoxoBruce · 10-13-2003, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by juju
Actually, evolution is pretty much considered a fact by scientists nowadays.

But that doesn't make it true, only the best bet with the knowledge they have. Tomorrow may change that.

10-13-2003, 10:28 AM

Uhhhhh, no. Not believing in God is not faith. It's not as if both sides have no scientific support and therefore believing or following either is an act of faith. Those supporting evolution have a far greater scientific backing than those supporting creationism, for example (perhaps because evolution actually happened, and Creation is Bull Shit?). I would argue that it's not "Faith" in the Christian sense if one has actually turned on their brain to think about/question it, like so many Christians do not.

juju · 10-13-2003, 10:34 AM

That's a puzzling statement. Sure, tommorrow may see gravity reverse itself, but my best bet is that it won't.

There's some good info here and here on the subject.

juju · 10-13-2003, 10:42 AM

Yeah, it seems that OnyxCougar broadened Whit's definition beyond what he meant to say. Not believing in something is the opposite of faith.

But, you know, there are these atheists that run around saying they're "100% positive" there is no God. That's also bologna, and they should be slapped in the face for saying that. They've gone from one extreme to the other! I believe that's what Whit was getting at.

perth · 10-13-2003, 10:44 AM

Nah, I think I've been drifting this direction for quite some time. Its not like this a sudden shift. I spent a great deal of time questioning why I believed in God, and in the end, the answers weren't good enough.

What it boiled down to was this:

I believed in God because I had always believed in him.

Not the rock-solid foundation one might hope for. So I asked myself why I had always believed in him. That answer made just about as much sense.

Because I wanted to believe. It gave an order to things I couldn't otherwise explain.

Let that one sink in. I believed in comething I couldn't explain to explain things I couldn't explain. So theres my foundation. And lets not assume that I took those answers, accepted them, and bolted out to announce my newly-acquired atheism. You don't rush to conclusions when your soul is on the line.

Conclusion: I don't believe in God. Am I right? Fuck, I don't know. Neither does anyone else, despite their protestations. But at least I am happy with my choice. And make no mistake, I am happy with it. There is a certain amount of freedom of thought that until now I have denied myself. I kind of like the freedom.

I suppose faith in God can be freeing as well, depending on your attitude and situation. But now that I see it from this side, I find religion to generally be limiting, constrictive and somewhat opppressive. But thats just my experience.

Griff · 10-13-2003, 11:47 AM

Obviously you've got to find your own way, anything else is a copout.

The attitude, seen in some christians, that you are describing, I can do whatever I want because I've been saved so all my actions are justified, is considered, I'm gonna use a bad word here, heresy in Orthodox Christian circles. Faith vs works was a big ongoing argument in the early Church and continues to challenge the individual. Early philosophers spent a lot of paper talking about righteous pagans etc... because of the great intellectual debt owed to non-Christian Greeks. Ideally, we have some combination of those attributes, but for the Catholic Christian especially in protestant America its sometimes easier to blend in than to make the necessary distinction. Anyway, good luck figuring out your path. g

Elspode · 10-13-2003, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wolf
Short answer is don't close any doors. Try being spiritual instead of religious for a while, see how it goes for you.

There are many paths to spirit. Some follow conventional beliefs, others esoteric. Some find spiritual fulfillment in the laugh of a child, or the fall of rain, or the light of the new moon, or in silence.

Blessings.

Boy, you can sure tell the Pagan and mostly Pagan around these parts, can't you?

Wolf has hit the proverbial nail on its metaphoric little head, Perth. Do not confuse religion with spirituality. You can experience spirituality through participation in a religion, but it is scarcely a requirement that you do so.

Getting in touch with what you feel is the first step. The second step is understanding why you feel it. The third step is trying to experience the things that make you feel what you want to feel as often as you can.

The last step is using those feelings to search for meaning about you, your life, your universe. Somewhere along that path of discovery, you realize that you are participating in spiritual experiences.

It really doesn't matter what the source of spirit and, by association, spiritual experience, is. The only thing that matters is that you have them, own them and work to understand them. Otherwise, you're just drifting around, waiting for the end to come. Where's the fun in that?

Whit · 10-13-2003, 12:32 PM

      Thanks for clarifying that for me Juju.
      I believe I touched on this in the thread Perth referenced before but since there's a lot of people here that weren't around back then...

Quote:

From me, way back:
I'd like to draw a line in the difference between expectation and faith. The difference being faith accepts that something is true and expectation accepts that it is likely. I'm moving on with this if you disagree then I'll have to go back.

      It's kinda like Dave said in the Arnie thread, (I'm not going to quote it exact, just ballpark it) unless you're clairvoyant you don't know the future. Still, I think we can reasonably expect gravity to continue and the sun to rise. I just don't think that's faith.
      In the case of the Theory of Evolution, I expect it did occur. I do not, however, know for sure it did. Also I expect it'll continue to be the "Theory" of Evolution until the missing link is found. Notice that there is discussion of evolution and the Theory of evolution. This is because we can prove scientifically that living stuff evolves. They just haven't met the standard the scientific theory demands to be considered proof that we came from a specific creature. I think the line between evolution and the Theory of evolution gets blurred often. They are related, they are not however, the same. Perhaps the problem is that the Theory of Evolution should be more properly called the Theory of Human Evolution. Of course if living creatures evolve, and humans are living creatures...

Whit · 10-13-2003, 12:41 PM

Quote:

From Ep:
Getting in touch with what you feel is the first step. The second step is understanding why you feel it. The third step is trying to experience the things that make you feel what you want to feel as often as you can.

      Isn't it interesting that the first three steps can be done chemically? In a bar for example? Granted the very important last step didn't get quoted here. But I wanted to point out that pure hedonism can seem spiritual. I think maybe this is why. Of course, without the last step it's all empty spiritual calories, but hey the last parts the hard one. We are, after all, largely a culture of momentary gratification. Makes barflys and druggies make a little more sense, eh?

perth · 10-13-2003, 01:37 PM

Are you suggesting I find myself in a bar? Because if so, thats the best idea I've heard in weeks.

"Hey honey! I'm headed to the bar. For spiritual growth!"

I can't wait.

juju · 10-13-2003, 01:46 PM

I think we need to define our terms here, because you're starting to confuse me a little.

Evolution: a change in allele frequencies over time. Populations change in their genetic makeup as time passes. This is a fact. This is why the makers of roach motels have to keep changing the type of poison they put in their traps. It's also why we have chihuahuas.

Theory of Evolution: The mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, founder effect, gene flow, etc.

Common Descent: The theory that all life arose from one common ancestor (some believe that this, too, is a fact).

These ideas are all seperate, but linked.

The idea that humans, apes and monkeys all share a common ancestor is born of the above concepts. But finding yet another predecessor of man is unlikely to prove the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

There isn't really a "missing link" anymore, as far as I know. I've looked at the fossils of the transitional species, and it seems to be a pretty clear gradual transformation to me.

OnyxCougar · 10-13-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dave
Those supporting evolution have a far greater scientific backing than those supporting creationism, for example (perhaps because evolution actually happened, and Creation is Bull Shit?).

Prove it.

You can't. Nobody can. That's why Evolutionary theory is as valid as creation ideology.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whit
Also I expect it'll continue to be the "Theory" of Evolution until the missing link is found. Notice that there is discussion of evolution and the Theory of evolution. This is because we can prove scientifically that living stuff evolves. They just haven't met the standard the scientific theory demands to be considered proof that we came from a specific creature. I think the line between evolution and the Theory of evolution gets blurred often. They are related, they are not however, the same.

Evolutionary Theory is a great theory, and one day we may have enough evidence to PROVE it is correct. Until that time, scientists have to qualify remarks with words like "suggests" and "may have been" and "could be caused by".

Now. If we can agree that Evolution is NOT fact, merely a good theory, why is it that most scientists take it as fact, and teach it in our schools?

My thing is this: Until it is proven as fact, I have to take that explanation on scientific guesswork. I have to take it on faith. Doesn't that make The theory of Evolution a religion?

You're asking me to believe events of billions and trillions of years ago happened in just the right way, and we were created by chance...an infinitesmally small percentage...considered to be nil by most people, evolving out of a primordial soup of nutrients. An event that we cannot recreate with all of our technology, even if we mix the right chemicals together and apply energy.

That's faith.

Therefore, Evolutionary Theory is a religion that we are teaching every child, starting from Elementary school. It is not taught as "this is what we think". It is taught as fact. This is what happened. 80 years ago, it was illegal to teach Evolutionary Theory in schools, now it's considered fact. Unprovable, unobservable fact.

And the taxpayers are paying for it. But try to teach religion (specifically Christianity or other religious creation myths), even as a different "theory" and people get all up in arms about religion in schools.

Just think about it. I'm not saying I am a Creationist. I'm also not saying I'm an evolutionist. I'm saying that until we have PROOF either way, we should not be teaching it as fact to our children.

Happy Monkey · 10-13-2003, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
I'm in agreement with Whit on this one.
Believing in any God is faith.
NOT believing in any God is faith.

I suppose you mean "Believing fervently there is no God", rather than "NOT believing in any God". If you switch it around, what terminology would you use if you have no faith either way? I would say "not believing in any god" is the no faith position.

Quote:

Believing in creation a la Genesis is faith.
Believing in the Big Bang is faith.
Adam and Eve/Noah and his sons. Faith.
The whole Theory of Evolution is faith.

No, Evolution is fact. The theory of natural selection is theory. The word theory implies a lack of faith and an invitation to challenge.

Quote:

No one can prove any of it happened, so you have to choose what seems like the best option.

Natural selection is supported by available evidence, and could be disproved, but myths require blind faith. There is a considerable qualitative difference.

10-13-2003, 09:21 AM	#16
OnyxCougar Junior Master Dwellar Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kingdom of Atlantia Posts: 2,979	I'm in agreement with Whit on this one. Believing in any God is faith. NOT believing in any God is faith. Believing in creation a la Genesis is faith. Believing in the Big Bang is faith. Adam and Eve/Noah and his sons. Faith. The whole Theory of Evolution is faith. No one can prove any of it happened, so you have to choose what seems like the best option. It's good that you won't let any one tell you what you should believe. But, like Bruce said, shifting to the other extreme probably isn't going to put you closer to where you want to be. __________________ Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt. "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

10-13-2003, 11:47 AM	#23
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	Obviously you've got to find your own way, anything else is a copout. The attitude, seen in some christians, that you are describing, I can do whatever I want because I've been saved so all my actions are justified, is considered, I'm gonna use a bad word here, heresy in Orthodox Christian circles. Faith vs works was a big ongoing argument in the early Church and continues to challenge the individual. Early philosophers spent a lot of paper talking about righteous pagans etc... because of the great intellectual debt owed to non-Christian Greeks. Ideally, we have some combination of those attributes, but for the Catholic Christian especially in protestant America its sometimes easier to blend in than to make the necessary distinction. Anyway, good luck figuring out your path. g __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

10-13-2003, 01:46 PM	#28
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	I think we need to define our terms here, because you're starting to confuse me a little. <u>Evolution</u>: a change in allele frequencies over time. Populations change in their genetic makeup as time passes. This is a fact. This is why the makers of roach motels have to keep changing the type of poison they put in their traps. It's also why we have chihuahuas. <u>Theory of Evolution</u>: The mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, founder effect, gene flow, etc. <u>Common Descent</u>: The theory that all life arose from one common ancestor (some believe that this, too, is a fact). These ideas are all seperate, but linked. The idea that humans, apes and monkeys all share a common ancestor is born of the above concepts. But finding yet another predecessor of man is unlikely to prove the mechanism by which evolution occurs. There isn't really a "missing link" anymore, as far as I know. I've looked at the fossils of the transitional species, and it seems to be a pretty clear gradual transformation to me. Last edited by juju; 10-13-2003 at 01:48 PM.

10-13-2003, 10:14 AM	#17
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	Actually, evolution is pretty much considered a fact by scientists nowadays.

10-13-2003, 10:28 AM	#19
dave Guest Posts: n/a	Uhhhhh, no. Not believing in God is not faith. It's not as if both sides have no scientific support and therefore believing or following either is an act of faith. Those supporting evolution have a far greater scientific backing than those supporting creationism, for example (perhaps because evolution actually happened, and Creation is Bull Shit?). I would argue that it's not "Faith" in the Christian sense if one has actually turned on their brain to think about/question it, like so many Christians do not.

10-13-2003, 10:34 AM	#20
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	That's a puzzling statement. Sure, tommorrow may see gravity reverse itself, but my best bet is that it won't. There's some good info here and here on the subject.

10-13-2003, 10:42 AM	#21
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	Yeah, it seems that OnyxCougar broadened Whit's definition beyond what he meant to say. Not believing in something is the opposite of faith. But, you know, there are these atheists that run around saying they're "100% positive" there is no God. That's also bologna, and they should be slapped in the face for saying that. They've gone from one extreme to the other! I believe that's what Whit was getting at.

10-13-2003, 10:44 AM	#22
perth Strong Silent Type Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Fort Collins, CO Posts: 1,949	Nah, I think I've been drifting this direction for quite some time. Its not like this a sudden shift. I spent a great deal of time questioning why I believed in God, and in the end, the answers weren't good enough. What it boiled down to was this: I believed in God because I had always believed in him. Not the rock-solid foundation one might hope for. So I asked myself why I had always believed in him. That answer made just about as much sense. Because I wanted to believe. It gave an order to things I couldn't otherwise explain. Let that one sink in. I believed in comething I couldn't explain to explain things I couldn't explain. So theres my foundation. And lets not assume that I took those answers, accepted them, and bolted out to announce my newly-acquired atheism. You don't rush to conclusions when your soul is on the line. Conclusion: I don't believe in God. Am I right? Fuck, I don't know. Neither does anyone else, despite their protestations. But at least I am happy with my choice. And make no mistake, I am happy with it. There is a certain amount of freedom of thought that until now I have denied myself. I kind of like the freedom. I suppose faith in God can be freeing as well, depending on your attitude and situation. But now that I see it from this side, I find religion to generally be limiting, constrictive and somewhat opppressive. But thats just my experience.

10-13-2003, 01:37 PM	#27
perth Strong Silent Type Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Fort Collins, CO Posts: 1,949	Are you suggesting I find myself in a bar? Because if so, thats the best idea I've heard in weeks. "Hey honey! I'm headed to the bar. For spiritual growth!" I can't wait.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)