Losing my religion.

[OnyxCougar]

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

Let me rephrase.

The theory of evolution being and inclusive of, the Big Bang theory, the theory of star creation, and the creation of our solar system, and of this planet, creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured, then evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it, on this planet.

THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Be careful about confusing the noun(faith) with the transitive verb(faith). That leads to all kinds of misunderstanding.

[OnyxCougar]

Not believing in any god is faith.


faith
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Therefore, if you BELIEVE there is NO god, (which not believing in any god is) then you have faith there is no God.

I stand by the statement.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


Let me rephrase.

The theory of evolution being and inclusive of, the Big Bang theory, the theory of star creation, and the creation of our solar system, and of this planet, creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured, then evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it, on this planet.

THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.

When I went to school all those things WERE taught as theories, especially everything before monkeys. Has that changed?

[Elspode]

Originally posted by Whit
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.

The tricky part of that is not letting the tools become the experience. Shamen and other seekers and practitioners have used substances to obtain insight for millenia. However, if you start making the substance the thing rather than what you learn while using the substance, you are going to miss the goal.

As a recovering drunkard, I think I can speak of this with some certainty. It was only after I stopped drinking that I truly was able to absorb the lessons I learned while being loaded, because when I was a drunk, there was no persepective.

Strangely, not everything I learned from being drunk was bad, believe it or not.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
When I went to school all those things WERE taught as theories, especially everything before monkeys. Has that changed?

Must have. Every textbook I've seen, as a child, and now in my children's books (if you have kids, you should read their textbooks at least once to see what's in them) present the information as fact. Not one of them said, "This is our best guess."

That should be evident here with the people who are saying it is a fact. It's NOT a fact. It's a good idea. It's a great theory. But it is UNPROVABLE. Therefore it has to be believed without evidence. That's religion.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Let me rephrase.

That isn't rephrasing, that's redefining. That's using a definition that no scientist would recognise, let alone accept. But if we use that shorthand, then of course all of that isn't fact, as I stated before.

Evolution, the change of species over time, is an observed fact, verified experimentally.

Natural selection, or "bacterial and other microorganisms ... evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it" is a theory explaining an evolutionary process, not a fact, but is a theory based on available evidence.

Abiogenesis, or "creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured"creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured is likewise a theory. Experiments verify the aminos and enzymes, but no life has been experimentally created.

The big bang theory is also a theory. New data is always coming in, which causes the theory to be adjusted.

THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.

Nothing is provable in science. Only disprovable. And when I pointed out the distinction between evolution and natural selection in the other post, I stated that the natural selection part was not a fact. So obviously evolution + natural selection + abiogenesis + big bang is not a fact.

Therefore, if you BELIEVE there is NO god, (which not believing in any god is) then you have faith there is no God.

There's a difference between not believing in any god, and believing there is no God. The former implies no faith, the latter implies faith.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Webster:
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

You speak of 2, b, 1 ? That makes it faith not religion.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Webster:
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

You speak of 2, b, 1 ?

2b1 and 2b2 and 3.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
There's a difference between not believing in any god, and believing there is no God. The former implies no faith, the latter implies faith.

Both are a belief, and therefore require faith. See webster post by Bruce.

Nothing is provable in science. Only disprovable. And when I pointed out the distinction between evolution and natural selection in the other post, I stated that the natural selection part was not a fact. So obviously evolution + natural selection + abiogenesis + big bang is not a fact.

Exactly. So if it's not a fact, why present it that way, TO THE EXCLUSION of every other possibility? Why not ALSO teach the creation theories of different religious belief systems as well?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Why not ALSO teach the creation theories of different religious belief systems as well?

Separation of church and state.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar



2b1 and 2b2 and 3.

3 is different than 2b1 and 2b2 that's why it's not 2c1.

[xoxoxoBruce]

BTW, I have faith in Webster's but I don't worship it. It's not a religion.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Separation of church and state.

Evolutionary Theory et al. is a religion.

Therefore shouldn't be taught in public school.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
BTW, I have faith in Webster's but I don't worship it. It's not a religion.

I don't mean to say "anything you have faith in or believe in is a religion".

If that is how all of this is coming off, then I need to rethink how to express my thoughts.

What I am saying is that The Theory (as discussed as being the amalgamation of unprovable ideas leading from Big Bang to my species evolving from whatever) is not a fact.

To present it to our children, specifically, AS FACT, is wrong.

There is no more proof for The Theory than there is for Jehovah-God creating the whole thing in 7 days. My argument is not which one is correct. My argument is that we (as educators and parents and scientists) need to think about what we are presenting and HOW we are presenting it.

Because it is not provable, because it is conjecture, because it is merely an idea that millions of people BELIEVE in and have FAITH in, with NO PROOF.... that makes it a religion. And either shouldn't be taught in school, or given equal time with other creation theories.

I don't know how much clearer I can be or how to rephrase (or redefine, HM) what I'm trying to get across.