Do You Favor Belief Over Knowledge and Curiosity?

[Subduction Zone]

What is wrong with you?

I would suggest a retraction.

 

[1213]

…. Your second sentence is kind of garbled, so I am not sure what it says.
Maybe like this- Atheists demand that I answer Then, when I tell the truth, they say it is a lie.

Sorry, it was not well formed. Atheists seem to claim that truth is falsehood. And reason seems to be that atheist don’t like the truth. I can’t change what I think is truth only because atheists don’t like it.

Which part of this is not accurate?

"I decided on unevidenced faith what the truth is. I must maintain this rigid posture no matter what. My notion of truth is so weak that to shore it up, I will abandon integrity as neceesary, stating such falsehoods as suit me about matters of which I am profoundly ignorant."

Maybe accurate for some. I personally think Bible is truth, because I see it to be correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, it was not well formed. Atheists seem to claim that truth is falsehood. And reason seems to be that atheist don’t like the truth. I can’t change what I think is truth only because atheists don’t like it.



Maybe accurate for some. I personally think Bible is truth, because I see it to be correct.

But you appear to have blinded yourself. And when have atheists ever claimed the truth to be falsehood? You have put a huge burden of proof upon yourself.

 

[Looncall]

I cannot understand the "just a lucky fluke deal." My must comes from the fact that complex form takes on function, function takes on purpose. The purpose of surviving. If we were accidental, then no functionality would happen, no survival.

I don't see that that follows. Those organisms that suffer unlucky accidents (eg mutations, disasters etc) get filtered out. Only the lucky survive. Just think of the many, often trivial, happenstances that could have prevented our ancestors from producing any one of us.

I agree that such a notion can be distasteful, but that is irrelevant to considering reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see that that follows. Those organisms that suffer unlucky accidents (eg mutations, disasters etc) get filtered out. Only the lucky survive. Just think of the many, often trivial, happenstances that could have prevented our ancestors from producing any one of us.

I agree that such a notion can be distasteful, but that is irrelevant to considering reality.

Creationists often do not understand that calling it a "fluke of luck" is extremely inaccurate and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of statistics. On an individual level it looks as if one is depending upon winners. But if one understands how the insurance industry works one knows that there will be accidents. With a large population positive mutations are guaranteed. There is no luck involved.

 

[Audie]

Sorry, it was not well formed. Atheists seem to claim that truth is falsehood. And reason seems to be that atheist don’t like the truth. I can’t change what I think is truth only because atheists don’t like it.



Maybe accurate for some. I personally think Bible is truth, because I see it to be correct.

I am sure you can advance the truth or your
Ideas about the nature of reality without
making up or otherwise introducing things
about other people, that dont even sound
realistic. Still less, that stand up to scrutiny.

"Truth is falsehood" is a line from Orwell's dystopia
"1984", not a position taken by sane people.

Similarly that "atheists dont like (the) truth".
Seriously!

"Change only because atheists dont like it" is not it
at all, not remotely. So not it, its not, as they say,
even wrong. Other than, say, wrong planet.

Now, if you dont like to discuss ideas, you are in the
in the wrong place, my friend. If you think that unexamined
ideas are worth having, many would rightly disagree.
If your beliefs wont stand up to honest examination,
likewise. Not worth much! And you are in the wrong place.

Also if you have to invent horribly insulting things to say
about the honesty, character, thinking ability of "atheists"
in order to guard your turf, it is not ground worth having.

If we have an understanding on that, we can speak again.

If not-
If you choose to think I am a lover of lies out to bring
others into my hell-pit, then dont bother to respond.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

While this is a parody, I cannot tell you how many times I've had such a debate with religious fundamentalists.

For those of you who refuse to waver on your beliefs in the presence of truth presented through objective evidence or scientific theory, what brings you to reject these truths? Comfort? Fear? Pride? Poor fashion sense?

Why compels you persist in arguing for you beliefs?

If your belief is not dangerous and keeps you happy but the truth makes you depressed, what is the benefit of following truth when one, belief doesnt harm, and two, the believer benefits from what others say is false?

 

[Audie]

But you appear to have blinded yourself. And when have atheists ever claimed the truth to be falsehood? You have put a huge burden of proof upon yourself.

Maybe..maybe like this?

The bible is truth (grammatically unsound, but whatevs)


Atheist:

Bible says "Jesus is a lamb".
But that is not true.

Religionist:

"Atheists hate truth!!"

 

[Avoice1C]

It does not make much sense either that
one refilling would kill them when the
others did not, or that the local event
would have such cataclysmic global effects.

In the event-
Spinosaurus was a semi-aquatic form.
There were no aquatic dinosaurs.

The Med flooding cycles were an ice
age thing, 60 plus million years after
the dinosaurs went extinct.



I'm relatively familiar with most scientific thought

Or maybe not.


and find little that rules one, my faith, or the other, science, out.

And maybe you've not looked very much.

.

My degree is in Agri Industry. We studied a lot back then. I'm sure the knowledge has advanced. My knowledge of science is rusty and unpolished. You obviously can counter most I might present. The timing of Mediterranean flooding is obviously off in my thinking. I've been out of the study of Dinosaurs for many years. Nothing you present though will damage my belief in God. Or my belief in Scripture.

 

[Audie]

My degree is in Agri Industry. We studied a lot back then. I'm sure the knowledge has advanced. My knowledge of science is rusty and unpolished. You obviously can counter most I might present. The timing of Mediterranean flooding is obviously off in my thinking. I've been out of the study of Dinosaurs for many years. Nothing you present though will damage my belief in God. Or my belief in Scripture.

I dont mean to just "counter" nor to damage
your belief in god. That would be a mean, and
senseless act..

Not that I am a religious person, but I think about
things.

Like suppose it were given to me to know as sure
as the sun, that there is a Creator.

What does one do next, what is an appropriate-
if anything is, response to this knowledge?

Spin prayer wheels, make a painting, fall on knees, climb
a mountain, sing, fast, what? Do nothing at all?

I guess I would try to find out something about the big C.
How? Ask questions in a loud clear voice?

Who knows. There are a lot of traditions but somehow I
dont see any of them working.

Of course, if there were a book by / about the Creator,
it would behoove to study it, i suppose- if that is what it
wanted. Or who knows, something important might
be learned.

When I wondered about the meaning of something,
I suppose on occasion I might consult outside sources
for a cross reference-though I'd hope, even claim a
reasonable expectation that the author would write a
clear and unambiguous text. Not necessarily simple,
but not unintelligible to a serious study.

Those are some thoughts. What do you think?

(Other than that I've a habit of going for the jugular
vein)

 

[Subduction Zone]

My degree is in Agri Industry. We studied a lot back then. I'm sure the knowledge has advanced. My knowledge of science is rusty and unpolished. You obviously can counter most I might present. The timing of Mediterranean flooding is obviously off in my thinking. I've been out of the study of Dinosaurs for many years. Nothing you present though will damage my belief in God. Or my belief in Scripture.

This is a rather unclear statement. Are you saying that you will remain a Christian even though Genesis is clearly a book of myths? Or are you stating that you will ignore reality no matter what?

 

[nPeace]

I am well aware of the rampant fundamentalism in the world. I just know they aren't going to come in here and explain their reasoning for doing so. They don't really see it that way. All they are going to do is some more rationalization. Its a pretty simple equation, and I know the OP knows that.

I speak under correction, but I think theist have already given a clear answer, but I think it may have fallen on death ears.

I don't want to speak for all, in case I may be wrong, so I will speak for myself. I think this is a one sided affair, with those against belief in God constantly badgering (Sorry. Can't find another word at the moment) them for evidence for their God, without supplying evidence for your... you know.

So I think if we work forward from a point, we can both get what we are asking for. Does that sound reasonable?

Maybe here might be a good place to start.
I believe in creation.
You believe in evolution.
Am I right so far?

 

[Sir Doom]

I speak under correction, but I think theist have already given a clear answer, but I think it may have fallen on death ears.

I don't want to speak for all, in case I may be wrong, so I will speak for myself. I think this is a one sided affair, with those against belief in God constantly badgering (Sorry. Can't find another word at the moment) them for evidence for their God, without supplying evidence for your... you know.

So I think if we work forward from a point, we can both get what we are asking for. Does that sound reasonable?

Maybe here might be a good place to start.
I believe in creation.
You believe in evolution.
Am I right so far?

They aren't exclusive as far as I can tell. The thread is about fundamentalism, however. I am quite far from that. I hold no belief so strong or sacred that I won't change it in the face of new information. Not everything I believe is scientific (such as the nature if God), thus it does not even take scientific evidence to change what I believe. The caveat to that being that if I do believe something due to scientific evidence (such as evolution) it will take scientific evidence to change that belief.

 

[nPeace]

They aren't exclusive as far as I can tell. The thread is about fundamentalism, however. I am quite far from that. I hold no belief so strong or sacred that I won't change it in the face of new information. Not everything I believe is scientific (such as the nature if God), thus it does not even take scientific evidence to change what I believe. The caveat to that being that if I do believe something due to scientific evidence (such as evolution) it will take scientific evidence to change that belief.

So would I be safe to say that like me, having knowledge of things, help you in making a decision, as to what to believe?

 

[Sir Doom]

So would I be safe to say that like me, having knowledge of things, help you in making a decision, as to what to believe?

Knowledge is like perfection. Something to strive for even though its impossible to attain.

In my opinion, the only real difference between knowledge and belief is conviction.

 

[nPeace]

Knowledge is like perfection. Something to strive for even though its impossible to attain.

In my opinion, the only real difference between knowledge and belief is conviction.

I think it depends on what you consider to be knowledge.
If you bought a car, or house, a dog... you have knowledge of that you know you did those things... unless of course you believe that we don't even know if we are all just existing in someone's bad dream.

So knowledge doesn't have to be impossible to attain. It is just a brain's tap away... I believe.

Conviction is just a description of one's belief.
Knowledge on the other hand is not a belief, but what is available to us, and can lead us to belief.

For example, just watching ants gives us knowledge... of ants.

 

[Sir Doom]

I think it depends on what you consider to be knowledge.
If you bought a car, or house, a dog... you have knowledge of that you know you did those things... unless of course you believe that we don't even know if we are all just existing in someone's bad dream.

So knowledge doesn't have to be impossible to attain. It is just a brain's tap away... I believe.

Conviction is just a description of one's belief.
Knowledge on the other hand is not a belief, but what is available to us, and can lead us to belief.

For example, just watching ants gives us knowledge... of ants.

What you learn from watching ants will always be filtered by what you expected before watching them. And what you've learned will consistently be altered from that moment forward by an entire array of things too numerous to list.

 

[Audie]

Their is a big difference between trying to get people to reason logically and to try to make them accept a religious belief. You conflate refute the creation myths with attacking Christianity. By your standards Galileo tried to refute Christianity.

See if you can get him to say in what way Galileo was
not trying to refute christianity.

 

[nPeace]

What you learn from watching ants will always be filtered by what you expected before watching them. And what you've learned will consistently be altered from that moment forward by an entire array of things too numerous to list.

It's still knowledge, no matter how we look at it.
To learn something, means:
1. gain or acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) by study, experience, or being taught.

 

[Sir Doom]

It's still knowledge, no matter how we look at it.
To learn something, means:
1. gain or acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) by study, experience, or being taught.

The dictionary can only tell you how people generally use the word. Why do you think I compared knowledge to perfection? Just because people have a definition of perfection doesn't mean its achievable. I understand what people mean when they say knowledge. I understand that its a word.

Now try to hand me an actual response. How do you tell the difference between something you know and something you believe you know? Good luck with that.