Avoice1C
the means are the ends
All right, The last time the Mediterranean was reflooded. And there are no more aquatic dinosaurs.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do You Favor Belief Over Knowledge and Curiosity?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
Audie
Veteran Member
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.
.
Last edited:
While I'm not a fundamentalist I can offer some insights into this. First, there is this saying from Dale Carnegie that goes straight to the heart of it. "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still." What we choose to believe in has vastly far less to do with the logic and reasons of it, as it does the meaning of it to us. We attach meaning to the belief, and to change the belief means we have to be able to find meaning outside that belief. To simply argue and point out to someone the fallacy of what they think, is going against the vastly stronger current of the meaning they attach to it.
I like to ask people who have for instance decided to become an atheist after years as a Christian. Almost invariably you will get a response like, "I looked at the evidence and could see the logic of it." A Christian might say the same thing to answer why they chose to adopt their religious beliefs. I say in both instances, they are unaware of how their thoughts in defense are simply rationalizations for what they had already decided has value to them on an emotional level. They had access to all the information before, but then it didn't make sense. Only when they were emotionally ready, could they see it. In other words they were already converted, even before they "looked at the evidence."
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Yes, perhaps “faith” was the better word.....
tonemonkey
Member
The truth is, you don't have to just have faith or knowledge - you can have both. It's a fallacy to say that faith denies scientific knowledge or facts.
Take the origin of life, for example. Life either came about through naturalistic means or supernatural means.
I'm reading a book called "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. He spent a lot of time interviewing known, published, and respected experts in different fields of science about whether there is scientific evidence that points to intelligent design. What he found is that the deeper scientists probe, the more they're presented with information that is best explained through supernatural means rather than naturalistic means.
DNA is a good example. There are protein constructing mechanisms in our cells, and these take amino acids and construct proteins. DNA in our cells tell these mechanisms which proteins to make, and DNA itself is constructed by these mechanisms. You can't have the proteins without the DNA, and you can't have the DNA without the proteins - it's a closed loop complex system. Scientists who propose naturalistic means for the origin of life keep getting hung up on this particular chicken/egg problem. These scientists are unable to explain how this closed loop DNA/protein system could have suddenly come into existence by natural means.
We're actually beyond that time period where you have to choose faith or knowledge. For a while now new knowledge has been making it necessary to have more faith to be an atheiest than a believer.
Take the origin of life, for example. Life either came about through naturalistic means or supernatural means.
I'm reading a book called "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. He spent a lot of time interviewing known, published, and respected experts in different fields of science about whether there is scientific evidence that points to intelligent design. What he found is that the deeper scientists probe, the more they're presented with information that is best explained through supernatural means rather than naturalistic means.
DNA is a good example. There are protein constructing mechanisms in our cells, and these take amino acids and construct proteins. DNA in our cells tell these mechanisms which proteins to make, and DNA itself is constructed by these mechanisms. You can't have the proteins without the DNA, and you can't have the DNA without the proteins - it's a closed loop complex system. Scientists who propose naturalistic means for the origin of life keep getting hung up on this particular chicken/egg problem. These scientists are unable to explain how this closed loop DNA/protein system could have suddenly come into existence by natural means.
We're actually beyond that time period where you have to choose faith or knowledge. For a while now new knowledge has been making it necessary to have more faith to be an atheiest than a believer.
Audie
Veteran Member
You kind of kill your whole post with that
moldy last line , "more faith to be an atheist".
It is really tiresome, unoriginal, and makes
no sense. Why no sense? Because you
are playing equivocation with the word
"faith" which is really an odd thing to do
when Christians hold so sacred the value
of faith.
I am not going to go thru your post looking
for fallacies, but will note one, the thing
about DNA "suddenly" coming into existence.
That is just such nonsense. Seriously, you think
that is it?
faith or knowledge - you can have both.
True. But then you either have to give up "faith"
in nonsense, or, surrender to intellectual dishonesty.
Faith in the flood as a literal account, say.
It didnt happen.
You can go the route of Dr K Wise, a yec
PhD paleontologist. "if all the evidence in
the universe turned against yec, I would
still be yec, as that is what the bible seems
to say."
It's a fallacy to say that faith denies scientific knowledge or facts.
"Faith"? What is "faith"? Faith that the car will
start?
Faith in nonsense certainly denies scientific
knowledge.
The fallacy is intellectual dishonesty.
We're actually beyond that time period where you have to choose faith or knowledge.
That is so, if by faith* you mean unshakable
conviction in your personal interpretation
of the bible as literal truth. Lo and many
here in this form are into that.
You go on to present that science has proven
god, and that it is only blind faith and denial
of the obvious that allows one to be an atheist.
This, based on your false and very confused
ideas about molecular biology.
* See "if by whiskey" if you are not
clear on equivocation.
My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:
If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.
But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
Sorry, I can’t lie, even if I would get more respect with lies that fits to atheistic view.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why give an amateur that has already demonstrated that he can't be honest? Lee Strobel is the last person you should go to to learn about abiogenesis. There is no scientific evidence for intelligent design and that is largely the fault of those that believe in ID. To have scientific evidence for an idea that idea must first be in the form of a scientific concept, a scientific hypothesis. Creationists seem to be afraid to make a proper hypothesis since those need to be falsifiable. Too many of their ideas have been shot down in the past.
Of course you could show me to be wrong. Find an article in a well respected professional scientific journal that involves ID in any form.
By the way, you are wrong about DNA being needed for proteins, and this is a common error that creationists make. DNA is needed for protein formation now, there is no reason to think that was always the case. RNA can form proteins too and it is thought that RNA preceded DNA. It is far from a "closed loop".
Audie
Veteran Member
No lies necessary or called for.
Resort to falsehood is most undesirable.
What in there is not accurate?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I doubt if you "can't lie". You may try very hard not to lie. But that does not mean that you do not post falsehoods. If a source that you trust lies then when you post their claims you are posting falsehoods. And you could be guilty of forming your own falsehoods. You might believe the creation myth and write a post based on that belief. Since it would almost certainly be wrong that would be a falsehood even if there was no intent to deceive.
Someone pointing out that you posted a falsehood is not the same as someone claiming that you lied.
What compels you to persist in arguing for your beliefs? Is the staged video your supportive argument?
The problem seems to be in that what is called falsehood. I can’t tell the truth, that atheists doesn’t accept, is falsehood, even if atheists demand that.
Audie
Veteran Member
Falsehoods are generally that, things that are not true.
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.
Is that it? I hope not because is sure is not true.
You said my earlier post was false, but you did not
identify anything in it that was not true.
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."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
A statement that is demonstrably incorrect is a falsehood.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is a rather accurate representation of almost all creationist, if not all Christians. Do you see any flaws in that video?What compels you to persist in arguing for your beliefs? Is the staged video your supportive argument?
Fabricated to the point of ridiculous? Unless you include those from the other side who say "LALALALALALALA" as they close their ears to someone sharing faith.
I always like hearing both sides of the coin on a video like that.
Audie
Veteran Member
For clarity, here is the post from earlier
I just happen to like truth and want to defend it.
Why should I reject belief in the Bible and replace it with unintelligent evolution theory that is not proven fact? Evolution theory is nothing more than modern mother earth cult and I think it is not correct nor wise.
IF you were interested in "truth" you would make some sort
of effort to find out what it is.
Your entire argument is nonsense.
Nobody would suggest you "reject belief in the bible".
The topic is silly ways of interpreting it.
The world is full of highly educated Christians
Unintelligent is thinking there really was, say, a "flood".
Calling ToE "unintelligent' should go with "in my opinion"
because it is for sure a falsehood otherwise.
A person who had an intelligent interest in what is what
would at least know that no theory can ever be a "fact".
And that science does probabilities, not proof.
The "mother earth cult" thing is so ridiculous you
ought to be embarrassed.
These are the words of a person with an ideology
overriding all else, not one interested in "truth".
I just happen to like truth and want to defend it.
Why should I reject belief in the Bible and replace it with unintelligent evolution theory that is not proven fact? Evolution theory is nothing more than modern mother earth cult and I think it is not correct nor wise.
IF you were interested in "truth" you would make some sort
of effort to find out what it is.
Your entire argument is nonsense.
Nobody would suggest you "reject belief in the bible".
The topic is silly ways of interpreting it.
The world is full of highly educated Christians
Unintelligent is thinking there really was, say, a "flood".
Calling ToE "unintelligent' should go with "in my opinion"
because it is for sure a falsehood otherwise.
A person who had an intelligent interest in what is what
would at least know that no theory can ever be a "fact".
And that science does probabilities, not proof.
The "mother earth cult" thing is so ridiculous you
ought to be embarrassed.
These are the words of a person with an ideology
overriding all else, not one interested in "truth".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Fabricated to the point of ridiculous? Unless you include those from the other side who say "LALALALALALALA" as they close their ears to someone sharing faith.
I have seen it countless times. Creationists are even afraid to learn how science is done or what is and what is not evidence.
You do realize that "sharing faith" is simply proselytizing. It is generally a rather obnoxious act. It has nothing to do with rational belief.
Yes, I am sure. I have seen atheists with the same attitude.
If "sharing faith" is proselytizing, then anytime you state a position about anything it would also be classified as proselytizing with the objective of changing the other persons viewpoints, it is also proselytizing.
Dictionary.com
- to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, I am sure. I have seen atheists with the same attitude.
If "sharing faith" is proselytizing, then anytime you state a position about anything it would also be classified as proselytizing with the objective of changing the other persons viewpoints, it is also proselytizing.
Dictionary.com
So the army, navy, air-force are proselytizing, as is anti-Trumpers, Trumpers, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Green or just about anything.
- to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.
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.