How some creationists pushed me away from christianity

[Catherineanne]

As for the holy spirit, we'll see.

Agreed. It makes life so much easier.

I don't have to bash you over the head with a Bible, and you don't have to run screaming from the forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would think so. They still score higher than most Christians, (about Christianity) including Catholics and Protestants.

"They"?

 

[Insane_Duck]

You are human? Then you can't be certain that others don't know. All you can do is have reasonable doubts that you know. But I might trade in these little rules for more solid ones, who made them up anyhow?

Any statement I make is based on observation. These observations could always be mistaken. There are degrees of certainty, but there doesn't seem to be a way for me (or you) to be absolutely certain.

It's like science. Even though it often speaks in conventional language, at its roots it acknowledges that things (or theories) can't be "proven" in the absolute sense, but can only be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm aware that you can interrupt my posts to remove the "absolute certainty" caused by the limitations of the human language, its simply convenience that I don't end each post with. (anything I say could conceivably be mistaken)

You could be wrong, absolutely. But apparently you aren't certain either way.

Those that believe in God can't be wrong if there is a God. He is as well known as the sun to many billions over time. His effects are known also. Ask someone if they could be wrong that the sun exists....that might give you some idea of what certainty is. Now imagine some tells you you are not certain the sun is there

Pretty much. Just because religion offers a satisfying answer, doesn't mean it's a supported one.

But we assign degrees of probability based on what we know. Based on current human knowledge, I can say that it is extremely improbable for absolute certainty to be possible from a human perspective. It is (from what we think we know ) more likely that 911 was caused by aliens, but no one holds that belief, because it is less likely based on what we know.

If he backed up his statement by saying: "Since I could conceivably be mistaken about anything I think I know, I don't know that the sun is there." It's all about perceived likelihood.

 

[Catherineanne]

So, god only tells you to do things you don't want to do. Anything pleasurable is you, anything uncomfortable or unpleasant is god. That doesn't make much sense, though, I understand what you mean.

Well, to be honest my priest tries to do it the other way round. He says I am too hard on myself, and he would say to have the biscuits.

But what does he know?

(He would agree about going to Mass, though.)

Incidentally, why do you think god likes to play that particular game of hide-and-go-seek? It's not very conducive to a proper relationship, imo.

Tell me about it. I think the received wisdom on this one is that the Lord moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.

So then, what you're ultimately saying is.. I have nothing to worry about. I should just sit back, relax, and let god do his thing on his own time?

Why not? God is always the agent of our salvation. If you are not saved, then he hasn't finished moving in mysterious ways as yet.

Anything else is works theology; man effecting his own salvation. And that is heretical.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only place absolute certainty exists is in the minds of the religious.

That's why we don't take everything a scientist tells us at face value.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I think that may be a misunderstanding. We exist in an imperfect world, where perfection does not exist.

When a person of faith has a certainty about their faith, that certainty is not invested in their own belief, or their own interpretation. It is invested in the God they happen to believe in.

We can be sure of some things, just as atheists can. To suggest otherwise is just silly.

The difference comes when atheists seem to claim only to believe what can be externally validated, as if the world works like that. It doesn't. There are huge swathes of knowledge that have to be taken on faith, and not just religious beliefs. It strikes me as bizarre that an atheist who can happily believe medical 'facts' and geological 'facts' and historical 'facts' and even socioeconomic 'facts' will then balk at believing religious 'facts' as if they fall into another kind of category. Some do, but some don't.

Our lives are made up of huge amounts of faith in all sorts of things. The stock market is precious little else, for one thing.

So why pick on religion, as if we are any different?

What things do we take on faith? (faith being defined as believing something without evidence or reason to do so)

But accepting your conclusion, fine. I pick the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do you regard my choice as irrational? Why?

 

[Insane_Duck]

"They"?

Atheists/Agnostics

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheists/Agnostics

So you meant "we"? or did you make a Freudian slip?

 

[Insane_Duck]

That's why we don't take everything a scientist tells us at face value.

Because it doesn't fit into your world view? I wouldn't call that a healthy mental attitude.

 

[Insane_Duck]

So you meant "we"? or did you make a Freudian slip?

"Athiests and Agnostics in the study did better." I didn't take the study. I thought it was implied, but if you need clarification the only thing you need to do is ask.

So do you concede the point?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it doesn't fit into your world view?

752

For the record, if something doesn't fit your world view, what do you eventually do with it?

(Note: this isn't an invitation to give me the entire scientific method.)

I wouldn't call that a healthy mental attitude.

I know you wouldn't.

That's why your kind would rather lock us up in a mental ward, until a Christian psychiatrist can get your orders overridden.

 

[Incariol]

First, let me note that I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this post or it's even allowed in these forums in general. If it shouldn't be here, I'd ask a mod to move it to the right forum or delete it.

This is a personal story, and one I think worth telling, but as a personal story when I use any possibly controversial terms such as science, evolution, christianity, decency, or critical thinking the definitions I'm using are mine.

I grew up in an atheist household. Religion wasn't really talked about. Around the time I was graduating high school and starting college, when I was younger and stupider than I even am now, I became really aware of my atheism and my lack of conviction in it. So I set out to explore religion.

When it came to christianity, my exploration became intertwined with the loudest and most evangelical group of christians in my area. They told me that in order to be a christian, I would have to believe that the earth was 6,000 years old, that evolution wasn't science, that the big bang never happened, that basically all of the facts, ideas, and reasoning tools I had grown up adoring must be thrown out. Unsurprisingly, I rejected them instead.

The worst part, the part where my immaturity led me astray, was that I believed them when they told me that they stood for christianity. I believed them when they said there was no compatibility between christianity and what I called critical thinking. And I generalized, more or less, their beliefs to all christians.

This led to some years of my entertaining very silly ideas, wherein I regarded all christians as superstitious fools incapable of a coherent belief system. I've met more reasonable believers since then, and they helped disabuse me of these notions, but none communicated as deep and thorough an integration of science, critical thinking, decency, and christianity as I've learned is possible from reading these boards. I think if my first substantial interaction with evangelism had been with a mature, intelligent theistic evolutionist I could be a christian today. As it stands now, I've reopened the possibility. I don't expect to convert, but if enough questions get answered in a way that resonates with me I may.

That is, of course, unless it is impossible to both believe in strongly supported scientific theories such as evolution and be christian. In that case, I ain't ever getting saved.

I'm very sorry to hear that. The way Fundementalists blast the intellect causes a lot of problems for Christians.

 

[Insane_Duck]

752

For the record, if something doesn't fit your world view, what do you eventually do with it?

(Note: this isn't an invitation to give me the entire scientific method.)

I know you wouldn't.

That's why your kind would rather lock us up in a mental ward, until a Christian psychiatrist can get your orders overridden.

How do you back up these standards?

I could have the same standards with FSM instead of the bible. Then I would be "right" about everything as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Athiests and Agnostics in the study did better." I didn't take the study.

So just they did better?

Wow -- okay -- what's the point, then?

I thought it was implied, but if you need clarification the only thing you need to do is ask.

Okie-doke.

So do you concede the point?

That a group of atheists & agnostics scored higher on a religion quiz?

Sure, I'll agree with that -- (not sure what you mean by 'conceding the point').

Luke 16:8b ... for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, to be honest my priest tries to do it the other way round. He says I am too hard on myself, and he would say to have the biscuits.

I would be inclined to side with the priest. Besides, I like biscuits too... with jam or preserves.. and a heaping glass of milk...

Tell me about it. I think the received wisdom on this one is that the Lord moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.

Well, I certainly appreciate that you aren't pretending to know the answer and aren't just making something up on the spot. A lot of people around here tend to do that.

Why not? God is always the agent of our salvation. If you are not saved, then he hasn't finished moving in mysterious ways as yet.

I suppose I am technically saved, if you're of the persuasion that "once saved, always saved."

 

[dad]

Any statement I make is based on observation. These observations could always be mistaken. There are degrees of certainty, but there doesn't seem to be a way for me (or you) to be absolutely certain.

Oh? If you tell me you were born at night, you observed that?

It's like science. Even though it often speaks in conventional language, at its roots it acknowledges that things (or theories) can't be "proven" in the absolute sense, but can only be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

So it isn't about knowing. OK. Kind of like fairy tales I guess in that regard.

I'm aware that you can interrupt my posts to remove the "absolute certainty" caused by the limitations of the human language, its simply convenience that I don't end each post with. (anything I say could conceivably be mistaken)

So most of your uncertainty isn't so uncertain after all, but a mere result of 'language'. Ok.

Pretty much. Just because religion offers a satisfying answer, doesn't mean it's a supported one.

Or not. Religion is a big word, that includes most of science.

But we assign degrees of probability based on what we know.

So do we. And we don't claim uncertainty about Who we know.

Based on current human knowledge, I can say that it is extremely improbable for absolute certainty to be possible from a human perspective. It is (from what we think we know ) more likely that 911 was caused by aliens, but no one holds that belief, because it is less likely based on what we know.

Many things you do not an cannot know. True. All the more reason man needs God.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you back up these standards?

I could have the same standards with FSM instead of the bible. Then I would be "right" about everything as well.

Would it be too much to ask you to answer my question, please?

Or are you going to duck or plead 'insanity'?

 

[Insane_Duck]

So just they did better?

Wow -- okay -- what's the point, then?

Okie-doke.

That a group of atheists & agnostics scored higher on a religion quiz?

Sure, I'll agree with that -- (not sure what you mean by 'conceding the point').

Luke 16:8b ... for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

What would be an accepted sample size for concluding anything about a populace?

 

[Insane_Duck]

Would it be too much to ask you to answer my question, please?

Or are you going to duck or plead 'insanity'?

Which question?

 

[Insane_Duck]

Oh? If you tell me you were born at night, you observed that?

From my observations I concluded which sources are trustworthy to a certain degree. I then used my senses to receive information from them. (disclaimer: I could be wrong )

So it isn't about knowing. OK. Kind of like fairy tales I guess in that regard.

"A theist says he knows everything, and by extension knows nothing. An atheist admits that he knows nothing, and therefor knows something."

So most of your uncertainty isn't so uncertain after all, but a mere result of 'language'. Ok.

Whut?

Or not. Religion is a big word, that includes most of science.

Depends how you define the two words. Under the conventional definition, you would be wrong. How would you define them?

So do we. And we don't claim uncertainty about Who we know.

Okay...

Many things you do not an cannot know. True. All the more reason man needs God.

Whether I "need" something or not, doesn't determine whether it's there or not.