I'm tired of giving religionists a pass

[Willtor]

AV1611VET is not a complete literalist he is a partial literalist, he only takes the parts that suit him literally, all of the others can take a hike, another name for him would be a cherry picker, although in fairness he's no different from all the rest, they all believe what they want to believe and they disregard the rest, they live with whatever falls into their trained comfort zone.

This sounds like more of a general attribute of people than it does specifically of people in religions. It doesn't have to be a Holy Book. Granted, if we have intellectual integrity, we strive to know what is real and what isn't, possibly to the detriment of what makes us comfortable. But it's an ever-present struggle.

I don't see that this is a criticism of people of religion any more than it is of people outside religion.

You may point out the folly of creationism because you know better. But even if you, yourself, have great integrity, you almost assuredly have blind spots that people -- who know better -- have and are and will continue to try to point out to you.

 

[No Time]

AV1611VET is not a complete literalist he is a partial literalist, he only takes the parts that suit him literally, all of the others can take a hike, another name for him would be a cherry picker, although in fairness he's no different from all the rest, they all believe what they want to believe and they disregard the rest, they live with whatever falls into their trained comfort zone.

This sounds like more of a general attribute of people than it does specifically of people in religions.

I am an Atheists so yes I pick and choose what I believe just as anyone does, but unlike religious people when I see something that I once believed was true or false I do the sane thing and change my mind, religious people on the other hand either choose or are told what to believe in their religion and stick with it until they die.

I would like to ask you a question Willtor?
While we fully understand there are no reasons for anyone to be religious what reasons do you use to justify your belief to yourself?

 

[AV1611VET]

I am an Atheists so yes I pick and choose what I believe just as anyone does, but unlike religious people when I see something that I once believed was true or false I do the sane thing and change my mind, religious people on the other hand either choose or are told what to believe in their religion and stick with it until they die.

I would like to ask you a question Willtor?
While we fully understand there are no reasons for anyone to be religious what reasons do you use to justify your belief to yourself?

Read that part in blue slowly.

 

[AV1611VET]

While we fully understand there are no reasons for anyone to be religious what reasons do you use to justify your belief to yourself?

As Mr. Hovind so aptly points out, it takes more faith to be an evolutionist, than it does to be a creationist.

After all, evolutionist accept the idea that life originated from non-life; whereas creationists believe that life came from [the] Life.

 

[Willtor]

I am an Atheists so yes I pick and choose what I believe just as anyone does, but unlike religious people when I see something that I once believed was true or false I do the sane thing and change my mind, religious people on the other hand either choose or are told what to believe in their religion and stick with it until they die.

You have a very narrow range of experience with religion, if you believe this. Many religious people change religions (or become non-religious). Even further, many religious people who don't change their religions, _do_ change beliefs within their religions. Like anybody else, religious people make these changes in their beliefs for various reasons, some good, some bad, some questionable.

I would like to ask you a question Willtor?
While we fully understand there are no reasons for anyone to be religious what reasons do you use to justify your belief to yourself?

What an antagonistic way to ask a question. How about we finish the point above before we move on? I'll provisionally allow that "we" do fully understand that there is no reason for anyone to be religious and that any justification is ad hoc or just foolish. Now that "we" agree that I'm irrational and wrong, let's talk about my point above.

 

[Willtor]

As Mr. Hovind so aptly points out, it takes more faith to be an evolutionist, than it does to be a creationist.

After all, evolutionist accept the idea that life originated from non-life; whereas creationists believe that life came from [the] Life.

It doesn't. Evolution doesn't require that idea. There are people who believe that God "zapped" the earliest life (or possibly just the first self-replicating proteins) into being. If He did that, it doesn't undermine evolution, since evolution doesn't address the question of whence life first appeared.

The question of the origin of biological life is one for abiogenesis. And Hovind is also wrong on that point, though, I admittedly know much less about it than I do about evolution.

 

[Kazenoryu]

You have a very narrow range of experience with religion, if you believe this. Many religious people change religions (or become non-religious). Even further, many religious people who don't change their religions, _do_ change beliefs within their religions. Like anybody else, religious people make these changes in their beliefs for various reasons, some good, some bad, some questionable.

This is essentially where I came from. Used to be a Christian and often times would change my beliefs within Christianity dependent upon scripture. But based on other things I saw and because of finally looking at and understanding the naturalist point of view, my ideas on Christianity more or less dissolved over time. My mind wants evidence and religion just couldn't provide it anywhere but inside the tightly guarded box of religion itself.

 

[No Time]

Read that part in blue slowly.

I left out 'evidence for' and you left out 'or false', you would think I would have learnt by now not to give you a reason for not answering a question. [not that you ever do]

 

[Willtor]

This is essentially where I came from. Used to be a Christian and often times would change my beliefs within Christianity dependent upon scripture. But based on other things I saw and because of finally looking at and understanding the naturalist point of view, my ideas on Christianity more or less dissolved over time. My mind wants evidence and religion just couldn't provide it anywhere but inside the tightly guarded box of religion itself.

Yeah. I'll bet this reason is a factor for many people who leave religion (as a whole -- not just changing from one religion to another).

 

[Freodin]

Unlike scientists, who will take anything they can be convinced is evidence, form six theories out of these conflicting bits of data, say they can't arrive at a conclusion, and then go back to bed.

The moon is an excellent example.

I say the moon was created ex nihilo by God, and that's that -- case closed.

Scientists say six different things about the moon, and that's that -- case closed.

So while I'm "cherry picking", scientists are accepting rotten cherries as viable evidence.

Excuse me... which of the six moons were created by God?

Or rather... as the other six came about by completely different means... do you believe we have SEVEN moons?

 

[No Time]

You have a very narrow range of experience with religion, if you believe this. Many religious people change religions (or become non-religious). Even further, many religious people who don't change their religions, _do_ change beliefs within their religions. Like anybody else, religious people make these changes in their beliefs for various reasons, some good, some bad, some questionable.

If I had to point out every possible scenario the post would be a mile long, of course people leave, change and join religions every day, but I'm not suprised that you acted like you have.

What an antagonistic way to ask a question. How about we finish the point above before we move on? I'll provisionally allow that "we" do fully understand that there is no reason for anyone to be religious and that any justification is ad hoc or just foolish. Now that "we" agree that I'm irrational and wrong, let's talk about my point above.

I think you're just doing what religious people without answers do every day, try not to talk about it just in case they start to see how ridiculous their beliefs really are.

""we" agree that I'm irrational and wrong" yes that's something we agree on.

Do you care if what you believe is true or not or are you not bothered? because it sure sounds like you're not.

 

[Willtor]

If I had to point out every possible scenario the post would be a mile long, of course people leave, change and join religions every day, but I'm not suprised that you acted like you have.

I don't enter into it.

Now, you said, "... they all believe what they want to believe and they disregard the rest, they live with whatever falls into their trained comfort zone." Do you stand by that as applying to religionists as a group to the exclusion of non-religionists as a group? I say no. And when I read or hear someone make the argument that it does, it causes me to suspect that, to apply a Christian aphorism, they have a plank in their eye.

I think you're just doing what religious people without answers do every day, try not to talk about it just in case they start to see how ridiculous their beliefs really are.

""we" agree that I'm irrational and wrong" yes that's something we agree on.

Do you care if what you believe is true or not or are you not bothered? because it sure sounds like you're not.

I care whether what I believe is true.

 

[Jazer]

I think you're just doing what religious people without answers do every day,

Religious people have religious answers that satisify them. Their religion is subjective. Science is objective. Remember that even if you find people who allow you to call them "religious" there are many more who would be offended. They do not consider Christianity to be a religion, they consider it to be a relationship. Even though we serve God, we are not really a servant so much as a friend.

"From now on I call you not servants; for the servant knows not what his lord does: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known to you." John 15:15

 

[Jazer]

AV1611VET is not a complete literalist he is a partial literalist,

I am the literalist. I find it amazing that God can take a historical story and teach a objective lesson from that story. Also as all teachers know, this is a very effective way to teach. So when we ask the big questions like "How then shall we live"? We can turn to the Bible and learn about real people. Some were an example for good, some an example of what was not good and what should be avoided.

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't. Evolution doesn't require that idea. There are people who believe that God "zapped" the earliest life (or possibly just the first self-replicating proteins) into being.

That still makes you a 'religionist'.

In fact, there's no such thing as a 'non-religionist' -- in my opinion.

 

[Jazer]

There is also plenty of evidence that there is a detriment to a belief in God or a god.

You do not know the difference? Perhaps that is why your here trying to get that sorted out. I got a clue, you can not always learn from others. You have to go direct to God and through the Holy Spirit He will guide you and lead you in the way to go. He can teach you what you need to know. Others can help you to understand how God works in their life and what they have personally learned from Him. So you can develop your own personal relationship with the God that created you.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is essentially where I came from. Used to be a Christian and often times would change my beliefs within Christianity dependent upon scripture. But based on other things I saw and because of finally looking at and understanding the naturalist point of view, my ideas on Christianity more or less dissolved over time. My mind wants evidence and religion just couldn't provide it anywhere but inside the tightly guarded box of religion itself.

So, in effect, would you say you jettisoned the idea that life came from Life, in favor of saying that life came from non-life?

 

[AV1611VET]

Excuse me... which of the six moons were created by God?

None of the above -- God created our moon ex nihilo.

 

[Willtor]

That still makes you a 'religionist'.

Yes, it does. My point is that the question of the origin of life is asked by a different scientific field of inquiry from evolution.

In fact, there's no such thing as a 'non-religionist' -- in my opinion.

If "religionist" is defined as one who tends to believe what makes him or her comfortable, and for whom objectivity is a fight that must be fought again and again, then I tend to agree.

 

[Jazer]

So Lemmings are for real? Why, yes they are

So you think that theists are one sort of a Lemming and atheists are another sort of a lemming? They just march to the beat of a different drummer? In the end the objective is to save the Lemmings.