Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Or any combination of the above, depending on the immediate environment.You state mutations are either beneficial or neutral. This is not correct. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral or harmful.
Nope. As an atheist, I see science as an eminently rational enterprise (although scientists, being human, are not always rational).... from an atheistic perspective, science is irrational, but from a theistic perspective science is very rational.
I have a strong desire to turn the tables and create a thread that asks a clearly false question like "Do all Christians abuse their kids?", ignore or argue with what everyone says and then conclude "Yes, all Christians abuse their kids".
But I don't think the message will get through...
Truth is not as simple as you seem to believe. See Truth - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Because theists know truth is absolute or unchangeable and that they must accept this as true. Atheists don't necessary think truth is absolute and so they let their beliefs define truth, instead of letting their beliefs conform to truth.
Regardless of the biologists you personally know, and what they may or may not agree with, mutations are not either neutral or positive, it is more complicated than that.Again, those are not the terms I set out. I classified mutations as a type of aberration which is either neutral or positive. I then classified defects as a type of aberration which is inherently negative. The biologists I personally know agree with those definitions in general.
Well, lets review.
He opens a thread asking if science is irrational, but admits himself, that science is rational.
When asked if it is best to understand what is likely true about reality is best explored with the checks and balances of the scientific method, he says no.
What asked if relying on personal religious experiences is the best method and he says no.
When asked to then explain what the best method is to determine what is most likely true about reality, he evades the question.
Is anyone shocked?
Truth is not as simple as you seem to believe. See Truth - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
I didn't evade. I clearly stated that in my opinion the most rational way to understand reality (and I include myself in this reality) is to ask honest questions with the intent of finding the truth.
Not to ask questions with the intent of understanding reality because that would preclude the truth that would make it all make sense to me personally.
Not that difficult to understand.
For some folks, the truth is simple. It ends up being, whatever they want it to be.
For some "unknown" reason, we humans are made to want things. Those that want the truth are most likely to find it and hold on to it for dear life.
Nope.
Those who want to understand, what is most likely to be true, will also have the desire, to change their position, when presented with overwhelming evidence, that changes a previous belief. Why, because they acknowledge, what they previously believed, was wrong and they have a desire to understand what is likely true and they believe acknowledging new evidence, is important in this quest.
Now, for others, determining truth can be related to a tightly held faith belief. In these situations, new knowledge and or information they do not possess, or previously understand, is typically denied. Why? Because of psychological needs, protecting the belief takes priority, over acknowledging they may have been wrong and it is far too painful to do so.
All of that makes sense to me. Do you think the current evidence available points to there being no Christian God? Or do you think there isn't enough evidence to make that conclusion? Meaning evidence could arise that points to the Christian God as being true and if that evidence were to arise you would accept it if it was convincing?
All of that makes sense to me. Do you think the current evidence available points to there being no Christian God? Or do you think there isn't enough evidence to make that conclusion? Meaning evidence could arise that points to the Christian God as being true and if that evidence were to arise you would accept it if it was convincing?
These aren´t observations. These are interpretations, and pretty poor ones at that (probably caused less by observations but by your preconceptions).Thanks to everyone for your responses. This has helped me understand how atheist view science vs how theists view science.
In general it seems an atheist will view science as something that can help them improve their own lives, while a theist will view science as a tool to help them find complete understanding of our reality.
Again, in general atheists seem to think "What can science do for me?" While theists seem to think "What can I do to further science towards complete understanding?"
In general theist believe complete understanding is achievable, but only through God. Whereas, atheists don't necessarily believe complete understand is achievable because they think they have to rely on humans to get there and they know humans are imperfect by nature and so may never achieve complete understanding of reality.
Just some observations. Take them or leave them.
Well, science (like everything) can serve a lot of different roles for the individuals. I, however, meant to talk about the purpose scientists (in their role as scientists) are supposed to give to their researches.I agree in the main; however, I also believe science serves a less pragmatic, aesthetic role: it activates a certain aesthetic appreciation for nature.
We have a pretty good description of the traits of this Christian God and what he has claimed to have done.
When I overlap the above with well evidenced reality, I can not reconcile the claims or the theology as being true. I acquired knowledge after 40 years of believing the theology and when we keep on learning about well evidenced reality, it can and will cause us to change our view points on things.
As I have said before, acknowledging new information that is well evidenced and changing one's mind, is a sign of strength, not weakness.
I'm not sure you answered my questions, but that's ok.
So you'll change your mind if it can be perceived by others that you are strengthened by changing your mind?
However, if convincing evidence of the Christian God were presented to you, it would cause great fear and trembling and you would have to admit your utter weakness in comparison to this God. You think a changed mind is a sign of strength not weakness, which might explain why your mind may never be changed no matter what evidence is presented.
I'll be honest, that's a scary thought for me because I hope you will be saved someday.
The Christian god, as described by Christians, seems impossible to me. I can't reconcile a supposedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent god and drowning toddlers.
For clarification, please address these points directly, thanks.
Tell me which question I did not answer with my post and I will address it.
When did I say, I am motivated to change my mind if other people's perceptions are I am strengthened by changing my mind?
Clearly, you didn't read what I posted. I will clarify; since I have already changed my mind once on this important question, I have demonstrated that i do not fear accepting new evidence, that will cause me to reevaluate my beliefs. How you perceive, this means I will never change my mind, is beyond me, since I have already demonstrated, that my mind can be changed.
It's a scary thought that some people accept new knowledge and evidence, that leads them to believe they were wrong about something?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?