Why do people believe in evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Knowledge of the bible is one of the reasons I no longer believe.

Ya ... I see the extent of that knowledge in your posts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Obviously, for most Christians (and most believers in religion) the answer is "the one in the book my parents told me to read", or something similar.

Hmmm -- Did you and Hitch study the Bible together?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, we have enough knowledge about "events in the Bible" and actual history to know that many of the events in the Bible (the OT) did NOT happen, and the rapture/tribulation. etc. prophesy has been a no show for 2000+ years, so ...

It always amazes me that so many fundamentalist evangelicals are so desperate for the rapture/tribulation/etc. to happen. It's like "yes, I want to experience the horrific destruction of the entire Cosmos to happen soon. It will be so wonderful!"

Keep posting, Dutch. Your deep insights into theology astound me.

 

[MIDutch]

Hmmm -- Did you and Hitch study the Bible together?

Not hard to observe that most people who believe in religion do so believing in the religion that their parents brought them up in.

If you had been born in India, you would most likely have been Hindu. If you had been born in Israel, you would most likely have been Jewish. If you had been born in Thailand, you would most likely have been Buddhist. If you had been born in Iraq, you would most likely have been Muslim. If you had been born in Japan, you could very well have been Shinto.

This observation is not new and it's hardly unique to me or Hitch.

Do you wish to dispute this historical tendency of parents to raise their children in the religion they themselves were raised in?

 

[MIDutch]

Keep posting, Dutch. Your deep insights into theology astound me.

Thank you.
I will. And glad to be of help.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you had been born in India, you would most likely have been Hindu. If you had been born in Israel, you would most likely have been Jewish. If you had been born in Thailand, you would most likely have been Buddhist. If you had been born in Iraq, you would most likely have been Muslim. If you had been born in Japan, you could very well have been Shinto.

Why do you think it's called being "born again."?

 

[renniks]

Not hard to observe that most people who believe in religion do so believing in the religion that their parents brought them up in.

Most perhaps. Certainly not all. People do change religion or become religious when not raised that way.

 

[d taylor]

Well here are a few you can, if you are again fortunate to be around, you can be looking for.

Pretribulation events
WWI and WWII, reestablishment of Israel, Jerusalem under Jewish Control, The Northern Alliance Invasion Of Israel, The One World Government, The Ten Kingdoms, The Rise of The Antichrist, The Period of Peace and False Security, The Seven Year Covenant, Blackout (5), The Return of Elijah, The Third Temple, The Rapture.

 

[HitchSlap]

Post 414 please. Dutchy ninja'd ya.

You should think of it as at least two people recognized your folly.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ya ... I see the extent of that knowledge in your posts.

And you can’t decide which is more concerning to you, the fact I know more about the Bible/theology than you, or the fact you have to accept it literally.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not hard to observe that most people who believe in religion do so believing in the religion that their parents brought them up in.

If you had been born in India, you would most likely have been Hindu. If you had been born in Israel, you would most likely have been Jewish. If you had been born in Thailand, you would most likely have been Buddhist. If you had been born in Iraq, you would most likely have been Muslim. If you had been born in Japan, you could very well have been Shinto.

This observation is not new and it's hardly unique to me or Hitch.

Do you wish to dispute this historical tendency of parents to raise their children in the religion they themselves were raised in?

And if you were born to atheist parents..

I was, and remained a staunch atheist till I became skeptical of it in my 40's.

I'm not comparing atheism to a religion, because ideally religion acknowledges personal faith, belief as such, which can be questioned (and it's not a new observation that teenagers like to question their parent's values!)

But how do you become skeptical of a belief that explicitly avoids acknowledging itself as such? I think that's an extra hurdle for atheists re. changing their world view.

 

[HitchSlap]

And if you were born to atheist parents..

I was, and remained a staunch atheist till I became skeptical of it in my 40's.

I'm not comparing atheism to a religion, because ideally religion acknowledges personal faith, belief as such, which can be questioned (and it's not a new observation that teenagers like to question their parents values!)

But how do you become skeptical of a belief that explicitly avoids acknowledging itself as such? I think that's an extra hurdle for atheists re. changing their world view.

What was the tipping point that pushed you to theism?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What was the tipping point that pushed you to theism?

many things- but probably initially the subject of this thread, which has been the tipping point for many an ex atheist I believe.

I always liked to debate theists on evolution, not so much on forums but face to face, where people tend to be a little more humble- but there is something very humbling about arguing with a computer. I've programmed everything from chess games to flight sims, as well as less fun or challenging projects for commercial purposes- and thought I could demonstrate the power of the Darwinian algorithm to a theist friend this way-

I'm not saying I accurately modeled billions of years of evolution and disproved Darwin, but I proved to myself that it definitely did not work as in my thought experiments. Everything we do is in anticipation of a future beneficial consequence, and so this bias is very difficult to remove in the mind, but a computer can. It boils down to an information problem, without a generous external supply, the algorithm falls foul to entropy.

Again not the whole story but one of those moments that make you go 'hmmmm... '

 

[Astrid]

But how do you become skeptical of a belief that explicitly avoids acknowledging itself as such? I think that's an extra hurdle for atheists re. changing their world view.

We're you raised in a religious home?
The " staunch" is a hint..
Most "atheists" who go to religion later
merely grew disaffected for a time and the
gravity well pulled them back.

But as for your last lines there-

Is it not equally (in)applicable to non- belief in
astrology, batboy, homeopathy, Thor,
healing crystals, and a thousand other
named but unevidenced sorts of nonsense?

Seeing unevidenced nonsense like those,
or 2×2=7 for what it is, is not a "belief".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We're you raised in a religious home?
The " staunch" is a hint..
Most "atheists" who go to religion later
merely grew disaffected for a time and the
gravity well pulled them back.

But as for your last lines there-

Is it not equally (in)applicable to non- belief in
astrology, batboy, homeopathy, Thor,
healing crystals, and a thousand other
named but unevidenced sorts of nonsense?

Seeing unevidenced nonsense like those,
or 2×2=7 for what it is, is not a "belief".

Not at all, as I said I was raised atheist, and like many people given a materialist education through school and college.

I became a theist looking deeper into science, but I can still frame my belief as a disbelief if I wanted:

i.e. "as an 'a-naturalist', I make no positive assertion, I simply lack belief in natural/materialistic explanations for life and the universe"

It works both ways, it doesn't change the belief, it just avoid acknowledging it as such- I feel no need to do that, I'm willing to stand behind my positive assertion.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

 

[Astrid]

Not at all, as I said I was raised atheist, and like many people given a materialist education through school and college.

I became a theist looking deeper into science, but I can still frame my belief as a disbelief if I wanted:

i.e. "as an 'a-naturalist', I make no positive assertion, I simply lack belief in natural/materialistic explanations for life and the universe"

It works both ways, it doesn't change the belief, it just avoid acknowledging it as such- I feel no need to do that, I'm willing to stand behind my positive assertion.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

If up is down to you, it is but it
doesn't make it so for others.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If up is down to you, it is but it
doesn't make it so for others.

we are both skeptics, of different beliefs

 

[Astrid]

we are both skeptics, of different beliefs

Are you proposing some equivalence?

I've noted that you get a lot of complaints about equivocation.

Here you seem to equivocate your unconditional
belief in something based entirely on faith,
not one datum point detected anywhere,
with some aspect of how I think.

Not a chance.

As the topic appears to be evolution v God did it,
I will address that only.

I don't "believe in" evolution. I find that equivocation
to be kind of obnoxious. I don't have "faith" in it.

Provisional acceptance is the term. ( I won't suggest
that is how you see your god)
The theory is extremely well based, and has stood the
test for 150 years or so.
No effort to disprove it has had any success.

That is a my basis for acceptance.

Religion, on the other hand, involvrs a rather amazing
belief structure built entirely on faith.
There is ne equivalence.

I don't know what state of mind sees
things that are not there but I want no part of it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Are you proposing some equivalence?

I've noted that you get a lot of complaints about equivocation.

Here you seem to equivocate your unconditional
belief in something based entirely on faith,
not one datum point detected anywhere,
with some aspect of how I think.

Not a chance.

As the topic appears to be evolution v God did it,
I will address that only.

I don't "believe in" evolution. I find that equivocation
to be kind of obnoxious. I don't have "faith" in it.

Provisional acceptance is the term. ( I won't suggest
that is how you see your god)
The theory is extremely well based, and has stood the
test for 150 years or so.
No effort to disprove it has had any success.

That is a my basis for acceptance.

Religion, on the other hand, involvrs a rather amazing
belief structure built entirely on faith.
There is ne equivalence.

I don't know what state of mind sees
things that are not there but I want no part of it.

That all highlights the point about blind faith

If you do not recognize your belief as such, how would you ever progress past it, how would science ever progress with this rule?

In many cases, scientists themselves do not, Fred Hoyle went to his death bed refusing to acknowledge the evidence for the 'Big Bang' he had spent so long mocking as 'religious pseudoscience'

'science progresses one funeral at a time" Max Planck

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know what state of mind sees
things that are not there but I want no part of it.

Missing links ain't your thing? good for you!