| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nerd Gerl" |
| Date: |
01 Mar 2004 02:41:08 AM |
| Object: |
Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
.... Darwin admitted that the fossil record as it was known in his day
contradicted the general theory of
evolution. The ... record teaches away from general evolution, not
towards it. ...
www.gvn.net/~tstout/cs/pog_7.shtml
Stephen E. Jones: Creation/Evolution quotes: History #3: Darwin's
Origin of Species
My History: Darwin's Origin of Species page of my creation/evolution
quotes, which are mostly by evolutionists. ... Was speculative. Darwin
admitted was "grievously hypothetical" ...
members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/histry03.html
Archive: Darwin's Eye - Forums
.... there is not a designer. Even Darwin admitted the eye was too
complex for evolution to explain. ... which is something the
anti-evolution crowd as perfected to a near ...
www.cygnus-study.com/ubb/Archives/Archive-000001/HTML/19991215-2-000043.html
Is evolution theory universally accepted
.... People generally think that evolution is not merely a theory but a
proved fact ... the most vigorous supporter of Darwin, admitted that
"evolution was not an established theory but ...
www.creator-creation.com/evolution.htm
Fossils Was Darwin right
A site devoted to Scientific arguments in favour of Ceation ... Darwin
admitted that the fossil evidence was one of the weakest aspect of the
Theory of Evolution (see also ... this in itself does not prove
Evolution to be true ...
www.wasdarwinright.com/Fossils.asp
Stephen E. Jones: creation evolution quotes, darwinism (including
neo-Darwinism) #4,
E. Jones. Creation/Evolution Quotes: Darwinism #4 ... Darwin admitted
it seemed "absurd in the highest
degree" that the eye could have been formed by natural selection ...
www.members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/darwin04.html
Science that is not so Scientific
.... historical context of evolution helps one to ... evolution could
ever create anything so complicated as life. He took as his example
the eye which Darwin admitted made ...
www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/zimmerreview112101.htm
Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!
Common Sense for Today - A Christian Perspective on Today's Tough
Issues. ... I assume that all college
professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact ...
www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html
BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: DARWIN, A BIBLICAL AND SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE
.... paraded the fossils they found as evidence for evolution... ... In
the early 1970's, when it ... These led to ...[what Darwin admitted
himself were]..absurd conclusions, but if ...
www.biblestudymanuals.net/darwin.htm
LaVergne Church of Christ | The Other Side of Evolution
.... The Other Side of Evolution (continued) ... Evolution, of course,
is not a fact. It has not been proved. Even Darwin admitted that it
was unproved and unprovable.8 ...
www.lavergnecoc.org/study/evolution/evolution4.html
.
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATE TQOTHM Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 06:42:24 PM |
|
|
underground wrote:
I hope I did this right, it was a fantastic post and deserves more than
this.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end
up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia,
but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
=20
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindl=
y be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
=20
=20
Seppo P.
=20
=20
Heh. I just noticed that this thread is posted in alt.bible,
alt.atheism, and talk.origins. Of those, the only group I regularly
read is talk.origins. So let me know what happens. :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seppo Pietikainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 12:55:05 AM |
|
|
Richard Crawford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
<snip>
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia, but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
=20
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindl=
y be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
=20
=20
Seppo P.
=20
=20
Richard,
I appreciate your posting, it demonstrates quite well that thinking theists
can, and do separate science and their religious beliefs. This seems to
be something that totally escapes the minds of religious fundamentalists.
Well, this is really nothing new to me, as Stanley Friesen, Dave Oldridge
and others have already done so many times before.
Regards,
Seppo P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 12:04:40 PM |
|
|
Seppo Pietikainen <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<c21bdu$1o1vi0$1@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Richard Crawford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
<snip>
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia, but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
=20
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindl=
y be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
=20
=20
Seppo P.
=20
=20
Richard,
I appreciate your posting, it demonstrates quite well that thinking theists
can, and do separate science and their religious beliefs. This seems to
be something that totally escapes the minds of religious fundamentalists.
Well, this is really nothing new to me, as Stanley Friesen, Dave Oldridge
and others have already done so many times before.
Regards,
Seppo P.
Richard's post is similar to what my workout partner in the university
would have said. He was/is a devout Christian and now a PhD in plant
virology. He knew the difference between faith and reason, and never
thought that simply saying "Look around! Isn't it obvious?" would be
enough to convince me that God existed outside his skull. He also said
that doing science was "Studying how God does things".
He held in quiet contempt or pity those who loathed knowledge and
actively fought science; for they serve neither God nor humanity. (Hi,
Joe!)
- Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 11:01:48 AM |
|
|
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
<snip>
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia, but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
=20
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindl=
y be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
=20
=20
Seppo P.
=20
=20
Richard,
I appreciate your posting, it demonstrates quite well that thinking theists
can, and do separate science and their religious beliefs. This seems to
be something that totally escapes the minds of religious fundamentalists.
And it has been pointed out to them many, many times. I'm personally of
the opinion that they're just scared that their faith may be proved
wrong by science, and thus they may not survive after death. And so
they need to restrict their thinking to support the idea that they will
survive after death, and if anyone else challenges their restricted
worldview, then they feel even more threatened and afraid.
Well, this is really nothing new to me, as Stanley Friesen, Dave Oldridge
and others have already done so many times before.
Some of the most interesting philosophers I've read have thought along
the same lines. Not that I'm comparing myself to them, of course; I
just think it's a neat way of looking at the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 12:17:58 PM |
|
|
Richard Crawford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:Pcdx569XRql32E39DACEnMUKrozWTmjA@animal.squaretrade.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Ph=FFlt=EAr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument a=
s
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason
why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 12:28:27 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:Pcdx569XRql32E39DACEnMUKrozWTmjA@animal.squaretrade.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Ph=FFlt=EAr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument a=
s
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason
why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
I wonder what some fundamentalists will make of this belief of mine,
though. Am I saved because I have faith? Or damned because I don't
require evidence for my faith?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 12:42:13 PM |
|
|
"Richard Crawford" <rscrawford.penguin@mossroot.remove_waterfowl.com> wrote
in message news:c1vvm1$nlk$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Libertarius wrote:
[...]
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
I wonder what some fundamentalists will make of this belief of mine,
though. Am I saved because I have faith? Or damned because I don't
require evidence for my faith?
Requiring evidence for faith is the most illogical of illogics.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 12:59:31 PM |
|
|
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is consistent with the biblical definition of "faith".
(SEE: Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
I wonder what some fundamentalists will make of this belief of mine,
though. Am I saved because I have faith? Or damned because I don't
require evidence for my faith?
===>I think most of them would attack you,
saying you are not a "real Christian". ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 01:16:51 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is consistent with the biblical definition of "faith".
(SEE: Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to maintain a
very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims made by shysters,
hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced with a new claim, one
should wonder whether that claim is consistent with their faith and with
known reality (that is to say, with what science tells us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't always
easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that reincarnation, for
example, is not true (and I often wish it were). It is not, however,
consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do not believe in it. I
respect those who do, however.
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject it
very easily.
I wonder what some fundamentalists will make of this belief of mine,
though. Am I saved because I have faith? Or damned because I don't
require evidence for my faith?
===>I think most of them would attack you,
saying you are not a "real Christian". ;-) -- L.
Heh. You're probably quite right about that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 03:02:29 PM |
|
|
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is consistent with the biblical definition of "faith".
(SEE: Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to maintain a
very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims made by shysters,
hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced with a new claim, one
should wonder whether that claim is consistent with their faith and with
known reality (that is to say, with what science tells us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't always
easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that reincarnation, for
example, is not true (and I often wish it were). It is not, however,
consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do not believe in it. I
respect those who do, however.
===>It would be most enlightening if you would be willing to explain
what it is you DO choose to believe and most importantly WHY?
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject it
very easily.
===>Again, WHY?
Reason is a human trait and I cannot see how you can arrive at
your decisions without it. In fact you appear to be applying reason
to an extent. -- L.
====================
I wonder what some fundamentalists will make of this belief of mine,
though. Am I saved because I have faith? Or damned because I don't
require evidence for my faith?
===>I think most of them would attack you,
saying you are not a "real Christian". ;-) -- L.
Heh. You're probably quite right about that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 04:03:53 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is consistent with the biblical definition of "faith".
(SEE: Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to maintain a
very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims made by shysters,
hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced with a new claim, one
should wonder whether that claim is consistent with their faith and with
known reality (that is to say, with what science tells us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't always
easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that reincarnation, for
example, is not true (and I often wish it were). It is not, however,
consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do not believe in it. I
respect those who do, however.
===>It would be most enlightening if you would be willing to explain
what it is you DO choose to believe and most importantly WHY?
I suppose you could call me a "Zen Methodist" or something along those
lines. I believe in the existence of God, largely as defined in the
tradition of the Methodist church (though since I grew up as an
Episcopalian, much of their theology has affected me as well, I'm sure).
While in college, I spent some time exploring many different faiths
(such as Zen Buddhism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, Wicca, and more), and
even spent some time as an atheist. I won't go into my life story or my
spiritual biography here (it's not all that interesting, and my fingers
only have so much typing energy in them); suffice to say that at this
point, I do believe in the Creating power of God (as represented by the
"Father"), in the loving nature of God (Jesus), and in the inspiring
nature of God (the Holy Spirit).
WHY do I believe? To be honest, I have never been very comfortable
answering that question. Partially, it's a conscious choice.
Partially, it's because it makes sense to me personally. Partially,
it's because I find my own faith inspiring and helpful to me. It helps
me through the day, you might say.
I know that I will never convince someone who does not believe, and
that's okay with me. I also don't believe that people who believe
differently than I do are going to hell. In fact, I believe that there
are probably some people who call themselves atheists who have a much
closer relationship to God than I do.
This probably doesn't help. Heh.
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject it
very easily.
===>Again, WHY?
Reason is a human trait and I cannot see how you can arrive at
your decisions without it. In fact you appear to be applying reason
to an extent. -- L.
True.
Many of my "fundamental premises" are unsound and irrational: that God
exists, that He created the universe and manifests Himself in it, and so on.
But I do believe that God gave us the power to use reason to investigate
His creation -- in other words, science is a gift from God. It can be
used to explore the nature of reality, and that's when we discover
evolution, cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. I've built up, in
conjunction with what I know of science and what I believe about the
nature of God, a set of axioms about how I believe the universe works.
Insofar as some claim comes along -- like, say, any sort of
pseudoscience like Creationism or magnetic therapy -- I can look at such
claims and decide whether or not their claims are supported by that set
of axioms.
Of course, I always entertain the notion that I might be wrong about
anything I believe. My faith in God is, I feel, unassailable, but I am
always willing to consider that on some specifics -- such as what I
believe we are called by God to do in specific situations -- I may be
completely wrong.
I know that this sounds like rambling. If I had a couple of weeks, I'm
sure I could write a much better screed.
====================
I wonder what some fundamentalists will make of this belief of mine,
though. Am I saved because I have faith? Or damned because I don't
require evidence for my faith?
===>I think most of them would attack you,
saying you are not a "real Christian". ;-) -- L.
Heh. You're probably quite right about that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 09:29:05 PM |
|
|
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is consistent with the biblical definition of "faith".
(SEE: Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to maintain a
very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims made by shysters,
hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced with a new claim, one
should wonder whether that claim is consistent with their faith and with
known reality (that is to say, with what science tells us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't always
easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that reincarnation, for
example, is not true (and I often wish it were). It is not, however,
consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do not believe in it. I
respect those who do, however.
===>It would be most enlightening if you would be willing to explain
what it is you DO choose to believe and most importantly WHY?
I suppose you could call me a "Zen Methodist" or something along those
lines. I believe in the existence of God, largely as defined in the
tradition of the Methodist church (though since I grew up as an
Episcopalian, much of their theology has affected me as well, I'm sure).
While in college, I spent some time exploring many different faiths
(such as Zen Buddhism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, Wicca, and more), and
even spent some time as an atheist. I won't go into my life story or my
spiritual biography here (it's not all that interesting, and my fingers
only have so much typing energy in them); suffice to say that at this
point, I do believe in the Creating power of God (as represented by the
"Father"), in the loving nature of God (Jesus), and in the inspiring
nature of God (the Holy Spirit).
WHY do I believe? To be honest, I have never been very comfortable
answering that question. Partially, it's a conscious choice.
Partially, it's because it makes sense to me personally. Partially,
it's because I find my own faith inspiring and helpful to me. It helps
me through the day, you might say.
I know that I will never convince someone who does not believe, and
that's okay with me. I also don't believe that people who believe
differently than I do are going to hell. In fact, I believe that there
are probably some people who call themselves atheists who have a much
closer relationship to God than I do.
This probably doesn't help. Heh.
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject it
very easily.
===>Again, WHY?
Reason is a human trait and I cannot see how you can arrive at
your decisions without it. In fact you appear to be applying reason
to an extent. -- L.
True.
Many of my "fundamental premises" are unsound and irrational: that God
exists, that He created the universe and manifests Himself in it, and so on.
But I do believe that God gave us the power to use reason to investigate
His creation -- in other words, science is a gift from God. It can be
used to explore the nature of reality, and that's when we discover
evolution, cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. I've built up, in
conjunction with what I know of science and what I believe about the
nature of God, a set of axioms about how I believe the universe works.
Insofar as some claim comes along -- like, say, any sort of
pseudoscience like Creationism or magnetic therapy -- I can look at such
claims and decide whether or not their claims are supported by that set
of axioms.
Of course, I always entertain the notion that I might be wrong about
anything I believe. My faith in God is, I feel, unassailable, but I am
always willing to consider that on some specifics -- such as what I
believe we are called by God to do in specific situations -- I may be
completely wrong.
I know that this sounds like rambling. If I had a couple of weeks, I'm
sure I could write a much better screed.
===>Interesting explanation, allowing an insight into your thinking.
Thanks. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 10:57:15 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is consistent with the biblical definition of "faith".
(SEE: Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to maintain a
very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims made by shysters,
hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced with a new claim, one
should wonder whether that claim is consistent with their faith and with
known reality (that is to say, with what science tells us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't always
easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that reincarnation, for
example, is not true (and I often wish it were). It is not, however,
consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do not believe in it. I
respect those who do, however.
===>It would be most enlightening if you would be willing to explain
what it is you DO choose to believe and most importantly WHY?
I suppose you could call me a "Zen Methodist" or something along those
lines. I believe in the existence of God, largely as defined in the
tradition of the Methodist church (though since I grew up as an
Episcopalian, much of their theology has affected me as well, I'm sure).
While in college, I spent some time exploring many different faiths
(such as Zen Buddhism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, Wicca, and more), and
even spent some time as an atheist. I won't go into my life story or my
spiritual biography here (it's not all that interesting, and my fingers
only have so much typing energy in them); suffice to say that at this
point, I do believe in the Creating power of God (as represented by the
"Father"), in the loving nature of God (Jesus), and in the inspiring
nature of God (the Holy Spirit).
WHY do I believe? To be honest, I have never been very comfortable
answering that question. Partially, it's a conscious choice.
Partially, it's because it makes sense to me personally. Partially,
it's because I find my own faith inspiring and helpful to me. It helps
me through the day, you might say.
I know that I will never convince someone who does not believe, and
that's okay with me. I also don't believe that people who believe
differently than I do are going to hell. In fact, I believe that there
are probably some people who call themselves atheists who have a much
closer relationship to God than I do.
This probably doesn't help. Heh.
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject it
very easily.
===>Again, WHY?
Reason is a human trait and I cannot see how you can arrive at
your decisions without it. In fact you appear to be applying reason
to an extent. -- L.
True.
Many of my "fundamental premises" are unsound and irrational: that God
exists, that He created the universe and manifests Himself in it, and so on.
But I do believe that God gave us the power to use reason to investigate
His creation -- in other words, science is a gift from God. It can be
used to explore the nature of reality, and that's when we discover
evolution, cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. I've built up, in
conjunction with what I know of science and what I believe about the
nature of God, a set of axioms about how I believe the universe works.
Insofar as some claim comes along -- like, say, any sort of
pseudoscience like Creationism or magnetic therapy -- I can look at such
claims and decide whether or not their claims are supported by that set
of axioms.
Of course, I always entertain the notion that I might be wrong about
anything I believe. My faith in God is, I feel, unassailable, but I am
always willing to consider that on some specifics -- such as what I
believe we are called by God to do in specific situations -- I may be
completely wrong.
I know that this sounds like rambling. If I had a couple of weeks, I'm
sure I could write a much better screed.
===>Interesting explanation, allowing an insight into your thinking.
Thanks. -- L.
You're welcome. I just hope I don't come across as a thoroughly deluded
loon in desperate need of counseling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 10:29:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:57:15 +0000, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no
positive=20 logical or empirical evidence for the existence of
God. It's an=20 assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion
and experience and=20 possibly revelation (I won't claim to have
received any divine=20 revelation myself). Logic and physical
evidence, however, have nothing=20 to do with faith. Those are
for describing the physical universe.=20 Faith, however, is
fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20 discussion of
faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20 prove
its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end
up=20 sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's
informed by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence.
Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking "logic
and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but it is
consistent with the biblical definition of "faith". (SEE: Hebrews
11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to maintain
a very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims made by
shysters, hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced with a new
claim, one should wonder whether that claim is consistent with their
faith and with known reality (that is to say, with what science tells
us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't always
easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that reincarnation,
for example, is not true (and I often wish it were). It is not,
however, consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do not believe
in it. I respect those who do, however.
===>It would be most enlightening if you would be willing to explain
what it is you DO choose to believe and most importantly WHY?
I suppose you could call me a "Zen Methodist" or something along those
lines. I believe in the existence of God, largely as defined in the
tradition of the Methodist church (though since I grew up as an
Episcopalian, much of their theology has affected me as well, I'm sure).
While in college, I spent some time exploring many different faiths
(such as Zen Buddhism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, Wicca, and more), and
even spent some time as an atheist. I won't go into my life story or my
spiritual biography here (it's not all that interesting, and my fingers
only have so much typing energy in them); suffice to say that at this
point, I do believe in the Creating power of God (as represented by the
"Father"), in the loving nature of God (Jesus), and in the inspiring
nature of God (the Holy Spirit).
WHY do I believe? To be honest, I have never been very comfortable
answering that question. Partially, it's a conscious choice. Partially,
it's because it makes sense to me personally. Partially, it's because I
find my own faith inspiring and helpful to me. It helps me through the
day, you might say.
I know that I will never convince someone who does not believe, and
that's okay with me. I also don't believe that people who believe
differently than I do are going to hell. In fact, I believe that there
are probably some people who call themselves atheists who have a much
closer relationship to God than I do.
This probably doesn't help. Heh.
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject it
very easily.
===>Again, WHY?
Reason is a human trait and I cannot see how you can arrive at your
decisions without it. In fact you appear to be applying reason to an
extent. -- L.
True.
Many of my "fundamental premises" are unsound and irrational: that God
exists, that He created the universe and manifests Himself in it, and so
on.
But I do believe that God gave us the power to use reason to investigate
His creation -- in other words, science is a gift from God. It can be
used to explore the nature of reality, and that's when we discover
evolution, cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. I've built up, in
conjunction with what I know of science and what I believe about the
nature of God, a set of axioms about how I believe the universe works.
Insofar as some claim comes along -- like, say, any sort of
pseudoscience like Creationism or magnetic therapy -- I can look at such
claims and decide whether or not their claims are supported by that set
of axioms.
Of course, I always entertain the notion that I might be wrong about
anything I believe. My faith in God is, I feel, unassailable, but I am
always willing to consider that on some specifics -- such as what I
believe we are called by God to do in specific situations -- I may be
completely wrong.
I know that this sounds like rambling. If I had a couple of weeks, I'm
sure I could write a much better screed.
===>Interesting explanation, allowing an insight into your thinking.
Thanks. -- L.
You're welcome. I just hope I don't come across as a thoroughly deluded
loon in desperate need of counseling.
You do, Richard, just not for the reasons you think. :->
--
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'and 'hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that
you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on
the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
(Matthew 5:43-45, New English Translation)
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 10:36:11 AM |
|
|
Daniel Harper wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:57:15 +0000, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no
positive=20 logical or empirical evidence for the existence of
God. It's an=20 assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion
and experience and=20 possibly revelation (I won't claim to have
received any divine=20 revelation myself). Logic and physical
evidence, however, have nothing=20 to do with faith. Those are
for describing the physical universe.=20 Faith, however, is
fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20 discussion of
faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20 prove
its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end
up=20 sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's
informed by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence.
Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking "logic
and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but it is
consistent with the biblical definition of "faith". (SEE: Hebrews
11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to maintain
a very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims made by
shysters, hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced with a new
claim, one should wonder whether that claim is consistent with their
faith and with known reality (that is to say, with what science tells
us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't always
easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that reincarnation,
for example, is not true (and I often wish it were). It is not,
however, consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do not believe
in it. I respect those who do, however.
===>It would be most enlightening if you would be willing to explain
what it is you DO choose to believe and most importantly WHY?
I suppose you could call me a "Zen Methodist" or something along those
lines. I believe in the existence of God, largely as defined in the
tradition of the Methodist church (though since I grew up as an
Episcopalian, much of their theology has affected me as well, I'm sure).
While in college, I spent some time exploring many different faiths
(such as Zen Buddhism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, Wicca, and more), and
even spent some time as an atheist. I won't go into my life story or my
spiritual biography here (it's not all that interesting, and my fingers
only have so much typing energy in them); suffice to say that at this
point, I do believe in the Creating power of God (as represented by the
"Father"), in the loving nature of God (Jesus), and in the inspiring
nature of God (the Holy Spirit).
WHY do I believe? To be honest, I have never been very comfortable
answering that question. Partially, it's a conscious choice. Partially,
it's because it makes sense to me personally. Partially, it's because I
find my own faith inspiring and helpful to me. It helps me through the
day, you might say.
I know that I will never convince someone who does not believe, and
that's okay with me. I also don't believe that people who believe
differently than I do are going to hell. In fact, I believe that there
are probably some people who call themselves atheists who have a much
closer relationship to God than I do.
This probably doesn't help. Heh.
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject it
very easily.
===>Again, WHY?
Reason is a human trait and I cannot see how you can arrive at your
decisions without it. In fact you appear to be applying reason to an
extent. -- L.
True.
Many of my "fundamental premises" are unsound and irrational: that God
exists, that He created the universe and manifests Himself in it, and so
on.
But I do believe that God gave us the power to use reason to investigate
His creation -- in other words, science is a gift from God. It can be
used to explore the nature of reality, and that's when we discover
evolution, cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. I've built up, in
conjunction with what I know of science and what I believe about the
nature of God, a set of axioms about how I believe the universe works.
Insofar as some claim comes along -- like, say, any sort of
pseudoscience like Creationism or magnetic therapy -- I can look at such
claims and decide whether or not their claims are supported by that set
of axioms.
Of course, I always entertain the notion that I might be wrong about
anything I believe. My faith in God is, I feel, unassailable, but I am
always willing to consider that on some specifics -- such as what I
believe we are called by God to do in specific situations -- I may be
completely wrong.
I know that this sounds like rambling. If I had a couple of weeks, I'm
sure I could write a much better screed.
===>Interesting explanation, allowing an insight into your thinking.
Thanks. -- L.
You're welcome. I just hope I don't come across as a thoroughly deluded
loon in desperate need of counseling.
You do, Richard, just not for the reasons you think. :->
After you dumped me for a random guy at the bar, why should I take
seriously anything you have to say? I'm still hurt and bitter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 05:20:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:36:11 +0000, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
Daniel Harper wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:57:15 +0000, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no
positive=20 logical or empirical evidence for the existence of
God. It's an=20 assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion
and experience and=20 possibly revelation (I won't claim to have
received any divine=20 revelation myself). Logic and physical
evidence, however, have nothing=20 to do with faith. Those are
for describing the physical universe.=20 Faith, however, is
fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20 discussion of
faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists
just end up=20 sounding silly to people who know how logic
works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's
informed by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence.
Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking "logic
and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but it is
consistent with the biblical definition of "faith". (SEE: Hebrews
11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to
maintain a very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims
made by shysters, hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced
with a new claim, one should wonder whether that claim is consistent
with their faith and with known reality (that is to say, with what
science tells us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't
always easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that
reincarnation, for example, is not true (and I often wish it were).
It is not, however, consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do
not believe in it. I respect those who do, however.
===>It would be most enlightening if you would be willing to explain
what it is you DO choose to believe and most importantly WHY?
I suppose you could call me a "Zen Methodist" or something along those
lines. I believe in the existence of God, largely as defined in the
tradition of the Methodist church (though since I grew up as an
Episcopalian, much of their theology has affected me as well, I'm
sure).
While in college, I spent some time exploring many different faiths
(such as Zen Buddhism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, Wicca, and more), and
even spent some time as an atheist. I won't go into my life story or
my spiritual biography here (it's not all that interesting, and my
fingers only have so much typing energy in them); suffice to say that
at this point, I do believe in the Creating power of God (as
represented by the "Father"), in the loving nature of God (Jesus), and
in the inspiring nature of God (the Holy Spirit).
WHY do I believe? To be honest, I have never been very comfortable
answering that question. Partially, it's a conscious choice.
Partially, it's because it makes sense to me personally. Partially,
it's because I find my own faith inspiring and helpful to me. It
helps me through the day, you might say.
I know that I will never convince someone who does not believe, and
that's okay with me. I also don't believe that people who believe
differently than I do are going to hell. In fact, I believe that
there are probably some people who call themselves atheists who have a
much closer relationship to God than I do.
This probably doesn't help. Heh.
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject it
very easily.
===>Again, WHY?
Reason is a human trait and I cannot see how you can arrive at your
decisions without it. In fact you appear to be applying reason to an
extent. -- L.
True.
Many of my "fundamental premises" are unsound and irrational: that God
exists, that He created the universe and manifests Himself in it, and
so on.
But I do believe that God gave us the power to use reason to
investigate His creation -- in other words, science is a gift from
God. It can be used to explore the nature of reality, and that's when
we discover evolution, cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. I've built
up, in conjunction with what I know of science and what I believe
about the nature of God, a set of axioms about how I believe the
universe works. Insofar as some claim comes along -- like, say, any
sort of pseudoscience like Creationism or magnetic therapy -- I can
look at such claims and decide whether or not their claims are
supported by that set of axioms.
Of course, I always entertain the notion that I might be wrong about
anything I believe. My faith in God is, I feel, unassailable, but I
am always willing to consider that on some specifics -- such as what I
believe we are called by God to do in specific situations -- I may be
completely wrong.
I know that this sounds like rambling. If I had a couple of weeks,
I'm sure I could write a much better screed.
===>Interesting explanation, allowing an insight into your thinking.
Thanks. -- L.
You're welcome. I just hope I don't come across as a thoroughly deluded
loon in desperate need of counseling.
You do, Richard, just not for the reasons you think. :->
After you dumped me for a random guy at the bar, why should I take
seriously anything you have to say? I'm still hurt and bitter.
But going back to heterosexuality because of it? I mean, how could you
possibly think you'd be able to resist the utterly incomprehensible power
of the gay lobby? Come back to the truth, Richard, it's okay.
--
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'and 'hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that
you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on
the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
(Matthew 5:43-45, New English Translation)
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 05:30:16 PM |
|
|
Daniel Harper wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:36:11 +0000, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
Daniel Harper wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:57:15 +0000, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no
positive=20 logical or empirical evidence for the existence of
God. It's an=20 assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion
and experience and=20 possibly revelation (I won't claim to have
received any divine=20 revelation myself). Logic and physical
evidence, however, have nothing=20 to do with faith. Those are
for describing the physical universe.=20 Faith, however, is
fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20 discussion of
faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists
just end up=20 sounding silly to people who know how logic
works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's
informed by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence.
Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking "logic
and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but it is
consistent with the biblical definition of "faith". (SEE: Hebrews
11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to
maintain a very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims
made by shysters, hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced
with a new claim, one should wonder whether that claim is consistent
with their faith and with known reality (that is to say, with what
science tells us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't
always easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that
reincarnation, for example, is not true (and I often wish it were).
It is not, however, consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do
not believe in it. I respect those who do, however.
===>It would be most enlightening if you would be willing to explain
what it is you DO choose to believe and most importantly WHY?
I suppose you could call me a "Zen Methodist" or something along those
lines. I believe in the existence of God, largely as defined in the
tradition of the Methodist church (though since I grew up as an
Episcopalian, much of their theology has affected me as well, I'm
sure).
While in college, I spent some time exploring many different faiths
(such as Zen Buddhism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, Wicca, and more), and
even spent some time as an atheist. I won't go into my life story or
my spiritual biography here (it's not all that interesting, and my
fingers only have so much typing energy in them); suffice to say that
at this point, I do believe in the Creating power of God (as
represented by the "Father"), in the loving nature of God (Jesus), and
in the inspiring nature of God (the Holy Spirit).
WHY do I believe? To be honest, I have never been very comfortable
answering that question. Partially, it's a conscious choice.
Partially, it's because it makes sense to me personally. Partially,
it's because I find my own faith inspiring and helpful to me. It
helps me through the day, you might say.
I know that I will never convince someone who does not believe, and
that's okay with me. I also don't believe that people who believe
differently than I do are going to hell. In fact, I believe that
there are probably some people who call themselves atheists who have a
much closer relationship to God than I do.
This probably doesn't help. Heh.
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject it
very easily.
===>Again, WHY?
Reason is a human trait and I cannot see how you can arrive at your
decisions without it. In fact you appear to be applying reason to an
extent. -- L.
True.
Many of my "fundamental premises" are unsound and irrational: that God
exists, that He created the universe and manifests Himself in it, and
so on.
But I do believe that God gave us the power to use reason to
investigate His creation -- in other words, science is a gift from
God. It can be used to explore the nature of reality, and that's when
we discover evolution, cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. I've built
up, in conjunction with what I know of science and what I believe
about the nature of God, a set of axioms about how I believe the
universe works. Insofar as some claim comes along -- like, say, any
sort of pseudoscience like Creationism or magnetic therapy -- I can
look at such claims and decide whether or not their claims are
supported by that set of axioms.
Of course, I always entertain the notion that I might be wrong about
anything I believe. My faith in God is, I feel, unassailable, but I
am always willing to consider that on some specifics -- such as what I
believe we are called by God to do in specific situations -- I may be
completely wrong.
I know that this sounds like rambling. If I had a couple of weeks,
I'm sure I could write a much better screed.
===>Interesting explanation, allowing an insight into your thinking.
Thanks. -- L.
You're welcome. I just hope I don't come across as a thoroughly deluded
loon in desperate need of counseling.
You do, Richard, just not for the reasons you think. :->
After you dumped me for a random guy at the bar, why should I take
seriously anything you have to say? I'm still hurt and bitter.
But going back to heterosexuality because of it? I mean, how could you
possibly think you'd be able to resist the utterly incomprehensible power
of the gay lobby? Come back to the truth, Richard, it's okay.
Well... You make an awfully tempting argument, but I think my wife
likes me better this way.
(See what else allowing gay marriage will do? It will cause MEN TO BE
SUBSERVIENT TO WOMEN! Once again, Daniel, this is all your fault.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
05 Mar 2004 12:16:37 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:30:16 +0000, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
Daniel Harper wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:36:11 +0000, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
Daniel Harper wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:57:15 +0000, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no
positive=20 logical or empirical evidence for the existence of
God. It's an=20 assumption made on faith, reinforced by
emotion and experience and=20 possibly revelation (I won't
claim to have received any divine=20 revelation myself).
Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20 to do
with faith. Those are for describing the physical
universe.=20 Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and
illogical; thus no=20 discussion of faith or God or whatever
can involve the use of logic to=20 prove its premises. Any
attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20 sounding
silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses
to believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's
informed by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence.
Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is consistent with the biblical definition of "faith". (SEE:
Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction
of things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to
maintain a very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims
made by shysters, hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When
faced with a new claim, one should wonder whether that claim is
consistent with their faith and with known reality (that is to
say, with what science tells us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't
always easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that
reincarnation, for example, is not true (and I often wish it
were). It is not, however, consistent with the faith that I
choose, so I do not believe in it. I respect those who do,
however.
===>It would be most enlightening if you would be willing to
explain what it is you DO choose to believe and most importantly
WHY?
I suppose you could call me a "Zen Methodist" or something along
those lines. I believe in the existence of God, largely as defined
in the tradition of the Methodist church (though since I grew up as
an Episcopalian, much of their theology has affected me as well, I'm
sure).
While in college, I spent some time exploring many different faiths
(such as Zen Buddhism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, Wicca, and more),
and even spent some time as an atheist. I won't go into my life
story or my spiritual biography here (it's not all that interesting,
and my fingers only have so much typing energy in them); suffice to
say that at this point, I do believe in the Creating power of God
(as represented by the "Father"), in the loving nature of God
(Jesus), and in the inspiring nature of God (the Holy Spirit).
WHY do I believe? To be honest, I have never been very comfortable
answering that question. Partially, it's a conscious choice.
Partially, it's because it makes sense to me personally. Partially,
it's because I find my own faith inspiring and helpful to me. It
helps me through the day, you might say.
I know that I will never convince someone who does not believe, and
that's okay with me. I also don't believe that people who believe
differently than I do are going to hell. In fact, I believe that
there are probably some people who call themselves atheists who have
a much closer relationship to God than I do.
This probably doesn't help. Heh.
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject
it very easily.
===>Again, WHY?
Reason is a human trait and I cannot see how you can arrive at your
decisions without it. In fact you appear to be applying reason to
an extent. -- L.
True.
Many of my "fundamental premises" are unsound and irrational: that
God exists, that He created the universe and manifests Himself in
it, and so on.
But I do believe that God gave us the power to use reason to
investigate His creation -- in other words, science is a gift from
God. It can be used to explore the nature of reality, and that's
when we discover evolution, cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. I've
built up, in conjunction with what I know of science and what I
believe about the nature of God, a set of axioms about how I believe
the universe works. Insofar as some claim comes along -- like, say,
any sort of pseudoscience like Creationism or magnetic therapy -- I
can look at such claims and decide whether or not their claims are
supported by that set of axioms.
Of course, I always entertain the notion that I might be wrong about
anything I believe. My faith in God is, I feel, unassailable, but I
am always willing to consider that on some specifics -- such as what
I believe we are called by God to do in specific situations -- I may
be completely wrong.
I know that this sounds like rambling. If I had a couple of weeks,
I'm sure I could write a much better screed.
===>Interesting explanation, allowing an insight into your thinking.
Thanks. -- L.
You're welcome. I just hope I don't come across as a thoroughly
deluded loon in desperate need of counseling.
You do, Richard, just not for the reasons you think. :->
After you dumped me for a random guy at the bar, why should I take
seriously anything you have to say? I'm still hurt and bitter.
But going back to heterosexuality because of it? I mean, how could you
possibly think you'd be able to resist the utterly incomprehensible
power of the gay lobby? Come back to the truth, Richard, it's okay.
Well... You make an awfully tempting argument, but I think my wife likes
me better this way.
(See what else allowing gay marriage will do? It will cause MEN TO BE
SUBSERVIENT TO WOMEN! Once again, Daniel, this is all your fault.)
Yeah, but since I was the one influencing you and (checks) I'm a male,
wouldn't you really be bowing to _my_ authority?
Then again, since I only do what I do because the fiancee lets me....
--
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'and 'hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that
you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on
the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
(Matthew 5:43-45, New English Translation)
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
05 Mar 2004 12:37:40 PM |
|
|
Daniel Harper wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:30:16 +0000, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
Daniel Harper wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:36:11 +0000, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
Daniel Harper wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:57:15 +0000, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no
positive=20 logical or empirical evidence for the existence of
God. It's an=20 assumption made on faith, reinforced by
emotion and experience and=20 possibly revelation (I won't
claim to have received any divine=20 revelation myself).
Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20 to do
with faith. Those are for describing the physical
universe.=20 Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and
illogical; thus no=20 discussion of faith or God or whatever
can involve the use of logic to=20 prove its premises. Any
attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20 sounding
silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses
to believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's
informed by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence.
Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
