Disbelief is not a choice

That's why I refuse to debate the Bible with most people when I had to concede to an Old Earth creationist. It became really apparent it depends on how people read it. If it is dependent on how one reads it, then there is no real point in bringing it into the debate in the first place; because doing so otherwise runs the risks of offending others.
 
Daredevel7 said:
In fact, I can prove it to you with a quote from Wernher von Braun.

"My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"

Sounds like he wasn't even that religious before tinkling with science. He became more religious as he went deeper in science. But that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I also should point out, Steven Weinberg, a well-noted atheist who is in the same branch of science as von Braun, stated, in physics, religion is irrelevant to the field. Physics doesn't contends whether there is a God or not. Physics is physics. The field doesn't get attacked by religious folks, so they never had to defend themselves; so it doesn't really matter if one is a creationist or not.

Biologists, on the other hand, are constantly being assaulted for their theories; and have their discoveries suppressed and stifled. As history demonstrated, anytime a group is being attacked, their resolve strengthens and they become polarized. There is an advantage in being the exact opposite of the people who are contesting you. Eventually, at one point or another, they start fighting back.
 
souggy said:
There is no bide. There are numerous people who don't see it as biding because they can explain it without the Bible while still having faith in the Bible..
Click to expand...
If my answers are Bible based, then yes, it does put me into a bind. Do those who support evolution have to do it without quoting or giving references? Are the names Sagan and Darwin forbidden? People can recommend ADers read Cosmos but can I recommend ADers read the Bible?

I am just asking you what seems to be unacceptable? The gaps in the fossil records? The seemingly unexplained diversity in life? The complexity of the cosmos?
Click to expand...
In general, the origins of the universe, and the evolutionary process of one species becoming another thru a long period of time is incompatible with the description of biblical creation. If you want specifics, I have to give you Bible descriptions of events and theological impact. Should I?

The cosmos is complex to our limited human minds. To the Creator of the cosmos, it is not too complex.

However accepting the Bible has complex logical underpinning. One just doesn't wake up and start accepting what it says, especially after three decades.
Click to expand...
I don't know about "one" but that's pretty close to what happened to me. When I was born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, I had a new understanding of God's word and the world around me. It took me a while to understand all the details and implications but it wasn't a hard thing for me to quit believing in evolution. :)
 
souggy said:
I also should point out, Steven Weinberg, a well-noted atheist who is in the same branch of science as von Braun, stated in physics, religion is irrelevant to the field. Physics doesn't contends whether there is a God or not. Physics is physics. The field don't get attacked by religious folks, so they never had to defend themselves; so it doesn't really matter if one is a creationist or not.

Biologists, on the other hand, are constantly being assaulted for their theories; and have their theories suppressed and stifled. As history demonstrated, anytime a group is being attacked, their resolve strengthen and they become polarized. Eventually at one point or another, they start fighting back.
Click to expand...

Makes sense.

However, I can see why some physics folks may have strengthened their religious believes upon studying physics more.

I mean geez, go to the IMAX and watch Hubble 3D!! Feels like you're have a supernatural experience!!! :)
 
souggy said:
That's why I refuse to debate the Bible with most people when I had to concede to an Old Earth creationist. It became really apparent it depends on how people read it. If it is dependent on how one reads it, then there is no real point in bringing it into the debate in the first place; because doing so otherwise runs the risks of offending others.
Click to expand...
But no one seems to mind offending those who believe in the Bible.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Conversely, Christians don't seem to mind offending non-believers. It goes both ways.
Click to expand...
Have I ever mocked Sagan or Darwin, or made fun of their books? Have I made fun of or insulted people who follow evolution by calling them names? Have I ever said or even implied that non-believers were less intelligent or more gullible? No.
 
Books such as Origin of Life, Cosmos, Selfish Gene and so on are not anti-Biblical. They are secular. They don't even question whether or not a supernatural realm exists. Given how there are Christians, Jews and Muslims who accept these theories without contesting the Bible, Qu'ran or the Torah, then it stands to reason, the problem lies within the people who view these texts as anti-Biblical.

If one really wants to go against the grain and start attacking the Bible, then one would have to start with... Oh, I don't know, Christopher Hitchens? He's a big meanie.

So the tit-for-tat strategy doesn't really work here.
 
Reba said:
Have I ever mocked Sagan or Darwin, or made fun of their books? Have I made fun of or insulted people who follow evolution by calling them names? Have I ever said or even implied that non-believers were less intelligent or more gullible? No.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you haven't but others have, yes.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Makes sense.

However, I can see why some physics folks may have strengthened their religious believes upon studying physics more.

I mean geez, go to the IMAX and watch Hubble 3D!! Feels like you're have a supernatural experience!!! :)
Click to expand...

And others such as Stephen Hawkings feel physics give the answer to be atheists, despite they all have access to the same materials. So the two can co-exists peacefully, only as long no one is attacking them from the outside.
 
souggy said:
And others such as Stephen Hawkings feel physics give the answer to be atheists, despite they all have access to the same materials. So the two can co-exists peacefully, only as long no one is attacking them from the outside.
Click to expand...

It's interesting because Albert Einstein said he believes in the possibility of afterlife due to knowing energy doesn't die. He also says if one is good due to fear of punishment and hope to be rewarded with entrance into heaven, then they are not truly good but fearful.

And that if one 's ethical behaviour is based on sympathy, education, social ties and needs, then no religious basis is necessary.
 
Reba said:
Really? The major issue amongst Republicans is evolution? I thought it was taxes and unemployment, with a smattering of national security.

Of course, I'm not a Republican so maybe I'm out of that loop.


I guess I rejected my upbringing, too. Throughout all my school years, I was taught evolution. When I was about 29, I turned from evolution. So, that would be a choice.


Especially since we're not even allowed to discuss the supernatural being's existence.
Click to expand...

You are spot on, every believer was once either agnostic or an atheist.
 
souggy said:
Regarding the inventor of rockets: so were Galileo and Johannes Kepler; they were devout followers until their death beds. They both had to change their theology to fit their discoveries. Kepler struggled for years consoling his Protestant upbringing; but he eventually aligned his belief with science. Just because one is a creationist doesn't means one can't be flexible in the face of new evidences.
Click to expand...

And vice versa, just because one is a creationist does not mean they have to reject their belief to conform to scientific discoveries.

I am sure you have heard the myth that Christians used to believe in a flat earth. It was "scientists" of the day that believed that. Since I am not allowed to quote scripture, I will just state that the earth was described as a round globe in the Old Testament. I can also state that modern science has finally been able to catch up with what King Solomon wrote many centuries ago about how the universe works.

Of course, you have theologians who claim "The Wisdom of Solomon" was not actually written by King Solomon, but the actual work predates any known modern scientific discoveries. You would be hard pressed to refute it. Many have tried.
 
souggy said:
You can't eradicate spirituality. The context may change, but people are still prone to believing in something beyond the physical realm.

Look at the New Age movement. These people are atheists and agnostics because what they were taught didn't jive with their parents' beliefs, but they are still very anti-science; despite the fact they USE science to validate their view-points. The mere existence of astrology and alternative medicine is anti-science. These people believe in Deepak Chopra who claimed to fully understand quantum physics! Any serious physicist will says if one think they understand quantum, then they really don't have a clue at all.

The point is: science won't be able to eradicate religion. It can only disprove commonly held beliefs (or formerly held beliefs) such as the Flat Earth or how why lightenings and thunders occur.
Click to expand...

I am not anti-science - I just believe it has been used as a tool to eradicate spirituality and religion.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms.[
Click to expand...


That would be better read as "re-introducing" as religion and spirituality has been taken out.
 
Where did that first atomic particle come from?
Why didn't all apes evolve into something more man-like?
If an ape can evolve into a man, why not a fish?
Where did space originate?
 
The Greeks knew the Earth was round before the Bible. The Pythagoras theorized it in the 6th century BCE. Eratosthenes was the first one to mathmatically prove it in the 3th century BCE. The Books of Wisdom was dated back to the 1st or 2nd century BCE. So, I don't see your point?
 
saywhatkid said:
Where did that first atomic particle come from?
Why didn't all apes evolve into something more man-like?
If an ape can evolve into a man, why not a fish?
Where did space originate?
Click to expand...

Apes have not evolved into man.

Where did space come from, or the first particle? That's a very good question and it does make me reluctant to completely write off the concept of a force greater than us, I just don't see that force in a religious context but more in a cosmic sense.
 
Back
Top