Franktalk wrote:I think there was a flood of Noah. But I believe it because of faith not because of any trace evidence.
What bothers me is that not only are you exercising faith to believe this against mountains and mountains of cross correlated, mutually supportive independent evidence but there is no good spiritual reason for it.
Faith in the flood never fed a hungry child, never promoted forgiveness, never caused more love and compassion in the world and it certainly never promoted educational values.
It is spiritually vacuous, unnecessary, nonsense.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
I enjoy scientist who reach out. But some get their arm bit off when they do. I follow Arp because he is a man who spends many hours looking through a telescope instead of a book. Just like I enjoy people of character I enjoy scientist of character as well. I enjoyed Carl Sagan even though I disagreed with him on many things. He wrote one of the funniest books ever, The Drangons of Eden.
Tarski wrote: What bothers me is that not only are you exercising faith to believe this against mountains and mountains of cross correlated, mutually supportive independent evidence but there is no good spiritual reason for it.
Faith in the flood never fed a hungry child, never promoted forgiveness, never caused more love and compassion in the world and it certainly never promoted educational values.
It is spiritually vacuous, unnecessary, nonsense.
A group of people got together and decided that they would explain aspect of nature using a set of agreed upon processes and assumptions. They then looked around the world and using these guides came up with a story which describes the past. I on the other hand include processes in the set they don't. I also come up with a story. As far as I am concerned they have equal weight. And in some light my story is far superior. But I accept this is a personal choice. It seems you have made your choice as well.
Tarski wrote: What bothers me is that not only are you exercising faith to believe this against mountains and mountains of cross correlated, mutually supportive independent evidence but there is no good spiritual reason for it.
Faith in the flood never fed a hungry child, never promoted forgiveness, never caused more love and compassion in the world and it certainly never promoted educational values.
It is spiritually vacuous, unnecessary, nonsense.
I would agree with everything you just said, other than I would make the last statement stronger and point out that it's actually a demonstrably pernicious view of the world. Here we have a god, that we're all supposed to love and worship, that killed almost everyone in the world in a fit of childish anger.
I think that believing in such a god makes one devalue human life. After all, why care about the millions of starving children in Africa if you believe in a god like that? God kills people all of the time anyway.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
Franktalk wrote: A group of people got together and decided that they would explain aspect of nature using a set of agreed upon processes and assumptions. They then looked around the world and using these guides came up with a story which describes the past. I on the other hand include processes in the set they don't. I also come up with a story. As far as I am concerned they have equal weight. And in some light my story is far superior. But I accept this is a personal choice. It seems you have made your choice as well.
They don't have equal weight. Tarski's worldview has evidence supporting it. Your worldview doesn't.
It's as if I said that the world is flat (because the Bible also makes that claim) and refused to listen to evidence to the contrary. Or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Or that unicorns live in my kitchen. Do any of these beliefs carry any weight?
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
keithb wrote: I think that believing in such a god makes one devalue human life. After all, why care about the millions of starving children in Africa if you believe in a god like that? God kills people all of the time anyway.
No doubt. When you think about religiously motivated terrorists, in reality, they're just living up to the example set by god. It's all these people who think he's a god of love who haven't been paying attention.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
keithb wrote:It's as if I said that the world is flat (because the Bible also makes that claim) and refused to listen to evidence to the contrary. Or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Or that unicorns live in my kitchen. Do any of these beliefs carry any weight?
keithb,
I agree with your comments so far, but would appreciate it if you could leave the FSM out of this. FSM is a deity that stands far above most and deserves our respect. Grouping His Noodleness with the likes of Unicorns and such shows a real lack of understanding on your part. The man-made religion that has grown up around this modern deity is as logical and internally consistent as it is possible for a religion to be.
Pastafarians everywhere might well take offense (however slight) at your apparent disrespect. However, since Pastafarians generally act more Christlike than most Christians, they would never attack or scorn you for your disbelief, so you might never know that you had offended them.
Just a small request on behalf of Pastafarians everywhere. (You might be surprised at how many who leave the Church spend some time as Pastafarians.)
Thanks for your consideration.
Please carry on.
RAmen.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."