Hello everyone

Haha yes. I noticed. it's kind of fun. I don't even know why I came back here. Maybe to just get some closure I guess. I don't expect to really convince anyone.

quote:

---

I was just curious (And I wanted to stalk your older messages.)

---

I realize that, haha, but at this time I cannot. Perhaps at a future date.

quote:

---

How do you know? Maybe he was being sincere.

---

Sincerity would have prompted him to realize that you can't construct absolute religious beliefs based around absolute religious entities and then somehow pretend that there is no possible way the teachings of that religion may ever conflict with science -- sure there may be a degree of flexibility manifested, but what about when realities start casting a shadow on the core platforms of a religion? It would be foolish to believe that the catholic church or any religious entity pretending to be "open to all scientific truth" will one day, if shown to be unlikely through reasonable doubt, apologize to the millions of people that were duped. Church is a big business.

quote:

---

I don't have "I want" lenses on. And I've been an atheist already.

---

Of course you have "I want" lenses on. Faith, which you claim to have, is wanting to believe in something without evidence.

quote:

---

But compromise nonetheless. Not the "already has the answers and true no matter what" that you were claiming earlier.

---

So the existence of God and Christ aren't off the table for the catholic church? How about Mary? The only person you are fooling here is yourself. The Catholic church believes it has the answers for salvation, whether you admit to it or not.

quote:

---

That's right. If I knew then there'd be no room for faith.

---

Alright. You've convinced me. Despite no evidence whatsoever for Zeus' existence I'm going to exert faith that He really does control the lightning and that there is a place for me waiting when I die on Mount Olympus. It is so exciting to know the truth and be able to have a person relationship with a wonderful God that I just KNOW in my heart of heart exists.Does this sound reasonable to you? Faith without evidence is never reasonable no matter what you may tell yourself.

quote:

---

Or, I can remain honest and integritous and believe it for reasons other than not having anything to loose.

---

Certainly not with intellectual honesty or integrity but perhaps it has a rare effect on you where it makes you feel better? I suppose in that way there's no harm.

quote:

---

You shouldn't be persuaded because of something you read on the internet. it should because you find it helpful, truthful, and it has an impact on your life.

---

So if I wanted to believe in creationism now or ID or something else you'd call a peace of shit, what if it makes me feel better? Does it really make me honest to believe in something because it makes me "feel better"?

quote:

---

Don't believe in what I do. Find out for yourself. Just be honest about it. Drop the dogmatism already. If you come to the position of a non-believer, then that is okay too.

---

I just decided to take the default position of rationality. If there's no evidence, I'm not going to go out of my way to waste my time.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : grammar

Correct. The Pope will never apologize for the heinous crimes of the people really running the show, but only people "within the Church", as though they were some minority.

quote:

---

What makes you think anyone is trying to persuade you?

---

If someone accepts something to be true I would hope that they would have a good reason for themselves, that's why I ask in case I might be offered a convincing reason for why someone might want to believe something. Facts should be something that everyone be persuaded into accepting.

quote:

---

If someone else honestly believes in God... it is not a requirement for them to be able to persuade you of the same thing.

---

But you can't honestly believe in something for which there is no evidence. No one can honestly believe in the flying spaghetti monster and neither can anyone honestly believe in any other being or creature for which there is no evidence whatsoever. So in that case, I disagree.

quote:

---

You may very well be the arbiter of you and your own honesty and your own experiences.
But that doesn't give you any special rights to judge someone else or someone else's honesty or someone else's experiences.

---

Of course, we are all free to believe what we like. I can believe that fairies crawl into my bed at night but that doesn't mean they do.

quote:

---

Just because you think there is no reason for something... doesn't mean there actually is no reason for it.
In order to show there is no reason for something... you have to provide the evidence. You can't just say "it doesn't work for me.

---

But there is no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Are you really going to postulate that one must "provide evidence that not believing based on evidence is reasonable?"...That really makes no sense to me. It's like saying: I don't believe in science and the reason is because no one has produced evidence that not believing in science is not okay?Edited by scienceishonesty, : redundancy

Well thanks for affirming the obvious! Some people want to believe, however, that their religion and the absolutism contained in it (to whatever degree) can never become outdated through scientific enlightenment.I suppose now that we understand lightning it still doesn't prove that Zeus isn't controlling it, but any reasonable person now realizes that it doesn't require Zeus. There's always that option though, I suppose.

quote:

---

He said that you shouldn't present as dogma what science has shown to be wrong. Real basic stuff like "god exists" is open game.

---

True, but it's just posturing unless one admits that their belief system *may* not be true. Unfortunately, such an admission just isn't compatible with religion because by its own nature it is clinging on to beliefs at face value regardless of evidence. People don't fly into buildings doubting that a bunch of virgins are waiting for them on the other side in paradise.

quote:

---

Like what? That resurrections don't happen? Or that a resurrection could never happen?

---

Like: it *might* all be a lie.

quote:

---

Except that my belief is not based on faith alone. I've landed at the position that god exists, I'm not pushing myself into it.

---

Okay, so that means there must be some kind of evidence that you've "landed on" for believing such a thing. Mind sharing some of this evidence? You know, like, in the same way you'd be willing to show me evidence for gravity or evolution if I asked you for it.

quote:

---

You think science is going to shown those to be false? How?

---

It could show it to be unnecessary -- in the same way we don't need Zeus to explain lightning, Thor to explain thunder or storm gods to explain weather patterns. The problem with a religion is that it already takes itself for granted.

quote:

---

Okay, how's that working for you? Any conviction there?

---

Let's say that were a real "conviction", it doesn't make it compelling based on evidence. It's just a bunch of emotional want...desire.

quote:

---

Sure, but that's not something that science is going to show to be false. And who doesn't!?

---

Science may show it to be completely unnecessary and superfluous -- although there never is such a thing as falsifiability for any kind of superstition or myth.

quote:

---

No, intellectually honest and intellectually integritous and not for reasons for feeling better. Do you doubt the possibility?

---

yes, I doubt the possibility. I can't say for sure though. As in, I can't say for sure that the spaghetti monster isn't out there either.

quote:

---

Believe in whatever the hell you want. IDGAF. And no, doing it just to make you feel better is not being honest.

---

You're totally missing my point here. I can choose to believe in a flat earth if I want but how is that facing up to reality? It isn't...it would be a belief based on want, not on observable reality.

quote:

---

I don't think rationality is the default position. Humans are wrought with irrationality, its kept us alive as a species (its better to imagine that noise in the bush was a monster that will hurt you than to take the rational position and wait for further evidence).

​

It takes training to discard your irrationality. As your OP admits you've learned

---

In terms of evaluating reality, the should-be default position, is to not believe something as potentially valid unless there's unbiased evidence indicating that it is.

quote:

---

Well, give it time. Maybe one day you'll find yourself believing in God again.

​

Maybe you won't. *shrugs*

---

And maybe one day you'll find yourself believing in the Spaghetti monster! I actually don't mind the idea of believing in God again, but I'm waiting for some evidence first. Mind helping out a poor ignorant soul like me?Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

In reply to everything you said, without addressing every detail. I do not believe I was being honest with myself before, because I was not acknowledging the fact that I actually didn't know for sure -- everyone who clings on to a belief system that has no evidence are wanting to believe they have good reason to believe what it is they want to believe, but if they really ask themselves "do I really know", they will find the answer and that answer is that they don't.I always knew for sure in the back of my mind that I didn't really know for sure, I just didn't want to admit it because I wanted it to be true. Now that I am not in a position where I believe in something just because I want to, it really makes a difference in how I look at things.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

I completely disagree. Furthermore, the way in which it happened was completely different. While it is true and no less egregious that protestants participated in a lot of genocide, it was not a centralized entity organization that needs to apologize. The Catholic Church was a singular powerhouse persecution force headed by successive Popes and Cardinals who went on a mission of systematically killing any heretics by any torture necessary.

I appreciate your insight into my situation and while I admittedly am newer in this "I don't know business" than you, I wanted to re-address the religion issue.While it is true that many religions make what some might say is "reasonable room" for science, it that still does not make them completely different from the fundamentalist religions. They are all the same except at varying degrees and extents.When someone says "I have accepted the Lord Jesus into my heart" they aren't going into that belief with an openness to the idea that such a thing might not actually be the case or that it may not be something real. That religious experience, no matter how small or big or interpreted has a feeling of REALITY to the individual no matter what science says to them. If science says something different, it must be wrong -- according to them.I maintain that at its core, religion, regardless of the degree or flexibility always possesses some core belief that it believes to be unshakable, and absolutely "true". If it was just embraced as a temporary idea with the concept of "I think this is a good explanation until it gets shown to be probably wrong" then it wouldn't be a religion by definition.Pointing out religions that accept evolution or even merely the belief that there is a God and that he created all the laws that govern science and saying that those can be FULLY compatible with science is still wrong. Why? Because what if it is shown scientifically that it is unnecessary to invoke God for any mystery of the universe in the same way that it is unnecessary to invoke God for lightning or the weather or rain?Religion will always hold out on some area (light or extreme) that science has to potential to obviate. So, in my opinion, they are still incompatible. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

The protestants happened in the first place because they were protesting the abuses of the Catholic Church. Of course, they ended up doing the very same thing -- but there's no singular entity with a lineage of Pope figures that they are claiming to be the vicars of Christ that act for God.The RCC has a history of not blaming particular historical church figures (namely, Popes) and admitting that specific acts in their past were wrong...BECAUSE it is tethered to their belief that ultimately the RCChurch itself can do no wrong, but it did. They would rather caste vague blame on "various individuals within the church". It's quite frankly, a cop-out.The Catholic Church will NEVER admit that a past Pope did "wrong" or "sinned",...and gee, I wonder why?You're more than encouraged to prove me wrong though!Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

No, early protestantism emerged because of the fact that many of the common people wanted to read the Bible in their own language. The RCC tried in every way they could to prevent this through systematic persecution and torture (numbering in at least hundreds of thousands). Their purpose was to keep the lay people in ignorance so that they couldn't come up with their own biblical interpretations that ran contrary to church teaching -- it came down to control and money (for the RCC). It also arose out of perceived abuses such as buying your way into heaven.Later on in the game it became about power and control and wealth for Protestants as well but to paint a completely different picture and deny the history is pretty ridiculous.Oh and, on the "CC certainly has admitted that past popes did wrong and sinned", show me. Where? Show me the admission and I'll believe you. And it has to be fairly modern, not the medieval disputes where three different Popes were simultaneously casting anathemas against one another while calling themselves the "true Pope". Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

But if the Bible is true shouldn't archeology help to back it up? How can honesty be in the picture if something is just dogmatically taken as truth regardless of what the evidence points to?

Ah yes, and the next thing you're going to say is that there really was no such thing as indulgences. I'm not really interested in pursuing this debate because Protestantism doesn't need defending. The history of why it emerged though was chiefly because the common people wanted to read the Bible in their own language so that they could see for themselves what the "will of God" was rather than the Catholic Clergy interpreting it for them. The Waldensians, Huguenots, etc etc were all just common folk wanting to teach the Bible in their own way and were persecuted ruthlessly by the Catholic Church. But of course, that is all just fantasy right?

It's not impossible I suppose but it's also very improbable and it's an idea that isn't falsifiable. Why worry about it if there's no evidence? Why waste our time?I think the question you need to ask yourself is: "do I really know that Jesus is alive and well interceding in Heaven for humanity?". But ask yourself honestly and when you want to utter "I just know for a fact" ask yourself how, how do you know. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Faith, but it is precisely why Christians (including yourself) believe what they do, just like every other religion in the world. If you grew up in India you'd probably be Hindu right now, if you grew up in Iran you'd probably be Muslim, an and if you grew up in China you'd probably be Buddhist --- all of these faiths are convinced that they are following the "right" creator or belief system.All you have to do is evaluate other religions objectively and it's easy to recognize how deceived they really are. But of course, since you have thoroughly and unwaveringly convinced yourself that you in fact know the "real truth", you will proceed to comfort yourself with this thought and enjoy your special connection with God whilst watching so many others miss out.When the blinders are on, they will stay on unless you remove them. That happens by asking yourself a simple question: Do I really know with 100% intellectual certainty that my God and my belief system is right? If your answer is yes, then you're not being honest with yourself.I was a very devout Christian for many, many years, despite your convenient and all too predictable "well your faith probably wasn't strong enough". But there was nothing artificial about it for me. I just knew and tried to convince others with every persuasive argument that I could -- because after all, their souls are at stake too! The evidence for me was: a personal deep belief, an alliance with creationist talking points that were at least "equally scientifically valid interpretations" compared to the mainstream and the "archeological evidence" to support the historicity of the Bible.The only way I could actually look at the second two with objectiveness (an honest willingness to find out what the truth really is) was by admitting that I did not know for 100% certainty that my faith was the "true" one. And since I'm not "blessed" with being schizophrenic, I never experienced the "Holy Spirit" talking to me or other spiritual voices affirming in some personal powerful way the presence of the Lord in my life. Perhaps this helped me to be intellectually honest with myself and ask the tough questions that most people never want to ask themselves.As far as the definition of "faith" from the Bible, I'm fully aware of what it says. You'd be hard pressed to find someone with as much exposure as me when it comes to the Bible and theology.Do you believe that the first four books of the Bible were written by the Prophet Moses, literally? Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.