Athiests - Why is rejection better than acceptance? Why is No Hope Better than Hope?

[JRKH]

Actually, I don’t care at all what you believe as long as it doesn’t concern me. If whatever you believe makes you happier than if you would believe what I believe - be happier with it.

I’m glad that you feel this way. Perhaps now we can hear from “Antitheist” who was the one who was posting the comments about how we ignore reality.

You may very well believe in astrology if that’s what make feel better and helps you living your life or getting your hopes up. But when someone wants astrology taught in public schools as an alternative scientific theory, then some preaching about reality becomes necessary.

This could spin off into its’ own thread because, once again, it can get into a whole discussion about the meaning of reality. God is just as much a part of Reality to me as No God is to your reality.
Also we must rmember that “Theories” are just that. They are not necessarily facts. So - Whether astrology, or creationism, or whatever is taught in public schools must be left up to the discussion, debate, and will of the local communities.
However, when a student is disciplined for praying before lunch or wearing a “christian” t-shirt or some such - This is ALSO a point where “Some preaching becomes necessary”, as you say.

In either case, I have still recieved no real effective answer to my Question about what Reality we are missing that is so important.

Like I said, perhaps “Antitheist” will come back and offer some insight.

Peace
James

 

[AnAtheist]

However, when a student is disciplined for praying before lunch or wearing a “christian” t-shirt or some such - This is ALSO a point where “Some preaching becomes necessary”, as you say.

I agree. But from my experience people usually get disciplined or experience a lot of peer pressure for not praying or not attending mass or not being a church member, or doing it all “wrong”, like praying to some other god(s), performing non-Christian rituals, or having some other religion.
I very well remember my military service, when we had something called “lebenskundlicher Unterricht” (which roughly translates to “lessons how to live your life”) taught by priests. When the sergeant ordered “Catholics into the right bus, Protestants into the left”, I stood there and thought “Well, what now?”
I then chose the Catholic bus, mainly because there were only a few, but it turned out to be the right choice. While the Protestants received some boring lessons, we got coffee & cakes. I must say, you Catholics know how to keep people at it.
But anyway, one should NOT be forced into such or similar situations when dealing with the government. That includes the military, administration, state officials, public school, etc…

 

[JRKH]

I agree. But from my experience people usually get disciplined or experience a lot of peer pressure for not praying or not attending mass or not being a church member, or doing it all “wrong”, like praying to some other god(s), performing non-Christian rituals, or having some other religion.

Well we may be experiencing different cultures but here in the U.S.A. people in the Public Schools are not disciplined BY the Public Schools for not being a church member etc.
As to peer pressure and other “Private” actions by individuals well that is beyopnd the scope of the Government.
There have been instances here where the individuals were disciplined for praying privately or wearing something religious in school. Thankfully this does not happen often, but it does occur.

I very well remember my military service, when we had something called “lebenskundlicher Unterricht” (which roughly translates to “lessons how to live your life”) taught by priests. When the sergeant ordered “Catholics into the right bus, Protestants into the left”, I stood there and thought “Well, what now?”
I then chose the Catholic bus, mainly because there were only a few, but it turned out to be the right choice. While the Protestants received some boring lessons, we got coffee & cakes. I must say, you Catholics know how to keep people at it.
But anyway, one should NOT be forced into such or similar situations when dealing with the government. That includes the military, administration, state officials, public school, etc…

WOW this is interesting.
May I ask when you served??
Were the classes cumpulsory?
Were they ongoing or just one part of a series of classes under the, “lebenskundlicher Unterricht”, banner?

Peace
James

 

[AntiTheist]

In either case, I have still recieved no real effective answer to my Question about what Reality we are missing that is so important.

Read posts 14 and 17. No, they’re not “straw man” arguments. I’m illustrating ways that fantasies can potentially interfere with one’s life.

If you wander around thinking that you’ve got a magical, invisible pal looking out for you, you’re not dealing with reality on its own terms. You’re missing out on what’s actually going on because you prefer to have an imaginary friend – a god who, according to another poster on this thread, is different from an imaginary friend only because believers have “faith” that he is.

Also we must rmember that “Theories” are just that. They are not necessarily facts. So - Whether astrology, or creationism, or whatever is taught in public schools must be left up to the discussion, debate, and will of the local communities.

Here’s an example of you not understanding reality, though it’s probably not (directly) caused by your faith. You think teaching astrology and creationism in schools should be a matter of “discussion, debate, and will of the local communities.”

This is beyond silly. If it were the will of the community to teach children that babies come from storks, should we start teaching that? And before you say yes, I’ll answer for you: no.

The purpose of schools is to educate our young – that means actually teaching them things about reality, not exposing them to whatever superstitions the majority of the culture favors.

EDIT: Oh, I might as well add: I don’t personally care if you live your life in fantasy land, as long as you leave me alone and don’t try to legislate on the basis of your delusions. But I am responding to the thread question and informing you why I consider it better not to believe.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Any organization, no matter how small in numbers and even an individual can have an uniform agenda that they want to impress upon the public.

It’s hard to say atheists collectively have some sort of uniform agenda; and that we conspire in furtherance of this agenda.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Okay, shoot!

For starters my imaginary god would inspire a bible that is clear and unambiguous (and leaves no room for debate over its material aspects). Secondly, claims of love and mercy would actually make sense (my god wouldn’t order the stoning of adulterers or homosexuals, or compel faith through threats of eternal damnation).

Remember, this is just for starters

 

[lil_flower_luv]

For starters my imaginary god would inspire a bible that is clear and unambiguous (and leaves no room for debate over its material aspects).

Would there be a point in God giving us free will if that were the case? He has chosen us. But He allows us to choose Him through our own free will.

And, for the record, a lot of the Bible is pretty clear to me.

Secondly, claims of love and mercy would actually make sense (my god wouldn’t order the stoning of adulterers or homosexuals, or compel faith through threats of eternal damnation).

God doesn’t order the stoning of adulterers or homosexuals. Perhaps some fallible humans do that but not God.

Just needed to correct some of your misunderstandings.

 

[JRKH]

Read posts 14 and 17. No, they’re not “straw man” arguments. I’m illustrating ways that fantasies can potentially interfere with one’s life.

OK - I’ve reread the posts as you suggested. I do not find these to be answers to my question. All I see is your creating examples that fit your perception but not fitting the realities of the Christian life or the Christian reality.

If you wander around thinking that you’ve got a magical, invisible pal looking out for you, you’re not dealing with reality on its own terms. You’re missing out on what’s actually going on because you prefer to have an imaginary friend – a god who, according to another poster on this thread, is different from an imaginary friend only because believers have “faith” that he is.

Just what do you mean by “dealing with reality on its own terms”. You’ve used this phrase several times but I cannot fathom what you mean by it.

Here’s an example of you not understanding reality, though it’s probably not (directly) caused by your faith. You think teaching astrology and creationism in schools should be a matter of “discussion, debate, and will of the local communities.”

This is beyond silly. If it were the will of the community to teach children that babies come from storks, should we start teaching that? And before you say yes, I’ll answer for you: no.

Not silly at all and I will give an example that will fit YOUR reality. Tennessee and the Scopes Trial. At that time Darwin’s theories were highly controversial and the community did not wish it taught in their schools. In fact it was illegal to teach the theory of evolution the schools in Tennessee. Now - on the surface of it you can say, "See? See how backward and supersticious these people were? How could they be so blind? Etc…Etc… Etc…
But look more closely. The reason that the law was eventually changed was precisely BECAUSE of "discussion and debate, that ultimately changed the “Will of the community”.
Initially the community was saying the same thing that you have said about me…“This is beyond silly”. But over time and with additional discussion and debate the idea ceased to be silly.
Therefore my statement stands and teaching is school not only should be upt toe community, it can be readily shown that it always will be up to the community.

The purpose of schools is to educate our young – that means actually teaching them things about reality, not exposing them to whatever superstitions the majority of the culture favors.

And so who determines what is and is not superstition?
In fact we can add this to the list of terms that need defined. What consitutes “superstition”.
You say God is superstition and I say God is reality.
You never see God in anything, I see God in everything.
You say I cannot prove God exists, and I say you cannot prove God does NOT exist.
You claim that there is zero evidence of life after death, and I say that there is in the form of visions.
You discount such evidence because it does not fit your idea of reality yet the evidence exists.

And in the end, Atheism offers a highly limited and dead reality while theism and in particular, Christianity offers a more Expansive, Joyful, Loving, Inclusive Alive and Hopeful reality.

EDIT: Oh, I might as well add: I don’t personally care if you live your life in fantasy land, as long as you leave me alone and don’t try to legislate on the basis of your delusions. But I am responding to the thread question and informing you why I consider it better not to believe.

hmmmm so you don’t care. I have to say that, considering you came to a catholic website (we didn’t chase you down) and have been averaging nearly 5 posts per day since you signed up, you must not want to be left TOO alone.

Yes I see that you have given your reasons why you feel it is better not to believe. Frankly I think they are weak at best. They are based on completely wrong views of what is real (both known and unknown) and wrong views of what Real belief entails.

One last point on this I find it interesting that you chose to respond to a response to a response instead of responding to my post number 78 which was more or less directed at the comments that you had made in earlier posts.
Peace
James

 

[AntiTheist]

OK - I’ve reread the posts as you suggested. I do not find these to be answers to my question.

Very well, then. There’s not very much more I can do for you.

Just what do you mean by “dealing with reality on its own terms”. You’ve used this phrase several times but I cannot fathom what you mean by it.

I mean, for example, accepting the fact that things die – which is what the evidence suggests – and not pretending that a superhuman deity is going to party with your ghost forever after you die.

And so who determines what is and is not superstition?

We use evidence to determine what is real and what is not.

In a science classroom, we teach our kids what the scientific method – that’s evidence-based – has uncovered about reality. If parents want to fill their kids’ heads with nonsense beliefs, they can do that on their own time.

hmmmm so you don’t care. I have to say that, considering you came to a catholic website (we didn’t chase you down) and have been averaging nearly 5 posts per day since you signed up, you must not want to be left TOO alone.

I find it fun and amusing to participate in discussions of this nature. The OP asked a question, so I answered it. If you don’t like my answer or don’t think I’ve really answered the question, then that’s about as far as we’re going to go.

One last point on this I find it interesting that you chose to respond to a response to a response instead of responding to my post number 78 which was more or less directed at the comments that you had made in earlier posts.

I glanced up at it just now – I might have missed it initially, but there’s nothing that I would say to it that I’ve not already said.

 

[AnAtheist]

WOW this is interesting.
May I ask when you served??

'88 - '89

Were the classes cumpulsory?

Yes.

Were they ongoing or just one part of a series of classes under the, “lebenskundlicher Unterricht”, banner?

We had two lessons alltogether. There wasn’t a specific curriculum.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Would there be a point in God giving us free will if that were the case? He has chosen us. But He allows us to choose Him through our own free will.

And, for the record, a lot of the Bible is pretty clear to me.

The bible is objectively ambiguous (and conflicting). It’s only clear to the indoctrinated (who are persuaded by their denominational outlook). Would I (if I invented a god-myth) allow human free will? Wouldn’t any other proposition be absurd (since we obviously have at least a degree of free will).

God doesn’t order the stoning of adulterers or homosexuals. Perhaps some fallible humans do that but not God.

Just needed to correct some of your misunderstandings.

Obviously I’m referring to the old testament (which is the god of the new testament is he not), where god does expressly enumerate the death sentence for numerous moral offenses.

 

[JRKH]

Just what do you mean by “dealing with reality on its own terms”. You’ve used this phrase several times but I cannot fathom what you mean by it.

Ah - So “reality on its own terms” is to accept that “which…the evidence suggests.”
Now - this seems a far cry from dealing with things that are scientifically proven wouldn’t you agree?
Any scientist will tell you that “evidence” is not necessarily conclusive. It can suggest many things. It can depend on the evidence, the particluar knowledge of the individual interpreting the evidence and even on the general world view at the time the evidence is presented.
Now I will readily agree that everything corporeal living thing dies. But what is more amazing is not that it dies, but that it lives in the first place. Science can explain much about the development of life except for the one most basic and elemental fact. WHY life at all? What underlying force caused “amino acids” to form into strands that then form into cells that then form communites and multicelled creatures etc right up to us and possibly beyond?
We who believe, of course, sense in all of this a “Creative force”, a “God” which has been described in many ways by many cultures. We sense that there is something basically good and orderly about this that extends beyond the end of the corporeal.

In a science classroom, we teach our kids what the scientific method – that’s evidence-based – has uncovered about reality. If parents want to fill their kids’ heads with nonsense beliefs, they can do that on their own time.

So - As science types, should we accept only what is scientifically proven or should we keep an open mind? If we accept as real only what is proven then, if we look a mere 100 years or so, we find that 1) The Continents did not drift but were fixed in position, 2) There are no “black holes”. 3) The planetoid Pluto did not exist etc.

Now I am sure you will agree that it is silly for me to assert that these things were not real just because they had not been discovered yet and I agree. It is silly to assume something doesn’t exist just because you currently do not have conclusive proof of it. That is why it is always better to keep an open mind.

In the case of the Atheist, they have closed their mind to the possiblity of God because they claim there is no evidence to prove there is one. Yet we can see in the examples above that the lack of evidence, that is the lack knowledge on our part does not mean something does not exist. And sometimes that unknown thing can have a direct impact on our lives as in continental drift which of course leads to earthquakes and volcanos etc.

I assume that most atheists are open to the possibilities of new discoveries in the future. That things not even dreamed of today might someday become commonplace knowledge. The history of discovery certainly suggests this to be the case, after all could primitive man have dreamed of the internet?
So - If one is able to be open minded about “New realities” in the field of science, why not be just as open minded about God?

Peace
James

 

[yankee_doodle]

Any scientist will tell you that “evidence” is not necessarily conclusive. It can suggest many things. It can depend on the evidence, the particluar knowledge of the individual interpreting the evidence and even on the general world view at the time the evidence is presented.

I just founded the religion of logic. Test #1 if it seems far fetched it probably is. Test #2 if it’s a long story from a land or region prone to long stories & tall tales, it’s probably just another long story & tall tale. Test #3 if trying to fit it into things we’re either completely sure are true, or we’re pretty sure are true (because there’s mountains of astrological data, mathematical formulas, and guys who were in school until they were 45 telling us XYZ is the most likely scenario – and a whole bunch of them, who have every incentive to belittle the other guys theory as much as he can, agree with each other) requires a really, really far fetched long shot … then it’s probably a stupid idea.

If you can at least meet these parameters, you get to join. Sunday, football over someones apartment or house (and we all chip in for the beer)

Oh, need to be from NYC (or else commuting would be a pain in the you know what).

 

[anode]

Gee, I thought that continents drifted…

Sure, if someone comes up with incontrovertible proof that gods exist, then I’ll believe in it or them.

Which god? What god or gods? Lots of people believe, it would seem, very few appear to agree.

In the meantime, life goes on.

I like the evidence-based approach, myself.

 

[JRKH]

Gee, I thought that continents drifted…

So far we know now they do.
But my point was that if, as some seem to be suggesting here, reality only consists of things we know, then continents did not drift 100 years ago because we did not know it. Of course we now know that the continents were drifting 100 years ago just as they are now. The mere fact that were did not know it then did not make is any less real.

Sure, if someone comes up with incontrovertible proof that gods exist, then I’ll believe in it or them.

Why incontrovertable proof? Do you not accept that there are many things today that are accepted on proof that is NOT incontrovertable?

Which god? What god or gods? Lots of people believe, it would seem, very few appear to agree.

Ah - here we get into another issue - and one that I think really strikes more closely at the heart of the matter. Do Atheists really reject the Idea of an creative intelligence, or do they simply reject the descriptions and attributes that we humans have given that Creative Intelligence over the centuries.
In the first case, outright rejection based on “lack of clear evidence”, we can see, not an attitude of let’s wait and see, but one of scoffing, and even arrogance, in the assumption that "lack of evidence is somehow evidence. Especially in light of the fact that some will say there is evidence - though pehaps just evidence that you a) don’t accept or b) misinterpret.
The second case, that is keeping the mind open to the possibility of a creative Intelligence, allows one to be open to new evidences that either support other previous evidences, or provide a new insight into the issue.
Such an open mind may not lead to an acceptance of ANY of the preexisting descriptions of “God” but does allow for a spiritual growth that is less likely in the “rejection” mode.

In the meantime, life goes on.

I like the evidence-based approach, myself.

I like the evidence based approach too. The Trick is to keep an open mind and be careful not to mis-interpret the data.

Peace
James

 

[yankee_doodle]

So far we know now they do.
But my point was that if, as some seem to be suggesting here, reality only consists of things we know, then continents did not drift 100 years ago because we did not know it. Of course we now know that the continents were drifting 100 years ago just as they are now. The mere fact that were did not know it then did not make is any less real.

But isn’t that an unreliable standard? After all which ancient system, based on far fetched myths, should I believe? I understand the point you’re making (the same point David Hume makes in his critique of inductive reasoning). However, doesn’t the religious approach seem logically awkward? If I found a book written by an individual who claims to have witnessed a group of pink elephants flying over Central Park in the early 19th century, who also claims there were at least 500 other witnesses to the event, and the only other accounts I find are either copies of his book (written much later by people who didn’t witness the event) or other accounts written by the original authors associates (a small group out of the 500 who were a tightly knit group of say a dozen or so men), should I believe at one time pink elephants did indeed fly over Manhattan when after scouring the earth, archeologists have no proof that pink elephants ever existed?

It’s one thing to say our observations cannot account for all existent reality when our observations are limited. But when we’ve turned over every rock, observed a large swath of outer space, yet still find no evidence of pink elephants (and an insufficient number of consistent first hand reports alleging this event occurred) is it reasonable to believe this event occurred? I say no it’s not.

Ah - here we get into another issue - and one that I think really strikes more closely at the heart of the matter. Do Atheists really reject the Idea of an creative intelligence, or do they simply reject the descriptions and attributes that we humans have given that Creative Intelligence over the centuries.

I’d say atheists aren’t a monolithic group, so we believe all sorts of different things.

In the first case, outright rejection based on “lack of clear evidence”, we can see, not an attitude of let’s wait and see, but one of scoffing, and even arrogance, in the assumption that "lack of evidence is somehow evidence. Especially in light of the fact that some will say there is evidence - though pehaps just evidence that you a) don’t accept or b) misinterpret.

The evidence concerning religion IMHO is decisive. It’s noteworthy that allegations of paranormal divine activity are limited to primitive societies and people, and are almost always remote in time. Claims of miracle cures are never something that would be truly miraculous (like regrowth of an amputated limb) but rather they’re always a condition that could have reversed itself anyway. It’s also relevant to consider all the preceding myths that sound similar in some respects to the claims made by contemporary theists. Finally, it’s relevant to note that our ancient predecessors virtually always attributed natural phenomena they lacked an explanation for to manifestations of divine power, whereas today we either know the natural cause or we’re always motivated to search for a natural cause (because we’ve discovered the natural cause of every other phenomena we’ve encountered throughout history).

The second case, that is keeping the mind open to the possibility of a creative Intelligence, allows one to be open to new evidences that either support other previous evidences, or provide a new insight into the issue.
Such an open mind may not lead to an acceptance of ANY of the preexisting descriptions of “God” but does allow for a spiritual growth that is less likely in the “rejection” mode.

Why is keeping such an “open mind” a good thing? I think it’s better to assume there’s a natural cause for everything. Even if we were to run into a truly divine phenomena we could still only explain it through its effects on the natural world. If we throw up our hands and accept a divine cause for things that seem strange (like say quantum entanglement) then won’t our inquiry end (and any possible natural cause elude us)?

I like the evidence based approach too. The Trick is to keep an open mind and be careful not to mis-interpret the data.

Peace
James

what data?

 

[AnAtheist]

Do Atheists really reject the Idea of an creative intelligence,

Yes. At least I do, for a very simple reason. Intelligence is an emergent phenomenon of complex structures, so there has to already be something in order for an intelligence to exist. Thus this intelligence cannot be the creator of everything.
Besides a lot of religious people share this view. Each and every pagan creation myth I know does not start with a god but with a spontanous creation of the world or titanic powers and then the god come much later. Even the egyptian god Ptah, who (in the creation myth of Heliopolis) creates all the other god and the world arises of the Nun which exists prior to him. The Greek called it Chaos, the Norse Ginungagap, and today we call it quantum foam - the great void that by itself breaks apart into what we call the universe. In Greek mythology it is Gäa, Okeanos, and Tartaros, domains which are later occupied by a trias of gods (Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades), in the Norse it is Muspelheim and Niflheim, where the first (“home of fire”) melts the ice of the latter (“home of mist”) and the mist evaporates into the void building the first matter. Funny thing, the Norse mythology is very close to modern cosmology, it can very well be interpreted as a spontanous symmetry breach and matter condensation in an expanding and cooling universe.

 

[JRKH]

But isn’t that an unreliable standard? After all which ancient system, based on far fetched myths, should I believe? I understand the point you’re making (the same point David Hume makes in his critique of inductive reasoning). However, doesn’t the religious approach seem logically awkward? If I found a book written by an individual who claims to have witnessed a group of pink elephants flying over Central Park in the early 19th century, who also claims there were at least 500 other witnesses to the event, and the only other accounts I find are either copies of his book (written much later by people who didn’t witness the event) or other accounts written by the original authors associates (a small group out of the 500 who were a tightly knit group of say a dozen or so men), should I believe at one time pink elephants did indeed fly over Manhattan when after scouring the earth, archeologists have no proof that pink elephants ever existed?

Well in at least one case, scientists formly believed that a spceies of fish had gone extinct several million years ago because they only had a 400 million year old fossil. Yet in 1938 one of these “extinct” fish were caught. It is **The Coelacanth ** So perhaps there is still hope for the pink elephant.

It’s one thing to say our observations cannot account for all existent reality when our observations are limited. But when we’ve turned over every rock, observed a large swath of outer space, yet still find no evidence of pink elephants (and an insufficient number of consistent first hand reports alleging this event occurred) is it reasonable to believe this event occurred? I say no it’s not.

It appears that your scenerio is intended to mimic either Christ’s life, or possibly Fatima. If so then we must also consider that those involved were willing to die rather than deny what they saw. This is additional evidence that something special happened in the Central Park of your scenerio.

An example of something long thought to be mere legend is the City of Troy which wa told of in one place. Homer’s poems. Those who thought it real were scoffed at but it was found.

I’d say atheists aren’t a monolithic group, so we believe all sorts of different things.

Perhaps but the name denotes a common rejection of God.

The evidence concerning religion IMHO is decisive.

Evidence of “religion” is not the same as evidence of “God” or as is sometimes called today, “Intelligent design”.

It’s noteworthy that allegations of paranormal divine activity are limited to primitive societies and people, and are almost always remote in time. Claims of miracle cures are never something that would be truly miraculous (like regrowth of an amputated limb) but rather they’re always a condition that could have reversed itself anyway. It’s also relevant to consider all the preceding myths that sound similar in some respects to the claims made by contemporary theists. Finally, it’s relevant to note that our ancient predecessors virtually always attributed natural phenomena they lacked an explanation for to manifestations of divine power, whereas today we either know the natural cause or we’re always motivated to search for a natural cause (because we’ve discovered the natural cause of every other phenomena we’ve encountered throughout history).

Yes science has explained much that primitives saw as “God”. We no longer worship volcanos.
And yet there remains much that science does not know and phenomena that either has not been explained or not explained fully. Even such basic phenomena as gravity is not fully understood by science. That is why it is so important to keep an open mind.
And I would dispute claim that science has found a “natural cause” for every phenomena. So far as I know Science has not, and indeed cannot, explain the WHY of life itself.

Why is keeping such an “open mind” a good thing? I think it’s better to assume there’s a natural cause for everything. Even if we were to run into a truly divine phenomena we could still only explain it through its effects on the natural world. If we throw up our hands and accept a divine cause for things that seem strange (like say quantum entanglement) then won’t our inquiry end (and any possible natural cause elude us)?

Why does an explanation, a natural cause, for somethings effects need to be ignored just because it is divine? Just as important, why does a truly divine possibility have to be ignored just because there are natural explanations for some of the causes and effects?
You see it is one thing for a logical rational, scientific type person to say God does or does not exist becasue I lack firm evidence either way, and that same person saying, “God does not exist because I see no evidence that he does”.
Science history is riddled with people who had to eat their words because they failed to keep an open mind. Doctors once scoffed at the idea of needing to wash between seeing patients. Disease was once thought to be spread by “Odors”, not by tiny “bugs” that you could not be seen. Many thought the idea of continental drift was preposterous. Yet each of these things is not accepted almost universally.

I like the evidence based approach too. The Trick is to keep an open mind and be careful not to mis-interpret the data.

what data?

I’m going to backtrack here just a bit. I misspoke by using the term “data”. The term I should have used is “evidence”.

Peace
James

 

[bpbasilphx]

For years I used to wonder about whether it was better to live with no hope rather than hope continually frustrated and unfulfilled.

But for years, I also suffered from clinical depression without knowing it.

 

[JRKH]

I find I need tomake some correction/clarification to my post number 97 - I guess I was trying to write it too late last night.

Corrections are in bolded blue.
Sorry for any confusion.

(Snip)

Why does an explanation, a natural cause, for somethings effects need to be ignored just because it is divine? Just as important, why does a truly divine possibility have to be ignored just because there are natural explanations for some of the causes and effects?
You see it is one thing for a logical rational, scientific type person to say **“I cannot say positively that **God does or does not exist becasue I lack firm evidence either way”, and that same typeperson saying, “God does not exist because I see no evidence that he does”.

Science history is riddled with people who had to eat their words because they failed to keep an open mind. Doctors once scoffed at the idea of needing to wash between seeing patients. Disease was once thought to be spread by “Odors”, not by tiny “bugs” that you could not be seen. Many thought the idea of continental drift was preposterous. Yet each of these things is -]not/-] nowaccepted almost universally.

As another reason for keeping an open mind, consider the ancients - and even relatively recent - persons finding fossil remains of sea creatures (shells etc) high up in the mountains. "What, they would ask, “could be the explanation for this?”
Well obviously the area must have been under water at some time.
To the ancients such evidence fit with other evidences and/or stories of a universal flood.
Later scientists, who doubted the idea of a universal “Noah type” flood, surmised that the land must rise and fall over time due to earthquakes and volcano’s etc.
It was only after the discovery of continental drift that the mechanisms of how those fossils got there could be more clearly understood.

As a parallel to the above, the flood stories, prevelant across the globe have received new insight by discoveries relating to rising water after teh last ice age etc. The latest that I have heard is that the Black Sea was once a dry depression, or a smallwer fresh water lake, until the Mediteranian found its way in flooding the area in a “Black Sea deluge”.

An open mind can learn many things that I closed mind cannot.
An open mind seems to me to be essential in science.

Peace
James