Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

I Want To Believe


WarriorPoet

Recommended Posts

 

 

I do believe. 

Oh, you believe in aliens! PMSL. The xian chooses to not know (as opposed to doesn't know!) what "I want to believe" actually means! laugh.png

 

 

 

I guess you could say I believe in aliens.

 

God came to earth as a human. 

 

Yes, I believe it. 

 

What you choose to believe is your choice. 

 

And inquiring minds would like to know why you chose to believe, Ironhorse.

 

Why?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 

 

God came to earth as a human. 

 

Yes, I believe it. 

 

Isn't god supposed to be omni-present?  Why would an omni-present being need to come to earth or anywhere else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

God came to earth as a human. 

 

Yes, I believe it. 

 

Isn't god supposed to be omni-present?  Why would an omni-present being need to come to earth or anywhere else?

 

"Oh, crap. We messed up again."

 

Along that line, substance-which-"god"-cannot-defeat-AKA-ironhorse, did your church tell you that "god" is everywhere except for in hell, but "god's" "love" is still there in hell...while at the same time telling you that "god" is love? blink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you choose to believe is your choice.

I choose to believe that if a geometric figure has three sides, it will have three angles. Believing that gives me a feeling of purpose in life, and that makes me feel good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What you choose to believe is your choice.

I choose to believe that if a geometric figure has three sides, it will have three angles. Believing that gives me a feeling of purpose in life, and that makes me feel good.

 

Well, I choose to believe that I am a multi-millionaire, but it still isn't true. sad.png I had faith that I was - if it went further, it would have become a delusion and I'd be in hospital for a while - but despite that, it still didn't be true! sad.png(((

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I once chose to believe that I could multiply r2 by 3.14; then I realized my reasoning was circular.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised a redneck can be a professor and a professor can be a redneck, tongue.png but very good. (Y) I wish I thought of that one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I am surprised a redneck can be a professor and a professor can be a redneck, tongue.png but very good. (Y) I wish I thought of that one!

Hopefully you will outgrow such preconceptions and stereotypes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once chose to believe that I could multiply r2 by 3.14; then I realized my reasoning was circular.

 

Hey, even a mathematical illiterate such as myself got this one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am surprised a redneck can be a professor and a professor can be a redneck, tongue.png but very good. (Y) I wish I thought of that one!

Hopefully you will outgrow such preconceptions and stereotypes.

 

I don't know what ":P" means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm not here to debate but just a thought I have, if death & decay has been the evolutionary status quo then why aren't we used to it yet? Why are those things still an enemy? Why aren't we like Vulcans when it comes to losing close relatives & companions?

 

 

 

.............

 

I've missed you guys on here. Even though (from a Christian perspective) many of you are blasphemous as hell, you can put a smile on my face & a warmth in my heart. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not here to debate but just a thought I have, if death & decay has been the evolutionary status quo then why aren't we used to it yet? Why are those things still an enemy? Why aren't we like Vulcans when it comes to losing close relatives & companions?

 

 

 

.............

 

I've missed you guys on here. Even though (from a Christian perspective) many of you are blasphemous as hell, you can put a smile on my face & a warmth in my heart. 

 

We're social animals and forming attachments to each other helps our species succeed. Furthermore, I don't believe homo sapiens sapiens  are done evolving, so us having flaws isn't unusual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not here to debate but just a thought I have, if death & decay has been the evolutionary status quo then why aren't we used to it yet? Why are those things still an enemy? Why aren't we like Vulcans when it comes to losing close relatives & companions?

 

 

 

.............

 

I've missed you guys on here. Even though (from a Christian perspective) many of you are blasphemous as hell, you can put a smile on my face & a warmth in my heart. 

 

You've actually answered your own question, Thumbelina.

 

Because death and decay are part of the evolutionary status quo and because humans have evolved, it's to be expected that death and decay are processes that we cannot evolve 'out' of or avoid.  Or using logic to frame the argument - nothing unnatural (like immortality or eternal youth) can come from that which is natural.  Since humans are natural, they are confined to what is natural.  Since both death and decay are entirely natural it's to be expected that humans will always grow old and die.

 

As to human grief, we experience a more sophisticated version of what you see in these videos.

Due to our intelligence, we are better able to understand what death is than any other animal and we are also better able to articulate our feelings of loss when someone we are emotionally attached to dies.  Clearly these cats and dogs are struggling to comprehend why their companions aren't moving any more.  But I'd wager that on an emotional level they feel loss and grief just as keenly as we do.

 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktVgsOGyS4c

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not here to debate but just a thought I have, if death & decay has been the evolutionary status quo then why aren't we used to it yet? Why are those things still an enemy? Why aren't we like Vulcans when it comes to losing close relatives & companions?

 

 

 

.............

 

I've missed you guys on here. Even though (from a Christian perspective) many of you are blasphemous as hell, you can put a smile on my face & a warmth in my heart.

 

We're social animals and forming attachments to each other helps our species succeed. Furthermore, I don't believe homo sapiens sapiens  are done evolving, so us having flaws isn't unusual.

 

 

That's true, however, death is an enemy & even if a loved one is not helping in any way, that love is there. It's not practical from an evolutionary standpoint. We yearn for eternal life & youth; I believe it's because it was meant to be like that originally.

You think this world is getting progressively better? The pollution & politicking- with the rich getting richer & the poor getting poorer? Man, this world is a mess!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Evolution has neither goals nor status quo.  It is ever changing, never stagnant.  It is not within the purview of the evolutionary process to eliminate the threat/fear of death, nor sorrow over its occurrence.  Evolution is only interested in adaptations which give members of species advantages against the pressures in their environments; nothing more.  The ability to live in the constant threat of death without freaking the fuck out is, evolutionarily speaking, a tremendous achievement.

 

I find it more interesting that a person who believes in immortality, life after death, and eternal bliss would even be bothered enough by the thought of death to ask such questions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution has neither goals nor status quo.  It is ever changing, never stagnant.  It is not within the purview of the evolutionary process to eliminate the threat/fear of death, nor sorrow over its occurrence.  Evolution is only interested in adaptations which give members of species advantages against the pressures in their environments; nothing more.  The ability to live in the constant threat of death without freaking the fuck out is, evolutionarily speaking, a tremendous achievement.

 

I find it more interesting that a person who believes in immortality, life after death, and eternal bliss would even be bothered enough by the thought of death to ask such questions.

 

Oh btw, Prof...

 

In case Thumbelina's forgotten, would you please be so kind as to describe for us what your chosen career path is, what the nature of your work is and how these things relate to evolutionary science.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

Evolution has neither goals nor status quo.  It is ever changing, never stagnant.  It is not within the purview of the evolutionary process to eliminate the threat/fear of death, nor sorrow over its occurrence.  Evolution is only interested in adaptations which give members of species advantages against the pressures in their environments; nothing more.  The ability to live in the constant threat of death without freaking the fuck out is, evolutionarily speaking, a tremendous achievement.

 

I find it more interesting that a person who believes in immortality, life after death, and eternal bliss would even be bothered enough by the thought of death to ask such questions.

 

Oh btw, Prof...

 

In case Thumbelina's forgotten, would you please be so kind as to describe for us what your chosen career path is, what the nature of your work is and how these things relate to evolutionary science.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

For the record: I hold a degree in Education and a second degree in Biotechnology.  I have been an adjunct instructor teaching tissue culture, general biology, and anatomy & physiology; I have also been involved in immunological research.  I was honored to be a part of the first patient-specific immunotherapy ever granted FDA approval and released on the market as a prostate cancer treatment.  I am currently exploring several options in the local pharmaceutical/biomedical  industry.

 

The best example I can give as to how this all relates to evolution is to point out that the bulk of the genes that code for the modern human immune system actually evolved in neanderthals and our modern human ancestors acquired those genes (and the immunity that comes with them) through interbreeding with their evolutionary cousins.

 

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthals-interbreeding-humans-110825.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not here to debate but just a thought I have, if death & decay has been the evolutionary status quo then why aren't we used to it yet? Why are those things still an enemy? Why aren't we like Vulcans when it comes to losing close relatives & companions?

 

 

 

.............

 

I've missed you guys on here. Even though (from a Christian perspective) many of you are blasphemous as hell, you can put a smile on my face & a warmth in my heart.

 

We're social animals and forming attachments to each other helps our species succeed. Furthermore, I don't believe homo sapiens sapiens  are done evolving, so us having flaws isn't unusual.

 

 

That's true, however, death is an enemy & even if a loved one is not helping in any way, that love is there. It's not practical from an evolutionary standpoint. We yearn for eternal life & youth; I believe it's because it was meant to be like that originally.

You think this world is getting progressively better? The pollution & politicking- with the rich getting richer & the poor getting poorer? Man, this world is a mess!

 

 

Why is death an enemy? If you have stomach cancer death can be a sweet release. Everyone gets sick and dies, you wouldn't want to be sick forever, would you? Or continue to get more and more frail as you get older and older, slowly becoming a prisoner in your own failing body, correct?

 

Death is absolutely necessary, there isn't enough resources to support a population of any creature that is immortal. None of us can be eternally youthful so death is practical. There is no such thing as "eternal life" and "eternal youth".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not here to debate but just a thought I have, if death & decay has been the evolutionary status quo then why aren't we used to it yet? 

...

 

 

I am used to death and decay.  And so are you. You and I both consume deceased lifeforms.  We eat plants and/or animals everyday.  Usually they are already dead and we either kill them ourselves or consent to their deaths by buying harvested or processed vegetables and fruit and butchered or processed fish and meat.  We also see death and decay on a regular basis and receive regular news of additional death and decay.  

 

As to our own lives, as well as the lives of other sentient, quasi-sentient and low-sentient organisms on this planet, the evidence strongly indicates that those that avoid harmful locations, situations, events or behavior tend to survive and statistically produce more offspring than those that do not so avoid.  Indeed, many organisms have sensors in their nervous systems which warn the organism of many of these potentially harmful situations (e.g., pain receptors in the paws of canines).  Put another way, organisms avoid their own injury or death, if they can.  To the extent these behaviors (e.g., avoiding harm) and biological systems (e.g., pain receptors) are genetically based, the offspring tend to inherit them.  Simple facts.  Easy peasy.

 

The Biological Theory of Evolution explains this quite well and does so based on actual empirical relevant evidence.

 

...

Why are [death and decay] still an enemy? 

 

...

 

Death and decay are a natural process of physics and chemistry on this planet.  

 

To describe death and decay as an "enemy" is to assign intelligent agency to these mundane natural processes.  Of course, a sentient carbon based life form on this planet, such as you or me, can pretend death and decay is an "enemy", and it might be useful to some to think about it that way, but only from the living organism's perspective.  Death and decay are not sentient and have no ability to declare you or me an enemy.

 

Still, as stated above, those organisms that can (though their own actions) avoid death and decay of their own body will tend (statistically when large populations are observed) to have more offspring than those that don't.  To the extent that avoidance behavior is genetically based (as opposed to culturally learned), those offspring will continue the avoidance behavior.

 

Again, the Biological Theory of Evolution explains this quite well and does so based on actual empirical relevant evidence.

 

...

Why aren't we like Vulcans when it comes to losing close relatives & companions?

 

...

 

Some humans are more like Vulcans.  Most probably are not.  If detachment and lack of empathy in such situations conferred some survival advantage within the human population, and if detachment and lack of empathy were genetically based in the first instance, then the Biological Theory of Evolution predicts that humans would become more detached and less empathetic (concerning the death of close relatives and companions) as time passes.  Of course, the actual evidence demonstrates that humans are quite social animals and the selection pressure is more towards those that are involved and empathetic instead of those that are crumudgeons and hermits.

 

We can only hope that you take the time to actually research and study the Biological Theory of Evolution from credible secular and scientific sources.

 

And just for kicks, tell me the part again about how I'm going to be harmed (death and decay perhaps?) by one of your sky fairies unless I believe as you do.  That was some funny stuff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not here to debate but just a thought I have, if death & decay has been the evolutionary status quo then why aren't we used to it yet? Why are those things still an enemy? Why aren't we like Vulcans when it comes to losing close relatives & companions?

 

 

 

.............

 

I've missed you guys on here. Even though (from a Christian perspective) many of you are blasphemous as hell, you can put a smile on my face & a warmth in my heart. 

 

Ok Thumbelina,

 

You don't want to debate.

 

Nevertheless, for the sake of the lurkers I must ask you a question - so that they can see just how badly your faith-based beliefs are disconnected from reality.  

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3

 

 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

Since you believe in the Genesis narrative by faith and not by evidence, please answer this question.

 

"If a person you trusted with your life told you the sky was green, when your eyes and everyone else's tell you it's blue, would you deny the evidence of your own senses and everyone else's and believe it was green?"

 

A 'Yes' answer from you will tell them all they need to know about the depths of your blind, evidence-denying devotion to the Bible.

 

A 'Don't Know' answer will tell them that you want to dodge the issue.

 

A 'No' answer will cause them to wonder why you believe the Bible, when scripture itself tells you not to believe in Genesis by evidence, but by faith. 

 

And if you refuse to answer, they will draw their own conclusions about you.

.

.

.

Please answer the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to the OP I take somewhat of a different approach. This is in large part because what Christian upbringing I had was fairly theologically liberal and not fully immersive, and I always had trouble really believing it 100%. This is not to say I didn't want it to be true at some point, because I wanted to find answers to the meaning of "life, the universe and everything" (no, not 42 either) and that Chrisitanity would ultimately provide a reasonable, rational response to this. I think now though (as I probably did as a kid) the only way to do it and stay sane would be to take the modernist critical approach to the Bible and admit some of it was written by very biased men and not 100% under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

Because it always sat awkwardly with it, and because not all of my family became as evangelical as I did, there were always some conflicts. as there was going on very secular message boards and ending up in arguments which I knew deep down I could not defend.

 

The OP and others may wish they had some comfort in the thought of an afterlife, and seeing their long-dead relatives again. If only that were so. But there is another side to this coin. Being able to know there is no afterlife means knowing there is no hell or eternal judgement. No thinking that your grandparents might be getting fire and brimstone simply because they didn't believe the gospel and accept Jesus as their saviour properly. No being at odds with your existing living relatives because Jesus demands it of his followers. And no giving up every seemingly harmless thing you enjoy in life simply for the vague hope of pie in the sky when you die.

 

Not to mention all the other things- no more having to believe in a book which suggests that "looking at a woman lustfully" (whatever that means), gay sex (though irrelevant to me), gender equality, and picking up sticks on a Saturday are not OK whilst slavery and (in certain divinely-mandated cases) genocide are. And no more having to defend that book to people whose lives have been aversely affected by the things these texts seem to advocate, rightly or wrongly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lyniezian, that was a great post, I agree with every single word of it, but it does seem that you missed my point.  Probably my fault, seems that the way my brain works makes it better at coming up with ideas than it is at expressing them.

 

What I was trying to express wasn't a wish for a christian afterlife to be true, it was a wish for any possibility for this to happen.  Something that I could believe given anything approaching adequate evidence for belief.  What it really was was me calling out the apologists, showing them all the reasons that I (and many others) had that would make us all want to believe in an afterlife, and pointing out that we still don't.  I want them to realize that they have our desire to believe on their side and they still lose.  You raise good points about being free from some of the less than enjoyable parts of christian theology, but be honest with yourself here.  Think of your most loved person who has died, and then consider what you would do to be able to be with them again.  I'm guessing that it is quite a lot.

 

The love for the people that we have lost, our fear of death, our questions about what, if any, meaning our lives have.  These are all things that the christian (and other religions) apologists have on their side.  I want them to realize that given all of that they need to understand that we did not come to our disbelief on a whim.  We were often dragged kicking and screaming from our faith.  All of the blind emotional responses work out in their favor.  Yet we still don't believe.  That is the animal they are up against when trying to convince a reasoned atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.