Religion: Pros and Cons

[psychofunk]

I have to appologize to you guys for my earlier post. My first nature can be very evil, and I am the type that would much rather fight than argue, so being behind this keyboard can be very fustrating for me. It is not necessary to insult you to get my point accross to those that may be on the outside looking in.

The bottom line to any passerby is that for ME, I spent years doing wrong and living an evil life. In the best of those times filled with money, women, drugs, guns and friends willing to do whatever for me and me likewise, they fall short of the true happiness that I have felt since then. I finally leaned what high on life meant.

That is not to say that shit does'nt happen and that I don't trip when money falls short or that I don't still wanna **** every woman on the planet but now I don't have to react on those things. I have a second thought now that involves not screwing other people for my own personal gain.

I used to think that I needed no one and the reality of that is that is a hard path to walk, 15 years of that can make any man tired. Wearing that invincible mask 24/7/365 can beat you down. I am a chicano so I have the whole "man" thing deeply ingrained into me. On top of it I grew up catholic so I was taught that god was up in the sky waiting for me to mess up so that he could blast my ass with a lightning bolt, so for me the whole god thing was not easy pill to swallow.

To make a long story short after this that and the other and bit of living right and trying new things I came to realize that something that I once called luck, was not luck but God working in my life, loving and caring for me no matter how bad I was. Truely there for me! He did'nt give me a million dollars (good thing too, because I would have done a Tony Montana) but he took care of me. Things like going left instead of right (not literally) because of a feeling I got, where the people I would have been with shot someone or got shot by someone or arrested or all sorts of things. I have even had bullets wizz by me and then I heard the bang! He did not condone what I was doing but he continued to love me and that alone is worth my believing. On top of that I am the happiest I have ever been in my life no matter the situation I have myself in.

I am a Christian (just for clarification) and I am not saying take my word for it, what I am saying is don't listen to anyone's opinion. Pick up a bible and go to a church bible study somewhere, learn and make your own decision based on your own experience.

[Rayman2k2]

Originally posted by psychofunk
*snip. Pick up a bible and go to a church bible study somewhere, learn and make your own decision based on your own experience.

yeah, earlier this month, i got my hands on a bible, and read it. not just for knowledge, but for the sheer sake of it. now granted, i would also recommend the quran, they have english copies, just go to a mosque (dont worry, they wont hurt you), or look for one online. then, there is the Torah, im not sure if there are any english copies, but, eitherway, just pick up one of the three books and "READ" like Angel Gabriel said to Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him). Peace be Upon Him is said after the name of any prophet, the saying is literal, but muslims normally say it in arabic

[Yo-DUH_87]

Originally posted by Alchemy
...Don't draw scientists into religious debates. Most of us are well above it. A lot of us just don't care anymore - it gets very, very tiring...

Yes, it does, I agree. Both sides are equaly stubborn, and the only end result is that both go away thinking the other is an total idiot.

I respect science, I respect scientists, but trying to explain creation with a bunch of hooey is getting kinda old.

I accept most of the "laws of science," or so they have been defined by humans. But saying that we all are distantly related to the monkeys in the zoo and the (stupid) cat I cheerfully call "fluffy" is a bit bizzare Not to mention the pig I just had for lunch today (sorry Uncle chester!)

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by Yo-DUH_87
...

I respect science, I respect scientists, but trying to explain creation with a bunch of hooey is getting kinda old.

I accept most of the "laws of science," or so they have been defined by humans. But saying that we all are distantly related to the monkeys in the zoo and the (stupid) cat I cheerfully call "fluffy" is a bit bizzare Not to mention the pig I just had for lunch today (sorry Uncle chester!)

While evolution is yet "just a theory", it is one that is based upon scientific methodology, and can be (at least partially) proven (natural selection re: microbes and fruit flies would be most recognizable examples). I suppose "proof" will have to wait until time travel is available, or we see one species actually mutate into another species. Given the short attention spans of us impatient humans, the former is more likely.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on what? Legends passed down over thousands of years. Then compiled into "book" form, then re-written and re-written untold numbers of times before the printing press made it (somewhat) more consistently repeated. That, and the emotional reactions of those who wish not to be associated (in any distant way) with "animals". How does creationism explain dinosaurs, australopithecines, or carbon-dating? Before you answer, please review previous posts re: faith as a valid source of knowledge.

And BTW, I am sorry to hear about your Uncle Chester!

Bob

[winewood]

Evolution is not a theory based on scientiftic meathodology. Why do I say that? Well, if have a theory and proove it wrong, it doesn't exist as a working theory right? EVERY one of the principles that Darwin based this "theory" on have been disproven. So, I deny calling it a theory as it has already had the main premise of its theory rendered as false interpretation. The attachment to its principles is adhered to like democrats to Al Gore and the "rigging" of the Florida ballots. More emotional than logical.
If you say that natural selection proves evolution, thats like saying we all have the powers of Magneto from X-men because I cant disprove gravity. Natural selection is a VERY small part of the equation. Evolution is very complex, and requires hundreds of factors to work. Under the premise of scientific meathodology, evolution is dead because the "theory" in whole is disproven. If you attempt to "proove" it you aren't using scientific meathods. You can only disprove a theory. To have a theory based on what science has found now it something new. But Darwin's Evolution is dead.
That leads to creationism. It has yet to be disproven, this is why it is a factor. I subscribe to this personally. Why? I think an Intelligent Design is much easier to fathom than the outrageous claims of the ENTIRE theory of evolution. I don't buy the old Earth argument of millions of years. Frankly if mankind with any kind of intelligence and the ability to survive and replicate for 1000's of years... we would have destroyed this rock A LONG time ago.
Lets place this in perspective. The X1 Cray... a series of cray 6+ cray systems running in parallel with ~ 50% average idle time. (The Japaneese crays run at 97% idle. ) One of the most powerful known computing devices avaliable. The goal of one of the purchasers of this X1 was to replicate the actions and workings of A SINGLE CELL. This single cell that was "concocted" by chance in a pool of hospitipal gasses and soup according to E. If it takes the workings of our most powerful computers to fail to replicate one of the most simple blocks in Evolution, how can that happen by chance? If we "evolved" the missing link fossiles of in between mutations would outnumber the finished product ones we have today. That frankly takes much more faith than it does for me to accept the Bibles teachings. Hypnosis Airspirit? no, I call it a track record.
Since this is the appropriate thread I leave with this... No man is an athiest when he is about to die. Science leaves more questions than answers, and for people to say we don't need faith, they deny that they live on it. We don't understand 99.99999999% of this world. We can't even understand the simple physics of heat dissipation.

[iroc409]

well, i didn't read EVERY post, but i thought i'd throw in my .

as far as the evolutionary process, i am rather up in the air about it. the liklihood of the first single-celled organism was once explained to me as just as likely as "a tornado moving through a junkyard and assembling a flying 747 on the other end".

i've visited a rather interesting person in texas that has in fact tied in a lot of the bible, scientifically. it is very compelling evidence, but alas it has been a while since i've been there, so my memory needs a good refresher. i have been there more than once though, and have seen a very interesting experiment that appeared to be successfully conducted with reptiles and pre-flood times. it's very good stuff, i have a vhs set of his stuff, i think i'll watch it again to really delve into his evidence. and, as well, his books. the interesting part is, with experimentation and physical evidence, he does in fact prove much of what was experience in the bible, just as well if not perhaps better than science proves evolution.

also, during a project a few years back my senior year in HS, i question religion even more. this particular theory doesn't explain god, but it does explain jesus. it's really far to get into, and pretty crazy, but i think it could make sense. basically, it leads to that any one of us could have the same power as jesus, and such, but merely have not figured it out. it's pretty drawn out, and i've got work to do now or i'd explain it. tying in god, one could say god divined jesus into figuring out the whole process.

it could conversely prove that there is no god, that jesus - although not a hoax - was not truly devine, either.

just some things to think about.

[Since87]

Originally posted by winewood
I subscribe to this personally. Why? I think an Intelligent Design is much easier to fathom than the outrageous claims of the ENTIRE theory of evolution.

Ah, the "because it's easier to comprehend" argument.

I think Newtonian physics is much easier to fathom than the outrageous claims of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity.

Easier to comprehend makes it true?

[cybrsamurai]

This thread was started as a discussion as to the effects religion has on our society, not as a what is truth. Religious people belive VERY strongly that they are right. Some non religious people feel the same way. We really wont be able to prove one way or another so the argument of truth is mute. However I will say that any religious person that doesn't question the teachings of his/her religion is doing a disservice to himself and his society.

Questioning a sanscrit translation done by a group of random people many hundred years ago isn't sacreligous. If you are religious, please think about what is written and spoken to you. Im not saying you have to dissbelive but think about why what was written is translated the way it is. NOTHING is free this includes truth!

[iroc409]

Originally posted by cybrsamurai
This thread was started as a discussion as to the effects religion has on our society, not as a what is truth. Religious people belive VERY strongly that they are right. Some non religious people feel the same way. We really wont be able to prove one way or another so the argument of truth is mute. However I will say that any religious person that doesn't question the teachings of his/her religion is doing a disservice to himself and his society.

i agree on both points. a resolution will not be found. i believe anyone that falters in questioning their religion, than it is perhaps not for them. if they can answer these questions with reasonable justification to themselves then it's all good.

enjoy, i have to go negotiate a car deal for a friend.

[winewood]

Ah, the "because it's easier to comprehend" argument.

Yes, that is what we do. We have to consider the evidence and see what is more credible. Part of understanding is accepting what you don't understand and can't place under a microscope. No scientist says "i understand it all" and is considered credible. The credible ones start by stating what the do not know, and what new questions they have learned to ask.
I can't accept evolution personally, due to its being as non-fictional as a James Bond film. Humility, and science work together better than outright fiction and creation of "facts" if the picture is too blurry to make out. What we do know, is that the longer you stare at the theory of E, the more faith you have to apply to it. If that is the kind of "truth" that lets you sleep well at night, then you must have wonderful memories of the tooth fairy. Afterall, there is no other way that money could have been placed under your pillow.
Of course I can not fault someone for faith in something they have never seen. I have attempted to proove the Biblical teachings false, but I cannot. Frankly if Creationism was as "solid" of a case as Evolution, it wouldn't have made it past 2-3 centuries. Creation has been a theory for 2 thousand years without being disproven. Maybe that will help some people give it some more consideration.
Thanks for hearing me out guys. I do not mean any disrespect to your understandings my presenting my own findings.

[cybrsamurai]

Frankly if Creationism was as "solid" of a case as Evolution, it wouldn't have made it past 2-3 centuries. Creation has been a theory for 2 thousand years without being disproven. Maybe that will help some people give it some more consideration.

not to be a butt head, but if truth is the amount of time something has been around without being dissproven then pagan religions must really be the way to go. Pagan religions were around loooooong before any form of judeo christian religions, as of yet I have never seen a single pagan religion proved to be untrue. ALL WORSHIP NATURE!!!!!

"Ah, the "because it's easier to comprehend" argument."

Yes, that is what we do. We have to consider the evidence and see what is more credible.

yes that is what we do. however it contradicts the point that was made by earier. We dont say I dont understand calculus so calculus isnt right algebra is. It doesnt work that way we have to weigh it against evidence like you said. Not our own comprehension.

My writing this is just to show that just because somthing cannot be proven untrue doesnt make it true, especially when its nothing but a metaphisical idea. I could tell you that I am god, but I dont want to do anything to prove it I will live my life exactly as a regular human. If I left you to dissprove it I doubt it would be possible. Would you believe this was true because you couldn't dissprove it? I hope not.

I believe evolution exists, in one form or another. I'm not saying there is no god, there may be a god that created the universe and time and matter and energy and set the building blocks for our lives in this world.

It drives me CRAZY when people are soo closed minded that they can't see a scenario where there is a god and science, christians do it, Scientists do it.

Above all don't get mad if you dont understand somthing! Right now if there is a heaven Jesus and Darwin are really sad that they have polarized the people in this way.

[Yo-DUH_87]

Originally posted by cybrsamurai
not to be a butt head, but if truth is the amount of time something has been around without being dissproven then pagan religions must really be the way to go. Pagan religions were around loooooong before any form of judeo christian religions, as of yet I have never seen a single pagan religion proved to be untrue. ALL WORSHIP NATURE!!!!!

Which religons are you refering too? Just curious...

[cybrsamurai]

Which religons are you refering too? Just curious...

umm ill pick Dravidianism for 800 Alex... (sort of a precurser to hinduism)

however there are many people that celebrate various forms of very old pagan religions. (no one really knows how old they are because they are thought to precurse any known history.) Sort of the beginning of social man. There are also people that still worship old Sumerian and Babylonian gods which as you know would be very old as well.

[winewood]

As far as linking them up with being disproven, I was referring to the biblical stories, events, locations, and assertations as to scientific principles. I was not meaning to bring in the proof of custom, traditions, nor assertations of the diety structure. And that was my fault. Please take the former in context of my opening statement of this post.
Good arguements though.

[MadDogMe]

Organised religeon was made to control people, it was another power base to contend to the then~present monarch/emperer/top dog/whatever. It was mind control full stop, and not to be confused with genuine belief...

Anyone who does't have spiritual beliefs is living in a bubble. Anyone who can't see that Life involves two destinct different realities is just waiting to get laid by the right woman ...

People should'nt confuse beliefs and religeon. I'm totaly against religeon because of the limits each and everyone of them imposes ( except Budism, which is'nt a religion, it's a way). I don't believe in God so much as 'the powers that be'. I don't believe Hell is the end reality though I have to wade through it and it's product every day...

I believe evolution can happen over eons and in the space of a thought. Why does it have to be one or the other? Not both?. The world was made to change was'nt it? otherwise it'd be static. 'A holiday camp from eterity' gone wrong is the way I see it . It's a world full of wonders, not a wonderful world, and religeon is more often the cause, not the solution ...

[winewood]

Click me
Thought this was interesting.

[MadDogMe]

i question religion even more. this particular theory doesn't explain god, but it does explain jesus. it's really far to get into, and pretty crazy, but i think it could make sense. basically, it leads to that any one of us could have the same power as jesus, and such, but merely have not figured it out.

And therin lays the truth . Anyone who's ever taken halucinagenetic drugs will see the truth in your statement. Jesus was just 'up on it'. Jesus did'nt talk to a burning bush, he was burning bush! . seriousley though I agree. This is what I don't understand about chrisianity, Jesus did lots of magical things and was enlightened, so what?, where's the relevance?. These things are'nt confined to one man!, who has to be the result of an unnatural conception. These things happen every day in varying degrees. I've made things happen myself, anyone with enough beleif/confidence can will things, the ability to 'conect' with other people helps though ...

The real miracle was getting enough people together on the same level/plane (without the 'infighting'!!) to let these things happen!. Like the saying should of said: 'Minds that think alike can be Great!!' , but divide, rule, and conquer, is the capitalist way ...

Pe@ce people ...

[nexxo]

OK, just for the heck of it...

Religion is not about principles, or morals, or philosophy, not really. It's about attachment (Attachment? Yup, for the psychology grads amongst you, just read a bit of Bowlby).

Basically, attachment refers to the strong emotional bond that exists between a child and caregiver (usually parent); more specifically, the "secure base" that the parent provides for a child from which to explore the world (think how a crawling infant stays within a certain "action radius" of its mother), and to which it can return when it feels frightened, insecure or hurt. All children sort of know they depend on their parents (think of the terror a child can feel when it suddenly finds itself lost in a shop or crowd, for instance), on a very instinctual, pre-verbal level. Since we're talking basic survival here, you can rest assured that attachment is a very instinctual drive. Animals have it too, but there the phenomenon is referred to as "imprinting" on the parent.

Attachment never stops. As we grow up, and more independent, we can tollerate a greater physical and psychological distance between us and the caregiver; we go to school, we leave home, etc. But at the same time we "internalise" our secure base. We learn to depend on ourselves in the way we depended on our parents, because we internalise their caring for (and about) us in our caring for (and about) ourselves. You can see how attachment issues form the basis of many psychological problems (particulatly where dependency --either on drugs or on people-- play a part). Moreover, our attachment experiences influence the emotional bonds we form with our friends, our life partners, and our children.

No matter how grown-up we are, the world remains a scary, and dangerous place. It's a big universe out there, and the more we learn about its vastness, the more we feel like an insignificant speck. We will still feel that yearning for a "secure base", and the more insecure (and immature?) amongst us will feel it stronger. So we create a new "attachment figure", in the image of a parent as seen by a very small child: all powerful, all wise, all loving, or, if you had the bad luck of growing up in less fortunate circumstances perhaps: all authoritarian, unpredictable, demanding, abusive. Sometimes, God is just an attachment figure. And to think that we're all alone (like Evolutionism would seem to suggest, for instance), is very scary, and therefore meets with fear and hostility.

And with this attachment comes the primitive, almost magical thinking of a child. That is another reason why Evolutionism doesn't go down well-- there seems to be no simple cause-effect relationships here, and it is very hard to get your head around principles like Critical Dependence on Initial Conditions, or Emergence phenomena, which are part of how a tree gets created, seemingly, "out of thin air".

Don't get me wrong. Religion, like any beliefs or preferably, ideas, can be a powerfully good thing or powerfully evil. But let's not lose perspective. Let's acknowledge being human. After all, in this world, we only have each other. There's no justice, but in us. No love, but in us. No mercy, no faith, no compassion, but in us. There's just us.

[Yo-DUH_87]

Originally posted by nexxo
There's no justice, but in us. No love, but in us. No mercy, no faith, no compassion, but in us. There's just us.

Ok, humanity is screwed

[nexxo]

Yeah, but didn't I break it to you gently, though?

[Alchemy]

Apologies for the long post, but I've been gone a while and must make up for lost time. A free cookie to anyone who reads the whole thing.

Originally posted by utabintarbo
Well, how about an example of the "completely false information". Without such, your charge is baseless.

No problem. Some of these are based on posts made after yours, if you consider that fair. First, look at my first post, where I corrected a number of BigBen's hyperbolae.

Yo-DUH seems to be a bit dim on the concepts of Buddhism, Islam, and biology. Calling science "a bunch of hooey" more or less signals his unwillingness to debate.

The "small million year steps" between amphibian and mammal are at least partially reconstructable. There is a pattern of physiological and chromosomal features between any two animals chosen at random, and by building up the foundation of knowledge that is biology, it can be shown with varying degrees of certainty how random genetic mutations, encouraged by natural selection, in a process of tens of thousands of years, led one particular animal to gradually become another. Nature itself has no care for our particular word "species" - taxonomy is both a help and a hindrance to evolutionary biology - so when people claim that evolution is false because there are no creatures halfway between one species and another, I'm at a loss: All creatures people find evidence of existing are ascribed a species name. Trying to pick two species and find a transition species between them that is not itself its own species is an absurdity of the definition of species - it's like being asked to pick two rational numbers between which no numbers exist. Biology, like the number line, is a continuum.

Psychofunk is pretty much pure unfocused vitriol, the sort of speak one writes about in a screenplay where a doomsday fundamentalist Chrisitan is needed to unleash God's wrath by unleashing a super-flu of some sort.

I honestly can't read airspirt's stuff. The tone makes it too difficult to follow.

Bigben is wrong again about the law/theory thing, but I guess that's alright because half of the scientists around don't know what a law is anyway. Laws are quite rare in science.

A law is a scientific assumption made based on recurrence rather than based on a series of premises. A law is most useful in mathematics, which is entirely based on axiom. In science, laws find their best purpose by defining basic parameters of nature rather than natural events, though they can do both. The laws of thermodynamics define temperature, work, heat, entropy. Newton's laws of motion define force and momentum. They are problem solving tools based on observation, not hypotheses that could be proven or disproven. If laws could be disproven, Newton's laws of motion would have been struck down by quantum mechanics. But their function does not necessitate this - Newton's laws were, are, and will remain to be approximations of nature and work perfectly well for a certain range of scale.

Evolution, or natural selection, was regarded by Douglas Adams - who knew less science than I do, but was such a fantastic writer and public speaker as well as an astute mind that he could run laps around me in any field I claimed to be an expert in - as a very special tautology, "That which survives, survives." A is equal to A. It's such an obvious concept that the basics that come form it - that animals die, that animals better-equipped for that time and place generally survive, that mutations occur and once in a while are beneficial, and that four billion years is a long, long time.

I'm perfectly alright with people asking specific questions about details that bother them with scientific principles - we do that all the time with heat, temperature, viscosity here - but spouting cavalier rhetoric like "wish me a tree" is juvenile and unproductive. Do people doubt the existence of Sumeria because anthropology does not produce real, live Sumerians? Do people doubt the existence of dinosaurs because paleontology does not produce real, live allosauri? Isn't it simply idiocy to know nothing about a scientific principle, then mock it by requesting evidence for this principle that in fact violates this principle?

Consider how foolish people appear when such concepts of heat and temperature are argued on this board. Then consider that the mechanisms for heat transfer, especially turbulent, are a thousand times less predictable and less understood by physics than the evolutionary path of tens of thousands of creatures charted by biology.

Okay, more examples of falsifications? Winewood says evolution is filled with holes, but gives no reason or example, then follows with a number of non sequitors. Again, the common tactic of the (excuse the connotation) ignorant - "I don't believe evolution, give me an example of a cell organizing itself from nothing, even though this is not how evolution works and would in fact neither prove nor disprove evolution."

To be clear, the origin of the first cells is the focus of many, many academic papers I lack the time and understanding to read. All I can do is borrow the argument of Richard Dawkins - the fully functional cell is the Roman arch. It had a support structure - its evolutionary predecessors - on which it was built, and that structure is gone. We know the Romans used wooden supports to hold up arches on their bridges until the capstone was in place. In the case of the first cell, possibly the predecessor to the first bacteria, this support structure isn't anywhere near as obvious.

Regarding religion - it's another playground, it is as irrelevant to evolution as heat transfer is to the Bible. Only when a particular group of people, following a specific interpretation of a book that is holy to them, claim that a scientific theory is false, does any debate occur. Nothing in science makes claim for or against god - it simply takes the evidence and comes up with the most logical, consistent, comprehensive, and predictive understanding. To misrepresent this - to think of science as a group of hell-bent, radical atheists (or satan-worshipper, as I've been called once), or to ignore the review of information by peers, or to claim some massive flaw in the scientific method on a hunch rather than actually stating the flaw itself, or to deny logic in favor of insults and vitriol - does both sides a disservice.

Logic is the engine of mathematics, the most important tool in science, and it is by no means heretical for the religious to use it - if it is, I do indeed fear for the people who worship that god.

I would say that the one fact that I have brought forth is that faith is not a valid mechanism for achieving knowledge of reality ("Wishing won't make it so"). Do you wish to debate that?

I think it's important to ascribe a scale to faith - from rational assumptions based on repeated observation all the way to the blind faith of doomsday cults. There is a matter of how much evidence one needs and how credible that evidence is, as well as how likely or unlikely the truth ascribed to that evidence is, for a person to draw an opinion on the truth or untruth of an event. I take it on faith when someone tells me he was late to an appointment because he had a flat tire simply because the truth or falsity of the event has little bearing on me, for example.

That should do.

Alchemy

[Since87]

Originally posted by Alchemy
That should do.

Alchemy

Very well written. I want my cookie.

[pHaestus]

Some of the best evidence for the evolution of species comes from biochemistry. Take a look at the enzymatic pathways that metabolic processes take to get from point a to point b. These are often amazingly intricate, and tend to recur in many organisms which are phylogenically similar. I have not the time to go into detail, but any college level biochem text should explain. These sorts of indirect evidence of common ancestors has to some extent refined the field of taxonomy, and the study of enzyme pathways and reactivity have also transformed the field of drug development. I have had the whole creation vs evolution argument with the minister of my in-laws before over coffee. My take was that the only religious anti-evolution people I had much respect for were the chrstian scientists. Everyone else wants to bad mouth evolution in public and then go to a doctor for cutting edge drugs that were developed by insight from evolution.

If I wanted to look at evidence of some higher power then I would return to the very thing most creationists hold persona non gratis: science. Consider that the bulk of the biochemical processes that hold a person together and allow one to go about day to day processes are all entropy driven. In both directions. Nifty. Of course you have to quit pointing to evolutionary processes (which are actually pretty innocuous as far as theories go) to stir up fights with the physical scientists then.

[Alchemy]

Okay, I lied - I forgot to make a point in that last paragraph.

Originally posted by Alchemy
I think it's important to ascribe a scale to faith - from rational assumptions based on repeated observation all the way to the blind faith of doomsday cults. There is a matter of how much evidence one needs and how credible that evidence is, as well as how likely or unlikely the truth ascribed to that evidence is, for a person to draw an opinion on the truth or untruth of an event. I take it on faith when someone tells me he was late to an appointment because he had a flat tire simply because the truth or falsity of the event has little bearing on me, for example.

Thus, my concern with religion and the religious only comes up with certain types of Christians, such as those following Tertullian (and oftentimes misunderstanding him) - "It is true because it is impossible," or those quite vehemently arguing I Corinthians 1:21 or others - God makes "foolish the wisdom of the world." Though I respect the Bible, as I do all great works, it seems a cop-out to me to use these things as tools of argument - I'd go so far to call it absurd, for one cannot persuade without logic - shysters and snake-oil dealers excepted - , and using an argument that arguments are not arguments is an internally inconsistant means of debate.

Further, wiring ones' mind to accept arguments on blind faith seems to me like the opening of port 21 in the mind - even on the hypothesis that everything regarding ones' faith is true, to use blind faith as a mechanism makes one vunderable to exploit.

Okay. Done now. Serious.

Alchemy

[cybrsamurai]

Although I am not religious I can understand how people can take some thing on pure faith. I for a time I had no idea how anyone could believe anything without hard evidence.

I was thinking one night about the nature of reality and what I could believe, what I came up with was rather disturbing to me. I decided that the only thing that I truly knew was that I and only I exist. The only reason that I believe that my wife exists and that you reading this exists is faith. I don't have any proof but I wouldn't want to exist if I was the only thought and thus faith comes into play. I don't see religious people much different than me; they just take it a bit further. I think faith, fear and anxiety walk hand in hand.

I wrote this to get other peoples take on what I am thinking.