Moderator: Moderators
From what I know about the nature of DNA, genetics and Mendels laws of genetics (namely that are inherent species limitations imposed by the genetic makeup of all living things) the account about Adam and Eve, ie two humans parenting the human race, seems to me to be the most plausible explanation of our origins.
Unsupported by independent verification.mgb wrote:Vague? To whom are they vague?Denmark wrote: they "claim some kind of vague affirmation of their faith, a feeling." My point is that they are not personally deluded; they believe in the unsupported 'visions,' delusions, or frauds of others like Joseph Smith and Saul of Tarsus.
Unsupported? You mean unsupported by science?
Do you really think science must have the last word on truth?
TSGracchus wrote: Are you on medication?
Perhaps your reading skills are somehow impaired?
Perhaps it is your memory that is impaired?
Would you believe that some folks, even Christians, have been know to be that dishonest... Not you, of course!
stirring up the benthic mud of abyssal ignorance. But that couldn't be! You have, no doubt, made an extensive study of biology at the graduate or at least the undergraduate level.
Moderator WarningMajorities don't constitute truth. The majority who accept science don't have personal evidence of its truths nor can they prove any of it. And some people do have personal revelation, or guidance from God. A thousand fake dollars don't make a real one fake. False religion doesn't make truth less true.Danmark wrote:the vast majority of believers do NOT base their beliefs on direct revelation;
Agreed.Majorities don't constitute truth.
They don't need it to be personal, but it is available to them if they want. The evidence for things that science has discovered is all around us. Each discovery is built upon and leads to the next. Just consider the technological advances we have made and the knowledge we have gained just over the last century. If it lacked 'truth' then we would not have been able to do all of that.The majority who accept science don't have personal evidence of its truths nor can they prove any of it.
That is a completely unsupported assertion. People may claim such things but there is no way such things can be irrefutably verified.And some people do have personal revelation, or guidance from God.
Establishing which is true is the hard part. If there are a thousand false religions then one has to question how that is possible. Why should anyone accept a religion as true in the face of so many that are false? The reasons given for believing all the allegedly false ones must be compelling for their adherents, but if they are false the reasons can't be valid. That should apply to all religions so there is a definite burden of proof that must be met before anyone can claim to have found the one true religion.A thousand fake dollars don't make a real one fake. False religion doesn't make truth less true.
Generally speaking, religions only differ in externals and secondary beliefs. They agree on the essentials. In fact, religion, in its purest form is not about theology at all. It is about 'The way' or The Tao. It is a way of life and has morality as a central component. What people believe is not the same as what people are and the essence of religion is that it is about being, not abstract beliefs. Differences in beliefs arise because different people formulate their beliefs differently. Is light a wave or a particle or both or something that transcends both? Particles and waves are just descriptions behind which there is a mysterious reality. Likewise religious descriptions seem to say different things but they are only descriptions. Relality is much deeper than outer appearances.brunumb wrote: Establishing which is true is the hard part. If there are a thousand false religions then one has to question how that is possible. Why should anyone accept a religion as true in the face of so many that are false? The reasons given for believing all the allegedly false ones must be compelling for their adherents, but if they are false the reasons can't be valid. That should apply to all religions so there is a definite burden of proof that must be met before anyone can claim to have found the one true religion.
That really doesn't say anything meaningful at all. Please demonstrate that reality is deeper than outer appearances and show how that actually has any impact on our lives.Likewise religious descriptions seem to say different things but they are only descriptions. Relality is much deeper than outer appearances.
Such proof avails of nothing.brunumb wrote: That should apply to all religions so there is a definite burden of proof that must be met before anyone can claim to have found the one true religion.
Then why are you here in the science and religion sub-forum? This is a hasty and emotionally driven sentiment where you react to a call for providing evidence by saying you shouldn't have to. I don't see any reason to take your position anymore seriously than Islam, which also has a ready-made series of excuses for why people don't believe their claims, which just so happens to be an identical series of excuses to Christianity's.ttruscott wrote: I do not take on the responsibility to give you any proof and if GOD wants you to have such proof I gather HE will take that up with you.
The concept of faith tried to arouse and exploit the kind of protective loyalty that we might feel toward loved ones, in whose goodness we trusted. But I realized that the trust we invest in loved ones was based on very different principles. Trusting humans was earned; we believed in the goodness of loved ones because we had direct experience of their goodness. Religious faith was not earned, it was simply demanded based on a stack of bold claims that were never substantiated.
In fact, bizarrely, if direct evidence was ever offered, faith would become instantly redundant. Faith, by its very nature, was forced to reside in the ambiguous, the circumstantial. Relying purely on the believer's conviction that their inferences were correct. Faith differed from trust in another key respect: if a loved one was accused of a transgression that contradicted our good opinion, we'd want to see evidence. In fact we would demand it. But with religious faith, all contradictory evidence was dismissed as invalid right from the start, on the assumption that if you took the time to investigate it properly, it would turn out to be false. It was as I contemplated this last point further, that I experienced one of the creepiest moments in my exploration. When I realized that what I was looking at here, was the perfect system for protecting lies.
Faith required that you believe despite an absence of expected evidence, or despite the presence of conflicting evidence. But how do we detect lies? Through the absence of expected evidence, or the presence of conflicting evidence. The very things that faith demanded we disregard. Any supreme intelligence would know that a system that protected lies so efficiently would lay humans open to just about any conceivable abuse. People could be manipulated to accept all kinds of deceptions. Those who complained about inconsistencies could be silenced by the devastating accusation that their faith wasn't strong enough. No supreme intelligence would entertain such a perverse concept as faith, unless that intelligence itself was perverse.
Generally speaking, religions only differ in externals and secondary beliefs. They agree on the essentials. In fact, religion, in its purest form is not about theology at all. It is about 'The way' or The Tao. It is a way of life and has morality as a central component. What people believe is not the same as what people are and the essence of religion is that it is about being, not abstract beliefs. Differences in beliefs arise because different people formulate their beliefs differently. Is light a wave or a particle or both or something that transcends both? Particles and waves are just descriptions behind which there is a mysterious reality. Likewise religious descriptions seem to say different things but they are only descriptions. Relality is much deeper than outer appearances.brunumb wrote: Establishing which is true is the hard part. If there are a thousand false religions then one has to question how that is possible. Why should anyone accept a religion as true in the face of so many that are false? The reasons given for believing all the allegedly false ones must be compelling for their adherents, but if they are false the reasons can't be valid. That should apply to all religions so there is a definite burden of proof that must be met before anyone can claim to have found the one true religion.
All of that amounts to nothing more than unverified hearsay. Claiming that all these things happened is not evidence. Until it is established as fact it is nothing more than a comic book story made up by superstitious people in an age of ignorance. No one comes to a belief in all that through logic and reason. It is only through indoctrination and the appeal to faith. That applies to all religions.First we have the example of the Israelites to whom the proof was given over and over yet they constantly turned away from HIM. Second, we have the essay in Romans describing how the proof you seek was given to every person ever ceated when they clearly saw the power and divinity of YHWH when HE created the physical universe (verse 20) but repressed that knowledge because they loved sin more than the truth (over and over in the rest of the chapter).
