Atheism the easy way out?
After skimming most of the front page articles it seems to me that most of the posts here are not about having a debate but rather how Christianity in general is wrong. It is intriguing that there is a crusade for free thinking but this organization is not reaching out to people being held under Sharia Law in the the Middle East, and trying to see them set free from the hand of an even greater tyrant of a God than some seem to believe Jehovah is, or liberating people of tribal religions from cannablism and warfare. I would like to come in contact with the people who really want a debate and would base their information on logic rather than a deep rooted fear, hurt, or anger at Christianity. If you haven't guessed I am a Pentecostal believer in the Ressurection of Jesus Christ and have faith in the atoning blood that was shed on Calvary. I am not here to be converted or to convert others, but to simply fulfill the command to "preach the gospel to every creature". God bless and look forward to reading your comments.
- Login to post comments
Good, glad you didn't run away. But as I warned you better have a thick skin dealing with many of us here. Others may give you more library type responses. But I do pull out my fangs and am quite blunt with my assessments of your claims. That is just me, others will approach you differently. Just treat us all as individuals and you should do fine, and at a minimum at least if you never switch your position, you will at least be able to see us as individuals.
I myself don't like wading through the bible, although I can and have no fear of it. I like to cut to the chase and attack the fantastic claims and the core omnimax attributes of claimed deity. Others here are much more patient in slow deconstruction than I am.
You will get a variety here.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I look forward to having discussions with you Brian because I am tough hided and like you am set in my ways of thinking.
I think i have done a fairly good job so far of treating everyone as individuals except for the misconception I had about the atheist community being an organization and I apologized for that.
I appreciate your honesty about being very aggressive and I will not make up hocus pocus to refute your claims or dig up false information to support mine. I love "wading" through the Bible but a preacher told me one time that throwing scripture around is the best way to turn people off. You have my respect sir, and I look forward to conversing with you more and am here and willing to answer anything to the best of my knowledge.
It's very difficult to have dialogue with people who can't even articulate their thoughts accurately. There's no way to distunguish if it's simply the 'lingo' of their indoctrination, or if they have a learning disability, or arrested development.
Technically, anyone, or any 'organization' that claims they know the 'truth' about exactly when and how biological life began on earth, is a liar, and a fraud.
Anyone, or any organization, that claims they know the 'truth' about exactly what occurred prior to our scientific theories of the Big Bang, is a liar, and a fraud.
Period.
End.
Stop.
As far as 'morals' are concerned, they're subjective. There is no debate about this. It is a fact.
Christians (in particular) and others of Abrahamic based religions claim they want to 'debate' about morals, when really they want to 'lecture' and 'preach'.
There is only their opinions towards behaviours of women, children, other races, cultures, homosexuals, that they can express.
There is only their opinions towards topics like sex, sexuality, sensuality, homosexuality, bi sexuality, monogamy, pornography, abortion, that they can express.
I've never met 1 religious person, I even come close to aligning with on these topics and behaviours.
IME, it's atheists who seem to be the most balanced, and accepting that there can be great diversity, within a society, with minimum need to preoccupy itself, with itself, and it's diversity.
Is not what?
What?
STFU.
Nothing is preventing you from doing something, about anything you feel needs attention. So, fuck off.
The only 'gospel', is the reality of the world that surrounds you.
Perfect.
You could spend your entire lifetime trying to correct all the problems with religious peoples' ideologies and actions, and never have to concern yourself with atheists.
I don't care about what you hope.
You're insignificant, to us.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
It's only the claims, and the dogmas that you people keep alive, that are of concern.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I love the fire! I can deal with all the different kinds and if I have to buck up and bare my teeth and growl at you that is exactly what I will do.
Thanks for showing me and everyone else that Christianity has problems I am not debating that I know that to be fact, in the ministry you deal with it daily. I am not claiming to be a prophet of god sent to convert you or to even preach at you and I thought I made that clear, but apparently you would like to just have a war of words and never get down to discussing things in a civilized manner without insults and cursing.
By saying that atheists are the most balanced and thereby insinuating they are better shows that you have the same attitude towards your group as you say I do about Christians even though I admit that many Christians have major problems.
If I am insignificant why did you spend so much time responding to me? Are my intentions articulated clearly enough, because I want no confusion over what I mean?
Now teeth unclenched and smile back on I extend to you the same respect I extended Brian earlier. Thank you for being true to what you believe I have the utmost respect for people who are not swayed by every new things that passes them by.
As long as you are Jeffersonian in your approach, I don't mind blasphemy aimed at me.
Here is the short version of my position.
Human have always had a history of making up false beliefs and believing them to be fact. I simply reject one more god claim than you do. Understand why you reject all others besides your own, and it should be obvious to you why we reject yours as well.
There is no evidence of a thought occurring outside a material process, thus even the generic claim of a diety/god, much less the biblical claim of a magic super hero with magic super powers, makes any sense to me, not yours, not any, polytheist or monotheist, past or present.
Morally speaking, The claimed head character of the bible reads like a dictator. It gives you no choice, no way out, even for the mere crime (which is not a crime) of not wanting to hang out with him, or not believing in him. He will follow you and stalk you like an abusive spouse or dictator for trying to leave him.
And this cosmic dictator claims he loves you, but gives us a home full of things trying to kill us from the day we are born to the day we die. Birth defects, childhood cancer, flesh eating bacteria, natural disasters, crime and war. Then blames us for the home he didn't have to put us in.
If parents in reality put their kids in a home full of such horrors and CPS found out the kid would be taken away and the parents arrested.
MIND YOU, I am strictly talking about the bible as a book only. I do not believe in any fictional being. To me hating god would be like hating Micky Mouse. But I do hate the fact that people sell such fiction as fact. Same with the Koran and Hebrew texts. Just as I would hate it if you went around trying to sell the earth being flat. Just as if you were claiming Thor makes lighting.
Thats me, I don't waste time. Others here may go into more detail with you. Like I said, I focus on the fantastic claims and the morality issues.
You have a tough road here. Not just with me. We have historians and science geeks that will not back down, even if they are more tame with their interchanges with you.
Welcome to the boxing ring. I am the bad cop, others here may take the good cop approach.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
If you know the earth rotates around the sun, and you have friends who claim the earth is flat, wouldn't you want to say something to correct them?
We spend time here, many as an oasis for us. You came here, remember that. We do welcome you here.
But, in the bigger picture, we take on theism because theism affects the world, not just your god but all theism. If people are going to go around making fantastic claims and then go further and make policies and laws based on those fantastic claims, I think I have every right to challenge those claims, and not just a right, but a duty, if for nothing else, but to prevent absolute power from arising.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
And others will just break your fucking knees with a baseball bat, mob style. hemhemredneFhemhum. Sorry had something in my throat.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
It is not the significance or otherwise of you yourself that is triggering our response, it is the absurdity, as we see it, of your claims.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
STFU, with your rhetoric, and metaphors.
You're ignorant. You can't 'deal' with what you aren't aware of. You can only learn.
You talk too fucking much. That's your problem, and why you're as ignorant as you are about reality.
Are you stupid?
I clearly outlined that religions' attempts to be scientific, are a complete fraud.
Religions attempts at being a philosophical template for 'morality', are inferior than without it's philosophy.
Ancient scriptures are literature that are composites of forgeries. The majority of the aristocrats of the times were immoral and unethical control freak repressive political tyrants who were blood thirsty murderers, bigots, racists, sexually dysfunctional misogynists, and homophobes.
A con artists day is never done.
Good.
Because that would just make the perspective of everything you state, qualify as even more ignorant than an innocent child.
It wouldn't be a fair fight, so I'll just provide you with the facts.
Your perspective is boxed in to a regressive Bronze Age philosophy. Your manners notwithstanding, you are barbaric in your mentality.
You are not my equal, on these topics. Not even close.
Then you contradict your earlier enthusiam about 'I love the fire!' and 'I can deal with all the different kinds'.
Now you've clearly exposed yourself as a liar, and one who does not have a character that is consistent with his claims.
Atheists are born, not 'transformed' as you people are.
You people are a subset, and atheists are a superset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset
You are all atheists to some degree, as there are thousands of god myths and folklores and religious systems.
You're in denial.
Religions are a problem. The 'positive' philosophies of religions, are not the unique purview of religion, thus making religions entirely superfluous.
To make you reflect on your stupidity and ignorance, with the hope that you become more moderate in your delusions.
And to use you as an illustration for others. Both for atheists, and moderates, to become more educated.
There's nothing distinct about you, at all.
You're 'garden variety' as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not a politician. I don't concern myself with being popular. Nor is your respect something I desire, personally.
My concerns are about gathering the most accurate data I can, about reality, and sharing it.
And FYI, I don't respect people just because they breathe. They have to earn my respect with their thoughts and actions.
So far, you are very low on the scale of people I have respect for.
What I believe, is not important to you.
What I can teach you, is; important for you and others like you to understand, acknowledge, and evolve to a higher level of awareness and behaviour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA&feature=related
And stop with the logical fallacy that being pious is a virtue.
It's simply not, nor has ever been the case.
Or the genetic fallacy that the superset of atheism is some kind of 'religion' or homogenous 'philosophy'.
Get educated, already...![](/sites/www.rationalresponders.com/modules/fckeditor/fckeditor/editor/images/smiley/msn/021.gif)
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
You are right, I can learn and am willing to learn. Are you willing to teach me?
How do you know that we are not equal in a discussion setting have you engaged me in one yet to test my merit or have you simply made claims that you have not backed up?
I do not believe that it is to much to ask that I not be subjected to foul language simply because your vocabulary limits you. If I am barbaric for showing humility and you are civilized because you have a potty mouth then I guess I better break out my loin cloth and start rubbing sticks together in order to cook tonight's meal.
Once again you are 100% correct with Atheist's being born while Christians are transformed. I was not born Christian surprisingly enough, I am the only Christian out of my immediate family. My mother is a steadfast atheist who subscribes to the theory of Macro-Evolution and my father who is an agnostic never forced me into any decision unlike many of today's church going young adults. I was never "witnessed" to by a Christian or told anything about Jesus until I read the Bible in order to better fight the Christian, being an extremely adamant atheist at the time when I was hit with the convicting power of the thought of breaking the Law of God,which I was guilty of. I was transformed and I am in the process of being transformed everyday not physically like evolution by spiritually to where I can be of greater service to God.
You cannot convince me that you are greater than me just like I would never suggest that I am greater than you so do us both a favor and save your breathe.
As for earning your respect I was brought up in a culture where regardless of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or belief that respect must be shown regardless of if you get it back.
I will however take you up on your offer for you to teach me I want to "understand, acknowledge, and evolve to a higher level of awareness and behaviour."
don't mind rednef, he's just being an ass as usual.
Here I have to question your honesty, are you really here to learn? in hindsight of what you type further on, I doubt that you're here to apply a critical eye to your position. Myself and others here are always willing to consider relevant peer reviewed material to cast an introverted eye at our position.
Are you willing to consider that you may be deluded, and everything you believe about the bible is a big lie based on an ancient set of superstitions? If not, what are you here to learn? If you provide me with empirical, peer reviewed evidence that god exists, I will join you this Sunday in worshiping this proven god.
Because, believe it or not, you're not the first theist to come on here. Some have presented some very complex logic gymnastics arguments for god, you have been very forthcoming in that you have nothing to offer as proof. While the honesty is refreshing, it puts you at a disadvantage. And you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Facts, as in reality, empirically proven, are what we base our way of thinking on. You base yours on a fairytale, you can see how that's inferior.
As for the potty mouth? wtf? I assure you that redneF's vocabulary is more than adequate to engage you on any topic.
He didn't mean that you were born an atheist because your mom and dad were not christians, he meant EVERYONE is born a-theist, as in non-theistic. Theism is something you do not have at birth, hence we're all atheists... As for you claiming you were an atheist, I doubt very much you have ever reasoned your position. Most everyone here has arrived at their current position by reason, we aren't atheists because it's the thing to do. It would take a little more than a read of the bible to change our position.
If your last line is the truth, you have come to the right place. Sit back, ask questions and listen.![Smiling Smiling](/modules/smileys/examples/001.gif)
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Then become an atheist.
Sure.
Become an atheist, and stop being delusional about reality.
Because you sympathize with theists, duhh...![](/sites/www.rationalresponders.com/modules/fckeditor/fckeditor/editor/images/smiley/msn/021.gif)
You really are clueless, aren't you?
I'm not obligated to justify my conclusions.
I set the bar.
You're an idiot, compared to me.
Period.
It is.
You have no currency with me.
Then piss off.
No shit, Sherlock.
You're an idiot.
There is no macro/micro evolution, other than in your mind. Evolution is change.
Except that you are 'regressing'.
If you are changing, you are evolving. Not all changes are progressive or beneficial in outcomes. Evolution doesn't exclude regressive or detrimental changes.
There has never been evidence of gods. Just myths and folklores.
You're insignificant.
I already explained that to you.
Do you have selective hearing and memory?
Then what are you complaining about?![](/sites/www.rationalresponders.com/modules/fckeditor/fckeditor/editor/images/smiley/msn/021.gif)
I said I can share with you.
Not that I would share with you.
If you want to learn, there's a thing called the internet, and there's a neutral state of mind, called 'atheism'.
Stop looking for excuses for why you're so ignorant, and delusional, and not neutral and skeptical of fraudulent scientific claims, and intellectually bankrupt philosophies and fraudulent 'Intellectual Property' claims.
You have no logical excuses for those.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Macro and micro evolution are the same process - macro-evolution simply refers to the results of micro-evolution continued long enough to lead to more obvious changes.
There has been no process or mechanism detected which would stop 'micro' evolution at some any point simply because any further change would take it too far from some 'reference' form.
Macro-evolution is a fact, not a theory. The Theory of Evolution refers to the details of how evolution proceeds, what are the underlying mechanics of it.
In any case, accepting evolution does not require you to abandon belief in God.
It would make it difficult to believe the Earth is only 6000-10000 years old.
Do you believe in a literal Noah's flood?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Redmeption,
There have been many times when Christians felt compelled to spread the "word". Take a look at the Crusades and the Inquisition. Christians and Muslims have taken more lives in the name of their God than any disease, famine, or political war. We are not apathetic or indifferent to the struggles of the world. Atheists are capable of feelings and empathy.
Feel free to share and post. But, keep this in mind, if you are not here to be converted, or convert others, then it isn't neccessary to preach the gospel. That shows an apparent lack of logic.
I live my life without fear. I do not need the threat of an imaginary hell to make me a good person.......
Be prepared, very prepared for very harsh skepticism.
Believing in God does not make you logical in any way. It makes you irrational in every way. Your belief is based of faith, not proof. If you truly knew, or had any real evidence of any kind that what you believe is true, you wouldn't need faith. It would just be.
Feel free to ask any question that you might have, concerning anything you would like to debate. I will gladly apply my soon to be masters degree in Philosophy and the stone cold logic that frees me from religious bondage.
Welcome to the forum.
mr. O
"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."
Friedrich Nietzsche
All humans ARE equal. We are all born, we all live, we all eat, we all shit, we all pee, we all die. NONE of us are special, not me, not you, that makes us equal.
HOWEVER not all claims are equal.
1. Cars run on pixy dust
2. Cars run on gas
You can believe 1 all you want, but it is not equal to 2.
We are all entitled to our own opinions, we are NOT entitled to our own facts.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Time and time again I face the Inquisition and Crusades as a talking point on the moral bankruptcy of Christianity. This is like saying that because an Indian guy killed an Eskimo all Indians hate Eskimos. I do not condone the actions of the Inquisition or the Crusades that is a point that I will fight till I turn blue in the face. I cannot be held accountable for things other people do in the name of the gospel I can only hold up my end of the bargain and follow the thing that I believe in to my fullest ability. My heart goes out to all of those persecuted by Christians but if you look at the "Christians" in question what attributes of Christ are they showing?
I have no problem whatsoever accepting skepticism or even criticism but blatant attacks on my intelligence before you get to know me are out of the realm of rational things to do.
My belief is based totally on faith, but in an odd way so is your belief. How many times has science been proven wrong. How many times do ideas change and systems get overhauls. You put your faith in different things than I do, but just because you books are written in the modern day and mine was written 2000 years ago doesn't mean that yours can't be just as wrong as you think mine is.
I accept your welcome and am compiling a list of questions that I will get around to start asking in the next few days.
You've done nothing but whine about it.
Still whining...
Which is stupid. Ask anyone who's never made it through a minefield.
What universal laws that science has proven, that we currently have, are wrong?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Nicely said, and I love your analogy of the Indian guy killing an Eskimo... which is a fallacy on many levels. The inquisition is not an aberration of biblical teachings, it is an actualization of following the bible to it's literal interpretation, and cherry-picking what they thought relevant, much like you are doing. They used the same book to draw on that you are using, you see nothing wrong with that? How does your analogy stack up now? Please do fight that till you turn blue in the face.
I don't agree with the intelligence ad hominem attacks. I would comment on the clarity of your thinking, however. You believing this crap doesn't necessarily make you stupid, but it does make you gullible, and stupid is such an all encompassing word.
Ok I take back what I said about the ad hominem being invalid. You probably should have left the last paragraph out if you want people to believe you're intelligent. I look forward to your mind-blowing questions.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Lol. I'm not sure if you're in a position to make that comment, redneF.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Most of humanity once thought the Earth was flat (some still do...), but in discovering that the Earth was actually roughly spherical, it technically wouldn't be correct to say that "science" was "proven wrong." It's a category error in the first place. Science is not a claim or set of claims, but the process we utilize to explore reality via reason and empirical evidence. You could only mean that our knowledge of reality is often corrected and improved, which is, of course, true.
Also, we can guess the unjustified assumptions made by the people who regarded the world as flat. Obviously, the Earth appeared to be flat, but really, a round surface of sufficient size is indistinguishable from a flat surface if you're a tiny speck on that surface, so they simply concluded that the Earth is flat because it's more intuitive.
Can we still be wrong? Of course. We could be wrong about almost everything; we could be brains in vats or in the matrix etc., but this doesn't make it necessary for us to have "faith." We can simply admit it when we can be wrong and when we don't know something. Additionally, we can judge the likelihood of something being true, and we can do things simply for their pragmatic value.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
What's really amusing about that, is that in real life, I'm such a good listener, and don't interject, that it makes people uncomfortable.
IME, it freaks out a large percentage of people when you're really contemplating everything they're saying...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I'm not sure if you mean what Brian means, Redemption. With fresh empirical evidence, Brian would change his position on a dime, whereas you....
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Scientific theories continually are refined, adjusted, tending to become ever more closely corresponding to reality, as checked by repeated and various observations and experiment.
So every time a particular theory is found to be flawed, it is replaced by a more accurate one.
When a scientific theory is found to be wrong, it is rarely totally wrong.
At any given time, the currently accepted theory is accepted precisely because it does match reality to a useful degree. IOW it is almost certainly as good or better than any alternative ideas from outside science, such as the beliefs of religion, or the writings of scripture. So even at he beginning of what could be called science, it was at least as accurate, and almost certainly more accurate than the Bible.
For instance, the fact that the Earth was a sphere had been determined, and its circumference relatively accurately measured, for the time, around 200 BCE, by Eratosthenes. While the Bible still had God showing someone the 'four corners of the Earth from the top of a mountain, which is impossible on a spherical Earth.
Science left Biblical ideas of the Universe way behind long ago, even with very early theories which are known to be inaccurate.
Genesis in particular, is completely wrong about just about everything.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
My question would be that what makes your "facts" better than mine. If your purpose is to rid the world of dogma's and false information that have people follow non-existent dietys, how do you justify spreading false information when science has been wrong?
I was told earlier that you can't pick your facts, however by stating that you change your theorys constantly aren't you changing what you accept to be fact? If my theorys stay firm while yours change doesn't that make mine more reputable?
When you only accept things that fit the world to a "useful degree" aren't you to picking and choosing what you believe can and will happen?
The idea of the world being spherical wasn't just a church belief it was church backed but many scientist believed it to be true as well and people generally accepted that idea that it was flat once it was discovered you weren't going to fall off the edge of the world. There are always going to be the loonies that hold on to the old ways and still believe that earth is flat, but that does not represent the mindset of the majority of Christians.
Redemption? What sort of proof changed the minds of the faithful?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Because science never states that the current view is "right" or "wrong". At most it says that "<x> is correct based on the information we currently have."
If new evidence comes, the view can be confirmed, refined or scrapped if needed. Dogmatically held views don't and can't be that flexible.
Fitting the world to a useful degree is the best anyone can do (even with gods and holy books). The difference is that most of us acknowledge that we do that. Theists tend to make their beliefs fit the world while insisting that they don't and can't because their version of God is immutable.
The church once wielded great political and economic power. Scientists tended to go along with Church dogma because they knew not doing so jeopardized their livelihood. Remember what happened to Galileo.
You acknowledge that there are things in the Bible that are incorrect - good on you. What standards do you use to make that decision on the rest of it?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No, your belief is based on ignorance and credulity. We don't base our position on ancient myth anymore than you default to Thor makes lighting because you observe lighting.
Dont confuse the tool with the person using the tool.
Scientists are people. Scientific method is the tool.
If you build a house and use a sledge hammer to paint the wall, you are using the tool wrong.
Ethical scientists LOVE, or should love to be proven wrong. When they do such, they discard bad data with better data. So it is important to get the method right otherwise any lagit data will get fucked up in the wrong usage of the method and your outcome will be equally fucked up. Just like you would not paint a wall with a sledge hammer.
Newton got some things right, but his alchemy was rightfully discarded.
Now, when I say "ignorance and credulity", I am not attacking YOU, I am saying that what you buy into was merely sold to you, it was not tested or falsified. Your myth was written when humans did not know that virgin births were not possible. It was written when we did not know what DNA was. It was written when people did not know what rigor mortis was.
Much like the the Egyptians wanted so badly to believe that the sun was a god that cared about them. They were brilliant people as far as building and made beautiful artwork and monuments. But however smart they were did not make the sun a god.
We now know that what the sun IS in reality, not because of naked assertions or ancient myth, but because of empirical scientific method.
You are merely living in the past clinging to a super hero motif because the idea of having a magical super protector as a placebo is easier to swallow than actually testing and falsifying to insure quality of data.
DO NOT take my blasphemy of your claims personally. If you claimed that Ouija Boards worked, my condemnation of such a claim would be the same. If you claimed that Big Foot was real, my condemnation would be the same. If you claimed Vishnu was real, my condemnation of such a claim would be the same.
These are merely superstitions people like to believe. There is no way to test or falsify such claims.
Claims are like assholes, everyone has one. And with all the competing claims around the world there is only ONE universal way to settle these competing claims, scientific method.
And to warn you before you respond. WE ARE NOT DISPUTING HUMAN RIGHTS, I am merely addressing anyone's ability to universally demonstrate the credibility of a given claim. Human rights are not the issue, facts are the issue and how we as a species go about testing data to insure the quality of the data.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I do not believe the Bible is incorrect. I believe that everything in it is correct, but I am not well-versed enough to answer every question making me at fault not the Bible.
Theists are people as well. Faith is our tool.
I am not claiming that the scientific method is invalid just that I do not use that to make decisions concerning my morality. Science and Morality should be completly seperate because if they are not the results would be skewed. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have one or the other just that they should be seperate.
No matter how hard you say you don't believe in God he will always be there to believe in you.
When you discard your "facts" so easily though it shows that you never actually had the, for lack of a better word, faith in your data. You claim I spout things from the Bible out of faith then you turn around and spout numbers at me that were reported to you by a HUMAN who makes mistakes and could have false information. It doesn't bother you that you are hypocritical in your assumptions that your numbers and reports are correct even though they are proved wrong daily?
Mine are measurable. Maybe I personally don't own the equipment necessary to measure it - I don't own a laboratory - but a number of people have measured a particular fact and have verified that it is what it is.
Scientific facts are repeatable. Different labs in different areas of the world get results that are the same. When a scientific theory is proposed or changed, it is examined by other scientists to see that it fits with the known facts and the reasoning is sound.
When we have new measuring equipment, we may have new information. And then we apply that new understanding to what we thought we knew. And then we may change our theories. But it isn't based on our "beliefs" or "desires" or "faith".
There have been no independently verifiable measurable effects of any deity/deities. Usually, claims by believers have been determined to be confirmation bias, mass hysteria, wishful thinking, out right fraud, a local phenomenon that has a scientific explanation, or some combination of same.
I have never understood the appeal of an unchanging world view. The world changes, constantly. Why would anyone want to live anywhere but in the real world. After all, what really happens is what you have to deal with, not what you want to have happen or not happen.
Call me a pragmatic realist - reserving the right to be a realistic pragmatist on alternate Tuesdays.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Faith is not a tool, it is a cop out. It teaches you to be satisfied without testing to insure quality of data.
AND AGAIN, do not make this out to be a personal attack on you. This is about WHY humans should not rely on "faith".
Is the sun a thinking being? NO, it is not. Think about how much quicker humanity might have gotten if the Egyptians had not settled on the sun being a god and insisted instead, on trying to find out what it really was. That credulity kept humanity away from the truth.
If we always went on what feels good instead of testing the claims we utter, humans would still believe that the earth was flat.
I do not find "faith" as any type of tool, but an excuse not to investigate.
And again, this is not a human rights issue. This is a pragmatic issue on HOW we should go about finding truth as a species. It is about using something that is universal and filters out personal bias.
"faith" is merely going with what feels good. Real challenges in life lead you where they go, not where you want them to go.
No matter the claim, even outside the issue of religion, if all you have is a claim ON ANY ISSUE, and you have no way to test or falsify the claim, it remains a claim. "faith" teaches you not to insure the quality of the data. It is merely relying on wishful thinking.
It is because humans in the past decided to challenge set norms, set beliefs and set traditions and actual test things to see what was really going on, that our species progressed.
What is more important to you, your belief, or finding the truth?
If you can accept other people's god/s are made up, I would suggest that maybe the truth is that you are merely a victim of buying a fictional utopia, like those utopias claimed by others that you reject yourself.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
... speechless, you bring so many good points to the table. There is one tinny flaw in your thinking... WTF? my brain started to hurt after the first paragraph, and than intensified after the second, it was really painful by the end...
Ok, Let's take gravity. It is a fact, you can easily test it. The scientific theory describing it may change, but that doesn't change it, gravity. Science is a tool to describe what we empirically experience with our senses, what we hold as scientific theories are not guesses. Do me a favour and wiki 'theory' and 'scientific theory'. What you claim is silly at best, criminally ignorant at worst. Please read a little on theory.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Firstly, you are confusing 'facts', ie what we can observe and measure, with 'theories', ie our attempts to explain those observations.
We both have the same facts.
The explanations of Science for why things appear as they do are better that yours because they have been checked and tested by every means anyone can think of, and are still only accepted as the best current explanation, not as 100% 'right'.
We do NOT, or should not, teach scientific theories as being 'right', or absolute 'truth', just that they are the best explanations and interpretations of the 'facts ' that we have been able to come up with so far. Proper understanding of science is that we do not and may never know the 'ultimate' truth behind everything.
So we should always say when 'spreading' scientific knowledge, just how confident we are about its accuracy, and be able to say what are the main tests, experiments, that have established it as the best current picture of reality. And if there are other theories around, that offer alternative explanations, and that we haven't been able to invalidate, that may still possibly turn out to be better explanations after we have done more tests, maybe with better instruments, we should tell people that too.
If there is some area which we currently have no plausible explanations for, we say "we don't know why that happens", rather that just making stuff up, like "God did it".
We don't pick our facts, we select our theories, our explanations for those facts. Some theories eventually are so well 'proven', that we treat them as 'facts', like the fact that the Earth is very close to being spherical in shape, and goes around the Sun, even though those were once both just theories, and not generally accepted.
We 'pick and choose' our theories based on what best fits the facts and observations. What is the alternative?
The problem with the religious approach to 'knowledge' is that it is based on a combination of personal 'revelation', and authority, neither of which are valid paths to knowledge, as compared to observation, experiment, and testing.
The idea of the world being spherical wasn't a church belief at all in the beginning, it did believe it was flat, even after other people had shown it to spherical by measurement and observation. Evidence showing it was curved included the way the masts of ships progressively disappeared below the horizon, and how vertical posts cast different length shadows at noon in places where one was further north than the other. Measurement of the different length shadows was used to come up with a surprisingly close figure for the diameter of the Earth. All well before anyone had travelled far enough out to sea to show there was no 'edge'.
Science, or the early philosophy that was what passed for science back then, has known the Earth was a sphere for over two thousand years.
Even the Church generally accepted a round Earth early in its history, but still centuries after 'science' had, but many, including Saint Augustine, still believed it was impossible that anyone could actually live on the far side of the Earth, for many reasons. We know that this was indeed quite wrong.
What was a longer standing error, that the Church clung to despite clear evidence, was that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and that everything else revolved around it.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
1. So you believe that your facts are better than our facts but you don't know your facts well enough to answer questions. Ok, I can understand that.
2. Faith seems to be the only tool that forbids one from using all the other tools needed to gain knowledge.
3. No one uses the scientific method to make moral decisions. Why make such a BS implication?
4. God believes in me so much that he doesn't care enough to extend me the courtesy of giving me a reason to believe in him?
5. There is nothing wrong with discarding "facts" when new evidence falsifies them. As others have mentioned, facts are the lowest coin that science trades in. As for spouting information from other humans, who do you think wrote the Bible? If it was God, why did he get so much (that in his omniscience should know) wrong?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I had a sudden realization. I cant afford to bet against this. If he is right, I am screwed.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm tired of arguing. Maybe there is a God. The fact is we don't have any evidence, nor any reason to NOT believe in a god. Redemption could be right; and then what, I'll be in church this weekend, just in case. The local Priest is oing to be some shocked. May 21 is getting closer, I hope I have enough time before the possible rapture; did anyone else check their calanders?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
I also checked the calendar and know what today is.
Going to church?
Yeah right.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Your theme, atheism the easy way out is far from the reality of the situation.
In what way do you think being an atheist is easy in this society?
Why is it that you think the bible is correct?
Have you actually studied it?
Compared it to the supposed history it claims?
Your assertion in regard to the god always being there is as valid as Enki always being there. Enki in the Sumerian god beliefs was the god who was considered to be the one that cared about man.
The Bible is an interesting collection of writings but it was obviously the product of HUMAN construction as all ancient writings. As with other human creations from the ancients who lacked full understanding of the world they lived upon, it has many errors and problems throughout. The problem with it compared to science and learning, is it is locked in to what was written by unknown men 2 thousand years ago in another time and culture. There are issues of translation, understanding connotation, context, cultural meaning that are not always understood. Their lack of knowledge played a major part in their beliefs, as with all of the religious beliefs. It must be the god who caused the wind to blow, lightning, floods, volcanoes, etc.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Atheism may not be the socially easy way out but it is for sure the easy way out spiritually. Would you ignore an alternate road to work that took the same time and was the same distance but was smoother than the route you take now? Simply ignoring spirituality does not make you exempt from it, I heard a guy on Fox news yell loudly one time "We have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM it" and he made sense for a split second then went back to crazy yelling guy.
The Bible is correct in my eyes because I have applied the scriptures to my life and the blessings that are promised are now a part of my daily life. I do not base my faith solely on the fact that God does good things for me. My favorite scripture is Phillipians 3:10 " That I may now Him and the power of his ressurection, and the fellowship of His sufferings being made conformable unto His death" I know that I am going to come under persecution and have trials but I know that the blessing of God is upon my life even when I cannot see it.
I have studied it quite extensively. I have a concordance that shows the meanings of words in Greek and Hebrew as well as Aramaic. If there is anything you would want me to analyze for you to show you that I know what I am talking about I would be gald to.
The road you think you are on is a road to no where. How do you know that a road without an invisible friend is not smooth? Did you come to be a believer due to something caused by a significant emotional event?
I am exempt from spirituality in that I can walk away when the believers rant on, listen to an MP3 when the opening of an event has a prayer, or think about my budget, design a new device etc. In the same way, you ignore the street walkers, crack dealers, and porn shops. You can ignore them, but you aren't exempt from them either. You don't have to use their services and do not have to patronize them just like I don't have to patronize places that include religion as part of the situation.
I personally don't care what someone believes, your choice to think you will spend eternity praising the god, or becoming one if you were Mormon, or return for another try if you were Hindu.
You came here to exercise the need to "teach all nations", I do understand. Perhaps you can learn something while you are here if you stay awhile.
OK, tell me prior to the New Testament where Satan fell from Heaven, along with his angels. Where is the war in heaven in the OT?
Also what is your opinion or view on Genesis, especially the creation and fall? Is it literal, a parable, a fable, an incorporation of various myths and stories?
Do you believe in original sin or like the Jews that man is born with a pure soul and can return it to the god in the same condition?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Just because you find utility in something doesn't mean it's without error. There are many models and analogies that are wrong but nonetheless useful, and sources of information that are often incorrect yet amazingly useful.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Any model, postulation or claim, ON ANY SUBJECT, even outside god claims or religion, that is only protected by taboos and tradition is worthy of scorn. Truth can withstand having the shit kicked out of it and can be independently verified beyond personal bias.
Unless one is willing to hand their claims over to outsiders to be kicked around, all they are protecting is their ego.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Satan falling is never spelled out in that manner to my knowledge.
In Job we are told angels were created before the creation of the Earth, and Satan was in the Garden so he must have fallen from grace before God created Man. Job
Revelation 12 where it talks about the angels defeating Satan with the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony is the best example in the literal (Rev. 12:10). But if you want to get into pre-NT interpretations there is a great example of it in Isaiah 14 where there is a war with the Kings of Babylon and Tyre that there is a exerpt about in the Dake's study bible that scholars believe symoblizes a literal war told in parable to explain the war between God and Satan.
I believe that the 7 days of creation were not literal twenty-four hour time periods because God is not bound by human's view of time these 7 days could be any length of time. No, I do not follow the idea that they were 1000 years each and that when we get to the 7000th year of creation is when the Rapture will be that is speculation with no Biblical support that I have found. The earth very well could be billions of years old it is not my place to speculate.
As for the fall from grace I believe it to be a literal scenario where man willfully turned his back on God and thus creating the need for this conversation.
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5 speaks for itself.
That is why claims should be tested not blindly accepted.
What you want is the same thing every other person uttering a naked assertion wants. You want everything to automatically equal a 50/50 proposition. Not based on empirical method, but on the emotional appeal to the sense of fairness.
You are mistaking the right to claim something WHICH WE ALL HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE, to the ability to go beyond personal bias and demonstrate the credibility of the claim to those outside your own bias.
Scientific method is not concerned with Allah exiting vs Jesus existing vs the universe being a giant brain itself, vs Big Foot existing.
Scientific method isn't about your claims or my claims. It is a tool humans use to make sure data isn't being infected with our own personal bias.
No, you prefer that no one question or test your claims because if you were wiling to look in the mirror, that would be a bruise to your ego when you find out you didn't get it right.
Claims are not protected by ego, they are verified by getting the shit kicked out of them by independent sources and still come out even after having the shit kicked out of them.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Sure, we don't judge the truth of ideas about the way the universe and life actually IS on moral considerations.
BUT we certainly should take into account what we know about both the nature of broader reality AND what we now understand about human psychology in making moral decisions.
Science is how we gain knowledge and understanding, morality is about how we interact with other people so as to maximize our own and others 'well-being'.
We all experience what you call 'spirituality', it is a kind of state of mind and way of contemplating life that is an important part of most people's life experience.
Religion feeds of our native feelings of awe and wonder and empathy toward others, and distorts them, with delusional myths and crazy 'rules' involving threats and bribes of Hell and Heaven.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I agree
No, what I want is what I stated. And the phrase "naked assertion" is rather overused.
Not really. Nice assumption though.
Ok, nice of you to point this out. I wasn't aware this was a point of contention.
No. I prefer what I said I prefer. I'm pretty sure you don't get to dictate my thoughts, opinions, and preferences. I believe I'm the only one with the authority to do that.
Try again.
ciarin.com
I agree, except for the part about "involving threats and bribes of hell and heaven". My belief system does not include such things.
ciarin.com
Thanks for making your views known.
1-In regard to Satan, you are correct that Satan is not shown falling from the god's grace. In Job, he is indicated still to be a servant of the god. He goes to and fro along with the other angels. He acts as a prosecutor angel. Jews see him in this way. He can be in the god's presence and does his bidding. This is a far cry from the Satan depicted by many religious writers, hiding from the god's sight as he can't be near such good. Nor supposedly could the god be in the presence of pure evil. The conclusion being the stories that the one called Satan is evil is of Christian origin.
In Genesis 6, expanded upon in the Book of Enoch, there are angels (sons of god) that have taken up with the daughters of man. In fact, the leader was not Satan but was if I remember correctly was Azazeel who is bound and held upon the Earth. Enoch details the punishment dealt to these 'watchers' who sinned against the god, including the female angels. See 1 Enoch. This is the earliest mention of angels rebelling and Satan/Lucifer is not involved. The book of Enoch is dated to the 2nd century BCE.
2-Jews unlike Christians do not believe in original sin, hence nothing to be atoned for to the god. Each individual can return his soul to the god in the same pureness it was received.
3-The Adam/Eve story is considered a parable by many Jews, and is even considered as metaphorical as possibilities by the RCC. No where prior to the garden incident is Satan mentioned. In the garden, the snake is not Satan in Jewish understanding, it is a snake. It is Christians that turned the snake into Satan/the Devil.
4-Isaiah 14 was the prophet speaking against the countries that invaded Judah/Israel. Both Assyria and later babylon came to Palestine to extract booty on a yearly basis. The threat found in regard to Babylon being wiped off the face of the Earth did not come to pass. Babylon was taken by Cyrus and later was the city from which Alexander ruled his empire. Saddam was excavating and rebuilding it. The city itself is in the desert now, and could not become "swampland". The city was not swept away in destruction, in the end it just faded out.
I do not see symbolism here to the alleged by Christians war between the god and the Satan.
I was not asking about Revelation, I know what is in it, I wanted you to stay with the basis or the god belief in the OT. The events in Revelation have not and had not happened by the time of the Jesus.
As I see the Genesis story as one of many myths/legends/parables from the ancients I don't see it as a fall from grace. It is one of many various ancient stories how man was created, the god/s become rejected, man loses/or never obtains infinite life.
As my Avatar shows, Blasphemy/Sin against the gods are victimless crimes.
The RCC, Catholics consider evolution as a likely possibility on how the god made the Universe, even the current pope. In the past this was not the case, but the RCC has had to face the reality that science has shown that Genesis' creation story is not likely literal It is a bit hard to talk away the evidence even for them.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Claims that are the most correlated to reality are always "better" in the sense that they are the most likely to be true.
"Dogma" generally describes systems of unquestionable principles, so scientific theories are not dogma in that there isn't even supposed to be any bias on theories being true or false, other than what the available empirical evidence suggests.
In a sense, we are changing what we accept as fact, although we never claimed 100% certainly. Why shouldn't we? If new evidence appears that proves the very opposite of something we currently accept, then we should follow that. We value reality more than our beliefs. But, I think you are exaggerating the amount of revising in science. You sort of imply that we dramatically change our beliefs every time something new pops up, but this is not the case, and it is simply not possible in practice. If you agree that there is one reality, then our knowledge must always be improving as we gather more information. It is essentially impossible at this point for any of our well established theories to be completely wrong; they are always at least very good approximations or hold a lot of pragmatic value. E.g. even if Newtonian mechanics is not technically correct, the rules are such excellent approximations for practical everyday calculations, that it would be pointless to use relativity; you would only have to do a lot more work.
The theories that are the most reputable should be the ones that appear to best match reality. Clinging to theories without any regard for evidence and reason is the exact opposite of what we should do. Just because you believe it very strongly and you've believed it for a really long time doesn't make any more justified than a theory that has only been held by someone for five minutes. If this were the case, how do you strongly disagree with people who regard the Earth as flat? Obviously, it's because the Earth does NOT appear to be flat! What matters is what seems to be true.
If you want it call it "choosing," sure. But, if you don't "choose" to believe what is useful and fits the world, then what you choosing? Then, you're just choosing arbitrary religious beliefs and whatever works as a psychological crutch.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
If any 'religion' is not doing that, and not motivating people by promises of some reward beyond this life, or this world, IOW something than can never be really demonstrated in advance, then OK.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology