Losing my religion.

[juju]

Yeah, it seems that OnyxCougar broadened Whit's definition beyond what he meant to say. Not believing in something is the opposite of faith.

But, you know, there are these atheists that run around saying they're "100% positive" there is no God. That's also bologna, and they should be slapped in the face for saying that. They've gone from one extreme to the other! I believe that's what Whit was getting at.

[perth]

Nah, I think I've been drifting this direction for quite some time. Its not like this a sudden shift. I spent a great deal of time questioning why I believed in God, and in the end, the answers weren't good enough.

What it boiled down to was this:

I believed in God because I had always believed in him.

Not the rock-solid foundation one might hope for. So I asked myself why I had always believed in him. That answer made just about as much sense.

Because I wanted to believe. It gave an order to things I couldn't otherwise explain.

Let that one sink in. I believed in comething I couldn't explain to explain things I couldn't explain. So theres my foundation. And lets not assume that I took those answers, accepted them, and bolted out to announce my newly-acquired atheism. You don't rush to conclusions when your soul is on the line.

Conclusion: I don't believe in God. Am I right? Fuck, I don't know. Neither does anyone else, despite their protestations. But at least I am happy with my choice. And make no mistake, I am happy with it. There is a certain amount of freedom of thought that until now I have denied myself. I kind of like the freedom.

I suppose faith in God can be freeing as well, depending on your attitude and situation. But now that I see it from this side, I find religion to generally be limiting, constrictive and somewhat opppressive. But thats just my experience.

[Griff]

Obviously you've got to find your own way, anything else is a copout.

The attitude, seen in some christians, that you are describing, I can do whatever I want because I've been saved so all my actions are justified, is considered, I'm gonna use a bad word here, heresy in Orthodox Christian circles. Faith vs works was a big ongoing argument in the early Church and continues to challenge the individual. Early philosophers spent a lot of paper talking about righteous pagans etc... because of the great intellectual debt owed to non-Christian Greeks. Ideally, we have some combination of those attributes, but for the Catholic Christian especially in protestant America its sometimes easier to blend in than to make the necessary distinction. Anyway, good luck figuring out your path. g

[Elspode]

Originally posted by wolf
Short answer is don't close any doors. Try being spiritual instead of religious for a while, see how it goes for you.

There are many paths to spirit. Some follow conventional beliefs, others esoteric. Some find spiritual fulfillment in the laugh of a child, or the fall of rain, or the light of the new moon, or in silence.

Blessings.

Boy, you can sure tell the Pagan and mostly Pagan around these parts, can't you?

Wolf has hit the proverbial nail on its metaphoric little head, Perth. Do not confuse religion with spirituality. You can experience spirituality through participation in a religion, but it is scarcely a requirement that you do so.

Getting in touch with what you feel is the first step. The second step is understanding why you feel it. The third step is trying to experience the things that make you feel what you want to feel as often as you can.

The last step is using those feelings to search for meaning about you, your life, your universe. Somewhere along that path of discovery, you realize that you are participating in spiritual experiences.

It really doesn't matter what the source of spirit and, by association, spiritual experience, is. The only thing that matters is that you have them, own them and work to understand them. Otherwise, you're just drifting around, waiting for the end to come. Where's the fun in that?

[Whit]

      Thanks for clarifying that for me Juju.
      I believe I touched on this in the thread Perth referenced before but since there's a lot of people here that weren't around back then...

From me, way back:
I'd like to draw a line in the difference between expectation and faith. The difference being faith accepts that something is true and expectation accepts that it is likely. I'm moving on with this if you disagree then I'll have to go back.

      It's kinda like Dave said in the Arnie thread, (I'm not going to quote it exact, just ballpark it) unless you're clairvoyant you don't know the future. Still, I think we can reasonably expect gravity to continue and the sun to rise. I just don't think that's faith.
      In the case of the Theory of Evolution, I expect it did occur. I do not, however, know for sure it did. Also I expect it'll continue to be the "Theory" of Evolution until the missing link is found. Notice that there is discussion of evolution and the Theory of evolution. This is because we can prove scientifically that living stuff evolves. They just haven't met the standard the scientific theory demands to be considered proof that we came from a specific creature. I think the line between evolution and the Theory of evolution gets blurred often. They are related, they are not however, the same. Perhaps the problem is that the Theory of Evolution should be more properly called the Theory of Human Evolution. Of course if living creatures evolve, and humans are living creatures...

[Whit]

From Ep:
Getting in touch with what you feel is the first step. The second step is understanding why you feel it. The third step is trying to experience the things that make you feel what you want to feel as often as you can.

      Isn't it interesting that the first three steps can be done chemically? In a bar for example? Granted the very important last step didn't get quoted here. But I wanted to point out that pure hedonism can seem spiritual. I think maybe this is why. Of course, without the last step it's all empty spiritual calories, but hey the last parts the hard one. We are, after all, largely a culture of momentary gratification. Makes barflys and druggies make a little more sense, eh?

[perth]

Are you suggesting I find myself in a bar? Because if so, thats the best idea I've heard in weeks.

"Hey honey! I'm headed to the bar. For spiritual growth!"

I can't wait.

[juju]

I think we need to define our terms here, because you're starting to confuse me a little.

<u>Evolution</u>: a change in allele frequencies over time. Populations change in their genetic makeup as time passes. This is a fact. This is why the makers of roach motels have to keep changing the type of poison they put in their traps. It's also why we have chihuahuas.

<u>Theory of Evolution</u>: The mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, founder effect, gene flow, etc.

<u>Common Descent</u>: The theory that all life arose from one common ancestor (some believe that this, too, is a fact).

These ideas are all seperate, but linked.

The idea that humans, apes and monkeys all share a common ancestor is born of the above concepts. But finding yet another predecessor of man is unlikely to prove the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

There isn't really a "missing link" anymore, as far as I know. I've looked at the fossils of the transitional species, and it seems to be a pretty clear gradual transformation to me.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by dave
Those supporting evolution have a far greater scientific backing than those supporting creationism, for example (perhaps because evolution actually happened, and Creation is Bull Shit?).

Prove it.

You can't. Nobody can. That's why Evolutionary theory is as valid as creation ideology.

Originally posted by Whit
Also I expect it'll continue to be the "Theory" of Evolution until the missing link is found. Notice that there is discussion of evolution and the Theory of evolution. This is because we can prove scientifically that living stuff evolves. They just haven't met the standard the scientific theory demands to be considered proof that we came from a specific creature. I think the line between evolution and the Theory of evolution gets blurred often. They are related, they are not however, the same.

Evolutionary Theory is a great theory, and one day we may have enough evidence to PROVE it is correct. Until that time, scientists have to qualify remarks with words like "suggests" and "may have been" and "could be caused by".

Now. If we can agree that Evolution is NOT fact, merely a good theory, why is it that most scientists take it as fact, and teach it in our schools?

My thing is this: Until it is proven as fact, I have to take that explanation on scientific guesswork. I have to take it on faith. Doesn't that make The theory of Evolution a religion?

You're asking me to believe events of billions and trillions of years ago happened in just the right way, and we were created by chance...an infinitesmally small percentage...considered to be nil by most people, evolving out of a primordial soup of nutrients. An event that we cannot recreate with all of our technology, even if we mix the right chemicals together and apply energy.

That's faith.

Therefore, Evolutionary Theory is a religion that we are teaching every child, starting from Elementary school. It is not taught as "this is what we think". It is taught as fact. This is what happened. 80 years ago, it was illegal to teach Evolutionary Theory in schools, now it's considered fact. Unprovable, unobservable fact.

And the taxpayers are paying for it. But try to teach religion (specifically Christianity or other religious creation myths), even as a different "theory" and people get all up in arms about religion in schools.

Just think about it. I'm not saying I am a Creationist. I'm also not saying I'm an evolutionist. I'm saying that until we have PROOF either way, we should not be teaching it as fact to our children.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
I'm in agreement with Whit on this one.
Believing in any God is faith.
NOT believing in any God is faith.

I suppose you mean "Believing fervently there is no God", rather than "NOT believing in any God". If you switch it around, what terminology would you use if you have no faith either way? I would say "not believing in any god" is the no faith position.

Believing in creation a la Genesis is faith.
Believing in the Big Bang is faith.
Adam and Eve/Noah and his sons. Faith.
The whole Theory of Evolution is faith.

No, Evolution is fact. The theory of natural selection is theory. The word theory implies a lack of faith and an invitation to challenge.

No one can prove any of it happened, so you have to choose what seems like the best option.

Natural selection is supported by available evidence, and could be disproved, but myths require blind faith. There is a considerable qualitative difference.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Natural selection is supported by available evidence, and could be disproved, but myths require blind faith. There is a considerable qualitative difference.

Let me rephrase.

The theory of evolution being and inclusive of, the Big Bang theory, the theory of star creation, and the creation of our solar system, and of this planet, creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured, then evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it, on this planet.

THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Be careful about confusing the noun(faith) with the transitive verb(faith). That leads to all kinds of misunderstanding.

[OnyxCougar]

Not believing in any god is faith.


faith
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Therefore, if you BELIEVE there is NO god, (which not believing in any god is) then you have faith there is no God.

I stand by the statement.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


Let me rephrase.

The theory of evolution being and inclusive of, the Big Bang theory, the theory of star creation, and the creation of our solar system, and of this planet, creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured, then evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it, on this planet.

THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.

When I went to school all those things WERE taught as theories, especially everything before monkeys. Has that changed?

[Elspode]

Originally posted by Whit
Isn't it interesting that the first three steps can be done chemically? In a bar for example? Granted the very important last step didn't get quoted here. But I wanted to point out that pure hedonism can seem spiritual.

The tricky part of that is not letting the tools become the experience. Shamen and other seekers and practitioners have used substances to obtain insight for millenia. However, if you start making the substance the thing rather than what you learn while using the substance, you are going to miss the goal.

As a recovering drunkard, I think I can speak of this with some certainty. It was only after I stopped drinking that I truly was able to absorb the lessons I learned while being loaded, because when I was a drunk, there was no persepective.

Strangely, not everything I learned from being drunk was bad, believe it or not.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
When I went to school all those things WERE taught as theories, especially everything before monkeys. Has that changed?

Must have. Every textbook I've seen, as a child, and now in my children's books (if you have kids, you should read their textbooks at least once to see what's in them) present the information as fact. Not one of them said, "This is our best guess."

That should be evident here with the people who are saying it is a fact. It's NOT a fact. It's a good idea. It's a great theory. But it is UNPROVABLE. Therefore it has to be believed without evidence. That's religion.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Let me rephrase.

That isn't rephrasing, that's redefining. That's using a definition that no scientist would recognise, let alone accept. But if we use that shorthand, then of course all of that isn't fact, as I stated before.

Evolution, the change of species over time, is an observed fact, verified experimentally.

Natural selection, or "bacterial and other microorganisms ... evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it" is a theory explaining an evolutionary process, not a fact, but is a theory based on available evidence.

Abiogenesis, or "creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured"creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured is likewise a theory. Experiments verify the aminos and enzymes, but no life has been experimentally created.

The big bang theory is also a theory. New data is always coming in, which causes the theory to be adjusted.

THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.

Nothing is provable in science. Only disprovable. And when I pointed out the distinction between evolution and natural selection in the other post, I stated that the natural selection part was not a fact. So obviously evolution + natural selection + abiogenesis + big bang is not a fact.

Therefore, if you BELIEVE there is NO god, (which not believing in any god is) then you have faith there is no God.

There's a difference between not believing in any god, and believing there is no God. The former implies no faith, the latter implies faith.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Webster:
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

You speak of 2, b, 1 ? That makes it faith not religion.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Webster:
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

You speak of 2, b, 1 ?

2b1 and 2b2 and 3.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
There's a difference between not believing in any god, and believing there is no God. The former implies no faith, the latter implies faith.

Both are a belief, and therefore require faith. See webster post by Bruce.

Nothing is provable in science. Only disprovable. And when I pointed out the distinction between evolution and natural selection in the other post, I stated that the natural selection part was not a fact. So obviously evolution + natural selection + abiogenesis + big bang is not a fact.

Exactly. So if it's not a fact, why present it that way, TO THE EXCLUSION of every other possibility? Why not ALSO teach the creation theories of different religious belief systems as well?