I don't get it... no really

[jimtaylor]

There is no room for logic in their faith. Their conviction has to be absolute or else the whole world will come crashing down or so the believe. They can't see anything else because if so it would rise doubt in everything they claim to be true. As kgal said, it's driven by the fear of being wrong. If they are wrong about that then they could be wrong about all of it. What do humans naturally do when they are afraid? They either become aggressive or they seek safety. Her safety was to take strength from others of her faith. Instead of addressing the fear like a rational adult she tried to smother it with a child like insecurity. I have no issue with the belief in god or gods or any of that until I hear stories like this. People like this scare the shit out of me because they have no ability to think and are easily manipulated into actions that; for lack of a better word, are insane.

 

[TheDoctor]

If that's the case then there's no need to interject in front of a crowd, is there?

I mean, what do we call that?

It's all faith until somebody says the wrong thing. Then it becomes definite, doesn't it. When somebody is talking about the age of mountains and another stands up and says it doesn't account for the Great Flood and makes things look older than they are, what exactly do we call that?

It is called two opposing belief systems.

You obviously feel that your belief is the one that is correct because it makes the most sense to you (and likely too because it's considered common knowledge). This is good because I would be concerned otherwise. More than likely you have not studied the opposing belief in depth. Wikipedia does not count. And there are plenty of modern "scientific" things which get wrong explanations or explanations which do not account for other factors. For example the formation process of coal supposedly taking millions of years. Just look up Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) and Mt. St. Helens.

It may do people some good to realize science is not as clear cut as they assume. Just because one person or a group of people decide something is correct doesn't mean it isn't, it only means it is considered the most "logical" explanation at the time by the majority of that group.

 

[TheDoctor]

Why would he do that?

Why wouldn't he?

 

[MrDoobie]

Why wouldn't he?

Because any purpose God would have for doing this is either A) manipulative and mean-spirited ("God is testing our faith") or B) unknown, unknowable, or otherwise beyond human understanding. Both options lead to questions such as "why worship him at all?", "do we even know anything about God?", "can we ever truly know anything about God?", and/or "do we even want/need to know anything about God?"

It may do people some good to realize science is not as clear cut as they assume. Just because one person or a group of people decide something is correct doesn't mean it isn't, it only means it is considered the most "logical" explanation at the time by the majority of that group.

Yet what is considered scientific "fact" is open to change and peer review based on new observations about the world around us. It's a part of learning. What we are talking about is just simply believing something contrary to the evidence at hand because of your interpretation of the holy book of the religion of your choice.

Who knows, maybe Young Earth Creationists really ARE right. Or maybe current scientists are right. Or maybe Stephen King is right and the world was vomited up by a giant godturtle. Maybe we're in the Matrix. Have you ever heard, "you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first"? It's kind of similar to that.

 

[Apone]

And there are plenty of modern "scientific" things which get wrong explanations or explanations which do not account for other factors. For example the formation process of coal supposedly taking millions of years. Just look up Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) and Mt. St. Helens.

I know that it's probably a mistake to point this out, but anyone who uses the whole 'you can't prove that' argument doesn't actually understand what science is.

 

[TheDoctor]

I know that it's probably a mistake to point this out, but anyone who uses the whole 'you can't prove that' argument doesn't actually understand what science is.

All I'm saying is the "science is perfect" argument doesn't work. If you believe people are ignorant, then let them be ignorant in your eyes. Even if they insist on it. Tolerance seems to only be a one way street. Don't bitch about people's beliefs and not expect a response back. Especially when there is an absolute refusal to say "hey, this is what I believe, but I will let you believe what you want".

 

[Apone]

All I'm saying is the "science is perfect" argument doesn't work.

I really don't think that there are any scientists in the world who are making this argument. Science is about working with what is known until it's proven wrong. It's about not jumping to conclusions until you've actually looked into whether or not what you're saying is likely, can be proven, can be disproven, is logical, etc. If someone knows for a fact that something seems highly improbable or completely wrong, then they won't work with it-- this is why so many scientists don't accept the Bible, or at least the literal interpretations of it-- because it's just so ridiculously improbable.

And I looked up your 'friend':

http://creationwiki.org/Steve_Austin

It seems he is respected by a lot of Young Earth Creationists… not so sure about legitimate scientists, however. Let me guess: this great scientist has also proven evolution to be wrong, and has also discovered that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

 

[sprinkles]

It is called two opposing belief systems.

You obviously feel that your belief is the one that is correct because it makes the most sense to you (and likely too because it's considered common knowledge). This is good because I would be concerned otherwise. More than likely you have not studied the opposing belief in depth. Wikipedia does not count. And there are plenty of modern "scientific" things which get wrong explanations or explanations which do not account for other factors. For example the formation process of coal supposedly taking millions of years. Just look up Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) and Mt. St. Helens.

It may do people some good to realize science is not as clear cut as they assume. Just because one person or a group of people decide something is correct doesn't mean it isn't, it only means it is considered the most "logical" explanation at the time by the majority of that group.

Actually no, I don't think mine is correct. It's just useful in the framework of what I actually have access to.

I'm a Discordian. Nobody is correct - not even Discordians.

 

[Tin Man]

I don't get it... no really

If you don't understand without an explanation, you won't understand with one.

I'm not responding to your thread, I just wanted to post something mystical and ambiguous.

 

[SealHammer]

All I'm saying is the "science is perfect" argument doesn't work. If you believe people are ignorant, then let them be ignorant in your eyes. Even if they insist on it. Tolerance seems to only be a one way street. Don't bitch about people's beliefs and not expect a response back. Especially when there is an absolute refusal to say "hey, this is what I believe, but I will let you believe what you want".

Hey, it's great that you're getting into this, but manufacturing an argument to rail against is silly. Nobody who actually knows what they're talking about has ever made the argument that science is the be-all, end-all of knowledge. Near as I can tell, the only claim that was made in this thread was that faith is absurdity - and that was only explicitly stated by Lerxst. Otherwise, you've basically started an argument out of thin air.

 

[TheDoctor]

Hey, it's great that you're getting into this, but manufacturing an argument to rail against is silly. Nobody who actually knows what they're talking about has ever made the argument that science is the be-all, end-all of knowledge. Near as I can tell, the only claim that was made in this thread was that faith is absurdity - and that was only explicitly stated by Lerxst. Otherwise, you've basically started an argument out of thin air.

I'm not trying to manufacture an argument. My whole issue was the, essentially, calling people stupid because of their faith without talking to them. I myself strongly believe in science and I strongly believe in the Bible. I do not condone ignorance for ignorance sake. Whether you believe in a god, gods, or nothing, all of it requires some type of faith.

 

[sprinkles]

I'm not trying to manufacture an argument. My whole issue was the, essentially, calling people stupid because of their faith without talking to them. I myself strongly believe in science and I strongly believe in the Bible. I do not condone ignorance for ignorance sake. Whether you believe in a god, gods, or nothing, all of it requires some type of faith.

Well, take a look at Job, eh? God allowed his faith to be tested. Everything he had was lost, then when he became ill and had boils he was accused of being unfaithful. His peers even asked him what he could be doing wrong, saying that he'd been just too good so he must be sinning somewhere and that God must be punishing him.

So what if all of this is just according to plan in the long run?

 

[MrDoobie]

My whole issue was the, essentially, calling people stupid because of their faith without talking to them.

No one was calling anyone stupid as far as I can recall. Maybe Lerxst was, but everyone else was simply positing why someone could have faith in something that runs contrary to physical evidence. I am sorry if you got that impression from my posts, but I wasn't condemning anyone for their faith. Merely trying to seek an understanding of it.

 

[Apone]

I'm not trying to manufacture an argument. My whole issue was the, essentially, calling people stupid because of their faith without talking to them. I myself strongly believe in science and I strongly believe in the Bible. I do not condone ignorance for ignorance sake. Whether you believe in a god, gods, or nothing, all of it requires some type of faith.

There's a difference between having faith and embracing pseudoscience… and you were setting up a straw man based on a misunderstanding of what science actually is.

 

[AhSver]

Some people are ignorant idiots. That simple.