Falling Into The Fire

[Emanresu56]

No, this is not a story about gaining faith. It is my story about gaining an incredible awareness about the world around me. It is my story about learning scientific facts, and realizing that Science is an amazing way to observe the world around you. It is my story about learning that I don't have to believe everything I come across. It is my story about finding that there's no actual purpose for existence, that I don't have to worship any God, and I don't have to believe in any demons, devils, souls, or spirits. But, my beliefs aren't based on faith, as yours may be. They're based on logic and reason. You may ask "why don't you believe in God?" I'll only reply "why don't you believe in the Muslim God? Or Zeus, Thor, and Poseidon?"

You would say that those gods have already been proven to be myths. They've "fallen out" of society, and are now recognized as mythological tales, created in the imagination of ignorant bronze-age societies. But that is exactly how I view the Bible. Yes, it may have some "good" morals in it- not all of it is mythical, but it does spend a lot of time in the mythical world. For example, talking serpents, dragons, magical fruit, curses, demons, and walking on water. Those are just a few reasons why I reject the Bible. Not that it's to outrageous to be true, but because it hasn't been shown to be true.

Now, you could say "it's a matter of faith". Alright. It's a matter of faith for you, but it's not a matter of faith for me. For me, everything needs to be evidentually based. There can be no religious faith. Do you think anyone in a courtroom would take it on pure faith that a murderer did, in fact, murder someone, or would they see the mounds and mounds of evidence against him? The answer is in the evidence. The essence. Now, onto my story.

I'm fifteen years old, and I'm an atheist. I have a positive outlook on life. I do not believe there is a God, but I do believe that the Universe is "God" in it's own way. I believe what Einstein did, that God reveals Itself (not Himself nor Herself, we can't really know for sure), through the order of Nature. But, there is also Chaos. We cannot rule that out. No, I do not believe the two are in a cosmic struggle, since order and chaos are measured in degrees, not quantity, and they are not sentient.

I became an atheist about a year ago, when I was struggling with a mix of religious pluralism, scientific, and New-Age beliefs. I believed we evolved from other lifeforms in the ages past, but I also believed we had "spiritual energies". I believed in demons, ghosts, souls, spirits, UFO's, alien abductions, prophecies, etc. At the present moment, I have no idea what "spiritual energies" mean at all. Everything supernatural or paranormal seems highly unlikely. So, how did I get this far?

I was on my computer one night, and watching T.V. A comedian mentioned a "scientific theory" called "Intelligent Design". So you could imagine he also mentioned a flaw in the huamn body- and he did. I was curious, so I searched for it on the Internet the next day. I found videos titled "Does God Exist?" so I watched it. The arguments were really convincing, and very powerful. I had no way to counter them.

But then, the pastor (or whatever part of the religious hierarchy he was) mentioned another theory called "scientific Creationism". I searched for that. I found a man named Kent Hovind, who I now know is spending ten years in prison for tax evasion. However, I also found the site http://www.kent-hovind.com, which provided a complete critical analysis of everything Kent Hovind ever said. And when I mean everything, I mean everything. Every single statement was critiqued by a madman who had too much time on his hands.

I was fascinated. How could someone do this? How could someone put all this information on a single site? What was their motivation? Are they good, or are they bad? I wanted to know more. I stayed on that site for a really long time. It was my favorite site. It wasn't too long, though, before I found more anti-creationism sites like Talkorigins.org. I've been interested in Science ever since.

I'm happy that my thought process went in an entirely different direction, otherwise I would've joined the cult of Scientology! I was seriously lost since that point, when I opened my mind to logic rand reason and closed it on faith and absolute absurdities. I'm extremely glad that happened. Without the comedian on T.V., I probably would've never heard about it. I would probably be a member of Scientology right now, or a member of some cult.

This is why I'm an atheist. I believe we should all think for ourselves, and use logic and reason to guide us, not a magic book. We should live for today, not for the life after which may not exist. If you believe that the world is flat, God created it in six days, Jesus will rise from the dead, that's fine- but I don't believe that. Nothing you can say will change my mind. I've built up an immunity to faith.

And if you say I'll go to Hell, that's not going to make me believe. In fact, it's not going to make any difference at all. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words will never hurt me." Scare tactics is a poor choice for defending one's religion. Surely, believers in forgiveness must realize this.
______________________________________________________________
BTW, I was on here a while back. I flipped out, got angry at some racist folks, and logged out. But I'm O.K. now. I'm white, but I was just appalled at what they thought was right.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Now, you could say "it's a matter of faith". Alright. It's a matter of faith for you, but it's not a matter of faith for me. For me, everything needs to be evidentually based. There can be no religious faith. Do you think anyone in a courtroom would take it on pure faith that a murderer did, in fact, murder someone, or would they see the mounds and mounds of evidence against him? The answer is in the evidence.

First let me welcome you to TOL and I wish you well in your experiences here. Frankly, to be so young, I am surprised the forum does not require you to get parental consent. Be that as it may, I wonder if you might consider a few things first.

One should start these discussions by stating their justifications for the presuppositions informing their epistemology and ethical system.

One cannot simply state “I believe/don’t believe in {evolution, God, young earth, etc.} because anything else is not rational or there are no facts”, for to say this or similar things is irrelevant until one has first defined their presuppositions of truth, knowledge, and morality.

No one attempts to make their interpretation honest to “the facts”, but rather “the facts” are determined by reference to the individual’s system of interpretation. Therefore, our systems of interpretation (our presuppositions) determine how we look at the world. No one is a neutral explorer.

For example, the cumulative case arguments for the non-existence of God are often constructed without proper consciousness of the system of interpretation personally being applied to the evidence.

As the arguments are presented in this fashion, they belie the myth of objectivity. Therefore, such persons should quit acting as if they objectively evaluate the evidences in some neutral laboratory before they arrive at the likely rational conclusion. Both explorers (believers and non-believers) possess different commitments that control their interpretations of the evidences. Unless persons can articulate their world views, they will continue to talk past one another.

My world view is simple.
As a Christian, I presuppose a Triune God exists. Therefore, I am obliged to see all of reality in the light of who God is and what He has revealed to me in His word, the Bible, and in the world around me.

Furthermore, I am a Christian of the order of the practices of Augustine and Calvin. Borrowing from Crampton ("A Call for Christian Rationality"), “my rational system does not exalt the human mind as autonomous; instead, it affirms Biblical revelation as axiomatic. Divine revelation of Holy Scripture is a rational revelation. This revelation is internally self-consistent, non-contradictory, and non-paradoxical. A rational Christian reasons from revelation, not to revelation or apart from revelation. My Christian faith is intellectually defensible.”

While all of my questions will never be definitively answered, I find that rationally my belief is on solid ground. There are many things in the world I do not fully comprehend or experience with my five senses, yet we have no problems in believing them. For example, solar physics is not fully known, yet we all objectively accept, using our presuppositions and scientific discourse, the "fact" that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Persons that seek absolute proof (or factual evidence) of this or that are inconsistently applying logic and rationality, for these persons do not seek this same level of absoluteness in all things. Hence, their epistemologies are not fully baked; they speak without proper understanding of the nature of knowledge (epistemology).

Why is it we can believe in many things using rational analysis, even when what we believe is only partially known, yet when it comes to matters like a supreme being, we suddenly want the "show me beyond a shadow of doubt" proof? As Aristotle once stated, "It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits, and not to seek exactness when only an approximation of the truth is possible."

When evaluating evidences for belief, I base my judgments on the Bible and God’s revelations in the world around me. These are my presuppositions. Obviously, my presuppositions may not quite line up with your basic beliefs. Then where does that leave us? Are believers and non-believers left to snicker at one another while understanding that both sides possess presuppositions that taint the evidence? No. Even due to the fact that we possess different paradigms for interpreting our reality, I believe that by weighing the coherence of our worldviews much fruitful dialogue is available from this point.

In short, unless two parties to any discussion about belief/non-belief define their inherent presuppositions and the nature and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity (epistemology), there can be no meaningful dialog.

That said, your first order of business will be to somehow defend what you call "evidence" and why such "evidence" is to be considered as "truth". To help you get started for the questions you will likely be asked, I suggest that

Evidence should be:
1. Directional and specific. It should point to what you are suggesting it points to, and you should be able to establish just why it points that direction.
2. It should be testable or relying upon argumentation or legal rationales.
3. It should soundly exclude rival theories or leverage the most probable theory.
4. It should be empirical or observable directly or indirectly, i.e., from its effects.
5. It should be corroborated by disinterested third parties or by direct witnesses.

You will find here on TOL that you can do this the easy way (testing for coherency, universality, and uniqueness of claim to truth) or the polemic way (point-by-point rebuttal/back-and-forth until no conclusion is reached). That will be totally up to you.

Again, welcome and have fun!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

...this is about gaining faith. It is my story about gaining an incredible awareness .... an amazing way to observe the world around you. It is my story about learning that I don't have to believe everything I come across. It is my story about finding that there's.... actual purpose for existence, that I don't have to worship any God,..
.. (but could be allowed to?)..

.. Not that it's too outrageous to be true, but because it hasn't been shown to be true. ....

oh, really?

 

[Nydhogg]

Evidence should be:
1. Directional and specific. It should point to what you are suggesting it points to, and you should be able to establish just why it points that direction.
2. It should be testable or relying upon argumentation or legal rationales.
3. It should soundly exclude rival theories or leverage the most probable theory.
4. It should be empirical or observable directly or indirectly, i.e., from its effects.
5. It should be corroborated by disinterested third parties or by direct witnesses.

That's "uncontrovertible proof". "Uncontrovertible proof" is a different standard than "evidence".

 

[faramir77]

Come, Let us reason togeather.
Science, so-called. Vain Phlisophys after the traditions of men.

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

.heh