1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Why did you Change your world view?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by leroy, Apr 28, 2020.

  1. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    22,982
    Ratings:
    +17,386
    Religion:
    None

    Please provide them.

    There is no verifyable record JC saying anything, only 3rd party comments compiled 350 years after his death

    Yes, convenient isn't it to have a story to confirm itself despite it being completely against the reality of the period.

    Who said pilate didn't consider JC a criminal?? Oh right the bible, got ya...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    6,207
    Ratings:
    +5,243
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You're confused. You're thinking of material farts of meatbags we know as animals.
    Extra-dimensional pixies really don't follow our petty physical rules you know... They are "outside of the universe". Their farts are supernatural and beyond our comprehension.


    Hey man, if you can have an immaterial skydaddy, then I get to have immaterial extra-dimensional pixies with immaterial butts.

    ps: the god of the bible "spoke" reality into existance. I guess he used a material mouth for that and the propagation of material airflows and soundwaves.

    Both are unfalsifiable entities.
    In that, they are the same.
     
  3. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1,959
    Ratings:
    +183
    Religion:
    christian

    No, no. No, you are making an argument from ignorance," we don't how to explain Nested hierarchies therefore evolution (common ancestry) dun it"....... You are just invoking the "common ancestor of the gaps fallacy"

    First you have to prove that common ancestry in an option, and only then you can propose it as a possible explanation


    Well The FT argument predicts that future discoveries would show that the universe is even more FT....... And that new FT examples would be discovered as scientists discover new stuff (a naturalist would predict that FT problems would be solved as new discoveries are made)

    For example I would predict that the descovery of" deeper laws" (for example a quantum theory of gravity) would resoult in additional FT problems.

    This prediction is falsifiable, it could be the case that deeper laws allow for a wide rage of constants that would allow for life permitting universes, (this would falsify the FT argument.)

    So my 3 we questions would be
    1 why is this an invalid prediction?

    2 what unfalsifuable predictions does evolution (common ancestry) make

    3 why are those predictions more valid than the prediction that I just made?
     
  4. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    17,561
    Ratings:
    +2,011
    Is YEC a Christian denomination, please?

    Regards
     
  5. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1,959
    Ratings:
    +183
    Religion:
    christian
    Again, Butts and farts by definition are material, the idia of an Inmaterial fart causing the universe is logically incoherent.

    Unless you redefine the concepts of pixie and farts, in such case I would ask you for a detailed description of these new definitions.

    Sure, if anyone claims that God literally spoke the universe in to 3xistance, you can reject the claim on the basis that it would be logically incoherent.

    No, both the talking God and the farting pixie theories are falsifiable and have been falsified by the fact that they are logically incoherent.
     
  6. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1,959
    Ratings:
    +183
    Religion:
    christian
    Just treat the Bible and the documents in the new testament in the same way you would treat any historical document.

    If we have multiple independent documents that confirm the burial of Jesus, why not accepting it as a historical fact?
     
  7. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1,959
    Ratings:
    +183
    Religion:
    christian
    O yes I forgot "Magic looses by default"

    The thing is that the type of lies or mistakes that you would have to invoke to explain the data would be an unprecedented type of lie or mistake that has never been observed to happen

    For example if the disciples lie you would then have to argue that they fought and die in the name of a lie that they themselves invented.

    Yes people lie all the time, and yes people die for lies all the time..... But nobody dies in the name of a lie that they themselves invented.

    So whatever happened 2000 years ago (lies, mistakes, a miracle) was something uncommon and extraordinary.

    Given that the resurrection hypothesis explains the data better that the lies and mistakes hypothesis, why not taking that as the best explanation?...... O yes because "magic looses by default"

    The problem is that any Lie or mistake hypothesis
     
  8. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    6,207
    Ratings:
    +5,243
    Religion:
    Atheist

    I have just explained to you how that is not true.
    About how the model of evolution predicts this pattern and how it explains in insane detail exactly HOW such a pattern forms as a result of evolution.

    That's the opposite of what you are claiming.

    So, it's not "we don't know therefor evolution".
    It rather is: "We KNOW that evolution is what forms nested hierarchies. This forms because species reproduce with variation and passes on those changes to offspring, which forms a family tree. The changes of lineage A are past on in the off spring of lineage A and it will not be present in parallel lineage B. This is why only descendends of mammals have hair and never feathers."

    The evolutionary process EXPLAINS why the nested hierarchy exists, and it does so in an independently verifiable manner.
    That's the very opposite of an argument from ignorance / argument from the gaps. That's rather literally filling the gap with demonstrable knowledge. Not with bluster or fallacious thinking or abstract placeholders.


    Reproduction with variation followed by natural selection eventually leading to speciation, is a demonstrated, observed and testable process.
    So several distinct species sharing a common ancestor is not only an option, it factually happens.

    This would be a good time for you to define what "FT problems" are. At this point, this is so vague that it could mean anything and everything.

    You'ld still require also a model that actually explains any of this instead of just declaring it.

    It's ill-defined.

    "unfalsifiable"?
    Not aware of any.

    Because evolution actually provides an independently testable and obseverable mechanism from which the predictions naturally flow.

    You have no such model.
    EVEN if I would grand the "FT problem", it would not get you anywhere near a god as the explanation for it. Because unfalsifiable entities don't explain anything, while also explaining everything.

    Meaning they are useless.

    Here's the central point that you don't seem to comprehend....

    In the "god model", it matters not if there is FT values or not.
    Wheter some values have a big range or not, if it is one or the other MAKES NO DIFFERENCE to the god model.

    Your god model is compatible with BOTH values that "have to" be a in small range or constants that can have any value or constants that NEED TO BE one very specific thing.

    Evolution is not like that at all. Becaue evolution actually is a very precise model making very specific predictions, one of them being nested hierarchies.

    So if new constants are found that can have a wide range of values, you might no longer be able to use the "FT argument" apologetic to argue for your god, but it would in no way falsify this god.

    This is why the FT argument is useless for the purpose you try to use it for.
    Because the god model that it is supposed to support, isn't affected AT ALL either way.
     
    #108 TagliatelliMonster, May 3, 2020
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  9. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    6,207
    Ratings:
    +5,243
    Religion:
    Atheist
    So are mouths.

    Just like the idea of an immaterial person / agent / consiousness.

    I'll ask the same of you for the redefinition of person / agent / consiousness.

    And for the same reason, I can do the same when this god is claimed to be an agent, person or consiousness.

    Then the same goes for the thinking god who has the attributed of personhood, agency and consiousness.

    I'll show you an immaterial butt when you show me an immaterial person or agent or consiousness.

    Glad we sorted that out.
     
    #109 TagliatelliMonster, May 3, 2020
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
  10. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    6,207
    Ratings:
    +5,243
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Why would we do that?

    There are no multiple independent documents confirming that at all.
     
    #110 TagliatelliMonster, May 3, 2020
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
  11. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    6,207
    Ratings:
    +5,243
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.
    So yes, when arguably the most extra-ordinary claim of all that says "magic occured" is pitted against one of the most mundane things as "they were mistaken or lying", then right out the gates the "magic occured" looses by default.


    This is also why we don't take alien abductees terribly seriously. Or why we put people who "hear" voices in psychiatric institutions. We don't give more credence to "magical beings are talking to him" over "he's delusional".

    Because extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.
    And when such evidence is not there, then the most mundane is definatly the more likely answer as opposed to the most extra-ordinary.

    The "data" being, religious lore. I'ld hardly consider that "unprecedented" in a world were thousands upon thousands of religions exist. Especially considering that this particular religion originated at a time where superstition was as common in everyday life as the internet is in ours.

    I don't think I made any insunation about who invented the lie and who believed the lie or who was mistaken and didn't realise it.
    Nore have I said that it definatly was a lie or started with a lie.

    I'm fine with just "mistaken" and "superstition" if that makes it easier for you to swallow. Both are fine with me. Both are infinitly more probable then "magic occured", barring additional extra-ordinary evidence.

    I wouldn't go so far as to state that.
    I can easily imagine a scenario where someone lies (for whatever reason) after which that lie catches upto that person to a point where it becomes to late or futile to come clean. In some sort of "the damage has been done" scenario.

    Again: not saying that happened here. Just saying that it's not hard to imagine at all of such a thing happening. I'm sure you can think of a couple of examples yourself that you even witnessed within your lifetime.

    Like a few years ago at work. A co-worker was spreading lies about him having stolen office equipment. He was just being mr macho man. Ego or whatever.
    Eventually it caught upto him and he got fired. At that point, it didn't matter anymore if he told the truth or not. The damage was done.

    No. If it were just lies or mistakes or superstition, it wasn't extra-ordinary at all. Instead, it was very mundane and extremely common - especially in that age where superstition was such a big part of every day life.

    Only the "miracle occured" is extra-ordinary.

    It doesn't, as I have explained.

    Because it isn't.

    No. Rather: magic never wins by default.
    By default, the mundane wins.
    For magic to win over the mundane, extra-ordinary evidence is required.
     
    #111 TagliatelliMonster, May 3, 2020
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
  12. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,776
    Ratings:
    +6,275
    Religion:
    None
    OK. Here's thepost:

    No. YEC stand for young earth (Christian) creationist. These are people who beliieve that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The reject the science that contradicts that (Big Bang, plate tectonics, biological evolution), all of which points to ages for the solar system and the universe in the billions of years.

    I already gave you a rebuttal. You ignored it and the rest of the post as well. Why did you Change your world view?

    "If God was forced to build a universe withing narrow limits in its physical parameters, how can we say that He was all-powerful or the author of those requirements rather than that they were something imposed on Him by a higher, prior order. How could this god be called omnipotent if it could only form the universe one way? If that's the case, this god didn't actually design anything. It followed a set of instructions that restricted it. The fine tuning argument is addressed by the multiverse hypothesis, in which uncounted editions of every possible unverse are spawned from a single, eternal, unconscious source."

    The answer is unchanged, of course, which is what you would expect if you didn't successfully rebut it.

    You don't know that. Theists are accustomed to saying that this or that must be so by definition. Not my definition. A god is any conscious agent capable of creating universes. Nothing else is precluded. This god need not be perfect, kind, immortal, or anything else. When you apply those qualities to gods and call them necessary qualities using the phrase "by definition,"you've already made a logical error by assuming qualities that haven't been demonstrated.

    Parsimony is why the multiverse hypothesis is preferred to a god hypothesis. No conscious agent needed.

    That not correct. What's not an option is unjustified belief. Gods aren't off the table, just at the bottom of the list of candidate hypotheses to account for the universe. A god hypothesis is extremely unparsimonious if a multiverse can do the same without a conscious agent.

    What's an unfalsifiable argument? Hypothesis are falsifiable or not if it is in principle possible to disprove the theory with a piece of evidence properly interpreted.

    Arguments aren't falsified. They're rebutted by demonstrating a problem with the premises (assumed truths such as that a god must be immaterial), the evidence offered and its interpretation, the logic and the presence or absence of logical fallacies, and the conclusion reached, which is judged for soundness.

    Perhaps you mean an illogical argument, such as the claim that a god exists that is at the same time both perfect and makes errors that it regrets and attempts to rectify. Or that that god would try to correct its error using the same breeding stock that led to its original disappointment.

    I don't think you know what falsifiable means.

    I just did, assuming that by God you mean the Christian god..

    Lying is your word. People make up legends and pass them on generation to generation. The Genesis creation myths are both wrong. Did anybody that contributed to their authorship know that they were telling a falsehood? Probably not. They probably thought God put the ideas in their head. But by the time those stories were a few generations old, nobody knew their provenance.

    Christianity had a similar history. The mythology no doubt evolved over centuries until it was canonized. One only need look at the three synoptic gospels to see the stories evolving within a lifetime.

    Take a look at this link, my source for this post, especially the charts, to see the three synoptic gospels compared with one another, divided by category and topic. Look at how much more is contained in Luke and Matthew than Mark. This, to me, is evidence that the mythology was still actively evolving between the time of Mark and the later gospels.

    Are these people lying or making mistakes? Not the words I would use, but it is a very human activity whatever we call it.

    The words have no meaning if cause doesn't precede effect. If they were simultaneous, how would you know which to call cause and which to call effect?

    But we do know why we see nested hierarchies, and they are evidence of common descent.

    The theory of evolution is established and will not be overturned absent the existence of a deceiver god or alien race, because if evolution were falsified tomorrow, the evidence that existed prior to the falsifying evidence doesn't go away. It just needs to be reinterpreted, and there would be no room for a god that wanted to be known, loved,believed, and worshiped, just a deceptive god or gods or aliens powerful enough to lace the strata with forms looking progressively less modern and dating as older the deeper you go, in stick all of those nested hierarchies into life forms that didn't evolve naturalistically.

    No document confirms that Jesus ever existed or died. They may claim it, but confirmation must come fro elsewhere.

    We do know how to explain nested hierarchies.

    No, nobody ever has to prove that something is possible before investigating whether it is actual or not.

    I don't know where you get the idea that the source of the universe, if any, had to be immaterial. We probably should call its composition substance, which may be the precursor for what we experience as matter and energy, and even mind..

    I don't consider the contents of the Bible to be history. I treat it about the same way I do the Iliad. There was a Trojan war, but much of the action involves legendary figures that may have a basis in history or not, but have been embellished too much since then as with injecting gods into the stories to take any part of it as fact simply because it is written.

    Shouldn't it? If you want to reach rational skeptics, you'll need good evidence and sound argument. Magic meets nether of those criteria.

    What data? Unverifiable claims?

    A system of false beliefs is hardly unprecedented.
     
    #112 It Aint Necessarily So, May 3, 2020
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1,959
    Ratings:
    +183
    Religion:
    christian
    Things are very simple, the KCA leads you to the conclusion that the universe was created by an inmaterial, spaceless, personal etc being,

    Weather if you what to lable this beig as “God” “ inmaterial Fairies that fart” or give it an other name is irrelevant.

    I can make the same type of “appeal to ridicule” to attack the ToE (Common descend) We humans do not share an ape ancestor with chimps, The common ancestor of Chimps and humans was not an Ape, but rather a “Fairy” this fairy looked like an ape, had the anatomy of an ape, had the genes of an ape, buuuuuut it wasn’t an ape it was a fairy.
     
  14. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1,959
    Ratings:
    +183
    Religion:
    christian

    Ok I would like to challenge that claim, why is your favorite naturalistic hypothesis “more probable” that the resurrection hypothesis?

    It would be something like this

    (The probability that God exists) x (the probability of God wanting to cause a miracle in Jesus Christ) VS (the probability that John, Paul, Peter, James, etc. would stoel the body and then lie about the resurection, and then be willing to die for that lie) X the probability of nobody noticing that it was just a lie)

    *or feel free to change the naturalistic hypothesis for another one.

    Under what basis the firs hypothesis is less probable that the second?

    If we assume “agnosticism” (maybe God Exists maybe he doesn’t let’s assume a probability of 50% / 50%) then my hypothesis doesn’t seem to be “very unlikely” …. Your only way ut is to show that the probability of the existence of God is very, very, low such that the “lies hypothesis” would seem more probable.
     
  15. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1,959
    Ratings:
    +183
    Religion:
    christian
    In a strict sense I would say that nothing is really falsifiable, you can’t really falsify the ToE , nor The Big bang, nor the heliocentric model, round earth etc. (after all it could be that the earth is flat, and the observations and evidence for a round for a round earth are just a simulation caused by the Matrix )

    But what you could theoretically do is show that there is at least 1 better explanation for the FT than ID, in the same way you can show that the round earth model is a better explanation that the flat earth model.

    It is true that God if he exists could have created a universe that is not FT, God could have created ether a FT universe or a non FT universe, both scenarios seem probable, but the thing is that Chance could have not created a FT universe (or it would have been very unikelly) so given that we have a FT universe God seems to be a better explanation than chance.

    As an analogy pretend that there is a bowl with billions of red marbles and just a few dozens of green marbles. Now pretend that a man selects a green marble and there are 2 competing hypothesis,

    1 the man intended to select a green marble (intelligent design)

    2 the man selected a marble randomly (chance)

    It is true that an intelligent designer could have select ether a red marble or a green marble, but given that the marble happened to be green design would seem to be the most probable explanation because it would have been very unlikely for chance to select a green marble.

    This analogy is meant to show that the “God }could have done a non FT “ argument is invalid.

    can use the same logic to disqualify the ToE (common ancestry) the lack of a nested hierchy wouldn’t falsify the ToE, it could simply mean that many mutations have occurred such that the NH wouldn’t be evident. In fact you believe that Humans and bacteria share a common ancestor despite that fact that there is not a NH pattern that connects humans and bacteria.

    Obviously this would be a ridiculous objection because the point is that common ancestry is the best explanation for NH, weather if a “no NH” can also be explained by common ancestry or not is irrelevant.

    So to summarize, ID predicts that future discoveries would show that the universe is more FT that we currently know, in the same way evolution (common ancestry) would predict that future discoveries in the genome would predict a more evident NH pattern. So why is the ID prediction less valid that the prediction made by the TOE? It seems to me that both predictions are analogous,
     
    #115 leroy, May 21, 2020
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
  16. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,476
    Ratings:
    +2,829
    I grew up as a 'nominal' Christian. I never disbelieved in God, but my family was not religious in that we never went to church, that sort of thing. But we had several bibles around the house, and a cross and the Lord's Prayer hung in several rooms. I used the read the scary parts of the bible with my sister growing up.
    I encountered my first actual creationist while taking an elective anthropology course in high school. I was shocked that there were people who thought that way, but didn't think much else about it. Several years later, my father died unexpectedly, just a few weeks after he retired. I was overseas in the army at the time, and had to take emergency leave to get home. While in a hotel the night before I flew home, I talked to my family on the phone, and my mother implored me to 'see the chaplain', but as I was in a hotel, all I had was a bible in the hotel room (yes, there were even bibles in foreign hotel rooms in those days). I got through the first few chapters, and had to stop - I thought to myself 'People actually believe this? I actually believe this???'' By the next day, I basically considered myself a agnostic, but again didn't think much more than that for a few years.
    I had been out of the army for a couple years and was taking classes part-time while my wife was finishing her degree. I was in a college library, killing time, and was perusing the science section. I came across one of Carl Sagan's books, don't remember which one, and began thumbing though it and noticed that there was writing in the margins. I read the vandalism, and discovered that this person was attacking Sagan for mentioning evolution. The vandal mentioned creation this and God that and bible this. I was flabbergasted. I then looked for books on creationism, and was really taken aback - not that there was SCIENCE! for creation, but that even I - at that time a lowly sophomore health science major - was able to see the flaws in the creationists' reasoning and was wholly unimpressed with their arguments.
    Over the next few years, switched majors to biology, read more books on evolution (and contrary to the usual ranting, my undergrad curriculum at that time did not even have a required evolution class!) and creationism, and found that the dishonest antics of creationists was too much, and if these bible-believers were willing to lie and distort and employ laughable "logic" and even worse science to make it seem like the bible had merit, that their deity was real, then maybe even being an agnostic was not enough. Along the way, I also ended up reading the bible 2 or 3 times, cover to cover, and became pretty aware of lots of the major contradictions and nonsense in it (one of my favorite books in that timeframe was an anonymous book that had been first printed in the 1800s, titled "Self-Contradictions of the Bible". I liked it because it was simple - no commentary at all (other than a forward by the person who had the book re-printed) just a verse from one part of the bible, followed by a verse from another part that indicated the opposite. Hundreds of examples.

    Anyway, my leaving religion was a several year process, and actually reading the bible without the 'benefit' of an upbringing loaded with peer-pressure to simply believe it all, coupled with my education and experience in science (after earning a BS in biology, I went on to earn a doctorate doing evolution-related research) and my disgust for the tactics of creationists sealed the deal.



    That is a plus, but...

    Putting God's Design In Perspective
     
  17. IndigoChild5559

    IndigoChild5559 Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,617
    Ratings:
    +1,865
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I was raised to believe in a literal six day creation, with each type of animal being created the way it exists today. I had modified that to believe animals could evolve, but only within their species -- that they could not evolve into new species. However, most of what I read simply confirmed what I already believed.

    When I was 24, I took an anthropology course at the university. It was the first time I truly had to grapple with the various evidences for evolution.

    I was presented with the discovery of a bunch of fossils known as Homo Habilis (the toolmaker). The professor discussed how scientists had gone back and forth over whether to classify these fossils as genus homo, or to give them their own classification (as they had done with the Australopithecines). Suddenly a light went on in my head that this is exactly what we would expect if we ran into a transitional form -- it would be hard to classify.

    When I left for class, I was a creationist. When I returned home, I accepted evolution.

    I could feel the dominoes falling. It was very disconcerting. I didn't know what was going to survive and what was going to fall away. Interestingly, God did survive, as did the Torah, although I looked at things in a new way.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,746
    Ratings:
    +4,696
    Religion:
    Pi π
    I was around 15 when my sister gave me KJV Bible, and nearly join 2 different churches (18, 19), but stop reading the Bible and going to my sister’s church by 1986 (20), not because I stop believing, but because I was busy with studies and later with work after uni. So I was in 14-year hiatus, not opening up Bible again until 2000.

    When i did open the Bible again (2000 at age 34), I was doing research for my Timeless Myths website, which I started back in 1999. The research was about grail legend, so I was reading up on Joseph of Arimathea at Jesus’ death and burial.

    Now I had read the Bible, from cover to cover, twice, while I was still in high school, and believe in the messianic signs that all churches taught, especially the one the gospel version (Matthew 1:22-23) which author has interpreted to be Mary and Jesus.

    But my reading in 2000 of Matthew’s version together with Isaiah’s original sign (Isaiah 7:14-17 and Isaiah 8:3-4) made me realize the gospel and church teachings were wrong, and Isaiah’s sign had nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

    That was my first doubt. Other doubts arisen when I cross-checked every other gospel’s interpretations of the alleged messianic prophecies associated with Jesus.

    That’s when I became agnostic in 2000, without even knowing anything about “agnosticism” is.

    I have never heard of agnosticism, until 2003, when I joined my first forum. The forum was called free2code, a forum for computer programmers, but they have small sections to discuss politics, music and religions. That’s where I found about agnosticism.

    It was at this same forum when I first heard the argument between evolution and creationism. Like I already know the story about creation of Adam and Noah’s Flood, but I never heard of people referring to themselves as creationists before.

    And after year 9 at high school, I didn’t choose to study more biology, so I also didn’t know anything about evolution, or about natural selection or mutations.

    Since I knew of Genesis creation, so it didn’t a genius to know what creationists believe in, so to understand what people talking about evolution, I borrowed my cousin’s old biology textbook in 2003 and read chapters on evolution.

    That was when my view changed about creation.

    3 years later I joined RF.

    Since 2000, I have been revising my view about the Bible and about religions in general. And since then I have become a bit of skepticism about miracles as well as in other supernatural and paranormal.

    So I started out being Mulder (the believer) and ended up being Scully (the skeptic). But despite being agnostic and skeptic, I am still curious about religions and myths, from the literary, cultural and historical standpoints. Genesis is still my favourite book in whole Bible.
     
Loading...