Question for DV.

D

Didasko

Member
I've been wondering something DV. Several times now you have stated that you do not ascribe to the macro evolution explanation of how life began. You obviously have issues with the intelligent design debate. I accidentally lumped you in with the big bang croud at one point and you corrected me there.

What is the most 'logical' explanation out there in your opinion? And please don't answer 'I don't know there is not enough evidence to prove any of them' because I already know that. You've got to have some explanation that you lean towards more than any of the others.
 
Actually, I DON'T have to have some explanation that I lean towards. Why do you believe that I do?

I'm content to say, I DON'T KNOW. I don't NEED to know to live a full, happy life.

I don't believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a logical explaination for the origin of life. The micro evolution part is right on, but there's no evidence to support macro evolution.

There is also not enough evidence to support Creationism. It's hard to even narrow down what Creationism actually IS, since not all Christians believe it happened the same way (Young Earth Creationists vs. Old Earth Creationists is a good example).

I also don't subscribe to Intelligent Design. I'm not a big fan of Paley's argument and there just isn't any evidence to support a Designer. Even if there was, there is no way to determine just who the Designer was to beign with.

The only creation story that even remotely interests me is the Enuma Elish and that's primarily because of its age.

Sorry, I'm sure that's not the answer you wanted, but it's the honest one.
 
I feel it's a good answer, DV.

You say you don't know what you believe and don't need to in order to live a happy life. Then why exactly are you so intent on learning from this board and asking so many questions on religion?
 
I wouldn't say I don't know what I believe.

I know EXACTLY what I believe, and in turn, refuse to believe in things that I don't have evidence for.

I am very interested in why people believe what they do without evidence, which is why I am here. Actually the REAL reason I came here was to bash a horrible Doom 3 review and then I stuck around :)
 
Response to #4 and #5: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Awesome

You know exactly what you believe in DV? I'm relatively new to this board; could you explain it so I know which exact page you're on? Thanks a ton.
 
Azzie said:
Response to #4 and #5: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Awesome

You know exactly what you believe in DV? I'm relatively new to this board; could you explain it so I know which exact page you're on? Thanks a ton.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly an easy question.

I hold no theistic allegiances, hence my position as a weak atheist.

I also consider myself a freethinker, that is, one that forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority and religoius dogma.

I identify with Christianity because I was raised Christian. Over several agonizing years, I made the conscious decision to put away faith and embrace reason. There are many reasons why, most of which I've already discussed in various threads.

Since then I've studied a variety of religions on my own and in an academic setting. I minored in philosophy in college and took several religion courses. In the end, there simply isn't a logical, reasonable reason to believe in a god, any god.

I've been especially interested in the earliest of creation stories like the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh. That led me to researchers such as Zechariah Sitchin, Erich von Daniken and Lloyd Pye. While interesting, I don't exactly buy into their theories.

While I am not a proponent or supporter of intelligent design, neither am I proponent of macro or Darwinian evolution, as there is little to no scientific support for it. Micro evolution is a whole different animal, which I fully believe in because it is easily supported by science.

So there you have it, the SportsCenter version of my theistic outlook.
 
Dark Virtue said:
Then it's not evidence.
Click to expand...

evidence 1. ground for belief; that which tends to prove or disprove something; proof.

According to webster I do have evidence. It is proof that I have experienced.

As I stated in the other post though, it is not proof that I can use to convince you .

I experience it, you do not. The definition does not require that DV accept the proof for it to be evidence to me.
 
Dark Virtue said:
If you're going to be technical, then I suggest you offer up the definition for anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

It is anecdotal evidence if I tell it to YOU. For ME personally it is not anecdotal evidence. I lived it first hand. Therefore, I have proof and you do not.

My hope is that someday God will show evidence to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top