• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Death and the Forfeit of Reason

Into It

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
664
MBTI Type
ENFP
I met these Young Earth Creationists on campus. They're nice guys, but I figured they must be terribly misinformed to deny evolution (at this time, I was totally ignorant of how frequently evolution was denied in America.) So, after determining that they were willing to take a hard look at both sides of this issue (look they did, reason they did not) I wrote them an e-mail in the form of a rebuttal against the evolution page in Answersingenesis.c0m, which is a website they recommended. By the time I was done with the e-mail, it was just over twenty pages long and was bullet-proof (accepting the assumption that my information was accurate). Well, they weren't convinced - they weren't even sold on the age of the earth (not ~6000 yrs), which was the first section of my e-mail.

(By the way, if any of you are not as well informed about evolution as you should be and either believe it is false, are on the fence, or have no good justification for your belief that it is true, I will send you this e-mail happily).

I was more distraught about this than I perhaps should have been. It wasn't just that they wasted my time - it was frustrating in a different sense...in the same sense as someone denying the conclusion of a simple and sound deductive argument. It was perplexing.

It must be partially due to this interaction that I began reading the Bible. I was struck by its potential utility as a tool for spreading atheism. The claims made within are so utterly incredible that I would expect any reasonable person to demand massive amounts of corroborative documentation. There are simply a lot of problems with some of the claims made, and this should be readily evident, but I'm still going to make a couple comments on this, so bear with me for a moment.

Noah's Ark:
Where'd the water go?

How did Noah and his family survive the incredible air pressure that would result from a world-wide flood?

How did a random catastrophe deposit all fossils all over the world in their proper strata, in the order that evolution would predict?
(By the way, Creationists account for the splitting of Pangea and other phenomena with a massive catastrophe, and a catastrophe is never even mentioned in Genesis - only rain.

How did eight people (Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives) feed and care for so many animals? I can't even imagine eight people running a zoo, which is a mere fraction of what would be required of them.

How did we get all of our genetic variation (hundreds of alleles) if all of our genetic information came from only a few people (the maximum number of alleles that can come from the offspring of eight individuals is sixteen). In the case of the animals, each specie should only have four alleles and there would be lots of genetic problems from inbreeding to boot.

---------------------------------------------------------

You can go on and on in this fashion without difficulty.

Richard Dawkins has a quote which I don't exactly recall that says something along the lines of 'those who don't accept evolution are either stupid or ignorant.' This sounds about right to me - if you have the information, it is impossible to deny....right?

I thought about it, and it isn't true. People who accept the Bible literally are not necessarily stupid, even if they are informed about Biology. So what's the solution to this problem?

It is rational to hold a level of belief according to the amount of evidence in favor of a claim. That's the obvious objective standard. So how does a fairly intelligent person believe that Jesus walked around casting demons out of people left and right (rather than the more reasonable assumption that what were considered a result of demon-possession thousands of years ago were misdiagnoses and it was most likely sickness caused by germs, not spirits)?

The solution is simple: They get into a mindset in which evidence is no longer an important factor for their belief about what is true. When I tell you that I have a living great great grandfather who is over four hundred years old, an alarm sounds in your head which can be explained by a quote from Carl Sagan - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

When I tell you of my great grandfather, the alarm sounds and you demand evidence. Yet, when these same people are told of generation after generation of people exceeding six and nine hundred years, as in Genesis, they don't demand evidence. This begs for an explanation - what can account for this discrepancy of standards?

I have one idea. These people don't demand evidence because they have found a way to live forever. How is it that I can imagine nothing more frightening in principle than the discontinuation of my consciousness, and yet the thought of death does not really scare me? It's not so comfortable to think about, but it certainly is not as horrifying as it should be. Perhaps the recognition of my mortality came coupled with a sort of subconscious block so that I may function without obsession? So, when I find a way to defy death, I tend to hold on to it so dearly as to subconsciously allow myself to lower my rational standard. This accounts for both the denial of Biology and the belief in sacred texts.

My reason for believing that this may be true comes from considering just what a religion is. A religion generally involves dogma - so it is a sort of crude government. It also involves morality - again, a crude government. It involves brotherhood. Those are the kinds of systems that I could see popping up all over the world - it makes sense.

But what is truly a mystery to me is that religions often have other similar traits which are very difficult to explain. In almost every religion - in fact, maybe in every religion that I have heard of - there is a way to escape death. It may be Nirvana or Valhalla, reincarnation or Heaven and Hell - but unrelated cultures all over the world have produced these death-defying religions. Further, the ways that death can be avoided are not only unsupported empirically, but they don't really make much sense. Reincarnation - you are in some way 'bad' and when you die, "you" (what does "you" mean if removed from your memories and experiences?) become a cockroach or something. Nobody has evidence of this or any reasonable explanation for why cosmic justice is to be served, and yet hundreds of millions of people believe that this is the way the universe really works.

In Christianity, EVERYBODY escapes death. If you were not taught this, (or did not live in a society influenced by it or something similar) just how long would it take you to figure out that people exist even after their brain becomes soil? Does a dog think? Yes, it probably does. But the idea of a dog that died a thousand years ago still thinking today, or still having the ability to see and smell today, is absolutely ludicrous. Yet, a person thinking and seeing billions of years after he has died does not only appear reasonable to most people, but they are convinced that this is the way the world works.

So, it is the subconscious fear of death and the belief that we could possibly escape it that makes a person totally change his standards for what he considers reasonable.
 

gromit

likes this
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
6,508
Does a dog think? Yes, it probably does. But the idea of a dog that died a thousand years ago still thinking today, or still having the ability to see and smell today, is absolutely ludicrous. Yet, a person thinking and seeing billions of years after he has died does not only appear reasonable to most people, but they are convinced that this is the way the world works.

I don't think it's ludicrous. If consciousness continues after death, why only human consciousness? Whether dogs have consciousness or not is another question...

Sorry I don't have anything else to say on this topic.
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
" If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. " - Bertrand Russell
This is fitting.
 

Arclight

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
3,177
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
Darwinisim is about as provable as religious creationisim.

I propose that not a single person has or has ever had a clue as to what our origins are..

Its ALL speculation.

Anyone who says I have to believe something they believe or I am stupid, is one close minded and scary person who should be kept away from any position of power.

Faith VS faulty science.. the score remains tied at 0-0
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
I see reason forfeited in the face of death in more ways than that.

Eternal bliss? Eternal oblivion? Eternal anything? Specific possibilities. Because they are specific, and because we are ignorant about infinity, they each seem very unlikely on there own. A few select possibilities amongst infinite, if you will. All with no evidence behind them.

I'd take it a step further and say we are so ignorant of things on such a scale (an infinite one), that we can't even guess the odds of a specific possibility with any accuracy at all. It works for what happened before, after, and outside of this existence. We don't even know what this existence is, really. We are also ignorant of just how ignorant we are, we may have a lot of the answers already, or virtually none, we don't know.

Humans have this tendency to form opinions out of ignorance, hence you get people convinced that they know of what happens in those aforementioned areas. A common form of this is mistaking their own ignorance for "nothing". So those ignorant of the stars, for example, will tend to assume they don't exist until shown otherwise. That's rational enough, if they don't turn it into an absolute, but often they assume nothing is there, stars or otherwise, over them not knowing what is there. Assuming a gap in their knowledge infers a gap in reality. Either that or they come up with some crazy possibility with no solid reasoning behind it.
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
Darwinisim is about as provable as religious creationisim.

I propose that not a single person has or has ever had a clue as to what our origins are..

Its ALL speculation.

Anyone who says I have to believe something they believe or I am stupid, is one close minded and scary person who should be kept away from any position of power.

Faith VS faulty science.. the score remains tied at 0-0

LOL.
 

Arclight

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
3,177
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5

I have human history to back me up.. once upon a time people belived the world was flat, the sun was God and that leeches would cure disease..
100 years from now people will laugh at our science and much of it will be proved wrong.

When the theory of evolution holds a 100% consensus and it's proof is 100% irrefutible , Then I will submit..
I am not holding my breath.

It's theory dude.. and nothing else.
It might make sense if it wasn't riddled with so many holes.

The score remains 0-0
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
I have human history to back me up.. once upon a time people belived the world was flat, the sun was God and that leeches would cure disease..
100 years from now people will laugh at our science and much of it will be proved wrong.

When the theory of evolution holds a 100% consensus and it's proof is 100% irrefutible , Then I will submit..
I am not holding my breath.

It's theory dude.. and nothing else.
It might make sense if it wasn't riddled with so many holes.

The score remains 0-0

Firstly, please educate yourself on the dissimilarity of the words "theory" and "hypothesis".

Did you even watch the video?
 

Arclight

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
3,177
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
So what portions of "Darwinism" do you find inaccurate? I'm genuinely curious.

edit:



So what do you think are the holes in evolution?

There is the 150000 or so years of no humaniod fossils.
There is the question of why multi celled organisims are not radically evolving still.. Do you really think we have hit the evolutionary apex?

and mostly .. simply because I don't trust a species that can't figure itself out to tell me what the secrets of life are.
I dont want speculation or theory.. I want proof.. Darwinisim has not been proven any more that the existence of God.
Just because it kind of makes sense and we have nothing better to explain things.. does not make it true.
Just so you know I dont believe in God either.

I trust my instincs and intution.. they tell me humanity is about 1 and half years old in terms of reaching it's potential..
So when A toddler tells you the meaning of life.. you tend to disregard it
 

Arclight

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
3,177
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
Firstly, please educate yourself on the dissimilarity of the words "theory" and "hypothesis".

Did you even watch the video?

So lets see you see. You LOL.. then post a link.. and now you are the grammar police..

Do you have a point or not??? What exactly is your argument?

I don't believe in darwinism.. Why do you care?

If you are so omnisicent, why are you wasting your talents trying to convert me.. go save the world or something.
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
So lets see you see. You LOL.. then post a link.. and now you are the grammar police..

Nah. I phailed the required tehsts. Never got my badge...

Do you have a point or not??? What exactly is your argument?

Yes, I do. Common usage of the word "theory", is more similar to that of "hypothesis"; the latter is what you're doing.

Look up the pedagogical definition of "scientific theory".

I don't believe in darwinism.. Why do you care?

I don't. Thanks for sharing though. :yes:

If you are so omnisicent, why are you wasting your talents trying to convert me.. go save the world or something.

Hah! You think you know how I should spend my time better than I do?! WTF?! I'M OMNISCIENT! :doh:
 

Robopop

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
692
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
One thing about evolution that many people are ignorant about is the "theory of evolution" and evolution as a scientific fact.

It IS a fact that life evolves, the theory of evolution does a VERY good job of explaining how life evloves.
 

Arclight

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
3,177
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
One thing about evolution that many people are ignorant about is the "theory of evolution" and evolution as a scientific fact.

It IS a fact that life evolves, the theory of evolution does a VERY good job of explaining how life evloves.

I am not arguing if life evolves or not .. I am saying we as a speices do not know for a fact, what our origin is.

That is not open to debate. All we have is speculation
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
I am not arguing if life evolves or not..

When the theory of evolution holds a 100% consensus and it's proof is 100% irrefutible , Then I will submit..
I am not holding my breath.

It's theory dude.. and nothing else.
It might make sense if it wasn't riddled with so many holes.

:rofl1:

I am saying we as a speices do not know for a fact, what our origin is.

That is not open to debate. All we have is speculation

This actually is an ongoing scientific debate that is very much open to speculation.

This conversation is dull though.
 

Robopop

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
692
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yes, evolution is not about the origin of life, the would belong to Abiogenesis and there are several different models of how life arose from inanimate matter.

Many people get the theory of evolution and abiogenesis confused too.
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
Yes, evolution is not about the origin of life, the would belong to Abiogenesis and there are several different models of how life arose from inanimate matter.

Many people get the theory of evolution and abiogenesis confused too.

:yes:
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
So, it is the subconscious fear of death and the belief that we could possibly escape it that makes a person totally change his standards for what he considers reasonable.

Our irrational minds are programmed to think that they will continue to live. They have no concept of being completely devoid of consciousness, because it is impossible to perceive being dead while being alive. To come fully to terms with death is like the number 1 coming to terms with being 0. It's simply impossible; so it would not be surprising for us as a species to invent all sorts of phantasmal ways for us to transcend mortality - from heaven to hell to reincarnation.

What's important to me is that we invest in our current lives. I do not think we should be lulled to sleep by an imaginative afterlife; but rather we should promote the well-being of our species. To accept an afterlife can be to accept death itself.

I think it's interesting how our rational beliefs tend to marry with our irrational drives. Sometimes we just want something to be true, so we seek it out to confirm our own intuition. People are torn apart by the feeling of the unknown, and death is the epitome of the unknown. It's really only natural that people would let their wants carry them away into Heaven. It's also quite natural for our conceptions of heaven to mirror our conceptions of our current lives, with angels playing Celtic harps, with pearly gates and streets of gold.

When we are reared, we find hope in the expanse of the unknown world; and we indulge in fantasies - just like how early man indulged in superstitious fantasies to fill in the blanks of mystery. Then we grow older, and the world is our domain. We grow larger, and the world shrinks in accordance - just as mankind ushered in more reasonable explanations for the known universe - the New World being the pioneer. Then, as we grow yet older, we realize that we have become tired and haggard, and unable to cope with death, we indulge in the same fantasies that are only instigated by the fear of the unknown - the elderly start to attend church on a regular basis for a failsafe of comfort. Let's not bury our heads in the sand, please.

EDIT: In other words, I invest in a substitute for the afterlife, which begs for infinite progression, but will fail : Life itself. What a conundrum.
 
Top