Why I do not like faith (a thread for atheists /agnostics to share their views in a peaceful settin ( Archived) (101)

"Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" either. At the Int'l Congress of Zoology (1958), Dr A.J.E. Cave said his examination showed that this famous skeleton found in France, is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.





Like I say do a search or maybe if you come from an ape you are not evolved enough to do that. On the contrary I do not drivel and I am certainly not misinformed.

I think too many religious extremists make people turn away from any kind of faith.

You most certainly are any one that has spent the slightest amount of time researching evolution would know that it does not say we came from apes , you may want to use sources that are not extremely biased

Well, evidence is just very close -as a faint thing- to faith. Sometimes faith takes material form and then evidence is subjected to its power.

I think in a materialistic society infected with the extreme religion of science and its great "achievements", the discussion should get stuck between these two extremes of Western rationality.

To prove God scientifically or by other methods exceed the very definition of that object (It is contradictory by itself). It is very easy for humans to get bogged down with the limitations of rationality when they try to peer the infinite entities (especially by its impaired and feverish dominant version made in the West), so what to prove, or what to use to prove anything?

There are some things however to think of, for example the fact that cruelty is justified in the insane mind of humans just as a step ahead to Paradise, or a gang of criminals like the Vatican Church could have survived all these years, and could have been able to put a veil of forgetfulness on their hideous role in human history. It must show a certain dark side of faith, or maybe the plain necessity of people to have a passive attitude towards faith; as that Church taught: they can be the only chosen ones to administrate human faith.

Anyway.

And here something else:





well, Darwin theory makes me sigh: a feverished mind extending the laws forged with fire and cruel greed by the English Empire to all living things: Evolution and survival of the fittest. These are also pieces of faith as a simple use of the very rules of science can show: Lack of evidence, lack of theoretical integrity, complicated hypotheses that are useful just to explain partial facts (and in that sense other deep theories like Quantum mechanics will definitely fall too: They introduce pieces of faith that are admissible as they are useful to make other models work).

And this situation is exactly the one that encourages the paladins of the heavenly explanations to refuel their tanks and come back to work:

"Does this not suggest an external control?"


And then the humans thinking that the universe is controlled by a sort of human mind, a superhuman mind. Just because it sounds logic to our human mind. Have they ever thought that a bird in their own ability to perceive , metabolise and survive could have seen the universe as the works of a bird mind. Probably they would reject birds can do so, and they are quite right: The only creature that has the ability to put darkness to their own processing abilities (and especially on its sick heart) is the human being. Humanly explanations of everything, impossible dilemmas as that one of evidence and faith, and much more. We bloody suck.

Wow, I feel sorry for you - no clue to reality!

Faith is something, when you realize it - we all have, no matter what you believe in.

****Why I do not like faith (a thread for atheists /agnostics to share their views in a peaceful settin



You? Peaceful??? not likely!!