Why do you believe what you believe?

roguenuke said:

Except there we don't know what they might have known at all. In fact, it doesn't appear that they actually did know which things came first at all, since they first said that Earth came before the stars.

Click to expand...

They said no such thing.

Jerry said:

They said no such thing.

Click to expand...

According to the scriptures, the Earth existed in darkness, then came light (the sun). That means that the Earth existed before the sun according to the Hebrew stories. That is what is was said.

roguenuke said:

According to the scriptures, the Earth existed in darkness, then came light (the sun). That means that the Earth existed before the sun according to the Hebrew stories. That is what is was said.

Click to expand...

The story is written from the point of view from the surface.

Day 1: The first 'light' was the removal of the dense cloud cover Earth had when it formed; 4.4-3.8 x 109 years ago.

With "darkness was over the surface of the deep", Genesis begins around the the start of the Archean eon with a dense layer of clouds and gases which would have made it dark at the Earth's surface. During the early Archean (about 3.0 Ga) the mantle was much hotter than today, probably around 1600 °C. This means the fraction of partially molten material was much larger than today. Gases escaped from the crust, and more gases were released by volcanoes, completing the second atmosphere.


The "separating light from darkness" is the cooling of the Earth, the formation clouds and rain created by the oceans. By the start of the Archean eon oceans already covered the Earth. The new atmosphere probably contained water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and smaller amounts of other gases. As the output of the Sun was only 70% of the current amount, significant amounts of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere most likely prevented the surface water from freezing. Free oxygen would have been bound by hydrogen or minerals on the surface. Volcanic activity was intense and, without an ozone layer to hinder its entry, ultraviolet radiation flooded the surface.


Earth Science Lesson 1 Instruction, page 1
Formation of Earth and Life
History of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Day Age Interpretation

roguenuke said:

In fact, it doesn't appear that they actually did know which things came first at all, since they first said that Earth came before the stars.

Click to expand...

Referring to Genesis 1;14: And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.”

Day 4: The Earth's achieves it's current 'stellar day': the Earth's rotation relative to fixed stars, which has been and is still ever changing. See also Solar Day, Mean Solar-Day, and Sidereal-Day. Even the Moon's distance from the Earth has always been changing. This is the perpetual nature of evolution.

roguenuke said:

There is no real evidence that they spoke of any specific creatures coming first either. For one thing, animals walked the Earth before trees were present. During the time of the oldest animals to live on our planet, only shrubs and bushes and smaller plants like that existed. DNA tells us that women did not come from the rib of a man.

Click to expand...

Referring to Genesis 1;11-12: Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. .....

Day 3: Plant life forms on land; ~1.0 x 109 years ago


Referring to Genesis 1; 20-25:


Day 5: Birds (Feduccia, A. 1995. Explosive evolution in tertiary birds and mammals. Science 267: 637-638, ~70 x 106 years ago), whales (~50 x 10[SUP]6[/SUP] years ago) and sea mammals ("swarms of living creatures," where "creatures" is the Hebrew word nephesh, referring to soulish animals - those that can form relationships with humans) were created, which would correspond to the end of the Cretaceous period/beginning of the Tertiary.


Day 6: The "beasts of the earth" (the Hebrew word is chayyah, which is best translated as "wild animal," usually referring to carnivorous mammals [the extinct families Miacidae and Viverravidae, appeared ~50 x 10[SUP]6[/SUP] years ago or current families Canidae, Felidae, Mustelidae, and Viverridae appeared ~30 x 10[SUP]6[/SUP] years ago]) the wild and domesticated mammals such as cattle (the Hebrew word is behemah, from which we get the word behemoth, the artiodactyls, large grazing mammals, appeared ~15 x 10[SUP]6[/SUP] years ago) and rodents (mammals that "creep on the ground") were created.

This is not information any bronze-age civilization could have had unless it were given to them by a superior people.

roguenuke said:

Where are you getting your information from?

Click to expand...

I can read.

roguenuke said:

As for my beliefs, I haven't actually stated them, only why/how they developed, which is what the OP asked for. I didn't just dismiss Christianity or even Abrahamic religions. I don't believe any human on Earth really knows at all. What I believe isn't really important to why I believe it. It simply came about as person beliefs on our purpose that came from rejection of other opinions about what God or a higher power might want from us during our lives or what life after death might be like and who will go where.

Click to expand...

Everything you think you know about scripture, is wrong.

I'm not here to convert you or anything, only to point out that your current view is based on bad information.

Jerry said:

Everything you think you know about scripture, is wrong. Garbage in, garbage out.

Click to expand...

This isn't "what I think I know". It is what is taught by most Christian religions. Your beliefs are not in line with what many believe. You are making assumptions about these things, that hold no basis in reality at all, only your personal beliefs about what it might have been.

roguenuke said:

This isn't "what I think I know". It is what is taught by most Christian religions. Your beliefs are not in line with what many believe. You are making assumptions about these things, that hold no basis in reality at all, only your personal beliefs about what it might have been.

Click to expand...

Truth is not an opinion. I gave working links to my source material.

Noah's flood was a very large yet regional event. The story of creation is accurate. There simply is no contradiction between science and scripture.

Jerry said:

Truth is not an opinion. I gave working links to my source material.

Noah's flood was a very large yet regional event. The story of creation is accurate. There simply is no contradiction between science and scripture.

Click to expand...

No, the story of creation is not "accurate" unless you add in your interpretation of what you believe they were talking about, which is not a common interpretation. Plus, as I said, the trees did not come before the animals, which is part of the order written in the scriptures. Other plants, yes, but not trees, nor flowering plants in fact. Flowers came after birds even. Some sea animals existed long before any seed-bearing plants.

roguenuke said:

No, the story of creation is not "accurate" unless you add in your interpretation of what you believe they were talking about, which is not a common interpretation. Plus, as I said, the trees did not come before the animals, which is part of the order written in the scriptures. Other plants, yes, but not trees, nor flowering plants in fact. Flowers came after birds even. Some sea animals existed long before any seed-bearing plants.

Click to expand...

I can't help whatever you were taught in some church decades ago. I can only invite you to question it. If you choose not to then imo you have more faith in that church's teachings than perhaps most of it's followers.

Jerry said:

I can't help whatever you were taught in some church decades ago. I can only invite you to question it. If you choose not to then imo you have more faith in that church's teachings than perhaps most of it's followers.

Click to expand...

I did. That has been my whole point. And I find the information lacking. I believe that what you are putting out is an attempt to justify your continued belief in the scripture, and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't buy it though.

You are wrong about "most of it's followers" though. Most of them do not believe those things you put out. Many of them in fact take the stories in the Bible quite literally. Many more simply believe that they got it wrong, but the message of the Bible and the parts about Jesus are right, and that is good enough for them. Very few see it as you do.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/?page=all

roguenuke said:

I believe that what you are putting out is an attempt to justify your continued belief in the scripture...

Click to expand...

And that's not accurate, either.

I use scripture as a meme for learning in much the same way many use 'the zombie apocalypse' meme for emergency/terrorist preparedness. Researching the creation story taught me a thing or two about evolution. Looking at the destruction of Sodom, and the plagues of Egypt, taught me some about volcanic activity. Looking at Joshua's missing day taught me a few things about planets behave.

If I wanted justification for scripture such justification would not regard how accurate any event was recorded, but would address the demand to pray and question prayer's utility. For that I have even more links:

• Does God Answer Prayer? Researcher Says 'Yes' -- ScienceDaily
• Can Prayer Harm? | Psychology Today
• Prayer: Heavenly Helpers | Psychology Today

It's interesting to note that prayer works regardless of religion. Anyone can use and benefit from prayer, even atheists.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.
Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'
When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.
Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings.
Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise

Click to expand...

German guy said:

In another thread, I wondered why one Christian would take a lot of efforts to prove the Christian beliefs of a different denomination wrong. I wonder how anybody can be *so* sure about his/her own beliefs, even the very details of theological convictions, that he/she can be 100% convinced he/she is right and everybody else is wrong -- why should one person "get it", but other people, who are just as smart and diligent, have it wrong?

So I wonder where this immense trust in the own faith comes from. Why are some believers -- regardless of their religion or denomination -- so sure they're right?

Did they have a vision? Did God directly speak to them about the details? Did they study the Bible/Quran/holy scriptures thoroughly and think they're intellectually more capable than all others who do? Did someone convince them whom they trust blindly -- a parent, a teacher, a mentor?

I'm not trying to mock anybody here, just wondering why you believe what you believe, and why you think it is more convincing than what others believe, and if you're absolutely sure you're right.


As for me, I'm Baha'i and I can just say I found the Baha'i religion most convincing. With best intentions and the best of my capacities, I read the Baha'i scriptures, as well as Bible and Quran. In the end, my conscience and mind told me this religion convinces me best. But I cannot ignore that I'm a faulty human, and I might well err. Only God will judge in the end. Maybe I will find out then that I was mistaken or mislead. But until then -- I find it unlikely any other human can convince me I'm wrong. However, I see no reason to bash or attack people who hold different beliefs, just because I might err.

Click to expand...

I became an atheist because god told me to. I know that sounds funky it's mostly true, if you believe in visions instead of simply a trance hallucination. I was raised by atheists, but I hated my parents, still do. So in my late teens and early twenties, I tried really hard to become a christian. I tried Catholic, too sexist, I tried three kinds of Baptist (each that argue that not only are they the one true religion, they are the one true Baptist religion and all the others are copies made and directed by Satan), I tried UU .... anyway, in my attempt to pray about what to try next, and it was late, and I was intentionally in an trance state, god told me to get off my knees, and get busy doing what needed to be done, and he seemed very angry that I was wasting the time and energy as well as insulting him as though he needed anything akin to worship.

Of course even that evening I realized and still do that it was simply a trance induced representation of my feelings on the subject, but it worked for me. I'm an atheist through and through. I focus on the here and now, and try to stay busy making a diff where I can and where I think I should.

German guy said:

In another thread, I wondered why one Christian would take a lot of efforts to prove the Christian beliefs of a different denomination wrong. I wonder how anybody can be *so* sure about his/her own beliefs, even the very details of theological convictions, that he/she can be 100% convinced he/she is right and everybody else is wrong -- why should one person "get it", but other people, who are just as smart and diligent, have it wrong?

So I wonder where this immense trust in the own faith comes from. Why are some believers -- regardless of their religion or denomination -- so sure they're right?

Did they have a vision? Did God directly speak to them about the details? Did they study the Bible/Quran/holy scriptures thoroughly and think they're intellectually more capable than all others who do? Did someone convince them whom they trust blindly -- a parent, a teacher, a mentor?

I'm not trying to mock anybody here, just wondering why you believe what you believe, and why you think it is more convincing than what others believe, and if you're absolutely sure you're right.


As for me, I'm Baha'i and I can just say I found the Baha'i religion most convincing. With best intentions and the best of my capacities, I read the Baha'i scriptures, as well as Bible and Quran. In the end, my conscience and mind told me this religion convinces me best. But I cannot ignore that I'm a faulty human, and I might well err. Only God will judge in the end. Maybe I will find out then that I was mistaken or mislead. But until then -- I find it unlikely any other human can convince me I'm wrong. However, I see no reason to bash or attack people who hold different beliefs, just because I might err.

Click to expand...

I was raised by a lapsed Catholic and a Methodist.

A few years ago I realized that the Catholic Church must be completely right.

I picked, "I grew up with a different denomination, but a spiritual journey resulted in my current faith." Because that is exactly what happened.

I grew up in the church of Rome. But due to some circumstances that the church really flunked on, I abandoned it. Frankly I spent many years as an atheist. But through some experiences I gained my current faith. I don't belong to a membership church. I find those to be anti biblical. I educate myself.

Ironically, I had something of the opposite experience of so many others here.

I was raised by a devout Catholic father, and a lapsed Southern Baptist mother who later converted to Catholicism. They basically went out of their way to educate me in matters of the faith.

I was drilled on the Baltimore Catechism, given biographies of all the saints to read, and even learned a good deal of my history from Catholic text books.

Strangely enough, however, none of it really took hold in an especially meaningful way. I mean... I got the gist of it. However, a lot of the material struck me as being kind of silly, overly emotional, and even vaguely propagandistic, which always kept it at a distance for me.

I didn't truly come to appreciate the values of my upbringing until I got the freedom to explore the world for myself a bit in my teen years. As a matter of fact, the more I branched out, and saw the way things were in the "secular" world, the more the Catholic way of thinking seemed to make sense.

It simply worked in a way which immorality did not. :shrug:

When I eventually got into the position of having to defend my beliefs against other people (online and in other venues), the experience locked things into place that much further. It basically gave me the opportunity to examine the nuts and bolts of the reasoning behind my upbringing, and play with how they all fit together and worked toward creating a more all-encompassing ideological worldview.

That's where I am today.

I believe what I do because it is what feels most logical to me, and because it is what I choose to believe. Frankly, I hold this to be true regardless of whether God can truly be said to exist or not.

The values Christianity teaches simply make for a productive, sane, and responsible way of living far more often than not.

Gathomas88 said:

Ironically, I had something of the opposite experience of so many others here.

The values Christianity teaches simply make for a productive, sane, and responsible way of living far more often than not.

Click to expand...

I would say that holds true for me, to a certain extent. The values I learned while growing up in a devout Christian (Baptist) home, were good values. In spite of the way so many people want to demonize Christians and accuse them of hating gays, hating abortion, and just generally being hateful in general just was not the experience I had. My parents were both conservative in the way they lived their personal lives, but very liberal as far as social issues go in the general public. They were forgiving, loving, kind, giving, accepting, and believe it or not, open-minded. I think the way I was raised facilitated my having the guts to question everything I had been taught, and go out on my own spiritual journey. I have ended up in a profoundly different place than my upbringing would indicate as expected, but my core values remain rock-solid.

lizzie said:

In spite of the way so many people want to demonize Christians and accuse them of hating gays, hating abortion, and just generally being hateful in general just was not the experience I had.

Click to expand...

It wasn't mine either, Lizzie. I took my own path too as I grew, and out of respect for my father, I waited until he was gone to formally make my move. But I've always been a churchgoer (and attend black Gospel concerts on a fairly regular basis too), and irrespective of the denomination, I truly have never heard anything hateful about anybody or met anybody who's just generally hateful.

lizzie said:

I would say that holds true for me, to a certain extent. The values I learned while growing up in a devout Christian (Baptist) home, were good values. In spite of the way so many people want to demonize Christians and accuse them of hating gays, hating abortion, and just generally being hateful in general just was not the experience I had. My parents were both conservative in the way they lived their personal lives, but very liberal as far as social issues go in the general public. They were forgiving, loving, kind, giving, accepting, and believe it or not, open-minded. I think the way I was raised facilitated my having the guts to question everything I had been taught, and go out on my own spiritual journey. I have ended up in a profoundly different place than my upbringing would indicate as expected, but my core values remain rock-solid.

Click to expand...

Exactly. While (as is the case with any belief system) some people inevitably distort things in a manner other than they were intended, the underlying values of Christianity remain fundamentally sound, IMO.

"Hate the sin, not the sinner."

I consider myself a Gnostic Christian. I was raised in as a Christian for the most part, although religion was never a major influence on my life. My beliefs have developed over the years as a result of introspection, studying metaphysical sciences, and looking at what I find appealing in various faiths. I'm not a very convicted person in religious matters, but I greatly value the emotional support system that a religious worldview can offer. I'm a pretty intellectual person myself, but the psychological problems my generation has to deal with are the worst in American history, and these days teens need all the help they can get.

All religions are true to some extent, it's what you make of it that matters most. .....

I find it interesting that this one shows the greatest agreement. I thoroughly disagree with this choice.
It seems to me the point of knowing truth is for that knowledge to make something true of me.

I'm non-religious, but I definitely believe in karma in the here-and-now. I've seen it work too often in practice.