What is more important, what is true or what you WANT to be true?

Question

It seems, especially in this country, that our feelings get in the way of our minds. That if something doesn't "feel" right, then it isn't right. Case in point, how the U.S. is second to last in accepting Evolution and understanding genetics. For most, the thought of all life coming from a single instance and humans coming from apes doesn't "feel" right. But what DOES feel right, is this need to feel special about ourselves. That the creator of the entire Universe created human beings that look just like him. Think about it. We all have the ability to use our minds for reason and logic. It's time we started to do just that.

The example of Evolution was to show how blind people are to truth. That it is more important for some to have "blind" faith in one thing, even if it's not considered to be true or proven. Since there is no actual and physical proof of the existance of God, then the burden of proof is solely on the person who believes that it's true. No one can prove God doesn't exist, but no one can prove that God does exist.

Hello? Even know that in Genesis it says that "God created Man in his own image" Doesn't this mean that God looks like a Man? (or a woman) he created us to look like we do.

...and I am a secular humanist. I live my life without God or the need of religion. That the oneness I feel for the Universe is so much more than any feeling towards religion and God.

Answer 1

Please read... thanks

You have an ideology... wheter or not your ideology is true is if it lines up with the facts...

the facts as they are, vs. the truth as one sees it...

there cannot be multiple truths.... any versions of the truth being; mostly truth, half truth, partial truth or twisted truth... are all fallacies...lies, if you will...

There is a whole universe of evidence and facts that we can use to think with...

no one can proove or disproove the existance of God to someone else.... it is a choice of faith...

here is a question.... will you choose to believe in the facts, or in a fallacy that best suits your ideology?

Many who are "die hard" Athiest try to proove Evolution by taking evidence and slapping something anti- thiestic on it..., convinced that their ideology of a "godless universe" is truth.... they attempt to proove it to others... by any means neccessary, even if that means using false evidence or unscientifical thoughts... They forget that Evolution is still a Theory and to call it science would be false...

Science is an accumulation of laws, and no theory should be presented as fact... even though Evolution is widly accepted... many do not even attemt to question it and look at different theories of the origen of the universe and mankind.

The very same universal evidence can be used to show that God does exist.... by using the facts....

That is why you have a Theory of Evolution and Creationism.

The Truth is many facts are in favor of Creationism... and there are growing problems in the theory of Evolution...

such as....

It is scientifically immpossible for DNA to make new information... DNA can only replicate old information and shuffle information to offspring... sometimes DNA losses information resulting in birth deffects, tumors, and other abnormalities...

This fact breaks down a key unit in the Theory of Evolution,which states that all animals including Humans have evloved... which is immpossible according to the evidence...

This fact also explains why different species have different attributes at opposite ends of the gene pool... nevertheless each creature including Human beings are still within their own species....

When parrents have offspring the DNA shuffles itself with the DNA provided by both parrents, resulting in look alike features in the offspring...

THis piece of scientifical evidence strikes at the backbone of the theory of Evolution... If life did not evolve, then there is no "common ancestor"

Here is another piece of Evidence...

FACT: It is impossible for life of any sort to spontaniously form from non-living objects... even when there is a huge period of time or not...

This strikes at the very core of the Theory of Evolution...

Evoluition states that microbial life formed together atom by atom, molecule by molecule, after millions of years and formed a living cell like organism that actually lived... with no defects and somehow reproduced asexualy... all by chance...

Do you know the odds of this being possible?

1 out of infinity.... aka Zero amount of odds...

Here is another piece of evidence that serves as the death blow to the theory of Evolution itself...

FACT: Absolutly nothing can form from nothing...

Evolution states that the Big Bang created everytrhing by chance... laws of gravity, speed of light... atoms... from nothing...

FACT: components of the Atom repell each other... every physical thing is made up of atoms and particles...

odds of particles that repell each other, that came into being from nothing, that somehow come together and form atoms.... less than Zero

The Theory of Evolution has delt with a death blow at its core....

But it lives on as an alternative for those that cannot accept facts and choose to believe what lines up with their ideology..

What other explanation is there for the universe, if not Evolution?

Inteligent Design, Creation, An extremly inteligent being that spoke the universe into existance and created man to ponder their place in it...

It is a Fact that many cannot accept... but all evidence points to God...

Now that you have the Evidence... you must choose to believe in it or not...

Sadly most would rather believe in anything short of insanity and beyond than in God...

Will you believe in the Facts, it is your decission...

God bless you and yours...

Answer 2

Just because evolution may be true doesn't prove there is no God. The story of Adam and Eve was passed down through the generations like a fable to explain why people have to work and go through labor pain and why there is evil in the world. It was never really meant as out and out fact that that is how people were created. God could have tried varies things and changed his mind. After all it says in the Bible that to God a million years is as a day. So even if he did create the earth and all in 6 days that could have been a span of millions of years.

Answer 3

Nowhere does the Bible say that we look "just like God." Nada. Zip.

To read the Bible is not a happy reading on how to make us feel good about ourselves. To quote Paul, "We are the scum of the earth, the rufuse of the world."

Ultimately Christianity is a religion that points to God as the point of all life and away from ourselves. The spotlight is firmly planted on God, and in humility should we humans be coming to Him.

Now for the irony: If you want a feelgood worldview, you have to look at atheism--or specifically, secular humanism. First of all, in atheism, with no God in the picture, humans have no authority over them--as free as the child who is left alone while Mom and Dad go on vacation. I bet that makes a person feel pretty special. Secondly, secular humanism believes that with the use of our own reason and ability to work in the confines of science, we will ultimately be able to do almost anything in time.

Now, which one again is the one that sets out to make us all feel good about ourselves?

BTW--I don't accept evolution not because it dousn't "feel" right. Putting it that way is a cop out, yes. I don't accept it because I believe it is flawed, but that's been covered ad nauseum before elsewhere.

Answer 4

What is TRUE is definitely important! However, what is defined as truth is most important. Truth is changeless. It stands the test of time. The more it stands the test of time, the more true it is.

You talk about evolution of humans from apes. Is the body true? It is true for the span of a lifetime and that too is subject to destruction. What was created will be destroyed. So truth is beyond creation yet pervades all of creation.

Good Luck in seeking out the TRUTH.

Answer 5

There are some subtleties at work here that seem to be escaping most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.

A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.

For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."

See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a major change in a physics theory from the perspective of the Tao, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't know all the answers... and that is OK. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."

But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are a key component filter of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... their 'subjective reality'. Any attack on one of these internalized 'beliefs' is interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and attack on their subjective reality.

And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, it constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding. However, if some new piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode... for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down. And, ultimately, it will.

So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies and misrepresentations that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They are just blithely bopping along, doing what science does... figuring out how nature works.

No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded, intellectually honest curiosity about the universe contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a certainty that their delusional faith-based 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.

We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.

When the religious enter a forum like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking new information which might allow them to QUESTION their beliefs more effectively, or might put their beliefs at risk... they are seeking VALIDATION... of their beliefs, and hence, their self-description.

Answer 6

Since your question is in the religion section, I'd say what people believe as their faith IS true to them. Otherwise, they wouldn't believe something they thought was not true. Faith does not have to have proof or be factual or seen by the naked eye. Faith is hoping that what one believes is true, having the belief that it is true, and acting as if it were true. I think what is true is more important, but since we live in a world where "truth" is relative and subject to personal interpretations and perceptions, your question makes it hard to separate 'what is true' from what a person believes and 'wants to be true'. That's if it's about faith and religion. Now, if it's about whether or not the sky is blue, then that's easy to separate 'what is' from what one 'wants to be true':)

Answer 7

A dude, I kinda hear ya but how can any human differentiate what is true as opposed to what they think is true. What they think in their heads they obviously think is true so how can those same people tell what they want to be true opposed to what actually is true? Just like many think evolution proves there's no God, that science proves theirs no God? What if I point out that God created evolution? Whats your hypothesis then? So let me guess you WANT evolution to prove there's no God, is that not true?

Answer 8

The TRUTH is what is important. Jesus is the way, the truth and the light. Funny how they just keep finding all these holes in the theory of evolution. Gotta question for ya, if you evolved from a monkey why do they still exist.

Answer 9

You certainly picked a controversial example for your question.

To really answer, we'd have to get into philosophy and debate what is "truth." For example, is something you can observe and measure necessarily true? What about something you have to interpret to make sense of? Wouldn't that interpretation be shaped by "what you WANT to be true," to quote your question?

Answer 10

It is written that he who go to bed with itchee butthole wake up with stinky finger , That sounds more like logic and truth than what you just wrote ...Peace !