Originally Posted by youngyew
You have a very dim view of animals. Not all animals are ruthless scavengers, bloodless siblings and mean mothers. Mourning, sharing and caring have all been observed in various animals.
And conveniently Santa Claus, Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard are not transcendental and are therefore subject to a less lenient view and we should then subject them to logic.
You believe in the Christian God and therefore you are partial towards it. It's as simple as that. You simply can't be objective when it comes to Krishna vs YHWH vs Allah.
And I was not arguing against the existence of God. I am arguing that if there's a cosmic casino on the odds of the Earth being an oblong spheroid vs the odds of Joseph Smith being the second coming of Christ vs many other claims in religion, I will not hesitate in putting 99.9% of all my cosmic money into the former.
Wait. I was attacking your arguments not you as a person. I don't even know you and I don't make enemies with an online persona. Sorry if that was what I appear to be. I was also not accusing you to be subscribing to sola scriptura - in which paragraph did I type "Tsar you believe in the infalllibility authority of the Christian faith"?
Again please do not take all this personally. I am sorry I sound over-the-line or even arrogant when I am being assertive. When I tell you to "stop" I wasn't giving you any instruction on what you should do with your belief; it was merely an instrument (probably a rude one, I concur) in what I disagree with you in your line of argument. I am not being your mummy. Sorry if it's all too rude.
When you have removed your anger, however, may I implore you to try to interpret my paragraph with some objectivity. The next time you come across a particular belief you don't subscribe to and they tell you things that are at odd with either the scientific evidence or your own belief, tell me what you are thinking and whether you accept what they say. We are all atheist to three million Gods that have existed on this Earth, the one-God difference between you and I, I hope, shouldn't make my point less obvious.
I don't value my supreme intellect above everything; I value concrete evidence over choosing from three hundred versions of the possible truths. I eagerly await all forms of evidence about everything in the universe - and I would argue that I am free from the influence of the wish of the direction the evidence would take me. To take a not-so-provocative example, a Malay nationalist would hope Hang Tuah is not of Chinese origin, so if the person were to be the investigating historian, he or she would probably be biased in the interpretation of the history facts. However, if the person is just a random Western historian, he or she is most likely removed from this bias. I argue the same case applies in the evolution vs creationism issue - the word creation science itself is ironic because they set forth a conclusion first and try to reach the conclusion. How can they not be biased? Would you mind to help me point out where such bias exists in evolution scientists? There are lots of Christians who work in this field, actually.
Also, about me having pride over my stance, I am not aligned with people who think they have the grand truth and go all over the world telling others.
Scientific interpretation is definitely not a 100% straightforward thing. However, religious interpretation is infinitely more vague and personally customizable. There are no 300 sects of Newtonian physics, for example.
I was merely pointing out that animals tend to be rather practical when it comes to survival. The weak is left to die, the strong are nurtured and protected as best possible. Does that translate to having a low view of animals? Do you now see what I mean about you? Regardless of what you say, you do have a predisposition to interpret evidence according to your own line of thought. You are not independent at all, and it's amusing that you can type the bolded sentence with such impunity.
I think I have failed miserably in trying to convey my message. Evidence is merely that, evidence. There is nothing concrete about anything save the belief you have in your interpretation.
You thought I was angry? Yes I dosed it with a lot of sarcasm and put in direct words, that does not make me angry. (again another proof of you not being "influenced"). This is exactly the same method you use when "being assertive". Can you see yourself in the mirror now? Thanks for your apology, though it really wasn't necessary.
Rather I would suggest you read my post clearly and think about your own stance towards others in general. Yes, you aren't aligned with a faction that promotes their version of truth, that makes it harder to see that you're merely aligned with the people who snobs others for their lack of "evidence". You stamp a "lacking" on the evidence and call it being honest. It's merely your own view, do you see that now? The fact that you are still using your "where I'd put my money analogy" shows that you are the one not reading what I said.
Here's a statement. I have no qualms if evolution were true, or if it weren't. I would be more than happy to develop this field in line with the christians you mentioned. This is the third time I'm pointing out that you make conclusions from evidence garnered when they don't take you in that direction. (1st time: animals. 2nd time: my 'anger')
Do you think I have not realised the folly of committing the act mentioned in your final statement? The fact that you even view religious interpretation as "inferior" to scientific interpretation shows your contempt (and hence your own worldview). You are not prepared to be wrong, you have accepted one as right beforehand. How you can even criticise the word creation is rather amusing.