Tobi,

Sounds like your belief system is Relativism.

Where does truth fit in? or does it even matter?

Witness in oneself may easily be purely subjective persuasion and is no sure test of truth.

BT posts:

I've seen this.

Where's the empirical scientific proof that the earth and life on it are billions and millions of years old? There is none, so don't claim this as fact is all I'm saying.  This is what pseudo science claims as fact.  This timeline is purely speculative guessing on the part of scientists who for whatever reason (like keeping their job?) put it forth as fact instead of as an unproven hypothesis.

You're not only repeating  pseudo science as fact, you are also defending pseudo science as fact. 

BT,

I think discussion is useful and focusing on differences is where we most often learn. But resorting to showing lack of respect such as you have done here strips discussion of its usefulness.

If you continue, I'll not even read your posts, let alone respond.  

Lula, I am sorry, but I have lost my respect for you as an intellectual. All you know and can do is regurgitate RCCC and that leaves a lot to be desired for living life and communicating in the real world ... which you are want to just ignore. Thank You so much for this fake kindness but it would make all a bit happier. “Where's the empirical scientific proof that the earth and life on it are billions and millions of years old?” I am sure they have it all locked away so religious folk cannot find it … where else would they put it, hahaha. I hope you find what you are looking for though, good luck.

There is a whole host of evidence that consistently points to an age for the universe of around 14 billion years...you have cosmic background radiation, the age of old stars, etc....saying there is no empirical evidence is just plain wrong...the existence of evidence doesn't necessarily prove a theory but I don't see how you can argue against the existence of such evidence...

As for the earth, the geological study started by James Hutton and Charles Lyell has decades of evidence pointing to an age in the billions (though the initial estimates were in the hundred thousands or millions)...again, you don't have to believe the evidence but there is no doubt a lot of it with a certain degree of consistency...

Hi Boobz--fyi...I don't at all fit into any of the categories you described above (maybe the "not knowing everything" one--but just barely).  I understand the frustration.

My world's pretty real and non-imaginary too...most of the time...I think...maybe.

Well what's the alternative? Seems to me that people either have "faith" in a holy book or institution or person to tell you what god is, or you must decide for yourself what god must be based on your experiences and believes. In other words, you can either let your religion determine your beliefs, or use your beliefs to determine your religion. The former is usually one people adopt from birth or an early conversion experience, the later by people who genuinely think about and constantly re-examine the question of what god is.

Again I have no faith in anything otherworldly whatsoever, so it really doesn't concern me too much, but I can't help but think the world would be a better place if more people did the later.

I'm avoiding talking about the religious side of the equation because it isn't a place to start.  Some of your points are right I think--others have angles you might not know.

You do have to have faith--in any direction you choose to go.  At some point you decide, this is the way it is and just fall into step.  Hopefully, though, you keep re-examining when the situation merits.

Next time we talk (off forum)  I'll pass a few things your way from my personal experience that won't fit easily and simply into your worldview (though you might hammer them in).

If you have the luxury of never encountering something then it's easy to be unconcerned.  The real question is what do you do if you do encounter it?

I will add this personal note (which is my opinion of course):  If you claim an experience with a God who you feel you know "everything" about, who always agrees with you, is easily understood all the time, rarely if ever challenges you and never requires a major change in your understanding then I'd posit you haven't met an actual "God".

I do have faith, just in understanding, not the supernatural. A bit off topic, but at times I've wondered if the real difference between atheists and true believers is not faith, but rather the ability to understand and accept Chaos. It has nothing to do with intelligence, Copernicus and Einstein could never accept Chaos, and tried in vain to find orderly rules that governed everything to show that there was a rational god that created all of this. And maybe if they were omniscient they could. But so far they've failed, while the schools of quantum physics, psychology and others defined by statistics, the crude tool humans invented to understand Chaos, has surged ahead.

My "worldview" is already an extremely complicated merger of Stoic self reliance, Epicurean "enjoy life while it lasts", Hobsian pessimism of the individual and a perhaps unjustified Humanist optimism about human kind as a whole. And its adding new elements and occasionally reforming old ones all the time. I may not be able to claim religion has more contradictions much longer at this rate.

I've always wondered if the real difference between atheists and believers is the ability to understand and accept order you dirty, stinking Shadow!   Vorlons rule!

Maybe you just don't understand the supernatural.

Your last paragraph sums it up nicely.  Just as many conundrums in the self-contained life as in any other,  I had a pretty satisfactory worldview for quite some time and then some impolite things came along and beat it to a pulp and significantly complicated my own worldview--despite my vehement and well-thought-out protests.

On a more serious note: I am actually optimistic and excited by human potential as well.  I'm just aware we have a looming expiry date if we don't expand our thinking.

Maybe now would be a good time to mention that while I've seen a good number of sci-fi movies, I've never watched more than a few episodes of any TV shows. So I'm afraid you reference goes over my head.

But to get myself out of this trivial hole I've gotten myself into, I should say I also total accept order as well. We need calculus and algebra as much as statistics, and all have their place in this infinitely complex universe of ours.

Perhaps, but to me it sounds like your worldview wasn't as flexible as you thought. Also I should probably point out like religion itself, you've taken a position that cannot be disproved. There is a chance that you're right and I'll change my mind (though most likely after this board is quite dead). But if I don't then you'll attribute it to me never having that "experience". For all we know I could have an "experience" equivalent to yours, but if my worldview was able to handle it where yours failed, neither of us would ever know.

Ack!  You've never watched Babylon-5!?

My worldview was pretty open by normal standards--it took some really abnormal things to genuinely trash it.  "Able to handle it" is relative.  People avoiding a dealing with a difficult issue often feel they have handled it.

Must...sleep...now.

With the millions of life forms on this planet, only mans ego makes god his.

Who's to say there isn't a lifeform in the infinite number of universes we perceive as God?  It takes a lot of ego to refuse to contemplate that too.

Funny!  Christ's Church that He promised He would be with until the consummation of the world 'peer reviewed" by 2 guys who started their own religions in contrast to Christs. Exchange Christ for Luther or Mohammed? I don't think so.