Spiritual effects of climbing?

Matt N wrote:

As someone capable of critical thinking, doesn't that come across as very convenient to you?

It's also inconsistent with Christianity, which from the writing looks like what OP is professing. St. Paul certainly doesn't fit in this boat. 

Spencer Parkin wrote:

 Do your outdoor adventures build or diminish any faith you might have in creationism?  

Good question; I'll take you seriously.

"Creationism" is a loaded term that often implies adherence to evangelical Christian worldview that encompasses much more than the origins of the universe (most onerously, the concept of moral accountability to its creator). Perhaps "intelligent design" would suit the discussion better, as it can apply to many different religious systems.

Yes, my time spent in the outdoors confirms my belief that it was designed by a greater intelligence. The same beautiful outdoors, however, harbors an equal measure of pain and death. That confirms my corollary belief that something in the universe is hella fucked. Explanations and solutions from that point tend to be religious in nature, or at least meta-something. Raincheck on that one.

Were I a proper atheist instead of a prodigal, I think I would have a hard time accounting for Earth/humanity winning the cosmic lottery and existing this long. 

In closing, the fact that North Chasm View Wall can be climbed at 5.10 (by me, no less) is evidence enough for me that there is a g/God, and a merciful one at that ;-)

Matt N wrote:

As someone capable of critical thinking, doesn't that come across as very convenient to you?

I think I see what you're saying.  "Believe first, proof later" is meant as propaganda to deceive foolish, blind followers, and to maintain control over them.  As an honest seeker of truth, however, belief will only take you so far, and if that belief is never validated, or worse, invalidated, the faith dies off.  I believe, however, that well founded faith can be ultimately rewarded, and so believing first without evidence is not a waste of time.  In some instances, there may be no other way to gain certain knowledge.  Godel's incompleteness theorem seems to come to mind.  In any case, you might argue that scientists work a similar way.  They start with a hypothesis, and then work by improving or disproving that hypothesis.  Hypotheses that stand up to great scrutiny attain the status of theory.  Similarly, we might hypothesize that God exists, but this isn't very scientific, because I can't think of an experiment that improves upon or disproves this.  However, I can choose to have faith in the idea, and this might lead me to pray.  Doing so, I may receive a spiritual witness of the truth of my convictions.  Now, you may say that this is a load of pooh, but 1) we assume that I am being honest with myself and others (the witness was authentic, or it wasn't), and 2) it makes no sense to dispute a person's claim of spiritual confirmation, because only they experienced it.  The ultimate example of all this, of course, is the first vision story.  Anyhow, the point is that a religious person works by hypothesis too, but then works to receive proof.

Meating Jesus...  2nd Meat Wall, Indian Creek.  

Spencer Parkin wrote:

Wow!!!  I have to see that movie!  Going lower into the Crevasse!  That takes some serious courage!  I always imagined crevasses to be bottomless pits!

I've often struggled to understand why the need to believe first without evidence, and act on that belief, is an important principle.  I really don't know.  But what I've been taught is that a witness of certain things cannot come until after the trial of your faith.

It's an incredible documentary, definitely worth watching. Probably the best I've ever seen. 

I would call myself an atheist, but I guess I'm sort of spiritual. Seeing some of the great wonders of the world makes you want to believe in a higher power, or some cosmic order to things, but there being a scientific explanation to nearly all of these phenomenons shuts that down. 

"Believe first, proof later" sounds to me like a perfect prescription for rampant confirmation bias.  As in, "I KNOW there's a god because I saw a rainbow today."  Okaaay... but there is a perfectly good scientific explanation for a rainbow.

Now I'm sure the pious will offer up all sorts of proofs they've witnessed, but IME these are the folks that literally "see god's work" in the most mundane of life's amazing variety of wonders. (And, viewing the world through a deist belief filter, why wouldn't they?)

Once you know that you know nothing, you are free to detach from most of the brainwashing you've been subjected to. Bonus: perceived reality usually becomes far more interesting when questions eclipse the answers. Answers don't stimulate thought nearly as much as questions do. 

All these words are fictions of the mind anyway... 

Gunkiemike wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_us_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5?cps=gravity_5059_5357798981384343305

I don't believe in any God found in a book but if you have enough training in Science you come across remarkable order in the rules of the Universe to (for example) make life possible.

The Universe IS a Miracle. But the idea that Jeebus had anything directly to do with it is a little bit of a fairy tale, imo.

These kind of conversations are so tired. Do people really think that religion is about explaining rainbows in a way that science does better?

http://www.theonion.com/article/priest-religious-but-not-really-spiritual-17373

Tyler Metheney wrote:

I absolutely get that spiritual feeling from the outdoors, I believe in God for sure. 

+1 

John Barritt wrote:

+1 

How can you guys be so sure that your faith you "chose" is the one, true religion?

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+determines+your+religion+-+when+where+born&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS732US732&oq=what+determines+your+religion+-+when+where+born&aqs=chrome..69i57.8279j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=what+determines+your+religion+-+when+and+where+born

Its all circumstantially based to whom, where and when you were born. Must be all part of "His Plan", right? Another convenience of faith. 

Do you not imagine your beliefs are also "circumstantially based"?

SThal wrote:

Do you not imagine your beliefs are also "circumstantially based"?

I don't consider facts to be "circumstantial". 

"Here's a list of scientific discoveries that were later proven wrong using religion:"

1.

2.

3.

Can't prove a negative - so its pretty hard to prove that a god doesn't exist.

But how hard should it be to prove that something does exist? 

Just one shred of factual evidence. That's all that's needed. Yet we have none, even after thousands of years of believers roaming this planet.

Matt N wrote:

How can you guys be so sure that your faith you "chose" is the one, true religion?

Aight, I'll play angel's advocate here. What degree of epistemological surety are you looking for? Even in my zealous, churchgoing days I wouldn't have tried to lay out material/natural evidence for an immaterial/supernatural transcendent being. There are reasons to believe in a God, but I'd be foolish to assume such a heavy burden of 100% not-til-I-put-my-finger-in-his-side proof. (Unless you cut in line as I'm racking and snacking for Mariner, in which case I'ma send you to meet Him myself! [That was a joke]).

Were I to believe the Bible, I would believe it on the same grounds that I believe Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth. Although I wonder if the eyewitnesses of that murder would've maintained their beliefs in the face of persecution and martyrdom the way countless early church believers did (no need to believe the Bible to confirm that, ask Josephus). Hell, man, if the Kool-Aid is that tasty, maybe you should try a sip.

Here is a list of archaeological references within the Bible that were considered  fictitious by academia until archaeologists actually discovered them:

1. Hitite civilization, discovered by Winckler in 1906

2. Two concurrent kings of Babylon, Nabondidus and Belshazzar. J.G. Taylor discovery in 1854 further clarified in 1979

here are other archaeological finds that confirm accounts within the Bible

 Nuzi Tablets

 tablets of Elba

 walls of the great temple of Karnak recount the Egyptian attack upon Palestine also recorded in 1 Kings 14:25 and 26

So, do all of you believers, also feel that Scientology is as "true" a religion as whatever you believe? 

Mormonism? Branch Davidians? 

When do you consider it a religion and when do you consider it a cult?

All seem to posses the same level of truth in their stories. 

@Matt N you clearly have no knowledge of the Bible, the history of the world, and its religions to make statement such as that.

For the record I'm an environmental engineer and a Christian; and the bit by Carlin is pretty funny.

This discussion is 99% likely to leave everyone exhausted and no where different than where we started. How about we just agree to climb, enjoy the fresh air and have a post climb beer!

where is the fun it that! Nothing wrond with healthy discord