Literal thinking and religion do not mix!

Post Reply New Topic

I am a literal thinker and used to be religious until I got into science and make it extremely hard to try to believe in a supernatural or magical being. I come off as cold and calculating but see things as they are it is much harder to believe in a magical man who takes no action in anything that goes on in the current world let alone talking snakes and talking burning bushes or a worldwide flood only 4000 years ago when there are red wood trees alive today 4000 years old. So I have become an athiest because I accept evolution and biology and how the physical world works.

I'm a very literal and science minded individual, yet I believe in God.
We cannot say he doesn't exist, for we have no proof. We can't prove one way or the other, so there is the possibility he does exist, and my own personal life experiences have helped with that.

Choosing to believe something can be a deeply personal and rational choice. Literal thinking can mix with religion. It's not so black and white as you seem to think.

Actually, it's natural for part of the general population to be more literally thinking and the rest to be more figuratively thinking; part of that is an innate issue as well as an environmental issue.

And yes, literal thinking is A force behind Fundamentalist Religion communications, as well as Militant Atheist communications. And yes, there is a direct correlation of emotional expression, both in words and in verbal and non-verbal language for 'stodgy' acting folks who rely more on analytical mechanical cognition of mind than social cognition of empathic mind. And yes, Richard Dawkins is like a talking lemon when he talks to how there ain't no GOD but Darwin, and Hawking, et al..

And yes, then there are the conservative literal thinking Fundie Christians who HABITUALLY make Jesus into an only SON OF GOD; where all he REALLy is, IS just another human being like a Yogi or 'Yoda' for media example, WHO attains Nirvana AKA Cosmic Consciousness NOW; Heaven now, etc. etc..; to making Muhammad the last prophet when the original word before the translation of the revised word prophet only means one who enlightens the tribe with new ways of gaining mind and body balance and cool stuff like that.

Literal thinking is a very restrictive way of being; but it has its merit if one is gonna teach Arithmetic; do plumbing; BE BILLY GRAHAM; BE A scientist, in general; OR whatever works in black and white thinking..

Different strokes and all of that; and literal thinkers DO contribute much to society to make us more comfy, from inventing toilet paper to computer mouses; and such as that..

Even though the theory of evolution is accepted by most major Christian churches....

While I fancy myself a Christian, I also believe that scientific truths like evolution, the geologic age of the earth, or that homosexuality having a biological origin, are undeniable. The fact is, the Bible is not a science book, and trying to make it one detracts from it's real purpose. Some parts of the Bible were never meant to be taken literally. Unfortunately, I belong to a branch of Lutheranism that is controlled by a bunch of red staters who have refuted everything I just stated.

My guess is that a person who is an extreme literal thinker would probably go to one extreme or to the other: either be a strict Fundamentalist Biblical literalist, or be a total non believer. Would take scripture literally, or be an atheist, because they wouldn't be unable to take the Bible as allegory.

All the creationist don't seem to have trouble reading it all literally. They may have trouble with science, but not taking their religious writing literally.

Good for you, though logic, literal thinking and religion can all exist peacefully in one person.

Though which theory of evolution do you believe in? or do you believe in all the theories of evolution, even though they contradict each other?

I hate to break to you, but science and biology don't explain everything, not even close to explaining the majority of things.

Lastly many religious books are based on local peoples and cultures, which many people try to apply on a global level (hence the problem) by taking the writings out of context.

There hasn't been a global flood in human times, though massive regional floods did occur
The Old Testament "Great Flood" flooded their known world, reaching as far as Baghdad in Iraq.
This flood was caused by the expansion of Mediterranean Sea into what is known as the Eastern Mediterranean Basin, creating a flood as far as Iraq and India.
Another "Great Flood" occurred when the Mediterranean Sea flooded the Bosporus Straits and Black Sea Basin.

There was a "Great Flood" that hit South America and North America as well.

Soo religion is always right and science is always wrong and people were made out of dirt and ribs and never shared a common ancestor with apes regardless of the genetic data and fossil record and the recent discovery that the missing link has been found? The world only being 6000 years old even though there are trees and life forms still alive older than that? Sorry I find it extremely hard to believe! I prefer to know than believe because knowing holds more strength than belief!

Oh, they mix, but the resulting reaction is exothermic.

What different theories of evolution might that be? I don't see scientists at each others throats over the subject.

I didn't say that, Science has barely scratched the surface and it can coexist with religion.
Science isn't able to explain everything or even disprove any religion.
I don't think science will every fully disprove religion, nor will religion be able to debase science.

With that all said, some scientists are trying to prove that the universe is a COMPUTER SIMULATION (seriously they are)!

Very few religious people believe the world is 6,000 years old, refuse to accept fossils and the like.
Those who normally do are protestants.

Do you believe in the theory that comets brought water and the building blocks of life to Earth and their impact energized them into forming organisms?
Or is it the theory that lightning striking the primordial soup, triggered the building blocks of life to form DNA and RNA, leading to present day life?
Or how about the theory stating the collision of Original Earth with Mars twin forming current Earth released the energy triggering life?
Or was it the theory that Aliens that brought DNA and RNA to Earth, then returned to create humans from apes (Yes this is a slowly gaining theory...)?
Or was it a star burst that sent the necessary energy and materials to Earth to create life?
Or was it angels who disobeyed God and mated with primitive humans, to create modern humans (it's in certain religious texts)
Or was it God?

Neither is any less farfetched than any of the others.

How bout the birth of the universe:

Is it the big bang theory, where nothing existed and BAM the universe was born into existence in a split second through a massive burst of energy?

Is it the theory that our universe is the latest universe created out of the destruction of the previous universe (which was created out of it's predecessor...), in an ever repeating cycle of creation and destruction dating back to the original universe a very long time ago? This theory states we are long removed from the original universe in said line of events.

Is it the theory that universe is just computer simulation created by higher evolved race and/or a being, who may or may not be watching it unfold, and has the power to alter the simulation?

Is it the gaining theory that we are in a universe that is part of a much bigger multiverse that are interconnected, while existing parallel to each other?

Is it the theory that a creator/god who willed it into being and still interacts with it?
Is it it the theory that a creator/god created it, though has since died, allowing everything to continue on without interference?

Which theory or theories do you believe in?

Last edited by xenocity on 29 Jul 2015, 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

There is no monolithic theory of evolution, never has been.
Scientists don't agree on how life evolved into its current form, let alone how life was started.
Scientists do agree that evolution is a real and it cannot be stopped.

Darwin and his partner stated the all life evolved from a single ancestor, sometime after the first continent was created (only part of said land mass still exists).
This is called Darwinism.
Some take it further claiming all life is descendant from one single living organism from the primordial era.

Some theories reject the single common ancestor, and instead believe that numerous organisms sprung up instead which all life has descendant from.
Some scientists also believe that numerous life forms pop up through out time, thus not all life descends from one time period.

Some reject this notion outright claiming that new life springs up from time to time and no life is the descendant from the primordial eras.

I've listed many of the most backed origin theories on life and the universe in my previous post.
They also don't agree on the origins of humans and don't all agree on that humans originate from Africa.

While there might be some dispute about details of evolutionary origins, I don't see any modern scientists arguing the point to declaring one another heretics. Those who believe that aliens had brought human DNA to earth I doubt have any credibility, and are a distinct minority. And while there are still some scholars that doubt an African origin for humanity, they are also in a distinct minority.

There is no agreed upon and proven origin of life as of yet.
Just competing theories.
The alien people are growing minority.
Those who challenge the EVE theory (African origin theory of humanity) are growing in numbers as new evidence is found.

The point is science is not in agreement on the origins of life and human evolution and probably never will be until conclusive evidence is found.
Hell there are Human remains found in South and North America that are the same age as those found in Africa, but closer related to modern man.
There is newly discovered evidence in Europe and Asia too.
The Eve Theorists are refusing to accept it and are trying to shut it down...
Hell many Eve Theorists refuse to accept the West African Y chromosome which is dated much earlier than the East African X and Y chromosomes.


Science isn't as peaceful as it is made out to be.
None of them command media attention, which is why we don't hear most of it.

My problem with religion is that it seems to place humans over animals.

I think of humans as animals. When I look at an animal I see MYSELF in it. A religious person sees themself as ABOVE the animal simply because they are human.

(Organized) religion is nothing more than storytelling and mythology. It's interesting and worthy of study but nothing to live by. Those Bible writers were sick sick people. Interesting, but sick.

Spirituality is fine but it's subjective and a lot of sh***y ass people claim to be spiritual.