My conversion...
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2014, 12:07 PM
RE: My conversion...
(07-02-2014 11:58 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Can I have a chilli seed please? One that produces fruit over 1,500,000 SHU will do nicely thanks.

Whats "SHU" ?

I thought (maybe wrongly) that chilli peppers were rated in BTU's ?

* EDIT, nevermind..... scoville heat units...... I had a brain fart. Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: My conversion...
(07-02-2014 11:58 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Can I have a chilli seed please? One that produces fruit over 1,500,000 SHU will do nicely thanks.

That would be the Carolina Reaper...

[Image: PuckerButt-Pepper-Company-Smokin-Eds-Car...00x300.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 12:22 PM
RE: My conversion...
(07-02-2014 10:21 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(07-02-2014 10:04 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I have some wind chimes you can buy, the bells are hung from the real pubes of Jesus £1000 and they're yours.


Monster, you don't think "manscaping" was a think back then?? Little pruning of the bushes?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
07-02-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: My conversion...
(06-02-2014 09:04 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 05:53 PM)Noelani Wrote:  You actually think you went to hell?
Did you read what was written or did you stop reading the first time I wrote the word hell?
I said I had a dream.. this was underlined by me telling you I started out in bed and I woke up in bed. This identifies my experience as a dream.
And yet you also claim that it is more than a dream. You claim it is proof for a specific god and proof that you know what happens to people who enter heaven and the gates of hell.

(06-02-2014 05:53 PM)Noelani Wrote:  And you go around telling people what hell is like?
(06-02-2014 09:04 PM)Drich Wrote:  even in the Dream I did not experience Full Hell. I pointed this out when I said the angel told me that what I experienced was just the gates of Hell.

Still you said that you have told people, and you think you are in authority to speak for the bible, that hell is different than the bible describes, it's worse. The bible uses the word fire but since you have experienced it you can let everyone know what it is truly like.
From your original post: "That's why when i talk to people about Hell I say the reason the bible uses fire to describe hell it is because Being consumed by fire is the closest thing we can relate to when we are thrown into the void of Hell. Even so fire doesn't even come close."

(06-02-2014 05:53 PM)Noelani Wrote:  Are you discounting that this might just be a dream and not some message from a deity? How could you prove the difference?
(06-02-2014 09:04 PM)Drich Wrote:  I asked this like a dozen times... What makes you think God doesn't use dreams to speak to us? there are several examples of God doing this very thing. (Using dreams to communicate to us)
And the examples are.....? And what are you using to tell the difference between a dream and a celestial message?
This guy also gets messages from god, sometimes up to 50 times a day and instructing him to kill someone. Who are you to say he doesn't? (0:31)

(06-02-2014 05:53 PM)Noelani Wrote:  You were not an atheist if you were tempting a god, let alone specifically the god that is talked about in the bible.
(06-02-2014 09:04 PM)Drich Wrote:  Are you an atheist? are you not challenging God the same way I challenged God by challenging those who represent Him?
No, I'm not challenging any god. I'm only challenging the people who claim to have invisible friends.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Noelani's post
07-02-2014, 02:00 PM
RE: My conversion...
(07-02-2014 10:25 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Just going to post this in ALL of Drich's threads

Drich really cannot explain what Faith is. He just can't. I'm not sure why he invites questions.
Faith is faith. There's really no rationale or reasoning behind it try as anyone might to explain it or debate it. Faith is faith.

I'd much rather see Drich just be intellectually honest and say "I cannot explain faith. I believe as I believe." and leave it at that.

**Bible verses are always open to interpretation never mind the fact that that book is (1) just a book regardless if it was 'divinely inspired' and (2) was written by Men......aka Mortal men (therein lies the ultimate fallibility)
**Personal experiences do not count as evidence no matter how many theists wish to believe that they do. Personal experiences don't count with magical rituals, ghosts or a yeti. Just doesn't count - not on an academic or intellectual level.

Faith is faith. Kinda lives in its own realm and that realm and reality really don't blend.
Information, Argumentation and Education are the enemies of faith. Faith requires belief in what cannot be explained nor seen.

If you want to believe and have faith - fine. So be it. But at least be reasonable. Admit that you believe in something you cannot prove nor explain. You're talking about a GOD for petesake........... there's NO explanation for that. At least be honest. IF not with honest with yourself.

Drich is here to sharpen his christian rope-a-dope act.


The quicker you put him on ignore...........the better off you'll be.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like tokutter's post
07-02-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: My conversion...
I'm going to focus on the methodologies you raised, and let drop the other threads of the discussion.

I'm going to draw a distinction between two classes of epistemology. One of them is dogmatic epistemology. Dogmatism begins with some basic axioms or assumptions that cannot be challenged within its own realm of knowledge. It then proceeds to deductively construct conclusions based on the axioms. If these axioms should prove false, then all knowledge based on these axioms is flawed, but Dogmatism is incapable of recognizing when an actual flaw in the axioms exists. In contrast, Self-Correcting epistemology begins only with the recognition that (a) we already have a set of beliefs, as well as means of deriving more beliefs (which is easily verified) and (b) there is a possibility that some or all of these beliefs are in error, and that some or all of these means are unreliable (the rejection of this possibility would be to declare omniscience, which would make any search for truth irrelevant). Self-correction then engages in critical examination of all propositions, seeking to identify which are false and then discard them. It also applies this critical thinking to all new ideas, and all means of acquiring new ideas. It contrasts strongly with Dogmatism in its capacity and willingness to recognize when it has crept into falsehood and to then abandon that falsehood.

In particular, Dogmatism represents a trap. You're essentially playing the lottery when you pick your axioms... and if you don't start with the right picks, you have no way to recognize that they are flawed, and you can't escape it without totally abandoning your framework of knowledge. An inability to recognize that it is in error is the hallmark of Dogmatism. Its only strength... only apparent strength, I should say... is that it expresses more certainty than Self-Correction. Yet this expression of confidence is unjustified. If anything, Self-Correction is the more reliable route to truth, because you can't lose the "lottery" the moment you even begin. Self-Correction actively seeks to prove its veracity, by identifying as many ways as possible for any proposition it holds to be false, and then seeking out whether any of these are the case. Self-Correction takes itself through the proving grounds, while Dogmatism asserts that it need never go anywhere near them.

Now, having explained how I view this search for truth, let's look at the methods you've described.

(07-02-2014 09:49 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(07-02-2014 01:48 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  You seem to have misunderstood my question. I'm not expressing disbelief that the conventional notion of God, if He existed, COULD communicate with dreams. I'm expressing confusion about how you reached the conclusion that this dream of yours had its origin with a divine being. I'm not asking, "could it have gone down like that," I'm asking, "Why do you think that it DID go down like that?" Even if we were to assume that something like the conventional notion of God were to exist and communicated to some people through some dreams, how would you identify this PARTICULAR dream as coming from God, rather than just being the sort of dream you might naturally dream up? Do you think the human mind is incapable of naturally constructing that sort of thing in a dream? Do you think all dreams God-sent, or just special ones? Special how? How did you reach that conclusion? Did you ever ask yourself, "was this just a dream or was it something more?" How did you find your answer, and was your method for finding your answer a good method, or one that is prone to error? How did you come to authenticate this as a God-sent dream rather than just a dream?
As with ANY personal revelation the method of detection is through scripture. Does EVERYTHING jive with what the bible says or not? If Yes then the message however it was received is from God, then if not then it needs to be discarded.

So, you were already pre-inclined to turn to the Bible in search of truth, rather than in any other holy text, or through empiricism? This jives pretty well with the way you interpreted your dream as being a divine revelation from the Christian god, rather than something naturalistic. It also suggests a degree of confirmation bias.

Turning to the Bible to vet a proposition for truth is a quintessentially dogmatic method. It is based on an axiom that the Bible is an accurate guide to truth. It offers no mechanism to detect whether the Bible itself is an inaccurate guide to truth. And it strongly rejects any outside indications that it might be inaccurate.

This isn't, in itself, reason enough to assert that the Bible is false. But it does suggest that vetting a personal revelation against the truth of the Bible cannot assist one in distinguishing a personal revelation about the truth of the Bible, nor the truth of any of the Bible's claims.

Furthermore, there is considerable reason to believe that the Bible is at least partially erroneous. There are quite a few passages which appear to contradict with other passages... for example, are we told to pass righteous judgement on others, or not to judge at all?

There are also many passages which are empirically falsifiable. I'll point out just three, though there are many others. First, it is claimed that one can control the appearance of livestock by controlling what they are looking at while they breed. Specifically, hitch them up to the breeding post so that they face a striped tree, and the offspring will be striped. Second, it is asserted that a household can be cured of leprosy by sacrificing a pair of birds and sprinkling their blood around the house. Some apologists claim this is talking about mildew, ie, leprosy of the house itself. This seems like a huge stretch to me... and leprosy or mildew, the bird's blood doesn't get rid of it.

And third, the existence of the firmament is asserted from the beginning of Genesis and then several times thereon. I want to devote a bit more time to this one. The firmament was part of a physical and astronomical model, deeply geocentric, meant to describe the apparent motion of the various night lights through the sky. These lights were secured on various solid (firm) spheres, often described as crystal, which then moved around the Earth, causing the lights to rise and set. All the visible planets, plus the moon and the sun, had their own spheres, and the stars were set into the outermost sphere. This was seen as necessary to explain why these objects didn't fall to Earth, and could continue endlessly in motion, and was a popular belief throughout the Mediterranean region through most of history. The firmament has also been proved thoroughly false, first by careful observations, and then by sending people in high-tech tin cans past the moon and them not crashing into a crystal sphere. Not so much as a wineglass! However, your method of vetting ideas against the Bible could never have detected the error that was, at the time the firmament was a popular notion, written into the Bible itself.

This brings me to another fundamental objection to this methodology. The Bible CHANGES. You can find the Firmament explicitly referenced in King James. But more modern translations have reworded it, usually to some phrase like "celestial sphere". Examination of surviving documents from the first few centuries CE show that scribes added several key passages, including the account of Jesus and the adulteress (let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone), as well as the basis for describing Jesus as dual-natured, both wholly man and wholly god. What happened here? Were these facts true before the change and was the Bible in error? How did people know to change it, then, if they were to vet truth against the existing errors of the Bible? Did they receive some direct revelation from God? If so, why should we now value the Bible above what might be direct revelation from god? Was the Bible true before, and then made false by the changes? If so, why trust the Bible we have today? Did the truth change when the Bible changed? What's going on here?

Finally... well, far from finally, but I've gone on about the subject of the Bible about long enough... there's the problem of interpretation. Think back to the Civil Rights movement here in the U.S. Yes, MLKJ was a preacher. But so were the defenders of segregation. More telling is the type of preachers they were. MLKJ turned to the Bible for inspiring imagery and phrases, but most of the time did not hold it forth as some sort of source of truth. Neither did most of his liberal Christian allies. His opponents did, however, citing chapter and verse in defense of segregation. A century before, yes, a religious movement had supported abolition, but an equally religious movement pulled out the Bible and found chapter and verse saying how it supported slavery. Same for women's rights in the 70s. Same for gay marriage today. Same for the end of aristocracy, serfdom, and monarchy. What happened here? Are both sides correct in their totally opposite interpretations of the same text? That's a logical contradiction. Was one side right and the other wrong? Were both sides wrong? Leave aside WHICH faction was in error. The only conclusion is that someone... a great MANY someones... interpreted the Bible incorrectly, and did so on significant points of morality and with extreme consequences, and with the help of much prayer.

This represents a huge opening for error in the A/S/K methodology you describe. More than an opening for error, it shows actual error, committed and repeated more times than we can count. It shows clear unreliability of the method. And yet, despite this obvious opening for error, not one single element of self-correction is present in that methodology.

How could this be? Well, let's ask this question. If the assertions of the religion were wrong, could this method produce a false positive? Quite clearly, yes. Most modern religions have their holy texts or oral traditions or some such, most approach these texts with much the same method as you describe (just with a different book described, maybe substituting meditation for prayer, so on), and most reach the same conclusion that their religion is true. Unless ALL religions, or even most religions, are true, then it is obvious that this method leads a great many people with false positives, and cannot be considered reliable.

And then another question... can this method produce a false negative? Or a true negative? NEVER. Because of that K step. If it doesn't work on the first try, keep trying until you think it worked. As in, FOREVER. No part of this methodology, under any scenario, can ever reach a true OR false negative. There is only "positive" or "still working".

So. We have a methodology that is based on a holy book that is demonstrably in error on many of the points we can test, that is self-contradictory in other respects, that has been changed several times throughout history in significant ways that defy the proposed methodology. The methodology has clearly produced severely erroneous answers, is clearly prone to false positives on the specific question of its accuracy, and is incapable of producing a true negative even if the case were actually negative.

Is this a reliable method for vetting a proposition for truth?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
07-02-2014, 04:17 PM
RE: My conversion...
(07-02-2014 11:28 AM)Kestrel Wrote:  
Drich Wrote:So again, how does my actions here with 'Tim' differ from anything you 'good' people do on this site to well meaning brothers in the faith?

Ohhhh no you don't.

I haven't had any issues here.
And don't pull that "well meaning" shit.

You are in the soup because you cannot accept faith for what it is.
WitchSabrina and other nonbelievers here, do understand the difference. When you finally understand this, you'll understand that there is nothing to "sell".

It's your unwillingness to understand the difference that makes you the object of scorn.

Until you wise up my brother, it doesn't matter a whit what your motivation is.

Thanks Krestel.Smile
Faith is faith. Not sure why it's Soooo hard for people to understand what faith is. And isn't it odd that so often non-believers have a better handle on Faith than do believers? Wonder why that is?

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
07-02-2014, 05:21 PM
RE: My conversion...
(07-02-2014 12:07 PM)War Horse Wrote:  
(07-02-2014 11:58 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Can I have a chilli seed please? One that produces fruit over 1,500,000 SHU will do nicely thanks.

Whats "SHU" ?

I thought (maybe wrongly) that chilli peppers were rated in BTU's ?

* EDIT, nevermind..... scoville heat units...... I had a brain fart. Sad

[Image: chilitemp.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-02-2014, 05:28 PM
RE: My conversion...
We've got some chili sauce stuff that reads one drop per 5 gallons of liquid.

I want to say its made with ghost chilies or something like that, but I'm not sure and too lazy to go look for it.

But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 06:05 PM
RE: My conversion...
(07-02-2014 02:00 PM)tokutter Wrote:  Drich is here to sharpen his christian rope-a-dope act.

My understanding of Ali's rope-a-dope strategy is that it presumes I'm gonna tire my ass out pounding on his forearms until he sees an opening to knock my ass out. I don't see either of those things happening with whoever this new guy is. Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: