People think it's real? This can't be real!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2013, 07:36 AM
RE: People think it's real? This can't be real!
Oh well... Smile

In the name of the IPU, the FSM and the teapot, A-fsking-man.

"Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return, and we can, because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." (Carl Sagan)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2013, 07:38 AM
RE: People think it's real? This can't be real!
(02-02-2013 07:24 AM)pxlgirl Wrote:  I wasn't referring to this thread, I've noticed this all over the place, not only here on this forum. It just becomes annoying after seeing discussions 100000000th times going downhill as a result.


Point is still valid.

Yes

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: People think it's real? This can't be real!
On the topic of trust

I'll start first with personal trust in other people. I place trust in those who have shown me what their actions are as a result of my actions. If I should need help late at night from any of my close friends, I trust they will be there for me because they have been there for me. I can also trust that should I ask my brother for help he will make up an excuse saying he is too busy to help. Both of these examples have been consistent over the past 20 years.

Action. Reaction. Consistency. Trust

When it comes to science and trust, it's much simpler.
Consistent physical laws make trust a non issue, but since we don't know all there is to know nor have we observed all there is to observe, we trust in the evidence we have gathered from our observations. We trust that the scientific method is our best pathway to truth. Being able to repeat experiments with consistent results gives us reassurance that our ideas about how something works is on that same pathway to truth. Having other scientists peer review our hypothesis, our work and our conclusions also helps to reaffirm that trust we place in observations and conclusions we draw from those observations.

If I say I found a new species of dung beetle in my back yard, but provide no evidence for it, what level of trust do you have for my claim ? I can write several papers on it's behavior, it's shape and coloring. I can make drawings and describe in detail all the facets of this new dung beetles life. People can read my book on the new dung beetle and even take inspiration from the way it steadily pushes the dung from place to place over coming many obstacles. People can crack open any page of my book and take comfort in the knowledge that this dung beetle exists just as I say it does. They have faith that what I have said is true. This is faith. This is not trust.

Until I can show evidence of this new species, until other people are able to verify it's existence, then you should be wary of any claim made about it's existence. Like say for instance, my new herbal extract made from the same chemical that drives the dung beetle to succeed against all obstacles that he faces. For only $19.95 you can experience the same confidence as this NEW species and you too can push that dung. Have faith in the dung.

So, as you can see trust is something that we can have from Action. Reaction. Consistency and the evidence obtained from those consistent reactions.
Faith is believing in something for no good reason. (no good = bad)
Faith is believing in something for bad reasons.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
02-02-2013, 01:51 PM
RE: People think it's real? This can't be real!
(02-02-2013 09:39 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  (...)
People can crack open any page of my book and take comfort in the knowledge that this dung beetle exists just as I say it does. They have faith that what I have said is true. This is faith. This is not trust.

Very well said, and I've noticed this so called "trust/faith" argument when religious folks run out of ideas to defend their point. That's when you hear things like: "God can do anything and is above all". It might be some sort of convenient to sit back and have "trust" in others to get the shit work done.

"Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return, and we can, because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." (Carl Sagan)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 09:17 AM
RE: People think it's real? This can't be real!
Quote:So, as you can see trust is something that we can have from Action. Reaction. Consistency and the evidence obtained from those consistent reactions.
Faith is believing in something for no good reason. (no good = bad)
Faith is believing in something for bad reasons.


I actually prefer the synonym "trust" for faith. Why? Because your syllogism above underscores how many people, not just Atheists, reject Christian faith as ignorant, uninformed faith. For example, if I were to leap from a burning building having faith I could flap my arms to fly, I would be ignorant and express bad faith.

Ah, but if I were to respond to rescue personnel posted below the building wearing uniforms and holding a net who yelled to me to jump, I would be placing my faith or trust in those people when I leapt to be saved. That would be reasonable faith in people or reasonable trust.

I do agree that Christians can use circular arguments or say they are sure they are with Jesus because "they just know." I would express my faith or trust in Jesus differently. For example, I'm always curious about the expression that the Bible is designed to sway the masses or make sheep of the people, an argument I'd propose for something like the Qu'ran instead. ...Muhammed goes in a cave and out and hears Gabriel (but no one else does) and then he gives oral arguments for years that become holy writ.

But the Bible, in contrast to the Qu'ran, has dozens of authors writing documents for more than a thousand-year span. Kings and poets, shepherds and priests, men and women all have their say over time. Israel flexes through judges and kings, in disapora and out, and under Babylon, Egypt, Rome and others--but the Bible has certain consistent themes and ideas that stretch across its many authors. It's reasonable, not irrational, to read the Bible and begin to trust Jesus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: People think it's real? This can't be real!
(04-02-2013 09:17 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:So, as you can see trust is something that we can have from Action. Reaction. Consistency and the evidence obtained from those consistent reactions.
Faith is believing in something for no good reason. (no good = bad)
Faith is believing in something for bad reasons.


I actually prefer the synonym "trust" for faith. Why? Because your syllogism above underscores how many people, not just Atheists, reject Christian faith as ignorant, uninformed faith. For example, if I were to leap from a burning building having faith I could flap my arms to fly, I would be ignorant and express bad faith.

Ah, but if I were to respond to rescue personnel posted below the building wearing uniforms and holding a net who yelled to me to jump, I would be placing my faith or trust in those people when I leapt to be saved. That would be reasonable faith in people or reasonable trust.

No, that would be belief based on evidence.

Quote:I do agree that Christians can use circular arguments or say they are sure they are with Jesus because "they just know." I would express my faith or trust in Jesus differently. For example, I'm always curious about the expression that the Bible is designed to sway the masses or make sheep of the people, an argument I'd propose for something like the Qu'ran instead. ...Muhammed goes in a cave and out and hears Gabriel (but no one else does) and then he gives oral arguments for years that become holy writ.

But the Bible, in contrast to the Qu'ran, has dozens of authors writing documents for more than a thousand-year span. Kings and poets, shepherds and priests, men and women all have their say over time. Israel flexes through judges and kings, in disapora and out, and under Babylon, Egypt, Rome and others--but the Bible has certain consistent themes and ideas that stretch across its many authors. It's reasonable, not irrational, to read the Bible and begin to trust Jesus.


The time span was hundreds of years. The early books were written ca. 300BCE, the later ones ca. 100CE.

It is not rational to believe unsupported ancient texts.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
04-02-2013, 10:16 AM
RE: People think it's real? This can't be real!
(04-02-2013 09:17 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  But the Bible, in contrast to the Qu'ran, has dozens of authors writing documents for more than a thousand-year span. Kings and poets, shepherds and priests, men and women all have their say over time.

Interesting though how some of those books were just "found" lying around in temples from time to time - it's not as if a book that seems to have been written by someone important, then lost, then "found" again by some priest at just the most convenient time to revitalize his followers' faith could have been just made up, could it?

For example, did you know that Abraham wrote a book that was lost for over 3,000 years? It's not in the bible, not the old or new testament. It turned up in Ohio in 1835, just in the perfect time and place for Joseph Smith (the guy who founded the Mormon religion) to translate it from ancient papyri. The Book of Abraham tells a story of Abraham's life, travels to Canaan and Egypt and a vision he received concerning the universe and the creation of the world. The book has five chapters; chapters 1 and 2 address Abraham’s early life and his fight against the idolatry in his family and society. It recounts how pagan priests tried to sacrifice Abraham and that an angel came to his rescue. Chapter 2 includes information about God’s covenant with Abraham and how it would be fulfilled. Chapters 3 through 5 contain the vision about astronomy, the creation of the world, and the creation of man.

Do you believe that this is a legitimate work of god's literal words? Obviously not, since that same papyri text has been accurately translated by hundreds of scholars since then and has been proven to be one of Joseph Smith's many frauds. It's interesting to consider, however, that if this "translation" had existed 1,700 years ago, this book would have been included in the Councils of Nycaea and might have been included in the bible for all time.

Who's to say that some of the other books are not equally fraudulent "finds"?

(04-02-2013 09:17 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Israel flexes through judges and kings, in disapora and out, and under Babylon, Egypt, Rome and others--but the Bible has certain consistent themes and ideas that stretch across its many authors. It's reasonable, not irrational, to read the Bible and begin to trust Jesus.

Sure there are common themes; all the authors were all plagiarizing and retelling the same old myths of all the lands in and around the middle east. There's a reason the Jesus story/stories have so much in comment with so many other gods like Krishna, Romulus, Dionysus, and especially Horus.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
04-02-2013, 10:27 AM
RE: People think it's real? This can't be real!
(04-02-2013 10:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 09:17 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I actually prefer the synonym "trust" for faith. Why? Because your syllogism above underscores how many people, not just Atheists, reject Christian faith as ignorant, uninformed faith. For example, if I were to leap from a burning building having faith I could flap my arms to fly, I would be ignorant and express bad faith.

Ah, but if I were to respond to rescue personnel posted below the building wearing uniforms and holding a net who yelled to me to jump, I would be placing my faith or trust in those people when I leapt to be saved. That would be reasonable faith in people or reasonable trust.

No, that would be belief based on evidence.

Quote:I do agree that Christians can use circular arguments or say they are sure they are with Jesus because "they just know." I would express my faith or trust in Jesus differently. For example, I'm always curious about the expression that the Bible is designed to sway the masses or make sheep of the people, an argument I'd propose for something like the Qu'ran instead. ...Muhammed goes in a cave and out and hears Gabriel (but no one else does) and then he gives oral arguments for years that become holy writ.

But the Bible, in contrast to the Qu'ran, has dozens of authors writing documents for more than a thousand-year span. Kings and poets, shepherds and priests, men and women all have their say over time. Israel flexes through judges and kings, in disapora and out, and under Babylon, Egypt, Rome and others--but the Bible has certain consistent themes and ideas that stretch across its many authors. It's reasonable, not irrational, to read the Bible and begin to trust Jesus.


The time span was hundreds of years. The early books were written ca. 300BCE, the later ones ca. 100CE.

It is not rational to believe unsupported ancient texts.
I still don't understand how a person can trust a scripture that was passed by word of mouth for years before they were ever written down. Not to mention it was royally finger banged by the medieval church.

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DeathsNotoriousAngel's post
04-02-2013, 11:21 PM
RE: People think it's real? This can't be real!
I was in a bit of a similar situation myself. I was 10 when I deconverted(I'm 14 now), and I was surprised at how many people ACTUALLY took this to be literal. I'd hated going to church back then and what I did here seemed nice and all, but I'd never really dwelled on it or took it as an absolute truth. In all honesty, I dropped my faith in a sudden act to spite someone who was telling me I was going to Hell. I really wasn't attached to it at all. I lost many friends and gained boatloads of enemies in return when I did so.

Hell, I didn't even get the chance to tell my family myself.....One of my old friends told their mother and mine was informed by her as if it was some horrible thing. My mom really didn't care, but I was surprised at how many of the people I had grown up with in the public school system took religion so seriously.

That year we started learning about evolution in history and Earth science in 6th grade science(including its age and formation), and I learned how horribly irrational these beliefs were. After a couple of years, I became aware of the bigotry and hatred spread about by the deepest of fundies and I couldn't believe how hateful people could get in pursuit of these beliefs. The fact that my grandparents, whom had always seemed like the smartest people in the world to me, were semi-fundamentalist(They disregarded creationism, my grandmother's in medicine) and anti-gay.

The surprise has worn off now, since it's been four years, but I still find it insane.

[Image: 8ffeae9d.jpg]
Credit to Atothetheist
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pppgggr's post
05-02-2013, 07:46 AM
RE: People think it's real? This can't be real!
Quote:No, that would be belief based on evidence.
Right, trust based on evidence. I have documents from the ancient world that I place trust in. Did George Washington exist? You'll have to decide based on documentary evidence.
Quote:The time span was hundreds of years. The early books were written ca. 300BCE, the later ones ca. 100CE.

It is not rational to believe unsupported ancient texts.
I'm aware of those very liberal dates for the scriptures, however, not even the Jesus Seminar held to such a late dating for the NT. And there's too much information we have for the earlier, more conservative dating of the OT. For one example, there is a forbidding to make an idol of God, as we all know from the commandments of Exodus 20. Which country, Chas, has had the most archaeological digs in world history? Israel, of course. And they find Baals and Ashtoreths but not Yahweh carvings, right? I remember a professor who taught JDEP until my friend presented clear archaeological evidence that showed the OT got the styles of doors and other housing elements dead accurate as revealed by modern archaeology. Then he shut up.
The real question, Chas, is what kind of evidence helps you understand an ancient document as reliable? And you can't say, "D'uh, not one with miracles in it," because that is utterly circular. Why? Because you are starting with a presupposition that the document is unreliable and show your lack of a rigorous scientific method.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: