What is faith?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: What is faith?
(12-02-2013 03:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Close, close! Now, what is the definitive stance? IMO, heading for the source. For example, a stranger says there are free screeners on a site to [Your choice, The Hobbit, Skyfall, Harold & Kumar, whatever]. You don't know the stranger and have some anecdotal evidence that there may be free movie tickets. In this case, going online whether a skeptic trying to disprove or as an aspirant wanting free movie tickets would take you next step.
You see where I'm going with this?
No. Confused

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
12-02-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: What is faith?
(12-02-2013 04:09 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(12-02-2013 03:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Close, close! Now, what is the definitive stance? IMO, heading for the source. For example, a stranger says there are free screeners on a site to [Your choice, The Hobbit, Skyfall, Harold & Kumar, whatever]. You don't know the stranger and have some anecdotal evidence that there may be free movie tickets. In this case, going online whether a skeptic trying to disprove or as an aspirant wanting free movie tickets would take you next step.
You see where I'm going with this?
No. Confused

I don't understand any of what you've written there. ... what are "free screeners" and no, I do not understand anything written. Undecided

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 06:31 PM
Re: What is faith?
There is a big difference between the claim of "free movie tickets for going to a screening" and the claim of "live your life by this set of rules and become immortal or die and burn in hell."

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 11:05 PM
RE: What is faith?
(12-02-2013 04:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-02-2013 03:57 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Penn's a cool guy, I've met him in person. His church was restrictive and controlling. Look up his video where he talks about the kindness and guts a man showed him in presenting Penn with a Bible.
No, I presented anecdotal evidence. I've read dozens of deconversion stories and unlike my church, where there are hundreds of true Christians, it's always with people in churches that condemn any kind of questioning mindset... you can skewer me on an anecdotal evidence fallacy if you like, but that's my story and I'm sticking with it.

OK, here's anecdotal counter-evidence: Bart D. Ehrman, PhD

I've really liked Ehrman's talks and debates, he's one smart gentleman. Plus anybody that studies under William Lane Craig only to rise up and call out his bullshit, is doing pretty well in my book.








[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 08:19 AM
RE: What is faith?
Quote:There is a big difference between the claim of "free movie tickets for going to a screening" and the claim of "live your life by this set of rules and become immortal or die and burn in hell."
I see, you understand. Please explain it to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 08:33 AM
RE: What is faith?
(13-02-2013 08:19 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:There is a big difference between the claim of "free movie tickets for going to a screening" and the claim of "live your life by this set of rules and become immortal or die and burn in hell."
I see, you understand. Please explain it to them.
They understand too, they just don't see how your brain connects the mundane claim of "free movie tickets" with that of the claim of "a magic guy who knows everything and made everything."

If someone came up to me and said I could get free movie tickets by going to a particular website, I would first be skeptical. They could in fact be sending me to a phishing site. If the site was legit, and I did not have to give away personal info, then I would attempt to get my free tickets.

Here is the part where your analogy comes apart. The person making the claim says all the answers to life are in this one book and that everything in it is true. That also sounds too good to be true, and is not a mundane or average claim. The problem is that the book does not contain all the answers, not even when you squint and hold the book at a distance and attempt to interpret it as you see fit.

So, the book and the website might both exist, but there is no way of verifying the existence of the "prize." You are told that you can only receive the "prize" after you are dead and only if you believe the prize is real. And the only "proof" you are given of the existence of the "prize" are words written by men. And men never tell tall tales?...

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 09:13 AM
RE: What is faith?
Quote:They understand too, they just don't see how your brain connects the mundane claim of "free movie tickets" with that of the claim of "a magic guy who knows everything and made everything."
Your psychic abilities belie your naturalist claims. I took them at their word that they misunderstood. Smile
Quote:So, the book and the website might both exist, but there is no way of verifying the existence of the "prize." You are told that you can only receive the "prize" after you are dead and only if you believe the prize is real. And the only "proof" you are given of the existence of the "prize" are words written by men. And men never tell tall tales?...
What you said makes TOTAL sense to me except there are many blessings besides the afterlife. Jesus said He came that His followers would have abundant life... now. The book was written by people but I went and got the "movie tickets".
I think I also want to be proactive on the coming issue of my anecdotal testimony based on the above. I'm basing my thinking on a large amount of anecdotal claims. For one example set--I've prayed for little and big things daily for many years. Praying even once daily for 20 years is nearly 8,000 prayers--8,000 prayers answered is a sizable base of anecdotal evidence, n'est pas?
That's why the Bible emphasizes testimonies. You chaps know darn well any cult or religious member shuts you down with their frequent "I just know what I know" and then you're stuck by their adamance if pissed off a bit. In this instance:
1. A Bible Christian has MANY testimonies of watching God at work beyond statistical coincidence.
2. Your personal shut downs regarding the negation of God boil down to "I know what I don't know." You're offering the Bible believer or religious-minded person nothing except the ethical freedom to variously follow the golden rule or not when it suits you. I think of Huxley and his "freedom" to saturate his brain with drugs. Sux. Hey, you think you're going to Heaven but imagine the relief you'll feel from religious guilt when you learn that when you die there's nothing--so everything is meaningless AD (after death). Pah!
...And as if guilt is some terrible thing. 1) It prompts us to freedom at the cross, following which we may feel conviction, not guilt 2) Guilt could have made a Hitler not be a Hitler.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 09:17 AM
RE: What is faith?
(12-02-2013 03:39 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Which really just meant that I was still afraid of death and wanted to believe in something for the sake of believing I was immortal (or some part of me was immortal)... If I am wrong, I want to know. But I have to be shown where I am wrong and why I am wrong...
Okay, I'll start there. You've heard and I've heard numerous Christians say something to the effect of, "Stop branding me as afraid of death or Hell. I'm no longer afraid of it, I don't think about it as often as non-Christians, etc." (and I know Atheists say these things also) but... the response to that kind of line is normally what...? "I don't think you were ever saved."
So, I'd likely conclude you were either never saved or are saved and have some kind of mysterious journey you're on... but that is an aside to what really bothers me about what you wrote:
Quote:A) not meant to be taken literally B) taken out of context C) were for a culture at a different time or D) that Jesus died for our sins so none of that counts.
A, C and D are huge "Christian" cop-outs to me. B is ultra-important, since EVERYTHING that is worth examining deserves context. Without context, people would take Obama as both a Christian and a Muslim based on the media tripe and etc. Context. Without context, certain things lose their factual value for us.

I've got to say, I've heard many Atheists tell their deconversion history, and I've yet to meet one who was in a good church that not only promoted Bible belief but Bible study and accurately, and lovingly and with good doctrine, etc. I deal with the walking wounded all the time from churches, not the world, and have concluded recently that free will is not only for salvation or for Atheists but for Christians. That's right, you can be a Christian and still be bigoted, narrow minded, stupid, etc.
Saved? Yes. Stupid, yes? (Not you TBD, I'm talking about church people I know). Oh well, what can I say?





I wasn't saved or I am on some journey? It is not just the fact that you are committing the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, it is that you clearly do not even consider any possibility in which it is possible that there is no god. To you, everything is the result of god and is unthinkable to even consider something occurring for which god is not responsible. Once again, you demonstrate you only come here to proselytize. There are more details of my dealings with religion that factor in as well, but they do not allow for being converted into a quick synopsis. Let me just say this, of all the people in the church I attended, of all the people in my family, and of all of the 200 or so people that were in my original high school class, I am one of maybe 3 or 4 others that gave up religion and the belief in a deity. And I am probably overestimating that number too. Am I the only one that got it wrong? I mean, I went to the same churches, heard the same preachers and youth ministers, watched the same tv shows, and had the same teachers.

You want to know the commonality between those of us that abandoned religion? We all pursued higher education. And I don't mean that we "went to college." I mean that we went to college to get an education and not to party. The real kicker? Those of us that got rid of the superstition and those that became arguably less religious (but still believe in some form), are the most tolerant and the nicest among the people I know. There are some I know that have genuinely changed from being an asshole kid in high school seeking approval and slacking off in their studies because they did not want to, to someone who gets to say they are a veterinary doctor and has actually reached out to me talk for no other reason than being genuinely interested. The people I know who are less religious, all seem to care more for other people and reach out to try and help.

The people who are more religious? They have isolated themselves from anyone they deem to be beneath them. They have put themselves on pedestals and the rest of us are inferior. They don't take credit for their own successes (thank god) but somehow manage to make sure everyone knows them. And they certainly don't take credit for their failings either (god is testing me, it's Obama's fault, fucking yuppies, damn liberals, why can't the atheists just leave us alone?, put god back in our schools!, guns and bibles should both be taught in schools!)

These people make me sick and are the reason I don't look forward to my 10 year reunion.

And you jump back to context. Look, you claim the bible to be inerrant. You claim that, when taken in context (or some verses can be taken out of context by you and be fine but whatever), the bible promotes faith as something other than...well...faith. The bible is not accepted as inerrant (some stories are obviously and laughably wrong) and even ol' Jesus himself gave some really bad advice (the man thought the 'end times' would occur during his lifetime and encouraged people to leave their families and not save their money).

And jumping to the bible without criticizing it, means you are ignoring several other facts about it. Including (but not limited to):

1) The Old Testament books in their earliest iterations speak of multiple gods. Judaism was a polytheistic religion (thou shalt have no other gods before me? It does not say "fake gods" or "imaginary gods" it just says gods. As in, "don't worship the other gods that exist)

2) The Old Testament books have been edited and re-edited numerous times to remove the other gods and to amend them to the views of the kings of their time. Not only do we not know who the original authors are, we don't know who any of the editors are. Why would a book that is inerrant need to be edited? Or translated for that matter?

3) The bible makes claims about the Universe that include: The Earth being flat, the Earth being the center of the universe, the Earth being on pillars, the Earth either being young or the evidence for it being old the work of god (or the devil as no one seems to agree on which evil bastard did it), a global flood occurring during the time of recorded history but one that left no evidence behind in the physical world, that there was an ocean above the sky. We could go on for a while with these, but the point is that it got about 0 descriptions of how the Universe and Earth work correct.

4) The Old Testament says don't touch pig, wear clothes made of multiple fabrics, don't shave, no wait shave, cut your hair, Jesus is portrayed as having long hair and the Samson story seems to imply not cutting your hair, if you rape a woman and get caught then the man is punished by paying 50 shekels of silver and having to marry the woman (never mind the woman being punished as she is just property). Once again, I could go on for a bit but the point is that this book gives absurd rules that are certainly not moral, no matter what the dictator says.

5) The New Testament is not off the hook either. We don't know who wrote those books either. We can however be certain that the earliest version (Luke I think) was written no sooner than about 70 CE. That would be roughly a full generation after Jesus was supposed to have died. So, no one who actually knew him, wrote about him. No contemporary historians of Jesus ever mention him. No historian mentions him until about 70 CE. It is not until after Paul comes along that anyone seems to recount any of this.

6) Jesus gave bad advice too, as already mentioned. He had a chance to condemn slavery, and didn't. He did not abolish any old testament laws either (Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."). The man is supposed to have even cursed a fig tree for not having fruit for him to eat when he wanted! For being god, he sure seemed to have missed the mark on updating that book and its shitty stories, misinformation, and immoral laws.






Of course, you will probably scream context again. Or I am somehow looking at these stories and laws/rules wrong. Here is the thing, either reading that book means the logical conclusions are illogical (which makes the book about as useful as a pile of dung), or that book was written by bronze age men in an attempt to explain the world as they knew it and to put the rules, laws, and customs of their society in a form that people would obey.


An ocean above the sky? Made sense to them since it seemed to leak from time to time.


A global flood? They saw fossil brachiopods and bivalves in rocks in the mountains, they could only think of one way to get them there.


Flat Earth? It sure looks that way from our vantage point on the ground or even standing on a mountain.


Pillars that the Earth sits upon? You can make a table shake by moving it back and forth on its legs, so why not the same thing for earthquakes?


Want people from other religions to join yours? Incorporate their stories and myths into your own (2 creation stories back to back, holidays and festivals as well as the timing of important events in religion A and religion B being the same). That is an easy way to get converts!


They got it wrong. They had nothing else to go on, so it isn't surprising they got it wrong. It is surprising to see people bend over backwards to say that book is right though, because that means ignoring the evidence and knowledge we currently possess that show that book to be WRONG!


I liked this video, check it out (I doubt you'll actually watch it, but whatever.)



“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
13-02-2013, 09:47 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2013 09:50 AM by kim.)
RE: What is faith?
(13-02-2013 09:13 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(13-02-2013 08:33 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  They understand too, they just don't see how your brain connects the mundane claim of "free movie tickets" with that of the claim of "a magic guy who knows everything and made everything."
Your psychic abilities belie your naturalist claims. I took them at their word that they misunderstood. Smile
No. There is no misunderstanding... I have no idea what the words you wrote meant. I am not even going to read what Beard wrote because I want YOU explain with your own words. Why do you shirk responsibility for your part of the discussion?

..a stranger says there are free screeners on a site to [Your choice, The Hobbit, Skyfall, Harold & Kumar, whatever]. I do not know what "free screeners" is and then ---> these are "on a site to" movies. <--- does this mean on a site showing movies? I hate to assume things when I still don't know what "free screeners" is.

You don't know the stranger and have some anecdotal evidence that there may be free movie tickets. Why would I have this "anecdotal" evidence - are we talking about word of mouth - such as, "I heard there may be free movie tickets."? - ok, I can understand this sentence. But me not knowing some guy and me previously hearing there may be free tickets are two separate things.

In this case, going online whether a skeptic trying to disprove or as an aspirant wanting free movie tickets would take you next step. <-- this sentence makes no sense to me whatsoever.
.... going online whether a "skeptic trying to disprove or an "aspirant"?? wanting free movie tickets" ... "would take you next step." Please explain everything about this sentence, including exactly what sort of english this might be. Vosur is German and certainly has better english than a majority of Americans on this forum but this is supposed to be my native language and I am perplexed, not only by this syntax but use of object, verb, definite or indefinite article. Sir, WTF?

PJ, this grouping of words forces me to understand you might be talking like a crazy person. Please explain, and do not simply say to someone else, "explain it to them"... otherwise, I must assume you to have neither respect for anyone you take up discussion with or the english language.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 10:35 AM
RE: What is faith?
Quote:The bible makes claims about the Universe that include: The Earth being flat, the Earth being the center of the universe, the Earth being on pillars, the Earth either being young or the evidence for it being old the work of god (or the devil as no one seems to agree on which evil bastard did it), a global flood occurring during the time of recorded history but one that left no evidence behind in the physical world, that there was an ocean above the sky. We could go on for a while with these, but the point is that it got about 0 descriptions of how the Universe and Earth work correct
I'd like to begin here, if that is okay. (Actually I don't but I feel compelled).
The Earth is spherical in Job. I've read the Bible many times and unable to recall how it is the center of the universe--I'd LOVE a verse on this since that and relativity would clear up some mysteries; the earth on pillars inside the mantle/crust is a cornerstone of hydroplate theory--I have no problem with that--these pillars would of necessity (to hydroplate theory) be deeper than current technology can reach, the Bible says the mountains and physical elements are ancient, the Bible the geophysical Earth predates life on Earth, there are NO Bible statements that the Earth is exceptionally young, there are NO Bible statements that saying it is old is demonic, Genesis does not say an ocean above the (trophosphere) sky, it says "separated waters above from waters below" which could be subterranean waters or a separation of a physical Heaven outside the vastness of space--your statements make me question your Bible reading--they just sound like regurgitated crap from some cultic church or dark corner of the Internet... I have no problem with ANY Bible question or Bible theory as long as you're saying what the Bible actually says then we can resolve or discuss. Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: