Total Posts:117|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problem with religion - NO PROOF REQUIRED

PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Below is a link to the story of a little boy who came out of a coma and told a story about dying and going to heaven. Christians jumped all over it, of course, and started writing books and profiting from this nonsense. He has now come clean and told the truth saying that he made it all up.

My question is, why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason and just believe things that in no other area of your life you would. For this reason when a pastor says he was called to preach - it is automatically believed. When someone has a near death experience and claims to visit heaven - it is automatically believed, along with talking snakes, burning bushes, men inside whales, men living 950 years, and illiterate warlords taking trips on flying horses. Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties. The ability to reason, to test, to experiment, to repeat, to prove, is why we have made it this far, Why are so many people so willing to throw that all away, for stories no more convincing than the latest UFO abduction?
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:15:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Below is a link to the story of a little boy who came out of a coma and told a story about dying and going to heaven. Christians jumped all over it, of course, and started writing books and profiting from this nonsense. He has now come clean and told the truth saying that he made it all up.

My question is, why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason and just believe things that in no other area of your life you would. For this reason when a pastor says he was called to preach - it is automatically believed. When someone has a near death experience and claims to visit heaven - it is automatically believed, along with talking snakes, burning bushes, men inside whales, men living 950 years, and illiterate warlords taking trips on flying horses. Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties. The ability to reason, to test, to experiment, to repeat, to prove, is why we have made it this far, Why are so many people so willing to throw that all away, for stories no more convincing than the latest UFO abduction?

forgot the link

https://www.yahoo.com...
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:39:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Below is a link to the story of a little boy who came out of a coma and told a story about dying and going to heaven. Christians jumped all over it, of course, and started writing books and profiting from this nonsense. He has now come clean and told the truth saying that he made it all up.

My question is, why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason and just believe things that in no other area of your life you would. For this reason when a pastor says he was called to preach - it is automatically believed. When someone has a near death experience and claims to visit heaven - it is automatically believed, along with talking snakes, burning bushes, men inside whales, men living 950 years, and illiterate warlords taking trips on flying horses. Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties. The ability to reason, to test, to experiment, to repeat, to prove, is why we have made it this far, Why are so many people so willing to throw that all away, for stories no more convincing than the latest UFO abduction?

- Hey what's up? You left me hanging the other day!

- You can't generalise on the entire concept of Religion, that's Aabbssuurrdd! Religion has indeed proofs, at least that's the case of Islam, so many proofs, only an irrational person would deny them.

- Skepticism is not critical, it's the opposite of critical
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 12:09:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:39:18 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Below is a link to the story of a little boy who came out of a coma and told a story about dying and going to heaven. Christians jumped all over it, of course, and started writing books and profiting from this nonsense. He has now come clean and told the truth saying that he made it all up.

My question is, why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason and just believe things that in no other area of your life you would. For this reason when a pastor says he was called to preach - it is automatically believed. When someone has a near death experience and claims to visit heaven - it is automatically believed, along with talking snakes, burning bushes, men inside whales, men living 950 years, and illiterate warlords taking trips on flying horses. Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties. The ability to reason, to test, to experiment, to repeat, to prove, is why we have made it this far, Why are so many people so willing to throw that all away, for stories no more convincing than the latest UFO abduction?

- Hey what's up? You left me hanging the other day!

sorry bro took the wife on a little vacation/getaway no computers allowed and limited cell phone use

- You can't generalise on the entire concept of Religion, that's Aabbssuurrdd! Religion has indeed proofs, at least that's the case of Islam, so many proofs, only an irrational person would deny them.

so you have proof that Muhammad rode on a flying horse? -- come on bro get real

- Skepticism is not critical, it's the opposite of critical

it is absolutely critical, skepticism is the very reason that some people would not simply accept the nonsense that religion was putting out that disease was a punishment from god, their being skeptical made them say -- that is nonsense, and start looking for "actual" reasons
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 12:26:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Below is a link to the story of a little boy who came out of a coma and told a story about dying and going to heaven. Christians jumped all over it, of course, and started writing books and profiting from this nonsense. He has now come clean and told the truth saying that he made it all up.

My question is, why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason and just believe things that in no other area of your life you would. For this reason when a pastor says he was called to preach - it is automatically believed. When someone has a near death experience and claims to visit heaven - it is automatically believed, along with talking snakes, burning bushes, men inside whales, men living 950 years, and illiterate warlords taking trips on flying horses. Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties. The ability to reason, to test, to experiment, to repeat, to prove, is why we have made it this far, Why are so many people so willing to throw that all away, for stories no more convincing than the latest UFO abduction?

Another one of your strawmans. If this is directed at the religion espoused in the bible get the ideology straight first.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
do not despise prophetic utterances. 21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22abstain from every form of evil.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 12:49:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 12:26:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Below is a link to the story of a little boy who came out of a coma and told a story about dying and going to heaven. Christians jumped all over it, of course, and started writing books and profiting from this nonsense. He has now come clean and told the truth saying that he made it all up.

My question is, why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason and just believe things that in no other area of your life you would. For this reason when a pastor says he was called to preach - it is automatically believed. When someone has a near death experience and claims to visit heaven - it is automatically believed, along with talking snakes, burning bushes, men inside whales, men living 950 years, and illiterate warlords taking trips on flying horses. Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties. The ability to reason, to test, to experiment, to repeat, to prove, is why we have made it this far, Why are so many people so willing to throw that all away, for stories no more convincing than the latest UFO abduction?

Another one of your strawmans. If this is directed at the religion espoused in the bible get the ideology straight first.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
do not despise prophetic utterances. 21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22abstain from every form of evil.

not a strawman - and again you asserting so doesn't make it so.

again - who cares what the bible says? Why would you think that quoting the bible to me or anyone carries any weight? These are merely the words of men who knew less than teenage daughter does. So why not quote from the book of Mormon? Why not quote from L Ron Hubbard and scientology? the Quran, the Hadith, the Buddhists tipitaka, or hindu shruti,? a book is a doggone book.

The fact remains that in order for you to believe and follow any of them you must employ a standard of proof different from the one you would use to determine reality in your present life. My question is why? why does mary get a pass? why does Abraham get a pass for nearly murdering his own son? How does a Christian know that god told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites? would they or you accept that as an excuse if an army wiped out an entire civilization these days? Would you simply accept "god told us to" as an excuse? I think not
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:10:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 12:49:59 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 1/18/2015 12:26:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Below is a link to the story of a little boy who came out of a coma and told a story about dying and going to heaven. Christians jumped all over it, of course, and started writing books and profiting from this nonsense. He has now come clean and told the truth saying that he made it all up.

My question is, why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason and just believe things that in no other area of your life you would. For this reason when a pastor says he was called to preach - it is automatically believed. When someone has a near death experience and claims to visit heaven - it is automatically believed, along with talking snakes, burning bushes, men inside whales, men living 950 years, and illiterate warlords taking trips on flying horses. Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties. The ability to reason, to test, to experiment, to repeat, to prove, is why we have made it this far, Why are so many people so willing to throw that all away, for stories no more convincing than the latest UFO abduction?

Another one of your strawmans. If this is directed at the religion espoused in the bible get the ideology straight first.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
do not despise prophetic utterances. 21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22abstain from every form of evil.

not a strawman - and again you asserting so doesn't make it so.


your OP says "...why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason..."

That's the gist of your argument. Is that religious people take stuff as fact just on say-so. Sounds like you were directing most the comments to a judo-christian denomination.

The tenets and mindset of that religion is based on scripture int he bible.

So yeah it's a starwman, you say religious people are like X and X is foolish.

But in reality religious people following the Bible are told by the Bible not to be just like X.

Some people may be like X, but X is not derivative of the Bible, the collective tenets of the religion.

So what you describe is not an attribute of the religion but of some people. And this attribute of taking things on say-so and abandoning reason is just as easily seen in the a lot of atheist, young people, ect..

So it's not that i just said it was a strawman, but I gave a verse from the bible to illustrate the falsehood of your generalization.

I've had discussions with you before, certainly i should have learned that you just go brain dead when you see anything quoted from the bible and I certainly should have thought enough to elaborate better to a mediocre mind.

again - who cares what the bible says? Why would you think that quoting the bible to me or anyone carries any weight? These are merely the words of men who knew less than teenage daughter does. So why not quote from the book of Mormon? Why not quote from L Ron Hubbard and scientology? the Quran, the Hadith, the Buddhists tipitaka, or hindu shruti,? a book is a doggone book.


You didn't even read the quote. The content of the verse was not directed at giving weight to accepting faith or say-so. It was evidence presented to support that you don't know what your talking about when you generalize religion.

Seeing how the book is the tenets and precepts of the religion.

The fact remains that in order for you to believe and follow any of them you must employ a standard of proof different from the one you would use to determine reality in your present life. My question is why? why does mary get a pass? why does Abraham get a pass for nearly murdering his own son? How does a Christian know that god told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites? would they or you accept that as an excuse if an army wiped out an entire civilization these days? Would you simply accept "god told us to" as an excuse? I think not

You already presuppose that God does not exist. So you already have a conclusion in your head that when someone says "God told me" it is not true.

You are not using reason anymore than the zombie faith followers you paint religious people. Which is not surprising. I think you are projecting
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:47:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 1:10:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 12:49:59 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 1/18/2015 12:26:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Below is a link to the story of a little boy who came out of a coma and told a story about dying and going to heaven. Christians jumped all over it, of course, and started writing books and profiting from this nonsense. He has now come clean and told the truth saying that he made it all up.

My question is, why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason and just believe things that in no other area of your life you would. For this reason when a pastor says he was called to preach - it is automatically believed. When someone has a near death experience and claims to visit heaven - it is automatically believed, along with talking snakes, burning bushes, men inside whales, men living 950 years, and illiterate warlords taking trips on flying horses. Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties. The ability to reason, to test, to experiment, to repeat, to prove, is why we have made it this far, Why are so many people so willing to throw that all away, for stories no more convincing than the latest UFO abduction?

Another one of your strawmans. If this is directed at the religion espoused in the bible get the ideology straight first.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
do not despise prophetic utterances. 21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22abstain from every form of evil.

not a strawman - and again you asserting so doesn't make it so.


your OP says "...why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason..."

That's the gist of your argument. Is that religious people take stuff as fact just on say-so. Sounds like you were directing most the comments to a judo-christian denomination.

The tenets and mindset of that religion is based on scripture int he bible.

So yeah it's a starwman, you say religious people are like X and X is foolish.

But in reality religious people following the Bible are told by the Bible not to be just like X.

Some people may be like X, but X is not derivative of the Bible, the collective tenets of the religion.

So what you describe is not an attribute of the religion but of some people. And this attribute of taking things on say-so and abandoning reason is just as easily seen in the a lot of atheist, young people, ect..

So it's not that i just said it was a strawman, but I gave a verse from the bible to illustrate the falsehood of your generalization.

I've had discussions with you before, certainly i should have learned that you just go brain dead when you see anything quoted from the bible and I certainly should have thought enough to elaborate better to a mediocre mind.

again - who cares what the bible says? Why would you think that quoting the bible to me or anyone carries any weight? These are merely the words of men who knew less than teenage daughter does. So why not quote from the book of Mormon? Why not quote from L Ron Hubbard and scientology? the Quran, the Hadith, the Buddhists tipitaka, or hindu shruti,? a book is a doggone book.


You didn't even read the quote. The content of the verse was not directed at giving weight to accepting faith or say-so. It was evidence presented to support that you don't know what your talking about when you generalize religion.

Seeing how the book is the tenets and precepts of the religion.

I don't care if it is the tenets of A religion or not - it is the tenets of one of thousands, and thus holds no weight in this argument. Again if it does, what about the tenets of all of the others, what do they say?

The fact remains that in order for you to believe and follow any of them you must employ a standard of proof different from the one you would use to determine reality in your present life. My question is why? why does mary get a pass? why does Abraham get a pass for nearly murdering his own son? How does a Christian know that god told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites? would they or you accept that as an excuse if an army wiped out an entire civilization these days? Would you simply accept "god told us to" as an excuse? I think not

You already presuppose that God does not exist. So you already have a conclusion in your head that when someone says "God told me" it is not true.

You are not using reason anymore than the zombie faith followers you paint religious people. Which is not surprising. I think you are projecting

you my friend are brain dead from the start. This condition is persistent and is not triggered by anything.

I did not direct this at any religion in particular only a simpleton such as yourself would think so.

Mormons believe joseph smith found gold tablets in new York and translated them blah blah blah -- drop reasoning ability and just believe
Scientologists believe that humans were brought to earth millions of years ago by an alien and that xenu blah blah blah -- drop reasoning and just believe
muslims believe that a dusty warlord actually rode a flying horse to mecca blah blah blah -- don't worry about the fact that you know horses don't fly -- drop reasoning and believe.

no proof can be required in any religion --- this is necessary for all religions, and I do mean all.

strawman fallacy

1.Person A has position X.
2.Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3.Person B attacks position Y.
4.Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed

If I am person B in your mind, exactly how is my Y a distorted version of position X? first you must identify Person(religion) A - which you cannot do, because I am talking about all religions. The X in this example would necessarily be some form of belief, that is contradicted, not by me, but by the thousands of other persons A in existence who have tens of thousands of positions Y

I have not distorted anything, Christians believe there is a heaven, nearly all of them believe that humans have seen, or temporarily visited it, which is why the lie the boy told was so easily accepted.
muslims believe Muhammad was a prophet who talked directly to god - no proof required.
some Christians believe benny hinn can actually heal them --their faith requires that no proof be necessary, as a matter of fact when they don't get better they are told that the reason the healing didn't work was that they don't have enough faith

so again I have committed no strawman fallacy, I have not distorted any version of anything, I have stated what actually goes on. Don't think that no one notices that you are simply ignoring my base question.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 2:12:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 1:47:13 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 1/18/2015 1:10:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 12:49:59 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 1/18/2015 12:26:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Below is a link to the story of a little boy who came out of a coma and told a story about dying and going to heaven. Christians jumped all over it, of course, and started writing books and profiting from this nonsense. He has now come clean and told the truth saying that he made it all up.

My question is, why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason and just believe things that in no other area of your life you would. For this reason when a pastor says he was called to preach - it is automatically believed. When someone has a near death experience and claims to visit heaven - it is automatically believed, along with talking snakes, burning bushes, men inside whales, men living 950 years, and illiterate warlords taking trips on flying horses. Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties. The ability to reason, to test, to experiment, to repeat, to prove, is why we have made it this far, Why are so many people so willing to throw that all away, for stories no more convincing than the latest UFO abduction?

Another one of your strawmans. If this is directed at the religion espoused in the bible get the ideology straight first.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
do not despise prophetic utterances. 21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22abstain from every form of evil.

not a strawman - and again you asserting so doesn't make it so.


your OP says "...why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason..."

That's the gist of your argument. Is that religious people take stuff as fact just on say-so. Sounds like you were directing most the comments to a judo-christian denomination.

The tenets and mindset of that religion is based on scripture int he bible.

So yeah it's a starwman, you say religious people are like X and X is foolish.

But in reality religious people following the Bible are told by the Bible not to be just like X.

Some people may be like X, but X is not derivative of the Bible, the collective tenets of the religion.

So what you describe is not an attribute of the religion but of some people. And this attribute of taking things on say-so and abandoning reason is just as easily seen in the a lot of atheist, young people, ect..

So it's not that i just said it was a strawman, but I gave a verse from the bible to illustrate the falsehood of your generalization.

I've had discussions with you before, certainly i should have learned that you just go brain dead when you see anything quoted from the bible and I certainly should have thought enough to elaborate better to a mediocre mind.

again - who cares what the bible says? Why would you think that quoting the bible to me or anyone carries any weight? These are merely the words of men who knew less than teenage daughter does. So why not quote from the book of Mormon? Why not quote from L Ron Hubbard and scientology? the Quran, the Hadith, the Buddhists tipitaka, or hindu shruti,? a book is a doggone book.


You didn't even read the quote. The content of the verse was not directed at giving weight to accepting faith or say-so. It was evidence presented to support that you don't know what your talking about when you generalize religion.

Seeing how the book is the tenets and precepts of the religion.

I don't care if it is the tenets of A religion or not - it is the tenets of one of thousands, and thus holds no weight in this argument. Again if it does, what about the tenets of all of the others, what do they say?

The fact remains that in order for you to believe and follow any of them you must employ a standard of proof different from the one you would use to determine reality in your present life. My question is why? why does mary get a pass? why does Abraham get a pass for nearly murdering his own son? How does a Christian know that god told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites? would they or you accept that as an excuse if an army wiped out an entire civilization these days? Would you simply accept "god told us to" as an excuse? I think not

You already presuppose that God does not exist. So you already have a conclusion in your head that when someone says "God told me" it is not true.

You are not using reason anymore than the zombie faith followers you paint religious people. Which is not surprising. I think you are projecting

you my friend are brain dead from the start. This condition is persistent and is not triggered by anything.

I did not direct this at any religion in particular only a simpleton such as yourself would think so.

Mormons believe joseph smith found gold tablets in new York and translated them blah blah blah -- drop reasoning ability and just believe
Scientologists believe that humans were brought to earth millions of years ago by an alien and that xenu blah blah blah -- drop reasoning and just believe
muslims believe that a dusty warlord actually rode a flying horse to mecca blah blah blah -- don't worry about the fact that you know horses don't fly -- drop reasoning and believe.

no proof can be required in any religion --- this is necessary for all religions, and I do mean all.

strawman fallacy

1.Person A has position X.
2.Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3.Person B attacks position Y.
4.Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed

If I am person B in your mind, exactly how is my Y a distorted version of position X? first you must identify Person(religion) A - which you cannot do, because I am talking about all religions. The X in this example would necessarily be some form of belief, that is contradicted, not by me, but by the thousands of other persons A in existence who have tens of thousands of positions Y

I have not distorted anything, Christians believe there is a heaven, nearly all of them believe that humans have seen, or temporarily visited it, which is why the lie the boy told was so easily accepted.
muslims believe Muhammad was a prophet who talked directly to god - no proof required.
some Christians believe benny hinn can actually heal them --their faith requires that no proof be necessary, as a matter of fact when they don't get better they are told that the reason the healing didn't work was that they don't have enough faith

so again I have committed no strawman fallacy, I have not distorted any version of anything, I have stated what actually goes on. Don't think that no one notices that you are simply ignoring my base question.

Piltdown man was a fake skull made by scientist to advance the theory of evolution. It was not exposed as a fake till 40 years later. When began to create more problems than advancing evolution.

Why do scientist just accept any fossil as evidence to a theory? Like the tooth used as evidence of evolution in the scopes monkey trial. Turned out to be a bore tooth and not a human ancestor as expected.

People lie for different reasons. Then other people belief them because of a quality called utility. People tend to accept stuff as true when it benefits them. It is a natural human bias.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 2:44:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago


Piltdown man was a fake skull made by scientist to advance the theory of evolution. It was not exposed as a fake till 40 years later. When began to create more problems than advancing evolution.

and yet science moved on because the scientific method dictates that you search for truth and that an exhaustive effort to disprove a claim/theory take place. in religion it is this because our book, or my pastor, or my priest, or the pope says so. Where is the proof that god said kill all the canaanites? where is the proof that Muhammad rode a flying horse ? it is non existent but billions of people believe in the truth of these claims without said proof.

Why do scientist just accept any fossil as evidence to a theory? Like the tooth used as evidence of evolution in the scopes monkey trial. Turned out to be a bore tooth and not a human ancestor as expected.

no one said there weren't fakes, but the attempt is necessary because in science you can't just "say" this is how it is - you need proof
now go back to the OP and apply that to religion -- 100% claims, my book says this, well my book says that, god told me this, well god told me that

People lie for different reasons. Then other people belief them because of a quality called utility. People tend to accept stuff as true when it benefits them. It is a natural human bias.

no argument here. You are absolutely correct, people lie for all types of reasons.

However, you sir help make my point.

The Piltdown man skull was found by dawson. Since it was a scientific claim, evidence had to be given. Great riches would come to the man who found a "missing link". So skepticism took over and he was met with immediate and never ending investigation and inquiry. As more fossils were found they cast a shadow on Piltdown man. Then under microscope file marks were seen, and that was it.

now compare that to noahs ark -- huge ship carried untold animals -- never a piece of it found -- but people still believe it
virgin birth -- no proof at all - people believe it
jesus resurrection -- no proof people believe it
prayer -- talking to the sky never proven to do anything but people believe in it.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 2:55:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am of the opinion that if something isn't credible, like much of the stuff in the Bible, either it didn't happen or a spin was put on natural events to make them look miraculous.

Since I first drew breath until the present day, I have been around the weirdest of stuff which some would say was 'supernatural', but I am convinced has a natural explanation.
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 6:52:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties.

And interesting thing is that even Bible seems to recommend to be critical, because:

Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good, but keep away from every kind of evil.
First Epistle to the Thessalonians 5:21

You just seem to be copying things from the Bible :)

I think there is no need to disprove or even to believe that god"s are. God is what person keeps as his highest authority. And actually it seems to me that all people have god. For some it may be property, which defines for them what is good and right (for example it is right to lies for more money).

It is actually irrelevant to speak about are there god"s. It is sure that there is, things that are persons highest authorities are gods. Better question is, is it reasonable to keep something as persons god, for example Zeus?

I keep Bible God as my God, because his teachings are good and he seems to have really effect on this world. The teachings of Bible God are really in this "love your neighbor as yourself". I think that is good and right and therefore I keep Bible God as my only God. Should that be changed, if Bible God is not real? Would love then be wrong? I don"t think so. Would you think love is ok, only if God is real?
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 8:26:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 6:52:52 AM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties.

And interesting thing is that even Bible seems to recommend to be critical, because:

Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good, but keep away from every kind of evil.
First Epistle to the Thessalonians 5:21

You just seem to be copying things from the Bible :)

I think there is no need to disprove or even to believe that god"s are. God is what person keeps as his highest authority. And actually it seems to me that all people have god. For some it may be property, which defines for them what is good and right (for example it is right to lies for more money).

It is actually irrelevant to speak about are there god"s. It is sure that there is, things that are persons highest authorities are gods. Better question is, is it reasonable to keep something as persons god, for example Zeus?

I keep Bible God as my God, because his teachings are good and he seems to have really effect on this world. The teachings of Bible God are really in this "love your neighbor as yourself". I think that is good and right and therefore I keep Bible God as my only God. Should that be changed, if Bible God is not real? Would love then be wrong? I don"t think so. Would you think love is ok, only if God is real?

Some people have a weird idea of good if they think that evil entity is good!
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:21:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Below is a link to the story of a little boy who came out of a coma and told a story about dying and going to heaven. Christians jumped all over it, of course, and started writing books and profiting from this nonsense. He has now come clean and told the truth saying that he made it all up.

My question is, why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason and just believe things that in no other area of your life you would. For this reason when a pastor says he was called to preach - it is automatically believed. When someone has a near death experience and claims to visit heaven - it is automatically believed, along with talking snakes, burning bushes, men inside whales, men living 950 years, and illiterate warlords taking trips on flying horses. Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties. The ability to reason, to test, to experiment, to repeat, to prove, is why we have made it this far, Why are so many people so willing to throw that all away, for stories no more convincing than the latest UFO abduction?
We don't. Yeah, there are some that look at an opportunity in a story/claim for marketing purposes. But most Christians I know don't assume any claim to be true. Quite the opposite.

And by the way, skepticism, and critical thinking is wonderful, but you got to understand there's also skepticism towards the claims of the skeptics. It works both ways. If the skeptic could prove his claim (Jesus is a myth, etc.), he wouldn't be a skeptic.

Or, do you really think Christians (we may as well remove the term religion at this point) buy into every claim, never practice critical thinking, never skeptical towards claims made by other Christians etc.? If so, your claim needs to be backed up just as much as any claim made in a book for marketing purposes.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:33:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Below is a link to the story of a little boy who came out of a coma and told a story about dying and going to heaven. Christians jumped all over it, of course, and started writing books and profiting from this nonsense. He has now come clean and told the truth saying that he made it all up.

My question is, why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason and just believe things that in no other area of your life you would. For this reason when a pastor says he was called to preach - it is automatically believed. When someone has a near death experience and claims to visit heaven - it is automatically believed, along with talking snakes, burning bushes, men inside whales, men living 950 years, and illiterate warlords taking trips on flying horses. Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties. The ability to reason, to test, to experiment, to repeat, to prove, is why we have made it this far, Why are so many people so willing to throw that all away, for stories no more convincing than the latest UFO abduction?

It is because Christians want heaven and religion to be true. So, they are more biased to believe events that support their biased belief. Just as how alien believers are more apt to think a weather baloon is an alien.

It is not their fault and they do not consciously believe decide to take less evidence for religion. It is just their human bias.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 2:43:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 1:27:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:39:18 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Skepticism is not critical, it's the opposite of critical

Define skepticism.

- Simply put, skepticism is: the attitude of doubt. I like Logic better, which is: the attitude of proof/certainty. Which do you thing is critical, & which isn't.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 2:58:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 12:09:11 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
sorry bro took the wife on a little vacation/getaway no computers allowed and limited cell phone use

- Wow, nice. Congrats, happy for you :)

so you have proof that Muhammad rode on a flying horse? -- come on bro get real

- It's not a flying horse, it's a Buraq'. Which may resemble a horse, & we don't know what it is.
- Plus, going from Mecca to Jerusalem in a short time is not physically impossible. & so, this flying horse business may be explained as:
> A Miracle that doesn't abide by the usual Physical Laws, which entails that Causality is not necessarily true, & may be violated, which is not contradicted, since Causality is only inductively true, & not necessary. & so, if God exists, & He didn't make the Law of Causality infallible, then it's possible.
> An alien creature that descended on the earth & has such abilities. (in the Islamic Tradition, there are Hadiths that talk about cognitive being in other planets).
> An other-worldly creature, from the Unseen World, such as a Jinn, which are shown to have extraordinary speeds.

it is absolutely critical, skepticism is the very reason that some people would not simply accept the nonsense that religion was putting out that disease was a punishment from god, their being skeptical made them say -- that is nonsense, and start looking for "actual" reasons

- It seems you're saying skepticism is less uncritical than faith, & I agree with you. However, skepticism is not critical, since it is a attitude of doubt, what is critical is Reason & Logic, since they present an attitude of proof & certainty.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 3:00:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:14:45 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Below is a link to the story of a little boy who came out of a coma and told a story about dying and going to heaven. Christians jumped all over it, of course, and started writing books and profiting from this nonsense. He has now come clean and told the truth saying that he made it all up.

My question is, why do religious people so strongly believe that "saying so" is enough. Faith requires that you drop all ability to reason and just believe things that in no other area of your life you would. For this reason when a pastor says he was called to preach - it is automatically believed. When someone has a near death experience and claims to visit heaven - it is automatically believed, along with talking snakes, burning bushes, men inside whales, men living 950 years, and illiterate warlords taking trips on flying horses. Skepticism is one of our most critical faculties. The ability to reason, to test, to experiment, to repeat, to prove, is why we have made it this far, Why are so many people so willing to throw that all away, for stories no more convincing than the latest UFO abduction?

Response: Quite interesting when in reality, the "it says so" argument is made by atheists and what atheists base their whole belief on. Watch.

Prove to us, using logic and reason only, that evolution is true, that chance can originate order, and that dinosaurs actually existed. That means WITHOUT providing a link. Do not provide any link whatsoever. That is a challenge.

You will never be able to do it. So the hypocrisy and irony in your post is evident and exposes the absurdity of atheism.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 3:59:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 3:00:47 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Prove to us, using logic and reason only, that evolution is true, that chance can originate order, and that dinosaurs actually existed. That means WITHOUT providing a link. Do not provide any link whatsoever. That is a challenge.

The Islamic propagandist is often not educated and constantly demands ridiculous things regarding science, because they know nothing of science, the facts, the evidence, absolutely nothing.

You will never be able to do it. So the hypocrisy and irony in your post is evident and exposes the absurdity of atheism.

The sheer disingenuous and deceitful tactics they employ are impenetrable. Their stupidity is only matched by their denial.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 4:06:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 3:59:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:00:47 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Prove to us, using logic and reason only, that evolution is true, that chance can originate order, and that dinosaurs actually existed. That means WITHOUT providing a link. Do not provide any link whatsoever. That is a challenge.

The Islamic propagandist is often not educated and constantly demands ridiculous things regarding science, because they know nothing of science, the facts, the evidence, absolutely nothing.

You will never be able to do it. So the hypocrisy and irony in your post is evident and exposes the absurdity of atheism.

The sheer disingenuous and deceitful tactics they employ are impenetrable. Their stupidity is only matched by their denial.

Response: In other words, you can't prove your beliefs in evolution, dinosaurs, or chance originating order without providing a link. Thus proving your belief is blind faith and based on its true because "it says so". Another atheists exposed.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 5:00:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 2:43:44 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 1:27:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:39:18 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Skepticism is not critical, it's the opposite of critical

Define skepticism.

- Simply put, skepticism is: the attitude of doubt. I like Logic better, which is: the attitude of proof/certainty. Which do you thing is critical, & which isn't.

And you find an attitude of doubt to be the opposite of critical?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 5:13:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 4:06:37 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:59:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:00:47 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Prove to us, using logic and reason only, that evolution is true, that chance can originate order, and that dinosaurs actually existed. That means WITHOUT providing a link. Do not provide any link whatsoever. That is a challenge.

The Islamic propagandist is often not educated and constantly demands ridiculous things regarding science, because they know nothing of science, the facts, the evidence, absolutely nothing.

You will never be able to do it. So the hypocrisy and irony in your post is evident and exposes the absurdity of atheism.

The sheer disingenuous and deceitful tactics they employ are impenetrable. Their stupidity is only matched by their denial.

Response: In other words, you can't prove your beliefs in evolution, dinosaurs, or chance originating order without providing a link.

Yes, I understand the Islamic propagandist has not learned anything about the world around them unless it comes from the Quran.

Thus proving your belief is blind faith and based on its true because "it says so". Another atheists exposed.

Yes, the many museums and universities teaming with dinosaur bones indeed just say so. Sorry, that you don't understand anything about your world.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 5:15:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 5:00:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
And you find an attitude of doubt to be the opposite of critical?

- Of course it is. The attitude of doubt is inherently inconclusive, it has no Logical value, & thus can not be critical.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 6:01:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 5:13:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Yes, the many museums and universities teaming with dinosaur bones indeed just say so. Sorry, that you don't understand anything about your world.

Response: Yet the many museums of false fossils and universities teaming up to to supports false fossils of dinosaurs do just say so, that it's false. Sorry you do not understand science to know so.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 6:04:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 5:15:51 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 5:00:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
And you find an attitude of doubt to be the opposite of critical?

- Of course it is. The attitude of doubt is inherently inconclusive, it has no Logical value, & thus can not be critical.

You have an extremely flawed understanding of what these words mean.

An attitude of doubt does not preclude one from reaching a conclusion, it is simply the starting point. A skeptic is someone who doubts until valid evidence has been presented. In other words it is someone who waits for arguments with logical value, not someone who rejects them.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 6:53:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 6:04:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
An attitude of doubt does not preclude one from reaching a conclusion, it is simply the starting point. A skeptic is someone who doubts until valid evidence has been presented.

- Well, in that case, what's the difference between a skeptic & a non-skeptic since the critical part is not either, it's the capacity to reach conclusion based on evidence?

In other words it is someone who waits for arguments with logical value, not someone who rejects them.

- There is no correlation between being non-skeptical & rejecting proof, or between being skeptical & accepting proof. In both cases, it's the Logical attitude that accepts proof, & the anti-logical (which might as well be skeptical) that does not accept proof.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 7:46:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 6:53:37 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 6:04:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
An attitude of doubt does not preclude one from reaching a conclusion, it is simply the starting point. A skeptic is someone who doubts until valid evidence has been presented.

- Well, in that case, what's the difference between a skeptic & a non-skeptic since the critical part is not either, it's the capacity to reach conclusion based on evidence?

The difference is that skeptics do not accept conclusions based on faith or intuition. The philosophy of a skeptic is that if it cannot be demonstrated it should not be accepted.

In other words it is someone who waits for arguments with logical value, not someone who rejects them.

- There is no correlation between being non-skeptical & rejecting proof, or between being skeptical & accepting proof. In both cases, it's the Logical attitude that accepts proof, & the anti-logical (which might as well be skeptical) that does not accept proof.

Accepting a claim because you have faith or because you feel it's true is not a logical attitude.

And you're right, there is no correlation between being non-skeptical and rejecting proof. Skepticism is not about what you reject, it is about what you require before accepting a claim.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 8:16:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 7:46:17 PM, Double_R wrote:
The difference is that skeptics do not accept conclusions based on faith or intuition. The philosophy of a skeptic is that if it cannot be demonstrated it should not be accepted.

- How would a skeptic know if something can or can not be demonstrated if he doesn't use Logic? & if that's the case, why should this 'Logical' move be exclusive to a skeptic?

Accepting a claim because you have faith or because you feel it's true is not a logical attitude.

- Yeah? so?
- Also, it depends on what you mean by 'you feel it's true'!

And you're right, there is no correlation between being non-skeptical and rejecting proof. Skepticism is not about what you reject, it is about what you require before accepting a claim.

- That doesn't say anything about the rationality or critical quality of a skeptic, a skeptic may require Logic proof, which in that case he switched to Logical attitude, & he may also require non-logical proof, which means he is irrational. The same thing can be said about a non-skeptic.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:33:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"if it cannot be demonstrated it should not be accepted."

hog wash. Now you are just being disingenuous. And this is the rejection of logic not the adherence to it.