Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Too Good to be true.

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 12:11:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
One day Bob woke up to the noise of his doorbell, hastily putting on a dressing gown he rushed downstairs and opened the door. In front of him was a well dressed gentleman carrying a briefcase.

"Why hello there Sir, might I interest you in a million pounds."
"Pardon..." Said Bob still feeling slightly groggy after a good nights sleep.
"You heard correctly Sir, a million pounds, sterling, all yours, right here, right now... all in this rather attractive briefcase" he added hastily.
"You are really going to give me a million pounds?", this was turning out to be quite a good day indeed and he had not even had breakfast yet.
"That is correct Sir".
"Seriously, and there are no catches" at this point Bob's natural common sense and cynicism began to kick in.
"Well there is just one catch" replied the mysterious salesman. "You have to truly believe that I have a million pounds in this briefcase... otherwise when I hand it to you it will vanish".
"Well you could open the briefcase and show me what's inside", suggested Bob.
"No".
"Oh".
So Bob tried with all his might to believe the man's story, then when he was ready he reached out... and upon taking it the briefcase vanished.
"You did not truly believe, you must be a money hating communist... I despise you" shouted the salesman before storming away.
"No I don't hate the idea of money... I... just...." but it was too late.

The next day Bob woke up to the noise of his doorbell, hastily putting on a dressing gown he rushed downstairs and opened the door. In front of him was a well dressed gentleman carrying a briefcase... but not the same fellow as before.

"Hello there Sir, are you aware that you are going to hell" stated this new and even more mysterious salesman.
"Oh nuts, that's not good news is it... I am having such a bad week" whined Bob, desperately holding back the tears. "Shall I pack my bags now?" he asked rather stupidly.
"No Sir... I mean that when you die your soul will go to hell".
"Well how bad can it be", asked Bob nervously.
"Very bad... it is eternal separation from God".
"That does not sound too bad" stated Bob, who had never met God and did not realise what he was missing out on.
"You also burn for all eternity and demons poke you with pitchforks" added the new salesman with some venom.
"Oh... bugger".
"But don't worry Sir, I can save you from hell... and not only that I can send your soul to go to a great big party in the sky, where you will have a mansion... and cake... and live forever."
"Wow" Bob was suddenly excited, for he was great lover of cake and not being dead.
"And I am sure you will agree it is a far better offer than that silly million pounds you missed out on yesterday?"
Bob was a little confused as to how the man knew about that, but simply agreed before asking... "Wait is there a catch?"
"Well just one... you have to wear a magic hat".
"A magic hat" replied Bob, somewhat confused.
"That's right sir, God loves hats... to appease him you must wear one... but not any old hat. One of these invisible incorporeal magic wrath averting celestial top hats... TA DA" The man made a flourish and stood with hands outstretched ostensibly holding such a wonderful item of headgear.
"I don't see anything" answered a confused Bob who had not really understood what was just said to him.
"Exactly not Sir, it is self-evidently invisible, just like my one..."
"Amazing, and that is all I have to do, just put one of those hats on my head?"
"Well... there is just one more catch".
"Oh" replied a newly cynical Bob.
"You can't see, touch, smell, taste, or sense in any way this hat... but you have to fully believe it is there and that it will do everything I advertised it would, if you don't, it won't work... oh and the hat will tell me and so I'll have to punch you in the face".
It suddenly dawned on Bob that as this deal was infinitely better than the one he was offered yesterday, it was also infinitely less likely to be true. But Bob had learned his lesson and so made extra special care to believe... it was clearly absurd but by not believing he was seriously screwing himself over. When he was ready he gingerly 'took' the hat and to the mans joy 'placed' the hat on his head. The next thing Bob knew was that a fist had collided with his nose.
"You did not truly believe.... are you some sort of God hating retard, now you are going to hell!" shouted the man, before taking back the hat and striding off angrily.
"I don't hate God... I just..." but it was too late.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 8:12:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
oh where to begin.........

I think I have just 2 things to say against this story that was obviously put up to as a mocking analogy to Christianity (hell references and all)

It's not accurate as Christianity is tolerant of some doubt. Its not the worst thing in the world to have.

And 2nd, the qualifying catch that you completely cant feel this hat in anyway is also not part of our offer. God will give you assurance and you will not be able to miss it like John Wesley in no way could not notice it at Alders-gate church.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 8:00:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I thought it was fairly accurate. Although the hat should have been something Christians actually believe. Like just God, and feel his presence.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 8:03:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/16/2010 12:11:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
One day Bob woke up to the noise of his doorbell, hastily putting on a dressing gown he rushed downstairs and opened the door. In front of him was a well dressed gentleman carrying a briefcase.

"Why hello there Sir, might I interest you in a million pounds."
"Pardon..." Said Bob still feeling slightly groggy after a good nights sleep.
"You heard correctly Sir, a million pounds, sterling, all yours, right here, right now... all in this rather attractive briefcase" he added hastily.
"You are really going to give me a million pounds?", this was turning out to be quite a good day indeed and he had not even had breakfast yet.
"That is correct Sir".
"Seriously, and there are no catches" at this point Bob's natural common sense and cynicism began to kick in.
"Well there is just one catch" replied the mysterious salesman. "You have to truly believe that I have a million pounds in this briefcase... otherwise when I hand it to you it will vanish".
"Well you could open the briefcase and show me what's inside", suggested Bob.
"No".
"Oh".
So Bob tried with all his might to believe the man's story, then when he was ready he reached out... and upon taking it the briefcase vanished.
"You did not truly believe, you must be a money hating communist... I despise you" shouted the salesman before storming away.
"No I don't hate the idea of money... I... just...." but it was too late.

The next day Bob woke up to the noise of his doorbell, hastily putting on a dressing gown he rushed downstairs and opened the door. In front of him was a well dressed gentleman carrying a briefcase... but not the same fellow as before.

"Hello there Sir, are you aware that you are going to hell" stated this new and even more mysterious salesman.
"Oh nuts, that's not good news is it... I am having such a bad week" whined Bob, desperately holding back the tears. "Shall I pack my bags now?" he asked rather stupidly.
"No Sir... I mean that when you die your soul will go to hell".
"Well how bad can it be", asked Bob nervously.
"Very bad... it is eternal separation from God".
"That does not sound too bad" stated Bob, who had never met God and did not realise what he was missing out on.
"You also burn for all eternity and demons poke you with pitchforks" added the new salesman with some venom.
"Oh... bugger".
"But don't worry Sir, I can save you from hell... and not only that I can send your soul to go to a great big party in the sky, where you will have a mansion... and cake... and live forever."
"Wow" Bob was suddenly excited, for he was great lover of cake and not being dead.
"And I am sure you will agree it is a far better offer than that silly million pounds you missed out on yesterday?"
Bob was a little confused as to how the man knew about that, but simply agreed before asking... "Wait is there a catch?"
"Well just one... you have to wear a magic hat".
"A magic hat" replied Bob, somewhat confused.
"That's right sir, God loves hats... to appease him you must wear one... but not any old hat. One of these invisible incorporeal magic wrath averting celestial top hats... TA DA" The man made a flourish and stood with hands outstretched ostensibly holding such a wonderful item of headgear.
"I don't see anything" answered a confused Bob who had not really understood what was just said to him.
"Exactly not Sir, it is self-evidently invisible, just like my one..."
"Amazing, and that is all I have to do, just put one of those hats on my head?"
"Well... there is just one more catch".
"Oh" replied a newly cynical Bob.
"You can't see, touch, smell, taste, or sense in any way this hat... but you have to fully believe it is there and that it will do everything I advertised it would, if you don't, it won't work... oh and the hat will tell me and so I'll have to punch you in the face".
It suddenly dawned on Bob that as this deal was infinitely better than the one he was offered yesterday, it was also infinitely less likely to be true. But Bob had learned his lesson and so made extra special care to believe... it was clearly absurd but by not believing he was seriously screwing himself over. When he was ready he gingerly 'took' the hat and to the mans joy 'placed' the hat on his head. The next thing Bob knew was that a fist had collided with his nose.
"You did not truly believe.... are you some sort of God hating retard, now you are going to hell!" shouted the man, before taking back the hat and striding off angrily.
"I don't hate God... I just..." but it was too late.

Lol. Yet another worn out analogy. And t sucks as bad as the rest have. Are you going to re post the the dessert island analogy too?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 11:45:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/16/2010 8:12:37 AM, Marauder wrote:

It's not accurate as Christianity is tolerant of some doubt. Its not the worst thing in the world to have.

A minority of Christian factions may be tolerant of some doubt.

And 2nd, the qualifying catch that you completely cant feel this hat in anyway is also not part of our offer. God will give you assurance and you will not be able to miss it like John Wesley in no way could not notice it at Alders-gate church.

Yea... entirely subjective.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 11:46:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/16/2010 8:00:51 PM, lovelife wrote:
I thought it was fairly accurate. Although the hat should have been something Christians actually believe. Like just God, and feel his presence.

The hat example is blatantly absurd, yet not everyone realises that the actual christian claims when broken down are equally silly.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 12:14:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm sure one could possibly correlate this anecdote loosely to some Christian-based religions.

Speaking strictly from the doctrine, it should be in the interest of Christians to spread faith, but it should not be by duress. Whoever goes to hell is determined by God alone and the bible discourages any judgement, particularly on those who do not have faith. It is their prerogative.

In terms of Christianity, technically, one is not to worship or "believe in" imaginary objects. One is to observe certain objects that suggest specific occurrences, iconologically speaking. Otherwise, one is to find and develop a relationship with God within, as well as be decent to others. There's really no harm in it, when people do not use it as an excuse for dissonance.

But, nothing in humanity exists in perfection. To criticize any single religion is to criticize humanity in general. Religion is an immutable facet of humanity. It exists in every single culture, upon every strata on which humans exist. Every characteristic of our existence is imbued with some religious background in some way; it is irrevocable. To argue religion is to argue human nature. It's foolish.

Some people feel it and others do not. But, those who are truly convinced will not seek an argument.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 12:24:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The salient point is that Christianity expects its followers to believe things before those things are demonstrated to be true. Often they say that the lord will reveal himself later on, or things like that, and you just have to have faith and an open heart first.

I think the analogy rightly shows why that's nonsense. Reasonable people can't accept extreme claims on faith. They need evidence BEFORE they will believe. And that's simply not something religion seems to offer.

Of course, religion survives anyway, because people are raised up in it and feel like they have some sort of personal relationship with god, which allows even the rational to feel justified in their belief. I know the feeling. I was raised Christian. I was quite devout for a short time in my teen years, too. It took me a long time to realize that my feelings of God's presence were more likely just my brain interacting with a very emotional social atmosphere. The same atmosphere that makes groups of believers of many stripes start convulsing on the floor or speaking gibberish when the social setting for it is presented.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 12:33:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think that's a very subjective assessment of the religion. Most people believe things without proof. The majority of most people's belief is based on faith. People don't understand how most things work, politically, economically, technologically, scientifically--we only believe what we're told. By schools, corporations, media, and governments, all of whom have proven to be dubious.

Existentialism, solipsism, theism, nihilism, or gnosticism. That's all you're really left with.

Some are convinced there's a design. That's where it begins.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 1:02:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 12:33:05 PM, Ren wrote:
I think that's a very subjective assessment of the religion. Most people believe things without proof.
This is irrational. Further, they usually at least expect some sort of argument in favor before they'll believe something. Perhaps they'll say "Ok, I'll believe that" before they've put the argument under a reasonable amount of scrutiny, but they'll usually at least require something more than "you just have to believe."

Unless we're talking about children. They usually are willing to believe something because they're told it's true. This of course leads them to be more capable of adopting unjustified positions.

The majority of most people's belief is based on faith. People don't understand how most things work, politically, economically, technologically, scientifically--we only believe what we're told. By schools, corporations, media, and governments, all of whom have proven to be dubious.
You're essentially making the argument that we shouldn't believe anything we're told. You're not making an effective argument that we should believe religious institutions, you're essentially just saying "The church doesn't provide good enough evidence to support justified belief, but neither do many other institutions!"

But really, there are effective ways to determine who is trustworthy and when you should believe something. Believing all sorts of things without being given a good reason is not the best answer, and I'm truly sorry for you if you think the answer to everyone being untrustworthy is to simply extend trust to everyone.

Some are convinced there's a design. That's where it begins.
And that's fine. I don't have a problem with deists.

Even if we accept the hypothesis that things were designed by an intelligent force rather than natural designing mechanisms, no specific religion follows from that. You don't end up naturally concluding that Chaos existed in the beginning, then Gaia appeared, gave birth to Uranus, then they gave birth to some Titans who gave birth to gods. You don't end up naturally concluding that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet. Those beliefs and other specifics are not justified merely by thinking that things are designed by an intelligent force.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 1:20:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 1:02:37 PM, beem0r wrote:
You're essentially making the argument that we shouldn't believe anything we're told. You're not making an effective argument that we should believe religious institutions, you're essentially just saying "The church doesn't provide good enough evidence to support justified belief, but neither do many other institutions!"


No. I was illustrating that the requirement of faith in order to believe something is not sufficient evidence to make it fallacious.

But really, there are effective ways to determine who is trustworthy and when you should believe something. Believing all sorts of things without being given a good reason is not the best answer, and I'm truly sorry for you if you think the answer to everyone being untrustworthy is to simply extend trust to everyone.

That's not necessarily true. Most people believe all sorts of things without any good reason except that a large enough number of other people share that belief. I'm not saying it's rational, I'm saying it's typical.

For example, you "believe in science," right? Are you a scientist? Unless you are, you don't really understand or know that anything about science is really true.

Even if we accept the hypothesis that things were designed by an intelligent force rather than natural designing mechanisms, no specific religion follows from that. You don't end up naturally concluding that Chaos existed in the beginning, then Gaia appeared, gave birth to Uranus, then they gave birth to some Titans who gave birth to gods. You don't end up naturally concluding that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet. Those beliefs and other specifics are not justified merely by thinking that things are designed by an intelligent force.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. Are you suggesting that humanity is being manipulated?
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 1:44:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 1:20:36 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/17/2010 1:02:37 PM, beem0r wrote:
You're essentially making the argument that we shouldn't believe anything we're told. You're not making an effective argument that we should believe religious institutions, you're essentially just saying "The church doesn't provide good enough evidence to support justified belief, but neither do many other institutions!"
No. I was illustrating that the requirement of faith in order to believe something is not sufficient evidence to make it fallacious.
Yes, it is. Faith is not a good reason to believe something. The fact that people tend to do it anyway is an irrelevant point.

But really, there are effective ways to determine who is trustworthy and when you should believe something. Believing all sorts of things without being given a good reason is not the best answer, and I'm truly sorry for you if you think the answer to everyone being untrustworthy is to simply extend trust to everyone.
That's not necessarily true. Most people believe all sorts of things without any good reason except that a large enough number of other people share that belief. I'm not saying it's rational, I'm saying it's typical.
And I'm not saying faith as required by religion is atypical, I'm saying it's irrational. Since you're not saying it's rational, and I'm not saying it's typical, I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with me.

For example, you "believe in science," right? Are you a scientist? Unless you are, you don't really understand or know that anything about science is really true.
I am not a professional scientist. However, I am an involved student of science. I have witnessed many of the foundational laws of science in action. I have seen that the mathematics behind higher-order things checks out.

But really, the most important thing is that I understand the methodology of science, and thus, I know under what circumstances it is trustworthy. I know that if something was blatantly wrong, people would be chomping at the bit to be the first one to demonstrate that it's wrong. I know that any well-established theories have gotten there through extensive peer review by people in the field who know what they're doing. This doesn't mean I can be CERTAIN that they're true, but it's sufficient evidence to believe.

Science tells you why you should believe something, tells you what the evidence is, and has many very intelligent professionals checking up on that evidence, who stand to gain quite a bit of fame by debunking bad science..

Even if we accept the hypothesis that things were designed by an intelligent force rather than natural designing mechanisms, no specific religion follows from that. You don't end up naturally concluding that Chaos existed in the beginning, then Gaia appeared, gave birth to Uranus, then they gave birth to some Titans who gave birth to gods. You don't end up naturally concluding that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet. Those beliefs and other specifics are not justified merely by thinking that things are designed by an intelligent force.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. Are you suggesting that humanity is being manipulated?
I'm suggesting that there's not a good reason, even if we accept that the universe is designed, to accept the specific notions of any religion. There isn't evidence of hell, or demons, or a holy spirit, or cosmic karma, or reincarnation, etc. If you want to believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence, keep it at that. No need to pretend to know the specifics of that intelligence when there's absolutely no good evidence on the matter available to you.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 2:06:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 1:44:06 PM, beem0r wrote:
Yes, it is. Faith is not a good reason to believe something. The fact that people tend to do it anyway is an irrelevant point.


My point was, unless you know and understand everything that was ever contrived or discovered, you will always have a bit of faith behind every belief you possess until you die.

And I'm not saying faith as required by religion is atypical, I'm saying it's irrational. Since you're not saying it's rational, and I'm not saying it's typical, I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with me.


No, faith in general is typical. Religion is directed faith.

I am not a professional scientist. However, I am an involved student of science. I have witnessed many of the foundational laws of science in action. I have seen that the mathematics behind higher-order things checks out.


Many people that devoutly follow a religion would say the same things. "I am not a priest/theologist/saint/etc., but I understand the fundamental premise and have firsthand experience with evidence for that premise that convinces me that there is enough potential for it to be true for me to believe it."

But really, the most important thing is that I understand the methodology of science, and thus, I know under what circumstances it is trustworthy.

Science is nebulous, controversial, and inconsistent just like anything else. Just as 100 years ago, the majority of what was accepted as true in science was discovered flawed, the same will prove true about what is generally accepted today in another 100 years. The majority of what contemporary scientists have discovered isn't even available for public knowledge, and that which is usually requires a rather extensive involvement in the associated culture and network. For you to say that you understand anything about any facet of science enough to believe it incontrovertibly without an iota of faith is either dishonest or delusional.

I know that if something was blatantly wrong, people would be chomping at the bit to be the first one to demonstrate that it's wrong.

This is also false. It is often far too dangerous to point out a falsity.

I know that any well-established theories have gotten there through extensive peer review by people in the field who know what they're doing. This doesn't mean I can be CERTAIN that they're true, but it's sufficient evidence to believe.

Belief in the absence of certainty is faith.

Science tells you why you should believe something, tells you what the evidence is, and has many very intelligent professionals checking up on that evidence, who stand to gain quite a bit of fame by debunking bad science..

That's not entirely true. Not all information is even available about a science and science itself is riddled with jargon that ensures that no one is claiming any irrevocable grounds on anything at all.

I'm suggesting that there's not a good reason, even if we accept that the universe is designed, to accept the specific notions of any religion. There isn't evidence of hell, or demons, or a holy spirit, or cosmic karma, or reincarnation, etc. If you want to believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence, keep it at that. No need to pretend to know the specifics of that intelligence when there's absolutely no good evidence on the matter available to you.

Some believe that ancient texts, omnipresent iconography, and the spontaneous and independent emergence of a belief in places that have no contact is reason enough. Others claim personal experience that, in their perspective, is far more poignant than any scientific theory could hope to be.

I still believe that your stance is extremely subjective.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 3:16:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 2:06:12 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/17/2010 1:44:06 PM, beem0r wrote:
Yes, it is. Faith is not a good reason to believe something. The fact that people tend to do it anyway is an irrelevant point.
My point was, unless you know and understand everything that was ever contrived or discovered, you will always have a bit of faith behind every belief you possess until you die.
It's still ridiculous to believe someone when the best reason they can give you is "just because."

And I'm not saying faith as required by religion is atypical, I'm saying it's irrational. Since you're not saying it's rational, and I'm not saying it's typical, I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with me.
No, faith in general is typical. Religion is directed faith.
And since faith is irrational, religion is irrational. It doesn't matter that it's "directed," whatever you mean by that.

I am not a professional scientist. However, I am an involved student of science. I have witnessed many of the foundational laws of science in action. I have seen that the mathematics behind higher-order things checks out.
Many people that devoutly follow a religion would say the same things. "I am not a priest/theologist/saint/etc., but I understand the fundamental premise and have firsthand experience with evidence for that premise that convinces me that there is enough potential for it to be true for me to believe it."
The theological method has nothing on the scientific method. The latter is far better at discerning fact from fiction and you know it.

But really, the most important thing is that I understand the methodology of science, and thus, I know under what circumstances it is trustworthy.
Science is nebulous, controversial, and inconsistent just like anything else. Just as 100 years ago, the majority of what was accepted as true in science was discovered flawed, the same will prove true about what is generally accepted today in another 100 years.
Maybe, but the best science of today is still our most rational best guesses as a society, based on evidence.

For you to say that you understand anything about any facet of science enough to believe it incontrovertibly without an iota of faith is either dishonest or delusional.
I don't think I ever said incontrovertibly. I said I have enough evidence to believe them, but not enough to believe with certainty.

I know that if something was blatantly wrong, people would be chomping at the bit to be the first one to demonstrate that it's wrong.
This is also false. It is often far too dangerous to point out a falsity.
I would ask you to back that statement up. People are questioning major scientific truths all the time these days with no repercussions. Relativity, macro-scale mathematical models of gravitation, etc.

I know that any well-established theories have gotten there through extensive peer review by people in the field who know what they're doing. This doesn't mean I can be CERTAIN that they're true, but it's sufficient evidence to believe.
Belief in the absence of certainty is faith.
No, it's not. If evidence suggests that something is 60% likely, it's not faith to believe it with 60% confidence. Faith is believing something without good reason to think it's likely, or believing something with certainty when you don't actually have certainty.

I'm suggesting that there's not a good reason, even if we accept that the universe is designed, to accept the specific notions of any religion. There isn't evidence of hell, or demons, or a holy spirit, or cosmic karma, or reincarnation, etc. If you want to believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence, keep it at that. No need to pretend to know the specifics of that intelligence when there's absolutely no good evidence on the matter available to you.
Some believe that ancient texts, omnipresent iconography, and the spontaneous and independent emergence of a belief in places that have no contact is reason enough. Others claim personal experience that, in their perspective, is far more poignant than any scientific theory could hope to be.
Oh, like how after the whole Jesus thing went down, the entire world suddenly knew about Christianity, and the religion didn't need to be spread by violence and evangelism? Oh wait.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 4:14:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 12:33:05 PM, Ren wrote:
Existentialism, solipsism, theism, nihilism, or gnosticism. That's all you're really left with.

What?? Explain please.

Some are convinced there's a design. That's where it begins.

Not really. People who are Christian didn't start off with the hypothesis that the world was designed then gradually induced all the other Christian tenets about Jesus, resurrections, Adam and Eve, etc. Really, design is what Christians use to justify their belief after they have already chosen to believe.

Also, some religions aren't concerned whether the world was designed or not and that it is almost entirely irrelevant.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 4:30:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 1:02:37 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 10/17/2010 12:33:05 PM, Ren wrote:
I think that's a very subjective assessment of the religion. Most people believe things without proof.
This is irrational. Further, they usually at least expect some sort of argument in favor before they'll believe something.

Lol, do you have any idea how irrational it is to expect everything you believe to be proven?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 4:54:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A wonderful story C_N.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 7:28:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 4:30:48 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/17/2010 1:02:37 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 10/17/2010 12:33:05 PM, Ren wrote:
I think that's a very subjective assessment of the religion. Most people believe things without proof.
This is irrational. Further, they usually at least expect some sort of argument in favor before they'll believe something.

Lol, do you have any idea how irrational it is to expect everything you believe to be proven?
There is a difference between a belief being proven and being justified.

It's sad that on a debating website, I have to inform people that bare assertions without evidence are completely useless.

Someone comes to you and asserts X with no evidence. Someone else comes along and asserts NOT X with no evidence. Tell me, which of them do you decide to believe based on faith?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 7:39:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 7:28:05 PM, beem0r wrote:
There is a difference between a belief being proven and being justified.

Agreed.

It's sad that on a debating website, I have to inform people that bare assertions without evidence are completely useless.

Someone comes to you and asserts X with no evidence. Someone else comes along and asserts NOT X with no evidence. Tell me, which of them do you decide to believe based on faith?

Can you provide evidence that history exists, and that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago with the appearance of age? Can you prove that some objective reality exists outside of your mind? Or that other minds like yours exist in that reality?

Some beliefs are warranted without evidential or logical proof. However, I do agree that grouping God in with foundational beliefs is problematic.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 8:13:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 7:39:13 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
It's sad that on a debating website, I have to inform people that bare assertions without evidence are completely useless.

Someone comes to you and asserts X with no evidence. Someone else comes along and asserts NOT X with no evidence. Tell me, which of them do you decide to believe based on faith?
Can you provide evidence that history exists, and that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago with the appearance of age? Can you prove that some objective reality exists outside of your mind? Or that other minds like yours exist in that reality?
While in the strictest rational sense, there is not a good indicator of whether world is real vs. world is fake is true, there ARE good practical grounds for deciding to act within the world as if the world, and your memories were real. Essentially, to the most OCD of rational purists, every belief would have to be framed with contingencies.

Whereas you or I might simply say "X seems to indicate Y," the rational purist would need to say "If the universe is real, and my senses are accurate to a certain extent, and this isn't just a dream I'm having within reality, and blah blah blah, then X seems to indicate Y." This would be practically no different, because it would cause them merely to act as if Y was true.

I don't really see the point in being quite as anal as that. I'm willing to simply provisionally accept those premises, since I'd have to act as if they were true to function within the world anyway. Makes framing and thinking about ideas and discussing things with people infinitely easier.

Some beliefs are warranted without evidential or logical proof. However, I do agree that grouping God in with foundational beliefs is problematic.
Not in the strictest sense, as I mentioned above, but for all practical purposes I agree on both counts. I would say that the only "foundational beliefs" we should grant this to are the ones that we'd have to act were true anyway.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 9:18:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/16/2010 12:11:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
One day Bob woke up to the noise of his doorbell, hastily putting on a dressing gown he rushed downstairs and opened the door. In front of him was a well dressed gentleman carrying a briefcase.

"Why hello there Sir, might I interest you in a million pounds."
"Pardon..." Said Bob still feeling slightly groggy after a good nights sleep.
"You heard correctly Sir, a million pounds, sterling, all yours, right here, right now... all in this rather attractive briefcase" he added hastily.
"You are really going to give me a million pounds?", this was turning out to be quite a good day indeed and he had not even had breakfast yet.
"That is correct Sir".
"Seriously, and there are no catches" at this point Bob's natural common sense and cynicism began to kick in.
"Well there is just one catch" replied the mysterious salesman. "You have to truly believe that I have a million pounds in this briefcase... otherwise when I hand it to you it will vanish".
"Well you could open the briefcase and show me what's inside", suggested Bob.
"No".
"Oh".
So Bob tried with all his might to believe the man's story, then when he was ready he reached out... and upon taking it the briefcase vanished.
"You did not truly believe, you must be a money hating communist... I despise you" shouted the salesman before storming away.
"No I don't hate the idea of money... I... just...." but it was too late.

The next day Bob woke up to the noise of his doorbell, hastily putting on a dressing gown he rushed downstairs and opened the door. In front of him was a well dressed gentleman carrying a briefcase... but not the same fellow as before.

"Hello there Sir, are you aware that you are going to hell" stated this new and even more mysterious salesman.
"Oh nuts, that's not good news is it... I am having such a bad week" whined Bob, desperately holding back the tears. "Shall I pack my bags now?" he asked rather stupidly.
"No Sir... I mean that when you die your soul will go to hell".
"Well how bad can it be", asked Bob nervously.
"Very bad... it is eternal separation from God".
"That does not sound too bad" stated Bob, who had never met God and did not realise what he was missing out on.
"You also burn for all eternity and demons poke you with pitchforks" added the new salesman with some venom.
"Oh... bugger".
"But don't worry Sir, I can save you from hell... and not only that I can send your soul to go to a great big party in the sky, where you will have a mansion... and cake... and live forever."
"Wow" Bob was suddenly excited, for he was great lover of cake and not being dead.
"And I am sure you will agree it is a far better offer than that silly million pounds you missed out on yesterday?"
Bob was a little confused as to how the man knew about that, but simply agreed before asking... "Wait is there a catch?"
"Well just one... you have to wear a magic hat".
"A magic hat" replied Bob, somewhat confused.
"That's right sir, God loves hats... to appease him you must wear one... but not any old hat. One of these invisible incorporeal magic wrath averting celestial top hats... TA DA" The man made a flourish and stood with hands outstretched ostensibly holding such a wonderful item of headgear.
"I don't see anything" answered a confused Bob who had not really understood what was just said to him.
"Exactly not Sir, it is self-evidently invisible, just like my one..."
"Amazing, and that is all I have to do, just put one of those hats on my head?"
"Well... there is just one more catch".
"Oh" replied a newly cynical Bob.
"You can't see, touch, smell, taste, or sense in any way this hat... but you have to fully believe it is there and that it will do everything I advertised it would, if you don't, it won't work... oh and the hat will tell me and so I'll have to punch you in the face".
It suddenly dawned on Bob that as this deal was infinitely better than the one he was offered yesterday, it was also infinitely less likely to be true. But Bob had learned his lesson and so made extra special care to believe... it was clearly absurd but by not believing he was seriously screwing himself over. When he was ready he gingerly 'took' the hat and to the mans joy 'placed' the hat on his head. The next thing Bob knew was that a fist had collided with his nose.
"You did not truly believe.... are you some sort of God hating retard, now you are going to hell!" shouted the man, before taking back the hat and striding off angrily.
"I don't hate God... I just..." but it was too late.

Did you come up with this?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2010 10:26:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 12:24:26 PM, beem0r wrote:
The salient point is that Christianity expects its followers to believe things before those things are demonstrated to be true. Often they say that the lord will reveal himself later on, or things like that, and you just have to have faith and an open heart first.

I think this is targeting certain Christian groups. I don't think it is a believed assertion.

I think the analogy rightly shows why that's nonsense. Reasonable people can't accept extreme claims on faith. They need evidence BEFORE they will believe. And that's simply not something religion seems to offer.

That's true. I didn't fully believe or not believe before I began following. Again, I think this is targeting.

Of course, religion survives anyway, because people are raised up in it and feel like they have some sort of personal relationship with god, which allows even the rational to feel justified in their belief. I know the feeling. I was raised Christian. I was quite devout for a short time in my teen years, too. It took me a long time to realize that my feelings of God's presence were more likely just my brain interacting with a very emotional social atmosphere. The same atmosphere that makes groups of believers of many stripes start convulsing on the floor or speaking gibberish when the social setting for it is presented.

I would have to disagree, only because of my personal experiences. I can't speak for others of course.

I was far from devout as a teen, actually I was opposite. I went through many years of Sunday school and Catechism. But I gave it as much thought as I did my math or English classes (as you can probably tell), it wasn't until I had lived a while did I come to believe. Yes I was married by a pastor and my children were all Baptized, but I didn't give it much thought besides that until I was nearly 30. Not until I looked back and realized that He had been there the whole time did I ever really believe.

So I don't personally give much credit to indoctrination.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 12:54:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 3:16:14 PM, beem0r wrote:.
It's still ridiculous to believe someone when the best reason they can give you is "just because."

Yes, I'd agree with that, but the basis of religion is not "just because." You can eventually argue religion until the answer becomes "just because," but you can do that with anything. The Big Bang, for example. Why did it happen?

Just because.

And since faith is irrational, religion is irrational. It doesn't matter that it's "directed," whatever you mean by that.

I never said that faith was irrational. This is something that you're assuming is a fact because you believe it, given that it's a pillar to your believe. Although, I've already illustrated that even you maintain a bit of faith in order to have any beliefs at all, which you clearly do.

The theological method has nothing on the scientific method. The latter is far better at discerning fact from fiction and you know it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "theological method," care to define?

The scientific method is a way of going about experiments and recording observations. If you're referring to a means of proof through science, you must be referring to empiricism.

Granted, empiricism plays a large role for what we consider absolutes--constants that give the variables of reality meaning--but science is not entirely comprised of empirical evidence and thought. A great deal of contemporary science is theory, which, for all intents and purposes, is rhetoric. That makes it a priori, which is the approach of many theologians.

So, maybe I just don't understand and need you to clarify.

Maybe, but the best science of today is still our most rational best guesses as a society, based on evidence.

The same can be said for religion regarding other matters, like social mores, ethics, decorum, and existential perspective.

Science struggles with those things.

I don't think I ever said incontrovertibly. I said I have enough evidence to believe them, but not enough to believe with certainty.

Right, but we all know that you're essentially saying you have faith, although, at the beginning of this post, I seem to have quoted something that suggests you assume that you have no faith.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

I would ask you to back that statement up. People are questioning major scientific truths all the time these days with no repercussions. Relativity, macro-scale mathematical models of gravitation, etc.

This isn't really a strong enough point to argue, but if you feel that it would really prove something, I invite you to click here: http://www.google.com...

No, it's not. If evidence suggests that something is 60% likely, it's not faith to believe it with 60% confidence. Faith is believing something without good reason to think it's likely, or believing something with certainty when you don't actually have certainty.

Who are you to determine what is a good reason for believing something?

Oh, like how after the whole Jesus thing went down, the entire world suddenly knew about Christianity, and the religion didn't need to be spread by violence and evangelism? Oh wait.

That's not quite what I mean't. And, this sounds more like a vendetta against Christianity than a problem with religion in general.

Jesus pick on you in high school?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 1:03:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 4:14:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Existentialism, solipsism, theism, nihilism, or gnosticism.
What?? Explain please.

The acknowledgement of self exclusively, the belief in something greater, the belief in nothing, or the belief in attained knowledge. Nothing else is actually provable in it's own right.


Not really. People who are Christian didn't start off with the hypothesis that the world was designed then gradually induced all the other Christian tenets about Jesus, resurrections, Adam and Eve, etc. Really, design is what Christians use to justify their belief after they have already chosen to believe.

Not sure what you mean, here. Christian rhetoric is considered "creationism" vis a vis evolution. A design is essentially the basis of every religion.

Also, some religions aren't concerned whether the world was designed or not and that it is almost entirely irrelevant.

Right, see, I find this entirely false. Religion is based on design and rhetoric derived from that proposed design that establishes guidelines or a cause for existing.

It seems like the perfect compliment to science, but childish humanity always wants to take sides.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 9:23:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/17/2010 10:26:06 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/17/2010 12:24:26 PM, beem0r wrote:
The salient point is that Christianity expects its followers to believe things before those things are demonstrated to be true. Often they say that the lord will reveal himself later on, or things like that, and you just have to have faith and an open heart first.

I think this is targeting certain Christian groups. I don't think it is a believed assertion.
Having been a part of the Catholic church for some time, I can at least say that many members thereof resort to emotional arguments that attempt to get people to believe without really demonstrating anything. Perhaps I'm ignorant of some official church position on the matter, but I don't find that most Catholics I know are willing to simply simply admit that not everyone has the same supposedly divine revelations that justify faith.

I think the analogy rightly shows why that's nonsense. Reasonable people can't accept extreme claims on faith. They need evidence BEFORE they will believe. And that's simply not something religion seems to offer.
That's true. I didn't fully believe or not believe before I began following. Again, I think this is targeting.
To me, it doesn't make sense to start following a religion before you have any reason to believe it's true.Certainly we don't have a responsibility to follow everyone who says to follow them before they've demonstrated themselves to be legit.

I was far from devout as a teen, actually I was opposite. I went through many years of Sunday school and Catechism. But I gave it as much thought as I did my math or English classes (as you can probably tell), it wasn't until I had lived a while did I come to believe.
See, I felt the same way about religion up until I was about 15 or 16. I was raised Christian, went to Sunday school, was made to memorize bible verses, even used to tell my parents I loved Jesus more than them, but sometime in grade school I stopped really caring about it, and it became a totally unimportant issue to me.

However, after a particularly bad part of my teenage years, I was very vulnerable. Some friends of mine invited me to go to their church with them, and I became extremely involved and devoted. However, if I had approached the situation rationally, and would have started without any assumptions, then I would have had absolutely no reason to rely on the church.

Not until I looked back and realized that He had been there the whole time did I ever really believe.
I'd like to understand to mechanisms of "suddenly realizing He had been there the whole time."

So I don't personally give much credit to indoctrination.
You wouldn't have even thought about a "He" if you weren't indoctrinated into believing it.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 9:33:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 12:54:57 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/17/2010 3:16:14 PM, beem0r wrote:.
It's still ridiculous to believe someone when the best reason they can give you is "just because."

Yes, I'd agree with that, but the basis of religion is not "just because." You can eventually argue religion until the answer becomes "just because," but you can do that with anything. The Big Bang, for example. Why did it happen?

Just because.
The answer is not just because. Just because it not an acceptable answer in science. We do not know the answer, nor do we even know that there was a reason that it happened.

However, while it's possible to not know a reason for an event but still justifiably believe that that event happened, it is not justifiable to have a belief for which there is no rational reason.

And since faith is irrational, religion is irrational. It doesn't matter that it's "directed," whatever you mean by that.
I never said that faith was irrational. This is something that you're assuming is a fact because you believe it, given that it's a pillar to your believe. Although, I've already illustrated that even you maintain a bit of faith in order to have any beliefs at all, which you clearly do.
Faith is believing things without evidence. It's practically the definition of irrational.

The theological method has nothing on the scientific method. The latter is far better at discerning fact from fiction and you know it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "theological method," care to define?
What I mean is that while science is a good way to determine truth, believing people who claim to have had divine revelations is not a good way to obtain truth.

The scientific method is a way of going about experiments and recording observations. If you're referring to a means of proof through science, you must be referring to empiricism.
The scientific method is how we test mere hypotheses and turn the likely ones into well-established theories.

Maybe, but the best science of today is still our most rational best guesses as a society, based on evidence.

The same can be said for religion regarding other matters, like social mores, ethics, decorum, and existential perspective.
If you think the bible, or any other holy book, is anywhere near the best example of ethics/morality in modern society, I have only to say that we either have huge disagreements about what is moral or you have not heard of the majority of secular moral philosophers.

Science struggles with those things.
That's because it's philosophy. Philosophy doesn't require making up scientific truths, like "X exists." You can just have raw philosophy without the religious claims.

No, it's not. If evidence suggests that something is 60% likely, it's not faith to believe it with 60% confidence. Faith is believing something without good reason to think it's likely, or believing something with certainty when you don't actually have certainty.

Who are you to determine what is a good reason for believing something?
I'm a person with a working brain. If someone says to me "the cat must be hungry, because it's running all over the place" I will respond that that's not a good reason to believe the cat is hungry. If they say the cat must be hungry because it's meowing in front of its food bowl, I will see that that's a good reason. Brains let people discern these things.

Oh, like how after the whole Jesus thing went down, the entire world suddenly knew about Christianity, and the religion didn't need to be spread by violence and evangelism? Oh wait.

That's not quite what I mean't. And, this sounds more like a vendetta against Christianity than a problem with religion in general.

Jesus pick on you in high school?
No. I just saw that you're a Christian, and you seemed to be indicating that correct religious truth popped up all over the world independently.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 9:40:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 9:23:37 AM, beem0r wrote:
At 10/17/2010 10:26:06 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/17/2010 12:24:26 PM, beem0r wrote:
The salient point is that Christianity expects its followers to believe things before those things are demonstrated to be true. Often they say that the lord will reveal himself later on, or things like that, and you just have to have faith and an open heart first.

I think this is targeting certain Christian groups. I don't think it is a believed assertion.
Having been a part of the Catholic church for some time, I can at least say that many members thereof resort to emotional arguments that attempt to get people to believe without really demonstrating anything. Perhaps I'm ignorant of some official church position on the matter, but I don't find that most Catholics I know are willing to simply simply admit that not everyone has the same supposedly divine revelations that justify faith.

Some do, I will admit that. Others don't. I see the answer written in Scriptures. Not all Christians are the same, there are many gifts within the Church. One of those is an undying Faith. Others have had other experiences so they can achieve different goals within and outside of the Church. Take pcp for instance. He has been given the gift of a brilliant mind, and he now uses that to seek out what others may not have. To each his own, to each what profits the whole. I hope that helps.


I think the analogy rightly shows why that's nonsense. Reasonable people can't accept extreme claims on faith. They need evidence BEFORE they will believe. And that's simply not something religion seems to offer.
That's true. I didn't fully believe or not believe before I began following. Again, I think this is targeting.
To me, it doesn't make sense to start following a religion before you have any reason to believe it's true. Certainly we don't have a responsibility to follow everyone who says to follow them before they've demonstrated themselves to be legit.

No we don't have a responsibility to follow without some knowledge. And doubt isn't always a bad thing, more of a learning experience. Take the Apostles. Jesus walked up to them and said follow me. That is a big difference then if DAT or Godsands came up to you. But the Apostles still doubted and were afraid at times. But I think they learned and became stronger because of that, their Faith grew. And just like them, many people don't fully understand Christ or who He is or what He is doing. They never would have thought for a second that their Saviour was to die on a cross, this was absurd to them. But when they accepted this they became great warriors for the Faith.

I was far from devout as a teen, actually I was opposite. I went through many years of Sunday school and Catechism. But I gave it as much thought as I did my math or English classes (as you can probably tell), it wasn't until I had lived a while did I come to believe.
See, I felt the same way about religion up until I was about 15 or 16. I was raised Christian, went to Sunday school, was made to memorize bible verses, even used to tell my parents I loved Jesus more than them, but sometime in grade school I stopped really caring about it, and it became a totally unimportant issue to me.

Me too.

However, after a particularly bad part of my teenage years, I was very vulnerable. Some friends of mine invited me to go to their church with them, and I became extremely involved and devoted. However, if I had approached the situation rationally, and would have started without any assumptions, then I would have had absolutely no reason to rely on the church.

I never turned to the Church as a youngster, I turned to myself and my abilities. And I suffered greatly because of my inadequacies. I hurt many people and brought darkness and pain to myself and those around me.

Not until I looked back and realized that He had been there the whole time did I ever really believe.
I'd like to understand to mechanisms of "suddenly realizing He had been there the whole time."

I have always learned everything the very hardest possible way. I will have to go through hell first before I something actually sinks in. I can fall from a ten story building, as long as I land on my head I will be fine. I finally learned after pain and suffering that His way is the best way for me and the ones I love. My way was wrong every time. It may not have been wrong from beginning but it always ended up that way.

So I don't personally give much credit to indoctrination.
You wouldn't have even thought about a "He" if you weren't indoctrinated into believing it.

But I had no idea who "He" was. I thought as most here do. I thought He was a mean dictator bend on removing my free will. I was wrong.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 1:32:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 9:40:02 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/18/2010 9:23:37 AM, beem0r wrote:
I'd like to understand to mechanisms of "suddenly realizing He had been there the whole time."
I have always learned everything the very hardest possible way. I will have to go through hell first before I something actually sinks in. I can fall from a ten story building, as long as I land on my head I will be fine. I finally learned after pain and suffering that His way is the best way for me and the ones I love. My way was wrong every time. It may not have been wrong from beginning but it always ended up that way.
So essentially, using your brain to make decisions didn't work out so well for you, so you realized that the mythologies must be true? To me, that doesn't seem to follow. It seems that you were just psychologically needy [felt weak] and you needed something to help you feel strong, and you relied on some teachings that you'd heard throughout your life.

You wouldn't have even thought about a "He" if you weren't indoctrinated into believing it.

I thought He was a mean dictator bend on removing my free will.
And you were still a Christian, even if you weren't devout about it?

The fact is that you wouldn't even think that there was a He in the supernatural realm, deeply interested in affairs on this planet, except for the indoctrination. You would simply have thought to yourself "Man, I keep messing things up. Maybe I need to take a different approach to things" rather than "Man, I keep messing up. Let me turn to the LORD and see if he can hook a brother up."
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 4:28:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 1:32:57 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 10/18/2010 9:40:02 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/18/2010 9:23:37 AM, beem0r wrote:
I'd like to understand to mechanisms of "suddenly realizing He had been there the whole time."
I have always learned everything the very hardest possible way. I will have to go through hell first before I something actually sinks in. I can fall from a ten story building, as long as I land on my head I will be fine. I finally learned after pain and suffering that His way is the best way for me and the ones I love. My way was wrong every time. It may not have been wrong from beginning but it always ended up that way.
So essentially, using your brain to make decisions didn't work out so well for you, so you realized that the mythologies must be true? To me, that doesn't seem to follow. It seems that you were just psychologically needy [felt weak] and you needed something to help you feel strong, and you relied on some teachings that you'd heard throughout your life.

Not exactly. Bad day?

I made choices in my life that I based off my own desires. They hurt me and others. Sex before marriage. I thought to myself, no big deal. We both agree to it, there is no harm. That was a lie and I and others paid the price.

Please describe your definition of "psychologically needy [felt weak]".

Actually I became weak when I believed, not before.

You wouldn't have even thought about a "He" if you weren't indoctrinated into believing it.

I thought He was a mean dictator bend on removing my free will.
And you were still a Christian, even if you weren't devout about it?

The fact is that you wouldn't even think that there was a He in the supernatural realm, deeply interested in affairs on this planet, except for the indoctrination. You would simply have thought to yourself "Man, I keep messing things up. Maybe I need to take a different approach to things" rather than "Man, I keep messing up. Let me turn to the LORD and see if he can hook a brother up."

Well I turned from my ways before I relied on the Lord. I let Love in. I came to find out the way that I now walked was based of things told thousands of years ago. I found out that God is Love and not punishment. Another lie I believed.

The Lord hooked me up with a freedom that had never known before.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 4:14:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 9:33:41 AM, beem0r wrote:
The answer is not just because. Just because it not an acceptable answer in science. We do not know the answer, nor do we even know that there was a reason that it happened.

= just because.

However, while it's possible to not know a reason for an event but still justifiably believe that that event happened, it is not justifiable to have a belief for which there is no rational reason.

Science is not rational. Science is objective.

Faith is believing things without evidence. It's practically the definition of irrational.

Faith is required for any belief. Give me a belief for which faith is not required.

What I mean is that while science is a good way to determine truth, believing people who claim to have had divine revelations is not a good way to obtain truth.

That is not necessarily true. There are documented cases of psychics assisting law enforcement officials, for example.

The scientific method is how we test mere hypotheses and turn the likely ones into well-established theories.

The scientific method is a way to conduct experiments, only. Hypotheses become theories through some empiricism, some logic.

If you think the bible, or any other holy book, is anywhere near the best example of ethics/morality in modern society, I have only to say that we either have huge disagreements about what is moral or you have not heard of the majority of secular moral philosophers.

Love your neighbor as you love yourself? I don't see how it can get any more ethical or moral than that.

That's because it's philosophy. Philosophy doesn't require making up scientific truths, like "X exists."

Yes, it does.

You can just have raw philosophy without the religious claims.

Philosophy can exist separate of religion, this is true. But, the majority of philosophic thought spurred from religion or religious influences, nonetheless.

After all, religion is nothing more than an institution for a philosophy.

I'm a person with a working brain. If someone says to me "the cat must be hungry, because it's running all over the place" I will respond that that's not a good reason to believe the cat is hungry.

It's really very ironic that, of all examples that you would assume is absurd, you'd use this one. It is a fact that a cat will become very restless when it's hungry and, unless it's starving, will begin behaving erratically, running around chasing and stalking things, in response to its hunting instinct.

Serves well for my point, though.

No. I just saw that you're a Christian, and you seemed to be indicating that correct religious truth popped up all over the world independently.

You know, I have to admit that I honestly believe that all religions have some truth and some falsities inherent in their doctrine.