Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery 2012
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 83 (670214)
08-10-2012 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Artemis Entreri
08-10-2012 10:06 AM


Re: "Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being?" topiic
Do those christians atcually exist outside Anabaptist communities?
I think there are chistians, particularly the born again / saved by faith alone ones, who's entire faith is built up on a flawless Bible. And when those people come to realize that the Bible does contain flaws*, then I agree with foreveryoung that there's no reason that they should uphold that particular brand of faith. I don't think they necessarily need to drop christianity altogether, and that's what his topic could get into: How christians maintain what they do in light of the errors that are in the Bible.
*typically, rather than allowing their house of cards to come crashing down, they insist that whatever it is isn't actually a flaw
I figured that anyone on the INTERNET who made a claim like that was probably a Poe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-10-2012 10:06 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-10-2012 11:12 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 17 of 83 (670218)
08-10-2012 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
08-10-2012 10:25 AM


Re: "Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being?" topiic
I could understand someone from an older generation, say my parents, or grand parents, who don't really live in the information age, and vigorously send me chain emails about the most silly and mundane topics that I am supposed to believe, though when I go to snopes or just google some of the BS I find out in a minute or two how false thier perceptions are on just about everything. But someone younger (say under 45), should definately know better and do a better job of finding information on a topic, or looking at something that you think is "perfect flawless divine information"; I don't know it just seems exceptionally silly to me.
To base one's faith on a concept like this is mind boggling to me, but then again I do not belong to a church like this. My church predates the bible, is pre-denominational, and is apostolic (we also are more into the good works).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-10-2012 10:25 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-10-2012 12:31 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 83 (670224)
08-10-2012 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Artemis Entreri
08-10-2012 11:12 AM


Re: "Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being?" topiic
I could understand someone from an older generation, say my parents, or grand parents, {snip} But someone younger (say under 45), should definately know better and do a better job of finding information on a topic,
Someone with a strict upbringing might have been sheltered from any expositing of the flaws in the Bible. When they finally find the real world, they might be in a position like that.
There's even shit like this out there:
HugeDomains.com
quote:
"Now You Can Protect Your Children Online When They Surf The Internet While Enhancing Their Relationship With God By Downloading The Noah's Internet Kid Safe Browser! "
And doncha fucking hate it when people capitalize every word.
I don't know it just seems exceptionally silly to me.
Me too. Consider yourself lucky.
I'm with Bill Hicks: "Gimme the satanic parents down the street, you know, the ones with the good albums."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-10-2012 11:12 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 08-10-2012 12:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 21 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-10-2012 5:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 19 of 83 (670227)
08-10-2012 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
08-10-2012 12:31 PM


Re: "Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being?" topiic
Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm with Bill Hicks: "Gimme the satanic parents down the street, you know, the ones with the good albums."
"All the best bands are affiliated with Satan"
-- Bart Simpson
Disclaimer: Bart Simpson is a fictional character and should not be taken literally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-10-2012 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 83 (670229)
08-10-2012 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by caffeine
08-10-2012 6:26 AM


Re: "Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being?" topiic
On the contrary, he was not as stupid as modern day Biblical literalists, and was quite capable of seeing historical inaccuracies in the text. His explanation, to me, sounds a bit forced. God put them there on purpose so that we wouldn't get carried away looking for literal meanings all the time and miss the spiritual sense of the text..
That does seem forced. But I sincerely doubt that any poster that FY has encountered has advanced any such explanation.
In any event, I think you've adequately dealt with my statement that nobody takes the position PD describes. I just don't think any here has used or would buy Origen's argument.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by caffeine, posted 08-10-2012 6:26 AM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 21 of 83 (670235)
08-10-2012 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
08-10-2012 12:31 PM


Re: "Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being?" topiic
Someone with a strict upbringing might have been sheltered from any expositing of the flaws in the Bible. When they finally find the real world, they might be in a position like that.
you would think that by reading the bible and possing some sort of basic logic one would figure it out on thier own. I think the evangelical protestants are willfully ignorant, as it is the only explanation i can figure out. I know old people are, I have witnessed it, and why I used them as an example earlier.
There's even shit like this out there:
HugeDomains.com
ZOMFG! I watched the video, how in the heck do you know about this stuff? I wonder what happens when these children try and go to a pro-evolution site?
Kind of strange its noah instead of some NT guy, it sounds so jewish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-10-2012 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by fearandloathing, posted 08-10-2012 6:10 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 08-10-2012 7:32 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 22 of 83 (670236)
08-10-2012 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Artemis Entreri
08-10-2012 5:57 PM


Re: "Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being?" topiic
Kind of strange its noah instead of some NT guy, it sounds so jewish.
Noah is someone who all Christians are familiar with. The ark myth is something you learn about as a child. Jesus's internet or Gods's internet just doesn't sound so friendly.
ABE...
There are very few names in the NT most would automatically relate to the Bible. Judas maybe...ect. A peter or Paul, Mark's internet wouldn't get the point across as well as a Noah's internet.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-10-2012 5:57 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 23 of 83 (670240)
08-10-2012 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Artemis Entreri
08-10-2012 5:57 PM


Re: "Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being?" topiic
you would think that by reading the bible and possing some sort of basic logic one would figure it out on thier own. I think the evangelical protestants are willfully ignorant, as it is the only explanation i can figure out. I know old people are, I have witnessed it, and why I used them as an example earlier.
Basically there are two types: the ones born and raised in the faith and converts. Before 1970, most would have been born and raised and fewer would have been converts, but then circa 1970 the "Jesus Freak" movement (burned-out hippies giving up drugs to "get hooked on Jesus") flooded fundamentalist churches with large numbers of new converts and ushered in a decade of very aggressive proselytizing -- while their proselytizing efforts do continue, it's nowhere near as virulent as it was then. I would blame that period of proselytizing for a lot of the antipathy people feel for fundamentalists.
In the case of converts, they would have to learn to resist reality and become willfully ignorant. They already know what's out there so they have to train themselves to ignore it or to rationalize it away.
In the case of those born and raised, with experience from brushes with reality and with support from their community, they learn to filter out reality and to become willfully ignorant. However, the children have not yet had those safeguards installed, so they are at risk since they actually believe the nonsense that they're taught (eg, "creation science", saddles and bridles for dinosaurs) so exposure to reality will hit them the hardest. Oh, their parents are trying to get them trained, but the job is not yet complete so they need to shield them from reality. Like with noahsinternet and with calls to keep certain books from being published (eg, marc9000's book list).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-10-2012 5:57 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 24 of 83 (671613)
08-28-2012 12:41 PM


ur um
wrong thread, blonde moment.
Edited by Chaoticskunk, : No reason given.

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 25 of 83 (671732)
08-29-2012 11:30 PM


How did people get to North America? Bring it on!
A new poster proposes a thread titled, "How did people get to North America?" And implies that "evolutionists" don't have the proper answer.
"Evolutionists" may not have know all the details, given that they study an entirely different subject, but this archaeologist just might be able to help you out.
Bring it on!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 26 of 83 (671975)
09-01-2012 7:11 AM


Guernica in the bluegenes challenge
From Message 163
As an example of what I mean I give you one word:
Guernica
That's this bad boy:
From wiki:
quote:
Guernica is a painting by Pablo Picasso. It was created in response to the bombing of Guernica, {snip}. The Spanish Republican government commissioned Picasso to create a large mural for the Spanish display at the Paris International Exposition at the 1937 World's Fair in Paris.
Guernica shows the tragedies of war and the suffering it inflicts upon individuals, particularly innocent civilians. This work has gained a monumental status, becoming a perpetual reminder of the tragedies of war, an anti-war symbol, and an embodiment of peace.
So that's the example. On to the point:
Not a single supernatural being has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination, not a single methodology of being able to test for supernatural presence has been developed.
He has unrealistic expectations here about the information conveyed in myths and legends, expecting them to have scientific precise information about reality, and then claims they are falsified by actual objective empirical evidence of reality.
From preliterate societies that do not have a scientific approach to information.
This is irrational,
Let me stop you there. First off; the second to last sentence is a fragment. I assume you're emphasizing the lack of knowledge of those information conveyors.
Secondly, the rationality of the expectations of the information conveyed in myths and legends isn't really something we're gonna come to a conclusion on. It’s too faceted and approached with too much preconception.
and is a result of cognitive dissonance
This is where you go wrong. You still haven't told me how to distinguish between this being CD and it not.
Regarding Guernica specifically; it is certainly capable of conveying a lot of emotion. And it represents an entire event on a 2D stain, if you will.
The point is:
Such societies typically use spiritual and symbolic language to convey concepts and ideas, methods that are not scientifically precise, but still capable of carrying important information about reality. It is important to understand how this works before dismissing it out of hand as bluegenes does (confirmation bias, blind-spot, dtc etc etc).
I don’t think you’ve got his argument adequately portrayed. It’s as if you think he’s saying more than he is. What is it about his position that necessitates that societies couldn’t use spiritual and symbolic language to convey concepts and ideas?
And back to my still unanswered question:
How do you know that these examples really are CD
Examples of his cognitive dissonant behavior is in Message 161
You can point out behaviors that are consistent with CD all day long, but you can't ascribe CD to those behaviors through the medium we're dealing with (i.e. a forum).

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 1:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 27 of 83 (672006)
09-01-2012 4:26 PM


RAZD's point
bluegenes writes:
If anyone on the board thinks that RAZD has made a coherent argument about anything in his last few posts, do go ahead and explain it to the rest of the world on the peanut gallery.
RAZD writes:
Such societies typically use spiritual and symbolic language to convey concepts and ideas, methods that are not scientifically precise, but still capable of carrying important information about reality. It is important to understand how this works before dismissing it out of hand...
I think RAZD is saying that people may or may not have imprecise information about reality.
He wants us to understand how these cultures know things about their reality.
Well, the current way we understand our reality is by looking and thinking.
>Sometimes we make stuff up: "The Sun orbits the Earth!"
>Sometimes we learn stuff: "The Earth orbits the Sun!"
I think RAZD is suggesting that there is a 3rd option -
>Sometimes god tells us stuff: "..."
But he hasn't provided an example of this.
I could easily be wrong about this because all he provided to explain his point was a painting.
Does he think the painting contains information about god?
TBH it is difficult to know what RAZD means.
I think it is because the closer he comes to casting doubt on his deity, the less specific he can be.
I think he relies on "We can never disprove something 100%", but is uncomfortable (CD anyone?) with the fact that we have spent millennia making up supernatural beings.
How else would you explain why he can't even name a single supernatural being.
Being vague is the only defence RAZD seems to have on this subject.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 28 of 83 (672156)
09-04-2012 10:20 AM


RAZD writes:
Do all the detective fiction stories then mean that all detectives are imaginary? Of course not. Do they mean that the detectives in the stories are real? Of course not. And yet real detectives do exist ... thus we KNOW that your logic is fatally FLAWED with this argument.
And the reason we know detectives exist is because there is empirical, objective evidence of detectives.
But RAZD is not even able to identify a single non-imaginary SB.
Let's reword it:
RAZD re-written writes:
Do all the dragon stories then mean that all dragons are imaginary? Of course not. Do they mean that the dragons in the stories are real? Of course not. And yet real dragons do exist ... thus we KNOW that your logic is fatally FLAWED with this argument.
Hmmm....I think I see a flaw with RAZD's argument: it is bollocks.
He jumped the step where we have empirical, objective evidence of detectives (but not of dragons nor supernatural beings).
The dragons in the stories are just supernatural beings created by the imagination of the authors, whereas detectives are not.
And since there are no counter-examples of real supernatural beings, Bluegenes' theory stands.
When it comes to answering what should be a really simple question (i.e. "Name a non-imaginary supernatural being"), RAZD's silence is deafening. And yet he is adamant that they exist.
RAZD believes in something which has no evidence to support its existence.
This flies in the face of his "Show me the evidence" stance on all other subjects.
I am thinking that his subconscious started the Cognitive Dissonance thread.
It was trying to tell us why he is unable to name even 1 supernatural being while continuing to claim they exist.
RAZD writes:
Which post was that? Perhaps you could just repeat it ... again ... for the peanut gallery ...
No need.
We don't have the CD you have, RAZD.
We can see bluegene's answer.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 29 of 83 (672174)
09-04-2012 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
09-01-2012 7:11 AM


Guernica
Cognitive dissonance and other psychological impairments aside - What exactly is the whole Guernica thing about and how is it relevant to whether there exist any supernatural beings that aren't invented human concepts?
I'm intrigued.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-01-2012 7:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2012 2:13 PM Straggler has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 30 of 83 (672180)
09-04-2012 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Straggler
09-04-2012 1:17 PM


The Guernica conjecture
What exactly is the whole Guernica thing about and how is it relevant to whether there exist any supernatural beings that aren't invented human concepts?
Reality -> Art -> Perception and interpretation
Supernatural -> myth -> interpretation.
Remember the Hindu Hypothesis? RAZD, I believe, is trying to say that religious myths are to supernatural beings what Guernica is to the horrors of war. An intermediary through which we have to do some interpretation. He seems to be talking about information being transmitted in non-scientific ways, presumably religious notions are proposed to contain non-literal information like various art does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 1:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 09-04-2012 2:26 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 5:00 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 33 by Panda, posted 09-05-2012 5:54 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024