Reality Man writes:
This is a faith topic, for you moderators out there...
When we read, let's say, a self help book by so and so well known author who so happens to be a specialist in the field you're curious about, you can safely trust most of what is said, and perhaps even improve your personality or your habits or whatever...
The author is a leading expert, he may be recommended by others, is critiqued, yaddy yaddya...; the subjet may be widely talked about, discussed, studied, bla bla, etc. etc.
What I mean to say is that, you can trust things that come from acknowlegded sources. When you say that a certain percentage of fruits are citrus and you can support that claim by referring to a government study report, then it is a valid source and point in any or most discussions.
Okay so here comes the typical Atheist question: Why are believers so sure that what they are tought in sunday school, what they read in the bible, is, no questions asked, True, with a capital 'T'!?
I just don't get why someone can have a strong belief in something that in my personal opinion has so little substance. It's just: God created the Earth, created man in his own image *Period* now offer the church your loyalty and money, or else you go to Hell you bastard!
Who said that? What qualifies him/her to write a book about the way we should live, what we should believe in, and and how badly you'll suffer if we don't do it. Sounds like a power trip to me...
So please, someone explain to me what Rational belivers justify all that epic story material to be fact. I need substance people, and please don't say that God wrote the Bible, or that God placed the ideas into some dude's head. Did God tell me to write an essay about Shakespeare's understanding of madness, 'cause I only got a modest 78% on it, and I worked hard on it
In a nutshell? I'd have to say: it's about reality, man.
What's "reality" but a decision that what you perceive you percieve to be is as you perceive it. 99% of what you perceive you don't test - you take what you perceive you percieve to be.. is as you perceive it. For the rest of it? You check what you perceive to be, against what others (who you perceive to be) perceive. In the measure that they (who you only perceive to be) agree with your perception, does your confidence in what you perceive to be the case increase.
Even though that's circular reasoning...
Faith? It's like an extra sensory perception that has been switched on. And which has no middle ground. It's no more rationally/evidentially explained than is the quality RED explained to a blind man. In fact, given it doesn't belong to the perception class PHYSICAL, it's even less explainable.
The RED analogy works if you want to know something of the gulf between those of the faith I speak of and those without. If you want to argue the point so as to stretch RED so that it doesn't work anymore then it won't serve to inform.
™ Version 4.2
