Peanut Gallery 2012

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 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).

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. 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."

"All the best bands are affiliated with Satan"
-- Bart Simpson Disclaimer: Bart Simpson is a fictional character and should not be taken literally.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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).

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

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!

From Message 163That'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: 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. 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: 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 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).

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.

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: 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. No need.
We don't have the CD you have, RAZD.
We can see bluegene's answer.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

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.

Reality -> Art -> Perception and interpretationSupernatural -> 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.