Faith in no God

[Audie]

But The Book is full of mistranslations, known inaccuracies, copy errors, contradictions, &c.

And of course a liberal dollop of bs

 

[rrobs]

That wasn't quite the point. The point is that *all* your knowledge of last Tuesday comes from either your memories or from deduction concerning something that exists now. If everything was set up last Thursday to *exactly* mimic what you would have been like last Thursday, there is no way for you to tell the difference.

This is true even if memory was 'absolutely perfect'.

To say things like star light was created en route to the Earth or the fossils were falsely placed is just a form of this Last Thursdayism. If you reject Last Thursdayism, you should also reject these other 'explanations'.

Then, assuming I reject Last Thursdayism, should I reject your explanation of it? Maybe an irrelevant question, because I'm not sure I do get your point.

 

[rrobs]

But The Book is full of mistranslations, known inaccuracies, copy errors, contradictions, &c.

Well, given that it was written thousands of years ago in a different land and culture, it does require a bit of effort to suss out it's true meaning. Nonetheless, it is possible.

You mentioned contradictions. Yes there are many apparent contradictions. We can take them as an error on the author's part, or as a misunderstanding on our own part. I always chose the latter and with enough time and study, I've seen many contradictions as having their origin in my own brain. Nothing wrong with book. The problem is with the imperfect people who read it.

 

[Valjean]

Nah, it is not about definition of strawman.

It is the definition of justified.

Creodefinition for
justified: blind faith

unjustified: all relevant data from all of the
hard sciences

It's about arguing against the wrong definition of "faith."

 

[rrobs]

Yews, a claim.
One that in court we would call
"assuming facts not in evidence"

I see your point, but do you have any comment on the OP?

Do you think that scientists 2,000 years from now will look upon our science as being as quaint as we consider the science of 2,000 years ago? We don't even think they were worthy to be called scientists (at least that's what I'm getting from many here). Will they think we did not have real scientists? Or do you think we have arrived at ultimate scientific truth and there will be no major changes in the future?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You're back to your dictionary with one definition. You've been told that there are several definitions of faith. You just defined justified belief, or belief based in evidence. Calling that by the same word that you use to mean unjustified belief will lead to ambiguity and equivocation fallacies. You don't seem to mind.

Who decides what is unjustified?

We each do for ourselves and for others.

If it's me, I'd say your belief in evolution is unjustified. If it is your decision, I am the one with unjustified beliefs.

That's fine, but justification and lack thereof are not determined by whim, but by a review of evidence properly understood and the conclusions derived from it. By properly applying the rules of reason, and believing only that which has supporting evidence such as you sitting in a chair in the past and it supporting you, meaning that it will likely do so again the next time you test it, one avoids unjustified belief.

If I go too far and say that the chair will definitely support me, then I have made a logical error and added unjustified belief.

If that's not how you think, then I can't use your opinions, such as your belief that accepting the validity of the theory of evolution is unjustified. You probably also think that your god belief *is* justified. The difference is your willingness to believe things I can't believe for lack of evidentiary support.

The same thing as having faith my best friend will pay me back to $100 I lent them. I sure wouldn't have faith in a complete stranger. Why? No familiarity = no faith.

Now you're talking about evidence-based belief, which I've told you I won't call faith even though that is one of the ways the word is used. Your unwillingness to tease apart these two radically different ways of deciding what is true about the world and instead to continue calling them by the same word interchangeably will keep you unable to see this point clearly.

Exactly! I see it and I know it's general properties by experience. That is precisely why I have faith it will hold me up.

That's evidence-based belief.

It is possible to learn enough about God that it leads one to know Him well enough to have the faith that what He says He will do, He will actually do.

And that's not evidence-based.

The fact that you wrote both of the last two sentences if they were equivalent is a consequence of you conflating justified belief with unjustified belief by calling them both faith.

Read the book with an open mind

I have. That's why I don't believe it. I looked at the words with the willingness and ability to recognize compelling evidence and argument, and didn't find it, so as explained, I don't believe it.

I think that what most people mean when they ask us to read the Bible with an open mind is with an uncritical mind that doesn't question what it sees, but rather, just believes it because he trusts its source. That's not an open mind, which has to be ready to reject insufficiently supported claims.

The best examples of closed-mindedness come from religious sources. This is what faith looks like:

• “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

His mind is closed to anything that contradicts his Bible whatever argument or evidence is provided.

Here's a prominent Christian telling you as much. The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian." Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

There is no way to change Ham's mind about anything he believes by faith, even wrong things that can be demonstrated to be wrong to others with a more open mind, but not to him - the definition of closed-mindedness. Closed for business.

 

[Valjean]

I see your point, but do you have any comment on the OP?

Do you think that scientists 2,000 years from now will look upon our science as being as quaint as we consider the science of 2,000 years ago? We don't even think they were worthy to be called scientists (at least that's what I'm getting from many here). Will they think we did not have real scientists? Or do you think we have arrived at ultimate scientific truth and there will be no major changes in the future?

But there was no science from 2,000 years ago, or, at least, very, very little. The scientific method is a new thing -- hence the recent explosion of technology and understanding.
Redi, Mendel and Pasteur may seem quaint, but their experimental methods were solid, which is why you learned about them in school. I expect modern researchers will be similarly cited.

 

[rrobs]

But there was no science from 2,000 years ago, or, at least, very, very little. The scientific method is a new thing -- hence the recent explosion of technology and understanding.
Redi, Mendel and Pasteur may seem quaint, but their experimental methods were solid, which is why you learned about them in school. I expect modern researchers will be similarly cited.

We judge Redi, Mendel, and Paseur by our present day standards. It may be that those standards will be replaced by something far superior. A lot has happened in the last 2,000 years and I suspect at least that much will happen in the next 2,000 years. I would think that this would be obvious to scientists. Aren't they open to new evidence? Do you really think it not possible we will find even more evidence in the future, maybe even evidence that our theory of evolution is all wrong?

 

[Audie]

It's about arguing against the wrong definition of "faith."

Equivocation uber alles

 

[ecco]

Except that I was around on Wednesday.

If last Thursdayism is true, then the memories you have from Wednesday and all the days before Wednesday were implanted into your brain by the God who created you and everyone/everything else last Thursday.

You can offer no rational argument against Last Thursdayism.

 

[ecco]

I would think that this would be obvious to scientists. Aren't they open to new evidence? Do you really think it not possible we will find even more evidence in the future, maybe even evidence that our theory of evolution is all wrong?

You clearly have a deep misunderstanding of how science progresses.


The finding that orbits are ellipses, not circles, did not alter the fact that planets went around the sun.

Einstein's concepts of gravity did not obviate Newton's. It expanded on them.

Some of Darwin's ideas were incorrect. That does not take away from the general concept of Evolution. The use of DNA did not show that the concept of "evolutionary trees" was wrong, it just became a better tool for the placement of individual species.


The only thing that will occur over the next 2000 years is the finding of ever more detailed information on evolution and abiogenesis. But there will always people like you who deny, deny, deny, just like there are people today supporting geocentricity and a flat earth.

 

[Audie]

If last Thursdayism is true, then the memories you have from Wednesday and all the days before Wednesday were implanted into your brain by the God who created you and everyone/everything else last Thursday.

You can offer no rational argument against Last Thursdayism.

Funny’s should like embedded age.
Adam, for example.

 

[gnostic]

Well, given that it was written thousands of years ago in a different land and culture, it does require a bit of effort to suss out it's true meaning. Nonetheless, it is possible.

True meaning?

Who has the authority to say which meanings are true?

I used didn’t question Christian interpretations and teachings in regarding to the Old Testament, now I don’t trust Christian interpretations with OT.

What started my agnosticism in 2000 was the Christian version of the Isaiah’s sign, in Matthew 1:23.

When I had read the Bible from cover to cover when I was younger, a lot of things that I had read, I didn’t bother to check, when NT authors quoted passages from OT, like with Matthew 1:23 and the original Isaiah 7:14.

And because I didn’t bother to double check quoted passage, I wrongly thought whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew had the correct interpretation.

Imagine my surprise that when I reread the entire chapter 7 of Isaiah again in 2000, that I had realized the gospel’s reinterpretation of Isaiah’s sign is the “true one”.

The gospel only quoted one verse, from Isaiah 7, omitting the other 3 verses; the Immanuel sign should be read from verse 14 to verse 17:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

The original sign had nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

The true meaning had to do with the eventual Assyrian king’s intervention in the war between Ahaz of Judah and the alliance of Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Damascus.

This intervention would have occurred when Immanuel was old enough to eat curds and honey and old enough to distinguish between right and wrong.

Basically the author of Matthew left out the vital bit of Isaiah’s original sign, and turn it into Messianic prophecy. But it is a false prophecy - a Christian propaganda.

That any church teaches Isaiah’s sign as a sign about Mary and Jesus, will only demonstrate the churches cannot provide true meaning to the OT passages.

 

[rrobs]

If last Thursdayism is true, then the memories you have from Wednesday and all the days before Wednesday were implanted into your brain by the God who created you and everyone/everything else last Thursday.

You can offer no rational argument against Last Thursdayism.

Well, given Last Thursdayism is as nebulous as it gets, I don't suppose there are any arguments against it. But then there are really no arguments for it.

Again, what you are saying is not easy to understand, so my replies may not address the whole issue as you see it. I'm kinda talking about something I don't understand, so cut me some slack if my reply makes no sense.

 

[rrobs]

You clearly have a deep misunderstanding of how science progresses.


The finding that orbits are ellipses, not circles, did not alter the fact that planets went around the sun.

Einstein's concepts of gravity did not obviate Newton's. It expanded on them.

Some of Darwin's ideas were incorrect. That does not take away from the general concept of Evolution. The use of DNA did not show that the concept of "evolutionary trees" was wrong, it just became a better tool for the placement of individual species.


The only thing that will occur over the next 2000 years is the finding of ever more detailed information on evolution and abiogenesis. But there will always people like you who deny, deny, deny, just like there are people today supporting geocentricity and a flat earth.

Another, "clearly you don't understand science" comment. Very old and well worn.

Scientific method summerized:

1. Question
2. Research
3. Hypothesis
4. Experiment
5. Data Analysis
6. Conclusion

There, I understand it. You on the other hand, as shown by your conclusion that I don't understand it, do not understand it. I wish everybody here would read this reply and put the stupid accusation to rest once and for all.

By the way, in case you don't know the method, I should say that the six steps are repeated. Science never rests after reaching a conclusion about something. The door is always open for further question, research, hypothesis, experiment, data analysis, and conclusion. However most of the folks here seem to think that all future conclusions will remain the same, ergo, no need for the other five. Some science that is!

 

[rrobs]

Who has the authority to say which meanings are true?

How many ways could one take what you just said? Seems to me like you are asking, "who has the authority to say which meanings are true?" How could I take it to mean anything other than you are asking me who has the authority to say what meaning is true?

Pretty straight forward, simple grammar, no big words, easy concepts to grasp. The meaning is crystal clear to any reasonable person who reads it. It says what it means and means what it says. I don't see any need to go to great pains to "interpret" what you are asking.

Now apply that to the scriptures and you'll see from whence I am coming. Interpretation of the scriptures is way over blown. Just read what's written and believe it or not.

 

[rrobs]

True meaning?

Who has the authority to say which meanings are true?

I used didn’t question Christian interpretations and teachings in regarding to the Old Testament, now I don’t trust Christian interpretations with OT.

What started my agnosticism in 2000 was the Christian version of the Isaiah’s sign, in Matthew 1:23.

When I had read the Bible from cover to cover when I was younger, a lot of things that I had read, I didn’t bother to check, when NT authors quoted passages from OT, like with Matthew 1:23 and the original Isaiah 7:14.

And because I didn’t bother to double check quoted passage, I wrongly thought whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew had the correct interpretation.

Imagine my surprise that when I reread the entire chapter 7 of Isaiah again in 2000, that I had realized the gospel’s reinterpretation of Isaiah’s sign is the “true one”.

The gospel only quoted one verse, from Isaiah 7, omitting the other 3 verses; the Immanuel sign should be read from verse 14 to verse 17:



The original sign had nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

The true meaning had to do with the eventual Assyrian king’s intervention in the war between Ahaz of Judah and the alliance of Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Damascus.

This intervention would have occurred when Immanuel was old enough to eat curds and honey and old enough to distinguish between right and wrong.

Basically the author of Matthew left out the vital bit of Isaiah’s original sign, and turn it into Messianic prophecy. But it is a false prophecy - a Christian propaganda.

That any church teaches Isaiah’s sign as a sign about Mary and Jesus, will only demonstrate the churches cannot provide true meaning to the OT passages.

The fact that you yourself saw something the churches got wrong means just that, the churches got it wrong. The problem is with the church, not the scriptures. They get a lot of things wrong. Paul said that before he even died the churches turned against him. They stopped believing what he told them. Does that mean what he told them was all wrong? No. It simply means the churches changed what he told them.

The classic example is the church saying over and over that Jesus was a god-man. The scriptures themselves never say that. They do however say in several places that he was a man.

Acts 2:22,

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
​

I don't even bother myself with what the churches say. If they can't read "man" without thinking "god-man" it's their problem, not mine.

 

[cladking]

Another, "clearly you don't understand science" comment. Very old and well worn.

Scientific method summerized:

1. Question
2. Research
3. Hypothesis
4. Experiment
5. Data Analysis
6. Conclusion

There, I understand it. You on the other hand, as shown by your conclusion that I don't understand it, do not understand it. I wish everybody here would read this reply and put the stupid accusation to rest once and for all.

By the way, in case you don't know the method, I should say that the six steps are repeated. Science never rests after reaching a conclusion about something. The door is always open for further question, research, hypothesis, experiment, data analysis, and conclusion. However most of the folks here seem to think that all future conclusions will remain the same, ergo, no need for the other five. Some science that is!

"Peer Review" has been added as the 7th step. I don't know when they sneaked it in there but somebody with a clear understanding of the scientific pecking order and no understanding of metaphysics at all added it in the last several years. Stinkin' data are no longer needed because the opinion of Peers determines what is real and what is not. Only Peers can invent hypothesis or experiment and only Peers can pass judgement on interpretation or whether "experiment" is really necessary in today's fast paced world of government grants and free money. Only Peers determine who can be right. Only Peers determine what can even be considered by other Peers.

It looks to me like you understand real science better than most of the believers in all things "science".

 

[rrobs]

"Peer Review" has been added as the 7th step. I don't know when they sneaked it in there but somebody with a clear understanding of the scientific pecking order and no understanding of metaphysics at all added it in the last several years. Stinkin' data are no longer needed because the opinion of Peers determines what is real and what is not. Only Peers can invent hypothesis or experiment and only Peers can pass judgement on interpretation or whether "experiment" is really necessary in today's fast paced world of government grants and free money. Only Peers determine who can be right. Only Peers determine what can even be considered by other Peers.

It looks to me like you understand real science better than most of the believers in all things "science".

Well, it a-Peers you have a good understanding of the method.

 

[cladking]

Well, it a-Peers you have a good understanding of the method.

Peersing wit.

Mebbe it's not Look and See Science but rather Peer and See Science.

And "Peering" must be more exact than "Looking".