Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[George-ananda]

Yes, the body can sometimes restore itself in ways doctors don't expect. Cancer going into remission is perhaps the best-known example of such a restoration. However, such healing is probably natural and has nothing to do with religion and cannot be brought about via religious belief and practice.

I have seen some miracles very closely tied to the direction action of a spiritual source. I am familiar with some of the miracles of eastern (Indian) masters. You may not believe it but I am convinced IT HAPPENS anyway.

Oh darn--and here I was hoping you knew a healer who could help me. I'm left wondering, though, what the right attitude for receiving spiritual healing might be. Skepticism is obviously counter-productive, and healing becomes more likely the greater the belief of the beneficiary. So believing is seeing, you might say.

By the way, Christian faith healers work the same way. They tell people that belief in the power of Jesus to heal is vital in being healed. If you doubt, then don't expect to be healed! So all those who never get healed are labeled as faithless unbelievers. God does work in mysterious ways because you would think he would heal people first and then they can believe. If he fails to heal doubters, then they're likely to continue to doubt.

Again, I personally don't believe miraculous healing is intended to be the normal route but it sometimes happens when conditions beyond our physical knowledge align. I'm convinced by the evidence.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Only those who acknowledge the science that contradicts its accounts. The rest are where every believer would be before the science - accepting the biblical accounts as history and science, literally true, which is what was once believed and how the stories were told. You can safely bet the farm that if somebody had called those stories not literally true then, they would have been stoned for religious heresy.



Agree. The Bible writer were guessing and they guessed wrong. Later science revealed that, and many stepped it back, calling it anything but wrong. The name for that is not metaphor or allegory, but error. Metaphor and allegory involve substituting symbols that represent concrete people, objects, processes, and relationships.

When we say that she is the apple of his eye, we know what apple represents. When we present an allegory like Gulliver's Travels, we know which members of parliament and what events of Swift's time he had in mind with the characters and events of the book. Genesis is not that. The writers had no idea what the reality was, and their characters and events weren't symbols representing actual characters and events. They simply guessed wrong, but are unable to admit to it being error the way a skeptic is free to do.



If you had any interest, you'd already know the science. If you don't, it's either because you are still too young, or because you never saw value there. Bringing information to the latter is pointless. They don't even look at it. Their purpose is to give the impression that reason and evidence are important to them, and if you can't convince them, you have neither. All it means is that their minds are closed and that they are unwilling and unable to evaluate an argument for soundness or to be convinced by a compelling argument. They wouldn't recognize one if they are unable to connect evidence to conclusions via valid reasoning.

I've frequently offered such people (and will to you, too) a chance to prove that they are really one of those other types, young people with genuine curiosity and the ability and willingness to learn. I may encounter one of those one of these days, but not yet. So, I offer everybody the chance to go do some searching of the Internet for answers, bring them back here, and we'll discuss them. As I implied, it hasn't happened yet, and has saved me the indignity and futility of fetching data for a sealioning science denier.

Which of these are you? Will you be the first who was sincere when asking for information? Here's a starting place: how are the age of the universe and earth decided? - Google Search See you soon with your observations and questions, right?



Prove it. You made a claim without providing empirical evidence. Unlike the faith-based thinker, the critical thinker evaluates the evidence and requires it before belief.

What better example could we have that the call for proof here is insincere? It's irrelevant to the faith-based thinker. Calling for it is what I call a pseudoprinciple - an idea that one doesn't really apply wherever it is relevant as would be the case with an authentic principle, but wheels out only where it is useful to him, only to wheel it back in when it would work against him. Thus, you imply that you value proof, but then show you don't.



Isn't that always the way with these kind of claims? We are told not to expect evidence, because in this case, the healer is too modest to show off in public. Same with real gods. They aren't going to be showing off flashy miracles, either. It's not because these healers and deities don't exist or can't perform miracles and healings, but like Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage, we just can't detect them.



You might find secular humanism even more to your liking, then. It goes further in that direction.

To only answer for the part you qouted me
Those who holds real abilities like healing, have no need to show it to others, because they know how and why they gained it.

 

[Harel13]

"We actually have the smoking gun," says Pryke. "Archeologists have found bits of the Epic of Gilgamesh all over [Ancient Israel]. It looks like Gilgamesh was something that was in broad circulation at the time."

Any idea whether they were found in Israelite settlement layers? I personally (not having looked into the matter) know only of a piece found in the dirt piles of one of the Canaanite areas of Megiddo.

 

[sun rise]

Any idea whether they were found in Israelite settlement layers? I personally (not having looked into the matter) know only of a piece found in the dirt piles of one of the Canaanite areas of Megiddo.

That's an interesting question. But it's one that takes me to a jstor article and beyond. The Influence of Gilgamesh on the Bible | Bible Interp is a starting point I found and one which mentions the Dead Sea Scrolls "Book of Giants" as well as having other references. And I found this where the article is behind a paywall https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00437.x

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, the religious get smarter with time.

I wish.

Religion is not about scientific

As the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day at noon on the 4th of July

facts as that is really a side issue.

Not a side issue. Facts are the one of the main weakness of ancient religions.[/quote]

 

[Augustus]

Only those who acknowledge the science that contradicts its accounts. The rest are where every believer would be before the science - accepting the biblical accounts as history and science, literally true, which is what was once believed and how the stories were told. You can safely bet the farm that if somebody had called those stories not literally true then, they would have been stoned for religious heresy.

Unfortunately, you just lost your farm because, despite pretending to value evidence and reason, you prefer to remain wilfully ignorant on anything to do with the history of religion and just believe whatever nonsense is emotionally satisfying instead

People have been arguing for allegorical readings since at least the 1st c, and include such noted heretics as St Augustine.

As people keep trying to tell you (to no avail), modern American Protestant fundamentalism is not representative of historical Christianity.

But as you once said, evidence and scholarship don't matter on these subjects as you just know you are right about history based on your experience of modern US fundamentalist Protestantism.

The human mind is a funny thing

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As for Genesis, I think that book is so obviously intended as allegory

It's not an allegory. An allegory is a specific literary form with characteristics missing from the myths in Genesis:

"In its most simple and concise definition, an allegory is when a piece of visual or narrative media uses one thing to “stand in for” a different, hidden idea. It’s a little bit like an algebraic equation, like y = 2x, but in the form of art. Like in algebra, when we talk about meaning in allegory, we have two different variables we’re thinking about, but we don’t call them X and Y. Instead, we call them the tenor and the vehicle. A “tenor” is the “hidden” concept, object, idea, or ulterior meaning; and the “vehicle” is the word, image, or narrative in the story that “carries” it."

It's also not a metaphor. Both allegory and metaphor involve substituting symbols for known characters and events. Calling Genesis allegory requires that its writers knew what they were allegorizing. They didn't. They were guessing, and have been shown to have guessed wrong. That's error, like guessing that a given date will be the end of the world and the day coming and going without incident. The embarrassed prognosticator may try to redeem himself by claiming tha this pronouncement was symbolic and not to be taken literally, but we know better. It was nothing more or less than an error.

it’s difficult to imagine that anyone would ever have taken it literally

It is difficult to believe that it wasn't once a death sentence to question Genesis before science exposed its errors.

Because there is no money to earn in healing by abilities, the medical science only want to make money, many sicknesses and disabilities could be cured in one treatment, but medical science do not see a value in non profit healing.

Who told you that? You have an overly cynical idea. I'm a retired physician. You are simply wrong. Physicians cure any malady that can be cured. They mitigate what can be mitigated but not cured. Consider all of the physicians who can cure the problem they are dealing with. Are you aware of one ever not doing that - a surgeon who could have cured a valvular heart defect with one surgery, but deliberately left the patient undertreated to be able to charge for another surgery? Do you think I ever chose an antibiotic because I knew it wouldn't be adequate and I'd be able to milk the infection for a few extra visits?

The OP presents no facts. They are assertions. Unsubstantiated

Facts are assertions.

And the ones in the OP are substantiated, but not there. That's what makes them facts as well as assertions.

None of them are facts.

Now that's an assertion that is not a fact - not substantiated, just claimed.

The hypocrisy is Daniel when someone believes things with no evidence, but expects others to provide evidence for their believes

You just called yourself a hypocrite. You just did precisely that. You derided what you implied were not facts because you claimed that they were unsubstantiated and even incorrect, then made an unsubstantiated claim yourself.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It's not an allegory. An allegory is a specific literary form with characteristics missing from the myths in Genesis:

"In its most simple and concise definition, an allegory is when a piece of visual or narrative media uses one thing to “stand in for” a different, hidden idea. It’s a little bit like an algebraic equation, like y = 2x, but in the form of art. Like in algebra, when we talk about meaning in allegory, we have two different variables we’re thinking about, but we don’t call them X and Y. Instead, we call them the tenor and the vehicle. A “tenor” is the “hidden” concept, object, idea, or ulterior meaning; and the “vehicle” is the word, image, or narrative in the story that “carries” it."

It's also not a metaphor. Both allegory and metaphor involve substituting symbols for known characters and events. Calling Genesis allegory requires that its writers knew what they were allegorizing. They didn't. They were guessing, and have been shown to have guessed wrong. That's error, like guessing that a given date will be the end of the world and the day coming and going without incident. The embarrassed prognosticator may try to redeem himself by claiming tha this pronouncement was symbolic and not to be taken literally, but we know better. It was nothing more or less than an error.



It is difficult to believe that it wasn't once a death sentence to question Genesis before science exposed its errors.



Who told you that? You have an overly cynical idea. I'm a retired physician. You are simply wrong. Physicians cure any malady that can be cured. They mitigate what can be mitigated but not cured. Consider all of the physicians who can cure the problem they are dealing with. Are you aware of one ever not doing that - a surgeon who could have cured a valvular heart defect with one surgery, but deliberately left the patient undertreated to be able to charge for another surgery? Do you think I ever chose an antibiotic because I knew it wouldn't be adequate and I'd be able to milk the infection for a few extra visits?



Facts are assertions.

And the ones in the OP are substantiated, but not there. That's what makes them facts as well as assertions.



Now that's an assertion that is not a fact - not substantiated, just claimed.



You just called yourself a hypocrite. You just did precisely that. You derided what you implied were not facts because you claimed that they were unsubstantiated and even incorrect, then made an unsubstantiated claim yourself.

More than one person from different spiritual paths explained that to me. A doctor or a surgeon o ly heal the physical level of a sickness, healing done by a spiritual healer removes the cause of the sickness ( called karma in exanple buddhism)

I am not here to challenge your view or dictirs scuebtific ways, i only answer from my understanding.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Unfortunately, you just lost your farm because, despite pretending to value evidence and reason, you prefer to remain wilfully ignorant on anything to do with the history of religion and just believe whatever nonsense is emotionally satisfying instead

People have been arguing for allegorical readings since at least the 1st c, and include such noted heretics as St Augustine.

As people keep trying to tell you (to no avail), modern American Protestant fundamentalism is not representative of historical Christianity.

But as you once said, evidence and scholarship don't matter on these subjects as you just know you are right about history based on your experience of modern US fundamentalist Protestantism.

The human mind is a funny thing

The reason I skip you posts and generally don't engage with you is because your purpose is to demean, not exchange information. You can't avoid making it personal and derogatory. Your purpose here was not dialectic, but to satisfy a dark need. It's what I have seen from you for years and why I have no interest in conversation with you.

Incidentally, you didn't rebut my point. You offered a single counterexample as evidence that people were free to express dissent. Perhaps Augustine had the clout to do that, but that changes nothing about what the dominant attitude was and how those who challenged orthodoxy were treated. And no, we will not be in discussion here. What's in it for me but your abusive contemptuous attitude?

 

[firedragon]

Facts are assertions.

I believe you got that absolutely wrong. Facts are not assertions.

Alright. You are an empiricist. You believe in science. Can you show mw which philosopher of science said that assertions are facts? Who spoke of facts?

And the ones in the OP are substantiated

Which ones. Can you give the scientific papers that claim they are absolute facts?

Now that's an assertion that is not a fact - not substantiated, just claimed.

Please provide the evidence that all of the things in the OP are absolute facts.

Provide philosophers of sciences, scientific papers, that claim they are facts.

 

[Augustus]

The reason I skip you posts and generally don't engage with you is because your purpose is to demean, not exchange information. You can't avoid making it personal and derogatory. Your purpose here was not dialectic, but to satisfy a dark need. It's what I have seen from you for years and why I have no interest in conversation with you.

It's not a "dark need", but the very simple human desire to point out rank hypocrisy.

You demean others for their irrationality and placing emotions over evidence while doing exactly this yourself. You will mock the ignorance of others when they misrepresent your worldview, but consistently spout the most palpable nonsense regarding theirs and remain impervious to evidence that shows you to be misrepresenting them with the express purpose of portraying them in a negative light.

You, of course, also have the very human desire to point out hypocrisy in others, we just don't like having out own hypocrisies pointed it to us (and we are all hypocrites, so best to think on which issues we are most likely to be hypocritical about)

Incidentally, you didn't rebut my point. You offered a single counterexample as evidence that people were free to express dissent. Perhaps Augustine had the clout to do that, but that changes nothing about what the dominant attitude was and how those who challenged orthodoxy were treated. And no, we will not be in discussion here. What's in it for me but your abusive contemptuous attitude?

What is in it for you except actually learning a few very elementary points about a topic you consistently present strong opinions on?

(you've actually been told them many times before by multiple posters, obviously to no avail)

Here you go again, hope springs eternal:

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you show mw which philosopher of science said that assertions are facts?

What I said is that facts are assertions, not the other way around as you presented it.

Philosopher of science? It's not a scientific matter. I said it. It's definitional:

• Assertion - a statement that you strongly believe is true: I certainly don't agree with his assertion that men are better drivers than women.

• Fact - a piece of information presented as having objective reality: These are the hard facts of the case.

The latter is a subset of the former. If the assertion in the definition is correct, then the assertion is also a fact. If untrue, it's not a fact, but it's still an assertion.

Can you give the scientific papers that claim they are absolute facts?

Absolute? Why are you adding to or modifying my language? That's twice in just that post.

Scientific papers? Try a textbook or a science education site. For papers, try the bibliography of a relevant Wiki article.

I'll make the same offer to you that I did to the other fellow earlier in this thread:

If you had any interest, you'd already know the science. If you don't, it's either because you are still too young, or because you never saw value there. Bringing information to the latter is pointless. They don't even look at it. Their purpose is to give the impression that reason and evidence are important to them, and if you can't convince them, you have neither. All it means is that their minds are closed and that they are unwilling and unable to evaluate an argument for soundness or to be convinced by a compelling argument. They wouldn't recognize one if they are unable to connect evidence to conclusions via valid reasoning.

I've frequently offered such people (and will to you, too) a chance to prove that they are really one of those other types, young people with genuine curiosity and the ability and willingness to learn. I may encounter one of those one of these days, but not yet. So, I offer everybody the chance to go do some searching of the Internet for answers, bring them back here, and we'll discuss them. As I implied, it hasn't happened yet, and has saved me the indignity and futility of fetching data for a sealioning science denier.

Which of these are you? Will you be the first who was sincere when asking for information? Here's a starting place: how are the age of the universe and earth decided? - Google Search See you soon with your observations and questions, right?​

That link addresses the first two element of the OP's list. Feel free to explore some of that, make a good faith effort to learn what the scientific position is and what evidence supports that position, and then we can talk.

You've got this sealioning down pat. If you're unfamiliar with the term, this may help:

 

[firedragon]

What I said is that facts are assertions, not the other way around as you presented it.

Philosopher of science? It's not a scientific matter. I said it. It's definitional:

• Assertion - a statement that you strongly believe is true: I certainly don't agree with his assertion that men are better drivers than women.

• Fact - a piece of information presented as having objective reality: These are the hard facts of the case.

The latter is a subset of the former. If the assertion in the definition is correct, then the assertion is also a fact. If untrue, it's not a fact, but it's still an assertion.

Thats not how science works.

Absolute? Why are you adding to or modifying my language? That's twice in just that post.

Scientific papers? Try a textbook or a science education site. For papers, try the bibliography of a relevant Wiki article.

I'll make the same offer to you that I did to the other fellow earlier in this thread:

If you had any interest, you'd already know the science. If you don't, it's either because you are still too young, or because you never saw value there. Bringing information to the latter is pointless. They don't even look at it. Their purpose is to give the impression that reason and evidence are important to them, and if you can't convince them, you have neither. All it means is that their minds are closed and that they are unwilling and unable to evaluate an argument for soundness or to be convinced by a compelling argument. They wouldn't recognize one if they are unable to connect evidence to conclusions via valid reasoning.

I've frequently offered such people (and will to you, too) a chance to prove that they are really one of those other types, young people with genuine curiosity and the ability and willingness to learn. I may encounter one of those one of these days, but not yet. So, I offer everybody the chance to go do some searching of the Internet for answers, bring them back here, and we'll discuss them. As I implied, it hasn't happened yet, and has saved me the indignity and futility of fetching data for a sealioning science denier.

Which of these are you? Will you be the first who was sincere when asking for information? Here's a starting place: how are the age of the universe and earth decided? - Google Search See you soon with your observations and questions, right?
That link addresses the first two element of the OP's list. Feel free to explore some of that, make a good faith effort to learn what the scientific position is and what evidence supports that position, and then we can talk.

You've got this sealioning down pat. If you're unfamiliar with the term, this may help:

Provide philosophers of science that claim these things are facts. This is not science you are providing. Science does not deal with facts. Science provides as much evidence as it can as proofs for a hypothesis researched in the paradigm of science. not facts.

Science does not claim facts.

Quote philosophers of science. If you do the research in this endeavour, you will understand better.

 

[shunyadragon]

Unfortunately, you just lost your farm because, despite pretending to value evidence and reason, you prefer to remain wilfully ignorant on anything to do with the history of religion and just believe whatever nonsense is emotionally satisfying instead

People have been arguing for allegorical readings since at least the 1st c, and include such noted heretics as St Augustine.

The dominant in history is the argument for both literal and rhetorical meanings of the scripture. The authors of the NT clearly believed in a literal interpretation 0f Genesis including a literal interpretation of Noah's Flood..

 

[Augustus]

If you had any interest, you'd already know the science. If you don't, it's either because you are still too young, or because you never saw value there. Bringing information to the latter is pointless. They don't even look at it. Their purpose is to give the impression that reason and evidence are important to them, and if you can't convince them, you have neither. All it means is that their minds are closed and that they are unwilling and unable to evaluate an argument for soundness or to be convinced by a compelling argument. They wouldn't recognize one if they are unable to connect evidence to conclusions via valid reasoning.

Hey look, you are demeaning people for their irrationality and being wilfully ignorant even though you have done exactly the same thing in the same thread

You also must have this "dark need" you said I had

I've frequently offered such people (and will to you, too) a chance to prove that they are really one of those other types, young people with genuine curiosity and the ability and willingness to learn. I may encounter one of those one of these days, but not yet. So, I offer everybody the chance to go do some searching of the Internet for answers, bring them back here, and we'll discuss them. As I implied, it hasn't happened yet, and has saved me the indignity and futility of fetching data for a sealioning science denier.

And people have frequently offered you that chance.

They are still waiting though...

 

[Ponder This]

You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that if religion's core dogmas are wrong, then religion is, of course, wrong.

Sorry, I still don't understand.
An example of one religion's core dogma is The Ten Commandments - none of which you listed and none of which are contradicted by your list of claims.
Can you provide an example of a religion that holds or not holds your list of statements from the OP as their core dogma?

And where did you get that I said religion is wrong because some religious people make false claims? I've noticed that a lot of people read into my posts things I never said. Maybe they want me to be wrong, and just in case I'm not wrong, they make me wrong.

It seemed to me that you made a list of claims that you hold are true and expect all religions to disagree with. You don't seem to be addressing one particular religion, but rather appear to be addressing religion in general. But religions and religious persons do not universally claim the statements you listed are false.

If you can clarify your position and the discussion you wish to have, I would appreciate it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I said is that facts are assertions, not the other way around as you presented it.

Philosopher of science? It's not a scientific matter. I said it. It's definitional:

• Assertion - a statement that you strongly believe is true: I certainly don't agree with his assertion that men are better drivers than women.

• Fact - a piece of information presented as having objective reality: These are the hard facts of the case.

The latter is a subset of the former. If the assertion in the definition is correct, then the assertion is also a fact. If untrue, it's not a fact, but it's still an assertion.

Thats not how science works.

This isn't science. I've already told you that. It's pure reason. All facts are assertions, but not vice versa. Use the definitions above instead: All "piece of information presented as having objective reality" are "statement that [the claimant] strongly believe is true." It analogous to "All men are mortal." It can be Venn diagrammed.

Scientific papers? Try a textbook or a science education site. For papers, try the bibliography of a relevant Wiki article.

I'll make the same offer to you that I did to the other fellow earlier in this thread:

If you had any interest, you'd already know the science. If you don't, it's either because you are still too young, or because you never saw value there. Bringing information to the latter is pointless. They don't even look at it. Their purpose is to give the impression that reason and evidence are important to them, and if you can't convince them, you have neither. All it means is that their minds are closed and that they are unwilling and unable to evaluate an argument for soundness or to be convinced by a compelling argument. They wouldn't recognize one if they are unable to connect evidence to conclusions via valid reasoning.

I've frequently offered such people (and will to you, too) a chance to prove that they are really one of those other types, young people with genuine curiosity and the ability and willingness to learn. I may encounter one of those one of these days, but not yet. So, I offer everybody the chance to go do some searching of the Internet for answers, bring them back here, and we'll discuss them. As I implied, it hasn't happened yet, and has saved me the indignity and futility of fetching data for a sealioning science denier.

Which of these are you? Will you be the first who was sincere when asking for information? Here's a starting place: how are the age of the universe and earth decided? - Google Search See you soon with your observations and questions, right?

That link addresses the first two element of the OP's list. Feel free to explore some of that, make a good faith effort to learn what the scientific position is and what evidence supports that position, and then we can talk.

Provide philosophers of science that claim these things are facts. This is not science you are providing. Science does not deal with facts. Science provides as much evidence as it can as proofs for a hypothesis researched in the paradigm of science. not facts. Science does not claim facts.

So no then to my offer? You're still attempting to send other out to fetch for you, are you? And if you take me up on that offer, I still won't be discussing philosophers of science with you. I'd be discussing the facts science uses to come to conclusions, such as why it claims the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Science does not claim facts.

Incidentally, this is incorrect. Facts are the source of the laws and theories that unify those facts.

Quote philosophers of science. If you do the research in this endeavour, you will understand better.

First the sealioning and now a little Bulverism? How about you quote some science on the age of the universe or earth? If you do the research, you will understand better why their ages are asserted as fact. Then bring it here, and I will help you understand it better. Or not. Your call.

 

[Augustus]

The dominant in history is the argument for both literal and rhetorical meanings of the scripture. The authors of the NT clearly believed in a literal interpretation 0f Genesis including a literal interpretation of Noah's Flood..

The dominant methods believed in
Interpreting the text via multiple methods: allegorical, literal, moral and anagogical.

It's not an either/or.

We don't really know how all the NT authors interpreted Genesis, that is open to debate. We know that the church fathers were not predominantly literalists though.

 

[shunyadragon]

The dominant methods believed in
Interpreting the text via multiple methods: allegorical, literal, moral and anagogical.

It's not an either/or.

We don't really know how all the NT authors interpreted Genesis, that is open to debate. We know that the church fathers were not predominantly literalists though.

I disagree and citations will follow. Moral interpretations are not an issue here.

 

[Augustus]

Sorry about all of the strikethroughs below. It wasn't deliberate and I don't know how to reverse it.

It's a formatting option you can select from the toolbar.

Click the + and your see a strikethrough option similar to bold, italic, etc.