What would it take for you to change your faith to another?

[anonymous9887]

Really? LOL

You're gonna use the bible to justify or try to use your belief that Satan really exists?

In debate circles, this is known as "circular reasoning" and is considered a faux pax. An unfair and meaningless tactic.

So I am assuming you have nothing outside of your bible.

This is like you asking me to prove the existence of Zeus, and then going to a story from Greek Mythology.

Or asking me to prove the existence of the Grinch, and quoting a Dr. Seuss book.

LOL..in other words, it's pointless.

Guess I shoulda known better, as this dynamic when debating christians rarely changes.

Explain to me how those authors got the information

 

[Augustus]

Bet you couldn't find a thing that I accept as true that is not supported by evidence.

This for example: "I expect objective, demonstrable evidence for anything that I accept as truth."

If you don't understand why this is not true, read about how our mind works. For example Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, Robert Trivers, etc.

Either they are wrong, or you are wrong.

 

[roger1440]

So the change must be until someone else offers some better beer? Lol jk

yes, but I'm not sure if we are on the same page.

 

[MARCELLO]

To be honest, I envy the ones who has a sort belief to a deity. Life is easier for you,at least you have a shoulder to weep. We have nothing but those ugly atoms .

 

[Jumi]

To be honest, I envy the ones who has a sort belief to a deity. Life is easier for you,at least you have a shoulder to weep. We have nothing but those ugly atoms .

It's not that bad, nature takes that role for me. It's what we came from and what we will go to.

 

[MARCELLO]

It's not that bad, nature takes that role for me. It's what we came from and what we will go to.

Aint't enough. I want more and I deserve more. The only problem is which one is the right God. Then I will go for it forever.

 

[Jumi]

Aint't enough. I want more and I deserve more. The only problem is which one is the right God. Then I will go for it forever.

At least nature is accessible, all-penetrating. You can't escape her grasp if you tried because nature is everything. I personally think everything is enough, your mileage may vary.

 

[MARCELLO]

At least nature is accessible, all-penetrating. You can't escape her grasp if you tried because nature is everything. I personally think everything is enough, your mileage may vary.

I do not want to get lost,why should I? Tell me a thing which disappeared for ever ,from your memory of knowledge? Uhmm,nothing I guess,you could find. Everything turns to be something else,does not?

Why should I fantasize myself that my transformation will be as dull as an amino acid? Did I live my this life like an amino acid? Of course yes,I had the same principles of amino acids to survive on this earth ( the amino acids observed are only from earth). But my thing was different socially which amino acids has not known. I can fully evolve millions of things in a life of 100 years whereas acids need their 20 thound something generation to come for a single one.

E.g: I write a book,I affect minds of thousands in a book reading time.

From the time men walked on the moon,nature just means limitedness,cannot even answer gravity.

I would like to gratify myself that I evolve to a higher mind when I pass to the other side (lit. death).

 

[Cephus]

Yes but what you fail to realize is what it's talking about, it's not literal when it says a desolate waste land or things of that nature it means it will go from being tha t mighty nation to nothing.
The statue in Daniel Daniel chapter 2 predicting king Cyrus media Persia, Greece and the Roman Empire and the Anglo American as world powers.

But like I said it's whether you accept it or not because you can't avoid the fact that he declared a man name Cyrus to take over about 100 yes ahead of time.

Then it's not a prophecy. If it is not saying what will happen then it isn't predicting anything. You're just reading into things that are not on the page. You're rationalizing, trying to tell people what it *REALLY* means without having the slightest way of proving it. Sorry, entirely unimpressed.

 

[Cephus]

Let's see you make a prediction, what will be 100 yrs from now?

Why would I do that? I don't pretend that I have magical powers. You're the one claiming that the people who wrote the Bible did. You're the one who is taking ridiculously vague passages, twisting and turning them, desperately looking for any event in history that can possibly be made to fit your subjective interpretation of the passages and pretending that you've actually discovered something. If you want a prophecy, find one that lists specific dates and times and places. If you can't do that, and we all know you can't, then your claims of prophecy are bunk, no matter how much blind faith you have in them.

 

[Cephus]

OK here is the bottom line he made a prediction about Cyrus and babylon

Was his prediction of Cyrus true or false?
Did they break into town without a fight yes or no?

You tell me. You find me independent historical evidence that it actually happened and that the passage in the Bible could not possibly refer to anything else.

 

[Cephus]

This for example: "I expect objective, demonstrable evidence for anything that I accept as truth."

If you don't understand why this is not true, read about how our mind works. For example Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, Robert Trivers, etc.

Either they are wrong, or you are wrong.

You're still not doing what I asked. Find me anything that I accept as true, for which I do not have objective, demonstrable evidence. Go ahead. You made the claim, you back it up.

 

[Jumi]

I would like to gratify myself that I evolve to a higher mind when I pass to the other side (lit. death).

That is the difference between us I think, how we take a perspective on death. Sure a paradise is nice(well not all definitions of heaven), but I never expected something "great" to happen on death. And if something happens, that's a bonus.

 

[Augustus]

You're still not doing what I asked. Find me anything that I accept as true, for which I do not have objective, demonstrable evidence. Go ahead. You made the claim, you back it up.

I just did.

You accept this statement as truth: "I expect objective, demonstrable evidence for anything that I accept as truth."

Unless you are the only person in the world that functions this way, then this is the example you asked for.

If you want to understand WHY you (and everybody else in the world) often accepts things as true without meeting these criteria, then read some books/articles by the authors I suggested. Ultimately, it is just not possible due to time/cost/difficulty of getting information, limited cognitive abilities, our reliance on mental heuristics and the subsequent biases these create, cognitive dissonance, self-deception, etc.

As an example: Attribute substitution is a psychological process thought to underlie a number of cognitive biases and perceptual illusions. It occurs when an individual has to make a judgment (of a target attribute) that is computationally complex, and instead substitutes a more easily calculated heuristic attribute.[1] This substitution is thought of as taking place in the automatic intuitive judgment system, rather than the more self-aware reflective system. Hence, when someone tries to answer a difficult question, they may actually answer a related but different question, without realizing that a substitution has taken place. This explains why individuals can be unaware of their own biases, and why biases persist even when the subject is made aware of them.

In such a situation, you will accept something as true based on the mistaken assumption that the evidence you interpreted supports the thing you accept as being true. Thus, you will not have objective demonstrable evidence.

It is also almost impossible to get objective, demonstrable evidence for many things. You might have some evidence, but you have to interpret it subjectively.

You also can't separate your decision making from your values, morals and ideologies, and these are largely subjective. We have all internalised things that are not true which affect our future interpretations of information. We all simply make mistakes and make decisions based on information learned from other people who have made mistakes without realising it.

Ultimately, we all have to make assumptions about many things otherwise we can't function and we all have believe things unsupported by objective demonstrable evidence.

 

[Cephus]

I just did.

You accept this statement as truth: "I expect objective, demonstrable evidence for anything that I accept as truth."

Unless you are the only person in the world that functions this way, then this is the example you asked for.

No, you did nothing of the sort. And you will note how I phrased my statement, "accept as truth", as opposed to "accept as a reasonable explanation" or "accept as the best explanation we currently have", etc. Truth. Fact. Find me anything that I accept as truth that is not based on objective, demonstrable evidence. Go ahead. You won't be able to do it.

Just admit you're wrong and be done with it. It'll be easier than watching you squirm.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Some intense spiritual experience that convinces me that my religion is wrong, because I've heard the arguments for pretty much all of the other religions - and lack of religion - you can think of and found them lacking.

 

[anonymous9887]

You tell me. You find me independent historical evidence that it actually happened and that the passage in the Bible could not possibly refer to anything else.

Then you obviously don't know history. Media Persia took over babylon. Look in the history books you'll see.

 

[Cephus]

Then you obviously don't know history. Media Persia took over babylon. Look in the history books you'll see.

Actually, I do know history, thanks. And you just ignored what I said, which is entirely expected.

 

[Augustus]

No, you did nothing of the sort. And you will note how I phrased my statement, "accept as truth", as opposed to "accept as a reasonable explanation" or "accept as the best explanation we currently have", etc. Truth. Fact. Find me anything that I accept as truth that is not based on objective, demonstrable evidence. Go ahead. You won't be able to do it.

Just admit you're wrong and be done with it. It'll be easier than watching you squirm.

You believe you have a greater deal of precision and control over your thoughts than the sciences would suggest that you do. You hold countless beliefs as being true, you believe you individually select and classify every single one of them into precise categories? When not everything you accept is true is even a result of conscious reasoning?

You assume perfect rationality when it doesn't exist.

As to what you accept as true, not even you know that, how can I identify everything? What is guaranteed though, is that many of them are not based on your criteria.

If you want me to be specific, I think in other threads you have said things such as, regarding communism, nobody was publicly expressing the importance of atheism, which is demonstrably false.

Think you said you can work out the true meaning of a word simply from the letters in it, without resorting to context/usage/etc - another clearly demonstrable falsehood.

Much as you consider irrationality to be harmful, epistemic arrogance is equally harmful.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Explain to me how those authors got the information

Really?

You mean the authors of the OT books? Like Isiah? Or John of Patmos in Revelation? where they got their info?

LOL..easy: they made it up. Most of the bible is pure fiction. And allegory. Again, like my comparison to Greek Mythology. It's simply Hebrew Mythology.

But I dunno, it mighta been a little different for John in Revelation, I admit.

That book is so whacked that I wouldn't doubt he got ahold of some mushrooms or peyote or some other type of hallucinogenic before writing that thing.

LOL.

No, really, though, most of that book--more than ANY other in the bible, is written in pure metaphor and symbolism, he did this in case the writings fell into Roman hands.

Like his beats with the seven heads? Well, that is the city of Rome, which has seven hills.