4 ms·

The passages are interpreted incorrectly. Humans aren't rational beings that form conclusions by logically composing facts into a singular point. Instead human

The passages are interpreted incorrectly. Humans aren't rational beings that form conclusions by logically composing facts into a singular point. Instead humans are more prone to construct a scaffold of logic in order to support and existing belief. That site is picking and choosing passages in order to support a misguided belief. Instead a person must start with no beliefs and formulate a conclusion from the facts. If you do this, it is undeniable that the bible is real. I once told this to an atheist and he was astonished because my description of his subconscious behavior and lack of awareness was 100% what he thought I was doing. This makes me wonder do atheists even realize how unscientific and illogical they are? Are they constantly thinking that I'm the one that's illogical? Are humans so unaware of their own biases that we can never ever truly determine what is real and what isn't?

rjbwork 5y ago
To answer your final question - no, we probably cannot actually determine absolute truth about the universe. There is quite a long history of epistemology that indicates this. In addition, we've got the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_th... which lets us know that there will ALWAYS be true things that we cannot prove with any set of axioms. Coming to a full reckoning of truth or reality is impossible. We're each doing the best we can with the perspective we've been given and the information available to us. I also think you are being quite uncharitable to most atheists. The majority of us grew up in the church, have read the bible, utterly believed the bible was true, were devout believers, and generally were at some point quite indistinguishable from you or any other truly intellectual believer in terms of worldview. It really was the kinds of contradictions the comment you replied to indicates, along with hundreds of others, and the absolute mental knots that had to be constructed in order to justify them that set me on the path of disbelief. This is the path for millions of people as they take a serious reckoning of their beliefs and with their holy books and do a fundamental reexamination of their entire worldview and belief structure. I don't think that either of us is being disingenuous in our portrayal of our beliefs. That said, I really do think that your interpretation of what people are doing when they examine these contradictions and draw the conclusion of disbelief is, in fact, the theological equivalent of p-hacking is fundamentally untrue.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  I wasn't referring to something that profound. It's more like am I right or are you right?
belltaco 5y ago
>Instead a person must start with no beliefs and formulate a conclusion from the facts. If you do this, it is undeniable that the bible is real. What verifiable facts are in the Bible? Can any of the claimed miracles be replicated today? Say handling snakes or drinking poison, which has resulted in multiple deaths of believers. Two religious people can't agree which parts of the Bible are literal and which are just a story, so it's funny to see accusations at the other side.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  Astronomy makes outlandish sounding conjectures that can't be replicated either and it is not considered a religion. For example, the big bang cannot be replicated. Lack of the ability to replicate something means that it is just hard to prove that something is true. Not being able to prove something to be true via replication does not mean it is not true.
yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
I suppose the thing about faith is there is nothing I can do or say that could convince you from it. Your unwavering belief in the myths told in a collection of old books written by the barely educated in spite of a lack of evidence for the more magical parts (which is a significant chunk of it) is indeed a core moral value in your belief system. The extent to which you believe is somehow a virtue, and not a vice. This is obviously in reverse from my perspective. You think I’m illogical. I think you’re illogical. In the end we’re just two Spidermans, pointing at each other.
belltaco 5y ago
>I once told this to an atheist and he was astonished because my description of his subconscious behavior and lack of awareness was 100% what he thought I was doing. >This makes me wonder do atheists even realize how unscientific and illogical they are? Are they constantly thinking that I'm the one that's illogical? Are humans so unaware of their own biases that we can never ever truly determine what is real and what isn't? You're an atheist too, towards other religions like Islam, Hinduism etc. When you truly understand that your arguments against those religions go against Christianity too, you will understand atheists.
- no-dr-onboard 5y ago
  I think I see what you're trying to say, but there is a bit of term confusion in your argument. Just using the linguistics of the word, "Atheists" are definitively people who do not believe in a theos, ie: a g/God. It would be nonsensical to call a polytheist or monotheist an atheist. > When you truly understand that your arguments against those religions go against Christianity too... Christianity is relatively unique[1] in the sense that it claims exclusivity to salvation through Jesus Christ. As it relates to your argument, this tenant allows Christians to make claims to spiritual supremacy. Interreligious comparisons are moot at that point. [1] Conditioning that statement here, I can't keep up with all the world's religions
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  My arguments against Islam and Hinduism are identical to my argument against atheism. My reasoning is internally and externally consistent.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    > My reasoning is internally and externally consistent. I don’t think you should be so confident that everyone else sees it this way.
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      Why do we need to refer to everyone else? What matters is my own argument not everyone else's. If what everyone else thinks is a factor, than the majority of the world is not atheist.
no-dr-onboard 5y ago
> Humans aren't rational beings that form conclusions by logically composing facts into a singular point. But you’re proceeding to form a logical, rational argument in saying this. How are we to ever understand what you’re intending?
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  I am simply saying that humans by nature are irrational. You have to deliberately discipline yourself to be dispassionate in constructing logical arguments. Atheism is illogical and unscientific. It is a collection of people deliberately and unconsciously picking and choosing specific evidence to validate a pre-existing belief that they already staked so much of their identity on. A person born into atheism isn't just going to change sides as soon as he's presented with evidence that Christianity is real. Rather he will twist and bend the existing evidence in a way so as to support is current world view. When you do place together all the facts, logically speaking, what follows is that the bible is real.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    Atheism isn’t a belief. Atheism is non-belief.
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      This is pedantic. You could say you believe in not believing in certain things. Does it even matter? You know what I mean, no need to get pedantic here.
      - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
        I don’t really wish to continue arguing with you, because as I wrote earlier, your heels are dug in and there’s nothing I can say or do to convince you. I do think it’s useful to highlight here though that the difference between belief and non-belief is not pedantry, and it’s not inconsequential. The entire scientific method is about challenging ideas to discover the truth. When a scientist makes a claim to another scientist, the default position is “I don’t believe it. Please show substantial evidence to support your claim.” This is different from faith-based scientism, which is more similar to any other faith-based ism in that the method is to protect ideas from challenge in order to preserve the “truth”.

rjbwork 5y ago

To answer your final question - no, we probably cannot actually determine absolute truth about the universe. There is quite a long history of epistemology that indicates this. In addition, we've got the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_th... which lets us know that there will ALWAYS be true things that we cannot prove with any set of axioms. Coming to a full reckoning of truth or reality is impossible. We're each doing the best we can with the perspective we've been given and the information available to us. I also think you are being quite uncharitable to most atheists. The majority of us grew up in the church, have read the bible, utterly believed the bible was true, were devout believers, and generally were at some point quite indistinguishable from you or any other truly intellectual believer in terms of worldview. It really was the kinds of contradictions the comment you replied to indicates, along with hundreds of others, and the absolute mental knots that had to be constructed in order to justify them that set me on the path of disbelief. This is the path for millions of people as they take a serious reckoning of their beliefs and with their holy books and do a fundamental reexamination of their entire worldview and belief structure. I don't think that either of us is being disingenuous in our portrayal of our beliefs. That said, I really do think that your interpretation of what people are doing when they examine these contradictions and draw the conclusion of disbelief is, in fact, the theological equivalent of p-hacking is fundamentally untrue.

deltaonefour 5y ago
I wasn't referring to something that profound. It's more like am I right or are you right?

belltaco 5y ago

>Instead a person must start with no beliefs and formulate a conclusion from the facts. If you do this, it is undeniable that the bible is real. What verifiable facts are in the Bible? Can any of the claimed miracles be replicated today? Say handling snakes or drinking poison, which has resulted in multiple deaths of believers. Two religious people can't agree which parts of the Bible are literal and which are just a story, so it's funny to see accusations at the other side.

deltaonefour 5y ago
Astronomy makes outlandish sounding conjectures that can't be replicated either and it is not considered a religion. For example, the big bang cannot be replicated. Lack of the ability to replicate something means that it is just hard to prove that something is true. Not being able to prove something to be true via replication does not mean it is not true.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

I suppose the thing about faith is there is nothing I can do or say that could convince you from it. Your unwavering belief in the myths told in a collection of old books written by the barely educated in spite of a lack of evidence for the more magical parts (which is a significant chunk of it) is indeed a core moral value in your belief system. The extent to which you believe is somehow a virtue, and not a vice. This is obviously in reverse from my perspective. You think I’m illogical. I think you’re illogical. In the end we’re just two Spidermans, pointing at each other.

belltaco 5y ago

>I once told this to an atheist and he was astonished because my description of his subconscious behavior and lack of awareness was 100% what he thought I was doing. >This makes me wonder do atheists even realize how unscientific and illogical they are? Are they constantly thinking that I'm the one that's illogical? Are humans so unaware of their own biases that we can never ever truly determine what is real and what isn't? You're an atheist too, towards other religions like Islam, Hinduism etc. When you truly understand that your arguments against those religions go against Christianity too, you will understand atheists.

no-dr-onboard 5y ago
I think I see what you're trying to say, but there is a bit of term confusion in your argument. Just using the linguistics of the word, "Atheists" are definitively people who do not believe in a theos, ie: a g/God. It would be nonsensical to call a polytheist or monotheist an atheist. > When you truly understand that your arguments against those religions go against Christianity too... Christianity is relatively unique[1] in the sense that it claims exclusivity to salvation through Jesus Christ. As it relates to your argument, this tenant allows Christians to make claims to spiritual supremacy. Interreligious comparisons are moot at that point. [1] Conditioning that statement here, I can't keep up with all the world's religions
deltaonefour 5y ago
My arguments against Islam and Hinduism are identical to my argument against atheism. My reasoning is internally and externally consistent.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  > My reasoning is internally and externally consistent. I don’t think you should be so confident that everyone else sees it this way.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    Why do we need to refer to everyone else? What matters is my own argument not everyone else's. If what everyone else thinks is a factor, than the majority of the world is not atheist.

no-dr-onboard 5y ago

> Humans aren't rational beings that form conclusions by logically composing facts into a singular point. But you’re proceeding to form a logical, rational argument in saying this. How are we to ever understand what you’re intending?

deltaonefour 5y ago
I am simply saying that humans by nature are irrational. You have to deliberately discipline yourself to be dispassionate in constructing logical arguments. Atheism is illogical and unscientific. It is a collection of people deliberately and unconsciously picking and choosing specific evidence to validate a pre-existing belief that they already staked so much of their identity on. A person born into atheism isn't just going to change sides as soon as he's presented with evidence that Christianity is real. Rather he will twist and bend the existing evidence in a way so as to support is current world view. When you do place together all the facts, logically speaking, what follows is that the bible is real.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  Atheism isn’t a belief. Atheism is non-belief.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    This is pedantic. You could say you believe in not believing in certain things. Does it even matter? You know what I mean, no need to get pedantic here.
    - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
      I don’t really wish to continue arguing with you, because as I wrote earlier, your heels are dug in and there’s nothing I can say or do to convince you. I do think it’s useful to highlight here though that the difference between belief and non-belief is not pedantry, and it’s not inconsequential. The entire scientific method is about challenging ideas to discover the truth. When a scientist makes a claim to another scientist, the default position is “I don’t believe it. Please show substantial evidence to support your claim.” This is different from faith-based scientism, which is more similar to any other faith-based ism in that the method is to protect ideas from challenge in order to preserve the “truth”.