A Literal Bible?

[Iacchus]

Am reposting this from the thread, A universe with God (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35033&perpage=40&pagenumber=5) ...


Okay guys listen up. If by chance they were able to write the Bible, so that it was completely literal and hence verifiable -- which isn't to say it isn't already, i.e., in the spiriual sense -- is this the only way you would accept it? Because if it is, I'm afraid you would have accepted nothing, except that which is obvious. In which case I would suggest there's not much point in reading it, except perhaps like a dictionary, and I honestly don't think it was intended that way. Indeed, the last thing you will have learned is anything spiritual ... and talk about destroying something in the process!

So really all you've accomplished is to confirm yourselves in your lack of faith. Big deal. :p

At least the Bible thumpers, as guillable as they are who, insist on a literal translation themselves -- how strange? -- have a sense of faith about it which, is more than I can say for you people here -- "trolls."

In case anyone's interested I've reposted this as a new thread, A Literal Bible? But please, don't expect me to reply to your insisting that there's something to be discussed, when in fact there isn't, Okay?

P.S. If you would like to understand what the Bible says, I recommend that you start reading it, not so much with the intent of proving it, but rather the spirit inquiry. And hey, if you don't understand something, leave it at that. Either put it down or find some other part to read. It doesn't have to be answered at that moment -- if at all. The main thing being that you don't be too hasty in drawing conclusions about it. In which case you might actually learn something. ;)

[Hutch]

Reading the Bible made me what I am today--a confirmed deist.

Being born and raised Catholic, I never had to do much Bible reading, except for the parts the Priests reguritated to the congregation each Sunday. Then while attending an interdenominational chapel on a military base, I found copies of the Bible in the pews, and since I had long ago memorized all the rituals of the Holy Mother Church, I did some reading.

I concluded that many parts were interesting history (as with most ancient histories, not to be taken at face value) with an emphasis on various wars and politics, much like today.

I then read Revalations and came to the conclusion that there were serious drugs available in the 1st Century Anno Domini.

I stopped attending church soon after that.

So reading the Bible did make a change in my life.

[Tricky]

Well, Lacchus, I have read the Bible. The whole thing, though it was a tough slog getting through some of the "begats". I did it when I was studying for confirmation into the Episcopal Church, and I am quite glad I did because it made a change in my life too. It opened my eyes to the contradictions, both literal and spiritual, that the book contained. While I acknowledge it has some good spots, on the whole it is a schizophrenic work of many hands. If you like, we can discuss some of the contradictions, beginning with the whole forgiving/vengeful God thing.

And a question about faith. Do you think any kind of faith is good? A yes or no answer will suffice. We can elaborate from there.

[MRC_Hans]

I think most skeptics view the bible as a mixture of legends, religious messages, and historical accounts. Whether one believes in the religious messages or not is an individual matter.

When talking about proving the bible, I assume you allude to the many references to contradictions and impossibilities in the bible. Pointing out such logical faults is only meaningful when debating with the group of believers who claim that the present version of the bible is the LITERAL truth. The way I read your posts, you are not one of those.

Talking about rewriting the bible is obviously absurd, but in the hypothetical situation where the original bible did NOT contain any logical inconsistencies, well, naturally it would be a more powerful argument in the hands of fundies. It would still not be PROOF of god, however, since it would still only be a book. It is quite possible to write a book that is free from logical inconsistencies, but is still fiction.

Hans

Edited to make meaning clearer.

[joyrex]

The other day a Jehovah's Witness came to my door and we had a nice chat.

He claimed that carbon-14 dating has been used to confirm some "facts" in the Bible and that the Bible is the literal truth.

Sounded like a big pile of cr4p to me :rolleyes: , although I haven't studied Bible the slightest and I'm not familiar with the c14 dating system..

But I would guess there's more evidence to support theory of evolution rather than creationism when weighing the all the c14 datings done to date.

[Marc]

Originally posted by joyrex
The other day a Jehovah's Witness came to my door and we had a nice chat.

He claimed that carbon-14 dating has been used to confirm some "facts" in the Bible and that the Bible is the literal truth.

Sounded like a big pile of cr4p to me :rolleyes: , although I haven't studied Bible the slightest and I'm not familiar with the c14 dating system..

But I would guess there's more evidence to support theory of evolution rather than creationism when weighing the all the c14 datings done to date.

Funny considering that JW are creationists, and would argue against C14 dating in proving the age of the earth.

[LW]

Originally posted by Marc


Funny considering that JW are creationists, and would argue against C14 dating in proving the age of the earth.

JWs are old earth creationists.

[Peter Jenkins]

I read the Bible - every word, front to back about 4 times while a member of the Morms. (also the Book of Mormon, Pearl of great Price, etc - but thats another story).
If you feel that the bible is a good book to base your faith on, you're in good company, along with thousands of other sects, cults as well as 'mainstream' religions. (for the moment, we'll try and ignore the fact that many of those religions would use the same book to condem the member of the other religions).
If you want to use your 'interpretation' of the bible, go ahead. No problem - you choose which bits are meant to be taken literally and which bits are 'spritual' - make a new religion and crown yourself prophet (heck! enough people have done so before you, why miss out?)
But if you are trying to convince anyone here that your 'interpretation' of the bible is the correct one. I doubt you'll have much success.
Peter

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins

I read the Bible - every word, front to back about 4 times while a member of the Morms. (also the Book of Mormon, Pearl of great Price, etc - but thats another story).
If you feel that the bible is a good book to base your faith on, you're in good company, along with thousands of other sects, cults as well as 'mainstream' religions. (for the moment, we'll try and ignore the fact that many of those religions would use the same book to condem the member of the other religions).
If you want to use your 'interpretation' of the bible, go ahead. No problem - you choose which bits are meant to be taken literally and which bits are 'spritual' - make a new religion and crown yourself prophet (heck! enough people have done so before you, why miss out?)
But if you are trying to convince anyone here that your 'interpretation' of the bible is the correct one. I doubt you'll have much success.
Peter I must be a minority of "one."

Sorry guys, I just pulled an all-nighter and I don't know when I'll be able to get back to this. ;)

Have been neglecting other things too!

[El Greco]

Reading the Bible is indeed a very good start if you want to be able to understand more sophisticated texts, like "The Lord of the Rings".

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by El Greco
Reading the Bible is indeed a very good start if you want to be able to understand more sophisticated texts, like "The Lord of the Rings".

though it's almost easier to get through the bible then trying to read the silmarillion.

[exarch]

Originally posted by El Greco
Reading the Bible is indeed a very good start if you want to be able to understand more sophisticated texts, like "The Lord of the Rings".As far as I know, "The Lord of the Rings" has far less contradictions :)

I think they also have found proof that Frodo really existed.

NOT !!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Am reposting this from the thread, A universe with God (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35033&perpage=40&pagenumber=5) ...


Okay guys listen up. If by chance they were able to write the Bible, so that it was completely literal and hence verifiable -- which isn't to say it isn't already, i.e., in the spiriual sense -- is this the only way you would accept it? Because if it is, I'm afraid you would have accepted nothing, except that which is obvious. In which case I would suggest there's not much point in reading it, except perhaps like a dictionary, and I honestly don't think it was intended that way. Indeed, the last thing you will have learned is anything spiritual ... and talk about destroying something in the process!

So really all you've accomplished is to confirm yourselves in your lack of faith. Big deal. :p

At least the Bible thumpers, as guillable as they are who, insist on a literal translation themselves -- how strange? -- have a sense of faith about it which, is more than I can say for you people here -- "trolls."

In case anyone's interested I've reposted this as a new thread, A Literal Bible? But please, don't expect me to reply to your insisting that there's something to be discussed, when in fact there isn't, Okay?

P.S. If you would like to understand what the Bible says, I recommend that you start reading it, not so much with the intent of proving it, but rather the spirit inquiry. And hey, if you don't understand something, leave it at that. Either put it down or find some other part to read. It doesn't have to be answered at that moment -- if at all. The main thing being that you don't be too hasty in drawing conclusions about it. In which case you might actually learn something. ;)

Faith is overrated. Personally I think it's the last refuge of those who can't back up what they say with facts.

You seem to be suggesting that we read the bible and just assume it's true in order to convince ourselves that it is true. Sorry, I refuse to reason in circles like that.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Faith is overrated. Personally I think it's the last refuge of those who can't back up what they say with facts.Faith is a system of beliefs, and is none other than your understanding my friend.


You seem to be suggesting that we read the bible and just assume it's true in order to convince ourselves that it is true. Sorry, I refuse to reason in circles like that. As I said, this only applies to those who wish to understand it themselves.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

If you like, we can discuss some of the contradictions, beginning with the whole forgiving/vengeful God thing.In the early days they had to contend with the harsh conditions of survival; in the latter they had become established and civilized. Therefore it stands to reason that their code of conduct -- derived from "their God" -- should reflect this.


And a question about faith. Do you think any kind of faith is good? A yes or no answer will suffice. We can elaborate from there. Faith is none other than what operates through our understanding, as I mentioned in the post above.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Faith is a system of beliefs, and is none other than your understanding my friend.

Faith, in the religious sense, is blind belief. I don't trust blind belief. Give me logicv and reason any day of the week over faith, I like my odds better with those things than with blind faith.

As I said, this only applies to those who wish to understand it themselves.

I.e. those who have already convinced themselves that it is true. Circular reasoning as I have said.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Faith, in the religious sense, is blind belief. I don't trust blind belief. Give me logicv and reason any day of the week over faith, I like my odds better with those things than with blind faith.This is what your "faith" tells you. And no, it doesn't have to be "blind."


I.e. those who have already convinced themselves that it is true. Circular reasoning as I have said. No, I'm suggesting it's for those who "understand" it to be true.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Iacchus


This is what your "faith" tells you. And no, it doesn't have to be "blind."
It does, actually. By definition.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
In the early days they had to contend with the harsh conditions of survival; in the latter they had become established and civilized. Therefore it stands to reason that their code of conduct -- derived from "their God" -- should reflect this.
It sounds as if you man that peoples's codes of conduct are dependant on their level of civilization, not on God. That in itself makes sense, but not God's response. Why would he destroy the cities of Sodom an Gommorah, or in fact the whole world (Noah story) because people were primative? What kind of forgiving god is that? Why did he change? Even more interesting, how can an infallible God change his mind?

If Jesus was so wonderful, why didn't God send him to the Garden of Eden. Then we would have never had this "sin thing" to worry about? Did God have a brain fart?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Faith is none other than what operates through our understanding, as I mentioned in the post above.
This sounds like saying "faith is what you have come, through your experiences, to believe". If this in fact what you are saying, then I disagree. I think that the things that you have come to believe through the gathering of evidence are much more worthy than the things you have come to believe from you intuition or deeply held feelings or religious upbringing. They don't depend on your preconceived notions or your brilliant philosophical insight. They depend on solid, repeatable evidence. I cannot think of a better thing to pin your belief on.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Am reposting this from the thread, A universe with God (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35033&perpage=40&pagenumber=5) ...


Okay guys listen up. If by chance they were able to write the Bible, so that it was completely literal and hence verifiable
"Falsifyable" is a more appropriate word.

I choose to take an allegorical approach to the bible, however there are quite a few verses much like Leviticus 20:13 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html#13) or Exodus 22:18 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/22.html#18) that have no allegorical interpretation.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Faith is a system of beliefs, and is none other than your understanding my friend.
That's not any definition of "faith" which I'm familiar with, that sounds more like a generalization of the word "dogma".

At last check, the word faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith) meant "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".

It seems Dictionary.com also includes "A set of principles or beliefs", but its all semantics garble. That definition appears to a Common Usage definition, a synonym for dogma, much like saying "According to my faith, blah blah bleh bleh blah".

As I said, this only applies to those who wish to understand it themselves.
I've read the bible...

The book has such great humor potential...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dymanic
It does, actually. By definition. And what does it mean to be faithful then, if not to abide by what one knows?

Besides, doesn't anybody know that our ability to know anythng is entirely subjective anyway?

So yes, when we speak in terms of what we understand we're speaking in terms of faith.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what does it mean to be faithful then, if not to abide by what one knows?
Is faith simply abiding by what one "knows" (read: "believes") Then one could speak of a terrorist bomber as a faithful Muslim. It doesn't mean a thing about whether it is right or not, just whether or not you manage to remain unchanging in what you believe, regardless of circumstances, evidence or repurcussions. I repeat my earlier question. Is there such a thing as having faith in the wrong things?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Besides, doesn't anybody know that our ability to know anythng is entirely subjective anyway?
Actually it's not subjective. There are many things that are knowable by continuous examination. We know gravity works. That is not subjective. We know that if a bullet passes through you it is likely to be detrimental to your health. That is not subjective. The whole effort of science is to remove things from the subjective realm into the objective realm, where anyone studying them will see the same thing.

If you examine this statement of yours, you will see that it is one of the least correct things you have ever said, and that is quite a feat. ;)

Originally posted by Iacchus
So yes, when we speak in terms of what we understand we're speaking in terms of faith.
Nope. I understand mathematics. I don't have "faith" in mathematics. I believe it because it works reliably and consistantly. Of course, I'm talking about real mathematics, not numerology and that sort of mathmagics.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

It sounds as if you man that peoples's codes of conduct are dependant on their level of civilization, not on God. That in itself makes sense, but not God's response. Why would he destroy the cities of Sodom an Gommorah, or in fact the whole world (Noah story) because people were primative? What kind of forgiving god is that? Why did he change? Even more interesting, how can an infallible God change his mind?Why do parents relate to their children differently as they grow up? Because their children have different needs? Maybe what were're speaking of here is a genuine intelligence factor, which is adaptable depending on what's called for?


If Jesus was so wonderful, why didn't God send him to the Garden of Eden. Then we would have never had this "sin thing" to worry about? Did God have a brain fart?You don't believe God allows us to do stupid things because it's a prerequisite of free will? How else could we grow and become independent thinking human beings? Do you think God is only looking for suck-ups? And what does Jesus have to do with it?


This sounds like saying "faith is what you have come, through your experiences, to believe". If this in fact what you are saying, then I disagree. I think that the things that you have come to believe through the gathering of evidence are much more worthy than the things you have come to believe from you intuition or deeply held feelings or religious upbringing. They don't depend on your preconceived notions or your brilliant philosophical insight. They depend on solid, repeatable evidence. I cannot think of a better thing to pin your belief on. Do you have faith in what you know or not? If not, then you shouldn't be acting upon it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why do parents relate to their children differently as they grow up? Because their children have different needs? Maybe what were're speaking of here is a genuine intelligence factor, which is adaptable depending on what's called for?
As far as I know, few parents feel they are required to murder their "slow children" or even their misbehaving ones. If you want to use the analogy of "God the Father" then you have to stick with it. You can't make a silly statement as the above and then fall back on "but we can't understand the mind of God". If you are going to compare him to a parent, then he must act as a parent. Based on the condition of the world, if God was a parent then Family Services would have taken his children away from him long ago.
Originally posted by Iacchus
You don't believe God allows us to do stupid things because it's a prerequisite of free will? How else could we grow and become independent thinking human beings? Do think God is only looking for suck-ups? And what does Jesus have to do with it?
If God wants us to become independent thinking human beings, then why would he punish us for using our thinking ability to decide he doesn't exist? That doesn't sound like a god that values independant thought at all to me. It sounds like a dictator who wants you to tow the company line or to hell with you.

What does Jesus have to do with it? Well, Jesus came to save us from sin, right? Well then why in God's name (irony intended) would he wait for thousand of years to save us from sin? Why didn't he do it from day one? Surely he knew that this "free will" thing was going to cause problems. Is he admitting he made a mistake? How could an omniscient God do that?
Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you have faith in what you know or not? If not, then you shouldn't be acting upon it.
1) I don't have "faith" in anything. I have belief based on evidence. Faith is belief either based on no evidence or in many cases, contrary to evidence.

2) I don't "know' anything. Everything I believe is subject to change based on additional evidence. Provide me evidence of God, and I may change my belief. BTW, your personal testimonial is not evidence.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

Is faith simply abiding by what one "knows" (read: "believes") Then one could speak of a terrorist bomber as a faithful Muslim. It doesn't mean a thing about whether it is right or not, just whether or not you manage to remain unchanging in what you believe, regardless of circumstances, evidence or repurcussions. I repeat my earlier question. Is there such a thing as having faith in the wrong things? And if you don't act by what you know, then what? You don't act, right?


Actually it's not subjective. There are many things that are knowable by continuous examination. We know gravity works. That is not subjective. We know that if a bullet passes through you it is likely to be detrimental to your health. That is not subjective. The whole effort of science is to remove things from the subjective realm into the objective realm, where anyone studying them will see the same thing. It's still up to each of us as individuals to ascertain the "value" of things, otherwise how would we ever know? So, is it okay to accept something just because science said it was so? This is where common sense comes in, which is typically what keeps us from doing stupid things.


If you examine this statement of yours, you will see that it is one of the least correct things you have ever said, and that is quite a feat. ;)Would you say there was a difference between faith and blind faith? Otherwise why make the distinction?


Nope. I understand mathematics. I don't have "faith" in mathematics. I believe it because it works reliably and consistantly. Of course, I'm talking about real mathematics, not numerology and that sort of mathmagics. Do you have faith that one plus one equals two? I do. In fact I would be willing bet everything I had on it, even my life if it was necessary. And that my friend would be an act of faith.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

As far as I know, few parents feel they are required to murder their "slow children" or even their misbehaving ones. If you want to use the analogy of "God the Father" then you have to stick with it. You can't make a silly statement as the above and then fall back on "but we can't understand the mind of God". If you are going to compare him to a parent, then he must act as a parent. Based on the condition of the world, if God was a parent then Family Services would have taken his children away from him long ago.Would it be fair to say the Sun was our Father and the Earth was our Mother?


If God wants us to become independent thinking human beings, then why would he punish us for using our thinking ability to decide he doesn't exist? That doesn't sound like a god that values independant thought at all to me. It sounds like a dictator who wants you to tow the company line or to hell with you. You can't have free will without the diversity of possibilities, otherwise there would be nothing to chose.


What does Jesus have to do with it? Well, Jesus came to save us from sin, right? Well then why in God's name (irony intended) would he wait for thousand of years to save us from sin? Why didn't he do it from day one? Surely he knew that this "free will" thing was going to cause problems. Is he admitting he made a mistake? How could an omniscient God do that?According to the Bible Jesus has always been around, meaning He has always saved. We just didn't know it.


1) I don't have "faith" in anything. I have belief based on evidence. Faith is belief either based on no evidence or in many cases, contrary to evidence.

2) I don't "know' anything. Everything I believe is subject to change based on additional evidence. Provide me evidence of God, and I may change my belief. BTW, your personal testimonial is not evidence. A machine doesn't have to have faith, but people do. Do you know why? Because faith implies "meaning."

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Iacchus

P.S. If you would like to understand what the Bible says, I recommend that you start reading it, not so much with the intent of proving it, but rather the spirit inquiry.


I'm sure you've taken the same approach with books from other religions....

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Iacchus


And what does it mean to be faithful then, if not to abide by what one knows?

The phrase 'to be faithful', as commonly used, refers to loyalty. When referring to religious faith, the phrase commonly used is 'to have faith'. This is exactly the opposite of abiding by what one knows; it explicitly refers to accepting as true that which cannot possibly be known.

Besides, doesn't anybody know that our ability to know anythng is entirely subjective anyway?
Not to me it isn't.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I'm sure you've taken the same approach with books from other religions.... It's not necessary. Does one need to traverse the globe in order stand in the sun? Not from where I stand anyway. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dymanic

The phrase 'to be faithful', as commonly used, refers to loyalty. When referring to religious faith, the phrase commonly used is 'to have faith'. This is exactly the opposite of abiding by what one knows; it explicitly refers to accepting as true that which cannot possibly be known.Yes, to be faithful and to be "true."


Not to me it isn't. But can you explain to me why people do stupid things?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

That's not any definition of "faith" which I'm familiar with, that sounds more like a generalization of the word "dogma".

At last check, the word faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith) meant "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".

It seems Dictionary.com also includes "A set of principles or beliefs", but its all semantics garble. That definition appears to a Common Usage definition, a synonym for dogma, much like saying "According to my faith, blah blah bleh bleh blah".Yes, let's look at the first definition ...


1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. How can you have confident belief in the truth if you didn't "understand" it was true? I know I can't, and I certainly wouldn't put my faith into it if I didn't. And why is faith nearly always associated with the truth, as opposed to faithlessness, which is associated with falsity?


I've read the bible...

The book has such great humor potential... I've read my fair share of it, and to be honest, it's mostly about the trials and errors of humanity. This is the way I take it anyway. :)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's not necessary. Does one need to traverse the globe in order stand in the sun? Not from where I stand anyway. ;)

So I guess don't expect people to consider your book seriously when you don't consider theirs.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


So I guess don't expect people to consider your book seriously when you don't consider theirs. I never said I didn't care for Chinese food. I'm only saying it isn't a necessary part of my diet. :p

[bjornart]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
though it's almost easier to get through the bible then trying to read the silmarillion.

Hah! The Silmarillion is much easier. Now if you want a book that's impossible to read, try the book of Mormon. Now there is a boring text.

[Tricky]

lacchus, if you think that somehow you are addressing our posts here with your running sequence of non-sequiturs, then you are sadly removing her camasole slowly and sensuously while exploring the nape of her neck with gentle nibbles.

[Marc]

Originally posted by bjornart


Hah! The Silmarillion is much easier. Now if you want a book that's impossible to read, try the book of Mormon. Now there is a boring text.

BoM is boring, but a lot easier to get through than the bible. First off it had only one writer (a very repetative one, but only one) who wrote in english within the last 200 years. While the bible was written by a few dozen people, who wrote in several languages, then later their writings were mashed togeather often talking about politics and people most of us have never heard of.

plus the BoM is a lot shorter

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Marc


BoM is boring, but a lot easier to get through than the bible. First off it had only one writer (a very repetative one, but only one) who wrote in english within the last 200 years. While the bible was written by a few dozen people, who wrote in several languages, then later their writings were mashed togeather often talking about politics and people most of us have never heard of.

plus the BoM is a lot shorter

Maybe my lack of motivation did it... But as I slogged through the bible I found the occasional nugget with amusement value, the book of mormon appears to have been written by someone intent on using the style of the most boring parts of the bible, and although it's absurd, it's just not as amusing.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
How can you have confident belief in the truth if you didn't "understand" it was true? I know I can't, and I certainly wouldn't put my faith into it if I didn't. And why is faith nearly always associated with the truth, as opposed to faithlessness, which is associated with falsity?Well, for some reason YOU keep linking faith with truth and everything else with "wrong". You're just messing with semantics here. I can assure you that "being true" as in being faithful only sounds similar to "being correct" in English. So making that link is completely useless since non-English speaking people don't even *have* that connection.

The "confident belief in something or someone" is what makes you think it's the truth, but no matter how fervently you believe the Earth is flat, square, cube-shaped, that doesn't make it so :rolleyes:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by exarch
Well, for some reason YOU keep linking faith with truth and everything else with "wrong". You're just messing with semantics here. I can assure you that "being true" as in being faithful only sounds similar to "being correct" in English. So making that link is completely useless since non-English speaking people don't even *have* that connection.

The "confident belief in something or someone" is what makes you think it's the truth, but no matter how fervently you believe the Earth is flat, square, cube-shaped, that doesn't make it so :rolleyes: And yet if something wasn't "faithful" to the fact, what would it be but a falsehood. If a rock wasn't faithful to the fact that it was a rock what would it be?


13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:13-18 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+16)So in this sense "faithful" must coincide with the development and/or acceptance of "the truth." In which case I would suggest there is such a thing as "rational faith," as opposed to "blind faith" which, is inherently false because it isn't based upon the acceptance of anything. In other words there's a difference in going about it in a "rational manner" and being gullible.

[Peter Jenkins]

And yet if something wasn't "faithful" to the fact, what would it be but a falsehood. If a rock wasn't faithful to the fact that it was a rock what would it be?
This is semantic wordplay, and it, likely, only works using the English language.
Does a rock believe it's a rock? I would say 'No, but it is anyway'.

So in this sense "faithful" must coincide with the development and/or acceptance of "the truth." In which case I would suggest there is such a thing as "rational faith," as opposed to "blind faith," which is inherently false because it isn't based upon the acceptance of anything.
I was a faithful Mormon, at one point. Is the Book of Mormon the truth? I accepted the things that I was told. They sounded rational to my understanding, at that point.
Blind faith -
"Joseph Smith Jnr was a Prophet of God"
"OK, I'll believe that, because it makes me feel good"
Rational Faith -
"Joseph Smith Jnr was a Prophet of God, and here I can show you a few verses from the Bible which {can be twisted to} foretell his leadership of God's own church"
"OK, I'll believe that, because it seems to make a bit of sense and makes me feel good"

There are a lot of religions and they belive different things. each religion is crowded with people who have faith in their particular version of God. they cant all be right. Therefore, some (I would contend 'all') faiths HAVE to be based on error.
P

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins

This is semantic wordplay, and it, likely, only works using the English language.
Does a rock believe it's a rock? I would say 'No, but it is anyway'.And yet what if it looked like a rock, but it wasn't a rock in all actuallity? Then would you say it was a matter of "faith" that tells you it was a rock? Or, what would you call it then?


I was a faithful Mormon, at one point. Is the Book of Mormon the truth? I accepted the things that I was told. They sounded rational to my understanding, at that point.
Blind faith -
"Joseph Smith Jnr was a Prophet of God"
"OK, I'll believe that, because it makes me feel good"
Rational Faith -
"Joseph Smith Jnr was a Prophet of God, and here I can show you a few verses from the Bible which {can be twisted to} foretell his leadership of God's own church"
"OK, I'll believe that, because it seems to make a bit of sense and makes me feel good"

There are a lot of religions and they belive different things. each religion is crowded with people who have faith in their particular version of God. they cant all be right. Therefore, some (I would contend 'all') faiths HAVE to be based on error.
P Faith is just a system of beliefs, rational or otherwise.

[Peter Jenkins]

Iacchus wrote
Faith is just a system of beliefs, rational or otherwise.

Several posts back, Nyarlathotep wrote
Faith is overrated. Personally I think it's the last refuge of those who can't back up what they say with facts.

It seems, at last, Iacchus agrees

Peter

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins

It seems, at last, Iacchus agrees

Peter So let me ask you this. Let's say I happened to be speaking about the truth, and yet you had no way of ascertaining this for yourself (offhand), what would you call that? And perhaps you've even gone so far as to establish it in your own mind that it doesn't exist. Is that going to change the fact that I know what I'm talking about? In which case who's taking it upon "faith" that something doesn't exist? It couldn't be me could it?

So at some point you're going to have to accept it upon faith that I know what I'm talking about, and work with that "faith" -- which, is an ongoing process (of the understanding) -- in order to establish the truth of the matter.

Now doesn't that suggest something about the subjective nature of the human condition? ... that we're all "creatures of faith?"

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins




It seems, at last, Iacchus agrees

Peter


It looks like your comment went "Woosh", right over his head, though.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So let me ask you this. Let's say I happened to be speaking about the truth, and yet you had no way of ascertaining this for yourself (offhand), what would you call that? And perhaps you've even gone so far as to establish it in your own mind that it doesn't exist. Is that going to change the fact that I know what I'm talking about? In which case who's taking it upon "faith" that something doesn't exist? It couldn't be me could it?

So at some point you're going to have to accept it upon faith that I know what I'm talking about, and work with that "faith" -- which, is an ongoing process (of the understanding) -- in order to establish the truth of the matter.

Now doesn't that suggest something about the subjective nature of the human condition? ... that we're all "creatures of faith?"

Here's the thing. My opinion has no bearing on whether or not you know what you are talking about. But, unless you can establish that you DO know what you are talking about, I have no reason to accept that you do. In short I refuse to accept on faith that you know waht you are tlking about, I will need something to back up that claim. If you can give something to convince me that you know what you are talking about, I would not be accepting that calim on faith. I would be accepting it on the wieght of whatever you used to convince me.

Do you see the difference?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

It looks like your comment went "Woosh", right over his head, though. And yet what if you people are dead wrong about my assessments, where does that put you in your scientific method of inquiry? Would it be any different than a matter of faith on your part? I don't see why it shouldn't. Therefore I would suggest to you that it works both ways and, that in order to do so, it has to encompass the full range of "understanding" which exists in between.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet what if you people are dead wrong about my assessments, where does that put you in your method of scientific inquiry? Would it be any different than a matter of faith on your part? I don't see why it shouldn't. Therefore I would say to you that it works both ways and, that in order to do so, it has to encompass the full range of "understanding" which exists in between.

We can play 'what i'f all day long. What if we are all wrong and Odin won't send the Valkyries to bring us to Vallhalla because we never proved ourselves in battle? What then, huh?

Can logic and reason be wrong? Can one look only at provable facts and come to an erroneous conclusion? Absolutely, but I like my odds of being right about things much better when I stick with facts rather than "faith" simply because when I make a decision based on reason I have SOMETHING real to back it up.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Here's the thing. My opinion has no bearing on whether or not you know what you are talking about. But, unless you can establish that you DO know what you are talking about, I have no reason to accept that you do. In short I refuse to accept on faith that you know waht you are tlking about, I will need something to back up that claim. If you can give something to convince me that you know what you are talking about, I would not be accepting that calim on faith. I would be accepting it on the wieght of whatever you used to convince me.

Do you see the difference? Your opinion has no bearing on the matter? Then by all means, don't bother to reply.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Your opinion has no bearing on the matter? Then by all means, don't bother to reply.

You obviously don't see the difference. You either know what you are talkinga bout or you do not. My opinion has nothing to do with that objective fact. It only bears on whether I have figured out whether or know you know what you are talking about, not on the fact itself.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

We can play 'what i'f all day long. What if we are all wrong and Odin won't send the Valkyries to bring us to Vallhalla because we never proved ourselves in battle? What then, huh?The minute you open your mouth it becomes your opinion. Sorry. :p


Can logic and reason be wrong? Can one look only at provable facts and come to an erroneous conclusion? Absolutely, but I like my odds of being right about things much better when I stick with facts rather than "faith" simply because when I make a decision based on reason I have SOMETHING real to back it up. Yes, and in the meantime I'll just stick with what I know. ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The minute you open your mouth it becomes your opinion. Sorry. :p

You apparently have a very different definition of opinion than most people. I am currently drinking a glass of Iced Tea. If I say "Iced Tea tastes good" I have stated an opinion. If I say "Iced Tea is a liquid" I have stated a fact.


Yes, and in the meantime I'll just stick with what I know. ;)

As will I.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

You obviously don't see the difference. You either know what you are talkinga bout or you do not. My opinion has nothing to do with that objective fact. It only bears on whether I have figured out whether or know you know what you are talking about, not on the fact itself. And yet you people continue to disagree with me as if your disagreement has nothing to do with faith which, I'm afraid it does. ;)

So, you can continue to stress that faith only exists outside the realm of knowing or, that faith is "relative" and exists "within" the realm of knowing. Otherwise you're just using it as an excuse to say people are wrong. And I don't like it!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

You apparently have a very different definition of opinion than most people. I am currently drinking a glass of Iced Tea. If I say "Iced Tea tastes good" I have stated an opinion. If I say "Iced Tea is a liquid" I have stated a fact.And people used to state "the fact" that the world was flat as well. :p

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And people used to state "the fact" that the world was flat as well. :p

yes, it was a flawed conclusion based on the limited facts available. As more facts became available, the conclusion changed. As I said, logic and reasoning are not foolproof (garbage in, garbage out), but they are helluva lot more reliable thatn just picking a belief and running with it, which is what faith basically is.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

yes, it was a flawed conclusion based on the limited facts available. As more facts became available, the conclusion changed. As I said, logic and reasoning are not foolproof (garbage in, garbage out), but they are helluva lot more reliable thatn just picking a belief and running with it, which is what faith basically is. Logic and reasoning can be used within the context of anything, right or wrong. Besides, there's a difference between "having" faith in something and "putting" your faith into something ... where the one is "passive" and goes along for the ride -- "unquestionably" -- and the other is "active" in the establishment of the truth, and questions what it knows. ;)

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If by chance they were able to write the Bible, so that it was completely literal and hence verifiable -- which isn't to say it isn't already, i.e., in the spiriual sense -- is this the only way you would accept it? Because if it is, I'm afraid you would have accepted nothing, except that which is obvious. In which case I would suggest there's not much point in reading it, except perhaps like a dictionary, and I honestly don't think it was intended that way.I am not looking for total verifiability in a holy book. That is an extreme that I don't think any book can live up to.

Rather, I would settle for the other extreme - non-disprovability. I want my holy book to not be at odds with observable facts. I want a book to begin with "In the beginning there was nothing, and then there was a burst of light, and after many many years the light cooled and became as stone and water, and after many many years plants grew, and after many many years animals and humans grew" instead of "In the beginning all this stuff happened, and six days later there were people." Heck, I'd prefer a holy book that didn't have a Genesis 1 analogue at all, and just started where Genesis 2 does.

I don't require a holy book to tell me all the facts. But I do require one that doesn't tell me any lies.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth
I am not looking for total verifiability in a holy book. That is an extreme that I don't think any book can live up to.

Rather, I would settle for the other extreme - non-disprovability. I want my holy book to not be at odds with observable facts. I want a book to begin with "In the beginning there was nothing, and then there was a burst of light, and after many many years the light cooled and became as stone and water, and after many many years plants grew, and after many many years animals and humans grew" instead of "In the beginning all this stuff happened, and six days later there were people." Heck, I'd prefer a holy book that didn't have a Genesis 1 analogue at all, and just started where Genesis 2 does.

I don't require a holy book to tell me all the facts. But I do require one that doesn't tell me any lies. And yet what are six days to an Eternal God? Maybe six days to God is the equivalent of six billion years? In which case maybe the focus is on what the number six signifies? For example if you take six pennies which are equal in diameter, and placed them in a circle so that each penny touched another penny, you would have precisely enough room to place a seventh penny in the center. Sort of like the picture below, except the seventh penny would be placed in the center. In which case maybe it's illustrating the universal relationship between the numbers 6 and 7?

http://www.dionysus.org/7_colors.gif

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So in this sense "faithful" must coincide with the development and/or acceptance of "the truth." In which case I would suggest there is such a thing as "rational faith," as opposed to "blind faith" which, is inherently false because it isn't based upon the acceptance of anything. In other words there's a difference in going about it in a "rational manner" and being gullible.No, having faith doesn't mean accepting the truth, having faith means accepting something AS the truth, whether it is or not. Thing is, you don't know, which is why it always requires "a leap of faith", a leap across the gap between what you know and what you don't or can't know.

And what you're trying to do here once again, twisting the meaning of words and expressions, isn't going to help you.

Blind faith does require acceptance of something, in fact, it wouldn't be faith if you didn't accept it, because in that case you would be skeptical. The only difference between rational faith and blind faith is that in the latter case you're just believing it straight up, while in the former you've at least thought about it first.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet you people continue to disagree with me as if your disagreement has nothing to do with faith which, I'm afraid it does. ;)

So, you can continue to stress that faith only exists outside the realm of knowing or, that faith is "relative" and exists "within" the realm of knowing. Otherwise you're just using it as an excuse to say people are wrong. And I don't like it!We don't disagree with your belief because you are the one preaching about it, we disagree with it because you state it as being fact and have no way to back up those claims. You are in essence, "full of it", and expect us to believe what you are saying because you assert that it is the truth.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. As skeptics, we put our trust (not faith) in proven things. Things that have been shown to be real and true, and that don't require believing in something that could turn out to be all a big lie, regardless of whether we think it will or not. In other words, there is no "faith" in "knowledge", since the two are mutually exclusive. Faith is believeing something to be true when you don't know it's true or false.

So yes, our disagreement has to do with faith, your faith, which you are insisting isn't faith but fact. So show us proof of this fact and we will stop disagreeing. But if you continue to dance around and ignore the questions we ask you, expect to be met with skepticism and be told you are wrong for stating that your theory is the truth.

[Dancing David]

Oh o o o o

more pretty pictures!

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet what are six days to an Eternal God?
Irrelevant. The book's not written for God's enlightenment; it's written for man's.

Maybe six days to God is the equivalent of six billion years?No. God's not that prone to procrastination. If He were, then He wouldn't mind if we were a few days late in our repentance - in other words, He'd let us repent after we were dead, and Hell would be empty and useless.

And your numerology, although colorful, is utterly uninteresting.

[MRC_Hans]

Six days/six million years, sorry but that does not fly. If life was created as is, then it must have been done in a few days. Look around you and see the ecosystems and food chains. None of these could have waited around half-made for any amount of time.

It is either literal genesis (=six days) or evolution. Or, you might go with ID, it can work out logically too.

Hans

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet what are six days to an Eternal God? Maybe six days to God is the equivalent of six billion years?
And if God does not exist, it does not really matter to contemplate the answer to those kind of questions with much pertinacity.

In which case maybe the focus is on what the number six signifies? For example if you take six pennies which are equal in diameter, and placed them in a circle so that each penny touched another penny, you would have precisely enough room to place a seventh penny in the center. Sort of like the picture below, except the seventh penny would be placed in the center. In which case maybe it's illustrating the universal relationship between the numbers 6 and 7?
I think you are going to far to suggest there is a relationship between 6 and 7, I think its more likely there is a mathematical relationship between equidistant circular objects of equal radius.

I suspect you are seeing "magic", where it does not exist.

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by exarch

Faith is believeing something to be true when you don't know it's true or false.


Interesting subject here. Many religious people understand that their religious beliefs rest on faith, yet are rational enough to realize that this involves a leap of logic towards a belief that is unsupported. What do you think would account for the desire to make the "leap of faith" (where religion is concerned)?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
Interesting subject here. Many religious people understand that their religious beliefs rest on faith, yet are rational enough to realize that this involves a leap of logic towards a belief that is unsupported. What do you think would account for the desire to make the "leap of faith" (where religion is concerned)?
From what I've noticed, some folks try to differenciate between conventional "faith" (belief in something without evidence) and "religious faith" (usually defined as "acceptance of as your god and creator").

Oh well, I know how little semantics debates accomplish :p

Having never been religious, I dont know what would account for people's religious convictions outside of my immediate thought: The belief in one religion (as opposed to all the other equally plausible - or more to the point [i]implausible - religions) was drilled into their heads at an age where they were young and impressionable.

As for the folks who grow to change their religion later on in life, I wouldnt understand that. There seems to be no way to (coherently/rationally) defend belief in the supernatural.

I read a book called "case for faith", and it was quite interesting. Its primary arguments consisted of "science cant prove everything" (obviously, science cannot prove the existence of things which are not real... that arguement will only persuade the gullible folks), the Lord/Liar/Lunatic (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#LLL)argument, a misunderstanding of connotation of "simplest explanation" (Occam's Razor), look how accurate the bible is, belief makes people feel good, and a list of other "arguments" which have been throughly debunked.

Until I see some actual reasoning behind belief in god(s) and devils and djinns and angels, I agree with you on this one: I'm totally in the dark.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by exarch

We don't disagree with your belief because you are the one preaching about it, we disagree with it because you state it as being fact and have no way to back up those claims. You are in essence, "full of it", and expect us to believe what you are saying because you assert that it is the truth.Either I'm lying about it or I'm not. So which do you wish to "believe?" :D

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. As skeptics, we put our trust (not faith) in proven things. Things that have been shown to be real and true, and that don't require believing in something that could turn out to be all a big lie, regardless of whether we think it will or not. In other words, there is no "faith" in "knowledge", since the two are mutually exclusive. Faith is believeing something to be true when you don't know it's true or false."Trust" is synonymous with faith by the way. Look it up!


So yes, our disagreement has to do with faith, your faith, which you are insisting isn't faith but fact. So show us proof of this fact and we will stop disagreeing. But if you continue to dance around and ignore the questions we ask you, expect to be met with skepticism and be told you are wrong for stating that your theory is the truth. There you go again, insisting that my faith says this is so, as if there were no grounds for me to believe. However, whether I can prove it to you or not, if my theory is correct, what does that suggest about you and the nature of "your" faith?

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Either I'm lying about it or I'm not. So which do you wish to "believe?" :DWell, either the barbie doll on the moon has a red dress or she doesn't, which is it?
Fact of the matter is that I don't know whether what you are saying is the truth or not, and I will probably never know, because the things you speak of (spirits, souls, god, ...) will probably never be seen.
So I repeat what I've said before: show us proof of what you are stating as fact here, and we will respond to you with the praise you should get, but continue to falsely claim to have the truth, and you will be met with further questioning and skepticism. Skepticism not only of your theory, but of your assertion that it is the truth

"Trust" is synonymous with faith by the way. Look it up!Well, you're lying again:Trust:
1 a : assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something
b : one in which confidence is placed
2 a : dependence on something future or contingent : HOPE
b : reliance on future payment for property (as merchandise) delivered : CREDIT
3 a : a property interest held by one person for the benefit of another
b : a combination of firms or corporations formed by a legal agreement; especially : one that reduces or threatens to reduce competition
4 archaic : TRUSTWORTHINESS
5 a (1) : a charge or duty imposed in faith or confidence or as a condition of some relationship (2) : something committed or entrusted to one to be used or cared for in the interest of another
b : responsible charge or office
c : CARE, CUSTODY Only one of 10 explanations even mentions the word faith ...Faith:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs... and trust here is mentioned in combination with belief, or as complete (blind?) trust.

I looked it up:
You're full of it, you weren't speaking the truth. I don't trust you any more, you are being untruthful, and as part of your track record of stating assumptions as facts, this is once again harming your credibility and trustworthyness.

There you go again, insisting that my faith says this is so, as if there were no grounds for me to believe. However, whether I can prove it to you or not, if my theory is correct, what does that suggest about you and the nature of "your" faith? Well, I have asked you numerous times what your grounds are to believe what you believe. I'm merely suggesting that simply because those reasons are grounds for you to believe, doesn't mean they're also grounds for us and everyone else to assume it is the truth.
What it says is that I have no faith. I am skeptical of your "facts and refuse to allow you to call them facts until you show us the proof that clearly shows they're facts".

Answer this very simple question Iacchus:
Why do you believe what you believe? What has convinced you it is the truth?

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet what are six days to an Eternal God? Maybe six days to God is the equivalent of six billion years? In which case maybe the focus is on what the number six signifies? For example if you take six pennies which are equal in diameter, and placed them in a circle so that each penny touched another penny, you would have precisely enough room to place a seventh penny in the center. Sort of like the picture below, except the seventh penny would be placed in the center. In which case maybe it's illustrating the universal relationship between the numbers 6 and 7?

http://www.dionysus.org/7_colors.gifHow terribly two-dimensional of god. Surely, he would have found much more symbolism in the number 13 then, or any of the in nature observable three dimensional molecular structures.

Two dimensional magic charts are so 2000 years ago.