Before The Common Era.

chuck schmidt · January 20, 2010

So secular humanism isn't a religion, then.

Of course it is. What didn't I argue with? Nothing serious I hope. LOL

chuck schmidt · January 20, 2010

A logical argument would follow a certain route from beginning to end. For instance: The Bible is true because some of the prophesies in it have come true.

Now that argument may not be true (and isn't, to my mind, prophecies are either vague, or in fact written after the fact)....

Haven't studied them, have you? rotflmao

Shwa · January 20, 2010

I dunno. Is there a quantitative or qualitative difference between my thought experiment and any other form of faith?

But of course! But it rests on your ability to prove that what you assert is true starting with the idea whether you truly believe what you claim to believe. Bible thumpers provide ample evidence that they believe in what they claim to believe in. Can you do the same?

GostHacked · January 20, 2010

But of course! But it rests on your ability to prove that what you assert is true starting with the idea whether you truly believe what you claim to believe.

So faith is the ability to believe in something without evidence

Bible thumpers provide ample evidence that they believe in what they claim to believe in. Can you do the same?

Actually they don't have as much evidence as you say they do.

Some questions for you.

How many versions of the bible are there?

What are the fundamental differences between these bibles or books of faiths.

Which version of the bible is correct?

Does making the claim that the bible is the word of god make it so?

Why do people put their faith in a certain book and disregard all the rest?

What makes them think that their faith is the correct one?

This should be a good enough start.

GostHacked · January 20, 2010

Haven't studied them, have you? rotflmao

You may want to study them before laughing at someone else who has not either.

Michael Hardner · January 20, 2010

Of course it is. What didn't I argue with? Nothing serious I hope. LOL

Here's the slow-mo replay of what we said:

MH: Absence of such beliefs is an absence of religion, I think. And I think most people would agree that those with no religion, have no religion.
CS: Gee, can't argue with that.

MH: So secular humanism isn't a religion, then.

CS: Of course it is. What didn't I argue with? Nothing serious I hope. LOL

GostHacked · January 20, 2010

Here's the slow-mo replay of what we said:

Good catch Hardner. I had read that bit a few times and I knew something was not right.

Michael Hardner · January 20, 2010

Good catch Hardner. I had read that bit a few times and I knew something was not right.

We now have slo-mo. I will work on reverse angle and field-level cameras next !

GostHacked · January 20, 2010

We now have slo-mo. I will work on reverse angle and field-level cameras next !

Sweet, make sure you got the new steady-cam technology. Can we do it in 3d as well??

Michael Hardner · January 20, 2010

Sweet, make sure you got the new steady-cam technology. Can we do it in 3d as well??

Sure. Here's a view from the right side:

|

|

|

|

|

ToadBrother · January 20, 2010

But of course! But it rests on your ability to prove that what you assert is true starting with the idea whether you truly believe what you claim to believe. Bible thumpers provide ample evidence that they believe in what they claim to believe in. Can you do the same?

Why is whether I believe it's true or not the least been important?

Shwa · January 20, 2010

Why is whether I believe it's true or not the least been important?

Because it is your assertion, not mine.

ToadBrother · January 21, 2010

Because it is your assertion, not mine.

But why is it's truth important or not? I mean, it could be true, right? Just because I don't believe it, and no one believes it, seems rather besides the point. There's no way you can prove it false, so therefore it's a potential truth.

Shwa · January 21, 2010

But why is it's truth important or not? I mean, it could be true, right? Just because I don't believe it, and no one believes it, seems rather besides the point. There's no way you can prove it false, so therefore it's a potential truth.

You are making an abstract statement and expecting others to validate/invalidate it for you even though you don't believe it yourself. Hmmmm... That has more to do with absurdity than truth. Lacking the conviction of your own idea is hardly a good way to try and convince others. In a way, it's kind of phoney.

GostHacked · January 21, 2010

But why is it's truth important or not? I mean, it could be true, right? Just because I don't believe it, and no one believes it, seems rather besides the point. There's no way you can prove it false, so therefore it's a potential truth.

And this is the exact kind of logic we see from the majority of religious followers. How can anyone disprove a god when there is simply no evidence for it. And I don't think we can use the bible as any kind of proof. Simply because it was an oral account for centuries before it was actually written down. And since then it has been revised and revised, by man.

The rest of this post is meant for Shwa....

L Ron Hubbard wrote a book, and now has many followers. Does it make the information in the book true or factual in any way? Claiming he is the voice for the visitors that will eventually help us in our thetanness? To many Scientology is a crack pot cult for the Hollywood people. Hubbard could claim that god gave him insight and the information needed to write his book, but that might result in him ending up in a mental health facility with all the rest of the crackpots who claim to be or speak for god or Jesus.

Shwa

You are making an abstract statement and expecting others to validate/invalidate it for you even though you don't believe it yourself. Hmmmm... That has more to do with absurdity than truth. Lacking the conviction of your own idea is hardly a good way to try and convince others. In a way, it's kind of phoney.

Nothing more abstract than a god we have no way of proving or disproving if he actually exists. The bible is not proof that god exists. The bible proves that a story exists about a god. But weather it is factual or not is still up in the air.

Shwa · January 21, 2010

Nothing more abstract than a god we have no way of proving or disproving if he actually exists. The bible is not proof that god exists. The bible proves that a story exists about a god. But weather it is factual or not is still up in the air.

No, the issue is much different. Did Ron L Hubbard actually believe in what he claimed? That is the test. In his case he wrote books and created a religion. At least with Hubbard he had the audacity to put his claims 'out there.' So did the Urantians. :lol:

Now you claim that the Bible is no proof that God exists and you seem convinced of it. And it appears that Mr. Schmidt is claiming that faith is a form of knowledge and he seems convinced of his claim. But all we have seen thus far is a lot of posturing. When does the real debate take place? Or can it?

BTW - have to be careful about dismissing myths. I recall reading one essay in a physics history book that showed that some early Greek hero myths were actually constructed as marine navigational tools. Currently I am in the middle of Levi-Straus' 'The Raw and the Cooked' and he is making a very good case for myth-as-medium for carrying underlying cultural messages - cultural truths if you will and this capacity exists within the fundamental structures of the human mind. Very cool stuff!

And will 'Mein Kampf' go through enough revisions so that one day Hitler cannot be proven to exist?

GostHacked · January 21, 2010

No, the issue is much different. Did Ron L Hubbard actually believe in what he claimed? That is the test. In his case he wrote books and created a religion. At least with Hubbard he had the audacity to put his claims 'out there.' So did the Urantians.

No, him believing in it is irrelevant. His followers do believe it. Weather or not Hubbard believed in it, does not make it factually true whatsoever. Yes the whole scientology religion is a sham. Hubbard even said it himself.

Here is the thing: Can you disprove what Hubbard claims in his 'religious' text? How can you disprove it? Why can you disprove it? Why should we treat Hubbard's book and the Urantia book differently from the bible?

If I write a book and claim god told me to write it. How would you falsify it?

Now you claim that the Bible is no proof that God exists and you seem convinced of it. And it appears that Mr. Schmidt is claiming that faith is a form of knowledge and he seems convinced of his claim. But all we have seen thus far is a lot of posturing. When does the real debate take place? Or can it?

Faith is not knowledge. That is a difference you both should understand.

And will 'Mein Kampf' go through enough revisions so that one day Hitler cannot be proven to exist?

Absolutely not. History needs to be available to those who want to learn about it and learn from it. We know for a fact that a mortal man had written the book. There is no divine intervention in Mein Kampf's existence.

Edited January 21, 2010 by GostHacked

Shwa · January 21, 2010

Faith is not knowledge. That is a difference you both should understand.

Sorry, I should have said 'raised faith into the realm of knowledge.' Subtle difference.

I read Mr. Schmidt's assertion is that the "knowledge" of the existence of "God" requires a form of "faith" and the "proof" is in the faithful. Such faith is expressed in the experiences of the subjects of Biblical stories which, I believe, was written pre-science.

Secondly, there is another assertion that you will have proof of God by "his" works, and one poster, c.r I believe states that 'faith without works is dead' which I would interpret to mean that faith alone - in thought form - is not really the form of faith that is required for the knowledge of God, but the required form of faith that has some sort of active component which is described in biblical stories as acts and deeds.

So how do you deal with faith in this way? Is it dismissed outright or is there some sort of scientific test that can be applied?

For instance:

And will 'Mein Kampf' go through enough revisions so that one day Hitler cannot be proven to exist?

Absolutely not.

You sound convinced. Do you actually "know" this or are you basing your assertion of "absolutely not" on some sort of faith - i.e. in historical processes, in a faith of people to keep the records properly, etc.?

GostHacked · January 21, 2010

Sorry, I should have said 'raised faith into the realm of knowledge.' Subtle difference.

Sublte, but not much of a difference to really matter. The 'knowledge' is still based on faith which is subjective to the person who has the faith.

Knowledge is truth no matter what view or faith you hold. You can say and believe the world is flat, but we know that is false because it can be tested and proven beyond a doubt. Faith can never (from what I can tell) move into the realm of knowledge because it cannot be tested or falsified in any manner. Faith is subjective to the person holding the view.

I read Mr. Schmidt's assertion is that the "knowledge" of the existence of "God" requires a form of "faith" and the "proof" is in the faithful. Such faith is expressed in the experiences of the subjects of Biblical stories which, I believe, was written pre-science.

Centuries of oral accounts, then put to paper which was even revised again and again through the ages. How much faith do you put into this book if the current version(s) of story really might not reflect the original? How much change and revision has this book gone through over the centuries?

Secondly, there is another assertion that you will have proof of God by "his" works, and one poster, c.r I believe states that 'faith without works is dead' which I would interpret to mean that faith alone - in thought form - is not really the form of faith that is required for the knowledge of God, but the required form of faith that has some sort of active component which is described in biblical stories as acts and deeds.

In order for things to come into the realm of knowledge it would have to be something that is tangible/testable to another observer.

So how do you deal with faith in this way? Is it dismissed outright or is there some sort of scientific test that can be applied?

If we had some way of testing this, it would have been done by now.

For instance:
You sound convinced. Do you actually "know" this or are you basing your assertion of "absolutely not" on some sort of faith - i.e. in historical processes, in a faith of people to keep the records properly, etc.?

The bible has gone through more revisions in the time that Mein Kampf has been out and published. There has not been one single revision of Mein Kampf since the book was first published. Sure it has been converted to many languages since then but the book remains the same. That is enough proof for me. Not only that Mein Kampf was written by Hitler himself. It is important to keep this book as it is for eternity so we can learn and understand how bad Hitler actually was. You stay closer to the truth when you don't constantly and periodically revise a book. If centuries down the road Mein Kampf is changed, it will be done by people who are so distanced by time, and disconnected from WWII and Nazi Germany that whatever they write will not reflect this 'truth' anymore.

ToadBrother · January 21, 2010

You are making an abstract statement and expecting others to validate/invalidate it for you even though you don't believe it yourself. Hmmmm... That has more to do with absurdity than truth. Lacking the conviction of your own idea is hardly a good way to try and convince others. In a way, it's kind of phoney.

Indeed, it's completely phoney, and yet, epistemologically, it is pretty much the equivalent of "there is a God" or "Thor is the lord of thunder".

Shwa · January 22, 2010

Indeed, it's completely phoney, and yet, epistemologically, it is pretty much the equivalent of "there is a God" or "Thor is the lord of thunder".

Not the equivalent at all. You are comparing things of which people are/were convinced about whereas not even you are convinced of your own assertion.

Shwa · January 22, 2010

Knowledge is truth...Faith is subjective to the person holding the view.

In order for things to come into the realm of knowledge it would have to be something that is tangible/testable to another observer.

So in other words, you are saying that: knowledge is objective truth and only objective truth can be knowledge. Would you agree with this statement?

Oleg Bach · January 22, 2010

It contemptueous and historically rude to accept this grandest of revisionism. Imagine - a few bearded acedemics who believe that education and no belief in God or respect for tradtion makes them some sort of super minds. 2000 years of tradition and along comes some red wine sipping twit who believes he is brighter and more enlightened than all that came before him. Millions of highly intelligent people ...correction - billions of predecessors had no problem uttering the words Before Christ. Western society and what made it free was based on the first teachings of this great prophet..THEN along comes the ungrateful little buggers who forget that if it was not for the early and original teachings of Christ there would be no science and no acedemia at all!

GostHacked · January 22, 2010

So in other words, you are saying that: knowledge is objective truth and only objective truth can be knowledge. Would you agree with this statement?

Knowledge is objective for the most part. I agree with it, even though I think you are trying to corner me on this here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Objectivity and subjectivity
In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'. A subjective fact is one that is only true under certain conditions, at certain times, in certain places, or for certain people.

In the end I agree with the statement.

The very term objectivity is in question around the world; many scholars have now concluded the proper term lies closer to a collective subjectivity on what we all can agree to be independent of any one person's opinion or perspective.

Now part of the article here states that there is a collective subjective that can be considered a truth, but it does not seem to be universal. Not everyone on earth says God exists. Everyone can say with 100% conviction that the earth is round.

The earth being round is objective and true to everyone regardless of who and what they are. This is knowledge because it is universal and cannot be proven wrong in any way. The earth is round objectively and without doubt. An absolute truth.

Oleg Bach · January 22, 2010

Now that we know that the earth is round - we can go on to find out if the universe is also round. Or whether it is a collection of massive bubbles - or if it has an end..or if eternity and distance are enclosed..and beyond there is the great nothing? In time we might find that the earth is not round - that it is an elongated interdimensional piece of a thousand earths stretching in a tangle mass ...in time reality will be redefined. I really don't know a lot about quantum mechanics...only having read Hawkins Brief History Of Time - but I did notice that some of the few things mentioned by Jesus Christ regarding time are very similar to what Hawkings mentions..We believe that some how we have progressed and the disposal of a God is a neccesary part of human evolution...no one knows if that is true or not...So it's not so much whether God exists but whether it is best to believe or not - personally - why not beleive - how can it hurt? People want miracles to be displayed in order to justify the existance of eternal intelligence - Look at where we are - We are the miracle..I need no proof that the design is intelligent.