So, suppose whatever you beilieve was absolutely proven to be wrong...
Examples:
For christians: Jesus' body is found and irrefutably proven to be authentic.
For athiests: God shows up, chats with you for a while, and does a miracle or two to prove Himself.
Et cetera.
Would you give up your belief? Believe anyway? Go insane? Ignore the evidence?
Now, I know you'd like to say, "Sure, I'd change my beilief. My views are based soley on concrete evidence, and if the evidence ever changes (which it won't) I could easily change my belief as well".
But would you really be able to do that?
Now, I can only speak for myself and I can only hope you take my word for it - because there is no other way. You've asked a question and then framed it within a circular arguement that suggests to me that you won't take my word for it, but I will give it a try.
It has happened on several occasions in my life that I have had to and have changed my beliefs about things, and in some cases - entire belief systems. For example, I once held the opinion that a college education was only valuable for the piece of paper you receive at the end - that there were odds on not much you would gain in the way of knowledge if you were already an ardent researcher. But I've witnessed in my life that this is not the case. Networking with people in your very field, gaining trusts and access is very valuable - as is the playing together of joined minds to work on difficult situations. But that is just one example and rather trite I'd suppose when one compares it to God questions. But psychological practice in clinical environments proves daily that although difficult, it is possible to change your beliefs or belief systems. If we need a Biblical example for this (and I'm no Christian btw), we have Saul travelling on the road to Damascus becoming a convert to Christianity.
I base my beliefs, mainly, on observation and logical reasoning.
If someone presents reliable evidence to me that God exists, or not, that we all live in a Matrix, that we were created by aliens and left to fend for ourselves, or that we were beamed into the future to survive the total destruction of a past civilisation, I'll modify my beliefs accordingly and carry on with my life.
Whatever the reality is, I can't change it simply by believing or disbelieving it, so I don't - and won't lose any sleep over it.
| GSIS wrote: |
I base my beliefs, mainly, on observation and logical reasoning.
If someone presents reliable evidence to me that God exists, or not, that we all live in a Matrix, that we were created by aliens and left to fend for ourselves, or that we were beamed into the future to survive the total destruction of a past civilisation, I'll modify my beliefs accordingly and carry on with my life.
Whatever the reality is, I can't change it simply by believing or disbelieving it, so I don't - and won't lose any sleep over it. |
Amen.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
Now, I know you'd like to say, "Sure, I'd change my beilief. My views are based soley on concrete evidence, and if the evidence ever changes (which it won't) I could easily change my belief as well".
But would you really be able to do that? |
Yes. Of course. This really isn't that challenging a question.
It may not be as easy as *snap* that if it's a core belief that's being completely upturned... but that wouldn't be because i wouldn't want to, it would be because it's a core belief that's being completely upturned. For example, if you suddenly proved to me that it's possible to travel faster than light, or that God exists, it would take me a long time to wrap my head around those ideas simply because they change everything i know about the universe. But that wouldn't be a case of me resisting the change, it would be a case of me having to relearn everything i know... and that takes time.by the way, I'm a Christian and my belief is based solely in faith...
when i was a middle schooler i believe in the phrase "To see is to believe"
but this belief changed when i was "enlightened"... 
that is to say i was told of the path that you dont have to believe all things
that you see and you should not forsake all things that you don't see..
one example is the air.. can you see where the air came from? or where it is going?
i bet you don't.. neither do i... but we believe there is air because we can feel it's presence...
jah blez!
that's all folks! I don't have concrete beliefs on a lot of issues, because there aren't completely solid reasons to believe in many things that are controversial (which I guess is why they're controversial in the first place). If one of the ideas I do believe strongly in was proven wrong I'd change my views. Since the op seemed to be focusing on religion I'll mention that I'm a deist, but I go back and forth between it and atheism. Were any organized religion ever proven "right," I'd stop being a desit/atheist though.
I figure, reguardless of what I beleive - what is, IS.
if what I beleive helps me as an individual, if it makes me
a better person, makes my life more fullfilling, makes the
seeming randomness and chaos of this physical life more
organized, purposeful, meaningful.............
then I don't see why I should change it, even if what I beleive isn't what IS.
I never say anything is TRUE - because everything could very well be an illusion...
instead I just say certain things are true for me.
well a belief does not have to be true to count as a belief, but I think that if it were to be proven wrong, then I think I would change my opinion. Then again, ti is also hard to say, religious beliefs can be a hard thing to change your mind about, so I don't know
Go insane... Deffinately go insane. I think everyone would go insane if God would pop up and teleport you into the playboy mansion 
And if Jezus' body would be found, i'd laugh at all those who believe :p with all respect ofcourse... But I don't believe in God, unless he pops up and haves a chat with me ofcourse... 
See, and Believe. Don't just take something for truth. If my beliefs were proven wrong I would switch accordingly if applicable. I'm not a closed conservative christian - I will try to modify my beliefs should there be irrefutable evidence of the existence of a god(s) which fully intereferes with our day to day lives, or if there was no gods at all.
I would like ask a follow up question to the topic above for anybody who says that they would change there mind.
What would it take to change you mind concerning the things you hold to most? Would it be a fallacy in your logic, a board to the head, a near death experience or the decision to live or die for your ideals?
"Turkeys don't get sucked into jet turbines"
Certainly. I guess I couldn't believe my eyes and think that I should go to the doctor for an examination. | socialoutcast wrote: |
I would like ask a follow up question to the topic above for anybody who says that they would change there mind.
What would it take to change you mind concerning the things you hold to most? Would it be a fallacy in your logic, a board to the head, a near death experience or the decision to live or die for your ideals? |
None of the above except the first - and even then if and only if it is something that i believe by virtue of logic alone.
The answer depends on how much evidence there was that had led me to that belief in the first place. If i had based that core belief on a lot of evidence, then it would take a lot of evidence to get me to change my mind. If i had based that core belief on very little evidence, then it wouldn't take much.
It's not really a complicated thing, you see. The only really tricky part is that simply realizing i was wrong about a core belief does not immediately rewire my brain and my entire view of the universe in order to suit the new belief - that takes time. But even though it might take me a while to succeed, i'd start trying to change the way i view the universe from the moment that i saw enough evidence to convince me that i should.So you say your logic is everything? Can this be said about all or most atheists?
| Quote: |
| If i had based that core belief on a lot of evidence, then it would take a lot of evidence to get me to change my mind. If i had based that core belief on very little evidence, then it wouldn't take much. |
I see your point here. By evidence you mean evidence that you can see or measure? Well, it looks to me like you're not claiming to know everything, 'cause that would be foolish. Even science cannot answer ALL of mans itching questions. And when we do learn something new it does indeed take time to work the new knowledge into a logical though. Often times I find myself wrestling with different ideas and weeding out the ones that just seem silly. The trick is to conjure up that "ultimate truth". So, can humans come up with that "ultimate truth" on our own, do we need help from other? | Quote: |
| What would it take to change you mind concerning the things you hold to most? Would it be a fallacy in your logic, a board to the head, a near death experience or the decision to live or die for your ideals? |
All humans have a flawed logic. To change your opinion you must understand this. As for the near death experience, I don't think that this would change my mind as your mind becomes delusional as it dreams and struggles to survive. Since I grew up in a Catholic family, I would expect that this delusion would have a Christian overtone. | {name here} wrote: |
| Quote: | | What would it take to change you mind concerning the things you hold to most? Would it be a fallacy in your logic, a board to the head, a near death experience or the decision to live or die for your ideals? |
All humans have a flawed logic. To change your opinion you must understand this. As for the near death experience, I don't think that this would change my mind as your mind becomes delusional as it dreams and struggles to survive. Since I grew up in a Catholic family, I would expect that this delusion would have a Christian overtone. |
It is true, humans are imperfect in their nature thus such a struggle to arrive at an ultimate truth on their own is difficult or even impossible. People need other people. It is as if we were made to depend on each other for the things we can can't do.
I think the near death experience is interesting because the mind has the ability to know when time is about to expire and can cause a person to reflect on what really matters in life.
Love God, love people, drink coffee | socialoutcast wrote: |
| So you say your logic is everything? Can this be said about all or most atheists? |
? No, of course not. On so many levels.
One, no, i do not say that logic is everything. But reason is the way i choose to decide what to believe, wherever it is possible to apply it.
Two... no? i also like mint chocolate chip ice cream. i don't imagine that can be said about all atheists either.
i'll tell you what can be said about all atheists, though. They don't believe in gods. That's about it, really.
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| I see your point here. By evidence you mean evidence that you can see or measure? |
No. Not all evidence is tangible or physical. But whenever evidence that can be intersubjectively verified exists, i'll choose that over the intangibles.
Let me see if i can put that in plain English: i think I Mother Earth ROCKS.
i have no physical evidence for this. i do not know what metrics one must measure, or what data one must correlate in order to determine whether one "rocks" or not. They're not the most famous band in the world. They don't have the most aggressive songs with the strongest beats. In short, i don't really have any tangible reason to say that they rock, or that they don't.
But when i put on Scenery and Fish, i feel that they rock. There is no doubt in my mind or my heart that they kick major ass.
However... if someone were to come along with a quantitative way to measure (or even an intersubjective qualitative way to compare) "rockness", and they were to show me using this evidence that I Mother Earth does not, in fact, rock... well then what could i do? i would have been proven wrong. It may take me a while for it to sink in, but there it is.
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| Well, it looks to me like you're not claiming to know everything, 'cause that would be foolish. Even science cannot answer ALL of mans itching questions. |
No, of course not. As i have said dozens of times on these forums, science is a very specific and precise "thing", designed for a only a very narrow purpose. Science, by definition, cannot answer everything. Even philosophy has its limits, although, admittedly, it's capable of far more than science (but then, as it goes, as soon as philosophy figures something out well enough for it to be quantized, it becomes a science, so...). And of course, pure logic can't really answer all that much at all.
i don't believe that these tools are the only way to determine the nature of the universe, but i do believe - for many and various reasons - that they are the best. That means that whenever you have the option of using them, you should. But when you can't it's futile and absurd to rely on them.
Again, for a real world example, if you have to choose which car will give you the best mileage, you can use very basic scientific methods to determine that - simply acquire the specs for each vehicle from trusted, independent sources (or, do the experiments yourself if you have the time and cash), and compare. That's using science (simplistic science, but science nonetheless - specifically, it's a meta-experiment). Why guess or rely on gut instincts or how i feel about the manufacturers or anything else? i have the option of using science, so i use it.
On the other hand, if i had to choose between two people which one of them i loved more... i can't really use any of those systems to do that. i have to use... intangibles. So i would. Using science or logic in this case would be simply idiotic.
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| The trick is to conjure up that "ultimate truth". So, can humans come up with that "ultimate truth" on our own, do we need help from other? |
Feh, this whole "ultimate truth" thing just goes right over my head. i'm a simple, limited, not-particularly-intellectually-gifted human being. i wouldn't be able to process even a portion of the data that goes zipping through those skinny little fibre-optic cables under my feet every day - and even that's just a nanoscopic fraction of the information out there in the universe around me.
i'm arrogant as all hell, sure - but i'm humble enough to admit that i just don't have the knowledge or the processing capacity to answer every question in the universe. If you were to ask me whether there might be life on or around Gliese 581c, i would have to answer with a shrug... and add that i really don't care. That question may be important to someone, sure, but not me - not until they're coming down in pods to replace or something anyway. The question may be fun to discuss, but i simply do not and cannot have access to the knowledge to answer it. And the answer has no relevance in my life, really. So... i don't really bother with it.
Similarly, questions like "what is beauty" are beyond my ken. In that case, i have all the knowledge i would need at my fingertips... but i simply do not have the processing capacity to know what to do with it. i'm too dumb. Someone else may figure out what beauty really is, but that's beyond me. And again, it doesn't really affect my life greatly; i know exactly who i think is beautiful. So, again, i don't really bother with the question.
This "ultimate truth" stuff... whoooooosh, right over my head. There's no way that i can figure out even something as relatively simple as human nature if i can't even figure out why "emo" is cool, so the "ultimate truth"? feh, it's all Greek to me. And it is not in my nature to try and conjure up answers to questions i can't even understand.Well let me ask you this: what would be the point in believing in something that's wrong?
seems like a waste of valueable life-time!
I would simply figure out the new evidence and what it means for myself and move on living my life.
I also think it is important to have you own beliefs, not tained by anyone else.
What is proof exactly?
I believe that nothing can be prooved indefinitely because how can you be sure its real, that its reality or that its really there at all.
The belief that nothing can be prooved is something that cant be disprooved 
I think if someone had a belief so strong then i doubt their belief would be faltered by something like apparent proof. I mean if Jesus's body was found then one could argue that God put the body there for a purpose and that its not really Jesus's body. All kinds of arguments like this could arise. I'd feel depressed at the dawning of this new truth. Quiet with new learning.
After that time has passed, I'd sit and think of how I'd go about killing this God/Alien/Science, or gaining its favor to bring me worldly riches. Not a joke.
The argument is all rather circular is it not?
If one believes strongly and there belief is proven wrong. then they couldn't passably believe anymore because then they would know. and knowing and believing are two very different things. of course then in a turn around you could start believing that that person is wrong. so really only those individuals with a loose concept or non literalistic mindset would actually change there ideals. while the orthodox and strict believers would just keep plugging away with challenges on the whole proof. besides putting myself into a really strict Christianity mindset if somebody presented me with carbon proof data of Jesus' body I would tell them that all science is made from Satan and this is his attempt to trick me into hell. or something along those lines. to a fanatic believer logic is useless because the "place sacred text here" tells me it has to be this way
and Ancient if god existed then he would still be omnipotent and would know what your thinking which would lead to some sort of horrible pain.....of course if it was aliens/science .. hell yeah I'm with you
| Deias wrote: |
The argument is all rather circular is it not?
If one believes strongly and there belief is proven wrong. then they couldn't passably believe anymore because then they would know. and knowing and believing are two very different things. of course then in a turn around you could start believing that that person is wrong. so really only those individuals with a loose concept or non literalistic mindset would actually change there ideals. while the orthodox and strict believers would just keep plugging away with challenges on the whole proof. besides putting myself into a really strict Christianity mindset if somebody presented me with carbon proof data of Jesus' body I would tell them that all science is made from Satan and this is his attempt to trick me into hell. or something along those lines. to a fanatic believer logic is useless because the "place sacred text here" tells me it has to be this way
and Ancient if god existed then he would still be omnipotent and would know what your thinking which would lead to some sort of horrible pain.....of course if it was aliens/science .. hell yeah I'm with you |
Yes but just because one would find Jesus' body dose not mean god, heaven, hell, or any godly magical things happened. It would only just prove one aspect of the whole picture. How could one prove that a body in a tomb be Jesus? Since many people were buried in tombs the body could belong to a guy named Jimbo or Bob. The only way I could accept the bible as a real thing would be if Jesus, God and Satin him self all appeared in front of me and gave me the knowledge that they all hold.
But since one aspect of the bible states that the world would end if Jesus were to come back.I don't think this needs an elaborate answer, the answer is definitely yes. If factual truthful data was presented to me in some way, aesthetic or otherwise, then I would definitely change my beliefs. It's the only logical answer to me. For me that is what I call progress, because I would obviously know that much more about the world around me.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
So, suppose whatever you beilieve was absolutely proven to be wrong...
Examples:
For christians: Jesus' body is found and irrefutably proven to be authentic.
For athiests: God shows up, chats with you for a while, and does a miracle or two to prove Himself.
Et cetera.
Would you give up your belief? Believe anyway? Go insane? Ignore the evidence?
Now, I know you'd like to say, "Sure, I'd change my beilief. My views are based soley on concrete evidence, and if the evidence ever changes (which it won't) I could easily change my belief as well".
But would you really be able to do that? |
Belief is a disease. Just look around and see the effects. God doesn't exist so your examples and question are without substance. I guess if you want to spend some talking about something, usually arguing, then it's good fodder. Maybe not. It's such a waste of time and brain cells. I actually feel it deadens the mind.
M | Indi wrote: |
| GSIS wrote: | I base my beliefs, mainly, on observation and logical reasoning.
If someone presents reliable evidence to me that God exists, or not, that we all live in a Matrix, that we were created by aliens and left to fend for ourselves, or that we were beamed into the future to survive the total destruction of a past civilisation, I'll modify my beliefs accordingly and carry on with my life.
Whatever the reality is, I can't change it simply by believing or disbelieving it, so I don't - and won't lose any sleep over it. |
Amen.
| ocalhoun wrote: | Now, I know you'd like to say, "Sure, I'd change my beilief. My views are based soley on concrete evidence, and if the evidence ever changes (which it won't) I could easily change my belief as well".
But would you really be able to do that? |
Yes. Of course. This really isn't that challenging a question.
It may not be as easy as *snap* that if it's a core belief that's being completely upturned... but that wouldn't be because i wouldn't want to, it would be because it's a core belief that's being completely upturned. For example, if you suddenly proved to me that it's possible to travel faster than light, or that God exists, it would take me a long time to wrap my head around those ideas simply because they change everything i know about the universe. But that wouldn't be a case of me resisting the change, it would be a case of me having to relearn everything i know... and that takes time. |
thats pretty true luckily for me I'm agnostic so i can wrap my mind around things pretty easily when proven to me. | ocalhoun wrote: |
So, suppose whatever you beilieve was absolutely proven to be wrong...
Examples:
For christians: Jesus' body is found and irrefutably proven to be authentic.
For athiests: God shows up, chats with you for a while, and does a miracle or two to prove Himself.
Et cetera.
Would you give up your belief? Believe anyway? Go insane? Ignore the evidence?
Now, I know you'd like to say, "Sure, I'd change my beilief. My views are based soley on concrete evidence, and if the evidence ever changes (which it won't) I could easily change my belief as well".
But would you really be able to do that? |
If there's evidence then theres no point in talking of belief, faith or hope... Its FACT!!!!!
yeah.. i believe in bantoo_4u...
in my opinion, a belief is something that we believe in our own.. affecting our day to day life...
and this belief molds us into something...
if our belief is a fact,, then it's not a belief anymore... as bantoo_4u said it.. it a fact
I m an agnostic, so I would accept the fact that is proven to me.
Well as far as religion goes, I don't think that you can really "prove it wrong" because even if you did, let's say, "prove" what Christianity says wrong, then you would still have Christians saying things like, "God wants us to believe in him with faith, so he planted that 'proof' that he doesn't exist and that 'proof' is actually wrong and just a test of our faith." That does sound a little extreme, but my point is that I don't think you can really prove any religion wrong. But I guess it would be possible to prove atheism wrong if God somehow showed up and either took away free will or talked to everyone so that it was indisputable that he exists.
If the belief is proven wrong then I don't see how you could still believe it.
Of course this is assuming that your belief is proven to be 100% false.
Example: If I believe that I am holding a quarter in my fist, open my hand to reveal an empty palm, to continue to believe a quarter is still there is asinine. However if I do not open my hand and you say that there is no quarter, I think I am entitled to continue to believe there is until the hand is opened.
Truth is a tricky subject as I am learning in my new philosophy classes | coeus wrote: |
If the belief is proven wrong then I don't see how you could still believe it.
Of course this is assuming that your belief is proven to be 100% false.
Example: If I believe that I am holding a quarter in my fist, open my hand to reveal an empty palm, to continue to believe a quarter is still there is asinine. |
Not necessarily. One could simply believe that the quarter was invisible and intangible. Or one could creatively reinterpret the definition of "quarter" to mean something with twenty-five cents' worth of value - not an actual Canadian (or whatever nationality) quarter, then argue that there is twenty-five cents' worth of minerals in the air in the pocket of their fist.
Don't underestimate the hoops that believers will jump through to hold on to a belief that is important to them. | Indi wrote: |
Not necessarily. One could simply believe that the quarter was invisible and intangible. Or one could creatively reinterpret the definition of "quarter" to mean something with twenty-five cents' worth of value - not an actual Canadian (or whatever nationality) quarter, then argue that there is twenty-five cents' worth of minerals in the air in the pocket of their fist.
Don't underestimate the hoops that believers will jump through to hold on to a belief that is important to them. |
Still retarded.The day that ANY belief is proven wrong or right is the day that chaos consumes the world and we fall into World War III, for the main reason that these petty arguments about religion will intensify with the results of new findings. But that's just what I think.
| Kaisonic wrote: |
| The day that ANY belief is proven wrong or right is the day that chaos consumes the world and we fall into World War III, for the main reason that these petty arguments about religion will intensify with the results of new findings. But that's just what I think. |
They would... and the world would be thrown into chaos, even if somehow it were proven that every religion was right, simply because it would mean that those other people and their beliefs were right all this time...
I don't believe in God... and I don't not believe in God. I won't be arrogant enough to say, "I'm not going to believe in God unless he shows himself to me," because that isn't going to happen (unless the thread topic were to take place.) However, if he did show himself to me, or whomever is pulling the strings (or simply no one at all), I would still lose sleep over it.
It would be a HUGE thing to me and to every person on the planet. I don't care if I don't have a faith in God, if he comes down here to play some WoW with me, that's a big thing and that leaves someone with some thinking to do. What conclusions I would come to, I can't tell you, because I'm not in that situation. I don't think I've been a wicked person since I've tried my best to be as good a person as I can be in my short time here... but yes. Things would change. | coeus wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | Not necessarily. One could simply believe that the quarter was invisible and intangible. Or one could creatively reinterpret the definition of "quarter" to mean something with twenty-five cents' worth of value - not an actual Canadian (or whatever nationality) quarter, then argue that there is twenty-five cents' worth of minerals in the air in the pocket of their fist.
Don't underestimate the hoops that believers will jump through to hold on to a belief that is important to them. |
Still retarded. |
Is it? Then perhaps a less hypothetical example is necessary.
Consider a religion, centuries old, founded based on a book that describes the nature of the universe - from creation to the day it ends.
Suppose that over the course of centuries, bit by bit, the book's take on things was found to be... lacking. What might the believers do?
Assuming they're retarded, as you suggest, they will probably find alternate interpretations for each of the failed sections. So, where the book describes the Earth as a fixed flat round disk covered by a black dome through which we can see glimpses of the glory beyond through holes called "stars"... after it's realized that the Earth is in fact round, they reinterpret the meaning of the passage, making the meaning of "round" more fuzzy so that it could be interpreted as spherical and so on.
As more and more sections are found to be... lacking... more and more of the book is reinterpreted in strange and peculiar ways. Eventually entire chapters are written off completely as allegorical.
Is it starting to become clear why this issue is something of real world importance today?It was stated that there was 100% proof of the belief being false, as in the hand opening revealing no quarter.
What you are suggesting is is bringing up questions about something important to a belief, while still not proving the belief false. Finding things 'lacking' is different from finding things 'false'. As long as the believers have a rational explination, or their beliefs allow for some leeway, I think their faith can still stand.
Obviously you are talking about the christian bible unless I am missing something here. In which case, you are bringing up 'lacking' evidence to suggest the bible is 100% false in all it teaches. It has parts that seem to talk about a flat Earth, and parts that don't. All the parts that do can either be attributed to the science of the time, or can be inturpted as not actually meaning a 'flat Earth' in the sense that you are thinking. The round more fuzzy argument doesn't stand. There is no hebrew word for 'sphere', thus 'round' suffices. I am not suggesting that there are no contradictions in the bible, oh there are. However even though the Bible was inspired by God, it was written by man, which means the big picture is there, but the details are not. Also, of course there is allegorical passages in the bible. Look at how Jesus teached, in parables (allegorical stories).
That said it will be impossible to 'show an empty palm' to any religious group. Christian example: given God's attributes it would be impossible to truly prove he doesn't exist. Found 'the missing link'? Well, someone planted them there, or God planted it there, or the creation story is allegorical. Found Jesus' Bones? Well, those arn't actually his bones, planted there to dispute the faith, or planted by Satan to confuse you, or Jesus resurrected and his body was later discarded for a heavenly one. To bring this back to the OP, at least in the Christian sense, I don't think you can prove it wrong.
| coeus wrote: |
| It was stated that there was 100% proof of the belief being false, as in the hand opening revealing no quarter. |
There is no such thing as 100% or absolute proof. That's simply impossible in reality.
That is why when someone who really wants to believe that there's a quarter in your hand is confronted with an empty palm, they can do the kind of dance i described. You can call them retarded, but they're right - at least insofar as it is true that the absence of the quarter does not necessarily imply that there is no quarter there. Sounds wacky, but it's true. It could be that everyone has been hypnotized to not see the quarter, or that some otherworldy being was projecting a screen to mask to the coin, and so on.
| coeus wrote: |
| What you are suggesting is is bringing up questions about something important to a belief, while still not proving the belief false. |
No, you're watering down my objections. ^_^ i am not talking about raising questions, i am talking about presenting evidence that the belief is false.
Consider this - it's a well-known pattern, which you will probably be able to recognize even without formal training: If someone's belief claims X and they're faced with evidence of not-X, how do they deal with the "dissonance" that is created? When a true believer is confronted with that situation, they must deny that it's evidence of not-X (unless they want to admit to being irrational). They will either redefine X, or dispute not-X - or both... and after they have done the best they can, if they still can't make the objection go completely away, they must fall back on admitting that it can maybe-possibly-potentially-theoretically-etc. be considered to raise questions about the belief, but they will still refuse to admit that it could be proof.
Now, with that pattern fresh in your mind, let's apply it in practice. If a text was inspired by the creator of the universe, then logically it must contain correct information about the universe, insofar as we are able to determine. If that text was written before some scientific fact was known, then it must still refer to the fact correctly, and not to what was believed before. If the text describes the universe as it was known at the time of writing - which we now know is incorrect - then that would be pretty conclusive proof that it was not written by someone with divine knowledge. Or would it? A true believer would be unable to admit that. They would either redefine the terms of the belief (redefining X) - for example, calling the claims of the book "allegory" - or they would dispute that it is actually proof against the belief (denying not-X) - for example, attempting to reinterpret the problematic claims in a way that makes them actually legit ("fuzzy round", anyone?). And when that fails, the final fall back is downplaying the proof - for example, dismissing the problems as issues with "details" that don't affect the "big picture".
Still sound retarded?
If what i am suggesting was not clear before, i will make it clear now. There is no possible way to completely disprove any belief, religious or otherwise. If someone wants to believe something badly enough, they will find a way to do so, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The more vague you make the belief, the easier it is to maintain it. And the more determined you are to maintain the belief, the more outrageous your defense of it will get. You call it retarded... but the irony was that the exact same methods i used to make those "retarded" objections, you used to defend the Bible.
| coeus wrote: |
| Finding things 'lacking' is different from finding things 'false'. As long as the believers have a rational explination, or their beliefs allow for some leeway, I think their faith can still stand. |
Which, in reality, means that as long as faith exists, people are free to believe whatever nonsense they choose to believe - because it is impossible to prove something absolutely false.
Say i created a religion that said the sky is just a big blanket over the Earth, and the creator of the universe lives in a castle on the other side of the sky. Pretend that i managed to get believers that really believed my story. Of course, eventually it comes to pass that we find out that my cosmology is nonsense, so what do the followers of my religion do?
They reinterpret, naturally. They say that when i said the sky was a blanket over the Earth, i was speaking allegorically, and that what i really meant when i said "the other side of the sky" was a different layer of reality... a "spiritual" layer. They make excuses when necessary, saying things like: the language that i was using didn't have a word for "dimension" or a way to express the idea of a "different layer of reality" that would make sense to the minds at the time.
Sound familiar? It should...
| coeus wrote: |
| Obviously you are talking about the christian bible unless I am missing something here. In which case, you are bringing up 'lacking' evidence to suggest the bible is 100% false in all it teaches. It has parts that seem to talk about a flat Earth, and parts that don't. All the parts that do can either be attributed to the science of the time, or can be inturpted as not actually meaning a 'flat Earth' in the sense that you are thinking. The round more fuzzy argument doesn't stand. There is no hebrew word for 'sphere', thus 'round' suffices. I am not suggesting that there are no contradictions in the bible, oh there are. However even though the Bible was inspired by God, it was written by man, which means the big picture is there, but the details are not. |
... see? ^_^
(For the record, your facts are almost all wrong. While it is true that the word used could mean either circle or sphere, there are dozens of ways that an idea of a sphere could have been clearly conveyed if that was the intention. Furthermore, you are ignoring the surrounding context. In one example, the text goes on to describe that the heavens are a tent or a curtain spread over the "circle/sphere". Not wrapped around. Spread over. Now, that's absurd for a sphere - if the apex of the tent is over the north pole, then the people at the south pole would be able to see out of the bottom of the tent (remember, we're talking about the ancient Israeli idea of a tent, so no bottom). And there are numerous other references that prove the flat-Earth perspective of the Bible, such as several mentions of the "ends" of the Earth, and being able to see phenomenon all over the Earth. And it is a fallacy to attribute any of the laughable claims of the Bible to the "science of the time" if it was being dictated by the creator of the universe.)
| coeus wrote: |
| Also, of course there is allegorical passages in the bible. Look at how Jesus teached, in parables (allegorical stories). |
Mm hm. ^_^ But when Jesus spoke in parable, he was quite clear about it (at least, as clear as he was about anything). Because, if you're free to choose whatever you want to be allegorical, then what's to stop someone from saying the whole story of Jesus was an allegory? Or the whole story of Moses? Or the whole story of Abraham? Or any of the bunch?
This is a good example of what i mean. If you're free to interpret the belief in any way you want - making any particular passage you choose to be allegorical, for example - then you will never get any proof that you're wrong. For example, the Bible is quite clear about the fact that the Earth is a flat disk with the heavens as a dome over it. The only way you can conclude otherwise is if you selectively interpret some parts as allegory and ignore others (you did both in your response). You call it retarded, yet it's exactly what you're doing, whether you want to admit it or not.I think you can prove something 100% false. We proved that the world is in fact NOT flat. All those who believe are false and would be retarded to believe otherwise.
----
I am not watering down anything, you didn't prove anything, you just went against the grain in terms of interpretation of said scripture. To put it in your terms. Suppose a writer writes something, we shall call the meaning X. People interpret it as suggesting Y. When suggested that Y is wrong, people suggest maybe it means X, or Z. Now seeming to switch views, X is viewed as silly and 'not the actual meaning' given that Y was accepted for so long, X just seems unnatural. So what now? Is X wrong? Is the author slapping his forhead?
If that doesn't settle with you well, how about the 'not-X' that you provided, is not a good 'not-X' but rather what you want to be not-X because you don't want X to be true. Just as I don't want it to be false. I provided 2 possible reasons for what seem like flat-Earth verses.
1) Science of the time and the passage actually refer toa flat earth.
2) They don't refer to a flat earth, just sound like it cuz that's what you want to believe.
----
There is nothing wrong with the language of the bible, could be interpreted as either flat-Earth or round, seeing that it is actually round, then the original meaning would obviously be round.
"spread vs wrap": You can spread things over a sphere. In human referance from standing on the globe, looking around, the Earth appears flat, not round, thus it would seem more natural to someone reading to 'spread' something over the land, rather then 'wrap' it.
"tent": The verses says "like a tent" implying that the heavens will be a curtain over the planet, like a tent for the inhabitants. This isn't implying a 4 post, small tent. I read it as like the clouds that hover over the Earth and provide cover, much like a tent.
"ends": umm, the continents do have ends. The planet is what? 70% water? Yeah, that's a lot of land with water at each end. Personally I believe the author was talking more figuratively in trying to mean the whole Earth, not just parts of it. Not everything has to be taken so literally.
----
Jesus was clear about the parables? It is true he explains some(Mark 4), but others he just leaves to be figured out.
| Quote: |
If you're free to interpret the belief in any way you want - making any particular passage you choose to be allegorical, for example - then you will never get any proof that you're wrong. For example, the Bible is quite clear about the fact that the Earth is a flat disk with the heavens as a dome over it. The only way you can conclude otherwise is if you selectively interpret some parts as allegory and ignore others (you did both in your response). You call it retarded, yet it's exactly what you're doing, whether you want to admit it or not.
|
Yeah, you are right. Given that logic you will never be able to prove something wrong. Which is why there have been debates for 2000 years.
It is unfortunate that so many people are blinded by their beliefs that they dismiss any evidance. A true Christian is in search for the Truth. But so many have decided what is truth in their heads that they block out anything else. True scientists are the same way, in search for truth and block out anything else when they think they find it. The same is happening with the flat-Earth debate, and many other debates with the bible. No one seems to want the truth, they have their side, believe it to be true, and dismiss the other. In terms of the flat-Earth, there is evidance for both sides, there are verses that suggest a flat-Earth. But when looked at, you can play the word game to show otherwise.
Given the evidance, I don't think you can come to concrete truth. I guess if you could there wouldn't be much of a debate. I am unsure if this was done on purpose or not. The authors at the time might have picked a language that was clear for them, but many years later it falls on deaf ears. I believe the true meaning behind everything stateed in the bible is true. Thus I personally side on the err of said truth. And in everycase, every debate of facts in the bible, there is a 'truth' that was trying to be had by the authors. Unfortunatly due to wording, whether it be by translation, or vernacular of the time, meanings get lost. People mis-intrupret, and horrible things happen. (crusades, inquisitions, etc.) I believe that people miss the whole picture and get caught up on a verse or 2. All the verses used in the "flat-earth" debate are there in context not as to state whether the Earth is flat or not, but rather to express meaning to "the whole Earth". The big picture there is that (insert verse contextual topic here) surrounds the whole Earth. [/preach] | coeus wrote: |
| I think you can prove something 100% false. We proved that the world is in fact NOT flat. All those who believe are false and would be retarded to believe otherwise. |
That depends on the standard of proof you are willing to accept. Despite your implied claim, we have not 100% proven that the Earth is not flat.
Consider the following story. It's a story i normally use for a different purpose - to explain Ockham's Razor or the law of parsimony - but it should work well here.
In reality, the Earth is really flat, but there are fairies that live on the underside that are extremely xenophobic. They don't want us to know about fairyland at all. So to prevent us from stumbling on the truth, they conspire to create the illusion of a round Earth.
At first, their job was simple. When a ship got too close to the edge, they simply hypnotized the crew into thinking that they were seeing more ocean rather than the edge of the world. If a ship tried to sail beyond the edge, they freeze time just as it came to the edge, carry it to the other side, then unfreeze time so the crew was none the wiser. When two ships were on opposite sides looking at each other, they hypnotized both crews to fool them into thinking they could see each other.
Eventually, though, as technology progressed, they have had to make more elaborate deceptions. They alter telemetry and information from our satellites, and hypnotize astronauts. They hypnotize hundreds of plane loads of passengers every day. Still, with their time-freezing and hypnosis, along with their ability to expertly forge any pictures or scientific information, the truth has only rarely been suspected. And even when it has, as is the case for the heroic Flat Earth Society, the fairies hypnotically see to it that the community at large discredits and ridicules them savagely.
Now, how would you prove that story false to someone who believed in the existence of such fairies?
You'll find that you can't (and if you managed to, i'd just change the story to make it immune to your objection ^_^). If someone was really married to the idea of flat Earth fairies, there is no amount of evidence you could provide that would serve as proof that the story is wrong. And it wouldn't be because they are unreasonable or retarded, it would be because it is impossible to disprove.
So you see, it is possible to believe that the Earth is flat without ignoring or simply flouting all scientific evidence to the contrary. All you need are Earth fairies. Same thing works if you use gods instead of fairies, too, by the way.
| coeus wrote: |
| I am not watering down anything, you didn't prove anything, you just went against the grain in terms of interpretation of said scripture. |
Tsk, phrases like "went against the grain" are so vague. Why don't you say exactly whose "grain" my interpretation goes against.
Since you didn't, i will. The interpretation i outlined does not agree with most of the current interpretations of the Bible put forward by most religious groups. However, it does agree with current interpretations of the Bible put forward by most biblical scholars.
So when you say i am going against the grain, you mean i am going against the position of the people you choose to believe... the religious contingent. Alright. i freely admit that. i hereby declare clearly that i base my conclusions about the correct way to interpret the Bible based not on the views of primarily religious organizations, but on the general conclusions of biblical academia. i hope that clears up any confusion about where i get the conclusions regarding interpretation of the Bible that i state.
| coeus wrote: |
| To put it in your terms. Suppose a writer writes something, we shall call the meaning X. People interpret it as suggesting Y. When suggested that Y is wrong, people suggest maybe it means X, or Z. Now seeming to switch views, X is viewed as silly and 'not the actual meaning' given that Y was accepted for so long, X just seems unnatural. So what now? Is X wrong? Is the author slapping his forhead? |
Let's consider the possibility of that.
If a writer wrote X but people misinterpreted it as Y, what does that say about the quality of the writer? Clearly he, she or it is pretty incompetent.
Now... who wrote the Bible? ^_^;
Joking aside, if the sections of the Bible that go out of their way to explicitly describe the nature of the heavens are that badly garbled, what does that say about the rest of the text?
| coeus wrote: |
If that doesn't settle with you well, how about the 'not-X' that you provided, is not a good 'not-X' but rather what you want to be not-X because you don't want X to be true. Just as I don't want it to be false. I provided 2 possible reasons for what seem like flat-Earth verses.
1) Science of the time and the passage actually refer toa flat earth.
2) They don't refer to a flat earth, just sound like it cuz that's what you want to believe. |
Well, given that:
a.) A flat Earth cosmology is almost universal throughout the Bible, and;
b.) the only consistent interpretation of dozens of verses throughout the Bible is by using a flat Earth Cosmology, and;
c.) nobody in the history of biblical scholarship (such as it was before the mid 1800's) has ever read the Bible and said, "Gee, we've got it all wrong, boys, this doesn't describe a flat Earth, it describes a spherical one!" - in fact, just the opposite has happened... long after a spherical Earth cosmology was universally accepted, someone read the Bible and said, "Gee, we've got it all wrong, boys - the Bible clearly says the Earth is flat, so our science must be wrong" - and;
d.) current Biblical research has pretty much unanimously agreed that the Bible uses a flat Earth cosmology.
(and i could go on)
Yeah, i'm gonna go with option 1.
| coeus wrote: |
| There is nothing wrong with the language of the bible, could be interpreted as either flat-Earth or round, seeing that it is actually round, then the original meaning would obviously be round. |
^_^; i think that is the most illogical and backwards argument i seen in a long time.
i must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that the biblical passages can (according to you) be interpreted to mean either a flat Earth or a spherical one... but since we now know the Earth is spherical... that must mean that the original intention of the author of the text was to describe a spherical Earth?
i seriously hope that's not your claim. ^_^;
| coeus wrote: |
"spread vs wrap": You can spread things over a sphere. In human referance from standing on the globe, looking around, the Earth appears flat, not round, thus it would seem more natural to someone reading to 'spread' something over the land, rather then 'wrap' it.
"tent": The verses says "like a tent" implying that the heavens will be a curtain over the planet, like a tent for the inhabitants. This isn't implying a 4 post, small tent. I read it as like the clouds that hover over the Earth and provide cover, much like a tent.
"ends": umm, the continents do have ends. The planet is what? 70% water? Yeah, that's a lot of land with water at each end. Personally I believe the author was talking more figuratively in trying to mean the whole Earth, not just parts of it. Not everything has to be taken so literally. |
1.) Yes, you can spread things over a sphere... but that still leaves the bottom uncovered, does it not?
2.) *blink* What?
The verses says "like a tent" implying that the heavens will be a curtain over the planet, like a tent for the inhabitants. This isn't implying a 4 post, small tent. I read it as like the clouds that hover over the Earth and provide cover, much like a tent.
Much like what kind of tent? ^_^; A 4 post, small tent, perhaps?
3.) Your geography is abominable. ^_^; Anyway, how, precisely, does one determine what to take literally and what to take figuratively in this, the alleged message from God to his creation, aimed at describing to them the nature of the universe, their place in it, and how to avoid endless suffering? Perhaps this whole concept of sin is all allegorical, as is this talk of judgement. Maybe God didn't really mean that we would be judged like a lawyer would judge us... maybe he meant that we would be judged like at a fashion show! (Hey, nice sin, do another!)
| coeus wrote: |
| Jesus was clear about the parables? It is true he explains some(Mark 4), but others he just leaves to be figured out. |
-_- i said that Jesus was clear about when he spoke in parables ("...when Jesus spoke in parable, he was quite clear about it..."). i didn't say that he was clear about their meaning.
| coeus wrote: |
| True scientists are the same way, in search for truth and block out anything else when they think they find it. |
WHAT!?!?
That is complete nonsense, and completely opposite to the scientific method.
| coeus wrote: |
| The same is happening with the flat-Earth debate, and many other debates with the bible. No one seems to want the truth, they have their side, believe it to be true, and dismiss the other. In terms of the flat-Earth, there is evidance for both sides, there are verses that suggest a flat-Earth. But when looked at, you can play the word game to show otherwise. |
Nonsense. There is no way to interpret the Bible as describing a cosmology anything like what we currently understand, short of simply ignoring what it actually says.
You can debate whether the circle is supposed to mean a flat circle or a sphere until you're blue in the face, but you won't even have scratched the surface of the problem. There's still all that talk of the firmament to deal with, and various other nonsense (and note: that link is to the Catholic Encyclopaedia... even they have conceded the fact that the Bible describes a flat Earth cosmology... and these are the guys that didn't admit they were wrong about Galileo until 1981).
| coeus wrote: |
| All the verses used in the "flat-earth" debate are there in context not as to state whether the Earth is flat or not, but rather to express meaning to "the whole Earth". |
That makes no sense at all. Why not just say "the whole Earth", or use a turn of phrase or imagery that is at least remotely accurate.
And that completely ignores that fact that you're only focussing on one tiny piece of the puzzle. The flat Earth cosmology is all over the Bible, explicitly and implicitly... and you can only argue that it is a literary device to describe the whole Earth in one or two places.It would be madness to deny any truths illuminated. Really, there is only one thing to do if you're proven wrong, own up to it and update yourself.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
So, suppose whatever you beilieve was absolutely proven to be wrong...
Examples:
For christians: Jesus' body is found and irrefutably proven to be authentic.
For athiests: God shows up, chats with you for a while, and does a miracle or two to prove Himself.
Et cetera.
Would you give up your belief? Believe anyway? Go insane? Ignore the evidence?
Now, I know you'd like to say, "Sure, I'd change my beilief. My views are based soley on concrete evidence, and if the evidence ever changes (which it won't) I could easily change my belief as well".
But would you really be able to do that? |
Actually I don't think that I would change my belief...not right away. Who is to say that it IS God that has shown up on my door step and done these miracles (though I am not an atheist) or that even though Jesus's body was found, reincarnation isn't still true, if it is true? I feel I have memories of being in other bodies.... It would be very hard for me to accept the fact that the memories are "crap" and that what I believed was a lie. I cannot comprehend how we are supposed to learn everything we need to learn about being.....a sentient being....in one shot or go around. One 100 year (or so) term and that's it. Hope you got it all, time's up. **questioning look** Nah.The truth always out ways a lie. I believe the truth which is the Word of God. There can be misinterpretations of the word (Bible). If I wrongfully misinterpret something about my belief I don't change what I believe just change my interpretation.
