Absurd REALLY stupid stories in the bible.

Originally posted by sonship
Anybody who says, "forget what is in all the dictionaries. trust me."

is asking everyone to have "faith" in his own self appointed and dubious authority.

Such is googlefudge

That might be a relevant point if that was what I actually said.

It wasn't.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No.

But I don't ask anyone to believe anything on faith.

Unlike you, and every other theist.

Do you consider everyone a liar until they can prove otherwise?

The Instructor

Originally posted by googlefudge
No.

You should never ever believe anything on faith.

you believe that all the time. you believe your favourite team will win. you believe you will not get fired tomorrow. you believe in good for good's sake, not just to preserve your place in society. you believe your wife, your friends, your children, your parents like you. and no, you do not have "proof". i doubt you brain scan your wife to see if the "i love you" part of the brain lights up when she thinks of you. and even then, she could be thinking of chocolate and merely mimicking love for you.


humans aren't purely logical beings. we take things on faith all the time.

Originally posted by sonship
Anybody who says, "forget what is in all the dictionaries. trust me."

is asking everyone to have "faith" in his own self appointed and dubious authority.

Such is googlefudge

no.

taking what he says on faith alone would be no different than rjhinds taking everything his ignorant preacher tells him to. he is arguing one should only "believe" what he knows to be proven.

for example, evolution is proven by facts, by logic. you don't have to believe him, you simply have to understand the evidence (which is independent of him and his opinions, or anyone's)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no.

taking what he says on faith alone would be no different than rjhinds taking everything his ignorant preacher tells him to. he is arguing one should only "believe" what he knows to be proven.

for example, evolution is proven by facts, by logic. you don't have to believe him, you simply have to understand the evidence (which is independent of him and his opinions, or anyone's)

THAT we can agree on! It just grinds my jaws to hear these people who self lobotomize themselves talk as if they are speaking reality.

And of course you are right about the main worry in religion is the extremists.

Still, they have power over people and some who are supposedly even smarter than average but still fall for idiotic tales like the Earth being 6000 years old and live their lives as if that were true.

When you have followers you can influence votes, judges, lawmakers and such, keep on fighting to get creationism to be taught in a science class as if it were a science with the ultimate goal to force evolution out as a science, cutting off an entire discipline. The problem there is you never know what the future of science will bring. Like serendipitous inventions, teflon for instance, or medicines that first looked good for headaches but ends up being a cancer killer.

They would give up all that by destroying and entire scientific discipline. And they wouldn't even know it. A science that could, say, save a great grandson from some genetic disorder that kills at the age of 4, and they would therefore be responsible in a way for their own grandchild's death.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no.

taking what he says on faith alone would be no different than rjhinds taking everything his ignorant preacher tells him to. he is arguing one should only "believe" what he knows to be proven.

for example, evolution is proven by facts, by logic. you don't have to believe him, you simply have to understand the evidence (which is independent of him and his opinions, or anyone's)

You are wrong in thinking I believe everything an ignorant preacher tells me, for I don't. We believe some things by reason, logic, and faith based on at least a preponderance of the evidence.

In my mind, there is too much evidence against evilution for it to be fact. So I do not believe in that one. 😏

The Instructor

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you believe that all the time. you believe your favourite team will win. you believe you will not get fired tomorrow. you believe in good for good's sake, not just to preserve your place in society. you believe your wife, your friends, your children, your parents like you. and no, you do not have "proof". i doubt you brain scan your wife to see if the "i l ...[text shortened]... e for you.


humans aren't purely logical beings. we take things on faith all the time.

I think you are using a different definition of faith from the one I use.


I only use one (of the many) meanings of the word faith.

That meaning is this.

Belief without evidence (evidence not proof) sufficient to justify such belief,
or belief despite evidence that contradicts it.

And I really do believe absolutely nothing based on faith.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you consider everyone a liar until they can prove otherwise?

The Instructor

Everyone lies (House)...

However that doesn't mean everyone is always lying.

Whether I believe what someone says, and how strongly I believe them,
will depend on what kind of claim they are making.

If you tell me you are called Ron then I will accept that unless given reason
to doubt it. (although I wont accept it strongly, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if it
turned out that you were called something else.)

Because you being called Ron is an entirely ordinary claim, and I am not in
a position where it matters. And I have to call you something.

If I was going to enter into business with you, or if I were an immigration official
at an airport then I would want some evidence of your identity to confirm who
you are, evidence sufficient for the situation.



If you claim that a god exists and that the world is only 6000 yrs old then those
are extraordinary claims which I wont accept without sufficient evidence.

I don't need to think that you are lying, you could equally just be mistaken.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think you are using a different definition of faith from the one I use.


I only use one (of the many) meanings of the word faith.

That meaning is this.

Belief without evidence (evidence not proof) sufficient to justify such belief,
or belief despite evidence that contradicts it.

And I really do believe absolutely nothing based on faith.

well the two are separate


belief despite evidence to the contrary is indeed a sign of brain washing/stupidity/ psychological damag. taking genesis literally for example.


belief with (insufficient or none) evidence is what i tried to illustrate. there are plenty of examples where you accept something when you have no evidence to support your stance. when no evidence can ever be found.


"And I really do believe absolutely nothing based on faith"
that simply means you view your insufficient evidence as sufficient for some issues. i offer the opinion you can never know for sure someone loves you, yet you accept that anyway. why? because it makes you happy.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
well the two are separate


belief despite evidence to the contrary is indeed a sign of brain washing/stupidity/ psychological damag. taking genesis literally for example.


belief with (insufficient or none) evidence is what i tried to illustrate. there are plenty of examples where you accept something when you have no evidence to support your stan ...[text shortened]... know for sure someone loves you, yet you accept that anyway. why? because it makes you happy.

Let me reiterate. There is NOTHING I believe based on faith.

There are NO examples of things I believe based on faith.

There may well be things you believe based on faith, but you are not me.

Please stop trying to tell me what I do or do not believe, and for what reasons.

Take that into consideration and try again.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Let me reiterate. There is NOTHING I believe based on faith.

There are NO examples of things I believe based on faith.

There may well be things you believe based on faith, but you are not me.

Please stop trying to tell me what I do or do not believe, and for what reasons.

Take that into consideration and try again.

you like people? you have loved ones? do you love them? do they love you? how can you tell? can you ever tell? for sure?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you like people? you have loved ones? do you love them? do they love you? how can you tell? can you ever tell? for sure?

You are barking up the wrong tree.

Of course I like [some] people. And I have people I love.
I hope they love me. But I can't tell for sure.
However their actions are pretty strong evidence that they do care for me.

Not proof of course, but we are talking belief not knowledge.

And belief isn't binary, you can believe some things more strongly than others.

You can justifiably believe something to be true without being able to prove or know it.


As a simple example, until [relatively] recently Fermat's last theorem was unproven.
So nobody could [justifiably] claim to know it was true, or be able to prove it.
However it had been tested and tested such that the likelihood that it was wrong was
minuscule to non-existent.
It would have been perfectly reasonable, and many did, to believe that Fermat's last theorem
was true without being able to actually prove or 'Know' that it was true.

This didn't require any faith [as I defined it] because they had evidence sufficient to justify
their belief.



Similarly, I could observe the behaviour and words of those around me and use that as
evidence as to whether or not those people love me.
Do they for example make sacrifices for you, or put themselves out for you, and to what
degree.... ect ect.

As I said...
I define faith as meaning "Belief without evidence sufficient to justify that belief, or despite
evidence that contradicts that belief".

Neither I, nor any true skeptic or rationalist will believe anything based on faith.

I believe that some people love me, but only as strongly as the evidence [their actions] indicate
that I should believe that.

Neither my belief, nor their love, is absolute.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are barking up the wrong tree.

Of course I like [some] people. And I have people I love.
I hope they love me. But I can't tell for sure.
However their actions are pretty strong evidence that they do care for me.

Not proof of course, but we are talking belief not knowledge.

And belief isn't binary, you can believe some things more strongly ...[text shortened]... dicate
that I should believe that.

Neither my belief, nor their love, is absolute.

oh, so you basically argue absolute faith with me. yes, maybe i misunderstood. i thought you were attacking faith as i experience it. instead you attack rjhinds, dasa, joseph, etc absolute certainty that there is a god, and he is exactly as he says he is.


i don't view it like that. i believe that faith without doubt is zealotry. true faith is overcoming ones doubt. constantly reaffirming it. staying faithful despite an absent god. and of course, readjusting one's position when irrefutable evidence denies some aspect of your world view.

there is no harm in being faithful in this manner. you live your life the way it makes you happy and you don't murder your children because god supposedly forbids blood transfusions.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
oh, so you basically argue absolute faith with me. yes, maybe i misunderstood. i thought you were attacking faith as i experience it. instead you attack rjhinds, dasa, joseph, etc absolute certainty that there is a god, and he is exactly as he says he is.


i don't view it like that. i believe that faith without doubt is zealotry. true faith is overcomin ...[text shortened]... u happy and you don't murder your children because god supposedly forbids blood transfusions.

No, I am still 'attacking faith as [you] experience it'.

Any belief that is not "justified by the evidence" and is thus believed on faith and I oppose
and argue against that.

Your belief need not be absolute, simply unjustified by the available evidence.

As there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of the bible god then any positive
belief that it exists is unjustified and held based on faith as I define it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Everyone lies (House)...

However that doesn't mean everyone is always lying.

Whether I believe what someone says, and how strongly I believe them,
will depend on what kind of claim they are making.

If you tell me you are called Ron then I will accept that unless given reason
to doubt it. (although I wont accept it strongly, I wouldn't ...[text shortened]... nt evidence.

I don't need to think that you are lying, you could equally just be mistaken.

My real name is JESUS and you are in a heap of trouble. Prepare for Hellfire! 😀

The Instructor