It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the biblical religions are dangerous?

page: 17
23
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Seede
 



I can prove neither of those events but I can believe those events. Belief in a Creator and proof of a Creator are altogether two different sources of the mind.


The above quote is taken from one of your previous posts, and is the reason I am challenging you. Without proof, I see no reason for belief.


Just so you know. "belief" is, by definition, to accept something as true without proof. If you do not believe me, go check the dictionary so you will know that I am correct.

A claim like yours only make you look like an idiot.




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Leahn
 




Again, there is no solid evidence linking Yahweh as a god of war.


I am challenging your assertion that there is no evidence of Yahweh being represented as a god of war.

You are wrong wrong wrong! Geez, talk about the Dunning - Krueger effect! Your wearing it my dear.

But you just go ahead and ignore all the evidence, put your hands over your ears and sing, lalala, all the while blaming those pesky anti-Christian types for presenting Biblical evidence that Yahweh was a god of war.


Good thing that you admit yourself as being anti-Christian. At least you are man enough to admit so, much better than the majority that attempt to present themselves as some sort of person fighting for the "better of the society".

Again, for those that did not pay attention to the thread and like to posture, the OP made a claim that Yahweh was the Canaanite god of war prior to its acceptance by Israel as the Creator God. As I said, there is no solid evidence pointing to Yahweh as the Canaanite god of war since there is no mention of Yahweh whatsoever in what survives of Canaanite literature. Now, please, go ahead and keep beating that strawman you built, will ya?
edit on 17/5/2013 by Leahn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Leahn
 



Yes, you did. You said that what I mentioned of the Bible was reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.


You obviously don't know the definition of reminiscence.


"rem·i·nis·cence
/ˌreməˈnisəns/
Noun

1 - A story told about a past event remembered by the narrator.
2 - The enjoyable recollection of past events."

Now, if as you said, the Bible is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, then you surely must mean that the Bible is a recollection of past events written in Orwell's 1984.

Maybe it is you that doesn't know what reminiscence means?


Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Not my fault about missing. You edited your post while I was replying to it.


I wasn't blaming you, I was inviting you to address the points I added.


I do not fully disagree with what you wrote, save for a few points.

One, free will is not a myth. However, one must not confuse free will with freedom from the consequences of your decisions, which is pretty much the very only complaint that the non-religious type has about the concept. That is, "if I am free to do what I want, why am I being punished for not doing what God wants me to do?" It is simple. Because freedom of will doesn't mean freedom of the consequences.

Two, liberty is not a myth. Liberty is defined as being free from *oppressive* restrictions, which is quite different from how the non-religious type likes to define it, that is, as being free from each and every restrictions, or as more aptly put, to be free from the restrictions he disagrees with.

Three, there is no plan. I mean, there is actually a plan in motion in order to put things back on track as they were in the beginning, but there is no further plan after that. God has no agenda or interests, other than see what we do with the life He gave us.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Seede
 



I can prove neither of those events but I can believe those events. Belief in a Creator and proof of a Creator are altogether two different sources of the mind.


The above quote is taken from one of your previous posts, and is the reason I am challenging you. Without proof, I see no reason for belief.


Just so you know. "belief" is, by definition, to accept something as true without proof. If you do not believe me, go check the dictionary so you will know that I am correct.

A claim like yours only make you look like an idiot.



?????

Do you see a slight contradiction here, not only (but especially) in the highlighted part of your claim itself, but in comparing it overall the highlighted part of the definition ?


1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence


www.merriam-webster.com...

So, you wouldn't believe, for instance, that earth revolves around the sun..... because there seems ample proof of it....? You would need a complete lack of proof, to believe it....?


edit on 17-5-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
?????

Do you see a slight contradiction here, taking the highlighted part of your claim into account ?


1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence


www.merriam-webster.com...

So, you wouldn't believe, for instance, that earth revolves around the sun..... because there seems ample proof of it....?


edit on 17-5-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.


Did you notice that word there in the middle "especially" ? It signifies that the examination of evidence is not necessary for belief.

And no, you shouldn't believe that Earth revolves around the sun because there is ample proof of it. When there is ample proof of something, belief moves to the realm of knowledge. You should *know* that Earth revolves around the sun, unless, of course, you are not sure of it.

Dictionary.com lists belief as:

2 confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Oxford lists in as:

1 An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn

Did you notice that word there in the middle "especially" ? It signifies that the examination of evidence is not necessary for belief.


Yes, I saw it. So does "not necessary" equal "must be absent" to yourself ? Perhaps there is no difference between an empty/unsubstantiated belief and knowledge/truth? No grey areas?

I believe quite firmly in the theory of evolution, for example. To the point I accept it as basically factual. Though I don't know that everything evolved from a common ancestor, there is no way I can truly know this. I can believe it very firmly because of evidence seems so strong.....


And no, you shouldn't believe that Earth revolves around the sun because there is ample proof of it. When there is ample proof of something, belief moves to the realm of knowledge. You should *know* that Earth revolves around the sun, unless, of course, you are not sure of it.

Dictionary.com lists belief as:

2 confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Oxford lists in as:

1 An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof




Ok. Last time, promise. Then we might just have to agree that we see this differently. No problems with that.

Do you believe that it's the fairies in your garden that make your flowers grow? If not, perhaps you could ponder why that might be, then apply that same logic to what you are trying to ridicule....? Do you get what I'm trying to say?

Possibly ponder why you offered him your version of proof, in the event he might not believe you?

Ever wondered why most atheists don't believe in god, for instance.....something to do with weighing up the evidence, perhaps? Possibly this is one very common way (not necessarily the only way) that people arrive at their beliefs? Would you perhaps see that, in this (widely used) context, the person might not really be so wrong to use the term "belief" ?

Possibly you posted this one in a hurry, without thinking it through? Happens easily, we've probably all done that.



edit on 17-5-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Yes, I saw it. So does "not necessary" equal "must be absent" to yourself?


Any degree of proof moves belief towards another thing, be it faith, credit or knowledge.


Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Ok. Last time, promise. Then we might just have to agree that we see this differently. No problems with that.

Do you believe that it's the fairies in your garden that make your flowers grow? If not, perhaps you could ponder why that might be, then apply that same logic to what you are trying to ridicule....? Do you get what I'm trying to say?


I get what you're trying to say. You're the one that doesn't get what I am trying to say. "Belief" is a choice. You can believe whatever you want. It is pretty much like opinion. You can have any opinion you want, and you may or may not offer, or even have, a reason for such opinion. It is the same with belief. You may or may not have a reason to believe that. It is not necessary. It is not even relevant.

"Proof" is only necessary for claims of *knowledge*. Belief is a matter of personal choice.


Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Ever wondered why most atheists don't believe in god, for instance.....something to do with weighing up the evidence, perhaps? Would this be the same reason people don't believe the fairies? Would you perhaps see that, in this (widely used) context, the person might not really be so wrong to use the term "belief"?

Possibly you posted this one in a hurry, without thinking it through? Happens easily, we've probably all done that.


A word means what a word means. If a person is using a word incorrectly, whether knowingly or not, it is still used incorrectly. There is no such thing as a person "not really so wrong"-ly using a word. Either the word is being used as it is meant to be, or you are using it incorrectly. Otherwise, language loses its communicative power and ideas can no longer be shared.

And atheists don't believe in god not because they weighed the evidence, but because they did not follow the evidence to its bitter end.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Ok, I fibbed, this is the last time, promise.



A word means what a word means. If a person is using a word incorrectly, whether knowingly or not, it is still used incorrectly.


Too true.


Just so you know. "belief" is, by definition, to accept something as true without proof. If you do not believe me, go check the dictionary so you will know that I am correct.


Then what to make of the above contradiction which clearly indicates, in your very own words, that evidence/proof would be very helpful in swaying someone to a particular belief.....In fact, this is exactly what you offer, in your effort to be believed.:puz

Perhaps we could also look closer at your sources, to see if anything in them could allow any possible escape from your rigid (possibly slightly fanatical) insistence. I wonder if you might have overlooked certain other parts of the definition (accidentally of course) .....?


noun
1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: his belief in extraterrestrial life

[with clause]:
a belief that climate can be modified beneficially
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion we’re prepared to fight for our beliefs [mass noun] contrary to popular belief existing safety regulations were adequate a religious conviction
Christian beliefs [mass noun]: the medieval system of fervent religious belief


2 (belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something): a belief in democratic politics

oxforddictionaries.com...

Go Cherry picking much?

I certainly have every faith, trust and confidence that our planet revolves around the sun. In fact, I believe it to be a fact.
Though I have never personally performed an experiment to prove this. Yet I believe others have.

Perhaps if you look at definition 2 in "Dictionariy.com" a little closer, something will become obvious....? A sentiment you ridiculed earlier?


belief
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Yeah, fibbed again. Last time though.


A few more random definitions for you. Notice anything....? Anything which could hint at you being slightly wr...wr...wro...ah, not entirely accurate? Belief seems to only require the acceptance of something as true, regardless of the truth or otherwise of the thing accepted.


People can believe in (apparent) truths, obvious lies..... and everything in between.



Noun
Mental acceptance of a claim as truth.
Something believed. The ancient people have a belief in many deities.
The quality or state of believing. My belief that it will rain tomorrow is strong.
Religious faith. She often said it was her belief that carried her through the hard times.
One's religious or moral convictions. I can't do that. It's against my beliefs.

belief.askdefine.com...


be·lief (b-lf)
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

www.thefreedictionary.com...



Definition of BELIEF

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence


Your understanding of this word seems a bit limited and rigid, in my belief (:lol
. I certainly agree many religious people are given to a blind an unworthy belief. Whether this is necessary for belief, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Then what to make of the above contradiction which clearly indicates, in your very own words, that evidence/proof would be very helpful in swaying someone to a particular belief.....In fact, this is exactly what you offer, in your effort to be believed.:puz


I use words absolutely correctly. Obviously, you do not pay nearly as much attention as I do to every word I write.
Let me break it up to you so you understand:

"If you do not believe me" - believe is accepting something as true without proof. "If you do not believe me" means "if you do not accept what I say as true without proof"

"go check the dictionary so you will know that I am correct" - knowledge is regard something as true beyond doubt, usually through sufficient evidence. I did not say you would believe me after checking the dictionary. I said you would *know* I was right, as it would leave no room for doubt.


Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Go Cherry picking much?


No. As my grammar teacher once told me, there is no such thing as a true synonym. Words have similar meaning, but they are similar, not equal. Belief is not trust, nor credit, nor faith, nor knowledge, nor confidence. They have similar meanings, but they don't mean the same thing.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


Based on your conversation with Cogito, would I be correct in surmising that you would rather believe than know? The reason I ask is because what you know, or would know if you did your research in theology, psychology and rhetoric, directly contradicts what you believe. Hence, you must choose one over the other as they cannot simultaneously holds the precise same degree of conviction in your mind.

So which is it? Knowledge, or faith?



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Belief seems to only require the acceptance of something as true, regardless of the truth or otherwise of the thing accepted.


People can believe in (apparent) truths, obvious lies..... and everything in between.


See? You're starting to grasp the word now. Belief is accepting something as true. Everything else is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant the very own truthness of the belief. It is irrelevant the possession or even existence of proof for what you believe. It is irrelevant whether or not such belief contradicts another belief you might possess. Acceptance of it as true. Is. Enough.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Leahn
 


Based on your conversation with Cogito, would I be correct in surmising that you would rather believe than know? The reason I ask is because what you know, or would know if you did your research in theology, psychology and rhetoric, directly contradicts what you believe. Hence, you must choose one over the other as they cannot simultaneously holds the precise same degree of conviction in your mind.

So which is it? Knowledge, or faith?


Faith is one degree above belief, and it is in no way any lesser than knowledge.

Answering your question, I would rather know than believe, but such knowledge is currently not possible.

However, my point is that it is very silly to demand evidence for a claim of belief. Belief does not require evidence. Belief is a choice. And in every single thread about religion, you will see the atheists demanding "evidence" for our belief. You will see the atheists saying "show me the evidence and I will believe." And it is a silly and petty demand.

Belief is a choice. See my signature. There are two ways to fool oneself. One is to *believe* a lie. The other is to refuse to *believe* the truth. Because belief is a choice, and a choice that can and is made regardless of the evidence possessed, or lack thereof. Even when the choice is to not to believe.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   


Text Just so you know. "belief" is, by definition, to accept something as true without proof. If you do not believe me, go check the dictionary so you will know that I am correct. A claim like yours only make you look like an idiot.
reply to post by Leahn
 


@ Leahn

Yes, you are quite right in understanding the definition of "belief" but your comprehension is atrocious. Please read this very carefully.

My original words were --

"I can prove neither of those events but I can believe those events. Belief in a Creator and proof of a Creator are altogether two different sources of the mind."

"I can prove neither of those events" ( I have no proof of either one of those events) -

"but I can believe those events" ( have faith without proof of those events). Belief and faith are interchangeable in many cases and is valid in this case.

Let us apply that same logic in this next statement. " I cannot prove that there is a God but I believe there is a God" -- ( I can't prove there is a God but I have belief or faith that there is a God.)

You have the right to call people names but that only shows your ignorance. Mind you, I do not imply that you are stupid or that you are an idiot but only that, in this case, you are ignorant. You are without justification, in this case, in name calling and only shows me your true nature.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 



Faith is one degree above belief, and it is in no way any lesser than knowledge.


Which speaks to your ability to critically discern the facets of reality. If it had any foundation whatsoever, it would not be faith. Faith is the opposite of knowledge.

Knowledge - having every empirical reason to believe in something.

Faith - having no empirical reason to believe in something and doing it anyway.


However, my point is that it is very silly to demand evidence for a claim of belief. Belief does not require evidence. Belief is a choice. And in every single thread about religion, you will see the atheists demanding "evidence" for our belief. You will see the atheists saying "show me the evidence and I will believe." And it is a silly and petty demand.


My point is that it's very silly to hold a belief without sufficient evidence supporting the validity of said belief. Belief is a choice, eh? Certainly it's your choice to practice irrationality. It is not a silly and petty demand, considering you are essentially asking that your religion skip straight past our scientific methodology and be crowned as purely fact without the same trials that we have used to verify every other fact. It's the same as promoting a man to sergeant without his ever entering the battlefield. It's irrational, irresponsible, and completely ludicrous that you should expect such treatment.

And it only goes to support the theory that the biblical religions are nothing but a pile of garbage, as only garbage would have the audacity to even attempt to bypass the rigorous methods by which we ascertain the authenticity of our knowledge. It speaks to the lack of character in your faith.


Belief is a choice. See my signature. There are two ways to fool oneself. One is to *believe* a lie. The other is to refuse to *believe* the truth. Because belief is a choice, and a choice that can and is made regardless of the evidence possessed, or lack thereof. Even when the choice is to not to believe.


As demonstrated above, your "truth" bears the watermark of being anything but the truth. Do not expect special treatment just because we all know your religion would fail any rigorous and worthwhile examination.


The other is to refuse to *believe* the truth.


One could easily argue that you are guilty of exactly this.
edit on 17-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Leahn
 




Again, there is no solid evidence linking Yahweh as a god of war.


I am challenging your assertion that there is no evidence of Yahweh being represented as a god of war.

You are wrong wrong wrong! Geez, talk about the Dunning - Krueger effect! Your wearing it my dear.

But you just go ahead and ignore all the evidence, put your hands over your ears and sing, lalala, all the while blaming those pesky anti-Christian types for presenting Biblical evidence that Yahweh was a god of war.


Good thing that you admit yourself as being anti-Christian. At least you are man enough to admit so, much better than the majority that attempt to present themselves as some sort of person fighting for the "better of the society".


I'm not anti-Christian, as far as Christians being persons who follow the teachings of Jesus. I am anti-Yahweh. Society would be better without the influence of the Yahweh cult., so I am for a better society.


Again, for those that did not pay attention to the thread and like to posture, the OP made a claim that Yahweh was the Canaanite god of war prior to its acceptance by Israel as the Creator God. As I said, there is no solid evidence pointing to Yahweh as the Canaanite god of war since there is no mention of Yahweh whatsoever in what survives of Canaanite literature. Now, please, go ahead and keep beating that strawman you built, will ya?


Now you're just shifting focus. You're the one that stated

"Again, there is no solid evidence linking Yahweh as a god of war"

. You're wrong, intellectually dishonest and you're the one beating a strawman. It makes no difference whether or not Yahweh was recognized by the Canaanites before Babylonian captivity.

FACT! Yahweh was a war god!

Ex 15:3
Yahweh is a warrior
Yahweh is his NAME

The early Israelites were polytheistic.




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   


Text No. As my grammar teacher once told me, there is no such thing as a true synonym. Words have similar meaning, but they are similar, not equal. Belief is not trust, nor credit, nor faith, nor knowledge, nor confidence. They have similar meanings, but they don't mean the same thing.
reply to post by Leahn
 


And your grammar teacher taught you - "there is no such thing"

The meaning of Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It may also be belief that is not based on proof.

You seem to have a glass house.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn
When there is ample proof of something, belief moves to the realm of knowledge.


"belief" is, by definition, to accept something as true without proof.


In view of the following.....


It is irrelevant the very own truthness of the belief.


How can it (lack of evidence/proof/"truthness" for something) be a requirement of belief (so it doesn't move into the realm of knowledge) .....and yet be irrelevant to it.....all at the same time? Contradiction?

If something is shown to have "truthness" it stops being a belief, according to yourself. Seems to make its "truthness" relevant, by those standards?

(Though I agree with the last quote, we can obviously believe in anything. Yet many of us choose to believe what can reasonably be supported with facts).




edit on 17-5-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



How can it (lack of evidence/proof/"truthness" for something) be a requirement of belief (so it doesn't move into the realm of knowledge) .....and yet be irrelevant to it.....all at the same time? Contradiction?

If something is shown to have "truthness" it stops being a belief, according to yourself. Seems to make its "truthness" relevant, by those standards?

(Though I agree with the last quote, we can obviously believe in anything. Yet many of us choose to believe what can reasonably be supported with facts).


Otherwise, what's the point in facts at all?

edit on 17-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



(Though I agree with the last quote, we can obviously believe in anything. Yet many of us choose to believe what can reasonably be supported with facts).


Otherwise, what's the point in facts at all?


I get the feeling, the point of them is to be avoided like the plague if they have potential to conflict with religion.


Seems quite fair to try to base our beliefs on reasonable, or at least our best, understanding of facts.

Perhaps why some try to own and place the notion of "belief" in some untouchable world where facts cannot enter, ever, safe from harms way....."You can't come at my irrational beliefs if your beliefs are supported with facts or knowledge, you're not allowed to do that, they can't mingle. We'll call them different names so it won't be allowed, we have redefined the English language and introduced a "belief" sub clause, so that can't ever happen ".....


edit on 17-5-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join