Author Topic: Has anyone ever though of this before?  (Read 2725 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2012, 12:21:34 PM »
Error that would have likely been easily disproven at the time.
Quote
You're missing the point here, I understand that today there are many things you would call in the bible as being factually incorrect, but what I am saying is that there most likely would have been errors that would have been easily disproven back in that time, if not even a little bit after the religion's inception.

Reason 1:

Are you aware of the retaliations if you point out the errors in the bible in those days? Ever heard of Hypatia Wiki? With powerful monarchs like Constantine and Justinian destroying anyone with a different belief, who would "disprove" the factually incorrect.

Reason 2:

Many of the utter drivel in the bible seemed factually true for the populace who didn't quite have the opportunity or the mindset of free thought. In the 15th Century Columbus was warned about falling off the edge.

A question for you, why were the laws of motion unknown till the seventeen century?

Because it remained unchallenged for long, it doesnt mean that the sun going for rest in its tabernacle is correct. (Psalm 19:4)


Offline WeZzZzRURR

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Darwins +9/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • I like music =D
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2012, 04:59:36 PM »
Are you aware of the retaliations if you point out the errors in the bible in those days? Ever heard of Hypatia Wiki? With powerful monarchs like Constantine and Justinian destroying anyone with a different belief, who would "disprove" the factually incorrect.

No, but I just looked over it a little bit, and that is an unfortunate thing that happened to her......  But think of when christianity was opposed by more people than it was support by, don't you think that the overwhelming number of people who opposed it would have done everything in their power to disprove parts of the religion?  And using your example, at that time, since there were more people who opposed the religion, don't you find it odd that it was able to survive through all of that opposition?

Many of the utter drivel in the bible seemed factually true for the populace who didn't quite have the opportunity or the mindset of free thought. In the 15th Century Columbus was warned about falling off the edge. 

Once again, you're missing the point.....  I am not speaking the current "factually disproven" things that exist in the bible, I am making an example that there would've have been other things that would most likely have been 100% wrong even 10 years after the inception of the religion, thus needing alterations... 

A question for you, why were the laws of motion unknown till the seventeen century?

Because it remained unchallenged for long, it doesnt mean that the sun going for rest in its tabernacle is correct. (Psalm 19:4)

Wasn't psalms supposed to be written by David? So couldn't what was said about the sun going to rest just be a poetic explanation for what he sees happening as the sun passes over the sky?  You have to keep in mind that the use of diction in that time was very different than our use today, and I believe this would be evident in historical poetry, with the use of hyperboles and metaphors...
I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

Offline GamerGirl

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
  • Darwins +11/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • aka Lillium
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2012, 05:03:30 PM »
The only magic, mythical entity I was raised to believe in was god.  I've never believed in Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, leprechauns, etc. because my parents taught me they were imaginary figures.  Thus, it was a lot more difficult for me to make the god is like Santa connection.

Offline WeZzZzRURR

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Darwins +9/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • I like music =D
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #61 on: June 09, 2012, 06:07:30 PM »
The only magic, mythical entity I was raised to believe in was god.  I've never believed in Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, leprechauns, etc. because my parents taught me they were imaginary figures.  Thus, it was a lot more difficult for me to make the god is like Santa connection.

See that's how I was raised to, but I understand the point they are trying to make.....  Its that what is to say that God didn't start out as just a mythical being such as santa that was made up by humans for the young and naive to make them feel something "special", but then some fanatics took it a step further, or some government took advantage of it to use power through fear, etc...
I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2076
  • Darwins +373/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #62 on: June 10, 2012, 06:25:38 PM »
No, but I just looked over it a little bit, and that is an unfortunate thing that happened to her......  But think of when christianity was opposed by more people than it was support by, don't you think that the overwhelming number of people who opposed it would have done everything in their power to disprove parts of the religion?  And using your example, at that time, since there were more people who opposed the religion, don't you find it odd that it was able to survive through all of that opposition?

I don't think the overwhelming number of people who oppose Scientology today are actively doing everything in their power to disprove it, so that doesn't really surprise me.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #63 on: June 11, 2012, 12:29:31 AM »
Because chemistry cannot fully account.   Take qualia for instance...

It's pretty much taken for granted in neurology that each function of the brain is tied heavily into the ability to experience itself. The most relevant studies I can think of off the top of my head have involved epileptic patients who've had their corpus callosum, the bundle of nerves linking the left and right hemispheres of the brain, severed in order to prevent seizures from spreading between them. The result was two separate minds which worked independently from one another. This was very easy to test in that each hemisphere is linked with the opposite eye, ear, and hand and is more oriented towards specific functions, such as speech often being located in the left hemisphere. In one such experiment a patient was shown pictures of faces made from fruit. When the pictures were presented to each side individually the left hemisphere could only identify the fruit while the the right could only identify the faces. The faces were completely invisible to the left because it could only process the individual pieces of the collages whereas the pieces were invisible to the right because it could only identify the bigger picture. This heavily suggests that the capacity to even "feel" or "process" something in a unique fashion is only possible because of a complex interaction of the brain's machinery, otherwise we'd fail to make any qualitative judgment about anything because without the proper functioning things would mean nothing to us.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6680
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #64 on: June 11, 2012, 04:01:54 PM »
Are you aware of the retaliations if you point out the errors in the bible in those days? Ever heard of Hypatia Wiki? With powerful monarchs like Constantine and Justinian destroying anyone with a different belief, who would "disprove" the factually incorrect.

No, but I just looked over it a little bit, and that is an unfortunate thing that happened to her......  But think of when christianity was opposed by more people than it was support by, don't you think that the overwhelming number of people who opposed it would have done everything in their power to disprove parts of the religion?  And using your example, at that time, since there were more people who opposed the religion, don't you find it odd that it was able to survive through all of that opposition?


That is exactly what Muslims argue about the Quran and Islam. How did a new religion overcome all of that opposition if it was false? Of course, like Christians, the Muslims ignore the history of their own religion.

The decision to include this chapter in the sacred text and toss out that one, based on who had political power at the time. (The Nicene councils....) The heretics imprisoned, killed, forced to recant or driven out, because their interpretations of the religious ideas pissed someone powerful off.

The new ideas that could not be suppressed forever adapted to fit the religion. (Of course we always believed that! The passage that says the opposite is a poetic metaphor....)

The ruler who decided that everyone in the region should believe this or that, or else: how Catholic Christianity became the religion of the previously pagan Roman empire, and how Shia Islam became the religion of the previously Zoroastrian Persian Empire. How the powerful people sytematically destroy all evidence of other beliefs. (Blow up those Buddhist statues! Burn those pagan idols!)

Lastly, different cultures interpret the same text and religious ideas so differently, that it is hard to think that "Christianity" means the same thing to all people over all history. Christianity practiced by villagers in rural Haiti today has little in common with the Christianity of 19th century Dutch merchants, or the Christianity of the 14th century Portuguese slave traders, or the Christianity of suburban Dallas megachurch attendees.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6680
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #65 on: June 11, 2012, 04:09:33 PM »
^^^^The short version of what I was trying to say; religions don't have to be true to survive, thrive and grow. Unless you think Hinduism (oldest, with a billion members), Islam (fastest growing, 1.5 billion) Vodun (90% of Haitians believe in it) and Scientology (still here despite everything known about it) are all true.

A religion just has to fill a human need (political, psychological, emotional) make sense to uncritical thinkers, and get a few powerful people behind it.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #66 on: June 11, 2012, 06:30:23 PM »
Because chemistry cannot fully account.   Take qualia for instance...

It's pretty much taken for granted in neurology that each function of the brain is tied heavily into the ability to experience itself. The most relevant studies I can think of off the top of my head have involved epileptic patients who've had their corpus callosum, the bundle of nerves linking the left and right hemispheres of the brain, severed in order to prevent seizures from spreading between them. The result was two separate minds which worked independently from one another. This was very easy to test in that each hemisphere is linked with the opposite eye, ear, and hand and is more oriented towards specific functions, such as speech often being located in the left hemisphere. In one such experiment a patient was shown pictures of faces made from fruit. When the pictures were presented to each side individually the left hemisphere could only identify the fruit while the the right could only identify the faces. The faces were completely invisible to the left because it could only process the individual pieces of the collages whereas the pieces were invisible to the right because it could only identify the bigger picture. This heavily suggests that the capacity to even "feel" or "process" something in a unique fashion is only possible because of a complex interaction of the brain's machinery, otherwise we'd fail to make any qualitative judgment about anything because without the proper functioning things would mean nothing to us.

I agree the mind/body are related.  But regardless,  chemistry still cannot fully account.   How do I know you're not a p-zombie from looking at your brain chemistry?  I don't see how that's possible.  You may claim to have inner experience.  But how would I prove you're not a p-zombie programmed to lie about his qualia?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 06:31:58 PM by Gill »

Online JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2061
  • Darwins +221/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #67 on: June 11, 2012, 09:34:49 PM »

No, but I just looked over it a little bit, and that is an unfortunate thing that happened to her......  But think of when christianity was opposed by more people than it was support by, don't you think that the overwhelming number of people who opposed it would have done everything in their power to disprove parts of the religion? 


You are not thinking in context here Wez.  When Christianity was a young, fledgling religion, nobody gave a shit.  It was just like any other cult back then.  Nobody cared.  It wasn't that it was 'opposed'.  It just wasn't worth a damn.   It would be akin to thinking it strange that people are not going out of their way to disprove some small group of backwater religious freaks out in the middle of Louisiana or something. 

By the time it was a religion big enough to care about, it was a couple hundred years later and all the relative information was gone. 

And using your example, at that time, since there were more people who opposed the religion, don't you find it odd that it was able to survive through all of that opposition?

No.  You do know, WeZ, that every single religion in the world has more people that oppose it than buy into it, right?  Every single religion has had opposition.  The Jews were around a LONG time before the Christians, and they're still kicking around.  Do you find that odd? 

And while we're talking about it, why do you think Christians were often tortured and killed by people who opposed their beliefs?  Do you think the opposition was just being mean or something?  Do you think it was a group of atheists or was it other theists doing the torturing and killing?  The answer is pretty interesting. 

Once again, you're missing the point.....  I am not speaking the current "factually disproven" things that exist in the bible, I am making an example that there would've have been other things that would most likely have been 100% wrong even 10 years after the inception of the religion, thus needing alterations...

Do you think the bible survived the test of time and even the early years free of alterations?  Or am I missing what you're saying here?   

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #68 on: June 14, 2012, 01:52:41 AM »
I agree the mind/body are related.  But regardless,  chemistry still cannot fully account.   How do I know you're not a p-zombie from looking at your brain chemistry?  I don't see how that's possible.  You may claim to have inner experience.  But how would I prove you're not a p-zombie programmed to lie about his qualia?

One could pose this regardless of whether or not subjective consciousness is physically independent, or even exists. People certainly haven't hesitated to make similar arguments regarding animals, claiming them to be just automatons that respond to their programming. We tend to judge consciousness not by assuming the existence of some intangible, undetectable force, but through the components of consciousness itself to which we can all relate: reason and emotion. I would contend that the very existence of a non-physical based qualia would render the brain entirely superfluous, as the capacity for subjective experience is not only its main function, but the only means by which any of its operations would make sense. With some outside source of what it diligently works for in the first place you'd be left with nothing more than theatrics, redundant processes, biological fluff. To posit qualia as a complete non-physical force is to posit reason, emotion, memory, and processing all as a package deal as we could not otherwise experience, let alone draw the interpretations that are the most personally useful and satisfying without such faculties.

In any case, until such a time as it becomes possible to distinguish a mind grounded in physical processes from one that's not I can only consider the mind and body being "related" to be a serious understatement. I'm not sure what specific aspects you feel aren't being accounted for, but it really doesn't matter due to the fact that you're invoking a "gaps" argument. An argument from ignorance is considered fallacious precisely because it relies upon an absence of evidence.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 02:13:01 AM by Aspie »

Offline IAmFirst

Re: Has anyone ever though of this before?
« Reply #69 on: June 14, 2012, 05:32:41 AM »
You're forgetting a few prime things in this analogy.

Parents tell the story, but around age 6, the story gets lame. Simple questions happen: How does he have time to visit ALL the good kids? How does he fit down the chimney? Doesn't he have to go to the bathroom real bad after downing all the cookies and milk? No one can live in the North Pole with a toy factory! Etcetera.

The Santa story only involves one day of the year, toys (which become less important), good or bad behavior, lives in the North Pole.

Now the god stories are much, much different. Some have wives and kids, some don't have wives BUT they have a son. This god created everything and he even created... (wait for it).... SANTA CLAUS! This god also loves you, created you (Santa didn't do THAT!), blesses you each and every day, and you don't need a tree in your house to "accept" gods or their offspring.

Older kids say Santa Claus is not true. Adults say he's not true. There are no schools (seminaries) to devote life, the givings and teachings of Santa Claus or the elves, there are no churches to honor him.

In my humble opinion, the Santa Claus story is an awful, horrible way to pine children to believe in religion. It basically says, "Look, the story of Santa told you that if you were good, you got gifts. Well, now that you're older and wiser (age 7), look at your older peers who all go to church and pray. How can they all be wrong?"

Excuse me while I grind my teeth....
2nd of all, if all you believe in is peer-reviewed papers, you won't go very far in life...

-- Shin :D