how to turn a believer

[jfoldbar]

i was bought up a christian. went my own way in my early 20's. now i am completely neutral simply cause 'the jurys still out'.

i tend to lean towards science because i like the thought of something that can be proven rather than just believed. for me, logic overrules feelings.

something i sometimes wonder. for me to turn from a strong believer to on the fence, all i had to do was simply read the other side of the story. hear both arguments. why doesnt that work for everyone?

 

sometimes i find things like this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201107/you-end-believing-what-you-want-believe

 

there are so many studies showing that humans generally just believe something or not. and usually if you believe it then no amount of proof will change your belief.

 

so i guess a few things i wonder are. while i was raised a christian and know the bible, how do i know i was not pre wired to believe science and so was easily turned away from my belief. how do we keep ourselfs honest, given that we are all human, and so are all susceptible to believe either way.

 

if i could turn so easily, why cant another person with the same'facts' that turned me. surely a fact is a fact regardless of who the learner or those facts are.

 

 

are there people out there who have a strong science background, and have suddenly ditched that to believe in god

[Pymander]

I am one who has studied tertiary agriculture, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy of science. psychology, engineering subjects, and computer science. After all that I have worked as a computer programmer. I finally decided on teaching and finding it was nothing like the movies, found myself preferring manual work on the railways of sunny Queensland. My mind freed to follow my own interests and build on this past, my interests have turned to religions, mysticism, astronomy, palaeontology, and politics. My background was Christian, and after finding no answers to questions, decided to read the Bible, determining that the prelates of religion didn't study or understand it, on the basis of inconsistencies from the orthodox belief system - what Jesus was referring to in the Sermon on The Mount and elsewhere, saying such things to the Pharisees (purported believers) and Sadducees (atheists) as "by your tradition you have rendered the law of nil effect." This type of experience is in all likelihood the reason for the exodus from Christianity. Its history in "The Great Controversy" - Ellen White (downloadable PDF) is one of perversion and exploitation, until the reformation. Somehow I innately believed the Bible was okay if properly interpreted, and reading it has confirmed this somewhat, but to escape the pollution is difficult. It was achieved for me when, studying the most ancient belief system, Egyptian, researching the Great Pyramid, and thereby discovering Edgar Cayce, all questions concerning the Bible were answered satisfactorily on the basis of my background. Like Woodrow Wilson, I believe that "Anyone who studies the Bible will know that it is God's word" and concerning Edgar Cayce that "No man is that good a liar." The consistent belief system is however "Hermetic Philosophy", roughly "All is mind" (Psalm 90). Anything that is consistent with "Therefore, whatsoever ye would that another should do unto you, do ye even so unto them, for this is the whole law and the prophets." (Matthew 7 KJV) is not evil. Don't be deceived, some of our greatest scientists (Einstein, Newton) do not see contradiction between religion or the occult and science, all rightly interpreted. The belief system expounded by the Edgar Cayce Readings (available on DVD, and the basis of many books from the Association of Research and Enlightenment (ARE)) is complex and beyond most of contemporary Christianity. The text of his readings is 20x the Bible and Apocrypha, produced over 40 years as "The Sleeping Prophet" (1877 - 1945), with the help of stenographer Gladys Davis, meticulously filed with follow up research from people helped by his work. I believe that he is a part of that prophesied in the last chapter of Daniel KJV, from which Jesus quoted.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Pymander

[jfoldbar]

thanks for the reply. i guess from all that study you must have spent more than 20 years in uni.

 

i have no tertiary education at all. i barely even finished high school. so sorry to say, but i have no idea what your whole post was about. it just completely went over my head. are you able to dumb it down for me?

im not even sure from you post if you believe in god or not.

 

the only part that i understood was

"Anyone who studies the Bible will know that it is God's word"

i will totally dispute this statement itself . but wont go any further yet as i may have got it out of context with the rest of your post

[Pymander]

I have found time to edit and clarify my previous post, if you wish to reread. The quote attributed to WWI President Woodrow Wilson "Anyone who studies the Bible..." I found in a Jehovah's Witnesses publication. He may have meant "seriously study" and "in due time". Such is the case for me. Some of the books, based on the Edgar Cayce readings, gave information about Woodrow consulting Edgar seeking a means of resolving WWI and issues of The Central Powers of Europe. Woodrow Wilson's "Fourteen Point Plan" was a result, and may be researched on the net. When Woodrow was asked if he believed Edgar Cayce to be a real psychic, Woodrow said "No man is that good a liar." Of course, others claim he was a fraud. He was investigated, as recounted in the biography "There Is A River", and the agent came away saying that Cayce was for real, based on the witnessed evidence. I have studied his work in great depth and share Woodrow's opinion. If you seek proof of the divinity and reality of Jesus, Cayce's work is possibly the best available evidence. One must also consider the Jewish people, who include Einstein and Newton. The very existence of the Jews, and of Christianity and its influence over two thousand years, is difficult to explain unless the Bible and Jesus are the truth on some level of significance. Obviously, the first chapters of Genesis, and Revelation are largely symbolic, and conceal profound significance decoded. Such are available from ARE books or the DVD collection. Cayce supplied 22 psychic discourses on the Revelation, which are unparalleled and a miraculous exposition from a trance state.

 

For fear of losing you, I will answer questions simply from here, if you like.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Pymander

[DrP]

I would say "Anyone who studies the bible 'for long enough' will soon see that it is full of holes"

 

If it IS the word of god, then this god make a lot of mistakes and is pretty harsh. It clearly isn't, it was written by men and is full of contradictions, errors and ghastly claims and acts of cruelty by the main character who is supposed to be all loving and perfect. He/it clearly does not exist as it is suggested in the bible at least.

[John Cuthber]

Jfoldbar, you need to understand that Pymander is really good at trying to use the "argument from authority" logical fallacy.

It doesn't work very well.

People point out that this "When Woodrow was asked if he believed Edgar Cayce to be a real psychic, Woodrow said "No man is that good a liar." " only matters if Wilson had some special ability to spot liars.

There is no reason to suppose that he did.

Similarly, this

"The very existence of the Jews, and of Christianity and its influence over two thousand years, is difficult to explain unless the Bible and Jesus are the truth on some level of significance. " doesn't make much sense since you could apply it equally validly (or equally invalidly) to any scripture.

It doesn't make sense, except at the level where, if a book says lots of things and some of tem er true, then the book has some truth in it.

So what?

That's true of Toad of Toad Hall- but it doesn't make it into holy writ.

I could go on, but there's not much point. Further evidence of his impermeability to facts can be found, for example, in teh trhead here

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-43#entry986934

 

 

You might want to consider that he has a current reputation here of -41 and he's achieved that while only posting 154 times.

[jfoldbar]

gee. just shows how different levels we are. even your dumbed down version is a head full for me.but i think i got it. thankyou

 

from your post this is what i get.

 

some dude from ww1 wanted to test if a psychic was the real deal. so a test performed suggested he was.

and jews and Christianity influence over the past 2000 years shows the bible punches very high.

 

 

 

well, first thing, im not too sure what that has to do with op apart from that it seems like a science person has turned religious. but still want to talk about a few points.

 

 

1 ,

your quote

"Anyone who studies the Bible will know that it is God's word"

 

i have studied the bible for the first 20 years of my life. read it many times. i dont not see it as the word of a god for many reasons. but 1 strong reason is.

god claims he is perfect and without fault, therefore his word should be perfect and without fault. when i study the bible, i do not see a perfect book but a good book, with also many problems/contradictions/inconsistencies in it.

 

 

i once saw a fairly well known comedian debunk psychics by doing their own psychic show. people saw him and he gave them psychic readings, predictions of their future. he had a %100 success rate. every prediction he made about these total strangers came to be true. later he was asked how he done it and he told them, its the way he said it. basically he chose his words so that, whatever happened in the future he would always be right. he couldnt tell their futures, but he could choose his words carefully.

 

 

if jews and Christianity life shows the bible to be true, wouldnt also Buddhist lifestyle show their belief to be true?

​im not sure what jews and Christians have that others dont. to me they are just people. good and bad amongst them like any organisation.

 

 

thankyou for keeping your answer simple. please keep them simple in the future

[Pymander]

One simple answer for one simple question at a time, please.

[Strange]

One simple answer for one simple question at a time, please.

 

 

That is ironic, coming from the master of the tl;dr screeds of irrelevant nonsense.

[Manticore]

When I tried to read the bible, I got to the rant about "He who pisseth against a wall" and just fell about laughing.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Manticore

[Prometheus]

You might want to consider that he has a current reputation here of -41 and he's achieved that while only posting 154 times.

 

Isn't that itself a form of argument from authority? Maybe ad hominem since you are attacking reputation. Shouldn't we be discouraging this form of debate by not engaging in it ourselves, even if it is prefaced with some good points?

[DrKrettin]

One must also consider the Jewish people, who include Einstein and Newton.

 

Why on Earth do you think Newton was Jewish?

[jfoldbar]

 

 

of his impermeability to facts

 

does this mean he is 'an ignorer of facts'?

if someone (anyone) does ignore facts, what is their basis for doing so?

 

what causes any human to ignore a fact about, for example, bible inconsistencies. but they heed the fact that driving fast is dangerous. a fact is a fact whatever the context, isnt it?

[Pymander]

Now we are having fun! Let's start with this. Forgive my seriosity, my atheist friends. It's good to have you back. Okay! The ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY is not a logical fallacy, genius. It is one form of inductive reasoning.

[Raider5678]

are there people out there who have a strong science background, and have suddenly ditched that to believe in god

Plenty.

[DrP]

Like who Raider? Most Scientists I know that are believers were believers before they were scientists. I don't know any scientists who suddenly convert to Islam... I have know a good few religious types that drop the myths when presented with science though.

[DrKrettin]

The ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY is not a logical fallacy, genius. It is one form of inductive reasoning.

 

RationalWiki:

 

An argument from authority refers to two kinds of logical arguments:

1. A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, this is a Bayesian statement -- it is likely to be true, rather than necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.
2. A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)

[koti]

jfoldbar, as for the title of your thread I would start here:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[Phi for All]

i tend to lean towards science because i like the thought of something that can be proven rather than just believed. for me, logic overrules feelings.

 

Glad to have you on the side of reason. So let's fine tune this statement of yours, because it's got several popular misconceptions while still showing that you understand the dangers of unfounded belief.

 

Science isn't really interested in "proof" so much as the preponderance of evidence. Think less in terms of answers and more in terms of best supported explanations. Theory is the best science can achieve, and our modern theories are backed by mountains of supportive evidence as they develop over time.

 

Logic is more of a math term. What you're looking for is critical thinking, or reason. Popular "logic" is used more as "that makes sense to me", which is horribly subjective and not scientific at all.

 

Also, don't discount feelings, just use them correctly. There are times to be emotional. Usually best after you've reasoned things out, and are now passionate about the results.

 

Lastly, belief has levels of trust. Faith asks you to believe strongly in something you can't possibly know. Science asks you to understand an explanation deeply enough to believe in it based on trust. Everything else is just wishful thinking.

[dimreepr]

what causes any human to ignore a fact about, for example, bible inconsistencies. but they heed the fact that driving fast is dangerous.

 

Cognitive dissonance.

That a person who experiences inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to try to reduce the cognitive dissonance occurring, to justify behavior by changing parts or by adding new parts of the cognition causing the psychological dissonance, and by actively avoiding situations and information likely to increase the psychological discomfort

 

[Pymander]

All scientific theories have their roots in inference (inductive reasoning) as the irreducible basis of their existence. All hypotheses can be falsified if new evidence arises to contradict the initial inference. There are no absolutes, but the hypothesis that Jesus existed is way more probable than much of mainstream, and you know it.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Pymander

[DrP]

If he existed as a person (there are about 5 other similar myths to his that all say the same thing)... I am not so sure nowadays and now see it as irrelevant.

 

Also, what is the probability that he died and was resurrected 3 days later? There is no proof for that other than stories told.... stories told from a book which has many obvious errors and wrongs in it, so why trust it at all?

[koti]

All scientific theories have their roots in inference (inductive reasoning) as the irreducible basis of their existence. All hypotheses can be falsified if new evidence arises to contradict the initial inference. There are no absolutes, but the hypothesis that Jesus existed is way more probable than much of mainstream, and you know it.

You are comparing science and religion. Science and religion have zero correlation and they do not mutualy exclude each other because they are totaly different concepts which have nothing in common.

[DrKrettin]

There are no absolutes, but the hypothesis that Jesus existed is way more probable than much of mainstream, and you know it.

 

My guess is that Jesus probably did exist as a real person. But the leap from that "fact" to the conclusion that therefore he was the son of god is totally irrational.

[koti]

 

My guess is that Jesus probably did exist as a real person. But the leap from that "fact" to the conclusion that therefore he was the son of god is totally irrational.

Ofcourse. But this is a thread on "how to turn a believer" and lets not turn it into "was Jesus a real person" thread which is endless BS.

 

Also, what is the probability that he died and was resurrected 3 days later? There is no proof for that other than stories told.... stories told from a book which has many obvious errors and wrongs in it, so why trust it at all?

I disagree with aplying probablility to pink unicorns. We aren't exactly a perfect species and theres not much to be proud of but we should have a certain level of dignity flowing from the progress that we've made for the last 160K years.