How did you lose your faith

[Vexen]

I don't have to:

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", Carl Sagan.

 

If you want to claim that an alien species travelled millions of light years just to probe a farmer, produce crop circles or something like that, fine. But, it's your reputation at stake.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Vexen

[Ten oz]

Many people attempt to demand explanations all the way to before the big bang as a means of saying science does not have all the answer. Meanwhile many average people can't explain how a combustion engine works. So there is a huge double standard at play. In my life every question I have every had about the world around me has been successfully answerd by science without the need for a God. Black holes, Big Bangs, time travel, and so on are not tangible things that currently are part of the world around me to my knowledge. So I do not seek absolute answers to them. I can accept not fully understanding them just as most of the population gets by having no idea how their smartphones work.

People use God to answer false or redundant questions. An example of that would be attempts to understand what happens after death. I have always found that question silly. It is well documented what happens. We have graveyards full of dead people. To challange that which is clearly observable with no evidence to the contrary is delusional.

[Moontanman]

That borders on a contradiction doesn't it. "accept the possibility ... but believe it is impossible" You can't have it both ways. It may be rare, I'll accept that.

 

...and you are a poet and don't know it.

 

 

I am a poet and I do know it but you cannot assert something as true with out being able to show it and be honest.

 

So when you accept proof, it will no longer be a matter of belief. What is proof then? What sort of proof do you need? Proof that I accept may still be not good enough for you. So you must say what sort of proof you need. (Like has this proof already been done.) Beside what has already been done there is a possibility that that "someone" is you!

 

Proof of God? Raising someone who has been dead for a few decades would be reasonably convincing...

Edited December 15, 2014 by Moontanman

[Vexen]

It seems my reputation is at stake. My reputation is -2. Somebody doesn't like me.

[Phi for All]

Somebody doesn't like me.

 

Why make it personal? Maybe it was something you said.

[Vexen]

Why make it personal? Maybe it was something you said.

Somebody went to both of my posts on separate discussions and decided to pick me out from everyone else and dislike my posts.

 

Thanks guys. I lost everything I worked so hard for in these few days.

[EdEarl]

Proof of God? Raising someone who has been dead for a few decades would be reasonably convincing...

Medical science might be capable of removing DNA from a corpse, cloning it, and rearing a clone. Not exactly what you suggested, but combined with 3D printing of cells (now being done for burn victims), recovering an adult might be possible. Of course, such a recovered adult would not have memories of the original. Maybe ET could also recover memories.

 

Proof of a god is a difficult challenge, IMO more difficult than figuring out how the Universe works, and we haven't completed that project, yet.

Edited December 15, 2014 by EdEarl

[Ophiolite]

I don't have to:

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", Carl Sagan.

 

If you want to claim that an alien species travelled millions of light years just to probe a farmer, produce crop circles or something like that, fine. But, it's your reputation at stake.

I am not making such a claim. I certainly find little or nothing in UFO reports and alien abduction stories that is worthy of notice. I don;t know why you would think I am making such a claim. you seem to be creating a strawman.

 

I am simply challenging your assertion that aliens have never visited the Earth.

 

You assert that this is a fact, that never in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet has it been visited by aliens. Had you asserted that there was no evidence for such a visit I could have agreed that was a fact. But you state categorically that there have been no alien visitations in 4.5 billion years. That is an extraordinary claim and does indeed require extraordinary evidence.

 

Somebody went to both of my posts on separate discussions and decided to pick me out from everyone else and dislike my posts.

 

Thanks guys. I lost everything I worked so hard for in these few days

Yes, it is annoying when that happens, but you have made a couple of assumptions there.

 

1. You assume the dislikes were applied by the same person.

2. You assume that they somehow focused in on you, whereas it seems much more likely, as Phi for All said, that it is a matter of what you said.

 

I have noticed that some of your posts are, in my opinion, illogical. (See above.) Someone may have taken exception to that. For all I know it may even have been me. I don't pay too much attention to who I give dislikes to; I don't do it often, but I do it on the basis of message content, not originator. I'll take a look at the posts you refer to and see what I think.

 

Edit: Well, your post wherein you state that killing animals for research is no big deal is both ethically questionable and operationally ignorant. I don't think it merits a dislike, but clearly someone else did. That is their right. Perhaps if you try stating your case more clearly, rather than with the appearance of casual arrogance you won't get that response.

 

The other post is #24 on this thread and someone seems to have offset the neg rep with a like.

 

In reading the other thread I was tempted to give you neg rep for whining about people hitting you with two neg reps. I've had three in the last two days and I wouldn't even mention it had you not brought the topic up. Deal with it.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Ophiolite

[MigL]

No one gives a hoot about rep points, Vexen, because some people give them as 'punishment' for having an opposing viewpoint to theirs. Make the best posts you can and always back them with your thinking or evidence behind them.

That will demonstrate much more than rep points do.

 

I personally, have only given out one or two ( always positive ), since I joined and it was always for especially humorous posts.

[Ophiolite]

I just gave you a nice Green one MigL since you make consistently well considered posts.

 

But my main reason for posting was to apologise to all members for taking the thread off topic.. ... Loss of faith.

 

I wonder if we shouldn't teach children (and adults) how to abandon dearly held ideas. I am not talking of just religious ideas - Fred Hoyle and Steady State theory came to mind. It would be part of any course on critical thinking.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

I am a poet and I do know it but you cannot assert something as true with out being able to show it and be honest.

 

 

Proof of God? Raising someone who has been dead for a few decades would be reasonably convincing...

That would be unconvincing wouldn't it? That would be a type of reincarnation situation, and they aren't that convincing from what I've seen.

[Delta1212]

That borders on a contradiction doesn't it. "accept the possibility ... but believe it is impossible" You can't have it both ways. It may be rare, I'll accept that.

 

...and you are a poet and don't know it.

I can believe something to be impossible while accepting the possibility that that belief is wrong.

 

It's the difference between possible in the "this is physically capable of happening" and possible in the "I don't have enough information to say whether or not this is true" senses.

 

I currently believe that it is impossible for anything with mass to travel faster than c locally, but I accept the possibility that new physics may someday render that belief outdated. That's not to say that I necessarily believe it will, but I know that I don't know for sure that it won't and so, in that sense, it is a possibility even if physically it may very well be completely impossible.

[Robittybob1]

I can believe something to be impossible while accepting the possibility that that belief is wrong.

 

It's the difference between possible in the "this is physically capable of happening" and possible in the "I don't have enough information to say whether or not this is true" senses.

 

I currently believe that it is impossible for anything with mass to travel faster than c locally, but I accept the possibility that new physics may someday render that belief outdated. That's not to say that I necessarily believe it will, but I know that I don't know for sure that it won't and so, in that sense, it is a possibility even if physically it may very well be completely impossible.

I believe it near impossible to sort out all the permutations of that post.

[Moontanman]

That would be unconvincing wouldn't it? That would be a type of reincarnation situation, and they aren't that convincing from what I've seen.

 

 

You appear to misunderstand me, if for instance someone was to raise my grandfather back from the dead all his memories intact exactly as he was that would be impressive, maybe not absolute proof but i think it would do it for me..

[Robittybob1]

 

 

You appear to misunderstand me, if for instance someone was to raise my grandfather back from the dead all his memories intact exactly as he was that would be impressive, maybe not absolute proof but i think it would do it for me..

If it did happen I bet he'd say, "why didn't you turn the clock back and make me 18 again?". I'd say, "But then you wouldn't have memories of your grandson Moontanman". Outcome: Moontanman had to be removed off the scene as well.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Willie71]

I lost my faith when I was about 13. I think I put it down for a while because it was really obtrusive, and was getting in the way of thinking rationally. After I read the bible back to front, and asked a priest about the contradictions, getting the bible is inerrant/God works in mysterious ways line, it crumbled before my eyes. I remember thinking that night, lying in bed, that there is no way any sane person could read that book and believe the creator of the universe inspired it, unless he was a psychopath.

[ACG52]

Never had it to begin with.

[Robittybob1]

I lost my faith when I was about 13. I think I put it down for a while because it was really obtrusive, and was getting in the way of thinking rationally. After I read the bible back to front, and asked a priest about the contradictions, getting the bible is inerrant/God works in mysterious ways line, it crumbled before my eyes. I remember thinking that night, lying in bed, that there is no way any sane person could read that book and believe the creator of the universe inspired it, unless he was a psychopath.

 

I lost my faith when I was about 13. I think I put it down for a while because it was really obtrusive, and was getting in the way of thinking rationally. After I read the bible back to front, and asked a priest about the contradictions, getting the bible is inerrant/God works in mysterious ways line, it crumbled before my eyes. I remember thinking that night, lying in bed, that there is no way any sane person could read that book and believe the creator of the universe inspired it, unless he was a psychopath.

Is faith dependent on the Bible being correct?

[Strange]

Is faith dependent on the Bible being correct?

 

Of course not. There are a great many Christians who don't believe the Bible is literal, inerrant truth. It would be interesting to know if Willie71 might have kept (some) faith if he had been told that the Bible was a collection of stories collected, translated, selected and edited by many different people over many years and intended to show some moral lessons, etc.

 

(I suspect not, because I assume that if someone loses (or doesn't have) faith, it is because of something inherent in them, not because of what some book or person says.)

[Ten oz]

Of course not. There are a great many Christians who don't believe the Bible is literal, inerrant truth. It would be interesting to know if Willie71 might have kept (some) faith if he had been told that the Bible was a collection of stories collected, translated, selected and edited by many different people over many years and intended to show some moral lessons, etc.

 

(I suspect not, because I assume that if someone loses (or doesn't have) faith, it is because of something inherent in them, not because of what some book or person says.)

I think most people only have faith in first place because it is put into them as children culturally. Obviously the Bible (or any religious text) doesn't have to be true in order to have faith but how many children in Northern America and western Europe lay in bed at night pondering Allah, Krishna, Buddha, or any god that isn't Jesus? The concept of god exists because it is taught. I do not think questions about faith naturally happen the way questions about love and sex do. Children ponder religion because it is present it to them as a real thing. In Willie71's case I image he was exposed primarily to Christianity and the Bible. Once that was understand not to be true how much further is there to go? Some people claim Aliens have visited the earth. I don't feel compelled to examine every claim. Other people say God created life. I don't feel compelled to examine every claim. Unless there is a legitimate reason to explore faith beyond fallacies preached why bother? Edited December 16, 2014 by Ten oz

[Willie71]

Of course not. There are a great many Christians who don't believe the Bible is literal, inerrant truth. It would be interesting to know if Willie71 might have kept (some) faith if he had been told that the Bible was a collection of stories collected, translated, selected and edited by many different people over many years and intended to show some moral lessons, etc.

 

(I suspect not, because I assume that if someone loses (or doesn't have) faith, it is because of something inherent in them, not because of what some book or person says.)

If I was not expected to accept a nonsensical explanation, I might have kept faith in a god longer. However, any religion that suggested we were created in gods image, or that we were the reason for creation, somehow special in the universe could not have survived much longer. I was considering astronomy, palaeontology, or physics as a career, and even in my early teens recognized how irrational these beliefs were compared to the reality of the universe.

[Strange]

I think most people only have faith in first place because it is put into them as children culturally.

 

I'm not sure. Imagine you could take a large group of children (damn those ethics committees!) and bring them up in a new environment where there was no trace of any sort of religion or mythology. I am fairly sure that some of those children would invent some sort of spiritual beliefs as they grew up as their way of making sense of the world around them. (We have enough evidence on this forum of people making up their own weird ideas.)

[Willie71]

I'm not sure. Imagine you could take a large group of children (damn those ethics committees!) and bring them up in a new environment where there was no trace of any sort of religion or mythology. I am fairly sure that some of those children would invent some sort of spiritual beliefs as they grew up as their way of making sense of the world around them. (We have enough evidence on this forum of people making up their own weird ideas.)

Children naturally gravitate to causal thinking. They will assume a puddle was put there to give a dog a drink, rather than see it as a low spot after a rain. As our brains mature, we question this thinking, but it always remains at a certain level with the majority of people. Incorrect causal relations is like a thought form of pareidolia. Those who are attracted to sciences, about 15% of the population, are the strongest questioners.

[Moontanman]

Medical science might be capable of removing DNA from a corpse, cloning it, and rearing a clone. Not exactly what you suggested, but combined with 3D printing of cells (now being done for burn victims), recovering an adult might be possible. Of course, such a recovered adult would not have memories of the original. Maybe ET could also recover memories.

 

Proof of a god is a difficult challenge, IMO more difficult than figuring out how the Universe works, and we haven't completed that project, yet.

 

 

Yes but a clone would not be the same person, your memories is what makes you you.

[EdEarl]

Children naturally gravitate to causal thinking. They will assume a puddle was put there to give a dog a drink, rather than see it as a low spot after a rain. As our brains mature, we question this thinking, but it always remains at a certain level with the majority of people. Incorrect causal relations is like a thought form of pareidolia. Those who are attracted to sciences, about 15% of the population, are the strongest questioners.

There is tall grass wherein a predator may hide is a thought process necessary for survival. If we always analyzed how the grass grew and which path the predator took, we would be food before we finished causal thoughts. Correlations are important, but some people seem inept or unwilling to think about causes and make rational conclusions, especially with a complex chain of causes and effects.

 

 

Yes but a clone would not be the same person, your memories is what makes you you.

True, but at least some memories are coded within interconnections of neurons, especially synapses. Perhaps ET could recover the memories form that structure and reanimate the clone, with memories. It would not be the same person, but might be indistinguishable. We certainly do not know enough yet to say one way or another, and it seems a long shot, but...