Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
bigjim36

Why do people believe the bible?

1,738 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

zacharybdecker
Just now, eight bits said:

Unitarian Universalist. Two very liberal historically-descended-from-Protestantism churches merged some time ago in the US. It's non-creedal, welcomes all beliefs including "none," and has a political reputation somewhere in Bernie Sanders' brand of social democracy, maybe a tad to his left. It's searchable if you want details.

Just to so you know I don't mostly believe the mainstream politics of the UU church.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
8 minutes ago, zacharybdecker said:

Dandydandan, 

UU church is universal Unitarian church. Just to let you know if you actually read my post and quoted it fully your statement would make zero sense. I've gone to church numerous times, I study theology on and off again. I just don't agree with you. I literally understand the Christian perspective and the Atheist perspective simultaneously. I can tell you what the Christian perspective is and what stands for logically while maintaining my ideas. That is almost the opposite of us vs. them. It sounds like your vaguely labeling.

Welcome to UM  Zachary, what do you mean by “I literally understand the Christian and Athiest perspective, simultaneously” (Zacharybdecker)?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
13 minutes ago, Will Due said:

By recognition. 

While I am not questioning your faith, so hopefully it won't be perceived as such; yet I have found the passage in Hebrews 11:6 regarding those who come to God to be an interesting subject since it represents by implication that a person who comes to God would not know whether God actually existed or not, but unless one believed in the possibility of his existence then they would never be able to come to the knowledge of him. 

If he who comes to God must believe he is, then obviously they wouldn't know him, or have any knowledge of him since it is written that they must believe he is.  Since hope is believing something is true without any evidence of it's truth, then could explain what you meant exactly by your response that you came to God by recognition?

( I consider recognition to be the identification of someone or something or person from previous encounters or knowledge so maybe you have a better definition or define it a little different that the one I am using.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
15 minutes ago, zacharybdecker said:

Dandydandan, 

UU church is universal Unitarian church. Just to let you know if you actually read my post and quoted it fully your statement would make zero sense. I've gone to church numerous times, I study theology on and off again. I just don't agree with you. I literally understand the Christian perspective and the Atheist perspective simultaneously. I can tell you what the Christian perspective is and what stands for logically while maintaining my ideas. That is almost the opposite of us vs. them. It sounds like your vaguely labeling.

The personal stuff is not relevant to the discussion. I just qouted the responses you gave to the actual question. 

You broke down the question why people believe the Bible into a few points. I believe it's far more complex and complicated that. Your second point you mention that the establishment think their ideas are more important than Science etcetera. That's where I got the Us vs them mentality aspect. 

So in other words you believe some people follow the Bible because of some cognitive dissonance or biases, whether they are forced upon them by others or by themselves unknown to them themselves? 

Yeah I never heard you the UU Church. Sounds interesting I'll have to give it a study.

26 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Unitarian Universalist. Two very liberal historically-descended-from-Protestantism churches merged some time ago in the US. It's non-creedal, welcomes all beliefs including "none," and has a political reputation somewhere in Bernie Sanders' brand of social democracy, maybe a tad to his left. It's searchable if you want details.

ETA: Welcome aboard Zachary

Accepts all people even Atheists I assume that's the universalist aspect?

Iassume Unitarian means they reject Jesus as the Son of God and reject the Holy Trinity? 

That is interesting.... Down the rabbit hole I go one this religion so. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
12 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Welcome to UM  Zachary, what do you mean by “I literally understand the Christian and Athiest perspective, simultaneously” (Zacharybdecker)?

 

It's something someone can do. 

Raised and believing in a Christian God then not believing. Well maybe not simultaneously, but consecutively? I don't know, 

I'm pretty sure I understand a Catholic perspective and an agnostic perspective too.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zacharybdecker

Assuming Yahweh is the true one god, that the bible was inspired by him written through people having divine inspiration, and that the historical method is pragmatic the following would be true:

Jesus is God the son sent in the form of a baby through Mary. 

The Torah would have to be true otherwise no none believes in the history of the Hebrews and thus they don't believe in much equatable valued history. 

 

The reason I don't believe in the above is because of things like Heaven and Hell. If you study things long in science, etc. enough destiny is real fact. People are basically going to hell and heaven by faith. Quite an evil action in fact. 

There are parts of the Torah where and "crowd for eye" is taken by God. An example in Exodus if anybody touches a certain wall they are to be killed according to God. 

 

Long story short what I'm doing is thinking/"believing" like a christian while maintaining my Athiesm on the actuality subject. I'm doing an extreme form of perspective taking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
12 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

While I am not questioning your faith, so hopefully it won't be perceived as such; yet I have found the passage in Hebrews 11:6 regarding those who come to God to be an interesting subject since it represents by implication that a person who comes to God would not know whether God actually existed or not, but unless one believed in the possibility of his existence then they would never be able to come to the knowledge of him. 

If he who comes to God must believe he is, then obviously they wouldn't know him, or have any knowledge of him since it is written that they must believe he is.  Since hope is believing something is true without any evidence of it's truth, then could explain what you meant exactly by your response that you came to God by recognition?

( I consider recognition to be the identification of someone or something or person from previous encounters or knowledge so maybe you have a better definition or define it a little different that the one I am using.)

 

Here's how it happened for me. First I didn't believe IN God. Then a point came where I couldn't deny that I recognized I was having an experience with him. The experience "spoke" for God. The experience was like hearing his voice telling me what to do.

So I decided to believe God (Contradistinctive to believing IN God).

I was an atheist when this happened. But I recognized God anyways.

Reading about God came much later. And whenever I do, which is often like I do whenever I peruse this forum, I believe God when he tells me what's true about what I'm reading.

Again, I believe God directly. Believing IN him has never occured in my life.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zacharybdecker

The main tenant and point of being a universal Unitarian is "a free and responsible search for truth and meaning." What that means basically is they get a bunch of people with different ideas in the same room and share different perspectives. Admittedly a lot of people in the Unitarian Universalist church like a bunch of very liberal flops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

 

God is my friend, and I believe him just like I believe all my true friends.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

@Jodie.Lynne

Quote
3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Has the question been answered, why do people believe in the Bible?

Nope. It turned into a "my ego is bigger than yours" discussion.

Ahhhh, gotcha. 

Thanks for the update. :D  

@eight bits

Quote
3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 Maybe, I might have remembered some people say they believe  parts of the Bible, and some believe all of it. The big question for me is, has anyone admitted to believing all of the Bible? 

Not yet, but we have one active poster who believes another book that "complements" the Bible.

*shrugs*

Yeah, I have been noticing that. 

Quote
  3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 I had not read that book, but based on the synopsis it look like how the author proved how you really can’t do that honestly.

Actually, I haven't read that book etiher, but from your description of it, Paul was saying that almost 2000 years ago.

So, this latest author, is doing an update. ;)  

@Will Due

Quote

Only believe God.

He let's you know what's true in life, what's true that's written in books, what's true about what people tell you, and most importantly, what's true about how others and especially you live your life.

Only believe God.

No, only believe Carol Burnett. I think she let's you know what is true in life, what true written in her books, and what's .........

well, and she does it with a Tarzan yell. :D   

Seriously though, Will, if you know for a fact, an observable fact that it is God, that tells you this, how can you explain it to others, that it's really is God that you tells you this? 

Because, I have observed from some, that they only believed in God, and after all of it, couldn't tell it was him and gave up. You know, because there was no real evidence to say it was him. 

 

@DieChecker

Quote

I think it depends. Does one have to follow all the rules, or only those as your denomination says are required? There are lots of ways of reading what Paul wrote which allow for a Christian to live just about whatever life they want. As long as they believe the most base tenets.

Thank you for you answer. :yes: 

The thing is, for me to understand this in a quick simplification, why pick and choose, when there must have been a reason for all of it to be written. I also have observed various point of views that claim the following biblical outlook, so I would think all of it. If not all of the bible is followed, that I would think it's not entirely biblical living, right?

I think you know of this of me, so considering I haven't read the bible, (or all of the orthodox religious books) and didn't go to church growing up and still not up to this point, what Paul said, I would leave that up to you in knowing. 

In thinking it's ok in believing the most base tenets, what is keeping that from breaking down to what is considered important and what is not? 

Quote

Do I believe the Bible? I believe that those who wrote it down believed it was true, and historical. And to believe in God is to believe in the supernatural, and thus that the many miraculous things did happen.

I think this part is probably a realistic outlook. I have come across various deep believers, (Christians mostly), who separates God and Christ with the supernatural. Or in a sense, have a hard time seeing things within religious context akin to a paranormal outlook. I would think there would be exactly the way to look at it. I can understand the way you believe what you believe, because my belief stems from a supernatural outlook as well. Whether I have seen miraculous things happen, (parts of me thinks so in a interested way) or just things that I have yet to explain. *shrugs*

Quote

But belief in a religion comes from a want to believe and personal experience, not from the pages of any book. A book can give reasons to believe, but the person has to want to believe or not. 

The last part of this I think I agree with. :yes:  (And feel strongly on the personal experience part. And that a lack of it, my not going to church, which I'll mention again here, can be a driving factor too.) I am considering the wording, 'belief in a religion comes from a want to believe' as thought provoking. I see this as a good thing. :tu:  Maybe I'm mulling over this, because I tend to partner 'wanting to believe' to 'choosing to believe'. And as some here have observed of me, I cannot see how anyone can 'choose' to believe, as it's something akin to feelings and emotions, and forcing one to feel and such, is pretty much something I find as damaging to one's psychic. 

Though, 'wanting to believe' I can at one point, see it as understandable. I think I want to believe various paranormal things, because I'm fascinated in it. I can see wanting to believe my unique beliefs, because of what it does for me. So, I think, I can see your point in this. 

Quote

I believe in Christianity, because of what I have seen it do in people, and in my own life. And this is why I would promote it. But, experiences vary, and so I understand that others hate Christianity due to their own experiences. 

As I have often expressed on these boards, I have come across many people, who believe in Christianity, actually follow it and have been wonderful because of it. I would think they would be true Christians. I have also see what I believe as true Muslims, true Jewish followers, true New Age followers............ etc, etch. I feel, that at it's core, most all religions have the selfless and caring outlook. 

I also have come across individuals in these religions as well, who don't seem to behave as such, yet claim they do, and I wonder of the teaching of such beliefs and how it either fails them, or they have failed it. (I often wonder of that of myself) So, I personally see a mixed ideal of whether it's the belief or the person that drives them to behave as they do. 

Quote

People believe in the Bible because they believe it has helped them. And, IMHO, this is true. Many, many people has been helped by the Bible.

I don't disagree with that. I think it has. I also think the Koran, the Torah, the book of Shadows, and various books have helped various people. Heck, the autobiographies of Carol Burnett have been my path to peace. Certain authors Native American historical fictions have changed my outlook on things. As a bookseller for close to twenty years, I have seen a lot of books help people. But, as I have noticed how some books might help some people, I don't think the same books help all of the people. Or, there would be one particular consistent best seller, and the others fall out of print. 

I tend to get annoyed when some people had passionately pushed books that helped them to others, to me, and don't realize that it might not do the same thing for others. I guess, that falls into the same category I see, as what if it's the person and not the ideal, belief, or book, that helps the person, it's the person who just needed some kind of key to help themselves. 

I just think, if it's to be said to live and behave biblical, it would be to do it all the way. 

@Will Due

Quote
2 hours ago, 029b10 said:

Since it is written that he who comes to God must believe he is, then how did you come to God that you only believe God?

 

By recognition. 

How were able to recognize it was God? I think, if you are going to answer this question, you would add more to your answer to show the complete picture. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
3 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Only believe God.

He let's you know what's true in life, what's true that's written in books, what's true about what people tell you, and most importantly, what's true about how others and especially you live your life.

Only believe God.

Ask God what my name is.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
38 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Ask God what my name is.

Oliver, Jack or Noah or Charlotte, Ava or Harper. 

 

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

how can you explain it to others, that it really is God that tells you this? 

 

I don't have to explain it to others. 

Others have to explain it to themselves (when the universe speaks to them within) why they either ignore, or recognize what they're experiencing.

 

ETA: For the record, when the universe speaks to me, I regularly ignore what I'm experiencing. To my detriment.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
2 hours ago, danydandan said:

Iassume Unitarian means they reject Jesus as the Son of God and reject the Holy Trinity? 

Unless of course you don't, in which case that's OK, too :)

Both unitarian and universalist have common noun meanings in Christian jargon (non-Trinitarian and everybody who wants to be saved gets saved, respectively). The churches that merged in the US, capital-U Unintarian and Universalist, had their own histories as movements. I don't know the story of the big-U Universalists in the US. I know something about the big-U Unitarians because Greater Boston was a major center of the movement and I'm a New Englander.

ETA: It still is popular around here; I didn't mean "was" to imply "just in the past."

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

So, this latest author, is doing an update. ;)  

:)

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
17 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Not sure if you got my point.

  I am an evolutionist who doesn't think creationism should  be taught in schools  as a factual subject like science or history 

In Australia it is banned in govt schools

The point of these articles was that, despite a secular education, more young people are becoming creationist, and a school can't ignore their beliefs.

Thus, schools  need to teach the science of evolution, while not causing young people  to turn against science, because of their beliefs.

A school or a govt simply doesn't have the right to try and impose a belief or indeed a disbelief on its citizens.  

A school that simply says,  "Your beliefs are rubbish"  will disengage young  people and never have a chance to win them over.  

A democratic govt, for better or worse, cannot teach that  a belief or faith is  bunk or rubbish, where many of its citizens hold a belief that it is not  

Just to add (too much time had elapsed to alter my original reply)

 

In  great britain

according to a 2006 Mori poll, 39 per cent of people believe in either creationism or intelligent design – and more than 40 per cent believe they should be taught in schools.

In the usa

Our 39 per cent of people being adherents to creationism may sound high, but it is considerably lower than the United States, where surveys say that 66 per cent of people believed that the world was less than 10,000 years old – and even 16 per cent of biology teachers are creationists. 

very difficult for a democratic govt to directly oppose the fundamental values and beliefs of its citizens.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
19 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I never claimed mentally challenged people couldn't be educated or intelligent. In my opinion, if someone believes every detail of the bible is true they are mentally challenged in that aspect. Not in every aspect of their life. That's the caveat. There is no good reason for faith. It is not a reliable path to truth.

Specifically believing in a world wide flood, a virgin birth, food multiplication, necromancy and resurrection. among many other ridiculous claims the bible contains.

OK that is more acceptable. Of course, however, humans construct beliefs to meet real psychological needs generated by the nature of our self ware intelligence.

Without those beliefs the y might be scared grieving  or disempowered by life, and thus not fully functioning  Thus a belief does not have to be true for it to serve a very useful purpose in improving human functionality. The BELIEF itself serves this cognitive, psychological, and thus  physiological, purpose.  

Faith and belief often are constructed where truths are not known, and are unknowable.   The reason for  faith is not to find material  truth, but to find hope, power, courage,  etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
19 hours ago, third_eye said:

You again failed to grasp the coherent nature of your displayed obstinacy ...

~
Your reliance on ears here speaks volumes ....
 
~

 

Meh ... You really should seek professional help for your incessant obsession with @Sherapy

You might want to check your grasp of the English language there ... ' teacher '

~

I will make a joint consultation for her and me. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
19 hours ago, third_eye said:

You again failed to grasp the coherent nature of your displayed obstinacy ...

~
Your reliance on ears here speaks volumes ....
 
~

 

Meh ... You really should seek professional help for your incessant obsession with @Sherapy

You might want to check your grasp of the English language there ... ' teacher '

~

Nothing wrong with the language, other than me leaving out a few commas.  :) 

i don't have your obsession with dotting the I s and crossing the Ts in every sentence in a post.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
18 hours ago, eight bits said:

"Papal infallibility" is limited to formal statements defining already long-existing doctrines bearing on faith and morals. Why so limited? Because throughout history, Popes have said many embarrassing things, so this mechanism ensures that very little of what any Pope has said or ever will say will be viewed as binding on his successors. However, it also provides for doctrinal definition without having to call a church council.

The provision has been invoked far too rarely for anybody to know what would happen if a council overruled a Pope's formally valid exercise of Papal infallibility, or if a council simply withdrew the grant of authority.

By the way, as provocative as the name of the thing is, it's actually a fairly common legislative device. Councils are the ultimate temporal authorities in the Church, but are rarely in session. So, Vatican I appointed the Pope to exercise some of its own authority until another Council would be convened. They ought to have called the thing interim oversight, but they didn't. Big whoop,

Good news, I was able to read it. So, the part about the Pope being God?, being able to rewrite the Bible?, ... oh, there it is, right next to his ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM

Stunning, the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. And they come right out and say it. Well researched!

Business correspondence isn't a record? OK. So now we're up to the Fourth Century or so?

Then there's one small-c catholic church, of which Rome is a member but not the dominant member (It's a prestigious see, don't get me wrong, but its bishop cannot tell another major city's bishop what to do and expect to be obeyed).Jewish Christianity is at best rare and may be extinct. This one catholic church is growingly hostile against both Juadism and Paganism, plus several varieties of Christianity.

Looking at that picture, I'd conjecture that they were aggressively opposed to every religion but their own.

You mean like the way that the Jewish religion was an evolution of the antecedent Canaanite religions? The way Protestantism is an evolution of Roman Catholicism (you do realize that Luther was more Catholic than the Pope?). At what point, in your view, does a new religion come to be regarded as a distinct religion? It would seem to me the things that you complain about as "non-Biblical" are precisiely the kind of things that would distinguish one religion from another (holy days, dietary customs, body modifications or not, ...).

Anyway, whether or not you view Paul's letters as business records, they announce a new religion which hadn't existed before him. Paul definitely hoped that the new Gentile religion and the not much older related Jewish sect would integrate, but that wasn't what happened.

You keep saying this, and you have yet to give a single example. And no, they don't HAVE to rewrite anything. They just read Paul who pronounces that the Law doesn't bind the Gentiles. Oh, OK. We can meet on Sunday, then? Sure can. Just as Muslims can gather on Fridays, even though they accept that Jewish Scriptures were revealed by Allah.

Now, nothing prevents an even newer religion, like Seventh Day Adventism, for example, from preferring to revive selected practices of a different religion, Judaism. (Most people would agree that Seventh Day Adventism is not a branch of Judaism.) No doubt, like so many religions, apologists for the new-new religion will say that other religions are doing some things wrong, and they will even offer arguments why they themselves are doing those things right. Great. Whatever floats your boat.

Yup i mean in that way  It becomes a new "religion" when it rejects the basic precepts and tenets of the old one. 

Arguably, protestant Christianity is quite a different religion to Catholic Christianity 

I agree that the bible can be interpreted and followed in many ways 

My point is two fold.

 Which way is the most  constructive for the most people, and which way is the closest to the principles of the founders of the religion? 

Catholicism has moved far away from  the founding principles and Christ's teachings and while it has offered a great deal of hope and comfort to millions, it has also led Christianity into a destructive and less loving path.  Modern peole turn away from a god or religion that preaches eternal  hell fire and damnation  from the time you die,  which is also contrary to the writings of the bible.  

All faiths have their strengths and weaknesses. A person needs to pick the one which has the best balance for them and their values , not just dogmatically follow the faith of their parents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
16 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Still better than a team of liars. 

That's the one your in with Walker will and your newest member 

If you lie you will be called out on it. 

No such team except in your mind Are you a member  of the team of skeptics who attack those who believe?  Only speaking for myself, but you will NEVER catch me out in a lie  You consider anything you dont believe to be true to be a lie, but it doesn't work like that  Try PROVING  any statement  I  have made is a lie .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
15 hours ago, danydandan said:

You can say what you 'meant' all you like, your history of ostentatiousness is always going to follow you around, unfortunately for you. 

I don't believe anything you say about your person or personal life anymore, and I'm not the only one. So stick to the opinions and stop with the anecdotes. Or not I couldn't care less, the only ability you have is to off-topic every thread by adding extraordinary claims or unsupported anecdotal nonsense. You know that these claims elicit a certain response and you revel in these responses. Then cry foul when someone questions your delusions of grandeur.

As i said, you  interpret through YOUR prejudices not mine.

  Why is any of my life ostentatious?

to me it is perfectly normal  even my own family members live more ostentatious lives than me.

At least i dont take a month to go and live in a villa in Tuscany  so i can take part in a truffle festival; or do a cycling and barge trip along the Rhine :) 

I dont walk across Australia, alone with a push cart, as my cousin did n her fifties, or enter the miss south Australia contest as another cousin did .

  I didnt get perfect scores in my final high school year, and do a doctorate in biological/ nuclear physics, or a double law and environment degree like my nephews and nieces.  I didn't win a citizen of the year award like my mother, and I am not a multi millionaire like my brothers and sisters.

If you dont believe, then you will NEVER understand me, and if you  don't understand me, you will NEVER "get" my thoughts, values,  priorities etc

Thus, no post i ever write will be acceptable to you.  That is YOUR loss not mine. You will never learn anything from me.  


 I cry foul because they are not lies or delusions.

They are all true .

Unless you can prove them false, you have no right simply state, as a factual statement, that i am lying or delusional (although you can offer it as your opinion, and i would find tha t understandable) 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
13 hours ago, danydandan said:

Yeah of course my opinion is coloured by his past antics that's what everyone does, he has build a persona, built upon ostentatiousness, delusions of grandeur and waffling. Therefore everything he says has that tinge to me. 

Put this way, Habitat do you in your life know someone who is a liar? If said person, known to be a liar, told you a story would their history not colour your opinion of this story? Or would you just believe it without question? 

Would you go to the same car dealership that ripped you off, again to get another car? 

You might do, who knows, but you'd be a fool if you did. People do not change. Like my past comments colour your opinion of me and thus my future comments too,.

How do you know i am a liar (Actually you cannot know this, because i am not, but rhetorically, how can you KNOW that any thing i have claimed is untrue. Just because they are outside your own experiences does not make them untrue  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
13 hours ago, danydandan said:

I agree nothing is at stake.

But do not agree that I'm entitled to my opinion based on past comments made by MrWalker? 

Specifically the grandiose claims of intellectual abilities? 

Not grandiose. All true and from my real life experiences. the y are not even unusual My brother has a faster mind and reading abilty than i do. My nephew has an intellect far surpassing mine He is the one with a doctorate in molecular nuclear biology and married to a clinical psychologist)    Part of the problem is tha t when i talk about my life people contrast it with their own and sometimes think I am claiming superiority I am not.  I know my capabilities an limitations   I am very good a t a lot of things, and absolutely hopeless at some. (cant play a single note on any musical instrument for example ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
13 hours ago, danydandan said:

He claims to be an English teacher once upon a time, he makes so many grammatical errors it erodes any plausibility of this claim. Of course secondary English teachers aren't infallible but the amount if errors speaks volumes. 

We once had a private debate on the definition of the word fact, I emailed Oxford English dictionary for their definition, he rejected it as it didn't agree with him. But anyways.

Getting upset about his claims or opinions is rather silly, but doesn't mean others, myself or you can't question them and ask for some sort of substantial evidence to justify his claim. He then gets upset (yeah the guy who claims not to feel negative emotions gets upset) when he can't produce any evidence and cries foul when he is called out on it or when is anecdotal evidence isn't universally accepted.

Edit: He might seem benign, but he isn't. This website is great for providing checks and balances to discussion. If everyone just ignored his claims all the time, I'd suspect he disappear. Generally I don't read his comments unless he is replying to me or someone else, as he is on the ole ignore list. If I see something that I feel needs addressing I'll comment on it. Like the ignorance he has on the topic of Catholicism Canon Law. 

That is because fact has two separate  defintions  A fact as a statement capable of being proven true or false is a t least 400 years old.

Thus we have false statements of fact  and false facts. To teach that a fact is always correct would be an error.  In all my education and teaching in Australia (spanning over 60 years)  I never encountered the idea that a fact had to always be true.  i was taught, and i taught, that  a fact unlike an opinion or belief was capable of being proven true or false.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
13 hours ago, danydandan said:

He either is a complete idiot, or he knows what elicits a certain response and he posts comments to rise such responses. He has been here for ten years or more doing the same thing over and over again. Guess he doesn't learn.

Neither is true The responses come as they do because i am different to some people. (there are also posters here who both publicly and privately support me)

  I tell the truth as i understand it it and i can support claims of truth (as opposed to opinion) via sources.

  i was raised to question everything and not to base  a view on emotion, opinion, or custom, but upon knowledge.

  I am not responsible for another's response, nor  should i alter my own style (or content)  to make them feel more comfortable  BUT i don't play games with people. i don't try and work their emotions i use facts and knowledge to support my points.

Indeed, I despise manipulative sociopathic types, who enjoy baiting, trolling, and  manipulating others. They are evil, and can do a lot of harm to those with low self esteem or lack of certainty of self.   

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.