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 -
Jodie.Lynne

I don't believe you

5,213 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Will Due
1 minute ago, MERRY DMAS said:

some basics of journalism. 

 

:lol: I'd rather you burn me at the stake.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MERRY DMAS
5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

:lol: I'd rather you burn me at the stake.

Yes. You're more into the imagination rather than facts.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
10 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

Yes. You're more into the imagination rather than facts.

 

Me never.

"Journalism" always, if it's liberal media. :lol:

Do you believe them?

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MERRY DMAS
3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Me never.

"Journalism" always, if it's liberal media. :lol:

Do you believe them?

The UBBS, and the lib media go hand in hand with the fake news. :D

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Well, so who writes dancing from genesis? Oooh! An ABOUT button

https://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/about/
 

Quote

The author, James I. Nienhuis, is a young earth creationist who is commenting on how mainstream scientists and New Agers are missing the boat (willfully in many cases) as they interpret the evidences about our ancient history.

Mr. Nienhuis has a B.Sc. in Earth Sciences from Dartmouth College (1976), and has written two books Old Earth? Why Not!, and Ice Age Civilizations, is currently writing Dancing from Genesis, and has been involved in the production of the documentary, Ice Age Civilizations, as well as,  Atlantis: Secret Star Mappers of a Lost World, and Dark Secrets of the Black Sea.

So, Doug, could we agree that that is maybe a tad worse than UM not being a peer-reviewed forum?

(And um, what I just did? That's exactly peer review. We just do it double-sighted here at UM, like the old Behavioral and Brain Sciences used to. BBS was well thought of, too.)

@MERRY DMAS 's offer is very interesting. You should consider it, IMO.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
44 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

The UBBS, and the lib media go hand in hand with the fake news. :D

 

 

:angry:

 

Spoiler

:rolleyes:

Spoiler

:lol:

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
1 hour ago, MERRY DMAS said:

It's about disinformation, and my distaste of it's spread.

Maybe Mark was written then, but I personally suspect the early 90's. It's very problematic. 

Mark was conveying God, and his firstborn in a mystery, not history.

So you'd prefer an unreasoned idea that conforms to the status quo to a carefully thought out one that doesn't?

So, what supports the idea that Mark was written in the early 90s?  Why won't it fit in the 130s, or perhaps the early 60s?

Personally, I suspect that parts of different books were written at different times.  Like Philo's verses written about 41 AD, but appearing in Mark written in the early 60s or later, maybe much later.  Somebody wrote the gospels in the form of a Roman play-within-a-play.  The often-named culprit is Seneca, but as he died in 65 AD, that puts an early date on them, meaning my date of 131-135 wouldn't work.  Obviously, my dating efforts need a lot more work.

BTW:  who was St. Judith and when did she live?  She would have been a contemporary of St. Paul, or maybe came after him (93 to 117)?

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
4 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Well, so who writes dancing from genesis? Oooh! An ABOUT button

https://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/about/
 

So, Doug, could we agree that that is maybe a tad worse than UM not being a peer-reviewed forum?

(And um, what I just did? That's exactly peer review. We just do it double-sighted here at UM, like the old Behavioral and Brain Sciences used to. BBS was well thought of, too.)

@MERRY DMAS 's offer is very interesting. You should consider it, IMO.

I suppose we could agree.  MD wanted some sources, so I googled a few and threw them out there.  If I wanted to spend a day or two looking, I suppose I could find some better ones.  Would they show that Constantine selected December 25 to be Jesus' birthday?  Probably not.  As I understand it, he merely made use of a celebration that already existed.  But the important part is that politics dictated that we celebrate a day that is not historically correct (Remember those shepherds?  Why were those sheep not in a fold?  Could it be because ewes prefer to give birth in private?  And what time of year do sheep give birth?  How about spring?).

I will consider a discussion with MD, but I need to do a whole lot more research on this before I can do much debating.  This whole issue is rapidly getting out-of-hand.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

But the important part is that politics dictated that we celebrate a day that is not historically correct

It's not the anniversary of his birth, it is the commemoration and celebration of his birth.

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

How about spring?

Yes, supposedly there was an "oral tradition" (what's lately known as fake news) that Jesus died on the anniversary of his birth. Passover is in the spring. Luke could do the math.

Whether or not he was born is still a dicey proposition; I wouldn't sweat which day of the year.

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I will consider a discussion with MD, but I need to do a whole lot more research on this before I can do much debating.  This whole issue is rapidly getting out-of-hand.

Fair enough. It'd be a good thread.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
7 hours ago, Essan said:

Before that they need to specify exactly what they mean by god ...... ;)

One of the problems with most theological/spirituality discussions if we argue about the answer, but we don't know the question.

I usually take God (capital g) as meaning the character from the Bible.  Whereas many today seem to think he might not actually be a physical entity, let alone live on top of a mountain!  And created billions of galaxies (meaning he probably has more than eyes just in the back of his head to be able to watch them all at once).

Although, of course, in most cases, if you substitute the world god with (mother) nature it all makes perfect sense :)      So all we really have to do is define (mother) nature and whether or not we agree (mother) nature exists.  And is she is a god .......

Well, to be honest 'God' is the same as 'gods' to me. The Christian god is just another of the 3000 other gods that nobody can find any evidence for, in my opinion. The existence of Yahweh is just as probable as the existence of Zeus or Odin, the only reason Yahweh is in the spotlight is because it's the dominant deity in westernised culture. ^_^.

As much as I love the concept of mother nature more than most other deities, the same burden of proof still applies.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

So are you happy to defend anyone's claims relating to God as long as they believe in God?

 

Not quite .

That is too open a question. 

I would not defend a person who committed child sacrifice, and said their god told them to .

I would not even defend a BELIEF in such a god .

I would say that anyone who believed that gods existed was correct, and anyone who believed they did not was wrong.

I would say that, in about 85% of cases,  belief has a very significant positive affect on the human mind and body, due to evolutionary  processes

I would say that it was right/logical to believe in any god which brought you peace, well being and happiness and did not cause you to hurt yourself or anyone else,  even IF that god did not exist

i would say that humans have believed in gods for around 100000 years,  and that those beliefs have served very important sociological, economic, and political purposes, from cromagnon people to present day people. 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
20 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Why stop now?

Think about what the poster has already said about themselves.

  I am not in a position (of either knowledge or comprehension)  to debate a person who is still suffering the effects of PTSD as a result of conflict,  and even if i was, I would not.  He is getting professional help, and that is the only advice i would give apart from some coping strategies 

Share this post


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

There is currently no verifiable evidence supporting the existence of an omnipotent being. I can't say that god's do or don't exist, but I can state that given the lack of evidence the existence of such beings is currently improbable at best.

Anyone that definitively attempts to state that gods do or do not exist has access to more knowledge than what is available to the public or myself.

^_^

True. :)

 but, of course, millions of "the public"  have such  personal knowledge. based on surveys, books, and narratives from them. 

Of course also, there exists no definitive/verifiable evidences that gods do NOT exist, and  tens of millennia of claims of human contact suggestive that they do at least in one or more forms. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

I would say that, in about 85% of cases,  belief has a very significant positive affect on the human mind and body, due to evolutionary  processes

I would say that it was right/logical to believe in any god which brought you peace, well being and happiness and did not cause you to hurt yourself or anyone else, even IF that god did not exist.

i would say that humas have believed in gods for around 100000 years,  and that those beliefs have served very important sociological economic and political purposes from cromagnon people to present day people. 

Despite the random '85%' in your post I do also think that having belief in something usually has a positive impact on the person doing the believing, but I am personally unable to believe in something completely unless I'm given a concrete reason to (verifiable evidence).

What one believes to be right isn't the same as something being logical. To call something logical one needs the presence of supporting evidence. The most logical decision for a situation is the decision that is objectively the most rational in accordance with previously found evidence.

Yes, the belief in gods has been around for many thousands of years. Although I do support the fact that religion has brought beneficial insight into some matters, if we objectively look at history we can see that countless amounts of violence and damage has been thrown about in the name of gods/deities (which otherwise could have been entirely avoided in the absence of said deities). ^_^

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
10 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

(verifiable evidence).

 

At the bear minimum, what in your opinion, regarding God's existence, would satisfy as verifiable evidence?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

True. :)

 but, of course, millions of "the public"  have such  personal knowledge. based on surveys, books, and narratives from them. 

Of course also, there exists no definitive/verifiable evidences that gods do NOT exist, and  tens of millennia of claims of human contact suggestive that they do at least in one or more forms. 

I can see where you're coming from but I believe you haven't taken into account that with less education comes more conformity. Without an educated ability to reason one is more inclined to believe others on word of mouth purely because of the speaker being seen as more intellectual.

I know this isn't the most accurate example, but look at the whole 'Flat Earth' thing that people used to believe purely because they didn't have the knowledge to argue otherwise.

In regards to the personal evidence I'm well aware that others have their own beliefs but 'personal evidence' isn't objectively verifiable and tends to be extrapolated using assumptions so it's unable to hold its ground when convincing those who have no reason to believe the same concept. ^_^

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
6 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

Despite the random '85%' in your post I do also think that having belief in something usually has a positive impact on the person doing the believing, but I am personally unable to believe in something completely unless I'm given a concrete reason to (verifiable evidence).

What one believes to be right isn't the same as something being logical. To call something logical one needs the presence of supporting evidence. The most logical decision for a situation is the decision that is objectively the most rational in accordance with previously found evidence.

Yes, the belief in gods has been around for many thousands of years. Although I do support the fact that religion has brought beneficial insight into some matters, if we objectively look at history we can see that countless amounts of violence and damage has been thrown about in the name of gods/deities (which otherwise could have been entirely avoided in the absence of said deities). ^_^

Not random That is the figure from  meta studies of thousands of studies on the effect of faith /belief and church attendance on human health and well being.  The more peer reviewed the closer the correlation

 

Belief cannot exist if you have concrete evidences because  knowldge makes both belief and disbelief impossible.

Belief is a construct of the mind evolved to solve certain very definite issues with human cognition and self awareness 

I empathise with your view To me secular agnosticism (ie the suspension of both active belief and active disbelief ) is the most logical approach to an unknown 

 

There is evidence form many disciplines that  faith is an evolved trait of human cognition which helps us survive.  There is evidence that it contributed to the first towns and cities and mega structures plus irrigation etc because it bonded larger groups than families or clans into a cohesive people, who could cooperate with each other.  It is known to facilitate trust among a group of people  

Yes wars etc have occurred in the name of relgion, but the y have also been stopped by the power of religion Europe is as it is today because the vikings and mongols were met by a united christian  belief  which converted the vikings and managed to hold back the mongols 

Violence is part of our primate biology A religion can offer a way to overcome that propensity to   violence and live in peace  although unfortunately it can also  lead to conflict.

I tend to think that without religious belief there would be MORE conflict in human history, not less.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

At the bear minimum, what in your opinion, regarding God's existence, would satisfy as verifiable evidence?

 

 

Verifiable evidence is exactly that. Something that be repeatedly verified through tests. It doesn't matter what it is, if it shows definitively that there must be an omnipotent being and no other explanation is viable I surely won't argue against it. ^_^

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

Verifiable evidence is exactly that. Something that be repeatedly verified through tests. It doesn't matter what it is, if it shows definitively that there must be an omnipotent being and no other explanation is viable I surely won't argue against it. ^_^

So, are you going to go looking for this God, or do you expect it to come to you, when you can find a slot in your schedule ? What you be prepared to give up, for this to happen, would you say ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

I can see where you're coming from but I believe you haven't taken into account that with less education comes more conformity. Without an educated ability to reason one is more inclined to believe others on word of mouth purely because of the speaker being seen as more intellectual.

I know this isn't the most accurate example, but look at the whole 'Flat Earth' thing that people used to believe purely because they didn't have the knowledge to argue otherwise.

In regards to the personal evidence I'm well aware that others have their own beliefs but 'personal evidence' isn't objectively verifiable and tends to be extrapolated using assumptions so it's unable to hold its ground when convincing those who have no reason to believe the same concept. ^_^

 

Education has no effect on faith or belief although it can shape that belief eg more educated people still believe in gods but are less likely to believe in creation 

For a long time in Australia there was a correlation between education and faith ie the more educated you were the more religious you were  

That may have been for two reasons First almost a third of Australian children are educated in church schools and  the best educated people went to such schools because their parents could afford to send them there 

Also, religion in Australia is not divisive but cohesive There is limited  fundamentalism and  there is general agreement that religions are powerful social forces for good, and that believers have a duty to work hard to make our world a better place. this is built into church school curriculum's but not into state school ones 

Personal evidence cannot be used to convince others but this does not make it wrong or mistaken. It 's role is to allow an individual to assess the reality and reliability  of their own experiences 

I would  argue that education could lead to conformity  It was actually the philosophy behind free and compulsory education in Australia, designed to produce a work force educated enough to provide varying labour skills and also an obedience to agreed social values and the rule of law.   Today govt schools try to inculcate conformity on issues such as  non violent behaviour, climate change, social justice,  gay marriage,  the importance of sport and creative arts  etc.

Govts want social cohesion, not too much diversity 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
12 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

Verifiable evidence is exactly that. Something that be repeatedly verified through tests. It doesn't matter what it is, if it shows definitively that there must be an omnipotent being and no other explanation is viable I surely won't argue against it. ^_^

why does it have to be omnipotent? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
46 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

Verifiable evidence is exactly that. Something that be repeatedly verified through tests. It doesn't matter what it is, if it shows definitively that there must be an omnipotent being and no other explanation is viable I surely won't argue against it. ^_^

 

Then if it can be tested and repeatedly verified personally, will that suffice?

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Not random That is the figure from  meta studies of thousands of studies on the effect of faith /belief and church attendance on human health and well being.  The more peer reviewed the closer the correlation

Belief cannot exist if you have concrete evidences because  knowldge makes both belief and disbelief impossible.

If you could link me to a few of those studies that directly correlate with your figure I'll happily believe you.

Knowledge and belief aren't mutually exclusive, that would be entirely circumstantial on what the belief was, although I can definitely see where you're coming from.

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I empathise with your view To me secular agnosticism (ie the suspension of both active belief and active disbelief ) is the most logical approach to an unknown 

Thank you. ^_^

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

There is evidence form many disciplines that  faith is an evolved trait of human cognition which helps us survive.  There is evidence that it contributed to the first towns and cities and mega structures plus irrigation etc because it bonded larger groups than families or clans into a cohesive people, who could cooperate with each other.  It is known to facilitate trust among a group of people  

Yes wars etc have occurred in the name of relgion, but the y have also been stopped by the power of religion Europe is as it is today because the vikings and mongols were met by a united christian  belief  which converted the vikings and managed to hold back the mongols 

This is where I think we're on opposite sides of the coin. Just because something played a contribution in a situation doesn't mean that in the absence of said contribution the same thing wouldn't happen. I do agree with you that religion can allow for a greater sense of trust but at the same time it can foster all kinds of negative emotions too, the most harmful of which is irrational hate based on religious scripture or ideologies.

I'm certainly not arguing that we'd be better off without religion as I have no way of knowing that, I'm just stating that religion has caused too much harm to say that it was primarily beneficial to society. Stopping wars with religion that were started due to religion (like from a Viking standpoint) seems redundant, but I do see your overall point as I'm sure some wars have been prevented.

26 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Violence is part of our primate biology A religion can offer a way to overcome that propensity to   violence and live in peace  although unfortunately it can also  lead to conflict.

I think you've hit right to the heart of the matter with this statement, very nicely done. I thoroughly agree with this. ^_^

On a side note I'd like to point out that one can still live in peace without the presence of religion, fairly sure you don't dispute this point but I just wanted to confirm.

33 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I tend to think that without religious belief there would be MORE conflict in human history, not less.   

Perhaps this just comes down to our perspectives in life. I can certainly say I lean towards a more pessimistic view of things, although I try to be realistic. :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
34 minutes ago, Habitat said:

So, are you going to go looking for this God, or do you expect it to come to you, when you can find a slot in your schedule ? What you be prepared to give up, for this to happen, would you say ?

Personally? I don't have the knowledge nor the ambition required to impact my life to such a massive degree trying to search for something as avidly as you propose.

I love arguments and debates regarding the issue because it's utterly fascinating but be sure not to misconstrue this with being enthused about actively searching for an answer in my everyday life. If there ends up being a god, awesome, it'll give me more things to think about. If there ends up being proof to the opposite then great, it really won't affect me much. ^_^

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
38 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Education has no effect on faith or belief although it can shape that belief eg more educated people still believe in gods but are less likely to believe in creation 

For a long time in Australia there was a correlation between education and faith ie the more educated you were the more religious you were  

That may have been for two reasons First almost a third of Australian children are educated in church schools and  the best educated people went to such schools because their parents could afford to send them there 

Also, religion in Australia is not divisive but cohesive There is limited  fundamentalism and  there is general agreement that religions are powerful social forces for good, and that believers have a duty to work hard to make our world a better place. this is built into church school curriculum's but not into state school ones 

Personal evidence cannot be used to convince others but this does not make it wrong or mistaken. It 's role is to allow an individual to assess the reality and reliability  of their own experiences 

I would  argue that education could lead to conformity  It was actually the philosophy behind free and compulsory education in Australia, designed to produce a work force educated enough to provide varying labour skills and also an obedience to agreed social values and the rule of law.   Today govt schools try to inculcate conformity on issues such as  non violent behaviour, climate change, social justice,  gay marriage,  the importance of sport and creative arts  etc.

Govts want social cohesion, not too much diversity 

I think I might live in a different Australia to you. :rofl:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.