How to convert a skeptic - written for the faithful by a skeptic

[Dexter Sinister]

The probability that anything exists is very low and in point of fact as far as human understanding is concerned can't at all.

You might want to rethink that according to what physics actually has to say about it.

 

[MikeyDB]

Just scanned the thread but it would appear that Karrie has come the closest to accurately characterizing the dynamic...

Ain't no money/power available from folk who don't "believe".....

You can believe in the Holy Roman Church and all they'll do is hide their criminals from you...you can send in your dollars to Evangelicals who'll hire prostitutes and squander millions on pleasures for themselves...you can believe in any old kind of "god" you like, but where the rubber meets the road, it's about money and power.....

Always has been.

 

[MHz]

Actually, no it doesn't. Not only is that not proof, it's not evidence either, because it starts with an unexplained and unjustifiable assumption that it's all literally true.

Thanks for making my task a whole lot easier, first I get to provide evidence and then I get to provide proof, at least now I get to talk longer because I was kind of afraid the once there was evidence (15 pages)I wouldn't be able to say anything about proof (another 15 pages).

This is one of those cases where there are much simpler explanations. The Bible is much more comprehensible if you take it to be the writings of many men over many years, with many agendas. None of them had any idea their works would ever be assembled into a single document, though many of them clearly had read other parts of it before writing their own stuff.

Daniel is one writer that references previous works, it wasn't until ch:9 that he says he got the info that a day can mean a year. I would assume everybody was familiar with all the laws, etc. There was even quite a bit written about when God removes Satan. Did Daniel thinks were moving along a little too quickly, that is the reason he put a 500 year plug in there where nothing could 'move forward'? Daniel stops at the end of the last kingdom before Christ, the next 12 books are almost exclusively about His arrival as KING of KINGS. In all the OT there are only a very few verses that says His appearance is also a time that Gentiles are to be made equal to the Jews. Had that been well known they wouldn't have been expecting somebody who was going to deliver them from foreign rule. By rights they should have changed from seeing Rome as an oppressor to being a protector.

At one stroke that explains all the many errors and inconsistencies, and renders any attempt to rationalize them all both futile and not necessary. They're simply human errors and misunderstandings and ignorance.

Well you would have to actually assemble all the verses that speak of the last days before you could determine if there are any errors. If you have a portion there are going to be errors, do you actually know of any Church that bases their end-times on all those? It would seem that (from the ones I've actually talked to that have some specific verses as references) they pick and choose just a very few. I'm sure more than a few leave some out intentionally because if taken in plain language they don't support 'their version', or they do their best to change that meaning to mean something else, changing something that is meant to be literal into a spiritual only message. That isn't ignorance, that is willful manipulation for their own purpose, has absolutely nothing to do with educating the masses.

I have a particular concern with the Last Days stuff. Every generation since Revelation entered the canon has had people who think it applies to their own time and the near future, which I think is dangerous and absurd, especially now.

Sure they have, I doubt it was even an honest mistake in most cases, some arrived at their conclusions by playing with numbers, or just to install fear, at the same time promoting safety is only with those that have unwaivering faith (don't ask questions) in (whatever Church happened to be spewing that thought in the first place) You have heard the term "Let the buyer beware", when it comes to listening to what others are telling you about what the 'big picture' is about what Revelation covers that attitude "Let the reader beware." is discouraged. The most common thing taught about the Bible is, don't read it yourself, it's way to complicated for a 'normal person', leave this to the 'experts' to understand and let them explain it to you. (in their own words, rather than just give you the reference verse so you can read it. Then they can't be questioned on what they promote). When you were learning about what the Bible says, be it from friends and family or from the 'experts' did you ever come up with any independent questions that you had the guts to ask somebody about. If you did was that question ever answered fully or did (some) get brushed aside? I would think the latter would have happened at least once. Ever ask an 'expert' a question where he freely admitted he didn't have a ready answer for, if he promised to 'look it up' or ask other 'experts' was it ever followed up on? Did you ever get an answer that basically said don't question God? (a direct violation of what the Bible actually says BTW)

How many of the last half dozen or so U.S. Presidents have believed this stuff?

Is that in the Bible in general or some specifically promoted end-time doctrine? If they believed in the Bible, NT Laws specifically, I doubt politics would be a choice of what kind of jobs they would be applying for. I doubt any even believed in their original constitution just as it was written, I think ever one of them were looking for loop-holes that would allow them to further their (own or their friends) personal ambitions. Really I mean every single one, that would also include ever advisor any of them ever had also. (okay 99% of the ones they listened to)

The current one certainly does and I have no doubt he thinks he's doing god's work in Iraq as part of the run up to the Last Days. I believe his father did, Reagan did, and Carter did.

If you go back to Prescott then you know they are about as far away from doing what Christ laid out as a person can actually get. Banksters and the CIA (let alone secret societies) are not at the top of the list of what (true Christians who see themselves as being under the Law that says 'do no harm') careers they would be interested in.

This is the guy with his finger on the trigger of a system that can actually end the world, and if he believes that's what god wants him to do as part of the great plan, he'll do it.

And I agree that the mega churches in the US more or less support him. Those churches can only exist if they have followers, any follower who had a tiny bit of knowledge about what Jesus taught should be able to spot the bullchips they are being fed and simple walk away. They either don't or deep inside they want those prizes (like Iraqi oil) that is being sought by Bush & Co. (he isn't writing everything he signs now is he). Even without taking Scripture into account the constitution they have sworn to uphold isn't a roadblock to the personal ambitions of a few (at the expense of the many) Canada doesn't have the balls to tell them where to shove their policies and I assume most MP's and such have some sort of affiliation with the Church.

If a person believes in a supposed prophecy and is in a position to make it come true, what can we expect to happen?

Money being no object, why wouldn't the ones who think that way, build a city somewhere, call it Babylon, and then toast it. Hey people look at this, a prophecy fulfilled, you have to listen to us now. But then they don't bother with digging a 12 mile wide ditch between the Med. Sea and the Dead Sea, why not, that is also a prophecy, simple, it is beyond their means to do so, it is now and it will be forever. Israel can claim they are back on the land because they have God's approval to do so, compare that to what the actual verses say (without any twisting) and it comes back as bullchips. Show me one single physically resurrected person, can't be done. Oh well that must mean it's a spiritual message then, that is being promoted to no end.

But if in fact the prophecy has been misunderstood, or has nothing to do with reality, it's just the fevered rantings of a very angry and bloody-minded crackpot--which is certainly one possible interpretation of Revelation--then we're heading for self-immolation for the stupidest of reasons.

Prophecy is misunderstood, no ifs about it. Maybe it is just a quiet reminder not to swallow everything presented to you as truth as being the truth, verify that it is not a lie first, nobody takes that last step to heart.
Prophecy certainly points to some very nasty things coming down the pipe. The only things put in the hands of Christians is to comfort who they can comfort. The chaos minded 'Christians' are bullchip artists, they are in fact liars about who they are 'working for'.

 

[Scott Free]

You might want to rethink that according to what physics actually has to say about it.

I am quite aware of that argument but thank you for the link. I'm going to read his book.

My argument encompasses his argument in that he is postulating something must exist and I do too, however his argument is that something began with the big bang, which supposes that is when everything began. This is not entirely logical except in human perception which is lineal. There is also the possibility something existed prior to the big bang, there have even been other universes proposed. If he is correct, and I believe he is mostly, then that means what has existed has always existed; thus the void before the big bang hypotheses which does contradict space-time, if there is a void there is space-time and therefore a universe and a big bang. I do think this is explainable though. Where his argument and mine depart is in the linear model which to me supports my hypothesis that we exist only because we are within the narrow window which allows us to perceive of our existence.

Remember I am only arguing for a greater reality not woo-woo and should it be woo-woo it must be demonstrably shown which would mean it isn't woo-woo. What I aim eventually to do, however, is demonstrate another possibility.

I really can't go into more detail but suffice it to say that what I am proposing is very much a complete reworking of our perception of the universe where nothing can be proved to create something but not quite in the way Bede Rundle is proposing. Nor am I proposing that we are capable of making something from nothing but what I mean is that something is nothing.

He is arguing that there really isn't something called nothing whereas I don't make that argument since saying nothing is something is actually denying the antecedent and thereby has changed the meaning of the word and in doing so has made a false step in logic, which may seem logical from our current understanding, but that I propose isn't, just the same, true. In my hypothesis something is actually nothing which means a greater reality is plausible which is still something not woo-woo.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I am quite aware of that argument...

Yeah, I was pretty sure you would be, but if you're up to a little mathematics, try this more detailed version of it:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

I don't see any justification for your initial statement: "The probability that anything exists is very low and in point of fact as far as human understanding is concerned can't at all." Why would the probability of there being something rather than nothing necessarily be low? Neither can I agree that according to human understanding nothing can exist at all. I don't have any idea what that means, really, and the paragraphs that follow it don't make it any clearer to me.

 

[Scott Free]

Yeah, I was pretty sure you would be, but if you're up to a little mathematics, try this more detailed version of it:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

I don't see any justification for your initial statement: "The probability that anything exists is very low and in point of fact as far as human understanding is concerned can't at all." Why would the probability of there being something rather than nothing necessarily be low? Neither can I agree that according to human understanding nothing can exist at all. I don't have any idea what that means, really, and the paragraphs that follow it don't make it any clearer to me.

As I said in another post I have had to make a non linear system of mathematics which even in Bede Rundle's argument is hinted at since he postulates a place and time with no whole numbers.

He is taking the step that because B (something) exists then A (nothing) must equal B in that A is really B and C is thus a natural state. My argument is that A and C is what makes B and that B is a matter of perception not reality. In order to validate this I have demonstrated (for myself) that A and C are indeed forces and that B is the result.

Bede Rundle is relegating zero to a place holder and giving it value. This is a mistake IMO.

Also I am not suggesting for one moment that the universe didn't come into existence naturally.

 

[MHz]

For there to be a big-bang there would seem to have to be something before that in that the bang itself needed 'time' for all that stuff to be gathered. Our definition of time is based on what we can observe and theorize on based on what we can see. The material started out as the size of a pin-head and got larger after that, until we are at our current size, a soccer ball and still expanding, I have even heard our rate of expansion is increasing.
The model we have for what we can see is that a certain amount of material in one place will result in a new star, that star has a finite life, at the end of that time it explodes and that material is sent off in all directions. Over time the material sent in any given direction is attracted to material that is also from a different exploded star, get enough material from many exploded stars and you get a brand new one. I don't think anybody suggests that once a star explodes it has enough gravity for it to reform itself. If that same model is applied to our universe then it is the result of coming into existence via the process of material being gathered than can only come from many other big-bang events, same as a new star is formed in our universe. If all our galaxies in our universe were plotted onto a soccer-ball we should be about where the seams are. Our greatest acceleration away from another galaxy should be one that is on the opposite side of the ball. The rate we are traveling away from that galaxy should be half the speed we are traveling in a certain direction (a certain % of the speed of light), our current existence would be better described as the remains of an exploded star rather than one before it was headed in every direction.
All that to get to this question. Our speed and direction should affect what we can observe when we look just in the direction we are traveling (into the void as it is the greater emptiness than what is in any other direction we could look). with the multi-verse theory we could be headed straight for another universe (either before it blew up or towards a remnant after it blew. If it was the latter then it is also moving in our direction at a certain speed (% of light speed again) Can those two speeds be combined to be greater than the speed of light (more than 100%) and/or if less would we have time to see it coming. Every body in this universe is headed away from each other, so something that is 100 light years away is going to take longer than 100 years of travel to get there, you have to add in the distance that it moves away in that 100 years of travel (at light speed).

If we could spot something in our current path at, say that same 100 light years, but that time would be shortened because we are traveling towards each other. If our rate of closing was at 98% light speed we should be meeting in 2 years, not 100.
If that ever did happen I would thing getting a big bag of popcorn would be about the only thing we could do about it.

 

[MHz]

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf
LOL Can you translate that into something like if train "A" left station "B" traveling at "X" in direction "Y" and ........

 

[Dexter Sinister]

No need, Stenger's provided his own translation at the original link, http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Thanks for making my task a whole lot easier...

You keep skipping the first step. First you have to show reasonable and probable grounds for believing the Bible to be true and correct on these matters. Once that proposition's established, it's reasonable to discuss the meaning and significance of its contents for our reality, but not before.

 

[mrgrumpy]

How to convert a skeptic, eh?

Well, the best way is to start by brainwashing children at a young age; fill their heads with magical nonsense, a dear Jesus who is their best friend and certain threats about eternal hellfire if you don't belive..if the subject is older , ignorance and promises of everlasting life with all the goodies MIGHT work...if the subject is educated and not out of touch with reality, you've got virtually no chance at all.

 

[MHz]

You keep skipping the first step. First you have to show reasonable and probable grounds for believing the Bible to be true and correct on these matters. Once that proposition's established, it's reasonable to discuss the meaning and significance of its contents for our reality, but not before.

Well that seems to be a catch-22 thingy so I guess that is far as we go down that road.

 

[MHz]

How to convert a skeptic, eh?

Well, the best way is to start by brainwashing children at a young age; fill their heads with magical nonsense, a dear Jesus who is their best friend and certain threats about eternal hellfire if you don't belive..if the subject is older , ignorance and promises of everlasting life with all the goodies MIGHT work...if the subject is educated and not out of touch with reality, you've got virtually no chance at all.

It seems that your first one on the list would be how to create a skeptic, wasn't that your path?
The second choice would seem to include keeping the actual texts out of his hands.
The third choice is going to require a seeing is believing kind of event, like resurrection from the grave.

 

[mrgrumpy]

Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.

Voltaire

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Well that seems to be a catch-22 thingy so I guess that is far as we go down that road.

It'll be a catch-22 to you only if the only grounds you can produce for believing the Bible is true are within the Bible itself, but you can't reliably demonstrate anything by such self-referential arguments anyway, they're obviously circular. If for example there were a statement in the Bible to the effect that it's true and you were wondering if in fact the Bible is true, it wouldn't help you to have that statement, because if any single thing in the book is false, then that statement is necessarily false as well.

There is no such claim in the Bible, but there are passages that can be interpreted to mean that, usually 2 Timothy 3:16, and there are other authors who claim that their particular claims are true without claiming the entire book is true. How could they? They didn't know there'd be such a book, it wasn't compiled until several centuries after all the bits were written. Regardless though, it's not valid to insert a truth claim into a document and use it to argue that the document's true. That's not a catch-22, that's an error in logic called begging the question.

 

[karrie]

Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.

Voltaire

Those who do nothing but regurgitate the thoughts of others are doomed to be ignored.

karrie

 

[MHz]

It'll be a catch-22 to you only if the only grounds you can produce for believing the Bible is true are within the Bible itself, but you can't reliably demonstrate anything by such self-referential arguments anyway, they're obviously circular. If for example there were a statement in the Bible to the effect that it's true and you were wondering if in fact the Bible is true, it wouldn't help you to have that statement, because if any single thing in the book is false, then that statement is necessarily false as well.

I'm not trying to prove that the Bible is true via the Bible. What I have said is that what passes these days for end-times doctrine is pretty much crap, when the verses are examined they don't hold up, not meaning that it has anybody going back over any of that material. I believe I did ask if the verses about the end-times mesh from all the books that have anything to say about that time do create a picture that meshes only when all that info is taken into account does it put into question that it was not written by a bunch of unconnected stories. Your reply said they read those other stories and then, totally on their own, added the later books.
Fine, give me the rundown on what it actually adds up to, never mind on second thought.

There is no such claim in the Bible, but there are passages that can be interpreted to mean that, usually 2 Timothy 3:16, and there are other authors who claim that their particular claims are true without claiming the entire book is true. How could they? They didn't know there'd be such a book, it wasn't compiled until several centuries after all the bits were written. Regardless though, it's not valid to insert a truth claim into a document and use it to argue that the document's true. That's not a catch-22, that's an error in logic called begging the question.

That isn't one that I had specifically in mind, as it only talks about Scripture in general terms. The verses before 2Jo:1:10 would apply, 1Th:5:21 is about as blunt as it gets. The duty lies with the one being taught, not the teacher. That is the very same reason there are watchdogs for governments and businesses, they don't/can't regulate themselves.
No doubt the Vatican as a few bits tucked away, not necessarily for safe keeping, though I hope they didn't destroy everything they find approval in.
It's close enough to a catch-22 for me, you have already shown that in the heat of discussion of specific Scriptures you will go back to the argument that the Bible isn't real. I don't see that as not having unlimited applications.

 

[look3467]

Are you advocating Christians contribute to what could be called chaos by anybody, in this case anybody who willingly admits to not being a Christian? You seem to be promoting a near extinction man-made event so the remnant (Christians) can start a brave new world.
So usually in a case like this it actually calls for a chapter and verse that backs that up, you didn't find the one about pants because it wasn't there and you certainly won't find one that can be twisted to say Christians should be causing chaos for anybody.

When the world finds its self in chaos because of self destruction, a
Catastrophic upheaval, there will always be a remnant left to continue on as in the story of Noah and the flood.

As for the pants thing:

What has that to do with a believing woman wearing pants? There is no Biblical LAW saying what a woman should wear or not wear. Rather, a woman is to be arrayed in "modest apparel." The Apostle Paul addresses the modesty of a woman in his first letter to Timothy. "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works">>> by Elizabeth George

on Gotquestions?org

There was no specific scripture referring to women wearing pants, but is taken by some to address that fashion in the church.

My point was if you remember, was that the New Testament is a work book by which believers struggle to find answers which are not set in stone.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Dexter Sinister]

"...women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness..." Oh, absolutely, women should always be shamefaced, they're such alarming and dangerous and impulsive creatures, goes right back to Eve. :angry3:

Paul hated or feared women, his misogyny fairly leaps out of his writings, and in my not very humble opinion the treatment of women that resulted is one of Christianity's greatest offenses.

 

[MHz]

Okay, so Christian women back then, or even now, shouldn't dress modestly in public.
Do Christian women ever dress brazenly in public?

Okay, so Christian women back then, or even now, shouldn't be sober in public.
Nobody should be drunk in public from what some examples have shown me.

Okay, so Christian women back then, or even now, shouldn't wear braided hair in public.
I don't see what harm that would cause today, I don't know if braided hair meant anything back then.

Okay, so Christian women back then, or even now, shouldn't gold in public.
It can be overdone. Robbers also love shiny gold things.

Okay, so Christian women back then, or even now, shouldn't wear pearls in public.
Like gold isn't this flashing your wealth? Robbers like pearls as much as the love gold.

Okay, so Christian women back then, or even now, shouldn't wear costly apparel.
Like gold and peals, this can be overdone.

Finally your favorite.

Okay, so Christian women back the, or even now, shouldn't ever appear bashful or modest in public.

Strong's #127

aidwV
aidos
ahee-doce'
perhaps from a - a 1 (as a negative particle) and eidw - eido 1492 (through the idea of downcast eyes); bashfulness, i.e. (towards men), modesty or (towards God) awe:--reverence, shamefacedness.
Why do I keep getting flashes of Tammy Rae while doing this post? Don't get me wrong, on some women all of the above looks quite nice, especially when going out for the night. I would be a little distracted if my banker dressed up to the hilt at 9:30 in the morning.

Maybe your feelings toward God have some bearing as to why these verses are so important to you.

Think the Jews were gender neutral, where was the man that was with the woman the He saved from being stoned.

Think non-Christian Gentiles have been gender neutral towards women in the last 1900 years?