- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "Why Do People Persist in Believing Things That Just Aren't True?"
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:56 am to Rex
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:56 am to Rex
quote:
Hitchens wasn't much of an historian. Better you should read people like Robert Price and Richard Carrier.
I like Price... but he hasn't convinced me.
I think there was a man who the stories were based on - the stories being horrendously exaggerated, skewed, stretched and aggrandized to the point of them becoming fiction, of course.
That's merely my humble opinion, though.
1
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:56 am to Choctaw
Atheists, for the most part, don't claim to know there is no God. They simply don't believe in God.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:57 am to Choctaw
quote:
Do you believe Socrates and Plato existed?
Absolutely. There is substantial corroborated evidence for both of them, the quality of which is totally absent for Jesus.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:59 am to Choctaw
quote:
Do you believe Socrates existed.
he most likely existed. Several of his contemporaries wrote about him, including plato and xenephon, and he also appeared in plays written in that time period.
plus aristotle who was not his contemporary but very close to his time period wrote about it.
Jesus doesn't have near as much evidence that he existed. But I happen to believe he existed.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:00 am to I B Freeman
I think the real issues are three fold:
1. Quality of reporting. Our media is so inconsistent with their reporting about science. Often, it is clear that they are not attempting to inform, but instead to push an agenda or fear monger.
2. Politicians and scientists politicize science for personal gain. It makes it really difficult to determine what's right when politicians use science to their own devices while the scientists endorse it. When reputation, tenure, and research depends on towing a political line, that immediately discredits academia and science by extension.
3. Over-abundance of information. Thanks to the internet, we now have access to so much information, that it is harder to tell fact from fiction. It becomes much more difficult to verify information because anyone can find some kind of seemingly credible information that supports any opinion on every issue that exists. It is impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff when there is such a volume of info at our disposal. This leads to people purposefully searching out info that agrees with their opinion and clinging to it as unchallengeable fact. When people challenge those citations with info of their own gathered in the same way, those challenges can be met in the same way. No one is ever "proven" wrong because no one ever runs out of info that "proves" their correctness on an issue.
Because "science" is often blamed rather than reporting, academia, politicians, bloggers, and beaurocrats, people lose their trust in science because "consensus" and certainly consistent consensus are impossible in this day and age due to politics, reporting, and the glut of info at our fingertips.
1. Quality of reporting. Our media is so inconsistent with their reporting about science. Often, it is clear that they are not attempting to inform, but instead to push an agenda or fear monger.
2. Politicians and scientists politicize science for personal gain. It makes it really difficult to determine what's right when politicians use science to their own devices while the scientists endorse it. When reputation, tenure, and research depends on towing a political line, that immediately discredits academia and science by extension.
3. Over-abundance of information. Thanks to the internet, we now have access to so much information, that it is harder to tell fact from fiction. It becomes much more difficult to verify information because anyone can find some kind of seemingly credible information that supports any opinion on every issue that exists. It is impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff when there is such a volume of info at our disposal. This leads to people purposefully searching out info that agrees with their opinion and clinging to it as unchallengeable fact. When people challenge those citations with info of their own gathered in the same way, those challenges can be met in the same way. No one is ever "proven" wrong because no one ever runs out of info that "proves" their correctness on an issue.
Because "science" is often blamed rather than reporting, academia, politicians, bloggers, and beaurocrats, people lose their trust in science because "consensus" and certainly consistent consensus are impossible in this day and age due to politics, reporting, and the glut of info at our fingertips.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:00 am to Rex
quote:
Absolutely. There is substantial corroborated evidence for both of them, the quality of which is totally absent for Jesus.
What evidence is there that Socrates existed other than what Plato wrote about him?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:01 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Correct, science is not dictated by the thoughts and actions of people. Doctors over diagnosing ADHD are both going against science and diagnostic criteria.
So science should be lauded only when it concludes correct findings, but we are never really sure if they are correct, but just presently assumed to be so, right?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:01 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
he most likely existed. Several of his contemporaries wrote about him, including plato and xenephon, and he also appeared in plays written in that time period. plus aristotle who was not his contemporary but very close to his time period wrote about it.
Same as Jesus
quote:
Jesus doesn't have near as much evidence that he existed. But I happen to believe he existed.
If you did some research you would know that this is false
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:02 am to Rex
quote:
Absolutely. There is substantial corroborated evidence for both of them, the quality of which is totally absent for Jesus.
False
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:03 am to Choctaw
quote:
What evidence is there that Socrates existed other than what Plato wrote about him?
Aristophanes and Xenophon both wrote about Socrates, independently of Plato.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:04 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:You sure?
No, this is what religions and dogmas do. The scientific field holds to what the evidence says at a given moment. It molds ideas around evidence, not evidence to fit ideas.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:04 am to Choctaw
quote:
Same as Jesus
Wrong. Aristophanes was a contemporary of Socrates, and wrote about him while he was still alive. No such historical witness exists for Jesus.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:04 am to Revelator
quote:
Science is also responsible for diagnosing about half of today's school children with ADHD and putting them all on meds.
Science is responsible? Good grief...
I find the numbers of ADHD an autism to be laughable. Not because I have some issue with "science"but because I'm not on board with the various interest groups worrying about the increasing numbers! Why? Because the increase is largely to do with just an adjustment is how these syndromes are categorized. There's also likely an increase in the ability of medicine to diagnose medically what they could not diagnose before. I'd care about this if there was a suggestion that there was an epidemic of kids getting these conditions that would otherwise ot get them in the past.
My oldest son, technically, has epilepsy. He's on the spectrum. But does he REALLY...in common language? Nah. He has a form of childhood epilepsy called Rolandic Epilepsy and he's had one breakthrough seizure in 5 years. All indications are that he will grow out of the condition soon and will no longer require meds for it.
Now...am I supposed to be angry at "science" for diagnosing my son with epilepsy when they might not have 100 years ago? Or do I realize how lucky my son is that he lives in an age where his condition was diagnosed and treated effectively?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:04 am to Choctaw
Of course this thread devolved into an athiest/christian pissing match 
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:05 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
there really isn't much evidence of this. I happen to believe Jesus probably existed, but they didn't have great record keeping back then.
So all of the disciples who wrote about Jesus and the many who were described as being touched by his ministry were all simply liars? Or perhaps people like Peter, James, Luke, Paul, etc. didn't exist either and were mere figments?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:05 am to Choctaw
quote:
What evidence is there that Socrates existed other than what Plato wrote about him?
xenephone
aristophanes
aristotle
All wrote about socrates. There is some debate on whether plato's teachings were his own or they were socrates.
I don't really see how this question is relevant.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:07 am to kingbob
quote:
Of course this thread devolved into an athiest/christian pissing match
Nah, it's just Rex trying to deny that Jesus. the man existed. Which would be laughable, if he weren't being serious.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:07 am to Gray Tiger
quote:
Because science is never wrong.
That's the funny thing about science. It gets a pass on being wrong about a LOT of things, and yet gets infinite credit when it's finally right about something it was wrong about 1000 times before.
Begs the question, how subjective is the word "right" as it pertains to correctness/accuracy of science?
Science pre Columbus days insisted that the earth was flat. Science at that time was "right".
Personally, I feel there is 100% fact concerning everything within the universe. Science is simply the method by which we eventually prove these facts.
This is why I laugh when people say God doesn't exist because there is no proof of Him. There was no proof of Mars, Jupiter, other solar systems or other galaxies until we found proof.
God may exist or He may not. However stating lack of current proof as 100% factual evidence that God doesn't and cannot possibly exist seems hypocritical considering that's exactly how science operates.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:07 am to Revelator
quote:
So all of the disciples who wrote about Jesus and the many who were described as being touched by his ministry were all simply liars? Or perhaps people like Peter, James, Luke, Paul, etc. didn't exist either and were mere figments?
The gospels were not written when and by whom you think they were written.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:09 am to dcrews
quote:
Science pre Columbus days insisted that the earth was flat. Science at that time was "right".
That wasn't science. Science involves the scientific process. The opinion that the Earth was flat was NEVER arrived at scientifically.
Page 4 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News