- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 11:10 am to Rex
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:10 am to Rex
quote:
The gospels were not written when and by whom you think they were written.
And you know this how? You simply believe things that you believe because it fits in with your belief system and you are a product of your own thread description.
0
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:10 am to dcrews
quote:
Science pre Columbus days insisted that the earth was flat. Science at that time was "right".
No, it didn't.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:12 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
It's a shame we can't just rely on the science in this case. Al Gore politicized it so much, and then the right volleyed and now it's a cluster with the science taking a back seat.
I take your limited point here that AGW is a special case of the system breaking down. I however think it is worse than that.
I take it that you would agree in general that skepticism is good and even essential? Or even further, that science can not be trusted to be that beacon in the darkness when politics is involved?
The problem I have is that government took over the lion share of scientific research funding at some point around the middle of the last century.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:12 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Science is responsible? Good grief...
So medicine isn't part of science? Or do you only boast of particular sciences and findings that fit your belief system.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:12 am to Rex
quote:
That wasn't science. Science involves the scientific process. The opinion that the Earth was flat was NEVER arrived at scientifically.
It was according to the generally accepted scientific principles of the day.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:12 am to Rex
quote:
The gospels were not written when and by whom you think they were written.
wrong again.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:12 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
I don't really see how this question is relevant.
I don't see how he thinks impugning the historicity of Socrates rescues the Jesus story in any way. If I insist that the evidence for one historical character is paltry he rebuts by questioning the evidence for someone else? That only makes sense in someone like Choctaw's brain.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:13 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?
err, most of the bible was written by people who were not contemporaries of jesus. This is quite different from socrates, who was mocked by aristophanes and one of his students wrote quite a lot about him.
I said I believed he existed, the bible is proof enough for me that he existed. I don't believe the contents of the bible but that isn't that relevant.
Also remember, socrates and plato were citizens of a greek republic. Although socrates was not popular, he was the equivalent of an aristocrat. Jesus was poor, and outside the majority. the record keeping associated with each is vastly different.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:13 am to kingbob
quote:
Of course this thread devolved into an athiest/christian pissing match
Well, when Rex and Rev are in the same thread that is bound to happen.
One is so committed to hating anything religious that he denies even the earthly existence Jesus while the other uses changing opinions about the health impacts of butter to discount all scientific inquiry. It is amazing how similar the two of them really are.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:14 am to Rex
There are compelling arguments for much of the new testament being written by various authors during the Jewish Revolt which occurred half a century after Jesus's death.
However, the epistles of Paul are always attributed to Paul and only Paul. Revelations is always attributed to John of Patmos and only John of Patmos. Josephus mentions Jesus during his accounts of the Jewish Revolt as well. Even if you completely throw out Acts and the Gospels, that's three accounts (way more than three if you count each Letter of St. Paul individually).
However, the epistles of Paul are always attributed to Paul and only Paul. Revelations is always attributed to John of Patmos and only John of Patmos. Josephus mentions Jesus during his accounts of the Jewish Revolt as well. Even if you completely throw out Acts and the Gospels, that's three accounts (way more than three if you count each Letter of St. Paul individually).
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:14 am to RuLSU
quote:
I think there was a man who the stories were based on - the stories being horrendously exaggerated, skewed, stretched and aggrandized
Check out The Zealot by Reza Aslan or Bart Ehrman (Sp?). To much evidence to say there wasn't a historical Jesus.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:14 am to Gray Tiger
quote:
It was according to the generally accepted scientific principles of the day.
Science in it's true form never existed before the 1700s.
The scientific method didn't exist when people thought the earth was flat.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:15 am to Rex
quote:
That wasn't science. Science involves the scientific process. The opinion that the Earth was flat was NEVER arrived at scientifically.
It's convenient that you always spout that things that were previously viewed as right by science that have presently been proven false was never true or real science! Well it was considered true science of the day. Scientist once believed that lead bars could be turned to gold! But of course these chemist weren't true scientist right?!
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:16 am to Hawkeye95
Flavius Josephus...look him up
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:17 am to kingbob
quote:
However, the epistles of Paul are always attributed to Paul and only Paul. Revelations is always attributed to John of Patmos and only John of Patmos
Who wrote Hebrews?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:18 am to Choctaw
quote:
That's why I was curious about Rex's examples...but I'm sure he was just being a troll as usual
To assume otherwise is futile.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:19 am to dcrews
quote:
Science pre Columbus days insisted that the earth was flat.
At some distant point, perhaps. But at the time of the voyages, they had already measured the differences in the angles of shadows and had a reasonable idea of the Earth's circumference at the equator - they weren't spot on, of course, and they didn't have the exact idea of the flattened sphere yet, but they were getting there.
The problem for Columbus was the margin of error was still pretty big - he estimated on the low side in a couple of key areas - causing him to grossly underestimate the distance between Europe and Japan if heading westerly. If he had known the actual distance, he wouldn't have even attempted the trip.
What he did have a fairly good idea about was the trade winds - this gave him an advantage as a sailor and made the trip possible. But, one of the greatest explorers in history set out not knowing where he was going, didn't realize where he was when he got there and didn't know where he'd been after he returned.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:20 am to Revelator
quote:
It's convenient that you always spout that things that were previously viewed as right by science that have presently been proven false was never true or real science! Well it was considered true science of the day
Actually, what you are calling "science of it's day" is closer to religion in that beliefs didn't have to go through a rigorous process of evaluation.
quote:
Alchemy differs significantly from modern science in its inclusion of Hermetic principles and practices related to mythology, magic, religion, and spirituality. It is recognized as a protoscience that contributed to the development of modern chemistry and medicine.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:21 am to TK421
quote:
he other uses changing opinions about the health impacts of butter to discount all scientific inquiry.
This is simply false. There is good science and there is junk science. And because of the nature of science, it's findings change and evolve over time. What I take exception to is things like," science, a candle in the dark" like it holds all the answers to all questions. How could it when scientist can't even agree on things themselves?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:23 am to LesMiles BFF
quote:
Science in it's true form never existed before the 1700s.
The scientific method didn't exist when people thought the earth was flat.
That's my only issue. Science always has some sort of "out" that gets made up because "science" can never be wrong.
If science is the process by which we prove facts by disproving everything else, I can live with that.
But now discrediting any instance where science was incorrect at that time as merely an "opinion" seems disingenuous.
Page 5 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News