- 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 11:23 am to kingbob
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:23 am to kingbob
quote:
However, the epistles of Paul are always attributed to Paul and only Paul.
Not true. There is much forgery and interpolation within works attributed to Paul... and Paul, as is very well known, seems totally ignorant of an actual earthbound Jesus.
quote:
Revelations is always attributed to John of Patmos and only John of Patmos.
Again, not true. Many Christians still attribute Revelation to John the Apostle while most historians attribute it to a separate individual, John of Patmos. And it wasn't written contemporaneously to or shortly after the supposed time of Jesus, anyway.
quote:
Josephus mentions Jesus during his accounts of the Jewish Revolt as well.
The Josephus accounts are widely accepted by historians as forgeries.
0
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:23 am to LSUnKaty
quote:
I take your limited point here that AGW is a special case of the system breaking down.
I think anytime politics gets involved with science, science isn't being done for it's purest reason...which is getting to know the world. Sometimes it can be argues that's still a net gain...think nuclear research during WWII or the space race. Others, not so much. But in terms of pure science, had politics not ever gotten involved, and eventually businesses which sprang up to benefit from various regulations that followed, I'd had no real issue with the cold science. Now...what we DO about it, that's an entirely different issue and one that I think is FAR more controversial than if it exists.
quote:
I take it that you would agree in general that skepticism is good and even essential?
Of course. I'm a skeptic at heart.
quote:
Or even further, that science can not be trusted to be that beacon in the darkness when politics is involved?
Trust, but verified...to quote Reagan.
quote:
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.
I actually don't have a ton of issue with government funding of large scale scientific research. When they insist on steering finding or research I do.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:27 am to dcrews
quote:
But now discrediting any instance where science was incorrect at that time as merely an "opinion" seems disingenuous.
Discoveries made before the advent of the scientific method can't be discredited simply because of thier age and that's not what I am doing.
What I am saying is that the advent of the scientific method has made it harder for random theories with no factual basis to persist for long periods of time.
You cannot dispute the fact that we as a race have evolved tremendously since the 1700s where before we took a few millenia to find a mode of transportation more advanced than horseback. Thank science for that.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:28 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I don't feel the need to poke my thumb in the eyes of believers...even when germane to the point of the thread.
Thank you sire.
Religion is faith-based. There is no pretense of science in religion. For those who are virulently anti-religion, they like to do 'scientific-analysis' of a belief system that has to do with what is morally right and wrong, not what is scientifically provable or not provable.
Science cannot determine right from wrong in a moral sense.
As for the Bible, I find it remarkably 'scientific' when you realize that it was written before the term 'science' was even an idea in the the heads of the most brilliant people on earth at the time. It was written primarily as parables so as to better relate some moral tenet to a scientifically ignorant population.
The description of creation in Genesis is remarkable for its sequencing of major events - but the anti-religionists zero in on the 24 hour 'day' thingy.
I am a scientist. I also believe in God. I am admittedly luke-warm as a Christian - certainly no evangelist - but I see absolutely no pernicious disconnect between science and God. They are totally dissimilar. To argue that point is like trying to determine which is better - a banana or a screwdriver.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:32 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. Scientist once believed that lead bars could be turned to gold! But of course these chemist weren't true scientist right?!
I'm sorry you seem so angry at science...while you type on a computer.
Again...science evolves. It's merely a process by which will learn about the natural world. As our ability to measure, compute, communicate grew, our findings became more and more correct. Flat earth is a perfect example of that... It was not far fetched to think the earth was flat before we could know any better. Given the sheer size, it's very NEARLY flat. It wasn't until we had reason to doubt that claim that we did...and as our ability to work the problem got better, our measurements did as well.
That's what science is all about. And you'd have us throw the entire process out because it's not perfect or it hasn't moved fast enough for you. Or at least that's what you'd have us believe. The real truth is that you'll never go along, because science will never agree with your worldviews of a young earth. We're beyond that. The irony is that you're very similar to the folks who would have stood on the side and claimed, "So wait...the world isn't flat anymore?!? I'll never believe it's spherical!"
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:34 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
science will never agree with your worldviews of a young earth.
Does anyone you know actually believe the earth is young - i.e. 6000 years?
I know of no one like that.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 11:36 am
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:37 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I am a scientist. I also believe in God. I am admittedly luke-warm as a Christian - certainly no evangelist - but I see absolutely no pernicious disconnect between science and God. They are totally dissimilar. To argue that point is like trying to determine which is better - a banana or a screwdriver.
I tend to agree with this statement, and I am an atheist.
Science and religion can co-exist. The problem with them coexisting is largely due to people who don't understand what religion is, or cannot deal with their worldview being updated.
In general though, religion will continue to lose societal value until it accepts that it must adapt to changing information the way science does. This requires a bit of a rethink for some religions (such as islam).
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:37 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
That's what science is all about. And you'd have us throw the entire process out because it's not perfect or it hasn't moved fast enough for you. Or at least that's what you'd have us believe. The real truth is that you'll never go along, because science will never agree with your worldviews of a young earth. We're beyond that. The irony is that you're very similar to the folks who would have stood on the side and claimed, "So wait...the world isn't flat anymore?!? I'll never believe it's spherical!"
First off I never insinuated that all or even most of science should be thrown off, I just take exception to those who worship it as the end all be all to every earthly question. And secondly, I have no idea how old the earth is, never said I believe in a young earth, and don't believe the bible spells out its age.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:40 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Does anyone you know actually believe the earth is young - i.e. 6000 years?
Personally? Like in my real life? No, not that I know of.
quote:
I know of no one like that.
On here? If that's the case, you have not paid much attention. There are a ton of folks who post on this forum that claim to be YEC's. Frankly, it's shocking. The list grows even more when you toss in old earth BUT no evolution.
I tend to get Revelator and Apex mixed...I know Apex is a YEC, and I think Revelator is. He'll correct me if I'm wrong...but he's something akin of not totally.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:40 am to LesMiles BFF
quote:
Science in it's true form never existed before the 1700s.
In your view, science exploded fully grown in the 1700's never having existed in any form prior to that?
quote:
The scientific method didn't exist when people thought the earth was flat.
The current protocols of the scientific method perhaps, but are you going to try to get me to belive that there was not experimentation, testing, checking, etc in the ancient world?
That the Egyptians sort of all gathered together one day and built a pyramid or two without some level of scientific method?
Seriously?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:42 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Personally? Like in my real life? No, not that I know of.
I have one relative that is a YEC. Its really bizarre to have conversations with him. He is super smart, and actually believes in natural selection. Just so happens it only applies to animals and the earth was created 6000 years ago. its fricking bizarre, especially he worked as an engineer for oil companies for most of his life.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:43 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
I have one relative that is a YEC. Its really bizarre to have conversations with him. He is super smart, and actually believes in natural selection. Just so happens it only applies to animals and the earth was created 6000 years ago. its fricking bizarre, especially he worked as an engineer for oil companies for most of his life.
Religion turns intelligent children into adult intellectual cowards.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:44 am to Revelator
quote:
First off I never insinuated that all or even most of science should be thrown off, I just take exception to those who worship it as the end all be all to every earthly question
It would have been more truthful had you simply said you like it when it agrees with you, and don;t when it doesn't. I do continue to love the projection of attempting to make science a religion from one of the more religious posters on the board. No one "worships" science. I certainly reverse the process and am glad I live in the scientific age.
quote:
And secondly, I have no idea how old the earth is, never said I believe in a young earth, and don't believe the bible spells out its age.
Like I said, I tend to get you and Apex confused at times. You the guy that hands out Bible quotes to kids at Halloween, or is that Apex too?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:46 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Does anyone you know actually believe the earth is young - i.e. 6000 years?
I believe we have no idea how old the earth is and if it matters to me when I die I'll ask God about it.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:46 am to Rex
quote:
adult intellectual cowards.
So what turned you into one?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:46 am to Rex
quote:
Religion turns intelligent children into adult intellectual cowards.
not always. What is strange is the rest of the family is either atheist, reformed jew or progressive presbyterian. None of the other relatives show this lack of critical reasoning skills.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:47 am to Gray Tiger
quote:
Seriously?
The point was that no one believed the earth to be flat in 1492 as suggested flippantly by another poster. He was wrong. VERY wrong.
The earth was understood to be spherical for over 1,000 years before that time. Now...whether or not "the establishment" was on board with that is another story. Ask Galileo how much change was liked...
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:49 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
I believe we have no idea how old the earth is
You believe we have no idea how old the earth is?
When people even suggest this I really do not think they've bothered to think through the implications of what it would mean for our understanding of the other sciences.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:50 am to Gray Tiger
quote:
In your view, science exploded fully grown in the 1700's never having existed in any form prior to that?
quote:
Science in it's true form never existed before the 1700s.
I don't know how you made that conclusion from my statement.
quote:
but are you going to try to get me to belive that there was not experimentation, testing, checking, etc in the ancient world?
Not saying that all of these things didn't exist before, but what you are talking about only existed for the wealthy. There were no widely circulated peer-review publications so no checks and balances.
If you didn't want people to eat pork then you just said that pork was off limits by God's decree. Who's going to dispute that when the punishment is death?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:54 am to Rex
quote:
It's a belief shared by many people a lot smarter than yourself, myself included.
Recurrent theme in the liberal world.
Page 6 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News