| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 12:33:51 AM | If something markedly happened like some prophecy had clearly stated, and this event clearly defied the fundamental laws of physics and the known universe, it would be relatively irrational to NOT accept it as being "supernatural" or "godly," as in your terms. In fact, it wouldn't even require belief for validation, as it would be evident. Any rational person would accept that this event -- a thorough, objective investigation of course notwithstanding -- as evidence for validation of the prophecy or foretelling.  But that'll be the day.
Let's not forget, though, the scientific advancements that we've realized in the last 200 years, and how much better that we can evaluate and understand the universe through these advancements and discoveries. Today's "miracles" are tomorrow's quantifiable data. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 12:57:10 AM | Nah... I'm still waiting for the day to come when I'm sitting at the bar and I look up at the TV and there's an Emergency Broadcast...
Then some guy staggers in through the door; his eyes are rolled back and his face is gaunt. He looks like he's been drinking (a lot) and he suddenly jumps on one of the patrons (a b*itchy female who thinks she's hot sh*t), drools on her and after she screams, he bites down hard into her face...
So what happens next you ask? Guess what? It's a ZOMBIE outbreak!!!!
 | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 3:18:59 AM | Religiously aetheist. Some of you admit it, and some of you avoid it. Some of you truly are open-minded, whereas some have no problem stating that they are comfortable believing what they do and wouldn't care to change it, evidence or no. Most are afraid to answer, and the simple fact that I have to work so hard to get the answer is a full testament to that in my opinion.
I was actually surprised to see a few of you state that you would give things a second look if the odds became overwhelming. You would follow the evidence wherever it leads you, and that makes you a good example of the rationality you support. There was a comment made by yayotters about religious people not accepting truth because of their predispositions. We now see that this applies to most aetheists, so I hereby lay the argument of closed-mindedness at those feet, and hereby dub them religious. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 3:36:16 AM |
themadfiddler wrote:
I would realise I was in a horrible alternate reality that was a result of Hal Lindsey's engrams being imprinted on the world, where real Biblical scholarship was replaced by gullible idiocy, where the trailer-park had become the cultural center of the world, and reality was now, Matrix-like, being run by a horrible supercomputer with Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins at the helm, spewing out a cliched mess of hackneyed plagiarized plot.
HaHAHahaHAhahAHAhahaha!!
*falls off chair, laughing himself into an asthma attack* | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 7:42:52 AM | Ummmm.... this is a silly question
If everything came to pass I wouldn't have to BELIEVE...I would KNOW.
THAT"S the difference. Knowledge vs. belief is the criteria all of us who do not profess christianity (and some who do profess it) are looking for. And this concept is behind every thread on christianity (or other religion) in this forum. non-believers want KNOWLEDGE, facts... not subjective, personal anecdotes. If it happened before my very eyes that wouldn't require faith, just acceptance of reality.
Peace
Ravenstar | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 8:43:57 AM |
Religiously aetheist. Some of you admit it, and some of you avoid it. Some of you truly are open-minded, whereas some have no problem stating that they are comfortable believing what they do and wouldn't care to change it, evidence or no. Most are afraid to answer, and the simple fact that I have to work so hard to get the answer is a full testament to that in my opinion.
I was actually surprised to see a few of you state that you would give things a second look if the odds became overwhelming. You would follow the evidence wherever it leads you, and that makes you a good example of the rationality you support. There was a comment made by yayotters about religious people not accepting truth because of their predispositions. We now see that this applies to most aetheists, so I hereby lay the argument of closed-mindedness at those feet, and hereby dub them religious.
No. No we don't.
1) Your conclusion just does not follow, so once again your argument sucks.
Being an Atheist has nothing to do with how one deals with prophecy or rationality. Nothing whatsoever.
2) Your who speel about 'testing' our 'rationality' Is nothing more then sandbagging because you derided our clinging to that rationality in your OP; even though it is that very rationality that would have us believe as the evidence dictates.
3) Your whole scenario is not an accurate gage of any sort because it is a complete fantasy framed in a common TROLL POST.
4) Irrational does not equal religious. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 8:45:36 AM |
non-believers want KNOWLEDGE, facts... not subjective, personal anecdotes. If it happened before my very eyes that wouldn't require faith, just acceptance of reality.
Riddle me this. What if scientists (despite how they are taught to think), set out to prove a certain thing by placing the truth first and the evidence second. Keep in mind, this is the accusation laid at our feet everyday. To say this can't happen is unreasonable within itself.
To form the typical interpretation of science, a few things must happen.
- You must form your own opinion of whether or not the the research and evidence considered was approached without presumption, and the parties involved took every measure to preserve accuracy above all things, resulting in a fully unbiased result. (conjecture)
- The parties involved must meticulusly examine the evidence at hand and provide the best possible theory to fill in the gaps. (conjecture)
- You must then examine the evidence yourself... but who wants to do that? I think I would rather read a book on someone else's experience with the subject at hand. Someone who knows how to properly interpret the data. (conjecture)
I wonder what is left after this...
Not that science or reason disproves religion, but if you consider just how much conjecture it takes to believe, for instance, that the atom can be split, how much more does it take to consider black holes, dark matter, evolution, special relativity... At some point, everyone resigns themselves to faith and conjecture.
Knowledge vs. belief is evidently relative to the observer. I can know I'll press the next button on the keyboard within five seconds, and letters will appear on my screen, but that presumption becomes worthless if the power goes out. Just as faith is needed in the very small things, likewise it is needed for greater things.
To form a belief in God requires both reason and conjecture. It is the same method the rest of you use everyday, only some of you have openly stated that you don't use the bizarre crackpot thinking that we do. Reason has become a religion to you, and it's not even pure reason. It's tainted with conjecture. This is evident with the outright refusal of some to answer the question of evidence, and confirmed by those who answer no.
"KNOWLEDGE, facts... not subjective, personal anecdotes" There is no such thing. Not for us anyway. By my own conjecture, the only one who is all-knowing is God. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 9:06:20 AM | altruist, You Have little knowledge of how science works.
One may start with an idea. they then do experiments to prove or disprove that idea. They then present the evidence to their peers to be reviewed. Other scientist do their own research and then will save the finding they made. The original Theory is then proved or disproved. Science then can build on that theory.
it is often theology that states case and then uses a hammer to make their theory fit the facts. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 9:38:40 AM | | Don't see much sense ever in discussing the hypothetical but this time I'll bite. I'd continue with the same mindset that has gotten me through life thus far. I'd search for answers to the questions that this hypothetical war would now pose, how did all that happen and what not, in places that I think would offer the most chances for finding viable solutions. Daniel or anything else in the bible, the koran or any other religious works have never provide any feasable answers to me so I can't imagine I'd crack open any of those books with all that's going on in the world that needs real solutions. One of which is, how do we overthrow this sucker and get back to liberty and justice for all. Simple really. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 9:54:05 AM | altruist writes:
There was a comment made by yayotters about religious people not accepting truth because of their predispositions. We now see that this applies to most aetheists, so I hereby lay the argument of closed-mindedness at those feet, and hereby dub them religious.
This does NOT apply to atheists. Atheists disbelieve in god because of a lack of evidence, not because we just "think" that there's no god. Atheism is NOT a dogma, but a LACK of dogma; it's a logical derivation from the universe as we know it. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 10:08:23 AM |
Answer the question. Excuse me, while I did comment on the question's validity, I did answer the question. You just didn't particularly like my answer, or the assumptions of it: that some Jews would survive and provide the solution.
Fine, you believe in Christianity, I believe in Judaism. A bit of respect for each other's religions would be nice.
As I mentioned, however, the periodic hypothetical "What if Christianity is Right?" posts, are somewhat annoying.
I have yet to see a "What if Judaism is Right?" post. In any case, the answer is that everybody would be fine, since Jews believe that you don't have to be Jewish to be "saved", and the world would simply go on as before!  | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 10:34:19 AM |
This is the very question of the post. It would defy your intuition, so where would your thoughts land? We are talking about odds. A complete fulfillment would defy the odds, and the unnatural events such as the disappearances would be explained by aliens, particle physics gone haywire, radiation, some upset in the life force we never knew existed, etc...
Would your intuition lead you to defy the odds, accept the events, and explain it to yourself as a freak occurance without ever bringing God into the picture?
If something defies my intuition, I would make sure it's true and be forced to incorporate it into my view... But make no mistake, my view would never be Daniels view.
God never really leaves the picture as far as I can tell... As for the rest of your response, I've already answered... My answer doesn't conform to what you think your question leads to and for that I'm not sorry... I don't believe in prophets. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 10:35:24 AM |
A bit of respect for each other's religions would be nice.
Sorry. Shotgun approach. It keeps me from having to single people out, and that keeps the topic in focus. That appology goes for the aetheists who haven't called us crackpots as well. The main argument I keep hearing is reason, so that's what I'm focusing on. I have a very deep respect for the Jews, and I wouldn't even have a religion if not for Judaism. Appologies if I have offended.
Honestly, I have no quarrel with any religion, and I don't have a quarrel with all aetheists. I have simply observed that many (not all) of them tend to be the first to yell "hypocrite" and of course root themselves their own exclusivity of truth in "reason" while simultaneously attacking Christians for the same mindset. It's the pot calling the kettle black, and I intend to state that my "reason" has just as much validity. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 10:42:02 AM |
This does NOT apply to atheists. Atheists disbelieve in god because of a lack of evidence, not because we just "think" that there's no god. Atheism is NOT a dogma, but a LACK of dogma; it's a logical derivation from the universe as we know it.
This is only true if they don't claim to know there is no god(s)... If you claim something as fact, even if it is the lack of something and cannot prove it, you have dogma.
Dogma is an unproven claim to truth.
Many Atheists are just as dogmatic as the religious. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 10:43:00 AM |
many (not all) of them tend to be the first to yell "hypocrite" and of course root themselves their own exclusivity of truth in "reason"
Atheism is based on the universal truth of reality; reality being a lack of evidence for the existence of god. There's nothing "individual" or interpretive about it. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 10:43:57 AM | my beliefs hinge on wherever the evidence is pointing. If I was witness to miracles like Peter, Paul, James, Thomas, etc were then I'd have no troubles believing but I guess they just don't make miracles like that anymore.
Riddle me this. What if scientists (despite how they are taught to think), set out to prove a certain thing by placing the truth first and the evidence second. Keep in mind, this is the accusation laid at our feet everyday. To say this can't happen is unreasonable within itself.
The following day their research would be discredited by countless other scientists. Or perhaps it wouldn't, since it would not have made it into a peer-reviewed science journal in the first place. Scientists are their own worse critics, if they see a flaw in someone's research they race to publish it.
but if you consider just how much conjecture it takes to believe, for instance, that the atom can be split, how much more does it take to consider black holes, dark matter, evolution, special relativity... At some point, everyone resigns themselves to faith and conjecture.
There's no proof that there is a computer in front of me. I can see it, hear it, touch it, but I can't prove it. I believe it is there though, and that is the kind of "leap of faith" that I am willing to make - except it is not really a leap...more of a tiny hop. That miniscule amount of faith that requires me to believe what the evidence shows me does not even compare to the amount of faith required to believe in all the things that you do. I can't imagine myself believing in a religion that not only has no compelling evidence to support it, but requires me to believe in spite of evidence against it. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 10:49:26 AM | I will now pose another question that i am sure altruist will fail to answer.
the bible alludes to drug use and it has been proposed that Judaism and christianity have their roots in shamanistic Male fertility cults. Cults that used psychoactive drugs. what would you do if this were proven true? what if Jesus appeared and told you that yes in fact he used mushrooms to commune with his father? | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 10:49:31 AM | Atheism is based on the universal truth of reality
Oh really? What universal "truth" of reality are you speaking of?
This could be for another thread, but there is no universal "truth"... At least not yet... Otherwise we would all know what the truth is... In reality, nobody does... Not even you. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 11:32:32 AM |
altruist, You Have little knowledge of how science works.
My interpretation may be a little different than yours, but to shorten it up a bit, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand scientific method. My fields of study are more centered on physics and electromagnetism, but I've read some evolution books. Physics is something I can look at and find absolutely irrefutable, but evolution has way too many holes for me. The rules for moment of inertia, angular velocity, etc. etc... never change, whereas evolution has never once been observed. It doesn't matter anyway. The point is, some of these fields are still subject to and dependant upon conjecture.
Also, I did not outline scientific method. I outlined a short version of a reasonable approach that most people take when entering a field of study with limited information. If I missed all the technicalities, oh well. This has already gone much farther off subject than I really care to go, so reciting all my knowledge in precise format is a big waste of time.
The point is, people take stretches of the imagination everyday, and that includes science. Take a look at special relativity. Many scientists still argue about it. Scientists also argue about evolution. Scientist have no frickin clue whats up with quantum physics. But no one argues with near-precise nature of Newtonian physics (relativity exceptions of course, hence the "near-precise"). That is proven to me. Prove the other methods to that same degree, and I will give you the fact that no more conjecture is needed. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 11:37:46 AM | It is interesting how Altruist has completely ignored my last post.
Undoubtedly be believes it to be nothing more then a personal attack on him, despite the fact that it is a very solid criticism of his attempted argument.
His persistence in trying to get everyone to say that the Book of Daniel could be an accurate prophecy is the exact reason why "what if" questions of this kind are considered troll posts.
Overall, Altruist has shown himself to be of the very character he is condemning. He chooses which statements he wants to use, the ones that support his conclusion, while ignoring the ones that destroy his conclusion. Captain Irrational strikes again! | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 11:40:42 AM |
I will now pose another question that i am sure altruist will fail to answer.
the bible alludes to drug use and it has been proposed that Judaism and christianity have their roots in shamanistic Male fertility cults. Cults that used psychoactive drugs. what would you do if this were proven true? what if Jesus appeared and told you that yes in fact he used mushrooms to commune with his father?
lol Artz. I've already answered your alien question. What makes this one any different? | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 11:46:24 AM | Evolution has been observed 1000s of times ask any biologist. They have conducted 1000s of experiments that have proven the theory 100% correct every time.
On human evolution the data and evidence may not cover every aspect. The Fossil evidence is still being uncovered. Yet when new evidence is uncovered they fill in more gaps. The scientific theory of evolution moves forward again new evidence is always proving the theory correct and valid. | |
|
| |
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 12:05:29 PM |
Reality. Life as we know it. Secular pragmatism.
Ahh, but the life as we know it is constantly changing... If you cling to your ideas, you will soon fall in with illusion... We only know life in as far as we have uncovered... That isn't alot... We don't even know if the big bang is one or many yet. | |
|
| What if it all came to pass? Would you believe?
Posted: 11/20/2007 12:10:50 PM | | "my ideas" are directly congruent with "life as we know it." So as our understanding of science and the universe continues to evolve, my perception of it follows in suit. I am not clinging to anything but evidenced reality, and never a dogma. I understand your point stone, but I think that you are under the misconception that atheism is a dogma and NOT a lack of one. | |
|
Home
login 
