What would falsify your paradigm?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Though I'm unusual in having read fully through all the collection called the bible more than one time, what I tend to find is that non believers that claim to know the bible well don't. They seem to overestimate their comprehension and ability to get full situations, etc. They tend to make gross errors and think they have it right. It will usually involve projecting interpretations onto the text that contradicts the full context which is plainly in the text, which at times will involve more than one book. It's overconfidence and arrogance it looks like, most often. Non believers could learn a bit from someone like Joseph Campbell, to help them get an attitude that would be less error prone.

I've read Joseph Campbell, more than once.

Whereas I do not pretend to know the bible perfectly? I do know it's internally inconsistent.

Normally, nobody would care about that-- but.... people are making laws that curb the rights of minorities, based on their reading of the bible, because they insist it's Magic in some way.

Even those who just say, "It's inspired by God", that is Magic.

As such, it should have been perfect, what with being a Magic Book From God.

Since we can easily show it's the opposite of perfect, by any measure you care to use?

Well. There you go. It cannot possibly be from a Divine Source. Unless that "Divine" source was beyond inept, or perhaps just evil.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

NONSENSE!

If any RF troll skeptic cared for me one whit, instead of mocking me (and other theists) they would patiently explain how to deconvert, based on exactly what you've said above about religious faith.

Sample exchange:

"Prove the BIBLE WRONG, and play nice in our sandbox at RF!"

"No, go #$#%@ yourself."

"The Bible is RIGHT, so (sort of) thank you!"

You're contributing to the problem. If you're so incensed the Bible is guiding me wrong, KINDLY help me out instead of continuing to insult me.

Well, now I might be insulting you in other sense. RIGHT and WRONG is with God, not humans. The Bible is neither one or the other. It is one of many possible routes to God in my view. I might be RIGHT or WRONG, but that is in God's hands and out of mine.

 

[PruePhillip]

PruePhillip and BillardsBall, kindly understand, not all people care about what convoluted things are written in the book that you people refer to. It means nothing to a large number of people in the world.

We all read some book, even if its someone's life.
What book do YOU read?

 

[PruePhillip]

No, YOU come from Melbourne.
I've just made a net search, "Rainbow serpent" "earliest evidence", and >this< says there are images of [him] going back 6000 years ago, making [him] 2,500 years or so older than Yahweh.

Really, you found the bones of Mr Rainbow?
Maybe Rainbow said something like in the past people's came from Africa and crossed
into Australasia when the seas were lower and boat building was well developed.
And maybe said serpent can give the whole story of the various tribes of peoples who
spread out over the continent. And then of course, the coming of new tribes of white
people and the end of the aborigines for many centuries. THEN I will take note of the
Rainbow Serpent, because he/she has authority like the bible.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What book do YOU read?

I am done with my reading. Upanishads, Gita, RigVeda, Bhagawat Purana, Ram Charit Manas. Of course, I have read Bible and Quran also.

And then of course, the coming of new tribes of white people and the end of the aborigines for many centuries. THEN I will take note of the Rainbow Serpent, because he/she has authority like the bible.

Remember, white people are just Africans who have lost their melanin because of living in colder climates. End of aborigines, that sure is a sad story.

 

[Hawkins]

History is not falsifiable. Science can be falsifiable because it's about a phenomenon which can repeat.

Christianity in a nutshell is about past encounters of a God who would pass a message to humans about what a future is lying ahead. In this case, nothing can be deemed falsifiable.

Case closed!

 

[PureX]

I don't think that's what I was saying.

I think philosophically one can define 'God' how one wishes - that's not an issue. Justifying belief in the then defined entities existence is the hard bit

It's only justifying it to others that's difficult (and mostly unnecessary). If one's beliefs are increasing the quality of their experience of being, and is not decreasing that experience for others, then it is sufficiently justified.

 

[PureX]

Be nice if we could have bet on these guys - they could tell you the winners a thousand,
two thousand years out.

Fat lot of good that would do anyone!

 

[Galateasdream]

It's only justifying it to others that's difficult

I disagree.
Finding the truth for obeself, if one has intellectual integrity, is very hard.

 

[PureX]

History is not falsifiable. Science can be falsifiable because it's about a phenomenon which can repeat.

Our theories about history are often falsifiable, just as our theories about physical relationships are. And in the end, that's all we ever have is our theories: some falsifiable, and some not.

Christianity in a nutshell is about past encounters of a God who would pass a message to humans about what a future is lying ahead. In this case, nothing can be deemed falsifiable.

That's a very narrow and naive view of Christianity. Basically, Christianity presents humanity with a revelation, and a promise. The revelation is that God's divine spirit exists within us all, as human beings, and we can choose to becomes the expressions of that spirit, or not to. And the promise is that if we will choose to become the embodiment of that divine spirit within us, we will be healed and saved from ourselves, and we will be able to help heal and save others. And when enough of us choose this path, the whole world will be healed and saved, from us, and by us.

And that promise IS falsifiable.

 

[PureX]

I disagree.
Finding the truth for obeself, if one has intellectual integrity, is very hard.

If one has intellectual integrity, they will know that as a mere human being, they can't know "the truth". All they can know are some of the relative facts, which, being relative, keep changing according to the circumstances.

 

[Galateasdream]

If one has intellectual integrity, they will know that as a mere human being, they can't know "the truth". All they can know are some of the relative facts, which, being relative, keep changing according to the circumstances.

I disagree.

A lot depends here on how we're using words like know and truth and that snot a semantic debate I want to have right now, esp as it seems irrelevant.

 

[PureX]

I disagree.

A lot depends here on how we're using words like know and truth and that snot a semantic debate I want to have right now, esp as it seems irrelevant.

It's a philosophical debate, not a semantic one. And it is important to recognize that thinking we know something doesn't mean we that we do know itour . And once we recognize the chasm between presumed knowledge, and true knowledge, we will see that we have no way of overcoming it. True knowledge remains an ideal that even if we were to achieve it, we couldn't verify having done so.

This is not a comfortable realization for a lot of people.

 

[halbhh]

I've read Joseph Campbell, more than once.

Whereas I do not pretend to know the bible perfectly? I do know it's internally inconsistent.

Normally, nobody would care about that-- but.... people are making laws that curb the rights of minorities, based on their reading of the bible, because they insist it's Magic in some way.

Even those who just say, "It's inspired by God", that is Magic.

As such, it should have been perfect, what with being a Magic Book From God.

Since we can easily show it's the opposite of perfect, by any measure you care to use?

Well. There you go. It cannot possibly be from a Divine Source. Unless that "Divine" source was beyond inept, or perhaps just evil.

Instead of a big overarching theme, which if you can see it, is even similar in manner, big conclusion style, alike or parallel like...blaming Jews for all the problems of Germany in the 1920s... -- they are the bad ones -- like that. Instead of that attempt for the Big Conclusion.... I suggest very much to take 1 single thing (not 5 or 9), but really just 1, alone, patiently, and learn that full context and full situation, and then find out if it really is just like what you thought. (Ranters will try to snow us with 15 things in a list, to try to prevent any examination (it's almost like Trump, who constantly diverts attention from people looking at something he did wrong)) I'm perfectly willing to give help on one thing at a time, if you want, mutually. Of course, no one can make you want to investigate like that. You'd have to want to on your own. Here's a convenient thread even for it:
Ask me stuff about the bible?

 

[Hawkins]

Our theories about history are often falsifiable, just as our theories about physical relationships are. And in the end, that's all we ever have is our theories: some falsifiable, and some not.
That's a very narrow and naive view of Christianity. Basically, Christianity presents humanity with a revelation, and a promise. The revelation is that God's divine spirit exists within us all, as human beings, and we can choose to becomes the expressions of that spirit, or not to. And the promise is that if we will choose to become the embodiment of that divine spirit within us, we will be healed and saved from ourselves, and we will be able to help heal and save others. And when enough of us choose this path, the whole world will be healed and saved, from us, and by us.

And that promise IS falsifiable.

No, why humans need a God boils down to the fact that humans are incapable of telling a future while God can. That's where humans need a God. Your view is shallow and naive, and missing the big picture.

Life in the Bible means entering eternity. So a human is literally a god if he can tell the future. Humans already gained the knowledge exceeding the level they should. They are thus gods if they can also acquire how life will last.

Those are the two prophetic trees in Eden.

 

[Galateasdream]

It's a philosophical debate, not a semantic one. And it is important to recognize that thinking we know something doesn't mean we that we do know itour . And once we recognize the chasm between presumed knowledge, and true knowledge, we will see that we have no way of overcoming it. True knowledge remains an ideal that even if we were to achieve it, we couldn't verify having done so.

This is not a comfortable realization for a lot of people.

I agree with everything you said, yet still think I'm right. But I'm not in the mood to turn this into a debate.

 

[PruePhillip]

History is not falsifiable. Science can be falsifiable because it's about a phenomenon which can repeat.

Christianity in a nutshell is about past encounters of a God who would pass a message to humans about what a future is lying ahead. In this case, nothing can be deemed falsifiable.

Case closed!

If Christianity made some prophetic claim that can be falsifiable then that
would be of interest. Say for example, the bible said the Jewish race would
end, but we see Jews all round us, every day. Proving prophecies wrong is
a tad tricky because you could say the prophecy is yet to happen - but I can
see merit in the idea.

 

[PureX]

I agree with everything you said, yet still think I'm right. But I'm not in the mood to turn this into a debate.

I wasn't thinking you were wrong. ... Just throwing my few cents in, as usual.

 

[Willamena]

So there's no truth. Why then do we hate Nazis?

I'm not denying truth.

 

[PureX]

I agree with everything you said, yet still think I'm right. But I'm not in the mood to turn this into a debate.

I think that what we need to be seeking is self-honesty, not self-truth.