Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[oxmixmudd]

But you didn't answer my question, you just reiterated that you won't believe in such unless there is such evidence found.

I already know that.

Jim

[Sparko]

reallyreally

what the hell are you even talking about, Tassman?

I was giving you hypothetical situation where you had absolute proof of God and asked what you would do. You said you still would not believe. end of story.

[Sparko]

If there was multiply-tested, peer-reviewed verifiable evidence of a supernatural realm existing then one would obviously accept the possibly of gods, angels and other immaterial beings.

Wait. So you are saying that if God appeared to you and did verifiable miracles for you personally that you would not believe it, but you would believe other people who tell you THEY had verified some evidence that God exists? That basically you would be accepting eyewitness testimony? Over your OWN experience that was verified?

NUeVFnL.gif

[Roy]

Wait. So you are saying that if God appeared to you and did verifiable miracles for you personally that you would not believe it, but you would believe other people who tell you THEY had verified some evidence that God exists? That basically you would be accepting eyewitness testimony? Over your OWN experience that was verified?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23068[/ATTACH]

Ahem - peer-reviewed work is not the same as eyewitness testimony.

But yes, he did just say that he would believe what some-one else reported, but not what he saw for himself.

Why are so many people afraid to critically examine their own ideas?

[Sparko]

Ahem - peer-reviewed work is not the same as eyewitness testimony.

yeah I know. what I was getting at was that he rejected anyone believing eye-witness testimony as unreliable nonsense, yet he would be taking someone else's word for the fact that it was a fact just the same.

But yes, he did just say that he would believe what some-one else reported, but not what he saw for himself.

yep.

Why are so many people afraid to critically examine their own ideas?

I don't know. plus I suggested that the miracle God did for him could be verified by others. He could have had "peer-review" of his personal experience and yet he still rejected it. I think he just wants to sound open-minded and scientific by spouting his peer-review criteria when he has already admitted that he will not accept anything of the sort.

[oxmixmudd]

Why are so many people afraid to critically examine their own ideas?

I don't think there is a simple answer - but I do think that in most cases it boils down to the cost of being wrong. We base our decisions about how to live life, what careers to pursue, who to marry, what to eat on what we believe is true. Some of the things we believe are so completely fundamental to who we are that to discover they are false can completely derail us, render the majority of our life and possibly our life's work meaningless. You hear about people that were molested as youngsters, but they didn't know that is what it was. Then later in life they find out. And it can be devastating. Some people can't recover. What they believed about themselves and the person or people involved comes completely crashing down. And sometimes people would rather to have never known than to have faced the truth.

This is one reason I take great offense at how some people approach these conversations. They have no idea how devastating it can be to derail another person's worldview or system of belief (though because it can be completely devastating many we talk to have built sufficiently strong compensating walls they are in no real danger of ending up in that state). There is no compassion or understanding. One can't just take out another person's whole life and expect they will be ok. We understand that physically - but it's just as true in the realm of belief. And just because one told them 'the truth' doesn't remove the consequence.

Sometimes what people believe is very destructive to themselves and to others. That's when a soft approach just isn't feasable. Sometimes I think some atheists think of religion that way. I know many religious folks see atheism that way. Sometimes if what one believes is true is in fact true, then action is required - otherwise we are hypocrites. But what if we take action that is potentially destructive and find out later what we believed was in fact wrong?




Jim

[Sparko]

I don't think there is a simple answer - but I do think that in most cases it boils down to the cost of being wrong. We base our decisions about how to live life, what careers to pursue, who to marry, what to eat on what we believe is true. Some of the things we believe are so completely fundamental to who we are that to discover they are false can completely derail us, render the majority of our life and possibly our life's work meaningless. You hear about people that were molested as youngsters, but they didn't know that is what it was. Then later in life they find out. And it can be devastating. Some people can't recover. What they believed about themselves and the person or people involved comes completely crashing down. And sometimes people would rather to have never known than to have faced the truth.

This is one reason I take great offense at how some people approach these conversations. They have no idea how devastating it can be to derail another person's worldview or system of belief (though because it can be completely devastating many we talk to have built sufficiently strong compensating walls they are in no real danger of ending up in that state). There is no compassion or understanding. One can't just take out another person's whole life and expect they will be ok. We understand that physically - but it's just as true in the realm of belief. And just because one told them 'the truth' doesn't remove the consequence.

Sometimes what people believe is very destructive to themselves and to others. That's when a soft approach just isn't feasable. Sometimes I think some atheists think of religion that way. I know many religious folks see atheism that way. Sometimes if what one believes is true is in fact true, then action is required - otherwise we are hypocrites. But what if we take action that is potentially destructive and find out later what we believed was in fact wrong?




Jim

Except once they do accept Christ, they don't feel devastated, they feel liberated. They don't want their old life. But yeah change is scary.

[oxmixmudd]

Except once they do accept Christ, they don't feel devastated, they feel liberated. They don't want their old life. But yeah change is scary.

Yes - this is one of the reasons we continue to believe - the change He makes in our lives. But unless one accepts that as real, one can't really see that.

OTOH, many that are Christians do not appropriate that same liberation as regards what they believe to be true. They act as if their salvation depends on 'getting everything right' and they can no more ask questions about what they believe to be true than the non-believer. Sometimes worse. Many times worse. For some that are Christians, to ask a question, especially in regard to faith, is to doubt Christ entirely and it simply can't be tolerated. For some, not to have all the answers wrapped up in a neat little bow and never question that package is to not believe at all.

Jim

[Jedidiah]

snip

But yes, he did just say that he would believe what some-one else reported, but not what he saw for himself.

snip

Actually he said that if one had incontrovertible evidence "one would obviously accept the possibly of gods"

[Jedidiah]

snip
Why are so many people afraid to critically examine their own ideas?

It was critically examining my own ideas that ended up with my becoming a Christian.

[Roy]

Actually he said that if one had incontrovertible evidence "one would obviously accept the possibly of gods"

Actually he said that if one had "multiply-tested, peer-reviewed verifiable evidence", which isn't quite the same as incontrovertible.

But it just means he would accept the possibly [sic] of supernatural beings based on reports by others, but not if he saw them himself.

Weird.

[Teallaura]

Actually he said that if one had "multiply-tested, peer-reviewed verifiable evidence", which isn't quite the same as incontrovertible.

But it just means he would accept the possibly [sic] of supernatural beings based on reports by others, but not if he saw them himself.

Weird.

You realize, with those criteria, he shouldn't accept your individual existence. Actually, he shouldn't be accepting the existence of any other humans behind these posts - the criteria isn't met.

No, it's not a ding so much as an observation - it's his criteria and he has every right to set the criteria he will accept for his own purposes. But setting ridiculous bars isn't 'open minded' or particularly reasonable.

[Tassman]

Wait. So you are saying that if God appeared to you and did verifiable miracles for you personally that you would not believe it,

We call such "verifiable" miracles delusions.

but you would believe other people who tell you THEY had verified some evidence that God exists? That basically you would be accepting eyewitness testimony? Over your OWN experience that was verified?

That's not what I'm saying.

Unless scientific evidence of a supernatural universe can be established, as per the existence of the natural universe, then the question of miracles does not arise. One would seek a natural explanation for these seemingly, but not actual, supernatural events.

This really should not be so difficult for you to understand.

[Tassman]

But you didn't answer my question, you just reiterated that you won't believe in such unless there is such evidence found.

I already know that. Jim

Good. Then you know my answer.

[oxmixmudd]

Good. Then you know my answer.

No - I don't.

But I do know a bit more about the kind of person you are.

Jim