News World Ending October 21st?

[jedidia]

You appear to be implying faith/religion had credibility to begin with. Credibility is the ability to explain your actions and beliefs.

Credibility is a cultural concept and can be based on various traits in different cultures.

Even if you take seemingly-rational action out of ridiculous, religious beliefs, you don't have credibility, because there's no guarantee you won't use the same irrational justification to do something dangerous

This holds true for any kind of reasoning, be it rational or irational. It is the underlying motivations of a person that make him a vilain or a benefactor, not the method by which he arrived at his conclusions.

Thus, the credibility of a statement in the end is depending on the credibility of the person making it.

An exception here are of course empirics, but empirics cannot be employed when it comes to inherantly philosophical topics like ethics, ideology or religion.

 

[dgatsoulis]

Credibility is a cultural concept and can be based on various traits in different cultures.

Not if it's derived from universally accepted facts.

This holds true for any kind of reasoning, be it rational or irational.

Paradox, right there. Reasoning, cannot be irrational.

It is the underlying motivations of a person that make him a vilain or a benefactor, not the method by which he arrived at his conclusions.

Couldn't agree with you more, even if there is or isn't an underlying agenda, all acts have to be met with sceptisism.

Thus, the credibility of a statement in the end is depending on the credibility of the person making it.

If by credibility, you mean authority, i'm afraid i'll have to disagree with you. A person, ANY person doesn't have any credibility, untill he or she, provides facts for the arguement they are trying to make.

 

[jedidia]

Not if it's derived from universally accepted facts.

You'll be hard pressed to find such a thing. Universally accepted facts usually only exist within a certain group, that is, culture (whicn means that they don't quite deserve the term "universaly accepted")

Paradox, right there. Reasoning, cannot be irrational.

No paradox, only poor choice of words. Replace reasoning with arguing.

If by credibility, you mean authority, i'm afraid i'll have to disagree with you. A person, ANY person doesn't have any credibility, untill he or she, provides facts for the arguement they are trying to make.

That is true for our culture, and is therefore a tautology: since credibility is based on facts, one cannot be credible witnout them.
This does not hold true for a culture where credibility is not based on facts (mind you, i'm not saying that i prefer such cultures, but i know for a fact that tney exist. There's a citatio needed here somewhere for credibility though, i guess i'll have to some digging. Later, though, when i'm not posting from my cellphone)

But even in our culture, there still is a form of credibility not based on facts, but on trust. It usually has only effect in close relationships, but there it can, to a certain degree, even outweight the facts. Indeed, if i completely trust a person, you can snow me all the facts you want, and i'll still rather believe the other person (e.g. you could show me pictures of my wife sleeping with someone else, and i will assume by default that they are forgeries. You'd have to come up with evidence for your evidence long before she'd have to come up with more than a simple "no".

 

[orbekler]

...The problem (for me) is that "moderate" theists, pave the way for extremists.
We apply critical thinking and scepticism in every aspect of our lives, but when it comes to matters of "faith", we choose to abandon our faculties, just because we are taught that faith is somehow a virtue. Is it really?
Is "believing" in something, with absolutely NO shred of evidence, a good thing?

Not only for you, you're not alone...
Sam Harris wrote more or less the same thing (Letter to a Christian Nation):

<<...Although liberals and moderates do not fly planes into buildings or organize their lives around apocalyptic prophecy, they rarely question the legitimacy of raising a child to believe that she is a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew.
Even the most progressive faiths lend tacit support to the religious divisions in our world....>>.

 

[jedidia]

Sam Harris wrote more or less the same thing (Letter to a Christian Nation):

<<...Although liberals and moderates do not fly planes into buildings or organize their lives around apocalyptic prophecy, they rarely question the legitimacy of raising a child to believe that she is a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew.
Even the most progressive faiths lend tacit support to the religious divisions in our world....>>.

Again , not confined to religion. Everyone raises their kids (or at least attempts to) to what they perceive as right. Frankly, anything else would be disturbing.

Also, any difference of opinion lends tacit support to whatever division may arise from it.

 

[orbekler]

Again , not confined to religion. Everyone raises their kids (or at least attempts to) to what they perceive as right. Frankly, anything else would be disturbing.

Also, any difference of opinion lends tacit support to whatever division may arise from it.

Frankly, i find disturbing infibulation, or any other religious ritual that forces children in a unwilling pain, psychological or physical.

And I find even more disturbing the conniving silence of "Civil & Modern & Multicultural" governments about it.

We're not anymore in middle age, Jedidia, but we're falling again in it.
Believe it or not.

 

[Pyromaniac605]

I know I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this, and I'm probably going to offend people by what I'm about to say, so I apologise in advance to anyone that this post offends, but I'm allowed my free speech as much as the rest of us.

I personally find it appalling that religion is still such a common thing, it made sense back in the middle ages before we made any significant scientific studies perhaps, but in this day and age of science and fact, I find the whole idea of deities and "faith" to be an incredibly primitive view that should be abandoned if humanity intends to progress any further. There is no god(Or any other deity), if there was, why hasn't he(Or they) shown themselves to us? I don't give me any of that "God/Deity works in mysterious ways" if they truly existed and truly cared for us they would let us know that they are there for us.

Where someone gets to the point where they will blindly do or believe anything that their deity or a "prophet" tells them without question, they might has well have lost on sense of logic and reason and serve almost no purpose. Anybody who thinks the "end of the world" is coming, whether through fear or blind faith, have completely abandoned logic, reason and facts and are unlikely to contribute anything useful to society.

Not to mention money, if there was no money going to the construction, maintenance etc. of religious buildings it could be going towards useful things such as medical research, for all we know, we could have had a cure for cancer if we abandoned religion centuries ago.

Not to mention to total lack of proof of the existence of these deities, there is no single shred of evidence in the history of the universe that can even hint at such an existence. The "lack of proof is not proof of non-existence" argument is completely null, I could say that the edge of the universe is made of cotton candy, you can't prove me wrong, but that doesn't make it true. Not everything can be disproved, but that most definitely does not meant that it's true.

In my honest opinion, if you truly believe in such deities, then I'd be tempted to laugh in your face and call you gullible. Such ridiculous beliefs should be left in the middle ages where they belong so humanity can advance even faster than it has been for the last century.

Again, apologies to anyone who is offended, but I intend to use my free speech to do just that, speak freely.

 

[jedidia]

Frankly, i find disturbing infibulation, or any other religious ritual that forces children in a unwilling pain, psychological or physical.

I actually agree with that, but i'm not aware of any such practices in the west.
Except maybe for circumscision, but that can be done very cleanly today and is often done for pure health resaons, so i' not sure if that one counts...

 

[Izack]

I personally find it appalling that religion is still such a common thing, it made sense back in the middle ages before we made any significant scientific studies perhaps, but in this day and age of science and fact, I find the whole idea of deities and "faith" to be an incredibly primitive view that should be abandoned if humanity intends to progress any further.
(snip)

I'm very sorry you see it that way.

 

[Ghostrider]

I find the whole idea of deities and "faith" to be an incredibly primitive view that should be abandoned if humanity intends to progress any further.

Bizarre, we made do with religion. Indeed, a good lot of scientists were believers - although not the wacko bible-thumping kind. There's absolutely nothing that stops you from investigating Nature's mysteries if you believe a God has made them.

There is no god(Or any other deity), if there was, why hasn't he(Or they) shown themselves to us? I don't give me any of that "God/Deity works in mysterious ways" if they truly existed and truly cared for us they would let us know that they are there for us.

You take for granted that that deity should care for us. Or that we could even recognize Her.

Not to mention money, if there was no money going to the construction, maintenance etc. of religious buildings it could be going towards useful things such as medical research, for all we know, we could have had a cure for cancer if we abandoned religion centuries ago.

And maybe not. The first universities were built by the Church, and a great lot of hospitals as well. Or do I have to take your theories as absolute truth, with no questioning whatsoever?

In my honest opinion, if you truly believe in such deities, then I'd be tempted to laugh in your face and call you gullible.

You are free to laugh in the face of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., whose contributions to mankind dwarf anything you, me, or anyone in this forum will ever manage in their lifetimes, bar some massive stroke of luck.:lol:

 

[Pyromaniac605]

You people might want to note, that most of my above post was talking about the people who blindly follow their faith without question, not everyone who's religious. :dry:

---------- Post added at 10:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 PM ----------

I'm very sorry you see it that way.

And may I ask how it isn't primitive to believe in some magical being without any proof that it even exists?

---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------

You take for granted that that deity should care for us. Or that we could even recognize Her.

And are you saying that you have proof of said deity? No? Oh.

And maybe not. The first universities were built by the Church, and a great lot of hospitals as well. Or do I have to take your theories as absolute truth, with no questioning whatsoever?

Yes, but what good would said universities and hospitals be without the scientific discoveries? What if everyone were to just wait for a "miracle" to solve everything?

You are free to laugh in the face of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., whose contributions to mankind dwarf anything you, me, or anyone in this forum will ever manage in their lifetimes, bar some massive stroke of luck.

I wouldn't laugh at him for what he achieved, but if you really think about it, he couldn't have had as much faith as it would seem considering that he didn't simply stand back and say "Don't worry god will fix this eventually," he took action on his own and made a difference.

 

[Ghostrider]

You people might want to note, that most of my above post was talking about the people who blindly follow their faith without question, not everyone who's religious. :dry:

Then go back and re-read it. I personally believe that questioning oneself and everything else is hard work, but it's good. There are some stuff one doesn't seriously question (like your parents' or spouse's love) unless you want to lead a very bleak existence, but most of the rest is fair game. Up to and including the existence and nature of God (we've had theologists and philosophers pulling triple-duty on that).

Interesting to note that the Pope himself stated that it's better to be a honest and tormented unbeliever with a truckload of doubts than a dishonest believer. Of course, Catholics as a whole (in my experience) don't fall in for any "end of the world" thing. They've got miracles and X-Men stuff galore, though.

he couldn't have had as much faith as it would seem considering that he didn't simply stand back and say "Don't worry god will fix this eventually," he took action on his own and made a difference.

Wrong again. As a believer, you are required to take action against injustice, hoping God will grant you the strength to carry out the fight. You don't expect God to fix stuff for you. Faith is about believing that what you're doing is right, and that God knows it's right as well.

Of course, I can't talk for extremists.

Yes, but what good would said universities and hospitals be without the scientific discoveries? What if everyone were to just wait for a "miracle" to solve everything?

Are you familiar with the concept of "ora et labora" (pray and work)? Though I'm not a religious person by any means, I've been raised Catholic and I've gone to a Catholic school: first thing they tell you, you don't ask for miracles and you don't wait for them. Something needs to be done, you do it. You can ask for guidance and help from God, but you've got to do your part. And by the way, standing against injustice happens to be something you are expected to do as a human being.

 

[Pyromaniac605]

Then go back and re-read it. I personally believe that questioning oneself and everything else is hard work, but it's good. There are some stuff one doesn't seriously question (like your parents' or spouse's love) unless you want to lead a very bleak existence, but most of the rest is fair game. Up to and including the existence and nature of God (we've had theologists and philosophers pulling triple-duty on that).

Interesting to note that the Pope himself stated that it's better to be a honest and tormented unbeliever with a truckload of doubts than a dishonest believer. Of course, Catholics as a whole (in my experience) don't fall in for any "end of the world" thing. They've got miracles and X-Men stuff galore, though.

Perhaps I wasn't wording it too well, but most of it was intended to be talking about the absolute extremists that have completely abandoned reason. I must admit that it is good to hear that most Catholics don't fall for the end of the world mumbo-jumbo, most of the people I know are atheists, so I don't have much experience to draw from in that regard.

How exactly is it better to believe but be incredibly doubtful? I'm not seeing the logic there. As for these "miracles" and "X-men stuff" there still isn't any proof, and there is no doubt in my mind that proof will ever be found, this is all a bunch of hopeful fantasy written centuries ago.

 

[Izack]

You argue as if science and christianity are are opposing religions, when they are entirely different things have nothing to do with each other. It's not like you must either be a scientist or a man of faith...

What's so insane about thinking that a rational universe may be a product of rational expression, anyway? (As for the "miracles and X-men stuff" I'm as skeptical as anyone else. People do, after all, have their own imaginations. )

Like Ghostrider up there, of course I can't speak for extremists or loonies.

 

[Tex]

O-F Staff Note: Thread closed pending another review. If we can't discuss this in a civil manner without attacking other religions or beliefs, then it will not be re-opened until the scheduled end of the world.

 

[Tex]

O-F Staff Note:

This thread has been re-opened one more time. We chose to leave most everything intact, with the exception of only a few minor edits. Lets please:

1. Stay on topic.
2. If you feel you're discussing with irrational people, hit the back button and find another thread to participate in.
3. Most importantly, avoid insulting or attacking another belief or religion. Discuss the topic in a civil manner or do not participate in it at all.

If we have to close this thread again, it will remain closed indefinitely!

 

[Ghostrider]

Where were we? Oh, yes, the "X-Men stuff". So, who's hotter? Jean Gray or Ororo Munroe?

/me feels confused.

 

[Scruce]

To all those who question the time & timezones of the event, Camping says:

The "great earthquake" which signals the start of the Rapture would "start in the Pacific Rim at around the 6 p.m. local time hour, and move across each time zone every hour."

So basically, when it turns 6PM local time Oct 21st, a "great earthquake" will reach you.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

:hmm: 32 hours and 10 minutes to go. Will Murphy's last, yet unproven law come true?
:crystalball: I say not...

 

[Artlav]

Oh, yes, the "X-Men stuff".

They shouldn't have made the third movie.