Nipate
Forum => Controversial => Topic started by: vooke on April 27, 2015, 02:08:49 PM
-
Here is the 'fulfilment' video a few hours young
And here is the original 'prophecy' released in October last year,which few bother referring to seeing many Christians thaw their brains upon hearing 'the Lord told me'
Let's note the key things in the original conveniently edited in the 'fulfilment' video
1. There is intensive mining in the mountain, he saw caterpillars, dumpers
2. There are roads on the mountain top
3. The quake had rocks and the mining machines tumbling down the mountain and crushing people in they houses
4. Brownish soil in the mountain
FACTS
1. There is no mining in the Everest
2. There are no roads usable by bikes at the top or even bottom let alone lorries of the Everest
3. Everest is for a better part covered with snow
4. There was avalanches (snow) but note it killed the mountaineers and these was very few, under 50, compared to the total count of 3,200+
CONCLUSION
There is NO WAY anybody hearing this prophecy could connect it to Everest seeing there is no mining nor roads at the top of the mountain.
It is quite clear the relevant mountain in the prophecy had no snow explained by heavy mining at the top plus road and even soil color. Snow would have been very HARD to miss if he was seeing Everest unlike say Mount Kenya with its tiny snow caps.
And finally, whereas in his prophecy he saw mountain rocks and mining equipments and machines crushing people, none of this has been reported. And none will seeing we don't have caterpillars and trucks on the mountain. The deaths from Everest was relatively few and not caused by rocks nor machinery.
What is Owuor's MO?
To borrow from someone,
Owuor's 'Prophecies' are akin to the Texas Sharper Shooters Fallacy.Fire off random shots in the dark,switch on the light and paint bulls eye around the spot where your bullet hit,then do a victory dance on your detractors face - MarieSucre
The whole idea is to pass himself as a true prophet
-
The man was speaking in metaphors. Prophet Elijah would have found another day job in the Information Age.
-
Not really.
If he spoke, wrote and distributed, he would have found himself in the same position as Owuor; contradictions. You are stretching your antitheistic rhetoric too hard. Get a more sensible reason to reject Christianity or keep deluding yourself
The man was speaking in metaphors. Prophet Elijah would have found another day job in the Information Age.
-
Not really.
If he spoke, wrote and distributed, he would have found himself in the same position as Owuor; contradictions. You are stretching your antitheistic rhetoric too hard. Get a more sensible reason to reject Christianity or keep deluding yourself
The man was speaking in metaphors. Prophet Elijah would have found another day job in the Information Age.
But that is what I am saying. vooke would be all over him...who has seen flying chariots?
Otherwise, I am not antitheist. That sounds like Richard Dawkins.
-
Moses wrote Torah, wrote of the split Red Sea and still nobody believes him.
So it's not really about whether Elijah wrote of the flying chariots or some editors did it.
Jeremiah, the weeping prophet. He saw, was told to write, wrote and they still rejected him, died the most dejected messenger.
once you make up your mind to disbelieve, you will dismiss God's own handwriting witnessed by you firsthand seeing its Verdana and not Arial. That's how it works. Disbelieve and then fish for the flimsiest excuse
But that is what I am saying. vooke would be all over him...who has seen flying chariots?
Otherwise, I am not antitheist. That sounds like Richard Dawkins.
-
Moses wrote Torah, wrote of the split Red Sea and still nobody believes him.
So it's not really about whether Elijah wrote of the flying chariots or some editors did it.
Jeremiah, the weeping prophet. He saw, was told to write, wrote and they still rejected him, died the most dejected messenger.
once you make up your mind to disbelieve, you will dismiss God's own handwriting witnessed by you firsthand seeing its Verdana and not Arial. That's how it works. Disbelieve and then fish for the flimsiest excuse
But that is what I am saying. vooke would be all over him...who has seen flying chariots?
Otherwise, I am not antitheist. That sounds like Richard Dawkins.
I guess like the writing on the wall..mene tekel....
I used to think a miracle would do it for me. A booming voice from the clouds would not have hurt either. I probably would have believed if I were there in a different epoch.
Given that advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic, I am no longer sure if there is anything that would make me believe certain things.
That does not mean I am antitheist.
-
Look at Judas.
Hanged around Jesus for a better part of his public life. Ends up selling him for 30 shekels.
Jews was notorious in demanding signs. I find it interesting that John the Baptist, a prophet, the last of the prophets and the forerunner of Jesus did no miracles and he had a sizeable crowd. Jesus on the other hand dished them out with little restraint no they was not convinced yet. Miracles are likely to convince as they are unlikely to.
Tell me. What would convince you of the authenticity of the Christian faith? Don't answer, just think it through
I guess like the writing on the wall..mene tekel....
I used to think a miracle would do it for me. A booming voice from the clouds would not have hurt either. I probably would have believed if I were there in a different epoch.
Given that advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic, I am no longer sure if there is anything that would make me believe certain things.
That does not mean I am antitheist.
-
Look at Judas.
Hanged around Jesus for a better part of his public life. Ends up selling him for 30 shekels.
Jews was notorious in demanding signs. I find it interesting that John the Baptist, a prophet, the last of the prophets and the forerunner of Jesus did no miracles and he had a sizeable crowd. Jesus on the other hand dished them out with little restraint no they was not convinced yet. Miracles are likely to convince as they are unlikely to.
Tell me. What would convince you of the authenticity of the Chriatian faith?
I guess like the writing on the wall..mene tekel....
I used to think a miracle would do it for me. A booming voice from the clouds would not have hurt either. I probably would have believed if I were there in a different epoch.
Given that advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic, I am no longer sure if there is anything that would make me believe certain things.
That does not mean I am antitheist.
Personally I have Christian values. I am culturally a Christian. I think Christianity(its modern manifestation) is MOSTLY beneficial.
But I don't share the underlying beliefs. I don't know of anything that will ever make me believe such things.
Most things that would have convinced me in the past, would now be relegated to unknown(not well understood) category.
-
@ Terminator,
Given that advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic, I am no longer sure if there is anything that would make me believe certain things.
Interesting. I would think that this would be a plus for the authenticity of miracle stories, not a negative, since after all, they are claimed to be performed with a superior knowledge, not none. I remember reading a catholic book on angels called "My angel will go before thee", where the author pretty much said the same thing: The activity of an angel to a human looks supernatural, but to the angel it is natural using the intelligence and knowledge he has. With God, that is blown out of the water, since we would be speaking simply of far superior "technology" by far superior intellects, so this would accord with the "sufficiently advanced technology" quote, in my view.
Also, why dismiss the Christianity of old? Hey, It is the Christianity of old that built the Christian culture you speak of, not the Christianity of the 21st century, or 20th. Western culture, and all its pillars that make it the envy of the world; The very "invention" of science (and the general value placed in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake), universities, the entire healthcare system, modern education, even law and government (or the western legal system), so many western cities (even capitalism!) all of that would be squat without the Christianity of old and the West would be no better than Asia. I think people denigrate historical Christianity far too much by focusing exclusively on what (in perspective) are slices of negative history and leaving out the huge chunks of centuries that went into building that civilization bottom up especially beyond the specific area of Rome/Italy and after the collapse of the empire's Western wing after 500 AD. The West owes its superior status in the world to its Christian past but they'd rather eat dirt than admit that openly. They remind me of the tower of Babel in the Bible, sometimes. Honestly. :(
-
@ Terminator, Given that advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic, I am no longer sure if there is anything that would make me believe certain things.
Interesting. I would think that this would be a plus for the authenticity of miracle stories, not a negative, since after all, they are claimed to be performed with a superior knowledge, not none. I remember reading a catholic book on angels called "My angel will go before thee", where the author pretty much said the same thing: The activity of an angel to a human looks supernatural, but to the angel it is natural using the intelligence and knowledge he has. With God, that is blown out of the water, since we would be speaking simply of far superior "technology" by far superior intellects, so this would accord with the "sufficiently advanced technology" quote, in my view.
Also, why dismiss the Christianity of old? Hey, It is the Christianity of old that built the Christian culture you speak of, not the Christianity of the 21st century, or 20th. Western culture, and all its pillars that make it the envy of the world; The very "invention" of science (and the general value placed in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake), universities, the entire healthcare system, modern education, even law and government (or the western legal system), so many western cities (even capitalism!) all of that would be squat without the Christianity of old and the West would be no better than Asia. I think people denigrate historical Christianity far too much by focusing exclusively on what (in perspective) are slices of negative history and leaving out the huge chunks of centuries that went into building that civilization bottom up especially beyond the specific area of Rome/Italy and after the collapse of the empire's Western wing after 500 AD. The West owes its superior status in the world to its Christian past but they'd rather eat dirt than admit that openly. They remind me of the tower of Babel in the Bible, sometimes. Honestly. :(
Bella,
That far superior technology means that the protagonist is skilled at manipulating nature in ways that man is not. The issue is whether that makes them above and independent of nature. Not necessarily in my opinion.
It did not take much for natives to worship the European explorer with superior technology. Shoot a noble savage from several yards and you have their attention. For me, the distinction between a miracle and this kind of phenonomenon is not clear. I wouldn't know when I am being a noble savage.
While it may be impressive stuff, it would just trigger more questions rather than settle others in my case. It's not just stubborness on my part. My position arises because it's no longer clear to me where nature stops and supernatural starts.
I prefer modern Christianity not so much for what it stands for, but rather its effect. I find medieval Christianity indistinguishable from ISIS to be honest. Yet the Christian societies were able to become better because Jesus' teachings were generally not as harsh and inhumane than Mohamed's.
I think Islam started off as the more progressive of the two. But the Jihadist culture seems to have ultimately overshadowed whatever good aspects they may had. While Hamas has a positive impact on many Lebanese lives, I think most people, including Kenyans will agree the world would mostly be a better place without this belief system.
-
The very "invention" of science (and the general value placed in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake), universities, the entire healthcare system, modern education, even law and government (or the western legal system), so many western cities (even capitalism!) all of that would be squat without the Christianity of old and the West would be no better than Asia.
I am chuckling as I think of "old Christianity"'s attitude general attitude to science and what it considered "the notion that man and not God could control things to do with nature". (One case that will be familiar to all is the little matter of Galileo and the Inquisition.) I also believe there were universities in North Africa and elsewhere in the Islamic world well before any in Europe.
If I had the time, I would go through your list. For now, I will say that the fact that certain things happened when the power of the Christian Church was its peak does not necessarily mean that the church brought them about.
-
Terminator:
You are right only if you see "old Christianity" in terms of anything to do with God; but the most significant (in terms of influence and impact) part of "old Christianity" had very little to do with God. In those terms, much of "old Christianity" is best viewed in the same way that one would view a large corporation today: in terms of wealth, power, pussy, ... for the men who lead.
To my mind, the essence of Christ's message boils down to:
(a) Love thy neighbor as thyself.
(b) Love God above all else.
So, as I see it, to the extent that anybody goes along with those, they are Christian, even if they are "Muslim", or "Hindu", or whatever. That is why I am always amused by the little skirmishes here by the SDAs, the Catholics, Protestant wings, ....
-
Terminator:
You are right only if you see "old Christianity" in terms of anything to do with God; but the most significant (in terms of influence and impact) part of "old Christianity" had very little to do with God. In those terms, much of "old Christianity" is best viewed in the same way that one would view a large corporation today: in terms of wealth, power, pussy, ... for the men who lead.
I view it mostly in terms of impact. Indeed it was powerful. I don't think the underlying theology has changed that much. But I think among the major religions, it has made the best accommodation with the modern world - mostly by generally high levels of tolerance.
-
Terminator:
To my mind, the essence of Christ's message boils down to:
(a) Love thy neighbor as thyself.
(b) Love God above all else.
So, as I see it, to the extent that anybody goes along with those, they are Christian, even if they are "Muslim", or "Hindu", or whatever. That is why I am always amused by the little skirmishes here by the SDAs, the Catholics, Protestant wings, ....
Yep. This in my opinion is the redeeming grace of Christianity. Even if one does not believe in God.
And to some extent the doctrine of turning the other cheek; though I disagree with it in extreme cases.
-
I view it mostly in terms of impact. Indeed it was powerful. I don't think the underlying theology has changed that much. But I think among the major religions, it has made the best accommodation with the modern world - mostly by generally high levels of tolerance.
Buddhism?
-
I view it mostly in terms of impact. Indeed it was powerful. I don't think the underlying theology has changed that much. But I think among the major religions, it has made the best accommodation with the modern world - mostly by generally high levels of tolerance.
Buddhism?
I would say after Buddhism. The fact that one rarely hears about them means they have just blended in.
-
Terminator:
I can't put my finger on your "religious beliefs", so if I may ask: what do you think of something like Shinto, which, in some ways, is very "African" (and in fact makes "African superstitions" look space-age) but is practiced by some quite "high-tech" people?
-
Terminator:
I can't put my finger on your "religious beliefs", so if I may ask: what do you think of something like Shinto, which, in some ways, is very "African" (and in fact makes "African superstitions" look space-age) but is practiced by some quite "high-tech" people?
I am a heathen who embraces the human condition. With all its contradictions. I generally don't believe in gods. But I could understand why someone would believe in them.
I think superstition is part of us. When I am watching a game, I find that I think that tightening the anal sphincter would improve the chances of my team winning.
Perfectly rational people can believe stuff that is clearly not true. Compartmentalization allows the rational Japanese guy to function normally despite superstitious beliefs.
While I have no idea why people believe these things in the first place, it's a safe bet, with few exceptions, that whatever one believes in, it was passed on from the parents.
-
The very "invention" of science (and the general value placed in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake), universities, the entire healthcare system, modern education, even law and government (or the western legal system), so many western cities (even capitalism!) all of that would be squat without the Christianity of old and the West would be no better than Asia.
I am chuckling as I think of "old Christianity"'s attitude general attitude to science and what it considered "the notion that man and not God could control things to do with nature". (One case that will be familiar to all is the little matter of Galileo and the Inquisition.) I also believe there were universities in North Africa and elsewhere in the Islamic world well before any in Europe.
Chuckle all you want. You are pointing out a single incident in centuries of the church's dealing with science, that you think your view is more than a general bias is what I find chuckling. Exactly where/from whom do you think the scientific method was developed? Who do you think sponsored scientific expeditions/scientists? MoonKi, it would be a good idea is you learned history from actual historians and kept from popular mythology with an enlightenment anti-Christian bias. I remember the other day you tried to teach me catholic history by citing SDA beliefs, and you didn't even know how ridiculous that sounded to someone who has read even a little bit of Christian history. Old Christianity believed that nature had order inherent to it, and therefore was intelligible to humans. That is, they thought they could understand it, that it was possible to discover the rules by which nature operates. That is why monks became scientists, because to them, it was a normal part of their religion.
If I had the time, I would go through your list. For now, I will say that the fact that certain things happened when the power of the Christian Church was its peak does not necessarily mean that the church brought them about.
You can say much, of course. But from the above and my past interactions with you on Christian history, I don't expect you to do much more than grab a list of popular myths and present them here with a lot of confidence, but if you do just do me a favour and please don't start with the flat earth business. I would however be curious to learn how you will distinguish the development of modern healthcare, charity and even the notion of human rights from western Christian beliefs on man and the attempts by western religious to live out the teachings of Jesus in society, all the way from the Roman empire to the middle ages and beyond.
-
I view it mostly in terms of impact. Indeed it was powerful. I don't think the underlying theology has changed that much. But I think among the major religions, it has made the best accommodation with the modern world - mostly by generally high levels of tolerance.
Buddhism?
I would say after Buddhism. The fact that one rarely hears about them means they have just blended in.
Terminator, I like Buddhism and some kinds of Hinduism, because I think their philosophy is in many ways similar to the teachings of Jesus on what a moral human life looks like. However, I think your assessment of Buddhism (historically) is limited by the fact that you are Western, both in terms of being Kenyan and American in cultural outlook. To the West, Buddhism is exotic and novel, and it, along with Hinduism, does not have people trying to kill Bazungu in the name of God like Islam, so the lack of historical beef with it (owing to its exoticness) and the fact that, like Christianity and Hinduism, it has not made negative waves in modern culture, I think is why you don't hear much of it. The West has no axe to grind with it whether historically or in terms of modern conflicts (or terrorism). However, historically, Buddhism and Hinduism have their own share of conflicts. Its simply the nature of humans that group-differences often result in some kind of clash or oppression or domination of some kind.
-
Terminator:
I can't put my finger on your "religious beliefs", so if I may ask: what do you think of something like Shinto, which, in some ways, is very "African" (and in fact makes "African superstitions" look space-age) but is practiced by some quite "high-tech" people?
I am a heathen who embraces the human condition. With all its contradictions. I generally don't believe in gods. But I could understand why someone would believe in them.
I think superstition is part of us. When I am watching a game, I find that I think that tightening the anal sphincter would improve the chances of my team winning.
Perfectly rational people can believe stuff that is clearly not true. Compartmentalization allows the rational Japanese guy to function normally despite superstitious beliefs.
While I have no idea why people believe these things in the first place, it's a safe bet, with few exceptions, that whatever one believes in, it was passed on from the parents.
Termie, that last statement paints with a broad brush. I can assure you that both I and many others I know of, pretty much defied parents beliefs. My religion is chosen. 100%. I do agree that your statement is true generally of people who only identify culturally with a certain religion, (I don't think you used culturally Christian the same way I understand it, since you are atheist, I always thought it meant a non-committed Christian who nonetheless would accept basic Christian beliefs as valid/true....lukewarm, etc) which often is the vast majority. But people who deeply believe, enough to make personal sacrifices or change their lives, do so because of a deeply felt and very personal decision. I can only compare it to the decision you make in a relationship after you have fallen in love. Very different from pursuing a girl that your parents think is pretty....that kind of think. This decision cannot be made on the basis of parental beliefs, it usually comes when the person is personally convinced, for whatever reason, that this religion or that religion is true.
-
Terminator:
You are right only if you see "old Christianity" in terms of anything to do with God; but the most significant (in terms of influence and impact) part of "old Christianity" had very little to do with God. In those terms, much of "old Christianity" is best viewed in the same way that one would view a large corporation today: in terms of wealth, power, pussy, ... for the men who lead.
To my mind, the essence of Christ's message boils down to:
(a) Love thy neighbor as thyself.
(b) Love God above all else.
So, as I see it, to the extent that anybody goes along with those, they are Christian, even if they are "Muslim", or "Hindu", or whatever. That is why I am always amused by the little skirmishes here by the SDAs, the Catholics, Protestant wings, ....
The following post is adhominem. How exactly do you figure that "love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Love God above all else" have NOTHING to do with God? You are a funny guy. So what DOES have to do with God in Christianity, per your "assessment"? Please point out the terrible God bits of Christianity.
EDIT: I have deleted my "adhominem", but I think you should drop the arrogant attitude you carry around with you whenever you discuss our religion. You are a secular humanist, I get that, of the fundamentalist variety. You think the world is black and white with traditional Christianity black and wild sexual freedom the absolute white value, everything else, including Islam (even if it is stricter) gets to be middle-of-the-road or tolerable...just as long as it is not traditional Christianity. I find discussions with genuine atheists better than anti-Christians. Just saying.
-
While I have no idea why people believe these things in the first place, it's a safe bet, with few exceptions, that whatever one believes in, it was passed on from the parents.
You have a way of injecting atheistic arguments into a debate naturally. You have thrown this severally before so am sure you picked it up somewhere; that since beliefs are essentially 'inherited' they are biased. You are not the first :)
First, note it equally applies to atheism. Communist countries are good examples. Not only is there absence of theism, there is clear teaching of atheism, no-God which is passed down.
Secondly, any belief system must necessarily be passed down by others. Take education. You can't possibly make a serious case against knowledge since it was largely passed down to you. Very few significant changes in the body of knowledge. Supposing you was God, how would you communicate religion and your dictates to men?
-
While I have no idea why people believe these things in the first place, it's a safe bet, with few exceptions, that whatever one believes in, it was passed on from the parents.
You have a way of injecting atheistic arguments into a debate naturally. You have thrown this severally before so am surrounded picked it up somewhere; that since beliefs are essentially 'inherited' they are biased.
First, note it equally applies to atheism. Communist countries are good examples. Not only is there absence of theism, there is clear teaching of atheism, no-God which is passed down.
Secondly, any belief system must necessarily be passed down by others. Take education. You can't possibly make a serious case against knowledge since it was largely passed down to you. Very few significant changes in the body of knowledge. Supposing you was God, how would you communicate religion and your dictates to men?
Ok, I see what you mean, since humans learn from other humans, be they parents, teachers, peers, book-authors...etc etc.
Take for example our online debates on scientific topics. None of us has sat down in a lab or whatever and tested E=mc squared or whatever. We just believe the books that the scientists have written. Personally, this is why I find accusations of "arguments from authority" somewhat silly unless I am talking to an actual physicist or biologist or whatever, and at that, one who himself insists only on speaking on the basis of his own experiments or those he has personally authenticated/replicated. It is not to call someone unintelligent that I dismiss the assertion, it is just to point out that the person is debating me on the basis of arguments from authority, even while he points out that my argument is from authority. But I think that as long as we insist on arguing about topics about which we cannot even pretend to be experts, it is only logical, indeed necessary, that all such discussions can ONLY proceed on the basis of "arguments from authority". Or perhaps I find it easier to think this way because my own profession is about making arguments from authority, be that the law-maker, custom, books of professors...etc.
-
I prefer modern Christianity not so much for what it stands for, but rather its effect. I find medieval Christianity indistinguishable from ISIS to be honest. Yet the Christian societies were able to become better because Jesus' teachings were generally not as harsh and inhumane than Mohamed's.
I think Islam started off as the more progressive of the two. But the Jihadist culture seems to have ultimately overshadowed whatever good aspects they may had. While Hamas has a positive impact on many Lebanese lives, I think most people, including Kenyans will agree the world would mostly be a better place without this belief system.
Terminator, I don't think this is accurate, either about Islam "starting off as the more progressive of the two" or comparing medieval Christianity to ISIS, unless we are talking about conflict/war. Ordinary mideaval Christianity was not like ISIS, its a farer comparison to compare it to Saudi Arabia or Iran, but ISIS? Islam started immediately with war and proceeded to conquer all of Arabia and North Africa and what is today Turkey and Eastern Europe and even Western Europe, triggering the crusades. I don't see how that is more progressive when Christianity did not begin or spread the same way. Islam did take over the schools of Byzantium and preserved the philosophy of Aristotle at a time when Western Europe was in decline. However, despite ideas from all over, and from other cultures, pre-Christian, or Asian or what-have-you, Western Europe nurtured science from infancy and sponsored it before it could take off independently. Indeed other cultures had nice ideas that stalled, none of them were able to create anything like modern science which is a child of medieval Europe and its philosophical suppositions about nature and about the nature of evidence/inquiry (the primacy of empiricism, for example, and the intelligibility of nature), however crazy that sounds to modern ears. That's cause we are trained to hear only certain aspects of that part of history dubbed "the dark ages" but that's not all of it. There are books (which I haven't personally read, except bits of pdfs and excerpts here and there) by Historians of science which I will find and post for you. I think you will find it interesting just how uniquely Western Christianity was placed to make it possible for modern science to develop, something no other culture in history managed despite superior ideas.
-
The following post is adhominem. How exactly do you figure that "love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Love God above all else" have NOTHING to do with God? You are a funny guy. So what DOES have to do with God in Christianity, per your "assessment"? Please point out the terrible God bits of Christianity.
Emotion has clouded your mind. First, nowhere did I say or even imply anything of the sort. If you read carefully, you will note that I put quotation marks around certain words and terms. Consider the difference between
Christianity
and
"Christianity"
Much of what has been done in the name of Christ and much that continues to be done in the name of Christ has vey little to do with God or Christ. That was my point, and I stand by it. The "Christian Church", and especially the "Roman Catholic" element, is a huge business that runs a fantastic con; but that's how the latter has been for hundreds of years.
You are a secular humanist
I consider myself a Christian, in the sense I have given above---doing what I can with respect to the essence of Christ's message. Of course, I am also a lot of other things.
I find discussions with genuine atheists better than anti-Christians.
So what do you think of popes throughout history?
-
The "Christian Church", and especially the "Roman Catholic" element, is a huge business that runs a fantastic con; but that's how the latter has been for hundreds of years.
Nonsense. Christianity in general, and yes, the Catholic church too, has done far more good for human beings in the name of Christ than you can hope to read about, but don't let objectivity get in the way of your animus.
So what do you think of popes throughout history?
Which ones? All 266 of them, including the martyrs, humanitarians, rescuers of the poor, or just the 10 bad ones you like to pick as the example of Catholicism? Do you know ANY other popes in History besides those favorite 10? Or do the rest simply not matter because their lives were not "juicy"?
-
While I have no idea why people believe these things in the first place, it's a safe bet, with few exceptions, that whatever one believes in, it was passed on from the parents.
You have a way of injecting atheistic arguments into a debate naturally. You have thrown this severally before so am surrounded picked it up somewhere; that since beliefs are essentially 'inherited' they are biased.
First, note it equally applies to atheism. Communist countries are good examples. Not only is there absence of theism, there is clear teaching of atheism, no-God which is passed down.
Secondly, any belief system must necessarily be passed down by others. Take education. You can't possibly make a serious case against knowledge since it was largely passed down to you. Very few significant changes in the body of knowledge. Supposing you was God, how would you communicate religion and your dictates to men?
Ok, I see what you mean, since humans learn from other humans, be they parents, teachers, peers, book-authors...etc etc.
Take for example our online debates on scientific topics. None of us has sat down in a lab or whatever and tested E=mc squared or whatever. We just believe the books that the scientists have written. Personally, this is why I find accusations of "arguments from authority" somewhat silly unless I am talking to an actual physicist or biologist or whatever, and at that, one who himself insists only on speaking on the basis of his own experiments or those he has personally authenticated/replicated. It is not to call someone unintelligent that I dismiss the assertion, it is just to point out that the person is debating me on the basis of arguments from authority, even while he points out that my argument is from authority. But I think that as long as we insist on arguing about topics about which we cannot even pretend to be experts, it is only logical, indeed necessary, that all such discussions can ONLY proceed on the basis of "arguments from authority". Or perhaps I find it easier to think this way because my own profession is about making arguments from authority, be that the law-maker, custom, books of professors...etc.
Here is how I understand argument from authority. A certain big name supports an idea, therefore it is valid. That is how I understand it.
When one refers to scientific consensus, it not just on the basis of unfounded belief in the authority of the figures behind it. At least not in my case.
There are principles set in place by a history of observation. While they are generally accepted, they are not set in stone and one is absolutely free to challenge them.
Suppose I have a degree in physics(which incidentally I do), is that enough reason for anyone believe anything I say on the subject? Should I tell people to zip until they get a degree? Can I not be wrong on the subject?
The best software engineer I ever worked with was straight from high-school(never set foot in college). Should the yahudi zip his mouth and ideas until he gets a degree?
I think the way to go about it, is to justify whatever you are saying whenever asked. One can spot argument from authority from 73(just a random number) miles away.
In the information age, I believe most knowledge is out there in plain sight for anyone interested in putting in an effort to learn.
-
Here is how I understand argument from authority. A certain big name supports an idea, therefore it is valid. That is how I understand it.
When one refers to scientific consensus, it not just on the basis of unfounded belief in the authority of the figures behind it. At least not in my case.
There are principles set in place by a history of observation. While they are generally accepted, they are not set in stone and one is absolutely free to challenge them.
Suppose I have a degree in physics(which incidentally I do), is that enough reason for anyone believe anything I say on the subject? Should I tell people to zip until they get a degree? Can I not be wrong on the subject?
The best software engineer I ever worked with was straight from high-school(never set foot in college). Should the yahudi zip his mouth and ideas until he gets a degree?
I think the way to go about it, is to justify whatever you are saying whenever asked. One can spot argument from authority from 73(just a random number) miles away.
In the information age, I believe most knowledge is out there in plain sight for anyone interested in putting in an effort to learn.
I have never asked ANYONE to shut up about anything. Quite the opposite, it's when I have supported my assertions by citing the experts who have done the experiments that those accusations come flying. At that point, "arguments from authority" seems to be no less than "Those are not your own arguments", which is just a fancy way of saying "Shut up". Its because of the information age that I can cite them or know about them in the first place.
-
Here is how I understand argument from authority. A certain big name supports an idea, therefore it is valid. That is how I understand it.
When one refers to scientific consensus, it not just on the basis of unfounded belief in the authority of the figures behind it. At least not in my case.
There are principles set in place by a history of observation. While they are generally accepted, they are not set in stone and one is absolutely free to challenge them.
Suppose I have a degree in physics(which incidentally I do), is that enough reason for anyone believe anything I say on the subject? Should I tell people to zip until they get a degree? Can I not be wrong on the subject?
The best software engineer I ever worked with was straight from high-school(never set foot in college). Should the yahudi zip his mouth and ideas until he gets a degree?
I think the way to go about it, is to justify whatever you are saying whenever asked. One can spot argument from authority from 73(just a random number) miles away.
In the information age, I believe most knowledge is out there in plain sight for anyone interested in putting in an effort to learn.
I have never asked ANYONE to shut up about anything. Quite the opposite, it's when I have supported my assertions by citing the experts who have done the experiments that those accusations come flying. At that point, "arguments from authority" seems to be no less than "Those are not your own arguments", which is just a fancy way of saying "Shut up". Its because of the information age that I can cite them or know about them in the first place.
Ok. I understood you to mean that since none of us is an expert, then all our arguments are from authority. I just thought that is a much more broader definition of it than I believe to be fair.
To me, an argument from authority is not just one quoted from someone else. But rather the connotation behind the idea that because that someone else an expert his argument is valid. As opposed to being valid merely because his argument is good.