Only two different types of belief

[atheist buddy]

In my opinion there are only two types of beliefs.

Examples of type 1 beliefs
Planet earth is approximately globe shaped, 2+2=4, my mother loves me, Los Angeles is west of Chicago, I have a million dollars in my bank account, humans have 23 chromosome pairs, Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769, Bradd Pitt is married to Angelina Jolie


Examples of type 2 beliefs
Jesus was born of a virgin, Mohammed flew into heaven on the back of a winged white horse, there is an alien space ship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet which you can teleport to by committing suicide, Apollo causes the sun to rise eveyr morning by carrying it up into the sky on a charriot, the Lock Ness monster exists, Frosty the Snow man occasionally comes to life, Santa delivers gifts from his invisible North Pole factory to millions of homes every Christmas night.

What do all type 1 beliefs have in common? They are all supported by empirical evidence.

What do all type 2 beliefs have in common? They are all NOT supported by empirical evidence, and in many cases contradicted by empirical evidence


If you are religious, which type do your religious beliefs fall into?

If type 1, can you please spell out what your beliefs are, and what the empirical evidence for them is?

If type 2, can you please outline what justification there is for believing your specific type 2 belief and not any other type 2 belief?

If you agree that they are not type 1, but assert that they don't belong in type 2 either, could you please outline what attributes your beliefs have that differentiate them from type 2 beliefs?

[ttruscott]

...

And if his beliefs inform his action to no greater degree than his outrageous comments on this forum, we can consider ourselves lucky, because he could have been among the thousands who die or who's children die because they refuse blood transfusions. Or among the thousands who stone their daughters and sisters to death when they are raped.

Is there no such thing as junk science? Did not Hitler use science to support his racial theories and hatred? Why do materialistic folk then not turn against all science when some do turn against all spiritualistic based religions because there are some religious deviants from the sensible norm out there?

Is the burning of religious books (ideas) more justified than burning scientific books (ideas)?

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

And if his beliefs inform his action to no greater degree than his outrageous comments on this forum, we can consider ourselves lucky, because he could have been among the thousands who die or who's children die because they refuse blood transfusions. Or among the thousands who stone their daughters and sisters to death when they are raped.

Is there no such thing as junk science?

Of course there is "junk science" and "pseudo science" – which masquerade as legitimate science in order to promote some point of view that LACKS true scientific support. We often see those used by Fundamentalists, Fanatics, Young Earth Creationists attempting to make their "arguments" sound legitimate.

One test of science is "Can it be duplicated and verified (or refuted) by anyone interested and motivated." Can anything similar said for organized / commercial religions?

Did not Hitler use science to support his racial theories and hatred?

Using Hitler in attempts to bolster one's "arguments" suggests that one has exceeded the limit of their credibility or ability.

Notice that a major feature of the Scientific Method is to submit findings for examination, criticism, refutation, rebuttal by others. Notice also that religions typically do NOT encourage or allow

Why do materialistic folk then not turn against all science when some do turn against all spiritualistic based religions because there are some religious deviants from the sensible norm out there?

"Materialistic folk" (those inclined to use information and knowledge provided by science) need not reject ALL science BECAUSE by the very nature of the Scientific Method it weeds out and replaces incorrect or partially incorrect ideas as new information becomes available.

That is a growth process which seems unavailable to Literalist, Fundamentalist, Fanatic, Traditional Religionists (hard-core born again Christians who think they KNOW what "god wants or requires."

Is the burning of religious books (ideas) more justified than burning scientific books (ideas)?

Of course not.

However, which is more common throughout history – burning of religious books by non-religious people, or burning competing books (including scientific) by religionists?

[atheist buddy]

...

And if his beliefs inform his action to no greater degree than his outrageous comments on this forum, we can consider ourselves lucky, because he could have been among the thousands who die or who's children die because they refuse blood transfusions. Or among the thousands who stone their daughters and sisters to death when they are raped.

Is there no such thing as junk science? Did not Hitler use science to support his racial theories and hatred? Why do materialistic folk then not turn against all science when some do turn against all spiritualistic based religions because there are some religious deviants from the sensible norm out there?

Is the burning of religious books (ideas) more justified than burning scientific books (ideas)?

Peace, Ted

I am against belief which is not based on evidence. That includes 100% of miracle claims, 100% of junk science claims, 100% of fairy tales and 0% of actual science.

We don't turn against science on the basis of junk science, because that would be crazy. That would be like turning against real money (actual dollar bills) on the basis of the lack of value of monopoly money. Just because the term "monopoly money" has the word "money" in it, it doesn't actually affect whatever vaue real money may have.

There is no such thing as the "sensible" norm when it comes to religious beliefs. Anybody who truly believes he will get 72 virgins once he dies is not sensible. After that, it just becomes a matter of degrees and willingness to act out your beliefs.

[1213]

Note: Finland, 1213's claimed location, has an education system described as:

Since it implemented huge education reforms 40 years ago, Finland's school system has consistently come at the top for the international rankings for education systems.
http://www.businessinsider.com/finland- ... 11-12?op=1

SOMETHING appears to be amiss.

Don’t worry, the Finnish school system is secular and teaches what science says about earth and other stuff. In my opinion it doesn’t give very deep knowledge, but on basis of what I have read from elsewhere, there is not much deeper real knowledge. The “problem� is not that I don’t know, but that I just don’t blindly believe all that is said.

However I think that in civil and intelligent debate, arguments should be the thing that is debated, not persons. If you think my arguments are not good, then show what is wrong with them.

Apparently you believe to rotating earth. Could you tell me why you believe so?

[atheist buddy]

Note: Finland, 1213's claimed location, has an education system described as:

Since it implemented huge education reforms 40 years ago, Finland's school system has consistently come at the top for the international rankings for education systems.
http://www.businessinsider.com/finland- ... 11-12?op=1

SOMETHING appears to be amiss.

Don’t worry, the Finnish school system is secular and teaches what science says about earth and other stuff. In my opinion it doesn’t give very deep knowledge, but on basis of what I have read from elsewhere, there is not much deeper real knowledge. The “problem� is not that I don’t know, but that I just don’t blindly believe all that is said.

Yup. You only blindly believe one book.

However I think that in civil and intelligent debate, arguments should be the thing that is debated, not persons.

I agree we should strive for civil debate. Not much can be done about the debate being intelligent, though, as long as you make absurd claims about the earth's shape, the earth's rotation and other basic things.

If you think my arguments are not good, then show what is wrong with them.

We did. I don't think there's one person on this forum other than you, theist or atheist, who shares your beliefs regarding plate tectonics, the absence of the earth's rotation, the untruth of Einsteinian Relativity, etc.

Want me to prove that to you?

Everybody: Imagine 1213 and any 10 year old in a developed nation were to take a basic science literacy quiz. If you think that 1213 would get the higher score, please speak up.

Devout theists on DC&R, if you feel that 1213 is doing a good job of representing theism, and that you are proud of how his faith affects his reasoning skills, please speak up.

Apparently you believe to rotating earth. Could you tell me why you believe so?

I could tell you, but why?

If this, this,this, this, this and a hundred other pieces of evidence don't convince you, then nothing will.

Which is to say, nothing will. Because you're impervious to evidence.

[Zzyzx]

.

Note: Finland, 1213's claimed location, has an education system described as:

Since it implemented huge education reforms 40 years ago, Finland's school system has consistently come at the top for the international rankings for education systems.
http://www.businessinsider.com/finland- ... 11-12?op=1

SOMETHING appears to be amiss.

Don’t worry, the Finnish school system is secular and teaches what science says about earth and other stuff.

Okay, then it seems unreasonable that a person who was presumably educated in Finland would ask for proof that the Earth rotates on its axis – since they should be well aware.

If Finnish schools were NOT secular (were religious / sectarian) or were very poorly reputed I would still be surprised (but less so).

However, when I attended Catholic elementary school the Heliocentric solar system was well taught. Graduates of Catholic high schools were among the best prepared students at the university where I taught Earth science.

In my opinion it doesn’t give very deep knowledge, but on basis of what I have read from elsewhere, there is not much deeper real knowledge.

Are you suggesting that secular schools which teach about the Earth "and other stuff" do NOT "give very deep knowledge?" Do you include colleges and universities in your analysis? How do you arrive at that opinion, if you don't mind saying?

The “problem� is not that I don’t know, but that I just don’t blindly believe all that is said.

Do you believe bible stories or religious dogma? Have you actually verified their truth and accuracy to avoid "blindly believing?"

As Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens) famously said, "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know it's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

One of the strong points of scientific inquiry is that it demands verification – to avoid blind belief and/or experimental bias.

However I think that in civil and intelligent debate, arguments should be the thing that is debated, not persons. If you think my arguments are not good, then show what is wrong with them.

As most members and visitors to these threads probably realize, I typically help those who present holey (or holy) arguments to demonstrate their arguments are defective.

Apparently you believe to rotating earth. Could you tell me why you believe so?

Are you asking because you doubt the Earth rotates? If so, I will conduct classes in basic Earth science in a separate thread for the uninformed. The Foucault pendulum is a good start, oblate spheroidal shape of the Earth is another, Coriolis effect is another, satellite orbit is another.

If you have no doubt that the Earth rotates, it is poor form to request verification of what one knows is true – and is not a respected debate tactic.

[1213]

If this,

I took few points from that to show why I don’t believe those as proof for rotating earth. Please notice that I don’t claim that things are like in these. This is just second option or another plausible explanation. if you want to believe your authorities, you are free to do so.

These days, it's pretty easy. We can look back at Earth from the Moon, Mars or a passing spacecraft and see it rotate. But these options weren't available for a long time after the idea of a rotating Earth was widely accepted.

Earth’s rotation is relative and depends on what the observer decides to be the reference point.

The first dynamic demonstration that the Earth rotates was the Foucault pendulum. As the Earth rotates the inertia of a pendulum keeps it in as close to the same plane as it can.

That could be also explained by gravitational forces exerted by the Moon and the Sun.

The Earth isn't round. It bulges around the equator, just as you would expect if it rotated. This was known when Foucault made his pendulum.

Other explanation for earth not to be round can be glaciers on north and south pole and also the gravitational forces exerted by the Moon and the Sun.

When most satelites are launched into orbit they head east.

Why only most? Is it because it depend on what direction the suns gravitational force comes?

[1213]

However, when I attended Catholic elementary school the Heliocentric solar system was well taught. Graduates of Catholic high schools were among the best prepared students at the university where I taught Earth science.

Nice to hear that, although it seems to mean that they are well brainwashed and don’t think much about what all means really and is there other plausibly explanations.

Are you suggesting that secular schools which teach about the Earth "and other stuff" do NOT "give very deep knowledge?" Do you include colleges and universities in your analysis? How do you arrive at that opinion, if you don't mind saying?

Sorry, I didn’t mean that secular or non secular could be better or not better. I said it just because I thought you might think that I have been in some religious school, where things are not taught scientifically.

Usually these matters are taught last time in high school. After that person can go to college or university where teaching is more oriented to specific subject that doesn’t necessary include earth science, at least not very deeply. And on my experience most things that were taught in high school, were already taught in secondary school and primary school.

Personally I have not studied geology in university, but I think I have read studies, or results of studies form science magazines, or books and so I know quite well what they think in universities.

Do you believe bible stories or religious dogma? Have you actually verified their truth and accuracy to avoid "blindly believing?"

I have not found any mistake in the Bible. For me that is reason to believe that God have had influence on it. Of course I can’t really know what actually happened for example 2000 years ago, but for me the important part in the Bible is those words that Jesus allegedly said. They are good and enough reason for me to believe.

[ttruscott]

...

Apparently you believe to rotating earth. Could you tell me why you believe so?

I could tell you, but why?
...
Which is to say, nothing will. Because you're impervious to evidence.

If the evidence has multiple possible explanations then to choose one over another without proof (evidence is not proof) is a faith based decision.

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

However, when I attended Catholic elementary school the Heliocentric solar system was well taught. Graduates of Catholic high schools were among the best prepared students at the university where I taught Earth science.

Nice to hear that, although it seems to mean that they are well brainwashed and don’t think much about what all means really and is there other plausibly explanations.

Are you saying that parochial school students are brainwashed? Some may be; however, the students to whom I referred were typically well educated overall compared to public school students. In fact, I sent my daughter and son to Catholic high school (even though I strongly disagree with religious teachings). Both of them benefited without becoming "brainwashed" by religion – perhaps at least partially because I gave them alternative views.

Are you suggesting that secular schools which teach about the Earth "and other stuff" do NOT "give very deep knowledge?" Do you include colleges and universities in your analysis? How do you arrive at that opinion, if you don't mind saying?

Sorry, I didn’t mean that secular or non secular could be better or not better. I said it just because I thought you might think that I have been in some religious school, where things are not taught scientifically.

Are you saying that you were presented with heliocentric solar system and rotating Earth – but rejected, dismissed or doubted those ideas?

Usually these matters are taught last time in high school. After that person can go to college or university where teaching is more oriented to specific subject that doesn’t necessary include earth science, at least not very deeply. And on my experience most things that were taught in high school, were already taught in secondary school and primary school.

Yes, many schools (in the US and presumably Finland also) teach some aspects of Earth science in primary and secondary school. University courses are typically somewhat specialized and graduate schools are more highly specialized.

Some wag has said that as one progresses through the education system they learn more and more about less and less until at Ph. D. level one is so specialized that they know all there is to know about nothing at all. (I can say that without being inappropriate because I have been there – just as being a Polack entitles me to tell Polish jokes).

Personally I have not studied geology in university,

I have studied enough geology and related subjects for both of us (and probably a couple more).

but I think I have read studies, or results of studies form science magazines, or books and so I know quite well what they think in universities.

Reading studies, science magazines and books may give one SOME idea of "what they think in universities" (particularly advanced research universities) but that is typically very shallow "knowledge" – perhaps akin to reading a one page abstract of a one hundred page study and concluding that one knows "what they think."

Do you believe bible stories or religious dogma? Have you actually verified their truth and accuracy to avoid "blindly believing?"

I have not found any mistake in the Bible. For me that is reason to believe that God have had influence on it.

If a mistake or five or a hundred contained in the bible would you conclude that God did not influence it? Many of these threads are replete with biblical errors. Do you accept that information or dismiss / ignore / deny it (or make excuses)?

Of course I can’t really know what actually happened for example 2000 years ago, but for me the important part in the Bible is those words that Jesus allegedly said. They are good and enough reason for me to believe.

Thomas Jefferson (one of those identified as Founding Fathers of the US) agrees with that position. He produced the "Jefferson Bible" (correct title "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth ") by cut and paste (literally) of the 1804 printing of the King James New Testament to remove extraneous material (including references to miracles and supernaturalism) and highlighted the life and teachings of Jesus.