Why do I keep believing in Christianity?

[Chaigidel]

so animals are totally predictable and controllable ?

tell that to elephant trainers, tiger keepers, etc etc etc, hell tell siegfried and roy

animals can break away the same way humans can, without any warning.

[HopliteElite]

so animals are totally predictable and controllable ?

tell that to elephant trainers, tiger keepers, etc etc etc, hell tell siegfried and roy

animals can break away the same way humans can, without any warning.

No, not totally predictable, unless the course of their conditioning has been strenuously and scientifically controlled. However, animals can be made into what their handler/conditioner wants them to be through positive reinforcement. Siegfried is obviously not a behaviorist and could not completely control the behavior of his tiger but he is a poor example because he lacks a background in behaviorism and therefore could not be expected to master the behavior of his tiger.

[Chaigidel]

so you are under the impression that a properly trained behaviourist could maintain total control over any given animal of sufficient intelligence?

[HopliteElite]

so you are under the impression that a properly trained behaviourist could maintain total control over any given animal of sufficient intelligence?

If a behaviorist was able to use the scientific method to replicate, in multiple different experiments, the same results from their behavioristic approach to tiger control then yes, I'd say any tiger could be controlled by a properly trained behaviorist. I will not say, however, that behaviorism can be used, at the moment, as a factually backed science.

There is more work that needs to be done and more experimentation is necessary. However, if people, like Ummon, continue to somehow view behaviorism as archaic, that experimentation will never take place, leaving us with the question: "could" it work instead of it does or does not work. Behaviorism is science and must stand up to the test of experimentation before it is embraced or dismissed.

[Ummagumma]

Behaviourism, and all of it's implications are quite valid, but by no means are the the totality. Inculcation, whether through 'accepted cultural morality', 'parental guidance' or even merchandising and adverts has an undeniable effect. The trouble is the vast amount of information that is absorbed and constantly reassessed - even dogs dream - so the outcome of any potential conditioning is by no means a certainty.
To use a random comparison, the gateau of the mind does have a sponge layer of conditioning, but it does not supply the cherries and cream.

[HopliteElite]

Behaviourism, and all of it's implications are quite valid, but by no means are the the totality. Inculcation, whether through 'accepted cultural morality', 'parental guidance' or even merchandising and adverts has an undeniable effect. The trouble is the vast amount of information that is absorbed and constantly reassessed - even dogs dream - so the outcome of any potential conditioning is by no means a certainty.
To use a random comparison, the gateau of the mind does have a sponge layer of conditioning, but it does not supply the cherries and cream.

I agree entirely and thank you for puting it in a very polite and well articulated way. Behaviorism is not fact nor is it fiction. I'd like to work toward somehow making it fact as the implications could be great were it to be proven but without experimentation behaviorism is left in the realm of speculation; at least in regards to human behavior.

I do like how you put it though. There are many problems that behaviorism seems to face when put up to the test of whether it works on humans. I believe it can be scientifically proven but clearly I could be wrong, for many of the reasons you name.

[Chaigidel]

well without any real experimentation or facts why would one postulate that one could get total control of the behaviour of a certain animal under the thumb of the behaviourist?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

For that post TD, I will see fit to lessen the official gap between how much better Victorians are than Tasmanians

I'm actually a New South Welshman, by both birth and current residence, who grew up in Tasmania. But thanks. You're a good bloke for a "Mexican".

If indeed you do remember your teacher telling you that, then your teacher was an idiot. Pontius Pilate is mentioned in Tacitus and his rule was discussed in detail by Josephus in both his Jewish War and his Antiquities of the Jews and by Philo of Alexandria in his Embassy to Gaius. That makes him one of the best attested officials of the reign of Tiberius and one that no-one would ever doubt existed. Indeed, no-one ever has doubted he existed.

This statement contradicts the following statement:


So since you (allegedly) "remember" being taught this Oldgamer, perhaps you'd like to find me a pre-1961 scholar who said there was no evidence that Pilate existed. Because so far the only non-existent people in this cute little story are these supposed sceptical scholars.

Those statements contradict each other how, exactly? In the first I'm doubting that your teacher ever made any such claim, since it would be nigh on impossible to doubt the existence of someone so well attested in no less than three reliable historians of the period. I conclude by stating that, in fact, these doubters actually are non-existent, since I and others have gone looking for them and asked fundamentalist apologists to produce them and come up with nothing every time.

The second statement simply repeats that point - these doubters are non-existent. They don't exist. They are a fantasy created by fundamentalist apologists for the purposes of their contrived parable about an archaeological discovery proving sceptics wrong.

Which scholars were questioning the existence of Pilate?

So you doubt the existence of these scholars, even though you say "no-one has ever doubted he existed."

WTF?! No, I'm challenging you to produce the name of a single one of these supposed scholars because I'm saying they simply don't exist. That's what "no-one has ever doubted he existed" means to anyone with a vague facility in English.

Another contradiction in a single post.

Another alarming indication of your poor reading comprehension skills.

If you can contradict yourself three times in one post, then two people writing about Christ's life might perhaps be forgiven for getting a date wrong, perhaps?

If you can't see the clear sense of what I'm saying above and get yourself tangled up in "contradictions" that aren't there, you're likely to find a priori assumptions of Biblical inerrancy intellectually acceptable, perhaps?

But what did these writers actually say about Christ? Were they accomplished historians who should be faulted for an historical error regarding a timeframe ... assuming that there was even an error ... or did they actually say something else about Jesus? Something that the skeptics and non-believers wish to obscure, because they fear that other people might actually hear the story of Christ?

Go back over this thread and the one where I had exactly the same discussion with basics. In both I point out to them that this historical error is not a problem for the majority of Christians because they aren't obsessed with inerrancy and literalism like fundamentalists and focus on what the stories mean. I suggest that this is a more sensible and sophisticated way of reading these stories and the rest of the gospels, though that it might require abandoning the childish and black and white certitudes of fundamentalism for something a bit more grown up.

Do those sentiments sound like someone who fears "that other people might actually hear the story of Christ" to you?

I'm interested in history, Ummon. And if people try to distort history to fit their agendas, I tend to start kicking butt. I do with atheists when they distort history to try to argue Jesus never existed. I do with New Agers when they to distort history to peddle their Mary Magdalene/Holy Bloodline crap. And I do with fundamentalists when they distort history to try to reconcile clearly contradictory accounts in the gospels. I'm very much an equal opportunity historical butt kicker.

And citing total nonsense about how people once believed Pilate didn't exist doesn't change that either.

Was this your fourth contradiction in this one post?

What the hell are you wittering on about? Where is there a "contradiction" in that sentence?

Anyway, now your display of bad reading comprehension is mercifully ended - can you produce a single pre-1961 scholar who doubted Pilate's existence? Can you explain why fundamentalist apologists keep telling this story about scholars doubting Pilate's existence and what they are basing it on?

Or can you actually be honest and admit that it's quite clear this story is nonsense?

Let's see if you can display some intellectual honesty. Over to you.

By the way, Tacitus also wrote about the feats of Hercules. Did Hercules exist?

BTW, Tacitus didn't say that Hercules did these feats just 70 years before he was writing and he wasn't supported in his dating of these feats by two other contemporary historians. Nice try though.

[HopliteElite]

well without any real experimentation or facts why would one postulate that one could get total control of the behaviour of a certain animal under the thumb of the behaviourist?

Because Skinner proved that rats and pigeons could be controlled. They are animals. I want to experiment on more animals, including someday, humans, to see if we can achieve the same results. I do not state behaviorism as fact but rather as a form of science that has yet to be proven or disproven. I think, with time, it will be proven but that is neither here nor there. The fact is, it is a scientific approach to behavior that must stand the test of experimental scrutiny before it is dismissed or embraced. To do either with any certainty would be folly, which is why I place my faith in the scientific method to prove whether it works or does not work.

[KingDesra]

http://globalflood.org/earthage/index.html

If you don't believe in God don't bother wondering how were the animals controlled.Not trying to turn this conversation into one about the Flood,Well, although we may not be able to understand everything, God gave us the greatest evidence of all, so none of this is necessary just more fruitless argument so I will say this, unless you repent and believe in Jesus then you will not see who God really is. Its not going to hurt you if you do, whether its true or not that's for you to find out but its not going to happen if your doing it to test God.Unless your really seeking Him He has no reason to show you anything at all. Seriously, don't tell anyone if you wish and take a few minutes to pray and ask God to reveal Himself to you because you are earnestly seeking Him and want to know. Then all your questions will be answered.

[HopliteElite]

All the evidence of biblical stories does not address the fact that Christianity stole many of its stories from prior pagan religions. Adress this if you can. So let's say In a wild and fantastical world that God does exist. Why would "your" god be the One when the stories around him are pilfered from other religions?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

http://globalflood.org/earthage/index.html

*Sigh* More of the usual Creationist crap presented, as usual, without the slightest attempt at checking its claims.

Talk Origins to the rescue again - here, here, and here.

If you don't believe in God don't bother wondering how were the animals controlled.

Yes, because at some point believers in Creationism have to throw off the pretence that they are being scientific and invoke God-magic. Why? Because their story doesn't make sense any other way.

Not trying to turn this conversation into one about the Flood,Well, although we may not be able to understand everything, God gave us the greatest evidence of all, so none of this is necessary just more fruitless argument

Translation: "Switch off your brains, don't think - just BELIEVE!" That argument can be used to make people believe any nonsense.

[KingDesra]

The whole idea of Creationism is not just to show events of the world but to show the Higher power behind them. Like it or not that's your own beef, Creationism is widely accepted. There are many similiar stories to it because other people in other parts of the world saw the same thing happening. Besides it far more believable then a giant comet hitting earth wiping out everything billions of years ago lol. Nice theory but no facts there. Creationism says God did it Secular science says it all just happened man out of no where ain't we lucky? Switching off your brains? same could be said about atheism.

[HopliteElite]

The whole idea of Creationism is not just to show events of the world but to show the Higher power behind them. Like it or not that's your own beef, Creationism is widely accepted. There are many similiar stories to it because other people in other parts of the world saw the same thing happening. Besides it far more believable then a giant comet hitting earth wiping out everything billions of years ago lol. Nice theory but no facts there. Creationism says God did it Secular science says it all just happened man out of no where ain't we lucky? Switching off your brains? same could be said about atheism.

Really? Seriously, my friend, you need to open your mind. I will not tell you that the big bang created it all as I do not know enough about the subject but believing that the big bang theory is faulty, therefore God must have done it all is, forgive me, ****ing rediculous. You don't seem like a child so why believe in such fairytales? Use your intellect, man, and you will realize that science, on this topic, is not perfect but your plan B. aka God is just moronic.

[Ummagumma]

The whole idea of Creationism is not just to show events of the world but to show the Higher power behind them. Like it or not that's your own beef, Creationism is widely accepted. There are many similiar stories to it because other people in other parts of the world saw the same thing happening. Besides it far more believable then a giant comet hitting earth wiping out everything billions of years ago lol. Nice theory but no facts there. Creationism says God did it Secular science says it all just happened man out of no where ain't we lucky? Switching off your brains? same could be said about atheism.

Suspension of disbelief is all well and good - as long as it is applied in a good way. I have no issue against others belief in any God they have chosen - it is a personal thing so I do not wish to offend, but when it is used to deny things that have been shown, and to reinforce things that are implausible (or impossible) I begin to lose that respect. If someone said that God said 1+1=1.99999 it would not make it so. Likewise, there is too much contrary evidence for the literalism of the Bible. Please, love and enjoy your faith, but see it as the tale that it is. It was written by humans for humans, and as such is a wonderful guide for how to be, but is most definitely not to be taken at face value.
I am trying to tread carefully and respect your belief in higher powers, but there are too many things that disclaim the stories - but that does not mean you must discard your faith. God, as it is said, works in mysterious ways. 'Creation' was the way that needed to be worked once, but it is not any more.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Suspension of disbelief is all well and good - as long as it is applied in a good way. I have no issue against others belief in any God they have chosen - it is a personal thing so I do not wish to offend, but when it is used to deny things that have been shown, and to reinforce things that are implausible (or impossible) I begin to lose that respect. If someone said that God said 1+1=1.99999 it would not make it so. Likewise, there is too much contrary evidence for the literalism of the Bible. Please, love and enjoy your faith, but see it as the tale that it is. It was written by humans for humans, and as such is a wonderful guide for how to be, but is most definitely not to be taken at face value.
I am trying to tread carefully and respect your belief in higher powers, but there are too many things that disclaim the stories - but that does not mean you must discard your faith. God, as it is said, works in mysterious ways. 'Creation' was the way that needed to be worked once, but it is not any more.

Nicely put and + rep. KingDesra needs to realise that it's not Christianity we're arguing against here - it's fundamentalist Christianity. The majority of Christians abandoned the idea that the Bible is without error and can be read like a history or geology textbook over 100 years ago. It's only a minority (though they are a very large minority in the US) that still cling to those ideas, no matter how much they contradict real world information.

Simply saying "I don't care about them pesky facts, I just believe" is burying your head in the sand. If there is a God I sincerely doubt he's going to be happy with people who adopt blind, unthinking, irrational faith of a fanatical nature. And unthinking, unquestioning fanatics are always dangerous, as the events of 1939-45 and 9/11 show us.

[basics]

HopliteElite,

A man called Hyslop researched and then wrote a book about the similarities as he saw it between the Roman Catholic church and the Pagan Babylonian Mysteries. Our resident historian on the word of one man, said that the author is a liar and for want of a better word fabricator, and therefore on the basis of one man being unable to find a source given throws the whole work out as rubbish. I e-mailed this one man to see if what the historian said was the correct wording that he used but the fellow has never e-mailed back.

Yet all the information regarding Roman Catholic ceremonies are not disputed neither is the linguistic rooting of the ancient languages concerning their ceremonies. I am not here to promote what Hyslop asserts but I do appreciate that much research was put into his effort that to throw all out on the lack of one or two sources is but stupidity at best and rank incompetence at worse. That our historian is Roman Catholice by birth may well have something to do with that.

However I suggest as I have read the thing not once but many times, that his sources of linguistic interpretation came from men of all persuasions and ablility, nonetheless regarded as experts in their fields. To the reader leaving out the Roman Catholic thing it appears that without serious criticism on the other matters Hyslop has developed much that can prove that the ancient religions you speak of are but offshoots of the Gospel attributed to the Book of Genesis, even though Genesis itself was not put into writing until later, and that is all that I am concerned with here.

That there are similarities with what we know as Judaism is quite understandable since the basic concept is of the same story, one divine and the others manmade. Is it unreasonable to say that the Genesis story has not only survived but taken on a better and more fulfilling meaning whilst the others languish in the pages of history long gone and/or by tiny sections of humanity in more backward places of the world and in some men's minds. Accepting that it only came later by the hand of Moses, does not mean that the world of Judaism only started with Moses, far from it, and, it was that "it" that he was commanded to write down for our benefit or at least the benefit of the Jews.

Just for the interest of anyone who reads this the Babylon mentioned in Revelation is type for the world and it's religions as a whole and not any one in particular the centre seen as Jerusalem below. It will be at that city where the false prophet will make his mark and where all the religions and non-religious of the world, I understand, will congregate under the one banner just before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[KingDesra]

Call me a fanatic when it comes to Christianity, but I am one of the few that believes the bible fully, I expect many "christians" are now moving away from the faith but the God said many would and the question from the bible remains will there be any that remain in the faith when Christ returns meaning there will be very very few. Like I said I know what science says but yet it changes all the time, I am sticking with one who doesn't change His mind.
I am not interested in playing the guessing game, when my soul is at stake here lol, my life I will risk for others but not my soul. despite what others may feel or think I know God is Jesus therefore no need in looking into other faiths any longer I went past my stage of doubtfulness for now. All I can do is witness, share my testimony, and tell them what Christ had said. I usually do not debate science or anything like considering the lack of knowledge in that area but the conscience and morality of man is what concerns me and we are degrading ourselves in those areas as we drift away from God and follow another god.
You would never see me holding hands with other beliefs because of this. To say there is no God to me is like saying there is no air, my whole reason of living is because of Him. I been through crap in my life, I wondered sometimes if God was even there but you know what, He's always helped me when I needed it most, He may not come when we call Him but He's never late. Turning my back on my Father is something I will not do and will keep on fighting against the dark powers behind all these lies till yall bury me in my grave.
Jesus Christ is my God, a loving and merciful God He is, proven Himself many times whether you accept or reject that is your own choice. But my purpose on this forum is to have God use me to show others there is more to life then just reproduction and success then you die. That's illogical and quite fruitless. Yall are in my prayers, praying that you allow God to speak to your minds and open your hearts to Him. Because I know you hear it alot but there will be a time when the Anti-Christ will rise and bring global unity for a time and many will fall for his lies because he answers only to the selfish desire of man's hearts and ultimately his own leading to your demise.
Christ will come back and every man will kneel acknowledging He is Lord but still man's hearts will be harden toward the things of God leading to a cruel everlasting punishment for the rebellion we have put up against Him. Only two sides of the battle God and Satan's, no middle ground here. I been mocked, hated, etc for what I believe but that's one of the reasons I believe so strongly in what I do.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

A man called Hyslop researched and then wrote a book about the similarities as he saw it between the Roman Catholic church and the Pagan Babylonian Mysteries.

The man's name was Alexander Hislop (not "HYslop") and he was a Nineteenth Century clergyman and rabid anti-Catholic. To say he "researched" his book is comical in the extreme.

Our resident historian on the word of one man, said that the author is a liar and for want of a better word fabricator, and therefore on the basis of one man being unable to find a source given throws the whole work out as rubbish. I e-mailed this one man to see if what the historian said was the correct wording that he used but the fellow has never e-mailed back.

I reject Hislop's long discredited book of crap because it's one of the most laughable collections of illogic, baseless assertions and outright fabrications I've ever come across. Only Kersey Graves' proto-New Age The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors rivals it as the ultimate example of some of the total garbage that was being written by kooky amateurs in the Nineteenth Century.

The "one man" you refer to is Ralph Woodrow, who I referred to not because he was the reason I reject Hislop's weird fantasies but because he's an example of intellectual honesty in relation to Hislop's claims. Woodrow read Hislop's work and believed every word of it and even went so far as to write his own book based on Hislop's "research" called Babylon Mystery Religion. Woodrow was challenged on several of Hislop's claims by a history teacher and asked what Hislop based these assertions on. Confident that Hislop's research was solid, Woodrow went to check these claims and found they had no basis at all. Concerned, he then went to check other claims by Hislop and found they had no basis either. Eventually Woodrow realised that he'd be trusting a writer who had constructed a fantasy out of distortions, weak arguments and outright inventions.

Being an honest man, Woodrow then retracted his previous support of Hislop's thesis, withdrew his book from circulation and wrote a new book called The Babylon Connection? critiquing Hislop's bad scholarship in detail.

I did not conclude Hislop was full of crap because Woodrow said so - I'd worked that years before I'd even heard of Woodrow. But I held up Woodrow as an example of a Christian with true intellectual honesty. Hislop's book was telling him things he wanted to hear, but he still faced up to the facts and when he found Hislop was wrong he swallowed his pride, accepted the facts and rejected Hislop's poor scholarship.

It's a pity some of the fundamentalists on this thread don't follow his example rather than embracing bad scholarship and simple errors of fact simply because it makes them feel good.

But if you want to defend Hislop, basics, go right ahead. Hit me with what you think are his best arguments and let's see if they stand up to careful scrutiny and close analysis.

Yet all the information regarding Roman Catholic ceremonies are not disputed neither is the linguistic rooting of the ancient languages concerning their ceremonies.

What absolute garbage. No historian took Hislop's amateur ranting seriously even when it first came out. One scholarly reviewer in The Saturday Review concluded his list of Hislop's errors and nonsense by saying:

"We take leave of Mr. Hislop and his work with the remark that we never before quite knew the folly of which ignorant or half-learned bigotry is capable."

Leaving real historians aside, even today Christians of all persuasions (the honest and well-read ones anyway) reject Hislop's nonsense. Here's a sample of various conservative Christian sites warning against Hislop's shoddy pseudo scholarship:

Tektonics.org Apologetics - A highly conservative but scholarly Christian apologetics site

Ukapologetic.net - Another conservative apologetics site

After Noah - Another conservative Christian critique

I am not here to promote what Hyslop asserts but I do appreciate that much research was put into his effort that to throw all out on the lack of one or two sources is but stupidity at best and rank incompetence at worse. That our historian is Roman Catholice by birth may well have something to do with that.

What nonsense. If was a Hindu by birth I'd still say the same about Hislop's crappy pseudo scholarship, and I'd still point out that it was crap if he was critiquing Shintoism with similarly stupid arguments.

As I said - if you want to see why I reject Hislop's nonsense, present what you think are good arguments of his and let's see if they stand up to scrutiny.

My bet is that you run like a frightened rabbit from this challenge.

[HopliteElite]

I can do little more beyond the posting of TG. I will point out one simple fact though. NOBODY has addressed why the stories of Christianity are often stolen from older pagan faiths. I do not want an analytical approach of an atheist, I want an actual defense by a Christian, as to how their holy stories are pilfered from other religions. It makes me sick that Christianity has stolen so much from the pagan religions of ancient Europe, yet refuses to admit it. A plagiarizer is the worst thing in my mind and Christianity is a religion written by plagiarizers.