The offended God theory

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by jasong

I don't know if this is considered proof, as such, but many who have faith have found that regularly reading the Bible increases faith, even if what they're reading has nothing to do with the problems they're dealing with at that time. To me, that's a proof of sorts.

If that's your idea of a proof, then you are still naive (which is a condition, not a crime or sin :) about self-deception and other-deception, and liable to be misled by any persuasive writer or speaker without regard to the truthfulness of his/her message.

Suppose you re-read, over and over, that 1 + 1 = 3.

Do those repetitions increase the certainty that "1 + 1 = 3" is true? No.

Suppose you re-read, over and over, that 1 + 1 = 2.

Do those repetitions increase the certainty that "1 + 1 = 2" is true? No, also!

Only a proof based on, in this case, sound mathematical principles can prove that either statement is mathematically true. Repetitious reading proves nothing.

Of course, repetitious reading can confirm ones faith, but if that faith is ill-founded or contradicts reality, then the repeated readings only increase the error!

Mere repetition can strengthen a mental habit or thought (which has been confirmed by the science of psychology, BTW), but does nothing whatsoever to prove that the mental habit or thought is true to reality, or beneficial, or unharmful, or desirable!!!

Note that my preceding paragraphs do not say that anything in the Bible is false, harmful, unrealistic, or undesirable. They just say that repetitious reading does not prove anything at all.

Although people who wish you to believe something on the basis of faith, without any independent evidence from the real world, may tell you that repetition constitutes proof, they are mistaken, at best. Repetition can increase faith, but never proves that the faith is founded on truth.

You may ask, then why do schools use repetition to teach students something?

Because if what is repeated is true then the repetition strengthens the mental pathways for recalling that truth.

But a school can also use repetition to teach something that is false. Or different schools can, and do, repeat statements that contradict those that another school repeats. What one school says is true may be considered false at the other school.

What's common here?

Repetition can strengthen belief, but it cannot, itself, prove anything.

[cheesehead]

As it happens, I just read an ABC News article about Iraq that has a section relevant to my preceding post.

Originally Posted by http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2973045&page=1, near the bottom

David Pate is a young blond-haired Army captain from West Virginia. He didn't know much about al Qaeda or the war when he got his assignment to take care of prisoners a year ago. He is now a dedicated warrior. He talked to al Qaeda fighters every day. "They are a breed apart." He can cut through the theology and politics, "this is it for them." They are the last warriors in the long fight to bring God's kingdom on earth. All they have to do is eliminate those who lure Muslims from the righteous path. That means everyone who doesn't think like they do.

A standard Islamic teaching method is to have children read the Koran over and over and ...

So I'm sure that those al Qaeda fighters have a strong faith.

Does that mean they're on the right path? That their truth is well-founded, beneficial, desirable?

It does, if you think like they do.

What did their repetitious reading prove, jasong?

Here, I need to point out that my preceding paragraphs do not state that anything in the Koran is false, harmful, unrealistic, or undesirable.

[Mini-Geek]

Since you seem to be stressing the point so much and jasong hasn't replied yet, I'll go ahead and reply. Yes, I agree with you that repetition increases faith of what is repeated, but does not increase the truthfulness of what is repeated. But you're comparing Christian's repetition to an obviously incorrect thing like 1 + 1 = 3, and to the slightly less obvious, but still wrong, repetition like what al Qaeda people believe in.

Comparing us to al Qaeda would be almost as bad as if we compared you to Nazis that try to silence us from your lives because we're different and a minority. We aren't calling, or comparing you to, Nazis, so please don't call or compare as if we're the same as, al Qaeda or someone that thinks 1 + 1 = 3.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

Yes, I agree with you that repetition increases faith of what is repeated, but does not increase the truthfulness of what is repeated.

... which was my point, so my stressing of it did you no harm.

But you're comparing Christian's repetition to an obviously incorrect thing like 1 + 1 = 3,

(A) I wasn't comparing a Christian's reading repetition to "1 + 1 = 3". I was comparing the idea that such repetitive reading constitutes, or leads to, proof to the idea that a repetition of anything, whether obviously true, obviously false, or in-between, constitutes, or leads to, proof.

You owe me an apology for that false accusation.

(B) Do you understand that I had to contrast the correct "1 + 1 = 2" with something as similar as possible but incorrect? That is why the "1 + 1 = 3" is there, not because I was casting aspersions on Christianity! I wanted to make that point that the non-proofiness of repetition was independent of the truth of what is repeated, and so I had to include an incorrect statement as well as a correct one, to illustrate my point!! (And the incorrect statement had to be mentioned before the correct one for best illustration of what I was trying to convey.)

It looks to me like you were so ready to jump on anything I wrote that hinted of anti-Christianity that you overlooked the necessity of inclusion of an incorrect statement in my explanation.

And, wow, are you ever hypersensitive if you think Christianity is sullied or threatened by the mere inclusion of "1 + 1 = 3" in proximity to mention of the Bible!

I wasn't claiming that "1 + 1 = 3" was analogous to Christianity. I was trying to show the fallacy in jasong's classification of comfort obtained via repeated readings as a type of proof.

What pair of short simple statements, one obviously true and a similar one obviously false, would you prefer me to have used, if any?

the slightly less obvious, but still wrong, repetition like what al Qaeda people believe in.

Actually, my reference was to the repetition in Islamic education, not to just al Qaeda members' education or beliefs.

My incomplete point there was that repetitive reading of the Koran did not prevent some Muslim students from being convinced by the persuasive words of others to join a terrorist movement. I intended to finish that up later by opining that if Muslim youth were taught more skepticism and critical thinking, and less rote learning, we'd see far fewer of them joining a terrorist movement. And then I was going to back-link that to an opinion that the right-wing drive to eliminate critical scientific training from U.S. schools, as well as the "No Child Left Behind"'s foreseeable effect of deemphasizing creative, skeptical thinking (I just heard a report on that) in favor of rote learning, are not-accidentally intended to create a more malleable right-wing generation to follow ours.

because we're different and a minority.

To what group, exactly, are you referring with "we" in that sentence?

We aren't calling,

... and is this "we" a reference to that same group? If not, exactly what is the antecedent of "we" here?

or comparing you to, Nazis,

... but you are introducing the word "Nazis" into this discussion, and it's not appropriate.

so please don't call or compare as if we're the same as, al Qaeda or someone that thinks 1 + 1 = 3.

So, does that mean you think that the leaders of the creationist wing of Christianity are not trying to take critical scientific thinking and skepticism out of public schools? Or just that you hadn't thought of them from that angle?

- - -

(Oh, and then I was going to link into the show I just saw about how Afghan museum staffers risked their lives to save irreplacable items of Afghan culture as the Taliban systematically destroyed artifacts in their museum.

The past few years have taught me that I have to speak up to do my part to protect human society from destructive extremists, so that we don't get anywhere near to a Taliban-in-Afghanistan situation.)

[brunoparga]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

because we're different and a minority.

I'm not nearly as careful or polite as cheesehead, so although I'm not sure of that, I'll speculate that that "we" means religious believers, or Christians, or members of the particular Christian group Mini-Geek adheres to.

Even if it's the last option, it's most likely still a larger minority than atheists (specially in the USA), and it's most likely regarded with less suspicion (specially in the USA).

If that "we" refers to Christians in general, well, I'd hardly call the religion whose membership is the plurality of humankind a "minority". Please notice the difference between plurality (more adherents than any other particular religion) and majority (more adherents than all of the non-adherents combined)

If it's religious believers, well, then that is an absolute and overwhelming majority.

So, in any case, that "minority" statement seems strange and definitely deserving clarification.

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

I'm not nearly as careful or polite as cheesehead, so although I'm not sure of that, I'll speculate that that "we" means religious believers, or Christians, or members of the particular Christian group Mini-Geek adheres to.

Even if it's the last option, it's most likely still a larger minority than atheists (specially in the USA), and it's most likely regarded with less suspicion (specially in the USA).

If that "we" refers to Christians in general, well, I'd hardly call the religion whose membership is the plurality of humankind a "minority". Please notice the difference between plurality (more adherents than any other particular religion) and majority (more adherents than all of the non-adherents combined)

If it's religious believers, well, then that is an absolute and overwhelming majority.

So, in any case, that "minority" statement seems strange and definitely deserving clarification.

What I meant is that in scientifically/mathematically-minded communities, people that are religious (whether Christian or not) are a minority. If you doubt that in any way, just look at the results of the poll I posted a little while ago.
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=7104

[jasong]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

If that's your idea of a proof, then you are still naive (which is a condition, not a crime or sin :) about self-deception and other-deception, and liable to be misled by any persuasive writer or speaker without regard to the truthfulness of his/her message.

Suppose you re-read, over and over, that 1 + 1 = 3.

Okay, without reading the rest of the message you wrote, let me say that am PISSED OFF by the assumption that you assume that repetitive reading has somehow hypnotized me into believing what is written. I firmly believe in loving your neighbor(every other person in the world) as yourself, but if I was as disrespectful as this I would certainly except the person to be angry.

You can rest assured that if you were in front of me, you would have a middle finger in your face along with it's verbal equivalent.

Even a potential Islamic suicide bomber would get more respect from me for their belief system.

Edit: Okay, now that I've calmed down(slightly), I can respond. Biblical words are not hypnotic. God created the universe and knows all it's laws. The books of the Bible, even translated ones, have a power over the believer that transcends reality. This is the "proof" I was referring to, the fact that reading Biblical teachings, even if their application to the believers problem isn't apparent, strengthen the believer's faith and spirit.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

What I meant is that in scientifically/mathematically-minded communities, people that are religious (whether Christian or not) are a minority. If you doubt that in any way, just look at the results of the poll I posted a little while ago.
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=7104

All that means is that intellectuals(elitists? maybe) are less likely to become Christians. This is known, and even covered by the Bible, though not in the same vein as your opinion seems to be.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by jasong

Okay, without reading the rest of the message you wrote, let me say that am PISSED OFF

If you mean that you didn't read the rest of my message, then (A) I am pissed off that you think you're justified in writing your insult without having read the rest of my message, and (B) you owe me an apology.

by the assumption that you assume that repetitive reading has somehow hypnotized me into believing what is written.

(A) I did not write that repetitive reading has hypnotized anyone.

(B) I did not assume that repetitive reading has hypnotized anyone.

(C) You are the person who has introduced the idea of hypnosis into this thread, not me. Hypnosis is not a synonym for the strengthening of faith.

(D) If you are pissed off by your own assumption about me that you did not bother verifying by reading the rest of my posting, then it's your own fault that you pissed yourself off, and you owe me an apology for that assumption of yours.

if I was as disrespectful as this

... disrespectful as in ... insulting someone on the basis of having read only the first few lines but not the rest?

If so, then you _are_ that disrespectful.

Even a potential Islamic suicide bomber would get more respect from me for their belief system.

When you finally get around to reading and understanding the rest of what I wrote, you're going to be embarrassed that you posted that. Will you have the guts and grace to apologize?

Biblical words are not hypnotic.

... and I never said they were.

This is the "proof" I was referring to, the fact that reading Biblical teachings, even if their application to the believers problem isn't apparent, strengthen the believer's faith and spirit.

... but I disagree that a strengthening of faith constitutes a "proof".

[cheesehead]

Clarification:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

and (B) you owe me an apology.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

you owe me an apology for that assumption of yours.

The apologies are owed not for unjustifiably making an assumption or unjustifiably thinking something, but for having taken the action of posting words based on the unjustified thought or assumption.

[jasong]

For those of you who lack time, Cheesehead's post was number #56. While some may argue that he didn't deserve to be insulted, I feel that a reasonably intelligent person will agree that he IS, in fact, talking about hypnosis.

For the record, I do offer an apology for my anger, and sincerely hope for Cheesehead's acceptance.