hmike

Joined

• started 6 topics
• posted 397 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hmike

• 
  23

  Seeing Patterns That Aren't There?

  by hmike in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in his book, how we believe, religious skeptic michael shermer states "in our complex and contingent world, random events often happen in seemingly peculiar sequences that cry out for meaning.

  we usually rise to the occasion, finding patterns in nature even when they do not exist or have no real significance...." a claim somewhat along this line was made in the tv show numb3rs by mathematics professor epps--that people look for, and think they find, patterns in random events.. you can't watch a movie or tv show about crime without seeing detectives attempting to solve crimes by trying to find patterns in a collection of information.

  they work backwards from the end result to find links between the pieces of information and possibly back to a cause.. yes, we look for patterns.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  In his book "Why We Believe What We Believe" (2006, Free Press, NY), Dr. Andrew Newberg makes the following statement on page 243:

  "Neurological evidence suggests that the brains of believers and skeptics function differently. According to research neurologists at University Hospital in Zurich, Switzerland, when subjects viewed scrambled words and phrases in a screen, believers were much more likely than skeptics to see words and faces when there were none, but skeptics often didn’t see words and faces that were there."
• 
  50

  Agree to Disagree

  by wanderlustguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i knew what i wrote and have written in the past would trigger a lot of different things in a lot of different people.

  sometimes the hardest thing to accept is that what someone says is usually true, even if it's just for them.. as a person grows and learns, they draw conclusions about a great many things, from who god is to what kind of car is the best ever made.

  it oversimplifies things, saying it like that, but at the same time, maybe it is perfect.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  Your essay on "Why can't we all just get along?" was very nice, but your apparent sensitivity to disagreement is in itself a manifestation of intolerance. It sounds like you are saying that nothing really means anything. That doesn't fly.

  Interesting. You're saying that a person who opposes intolerance is intolerant?

  Sounds like when a person says "There are no absolutes"—he has just stated something absolutely.
• 
  48

  Is it possible be blind? while seeing? Bible thumper read if you dare

  by skyking in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is it possible to have your eyes wide open and not be able to see?

  when facts prove us wrong can we change?

  when we can't it is call cognitive dissonance.. which came first the chicken or the egg?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  Lee Strobel addresses this issue in his newest book, "The Case for the Real Jesus" in Challenge #4: "Christianity's Beliefs about Jesus Were Copied from Pagan Religions."
• 
  48

  Is it possible be blind? while seeing? Bible thumper read if you dare

  by skyking in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is it possible to have your eyes wide open and not be able to see?

  when facts prove us wrong can we change?

  when we can't it is call cognitive dissonance.. which came first the chicken or the egg?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  So what if there are similiarities. What does it prove?
• 
  3

  Faith by definition?

  by wherehasmyhairgone in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  when i was a jw i never really thought about what faith is, i always had the hebrew scripture and kinda recited it as my definition.. now faith is understood differently by jw then it is from other religions from what i have seen.. the wt comment on the later verse of heb .

  at hebrews 11:1, the greek word translated "evident demonstration" (e legkhos) conveys the idea of presenting evidence to demonstrate something, particularly something contrary to what appears to be the case.

  positive or concrete evidence makes clear what previously went undiscerned, thereby refuting what only appeared to be the case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  For what it's worth, I'll contribute what I think the Hebrews passage is saying.

  HEB 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV)

  In Heb. 1:1, one's faith IS the proof or evidence that there is a God and a heavenly realm. In other words, one in possession of faith is in possession of something beyond this world.

  The Free Online Dictionary defines faith as

  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

  2.

  Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

  In the general sense, when we speak of believing something, we mean that we are accepting as true some piece of information that we do not have the kind of evidence or proof for that we would normally require to incorporate it into our picture of reality. When we have faith, it means we believe this information to be true

  We think of believing (and, therefore, having faith, since they come from the same word in Greek) as accepting some piece of information as true. Sometimes it's because new information fits with what we have already accepted. Other times, we may accept the information based on our trust of the source (expert, authority figure, someone with established reputation as trustworthy, etc.) Whatever the case, it's an intellectual process—it takes place in the brain. This can also be accompanied by emotion—believing something may produce an emotional reaction, at least initially. In fact, the emotions will create a stronger imprint. So, faith, in this sense, is purely mental, but it can produce an emotional reaction and it can affect our behavior as we adjust to conform (consciously or unconsciously) to the new reality. This kind of mental faith ebbs and flows, and can be modified with the acceptance of new information. There's no guaranteed permanence to it. You have to reinforce it and protect it.

  I see something else in this passage. If the passage was referring to this kind of faith, what kind of evidence is that? It's no different than any other kind of belief. All it shows is that the person is a normal, thinking human being. No, I think the faith referred to here is different. I think it's meant to refer to the faith that God gives through the Holy Spirit—a faith that is spiritual, not mental, or even emotional. That faith is a connection with God, and it is the ability to believe God for even incredible things, but it is not the result of human effort, brainwashing, positive thinking. To have that kind of faith—what I call the "faith of God" (re: preferred translation of Mark 11:22)—is the evidence this verse refers to. It's given by God through Christ, and is the evidence of what has been promised.

  You may or may not agree that the theology in this statement is true, but I think that is what the writer intended.
• 
  5

  Deciding on the Basis of Research

  by hmike in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for those of you who aren't familiar with lee strobel, he is the author of christian popular apologetic books.

  his releases include the case for faith, the case for christ, and, most recently, the case for the real jesus.

  a journalist with a legal background, his case books contain interviews with scholars and experts who give scholarly defenses of the christian positions to which the books are devoted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  Thanks for the replies! I really do think this is a worthwhile topic to explore.

  Pseudo,

  it looks like your experience may be similar to Dr. Ehrman's. There are different reasons people change from the Christian persuasion to atheist. Sometimes, it is the response to a trauma, such as the death of a loved one. Sometimes, it is due to a gradual erosion from a string of minor disappointments. These are emotional reasons. What I'm looking for are the academic reasons, and why they are particularly important.

  Seratonin,

  I'm not a good example of what I'm looking for because my reasons include more than academic research. The many years of commitment to the teachings of the Bible and the reality of God and Jesus have produced many reinforcing experiences. Most of the reasons I would give wouldn't mean much because they could surely be explained some other way. I understand that. Unlike some Christians you may encounter, I am not ignorant of the problems, and I do not isolate myself from those with objections. Whether this is good or bad, right or wrong, this is the path I travel. I'm not here to overwhelm anyone with my faith or arguments. At most, I'm here to present Christianity as a viable alternative for those who would be open to it.

  That leads me into my answer to your question as best as I'm able to give. I once said in a post that I believe because I am able to. Some have dictated terms and conditions for evidence so high, they can never be met (in some cases, intentionally so because there is an emotional resistance to facing the possibility of being wrong). They have required the evidence to come to them instead of going out to meet it as it is. So, for me, it begins with the willingness to accept the reality of something that is outside of my experience. That's a sticking point for some—"it hasn't happened to me, it hasn't happened to anyone I know, it doesn't fit into my model of the universe, therefore, it doesn't exist." Akin to that is the assumption "if it can be explained by natural, human means, that is to be accepted." For me, just because events can be explained another way doesn't automatically mean that is what happened. Just because other cultures have developed religions and gods in their ways doesn't mean Yahweh and the Bible had to develop the same way. Apparent similarities aren't enough. It's all circumstantial evidence, and not particularly strong IMO.

  Finally, as most Christians will tell you, the key point is not the creation account, not the plagues of Egypt or the parting of a large body of water, or a fish swallowing a man, it is the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and his subsequent existence in another realm invisible to us as historical fact. I've seen and read all kinds of alternative explanations, but I just haven't found anything that would convince me to disregard the accounts we have available to us. Any alternative explanation put forth seems to be based on the assumption that it didn't happen—that it couldn't happen. The resurrection and Lordship of Jesus as Messiah isn't a problem for me, so I'm not committed to disproving it. Maybe that's lame to you, but I said I wasn't a good example of what I'm looking for.

  I'm planning on posting a topic related to what Dr. Ehrman said in Misquoting Jesus. If I do it, I'll give my understanding of inspiration. That may also help answer your question.

  I've read enough of your material to know I can't give you any magic answers that will persuade you. My purpose with this post is not to argue with anyone. I just find it fascinating that, given access to the same information, people will come to different conclusions about this. Dr. Ehrman's mentor was the renowned Christian scholar Dr. Bruce Metzger, who remained adamant about the reliability of scripture (despite not being an inerrantist). I'd bet they had some very interesting conversations.

  Regards,

  Mike
• 
  5

  Deciding on the Basis of Research

  by hmike in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for those of you who aren't familiar with lee strobel, he is the author of christian popular apologetic books.

  his releases include the case for faith, the case for christ, and, most recently, the case for the real jesus.

  a journalist with a legal background, his case books contain interviews with scholars and experts who give scholarly defenses of the christian positions to which the books are devoted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  I'm disappointed that there weren't any responses. From what I've read, I think there are at least a few members here who've settled on their positions on the Bible, God, and Jesus based on an intellectual process rather than on a purely emotional reaction. I had hoped to get responses from different sides of the issues on what were the critical pieces of information that lead to faith or no-faith.

  For something so potentially important, it's hard to imagine settling for the default position (whatever that may be). Why let someone else decide? We already give up that freedom too often when it comes to deciding what to buy or who to vote for, but this...it's just too important, isn't it?

  It does seem to be virtually impossible to make this decision starting from a pure, neutral position and using only information collected and reasoning from it. It would be very hard to come to a conclusion contrary to what one's feelings. Emotions have a lot to do with what we do with information: is it threatening or affirming? Often, we just use information for justification to make us feel better about what we feel is true.

  It's interesting to observe what we do with evidence. I've been on a few jury panels, and have had the opportunity to evaluate evidence along with others. All panel members had access to the same information, yet we didn't all come to the same conclusions. In our modern culture, we all evaluate evidence pretty much the same way—with the same reasoning process (attorneys request removal of anyone who sounds like they may be deviant during the interview). In considering the evidence, what seems to differ is what weight we give various types of evidence, and this can be based partly on how our individual brains work and what experiences we have had. For example, attorneys often call on expert witnesses—people who, by training and experience, can offer expert testimony regarding other testimony or material evidence presented. How much weight each panelist gives to a particular appeal to authority can depend on many factors, but it may be as simple as how the panelist feels about those who claim to be authorities or experts. Someone who has had good experiences, who has found authorities trustworthy, will probably give expert testimony more weight than one who has felt deceived, misled, or even abused by those they trusted. The problem comes when, as is often the case, expert testimony is given on behalf of both sides.

  To set out to prove one side of an issue and end up concluding the other side is correct would require a commitment to truth over comfort (assuming the person believes that information can lead to truth). Those who change sides as a result of their investigations would probably not be ones who feel happy and fulfilled where they are. A change of position may simply be an abandonment of something that has caused frustration and confusion in favor of hope of something better.
• 
  5

  Deciding on the Basis of Research

  by hmike in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for those of you who aren't familiar with lee strobel, he is the author of christian popular apologetic books.

  his releases include the case for faith, the case for christ, and, most recently, the case for the real jesus.

  a journalist with a legal background, his case books contain interviews with scholars and experts who give scholarly defenses of the christian positions to which the books are devoted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  Hi all,

  For those of you who aren't familiar with Lee Strobel, he is the author of Christian popular apologetic books. His releases include The Case for Faith, The Case for Christ, and, most recently, The Case for the Real Jesus. A journalist with a legal background, his Case books contain interviews with scholars and experts who give scholarly defenses of the Christian positions to which the books are devoted. Of course, since he is presenting a case for the Christian side of the issue, he consults those who are known to support these positions. He does ask those he interviews about the alternate (opposing) viewpoints advocated by others. Strobel is a former atheist.

  I recently got to see Strobel in person where he spoke about his odyssey from atheist to Christian. His wife had become a Christian during their marriage and challenged him to examine the God-issue for himself. He took up the challenge, expecting to be able to discredit the Bible. For two years, he did research and interviewed scholars and experts (a method that would be expected of someone with his legal and journalistic backgrounds). At the end of his quest, he became convinced that the Bible is reliable and accurate, and particularly, that the accounts of Jesus, as written, were trustworthy. At that point, he acted on what he learned, he prayed, turned his life over to God, and his life was changed significantly for the better. That his life changed by turning to Jesus is not an unusual testimony, but that he arrived at that point by an intellectual route is interesting.

  In his latest book, The Case for the Real Jesus, Strobel mentions author Anne Rice, who also went from atheist to believer on the basis of her investigations. These testimonies also sound much like that of Josh McDowell, author of many popular apologetics books. So there have been those who have gone from atheist, agnostic, or skeptic to believer based on what they learned about the Bible in their investigations. Yet there are those, like Dr. Bart Ehrman, who went basically in the opposite direction—from Christian to agnostic—on the basis of investigating the evidence.

  For some of us, deciding for or against the God of the Bible is purely an emotional decision—evidence either way is not a factor. For others, our positions may originate with emotions—maybe subtle and developing over a period of time—and historical, literary, or textual evidence provides support for what we feel.

  From what I've read, it looks like some of you have come to your conclusions about God and the Bible through an intellectual route—research, questioning, and reasoning. I'd like to see what any of you who reached your position based on serious investigation would like write about your personal search, and what points were the most significant in bringing you to your conclusions.

  Thanks,

  Mike
• 
  77

  Do you really want to save us?

  by nvrgnbk in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is for the christians.. let's put our swords away.. try to convince those of us that have lost our faith to accept jesus christ and all that that acceptance entails.. pretend that our lives( eternal) depend on it.. that's what you believe isn't it?.

  this is an opportunity to win souls for christ.. yes.

  things may get heated.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  I agree with Narkissos. If it comes across as "Come on, save me, I dare you!" or "Come on, knock me over with flawless logic and evidence!" or if it sounds like a sales contest, "Convince me in 60 seconds." it just doesn't work like that. There's plenty of information out there—you're aware of it. It really has more to do with the listener or reader (you're aware of the Parable of the Sower, aren't you?) Humility is the place to start.
• 
  8

  HARD WIRED TO BELIEVE?

  by fifi40 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  having read through several of the recent threads on gods existence, religious hypochondria and those who simply state that they really dont care i asked myself the question why?.

  why do some people have faith and a desire to worship and believe?.

  why do some people despise faith and lack any sense of a 'greater' being?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  If you mean the afterlife, most religions seemed to be more about life in this world—good hunting, good weather for crops & a good harvest, victory over enemies, continuation of the family line, etc. Even the Old Testament doesn't directly say much about life after death.