Funny that Mr. Sibrel asks astronauts to swear on a bible. He believes in Gods, but not landing on the moon?! Doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to figure out which belief has the wider body of evidence and biggest believablity. Of course everyone knows that God used his magic powers to protect the astronauts from the dangerous radiation of space.

For a number of people religious belief is acknowledged to be axiomatic. That is, taken on faith. They have reasons for believing in their religion, which may have little to do with evidence and reason, and they freely admit this. Similarly they realize that those reasons are valid only for them and may not apply to anyone else. Thus attacking or defending a religious belief on purely intellectual grounds is not often useful.

Of course not everyone behaves that charitably. There are those who are unable to recognize the axiomatic nature of religious belief and embark upon all manner of verbal gymnastics to establish it as an intellectual belief. Futile and counterproductive, in my opinion.

Whether Bart Sibrel is one of the former or one of the latter is something I can't judge. And it's largely important except that it addresses whether he himself considers his religious beliefs to be somewhat commensurate with his belief about the alleged moon hoax. All I can say for certain is that he appears to have strrong religious beliefs and strong pro-hoax beliefs. I don't have enough information to say that he considers them equally supported in an intellectual sense.

For a number of people atheism is acknowledged to be axiomatic. That is, taken on faith. They have reasons for believing in atheism, which may have little to do with evidence and reason, and they freely admit this. Similarly they realize that those reasons are valid only for them and may not apply to anyone else. Thus attacking or defending atheism on purely intellectual grounds is not often useful.

Of course not everyone behaves that charitably. There are those who are unable to recognize the axiomatic nature of atheism and embark upon all manner of verbal gymnastics to establish it as an intellectual belief. Futile and counterproductive, in my opinion.

It has been awhile since I have made use of the term "axiomatic" but I thought that it was synonymous with a priori, which is to say "true just by thinking about it." That is certainly different than saying "true without needing the need for justification" which is what people of faith believe about, well, belief.

That being said, while I am agnostic I have no problem with faith as such. My problem is with those that assume that you should act on the a posteriori (knowable through experience) world based on matters of faith, and condemn codemn those that do not.

If one were being generous, one might say, "Bart Sibrel believes so strongly in the Bible that he will accept anyone's oath if sworn upon it."

If one were being nasty, one might say, "Bart Sibrel, not being satisfied calling people liars, also wants to call them damned."

Silas

"Axiom" has nuances of meaning, but they all dance around the concept of a proposition taken as true without proof. That may include propositions whose truth is intuitively or observationally obvious, and also propositions accepted for the sake of argument.

The point is not to place value judgments on these beliefs, but simply to note how they are held by the people who hold them. Obviously this would apply to a belief in a deity or a belief that a deity does not exist. Either could be said to be an axiom.

BTW, I am a Christian, if that matters to anyone.

The contrast I wish to draw is between religious (or counter-religious, if you prefer) beliefs held on a basis other than observation and reason (but valid reasons nonetheless), and beliefs which are most properly held on the basis of observation and reason -- namely the investigation of recent history and science.

How about the language of Tongues or perhaps the sensation of an Otter Body Experience. Has anyone here witnessed people speaking in Tongues? I have, and I still find it quite unsettling. Of course, when witnessing such an event, you are faced with two possibilities: It is (yet further) proof that a higher order exists (God), or the display is somehow artificial.

Of course, for ultimate proof of the existence of a higher order, it is said that anyone can "discover" the truth for themselves. If you want to discover "God" bad enough, then simply ask him into your life. If you ask when, in reality, you are none too bothered about discovering the truth, or if you desire something other than God more, then you will discover nothing. If you long for God, then he will answer you. Do not ask for the sake of asking. Do not ask for merely the acquisition of proof alone. You must ask because you want to get to "know" God. If you ask whilst somewhere at the back of your mind you are also thinking of going out later that night and getting drunk, or if have thoughts of popping over to a friends house to play Command & Conquer IV on his brand spanking new Personal Computer, then you won't get anywhere. You must place God first, then ask.

Jay's points are good. Another interesting perspective about the 'religeous' hoax-believer, is that his faith in his religion is so blind; he suggests by his actions that his belief in man landing on the moon would change if an astronaut swears, hand on Bible, that he did touch the moon.

Funny thing is, this suggests that his belief in his religion guarantees that someone's earth-bound words are indeed valid, simply by taking this action, without considering whether or not the action carries the same value for that person.

Blind faith in a superbeing, but zero faith in people, unless, of course, they promise while touching a man-made book with an apendage.

Hmmmmm - just doesn't seem to 'hold water' with me. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but what is religion, without some faith in other humans? If you have no faith in other people, your religion has no value.

This "fact" would seem to put those with Attention Deficit Disorder in a rather precarious position. Humans, as we well know, are not perfect, and I daresay they rarely achieve the perfect mental clarity your God demands. Though, they may try, and I suspect that this is all that God really expects or wants.

With all due respect to your beliefs, Mr. K, I think you're committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. I can think of one other, quite possible explanation: that the person speaking in tongues is quite sincere in their behavior, but that it is motivated by internal emotions rather than inspired by an external deity.

And is this sort of prosyletizing really appropriate for this forum?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-11-05 20:38 ]</font>

I noticed a similar thing. If my memory serves me correctly, out of all the astronauts Bart Sibrel confronted, only one -- Dr. Edgar Mitchell -- obliged and did as Mr. Sibrel requested, prior to showing him the front door. The problems is, I am not sure Mr. Mitchell believes in "God".

If I were Sibrel, I would seek confirmation from Neil Armstrong, who not only believes in God but has even walked in Jesus Christ's footsteps.

Actually, such a "mental clarity" may explain why more people who are down-on-their-luck or suicidal find God than those who are always pre-occupied or grounded in materialism.

That's true - but my point relates more to the hypocracy that he would believe that someone believes in, and respects God, just by that person making a testament to that claim. However, until that perceived claim of faith, that person is considered to be an outright liar.

So apparently, it's easier to believe Mr. Armstrong when he says he believes in God, than it is to believe that he landed on the moon.

Now I ask you (rhetorically); how can anyone know that I believe in God, or that I believe that man has been to the moon, just by my saying that I do? Even in his religious state of mind, Mr. Sibrel's faith is not consistent. He does not trust a statement of fact, but he will trust a statement of faith? He is not even clear in his philosophy, so he cannot possibly understand a religious principle.

The "mental clarity" of the down and out is indistinguishable from common desperation.

And this isn't the forum for this discussion.

Does anyone know what IS the proper forum for this discussion?

Well, if what they are mouthing has no correlation or consistency and is actually pure gibberish then I would tend to class that as unreal.

This is actually relevant since kcbergmo stated: "Of course everyone knows that God used his magic powers to protect the astronauts from the dangerous radiation of space."

You see, even some old Apollo hands share this view. Well, not that exact view but one not too dissimilar. For example, it was God that guided the Apollo 13 spacecraft back to Earth.

Jerry Woodfill Tells of God's Miraculous Protection
by Megan Basham for ChristianSpotlight.com

God's work in the space program
Jerry Woodfill

Here's what Wade Frazier has to say about this:

• There are “reasonable” explanations for those strange events, but there are issues with the Apollo 13 mission that will not go away easily. People involved with Apollo 13 have written as if there was divine providence or other strangeness happening. Apollo 13’s alarm system engineer, Jerry Woodfill, has posted his account to the Internet, where he states that the Apollo 13 drama seemed to be guided by an “unrehearsed script,” and the Apollo 13 drama led him to finding God and religion. NASA sent Arthur C. Clark a report on Apollo 13, and a NASA administrator wrote on it, “Just as you always said it would be.” If there was not something funny going on there, it can make one start believing in strange coincidence.

I've had an Otter Body Experience before. Unfortunately, I am adverse to the idea of being stuck with a set of buck teeth, whiskers and an absolute whopper of a tail, so it was a big relief when my body finally went back to normal...

I think JayUtah summed this whole argument up quite well. I also think the discussion belongs in this forum like a nudist colony belongs in Antarctica.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

I was wondering when someone was going to make a tease about the "otter"!

As per tongues, well, using that argument to either prove or disprove anything (reality vs. faked) tends to become a bad idea. I only know that I, personally, could never fake speaking another language if I tried (well, I have tried, and it doesn't work; I can't even fake French and Spanish, which I have taken at least 3 yrs. each of). For me, I know there is a difference (the reality), and am content with that. (Yes, I be a Holy Ghost-hoppin', foot-stompin', hand-clappin', banner-wavin', pew-jumpin', chandelier-hangin' charasmaniac! OK, maybe not the last two; my pastor would have a cow!!!). It's where I find my real happiness. Hey, we all believe what our beliefs allow us to believe and don't believe what our beliefs won't believe. That's the cut and dry of it, as I see.

As per the original post, about Bart Sibrel and the Bible, it saddens me to hear that he claims strong adherence to a religious faith when his actions have been so contrary to such. I'd like to buy him a ticket to go to some certain religious conferences where they put the focus on pursuing God and living a godly life.

That's my take on this "polar bear club" discussion (gotcha, overrated [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] ).




_________________
"Once again, we find that science is a two-headed beast. One head is nice, it gives us aspirin and other modern conveniences,...but the other head of science is bad! Oh beware the other head of science, Arthur, it bites!" - The Tick vs. Dinosaur Neil

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-11-06 08:44 ]</font>

Hmmm..."buck teeth"..."whopper of a tail"...
sounds more like a beaver than an otter...
no wonder you didn't enjoy the experience. Beavers'll work you dead; but you'd like otters. They're real playful. Absolute balloon heads. But lotsa fun.

I had an otter body experience once, after which I swore off drinking. I swear, she looked like Miss America when we left the bar...

Anyway, I've been thinking about the claims that God somehow helped the crew of Apollo 13 get back to Earth safely. I wonder why he/she/it didn't prevent the explosion in the first place?

__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain.