Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Religion:- Why are old stories more believeable and to be believed than modern ones?

Why does a virgin having a kid become more likely because the story is really old?

Isn't bullshit, just bullshit... or isn't religion just bullshit.

most moderate religious people don't believe the stories of their faith have to be the literal truth in order for them to have spiritual value.

their age, in this regard, indicates they speak to human experience in some way that is meaningful to people.

so they are clearly valid for the reason they are used by the majority of people

Originally posted by inimalist
most moderate religious people don't believe the stories of their faith have to be the literal truth in order for them to have spiritual value.

their age, in this regard, indicates they speak to human experience in some way that is meaningful to people.

so they are clearly valid for the reason they are used by the majority of people

You miss the point. Christians, have to believe in certain things; like, Jesus was the son of God, to do this they must believe at least in part about miracles etc.

Tell a Roman Catholic (Worlds largest religion) the virgin birth didn't happen.

Tell a Muslim, the old testament isn't true...etc.

If a girl says god knocked her up, a simple DNA test will almost certainly prove her false.

Originally posted by ChristmasPast
You miss the point. Christians, have to believe in certain things; like, Jesus was the son of God, to do this they must believe at least in part about miracles etc.

Tell a Roman Catholic (Worlds largest religion) the virgin birth didn't happen.

Tell a Muslim, the old testament isn't true...etc.

If a girl says god knocked her up, a simple DNA test will almost certainly prove her false.

valid isnt the word you are looking for then. because, to the majority of people, religious texts are not an accurate measure of history already, it really says nothing about the validity of the text. or, you could say religious stories are valid tools of spirituality if not history.

Most people must believe the stories if they are wearing the lables.

Originally posted by inimalist
valid isnt the word you are looking for then.

This. The OP is talking about historical veracity. Validity is an entirely different matter, totally unrelated to literal truth.

It actually seems the opener has a far better understanding of the possible meanings of the word valid than most members of this site.
How sad, he is talking about miracle's and laws re: validity testing methinks. Is something siad anymore valid as a basis for a hypothesis because it was said long ago.. Of course not. Now the veracity of such a statement like the virgin birth is equally dubious.

The older a story is, the less validity it has. More time gone by = more chances for something to have changed.

BINGO

Because the ones which are older sounds more believable and the now adays ones are just the same ones but been changed. and there far makes it unbelievable.While the old one is.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Because the ones which are older sounds more believable and the now adays ones are just the same ones but been changed. and there far makes it unbelievable.While the old one is.

Originally posted by Orderinchaos
It actually seems the opener has a far better understanding of the possible meanings of the word valid than most members of this site.



Originally posted by Orderinchaos
How sad, he is talking about miracle's and laws re: validity testing methinks. Is something siad anymore valid as a basis for a hypothesis because it was said long ago.. Of course not. Now the veracity of such a statement like the virgin birth is equally dubious.

not quite

validity deals with how well a model or idea represents a phenomenon in question. So, if you are trying to measure a person's startle reflex, a study is valid if it actually produces a startled response from subjects.

So, if the question is "can a story's age be a valid measure of its truth?", the answer isn't as clear as you might want to believe. While I generally agree, in principle, that it is not a valid measure, remember that one of the most important aspects of the scientific method is replication and review of models and theories. In fact, in cases like the theory of evolution, the fact it has survived so long and so many empirical tests is a very profound statement about its likely truth.

Further, if we redefine the question as "can a story's age be a valid measure of its X", we can use many different terms here that produce very valid measures. For instance, the story's age can be a valid measure of its age. Or, in terms of what I argued above, the age of a story can be a valid measure of its ability to speak to personal human experiences in a meaningful way. Arguably, one of the reasons, among others of course, that these stories have survived for so long is that they are able to speak to the human condition and provide spiritual satisfaction.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The older a story is, the less validity it has. More time gone by = more chances for something to have changed.

Amen.

Try a game of "Telephone" involving billions of people over a 2000 year time span.

That ***t's gonna be uber-twisted.

Originally posted by inimalist




not quite

validity deals with how well a model or idea represents a phenomenon in question. So, if you are trying to measure a person's startle reflex, a study is valid if it actually produces a startled response from subjects.

So, if the question is "can a story's age be a valid measure of its truth?", the answer isn't as clear as you might want to believe. While I generally agree, in principle, that it is not a valid measure, remember that one of the most important aspects of the scientific method is replication and review of models and theories. In fact, in cases like the theory of evolution, the fact it has survived so long and so many empirical tests is a very profound statement about its likely truth.

Further, if we redefine the question as "can a story's age be a valid measure of its X", we can use many different terms here that produce very valid measures. For instance, the story's age can be a valid measure of its age. Or, in terms of what I argued above, the age of a story can be a valid measure of its ability to speak to personal human experiences in a meaningful way. Arguably, one of the reasons, among others of course, that these stories have survived for so long is that they are able to speak to the human condition and provide spiritual satisfaction.

You're trying to over complicate things because the other two poaters are correct. Is a story anymore 'logically true', because it's old. Answer no. They are right you're wrong.

Anyway, the real reason these stories have lasted because they were simple models to give order of the environment. That includes relationships and what you term 'spirituality'. Where I live in Malaysia I have temples everywhere. I doubt spirituality.

Originally posted by inimalist
or instance, the story's age can be a valid measure of its age.

Made me chuckle.

Originally posted by inimalist




not quite

validity deals with how well a model or idea represents a phenomenon in question. So, if you are trying to measure a person's startle reflex, a study is valid if it actually produces a startled response from subjects.

So, if the question is "can a story's age be a valid measure of its truth?", the answer isn't as clear as you might want to believe. While I generally agree, in principle, that it is not a valid measure, remember that one of the most important aspects of the scientific method is replication and review of models and theories. In fact, in cases like the theory of evolution, the fact it has survived so long and so many empirical tests is a very profound statement about its likely truth.

Further, if we redefine the question as "can a story's age be a valid measure of its X", we can use many different terms here that produce very valid measures. For instance, the story's age can be a valid measure of its age. Or, in terms of what I argued above, the age of a story can be a valid measure of its ability to speak to personal human experiences in a meaningful way. Arguably, one of the reasons, among others of course, that these stories have survived for so long is that they are able to speak to the human condition and provide spiritual satisfaction.

This is the simplest explanation for why you're wrong and they are right.

In science and statistics, validity has no single agreed definition but generally refers to the extent to which a concept, conclusion or measurement is well-founded and corresponds accurately to the real world

So does being old mean it corresponds more accurately with what we know? Obviously not, because we know virgins don't give birth and dinosaurs were around before man. ;-)

It's O.K. for you and the mod to be wrong and an asian to be right.

Originally posted by Validity
You're trying to over complicate things because the other two poaters are correct. Is a story anymore 'logically true', because it's old. Answer no. They are right you're wrong.

if your point is that I was being pedantic, sure, I was taking his question very literally.

however, in terms of how to use the word "valid", I'm not mistaken at all

Originally posted by Validity
Anyway, the real reason these stories have lasted because they were simple models to give order of the environment. That includes relationships and what you term 'spirituality'. Where I live in Malaysia I have temples everywhere. I doubt spirituality.

there are probably hundreds of reasons why they have lasted. My point is that their usefullness for spiritual purposes is probably one of them. For instance, I'm sure people focus on certain books and parts of the bible for spiritual reasons, and abandon others, simply because they aren't as useful as a spiritual tool.

Originally posted by Validity
This is the simplest explanation for why you're wrong and they are right.

In science and statistics, validity has no single agreed definition but generally refers to the extent to which a concept, conclusion or measurement is well-founded and corresponds accurately to the real world

So does being old mean it corresponds more accurately with what we know? Obviously not, because we know virgins don't give birth and dinosaurs were around before man. ;-)

actually, I agreed with this, and that is simply a more complex way of defining validity than I used above (also only as validity is used in science, which is not the only way that the term can be used)

however, even then, your point isn't totally true

many stories, re: theories, are absolutly considered to be more true because they have survived decades of testing and replication. So, like I said above, one of the most profound statements about the truth of things like Newtonian physics, or the theory of evolution, or any of these Victorian ideas in science, is that they have been around for so long.

so, even in terms of the definition of validity you want to use above, you are incorrect. There certainly are stories for which age is a good indication of their veracity.

Originally posted by Validity
It's O.K. for you and the mod to be wrong and an asian to be right.

if you were right, I'd have no problem conceiding it

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Amen.

Try a game of "Telephone" involving billions of people over a 2000 year time span.

That ***t's gonna be uber-twisted.

by that arguement, the theory of evolution should be less true now than it was when Darwin wrote it.

time alone is probably not a good way to judge if something is true

Originally posted by inimalist
by that arguement, the theory of evolution should be less true now than it was when Darwin wrote it.

time alone is probably not a good way to judge if something is true


Actually Darwins theory has been heavily modified....

Originally posted by inimalist
if your point is that I was being pedantic, sure, I was taking his question very literally.

however, in terms of how to use the word "valid", I'm not mistaken at all



there are probably hundreds of reasons why they have lasted. My point is that their usefullness for spiritual purposes is probably one of them. For instance, I'm sure people focus on certain books and parts of the bible for spiritual reasons, and abandon others, simply because they aren't as useful as a spiritual tool.



actually, I agreed with this, and that is simply a more complex way of defining validity than I used above (also only as validity is used in science, which is not the only way that the term can be used)

however, even then, your point isn't totally true

many stories, re: theories, are absolutly considered to be more true because they have survived decades of testing and replication. So, like I said above, one of the most profound statements about the truth of things like Newtonian physics, or the theory of evolution, or any of these Victorian ideas in science, is that they have been around for so long.

so, even in terms of the definition of validity you want to use above, you are incorrect. There certainly are stories for which age is a good indication of their veracity.



if you were right, I'd have no problem conceiding it

If you knew how to spell 'conceding', 'absolutely' etc, I'd take you seriously. Actually you are mistaken as 'valid' has multiple uses and no fixed definition, as they other have tried to explain, his definition is equally valid to yours and in context superior.

I have never seen someone so blatantly sock in order to support themselves in a discussion.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I have never seen someone so blatantly sock in order to support themselves in a discussion.

Please get me sock checked, I know what socking is we have the internet in Asia. i think you will find I am not a sock, I am Malysian.

Originally posted by Validity
I am not a sock, I am Malysian. ...







Ha!

Originally posted by Validity
Actually Darwins theory has been heavily modified....

exactly. The "game of telephone" played by scientists has actually increased our understanding of evolution

Originally posted by Validity
Actually you are mistaken as 'valid' has multiple uses and no fixed definition, as they other have tried to explain,

which was my point from the beginning

Originally posted by Validity
his definition is equally valid to yours and in context superior.

only if the context is "using the bible as a valid form of history".

Even then, the Bible is commonly used by historians, as some of the oldest stories do have some historical veracity. I'm not on my computer at home, so I can't quote it, but the lecture series "War and World History" gives an excellent view on how to use religious text for historical purposes

though, I've already agreed with your point. You shouldn't believe, or disbelieve, in the bible specifically because it is old

Originally posted by inimalist
exactly. The "game of telephone" played by scientists has actually increased our understanding of evolution



which was my point from the beginning



only if the context is "using the bible as a valid form of history".

Even then, the Bible is commonly used by historians, as some of the oldest stories do have some historical veracity. I'm not on my computer at home, so I can't quote it, but the lecture series "War and World History" gives an excellent view on how to use religious text for historical purposes

though, I've already agreed with your point. You shouldn't believe, or disbelieve, in the bible specifically because it is old

Well O.K. you agree with the others and I. I'm glad you can change your stance. You're probably better reading Dawkins, this is actually a quote from him the thread starter has used. Another reason why you and the mod look silly.

Originally posted by Validity
Actually Darwins theory has been heavily modified....

That was one of the worst possible comparisons you could have made.

What you reference are not Darwin's original theory: those are alternate versions with their own "authors" having ownership of those and they make a point to differentiate their work from others.


Darwin's original theory is still preserved at 100% accuracy because we still have his original writing on it. (Saw the little manual he wrote his stuff down in.)

On top of that, we have original publications available.


This is completely different than the old testaments writings which contain 0 original manuscripts and 0 original "published" works.

Originally posted by Validity
If you knew how to spell 'conceding', 'absolutely' etc, I'd take you seriously. Actually you are mistaken as 'valid' has multiple uses and no fixed definition, as they other have tried to explain, his definition is equally valid to yours and in context superior.

Being able to spell words properly is not a measure of how poor or how well someone is making their point. Though it is true that it can detract from the "appearance" of their education and intelligence if they can't even right click a word and left click on the auto-correct's recommendation. I blame that on "lazy" rather than someone being stupid. Granted, I rarely use the auto-correct as I post my of my shit from work where we do not have an auto-correct feature like Firefox has...but me being able to spell words better than some should in no way make my points better than theirs. There are people that post here that have original languages other than English. I think it is quite douchy to judge another based on their ability to produce proper grammar and spelling; as I've said in other posts, as long as what they post can be understood without much effort to decipher, grammar, punctuation, and spelling be damned. In fact, I'm an advocate of phonetic spelling.


Also, in the first post of yours, you did not put an apostrophe before you "s" in "Darwins", which makes that word not possessive.

There should also be a "comma" right after the word "Actually", as well.

In your second post, you should have another comma after the word "absolutely" in your first sentence.

You make the "actually" comma mistake, again, in your second sentence. In your second sentence, after you second "as", you should have said "as the others" instead of "as they other" because you have to have proper adjective and object agreement in number. The last "and" should have a comma directly after it and the phrase "in context" should end in a comma to prevent run-on confusion.

See, this is why you do not criticize another for how shitty their posts are: it is extremely easy to be criticized for the same reasons.

Also, inimalist is correct as his explanation is broader and, in context, relates back to the original topic.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I have never seen someone so blatantly sock in order to support themselves in a discussion.

I did it before on another website that I was a "global mod*" on, just to get a laugh from my members.

It was pretty funny when only 2 members knew what was happening as they others argued with that fake account. Good times.

*We called ourselves "super moderators", not global moderators.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was one of the worst possible comparisons you could have made.

What you reference are not Darwin's original theory: those are alternate versions with their own "authors" having ownership of those and they make a point to differentiate their work from others.


Darwin's original theory is still preserved at 100% accuracy because we still have his original writing on it. (Saw the little manual he wrote his stuff down in.)

On top of that, we have original publications available.


This is completely different than the old testaments writings which contain 0 original manuscripts and 0 original "published" works.



Being able to spell words properly is not a measure of how poor or how well someone is making their point. Though it is true that it can detract from the "appearance" of their education and intelligence if they can't even right click a word and left click on the auto-correct's recommendation. I blame that on "lazy" rather than someone being stupid. Granted, I rarely use the auto-correct as I post my of my shit from work where we do not have an auto-correct feature like Firefox has...but me being able to spell words better than some should in no way make my points better than theirs. There are people that post here that have original languages other than English. I think it is quite douchy to judge another based on their ability to produce proper grammar and spelling; as I've said in other posts, as long as what they post can be understood without much effort to decipher, grammar, punctuation, and spelling be damned. In fact, I'm an advocate of phonetic spelling.


Also, in the first post of yours, you did not put an apostrophe before you "s" in "Darwins", which makes that word not possessive.

There should also be a "comma" right after the word "Actually", as well.

In your second post, you should have another comma after the word "absolutely" in your first sentence.

You make the "actually" comma mistake, again, in your second sentence. In your second sentence, after you second "as", you should have said "as the others" instead of "as they other" because you have to have proper adjective and object agreement in number. The last "and" should have a comma directly after it and the phrase "in context" should end in a comma to prevent run-on confusion.

See, this is why you do not criticize another for how shitty their posts are: it is extremely easy to be criticized for the same reasons.

Also, inimalist is correct as his explanation is broader and, in context, relates back to the original topic.




I did it before on another website that I was a "global mod*" on, just to get a laugh from my members.

It was pretty funny when only 2 members knew what was happening as they others argued with that fake account. Good times.

*We called ourselves "super moderators", not global moderators.

You write a lot, but say and understand very little.....

Originally posted by Validity
You write a lot, but say and understand very little.....

K.

Still love you, Whirly. When I get to the UK, do you wanna workout together? I could show you one of my dreadful leg workouts or we could do something of your choice.

man, not to drop an OT or anything, but does Whirly just get banned, period, anytime he shows up?

I guess he could always be just trying to troll, but a couple of these sock names have seemed willing to discuss things, like, I dont think the OP or "validity" did anything specifically worth banning, you guys know-what-i-am-saying? Is it just policy that he is gone as soon as we identify a new member as whirly?

Originally posted by inimalist
man, not to drop an OT or anything, but does Whirly just get banned, period, anytime he shows up?

I guess he could always be just trying to troll, but a couple of these sock names have seemed willing to discuss things, like, I dont think the OP or "validity" did anything specifically worth banning, you guys know-what-i-am-saying? Is it just policy that he is gone as soon as we identify a new member as whirly?

Well, socking is a bannable offense. So, yeah. I wish they'd give him some time though, he makes interesting points sometimes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, socking is a bannable offense. So, yeah. I wish they'd give him some time though, he makes interesting points sometimes.

oh, fair enough, I was just wondering

half the time I can't tell if he is serious or just trying to troll, but ya, he does participate

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, fair enough, I was just wondering

half the time I can't tell if he is serious or just trying to troll, but ya, he does participate

Well, I can see why the Mods have to ban him, they can't just let one person not have to stick to the rules at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I can see why the Mods have to ban him, they can't just let one person not have to stick to the rules at all.

no, that does totally make sense, I was just wondering out loud