THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: Dotes on 14 Dec 2008, 21:23
-
Why's Jeph raggin' so hard on crazy atheist Penelope? As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism. I understand that they're just characters and dialogue, but it all comes from somewhere, and I don't like the way some of her views are being treated in the comic.
I know I shouldn't complain and just be happy that Jeph makes such a great comic, but I can't help but be bothered by the latest few Penelope strips. I'm not making a big deal about it though, I just want to see what a few other people think. Are you bothered by it? Or does it seems like a fair portrayal of atheists that you met? Or am I just a crazy person who gets offended by nothing?
Discuss.
-
I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty laid back about it. Once upon a time, such was not the case. I was an asshole evangelical atheist. There are all types of atheists. Some, like Penny, have yet to relax and accept that there is no god and, yes, the world has yet to acknowledge the fact.
He's riding it because 1) It's true to character and 2) it's good for a few laughs and PROFIT) it may lead to future character development as the hardcore Penny bounces of the supremely laid back* cast. And Wil.
* With one or two exceptions.
-
Lots of people have opinions on things; if you dare to scratch the surface, what lies beneath might not be to your liking.
"Everyone's nice until you get to know them." ;)
Or something like that.
Maybe "nice" is actually "normal" in the expression, but I think this one works too.
How's this to sum things up:
"Blasphemy is a blast for me."
If someone asks about my religious affiliation, or lack thereof, I'll politely reply that I am without religion. If it takes a turn from there, such as, "Oh, you're going to Hell you know, you'd better convert to the RIGHT religion, which mine happens to be," or, "Wow, I thought all smart people knew that <deity> existed," then I shall return fire with proportional intensity.
-
I have indeed meet atheists like Penelope.
There are atheisms of skepticism, even sincere doubt, that challenge the idea of god.
There are also atheisms of certainty, of faith in there not being a god.
I also agree that it fits what we seen from Penelope. She seems to have defined what she is/isn't likes/dislikes very carefully, and rails violently against that which stands against her norms. That certainly reminds of me of people I know. :wink:
-
I'm not particularly bothered by it. Truth of it is I sympathize with her and feel the same way. My parents are Catholic, well my mother's a hardcore one and my father's Christian in general in the way that he doesn't believe in any specific denomination, so I really feel the whole being raised under religious indoctrination and feeling that it's all highly irrational. You might say that I'm more of the 'militant' atheist in the way that I'm opposed to things such as teaching irrationality to children, indoctrinating them at an age where they're intellectually defenceless, labeling them under their parent's religion and so forth, but neither do I run around bashing religion and preaching the Gospel of Joe Pesci (kudos to those who get the reference).
Like christians and people of other religion, there are many kinds of atheists and Penelope just happens to be more 'fundamentalist', as you call it. I don't think it really paints atheism under a bad color. If people are so close-minded that they always think of atheism as being that way, then I doubt the personality of a webcomic character will make that much of a diference.
-
I have indeed meet atheists like Penelope.
There are atheisms of skepticism, even sincere doubt, that challenge the idea of god.
There are also atheisms of certainty, of faith in there not being a god.
I also agree that it fits what we seen from Penelope. She seems to have defined what she is/isn't likes/dislikes very carefully, and rails violently against that which stands against her norms. That certainly reminds of me of people I know. :wink:
Excuse me, but isn't god challengin the idea of atheism? If you say sth. exists, you have to prove it, not vice versa. Just a thought...
As atheist I don't usually go out of my way to tell people how I disagree with their believes but have met religious people that act like they are ofended by my opinion... Go figure.
-
Granted, every person is different, but strip 1289 is basically the usual silly criticism against outspoken atheists in caricature form. And this does bug me a bit. Personally, I see no reason why us atheists shouldnt be outspoken. We have the weight of arguments on our side, dont we?
-
But that is exactly the annoying fact which the strip gets wrong. Sure both sides think they are right - but normally Atehists dont go aroudn screaming "we are right" like christian extremists, do, but rather go "Its likely theres no god because <argument1>, <argument2>, <argument3>". Whereas the theological christian arguments are "Its in this series of book once started by an insignifcant tribe of goat herder some millenia ago" and the philosophcial arguments are all baffling stupid.
Its not about permission to believe silly things. Of course, everybody is free to do so. Its about regognicing them as silly, and not giving SOME silly beliefs a preferred treatment just because they have the word "religion" and some centuries of history to back their silly claims!
-
Granted, every person is different, but strip 1289 is basically the usual silly criticism against outspoken atheists in caricature form. And this does bug me a bit. Personally, I see no reason why us atheists shouldnt be outspoken. We have the weight of arguments on our side, dont we?
To the best of my knowledge, noone really likes people who are really outspoken about their beliefs, right or wrong. Even Jesus was mostly the kind of passive, listen-if-you-want kind of preacher.
Its about regognicing them as silly, and not giving SOME silly beliefs a preferred treatment just because they have the word "religion" and some centuries of history to back their silly claims!
It's also about respect for another's beliefs. Do you think that calling someone a buttfucking-stupid idiot is going to make them any more amenable to your claims? Remember what Jeph taught us about calling someone "irrational" now, and maybe you'll gain some insight.
-
But that is exactly the annoying fact which the strip gets wrong. Sure both sides think they are right - but normally Atheists don't go around screaming "we are right" like christian extremists, do, but rather go "Its likely theres no god because <argument1>, <argument2>, <argument3>"
A lot of which boil down to "There's not enough evidence, God", as put by Bertrand Russell and paraphrased by Penelope. And some atheists get very worked up about the fact that some (indeed most) people hold some form of religious belief, like Richard Dawkins and Penelope. Penelope is just presenting various views with the intent to output some humour at the end of it all, not intended to represent what "atheists" are, either for or against.
I'd also pay attention to the word normally in your second sentence. Penelope may not be a "normal" atheist in your sense of the word.
I really wouldn't worry about it. I found it an interesting twist as Penelope has up to now been more or less displaying all the signs of being a stereotypical raised-as-and-continuing-to-be-Christian girl (at least until the erotic poetry event, in my view). The revelation about her lack of faith puts a neat spin on her character.
-
But that is exactly the annoying fact which the strip gets wrong. Sure both sides think they are right - but normally Atehists dont go aroudn screaming "we are right" like christian extremists, do, but rather go "Its likely theres no god because <argument1>, <argument2>, <argument3>".
Yeah, and normally Christians don't go around screaming their balls off about the fact that they are going to heaven when they die and you better come too. That's why the people who do are known as extremists. It's considered an extreme viewpoint to discount all else but your beliefs and go around perpetrating overtly obnoxious acts in the name of a book or a quote or a set of logical rules, etc.
Whereas the theological christian arguments are "Its in this series of book once started by an insignifcant tribe of goat herder some millenia ago" and the philosophcial arguments are all baffling stupid."
Keep in mind that some atheist arguments consist of "There's no way there is a god because a set of universal rules set by old smart dudes hundreds of years back said so." Objectively speaking, Christianity and Atheism's definition of the world and afterlife are just as plausible as one another. It's just as plausible that our chunk of rock in space has grown life because we're placed just right in this particular solar system (which is basically a mathematical impossibility) or because some otherworldly being of all-importance wanted to make us just because. It's all about the individual's decision of what makes sense.
Honestly, anyone who asserts their viewpoints as wholly correct or above another person's beliefs for whatever reason has lost a bit of perspective. We're all just individuals in the world, and religion is a way of joining a collective and being something bigger than yourself and connecting with others. One person doesn't have a right to say that their way is wholly correct, because no one knows. It's a mystery, and our beliefs are just our way of trying to demystify the world, and propagating your heavenly solution over everyone else's is a bit self-absorbed, and generally just serves to confuse and upset other people. Discussions on religion are great because you connect with a person over your views of the world in which you both inhabit, but arguments break that connection and just upsets everyone. What's the use of being TOTALLY CORRECT about something you can't know if that notion only serves to disconnect people from your view?
-
... strip 1289 is basically the usual silly criticism against outspoken atheists in caricature form.
It could also be read as simply being characterization of Rhymes-with-antelope Gaines, and that seems more likely given Jeph's own religious orientation. We've seen or heard of Penne-lope equally passionate about De Beers, Hemingway, alphabetizing bookshelves, and calling ex-girlfriends "crazy".
Also, saying something to the effect "But it's different when I say it because *I'm* right" is such a universal human weakness that you don't have to take it as a reflection on the views of whoever's saying it.
-
But that is exactly the annoying fact which the strip gets wrong. Sure both sides think they are right - but normally Atehists dont go aroudn screaming "we are right" like christian extremists, do
Atheist "extremists" do! There are Christians who don't bug others about their religion and Chiristians that do, just like there are atheists who don't take potshots at religious folks, and atheists who do. Like I said, people are always individuals, perceiving them as groups whose members all think and act the same way is a dangerous road to go down.
but rather go "Its likely theres no god because <argument1>, <argument2>, <argument3>". Whereas the theological christian arguments are "Its in this series of book once started by an insignifcant tribe of goat herder some millenia ago" and the philosophcial arguments are all baffling stupid.
There is no point in arguing religion with logic, from either side of the argument. It's about faith. Faith has got nothing to do with logic.
Its not about permission to believe silly things. Of course, everybody is free to do so. Its about regognicing them as silly, and not giving SOME silly beliefs a preferred treatment just because they have the word "religion" and some centuries of history to back their silly claims!
How is Christianity any more silly than your world view just because it is based on faith instead of logic?
I honestly think that from either standpoint, from atheism or religion, it's give or take from both faith and logic. Our world being habitable and then humans coming into existence are prime examples of it. From a logical point of view, the probability of either happening in mathematical terms is impossible, so help from an outside source to guide the creation process would logically make more sense than just a random bang and random primordial oozes mixing together to make a planet and human life, respectively. To me, it just seems like there's more faith involved in the latter than the former :laugh:
-
Our world being habitable and then humans coming into existence are prime examples of it. From a logical point of view, the probability of either happening in mathematical terms is impossible, so help from an outside source to guide the creation process would logically make more sense than just a random bang and random primordial oozes mixing together to make a planet and human life, respectively.
The bit about this arguement that always amuses me is the fact that IF things were just random, and it all happened spontaneously, the only place that would have the potential to argue about whether or not it was truly random is the place where the exeption just proved the rule.
-
Yeah, but then the spontaneity would have had to occur over and over again, hundreds of millions of times, and wouldn't truly be random, but rather a pattern :wink:
-
Yeah, but then the spontaneity would have had to occur over and over again, hundreds of millions of times, and wouldn't truly be random, but rather a pattern :wink:
There are never random occurrences. Only patterns. It's in the math.
-
Yeah, but then the spontaneity would have had to occur over and over again, hundreds of millions of times, and wouldn't truly be random, but rather a pattern
The point is, the odds say it'll happen eventually, and the only ones who get to question it are the ones who the odds favor. 10000 coin flips resulting in heads in a row is highly unlikely, but the odds say it'll happen.
-
If I believe am invisible space monkey that grants immortality is in my bedroom closet then I am in my full right to believe so. Crazy? Sure! But to me, it's just as crazy not to believe in the monkey. To me, the monkey is a very real thing. Why shouldn't I be allowed to believe in the monkey? Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean I don't.
but then, when you die, what happens to the monkey? :wink:
-
Yeah, but then the spontaneity would have had to occur over and over again, hundreds of millions of times, and wouldn't truly be random, but rather a pattern :wink:
There are never random occurrences. Only patterns. It's in the math.
Once you get down to the quantum level though, predictability pretty much breaks down.
I honestly think that from either standpoint, from atheism or religion, it's give or take from both faith and logic. Our world being habitable and then humans coming into existence are prime examples of it. From a logical point of view, the probability of either happening in mathematical terms is impossible, so help from an outside source to guide the creation process would logically make more sense than just a random bang and random primordial oozes mixing together to make a planet and human life, respectively. To me, it just seems like there's more faith involved in the latter than the former :laugh:
Invariably, Occam's Razor comes up. Possibilities:
- A finite universe, with a finite quantity of matter and energy, and a finite, but large, number of possibilities.
- An infinitely powerful, infinitely complex deity.
Finite complexity would seem more likely.
And there's always the question of, who created the creator? By the same reasoning of creating a complex Universe, a more complex creator would need to exist. And from there, it's just turtles all the way down.
If <deity> is exempt from the laws of spacetime, why not exempt the Big Bang singularity from it as well? Stephen Hawking said that asking "what came before the Big Bang" is like asking "What's south of the south pole?" As best as we can figure, space, energy, and time erupted from the Big Bang singularity. There was a "before," but not in any terms we can quantify, because we exist within space and time. What is there when space and time don't exist? I can merely quantify it as "something," but I can not be any more specific.
There's also the Anthropic Principle: If the Universe wasn't hospitable to any sentient life forms, then there wouldn't be anyone around to ask, "Why does the Universe hate life?"
Though indeed, 99.99999.......% of the volume of the Universe is inhospitable to us, and portions of it are utterly hostile. One of those good burps of gamma radiation that are occasionally spotted here and there could quite severely damage life on Earth - since gamma rays are just another wavelength of light, our only warning would come when sensors detected a really bright flash of gamma rays, coupled with the shedding of a large portion of the ozone layer, and possibly more of the atmosphere, depending on how powerful the blast is.
Heck, even our charming home planet has plenty of environments that would kill us pretty darn quickly.
"I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I logically know it is invisible because I cannot see it, and I know it is pink because I have faith."
-
Check out this David Wong article on the subject. It does a really good job of describing how similar all belief systems are, and he really does make some interesting points. Definitely good reading.
"Ten Things Christians and Atheists Can (and must) Agree On" (http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html)
-
It bugs me every time someone says "<person> is not an accurate depiction of <stereotype>" - they're not supposed to be. Do you think Jeph based Penelope on the way he thinks every atheist ever behaves? Of course not. Penelope is a character, not a type of character.
edit because I just read this:
As atheist I don't usually go out of my way to tell people how I disagree with their believes but have met religious people that act like they are ofended by my opinion... Go figure.
Dangerous thinking, mate. There are atheists who are right dicks about their (non)-beliefs too. Don't label people based on something as arbitrary as what religion they were raised into, there are good Christians and bad Christians just like there are good atheists and bad atheists. If you must judge people, judge individuals, and judge them after you've come to know them.
Yeah, I know there are unrational atheists too. I haven't written that this goes for all the atheist/religious people, it is just my experience - and even in my experience I have met dfferent kinds of people. So your response is not really in conntection with what I said.
What bothers me is that some religious people start discusing my opinion (it's not belief, I'm rational atheist so it has nothing to do with believing) but think that I shouldn't discuss their belifs - because it's private, sacred or whatever. Well, then they shouldn't go into this debate, should they.
-
Wow, great discussion everybody. A lot of great talking points and debate. I honestly didn't expect (but I was hoping for) this to happen. I was afraid I'd just get flamed. I'll just comment on a few things and then be on my way.
I have indeed meet atheists like Penelope.
There are atheisms of skepticism, even sincere doubt, that challenge the idea of god.
There are also atheisms of certainty, of faith in there not being a god.
I also agree that it fits what we seen from Penelope. She seems to have defined what she is/isn't likes/dislikes very carefully, and rails violently against that which stands against her norms. That certainly reminds of me of people I know. wink
I had forgotten about Penelope's personality quirks, and you're right, now that I think about it, it is somewhat a part of her personality. The strips make a lot more sense now.
I'm not particularly bothered by it. Truth of it is I sympathize with her and feel the same way. My parents are Catholic, well my mother's a hardcore one and my father's Christian in general in the way that he doesn't believe in any specific denomination, so I really feel the whole being raised under religious indoctrination and feeling that it's all highly irrational. You might say that I'm more of the 'militant' atheist in the way that I'm opposed to things such as teaching irrationality to children, indoctrinating them at an age where they're intellectually defenceless, labeling them under their parent's religion and so forth, but neither do I run around bashing religion and preaching the Gospel of Joe Pesci (kudos to those who get the reference).
Like christians and people of other religion, there are many kinds of atheists and Penelope just happens to be more 'fundamentalist', as you call it. I don't think it really paints atheism under a bad color. If people are so close-minded that they always think of atheism as being that way, then I doubt the personality of a webcomic character will make that much of a diference.
Yeah, I'd say my view on religion is pretty similar to yours. And you make a good point about closed-mindedness.
It bugs me every time someone says "<person> is not an accurate depiction of <stereotype>" - they're not supposed to be. Do you think Jeph based Penelope on the way he thinks every atheist ever behaves? Of course not. Penelope is a character, not a type of character.
I understand your complaint, but I my attention was drawn to it because it's similar to that same argument gets thrown around too often about the "fundamental atheist." It's a negative stereotype and it's not fair. Typically, when atheists are being belligerent, it's in the name of secularism, or some kind of attempt to maintain a separation of church and state (especially in the U.S.) I've rarely met an argument from an atheist claiming to know that God does not exist, but rather that God should stay out of our system of government. I'm getting a little off-topic, but what I'm really trying to say is that while people like Penelope may exist, I'd wager they're not nearly as common as they are often portrayed, and I guess it just bothers me how often that stereotype is used. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. It's not Jeph's fault, though, and I hope I haven't offended anybody with my thread.
Granted, every person is different, but strip 1289 is basically the usual silly criticism against outspoken atheists in caricature form. And this does bug me a bit. Personally, I see no reason why us atheists shouldnt be outspoken. We have the weight of arguments on our side, dont we?
This pretty well sums up my point, about the silly criticism that is.
But that is exactly the annoying fact which the strip gets wrong. Sure both sides think they are right - but normally Atehists dont go aroudn screaming "we are right" like christian extremists, do, but rather go "Its likely theres no god because <argument1>, <argument2>, <argument3>". Whereas the theological christian arguments are "Its in this series of book once started by an insignifcant tribe of goat herder some millenia ago" and the philosophcial arguments are all baffling stupid.
Its not about permission to believe silly things. Of course, everybody is free to do so. Its about regognicing them as silly, and not giving SOME silly beliefs a preferred treatment just because they have the word "religion" and some centuries of history to back their silly claims!
That's not really a fair characterization of the Christian argument. I personally don't find the concept of a Judeo-Christian god to be intellectually tenable, I believe that with a certain degree of skepticism someone can reasonably believe in the possibility of a deity and develop a worldview or a lifestyle based on that.
Ok. I'm not going to comment on any more of the posts, 'cause it's late, but I appreciate all of your thoughts and opinions.
Oh, and the cracked list. I don't agree with all of the things on that list. In fact, I find the implication that Stalin killed religious people because he was an atheist to be a wee bit offensive. Also, the article just isn't very well-written. Cracked has done far better. The writer just seems to have a severe misunderstanding of an atheist mindset, and I didn't even have to get to the part where he disclosed his religion to figure out he's a Christian. I dunno, I didn't like it.
-
I honestly think that from either standpoint, from atheism or religion, it's give or take from both faith and logic. Our world being habitable and then humans coming into existence are prime examples of it. From a logical point of view, the probability of either happening in mathematical terms is impossible, so help from an outside source to guide the creation process would logically make more sense than just a random bang and random primordial oozes mixing together to make a planet and human life, respectively. To me, it just seems like there's more faith involved in the latter than the former :laugh:
A: If there was an outside being shaping us, why did it take nearly 14 billion years for us to show up?
B: Conversely, if there was not an outside being, why did it take nearly 14 billion years for us to show up?
A: Um... because he's careful and deliberate.
B: Because the collection of events required for our existence was very improbable and required a very great deal of time and space before they occurred.
Yeah, faith is the reasonable position there.
-
A: If there was an outside being shaping us, why did it take nearly 14 billion years for us to show up?
A: Um... because he's careful and deliberate.
Don't you know that the fossil record and gradually evolving species were just sent by god to test our faith? :evil:
-
A: If there was an outside being shaping us, why did it take nearly 14 billion years for us to show up?
B: Conversely, if there was not an outside being, why did it take nearly 14 billion years for us to show up?
A: Um... because he's careful and deliberate.
B: Because the collection of events required for our existence was very improbable and required a very great deal of time and space before they occurred.
Yeah, faith is the reasonable position there.
But see, this is where atheists and more religious folks are always going to disagree. Some people don't identify with reason, they want something larger to believe in. Atheism could be seen by a lot of religious sects as in too much of a hurry to get everything explained away, just as a lot of atheists find the idea of being blindly faithful in an idea that is explained by what is, to them, silly folklore preposterous. Some people don't like the idea of us just being here, because chemical chance and scientific miracles guys. Some people want a reason to exist, and a spiritual purpose. I myself can't really agree with the notion that we're here for no reason, but I don't discount it either, because it's just as possible as anything else.
Another thing is, what scientific explanations are for atheists, the religious texts are for the religious. Saying that "Oh we've got science on our side" while it does help to explain a lot about the world, it will just not be a viable answer for those who believe in a supernatural being, as it is vice versa.
-
But see, this is where atheists and more religious folks are always going to disagree. Some people don't identify with reason, they want something larger to believe in. Atheism could be seen by a lot of religious sects as in too much of a hurry to get everything explained away, just as a lot of atheists find the idea of being blindly faithful in an idea that is explained by what is, to them, silly folklore preposterous. Some people don't like the idea of us just being here, because chemical chance and scientific miracles guys. Some people want a reason to exist, and a spiritual purpose. I myself can't really agree with the notion that we're here for no reason, but I don't discount it either, because it's just as possible as anything else.
Another thing is, what scientific explanations are for atheists, the religious texts are for the religious. Saying that "Oh we've got science on our side" while it does help to explain a lot about the world, it will just not be a viable answer for those who believe in a supernatural being, as it is vice versa.
I really don't want to get into too much of an argument over atheism vs. religion, but I feel compelled to respond to a few of these statements. I agree that some people need to believe that there is a higher purpose, and while I don't, I understand why people do. But to say that atheism is seen as a something that is in a hurry to explain everything away, I can't help but feel is a disappointing misunderstanding. What is a faster way to explain something than to say "God did it?" And then, there's the baffling connotation that somehow all atheists view science as their religion, and I really hate how that's the case. There is no link between atheism and science; atheism is just about a denial of the existence of a deity. I hate it when people say that atheists view science as a religion also because science is not religion. The only thing the two have in common is their attempt to explain natural phenomenon. And, between the two, science is far better and discerning objective truth, primarily because it is falsifiable. Scientific theories only stand until they are proven false, while religious theories... well, they can last a few extra centuries. (okay, cheap shot, I know)
Well, that's all I can say for now, I have a final I have to take in ten minutes. :cry:
-
There are Christians who don't bug others about their religion and Chiristians that do,
Being from the south, I know lots of Christians that would vehemently disagree with you. According to their way of thinking, you aren't a Christian if you aren't constantly trying to convert anyone who's not a Christian. In fact it's why it's called Evangelical. Yes, I know there are lots of proselytising (sp?) atheists, but they aren't recquired to do so by The Big Book Of Atheist Rules.
Please note I've not stated my own beliefs at all...
-
I didn't say they weren't told to, I said they don't do it. Which they don't. I don't see what you're getting at.
You just said it yourself. Many (maybe most, I have no clue) Christians would argue that you are not a Christian if you aren't proselytising. Is that any clearer? Maybe my sentence structure was fucked up in my previous post. And dammit, I'm still not sure if I spelled "proselytising" correctly.
-
I think this thread makes atheists look a lot worse than Penelope does.
Jens, I love you but you're wasting your breath here. Someone has already declared that rationally deciding there is no God is totally separate from believing there is no God. Nothing good will come of this.
-
Jens, he's saying they're not really living up to the label of Orthodox Christians, which is true. Virtually all of my relatives are Christians of some form or another. Many are Catholic, my mother turned Protestant and there's a smattering of Evangelicals as well. They are all religious, but their religions are different. Some religions hold spreading the faith as one of their central tenants. Whether individuals fail to do so or not is another matter, and says more about them than it does their faith. For example, if you're raised a Jehovah's Witness and you don't go proselytizing, that's in spite of what you've been taught, not because of it, since a certain amount of preaching is actively considered a duty. Religions are partly personal relationships, but a label ceases to be useful once it no longer really applies. A person isn't necessarily less spiritual for not holding to a certain set of tenants, but after a certain point what they're doing is rather seperate from the mainstream of a given faith.
Anyway, yeah, hardcore atheists and hardcore religious wackos won't stop arguing anytime soon. That's because neither side really believes the other mindset is this truly benign and personal fantasy Jens cooked up. For example, I'm sure there's atheists out there who blame the Christian majority for supporting Prop 8 or point at the Muslims and the terrorism in the Middle East. Meanwhile, most cultures use religion as a bastion of their moral and ethical thought and often blame a lack of faith for sinfulness and cruelty or otherwise do not see how one could be ethical without being spiritual. To take us back to proselytizing, some religions basically believe that not bothering to convert someone is roughly equivalent to not bothering to help a drowning man. The hardcore atheists aren't just annoyed that someone might believe in the space monkey, they're worried some wacko will start printing out a newsletter about how to curry the monkey's favor and before you know it there's millions of peoplel voting straight ticket Immortality Party. The religious zealots are worried that the atheists will start doing whatever the fuck they want because they just don't give a damn about anything. And frankly, I'm not sure either position is all that much more naive than truly believing that people don't make decisions according to things so central to their ideology.
-
If <deity> is exempt from the laws of spacetime, why not exempt the Big Bang singularity from it as well? Stephen Hawking said that asking "what came before the Big Bang" is like asking "What's south of the south pole?" As best as we can figure, space, energy, and time erupted from the Big Bang singularity. There was a "before," but not in any terms we can quantify, because we exist within space and time. What is there when space and time don't exist?
BTW
The Big Bang Singularity only exists as a mathematical limit, it's not anything we have direct evidence on. For starters, the entire "back in time" concept is not 100% sound. Remember that relativity tells us there is no absolute time. When things get hotter, particles moov faster, which makes their "personal" time pass slo'er - so any single thing that comes from a Big Bang would be infinitely old to begin with. The "14 billion years" is calculated with respect to a generalized coordinate system averaged over galaxy groups - which are surprizingly static with respect to one another. This however is largely explainable by the Cosmic Inflation phase (the proper "bang" part) which flatten'd out any differences across the observable universe. It really makes little sense to then "interpolate to the beginning of time". It's not even like asking what's south of the South Pole, it's like asking how far beyond the horizon do the railroad tracks meet, and what do they do after having cross'd one another?
But apparently it is easier to explain all this in a science-as-religion fashion as absolute beginning of all existence…
-
Jens, he's saying they're not really living up to the label of Orthodox Christians, which is true.
and
To take us back to proselytizing, some religions basically believe that not bothering to convert someone is roughly equivalent to not bothering to help a drowning man.
Exactly. And to take us back to labels, some some self identified Christians claim the right to determine who may label themself Christian. As in, "You're not a Christian unless you do X." That is not inherently negative. "Sorry, we don't really believe you're a Christian if you're actively murdering people."
-
...were a whole bunch of posts removed from this conversation? I'll assume that the discussion was getting a tad heated. :-D
I wanted to throw in my handful of pennies, though; a few things to chew on from my now many years of arguing about religion with family & whoever else starts the discussion:
Some reasons why some atheists get so wound up:
* To reject the faith of your parents and often community can be a wrenching experience -- my parents and relatives were quite mild on the religious scale (and Catholic, not evangelical or anything where the entire community was focused on religion...) but I have still spent hundreds of painful hours of my life arguing the subject. On the nastier end of the spectrum, people are disowned, shunned by their community, etc. etc.. Because they've been told that they're "losing their child to Satan", some parents will try damned near anything to force their child to stay with the faith.
* Check out this poll (scroll down to the numbers): http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx If their political party nominated an otherwise well-qualified candidate who was atheist, 53% of Americans would refuse to vote for them. We all know how homophobic the average American is -- but notice that only 43% would refuse to vote for a homosexual.
* The fight to break down the wall between church & state is being fought constantly by some highly organized religious groups (obviously atheists are nowhere near as organized), and they're succeeding on many fronts. Anyone know how many extra people died of AIDS in Africa because Bush wouldn't fund programs that distributed condoms (only abstinence education is God-approved... regardless of what actually works)? It's not just about freedom of religion; people are dying & lives are destroyed because of religious intrusions into government.
I personally spend a decent amount of time & money in these various related causes, so I'm sure I'm more sensitized to the issue. Seriously, it grates like nails on a chalkboard every time a politician wraps "God" around everything, and they do it all the friggin' time.
I also got a mildly negative vibe from the strip, since that stereotype is pushed so very hard by the people trying to smear atheists -- i.e., "they claim we're irrational, but they're clearly far more unhinged... and they're just worshiping blindly in their own wacked belief system!". I wouldn't say it's unrealistic -- there are plenty of Penelopes around -- but it's sort of a milder version of how it'd be a dicey if you had a Jewish character who happened to talk frequently about money. You know, I'm probably overstating my case (this stereotype isn't as famous) -- but I personally got a jolt from it. If I'd been standing there in front of them I'd have really wanted to jump into the conversation.
I technically have no problem with religion in many of its forms -- plenty of people go to some kind of service every once in a while, spend a little time thinking about how to be a bit nicer, and go about their business; that's excellent. If you ask them, "what's something you absolutely know to be unquestionably, absolutely true?" they won't even think of brandishing a Bible at you. So those aren't the people I'm fighting; unfortunately, many of them don't even realize the fight is happening... so when they get caught in the crossfire somewhere along the way, it's all that much easier for them to think they've just met a raving atheist, and the rumors were true.
@Tropylium, and in regards to the discussion of the Big Bang, etc. etc. -- science is an endless endeavor (dunno how certain we'll ever be about the origins of the universe, but new breakthroughs continue to be made regularly on dark matter, etc.), and there are various different theories that still integrate the most up-to-date observations and science. I think Jeff7's main point was that we have no idea what came before the big bang, and we'll probably never know.
The important point: this is where science says "these are the limits of what we know, and here are our current best ideas for explanation that account for all of the latest observations". Religion says "we know for sure", but the holy books contain answers based on the best scientific observations and ideas of two thousand years ago (if that recent). Obviously this assumes you don't take the various religious texts as collections of fables & instructive moral tales, I should say.... I personally think there's plenty of interest in them, but only if you believe there was no supernatural provenance.
**Edit: I read your post again. Now I'm not even clear that you're disagreeing with Jeff7 -- you're both saying the "time" before the big bang is basically meaningless and/or beyond possible investigation anyway. This is what threw me off the most: "But apparently it is easier to explain all this in a science-as-religion fashion as absolute beginning of all existence…" What did you mean by that?**
-
Excellent post jtheory, that's a great summation of an atheist viewpoint, and a great response to a number of topics. That Gallup poll is interesting, I'd read something similar in the book The God Delusion, but I was hoping those statistics would be different than the ones posted in the book - from 1999, I believe.
-
...were a whole bunch of posts removed from this conversation? I'll assume that the discussion was getting a tad heated. :-D
I think I offended someone- nothing new there, but it certainly wasn't my intention, and nothing heated on my part for sure. So some folks removed ther posts, I guess, immediately after I quoted and responded to their post. What did I say that was so egregious?
-
we have no idea what came before the big bang, and we'll probably never know.
If there even was a "before". The big bang happened at time zero; but plot time on a log scale, and zero disappears infinitely far to the left, which may be a more understandable representation of it.
-
Granted, every person is different, but strip 1289 is basically the usual silly criticism against outspoken atheists in caricature form.
I was about to post this. Any atheist should be smarter than uttering what Penelope said.
Two differing views aren't equally substantial just because they're both views.
In that vein, I don't see how being an atheist can seriously be called religious as it sometimes is. Is it a belief? What does that even mean? The semantics of the word allow it, yes. Still, believing in what I can see, reproduce, calculate, deduce, etc seems a better way to get to grips with the world than a world view thousands of year old and ill-equipped to deal with modern problems.
Can God's nonexistance be proven? No. Neither can I disprove faeries, Russel's teapot, Sagan's invisible Dragon, dolphin channeling, etc. So why believe in god if so many things that are not disprovable are available? Because I was born in a society that happens to be heavily influenced by an ancient Empire that adopted a middle-eastern religion influenced in turn by countless other local religions for political reasons?
It's also about respect for another's beliefs. Do you think that calling someone a buttfucking-stupid idiot is going to make them any more amenable to your claims?
Of course not, that'd be counterproductive. But religion doesn't deserve respect just because it's religion. (That's actually what Russel was illustrating with his teapot, iirc.) Also, disrespecting someone's beliefs is vastly different from disrespecting the person.
"There's no way there is a god because a set of universal rules set by old smart dudes hundreds of years back said so." Objectively speaking, Christianity and Atheism's definition of the world and afterlife are just as plausible as one another. It's just as plausible that our chunk of rock in space has grown life because we're placed just right in this particular solar system (which is basically a mathematical impossibility) or because some otherworldly being of all-importance wanted to make us just because. It's all about the individual's decision of what makes sense.
@ first statement:
There may be some slight variations in the methodology employed. Nobody really believes in the gravitational law because some dude said it. We believe in it because it seems to describe one specific part of the universe with a precision that allows for moon landings.
Many of those old dudes never said there wasn't a god, either.
@ second statement:
It is not as plausible. Science has meticulously erected a system of what appears to be correct. Correct enough for now to put up quantifiable results both in describing how (not why) the universe works. There are gaping holes in those descriptions, yeah, and many may prove wrong or insufficently accurate, but the part of it that works has put men on the moon, developped readily available and cheap cures for diseases that routinely eradicated countrysides, and given humankind the way to kill itself a dozen times over. Am I "religious" in preferring to trust such a system than one that has given us, at best, some moral guidelines?
If believing in the sacredness of cows or monkeys (or playing WoW 16 hours a day, or shooting heroin, or casting curses) makes sense to me, is it therefore valid? More importantly, should I be preaching it to others, passing it on to my children?
Note that I am not asserting I am wholly correct. But I do assert that being correct 30% is better than being correct 10%.
Invariably, Occam's Razor comes up.
I'm not trying to undermine your argument here, but you might want to be careful when invoking Occam. The version most often used boils down to "simple explanations are more likely to apply". Here's what Occam actually said:
"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." It has nothing to do with differing explanations being correct at all. All it states is that a description should be brokn down to its simplest terms (4x=8x-4 should be expressed as x=1) and is a rule of thumb in any case as a needlessly complex explanation can be as correct as a simple one.
I think this thread makes atheists look a lot worse than Penelope does.
How so? Penelope said the dumbest thing she possible could've under the circumstance, while there are several good points n this thread.
I should really mention that I tried to be concise and if I come across less than friendly, that's the likely reason (plus, English is my third language, so ...).
I'd like to stress again that there is a great difference between holding an untenable belief (whatever it is) and being an idiot, and that disrespecting some facet of someone doesn't mean disrespecting him (although he/she might interpret it that way).
But I strongly disagree that everyone should just do whatever works best for them if that means passing it on, especially to children. Believing (or not) in an afterlife will have a tremendous impact on how someone lives their life. Telling your kids there's no macro-evolution means they're less likely to believe a new kind of pandemic is possible. Those kids will become scientists that are less observant of empiricism and thus work less efficiently than those in, say, China. The list goes on.
-
What I dislike about this thread is that it seemed to start out on the issue of people being outspoken about their metaphysical beliefs and the depiction of atheists in a comic strip, and has led to a whole lot of people saying "Well atheism just makes more sense!" We've had people giving examples of why it makes more sense, and it sort of ignores the fact that people who believe something different are probably going to disagree regardless of how much sense their point makes.
-
What I dislike about this thread is that it seemed to start out on the issue of people being outspoken about their metaphysical beliefs and the depiction of atheists in a comic strip, and has led to a whole lot of people saying "Well atheism just makes more sense!"
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2634771/2/istockphoto_2634771_hitting_a_nail_on_the_head.jpg)
There are people in this thread who are angry about Penelope's depiction while still basically exhibiting the exact same mindset that she is.
:-D
-
I'm fine with people being strident in their beliefs, I just think it's silly not to expect other people to be offended by it. When it comes right down to it, most people would rather avoid making waves than further their ideology. Hence the irony of Christians who pretend they're not home when a Jehovah's Witness stops by; most people in the US are ostensibly Christians, yet the idea that we should all just keep this to ourselves most of the time is still surprisingly common.
-
i'm not really liking either side of the argument here.
the theist says that there is a god, he knows there is a god, there must be a god because he knows it.
the athiest says that there is not a god, he knows there is not a god, and there must not be a god because he knows it.
is there any room for agnosticism here? i know that i don't know whether or not there is some superior power, or what exactly would define any given being as a god, but i do know that i have insufficient information to make a judgement as to whether or not one exists.
i mean sure, the bible ranks pretty high on my bullshitometer, but what if one day jesus christ and the prophet mohammad materialize out of thin air and say "okay guys, the point of all those books was vote no on prop 8" and they want to get married in california. oh and xenu is performing the ceremony.
-
I agree with Agnosticism. Fence sitting metaphysically is always the best simply noone knows for sure either way and i'd hate to be wrong either way.
-
Fence sitting? What fence? I see no fence!
-
Science does not refute the idea of god. It doesn't attempt to. It doesn't want to. It just attempts to explain our world. That is it.
The idea of god is NOT irrational because of scientific evidence. Science has offered absolutely no evidence that suggests a god doesn't exist.
It's offered no evidence that the Christian God doesn't exist.
Do not assume that you are a more rational person because you are an atheist. Do not assume that rationality holds no sway in deist/theists/Christian/Jew/whatever's life.
-
So the idea of fairies is not irrational; Russell's teapot is fine; and there's a pig flying behind that cloud? Oh, and there's this other world that science does not attempt to explain...
We've been there (in the Discuss forum). Simply saying that something can't be disproved doesn't make it true, nor does it even provide a basis for believing in it.
-
Science does not refute the idea of god. It doesn't attempt to. It doesn't want to. It just attempts to explain our world. That is it.
The idea of god is NOT irrational because of scientific evidence. Science has offered absolutely no evidence that suggests a god doesn't exist.
It's offered no evidence that the Christian God doesn't exist.
Do not assume that you are a more rational person because you are an atheist. Do not assume that rationality holds no sway in deist/theists/Christian/Jew/whatever's life.
The god that most people believe in is an overwhelmingly interventionist god. It interacts with the universe on a minute-to-minute basis, altering things for the benefit of its believers. It helps football players score touchdowns, it alters traffic to get believers to work on time, it opens up parking spaces, it heals the sick, it watches out for children, etc.
Anything that interacts with the world must be observable due to the fact that it's interacting with things we can observe. Time and time again, there has been a complete lack of observation.
Try this analogy.
Anna and Kate are walking down the street when they come to an empty lot.
"Look at that beautiful garden!" cries Anna, "It must be tended by a particularly skillful gardener!"
"What are you talking about? It's an empty lot full of weeds! It couldn't possibly be tended by a gardener." is Kate's reply.
"He must tend it to grow that way."
"I have never once seen a gardener there."
"You must have simply missed him. He must come only at night, when you don't walk by here."
So Anna and Kate decide to watch the garden. They keep watch for days, and don't spot a gardener.
Kate shrugs and says, "I guess there's no gardener."
"He must be invisible."
"... invisible?"
"Yes, that's why we couldn't see him."
So Anna and Kate build a fence. When Anna suggests he might be able to fly, they put a net over the fence. When Anna suggests he might be very small, they put a solid dome over the entire plot. Then Anna suggests he might be intangible. Kate gets fed up.
"You've got an invisible, intangible, flying gardener whose garden looks exactly like there isn't a gardener. What's the difference between that and a gardener who doesn't exist?"
In strict, deductive logic, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. But in life we mostly deal with inductive logic. Thousands of years of observation have completely failed to turn up evidence of the invisible gardener. Absence of evidence, when one would expect evidence, is evidence of absence. There is no gardener.
-
I really wasn't hoping to open Pandora's Box, here, with all this arguing about atheism vs. religion. There are arguments to be had, but far too often they're wasted on deaf ears as neither side tends to be convinced. This certainly isn't the place for them.
The original topic was about the perceptions of atheists, and how they are often caricatured. I'm certainly not any kind of moderator, and don't intend to be, but can we play nice? Pretty please?
-
...
The original topic was about the perceptions of atheists, and how they are often caricatured. I'm certainly not any kind of moderator, and don't intend to be, but can we play nice? Pretty please?
This is nice. :)
Visit 4chan /b/ sometime, if you dare. The religion arguments there are fun. :laugh:
I'm not responsible for any horrific trauma you may incur in the process. There's some nasty stuff there. Also some extremely funny stuff.
This is surprisingly civil thus far.
-
we have no idea what came before the big bang, and we'll probably never know.
If there even was a "before". The big bang happened at time zero; but plot time on a log scale, and zero disappears infinitely far to the left, which may be a more understandable representation of it.
And I was basically saying that you don't even need a logarithm there; sure you can make up a coordinate system where Big Bang = zero, but this is one of the same kind of coordinate systems where "everything gets frozen forever into the event horizon of a black hole". Heck, you can even make up a "last Thursday = zero" coordinate system easily. (= Something that comes in at lightspeed last Thursday, and sharply decelerates from there.)
As for the "science as religion" quip, I mean going with "Big Bang, end of story" even if one hasn't the foggiest idea about how Big Bang or modern cosmology in general works. The thought process needed to get to that kind of a conclusion resembles in some crucial parts the one needed to go with "God made it, end of story". Everyone who has ever advocated a scientific result as "true" without hirself understanding how it was discover'd is believing in something in part because an authority said so. (Note however that Big Bang / God are not automatically equally sensical or or nonsensical scenarios. Science appears to work a lot better.)
This is what I see Penelope basically doing. I wouldn't berate her for that. Humans seem to have an innate need for an "official" explanation. (But yes, she could use some tact.)
Someone with a truly open mind will however admit "I dunno for sure, but the experts say that X." I'll call myself an atheist in casual conversation, after all, I do not believe in any god. If we go deeper stuff however, I'm what you don't call an extreme agnostic; I believe I do not, and cannot, kno anything at all about reality with certainty. (Well, okay, it exists…) But that's okay, 99.99999999% certainty is just fine for me. If one feels the need to distinguish this from "atheist", the the term is "boolean".
-
Simply saying that something can't be disproved doesn't make it true, nor does it even provide a basis for believing in it.
No serious theist or theologian would argue that it does.
-
No serious theologian, perhaps, but the average theist? They very often rely on that argument. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" really gets thrown around far too much.
-
And here is where we get to the part of this endless discussion that stops everyone from learning anything: When people start saying "Oh, well, I'm talking about the average religious person". It's anecdotal, it's ultimately meaningless, and it's hard as shit to talk about because do you mean the "average" Buddhist, or the "average" Christian, or the "average" Discordian, or the "average" Deist, or...?
Why must atheist-religious talk invariably focus on the anthropomorphised version of the Judeo-Christian God, a focus that ignores centuries of mainstream Judeo-Christian theology that refutes the concept of God-as-big-dude-in-the-sky?
-
Why must atheist-religious talk invariably focus on the anthropomorphised version of the Judeo-Christian God, a focus that ignores centuries of mainstream Judeo-Christian theology that refutes the concept of God-as-big-dude-in-the-sky?
Because then it's not the Judeo-Christian God, but rather a God that mainstream Judeo-Christians have created for themselves? The God of the bible is the big-dude in the sky. End-o-story. Of course, the average Christian in the U.S. barely reads the bible. But, I suppose I should admit, that I may have been a little rash in my defense of Penelope and her ilk, because whether I like it or not, they certainly exist. There are certainly pig-headed atheists as well as theists. Not sure about deists. Eh. I'm tired of discussing religion. It's too much work. :laugh:
-
Why must atheist-religious talk invariably focus on the anthropomorphised version of the Judeo-Christian God
Does it? I hadn't really noticed, because I don't find it makes much difference to the arguments anyway.
-
The God of the bible is the big-dude in the sky. End-o-story.
Er, no. The God of the Old Testament is presented as such, but not all theologians take the Bible literally. God-as-dude is never mentioned in the New Testament, unless you count Jesus, but he was an anarchist and a political criminal who was assassinated for going against the established order more than he was a "God". A lot of mainstream Christian theologians contend that Jesus' assertion boiled down to "I am God, you are God, we are all God"; in other words, that God is not an entity, but a part of the human experience. To quote the Stone Roses who were paraphrasing people who explore that line of thought: "The Kingdom's all inside".
Of course, they were talking about taking LSD, but I know plenty of people who have seen God while on that drug (and just as many who lost him on it, too).
-
But the problem about defining God so broadly is that he ceases to fit the definition of a "God." If God is just a part of the human experience (imagination?), then what, pray tell, are Christians worshiping? Why do they pray? Why do they continue to speak about him like a personal friend of theirs? Why do they keep telling me he loves me and wants me to go to heaven?
I really just don't get it. That's my biggest problem with the theist argument. It always ends up running around in a circle.
(Every time I try to walk away, they pull - me - back - IN!)
Edit: Ugh. I can't help myself. I shouldn't get into this discussion, but it's all anyone seems to want to do, so should I feel guilty? I dunno.
-
Science does not refute the idea of god. It doesn't attempt to. It doesn't want to. It just attempts to explain our world. That is it.
The idea of god is NOT irrational because of scientific evidence. Science has offered absolutely no evidence that suggests a god doesn't exist.
It's offered no evidence that the Christian God doesn't exist.
Do not assume that you are a more rational person because you are an atheist. Do not assume that rationality holds no sway in deist/theists/Christian/Jew/whatever's life.
The god that most people believe in is an overwhelmingly interventionist god. It interacts with the universe on a minute-to-minute basis, altering things for the benefit of its believers. It helps football players score touchdowns, it alters traffic to get believers to work on time, it opens up parking spaces, it heals the sick, it watches out for children, etc.
Anything that interacts with the world must be observable due to the fact that it's interacting with things we can observe. Time and time again, there has been a complete lack of observation.
Try this analogy.
Anna and Kate are walking down the street when they come to an empty lot.
"Look at that beautiful garden!" cries Anna, "It must be tended by a particularly skillful gardener!"
"What are you talking about? It's an empty lot full of weeds! It couldn't possibly be tended by a gardener." is Kate's reply.
"He must tend it to grow that way."
"I have never once seen a gardener there."
"You must have simply missed him. He must come only at night, when you don't walk by here."
So Anna and Kate decide to watch the garden. They keep watch for days, and don't spot a gardener.
Kate shrugs and says, "I guess there's no gardener."
"He must be invisible."
"... invisible?"
"Yes, that's why we couldn't see him."
So Anna and Kate build a fence. When Anna suggests he might be able to fly, they put a net over the fence. When Anna suggests he might be very small, they put a solid dome over the entire plot. Then Anna suggests he might be intangible. Kate gets fed up.
"You've got an invisible, intangible, flying gardener whose garden looks exactly like there isn't a gardener. What's the difference between that and a gardener who doesn't exist?"
In strict, deductive logic, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. But in life we mostly deal with inductive logic. Thousands of years of observation have completely failed to turn up evidence of the invisible gardener. Absence of evidence, when one would expect evidence, is evidence of absence. There is no gardener.
Who says that god is necessarily interventionist?
Also, typically the idea of god happens to be an idea of omnipotence. If that really is the case, then god could do whatever he pleases in any manner he pleases. Why attach human reasoning and logic to something that is inherently separated from human reasoning and logic? If anything, that's illogical.
Science has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of god. It has offered no evidence of his existence or non-existence. To say that someone is illogical or irrational for believing in a higher power/being/god is just wrong.
-
So the idea of fairies is not irrational; Russell's teapot is fine; and there's a pig flying behind that cloud? Oh, and there's this other world that science does not attempt to explain...
We've been there (in the Discuss forum). Simply saying that something can't be disproved doesn't make it true, nor does it even provide a basis for believing in it.
I didn't say it makes it true. I simply said that a belief in god/gods/whatever is not irrational or illogical.
And why must belief be based on fact? I believe my fiancee won't cheat on me. There are no facts to support this. Only interpretations and assumptions that I make. Does that make me an illogical and irrational person?
-
Q: "Is there evidence that God exists?"
A: "Do you want to believe that God exists?"
-
In strict, deductive logic, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. But in life we mostly deal with inductive logic. Thousands of years of observation have completely failed to turn up evidence of the invisible gardener. Absence of evidence, when one would expect evidence, is evidence of absence. There is no gardener.
There are thousands of things science cannot explain, constant reports of unexplained phenomena, events occurring that were so unlikely that people didn't even acknowledge the possibility of them even happening. The whole bible was written about proofs of God.
Are these proofs fictional, the events co-incidences, and the phenomena imagined? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Some choose not to believe that just because modern science can't explain it, it can't have ever happened, and instead take these things as proof of God.
You cannot possibly attempt to examine the possibility of God if you do not even attempt to accept the opposing sides arguments, and just dismiss anything that contradicts your beliefs as 'untrue'.
-
I'm sorry, but the fact that there are reports of events which may not have been properly observed or reported, and which have not been or cannot now be investigated properly to find the explanation, simply has nothing to do with the possibility of the existence of God.
-
I didn't say it makes it true. I simply said that a belief in god/gods/whatever is not irrational or illogical.
And why must belief be based on fact? I believe my fiancee won't cheat on me. There are no facts to support this. Only interpretations and assumptions that I make. Does that make me an illogical and irrational person?
Do you not have evidence that your fiancee will not cheat on you? Evidence deduced from her behavior and signs of affection towards you?
People say that there's no way to prove that love exists. Well I don't know what kind of "proof" is sought by this, if you want an indicator light on a person's head that says "IN LOVE" when that condition is true. But there sure can be a lot of evidence, most notably the person's behavior, and how well it matches a predefined set of ideas about what constitutes the condition of "love." If you want to go further, measure various responses, such as skin resistance, perspiration rate, pupil dilation, and brain activity.
One other thing which science seeks to do is to have the ability to make predictions based on observations. I can reasonably predict where Earth will be in its orbit around the Sun 1000 years from now. If I throw something at a certain angle and velocity, I can reasonably predict where and when it will land.
No one can predict what "God" is going to do in 500 years. No one seems to really know what God wants at any point in time. Sure lots of people claim to know what God wants; none of them can seem to agree though. People can't even seem to agree on which deity to listen to. And if you've got someone saying he's hearing God talk to him, he gets stashed away in an asylum because he's deemed insane. People can't agree on whether or not to take the Bible literally or not; some say all, some say none, some pick and choose.
There are thousands of things science cannot explain, constant reports of unexplained phenomena, events occurring that were so unlikely that people didn't even acknowledge the possibility of them even happening. The whole bible was written about proofs of God.
Are these proofs fictional, the events co-incidences, and the phenomena imagined? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Some choose not to believe that just because modern science can't explain it, it can't have ever happened, and instead take these things as proof of God.
You cannot possibly attempt to examine the possibility of God if you do not even attempt to accept the opposing sides arguments, and just dismiss anything that contradicts your beliefs as 'untrue'.
At one point in time, science could not explain what the Sun was. They thought a god named Ra carried it across the sky. Lightning was once hurled to Earth by Zeus. Not so. Spirits of the Earth made it rain. Nope, the air reaches saturation due to pressure or temperature changes, and the water precipitates out. Illness was caused by "bad blood," and not microscopic pathogens, genetic anomalies, or malnutrition.
The Egyptian gods, the Greek/Roman gods, and the Native American gods and spirits are now considered "mythology" - not real. Why? Why are they any less valid than the big religions of today?
What other unexplained things will eventually find themselves out of God's jurisdiction? Why must some deity always be around to mop up the scraps things we can't explain yet? Isn't "We don't know yet" a good enough answer? Why do electrons act like both particles and waves? Is the Particle Spirit at war with the Wave Spirit, and so the electron behaves as both? I rather doubt it.
"We accepted the products of science, but we rejected its methods." - Carl Sagan
God hasn't brought us our technology, our medical research, or our libraries. We did it. Humans did it. How is information obtained? Through the scientific method. Why accept it one place without question, yet reject it entirely elsewhere? What makes it suddenly invalid when it attempts to explain our origins?
-
The God of the bible is the big-dude in the sky. End-o-story.
Er, no. The God of the Old Testament is presented as such, but not all theologians take the Bible literally.
Again, we must point you not to the vanishingly small minority of people who are religious philosophers, but to the overwhelming majority of people who are not. They may not have a clear conception of god as "dude in sky with beard", but there's not much difference between that and what they do believe. Theirs is an interventionist god who manipulates events and people to his own ends and, for many of them, is an angry god who is quite full of hate for a large number of people.
Who says that god is necessarily interventionist?
Most believers. Virtually all of them. Basically, anyone who believes in God and calls him such. The interventions are called "miracles" and are believed to happen on a daily, nay, hourly basis.
Also, typically the idea of god happens to be an idea of omnipotence. If that really is the case, then god could do whatever he pleases in any manner he pleases. Why attach human reasoning and logic to something that is inherently separated from human reasoning and logic? If anything, that's illogical.
So... "because". "Because" has become the ultimate in refutation. Why? Because.
As Superman has become overpowered and omnipotent over the years, most people have realized that it's led to absurdity and poor writing. But when you change "superman" to "god", all of a sudden it's no longer absurd, it's "faith".
Science has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of god. It has offered no evidence of his existence or non-existence. To say that someone is illogical or irrational for believing in a higher power/being/god is just wrong.
Why? Why can science say nothing about the existence or non-existence of a thing? Religion posits that there exists an incredibly large, potent, weighty phenomenon that changes the world around us. Science is all about the observation of things and events. The larger and more powerful the thing or event, the easier it is to observe. Far from being impossible to see, an all-powerful, all-manipulative god should be the easiest thing ever to spot.
And yet, no one has. The best anyone comes up with is a feeling. That ain't evidence. And, yes, lack of evidence for something for which there should be overwhelming evidence, is evidence of the absence of the thing.
And believing in something in spite of evidence against it is irrational.
There are thousands of things science cannot explain, constant reports of unexplained phenomena, events occurring that were so unlikely that people didn't even acknowledge the possibility of them even happening.
Stuff and nonsense. There are thousands of things which science either has not yet fully explained (gravity) or which science has explained, but which the faithful choose to ignore (alien kidnappings, spontaneous combustion, mythical ape-men).
The whole bible was written about proofs of God.
Are these proofs fictional, the events co-incidences, and the phenomena imagined? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Some choose not to believe that just because modern science can't explain it, it can't have ever happened, and instead take these things as proof of God.
You cannot possibly attempt to examine the possibility of God if you do not even attempt to accept the opposing sides arguments, and just dismiss anything that contradicts your beliefs as 'untrue'.
The bible isn't about proofs of god. It's a collection of, in the case of the old testament, the myths and causi belli of bronze age shepherds. In the case of the new testament it's the myths and causi belli of medieval farmers. It's no more a proof of anything than when a child believes there are ghosts in the attic. It's a faulty explanation of something the expositor was ill-equipped to comprehend.
I'm not dismissing what contradicts my beliefs. I'm dismissing what contradicts evidence. I dismiss god as firmly as I dismiss ghosts, fairies, spontaneous combustion, and alien abductions. The evidence is overwhelmingly against them and belief in them is, at best, delusional.
-
I'm sorry, but the fact that there are reports of events which may not have been properly observed or reported, and which have not been or cannot now be investigated properly to find the explanation, simply has nothing to do with the possibility of the existence of God.
How exactly would you like a God to affect our world? Would you like him to appear in the sky in the form of a giant, glowing head a la Monty Python? I'm sure that would make these type of debates a lot easier for everybody, but it is highly unlikely.
I put to you all that because God, if he exists, has existed from the start of the universe, or at the very least, since before the human race evolved, we have grown up with his influence, and are accustomed to it. The touch of god, would, therefore not be something we take special notice of - it would probably be something that is just part of life. If you stand around waiting for something out of the ordinary to prove God, then you will never find something, because he has been intervening ,with regularity, in the affairs of the universe since before our race developed, by very definition it is ordinary - something we take for granted, such as two people happening to meet in the same place, or something that escapes our notice completely, such as how particles interact with each other.
The fact that science can show us how most of the things we have come into contact with work (or so we assume, science is constantly being revised and what we currently believe may be completely different to what we believe 1000 years into the future) is beside the point. There is no reason God, if he exists, cannot be factored into science. If his influence is constant then we will have, no doubt, made scientific laws that include his influence in them.
-
The God of the bible is the big-dude in the sky. End-o-story.
Er, no. The God of the Old Testament is presented as such, but not all theologians take the Bible literally.
Again, we must point you not to the vanishingly small minority of people who are religious philosophers, but to the overwhelming majority of people who are not. They may not have a clear conception of god as "dude in sky with beard", but there's not much difference between that and what they do believe. Theirs is an interventionist god who manipulates events and people to his own ends and, for many of them, is an angry god who is quite full of hate for a large number of people.
Who says that god is necessarily interventionist?
Most believers. Virtually all of them. Basically, anyone who believes in God and calls him such. The interventions are called "miracles" and are believed to happen on a daily, nay, hourly basis.
Also, typically the idea of god happens to be an idea of omnipotence. If that really is the case, then god could do whatever he pleases in any manner he pleases. Why attach human reasoning and logic to something that is inherently separated from human reasoning and logic? If anything, that's illogical.
So... "because". "Because" has become the ultimate in refutation. Why? Because.
As Superman has become overpowered and omnipotent over the years, most people have realized that it's led to absurdity and poor writing. But when you change "superman" to "god", all of a sudden it's no longer absurd, it's "faith".
Science has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of god. It has offered no evidence of his existence or non-existence. To say that someone is illogical or irrational for believing in a higher power/being/god is just wrong.
Why? Why can science say nothing about the existence or non-existence of a thing? Religion posits that there exists an incredibly large, potent, weighty phenomenon that changes the world around us. Science is all about the observation of things and events. The larger and more powerful the thing or event, the easier it is to observe. Far from being impossible to see, an all-powerful, all-manipulative god should be the easiest thing ever to spot.
And yet, no one has. The best anyone comes up with is a feeling. That ain't evidence. And, yes, lack of evidence for something for which there should be overwhelming evidence, is evidence of the absence of the thing.
And believing in something in spite of evidence against it is irrational.
There are thousands of things science cannot explain, constant reports of unexplained phenomena, events occurring that were so unlikely that people didn't even acknowledge the possibility of them even happening.
Stuff and nonsense. There are thousands of things which science either has not yet fully explained (gravity) or which science has explained, but which the faithful choose to ignore (alien kidnappings, spontaneous combustion, mythical ape-men).
The whole bible was written about proofs of God.
Are these proofs fictional, the events co-incidences, and the phenomena imagined? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Some choose not to believe that just because modern science can't explain it, it can't have ever happened, and instead take these things as proof of God.
You cannot possibly attempt to examine the possibility of God if you do not even attempt to accept the opposing sides arguments, and just dismiss anything that contradicts your beliefs as 'untrue'.
The bible isn't about proofs of god. It's a collection of, in the case of the old testament, the myths and causi belli of bronze age shepherds. In the case of the new testament it's the myths and causi belli of medieval farmers. It's no more a proof of anything than when a child believes there are ghosts in the attic. It's a faulty explanation of something the expositor was ill-equipped to comprehend.
I'm not dismissing what contradicts my beliefs. I'm dismissing what contradicts evidence. I dismiss god as firmly as I dismiss ghosts, fairies, spontaneous combustion, and alien abductions. The evidence is overwhelmingly against them and belief in them is, at best, delusional.
It amuses me that you neglect the mass amount of people that completely disagree with the idea of a god that performs miracles on an hourly, daily, or even regular basis. Or should I assume that you suddenly know how every person thinks?
And belittling my argument by saying "Because..." is all it boils down to. Good way to attack me I suppose, but it does little to actually address the argument. So again,why we should attach human reasoning and logic to something that is inherently separated from our perceptions of the world and reality? You never did bother to answer this.
As for science not being able to explain the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent being...well, that should be pretty well addressed by the above. Or, you know, simple thought. As for the bit about all religion seeing god as a"n incredibly large, potent, weighty phenomenon that changes the world around us". I refer you to my first point. The one about you apparently tossing aside the vast amount of people(even Christians *gasp*) who don't see a god in that light at all.
-
How exactly would you like a God to affect our world?
I am content that science is taking our understanding of the world in the right direction. When we find that there is something that needs to be explained for which the appropriate explanation would be God, then we can study that and come to a suitable conclusion.
Where we differ is in whether we think there is something of that nature now. There is a clear division between those who think that "mind" is something that cannot be explained physically, and those who think it can even if we don't yet know enough to derive that explanation. The first group have a space into which the idea of God can be plugged, and the second do not. Since the two groups differ by a yes/no difference in a single matter, they can never come to any compromise or agreement except in individual cases where someone changes their mind.
-
Whilst I agree, it is probably also appropriate to point out that I am (if anything) an atheist. I just think it is pertinent to consider both sides of the argument.
-
Who says that god is necessarily interventionist?
....
Anyone who prays.
-
It amuses me that you neglect the mass amount of people that completely disagree with the idea of a god that performs miracles on an hourly, daily, or even regular basis. Or should I assume that you suddenly know how every person thinks?
And belittling my argument by saying "Because..." is all it boils down to. Good way to attack me I suppose, but it does little to actually address the argument. So again,why we should attach human reasoning and logic to something that is inherently separated from our perceptions of the world and reality? You never did bother to answer this.
As for science not being able to explain the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent being...well, that should be pretty well addressed by the above. Or, you know, simple thought. As for the bit about all religion seeing god as a"n incredibly large, potent, weighty phenomenon that changes the world around us". I refer you to my first point. The one about you apparently tossing aside the vast amount of people(even Christians *gasp*) who don't see a god in that light at all.
Even those faiths that don't believe in an interventionist god believe in a supernatural order. Buddhism has its reincarnation, and also its demons, spirits, and deities. Shintoism has its animist spirits. The vast majority of the world believes that there is something or some things other that influence and alter the world daily.
And I belittled your reply as "because", because that's what it is. The common reply (espoused unfortunately by far too many scientists) is that science cannot comment on god because god is somehow beyond the ken of science. When asked why, any who espouse the belief reply, "Because god is not something science can study." That is to say...
Q: Why can science not study god?
A: Because science can't study god.
The answer may be more sophisticated (saying that god is somehow outside the universe or indelibly part of the fabric of the universe), but the answer always boils down to a stubborn "Because". Because if there's a supernatural being of any sort (omnipotent Christian deity, spirit of a Japanese home, or German kobold), then that being is still interacting with the world and those interactions must necessarily be detectable. Because science is the practice of making observations, cataloging them, and drawing inferences from the catalog, the effects of a supernatural being are within the bounds of science. Therefor, however indirectly, the being itself is subject to the scrutiny of the scientist.
Medieval barber-surgeons may not have been able to observe a bone mending, yet they nevertheless knew how to properly set it so that it might heal. And they also recognized when it was too badly broken and only amputation could prevent a deadly infection, even when they didn't know what the true cause of the infection was.
The only remaining argument is that, interact though it may with the world, the supernatural is still somehow, ineffably different. Why? Because.
And as for your vast number of supposed semi-deists... look to the analogy of the gardener. What's the difference between an undetectable completely inactive being and one that doesn't exist?
-
You know, the funny thing about the "that's not my God" argument, or the argument that many people believe in a God who isn't an "incredibly large, potent, weighty phenomenon," is that it seems like, as time goes on and science progresses, "God" keeps getting smaller and smaller.
Hopefully, some day he'll get so small that people realize we don't need him anymore.
I also never understood the argument that God is undefinable and beyond the scope of science, yet so many people tell you he's real. Whether religious believers like it or not, the statement that there is a supernatural being that created the universe and may or may not be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and interventionist is a scientific hypothesis. It just happens to be one that fails on a number of levels. Falsifiability, logic, evidence, there are just so many reasons to be skeptical, it baffles me sometimes how certain people are of their beliefs.
Edit: Surgoshan makes excellent points as well.
-
Shirley Guthrie: "We live life inside the brackets."
-
It amuses me that you neglect the mass amount of people that completely disagree with the idea of a god that performs miracles on an hourly, daily, or even regular basis. Or should I assume that you suddenly know how every person thinks?
And belittling my argument by saying "Because..." is all it boils down to. Good way to attack me I suppose, but it does little to actually address the argument. So again,why we should attach human reasoning and logic to something that is inherently separated from our perceptions of the world and reality? You never did bother to answer this.
As for science not being able to explain the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent being...well, that should be pretty well addressed by the above. Or, you know, simple thought. As for the bit about all religion seeing god as a"n incredibly large, potent, weighty phenomenon that changes the world around us". I refer you to my first point. The one about you apparently tossing aside the vast amount of people(even Christians *gasp*) who don't see a god in that light at all.
Even those faiths that don't believe in an interventionist god believe in a supernatural order. Buddhism has its reincarnation, and also its demons, spirits, and deities. Shintoism has its animist spirits. The vast majority of the world believes that there is something or some things other that influence and alter the world daily.
And I belittled your reply as "because", because that's what it is. The common reply (espoused unfortunately by far too many scientists) is that science cannot comment on god because god is somehow beyond the ken of science. When asked why, any who espouse the belief reply, "Because god is not something science can study." That is to say...
Q: Why can science not study god?
A: Because science can't study god.
The answer may be more sophisticated (saying that god is somehow outside the universe or indelibly part of the fabric of the universe), but the answer always boils down to a stubborn "Because". Because if there's a supernatural being of any sort (omnipotent Christian deity, spirit of a Japanese home, or German kobold), then that being is still interacting with the world and those interactions must necessarily be detectable. Because science is the practice of making observations, cataloging them, and drawing inferences from the catalog, the effects of a supernatural being are within the bounds of science. Therefor, however indirectly, the being itself is subject to the scrutiny of the scientist.
Medieval barber-surgeons may not have been able to observe a bone mending, yet they nevertheless knew how to properly set it so that it might heal. And they also recognized when it was too badly broken and only amputation could prevent a deadly infection, even when they didn't know what the true cause of the infection was.
The only remaining argument is that, interact though it may with the world, the supernatural is still somehow, ineffably different. Why? Because.
And as for your vast number of supposed semi-deists... look to the analogy of the gardener. What's the difference between an undetectable completely inactive being and one that doesn't exist?
You don't seem to understand the concept of omnipotence. Even tossing aside an all-powerful being, the argument doesn't boil down to "because". Let me help. If a being is able to operate outside our concept of physics, time, and space...why are you so certain we could detect something that they did? See, it doesn't boil down to "because". It actually boils down to the spiritual being, well, spiritual. The very nature of the spiritual means that they operate on some plane that isn't necessarily tied down by our conceptions of reality. As science operates only in that reality, it would be reasonable to assume that science would have trouble observing the spiritual.
Now, sure, you could just say, "That's not fair! It's basically a get out of jail free card for anyone that believes in that stuff!" but that's no fun, is it?
As for the bit on praying, I think I misrepresented myself. I should clarify that I was responding to Surgoshan's assertion that basically everyone believes god interacts with the world on an hourly basis. Obviously, if a god does anything to affect our world then he would be deemed an interventionist, I was merely challenging the assertion that a god is necessarily as interventionist as Surgoshan suggested.
-
You know, the funny thing about the "that's not my God" argument, or the argument that many people believe in a God who isn't an "incredibly large, potent, weighty phenomenon," is that it seems like, as time goes on and science progresses, "God" keeps getting smaller and smaller.
Hopefully, some day he'll get so small that people realize we don't need him anymore.
I also never understood the argument that God is undefinable and beyond the scope of science, yet so many people tell you he's real. Whether religious believers like it or not, the statement that there is a supernatural being that created the universe and may or may not be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and interventionist is a scientific hypothesis. It just happens to be one that fails on a number of levels. Falsifiability, logic, evidence, there are just so many reasons to be skeptical, it baffles me sometimes how certain people are of their beliefs.
Edit: Surgoshan makes excellent points as well.
What makes you think people didn't reject the idea of god meddling in our fairs on an "hourly basis" 1000 years ago? And no...the idea that there might be a god isn't a scientific hypothesis. Science is the study of the physical world. It has little to do with something based entirely outside of the physical. Perhaps that's the reason many don't feel a need to find physical evidence of a higher power?
-
It actually boils down to the spiritual being, well, spiritual.
*cough*
The only remaining argument is that ... the supernatural is still, somehow, ineffably different. Why? Because.
-
First: There is no such thing as "supernatural". It's a buzzword to ghetto-ise a bunch of different potential sciences involving things we don't yet have an explanation for.
Remember what a famous atheist said? "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
"God", as state-of-being, part-of-human-consciousness, "The Kingdom's all inside", etc., could not be observable by traditional science yet for the same reasons that electrons at one point were not known about or detectable.
It doesn't necessarily boil down to "the big Because".
Pratchett, in Hogfather, put it very well:
Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Susan: They're not the same at all.
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.
Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?
Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?
-
What makes you think people didn't reject the idea of god meddling in our affairs on an "hourly basis" 1000 years ago? And no...the idea that there might be a god isn't a scientific hypothesis. Science is the study of the physical world. It has little to do with something based entirely outside of the physical. Perhaps that's the reason many don't feel a need to find physical evidence of a higher power?
This has been said already, but the God that most people perform rituals to worship, pray to, curse and fear, is very obviously interventionist, or all of these actions would have no point. Anyone who says "please God, let me pass this test" believes that God intervenes, that God is actively listening to the plea, and that God might *change* his mind after listening to human prayer and thoughtfully considering, however much that contradicts the "omniscient" concept. (Variation: God had already decided, but he also already knew in advance whether you would pray or not).
I think it's important to focus these kinds of discussion on what actual people believe (you should discuss primarily what you personally believe to be true, for example, since that's what you've found most convincing -- and argue against what other profess directly, since that's what they can defend), because gesturing to "theologians" or "some people" gets murky very quickly (particularly when those people's definition of "God" varies hugely from the actual meaning under discussion).
@Jackie Blue, on Death's point: this is "reification", I think.
But there's a huge difference between doing it consciously and either doing it out of ignorance or abusing the ignorance of others to manipulate them. We can hardly use language without reification -- our language is built up fuzzy concepts which we pretend are concrete -- but we need to be aware of that, and not be suckered in by fallacies that rely on ignorance of the nature of language. Language should (and can) be used as a tool for communication -- not a foundation for belief -- and word definitions/boundaries/connotations should be recognized as obvious outgrowths of historical human struggles with reality (as should religious belief, I might add...).
Just because I understand that "justice" and "mercy" and "human rights" and so on and so forth are non-concrete human concepts... that doesn't mean I should ignore them. They're references to a shared human morality (based on simply empathy, at the core of it!) which is both real and observable, so they are useful terms for communication (particularly as long as I understand that they are not supernaturally-sourced). "Tooth fairies", by contrast, are not useful *nor* a reference to anything real.
-
What makes you think people didn't reject the idea of god meddling in our fairs on an "hourly basis" 1000 years ago? And no...the idea that there might be a god isn't a scientific hypothesis. Science is the study of the physical world. It has little to do with something based entirely outside of the physical. Perhaps that's the reason many don't feel a need to find physical evidence of a higher power?
Please describe to me this world outside the physical.
First: There is no such thing as "supernatural". It's a buzzword to ghetto-ise a bunch of different potential sciences involving things we don't yet have an explanation for.
Remember what a famous atheist said? "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
"God", as state-of-being, part-of-human-consciousness, "The Kingdom's all inside", etc., could not be observable by traditional science yet for the same reasons that electrons at one point were not known about or detectable.
It doesn't necessarily boil down to "the big Because".
Pratchett, in Hogfather, put it very well:
Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Susan: They're not the same at all.
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.
Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?
Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?
Please explain to me the purpose and nature of this "state-of-being, part-of-human-consciousness" God. If you don't completely understand, give me your best guess.
-
Please describe to me this world outside the physical.
That which is outside the brackets.
-
Please describe to me this world outside the physical.
That which is outside the brackets.
Hahaha, of course. I understand now. 8-)
-
Well, it relates to an earlier post I made.
-
It actually boils down to the spiritual being, well, spiritual.
*cough*
The only remaining argument is that ... the supernatural is still, somehow, ineffably different. Why? Because.
Lawl, keep ignoring the question. It'll go away eventually I assume.
-
What makes you think people didn't reject the idea of god meddling in our fairs on an "hourly basis" 1000 years ago? And no...the idea that there might be a god isn't a scientific hypothesis. Science is the study of the physical world. It has little to do with something based entirely outside of the physical. Perhaps that's the reason many don't feel a need to find physical evidence of a higher power?
Please describe to me this world outside the physical.
So you want me to do something that is theoretically impossible since, being merely a human, the only way I perceive things is through the physical world?
The best I can do is to explain that if something does exist outside our ideas of things like time and space, then it's reasonable to assume that it would have other properties that we don't understand.What makes you think people didn't reject the idea of god meddling in our affairs on an "hourly basis" 1000 years ago? And no...the idea that there might be a god isn't a scientific hypothesis. Science is the study of the physical world. It has little to do with something based entirely outside of the physical. Perhaps that's the reason many don't feel a need to find physical evidence of a higher power?
This has been said already, but the God that most people perform rituals to worship, pray to, curse and fear, is very obviously interventionist, or all of these actions would have no point. Anyone who says "please God, let me pass this test" believes that God intervenes, that God is actively listening to the plea, and that God might *change* his mind after listening to human prayer and thoughtfully considering, however much that contradicts the "omniscient" concept. (Variation: God had already decided, but he also already knew in advance whether you would pray or not).
I think it's important to focus these kinds of discussion on what actual people believe (you should discuss primarily what you personally believe to be true, for example, since that's what you've found most convincing -- and argue against what other profess directly, since that's what they can defend), because gesturing to "theologians" or "some people" gets murky very quickly (particularly when those people's definition of "God" varies hugely from the actual meaning under discussion).
There are many ideas about the judeo-christian god. Many that contend that he doesn't intervene nearly as often some believe. And that example doesn't contradict omniscience. Omniscience simply means that something is all-knowing.
And I'm not appealing to the beliefs of "theologians" or "some people". I'm appealing to the beliefs of a very large amount of people.
-
So you want me to do something that is theoretically impossible since, being merely a human, the only way I perceive things is through the physical world?
The best I can do is to explain that if something does exist outside our ideas of things like time and space, then it's reasonable to assume that it would have other properties that we don't understand.
I think you are just a hairsbreadth away from answering his question. As you say, we live in the physical world and that's the only way we perceive things. If something *does* exist outside of that physical world, such that we would not have any way to sense or describe it... well, that's that. We all agree, there may be amazing & strange things out there which we have no way to detect (yet, or possibly ever). Where we *disagree* is the step where you point to some version of the supernatural deity described in human religious texts and say that *this* is one of those things we cannot detect or sense in any way... but nevertheless you know it is there. Do you see why we want to know *why* you say it's there and *how* you know that? Human beings a few thousand years ago didn't have better methods of observing the physical world than we do now (obviously). Why argue that they had access to this inaccessible thing when we do not?
I think it's important to focus these kinds of discussion on what actual people believe (you should discuss primarily what you personally believe to be true, for example, since that's what you've found most convincing -- and argue against what other profess directly, since that's what they can defend), because gesturing to "theologians" or "some people" gets murky very quickly (particularly when those people's definition of "God" varies hugely from the actual meaning under discussion).
There are many ideas about the judeo-christian god. Many that contend that he doesn't intervene nearly as often some believe. [...] And I'm not appealing to the beliefs of "theologians" or "some people". I'm appealing to the beliefs of a very large amount of people.
I'll rephrase: put the best arguments forward. Here you talk about "many" vs. "some" and then "large amounts of people". If those "some" believe something that you feel is wrong for other reasons, it's not honest argument to use their beliefs to make your points. You know these different beliefs, and you've personally chosen the most convincing. Argue that. I'm just arguing my own viewpoint, not "what atheists believe" -- I can't argue against your personal viewpoint, though, because you haven't given it. It's a lot better to discuss with actual people, rather than debating what *other* people, not currently present, believe.
And that example doesn't contradict omniscience. Omniscience simply means that something is all-knowing.
Not worth a big tangent on a little point, but: if you are omniscient and you change your mind about something, you either:
* were wrong or unfair in your first decision, or
* got new information (so you weren't omniscient before)
So no, it doesn't contradict omniscience if you permit that God gets confused or angry & makes mistakes sometimes.
-
Jens, he's saying they're not really living up to the label of Orthodox Christians, which is true.
I'm an Orthodox Christian and I'm also igtheist.
-
Judeo-Christians who claim to *know* there is a God are missing the point entirely; doubt is a fundamental part of all forms of that branch of religion, which is why faith is inherent to the discussion. People who say "I *know* there is a God" are just as bad as those that say "I *know* there is not a God".
I have personally never met a Christian who actually thinks about their religion that says "I *know* there is a God"; in fact, even the most mainstream sermons in such churches are constantly asking "Do you BELIEVE in the Word?" or "Do you BELIEVE in God's love?"
Now, granted, sometimes people will say "I *know* that God loves me" but that is a subset of the fact that they only *believe* in His actual existence.
-
Judeo-Christians who claim to *know* there is a God are missing the point entirely; doubt is a fundamental part of all forms of that branch of religion, which is why faith is inherent to the discussion. People who say "I *know* there is a God" are just as bad as those that say "I *know* there is not a God".
Are you saying that doubt is encouraged? Are you sure?
Certainly not in the bible or any church I've been in. It's those who "overcome" doubt who are miraculously healed, who walk on water when asked by Jesus, "receive your sight; your faith has healed you," and so on. Those who *do* dare to doubt are scolded and the supernatural "truth" is often revealed to them (in the stories... somehow this doesn't happen in real life). Remember doubting Thomas? He's not praised. "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed". It's pretty clear.
I remember hearing lots of talk about people "struggling" with doubt -- hopefully to conquer it, of course, and receive the full power of faith. Doubt is *recognized*, but it's one of those things that "just happens", to be a bit ashamed of and strive to conquer.
If you've had a different experience -- i.e., any time that those with strong faith were urged to doubt -- I'd be curious to hear about it (though I suppose this thread is getting pretty stale by now and I apologize to the powers that be for continuing it...). I've heard that doubt is much more encouraged in some Jewish synagogues, but that's out of my experience, so I can't say... but again, being Jewish is probably more ethnic and cultural than religious; there are plenty of Jews who don't believe in God but still consider themselves Jewish. Christianity and Islam don't work that way in my experience.
-
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/april3/3.62.html
-
And I belittled your reply as "because", because that's what it is. The common reply (espoused unfortunately by far too many scientists) is that science cannot comment on god because god is somehow beyond the ken of science. When asked why, any who espouse the belief reply, "Because god is not something science can study." That is to say...
Q: Why can science not study god?
A: Because science can't study god.
The answer may be more sophisticated (saying that god is somehow outside the universe or indelibly part of the fabric of the universe), but the answer always boils down to a stubborn "Because". Because if there's a supernatural being of any sort (omnipotent Christian deity, spirit of a Japanese home, or German kobold), then that being is still interacting with the world and those interactions must necessarily be detectable. Because science is the practice of making observations, cataloging them, and drawing inferences from the catalog, the effects of a supernatural being are within the bounds of science. Therefor, however indirectly, the being itself is subject to the scrutiny of the scientist.
The definition of science is an attempt to explain the functioning of the natural world without use of the supernatural. So if the supernatural exists (and this isn't an attempt to say that it does or it doesn't), it would be impossible to prove because science can't go beyond the natural. It's already very arrogent just to expect science to explain everying in the natural world in the future. It wasn't long ago that most scientists still believed in the theory of spontanous generation. Let's say pizza is your favorite food. How can you prove that pizza is your favorite food?
-
but again, being Jewish is probably more ethnic and cultural than religious; there are plenty of Jews who don't believe in God but still consider themselves Jewish. Christianity and Islam don't work that way in my experience.
Actually that's also the case with Orthodox* Christianity in much of eastern Europe**.
* While those with a Catholic background mostly don't bother at all unless they're Polish. And the Croats where it's also mainly an ethnic thing.
It's mostly evangelicals that are really "religious" still.
** Also, I'm not so sure about what's it exactly like in Russia. Russia's Complicated.
-
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/april3/3.62.html
Here's what I said above: "Those who *do* dare to doubt are scolded and the supernatural "truth" is often revealed to them (in the stories... somehow this doesn't happen in real life)."
The article you cited doesn't scold at first, but treats doubt as a common weakness... it says Thomas' story should be instructive -- he learned the truth directly, and his faith was stronger ever after (he accepted it).
We all feel "the chill of this doubt's shadow" as your article says, and we want more evidence (so far, so good, though I don't personally feel doubt as a chill or a shadow... it's actually a pleasant feeling):
I want to believe these accounts. And yet. And yet, unless I. … There is something holding back in me. There is some mental reservation, a twinge of hesitancy. There is belief, and there is doubt. Unless I see, unless I touch, I will not believe. Not entirely.
Later:
Doubt has its limits. It can be faith's tonic, a cleansing and invigorating force. But doubt can quickly turn corrosive or cancerous, burning or mutating healthy tissue. (...) Indulged too long, doubt becomes just a parlor game.
In other words, limited doubt is healthy, but it's bad if you continue it indefinitely. There must be a time when you set it aside (whether or not your questions have been answered, apparently).
It gets more interesting.
Here lies the basic flaw of all doubt: it really can never be satisfied. No evidence is ever fully, finally enough. Doubt wants always to consume, never to consummate. It clamors endlessly for an answer, and so drowns out any answer that might be given. It demands proof, but will doubt the proof proffered. Doubt, then, can become an appetite gone wrong; its craving increases the more we try to fill it.
The article says this is the flaw of doubt. I say it is the *strength*, and it is the basis for all advanced human knowledge. One you put aside doubt, you have closed that part of your mind, and you will learn nothing new. Yes, if you continue to pick apart the "truths" in religion, you will continue to come up with more and more questions that are unanswered and answers that are contradictory. That is not a reason to assume your doubt is corrosive somehow. This is just the learning process.
The article also points out the benefits of doubt in that someone with no doubts in their faith is capable of committing horrific terrorist acts, because (in my words) they've abandoned their natural moral sense in favor of pure faith. I agree. But then the article goes back to how doubters (in the biblical stories) are shown the truth, and they believe and worship. In the stories, Thomas is shown supernatural proof. In real life, these miracles don't happen.
Jesus shows his wounds to Thomas, tells Thomas to see, to touch. He sees, but he doesn't touch. He knows when enough is enough. And here is the real sign that Thomas is not some poseur, some mere academic trend-chaser: his seeing gives way, not just to belief, but to worship: "My Lord and my God!"
Okay, so he dismisses modern people with ongoing doubts as "poseurs" and "academic trend-chasers", because *apparently* the proof is available. That's the huge flaw here -- he doesn't actually say *where* to find this proof... we have to take his word for it. He *assumes* it.
That's how all of these "lessons" function -- someone in a story doubts, but they are convinced and their faith is stronger than ever... so take heart! It's been proven, to someone else... and you should believe it now based on that hearsay. Because no, you can't check for yourself. Sorry.
This is more of the same flawed logic that says some comforting things about doubt, then mocks people who keep asking the unanswered questions and gestures at other people who were miraculously shown the "truth" and says we should believe based on that. If we are allowed to emulate Thomas, does that mean we should wait for Jesus to appear in the flesh and show us his wounds directly before we agree to believe? Of course not (because there would be no Christians then...). He just waves his hands, says "don't be a poseur" and hopes that is enough for us doubting types.
I hope the difference is clear between this sort of sleight-of-hand and the demand to never relinquish doubt which is the basis of scientific inquiry.
-
Right. So if science is built upon never relinquishing doubt, shouldn't all atheists actually be agnostic?
-
The definition of science is an attempt to explain the functioning of the natural world without use of the supernatural. So if the supernatural exists (and this isn't an attempt to say that it does or it doesn't), it would be impossible to prove because science can't go beyond the natural. It's already very arrogent just to expect science to explain everying in the natural world in the future. It wasn't long ago that most scientists still believed in the theory of spontanous generation. Let's say pizza is your favorite food. How can you prove that pizza is your favorite food?
I can put this in simpler terms. If it can be sensed/perceived in any way, it is natural, and it is subject to science (not always easy to experiment on, but that's a different question). If it cannot be sensed, where are you getting your information from? (Note -- you have to be taught about God & the beliefs of your religion... notice how very different religious beliefs arose in different parts of the world... the major religions have spread through conquest and missionaries).
If I passed my hand over a cup of water and it became wine, that would be a natural phenomenon that had not yet been explained by science. It would have a lot of scientists extremely excited, in fact, because it would seemingly violate a lot of previously-known natural laws, so whoever figured it out would at the very least get a solid tenured academic position somewhere, if not win some serious prizes.
There is no phenomenon where scientists would say "ah, but that's a supernatural ____, so can can't investigate or discuss that".
Nobody expects science to explain everything about the natural world in the future. Ask any scientist. Seriously. No one has that expectation. But we're doing the best we can, and spontaneous generation, to use your example, was *mostly* disproved in 1768 and finally disproved completely by in the mid-1800s. Better experimental methods and lenses strong enough to see microscopic organisms helped a lot (as more information is available, the theories must change & improve... isn't it wonderful?). This is the strength of science... whereas when something in a religious text is shown to be false, outdated, confused, etc., is the text corrected? No, interpretation must be twisted around....
And are you claiming that you liking pizza is a supernatural phenomenon? It's not, and in fact favorite foods *are* [url http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PainManagement/Story?id=5475061&page=1]subject to science and included in scientific studies[/url]. Though note that the study I link is about pain management, not your personal favorite food -- because that's pretty useless to study, funding is limited, and science doesn't "prove" things the way you imagine anyway. There is *also* study on the relationship between conscious thought and brainwave patterns, etc., so one day we might be able to detect your favorite food without you saying it out loud....
-
Right. So if science is built upon never relinquishing doubt, shouldn't all atheists actually be agnostic?
You're changing the subject.
But the answer is "no, but definitions are muddy."
Neither "agnostic" or "atheist" has one single definition that everyone agrees on, so unfortunately this is a huge discussion.
Many people use atheism to mean "an absolute belief that God does not exist". This then relies on a definition of "God", which can be hugely broad.... I don't meet that definition -- very, very few people do. I don't meet that definition regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus, either -- the possibility for error, even logical error, must always be permitted, no matter how infinitesimally small.
Many people also use "agnostic" to imply someone who may or may not go to church, may or may not think God "probably exists", may or may not pray, but either way says they can't know for sure. Most people who call themselves atheists do not want to be lumped into this group either. It's completely misleading -- we don't wonder every day if maybe God is watching and listening. We've already sorted that out and put it aside, and no new evidence has shown up that requires us to reevaluate.
What other words do we have? "Bright"? Ugh.
So I go with "atheist", in spite of the negative baggage, in the meaning based on "a-" (lack of) "theism" (belief in a deity). I have no belief in a god or gods, because I've spent a lot of time reading the arguments, studying the historical basis of religious beliefs, and learning a reasoned approach to the world, and I have found utterly no hint that this deity exists.
It kind of sucks, but those are the options. I'd rather have a few people argue with me (no, this isn't the first time I've explained this) than have them think I'm on the fence. If someone asked you about Santa Claus, you would not say "well... I'm still an Santa Claus agnostic"; you'd say "the stories are fun, but he doesn't exist"; that's my conclusion on God.
-
You just compared God to Santa Claus.
I think we're done here.
-
You just compared God to Santa Claus.
I think we're done here.
That's always your prerogative, though I wasn't trying to offend anyone. That's the downside of the internet: you get no facial expression to show someone's getting annoyed, so you keep on talking.... This thread's probably ready to die anyway.
-
I'm not offended. I don't even believe in any one specific God or concept of God. I believe a lot of things, some of which contradict each other, and I'm fine with that.
But comparing God to Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, or whatever, is missing the point entirely and also kind of ignorant.
It's everyone's prerogative to be uninterested in theology; but one should not argue for or against it if one hasn't got enough interest to thoroughly research it. Which is why people like Dawkins give atheism such a bad name.
-
I'm not offended. I don't even believe in any one specific God or concept of God. I believe a lot of things, some of which contradict each other, and I'm fine with that.
But comparing God to Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, or whatever, is missing the point entirely and also kind of ignorant.
It's everyone's prerogative to be uninterested in theology; but one should not argue for or against it if one hasn't got enough interest to thoroughly research it. Which is why people like Dawkins give atheism such a bad name.
I was trying to define "atheist" as I use it, vs. "agnostic"; I wasn't making a comment about theology at all, just word definitions. I guess that didn't come across.
If you want to discuss further at any point, I'd be happy to, via PM... I'm feeling guilty for keeping this thread alive when we're now miles away from talking about the comic.
-
But comparing God to Santa Claus [...] is missing the point entirely and also kind of ignorant.
Oh, I don't know; this week's Times Higher Education Supplement tells me that the fifth most cited academic paper on Santa Claus is "A child's Christmas in America: Santa Claus as deity, consumption as religion" by R W Belk (Journal of American Culture, 10(1): 87-100, 1987).
-
pwhodges, you are perhaps aware that you are sometimes a prick for its own sake, right?
-
while we're talking about Santa Claus and God at the same time, I just want to say that, as a non-Christian, the number of outspoken atheists who still celebrate Christmas bugs me. They ought to be my allies in not being entirely inundated during this season, but instead they compromise their values for nostalgia, like some kind of Vegan who tosses paint on fur coats, but still eats the brand of chicken nuggets that their mother used to serve them.
-
@Evander: "Christmas" was a pagan thing before it was "adopted" by Christianity anyway.
-
Yeah, Christmas is much more of a societal thing than a religious thing nowadays. Like Valentines' of Flag Day. Everyone likes receiving gifts, and most like giving them. I mean, what do the 'values' of not believing in God have to do with celebrating a fun holiday with family and friends? I mean, for the most part of my life I've been somewhat agnostic and but I see no problem with celebrating a holiday that is, to some, a celebration of some infant with magical powers 2000 years ago. It got me a guitar!
-
Christmas, regardless of its origins, is a nice holiday full of gift-giving and people being nice, even if only for a day or two. I think you'd have to be a pretty cold-hearted atheist to reject Christmas just on principle, when most of your family probably already celebrates it anyway.
-
The only people who say that Christmas is okay as a societal secular thing happen to be folks who were raised celebrating it.
There is a very interesting hypocrisy in those who run around quoting Dawkins, but then turn around and deck the halls. Like I said, it's the Vegan who eats the meat that their mother used to cook.
I have nothing against atheists, and I have nothing against Christians. The only thing I'm opposed to is people who try to push Christmas on me just because they've personally rationalized religion out of it.
-
I know Jews who think Christmas is fun.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Atheism doesn't mean you have to go throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is not a revolutionary movement. Ritual and tradition does not need be rooted in god. There really isn't any hypocrisy involved. Atheism is not even a value judgement.
-
I'm talking about militant atheists, who run around insulting the intelligence of others for believing in a god.
edit: as in, the type of person that Penelope appears to be.
-
She said "You can't be serious! You ACTUALLY BELIEVE in ghosts ...", which could be open give and take as well as potentially being insulting. Her body language didn't look hostile or condescending. In 1288, she didn't insult Wil personally. She called the idea "dumb and irrational", but about Wil she just said "Wil believes ... I don't". After that she didn't come out with "dumb and irrational" until Dora probed.
It's consistent with Pen-elope being frustrated as opposed to insulting.
Why do you see her as militant? She hasn't passed out atheist literature, or written a book about God being a delusion, or rung anyone's doorbell trying to convert them (that we know of).
-
I haven't seen enough to remotely declare her militant.
Then again, I once broke up with someone over an argument that was tangentially related to skittles. I'm kind of a fickle dater sometimes.
-
I'm talking about militant atheists, who run around insulting the intelligence of others for believing in a god.
It could be argued that viewing Christmas as a strictly Christian holiday and not allowing yourself to enjoy the good spirits that come with such a fun holiday could be militant. I've got nothing against people who don't like Christmas, and I'm not saying that you should even celebrate the holiday, it's just not that serious really. People who want to have a good time are always going to always look for an in to a good time, Atheist or no. Christmas is mostly Christmas nowadays, not Christ-Mass.
-
Wolcum Yule!
-
Evander, your sweeping generalizations detract from your overall credibility. I know otherwise from personal experience, so I find I have to take anything else you state with a large degree of skepticism. Back up and try again? I think the personal opinions and points are sound, but your attempts to transfer certain feelings onto the rest of the world are ... fallacious. Back up and try again?
I, too, weary of the overbearing commercialism. I quietly complain to store officials when their Christmas merchandise appears in late October: when did Advent stretch to 10 weeks? I also have fun asking how they can have an after-Christmas sale during Christmas (which is 25 Dec - 06 Jan). Most important, I underscore that their commercial abuse of the holiday means that I severely curtail the money I spend there. Even though our household observances are a laid-back mixture of Christmas, Hannukah, and Solstice, I adopt a responsibility to the traditions in the face of commercial opportunism.
-
...
I quietly complain to store officials when their Christmas merchandise appears in late October: when did Advent stretch to 10 weeks?
...
I worked retail for a few years, and Christmas stuff starts arriving in the stockroom sometime in August.
-
Holy crap. Since when did QC have to be PC? I think Jeff's been pretty cool. Especialy when he handled Martin's Boss as being a homosexual. Its actually very comforting to see a character reference I can relate to. Martin's boss isn't a flamboyant queen, and neither am I. And I often feel like I'm in a minority. There ARE a lot of flamboyant gay guys out there. Just because I feel that, should I expect Martin's boss to swizzle about with a limp wrist?
Penelope is Penelope. She's defensive to the point of being hostile. Regardless of what view she has, she's being pretty much a jerk to her date (whose name has been stolen from my mind by the Eggnog Monster). Just because people have a different world view, doesn't mean they should keep apart. She's pretty much projecting her anger at her parents on him, when he doesn't seem to be forcing his beliefs on her at all. "How can I date someone who's worldview I fundementaly dissagree with" is a big enough proof that she's seriously doubting his credibility and worth. Its not militant, but it is short sighted and very xenophobic.
Its a jerky character trait, and thats fine. God knows everyone else in this comic has their fair share of schisms and quirks. "
My boyfriend is a devout Jew. He's reform, but he still will not touch non-koshir food. Drives me up a wall, but I'm sure as heck not going to let that ruin my relationship with him. So I'm going to sit back and hope Jeff guides Penelope to a good, maturing outcome. If he's good at anything, its character developement.
-
Honestly I am surprised anyone would take any level of offense at a comic strip that mentions religion once every 2 years, especially when the beliefs are those of a fictional character to project depth. I do not think Jeph meant anything more than just that. If it makes you in turn question whether hard lined viewpoints in either direction can be abrasive, then all the better.
-
Tyler & ChippyD:
Well struck! I would have taken about twice the space to express compatible sentiments.
-
Christmas as it is celebrated in the U.S, Britain and countries heavily influenced by those countries is largely a 19th century invention, as is discussed in the Pulitzer-Prize nominated book The Battle for Christmas (http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Christmas-Stephen-Nissenbaum/dp/0679740384/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230569777&sr=1-1).
From the Publisher's Weekly blurb that appears on Amazon:
Christmas in America hasn't always been the benevolent, family-centered holiday we idealize. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony so feared the day's association with pagan winter solstice revels, replete with public drunkenness, licentiousness and violence, that they banned Christmas celebrations. In this ever-surprising work, Nissenbaum (Sex, Diet, and Debility in Jacksonian America), a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, conducts a vivid historical tour of the holiday's social evolution. Nissenbaum maintains that not until the 1820s in New York City, among the mercantile Episcopalian Knickerbockers, was Christmas as we know it celebrated. Before Washington Irving and Clement Clarke Moore ("A Visit from St. Nicholas") popularized the genteel version, he explains, the holiday was more of a raucous festival and included demands for tribute from the wealthy by roaming bands of lower-class extortionists. Peppering his insights with analysis of period literature, art and journalism, Nissenbaum constructs his theory. Taming Christmas, he contends, was a way to contain the chaos of social dislocation in a developing consumer-capitalist culture. Later, under the influence of Unitarian writers, the Christmas season became a living object lesson in familial stability and charity, centering on the ideals of bourgeois childhood. From colonial New England, through 18th- and 19th-century New York's and Philadelphia's urban Yuletide contributions, to Christmas traditions in the antebellum South, Nissenbaum's excursion is fascinating, and will startle even those who thought they knew all there was to know about Christmas.
There's a 190-year-old tradition of spending and consumerism at Christmastime-- a tradition that has only the weakest links to the New Testament nativity story. Spend, spend, spend, citizen!
-
Well, duh.
-
There's also the element of social pressure in Christmas too...no matter what religion you are, if you live in the West it won't get out of your face. A lot of small businesses rely on the Christmas rush to push them through the next year. People expect you to buy presents, there are the Christmas songs on the radio, the invitations to Christmas parties...Plus, Christmas dinner is just so, so good :-P
This thread went off topic pretty quickly.
-
The phrase for Pennelope is "passionate rationalist".
It was the mention of ghosts, not God, that started the argument, which she told Dora was an "argument about metaphysics" rather than an argument about religion.
By Pen-elope standards she was pretty calm and controlled about the whole thing. We've seen her hyperventilate, after all, in a different context. And she didn't try to convert Wil, though who knows where the conversation would have gone if the bear hadn't interrupted it.
-
I'm going back to the first post because I felt I had to add something to it.
I'm a believer. I don't know what exactly I believe in but through observation of the world and interpretation of the facts of every given day I realised that most of the stuff that's happening is nigh to impossible without some form of god or higher power. It's very hard to explain this to people. It's even harder to explain this to atheists.
When I discuss religion, faith and related stuff with a christian, jew, muslim, buddhist or any religious person for that matter, it's entirely possible to talk about the differences in our believes, trying to give new insights to eachother and generally just laidback talk about god.
When discussing religion with an atheist it quickly turns into a fierce battle. Atheists generally reject all my reasoning and insights with a simple: "there is no god, period". That's the answer to all my important believes. Most of the time they want to convert ME into their perfect faith of atheism. It's something I come across every time I give a slight hint to people around me about me believing. It's very annoying. Even more annoying is the fact that atheists usually can't explain the reasoning behind their atheism. I can perfectly explain the reasons for a god to exist without a shred of doubt. Them just rejecting my arguments without counterarguments is not productive and does not constitute a decent discussion.
-
When discussing religion with an atheist it quickly turns into a fierce battle. Atheists generally reject all my reasoning and insights with a simple: "there is no god, period". That's the answer to all my important believes. Most of the time they want to convert ME into their perfect faith of atheism.
You've been talking to the wrong atheists, I think... :-D
If you don't have even a *shred* of a doubt, I suspect you haven't dug very deeply (for example, all of the common reasons for belief in / disbelief in God are analysed in huge depth in various places online -- have you looked for criticisms of your arguments?). But either way, the trick is to seek out people who disagree from you and are capable of calm, rational discussion.
There's an active thread in the QC "DISCUSS!" forum called "Religious Debate Do You Believe there is a god ? why?", you could also try that:
http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,21997.0.html (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,21997.0.html)
Edit: this one's much longer and also pretty recent:
http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,21868.0.html (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,21868.0.html)
-
...
When discussing religion with an atheist it quickly turns into a fierce battle. Atheists generally reject all my reasoning and insights with a simple: "there is no god, period". That's the answer to all my important believes. Most of the time they want to convert ME into their perfect faith of atheism. It's something I come across every time I give a slight hint to people around me about me believing. It's very annoying. Even more annoying is the fact that atheists usually can't explain the reasoning behind their atheism. I can perfectly explain the reasons for a god to exist without a shred of doubt. Them just rejecting my arguments without counterarguments is not productive and does not constitute a decent discussion.
The issue I often have is when theists (well, Christians) cite the Bible as their evidence of God. It goes like this:
The Bible is the word of God.
The word of God is always true.
Why? Because the Bible says so.
Somehow, that is not viewed as circular logic by those citing the Bible as evidence.
Fine, maybe some of the historical events concerning people have been shown to be accurate. Fine. People wrote the book about other people. Some of the stuff may well be valid. That doesn't validate the supernatural events spoken of. Heck, there's even evidence that the Great Flood may have been the result of a comet or asteroid collision in the Indian Ocean. Imagine that, thousands of years ago, just the sight of a comet in the sky was seen as an omen of evil.
Now think what would happen if you, a simple merchant, heard a great explosion in the distance, or a low but powerful rumbling. Then you see the ocean far off rising up in a great wave. It crashes ashore, and even reaches to where you are; you struggle against a tree as debris speeds past you. After waiting a few long, tiring days for the waters to recede, you see dead people and animals all around, and the villages utterly decimated. You begin to make your way back home. By the time you've told the story to 50 different people, the wave was thousands of feet tall, wiping out entire cities, and the flooding went on for what felt like 40 days and 40 nights. It was high enough to cover the mountaintops, even!
And the fish I caught was thiiiiiiiis big.
Someone heard your great tale of woe, and wrote it down. Clearly, this must be the act of a vengeful deity - we must change our ways immediately!
So no, the Bible is not a valid source as "evidence" of God. And conveniently, "miracles" such as those told of in it just don't seem to happen anymore.
-
That is one impressive straw man there, Jeff7.
It's HUGE!
-
Really?....yeah, it's simplified, but I find that that's what it often boils down to: The Bible is infallible because The Bible says so, therefore I shall use it as evidence.
Or are you referring to the Great Flood hypothesis? That's not just made up BS, there's been evidence found of a large impact in the Indian Ocean region, based on element traces found in sediment layering on the coastlines.
-
I find the same thing as Jeff7; that argument is the basis of faith for many people. Thus, it's not actually a straw-man in the sense of a logical fallacy (although it is circular reasoning). Furthermore, if you go back to about 400 A.D., you'll note that the BIble did not come as a wholistic work: it actually is a collection of individual books (some of which are related to one another, such as Paul's epistles). Nicodemus and company determined which books to include and which to exclude, and it seems that much of the decision was based on an attempt to maintain social and political control in that century. Thus, the books we now know as the Apocrypha were sort of the B-list for that council, and several books discovered since were (obviously) not considered at all (and heaven forbid we should change the Bible at this late date -- except for translation changes, language updates, reinterpretations, and the like).
I have a number of fundamentalist friends (I'm hardly an atheist, myself), and many of them exhibit the logic Jeff7 quotes (which we also found in much earlier tracts in my intro to philosophy class). Anything consitent with their faith is the word of God; anything inconsistent (such as evidence that the Earth is more than about six millennia in age) is a test of faith.
-
The straw man is actually that there are all these vague, anecdotal, undefined "bunch of people" who literally believe the Bible is infallible, and believe that because it says so.
This is the 21st century, guys. There aren't really THAT many of those people - they're just very vocal - and they don't really matter much, especially in any kind of serious discussion.
It's another symptom of the atheist argument attacking the weakest part of the religious argument. It's like complaining about people who believe the Earth is flat, or that straight men befriend women with absolutely no intention of ever sexing them.
-
The problem is extreme views either way are bad. If you hold the Bible as truth, you're doing it wrong and you're too extreme of a Christian, it's what the extreme muslims are doing with the Koran.
You need to interpret the Bible in different ways, even the 'miracles' Jezus performs. Let's say the multiplication of the bread and fish, where Jezus has spent a day on an island speaking to a massive crowd and people start to get hungry but there is no food. But then a small boy comes to Jezus and hands him a basket of bread and fish and Jezus multiplies the bread and the fish so everybody has food. You could say this most likely happened cause people were greedy and didnt want to share the food they had. But when a little boy did it and they started to feel guilty and the bread and fish multiplied in a not so miraculous way, but in morally better one.
If you believe Jezus performed miracles and are waiting for Him to return, well I'm sorry you're going to have a long time waiting. Plus if he ever would return it is most likely he'd be locked up somewhere in a straight jacket shot full of tranquilizers. If you believe in a God you are one of the people that like to believe, if you dont believe in a God you dont like to believe. In the end I dont think there are any big religions anymore, people will mostly start pasting together their own kind of beliefs that make up there moral ethics. What happens after you die? if you ask me whatever YOU believe will happen. (if you believe in heaven you'll go to heaven, if you believe in reincarnation you get reincarnated, if you're an atheist you're in for a boring ride) Is there a God? to not in the purest sense of the word. God is love, the thing that brings to people together and makes them stay together for a lifetime supporting eachother.
Oh and who made the universe? You could say the big bang, but who made the big bang? and if something made the big bang, who made that? :p
-
A good, thoughtful post from someone new?
No, I mean it, good show, Jon.
-
Okay; maybe I should just accept that this thread is staying alive for now, and I'm not the only one keeping it running. :-D
It's another symptom of the atheist argument attacking the weakest part of the religious argument. It's like complaining about people who believe the Earth is flat[...]
I agree that attacking the weak arguments is cheating and can be a waste of time (unless you're talking directly with someone who's presenting them), but ideally you'd follow up that comment with even a link to some *strong* arguments that deserve discussion.
You need to interpret the Bible in different ways, even the 'miracles' Jezus performs. Let's say the multiplication of the bread and fish, where Jezus has spent a day on an island speaking to a massive crowd and people start to get hungry but there is no food. But then a small boy comes to Jezus and hands him a basket of bread and fish and Jezus multiplies the bread and the fish so everybody has food. You could say this most likely happened cause people were greedy and didnt want to share the food they had. But when a little boy did it and they started to feel guilty and the bread and fish multiplied in a not so miraculous way, but in morally better one.
This is a more plausible approach than trying to fight for "the Bible is the inerrant word of God", which I think we all agree doesn't get very far. This approach also lets you set aside the more bizarre parts of the Bible (like long lists of genealogy where everyone lives to 900 years old, some of the particularly nasty things God does, etc.) as interesting historical artifacts that contain no useful moral instruction. It raises a lot of questions, though -- if the Bible isn't the word of God, how do you know what God actually *does* want? How and IF he should be worshiped? Prayed to? How do you know anything about God at all? And if you have to use your own morals to decide which parts of the Bible are valuable and which are outdated or irrelevant, doesn't that mean your own moral sense is more important to develop... perhaps by studying some of the vast body of work focused on morality, rather than just the bible?
If you believe Jezus performed miracles and are waiting for Him to return, well I'm sorry you're going to have a long time waiting. Plus if he ever would return it is most likely he'd be locked up somewhere in a straight jacket shot full of tranquilizers.
Good point. Heh. Maybe Jesus *did* return....
If you believe in a God you are one of the people that like to believe, if you dont believe in a God you dont like to believe. In the end I dont think there are any big religions anymore, people will mostly start pasting together their own kind of beliefs that make up there moral ethics. What happens after you die? if you ask me whatever YOU believe will happen. (if you believe in heaven you'll go to heaven, if you believe in reincarnation you get reincarnated, if you're an atheist you're in for a boring ride)
Oh, there are still very big religions now, and they have a lot of power.... I doubt that large organized religion is going away any time soon. Organized religious belief can be used in very nasty ways to make a lot of money, unfortunately (see Scientology), and that kind of scam also isn't likely to go away soon.
But regarding when you die -- do you think that's *factually* true, that whatever you believe will happen to you? Or just that it's a nice way to think of it? I guess what I'm saying is, if tomorrow somehow a way were found to find out definitively what happens to human consciousness after death, the soul would be proven/disproven, etc.... would you put money on the idea that whatever the person believed would be true for them?
Oh and who made the universe? You could say the big bang, but who made the big bang? and if something made the big bang, who made that? :p
The atheist answer here: I don't know, but you don't know either, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to pray to "murky early state of universe" in any case.
Also -- if you assume some super-intelligent being was there to create it, you have to explain where that super-intelligent being came from... was it created by an even *more* super-intelligent being?
-
The problem is extreme views either way are bad. If you hold the Bible as truth, you're doing it wrong and you're too extreme of a Christian, it's what the extreme muslims are doing with the Koran.
Quite so. In fact, the only disagreement you and I have in your entire post is the following:
If you believe Jezus performed miracles and are waiting for Him to return, well I'm sorry you're going to have a long time waiting. Plus if he ever would return it is most likely he'd be locked up somewhere in a straight jacket shot full of tranquilizers.
Assuming you mean Jesus, your comment reflects an uninformed eschatological view. The only reason I mention this is that the loaves-and-fishes theory you posit has actually got some agreement in the more liberal Christian theological community, so while not my own, it is not an out-of-the-question interpretation.
-
Assuming you mean Jesus, your comment reflects an uninformed eschatological view. The only reason I mention this is that the loaves-and-fishes theory you posit has actually got some agreement in the more liberal Christian theological community, so while not my own, it is not an out-of-the-question interpretation.
Er... is there an informed eschatological view available?
-
Define "informed."
If you mean one informed by the words in the book about Jesus, there are several.
If you mean one informed by science, I don't think so.
-
So, I hope i'm not interrupting anything jumping in the thread here, but I kinda wanna jump in. So here goes... hehe
God is love, the thing that brings to people together and makes them stay together for a lifetime supporting eachother.
That's pretty much what we Christians think of Jesus... and of God in general, really.
Oh and who made the universe? You could say the big bang, but who made the big bang? and if something made the big bang, who made that? :p
Well, if you accept God, He is His own reason. The only uncaused thing in existance. As I recall, it's part of the very definition of God.
This is a more plausible approach than trying to fight for "the Bible is the inerrant word of God", which I think we all agree doesn't get very far. This approach also lets you set aside the more bizarre parts of the Bible (like long lists of genealogy where everyone lives to 900 years old, some of the particularly nasty things God does, etc.) as interesting historical artifacts that contain no useful moral instruction. It raises a lot of questions, though -- if the Bible isn't the word of God, how do you know what God actually *does* want? How and IF he should be worshiped? Prayed to? How do you know anything about God at all? And if you have to use your own morals to decide which parts of the Bible are valuable and which are outdated or irrelevant, doesn't that mean your own moral sense is more important to develop... perhaps by studying some of the vast body of work focused on morality, rather than just the bible?
As to how to go about worshiping God, what He wants beyond a relationship with us, and how go about it... I have heard that this is the main reason God came down as Jesus. We couldn't reliably find God, so he found us, that it's through grace and the Holy Spirit that any kind of connection is made... it's kind of interesting, because that indicates that any kind of human prayer or worship is ineffective just by itself.
-
I'm a believer. I don't know what exactly I believe in but through observation of the world and interpretation of the facts of every given day I realised that most of the stuff that's happening is nigh to impossible without some form of god or higher power. It's very hard to explain this to people. It's even harder to explain this to atheists.
See, that bolded part really gets to me. Life is overwhelming and we don't understand it so there must be a deity involved? I don't understand how people come to that unshakeable conviction. I have no idea. (Or I have an idea but I've never heard any kind of convincing argument.)
Here's my perspective: life is amazing and awe-inspiring at times. Seeing pictures deep in the Antarctic or of far away solar systems can fill you with wonder. Finding new species in strange places where we never would have imagined to find life is exciting. Seeing how life comes together biologically, both systemically and cellularly is full of wonderment, as is learning about carbon-based life forms and how changing distribution of atoms can create such a different solution.
We don't understand how something like 80% of our brain works. We don't understand half of what our hormones do, we learn by trial and error. No one has any clue about what preceded the big bang, or how the universe can be both infinite and constantly expanding.
And this is why I love science! I'm not a scientist, I don't even have an undergraduate degree. But learning more, knowing there is always more to learn, finding out something that was always accepted is totally wrong is exciting for me! We understand so much, yet so little. This, to me, is not a bad thing, and it makes me sad we seek out absolutes.
Explain to me why our lack of understanding or lack of ability to conceptualise equates to the sure existence of a higher power. Please.
-
....
Oh and who made the universe? You could say the big bang, but who made the big bang? and if something made the big bang, who made that? :p
One notion is that the Big Bang singularity caused an eruption of space, energy, and time. What would a realm without causality be like?
It always boils down to though, who created God? If the Big Bang must have some cause, and it's not "ok" to say it may have "originated" in a realm devoid of causality as we know it, then why is it ok to say that nothing created God?
Well, if you accept God, He is His own reason. The only uncaused thing in existance. As I recall, it's part of the very definition of God.
Where is the evidence of this?
I can define "table" to be a thing which is un-caused. I can arbitrarily define things to be whatever I want them to be. We assign meaning to our own words, because we humans create languages.
Concerning the idea that "most of the stuff that's happening is nigh to impossible without some form of god or higher power" - we're trying to effectively reverse engineer what nature spent billions of years doing. How long have we had what we'd consider to be "good" science? A few centuries maybe? Some of the sciences are even younger than that. How long have general and special relativity been known about? When was the electron discovered? When were bacteria discovered to be one of the causes of illness? Things once attributed to "gods" are now within our ability to observe and explain, constantly pushing these deities back into the roles they've always held: Gods of the gaps.
If we don't know how something works, God did it. Once we find out how it works, and see that it's not God, oh well, God never did it.
And again, if you think this Universe is orderly or friendly to life (which really, it's downright hostile to life), then a creator entity would need to be even more complex and orderly, perhaps requiring an even more complex creator. Then from there, it's turtles all the way down.
* I've heard that said that the Universe is "tuned perfectly" for life. 99.99999......% of the Universe will kill us. The Sun is capable of generating massive coronal ejections which would pound Earth's magnetic field and strip away the upper atmosphere, allowing us to enjoy a lovely cleansing and sterilizing bath of unfiltered ultraviolet radiation. That aside, even the majority of our own "perfect" planet's volume is fatal to us. We only inhabit a very thin layer on the surface, and even some portions of that are deadly. Too much water, too little water, too hot, too cold, too toxic - take your pick. And there are organisms all around us which are constantly battling our own defense systems. Yes, we need an active defense system just to keep the planet from killing us.
Beyond this planet, there are other fun things like quasars, emitting immense amounts of radiation. Also out there are these gamma ray bursts. If one happened sufficiently close to Earth (I think something like <1000 light years away), a good portion of the atmosphere would get puffed away, and we might enjoy a healthy dose of gamma radiation poisoning.
Perfect for life? I want my money back.
-
Define "informed."
If you mean one informed by the words in the book about Jesus, there are several.
I find it very wrong to concider the bible an informed opinion. It's a book written 100's of years after the facts it describes. There are literally 100's of different gospels at that the Christian Church filtered all but the 4 they wanted you to see. So it's by far not a realistic, unbiased opinion of what happened. I find it very sad how so many people concider the Bible to be 100% truth or total crazytalk. There is always a gray area you know. (and yes that also for you atheďst)
So, I hope i'm not interrupting anything jumping in the thread here, but I kinda wanna jump in. So here goes... hehe
God is love, the thing that brings to people together and makes them stay together for a lifetime supporting eachother.
That's pretty much what we Christians think of Jesus... and of God in general, really.
As I see it this is by far not the mainstream Christian view, Jezus was the personification of God yes, but most Christians still want to depict God as the wise old man with the beard sitting in the clouds watching over us. and I would make the pope faint if I told him Jezus was a woman or even a black man. I dont think a religion that would hold love as the most important characteristic from their God, could have such non loving point of views.
....
Oh and who made the universe? You could say the big bang, but who made the big bang? and if something made the big bang, who made that? :p
One notion is that the Big Bang singularity caused an eruption of space, energy, and time. What would a realm without causality be like?
It always boils down to though, who created God? If the Big Bang must have some cause, and it's not "ok" to say it may have "originated" in a realm devoid of causality as we know it, then why is it ok to say that nothing created God?
It wasnt nothing that created God, we did, we created him with our urge for knowledge, combined with our lack of patience. You're right God is the God if the gaps, but he has become so much more, he is the only solace that a lonely religious man will need. While a lonely atheďst will spend his days filandring, or drinking to find his solace. Just the fact that you believe in a greater being on itsself can help you carry the heavier burdens of life.
You cant believe in something you have seen. Because then it becomes knowledge and not belief. It's the very definition of believing, that you trust in something , trust that something exists without the certainty that you're doing the right thing.
Okay; maybe I should just accept that this thread is staying alive for now, and I'm not the only one keeping it running. :-D
You need to interpret the Bible in different ways, even the 'miracles' Jezus performs. Let's say the multiplication of the bread and fish, where Jezus has spent a day on an island speaking to a massive crowd and people start to get hungry but there is no food. But then a small boy comes to Jezus and hands him a basket of bread and fish and Jezus multiplies the bread and the fish so everybody has food. You could say this most likely happened cause people were greedy and didnt want to share the food they had. But when a little boy did it and they started to feel guilty and the bread and fish multiplied in a not so miraculous way, but in morally better one.
This is a more plausible approach than trying to fight for "the Bible is the inerrant word of God", which I think we all agree doesn't get very far. This approach also lets you set aside the more bizarre parts of the Bible (like long lists of genealogy where everyone lives to 900 years old, some of the particularly nasty things God does, etc.) as interesting historical artifacts that contain no useful moral instruction. It raises a lot of questions, though -- if the Bible isn't the word of God, how do you know what God actually *does* want? How and IF he should be worshiped? Prayed to? How do you know anything about God at all? And if you have to use your own morals to decide which parts of the Bible are valuable and which are outdated or irrelevant, doesn't that mean your own moral sense is more important to develop... perhaps by studying some of the vast body of work focused on morality, rather than just the bible?
People should indeed start evolving moral senses again, because due to multiple reasons (I'm not goin to point them out or explain them here as it is another discussion) people are generally becoming assholes, and this in all group of society no matter what age, sex or colour you are. People no longer have old folks have their seat on the bus. The old folks hit you with their purses for waiting in line and accidentally being ahead of them. The 10y old girls want to dress up like Britney Spears and hope to have had sex by the time they're 12 and the 10y old boys are never learning what's good or bad anymore. This decay in morals, this every man for himself kind of trend well it's a very sad thing.
The bible holds a certain set of morals, by far not a bad one if you're living in a society. eg: love your neighbour, put others ahead of yourself and care for them like you would want to be take care off,... No matter how you interpret the bible those morals will always become obvious. and those morals are what make the bible an important book.
If you believe in a God you are one of the people that like to believe, if you dont believe in a God you dont like to believe. In the end I dont think there are any big religions anymore, people will mostly start pasting together their own kind of beliefs that make up there moral ethics. What happens after you die? if you ask me whatever YOU believe will happen. (if you believe in heaven you'll go to heaven, if you believe in reincarnation you get reincarnated, if you're an atheist you're in for a boring ride)
Oh, there are still very big religions now, and they have a lot of power.... I doubt that large organized religion is going away any time soon. Organized religious belief can be used in very nasty ways to make a lot of money, unfortunately (see Scientology), and that kind of scam also isn't likely to go away soon.
But regarding when you die -- do you think that's *factually* true, that whatever you believe will happen to you? Or just that it's a nice way to think of it? I guess what I'm saying is, if tomorrow somehow a way were found to find out definitively what happens to human consciousness after death, the soul would be proven/disproven, etc.... would you put money on the idea that whatever the person believed would be true for them?
I believe this due to my own reasoning, every human is different, there are no two people alike. And all those different people have different views, different lives, ... so is that unlikely they will experience death differently? if you want me to present you with a scientific approach to this well there is this theory that the white light is caused by a heavy release of neurotoxins in the brain right before death. Causing the person in question to see a white light. This heavy release of neurotoxins could also make that very same person see something completely different (whichever he believes he will see).
Reading through this I have to come to see everybody believes, even the atheďsts, you cant discuss about believes that fiercely without believing you are right. You BELIEVE there is nothing there for the religious people to believe. I know this is a stupid argument, but even an atheist has or will one day be required to put his blind faith in something or someone.
-
Define "informed."
If you mean one informed by the words in the book about Jesus, there are several.
I find it very wrong to concider the bible an informed opinion. It's a book written 100's of years after the facts it describes. There are literally 100's of different gospels at that the Christian Church filtered all but the 4 they wanted you to see. So it's by far not a realistic, unbiased opinion of what happened. I find it very sad how so many people concider the Bible to be 100% truth or total crazytalk. There is always a gray area you know. (and yes that also for you atheďst)
Fascinating. Wrong, but fascinating.
The only case in which the book was "100's of years after the facts it describes" might be in the case of Genesis, and perhaps parts of Kings, Chronicles, and the Samuels. The latest possible date for New Testament writings is, if we stretch it, 112AD, and that's only a couple of the Johannine epistles.
I really get a chuckle out of the "literally 100's of different gospels at that the Christian Church filtered all but the 4 they wanted you to see," as if there were a controlling hierarchy in place while the canon was being developed.
Dr. Pizza prescribes a little more history and a little less Dan Brown.
-
What about:
Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Eve, Gospel of Mani, Gospel of the Saviour (also known as the Unknown Berlin gospel), Gospel of the Twelve, Gospel of Bartholomew, Gospel of the Seventy, Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms, Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Basilides, Gospel of Andrew, Gospel of Apelles, Gospel of Cerinthus, Gospel of Bardesanes, Gospel of the Encratites, Gospel of the Gnostics, Gospel of Hesychius, Gospel of Lucius, Gospel of Longinus, Gospel of Manes, Gospel of Merinthus, Gospel of Scythianus, Gospel of Simonides, Gospel of Tatian, Gospel of Thaddaeus and Gospel of Valentinus?
and I can get you more, really dont question my knowledge of the Bible and stuff that the Catholic Church excluded when it's Canon was decided. You will never find a single Gospel written by a woman that is approved by the Church. (change might be coming though)
And do you honestly believe that a story written 115years after the estimate birth of Jezus a man who lived to be in his 30's so roughly 80years after his estimate dead is realistic representation of events? Even if they were written by a person who travelled with Jezus (which they werent) you try and write down correctly what happened when you were ten years old?
A story that is told from mouth to mouth grows in each telling. Yes Jezus was a great man and he did good things, there is no denying that, he may even have performed miracles, but those miracles need not be taken so literally.
And finally I'm quite shocked you would think I draw my theories from Dan Brown. I really dont like the writer and his books just paste together loose facts and theories to shape a view that he believes is true but shows serious flaws.
I do wonder if you're one of those people that say Jezus and Mary Magdalena never had intimate relations :), Jezus was sent by God to be one of us, he was a man like every one of us, and seeing as how God stands for love, I would find it highly unlikely Jezus could not feel nor express the emotion love. One most keep an open eye on every angle to get a complete view, holding the Bible as the one and only truth severely hampers your view. Just the same as saying I dont believe in anything severly hampers your view.
-
God is love, the thing that brings to people together and makes them stay together for a lifetime supporting each other.
That's pretty much what we Christians think of Jesus... and of God in general, really.
But "love" is extremely vague, whereas Christianity pretty much always includes a lot of other ideas that are often stressed more strongly. Why is it so important to have any belief in the supernatural (Jesus himself being supernatural, God, the Holy Ghost, virgin birth, various miracles, the functions of prayer & worship rituals, etc. etc.)? If Jesus & God were simply abstractions that meant "love" (i.e., nothing magical there), then Christians could skip the whole church thing and just have group meetings periodically to talk about how to make their communities more loving. [Note: I know there *are* some groups who basically do this -- more power to them! -- but the tiny exception proves the rule]
Oh and who made the universe? You could say the big bang, but who made the big bang? and if something made the big bang, who made that? :p
Well, if you accept God, He is His own reason. The only uncaused thing in existance. As I recall, it's part of the very definition of God.
I think we sort of agree on this. The only reason God is "the only uncaused thing in existence" is because we say he is; a long time ago, people put it in the definition of "God" and stopped there, with no logical support, just faith. The difference is that I don't think this is reason enough to agree with the definition.
As to how to go about worshiping God, what He wants beyond a relationship with us, and how go about it... I have heard that this is the main reason God came down as Jesus. We couldn't reliably find God, so he found us, that it's through grace and the Holy Spirit that any kind of connection is made... it's kind of interesting, because that indicates that any kind of human prayer or worship is ineffective just by itself.
How do you even know He even wants a relationship with you, or wants your prayer or worship? And next: what do you actually know about Jesus? Where does that information come from? Can you double-check it? This is one of those things that seems to all unravel once you start pulling at the threads. [Extension question: if you use the Bible is a historical document proving these supernatural relationships, would you *also* accept other equally-supported ancient documents with supernatural claims?]
-
God is love, the thing that brings to people together and makes them stay together for a lifetime supporting each other.
That's pretty much what we Christians think of Jesus... and of God in general, really.
But "love" is extremely vague, whereas Christianity pretty much always includes a lot of other ideas that are often stressed more strongly. Why is it so important to have any belief in the supernatural (Jesus himself being supernatural, God, the Holy Ghost, virgin birth, various miracles, the functions of prayer & worship rituals, etc. etc.)? If Jesus & God were simply abstractions that meant "love" (i.e., nothing magical there), then Christians could skip the whole church thing and just have group meetings periodically to talk about how to make their communities more loving. [Note: I know there *are* some groups who basically do this -- more power to them! -- but the tiny exception proves the rule]
well that's pretty much how I grew up, I dont got to church every sunday anymore since I was 12 but I have a deep informed opinion on the matter of religion, albeit be it not a purely christian one. I've also got my set of morals that I picked up from my time when I did go to church. B
Doesnt the Bible say that God is everywhere? So why would we need to go to church to find him then? we can find him by looking for him within ourselves, church is actually more of a place to learn about god, not to act out his beliefs or talk to him
-
I find it very wrong to consider the bible an informed opinion. It's a book written 100's of years after the facts it describes. There are literally 100's of different gospels at that the Christian Church filtered all but the 4 they wanted you to see. So it's by far not a realistic, unbiased opinion of what happened. I find it very sad how so many people consider the Bible to be 100% truth or total crazytalk. There is always a gray area you know. (and yes that also for you atheist)
I'd agree with the gist of that. There are some parts of the Bible that I'd call crazy-talk, more or less, but most of it is very interesting as a historical document (a demonstration of real & imagined events as they were recorded & elaborated, not as they transpired, of course), and there are significant sections that address interesting moral questions -- and honestly, notions of morality haven't advanced in the same leaps and bounds that scientific understanding of the physical universe has in the past few thousand years, so much of it is still relevant (this is also why studying ancient Chinese, Indian, Greek, etc. texts are still interesting).
It wasnt nothing that created God, we did, we created him with our urge for knowledge, combined with our lack of patience. You're right God is the God if the gaps, but he has become so much more, he is the only solace that a lonely religious man will need. While a lonely atheďst will spend his days filandring, or drinking to find his solace. Just the fact that you believe in a greater being on itself can help you carry the heavier burdens of life.
Well, when I've been a lonely atheist (or nowadays when my wife is out of town), I seem to spend my time reading a lot, taking the dog for long walks, working on open source projects, and posting on internet forums. Or, you know, making friends. Thank God (can I say that?) religion and booze/sex aren't the only options available, because I think both are pretty limited in terms of actual solace. Even if you believe Jesus is your friend, is that as good as finding an actual person to talk to, given a few months of solitude?
People should indeed start evolving moral senses again, because due to multiple reasons (I'm not goin to point them out or explain them here as it is another discussion) people are generally becoming assholes, and this in all group of society no matter what age, sex or colour you are. People no longer have old folks have their seat on the bus. The old folks hit you with their purses for waiting in line and accidentally being ahead of them. The 10y old girls want to dress up like Britney Spears and hope to have had sex by the time they're 12 and the 10y old boys are never learning what's good or bad anymore. This decay in morals, this every man for himself kind of trend well it's a very sad thing.
Hooray to evolving our moral sense! Unfortunately, this is one of those things where religion actively interferes. I personally would love to see classes in school that explored the basis for morality, how to make thoughtful moral choices, how to think through the real consequences of your actions, how to understand the *reasons* for rules (and when rules should be questioned) instead of just blindly following or not. But this is exactly the sort of thing that would have religious parents exploding about how their children were being corrupted by "moral relativism", their religious beliefs were being violated, etc.. Can you imagine *any* useful moral curriculum that would steer clear of all religious objections (and not just Christianity)? I don't think it'll happen. Teaching real critical thinking also runs into many of the same roadblocks.
I believe this due to my own reasoning, every human is different, there are no two people alike. And all those different people have different views, different lives, ... so is that unlikely they will experience death differently? if you want me to present you with a scientific approach to this well there is this theory that the white light is caused by a heavy release of neurotoxins in the brain right before death. Causing the person in question to see a white light. This heavy release of neurotoxins could also make that very same person see something completely different (whichever he believes he will see).
Ah, okay -- I misunderstood. You're talking about how people experience the moments right *before* death, not death itself. Once your consciousness winks out, I think we agree that whatever you believed a few seconds before won't make a difference.
Reading through this I have to come to see everybody believes, even the atheists, you cant discuss about believes that fiercely without believing you are right. You BELIEVE there is nothing there for the religious people to believe. I know this is a stupid argument, but even an atheist has or will one day be required to put his blind faith in something or someone.
This is partly true, BUT in general we are closer to the truth when we assume less. If you assume nothing, you have absolute truth (but you can't function that way -- why lift the food to your mouth if you can't assume it exists, or that your hunger exists, or your arm, or that it will help your hunger, etc....).
So we at least have to assume that the universe is consistent and exists separate from our consciousness, and the input of our senses can be trusted in a limited way, as an imperfect window on that external universe.
Beyond that, it's all questions of probability, and that's what science is based on -- probability & consistency, not "proof". Nothing is actually ever proven, and all theories are subject to change and refinement when new data is collected.
Individually, we also make assumptions constantly -- I can't personally reproduce every scientific experiment that underlies the conclusions I've learned, for example.
But there's a huge difference between scientific conclusions -- where the source is readily available, I can access the details of the original studies and evaluate them, and I can quite probably reproduce them myself given the time and resources -- and religious conclusions, where the source is not available, there is no reliable data and no way to verify the logic, the conclusions are internally inconsistent, and there is a simple, natural explanation for these beliefs other than "they are true".
The important aspect is that faith should never be "blind" -- making an assumption should be an justified choice and open to question.
-
But "love" is extremely vague, whereas Christianity pretty much always includes a lot of other ideas that are often stressed more strongly. Why is it so important to have any belief in the supernatural (Jesus himself being supernatural, God, the Holy Ghost, virgin birth, various miracles, the functions of prayer & worship rituals, etc. etc.)? If Jesus & God were simply abstractions that meant "love" (i.e., nothing magical there), then Christians could skip the whole church thing and just have group meetings periodically to talk about how to make their communities more loving. [Note: I know there *are* some groups who basically do this -- more power to them! -- but the tiny exception proves the rule]
well that's pretty much how I grew up, I dont got to church every sunday anymore since I was 12 but I have a deep informed opinion on the matter of religion, albeit be it not a purely christian one. I've also got my set of morals that I picked up from my time when I did go to church. B
Doesnt the Bible say that God is everywhere? So why would we need to go to church to find him then? we can find him by looking for him within ourselves, church is actually more of a place to learn about god, not to act out his beliefs or talk to him
Well, the Bible sometimes says God is everywhere, and other times it goes into weird contortions where God walks around in physical form and (for example) covers Moses' eyes with His hand so Moses won't see His face (though he does see God's rear end). There's a part somewhere where God tells his followers to bury their $#it, because he walks through their camp and presumably doesn't want to step in it. In the old testament in particular there are a lot of stories where God is angry about stuff that happened when He was off elsewhere and not paying attention (starting in the garden of Eden, for example).
But either way, now we're back to using the Bible as a source for factual information about God instead of a mixture of odd genealogies and sometimes-instructive fables.
I'd also suggest that you probably got far more of your morals from your parents, teachers, friends, and personal sense of empathy than from the Bible -- though I agree some bible-related discussions probably got you to think deeper on the subject (not a bad thing, but again not reliant on the Bible itself).
-
It's just as plausible that our chunk of rock in space has grown life because we're placed just right in this particular solar system (which is basically a mathematical impossibility)
You misspelled "mathematical certainty", the universe being infinite and all that (it helps to look at it as "there exists a planet that can grow life" rather than "some planet in particular grows life"; we wouldn't know the difference if it were some other chunk of rock in some other solar system)
There was a "before," but not in any terms we can quantify, because we exist within space and time. What is there when space and time don't exist? I can merely quantify it as "something," but I can not be any more specific.
Could call it "wibbly-wobbly stuff" I suppose.
-
God is love, the thing that brings to people together and makes them stay together for a lifetime supporting each other.
That's pretty much what we Christians think of Jesus... and of God in general, really.
But "love" is extremely vague, whereas Christianity pretty much always includes a lot of other ideas that are often stressed more strongly. Why is it so important to have any belief in the supernatural (Jesus himself being supernatural, God, the Holy Ghost, virgin birth, various miracles, the functions of prayer & worship rituals, etc. etc.)? If Jesus & God were simply abstractions that meant "love" (i.e., nothing magical there), then Christians could skip the whole church thing and just have group meetings periodically to talk about how to make their communities more loving. [Note: I know there *are* some groups who basically do this -- more power to them! -- but the tiny exception proves the rule]
Your right actually... there's more involved; I spoke too soon.
As for supernatural, I don't believe in it... everything is natural. :p
I think there are three important things in Christian life: your relationship with God, your relationship with other people in the faith, and your relationship with people outside the faith. You are right that God is more than just love - He is the beginning and the end, after all.
Oh and who made the universe? You could say the big bang, but who made the big bang? and if something made the big bang, who made that? :p
Well, if you accept God, He is His own reason. The only uncaused thing in existance. As I recall, it's part of the very definition of God.
I think we sort of agree on this. The only reason God is "the only uncaused thing in existence" is because we say he is; a long time ago, people put it in the definition of "God" and stopped there, with no logical support, just faith. The difference is that I don't think this is reason enough to agree with the definition.
[/quote]
Well, the thing is any system of human thought has its foundation of assumptions that its built on. Mathematics has its axioms, science its methods, religion its God. These are all assumptions. Just one cast of something that truly contradicts a scientific theory is enough to throw most or all of it out.
Everything we do is ultimately based on an assumption. I personally believe that starting with the assumption that God is real is an excellent way to start looking at the world.
As to how to go about worshiping God, what He wants beyond a relationship with us, and how go about it... I have heard that this is the main reason God came down as Jesus. We couldn't reliably find God, so he found us, that it's through grace and the Holy Spirit that any kind of connection is made... it's kind of interesting, because that indicates that any kind of human prayer or worship is ineffective just by itself.
How do you even know He even wants a relationship with you, or wants your prayer or worship? And next: what do you actually know about Jesus? Where does that information come from? Can you double-check it? This is one of those things that seems to all unravel once you start pulling at the threads. [Extension question: if you use the Bible is a historical document proving these supernatural relationships, would you *also* accept other equally-supported ancient documents with supernatural claims?]
[/quote]
1) Jesus, yes.
2) Ultimately, the bible.
3) What do you mean 'double-check'? There are four of them, and they agree on the important parts.
4) I don't think there are any equally-supported ancient documents.
Additions:
Well, if you accept God, He is His own reason. The only uncaused thing in existance. As I recall, it's part of the very definition of God.
Where is the evidence of this?
I can define "table" to be a thing which is un-caused. I can arbitrarily define things to be whatever I want them to be. We assign meaning to our own words, because we humans create languages.
Concerning the idea that "most of the stuff that's happening is nigh to impossible without some form of god or higher power" - we're trying to effectively reverse engineer what nature spent billions of years doing. How long have we had what we'd consider to be "good" science? A few centuries maybe? Some of the sciences are even younger than that. How long have general and special relativity been known about? When was the electron discovered? When were bacteria discovered to be one of the causes of illness? Things once attributed to "gods" are now within our ability to observe and explain, constantly pushing these deities back into the roles they've always held: Gods of the gaps.
If we don't know how something works, God did it. Once we find out how it works, and see that it's not God, oh well, God never did it.
And again, if you think this Universe is orderly or friendly to life (which really, it's downright hostile to life), then a creator entity would need to be even more complex and orderly, perhaps requiring an even more complex creator. Then from there, it's turtles all the way down.
* I've heard that said that the Universe is "tuned perfectly" for life. 99.99999......% of the Universe will kill us. The Sun is capable of generating massive coronal ejections which would pound Earth's magnetic field and strip away the upper atmosphere, allowing us to enjoy a lovely cleansing and sterilizing bath of unfiltered ultraviolet radiation. That aside, even the majority of our own "perfect" planet's volume is fatal to us. We only inhabit a very thin layer on the surface, and even some portions of that are deadly. Too much water, too little water, too hot, too cold, too toxic - take your pick. And there are organisms all around us which are constantly battling our own defense systems. Yes, we need an active defense system just to keep the planet from killing us.
Beyond this planet, there are other fun things like quasars, emitting immense amounts of radiation. Also out there are these gamma ray bursts. If one happened sufficiently close to Earth (I think something like <1000 light years away), a good portion of the atmosphere would get puffed away, and we might enjoy a healthy dose of gamma radiation poisoning.
Perfect for life? I want my money back.
You can define a table as being uncaused, yes, but whats the point of doing that?
My intuition tells me that God is uncaused. I take it as an axiom... why should God have a cause, anyways? God is different from other ideas and thoughts that we have. Just put aside the whole is God real or not thing for a moment, and try to think of another human idea or thought which has the same kind of weight as the idea of God, the same kind of intuition that if God is real, God must be uncaused.
What I have read about the beginning of the universe reveals God, I think. Orderly does not necessarily mean friendly, and anything that science can uncover and fit into a basic framework is by definition orderly, I think.
And anyways, the parts we do live in are good for us.
God is love, the thing that brings to people together and makes them stay together for a lifetime supporting eachother.
That's pretty much what we Christians think of Jesus... and of God in general, really.
As I see it this is by far not the mainstream Christian view, Jezus was the personification of God yes, but most Christians still want to depict God as the wise old man with the beard sitting in the clouds watching over us. and I would make the pope faint if I told him Jezus was a woman or even a black man. I dont think a religion that would hold love as the most important characteristic from their God, could have such non loving point of views.
Jesus was from the middle east, so He probably looked like people from the middle east do. (Yay, obvious comments)
And... putting an image on God? I know this probably sounds hypocritical - I thought about it a lot myself - Jesus is the one that God came down as; trying to give God any other image or symbol is just... bad. He's not an old guy with a beard in the clouds.
The way that Christianity is carried out these days, the way it has been for years, shows that the church as a whole has degenerated some, I think. I'm not too surprised, because the prophets in the old testament are always talking about how the Israelites are not doing what God asked them to.
Same thing for us, I guess. As with any other group of people who believe something, you get those who are just hanging on. Not to mention that I have heard from plenty of people at my church that it takes a lifetime to even start to get it right.
Regarding those non-loving points of view? If you read the bible and asked questions, I think you'd be able to understand at least some of them better. Really id chalk most of it up to people only half understanding themselves, or being distracted, or not caring to understand, which, as I pointed out last night, is a big problem that was acknowledged way back by Paul, witting Romans.
What about:
Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Eve, Gospel of Mani, Gospel of the Saviour (also known as the Unknown Berlin gospel), Gospel of the Twelve, Gospel of Bartholomew, Gospel of the Seventy, Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms, Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Basilides, Gospel of Andrew, Gospel of Apelles, Gospel of Cerinthus, Gospel of Bardesanes, Gospel of the Encratites, Gospel of the Gnostics, Gospel of Hesychius, Gospel of Lucius, Gospel of Longinus, Gospel of Manes, Gospel of Merinthus, Gospel of Scythianus, Gospel of Simonides, Gospel of Tatian, Gospel of Thaddaeus and Gospel of Valentinus?
and I can get you more, really dont question my knowledge of the Bible and stuff that the Catholic Church excluded when it's Canon was decided. You will never find a single Gospel written by a woman that is approved by the Church. (change might be coming though)
As I recall, the books included in the cannon were the ones that the early church used. From the Case for Christ, there were tree criteria. The book had to of been written by an apostle or a follower of an apostle. Second, it had to agree with what was in practice. Finally, the book had to of been in used by the church for some time.
I think those are pretty good rules.
And do you honestly believe that a story written 115years after the estimate birth of Jezus a man who lived to be in his 30's so roughly 80years after his estimate dead is realistic representation of events? Even if they were written by a person who travelled with Jezus (which they werent) you try and write down correctly what happened when you were ten years old?
A story that is told from mouth to mouth grows in each telling. Yes Jezus was a great man and he did good things, there is no denying that, he may even have performed miracles, but those miracles need not be taken so literally.
If I remember right, Jesus was crucified around 33 A.D., and the books started to be recorded around 70 A.D.? That's not enough time for legends to develop... people who actually saw the miracles happen would of still been around to counter any legendary growth.
And finally I'm quite shocked you would think I draw my theories from Dan Brown. I really dont like the writer and his books just paste together loose facts and theories to shape a view that he believes is true but shows serious flaws.
I do wonder if you're one of those people that say Jezus and Mary Magdalena never had intimate relations :), Jezus was sent by God to be one of us, he was a man like every one of us, and seeing as how God stands for love, I would find it highly unlikely Jezus could not feel nor express the emotion love. One most keep an open eye on every angle to get a complete view, holding the Bible as the one and only truth severely hampers your view. Just the same as saying I dont believe in anything severly hampers your view.
Well Jesus was much more driven by the spirit than we are... love is not lust, remember.
God only knows what being fully divine and fully human did to Him.
God is love, the thing that brings to people together and makes them stay together for a lifetime supporting each other.
That's pretty much what we Christians think of Jesus... and of God in general, really.
But "love" is extremely vague, whereas Christianity pretty much always includes a lot of other ideas that are often stressed more strongly. Why is it so important to have any belief in the supernatural (Jesus himself being supernatural, God, the Holy Ghost, virgin birth, various miracles, the functions of prayer & worship rituals, etc. etc.)? If Jesus & God were simply abstractions that meant "love" (i.e., nothing magical there), then Christians could skip the whole church thing and just have group meetings periodically to talk about how to make their communities more loving. [Note: I know there *are* some groups who basically do this -- more power to them! -- but the tiny exception proves the rule]
well that's pretty much how I grew up, I dont got to church every sunday anymore since I was 12 but I have a deep informed opinion on the matter of religion, albeit be it not a purely christian one. I've also got my set of morals that I picked up from my time when I did go to church. B
Doesnt the Bible say that God is everywhere? So why would we need to go to church to find him then? we can find him by looking for him within ourselves, church is actually more of a place to learn about god, not to act out his beliefs or talk to him
You don't need to go to church. I think the big thing is to stay in contact with the community of believers around you, with church and church groups being the best way to do that. Community with the people around you and with God are the most important things, I think.
After all, if your trying to live a moral life, its much easier to do that when your not alone in trying to live that moral life.
Edit: Eep, wall of text *crush*
-
As to causeless causation... that's an example of an argument from infinite regression. All of those arguments are, basically, rather flawed.
They are all of the form:
1) Nothing moves without having been moved by something (or is caused without having been caused by something, or is perfectly good).
2) Something must have been the first thing to move something (or cause something, or be perfectly good).
3) We call this thing God.
Flaw the first: Assumption 2 eats itself. (1) says nothing is without cause. (2) assumes rather arbitrarily that, in contradiction of (1), that there is something that had no prior cause. It was placed there because Christians believed in a universe with a definite beginning, as opposed to an Aristotelian infinitely prolonged universe (these arguments for God as a terminus for infinite regression were all first laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas). Not only does (2) contradict (1), but it is totally baseless. As is always the case, theologians don't prove god's existence, they assume it and work from there.
Flaw the second: Wherefore is there a justification for assuming a terminus to the infinite regression proposed by (1)? Don't point to the big bang; when these arguments were first put forth, the big bang was unknown; additionally, we've no experience of the moment of the big bang nor what came before, so we can put forth no evidence or argument regarding its causation. The justification of (1) comes from experience; we can observe that every action has a cause. A rock falls because it was dropped, or because it was pushed and fell. It dropped because I let go; I was impelled to do so by my desire to move it; etc. (2) has no such justification. Being uncomfortable with infinities, most people simply assume it is true and can provide no true justification.
I'm tempted to state that these proofs from infinite regression are in fact negative proofs of the form reductio ad absurdum. They make two assumptions, one justified and one not, and then take those to their logical conclusion. The conclusion is absurd and so one of our assumptions must be false.
There have been other arguments for gods existence. They all, in the end, tend to fall apart. And when I say "tend to" I mean "do in fact, all the time, seriously, dude,". The ontological argument is the worst, not least because it always gets trotted out.
-
I don't see why if I wanted to, I couldn't use the big bang as evidence? It seems to me that your argument to not use it is a logical fallacy.
-
Because the big bang is not evidence of a causeless phenomenon (particularly if you say that god caused it). Though we don't know the cause, or even if there was one, the complete lack of evidence for anything prior to the big bang doesn't give one license to make any assumptions about what's in it.
It's as if a stranger were to hand you a box and ask you to guess what's in it. You could make certain assumptions based on the size of the box and what little you know of the stranger. You could perhaps shake the box, and smell it. You could, in fact, rule out a great many things and narrow down the list of possibilities; perhaps you could eliminate enough uncertainty to make a plausible guess.
You can't do that with the "before the big bang" box because we don't know the size of the box, nor is there a stranger handing it to us. We can't shake the box, nor smell it, nor even see it. It is the largest unknown currently available to us. It is, in fact, entirely impossible to make assumptions about "before the big bang". Our knowledge about that time adds up to a fundamental naught.
And when you build your arguments on nothing...
-
I think I see what your saying... that whole "God is His own cause" idea, right?
Causality, as I recall, relies on the laws of physics to operate. At least, aside from mental ideas and logic. I have heard many times that physicists can't see back past the big bang because the laws of physics break down as you get closer and closer to the big bang. I believe that implies that cause and effect itself breaks down at some point.
I guess the question is what kind of 'cause and effect' could be cause and effect, but not how we know it now?
I wouldn't expect the big bang to prove anything, but after we think that cause and effect breaks down, you kind of have to wonder what other kind of systems there could be. Logically, I want to say two, just because 'cause and effect' is a kind of on/off thing. But who knows really.. God is infinite, after all. I think having some kind of mind boggling problem like that, totally comprehensible to our minds is one of the strong pieces of evidence for God that there is.
-
Oversimplifications ahoy!
Seriously though, let's not bring modern physics into this, shall we? Because the stuff is hellaciously counterintuitive and does little but point out that likely none of us here really have any idea what we're talking about. Relativity of simultaneity and frames of reference alone would grind the conversation to a halt. I guess, what I'm saying here, is that if you think of god as the sum total of existence, something we as of yet still know very little about, then, yeah, sure, there's a god, I guess. But I really wish people who believe such would quit using the term god then, since the connotations of the word just create far too much inertia to actually have a decent conversation.
-
I think having some kind of mind boggling problem like that, totally comprehensible to our minds is one of the strong pieces of evidence for God that there is.
Er, why?
That is a complete non-sequitur, but it keeps getting trotted out...
-
How do you even know He even wants a relationship with you, or wants your prayer or worship? And next: what do you actually know about Jesus? Where does that information come from? Can you double-check it? This is one of those things that seems to all unravel once you start pulling at the threads. [Extension question: if you use the Bible is a historical document proving these supernatural relationships, would you *also* accept other equally-supported ancient documents with supernatural claims?]
1) Jesus, yes.
2) Ultimately, the bible.
3) What do you mean 'double-check'? There are four of them, and they agree on the important parts.
4) I don't think there are any equally-supported ancient documents.
So you're saying that the information on God and Jezus comes from one not all that reliable book, that consists of 4 parts that were selected because they resembled eachother the most.
you could go doublecheck in the four different gospels, and come to the conclusion that they must be right. But I could write four stories of snow white and the seven dwarves, put that in a book, wait a 1000 years. and people might just start the religion of the holy snow white, her divine prince, and the seven gracious dwarves. Cause the four stories tell the same story, only written by a different person.
I am quite sure there is plenty of Roman literature from that time that depicts the events involving Jezus (if he was that important the Romans will have noticed him too).
What about:
Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Eve, Gospel of Mani, Gospel of the Saviour (also known as the Unknown Berlin gospel), Gospel of the Twelve, Gospel of Bartholomew, Gospel of the Seventy, Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms, Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Basilides, Gospel of Andrew, Gospel of Apelles, Gospel of Cerinthus, Gospel of Bardesanes, Gospel of the Encratites, Gospel of the Gnostics, Gospel of Hesychius, Gospel of Lucius, Gospel of Longinus, Gospel of Manes, Gospel of Merinthus, Gospel of Scythianus, Gospel of Simonides, Gospel of Tatian, Gospel of Thaddaeus and Gospel of Valentinus?
and I can get you more, really dont question my knowledge of the Bible and stuff that the Catholic Church excluded when it's Canon was decided. You will never find a single Gospel written by a woman that is approved by the Church. (change might be coming though)
As I recall, the books included in the cannon were the ones that the early church used. From the Case for Christ, there were tree criteria. The book had to of been written by an apostle or a follower of an apostle. Second, it had to agree with what was in practice. Finally, the book had to of been in used by the church for some time.
I think those are pretty good rules.
Well the only apostle I think too have actually written a gospel that is included is John, but lets just say matthew, mark, ... are followers of an apostle, pretty much everybody who would write a book about Jezus' life was a follower of an apostle. So this rule would imply 80+% of the gospels available (also this doesnt explain why the Gospel is Mary is not viewed as a valid gospel, she followed Jezus just as much as his apostles). The second rule actually is the biggest flawed one it purely states: if the Gospel doesnt agree with us (us being the papal college at the time), it's wrong. This coming from a religion that tolerated witch burning, trying to bribe god to get into the afterlife and that didnt even bother upholding the values it stood for at the time. (The Church at that time was pretty much the wealthiest most powerful force on planet earth, though they preached that one doesnt need earthly power or wealth if one has the solace of God) and the final argument only states further that, if we dont accept it, it's not true.
I'm sorry but that is seriously biased decision making when it comes down to it. And your entire religious vision is based on these choices (or so it seems with people that keep holding the Bible as the greatest truth about God)
And do you honestly believe that a story written 115years after the estimate birth of Jezus a man who lived to be in his 30's so roughly 80years after his estimate dead is realistic representation of events? Even if they were written by a person who travelled with Jezus (which they werent) you try and write down correctly what happened when you were ten years old?
A story that is told from mouth to mouth grows in each telling. Yes Jezus was a great man and he did good things, there is no denying that, he may even have performed miracles, but those miracles need not be taken so literally.
If I remember right, Jesus was crucified around 33 A.D., and the books started to be recorded around 70 A.D.? That's not enough time for legends to develop... people who actually saw the miracles happen would of still been around to counter any legendary growth.
dating at that time was incredibly bad, most researchers on the fact now believe that Jezus was born in the spring and not even christmas. It's commonly accepted that he died in his early 30's. The first gospels on the other hand did not even start appearing till 115 AD (and not 70AD) that's half a lifetime for us. Concidering that people in those days were lucky to grow older then 60years that's even an entire lifetime. The second problem is, that these gospels were copied and copied and copied before finally being officially entered into the Bible. Every copy keeps adding flaws to it. Try taking a picture of yourself and put it on a photocopier, then take the photocopy and photocopy it again. Keep doing this 10 times and then put it next to the original picture, it will in no way be the same. The same goes for stories copied manually, or do you believe humans would copy better then a machine?
I do wonder if you're one of those people that say Jezus and Mary Magdalena never had intimate relations :), Jezus was sent by God to be one of us, he was a man like every one of us, and seeing as how God stands for love, I would find it highly unlikely Jezus could not feel nor express the emotion love. One most keep an open eye on every angle to get a complete view, holding the Bible as the one and only truth severely hampers your view. Just the same as saying I dont believe in anything severly hampers your view.
Well Jesus was much more driven by the spirit than we are... love is not lust, remember.
God only knows what being fully divine and fully human did to Him.
nowhere do I use the word lust, I say love and intimitate relations. If you get lust out of that, well that's just you.
Jezus was human, he was not divine in the way god is, God would even punish him if he put himself on too high a pedestal.
In the most basic way you could say Jezus was a jew that saw flaws in the Jewish beliefs and expressed how he saw a better way. just like franciscaner monks saw a flaw in the christian church and expressed how the thought it should be fixed (by taking distance from worldly riches, a point for which a lot of monks were killed as heretics)
But every way you look at it Jezus was human, with human emotions and human needs. Or do you think he didnt need to go take a leak every now and then? He is part of the holy trinity yes which is god the father, god the holy ghost and Jezus. But to call him a divinity would require you to call all the saints divine, even jolly old saint nick. He may have been the saint of saints but to ignore his humanity would be to ignore everything he stands for
-
How do you even know He even wants a relationship with you, or wants your prayer or worship? And next: what do you actually know about Jesus? Where does that information come from? Can you double-check it? This is one of those things that seems to all unravel once you start pulling at the threads. [Extension question: if you use the Bible is a historical document proving these supernatural relationships, would you *also* accept other equally-supported ancient documents with supernatural claims?]
1) Jesus, yes.
2) Ultimately, the bible.
3) What do you mean 'double-check'? There are four of them, and they agree on the important parts.
4) I don't think there are any equally-supported ancient documents.
So you're saying that the information on God and Jezus comes from one not all that reliable book, that consists of 4 parts that were selected because they resembled eachother the most.
you could go doublecheck in the four different gospels, and come to the conclusion that they must be right. But I could write four stories of snow white and the seven dwarves, put that in a book, wait a 1000 years. and people might just start the religion of the holy snow white, her divine prince, and the seven gracious dwarves. Cause the four stories tell the same story, only written by a different person.
I am quite sure there is plenty of Roman literature from that time that depicts the events involving Jezus (if he was that important the Romans will have noticed him too).
Josephus, a Jewish scholar who did not follow Jesus, mentioned him, and that he worked miracles. That was a bit latter though, if I remember right. I don't think any Romans wrote about him.
The thing is, you have four different stories that come from four different sources, that all say basically the same thing. They're put in the same book now for convenience I suppose, but they really are different accounts.
What about:
Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Eve, Gospel of Mani, Gospel of the Saviour (also known as the Unknown Berlin gospel), Gospel of the Twelve, Gospel of Bartholomew, Gospel of the Seventy, Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms, Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Basilides, Gospel of Andrew, Gospel of Apelles, Gospel of Cerinthus, Gospel of Bardesanes, Gospel of the Encratites, Gospel of the Gnostics, Gospel of Hesychius, Gospel of Lucius, Gospel of Longinus, Gospel of Manes, Gospel of Merinthus, Gospel of Scythianus, Gospel of Simonides, Gospel of Tatian, Gospel of Thaddaeus and Gospel of Valentinus?
and I can get you more, really dont question my knowledge of the Bible and stuff that the Catholic Church excluded when it's Canon was decided. You will never find a single Gospel written by a woman that is approved by the Church. (change might be coming though)
As I recall, the books included in the cannon were the ones that the early church used. From the Case for Christ, there were tree criteria. The book had to of been written by an apostle or a follower of an apostle. Second, it had to agree with what was in practice. Finally, the book had to of been in used by the church for some time.
I think those are pretty good rules.
Well the only apostle I think too have actually written a gospel that is included is John, but lets just say matthew, mark, ... are followers of an apostle, pretty much everybody who would write a book about Jezus' life was a follower of an apostle. So this rule would imply 80+% of the gospels available (also this doesnt explain why the Gospel is Mary is not viewed as a valid gospel, she followed Jezus just as much as his apostles). The second rule actually is the biggest flawed one it purely states: if the Gospel doesnt agree with us (us being the papal college at the time), it's wrong. This coming from a religion that tolerated witch burning, trying to bribe god to get into the afterlife and that didnt even bother upholding the values it stood for at the time. (The Church at that time was pretty much the wealthiest most powerful force on planet earth, though they preached that one doesnt need earthly power or wealth if one has the solace of God) and the final argument only states further that, if we dont accept it, it's not true.
I'm sorry but that is seriously biased decision making when it comes down to it. And your entire religious vision is based on these choices (or so it seems with people that keep holding the Bible as the greatest truth about God)
I remember reading that a bunch of them were written way after the facts, and that they do show signs of legendary distortion, which the included four do not.
By the way, I am talking about pre- Catholicism. No arguments from me that the church did some messed up stuff back then >.<
Biblical cannon was made within the first century, as I recall. It was not the Catholic Church as we know it now. Also, the Gospel Of Thomas has a 200 foot tall talking cross in it, I hear :p
And do you honestly believe that a story written 115years after the estimate birth of Jezus a man who lived to be in his 30's so roughly 80years after his estimate dead is realistic representation of events? Even if they were written by a person who travelled with Jezus (which they werent) you try and write down correctly what happened when you were ten years old?
A story that is told from mouth to mouth grows in each telling. Yes Jezus was a great man and he did good things, there is no denying that, he may even have performed miracles, but those miracles need not be taken so literally.
If I remember right, Jesus was crucified around 33 A.D., and the books started to be recorded around 70 A.D.? That's not enough time for legends to develop... people who actually saw the miracles happen would of still been around to counter any legendary growth.
dating at that time was incredibly bad, most researchers on the fact now believe that Jezus was born in the spring and not even christmas. It's commonly accepted that he died in his early 30's. The first gospels on the other hand did not even start appearing till 115 AD (and not 70AD) that's half a lifetime for us. Concidering that people in those days were lucky to grow older then 60years that's even an entire lifetime. The second problem is, that these gospels were copied and copied and copied before finally being officially entered into the Bible. Every copy keeps adding flaws to it. Try taking a picture of yourself and put it on a photocopier, then take the photocopy and photocopy it again. Keep doing this 10 times and then put it next to the original picture, it will in no way be the same. The same goes for stories copied manually, or do you believe humans would copy better then a machine?
I believe he was 32... around A.D. 30-33, in any case, yes.
Tracing a paragraph in Case for Christ again:
Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome. Paul's death is not learned about from Acts, which means the book was probably written before he was killed. That means Acts can't of been written later than around A.D. 62. Acts was written before the Gospel of Luke, which gives you a range of between 29 and 32 years after Jesus' death. It is generally accepted that Mark was written earlier than Luke, which means the gospels were starting to be written down earlier than that. I guess I was off when I gave 70 A.D. earlier, too.
I do wonder if you're one of those people that say Jezus and Mary Magdalena never had intimate relations :), Jezus was sent by God to be one of us, he was a man like every one of us, and seeing as how God stands for love, I would find it highly unlikely Jezus could not feel nor express the emotion love. One most keep an open eye on every angle to get a complete view, holding the Bible as the one and only truth severely hampers your view. Just the same as saying I dont believe in anything severly hampers your view.
Well Jesus was much more driven by the spirit than we are... love is not lust, remember.
God only knows what being fully divine and fully human did to Him.
nowhere do I use the word lust, I say love and intimitate relations. If you get lust out of that, well that's just you.
Jezus was human, he was not divine in the way god is, God would even punish him if he put himself on too high a pedestal.
In the most basic way you could say Jezus was a jew that saw flaws in the Jewish beliefs and expressed how he saw a better way. just like franciscaner monks saw a flaw in the christian church and expressed how the thought it should be fixed (by taking distance from worldly riches, a point for which a lot of monks were killed as heretics)
But every way you look at it Jezus was human, with human emotions and human needs. Or do you think he didnt need to go take a leak every now and then? He is part of the holy trinity yes which is god the father, god the holy ghost and Jezus. But to call him a divinity would require you to call all the saints divine, even jolly old saint nick. He may have been the saint of saints but to ignore his humanity would be to ignore everything he stands for
Meh. Intimate, your implying they got it on whether you mean to or not. I'm not going to argue that Jesus was close to the people around him - He did die for us, after all. I'm not sure if the point has enough weight to bother debating over, really.
As far as humanity and divinity, it's one of those mystery things again. Saying that He is fully human and fully divine isn't ignoring anything.
-
I think having some kind of mind boggling problem like that, totally comprehensible to our minds is one of the strong pieces of evidence for God that there is.
Er, why?
That is a complete non-sequitur, but it keeps getting trotted out...
Because it's a logical block. It proves that there are things beyond our very comprehending, which is exactly what God is a lot of the time.
-
I think having some kind of mind boggling problem like that, totally comprehensible to our minds is one of the strong pieces of evidence for God that there is.
Er, why?
That is a complete non-sequitur, but it keeps getting trotted out...
Because it's a logical block. It proves that there are things beyond our very comprehending, which is exactly what God is a lot of the time.
Oooooo...kay? Just because there are things we can't comprehend (or just haven't discovered yet) does not auto-prove God. It suggests that we don't know everything, but then, no logical person would claim to know everything.
Hi everyone. I just recently started reading QC and love it, so I decided to register here. Kind of a topical first post, but I have to say that I dislike Penelope's atheist portrayal as well. Especially the "Yeah, but... they're WRONG" strip where she's suggested to be as arrogant about her beliefs as her parents are about theirs, and the fact that Penelope has logic and reason backing up her position is conveniently ignored. I'm a staunch atheist myself, and while I perfectly understand the concept of making humour out of a situation, I still get mad when atheists are wrongly portrayed or characterised in a negative light. Unlike the many Christians who will whine about their supposed oppression whenever someone suggests that their beliefs aren't compatible with logic or reason, atheists actually are an oppressed minority, as things that have already been posted, like the Gallup poll, and the U.S. Census will clearly show. There are many misconceptions about atheists that really don't need to be constantly repeated, even in a comedic context. I like my humour without holes, and if you can only make fun of atheists by ejecting the logical justifications for our non-belief, I'm constantly going to see the holes. It's like that one comedian who jokes about having a 120GB iPod so that he can listen to all different songs on his three-day jog, carrying his 5-gallon water bottle, all I can think is 'That extra space is for video, you dolt'.
Ah well. Just had to give my $0.02, but as I will reiterate, I love QC, and I hope to enjoy the forums.
-
Man created beer, God created pot. who do you trust?
-
Biblical canon was made within the first century, as I recall.
It mostly settled down around the time of Athanasius, in the late fourth century (but remember that even now there are two different versions of the canon in widespread use, and other variations, such as the 151st psalm recognised in the orthodox church).
-
@ pwhodges: thank you finally somebody who knows what they're talking about.
If you concider the Bible to be a true historical work well, so was the Oddysea by Homer (it starts from the war of Troy, that was a real event, recorded in more then just greek books). You have some people who believe in creationism, cause it is in the Bible, do these people smoke pot too? Cause really God told us too: Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." , Genesis 3:18 "... thou shalt eat the herb of the field.", Proverbs 15:17 "Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.", Psalms 104:14 "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man." ... God even told Mozes to take marihuana with him to burn during religious experience (together with other herbs) and God made a marihuana plant grow on King Solomons grave. So all you extreme believers, get rolling smoking that pot, your God wants you too.
Well the only apostle I think too have actually written a gospel that is included is John, but lets just say matthew, mark, ... are followers of an apostle, pretty much everybody who would write a book about Jezus' life was a follower of an apostle. So this rule would imply 80+% of the gospels available (also this doesnt explain why the Gospel is Mary is not viewed as a valid gospel, she followed Jezus just as much as his apostles). The second rule actually is the biggest flawed one it purely states: if the Gospel doesnt agree with us (us being the papal college at the time), it's wrong. This coming from a religion that tolerated witch burning, trying to bribe god to get into the afterlife and that didnt even bother upholding the values it stood for at the time. (The Church at that time was pretty much the wealthiest most powerful force on planet earth, though they preached that one doesnt need earthly power or wealth if one has the solace of God) and the final argument only states further that, if we dont accept it, it's not true.
I'm sorry but that is seriously biased decision making when it comes down to it. And your entire religious vision is based on these choices (or so it seems with people that keep holding the Bible as the greatest truth about God)
I remember reading that a bunch of them were written way after the facts, and that they do show signs of legendary distortion, which the included four do not.
By the way, I am talking about pre- Catholicism. No arguments from me that the church did some messed up stuff back then >.<
Biblical cannon was made within the first century, as I recall. It was not the Catholic Church as we know it now. Also, the Gospel Of Thomas has a 200 foot tall talking cross in it, I hear :p
aah a 200 foot tall talking cross is unlikely, but a man walking on water, bringing back the dead, curing the blind, ... is not? If you take the miracles as literal miracles, well you cant deny the possibility that Jezus made a 200 foot tall talking cross, which makes the Gospel Of Thomas just as valuable as the Gospel of Luke if you ask me.
As to other sources claiming they saw Jezus work miracles. I come home from work and my girlfriend can work miracles on my tight shoulders ... most likely that's what happened, + translating texts a few times will always cause mistakes to enter them
@ Breakatmo: I dont think Jeff really wanted to pick on atheďsts, he just wanted to pick on people with extreme views that wont tolerate other views. Which Penelope obviously doesnt. So ok she may have logic behind her, but if you check in this topic you will see that most atheďst uphold the same arguments, as fervently believing there is no God, as a religious man believes there is one. It's never good to tilt too much in one way.
If you ask me, on a global scale, there are more atheďst, or people with a view that doesnt conform with any of the major religions, then there are people who ate believers in the purest sense of the word. Ok in the USA there are a lot more devout christians, but did you ever try taking a look over the ocean? This is the first time ever that I saw an atheďst pull the minority card, and the minority card is the weakest card to pull in my opinion. Not believing in anything doesnt make you stronger, it actually makes you less human if you cant have faith in something without having seen it. How do you love your partner, and believe that your partner will love you? There is no physical proof of it, your partner could be toying with you.
-
Why's Jeph raggin' so hard on crazy atheist Penelope? As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism. I understand that they're just characters and dialogue, but it all comes from somewhere, and I don't like the way some of her views are being treated in the comic.
I know I shouldn't complain and just be happy that Jeph makes such a great comic, but I can't help but be bothered by the latest few Penelope strips. I'm not making a big deal about it though, I just want to see what a few other people think. Are you bothered by it? Or does it seems like a fair portrayal of atheists that you met? Or am I just a crazy person who gets offended by nothing?
Discuss.
Okay, I have commited the sin of not reading anything EXCEPT THIS POST.
But let me pose to you a question:
Have you noticed that everyone in QC is a little...off?
Marten has less backbone than Choo-Choo Bear from Something Positive.
Dora has SERIOUS RELATIONSHIP ISSUES OMG.
Faye is...just really fucked up.
Sven is a massive, massive slut, and not in the good way.
Steve was last seen talking to beer bottles that he dressed up, if I'm not mistaken.
Wil speaks like...well, like a Large Ham poet. (TV Tropes will tell you what large ham means, if you don't know.) That bespeaks of issues.
Raven is either very, very thick, or very, very intelligent and just as devious.
...As an athiest, Pene doesn't bother me much.
Because every other character is just as messed up, if not moreso, than she is.
For instance, I doubt that all people with OCD are worried about their PSYCHIC CLONE BABIES BEING ABORTED.
...So yeah.
-
The Gospel of Thomas is the most "legitimate" of the non-Canon Gospels, in terms of age and how it matches with the others.
Also, it's the best one, and many believe it's the truest representation of Jesus' teachings.
-
Isn't Thomas the one that shows Jesus as a child doing crazy shit?
-
the gospel of thomas is an infancy gospel yes
-
I think having some kind of mind boggling problem like that, totally comprehensible to our minds is one of the strong pieces of evidence for God that there is.
Er, why?
That is a complete non-sequitur, but it keeps getting trotted out...
Because it's a logical block. It proves that there are things beyond our very comprehending, which is exactly what God is a lot of the time.
Oooooo...kay? Just because there are things we can't comprehend (or just haven't discovered yet) does not auto-prove God. It suggests that we don't know everything, but then, no logical person would claim to know everything.
This is a very common approach, though -- at heart, it's changing the definition of "God" while discussing how probable God's existence is.
This is also why it's important to discuss what we as individuals actually believe, instead of talking about what "some theologians believe" or "some religious people state that", etc..
It's pretty useless to lay out reasons to believe in a God who is just another word for "love", or an abstract way to refer to order in the universe (or mystery in the universe)... and then suddenly use that to justify beliefs in a God who has a personal relationship with human beings, who should be worshiped and prayed to (and who might intercede in human affairs), who sent a representative in the form of Jesus (who worked his own supernatural miracles), who sent down rules for us to follow that were recorded in the bible, etc. etc.. All of that stuff must be justified separately, one step at a time, or there's no reason to believe it.
It's important to just keep going back and looking for the leaps that were completely unjustified, and fixing the definition of God under discussion.
-
Isn't Thomas the one that shows Jesus as a child doing crazy shit?
No, that's one of the Dead Sea Scroll gospels - I forget which one - but yes, in it, the child Jesus kills someone for mocking him, and after being admonished by Joseph, brings him back to life.
The Gospel of Thomas is just a series of sayings attributed to Jesus, and written down by his literal or figurative brother, Jude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
http://www.goodnewsinc.net/othbooks/thomas.html
-
I think having some kind of mind boggling problem like that, totally comprehensible to our minds is one of the strong pieces of evidence for God that there is.
Er, why?
That is a complete non-sequitur, but it keeps getting trotted out...
Because it's a logical block. It proves that there are things beyond our very comprehending, which is exactly what God is a lot of the time.
Oooooo...kay? Just because there are things we can't comprehend (or just haven't discovered yet) does not auto-prove God. It suggests that we don't know everything, but then, no logical person would claim to know everything.
This is a very common approach, though -- at heart, it's changing the definition of "God" while discussing how probable God's existence is.
This is also why it's important to discuss what we as individuals actually believe, instead of talking about what "some theologians believe" or "some religious people state that", etc..
It's pretty useless to lay out reasons to believe in a God who is just another word for "love", or an abstract way to refer to order in the universe (or mystery in the universe)... and then suddenly use that to justify beliefs in a God who has a personal relationship with human beings, who should be worshiped and prayed to (and who might intercede in human affairs), who sent a representative in the form of Jesus (who worked his own supernatural miracles), who sent down rules for us to follow that were recorded in the bible, etc. etc.. All of that stuff must be justified separately, one step at a time, or there's no reason to believe it.
It's important to just keep going back and looking for the leaps that were completely unjustified, and fixing the definition of God under discussion.
It's rather like the whole 'God of the Gaps' thing you see creationists constantly pulling - "We don't know how this works, therefore, Goddidit". Drives me nuts, I tells ya.
-
The Gospel of Thomas is the most "legitimate" of the non-Canon Gospels, in terms of age and how it matches with the others.
Also, it's the best one, and many believe it's the truest representation of Jesus' teachings.
It's important to define "many", you know. If *you* believe it, then you should be able to explain why you do (and if you don't, likewise). If you just refer to an anonymous "many", we can't have much of a discussion about it. I know it wasn't included in my (Roman Catholic) religious instruction.
The gospel of Thomas also seems to read much more like parts of the Tao Te Ching than any of the four "accepted" gospels, with some proverbs I recognize, but also stuff like this:
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you
make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside,
and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the
female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the
female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye,
and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and
a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter [the
Kingdom]."
Plus things which are definitely counter to mainstream Christian teaching, like that the end times have already come, and that the dead will never be physically resurrected.
It's definitely useful to study this stuff, but from my perspective it just shows more clearly how the current bible was constructed over time out of many disparate sources.
Especially when the earliest of them wasn't written until, what was said above? 40 years after his death? (I don't study this stuff in any depth myself).
Imagine first that you're living in a time when miracles are considered fairly commonplace -- Jesus wasn't the only one thought to be working miracles at the time.
Now imagine you're in one of a few small groups of early Christians who aren't writing anything down, just trading stories back and forth. You're also actively trying to convert people, so there would be a pretty strong motivation to:
* "fix" any seeming logical holes and inconsistencies in the stories
* include more "proof" that Jesus was great and worthy of being followed
If you bend the truth a tiny bit -- well, it's for a good cause (you just got 2 new followers!), and hey, if Jesus could feed 20 people with just one loaf and one fish, that's a miracle, and he could just as easily have fed 50 or 100.
Okay, let 40 years of that go by before anyone decides the current "canon" should be written down... then it's no surprise that you have a wide diversity of tales, philosophies, theologies, all ascribed to Jesus -- such that even after centuries of punishment of death from the (now powerful) church for possessing or distributing any non-approved "heretical" version, there are still some odd versions about (entire populations of people were exterminated for heretical beliefs, after all... it couldn't have been easy to keep the variants around). The chosen few still aren't consistent with each other, but after a point were probably copied pretty faithfully, since they had become the sacred "Word of God".
I'm perfectly comfortable with people trying to dig down to figure out the most faithful representations of what Jesus' teachings might have actually been. I doubt that it's possible to know very much about what he actually said, but some kind of a philosophy can be pieced together from the various clues. It's interesting to read just like Lao Tzu and Aristotle are interesting to read (though we have much more reliable access to what those philosophers actually said -- they were literate, had literate followers, etc.).
Where I get lost is where people decide to swallow on faith the whole kit and caboodle of a personal God, worship, prayer, souls, afterlife, heaven/hell, Jesus = God, miracles = fact, and so on, using the flimsiest of reasons (like "there are things we don't understand in the universe... hence God must exist and all the rest of this follows").
*edited for mangled idiom: the expression is "kit and caboodle"; why'd I put "kitten"? Quoted below (and so preserved for all eternity) but at least I can fix it in the original....*
-
The Gospel of Thomas is the most "legitimate" of the non-Canon Gospels, in terms of age and how it matches with the others.
Also, it's the best one, and many believe it's the truest representation of Jesus' teachings.
It's important to define "many", you know. If *you* believe it, then you should be able to explain why you do (and if you don't, likewise). If you just refer to an anonymous "many", we can't have much of a discussion about it. I know it wasn't included in my (Roman Catholic) religious instruction.
The gospel of Thomas also seems to read much more like parts of the Tao Te Ching than any of the four "accepted" gospels, with some proverbs I recognize, but also stuff like this:
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you
make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside,
and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the
female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the
female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye,
and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and
a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter [the
Kingdom]."
Plus things which are definitely counter to mainstream Christian teaching, like that the end times have already come, and that the dead will never be physically resurrected.
It's definitely useful to study this stuff, but from my perspective it just shows more clearly how the current bible was constructed over time out of many disparate sources.
Especially when the earliest of them wasn't written until, what was said above? 40 years after his death? (I don't study this stuff in any depth myself).
Imagine first that you're living in a time when miracles are considered fairly commonplace -- Jesus wasn't the only one thought to be working miracles at the time.
Now imagine you're in one of a few small groups of early Christians who aren't writing anything down, just trading stories back and forth. You're also actively trying to convert people, so there would be a pretty strong motivation to:
* "fix" any seeming logical holes and inconsistencies in the stories
* include more "proof" that Jesus was great and worthy of being followed
If you bend the truth a tiny bit -- well, it's for a good cause (you just got 2 new followers!), and hey, if Jesus could feed 20 people with just one loaf and one fish, that's a miracle, and he could just as easily have fed 50 or 100.
Okay, let 40 years of that go by before anyone decides the current "canon" should be written down... then it's no surprise that you have a wide diversity of tales, philosophies, theologies, all ascribed to Jesus -- such that even after centuries of punishment of death from the (now powerful) church for possessing or distributing any non-approved "heretical" version, there are still some odd versions about (entire populations of people were exterminated for heretical beliefs, after all... it couldn't have been easy to keep the variants around). The chosen few still aren't consistent with each other, but after a point were probably copied pretty faithfully, since they had become the sacred "Word of God".
I'm perfectly comfortable with people trying to dig down to figure out the most faithful representations of what Jesus' teachings might have actually been. I doubt that it's possible to know very much about what he actually said, but some kind of a philosophy can be pieced together from the various clues. It's interesting to read just like Lao Tzu and Aristotle are interesting to read (though we have much more reliable access to what those philosophers actually said -- they were literate, had literate followers, etc.).
Where I get lost is where people decide to swallow on faith the whole kitten caboodle of a personal God, worship, prayer, souls, afterlife, heaven/hell, Jesus = God, miracles = fact, and so on, using the flimsiest of reasons (like "there are things we don't understand in the universe... hence God must exist and all the rest of this follows").
You're 100% right, but the sad thing is Christianity (and more specifically the catholic church, and you protestants were still part of the catholic church at the time this happened) edited out all the stories that didnt match up, all of this to get a unified vision. Now there are people who believe in the Bible literally, who claim they know the word of God and every word of it, but have never heard about banned gospels... If you calculate in the banned gospels, and how they vary so much in between them and the 4 'legit' gospels, well it sheds a whole lot of doubt on the authenticity of the bible. To a devout Christian this is unacceptable, hence the heavy replies on it, by devout christians.
As to what is God, you should concider what religion was first used for, the same reasons as philosophy. To get answers on the deeper questions of life: who are we, why are we on this earth, how do we need to live our lives towards ourselves and others and where are we going after our time here is done. If you try and use religion for anything else but trying to answer these questions, you're going to get it wrong. I wont use mathematics to help me figure out what the meaning of life is, pure and simple cause mathematics wont be able to solve it for me. But I dont expect religion to help me discover how we got on this planet, cause that's something science is for. If you cant keep those things seperate well you're just as much a nutbag as those muslims that blow themselves up to get into heaven. your religion just doesnt approve the blowing up yourself part
-
Why's Jeph raggin' so hard on crazy atheist Penelope? As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism. I understand that they're just characters and dialogue, but it all comes from somewhere, and I don't like the way some of her views are being treated in the comic.
I know I shouldn't complain and just be happy that Jeph makes such a great comic, but I can't help but be bothered by the latest few Penelope strips. I'm not making a big deal about it though, I just want to see what a few other people think. Are you bothered by it? Or does it seems like a fair portrayal of atheists that you met? Or am I just a crazy person who gets offended by nothing?
Discuss.
I thought a big factor of Atheism was supposed to be Apathy? You're offended, but when she talks about Christians in that light, they're not supposed to be? Why? Because you're right?
-
I thought a big factor of Atheism was supposed to be Apathy? You're offended, but when she talks about Christians in that light, they're not supposed to be? Why? Because you're right?
I think this thread has gone full circle now. This was discussed in depth back on page 1. Atheists are actively discriminated against -- why in the world should apathy be part of atheism? Here was my comment that tries to address why an atheist might protest seeing another atheist depicted as "religiously passionate": http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,21952.msg748005.html#msg748005
Also, "who's right" is not meaningless, particularly when you have one group claiming "we know X" and another group simply saying "no, we don't".
-
What about:
Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Eve, Gospel of Mani, Gospel of the Saviour (also known as the Unknown Berlin gospel), Gospel of the Twelve, Gospel of Bartholomew, Gospel of the Seventy, Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms, Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Basilides, Gospel of Andrew, Gospel of Apelles, Gospel of Cerinthus, Gospel of Bardesanes, Gospel of the Encratites, Gospel of the Gnostics, Gospel of Hesychius, Gospel of Lucius, Gospel of Longinus, Gospel of Manes, Gospel of Merinthus, Gospel of Scythianus, Gospel of Simonides, Gospel of Tatian, Gospel of Thaddaeus and Gospel of Valentinus?
Gnostic writings penned quite after the fact by people who were not eyewitnesses. Marcion should have clued you in on that.
and I can get you more, really dont question my knowledge of the Bible and stuff that the Catholic Church excluded when it's Canon was decided. You will never find a single Gospel written by a woman that is approved by the Church. (change might be coming though)
Um, OK? So?
Seriously, how do you think canon was formed? Ever seen the writings of Athenasius, who listed what became the canon over 100 years before it was decided? Ever seen earlier listings which are nearly as complete?
Sir,I will most confidently question your knowledge of the Bible.
And do you honestly believe that a story written 115years after the estimate birth of Jezus a man who lived to be in his 30's so roughly 80years after his estimate dead is realistic representation of events? Even if they were written by a person who travelled with Jezus (which they werent) you try and write down correctly what happened when you were ten years old?
115 years, really? You're being quite selective in your choice of historians, I fear.
Try this one on for size: the first Gospel written was Mark, at the latest 65AD or so (though an earlier authorship is not out of the question). Following that, and based upon Mark's framework for memorization purposes (remember that the printing press was 1,500 years in the future) was Matthew's Gospel. Luke-Acts followed that, then John.
The problem with this 115 year idea is that there is a fragment of John that is younger than that. Unless the early church fathers had a time machine, your assertion is impossible. Sorry.
A story that is told from mouth to mouth grows in each telling. Yes Jezus was a great man and he did good things, there is no denying that, he may even have performed miracles, but those miracles need not be taken so literally.
If the Gospels were penned by eyewitnesses, as I assert, this is a nonsequitor.
And finally I'm quite shocked you would think I draw my theories from Dan Brown. I really dont like the writer and his books just paste together loose facts and theories to shape a view that he believes is true but shows serious flaws.
Becasue your arguments and his arguments are remarkably similar. See the following as an example:
I do wonder if you're one of those people that say Jezus and Mary Magdalena never had intimate relations :), Jezus was sent by God to be one of us, he was a man like every one of us, and seeing as how God stands for love, I would find it highly unlikely Jezus could not feel nor express the emotion love. One most keep an open eye on every angle to get a complete view, holding the Bible as the one and only truth severely hampers your view. Just the same as saying I dont believe in anything severly hampers your view.
I don't care if Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. It changes nothing. However, there is no contemporary evidence for this, so it is an unneccesary argument.
-
If the Gospels were penned by eyewitnesses, as I assert, this is a nonsequitor.
Anyone still alive 40 years after the death would have been either quite old at the time of the writing or quite young when the events occurred. And after forty years... memory gets a little fuzzy. Think back to your 8th birthday party and tell us the names of everyone you invited.
-
Try this one on for size: the first Gospel written was Mark, at the latest 65AD or so (though an earlier authorship is not out of the question).
I've also read that most scholars agree that the earliest gospel written was the Gospel of Mark. There are questions regarding when it was written; a source I've read gives AD 70 as its approximate date of composition1. However, it, like all books of the bible, were subject to constant, small-scale revision by copyists down the centuries2. The results of this are that we don't know what the original author / editors of the gospels-- or of any part of the bible-- actually wrote.
What are your sources regarding the Gospel of Mark as being written by the actual Mark? I've heard (but cannot source at the moment) that there are serious questions regarding the actual authorship of the gospels. I might have to take a trip to the library today to find out more....
1. Armstrong, Karen. 1993. A History of God: the 4000 year quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Ballantine Books, 460p
2. Ehrman, Bart D. 2005. Misquoting Jesus: the story behind who changed the bible and why. Harper Collins, 244p.
-
Most biblical historians, as I'm aware, agree that the gospels were not written by the apostles.
-
Most biblical historians, as I'm aware, agree that the gospels were not written by the apostles.
This is true.
People, at least use wikipedia before you post.
-
Most biblical historians, as I'm aware, agree that the gospels were not written by the apostles.
This is true.
So after Jesus' death the apostles went out to spread the word and convert people. Then *they* died -- it seems doubtful that any of them were still alive 40 years later, if you assume they were adults at Jesus' death -- and other followers started writing things down, so possibly third-hand info (Jesus -> apostles -> next generation followers), but quite possibly further removed, particularly for the later gospels.
Is this plausible and/or probable? Not my field of expertise....
Leaving out (since it's my interpretation only, but seems pretty logical) that the efforts to convert and convince people, to answer questions without Jesus present, etc. would seem to be a strong force modifying and extending the stories and associated interpretations as time went on. I think I discussed this earlier in this thread.
If you're going to pick a holy book to follow, it seems to me like the Qur’an (dictated directly from Mohammed, and with no significant variations known) is a better choice. Or possibly the Book of Mormon, which is even more recent and not so clouded by the mists of history at all (though you may have some doubts about the prophet... quite a lot is known about Joseph Smith since he's relatively recent, and it's not all encouraging).
-
Most biblical historians, as I'm aware, agree that the gospels were not written by the apostles.
This is true.
People, at least use wikipedia before you post.
Two of them were.
-
Most biblical historians, as I'm aware, agree that the gospels were not written by the apostles.
Two of them were.
(Tweaking quote order, so it's clear you aren't saying that two people used wikipedia before they posted.)
You already know what people are going to ask you, given a flat statement like that, don't you? Why wait for the question before answering it?
-
Just stirring the pot, I guess.
Part of my difficulty is that I don't have (like JReynolds) single sources for my statements. I have several, since theology and history are both hobbies and hazards of my profession.
I've read the "theologians" who late-date the gospels, I've seen the claims that redaction and editing occurred. The argument against redaction is the sheer volume of manuscripts at our disposal. Even if redacted, said redaction would be overwhelmingly obvious and easily countered. As to the late dating, I've addressed that, iirc.
And if Mark was 70AD (unlikely, since both Mark and Matthew do not mention the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy in re the temple), it isn't like a 40-year-old remembering their eighth birthday. Even leaving out the spiritual argument, it's someone recalling the single most important event of their existence. Big difference.
-
But it's not a single event they're recalling. It's recalling the names, faces and details of a metric shitload of events... 30-40 years after the fact. And also the genealogy of the people involved... which might explain why two of the gospels got them wrong.
Which two, by the by?
-
Part of my difficulty is that I don't have (like JReynolds) single sources for my statements. I have several, since theology and history are both hobbies and hazards of my profession.
Early Christian thought is a hobby of mine, too-- could you guess?
The late-dating of the gospels and other parts of the New Testament isn't just from one or two sources; the books I noted above I happen to own and so could easily quote. Other sources exist, including Surpassing Wonder (http://www.amazon.com/Surpassing-Wonder-Invention-Bible-Talmuds/dp/0226010732/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) by Akenson (1998); I've also seen this in many other places, too ("many other places" is not a convincing argument, I know-- but the library is closed now, and this is a subject that wants more than Wikipedia-reliable sources to discuss).
As for errors creeping in by accident: this very much did happen. Before the printing press, books had to be copied by hand, a letter at a time. This was at best a long and painstaking process, which meant that books were not mass produced. Scribes could introduce differences by a slip of the pen (like skipping a line). Also, scribes did not always understand what they were copying, which made accurate copying more difficult. From Ehrman (p.48)
One of the problems with ancient Greek texts (which would include all the earliest Christian writings, including those of the New Testament) is that when they were copied, no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction made between lowercase and uppercase letters, and, even more bizarre to modern readers, no spaces used to separate words. . . . The words godisnowhere could mean quite different things to a theist (God is now here) and an atheist (God is nowhere); and what would it mean to say lastnightatdinnerisawabundanceonthetable? Was this a normal or a supernormal event? . . . Obviously, if you don't know what you're reading, the possibilities of making mistakes in transcription multiply.
These kinds of errors happened all the time. One of the things I found most interesting about Ehrman's book was that the Catholic Church's Latin Bible (translated from the original Greek, with additional opportunities for error) didn't become completely standardized until the late 16th century. Even with a 1000+ year old hierarchy in place that wanted a homogenous Bible, the fact that bibles had to be locally copied by hand meant that standardization was impossible. Only after the printing press came in could the Catholic bureaucracy compare each of the many variants and decide which was the one that was correct. The Bible in English didn't become standardized until the King James Version in the early 17th century; in both cases, it required a centralized authority to say 'this is the right version, and you will use this version, or else.' I don't have any information about German Protestant bibles, but I wouldn't be surprised if they also had local variants based on simple transcription error.
-
Part of my difficulty is that I don't have (like JReynolds) single sources for my statements. I have several, since theology and history are both hobbies and hazards of my profession.
Early Christian thought is a hobby of mine, too-- could you guess?
The late-dating of the gospels and other parts of the New Testament isn't just from one or two sources; the books I noted above I happen to own and so could easily quote. Other sources exist, including Surpassing Wonder (http://www.amazon.com/Surpassing-Wonder-Invention-Bible-Talmuds/dp/0226010732/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) by Akenson (1998); I've also seen this in many other places, too ("many other places" is not a convincing argument, I know-- but the library is closed now, and this is a subject that wants more than Wikipedia-reliable sources to discuss).
So you'll quote people influenced by liberal higher criticism, and I'll quote people influenced by conservative higher criticism. Yours still doesn't explain that early fragment of John, does it?
As for errors creeping in by accident: this very much did happen. Before the printing press, books had to be copied by hand, a letter at a time. This was at best a long and painstaking process, which meant that books were not mass produced. Scribes could introduce differences by a slip of the pen (like skipping a line). Also, scribes did not always understand what they were copying, which made accurate copying more difficult. From Ehrman (p.48)
Which issue is addressed by, as I said before, the sheer number of manuscripts avaliable to us. Not all hand-copiers made the same mistakes. Thus by comparing manuscripts, the errors become obvious and are corrected.
One of the problems with ancient Greek texts (which would include all the earliest Christian writings, including those of the New Testament) is that when they were copied, no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction made between lowercase and uppercase letters, and, even more bizarre to modern readers, no spaces used to separate words. . . . The words godisnowhere could mean quite different things to a theist (God is now here) and an atheist (God is nowhere); and what would it mean to say lastnightatdinnerisawabundanceonthetable? Was this a normal or a supernormal event? . . . Obviously, if you don't know what you're reading, the possibilities of making mistakes in transcription multiply.
This is, of course, assuming that people who read and communicated in Greek weren't involved in the reading of the manuscripts and in the development of writing which separated words. You and I might have a hell of a time figuring it out; this does not mean that the copyists of the period had the same difficulty. And again, where mistakes may have been made, the plethora of manuscripts allow us to find and correct them.
These kinds of errors happened all the time. One of the things I found most interesting about Ehrman's book was that the Catholic Church's Latin Bible (translated from the original Greek, with additional opportunities for error) didn't become completely standardized until the late 16th century. Even with a 1000+ year old hierarchy in place that wanted a homogenous Bible, the fact that bibles had to be locally copied by hand meant that standardization was impossible. Only after the printing press came in could the Catholic bureaucracy compare each of the many variants and decide which was the one that was correct. The Bible in English didn't become standardized until the King James Version in the early 17th century; in both cases, it required a centralized authority to say 'this is the right version, and you will use this version, or else.' I don't have any information about German Protestant bibles, but I wouldn't be surprised if they also had local variants based on simple transcription error.
OK, so what is the argument here? Or did you not know about the translations which have been made, not from the Latin or form the KJV's Textus Recepticus, but from the many manuscripts available?
-
OK, so what is the argument here? Or did you not know about the translations which have been made, not from the Latin or form the KJV's Textus Recepticus, but from the many manuscripts available?
... um... I'm pretty sure the argument is that many manuscripts were/are available.
-
OK. This is bad in exactly what way?
-
I was thinking you were arguing just the one... I apologize. I've had a few this evening.
-
No problem. Honestly, I wish I could say the same.
-
man people got pretty riled up on like the one comic where jeff makes fun of athiests, were in several different comics he show that he isnt exactly to inline with christianity either(hard to know either way, but the pope, priest, catholic jokes are there)
yeeesh, let the guy pick on the idiots on both sides a bit okay?
"yeah, but my view is the right one" is what he was really getting at. and you see that way of thinking among the ignorant on both sides of this fence.
not to tar everyone with the same brush, but on the odd occasion that i end up discussing faith with an athiest (i wouldnt call myself really religuous or anything, but i am definitely not an athiest) the other guy seems like he has to "save" me from the evils of faith of any kind. like a dog with a bone, just not letting go.
at this point they become like that really evangelical, bible thumping shouting dude on the street corner, i dont give a shit if you think you are right, i dont particularily care one way or the other, get the hell out of my face about it!
being somewhere in the middle, i get that from both sides, and i cant say that either one ends up looking good when it is "marketed" that way.
-
OK, so what is the argument here? Or did you not know about the translations which have been made, not from the Latin or form the KJV's Textus Recepticus, but from the many manuscripts available?
... um... I'm pretty sure the argument is that many manuscripts were/are available.
OK. This is bad in exactly what way?
Because of the plethora of manuscripts, and all of them different on multiple instances doubt is shed on the events described in the manuscripts. You're saying we find errors by looking at the other manuscripts that are available. A manuscript with a copying error was also copied, taking the errors along and adding more errors every time it was copied. The possbility of there being more faulty manuscripts then correct one is greater. So the errors they removed might actually not be errors.
If every physics manual had a different way of presenting Newtons laws of physics they would never been used. So why use the Bible, a book that describes supernatural events and has more possible interpretations then any other book in the world... A book which has had more revisions then it has stories in it, another example like this would be the stories of the Brothers Grimm, the original stories are quite gruesome and dark, right now we know them as fairytales like snow-white, cinderella, sleeping beauty,... these stories hardly show any resemblance to the original except for maybe a rough plotline and character names. Of the fairy tales there also was a plethora of manuscripts available yet still the originals are lost to mainstream public. The stories of the brothers grimm were written down roughly 1800 years after the Bible and was still that susceptible to change...
-
If every physics manual had a different way of presenting Newtons laws of physics they would never been used. So why use the Bible, a book that describes supernatural events and has more possible interpretations then any other book in the world...
I think an even more important point is that this is a physics book that is nearly 2000 years old (some of it much older). And it was written in a time when people had very different standards for accepting "truth" and very different ideas of what might realistically happen vs. what should be examined more closely before accepting it as true.
Let's simplify this whole discussion a bit, actually. The accuracy of copies is a distraction, anyway. The gospels could be completely consistent, no conflicts could exist, copies could all be perfect, and STILL it need not be any more convincing than the Book of Mormon or the texts on the wrappers of Dr. Bronner's soap.
tragic_pizza, even if you are personally convinced that the Gospels are an accurate representation of what a couple of the apostles were telling people....
Well, if those guys were here in front of you, today, telling you their personal experiences with this miraculous Jesus guy, how would you respond? Would you say "you both agree... that's pretty convincing. Let's go spread the good word!"
The only difference I can see here is that in the case of Jesus:
* whatever did happen, happened a very long time ago
* a lot of people still believe in the stories about Jesus
I don't understand how either of those supports the truth of the stories, though. The "long ago" aspect just makes it impossible to verify any of it. The best you can do is say "well, if it convinced a bunch of fishermen in Ancient Rome", as far as I can think (I'm guessing you'll have some response to this).
It seems more likely that the philosophy was interesting and timely, some people were convinced, and the whole thing snowballed.
-
is hoping something exists the same as believing? I hope that there is some sort of afterlife, a higher power above all this who does have some notion of a plan that we can't fathom. Otherwise, our existence is nothing but a long string of coincidences and accidents, and when it's done, it's done. Game over, out of quarters, and your mom is to bitchy to give you more to keep going, even though you were at the last fucking level, and you had it beat.
That's kinda depressing to think about. So I hope that when my life here is over, there is something beyond, some next chapter of a journey I didn't know I was apart of until I was was already to far in.
-
It seems more likely that the philosophy was interesting and timely, some people were convinced, and the whole thing snowballed.
Unfortunately, to the point where most modern Christians don't practice half of what Jesus actually suggested.
-
is hoping something exists the same as believing? I hope that there is some sort of afterlife, a higher power above all this who does have some notion of a plan that we can't fathom. Otherwise, our existence is nothing but a long string of coincidences and accidents, and when it's done, it's done. Game over, out of quarters, and your mom is to bitchy to give you more to keep going, even though you were at the last fucking level, and you had it beat.
That's kinda depressing to think about. So I hope that when my life here is over, there is something beyond, some next chapter of a journey I didn't know I was apart of until I was was already to far in.
Nothing is wrong with hoping there is an afterlife, I would even call this believing in an afterlife. But dont just believe blindly, keep an open mind on other opinions, and act out your beliefs, otherwise you'll always be a hypocrit in my eyes
-
OK, so what is the argument here? Or did you not know about the translations which have been made, not from the Latin or form the KJV's Textus Recepticus, but from the many manuscripts available?
... um... I'm pretty sure the argument is that many manuscripts were/are available.
OK. This is bad in exactly what way?
Because of the plethora of manuscripts, and all of them different on multiple instances doubt is shed on the events described in the manuscripts. You're saying we find errors by looking at the other manuscripts that are available. A manuscript with a copying error was also copied, taking the errors along and adding more errors every time it was copied. The possbility of there being more faulty manuscripts then correct one is greater. So the errors they removed might actually not be errors.
This is why manuscripts are colleted into "families": groups of manuscriptmcopies with similar features. For example, iirc there is a family where the phrase "the mote in your brothers eye" is "the fruit in your brother's eye." That's a rather obvious copying error, and since the overwhelming majority of manuscripts (many dated earlier than these) say "mote," we can with confidence correct when translating.
As a general rule, the more difficult reading of any passage is most likely to be the correct one. The oldest one is most likely to be the correct one.
You know, it's interesting that you cite the Brother's Grimm. I challenge you to find out how many manuscripts exist for the Grimm tales, and the dating of those manuscripts, and compare that number to the number of manuscripts, and the dating of the manuscripts, for Christian Scripture.
-
Aaaargh.
Too. Many. Letters. On. The. Page.
Like it.
Hmm...browsing through this topic, just a few thoughts:
Bible was written 2000 years ago, so of course it shouldn't be taken literally. I mean - long time after that people were burning on stakes (or whatever) for saying that the earth is round.
Jesus (as described in Bible) was pretty cool dude, saying "nonsense" like "We should all be nicer to each other" and "We should generally be, like, good", so, where's the fault in doing what he told, and letting the people who are bored to theorise? Stuff like burning bush (heh, I'm not quite sure if that's the correct term, so - I mean that scene on the mountain with Moses), building-the-world-in-seven-days story and feeding hundreds of people with almost no fish and bread are less important. The point is presenting the message that the book displays , right? (which is - don't be arseholes (quote form someone))
I mean, don't get me wrong, discuss away, but the man themes that people fight about are politics, religion and music. I don't like when fights go bad (and, in few years, will have a postcount which will make peoples take my posts seriously).
-
As a general rule, the more difficult reading of any passage is most likely to be the correct one. The oldest one is most likely to be the correct one.
You know, it's interesting that you cite the Brother's Grimm. I challenge you to find out how many manuscripts exist for the Grimm tales, and the dating of those manuscripts, and compare that number to the number of manuscripts, and the dating of the manuscripts, for Christian Scripture.
the more difficult reading of a passage. Translate this too the less understandable it is for the common man...
and why would I need to look up the number of manuscripts? The brothers Grimm's fairytales were edited and re-edited due to CENSORSHIP, and this over a small period of time even.
The Church was pretty quick to censor during the times the Biblical Canon was finalized. As stated somewhere before in this topic one of the rules for being accepted in the Canon was, the gospel has to agree with what we are saying (We being the heads of the church at the time), this is a biased rule, cause everything that doesnt agree with your opinion is concidered wrong, even if it was written by a more believable source.
but just to please you, here's a small history of the brothers grimm's fairytales.
In 1812, the Brothers published a collection of 86 German fairy tales in a volume titled Kinder- und Hausmärchen ("Children's and Household Tales"). They published a second volume of 70 fairy tales in 1814 ("1815" on the title page), which together make up the first edition of the collection, containing 156 stories.
They wrote a two volume work titled Deutsche Sagen which included 585 German legends which were published in 1816 and 1818. The legends are told in chronological order of which historical events they were related. Then they arranged the regional legends thematically for each folktale creature like dwarfs, giants, monsters, etc. not in any historical order. These legends were not as popular as the fairytales.
A second edition, of the Kinder- und Hausmärchen, followed in 1819-22, expanded to 170 tales. Five more editions were issued during the Grimms' lifetimes, in which stories were added or subtracted, until the seventh edition of 1857 contained 211 tales. Many of the changes were made in light of unfavorable reviews, particularly those that objected that not all the tales were suitable for children, despite the title. They were also criticized for being insufficiently German; this not only affected the tales they included, but their language as they changed "Fee" (fairy) to an enchantress or wise woman, every prince to a king's son, every princess to a king's daughter. (It has long been recognized that some of these later-added stories were derived from printed rather than oral sources.)
you see how censorship can change a work of literature that was purely meant as research on folk tales?
how heavily susceptible would the Bible, a book that presents your point of view (if you're the church at the time) completely? Quite a lot more, even a 5year old could make that logical deduction. This censorship is proven by the leaving out of gospels.
Add error of copying (did you copy your picture over and over again already? just copy it and copy the copy... until you do it 10 times, and look at the picture and the final copy) to this censorship and the validity of the bible, beyond anything than a lesson in morals, is lost forever.
-
I challenge you to find out how many manuscripts exist for the Grimm tales, and the dating of those manuscripts, and compare that number to the number of manuscripts, and the dating of the manuscripts, for Christian Scripture.
Why is it all so important? Would you believe the authors themselves if they were standing in front of you, 40 years after Jesus' death (or just long enough that any possible physical evidence of miracles was long gone)?
This seems like a very relevant question, though interestingly I don't think I'd thought of it in these terms before this conversation (nifty).
is hoping something exists the same as believing? I hope that there is some sort of afterlife, a higher power above all this who does have some notion of a plan that we can't fathom. Otherwise, our existence is nothing but a long string of coincidences and accidents, and when it's done, it's done. Game over, out of quarters, and your mom is too bitchy to give you more to keep going, even though you were at the last fucking level, and you had it beat.
That's kinda depressing to think about. So I hope that when my life here is over, there is something beyond, some next chapter of a journey I didn't know I was apart of until I was was already too far in.
I've never found it depressing, though I've now had a long time to get comfortable with the idea -- I actually get energy from the idea that this world is what we make of it, and that there *is* no correct God-given answer to any question. We have to make a lot of decisions without knowing the outcomes, and the awareness that "this what I know... the best I can do is to decide based on this, then hope it works out" is very freeing. I've seen a lot of people thrashing around, desperately looking for a sign from God... if you know it's not coming, you can move forward and be comfortable in the knowledge that you're doing what you can.
Death also is pretty unintimidating, outside of the natural fear of pain. I have some things I'd like to get done before then, but I'm comfortable at least that when it comes, I'll be "done" no matter what, and will have no regrets ('cause... I'll be dead). I think more about the effects my death would have on my wife, family, etc. when I avoid risks (well, that and I would prefer to avoid crippling injuries...).
I can really give myself a shiver, star-gazing -- we're so small and fragile and alone, it's mind-boggling -- but I like the feeling. I actually live out in the countryside where I can see a whole lot of stars on cold winter nights; it's awesome (in the old sense of the word). It's also a perverse comfort to know that the world has no guiding intellect behind it. I am reassured by the knowledge that suffering is not a message or a warning -- it's shit that happens, a very nasty result of complex systems that we can comprehend and work to alter ...and we might be able to avoid a lot of it in the future. When people do bad things to each other, I don't get tangled up in concepts of original sin, Heaven/Hell, or what hints might be found in the Bible to fight evil. Instead I learn about human psychology, impulse control, trauma reactions, studies on effectiveness of different approaches to law enforcement, rehabilitation, imprisonment, social stigma, etc. etc. -- I want to understand the system, know what works, and at what cost. We are the only ones here to manage our behavior. Etc.. I could go on, but I'm overall pretty happy with my worldview.
The point is presenting the message that the book displays, right? (which is - don't be arseholes (quote form someone))
I'd be happy if that were the core of Christianity -- people could have weekly meetings to talk philosophy and organize community service, and skip all of the rituals, priests, theology, so on and so forth. Unfortunately, it does seem like the theology is pretty primary and unavoidable.
@Jon Snow: why is it important to sort out the reliability of the copies of the Bible? I'd say just let the topic drop unless it's actually important. If you're interested in the philosophy, it doesn't matter who said it -- either the ideas stand on their own, or they don't. If anyone believes that a reliable copy is some kind of proof of miracles performed and Godhood, they're barking up the wrong tree anyway, even if the copies are good. This goes back to what I've been trying to ask tragic_pizza about.
-
the more difficult reading of a passage. Translate this too the less understandable it is for the common man...
and why would I need to look up the number of manuscripts? The brothers Grimm's fairytales were edited and re-edited due to CENSORSHIP, and this over a small period of time even.
The Church was pretty quick to censor during the times the Biblical Canon was finalized. As stated somewhere before in this topic one of the rules for being accepted in the Canon was, the gospel has to agree with what we are saying (We being the heads of the church at the time), this is a biased rule, cause everything that doesnt agree with your opinion is concidered wrong, even if it was written by a more believable source.
but just to please you, here's a small history of the brothers grimm's fairytales.
In 1812, the Brothers published a collection of 86 German fairy tales in a volume titled Kinder- und Hausmärchen ("Children's and Household Tales"). They published a second volume of 70 fairy tales in 1814 ("1815" on the title page), which together make up the first edition of the collection, containing 156 stories.
They wrote a two volume work titled Deutsche Sagen which included 585 German legends which were published in 1816 and 1818. The legends are told in chronological order of which historical events they were related. Then they arranged the regional legends thematically for each folktale creature like dwarfs, giants, monsters, etc. not in any historical order. These legends were not as popular as the fairytales.
A second edition, of the Kinder- und Hausmärchen, followed in 1819-22, expanded to 170 tales. Five more editions were issued during the Grimms' lifetimes, in which stories were added or subtracted, until the seventh edition of 1857 contained 211 tales. Many of the changes were made in light of unfavorable reviews, particularly those that objected that not all the tales were suitable for children, despite the title. They were also criticized for being insufficiently German; this not only affected the tales they included, but their language as they changed "Fee" (fairy) to an enchantress or wise woman, every prince to a king's son, every princess to a king's daughter. (It has long been recognized that some of these later-added stories were derived from printed rather than oral sources.)
you see how censorship can change a work of literature that was purely meant as research on folk tales?
how heavily susceptible would the Bible, a book that presents your point of view (if you're the church at the time) completely? Quite a lot more, even a 5year old could make that logical deduction. This censorship is proven by the leaving out of gospels.
Add error of copying (did you copy your picture over and over again already? just copy it and copy the copy... until you do it 10 times, and look at the picture and the final copy) to this censorship and the validity of the bible, beyond anything than a lesson in morals, is lost forever.
We've been over this now several times, but here we go again.
The criteria for canonical inclusion:
Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).
The "gospels" you keep harping about fail miserably in at least three of the four citeria.
Further,
The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."
Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:
"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
"3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."
I challenge you to find out how many manuscripts exist for the Grimm tales, and the dating of those manuscripts, and compare that number to the number of manuscripts, and the dating of the manuscripts, for Christian Scripture.
Why is it all so important? Would you believe the authors themselves if they were standing in front of you, 40 years after Jesus' death (or just long enough that any possible physical evidence of miracles was long gone)?
You mean, if they hadn't been talking about, living out, relating and being punished for those things they told me about during those forty years? Probably not. But this is nto the case with the Gospels.
-
Why is it all so important? Would you believe the authors themselves if they were standing in front of you, 40 years after Jesus' death (or just long enough that any possible physical evidence of miracles was long gone)?
You mean, if they hadn't been talking about, living out, relating and being punished for those things they told me about during those forty years? Probably not. But this is nto the case with the Gospels.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So if they had put enough effort and risked enough for their cause, you would accept *that* as acceptable evidence that they were telling you something that was factually true?
Is that the criterion?
You can probably see where this goes (I'm tipping my hand now either way; I'm not aiming for rhetorical tricks); just because they believed it, even believed it enough to die for it, does not make it factually true. History does not lack for martyrs to all kinds of causes and beliefs; I'm sure you don't accept them all.
-
Please point out where I said it did.
eta: there is more than a single criterion to the whole canonicity/reliabiltiy question. Limiting it to a single point is not smart.
-
Jesus is just all right with me.
-
man people got pretty riled up on like the one comic where jeff makes fun of athiests, were in several different comics he show that he isnt exactly to inline with christianity either(hard to know either way, but the pope, priest, catholic jokes are there)
yeeesh, let the guy pick on the idiots on both sides a bit okay?
"yeah, but my view is the right one" is what he was really getting at. and you see that way of thinking among the ignorant on both sides of this fence.
not to tar everyone with the same brush, but on the odd occasion that i end up discussing faith with an athiest (i wouldnt call myself really religuous or anything, but i am definitely not an athiest) the other guy seems like he has to "save" me from the evils of faith of any kind. like a dog with a bone, just not letting go.
at this point they become like that really evangelical, bible thumping shouting dude on the street corner, i dont give a shit if you think you are right, i dont particularily care one way or the other, get the hell out of my face about it!
being somewhere in the middle, i get that from both sides, and i cant say that either one ends up looking good when it is "marketed" that way.
This is exactly what I discussed in my earlier post, apparently rather pointlessly. The big difference between a Christian (or any follower of a religion) saying "My religion is right" and an atheist saying "No it isn't, atheism is right" is that the atheist has logic and reason to back up what they say, and the religious person does not. Atheists are just people who apply logic and critical thinking to EVERYTHING, instead of giving religion an undeserved free pass when is comes to logical criticism.
-
a bloo bloo bloo.
"ATHEEISTS IS SMART PEEPLES XTIANS IZ NOT."
-
The criteria for canonical inclusion:
Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).
The "gospels" you keep harping about fail miserably in at least three of the four citeria.
and these are good rules why?
The piece by Euzebe clearly illustrates that not even the people who made the canon were sure what was written by an apostle and what wasnt. They had educated guesses, but were never sure. So the first rule is not a good one for selection
The second rule: universal acceptance, did you really think they held public fora about this: which books of the Bible do you accept and which do you reject? LOL The ruling heads of the Church where the ones who had to accept it for it to be good. So once again this rule simply states it has to fit with what, the heads of the church feel it should fit ( aka biased)
Rule 3: Is kinda the same as rule 2, as it should fit with what we have been saying all along. It only serves as a nice excuse for saying, hey look if it's been told for that long it has to be true. This rule is more for the believer then for the christian leaders at the time.
Rule 4: It must agree with what we have already written down and accepted what as right: if christians accepted texts about flying dogs and fire breathing mice, then well the Bible would be allowed to contain those. This rule just like the 2 above simply state. If I the head of the church do not believe it, preach it, or have read it somewhere and believed it, it aint true. (can you feel the hypocrisy flowing from it?)
Further,
The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."
Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:
"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
"3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."
They're already talking about heretics, heretics in the same religion not even 200years after the person the religion is about is dead? This heavily implies different opinions within the Christian faith. Which followingly were probably settled by the culling of the heretics by a group of christians that believe as we do now. The thing with culling is, to be culling you need to be more aggressive then the one you're culling. This points a finger at the crueler segmentations of Christianity, meaning that whoever was more willing to kill the people who believed in Jezus, but not exactly like him, would end up deciding
They gentle Christians would never have used the words heretic or heresy as Jezus teaches us to have an open mind for everybodies opinion.
This is exactly what I discussed in my earlier post, apparently rather pointlessly. The big difference between a Christian (or any follower of a religion) saying "My religion is right" and an atheist saying "No it isn't, atheism is right" is that the atheist has logic and reason to back up what they say, and the religious person does not. Atheists are just people who apply logic and critical thinking to EVERYTHING, instead of giving religion an undeserved free pass when is comes to logical criticism.
Atheist I by far not applying logic in everything, most atheist even dont. Yes there are those who become atheist out this utter belief in logic. But a lot also become atheist cause they're too afraid to believe in something that isn't tangible. And I use the term afraid cause that group of atheist really are. The first group of atheist (the ones who follow logic) are true atheist in my opinion, the others are just posers trying to get a rise out of christians. Believing by the way is not an unlogical thing to do... discrediting every shred of truth without looking at it that's unlogical,but it is what a lot of your LOGICAL atheist do
-
The criteria for canonical inclusion:
Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).
The "gospels" you keep harping about fail miserably in at least three of the four citeria.
and these are good rules why?
The piece by Euzebe clearly illustrates that not even the people who made the canon were sure what was written by an apostle and what wasnt. They had educated guesses, but were never sure. So the first rule is not a good one for selection
The second rule: universal acceptance, did you really think they held public fora about this: which books of the Bible do you accept and which do you reject? LOL The ruling heads of the Church where the ones who had to accept it for it to be good. So once again this rule simply states it has to fit with what, the heads of the church feel it should fit ( aka biased)
Rule 3: Is kinda the same as rule 2, as it should fit with what we have been saying all along. It only serves as a nice excuse for saying, hey look if it's been told for that long it has to be true. This rule is more for the believer then for the christian leaders at the time.
Rule 4: It must agree with what we have already written down and accepted what as right: if christians accepted texts about flying dogs and fire breathing mice, then well the Bible would be allowed to contain those. This rule just like the 2 above simply state. If I the head of the church do not believe it, preach it, or have read it somewhere and believed it, it aint true. (can you feel the hypocrisy flowing from it?)
All of which means you are ignorant of history, nothign more. And nor does it serve to repair your arguments for the gnostic-heresy gospels.
Further,
The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."
Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:
"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
"3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."
They're already talking about heretics, heretics in the same religion not even 200years after the person the religion is about is dead? This heavily implies different opinions within the Christian faith. Which followingly were probably settled by the culling of the heretics by a group of christians that believe as we do now. The thing with culling is, to be culling you need to be more aggressive then the one you're culling. This points a finger at the crueler segmentations of Christianity, meaning that whoever was more willing to kill the people who believed in Jezus, but not exactly like him, would end up deciding
They gentle Christians would never have used the words heretic or heresy as Jezus teaches us to have an open mind for everybodies opinion.
Ummm, what?
Please, kind sir, offer me a textual citation for that last part before we go on.
-
you gave me the textual citation yourself.
The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."
Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:
"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
"3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."
Both clearly state that an opinion not conform with the mainstream opinion was concidered herecy, by the people that made the Biblical canon
-
No, spanky, the textual citation for this:
"They gentle Christians would never have used the words heretic or heresy as Jezus teaches us to have an open mind for everybodies opinion."
Try and keep up.
-
a bloo bloo bloo.
"ATHEEISTS IS SMART PEEPLES XTIANS IZ NOT."
Well... you see, in my mind this response sadly cancels out all your more thoughtful and interesting posts. It simply ignores the point and offers ridicule instead of argument.
:-(
-
Really? What did you see the previous poster as saying?
-
That religion is commonly judged by different criteria and to different standards from all other aspects of life.
You can see this, for instance, in the amount of circular argument relating to the interpretation of Old Testament (in particular) geography and its relationship to the pitifully few truly ancient artefacts and archeological relics surviving in the Palestine area. Have you read any of Kamal Salibi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Salibi)'s books (which are not anti-religion, but aim to reinterpret early biblical history in a more consistent manner)? Whether or not you accept the thesis laid out in them (which is not well represented in that Wikipedia article), you will find that criticism of them is enlightening for the way in which it is almost entirely partisan, and ignores the specific arguments in the books. I'm afraid I find this quality in just too much argument about religion in general.
-
That religion is commonly judged by different criteria and to different standards from all other aspects of life.
You can see this, for instance, in the amount of circular argument relating to the interpretation of Old Testament (in particular) geography and its relationship to the pitifully few truly ancient artefacts and archeological relics surviving in the Palestine area.
Which brings us back to my question.
Would you believe the authors themselves if they were standing in front of you, 40 years after Jesus' death (or just long enough that any possible physical evidence of miracles was long gone)?
You mean, if they hadn't been talking about, living out, relating and being punished for those things they told me about during those forty years? Probably not. But this is nto the case with the Gospels.
So if they had put enough effort and risked enough for their cause, you would accept *that* as acceptable evidence that they were telling you something that was factually true?
Is that the criterion?
You can probably see where this goes (I'm tipping my hand now either way; I'm not aiming for rhetorical tricks); just because they believed it, even believed it enough to die for it, does not make it factually true. History does not lack for martyrs to all kinds of causes and beliefs; I'm sure you don't accept them all.
Please point out where I said it did.
eta: there is more than a single criterion to the whole canonicity/reliabiltiy question. Limiting it to a single point is not smart.
Where you said what did? I'm missing the reference there. I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Next: I'm not limiting it to a single criterion; I'm asking you for clarification. I asked if you'd believe the two guys standing in front of you (see above); you said probably not: "if they hadn't been talking about, living out, relating and being punished for those things they told me about during those forty years."
That implied that you would believe if they had been punished, etc..
Now you say even that wouldn't be enough -- so I'm still trying to get a clear answer as to what you accept as "proof enough" to believe extraordinary claims when tangible evidence is lacking.
-
No, spanky, the textual citation for this:
"They gentle Christians would never have used the words heretic or heresy as Jezus teaches us to have an open mind for everybodies opinion."
Try and keep up.
Doesnt the Bible teach you to have an open heart towards everybody that hatred only leads to more hatred. If you try to live like Jezus you should thus open your heart to different opinions. Not claim them heretics. I cant see every christian in the time of the forming of the Biblical canon to call people heretics, let alone a fellow chirstian who shows a different opinion, forsaking pretty much everything Jezus stood for. This makes it plausible, not certain though, that less radical texts were banned in the earlier years...
-
I suppose the only real reason it came up as an issue is because its away from the percieved norm. If you were to say you are christian, muslim or hindu, people would simply nodd and say "oh, ok." Once you say your are atheist, they are all"burr? who, da what?"
As for the charicture of Pen's atheist as being militaristic, its tough to say if there aren't people like that in reality. But I highly doubt this is how Jeph intended to paint all atheists.
I would say by definition I'm atheist. Even then I prefer no labels.
of course my solution is to take all fundamentalist people of all persuasions and put them on an island to survive. and provide weapons. I tell you, its will make big ratings.
-
If you were to say you are christian, muslim or hindu, people would simply nodd and say "oh, ok." Once you say your are atheist, they are all"burr? who, da what?"
Really?
Because I get plenty of "burr who da what?" when I mention I'm Jewish.
I have noticed quite a few atheists, in my life, who think that some how they are treated different from any other group in the world, as though all other religions get together and hang out, but don't invite the atheists. It just don't work that way.
-
This is exactly what I discussed in my earlier post, apparently rather pointlessly. The big difference between a Christian (or any follower of a religion) saying "My religion is right" and an atheist saying "No it isn't, atheism is right" is that the atheist has logic and reason to back up what they say
:-D
So, it's logical to conclude, based on what we monkeys have seen on an infinitely small chunk of rock in a vast, possibly infinite Universe, that there is no sort of higher power anywhere, period?
:roll:
-
I'm an agnostic because I don't pretend to know things that I don't know. :-P
-
Classic example a few months ago:
I was chatting with a girl at my university and she is Muslim. stuff like that really doesn't really draw my attention (country is literally a multicultural society. lol, ask Nelson Mandela). So she was saying how shitty it is being profiled. Mind you she doesn't wear any of the garbs and such. Its her title, Mohammed. In the conversation she stops and says "being a hindu, does that happen often to you?" I laugh and simply say I'm an atheist, and I swear its like alarms went off in her head. For the next few days she was all storm and brimstone. If you could draw thought balloons over my head, "WTF??" would be read.
I asked her why she pouncing on me so? She was all, I'm eternally sinning and all sorts of stuff. By day 3 t got a bit nasty. I told her it was getting really old, beating an old dead horse and all. Can't we agree to disagree? She was convinced I was going to hell.
I suppose in my country things are still very traditional and atheists are still an alien concept. infact aliens would be quicker accepted than atheists.
-
it's not wrong to believe in God, Jahwe, Allah, or any other religion. Also it's not wrong to not believe. It's only wrong to not keep an open mind to other peoples believes even if they differ from yours. You need to accept them for who they are.
-
it's not wrong to believe in God, Jahwe, Allah, or any other religion. Also it's not wrong to not believe. It's only wrong to not keep an open mind to other peoples believes even if they differ from yours. You need to accept them for who they are.
But they're wrong.
(http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj107/Steave_photos/duty_calls.png)
-
lol, @ the comic excerpt.
Thats the funny thing, I completely ok with her beliefs. In the long run its not like it will matter to me. What was weird was how she reacted. It was from snarky (strangely she a bit like faye) to ultra fundamentalist. I was like "take the chill pill or chill injection in your case.
psycho people are funny.
^_^
-
I have noticed quite a few atheists, in my life, who think that some how they are treated different from any other group in the world, as though all other religions get together and hang out, but don't invite the atheists. It just don't work that way.
Yeah, like how all the minorities in the US seem to think that white folks get together weekly to scheme about them, right? So silly. Cause discrimination don't work that way.
Discrimination against atheists is quite common, though it will obviously vary based on where you live. I think I posted about this at the beginning of this thread; atheists are still a group that is pretty socially acceptable to denigrate. 53% of Americans say (http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx) they would refuse to vote for a well-qualified -- but atheist -- Presidential candidate. Compare it to the other figures in the poll.
Also notice that atheism comes with the natural conclusion that religious people are at worst misguided and foolish. Most versions of the major religions come with the natural conclusion that atheists are going to burn for all eternity in Hell and may tempt other good religious people to burn as well. Many religious people don't take that completely seriously, even if they generally believe in the religion... but each time you run into some who do, it's bound to be an upsetting encounter for all involved (see wargrafix' example above). At least that wasn't one of his parents, 'cause that really, really sucks.
So, it's logical to conclude, based on what we monkeys have seen on an infinitely small chunk of rock in a vast, possibly infinite Universe, that there is no sort of higher power anywhere, period?
:roll:
That's a very misleading definition of atheism. You're not going to bring out that "but you can't disprove God!" stuff, are you?
"Theism", from the British Concise Encyclopaedia (since that's what Google/Answers.com is giving me): "View that all observable phenomena are dependent on but distinct from one supreme being. The view usually entails the idea that God is beyond human comprehension, perfect and self-sustained, but also peculiarly involved in the world and its events. Theists seek support for their view in rational argument and appeals to experience."
Atheists do not hold this belief, because the "rational arguments" seem to all be deeply flawed and a priori, and experience likewise does not seem to offer any support for the theist's God.
I'm certainly open to the idea that there is (or was? or will be?) an alien life form somewhere which has far greater understanding of/control over the universe than we do. That would be a "higher power". There are also "higher powers" already known on Earth, like earthquakes and volcanoes (we're totally at the mercy of plate tectonics... but the plates hear not our pitiful cries). But there's no limit to the forms you can imagine a higher power might take *outside* of a conscious, human-interested, personal, supreme being; you'd have to describe what you're thinking of, then the atheists in the thread could discuss how likely they think it is.
-
You're open to the concept of God being an alien, but not being, well, God.
...
...
...
:-D
-
You're open to the concept of God being an alien, but not being, well, God.
I'm open to "higher powers" out there -- meaning things more powerful or (if sentient) more knowledgeable than humans. Some of the more powerful forces are well-known and generally accepted (like plate tectonics!), and the universe is big & diverse enough that *somewhere* there are probably other life forms evolving like we are... obviously no guarantees at all what they might be like, but some of them may have evolved to have abilities like (or beyond) ours. I don't know anyone who would call either of those examples "God" though (Scientologists excepted).
I'm not "closed" to the idea of the standard theist God; I was instructed in one version for 16 years or so, have thought about the question in depth, have read a lot on the subject, have had endless discussion with various believers and non-believers... and it just doesn't add up at all, so I don't hold that belief.
-
I think there's sufficient evidence that some ancient "gods" were aliens to remain agnostic about it. Things like the Nazca Lines are just a bit too weird for me to shrug off as very bizarre and pointless expressionist art from a culture who had enough to worry about re: food, shelter and not being killed by rival cultures. :-)
-
During these tumultuous times, people of all faiths (as well as those of no faith) should
remember the Four Great Religious Truths:
1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen people.
2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the
Christian world.
4. Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters.
-
I think there's sufficient evidence that some ancient "gods" were aliens to remain agnostic about it. Things like the Nazca Lines are just a bit too weird for me to shrug off as very bizarre and pointless expressionist art from a culture who had enough to worry about re: food, shelter and not being killed by rival cultures. :-)
Ah, but they probably made them for religious reasons, so depending on their beliefs, it could have easily seemed *essential* to get the pattern completed because of a drought, attacks from rivals, and so on.... There was a lot of praying, self-flagellation, killing Jews, etc. during the Black Plague when that time could have really been better spent actually fighting the spread of the disease.
"Aliens" is a big stretch wrt the Nazca Lines, either way. The designs have been reproduced in modern times with no modern technology, just using string and wooden stakes like those found at many corners of the designs, by a handful of people over a couple of days (http://www.onagocag.com/nazca.html). The biggest Nazca design is still under 270 m long; to put that in perspective, when I was in high school our (standard-sized 400m oval) athletic track was about 200m from outer lane curve to outer lane curve, and we didn't have bleachers or anything to watch from; most spectators just stood by the fence. No one watched from aircraft; I'm pretty sure.
These kinds of "evidence" of alien visitors, ghosts, and so on are entertaining, and they fill tons of TV specials, but I'm yet to find one that doesn't just crumble when I dig at all to find more solid evidence. Not that I try to chase them all down, obviously.
But even if aliens had visited and been mistaken for gods... that would be evidence for alien visitors, not for the god/gods of theism --- not any more than Cortes was evidence for Quetzalcoatl's existence.
-
ah if we're talking about possible alien influences in ancient cultures, I can get you some more examples.
Egyptians have vases made from one solid piece, drilled to be hollow drilled in a way that our modern equipment cant even drill (small for the neck to big for the body of the vase)
also a stone sarcophagus has been found of a rock that's almost impossible to process even with our modern tools, yet they chipped it out with normal chisels and hammers.
The lines of erosion on the egyptian sphynx run both horizontal (as to be expected with wind/sand erosion) and vertical (which indicates erosion by rain), the last time it rained in the desert was during the last ice-age, long before the egyptians came to power.
in south america a pyramid is build on a solid stone slab of a stone that can only be found half a continent more south. The truck required to move this rockslab from it's source to where the pyramid was built, has not yet been invented.
Now this is ofcourse no proof of alien visits, it could indicate aliens or an even older more advanced civilisation living on earth (cfr atlantis)
During these tumultuous times, people of all faiths (as well as those of no faith) should
remember the Four Great Religious Truths:
1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen people.
2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the
Christian world.
4. Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters.
1. Muslims dont recognize any other religion accept their own (btw nobody but Jews sees them as God's chosen)
2. Jews recognize christianity but as something inferior, and that's pretty much all they recognize
3. Protestants (anglo saxon ones) actually have only one difference with catholics, the king of england wanted to remarry and the pope wouldnt let him and thats when it was created. So they dont recognize the pope as their leader, but to be honest their leader would be the queen of england.
4. Baptists are just weird
-
Most versions of the major religions come with the natural conclusion that atheists are going to burn for all eternity in Hell and may tempt other good religious people to burn as well.
I wouldn't know: there is no hell in Judaism.
And Wargrafix, I'm sorry you had to go through that, but I've been through the same thing with people being shocked over my not believing in Jesus, or not celebrating Christmas. Atheism is just one of the many ways that you can be different from other people.
-
1. Muslims dont recognize any other religion accept their own (btw nobody but Jews sees them as God's chosen)
2. Jews recognize christianity but as something inferior, and that's pretty much all they recognize
1. Muslim's recognize Jews as "the peaople of the book" and have actually been, historically, some of the more benevolent rulers, where Jews are concerned, current fanatical Arab rejectionism not-withstanding.
2. Jews don't recognize Christianity as anything diferent from any other non-Jewish belief system. It isn't "inferior" it is just "else".
-
I wouldn't know: there is no hell in Judaism.
There isn't even a well-defined "Hell" in a properly-translated Bible; King James really fucked that book up good.
-
I wouldn't know: there is no hell in Judaism.
There isn't even a well-defined "Hell" in a properly-translated Bible; King James really fucked that book up good.
There's no Devil in the Jewish bible either.
When it comes to christianity, that has always been one of my biggest confusions, after Jesus. If God is supposed to be both benevolent and all powerful, then how could the devil exist? Either God isn't all powerful, god isn't so benevolent, of the devil is just as powerful as god, meaning that there are multiple gods in the Christian religion.
It's just one of those things I could never parse.
-
In the New Testament, God isn't a chap in the sky with a beard; he is a way of thinking/living that was personified by a radical anti-establishment nutjob, so looking to the actual New Testament isn't going to give you any easy answers about the God of the Old Testament, who allegedly said and did some really wacky things, like that it's okay to sell your excess daughters off and that incest is totally cool, but jerking off is a sin punishable by death.
-
2. Jews don't recognize Christianity as anything diferent from any other non-Jewish belief system. It isn't "inferior" it is just "else".
tell that to hacidic jews
-
2. Jews don't recognize Christianity as anything diferent from any other non-Jewish belief system. It isn't "inferior" it is just "else".
tell that to hacidic jews
Huh?
What Hassidic Jews are you talking about?
One of the crazy fringe groups who hates everyone?
-
You're open to the concept of God being an alien, but not being, well, God.
I was scrolling down this page really quick and somehow read that as "You're open to the concept of God being an Italian"
:-P
-
2. Jews don't recognize Christianity as anything diferent from any other non-Jewish belief system. It isn't "inferior" it is just "else".
tell that to hacidic jews
Huh?
What Hassidic Jews are you talking about?
One of the crazy fringe groups who hates everyone?
So that's how you spell Hassidic in english :D
but I don't know if they're a fringe group. I always figured they were a big part, as antwerp is full of 'em.
Hassidic Jews live according to a set rules that dictate their lives. But they concider others inferior
-
2. Jews don't recognize Christianity as anything diferent from any other non-Jewish belief system. It isn't "inferior" it is just "else".
tell that to hacidic jews
Huh?
What Hassidic Jews are you talking about?
One of the crazy fringe groups who hates everyone?
So that's how you spell Hassidic in english :D
but I don't know if they're a fringe group. I always figured they were a big part, as antwerp is full of 'em.
Hassidic Jews live according to a set rules that dictate their lives. But they concider others inferior
What exactly do you mean by considering others inferior?
Did one of them tell you this? Did you see it in their own writings?
Or is this an assumption of yours/something some one else told you?
Jews have been accused of considering others inferior since ancient times, starting with the fact that they would not take their meals with non-Jews (owing to dietary laws, but this was considered a big snub back in the days of ancient egypt, greece, and rome, etc.) and later on, as Jews became a very persecuted people, owing to how they simply kept to themselves.
Judaism does not recognize itself as a privilege, but more as a burden. In order to be a good person, a non-Jew must strive to follow seven laws (the ones given to Noah after the flood.) A Jew, however, must strive to follow 613 laws. Conversion in to Judaism is also a difficult process, not because of worthiness or anything like that, but because it is a commitment to following those laws.
Jewish communities can tend to be isolationist, but don't mistake that for xenophobia.
-
Seems Pen-Pen is still in the 'you lied to me!' phase. After that, perhaps she will evolve into the existentialist/nihilist/hippy phase of 'whatever'.
-
I think Pennelope is too passionate about her beliefs to settle on "whatever" as an answer. Unless she mellows a whole lot with age.
-
This is exactly what I discussed in my earlier post, apparently rather pointlessly. The big difference between a Christian (or any follower of a religion) saying "My religion is right" and an atheist saying "No it isn't, atheism is right" is that the atheist has logic and reason to back up what they say
:-D
So, it's logical to conclude, based on what we monkeys have seen on an infinitely small chunk of rock in a vast, possibly infinite Universe, that there is no sort of higher power anywhere, period?
:roll:
Err... no. It's logical to conclude that based on what we have scientifically observed, there is no good evidence to believe in a supernatural God of any kind, and thus logically should assume he doesn't exist until evidence for such an existence is presented. That's simple logic - all claims should be considered untrue unless they are backed up by evidence, and it applies not just to the God concept, but to everything. I don't say 'there is no God', because that's an active statement that would require evidence. There's a huge difference between 'There's no evidence for a supernatural God, so I don't believe in one', and 'There is there is no sort of higher power anywhere, period'. Don't put words into my mouth, or the mouth of any atheist like me, just because you don't seem to understand my position.
-
That's a nice semantic trick, saying that assuming something doesn't exist isn't the same as believing it doesn't.
Whether you like it or not, some atheists do say "There definitely is no God, period." If you think you're not one of them, that's between you and... well, the Tooth Fairy, I suppose. :wink:
-
That's a nice semantic trick, saying that assuming something doesn't exist isn't the same as believing it doesn't.
Whether you like it or not, some atheists do say "There definitely is no God, period." If you think you're not one of them, that's between you and... well, the Tooth Fairy, I suppose. :wink:
Assuming and believing IS different, though.
There are different levels of non-belief and different levels of belief-against
Painting with broad strokes does nobody any good.
-
Here's what happened recently;
I was on msn and she messaged me and asked in a detectable sarcastic tone "if I still didn't believe in god".
I simply told her," I not sure if you think that fighting over religion is kinky or something. But its like fucking under a bees nest while being coated in honey. Some people might find that kinky. But its a great way to get your ass stung."
-
Kissing Hank's Ass (http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php)
Somehow this link popped into my head during my lack of attentiveness over this discussion.
No, it's not a Rickroll. It's funnier than that.
S
-
Kissing Hank's Ass (http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php)
Somehow this link popped into my head during my lack of attentiveness over this discussion.
No, it's not a Rickroll. It's funnier than that.
S
I think I've seen that somewhere before.
It does a shitty job of making a real argument (prefer to just minimalize things to make them absurd instead) but it does point out what I consider to be the big issue of Christianity, which is the emphasis on belief in God. It is not enough to be a good person or do good things, but that what God really cares about is that you believe he is God. I've always felt that if that is really the case, and it's all real, then I'd rather not spend all eternity with that kind of a conceited asshole anyway.
Of course, I say this having been born in to a religion where the afterlife is an afterthought, not the primary focus, and actions are considered more important than belief when judging a person. If I can from a different background, who knows what my opinion of religion would be.
-
Minor nitpick: Henry VIII had six wives, not eight. A simple mnemonic to remember their fates:
Divorced, Beheaded, Died; Divorced, Beheaded, Survived.
-
3. Protestants (anglo saxon ones) actually have only one difference with catholics, the king of england wanted to remarry and the pope wouldnt let him and thats when it was created. So they dont recognize the pope as their leader, but to be honest their leader would be the queen of england.
You're talking about The Church of England, which is separate from the Protestant faith. King Henry VIII created The Church of England when the pope wouldn't let him divorce his then-wife, Catherine of Aragon (the first out of a grand total of eight). The Protestant faith was founded - or, rather, the initial idea was sparked - when Martin Luther posted a set of 95 theses on a church door, originally called Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, more commonly known as The 95 Theses.This was basically a list over shit he didn't like with the catholic church, a lot of it was about the unfairness of how you could pay the church to be relieved of sins - he believed in a more personal God, and less requirement of a middle man, like the church, or a priest.
What I find funny about Martin Luther is how convinced he was that the Jews would flock to his new form of Christianity. His later writings have made him out to be something of a notorious Anti-Semite, but he only got that way through disappointment that his changes weren't just the thing that Jews were waiting for in order to accept Jesus.
-
Luther did not inspire modern Anglo Saxon religion, Luther inspired modern Dutch and some other mainland european protestants, but not the English.
He wanted a belief where pretty much everything was predetermined and that we could have faith that everything we do is the will of god
-
4. Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters.
Q: What's the difference between a Baptist and a Methodist?
A: A Methodist will say, "Hello" to you when he runs into you at the liquor store.
I'm a Methodist, BTW. If my joke offends any of my fellow Methodists, get over yourselves. If it offends any non-Methodists, non-Baptists, well, double that get over yoursevles and then take it to the 10th power. If it offends any Baptists, good!
(Still just kidding about that last part.)
-
I just read through this whole thread, and it makes me a bit tired and hungry. Also, I'm amazed at the various arguments both for Christianity and atheism. I've only heard a couple for Christianity before (grew up in a religious sort of town, never have heard much in favor of atheism except on the internet (and most of that was idiotic tripe)), so I really appreciate the whole debate. Stirs my brains, to say the least. Now, I need pizza! Pizza parlor, ho!
-
Why's Jeph raggin' so hard on crazy atheist Penelope? As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism. I understand that they're just characters and dialogue, but it all comes from somewhere, and I don't like the way some of her views are being treated in the comic.
I know I shouldn't complain and just be happy that Jeph makes such a great comic, but I can't help but be bothered by the latest few Penelope strips. I'm not making a big deal about it though, I just want to see what a few other people think. Are you bothered by it? Or does it seems like a fair portrayal of atheists that you met? Or am I just a crazy person who gets offended by nothing?
Discuss.
whats wrong with his comments? I think Jeph is indirectly making a very good point indirectly with the Penelope situation. Unless you honestly believe that all theists are ignorant fools who seek to control people with their agendas [which is what Penelope seemed to be saying], in which i would say you have quite a bit of the world to see.
-
Welcome to page 6 of the discussion. :-D
Though I think it's pretty well tapped out now, and the comic in question was long, long ago.
-
Heh, what is an athiest again? The one's who believe there's nothing out there? Anyways, I think that religious beliefs are so varied that it's difficult for a character in a comic to make an entire group of people "look bad". My religious beliefs are horrible complicated, and when I try to explain them, many people just say, "Oh, you're an athiest" and walk off. Well, they make themselves look bad, for merely wanting to slap on a label and not actually attempt to understand, and they inadvertantly make me make athiests look bad, cause I'm not actually an atheist. So, if people are walking around telling other people that I'm an atheist, and I'm walking around telling people who will actually listen that I believe in all the Gods... it's going to make someone look like a liar. So why do we have to use the label at all?
-
So, if people are walking around telling other people that I'm an atheist, and I'm walking around telling people who will actually listen that I believe in all the Gods... it's going to make someone look like a liar. So why do we have to use the label at all?
The problem there is them using the wrong label. You're a polytheist.
And, if you don't mind me asking, how do you reconcile incompatible gods?
-
Well, it's a difficult sell to be sure. Mostly I don't think that any one religion has the right to tell all of the other religions that they're full of crap. Especially if those other religions have been around for much longer. So, I go with the story that they're all up there, or around us, or whatever, only some of them (ahem, the Chrisitian/Muslim God) are greedy, and want all the worshipping for themselves. So they tell all their followers that they are the only God, and to make it stick, if you believe in any others, you're going to hell. So, if that's what you mean by imcompatible Gods, there you go. If you mean something else, enlighten me, and I'm sure I can think of some ridiculous answer.
(I also say that it's irrational to believe in any Gods (goes over well in classes with Christians, lol) and so people assume that I don't beleive in God(s), but I do. I just know that it's an irrational belief.)
-
Well, it's a difficult sell to be sure. Mostly I don't think that any one religion has the right to tell all of the other religions that they're full of crap. Especially if those other religions have been around for much longer. So, I go with the story that they're all up there, or around us, or whatever, only some of them (ahem, the Chrisitian/Muslim God) are greedy, and want all the worshipping for themselves. So they tell all their followers that they are the only God, and to make it stick, if you believe in any others, you're going to hell. So, if that's what you mean by imcompatible Gods, there you go. If you mean something else, enlighten me, and I'm sure I can think of some ridiculous answer.
(I also say that it's irrational to believe in any Gods (goes over well in classes with Christians, lol) and so people assume that I don't beleive in God(s), but I do. I just know that it's an irrational belief.)
Well excuse me but as Jews, Muslims and Christians all use the old testament, it's safe to assume that Allah, Jahwe and the Christian God are one and the same God. Don't tell the extremist believers of any of those religions but it is true. Even though a lot of Jews, muslims and christians dont want to accept it they all worship the same God, they just give him a different name. So believing in all 3 of those would mean you believe in 1 God after-all. Ofcourse if you believe in all the Gods, you also believe in Zeus, aphrodite, Hera,... (the greek gods) Jupiter, Venus, ... (the roman gods, aka the greek gods with other names), Ra, Isis, Seth, ... (the egyptian gods). Ganesh, Brahma, Vishnu (hindu gods), Thor, Balder, Loki, Odin, Frey,... (the norse gods) and all the african tribal religions, and somewhere you also believe in a man, you believe in Buddha. So do you believe in all these? Or are just somebody who doesnt really know what (or wants) to believe, but doesnt want to be labeled an atheďst?
-
Well, it's a difficult sell to be sure. Mostly I don't think that any one religion has the right to tell all of the other religions that they're full of crap. Especially if those other religions have been around for much longer. So, I go with the story that they're all up there, or around us, or whatever, only some of them (ahem, the Chrisitian/Muslim God) are greedy, and want all the worshipping for themselves. So they tell all their followers that they are the only God, and to make it stick, if you believe in any others, you're going to hell. So, if that's what you mean by imcompatible Gods, there you go. If you mean something else, enlighten me, and I'm sure I can think of some ridiculous answer.
(I also say that it's irrational to believe in any Gods (goes over well in classes with Christians, lol) and so people assume that I don't beleive in God(s), but I do. I just know that it's an irrational belief.)
Well excuse me but as Jews, Muslims and Christians all use the old testament, it's safe to assume that Allah, Jahwe and the Christian God are one and the same God. Don't tell the extremist believers of any of those religions but it is true. Even though a lot of Jews, muslims and christians dont want to accept it they all worship the same God, they just give him a different name. So believing in all 3 of those would mean you believe in 1 God after-all. Ofcourse if you believe in all the Gods, you also believe in Zeus, aphrodite, Hera,... (the greek gods) Jupiter, Venus, ... (the roman gods, aka the greek gods with other names), Ra, Isis, Seth, ... (the egyptian gods). Ganesh, Brahma, Vishnu (hindu gods), Thor, Balder, Loki, Odin, Frey,... (the norse gods) and all the african tribal religions, and somewhere you also believe in a man, you believe in Buddha. So do you believe in all these? Or are just somebody who doesnt really know what (or wants) to believe, but doesnt want to be labeled an atheďst?
Just for the record, you don't have to try and prove how smart you are, cause I could list so many more. Religion is my life. Rather the study of religion. And as I said before, I believe that they are all there, and that people shouldn't be penalized because they pick one over the other. And an athiest wouldn't believe in any of them. An agnostic wouldn't know what to believe.
-
I find hard to believe that you can believe and have faith in all of them. The Gods are there to seek guidance (especially if religion is your life), and well you would get 20 different opinions by going to all of them. You'd be sacrificing a rough dozen of sheep, to get your answers and Jahwe will tell you your mistake is believing in Zeus, while Zeus will tell you your mistake lies in not bringing the right sacrifice. Or maybe you believe but do not practice the religions. like all those christians who dont go to church, but are labeled christians cause they live in a christian country. I doubt you uphold the traditions of all these religions, and some of these religions are all about tradition (and not upholding them is the same as not believing)
-
I think RovingSoul's point was more about why the labels are often counter-productive.
I say I'm an "atheist", but I often then have to follow that with a list of atheist stereotypes that don't apply to me.
If you say you believe in various gods, then everything gets tangled up in what you mean by "believe". Plus, you can believe in a god's existence at some level without at all needing to obey it in any way.
You could say that any deity "exists" in a sense (and deserves this level of belief) as long as there are people who follow/worship it... so it may be worthwhile to pay it at least enough attention to figure out what ideals/morals/etc. are wrapped up in its concept.
If you actually believe in the supernatural but don't arbitrarily choose one (by birth or otherwise), it's tough to reconcile them. Jon, there are enormous inconsistencies even between the messages from the "one" God as recorded by various prophets (from Moses to Jesus to Mohammad to Joseph Smith to others...). It's just as possible to conclude that:
* the prophets were all terribly unreliable and/or their sacred texts were very poorly copied over time even by the faithful
* these were actually multiple different deities who each claimed to be the only one (and was deluded or lying), or
* it was one deity who simply changed its mind about a huge number of things over time.
Either way, there's not much of a requirement to obey these unreliable second-hand instructions from possibly just as unreliable deities. They can't even get their stories straight internally. But you can *believe* in them if you find it interesting.
-
So, if that's what you mean by imcompatible Gods, there you go. If you mean something else, enlighten me, and I'm sure I can think of some ridiculous answer.
Well, to jump to the nitty-gritty: Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God, while Muslims believe He was just one of God's prophets. How do you reconcile this?
-
Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God
And. more to the point, God (as part of the Trinity).
-
So, if that's what you mean by imcompatible Gods, there you go. If you mean something else, enlighten me, and I'm sure I can think of some ridiculous answer.
Well, to jump to the nitty-gritty: Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God, while Muslims believe He was just one of God's prophets. How do you reconcile this?
The fact that they both believe in the same god just have a different opinion on who was the messiah or a prophet, doesnt change that it's one and the same god
-
I believe that they all exist. That doesn't mean that I worship or agree with them all. Like, most American's would agree that Communism, Socialism, etc. exist, but we don't necessarily agree with their values or what they teach. However, just because we disagree with them doesn't mean that we disregard their existence.
-
As an atheist, I will never tell someone that their god(s) do(es) not exist. I will tell them I don't believe in a god's influence on my life or death, but what does it matter so long as you are content with what you believe? If they want to "save" me I have to stop/leave/change discussion. Every religion is a door to the same end, and we each have a key. My key fits the door with no scripture, no face, an absence of something to touch and realize. Others have keys to doors with the Torah, or the Bible, or the Koran, or Buddah, or anything else. That doesn't make their key any less real. So if I was asked, "do you believe all gods exist?" and I could only answer yes or no, I would have to answer yes. But if the question was "do you have faith in one or all gods?" the answer would be no. I hope this helps settle the "that's not atheism" response.
Thaaaat said, pretty sure religion is one of those taboo things, although the strip did beg for it a bit. I'll admit I haven't perused all 6 pages, but I am sure anything I could possibly say that is on-topic (Penelope's particular brand of atheism) would be wholly redundant.
-
That's a nice semantic trick, saying that assuming something doesn't exist isn't the same as believing it doesn't.
Whether you like it or not, some atheists do say "There definitely is no God, period." If you think you're not one of them, that's between you and... well, the Tooth Fairy, I suppose. :wink:
Remember back when you were talking about how it's unfair to characterize all Christians as literal-interpretationists based on a vocal minority?
-
I believe that they all exist. That doesn't mean that I worship or agree with them all. Like, most American's would agree that Communism, Socialism, etc. exist, but we don't necessarily agree with their values or what they teach. However, just because we disagree with them doesn't mean that we disregard their existence.
But deities aren't normally defined as abstract sets of ideas developed by people, like Communism, Socialism and so on. They're defined at a minimum as supernatural, sentient entities with varying superhuman powers. What do you mean by their "existing"? Related: would you say the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/about/) exists?
If you "believe that they all exist" but you just mean "these concepts of deities exist", that's going to muddle up a lot of people; you wouldn't say "I believe that hobgoblins exist" when you actually mean that yes, there are plenty of people who have very clear ideas of what hobgoblins are like and believe they exist... so that CONCEPT definitely exists.
I'm not sure that's what you're saying; do you think all of these gods exist in the sense that they have ever actually influenced physical reality separate from the secondary influence of believers?
[...] but what does it matter so long as you are content with what you believe? If they want to "save" me I have to stop/leave/change discussion.
I think most atheists would agree that people have the right to believe what they want to, though that right needs to stop when it infringes on *others'* rights. Unfortunately, many major religions don't include caveats that "the other folks are just as likely to be correct as you are, if not more so". As a result, religious beliefs very quickly start to influence laws, political choices, education, etc. etc., all of which are things you can't just walk away from.
There's more on this earlier in the thread, I think.
Every religion is a door to the same end, and we each have a key. My key fits the door with no scripture, no face, an absence of something to touch and realize. Others have keys to doors with the Torah, or the Bible, or the Koran, or Buddah, or anything else. That doesn't make their key any less real.
We're all born into this world knowing nothing; then we are bombarded with varying (and sometimes conflicting) explanations and models for the functioning of the world from all sides. They aren't all equally valid or even useful based on what we can actually know about the world -- you have to discard many, many bits along the way as you decide what works and what doesn't.
I don't like the metaphor of a door & key, because religion is far more complex than that -- and you can, in fact, pick and choose the useful bits from the non-useful bits in any religion's enormous and multilayered array of beliefs. AND each bit will modify the way you think and interact with the world -- it's not true that any set of beliefs will lead you to the same result. The important thing is to actively evaluate as much as possible.
-
Remember back when you were talking about how it's unfair to characterize all Christians as literal-interpretationists based on a vocal minority?
Well, yes. I wasn't talking about painting all atheists with one broad stroke, I was saying that people who claim that there are not a significant number of atheists who believe there definitely is no God are being factually inaccurate, just as it would be inaccurate to claim there aren't any Christians who believe everyone except their particular branch of that religion is going to a literal fiery burny place when they die.
-
Remember back when you were talking about how it's unfair to characterize all Christians as literal-interpretationists based on a vocal minority?
Well, yes. I wasn't talking about painting all atheists with one broad stroke, I was saying that people who claim that there are not a significant number of atheists who believe there definitely is no God are being factually inaccurate, just as it would be inaccurate to claim there aren't any Christians who believe everyone except their particular branch of that religion is going to a literal fiery burny place when they die.
Well, correct me if I'm interpreting you wrongly, but it sounds like you're saying that your partial characterization is more accurate?
If so, I'd have to strongly disagree with you. When I first saw your initial post, I was at first really confused by your underplaying of literal-interpretationists. See, I'm from central Iowa, and we have one of those conservative, evangelical megachurches in my hometown. When you talk about literal-interpretationists as rare or a myth, it's striking a complete dischord with everything in my personal experience. There are lots of people I know who do, very firmly, believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God, and that everything in it is a perfect transcript of history. A few of my closer friends do strongly believe that my other-denominational Christian friends are going to hell. They definitely are NOT the majority, that's for sure - but that doesn't mean they aren't a sizeable chunk of the population. By denomination, they're a plurality here, about 1 in every 4 Christians. And it's actually lower here, in our fairly liberal college town; accross the U.S., a 2001 poll showed that 41% of Christians see the Bible as the literal and perfect word of God. (Based on their last poll before that, I'd say that it's most likely about 33% today, but do not have current data)
So, I don't mean to say "ALL XIANS ARE FANATIC YOUNG-EARTHERS OMG," but it's just as inaccurate as downplaying the militant atheists. Either is understandable, really, because we never hear from the others. Absolutely none of the majority of Christians I know, the more laid-back type, have ever really discussed religion with me. Only the hard-core evangelicals touch it. So even though I know they aren't the majority view, their arguments are the ones that come to mind when I think about religion. And I'm sure the same holds for the other side. I can only think of one or two really militant positive-affirmation atheists I know, but they're the ones who talk about it the most.
-
Wow, this thread is still going? I thought it would have (should have) died by now.
Anyway, here's a small contribution, and a great reason to hate living in the U.S. (as I sometimes do).
A ridiculous number of Americans doubt the fact of evolution. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx)
Maybe not relevant to all of you, but that bothers me a lot more than any misunderstandings about belief systems.
-
That link actually gives me cause for hope.
In the last 25 years, one thing has changed; more americans are willing to self-identify as atheists.
-
That link actually gives me cause for hope.
In the last 25 years, one thing has changed; more americans are willing to self-identify as atheists.
In that poll, or another one elsewhere on the site? This one didn't mention the word "atheist" at all... though I checked, after your comment; that would be nice. I see that it's taken a quarter of a century for Americans who say "God had no part in man's development" to go from 9% to 14%, but I think many of those people wouldn't self-identify as "atheists".
Otherwise, yeah, more of the same sad news of widespread ignorance, and no real change happening.
Even in the wording of the poll, they equate the theory of evolution with the "theory" of creationism? I suppose they don't want to skew the poll data by seeming to favor one over the other in any way, but it's painful to see the word "theory" abused like that.
Wow, this thread is still going? I thought it would have (should have) died by now.
It's more of a discuss thread than anything to do with the comic by now... but yeah, it dies and then gets revived now and then by new folks who want to comment. It's something a lot of people want to talk about....
Maybe not relevant to all of you, but that bothers me a lot more than any misunderstandings about belief systems.
Ah, but they're deeply intertwined. What other scientific theory is challenged as much as evolution? It's one of the theories with the MOST evidence, but it's directly in conflict with certain religious teachings, so the battle is joined. Plate tectonics is a scientific theory that still has more kinks to be worked out and plenty of areas that are little understood -- but do you see demands to "teach the controversy" in schools? Quantum physics is bizarre and counter-intuitive; string theory is just loopy -- but do you see people demonstrating against them?
Of course, if the American educational system were better and people weren't so friggin' ignorant, the creationists and so on would be just laughed at... but education is shitty, people never learn the important stuff, and that leaves them easily manipulated. And then you have Fox News and so on doing their part.
A diversity of belief systems is great if they're all subject to reason, open to discussion, and none of them claim access to any absolute truth. If only.
Blah.
-
You'd be sacrificing a rough dozen of sheep, to get your answers and Jahwe will tell you your mistake is believing in Zeus, while Zeus will tell you your mistake lies in not bringing the right sacrifice.
And honestly, if you've got that many gods talking to you about such things, perhaps you need your medication adjusted.
S
-
it might die, but like Jason Voorhees all it will take is one silly person *cough* wil *cough* to start it all over.
-
You'd be sacrificing a rough dozen of sheep, to get your answers and Jahwe will tell you your mistake is believing in Zeus, while Zeus will tell you your mistake lies in not bringing the right sacrifice.
And honestly, if you've got that many gods talking to you about such things, perhaps you need your medication adjusted.
S
1. I've never had any Gods talk to me.
2. I probably wouldn't listen if they did.
3. I'm not on medication.
-
You'd be sacrificing a rough dozen of sheep, to get your answers and Jahwe will tell you your mistake is believing in Zeus, while Zeus will tell you your mistake lies in not bringing the right sacrifice.
And honestly, if you've got that many gods talking to you about such things, perhaps you need your medication adjusted.
S
1. I've never had any Gods talk to me.
2. I probably wouldn't listen if they did.
3. I'm not on medication.
Actually hearing a voice in your head is more common then we would think, most people who hear this voice think it's their own thoughts but sometimes it really is a something else then your thoughts, last I read in a medical journal it was 6% of all humans have this form of Schizofrenia, and it only becomes a problem for less then a quarter of these people.
-
Actually hearing a voice in your head is more common then we would think, most people who hear this voice think it's their own thoughts but sometimes it really is a something else then your thoughts, last I read in a medical journal it was 6% of all humans have this form of Schizofrenia, and it only becomes a problem for less then a quarter of these people.
what
-
I think he means that it's not just your normal stream of conscious thoughts that you will recognize as your own "voice".
Unless he means something like this (http://www.isa.org/Content/ContentGroups/News/20051/July29/Pintos_Point__Directed_sound_beams.htm).
(Yes, that odd voice in your head that no one else can hear MIGHT be actively beamed there by the FBI...).
-
I think he means that it's not just your normal stream of conscious thoughts that you will recognize as your own "voice".
oh okay i can diggit
Unless he means something like this (http://www.isa.org/Content/ContentGroups/News/20051/July29/Pintos_Point__Directed_sound_beams.htm).
(Yes, that odd voice in your head that no one else can hear MIGHT be actively beamed there by the FBI...).
holy shit, do wantdowantdowantdowant
also fuck the ontological argument, if nobody's addressed this (or the rest) already. it's just a huge non sequiter. fuck the first cause argument, it's also a huge non sequiter. fuck personal experience, it's just the chemicals in your brain. fuck the small but non-zero chance that everything i've ever experienced isn't real: while it's impossible to prove incorrect due to the nature of the thing, it's also completely irrelevant to everything but semantics.
in conclusion, inasmuch as i can possibly know something, i am absolutely certain that there is no god. i am also absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. there's also a small but non-zero chance that both certainties are completely fucking wrong. that doesn't mean that i'm not absolutely certain, it just means that i intellectually acknowledge that i could be wrong. should new arguments arise, and/or should new evidence appear, i would happily look at said items and perhaps revise my position.
anyway, to make the thread potentially on topic again, dora's logic in the page that led to the op is kinda shitty. dora's basically telling penelope that she should try and change herself drastically (assuming that the anti-mystical thing is completely fundamental to her, this will either be explored in the future or not) to try and make the relationship with wil work, and that just doesn't sit right with me. does anyone else see this, or am i overreacting?
-
I think that very few people are actually atheist. Most people tend towards agnosticism, which is less absolute. I feel like atheism DOES imply a very strong belief that there is NO God, NOTHING spiritual.
-
I think that very few people are actually atheist. Most people tend towards agnosticism, which is less absolute. I feel like atheism DOES imply a very strong belief that there is NO God, NOTHING spiritual.
... imply?
-
.... I feel like atheism DOES imply a very strong belief that there is NO God, NOTHING spiritual.
I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread, but it bears repeating:
1) Atheists do not believe in a divine being or beings
2) Believers in a divine being or beings are atheists in all forms of belief other than their own.
-
1. I've never had any Gods talk to me.
2. I probably wouldn't listen if they did.
3. I'm not on medication.
1. Good to know.
2. Free will, eh? Refreshing!
3. I am strangely comfortable with that.
Please feel free to carry on or not carry on at your whim.
"Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims God has spoken to them, they're speaking to me. Or they're talking to themselves. "
-- The Metatron, Dogma, 1999
S
-
I think that very few people are actually atheist. Most people tend towards agnosticism, which is less absolute. I feel like atheism DOES imply a very strong belief that there is NO God, NOTHING spiritual.
to borrow from dawkins, i'm agnostic about god to the same extent that i'm agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
but atheism doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't a dualist, just that you don't believe in a god.
-
Why's Jeph raggin' so hard on crazy atheist Penelope? As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism. I understand that they're just characters and dialogue, but it all comes from somewhere, and I don't like the way some of her views are being treated in the comic.
I know I shouldn't complain and just be happy that Jeph makes such a great comic, but I can't help but be bothered by the latest few Penelope strips. I'm not making a big deal about it though, I just want to see what a few other people think. Are you bothered by it? Or does it seems like a fair portrayal of atheists that you met? Or am I just a crazy person who gets offended by nothing?
Discuss.
A.) I'm fairly sure that Jeph is also an atheist.
B.) The "fundamentalist atheist" thing may be exaggerated, but it is sometimes true (people I know).
C.) I'm a conservative Protestant, and I'm pretty sure that this comic is out to get me a little bit more than it's out to get you, but I still read and enjoy it.
-
Well excuse me but as Jews, Muslims and Christians all use the old testament, it's safe to assume that Allah, Jahwe and the Christian God are one and the same God. Don't tell the extremist believers of any of those religions but it is true. Even though a lot of Jews, muslims and christians dont want to accept it they all worship the same God, they just give him a different name. So believing in all 3 of those would mean you believe in 1 God after-all. Ofcourse if you believe in all the Gods, you also believe in Zeus, aphrodite, Hera,... (the greek gods) Jupiter, Venus, ... (the roman gods, aka the greek gods with other names), Ra, Isis, Seth, ... (the egyptian gods). Ganesh, Brahma, Vishnu (hindu gods), Thor, Balder, Loki, Odin, Frey,... (the norse gods) and all the african tribal religions, and somewhere you also believe in a man, you believe in Buddha. So do you believe in all these? Or are just somebody who doesnt really know what (or wants) to believe, but doesnt want to be labeled an atheďst?
Yeah, Jews Muslims and Christians don't all use the old testament. Their religious texts are actually very different which makes their religions different so I wouldn't necessarily say that they all worship the same god since what you worship is predicated by what you believe. The use of the old testament in each of the religions varies to which parts they accept and their importance in relation to the other religious texts they use as I'm sure you know.
Actually hearing a voice in your head is more common then we would think, most people who hear this voice think it's their own thoughts but sometimes it really is a something else then your thoughts, last I read in a medical journal it was 6% of all humans have this form of Schizofrenia, and it only becomes a problem for less then a quarter of these people.
Only 1-2% of people have schizophrenia. Most estimates puts it just over 1% and by just I mean no higher than 1.4%. Give me your sources for what you say, I have never heard the rates being said to be that high. Ever.
-
Many Muslims have a problem with Christians claiming that they worship the same God, as they consider the doctrine of the Trinity to deny the unity of God, which is a central concept of Islam. They say that it either means Christians worship three gods or that they mean that God is in some way divided.
-
The wikipedia page on schizophrenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia) states that schizophrenia only afflicts 0.4-0.6% of the population. Their sources for that are articles specifically regarding the prevalence of schizophrenia, the first in the medical journal of the Public Library of Science, the second from the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Eachis a review of the literature to glean what others have gleaned and report on the consensus view (making it a secondary work). The first found the prevalence of schizophrenia to be 4 per mille, the second found that the amount varied greatly depending on the study from 3.3 per mille to 5.5 per mille up to 11.1 per mille.
Per mille is a lot like per cent, except it means "per 1000" instead of "per 100".
-
Only 1-2% of people have schizophrenia. Most estimates puts it just over 1% and by just I mean no higher than 1.4%. Give me your sources for what you say, I have never heard the rates being said to be that high. Ever.
It is pretty funny that you don't provide sources either.
Uh sure. I got that little bit of knowledge from my abnormal psyc book but since I don't feel like digging through several boxes to find it lets use a website. According to NIMH the prevalence of schizophrenia is 1.1%.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml
I also don't provide sources when I tell people that staring into the sun can cause blindness.
-
STARING INTO THE SUN DOESN'T CAUSE BLINDNESS
SIR ISAAC NEWTON DID IT AND HE WAS FINE
After several days...
... in a dark room...
... with a damp cloth over his eyes.
-
People should indeed start evolving moral senses again, because due to multiple reasons (I'm not goin to point them out or explain them here as it is another discussion) people are generally becoming assholes, and this in all group of society no matter what age, sex or colour you are. People no longer have old folks have their seat on the bus. The old folks hit you with their purses for waiting in line and accidentally being ahead of them. The 10y old girls want to dress up like Britney Spears and hope to have had sex by the time they're 12 and the 10y old boys are never learning what's good or bad anymore. This decay in morals, this every man for himself kind of trend well it's a very sad thing.
The bible holds a certain set of morals, by far not a bad one if you're living in a society. eg: love your neighbour, put others ahead of yourself and care for them like you would want to be take care off,... No matter how you interpret the bible those morals will always become obvious. and those morals are what make the bible an important book
This is more to do with the decline in close knit communities then religion. people are too busy with work their own lifes. parents get home at 6-8 o'clock in the evening get dinner ready and that's about all they're fit to do. I think you'll find that a strong healthy adult influence and boundries and discipline works more effectively then the bible on it own. for example if you live in a close knit community you're more likely to know x since you were a kid or went to school with y and are less likely to be rude to them hurt them etc.
and also television has a part to play with that they seem to think good role models don't make good television
i hate how it's assumed that religious people have the high ground on morals. I hate how it's assumed that if you believe in an all seeing guy in the sky that it'll make you behave. It's more important to hold high standards of yourself and not rely on anyone else if you're proud of how you've lived and know you haven't hurt anyone else and you've done your best that's all you can ask.
i can see how a believe in god might be good for children who aren't mature enough to make moral decisions. i.e. if you steal that god will be mad it helps them grow a conscience. but i believe good parenting can take care of that too
-
i can see how a believe in god might be good for children who aren't mature enough to make moral decisions. i.e. if you steal that god will be mad it helps them grow a conscience
i don't feel that restraining from vice X because you're being watched is "good" morally but okay
-
This thread has drifted a LONG way from strip 1295 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1295). However, I saw something that brings this thread right back to its roots: From Penn and Teller's show Bullshit, a quote:
Penn Jillette: Sure, we're smug, self-righteous, pompous and self-important assholes, but damn it, we're right!
-
This thread has drifted a LONG way from strip 1295 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1295). However, I saw something that brings this thread right back to its roots: From Penn and Teller's show Bullshit, a quote:
Penn Jillette: Sure, we're smug, self-righteous, pompous and self-important assholes, but damn it, we're right!
if you're right i think it is okay to be a douchebag about it as long as you're not also a dick
-
This thread has drifted a LONG way from strip 1295 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1295). However, I saw something that brings this thread right back to its roots: From Penn and Teller's show Bullshit, a quote:
Penn Jillette: Sure, we're smug, self-righteous, pompous and self-important assholes, but damn it, we're right!
if you're right i think it is okay to be a douchebag about it as long as you're not also a dick
Wait, when is douchebaggery ever a good thing? Are you using the standard definition (http://img03.picoodle.com/img/img03/4/2/3/f_danecookfanm_fca434e.jpg)?
I guess I'd say your attitude all depends on how you want to influence the people you interact with. If they just say "ah: dick" and don't even bother to think about what you're saying, you aren't making the world any smarter -- you're just annoying it (and maybe making it not want to be associated with you and your ilk).
Of course, knowing how to actually get people to rearrange their worldview isn't so simple. I can't say I really know; I just have a long list of things NOT to do.
-
Or am I just a crazy person who gets offended by nothing?
No offense man... But I aim for that one. It was kind of a mild way to critice Penelope if you ask me. Nothing too harsh.
In my humble opinion... Fanatics that bother you knocking on the door and atheists that love to throw shit at people who believe in god are just in the same level. Penelope wasn't that extremist though. But I fail to see any reasons to why she get pissed on Will's thoughts about God.
I'm an agnostic. I discuss with Atheists in the same level when I discuss with religious people. Because we, humans... didn't have, don't have and never will have enough technologic and winsdom to declare if God exist or not. We just THINK there's a God or not. We don't know.
-
I will throw in my analysis of this since i can relate to this question , and i think i understand very much the reactions of the characters - Jeph was not forcing a personal opinion there IMHO, but actually letting the characters behave as they really would.
The problem is that both Penny, and Dora are unreligious, or so it seems, but they come from different base.
Dora seems to have been raised without too much fuss about religion ,so for her (and people like her) God does not exist in the same way Ded Moroz, Baba Jaga, or unicorns do not exist. Therefore it is no big deal for her, she can go along with people of other opinions better, and cannot understand the fuss raised about it.
Penny on the other hand (like myself only with some differences) came from a religious background, was indoctrinated about this from an early age, and rejected such teachings because of her own intellectual effort (ie. is an apostate). Therefore, she tries to enlighten everyone else, since she has a feeling that all of religion is horrible nonsense (that is why she switched). Also , she probably knows the logical arguments against it, so that makes it doubly compelling.
I had similar experiences myself, with others who were atheists from birth (in my country they are not so rare as we were a socialist republic in the past) could not understand how it is so important for me that god does not exist , since to them the idea of somebody actually believing in such stuff was incomprehensible. I on the other hand feel compelled to discuss with anyone who asserts a different opinion.
-
I don't see how anyone can doubt the existence of God in the face of the miraculous resurrection of this thread.
-
Penny on the other hand (like myself only with some differences) came from a religious background, was indoctrinated about this from an early age, and rejected such teachings because of her own intellectual effort (ie. is an apostate). Therefore, she tries to enlighten everyone else, since she has a feeling that all of religion is horrible nonsense (that is why she switched). Also , she probably knows the logical arguments against it, so that makes it doubly compelling.
Or her atheism could be the result of an emotional reaction to having religion pushed on her.
-
I'm an agnostic. I discuss with Atheists in the same level when I discuss with religious people. Because we, humans... didn't have, don't have and never will have enough technologic and winsdom to declare if God exist or not. We just THINK there's a God or not. We don't know.
True, but we do have enough technology and wisdom to figure out which possibility is more or less likely based on the evidence we have available to us.
For example, a study published in the American Heart Journal shows that intercessory prayers don't seem to have any helpful effect.
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/amhj/abstract.00000406-200604000-00041.htm;jsessionid=KcTWHbQ1BpjGTXLhw8Vn8FLq1bXQCzyLGNcb2F83pJyZZZp2ZjM2!-1466262180!181195629!8091!-1
This study, and many others like it, seems to make the possibility of benevolent, personal gods that answer prayers less likely.
Then of course there's evolution, which has a lot more evidence going for it than creationsim. There is always room for doubt, mind you, but we should be aware that the scales of evidence tip starkly in favor of natural selection.
-
I do not know, but you really do not seem to get such reactions with children - they do not realise such pushing and are likely to believe anything their parents tell them (a biological trait of learning). Then , when that stops being an effect, (old enough age) it forms a part of the person's beliefs, so simple emotional reaction would not make one lose the belief entirely - at most something with the outer 'demonstrations' of it.
Statistics say most people with religious bringing who become atheists, become atheists in around 14-16 y/o.
Also most people i know that became atheists (i was an sharp discussionist on internet forums about atheism ) had about the same general history - some day they realised that god does not exist.
-
Actually you are a bit off - we will truly never have enough technology and science to prove nonexistence of god - you can at most debunk his supposed manifestations. To disprove any idea (ex. god) pure logic is both necessary and sufficient.
It is enough to say that a) the contents of most religions esp. their teachings about their gods are self contradictory and flawed
b) for other ideas (pantheism) Ockham's razor applies - adding an entity which has no manifestation in this world is futile.
-
Penny on the other hand (like myself only with some differences) came from a religious background, was indoctrinated about this from an early age, and rejected such teachings because of her own intellectual effort (ie. is an apostate). Therefore, she tries to enlighten everyone else, since she has a feeling that all of religion is horrible nonsense (that is why she switched).
But Pen-Pen usually doesn't go around trying to convert people to atheism. Dora had to draw her out before she discussed religion, and she didn't try to persuade Dora, she just vented instead. With Wil she expressed incredulity but didn't try to change his mind.
Pennelope in general seems to keep her opinions to herself unless she's provoked, which admittedly happens easily.
-
Fair point, although it seems hat up to now, there was no one to persuade. (all the other characters seem unreligious to me)
-
There was Dave, but I don't think they ever met.
-
I don't think it's very likely Dave had anything more than a vague sense of a belief in God, certainly not to the extent that he would see it as necessary to attempt to convert a happy infidel like Penny. He probably went to a Unitarian Universalist church (one was depicted in the comic at one point.) As for Wil, he probably just sees God as a romantic notion, something to lament to in times of anguish. I can understand why Jeph doesn't depict any overtly seriously religious characters, such a thing would crack the fanbase like the Hammer of Aule.
-
IIRC, Jeph is an atheist. He might not be comfortable creating a religious character if he thinks that he doesn't understand religious people.
-
I'm too lazy to search for it, but I seem to remember someone asking about the characters's religion and Jeph saying it was a can of worms he preferred not to open.
Faye was almost certainly joking when she claimed to be a lacertatheist (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=232).
-
Jeph is an atheist now. He was raised catholic.
Also, I googled lacertatheist, and the only other page to turn it up was a german gothic discussion board.
-
Jeph tells us the religious upbringing of Dora, Faye, and Marten in the notes for 645 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=645). He also says that you can choose their current religion.
I don't think it's very likely Dave had anything more than a vague sense of a belief in God, certainly not to the extent that he would see it as necessary to attempt to convert a happy infidel like Penny. He probably went to a Unitarian Universalist church (one was depicted in the comic at one point.) As for Wil, he probably just sees God as a romantic notion, something to lament to in times of anguish. I can understand why Jeph doesn't depict any overtly seriously religious characters, such a thing would crack the fanbase like the Hammer of Aule.
I don't think concern for "cracking the fan base" is why we haven't seen any religious characters. I just don't think religion is part of the story Jeph is trying to tell.
-
Man, what is up with your avatars?
If you don't know who my avatar is, you have no taste in television.
Or, if you're referring to how often I change them, that's just what I do.
-
I don't think concern for "cracking the fan base" is why we haven't seen any religious characters. I just don't think religion is part of the story Jeph is trying to tell.
If I had to guess, religion just isn't important to Jeph, so it's not going to be a big part of anything he does, whether it's everyday life or his job.
-
lacertatheist: lacerta (lizard) + theos (god). By analogy with pantheist etc.
-
As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism.
I'm an atheist myself.
I've met a lot of atheists who think everybody who isn't an atheist is stupid and ignorant. That's really no different from a Christian thinking anybody who isn't Christian is evil. It's elitism, pure and simple. For you atheism may be just about skepticism, but if it is, you should also be skeptical of your skepticism. Because the fact is, "The universe was created spontaneously" is just as big a leap of faith as "The universe was created by a divine being". I think there is no God, but I don't pretend that I know everything, and since I don't know everything, how can I really call people who think there's a bearded guy in the clouds controlling our fates idiots?
What pisses me off is that all the atheist posterboys are smug little dipshits like Richard Dawkins.
-
As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism.
I'm an atheist myself.
I've met a lot of atheists who think everybody who isn't an atheist is stupid and ignorant. That's really no different from a Christian thinking anybody who isn't Christian is evil. It's elitism, pure and simple. For you atheism may be just about skepticism, but if it is, you should also be skeptical of your skepticism. Because the fact is, "The universe was created spontaneously" is just as big a leap of faith as "The universe was created by a divine being". I think there is no God, but I don't pretend that I know everything, and since I don't know everything, how can I really call people who think there's a bearded guy in the clouds controlling our fates idiots?
What pisses me off is that all the atheist posterboys are smug little dipshits like Richard Dawkins.
Given that I am (probably) one of the few conservative Christians, if not the only one, likely to ever be on this message board...
1. The idea is not that anyone who is not Christian is evil. In fact, as a Calvinist, I believe that all people are on equal moral footing (that is, equally flawed) and that my faith in God has nothing to do with myself.
2. I absolutely agree about the elitism, though- on both sides. Too many Christians are incredibly self-righteous (me included), which is wrong in and of itself given how the gospels speak of Pharisees, and I know plenty of people who, despite being worse students and probably less intelligent in general than me, acted like I was a complete moron for believing in an orthodox version of Christianity.
3. The "bearded guy in the clouds" thing is a caricature. That's the rough equivalent of someone saying that evolution means people descending from monkeys. The anthropomorphic image of God comes primarily from our art (i.e., Creazione di Adamo) and secondarily through metaphoric passages from scripture, as in God's self-references that describe Him as having a back or eyes/ears/etc.
-
Why's Jeph raggin' so hard on crazy atheist Penelope? As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism. I understand that they're just characters and dialogue, but it all comes from somewhere, and I don't like the way some of her views are being treated in the comic.
I know I shouldn't complain and just be happy that Jeph makes such a great comic, but I can't help but be bothered by the latest few Penelope strips. I'm not making a big deal about it though, I just want to see what a few other people think. Are you bothered by it? Or does it seems like a fair portrayal of atheists that you met? Or am I just a crazy person who gets offended by nothing?
Discuss.
I think you're wrong when you say that atheism isn't absolutist.
Atheists think there is no god. As such, atheists consider religious people to be slightly gullible, because why would you believe in something when you have absolutely no proof of it actually being true. At least that's how I, as an atheist, feel. I don't make that particular view known because it's bound to be badly received.
If you're just sceptic, uncertain of the existence of a supreme being, and mostly unwilling to follow any particular religion, you'd qualify more as an agnostic.
That being said, I don't feel the least bit offended by the portrayal of some of Penelope's ideas. Though that might be because I have no clue what you're refering to.
-
Gullible? That has negative connotations I, a fellow atheist, wouldn't impute to the faithful. I call them credulous.
-
Gullible? That has negative connotations I, a fellow atheist, wouldn't impute to the faithful. I call them credulous.
I watered it down with "slightly" for that very reason. I just couldn't come up with a word that didn't have a negative connotation, and to be frank, why would I. Being credulous, gullible, or any synonym you can think of is derogative.
I realize some people will take it to mean "I disagree with you hence i think you're stupid," but hey. It holds partial truth.
-
Being offended by the portrayal of Pennelope probably means you're taking it as being a Message. If a character is annoying or flawed, that only means Jeph did that character that way for dramatic reasons, not that he's pushing an agenda.
Jeph actually said once that if you absolutely have to read a Message into the strip, you should tell yourself that it's that people should be nice to each other.
Pennelope is dogmatic because she's Pennelope, and she probably got that way from her upbringing, a point Dora called her on.
-
In what way is Penelope a negative portrayal of atheists?
-
Penelope is a potentially negative portrait of atheists because:
* She gives an unreasoned, emotionally-loaded response to an honest question, and acts as a classic Strawman.
* Her atheism is implied to be at least partially a result of a rebellious immaturity.
* Sympathetic portrayals of open atheists are rare in pop culture, outside of science fiction, and one more "crazy atheist" might seem like fuel for the fire.
I'm not offended as an atheist because:
* Jeph is an atheist; while it's possible that he's pandering to some kind of perceived theist audience, it's more likely that he's poking fun at people who treat atheism as a cause in itself, rather than a belief about the universe.
* It's impossible to say that this is an anti-atheist trend unless another unsympathetic atheist pops up.
* Just about everybody in the strip has some kind of hang-up, regardless of their belief system.
* Straw Atheists DO exist, though they're much more common on-line and in heavily religious environments than on the street.
* Dora did push her buttons a little.
I'd actually be more offended if Jeph presented a Straw Christian, because I'd think he was pandering.
In any case, I'm leery of people who form their entire perception of atheism based on Dawkins, who made a few steps in the direction of a good argument and then retreated into a simpler arrogance. Bertrand Russell was a better, sharper voice of atheism than him, by far:
The question of how to define Rationalism is not altogether an easy one. I do not think that you could define it by rejection of this or that Christian dogma. It would be perfectly possible to be a complete and absolute Rationalist in the true sense of the term and yet accept this or that dogma. The question is how to arrive at your opinions and not what your opinions are. The thing in which we believe is the supremacy of reason. If reason should lead you to orthodox conclusions, well and good; you are still a Rationalist. To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
I don't like the way Russell used the term "Rationalism," which had a more specific meaning than "believer in Reason," and I'd weaken his point by saying that it's also possible to be reasonable without relying exclusively on scientifically admissible evidence, but I think his general point stands. I'd like to think that I have more in common as a debater with tragic_pizza, who cited specific citations to deal with relatively weak arguments, than with most of the arguers on the thread.
Also notice that atheism comes with the natural conclusion that religious people are at worst misguided and foolish.
I'm not sure what the phrase "at worst" means in this context! Either it makes the claim vacuous, because of course any group of people can 'at worst' be misguided and foolish, or it's just there to soften the statement "atheism comes with the natural conclusion that religious people are misguided and foolish."
You may find that conclusion natural; I certainly don't.
-
I think that absolute dependence on scientifically admissible evidence is a mistake regarding the question of God: as someone I know says, "Measure me out a pound of justice, then we'll talk about scientifically proving God." I find it unlikely you could prove the existence of any person in an abstract way via entirely scientific evidence, and God (assuming He exists) is more than personal.
-
If I were to punch you, would you agree that I exist?
Or would I have to punch you again?
-
Again, "in the abstract." As in, me sitting in this room, proving that you (exactly you) exist.
-
That's just it; you can get as existential as you want, but the only evidence we will ever have will be scientific.
-
As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism.
I'm an atheist myself.
I've met a lot of atheists who think everybody who isn't an atheist is stupid and ignorant. That's really no different from a Christian thinking anybody who isn't Christian is evil. It's elitism, pure and simple. For you atheism may be just about skepticism, but if it is, you should also be skeptical of your skepticism. Because the fact is, "The universe was created spontaneously" is just as big a leap of faith as "The universe was created by a divine being". I think there is no God, but I don't pretend that I know everything, and since I don't know everything, how can I really call people who think there's a bearded guy in the clouds controlling our fates idiots?
What pisses me off is that all the atheist posterboys are smug little dipshits like Richard Dawkins.
Given that I am (probably) one of the few conservative Christians, if not the only one, likely to ever be on this message board...
Yo.
Quite frankly, I find it easier to practice my religion when I abstain from full-length discussion with a dissenting viewpoint. Unstoppable force to an immovable object doesn't usually result in a win on either side.
-
That's just it; you can get as existential as you want, but the only evidence we will ever have will be scientific.
Even if all other phenomena could be explained perfectly via scientific methods, the final brute fact will remain that this universe exists. It is equally a leap of faith to believe in self-existent or spontaneously generated matter as to believe in a self-existent God. Ultimately, the only truly valuable evidence is either historical or personal.
I should mention that I find the question of evolution wholly irrelevant to the existence of God- I don't believe that God would have some qualms about causing life to evolve, and I still believe that abiogenesis is impossible in a purely atheistic universe.
-
The lack of explanation for a phenomenon is in no way proof of the existence of god. It just means that the explanation hasn't yet been found.
-
Quite frankly, I find it easier to practice my religion when I abstain from full-length discussion with a dissenting viewpoint. Unstoppable force to an immovable object doesn't usually result in a win on either side.
This guy is winning this thread.
-
The lack of explanation for a phenomenon is in no way proof of the existence of god. It just means that the explanation hasn't yet been found.
I meant to suggest that the question would remain valid: "Is there a God?" in such a situation. And I don't believe there is any possible scenario that could conclusively determine the origins of the universe- hence, on a purely logical basis, the question is eternal and unsolvable. Therefore, I believe that the question is best determined on a historical and personal basis. That is all I am saying.
-
Quite frankly, I find it easier to practice my religion when I abstain from full-length discussion with a dissenting viewpoint. Unstoppable force to an immovable object doesn't usually result in a win on either side.
This guy is winning this thread.
On the contrary: "Faith is like a muscle- the less you use it, the weaker it gets." There is value in discussion, if only because it forces you to think. It can be considered logic practice.
-
I find it easier to practice my religion when I abstain from full-length discussion with a dissenting viewpoint. Unstoppable force to an immovable object doesn't usually result in a win on either side.
But when they disagree on a sufficiently clearly defined issue, one (or both!) must be wrong. Is it not one of the duties of a practicing Christian to try to persuade others of the rightness of thir position?
Gullible? That has negative connotations I, a fellow atheist, wouldn't impute to the faithful. I call them credulous.
Another judgemental word, I think; I would prefer to say that it appears to me that they are wrong.
-
I find it easier to practice my religion when I abstain from full-length discussion with a dissenting viewpoint. Unstoppable force to an immovable object doesn't usually result in a win on either side.
But when they disagree on a sufficiently clearly defined issue, one (or both!) must be wrong. Is it not one of the duties of a practicing Christian to try to persuade others of the rightness of thir position?
No, it's to witness your faith to those willing to listen, not to actively put it in question and engage in pointless arguments. It's not about who's right and who's wrong, but what you believe and why. If you have a reason, you have a right, and no one deserves to have it taken.
-
Pennelope gave as a reason for her lack of faith that there was, in her view, "no evidence" for anything supernatural. So she seems to come from the empiricist line of thought.
-
That's just it; you can get as existential as you want, but the only evidence we will ever have will be scientific.
Even if all other phenomena could be explained perfectly via scientific methods, the final brute fact will remain that this universe exists. It is equally a leap of faith to believe in self-existent or spontaneously generated matter as to believe in a self-existent God. Ultimately, the only truly valuable evidence is either historical or personal.
My view of the universe is as an eternally existing cycle. There is no starting point, there is no ending point. The universe explodes and expands till, according to the law of entropy, everything slows down to a stand still. At this point I make my own leap of faith. I believe, that we underestimate the force of gravity, and that an incredibly large black hole, like the one at the center of our galaxy will slowly pull back everything in the universe to itself, slowly agglomerating into a new potential big bang, until it has once again gathered to much matter in one place and explodes again.
Now at this point in time, science disproves my theory. It is however, what i choose to believe because it is the only thing that makes sense to me. By choosing not to believe in a god, i have also chosen not to believe in spontaneous creation of matter, and therefore a never ending cycle is the only thing that makes sense to me. There can be no starting point, and there can be no ending. There can only be periods of time identifiable by significant events (explosion, stop, agglomeration).
I realize it is being somewhat hypocritical, as I choose to not believe in what science thinks to be fact at this point, when as an atheist, science should be my referal. But i choose not to blindly beleive in anything, religion, or science. Sadly, as an atheist, I also believe i will never get to know wether or not I am right.
-
So everything that has happened, has happened before, and will happen again?
Oh man. That sucks.
-
So everything that has happened, has happened before, and will happen again?
Oh man. That sucks.
Oh no. Just because the major events of the universe like the explosion and agglomeration happen repeatedly doesn't mean that everything else is on repeat. The minute details are allways different.
-
given enough cycles of bangs and crunches, the laws of probability dictate events will repeat themselves.
-
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
-
I can't remember who said it, but I prefer the statement "History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" to the original- which I believe was by George Santayana (?).
-
given enough cycles of bangs and crunches, the laws of probability dictate events will repeat themselves.
Technically correct.
But considering the amount of data being treated, the chance of it happening is paramount to that of getting hit by lightning in the middle of new york city on a sunny day.
Possible, but even if once every billionth cycle we get a repeat performance, i think i can forgive the universe. Nobody's lifespan is long enough to really care.
-
So everything that has happened, has happened before, and will happen again?
Oh man. That sucks.
Sounds like the underlying religious philosophy in Battlestar Galactica...
-
Am i the only person here who is the trulely non-opinioned Athiest?
You see, i dont think its even a matter of wether 'God' exists or not. To me it doesn't matter either way. 'God' and 'Religion' (and to a lesser extent, some fields of science) are just anwers to a question i dont see the point in even asking to begin with.
So, people are welcome to thier opinions, the only time have an issue is when they try to force thier opinions/beliefs upon me (simply talking about thier beliefs is not an issue unless i ask them to stop and they dont).
So yeaj, go to church and pray or go howl at the moon if you lean that way, I'll be pointing at you and laughing either way. :-D
-
@Jonarus-
EXACTLY! I'm not an agnostic. It's not that I can't make up my mind. I just don't care. If there is a god, or gods, or animistic spirits, or what have you, they don't have any effect on this world that I can see. It's not that I'm an atheist because I go with that whole "logical" thing- it's just that I can't be bothered to care about something that has left no measurable impression upon my life. Equally, I don't devote minutes or even seconds worrying about mutant cannibal pirate zombie ninjas from the future sent here to enslave us to Galactus before he eats our world. Though now that I've painted that picture, I am suddenly trembling in fear. Or anticipation. I'm not really sure.
-
You know that- theoretically; I will not here press any claims- that's the equivalent of saying something like "I can't be bothered to be immunized against polio/bubonic plague/hepatitis/meningitis/various other potentially deadly diseases, they haven't made any impression on my life!"
My point being here that- again, theoretically- you could be dealing with the fate of your being for eternity.
Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view. I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.
-
Ah, Pascal's Wager. Yeah. Fine. Whatever. If all you need to do to get into heaven is accept Jesus Christ as your savior, I'd rather not go there.
-
You know that- theoretically; I will not here press any claims- that's the equivalent of saying something like "I can't be bothered to be immunized against polio/bubonic plague/hepatitis/meningitis/various other potentially deadly diseases, they haven't made any impression on my life!"
My point being here that- again, theoretically- you could be dealing with the fate of your being for eternity.
Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view. I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.
I've actually had this very argument leveled at me before, so i'll give the same response:
1) I DONT get imunisations - I hate needles!
2) I Believe that as long as i stick to MY OWN principles then i can do no wrong. If there is a god, how can he punish me for doing so. If the isn't then my actions ould have ensured i lived the longest most forfilling life posible. Either way I WIN!
I just remember something else, just a little joke:
> There is only one thing to worry about: If you are well or if you are sick. If you are well you have nothing to worry about.
> If you are sick, there is only one thing to worry about: If you will get better or if you will die. If you get better you have nothing to worry about.
> If you die, there is only one thing to worry about: If you will go to 'heaven' or if you will go to 'hell'. If you go to 'heaven' you have nothing to worry about.
> If you go to Hell, you'll be too bussy shacking hands with old friends to worry...
-
1) I DONT get imunisations - I hate needles!
You do realize, of course, that by refusing immunizations, you aren't just putting yourself at risk; you are putting every person you come into contact with at a greater risk for infection.
Thanks a lot.
-
So everything that has happened, has happened before, and will happen again?
Oh man. That sucks.
Sounds like the underlying religious philosophy in Battlestar Galactica...
Yes (love that show, incidentally), but that philosophy comes from far older sources. Nietzche, for example. And some greek philosopher whose name escapes me at the moment.
Also, I really, really wish people would stop dredging up Pascal's Wager. It was never conceived as a serious argument in favour of religion. Anyways, you have to take into consideration that at least one other religion, Islam, also threatens an eternal hell. Hell, even the Talmud states that Christians go to hell forever, boiling in feces, no less. Then you have all different interpretations of the Bible and Qu'ran, and whatever other wierdo religions believe in Hell, even private fucking revelations, and you have to adhere to every one of them to truly take the Wager. Except you can't, because some of them would get jealous and throw you into hell anyways.
-
1) I DONT get imunisations - I hate needles!
You do realize, of course, that by refusing immunizations, you aren't just putting yourself at risk; you are putting every person you come into contact with at a greater risk for infection.
Thanks a lot.
This thing sucks at sarcasm...
Not that its a biggy to me. To be a threat to the health of others i'd have to get sick myself, and i dont get sick. I mean, once in every 2-3 years i get a bad head cold or something, max...
Unless of course you include alcohol poisoning under the 'sick' heading...
-
Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view. I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.
Nonsense. Before you can remind me about stakes, you have to convince me that there's even a game. I've yet to see any evidence of such.
-
You know that- theoretically; I will not here press any claims- that's the equivalent of saying something like "I can't be bothered to be immunized against polio/bubonic plague/hepatitis/meningitis/various other potentially deadly diseases, they haven't made any impression on my life!"
My point being here that- again, theoretically- you could be dealing with the fate of your being for eternity.
Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view. I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.
I disagree with that as well. I'm preety sure that with the current state I've lived my life, even being a proclaimed atheist, and not having attended mass once in my life, if there was a god, i wouldn't be in danger of being eternally damned.
Why? Because in some ways, I do follow some of the basic rules of religion. Not because I'm afraid of eternal damnation if i don't, but because it's the right thing to do.
Following a dogma because you're afraid of the repercussions isn't really what i call enligthenment. Following your ideas, the fact that you should, whenever possible, avoid hurting the people around you, and help those that you can, purely because it is what YOU believe is right; THAT is what life should be about.
It also has the advantage of not causing fanatism and religious wars. Believe in god if you will, but following every single one of the dogmas written down in the Coran, the Bible, the Torah or whichever religious book you're following is listening to the voices of men that have died 1500 to 3000 years ago, when times were very different.
You should keep the general ideas, but do you really need the protocol?
Bottom line is, as long as i live a good life, I don't believe a potential god would condemn me to hell over a technicality. And if he does, he doesn't deserve any of us to believe in him.
-
Also, I really, really wish people would stop dredging up Pascal's Wager. It was never conceived as a serious argument in favour of religion. Anyways, you have to take into consideration that at least one other religion, Islam, also threatens an eternal hell. Hell, even the Talmud states that Christians go to hell forever, boiling in feces, no less. Then you have all different interpretations of the Bible and Qu'ran, and whatever other wierdo religions believe in Hell, even private fucking revelations, and you have to adhere to every one of them to truly take the Wager. Except you can't, because some of them would get jealous and throw you into hell anyways.
I have never advanced Pascal's Wager as a specifically Christian argument, nor should it be considered as such: it is a generically theistic argument. And I was more interested in pointing out the potential mistake in being completely uninterested in the sort of questions that atheism and theism each bring up. I think confronting the questions of God, eternity, etc. is a necessary step in developing a coherent worldview. I think it is essential as a part of determining what to do with your life, even if you do ultimately reject the idea of God.
-
Also, I really, really wish people would stop dredging up Pascal's Wager. It was never conceived as a serious argument in favour of religion. Anyways, you have to take into consideration that at least one other religion, Islam, also threatens an eternal hell. Hell, even the Talmud states that Christians go to hell forever, boiling in feces, no less. Then you have all different interpretations of the Bible and Qu'ran, and whatever other wierdo religions believe in Hell, even private fucking revelations, and you have to adhere to every one of them to truly take the Wager. Except you can't, because some of them would get jealous and throw you into hell anyways.
I have never advanced Pascal's Wager as a specifically Christian argument, nor should it be considered as such: it is a generically theistic argument. And I was more interested in pointing out the potential mistake in being completely uninterested in the sort of questions that atheism and theism each bring up. I think confronting the questions of God, eternity, etc. is a necessary step in developing a coherent worldview. I think it is essential as a part of determining what to do with your life, even if you do ultimately reject the idea of God.
I reject the suggestion that I HAVE TO consider the whole god/no god question, what difference is it going to make in terms of my view of the world? None so far as i can tell. The world is the world, it will always be what it is wether god exists or doesnt or even if i decided that its not important at all - the world will not change just because of my personal beliefs.
Now, keep in mind, i am an (admitadly amature) writer, so the suggestion that THINKING the world is different DOES make it different is not lost on me. The problem with this idea is that the only thing that has changed is our own perception of reality. The imutable laws that goven the existence of reality dont get re-writen, we just percive them differently. Take two people, one who can see normaly, and another who is colour blind. Put a coloured object infront of them and they will give differing answers, but just because the colour blind person percieves a different colour due to thier condition the actual object does not change its colour IN REALITY!
>GASP< pant pant pant... oh sweet air! To take a breath again!
-
You know that- theoretically; I will not here press any claims- that's the equivalent of saying something like "I can't be bothered to be immunized against polio/bubonic plague/hepatitis/meningitis/various other potentially deadly diseases, they haven't made any impression on my life!"
My point being here that- again, theoretically- you could be dealing with the fate of your being for eternity.
Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view. I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.
I disagree with that as well. I'm preety sure that with the current state I've lived my life, even being a proclaimed atheist, and not having attended mass once in my life, if there was a god, i wouldn't be in danger of being eternally damned.
Why? Because in some ways, I do follow some of the basic rules of religion. Not because I'm afraid of eternal damnation if i don't, but because it's the right thing to do.
Following a dogma because you're afraid of the repercussions isn't really what i call enligthenment. Following your ideas, the fact that you should, whenever possible, avoid hurting the people around you, and help those that you can, purely because it is what YOU believe is right; THAT is what life should be about.
It also has the advantage of not causing fanatism and religious wars. Believe in god if you will, but following every single one of the dogmas written down in the Coran, the Bible, the Torah or whichever religious book you're following is listening to the voices of men that have died 1500 to 3000 years ago, when times were very different.
You should keep the general ideas, but do you really need the protocol?
Bottom line is, as long as i live a good life, I don't believe a potential god would condemn me to hell over a technicality. And if he does, he doesn't deserve any of us to believe in him.
You're mixing in specifically Catholic doctrines with Christianity in general: remember that Protestant churches believe in sola fide salvation- by faith alone. "Obeying the rules" is not what Christianity is about. Secondly, I don't see why ideas from the ancient past should be considered a priori invalid. Third, I don't support religious wars despite being a dogmatic Christian. What's so weird about that? Lastly, just because I believe in Heaven and Hell does not mean that I am motivated solely by fear of punishment or desire for reward. I only even brought it up in response to other people talking about their complete apathy toward the ideas and questions of theism/atheism.
-
Also, I really, really wish people would stop dredging up Pascal's Wager. It was never conceived as a serious argument in favour of religion. Anyways, you have to take into consideration that at least one other religion, Islam, also threatens an eternal hell. Hell, even the Talmud states that Christians go to hell forever, boiling in feces, no less. Then you have all different interpretations of the Bible and Qu'ran, and whatever other wierdo religions believe in Hell, even private fucking revelations, and you have to adhere to every one of them to truly take the Wager. Except you can't, because some of them would get jealous and throw you into hell anyways.
I have never advanced Pascal's Wager as a specifically Christian argument, nor should it be considered as such: it is a generically theistic argument. And I was more interested in pointing out the potential mistake in being completely uninterested in the sort of questions that atheism and theism each bring up. I think confronting the questions of God, eternity, etc. is a necessary step in developing a coherent worldview. I think it is essential as a part of determining what to do with your life, even if you do ultimately reject the idea of God.
I reject the suggestion that I HAVE TO consider the whole god/no god question, what difference is it going to make in terms of my view of the world? None so far as i can tell. The world is the world, it will always be what it is wether god exists or doesnt or even if i decided that its not important at all - the world will not change just because of my personal beliefs.
Now, keep in mind, i am an (admitadly amature) writer, so the suggestion that THINKING the world is different DOES make it different is not lost on me. The problem with this idea is that the only thing that has changed is our own perception of reality. The imutable laws that goven the existence of reality dont get re-writen, we just percive them differently. Take two people, one who can see normaly, and another who is colour blind. Put a coloured object infront of them and they will give differing answers, but just because the colour blind person percieves a different colour due to thier condition the actual object does not change its colour IN REALITY!
>GASP< pant pant pant... oh sweet air! To take a breath again!
If that is your viewpoint then you have already (possibly unconsciously) adopted an atheistic view of the universe. The only way you could be sure that your own ideas about God (or His nonexistence) do not matter would be if He did not exist. By saying that it makes no difference whether or not you consider the questions only reveals that you have already decided.
-
Now, I'm an atheist, but I often find myself questioning...
...and wondering...
...if maybe Thor and Valhalla really exist.
My soul could be in peril! If the Nordic beliefs are true, and I don't die gloriously in battle, I could be doomed to wander the underworld for all eternity!
On the other hand, if it is true, and I do die bravely as the Vikings once did, then perhaps the Valkyries might take me to drink and revel in the golden halls Valhalla until the battle of Ragnarok at the end of time.
I can't prove that the Aesir don't exist, so maybe I should join the ARMY and go die in a foreign war, just to be on the safe side.
*edit*
...if it's not true though... then no harm done, right?
-
I hear Hel isn't all that bad.
-
@KeepACoolin:
Actually, i HAVNT decided, I am very much open to the (however unlikely) posibility that at some point in the future i may come to change my beliefs. As it is my only solid belief is that i should live my life the same way reguardless of the whole god/no god question. I dont bother to "ask the question" because i dont see how it would change how i live on a day-to-day basis.
I feel i should add a bit of background here. I was raised as a Christian (mother was a Dutch Christian -protistant variation i believe-, my father an American 'Church of England' Protostant), and we went to church every sunday as a family (at least every sunday during which everyone was actually home). During these days of childish ignorence i believed in God, went to Christian schools, and even acted as an Alter-boy for TWO YEARS. But as i got older, i came to feel that what i saw around me was not the 'gift from a higher power' i had been told. Sience and reason told me that there was a simpler, more tangible reason for things. As time went on even more i realised my 'sience above all' was just as narrow as the religious beliefs of my youth. This in turn lead me to the belief i hold now, that the question of wether or not god is there, or that sience can explain all, is only a distraction, an excuse used by those who lack the intilect and will to chose thier own path, free of ALL outside influence.
NOTE: I dont believe that failing to adopt this view is an indication of a weak intilect or will, just that those who are lacking dont realise that the choice is thiers to begin with, and thier failure to realise this is due to a failure to question thier world, thier reality. I hope this makes sense, its pretty heady stuff, even to myself.
-
Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view. I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.
Nonsense. Before you can remind me about stakes, you have to convince me that there's even a game. I've yet to see any evidence of such.
The "game" is merely the existence of the universe. I include atheism as a wholly valid resolution- what I mean to say is that the question of the existence of God, whether it results in an answer of yes or no, is one of high importance.
-
Now, I'm an atheist, but I often find myself questioning...
...and wondering...
...if maybe Thor and Valhalla really exist.
My soul could be in peril! If the Nordic beliefs are true, and I don't die gloriously in battle, I could be doomed to wander the underworld for all eternity!
On the other hand, if it is true, and I do die bravely as the Vikings once did, then perhaps the Valkyries might take me to drink and revel in the golden halls Valhalla until the battle of Ragnarok at the end of time.
I can't prove that the Aesir don't exist, so maybe I should join the ARMY and go die in a foreign war, just to be on the safe side.
*edit*
...if it's not true though... then no harm done, right?
My point is that the question should be confronted. You have already confronted the question, and decided in the negative. Okay. My point is that the question should be confronted.
Also, @jonarus, I don't mean by "confronting the question" that you need to decide for your entire lifetime. And again, the attitudes you espouse suggest that you already hold an atheistic worldview: obviously if Yahweh exists (to be somewhat more specific), His existence is the most important thing in the universe and to say that coming to believe in His existence would not change your life is to either be absurd or implicitly atheist.
And I don't mean to be rude, but I don't find your philosophy "heady" at all. I think it is a common attitude and one that, again, presumes the nonexistence of God. By making the claim that humanity's freedom of individual choice is the supreme value, you are already assuming that God, at least as described by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths, is not real. Otherwise, the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and eternal being would by default be the most significant fact of existence.
-
Meh, perhaps. As i recall tho, "God" is supposed to be extreamly supportive of Free will and all that...
My only remaining point (on a personal level) is that i could be convinced of the existence of God, i just cant be bothered to ask the questions that would be neccisary to get a satisfactory answer.
-
" i just cant be bothered to ask the questions that would be neccisary to get a satisfactory answer."
And that's exactly where I think you go wrong. Well, in any case, I am now done with this conversation- it's starting to get redundant from my perspective. By the way, that was not supposed to be rude or insulting.
-
My point is that the question should be confronted. You have already confronted the question, and decided in the negative. Okay. My point is that the question should be confronted.
You keep asserting this point, but I'm not seeing much of an argument to back it up. ...Except for the whole threat of damnation thing, but look:
There's an infinite number of possible hells I can be damned to for an infinite number of possible gods I don't believe in. None of them can be disproven. None of them can be proven to be more likely than any of the others.
If I throw my lots in with any one, it's a total crapshoot; any god I chose to worship could be the wrong one and then I could be damned.
If I throw my lots in with all of them, I might still be damned.
If I don't throw in my lots with any of them, I could still be damned.
No matter what I chose, the odds are most likely that I'm damned.
Any answer I can provide to this question is just a shot in the dark. The odds of hitting the truth are practically nil, but if I miss I'm fucked.
-
If God wants me to believe in him, why did he make me an atheist?
-
I could answer again, but this is getting horribly boring and redundant. I'm done.
-
I'll chalk that up as a win.
-
Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view. I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.
Nonsense. Before you can remind me about stakes, you have to convince me that there's even a game. I've yet to see any evidence of such.
The "game" is merely the existence of the universe. I include atheism as a wholly valid resolution- what I mean to say is that the question of the existence of God, whether it results in an answer of yes or no, is one of high importance.
No, the proposed game is the existence of an afterlife. The existence of the universe is so obvious that arguing about it is something only foolish philosophers do, and then only in the privacy of their own bedrooms (also, potheads, and they'll do anything in public, even read their own poetry).
The afterlife is not obvious and, to my knowledge, unproven in the extreme.
-
I'll chalk that up as a win.
That sounds like desperation. And, yes, I know I'm responding- whatever.
And no, the game is not the existence of an afterlife. The existence of an afterlife is a conclusion that might be drawn as a result of playing the game, which means deciding what you believe about the nature of the universe- for instance, whether or not life ends at death. And I agree that it's obvious- I think that a person living logically MUST decide about the universe.
-
I'll chalk that up as a win.
That sounds like desperation. And, yes, I know I'm responding- whatever.
And no, the game is not the existence of an afterlife. The existence of an afterlife is a conclusion that might be drawn as a result of playing the game, which means deciding what you believe about the nature of the universe- for instance, whether or not life ends at death. And I agree that it's obvious- I think that a person living logically MUST decide about the universe.
And I am of the opinion that there is no NECISITY to come to any conclusion, or even consider the options at all. Thats not to say that any given DOES need to decide what to do with thier own life (duh) but the big questions need not be considered as they will at most effect the individual own perception of reality, while reality itself will in actual fact remain the same.
@KeepACoolin: Do you at least accept my assertation that wether a person 'asks the question' or not is entire up to that person, and that the only things that would compel him/her to ask are things that exist within thier own mind as determind by thier own perception of reality? - PS: Your last response to a post of mine was not taken offensively, your welcome to your opinion, and i was kinda tiring of the discussion myself...
And on that note, laterz!
-
The crux (sorry) of the disagreement between Pennelope and Wil wasn't about the existence of God, though. What set her off was his talk about ghosts and spirits. She didn't even mention God until her rant had already picked up a full head of steam.
-
Damn, she gets pissy at a poet (one who styles himself after Poe, no less) for talking about ghosts and spirits?
-
Makes you wonder what on earth she was expecting.
-
I'll chalk that up as a win.
That sounds like desperation. And, yes, I know I'm responding- whatever.
And no, the game is not the existence of an afterlife. The existence of an afterlife is a conclusion that might be drawn as a result of playing the game, which means deciding what you believe about the nature of the universe- for instance, whether or not life ends at death. And I agree that it's obvious- I think that a person living logically MUST decide about the universe.
As important as the existence of god might be to the universe, what difference does it make to you, as an infinitesimal part of the universe if he exists or not. His point is that, wether or not he chooses to believe in god - if he does at some point in life actually bother to make that decision - will not change the way he lives his life. Therefore, the existence, or inexistence, of god, is entirely unimportant to his continued existence, and any time spent reflecting upon that is time that would be better spent doing something else.
I disagree with his point. I think it's important to know where you stand on certain issues. You can have decided, one way or another, you can be uncertain, but to entirely not care about a matter that is so important to so many people around you, and therefore have an impact on the overall functioning of the world is slightly ... well ... childish.
-
Well i think making decisions for the sake of making decisions is childish. Maturity is knowing when/if a decision is needed, and i dont see any such need
-
Who would win in a fight between Godzilla and Superman?
I think it's important for everyone to know where they stand on this issue.
-
Superman, obviously, as he is immortal. Unless you gave Godzilla kryptonite breath, which would make him super badass.
-
I think maybe the Japanese government, in an attempt to take out both threats, would equip Mecha-Godzilla with a Kryptonite katana. Mecha-Godzilla would defeat Super-Man, but Godzilla would defeat Mecha-Godzilla, thus defeating Super-Man by extension.
Bat-Man would beat everyone though, because Bat-Man would be prepared.
-
Superman. Even if Godzilla had kryptonite breath, Superman could use his super-speed to surprise him from behind, pick him up, and fling him into space.
All bets are off if it's a Godzilla/Mothra tag-team, though.
-
Ah, yes, Mothra.
The question of whether Mothra exists and whether she would team up with Godzilla in a fight is quite an important issue. If Mothra truly did exist, it would quite possibly be one of the most important things in the Universe.
-
hmm, where is this god anyway?
-
PenPen is one of those militaristic atheists who feel the need to attack others believes because they are not their own, much like Christian monasteries throughout history.
-
I'd rather be a militaristic atheist than the sort of Pollyannish person who dodges the issue entirely and asks instead that religious people merely "keep it to themselves" and cannot even fathom having a strong stance on the subject one way or the other. Religions routinely make profound claims about the nature of the universe. It's important to debate and discuss these ideas because whether they're true or not has ethical and moral implications that spill over to day to day life whether people acknowledge it or not. To essentially tell an evangelist "Well, yes, I realize you believe there's an absolute moral authority to the universe. But to be honest, I'd rather be watching TV right now" is a bit condescending in its own right when you consider the enormity of their claims. I disagree with them quite strongly but I don't really discount what they have to say out of hand either.
-
When's Pennelope attacked anybody? Even verbally? She never went beyond incredulity with Wil.
-
I'd rather be a militaristic atheist than the sort of Pollyannish person who dodges the issue entirely and asks instead that religious people merely "keep it to themselves" and cannot even fathom having a strong stance on the subject one way or the other. Religions routinely make profound claims about the nature of the universe. It's important to debate and discuss these ideas because whether they're true or not has ethical and moral implications that spill over to day to day life whether people acknowledge it or not. To essentially tell an evangelist "Well, yes, I realize you believe there's an absolute moral authority to the universe. But to be honest, I'd rather be watching TV right now" is a bit condescending in its own right when you consider the enormity of their claims. I disagree with them quite strongly but I don't really discount what they have to say out of hand either.
I'd be perfectly happy to leave everyone to their own beliefs as long as they keep them to themselves, but to be honest, most don't. As long as they're doing shit like legislating against abortion/proper sex-ed/LGBT rights/etc, brainwashing their children, or attempting to institute sharia law, I see it as my human obligation to attempt to disillusion them of their beliefs by any means necessary.
-
You do realize that "keeping it to yourself" does not really mesh with beliefs like those of Christianity, right? If I genuinely believe (as I do) that everything is at stake depending on a person's relationship with God, and I "keep it to myself," am I not quite literally telling you "go to hell?" That's a lot like suggesting that doctors and their newfangled "medicine" keep it to themselves.
Obviously, I know you think that Christianity is pointless (or, possibly, if you are a Hitchens disciple, positively harmful), but remember that from my perspective it is vitally important that you believe in certain things and act in certain ways.
-
I have no problem with you telling me of your beliefs and why I should believe in them, as long as you do not persist when I ask you to stop. After that, it is harassment by any definition.
-
brainwashing their children,
In that case, shouldn't you be railing against any religion that survives for longer than one generation? Paraphrasing Doug Stanhope, and probably lots of other people as well - if you hadn't been indoctrinated by your parents from the times when you still believed Santa was real, and just so happened upon the bible in a used bookstore, you're not going to convert to Christianity.
I know tons of adult converts, or late-teen converts from non-Christian homes. It happens all the time. It happened to Europe, essentially. Undoubtedly more people who are Christian had at least some exposure to it in their homes, but not by any means all of them.
-
As a friend once reminded me, even if Heaven exists, all the really interesting people are going to be in Hell. Mark Twain certainly isn't getting into Heaven. No way is anyone allowing Sir Richard Burton into Heaven. And the Christian Bible makes it pretty clear that even if you are good, you're not getting in unless you believe. So no long discussions on traveling with Ibn Battuta, no sitting and meditating with Buddha, no sharing a joke or erotic poem with Rumi ...
-
As a friend once reminded me, even if Heaven exists, all the really interesting people are going to be in Hell. Mark Twain certainly isn't getting into Heaven. No way is anyone allowing Sir Richard Burton into Heaven. And the Christian Bible makes it pretty clear that even if you are good, you're not getting in unless you believe. So no long discussions on traveling with Ibn Battuta, no sitting and meditating with Buddha, no sharing a joke or erotic poem with Rumi ...
This is a fact. How am I supposed to meet Jimmy Hendrix if I go to Heaven?
-
I'm pretty sure God could get you a day pass. :roll:
-
And who else but atheists will save your pets and provide peace of mind (http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/Home_Page.html) after you get taken up in the Rapture?
-
Ok my knowledge of religious stuff is well...lacking what is the Rapture? :oops:
-
The return of Jayzus Cuhrist
-
Well, not exactly, most of those who believe in the Rapture believe it will be seperate from his actual Second Coming, after the Tribulation. The Premillennial Dispensationists, at least, believe that first Jesus will come to sweep up the Real True Christians to Heaven, then seven years of God pouring out his wrath on the earth while the Antichrist rules it, the Jesus comes back for good, dumps all the non-RTC souls into hell, then rules the earth forever and ever from a giant golden Borg Cube. That's all you really need to know about it, there's no sense in wasting further time on it, and it'll never make sense to you anyways.
-
Adult conversions, hmm -- will Pennelope convert back, like C.S. Lewis did?
-
I should only hope not. C.S. Lewis only converted back because he failed logic forever.
-
A.) I do not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. There is no evidence in scripture for it, anywhere.
B.) I don't see how you can claim that C.S. Lewis can "fail logic forever" when it is clear that atheism itself requires a leap past logic: the only position that can be 100% based on logic is agnosticism, as it is impossible to ever disprove the existence of God (how exactly would you go about proving that there can be no invisible, incorporeal being whose existence is independent of the material universe?) and probably just as impossible to ever prove that He does exist. Essentially, the only completely rational position to hold is agnosticism, with gradations in it- that is, you might be an agnostic who is virtually sure that there is a God, or an agnostic who is virtually sure that there isn't. Either of the absolute positions, theism or atheism, requires a step beyond logic. But I think that anything worth doing does. Don't get me wrong, I think atheism is, in itself, a better position to hold than agnosticism. But that is not because I believe it to be more rational.
C.) I like italics. You may have noticed.
-
... as it is impossible to ever disprove the existence of God (how exactly would you go about proving that there can be no invisible, incorporeal being whose existence is independent of the material universe?) and probably just as impossible to ever prove that He does exist ...
Unless we find a Babel fish ...
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Just stay away from zebra crossings ...
-
... as it is impossible to ever disprove the existence of God (how exactly would you go about proving that there can be no invisible, incorporeal being whose existence is independent of the material universe?) and probably just as impossible to ever prove that He does exist ...
Unless we find a Babel fish ...
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Just stay away from zebra crossings ...
Huge win. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PuffOfLogic, if you haven't seen it already.
-
The concept of god/s at the least, is faulty. i'mnot exactly an athiest but i do realise that god is real but only in the context of the human mind
-
I don't see how you can claim that C.S. Lewis can "fail logic forever"
He formulated the "Liar, Lord, or Lunatic" trilemma. Therefore, he fails logic forever.
-
B.) I don't see how you can claim that C.S. Lewis can "fail logic forever" when it is clear that atheism itself requires a leap past logic: the only position that can be 100% based on logic is agnosticism, as it is impossible to ever disprove the existence of God (how exactly would you go about proving that there can be no invisible, incorporeal being whose existence is independent of the material universe?) and probably just as impossible to ever prove that He does exist. Essentially, the only completely rational position to hold is agnosticism, with gradations in it- that is, you might be an agnostic who is virtually sure that there is a God, or an agnostic who is virtually sure that there isn't. Either of the absolute positions, theism or atheism, requires a step beyond logic. But I think that anything worth doing does. Don't get me wrong, I think atheism is, in itself, a better position to hold than agnosticism. But that is not because I believe it to be more rational.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of god, not one who claims that there are no gods.
I think you will find that most atheists don't so much assert evidence against gods, but assert that there is so little evidence in favor of gods that the possibility isn't worthy of consideration.
-
The concept of god/s at the least, is faulty. i'mnot exactly an athiest but i do realise that god is real but only in the context of the human mind
Fallacy. You presuppose that there can be no such being as God. That is the only scenario in which it can be said that God can be "real in the mind" but not elsewhere.
-
I don't see how you can claim that C.S. Lewis can "fail logic forever"
He formulated the "Liar, Lord, or Lunatic" trilemma. Therefore, he fails logic forever.
Okay, fair enough, I thought you were referring to his conversion itself as a failure of logic. True, the trilemma is flawed, but I don't believe he truly intended it to be a complete list of all possible outcomes. I think he just meant to use it to force people to confront their own ideas about Jesus. And you have to admit that the people who drone on and on about "Well, I don't think Jesus was anything special, just a great teacher..." gets really annoying (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.JesusWasWayCool)
-
B.) I don't see how you can claim that C.S. Lewis can "fail logic forever" when it is clear that atheism itself requires a leap past logic: the only position that can be 100% based on logic is agnosticism, as it is impossible to ever disprove the existence of God (how exactly would you go about proving that there can be no invisible, incorporeal being whose existence is independent of the material universe?) and probably just as impossible to ever prove that He does exist. Essentially, the only completely rational position to hold is agnosticism, with gradations in it- that is, you might be an agnostic who is virtually sure that there is a God, or an agnostic who is virtually sure that there isn't. Either of the absolute positions, theism or atheism, requires a step beyond logic. But I think that anything worth doing does. Don't get me wrong, I think atheism is, in itself, a better position to hold than agnosticism. But that is not because I believe it to be more rational.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of god, not one who claims that there are no gods.
I think you will find that most atheists don't so much assert evidence against gods, but assert that there is so little evidence in favor of gods that the possibility isn't worthy of consideration.
You're twisting the meaning of the word. Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings (Random House dictionary). Denying the existence of God is a part of what distinguishes atheism from agnosticism. Lack of belief is not the same as disbelief, which is why agnosticism is not the same as atheism.
-
I have a question an atheism vs agnosticism. People on the Internet act as if there's a huge difference, but I was never taught these terms in school and can't figure out which one I am.
So: Let's say I make a up a creature right now; let's call it Asdfsoooxzm. It's unicorn-colored, all-powerful and lives outside this universe. Crucially, you can't prove that it doesn't exist. Neither can I; perhaps everything I can invent really does exist somewhere outside this universe.
I believe in God just as much as I believe in Asdfsoooxzm. And in other gods, for that matter.
If that belief makes me an atheist, why do people keep arguing with stuff like "A-ha! But you can't prove He doesn't exist!" when exactly the same is true of Asdfsoooxzm, and they're trying to convince me my belief in God should be different from my belief in Asdfsoooxzm?
If it makes me an agnostic, then that is really quite meaningless since I'd be mad to consider seriously the possibility that a creature I made up for a forum post actually exists. It'd be so close to atheism the difference is meaningless.
-
If you believe in the Christian God, Asdfsoooxzm, AND in other gods, then that makes you a polytheist.
If you only believe in the Christian God, Asdfsoooxzm, OR in one of the other gods, then that makes you a monotheist.
An agnostic would say the Christian God, Asdfsoooxzm, and the other gods probably don't exist, but he/she is holding judgement in case proof ever does show up.
An atheist just flat out says the Christian God, Asdfsoooxzm, and the other gods are nothing more than figments of our imagination, they don't exist in any way that matters (other than as a psychological crutch to overcome our fear of the unknown). In other words, they see religion as nothing more than institutionalized superstition.
-
You're twisting the meaning of the word. Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings (Random House dictionary). Denying the existence of God is a part of what distinguishes atheism from agnosticism. Lack of belief is not the same as disbelief, which is why agnosticism is not the same as atheism.
Use of the word has changed over time from the original greek atheos which was not used to describe a philosophical or religious position but as a pejorative to refer to someone who believed in false gods. If you look in any dictionary, you may find that as the definition, or you might find the definition you provided, or you might find any other definition that you like.
You might also look up the words evolution or God and find any number of vastly different and definitions for each. It all depends on context and who you ask. For example, the term God may refer to:
The one supreme being.
One of several other divine beings.
An image, or idol.
Something that is worshipped or idealized (such as money).
Nature, or the universe (in the sense that Einstein used the word).
The thing you have to understand about dictionaries is that they are descriptive, not prescriptive.
It's perfectly acceptable to say that an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in the possibility of gods. Now, that does entail the belief that there are no gods, but that is not the be all end all of the definition.
I don't believe there are no gods, I just don't believe in gods. I don't believe that gods are possible, but that is not the same as believing that gods are impossible. It's all a matter of positive claims versus negative claims.
-
You're twisting the meaning of the word. Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings (Random House dictionary). Denying the existence of God is a part of what distinguishes atheism from agnosticism. Lack of belief is not the same as disbelief, which is why agnosticism is not the same as atheism.
Use of the word has changed over time from the original greek atheos which was not used to describe a philosophical or religious position but as a pejorative to refer to someone who believed in false gods. If you look in any dictionary, you may find that as the definition, or you might find the definition you provided, or you might find any other definition that you like.
You might also look up the words evolution or God and find any number of vastly different and definitions for each. It all depends on context and who you ask. For example, the term God may refer to:
The one supreme being.
One of several other divine beings.
An image, or idol.
Something that is worshipped or idealized (such as money).
Nature, or the universe (in the sense that Einstein used the word).
The thing you have to understand about dictionaries is that they are descriptive, not prescriptive.
It's perfectly acceptable to say that an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in the possibility of gods. Now, that does entail the belief that there are no gods, but that is not the be all end all of the definition.
I don't believe there are no gods, I just don't believe in gods. I don't believe that gods are possible, but that is not the same as believing that gods are impossible. It's all a matter of positive claims versus negative claims.
All of which makes you agnostic, rather than atheist. And since the Christianization of Europe, "atheist" has been primarily used to describe someone who disbelieves in the existence of God- various theologians accused their opponents of atheism during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, which is essentially where the modern usage originated. There was also an Athenian (I can't remember who right now) who was exiled for atheism in the modern sense.
Lack of belief combined with lack of disbelief results in doubt or suspended judgment, both of which are characteristic of agnosticism as opposed to atheism. Atheism entails active disbelief.
-
Pennelope was unambiguous about where she stands.
-
I believe in God just as much as I believe in Asdfsoooxzm. And in other gods, for that matter.
If that belief makes me an atheist, why do people keep arguing with stuff like "A-ha! But you can't prove He doesn't exist!" when exactly the same is true of Asdfsoooxzm, and they're trying to convince me my belief in God should be different from my belief in Asdfsoooxzm?
This is the point where I am almost always disappointed with atheists. Why do you have to resort to what is in essence a veiled ad hominem attack instead of at least approaching the issue with some sort of dignity? I think it worth pointing out that some of the most brilliant minds in history not only believed in a God but in fact the same God that I do. Now, you might argue that they did not know about evolution, but I do and I don't think it is even relevant to the existence of God- why should knowing exactly how a creature developed necessarily solve the question of why it developed? Given that I- and any number of other theists- adopt this position, the most relevant atheistic arguments must be philosophical and universal. These are questions that have always existed. Do you think that Dante didn't know about the problem of evil? Do you think that Milton was unaware that life can seem random? Do you think that Augustine, who lived in a jaded and cynical society, was unfamiliar with any number of philosophical arguments for a purely naturalistic universe?
The answer is "no," which begs the question of why you must insult some of the most brilliant philosophical, literary, and even scientific minds (Newton, in some sense Einstein- and Jonathan Edwards was a leading biologist and physicist for his time) by equating their belief with belief in something "unicorn-colored?" Do you really think you're this much smarter than people who are still regarded as some of the great geniuses of human history?
The sad part, to me, is that there can be dignity and pathos in really well done atheistic arguments. I am willing to accept the basic validity of the atheistic position- I can see that someone could believe in it and not be, as a result, a fool. Please return the favor: don't be quite so quick to dismiss the people who laid the foundations of this civilization. Please be willing to at least entertain the notion that a theistic worldview is not inherently retarded. Thank you.
-
Many of the most brialliant minds in history believed in phlogiston, the flat-earth theory, the geocrentric and heliocentric theories of the cosmos, luminferous aether, orgone, basilisks, phrenology, lamarckian evolution, telegony, the continents of Atlantis, Lemuria, and Thule, need I go on?
-
Many of the most brialliant minds in history believed in phlogiston, the flat-earth theory, the geocrentric and heliocentric theories of the cosmos, luminferous aether, orgone, basilisks, phrenology, lamarckian evolution, telegony, the continents of Atlantis, Lemuria, and Thule, need I go on?
Since ancient Greece, the educated classes have been aware of the spherical earth. Geocentrism and heliocentrism belong to the same class of ideas as evolution (i.e., no bearing on the question of God's existence) as does the flat earth and- well- everything else you've listed. My point is this: Darwinian evolution is the only recent development that could change the landscape, so to speak, from what applied to the men I mentioned. And Darwinian evolution in no way precludes the existence of God.
Actually, that's not entirely true- quantum physics might be a real challenge to God's existence, as it might invalidate the Prime Cause. If you care to discuss a quantum physics-related argument against the existence of God, I am more than happy to admit that you have a valid and reasonable platform. I would disagree with it, but I would admit its rationality. I think the same could be said of theism. There is no science except quantum physics that in any way challenges the fundamental assumptions of a theistic worldview (that there must be a First Cause). It is as rational to assume, on philosophical grounds, that matter is capable of self-generation as it is to assume that there is a self-existent cause behind matter. One or the other must be true.
Besides which, my main point was that atheists can be self-sabotaging with their "unicorn-colored" or "flying spaghetti monster" ideas. Those are far more applicable to pagan religions- I think Thor is as inherently goofy as just about anything you could come up with, and Quetzlcoatl too. But Christians have thought that for two thousand years, and Jews for longer than that. The fact is that the belief in an omnipotent deity is more reasonable than the belief in any random god. Call monotheism untrue, call it unsubstantiated, but don't call it patently ridiculous. Bring that up to the Dionysian cults, or the worshipers of Wotan (the Nazis, for instance). Don't bring it up to the believers in Yahweh.
-
You still haven't specified why belief in Yahweh is different from belief in any random pagan god, or even one made up on the spot.. The depiction of god in the bible is a patently ridiculous one. Anyways, Yahweh had its origin among many other gods in the land of Canaan.
-
I probably wouldn't go so far as "patently ridiculous", but I would wonder about the mental health engendered by something as misogynistic as either the Old or New Testament ...
On the other hand, you don't like Christianity being called "patently ridiculous", but you're perfectly willing to allow the label to be applied to the followers of Ásatrú ...
-
you're really going to say yahweh is real but odin or zeus isn't, because? polytheistic cultures actually just created gods for different aspects of their daily life, things they couldnt explain. So there's thunder and lightning we have a god for that. In egypt there is flooding of the nile that gives us life, so we have a god for that. In more ways then one this is more logical then one god doing it all, as it makes them less omnipotent and thus closer to human. Believing in an invisible god (or in an old bearded man in the sky, you pick) is really no different from believing in a jackalheaded, hawkheaded, hippoheaded, ... god.
As for most of the messiah story, it's a story that tells us about the passing of the sun through the stars of the zodiac in the night sky. Why? because almost every religion has probably the same story in it. The first time the story about a virgin birth, child teacher, death and ressurrection in 3 days appeared, was in ancient egypt before the jews were even slaves there. after that assyrians had a messiah story, there's even one in greek mythology. cant be assed to look em all up right now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRJlVBQkSSI <-- watch this with a mind that's even a little bit opened and you'll understand more about religion
-
I have a question an atheism vs agnosticism. People on the Internet act as if there's a huge difference, but I was never taught these terms in school and can't figure out which one I am.
So: Let's say I make a up a creature right now; let's call it Asdfsoooxzm. It's unicorn-colored, all-powerful and lives outside this universe. Crucially, you can't prove that it doesn't exist. Neither can I; perhaps everything I can invent really does exist somewhere outside this universe.
I believe in God just as much as I believe in Asdfsoooxzm. And in other gods, for that matter.
If that belief makes me an atheist, why do people keep arguing with stuff like "A-ha! But you can't prove He doesn't exist!" when exactly the same is true of Asdfsoooxzm, and they're trying to convince me my belief in God should be different from my belief in Asdfsoooxzm?
If it makes me an agnostic, then that is really quite meaningless since I'd be mad to consider seriously the possibility that a creature I made up for a forum post actually exists. It'd be so close to atheism the difference is meaningless.
As far as I have been informed, the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is this :
Atheists refuse to believe in the existence of a supreme being, whichever it may be. For them, there is no god.
Agnostics, refuse to believe in any Religion, which is a huge difference. An agnostic accepts the fact that there probably is a supreme being, a God in some sense that created the universe at some point. However, they do not accept the dogmas of any religion, Christianity, Islam, whatever, they believe them to be wrong. They believe in a god, but revere him in there own personal way, without seeking guidance from more enlightened people.
I myself am an atheist. Perhaps I will convert to agnosticism at some point in my life, if I get the feeling that perhaps a god does exist. It's a possibility. I'm doubtful of it, but it could happen. I know for a fact that I will never turn to any religion, because there are too many inconsistencies in the teachings.
First of all is evolution. There are enough proofs of evolution out there to make it undeniable, at least in my eyes.
Second, is the presence of so many different religions throughout time and space. Why, if God really created the first two human beings, would people have ever believed in any religion other than Christianity (or whichever religion is right)? Wouldn't they have passed it on to their children, and only one religion have ever existed in history?
Most important of all, why have all major religions such a short history? 2000 years old for Christianity, less even than that for Islam, Asian religions are older than that, but still a lot younger than humanity. Where have our gods been over the 200,000 years (minimum) of the modern human existence?
And last but not least, look around us. Our world's a mess. Natural catastrophies, wars, global warming, pollution... If there is indeed a god watching over us, he's either doing a very poor job, or he doesn't give a fuck. And in either case, why the fuck should i care about him/her/it?
-
And last but not least, look around us. Our world's a mess. Natural catastrophies, wars, global warming, pollution... If there is indeed a god watching over us, he's either doing a very poor job, or he doesn't give a fuck. And in either case, why the fuck should i care about him/her/it?
Congratulations, your answer is Discordianism! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism) The worship of the Greek goddess Eris, the goddess of chaos, confusion, and things that just don't go right. Even from your examples, it's clear you've already seen her influence in your life ...
The human race will begin solving its problems on the day that it ceases taking itself so seriously.
Life is too important to be taken seriously.
-
don't be quite so quick to dismiss the people who laid the foundations of this civilization.
Newton laid the foundations of much of modern mathematics and science; but when he made the remark about standing on the shoulders of giants, he was talking about astrology. If the great people of the past had known everything, or got it all right, there would be no scope for development.
Please be willing to at least entertain the notion that a theistic worldview is not inherently retarded.
In a lifetime of being surrounded by theistic argument (my father was a theologian) I never found any that made a theist viewpoint acceptable to me. I would be the retarded one if I accepted ideas whose arguments fail for me. And if I admit that it is still possible for me to be wrong, that does not make me agnostic as you claim above - it merely means that I accept that I am not omniscient.
-
And last but not least, look around us. Our world's a mess. Natural catastrophies, wars, global warming, pollution... If there is indeed a god watching over us, he's either doing a very poor job, or he doesn't give a fuck. And in either case, why the fuck should i care about him/her/it?
Congratulations, your answer is Discordianism! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism) The worship of the Greek goddess Eris, the goddess of chaos, confusion, and things that just don't go right. Even from your examples, it's clear you've already seen her influence in your life ...
Right. And again, i should worship her why?
-
(my father was a theologian)
What drives a person to become a theologian? I mean seriously.
-
I have no idea. I never talked about it with my father (http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=81), as I was the odd one out in the family (being a scientist and atheist, though I might have said agnostic while he was alive). I may still have some documents in which he wrote about his life, but I don't recall that there were any actual explanations there. Like me, he was brought up in an atmosphere of faith (Methodist in his childhood), and like many he lost his faith for a brief while during his time at university. My mother once told me that his faith was shaken again by the process of dying; but later in life she didn't remember this.
[edit] Well, well - a quote (http://www.famous-quotes.com/author.php?aid=3484)!
-
Since ancient Greece, the educated classes have been aware of the spherical earth. Geocentrism and heliocentrism belong to the same class of ideas as evolution (i.e., no bearing on the question of God's existence) as does the flat earth and- well- everything else you've listed. My point is this: Darwinian evolution is the only recent development that could change the landscape, so to speak, from what applied to the men I mentioned. And Darwinian evolution in no way precludes the existence of God.
Nobody disputes that. However, it disproves by example the argument from authority , which you used to support your case. A theory is not true because the scientist coming with it is smart, the scientist is smart because he comes up with sound theories.
Therefore, calling an authority to your help to prove the existance of god is meaningless , unless you state that person's arguments. If the arguments are correct they will persuade us
Actually, that's not entirely true- quantum physics might be a real challenge to God's existence, as it might invalidate the Prime Cause. If you care to discuss a quantum physics-related argument against the existence of God, I am more than happy to admit that you have a valid and reasonable platform. I would disagree with it, but I would admit its rationality. I think the same could be said of theism. There is no science except quantum physics that in any way challenges the fundamental assumptions of a theistic worldview (that there must be a First Cause). It is as rational to assume, on philosophical grounds, that matter is capable of self-generation as it is to assume that there is a self-existent cause behind matter. One or the other must be true.
Argument from prime cause is frankly put nonsense. Why would matter need to have a prime cause, why a god does not have to have a prime cause, and why cannot the causal chain go on forever (such as the universe expanding, then contracting and so on , with a big bang at beginning of each cycle)???
Even Thomas Aquinas blatantly asserted that the chain cannot go on forever as then we would have no first cause - ie the argument is based on assuming it is true - ie a tautology.
Besides which, my main point was that atheists can be self-sabotaging with their "unicorn-colored" or "flying spaghetti monster" ideas. Those are far more applicable to pagan religions- I think Thor is as inherently goofy as just about anything you could come up with, and Quetzlcoatl too. But Christians have thought that for two thousand years, and Jews for longer than that. The fact is that the belief in an omnipotent deity is more reasonable than the belief in any random god. Call monotheism untrue, call it unsubstantiated, but don't call it patently ridiculous. Bring that up to the Dionysian cults, or the worshipers of Wotan (the Nazis, for instance). Don't bring it up to the believers in Yahweh.
They are placeholders for unverifiable beings and how dare you assert the IPU is not omnipotent :D
I myself prefer to use a teapot floating around Saturn, Baba Jaga and Ded Moroz.
The belief in an omnipotent deity as christians do is self contradictory - why is there natural evil then (diseases, floods, droughts ) if god is both good and omnipotent? I am not even going to refer to the holy writ since there is even more contradictions. (such as judas dying twice or the blatant lack of god's justice with regards to Job)
Also omniscience blatantly contradicts with free will since an action can either be determined or not.
To myself , the dualist or polytheist religions seem much more logical, with their only faults being lack of evidence for support of them , and for some older ones , redundancy (ie science explained the stuff they did)
-
Right. And again, i should worship her why?
Because she can be a royal bitch and she doesn't like being ignored. :-D The first time she got snubbed, she started the Trojan War ...
-
You still haven't specified why belief in Yahweh is different from belief in any random pagan god, or even one made up on the spot.. The depiction of god in the bible is a patently ridiculous one. Anyways, Yahweh had its origin among many other gods in the land of Canaan.
My point is that the belief in a fractured-divine cosmology is inherently weirder and more childlike than a belief in one God. The creation of many gods simply introduces another level of being within the universe, whereas an omnipotent creator God at least attempts to explain the origin of the universe. And to be honest, the "Yahweh comes from Near Eastern paganism" argument has holes. In any case, I am once again done with this thread, and this time I'm going to (hopefully) stick to that decision.
-
How is 'god came into being and created a universe' a better explanation than 'universe came into being' ?
-
Agnostics, refuse to believe in any Religion, which is a huge difference. An agnostic accepts the fact that there probably is a supreme being, a God in some sense that created the universe at some point. However, they do not accept the dogmas of any religion, Christianity, Islam, whatever, they believe them to be wrong. They believe in a god, but revere him in there own personal way, without seeking guidance from more enlightened people.
Nope. Agnosticism is simply the stance that you don't know if there is a god. It's a very wide umbrella and a lot of different stances stem from that basic statement. For example, there's weak agnosticism, in which people say that is possible for there to be a god but that nobody has ever proven it. There's also strong agnosticism, in which people state that the existence of a god is inherently unknowable since we are natural beings and god would be a supernatural phenomenon. There's apathetic agnostics who wonder why we even waste our time on this shit. There's even people who could be described as agnostic theists, who are like strong agnostics in the sense that they believe it is empirically impossible to know if there is a god yet they continue to believe anyway (think Kierkegaard). What you're talking about is just flat out unaligned theism.
-
You still haven't specified why belief in Yahweh is different from belief in any random pagan god, or even one made up on the spot.. The depiction of god in the bible is a patently ridiculous one. Anyways, Yahweh had its origin among many other gods in the land of Canaan.
I don't think there's a difference between Yahweh, Allah, any random pagan god or one made up on the spot. Everything said about them is a lie, it doesn't matter if it's said by a believer or a nonbeliever.
you're really going to say yahweh is real but odin or zeus isn't, because? polytheistic cultures actually just created gods for different aspects of their daily life, things they couldnt explain. So there's thunder and lightning we have a god for that. In egypt there is flooding of the nile that gives us life, so we have a god for that. In more ways then one this is more logical then one god doing it all, as it makes them less omnipotent and thus closer to human. Believing in an invisible god (or in an old bearded man in the sky, you pick) is really no different from believing in a jackalheaded, hawkheaded, hippoheaded, ... god.
Anthropomorphic gods are simple projections. Xenophanes of Colophon satirized this perfectly:
"The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own."
Egyptian gods with nonhuman heads are projections of different skills and attributes on animals (like in fables).
C.G. Jung would say the bearded old man is a manifestation of the teacher archetype similar to Obi-Wan (orig.tril.) or an old Kung Fu master of a cheesy Eastern film.
I think a monotheistic god is more logical because of the ontological argument of Anselm of Canterbury. To me, it doesn't prove that there is a god, but for certain views of god it proves that his inexistence is unthinkable. I'll quote wiki because of my lazyness:
1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought.
2. God may exist in the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality.
I the end, i'll go with Thomas Aquinas:
"All that I have written seems like straw to me."
-
1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought.
2. God may exist in the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality.
I realise that this is not your view , but i will comment anyway.
This argument is also flawed, since thinking of something does not make it reality. I can also think of an perfect banknote (paper cash) in my hand, which has the property of existance, yet it does not make it real.
But this is the essence of the previous argument, since it only goes on to prove (albeit strangely, since i do not see how existence has anything to do with greatness) that a necessary property of the concept of a god must be existance, and leaves on the reader to wrongly assume that this makes the concept exist ie be real. In the same way one can imagine an existing unicorn etc.
-
The only flaw I see is that i haven't rewritten 4. as "Therefore, it's unthikable that god doesn't exist in reality".
The argument is valid is because of the definition of god it uses. If you define god as a geezer who sits on a cloud and papparazzies you taking a shower, this argument doesn't apply. The same for a perfect banknote, the pink invisible unicorn, etc. etc. etc.
-
The only flaw I see is that i haven't rewritten 4. as "Therefore, it's unthikable that god doesn't exist in reality".
The argument is valid is because of the definition of god it uses. If you define god as a geezer who sits on a cloud and papparazzies you taking a shower, this argument doesn't apply. The same for a perfect banknote, the pink invisible unicorn, etc. etc. etc.
But it boils down to the same. Essentially you define something with a necessary property of existance, and then you assert that it must exist by virtue of its definition, such as a perfect god or a real unicorn.
The flaw is the same - your thoughts and definitions have no impact on reality - what existed would continue to do so even without you, and you cannot make something appear simply by defining it as existing.
Also - by existing, i mean manifesting itself in some clear, and verifiable way. Even if your god existed in the sense you jut described , two things could happen A) he would verifiably manifest by some phenomena, then that would be a proof, and the argument is redundant, since better ones abound (like the guy who distinguishes his twins by the fact that the black haired has a pigment mark on her cheek while the blonde one does not)
B) he would not manifest in any such way, and not affect the material world in any way consistently attributable to him, then i am not the least interested in such existance, and for all practical means he does not exist, because such an existance is an empty statement, it implies nothing about the world
-
1. God is such that there is nothing better than God.
2. If you're starving, a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich is better than nothing.
3. Therefore a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich is better than God.
-
1. God is such that there is nothing better than God.
2. If you're starving, a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich is better than nothing.
3. Therefore a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich is better than God.
that is because we are sure a penut butter and jelly sandwich exists while god is still in debate.
if god is real and beliefs in him are corect he created (well the ingredients etc. anyways) the penut butter and jelly sandwich which means god is stil beter than the penut buter sandwich. yet if god is not real a peice of gravel is better than him unless god is the reason why the starving person can force him/her self can continue in wich god is the driving force yet that would be the human mind creating the thought so the human mind in this situation is better than or at least equal to god.
-
Indeed - though I expect the argument was made with the Christian God in mind, and being omnipotent/omnipresent/omni-anything-you-care-to-mention is kind of his thing.
"Nothing greater" kinda implies omi-anything-ness.
But it boils down to the same. Essentially you define something with a necessary property of existance, and then you assert that it must exist by virtue of its definition, such as a perfect god or a real unicorn.
Can you tell me where this necessary property of existance is? It's not like this wants to prove something like a triangle having three angles.
The flaw is the same - your thoughts and definitions have no impact on reality - what existed would continue to do so even without you, and you cannot make something appear simply by defining it as existing.
We make it real by thinking about it, because the world is what we think it is.
Also - by existing, i mean manifesting itself in some clear, and verifiable way. Even if your god existed in the sense you jut described , two things could happen A) he would verifiably manifest by some phenomena, then that would be a proof, and the argument is redundant, since better ones abound (like the guy who distinguishes his twins by the fact that the black haired has a pigment mark on her cheek while the blonde one does not)
B) he would not manifest in any such way, and not affect the material world in any way consistently attributable to him, then i am not the least interested in such existance, and for all practical means he does not exist, because such an existance is an empty statement, it implies nothing about the world
If you think like that, then you have to dismiss numbers, because they dont manifest. There may be three trees or three mountains, but can you see a three? No, only different symbols for it.
-
But it boils down to the same. Essentially you define something with a necessary property of existance, and then you assert that it must exist by virtue of its definition, such as a perfect god or a real unicorn.
Can you tell me where this necessary property of existance is? It's not like this wants to prove something like a triangle having three angles.
Yes, you said it before. Essentially the argument goes on to (prove) that a perfect god must have the property of existence (much like a real unicorn must have a property of existence).
The flaw is the same - your thoughts and definitions have no impact on reality - what existed would continue to do so even without you, and you cannot make something appear simply by defining it as existing.
We make it real by thinking about it, because the world is what we think it is.
I would say we observe and process reality by perceiving it , not make it in our minds
Also - by existing, i mean manifesting itself in some clear, and verifiable way. Even if your god existed in the sense you jut described , two things could happen A) he would verifiably manifest by some phenomena, then that would be a proof, and the argument is redundant, since better ones abound (like the guy who distinguishes his twins by the fact that the black haired has a pigment mark on her cheek while the blonde one does not)
B) he would not manifest in any such way, and not affect the material world in any way consistently attributable to him, then i am not the least interested in such existance, and for all practical means he does not exist, because such an existance is an empty statement, it implies nothing about the world
If you think like that, then you have to dismiss numbers, because they dont manifest. There may be three trees or three mountains, but can you see a three? No, only different symbols for it.
Numbers are an abstract concept, representing a quantity, the same way property is an abstract concept representing all one owns. I have no problem with them, as they truly are not real (except when therir imaginary part == 0 :D) just an abstraction. In the same way defining a god simply as a term for a possible sum of 'greatness' (whatever that means) is OK but that will not make it a real concrete being, and would not be very useful anyway.
Numbers help us model reality in increasingly complex ways, but the stated definition of god does not do anything useful
-
But it boils down to the same. Essentially you define something with a necessary property of existance, and then you assert that it must exist by virtue of its definition, such as a perfect god or a real unicorn.
Can you tell me where this necessary property of existance is? It's not like this wants to prove something like a triangle having three angles.
Yes, you said it before. Essentially the argument goes on to (prove) that a perfect god must have the property of existence (much like a real unicorn must have a property of existence).
I said it before, it doesn't prove that god exists, but that his inexistance is unthinkable. it says more about my thoughts than about god.
The flaw is the same - your thoughts and definitions have no impact on reality - what existed would continue to do so even without you, and you cannot make something appear simply by defining it as existing.
We make it real by thinking about it, because the world is what we think it is.
I would say we observe and process reality by perceiving it , not make it in our minds
The flat earth was real because they believed it was real. They feared exploring if it was relly flat because they thought they'd fall down. It doesn't matter that earth isn't really flat. Columbus was able to go to America because he believed that the earth was spherical.
Also - by existing, i mean manifesting itself in some clear, and verifiable way. Even if your god existed in the sense you jut described , two things could happen A) he would verifiably manifest by some phenomena, then that would be a proof, and the argument is redundant, since better ones abound (like the guy who distinguishes his twins by the fact that the black haired has a pigment mark on her cheek while the blonde one does not)
B) he would not manifest in any such way, and not affect the material world in any way consistently attributable to him, then i am not the least interested in such existance, and for all practical means he does not exist, because such an existance is an empty statement, it implies nothing about the world
If you think like that, then you have to dismiss numbers, because they dont manifest. There may be three trees or three mountains, but can you see a three? No, only different symbols for it.
Numbers are an abstract concept, representing a quantity, the same way property is an abstract concept representing all one owns. I have no problem with them, as they truly are not real (except when therir imaginary part == 0 :D) just an abstraction. In the same way defining a god simply as a term for a possible sum of 'greatness' (whatever that means) is OK but that will not make it a real concrete being, and would not be very useful anyway.
Numbers help us model reality in increasingly complex ways, but the stated definition of god does not do anything useful
it helps me to pursue a most rational view of god.
-
The flat earth was real because they believed it was real. They feared exploring if it was relly flat because they thought they'd fall down. It doesn't matter that earth isn't really flat. Columbus was able to go to America because he believed that the earth was spherical.
Just yesterday, i nearly fell on the exit of our house. Somebody has put his shoes where i believed it was only the floor, and i kicked into one of them and only my reflexes saved me.
According to what you say, this could not have happened, since before the fall, i did not believe there was any object that could interfere with my motion in there.
it helps me to pursue a most rational view of god.
To restate it, your definition of an abstraction of 'great' terms which you associated with a term 'god' lets you define that term ? ie. the belief is self-serving, and has no other use. In the same way one could associate terms with thinkable maxima of other qualities , such as smallness ... if we define them as the existing maxima, then their non-existance would also be unthinkable
-
The flat earth was real because they believed it was real. They feared exploring if it was relly flat because they thought they'd fall down. It doesn't matter that earth isn't really flat. Columbus was able to go to America because he believed that the earth was spherical.
Just yesterday, i nearly fell on the exit of our house. Somebody has put his shoes where i believed it was only the floor, and i kicked into one of them and only my reflexes saved me.
According to what you say, this could not have happened, since before the fall, i did not believe there was any object that could interfere with my motion in there.
You can step out of your door and they too. But they weren't always able to sail to America because their ships weren't good enough, so they made up stories. Their belief in those stories made it true for them.
it helps me to pursue a most rational view of god.
To restate it, your definition of an abstraction of 'great' terms which you associated with a term 'god' lets you define that term ? ie. the belief is self-serving, and has no other use.
Religion is a part of every culture, so I want to understand it and not trashcan it by saying "They believe because they don't know therefore they're stupid".
-
You can step out of your door and they too. But they weren't always able to sail to America because their ships weren't good enough, so they made up stories. Their belief in those stories made it true for them.
Now you state something entirely different than before, which i can agree with. Except that the 'it made it true to them' is better stated as they considered it true. It was not true any more than it is now, just (next to) nobody knew it then
there is an objective reality and any attempt to undercut it is a 'fallacy of stolen concept'
Religion is a part of every culture, so I want to understand it and not trashcan it by saying "They believe because they don't know therefore they're stupid".
Firstly god and religion have not so much in common (eg buddhism is an atheist (== godless) religion) and each of them defines a god or multiple ones differently, so your definition is still unhelpful.
Religion possibly was good enough before the advent of science, although namely christianity has done more bad than good by quelling scientific progress (the reason why in the middle ages, arabs were waay ahead of us)
Currently the only reason it propagates in large numbers is that it is put into people in their youth when they believe anything parents tell them. This comes from the fact that it is a great tool of social control. Also there are other psychical reasons - frankly dying sucks whether it is you or your surroundings, so the stories are often soothing in this way.
That are the three elements that compose IMHO an understanding of it - why it has arisen and so.
All and all i am all for trashcanning it, especially since i have firsthand experience :D
Also in great majority of cases the problem is not stupidity as you assert, but ignorance - as you could see even here - KeepACoolIn was trying to use the Prime cause proof, since he was not aware of the fact that it is logically invalid.
-
Now you state something entirely different than before, which i can agree with. Except that the 'it made it true to them' is better stated as they considered it true. It was not true any more than it is now, just (next to) nobody knew it then
there is an objective reality and any attempt to undercut it is a 'fallacy of stolen concept'
Funny thing, to me it's the same thing as I said before. And only the physical reality is more or less (relativity, quantum physics) objective, and even there it's only the stuff we've seen.
Firstly god and religion have not so much in common (eg buddhism is an atheist (== godless) religion) and each of them defines a god or multiple ones differently, so your definition is still unhelpful.
Buddhism is clearly not an atheist religion. It's extremely agnostic, but not atheist. The basic message about god etc. is "We can't know what there is, so don't even try to ask". But there's still lots of mythological stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_realms). I think that my definition can be applied to every bigger religion, even the polytheistic ones, because they have a bigger god (Odin for Norse paganism, Brahman for Hinduism). The lower gods can be compared to angels.
Religion possibly was good enough before the advent of science, although namely christianity has done more bad than good by quelling scientific progress (the reason why in the middle ages, arabs were waay ahead of us)
It was the power-hungry popes and priests who prevented scientific progress, not the religion. Let's take the geocentric model. It was part of aristotelian pilosophy, and thanks to Thomas Aquinas, christian theology was heavily based on that. When Copernicus and Kepler came with Heliocentrism, the priests feared that everybody would think that their writing is complete bullshit and they might lose power.
Currently the only reason it propagates in large numbers is that it is put into people in their youth when they believe anything parents tell them. This comes from the fact that it is a great tool of social control. Also there are other psychical reasons - frankly dying sucks whether it is you or your surroundings, so the stories are often soothing in this way.
Partly I don't mind that memetic reproduction, because it gives some people a reason not to kill. I don't like it if it degenerates into spam and/or hate. I don't think there will ever be a time without religion because of the psychical reasons and to a lesser extent because of the memetic stuff.
All and all i am all for trashcanning it, especially since i have firsthand experience :D
Also in great majority of cases the problem is not stupidity as you assert, but ignorance - as you could see even here - KeepACoolIn was trying to use the Prime cause proof, since he was not aware of the fact that it is logically invalid.
I tend to judge belief and not believers, because everybody's stupid in some kind of way. Belief tends to condense the less stupid stuff.
-
Funny thing, to me it's the same thing as I said before. And only the physical reality is more or less (relativity, quantum physics) objective, and even there it's only the stuff we've seen.
The problem was in the wording make it true for someone, because various people can consider various statements
true, but there is only one truth, independant of them (even in rel theory, when two people differ in times of perceiving something, they are located at different coordinates so in fact they are both saying the same thing - like looking at an object from diff sides)
Buddhism is clearly not an atheist religion. It's extremely agnostic, but not atheist. The basic message about god etc. is "We can't know what there is, so don't even try to ask". But there's still lots of mythological stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_realms). I think that my definition can be applied to every bigger religion, even the polytheistic ones, because they have a bigger god (Odin for Norse paganism, Brahman for Hinduism). The lower gods can be compared to angels.
Atheist i used in its basic meaning - a-theist ie. lacking a god, such as a-vitamin-osis is a non inflamatory disease caused by lack of vitamins.
Hinduism has 3 equally important ones Brahma, Visnu and Siva ! On a funnier note , i would rather compare angels to lower gods - they are both an earlier and broader concept.
It was the power-hungry popes and priests who prevented scientific progress, not the religion. Let's take the geocentric model. It was part of aristotelian pilosophy, and thanks to Thomas Aquinas, christian theology was heavily based on that. When Copernicus and Kepler came with Heliocentrism, the priests feared that everybody would think that their writing is complete bullshit and they might lose power.
It was an interpretation of the religion which was at fault - an good example is with originally catholics rejecting vaccination, as it supposedly went into god's competence, and now the movement against in vitro fertilisation for example.
And also there is little purpose to it besides being as K Marx said it, opium of the masses used to pacify them into obedience
Partly I don't mind that memetic reproduction, because it gives some people a reason not to kill. I don't like it if it degenerates into spam and/or hate. I don't think there will ever be a time without religion because of the psychical reasons and to a lesser extent because of the memetic stuff.
Who does it give a reason not to kill ? :D The guys who murdered the abortion doctors in the US? The priest who prays for Obama's death? The clerical-fascist regime of ThDr Josef Tiso in my country who collaborated with Hitler and his government deported thousands of jews + POHG (the equivalent of SS) burned down and killed at least two villages? The fanatics who give grease to the fire of the conflict between arabs and the israel state?
Or the nice guys in Afganistan who after winning a war against the soviet-supported democratic forces welded their enemies into steel containers and left them in the desert sun to die? O
Or , to go back , crusades?
You will surely say that a majority of religious people does not do such deeds , which is true, but so does the majority of atheists, so i do not see any added value by the religion. To the contrary i see that only religious influence can persuade people certain cases of extreme injustice, and cruelty are just and honorable
-
The problem was in the wording make it true for someone, because various people can consider various statements
true, but there is only one truth, independant of them (even in rel theory, when two people differ in times of perceiving something, they are located at different coordinates so in fact they are both saying the same thing - like looking at an object from diff sides)
My fault, I'm better with wording in my mother tongue.
Atheist i used in its basic meaning - a-theist ie. lacking a god, such as a-vitamin-osis is a non inflamatory disease caused by lack of vitamins.
Siddhartha said that he doesn't teach the teachings of a god. If you ignore trinity and that stuff, the middle ages description of god sometimes resembles nirvana imho.
Hinduism has 3 equally important ones Brahma, Visnu and Siva ! On a funnier note , i would rather compare angels to lower gods - they are both an earlier and broader concept.
I meant Brahman (it means something like world-soul), not the god Brahma. Brahma is more or less a personification of Brahman (as god is of heaven). These personifications basically exist because they're easier to understand, but they're also easier to attack.
It was an interpretation of the religion which was at fault - an good example is with originally catholics rejecting vaccination, as it supposedly went into god's competence, and now the movement against in vitro fertilisation for example.
And also there is little purpose to it besides being as K Marx said it, opium of the masses used to pacify them into obedience
Yes, the interpretation was wrong, but at that time they clearly didn't want to change it because they feared a loss of power and not because they weren't able to believe it. Always keep in mind that the catholic church was a big political force at that time. You porbably won't see communists saying that communism is wrong or neoliberalists saying that free market is evil.
And you confuse Marx and Lenin. Marx said it's opium of the masses and they take it freely because their life is too hard. Lenin said it's opium for the masses and the priests give it to them for obedience stuff.
Who does it give a reason not to kill ? :D The guys who murdered the abortion doctors in the US? The priest who prays for Obama's death? The clerical-fascist regime of ThDr Josef Tiso in my country who collaborated with Hitler and his government deported thousands of jews + POHG (the equivalent of SS) burned down and killed at least two villages? The fanatics who give grease to the fire of the conflict between arabs and the israel state?
Or the nice guys in Afganistan who after winning a war against the soviet-supported democratic forces welded their enemies into steel containers and left them in the desert sun to die? O
Or , to go back , crusades?
You will surely say that a majority of religious people does not do such deeds , which is true, but so does the majority of atheists, so i do not see any added value by the religion. To the contrary i see that only religious influence can persuade people certain cases of extreme injustice, and cruelty are just and honorable
A few weeks ago I saw a blog somewhere - I forget where. Anyway, there was a post and a series of comments about whether we possess free will or not. The discussion centred on the thought experiment of "would you shoot an innocent person, given no extenuating circumstances"? For the vast majority of us the answer is, instantly and incontrovertibly, no. The application to the free will question then is that if you are incapable of shooting this person, perhaps you don't actually possess the free will to actively decide to shoot them. Of course this invites the argument that, "Well, actually I could decide to shoot them, I just wouldn't." At which point the argument can go in circles for as long as the arguers enjoy it.
Someone raised the question, "Well if you have the free will to decide to shoot, but never actually do shoot, what's stopping you?"
Someone answered, "God."
"And what if God doesn't exist?"
"Well then I guess I'd shoot the person." (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1609.html)
-
My fault, I'm better with wording in my mother tongue.
It is normally OK but in this debate it was exceedingly important since it was one of the topics.
English is not my mothertongue either it is slovak .
What is yours?
I meant Brahman (it means something like world-soul), not the god Brahma. Brahma is more or less a personification of Brahman (as god is of heaven). These personifications basically exist because they're easier to understand, but they're also easier to attack.
My error . But then , it is more a kind of pantheistic concept than the concrete deities we were looking at.
Yes, the interpretation was wrong, but at that time they clearly didn't want to change it because they feared a loss of power and not because they weren't able to believe it. Always keep in mind that the catholic church was a big political force at that time. You porbably won't see communists saying that communism is wrong or neoliberalists saying that free market is evil.
And you confuse Marx and Lenin. Marx said it's opium of the masses and they take it freely because their life is too hard. Lenin said it's opium for the masses and the priests give it to them for obedience stuff.
No, i do not - the ending was my addition - i only said it is as marx said opium of the masses and continuing with the original thought just as now. Sorry if it was inobvious.
Each interpretation is a religion in my understanding since just about every such text has countless interpretations. Catholics , orthodox and eg. husites all stem from one set of holy scripts.
A few weeks ago I saw a blog somewhere - I forget where. Anyway, there was a post and a series of comments about whether we possess free will or not. The discussion centred on the thought experiment of "would you shoot an innocent person, given no extenuating circumstances"? For the vast majority of us the answer is, instantly and incontrovertibly, no. The application to the free will question then is that if you are incapable of shooting this person, perhaps you don't actually possess the free will to actively decide to shoot them. Of course this invites the argument that, "Well, actually I could decide to shoot them, I just wouldn't." At which point the argument can go in circles for as long as the arguers enjoy it.
Someone raised the question, "Well if you have the free will to decide to shoot, but never actually do shoot, what's stopping you?"
Someone answered, "God."
"And what if God doesn't exist?"
"Well then I guess I'd shoot the person." (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1609.html)
The example is artificial and not something you experience. Secondly it is absurd since a reasonless decision is not free but random. The question can be abstracted as Would you do something without any reason? to see its full absurdity.
And besides the (probably christian)god which stopped one respondent from shooting a random person, there were historically, deities which would encourage such an action. On the contrary many such people would be glad to kill a 'heretic' or a 'sinner' which is equally stupid but directly encouraged by many religions (it is ordered in the old testament for example) (note - i am for death penalty but in cases where it is justified by extent of crime done)
Again i repeat. In reality religion does not force evil people not to do evil deeds, to the contrary it gives good people honorable reasons to commit abominable acts
-
PenPen is one of those militaristic atheists who feel the need to attack others believes because they are not their own, much like Christian monasteries throughout history.
No one is so zealous as a convert.
Grow up with and surrounded by asshole Christians and you'll be an asshole antichristian. It's science. Well, social science.
-
Pennelope probably feels betrayed by the people responsible for her early education.
-
Pennelope probably feels betrayed by the people responsible for her early education.
It's a classic reaction for a person who feels like they are given no choice to go against what they are forced to do, without asking themselves wether it was right or wrong in the first place.
In this case, Penelope feels like she was indoctrinated when she was younger and unable to form an informed opinion, and as soon as she realized this, she withdrew from that earlier education so far that she's no a vehement opposer. Ironically, if she hadn't been in such a heavily christian environment to start with, she either would be a "casual" atheist, or might even be a believer herself. Who knows .
-
It is normally OK but in this debate it was exceedingly important since it was one of the topics.
English is not my mothertongue either it is slovak .
What is yours?
Mine is German (actually Swiss German (if that's a difference is up to debate (BRACKETS YAY!))).
My error . But then , it is more a kind of pantheistic concept than the concrete deities we were looking at.
Not really. It's like god, except it isn't thought of as a person. I actually think more educated believers of any religion see god as something like Brahman.
The example is artificial and not something you experience.
It's a real person who wrote this, so yeah.
Secondly it is absurd since a reasonless decision is not free but random. The question can be abstracted as Would you do something without any reason? to see its full absurdity.
Who said it was a reasonless decision? I see that this person has another sort of reason than us two, but it's not completely reasonless. This person probably thinks that morals are given by god, therefore they are meaningless without god who is watching if you follow them. The assumption is not ours, but reason is reason.
And besides the (probably christian)god which stopped one respondent from shooting a random person, there were historically, deities which would encourage such an action.
Most of those, if not all, were exploited by the government, who mostly was the priests. Again, at that time priests were politicians.
On the contrary many such people would be glad to kill a 'heretic' or a 'sinner' which is equally stupid but directly encouraged by many religions (it is ordered in the old testament for example).
The only religions who have texts that encourage killing people for religious reasons are the abrahamic religions. They also have texts that say otherwise and it's often only practised by a tiny minority.
Again i repeat. In reality religion does not force evil people not to do evil deeds, to the contrary it gives good people honorable reasons to commit abominable acts
Are they good people if they do evil? It's only used as an excuse by evil people either a real excuse or as a psychological rationalisation). It's the same for the cause of their home country and other stuff.
-
It's a real person who wrote this, so yeah.
No but it is artificial in the sense that such situations do not occur. and the example that i stated are situations that do occur.
Who said it was a reasonless decision? I see that this person has another sort of reason than us two, but it's not completely reasonless. This person probably thinks that morals are given by god, therefore they are meaningless without god who is watching if you follow them. The assumption is not ours, but reason is reason.
You are not really answering. Shooting or not someone random with no information about him as an hypothetical
decision is a reasonless one because you lack information. I would not do it precisely for that reason - to do something i need some reason. external or internal. Killing someone just because one has an option to do so is just as stupid whether there are objective morals or not.
The only religions who have texts that encourage killing people for religious reasons are the abrahamic religions. They also have texts that say otherwise and it's often only practised by a tiny minority.
Then they are selfcontradictory nonsense! Believing a statement and its negation is the most primitive kind of logical error
Are they good people if they do evil? It's only used as an excuse by evil people either a real excuse or as a psychological rationalisation). It's the same for the cause of their home country and other stuff.
Anyone will do almost anything given right reasons. It is called brainwashing. For example it is not a problem for someone who devoutly believes in an afterlife (eg certain fundies) to execute people with little evidence (as is done in some US states) since in their belief God will sort them so those who were innocent will be rehabilitated post mortem,
Same with crusades.
This is an arbitrary example, but as long as you accept some ideas, many of these things follow logically. Those who tortured the heretics to admit the error in their ways often thought they are doing so to save their souls ie a good deed.
-
No but it is artificial in the sense that such situations do not occur. and the example that i stated are situations that do occur.
The end result is the same, this person follows certain morals because he believes that they are given by god. And it's impossible to say that such situations don't occur. Have you ever seen a history book that counts people who weren't killed?
You are not really answering. Shooting or not someone random with no information about him as an hypothetical
decision is a reasonless one because you lack information. I would not do it precisely for that reason - to do something i need some reason. external or internal. Killing someone just because one has an option to do so is just as stupid whether there are objective morals or not.
Is it a difference? As you say, a lack of reasons to shoot somebody is a reason not to shoot somebody. That's your reason. This person's reason is because god says so. And the situation isn't that hypothetical. There are many wars where innocent people have been killed for no real reason. In the Thirty Years' War, 3 or 4 million people were killed (of 17 million inhabitants in these regions, that's about 20 %), and a lot of these were farmers who didn't fight at all.
Then they are selfcontradictory nonsense! Believing a statement and its negation is the most primitive kind of logical error
It's good marketing, because everybody will quote what he wants to and forget the rest. I've also heard that the selfcontradictions apply to different situations, but I can't verify that.
Anyone will do almost anything given right reasons. It is called brainwashing. For example it is not a problem for someone who devoutly believes in an afterlife (eg certain fundies) to execute people with little evidence (as is done in some US states) since in their belief God will sort them so those who were innocent will be rehabilitated post mortem, Same with crusades.
This is an arbitrary example, but as long as you accept some ideas, many of these things follow logically. Those who tortured the heretics to admit the error in their ways often thought they are doing so to save their souls ie a good deed.
I don't believe real brainwashing (with torture, sleep-deprivation, etc.) is used by more than a tiny minority. It's psychologically evident that the desire to kill is a part of human nature. Some use religion as a rationalisation, some use other stuff.