Debate religion? Yes, please!

[Sally]

If there's something I can appreciate about most of the Jews I talk to, it's that few of them try to pull that "infallible word of the Lord" crap.

Reform Jews, sometimes Conservative Jews, yes. Don't ask an ultraorthodox Jew, and stay away from the Hasids. :lol:

Re the concept of many other worlds being spun off by a god (God), I can't produce incredulity artificially

Maybe as a Reform Jew, or maybe simply as me, it doesn't stretch credulity at all for me, or for other Reform Jews I know. However, what those worlds would look like (intelligent/conversational/whatever) is up for grabs and that doesn't really concern me. I live in this world.

my perception of any biblical reference to anything "hellish" is already polluted by confirmation bias.

Yours and every other intelligent, at-least-previously-Christian person I've talked with. Once the concept of an actual hell is learned (somehow), that bias is there. There's also the fact that at-least-previously etc. tend to conflate the Torah/Tanakh (which is the Torah, the prophets, and the other writings) with the Christian bible, so they are thought of as one book, in which Christians have simply developed the concept of hell a bit more than the Jews did. Nope. Christians have accreted some of the Tanakh; Jews have not done so with the New Testament. Our book's been complete for a long time.

I CAN expunge some peoples' beliefs with logic (I've done it before quite a few times). Whether or not I can convince you is one thing, but something I notice with your argumentation is that you assume other people approach faith like you do.

Actually, I don't assume that; I know very well that many don't (even if I hadn't read anything else in my life or talked with others for years, a reading of AVEN threads would tell me that). The only way I can be convinced is by my own mind's peregrinations (sp?). I don't really want my beliefs, as you say your mother does; they are just there, and the fact that they are illogical is neither here nor there.

A. there ARE types beliefs that can be demonstrated. Religious ones are not such beliefs in my experience

Aha! I should have specified that I meant religious beliefs. I can't give you a demonstration, and I challenge anyone to do so.

B. God could also be easily proven, if it just showed up in a manner that couldn't be written off as subjective hysteria.

Ha. I'm about as far from hysteria in my beliefs as you can get. But so far, I have not seen God show up anywhere.

D. I'd like to think that there are people who care whether their beliefs are true, not whether their beliefs are sincere.

Mine are true for me. I leave the rest of the world to their own determination, and I hope they do the same for me.

And yes, people believing in religions are deluding themselves. Just as crazy people believing they're Napoleon are delusional. That's just a matter of fact (And yes, i know, absolute truths exist only in mathematics).

That wasn't me who said that -- just wanted to confirm that, since the other comments you've replied to are from me.

As for miracles, a miracle is commonly defined as a suspension of the natural order. All one would need to demonstrate is that something in nature is, in fact, in nature for it to no longer be defined as miraculous.

I don't do miracles -- Judaism isn't a miracle religion -- aside from Moses leading the Hebrews from Egypt, which happened (if it did, and it likely did) across the Reed Sea, not the Red Sea; the Reed Sea was considerably smaller and the tides could have allowed them to cross.

My first statement regards the Code of Hammurabi, which came before the Old Testament from the hands of an obviously non-Jewish leader, and the law code is much more in line with modern secularism than the Mitzvot is.

Some of the law contained in the Torah (which is primarily a book of law) was a rewrite of other civilizations' laws. (The separate laws are called commandments, not generally mitzvot, in conversation. Hebrew words take on different meanings in different contexts, which is only one of the reasons why it's such a horrible language to learn. Mitzvot is the plural; mitzvah is the singular -- they're a group of laws, not a book)

The most progressive and egalitarian societies currently on the planet exist in Europe (primarily in Scandinavia), where a majority of citizens are non-theists. Religious beliefs are entirely separated from political discourse and kept out of moral discussions, and those places are objectively more awesome than anyone else on the planet can hope to be. If God had inspired that group of humans, it would have inspired them in a way that promoted human rights, conversation, skepticism, and tolerance. As one can clearly see by reading the Jewish Law, that didn't really work.

Another misconception that's caused by not knowing much about Judaism. The laws in the Torah, starting in about 250 CE (common era), underwent interpretation by a series of rabbis over the next several hundred years. The final compilation of interpretations of interpretations of interpretations comprises the Talmud. Many of what Christians see as draconian practices in the Torah were not carried out from that point on. Rabbis all over the world communicated with each other about those interpretations during all those centuries. Judaism is not a fixed theological story like Christianity; it's an interpretative ethical philosophy with God at its center.

When we discuss/debate religion and we're talking about specific religions or religious doctrine/principles, I think we should be careful about making assumptions. The differences between various religious traditions are so great that if you start from one point (and that point is usually Christianity, as it has been the triumphalist religion of the world for 2,000 years), you will miss a lot and misinterpret a lot.

It's entirely possible that Islam is in the process of becoming the new triumphalist religion. It has positioned itself to do so, since it has accreted some Jewish traditions and honors Jesus as a prophet. But being triumphalist means, inevitably, "better than the ones before". Therein the danger lies. Christianity marginalized Judaism through the power of the Church; I don't know if that will happen with Islam and Christianity. If it does, non-deists/atheists will not remain outside the fray.

[BadKarma]

I can sum up my response to most of your previous post with this: thank you for your responses, and I have little criticism for them. The ones I do have will be the ones I now quote:

Ha. I'm about as far from hysteria in my beliefs as you can get. But so far, I have not seen God show up anywhere.

I feel there's an equivocation here that I need to dispel. I'm not saying 'hysteria' in the sense that one becomes psychotic or overcome with laughter or the like. I mean it in its most basic sense of emotional excess. Ex: a person sees a stained glass window on a church and is overcome with euphoria at the sight of the evening sun hitting the panels. They interpret this overwhelming tingly feeling as a personal experience with God, when the proper response would be to note that it's a very nice window and that the sun looks particularly stunning that evening, and that there's most probably nothing more happening than that.

That wasn't me who said that -- just wanted to confirm that, since the other comments you've replied to are from me.

I am aware of this, which is why I used Human's handle in that response. :)

I don't do miracles -- Judaism isn't a miracle religion -- aside from Moses leading the Hebrews from Egypt, which happened (if it did, and it likely did) across the Reed Sea, not the Red Sea; the Reed Sea was considerably smaller and the tides could have allowed them to cross.

Not a miracle religion? Noah.

But anyway, the Exodus likely didn't happen. Even if one is to discount all actual miracles and focus only on the "Jews were there, then they left" part, it just doesn't hold up. There's no evidence, historical or archaeological, to conclude that Moses even existed, and there are no respectable notions of a Jewish exodus in Egyptian records of the time, who were, by the way, pretty fantastic record-keepers. The demographics of the fleeing Israelites would have possibly formed a line 130 miles long, and even if you account for possible mistranslation of numerical strength, there's no archaeological evidence that the Sinai Desert hosted such an event. In fact, archaeological findings proclaim indigenous origins of the Israelites to be quite insurmountable, and the probability that they originated from Canaan is far more likely than the Egyptian exodus. The story is also somewhat anachronistic, in accounts with political treaties and nomenclature between the first and second millennium B.C., so there's that issue.

Is it possible that there was actually a Moses character taking the Jews from Egypt? Yes, I suppose it's possible. Nevertheless, they left no artifacts of their travels or their stay in Egypt, despite there being clear reason to believe such record would be there, the story has scant historical basis, and it points against all currently known archaeological information of that area. I'm too lazy right now to go and pull up all of the sources for these assertions of mine, but I do have them... If you want me to, I can list them for you, and I understand why you'd ask for them, but I'd implore you instead to research it yourself if you're keen on figuring out the historicity of the Exodus.

Some of the law contained in the Torah (which is primarily a book of law) was a rewrite of other civilizations' laws. (The separate laws are called commandments, not generally mitzvot, in conversation. Hebrew words take on different meanings in different contexts, which is only one of the reasons why it's such a horrible language to learn. Mitzvot is the plural; mitzvah is the singular -- they're a group of laws, not a book)

I know it's the plural, and that's how I was trying to use it. And for the record, if you're admitting that part of the Law was taken from other civilizations, I'd dare say that's directly contradictory with your previous claim that God inspired it. If God inspired only part of it, which part did He inspire? Why not all of it? For that matter, if He is so truly omniscient, why didn't he inspire them to write a transcendent Law that far exceeded anything in that era or even anything today? Surely an omniscient being wouldn't try to endorse things like killing "witches" or forcing rape victims to marry their rapists while condemning cross-dressing, promoting silly dietary laws and animal sacrifices, and declaring that the cure to leprosy (or general skin conditions, depending on translation accuracy) is to kill a bunch of birds and a lamb, sprinkle the blood on a leper, and cover their ear, thumb, and big toe with oil?

I mean, ESPECIALLY that last part. If it was an omniscient God, wouldn't the deity have some remote grasp of how its own bacteria/viruses worked?

This law code is not all that terrible. It really isn't; most of it's humdrum and some stuff is good advice, even today. But other stuff is just lulzy, and some things are outright heinous and inexcusable. Is the response to this that those are the parts taken from other countries? Or that the Jews didn't write down the correct stuff? Because if it's either of those things, why didn't God help to correct their errors, knowing that not doing so would cause major issues for many centuries? I won't set up any more rhetorical conclusions, because I'd like to hear your response regarding why an omniscient God would feel it reasonable to treat women (especially rape victims) like property, forbid shellfish and bacon (despite those two things being some of the best food ever), and cure leprosy with a literal bloodbath.

Another misconception that's caused by not knowing much about Judaism. The laws in the Torah, starting in about 250 CE (common era), underwent interpretation by a series of rabbis over the next several hundred years. The final compilation of interpretations of interpretations of interpretations comprises the Talmud. Many of what Christians see as draconian practices in the Torah were not carried out from that point on. Rabbis all over the world communicated with each other about those interpretations during all those centuries. Judaism is not a fixed theological story like Christianity; it's an interpretative ethical philosophy with God at its center.

A. I know of the Talmud. That was still quite a long time ago.

B. I still question how the philosophy can be interpretive if it is also inspired by God. And if that inspiration is only esoteric, what's to say that the God doesn't exist at all and people are just doing it themselves?

When we discuss/debate religion and we're talking about specific religions or religious doctrine/principles, I think we should be careful about making assumptions. The differences between various religious traditions are so great that if you start from one point (and that point is usually Christianity, as it has been the triumphalist religion of the world for 2,000 years), you will miss a lot and misinterpret a lot.

Agreed. But while we're on that subject of not making assumptions, note that Christians can also claim that theirs is an interpretive ethical philosophy, and they've had many councils on that matter as well. My whole issue when saying that secularism is discussed and religion is not is that secularism is discussed CONSTANTLY by EVERYONE. I'm fully aware that religions are capable of modern progress, but their written codes of behavior are brought about in segmented fashions by clergymen.

It's entirely possible that Islam is in the process of becoming the new triumphalist religion. It has positioned itself to do so, since it has accreted some Jewish traditions and honors Jesus as a prophet. But being triumphalist means, inevitably, "better than the ones before". Therein the danger lies. Christianity marginalized Judaism through the power of the Church; I don't know if that will happen with Islam and Christianity. If it does, non-deists/atheists will not remain outside the fray.

I prefer to consider that the secular nations have more power and more stability than any theocratic ones, and that if the Islamic nations actually do band together to declare war, it's not going to result in them being triumphant. It's either going to result in those nations being wiped out, or the planet going up in nuclear fire.

But I prefer even more to consider that reason will defeat dogma (not necessarily religion, but certainly widespread fundamentalist ideologies), and that in an increasingly connected and educated world, even the more backwards Islamic nations (because places like Bangladesh and Egypt aren't all too terrible) are losing civilian support.

I do have to ask this, though, since I see you constantly using it in an improper manner. Do you actually know what deism is? I believe what you meant to say was "non-theists", because deists are non-theists and almost entirely indistinguishable in behavior from atheists.

Second question... I realize I type a lot of things. A very large lot. You have only critiqued/replied to certain parts of these long posts (especially the earlier ones, before we started focusing on Jewish theology), and I understand that it would be very time-consuming to remark on everything. So, by not commenting on those other parts, is that an implication that you already agreed with me, that you have no answer for the statements and concede them through silence, that you disagree but didn't notice them/have the time to respond, or something else entirely?

[Human]

I'm not certain (truly, I'm not) whether any religious belief can be tested. There's no test for the existence or non-existence of God, especially since there are innumerable concepts of what God consists of. There's no test for whether miracles happened or not, because those events are in the past (thousands or years or even weeks) and if someone feels that an occurrence of nature is a miracle, how can you prove that isn't the case?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If, for example, your religion claims that people have souls or that some people spoke to a god, you better have some very good evidence to convince me. And that evidence has not been found. And yes, the existence of god or gods cannot be tested. Just like the crazy person's claim that he's reincarnated Napoleon can't be tested. But the interactions those gods have with the natural world (Eg. miracles, answering to prayers, historical claims, etc...) can be tested.

I believe that God inspired a certain group of humans to produce a series of behavioral laws which have shown subsequent human beings how best to live on the earth in community together. How can you disprove that? I don't believe that God takes particular interest in every single moment of every single life; we've got the instruction book (the Torah for Jews) and we've got brains, so we should do the best we can. Others believe in a personal God. How can you prove any of that?

I can't disprove that. Just as i can't disprove the crazy person's claim that he's reincarnated Napoleon. Don't shift the burden of proof.

If you can't prove your beliefs they are as irrelevant as the pseudo-Napoleon. With the difference that you are most propably not demonstrably mentally ill. Religion is one of few things that can make perfectly non-crazy people delusional.

We're dealing with beliefs, which an emotional constructs, not factual constructs. Delusions, to me, indicate a disordered state of mind -- they're most often connected with schizophrenia. Some untreated schizophrenia manifests in religious delusions that result in disturbing behavior. Religious belief doesn't always do so.

Yes, religious belief is not always result of mental illness. But it's still a delusion (And yes, for the hundredth time, i know that absolute truths only exist in mathematics so technically i'm only talking about propabilities).

EDIT: And religions are most certainly "factual" constructions. At least they try very hard to be. Religions make testable claims about reality. Those claims have not been proven. Therefore religions are as irrelevant as eg. aether theories of physics.

[Andrew Barnes]

Oh, and let's keep it civil here. No name-calling or anything... And if someone critiques your worldview or points out fallacies, that doesn't mean they're attacking you. Actually, I'm gonna set up a few rules:

1. If you come in here to argue a point, expect to have that point assailed, no matter who you are (including atheists; expect the religious/spiritual people to critique you).

2. Don't get angry if someone points out your wrongness. Either demonstrate that you're not wrong, adjust your current worldview, or leave quietly.

no problem. although question the need to state basics of civil discourse.

3. If a premise in any argument is demonstrated to be indefensible or false, and that premise was the only thing validating another statement, don't use that other statement. Ex. If you are arguing for intelligent design and you use the "irreducible complexity" argument from Michael Behe, do not continue to argue other things based on it when I show you the piles of research papers that disprove this claim.

and who exactly is to be the judge of whether or not something has been demonstrated to be false?

just because you may have found 'piles of research' that supports your view (on any subject), doesn't mean that it will satisfy the proposer of the alternate view. why, then, should the other cease to hold and argue their position? because you say you can show they are wrong??

If you make a claim, back it up; don't say that the other person can't disprove what you said.

surely a major position when debating the validity of belief! even in science, any hypothesis carries import until it has been shown to be disproved. the starting point of any experiment is for the scientist to attempt to disprove the hypothesis, not prove it.

5. Refrain from any personal attacks, please.

6. Don't be afraid to call out a fallacy. Be prepared to prove why it's applicable if challenged, of course, but otherwise let the fallacy accusations fly!

7. Please don't come in and state "I believe in this" and then walk away. That's for those other threads that I'm trying to stay out of. This thread is for actually discussing beliefs, not for proclaiming them.

8. Remember, it is not a bad thing to admit wrongness. Obviously we all think we're right, or we wouldn't have our independent worldviews, but just because something you once thought has been debunked, that doesn't mean you're a bad or a stupid person. It just meant that you were wrong. We're all wrong all the time about a great many things; those who never admit wrongness can never be right.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Have fun while you're here. Laugh a little! We're all gonna die far too soon to bother being angry about it.

no argument. good points.

i stated earlier that i felt to set rules from a scientific standpoint was questionable. i stand corrected and concede that the rules set forth were more 'logical'. do still have some problem about 'logical' as all logic is actually subjective. one persons logic is not another's and there is no 'right' or 'wrong' logic. all is a matter of opinion.

so my question as to whether setting 'rules' was neccessary or showed good netiquette still stands. at best the 'rules' of a debate, where not universally recognised, and as such, in no need of reiteration, should needs be agreed beforehand and not dictated.

anyhow. enough of pedantics.

recent tweet from BuddhistNow - Our views and opinions are irrelevant — stay with the awareness. Zen Graffiti

1. No, actually. I consider myself a Zen Buddhist in a philosophical sense. I reject any spiritual aspects of it as unfounded, but Buddhism still has a pretty neat philosophy.

respect. and apologies for my little aside at calling your avatar/username 'sarcastic dig'. as buddha himself taught. do not accept anything until we have 'experienced' the the truth outselves. if your mode of 'experiencing' the truth is through empirical validation, that is as valid an approach as any other. for myself, i question whether empirical evidence is the only valid 'proof' of truth.

2. Regarding scientific truths: One should have a good reason to believe that explanations of the past will somehow not be relevant in the future.

the process of perception takes time. this is true for all modes of perception. we know that the light we see from a star is not the star in it's present state because we can only perceive the light that left it however many millions of lightyears ago. therefore, we cannot know what it is like now, or even that it exists. we may be able to say what it would be and will be in the future under given conditions but we have no way of knowing if there have been any unknown changes or events that would make the predictions false. the same is true of all perceptions, however near immediate. of course in all probability things will be as we expect them based on our combined memory of similar stimulus. the point i make is that, in an absolute sense, we cannot know. to say that we know something simply because we don't know of any reason why it wouldn't be so is not really knowing anything, in an absolute sense. and here is the point of my argument. no-one, ultimately, can know anything for sure. therefore, any attempt to disprove or prove anything, including the existence of god, gods, or the spiritual is impossible.there are many, different and contradictory relative truths. none are ultimate or absolute, and therefore, all are ewqually valid.

3. You misunderstand terminology. A scientific fact is something that is clearly observable and non-specific. It is a scientific fact that light exists. A scientific theory is a framework of observations and results used to gain insight into a scientific fact. Relativity is a scientific theory, and it can be altered or outright refuted (and if you're discussing the faster-than-normal-light neutrino, note that neutrinos are also massless particles, and that they do not violate any relativistic understandings).

Likewise, it is not a scientific fact that humans are the only toolmakers (although it is a fact that they are toolmakers, it's never been a fact that they can be or are the only ones), and such an observation had nothing to do with "accelerated evolution", which makes little sense from a biological perspective. We're just as evolved as any other organism currently on this planet. Believing that we're more advanced simply because we have technological prowess is an example of the anthropic principle.

for a 'scientific fact' to be observable, there must be an observer. it is therefore observed. it is therefore a perception. it is therefore relative and subjective. it is therefore not ultimate or objective. light only exists in that it is perceived by all beings with the visual organs to perceive it. this doesn't mean it exists. it only means there is something we perceive as light.

ii don't contend that humans are the only toolmakers. i make the point that until we observed other creatures making tools, it was accepted as scientific fact - at that time in the past. illustratiung the point that any so-called 'fact' tofday is always subject to change and to be proved as false. therefore it cannot be said that anything is ultimately an irrefutable 'fact'. only tha something cannot currently be refutted.

4. Intelligent design is not a theory. It's a hypothesis. A theory, like I said, is a framework of observations and results. ID has none of this. And even if there are "large holes in the theory", it is both an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy to jump to the conclusion that ID can answer those things. I'm glad you don't jump all the way to the assertion that there is a designerless designer (lolinfiniteregression), but you're equivocating chemistry with intelligence. Intelligence is being able to do something that you're capable of doing. Chemistry is doing something that you're programmed to do. Even humans are ruled by instinct and chemistry, but we can break free of those shackles. A planet photosynthesizing, however, is not intelligent. It's an organism without a shred of intelligence that's developed in a way that it's chemically compelled to do that. I take note of your single quotations regarding usage of that word and assume it means that you realize the difference between biological processes and abstract reasoning, but if you do, there's no reason to call it intelligence. Life is astoundingly awesome and brilliantly developed, but almost none of it could pass as intelligent.

difficult one to elucidate here. i don't accept a process as a reason. just as, for me, evolution is process by which live changes, but not the volition, reason, or the 'why' if you will, so as with the chemistry of life. just because we can show the cause and effect, this doesn't satisft my desire to know what the underlying 'why' of it is.

this equally points to my rebuttal of later discussion of the experiences of meditation. neuropsyschology can show the 'what' happens in meditation, but this doesn't cover the 'why' for me.

5. When I meditate, I feel peaceful and euphoric. It occasionally gives me what I consider to be a great sense of insight or power, and it makes my body tingle. And yes, I can explain the entire thing through neuroscience (well, I personally can't because I'm not a neuroscientist, but there ARE perfectly good explanations for all of it). Mental states are well-observed neurological phenomena. I can't actually prove to another person my own subjective experience, but I can understand how that subjective experience came about without believing that it's actually my enlightened spirit.

see above.

6. Yes, I've read Plato. No, I don't accept his analysis. While one cannot know with 100% certainty any thing, separate, clear methods of mostly objective observation regarding a natural phenomenon can provide an understanding of that phenomenon so accurate that it makes no noticeable difference. If we measure that light is being red-shifted in the universe, and that galaxies are moving out in all directions, this is not something that can be "100% proven". But it is something for which there is overwhelming, independently verified, consistently demonstrable evidence of such a magnitude that only a lunatic could say "No, the galaxies are moving closer to us." They may somehow be correct, but reason and observation tells us that this most certainly is not so.

i'm hoping my previous comments on the difference between relative and ultimate/absolute truth would suffice here.

as an aside, i too have reservations on plato. i particularly struggle with his position on the role of relationships, women and children in his 'ideal' society. anyhow. he does make some good conjectures though. 'the cave' comes to mind as another basic way of illustrating my main point of relative vs. ultimate.

time now presses me on so will return to continue post tomorrow, if you'll still have me :-)

metta.

A

[BadKarma]

1. If you come in here to argue a point, expect to have that point assailed, no matter who you are (including atheists; expect the religious/spiritual people to critique you).

2. Don't get angry if someone points out your wrongness. Either demonstrate that you're not wrong, adjust your current worldview, or leave quietly.

no problem. although question the need to state basics of civil discourse.

I wish I didn't need to do that, but it's something that should always be said when discussing religion/spirituality. Some people can get very offended very quickly for bad reasons.

3. If a premise in any argument is demonstrated to be indefensible or false, and that premise was the only thing validating another statement, don't use that other statement. Ex. If you are arguing for intelligent design and you use the "irreducible complexity" argument from Michael Behe, do not continue to argue other things based on it when I show you the piles of research papers that disprove this claim.

and who exactly is to be the judge of whether or not something has been demonstrated to be false?

just because you may have found 'piles of research' that supports your view (on any subject), doesn't mean that it will satisfy the proposer of the alternate view. why, then, should the other cease to hold and argue their position? because you say you can show they are wrong??

Yup. If I can show a person that they're wrong, they should stop being wrong about that thing. That's how rational people work. When someone shows me I'm wrong, I go "Whoops! I'm wrong!" and then I stop doing it. If someone wants to argue untruths and nonsense, that's their prerogative. They don't have to listen to me. But they absolutely should, if they ever want to expand their knowledge.

And the judge of whether something has been demonstrated to be false is the scientist (or in the case of IR, the legions of scientists) whose job it is to determine what's right and wrong.

If you make a claim, back it up; don't say that the other person can't disprove what you said.

surely a major position when debating the validity of belief! even in science, any hypothesis carries import until it has been shown to be disproved. the starting point of any experiment is for the scientist to attempt to disprove the hypothesis, not prove it.

No. The starting point for a scientist who's made a hypothesis is to gather observations without trying to prove it true OR false, so as to avoid confirmation bias. Then, once they've gathered enough evidence, they determine whether their hypothesis was correct. Then, if they think it probably is, they present it to the community to allow cross-examination. Nobody ever allows an unproven hypothesis into the community, and no respectable scientist would ever provide one.

While I accept that a scientist running a test will set it up in such a way as to challenge their hypothesis and avoid potential confirmation bias, that is not the same as "attempting to disprove the hypothesis". It just isn't.

5. Refrain from any personal attacks, please.

6. Don't be afraid to call out a fallacy. Be prepared to prove why it's applicable if challenged, of course, but otherwise let the fallacy accusations fly!

7. Please don't come in and state "I believe in this" and then walk away. That's for those other threads that I'm trying to stay out of. This thread is for actually discussing beliefs, not for proclaiming them.

8. Remember, it is not a bad thing to admit wrongness. Obviously we all think we're right, or we wouldn't have our independent worldviews, but just because something you once thought has been debunked, that doesn't mean you're a bad or a stupid person. It just meant that you were wrong. We're all wrong all the time about a great many things; those who never admit wrongness can never be right.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Have fun while you're here. Laugh a little! We're all gonna die far too soon to bother being angry about it.

no argument. good points.

i stated earlier that i felt to set rules from a scientific standpoint was questionable. i stand corrected and concede that the rules set forth were more 'logical'. do still have some problem about 'logical' as all logic is actually subjective. one persons logic is not another's and there is no 'right' or 'wrong' logic. all is a matter of opinion.

so my question as to whether setting 'rules' was neccessary or showed good netiquette still stands. at best the 'rules' of a debate, where not universally recognised, and as such, in no need of reiteration, should needs be agreed beforehand and not dictated.

Disagreed. Logic is only "subjective" in the sense that we're thinking about it, but the process is based on mathematical logical absolutes and deductive reasoning. Fallacies are any holes in logic when one inducts instead of deducting, and logic forbids a person from saying A=B unless they can properly demonstrate it. Again, if a person wishes to argue nonsense, fine, but after many thousands of years, we've been able to come up with a pretty darn good methodology of thought that avoids pitfalls of induction and assertion and allows people to find the closest thing they can get to "truth". If a person does not subscribe to how logic works, I'm not going to try to silence them, but I am most certainly going to scold them.

respect. and apologies for my little aside at calling your avatar/username 'sarcastic dig'. as buddha himself taught. do not accept anything until we have 'experienced' the the truth outselves. if your mode of 'experiencing' the truth is through empirical validation, that is as valid an approach as any other. for myself, i question whether empirical evidence is the only valid 'proof' of truth.

It's all good, man. And to make this clear (my worldview, that is), this is how I behave as a material naturalist:

1. If I believe something, I look for supporting evidence. Personal experience is important, but it is also important to note that wrongness finds much more ground when it's personally founded.

2. Anything that is studied and continually tested by the scientific elite is something that I will accept. I will also try to research it myself if I can, but some stuff requires far more technology or time than I have to dedicate.

3. If I believe something that is shown to be at complete odds with supporting evidence, I do not simply discard it as untrue. I accept the other evidence as the closest to "objective truth" as I think we can get, and further accept that what I first believed should not be held onto unless I can find more support for it.

4. I try to avoid believing in anything that is unfalsifiable or anything that is incongruous with modern scientific understandings. I accept those things as possibilities, but they are otherwise irrelevant. Ex. I don't believe in invisible levitating panda spirits that create good emotions. Is this somehow "possible"? In the strictest sense of the word, yes, but such a belief cannot be tested AND it cannot exist in the universe as we currently know it.

I respect the philosophy that one should experience truth themselves, as it is a method of avoiding brainwashing or propaganda techniques. That being said, the man was born in a time and place devoid of scientific inquiry, and I doubt he would have continued his philosophy with the understanding that there was some way to test reality in a way that nearly confirms its truth value or not.

For that reason, I don't accept the "valid approach" part. There are definitely better ways of determining what you believe is true than, let's say, having a dream about it and then deciding that that dream was an experiential premonition. It's a good way to avoid being spoonfed by others, but it's not a good way to avoid being spoonfed by oneself.

As for empirical evidence being the only valid 'proof' of truth, I don't think that's true. To assert that it's the only way to possibly ever learn is arrogant. However, it has been constantly demonstrated as the best way of validating reality. Consider that you're currently living in a country that is stable with a functioning economy, and you're typing on an electronic superbox connected to an international mainframe of digital information spread through electromagnetic currents allowing you to talk with people thousands of miles away as you live four times longer than most humans ever do, drinking clean water while possibly having the overhead lights on. All of that is the fruit of science, not the fruit of personal enlightenment. I think it's a darn great thing if someone can be at peace with themselves, since that's a more comfortable way to live, but there most certainly are ways of looking at reality that are more fruitful than others.

the process of perception takes time. this is true for all modes of perception. we know that the light we see from a star is not the star in it's present state because we can only perceive the light that left it however many millions of lightyears ago. therefore, we cannot know what it is like now, or even that it exists. we may be able to say what it would be and will be in the future under given conditions but we have no way of knowing if there have been any unknown changes or events that would make the predictions false. the same is true of all perceptions, however near immediate. of course in all probability things will be as we expect them based on our combined memory of similar stimulus. the point i make is that, in an absolute sense, we cannot know. to say that we know something simply because we don't know of any reason why it wouldn't be so is not really knowing anything, in an absolute sense. and here is the point of my argument. no-one, ultimately, can know anything for sure. therefore, any attempt to disprove or prove anything, including the existence of god, gods, or the spiritual is impossible.there are many, different and contradictory relative truths. none are ultimate or absolute, and therefore, all are ewqually valid.

That is (and I realize how hilarious this is atm) the Nirvana fallacy- rejecting solutions to problems because the solutions are not 100% perfect.

I do not disagree with you that we absolutely cannot disprove or prove anything. Even things, as I said, that are logically incapable of existing in reality may be illogically capable of it because somewhere the Law of Identity is not a law at all. Nevertheless, one can get pretty close to understanding. If I'm put in a situation where someone shows me that a position of mine is wrong, I don't wait for them to prove it 100%, because they can't. But if they can show me enough reason to think that their position is 99% probably correct, and that my position is only 1% probably correct, I will, in fact, default to the position that has the supporting evidence. I'm not actually interested in learning absolute truths; I'm interested in learning probably absolute truths with the understanding that some of them are so close to 100% as makes no real difference.

If you're not interested in that, I accept that it's your choice to do so. But we do have a modern methodology of observing truth that is pretty darn concise.

for a 'scientific fact' to be observable, there must be an observer (1). it is therefore observed(2). it is therefore a perception. it is therefore relative and subjective(3). it is therefore not ultimate or objective. light only exists in that it is perceived by all beings with the visual organs to perceive it(4). this doesn't mean it exists. it only means there is something we perceive as light.

ii don't contend that humans are the only toolmakers. i make the point that until we observed other creatures making tools, it was accepted as scientific fact - at that time in the past. illustratiung the point that any so-called 'fact' tofday is always subject to change and to be proved as false. therefore it cannot be said that anything is ultimately an irrefutable 'fact'. only tha something cannot currently be refutted.

And I'm saying that human tool usage wasn't accepted as scientific fact. It might have been accepted as layman's fact, but such a statement is too specific to be a scientific one (they're very careful with what they call 'fact', after all). Scientific fact deals in existential proofs and near absolute understandings, not in things we have yet to learn more about. "Light exists" is a scientific fact. "Light exists and is moving at 3.0 x 10^8mps" is a scientific law. "Light is the only thing that moves that fast" is NOT a scientific fact, because it's specific and falsifiable. That's when it becomes a hypothesis/theory. It may well be a layman's fact that only light moves that fast, but that statement would never be called scientific fact. It would be called the Theory of Relativity, and theories are simply frameworks to understand observations.

Your above string, however, is quite riddled with fallacy. I've made footnotes for each one in the above quote to list and explain them here:

1. Fallacy of division: Observations require observers. All observations are observable things. Therefore, all observable things require observers.

This is false because of the Law of Identity. In a universe where there are no humans, a rock is still a rock. It just isn't called a rock. It is nevertheless observable if an observer were to come around.

This is also begging the question, because the proper premise to write is "For a scientific fact to be observable, it must be an observable thing."

2. Fallacy of composition: Observed things are all observed. All observed things are observable things. Therefore, all observable things are observed.

This is a hasty generalization that does not take into account that things we have not witnessed are still either there or not there, whether we like it or not.

3. Fallacy of equivocation: Observations of observable things are perceptions. All perceptions are individually subjective. Therefore, all observable things are subjective.

There are multiple different definitions for those two words, and multiple ways to avoid subjectivity. A machine that measures the frequency of sound, let's say, is doing it regardless of any observer. Those who perceive the results have a subjective understanding of it, but the results themselves are not subjective. They only need to be validated by other external observers to conclude that the results are objective.

4. Vacuous truth: We know light exists because we perceive it.

This is potentially true, but it says nothing about whether or not light exists WITHOUT observers (although it most certainly does, because we can test its existence). It implies the patently false concept that if light cannot be perceived, then it doesn't exist. In a universe without observers, that universe would still exist. Even in this universe, we see light coming from hundreds of millions of light years away. We may be able to see that light, but if we didn't see it, that does not mean that it was not being expelled from each individual star a few billion years ago. We can definitely know that all of the photons which went everywhere EXCEPT Earth are still there.

I liked your syllogism from an entertainment standpoint, but it just doesn't hold up. Something exists or doesn't exist regardless of if it can be seen or not seen. An observer for an observable fact is not a requirement for that fact to be fact.

Green-colored edit (because I just remembered to mention this)!

I daresay using light is a bad example to demonstrate your claim (a very bad one). The reason we can see light is because it already existed and we evolved many various apparatuses to sense it. If the light only existed because we could see it, then we would have never developed eyes because a supposed prerequisite of light's existence would be the observation of it; it would be a literal Catch-22 paradox. Yours is a self-defeating assertion even without the fallacy; light must have existed prior to observation in order for there to be observers, or those observers would have never developed organs to pick up on it. This this is not an opinion or a philosophical assertion. This is demonstrable, unalterable truth, and therefore all antitheses of this truth must be false. I will now rephrase your conclusion:

Visual organs in beings exist only because there was light to provoke the evolution of such organs. This means light must exist with or without observers. It does not mean--nor can it possibly ever mean--that we simply perceive an illusion that we call light.

In fact, I'd dare go so far as to say that the existence of light is purely objective, for the ability to perceive it is contingent on its preexistence in any sane, causative universe. Of course, in a universe where effect precedes cause (or a universe where everything is magically made at the same time), this may not be true, but our universe is certainly not such a place. The existence of light in this particular cosmos is a perfect example of an absolute truth--something that could only be false if there WASN'T something to observe it--for subjective visual perception itself (which clearly exists in any philosophy) is only a byproduct of electromagnetism's prior presence.

difficult one to elucidate here. i don't accept a process as a reason. just as, for me, evolution is process by which live changes, but not the volition, reason, or the 'why' if you will, so as with the chemistry of life. just because we can show the cause and effect, this doesn't satisft my desire to know what the underlying 'why' of it is.

this equally points to my rebuttal of later discussion of the experiences of meditation. neuropsyschology can show the 'what' happens in meditation, but this doesn't cover the 'why' for me.

The process is what we observe. The reason is what we're trying to understand. Evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a framework to figure out the reason behind that fact. It happens because life finds a way to cope with nature, and natural selection is a good way to cope. That's the why. Life evolves because life is chemically designed to perpetuate itself, and evolution by natural selection is apparently the best and simplest way it figured out how to do that.

Again, the word I think you want is 'wherefore', the PURPOSE behind something. 'Why' is answered by the 'how', and the 'how' is the causative process from a 'what' to another 'what'. That being said, there's no reason to think there's a reason. I understand that it's a very human action to want a reason for an event, but just because we want it does not mean it exists. Again, something exists or doesn't regardless of if it has observers to validate its existence/nonexistence.

i'm hoping my previous comments on the difference between relative and ultimate/absolute truth would suffice here.

as an aside, i too have reservations on plato. i particularly struggle with his position on the role of relationships, women and children in his 'ideal' society. anyhow. he does make some good conjectures though. 'the cave' comes to mind as another basic way of illustrating my main point of relative vs. ultimate.

time now presses me on so will return to continue post tomorrow, if you'll still have me :-)

metta.

A

It doesn't suffice. If relative, nearly absolute truths are the best we can get, then we should take them over relative untruths. Holding out for a perfect solution that never comes is, again, the Nirvana Fallacy.

Furthermore, I rejected the Cave Analogy very quickly when it was evident that a "higher realm" is apparently unattainable, and when it was further evident that Plato provided no adequate explanation for why one should assume that everyone is looking at shadows instead of just assuming that we're already all looking at that higher realm. Both assumptions have the same degree of intellectual clout (which is to say that neither of them is supported by anything other than personal assertion).

Independent, reinforcing observation is the best current method we have of breaking ourselves free of any individual subjective realities. When three hundred thousand people all test something and all come to the same conclusion multiple times, their individual observations are still subjective, but the cumulative results are as objective as we have yet gotten in the history of our species.

And of course I'll still have you. I like talking; it isn't as relevant to me whether we convince each other, because the entertainment for me comes from arguing in the first place.

[Hap2]

BadKarma, you do not seem able to get out of a particular notion, not every kind of language is purely logical or scientific, and simply because you can dissect it as such does not necessarily make it so. A hammer is a fine thing, but one would not use it for neurosurgery, no? Just as one aspect can captivate our curiosity, but one should not take it to be the end to all aspects, just because it captivates us so.

Until you somehow recognize that notion and just how pervasive it can be, then I believe most of your efforts here will be, for the most part, fruitless.

[Henny]

Until you somehow recognize that notion and just how pervasive it can be, then I believe most of your efforts here will be, for the most part, fruitless.

I wonder why...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YxvZBqfi0g

[Human]

BadKarma, you do not seem able to get out of a particular notion, not every kind of language is purely logical or scientific, and simply because you can dissect it as such does not necessarily make it so. A hammer is a fine thing, but one would not use it for neurosurgery, no? Just as one aspect can captivate our curiosity, but one should not take it to be the end to all aspects, just because it captivates us so.

This isn't about one tool (Science) used for two tasks (Religion and science): This is about one task (Explaining the reality) and two items used for this task: One of them a tool that demonstrably works (Science) and one that isn't even a tool and doesn't really do anything (Religion).

Sure, religion has some effects generally understood as good, otherwise it wouldn't exist: For example, it creates a sense of community and purpose for many humans. That doesn't mean it's right or even at the same level with science when it comes to explaining reality. In fact, it's at the same level as our old friend Pseudo-Napoleon who i always seem to end up using as an example in these religion debates. :D

[BadKarma]

BadKarma, you do not seem able to get out of a particular notion, not every kind of language is purely logical or scientific, and simply because you can dissect it as such does not necessarily make it so. A hammer is a fine thing, but one would not use it for neurosurgery, no? Just as one aspect can captivate our curiosity, but one should not take it to be the end to all aspects, just because it captivates us so.

Until you somehow recognize that notion and just how pervasive it can be, then I believe most of your efforts here will be, for the most part, fruitless.

Depends on what type of neurosurgery we're talking about here. :)

That being said, when someone sets up a syllogism, I don't see any other way to dissect it than logically. If this is a false dichotomy, please give me the third option, but a thought process is either logical or illogical.

I suspect what you're actually saying is that the scientific method (that is, deductive reasoning, observation, and testing) cannot explain everything and shouldn't be used as if it can. As Human implies, give me an alternative that produces better results and is more accurate than the scientific method, and I will gladly utilize it instead. I'd love to be presented with a better methodology if it exists. I know of many alternatives so far, but none of them seem to be able to work worth a damn. :P

Edit: To remind people, I didn't make this thread in order to convince anyone of anything. I made it because there were no other threads like it, and this way there's some place we can relocate to if a debate starts up in one of the "talk about your religious beliefs" threads. It's here because it needs to be here, not because I wanted to diss peoples' belief systems.

[Sally]

I'm not saying 'hysteria' in the sense that one becomes psychotic or overcome with laughter or the like. I mean it in its most basic sense of emotional excess. Ex: a person sees a stained glass window on a church and is overcome with euphoria at the sight of the evening sun hitting the panels. They interpret this overwhelming tingly feeling as a personal experience with God, when the proper response would be to note that it's a very nice window and that the sun looks particularly stunning that evening, and that there's most probably nothing more happening than that.

Yes, I knew how you were interpreting hysteria; I'm familiar with the different definitions of that term. But we don't do hysteria in the sense you were using; there are no stained glass windows in synagogues because Judaism is not a mystical/emotional religion; we don't sit in temple lost in awe. Our religion inspires us; it doesn't hypnotize us. When we pray, we don't kneel, we don't lower our heads or raise our heads; we look ahead. Take from that what you can.

Not a miracle religion? Noah.

Noah is part of the Genesis story. It's a story. Hanukkah's sometimes spoken of as the "miracle of the oil" story, especially when we read it to children, but we know the difference. The Maccabee victory's historical; the 8 days of oil is not. If you want me to acknowledge the difference between your former Presbyterianism and fundamentalist Christianity, you should acknowledge that there are different strains of Judaism; the Orthodox are a fundamentalist minority.

As far as all the rest of the historical/non-historical stuff you're referring me to, I live in Seattle. We have a major university here, with a Jewish Studies department. I've taken classes there; my temple regularly hosts lectures by archaeologists and other professorial types; I've read Jewish history and theology for decades; I've been a practicing Jew for 50 years. I'm getting a little pissed at you referring me to "sources" you're too busy to look up at the moment. No Jew claims that Israelites originated in Eqypt. Many peoples who experienced famine, etc. in the area now called Israel traveled down to Egypt, which was relatively rich. Several groups of the early Hebrews did so; their descendants traveled back. The Egyptians didn't keep records of who came and went, and they sure as hell didn't keep a museum with artifacts from the stays of those peoples.

In sum, debating the veracity of the basis for religious belief is one thing. It's great that you've made this thread. But lecturing people about their own religious traditions/stories is another. I'm not commenting on all of your points not because I agree with you (or disagree with you), but because it's turned into a debate about the basis of Judaism, and that is neither fair to me nor to anyone else who frequents this thread. So I'll leave it to you and them to continue the discussion.

[Sally]

If, for example, your religion claims that people have souls or that some people spoke to a god, you better have some very good evidence to convince me .... If you can't prove your beliefs they are as irrelevant as the pseudo-Napoleon.

That's relevant if, and ONLY if, a particular religion is trying to convince you, or trying to prove its beliefs. Or trying to force you to accept its beliefs by either bribing you (heaven) or threatening you (hell, or actually killing you) if you don't.

Otherwise, any religion's claims are not relevant to your life as an atheist (or whatever you wish to call yourself), and you may ignore that religion.

[BadKarma]

Yes, I knew how you were interpreting hysteria; I'm familiar with the different definitions of that term. But we don't do hysteria in the sense you were using; there are no stained glass windows in synagogues because Judaism is not a mystical/emotional religion; we don't sit in temple lost in awe. Our religion inspires us; it doesn't hypnotize us. When we pray, we don't kneel, we don't lower our heads or raise our heads; we look ahead. Take from that what you can.

Well, you know what? Respect. If you're telling me that your particular religious sect never has miracle claims or personal revelations or God's presence involved in it, then I have little issue with it. I was, of course, talking about miracle claims in general (I wasn't trying to pick on you personally, that is), but hey... If you want to have a religious philosophy that doesn't actually invoke anything magical or miraculous, that's about as harmless as one can get in terms of benign beliefs.

Noah is part of the Genesis story. It's a story. Hanukkah's sometimes spoken of as the "miracle of the oil" story, especially when we read it to children, but we know the difference. The Maccabee victory's historical; the 8 days of oil is not. If you want me to acknowledge the difference between your former Presbyterianism and fundamentalist Christianity, you should acknowledge that there are different strains of Judaism; the Orthodox are a fundamentalist minority.

As far as all the rest of the historical/non-historical stuff you're referring me to, I live in Seattle. We have a major university here, with a Jewish Studies department. I've taken classes there; my temple regularly hosts lectures by archaeologists and other professorial types; I've read Jewish history and theology for decades; I've been a practicing Jew for 50 years. I'm getting a little pissed at you referring me to "sources" you're too busy to look up at the moment. No Jew claims that Israelites originated in Eqypt. Many peoples who experienced famine, etc. in the area now called Israel traveled down to Egypt, which was relatively rich. Several groups of the early Hebrews did so; their descendants traveled back. The Egyptians didn't keep records of who came and went, and they sure as hell didn't keep a museum with artifacts from the stays of those peoples.

I hereby acknowledge Orthodox and Reform Judaism as much more separate than I once assumed and once again respect you for telling the difference between inspirational narrative and divine truth.

Now in regards to the Moses thing, I never insinuated that ancient Israelites couldn't have visited Egypt (or that they didn't). I was saying only that a slave force so massive as the one in Exodus was likely inflated if it actually existed, and the loss of such a huge population would have caused astounding damage to the Egyptian infrastructure. I didn't mean to say that Jewish people somehow magically appeared in Egypt (obviously it's an indigenous culture), and I realize that it sounded that way, so I apologize for that misconception. What I'm saying is that there's no evidence that a large slave force of Jews escaped from Egypt under the command of Moses, and that it's more prudent to interpret it as one of those narratives than as fact.

From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible- Eric Cline (2007)

Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? - William Dever (2003)

What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?- Also from Mr. Dever (2002)

From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel- Nadav Naaman and Israel Finklestein (1994)

The Geography of the Exodus- John Van Seters (a section of The land that I will show you) (2001)

An introduction to the history of Israel and Judah- J. Alberto Soggin (1999)

Those are some of the better source materials, anyway. I'm guessing that there's some internet compilation of this somewhere, but I figured the source materials were more valuable...

Nevertheless, I apologize for having offended you. It was not my intention.

In sum, debating the veracity of the basis for religious belief is one thing. It's great that you've made this thread. But lecturing people about their own religious traditions/stories is another. I'm not commenting on all of your points not because I agree with you (or disagree with you), but because it's turned into a debate about the basis of Judaism, and that is neither fair to me nor to anyone else who frequents this thread. So I'll leave it to you and them to continue the discussion.

Acknowledged. I apologize for not being as familiar with Reform Judaism. My direct dealings are mostly Orthodox-oriented, as the Reform Jews I know don't particularly care to talk about their religion, and I most certainly admit to unfairly equivocating the two sects.

You COULD stick around and talk about le sciencez instead, since that's where this thread now seems to be heading! I do much enjoy your company in threads; you're one of the few peeps around here who actually write nice, long posts (and disagree with me enough for our conversations to be stimulating).

That's relevant if, and ONLY if, a particular religion is trying to convince you, or trying to prove its beliefs. Or trying to force you to accept its beliefs by either bribing you (heaven) or threatening you (hell, or actually killing you if you don't.

Otherwise, any religion's claims are not relevant to your life as an atheist (or whatever you wish to call yourself), and you may ignore that religion.

Mostly agreed. There's still the possibility that a belief system can lead to violence even if it's non-proselytizing. Ancient Judaism is one such system, actually (and please note that I'm not trying to imply that modern Jews are somehow still violent; I'm just using that as a particularly valid example).

However, I am for the most part keen on not worrying about people who do not proselytize. Their beliefs may seem highly illogical to me, but I completely agree that those believers are also mostly irrelevant in my life.

One question (or rather, three): You clearly reject miracles and direct interception from God in your belief system. Who, then, do you think Abraham really was and why he did what he did? At the risk of sounding very insensitive, if there are no actual miracles in Judaism and Abraham therefore didn't have a miraculous childbirth/conversation with God, what is the basis for belief in any of the Abrahamic religions? Do you also view that as a narrative?

[Asterion Orestes]

There's no way to definitively prove anything

Yep. So there.

Actually, Sally, I'm only 22.

That explains why BadKarma knows everything--& why trying to change his mind would probably be fruitless.

jerthon:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus [341–270 B.C.] my fave quote

Another possibility, as a certain philosophy teacher of mine said, is that evil is an illusion--as some unidentified "mystics" claimed. I was even younger than BadKarma then & didn't want to believe it. Not sure I want to now.

if there is an all knowing god how can you have free will if you have free will how can you have an all knowing god?

I've never seen the supposed problem there.

Nat:

Hennukah:

Loki, the Norse god of trickery, could be duping you into thinking there is evidence for cats.

Does sound like his style.

Isn't that essentially just Descartes' Demon?

Just what I was thinking.

[Sally]

If you're telling me that your particular religious sect never has miracle claims or personal revelations or God's presence involved in it

Didn't say that; of course we acknowledge God's presence. It wouldn't be a religion if we didn't; it would be Ethical Culture (which actually was started by several atheist Jews in the 19th century).

What I'm saying is that there's no evidence that a large slave force of Jews escaped from Egypt under the command of Moses

It was a large group of people, and someone had to lead it. We call him Moses.

There's still the possibility that a belief system can lead to violence even if it's non-proselytizing. Ancient Judaism is one such system

It definitely was violent when the Jews moved from Egypt up into Canaan. They killed the inhabitants that defended their territory. That's happened with every incursion of aliens into new territories. It wasn't the violence of a belief system per se, although presumably they'd been told by God to take that land.

One question (or rather, three): You clearly reject miracles and direct interception from God in your belief system. Who, then, do you think Abraham really was and why he did what he did? At the risk of sounding very insensitive, if there are no actual miracles in Judaism and Abraham therefore didn't have a miraculous childbirth/conversation with God, what is the basis for belief in any of the Abrahamic religions? Do you also view that as a narrative?

It appears from an outsider that the basis of belief in Islam is the experience of one man: Mohammed, and the basis for belief in Christianity appears to be the divinity of Jesus and his status as the savior of humankind. Judaism isn't concerned with one specific male's story. I don't reject direct intervention from God. I believe that God spoke in various ways at various times to the early Hebrews, and those various ways were written about by various authors in the Torah books and the prophets and the other writings. Those authors (and only one Torah book -- can't remember which it was -- was presumably written by a sole author) wrote about Abraham long after the fact. Since he was said to be approximately 100 when he fathered Isaac and not much younger when he fathered Ishmael, I doubt those stories are to be taken as hard fact. Those stories, and the midrashim (Christians would call them parables) based on them, and the laws, are the foundation of Jewish belief; they make emotional and theological sense to me because of their core teachings. They do not illustrate miracles to me. I think the word "miracle" is a quintessentially Christian word. The burning bush is not a miracle; the parting of the Reed Sea is not a miracle; God appearing to Abraham is not a miracle.

I appreciate your incisive intelligence, Bad, and the fact that you are not frightened of argument; you appear to be just as stubborn as me. If you were my grandchild, I would be quite proud of you.

[BadKarma]

There's no way to definitively prove anything

Yep. So there.

Lolquotemining.

Actually, Sally, I'm only 22.

That explains why BadKarma knows everything--& why trying to change his mind would probably be fruitless.

Dear sir, I suppose you're being sarcastic. Nevertheless, I also assume that under that sarcasm, you actually think this. I've admitted multiple times that I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on a great many things (including religious belief) if provided with proper reason to, I've made no assertion that I know everything, and I've already apologized many times in this thread alone for ignorant misconceptions. This is, frankly, a bit of a sophomoric statement; my age has nothing to do with my level of knowledge or my capacity for it, nor have I ever declared omniscience (or anything close to it).

If you DON'T actually believe any of that, and you were instead subtly mocking people who do think so (whoever they may be), then I apologize for having jumped to an invalid conclusion.

if there is an all knowing god how can you have free will if you have free will how can you have an all knowing god?

I've never seen the supposed problem there.

If God knows everything that will come to pass, then determinism sets in. Choices are predetermined because his knowledge of future events is and has always been there, and any illusory concept of free will is really just a part of his divine plan. If he wills himself to not know choices (but to know all possible choices), then he's purposefully disallowing the knowledge of which choices will be made by each individual and is therefore not all-knowing. If he never knew the choices to begin with, then he's still not all-knowing.

A deity could be ALMOST omniscient and free will could exist, but pure omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive ideas.

Theoretically, such a deity could also have all power and be able to therefore will itself to be beyond the Law of Non-Contradiction (and the willing itself would also be a transcendence beyond such petty logical absolutes), but is there truly any reason at all to believe in a God that is by its very volition logically inconsistent and therefore essentially nonexistent within this reality except by its own circular decision to will itself to exist in an illogical, non-existent manner?

Hennukah:

Loki, the Norse god of trickery, could be duping you into thinking there is evidence for cats.

Does sound like his style.

Isn't that essentially just Descartes' Demon?

Just what I was thinking.

Gotta love the Evil Demon. Even better is if that demon writes a book regarding the "truth" of feline divinity and then sets itself up as a bad guy and attributes the book to some non-existent good guy, thereby tricking people into forming a cat religion based on lies and heresy.

[Human]

If, for example, your religion claims that people have souls or that some people spoke to a god, you better have some very good evidence to convince me .... If you can't prove your beliefs they are as irrelevant as the pseudo-Napoleon.

That's relevant if, and ONLY if, a particular religion is trying to convince you, or trying to prove its beliefs. Or trying to force you to accept its beliefs by either bribing you (heaven) or threatening you (hell, or actually killing you) if you don't.

Otherwise, any religion's claims are not relevant to your life as an atheist (or whatever you wish to call yourself), and you may ignore that religion.

That sounds like you don't care if a claim about reality is true or false.

Does not compute.

EDIT: Now i'm genuinely interested. I'll assume you don't believe in Russell's Teapot. If you don't, why?

[Sally]

That sounds like you don't care if a claim about reality is true or false.

Does not compute.

May not compute, but I'm not a computer. Religion is not "reality"; it's belief(s) of humans.

[BadKarma]

Didn't say that; of course we acknowledge God's presence. It wouldn't be a religion if we didn't; it would be Ethical Culture (which actually was started by several atheist Jews in the 19th century).

I meant more of a manifested version of God's presence, not the whole omnipresence sort of thing.

Side note: a religion doesn't need to have a deity in it. Buddhism is called a spiritual philosophy, but it is by all accounts religious; nevertheless, it has no deities, and one can still be considered a Buddhist without ascribing to any spiritual tenets at all (I am one such person). Of course, this is just a semantic nitpick.

What I'm saying is that there's no evidence that a large slave force of Jews escaped from Egypt under the command of Moses

It was a large group of people, and someone had to lead it. We call him Moses.

Disagreed based on contrary evidence. As we are obviously looking at different sources (and the historicity of a particular man moving some people across a desert is somewhat irrelevant regarding this thread), I can agree to disagree here. That is, unless you can give me some of your sources so that I may look at them, compare them, and potentially change my mind.

Or you look at mine. :)

There's still the possibility that a belief system can lead to violence even if it's non-proselytizing. Ancient Judaism is one such system

It definitely was violent when the Jews moved from Egypt up into Canaan. They killed the inhabitants that defended their territory. That's happened with every incursion of aliens into new territories. It wasn't the violence of a belief system per se, although presumably they'd been told by God to take that land.

While we obviously cannot go and test it, it is reasonable to deduce that based on the biblical accounts of ancient Jewish "manifest destiny", the violence likely was the result of the belief system, even if God didn't/doesn't exist. They have no other plausible reasons to be such a violent tribe. Again, I do not blame modern Jews for that, since it was obviously quite some time ago when EVERYONE was killing for some reason or another, but if you are to take the Bible as an even remotely accurate book (and I at least accept it as an insight into the machinations of ancient Israelite culture), they were being compelled by their religious beliefs to slaughter and conquer, and yet they are a non-proselytizing group. Even Buddhists have been known to get into a few minor holy wars. Any ideology, if taken to an extreme, can plausibly produce violence; some ideologies are obviously more apt at promoting that violence or causing that extremism, but even a radical environmentalist can be provoked to anger.

Actually, noted exception to the rule- Jainism. I think it's the only legitimate belief system on the planet where people get MORE peaceful and non-confrontational the more extreme they become. On that note, I like Jainism, even if their clergy does consist of kooky broom-wielding germ sympathizers.

One question (or rather, three): You clearly reject miracles and direct interception from God in your belief system. Who, then, do you think Abraham really was and why he did what he did? At the risk of sounding very insensitive, if there are no actual miracles in Judaism and Abraham therefore didn't have a miraculous childbirth/conversation with God, what is the basis for belief in any of the Abrahamic religions? Do you also view that as a narrative?

It appears from an outsider that the basis of belief in Islam is the experience of one man: Mohammed, and the basis for belief in Christianity appears to be the divinity of Jesus and his status as the savior of humankind. Judaism isn't concerned with one specific male's story. I don't reject direct intervention from God. I believe that God spoke in various ways at various times to the early Hebrews, and those various ways were written about by various authors in the Torah books and the prophets and the other writings. Those authors (and only one Torah book -- can't remember which it was -- was presumably written by a sole author) wrote about Abraham long after the fact. Since he was said to be approximately 100 when he fathered Isaac and not much younger when he fathered Ishmael, I doubt those stories are to be taken as hard fact. Those stories, and the midrashim (Christians would call them parables) based on them, and the laws, are the foundation of Jewish belief; they make emotional and theological sense to me because of their core teachings. They do not illustrate miracles to me. I think the word "miracle" is a quintessentially Christian word. The burning bush is not a miracle; the parting of the Reed Sea is not a miracle; God appearing to Abraham is not a miracle.

I appreciate your incisive intelligence, Bad, and the fact that you are not frightened of argument; you appear to be just as stubborn as me. If you were my grandchild, I would be quite proud of you.

I care little to debate this particular declaration of yours, as my main interest was in finding out what you believed in this case (instead of dissecting it). I have only one major disagreement: those three things you just listed are miracles, as they are noted suspensions of the natural order. If a bush lit on fire and started speaking with God's voice to Moses, that's most certainly a miracle/miraculous event. It's definitely not the same kind of "miracle" as the Christian "really beautiful thing I can't explain" miracle, but it's nevertheless a miraculous, supernatural event.

In regards to the last two sentences, thank you very much. You made me blush for a small moment. And I appreciate your presence as well; you're one of the most down-to-earth theists I've dealt with (sorta like I was when I was in my teens). If you were my grandmother... Well, I shudder at the prospect, as I reckon neither of us would ever be able to shut up at Thanksgiving. But I'm glad you're here. :)

[Human]

That sounds like you don't care if a claim about reality is true or false.

Does not compute.

May not compute, but I'm not a computer. Religion is not "reality"; it's belief(s) of humans.

Technically speaking you are a biological computer created by the process of evolution.

And it seems that you understand that your beliefs are irrational delusions. And, as i've said before, i have nothing against people who believe in weird things, as long as they themselves recognice that those beliefs are irrational and not based in reality. So when i'm asking this i'm really just curious: Why do you believe in your god and other claims of your religion, when you know they're basically untrue?

EDIT: I read previous posts better and now i'm even more confused. Do you believe that jewish mythology is factual or not? If you believe, then you obviously care about whether a claim about reality is true or not. If you don't believe, then, well, then i'm even MORE confused.

[Hap2]

Human, you missed the point, and I shall not be able to convince you of it even if I explained what it is I mean in great detail, in the same manner I could not convince a Christian reverend that God was useless, or a Pure Land monk that Amida's vows were nonsense, or a relativist that knowledge is not merely opinion.

BadKarma, you were a bit closer, but I do not recall implying this was merely an issue of methodology, and that promoting the merits of one kind over another in some general sense was what I was striving for. I would never suggest such a thing, as I dislike jerking off intellectually as much as I do physically. Rather, what I was suggesting was the matter of a particular notion clouding your understanding of religion, based on a lack of recognition of your particular means of understanding being utilized, as if said means, were the end. With such a lack, the majority of this thread will be redundant. The method used and misapplied is a symptom, and is not the source of the problem, rather, it lies with you.

For example: "That being said, when someone sets up a syllogism, I don't see any other way to dissect it than logically." Look at the terminology carefully here. 'Syllogism', 'logically', this preconceives that what is being said is necessarily logical, therefore it must be a syllogism, and therefore, subject to the laws of logic. And if the language does not hold up to such laws, then it is merely nonsensical. It's not much different than assuming one's own culture is better than another, based on one's own culture as the standard. And also similar to a heterosexual suggesting that homosexuality and asexuality are disorders. Not every kind of language is as such, not every "game" plays by the same rules.

Are you seeing the problem I'm trying to show?

My suggestion then, is to be careful. One must be vigilant in scrutinizing one's own means of understanding. Otherwise, we get nonsense such as defining religion as an amalgamation of 'delusion', defining asexuality as a 'disorder' or a 'desire for attention', etc. An aspect, but not necessarily the understanding we believe we may have, rather the one we may be merely convinced by.

[Human]

Human, you missed the point, and I shall not be able to convince you of it even if I explained what it is I mean in great detail, in the same manner I could not convince a Christian reverend that God was useless, or a Pure Land monk that Amida's vows were nonsense, or a relativist that knowledge is not merely opinion.

BadKarma, you were a bit closer, but I do not recall implying this was merely an issue of methodology, and that promoting the merits of one kind over another in some general sense was what I was striving for. I would never suggest such a thing, as I dislike jerking off intellectually as much as I do physically. Rather, what I was suggesting was the matter of a particular notion clouding your understanding of religion, based on a lack of recognition of your particular means of understanding being utilized, as if said means, were the end. With such a lack, the majority of this thread will be redundant. The method used and misapplied is a symptom, and is not the source of the problem, rather, it lies with you.

For example: "That being said, when someone sets up a syllogism, I don't see any other way to dissect it than logically." Look at the terminology carefully here. 'Syllogism', 'logically', this preconceives that what is being said is necessarily logical, therefore it must be a syllogism, and therefore, subject to the laws of logic. And if the language does not hold up to such laws, then it is merely nonsensical. It's not much different than assuming one's own culture is better than another, based on one's own culture as the standard. And also similar to a heterosexual suggesting that homosexuality and asexuality are disorders. Not every kind of language is as such, not every "game" plays by the same rules.

Are you seeing the problem I'm trying to show?

My suggestion then, is to be careful. One must be vigilant in scrutinizing one's own means of understanding. Otherwise, we get nonsense such as defining religion as an amalgamation of 'delusion', defining asexuality as a 'disorder' or a 'desire for attention', etc. An aspect, but not necessarily the understanding we believe we may have, rather the one we may be merely convinced by.

disorder (plural disorders)

—(medicine) A physical or psychical malfunction.

homosexuality (usually uncountable; plural homosexualities)

—The state of being sexually and romantically attracted primarily to persons of the same sex.

asexuality (uncountable)

—The state or quality of being asexual, that is: The state of not experiencing sexual attraction. Compare heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality.

I fail to see the relevance of these words and their definitions.

You seem to understand the difference between irrational beliefs and reality. What i don't understand is why you give those irrational beliefs any value. They do not explain the world in any way. They outright lie about reality.

[BadKarma]

BadKarma, you were a bit closer, but I do not recall implying this was merely an issue of methodology, and that promoting the merits of one kind over another in some general sense was what I was striving for. I would never suggest such a thing, as I dislike jerking off intellectually as much as I do physically. Rather, what I was suggesting was the matter of a particular notion clouding your understanding of religion, based on a lack of recognition of your particular means of understanding being utilized, as if said means, were the end. With such a lack, the majority of this thread will be redundant. The method used and misapplied is a symptom, and is not the source of the problem, rather, it lies with you.

For example: "That being said, when someone sets up a syllogism, I don't see any other way to dissect it than logically." Look at the terminology carefully here. 'Syllogism', 'logically', this preconceives that what is being said is necessarily logical, therefore it must be a syllogism, and therefore, subject to the laws of logic. And if the language does not hold up to such laws, then it is merely nonsensical. It's not much different than assuming one's own culture is better than another, based on one's own culture as the standard. And also similar to a heterosexual suggesting that homosexuality and asexuality are disorders. Not every kind of language is as such, not every "game" plays by the same rules.

Are you seeing the problem I'm trying to show?

My suggestion then, is to be careful. One must be vigilant in scrutinizing one's own means of understanding. Otherwise, we get nonsense such as defining religion as an amalgamation of 'delusion', defining asexuality as a 'disorder' or a 'desire for attention', etc. An aspect, but not necessarily the understanding we believe we may have, rather the one we may be merely convinced by.

Dude, he literally SET UP a syllogism. He made a long string of points trying to logically connect them. If I'm preconceiving anything, it was a preconception that he wasn't loony and that I should analyze a string of logic as if it were logic. If he was setting up a string of logic to be purposefully illogical, then my head hurts from such inanity.

Once again, this is not a false dichotomy. You are either speaking logically or illogically, especially when you make a syllogism. He was, by any account, trying to speak logically. Hence, I approached the statements as if they were a logical proof, because that was exactly what they were.

Now... On we go. I fully understand the varied mentalities in various faiths, and I fully recognize how my particular "means of understanding" is being utilized. I'm utilizing logical principles, skepticism, and deductive reasoning. I realize there are other ways that people try to figure out the universe. My argument against that is that this isn't anthropology, and we're not trying to be "fair" about different methods. My methodology has produced the computer you just typed your response on. I have yet to see any other methodology come close to such success. I'd like someone to provide me with a better method instead of telling me that it's not fair for me to expect people to use the best, most intellectually honest way to explore reality. This isn't some egalitarian commune; there are good ways of learning about things and bad ways, and the way I learn about things seems to be pretty decent, considering its extensive track record and sole responsibility for the entirety of the modern First World. If people are going to talk about "exploring reality" and "learning without science", then I want them to provide me with a better way to do so.

The only reason I use the word delusion when discussing supernatural beliefs is because they literally don't have any evidence anywhere, and many of them fully admit that everything's "internal and personal". I really do wish to have someone show me some reason to NOT think supernatural beliefs are probably delusions (because I realize that such a term, however accurate, is quite offensive to a believer), and this is one of the possible avenues where I may find it. Maybe. But that's not going to happen if people keep accusing me of being "scientifically biased" and "too logical". Logic, rationality, and scientific experimentation are literally the reasons we can even have this conversation right now. If I'm showing a bias, that's because it's a justified one. Just because there are two sides to an issue doesn't mean that they're both equally valid, and when one is demonstrably useful and the other is... Well... Let's just say that it's an appeal to moderation to suggest that science and spirituality are on equal footing without actually showing why. If someone DOES show why, I'll be glad to admit that I was wrong in asserting that science is the best way to learn about the universe.

I get the feeling that you're essentially telling me to not think rationality is as good as it is, and that irrationality deserves equal stage presence. I'm sorry, but in the realm of discourse and truth pursuits, some methods ARE better than others and quite observably so. If you've got a better tool for me (and the world) to use, by all means provide it. But as it stands, science gets results, and logic gets correct answers. I understand your previous assertion that a hammer shouldn't be used for brain surgery just because it's good at carpentry, but consider my position:

Science is the tool to understand reality. It works for reality.

Spirituality/religion is the tool to understand the supernatural. It works for the supernatural.

That's fine and dandy, except nobody has any good reason to believe that anything supernatural even exists. If science is a hammer and spirituality is a crowbar, science is hitting a nail (understanding) into a board (the natural), and spirituality is yanking at the air and claiming that it's pulling on a transcendent nail ("understanding") in an invisible board (the supernatural). And then spirituality says that it's already got its nail out and wants to help science by pushing that transcendent nail in and pulling the visible one out. That's my position on this whole "non-overlapping magisteria" stuff. If someone can demonstrate without circular reasoning or another fallacy that the supernatural actually exists, then I no longer have any complaint against spirituality because science may be unable to work on the supernatural and spirituality supposedly can. But first we have to figure out if the supernatural board is even there, and having a tool that is allegedly used to work with it is not, and cannot be, proof that the board is actually there. It's only ever proof that we have a possibly useless tool.

This may well be a fruitless endeavor, but I fail to see how that's my fault for expecting evidence of peoples' claims and adopting a skeptical, scientific approach to claims about reality. My approach cures diseases and solves world hunger and examines the majesty of the universe down to its tiniest particles of being (quite literally). I want to know what the other approaches are exclusively good for: that is, what they can provide that is both beneficial and real that science/rationality cannot provide. Telling me that I'm a "scientific elitist" may well be completely true (although I'm more of a logical elitist, really), but you then have to show me why it's a bad thing to be that way.

And remember that I'm a convert out of religion; I DID vigilantly scrutinize both the positions I had then and the positions I have now. The reason I have my current "material naturalist" position is that it was the one that didn't buckle under scrutiny.

disorder (plural disorders)

—(medicine) A physical or psychical malfunction.

homosexuality (usually uncountable; plural homosexualities)

—The state of being sexually and romantically attracted primarily to persons of the same sex.

asexuality (uncountable)

—The state or quality of being asexual, that is: The state of not experiencing sexual attraction. Compare heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality.

I fail to see the relevance of these words and their definitions.

You seem to understand the difference between irrational beliefs and reality. What i don't understand is why you give those irrational beliefs any value. They do not explain the world in any way. They outright lie about reality.

Well, homosexuality WAS once characterized as a physical/psychical malfunction. Just sayin'.

But as for the last part... I think what's happening, quite clearly, is a false compromise/balance fallacy. Hap is legitimately trying to be pragmatic and assert that different worldviews (in this case, the rational/scientific worldview and the spiritual/religious worldview) are separate but equal, but he is not demonstrating why such an assertion is true. I appreciate the desire to appeal for equality in the debate, but I fail to see why such an appeal should be considered.

Anywhooooo, I'm going to bed. Throat hurts a lot.

You peeps have a good night!

[Human]

I think what's happening, quite clearly, is a false compromise/balance fallacy. Hap is legitimately trying to be pragmatic and assert that different worldviews (in this case, the rational/scientific worldview and the spiritual/religious worldview) are separate but equal, but he is not demonstrating why such an assertion is true. I appreciate the desire to appeal for equality in the debate, but I fail to see why such an appeal should be considered.

And, once again, BadKarma says what i mean better than i do. :D

[Asterion Orestes]

BadKarma:

Lolquotemining.

Dear sir, I suppose you're being sarcastic. Nevertheless, I also assume that under that sarcasm, you actually think this.

Ah--trying to have it both ways. Actually I refer more to an attitude, inspired by a remark from a teacher when I was about 12. He predicted that we kids would eventually think we knew everything. As I've posted elsewhere in Purpleville, I didn't like his prediction but, much later, understood its truth. In retrospect youth & young adults do in fact often seem convinced they know better than their elders, & I've been there. Obviously you make no claim to omniscience--no one here does. But once you've got the world figured out, a convincing argument against your views will be difficult to make.

If God knows everything that will come to pass, then determinism sets in. Choices are predetermined because his knowledge of future events is and has always been there, and any illusory concept of free will is really just a part of his divine plan.

Restating the thesis that foreknowledge=determinism still doesn't convince me. But I'm not trying to argue for a certain concept of deity at the moment, so it may be like the goofy example question I once heard: Can the Supreme Being create a stone so big he can't lift it?

[BadKarma]

Lolquotemining.

"There's no way to definitively prove anything--even if you demonstrate that something cannot logically exist, it might still ILLOGICALLY exist--but people can get pretty damn close nonetheless. Just because you can't absolutely 100% prove something doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about it or set aside a place to talk about it. If people were forced to have absolute proofs in order to discuss stuff, we'd literally never get anywhere."

The rest of that quote makes the beginning have a far different contextual meaning. You only quoted the first few words and used it as if I was actually defeating myself. That's called quote-mining.

Ah--trying to have it both ways. Actually I refer more to an attitude, inspired by a remark from a teacher when I was about 12. He predicted that we kids would eventually think we knew everything. As I've posted elsewhere in Purpleville, I didn't like his prediction but, much later, understood its truth. In retrospect youth & young adults do in fact often seem convinced they know better than their elders, & I've been there. Obviously you make no claim to omniscience--no one here does. But once you've got the world figured out, a convincing argument against your views will be difficult to make.

It's a good thing I don't have the world remotely figured out. All I think I can say I've "figured out" regarding this topic is how logic and skepticism work. I can most comfortably say that I know more about those two things than most people on this planet. But I've said many times now in this thread alone that if someone has a better method of learning about reality than the scientific one--or can give me a non-fallacious proof of some supernatural entity's existence--that I'm more than willing to change my mind, because my entire worldview is BASED on changing my mind when presented with evidence for something. Despite my verbose rants, I think I've maintained a great degree of civility here.

Restating the thesis that foreknowledge=determinism still doesn't convince me. But I'm not trying to argue for a certain concept of deity at the moment, so it may be like the goofy example question I once heard: Can the Supreme Being create a stone so big he can't lift it?

It should convince you to not accept that particular trait of a God. A being that knows everything knows every choice that will be made. We can't choose something else because it already knows our choices. Omniscience and free will are literally incompatible ideas in any logical universe. Again, if this is a universe where the Law of Non-Contradiction somehow doesn't apply because God willed it to be so, that's nice and cool for him, but now we have far bigger issues to ponder.

I think I've said somewhere that there are concepts and definitions of a deity that we have not yet come up with--definitions that allow it to potentially exist because we can't logically evaluate them--but claims of omnipotence or omniscience for the Abrahamic God are quite unambiguous. It says it has all power and/or all knowledge. All power cannot exist without violating logical absolutes, and all knowledge cannot exist in accordance with free will (unless we don't actually have any, in which case he's damning people for choices they couldn't have avoided). As soon as someone defines God, you can evaluate whether that particular defintion of God is logically, morally, or existentially sound, because it's no longer an infinite, incomprehensible being. It's a being someone's clearly defined for you, and such a being is easily scrutinized.

[The Chaos Heart]

This may or may not have relevance to the topic so...leeet's find out!

An interesting case is to be made here.

While it's not necessarily a debate about religion as a whole and it's validity, it's certainly an interesting debate in terms of the beliefs of a particular religion. And I think some very fair points are raised.

[Human]

But I've said many times now in this thread alone that if someone has a better method of learning about reality than the scientific one--or can give me a non-fallacious proof of some supernatural entity's existence--that I'm more than willing to change my mind, because my entire worldview is BASED on changing my mind when presented with evidence for something. Despite my verbose rants, I think I've maintained a great degree of civility here.

If someone proves supernatural entity's existence it is no longer supernatural. Just like any "alternative medicine" that is scientifically proven to work is no longer "alternative medicine", but medicine.

[BadKarma]

This may or may not have relevance to the topic so...leeet's find out!

An interesting case is to be made here.

While it's not necessarily a debate about religion as a whole and it's validity, it's certainly an interesting debate in terms of the beliefs of a particular religion. And I think some very fair points are raised.

Nice article. I'll read more later.

The lack of any sort of Hell makes an omnibenevolent deity a bit less contradictory, too, so that's nice. Nevertheless, for someone like myself the specifics of Hell don't personally matter because I don't have any reason to believe in Heaven either (other than wish fulfillment).

[BadKarma]

But I've said many times now in this thread alone that if someone has a better method of learning about reality than the scientific one--or can give me a non-fallacious proof of some supernatural entity's existence--that I'm more than willing to change my mind, because my entire worldview is BASED on changing my mind when presented with evidence for something. Despite my verbose rants, I think I've maintained a great degree of civility here.

If someone proves supernatural entity's existence it is no longer supernatural. Just like any "alternative medicine" that is scientifically proven to work is no longer "alternative medicine", but medicine.

Not necessarily. God could, for instance, be made entirely of a material that we've never seen which violates our physical laws. At that point, if we can somehow test it and demonstrate that this being exists, we must either conclude that the laws are not laws or that it actually does exist in some weird transcendent plane.

That being said, I understand where your thought process is going, and I mostly agree with it.

Edit: I've just come up with a very interesting thought experiment. I would like to get peoples' reactions on this.

Let us suppose the various rewards or punishments of a theistic deity existing:

Infinite reward in paradise

Infinite torture

Infinite nothingness because God doesn't exist

Infinite nothingness because God does exist and it annihilates you instead of torturing you

Infinite separation from God in a non-punishing area

Finite reward in paradise (reincarnation)

Finite torture

Finite nothingness (reincarnation)

Finite separation from God in a non-punishing area (Dante's Limbo)

What's interesting here is that none of the finite things spark any fear. If something's finite, it must at some point end, and in an afterlife with a benevolent God and a Heaven, that end will most likely result in admittance into Heaven. So finite torture, finite nothingness, and finite separation are all irrelevant. As infinite punishment cannot coexist with infinite mercy/benevolence, Hell cannot possibly exist unless God is either amoral or evil. We are supposing that this God is neither of those things (because if it is, we're ALL in serious trouble), so infinite Hell is nonexistent. Likewise, a God that annihilates someone's being forever because of some finite crime they committed is not benevolent, so that can be ruled out.

We can therefore narrow it down to this list:

Infinite reward in paradise

Infinite nothingness because God doesn't exist

Infinite separation from God in a non-punishing area (indistinguishable from paradise to someone who doesn't care about God)

Finite consequences

All finite consequences, no matter their scope, should be expected to end with admittance into either the non-punishing area, paradise, or a reincarnated body on Earth. Since Christians make the constant (valid) point that a finite life is nothing compared to infinity, these consequences can be treated as entirely synonymous with our current lives. Even the infinite separation thing is unlikely, since a loving God wouldn't want to inflict neutral separation forever on the basis of nonbelief.

So, if God exists and it is benevolent, all people regardless of their crimes or their beliefs will finally be rewarded with eternal life. This makes religion extraneous and wasteful, since its moral tenets can be found in other philosophies (secular humanism) without any immoral tenets being dragged along.

If God exists and it is malevolent/chaotic/amoral, then it will likely be fickle and capricious. No faith can be trusted to gain access anywhere, and it's perfectly likely that such a God will torture EVERYONE for eternity or reward only the wicked or trick believers and reward only skeptics. This is a God nobody can predict and nobody wants around (except maybe the Westboro Baptist Church), but this God may well exist--given the nature of evil in our universe, it's seemingly MORE likely to exist than an omnibenevolent one.

If God doesn't exist, then one should find the most universally moral and constantly ethical worldview, which is not Christianity. At our current point in history, the best worldview is most emphatically secular humanism, as it provides all good aspects of any faith, avoids any dogma or moral dissonance, and never results in poor education/anti-intellectualism.

So, if God exists and it is gracious, behavior is irrelevant, but the best behavior will also result in the best life on Earth. The best behavior we've come up with is secular humanism. If God exists and it is evil, then the best we can hope for is to at least have one good life here, hence we should all adopt secular humanism. If God doesn't exist, then believers are accidentally deluding themselves AND large numbers of them are committing heinous atrocities. In such a case of nonexistence, secular humanism is once again the best option.

Ergo, secular humanism/skepticism is theoretically better than religion in any scenario.

If I've committed a fallacy here, please be free to point it out. I thought this was a pretty good revelation for me having come up with it fifteen minutes ago while eating lunch, but I might have missed something very crucial. From what I'm seeing, the only major objection one could make is that religious morality is better than secular morality and should therefore be the default, but that notion is demonstrably false. Secular humanists don't fly planes into buildings or oppose civil rights, and scientists don't behead "witches" in Saudi Arabia. Even if religious morality is capable of great good, it's also capable of great evil and is inferior to any relativistic, cost-effect moral stance like humanism.

[Hap2]

Don't be so caught up with analyzing the finger that you forget what it's pointing at, for if I could simply outright say what it is I am trying to show in the manner in which you seem to understand, then I would have already done so. However, I am not that skilled, and even if I were, such a translation would only be a facsimile, a shadow. I may as well describe colour to the blind for all that it would be worth.

We're speaking different languages here, and the problem, is that you're trying to understand me in the language that you are familiar with, the language that you understand, rather than understanding what it is I am saying within its own context. You're trying to play checkers while I'm playing blackjack.

This applies also to what you're doing here with Religion. Science is its own language, Religion is its own language, and while they seem to use similar vocabulary, it is the grammar, the way the game is played is different. Each have their own context, each their own set of 'rules'. And if these aren't taken into account, you can skew the language, misinterpret it, and waste time over nonsensical non-problems spawned from the misinterpretation. Such as interpreting of science as if it were a kind of religious belief and feeling (e.g. 'belief' in evolution), or of religion as if it were scientific theory (e.g. belief as 'delusion'). Both the religious and the scientific do this, and frankly, it's not surprising, given our form and particular perspective.

The trouble here is this: you don't seem able to discern where your preconceptions begin and where your understanding ends. In fact, after having it pointed out to you by a number of people, and continuing to march on beside the point, I am extremely skeptical of your understanding of Religion, and that you have done little more than affirm a particular perspective over that of others here, simply because you are inclined to it, because it convinces you. Being open to thought is one thing, but being open to only one manner of thought, doesn't seem to me to be very open at all, only the illusion of such.

I cannot convince you that such-and-such a manner is a better way of looking at things, because there is no one way of looking at things. To argue for such a notion would be ridiculous. I can only do so much. I can point out certain tricks and traps in one's thought that you may encounter, but it is up to you whether or not you can avoid them, or fall into them head first.