Religion
Related: About this forumWhy religion is fading in the West
...
Earlier this month at Salon Sean Illing, who is an atheist but not of the "new" stripe, wrote the following in response to something Richard Dawkins wrote:
"But denying the truth claims of religion won’t suffice, because religion is about much more than truth; it’s about meaning, values, tradition, consolation, community, and transcendence. Dawkins flew right past this point in his response. That’s unfortunate."
Here is what I think of that comment.
Religion requires a defence, precisely because of those elements that Illing says Dawkins ignores. When we look at the Duggar scandal, what we see is meaning, values, tradition, consolation, community, and transcendence at work. We see how, in the absence of truth each of those elements is in fact twisted such that anger at child abuse is phrased as a bad thing, such that values become more about protecting the perpetrator than defending the innocent.
All with the veneer of transcendent "forgiveness" - which simply means rising above the harm, so that nothing has to be done about it. Each of those elements that Illing cites, can only be justified if the central claims of religion are honest. In the absence of honesty, they very easily become toxic."Everything but the truth" - doesn't have that honesty. The truth matters, because when you base all of that other stuff on lies, it goes very badly wrong.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/2015/05/27/Why-religion-is-fading-in-the-West
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)
randr
(12,411 posts)The examples of religious leadership in America are embarrassments not only to the faiths they profess but to our nation at large.
The Pope is the only voice of "religion" that is making any sense and he is engulfed in 16th century buffoonery.
Where is the "religious" leadership that led the protests of the Viet Nam War or marched in Selma?
All I see is a whole lot of proselytizing and a little bit of human kindness.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)The Golden Rule works just fine!
Constant hypocrisy from the organized religions eventually erodes the base, as does continual bleating how they are under attack.
So does the injection of religion into politics and everyone's lives.
No, we don't all hold "In God We Trust" sacred. We understand the history behind these trite additions.
Godless Communists!
rurallib
(62,406 posts)religions - as Twain once observed each and every one the only true religion - have made some pretty big claims over the millenia. Now, between the social aspects of the internet, citizen journalists and simple computing power claims of religion have been analyzed and measured like they never had before. They come up really short.
No doubt the religious types are praying on this.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)History has shown us that...so this is nothing new...and it matters not whether it was found on lies or the truth.
How long it lasts depends on how well they secure power...and power is why they become corrupt.
Having said that, it does not prove the non existence of the spirit...it does not make the theories of atheism true...that would be a logical fallacy.
phil89
(1,043 posts)it is a lack of belief. Period. Don't bother talking about logical fallacies when you don't know the definition of atheism.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The theory that nothing exist outside of the physical world...if that were not so then they would be agnostic
Non belief is just the flip side of the same coin...the belief that they understand something that the clearly do not understand.
It is good to have a theory of how things work, but when you insist it is the truth without proof you have crossed the line into faith.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)That's materialism, not atheism.
Atheism addresses belief. Agnosticism addresses knowledge. I don't believe in God or gods. I do not claim to know there is no God or gods. Ergo, I am an agnostic atheist.
No.
Atheists believe there is nothing to understand.
I can't prove the universe was not created by a sentient grilled cheese sandwich and a bowl of highly intelligent tomato soup. I guess by rejecting this theory, I have crossed the line into "faith".
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That is hair spliting...the fact is that atheism basic principle is materialism...that no other reality exist but the material...because to admit that there could be is to admit that they could be wrong.
Atheism addresses belief. Agnosticism addresses knowledge.
Seems like splitting hairs again...is not belief based on knowledge?...you say you do not believe but admit it is not because you have knowledge?...what is the difference between you and people of faith then because they believe too without knowledge...you are admitting that your belief in atheism is a matter of faith.
That is saying that you understand it all or there is nothing else for you to learn...again no different from a fundamentalist.
Is that not argument from abserdity?...who is claiming that the universe was created by a cheese sandwich?
The fact is that there is no proof that the universe was created at all...creation is a concept of time and time is only something we perceive. It may not even be real.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Um, no.
One can be both a Materialist and a Theist.
Theism is a belief in one or more gods, atheism is a lack of belief in any gods.
Materiaism is the belief that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.
A belief in physical gods within a strictly material world is compatible with materialism.
For example, the classic greek pantheon of quite physically material gods.
QED: One can be both a materialist and a theist.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But a belief that matter is all there is is the basis of the belief that god could not exist...because it cannot be seen or touched and has no presence in the material world.
The fundamental belief of most religion is that there is a spiritual world that cannot be seen and yet this spiritual world is real.
And science cannot rule out that possibility, because matter itself is a mystery...and a far greater one than most atheist and believers really know.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I just demonstrated quite clearly that materialism is compatible with theism. Not all god beliefs include a belief in non-material gods. What part of that do you not understand? Materialism is also obviously compatible with atheism. But that is the point: atheism is not implied by materialism. Nor is materialism implied by atheism. There are atheists who are not materialists. There are materialists who are not atheists.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And I believe you believe that the Greek pantheons of gods is the proof if that...one system out of many and it is not clear that it was as you say a belief in material gods....but nonetheless the basis of MOST religious belief is in a spiritual world...and that is a part of most religions
So then tell me, do you believe that a spiritual world exists or can exist?...most atheist I have talked too will tell you that is a crock of shit...and that there is absolutely no proof of it, which is consistent with a belief in a material world, thus materialism.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)non material phenomena.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Good stuff. But you really need to work on your attitude. You have a good message, but your delivery?....? Just saying!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm trying to steer you in the right direction and it seems to be working. So, once again, congrats!
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Uh... no.
The belief that god does not exist is the basis of the belief that god could not exist.
Besides.... who believes that "matter is all there is"? There is energy. There are the laws of physics.... which is why there is matter. And one doesn't "believe" in the laws of physics. One sees them working every minute of the day. It is why even religious people put the breaks on before they get to the stop sign. No belief required.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
Atheism is a rejection of god claims and that's it. There are atheists who believe in ghosts... you gonna tell me they're materialists???
Nope. Knowledge is a subset of belief. There are things I believe, and among the things I believe there the things I know.
If you find this confusing, I would suggest opening the closest dictionary. Look up the word "certainty" and get back to me.
...what is the difference between you and people of faith then because they believe too without knowledge...you are admitting that your belief in atheism is a matter of faith.
These equivocations are tiresome.
If you are using faith in the colloquial sense of the word--to believe something with some enthusiasm--then, yes, I have faith there are no gods.
But this is a dishonest deployment of the word, as it isn't what believers mean when they talk about "faith". What they describe as "faith" is a strong belief in the absence of evidence. And in that regard, no, I don't have faith that there are no gods. I simply reject claims to the existence of gods for a lack of evidence and compelling arguments to the contrary.
The fact is that there is no proof that the universe was created at all...creation is a concept of time and time is only something we perceive. It may not even be real.
No, it isn't an argument from absurdity. It's an illustration of why the burden of proof lies with the party making a claim and not the party rejecting it. My inability to conclusively prove a claim incorrect does not by virtue of itself lend said claim a single shred of plausibility.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Can you show that in a diagram, because those diagrams are definitive.
But yes I find it confusing because it is just word play, trying to avoid the fact that you have faith that what you believe is truth...and do so without proof...just as you claim that people that do believe have no proof.
Why do you avoid the word faith or theory and keep insisting that it is a fact?...for the same reason people of faith do...it would be more honest positron to argue from.
But that question I asked was not an equivocation it was an honest question...there was nothing ambiguous about it...and it is a fair question.
But you can go round and round on this because you think your "faith" in the fact that you are right and they are wrong in the face of lack of evidence that you are right.
The real truth is neither you or them know jack shit about it, and will never know as far as I can tell...the honest person knows that.
Our existence and this existence is a mystery wrapped in an enigma and no one has the answer to that...truth is knowing that...faith is thinking you know.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Worse, why believe in old books full of mistakes and uncharitable edicts?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)If you are waiting for proof of the nature of the universe and it's mysteries you will wait a long time.
Books are written by men and men make mistakes, but that does not change the nature of reality.
Many science books have made mistakes and were full of uncharitable edicts (the science of the third Rich exterminated people) but do you reject science because of it?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)The mistakes of the sacred books get passed from generation to generation,
becoming more and more obsolete.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)We still read old science and can get things out of it....some are older than the bible.
Is Origin of the Species obsolete?...the Vedas are far older than the bible and they are full of insight.
The problem comes when you apply 20th century thinking, principles and morality to ancient text...they are history.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)A digest of the best Greek and Chinese philosophers would do equally well.
Without the risk of buying into outdated 'moral' commandments.
PS: if you've read the Vedas, you know it takes a sieve and patience to find beautiful passages.
The rest is repetitive mythology. "And god so and so ate soma", ad nauseam.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Take any modern day book back 2000 years and let them read it and they would be baffled and offended in how we talk and write...that is because language changes with time and so does perception about what good writing is...just try to read old English sometimes.
But it is true that the bible contains violence and injustice...but so does history books, and in fact our modern history is by far more violent than theirs, what they did to hundreds we do to millions.
And what you will not admit is that most of the bible is history not commandments from god...and that is where you and fundamentalist agree..that it is all commandments from god.
It is a basic misunderstanding. One by the way the Jesus tried to put to rest...there is nothing he said that promoted violence and injustice, in fact he repudiated it over and over again, and that is clear if you read anything he is reported to have said.
Much later, the Roman church put all those old books together and declared it all gods word...and you say it is too and that proves that god is a violent concept.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Which is why neither history books nor the bible qualify as morality guides.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Morality is defined by us, humans.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Do tell.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Humanity, of course, decides what is moral and what is not. And does so by reference to historical writings and ruminations on ethics and morality. These ruminations are recored in, inter alia, scriptural writings and philosophic critiques of scriptural writings (see Spinoza, whose biblical critiques and scriptural analyses are rather well known).
The notion floated in the post I originally responded to was that the bible cannot be an ethical or moral reference point because it contains, to put in teenage terms, a bunch of bad stuff. Yet, oddly enough, the bible has been an historical reference point for ethical and moral discussion for a rather long time. I know it's hard to believe, but we aren't actually inventing ethical and moral analyses from whole cloth as a product of our contemporary, intellectual superiority.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)If you admit the Bible contains, in your teenage terms, a bunch of bad stuff, then by definition, it cannot as a book be a moral guide.
For the obvious reason that an external observer with morality must do the job of distinguishing what is moral and what is not in the Bible.
Now, the folks who invented the Bible or the Quran were not absolute psychopaths, or the books wouldn't have sold as they did. They had to include good stuff. It's called a honey trap.
LTX
(1,020 posts)what is moral and what is not in the Bible." Which leads back to my original question.
Your external observer is simply presumed to have morality. By your iteration, that external observer cannot have acquired any of that pre-existing moral knowledge from the bible (in your words, the bible "cannot as a book be a moral guide"
. So where did this external observer "with morality" get his or her moral information? Slightly rephrased, what do you think would be a good source for moral guidance?
Simply saying "humanity" is rather meaningless, unless you are contending that moral principles are genetic, innate, or instinctive. Then again, maybe that is your contention.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)A great deal is passed through genes and education.
Then there is the evolution of the society at given time (see the collective Nazi madness or during wartime)
The 'moral' laws are just distribution curves of what is accepted as good. With lots of quirks.
There is no objective morality in other terms.
LTX
(1,020 posts)moral guidance, whether oral or written. Indeed, you seem to be suggesting that ethical and moral decision making is independent of any such oral or written vehicles.
As a footnote, while there is certainly some indication that altruistic behavior has evolutionary advantages (although the extent of altruistic responses to feeding patterns in bacteria are not as conclusive as originally thought, as opposed to strictly selfish behavior patterns for which there are decidedly apparent and observable advantages), there is little to indicate, beyond familial and tribal survival saturation points, that human ethics and morality is anything but learned behavior. I am not at all persuaded that our present (if somewhat fractured) state of ethical and moral development has anything but a fraction of a genetic component. Education, it seems, is the very largely predominant medium by which ethical and moral principles are passed from generation to generation in humans.
As a second footnote, I would actually recommend Spinoza as a reference for moral education. But then, to fully understand and appreciate Spinoza's writings, one would have to have a biblical grounding.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)btw, the molecular structure is 'an interesting combination of pith and vacuity' too.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And you agree with them so you can ridicule them for it...and project that on to all people who are theist.
If turnabout is fair play they have the right to project atheist communist crimes and belief on you...Stalin was an atheist, so therefore atheist are cold blooded killers.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)If you believe in the books, you must stone witches in all 3 monotheisms.
That's what they do in Saudi Arabia.
Ken Ham said it best: if you start to pick and choose, the whole religion comes apart.
But IF you pick and choose, THEN you admit you use morality external to the book to decide.
Fundamentalist or not, one way or another, defense of the holy books is untenable.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)With them or against them.
You must believe the book is holy writ or it is all bullshit.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)A 'holy' book is holy and true or not.
There is no concept of half baked holiness.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)What you don't understand is that holy is not a fact it is in the eye of the beholder...anything can be holy if you make it so. Holy is a mental device, and has been used throughout history as a unifying device. It is holy because you make it so.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)The books themselves say they are the word of god. And that god is perfect.
The books create the dichotomy, not me. The eye of the beholder cannot alter the initial claim.
Lukewarm 'believers' are doubting the claims made by the books, ergo are irrational.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The entire underlying principle of science is "Here's what we think we know today, we'll be subjecting that to constant testing and scrutiny, and anything new we find out we'll update you on tomorrow. And so on. Forever."
Religion on the other hand is "Here is the Truth! The end."
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because science is a method of inquire not a dogmatic system.
But science can become dogmatic just as religion can, and the clue is when they say you are stupid if you don't believe this theory.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...that are currently backed by the entirety of available human knowledge, particularly when the people refusing to believe them aren't basing their refusal on actual data, is not dogmatic.
It's descriptive.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The low hanging fruit?
There are people right today challenging the widely held belief of cosmology being driven by gravity...it is called the Electric Universe and it is backed by data...lots of it and coming from well educated people in science.
But likely you don't know about it because no mainstream scientist would touch it for the fear of ridicule and loss of prestige...because it lends credence to Valitoski's theory, which mainstream science has declared a heresy...and yet as the data comes in from space it confirms it over and over again.
This war between atheism and fundamentalist has casualties...and that is the truth.
FYI, people who buy the electric universe nonsense *are* the "low hanging fruit.
No, it is not backed by data, it is based entirely on misinterpreting or just plain misrepresenting data. And saying it is coming from "well educated people in science" is the same kind of bullshit misdirection creationists pull when they get a bunch of computer scientists to sign a petition on evolution and forget that evolution is a biology thing and then say "Look! Scientists! On our side!!!"
Show me the cosmologists.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But since you have expressed your orthodoxy it is pointless to give you references.
But they do have data and evidence for what they say...which you will dismiss because of orthodoxy.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"Well my theory has lots of data... but you wouldn't accept it anyway so I'm not gonna show it to you..."
Suuuure.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The orthodoxy makes it so.
And frankly I don't have the energy to start argueing on a new topic...this one is frustrating enough with all the splitting of hairs on definitions of words.
I think it is bizarre that you define anything against the orthodox as pseudoscience...especially when there is scientific research being done on that very topic...and some of it very interesting.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It stands on it's own. You don't need to hide it.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)You can find it all over youtube.
And they make convincing arguments.
Here is an interesting one I found some months ago.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Alright then, we'll play in the sandbox if you can't manage a peer reviewed journal article or anything else resembling actual scientific work...
(please spare me any "They have to publish on youtube because the scientific establishment keeps them down man!" conspiracy theorizing nonsense)
I'm making my way through the video now, and trying to fight off the headache the overly dramatic expositions of the revolutionary findings he's getting is giving me... I'll detail the various bits of nonsense once I've gone all the way through the video. Right now I'm watching him play with an arc lamp while pretending it's some kind of advanced research laboratory equipment...
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Chances are you will not make it to the end where he demonstrates the theory with experiments.
Orthodoxy sees the new idea as a threat and must ridicule it.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I made it through the entire video. If you like I will walk you through the entire thing and write pages on the many various ways this guy is doing nothing but bullshitting his audience. But if you want one really clear example that this guy is full of crap:
He claims to be a Plasma Phycisist. (There is no record anywhere in any online search I have performed of his having any credentials in that field btw)
He spends a lot of time talking about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
He claims he spent quite a bit of time studying the research being done at CERN, saying the work being done at CERN is producing data that supports his theory...
And then at 10:45 we get the truly mind blowing stupidity that tells us how full of shit this guy is. I'm going to just transcribe what he says:
"Now in reviewing a video from CERN I noticed something quite bizarre, and it wasn't in the data from the collisions. It was in the shape of CERN's most well recognized building. the Globe of Science and Innovation in Geneva Switzerland. Not only was it a bowl shape, but the design of the building also had a hole in the top of the dome exactly as my theory would call for."
Now, maybe if you're not familiar with the Large Hadron Collider you might think, "Wow! His theory predicts and explains the shape of the structure used in one of the most advanced scientific engineering marvels on earth! Maybe he's onto something!"
Which is pretty obviously what he wants you to come away thinking.
If you ARE familiar with the Large Hadron Collider however then you know that the building he is talking about is basically THE FREAKING VISITORS CENTER. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Collider structure. It serves no function in the Collider at all. Mr "I'm a plasma physicist who has extensively studied the research being done at CERN" is saying his theory predicted/explained the shape of what might as well be CERN's gift shop. the building is that shape because some architect thought it looked cool. No other reason.
Guess what? He's a fraud. He has no idea what he's talking about. At all. He's just relying on his video viewers to know as much or less than he does.
When you said if I made it to the end of the video I'd see where he "demonstrates" his theory? Demonstrates it how? By drawing bowl shapes on top of pictures of stellar phenomena and then going "Ooooooh... look at how I can make them fit together"? He spends several minutes doing nothing but that down near the end... between yet more incredibly repetitious images of his arc lamp toy or playing with ball bearings in a magnetic field while making statements in an awe-filled tone.
That video was a pathetic joke.
but hey, feel free to keep believing he's legit. You can send him your money this summer when he start selling his miracle healing device that eliminates pain, cures disease and physical ailments, has anti-aging properties, increases your strength, improve your sexual function and pleasure... all by the amazing power of " Structured Ionic Fields". http://www.primercube.com/how-it-works/
(Yes, that's the same guy).
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Seriously, take a bow, we need more people like you to debunk idiotic pseudo-scientific "theories".
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Give this a read and get back to me. It's free.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)My belief is not an affliction that needs a cure.
But so that you know, I have read a lot of stuff like that and it did not convert me because I reserve an open mind about such things.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I have neither the time nor the inclination to convert you to introductory philosophy.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because I have never been exposed to it before.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Or you weren't paying attention. Because you're failing very hard on some very basic concepts.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)What you can't argue with rhetoric you ridicule as ignorance.
It is why I seldom come here...too much work for a predictable outcome.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)182. Every belief system has it's dogmas laid down by the leaders.
In fact you ended with one...Magic.
The idea that if one observes something that defies the belief system it must be a magic trick of deception...and often it is and that lend credence to it.
But in general dogma is created by the leaders as tenants of the belief...this is what you must believe to be one of us.
The dogmas of atheism are no different in composition than any religion even though they take the opposite view...and this is true of any belief system...including science.
But look closer at every dogma...like the magic one...and you will see that even atheist believe in magic...like the Big Bang used to explain how it all got here, and as we learned more with better equipment we had a lot of unresolved things to explain it...so we invented other magic to explain it...dark matter, black holes, string theory...all so we could explain the mysteries that are all around us without discarding the basic big bang theory...Big Bang became the dogma of science.
And if any one of them doubts it he is out and ridiculed for it, so no one asks the question is time an illusion and there was no beginning and there is no end...that would be laughed at in science circles...of course time exist, look at the clock on the wall...we can observe time ticking away on the wall.
But these questions will be answered eventually...but not by the dogmatic approach to science and cosmology but by open minds.
And open minds do not seek to debunk other ideas but to learn from them...and yes you can learn from wrong ideas. The need to debunk them is to protect not to learn.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=177662
What you can't argue with rhetoric you ridicule as ignorance.
What a hypocrite.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)To people with such thin skin.
Must not question the rightness of the superior minds...especilay the dogma.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Just incredibly ignorant.
You're the one getting all bent out of shape and lashing out at straw men.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Another logical fallacy...argument from superior knowledge.
But don't confuse assertiveness with anger.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The minimum threshold for debate is an intelligible proposition, and you've yet to make one.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And just because you don't understand it does not make it unintelligible.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
phil89
(1,043 posts)require faith?? Seriously, this is pretty simple stuff. Atheism does not claim there is no God, it simply rejects the claims because of lack of evidence. You should understand this if you're going to be posting about it. Atheism requires no faith. Faith is belief without reason, atheism espouses no belief.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Faith in the fact that all is known about life on earth...and that is simply not true.
It is one thing to say there is no proof and another to say it is not true.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...between "lack of belief in" and "belief in".
A lack of belief in Bigfoot does not in the slightest way require one to think that all is known about life on earth. All it requires is that no compelling reason to adopt a belief in Bigfoot has been provided.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The coin of I Know...which makes it difficult for them to say I don't know or it could be.
And it is particularly difficult for those in the science field or are enamored of it, because the are told by our social system they are the smart ones, and to admit something like that is hard for them...the ego rules.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...and my best guess is that you're trying to claim that both people who lack belief in something and people who believe in something are not admitting they don't know things.
Which is bullshit.
Here, let me provide you with an example. I don't know that there is no creature on this earth that could be described as a Bigfoot, but I do not believe that there is.
See how that works?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The clue is in the prefix of non.
But no, they are both saying that they DO know things...one that it exists and the other that it does not exist...one the positive and the other the negative.
But you proved it yourself..."but I do not believe that there is." but you want to say that is not a belief system because of the not or the negative...implying only belief in the positive sense is belief...and that is bullshit.
If a communist does not believe in capitalism does that make it not a belief system?
The problem seems to be that the word belief has been demonetize as something bad and so only the wrong are the ones who have it.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)But no, they are both saying that they DO know things...one that it exists and the other that it does not exist
No. They. Aren't.
"Do not believe X exists" does not mean the same thing as "Know X does not exist". Not even close.
To illustrate, answer this question:
Do you believe there is a chunk of rock three feet in diameter currently orbiting Pluto four times times per year?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That he is telling you he KNOWS god exists?
And to answer your question, sense it was observed then it is likely true...but what has that to do with the point?...but in that question is an assumption that is not known...that it is a rock.
And what we are talking about is assumptions made without evidence.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)They believe it. Which is not the same as saying they "know" it.
"And to answer your question, sense it was observed then it is likely true"
What the hell are you talking about? WHAT was observed? There has been no three foot diameter rock orbiting Pluto four times a year observed by anybody.
And you said "to answer your question" and then proceeded not to answer it. I didn't ask you about the likelihood of anything. I asked if you believed there was a three foot rock orbiting Pluto four times a year. Do you?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That you made up knowing that no one had made that claim or observed it.
If it was not observe then I neither believe it nor disbelieve it...why would I ?
Like I said above these discussions end the same way, condescending and ridicule...because that is all you have to win with. And don't call that logic.
But if they believe it and you can ridicule it even if they are not telling you they know it why are you surprised or outraged if you are ridiculed for the same act of non belief? Is your act of belief superior?
The more I hear what is said the more rigid your view of science is.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It is an astonishingly simple question.
"If it was not observe then I neither believe it... "
So the answer to "do you believe it?" is NO then.
"...nor disbelieve it"
I didn't ask if you disbelieved it, and I don't care. I only asked if you believed it and you have now answered that you do not.
Now... does your saying you do not believe it constitute a claim on your part that you have perfect knowledge of the entire orbital space around Pluto and that you KNOW there is no rock fitting that description in it?
Or is it simply the result of you having not been presented with any reason TO believe this particular thing?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And you assume that people who believe in god have not been presented with any reason to think one exists...because you have not seen it you think your experience is universal.
Well it is not.
As for myself I was an atheist until about my late 20 and my experiences showed me I did not know shit about it, and so I changed my mindset...started studying the subject and found that I indeed did not know shit...I did not find religion I found a world of truth that neither religion or atheism even knows about...and will never know about because a fixed mind , like the unexamined life is not worth living.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You literally answered you did not believe it.
If I say I am neither wet nor cold then am I wet? No. Am I cold? No.
So if you say you neither believe nor disbelieve this thing do you believe it? NO.
And it is not a freaking trick question. It is an educational one. I am... slowly and painfully... teaching you what these statements mean.
Now, we've established you do not believe it (I don't give a crap if you also don't know, that is a different question and I never asked you)
Why don't you believe it? Think.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)trying to trap me with your clever devices of word salads...that mean nothing.
Yes you are the great teacher of the razzle dazzle...the great educational specialist of the true belief of the non belief.
I am impressed.
But I do wonder why you do it...to expend all that energy to protect your sense of being right all the time.
But to answer that you would have to look inside yourself, and I suspect you cannot do that...because you think there is nothing there but blood and bones.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)We are crawling painfully from point A to point B while you scratch and claw at the ground trying to pull us backwards.
For instance, by writing an entire response that completely avoids even mentioning the subject we're discussing rather than admitting you're wrong.
Now either you can figure this out or you can't...
Why. Don't. You. Believe. That. Rock. Is. There?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The subject we are discussing is now about the trick question you keep trying to massage into something...to claim victory.
Any answer I give to the trick question will be wrong.
But you do win, I am tired of this nonsense.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It is not a trick question. There are no wrong answers. The only objective here is to make you comprehend the meaning of the statement "I do not believe X".
The only reason you think all the answers are wrong is because you can't think of an answer that lets you cling to your silly claim that if someone says they don't believe something exists that means they are claiming to know it doesn't exist.
But that isn't because it's a trick question it's just because YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT THAT and this is illustrating the point for you if you would drop the paranoid delusion that this is some kind of sneaky deception and just think for 5 seconds about what the words you are saying mean.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)You spend all this time trying to school me on the meaning of... I do not believe...as if you think I don't understand words.
And my point is that saying I don't believe and then following it up with, and if you do you must be an ignorant fool, is saying I know all about it.
And invariably that is what the atheist crusaders do...because they think they have it all figured out because they are smarter than the stupid believers and hold them in contempt for believing.
That is the mark of insecurity IMO...I don't know what that is about but I wish you the best.
FarrenH
(768 posts)that the growth of atheism is a refutation to the idea that some of the New Atheists are jerks. It isn't. They're jerks, and atheist ranks continue to swell because education undermines religious claims about nature, repeated religious scandals show how conservative religious belief does more harm than good, and various other reasons.
The New Atheists in question are jerks not because they're "aggressive" or "speak truth to power", but because they're sexist (Dawkins, who's popular science books are otherwise great) or go beyond advocacy against the irrationality of religion into the territory of rationalizing crimes committed by Western governments and powerful interest groups in the West (Harris, et al), bigotry and orientalism.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)No they aren't.
Dawkins is not "sexist".
And Harris pointing out the problems with religions is not rationalizing crimes.
Stop promoting ridiculous assertions. Jesus.... did you really fall for all that stupid hysteria drummed up to demonize them or what?
FarrenH
(768 posts)I mean, I actually really like his science writing. I've got about 3 of his books. It's not like I have a grudge against the guy or anything. But he has a horribly sexist streak. I've read his offensive comments on PZ Myers blog (who coincidentally is an old online friend of mine from now defunct atheist forums). And it's noteworthy that Myers, who he has long been chummy with, has also called him out on it.
Harris has written essays rationalizing torture. He has written articles downplaying Apartheid in Israel. He has written essays justifying wars of aggression. Harris' views, while not entirely aligned with every foreign policy decision of the last twenty years, have generally tracked closely enough to state positions or the positions of the powerful in the West to reveal a pattern. One that rightly leads critics like Chomsky to accuse him of following "the religion of the state".
It's not just "criticizing religion". Harris frames and contextualizes his criticisms of Islam in particular according to the dominant narrative of an economic-elite serving corporate media in the state in which he finds himself. He holds the killing of tens by poorly equipped guerillas as deserving greater moral sanction than the killing, injuring and ongoing oppression of millions through state sponsored violence, because "motive". He casts suicide bombing, a tactical instrument pioneered by Zen/Shinto practitioners in WWII in the Pacific and Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka, as a quintessentially Muslim tactic revealing Muslim attitudes to human life. Despite the fact that in the half century the tactic has been employed by a few Muslim groups, less than 1,000 of the world's 1.x billion Muslims have participated in it. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest Harris is simply "criticizing religion".
Also, he's thrown around a few sexist intimations of gender essentialism ("that estrogen vibe" .
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)He casts suicide bombing, a tactical instrument pioneered by Zen/Shinto practitioners and Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka, as a quintessentially Muslim tactic revealing Muslim attitudes to human life.
You disregard the fact that being ready to die in the name of Islam is the greatest muslim honor.
In doctrine
And in hagiography, like that of Caliph Omar:
FarrenH
(768 posts)that a suicidal tactic employed by around 1,000 putative Muslims at the end of the 20th century, out of the billions alive and more that have ever lived, cannot reasonably be held up as quintessentially Islamic and a natural consequence of Islamic belief?
Harris' tendency (replicated here by your reply) to draw on obscure Islamic scholarship and texts to show it to be an *exceptional* repository of bad ideas among religions is irritating too. It's not showing what he thinks it's showing. Similar parsing of Jewish and Christian texts throws up equal measures of obscenity. From instructions to killing your child if they curse you to advising you to marry off your daughter to her rapist if she is raped. Like Christianity and Judaism, interpretation of Islamic dictates varies greatly and is contingent on local culture, local history et al. Different people understand their faith differently. Harris loves him some True Scotsman, it seems.
Of course, in the real world practice, belief and putative canonic authority only intersect, not march in lockstep, as anyone raised in a Christian home where children weren't killed for cursing their parents knows. And it is for this reason that Harris goes on about reformation in the Christian and Jewish worlds and various accommodations to the du jour humanitarian values of our age. And the lack of anything resembling a similar reformation in Islam. And for evidence that the worst instructions he can dig out of an obscure legal opinion are still very much in effect he must turn behaviour in the real world.
Hence his peculiar emphasis on suicide bombing as quintessentially Islamic, among other things. But given the actual numbers and history, it is truly outrageous to suggest that it is "typically" Islamic in any material sense. Thus does he navigate from the kind of "true scotsman" fallacy that arises out of earnestly suggesting that interpretation of canon is universal, straight into an example that suffers vast insufficiency of material evidence. These two arguments do not somehow become greater than the sum of their parts when combined.
An amusing aside to all of this is that in talking about the Christian Reformation, Harris does not realise that most of the reformers were more conservative and fundamentalist than the church they thought was rotten. You do not want that kind of reformation in any of the world's religions today.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Let's take the different elements of your answer by religion:
• Judaism: yes, the Torah is insane. And yes, it's only basically a violent land claim. However, from a doctrinal point of view, Judaism has decided that the Talmud somewhat takes precedence over the Torah. From then on, Judaism can pretty much do what it wants as the readings of the Talmud can say pretty much black or white on demand. So, doctrinally, it would be difficult to ascribe inherent violence to Judaism.
• Christianity: yes, the 'fathers' of the Reformation were nutjobs. What I personally see as the most unforgivable is the execution of Servetus. That execution alone should have sent Calvin to roast in hell if there was such a thing as hell. And Luther and his growing antisemitism and antirationalism was not a nice guy either. BUT even if it contains some wacko parts, the essence of the NT isn't too bad IF one assume that Yeshua only paid reverence to the Torah only so as to be heard.
• Islam: there is no escaping the fact that Islam is doctrinally more violent. As I stated above, both in foundational text (Quran) and in hagiography (hadiths, history of the 4 guided Caliphs). Yes, Sam Harris does tend to take an Americanocentric view of religion (and his origins are Jewish/Christian), I also radically disagree with Harris's statements about the use of torture (waterboarding), BUT he's dead on the money about Islam.
Harris used a funny image comparing sports and religions. Sports share the fact that sportsmen all breathe. Very little beyond that: if you hurt yourself playing badminton, you feel silly, if you hurt yourself while doing thai boxing, it's pretty much par for the course. Same for religions: hurt others in the name of Jainism, and you're out of that reliion. Hurt someone in the name of Islam (my quotes above), and you won the fast track to heaven. Not quite all religions are peaceful.
FarrenH
(768 posts)Last edited Sat May 30, 2015, 10:12 AM - Edit history (3)
like Harris does. The point being that adopting a statistical approach to "number of times violence is advocated" and "number of loopholes" (like Christian disputes about when the NT negates the OT or the OT law is no longer relevant) is not, from actual historical evidence, a remotely sufficient way of parsing the material phenomenon of a religion or even it's "natural predisposition". There have been long periods where Christendom, in the name of Christianity, was more violent than it's Islamic neighbors. And during those periods whatever justifications for violence that could be found in canon were employed. Canon interpretation is always contingent on local culture, politics and economic circumstance.
One of the inherent problems with parsing this way is that the so-called religions of the book suffer from a surplus of internal contradictions and these contradictions can be and are exploited at different points in history to justify different political goals. Lets look at apostasy in Islam, for example. While various punishments are justified in terms of particular hadiths, both the Koran (there is no compulsion in faith) and other hadiths contradict that. And yes, there have been Islamic scholars in the past and scholars today that said and say that punishment for apostasy contradicts the idea of coming to or leaving faith freely, as is actually advocated in both Hadith and Koran. One Egyptian scholar pointed out that taken literally, the hadith most often used to justify punishment for apostasy unavoidably implies that Christians and Jews who convert to Islam should be punished. This last opinion is so well founded in the text that you have to ask why this is the minority interpretation in the putatively Muslim world today.
The answer, obviously, is that interpretation is contingent not merely on number or proportion of violent prescriptions in text, but on political, cultural and economic circumstance. We find ourselves in a world where for the last century, the USA's close ally Saudi Arabia has used it's immense oil wealth to spread a violent and fundamentalist interpretation across the globe. This itself is a political convenience. The Saudi Royals don't behave as if they're particularly devout. But Wahhabi clerics do strongly support and lend legitimacy to their despotic rule. While Iran, a theocracy born out of the USA toppling the elected socialist regime of Mossedagh is similarly responsible for influencing violent Shia groups abroad.
And so it goes. When we examine history we find that going back in time the power of violent Islamism actually diminishes. A wise man would examine Islamist violence today in light of history (colonialism, Arab socialist strongmen, despots and post-colonial Western interference) and recognize the political contingencies that intersect with faith to produce violent, inhumane political groups that rest on religious justifications. As Obama once said when times get tough people turn to their guns and holy books. And the Muslim world has not only experienced two centuries of decline in relative power, but two centuries of decline very actively assisted by nominally Christian/Jewish nations. To evaluate only this moment in history, especially while dismissing external influences, to determine the "true face of Islam" is sophomoric.
Harris doesn't bother with local culture, economics, politics, history. In fact I have pored over a lot of his writing and it's not merely a lack of acknowledgement. In response to criticism of his obvious blinkers he has repeatedly hand-waved away political and economic contingencies involved in particular groups and phenomena he is examining. He actively devalues them as causal factors in a manner that no earnest scholar of Middle Eastern or global politics would consider remotely compelling, while treating religious canon as a complete and sufficient causal explanation for very specific phenomena.
It wasn't the reformation that made the Christian world more peaceful (if interference abroad is ignored) and secular. Today there are still European countries where apostacy and blasphemy is a crime, even though the laws are ignored. Less than 100 years ago those laws were still being used to prosecute people. Economic prosperity, political freedom and extra-religious political movements have driven that change. A majority of western Catholics, for example, happily ignore Catholic canon about homosexuality, abortion and divorce, at least if political and economic choices are taken as a guide. While many of their brethren in Africa are backing new laws introducing the death penalty for homosexuals in multiple countries.
His American-centered worldview is not a trivial problem. The man engages in the worst kind of Orientalism. Many of his arguments are sophomoric and anti-factual.
Postscript: Yeah, it's hard to find textual justification in Judaism for religious violence, except when political contingencies encourage it. Funny that:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/08/02/israeli-rabbi-preaches-quot-slaughter-quot-of-gentile-babies/
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)No he hasn't....
Unless you are oversensitive.
"HORRIBLY sexist" what exactly? (don't forget context)
Sexist: "prejuduce, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."
This is not a description of Richard Dawkins.... in any way.
FarrenH
(768 posts)but sexist, yes, he has said some sexist things.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)None of which are quotable, apparently.
Nitram
(22,791 posts)But I think there is a confusion here between the institutions that grow up around the "business" of religion, and the philosophical framework of the religion itself. Religious institutions often become corrupt over time, losing sight of the beliefs upon which they were founded, and end up believing that the institution or church itself is more important than the people it was originally designed to serve in a spiritual capacity. Blaming all religions for the corruption of some is the equivalent of condemning all Muslims because of the acts of some of them. I don't consider myself a Christian or a Buddhist, but I personally have been strongly influenced for the good by many of the insights I've garnered from both religions.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Thank you for so succinctly stating it.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Was the land of Israel promised?
What is the original 'sin'?
Why is violent jihad OK?
Sure, religious institutions are imperfect, they are human.
But so are the philosophical frameworks of the religions.
Nitram
(22,791 posts)Jihad is a personal struggle to overcome one's own weaknesses and failings.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Violent jihad is one of them.
It also happens to be the one most mentioned in the Quran.
And I won't insult you by asking you what meaning most muslims usually refer to.
Nitram
(22,791 posts)"Most Muslims" is exactly the generalization you are making, ignoring the fact that there are differing views across the Muslim spectrum of belief. Can you find me research or a poll that indicates that most Muslims believe that jihad is "the framework" for Islam, and that jihad primarily refers to armed conflict?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)If you asked these questions in earnest, two solutions:
A - you are honestly blind to the world
B- you decided to be blind to make the world fit to your views
Question: when a muslim group takes a name like "islamic jihad", to which of the 4 types of jihad do you think it refers to?
You mentioned jihad was absent of Islamic theology. I pointed out that actually islamic theology does present and discusses 4 forms of jihad. Hence jihad IS a recognized part of islamic theology. A point you were careful not to acknowledge. So, I'd go with option B.
Nitram
(22,791 posts)I never said that jihad is "absent of Islamic theology." Please don't put words in my mouth. I said it is not "the philosophical framework" of Islam. And, indeed, it is not. The Five Pillars of Islam are 1 Testimony, 2 Prayer, 3 Alms-giving, 4 Fasting, and 5 Pilgrimage. Anyone who thinks violent jihad is central to Islam is misinformed.
"When a muslim group takes a name like islamic jihad" what relevance does that have to what the majority of Muslims believe? Do you believe the majority of Muslims are members of violent jihadist groups that have a name like "islamic jihad"? If so, you are in error.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Yes, thank you very much, I am aware of the 5 'pillars' of Islam. But those pillars hide an unpleasant truth =
1 Testimony, 2 Prayer, 3 Alms-giving, 4 Fasting, and 5 Pilgrimage as pillars are not the highway to heaven.
Jihad is. As said by muhamad himself, as recorded in the hadiths. Do you know them, or do I get them for you?
And your comment about my point on islamic jihad was extremely dihonest.
Evidently, most muslims do not have the time or inclination to belong in person to a jihadi group.
Nor was it what I said. What I said was that when violent islamists pick a name like "Islamic Jihad" or equivalent,
they do so to be understood by the masses. Masses whose main understanding of the word jihad is a violent one.
Nitram
(22,791 posts)...to suggest that all Muslims are implicated in the actions of violent jihadist groups. You seem far more interested in scoring empty debate points and ad hominem attacks than actually discussing the points I raise. I'll sign off to avoid more of your acrimonious rhetoric.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Saying that I
is verifiably a lie.
Nitram
(22,791 posts)If not, perhaps you could have been clearer about your actual opinion instead of going on about anyone who disagrees with you "must be blind."
Response to Nitram (Reply #133)
Post removed
Nitram
(22,791 posts)Won't make that mistake again. have a nice day! 
jomin41
(559 posts)
Roy Rolling
(6,915 posts)Atheists who proselytize on political forums are just as speculative as hyper-religionists who rationalize their belief system.
Both use poetic and technical language to explain their measurement of something that is, by definition, not measurable.
The existence of spiritual matter is not proven or disproven by material measurements, any more than you can measure the intensity of light with a sound meter.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If you find that annoying you can simply trash the forum.
I find religion to be a net harm to society and a major organizing tool for the current right wing political domination of our society, so no thanks, I will not stop discussing why religion is harmful bullshit.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That's odd.
proselytize: to try to persuade people to join a religion, cause, or group
What about the article do you think is trying "to persuade people to join a religion, cause, or group"? Please be specific.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And then measure it.
Disbelief and belief are not equal propositions. You've grabbed on to a bullshit canard that believers think they can use for cover to make their positive claims untouchable by reason or critical analysis.
"I believe X"
"I don't believe X"
Not equal propositions. First order problem, believers go on to say "and you should join me" or "and therefore Y behavior/issue should be proscribed by law" (eg. Abortion)
Atheists go on to say "and leave me alone" or "and keep your faith out of government"
These are not equal, balanced positions of equal merit or worth. A positive claim carries burden of proof. A rejection of an unproven claim does not.
phil89
(1,043 posts)about lack of belief. And what exactly is "spiritual matter"?
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)Jesus Christ was just as real. Well,
to me anyways.
He lived and died just like Ghandi.(sp)
My take is that Christianity is dying because
Jesus' teachings have been compromised.
Religion covers more than Christianity.
I take history's word for it that
George Washington was real.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)is equivalent to the historicity of George Washington is laughable.
How can you decide that your interpretation of those teachings is superior to those of, for example, the roman catholic church, which church can make a valid claim to have been providing their interpretation of the teachings of the alleged jesus person continuously since the 4th century?
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)What has the Roman Catholic Church to do
with what I wrote? Is the Roman Catholic Church
all of Christianity? It certainly was not the
first Christian Church.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And their teachings go back to a mere 300 years after this alleged God was walking around. So as you started out making historical arguments, you should indeed be looking at those Christian institutions that can trace their origins closest in time to the actual alleged events for some sort of authenticity.
Or perhaps your point was that nobody really has a clue with respect to the authentic teachings of this supposed man-god?
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)I missed your point ... You meant why is
the Roman Catholic Church fading in
the west?
I do not attend so I don't know.
phil89
(1,043 posts)that we require acceptance of a human sacrifice for salvation? I'm glad a disgusting teaching like that is compromised. Have you thought very deeply about exactly what Christianity teaches?
Nitram
(22,791 posts)...for his spiritual, philosophical or political beliefs is not "requiring the acceptance of human sacrifice for salvation." I don't consider myself a Christian, but I like the way Jesus defended the poor, the sick and the down-trodden and criticized the wealthy. I like the concept that we should strive to be selfless, compassionate and tolerant. Granted, many versions of modern "Christians" don't have a clue what Jesus is actually said to have taught, but that doesn't change the fact that much of what he taught was insightful and worth striving towards.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)as an act of redemption for the sins of all humans. This ritual sacrifice is re-enacted, complete with ritual cannibalism, on a weekly basis in many christian sects. The executioners were playing their role in the ritual.
Christianity is also fundamentally a religion for slaves that teaches slaves to accept their lot in life because heaven will be a much better place where their slave owning masters won't have it so good. Do you admire that part too?
Nitram
(22,791 posts)That view is not shared by all Christians.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)something quite similar to the two beliefs I outlined.
Nitram
(22,791 posts)...Christianity is fundamentally a religion for slaves that teaches slaves to accept their lot in life because heaven will be a much better place where their slave owning masters won't have it so good. I'm not sure how to respond to a statement that is that absurdly wrong. But at least you can take comfort in the fact that Ayn Rand would agree with you.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and the role it played in the late roman empire, in feudal europe, in plantation culture in the americas, in the industrializing world of the 19th and 20th centuries and even today. I agree that is a fairly limited scope, spanning a mere 1700+ years.
Were there and are there christians and christian sects who take a different approach toward the relationship between the people and their rulers? Certainly. Regardless of that, what I outlined is in fact how christianity has functioned as a religious ideology, for most people and for most of its history.
Nitram
(22,791 posts)...including gnostics, who had very different ideas about the life of Jesus and his message. To portray them all as believing in human sacrifice and cannibalism is absurd.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It's between a Marcionite chapel and a shrine to Simon Magus.
I jest, of course, because you're half-right. Christianity in the first and second centuries was a ramshackle collection of loosely organized communities, lacking somewhat in central dogma. But that largely changed by the third and fourth centuries. The Gnostics and Marcionites were suppressed while the church of James in Palestine, having sat on the fence during one too many Jewish uprisings against Rome, found themselves unwelcome in their own homeland and faded away into oblivion. Of all the early churches, the Church of Paul was the only one to survive, and thus every modern Christian denomination can be traced back to Rome.
So, Warren is more or less correct. While there may have been a sect here or there that, in the early days of the Christian church, rejected the notion of blood atonement, none of those sects survived. Throughout the larger portion of the religion's history, the vast majority of Christians have professed to accept Jesus' death as a means of atoning for original sin.
And, honestly, if we're trying to determine what the religion was "originally" about, I wouldn't look to the Gnostics. Gnosticism was primarily confined to the Hellenistic provinces of the Roman Empire, where gentile converts, without detailed knowledge of Judaism, tried to make sense of Christianity within the context of their traditional religions.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)His teeth, his clothing, his sword, his inaugural and farewell address notes in his own hand? First person penned correspondence with thousands of other people? First hand made portraits?
No, you don't have ANY of that shit. Not a scrap.
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)I did not know it was required, no, I do not
have George's wooden teeth, or the rest of that stuff.
I assume somebody must have it?
I do not have anything belonging to Jesus.
I have read that he did not write. A scribe
wrote for him? I assume.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The gospels was written apparently no earlier than 30-140 years after his alleged death.
You can visit George Washington's actual personal home, read his letters written in his own hand, see his teeth and other direct personal artifacts. Same for British commanders he defeated in battle. You can go to the smithsonian and view countless more artifacts and papers, the library of congress has official docs penned in his own hand, there are portraits of him, painted by hand, of him, not from descriptions of him, etc.
None of that exists for the biblical character of Jesus.
That by itself doesn't prove he didn't exist, either as a normal guy, or the biblical character, but it's ridiculous to assert there is equal evidence for both.
Pretending like "There was a general who fought a war then became president of the new nation that was founded after the war was won" and "there was a guy who was born after an all powerful magical superbeing impregnated his virgin mother then walked around performing miracles with his magical powers before dying then magically getting resurrected and going to heaven" are equivalent historical claims is insanity.
If you can't perceive the Grand Canyon sized chasm of a difference between those two historical claims you are to be pitied.
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)She had seven sons as I recall.
Myself, I have walked along the beach
many times and I am sure it was water I was walking on.
Maybe Jesus just appeared to be walking on water
when he walked on the jetty where the boats
were docking?
The wives of Patriarchs were called Virgins ... ms. Patriarch,
not virgins. It is highly unlikely that a virgin can
be impregnated and still be a virgin? What about
artificial insemination?
I must be missing something in this discussion.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Thank you for the opportunity to bring it to a wider audience.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)"But denying the truth claims of religion won’t suffice, because religion is about much more than truth; it’s about meaning, values, tradition, consolation, community, and transcendence.
Does this make sense?
- meaning? what meaning do religions bring? (the golden rule is not religious)
- values? ditto. What are the specifically religious values? An emphasis, maybe.
- tradition? Tradition is what was done before. In what does habit confer value?
- consolation? Like the tooth fairy?
- community. Yes, humans build in-groups and out-groups. Double edged sword.
- transcendence? wadsthat? There are things higher which we admire, but above, high up?
Words, words, words.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)..."from the perspective of the believer" in his list,
..because religion is much more than truth; it's about meaning (as proffered by churches/synagogues/mosques/shrines and as understood by a believer), values (as generally shared by believers, as a class), tradition (again, as shared by any given particular class {i.e. church} of believers), consolation (which I would argue is a Human emotional need, and which most current belief systems provide as a side benefit), community (built-in to the concept of a church, with believers unified around their particular shared tenets) and transcendence (a concept co-opted by religion {a secular person can transcend bigotry taught by their parents, no god required} and used to further their agendas)
It does not mean that religions "own" these ideas, they have just co-opted and conflated them for their use, and thus, atheist's should recognize that while arguments proffered solely from "truth" might win in philosophy departments they will be insufficient as a means to expose the practical day to day hypocrisy of adhering to long established, extensively buttressed, deeply entrenched, widely distributed and constantly defended belief in the supernatural by believers (as a class).
Just my 1.5 cents worth of contribution to this thread...
Yorktown
(2,884 posts).. I detect some skepticism in your comments.
How do you expect to make it to Thor's Walhalla if you doubt?
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...I fear I may not have been forceful enough in expressing my skepticism.
I will endeavor to do better in the future. With no regrets at all, unless maybe I'm tagged by a roving alert(er).
And as far as thor's Walhalla goes, who is to say we're not there already?
Who's to say that expressing "doubt" isn't the true and secret key required to gain access to "Walhalla".
mr blur
(7,753 posts)There are a lot of them around.
