The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Roundy on January 07, 2014, 05:49:48 AM
-
Thork is right about modern atheists. You can claim that you aren't part of the movement all you want, but when you start quoting Dawkins and Hitchens and (a new favorite, it seems) Krauss in your support of the evils of religion, you are a new atheist like it or not. And most modern atheists get a hard-on at the mere mention of any one of those names.
Here's something to chew on: statistically, your religious friends who go to church and pay blind allegiance to a God you don't think they should believe exists are going to live several years longer than you. So right about the existence of God or not they must be doing something right that you aren't.
-
And Roundy boards the SS Fallacy, destination, nowhere.
-
ITT: The vocal minority must be the majority because I don't hear from anyone else!!!!
-
Lol at Roundy. You're going to quote people who spent a lot of time fighting religion if a theist starts at you, spewing bullshit from a book written 2000 or so years ago.
-
You should write sci-fi.
Perhaps too much sci-fi got me to this point. I can't deny the elegance, though.
Think of all the simulated recognition and money you will gain.
Lol at Roundy. You're going to quote people who spent a lot of time fighting religion if a theist starts at you, spewing bullshit from a book written 2000 or so years ago.
Dude, very helpful.
-
Lol at Roundy. You're going to quote people who spent a lot of time fighting religion if a theist starts at you, spewing bullshit from a book written 2000 or so years ago.
Dude, very helpful.
Uh huh. Blanko. Hah.
-
Lol at Roundy. You're going to quote people who spent a lot of time fighting religion if a theist starts at you, spewing bullshit from a book written 2000 or so years ago.
Yes, that's what atheists tend to do, although it seems they're usually the ones starting the arguments. I just don't agree that religion is something that ought to be fought, if it's something that on an otherwise level playing field is of such benefit. Admittedly, people like Dawkins represent something of an extreme, but their (and his in particular) influence in shaping the way the modern intellectual thinks is a little scary, given their vicious anti-religious stance.
I know, by the way, that there are people out there who are extremely annoying in pushing their religions. But if they're that far gone do you really think there will be any benefit in getting into an argument with them and trying to convince them rationally that they're wrong (except perhaps your own smug self-satisfaction, something else Dawkins oozies... I really hate Richard Dawkins)? We all remember Wardogg. And apparently, if you do manage to convince them they're wrong, you will personally be shortening their lifespan. Congratulations for your victory.
-
We need more Jewish-like religions that keep to themselves and tell you "even if you join this religion you're still not a chosen one and receive no benefits whatsoever."
-
We need more Jewish-like religions that keep to themselves and tell you "even if you join this religion you're still not a chosen one and receive no benefits whatsoever."
Hopefully all they will do is demand crappy pieces of land that no one really cares about except them.
-
Lol at Roundy. You're going to quote people who spent a lot of time fighting religion if a theist starts at you, spewing bullshit from a book written 2000 or so years ago.
Yes, that's what atheists tend to do, although it seems they're usually the ones starting the arguments. I just don't agree that religion is something that ought to be fought, if it's something that on an otherwise level playing field is of such benefit. Admittedly, people like Dawkins represent something of an extreme, but their (and his in particular) influence in shaping the way the modern intellectual thinks is a little scary, given their vicious anti-religious stance.
I know, by the way, that there are people out there who are extremely annoying in pushing their religions. But if they're that far gone do you really think there will be any benefit in getting into an argument with them and trying to convince them rationally that they're wrong (except perhaps your own smug self-satisfaction, something else Dawkins oozies... I really hate Richard Dawkins)? We all remember Wardogg. And apparently, if you do manage to convince them they're wrong, you will personally be shortening their lifespan. Congratulations for your victory.
I don't disagree that anyone caring about or quoting Dawkins or Hitchens is a so-called New Atheist, because those are the people who for some reason need a spokesperson to justify their beliefs for them. That's how you turn a simple belief into a shitty movement.
But you're way overstating how many of these people there are. Most atheists don't give a crap about Dawkins, or even know who he is. The people who do care come down to just about the userbase of /r/atheism and then some, and the majority of them are Americans. They're mostly people who feel like they're being persecuted for being an atheist, so they think it's only appropriate to persecute religions back.
In reality, most people don't feel the need to state or otherwise let be known their religious affiliations in normal conversation, so maybe in your mind you automatically believe people who don't acts like jerks to be Christian. Don't be a Thork.
-
What Blanko said, really. Also, quoting someone because they made a good point does not mean you wholly agree with them. Quoting Dawkins' or Hitchens' points makes you a New Atheist about as much as quoting Tupac makes you a gangbanger. I dislike Dawkins' smugness as much as anyone else, but that doesn't mean all of his points are suddenly unusable.
Also, "religious people live longer" is not much of an argument. Stupid and/or ignorant people are also happier, so...I guess we should shut down schools and promote stupidity?
-
Don't be a Thork.
Sig'd.
-
Also, "religious people live longer" is not much of an argument. Stupid and/or ignorant people are also happier, so...I guess we should shut down schools and promote stupidity?
I have to disagree. It's not much of an argument for belief in God itself, but it's certainly an argument in favor of the existence of religion (or at the very least for leaving the poor deluded sons of bitches alone). Just remember that the next time you get into an argument with that devout churchgoing Christian you will (essentially) actively be trying to shorten his life.
Also, what studies have been done that show stupid people are happier people? I have a feeling that's a crock of shit. Also I bet smart people tend to live longer than stupid people, just because they will be better able to take care of themselves.
-
I think you may have to fill us in on your train of thought here. What exactly is it about religion that increases people's lifespans, and how are those lifespans reduced if coming in contact with arguments regarding religion?
This may possibly be the most far-fetched strawman I've ever come across in an atheism vs. religion argument.
-
I think you may have to fill us in on your train of thought here. What exactly is it about religion that increases people's lifespans, and how are those lifespans reduced if coming in contact with arguments regarding religion?
This may possibly be the most far-fetched strawman I've ever come across in an atheism vs. religion argument.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201302/do-religious-people-live-longer
http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/spirituality-may-help-people-live-longer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8044586/Having-faith-helps-patients-live-longer-study-suggests.html
For future reference, google is a wonderfully useful tool.
-
There are statistics that show higher spirituality increases life span. I think it has something to do with lower stress levels. Also, you don't have to have religion to be spiritual. Just meditate or take some yoga or tai chi.
-
So it's not religion itself, but rather some lifestyle choices associated with practice of religion. Got it.
-
So it's not religion itself, but rather some lifestyle choices associated with practice of religion. Got it.
Well, yes, that aren't associated with the non-practice of religion. Participation in a faith-based community is specifically singled out as a strong factor. If you go to church, you are going to live longer. I suppose you could be an atheist and go to church anyway and perhaps reap the benefit, but most atheists I know would rather eat pig vomit.
-
There are quite a few atheists who go to church I imagine. They are just closeted.
-
So it's not religion itself, but rather some lifestyle choices associated with practice of religion. Got it.
Well, yes, that aren't associated with the non-practice of religion. Participation in a faith-based community is specifically singled out as a strong factor. If you go to church, you are going to live longer. I suppose you could be an atheist and go to church anyway and perhaps reap the benefit, but most atheists I know would rather eat pig vomit.
What you've linked are statistics, not studies on cause. I don't think anybody is claiming that there's divine blessing involved, so that doesn't really leave much that church-attending in specific would grant that other sources would not. It's pretty much just saying that a religious life is linked with having less anxiety.
Hell, if you're so concerned about a few years of potential lifespan, why are you listening to these guys? Go look at what the Japanese are doing instead, they've got you beat already. Note: it's probably not attending church.
-
Blue zones of lifespan are often correlated to strong community ties, whether faith-based or not.
-
This is why I don't generally discuss religion.
This is not at all what I wanted this thread to turn into. Could we relocate the discussion of theism/atheism/deism/antitheism to PR&S perhaps and get this one back on the simulated rails?
-
The split topic form is PERFECTLY FUNCTIONAL AND WORKING AS INTENDED.
-
People with faith probably have less stress because they allow the big man in the sky to fix it. And if he doesn't, "its just a test for me.". Plus they have a social group to talk to. (Church)
But you could get high every sunday with a group of friends hand have the same effects.
-
I doubt I'm getting the positive effects. I'm currently at home with my parents over winter break, and I'm forced to go to church, as well as lie about the fact that I'm a Christian. I dread Sundays, honestly, and I have my whole life.
-
That sucks. I've never been forced to go to church, which is probably why I'm not atheist. And yeah, you're not gonna get positive benefits from a stressful situation.
-
I doubt I'm getting the positive effects. I'm currently at home with my parents over winter break, and I'm forced to go to church, as well as lie about the fact that I'm a Christian. I dread Sundays, honestly, and I have my whole life.
I bet if you stopped lying your stress level would go down.
-
Every day, I THANK my parents for letting me explore practically every religion out there (Judaism, Catholicism, the C of E, Methodism, Baptist, Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist, Islam, Lutheranism), & yes, atheism. My brother & his wife are atheist. I chose the Faith of my forefathers. But the only one for which I have little tolerance is Islam. It is not the theology that disturbs me (although it does, to a point). It is the fact that so many of them enjoy blowing shit up. But I don't see the atheist as my enemy. I've met some damn moral atheists. Ok, the militant Dawkins type offends me, but most atheists tend to live & let live. I'm happy w/ that arrangement.
-
I doubt I'm getting the positive effects. I'm currently at home with my parents over winter break, and I'm forced to go to church, as well as lie about the fact that I'm a Christian. I dread Sundays, honestly, and I have my whole life.
I bet if you stopped lying your stress level would go down.
Doubt it, saying I'm an atheist would make my parents and extended family see me in a bad light, to be putting it mildly. If anything, stress would be way up.
-
If your parents would take offence to the fact that you're an atheist, then they're terrible parents and deserves to be offended.
-
If your parents would take offence to the fact that you're an atheist, then they're terrible parents and deserves to be offended.
Not everyone has open-minded parents, and he never said he hates his family so I imagine he doesn't want to get disowned.
-
Only shows how terrible and awful parents they are if they'd disown him just for not believing in god.
-
Well, my folks were a bit less than tolerant when I said I was going to Mosque. The fact that my views are a bit more strident than theirs now is another thing entirely. But out of all the religion (& lack of it) that I studied, the only one they didn't like was Islam. I agree w/ them now, of course. But all the others they took in stride, including atheism, which my brother holds today. I don't really 'get' atheism, but I'm down w/ it, if that's what works for you. I certainly can't imagine disowning a child over it!
-
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201302/do-religious-people-live-longer
http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/spirituality-may-help-people-live-longer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8044586/Having-faith-helps-patients-live-longer-study-suggests.html
Try reading the article in your first link, Roundy.
1) I'm interested in the facts, not whatever liberal (or conservative, for that matter) the source material might decide to throw in there. I always die a little inside when I see an article that should be impartial of personal opinion in favor of simply presenting the facts feels the need to inject such a strong bias into the discussion to such a degree as the author does in this one. You will note that he does begrudgingly acknowledge that participating in a faith-based community at least in the US is linked to longer life. His wild theories about why this might be the case really don't interest me.
2) The US provides a much larger sample than a country like Denmark. And even if it was appropriate to say that religious people surrounded mostly by other religious people have a higher life expectancy, it doesn't do anything to diminish the overall point. Perhaps they'd be living longer in Denmark if they were a more God-fearing country; we can really only speculate. But I guess that given the qualification that it only applies in religious countries, Blanko is safe to deflate the beliefs of as many Christians in his own country as he wants without fear of doing them harm.
3) There are far too many cultural differences between a country like the US and a country like Japan to pin their differences in life expectancy on any particular cause (in the case of Japan and the US for example I'm far more inclined to pin the reasons down to differences in diet more than anything else). The point about some secular countries having higher life expectancies than the US is irrelevant. And obviously the point that less developed countries with very low life expectancies tend to be more religious is irrelevant too. The reasons for the shortened lives of people in such countries is self-evident and has nothing whatsoever to do with their inclination to participate in a faith-based community. I apologize for linking an article with such a disgusting bias... but again, the facts stand, and that's all I really care about.
If I happened to miss what you were trying to point out, Oscar, please be more specific.
-
Being unable to read the article on my dumbphone, is it saying that Danes live more or less years than Americans? Denmark, unlike the US, has a State Church the (Lutheran) Church of Denmark, to which app. 79% of Danes belong, primarily because a Dane is automatically a member unless he asks not to be. Only about 6% of Danes actually worship, in the Danish Church or anywhere else. I had read that in a survey of nations, Danes were rated the happiest on earth. I had also read that several years ago, the government had considered disestablishing the Church, only to be met w/ strong resistance from the people, including, oddly enough, Muslims in Denmark, who felt that established Christianity was better than nothing @ all. Needless to say, the plan was shelved.
-
If your parents would take offence to the fact that you're an atheist, then they're terrible parents and deserves to be offended.
Not everyone has open-minded parents, and he never said he hates his family so I imagine he doesn't want to get disowned.
Nah, I wouldn't be disowned, it would be more of everyone in the family giving me dirty looks at get togethers and the like. My sister admitted she wasn't religious to my parents, and now she's doing a weekly bible study with my dad. (Which I am not interested in doing, I wouldn't put it past my dad to try doing it over the phone while I'm at school) But for ultra religious parents, they honestly aren't that bad. I just don't see any need to rock the boat more than is necessary, so I lie about my religion.
-
You have terrible parents.
-
You have terrible parents.
Matter of opinion, I suppose.
-
Oh, Oscar.
For the record, I can't even load the first link so I have no idea what it's saying. Also, Roundy, I have no idea why you think I want to "deflate the beliefs of many Christians in my country", nor do I know why you thought it was necessary to say that. Again you're just trying to portray every atheist as a militant Dawkins fanatic without anything to suggest they are such.
-
the sheer endurance bestowed upon a truly euphoric atheist among his peers
Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, he is enlightened by his intelligence.
-
The contribution of sadaam.
-
I have friends who think atheists are the worst which I always found funny. But I suppose you'll see it differently depending on your religion. I've never quoted things with my atheist buddies or even talk about it, but I've received plenty of lectures from Christians.
Obviously you're not going to see the Christians behaving terribly because you're already a Christian.
I'm also fairly certain that eating well, exercising, having friends, and meditating or yoga will keep you alive longer than church. Oscar is right in that atheist Americans are stressed out because we're constantly fighting to not have religion forced into our everyday lives or we're closeted so our parents don't give us dirty looks.
-
One of the main reasons I became atheist is that almost everyone I've met that is religious (or at least Christian) just isn't a good Christian. Church is just a social club, and a lot of people just cherrypick sins like cursing, premarital sex, and homosexuality. It's just something I didn't really care to be part of.
-
That is exactly what you should tell your parents.
-
That is exactly what you should tell your parents.
That won't work because my parents (or my dad at least) are pretty solid Christians. I would just end up regretting it immediately.
-
One of the main reasons I became atheist is that almost everyone I've met that is religious (or at least Christian) just isn't a good Christian. Church is just a social club, and a lot of people just cherrypick sins like cursing, premarital sex, and homosexuality. It's just something I didn't really care to be part of.
You probably hate me then, being a non-biblical, non-churchgoing, deist-christian christian.
-
One of the main reasons I became atheist is that almost everyone I've met that is religious (or at least Christian) just isn't a good Christian. Church is just a social club, and a lot of people just cherrypick sins like cursing, premarital sex, and homosexuality. It's just something I didn't really care to be part of.
You probably hate me then, being a non-biblical, non-churchgoing, deist-christian christian.
Nope, I don't hate you. I just don't think you qualify as a Christian if you don't put in some modicum of effort.
-
Fair enough.
-
Curious. Would a Deist Christian accept the Deity of Jesus, & the Trinity?
-
Curious. Would a Deist Christian accept the Deity of Jesus, & the Trinity?
Deists do not believe that God interacts with the world in any way at all. They certainly don't believe He sent his son here to die for people's sins. Christianity is based on Christ based religion. Its not compatible with Deism. You can't be a Deist Christian.
-
Fair enough.
-
Curious. Would a Deist Christian accept the Deity of Jesus, & the Trinity?
Deists do not believe that God interacts with the world in any way at all. They certainly don't believe He sent his son here to die for people's sins. Christianity is based on Christ based religion. Its not compatible with Deism. You can't be a Deist Christian.
OEC are quasi-deist. Deist until Jesus arrives and deist after until he comes again. It's the "we know science is right but we loves us some Jesus" take.
-
Curious. Would a Deist Christian accept the Deity of Jesus, & the Trinity?
Deists do not believe that God interacts with the world in any way at all. They certainly don't believe He sent his son here to die for people's sins. Christianity is based on Christ based religion. Its not compatible with Deism. You can't be a Deist Christian.
OEC are quasi-deist. Deist until Jesus arrives and deist after until he comes again. It's the "we know science is right but we loves us some Jesus" take.
That would suggest God was a moron and timed Jesus' arrival completely wrong. Doing it when Jesus can do something cool like turn the sky green on national TV would have lasted forever. Turning water to wine for a few hundred drunk guests at a wedding in Cana seems to lack the showmanship of an omnipotent deity.
-
Preaching to the choir sir. The Christian and Jewish myths do not cast god in the light you would expect of the omnipotent creator of all.
-
I believe that God mostly leaves the universe to itself, only occasinally intervening in subtle ways, and in following basic teachings of Christ such as love, compassion, and forgiveness. That's my brand of Deist Christian, and I don't really care if it makes sense to anyone else, because it's my own belief, makes sense to me, and I'm not trying to force anyone else to my beliefs.
-
Curious. Would a Deist Christian accept the Deity of Jesus, & the Trinity?
Deists do not believe that God interacts with the world in any way at all. They certainly don't believe He sent his son here to die for people's sins. Christianity is based on Christ based religion. Its not compatible with Deism. You can't be a Deist Christian.
I thought Deists had no set of beliefs, besides that they believe in a God of some sort.
-
I believe that God mostly leaves the universe to itself, only occasinally intervening in subtle ways, and in following basic teachings of Christ such as love, compassion, and forgiveness. That's my brand of Deist Christian, and I don't really care if it makes sense to anyone else, because it's my own belief, makes sense to me, and I'm not trying to force anyone else to my beliefs.
Why do you choose to believe that your god is the christian god?
-
You can't choose a belief. It is what comes naturally to you as a result of your experiences.
-
Beardo, not really a fair question, is it? I don't know why Alchemist chose the Christian God, but I'm betting that he lives in a part of the world where the God of the Bible predominates, no?
-
Beardo, not really a fair question, is it? I don't know why Alchemist chose the Christian God, but I'm betting that he lives in a part of the world where the God of the Bible predominates, no?
So do I. There are sermons held at the school I work at sometimes, and people regularly go to church around here. I accept the fact that a god (or gods) might (or might not) exist. But I don't think it's the christian, jewish, islamic god, or any other god(s) of any earth religion. So why would he not have the choice to believe his god is something other than the christian god?
-
Fair enough.
-
At a certain point in your life, generally in adulthood you have the freedom to examine your beliefs and decide if they hold true with you; hence this site. Once you become aware of all the other competing religions, followers of one over the other choose to believe they are right and others are wrong.
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png)
-
At a certain point in your life, generally in adulthood you have the freedom to examine your beliefs and decide if they hold true with you; hence this site. Once you become aware of all the other competing religions, followers of one over the other choose to believe they are right and others are wrong.
The first part is absolutely correct. Emphasis mine.
I'm not certain that all religions believe that the others are wrong, as I know several religious people who are of the "many facets, same jewel" school of thought when it comes to alternative belief systems. It seems to me if one is going to be religious, spiritual, or otherwise hold a belief in a deity of some sort, this is the healthiest way to do it.
-
Only assuming that you have no interest in what reality is. If a god/goddess/gods exist then I want to know who they are, what powers they have over me and what they demand in terms of worship. A wooly 'What if we're all right' theology might be nice for feeling good about yourself but it doesn't help tell us what the divine looks like.
-
Only assuming that you have no interest in what reality is. If a god/goddess/gods exist then I want to know who they are, what powers they have over me and what they demand in terms of worship. A wooly 'What if we're all right' theology might be nice for feeling good about yourself but it doesn't help tell us what the divine looks like.
On the contrary, I am keenly interested in what reality is. That's why I'm here. I suppose the wooly version sits better with me because I'm of the opinion that the divine is imaginary. Still, if some people want to make themselves feel good by having a theology that allows everybody to be happy and right, well... at least they're happy and getting along.
-
So right about the existence of God or not they must be doing something right that you aren't.
Living longer != doing something right.
Disagree? Walk into an old folks home with an industrial canister of helium connected to a respirator. Watch the queue form.
-
It's interesting how multiple people in this thread brought up Dawkins for the sole purpose of attacking him. Nobody was bothering to defend him, he wasn't the subject under discussion, and yet they all felt the need to announce that they dislike him. It kind of reminds me of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Just make an incredibly uncharismatic and unlikable person the "face" of a movement or organization, and watch as everyone's opinion of the movement or organization goes down dramatically. 1984 had it right all along. It's so much easier to hate a person than an abstraction.
-
I have nothing against Dawkins or the late Hitchens.
-
I have nothing against Dawkins or the late Hitchens.
I like Dawkins. I think he's well spoken and intelligent in debates. I think a lot of people hate him unseasonably. He certainly doesn't come across as arrogant to me.
-
However, he is distinctly uncharismatic, which makes him a bad person.
-
However, he is distinctly uncharismatic, which makes him a bad person.
I don't think it would help if he was charismatic. What he does is use reason. Religious people get angry when other people use reason. If using reason was important it would be one of the ten commandments.
-
Sam Harris and Hitchens are more liked because they are more affable. People were roaring with laughter as Harris publicly embarrassed Deepak Chopra. If you can make them laugh they might forget you offend them.
-
The way I see it, anybody who seriously listens to or cares about Dawkins turns into an /r/atheism user (or one of those "new atheists" that Roundy and Thork are talking about), and the people who hate him end up having a horribly twisted image of atheism in general. I don't really have anything against the guy, but I can't help but think that he's a horrible influence.
In the end though, if Dawkins didn't exist, there would be someone else people would think of as a spokesperson of the "movement". He's a product of religious controversy in America, and purely exists to fuel that controversy. There's a reason there isn't a Dawkins or a need for one in secular countries.
-
Honestly, I don't even get into these guys at all. I'm just a blaise atheist. Religion or non-religion is just not apart of my life in any sense.
-
I don't agree with your first comment Blanko. Dawkins makes really good points about people's irrational attachment to their religious belief. I do not find rationalism to be as crucial as Dawkins does, but I do respect his point of view. This does not make me a "new atheist"; I cannot recall ever lecturing a religious person on the absurdity of their belief. This includes my neighbor who prays to God for more money.
-
Honestly, I don't even get into these guys at all. I'm just a blaise atheist. Religion or non-religion is just not apart of my life in any sense.
Sam Harris is pretty funny and smart. He makes some hilarious comparisons between religious belief and believing in Elvis still being alive. Hitchens is possibly the most eloquent dude ever.
-
was. He's with the angels now.
-
The way I see it, anybody who seriously listens to or cares about Dawkins turns into an /r/atheism user (or one of those "new atheists" that Roundy and Thork are talking about), and the people who hate him end up having a horribly twisted image of atheism in general. I don't really have anything against the guy, but I can't help but think that he's a horrible influence.
In the end though, if Dawkins didn't exist, there would be someone else people would think of as a spokesperson of the "movement". He's a product of religious controversy in America, and purely exists to fuel that controversy. There's a reason there isn't a Dawkins or a need for one in secular countries.
Well Blanko, you're wrong, because I hate /r/atheism and I like but don't follow Dawkins. The last time I heard of him was when I saw his new documentary last year.
Also I'm not from America, so I have no investment in whatever goes on over there.
-
Seriously, I really don't get the "well if you like dawkins you're a nazi atheist 9/11" arguments. Apparently it's not possible to like a guy's reasoning and be interested in his logic without being a militant atheist? That makes no sense whatsoever.
-
Seriously, I really don't get the "well if you like dawkins you're a nazi atheist 9/11" arguments. Apparently it's not possible to like a guy's reasoning and be interested in his logic without being a militant atheist? That makes no sense whatsoever.
That's exactly what a nazi atheist would say.
-
I think you people misunderstood my point. Finding his speeches rational and following his footsteps are two entirely different things. Just look at what Rama Set said, he denies having lectured people on the absurdity of their beliefs, implying that's something undesirable, yet he listens to Dawkins who does exactly that. I mean, of course an atheist would think what Dawkins is saying is rational, but that's only because everything he says is something a rational atheist would figure out on their own. But when you actually start following his footsteps and start lecturing people, that's when you turn into /r/atheism.
And obviously I'm not saying that applies to everybody. Just think of his effect on people in general.
-
... he denies having lectured people on the absurdity of their beliefs, implying that's something undesirable, yet he listens to Dawkins who does exactly that.
There's a lot of weight on "lecturing" here.
If someone is invited to debate philosophy, particularly that of religion. Then pointing out that their belief is irrational (with regards to the real world) seems fair enough.
Also please my english what is /r/atheism?
-
Also please my english what is /r/atheism?
It's an atheism circlejerk on reddit.
www.reddit.com/r/atheism
-
But when you actually start following his footsteps and start lecturing people, that's when you turn into /r/atheism.
Would you say it's wrong* for someone to advocate their beliefs and argue for them in public?
* - term deliberately ambiguous
-
No, but I don't have to like it.
-
Also please my english what is /r/atheism?
It's an atheism circlejerk on reddit.
www.reddit.com/r/atheism
Yeah I figured it out. Some of the stuff is funny.
-
Thork is right about modern atheists. You can claim that you aren't part of the movement all you want, but when you start quoting Dawkins and Hitchens and (a new favorite, it seems) Krauss in your support of the evils of religion, you are a new atheist like it or not. And most modern atheists get a hard-on at the mere mention of any one of those names.
Here's something to chew on: statistically, your religious friends who go to church and pay blind allegiance to a God you don't think they should believe exists are going to live several years longer than you. So right about the existence of God or not they must be doing something right that you aren't.
Thank you roundey!!! :) Genusley put together and shows that religous people will always lead happy lives while atheist will lead dull loveles lifeles lives!!! Whoever beleives that the universe just came into existince from a random gient explosion and that we came from monkees is obvousley not to rite in the head!!! If we "evolved" from monkees then why are there still monkees today?!! Exacley you cant come up with anything!!! ;D Religion beats EVILution by a long flippin shot!!!
-
No, but I don't have to like it.
You don't have to... but why don't you?
-
I should be curious to know who did the study that purports to prove that the religious outlive the non-religious. Has it been peer-reviewed? How was it validated? I'm a religious man, but just taking some blind statistic that someone pulled out of their heiny is playing awfully loose w/ facts. What about atheists w/ a strong network of friends & supporters analogous to a faith community, v. a Jew living in the Deep South 100 miles from another Jew? & every half-educated dimwit knows we didn't evolve from monkeys. We are a Primate, like them. Well, maybe EJ DID evolve from them, but the rest of us didn't, & Darwin never said we did.
-
I should be curious to know who did the study that purports to prove that the religious outlive the non-religious.
"They are linked but we don't know why." (http://longevity.about.com/od/longevityboosters/a/religion_life.htm)
Maybe the weekly walk to church once a week is all it takes to get an extra couple of years.
-
I think you people misunderstood my point. Finding his speeches rational and following his footsteps are two entirely different things. Just look at what Rama Set said, he denies having lectured people on the absurdity of their beliefs, implying that's something undesirable, yet he listens to Dawkins who does exactly that. I mean, of course an atheist would think what Dawkins is saying is rational, but that's only because everything he says is something a rational atheist would figure out on their own. But when you actually start following his footsteps and start lecturing people, that's when you turn into /r/atheism.
And obviously I'm not saying that applies to everybody. Just think of his effect on people in general.
Dawkins is a public figure with a public forum. When he lectures people or rails against religion, he is able to do so to a large population. However, the hypothetical straw-atheist that Thork and Roundy complain about, most likely not having a public forum, would probably be reduced to targeting very small groups or individuals. That's a dick move precisely because it goes after specific individuals, putting on the spot people who most likely don't want to hear about it. There's a world of difference between what they do and what public figures like Dawkins do.
-
Well said Saddam.
-
I think you people misunderstood my point. Finding his speeches rational and following his footsteps are two entirely different things. Just look at what Rama Set said, he denies having lectured people on the absurdity of their beliefs, implying that's something undesirable, yet he listens to Dawkins who does exactly that. I mean, of course an atheist would think what Dawkins is saying is rational, but that's only because everything he says is something a rational atheist would figure out on their own. But when you actually start following his footsteps and start lecturing people, that's when you turn into /r/atheism.
And obviously I'm not saying that applies to everybody. Just think of his effect on people in general.
Dawkins is a public figure with a public forum. When he lectures people or rails against religion, he is able to do so to a large population. However, the hypothetical straw-atheist that Thork and Roundy complain about, most likely not having a public forum, would probably be reduced to targeting very small groups or individuals. That's a dick move precisely because it goes after specific individuals, putting on the spot people who most likely don't want to hear about it. There's a world of difference between what they do and what public figures like Dawkins do.
That's pretty much what I'm saying, but I can't help but think you're still missing my point.
Again, I'm not concerned with Dawkins himself, but the influence he has on people. Yes, there is a world of difference here, but I don't think you need to explain that to me when I'm the one trying to get that point across.
-
Blanko, Dawkin's does not really lecture people on the absurdity of their beliefs. He is usually quite clear that he personally finds them absurd, but that he does not hold others to that. He constantly pushes his deeper agenda of encouraging rational thought free from cultural bias, as much as possible, and based on evidence. That people take this as a cue to lecture others on what is right and wrong is not his fault. I am not going to pretend that Dawkin's does not become adversarial or confrontational at times, but it is always in the context of an arranged debate, and is just part of the schtick of those. I saw him on some Scandanavian talk show with the lead singer of the Killers, a Mormon, and Dawkin's opened with the usual criticism of Mormonism; the Killers singer then had to leave to prepare for a song, and Dawkin's who thought that he was there to debate the man, instantly was genuinely apologetic and contrite about the situation. It was evident that Dawkin's wanted the discourse and merely acting as a provocateur for an interesting debate, and I think most of his comments are in this light. Except when he is dealing with people who have poorly conceived viewpoints that are used to attempt to cow him. Then he usually tears them a new one.
In the end, I am not sure why Dawkin's should have to temper or modify a laudable point of view because some fucktards take it as their license to be self-righteous.
-
Good, we're still not disagreeing on anything. Good essay, B+ keep up the good work
-
So maybe people in TN would live the longest if they weren't so busy drinking sweet tea and eating fried foods.
http://nation.time.com/2014/01/22/godless-cities-in-america/
I need to move.
-
Having lived in TN for 3 yrs, allow me to politely recommend anywhere, even North Korea, as a possible alternative.
-
Good, we're still not disagreeing on anything. Good essay, B+ keep up the good work
Conversation is not your strong point is it? No worries...
You said that you are concerned with Dawkin's influence, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I say you should be concerned with fucktards. Regardless, the atheist ranters are not really a problem in society. It's not like they are picketing funerals of HIV victims.
-
Having lived in TN for 3 yrs, allow me to politely recommend anywhere, even North Korea, as a possible alternative.
You just say that because we have a lot of Muslims and Kurdish people.
-
Actually, no. Clarksville in '03 had none of that. My city in Iowa is chock full of that. I say it because being anything other than a White Southern Baptist in Clarksville was hell. I'll take your word on the rest of it.
-
Actually, no. Clarksville in '03 had none of that. My city in Iowa is chock full of that. I say it because being anything other than a White Southern Baptist in Clarksville was hell. I'll take your word on the rest of it.
lol Clarksville. There's your problem.
-
Good, we're still not disagreeing on anything. Good essay, B+ keep up the good work
Conversation is not your strong point is it? No worries...
You said that you are concerned with Dawkin's influence, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I say you should be concerned with fucktards. Regardless, the atheist ranters are not really a problem in society. It's not like they are picketing funerals of HIV victims.
Good defense, I'm taking notes.
-
Good, we're still not disagreeing on anything. Good essay, B+ keep up the good work
Conversation is not your strong point is it? No worries...
You said that you are concerned with Dawkin's influence, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I say you should be concerned with fucktards. Regardless, the atheist ranters are not really a problem in society. It's not like they are picketing funerals of HIV victims.
Good defense, I'm taking notes.
(http://guyism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/talk-to-the-hand.gif)
-
*GRIN* Nashville was great, I admit. 4 synagogues, a neighbourhood about 85% Jewish (small, but there), & when you wanted it, the non-Jewish world just 10 minutes away by car. I wish I had lived there. I won't argue w/ you about Clarksville. What a shithole. Damned inbred hell-pit!
-
I won't argue w/ you about Clarksville. What a shithole. Damned inbred hell-pit!
Sounds like they need an influx of fresh DNA.
-
I won't argue w/ you about Clarksville. What a shithole. Damned inbred hell-pit!
Sounds like they need an influx of fresh DNA.
When I worked at Molly Maid for a total of one month, most of the redneck white trash cleaners came from Clarksville.
They all had kids, even the older teens. The first question that they all asked me was if I had kids. They thought I was a genius with my college degree. One woman that I cleaned with for a week looked to be in her 50s but I found out she was in her late 30s. Her daughter worked at Molly Maid. This daughter also had a child. This older woman guzzled Mountain Dew with Goody's Powder, smoked cigarettes like a chimney, drove with her elbow on the steering wheel while texting and eating and following too closely. And her damn hip hurt whenever it rained. My mind was blown by the whole experience.
-
Sounds like Clarksville, alright! Its even worse over the border in Southern Kentucky.
-
I live in Clarksville and am not a southern Baptist and have no issues. There are a lot of trashy parts of the city but that is true of most rural areas in TN. And Clarksville is a medium city with the feel of a small town rural community. I've met a lot of intelligent, sensible people in the almost 20 years I've been here.
-
Present company excepted, of course. I did know a few people in Clarksville that broke the mold. You are doubtless one. Although I might add that unless you are 20 yrs old, you obviously are not from there. Perhaps that has something to do w/ it. But, to be fair, every place, however horrid, has its good points, I suppose. I have to jet. Be back in a few hours. Got a date w/ Columbus (research for my dissertation).
-
This thread is not about how shitty the South is, please shut up.
I think you people misunderstood my point. Finding his speeches rational and following his footsteps are two entirely different things. Just look at what Rama Set said, he denies having lectured people on the absurdity of their beliefs, implying that's something undesirable, yet he listens to Dawkins who does exactly that. I mean, of course an atheist would think what Dawkins is saying is rational, but that's only because everything he says is something a rational atheist would figure out on their own. But when you actually start following his footsteps and start lecturing people, that's when you turn into /r/atheism.
And obviously I'm not saying that applies to everybody. Just think of his effect on people in general.
Dawkins is a public figure with a public forum. When he lectures people or rails against religion, he is able to do so to a large population. However, the hypothetical straw-atheist that Thork and Roundy complain about, most likely not having a public forum, would probably be reduced to targeting very small groups or individuals. That's a dick move precisely because it goes after specific individuals, putting on the spot people who most likely don't want to hear about it. There's a world of difference between what they do and what public figures like Dawkins do.
That's pretty much what I'm saying, but I can't help but think you're still missing my point.
Again, I'm not concerned with Dawkins himself, but the influence he has on people. Yes, there is a world of difference here, but I don't think you need to explain that to me when I'm the one trying to get that point across.
Are you saying that Dawkins influences people to go around harassing the religious on an individual basis?
-
Yes.
-
Good.
-
It's not just about Dawkins either. I was just curious about the lifespan in TN. I wonder whether people die from greasy fried food before the benefit of church can kick in.
-
& I still want to know who did the study that purports to prove that theists live longer than atheists. Again, could that not be ascribed to simply having a network of loving friends (ie, a faith community)? What about an atheist who has such a network v. a Jew who lives 100 miles away from another Jew? I'm betting money the atheist in that example will be happier, & may live longer. Was this study peer-reviewed? Who did the study? Did they have an axe to grind?
-
& I still want to know who did the study that purports to prove that theists live longer than atheists. Again, could that not be ascribed to simply having a network of loving friends (ie, a faith community)? What about an atheist who has such a network v. a Jew who lives 100 miles away from another Jew? I'm betting money the atheist in that example will be happier, & may live longer. Was this study peer-reviewed? Who did the study? Did they have an axe to grind?
I know this is commonly held, but I cannot find any sources for it beyond believers rattling on about it on the internet (and they don't provide any sources either).
-
& I still want to know who did the study that purports to prove that theists live longer than atheists. Again, could that not be ascribed to simply having a network of loving friends (ie, a faith community)? What about an atheist who has such a network v. a Jew who lives 100 miles away from another Jew? I'm betting money the atheist in that example will be happier, & may live longer. Was this study peer-reviewed? Who did the study? Did they have an axe to grind?
I know this is commonly held, but I cannot find any sources for it beyond believers rattling on about it on the internet (and they don't provide any sources either).
This is surprising.
-
I'm as much a believer as the next religious Jew, but I'm not a schmuck. Before someone starts flapping their lips about who lives longer than whom, I'd like to see some actual proof.
-
In the U.S. some health researchers are fond of giving religion the credit for boosting life expectancy. Yet, despite being a nation with a large religious majority, Americans have much lower life expectancy than is enjoyed by secular countries at a similar level of economic development such as Japan and Sweden. Evidently, the lower quality of life here both provides a market for religion and reduces life expectancy.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201302/do-religious-people-live-longer
-
I believe this can be written off as Roundy being Roundy, as per usual.
-
I should be curious to know who did the study that purports to prove that the religious outlive the non-religious. Has it been peer-reviewed? How was it validated? I'm a religious man, but just taking some blind statistic that someone pulled out of their heiny is playing awfully loose w/ facts. What about atheists w/ a strong network of friends & supporters analogous to a faith community, v. a Jew living in the Deep South 100 miles from another Jew? & every half-educated dimwit knows we didn't evolve from monkeys. We are a Primate, like them. Well, maybe EJ DID evolve from them, but the rest of us didn't, & Darwin never said we did.
Are you honesley saying you beleived we evolved from flippin monkees?!! That is papostros??!
-
Fappenhosen, I read the article. It seems to boil down to 'having a good support network' on a national scale. Whether religious or not, if you've got that (& otherwise have good vital indicators), you're likely to live longer. So my advice to atheists is: go join the Unitarians. They don't require belief in God, but you do get the social network. Seriously, kidding aside, although its true about the Unitarians, if you're a lonely atheist, go find some like-minded folk & hang out for about an hour on Sundays & Wednesdays & read 'The God Delusion' together. When you're not doing that, volunteer some time making the world a better place, working w/ the handicapped or something. Chances are, you'll socialise as much w/ friends, enjoy life, & contribute to making the world a better place just as well as any theist who goes to worship & Scripture study & volunteers his time making the world a better place. Well, there you have it. Or, if you'd rather be a religious Jew, Private Message me & we can talk about that
-
Fappenhosen, I read the article. It seems to boil down to 'having a good support network' on a national scale.
Yes, so unless the whole country is atheist then joining a local book group just won't work.
However, they also point out that there may be a cause and effect confusion. It could be that ill health causes religion. Rather than religion causing good health.
So my advice to atheists is: go join the Unitarians. They don't require belief in God
Some argue that neither does Judaism.
-
Fappenhosen, it is a VERY small minority, but you're right. No, EJ, Darwin never taught that, although yes, I expect that given your general lack of intelligence, your ancestors of EITHER colour probably did swing from their tails. PLEASE note the lack of racism here. I have had many Black colleagues whom I have respected. EJ's problem isn't his race, its his IQ.
-
Fappenhosen, it is a VERY small minority, but you're right. No, EJ, Darwin never taught that, although yes, I expect that given your general lack of intelligence, your ancestors of EITHER colour probably did swing from their tails. PLEASE note the lack of racism here. I have had many Black colleagues whom I have respected. EJ's problem isn't his race, its his IQ.
And just like that, the thread became about Yaakov and EJ jerking each other off. Yet again.
-
Fappenhosen, it is a VERY small minority, but you're right. No, EJ, Darwin never taught that, although yes, I expect that given your general lack of intelligence, your ancestors of EITHER colour probably did swing from their tails. PLEASE note the lack of racism here. I have had many Black colleagues whom I have respected. EJ's problem isn't his race, its his IQ.
And just like that, the thread became about Yaakov and EJ jerking each other off. Yet again.
Of course you had to chime in.
-
To hell w/ 1/32, I just wish I could get a tray that properly fit the microwave, & a different flavour of Maruchan Instant Lunch Noodles.
-
To hell w/ 1/32, I just wish I could get a tray that properly fit the microwave, & a different flavour of Maruchan Instant Lunch Noodles.
And you're calling 32 stupid.
-
Obviously, a trip to Wal-mart is in order. FAPPENHOSEN, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan wrote a book, 'Judaism as a Civilization' in which he advocated the idea that Judaism was the civilisation of the Jewish ethnic group. God, by his definition, was that sum force that brought out the best in people, & was not personal. He never really committed on that. Some of his work expresses a distinctly non-personal, almost non-theistic (but not atheistic as such) worldview. Some of it, however, retreats from that a bit & allows for traditional theism. The Reconstructionist movement he founded is only 2% of all Jews, but has influenced the rest of us immensely. He believed the 613 Commandments of the Law were NOT divinely ordained (that non-personal God), but were valuable folkways of the Jewish ethnic group & should be followed for that reason. I, like most traditional Jews, love & hate him. Judaism is a civilisation. The Commandments are folkways. But God IS personal, & the Commandments are divinely ordained. So, he got it
-
partly right. His ideas have been most influential in Reconstructionism, which he founded, & Reform. But none of us have been untouched. I've read 'Judaism as a Civilization', & am reading it again now. You might find it interesting. I don't know where you live, but maybe one can be found in a library.
-
That would be like reading Twilight fan fiction before reading Twilight. I wouldn't really understand the characters and plot and I might end up throwing it at the wall. Then someone would tell me that 50 Shades Of Grey is the only real Twilight fan fiction worth reading.
Wikipedia is enough for me. But thanks for the suggestion.
-
Yea, that's why the life expectancy was so high in the dark ages.
-
I believe in everything, that way I can't be wrong.
-
I believe in everything, that way I can't be wrong.
Do you believe you are both wrong and not wrong?
-
Hey guys, just thought I'd mention that I don't like Dawkins.
-
Hey guys, just thought I'd mention that I don't like Dawkins.
He's just the opposite end of the spectrum.
-
I believe in everything, that way I can't be wrong.
Most religions have a mutual exclusivity rule in their book to avoid this sort of thing. Most major monotheistic religions each purport that only their god is the one true god. Judaism, for example, states you can have no idols before God. This is why in Christianity they regard Jesus as God, because if Jesus was only a man they would not be allowed to worship him.
-
It is impossible for us to know conclusively whether God exists and what he is like unless he takes the initiative and reveals himself.
We must scan the horizon of history to see if there is any clue to God's revelation. There is one clear clue. In an obscure village in Palestine, 2,000 years ago, a Child was born in a stable. Today the entire world is still celebrating the birth of Brian
-
It is impossible for us to know conclusively whether God exists and what he is like unless he takes the initiative and reveals himself.
We must scan the horizon of history to see if there is any clue to God's revelation. There is one clear clue. In an obscure village in Palestine, 2,000 years ago, a Child was born in a stable. Today the entire world is still celebrating the birth of Brian
lol, I love Monty Python
-
To go where angels fear to tread, I shall that Judaism is the religion of the Jew. We know what God has revealed to us, & what he expects of us. What he may or may not have revealed to Gentiles, & what he expects or does not expect from them, we neither know, nor care, provided they abide by the 7 Laws of Noah (these can be found online). So we are not an exclusive faith the way Christianity & Islam are.
-
what
-
To go where angels fear to tread, I shall that Judaism is the religion of the Jew. We know what God has revealed to us, & what he expects of us. What he may or may not have revealed to Gentiles, & what he expects or does not expect from them, we neither know, nor care, provided they abide by the 7 Laws of Noah (these can be found online). So we are not an exclusive faith the way Christianity & Islam are.
God hasn't revealed anything to any of you, though. In fact, any Jew currently alive today garnered their knowledge from another person, not God.
-
You forget that 2 million persons saw God on Mt. Sinai. An entire nation had a theophany. This has been passed down in the Written & Oral Torah for 4500 yrs. Our Faith, our Peoplehood, doesn't depend on one man's achievement, but on that of a nation.
-
You forget that 2 million persons saw God on Mt. Sinai. An entire nation had a theophany. This has been passed down in the Written & Oral Torah for 4500 yrs. Our Faith, our Peoplehood, doesn't depend on one man's achievement, but on that of a nation.
Well, clearly God liked those 2 million people a lot more than he liked you or any of the other people here.
How do you know that God hasn't simply abandoned the current world? After all, the original writings are full, absolutely full of things God did directly to human beings and now nothing has happened for thousands of years. God might just not like humans any more, maybe he moved on to more interesting things.
-
That is your opinion. W/ what I have been through in the last 15 yrs, I consider myself to have been the recipiant of MANY miracles that I shan't share here. But I do believe that I am living proof of God's loving care for us. & for his divine intervention.
-
That is your opinion. W/ what I have been through in the last 15 yrs, I consider myself to have been the recipiant of MANY miracles that I shan't share here. But I do believe that I am living proof of God's loving care for us. & for his divine intervention.
That sounds like confirmation bias, though, and it honestly doesn't make sense in context with your religious texts. When God saved or killed people he really made sure they knew. He even killed a guy instantly for touching the ark of the covenant, and then was kind enough to tell everyone not to do that shit again.
Why the sudden paradigm shift in doing things without telling people? Why has God decided that doing things silently is better than what can only be said to be extreme intervention in everything? None of the texts I know of reference the answers to these questions. The original religious folk got all the benefits of religion while not requiring faith (you see God and he talks to you, faith isn't necessary).
-
You forget that 2 million persons saw God on Mt. Sinai.
Cool. What did he look like? If 2 million people saw him then you've got an accurate description right? (assuming that account can survive undistorted for thousands of years)
-
Fap, do you really expect him to appear as a human? Irush, that is a good question, to which I haven't got a concise answer. I tell you what. Let me do some research on that one, & I'll get back to you. Give me a day or so.
-
Atheist is a belief in nothing so that means its a religion. Science is also a religion. This is why creationism should be taught in schools.
-
Vaux, that takes the taco for stupid. Atheism is the rejection of religion. However much I disagree w/ it, it is not a religion. Science is also not religion. From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 11th Edition. 'science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained & tested through scientific method.' That last compound noun is defined as 'principles & procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition & formulatiom of a problem, the collection of of data through observation & experiment, & the formulation & testing of hypotheses.' the above def. do not a religion make! & hell, if we teach Genesis in the science class, why not Hindu, Aztec, Inca, & Aboriginal creation texts? Keep your Bible, & your interpretation of it, in Sunday School, thank you very much.
-
Religion is just a belief system. Science and atheism take huge leaps of faith (where did the big bang come from? For example). Each religion requires you to make an educated guess at the end of the road, science and atheism fit into this and are therefore religions. This doesn't make any of them right or wrong, but it does make them all possibly correct. My belief system is based around this principal: they are all possible, so I believe in all of them. That way, at the end of the day, I'm saved regardless.
That is also why creationism must be taught in school. Its a legitimate field of scientific study, and could be correct. The children need to be taught all facets of creation: evolution, the beginnings of the universe, and the alpha and omega: God/Jesus/Yahweh/etc.
-
Religion is just a belief system. Science and atheism take huge leaps of faith (where did the big bang come from? For example). Each religion requires you to make an educated guess at the end of the road, science and atheism fit into this and are therefore religions. This doesn't make any of them right or wrong, but it does make them all possibly correct. My belief system is based around this principal: they are all possible, so I believe in all of them. That way, at the end of the day, I'm saved regardless.
As I said before, most religions include a mutual exclusivity principle. For example, if you are a Muslim, you must believe that Allah is the only true God. This would directly impede your belief in Christianity because Christians believe Jesus to be God. You can't believe all of them simultaneously, their religious texts and commandments have ensured that you must pick one.
-
That restriction does not apply in my revised versions of all the religious texts.
-
That restriction does not apply in my revised versions of all the religious texts.
You're just trolling, then; good to know.
-
That restriction does not apply in my revised versions of all the religious texts.
You're just trolling, then; good to know.
Every religion has groups and subgroups that interpret the texts differently. How is my interpretation any less legitamate?
-
I tell you what. Let me do some research on that one, & I'll get back to you. Give me a day or so.
I'll be interested in your answer as we'll. Rushy's point has bothered me for a good while.
-
That restriction does not apply in my revised versions of all the religious texts.
You're just trolling, then; good to know.
Every religion has groups and subgroups that interpret the texts differently. How is my interpretation any less legitamate?
Your interpretation isn't even remotely relevant to reality. Most interpretations of religious texts at least pretend to care about what's actually written inside.
-
Religious texts were written by man, not the Gods that they describe. Its natural that man would insert his bias and ego into the writings. I choose to circumvent all that and go for a more open approach, thus: Vauxhallsim was born.
-
I never in my life as a human being, let alone as a Religious Jew, thought I would agree w/ an atheist on much of anything. But anyone who defines atheism or science as being religions in any sense, especially after reading the dictionary defs. of 'science' & 'scientific method', is a schmuck.
-
I never in my life as a human being, let alone as a Religious Jew, thought I would agree w/ an atheist on much of anything. But anyone who defines atheism or science as being religions in any sense, especially after reading the dictionary defs. of 'science' & 'scientific method', is a schmuck.
I didn't figure you to stoop to name calling, but I should've known better.
-
Dude, think about what you're saying! It is not possible, purely on a logical level, that all religions can be equally true. By way of example, either Jesus is the Messiah or he is not. It is remotely possible that he is the messiah & saviour of Gentiles & not of Jews, I'll grant that. Another example. Mohammed is a prophet or he isn't. It is remotely possible that he is a prophet to the Gentile & not to the Jew. But if Mohammed IS a Gentile prophet, then the claims made by Christians for Jesus must perforce be false, even for Gentiles, since the Qur'an contradicts those claims. This doesn't even touch the Dharmic religions. The only reason I suggest that Judaism is certainly true whilst I am unsure about others is because of the national theophany we received @ Sinai. We know what God has revealed to us. What he may or may not have revealed to the Goyim is unknown to us. But we do know that Goy religions make conflicting claims such that they cannot all be true. & if the atheists are right, we're all fucked!
-
if the atheists are right, we're all fucked!
not really
-
Well, in the sense that we're all just worm food.
-
Well, in the sense that we're all just worm food.
“I would request that my body in death be buried not cremated, so that the energy content contained within it gets returned to the earth, so that flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as I have dined upon flora and fauna during my lifetime”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
There is great purpose in living for something other than yourself. The same can be said of dying for something other than yourself. It requires no afterlife to find that fulfillment.
-
Well, Rama, that is one way of looking @ it. Personally, I wish to be buried as a Jew for the traditional reasons, which I admit, make little sense, but are so that there is a body to resurrect. I would be embalmed, of course. But there is an even stronger reason for it now. 6 million Jews went through the crematoria of Nazi Germany. This vile treatment has taken what was a purely religious stipulation & turned it into something we will live & die for.
-
What if God is just a highly evolved alien like Q and not divine at all omg
-
Well, beardo, if that were the case, that our creator were that, then ontologically, such a being would still not fit the def. of God as per Anselm's argument.
-
Well, in the sense that we're all just worm food.
“I would request that my body in death be buried not cremated, so that the energy content contained within it gets returned to the earth, so that flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as I have dined upon flora and fauna during my lifetime”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
There is great purpose in living for something other than yourself. The same can be said of dying for something other than yourself. It requires no afterlife to find that fulfillment.
This is very wise.
The way I see it is: an afterlife cheapens the experience of life. Because, who really cares about all this when you're just going to heaven (or some other place) when you die?
-
Well, in the sense that we're all just worm food.
“I would request that my body in death be buried not cremated, so that the energy content contained within it gets returned to the earth, so that flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as I have dined upon flora and fauna during my lifetime”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
There is great purpose in living for something other than yourself. The same can be said of dying for something other than yourself. It requires no afterlife to find that fulfillment.
This is very wise.
The way I see it is: an afterlife cheapens the experience of life. Because, who really cares about all this when you're just going to heaven (or some other place) when you die?
I disagree. I see both options as life-affirming. If there is a god and an afterlife, then he cares what you do on this world and it matters. If there is not god or afterlife, then this is all the time you have. Given the choice, you should make the best of it that you can. The second choice is less moralistic obviously, but this seems more in line with the "way things work".
-
Religious texts were written by man, not the Gods that they describe.
Do you Islam?
-
Fap, do you really expect him to appear as a human?
No. I never said anything about humans. I'm just interested in the 2 million accounts of what God looks like.
Atheism is the rejection of religion.
A rejection of the propositions made by religions. Usually a personal omni-benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being.
Or: I belief Elvis is still alive. You don't. Why do you hate Elvis?
-
Irush, as you can see, your answer is taking longer than a day. There is little on the subject in the literature, aside from the rather obvious statement that 'after Malachi, the prophesy passed out of Israel.' To which the answer is, no shit. Why? I shall ask my own Rabbi that question this weekend, minus the language. I shall get back to you as soon as I have a better answer. I have another Rabbi I can ask also. Re: Fap's question on what God looks like, I haven't had time to review the subject. I shall attempt to do so. However, if you wish to read about the subject yourself, I recommend reading the Book of Exodus. I have read it, but its been awhile, & I have to reread it. You can do the same thing yourself.
-
Fap, Exodus ch. 19-20 should answer your question.
-
Irush, as you can see, your answer is taking longer than a day. There is little on the subject in the literature, aside from the rather obvious statement that 'after Malachi, the prophesy passed out of Israel.' To which the answer is, no shit. Why? I shall ask my own Rabbi that question this weekend, minus the language. I shall get back to you as soon as I have a better answer. I have another Rabbi I can ask also. Re: Fap's question on what God looks like, I haven't had time to review the subject. I shall attempt to do so. However, if you wish to read about the subject yourself, I recommend reading the Book of Exodus. I have read it, but its been awhile, & I have to reread it. You can do the same thing yourself.
That's fine. I've been looking for an answer as well, though I am not religious the concept always sparks my curiosity.
-
To be perfectly fair, altho' it doesn't trouble my Faith in Judaism & the Divine Revelation thereof, it has always made me curious also. I find it equally curious that a non-religious person such as yourself should have the same question. Let me ask yet another question. Would you call yourself an atheist, agnostic, a believer in a Higher Power, one who rejects organised religion, or some other category?
-
To be perfectly fair, altho' it doesn't trouble my Faith in Judaism & the Divine Revelation thereof, it has always made me curious also. I find it equally curious that a non-religious person such as yourself should have the same question. Let me ask yet another question. Would you call yourself an atheist, agnostic, a believer in a Higher Power, one who rejects organised religion, or some other category?
I'm probably closer to agnostic leaning to atheist, but when asked I normally just say I'm not religious. The term "atheist" has various derogatory side effects I prefer to avoid and the term "agnostic" normally just gets you a funny look.
Also I read a lot into the philosophical side of religions rather than the supernatural. Taoism and Buddhism have always especially intrigued me.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7f2eXQxfHk
-
[video]
This is stand up comedy? I would be pissed if I paid to see this guy.
-
I know very little about Daoism. Buddhism may or may not be religious depending on the variety. Tibetan Buddhism is, for example. Belief in God is taken as a given. But Vietnamese Buddhist thought is often agnostic or even blatantly atheist. Zen is also agnostic leaning to atheist, & the Japanese take care of their need (if any) for deity through Shinto, the native religion of Japan found nowhere else (except in the Japanese diaspora). I've studied mostly Vietnamese Buddhism, since that's the temple in town.
-
I know very little about Daoism. Buddhism may or may not be religious depending on the variety. Tibetan Buddhism is, for example. Belief in God is taken as a given. But Vietnamese Buddhist thought is often agnostic or even blatantly atheist. Zen is also agnostic leaning to atheist, & the Japanese take care of their need (if any) for deity through Shinto, the native religion of Japan found nowhere else (except in the Japanese diaspora). I've studied mostly Vietnamese Buddhism, since that's the temple in town.
It would take a rather long time of explaining Taoism and I'm not good with explanations. If you're ever interested in learning more, the book I started out with is called the Tao of Pooh and the author does a very good job of explaining each facet. Unfortunately I've never visited any temple or other collection of followers as I tend to be a loner.
-
Interesting! I often wondered whether 'The Tao of Pooh' wasn't a half serious, half joke of a book. So the author is seriously writing? How does one take Pooh Bear & make him serious philosophy? I'm not trying to be flippant. I'm genuinely curious.
-
Fap, Exodus ch. 19-20 should answer your question.
It does thank you. 2 million people did not see God.
Here we go:
First. That's one persons account. The person who wrote Exodus. Of the two million people only one managed to scratch it down onto a tablet. Wow. I'm so startled.
Second. In that account God goes out of his way to make sure he doesn't get seen. Like some kind of insecure and shy fat girl.
Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, ‘Be careful that you do not approach the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain is to be put to death. 13 They are to be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on them. No person or animal shall be permitted to live.’ Only when the ram’s horn sounds a long blast may they approach the mountain.”
and the Lord said to him, “Go down and warn the people so they do not force their way through to see the Lord and many of them perish. 22 Even the priests, who approach the Lord, must consecrate themselves, or the Lord will break out against them.”
23 Moses said to the Lord, “The people cannot come up Mount Sinai, because you yourself warned us, ‘Put limits around the mountain and set it apart as holy.’”
24 The Lord replied, “Go down and bring Aaron up with you. But the priests and the people must not force their way through to come up to the Lord, or he will break out against them.”
WTF is this shit? It reads like the Wizard Of Oz.
-
Hello, Fap:
That wasn't a nice thing to say. But that is ok. I just happen to be a nice guy today, since its my birthday, and by the way, my fiancée was offended at your rather nasty reference to the Wizard of Oz (which is one of her favourite movies), so on that level, you can bite me.
But on a gentle, kinder level, since I AM a nice guy, I shall be nice enough to post you the full text of Chapters 19 and 20 of the Book of Exodus according to the Jewish Bible. Chapter 19 to follow in this entry, and 20 in the following entry according to the 1917 Jewish Publication Society Translation.
1 In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.
2 And when they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the wilderness of Sinai, they encamped in the wilderness; and there Israel encamped before the mount.
3 And Moses went up unto G-d, and HaShem called unto him out of the mountain, saying: 'Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel:
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself.
5 Now therefore, if ye will hearken unto My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine;
6 and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.'
7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which HaShem commanded him.
8 And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that HaShem hath spoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto HaShem.
9 And HaShem said unto Moses: 'Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever.' And Moses told the words of the people unto HaShem.
10 And HaShem said unto Moses: 'Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments,
11 and be ready against the third day; for the third day HaShem will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying: Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death;
13 no hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live; when the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.'
14 And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their garments.
15 And he said unto the people: 'Be ready against the third day; come not near a woman.'
16 And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of a horn exceeding loud; and all the people that were in the camp trembled.
17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet G-d; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.
18 Now mount Sinai was altogether on smoke, because HaShem descended upon it in fire; and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.
19 And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and G-d answered him by a voice.
20 And HaShem came down upon mount Sinai, to the top of the mount; and HaShem called Moses to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.
21 And HaShem said unto Moses: 'Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto HaShem to gaze, and many of them perish.
22 And let the priests also, that come near to HaShem, sanctify themselves, lest HaShem break forth upon them.'
23 And Moses said unto HaShem: 'The people cannot come up to mount Sinai; for thou didst charge us, saying: Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.'
24 And HaShem said unto him: 'Go, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee; but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto HaShem, lest He break forth upon them.'
25 So Moses went down unto the people, and told them.
-
And here follows Chapter 20.
1: And G-d spoke all these words, saying:
(Ed: The Ten Commandments Follow in Bold)
2: I am HaShem thy G-d , who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage (Ed: Commandment 1).
3: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me (Ed: Commandment 2).
4: Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ;
5: thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I HaShem thy G-d am a jealous G-d, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;
6: and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
7: Thou shalt not take the name of HaShem thy G-d in vain (Ed: Commandment 3); for HaShem will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain .
8: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (Ed: Commandment 4)
9: Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;
10: but the seventh day is a sabbath unto HaShem thy G-d, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates;
11: in six days HaShem made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore HaShem blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12: Honour thy father and thy mother (Ed: Commandment 5), that thy days may be long upon the land which HaShem thy G-d giveth thee.
13: Thou shalt not murder (Ed: Commandment 6); Thou shalt not commit adultery (Ed: Commandment 7); Thou shalt not steal (Ed: Commandment 8 ) ; Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (Ed: Commandment 9).
14: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife (Ed: Commandment 10), nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
15 And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off.
16 And they said unto Moses: 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not G-d speak with us, lest we die.'
17 And Moses said unto the people: 'Fear not; for G-d is come to prove you, and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.'
18 And the people stood afar off; but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where G-d was.
19 And HaShem said unto Moses: Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.
20 Ye shall not make with Me--gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you.
21 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee.
22 And if thou make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast profaned it.
23 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not uncovered thereon.
Now, if you will observe, good Fap, you will see that God manifested himself to the House of Israel (the 2 million persons I spoke about earlier) in smoke, thunder, lightening, and the sound of a horn. He shook the entire mountain. I suggest very strongly that you read the ENTIRE text of the two chapters, rather than half-assing it and quoting bits and pieces of it out of context. I do hope you enjoy reading the two chapters. If you wish to do further reading, you can find the entire Jewish Bible according to the 1917 text at https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Exodus20.html Of course, you can also get the 1985/99 revision online as well. Reading the Book of Exodus is what turned me into an Observant Jew. So, enjoy.
-
So God was a storm?
-
What the hell is "G-d"?
-
Spoon, not very politely phrased, but an appropriate question nonetheless. That particular edition of the Scripture was written to be sensitive to the feelings of Orthodox Jews. The Orthodox don't write the Name of God on paper, for fear that it could end up in a waste bin, thus profaning it. Therefore, they write 'G-d', which we all know refers to the Deity, but doesn't ACTUALLY spell the word. The same goes for English words like 'Lord' when used to translate 'Adonai', which is itself used in place of the Tetragrammaton 'YHWH' wherever it is found in a Torah Scroll or other part of Scripture. When the Tetragrammaton or its substitute in Hebrew 'Adonai' or the English 'Lord' (or Latin 'Dominus', etc) appear in many Bibles, that particular one uses 'HaShem', which means 'The Name'. Its an Orthodox thing.
-
Duck, NO! God was NOT a storm. But he manifested himself to the Children of Israel, in, not so much a storm per se, altho' I can see why it might be called that, but shall we say, events that included the voice of God, a horn, as well as fire, smoke, thunderings, lightnings, & the like.
-
Who is G-D?
-
Vaux, read not just the post above yours, but the post above that. I shan't repeat myself.
-
-Exodus 20:13
"You shall not murder."
-Ezekiel 9:5-7
5. As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion.
6. Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.
7. Then he said to them, “Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!” So they went out and began killing throughout the city.
-
Murder is unlawful killing. If God tells you to kill somebody, go for it!
-
Well, yes. That is essentially right. The commandment reads, 'Thou shalt do no murder', even if it is often translated w/ the word 'kill'. I haven't read the passage in Ezekiel in yrs, so that would take some time to review.
-
IRUSH, a preliminary answer to your question, & please know that it is only preliminary, is this: After Malachi, the prophesy departed from Israel. @ that time, God ceased to speak directly to His People. The Divine Message had been imparted, now it was no longer necessary to have such close 'babysitting', if you will. Now it is necessary for us to decide what we are going to do w/ the message that has been imparted to us. I am sure that if the Jews ever need another Prophet, God will provide for one. Does that help @ all?
-
IRUSH, a preliminary answer to your question, & please know that it is only preliminary, is this: After Malachi, the prophesy departed from Israel. @ that time, God ceased to speak directly to His People. The Divine Message had been imparted, now it was no longer necessary to have such close 'babysitting', if you will. Now it is necessary for us to decide what we are going to do w/ the message that has been imparted to us. I am sure that if the Jews ever need another Prophet, God will provide for one. Does that help @ all?
Do Jews believe that God does nothing at all to aid them in any way?
-
No, of course not. We, like many other persons, believe that God answers personal prayer. & he can of course do so in any way he chooses. I am personally convinced that God has saved my life on more than one occasion. If I tried to explain it, it would take a long time, but I have been the cat w/ more than 9 lives, I assure you. & my other prayers have often (tho' not always) been answered, sometimes in ways that appear to me to be miraculous. So, there you are.
-
No, of course not. We, like many other persons, believe that God answers personal prayer. & he can of course do so in any way he chooses. I am personally convinced that God has saved my life on more than one occasion. If I tried to explain it, it would take a long time, but I have been the cat w/ more than 9 lives, I assure you. & my other prayers have often (tho' not always) been answered, sometimes in ways that appear to me to be miraculous. So, there you are.
How is that different from "babysitting" you? I was originally wondering why God does it quietly now, but your reply insinuated that God no longer feels it is necessary to do anything at all.
The more various texts I read, the more it sounds like God is personified as human for some reason. For example, after God flooded the world he realized that was a terrible idea and actually noted a form of regret. i.e. God seems to be learning from experience, rather than knowing with omnipotence the result of his actions. I'm wondering if the texts imply that direct intervention from a deity doesn't work. Is that a theme you feel is present?
-
I must admit, IRUSH, your questions are insightful. Do remember that the Bible, while inspired by God, was written by man, in the part you mention, Moses, to be precise. I don't think that God learns from experience. Further, I don't think the text implies that direct intervention from Deity doesn't work. If they did, there wouldn't be so much of it in Scripture. I think rather, what you are seeing is the Word of God as mediated by the hand of man, say, Moses, for the Torah. He had to write in a way that could be understood by his Bronze Age audience. Does that mean God comes across as having human traits? Well, I suppose it does. But tell me, if Moses were writing to 21st Century Israel right now, what would the Bible look like? I expect that part of not coveting thy neighbour's goods would include his I-Phone. & they would probably include a rule about making phone calls only between 9.00am & 9.00pm! The human inspired authors weren't trying to make God limited or human-like; they were trying to make (cont)
-
him understandable to limited us-things from I'm not even sure how many centuries before the Common Era. Moses was around about 4500 ya, which means about 2500 BCE, so Noah probably would have been what, 4000 BCE? That's only a guess. But Moses had to make his Bronze Age people 4500 ya understand some pretty far out stuff, Dude! (Alright, I'm kidding!) I think you can see my point.
-
It seems like God would stop by and have another go at explaining his vision for the future of humanity since most of his teachings have been mucked up by translation errors and cultural analogies that no longer work. That is unless a lack of intervention implies a certain situational contentment, but you do claim that God intervenes but does so silently.
I'm still left wondering why verbal intervention is no longer necessary. I can understand that for a Jew, God doesn't really need to tell you "Oh, that was me, I helped you. You're welcome." However, most of the world is not Jewish and therefore we have two options: God doesn't help them or God helps them but doesn't tell them. Do you think one of those is correct? Please let me know if I am missing something.
-
I shall be nice enough to post you the full text of Chapters 19 and 20 of the Book of Exodus according to the Jewish Bible.
No need to copy pasta the whole Bible, we can all google.
It doesn't change the fact that god, as described in that one passage of that one account is at once shy, petty and vindictive. These are all qualities shared with Flank L Baum's character in the Wizard Of Oz. All the bawwing in the world cannot change this fact.
Anyone who believes this is suitable behaviour for a divine being needs to see a psychologist. I mean this in the nicest possible way. I'm sure you're a good guy apart from the books full of crazy.
-
Ah, well, hm. How do I answer that one diplomatically? Here is where the weakness of Judaism starts. We know what God has said to the Jew, & what he expects of the Jew. As far as what he has or has not said to the Gentile, & what he expects, or does not expect, from the Gentile, we simply don't know. I don't think that you're missing anything that our great Sages & Rabbis of Blessed Memory haven't been missing for 2500 yrs. God has simply not made us Jews privy to that information. When the time comes, we shall know. But @ the moment, that's a preliminary answer.
-
The Orthodox don't write the Name of God on paper, for fear that it could end up in a waste bin, thus profaning it.
This makes absoultely zero sense. Words are just an optical representation of ideas. There is no Name of God. They're a fabrication of a culture that needs to represent its thoughts in a physical medium so that they can be (largely) understood by everyone with the capacity to read. The symbols of God represents (to most people) a personal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. I could just as easily decare that "Kuku" represents that same thing. If enough people stick with me then this becomes the accepted representation.
If you put the symbols "G-d" on a piece of paper then throw that paper in the bin, you've still put a representation of the idea of God, the personal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, in the bin. God must be pretty angry at that. Cos he gets like that. Like he has eyes in all the bins and he unscrunches the bits of paper at night and looks for his name. This is normal behaviour for a omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being
The only possible solution is to write "G--". No wait that's not right.
-
My, my, Fap. I thought you were above simple name-calling & blasphemy. Do you not recall that man cannot see the face of God & live? My Land of Goshen, I'd rather deal w/ this than see the true Face of God, thank you. @ least this is something a human can work with.
-
My, my, Fap. I thought you were above simple name-calling & blasphemy.
I didnt call anyone any names. The concept of blasphemy has no meaning.
Do you not recall that man cannot see the face of God & live?
(Presuming the existence of a god) The Bible disputes such claims.
But it is strange that a loving omnipotent God would choose to kill anyone who saw him. Don'cha think?
-
Lets see. The concept of blasphemy is the idea of insult to deity. Ergo, the concept has meaning. As far as seeing the face of God & living, what does being all-loving & yet so powerful that one can't be looked @ directly have about it that is so hard to understand?
-
Lets see. The concept of blasphemy is the idea of insult to deity. Ergo, the concept has meaning.
Incorrect. If the deity does not exist there is no insult. You can of course baww and say "you hurt my feelings", regardless of whether the deity in question exists or not. The point is that you don't get to kill people when you're feelings get hurt. People who believe in Bigfoot don't have a special word for people who say Bigfoot doesn't exist. And they don't get to execute those people for suggesting Bigfoot doesn't exist. Or saying "If Bigfoot exists then he must be an ass for mutilating all those cows".
As far as seeing uhe face of God & living, what does being all-loving & yet so powerful that one can't be looked @ directly have about it that is so hard to understand?
Let's be clear. It's not hard to understand. It just doesn't make sense. There's a subtle difference: Particle physics is hard to understand. "Danced Cauliflower reaches yesterday roof the below bulldozer parade" doesn't make sense. There's no further meaning that can be gained if I just study harder.
To address the point directly. God is assumed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent. Nothing happens that he doesn't allow to happen. Therefore god chooses to kill people when they look at him. He could choose to have a normal face. He could just say "Oh hi I was just having a nap can you come back in 5?". Rather than killing them. That would be a nice friendly god.
-
As far as seeing the face of God & living, what does being all-loving & yet so powerful that one can't be looked @ directly have about it that is so hard to understand?
I understand that you're so familiar with your own religious beliefs by now that it's difficult to know how they're perceived by outsiders. You'll just have to take my word for it when I say this question is hilarious.
-
The idea that blasphemy exists is obvious. Its definition is 'the act of insulting a deity'. It does not specify which one. If I call Krishna an a--hole, I have committed blasphemy. {note: I did NOT call Krishna that. The statement was rhetorical.} It doesn't matter whether the deity IS a deity, actually exists or not. In some countries, like Russia, their laws are framed as 'insulting the religious feelings of the public'. So insulting the Russian Orthodox Church or its deity, or the Jews or their deity, or several other recognised groups, are all equally criminal acts. Whether it is in the State's interest to punish blasphemy is another question to be debated aside, but the existence of blasphemy is obvious.
-
It doesn't matter whether the deity IS a deity, actually exists or not.
So if I proclaim myself a deity right now, regardless of the fact that I'm not one, insulting me would be blasphemous?
-
The statement was rhetorical.} It doesn't matter whether the deity IS a deity, actually exists or not.
So you don't like getting your feelings hurt? Sorry, you don't have the right not to be offended.
Why aren't people who insult Bigfoot punished? Why aren't people who insult fairies punished? Why aren't people who insult homeopaths punished. Etc etc.
And edit: In case you cave and say "those things aren't real but my god is":
Why aren't people who insult the hit 70s detective series "Colombo" punished? Why aren't people who insult the government punished? Why aren't people who insult weathermen punished? Etc etc.
-
People who believe in Bigfoot don't have a special word for people who say Bigfoot doesn't exist
Actually there is a word, it is Bigfoot-wurr-wamm. It roughly translates to "Those who deny the existence of Bigfoot".
-
It doesn't matter whether the deity IS a deity, actually exists or not.
So if I proclaim myself a deity right now, regardless of the fact that I'm not one, insulting me would be blasphemous?
Inb4ascension a- hole
-
The idea that blasphemy exists is obvious. Its definition is 'the act of insulting a deity'. It does not specify which one. If I call Krishna an a--hole, I have committed blasphemy. {note: I did NOT call Krishna that. The statement was rhetorical.} It doesn't matter whether the deity IS a deity, actually exists or not. In some countries, like Russia, their laws are framed as 'insulting the religious feelings of the public'. So insulting the Russian Orthodox Church or its deity, or the Jews or their deity, or several other recognised groups, are all equally criminal acts. Whether it is in the State's interest to punish blasphemy is another question to be debated aside, but the existence of blasphemy is obvious.
I'm kinda curious as to your reply to this bit:
To address the point directly. God is assumed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent. Nothing happens that he doesn't allow to happen. Therefore god chooses to kill people when they look at him. He could choose to have a normal face. He could just say "Oh hi I was just having a nap can you come back in 5?". Rather than killing them. That would be a nice friendly god.
It's a pretty good point, I think, and was exactly what I was wondering as well.
-
I shall happily reply to all questions in my next post when I have some time. It may be a bit, as today has been busy, & tonight may be also.
-
Please note that blasphemy, as a crime, usually involves insulting the religious feelings of the public in some capacity. If you declare yourself a deity, you are certainly not going to have people being charged with blasphemy for insulting you. In fact, since you are manifestly NOT a deity, nor is there anyone in the world who thinks you are, such that their religious feelings would be insulted, it is far more likely that you will be escorted to the nearest State Mental Hospital.
As far as God being a nice guy and saying, "Hi, there. I was having a nap. Come back in five," or some other inanely stupid remark, or being a happy and cheerful God who would never kill anyone for looking at him, I don't think it works like that. It is not God who kills you. It is the power that emanate from the holiness of God. It is like the Priest who touched the Ark of the Covenant and was fried to a crisp for it. I don't think God particularly wanted him to die. I think it was simply a natural response to unauthorised contact with the holy.
In the early 1960's, at MIT, there was a professor and his class that tried to build a replica of the Ark of the Covenant. They ended up having to destroy their creation. Why? Because the thing started to conduct electricity and was very nearly exploded. Had it actually done so, it is estimated that it would have taken out a whole city block. What did Moses have that this professor did not? The blessing of God, and the fact that God sat on the Mercy Seat of the Ark and spoke to the Children of Israel. The Ark was no different. It is the use of the Ark that made the difference. The first Ark HAD a use that was blessed and sanctified by God. The replica did not. It is that simple.
-
As far as God being a nice guy and saying, "Hi, there. I was having a nap. Come back in five," or some other inanely stupid remark, or being a happy and cheerful God who would never kill anyone for looking at him, I don't think it works like that. It is not God who kills you. It is the power that emanate from the holiness of God. It is like the Priest who touched the Ark of the Covenant and was fried to a crisp for it. I don't think God particularly wanted him to die. I think it was simply a natural response to unauthorised contact with the holy.
Is God unable to control the effect his power has on those around him?
-
I suppose he could do anything he liked, including causing people who saw his face break out in bright blue polka dots, but he has chosen to demonstrate his power by this method. Why, I don't know. I don't question it, however. It is what it is.
-
Spoken like a true scholar.
-
In the early 1960's, at MIT, there was a professor and his class that tried to build a replica of the Ark of the Covenant. They ended up having to destroy their creation. Why? Because the thing started to conduct electricity and was very nearly exploded. Had it actually done so, it is estimated that it would have taken out a whole city block. What did Moses have that this professor did not? The blessing of God, and the fact that God sat on the Mercy Seat of the Ark and spoke to the Children of Israel. The Ark was no different. It is the use of the Ark that made the difference. The first Ark HAD a use that was blessed and sanctified by God. The replica did not. It is that simple.
I'm mildly curious about this one. I have incredible doubt this actually happened and a cursory google search has lead to zilch. Do you have a source for this claim?
-
I got that @ shul. I shall research the matter myself in the morning. If I don't get off the Internet, the gf is going to make me dogmeat. But I shall verify the Rabbi's statement myself.
-
I got that @ shul. I shall research the matter myself in the morning. If I don't get off the Internet, the gf is going to make me dogmeat. But I shall verify the Rabbi's statement myself.
Please also provide the technical drawings of the ark of the covenant.
-
In the early 1960's, at MIT, there was a professor and his class that tried to build a replica of the Ark of the Covenant. They ended up having to destroy their creation. Why? Because the thing started to conduct electricity and was very nearly exploded. Had it actually done so, it is estimated that it would have taken out a whole city block. What did Moses have that this professor did not? The blessing of God, and the fact that God sat on the Mercy Seat of the Ark and spoke to the Children of Israel. The Ark was no different. It is the use of the Ark that made the difference. The first Ark HAD a use that was blessed and sanctified by God. The replica did not. It is that simple.
I'm mildly curious about this one. I have incredible doubt this actually happened and a cursory google search has lead to zilch. Do you have a source for this claim?
Google gave me information, but I wouldn't call it credible. I arrived at countless conspiracy and extremist websites. I found no evidence as far as MIT is concerned. Since MIT doesn't do jack without writing large obnoxious papers about it, I'm going to have to say this is the stuff of rumors.
-
Divinity kills, people.
-
I read that it could have been a giant Leyden jar.
-
Yes, I arrived @ plenty too, but not @ MIT. The event supposedly took place in Minnesota. My bad. Now I think abot about it, the Rabbi said Minnesota, nmt MIT. Again, my bad. I shall try to track more abcnt this down. Meantime, if you want the dimensions of the Ark, you'll find them in the Book of Exodus. Remember that a cubit was standardardised in size as being 18 inches in length.
-
Yes, I arrived @ plenty too, but not @ MIT. The event supposedly took place in Minnesota. My bad. Now I think abot about it, the Rabbi said Minnesota, nmt MIT. Again, my bad. I shall try to track more abcnt this down. Meantime, if you want the dimensions of the Ark, you'll find them in the Book of Exodus. Remember that a cubit was standardardised in size as being 18 inches in length.
I am more interested in what could possibly cause electricity to emanate from it.
-
I read that it could have been a giant Leyden jar.
-
Yes, I arrived @ plenty too, but not @ MIT. The event supposedly took place in Minnesota. My bad. Now I think abot about it, the Rabbi said Minnesota, nmt MIT. Again, my bad. I shall try to track more abcnt this down. Meantime, if you want the dimensions of the Ark, you'll find them in the Book of Exodus. Remember that a cubit was standardardised in size as being 18 inches in length.
I like how suddenly you remember he said Minnesota instead of MIT, because those sound very similar right? I haven't found a single story about a replica Ark being built which nearly exploded.
-
Maybe there was a cover up?
Why would a replica ark have any holy powers anyway? I thought it was the tablets with the ten commandments that were important, not the box to carry them about.
-
The event took place in 1961. Someone else had mentioned MIT, and the Rabbi corrected them and said Minnesota. What could cause it to conduct electricity? Well, there is a shit-ton of gold on that thing. Gold is, out of all the natural elements, the best conductor of electricity known to us. There are better, but they have to be made by man by blending two or more elements (one of them usually being gold), or by creating elements in a laboratory.
Last night I was restricted to my phone in trying to gather information about the event in 1961. Today I have the power of my laptop. Let me see what I can find. I'll be back.
-
Divinity kills people.
ftfy
-
Well, I haven't been able to find much. I shall speak to my Rabbi and get more information from him, and then get back to all of you.
-
You're Rabbi must be a fan of one of your favorite people, Erich von Daniken. He made this claim about university students in Minnesota in "Chariots of the Gods". From http://ed5015.tripod.com/PavonDaniken13.htm
The film "Chariots of the Gods" went one step further. It showed a replica of the Ark, made by "a group of Minnesota college students," which produced a dangerous electrical charge.
Dr. Peter White, a lecturer in anthropology at Sydney University who is writing an anti-Daniken book titled "The Man-Made past," took the trouble to ask about this project at the University of Minnesota. The archivist at the university library made extensive enquiries, but was unable to locate an Ark of the Covenant project.
When I asked Mr. von Daniken about it, he said: "It was some high school in Michigan."
So there you have it. It's unlikely anyone in MIT or Minnesota actually reconstructed the Ark and had to abandon or destroy it due to it nearly exploding.
-
The event took place in 1961. Someone else had mentioned MIT, and the Rabbi corrected them and said Minnesota. What could cause it to conduct electricity? Well, there is a shit-ton of gold on that thing. Gold is, out of all the natural elements, the best conductor of electricity known to us. There are better, but they have to be made by man by blending two or more elements (one of them usually being gold), or by creating elements in a laboratory.
Last night I was restricted to my phone in trying to gather information about the event in 1961. Today I have the power of my laptop. Let me see what I can find. I'll be back.
You need more than an electrical conductor to create current. Simply making an object out of gold will not turn it into a huge battery, otherwise gold rings would be deadly.
-
I noticed that reference also. I can assure you that my Rabbi is no admirer of von Daniken, and neither am I, given what I have read of his stuff. I shall cheerfully withdraw the point. After having done the research, I have been able to find no corroborating evidence for the claim that students and their professor built a replica of the Ark. That point having been conceded, let us move on.
What was the purpose of the Ark of the Covenant? It was essentially a large box designed to hold the X Commandments, Aaron's rod that budded, and a few other things as as well. It was also a large super-conductor, shittim wood plated inside and out with purest gold. The spirit of God spoke to the Israelites from the Mercy Seat that was between the Cherubim on the cover ofArk. When one of the Priests attempted to touch the Ark to steady it, he was promptly killed by the power of God exerting itself through the Ark.
Why do I think that God all to often, allowed his power to be displayed in destructive ways? I suspect it was because humans of the time would have understood little else. To strike the fear of God into them, that was what was needed. Also, a national god dedicated to the House of Israel was also needed as well. You will find that if you get to the later parts of the "Old Testament" you will notice that the later prophets begin to speak of God as a universal God who speaks to all, answers all prayers, and gives to all men liberally, Jew or Gentile.
Of course, this is speculation. The Ark is not around. We don't know exactly how it worked.But, based on the Biblical text, we can develop a fair amount of information. So, there you are.
-
As far as God being a nice guy and saying, "Hi, there. I was having a nap. Come back in five," or some other inanely stupid remark, or being a happy and cheerful God who would never kill anyone for looking at him, I don't think it works like that.
Careful now Yaakov. You're implying that there exists a power beyond gods control. In some parts of the world that earns you execution for blasphemy.
Alternatively you can recognise that the being you believe in is all-powerful and all-knowing and chooses (in this thought experiment) to wilfully kill those who see his face.
Pick one.
[Can a mod please fork the bullshit story about the Arc Of The Covenant please?]
-
If you read all my posts, I suggested nothing of the sort.
-
Yes you do.
It is not God who kills you.
But you end up dead anyway. If God didn't kill you then something else killed you.
So either God isn't all powerful or he's isn't benign.
One of your core assumptions about a divine being is wrong. Pick one.
-
Do you think the Ark still exists somewhere? If nobody could touch it without dying then I imagine it would be difficult to destroy.
-
What was the purpose of the Ark of the Covenant? It was essentially a large box designed to hold the X Commandments, Aaron's rod that budded, and a few other things as as well. It was also a large super-conductor, shittim wood plated inside and out with purest gold. The spirit of God spoke to the Israelites from the Mercy Seat that was between the Cherubim on the cover ofArk. When one of the Priests attempted to touch the Ark to steady it, he was promptly killed by the power of God exerting itself through the Ark.
If it was a super conductor it was made out of neither gold nor wood.
Why do I think that God all to often, allowed his power to be displayed in destructive ways? I suspect it was because humans of the time would have understood little else. To strike the fear of God into them, that was what was needed. Also, a national god dedicated to the House of Israel was also needed as well. You will find that if you get to the later parts of the "Old Testament" you will notice that the later prophets begin to speak of God as a universal God who speaks to all, answers all prayers, and gives to all men liberally, Jew or Gentile.
If God is omnipotent, then he could simply force the people to understand. An omnipotent God does only what it wants to do. Yours happens to want to kill people more often than not. If my tone is getting more serious it is because this is where I start having problems with religion. You can never justify the wanton murder of people. I don't care if a supernatural being orders it and anyone following the orders of said being should be punished, not rewarded.
-
This is where religions that espouse deities of limited power rule. Obviously the Ancient Greeks are closer to the truth than the Abrahimics.
-
It is God's All Power that makes it impossible to look at his face and live. And his all goodness. Since humans are neither powerful enough, nor good enough to stand in the Presence of the All Powerful, the All Holy, the All Good, it is no wonder that we should be unable to survive the experience.
I do believe the Ark still exists. I expect it is under Mount Moriah, where the Temple was built, and on top of which now sits the monstrosity now known as the Dome of the Rock. It should either be disassembled and sent in pieces to Saudi Arabia to be rebuilt there, or it should simply be blown up, in either case, to make room for the restored Jewish Temple. And once it is removed, then further investigation for the the Ark can be done. It has been stopped by the Israeli Government because further digging would possibly damage the foundation of the Dome of the Rock. But without that monstrosity there, it would no longer be anissue, we could find the Ark, and then build the Temple AFTER having found it.
As re: the fact that God has chosen a nation as his own, and has at times in the past ordered that nation to destroy other nations, I do know that at first blush, that appears pretty brutal. But that is simply a fact of life. God decides what is moral, not us. Remember that these were nations who passed their children through the fire to Molech. They were nations who indulged in ritual prostitution. They were nations that used eunuchs as catamites to satisfy their men's unnatural lusts. Before getting too critical, I recommend you actually READ Exodus.
Any religion that poses a deity that has limited power is basically posing a deity that is no deity, as per Anselm's Argument from Ontology.
-
It is God's All Power that makes it impossible to look at his face and live. And his all goodness. Since humans are neither powerful enough, nor good enough to stand in the Presence of the All Powerful, the All Holy, the All Good, it is no wonder that we should be unable to survive the experience.
God decides whether a person can see him or not. Apparently he considers all people to be so beneath him that they should be killed should they see him. It's not a surprise considering how little God thinks of humanity, so at least it is consistent with the scripture.
As re: the fact that God has chosen a nation as his own, and has at times in the past ordered that nation to destroy other nations, I do know that at first blush, that appears pretty brutal. But that is simply a fact of life. God decides what is moral, not us. Remember that these were nations who passed their children through the fire to Molech. They were nations who indulged in ritual prostitution. They were nations that used eunuchs as catamites to satisfy their men's unnatural lusts. Before getting too critical, I recommend you actually READ Exodus.
Perhaps God is simply testing to see if you think for yourself. Perhaps God truly rewards those who would stand responsible for their own actions, rather than allow another being dictate everything to them like a child. There is even the third option, that God has never interacted with humanity and what Moses or the others encountered was some form of demonic entity attempting to mold human civilization. If God created the universe as it is, clearly it is already what God desired. Perhaps some more malevolent entity wished to exert power over something that is not their own.
Any religion that poses a deity that has limited power is basically posing a deity that is no deity, as per Anselm's Argument from Ontology.
The problem with an all-powerful deity is that from the point forward that you admit they are omnipotent and omniscient, then you must admit that you have no control over your own actions. Subsequently it means that God is literally the universe and what you do or believe has no impact whatsoever on anything.
-
The lack of free will is not a problem per se. It only becomes a problem if you value freedom and personal expression.
-
I've had these freewill debates in these fora before. I will say only this. God's foreknowledge of a thing does not imply that he chose that thing. It is still man's choice. I'm no 5 Point Calvinist who believes Double Predestination. & claiming that God created the Universe & then a malevolent being stepped in is basically Christianity w/ its devil. Jews don't (@ least most do not) believe in Hell. Satan is the Prosecuting Attorney of God's Heavenly Court. Mankind chose an evil act. Notice that Genesis never names the serpent. It took NT writers to make the connection between the serpent & Satan.
-
I've had these freewill debates in these fora before. I will say only this. God's foreknowledge of a thing does not imply that he chose that thing. It is still man's choice. I'm no 5 Point Calvinist who believes Double Predestination. & claiming that God created the Universe & then a malevolent being stepped in is basically Christianity w/ its devil. Jews don't (@ least most do not) believe in Hell. Satan is the Prosecuting Attorney of God's Heavenly Court. Mankind chose an evil act. Notice that Genesis never names the serpent. It took NT writers to make the connection between the serpent & Satan.
The concept of hell is not necessary for a being to manipulate humans. At no point in any Jewish scripture is a truly omnipotent and omniscient being portrayed.
As far as you choosing, with an omnipotent God there is no choice. God created you therefore he created your actions. It would be impossible for you to do something God did not wish you to do.
-
Irush, I think a polite agreement to disaree is the furthest we can get here. Although earlier parts of the Bible could be read as being henotheistic, certainlly, by the time of Isaiah, we are reading about a God portrayed in the literature as omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, & the only true God. & I will still disagree w/ your def of free will. God's foreknowledge of a thing does not include having decided that thing.
-
Irush, I think a polite agreement to disaree is the furthest we can get here. Although earlier parts of the Bible could be read as being henotheistic, certainlly, by the time of Isaiah, we are reading about a God portrayed in the literature as omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, & the only true God. & I will still disagree w/ your def of free will. God's foreknowledge of a thing does not include having decided that thing.
I dunno, I mean, since he's omniscient that means that before he even created you he knew everything you were ever going to do. It's arguable, I suppose, but really if he's omnipotent and omniscient then nothing happens that God doesn't want to happen. Everything that has and ever will happen is set. So every time he seems surprised and upset by humans and their actions in the Bible seems a bit odd. I mean, even at the very start, if he's omniscient then he knew Adam and Eve were going to eat that apple before he even created them...
-
Irush, I think a polite agreement to disaree is the furthest we can get here. Although earlier parts of the Bible could be read as being henotheistic, certainlly, by the time of Isaiah, we are reading about a God portrayed in the literature as omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, & the only true God. & I will still disagree w/ your def of free will. God's foreknowledge of a thing does not include having decided that thing.
I dunno, I mean, since he's omniscient that means that before he even created you he knew everything you were ever going to do. It's arguable, I suppose, but really if he's omnipotent and omniscient then nothing happens that God doesn't want to happen. Everything that has and ever will happen is set. So every time he seems surprised and upset by humans and their actions in the Bible seems a bit odd. I mean, even at the very start, if he's omniscient then he knew Adam and Eve were going to eat that apple before he even created them...
Well maybe he also knows that he's going to be upset
-
So God is a masochist and likes to inflict pain and displeasure on himself?
-
I wouldn't say that God wants bad things to happen. He knows they will, but not because he himself willed it to be so. Observe the following analogy (& no, it is NOT a perfect one): a man & a woman have a child. They raise him w/ every financial & moral advantage. He is never in want. He gets an excellent education, is loved by parents, siblings, & friends. All is going well for this boy. Yet in his teens he begins to misbehave. @ 1st, his pranks are harmless, even funny. But as he progresses to adulthood, they turn downright dangerous & even criminal. His father observes this in anguish. His other children turn into fine young men & women, good citizens all. But the one continues his self-destructive ways & means. His sorrowing parents begin to see that the end for their son will be the dark of a felon's cell, or, God forbid, a hangman's noose. Tell me. Even if they foresee this, are they to blame? I realise the analogy isn't perfect. But God creates us free. The fact that he knows what we will do (cont)
-
doesn't make us any less free. It simply means that our Creator has knowledge we lack.
-
Let's say you have a time machine and go 20 years into the future to see what your life is like. Now let's say that you see that your teenaged child is behind bars waiting to be tried for a mass slaying of 50 people at a mall. Now this is q child you haven't created yet, so you presumably have the ability to prevent his birth. Would it be immoral of you to create said child?
-
doesn't make us any less free. It simply means that our Creator has knowledge we lack.
The thing is, God knew exactly how things would turn out if He made us before He made us. He made the decision to go ahead with making us even though He knew how we would turn out. It's more like if a guy was psychic and knew his kids were going to turn out crazy and vicious and decided to do it anyway then got all surprised and upset that it happened as he knew it was going to.
-
I wouldn't say that God wants bad things to happen. He knows they will, but not because he himself willed it to be so.
Then he either could not change the bad thing to happen or he does not want to change it. To me this says god either is not omnipotent or he is not omni-benevolent.
-
Duck, that is a very interesting question. I don't have an answer to it, because I don't know all the variables. Even if I did, I'm not sure I'd have an answer. Snupes, I'm not sure you can ascribe human emotions to the Deity. I mean, I know the Bible does. But that text was also written (the oldest parts of it) 4500 ya. I suspect that people of the Bronze Age probably needed that kind of thing, just as ancient Judaism sacrificed animals. I know the Orthodox want to rebuild the Temple & reinstitute the sacrificial cult. I'm w/ them on rebuilding the Temple as a House of Prayer for All People (as per Isaiah), but I, & many other Jews (inc. some Orthodox) are less certain about sacrificing animals again. So there you are. Back to God having human emotions, I don't know. It makes him sound limited, like a Greek god would be, say, Zeus, w/ his petty tantrums & jealousies. I'd like to think that the One True God & Creator of the universe & all that therein is would be above that.
-
Rama, forcing humans to do only good, & allowing only good things to occur, takes away free will. If the only option is a good option, is it truly good. Evil is the absence of good. If all things & situations are equally good, then is man truly free?
-
Rama, forcing humans to do only good, & allowing only good things to occur, takes away free will. If the only option is a good option, is it truly good. Evil is the absence of good. If all things & situations are equally good, then is man truly free?
Why would God even care about freewill? It seems like an unnecessary middleman that just lands people in Hell.
The only answer I will accept is that God is omnipotent but indifferent to the plight of man. That's the only option that fits with the observable world around us. If God was benevolent and all-knowing: everyone would be saved.
-
Lets see. The concept of blasphemy is the idea of insult to deity. Ergo, the concept has meaning. As far as seeing the face of God & living, what does being all-loving & yet so powerful that one can't be looked @ directly have about it that is so hard to understand?
The concept of blasphemy makes no sense. What actions of a few monkeys on a tiny backwater planet like Earth could possibly insult the creator of the entire universe? If he's all powerful, then surely he has the ability to not be insulted by anything. If I could change one thing about myself, surely it would be to not give a damn about what anyone else said or did to me. Is it possible that God could lack this ability?
As far as not being able to look at God directly, it seems to me that has a lot more to do with a human inability to comprehend infinity than with some property of an alleged all-powerful, infinite being.
-
It is God's All Power that makes it impossible to look at his face and live.
Again, this makes no sense. You failed to address this issue when it was put to you before. I'll assume you'll keep posting it even though its been refuted using your own logic.
I've had these freewill debates in these fora before.
And lost?
It's possible to have free will and live in a world without pain. Cookies or ice cream? See, a simple choice with no slaughter of millions. The fact that religious types insist on binding "free will" (as gifted by a being that has yet to be shown to exist) to harm is only to get out of debates like this one. And to make people appear weak and God strong. Somehow.
The Bible doesn't mention free will. I don't know where you got the idea from. In fact it explicitly refutes the notion of free will. Which kind of makes sense if God is an all knowing being, as he's claimed to be.
If we have free will then god is not omni-benevolent. He would rather see a 5 year old girl raped and murdered just so he can see the murderer exercise his free will. And even then the murderer can just say "I accept Jesus/<YourMessengerOfChoice> into my heart" and its all OK.
Once again, that sounds like a horrible, petty being.
-
So God is a masochist and likes to inflict pain and displeasure on himself?
Nah, the only ones receiving pain and displeasure here are the people he specifically designed to be disobedient; for disobedience.
-
Actually, FAP, there is no winning or losing a debate of this nature. There is only exchange of ideas. The only way you can lose is to act like a self-satisfied, conceited asshole, which you have succeeded in doing w/ your arrogant tone. The Bible in no way refutes free will. People make choices, & pay the consequences, throughout the text. God has been shown to exist. The Ontological Argument did that centuries ago. Your failure to recognise that is a personal problem. Your refusal to acknowledge that there might actually be something more important than you in the cosmos sounds like megalomania. Might I recommend a good psychiatrist, & possibly meds?
-
Something more important than him and us might very well exist, but it's probably not your god.
-
It would be a being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived, & which exists. Ergo, it would indeed be God as Judaism has always understood him. Now, I am NOT attempting to prove Scripture to be correct about us being the Chosen People or any of that. That's all a debate for another day. I am only arguing for a God, defined in Anselmian terms.
-
The Bible in no way refutes free will.
Go home and read your Bible. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/free_will.html)
You can counter this with a few quotes that might hint at free will being endorsed by the Bible, despite the fact that it never proposes it. (Because it would make God look weak)
Here I'll help:
John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.
NB A lot of the quotes given in favour of Biblical free will are really just passages telling people to accept God/Jesus. You get punished if you don't accept Jesus. You get eternal life if you do. This says nothing about the ability to govern ones own actions. (According to the Bible God expressly creates bad people who reject him, and then sentences them to eternity in hell)
Anyway, having presented "evidence" for free will from the Bible the only thing you achieve is presenting a self-contradictory text. Not much good for anything.
The Ontological Argument did that centuries ago.
Yeah. I don't think you know much about that. I suspect you just read it somewhere. No offence.
Your refusal to acknowledge that there might actually be something more important than you in the cosmos sounds like megalomania.
There are many, many things more important than me. An angry, petty, vindictive, sex obsessed sky fairy isn't one of them.
-
Your quote comes from the NT. That is not part of the Bible, last time I checked, or did you forget I'm a Jew? Having 2 BA's, one of them in philosophy, probably means I know more about Anselm's argument than you do, altho' I am a bit rusty. & Judaism re: marriage as a positive commandment, along w/ the sex part. In fact, sex w/ one's wife is encouraged on Sabbath. We do not have the hangups about sex that Christianity does. Jews also don't believe in Hell. Or Jesus. Or being saved. Or any of the Christian claptrap you spouted in your post. So, tell me... Does it feel good to have made yourself look like a complete f-----g schmuck? Incidentally, the 2nd BA is now an MA.
-
I am surprised this debate is still going on. It is clear that atheism is the only sensible approach in the matter when comparing the two items in the subject of the thread.
-
Your quote comes from the NT. That is not part of the Bible, last time I checked, or did you forget I'm a Jew? Having 2 BA's, one of them in philosophy, probably means I know more about Anselm's argument than you do, altho' I am a bit rusty. & Judaism re: marriage as a positive commandment, along w/ the sex part. In fact, sex w/ one's wife is encouraged on Sabbath. We do not have the hangups about sex that Christianity does. Jews also don't believe in Hell. Or Jesus. Or being saved. Or any of the Christian claptrap you spouted in your post. So, tell me... Does it feel good to have made yourself look like a complete f-----g schmuck? Incidentally, the 2nd BA is now an MA.
I didn't think we were confined to discussing God in Jewish terms only. This thread is titled "Atheism vs Religion", not "Atheism vs Judaism". Unless Judaism is the only religion now? If so, my mistake.
-
Vaux, you can argue any religion you like w/ anybody you like. But if you're going to debate w/ me, the default is set @ Judaism. If you want something else, I can probably do it. Specify. But don't assume. It makes an ASS out of U & ME.
-
Your quote comes from the NT. That is not part of the Bible, last time I checked, or did you forget I'm a Jew?
To the people who call it a Bible, it's part of the Bible. Anyway, feel free to inject your own quote.
Having 2 BA's, one of them in philosophy, probably means I know more about Anselm's argument than you do
Cool, then you'll know it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. It basically boils down to "Cool things must exist because they are cool and it is better that cool things exist than not exist".
Christian claptrap
Whoah someone just backed away from the Torah. Anyway, reported for hate speech. Enjoy your ban.
-
Vaux, you can argue any religion you like w/ anybody you like. But if you're going to debate w/ me, the default is set @ Judaism. If you want something else, I can probably do it. Specify. But don't assume. It makes an ASS out of U & ME.
I have skipped over most of this debate, so can you explain some things to me?
Is your God benevolent? Y/N and reasons why, please.
Is He omnipotent? Y/N and reasons why, please.
If above is true: can your God create a rock that he cannot pick up due to its own weight?
-
I don't hate Christianity any more than you do. I merely consider them a bit humourous. & no, I haven't backed away from Torah. That would be them. The Anselmian argument says nothing about being cool. It says that existence is better than non-existence. Let me ask you a rhetorical question. If someone points a loaded pistol @ your head & asks, 'Do you care if I pull the trigger or not?' What will you say? Is your continued existence on Earth as a conscious, thinking being better in your mind than your non-existence? Please note that the question is rhetorical. You might be a schmuck, but I don't wish to shoot you.
-
If someone points a loaded pistol @ your head & asks, 'Do you care if I pull the trigger or not?' What will you say? Is your continued existence on Earth as a conscious, thinking being better in your mind than your non-existence?
This question has nothing to do with the Ontological argument. That argument is to do with cool things. Pistols at my head are not cool.
-
God is of course omnipotent, omnibenevolent, & omniscient. The question, however, is illogical & solipsistic. 'Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?' is like saying that someone is a married bachelor. The question, like the phrase, is a contradiction in terms, & therefore has no connotation in English (or any other language).
-
God is of course omnipotent, omnibenevolent, & omniscient. The question, however, is illogical & solipsistic. 'Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?' is like saying that someone is a married bachelor. The question, like the phrase, is a contradiction in terms, & therefore has no connotation in English (or any other language).
Alright, we'll ignore the question since you've admitted it is beyond your ability to grasp.
If God is omnibenevolent, which loosely means "Good guy all around ", then why has He commited such foul acts in the Bible? I'll give you one example: the flood. He actually attempted to kill everyone on Earth (of course there is no evidence for this Flood ever happening, but we'll ignore that part as well for now) and He had no qualms about doing it.
What was the point of this? God got upset that the beings he created were doing evil things (keep in mind, he programmed them to do evil things in the first place via "free will") and wanted to kill them all. That's the bottom line. No "benevolent" ruler murders his own subjects.
"Yahweh decides to flood the earth because of the depth of the sinful state of mankind."
Exodus 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Your God would make a lot more sense if you stopped calling him benevolent, because he's clearly not. He's actually more malevolent than most deities.
-
Cool things & existence have nothing to do w/ each other. Some things that exist are indeed cool, but many things that exist are manifestly uncool. Nevertheless, in things that think, continued existence is almost always preferred over non-existence (in the case of humans, causing non-existence in oneself would constitute suicide). So God's existence is neither cool nor uncool, in the sense that he is neither a cool or uncool thing. But existence is indeed better than non-existence, as you have indicated by your dislike for loaded pistols near your head. Ergo, God exists.
-
Cool things & existence have nothing to do w/ each other. Some things that exist are indeed cool, but many things that exist are manifestly uncool. Nevertheless, in things that think, continued existence is almost always preferred over non-existence (in the case of humans, causing non-existence in oneself would constitute suicide). So God's existence is neither cool nor uncool, in the sense that he is neither a cool or uncool thing. But existence is indeed better than non-existence, as you have indicated by your dislike for loaded pistols near your head. Ergo, God exists.
ergo trolling ::)
-
Re: God being an uncool Dude in the Bible by flooding the place, & doing other things that appear very nasty to people & things, I don't claim to understand the justice of of God @ all times. Why the Flood? Well, the Torah offers an answer. Whether you accept that answer is up to you. I'm not saying you're not entitled to question God. You are. But remember that some questions have been crossing the eyes of learned Rabbis much smarter than me for a couple thousand yrs now. I might have some answers. I might not, but can get you in the right direction. But all too often, I shall be as mystified as you.
-
Cool things & existence have nothing to do w/ each other. Some things that exist are indeed cool, but many things that exist are manifestly uncool. Nevertheless, in things that think, continued existence is almost always preferred over non-existence (in the case of humans, causing non-existence in oneself would constitute suicide). So God's existence is neither cool nor uncool, in the sense that he is neither a cool or uncool thing. But existence is indeed better than non-existence, as you have indicated by your dislike for loaded pistols near your head. Ergo, God exists.
wut.
A man with five balls is neither a cool nor uncool thing. But existence is indeed better than non-existence. Ergo a man with five balls exists.
A goat with a dolphin's head is neither a cool nor uncool thing. But existence is indeed better than non-existence. Ergo...
-
God is of course omnipotent, omnibenevolent, & omniscient. The question, however, is illogical & solipsistic. 'Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?' is like saying that someone is a married bachelor. The question, like the phrase, is a contradiction in terms, & therefore has no connotation in English (or any other language).
Alright, we'll ignore the question since you've admitted it is beyond your ability to grasp.
If God is omnibenevolent, which loosely means "Good guy all around ", then why has He commited such foul acts in the Bible? I'll give you one example: the flood. He actually attempted to kill everyone on Earth (of course there is no evidence for this Flood ever happening, but we'll ignore that part as well for now) and He had no qualms about doing it.
What was the point of this? God got upset that the beings he created were doing evil things (keep in mind, he programmed them to do evil things in the first place via "free will") and wanted to kill them all. That's the bottom line. No "benevolent" ruler murders his own subjects.
"Yahweh decides to flood the earth because of the depth of the sinful state of mankind."
Exodus 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Your God would make a lot more sense if you stopped calling him benevolent, because he's clearly not. He's actually more malevolent than most deities.
All the murder and mayhem is for a good cause, don'cha know. It all works out for the best at the end of time. ::)
I mean, when you have guys like William Lane Craig spinning the slaughter of the Amalekites (sp?) down to the last child as being ultimately to their benefit as the innocent would immediately go up to heaven, how do you even argue against that? Just getting into an argument with someone who can take that position with a straight face is insanity. Atheism vs. religion? Maybe the only the only reasonable response to the question is "no thanks".
-
Re: God being an uncool Dude in the Bible by flooding the place, & doing other things that appear very nasty to people & things, I don't claim to understand the justice of of God @ all times. Why the Flood? Well, the Torah offers an answer. Whether you accept that answer is up to you. I'm not saying you're not entitled to question God. You are. But remember that some questions have been crossing the eyes of learned Rabbis much smarter than me for a couple thousand yrs now. I might have some answers. I might not, but can get you in the right direction. But all too often, I shall be as mystified as you.
You're ignoring the question. Probably because you're trolling, but whatever. I'll bite.
If God is good (benevolent), does it make sense that a benevolent God would kill everyone on Earth? Yes or no.
Since you seem to have a hard time comprehending the word; the meaning of benevolent is:
"well meaning and kindly."
I mean, when you have guys like William Lane Craig spinning the slaughter of the Amalekites (sp?) down to the last child as being ultimately to their benefit as the innocent would immediately go up to heaven, how do you even argue against that? Just getting into an argument with someone who can take that position with a straight face is insanity. Atheism vs. religion? Maybe the only the only reasonable response to the question is "no thanks".
Maybe Man's collective definition of "benevolent" was different back then? We have evolved mentally since the times of the Bible, after all.
Which makes it even more amazing that people still intellectually cling to the Bible as a source of reliable wisdom. Does that mean that these people have not evolved mentally like the rest of us? Perhaps we can ask one of these very people: Yaakov, are you mentally handicapped?
-
A goat w/ a dolphin's head... That is a thought. Again, you are mischaracterising the argument. The argument isn't designed to give us interesting wildlife or men w/ unique sexual organs. Although along those lines, there are other philosophical arguments that explain why God DIDN'T create say, a goat w/ a dolphin's head. But that aside, goat's w/ dolphin's heads are neither greater nor lesser than anything else. God is the Greatest Being that can be conceived. If such a being does not exist, than there is one greater; namely, one that exists. There is nothing intrinsically great about a goat w/ a dolphin's head. In fact, from a standpoint of biology, that would likely be disastrous. I could continue, but my point is clear.
-
but my point is clear.
Incorrect, but at least we're thinking about greatness.
Imagine the greatest TV set. It has 2160HD and 8 HDMI ports. Poof it exists.
Imagine the greatest NFL player. He can throw balls to Saturn. Poof he exists.
etc etc etc
-
A goat w/ a dolphin's head... That is a thought. Again, you are mischaracterising the argument. The argument isn't designed to give us interesting wildlife or men w/ unique sexual organs. Although along those lines, there are other philosophical arguments that explain why God DIDN'T create say, a goat w/ a dolphin's head. But that aside, goat's w/ dolphin's heads are neither greater nor lesser than anything else. God is the Greatest Being that can be conceived. If such a being does not exist, than there is one greater; namely, one that exists. There is nothing intrinsically great about a goat w/ a dolphin's head. In fact, from a standpoint of biology, that would likely be disastrous. I could continue, but my point is clear.
Are you ever going to answer a question with a real response? All I see here is circular logic. Surely your "2 BAs" prove that you're capable of more than that.
-
Point 1, Vaux, your an asshole. That being said, w/ 3 degrees, I expect I'm better educated or equally as educated as you are. Point 2. State sponsored atheism, since the French Revolution, has managed to kill how many people? In the USSR, 30 million. In PR China, 40 million. In the DPRK, about 30% of the population in the '90's. In Cambodia, about 25% of population in 4 yrs. Shall I continue? Note that in all these nations, the first people executed were the clergy. Point 3. Aside from Fundamentalist types, mostly Christian types, the rest of us do not advocate violence in the name of the Bible.
-
Point 1, Vaux, your an asshole. That being said, w/ 3 degrees, I expect I'm better educated or equally as educated as you are. Point 2. State sponsored atheism, since the French Revolution, has managed to kill how many people? In the USSR, 30 million. In PR China, 40 million. In the DPRK, about 30% of the population in the '90's. In Cambodia, about 25% of population in 4 yrs. Shall I continue? Note that in all these nations, the first people executed were the clergy. Point 3. Aside from Fundamentalist types, mostly Christian types, the rest of us do not advocate violence in the name of the Bible.
I'm sorry, what?
-
There is nothing uniquely great about NFL players or television sets, & there are plenty of arguments that outweigh an Anselmian one for their presence. Philosophy is not the art of wishful thinking. It is the understanding of that which makes logical sense.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/f45zj7E.jpg)
Yaakov, during your education did you ever learn about the Crusades?
Violence is not based on religion. Violence is a trope that fits every facet of humanity. It has nothing to do with religions or non-religions. Those are merely excuses to cause violence, like a number of other things.
We can pull examples from both sides of the spectrum, it matters not.
You're swimming in fallacies tonight, aren't you?
-
A thought does not prove the existence of anything. You should abandon that piss poor ontological argument.
-
Of course I learned about the Crusades. We Jews have no love lost for Muslim or Christian. They've both been assholes to us. Christians are currently a bit nicer, I suppose. But atheists have had by far the worst track record in the history of the world for murder & mayhem. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. The Kims. Just a few of how many? As far as the ontological argument being 'piss poor', prove it wrong. Then I shall abandon it. There are other, inductive, arguments for God's existence, but Anselm is usually enough. Well, I have to log off now. I'll see you all in about 3 hrs.
-
Of course I learned about the Crusades. We Jews have no love lost for Muslim or Christian. They've both been assholes to us. Christians are currently a bit nicer, I suppose. But atheists have had by far the worst track record in the history of the world for murder & mayhem. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. The Kims. Just a few of how many? As far as the ontological argument being 'piss poor', prove it wrong. Then I shall abandon it. There are other, inductive, arguments for God's existence, but Anselm is usually enough. Well, I have to log off now. I'll see you all in about 3 hrs.
Are you kidding me? *Because* they were atheist? That's absolutely ridiculous. If "is an atheist and killed people" equals "killed people in the name of atheism", then oh boy I can guarantee you the vast majority of murderers in the world were religious. I thought you were better than that ridiculous "argument".
-
Ontological refutation #1 http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/08/ontological-argument-for-god-rebuttal.html
#2 http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Mode/ModeDeLo.htm
That argument basically boils down to "God exists because I believe he exists." You cannot prove a single thing by "imagining it possible to exist". It was refuted long ago, but that refutation has fallen on the deaf ears of the fools who would believe their mind can will into existence anything they want.
-
Well, Snupes, I'll agree, most nations that war w/ each other have religions to which the govts & citizens adhere, but most wars are NOT about religion, as history proves, despite the stupid & untrue statement people (usually Americans) make about 'more wars being fought in the name of religion, etc'. On the other hand, state sponsored atheism usually tortures & kills clergy as 1 of its 1st acts. Now, I won't deny, some wars have been religious. The Crusades, the 30 Years War, the French Wars of Religion. Some wars have had a religious element. The Arab conquests. The wars of the 'Old Testament' were wars of territorial acquisition in which the Israelite side felt justified by God. Again, not strictly religious, but w/ a religious element. When America goes to Iraq, we do it singing 'God bless America'. Not much different. Duck, again, the rhetorical question: w/ a loaded & cocked pistol to your head, is your continued existence better than your non-existence? What's better, a live Duck or a dead Duck?
-
I ask again, what is a being that is greater, one that can be conceived but doesn't exist, or one that does? I read the attempts @ rejecting the argument in college. I found them silly then, & find them silly now.
-
It just sounds like your subtlely threatening people now.
-
I wouldn't say that God wants bad things to happen. He knows they will, but not because he himself willed it to be so. Observe the following analogy (& no, it is NOT a perfect one): a man & a woman have a child. They raise him w/ every financial & moral advantage. He is never in want. He gets an excellent education, is loved by parents, siblings, & friends. All is going well for this boy. Yet in his teens he begins to misbehave. @ 1st, his pranks are harmless, even funny. But as he progresses to adulthood, they turn downright dangerous & even criminal. His father observes this in anguish. His other children turn into fine young men & women, good citizens all. But the one continues his self-destructive ways & means. His sorrowing parents begin to see that the end for their son will be the dark of a felon's cell, or, God forbid, a hangman's noose. Tell me. Even if they foresee this, are they to blame? I realise the analogy isn't perfect. But God creates us free. The fact that he knows what we will do (cont)
This analogy doesn't match up because parents aren't omnipotent or omniscient. A better analogy would be you have a gun and you fire the gun at a person. You are later arrested for murder. You claim that you didn't kill the person, the bullet did. A defense that isn't going to go over very well in court.
This is because you already know what a gun is going to do when you fire it at a someone. No decision whatsoever is left to the gun as it is incapable of making any. An omnipotent/omniscient God creating humans is pulling the trigger on a gun.
-
What is better, multiple perfect beings or just one? I just proved polytheism using your ontological argument. Because surely 2 is greater than 1, and 3 greater than 2, and so on. Therefore, there is no God, but rather a council of gods.
-
And no, VAUX, I am not threatening Duck. I noticed AFTER posting the message the pun. It was not intentional. The statement was entirely rhetorical. If I ever tried to shoot a firearm, I'd probably blow my own dick off.
-
Actually, that is an interesting question, Duck, & one we considered. It ended up a no go. Premise 1 by Person A: I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived & exists. Premise 2 by Person B: I can conceive of a Being equally as great as your Being, also existing. Premise 3, Person A: My Being is always greater than yours. No matter how great yours is, mine is just that much greater, & exists. Ergo, Person A's Being is a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived & exists. 2 perfections are not possible in 1 universe. 1 will always out-perfect the other.
-
There are many good rebuttals to Anselm. In what way does the ontological prove god exists beyond a trick of language?
-
Irush, that is an interesting analogy. The difference lies here. A bullet has no choice but to go where fired. That would be Double Predestination, very Calvinist of you. Arminians always believed men had choice. I won't deny the tension. God knows all, yet man is free. I ponder it too. I accept it as a mystery of faith. I try to understand. But like you, I admit to not entirely getting it.
-
By your logic, Person 1's God and Person's 3 God both do not exist as they cannot exist together but the argument shows they both exist. Besides, we are not speaking of the argument to multiple people, as this argument is made by a singular person. If one perfect being can exist, does this mean 2 perfect beings cannot exist? I don't believe that equal perfection is impossible, therefore it isn't by the ontological argument. If multiple perfect beings is not impossible, and at least one perfect being exists, then multiple exist. Therefore the council of gods is back on the table as existing and your monotheistic religion is blasphemous and shall be dealt with by the council.
Also, to alter Rushy's argument a touch to maybe make you convinced, if you sell a handgun to a known gang member, you had the ability to prevent a person from dying (knowledge of said gang member and likelihood it would be used against another person) and yet failed to prevent it (sold the gun instead of not selling it). You are ultimately responsible for the bystander hit by the stray bullet of the sideways-gun holding thug due to your negligence in gun selling (God "sold" life to man knowing what he would do with it).
-
Well, Rama, its far less of a trick of language than the recent question I was asked by Vaux: Can God create a rock to heavy for God to lift? The question is a solipsism & a logical impossibility. Its like calling a man a married bachelor. Both the phrase & the question are language tricks w/ empty connotation. In comparison, the Ontological Argument is quite easy to handle.
-
Ah, there weren't 3 people in the argument. 3 premises, but only 2 persons, A & B. @ first, I mistakenly said A & 2. I have edited that. There are 2 interlocutors, Persons A & B; 3 Premises; & 1 Conclusion.
-
Either way, the first argument is that no greater being exists. Argument 2 is that there is a being which exists that is equal to the first argument's being. Equal is not greater, thus this does not invalidate the first argument, thus multiple equally great beings which have no superior.
-
I see your point, Duck. But the 1st interlocutor can always upstage the 2nd. Its like when we were boys (now how's that for assumptions, expecting you to be a man; you could be a woman for all I know), & we were upstaging each other saying 4th Grade things like 'F--k you 100 times!' 'Oh yeah? F--k you 1000 times!' The # quickly rose to 'F--k you infinity times!' & then some smart-ass would come up w/ the # 'infinity & one'. The point is, Anselm's argument always works. The minute you say your being is equal to mine, mine gets a promotion. Sucks to be you, don't it? *GRIN* That last was a joke. I think you see my point.
-
So you don't agree that equal is not greater? Or do you make the assumption that if something can't be greater than it can't be equal as well? The argument clearly only refers to greater, not equal to, thus a being can be equal to one which there is no greater. It's like you're playground argument with "fuck you" and the second kid says "fuck you" in retort, there is no escalation.
-
Well, yes. 2 things can be equal in theory. But tell me honestly, do you think that a Divine Being who calls himself Jealous in Exodus is going to stand for another Being to be equal to him? 'I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me... for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third & fourth generation of them that hate Me, & showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me & keep My commandments.' (Ex. 20:2-3,5b-6). Now, Duck, just between you & me, man to man, does that sound like a Deity that will tolerate equals? It seems to me that if such an equal being existed, there would be war in heaven, no? Christians actually teach something like that, only w/ a rebellious angel, Lucifer/Satan. As a Jew, I can't conceive of a universe w/ 2 equal gods. 1 would always end up kicking the other's ass.
-
Why did God, in all his greatness, need to use something as crude as a flood to wipe out all life? He's God, he could just have made it all disappear just like that, at will.
-
Well, Beardo, there's probably as many valid answers to that question as there are stars in the Heavens. The one I'm partial to is that there is a flood narrative in about 300 major cultures worldwide from the Aztec to the Zulu. I personally believe that Noah & his Ark were one of several. Polygenesis would help explain some things. The Biblical text says that Noah's sons fathered people groups: Shem the Semites, Ham the Hamites (black people), & Japheth the European people. So, where did the Japanese come from? Or Australian Aboriginals? Or etc? If there was more than one Ark, that might help explain all this. The Bible never claimed to be world history. @ best, it's history of the Levant & surrounding areas. Of course it talks about Noah's Ark rather than one near Japan.
-
You totally did not address Beardo's post.
-
As to why the flood & not fire, or disappearance, or what? I don't know. Maybe so he could offer his rainbow of promise @ the end? Your guess is as good as mine. Gotta go. Will be back tomorrow.
-
Would have saved Noah a buttload of work if God just hit delete on those he deemed wicked.
-
Yaakov, you are trolling people here big time. I wonder what you really think about the subject matter, because that would actually be interesting.
-
O, that's mature, VAUX. You can't win an argument, so you resort to ad hominem. Asshole.
-
How is that an ad hominem, may I ask?
-
How is that an ad hominem, may I ask?
Accusing someone of trollering is considered an insult in some cultures.
-
Yeah but insult =/= ad hominem. He's saying 'I don't take your argument seriously because I don't believe your argument is serious,' not 'I don't take your argument seriously because you're silly/gay/whatever.'
-
Vauxhall is dismissing an argument based on an irrelevant perceived character trait. Even if the jew were trolling (although I'm not sure why anybody would think so), that would be irrelevant to the substance of his argument.
-
'the Jew'... I'm not sure how to take that, Alex... *wondering whether I should laugh or be offended*
-
How is "I think he exists ergo he does" an argument?
-
Phrased incorrectly like that, it isn't an argument. Here is the proper phrasing. Premise 1: I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived. Premise 2: Existence is greater than non-existence. Conclusion: God exists. & no, the argument does NOT hold for large tvs, or stereos, or what have you. Such things are not the greatest Thing. Only God is that.
-
Phrased incorrectly like that, it isn't an argument. Here is the proper phrasing. Premise 1: I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived. Premise 2: Existence is greater than non-existence. Conclusion: God exists. & no, the argument does NOT hold for large tvs, or stereos, or what have you. Such things are not the greatest Thing. Only God is that.
Could you explain this to me like I'm five? Because I really don't see an argument here. I see a bunch of false statements that amount to: "I think he exists therefore he does".
Does this same argument apply to other supernatural beings? I can conceive Cthulhu, does that mean he's a real being sleeping under the ocean?
-
Not being certain what Cthulu is, aside from a literary reference, I'll ignore this. Re: the Ontological Argument, you're making it harder than it is. Remember that God alone is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, & omniscient. Cthulu are not. A Being w/ the 3 Omnis is necessary to the creation & maintenance of a stable universe.
-
A Being w/ the 3 Omnis is necessary to the creation & maintenance of a stable universe.
Why? Please explain further.
-
There is nothing uniquely great about NFL players or television sets,
Yes there is. Imagine a television set. Now imagine the greatest television set. Imagine a footballer, now imagine the greatest footballer. Its easy.
Pleading that TVs cannot be great, or footballers cannot be great, yet a sky fairy can be, is pleading a special case. You won't get anywhere with that.
Where you run aground is that you are unable to describe what it is that makes a god great, other than describing it as "great+1".
And we've drifted far far away from the Jewish god, or the Christian god, or the FSM (sauce be upon Him).
You should concentrate on proving that your god, as described in your old book exists, not that there might be some logic somewhere that means there might be something like a god as described in the most general terms.
If you refuse to engage in anything but the Jewish god, then we can't allow you to depart from the Jewish god. Fair's fair now.
-
Phrased incorrectly like that, it isn't an argument. Here is the proper phrasing. Premise 1: I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived. Premise 2: Existence is greater than non-existence. Conclusion: God exists. & no, the argument does NOT hold for large tvs, or stereos, or what have you. Such things are not the greatest Thing. Only God is that.
First, I don't see why this argument applies only to gods and not other things. Since existing in my living room is greater than existing in anyone else's living room, the greatest possible TV set should be in my living room. I mean, it's OK, but...
Second, the greatest possible God I can conceive of also makes his existence plain to everyone and appears regularly on the news in person. He also doesn't require gratuitous suffering. So why doesn't that god exist?
Third, why would human conception of Him have anything to do with his actual existence in the first place? Since presumably He created us and everything, there was a time when there was there was no one around to conceive of him. Therefore the concept of the greatest God and the actual existence of such a God can't be related.
-
Phrased incorrectly like that, it isn't an argument. Here is the proper phrasing. Premise 1: I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived. Premise 2: Existence is greater than non-existence. Conclusion: God exists. & no, the argument does NOT hold for large tvs, or stereos, or what have you. Such things are not the greatest Thing. Only God is that.
Premise 1. is terrible since you it places a self-imposed limit of human comprehension. Well, it is conceivable that another species could conceive of something we cant, who might be dwarfed by another species and so on, and so you get in to an infinite progression.
-
Vauxhall is dismissing an argument based on an irrelevant perceived character trait. Even if the jew were trolling (although I'm not sure why anybody would think so), that would be irrelevant to the substance of his argument.
Trolling is not a character trait, it's an action that can be performed by many.
-
There is nothing intrinsic to a television that makes it great. Rather the reverse, since it can break or malfunction. The same would apply to a football player, subject to injury as he is. God is the most perfect being.
-
The only reason people who belive in God is not considered mentally insane is because there are so many who believe in God.
-
There is nothing intrinsic to a television that makes it great. Rather the reverse, since it can break or malfunction.
The greatest television doesn't break or malfunction.
The same would apply to a football player, subject to injury as he is.
The greatest footballer is not subject to injury.
-
There is nothing intrinsic to a television that makes it great. Rather the reverse, since it can break or malfunction. The same would apply to a football player, subject to injury as he is. God is the most perfect being.
There's nothing intrinsic to a god that makes it great either. I have read about many imperfect and seriously terrible gods. Some of which are explicitly mentioned in the bible. Which brings to mind another question - if the bible is from the god Yahweh, how do we know it's not just propaganda for Yahweh?
-
http://www.alternet.org/12-craziest-most-awful-things-god-did-old-testament
lol
(Keeping it OT style as requested by Yaakov)
-
God is the most perfect being.
God is the most perfect omnibenevolent being who: floods humanity (Genesis 7:21-23), forces people to commit murder to "test their faith" (Genesis 22:5 and 22:8 ), turns people into salt pillars and burns down people's homes (Genesis 19), slaughters every Egyptian firstborn (Exodus 12:29), sends a plague to kill people after they complained to God that He was killing too many people (Numbers 16:41-49), killed 42 helpless children by sending bears to dismember them (Kings 2:23-24), kills a man for refusing to impregnate his brother’s widow (Genesis 38:9-10), and endowed several groups of worshipers with His holy power to commit mass genocide (Joshua 6:20-21, Deuteronomy 2:32-35, Deuteronomy 3:3-7, Numbers 31:7-18, 1 Samuel 15:1-9).
Should I go on? ::)
-
Well, proving that 1 God w/ the 3 omnis exists is necessary 1st. After that, I would have to prove that God made the Jews his Chosen People. In order to do this, I would have to prove the Hebrew Bible to you. Knowing that I could find you the original scrolls written by Moses & you'd still refuse to believe just makes me not choose to bother. If you, in good conscience & curiosity, want to know about Judaism, I'll gladly help you. But I'm not getting into pointless disputes that profane the G-d of Israel. You want knowledge? I'll help. But I expect you to act nicely.
-
http://www.alternet.org/12-craziest-most-awful-things-god-did-old-testament
lol
(Keeping it OT style as requested by Yaakov)
This was amazing. Especially the rendition of Job's plight.
-
Well, proving that 1 God w/ the 3 omnis exists is necessary 1st.
There are 4 omnis:
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Omnipotence
Omnibenevolence
Which one is your god missing?!?! :o
This thread is Atheism vs. Religion. The title indicates a combative style. But friendly enough I hope. I don't think you're a dick for being wrong. I do think you're wrong. I do think the things you align yourself with are dickish.
Anyway, feel free to do all the things you listed. If you do Religion will surely vanquish Atheism and I will buy an apartment in the Golan Heights.
-
http://www.alternet.org/12-craziest-most-awful-things-god-did-old-testament
lol
(Keeping it OT style as requested by Yaakov)
This was amazing. Especially the rendition of Job's plight.
Exodus 4:24-26 (AKA "Holy shit God, WTF is wrong with you, man?!)
24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone.
Can this be, in any way, shape or form, how the "greatest possible being" behaves? I'm serious here. And seriously disgusted.
-
Your God is a miserable excuse for a deity. He should snap himself out of existence. Can he do that?
-
Who wants a fucking Mary Sue as a God anyway?
-
Omnipresence is often considered part of being omnipotent. But fine, lets use all 4. As for why God allows shit things to happen to good people, its just the way things are. Then he carries out divine justice to equalise things. It all goes back to free will. W/o it, we are robots
-
Omnipresence is often considered part of being omnipotent. But fine, lets use all 4. As for why God allows shit things to happen to good people, its just the way things are. Then he carries out divine justice to equalise things. It all goes back to free will. W/o it, we are robots
Does god carry out divine justice on himself when he kills lots of babies, as described in the OT?
-
Omnipresence is often considered part of being omnipotent. But fine, lets use all 4. As for why God allows shit things to happen to good people, its just the way things are. Then he carries out divine justice to equalise things. It all goes back to free will. W/o it, we are robots
Does god carry out divine justice on himself when he kills lots of babies, as described in the OT?
His Grace truly works in mysterious ways.
-
Omnipresence is often considered part of being omnipotent. But fine, lets use all 4. As for why God allows shit things to happen to good people, its just the way things are. Then he carries out divine justice to equalise things. It all goes back to free will. W/o it, we are robots
Does god carry out divine justice on himself when he kills lots of babies, as described in the OT?
Yeah, he crucifies himself.
-
Omnipresence is often considered part of being omnipotent. But fine, lets use all 4. As for why God allows shit things to happen to good people, its just the way things are. Then he carries out divine justice to equalise things. It all goes back to free will. W/o it, we are robots
Does god carry out divine justice on himself when he kills lots of babies, as described in the OT?
Yeah, he crucifies himself.
But that was for the sins of mankind, not for anything God did wrong.
-
Omnipresence is often considered part of being omnipotent. But fine, lets use all 4. As for why God allows shit things to happen to good people, its just the way things are. Then he carries out divine justice to equalise things. It all goes back to free will. W/o it, we are robots
Does god carry out divine justice on himself when he kills lots of babies, as described in the OT?
Yeah, he crucifies himself.
But that was for the sins of mankind, not for anything God did wrong.
God did wrong because of the sins of mankind. So obviously he had to kill himself to fix the problem, right?
-
Omnipresence is often considered part of being omnipotent. But fine, lets use all 4. As for why God allows shit things to happen to good people, its just the way things are. Then he carries out divine justice to equalise things. It all goes back to free will. W/o it, we are robots
Does god carry out divine justice on himself when he kills lots of babies, as described in the OT?
Yeah, he crucifies himself.
But that was for the sins of mankind, not for anything God did wrong.
God did wrong because of the sins of mankind. So obviously he had to kill himself to fix the problem, right?
1.) Create universe
2.) Create humans with capability to do evil (even though you hate evil) and foreknowledge that they will do evil
3.) Get mad at humans for being evil and curse them forever
4.) Watch as humans continue to do evil
5.) Get mad again and kill all but 8 humans and most of the rest of life on Earth
6.) Send your son (who is also you) to Earth to spread the word of how awesome you are
7.) Kill yourself
8.) Resurrect yourself
9.) Hide
Skip steps 6-8 for the chosen people
Sounds like the perfect plan.
-
Omnipresence is often considered part of being omnipotent. But fine, lets use all 4. As for why God allows shit things to happen to good people, its just the way things are. Then he carries out divine justice to equalise things. It all goes back to free will. W/o it, we are robots
Does god carry out divine justice on himself when he kills lots of babies, as described in the OT?
Yeah, he crucifies himself.
But that was for the sins of mankind, not for anything God did wrong.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
-
I wish we had a christian here so we could debate with him/her. Jew debates are getting tired.
If God killed himself, wouldn't that be considered suicide? Is God in Hell?
Upon further investigation, I found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell). God did indeed go to hell, but CQC battled his way out.
-
Omnipresence is often considered part of being omnipotent. But fine, lets use all 4. As for why God allows shit things to happen to good people, its just the way things are. Then he carries out divine justice to equalise things. It all goes back to free will. W/o it, we are robots
Without free will, we are just robots, with free will, shit things happen to good people. In Heaven, shit things don't happen to good people, therefore, no free will in Heaven?
-
Greeting: I must leave the debate for a time. In addition to single-handedly debating 5-6 persons
(rather well, I think), I am getting married, moving, & dealing w/ the eternal dysfunction that is my family of origin. I am not surrendering, merely posting a truce. I'll still follow the posts, but won't respond for a bit. I'll be back, though.
-
Congrats on the marriage and beginning your next phase! You're not the first person to do this on tfes.
-
I am getting married
My condolences.
-
Not more sad beadro
-
No offense, but Judaism sounds like magic and superstition to me. Actually, most religions do.
-
Yes. There's no need for religion in this day and age. Absolutely none.
-
beardo seems like his only religion is gay/fag. I might be wrong, though.
-
Not even that is my religion. So yes, you are wrong.
-
I wish we had a christian here so we could debate with him/her. Jew debates are getting tired.
If God killed himself, wouldn't that be considered suicide? Is God in Hell?
Upon further investigation, I found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell). God did indeed go to hell, but CQC battled his way out.
I remember having this discussion with my old pastor. He stated that when jesus was crucified, he took all the sin of the Earth onto him. Sin can't exist in Heaven, therefore, I asked, did Jesus go to Hell?
Yes. Was his answer, But when he descended to Hell he defeated Satan and robbed him of his power, destroyed the sin, and rose back up to heaven.
A little like the last episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
-
A little like the last episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Are you talking about the episode where Buffy dies, then is resurrected, and claims that she was in heaven the whole time? Or the episode where Spike dies? Because I don't remember her going to Hell, but it has been a long time since I watched the last episode.
-
Greeting: I must leave the debate for a time. In addition to single-handedly debating 5-6 persons
I am getting married
Congratulations!
-
I can't blame him for abandoning this thread. Pointing out examples of God's acts of mischief and cheeky genocide in the Bible can only hold a person's interest for so long, no matter which side of the debate they're on. Which one of our theists or deists is up next? Roundy? Thork? ChristianRocker90?
-
Actually, before I do sign off, let me say Alex, that I have no objection to God taking out whole nations in Exodus & Joshua. They were nations that had fallen under God's ban for child sacrifice, ritual prostitution, & using eunuchs as catamites, & other horrific offences. The penalty for such national offences was national termination. Where & what is the problem? What God determines is just IS just, no matter what humans like you or I might think to the contrary.
-
Actually, before I do sign off, let me say Alex, that I have no objection to God taking out whole nations in Exodus & Joshua. They were nations that had fallen under God's ban for child sacrifice, ritual prostitution, & using eunuchs as catamites, & other horrific offences. The penalty for such national offences was national termination. Where & what is the problem? What God determines is just IS just, no matter what humans like you or I might think to the contrary.
As others have pointed out, genocide seems like an unnecessarily crude and barbaric solution for an omnipotent being with unlimited resources and knowledge at its disposal. Inevitably, innocent people would have died as a result of this blanket punishment style.
-
Actually, before I do sign off, let me say Alex, that I have no objection to God taking out whole nations in Exodus & Joshua. They were nations that had fallen under God's ban for child sacrifice, ritual prostitution, & using eunuchs as catamites, & other horrific offences. The penalty for such national offences was national termination. Where & what is the problem? What God determines is just IS just, no matter what humans like you or I might think to the contrary.
So you agree with God's decision to murder countless innocent people because of a few bad sinners? God could have easily snapped the really bad sinners out of existence, but he chose to murder everyone instead. That's fucked up, to put it bluntly.
-
A little like the last episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Are you talking about the episode where Buffy dies, then is resurrected, and claims that she was in heaven the whole time? Or the episode where Spike dies? Because I don't remember her going to Hell, but it has been a long time since I watched the last episode.
No, the one where Faith, Buffy and the trainee Slayers go into the Hellmouth to stop some world-domination obsessed demon and all of Sunnydale gets dragged into Hell.
Actually, before I do sign off, let me say Alex, that I have no objection to God taking out whole nations in Exodus & Joshua. They were nations that had fallen under God's ban for child sacrifice, ritual prostitution, & using eunuchs as catamites, & other horrific offences. The penalty for such national offences was national termination. Where & what is the problem? What God determines is just IS just, no matter what humans like you or I might think to the contrary.
Says God.
Personally, I'm partial to humans judging the morality of humans.
-
The crime rate in Chicago is bad so we should just nuke Chicago. That would get rid of the bad.
-
Innocent? They were about as innocent as the Germans from '33-45 were. Pratically the whole fucking country knew what was going on in the camps & did NOTHING to put a stop to it. So Germany paid the price of millions of civilian deaths. & deserved every one. The same applies here.
-
Innocent? They were about as innocent as the Germans from '33-45 were. Pratically the whole fucking country knew what was going on in the camps & did NOTHING to put a stop to it. So Germany paid the price of millions of civilian deaths. & deserved every one. The same applies here.
Oh so you were there? ::)
Maybe you're making an original sin argument here, but even that's absurd. If they were all sinners then I guess they deserved it about as much as everyone on the Earth deserves it now.
What's stopping Yahweh from killing us all right now? Surely not Jesus, because you're not Christian.
-
Innocent? They were about as innocent as the Germans from '33-45 were. Pratically the whole fucking country knew what was going on in the camps
Incorrect.
& did NOTHING to put a stop to it.
Incorrect. There were those who knew what was happening who resisted the Third Reich.
So Germany paid the price of millions of civilian deaths. & deserved every one. The same applies here.
Yikes. Life is sacred. Vindictive thoughts are sinful. F- in Sunday School see me after class
-
Innocent? They were about as innocent as the Germans from '33-45 were. Pratically the whole fucking country knew what was going on in the camps & did NOTHING to put a stop to it. So Germany paid the price of millions of civilian deaths. & deserved every one. The same applies here.
So you'd have been fine with the total obliteration of Nazi Germany, including the people actively resisting them, the terrified masses too weak to speak out, those trying to escape, children who've done nothing except have the temerity to be born in a fucked-up country?
Would you press the 'nuke' button even if you had the power to go down a list of every man, woman and child in the country outlining all their crimes with the power to just stop their heart?
-
Actually, before I do sign off, let me say Alex, that I have no objection to God taking out whole nations in Exodus & Joshua. They were nations that had fallen under God's ban for child sacrifice,
Except god condones child sacrifice.
What God determines is just IS just, no matter what humans like you or I might think to the contrary.
Hmm. You sound like a person that cannot make the distinction between right and wrong. I feel sorry for you. If god appeared and told you to sacrifice your child, would you do it?
-
If any of you had ever read Exodus or Joshua, both texts have God explaining precisely why he has placed certain nations under ban. It may seem cruel to us. But it should be noted that the wars of the XX Century are estimated to have caused more deaths than all the wars of all the preceding centuries combined! So tell me: Just how enlightened is modern man? In Joshua's day, you had to see your enemy to kill him. Sword to sword, or hand to hand. Now, you touch a button in Washington, & Moscow disappears. Who is more civilised? & we've already proved that the old canard about 'wars in the name of religion' is bullshit. Even the wars of the Bible were mostly wars of territorial acquisition. Joshua & others weren't out to make other people Jews. Christians & Muslims enjoy conversion by swordpoint historically. That's never been a Jewish habit.Even w/ the Arab Conquests it was rather secondary to their territorial expansion goals. Joshua, Moses, the Judges, & the Kings may have felt justified by the God of Israel
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuMfEAp31HE
-
in fighting wars, but their wars were those of territorial acquistion or self defence of the Israelite Commonwealth. Its that simple. Any other attempt @ analysis of the matter merely makes you out to be an ass.
-
How can you bring up that "you can press a button and Moscow disappears" without also bringing up the fact that no one has ever pressed that button?
-
Actually, the button was manually activated twice & two cities in Japan went bye-bye. Talk about killing innocents!
-
Actually, the button was manually activated twice & two cities in Japan went bye-bye. Talk about killing innocents!
They were hardly cities and they were destroyed to prevent a long war of attrition in the Pacific and an inevitable Russian land war.
Why are you comparing God's actions to humans, anyway? We're not omnipotent, therefore we have to use nukes to get the job done. God kills people not because he has to, but because he can. In humans we call that psychopathy.
-
Actually, they were two of Japan's largest cities. The morality of the nukes on Hiroshima & Nagasaki has been & remains a topic of hot dispute among scholars. There is something to be said for your pov, but there are equally good opposing pov. God doesn't kill because he can. God allows a group to triumph over another for various & sundry reasons stated in the Bible, that made perfect sense then, & still do, if your frame of reference is from w/i that cultural milieau. If it is not, you may not get it. Before you judge, just remember what I said about wars & death rates in the 'enlightened' XX Century. & the XXI appears to be gearing up for more of same.
-
Actually, they were two of Japan's largest cities. The morality of the nukes on Hiroshima & Nagasaki has been & remains a topic of hot dispute among scholars. There is something to be said for your pov, but there are equally good opposing pov. God doesn't kill because he can. God allows a group to triumph over another for various & sundry reasons stated in the Bible, that made perfect sense then, & still do, if your frame of reference is from w/i that cultural milieau. If it is not, you may not get it. Before you judge, just remember what I said about wars & death rates in the 'enlightened' XX Century. & the XXI appears to be gearing up for more of same.
The deaths are higher because the populations are higher.
Furthermore, God does kill because he can. In fact, anything God does is because God wants to do it. If God kills people, he wanted to, if there is evil in the world, God wants it to be there. This is why if such a God did exist, it does not deserve any sort of worship. Such a god is no better than any human.
-
God is a child playing a Sims game.
-
Actually, the button was manually activated twice & two cities in Japan went bye-bye. Talk about killing innocents!
It wasn't really pushing buttons either. I believe they were dropped by a plane.
-
They were.
-
God is a child playing a Sims game.
But who made the Sims game?
-
God is a child playing a Sims game.
But who made the Sims game?
God did. It's a predestination paradox.
Theoretically... It's possible.
-
If any of you had ever read Exodus or Joshua, both texts have God explaining precisely why he has placed certain nations under ban. It may seem cruel to us. But it should be noted that the wars of the XX Century are estimated to have caused more deaths than all the wars of all the preceding centuries combined!
Not in terms of proportion of the population. If we were to go back in time and drop off some bombers, tanks, machine guns and missiles along with instruction manuals to iron-age Mesopotamia you can bet your bottom dollar that there'd barely be anyone left standing in Israel, Egypt or Babylon.
Even with the two world wars, the general rate of human violence and warfare is going down. As religion loses its grip we're becoming more peaceful, more humanitarian and more kind.
-
But most importantly, more euphoric. *tips fedora*
-
In humans we call that psychopathy.
I dig the phrasing.
-
If any of you had ever read Exodus or Joshua, both texts have God explaining precisely why he has placed certain nations under ban. It may seem cruel to us. But it should be noted that the wars of the XX Century are estimated to have caused more deaths than all the wars of all the preceding centuries combined!
Not in terms of proportion of the population. If we were to go back in time and drop off some bombers, tanks, machine guns and missiles along with instruction manuals to iron-age Mesopotamia you can bet your bottom dollar that there'd barely be anyone left standing in Israel, Egypt or Babylon.
Even with the two world wars, the general rate of human violence and warfare is going down. As religion loses its grip we're becoming more peaceful, more humanitarian and more kind.
Violence is declining because our society is wealthy and comfortable. If you hadn't eaten for a couple of days, your TV was broken and the broadband was disconnected you'd be beating your neighbour to death with a brick. I'd already got my brick ready just in case.
-
As I've indicated, the wars of the Bronze Age & those of today are mostly not religious matters, but rather, wars of territorial acquision or self-defence. Jews have never faught wars to make men Jewish. Although in acquiring or defending land, they may have believed God was on their side, nevertheless, that was NOT what the primary motive was.
-
They protected their jew gold.
-
Well, of course we did, Silly! Until we could 'Jew down' the next poor unsuspecting schmuck that happens by?
-
If any of you had ever read Exodus or Joshua, both texts have God explaining precisely why he has placed certain nations under ban. It may seem cruel to us. But it should be noted that the wars of the XX Century are estimated to have caused more deaths than all the wars of all the preceding centuries combined!
Not in terms of proportion of the population. If we were to go back in time and drop off some bombers, tanks, machine guns and missiles along with instruction manuals to iron-age Mesopotamia you can bet your bottom dollar that there'd barely be anyone left standing in Israel, Egypt or Babylon.
Even with the two world wars, the general rate of human violence and warfare is going down. As religion loses its grip we're becoming more peaceful, more humanitarian and more kind.
Violence is declining because our society is wealthy and comfortable. If you hadn't eaten for a couple of days, your TV was broken and the broadband was disconnected you'd be beating your neighbour to death with a brick. I'd already got my brick ready just in case.
regardless, to say we're more violent than in the days of David is just objectively untrue.
-
Actually, no, its not. Look @ Africa alone. Burma. Syria. Lebanon. Colombia. Ukraine. Xinjiang Province. Israel. Judea & Smaria. & then the non-state actors. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Al Qaeda in various other places. Al Shabaab. Boko Haram. Islamic State of Iraq. Hamas. Hezbollah. The PLO. Shall I continue?
-
Actually, no, its not. Look @ Africa alone. Burma. Syria. Lebanon. Colombia. Ukraine. Xinjiang Province. Israel. Judea & Smaria. & then the non-state actors. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Al Qaeda in various other places. Al Shabaab. Boko Haram. Islamic State of Iraq. Hamas. Hezbollah. The PLO. Shall I continue?
That is a lot of names but does not speak to Ghost Spaghetti's argument at all. We call this a Red Herring.
Have a watch:
https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence
-
Actually, no, its not. Look @ Africa alone. Burma. Syria. Lebanon. Colombia. Ukraine. Xinjiang Province. Israel. Judea & Smaria. & then the non-state actors. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Al Qaeda in various other places. Al Shabaab. Boko Haram. Islamic State of Iraq. Hamas. Hezbollah. The PLO. Shall I continue?
Please do. most of those places listed have been in an almost ceaseless state of war for the past two millenia (Look at the Babylonian wars, the Akkadian wars, the Assyrian wars, the punic wars, the Trojan war, the lelantine war, the endless wars of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Rome#8th_century_BC), the small but bloody slaughter of rival empires and city-states in south and central America, the tribal swars of Africa, the Qin wars in China) and those wars typically involved a greater percentage of the population. If the US army had an equivalent army to Rome, it would have legions tens of millions strong.. That China has a standing army of 1 million of a billion people shows how comparatively peaceful we are.
-
Shit, all it means is we're a bloody, nasty little species. & I almost forgot to mention the civil wars in LA, Chicago, NYC, San Francisco, San Diego, etc. The so-called 'gang-wars' are just as violent, & just as nasty, as what goes on in Somalia. As a professional historian, I see that men are still fighting for 3 things: money, power, & (w/ apologies to the ladies) pussy. Men have wanted these things since God made a help mate for Adam (or since men began to walk upright, depending on your point of view). We aren't more peaceful now. We're just better @ hiding the dead bodies.
-
Shit, all it means is we're a bloody, nasty little species. & I almost forgot to mention the civil wars in LA, Chicago, NYC, San Francisco, San Diego, etc. The so-called 'gang-wars' are just as violent, & just as nasty, as what goes on in Somalia. As a professional historian, I see that men are still fighting for 3 things: money, power, & (w/ apologies to the ladies) pussy. Men have wanted these things since God made a help mate for Adam (or since men began to walk upright, depending on your point of view). We aren't more peaceful now. We're just better @ hiding the dead bodies.
That is a ridiculous assertion. You have been provided with evidence that both homicide rates and state warfare has gone down. You should provide something of substance.
-
No one has supplied evidence that state warfare has decreased. Syria. Myanmar (Burma). Xinjiang Province. Tibet. Israel/Judea & Samaria. Lebanon. South Sudan. Ukraine. Egypt until a few months ago, & still some disorder. Central African Republic. Dem. Republic of the Congo. Nigeria. Somalia. Colombia. Mindanao. Low level communist rebellions in India (Naxilite) & the Philippines (NPA). Recently ended war in Sri Lanka w/ resentment that flairs into violence occasionally. Low level violence in N. Ireland. Homicide down in the US, but WAY up in Latin America. The Drug Wars that paralyse Mexico, & several Central American States. Honduras is seeing kidnapping & murder rates the like of which have never been seen ANYWHERE, & is closely followed by Guatemala & Mexico. I've lived in Mexico & Central America. Don't tell me how fucking great & enlightened we all are. I know better.
-
No one has supplied evidence that state warfare has decreased. Syria. Myanmar (Burma). Xinjiang Province. Tibet. Israel/Judea & Samaria. Lebanon. South Sudan. Ukraine. Egypt until a few months ago, & still some disorder. Central African Republic. Dem. Republic of the Congo. Nigeria. Somalia. Colombia. Mindanao. Low level communist rebellions in India (Naxilite) & the Philippines (NPA). Recently ended war in Sri Lanka w/ resentment that flairs into violence occasionally. Low level violence in N. Ireland. Homicide down in the US, but WAY up in Latin America. The Drug Wars that paralyse Mexico, & several Central American States. Honduras is seeing kidnapping & murder rates the like of which have never been seen ANYWHERE, & is closely followed by Guatemala & Mexico. I've lived in Mexico & Central America. Don't tell me how fucking great & enlightened we all are. I know better.
You are just listing names, please support your argument with something resembling evidence. Did you watch the video I linked to? It shows that casualties from state warfare has dropped significantly as a % of population. It also shows that homicides has decreased by 2 orders of magnitude from the middle ages.
-
I can't watch videos on my phone. But given the current homicide rate in Central America, of which I was almost a victim, I find that claim hard to believe. In the Global North maybe. But not the further South you go.
-
People only kill for, and due to, drugs in central america.
-
I can't watch videos on my phone. But given the current homicide rate in Central America, of which I was almost a victim, I find that claim hard to believe. In the Global North maybe. But not the further South you go.
Argument from personal credulity. Nice. You might want to consider providing some actual facts soon, otherwise you will not have much of a leg to stand on.
-
Sorry, wrong. They wanted our valuables. This was Costa Rica, the one Central American country where the drug trade is notable for its absence. But the homicide rate in San Jose is still much higher than it would be in a European capital like Paris, for example.
-
Drugwars
-
Hi Yaakov. How was the wedding? I hope it went well. To be honest though your return is tinged with disappointment. I was hoping for a longer respite from the game of bait and switch. I notice you haven't replied to my question about the hypothetical commandment from god to kill your child.
Anyway...
As I've indicated, the wars of the Bronze Age & those of today are mostly not religious matters, but rather, wars of territorial acquision or self-defence. Jews have never faught wars to make men Jewish.
Just for the record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion#Judaism
Sorry, wrong. They wanted our valuables. This was Costa Rica, the one Central American country where the drug trade is notable for its absence.
Just for the record: http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/cartels-turning-costa-rica-into-major-drug-trafficking-transit-point/
I really don't know where this thread is going now.
(http://www.positivediscipline.com/images/whackamole.jpg)
Wheeeeee!
-
We aren't more peaceful now. We're just better @ hiding the dead bodies.
Yeah... we're better at hiding the bodies now in an age of perpetual satelite surveillence, networked communications which mean a cow can't sneeze in Chad without Moscow knowing about it, greater public travel, greater public awareness of... oh what's the use? You've already made up your mind, haven't you?
Fewer people are involved in violence now
Roman population ~65million (of whom 2-10million were slaves)
Roman army ~0.5million
Percentage of populace in army = 0.8%
American population ~320 million
American armed forces ~ 1.4 million
% of pop. in army = 0.4%
Of course, Rome isn't typical and neither is the US. States like Sparta had virtually all males enlisted and would regularly go to war with the other Greek city states. The only reason we appear to be more violent now is that the weapons are more... dramatic. A single nutter with a bomb can kill thousands if placed right. The most anyone could expect to kill with a spear or sword is a few hundred.
This isn't a problem just with Yaakov, regularly the crime statistics show that crime, especially violent crime is falling, and yet the fear of crime continues to rise.
-
Yeah... we're better at hiding the bodies now in an age of perpetual satelite surveillence, networked communications which mean a cow can't sneeze in Chad without Moscow knowing about it, greater public travel, greater public awareness of... oh what's the use? You've already made up your mind, haven't you?
Ahem...
-
If you're killing a few hundred people with a spear or sword then you're one hell of a swordsman.
-
If you're killing a few hundred people with a spear or sword then you're one hell of a swordsman.
I don't think he meant to imply that you're taking them all on at the same time.
-
If you're killing a few hundred people with a spear or sword then you're one hell of a swordsman.
If you're killing a few thousand with a bomb, you're one hell of a mad bomber, I'm talking upper bounds, here.
@Vauxy:
Damnit, 'satellite' is one of those words I always have trouble spelling...
-
No I was referring to the fact that satellites don't exist.
-
No I was referring to the fact that satellites don't exist.
It is acceptable among learned gentlemen to use the term satellites interchangeably with pseudollites. Only an idiot would think satellites actually existed.
-
My mistake.
-
Either that or Ghost Spaghetti believes in a RE and just trolls that the Earth is flat.
But that would never happen here.
-
Either that or Ghost Spaghetti believes in a RE and just trolls that the Earth is flat.
But that would never happen here.
Who in their right mind would do that? ::)
-
Either that or Ghost Spaghetti believes in a RE and just trolls that the Earth is flat.
trolling is unacceptable in the serious fora. full 100 day bam. enjoy your time off
also god is a cunt prove me wrong no you are the one making outlandish claims you must present your evidence to me and if I am convinced I will pay the full £1000 prize