Thread Rating:

DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 177
  • Posts: 10082
October 13th, 2011 at 8:12:55 PM permalink
Nareed -

I think you're confusing religious people with religious zealots.

As a result, you're assigning a stereotype of the zealots to all religious people. I don't think I need to remind anyone what happens when stereotypes are used.

It's sad that zealots attack you for your unique situation. Your attitude towards religious people will not change them.

Mock the zealots if you must. Do not mock the average religious person.



I didn't read all of your posts. However, I too had a Jewish upbringing, and I think I can explain this passage.
Quote: Nareed

Item: In the book of Exodus Pharaoh's minions display supernatural powers I gather were provided to them by their gods. Moses bests them every time, naturally. Later in the book, though, god proclaims as his first commandment that "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." So, given we see the powers of the Egyptian gods pathetically demonstrated, and that God says "do not ahve other gods before me," doesn't that mean the Bible acknowledges the existence of many deities?

My teacher, bless her heart, was very patient, but she just kept repeating "No, it doesn't."

Your teacher was wrong.

The passage says there is one "true" God, and you shouldn't worship anything else that has been called 'god'.

The bible is not saying there are other entities that have God-like powers, but there certainly are other entities that have been worshiped as such, and called 'god'.

THAT is what the bible is forbidding in that passage.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁 Note that the same could be said for Religion. I.E. Religion is nothing more than organized superstition. 🤗
keithinwash
keithinwash
Joined: Dec 2, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 5
October 13th, 2011 at 8:32:57 PM permalink
I saw this a couple weeks ago. It comes close to summing up my opinion on religion:

Religion is like a penis.

It's fine to have one.
It's fine to be proud of it.
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.
And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my throat.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 13th, 2011 at 9:23:04 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

You see religious truths are not like mathematical truths which impose themselves upon us based on unprovable first principles. Religious truths present us with probabilities and evidence (some types of evidence using our senses, some not) and we have to make a decision for ourselves.


Sorry, but this is almost entirely backwards. The very definition of a mathematical or scientific truth is one which can be disproven. Aside from axiomatic first principles, like defining "addition" or "the number one", all scientific statements are disprovable.

If a statement is not disprovable, it falls outside the realm of science. It is religious. The question "does God exist" is a perfect example, to wit: is there any evidence that could be presented to you that would disprove the existence of God? If the answer is no, then God is not properly the subject of scientific inquiry.

That's why any discussion of "probabilities and evidence" for religious truths doesn't make sense. A religious truth is religious because people believe it on faith *without* evidence. If there were testable evidence related to a given truth statement, it would be a scientific truth the way gravity is a scientific truth. The existence of gravity can be tested via observation and rational inquiry. The existence of God cannot.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
October 13th, 2011 at 9:36:17 PM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

I think you're confusing religious people with religious zealots.



I wish. I may be mixing them together, but not confusing them.

Quote:

Mock the zealots if you must. Do not mock the average religious person.



I've not mocked anyone. I've mocked their beliefs, particularly when they insist their beliefs ought to intrude in my life.


Quote:

The passage says there is one "true" God, and you shouldn't worship anything else that has been called 'god'.



No. The passage quite clearly states Jehovah (and why is it such big deal to write or say the name?) is "your god" who "took you out of bondage in Egypt," and that "you shall have no other gods before me." Surely if he had meant to say what you say he said, he would just have said it.

Quote:

The bible is not saying there are other entities that have God-like powers, but there certainly are other entities that have been worshiped as such, and called 'god'.



That's another problematic commandment, the second, against graven images of "creatures in the heavens or on earth," or words to that effect, and worshiping such images as gods. it makes more sense, but not entirely.

BTW wasn't it cruel of god to punish the people who made the golden calf before he specifically forbade them to? Where's the justice in retroactive law?

But of course that act wasn't about justice. It was about ensuring obedience. That makes perfect sense. It's brutal, unfair and inhumane, but a god cannot afford disobedience, can he?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
October 13th, 2011 at 10:00:59 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Aside from axiomatic first principles, like defining "addition" or "the number one", all scientific statements are disprovable.



I'm glad you chimed in because I didn't know the right first principles to cite, but those are great examples. You know your math bro and I couldn't agree more with you that "Does God exist?" is not a scientific question. However, it is not a science question because there is no evidence or that it is not disprovable. The question of God cannot be answered by science because it is not testable in a lab and because it is subject to our inclinations and will. The first principles you mentioned above are not testable either but they are undoubtably true. The question of God is not testable and is doubtably true.

What I mean is that I do think there is evidence you can present that would attempt to disprove God and there is very good evidence you can present that there is a God. You do have to of course realize the full spectrum of evidence that can be used. That is why it might be better to say that the question of God is not the subject of scientific inquiry, but it is the subject of (for lack of the right word at the moment) rational inquiry. Afterall scientific inquiry is a very limited yet powerful form of reasoning. Limited in that something has to be observed but powerful in its repeatable and verifiable conclusions. Rational inquiry is how we find out if we are in love or are loved, if there really is a place called Antartica, or just about any question that begins with the word, 'why'. I keep asking myself why this is not understood? However since I can't see you and put you under a microscope (not that it would do any good any way) I have to conclude that many people look at the evidence out there concerning God's existence and choose not to believe. We should all stop fooling ourselves though that there is no evidence either way and recognize that this very personal and important question often hinges on what we want to believe.

I don't think you mean to say this Mathextremist, but others seem to look at faith as an unreasonable choice that is not based on serious thought, reflection, or any type of evidence. This is no more the case than the decision to not have faith.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 160
  • Posts: 9182
October 13th, 2011 at 10:40:49 PM permalink
FrGamble, do you think faith healing works and can it grow a new arm for someone?

I would call a new arm a lot better evidence than what I've seen demonstrated by the faith healing I've observed and the claims made for it.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 295
  • Posts: 8158
October 14th, 2011 at 3:38:56 AM permalink
I watched a movie or TV program once [I forget] and it had a priest say that wavering faith in God does not preclude you from being a Christian. That statement, whether or not it reflects correct doctrine, gave me a lot of peace, and I have embraced it and will continue to do so even if someone now would say it was not proper teaching. I think today it is just about impossible for almost all not to have certain periods of Doubt. I can't speak for Nareed, but I hope it is not the case that she has decided to cut herself off from all religious life due to alarm at the beginnings of Doubt. This definitely happens, I'm convinced, and I have experienced it too.

One guy I know who went to the grave a devout Christian liked to say that Christ appeared to 3000 people after the Resurrection. That doesnt do it for me, I don't understand the selective nature of such Revelation no matter the number [and I don't know where he got it, seems incorrect]. Perhaps unfairly, to me this said he also, devout as he was, knew periods of doubt; why else would he lay such value on that story?

PS: I finally found what he was talking about:
Quote:

Acts 2:22-36 in resources on the resurrection of Christ for Christians who ... The disciples also told them, "The Lord has really risen, and has appeared to Simon. .... At lest 3000 people were listening to Peter give witness to the resurrection of ...

This comes up when you do a google search; oddly, what it links to doesnt seem to have this in it! I like Bible Study, and I think you have to, to appreciate finding that.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
October 14th, 2011 at 6:24:21 AM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

We should all stop fooling ourselves though that there is no evidence either way and recognize that this very personal and important question often hinges on what we want to believe.



So show your evidence. Stop saying there is some, stop saying it exists, stop claiming it's real and show it.

Why is it every believer claims to have evidence but getting him to even decribe it is like pulling teeth?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
October 14th, 2011 at 7:29:45 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

So show your evidence. Stop saying there is some, stop saying it exists, stop claiming it's real and show it.

Why is it every believer claims to have evidence but getting him to even decribe it is like pulling teeth?



God help us I've been trying to but you ignore me or deny it is valid. Just a few things that I had already mentioned before in previous posts.
- the physical world around us is evidence. Where did it come from? Why is it so beautiful? Why is it often so complex or intricate? It looks like there is order to it? Yes, it is also ugly at times and chaotic so one could use the physical world around us as evidence to try and disprove God, but for me the reality of the world around us is evidence that God exists.

- the testimony of billions, upon billion, upon billions of people. You seem to have a problem with this, but as I've tried to say before to you testimony is an important part of evidence. There are many things you have come to believe and know to be true because of what people have told you. You can say that many of these people are wrong or not credible, but some of them are among the greatest human beings that have ever lived. I'm not just talking about saints and such, I'm talking about our grandparents or their great grandparents. Yes there is some testimony for aliens, bigfoot, and even atheism but the weight of testimony concerning belief in God is not something to sneeze at.

- there are many, many miracles that have occurred throughout history, many in our own day. I hesitate to go into too much detail in regards to this type of evidence because I think we can get hung up asking God for miracles to prove His existence. I don't think this is the preferred evidence because it's kind of like God pulling teeth to get us to believe.

We could talk about history and also about where the desire for perfection in us comes from, but until you recognize that there is some evidence for a reasonable assent of the will to believe in God then I have no evidence from you that it is worth keeping up the conversation. Peace!
progrocker
progrocker
Joined: Feb 21, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 303
October 14th, 2011 at 9:53:19 AM permalink
1. You're alluding to Argument by Design, or the teleological argument. There's a lot of logical refutations out there on that, so won't go into those, but I think it can be refuted observationally as well. Species go extinct and new species arise all the time (which can be replicated by experimentation). The world is obviously not perfect. Nor is man perfectly designed. We still get lower back problems later in life because our feet have not evolved to be large enough to support a bipedal lifestyle...yet. Beauty is cultural and I don't think I would know what beautiful was unless I was told my entire life (see Eye of the Beholder, the greatest Twilight Zone episode IMO).

2. Appeal to popularity, one of the many logical fallacies out there. You seem to think testimony is important but it really is not. Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Many are made to feel the 'presence of God' via clever marketing, i.e. large cathedrals, pipe organs and stained glass windows. I was raised Catholic, thankfully never confirmed, but even I still get chills from the mood that is set by your average Catholic church. The protestants try to do it in a completely different way, some with singing and the raising of arms, others via speaking in tongues.

3. Misinterpretation. Often highly improbable events are believed to be impossible, therefore are described as 'miracles'. I have yet to see evidence of anything happening that was literally impossible.

The real problem with religion is that it is either a) wholly inaccurate or b) wholly inadequate in describing the fundamental nature of the Universe, whether you want to call that Nature, God, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Universe itself. Conversations about it waste our time, when we should simply accept reality as it is and go on living. This is explained in the very first verse of the Tao te Ching (which I do not see as a religion text, it is more so a guide to practical living...many of the lessons were repeated 600 years later by our favorite Carpenter).

We are incapable of understanding, so why even bother trying? Accept the world as your reality and live as best you can. Empty the head, fill the belly.
Solo venimos, solo nos vamos. Y aqui nos juntamos, juntos que estamos.

  • Jump to: