Just wanted to share this link that has some of the most meaningful Jewish quotes I've encountered.
"Even though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I will not fear evil for You are with me."
&
"Do not be scornful of anyone, or doubt that anything can happen, for there is no person without his hour, no thing without its place."
(The second is very reminiscent of LoTR)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pirkei Avos is wonderful, isn't it?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
"If I am not for myself who will be for me? Yet, if I am for myself only, what am I? And if not now, when?"
Bad translation.
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? When I am for myself, what am "I"? And if not now, when?
There's no "only" in the second line, and certainly no "yet".
Number 8 is my favorite, though. It got me through some hard times in college.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Bad translation.
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? When I am for myself, what am "I"? And if not now, when?
There's no "only" in the second line, and certainly no "yet".
That's actually right.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Ecclesiastes 3, verses 1-8.
"For every thing, there is a season..."
That could be straight from a Hindu, Taoist, or Buddhist holy book.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And yet...
It isn't.
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
When I first saw the thread title, I was afraid it was going to be one of those "Let's pull up some hateful-or-violent sounding snippets from the Old Testament and use it to bash Judeo-Christian faith!" Glad to see it ain't.
I like the lion-tail/fox-head quote but my fave is still probably "Lord is my Shepherd." Not a very unique or original pick but I love that psalm.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And yet...
It isn't.
I was making an observation, not starting an argument.
Do you know the difference?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And if you had stopped, in the post just above me, after the first sentence . . . .
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Gentleness and kindness are lost on Lisa, in any discussion on these areas. Do you disagree? To be more clear--in any argument with Lisa in these areas, be mean, be mean often, and be mean early...no need to worry that you're taking the low road, Lisa will go lower, no matter what.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Off your meds again, steven?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
No, you started a thread a few days ago called "Why is steven..." and something insulting, which I won't repeat. You deleted it, after being asked, but it pretty much ruffled my feathers re: you. Even at my worst, I manage to avoid threads calling a specific poster an insulting name in the title. So, yeah, I'm miffed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
A few days ago? You have an amazing sense of time.
And you're lying through your teeth. That thread was in response to your vileness.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Steven, You have every right to be angry at Lisa, but as my mother says, "consider the source".
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I've achieved VILEness? Gnarly, dudes!!
No, I'm not letting this go. I made an incredibly good, but harsh, point about the behavior of many Chicagoans. Notably, nobody who actually lives around (but not actually in) Chicago leapt to its defense. Why? Because Chicago's citizens, in a general sense, are not known for their politeness, honesty, or general human goodness. One thing I will say is that I don't think you're the scamming criminal type that Chicago is famous for. Rude, abrasive, yes...almost unbelievably. A con artist, probably not, if I had to guess. But, Lisa, you can achieve more...or at least, the potential exists, in a general sense, in the human design. I don't know if you yourself will ever learn to care about polite discourse, but many people can and do engage in such.
It's not like I don't know what it means to really care about an idea. That doesn't mean that anyone here finds it enjoyable when you
1. Get insanely rude when your beliefs about Ayn Rand and Orthodox Judaism are challenged
2. Refuse to examine those beliefs in the cold light of day.
I'm all for enthusiasm. I'm also all for evidence. IOW, put up or shut up, or at least be polite.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: No, I'm not letting this go.
Gee, I'm shocked.
<yawn>
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Notably, nobody who actually lives around (but not actually in) Chicago leapt to its defense.
For the record, I leapt to the defense of Chicago, as did at least two other people who don't live in Chicago but do live near it. I think it's one of the best cities in America.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Here's a quote from another famous Jew. "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Here is one of my favorites.
quote:Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:
I also really like Rabbi Hillel
quote:What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
[ November 02, 2009, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It's sad to me that in a thread discussing such a powerful, wisdom filled book, people can so utterly fail to approach the suggestions in front of their eyes.
Prov 3:27-28 is one of my favorites, "Withold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and tomorrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee."
The prose is not the most elegant, but the concept is one I think would turn away so much ill feeling.
[ November 02, 2009, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Here is one of my favorites.
quote:Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:
Well, to be accurate, steven isn't part of my people.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I also really like Rabbi Hillel
quote:What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
Excellent quote. Minor quibble: Rabbi Hillel was a descendant of Hillel the Elder who said that.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, to be accurate, steven isn't part of my people.
Now it's steven's turn to say something nice about Lisa.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, to be accurate, steven isn't part of my people.
Now it's steven's turn to say something nice about Lisa.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:Well, to be accurate, steven isn't part of my people.
That so nicely sums up why I do not appreciate conservative religions. They have such wonderful, caring, and loving views to be expressed between each other, and the rest of us are dreck.
At best we are tolerated or pitied.
At worst we are tortured and slaughtered.
Some seek to convert us. If they stopped at just offering up truth that would be nice. Instead the most fervent use what ever means necessary including all the tools of the demons their faith supposedly protects us from--Nagging, lies, threats, torture, bribery, politics.
(Obviously not in Lisa's case. She does not seek converts to Judaism. She may suggest that the more liberal of her people go back to the correct ways, but she realizes that their backsliding is their business, not hers. I am referring to conservatives in all faiths, including atheists.)
I do apologize for bringing this good thread down.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Here is one of my favorites.
quote:Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:
Well, to be accurate, steven isn't part of my people.
That's exactly the kind of rationalizing that underlies all crimes against humanity and genocides.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
quote:Well, to be accurate, steven isn't part of my people.
That so nicely sums up why I do not appreciate conservative religions. They have such wonderful, caring, and loving views to be expressed between each other, and the rest of us are dreck.
Hmm.
No.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Here is one of my favorites.
quote:Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:
Well, to be accurate, steven isn't part of my people.
That's exactly the kind of rationalizing that underlies all crimes against humanity and genocides.
Not really. The fact that that particular statement only refers to fellow Jews doesn't mean that it's okay to harm or be obnoxious to people who aren't Jewish.
In steven's case, I'm just not sure he isn't a bot someone programmed to flip out whenever I post.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
At least it is honest. How many American Christians truly think of Iraqis (for example) as "their people"? And we are supposed to.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Don't have to go that far, Muslim Americans aren't exactly in an awesome position either (or Chinese Americans before 9/11 switched it up for that matter).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Not really. The fact that that particular statement only refers to fellow Jews doesn't mean that it's okay to harm or be obnoxious to people who aren't Jewish.
No really, Lisa. Behind every crime against humanity, there is a rationalization that allows the perpetrators to consider the victims to be less than fully human. It doesn't really matter why you don't consider Steven to be a real person. The problem is that you justify your own meanness by denying his humanity. I would think that Jews, of all people, would appreciate the danger in that kind of rationalization.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Don't have to go that far, Muslim Americans aren't exactly in an awesome position either (or Chinese Americans before 9/11 switched it up for that matter).
I didn't say it did have to go that far. I just picked a fairly easy example.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: At least it is honest. How many American Christians truly think of Iraqis (for example) as "their people"? And we are supposed to.
And I'm fairly confident that this is one of the key reasons that so many Americans are able to justify killing so many Iraqis. Which was my original point. When people draw lines that say "these are my people who I must love and forgive, those are not my people -- so I have no obligation to love and forgive them", they have started down a path which if followed to its conclusion leads to mistreatment, oppression and even genocide.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Much as I hate defending Lisa when she's being deliberately obnoxious, she never said that she doesn't "consider Steven to be a real person"; she said he is not a Jew. (Which, AFAIK, is accurate.)
She also clarified -- as she should have initially, if she felt the need to argue the point at all -- that it "doesn't mean that it's okay to harm or be obnoxious to people who aren't Jewish".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Exactly. I agree. I don't consider it a good thing. I am just saying that those of us who call ourselves Christian have no excuse.
ETA: That was in response to The Rabbit.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I didn't say it did have to go that far. I just picked a fairly easy example.
I know. I just picked an example that was a bit closer to home to show that the problem isn't just "out there." Edit to add: Assuming that it is a problem, anyways
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lisa likes to speak things on her terms, as bluntly as she possibly can, and leave it to the rest of you to understand why she is a moral person.
She sees her word as true, and it is up to us to reconcile.
In the above examples, i may be wrong, but I detected her resentment at verses of the Bible and Torah concepts praised like the wisdom of quotes that get embroidered onto pillows in antique shops.
Each phrase of Torah has been poured over with centuries of scholarship and tradition, and to have them analyzed in pop-forum can be grating to someone who is immersed in a culture of through Torah study.
However, that isn't an excuse to be elitist and condescending.
It's a very insensitive and lazy strategy. V' ani gam choshev sheze chilul Hashem norah.
I also ask that you not stereotype conservative religionists based on Lisa's actions. That's just poor thinking.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Much as I hate defending Lisa when she's being deliberately obnoxious, she never said that she doesn't "consider Steven to be a real person"; she said he is not a Jew. (Which, AFAIK, is accurate.)
She also clarified -- as she should have initially, if she felt the need to argue the point at all -- that it "doesn't mean that it's okay to harm or be obnoxious to people who aren't Jewish".
Actually, she said
quote:In steven's case, I'm just not sure he isn't a bot someone programmed to flip out whenever I post.
Which unless there is some meaning of "bot" with which I am not familiar, does indeed imply that she doesn't believe he is a real person.
I am sufficiently familiar with Judaism to know that few if any respected Rabbi's would justify mistreatment of a non-Jew based on the fact that they "were not one of my people". But if Lisa was not saying that she felt no obligation to treat steven politely because she didn't consider him one of her people, then I am at a complete loss to understand her response.
I'm also sufficiently familiar with Lisa to know that she feels no obligation to treat me with anything short of open contempt and that she feels no obligation to apologize to people at hatrack for extreme rudeness. I don't know how she rationalizes her incivility and don't really care. But I am confident that any philosophy which justifies harming or being obnoxious to other human beings is morally bankrupt.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: V' ani gam choshev sheze chilul Hashem norah.
I also ask that you not stereotype conservative religionists based on Lisa's actions. That's just poor thinking.
Agreed on both points.
Rabbit, I think the bot comment was sarcastic. Regardless, I already made it clear that I disagree with her behavior.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Lisa likes to speak things on her terms, as bluntly as she possibly can, and leave it to the rest of you to understand why she is a moral person.
Armoth, perhaps you can explain to me how someone who treats others with open contempt should be considered a moral person.
Lisa isn't simply blunt, she is deliberately rude and makes the vilest and most insulting accusation to anyone who questions her personal sacred cows.
quote:I also ask that you not stereotype conservative religionists based on Lisa's actions. That's just poor thinking.
I try very very hard not to do this. I have known enough Jews in real life to know that Lisa's rudeness is not the rule. I am familiar enough with rabbinical commentaries to know that many of her claims are at a minimum controversial within Judaism and that her behavior here at hatrack is not consistent with most schools of Jewish thought. Still, I must admit, that Lisa has managed to lower my opinion of Judaism as a whole. That is something that I sincerely regret but is none the less true.
The fact that you and rivka make excuses for her when she behaves with such incivility doesn't help. I appreciate your desire to be loyal to one of your own, but it does muddy the waters. It would go along way for me if you would condemn her incivility rather than trying to explain it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't think either of us is making excuses for her. I have explained (this time and many others) why some of the things she says are essentially correct, although not adequately explained or taken out of context.
That is not the same as defending her behavior, which I have not done.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit, I think the bot comment was sarcastic.
Yet another excuse for her.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: She also clarified -- as she should have initially, if she felt the need to argue the point at all -- that it "doesn't mean that it's okay to harm or be obnoxious to people who aren't Jewish".
I didn't clarify that before, because I assume that it's a given. Frankly, I don't care if steven is Jewish or not. Well, let me clarify that. I hope he isn't. But I'd react the same way to him if he was.
He's a brat. "In any argument with Lisa in these areas, be mean, be mean often, and be mean early". Gah. I mean, that's like saying, "Step on my head". So I stepped on his head. It was what he wanted, and I was happy to oblige.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: It's a very insensitive and lazy strategy. V' ani gam choshev sheze chilul Hashem norah.
על טעם וריח אין להתווכח
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But if Lisa was not saying that she felt no obligation to treat steven politely because she didn't consider him one of her people, then I am at a complete loss to understand her response.
Ein bayshan lamed. If you're at a loss, you can always ask. Granted, it's easier to just assume, and you dislike me anyway, but don't use your lack of understanding as an excuse for your behavior.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Nothing in my post was an excuse for her. The little bit of Hebrew was a very harsh critique of her. The reference to her morality is that she perceives herself as moral.
Lisa is lazy. She is very well thought out, and passionate about what she believes in, and if she believes you are wrong, she will simply tell you that you are without making the effort to come to know you, to meet your mind, and to guide you to her perspective.
I don't think I have every argued against anyone on this forum. From my perspective, it always productive to try and understand someone rather than to vilify them.
I have no respect for Lisa's rudeness.
We were all attracted to this forum by the same man who created Ender, and The Speaker for the Dead. I prefer to understand and to love.
Lisa is a rough person, I'd really like to get to know why. She seems really jaded, and I don't know what did that to her. But people aren't born that way, and brands of Judaism don't make you that way.
Rabbit, I appreciate your honesty, but your post made me very sad.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I don't think either of us is making excuses for her.
But you are. Both of you. Look at your selves. You repeatedly offer a rephrasing or interpretation of what she says that gives it a less offensive spin. "She was sarcastic", "She was blunt", "She was essentially correct". You rephrased "Steven isn't one of my people" to "he's not a Jew". Perhaps your interpretations are correct, I'm not arguing that. In all cases, the way you rephrase or interpret her statements are less abrasive than what she actually says. And whether its intended or not, that comes off as excusing her by saying "she didn't really mean it that way."
quote:I have explained (this time and many others) why some of the things she says are essentially correct, although not adequately explained or taken out of context.
I appreciate that, but you should be aware that it very often seems like you are make excuses for rude behavior when you do it. Believe it or not, you have not made it clear to me that you think her behavior is unacceptable as a Jew.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Geez, Rabbit, they'd have to practically step on her head before you'd be happy.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Armoth, perhaps you can explain to me how someone who treats others with open contempt should be considered a moral person.
I can think of six people on Hatrack who I treat with open contempt on a fairly regular basis. In four of those cases, it's in response to their determination that because I hold views they disagree with, it's okay for them to treat me rudely. You're one of the four, Rabbit. Another is obviously steven.
Actually, in the case of one person on the list, it isn't so much contempt as the feeling that he honestly can't hear anything that isn't as blunt as he is.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Lisa is lazy. She is very well thought out, and passionate about what she believes in, and if she believes you are wrong, she will simply tell you that you are without making the effort to come to know you, to meet your mind, and to guide you to her perspective.
QFT on all counts. The world is full of people who do what you're talking about, Armoth. I don't have the patience for it, myself.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't understand what we are supposed to do Rabbit?
I believe in the same thing Lisa does. She comes, claiming to represent Judaism, and behaves like a jerk.
Twisted within the truisms she makes about Judaism is her jerkiness.
Now I have to come, and since I can't reject the whole thing, because much of what she says IS correct, though taken out of context or poorly explained, and explain. I need to say, Lisa was a jerk, but here's what's true about what she said.
She put us in a really bad position, and I think it's fair to ask you to see that, even though you are righteously angry/bothered at Lisa. Please don't allow that to cloud your opinion of Rivka or myself, and recognize the position that we need to take here.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit, I appreciate your honesty, but your post made me very sad.
It makes me very sad as well. I have always held Judaism in high regard and I still do. I think its very unfortunate that my interaction with Lisa has eroded that regard. I recognize its not fully rational, but then respect and regard are emotions and try as I might, my emotions don't necessarily comply with reason.
It was much easier for me when I was convinced that Lisa was actually some actually a neo-nazi troll pretending to be an obnoxious Jew.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You rephrased "Steven isn't one of my people" to "he's not a Jew".
And...? Of course that's what I meant. That's what I said. And if you weren't actively looking for a negative light in which to see everything I say, you never would have suggested otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Perhaps your interpretations are correct, I'm not arguing that. In all cases, the way you rephrase or interpret her statements are less abrasive than what she actually says. And whether its intended or not, that comes off as excusing her by saying "she didn't really mean it that way."
Your interpretation. Did you ever think that maybe part of the problem is you? If a bunch of other people clearly understood what I said, maybe that's because it was clear, and your "misunderstanding" was simply that big ol' chip on your shoulder.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I have explained (this time and many others) why some of the things she says are essentially correct, although not adequately explained or taken out of context.
I appreciate that, but you should be aware that it very often seems like you are make excuses for rude behavior when you do it. Believe it or not, you have not made it clear to me that you think her behavior is unacceptable as a Jew. [/QB]
Should we insist that you explicitly condemn any behavior from anyone who shares whatever your religious beliefs are that you disagree with? This is a garden variety lame excuse for prejudice.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: She put us in a really bad position, and I think it's fair to ask you to see that, even though you are righteously angry/bothered at Lisa. Please don't allow that to cloud your opinion of Rivka or myself, and recognize the position that we need to take here.
Unbelievable. Armoth, you're falling for her games. She wants an excuse to disrespect Judaism. Or rather, to express her disrespect for Judaism. "Some of my best friends are Jews, but you're making me reevaluate that" is a garbage statement, and what Rabbit is saying is the equivalent. Don't let your dislike for the way I express myself blind you to who you're talking to here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*throws up hands in disgust*
I don't consider her behavior acceptable. Her being Jewish has nothing to do with it.
"My people" (ami) has a specific meaning. Your interpretation ignored that meaning. I clarified. If that is going to be taken as approving of what she said or how she said, I won't bother.
[ November 02, 2009, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:She wants an excuse to disrespect Judaism
No I don't. I do not disrespect Judaism. As I said, I hold it in high regard. I am not reevaluating my friendship with Jews. I am trying to make you aware of the harm you do to your religion and your fellow Jews by mixing your religion with rudeness and incivility and using the former to justify the latter.
I know that you will pay no attention to it. I doubt you are capable of that level of self evaluation. But have a great deal of hope that rivka and Armoth will get my point.
quote:Should we insist that you explicitly condemn any behavior from anyone who shares whatever your religious beliefs are that you disagree with? This is a garden variety lame excuse for prejudice.
Absolutely. If anyone who is LDS is twisting LDS teachings to justify rudeness and incivility, I think it is important for me to make it clear that I condemn their behavior and that they are not accurately representing my religion. If anyone who claims to be Christian is twisting christian teaching to justify being mean, I will not only condemn their behavior but seek to clarify that they are misrepresenting Christian beliefs.
I believe that I have done that here at hatrack on more than one occasion. I believe that on at least on occasion you and I have actually gotten into a row over your assertion that I as a Christian was responsible for crimes committed by other Christians. You are so blinded by your own bigotry that you can barely see the words I type.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *throws up hands in disgust*
I don't consider her behavior acceptable. Her being Jewish has nothing to do with it.
"My people" (ami) has a specific meaning. Your interpretation ignored that meaning. I clarified. If that is going to be taken as approving of what she said or how she said, I won't bother.
Yes, rivka, I know. You didn't need to clarify in the first place. My interpretation did not ignore that meaning, it focused on the obvious implication. I said nothing about steven when I posted the quote. The fact that Lisa chose to mention that he was not one of her people in response has a very obvious implication. Do you deny that?
And my point was never that your interpretation of Lisa's statement was inaccurate. My point was that by rephrasing what Lisa said in less abrasive words, you sound like you are making excuses for her. If you don't care whether or not you sound like you are making excuses for her, that's your prerogative. But I think you actually do care and don't want to be misunderstood.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think the fault is in your interpretation, not my explanation. *shrug*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Geez, Rabbit, they'd have to practically step on her head before you'd be happy.
Sadly, I am coming to the conclusion that this is accurate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't understand what we are supposed to do Rabbit?
You mostly do a good job. But let me give you a clear example.
You said.
quote:Lisa is lazy. She is very well thought out, and passionate about what she believes in, and if she believes you are wrong, she will simply tell you that you are without making the effort to come to know you, to meet your mind, and to guide you to her perspective.
I appreciate your attempt to generous here, but this isn't a fair and accurate representation of how Lisa treats people here. She has called me a "monster", "worse than Hitler" and accused me of supporting the mass murder of Jews. She started a thread by calling steven an insulting name. She accused steven of "vileness". Despite her claim, steven and I aren't the only targets of such vicious attacks. Anyone who dares to question one of her sacred cows will experience such an attack. More hatrack threads have been locked on her account than on the account of all other regulars combined.
Those kind of vicious personal attacks aren't "laziness", they aren't "blunt". They are mean and hateful. When she treats me with contempt, when she is vicious and hateful and you come back and say she is "well thought out and passionate about what she believes" -- I am going to see you as making excuses for what I see as morally indefensible behavior.
Can you see what I'm trying to say?
I really don't appreciate being called a vicious anti-semite because I disagree with Lisa.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Geez, Rabbit, they'd have to practically step on her head before you'd be happy.
Sadly, I am coming to the conclusion that this is accurate.
Please rivka, this isn't true. Please consider the history here. Lisa has made some very vicious and utterly uncalled for attacks on my character. She thinks I'm a rabid anti-semite of the kind that would gladly murder Jews in cold blood. That isn't hyperbole -- it is precisely what she has said in the past. I know you condemn her rudeness. Can you at least try to understand why your attempts to soften that rudeness might seem like making excuses for her?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: your attempts to soften that rudeness
That is your interpretation of what I am saying. I have explained repeatedly that it is inaccurate.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I thought it best to leave this thread for cooling down since I think I understand both Lisa's and Rabbit's points of view.
Rabbit - No one called you an anti-semite. Yes, I saw what you were trying to do and point out to Lisa. You should also realize that your rhetoric about what she does to your opinion of Jews hurt only me and Rivka, in the sense that you needed to explain yourself, and did nothing to pierce Lisa's thick skin.
Realize also that my characterization of Lisa wasn't supposed to be my psychological diagnosis of her. Just a drive-by observation based on her conduct in this thread only.
But don't take this to the next level. I take your points, please take ours. You're expecting too much from Rivka and I. You are explaining that you can't be intellectually honest about your opinion about Judaism because of Lisa, that you fail to let your intellect rule over your mind. I can understand that. But that doesn't mean that Rivka and I need to bend over backwards to accommodate that very human failure.
That's not to say that we won't bend somewhat, as we have been by addressing your feelings, but you need to meet us halfway.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: your attempts to soften that rudeness
That is your interpretation of what I am saying. I have explained repeatedly that it is inaccurate.
rivka, please listen to me. I know it wasn't your intent to excuse Lisa, but can you try to see why it feels that way to me. I'm not trying to accuse you of something. I'm begging you to help me.
Think of me as a friend who has been deeply offended by someone who justified their mean and vicious behavior using your religion. I don't need an explanation of how my offender was half right. I need your reassurance that Judaism does not condone this kind of behavior.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think they've done that, Rabbit.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: your attempts to soften that rudeness
That is your interpretation of what I am saying. I have explained repeatedly that it is inaccurate.
rivka, please listen to me. I know it wasn't your intent to excuse Lisa, but can you try to see why it feels that way to me. I'm not trying to accuse you of something. I'm begging you to help me.
Think of me as a friend who has been deeply offended by someone who justified their mean and vicious behavior using your religion. I don't need an explanation of how my offender was half right. I need your reassurance that Judaism does not condone this kind of behavior.
But what we're incredulous about is how you can even need that assurance. Judaism does not condone this kind of behavior. Are we good now?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If it makes anyone feel better, I disrespect Judaism in a way that's completely independent of whether Lisa is a nice person. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The question is...how good are you?
:eyebrow waggle:
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If it makes anyone feel better, I disrespect Judaism in a way that's completely independent of whether Lisa is a nice person.
Just curious: Do you disrespect the religion? or its adherents? or both?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nu, the other day someone I respect pointed out (in the context of how intelligent people can be religious) this old chestnut to me:
quote:A motorist had a flat tire in front of an insane asylum. He took the wheel off, and the bolts that held the wheel on rolled into the sewer. A patient, looking through the fence, suggested that he take one bolt off of the remaining three tires to hold up the new tire until he got to a service station. The motorist thanked him profusely and said, "I don't know why you are in that place. " The patient said, "I'm here for being crazy, not stupid. "
which made me rethink some things, and more inclined to hate the religion and love the theist. But it must be admitted that it's hard work, a bit like trying to be patient with a cranky Down's-syndrome child. I want to be understanding of other people's limitations, but I also feel an overwhelming urge to slap some dang sense into them.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Note to self: KoM only loves intelligent theists.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Guys, common.
These are verses that have inspired me and given me hope in dark times. They have shaped the person I try to be, and I look to them for moral guidance when I am lost.
Out of respect for their timeless wisdom, let's maybe sheave our swords?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit - No one called you an anti-semite.
Lisa has called me a rabid anti-semite many times in the past. She has essentially said that in this thread as well.
quote:Yes, I saw what you were trying to do and point out to Lisa. You should also realize that your rhetoric about what she does to your opinion of Jews hurt only me and Rivka, in the sense that you needed to explain yourself, and did nothing to pierce Lisa's thick skin.
I'm sorry if I hurt you and rivka. That was not my intent. I've clearly made you both very defensive so that you are missing my point. I know you are not trying to excuse Lisa's rudeness. I consider both you and rivka to be excellent examples of what I understand as derech eretz, i.e decent, polite, respectful, thoughtful, and civilized.
Unfortunately, Lisa is such a terrible example of all of those that I need someone to help restore the balance. It isn't simply that she is a rude Jew which has eroded my opinion of Judaism. The real harm is that she so often justifies her rude and mean behavior by twisting Jewish concepts. So when she comes back to a quote of "Love your neighbor", with a snippy remark about how that commandment doesn't apply to her abuse of steven because he is a non-Jew -- I don't need you to clarify that this is a technically accurate interpretation of the law (at least within many Jewish schools). I need you to reinforce that she has twisted that interpretation in a way that is unacceptable within the broader context of your faith.
quote:But don't take this to the next level. I take your points, please take ours. You're expecting too much from Rivka and I. You are explaining that you can't be intellectually honest about your opinion about Judaism because of Lisa, that you fail to let your intellect rule over your mind. I can understand that.
I'm not sure you have understood my point. I have no problem being intellectually honest about my opinion. The utterly uncalled for abuse I have experienced from Lisa influences my opinion of her and I am reasonably able to isolate that from my opinion of Judaism. My real difficulty is that when I see how she is able to twist the teachings of Judaism to justify her nastiness, it reduces my respect for the underlying teaching. While intellectually I know that is unfair, its hard to avoid.
I'm very sorry to have hurt you and rivka. I consider you both to be friends and hope you will consider me as a friend. As I said before, you are both wonderful examples of decency, politeness, kindness and civility.
My problem is that I need some strong reassurance that despite what Lisa may imply, her behavior is not justifiable within the larger context of Judaism. If that is too much to ask from you and rivka, I guess I will just have to look keep looking elsewhere.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: She thinks I'm a rabid anti-semite of the kind that would gladly murder Jews in cold blood. That isn't hyperbole -- it is precisely what she has said in the past.
Cite it or retract it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that probably most religions have doctrine that sounds terrible "on paper" but in practice isn't nearly as bad. As well as doctrine that would be wonderful if practiced but rarely is.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If it makes anyone feel better, I disrespect Judaism in a way that's completely independent of whether Lisa is a nice person.
See, now, I appreciate that. I think KoM is completely wrong, but at least he's honest about what he believes. I have respect for that which I can't muster up for Rabbit.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But what we're incredulous about is how you can even need that assurance.
That much is clear. The point I was trying to make for you and rivka, and evidently bungled badly, is that when someone like Lisa attacks people and justifies it with by twisting jewish law, those of us who have been attacked NEED you to emphatically assure as that this is not an acceptable within your faith. Otherwise we are left with the impression that while you are too polite to say it, you pretty much accept that conclusion. I've always been reasonably confident that neither you nor rivka find Lisa's behavior acceptable. What I think you miss is the outsiders perspective. For you, its a given that this is not Judaism and inconceivable that someone might mistake Lisa's quip in that way. Well for an outsider, it isn't that clear and little quips like the one Lisa made here and has made repeatedly, build doubt about what conservative Jews really believe.
quote:Judaism does not condone this kind of behavior. Are we good now?
I hope so.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Okay. I think we're on a the same page, if not on the same paragraph or sentence.
Her behavior is not justifiable within the larger context of Judaism. Even though much of what she says is true, no. Her behavior is objectively incorrect.
I have a really good friend - we have been best friends since high school. But he can be incredibly rude and abrasive sometimes. I seriously love the guy, despite his mistreatment of others - I think, because I understand how a lot of it is a defense mechanism, and because I recognize that he is human.
I don't think I'd ask you to forgive Lisa. It's not my place. But I hope that you can still see that it is hard for me to denounce Lisa publicly on a forum. Although I have no respect for this aspect of her personality, and although I know how despicable it is, I too would like to consider her a friend. Despite all that, I know it's important for me to say that she isn't right, and that her behavior is completely at odds with Judaism (doctrinally btw). I dunno, i feel like i had to say that...
Rabbit - I appreciate your sensitivity and vulnerability in the latter posts.
Phanto - While you're right, Torah is all about the refining of the human personality. And I do believe that my discussion with Rabbit was productive, and I am happy to have had it. We both had to check our ego and seek to understand one another.
KoM - I'm really happy you feel that way. Not in a "the atheist is coming around" sorta way - more in the - I can appreciate that we're both human way...
Good thread...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: She thinks I'm a rabid anti-semite of the kind that would gladly murder Jews in cold blood. That isn't hyperbole -- it is precisely what she has said in the past.
Cite it or retract it.
Certainly your memory is not that bad Lisa.
quote:Rabbit . . . Yes, it's worthwhile to point out that since you and your coreligionists have made Jew-killing a sport for the past 17 centuries . . .
And when I and several other members pointed out that you had accused me (directly and personally) murdering jews for sport, you simply said you couldn't be expected to distinguish between different types of Christians.
If I am mistaken and when you said "you and your coreligionists have made Jew-killing a sport for the past 17 centuries" you did not mean that you thought I was the kind of rabid anti-semite who would gladly murder jews in cold blood, what did you mean and why didn't you bother to clarify it in the original discussion when it was evident that I and others understood it in precisely that way.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Okay. I think we're on a the same page, if not on the same paragraph or sentence.
Her behavior is not justifiable within the larger context of Judaism. Even though much of what she says is true, no. Her behavior is objectively incorrect.
Not objectively. In your view.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Although I have no respect for this aspect of her personality, and although I know how despicable it is, I too would like to consider her a friend.
Sure. Because all my friends call my personality despicable. Look, Armoth, I get it. You think that dissing me will change Rabbit. It won't.
I understand people who are all, "Why can't we just be friends!" They tend to be very arrogant and think that their way of doing things is the only way. I'm quite aware that there are different approaches. I wish you were.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Despite all that, I know it's important for me to say that she isn't right, and that her behavior is completely at odds with Judaism (doctrinally btw). I dunno, i feel like i had to say that...
And I feel I have to say that you're wrong. יש ענין של חילול ה כשמגישים מאמרי חזל כמו עוגיות מזל. וכשאני מחזיר לסטיבן או הארנבת כפי שהם מדברים אלי, אתה צריך להסכים אתם.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If it makes anyone feel better, I disrespect Judaism in a way that's completely independent of whether Lisa is a nice person.
See, now, I appreciate that. I think KoM is completely wrong, but at least he's honest about what he believes. I have respect for that which I can't muster up for Rabbit.
For what its worth Lisa, you are the most consistently hateful human being I have ever dealt with. I do not think I have ever done anything to deserve the venom you spew at me aside from disagree with you. If I have in the past "treated you rudely" prior to you launching some vicious attack on my character, please (as you put it) "cite or retract".
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ve'im at chosehevet she'at omedet al ha'emet, at tzricha l'havin she'hem lo makshivim.
At midaberet bisaffah she'ani vi Rivka mevinim, aval ha'oto safah lo muvan liammaratzim.
v'yoter mizeh, zeh lo rak she'at lo muvan, at mitzigah et atzmech k'kanai bli middot. Aval lihyot kanaai rak mo'il k'shezeh mitorer et hatzibur l'hasig et hachilul Hashem. Po, ha'arnevet v'Steven hem ha tzibbur.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Certainly your memory is not that bad Lisa.
quote:Rabbit . . . Yes, it's worthwhile to point out that since you and your coreligionists have made Jew-killing a sport for the past 17 centuries . . .
And when I and several other members pointed out that you had accused me (directly and personally) murdering jews for sport, you simply said you couldn't be expected to distinguish between different types of Christians.
a) I was accusing you and your coreligionists in the aggregate. You identify as a Christian, so deal with it. For most of the past 17 centuries, Christians have done exactly that.
b) There was a context to that discussion. Shall we revisit it?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If I am mistaken and when you said "you and your coreligionists have made Jew-killing a sport for the past 17 centuries" you did not mean that you thought I was the kind of rabid anti-semite who would gladly murder jews in cold blood, what did you mean and why didn't you bother to clarify it in the original discussion when it was evident that I and others understood it in precisely that way.
Because a person who deliberately misunderstands something in order to cry foul and engage in an argument by intimidation shouldn't, in my opinion, be humored.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Nu, the other day someone I respect pointed out (in the context of how intelligent people can be religious) this old chestnut to me:
quote:A motorist had a flat tire in front of an insane asylum. He took the wheel off, and the bolts that held the wheel on rolled into the sewer. A patient, looking through the fence, suggested that he take one bolt off of the remaining three tires to hold up the new tire until he got to a service station. The motorist thanked him profusely and said, "I don't know why you are in that place. " The patient said, "I'm here for being crazy, not stupid. "
which made me rethink some things, and more inclined to hate the religion and love the theist. But it must be admitted that it's hard work, a bit like trying to be patient with a cranky Down's-syndrome child. I want to be understanding of other people's limitations, but I also feel an overwhelming urge to slap some dang sense into them.
Awwww. This post made me feel all warm and fuzzy. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Ve'im at chosehevet she'at omedet al ha'emet, at tzricha l'havin she'hem lo makshivim.
At midaberet bisaffah she'ani vi Rivka mevinim, aval ha'oto safah lo muvan liammaratzim.
v'yoter mizeh, zeh lo rak she'at lo muvan, at mitzigah et atzmech k'kanai bli middot. Aval lihyot kanaai rak mo'il k'shezeh mitorer et hatzibur l'hasig et hachilul Hashem. Po, ha'arnevet v'Steven hem ha tzibbur.
B'seder. Ani anaseh lo l'hagiv klal lo v'la. Tireh im zeh bichlal yisheneh et hamatzav.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Ve'im at chosehevet she'at omedet al ha'emet, at tzricha l'havin she'hem lo makshivim.
At midaberet bisaffah she'ani vi Rivka mevinim, aval ha'oto safah lo muvan liammaratzim.
v'yoter mizeh, zeh lo rak she'at lo muvan, at mitzigah et atzmech k'kanai bli middot. Aval lihyot kanaai rak mo'il k'shezeh mitorer et hatzibur l'hasig et hachilul Hashem. Po, ha'arnevet v'Steven hem ha tzibbur.
B'seder. Ani anaseh lo l'hagiv klal lo v'la. Tireh im zeh bichlal yisheneh et hamatzav.
:-)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Armoth, Thank you. I appreciate your honesty and humility. Its been worth the discussion despite the emotional stress I think its been for both of us. Its my bedtime now or I'd make a longer response.
Good Night.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There was a context to that discussion. Shall we revisit it?
Yes, please point out what I said the justified your saying I would kill Jews for sport.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
My belief, returning to my original post, is that, when it comes to religion and philosophy, the less said, the better. That's why it was such a short post.
My real point was that it's the things that all major religions agree on that bear listening to, if anything does. I think even KoM can agree that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a fairly useful rule of thumb.
My correlating point is that it's exactly the strange little rules that only show up in 1 religion that we need to be taking with a grain of salt. Things like "eating meat is bad" or "observe the Sabbath really strictly" need to be seen in the context that they come from, and/or taken metaphorically and with very little intensity.
In other words, let's not be hating and killing each other over the stupid little details, because then we risk ending up with tremendous regrets later.
I mean, do what you want. I'm just saying that, sooner or later, either you (I refer to people of all religions here, including KoM, whose religion is "kill the believers!") or your descendants are likely to practice all the little rules of your religion with less and less fire, and, eventually, abandon them altogether. Given that, the hate is clearly a waste of energy, is it not?
Before anyone says "I don't know what you mean! I don't hate anyone! My religion forbids it!" I would point you to the way that Lisa treats people (and, to be fair, King of Men, too). I would also point you to Fred Phelps, and there are others too, we all know that that is a long, loooong list, and it includes members of every major religion.
But, hate away. I certainly can't stop you. None of you regard my thoughts on religion as being worth listening to, and I accept that fact.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I think even KoM can agree that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a fairly useful rule of thumb.
I'm sure there are quite a few people who have no interest at all in being "done unto" by me the way I would want to be "done unto" by them.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Look. It all depends what your starting point is:
If your fundamental assumption is that religion was given to you to guide your moral intuition, then yes - all the intuitive morals make sense. But it's quite dishonest, intellectually, to accept a book is written by God and to explain away all the parts that don't fit with the morality that you intuit.
My assumptions begin elsewhere - they begin with the recognition of the Source, an understanding that He has revealed His will to us, and in coming to understand His will, there are certain things that make sense according to my own moral intuitions and others that do not.
The sages of the talmud warn not to say that we keep kosher because certain animals are unhealthy or disgusting - we keep kosher because of a divine decree.
The idea of Torah observance is that we are trying to make our will God's will. It isn't just a guidebook for how you and I should relate to one another - it is the guidebook for how to come close to God. When people are in love, they don't just subvert their own will, they change their own will to align with that of their love.
I don't subject the Bible's commandments to my moral intuition. That isn't my prerogative. The only thing I subject it to is my sense of scholarship for truthful interpretation. When the bible says you need to sit in booths for 7 days beginning the 15th of the 7th month, I go out and live in a booth for 7 days on the 15th of the 7th month (Sukkot). If you believe the Bible was written by God, then things aren't taken in historical context - they are eternal morals.
But those are my assumptions.
Now just because we may have different interpretations doesn't mean I will hate you. And you did point to Lisa as your demonstration for why these rules that all religions do not share are going to lead to heat. Yet, in the same breath, you pointed to KoM.
Why? It is atheist rhetoric that religion is the source of the world's ills. But that's not true. It is passion. Whenever someone passionately believes in an idea, that's when the dangers of dogma, non-believers, and all that jazz come up.
See: Nazism, Communism, etc.
On the flipside, without passion, what is there to live for?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: ... Out of respect for their timeless wisdom, let's maybe sheave our swords?
Think of it as glass half full rather than glass half empty. There's something vaguely appropriate about a Jewish person and a Christian person fighting it out over the Old Testament/Torah. It should also give you hope that unlike times past, this combat is merely by words.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: a) I was accusing you and your coreligionists in the aggregate. You identify as a Christian, so deal with it. For most of the past 17 centuries, Christians have done exactly that.
Your language isn't just an accusation of the aggregate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: a) I was accusing you and your coreligionists in the aggregate. You identify as a Christian, so deal with it. For most of the past 17 centuries, Christians have done exactly that.
Your language isn't just an accusation of the aggregate.
Thank you Sam. I'm pretty confident that Lisa knows this. But admitting that would require self introspection and that kind itself introspection would cause such severe cognitive dissonance that it would destroy her. To avoid that, she brands anyone who questions her an evil human being unworthy of even the most basic civility.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, aside from KoM at least
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm pretty confident that Lisa knows this. But admitting that would require self introspection and that kind itself introspection would cause such severe cognitive dissonance that it would destroy her.
You can make an effective argument against Lisa's tone without these insults.
I *think* you can, anyway.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Oy, Rabbit, i don't know what you hope to achieve with such vicious denunciation.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: a) I was accusing you and your coreligionists in the aggregate. You identify as a Christian, so deal with it. For most of the past 17 centuries, Christians have done exactly that.
Your language isn't just an accusation of the aggregate.
Thank you Sam. I'm pretty confident that Lisa knows this. But admitting that would require self introspection and that kind itself introspection would cause such severe cognitive dissonance that it would destroy her. To avoid that, she brands anyone who questions her an evil human being unworthy of even the most basic civility.
This has not been my experience with Lisa. I've seen plenty of people fight with Lisa, and the results are never pretty.
I myself have stepped on a few Jewish hatracker toes even when I am just trying to understand Judaism, but Lisa has always been polite to me in correcting my understanding. I've seen her get worked up especially when people talk about the Israeli/Palestinian issue, but I have always felt that that was because she feels strongly about the issue having seen it first hand. I've never gotten the impression however that she simply wants to hate people.
I have seen people say to her, "You're very rude/terrible/idiotic for feeling the way you do, and I think I am owed an apology, and she has always responded to that in kind. Were Lisa and I to get upset with each other, I would not expect her to make the first step towards reconciliation. I don't live my life thinking, "I didn't make the first mistake in this series of mistakes, so I should be apologized to first." Lisa's friendship is of sufficient value to me that if she hurts my feelings, I will politely say so, and try to find a way to remain friends.
I have full faith in Lisa's ability to forgive and forget, but I also know that it's basic human nature to want the other person to pay obeisance when they have wronged you.
Too often people on this board get mad at each other, don't resolve anything, hope the passage of time will solve it, run into each other again, invoke the offenses of the past, and the wounds open up again wider and bloodier than ever.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Oy, Rabbit, i don't know what you hope to achieve with such vicious denunciation.
I suppose I don't expect to accomplish anything but perhaps vent. Lisa's made it clear that she considers me to be evil and for the most part her vicious attacks on my person have been, with the exception of this thread, completely unjustified.
If you think there is any justification for some of the things she has said to me over the years, then I really should leave hatrack because I no longer belong here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is atheist rhetoric that religion is the source of the world's ills. But that's not true. It is passion.
Well, no. It is atheist rhetoric that religious epistemology makes it impossible to validate the claims made by the religious, passionate or not. And when these claims are passionate, they can be dangerous precisely because they are invulnerable to actual logic.
The rationale "I strongly believe we should do this because God says so" is relatively impermeable to any sort of counter-argument.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not entirely: There is always the final argument that grows from the barrel of a gun. It is perfectly reasonable to hope it never comes to that, but sooner or later it will.
The accusation that atheists think religion is "the source of the world's ills" is a straw man. Religion is one of the world's ills, and the source of some others. This is not the same as saying that a lack of religion would restore us to an Edenic paradise, any more than wiping out smallpox solved every problem in the world. But it's a sufficiently big evil that it's worth devoting some resources to combating it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yes, but religion is also a source of great good. Why not surgically strike against intellectual dishonesty and intolerance rather than getting rid of religion altogether?
Politics leads to evil too, should we get rid of that?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug* We do have societies that are pretty close to being rid of religion, so we know it is well within the realm of possibility.
You can't really say that about politics.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Yes, but religion is also a source of great good.
No, it's not.
Edit: And anyway, you can't remove intellectual dishonesty without getting rid of religion as a plain by-product.
[ November 03, 2009, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, if you are not familiar with KoM, you might want to read some of his previous posts on this before engaging him in yet another version of pretty much the same conversation he always has in just about every religious thread.
At least if you want to discuss anything interesting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:This is not the same as saying that a lack of religion would restore us to an Edenic paradise.
Ironic choice of words. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: *shrug* We do have societies that are pretty close to being rid of religion, so we know it is well within the realm of possibility.
You can't really say that about politics.
Yes, but none of those societies have even come close to eliminating the evils athiests commonly attribute to religions. In fact I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing that Stalin's nearly religion free Russia or Mao's nearly religion Chinas were morally superior to the religious US.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I suggest that Mucus was rather referring to present-day European countries, particularly in Scandinavia.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit: "Have" not "had". I'd appreciate it if you didn't twist my words.
For example, today:
quote: ... let's change the lens to account for a basic insight multicountry surveys offer: a population's religiosity level is strongly related to its average standard of living. Gallup's World Poll, for example, indicates that 8 of the 11 countries in which almost all residents (at least 98%) say religion is important in their daily lives are poorer nations in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the 10 least religious countries studied include several with the world's highest living standards, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Hong Kong, and Japan.
quote:Gallup Polls conducted in 139 countries between 2006 and 2008 reveal that in countries where a higher percentage of citizens say religion is important in their daily lives people are also more likely to say that their communities are not good places for ethnic or racial minorities to live. However, this trend is not linear. Countries with average levels of religiosity -- comparatively speaking -- report about as much intolerance as the world's most religious countries. ... While this measure of religiosity is significantly related to the average GDP in a country -- meaning the richer a country is, the less likely its residents are to say religion is important in their lives -- the link between religiosity and ethnic and racial intolerance exists beyond the differences that can be explained by national income.
We've also already had this discussion about the strawman of Mao's China being religion-free which is fairly silly. On Hatrack too, so I don't have to reiterate that.
Edit to add: KoM, I was more thinking Hong Kong, Japan but Scandinavia is good too
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I suggest that Mucus was rather referring to present-day European countries, particularly in Scandinavia.
If so, he's not being very intellectually honest. Religion has been fairly effectively "neutered" in Scandinavia but hardly eliminated. In Norway, for example, roughly 80% of the population say they believe in God or some supernatural spirit or life force. Less than 17% identify as atheist.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Religion has been fairly effectively "neutered" in Scandinavia but hardly eliminated. In Norway, for example, roughly 80% of the population say they believe in God or some supernatural spirit or life force. Less than 17% identify as atheist.
"Belief in supernatural" <> "religion".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Edit to add: KoM, I was more thinking Hong Kong, Japan but Scandinavia is good too.
It isn't very intellectually honest to pick and choose only those examples that fit your hypothesis. But accepting that, do a comparison. Explain to me how Hong Kong (where only 20% of the inhabitants practice a religions) is significantly ethically advanced over a place like Germany, where ~70% of the population identify as Christian.
Japan, for example, is really rather appallingly racist and sexist and has done a far worse job than Germany of admitting to and expressing remorse for the serious crimes of WW II. Japan still officially refuses to acknowledge the war crimes they committed in China and Korea. I'm less familiar with Hong Kong. Perhaps you can explain why it is an example of how eliminating religion has elevated the people.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Edit to add: KoM, I was more thinking Hong Kong, Japan but Scandinavia is good too.
It isn't very intellectually honest to pick and choose only those examples that fit your hypothesis. But accepting that, do a comparison. Explain to me how Hong Kong (where only 20% of the inhabitants practice a religions) is significantly ethically advanced over a place like Germany, where ~70% of the population identify as Christian.
Japan, for example, is really rather appallingly racist and sexist and has done a far worse job than Germany of admitting to and expressing remorse for the serious crimes of WW II. Japan still officially refuses to acknowledge the war crimes they committed in China and Korea. I'm less familiar with Hong Kong. Perhaps you can explain why it is an example of how eliminating religion has elevated the people.
A) No one brought up ethics until you did. A better society does not necessarily mean a more ethical one. B) Picking and choosing societal characteristics to determine whether a culture/nation is ethical or not isn't very intellectually honest. For example, intellectual honesty could be considered a more important ethical trait than treating men & women exactly identical. C) It isn't very intellectually honest to substitute in "identify as X religion" for "religious". What people identify as and what people ARE are often two very different things. For example, significantlyly more people are atheists or agnostics than the number of self-identifying atheists and agnostics would lead you to believe. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Religion has been fairly effectively "neutered" in Scandinavia but hardly eliminated. In Norway, for example, roughly 80% of the population say they believe in God or some supernatural spirit or life force. Less than 17% identify as atheist.
"Belief in supernatural" <> "religion".
I would say that for this purpose, the two actually are equal. The issue is belief without evidence, not organisation.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I would say that for this purpose, the two actually are equal. The issue is belief without evidence, not organisation.
I disagree. People that merely believe in God are substantially less likely to be motivated by that belief to act in tangible ways than those that are members of organized religions.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... Perhaps you can explain why it is an example of how eliminating religion has elevated the people.
I appreciate you crafting my "hypothesis" for me and then attacking it. But I note that my initial post on this particular subject is merely that unlike eliminating politics, eliminating religion is "within the realm of possibility."
Even those Gallup polls I linked to were mainly for my illustration of how I identified countries on the leading edge of eliminating religion (I've previously posted them in the context of what I consider positive signs in the level of religiosity in Hong Kong). The fact that they themselves note pretty heartening trends was just a bonus.
Edit to add:
MattP: I'd agree. There are a decent number of superstitious people in Hong Kong for example. So we're talking about properties of food, where to place objects and buildings, and what numbers are unlucky. But unlike an organized religion, without an organizing hierarchy to issue commands, they're mostly harmless.
Even in West, I'd gladly trade Christians for people that believe in knocking on wood, kissing under mistletoe, and omitting floor 13 from buildings.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would make that trade too, but it just makes the problem smaller, it doesn't remove it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
*wonders what I could get in trade for the two of you* Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You're not a Christian but one of the superstitious/life-force/Uberbeing believers, so for you the trade has already been made.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...thanks. Must be the small print on my baptismal certificate. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I must say that even as arguments from authority go, using a baptismal certificate as evidence for being a Christian is more than usually weak.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Almost forgot about this. Yes, I think that a document recording the intent of the person being baptised and the institution charged with deciding whether or not that person should be baptised are more of an authority regarding that person's religion than you are.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As you must well know, I do not consider it sufficient to declare "I am a Christian", although many people who are merely superstitious do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What makes you such an expert?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Basing my beliefs on evidence rather than choice.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So what constitutes evidence that someone is a Christian, in your opinion?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Red C on the forehead.
Duh.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What is your evidence that I am not a Christian?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: So what constitutes evidence that someone is a Christian, in your opinion?
A stated belief in the divinity of Jesus, in his resurrection as fact and as evidence for the said divinity, in a personal afterlife, and in revelation as a means for acquiring truth. Efficacy of prayer, historicity of miracles (other than the resurrection), and baptismal certificates optional.
quote:What is your evidence that I am not a Christian?
Lack of most of the above, plus your statements to the effect that you "choose to believe". Having 'faith' based on what sounds good to you, rather than your best evaluation of the evidence, make you a fad-follower, not a believer.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
2.5 out of 5, I miss the cut!
My ordination committee would be distressed to hear it.
Or not.
Edit: no, wait. Make that 3/5. But the third is is two half-agreements.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I can't say I'm surprised.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would probably say four out of five but that KoM and I don't mean the same thing by any of them.
I believe in the divinity of Jesus. I believe in the Resurrection but my faith does not depend on that belief and "Resurrection" is complicated. It is not evidence of divinity. I believe in a personal aftelife but I don't know what that will look like. You would have to define revelation for me to be able to answer - nor does that speak to the reliability of discerning the truth in any particular "revelation".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Without the miracles performed by Jesus, and in particular the resurrection, the whole thing dissolves into another set of moderately ethical guidelines with no supernatural content, such as anyone with a modicum of charisma and a desire for attention might preach. To "have faith" in such a mish-mash is quite un-necessary; you could just say that you try to follow the guidelines and be done.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jesus would still be God without the miracles.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Without the miracles performed by Jesus, and in particular the resurrection, the whole thing dissolves into another set of moderately ethical guidelines with no supernatural content, such as anyone with a modicum of charisma and a desire for attention might preach. To "have faith" in such a mish-mash is quite un-necessary; you could just say that you try to follow the guidelines and be done.
I think you are trying to take an argument that Christians use against those who argue that Jesus was nothing just a moral teacher and use it in reverse. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in reverse. While it is possible to argue that performing miracles and rising for the dead are sufficient to prove divinity, it hardly follows that they are necessary for divinity. I do not know of any Christians who see it that way.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Without the miracles performed by Jesus, and in particular the resurrection, the whole thing dissolves into another set of moderately ethical guidelines with no supernatural content, such as anyone with a modicum of charisma and a desire for attention might preach. To "have faith" in such a mish-mash is quite un-necessary; you could just say that you try to follow the guidelines and be done.
So that's an argument for including the resurrection. How is it an argument for requiring the idea that the resurrection is evidence of divinity?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Eh, as I've seen throughout my life, Christians are such a varied lot, with so many vastly different sets of beliefs, sometimes contradicting other groups on virtually every point at least to some extent, that honestly, it just seems easiest to take it as a given that if they say they're Christian, they're Christian.
Now, if they go on to say, for example, that they're a good Adventist or a good Mormon... that can be judged slightly more easily. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I generally try to stay away from any argument about who is and who is not a Christian. Such arguments always arise out of an agenda that has little to do actually understanding Christianity or clarifying how an individuals beliefs fit within the broad scope of what might be called Christian beliefs.
I have a simple principal. Allow people to define their own beliefs.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have a simple principal.
Well just because he's slow in the head doesn't mean he can't do a just dandy job of running that school of his.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Jesus would still be God without the miracles.
Well, there you go: This is exactly what I mean by superstition. If Jesus, why not Mohammed? You have no basis for choosing between them; it follows that you are a 'Christian' only because it was the fashion in your home town. I don't consider that a real belief, any more than wearing ripped jeans and dyed hair is a genuine rebellion against social norms. It's just a fashion statement, "I identify with this group against that group".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's just a fashion statement, "I identify with this group against that group".
You are proving that you know absolutely nothing about the motivations of religious people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am becoming convinced that KoM defines Christian as "someone having beliefs regarding Jesus that he can disprove".
Did Mohammed say he was God?
Why do you think my basis for "choosing between them" has to do with miracles?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Without the miracles performed by Jesus, and in particular the resurrection, the whole thing dissolves into another set of moderately ethical guidelines with no supernatural content, such as anyone with a modicum of charisma and a desire for attention might preach. To "have faith" in such a mish-mash is quite un-necessary; you could just say that you try to follow the guidelines and be done.
So that's an argument for including the resurrection. How is it an argument for requiring the idea that the resurrection is evidence of divinity?
I reason thusly: If you do not give some sort of evidence for divinity - if you just say "Jesus was divine" without further argument, as indeed kmb just did - then you're just following fashion. I don't call that conviction, I call it rubbing blue mud in your bellybutton. The resurrection is the most spectacular miracle, it is the one that demonstrates mastery over death ("I bring good news!") and I think you might also find that most believers who are not sophisticated theologians would quote it if asked to give evidence that Jesus was a god. (At least, I hope they would. I admit that I'm very prone to overestimating the intelligence of average people.) It is, further, central to the entire sacrifice-for-your-sins theme; Jesus would hardly be Jesus without the crucifixion, and the resurrection is the miracle that overcomes the punishment and original sin.
I can in principle see that someone might advance a different argument for Jesus's divinity, but it's rather harder to see why they would bother. The promise of Christianity as practiced by the mass of its believers is forgiveness of sins and eternal life; without the resurrection, you have instead got pie in the sky promised by an above-average conman.
I realise this is not the religion you practice, nor your conception of Christianity. That is not a problem for my argument, which is precisely that you are not a Christian as the term is properly understood.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: ... it just seems easiest to take it as a given that if they say they're Christian, they're Christian.
This is what I do. On one hand, it means that Mormons are Christians. On the other hand, it means that (a group of people that believed) the younger brother of Jesus led armies on the battlefield and killed millions (are Christians).
So a bit of a mixed bag, really.
Edit to add: Added the brackets, I was trying to word that properly and edited out a clause by accident. Sorry kmbboots
[ November 05, 2009, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, the problem is that you are not properly understanding the term "Christian."
Mucus, how does that follow?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Did Mohammed say he was God?
Pick someone who did, then. Both Jesus and Mohammed made claims of contact with the supernatural; if you're going to take Jesus's word that he was a god, why not take Mohammed's word that he was the Prophet? You have no stronger evidence, so it all comes down to word against word, and of course local fashion.
quote:Why do you think my basis for "choosing between them" has to do with miracles?
I don't. I said you had no such basis, other than fashion, since you explicitly deny that miracles are the basis.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, the problem is that you are not properly understanding the term "Christian."
Excuse me? We clearly have a disagreement over what "Christian" means; it does not follow that my understanding is wrong and yours is right. Indeed, there is no canonical "Christian" that you can look up somewhere to check that you've got the right definition. If you wish to use the word in a different sense from the way I use it, no worries. It's a free country, for the time being. But if you want to convince me that I should consider you a "Christian" by the definition I find useful, you will not advance that cause by telling me I've got it wrong. And if you want to convince me to use your definition instead of mine, you must advance some argument for why it is better. Just saying "Wrong! Wrong! Lalala!" is not likely to work.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I am becoming convinced that KoM defines Christian as "someone having beliefs regarding Jesus that he can disprove".
In a sense this is true, yes. I consider people Christians (or Muslims, Jews, whatever) if they rest their belief on some evaluation of the available evidence. BlackBlade and Lisa are examples. People who "just believe" I consider mere conformists. Incidentally the converse is also true: There are no doubt plenty of people who are "atheists" because their parents were, or because their parents very much weren't, or because all their friends are, or other reasons that have nothing to do with evidence. Again, although these people have got their facts straight, they are not atheists in the proper sense of the term; they're just fellow-travelers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Did Mohammed say he was God?
Pick someone who did, then. Both Jesus and Mohammed made claims of contact with the supernatural; if you're going to take Jesus's word that he was a god, why not take Mohammed's word that he was the Prophet? You have no stronger evidence, so it all comes down to word against word, and of course local fashion.
It isn't about evidence. What reasons do you have for your speculation about my motivation? Who do you think I am conforming to?
[ November 05, 2009, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE] I consider people Christians (or Muslims, Jews, whatever) if they rest their belief on some evaluation of the available evidence.
Being Jewish is not a matter of belief. Judaism has specific laws that determine who is a Jew.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It isn't about evidence.
Yes, that's what I said. It's about feeling good and belonging to social groups.
quote:What reasons do you have for your speculation about my motivation?
I admit I'm using the hidden assumption that your actions are not completely random. You must get something out of your 'beliefs', although clearly it's not a conviction that they are actually true. Conforming to local custom is the most parsimonious explanation. Had you been born in Turkey, you would instead believe - rather, you would mouth the words - that there is but one god, and Mohammed is his prophet.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE] I consider people Christians (or Muslims, Jews, whatever) if they rest their belief on some evaluation of the available evidence.
Being Jewish is not a matter of belief. Judaism has specific laws that determine who is a Jew.
The Jews are welcome to them. I do not consider them useful, so I will stick to my own definition.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I get all sorts of good from my beliefs. I am convinced that they are true. Most of my social groups are secular. My family is not religious and, in fact, I converted to a specific religion that my parents don't share - one sibling does but she converted after I did.
It is certainly possible that, had I no exposure to Christianity, I would have found some other way to connect with God. I did find Christianity, though, and my belief in it is sincere.
What evidence have you that I am insincere about my convictions?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: Guys, common.
Gah! It spreads! I blame Orincoro!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I did not say you were insincere. Many people quite sincerely believe whatever happens to be convenient for them. But since, as you admit, it's not about evidence, what else do you suggest it's about, if not your own convenience? How nice for you, to believe that the Universe should just happen to be arranged in exactly the way that your delicate psyche is comfortable with! But as a serious argument, well, really now. A child's belief in Santa is equally justified and sincere; it's not about evidence, it's about the dang gifts. But the child is more honest about it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As I have told you before, not everything I believe is convenient.
KoM, it is about faith. I realize that this is beyond your ken, but that it what it comes down to.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, yes, you have a special word for believing whatever you damn well please, especially if it makes you feel good. And to emphasize how good it makes you feel, it is very conveniently a word loaded with positive associations! A perfect self-reinforcing circle, yay! But you must realise that this has nothing to do with truth; it's just a word you invoke when you don't feel like arguing anymore. "I don't have to present evidence, it's about faith". In a question which was actually important to you, you would laugh that to scorn. Since the truth of your beliefs is completely irrelevant to how good they make you feel, you think it's acceptable.
Also, I must say that the 'inconvenience' you quoted the last time we had this discussion, to wit, having to rein in your temper occasionally, does not vastly impress me. Any social system has that requirement; no supernatural beliefs needed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't have to present evidence - nor could I. It isn't about evidence. Not everything is about evidence.
I get that this is frightening for you. It should be frightening. It would be much safer if everything could be measured and proven and explained. Faith is dangerous. Used correctly, it isn't a nice word.
Why do you think that being understandable, provable, measurable to you is a condition of existance?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE] I consider people Christians (or Muslims, Jews, whatever) if they rest their belief on some evaluation of the available evidence.
Being Jewish is not a matter of belief. Judaism has specific laws that determine who is a Jew.
The Jews are welcome to them. I do not consider them useful, so I will stick to my own definition.
I'm with KoM on this. Jews have definitions of who is a Jew and who is not. That is only useful for a Jew. Jews have laws about how to relate to other Jews, and who is Jewish is defined through those specific laws.
But for the purpose of interfaith dialogue and understanding, I think it is more useful for one to categorize someone else based on your best judgment of how that person interacts with evidence, and available doctrine.
I have a friend who is Muslim but tells me that he really is Jewish because Islam is true Judaism. Okay, great. But for my purposes, the guy aint Jewish.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why do you think it's acceptable to make things up, and then believe in your own lie? That's what "not about evidence" comes down to, and it's wrong.
quote:Used correctly, [faith] isn't a nice word.
Quite so. And yet here you are, saying "I have faith". Why are you so eager to claim this filthy word for yourself? You know the consequences it's had in the past; you know it leads millions to believe things you believe wrong; and yet somehow you think it's acceptable when you do it. What makes your faith so dang special? The things you believe are not true. Can you not grow up and deal with this?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't have to present evidence - nor could I. It isn't about evidence. Not everything is about evidence.
I get that this is frightening for you. It should be frightening. It would be much safer if everything could be measured and proven and explained. Faith is dangerous. Used correctly, it isn't a nice word.
Why do you think that being understandable, provable, measurable to you is a condition of existance?
The reason why people stress understanding, provability, measureability and other scientific methods isn't because they love science. Science is a tool. The reason people love these things is because they are a means to a very important end. Truth.
If you don't know the truth, you can be operating under major assumptions that can be quite dangerous to you if proven wrong. Or, under less disastrous mistakes, you may be wasting time, or precious resources.
Belief, if arbitrary, is only meaningful to the extent that it makes you feel good. But it is incredibly dangerous is made without method, and if it disregards the true reality that you live in. Now, you align your beliefs with your moral intuition, which is great - you may not be harming anyone, but you might be harming yourself. You might be in the wrong religion, with disastrous consequences - not necessarily fire and brimstone, but a life of lost opportunity.
Or there might not be any religion, and you have tied yourself down unnecessarily, and helped perpetuate a farce that causes pain and guilt for so many.
So yes. Truth is important so that we can correctly determine reality.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Careful, you're foaming at the mouth just a bit.
Not nice is not the same thing as filthy. The things I believe are true. Prove they aren't.
I do understand the desire to "tame" the universe. Again, what makes you think that being understandable, provable, measurable to you is a condition of existance?
ETA: that was to KoM. Armoth, you might want to tread carefully when you suggest that science is the only way to find truth. You are a man of faith yourself aren't you?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... I have a friend who is Muslim but tells me that he really is Jewish because Islam is true Judaism. Okay, great. But for my purposes, the guy aint Jewish.
Eh, for the purposes of interfaith discussion, to be consistent with my acceptance of "if they say they're Christian, they're Christian" then I'm fine with them being both Muslim and Jewish Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: Again, what makes you think that being understandable, provable, measurable to you is a condition of existence?
Why do you think it's ok to lie, and then repeat the lie so often that you believe it?
quote:The things I believe are true. Prove they aren't.
Simple: Armoth doesn't believe them.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
When we talk about epistemology, we need to analyze what is a source of truth and what is not. Ultimately, it's all going to come down to what each person believes is a reality for him.
Now, if something feels true to him, that is a wonderful reason to say that it IS true. However, they need to hedge that against other truths within him. Ask: Do I have a motivation to believe this is true? Could this be clouding my mind? Is "feeling" something true a valuable way to determine its reality?
Say you believe in Christianity. And say I told you that if you were WRONG about Christianity, you would go to hell...
1) Would you even let the weight of that question sink in? 2) If so, would you still be confident in your belief in it.
The reason to ask those questions is because they show whether you are operating in reality, or whether you are lying to yourself. Lying to yourself isn't always a bad thing - you can chose to be a member of a religion because you find it romantic, and because it is great to be a part of a community - but it is real and you have to accept the consequences that come out of it.
I am not a man of faith. To me, faith = faithfulness, or loyalty. I don't arbitrary believe in what I believe in. I make my judgments based on evidence. The result of which is that I obligate myself to things that sometimes don't always align with my moral intuition. You, clearly place higher epistomological value on your moral intuition than on your own faith.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The things I believe are true. Prove they aren't.
Here you go Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, you can no more scientifically prove the existence of God than I can.
Not being able to scientifically prove something does not make it arbitrary.
Elmer's Glue, so?
ETA: Okay. That was a little harsh. That kind of proof works very well for a lot of things. It doesn't work for everything.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Sure I can. Logic is a science, and i can more logically prove the existence of God than you can.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Without the miracles performed by Jesus, and in particular the resurrection, the whole thing dissolves into another set of moderately ethical guidelines with no supernatural content, such as anyone with a modicum of charisma and a desire for attention might preach. To "have faith" in such a mish-mash is quite un-necessary; you could just say that you try to follow the guidelines and be done.
I think you are trying to take an argument that Christians use against those who argue that Jesus was nothing just a moral teacher and use it in reverse. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in reverse. While it is possible to argue that performing miracles and rising for the dead are sufficient to prove divinity, it hardly follows that they are necessary for divinity. I do not know of any Christians who see it that way.
Well, to me, Jesus says several times in effect, "If you do not believe I am who I say I am, look at my works (including miracles) I could not do the things I do, if I was lying about being the son of God."
Or after Jesus cleared the temple of money changers the Pharisees asked him by what authority he did what he did. When in invoked his father's name, they asked him for a sign, and he said, "Tear down this temple and in three days I will raise it up again." A clear indication of his resurrection down the road. If Jesus had failed to resurrect, it would have demonstrated that he didn't know what he was talking about in the temple.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Those people may have needed the evidence of miracles. I don't. Which is good because what I have is stories of miracles written down by people who heard stories of miracles. I believe those stories, but they are not evidence.
BB, remember the people who were telling the stories already knew that Jesus was resurrected.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: I believe those stories, but they are not evidence.
A rare nugget of sense among the river of wrongness. This is of course the mistake that BlackBlade makes, to mistake hearsay for evidence. But that is a lesser evil than to think oneself so special as to need no evidence at all!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And you seem to think I am unique somehow. Really. Not so much.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You two don't understand what I am saying. Miracles are evidence of Jesus' divinity because if we assume he didn't perform them, that makes Jesus challenge that only somebody sent from God could do the mighty works he was doing self convicting. Jesus is the one insisting his miracles are evidence of his divinity.
Either Jesus was the son of God and therefore able to use God's power to perform miracles, or else he was a liar and wasn't really performing miracles. Or else he is a liar and performed miracles by some other way.
In anycase, you can't take Jesus' miracles away and say he was still the messiah.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You two don't understand what I am saying.
I don't quite see what I'm misunderstanding. Obviously the miracles are evidence of Jesus's divinity, or would be if they were true. Your mistake lies in assuming that the stories of the miracles are correct. Why those particular miracle stories, and not the ones from Norse mythology? Which, incidentally, has a much broader attestation in non-oral-tradition evidence than the Jesus stories do.
quote:Either Jesus was the son of God and therefore able to use God's power to perform miracles, or else he was a liar and wasn't really performing miracles. Or else he is a liar and performed miracles by some other way.
Or a third party lied about the miracles, or indeed about the whole thing.
quote:And you seem to think I am unique somehow. Really. Not so much.
No, no, a lot of people make the same mistake, but that's hardly a defense!
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Those people may have needed the evidence of miracles. I don't. Which is good because what I have is stories of miracles written down by people who heard stories of miracles. I believe those stories, but they are not evidence.
BB, remember the people who were telling the stories already knew that Jesus was resurrected.
Are you a pluralist? Do you believe that it is alright for someone to be a Muslim or Jew?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BB: you overlook the possibility that he didn't say exactly what you believe he said.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: BB: you overlook the possibility that he didn't say exactly what you believe he said.
Then we are back to Jesus simply being a moral teacher anyway. What else would make him divine other than a mandate from heaven to do divine work?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think fugu was arguing against your evidence, rather than your logic.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes. For instance, he could be the son of God, not have done miracles, and never said that his miracles were proof of him being the son of God. That is a possibility not enumerated by you that is logically consistent.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Sure I can. Logic is a science, and i can more logically prove the existence of God than you can.
Knock yourself out. It will amuse KoM.
Yes, I think that it is "okay" for people to be Muslims or Jews.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well, to me, Jesus says several times in effect, "If you do not believe I am who I say I am, look at my works (including miracles) I could not do the things I do, if I was lying about being the son of God."
Which is puzzling, when you think about it. I mean, what had he done? Healed lepers? Elisha did that. Resurrected the dead? Both Elisha and Elijah did that, and Elisha did it again after he was dead. Walked on water? Well, Elisha made an axe head float to the surface. Bread and fishes? Elisha did that, and he made a pitcher pour a never ending stream of oil, too.
So was he trying to say that Elisha and Elijah were sons of God?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The things I believe are true. Prove they aren't.
Hee. I like it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I am not a man of faith. To me, faith = faithfulness, or loyalty. I don't arbitrary believe in what I believe in. I make my judgments based on evidence. The result of which is that I obligate myself to things that sometimes don't always align with my moral intuition. You, clearly place higher epistomological value on your moral intuition than on your own faith.
Amen v'amen.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Knock yourself out. It will amuse KoM.
Quite the demonstration of open-mindedness, there, especially since Armoth was responding to a challenge you posted yourself.
quote:Which is puzzling, when you think about it. I mean, what had he done? Healed lepers? Elisha did that. Resurrected the dead? Both Elisha and Elijah did that, and Elisha did it again after he was dead. Walked on water? Well, Elisha made an axe head float to the surface. Bread and fishes? Elisha did that, and he made a pitcher pour a never ending stream of oil, too.
You're assuming a level of consistency-checking which just didn't exist prior to industrialistion. People don't think like this on a large scale without being socialised into doing so, and in fact this is rarely accomplished even now.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well, to me, Jesus says several times in effect, "If you do not believe I am who I say I am, look at my works (including miracles) I could not do the things I do, if I was lying about being the son of God."
Which is puzzling, when you think about it. I mean, what had he done? Healed lepers? Elisha did that. Resurrected the dead? Both Elisha and Elijah did that, and Elisha did it again after he was dead. Walked on water? Well, Elisha made an axe head float to the surface. Bread and fishes? Elisha did that, and he made a pitcher pour a never ending stream of oil, too.
So was he trying to say that Elisha and Elijah were sons of God?
No, but Elisha and Elijah claimed to be prophets of God, meaning if they said they were prophets, but were not, they could not have done those things either.
edit: ----- fugu13: That is a possibility it's true.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I get that this is frightening for you. It should be frightening. It would be much safer if everything could be measured and proven and explained. Faith is dangerous.
Your church killed innocent men, women and children for "faith". Thousands and thousands and thousands of them. Gutted by swords, torn apart on the rack, burned alive.
So yes, faith is very dangerous. Closing one's eyes to reality is dangerous. Unfortunately, it's dangerous to more people than just the believer.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It won't amuse me. He can try; he will fail to provide scientific proof. You seem to like that sort of thing. Do you think he will come up with anything you haven't already seen?
Yes, swbarnes, I said that faith is dangerous for a reason.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, but what have I got to do with anything? Anyway, back to the question that interests me: Why do you think it's ok to believe lies, provided you label them 'faith'?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You are the one calling them lies. Prove that they are.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It won't amuse me. He can try; he will fail to provide scientific proof. You seem to like that sort of thing. Do you think he will come up with anything you haven't already seen?
Last time (that I saw) he used a relatively unsophisticated version of the Argument from Design.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Again, Science is a tool. You can't prove anything scientifically. All science can do is carry you from point A, to point B.
For instance, I can't prove that you exist, but I can test your blood and tell you what blood type you are.
The reason I can do that is based on a number of assumptions that we both agree to.
I can't prove God like I can't prove that you exist. But, thankfully, what we value as credible evidence upon which we rely on, upon which often stake our lives on - that sort of evidence, i can provide.
The same reasons I would bet my life on the existence of China, although I have never been there...
So no, my "proofs" will not be new, but if you want me to, I can attempt to show that the standard upon which we intuitively rely upon for determining our confidence that something is a reality, under that standard which we use in our everyday lives, you can prove God.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You are the one calling them lies. Prove that they are.
How can they be anything else, when you admit to making them up?!
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It won't amuse me. He can try; he will fail to provide scientific proof. You seem to like that sort of thing. Do you think he will come up with anything you haven't already seen?
Last time (that I saw) he used a relatively unsophisticated version of the Argument from Design.
This is what I hate about the internet. I'm right here you know, I can read that.
I'm not used to condescension until a few rounds into an argument.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I apologize. It does read snider than I meant it to. However, in the thread I was thinking of, you were making an argument that has been around and been refined substantially over a significant period of time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not to mention refuted rather convincingly.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Pretty much all the arguments and counter-arguments have been around forever. The only thing we can offer is new perspectives, not new arguments.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Indeed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No. When an argument is refuted, you should not give a new perspective on that argument, you should give it up.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
The argument wasn't refuted. If it fails, it fails because a perspective of the person hearing the argument.
One such perspective is that life sure would be hard. Or, "I've been believing the opposite my entire life." or, PROVE it to me - what? You can't prove god, or that I exist? Then it's all stupid anyways, and so I don't care. Or, I don't want to believe in God, because if he exists, he sure is mean...
Basically, false perspectives.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Armoth: you seem to be confusing a refutation of a proof of god and a disproof of god. A refutation of a proof of god just means that proof either has a false premise or a step not supported by the rules of logic; it does not mean the existence of god has been disproven.
All arguments for god (relying on evidence generally available) that I am aware of have been refuted.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Hm. I think you're right.
Right. What I offer is not a proof, only a large probability.
But a probability large enough to be compelling and obligating.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:One such perspective is that life sure would be hard. Or, "I've been believing the opposite my entire life." or, PROVE it to me - what? You can't prove god, or that I exist? Then it's all stupid anyways, and so I don't care. Or, I don't want to believe in God, because if he exists, he sure is mean...
I can see you've beaten up a lot of straw men lately.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
In case there was ambiguity, my "indeed" was to KoM's comment about the argument being refuted.
As far as Armoth's comment: it depends what he means by 'perspective'. For example, I don't have a problem with someone updating an argument based on new scientific knowledge. For example, one might have thought that the First Cause argument was strengthened by the Big Bang (it's not). I do agree that it is very hard to come up with an entirely knew argument for the existence of god.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Right. What I offer is not a proof, only a large probability.
But a probability large enough to be compelling and obligating.
I think you will find it very hard to meaningfully measure what is probable or not. How would you argue for the high probability?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Without the miracles performed by Jesus, and in particular the resurrection, the whole thing dissolves into another set of moderately ethical guidelines with no supernatural content, such as anyone with a modicum of charisma and a desire for attention might preach. To "have faith" in such a mish-mash is quite un-necessary; you could just say that you try to follow the guidelines and be done.
So that's an argument for including the resurrection. How is it an argument for requiring the idea that the resurrection is evidence of divinity?
I reason thusly: If you do not give some sort of evidence for divinity - if you just say "Jesus was divine" without further argument, as indeed kmb just did - then you're just following fashion. I don't call that conviction, I call it rubbing blue mud in your bellybutton. The resurrection is the most spectacular miracle, it is the one that demonstrates mastery over death ("I bring good news!") and I think you might also find that most believers who are not sophisticated theologians would quote it if asked to give evidence that Jesus was a god. (At least, I hope they would. I admit that I'm very prone to overestimating the intelligence of average people.) It is, further, central to the entire sacrifice-for-your-sins theme; Jesus would hardly be Jesus without the crucifixion, and the resurrection is the miracle that overcomes the punishment and original sin.
I can in principle see that someone might advance a different argument for Jesus's divinity, but it's rather harder to see why they would bother. The promise of Christianity as practiced by the mass of its believers is forgiveness of sins and eternal life; without the resurrection, you have instead got pie in the sky promised by an above-average conman.
I realise this is not the religion you practice, nor your conception of Christianity. That is not a problem for my argument, which is precisely that you are not a Christian as the term is properly understood.
So if a person believed that Jesus was divine and that he was resurrected, but believed that God could, in theory, resurrect anyone, divine or not, and therefore the resurrection is not proof of Jesus divinity, they're just following fashion and not really a Christian?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So if a person believed that Jesus was divine and that he was resurrected, but believed that God could, in theory, resurrect anyone, divine or not, and therefore the resurrection is not proof of Jesus divinity, they're just following fashion and not really a Christian?
I think that's picking a fairly minor nit, Dana. "Divinity" in this case is obviously being used to mean "extra-sooper-specialness," not necessarily "actually and fully a god."
That said, KoM certainly deserves to be the recipient of nit-picking, so pick away.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Seems KoM is practicing the no true scotsman fallacy. Kind of turns things around, doesn't it?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Divinity" in this case is obviously being used to mean "extra-sooper-specialness," not necessarily "actually and fully a god."
That wouldn't be consistant with his criteria, I think.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Meh, edge cases. I'd classify such a person as Christian on the grounds that they believe in miracles and that Jesus was the recipient of one, pending further discussion of what they thought the basis of their faith was. In any case I care less about making the definition super consistent than about making it useful.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: When we talk about epistemology, we need to analyze what is a source of truth and what is not. Ultimately, it's all going to come down to what each person believes is a reality for him.
That's not the value of epistemology, nor is that what it comes down to.
EXPLAINED
quote:That's the problem though, given the extremely fallible nature of human memory (and I mean extremely - one of my professors was able to implant totally false memories in research participants just by suggesting their parents had told him about the event), and our tendencies to both more easily remember things that agree with our points of view (... Read Moreconfirmation bias) and overemphasize certain events over others (attentional bias), we have a tendency to believe more strongly in things we see or hear about that agree with our own ideas, even if they're no more likely than even chance. Without subjecting ideas to statistical analysis, double blind studies, and rigorous controls of some kind we're depending on individuals to be utterly unbiased in their examination of the facts, and humans never evolved to be unbiased - biases are really useful for day-to-day survival, but not for logic.
epistemological sciences are differentiated from casual, personal, anecdotal, etc interpretations because they compensate for how ridiculously fantasy and fallacy prone our own interpretations trend towards.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Meh, edge cases. I'd classify such a person as Christian on the grounds that they believe in miracles and that Jesus was the recipient of one, pending further discussion of what they thought the basis of their faith was. In any case I care less about making the definition super consistent than about making it useful.
I would argue that such "edge cases" (of which that was only one example) constitute a large percentage of Christians over the entire history of Christianity.
But it appears that your definition boils down to "people my favorite arguments apply to are really Christian, anyone else is just following along." I can see where that would be useful, I guess.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In any case I care less about making the definition super consistent than about making it useful.
I think that a definition that cuts out a large number of people who call themselves 'Christians' from being Christians is not a very useful one.
A definition that only cuts out a few percent is probably workable, but I think yours eliminates 30-50%, if not more.
It's about the difference between what things should be, and what they are. You might argue that Christians should be defined by claiming to believe based on evidence that all those points or true, but your 'should' isn't more important than the way the Christian population defines itself, and they include a lot of people that you say 'shouldn't' be included.
Your argument is not very distant from one on another thread, where one pesron is arguing that marriage should be primarily about having children, and everyone else is saying "But it's not, because lots of married people don't think that their marriages are primarily about that. Most of them think it's about love between adults, and kids come after that."
I think that the number of self-defiend Christians you'd exclude, and the numbers of self-described married couples Clive'd exclude are comparable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If we were talking about civil rights for Christians, sure. (I'm agin them, as you no doubt knew.) But in fact this is an internal classification scheme for myself, to use
a) When arguing with theists; do I need to educate them in the importance of evidence (as with kmb) or can I take that as a foundation and hammer on the quality of the evidence (as with BlackBlade and Armoth)? b) When I become dictator; is there hope for a re-education camp, or should it just be straight to the biodiesel vats?
That said, perhaps I wrote the requirements a bit hastily; the real distinction is between basing beliefs on evidence (Christian/Moslem/atheist) and basing them on whatever happens to be around you (fellow-traveler). I then got a bit sidetracked by having to limit it to Christians instead of theists, and thus needing to include the divinity-of-Jesus bits.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So...pretty much narrowing it down to whoever needs evidence you can refute. Well that makes it easy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm still willing to argue with fellow-travelers, you'll note. The question is what we're arguing about. Incidentally, have you come up with a distinction between "having faith" and "making things up" yet?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What do you claim that I have "made up"? And again, any evidence for this "fellow-travel" theory of yours?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you believe X, and cannot offer evidence for it, then you have made up X, possibly with help from other people. I don't say that your religion is particularly original.
Evidence for fellow-traveling seems rather good: The hypothesis is that there are people who claim to be Christians and to base their beliefs on evidence; and there are also people who claim to be Christians and not to base their beliefs on evidence. Since we have explicit examples of both in this very thread, I must say I don't feel any great need for more data.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How are you using evidence here? Scientific proof type evidence or Tresopaxish reasons to believe something that are not proof type evidence?
And how does it follow that something one cannot prove must be made up? You got proof for that?
And what is your evidence - or even reasons for believing - regarding my motivation for believing what I believe? Or are you just making that up? Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:How are you using evidence here?
The kind of evidence that, you say, "it's not about".
quote:And how does it follow that something one cannot [show evidence for] must be made up?
Fixed that for you. Simple: If it were neither made up nor based in evidence, where did it come from? There is no third option. Take the story of the little pigs and the big bad wolf; either this is based on a real incident, for which the original story-teller's tale is evidence; or else someone made it up. Would you like to offer a third option?
quote:And what is your evidence - or even reasons for believing - regarding my motivation for believing what I believe?
Observation of primate behaviour in other circumstances.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
All sorts of other options, inspiration, revelation. Records of the original story tellers are reason to believe; they are not scientific evidence.
Observations of primate behavior. That is not terribly convincing on its face. Do you wan't to elaborate (and give evidence) as to how your observation applies to me? Or not. Up to you.
Can I use "observation of primates" as evidence, too?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If it were neither made up nor based in evidence, where did it come from? There is no third option.
There's an enormous distinction between not having evidence for something and not having evidence that you can show someone.
You can hammer away at this as long and as loudly as you want, but you're never going to make them the same. Your attempt to turn "You can't be sure that X is true" into "X isn't true" is never going to be successful.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm comfortable with uncertainty, evidence that isn't conclusive, and to a limited extent even evidence from personal experience, making due allowance for its known unreliability. But kmb is making the assertion that evidence does not matter at all, which is quite a different matter.
quote:All sorts of other options, inspiration, revelation. Records of the original story tellers are reason to believe; they are not scientific evidence.
Pardon me, they certainly are. You appear to be confusing 'evidence' with 'proof' or perhaps with 'conclusive evidence'.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But kmb is making the assertion that evidence does not matter at all, which is quite a different matter.
No, she isn't.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It's not about evidence
quote:[I]t is about faith
quote:I don't have to present evidence - nor could I. It isn't about evidence. Not everything is about evidence.
quote:The things I believe are true. Prove they aren't.
quote:Those people may have needed the evidence of miracles. I don't. Which is good because what I have is stories of miracles written down by people who heard stories of miracles. I believe those stories, but they are not evidence.
quote:Jesus would still be God without the miracles.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So all the stuff that Tresopax was talking about, evidence or not evidence?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE] I consider people Christians (or Muslims, Jews, whatever) if they rest their belief on some evaluation of the available evidence.
Being Jewish is not a matter of belief. Judaism has specific laws that determine who is a Jew.
An interesting article, perhaps relevant
quote:Britain has nearly 7,000 publicly financed religious schools, representing Judaism as well as the Church of England, Catholicism and Islam, among others. Under a 2006 law, the schools can in busy years give preference to applicants within their own faiths, using criteria laid down by a designated religious authority.
By many standards, the JFS applicant, identified in court papers as “M,” is Jewish. But not in the eyes of the school, which defines Judaism under the Orthodox definition set out by Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. Because M’s mother converted in a progressive, not an Orthodox, synagogue, the school said, she was not a Jew — nor was her son. It turned down his application.
...
In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school admissions on a classic test of Judaism — whether one’s mother is Jewish — was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was “benign or malignant, theological or supremacist,” the court wrote, “makes it no less and no more unlawful.”
The case rested on whether the school’s test of Jewishness was based on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it concerned the status of M’s mother rather than whether M considered himself Jewish and practiced Judaism.
“The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act,” the court said. It added that while it was fair that Jewish schools should give preference to Jewish children, the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but “on faith, however defined.” The same reasoning would apply to a Christian school that “refused to admit a child on the ground that, albeit practicing Christians, the child’s family were of Jewish origin,” the court said.
There is the caveat that this is in the context of publicly funded schools (which may or may not be treated differently from privately funded schools).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It sucks, but don't take public money if you don't want to have to live with stupid public rules.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It sucks, but don't take public money if you don't want to have to live with stupid public rules.
Agreed. The court decided well, though the result is funny.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
No Orthodox Jew should ever refer to any rule as stupid.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: No Orthodox Jew should ever refer to any rule as stupid.
Ace, I think what you said is incredibly offensive, and you never would have said it if we were face to face.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: No Orthodox Jew should ever refer to any rule as stupid.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: No Orthodox Jew should ever refer to any rule as stupid.
You saved your bimonthly post for that??=
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I do agree that it is very hard to come up with an entirely knew argument for the existence of god.
What about an entirely gnu argument for the existence of god?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So all the stuff that Tresopax was talking about, evidence or not evidence?
Tres has got the definition correct: "Evidence for X is that which moves you towards belief in X". He applies it wrongly, in that he took his pre-existing belief "Qualia are non-physical" and then applied "evidence by personal incredulity" (I don't see how these phenomena can be just electrons) to strengthen his pre-existing conclusion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oh, I have a whole lifetime of stuff that "moves me towards belief". It is not generally transferable, though and each individual bit of stuff is sufficiently open to interpretation that, if I chose to, I could interpret it differently.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I do agree that it is very hard to come up with an entirely knew argument for the existence of god.
What about an entirely gnu argument for the existence of god?
Well, there's always, "Nu, of course He exists."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Oh, I have a whole lifetime of stuff that "moves me towards belief". It is not generally transferable, though and each individual bit of stuff is sufficiently open to interpretation that, if I chose to, I could interpret it differently.
So you know that your evidence is not strong enough to cause belief in any other circumstance; but you assiduously believe anyway. Tell me, when you read 1984, did the concept of "doublethink" remind you of anything? To assert as truth that which you well know you had to consciously decide to be convinced of: This is a lie, and you a bald-faced liar.
And your case is actually worse than Orwell's imagination could come up with: A doublethinker who asserts the truth of X will ignore the quality of his evidence for X, but he acknowledges that evidence is necessary. He is merely careful to not to let himself know what the evidence actually is. You, on the other hand, are nowhere near as constrained by the demands of rationality: You baldly assert that evidence is irrelevant, conveniently sparing yourself the trouble of forgetting how bad yours is. Can you not see that this is evil? By your method, there is no need for torture to assert that two and two make five; no, you'll just acknowledge that two fingers on each hand do in fact make four, and discard this as irrelevant: "It's not about evidence"!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:So you know that your evidence is not strong enough to cause belief in any other circumstance; but you assiduously believe anyway. Tell me, when you read 1984, did the concept of "doublethink" remind you of anything?
That isn't true. In many circumstances, I believe without evidence that can only be interpreted one way or that would be transferable enough to use as proof for someone else.
How do you know what Orwell's imagination could have come up with? Perhaps he thought of much worse things but was too horrified to share them? Not a reasonable explanation, but prove your hypothesis is correct.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Here is the Orwell I was thinking of, related to doublethink but not exactly the same; it is in "Notes on Nationalism":
quote:When one considers the elaborate forgeries that have been committed in order to show that Trotsky did not play a valuable part in the Russian civil war, it is difficult to feel that the people responsible are merely lying. More probably they feel that their own version was what happened in the sight of God, and that one is justified in rearranging the records accordingly.
"In the sight of God"! Truly, a perfect phrase for describing your belief!
quote:Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events.
And, of course, "It's not about evidence".
quote:Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to FEEL that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him.
When you, calling yourself a Christian, say that if the Resurrection were shown not to have happened, this would not shake your faith - then I think a better fit to "uninterested in what happens in the real world" would be hard to find. For of course it's not about evidence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: [QB]
quote:So you know that your evidence is not strong enough to cause belief in any other circumstance; but you assiduously believe anyway. Tell me, when you read 1984, did the concept of "doublethink" remind you of anything?
That isn't true. In many circumstances, I believe without evidence that can only be interpreted one way or that would be transferable enough to use as proof for someone else.
Would you accept the "things that move you towards belief" as evidence for, let's say, the proposition that the Earth is round? You would not. Nor would you try to say "It can be interpreted other ways" or "It's not transferable"; because in all things other than religion, you know perfectly well that these are nitwit games which do not lead to truth.
quote:How do you know what Orwell's imagination could have come up with? Perhaps he thought of much worse things but was too horrified to share them?
Oh sure, attack a throwaway phrase unimportant to the actual argument. I don't care whether Orwell was capable of imagining the Escher drawing that passes for your mind. The point here is that you are behaving rather worse than the dystopic villains he did in fact portray.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nonsense. People take action with less "proof" that that all the time. Say, crossing the street. We put ourselves in the path of cars that could quite likely kill us on the assumption that they will stop at stop signs and traffic lights. We even have evidence to the contrary. We know that cars don't always stop yet we trust our lives to the belief that they will because most of the time it works for us.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Could you please try to distinguish between "Good enough evidence" and "complete, 100% proof"? We very reasonably believe that cars will stop at stop signs this time because they do so in 99.9% of cases, and we have run the experiment many times. To cross the street in these circumstances is not an act of faith, it is a weighing of evidence against costs. But your 'evidence' is - you admit this - of the same order as that of a pedestrian in some third-world hellhole, where stop signs are completely optional and what would otherwise be the brake pedal is connected instead to the horn, who decides that nonetheless, the oncoming truck will stop for him. This is a leap of faith from insufficient evidence, and if you weren't emotionally attached to your beliefs you would call it stupid.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We make huge life changing decisions based on our belief in the reliability of the love of a partner or spouse when evidence everywhere you look shows that such love is, as often as not, unreliable. We choose to rely on such love anyway because we are emotionally attached and because our lives are better because we do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:because our lives are better because we do.
Are they, indeed? All those divorced people - and their children - would say "I do" all over again, then, if given a chance to go back and re-decide?
Further, the analogy breaks down: People go into marriage with their eyes open, knowing that yes, love does fail, but willing to give it a try. They do not assert "I know that my wife/husband will love me until death; evidence has nothing to do with it" because they realise that it would be stupid.
And, finally: If other people behave in a silly manner, is that an excuse for you to do so?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Also, IIRC, the marriage rate has been seen significant decreases, the age of first marriage has been increasing, and it would not surprise me if the number of pre-nupitals has increased in recent years.
It can not be said that people are not adjusting to the risks of marriage in this day and age.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Other people meaning most of the human race? Yeah. Pretty much.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If other people lie and deceive, is that an excuse for you to do so?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And how would I be lying and deceiving?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Suppose a jury were to say "We don't think the evidence shows this, but we're pretty sure he's guilty"; what do you call it? I call it dishonesty, lie, and deception, and it is precisely what you admit to doing. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What kind of evidence are we talking about again. The transferable, only can be interpreted one way kind of the reason enough to believe kind? Do we think the juries evidence shows something else? Are we talking about forcing other people (the defendant) to abide by evidence that is interpretable and non-transferable? Do you assume I do that?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think the distinction you're drawing between two kinds of evidence is very relevant. Subjective experience is evidence too; it's just that there are so many other subjective religious experiences that are evidence of completely different things than what you conclude, that the only honest appraisal must be "The mind is capable of getting into states quite unconnected with the actual state of the Universe."
Look at it from still another angle: Suppose the jury had said "It's not about evidence; we're sure he's guilty." What do you call that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would say that juries have a different standard of evidence than matters of faith and that is how it should be. Juries for civil trials have a different standard of evidence than juries in criminal trials. Science has a different standard of evidence than either faith or juries. So do crossing the street and falling in love.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I understand it perfectly, and I reject your application of it as immoral. Juries have standards of evidence that represent a trade-off between finding truth, and spending the entire resources of society on nothing but court cases. We accept, of necessity, that they will have a certain error rate. Similarly for crossing the street, and for falling in love. But in none of these cases do we say "Evidence is unimportant", and anyone who did would be regarded as foolish, dishonest, or outright evil, depending on the application. To have a standard of evidence with some accepted error rate is one thing. To simply dismiss evidence with a cavalier "Oh well, I choose to believe" is a lie.
What's more, in other matters we apply more stringent standards as the matter becomes more important. Nobody looks up accident rates before crossing the street; we date for a year or two before marrying; we require criminal guilt to be shown "beyond reasonable doubt"; and you must have five-sigma evidence before you can claim to have discovered a new particle. Are you seriously going to claim that your faith is less important to you than crossing the street?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Although, come to think of it, that does raise the possibility of a whole new set of jokes.
Q: Why did the chicken cross the street? A: To redeem the sins of mankind.
Q: What's on the Other Side? A: Life eternal.
Q: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? A: The Chicken, the Egg, and the Holy Rooster are eternal, outside of time, and uncaused. They exist in a mystical unity, none of them prior to any other.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have a lot more evidence for "crossing the street is dangerous" than you have for "God does not exist".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I hope you do not believe that this is an honest argument which can be made in good faith. When you assert the existence of X, the burden of proof is on you: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You know this, and you apply it correctly to unicorns, leprechauns, and all gods except the vaguely Christianic one you profess belief in. I suggest that your last post does not live up to the standards of honesty and fair dealing which you probably think your faith enjoins you to hold.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You know this. Or is your last sentence meant to imply that you don't have to be honest?
Again, different questions have different standards of evidence. I have more reason to believe in God than I do in unicorns or leprechauns - though there could be kernels of truth hidden in legend. Stories of rhinos maybe? There are also, I think, kernels of truth is stories of "other gods". People trying to make sense of the universe and the divine and their relationship with both get bits right. I think the Christianity gets more bits right, but isn't the whole of truth.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You know this. Or is your last sentence meant to imply that you don't have to be honest?
Absence of evidence because you haven't looked properly is a far, far different thing than absence of evidence after you've tried every test anyone can think of for thousands of years. The orignal context was a cosmologist, pointing out that since we could barely examine other planets, it was premature to conclude that none of them had life, based on the lack of evidence. The phrase was later used by Carl Sagan in his "Baloney Detection kit". Believe me, there's nothing there that will help your arguement, including this out of context quote.
Besides, this is by far the more relevant Carl Sagan quote:
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”
And one might throw in:
“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Or is your last sentence meant to imply that you don't have to be honest?
It is an attempt to appeal to your better nature, such as it is.
quote:Again, different questions have different standards of evidence.
And again, you are applying a lesser standard to your faith than to crossing the street!
quote:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You know this.
I know nothing of the kind; were it so, I should have to conclude that unicorns, leprechauns, Greek gods, and Alaskan politicians with foreign-policy experience all exist with equal probability. Again, I invite you to carefully draw the distinction between evidence and proof; absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but it is certainly very suggestive when millions of people have spent years looking.
To attempt to shift the discussion to "proof for nonexistence" is dishonest; there is a difference between absence of belief, and belief in absence, and there is such a thing as a degree of confidence. You accuse me of absolutism, yet you are the one who insists on certainty, even to the extend of 'choosing' to believe where no compelling evidence exists, and requiring proof of absence before you will abandon that cowardly lie.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)