EDit to add: PSI, I understand that you think atheists and agnostics and people who don't believe Christ was divine are doomed. And I understand why you want to convince us. Just don't be surprised when you fail. Hey, and maybe you will convert someone.
posted
This will fall hideously out of place because it happened a couple pages ago, but oh well.
Jacare, the idea that "a whole bunch of people say something similar, so the basic intersection of their accounts is at the minimum likely to be true" is hideously fallacious for a number of reasons.
Firstly, every person who has false visions is a useless data point. The existence or nonexistence of that person has absolutely no impact on the existence of a phenomenon, since they never observed the phenomenon.
Secondly, I can come up with a whole bunch of people throughout history who have had revelations of multiple gods. I can also come up with a whole bunch of people throughout history who have had revelations of space aliens seeding planet earth with life. If we're accepting the "so many people experienced it it must be true argument", then either both these types of revelations are correct as well, or there is some limit below which we do not accept such revelations. If there is such a limit, I ask for an empirical test to determine it, and an analysis of why the number of people with monotheistic revelations is above that limit, and the numbers of everyone with contradictory revelations is below.
If you can't provide me with that analysis, then I don't need to attack the reasoning of the argument itself (which is hideously fallacious), as the argument will have been shown to not be useful.
From a purely historical point of view, Christianity and Islam (the only two really big monotheistic religions) were successful because they were in the historically right places at the right time. You may believe that their being there is a testament to God's influence, but that's an personal belief, not a historical fact. The historical fact is that an adaptable system of rituals, psychologically generally healthy belief system, well-founded community building practices, and influence on a few people at thte right time are what led to the spread and success of Christianity and Islam.
It's worth noting that a few of the people influential to the spread of Christianity were not practicing Christians themselves, such as Constantine. This would seem to belie the revelation hypothesis for the spread of Christianity, since presumably someone who had a revelation from God would practice God's law.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI- I promise to "try" God if you promise to try Hinduism.
For it to be a good, honest try, each of us will have to try to believe with all our might in the particular religion. For instance, I have to pray to God and you have to pray to the various Hindu deities. Also, obeying the various religious rules as much as possible (which version of Christianity do you think is correct? Will any work for this purpose? What about the ones that say all the others are wrong (ie, most)?
Consider if you would be willing to try it (particularly the prayer thing). Now do you see how fruitless and even offensive trying to do this to others can be?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to try a religion, try Zen. So far I've found it to be the most interesting of all of the religions I've studied.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm not saying it won't work on anybody. But those who are established in their beliefs . . . rarely.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do most who do believe in god insist that god is a "he"? Do you not allow for god to be a she? or sexless? or all sexes? And does it even need to have human form? or any form?
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except for LDS most denominations that I know of do not believe God is male. They still use “he” because of the (IMO lame) idea that it is somehow usable as a gender-neutral pronoun.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I agree with dkw that most denominations believe so, I think most Christians do believe God is male.
I've noticed that, how by far most Christians I meet will in one breath assert that their denomination is the most correct and that they believe what their denomination's beliefs, and in another assert some belief that is not, and often one even contradictory to a belief of the denomination.
There are numerous Christians unlike this as well, but it is a disturbingly common occurrence.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A disturbingly common occurrence which at times makes teaching confirmation classes a experience.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: PSI- I promise to "try" God if you promise to try Hinduism
This is an interesting thing to address. I don't think that asking someone who doesn't seem to believe in anything to just try and believe in something is offensive. However, I wouldn't ask someone who had a specific set of religious beliefs already to switch...if they really believe what they're preaching, then asking them to change would be pointless.
Actually, this leads me to a question for atheists. Duragon was talking about religious beliefs infringing upon his rights as a non-Christian, i.e. outlawing late-term abortion, etc. I'm curious to know this. Why does it irritate atheists to have religion in the school? This is a serious question, not criticism. As a more immature person, my opinion was basically, "If you don't believe in anything, than what do you care?" But I realize that one trite statement can't sum up all of your feelings. I mean, if you don't have to participate, is it actually going against your rights?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, by your definition of proof, wouldn't there be just as much proof that Zeus, Poseidon, Thor, et. al. existed?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with fugu. Most do support religious studies. Unfortunately, the people who want religion taught in school, want their religion taught and none of the others.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, maybe this was an isolated incident. I was thinking specifically of the man that sued because he didn't want his daughter saying "One nation, Under God." What was his deal?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imagine if people tried to make your child say: "There is no God" in school and maybe you'll understand.
OK, that came off a little hars, but I don't want to have any of my children forced to say that something or someone exists when I don't think that they/it does (do).
quote: This is an interesting thing to address. I don't think that asking someone who doesn't seem to believe in anything to just try and believe in something is offensive. However, I wouldn't ask someone who had a specific set of religious beliefs already to switch...if they really believe what they're preaching, then asking them to change would be pointless.
I beg to differ PSI. How can an athiest's firm belief that there is not a God, and the Universe is void of such dieties be any less valid than those who have religious beliefs?
You are saying that a certain world-view is invalid because it has no belief (or that's the way it sounds). The athiest would hold a position that your belief might be false, therefore a lie, and might think that lying to themselves would be immoral and wrong.
I think that those without "religious" belief have beliefs that are just as valid, and the question of whether you would try an alternate religion, such as Hinduism, seems to be a perfectly valid question.
Edit to add: Thank you for worrying about us all going to that hot place. It shows you really have respect for us, and care what happens to us.
posted
I agree on this. Plenty Athiests go through just as much work and hardship to get to their positions as Thiests, and many of them go through more than the typical Thiest I've met. And personally I don't think that their current beliefs will stop them from getting anywhere pleasent. TomD, for example, I predict will make it the Clestial Kingdom a lot easier than I will despite the fact that he's going to have to change his beliefs sometime to do so. Sorry Tom,
posted
Two things were his deal: one, that it specifies that God exists. Two, that those words were specifically added after the creation of the pledge.
Whether or not the pledge as a whole would be Constitutional with those words, the act adding those words was almost certainly not. Does anyone have even a decent attempt to fit it past "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I just had to chime in about the religion in school thing. And of course to say that i agree with what was said earlier. My problem, however, with things like the pledges "under god" or school prayer, is that its simply a way to ostricize children in an already harsh school environment. I always imagine the buddhist or muslim 7th grader who has to sit out the morning prayer because it disagrees with their view and then has to deal with those kids who think he is different. Even if state-sponsored religion is voluntary, those two children will feel the consequences of not praying to Jesus. Just my two cents though.
Oh and I also wanted to ask you guys this. From a legal standpoint, its clear that one must have a reason to make something illegal not legal. In the same manner, wouldnt it make sense that one would have to PROVE the existence of God before one believes in a higher power? To me, you dont have to disprove Gods existence, you must prove it. Ill even give you an example. If I came to everyone in here and said there are such things as purple goats, everyone would ask me to prove that they exist and nobody would think that they have to disprove that they exist. Cant the same be applied to a God?
quote: Actually, this leads me to a question for atheists. Duragon was talking about religious beliefs infringing upon his rights as a non-Christian, i.e. outlawing late-term abortion, etc. I'm curious to know this. Why does it irritate atheists to have religion in the school? This is a serious question, not criticism.
As both a non-christian and an atheist, I have to tell you that the problem I have with religion in elementary school is that it is not taught as philosophical concepts with even handedness given to systems of belief as well as acknowledgement and rational discussion of why possibly there are those who are atheists, but it is delivered to the children by a person in authority and control. Back in the dark ages when I was in school, my first five years were spent in public school where religion was never mentioned as part of the school curriculum so being in the minority was not an issue. Then my parents moved and I went to the local public school in my new city which was predominently catholic. In this school system, the catholic children were allowed to leave the public schools early twice a week to attend catholic training while the rest of us (not more than a dozen children) were left to study "religion" as those teachers saw fit. The rest of the kids were christian, so it wasn't a problem for them, but it really singled me out.
Bottom line, I think that it is a travesty to "teach" religion in public school because it teaches the children who don't come from the belief system that is predominent in the school that they are somehow inferior. It also had the opposite effect on me, as that is where I started questioning my beliefs altogether. Also, you can't be sure that the particular religion that is taught in public school is the one that you want to hear or want your children to hear.
I do think it is legitimate for philosophy to be taught and then many different religious tenets can be examined evenhandedly.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Why does it irritate atheists to have religion in the school? <<
I'd have no quarrel with courses in religious studies. In fact, I'd be overjoyed if courses in religous studies and philosophy were offered in secondary schools.
What I don't want to see is the teaching of evolution outlawed in biology classes, for example. Or the Ten Commandments posted in hallways without explanation but other religious documents being disallowed. Or a "religious studies" class that is really just focused on trying to convert students to one specific religion.
In other words, schools should be exempt from evangelism. Period. Children have to decide what they believe for themselves.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jerry exactly, logic is proactive. Until something is sufficiently proven to exist, disproof is not required.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want about God. I believe in God. I hope there is no hell, but there's no way for me to know. But I can't believe that a God that loves you would ever send you to hell. I think that God expects you to just do the best you can.
(feels as though her opinions are pale...)
I can't fully describe the way I feel. It's hard to explain, and maybe someday something will happen to me to change them, I don't know. Whether this Universe needs a God, I don't even pretend to know. But I know that I believe in God, at least for now, and I don't begrudge anyone their opinions.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why does it irritate atheists to have religion in the school?
Actually, it isn't just athiests - or agnostics, for that matter - who object to religious exercises in public schools. Many believers in God, Christian and otherwise, object to conducting religious exercises in school because it causes frictions and divisions due to differences in beliefs among the different denominations and religious traditions. Those who are in the religious minority in any particular school could easily feel coerced to assent to the majority belief just to keep from being harassed. Not that the staff of the school would necessarily harass them, but kids tend to harass anyone who appears to be different in either appearance or habit and this would hold true for those of different religious practice or lack of it as well. The same could hold true in a school that did not choose to have religious exercises because the majority of students were atheist or agnostic; for the atheist or agnostic to harass those who hold religious beliefs - which is just as likely to happen when the athiests or agnostics are in the majority - would be wrong as well.
Now, the objective instruction of what different religions believe and how they put their beliefs into practice is a very different matter. That absolutely has a place in the public schools, provided that no one way of belief is singled out as correct or incorrect and as long as no one tries to paint the acceptance of religious belief as psychologically or philosophically maladaptive or aberrant. In other words, as long as the teacher does not advocate any one religion as right or wrong or all religions as equally wrong.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Duragon: if you want to say something doesn't exist, disproof certainly is required.
You are free to say there is no evidence that something exists (while that is the case), but without disproof logic says nothing on a subject, not anything negative.
To use a common maxim, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I do kinda think there should be religious exercises in public schools. I think we should all worship Ra, the great Sun God, and all the other gods of that Egyption pantheon.
*an attempt to inject humor at 5:30 in the morning*
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
PSI: does this mean you don't try to convert members of other faiths to Christianity?
Also, as others of pointed out, atheists and agnostics are typically quite informed about religion. I know that I have put far more thought into religion than most of my religious friends. The typical situation for most people is to grow up in a church, stay in a church, and assume that the church is right. I have my doubts that their religion is due to any divine revelation, particularly as these are also the sort of people that dkw and I commisserated about earlier, who have no idea what the tenets they profess to adhere to are! Also, it would seem remarkably mysterious to me for all these people to be receiving divine revelation that the church they are part of is correct -- given that these people are in many different churches.
Bypassing divine revelation, though, I can see how a person might choose a church based on some rational (as in, related to reason) method. Most people do not engage in that either; they have no idea what their own church believes, much less what people in other churches believe, much less what people in other religions believe!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
somewhat, nobody else is awake around here yet. I've been working a schedule where I had to get up early, so my body is attuned to that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's cool. If you notice, I was up, too. No excuse really. Just waking up at 2 am for no reason. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
This may sound like I'm being humorous, but I'm not:
Assuming for the sake of argument that divine revelation really occurs, how does one tell if one has had such a revelation vs. experiencing any number of powerful psychological or biochemical phenomena?
The tempting answer for a theist is, "Well, obviously, God would make His relevation clear and apparent."
But here's the catch: you won't know what this revelation actually feels like unless you've had one. And how do you know you've had one in the first place?
In other words, it's like this: if you've had a divine revelation, you'll believe you've had a divine revelation. But that's not an if-and-only-if (iff) statement. You can still believe you've had a divine revelation without actually having had one.
So now, take it one step further. If you believe you've had a divine revelation, how do I know if you've actually had one? Just because you believe it's happened doesn't mean that it actually has.
posted
fugu13, guess what, 35 spirit men whith flame axes exist outside your domicile, they are at my command and will attack unless you yeild this point. Do you care to go through the exacting spiritual rituals to disprove their existance? after all, you have my eyewitness account that they are there! Also, don't worry about seeing or hearing them, they are spirit entities!
If we wasted time trying to disprove everything that people merely claimed existed, science would be too busy to do anything useful. This is not Nietzsche's little play land where mentioning something implies its existance, at least metaphysically.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Duragon: I completely agree that unless there is evidence for something there is little point in considering it. But you have falsely asserted that lack of evidence for God logically means he doesn't exist. Rather, lack of evidence for God logically means absolutely nothing. Logic requires a set of data to operate on, and unless data is there, it makes no pronouncements at all (speaking metaphorically, of course).
Jeffrey, it is a twisted web. Believe you me, I have considered it for some time. I am, however, absolutely certain that there being a large number of people who say they have had divine revelations is in no way evidence for divine revelations. Based on your post, I think you may think something similar, and may merely have misread my post.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, that is my point EXACTLY, with no data, there is no logic, there is NOTHING. This is why logic is proactive, and why there is no god. I'm glad we agree. Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, when there is no data, there is no logic.
For instance, when we did not have any data on black holes, we did not know they were there. Unless you're about to propose a rather radical new physics idea (call it the uber-ultra-strong anthropic priniciple, say), black holes were there even before we had any data on them.
You're somewhat misunderstanding the difference between logic and rhetoric.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
This is my 666th post!!!! ![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
experience.
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
