A question to all religious people out there... [Archive]

MosheJW

27th December 2006, 01:06 PM

Ok, first I'll give a little bit of background. I'm 17 years old, from Israel. I've grown up in a Jewish, but not too strict environment. As far as religion goes, I've always seen God as a philosophical answer to life, not a scientific one. God does not contradict science, and I believe in him for ... "spiritual" reasons. It is not supported by evidence.
I tend to find myself taking the skeptic point of view in most religious / philosophical topics...

Anyway, I've been doing some thinking, and there's this question that bothers me and I just can't seem to answer with my current view on life. Ok, now lets choose a religion. Make it the one you believe in, whichever that is. Now, we all know that many other religions exist out there, and many of them came to be without prior knowledge of your religion. So since they didn't have knowledge of our God (whatever your religion is), we must assume that it's false.
So now how do we explain this? (From our religion's point of view, that is).
The only explanation I can come up with, is that they made it up. In fact, it makes sense to assume that any early human society would create its system of beliefs to explain everything that doesn't make sense to them. Which leads to the question....
Why is our religion any different?
Isn’t the only reason that I am a Jew, is because I was born a Jew...
This question is very hard for me to answer, but I'm also very interested in what Christians would have to say, as Christianity has actually started off in a clear point of history.

tkingdoll

27th December 2006, 01:13 PM

It's a very good question. This board is mostly composed of atheists and agnostics though, so if you want a Christian point of view you might fare better at a Christian forum.

Having said that, there are some great resources here and no doubt you will get some interesting information back. Not from me though, I don't discuss religion :D

MickinEngland

27th December 2006, 01:22 PM

Which leads to the question....
Why is our religion any different?

When cavemen saw lightning bolts and meteors and storms and earthquakes and stuff, they naturally assumed it was some divine being throwing his weight around, so its only natural humankind has always believed in an invisible entity, its in our genes so to speak, and all sorts of wierd and wonderful religions sprung up, worshipping some invisible Sky God under different names.
Then God himself thought "enough is enough" and sent Jesus to tell us to - "cut the krap, there's only ONE God and I'm here to tell you about him"..
But they killed him..duh..

So to answer your question about which religion to follow, here's a clue -

Christianity - has the Son of God in it
Islam - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Judaism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Sikhism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Buddhism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Hinduism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Spiritism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Bahai - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Jainism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Shinto - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Taoism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Zoroastanism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Paganism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Rastafarianism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Scientology - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Chinese traditional - doesn't have the Son of God in it
African tribal - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Cao Dai - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Tenrikyo - doesn't have the Son of God in it
New Age - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Unitarian - doesn't have the Son of God in it
etc etc - doesn't have the Son of God in it

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 01:23 PM

The answer is simple. "Spiritual evidence" is shared by many but it is not a trustworthy source of objective fact.

You should also ask why people of contradicting religions have equally profound spiritual experiences.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 01:24 PM

When cavemen saw lightning bolts and meteors and storms and earthquakes and stuff, they naturally assumed it was some divine being throwing his weight around, so its only natural humankind has always believed in an invisible entity, its in our genes so to speak, and all sorts of wierd and wonderful religions sprung up, worshipping some invisible Sky God under different names.
Then God himself thought "enough is enough" and sent Jesus to tell us to - "cut the krap, there's only ONE God and I'm here to tell you about him"..
But they killed him..duh..

So to answer your question about which religion to follow, here's a clue -

Christianity - has the Son of God in it
Islam - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Judaism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Sikhism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Buddhism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Hinduism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Spiritism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Bahai - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Jainism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Shinto - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Taoism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Zoroastanism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Paganism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Rastafarianism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Scientology - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Chinese traditional - doesn't have the Son of God in it
African tribal - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Cao Dai - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Tenrikyo - doesn't have the Son of God in it
New Age - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Unitarian - doesn't have the Son of God in it
etc etc - doesn't have the Son of God in it

Jesus wasn't the only person to claim he was the Son of God.

volatile

27th December 2006, 01:25 PM

When cavemen saw lightning bolts and meteors and storms and earthquakes and stuff, they naturally assumed it was some divine being throwing his weight around, so its only natural humankind has always believed in an invisible entity, its in our genes so to speak, and all sorts of wierd and wonderful religions sprung up, worshipping some invisible Sky God under different names.
Then God himself thought "enough is enough" and sent Jesus to tell us to - "cut the krap, there's only ONE God and I'm here to tell you about him"..
But they killed him..duh..

So to answer your question about which religion to follow, here's a clue -

Christianity - has the Son of God in it
Islam - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Judaism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Sikhism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Buddhism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Hinduism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Spiritism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Bahai - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Jainism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Shinto - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Taoism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Zoroastanism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Paganism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Rastafarianism - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Scientology - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Chinese traditional - doesn't have the Son of God in it
African tribal - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Cao Dai - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Tenrikyo - doesn't have the Son of God in it
New Age - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Unitarian - doesn't have the Son of God in it
etc etc - doesn't have the Son of God in it

How about the mythological religions of the ancient Greeks? Zeus begat plenty of offspring.

Judaism, if I'm not mistaken, does have the Son of God in it, they just don't believe it was Jesus.

The Moonies believe that Rev. Moon is the Son of God.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_claimed_to_be_Jesus

MosheJW

27th December 2006, 01:31 PM

Islam - doesn't have the Son of God in it
Judaism - doesn't have the Son of God in it

So? All of the religions you mentioned consider themselves special in that they are the right way and all the others are not.
Christianity has the son of god in it.
Judaism doesn't, because the mere idea of god having a son is not different than other polytheistic views (in other words - blasphemy).
Islam has jesus in it.

Edit: you guys are fast...

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 01:35 PM

Don't forgot that a religion that doesn't have the Son of God could still be true. There is nothing in intrinsically true about claiming you are the son of an invisible omnipotent being.

Orangutan

27th December 2006, 01:42 PM

MosheJW Welcome to the forum, and congratulations on having an inquisitive mind.

Yes, Mick's arguments seem far from well thought out, he can't seem to understand the circular nature of his argument for Christianity.

And has been said this is probably not the best place to get a good cross section of religious viewpoints. But please stay a while and browse the other forums you might find some fun to think about here. I recommend "General Skepticism and The Paranormal" for interesting threads.

:)

Tricky

27th December 2006, 01:54 PM

So to answer your question about which religion to follow, here's a clue –
Many religions have sons (and daughters) of their various gods in them. Some don’t, depending on their particular mythology. That doesn’t make them better or worse than Christianity. So here’s a clue to Mick’s thought process:

Christianity – Is the particular myth Mick chooses to believe in
Islam - isn’t Christianity
Judaism - isn’t Christianity
Sikhism - isn’t Christianity
Buddhism - isn’t Christianity
Hinduism - isn’t Christianity
Spiritism - isn’t Christianity
Bahai - isn’t Christianity
Jainism - isn’t Christianity
Shinto - isn’t Christianity
Taoism - isn’t Christianity
Zoroastanism - isn’t Christianity
Paganism - isn’t Christianity
Rastafarianism - isn’t Christianity
Scientology - isn’t Christianity
Chinese traditional - isn’t Christianity
African tribal - isn’t Christianity
Cao Dai - isn’t Christianity
Tenrikyo - isn’t Christianity
New Age - isn’t Christianity
Unitarian - isn’t Christianity
etc etc - aren’t Christianity

MickinEngland

27th December 2006, 02:00 PM

Jesus wasn't the only person to claim he was the Son of God.

Maybe not, but he was the only one who could actually walk the walk and back himself up with miracles and stuff.. ;)
Bringing little girl back to life
Bringing widows son back to life
Bringing Lazarus back to life
Stilling the storm
Feeding 5000
Walking on sea
Feeding 4000
Coin in fishes mouth
Withering fig tree
Big catch of fish
Water into wine
Another big fish catch
Healing leper
Healing Centurions servant
Healing Peters mother-in-law
Healing sick at evening
Healing paralysed man
Healing haemorraging woman
Healing two blind men
Healing mans withered hand
Healing Canaanite womans daughter
Healing boy with seizures
Healing blind man
Healing deaf and dumb man
Healing another blind man
Healing crippled woman
Healing man with dropsy
Healing 10 lepers
Restoring a cut-off ear
Healing noblemans sons fever
Healing crippled man at Bethesda
Healing a born-blind man
Casting out demons into pigs
Curing a mute lunatic
Casting out dirty spirit
Curing a possessed blind-dumb man
Appeared to his followers after his death

http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/jmrcls.html

I less than three logic

27th December 2006, 02:06 PM

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 02:09 PM

Maybe not, but he was the only one who could actually walk the walk and back himself up with miracles and stuff.. ;)
Bringing little girl back to life
Bringing widows son back to life
Bringing Lazarus back to life
Stilling the storm
Feeding 5000
Walking on sea
Feeding 4000
Coin in fishes mouth
Withering fig tree
Big catch of fish
Water into wine
Another big fish catch
Healing leper
Healing Centurions servant
Healing Peters mother-in-law
Healing sick at evening
Healing paralysed man
Healing haemorraging woman
Healing two blind men
Healing mans withered hand
Healing Canaanite womans daughter
Healing boy with seizures
Healing blind man
Healing deaf and dumb man
Healing another blind man
Healing crippled woman
Healing man with dropsy
Healing 10 lepers
Restoring a cut-off ear
Healing noblemans sons fever
Healing crippled man at Bethesda
Healing a born-blind man
Casting out demons into pigs
Curing a mute lunatic
Casting out dirty spirit
Curing a possessed blind-dumb man
Appeared to his followers after his death

http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/jmrcls.html

All of that is referred to in a text that was written decades after the death of the man that supposedly performed them. There was no third party recording, no physical evidence, and the book was subject to editing for hundreds upon hundreds of years in a world where the literacy rate was nil.

Simple question. How do you know the Bible true without outside confirmation?

So long as we are listing miracles:

Slay the Nemean Lion and bring back its fur.
Slay the Lernaean Hydra.
Capture the Ceryneian Hind.
Capture the Erymanthian Boar.
Clean the Augean stables in a single day.
Slay the Stymphalian Birds.
Capture the Cretan Bull.
Steal the Mares of Diomedes.
Obtain the Girdle of Hippolyte.
Obtain the Cows of Geryon.
Steal the Apples of the Hesperides.
Capture Cerberus, the guardian dog of Hades.

Gord_in_Toronto

27th December 2006, 02:17 PM

. . . .

Why is our religion any different?
Isn’t the only reason that I am a Jew, is because I was born a Jew...

. . . .

It isn't.

Yes.

;)

Tricky

27th December 2006, 02:17 PM

Other religions have miracles too, Mick. For example, in Hindu (http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1995/12/15_miracles.shtml):

Ganesha's eating the food offerings.
Nambi located by divine intuition the lost songs of the ancient Tamil saints.
A water buffalo chanting Vedic verses.
Chaitanya moving the chariot that thousands of people along with elephants could not move.
Turning jackals into horses
Lord Siva incarnating as a common laborer
Making the dumb daughter of the Sri Lankan Buddhist king speak.
Some religions, though, don't have their gods do magic tricks for them. They figure faith is enough.

Ichneumonwasp

27th December 2006, 02:18 PM

So now how do we explain this? (From our religion's point of view, that is).

One way of approaching the problem would be to realize, as you seem to imply, that all religions may contain some aspect of the final truth. Ramakrishna would say that all religions reflect God but do not completely comprehend Him. His solution was -- apply yourself to your religion with all your heart as your way of "communing" with God but realize that your way of doing so needn't be the same as the next guy's, so there is no need to chop off his head as an infidel (no need to claim exclusive truth).

Christian (and Muslim) answers seem to vary from some version of the above to "you're going to burn in Hell for eternity" because you are just plain wrong.

Problems seem to arise with exclusive claims of truth -- common in the monotheistic faiths.

MosheJW

27th December 2006, 02:55 PM

Mick- As was said, listing miracles is not a good answer, because every religon claims to perform miracles. Judaism has more claims of miracles than Christianity. Are you going to convert?

Orangutan- Thanks, it's good to be here :) I have asked many people around me what they think about my question, and most of them give answers similar to mike's. Any idea of a religious forum that will seriously consider my questions?

Ichneumonwasp- Interesting approach. But setting aside the few religions that accept that there is truth in other ones, all religions claim that they are unique. And many of them contradict each other. Is there only one God or many? How can I tell? I am looking for the exclusive truth, and saying that it is in some way present in every religion seems like an easy way out.
I was not trying to imply that all religions are in some way right, but that if there is no way to tell between them, there is no reason to believe in any of them (they're all wrong).

AgingYoung

27th December 2006, 03:07 PM

MosheJW,

As I was reading and rereading your post and question…

Why is our religion any different?

I thought, ‘why is this question different from all the other questions?’

When you look at the history of christianity you see different opinions forming from the very beginning. One that comes to mind is the disagreement between Paul and Peter concerning the removal of some of the Peter from new converts (circumcision). Later in history there was the split of protestants from catholicsim when Martin Luther said that righteousness was imputed by God and couldn't be purchased from the church. Rome wanted Martin to recant or be purged by fire. Martin decided to run like hell. Then came the heretical teachings of the unitarians. Change never ends and christianity began changing from its very beginning.

At one point the sum of christianity was explained. Then it evolved to its present form with so many different opinions about it within christendom. I look at these various evolutions as being 'made up'. I agree with your point...

Now, we all know that many other religions exist out there, and many of them came to be without prior knowledge of your religion. So since they didn't have knowledge of our God (whatever your religion is), we must assume that it's false. So now how do we explain this? (From our religion's point of view, that is). The only explanation I can come up with, is that they made it up.
but in a different way.

From a christian's perspective God has been trying to tell humanity something from the very beginning. I think that can be seen in the meaning of the names of the geneology starting from Adam.

Adam Man
Seth appointed
Enosh mortal
Kenan sorrow
etc.

but that basic message evolves and with that change becomes something that is nothing like the original. My premise is that all religions have a common origin but as they evolve they become something that is made up. I think the origin of the concept of a power greater than man can be traced to the very form of the universe.

Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

Can we remember why we eat in such a way that at any moment we're ready to bolt from our homes and leave everything behind? I mean for crying out loud, papa. I just got a gameboy and I'm ready to take my shoes off and kick back and kill something. Why is tonight any different than any other friggin' night??

Gene

Fnord

27th December 2006, 03:18 PM

I believe in a divine Creator. This is my faith.

I believe that other people may choose to believe, or not, in a divine Creator, that I should try to live according to the Creator's will, and that I should seek to determine what the Creator's will is for myself. This is my religion.

I do not believe that other religions are inherently false, just that my religion is more right for me than any other. Tolerance for other religions (including Atheism) is what seems to make my religion different from most others.

I believe that drinking alcohol, smoking doobies, and enjoying sex are alright with my Creator when done legally, responsibly, and in moderation. I also believe that your definition of 'moderation' may be different from mine. This is my lifestyle.

I believe that raising one's children to be honest, ambitious, and well-educated adults is not just a responsiblity, it is also an obligation. This is my parental philosophy.

I believe that I'll go fetch myself another beer. This is my a sense of growing thirst.

Slainte!

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

tkingdoll

27th December 2006, 03:46 PM

I believe that drinking alcohol, smoking doobies, and enjoying sex are alright with my Creator when done legally, responsibly, and in moderation. I also believe that your definition of 'moderation' may be different from mine. This is my lifestyle.

How convenient.

Does it also happen that the things that are alright with your creator are the things you really enjoy doing, perchance?

Ichneumonwasp

27th December 2006, 04:53 PM

I was not trying to imply that all religions are in some way right, but that if there is no way to tell between them, there is no reason to believe in any of them (they're all wrong).

Yes. If one accepts the proposition that in some sense all religions are correct, one must also accept that in some sense they are all wrong.

Interesting approach. But setting aside the few religions that accept that there is truth in other ones, all religions claim that they are unique. And many of them contradict each other. Is there only one God or many? How can I tell? I am looking for the exclusive truth, and saying that it is in some way present in every religion seems like an easy way out.

It is in the claim of being uniquely correct where all fail. You could approach this from the philosophical perspective (as is often done here) and rephrase the issue to concern monism. Let's assume that there is one God (just as monism assumes there is one ur-substance). Then all religions that claim one God get that part of it right. Ultimately they all worship the exact same Being/Entity/Whatever though they may call it different names and ascribe to it different properties. But if this One Being is the Ultimate Being of the Universe (or alternatively, The Universe), then all those properties that we discuss as comprising God are simply ways of limiting what God is. Or what the ur-substance is in monism.

Monism makes sense to me -- the idea that underneath all is One. There are folks who will say that the original substance is thought. Others say the original substance is matter. Others say that it is neutral and is composed/reflects both thought and matter. I say, "who can know?" At some level I think such arguments are silly because, if we all really believe in a single substance that comprises everything, then we must be talking about the same thing. But the very fact that there is a discussion means that we don't really know what we are talking about when it comes to the actual "identity" of this "substance". It may be that one group is correct and the other groups are wrong, but from my perspective I don't particularly think anyone is really correct. I think all we can do is describe some aspects of whatever is out there. If we start talking about matter and describe it as energy passing through a Higgs field, what does that mean?

The same is just as easily true of God and discussions concerning God. You can view God as the network of relations within Reality, or even more properly the framework for Everything. If that is even close to correct, then people arguing about God's name or characteristics or what he does or is going to do is just hubris. You can view God as separate from creation -- but that requires a form of dualism with both material and divine substances and you are stuck with interaction problems. But whatever you think, if you think of God as One and others think of God as One, then, if you are all correct, then you must be thinking of the same thing/entity/whatever. The disagreements must, therefore, be a reflection of human limitation and human error. It could be that one group is correct and the others are wrong. Again, I think everyone is wrong when it comes to such discussions. We simply cannot know. Why not be honest about our ignorance.

Mashuna

27th December 2006, 05:17 PM

How convenient.

Does it also happen that the things that are alright with your creator are the things you really enjoy doing, perchance?

I've never been religious, but this one I could really get behind.

So to speak.

Tricky

27th December 2006, 05:44 PM

How convenient.

Does it also happen that the things that are alright with your creator are the things you really enjoy doing, perchance?
Well, he does say that he "should seek to determine what the Creator's will is for (himself)." If your body and mind are telling you that you want something, what could possibly be a more clear direction from the Creator? :D

Fnord is not alone in what would seem to be the almost infinitely improbable circumstance in which The Truth™ precisely overlaps his preferences. I've noticed the exact same phenomenon in Huntster, Kathy and others.:eek:

Kochanski

27th December 2006, 06:38 PM

Anyway, I've been doing some thinking, and there's this question that bothers me and I just can't seem to answer with my current view on life. Ok, now lets choose a religion. Make it the one you believe in, whichever that is. Now, we all know that many other religions exist out there, and many of them came to be without prior knowledge of your religion. So since they didn't have knowledge of our God (whatever your religion is), we must assume that it's false.
So now how do we explain this? (From our religion's point of view, that is).
The only explanation I can come up with, is that they made it up. In fact, it makes sense to assume that any early human society would create its system of beliefs to explain everything that doesn't make sense to them. Which leads to the question....
Why is our religion any different?

Welcome, MosheJW, most people think their own religion is the one true religion. I was raised as a Roman Catholic but it didn't stick. Can't say I ever found any truth in religion I was raised in. I read Greek, Roman and Norse myths growing up and could see no difference between those stories and the ones I was told in catechism and church. The stories were all interesting but never more than stories to me.

I suspect you won't get much in the way of well reasoned answers from any religious individuals.

Isn’t the only reason that I am a Jew, is because I was born a Jew...
This question is very hard for me to answer, but I'm also very interested in what Christians would have to say, as Christianity has actually started off in a clear point of history.

Well, Richard Dawkins would say you were not born a Jew, you were born to Jewish parents and were raised in their religion.

Keep thinking and asking questions and find your own truth.

Merko

27th December 2006, 06:48 PM

Isn’t the only reason that I am a Jew, is because I was born a Jew...
This question is very hard for me to answer, but I'm also very interested in what Christians would have to say, as Christianity has actually started off in a clear point of history.

Well, I'm atheist, so I'd say that there are a very large number of known religions and an infinite number of theoretical religions, and there's no way to find out which one would be truer than the rest, so the only rational option is to reject them all.

Trying to find some semblance of support for Judaism, I guess it is arguably the oldest monotheistic religion. Zoroastrism would be the competitor, but I don't think it has been established which one was first. So maybe you could find up some philosophical argument that supports monotheism, and then you could find some arguments why Judaism must be truer than Zoroastrism, and then you go on to assume that the one that was first must be the true one (perhaps because God really did show himself to people a long time ago, he just got tired of it since). Obviously I don't believe this holds, but I think it's the best I can offer.

vIQleS

27th December 2006, 06:48 PM

Anyway, I've been doing some thinking, and there's this question that bothers me and I just can't seem to answer with my current view on life. Ok, now lets choose a religion. Make it the one you believe in, whichever that is. Now, we all know that many other religions exist out there, and many of them came to be without prior knowledge of your religion. So since they didn't have knowledge of our God (whatever your religion is), we must assume that it's false.
So now how do we explain this? (From our religion's point of view, that is).
The only explanation I can come up with, is that they made it up. In fact, it makes sense to assume that any early human society would create its system of beliefs to explain everything that doesn't make sense to them. Which leads to the question....
Why is our religion any different?

As a (techically ex-) Christian - I can answer the question I think you're asking... The other religions are false because they don't believe the same principles and (divinely inspired) books as 'us', therefore they don't believe in the same diety. This essentially means that they are worshiping a false god - a demon or satan himself.

Satan created all false religions - nobody made anything up... Otherwise more people would come to the same logical conclusions as you.

tkingdoll

27th December 2006, 06:51 PM

Well, Richard Dawkins would say you were not born a Jew, you were born to Jewish parents and were raised in their religion.

And he would be wrong, because there are two types of 'Jew' - one is an ethnic group with similar genetic traits from common ancestors and a narrow gene pool, and the other is the the follower of the religion Judaism. You can become the latter by choice but the former is most definitely a case of being born a Jew.

Replace 'a Jew' and "Jewish" in your sentence with 'black' and you will see what I mean.

volatile

27th December 2006, 06:55 PM

And he would be wrong, because there are two types of 'Jew' - one is an ethnic group with similar genetic traits from common ancestors and a narrow gene pool, and the other is the the follower of the religion Judaism. You can become the latter by choice but the former is most definitely a case of being born a Jew.

Replace 'a Jew' and "Jewish" in your sentence with 'black' and you will see what I mean.

I think even Dawkins knows the difference between ethnic and religious Jews...

tkingdoll

27th December 2006, 06:57 PM

I think even Dawkins knows the difference between ethnic and religious Jews...

I know, I'm just replying to the comment made on his behalf ;)

volatile

27th December 2006, 07:01 PM

I know, I'm just replying to the comment made on his behalf ;)

Oh, you cantankerous old salt!

tkingdoll

27th December 2006, 07:04 PM

Oh, you cantankerous old salt!

You would be amazed how many people don't know that there are two types of Jews. This is at least the third time I've had to point it out on this forum in the past year. It's always worth doing because there's always a poster or lurker who simply wasn't aware of it.

Every day is a school day! Did you know there is no Ancient Hebrew word for 'penis'?

Kochanski

27th December 2006, 07:22 PM

And he would be wrong, because there are two types of 'Jew' - one is an ethnic group with similar genetic traits from common ancestors and a narrow gene pool, and the other is the the follower of the religion Judaism. You can become the latter by choice but the former is most definitely a case of being born a Jew.

Replace 'a Jew' and "Jewish" in your sentence with 'black' and you will see what I mean.

I was referring to religion only (was going to put in a disclaimer about ethnic group but decided to keep it simple) and that is all that Dawkins refers to as well. Since that is the what MosheJW is speaking about, it is quite appropriate.

Foster Zygote

27th December 2006, 08:08 PM

Dark Jaguar

27th December 2006, 08:32 PM

When cavemen saw lightning bolts and meteors and storms and earthquakes and stuff, they naturally assumed it was some divine being throwing his weight around, so its only natural humankind has always believed in an invisible entity, its in our genes so to speak, and all sorts of wierd and wonderful religions sprung up, worshipping some invisible Sky God under different names.
Then God himself thought "enough is enough" and sent Jesus to tell us to - "cut the krap, there's only ONE God and I'm here to tell you about him"..
But they killed him..duh..

You rode the logic train and then just sorta jumped off before reaching the last stop didn't you?

That last stop being, your god is no different than the rest. Maybe the details differ, but the evidence for yours is as lacking as that for the rest. That "list" of things your's has that others lack? All religions come up with how they are special because of this or that reason. Buddhists have the only religion with the ascended human that reached perfection, for example.

You basically jump off the logic train the moment you say "then God himself thought". What god? I assume the Christian god is the one you're talking about. How do you know that guy exists and the others don't? Is all you have belief, because the others believe just as strongly that their's is real. If your answer to that is "yeah, but mine is real", then congrats, the logic circle is complete and you've established nothing.

Just making blanket claims doesn't do much. Provide evidence it's true, or we'll just respond the same way each time. It would be a little less futile if you would at least accept you are only believing because you want to. The original poster here has done as much.

In answer to the topic at hand, it's this very question that most of those who are formerly religious here couldn't answer. Well, some just refused to give it honest thought and just said "well they are wrong but I'm right" with nothing to back up that statement. I'll leave it to you to come up with an answer you need. For me, the answer is there is no difference and that's one of the reasons I ditched my old faith.

Huntster

28th December 2006, 02:28 AM

....Fnord is not alone in what would seem to be the almost infinitely improbable circumstance in which The Truth™ precisely overlaps his preferences. I've noticed the exact same phenomenon in Huntster, Kathy and others.:eek:

Ever consider the possibility that our (Fnord, me, Kathy, and others) preferences are oriented towards The Truth (and not the other way around)?

qayak

28th December 2006, 02:36 AM

Ever consider the possibility that our (Fnord, me, Kathy, and others) preferences are oriented towards The Truth (and not the other way around)?:dl:

After I read your post my daughter had to call an ambulance. Seriously! I was laughing so hard I couldn't breath!

Huntster

28th December 2006, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Ever consider the possibility that our (Fnord, me, Kathy, and others) preferences are oriented towards The Truth (and not the other way around)?

After I read your post my daughter had to call an ambulance.

Unfortunately, the ambulance must have arrived.

Seriously! I was laughing so hard I couldn't breath!

How can I help your laughter along?

enjoytheview

28th December 2006, 04:43 AM

You would be amazed how many people don't know that there are two types of Jews. This is at least the third time I've had to point it out on this forum in the past year. It's always worth doing because there's always a poster or lurker who simply wasn't aware of it.

Every day is a school day! Did you know there is no Ancient Hebrew word for 'penis'?

Never thought i'd learn anything while im on school holidays. Let alone twice in the one post.

Ever consider the possibility that our (Fnord, me, Kathy, and others) preferences are oriented towards The Truth (and not the other way around)?
Are you willing to accept that it's likely that many of your preferences (as well as other peoples) are not orientated towards the truth?

l0rca

28th December 2006, 04:50 AM

So? All of the religions you mentioned consider themselves special in that they are the right way and all the others are not.
Christianity has the son of god in it.
Judaism doesn't, because the mere idea of god having a son is not different than other polytheistic views (in other words - blasphemy).
Islam has jesus in it.

Edit: you guys are fast...

Don't bother arguing with that guy. He's a troll, you'll find, and he's probably not even religious.

Other than that, please stick around. A lot of us, though not especially me, are looking for intelligent, spiritual people to argue and discuss with.

brodski

28th December 2006, 05:23 AM

How convenient.

Does it also happen that the things that are alright with your creator are the things you really enjoy doing, perchance?

It's not "convenient" at all. All the things which he enjoys doing are OK with his creator, this is because if these things where not OK with his creator, his creator would not have created him in a way which meant that he enjoyed these things. ;)

I mean what kind of twisted God would make something as enjoyable as, for example, recreational sex, and then prohibit it's creations from indulging it in, on pain of eternal torment. Who would want to believe in a god like that…
Oh..
Wait…
:P

Kochanski

28th December 2006, 09:26 AM

You would be amazed how many people don't know that there are two types of Jews. This is at least the third time I've had to point it out on this forum in the past year. It's always worth doing because there's always a poster or lurker who simply wasn't aware of it.

Every day is a school day! Did you know there is no Ancient Hebrew word for 'penis'?

I worked for the Union of American Hebrew Congregations for two years, so I am well aware of that.

Now, did you know there are several ways to write a date in Hebrew? I do because I sat waiting for three Rabbis to decide how I was going to write the date on a ketubah (in caligraphy) for a half hour. They were having way too much fun arguing about the proper way to write the date.

Tricky

28th December 2006, 09:29 AM

Ever consider the possibility that our (Fnord, me, Kathy, and others) preferences are oriented towards The Truth (and not the other way around)?
Yes, of course I've considered it. But based on evidence and logic, I find that possibility highly unlikely.

tkingdoll

28th December 2006, 09:42 AM

I worked for the Union of American Hebrew Congregations for two years, so I am well aware of that.

Now, did you know there are several ways to write a date in Hebrew? I do because I sat waiting for three Rabbis to decide how I was going to write the date on a ketubah (in caligraphy) for a half hour. They were having way too much fun arguing about the proper way to write the date.

I didn't know that about the date, although it doesn't surprise me at all. If there is a way to wrap something simple up in confusion, Rabbis will find it.

Personally, I find the worst part of being a Jew is that I don't have any choice about it. I don't want to derail this thread, but it's an interesting debate: if you could choose, would you not be an ethnic minority? Personally, if I had the option to not be Jewish, I would take it, but I've said that to people before and had horrified responses. That's a whole other thread though, perhaps one for the new year.

Tanstaafl

28th December 2006, 10:14 AM

The only explanation I can come up with, is that they made it up. In fact, it makes sense to assume that any early human society would create its system of beliefs to explain everything that doesn't make sense to them. Which leads to the question

Why is our religion any different

This is the exact question I asked myself (didn't have the nerve to ask anyone else) when I first learned that here were millions of devout believers in other religions. I was maybe 10 or 11 years old. That started a 30 year journey which ended in atheism.

I think the fear of that result keeps many religious people from addressing this question.

Foster Zygote

28th December 2006, 10:23 AM

This is the exact question I asked myself (didn't have the nerve to ask anyone else) when I first learned that here were millions of devout believers in other religions. I was maybe 10 or 11 years old. That started a 30 year journey which ended in atheism.

I think the fear of that result keeps many religious people from addressing this question.

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Carl Sagan

This statement really had an impact on me in my youth.

Huntster

28th December 2006, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Ever consider the possibility that our (Fnord, me, Kathy, and others) preferences are oriented towards The Truth (and not the other way around)?

Are you willing to accept that it's likely that many of your preferences (as well as other peoples) are not orientated towards the truth?

Nope, however I'm willing to accept the possibility.

I do not claim to "have" the Truth. I believe I am trying to seek it, and the direction I'm headed appears to me to be generally correct, beneficial, rewarding, and joyful.

However, since there is no proof of any of this, I could be wrong.

Just like you and everyone else.......

Fnord

28th December 2006, 11:35 AM

How convenient.

Does it also happen that the things that are alright with your creator are the things you really enjoy doing, perchance?

Life is supposed to be fun; damnation can wait until later.

As far as my beliefs being "Precisely" in line with the Creator's plans for me or oriented towards "The Truth," I can only hope so!

Until the Creator stops by and shows me the contract, how the hades will I know the precise plan? Even with the 'religion' I've developed for myself so far, I could be so far away from 'The Truth' that it's only a matter of time before the Creator locks, loads, and presses the Smite button on me.

I could be wrong either way. I'm too much of a scientist to believe that I know everything precisely.

Now, for all you woo-woo "Goddidits" out there, go learn some real science and tell me how "Goddidit"! Tell me what the causal connection is between "Let there be light" and illumination. Better yet, tell me how to do for myself so that I no longer have to rely on the Electric Company. Tell me how the Creator created all the creatures that swim in the ocean, fly through the air, and crawl upon the land, because I want to make a dragon for myself and a unicorn for my wife.

("A purple unicorn?!!", he said. "I thought you'd be happy with white!")

Don't stop and be smug at "Goddidit," take that extra effort to learn what the Creator did to make it happen, as well!

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

tkingdoll

28th December 2006, 11:44 AM

Life is supposed to be fun; damnation can wait until later.

What if I said I found pedophilia fun? (I don't by the way, but it's a good example). What if I found killing puppies fun? Mugging old ladies? Evading taxes?

AgingYoung

28th December 2006, 12:29 PM

MosheJW,

I think truth is invariant. It doesn't vary based on circumstances or time or perceptions. For instance stealing is stealing. If I steal food to feed my starving family I've still stolen. If it is true that I should love my enemies, that truth doesn't change when they're ripping my back off. I should still love them. For me the truth is I won't love them. For me there are circumstances where I won't admit the truth. I think that's a common human frailty.

I don't think there's such a thing as 'your truth' and 'my truth'. Everyone has their perceptions but I don't think reality changes based on our perceptions. Everyone has biases. If you are biased with the axiom that truth is invariant your perceptions are more likely to approximate truth more closely than not.

Gene

Fnord

28th December 2006, 12:50 PM

What if I said I found pedophilia fun? (I don't by the way, but it's a good example). What if I found killing puppies fun? Mugging old ladies? Evading taxes?

Fallacy of Selective Evidence. The activities you cited are all illegal.

As stated: "I believe that drinking alcohol, smoking doobies, and enjoying sex are alright with my Creator when done legally, responsibly, and in moderation. I also believe that your definition of 'moderation' may be different from mine. This is my lifestyle."

Metaphorically speaking, the law steps in where angels fear to tread. Personally, I'd like to light up right now, but doing so is illegal, so I don't. If you want to do something as stupid as bugger your child, smother your puppy, beat up your grandma for her pension check, or cheat your government, then keep in mind that there are civil and legal panalties for doing so, and don't do them.

Hurting others for pleasure just ain't right.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

thaiboxerken

28th December 2006, 12:55 PM

qayak

28th December 2006, 01:31 PM

Unfortunately, the ambulance must have arrived.

That's what comes of having kids who love me and nothing for them to inherit when I am gone, except the debt from their college educations. :D

Merko

28th December 2006, 03:22 PM

What if I said I found pedophilia fun? (I don't by the way, but it's a good example). What if I found killing puppies fun? Mugging old ladies? Evading taxes?

Then we'd have to punish you in case you decided to give in to your desires. And we'd better warn you beforehand. Since presumably, you'd still have other interests, such as remaining in freedom.

qayak

28th December 2006, 03:43 PM

Fallacy of Selective Evidence. The activities you cited are all illegal.

I think your point here is irrelevent. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral and just because it is illegal doesn't make it immoral. By the same token, something that is illegal and immoral can still be fun, which was I think tkingdoll's point. "Responsibly" and "in moderation" are hard to define as well. I might think that one skydiving experience is neither responsible or moderate, you might think any number is okay as long as it doesn't interfere with your responsibilities in your life. Someone else again may believe that every waking moment should be taken up by the activity. Who is right?

I personally think that any activity one finds fun is fine as long as it does not, nor would one reasonably expect it to, do personal harm to another person. So, paedophilia is out but smoking a dooby is not.

stamenflicker

28th December 2006, 09:02 PM

This question is very hard for me to answer, but I'm also very interested in what Christians would have to say, as Christianity has actually started off in a clear point of history.

As a Christian, I believe the sheer number and variances of the world religions is a direct indication that no one has a handle on who God is. Indeed Christianity has a clear starting point. To me, that starting point is the Christian narrative surrounding the figure of Jesus. As I understand it, the narrative serves to show us the fundamental nature of God. I'm comfortable enough with that to make it my narrative. I've studied other narratives, and don't find them compelling enough to personalize, but that's just me.

MosheJW

29th December 2006, 07:32 AM

Well, I should say that it isn't entirely true that I'm not afraid of believing that there is no god. If I wouldn't have a problem to accept that god doesn't exist, I would probably consider myself an atheist by now...

Yes. If one accepts the proposition that in some sense all religions are correct, one must also accept that in some sense they are all wrong.
...
It is in the claim of being uniquely correct where all fail.
Ok, so lets say that I accept that no one religion is entirely true. But we have stuff like scientology, that are completely wrong. So how do I know which beliefs are totally wrong and should be ignored, and which ones are partly true? Why not assume they're all completely wrong?

If you try finding the common ground of all religions, you end up with nothing.

Orangutan

29th December 2006, 08:13 AM

Snip.
Ok, so lets say that I accept that no one religion is entirely true. But we have stuff like scientology, that are completely wrong. So how do I know which beliefs are totally wrong and should be ignored, and which ones are partly true? Why not assume they're all completely wrong?

If you try finding the common ground of all religions, you end up with nothing.

Well you have to look at what is left when you strip away the supernatural stuff and are left with the philosophy. Most traditional religions would probably be something like "Be nice to each other", easter religions would be along the lines of "Don't cling to physical stuff, it' will only make you unhappy", and Scientology would be something like "Buy our stuff". (You may have guessed that I'm not a religious scholar but I hope you see what I'm driving at). So if you still need a religion to help you guide your life you can at least chose one that matches you're own philosophy. :)

Edit, sorry forgot the point I was trying to make, which was that you will then at least see which religion's philosophy ring 'true' with you, which is the best you can hope for. The next person might think differently than you, which is always the case when it comes to philosophy.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th December 2006, 08:28 AM

Ever consider the possibility that our (Fnord, me, Kathy, and others) preferences are oriented towards The Truth (and not the other way around)?
Yes, I've considered that. But I couldn't find any independent verification of The Truth. Do you have some?

~~ Paul

Huntster

29th December 2006, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Ever consider the possibility that our (Fnord, me, Kathy, and others) preferences are oriented towards The Truth (and not the other way around)?
Yes, I've considered that. But I couldn't find any independent verification of The Truth. Do you have some?

Nope.

There is none......

.....for me, Kathy, you, or anybody else.

Huntster

29th December 2006, 09:56 AM

Edited out.

Ichneumonwasp

29th December 2006, 12:27 PM

Ok, so lets say that I accept that no one religion is entirely true. But we have stuff like scientology, that are completely wrong. So how do I know which beliefs are totally wrong and should be ignored, and which ones are partly true? Why not assume they're all completely wrong?

If you try finding the common ground of all religions, you end up with nothing.

As Orangutan so rightly said, I don't think you end with nothing. There is significant common ground in the world religions, which one would expect since religion is a human activity and we share so much. The common ground amounts to ethical and metaphysical philosophy. After all, philosophy is simply religion in another guise with the purely supernatural stripped away (for some philosophies), or what has been termed "White Mythology". I would say, rely on reason, evidence, and the story that you like best as a structure for your life. You simply should realize that it is a story, a narrative, and not TRUTH. The story with the tiger in the boat (Life of Pi) is better. It certainly isn't necessarily true. You don't ask of Huckleberry Finn, "well that was nice, but was it true?"; you enjoy it as a story. Religion provides a narrative, a means of structuring your life. It tells you who you are within the world and where you fit in your community. There are other ways of doing the same without religion, but that requires considerably more work. Some opt for no formal religion (I don't follow any) and fashion a story based on philosophical enquiry. Others prefer a more traditional approach.

Scientology is obviously bunk. L. Ron was trying to make a buck. But if you were raised in a hosehold that believes in it, then I don't see a big problem with believing some of that weirdness, as long as you don't think it reflects anything in the real world or hurt others because of it. The anti-medicine/anti-psychiatry aspects are dangerous, just like the anti-medicine aspects of certain other religions and the wacky Pentocostal snake handlers. If adults want to live their lives according to those dictates, then that's fine with me. The only problem I have with them is if they force children into sacrificing their lives or health for a wacky idea.

I think we should be tolerant of other religions and other viewpoints, but tolerance is not an end. Tolerance is the default position, the starting point. I feel perfectly justified revoking a tolerant attitude if someone's beliefs step on my toes or hurt others. Just as your right to swing your arm stops at my nose, your right to believe what you will stops at the point where it causes harm. And I don't mind telling people off when the try to tell me that I'm going to burn in Hell for eternity because of the way I think.

**Edit**

I suppose I should add to the above that if you want it all to make sense (some folks don't really care if it all makes sense, they just need the story), then you've got your work cut out for you with the major religions. First you will need to decide something about the structure of the universe -- do you think there is one underlying substance/reality or more than one substance? If you believe in a God separate from creation, in a material world and a spiritual world (that there is a world behind the world, as almost all religions suppose), then how do they interact? In other words, do you believe in magic? Stories based on monism are much more difficult to create (especially emotionally), but I find them much more satisfying intellectually. The problem is that we are not bare intellects but also emtional creatures with very complex brains that seem to have been pieced together in different packets through the evolutionary process. Complete and total consistency may, therefore, be an illusion for us.

Tricky

30th December 2006, 10:20 AM

Nope.

There is none......

.....for me, Kathy, you, or anybody else.
But there is lots of evidence of the independantly verifiable kind for how certain aspects of the universe work, and none of them require the existence of a God or gods. So let's sum up:

Well-understood things that don't require God to operate -- practically everything we've ever discovered.

Well-understood things that do requre God to operate -- zero

So, although there is no proof that God is not required for the universe to operate, the evidence is staggeringly in favor of that conclusion.

RandFan

30th December 2006, 11:46 AM

I do not claim to "have" the Truth. I believe I am trying to seek it, and the direction I'm headed appears to me to be generally correct, beneficial, rewarding, and joyful. It seems to me that most everyone believes that he or she is generally correct.

Most people believe that they are better than average drivers.
Most people are far more likely to accept the beliefs of their community and/or their parents. People born in Muslim dominated regions are more likely to be Muslim and people born in Catholic dominated regions are more likely to be Catholic. Children of Muslims tend to be Muslim and children of Catholics tend to be Catholic. So, to a large degree, belief is a function of geography and/or indoctrination.
These beliefs are clearly at odds. They can't all be correct. Someone has to be wrong and it appears that many if not most are sincere in their beliefs.Huntster, how can we be certain that we are not deluded in our beliefs? It seems to me that there must be some mechanism to avoid the pitfalls of bias, indoctrination and group think. Any ideas?

volatile

30th December 2006, 04:24 PM

Huntster, how can we be certain that we are not deluded in our beliefs? It seems to me that there must be some mechanism to avoid the pitfalls of bias, indoctrination and group think. Any ideas?

Well, if I'm following his argument correctly, one way is to say that "Everyone's right", thus absolving the need for any critical analysis. Hunster believes the earth is round, and flat, at the same time, as it saves arguments.

Another way, of course, might be to approach every facet of one's life (and this applies to such divergent activities as the political party you support, the newspaper you buy, the diet you consume and the sports team you follow) to a degree of critical analysis - why do I act in a certain way? If the answer to questions such as these are ever "Because I do", then it's not good enough.

Elizabeth I

30th December 2006, 06:29 PM

Personally, I find the worst part of being a Jew is that I don't have any choice about it. I don't want to derail this thread, but it's an interesting debate: if you could choose, would you not be an ethnic minority? Personally, if I had the option to not be Jewish, I would take it, but I've said that to people before and had horrified responses. That's a whole other thread though, perhaps one for the new year.

[DERAIL CONTINUED] That's an interesting question because it goes along with a discussion I have been having in a much different context. I think in many ways it would be deeply satisfying to be Jewish because the flip side of not having any choice is that you have a built-in background - a foundation for where you came from. I would think that there would be a lot of comfort in knowing that you could go anywhere in the world and find people who were, in a manner of speaking, part of your extended family and would welcome you for that reason.

Fnord

30th December 2006, 06:40 PM

... But I couldn't find any independent verification of The Truth. Do you have some? ~~ Paul

I'd like a piece of that, too! Pass it around when you get some.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

Huntster

2nd January 2007, 09:11 AM

Well, if I'm following his argument correctly, one way is to say that "Everyone's right", thus absolving the need for any critical analysis.

You're obviously not "following his argument correctly."

Hunster believes the earth is round, and flat, at the same time, as it saves arguments.

Earth is spherical, it is not flat, and no argument has been saved.

In fact, as this forum clearly illustrates, argument has been nourished.

Another way, of course, might be to approach every facet of one's life (and this applies to such divergent activities as the political party you support, the newspaper you buy, the diet you consume and the sports team you follow) to a degree of critical analysis - why do I act in a certain way? If the answer to questions such as these are ever "Because I do", then it's not good enough.

And if the answer is "because the evidence indicates so", or "because it has been proven to be so", then go with it, then argue with the denialists about it.

drkitten

3rd January 2007, 08:25 AM

Fallacy of Selective Evidence. The activities you cited are all illegal.

As stated: "I believe that drinking alcohol, smoking doobies, and enjoying sex are alright with my Creator when done legally, responsibly, and in moderation. I also believe that your definition of 'moderation' may be different from mine. This is my lifestyle."

Except that they're not.

Teek's "enjoyable activities" include killing puppies, which may be morally reprehensible, but is legal nevertheless. Ask your local vet -- or animal shelter -- how often he has to euthanize puppies. And smoking doobies is of course illegal in most jurisdictions -- but that's an act of Man, not God, and a relatively recent one at that.

Hurting others for pleasure just ain't right.

And tell me again why this means that God doesn't want me to smoke doobies?

Darth Rotor

3rd January 2007, 09:18 AM

Ok, first I'll give a little bit of background. I'm 17 years old, from Israel. I've grown up in a Jewish, but not too strict environment. As far as religion goes, I've always seen God as a philosophical answer to life, not a scientific one.
For some people, that is enough to enrich a lifetime. For others something more is a better fit.
Isn’t the only reason that I am a Jew, is because I was born a Jew...
Are you happy with that? As I understand Judaism, you have choices in which sect, or group, you wish to affiliate with, or you can choose none of them. It's up to you.
This question is very hard for me to answer, but I'm also very interested in what Christians would have to say, as Christianity has actually started off in a clear point of history.

[tongue in cheek]
As you surely know from the history, Christianity and Islam are a millenia old Jewish plot to spread monotheism all over the world. :eek: Jews, and most specifically, the Jewish God (ask any of the more virulent atheists here for the precise blame apportionment) can be directly blamed, from the blood and faith of Abraham, for both Christianity and Islam. Thus, of course, this ur Jew and all other Jews are to blame for all of the trouble (and none of the benefit) that arose from those two Faiths. Fruits of the poison tree, and all that. :cool: In particular, one must blame the trouble making ex-Pharisee, the ex rabbi and tent maker, Saul of Tarsus, (The Apostle Paul), as well as that egotistical merchant-warrior Mohammed. A pair of prostletyzing pricks, those two, :p who make the bloody handed Moses, or Joshuah, seem pikers in comparison. :rolleyes:

:eek: Head on over to the CT forum, to the Loose Change discussion chamber, and it will all be laid bare: an immense portion of the trouble in the modern world is "all the Jew's fault!" :eek:

A pox on any historical statute of limitations, the sins of the fathers are passed on ad infinitum, well beyond three generations of Mosaic law. Guilt joins hydrogen and stupidity as the true universal constants. Do you wonder why so many people have an attitude about Israel, and Jews? Well, my dear friend, it's all derived from primal Jewish God Guilt.

[/tongue in cheek]
But I know not how a genuine may be distinguished from a spurious Prophet, except by the measure of his success. The triumphs of the Mahdi were in his lifetime far greater than those of the founder of the Mohammedan faith; and the chief difference between orthodox Mohammedanism and Mahdism was that the original impulse was opposed only by decaying systems of government and society and the recent movement came in contact with civilisation and the machinery of science. Recognising this, I do not share the popular opinion, and I believe that if in future years prosperity should come to the peoples of the Upper Nile, and learning and happiness follow in its train, then the first Arab historian who shall investigate the early annals of that new nation will not forget, foremost among the heroes of his race, to write the name of Mohammed Ahmed
Which is apropos of nothing, but I like the passage. :) It sets off the current mess in Darfur the way a gold money clip sets off a wad of 100 dollar bills.

All satire, hyperbole, and silliness aside, the core distinction begins with accepting that Yeshuah ben Josef was divine, rather than a man or a prophet as the Hebrews and Muslims assert. From there, the rest does, or does not, follow.

Enjoy your journey, no matter where you end up. :) If philosophy is where you are led, I'd suggest the Tao.

DR

MadOverlord

3rd January 2007, 04:30 PM

If you try finding the common ground of all religions, you end up with nothing.

May I posit the following humble question: Assume that, (by divine revelation?) you came to absolutely know that there was, in fact, no God. When you die, that's it, game over, you're gone.

Would this change your behavior in any significant way (other than the obvious, like going to synagogue)? Or to put it another way, would the rules by which you interact with your fellow human beings really change?

If the answer to this question is No, then ask yourself what your rules really are, and why you will continue to follow them. I think you will find that these rules intersect fairly broadly with most major religions - stuff like "Don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, etc."

If the answer to this question is Yes, then I would be interested to know what the changes would be.

My experience is that most people, when asked this question, say that they wouldn't change their behavior, but that a lot of other people would...

lolurigeller

3rd January 2007, 05:25 PM

Ok, first I'll give a little bit of background. I'm 17 years old, from Israel. I've grown up in a Jewish, but not too strict environment. As far as religion goes, I've always seen God as a philosophical answer to life, not a scientific one. God does not contradict science, and I believe in him for ... "spiritual" reasons. It is not supported by evidence.
I tend to find myself taking the skeptic point of view in most religious / philosophical topics...

Anyway, I've been doing some thinking, and there's this question that bothers me and I just can't seem to answer with my current view on life. Ok, now lets choose a religion. Make it the one you believe in, whichever that is. Now, we all know that many other religions exist out there, and many of them came to be without prior knowledge of your religion. So since they didn't have knowledge of our God (whatever your religion is), we must assume that it's false.
So now how do we explain this? (From our religion's point of view, that is).
The only explanation I can come up with, is that they made it up. In fact, it makes sense to assume that any early human society would create its system of beliefs to explain everything that doesn't make sense to them. Which leads to the question....
Why is our religion any different?
Isn’t the only reason that I am a Jew, is because I was born a Jew...
This question is very hard for me to answer, but I'm also very interested in what Christians would have to say, as Christianity has actually started off in a clear point of history.

You're still very young, so man I wouldn't worry about these questions so much as trying to figure out a way to have fun when you are young, and frankly I'd rather spend my time trying to get laid with a really hot girl you like, instead of beating a dead horse which will ultimately get you nowhere (religion).

While alot of people around here don't like religion period, i'd say it's a hell of a lot better than someone who is deluded enough to believe they are god or a deity manifest in human form. It'

oddball

3rd January 2007, 06:07 PM

Jesus wasn't the only person to claim he was the Son of God.

Actually, I think there are no such quotes in the Bible atrributed to Jesus. I think he only ever claimed to be the "son of man".

Darth Rotor

3rd January 2007, 07:22 PM

Huntster, how can we be certain that we are not deluded in our beliefs?
Who cares?

Certainty is not a requirement for much of anything in life, it is the degree of uncertainty, or the minimization of it, and the amount of risk you'll take on, that informs your decision making. Ride the wave, brother Rand, and enjoy the ride. The decisions you make are your life's story.

Certainty? An admirable goal, and an ultimately unachievable one, except in some asymptotic cases.

DR

thaiboxerken

3rd January 2007, 08:12 PM

Who cares?
DR

Me. To live deluded is to live a lie.

MosheJW

4th January 2007, 01:51 AM

Would this change your behavior in any significant way (other than the obvious, like going to synagogue)? Or to put it another way, would the rules by which you interact with your fellow human beings really change?
I don't know. First I'd feel really lost and probably get depressed. I mean, if that is the case what is the point/purpose of life? Why care?
Maybe I'd start living my life in a more selfish way... (which makes me wonder, how come most people here aren't that way...)

lolurigeller - Unfortunately Israel seriously lacks female nerds...
But anyway, getting laid doesn't really get me anywhere either, so why bother. Why bother living, if we only just die anyway.

ranson

4th January 2007, 04:24 AM

Why bother living, if we only just die anyway

Going by that line, we should just exterminate the entire human race as they're born, because the experience of life is worth nothing.

Or, alternatively, you could climb mountains; find someone to love and be loved by; explore the earth with your feet and the stars with your eyes; learn as much as you can about the world and people around you; and then help to pass that knowledge along to a new generation to help them understand how, in a cosmic scheme, exactly how rare and special this life is. You can make the condition of life better for others who need help. To loosely paraphrase Sagan, in a billion galaxies, you won't find another human. That makes any human experience relatively unique; just because you don't get to keep it forever doesn't make it any less special.

l0rca

4th January 2007, 05:04 AM

Indeed Christianity has a clear starting point. To me, that starting point is the Christian narrative surrounding the figure of Jesus. As I understand it, the narrative serves to show us the fundamental nature of God.

I'm sorry to be so late in this reply, but this thread doesn't interest me much.

This point you make, however, has no evidence to back it up. While you may feel that the Gospels and accounts of Jesus make create a clear idea of what god is, many people also feel it is clear; clear that he endorsed the Crusades; clear the George Bush has god on his side; clear that he will return with an apocalipse on his royal tail within the next 50 years.

To claim that the Christian god is a clearly defined one is ludicrous. We were just arguing in another thread that the "word of god" has always been open to interpretation.

Ossai

4th January 2007, 07:25 AM

MosheJW
Why bother living, if we only just die anyway.
The purpose of life isn’t the destination but the journey.

Life has the meaning you put into it. If that meaning, for you or others, is defined by religion then so be it. Personally, I would rather the harsh truth than a comforting lie.

Ossai

RandFan

4th January 2007, 10:41 AM

Who cares?

Certainty is not a requirement for much of anything in life, it is the degree of uncertainty, or the minimization of it, and the amount of risk you'll take on, that informs your decision making. Ride the wave, brother Rand, and enjoy the ride. The decisions you make are your life's story.

Certainty? An admirable goal, and an ultimately unachievable one, except in some asymptotic cases.

DRYou are not without a point. I suppose we could spend days debating and clarifying the word "certainty". For the record, I accept both philosophically and scientifically that the search for absolute certainty is a fools errand. This is not the certainty that I speak of. Let me offer one of my favorite quotes from Talk Origins.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

So, let me restate my question, how can we be reasonably certain that we are not deluded in our beliefs?

Who cares? ME! I do. I very much care and I care for very good reasons.

I don't want to be exploited the way deluded people are often exploited (see Sylvia Browne, see Scientology, see Benny Hinn, See John Edwards, the list goes on and on).
I want to live in a society that is both a representative democracy and one where the citizens make reasonable and informed decisions utilizing critical thinking because I believe that the more that citizens do this the better the quality of my life will be.Given that, please to indulge me and answer the question, how can we be reasonably certain that we are not deluded in our beliefs?

I have an answer BTW. I was just hoping that I could spur Huntster into offering one himself. FWIW, the truth can be reasonably approximated and falsehoods can be discerned and avoided. We can lead lives that are ruled largely by reason and we need not be one of those suckers born every minute. Let's lower the ratio of fools to prudent citizens.

Foster Zygote

4th January 2007, 12:27 PM

I don't know. First I'd feel really lost and probably get depressed. I mean, if that is the case what is the point/purpose of life? Why care?
Why indeed? I'm sure you can find many reasons if you really think about it. The notion that life is meaningless without some god as its focus is, in my opinion, one of the worst pieces of religious propaganda ever conceived. For me personally, the little guy pictured at the bottom of this post is the greatest reason of all. Should you go the way you are at least contemplating, I'm sure you will find your own reasons for living. In fact, I'm sure you'll find that many of those reasons are present in your life right now. The religious can certainly feel deep love in their lives, but please don't fall for any propaganda that claims the non-religious can't as well.

Maybe I'd start living my life in a more selfish way... (which makes me wonder, how come most people here aren't that way...)
From my experience of myself and others, I would say that if you aren't selfish now then becoming an agnostic or an atheist wouldn't cause you to become so. I can't speak for everyone else here, but I'm sure my experience is similar to many of their's. I'm not selfish because I realized that not believing in God's displeasure didn't change how truly important other people are. I'd say I'm at least as compassionate now as I was as a Christian.

lolurigeller - Unfortunately Israel seriously lacks female nerds...
Well I can't help much there, but hey, you're 17! When I was 17 I hadn't even met my wife yet. Besides, cool feminerds are fairly good hiders.

But anyway, getting laid doesn't really get me anywhere either, so why bother.
Are you sure you're 17?:D

Why bother living, if we only just die anyway.
When my wife's grandfather Ted passed away at the age of 80 the viewing and the funeral were packed with people. One old guy said he hadn't seen him in 20 years. He used to volunteer at the little league (kid's baseball) field where Ted coached and he thought so highly of him that when he saw his obituary in the paper he just had to come and pay his respects. Ted was a US Marine who's unit was one of the first ashore at Iwo Jima. About 75% of his unit was wiped out in the fighting and he spent 15 months in the hospital after the war recovering from his injuries. He was a generous, fair, loyal, hardworking and loving man who always knew that family and friends are what life is really all about. The love he shared with those around him had a profound positive effect. That love made other people's lives the better for having known him. He passed that love on to his children and grandchildren. Now we are passing it on to his great grandchildren (seven and counting). In fact, my son, pictured below, is named for him. His was a life well lived and his positive influence lives on long after him.

In answer to your question: I believe we should bother living because we don't do it alone. Some day I'll be pushing up daisies but my son will live on. I hope that when I go people will feel that knowing me made their lives better in some way.

My favorite reason for living: (Other reader's reasons may vary. "Reason For Living" is not a trademark of Godcorp.)

Miss Anthrope

4th January 2007, 01:59 PM

I didn't know that about the date, although it doesn't surprise me at all. If there is a way to wrap something simple up in confusion, Rabbis will find it.

Personally, I find the worst part of being a Jew is that I don't have any choice about it. I don't want to derail this thread, but it's an interesting debate: if you could choose, would you not be an ethnic minority? Personally, if I had the option to not be Jewish, I would take it, but I've said that to people before and had horrified responses. That's a whole other thread though, perhaps one for the new year.

You're not alone!

Miss Anthrope

4th January 2007, 02:17 PM

Foster and Ranson, my hat's off to you both for saying it so well.

I've tried to buy into my ethnic faith of Judaism, then Christianity, with plenty of earnest woo seeking along the way. I was sincere, but I just never could could believe it. In my heart I knew none of it made any real sense.

I found out why life was worth living, and it was because I discovered it was short, temporary, and fragile. The notion of living life for some hope of an afterlife seems such a distraction to me now, and what a gamble! I learned to love life, love others in a true and meaningful way when I gave up the search for all higher powers and realized I needed to live, love and give in the present.

And I'm saying this as I face losing my father, with no faith to turn to for comfort.

latent aaaack

4th January 2007, 02:41 PM

Ever consider the possibility that our (Fnord, me, Kathy, and others) preferences are oriented towards The Truth (and not the other way around)?

This an interesting response because it relates to a major reason why most people find religious delusions easy to believe. It is true that much of what we experience appears to be orientated to our preferences. The sun, our physical forms, the food that exists for us to eat, all of natural history exists pretty much exactly how we want it to and appears to have been geared exactly toward producing us (even though the perspective from an AIDS virus looks the same), we just happen to find that our environment and virtually all the activities we ever naturally engage in (like eating, mental/physical exertion, sex, food) feel good, like it was minutely designed for us. It's not a huge logical leap to believe that in addition to all that, in keeping with that trend, beliefs that make us feel good must actually be right, just like eating berries that taste good must mean that the berries are right to eat, and all the rest.

MadOverlord

5th January 2007, 05:28 AM

I don't know. First I'd feel really lost and probably get depressed. I mean, if that is the case what is the point/purpose of life? Why care?

I was going to give you an eloquent list of reasons why life is worth living even in the absence of "higher" meaning, but Ranson and Foster beat me to it (bastards!). So I will be brief:

For me, one of the many good reasons for living is: "To repay those already gone who worked hard to make your life a good one, by working hard to make the lives of those yet to be born a little better. And to have a good time doing it."

Unfortunately Israel seriously lacks female nerds

I didn't have my first serious relationship until I was in my early 30's. I like to say I was so pathetic that the only girl who would go out with me was on the other side of the planet (Japan). We've been together ever since. As you get older, you'll get a little less nerdy, and the girls get a little wiser about what constitutes a good man. Eventually, the sets intersect and the right *woman* appears. Then the hard part begins.

RandFan

5th January 2007, 08:37 AM

Going by that line, we should just exterminate the entire human race as they're born, because the experience of life is worth nothing.

Or, alternatively, you could climb mountains; find someone to love and be loved by; explore the earth with your feet and the stars with your eyes; learn as much as you can about the world and people around you; and then help to pass that knowledge along to a new generation to help them understand how, in a cosmic scheme, exactly how rare and special this life is. You can make the condition of life better for others who need help. To loosely paraphrase Sagan, in a billion galaxies, you won't find another human. That makes any human experience relatively unique; just because you don't get to keep it forever doesn't make it any less special.I agree with Miss Anthrope, good post. Foster too.

Huntster

5th January 2007, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Ever consider the possibility that our (Fnord, me, Kathy, and others) preferences are oriented towards The Truth (and not the other way around)?
This an interesting response because it relates to a major reason why most people find religious delusions easy to believe.

Obviously, you haven't given this much thought.

It is not "easy" to believe.

Huntster

5th January 2007, 09:07 AM

....I was just hoping that I could spur Huntster into offering one himself......

I don't know that offering answers to you is worth the trouble, but I'll give it a whirl:

I very much care and I care for very good reasons.

I don't want to be exploited the way deluded people are often exploited (see Sylvia Browne, see Scientology, see Benny Hinn, See John Edwards, the list goes on and on).
I want to live in a society that is both a representative democracy and one where the citizens make reasonable and informed decisions utilizing critical thinking because I believe that the more that citizens do this the better the quality of my life will be.Given that, please to indulge me and answer the question, how can we be reasonably certain that we are not deluded in our beliefs?

Others will attempt to exploit people in every endeavor and activity there is. Religious faith is no exception. One must always be on guard for other people who might want to exploit you.

That includes pseudo=skeptics.....

Even though you don't appear to be able to properly deal with faith or even skepticism, try cynicism: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=cynicism)

An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals.
A scornfully or jadedly negative comment or act: "She arrived at a philosophy of her own, all made up of her private notations and cynicisms" (Henry James).
Cynicism The beliefs of the ancient Cynics.

Distrust Man, not God.

ranson

5th January 2007, 09:26 AM

Many thanks for the kind words. That makes one relatively well-written and coherent post out of 736, at this point . . . I shall attempt a second at some point in the future. ;)

l0rca

5th January 2007, 10:15 AM

I've got a friend who comes from Alaska. He's pretty cool.

RandFan

5th January 2007, 10:27 AM

I don't know that offering answers to you is worth the trouble, but I'll give it a whirl:Thanks.

Others will attempt to exploit people in every endeavor and activity there is. Religious faith is no exception. One must always be on guard for other people who might want to exploit you.No argument.

That includes pseudo=skeptics.....What is a pseudo skeptic?

1.) Skeptics are capable of being exploited.
2.) It's much harder to exploit a skeptic who is also a critical thinker.

Even though you don't appear to be able to properly deal with faith or even skepticism, try cynicism: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=cynicism) I don't know what you mean "to properly deal with faith or even skepticism". Could you explain?

Cynical? No, I have a lot of hope for my fellow man including the faithful. In the end I believe that humans are more good than bad. I'm proud to belong to the human race. I just realize that there is a certain percentage of people who exploit others and I would like to see us grow ever closer to our potential as humans. Many of us have come along way and that includes those who believe in god. Let's not stop. If you want to believe in god that's fine but let's move forward. I think that first requires that humans learn how to be skeptical and critical thinkers.

Distrust Man, not God.Ok, fair enough. The problem is that there is no way to know what is of god and what is of man so I'll distrust all of it until I know otherwise.

l0rca

5th January 2007, 10:41 AM

I have a lot of hope for my fellow man including the faithful.

Actually, I'll argue that Randy has too much faith.

Huntster

5th January 2007, 02:17 PM

I've got a friend who comes from Alaska. He's pretty cool.

What town does he live in?

Huntster

5th January 2007, 02:30 PM

What is a pseudo skeptic?

One who claims to be a skeptic, but is more extreme.

1.) Skeptics are capable of being exploited.

Yup.

2.) It's much harder to exploit a skeptic who is also a critical thinker.

Oh, you're both a skeptic and a critical thinker?

Wow.

I'll be more careful in the future.

Quote:
Even though you don't appear to be able to properly deal with faith or even skepticism, try cynicism:

I don't know what you mean "to properly deal with faith or even skepticism". Could you explain?

Well, your inability to "deal with faith" should be clear even to you.

You inability to "deal with skepticism" is another issue altogether.

Cynical? No, I have a lot of hope for my fellow man including the faithful.

Me, too.

In that way, even my cynicism is tempered.

In the end I believe that humans are more good than bad.

They are both. I don't say they are more one than the other.

When one leans toward God (however you define "God", and the more you "lean" makes a difference), you might be more "good than bad".

I'm proud to belong to the human race.

I'm not so "proud" as thankful.

I coulda' been worm..........

I just realize that there is a certain percentage of people who exploit others and I would like to see us grow ever closer to our potential as humans.

That will never go away. Work towards the goal, and forget trying to blame the rest on God. People out there don't care for you're view, mine, the Vatican's, or anybody else's but theirs.

Quote:
Distrust Man, not God.

Ok, fair enough. The problem is that there is no way to know what is of god and what is of man so I'll distrust all of it until I know otherwise.

With no faith, you will likely never "know".

l0rca

5th January 2007, 04:23 PM

What town does he live in?

He no longer does. He joined the Navy. I met him in boot camp. He was a good friend afterwards for several months as well.

RandFan

5th January 2007, 04:44 PM

One who claims to be a skeptic, but is more extreme.I don't know what this means. What do you mean "more extreme"? More extreme nacho cheese flavor? ;)

Oh, you're both a skeptic and a critical thinker?I would like to think so but part of skepticism is the willingness to question ones biases and assumptions. So I guess it's better to educate and inform oneself of history, logic, reason and current events while at the same time keeping an open mind and questioning what one knows. I'm trying. I concede that I've got a long way to go.

Well, your inability to "deal with faith" should be clear even to you.Not really. Nearly every person in my life are people of faith. Most importantly are my parents. I have a very close relationship with them. I deal with them and their faith very well. Some people don't like my honesty and skepticism toward faith healing, talking to an invisible sky person, speaking with the dead, superstition, etc. but that is their problem (except when I'm provocative or rude. I concede that invisible sky guy is rude to some).

You inability to "deal with skepticism" is another issue altogether.I belong to a local skeptics society that includes some people of faith and I've never had a problem dealing with their skepticism. I've never had a problem with Michael Shermer's skepticism, Randi's skepticism or any other so I can honestly say that I have no idea what you are talking about.

They are both. I don't say they are more one than the other.I respectfully disagree but that is mostly just my opinion.

When one leans toward God (however you define "God", and the more you "lean" makes a difference), you might be more "good than bad".There is zero evidence that this is true. On the contrary there is good evidence that this isn't true.

I'm not so "proud" as thankful.To each his own.

That will never go away. Work towards the goal, and forget trying to blame the rest on God. People out there don't care for you're view, mine, the Vatican's, or anybody else's but theirs. I believe that it is important to speak up. Sure, I'm just one person but it took a lot of people speaking up to change minds during the civil rights era. I believe a representative Democracy like America's works best when its citizens are informed and express themselves. I think that is why the First Amendment is so important. I think we can make a difference.

With no faith, you will likely never "know".Having had faith I can say that I'm no worse off now than then as far as knowing is concerned.

Foster Zygote

5th January 2007, 05:39 PM

Having had faith I can say that I'm no worse off now than then as far as knowing is concerned.

As you no doubt no longer feel obliged to submit to internal and external pressures to ignore evidence that contradicts your former faith I'd say you are likely better off now as far as knowing is concerned.

Huntster

5th January 2007, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
What town does he live in?
He no longer does. He joined the Navy. I met him in boot camp. He was a good friend afterwards for several months as well.

Do you know what town he lived in?

Alaska is a big, big place.

Huntster

5th January 2007, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
One who claims to be a skeptic, but is more extreme.

I don't know what this means.

You don't know what anything means.

Quote:
You inability to "deal with skepticism" is another issue altogether.

I belong to a local skeptics society....

I guess that makes it official.

RandFan

5th January 2007, 07:39 PM

You don't know what anything means.

I guess that makes it official.:rolleyes:

pchams

5th January 2007, 08:23 PM

Distrust Man, not God.

...and since man created gods...
'nuff said.

Before you ask for proof that man created god, just see this post.
You have recreated him over again.
(Yes I know that is redundant, one of my favorite redundancies is reborn again)

[OT derail]
Teek mentioned that Ancient Hebrew has no word for "penis".
I'm not sure why this bothers me except that, this position assumes the negative.
Even if we accept that you have been scholared by surviving ancient Hebrews, is it not possible that these particular ones were illiterate?
Perhaps the word was just never written.
It's a stretch to assume it didn't exist. (no pun intended) ;)

RandFan

5th January 2007, 08:33 PM

...and since man created gods...
'nuff said.What man can create man can destroy.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

Parable of the Madman, --Nietzsche

lolurigeller

5th January 2007, 08:37 PM

I didn't have my first serious relationship until I was in my early 30's. I like to say I was so pathetic that the only girl who would go out with me was on the other side of the planet (Japan). We've been together ever since. As you get older, you'll get a little less nerdy, and the girls get a little wiser about what constitutes a good man. Eventually, the sets intersect and the right *woman* appears. Then the hard part begins.

The op can glean wisdom from your post, but for him and maybe me as well eventhough I consider myself old (26). Why bother waiting? There is no rule anywhere saying you can't stop being a hopeless nerd at a young age, after all we do have free choice in this world :D

That and I can say with certainty you can't always judge a book by it's cover no matter how pretty or ugly. I've met some beautiful young women that were actually kind of like closet-nerds, and I think at any age women in general appreciate a good man, although good men can come in different packages....

Huntster

5th January 2007, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Distrust Man, not God.
...and since man created gods...
'nuff said.

Really?

Enough said there?

"All men were created equal", however, not all men have equal faith.

Thus, created equal doesn't necessarily mean died equal.

MadOverlord

6th January 2007, 07:46 AM

The op can glean wisdom from your post, but for him and maybe me as well even though I consider myself old (26). Why bother waiting?

I don't believe I said anything about waiting. I just said that "as you get older" (and get more experience, wisdom, etc.) things will get easier.

If you think of it as mathematics, as a hyper-nerd (like me), the set of all the women out there who would find me compatible was very low. Or in physics terms, my "woman-capture cross-section" was tiny, and thus fusion was either unlikely, or the fusion product had a very short half-life! But as I and they matured, the cross-sections increased, and an stable event became more probable.

It is entirely possible that the OP will find the love of his life next tuesday. And there are things he can do to increase the probability. But as with all things, balance is required. If you put too much focus on one thing (ie: I must get married or my life is over; there must be a god or life is meaningless) you may literally miss the forest for the trees. I found success in love when I stopped worrying about it. In eastern philosophy, there's the idea that "to obtain something, first you must not desire it". In dating, it's more pithy: "needy ain't sexy."

I personally think the OP is going to do just fine. I wish we'd had forums like this back when I was his age, but back then, the bytes only had 6 bits...

Darth Rotor

6th January 2007, 08:08 AM

MosheJW

The purpose of life isn’t the destination but the journey.

Life has the meaning you put into it. If that meaning, for you or others, is defined by religion then so be it. Ossai
Wow, we agree on something. I'd buy you a beer, if I could. This is goodness. :)

DR

Darth Rotor

6th January 2007, 08:10 AM

Me. To live deluded is to live a lie.
Then follow the course that seems best to you. Whatever you do, don't lie to yourself, as that is the first step to greater delusion. :)

DR

Foster Zygote

6th January 2007, 08:45 AM

...and since man created gods...
'nuff said.

Before you ask for proof that man created god, just see this post.
You have recreated him over again.
(Yes I know that is redundant, one of my favorite redundancies is reborn again)

[OT derail]
Teek mentioned that Ancient Hebrew has no word for "penis".
I'm not sure why this bothers me except that, this position assumes the negative.
Even if we accept that you have been scholared by surviving ancient Hebrews, is it not possible that these particular ones were illiterate?
Perhaps the word was just never written.
It's a stretch to assume it didn't exist. (no pun intended) ;)

God: And as a sign of our covenent I command that you cut off the end of your, errr...

Abraham: Our what?

G: Your ummm...

A: Our beards?

G: Uh no, heh heh, your errrrm...

A: Our, ummm... fingernails?

G: No, you're not gonna like this...

RandFan

6th January 2007, 08:49 AM

God: And as a sign of our covenent I command that you cut off the end of your, errr...

Abraham: Our what?

G: Your ummm...

A: Our beards?

G: Uh no, heh heh, your errrrm...

A: Our, ummm... fingernails?

G: No, you're not gonna like this...:D

Huntster

6th January 2007, 09:53 AM

To live deluded is to live a lie.

That is an absolutely hilarious statement coming from you, with your avatar so boldly illustrated right next to this statement....................

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

MosheJW

6th January 2007, 11:23 AM

Besides, cool feminerds are fairly good hiders.
I smell a conspiracy here...

Thanks for all the replies. I was convinced that without god life would not really be worth living, but when I think about it if I would know that for sure that he doesn't exsist, not much would change.

I must digest this information.

Davo

6th January 2007, 02:08 PM

It is not "easy" to believe.[/QUOTE]

Could you explain this further, why it is not easy to believe. A belief is something we believe in, why is this "not easy". Example - I believe the Earth goes round the sun - there is no " easy or hard" to this belief.

It would not be easy to believe,say, if I wanted to believe the Earth was sitting on a turtles back.

pchams

6th January 2007, 03:51 PM

Really?

Enough said there?

"All men were created equal", however, not all men have equal faith.

Thus, created equal doesn't necessarily mean died equal.

I wonder what "died equal" really means to you...and who the heck was ceated equal?
Is the starving African child created 'equal' to the great Alaskan hunter?

There is life after god Chicken Little. The sky isn't falling any faster than it ever has been.

Foster Zygote

6th January 2007, 06:49 PM

I must digest this information.

An excellent strategy. I would make only one more suggestion. Gather all the evidence you can and weigh it carefully, but don't let anyone, theist or atheist, tell you what the right thing to believe is. Figure that out for yourself.

ranson

6th January 2007, 09:26 PM

An excellent strategy. I would make only one more suggestion. Gather all the evidence you can and weigh it carefully, but don't let anyone, theist or atheist, tell you what the right thing to believe is. Figure that out for yourself.

What he said. This is a question that many people here have struggled with. There have been a lot of threads where people talk about journeys to and from religion. Dig a little, and you'll find plenty. I think there is a fairly recent thread in this section on the matter. Alternatively, you could just ask others to share what they went through. Questioning your assumptions and beliefs is never a bad way of learning.

Huntster

6th January 2007, 09:56 PM

It is not "easy" to believe.

Could you explain this further, why it is not easy to believe.[/quote]

1) To believe is to not know
2) Others will challenge your belief
3) The lack of proof gnaws at the belief

A belief is something we believe in

How very profound!

Example - I believe the Earth goes round the sun - there is no " easy or hard" to this belief.

It's a hell of a lot easier to believe today than it was 800 years ago.

It would not be easy to believe,say, if I wanted to believe the Earth was sitting on a turtles back.

Especially around here, but you are free to do so if you'd like.

Huntster

6th January 2007, 09:58 PM

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Huntster
Really?

Enough said there?

"All men were created equal", however, not all men have equal faith.

Thus, created equal doesn't necessarily mean died equal.
I wonder what "died equal" really means to you...and who the heck was ceated equal?

In spirit, we are all created equal.

[QUOTE]Is the starving African child created 'equal' to the great Alaskan hunter?

Yup.

That same child was created spiritually equal to you, too.

There is life after god Chicken Little. The sky isn't falling any faster than it ever has been.

The sky isn't falling at all, genius.

lolurigeller

7th January 2007, 05:59 AM

I don't believe I said anything about waiting. I just said that "as you get older" (and get more experience, wisdom, etc.) things will get easier.

If you think of it as mathematics, as a hyper-nerd (like me), the set of all the women out there who would find me compatible was very low. Or in physics terms, my "woman-capture cross-section" was tiny, and thus fusion was either unlikely, or the fusion product had a very short half-life! But as I and they matured, the cross-sections increased, and an stable event became more probable.

It is entirely possible that the OP will find the love of his life next tuesday. And there are things he can do to increase the probability. But as with all things, balance is required. If you put too much focus on one thing (ie: I must get married or my life is over; there must be a god or life is meaningless) you may literally miss the forest for the trees. I found success in love when I stopped worrying about it. In eastern philosophy, there's the idea that "to obtain something, first you must not desire it". In dating, it's more pithy: "needy ain't sexy."

I personally think the OP is going to do just fine. I wish we'd had forums like this back when I was his age, but back then, the bytes only had 6 bits...

If you want to compare yourself to me, you maybe a hyper-nerd, but i'm a (Beyond all hope sad pathetic-nerd with almost no redeeming interests except filled with completely useless information that has no bearing on reality or anythign close to being useful and productive)

ie: What is Adolf Gallands mascot on his BF (bayerische flugzugwerke) 109e4 inverted inline 12cylinder db601 engined fighter plane he flew over the battle of britian around 1940? Why is the m79 solidshot fired from a 76.2mm cannon from a Sherman m4a3e3 not as truly effective beyond 100-200meters against the Tigers simple welded 100mm/hull 120mm/mantlet composed of RHA (rolled homogenous armor) with a brinellli index of over 240?

Yeah uh huh, all that knowledge would sure make for an awesome showstopper of a conversation between me and a girl, if anything I problably would provide this board with enough comic relief to last weeks over sheer stupidity and the things I have done over my pathetic lifetime.

I understand where you are coming from and see what you say as valid, but for me I'm asserting the opposite view because well I spent most of my life as a shut-in nerd and frankly my experiences earlier on especially in college would have been so much richer if I hadn't been so fearful and had just bothered to go out of my room to meet other people instead of spending most of my time playing games and soaking up useless information. As far as meeting women went was non-existant, I had thought it was involuntary but that was due to my own ignorance, I had a choice all along the whole time but I never even knew it. While I thought I was hopeless nerd, I still recieved plenty of looks from cute girls even with my scruffy moustache and bummy clothes the truth is if I had dressed and groomed right I would look good enough to become a male model.

This is why I want to help give the op a choice by giving him this bit of knowledge I was denied due to my own ignorance when I was 18 or so. If he has the potential to do whatever it is he wants to do, ie: women. There is no reason why he shouldn't go out of his way to try something new, as long as it is not fear that holds you back from whbat you want to do.

Foster Zygote

7th January 2007, 10:44 AM

What is Adolf Gallands mascot on his BF (bayerische flugzugwerke) 109e4 inverted inline 12cylinder db601 engined fighter plane he flew over the battle of britian around 1940?
Why Micky Mouse smoking a cigar, of course. Doesn't it just chap your ass when someone refers to an ME109?:D

Why is the m79 solidshot fired from a 76.2mm cannon from a Sherman m4a3e3 not as truly effective beyond 100-200meters against the Tigers simple welded 100mm/hull 120mm/mantlet composed of RHA (rolled homogenous armor) with a brinellli index of over 240?
Not so sure about this one. The relatively low muzzle velocity? Still, it was better than the original 75mm.

Miss Anthrope

7th January 2007, 12:21 PM

*snip*.

Amost every day I read a nugget from Nietzsche that so perfectly applies to the topics on the JREF boards. So glad to see someone using them!

Davo

7th January 2007, 12:40 PM

1) To believe is to not know
2) Others will challenge your belief
3) The lack of proof gnaws at the belief

Thanks for your response. On point 1, Would I be correct in assuming you believe in god, but do not know there is God. I agree points 2 and 3 would automatically follow 1.

RandFan

7th January 2007, 12:49 PM

Amost every day I read a nugget from Nietzsche that so perfectly applies to the topics on the JREF boards. So glad to see someone using them!I was completly blindsided by Anti-Christ (http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Christ-Friedrich-Nietzsche/dp/1884365205). I'm not sure why. I think pop-culture and other misconcpetions about Nietzsche shaped my preconceptions. In any event his ability to make such a compelling picture of Christianity can't be easily dismissed. I highly recomend the book to anyone.

Huntster

7th January 2007, 10:58 PM

1) To believe is to not know
2) Others will challenge your belief
3) The lack of proof gnaws at the belief

Thanks for your response.

You're welcome.

On point 1, Would I be correct in assuming you believe in god, but do not know there is God.

Absolutely. I cannot know there is a God. There is no proof. And it is unlikely any will be forthcoming. That is why one must have faith, have doubt, or simply be indifferent.

The recurring theme of Christ in the New Testament was to have and feed faith.

MadOverlord

8th January 2007, 04:46 AM

I understand where you are coming from and see what you say as valid, but for me I'm asserting the opposite view because well I spent most of my life as a shut-in nerd and frankly my experiences earlier on especially in college would have been so much richer if I hadn't been so fearful and had just bothered to go out of my room to meet other people instead of spending most of my time playing games and soaking up useless information.

I see little, if anything, in your position that is incompatible with mine. And your point that it is usually fear of failure/ridicule that prevents us from finding that all-important balance (ie: taking that hot babe up for a flight in your hand-built replica of Galland's BF109) is well taken.

I personally feel that you're on the right track if all your failures are new and interesting ones.

Foster Zygote

8th January 2007, 08:51 AM

Absolutely. I cannot know there is a God. There is no proof. And it is unlikely any will be forthcoming. That is why one must have faith, have doubt, or simply be indifferent.
Yet there are so many different religious beliefs that people have faith in. What are the odds that you have faith in the correct god?

Foster Zygote

8th January 2007, 08:53 AM

I see little, if anything, in your position that is incompatible with mine. And your point that it is usually fear of failure/ridicule that prevents us from finding that all-important balance (ie: taking that hot babe up for a flight in your hand-built replica of Galland's BF109) is well taken.

I personally feel that you're on the right track if all your failures are new and interesting ones.

Alas, I fear the Bf109 had Little room for passengers bigger than a couple of lobsters.

Miss Anthrope

8th January 2007, 08:58 AM

I was completly blindsided by Anti-Christ (http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Christ-Friedrich-Nietzsche/dp/1884365205). I'm not sure why. I think pop-culture and other misconcpetions about Nietzsche shaped my preconceptions. In any event his ability to make such a compelling picture of Christianity can't be easily dismissed. I highly recomend the book to anyone.

Yes, the whole depressing goth thing is very inaccurate. I'm working my way through The Gay Science presently, lots of great little bit sized nuggets.

Darth Rotor

8th January 2007, 12:11 PM

Yet there are so many different religious beliefs that people have faith in. What are the odds that you have faith in the correct god?
Why does that matter?

DR

Huntster

8th January 2007, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Absolutely. I cannot know there is a God. There is no proof. And it is unlikely any will be forthcoming. That is why one must have faith, have doubt, or simply be indifferent.
Yet there are so many different religious beliefs that people have faith in. What are the odds that you have faith in the correct god?

I've answered this elsewhere and folks didn't like it there, so I doubt you'll be very happy either, but here it is anyway:

I think all the different ways to believe in or understand God are simply different ways to believe in or understand the same God, and I don't know that mine is any more "correct" than others, but it works for me.

And if theirs works for them, that's fine with me.

MadOverlord

9th January 2007, 05:07 AM

Alas, I fear the Bf109 had Little room for passengers bigger than a couple of lobsters.

Well, I'm sure that an inventive fellow could come up with a way to install the lady in the cockpit in a manner that would be mutually agreeable.

:D

Foster Zygote

13th January 2007, 12:46 PM

I've answered this elsewhere and folks didn't like it there, so I doubt you'll be very happy either, but here it is anyway:

I think all the different ways to believe in or understand God are simply different ways to believe in or understand the same God, and I don't know that mine is any more "correct" than others, but it works for me.

And if theirs works for them, that's fine with me.

Actually, I find that answer far more reasonable than what most religious people would come up with. I'm not stating agreement, but I do like your answer much better than "All the other religions are just wrong".

thaiboxerken

13th January 2007, 01:07 PM

What about those religions that have many gods?

chris epic

13th January 2007, 01:47 PM

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]The only explanation I can come up with, is that they made it up. In fact, it makes sense to assume that any early human society would create its system of beliefs to explain everything that doesn't make sense to them. Which leads to the question....
Why is our religion any different?
Isn’t the only reason that I am a Jew, is because I was born a Jew...
Shalom, Moshe...In any society, you will see there are roughly two types of religious people: cultural and personal. Cultural being that they were born into and raised in that religion. Personal being, regardless of what they were taught to believe, they came to a place later in their life where they feel they developed a personal relationship with God (whatever god or religion that is). I've met jewish people here in america that say they are jewish but they aren't spiritual- they are cultural jews. You seem to sound sincere and that God plays more of a personal role in your life than just the fact that you were raised Jewish.

Almost every religion I know of has a rich history, ancient history, rooted in polytheism and loaded with mythological stories of creation and human behavior. This is the case for Judaeism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroasterism, and most any other culture's history.

In your observation is fundamental of how culture creates religion- and it differs in many ways because the cultures differ- it makes it transmitable in culture if its conducive to that culture. But the basic necessities are usually the same in all religions: submission to God, worship ,relationship, protection , healing, revelation, understanding, oneness...

If there is one absolute god- maybe It understands that everyone is seeking It one way or another- even through science... and maybe It appreciates this, although It is very disappointed that we all keep fighting over It (him, her, whatever)

billydkid

13th January 2007, 02:54 PM

Yet there are so many different religious beliefs that people have faith in. What are the odds that you have faith in the correct god?

Not to mention there are infinite number of unprovable things that one could choose to believe.

Max560

14th January 2007, 12:20 AM

.....

I do not claim to "have" the Truth. I believe I am trying to seek it, and the direction I'm headed appears to me to be generally correct, beneficial, rewarding, and joyful.

However, since there is no proof of any of this, I could be wrong.

Just like you and everyone else.......

Are you really seeking the truth, or are you simply embracing that which is comforting to you?

That which is true, and that which is comforting are not the same thing. Truth does not require anyone's positive feelings towards it (or negative) to be true.

The path you are on may indeed be rewarding and joyful to you, but it may not be taking you where you think it is.

Huntster

14th January 2007, 02:16 AM

What about those religions that have many gods?

What about them?

Huntster

14th January 2007, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
.....

I do not claim to "have" the Truth. I believe I am trying to seek it, and the direction I'm headed appears to me to be generally correct, beneficial, rewarding, and joyful.

However, since there is no proof of any of this, I could be wrong.

Just like you and everyone else.......
Are you really seeking the truth, or are you simply embracing that which is comforting to you?

I am seeking the truth. I'm working at it.

I'm finding things.

If they aren't the truth, they're damned comforting, and it's the best I'll do at finding the truth.

That which is true, and that which is comforting are not the same thing.

And I suppose you'll be happy to define the difference for me?

Truth does not require anyone's positive feelings towards it (or negative) to be true.

And that's why I don't lend much credence to the BS that I read from these pages regarding what I've learned from my own work.

The path you are on may indeed be rewarding and joyful to you, but it may not be taking you where you think it is.

Maybe you're right.

And maybe you're wrong.

I know this:

Where I've come has been the result of a lifetime of struggle.

I damned sure won't "believe" some typing from a bunch of atheists more than my own struggles.

MadOverlord

14th January 2007, 07:32 AM

Actually, I find that answer far more reasonable than what most religious people would come up with. I'm not stating agreement, but I do like your answer much better than "All the other religions are just wrong".

Hunster's position is what I tend to call "gently religious". My mother fits into that category, as do many in the "high" protestant sects, such as the Anglicans. Gently religious people look upon their religion as a way to help them, and others, become better, nicer people.

As a side comment, if you watch Dawkins' "The Problem with Religion", by far the most reasonable religious person he interviews is the Anglican Bishop, who also strikes me as gently religious.

I damned sure won't "believe" some typing from a bunch of atheists more than my own struggles.

Hunster, being an reasonable atheist does not preclude accepting the wisdom of some parts of some religious philosophies. Non-acceptance of the proposition "God exists" does not imply non-acceptance of the proposition "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Reasonable atheists merely submit religiously inspired philosophy to dispassionate scrutiny to determine whether or not they are worthy of acceptance (as opposed to, "It's in the Book, so that's that"). So in that respect, the only difference between what they do and what you are doing is, in that oft-used quip, that they believe in one less God than you do.

Any atheist that rejects elements of philosophy simply because they are religiously inspired, or who discriminates against people because they are not atheists, is of course making the same error as fundamentalist theists.

ttias

14th January 2007, 07:57 AM

John Hick and his religious pluralism might be good reading if you are interested in questions like this. I'm not allowed to post links yet (soon, soon!) but do a search on wikipedia.

thaiboxerken

14th January 2007, 08:40 AM

What about them?

Are they wrong because they have many gods, or do you think they simply see your god as many gods?

thaiboxerken

14th January 2007, 08:42 AM

And I suppose you'll be happy to define the difference for me?

Since you like your dictionary so much, why don't you just look the two words up and compare. The words don't come close to having the same definition or meaning.

Foster Zygote

14th January 2007, 09:02 AM

Hunster, being an reasonable atheist does not preclude accepting the wisdom of some parts of some religious philosophies. Non-acceptance of the proposition "God exists" does not imply non-acceptance of the proposition "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Reasonable atheists merely submit religiously inspired philosophy to dispassionate scrutiny to determine whether or not they are worthy of acceptance (as opposed to, "It's in the Book, so that's that"). So in that respect, the only difference between what they do and what you are doing is, in that oft-used quip, that they believe in one less God than you do.

Any atheist that rejects elements of philosophy simply because they are religiously inspired, or who discriminates against people because they are not atheists, is of course making the same error as fundamentalist theists.

Well stated, especially the last paragraph. Welcome to the forum, Mad.

Huntster

14th January 2007, 09:10 PM

Are they wrong because they have many gods, or do you think they simply see your god as many gods?

I think they see the God of Abraham as many seperate gods.

Morrigan

14th January 2007, 10:01 PM

You don't know what anything means.
Condescending twit.

Absolutely. I cannot know there is a God. There is no proof. And it is unlikely any will be forthcoming. That is why one must have faith, have doubt, or simply be indifferent.

The recurring theme of Christ in the New Testament was to have and feed faith.
Why should anyone have this faith?

Huntster

14th January 2007, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Absolutely. I cannot know there is a God. There is no proof. And it is unlikely any will be forthcoming. That is why one must have faith, have doubt, or simply be indifferent.

The recurring theme of Christ in the New Testament was to have and feed faith.

Why should anyone have this faith?

In order to prepare for spiritual life?

Max560

14th January 2007, 11:10 PM

And I suppose you'll be happy to define the difference for me?

If you truly don't understand that there is a difference between the two terms "That which is truthful", and "That which is comforting", then I seriously doubt that me acting as your dictionary will help you.

I will provide an example where that which is comforting is actually false: Borrowing an example from Richard Dawkins- A doctor may tell a terminally ill patient that he is going to be fine, which the patient finds comforting. Truthful-the patient is terminal Comforting-being told that everything will be ok.

I am seeking the truth. I'm working at it.

I'm finding things.

If they aren't the truth, they're damned comforting, and it's the best I'll do at finding the truth.

In other words, you tend to reject the validity of things based on their degree of your discomfort.

This raises an interesting question. If "comfort" is to be the benchmark for truth, whose level of comfort shall we use? Do we each get to use our own level of comfort? If so, wouldn't that make truth variable?

Maybe you're right.

And maybe you're wrong.

Utterly worthless statement. It seems as though you are trying to imply that any argument forwarded by another is somehow just as likely to be invalid as it is valid. Simply tossing out the notion "Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong" does not reduce an argument's probability of being valid to 50%.

Example: "Don't stick your hand in the deep fryer, because you will burn yourself."

"Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong." (proceeds to burn self).

You are perfectly entitled to be dismissive of other people's points of view. The rather concrete example I've given should point out that there may be some risk associated with behaving that way.

And that's why I don't lend much credence to the BS that I read from these pages regarding what I've learned from my own work.
............

I know this:

Where I've come has been the result of a lifetime of struggle.

I damned sure won't "believe" some typing from a bunch of atheists more than my own struggles.

The source of the "typing" is irrelevant. The substance of what is said is what you should be evaluating.

You seem to be under the impression that simply "struggling" somehow validates the conclusions that you draw. "I put in lots of effort into this problem, therefore my conclusions must be truthful!"

Your whole method of pursuing truth seems to be based on ensuring that the "truth" is something that you find soothing. Are you really certain that the nature of reality is dependent on how you want it to be?

Huntster

15th January 2007, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
And I suppose you'll be happy to define the difference for me?

If you truly don't understand that there is a difference between the two terms "That which is truthful", and "That which is comforting", then I seriously doubt that me acting as your dictionary will help you.

No "doubt" about that. I prefer dictionary.com.

How about this:

I believe I am seeking truth, I believe I'm on an appropriate path, and that is a "comforting" thought?

Originally Posted by Huntster
I am seeking the truth. I'm working at it.

I'm finding things.

If they aren't the truth, they're damned comforting, and it's the best I'll do at finding the truth.

In other words, you tend to reject the validity of things based on their degree of your discomfort.

Not necessarily. I know I'm a sinner and I believe there are consequences for my sins, even though I hope to die in friendship with God. I'm not comfortable with what that might mean, but I still consider it true.

This raises an interesting question. If "comfort" is to be the benchmark for truth, whose level of comfort shall we use? Do we each get to use our own level of comfort? If so, wouldn't that make truth variable?

It makes the perception of truth variable. There's plenty of evidence of that already.

Originally Posted by Huntster

Maybe you're right.

And maybe you're wrong.

Utterly worthless statement.

And perfectly true. The truth.

Is that "comfortable"?

It seems as though you are trying to imply that any argument forwarded by another is somehow just as likely to be invalid as it is valid.

If there is no proof of their argument, is that not true?

Simply tossing out the notion "Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong" does not reduce an argument's probability of being valid to 50%.

Barring proof of their argument, and while not reducing an argument's probablilty, it does point out the fact that it may be true and may not be true.

Example: "Don't stick your hand in the deep fryer, because you will burn yourself."

"Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong." (proceeds to burn self).

Now you have proof.

If you stick your hand in the deep fryer again, you will attain proof again.

You are perfectly entitled to be dismissive of other people's points of view. The rather concrete example I've given should point out that there may be some risk associated with behaving that way.

Consequences. Results.

Yup. Every time.

Originally Posted by Huntster

And that's why I don't lend much credence to the BS that I read from these pages regarding what I've learned from my own work.
............

I know this:

Where I've come has been the result of a lifetime of struggle.

I damned sure won't "believe" some typing from a bunch of atheists more than my own struggles.

The source of the "typing" is irrelevant. The substance of what is said is what you should be evaluating.

It was evaluated during the process of the thought, during or before the typing.

Was it evaluated upon reading it, or simply refuted without proper consideration?

You seem to be under the impression that simply "struggling" somehow validates the conclusions that you draw.

Not unless the struggle and results were evaluated.

"I put in lots of effort into this problem, therefore my conclusions must be truthful!"

"I put in lots of effort into this problem, these were the results of the effort, therefore I can conclude that the results might be truth."

Your whole method of pursuing truth seems to be based on ensuring that the "truth" is something that you find soothing.

They may or may not be "soothing".

Sometimes they are very uncomfortable.

Are you really certain that the nature of reality is dependent on how you want it to be?

I didn't originate God, spirituality, or religion. It wasn't "my plan."

What I "want it to be" isn't part of the deal.

billydkid

15th January 2007, 04:08 PM

If they aren't the truth, they're damned comforting, and it's the best I'll do at finding the truth.

This reminds me of the famous theologian who, if given the choice between God and the truth said he would choose God. Now THAT is real faith. Choosing to believe in something you actually KNOW isn't true.

ceo_esq

15th January 2007, 05:04 PM

This reminds me of the famous theologian who, if given the choice between God and the truth said he would choose God. Now THAT is real faith. Choosing to believe in something you actually KNOW isn't true.

I'm not certain, but I think you may have that backwards. The Dominican theologian Johannes Eckhart famously said that if he had to choose between God and the truth, he would choose the truth. I have a vague recollection of a character in a Woody Allen movie saying that he would choose God over the truth, but I can't think of a famous theologian who said anything similar.

[ETA:] Although, upon reflection, I am reminded of an episode in C.S. Lewis' The Silver Chair in which Puddleglum confronts the evil witch of the Underworld, who is manipulating the protagonists' minds in an effort to persuade them that the world they know is a figment of their imaginations:

Puddleglum was still fighting hard. "I don't rightly know what you mean by a world," he said, talking like a man who hasn't enough air. "But you can play that fiddle till your fingers drop off, and still you won't make me forget Narnia; and the whole Overworld, too. We'll never see it again, I shouldn't wonder. You may have blotted it out and turned it dark like this, for all I know. Nothing more likely. But I know I was there once. I've seen the sky full of stars. I've seen the sun coming up out of the sea of a morning and sinking behind the mountains at night. And I've seen him up in the midday sky when I couldn't look at him for brightness ... Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

volatile

15th January 2007, 06:19 PM

To see how tragic the choice between God and the Truth, you have to look no further than the case of Dr. Kurt Wise:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_21_4

thaiboxerken

15th January 2007, 08:21 PM

I think they see the God of Abraham as many seperate gods.

Maybe you see many gods as your god. How do you explain the religions where the gods actually try to destroy each other or work against each other?

Max560

15th January 2007, 10:52 PM

No "doubt" about that. I prefer dictionary.com.

Very good. That means you no longer have to resort to the glib "care to define those terms for me?" tactic to evade points you don't like in all of your future posts.

How about this:

I believe I am seeking truth, I believe I'm on an appropriate path, and that is a "comforting" thought?

Translation: "That which I believe is the same as that which I find comforting."

No arguments from me here. What you happen to believe could be for a variety of reasons, including the need for comfort. The reasons can be completely irrational. You get to set the bar as far as what you believe goes.

Notice the huge difference in meaning between "That which I believe is the same as that which I find comforting.", and "That which is true is not the same as that which is comforting.".

That which is true does not require your belief in order to be true. It does not require you to feel good about it or bad about it. You do not get a vote.

Not necessarily. I know I'm a sinner and I believe there are consequences for my sins, even though I hope to die in friendship with God. I'm not comfortable with what that might mean, but I still consider it true.

Once again, that which is true does not require your beliefs in order to be true. Conversely, that which you believe does not need to be true in order for you to believe it.

Incidentally, I suppose you mean the above in a way that doesn't contradict your sentiment:

"I do not claim to "have" the Truth. I believe I am trying to seek it, and the direction I'm headed appears to me to be generally correct, beneficial, rewarding, and joyful."

Especially the part about it being joyful.

[QUOTE=Huntster;2259369]
Quote:
It seems as though you are trying to imply that any argument forwarded by another is somehow just as likely to be invalid as it is valid.

If there is no proof of their argument, is that not true?

No.

You have to actually carefully evaluate the evidence in favor of and against the argument. You can then attempt to assign a likelihood that the proposition is valid or invalid.

Example: "The Tooth Fairy exists." Would you say that this statement is just as likely to be valid as invalid (Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong), or would the evidence ( or lack thereof) in favor of the argument tip the scales in one direction?

Barring proof of their argument, and while not reducing an argument's probablilty, it does point out the fact that it may be true and may not be true.

I doubt that this is the spirit in which you mean it. As an opening shot, you are using it to say "Your argument is just as likely to be invalid as valid, so I reject it.". This is a sort of mental shorthand which you are using as a substitute for critical thinking.

Next, if someone draws your attention to the need to evaluate the evidence, you will resort to all sorts of evasions such as the dictionary game, liberal use of red herrings, etc.

If you fail to throw your adversary off the trail through these tactics, you will finally resort to the notion that unless the evidence proves the argument fully and completely, then there must be at least some probability (no matter how miniscule)that it is false, and therefore you reject it utterly.

Now you have proof.

If you stick your hand in the deep fryer again, you will attain proof again.

Consequences. Results.

Yup. Every time.

The purpose of the deep fryer analogy was to demonstrate that reflexively rejecting someone else's argument on the strength of "Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong" can be maladaptive. You appear to have missed the point entirely, or you don't like the point, and are choosing to act like you have missed the point.

Do you understand and agree that the proposition "reflexively rejecting someone else's argument on the strength of "Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong" can be maladaptive", or not?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntster

And that's why I don't lend much credence to the BS that I read from these pages regarding what I've learned from my own work.
............

I know this:

Where I've come has been the result of a lifetime of struggle.

I damned sure won't "believe" some typing from a bunch of atheists more than my own struggles.
The source of the "typing" is irrelevant. The substance of what is said is what you should be evaluating.

It was evaluated during the process of the thought, during or before the typing.

Was it evaluated upon reading it, or simply refuted without proper consideration?

By the tone of your posts, and by the way you lay out your general thought process, I conclude that you simply refute positions contrary to your own without proper consideration.

"I put in lots of effort into this problem, these were the results of the effort, therefore I can conclude that the results might be truth."

You can draw no such conclusion. You can only comment on your effort.

If you start with a poor foundation when you build a house, the house will collapse, no matter how much effort you put into building the roof.

They may or may not be "soothing".

Sometimes they are very uncomfortable.

I didn't originate God, spirituality, or religion. It wasn't "my plan."

What I "want it to be" isn't part of the deal.

You seem to want to demonstrate that your journey has been a struggle, but that it has been rewarding. Fair enough. You are still merely describing your belief in what the nature of reality is. You have described your journey/conclusions as being joyful and rewarding, and have cited this as a reason for adhering to your world view. You seem likely to cling to your world view, and will likely reject all ideas which run contrary to your world view. The quality of the ideas will not matter to you; the fact that they may require you to slip out of your metaphysical comfort zone will be reason enough for you to stamp them out. You will also stamp out any thought process which may lead to a conclusion contrary to your own world view.

Why will you do these things? Because it is easier to bask in the glow of your own warm, fuzzy world view than to engage in critical thinking which would threaten to smash your world view.

Huntster

15th January 2007, 11:38 PM

Huntster

15th January 2007, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
I think they see the God of Abraham as many seperate gods.
Maybe you see many gods as your god.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

How do you explain the religions where the gods actually try to destroy each other or work against each other?

Perhaps the same way the God of Abraham seems to exhibit human-like emotions, like anger (something so many on this forum like to "use against Him").

Huntster

16th January 2007, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
No "doubt" about that. I prefer dictionary.com.

Very good.

Thanks for the passing grade.

That means you no longer have to resort to the glib "care to define those terms for me?" tactic to evade points you don't like in all of your future posts.

Oh. It's going to be like this, huh?

What you happen to believe could be for a variety of reasons, including the need for comfort.

Okay, okay.

You want me to be comforted.

Consider me so.

Next?

The reasons can be completely irrational. You get to set the bar as far as what you believe goes.

Don't you?

Notice the huge difference in meaning between "That which I believe is the same as that which I find comforting.", and "That which is true is not the same as that which is comforting.".

Whatever, Sigmund.

That which is true does not require your belief in order to be true. It does not require you to feel good about it or bad about it. You do not get a vote.

Look, clown: I get a vote.

I vote for what I believe. Period.

And it's a one-vote election.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Barring proof of their argument, and while not reducing an argument's probablilty, it does point out the fact that it may be true and may not be true.

I doubt that this is the spirit in which you mean it.

What "spirit" is that?

As an opening shot, you are using it to say "Your argument is just as likely to be invalid as valid, so I reject it.". This is a sort of mental shorthand which you are using as a substitute for critical thinking.

I'm not shooting, and I don't think "critically."

Next, if someone draws your attention to the need to evaluate the evidence, you will resort to all sorts of evasions such as the dictionary game, liberal use of red herrings, etc.

I'll be happy to evaluate any "evidence" of anything with anyone.

No fish needed, but the dictionary will definately be referred.

If you fail to throw your adversary off the trail through these tactics, you will finally resort to the notion that unless the evidence proves the argument fully and completely, then there must be at least some probability (no matter how miniscule)that it is false, and therefore you reject it utterly.

Nice line.

Show me what you can do.

Originally Posted by Huntster

Now you have proof.

If you stick your hand in the deep fryer again, you will attain proof again.

Consequences. Results.

Yup. Every time.

The purpose of the deep fryer analogy was to demonstrate that reflexively rejecting someone else's argument on the strength of "Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong" can be maladaptive.

Was it?

You appear to have missed the point entirely, or you don't like the point, and are choosing to act like you have missed the point.

Who's being diversionary here?

Do you understand and agree that the proposition "reflexively rejecting someone else's argument on the strength of "Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong" can be maladaptive", or not?

No.

By the tone of your posts, and by the way you lay out your general thought process, I conclude that you simply refute positions contrary to your own without proper consideration.

Oh.

Originally Posted by Huntster
"I put in lots of effort into this problem, these were the results of the effort, therefore I can conclude that the results might be truth."

You can draw no such conclusion. You can only comment on your effort.

My efforts might not reach conclusions even if they reach new heights.

I suppose you can offer your conclusions, but I'm sure you'll understand if I reject them "out-of-hand."

"Without proper consideration"?

If you start with a poor foundation when you build a house, the house will collapse, no matter how much effort you put into building the roof.

And if you have the best foundation, the snow load can still bust you.

Originally Posted by Huntster

They may or may not be "soothing".

Sometimes they are very uncomfortable.

I didn't originate God, spirituality, or religion. It wasn't "my plan."

What I "want it to be" isn't part of the deal.

You seem to want to demonstrate that your journey has been a struggle, but that it has been rewarding. Fair enough. You are still merely describing your belief in what the nature of reality is.

Fair enough.

You have described your journey/conclusions as being joyful and rewarding, and have cited this as a reason for adhering to your world view. You seem likely to cling to your world view, and will likely reject all ideas which run contrary to your world view.The quality of the ideas will not matter to you; the fact that they may require you to slip out of your metaphysical comfort zone will be reason enough for you to stamp them out.

Really?

You will also stamp out any thought process which may lead to a conclusion contrary to your own world view.

Wow.

Why will you do these things? Because it is easier to bask in the glow of your own warm, fuzzy world view than to engage in critical thinking which would threaten to smash your world view.

Frankly, I prefer smashing the 'world view' of people like you.

Funny. I've been writing about spirituality. You're into 'world view'.

Donn

16th January 2007, 12:16 PM

One way of approaching the problem would be to realize, as you seem to imply, that all religions may contain some aspect of the final truth. Ramakrishna would say that all religions reflect God but do not completely comprehend Him. His solution was -- apply yourself to your religion with all your heart as your way of "communing" with God but realize that your way of doing so needn't be the same as the next guy's, so there is no need to chop off his head as an infidel (no need to claim exclusive truth).
Hey, Ich.
What you said here is, I think, the underlying refuge of those who really think about their Faith.
All the other stuff can be stripped away.
Bibles can be redacted and re-interpreted. Heck, Bibles don't even have to be read!
Fashions and Styles like culture can come and go, but the bottom-line is the absolute reality of God.
The only way to make this fit the many shapes of Faith on Earth is to admit that they are all referring to one God.

I recently experienced that this position can also co-exist with shabby thinking of the form : Yes, they are all the same God, but my God is the real one and they will all have to convert one day.
:boggled:

Distrust Man, not God.
Once Faith sets in, it self-references and builds a catch22 for the believer. You must have Faith exactly because there is doubt and there is doubt because you have chosen a position of Faith. (Faith-22 :) )

This circle must be quite stressful, rather hard to manage in one's mind. I imagine it's a lot like a Zen koan, something to meditate on.

I think Huntster (from what I have read - please excuse my nerve!) is almost addicted* to the enigma : Due to its mystery, hence its mystery.

(* I don't mean addiction in a negative sense, although I see the resulting effect of Religion in the world as largely negative.)

The whole point of Faith is mystery. It cannot be Faith if there is data.

This addiction to mysticism and irrational koans seems to follow the argument that once your rational mind is "out of the way" one can begin to see Truth. (i.e. your version of God or oneness)

This quest is very much wrapped-up in effort and strain, hardship and tenacity. One does not come to such a surrendering of one's self without a fight. This is why Huntster emphasizes the effort he put into it and why he values the results.

To tell someone who has invested in all this that they are wrong and building on insecure foundations is not really fair - not unless we (as atheists) can come up with very good counter-koans (so to speak) to combat the Faith-22 at it's root.

I am still coming to terms with a close friend who operates on this basis. It's still fresh and shocking to me. I have to say that I would have more respect for him if he would at least try to see the Faith-22, but he will not do so.

What about those religions that have many gods?
In the line of my post, these many Gods are merely facets of the one God (or Thing, or Tao, or whatever.)

thaiboxerken

16th January 2007, 06:02 PM

Perhaps the same way the God of Abraham seems to exhibit human-like emotions, like anger (something so many on this forum like to "use against Him").

The explanation is simple, people create their gods in their own images. Your god is no different.

Max560

16th January 2007, 10:02 PM

Whatever, Sigmund.

Nothing psycho-dynamic in my post, therefore the Sigmund reference is irrelevant. In any case, your reply is non-responsive. This is consistent with the observations I made in my previous post:

Quote:
You seem likely to cling to your world view, and will likely reject all ideas which run contrary to your world view. The quality of the ideas will not matter to you; the fact that they may require you to slip out of your metaphysical comfort zone will be reason enough for you to stamp them out. You will also stamp out any thought process which may lead to a conclusion contrary to your own world view.

Don't you?

Re: Setting the bar for what I believe- Of course I do. That wasn't meant as an attack or accusation against you. That was elaboration on the nature of belief, in contrast to the nature of truth.

It is possible to believe something without sound evidence to back it up. E.g., "The Earth is Flat.".

Something that is true does not require someone's belief to be true. E.g., "The Earth is not the center of our solar system." This remains true whether one chooses to believe it or not. One can be happy about the fact, sad, angry, indifferent, confused, etc.- It simply doesn't matter as far as making the statement true goes.

Look, clown: I get a vote.

I vote for what I believe. Period.

And it's a one-vote election.

No, you don't get a vote. Something that is true does not require anything from you to be true.

Name calling....it doesn't do too much to elevate your posts IMHO. I leave it to you to either continue with it or drop it.

What "spirit" is that?

I mean that in precisely the manner I went on to describe in my last post. Reread it.

Quote:
Do you understand and agree that the proposition "reflexively rejecting someone else's argument on the strength of "Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong" can be maladaptive", or not?
No.

Which of these two statements strikes you as being the more realistic proposition?

1. It is impossible to put yourself in harm's way by reflexively rejecting someone else's argument on the strength of "Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong"

2. It is possible to put yourself in harm's way by reflexively rejecting someone else's argument on the strength of "Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong"

And if you have the best foundation, the snow load can still bust you.

Evasion. The point was to illustrate that it is possible to put effort into something that is doomed to fail. This needs to be spelled out, since you have opted to put forth an argument which essentially takes this form:

Effort always produces valid results.

My path to reaching my theological conclusions took effort.

Therefore my theological conclusions are valid.

I'm not shooting, and I don't think "critically." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/critical%20thinking)

I'll be happy to evaluate any "evidence" of anything with anyone.

Be sure to let me know when that happens.

Frankly, I prefer smashing the 'world view' of people like you.

Be sure to let me know when that happens.

Morrigan

19th January 2007, 05:13 PM

In order to prepare for spiritual life?

What spiritual life?

Morrigan

25th January 2007, 04:26 PM

*crickets*

Huntster

25th January 2007, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Whatever, Sigmund.

Nothing psycho-dynamic in my post, therefore the Sigmund reference is irrelevant. In any case, your reply is non-responsive. This is consistent with the observations I made in my previous post:

Quote:
You seem likely to cling to your world view, and will likely reject all ideas which run contrary to your world view.....

My world "view" is what I have "viewed", and what you write or say will not be likely to change it.

My opinion is quite different.

Is yours?

The quality of the ideas will not matter to you; the fact that they may require you to slip out of your metaphysical comfort zone will be reason enough for you to stamp them out.

The quality of what ideas?

Yours?

You will also stamp out any thought process which may lead to a conclusion contrary to your own world view.

"Thought processes" will not likely lead me to a conclusion that I have drawn from what I have seen or experienced.

I don't fall for propaganda easily.

Originally Posted by Huntster

Don't you?

Re: Setting the bar for what I believe- Of course I do. That wasn't meant as an attack or accusation against you. That was elaboration on the nature of belief, in contrast to the nature of truth.

Lord, have mercy!

Regardless of the number of times I've delineated the differences between what is known and what is not known (and thus must be believed or rejected), you're going to tell me about the contrast between the nature of belief and the nature of truth?

It is possible to believe something without sound evidence to back it up. E.g., "The Earth is Flat.".

Something that is true does not require someone's belief to be true. E.g., "The Earth is not the center of our solar system." This remains true whether one chooses to believe it or not. One can be happy about the fact, sad, angry, indifferent, confused, etc.- It simply doesn't matter as far as making the statement true goes.

Did it occur to you that knowing the truth is required before one can declare it so?

Originally Posted by Huntster

Look, clown: I get a vote.

I vote for what I believe. Period.

And it's a one-vote election.

No, you don't get a vote. Something that is true does not require anything from you to be true.

I vote for you to now tell us about this "truth" you refer to so that I can acknowledge, believe, reject, or remain indifferent about it, because yes, I damned sure do have a vote.

Name calling....it doesn't do too much to elevate your posts IMHO.

I'm not riding an elevator.

I leave it to you to either continue with it or drop it.

Yup.

My election, my vote.

Remember?

Originally Posted by Huntster

What "spirit" is that?

I mean that in precisely the manner I went on to describe in my last post. Reread it.

No.

You chose not to answer the question, and I now choose to disregard you.

You had your election, and you voted.

Now comes my election, and my vote.

Originally Posted by Huntster

Which of these two statements strikes you as being the more realistic proposition?

1. It is impossible to put yourself in harm's way by reflexively rejecting someone else's argument on the strength of "Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong"

2. It is possible to put yourself in harm's way by reflexively rejecting someone else's argument on the strength of "Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong"

I'd say that both statements are rather stupid, and I have no idea what game you're playing with them.

Don't much care, either.

Originally Posted by Huntster
And if you have the best foundation, the snow load can still bust you.

Evasion.

The wise fox doesn't stick his neck into the snare.

The point was to illustrate that it is possible to put effort into something that is doomed to fail. This needs to be spelled out, since you have opted to put forth an argument which essentially takes this form:

Effort always produces valid results.

My path to reaching my theological conclusions took effort.

Therefore my theological conclusions are valid.

That is not my "argument."

I'll respond to those points with my "world view":

"Effort always produces consequences, my theological beliefs are not theological conclusions, and therefore max's attempts to define me are all screwed up."

Originally Posted by Huntster

I'll be happy to evaluate any "evidence" of anything with anyone.

Be sure to let me know when that happens.

No. Pay attention.

But be aware that it will likely be a damned long time before anyone produces any theological evidence of any kind; pro or con.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Frankly, I prefer smashing the 'world view' of people like you.

Be sure to let me know when that happens.

I can't. It's your view. I won't know if it's smashed or not.

And if I'm successful, don't bother letting me know.

I really don't care.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
In order to prepare for spiritual life?
What spiritual life?

The one that you don't believe exists and reject.

Huntster

25th January 2007, 05:07 PM

*crickets*

I smell a skunk.

Morrigan

26th January 2007, 10:25 PM

Why do you believe in this spiritual life? Why do you think it exists?

Huntster

27th January 2007, 12:05 AM

Why do you believe in this spiritual life?

1) I have no reason to discount it,
2) I've been taught that it exists
3) My experience is that it does exist

Why do you think it exists?

Experience.

thaiboxerken

27th January 2007, 01:07 PM

1. He ignores evidence.
2. He was brainwashed.
3. He has hallucinations.

Delusion.

Max560

27th January 2007, 03:23 PM

My world "view" is what I have "viewed", and what you write or say will not be likely to change it.

Oh well, so much for rational discourse.

"Thought processes" will not likely lead me to a conclusion that I have drawn from what I have seen or experienced.

I don't fall for propaganda easily.

Giving careful consideration to how you think about things, as well as to the conclusions that you draw is not falling for propaganda. It is called engaging in critical thinking.

I vote for you to now tell us about this "truth" you refer to so that I can acknowledge, believe, reject, or remain indifferent about it, because yes, I damned sure do have a vote.

You have repeatedly failed to grasp the point being made.

That which is true requires nothing from you in order to be true.

You can have an opinion about it, but your opinion does not matter as far as strengthening or weakening that which is true.

I vote for you to now tell us about this "truth" you refer to so that I can acknowledge, believe, reject, or remain indifferent about it, because yes, I damned sure do have a vote.

I will give you one last example of what I mean when I say "that which is true requires nothing from you in order to be true":

The circumference of a circle divided by its diameter is pi.

This remains true if you are happy, sad, indifferent, etc. It was true before you were born. It will be true after you are dead. It was true before anyone knew or cared about mathematics or geometry.

This is what I mean by you not getting a vote on what is true.

You either grasp this, or you don't.

The long and short of this is that believing very strongly in something doesn't make that something true. In other words, holding on to an idea deep down where it counts does not strengthen the validity of the idea.

I'd say that both statements are rather stupid, and I have no idea what game you're playing with them.

Don't much care, either.

The wise fox doesn't stick his neck into the snare.

A more appropriate animal metaphor would probably be that of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

"Effort always produces consequences, my theological beliefs are not theological conclusions, and therefore max's attempts to define me are all screwed up."

Misguided effort can produce inaccurate results.

I can't. It's your view. I won't know if it's smashed or not.

And if I'm successful, don't bother letting me know.

I really don't care.

You did claim that:
Frankly, I prefer smashing the 'world view' of people like you.

So I will do you the courtesy of letting you know if you succeed.

Based on the quality of your posts up until now though, I will take your assertion as an impotent boast for now.