An enlightening experience.

[Karthak]

This happened several months ago in the school library. I can't recall exactly how it happened, but suddenly I was talking to three of my friends and trying to explain to them why I am an atheist (before this happened I had no idea any of those three believed in a god). I got completely flattened, since I was outnumbered three to one and I'm really not good at spontaneous debates.

Later that day I was still rather annoyed about being squashed, so I went to my computer and printed out excerpts of essays and articles that I felt explained my point of view. About three pages total on A4 paper.

The next day I tried to present the text to one of my friends, saying that here was what I believed and why I believed it. Guess what happened? She didn't want to take those papers. She said something (can't remember the exact words, it was almost half a year ago) that basically added up to: "I believe what I believe and I don't want to read that crap". (She expressed it a bit politer than that though)

I was stunned. If she had given me some papers that argued for her beliefs, I would have accepted them, read through them and debated about them. She, on the other hand, did not even want to know of anything that contradicted her point of view. I think that's the difference between a believer and an atheist. An atheist is willing to reexamine what he believes in and if necessary change his mind, while a believer would call such a thing heresy.:knockout:

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

Not really, you're just describing the difference between someone who's stubborn and someone who's open to argument. They exist on both sides of the camp.

[Kaji]

Seconded. I hold such debates frequently, make no mention of ideological debates with believers who fall under the same overall banner (Christianity) but different sets of beliefs (I'm Catholic).

[Fred]

Thirded - except I would also point out that people's responses can also depend on their mood. In a different situation, Karthak's friend might have been delighted to read the paper.

[Ozero]

When I was little, (9?) I told my dad I didn't believe in god. I didn't do it with any high-falootin words like I have access to now, but I did this pretty politely.

He blew up and told me never to make fun of people's religions.

I wish I knew my exact wording, so I could pick apart what set him off.. but back then, it never took much and his logic flow wasn't always too crystal...

Interestingly, now he hates the church. I didn't bother asking about his stance on god.

To clarify on myself though, I guess I'm agnostic. The church can go play it's little games as long as I don't get forced into it, and I don't have any proof about god either way. Though if Moses popped in with Jesus, Vishnu and Odin, sure, I'd invite em in for tea. I'd keep my mother away form them though... she'd debate them until they were all blue in the face...

Well... give or take Vishnu....

[Micah the Great]

Has anyone else noticed there's like 5 or 6 threads right now on religion/morals right now? It's weird.

[SlickWilly440]

^
Yeah there's got to be something better to talk about, like how people can turn out just fine without religion as long as they are taught good morals and manners in a secular light.

[Jetsetlemming]

Ha, you got owned by religion.

[Plekto]

Expecting rational discuission from someone who believes an inherently irrational belief system is asking for a headache.

A sneakier method is to approach them from a "so explain it to me" stance. Then politely point out how one thing after another makes no sense to you. Eventually you might get them to question a few of their believs in the process.

[Karthak]

Ha, you got owned by religion.
It was three versus one.

[stsparky]

It was three versus one.
Next time - ask them why there's no historical proof of "Jesus" being real? Cite Paul and you'll be fine.

[SlickWilly440]

^
Wait I learned in world history class that there was this guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Roman soldiers, and this was at a public school from a secular text book......I was fed lies!

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

Expecting rational discuission from someone who believes an inherently irrational belief system is asking for a headache.



Ok, this is pretty, well..let's just say I've got a problem with this. That is, I've got a problem when people use the term "rational" for atheism and "irrational" for having faith.

Rationality, logic, numbers - these ideas were born out of the Enlightenment as a way to save us of our fear from the unknown. But instead logic has become totalitarian, leaving anything that is deemed "irrational" as something which has no value in society. Instead of explaining the unknown, logic has destroyed it. Everything must be quantifiable. Can you put a price on a forest? Economists say you can, and if building a mall there is more valuable, than so be it. Emotions, memories, feelings, and beliefs can't be counted in money and are therefore irrational. God is irrational because he cannot be proven, and the rationale that there is no God rules out.

It's called faith because it's something you don't need proof of.

[darighaz]

Personally i think its because you just wanted to hand her a bunch of papers... If you can't explain it yourself, i dont really think it would be worth their time... I hate handouts of any kind personally.

[Trump]

I would actually think "3 on 1" in a debate like that would help disorganize your opponents statements and make them easier to respond to.

[Shishio]

Not really, you're just describing the difference between someone who's stubborn and someone who's open to argument. They exist on both sides of the camp.

Fourthed.

I would actually think "3 on 1" in a debate like that would help disorganize your opponents statements and make them easier to respond to.

Have you ever tried reasoning with one idiot?*

*I'm not saying all religious people are idiots.

[stsparky]

^
Wait I learned in world history class that there was this guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Roman soldiers, and this was at a public school from a secular text book......I was fed lies!
Exactly ... it's just a story poorly told.

The Jesus Puzzle (subtitled "Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ?") is a 1999 book written by Earl Doherty, a historical scholar. This book presents many views on the origins of Christianity, and promotes the view of a mythical Jesus. Doherty's treatment of the issue has received much attention on the internet from both sides of the debate, including favourable reviews by skeptics Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier.

...The Jesus myth hypothesis, also referred to as the Jesus myth theory, the Jesus myth refers to the idea that the narrative of Jesus in the gospels is not about a real, historical person, but a construct of Christian mythology, which parallels mystery religions of the Roman Empire such as Mithraism and the myths of rebirth deities.

The theory was first proposed by historian Bruno Bauer in the 19th century and was influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century. It has recently been popularized by a number of authors including Earl Doherty, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. The vast majority of Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity reject the thesis because it puts them out of work.

[Roxie]

fifthed.


It's called faith because it's something you don't need proof of.
You mean quantifiable, tactile proof, correct?

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

fifthed.


You mean quantifiable, tactile proof, correct?


Yeah, as far as I see it, faith is about knowing that sure, there might not be a God, but they choose to believe even without scientific, "rational logic."

[Kwiz]

Rationality, logic, numbers - these ideas were born out of the Enlightenment as a way to save us of our fear from the unknown. But instead logic has become totalitarian, leaving anything that is deemed "irrational" as something which has no value in society. Instead of explaining the unknown, logic has destroyed it.

How has logical thinking "destroyed" anything? Even the most unfounded superstitions still exist today.

Romantic love isn't based upon hard logic; you'll never hear of a couple working out equations to determine whether or not they should stay together. Does this mean that close relationships have no value? Of course not. All matters considered, these are very valuable since the psychological support of a loving partner allows so many people to function.

Everything must be quantifiable. Can you put a price on a forest? Economists say you can, and if building a mall there is more valuable, than so be it. Emotions, memories, feelings, and beliefs can't be counted in money and are therefore irrational. God is irrational because he cannot be proven, and the rationale that there is no God rules out.

Reason doesn't call for everything to be expressed in numbers. Interpersonal ethics, for instance, can't practically be discussed without using less-than-concrete ideas. However, logical problem solving involves looking at the hard facts first. Before thinking about the social and cultural impacts of building a mall, you've got to consider the economics and environmental impact - and those can definitely be expressed with numbers.

As someone opposed to the idea of hacking away at old forest growth for the sake of building yet another shopping center, I probably wouldn't want to start off with, "That's where hundreds of people played during their childhoods! The locals have emotional attachments to that place!" That line of argument tends to be far less effective than, "This is the total amount of ecological damage you would do by flattening the land, as expressed by changes in rainfall patterns. Are you sure you want to screw with the regional watershed which the farmers downstream depend upon?"

My point? Any worthwhile idea will have a convincing proof to back it up. Philosophy/theology should not be immune to this and, to put it bluntly, should not be allowed to crawl up its own hind end.

[AssButt.]

rebuttal

Hear, hear!

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

My point? Any worthwhile idea will have a convincing proof to back it up. Philosophy/theology should not be immune to this and, to put it bluntly, should not be allowed to crawl up its own hind end.

You pretty much just proved my point. With logic, comes the idea that only logic can be used to argue anything. Yes, if you were going to argue that the forest shouldn't be cut down, you would say how much damage it would cause to the environment. But that is just my point! You have to use the same language, to express your opinion in numbers and in logic in order to be heard.

I understand what you're trying to argue with me about, but unfortunately logic and rationality have wound their way through our way of thought and living, and have taken over all discourse on what is worthwhile and what is not that we cannot see out of it.

There is a book by Adorno and Horkheimer called the Dialectic of Enlightenment. This website offers a summary of the arguments (http://www.arasite.org/adhkdofe.htm), but I'll cut a few sections out and paste them here:

Enlightenment started out as a project aimed at disenchantment, trying to free thought from a reliance on mysterious rumours and powers. It featured a growth of cognitive techniques, designed to understand, and thus master nature as a result, which eventually led to things like computation and the pursuit of utility. In turn, these techniques were extended and universalised to produce a universal science and a universal outlook. As a result, power relations are the key now to understanding, especially power over nature.

What once characterised God, now characterises men [sic]. What once belonged to myth now features as a theme of science. No opposition to this mode of thought is possible -- it is simply that the terms now belong to different themes, as it were. All values have been banished. Nature has become a matter of mere objectivity, an object for control. It has been 'disqualified', losing its distinctness, uniqueness or particularity, and thus rendered open to limitless control: objects found in nature are seen as mere examples or specimens, which have significance only if human subjects bestow it upon them (page 10).


Enlightenment thought and thus sought to dominate the world by splitting and compartmentalising it, but this has left the whole 'uncomprehended' and thus uncontrolled -- there is no choice but to label this residue as something that is irrational and unthinkable


What do they mean by destruction of the unknown? Witch hunts are a great example. Women who were feared, who were not understood by society and logical thinking were purged. A less dramatic example would be how we explain events in our lives. Let's say someone has a near death experience, wakes up and says "I saw God!" This isn't logical, God cannot be proven, so most people would say "no, your brain was just shutting down, so you imagined you saw something. Your faith is leading you to think it was God, but it was merely the synopses in your brain firing at weird times", or something of that nature.

[Kwiz]

You pretty much just proved my point. With logic, comes the idea that only logic can be used to argue anything.

Where is this stated? If anything, a rational thinker is obligated to not dismiss an idea without any justification for doing so.

Yes, if you were going to argue that the forest shouldn't be cut down, you would say how much damage it would cause to the environment. But that is just my point! You have to use the same language, to express your opinion in numbers and in logic in order to be heard.

Yes, usually you have to make a solid argument in order to convince people. This is especially so when large investments and property development are at stake.

I understand what you're trying to argue with me about, but unfortunately logic and rationality have wound their way through our way of thought and living, and have taken over all discourse on what is worthwhile and what is not that we cannot see out of it.

At this point I'll have to act as yet another vehicle of the terrible onslaught of reason and ask that you show tangible proof of how logical thought has harmed us.

What do they mean by destruction of the unknown? Witch hunts are a great example. Women who were feared, who were not understood by society and logical thinking were purged.

Witch hunts aren't very good examples of applied logic, I'm afraid. Nor is the belief that witchcraft actually exists.

A less dramatic example would be how we explain events in our lives. Let's say someone has a near death experience, wakes up and says "I saw God!" This isn't logical, God cannot be proven, so most people would say "no, your brain was just shutting down, so you imagined you saw something. Your faith is leading you to think it was God, but it was merely the synopses in your brain firing at weird times", or something of that nature.

And why exactly should the conclusion "I saw God" be more valid than the outside observation that this person had a stress-induced hallucination?

[Soli]

I have a friend who's really religious, but I'm athiest. We just don't talk about religion, simple as that. I respect her by not saying stuff like "I'm glad I don't have to go to church anymore- I hated it!", and she doesn't talk about the details of her church.

But it is hard because of her parents. She hasn't mentioned to them that I'm athiest. I'm positive that if she did tell them, I wouldn't be able to hang out with her anymore. I wish I didn't have to hide anything, but oh well. =/

I'd honestly love somebody to talk with about being athiest. Why and stuff. XD Nobody at my school is athiest that I know of or talk to.

[Ozero]

^
Wait I learned in world history class that there was this guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Roman soldiers, and this was at a public school from a secular text book......I was fed lies!

Wasn't Jesus a pretty common name? In some parts of the world, it still is... I'm sure plenty of em got strung up. It was a popular thing to do..

[stsparky]

Wasn't Jesus a pretty common name? In some parts of the world, it still is... I'm sure plenty of em got strung up. It was a popular thing to do..
Please ... Jesus is simply the Greek approximation of the name Yesuah. But it doesn't erase the myth. “Earl Doherty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty), currently living in Canada, is the author of The Jesus Puzzle, a work published in 1999 by Canadian Humanist Publications arguing that Jesus never lived. Doherty argues that Paul and other writers of the earliest existing Christian documents did not believe in Jesus as a person that lived on Earth in an historical setting. Rather, they believed in Jesus as a mythical hero who suffered his sacrificial death in the lower spheres of heaven in the hands of the demon spirits, and was subsequently resurrected by God. This Christ myth was not based on a tradition reaching back to a historical Jesus, but on the Old Testament exegesis in the context of Jewish-Hellenistic religious syncretism heavily influenced by Platonism, and what the authors believed to be mystical visions of a risen Jesus. ... According to Doherty, the Jesus myth was given a historical setting only by the second generation of Christians, somewhere between the first and second century. Doherty claims that even the author of the Gospel of Mark, which he dates, later than most New Testament scholars, after 90 AD, probably did not consider his gospel to be a literal work of history, but an allegorical Midrashic composition based on the Old Testament prophecies. In the widely supported two-source hypothesis, the story of Mark was later fused with a separate tradition of anonymous sayings embodied in the Q document into the other gospels; according to Doherty these became interpreted as the literal history of the life of Jesus. Doherty denies any historical value of the Acts of the Apostles, dismissing it as a late work based on legend. ...”

He says (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partone.htm): "... Christianity was allegedly born within Judaism, whose basic theological tenet was: God is One. The ultimate blasphemy for a Jew would have been to associate any man with God. Yet what did those first Christians do? They seemingly took someone regarded as a crucified criminal and turned him into the Son of God and Savior of the world. They gave him titles and roles formerly reserved for God alone. They made him pre-existent: sharing divinity with God in heaven before the world was made. Nor was this something that evolved over time. All this highly spiritual and mythological thinking is the very earliest expression we find about Jesus. ... And yet there is a resounding silence in Paul and the other first century writers. We might call it "The Missing Equation." Nowhere does anyone state that this Son of God and Savior, this cosmic Christ they are all talking about, was the man Jesus of Nazareth, recently put to death in Judea. Nowhere is there any defense of this outlandish, blasphemous proposition, the first necessary element (presumably) in the Christian message: that a recent man was God. ... Such a defense would have been required even for gentile listeners. The Greeks and Romans had their own religious philosophies ), which included the idea of a divine Son, of an intermediary between God and the world, but such spiritual concepts had never been equated with a human being. ..."

Understand we Jews view GOD as indivisible making the Christian triune godhead blasphemous. It breaks the first commandment FYI. Which is why I always catch the so-called Jews for Jesus out as pretend former Jews. They love the abuse though. They feel matyred. Ah well. The Cartoon History of the Universe II (http://www.amazon.com/Cartoon-History-Universe-Volumes-8-13/dp/0385420935/ref=sr_1_1/102-1107593-8536128?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182660395&sr=8-1) covers my POV on this. It's a greekified poorly translated version of Judaism that became popular with non-Jews. I see nothing authentic or 'real' in it. Faith is not a club to beat others dumb with.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

Where is this stated? If anything, a rational thinker is obligated to not dismiss an idea without any justification for doing so.

Where is it stated? You stated it yourself! If I was going to appeal that a forest should not be cut down, I couldn't just say that the forest holds value as a beautiful place for the community. A "logical" person may hear this, that is true, but he will dismiss it because "logically" if a mall can make more money than a forest, the forest is toast.

Yes, usually you have to make a solid argument in order to convince people. This is especially so when large investments and property development are at stake.

Same as what I said above. You're still proving my point by stating that in order to save a forest from being cut down, you must prove its worth in numerical value. Businesses, money, and logic have become totalitarian when their language, the language of numbers, is the only thing that can be used in order to argue with them.


At this point I'll have to act as yet another vehicle of the terrible onslaught of reason and ask that you show tangible proof of how logical thought has harmed us.

Logic and the Enlightenment are not terrible things per se, but they have gone farther than they should in that they have taken over. Instead of working with our natural world we learn instead how to control it. The Enlightenment was supposed to free us of our fear of the unknown, but we have become a different kind of slave, instead.

Witch hunts aren't very good examples of applied logic, I'm afraid. Nor is the belief that witchcraft actually exists.

Exactly. Being a witch, having magical powers was illogical. Women who people thought possessed these "unreal" powers, powers that shouldn't exist, were destroyed.

And why exactly should the conclusion "I saw God" be more valid than the outside observation that this person had a stress-induced hallucination?

And why should an outside observation be more valid than the person's own experience? This is exactly what I'm talking about! The fact that seeing God and coming back to life is not longer stated as a miracle but must be proven by science to be something else. Miracles can no longer exist.




Look, it took me months to understand what Adorno and Horkheimer are trying to explain about the take over of the Enlightenment, of science and "rational thinking," so I'm probably not doing a very good job of explaining it. Seriously, read the link I provided earlier.

[Kwiz]

Where is it stated? You stated it yourself! If I was going to appeal that a forest should not be cut down, I couldn't just say that the forest holds value as a beautiful place for the community. A "logical" person may hear this, that is true, but he will dismiss it because "logically" if a mall can make more money than a forest, the forest is toast.

Enough of this ridiculous straw man. The rationalization "oh, the mall will make more money than a bunch of trees, therefore the former should replace the latter" is clearly born out of greed, not strictly rational thinking. Those two are very much mutually exclusive.


Logic and the Enlightenment are not terrible things per se, but they have gone farther than they should in that they have taken over. Instead of working with our natural world we learn instead how to control it. The Enlightenment was supposed to free us of our fear of the unknown, but we have become a different kind of slave, instead.

I've heard your thesis already. Now I'd like to see some concrete proof for the idea that the scientific method has "enslaved" us.

Exactly. Being a witch, having magical powers was illogical. Women who people thought possessed these "unreal" powers, powers that shouldn't exist, were destroyed.

Did you understand what I was saying in that previous comment? Calling on witch hunts as examples of "logic gone too far" is insanely inaccurate because the whole premise that witches out to be weeded out of the population can't be logically defended.

And why should an outside observation be more valid than the person's own experience?

"DUUUDE! Did you see that car just come out of nowhere?! Crazy drivers."

"The driver wasn't at fault. You're drunk and you jaywalked across a four-lane street."

"Hey, you didn't experience it yourself."

This is exactly what I'm talking about! The fact that seeing God and coming back to life is not longer stated as a miracle but must be proven by science to be something else. Miracles can no longer exist.

The burden of proof lies with the party making a positive claim. A person declares that he has experienced a miracle, and he's expected to offer proof. Show me what's wrong with this concept.


EDIT:
Look, it took me months to understand what Adorno and Horkheimer are trying to explain about the take over of the Enlightenment, of science and "rational thinking," so I'm probably not doing a very good job of explaining it. Seriously, read the link I provided earlier.

Science and Enlightenment degenerates into myth. Enlightenment comes to attack values, ideas, and any emphasis on subjectivity, invoking a principle of 'fatal necessity', irrespective of beliefs. That includes a belief in Enlightenment, or truth! Thought becomes a matter of developing closed systems, natural laws, which work just like myths. Qualities are dissolved, human beings are brought to order too.

That highlighted line jumped out at me instantly. I've seen the same baseless notion that logical thinking works in the same way as myth so many times I'm sick of it. On top of that premise, the authors invent dozens of unnecessary phrases which they don't bother to define.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

Enough of this ridiculous straw man. The rationalization "oh, the mall will make more money than a bunch of trees, therefore the former should replace the latter" is clearly born out of greed, not strictly rational thinking. Those two are very much mutually exclusive.

Enough of you using the term straw man! It isn't a straw man argument. I stated that logic and science become totalitarian because you can only use these terms in order to argue for something, like saving a forest from being leveled for a shopping mall. Biodiversity, the environment must be reduced to numbers and value in order to be understood. Here's how the argument went:

ME:Can you put a price on a forest? Economists say you can, and if building a mall there is more valuable, than so be it. Emotions, memories, feelings, and beliefs can't be counted in money and are therefore irrational.

KWIZARD:As someone opposed to the idea of hacking away at old forest growth for the sake of building yet another shopping center, I probably wouldn't want to start off with, "That's where hundreds of people played during their childhoods! The locals have emotional attachments to that place!" That line of argument tends to be far less effective than, "This is the total amount of ecological damage you would do by flattening the land, as expressed by changes in rainfall patterns. Are you sure you want to screw with the regional watershed which the farmers downstream depend upon?"

ME:With logic, comes the idea that only logic can be used to argue anything. Yes, if you were going to argue that the forest shouldn't be cut down, you would say how much damage it would cause to the environment. But that is just my point! You have to use the same language, to express your opinion in numbers and in logic in order to be heard.

KWIZARD:Yes, usually you have to make a solid argument in order to convince people. This is especially so when large investments and property development are at stake.

ME:Same as what I said above. You're still proving my point by stating that in order to save a forest from being cut down, you must prove its worth in numerical value. Businesses, money, and logic have become totalitarian when their language, the language of numbers, is the only thing that can be used in order to argue with them.

KWIZARD:The rationalization "oh, the mall will make more money than a bunch of trees, therefore the former should replace the latter" is clearly born out of greed, not strictly rational thinking. Those two are very much mutually exclusive.

How is this a straw man argument? Here's a breakdown of how it works, it can be found on Wikipedia:

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.



I've heard your thesis already. Now I'd like to see some concrete proof for the idea that the scientific method has "enslaved" us.


What once belonged to myth now features as a theme of science. No opposition to this mode of thought is possible -- it is simply that the terms now belong to different themes, as it were. All values have been banished. Nature has become a matter of mere objectivity, an object for control. It has been 'disqualified', losing its distinctness, uniqueness or particularity, and thus rendered open to limitless control: objects found in nature are seen as mere examples or specimens, which have significance only if human subjects bestow it upon them (page 10).
...

Enlightenment comes to attack values, ideas, and any emphasis on subjectivity, invoking a principle of 'fatal necessity', irrespective of beliefs. That includes a belief in Enlightenment, or truth! Thought becomes a matter of developing closed systems, natural laws, which work just like myths. Qualities are dissolved, human beings are brought to order too.

This is what is meant by enslavement. We have become slaves to a way of thinking that demands a quantifiable order. Everything must fit into that order. The fact that so many people do not see how this is a problem is further proof of how far this method of thought has infiltrated our life. Is thinking logically a bad thing? No, of course not. But the way it is used to dominate life is.

Even subjugation of women can fit into this. We see men dominate the objective fields such as science and math while women excel more in literature and the arts, which is a more subjective area of study. The idea that women may perform more poorly in the "rational" subjects was proof for many that women shouldn't be able to vote, shouldn't have jobs, and were less intelligent than men. Now, I'm not saying that women wouldn't be subjugated by men in other circumstances or that this way of thinking led to sexism, but it allowed for what many saw as a "rational" argument that made it more difficult for women to argue against.


Did you understand what I was saying in that previous comment? Calling on witch hunts as examples of "logic gone too far" is insanely inaccurate because the whole premise that witches out to be weeded out of the population can't be logically defended.

That's the point! They shouldn't exist, therefore logic deems that they should be destroyed! It's a concrete example of how logic and the Enlightenment were meant to save us from fear of the unknown but have done so by destroying. Even thinking that someone might be a witch goes against logic. You can get rid of the thoughts and fear of the thoughts by destroying the source.

"DUUUDE! Did you see that car just come out of nowhere?! Crazy drivers."

"The driver wasn't at fault. You're drunk and you jaywalked across a four-lane street."

"Hey, you didn't experience it yourself."

This isn't even close to what I'm talking about. Talk about a straw man argument. If a drunk guy almost gets hit by a car, he is not experiencing something unknown, something that cannot be "proven." It could be proven that the driver was obeying all traffic laws and the pedestrian was not, or it could be proven that both are at fault. But you can't prove that someone didn't see God in a near death experience.

The burden of proof lies with the party making a positive claim. A person declares that he has experienced a miracle, and he's expected to offer proof. Show me what's wrong with this concept.

Again with what I'm talking about with logic being totalitarian. You are constantly looking for the quanitifiable proof that someone experience a miracle or saw God, and if there is none than it must be something else.

EDIT:




That highlighted line jumped out at me instantly. I've seen the same baseless notion that logical thinking works in the same way as myth so many times I'm sick of it. On top of that premise, the authors invent dozens of unnecessary phrases which they don't bother to define.

Baseless? How is it baseless?

This isn't the author's work though, it is a summary. If they didn't bother to define the words, they are guessing you already know them or will read the book on your own.

[Jetsetlemming]

It was three versus one.
There's a part of the brain that's specifically tied to religious thought and experiences. It's called the God Module. :O
Next time - ask them why there's no historical proof of "Jesus" being real? Cite Paul and you'll be fine.
There's no definite proof, but there's very good evidence there was SOME guy named Jesus in the area at the right time who was pretty popular. :blank:

[羽之助]

Cite Paul

Which part?

Edit: Apparently I can't read above posts.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Please ... Jesus is simply the Greek approximation of the name Yesuah. But it doesn't erase the myth. “Earl Doherty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty), currently living in Canada, is the author of The Jesus Puzzle, a work published in 1999 by Canadian Humanist Publications arguing that Jesus never lived. Doherty argues that Paul and other writers of the earliest existing Christian documents did not believe in Jesus as a person that lived on Earth in an historical setting. Rather, they believed in Jesus as a mythical hero who suffered his sacrificial death in the lower spheres of heaven in the hands of the demon spirits, and was subsequently resurrected by God. This Christ myth was not based on a tradition reaching back to a historical Jesus, but on the Old Testament exegesis in the context of Jewish-Hellenistic religious syncretism heavily influenced by Platonism, and what the authors believed to be mystical visions of a risen Jesus. ... According to Doherty, the Jesus myth was given a historical setting only by the second generation of Christians, somewhere between the first and second century. Doherty claims that even the author of the Gospel of Mark, which he dates, later than most New Testament scholars, after 90 AD, probably did not consider his gospel to be a literal work of history, but an allegorical Midrashic composition based on the Old Testament prophecies. In the widely supported two-source hypothesis, the story of Mark was later fused with a separate tradition of anonymous sayings embodied in the Q document into the other gospels; according to Doherty these became interpreted as the literal history of the life of Jesus. Doherty denies any historical value of the Acts of the Apostles, dismissing it as a late work based on legend. ...”

He says (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partone.htm): "... Christianity was allegedly born within Judaism, whose basic theological tenet was: God is One. The ultimate blasphemy for a Jew would have been to associate any man with God. Yet what did those first Christians do? They seemingly took someone regarded as a crucified criminal and turned him into the Son of God and Savior of the world. They gave him titles and roles formerly reserved for God alone. They made him pre-existent: sharing divinity with God in heaven before the world was made. Nor was this something that evolved over time. All this highly spiritual and mythological thinking is the very earliest expression we find about Jesus. ... And yet there is a resounding silence in Paul and the other first century writers. We might call it "The Missing Equation." Nowhere does anyone state that this Son of God and Savior, this cosmic Christ they are all talking about, was the man Jesus of Nazareth, recently put to death in Judea. Nowhere is there any defense of this outlandish, blasphemous proposition, the first necessary element (presumably) in the Christian message: that a recent man was God. ... Such a defense would have been required even for gentile listeners. The Greeks and Romans had their own religious philosophies ), which included the idea of a divine Son, of an intermediary between God and the world, but such spiritual concepts had never been equated with a human being. ..."

Understand we Jews view GOD as indivisible making the Christian triune godhead blasphemous. It breaks the first commandment FYI. Which is why I always catch the so-called Jews for Jesus out as pretend former Jews. They love the abuse though. They feel matyred. Ah well. The Cartoon History of the Universe II (http://www.amazon.com/Cartoon-History-Universe-Volumes-8-13/dp/0385420935/ref=sr_1_1/102-1107593-8536128?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182660395&sr=8-1) covers my POV on this. It's a greekified poorly translated version of Judaism that became popular with non-Jews. I see nothing authentic or 'real' in it. Faith is not a club to beat others dumb with.
If anyone is interested in what st sparky is saying, I recommend reading 2 Esdras (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3652195), 3rd Book of Enoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Enoch), and Daniel (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=1&version=31). If you read these books (all written by Jews prior to the whole Jesus thing), you'll notice a VERY similar theme of ressurrection, the Son of Man, and all that messianic stuff. I highly recommend it if you have some interest.

Furthermore, if you want to see the development of the Christian faith, or mythology in Jesus as a man and the Christ, then I suggest you read the three synoptic gospels (Matthew (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=1&version=31), Mark (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=1&version=31), and Luke (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=1&version=31)), followed by John (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31).

What you'll notice is that Jesus goes from being more Human (Mark, the first chronologically) to more God-like (John, written by Christians). Each of the three synoptic Gospels has a different audience. Matthew was written for the Jews (his geneaology has him stemming from David, the King of the Jews), Luke was written for the early Christians (with him descended from Adam), and Mark for the gentiles. Each has its different styles and points, and it's pretty interesting. In Luke it's not a secret that Jesus is the Messiah (because the Early Christians believed in Jesus as the Christ), but in Matthew it's the messianic secret revealed only at the end.

Anyway, enough of that. Read if you will, or don't.

Expecting rational discuission from someone who believes an inherently irrational belief system is asking for a headache.

A sneakier method is to approach them from a "so explain it to me" stance. Then politely point out how one thing after another makes no sense to you. Eventually you might get them to question a few of their believs in the process.
Dearest Plekto, believing that there is certainly no God is as irrational as believing that their certainly is. Atheists who claim the rational high road are as deep in the gutter as a Jesus-loving Catholic, or on as lofty a peak, depending on how you look at it.

The only rational approach would be one of agnosticism -- I don't believe that God exists, but I don't know, and until I see proof either way, I will proceed as if he doesn't. And that, to me, would be rational. Stating that he doesn't exist, or that it's irrational to believe is silly.

[Angelyne]

Atheism vs. religion debates are about as useless as debates between creationists vs. evolution advocates or pro-lifers vs. pro-choicers. Nobody on either side is going to budge an inch no matter what argument you throw their way. In this case, only a change in heart will sway the individual. Both sides are deeply set in their ways; no amount of arguing over the internet is going to make a bit of difference.

I wouldn't have taken Karthak's print outs either. Not because of religious reasons*, but because I see that action as going to far in a friendly debate among friends. Why can't you all just let it go and have a beer together? Why the antagonism?



* I'm agnostic for reasons PLF summed up nicely in a post above mine

[Pierrot le Fou]

Because Mormons and Muslims can't have beer, the Christians, Jews, and Muslims won't have pre-marital sex, and the Hindus keep breaking up with me when I ask them out for burgers.

Really, what I need is a nice Catholic who believes that through Confession God will really forgive all their sins, or someone lacking any serious morality.

And beer.

That helps.

[Kwiz]

Enough of you using the term straw man!

I... never used the term before post #28.

It isn't a straw man argument. I stated that logic and science become totalitarian because you can only use these terms in order to argue for something, like saving a forest from being leveled for a shopping mall. Biodiversity, the environment must be reduced to numbers and value in order to be understood. [...]

Nobody claims to understand the world - or even a single situation - through statistics alone. On the contrary, logical reasoning does not rely exclusively on mathematics. If it did, we wouldn't care about Socrates or Plato.

How is this a straw man argument? Here's a breakdown of how it works, it can be found on Wikipedia:

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).
[...]


I did not say that hard numbers would be the only way to dissuade the land developer. I merely said that appealing to emotion is not the same thing as presenting information which can't be ignored.

This is what is meant by enslavement. We have become slaves to a way of thinking that demands a quantifiable order. Everything must fit into that order. The fact that so many people do not see how this is a problem is further proof of how far this method of thought has infiltrated our life. Is thinking logically a bad thing? No, of course not. But the way it is used to dominate life is.

The highlighted is exactly what good science doesn't do. If, after observing a nuclear reaction, you ask "So what's the chemistry behind this?" then that'll end up being the wrong question. Although we usually try to explain a new observation with existing ideas, it's highly important to recognize when that doesn't work. You're right; trying to fit a square peg into a round hole is generally regarded as silly.

Even subjugation of women can fit into this. We see men dominate the objective fields such as science and math while women excel more in literature and the arts, which is a more subjective area of study. The idea that women may perform more poorly in the "rational" subjects was proof for many that women shouldn't be able to vote, shouldn't have jobs, and were less intelligent than men. Now, I'm not saying that women wouldn't be subjugated by men in other circumstances or that this way of thinking led to sexism, but it allowed for what many saw as a "rational" argument that made it more difficult for women to argue against.

Thank you for bringing this up. I was going to stress the point that every new proposal must go through reasoned examination. When someone arrives at the conclusion that women are less intelligent because of an observed lack of mathematical and spatial reasoning, we must question this. Rejecting the value they place on rationality will only further convince them of their sexist bullshit by showing that you dismiss the way they arrived at the conclusion. Pick apart the purported "rationality" of gender superiority, and don't abandon the only tool for doing so.

It's important to see the real value of logic: its ability to check and balance itself.

That's the point! They shouldn't exist, therefore logic deems that they should be destroyed! It's a concrete example of how logic and the Enlightenment were meant to save us from fear of the unknown but have done so by destroying. Even thinking that someone might be a witch goes against logic.

Then how the hell were witch hunts based on Enlightenment thought? Do you honestly think the 18th century European thinkers who came up with our concepts of equal liberty and government branches would condone the practice of burning women at random?

You can get rid of the thoughts and fear of the thoughts by destroying the source.

Quite true. The best way is to confront one's own fear rather than lash out at a scapegoat.

This isn't even close to what I'm talking about. Talk about a straw man argument. If a drunk guy almost gets hit by a car, he is not experiencing something unknown, something that cannot be "proven." It could be proven that the driver was obeying all traffic laws and the pedestrian was not, or it could be proven that both are at fault.

You're right, that was a little fallacious of me. I intended that example to point out the stupidity in citing subjective, personal experience as undeniable evidence, but the situations are a bit different.

But you can't prove that someone didn't see God in a near death experience.

Much in the same way you can't prove that there isn't a large, unobservable stuffed animal hovering above your head.

Again with what I'm talking about with logic being totalitarian. You are constantly looking for the quanitifiable proof that someone experience a miracle or saw God, and if there is none than it must be something else.

If logic is such a totalitarian system, then why does it only demand proof? All we ask is that the miracle witness come forth with falsifiable evidence.

This isn't the author's work though, it is a summary. If they didn't bother to define the words, they are guessing you already know them or will read the book on your own.

Fair enough. I still can't find a use for the concept, despite the fact that I'm looking.