|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 07/30/2001 : 16:07:15 [Permalink]
|
The Mithraism stuff is very, very interesting. It isn't something that I knew much about until recently. If you take a good, hard look you will see that the similarities are too close and too numerous to discount. One could argue why and how and exactly when Mithraism merged with Christianity, but I don't think anyone knowledgeable in this area could deny that it happened...at least with a good reason.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 16:48:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The two are not always a valid comparison, depending on what angle you take. One comparison is how they are not falsifiable beliefs because the believer can keep changing the definitions. Santa is a man, but he has magical powers that keep him from being detected. God and heaven are not physical so they do not have a detectable physical presence.
Every time you come up with a valid logical test, they will change the definitions of santa and god to make the test invalid. You end up with something that can never be tested, so can't be falsified, yet still claim it has real physical effects in the world.
I'm not aware that the definition for God has changed. You have devised some sort of test? Present a test with your own definitions, I'm curious to see what it is.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 17:00:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
[One comparison is how they are not falsifiable beliefs because the believer can keep changing the definitions.
This is what frustrates me the most in these discussions. It seems that to theists, definitions aren't worried about. Words are just thrown out without any thought as to what they mean. Science and logic depends greatly on proper and standard definitions. In order to get anywhere, we have to first settle on a few things:
- Define "supernatural"
- Define "God"
- Define "consciousness without physical form"
etc.
Supernatural just means anything outside of our physical realm.
God and conciousness without physical form are a little trickier. Now I'm not an expert, so bear with me. You can not some up infinty in a tidy little package. We have a symbol for it, but the human mind has yet to understand it. God is not someone with a lot of time, God exists outside of time alltogether. God also has to exist outside of our other 3 spacial dimensions. We are at a loss dealing with these concepts, we have no way to relate them. I can define infinity, but I cannot explain it sufficiently.
Conciousness without physical form also falls into this category. We just have no way of proving these things naturally. It is impossible. You must have faith.
Jim |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 17:40:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We just have no way of proving these things naturally. It is impossible. You must have faith.
Jim
Jim, when you are told a far fetched story, that is impossible, that occurs beyond nature (whatever that means) and that the person who is telling you has no way of knowing is a fact either, the only reasonable response is to reject it.
---------------------
I could understand such a burden of proof if I were, say, postulating a scientific theory to a group of peers. You are saying that religion is subject to peer review? On this point, I think, we will not reach agreement.
It is a "Scientific Theory," it's a claim that something exists. I am saying that religion, as any other human endeavor, is not above critical investigation.
Peer review makes it sound like something at a labor union meeting--but why not? Why investigate the claims of someone running for union office but not those of someone standing behind a pulpit?
Each religion claims to be the truth. More than that, it claims to be "the great truth." One should investigate such wonderful truths. This investigation should lead one find to glorious facts. We even have an expression "the Gospel Truth" it means something that is really, really, true completely factual.
Here in the West we live each day infused with Christianity. It is truly THE truth.
But if you check the facts the first thing you find is people handing you double talk. Supernatural? What supernatural, I never saw any supernatural.
Eternal life? Then why are we burying all these people?
When you check the history you find that all the history of the very early church is doctored.
Paul's conversion turns out to be a scene from a play about the god Baccus.
The Acts of the Apostles all turn out to be pieces of pulp fiction from 300CE. St Andrew being shipwrecked among the cannibals and rescuing the Chiefs daughter is a little melodramatic don't you think. Jesus' adventures are identical to two older gods. The three Marys turn out to be the goddess of the Galatians. John turns out to be the god that people were baptized in honor of. There was already somebody called Christ only he's a pagan god imported to Rome from India.
And there are no records of the entire lot.
We have complete records of four other Jewish Messiahs who were wandering around at the time, but nothing about Jesus and Pals.
God the father is the same story. Nothing there. Smoke and mirrors.
it really has not occured to me to question this much so far in my life.
But you signed on to a web site about Skeptics so something must be behind that. And you are participating in a public forum so you must be open to discussion.
But whether I chose Ba'hai or Buddhism, no one in this country is likely to kill me for it (and am I ever thankful to live here rather than with the Taliban.)
I'm missing something here. It sounds like you are saying that you don't mind being lied to so long as nobody slits your throat. If that's the case, I was wondering if you were free Saturday. A little dinner……….
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Marc_a_b
Skeptic Friend
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 18:31:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm not aware that the definition for God has changed. You have devised some sort of test? Present a test with your own definitions, I'm curious to see what it is.
Jim
Nope, I have no test for god. We would need a definition for god before one could be made up, and we don't have that. We can look at logical arguments for specific attributes applied to god and examin them. Such as the usual attribute of being all merciful. This attribute would seem to be disproven by the lack of any intervention to reduce suffering, and the existance of many type of diseases and suffering in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 18:50:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
it really has not occured to me to question this much so far in my life.
But you signed on to a web site about Skeptics so something must be behind that. And you are participating in a public forum so you must be open to discussion.
You're right, and I knew I was diving in deep water with that first post to this thread  Didn't expect that you were quite this tenacious! But you are giving me much to think about. However, I am quite young and questioning science and wild claims seemed normal to me previous to this time. But Christianity is so widely accepted by most of Western society that honestly, it really didn't occur to me!@ I spent more time trying to think of proofs for existance than thinking 'well what if it's really not?'
quote:
But whether I chose Ba'hai or Buddhism, no one in this country is likely to kill me for it (and am I ever thankful to live here rather than with the Taliban.)
I'm missing something here. It sounds like you are saying that you don't mind being lied to so long as nobody slits your throat. If that's the case, I was wondering if you were free Saturday. A little dinner???.
That was actually in response to the car/religion analogy. Car death is more likely my fate than religious death. So to speak.
You have lost me on the dinner offer. Are you going to tell me you love me hmm?
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 19:24:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
God exists outside of time alltogether. God also has to exist outside of our other 3 spacial dimensions.
Jim,
What is the difference between your above statement and God not existing at all? If god exists, and cares about humans, and has interacted in the past with them, and controls processes in the four dimensions in which we live, then he must necessarily exist in them. One of the statements made by theologians with respect to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god is that He is a God of "history". The God with which western peoples can relate (so to speak), is a personal deity. That is a deity who knows and cares about his people. The God that you describe cannot have this attribute. One cannot argue the existence of a being by postulating the existence of dimensionality that also has not been proved.
BTW, I do not totally reject the possibility of existence of God. I have simply found no evidence of him or reason to believe any of the standard arguments. At different times in my life, I have postulated similar attributes of God as the ones that you are.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 00:42:55 [Permalink]
|
I might (humbly) propose some avenues for evaluating the existence of God or gods:
1. It seems to me that a crucial test of any concept is whether experts in the given field agree on its truth. A Hindu physicist, a Shinto physicist, and a Catholic physicist would agree on the value given for a fundamental value like Planck's constant, for instance. However, a Hindu holy man, a Shinto priest, and a Catholic bishop would not agree on the nature of God, the character of the afterlife, or the creation of the Universe. Therefore it would seem that the 'truth' of these things is subjective, not objective--psychological, not physical. If god is a psychological construct then he 'exists' only in the sense that thoughts and dreams exist, and each person has his own 'dream' of god(s).
[Addendum: There is a weakness in the above argument, in that *all* the experts in a given field may be full of bunko. A panel of expert psychics may agree on a concept but that would not convince me of its truth!]
2. For any definition of god which includes omnipotence, omniscience, and ultimate goodness, the problem of evil must be resolved. Christian philosophers have wrestled with this, but I have not yet read anything which convinces me that the biblical God can coexist with evil. (The two most common explanations are that God's purpose in allowing evil is unknowable--which is nothing but a shrug of ignorance--and that God uses evil to train mankind to good, which I find astonishingly naive and quite absurd.) Until the problem of evil is explained, the Biblical version of God seems untenable.
3. Finally, there is a reduction to triviality implicit in pantheism and some other arguments: if God is the sum and totality of existence, as I believe Spinoza postulated, then it is not necessary to invoke Him at all--the Universe is its own explanation. If God is outside time and space and does not affect the workings of the physical Universe in any way, He is likewise irrelevant. Both cases reduce the idea of God to a triviality that, although it cannot be proven or disproven, also has no bearing on human affairs.
What would convince me of the existence of God or gods? Miracles: proven departures from causality, for one thing, or purposeful violations of the laws of conservation of mass-energy. (For example, if the Pope were genuinely able to transmute elements by virtue of his holy power, I would sit up and take notice. Or if a Muslim cleric were able to regenerate the limbs of mutilated Congolese children by invoking the Prophet, then I would begin to Believe.)
See what you started, Slater? I just hope you're pleased with the way it's turning out.
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes"
Edited by - Dog_Ed on 07/31/2001 00:50:54 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 01:09:15 [Permalink]
|
You know, it just suddenly struck me that the mere idea of a human being in the year 2001 trying to come up with what it would take to prove that there is a god is totally silly.
At the very least, I think it would take another god to prove there is a god.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 01:09:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What would it take--for you personally--to either prove or disprove the existence of god, any god, and why?
I don't wish to prove the existence of a god, so I don't even bother with it.
I don't wish to disprove the existence of a god because I know that it really can't be done with what I have.
Ian Andreas Miller. My site. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 01:10:20 [Permalink]
|
I likes yer thinking Antie 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 01:33:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've argued religion with Atheists before and I've found that they generally fall into two classifications
Of course, there are atheists, like me, who lack a god belief and just leave it at that.
quote:
Tequila is God. Ergo, the proof of God is around 80.
Great. May I have some of that God?
quote:
I don't mind Atheists but I do prefer them to have some substantial reason for calling themselves one and can at least demonstrate that they understand the concepts involved.
I'm an atheist because I haven't been introduced to a god claim that I think is convincing enough.
quote:
I likes yer thinking Antie
Arigatô!
Ian Andreas Miller. My site. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 09:11:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I might (humbly) propose some avenues for evaluating the existence of God or gods:
Me too.
quote:
1. It seems to me that a crucial test of any concept is whether experts in the given field agree on its truth…
Certainly it seems that rigorous empirical data collection and reasoning leads the physical sciences to converge upon certain solutions, whereas this is less true for the social sciences, and much less so for most aspects of philosophy, especially theology, which tends to diverge rather than converge.
quote:
2. For any definition of god which includes omnipotence, omniscience, and ultimate goodness, the problem of evil must be resolved.
Indeed, and there are numerous other such “God vs. World” arguments, such as the argument from unbelief (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html) and that from lack of evidence (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/anbvslea.html).
There are a number of “incompatible properties of God” arguments to be had as well: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html
My favorite argument, though, is a variant on the deductive argument from evil known as the Argument from Hell. If a loving and just God exists, why does He damn people to an horrific eternal punishment which is neither loving nor just? Eh?
quote:
What would convince me of the existence of God or gods? Miracles: proven departures from causality, for one thing, or purposeful violations of the laws of conservation of mass-energy. (For example, if the Pope were genuinely able to transmute elements by virtue of his holy power, I would sit up and take notice. Or if a Muslim cleric were able to regenerate the limbs of mutilated Congolese children by invoking the Prophet, then I would begin to Believe.)
It would only take a wee bit of divine revelation to convince me, as well. If entire limbs were being restored at Lourdes, that would do the trick nicely. Or perhaps a 616-foot jolly green giant walking about laughing “Ho ho ho, Jesus rules!”
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 12:22:45 [Permalink]
|
Kristin
But Christianity is so widely accepted by most of Western society that honestly, it really didn't occur to me! I spent more time trying to think of proofs for existence than thinking 'well what if it's really not?'
It is a CLAIM like any other claim people make. The ONLY difference is that this is the one single claim you are never supposed to question (Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The Great and Powerful Oz has spoken!!)
You have lost me on the dinner offer. Are you going to tell me you love me hmm?
Why yes I would. And the sweet nothings I'll pour in your ear. If your argument for not questioning lies is only that you won't be murdered in some Talibanic way….I won't murder you. Wouldn't dream of it.
My plan, of course, falls apart because my wife is also a Skeptic and applies the "liberal scientific method" to all things, including me. So I would be murdered.
Oh well.
----------------------------------
Greg
Jim, What is the difference between your above statement and God not existing at all?
Both Jim and Valiant Dancer give answers, which include the unknowability of god(dess). Yet they both claim that they themselves KNOW. This puts them in a superior position to the rest of us who are unable to have a relationship with the god(dess) , in their own minds. It's mysterious and ooky and absolutely kooky --but only they get it.
An unkind soul might mention delusions of grandeur, but not I.
------------
Dog_Ed
It seems to me that a crucial test of any concept is whether experts in the given field agree on its truth.
This statement got me thinking. In every field that I can imagine the experts start out by studying the work of other experts in that field. After they have done enough of that they must at some point get their feet wet. Plumbers eventually put down the books and start working with pipe; Paleontologists eventually dig up fossils. But experts in the field of theology never go beyond the study of other experts.
[Addendum: There is a weakness in the above argument, in that *all* the experts in a given field may be full of bunko.
In a field, where no truly original work is (or can be) done, all that is required is for the original "experts" to be bunko. Those that followed, no matter how earnest they were in their studies, would, ipso facto, remain bunko.
See what you started, Slater? I just hope you're pleased with the way it's turning out.
Yes, quite pleased. These responses have given me hours of thought (pleasure). It is grand that we can actually talk about this subject. In polite company there is none so taboo as religion let alone the validity of religion. It's hard to believe that not that long ago (70-80 years) starting this thread would have gotten me imprisoned or worse. It seems so innocent, good healthy debate in search of the truth.
--------------------------
@tomic
You know, it just suddenly struck me that the mere idea of a human being in the year 2001 trying to come up with what it would take to prove that there is a god is totally silly.
Text books are having basic science stricken from them. Tax dollars are being shuttled to organizations that can legally discriminate against 11% of the American population (Atheists/Agnostics) I say it's about time that they came up with some proof.
At the very least, I think it would take another god to prove there is a god.
Why? Must one be a fish to prove something else is a fish?
If you can't prove something then don't claim it. Not only is that basic science, it's basic honesty.
---------------
tergiversant
My favorite argument, though, is a variant on the deductive argument from evil known as the Argument from Hell. If a loving and just God exists, why does He damn people to an horrific eternal punishment which is neither loving nor just? Eh?
The Hell concept was taken from Mithraism. But a mistake was made. According to Zoroaster, Hell was a learning experience and didn't last forever. You couldn't actually benefit from an eternity of torture and it was not compatible with their concept of god (Ahura Mazda--Mithra's father).
This mistake was realized right off the bat and was one of the topics of the Council of Nicaea. So an addendum was added which included Purgatory and a division of sins--mortal and venial (pardonable).
A thousand years later in an attempt to make Christianity as harsh and as little fun as possible some Protestant groups dumped Purgatory, the Virgin Mary, and music, dancing, Christmas presents, etc. And replaced them with high starched collars, witch trials and no sex. (and The Bible Answer Man)
It might be interesting to speculate on the overlapping days of this Puritanism and the "little Ice Age" that effected Europe at the same time. Did this continual bleakness and harshness in the weather lead to bleakness and harshness in human institutions?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 12:38:29 [Permalink]
|
To the faithfull on both sides of this debate I say good luck! Let me know when you have something....
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
