Summer means no religion or politics?

[Akatosh]

What Nacho said. You aren't going to get a society that doesn't condemn murder, theft (and, to a lesser extent, perjury), as such a society would collapse into anarchy almost immediatly. Do you really think everybody was running around rapin' and pillagin' left and right 'til Moses came running down that mountain, waving his arms and screaming "Quick! Guys! Stop murdering, turns out it's BAD!"?

Five through ten are lawful standard fare, apart maybe from the adultery, and one through five are basically just YHWH's non-competition clause. I don't smell much original thought in there.

[Jim Reed]

Yes, I said "you", meaning a generic you...or could I wrote that more clearly so you wouldn't get confused. Sorry.

Well...if I remember corectly, God gave the ten commandements because He was asked to give them, but He considered killing (Cain & Abel story), wrong, and they didn't have the commandements.

So the Gods "ethical code" of what's good and what's bad goes back very far. Any human who gains enough personal power, can realise that the things that He considers good are truthfull, because He's rules correspond with the way things actually work.

Anyone who makes an ethical code of what is right and what is wrong, and if that code doesn't follow the rules of God, is wrong.

Personal power? But Jim, what is that? =D

That would be a long explanation, but for this purpose...it's a humans understanding of how things work without thinking about it.

So Nacho, He didn't have to give them to us, but we asked Him to give them to us, so He did.

[Misj']

I said: "They are not original, so, we don't need a God to give us something we already had".

Of course this argument is based on the pre-assumption that if god exists and he revealed his laws to the human species, that he revealed them only (and/or first) to those people travelling from Egypt...which wouldn't necessarily be a logical assumption.

If - for the sake of argument - one assumes that god exists, and that he would have shared his wisdom with his creation ever since he created them (which - within this mindset - is a logical assumption), then the expected effect would be that by the time of his 'sharing them with Moses and the gang', his wishes had already been revealed, known, and probably used (albeit maybe in a (slightly) corrupted form) throughout the world.

So all I want to say is that from a certain mind-set the fact that they are not original is actually to be expected and is therefore an argument is favour or at least not against them. One could even (logically) conclude that if god were to invent new laws every time (thus meeting with the 'it has to be original'-claim) they would by definition not fit the demand of being 'universal'.

Ps. Nacho, I don't claim this to be the truth, but merely wanted to show how something that may seem contradictional in one mindset can be logical and expected within another.  

EDIT: Removed a section...that diverted too much from the overall discussion

[Nacho]

Misj' (And don't worry, I know you are playing devil's advocate here), according to the Bible, God just created the Hebrew people... If you follow the "bible family tree" you' ll see that in Genesis "Adam was the father of blah, and this was the father of blah blah, and this was the father of blah, blah... And this was the father of Salomon, who was the father of David".

And then, from that "family", sons of Ishmael became muslims and sons if Israel became Hebrews. Some of those Hebrews split and formed the "Christians".

You can track from the descendants to the antecessors and realise that hebrew people was created after some civilizations were already in earth. I don't really know how literalists match that with the archeologycal evidences, but many "believers" told me "God made the Hebews, and he considered them his best creations... He made them from "scatch", trying not to repeat the mistakes he did with his previous generations. He also had to "purgue" his creation with the deluge because it was not going too good".

So, yeah... He maybe made some other "human-shaped" creations before, and gave them commandments, but he had to start the process again.

That brings some thoughts to me...

Man... that makes no sense to me at all. I mean... first, are we admitting if we concur with that idea here that non-hebrew/christians/and muslim people are unperfect? Wow... That' s a bit unsulting to most of the Asian population... Second... can an almighty God make flaws in his creations? What a shitty might... And after that, He has to purgue his finest creation at the middle of the process with a deluge because they are not totally satisfying??? And, even with that, after such an amount of interventionism, believers do dare to say "God's biggest gift to us was free will"?

Religion, if you think of it, makes no sense at all...

[Misj']

Misj' (And don't worry, I know you are playing devil's advocate here), according to the Bible, God just created the Hebrew people... If you follow the "bible family tree" you' ll see that in Genesis "Adam was the father of blah, and this was the father of blah blah, and this was the father of blah, blah... And this was the father of Salomon, who was the father of David".

I have to say I've never heard that explanation. I thought that the common idea was that Adam was the ancestor of all people, while Abraham was the ancestor of the line of Isaac (Jews) and Ismael (Muslims).

I do know the idea that the Jewish Bible (the old testament of you want to call it that way) was written for the Jews and therefore focuses (mainly) on the Jews. But I never thought that implied that God did not share his ideas with others (actually, I thought that the idea was that - at least - both via Adam and Noah, God shared them with everyone).

"God made the Hebews, and he considered them his best creations... He made them from "scatch", trying not to repeat the mistakes he did with his previous generations.

As I said: I've never head this idea. I do know about some weird ideas of multiple creations (where God destroyed one and created a new one) that were quite popular about 150 years ago. But as far as I know non of these ideas were ever the general consensus...plus it was a time that spawned very weird ideas that no one before or after considered intelligent (just rent the movie Road to Wellville to get an idea). This was around the time of Darwin...so I have to add that I don't claim that ALL ideas they had were equally weird (although coming up with ideas of evolution was a common party-game at the time (even prior to Darwin's book; he didn't invent evolution, just came up with some usable mechanisms), and the weirder the better was the general fun...so I wouldn't be surprised if some of these ideas originated over a glass of whine).

So in short: I couldn't comment on this, because no religious person has ever brought this up with me in a discussion. So I have no idea how this is exactly argued (from their point of view). I did once hear a Hare Krishna say something that might be related to this; where prior creations were ideas Brahma had while thinking about what to create (at least that is how he explained it).

[Khris]

The people who wrote the bible plagiarized from other religions and myths left and right. That's why there are so many inconsistencies and contradictions in the good book. Of course, lumping that together with an all-powerful, omniscient god does make even less sense. That's obvious to every sane person.

[Nacho]

As said, Misj', it's difficult to argue this because "bible is open"... there is no unique interpretation, but almost one per reader...

That's something that shouldn't happen with a sacred book, IMO.

[Jim Reed]

Yeah, like, Adam was perfect, before he -choose- not to be.
So He created the perfect man, and gave him te right to choose, and the man chose to be less. So don't blame God for the things man choses to do.
If God wanted 'robots' He would have created them.

[Nacho]

Yeah, like, Adam was perfect, before he -choose- not to be.
So He created the perfect man, and gave him te right to choose, and the man chose to be less. So don't blame God for the things man choses to do.
If God wanted 'robots' He would have created them.

Well, during my stay in skeptic environments I've learned that is more appropiate to be didactic with believers, trying to explain, to be respectfull with them and hear what they say, no matter how nosense it is, without over reacting...

But honestly... Do you really believe that idiocy???

[Jim Reed]

Why would you like to know what I believe?

[Nacho]

Because if you reallt believe that  God created a man, something like 5,000 years ago, from mud, and then He took a rib from him and made a woman and from those two all the human race came is not worthy to go on discussing with you.

[Misj']

As said, Misj', it's difficult to argue this because "bible is open"... there is no unique interpretation, but almost one per reader...

That's something that shouldn't happen with a sacred book, IMO.

I once heard a Jewish explanation that the fact that every verse had seventy-or-something possible explanations was a good thing. They actually consider the Christian idea that there's only one explanation that the holy spirit educates was what shouldn't happen with a sacred book. So again, it's a different point of view that gives a different answer.

As I stated earlier (though with different words): diversity and dynamics is what keeps science alive...and the same is true with (the non-organized aspect of) religion; one might consider the diversity and dynamics an asset for a 'living' (growing, developing, whatever the best word is) religion rather than a weakness*.

* I'm willing to make the same claim regarding art, philosophy, mathematics, basically everything: as soon as you loose the diversity and dynamics in thought I personally believe it has lost it's use/purpose (for art that happened partly due to the l'art pour l'art philosophy...at least in a way).

[guitar_hero]

Wise advise on how to deal with 'the bible":

1. Don't read the bible, ever! Just put the little pieces of knowledge you have in your memory together to get your very own "biblical text". This is a profound basis for arguing about how this book makes no sense at all.

2. Take presumptions for facts. Believe everything anybody tells you about the bible, as long as it fits your image that it's been written by a bunch of brainamputated monkeys on dope. The most absurd interpretation of the text is always the best one to go with.

3. Assume you already know everything about the bible there is to know. You will not be surprised to hear that the primary objective in a conversation should always be to not getting a potentially wrong view corrected. There is no truth, there only is your truth.

4. If you're not very familiar with the bible that's no problem. Just make sure to let everyone know how much of a "believer" you are (whatever it is you believe). Remember, you have all the answer to all questions, you just need to think hard enough.

[Nacho]

Let's agree that we disagree... For me, religion and science might essentially be the same in theory in that aspect (diversity and dynamics aspect) but in the practics, they totally differ. If you ask to a scientist about "principles of sustentation" all of them will explain more or less the same to you. All of them will be able to make a flying model. If you ask several priests something tricky, like for example "Is it ok to have an atheistic homosexual friend" you'll find a different answer per church. That makes no sense for me, sorry.

And guitar_hero... You are not describing a sacred book. You are describing a "choose your own adventure" (or morale) writing.

[Jim Reed]

Because if you reallt believe that  God created a man, something like 5,000 years ago, from mud, and then He took a rib from him and made a woman and from those two all the human race came is not worthy to go on discussing with you.

So for example, if what I believe is not what you believe, my beliefs are not good enough to consider? Sure Adolf, we are lesser beings, here's a gun so you can shoot me, after I kneel, so you don't get a big stain on your carpet.

[Nacho]

Of course, if I am discussing of someone about technical mathematics, and he says to me something like "2+2=7" I must put a line, and say "hey... this guy is not skilled enough to talk about technical mathematics... he didn't even knows the basics".

That's what I do with literalistics... Some things are so illogical that if someone comes to me telling "I believe it!" I just say: "Eeeerm... Okay... Good luck, bye!".

That's what I would do if someone comes to me saying he believes in flying pink elephants, and in the middle of the conversation I realise that HE really BELIEVES in PINK ELEPHANTS, you know?

EDIT: I never followed Nazi or Fascist movements, which are the ones which "made people put his knees in the floor to shoot them". Can you say the same of movements which burned people in the town square?

Can you?

[Misj']

Let's agree that we disagree... For me, religion and science might essentially be the same in theory in that aspect (diversity and dynamics aspect) but in the practics, they totally differ. ... . That makes no sense for me, sorry.

This I can perfectly well live with

(and as you pointed out: we were only talking about the diversity and dynamics aspects of both fields (in theory). Not any other aspect of either field, nor the actual/practical effect that this aspect turns out to have within the fields...)

[Khris]

guitar_hero:
I've just read the first two books, and they flat out contradict each other on several issues. Please explain what I must have gotten wrong.

To the literalists in here:
Do you think that the earth is flat, immovable, has four ends and four corners?
Should you, much to my surprise I can assure you, not believe that, explain why you believe the rest of the bible's teachings to be true.

[Jim Reed]

I believe in God, and if a man orders a crusade, he might believe in Him, too. But if he knows that it will mean lives, he obviously doesn't care much about the: ''thou shall not kill'' comandment.

And, no, I wouldn't go kill other people if a man orders me to do it. So you can say that I don't follow that type of Christianity.

But for reference, I don't go to the church very often (only weddings and the like), I haven't read the bible, and I believe that there are a very substantial portion of fags/gays/homosexuals in the clergy.

So you may consider me a skeptic in the church also.

But, church aside, I believe in God and have proof that He exists, and I have no proof that unicorns exist. So why wouldn't believe in God?
Why would I listen to a priest telling me when to pray, when I know that myself?

I don't say that the church is all bad, there must be some good people in there, too. But why do some people claim that God is bs, because the man (eg. a priest) who tried to make them believe it, was full of bs himself, because he doesn't know what belif means?

[Khris]

But, church aside, I believe in God and have proof that He exists, and I have no proof that unicorns exist.

You don't have proof. If you had, you would have published it and thus pretty much all atheists would be believers by now.

What you consider proof is called "anecdotal evidence" and isn't worth the traffic cost generated by posting it on the internet. Plus, it's indistinguishable from luck or chance.
The effect of prayer has been researched, because it clearly is something that can be looked at from a scientific viewpoint, e.g. groups of people were supposed to pray for sick people in hospitals.
The results were predictable: if people didn't know that others prayed for their health, there wasn't any effect at all. If people on the other hand did know they were prayed for, they got slightly less better than the control group. Which is expected and relatively simple to explain if one knows a bit about basic psychology.

There are two explanations: either prayer doesn't have any effect whatsoever, or god is a deceiver who refuses to deliver if he's being tested in order to make it look like he isn't there. And he rather lets sick people suffer just to get back at those pesky scientists, people who'd gladly announce that god is there and prayer healing works if that were the results of their research.

Btw, prayer healing only helps if it's also possible that the illness goes away by itself. Prayer healing has never removed a bullet lodged into a bone or caused a limb to grow back. I wonder why that is.