Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think all religion is just a poem. Genesis I pretty obviously is when it's looked at as literature, as are other books/parts of books of the bible. On the other hand, there's some decidedly UN-poetic stuff in some of the writings. Lots of death and war and dogs licking the blood of the baddies and whatnot. But, thanks for the thought. I do sort of like the concept of religion as poetry.
Here is the way the Jews look at THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURE.
The Jewish Encyclopedia
Genesis
37.
Historical Criticism.
The historicity of the Book of Genesis is more or less denied, except by the representatives of a strict inspiration theory. Genesis recounts myths and legends. It is generally admitted that the primal story is not historical (ch. i.-xi.); but critics vary in ascribing to the stories of the Patriarchs more or less of a historical foundation. For details see the articles under their respective names; here only a summary can be given:
(a) The story of the Creation can not be historically true, for the reasons (1) that there can be no human traditions of these events; (2) its assumption of a creation in six days, with the sequence of events as recounted, contradicts the theories of modern science regarding the formation of the heavenly bodies during vast periods of time, especially that of the earth, its organisms, and its position in the universe. The popular view of Genesis can not be reconciled with modern science. The story is a religio-scientific speculation on the origin of the world, analogous to the creation-myths found among many peoples. The similarities to the Babylonian creation-myth are most numerous and most striking. The extent of its dependence on other myths, the mode of transmission, and the age and history of the tradition and its adaptation are still matters of dispute.
(b) The story of the Garden of Eden (ch. ii., iii.) is a myth, invented in order to answer certain questions of religion, philosophy, and cultural history. Its origin can not be ascertained, as no parallel to it has so far been found.
(c) The stories of Cain and Abel and the genealogies of the Cainites and Sethites are reminiscences of legends, the historical basis for which can no longer be ascertained. Their historical truth is excluded by the great age assigned to the Sethites, which contradicts all human experience. A parallel is found in the ten antediluvian primal kings of Babylonian chronology, where the figures are considerably greater.
(d) The story of the Flood is a legend that is found among many peoples. It is traced back to a Babylonian prototype, still extant. It is perhaps founded on reminiscences of a great seismic-cyclonic event that actually occurred, but could have been only partial, as a general flood of the whole earth, covering even the highest mountains, is not conceivable.
(e) The genealogy of peoples is a learned attempt to determine genealogically the relation of peoples known to the author, but by no means including the entire human race; this point of view was current in antiquity, although it does not correspond to the actual facts.
(f) The stories of the Patriarchs are national legends. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and his sons are idealized personifications of the people, its tribes, and families; and it can not now be ascertained whether or not these are based on more or less obscure reminiscences of real personages. In any case, these legends furnish no historically definite or even valuable information regarding the primal history of the people of Israel. The whole conception of the descent of one people from one family and one ancestor is unhistorical; for a people originates through the combination of different families. It has also been maintained that the stories of the Patriarchs are pale reflections of mythology or nature-myths. GENESIS, THE BOOK OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
As far as what God did, I believe that God is the Creator, although not in the snap-your-fingers, Merlin-the-Magician way that the ancients imagined. We know now that it was a lot more complex than that and that there is still so much we don't know. The unfolding of the universe is much more awe-inspiring than everything happening in an instant, but I still believe that a power greater than mere chance set it in motion. IMO, of course, and if you take note of this thread title and my earlier posts on the thread title, yes, I do get that you and lots of others don't believe in God. It's easy to understand disbelief in God. Disbelief makes more sense, logically. I have no interest in trying to change your mind, so if you're thinking about going the "prove to me that there's a God!" route, find someone else. I won't engage.
Your mind is made up, so don't bother trying to confuse you with the facts. If, as you acknowledge, disbelief makes more sense, then why choose to believe? The obvious answer is that believing satisfies an emotional need. It provides the illusion of being special and significant in a vast and awe-inspiring universe. It allays the fear of death by superimposing the promise of an eternity of an ever joyous existence in paradise, over the frightening prospect of dying. It allows you to believe that whatever "sins" you feel that you have committed during the course of your life have been eliminated. And all you have to do to receive this gift, is to convince yourself that it is real, true and valid. It's like choosing to believe that Santa is real, just in case.
And yet even you recognize that there is no real reason to believe it. Your mind is made up, and there no purpose served in trying to change it by appealing to logic, reason and the actual facts. If anyone is thinking of trying to change your mind by attempting to go the '"prove to me that there's a God!"' route, find someone else. I won't engage." So why ARE you here? You know yourself that your beliefs do not hold up to reason and logic. Your apparent goal is to play on the fears and emotions of others in an attempt to convince them to subscribe to those things which you are not entirely certain of yourself. There is comfort to be found in numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
Yes, until fairly recently, the vast majority of Christians did believe that Genesis Chapter I was a literal account. Until recently, the vast majority of Christians and non-Christians alike also believed that women were inferior to men, that some segments of humanity are inferior to others, that ulcers are caused by stress and not bacteria, that gay people are mentally ill, and on and on and on. Humanity seeks knowledge, and so we know we were wrong about those things. We've moved forward and now seek deeper knowledge. Some of us, anyway.
The deeper knowledge that we have discovered is that certain quanta, up quarks, down quarks, and electrons, vibrate at different frequencies. We refer to this vibration as being either positive or negative. Quanta with differing vibrations are attracted to each other, while quanta with like vibrations are repelled by each other. This attraction/repulsion phenomenon is the basis of quantum mechanics, which is itself the basis for understanding why things occur, and change. Over time the various ways that this attraction-repulsion phenomenon manages to make stars and planets and black holes and the like is quite spectacular, awe-inspiring even, and can become quite complex. At it's most basic level however it is just a binary system, attraction-repulsion, either-or, zeros and ones. From attraction-repulsion entire universes are made.
This seem to be entirely the result of the fact that matter/energy naturally interacts with itself. No God is required. It is certainly possible to conceive of a higher Being, and then superimpose this higher Being on top of what is observed, by declaring that this higher Being causes matter/energy to interact with itself. But since no such actual higher Being is observed, or even, apparently necessary, ascribing quantum mechanics to a higher Being is simply make believe. It's a form of make it up and then declare it to be true. Because it gives some people comfort to believe it.
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 07-17-2016 at 11:53 AM..
For the purpose of this particular discussion, I am assuming that a God exists.
The Christian belief in a Creator-God is based solely on the account in Genesis. There is nowhere else in the Bible in which there's a creation account about how everything came to be. Now you're basically saying - "Well, I know that's what it says in Genesis. The words are very particular. But we now understand that Genesis was merely poetic language, and creation was much more mysterious than that. We don't really know how God did it."
So, the question is - Do you believe in Christianity anymore if you don't believe in the creation account in Genesis? Or is this a much more ambiguous form of religious belief that doesn't have a clear meaning anymore?
Yes, I believe that the Christian path is still a valid one without having to believe in a literal six-day, Genesis-account creation, because it has been a valid path to God for me. Millions of other Christians do, too. I cannot be sure exactly what you are thinking of when you say, "Christianity", though.
Ambiguous is a good word, but "anymore" is not. It never had an exact clear meaning that all agreed on. If it did, Christianity (and every major religion for that matter) wouldn't have been fractured into so many segments, as it has been from its earliest days. Nobody's got the corner on what the ""right" religion is because it's simply not possible for humans to define the divine. Or so people like me believe. Others do think they've got it figured out.
Here is the way the Jews look at THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURE.
The Jewish Encyclopedia
no, what you are saying is not correct.
the "Jewish Encyclopedia" is not a valid resource for what Jews believe.
It was published in 1901-1906 by Funk and Wagnall's, and is the product of German academics.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 07-17-2016 at 12:13 PM..
no, what you are saying is not correct.
the "Jewish Encyclopedia" is not a valid resource for what Jews believe
Clearly the Jews have their own deeply conservative sects which declare every word of the OT to be the inerrant Word of the True God. On the whole, however, all of the Jews I have ever met have indicated that they see the OT as a, well, sort of a guideline. I live in California however, and there are not a lot of Masorti Jews out here.
The BoP is on those making anassertion. When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a BoP to justify or substantiate that claim.
You, et al, need to face ***THE REALITY OF THE WORLD*** about "God Belief...and why that reasonably puts the onus on the Atheists to "represent" and "prove their claim".
See..."Burden of proof" would be on the "God Exists" claims...all else being equal--But, all things ARE NOT equal.
As far as "The Burden of Proof"...that obligation is upon the one making the "extraordinary", "remarkable", or "new" claim.
"God Exists" has been sooooooo prolific, for sooooooo long...it is considered a "Standard of Human Understanding".
When a concept reaches a "saturation point" that is to such a degree that it is considered to be "The Standard"...a position that deviates from that would be the "extraordinary/remarkable/new claim" that will have to prove itself against the long established standard.
When you are contesting the "Existing Worldwide Standard"...that's a toooooootally different story.
Belief in God has been the "norm" (8to9 out of 10) for THOOOOOOOUSANDS of years. It's the "incumbent position"...the "ruling viewpoint"...the "champion concept"!
That concept does not have to prove itself...it currently "holds office"! It's upon the weak challenger (Atheism) of nearly negligible merit/influence to prove itself. But, so far it's gotten steamrolled and flattened, in every "race". If it were seen as an "election"...Atheism would be viewed as being defeated in the biggest landslide EVER.
It's actually a joke that the insignificant pipsqueak Challenger with a 1W-9L record would have the nerve to "call out" the REEEEEEEIGNING, AND DEFENNNNNNDING, UNNNNNN-DE-FEATED, CHAAAAAAAM-PI-OOOOOOON CONNNNNNNCEPT, OOOOOOF THE WORRRRRRRLD...and demand it "prove" itself. LOL!
And anyone can blow off with all the "ad Pop/Logical Fallacy" rebuttals they want...but the Atheist viewpoint STILL won't ever do anything but get trounced in the Arena of World Merit.
Also, before anyone gets all mentally irregular...I hold Atheism in higher regard, and view it as superior, to most concepts...and certainly above all organized religious dogma. I'm just pointing out the REALITY as to what "the way of the world" is.
Just like Galileo had to PROVE the universe DOES NOT revolve around the Earth, since that concept was in opposition to the "long established standard" that it did...the Atheists will have to PROVE God DOES NOT exist, if they want their concept to be accepted as valid.
BTW...good luck with that. It will be much harder for the Atheists than it was for Galileo...since he was right, and they are wrong (about God not existing).
That concept has "taken on all challengers" for thousands of years and "dusted them" like they weren't even there!!
For those that like "facts"...try that one!
Here is the way the Jews look at THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURE.
The Jewish Encyclopedia
Genesis
37.
Historical Criticism.
The historicity of the Book of Genesis is more or less denied, except by the representatives of a strict inspiration theory. Genesis recounts myths and legends. It is generally admitted that the primal story is not historical (ch. i.-xi.); but critics vary in ascribing to the stories of the Patriarchs more or less of a historical foundation. For details see the articles under their respective names; here only a summary can be given:
(a) The story of the Creation can not be historically true, for the reasons (1) that there can be no human traditions of these events; (2) its assumption of a creation in six days, with the sequence of events as recounted, contradicts the theories of modern science regarding the formation of the heavenly bodies during vast periods of time, especially that of the earth, its organisms, and its position in the universe. The popular view of Genesis can not be reconciled with modern science. The story is a religio-scientific speculation on the origin of the world, analogous to the creation-myths found among many peoples. The similarities to the Babylonian creation-myth are most numerous and most striking. The extent of its dependence on other myths, the mode of transmission, and the age and history of the tradition and its adaptation are still matters of dispute.
(b) The story of the Garden of Eden (ch. ii., iii.) is a myth, invented in order to answer certain questions of religion, philosophy, and cultural history. Its origin can not be ascertained, as no parallel to it has so far been found.
(c) The stories of Cain and Abel and the genealogies of the Cainites and Sethites are reminiscences of legends, the historical basis for which can no longer be ascertained. Their historical truth is excluded by the great age assigned to the Sethites, which contradicts all human experience. A parallel is found in the ten antediluvian primal kings of Babylonian chronology, where the figures are considerably greater.
(d) The story of the Flood is a legend that is found among many peoples. It is traced back to a Babylonian prototype, still extant. It is perhaps founded on reminiscences of a great seismic-cyclonic event that actually occurred, but could have been only partial, as a general flood of the whole earth, covering even the highest mountains, is not conceivable.
(e) The genealogy of peoples is a learned attempt to determine genealogically the relation of peoples known to the author, but by no means including the entire human race; this point of view was current in antiquity, although it does not correspond to the actual facts.
(f) The stories of the Patriarchs are national legends. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and his sons are idealized personifications of the people, its tribes, and families; and it can not now be ascertained whether or not these are based on more or less obscure reminiscences of real personages. In any case, these legends furnish no historically definite or even valuable information regarding the primal history of the people of Israel. The whole conception of the descent of one people from one family and one ancestor is unhistorical; for a people originates through the combination of different families. It has also been maintained that the stories of the Patriarchs are pale reflections of mythology or nature-myths. GENESIS, THE BOOK OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com
YES, thank you. That's a good explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Your mind is made up, so don't bother trying to confuse you with the facts. If, as you acknowledge, disbelief makes more sense, then why choose to believe? The obvious answer is that believing satisfies an emotional need. It provides the illusion of being special and significant in a vast and awe-inspiring universe. It allays the fear of death by superimposing the promise of an eternity of an ever joyous existence in paradise, over the frightening prospect of dying. It allows you to believe that whatever "sins" you feel that you have committed during the course of your life have been eliminated. And all you have to do to receive this gift, is to convince yourself that it is real, true and valid. It's like choosing to believe that Santa is real, just in case.
^This entire paragraph is based on your personal perception of what faith is, but it's pretty much nothing but your assumptions of what I think. It's the mirror image of someone laying out all the reasons that an atheist REALLY deep down believes in God but is just in denial. That's no more a true statement than the things you so generously took it upon yourself to ascribe to me. Are you confusing me with another poster, perhaps?
I'm not afraid of dying, and not because of my faith, but because of the experience of coming within inches of it, and I wasn't particularly religious at the time and the experience did not lead to increased faith--as a matter of fact, it made me draw further away from faith for some time. After that experience, I realized we're gonna die when we're gonna die and there's nothing we can do about it. If I'm totally wrong about life after death, so what? I'll be dead and won't exist anymore and it won't make a bit of difference.
And the whole "sin" thing you outline above is not valid, but I understand that's your perception, again, probably based on a conversation with someone else. What is sin? To some, it's not being the complete person you should be. To others, it's not following a set of certain rules. To others, it's an inherent stain upon humanity. That's a conversation that's discussed in theological study settings beyond the scope of this message board, but suffice to say your perception of what you assume about me above is incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
And yet even you recognize that there is no real reason to believe it. Your mind is made up, and there no purpose served in trying to change it by appealing to logic, reason and the actual facts. If anyone is thinking of trying to change your mind by attempting to go the '"prove to me that there's a God!"' route, find someone else. I won't engage." So why ARE you here? You know yourself that your beliefs do not hold up to reason and logic. Your apparent goal is to play on the fears and emotions of others in an attempt to convince them to subscribe to those things which you are not entirely certain of yourself. There is comfort to be found in numbers.
This seems a bit childish. I am not sure what you even mean by "comfort to be found in numbers." What numbers? I belong to a Christian tradition disparaged by many other Christians, most certainly by the majority on here. Most of my family are atheist. This statement really makes no sense. And what do you mean why am I here? The same reason you are. I answered the question in the thread title, and I subsequently answered the post of another poster in the thread. This whole "apparent goal is blah blah blah"--WHERE are you getting that from? What "goal" do you think I have? I am not a proselytizer. I've said over and over again through all my years on here that I do not believe my faith is the only "right" one. Where EVER on this forum have you once seen me try to convince anyone to believe what I believe???? AGAIN, I'm pretty sure you are confusing my post with conversations you've had with someone else. Please try to be more careful when responding in the future and about not seeing things that aren't there.
But, yes, I will say you did hit something right. I DO know myself that my beliefs do not hold up to reason and logic. I also believe that there is more than reason and logic. That's probably the major difference between you and me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
The deeper knowledge that we have discovered is that certain quanta, up quarks, down quarks, and electrons, vibrate at different frequencies. We refer to this vibration as being either positive or negative. Quanta with differing vibrations are attracted to each other, while quanta with like vibrations are repelled by each other. This attraction/repulsion phenomenon is the basis of quantum mechanics, which is itself the basis for understanding why things occur, and change. Over time the various ways that this attraction-repulsion phenomenon manages to make stars and planets and black holes and the like is quite spectacular, awe-inspiring even, and can become quite complex. At it's most basic level however it is just a binary system, attraction-repulsion, either-or, zeros and ones. From attraction-repulsion entire universes are made.
This seem to be entirely the result of the fact that matter/energy naturally interacts with itself. No God is required. It is certainly possible to conceive of a higher Being, and then superimpose this higher Being on top of what is observed, by declaring that this higher Being causes matter/energy to interact with itself. But since no such actual higher Being is observed, or even, apparently necessary, ascribing quantum mechanics to a higher Being is simply make believe. It's a form of make it up and then declare it to be true. Because it gives some people comfort to believe it.
no, what you are saying is not correct.
the "Jewish Encyclopedia" is not a valid resource for what Jews believe.
It was published in 1901-1906 by Funk and Wagnall's, and is the product of German academics.
Thanks, Tzaph, but LOL, it works for Episcopalians!
To us, it doesn't make a difference whether the stories are real or not. That's beside the point.
LMAO! You do talk through your arse a lot don't you GldnRain? The onus is on you to prove that I stole your wallet not for me to prove that I didn't.
Nah...You hoisting my wallet is not a "World Standard" like "God Belief" is.
"No God Exists" is the extraordinary claim. So...PROVE IT!
Until then...the "Standard" (God Exists) will Reign Supreme, like it always has for thousands of years.
I'm sorry your "Concept of Nuthin'" is such a nuthin' concept. But that is just "The Way Of The World". Those that get all twisted up over that, notwithstanding.
Well, unless you are looking to be deemed "The Most Hated and Least Trusted"....then Atheism "Reigns Supreme". Plenty of proof for that too.
Not sure what you are disagreeing with. Sounds like you misread my post.
But in any case, what is likely is not what is. We are not born theists or atheists. These positions of belief require the person to consider the issue and make a decision even if it to just accept what they are told. After all, circumstances can change.
Correct. The burden of proof is on those who expect others to agree with that belief.
Nope. A person can have direct personal knowledge of something even though they are well aware there is no proof or objective evidence for it. In that case requiring them to be uncertain just to cater to those who do not believe is ridiculous. The ONLY logical consequence of such an absence of proof or evidence is the lack of any legitimate expectation for others to agree with your belief.
Exactly. We can know things like this from our own direct experience even if we cannot prove anything. However, everyone knows that most people have a direct experience of their own internal state, so it unreasonable to doubt a person knows what he believes unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. It is after all possible someone is lying or confused, but it would be strange to think so without good reason.
And I have no interest in attempting to prove that God does exist because the nature of the God I believe in makes that impossible. Thus I am just as predisposed to find fault in any such proof or argument, if not more so. That would be an example of accepting that you cannot expect others to agree with you if you have no proof or evidence, just like I said. I would categorize not accepting this as a form of intolerance.
Or considering an omnipotent God is quite capable of showing that He exists to whomever He chooses, you could say the fault is His. It is quite reasonable to conclude that if God exists then apparently making people believe that He exists is not a terribly high priority of His. In which case, you could ask why the theist is unwilling to abide by this decision of his god.
That is reasonable as long you don't expect people to agree that you are correct.
In a free society the freedom of people must be limited by the same freedoms of others. Of course any claim that harm is being done must be objectively demonstrable for such a society to act on it.
Modern science is defined by a specific methodology in which religious beliefs plays no part. It is a measure of the unreasonable nature of their beliefs that they would feel threatened by scientific inquiry.
They can claim whatever they want, but they cannot reasonably expect me to believe such nonsense.
Well said!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
<Snip failed quoting>
Perhaps the aspect of "Going public" obtains here. The burden of proof is not -in practical terms - on someone having a belief, if they keep it to themselves (how can it be applied? ) but on someone making a claim. And coming here and saying what you believe is making a claim. Longtime since I argued that those playing the "Just telling - not arguing" card were in error. They were in fact, cheating, even if they didn't realize it. The effect was to put their views in the market -place but forbid anyone to refute them.
No it is not making a claim, otherwise, you would be hoist on your own petard about not making any claims about the existence of God. We are presenting our views and defending them. There is no requirement for anyone to accept them. In the religious world, it is called witnessing to their faith and hope.
Quote:
Of course, if they say 'It's what I believe - but I don't have any good reasons for it" then that IS an end to the discussion - and a satisfactory one for those who don't agree with it.
That is a bogus requirement. Why would anyone believe what they don't have any good reason to believe. Obviously, TO THEM the reasons are good. Demanding that they say they aren't is tantamount to asking them to refute their own beliefs. Not surprised you would expect or want that, Arq, but THAT is unreasonable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
AGAIN, I'm pretty sure you are confusing my post with conversations you've had with someone else. Please try to be more careful when responding in the future and about not seeing things that aren't there.
