Do you believe in God?

[John Arne]

It's been a while since we had a good old religion debate.

I'm atheist, and whilst I used to not really care what other people think, the older I get, I find myself getting annoyed with people who believe in God. And then Christians or Muslims are challenged, politely, on their beliefs - for example "do you literally believe in Adam and Eve, do you believe that there was a talking snake with them, and that God took a rib out of Adam's chest to make Eve?"- they get a little sheepish and fairly defensive. You will find lots of Christian sites that claim this to be literal, and a few less that claim that it is a parable.

The more people I talk to, the more I think that people don't believe in God at all, or the story of Christianity. They simply believe; Christianity is good, I was told I was a Christian, therefore I am a Christian (in the UK, at least).

I find the openness of people like Ted Cruz concerning his religion really unsettling - to think this guy who believes so profoundly in this shit, could be the most powerful man in the world. Frightening.

So, do you actually believe in God and all the stories (those that we are told are literal) of the bible?

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, I do.

[simon]

I'm not religious, but it's comforting to think that it's not THE END when we die and that there's this happy, magical place in the sky we all go to.

So, I hope there is, but I very much doubt it.

[QE Harold Flair]

What makes you think you'd be in heaven?

[Kikó]

I don't and I don't care. It's really irrelevant in modern life (or should be).

[phonics]

I don't want to fan the fires of the giant mod conspiracy of 2016 but I'm with keeks.

[Toby]

I do not. I have no problem with other people believing as long as they don't deny things like evolution and Earth being older than the bible claims.

[Henry]

No, of course.

I used to care more about what other people thought, but you rarely get anywhere by antagonising them and while I'm still at a loss as to how an educated person could have religious beliefs, I'm more of a view now that the whole subject, including its relationship with history and philosophy is very interesting.

[simon]

What makes you think you'd be in heaven?

I'm a lovely chap.

[Toby]

I do not. I have no problem with other people believing as long as they don't deny things like evolution and Earth being older than the bible claims.

On the topic, I've just seen this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/03/headteacher-mocked-twitter-claim-evolution-not-fact


A primary school headteacher has been mocked on Twitter after claiming that evolution was “a theory” and there was “more evidence that the Bible is true”.

Christina Wilkinson, of St Andrew’s Church of England school in Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire, made the remarks in a tweet responding to London headteacher Tom Sherrington, who urged teachers to stick to science when teaching the origins of life.

Wilkinson wrote: “Evolution is not a fact. That’s why it’s called a theory! There’s more evidence that the Bible is true.”

I'm sure there are headteachers who are misinformed on all sorts of things, of course, but that sort of argument tends to suggest they haven't even tried to educate themselves.

[Sam]

Hmm, not really.

I do go for the old karma belief, but that's more in just treating others as you'd like to be treated is generally a good thing to do.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

I do not. I have no problem with other people believing as long as they don't deny things like evolution and Earth being older than the bible claims.

This.

Although I do find it a little annoying when believers start thanking god for something they've done, especially in sport.

[Toby]

I'm fine with that, since I can see how their faith might have helped give them the motivation and focus to achieve.

It's worse when people tell others to thank God for their achievements. I remember a kid in my school being really upset when his mum told him he should pray and thank God that he'd aced all his exams, because he felt like she wasn't acknowledging his hard work. That's just shitty.

[Jimmy Floyd]

You're all answering the question 'Are you religious'.

I don't believe in a religious God as such, who needs to be worshipped and have candles lit and shit, but I do conceive of God as the force which makes things happen. Why are there cows? The only satisfactory answer is because God, whatever form he may take, determined in some direct or indirect way that there should be cows.

[John Arne]

You're all answering the question 'Are you religious'.

I don't believe in a religious God as such, who needs to be worshipped and have candles lit and shit, but I do conceive of God as the force which makes things happen. Why are there cows? The only satisfactory answer is because God, whatever form he may take, determined in some direct or indirect way that there should be cows.

Has the cricket got your head spinning?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Tell me why there are cows then, and I'm not interested in your atoms, tell me why there are atoms.

[John Arne]

Do you believe in evolution?

[Disco]

You're all answering the question 'Are you religious'.

I don't believe in a religious God as such, who needs to be worshipped and have candles lit and shit, but I do conceive of God as the force which makes things happen. Why are there cows? The only satisfactory answer is because God, whatever form he may take, determined in some direct or indirect way that there should be cows.

That's lumping an awful lot of things together (which is probably how you make cows too come to think of it) especially when you consider that the answer to your question could easily be 'Why not cows?'

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't believe in a religious God as such, who needs to be worshipped and have candles lit and shit, but I do conceive of God as the force which makes things happen. Why are there cows? The only satisfactory answer is because God, whatever form he may take, determined in some direct or indirect way that there should be cows.

Why is that the only satisfactory answer? Why is there God? It's the same backwards shit as 'God must have created everything because you can't say how it happened'. 'Yea, then who crated God?'. 'Oh, he's always existed!'

[Henry]

Tell me why there are cows then, and I'm not interested in your atoms, tell me why there are atoms.

You appear to be presenting the first cause argument - which is of course fallacious as you should know.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Yeah we're not in some yank primary school here, up your game. Why does all that stuff work? Once you get back to the answer 'because it does', that's where God steps in.

God to me is effectively everything that I do not or cannot influence with conscious action.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Why is that the only satisfactory answer? Why is there God? It's the same backwards shit as 'God must have created everything because you can't say how it happened'. 'Yea, then who crated God?'. 'Oh, he's always existed!'

You're still talking aboug religious God.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yeah we're not in some yank primary school here, up your game. Why does all that stuff work? Once you get back to the answer 'because it does', that's where God steps in.

God to me is effectively everything that I do not or cannot influence with conscious action.

'God of the gaps' is the worst and most fallacious argument ever advanced.

[QE Harold Flair]

You're still talking aboug religious God.

No, i'm talking about the creator God, which is what you are advancing.

[Giggles]

You're all answering the question 'Are you religious'.

I don't believe in a religious God as such, who needs to be worshipped and have candles lit and shit, but I do conceive of God as the force which makes things happen. Why are there cows? The only satisfactory answer is because God, whatever form he may take, determined in some direct or indirect way that there should be cows.

This sums up myself too for the most part.

[John Arne]

Yeah we're not in some yank primary school here, up your game. Why does all that stuff work? Once you get back to the answer 'because it does', that's where God steps in.

God to me is effectively everything that I do not or cannot influence with conscious action.

Do you believe that God hands out good luck and bad luck - seeming as that isn't always a conscious action?

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'm not talking about anyone creating anything. 'God' is a poor word to describe it because you're all thinking man with white beard in the sky.

The universe has realm A which I am able to influence, and God is realm B.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Do you believe that God hands out good luck and bad luck - seeming as that isn't always a conscious action?

'Luck' is a social construct. Stuff just happens. I'm a determinist.

[Lewis]

It's been five years since the last Cosmic Floyd sighting. Let's make it ten next time.

[John Arne]

The universe has realm A which I am able to influence, and God is realm B.

Complete cop out. It means nothing.

[randomlegend]

Jimmy talks such a load of fucking bollocks when it comes to this shit.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's been five years since the last Cosmic Floyd sighting. Let's make it ten next time.

I make it seven. It's good though because I'm now ineligible for a mid life crisis. Sorted it young.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Jimmy talks such a load of fucking bollocks when it comes to this shit.

Please do enlighten me with the correct answer.

[randomlegend]

Why does there have to be an 'answer'? Can't you cope otherwise?

[Chrissy]

If people wish to believe in anything, as long as it causes no harm to anyone, then good luck to them.

At the end of the day it all boils down to faith in what you do/don't believe.

[Henry]

Please do enlighten me with the correct answer.

The absence of any verifiable "correct answer" doesn't mean that appealing to a deity is the correct thing to do.

[Toby]

You're all answering the question 'Are you religious'.

I don't believe in a religious God as such, who needs to be worshipped and have candles lit and shit, but I do conceive of God as the force which makes things happen. Why are there cows? The only satisfactory answer is because God, whatever form he may take, determined in some direct or indirect way that there should be cows.

Isn't it just more random than that? We've just had billions of years of whatever matter reacting with whatever other matter. At some point an animal formed four legs and an udder, survived, and now we have the modern day cow. That seems more plausible to me than some deterministic factor. I'd suggest what you're struggling to describe when settling for the word God just sounds like what everybody else would refer to as ('Mother') nature.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Complete cop out. It means nothing.

If I'm going across a zebra crossing, and a bus is coming, I have a choice to make. I am able to control whether or not I step onto the crossing, but God, in the form of a bus driver, is driving the bus.

[Disco]

Why does existence need a reason or a purpose?

[randomlegend]

:lol:

[Disco]

If I'm going across a zebra crossing, and a bus is coming, I have a choice to make. I am able to control whether or not I step onto the crossing, but God, in the form of a bus driver, is driving the bus.

Are we going to see you on the news with your tie round your head as you hold Korean middle management hostage?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Why does there have to be an 'answer'? Can't you cope otherwise?

Human curiosity.

[Giggles]

After I thought the initial post summed up my stance, I would just like to take the opportunity to distance myself from an subsequent ones.

[phonics]

If I'm going across a zebra crossing, and a bus is coming, I have a choice to make. I am able to control whether or not I step onto the crossing, but God, in the form of a bus driver, is driving the bus.

What? That's mental. You think there's a 'thing' out there that watches a million parallel universes pushing people into this one or that one? Or is there one universe and a 'thing' going, "Him, not him, him, not him."?

[John Arne]

Human curiosity.

Your position is the opposite of curiosity. Why does a cow exist? - rather than wanting to understand/accept science and evolution, you just said "I don't know why anything happens, therefore God".

[Jimmy Floyd]

Isn't it just more random than that? We've just had billions of years of whatever matter reacting with whatever other matter. At some point an animal formed four legs and an udder, survived, and now we have the modern day cow. That seems more plausible to me than some deterministic factor. I'd suggest what you're struggling to describe when settling for the word God just sounds like what everybody else would refer to as ('Mother') nature.

Now we're getting somewhere. I think though that if you look at why the earliest religions would have started, this idea is closer to being serviceable as 'God' than any religious gods, which have somewhat soured the 'God' brand.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Your position is the opposite of curiosity. Why does a cow exist? - rather than wanting to understand/accept science and evolution, you just said "I don't know why anything happens, therefore God".

You couldn't have misunderstood more if you'd responded with a gay porn link.

[Toby]

You think there's a 'thing' out there that watches a million parallel universes pushing people into this one or that one?

He very clearly hasn't said that or at any point even suggested a single entity.

[phonics]

Hence the question marks. I'm asking a question not judging him, I genuinely didn't understand what he meant. But if we have to be PROVING WE'RE RIGHT with every post in a thread called 'Do You Believe in God?' then I guess I'm out before I got started anyway.

[randomlegend]

Why are there cows? The only satisfactory answer is because God


You couldn't have misunderstood more if you'd responded with a gay porn link.

Except that's exactly what you said....?

[Toby]

I would say the bus driver comment is verging on solipsism.

[phonics]

I would say the bus driver comment is verging on solipsism.

If I wasn't out then, I am now.

[Jimmy Floyd]

What? That's mental. You think there's a 'thing' out there that watches a million parallel universes pushing people into this one or that one? Or is there one universe and a 'thing' going, "Him, not him, him, not him."?

No. Stuff just happens of its own accord.

[John Arne]

You couldn't have misunderstood more if you'd responded with a gay porn link.

I understand your analogy, and I wanted to bring your example back into it for reference. In responding this way, you are clearly misunderstand my point. We could do this all day.

Either way, you're pretty mental.

[John Arne]

No. Stuff just happens of its own accord.

Yeah, that's fine. But that isn't how you started this.

[Boydy]

I love when Jimmy gets like this.

[Reg]

If I'm going across a zebra crossing, and a bus is coming, I have a choice to make. I am able to control whether or not I step onto the crossing, but God, in the form of a bus driver, is driving the bus.
I was following you (like Toby said - you were basically using 'God' where others would use 'nature') until this post.

If you are controlling whether you cross the road or not, why isn't the bus driver controlling whether or not and how he drives the bus?

Or are you using the word 'God' to mean 'the uncontrollable'? If so, why 'God'?

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's a very simple position, you are all shitting yourselves for reasons that baffle me.

I had to wiki 'solipsism'. It sounds cool but I don't delve that deep.

[7om]

You bunch of utter, utter wankers.

[Toby]

I love when Jimmy gets like this.

Yep. It at least leads to an interesting discussion. The complete rejection of even talking about by some here, whilst trying to portray Jimmy as being anti-intellectual, seems a bit hypocritical. I mean, we don't know this stuff yet.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Except that's exactly what you said....?

I should really have said cloud or something that doesn't set off the evolution mob.

[Toby]

I should really have said cloud or something that doesn't set off the evolution mob.

You wouldn't be doing yourself many favours - that one seems fairly easily explained by science.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I was following you (like Toby said - you were basically using 'God' where others would use 'nature') until this post.

If you are controlling whether you cross the road or not, why isn't the bus driver controlling whether or not and how he drives the bus?

Or are you using the word 'God' to mean 'the uncontrollable'? If so, why 'God'?

No doubt he is. But as far as I'm concerned it could be him, a dog, or Paul Ross driving, all that matters is that it isn't me.

[Reg]

Edit- I see the above now. I (think I) get it.

[phonics]

It's nice of you to think of me as a God, Jimmy, but I'm just another man finding my way in this crazy thing we call 'life'.

[Jimmy Floyd]

You wouldn't be doing yourself many favours - that one seems fairly easily explained by science.

Science is a given. I'm in the realm of philosophy here, rejecting the bollocks God/science thread that this would otherwise have been.

[Toby]

Science is a given. I'm in the realm of philosophy here, rejecting the bollocks God/science thread that this would otherwise have been.

I know, but I don't really see the philosophical side of "why are there clouds?"

Unless we go all the way back to why/how we ended up here and why/how there is water, since after that observed understanding largely takes over on this question.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm not talking about anyone creating anything. 'God' is a poor word to describe it because you're all thinking man with white beard in the sky.

The universe has realm A which I am able to influence, and God is realm B.

No, it's exactly what you said. 'Why cows?'. Well if that isn't 'God created cows', then what the fuck kind of question is that? Forgive me for taking the obvious inference.

[Boydy]

Yep. It at least leads to an interesting discussion. The complete rejection of even talking about by some here, whilst trying to portray Jimmy as being anti-intellectual, seems a bit hypocritical. I mean, we don't know this stuff yet.

Yeah, I meant it in an entirely positive way. Not in a 'lol at Jim' way.

Dela was good on this stuff too, if a bit more religious in the sense of organised religion.

[Jimmy Floyd]

There could not be clouds.

[phonics]

Sometimes, there aren't.

[QE Harold Flair]

When people ask me what I mean by 'chin scratching bollocks', this is what I mean.

[Toby]

There could not be clouds.

But there are, because there is water, heat and an atmosphere. Those things are all observed and relatively understood. We don't yet understand how they came to be there, but now that they're here their interaction can be observed and understood.

[QE Harold Flair]

No doubt he is. But as far as I'm concerned it could be him, a dog, or Paul Ross driving, all that matters is that it isn't me.

Sexist.

[QE Harold Flair]

Science is a given. I'm in the realm of philosophy here, rejecting the bollocks God/science thread that this would otherwise have been.

Yes, and this is why philosophy is a load of shit threse days. Full of pointless bollocks.

[QE Harold Flair]

I know, but I don't really see the philosophical side of "why are there clouds?"

Unless we go all the way back to why/how we ended up here and why/how there is water, since after that observed understanding largely takes over on this question.

Rubbish. You don't get away with chatting complete horseshit because we don't yet know something. It's not going to be solved by calling it whatever meaningless term you want which really means 'I don't know'.

[Pen]

I don't believe in god (especially not in a religious kind of way), but I don't really mind if other people do as long as they don't to use creationism and the like as a serious argument. I am a bit curious as to why some people are religious in this day and age though as limiting yourself from doing stuff just for the sake of it seems a bit odd.

I had a friend who believed something akin to Jim and I couldn't really fault him for 'believing' (using the term somewhat lightly here) in 'higher powers' that he felt couldn't been explained.

[Toby]

Rubbish. You don't get away with chatting complete horseshit because we don't yet know something. It's not going to be solved by calling it whatever meaningless term you want which really means 'I don't know'.

I don't understand what anything you've said there has to do with the quoted post.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I do understand religion, it gives you a sense of belonging which a lot of people don't otherwise have.

[mugbull]

It's incredible how afraid so many people here are of being spiritual. Some of you are just as dogmatic about "rationality" as religious people are about religion, which is scary, but also reminds one of how innate dogma is to human character. Jimmy, for once, is raising relevant and important issues, and the board inquisitors are taking turns being huge retards and misunderstanding him, and then shitting on him. Get in touch with yourselves, homeboys.

I think of time as a sphere that never begins and never ends, and because actions are deterministic (i.e. no free will technically, everything is theoretically predictable), time determines what will happen ad infinitum. This for me is what God is, because it creates its own future and determines everything for us.

[Pen]

Yeah, of course. Maybe I was a bit unclear with my point. What I meant was is that I find it odd that people would turn to religion for a sense of belonging as it seems so outdated. Each to their own and all that and for all I care people can believe in what ever they wish, but it's hard for me to wrap my head around it.

It might be because even though 3/4 or 4/5 Finns are a part of a congregation, you don't really see many young(ish) people treating religion as anything relevant, at least not in public. We don't have a history of thanking god for sporting achievements etc. and we even have a state church and all.

[Cord]

I do not believe in a god. I can, in my more unhinged moments, see why someone might consider the possibility of a creator figure, one that got the ball rolling and has since got bored and sodded off to leave us wallowing in our own mess, because to my uninformed mind the very beginning of creation is still up for grabs.

The idea of an interventionist god, actively monitoring and influencing events and judging everyone's moral purity is plainly ludicrous, but I don't really care if that's what someone wants to believe.

[Toby]

It's incredible how afraid so many people here are of being spiritual. Some of you are just as dogmatic about "rationality" as religious people are about religion, which is scary, but also reminds one of how innate dogma is to human character. Jimmy, for once, is raising relevant and important issues, and the board inquisitors are taking turns being huge retards and misunderstanding him, and then shitting on him. Get in touch with yourselves, homeboys.

I think of time as a sphere that never begins and never ends, and because actions are deterministic (i.e. no free will technically, everything is theoretically predictable), time determines what will happen ad infinitum. This for me is what God is, because it creates its own future and determines everything for us.

Could you expand on what you mean by this?

[QE Harold Flair]

It's incredible how afraid so many people here are of being spiritual. Some of you are just as dogmatic about "rationality" as religious people are about religion, which is scary, but also reminds one of how innate dogma is to human character. Jimmy, for once, is raising relevant and important issues, and the board inquisitors are taking turns being huge retards and misunderstanding him, and then shitting on him. Get in touch with yourselves, homeboys.

I think of time as a sphere that never begins and never ends, and because actions are deterministic (i.e. no free will technically, everything is theoretically predictable), time determines what will happen ad infinitum. This for me is what God is, because it creates its own future and determines everything for us.

What does 'being spiritual' actually mean?

And massive lol at 'dogmatic about rationality'.

[Henry]

I do understand religion, it gives you a sense of belonging which a lot of people don't otherwise have.

This is a cogent point, the rest of the utter bollocks notwithstanding.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I don't think you even got to base camp tbh.

[QE Harold Flair]

Never heard that point made, either.

[mugbull]

Could you expand on what you mean by this?

It's just that randomness is a joke. We try to simulate random events here on Earth through various means, but everything is to a certain extent pseudorandom. When you eliminate randomness everything becomes a function of its inputs, and if inputs are always the same, then the output will always be the same, and the output's output will always be the same, et cetera. Therefore, we can look back to 1000 AD or some random time and "re-run" the show, and get exactly the same output (i.e. us sitting here responding to Harold threads in 2016).

With that in mind, everything you have done and ever will do is set in stone for you at your birth, and if you rewind to your birth and do it all over again you'll achieve exactly the same results. Not that that should have any effect on how you live your life on a day-to-day basis. Some people get way too freaked out about that revelation and start blowing money on dumb shit and then die.

Some scientists believe that randomness does exist; i.e. a particle can exist in any one of several states randomly, but we'll have to wait and see if that's found accurate. I personally dont buy it

[QE Harold Flair]

Some scientists believe that randomness does exist; i.e. a particle can exist in any one of several states randomly, but we'll have to wait and see if that's found accurate. I personally dont buy it

That is accurate, it's what your future quantum computer will rely on. You not liking it doesn't mean it isn't true.

[Henry]

What does 'being spiritual' actually mean?


http://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Spirituality-Without-Religion/dp/1451636024

[Disco]

It's just that randomness is a joke. We try to simulate random events here on Earth through various means, but everything is to a certain extent pseudorandom. When you eliminate randomness everything becomes a function of its inputs, and if inputs are always the same, then the output will always be the same, and the output's output will always be the same, et cetera. Therefore, we can look back to 1000 AD or some random time and "re-run" the show, and get exactly the same output (i.e. us sitting here responding to Harold threads in 2016).

With that in mind, everything you have done and ever will do is set in stone for you at your birth, and if you rewind to your birth and do it all over again you'll achieve exactly the same results. Not that that should have any effect on how you live your life on a day-to-day basis. Some people get way too freaked out about that revelation and start blowing money on dumb shit and then die.

Some scientists believe that randomness does exist; i.e. a particle can exist in any one of several states randomly, but we'll have to wait and see if that's found accurate. I personally dont buy it

I've read similar theories somewhere else before (fuck knows where it was though) but I would re-phrase the bolded bit to be 'predictable' rather than set in stone. It's a little bit of semantic chicanery but I think there's an important distinction between something being pre-determined and it being predictable if only because they imply slightly different things.

[Pepe]

If I'm going across a zebra crossing, and a bus is coming, I have a choice to make. I am able to control whether or not I step onto the crossing, but God, in the form of a bus driver, is driving the bus.

The fuck are you able to control it.

[QE Harold Flair]

http://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Spirituality-Without-Religion/dp/1451636024

I'm well aware of what Mr Harris thinks it means, and this is the point. It means something different for everyone. I think it's a meaningless term.

[SvN]

I've always equated "being spiritual" to "believing nonsense".

[QE Harold Flair]

Well some will say it's the feeling you get when you listen to beautiful music, and so forth. Like I said, meaningless.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The fuck are you able to control it.

As far as I'm concerned, I am.

[mugbull]

I've always equated "being spiritual" to "believing nonsense".

I'm sorry about that, man.

[Toby]

It's just that randomness is a joke. We try to simulate random events here on Earth through various means, but everything is to a certain extent pseudorandom. When you eliminate randomness everything becomes a function of its inputs, and if inputs are always the same, then the output will always be the same, and the output's output will always be the same, et cetera. Therefore, we can look back to 1000 AD or some random time and "re-run" the show, and get exactly the same output (i.e. us sitting here responding to Harold threads in 2016).

With that in mind, everything you have done and ever will do is set in stone for you at your birth, and if you rewind to your birth and do it all over again you'll achieve exactly the same results. Not that that should have any effect on how you live your life on a day-to-day basis. Some people get way too freaked out about that revelation and start blowing money on dumb shit and then die.

Some scientists believe that randomness does exist; i.e. a particle can exist in any one of several states randomly, but we'll have to wait and see if that's found accurate. I personally dont buy it

Any recommended reading on this? It all sounds totally implausible to me but I'm clueless on the subject.


The fuck are you able to control it.

This is a joke, right? :cab:

[Henry]

Read Brian Greene.

[Reg]

I understand what Mok is saying. I've often thought about it.

You, and everyone else, are the product of what's happened before. So what you will do in the future is already defined by your past actions, influences and thoughts. Everything that will happen from now can be traced back to what has already happened.

I don't see how that is all that radical, Toby?

(Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, mokbull)

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

People can believe what they want as far as I'm concerned but it actually does irk me a bit when an otherwise intelligent person will take the most ridiculous of things in religious texts literally. I just don't understand the thinking, it's as if any critical thought they'd apply in all other aspects of life gets thrown out the window. To quote Sam Harris, it allows people to believe en masse what only idiots or lunatics could believe in isolation.

It's also amusing at the same time but this is the sort of thing-


https://youtu.be/bHvxiQbQ37I

[Toby]

I understand what Mok is saying. I've often thought about it.

You, and everyone else, are the product of what's happened before. So what you will do in the future is already defined by your past actions, influences and thoughts. Everything that will happen from now can be traced back to what has already happened.

I don't see how that is all that radical, Toby?

(Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, mokbull)

He appeared to me to be denying the existence of free will.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The way I'd look at it is that whilst many different pathways are possible, only one pathway is actually going to happen, so regardless of what that ends up being and how free our choices are from our point of view, we are all trapped within the inevitability of one outcome.

Otherwise expressed as que sera sera.

[Pepe]

It's not so much that you don't choose, but that you wouldn't have chosen otherwise.

@ Toby

[Reg]

I agree with that. (To the above two posts actually.)

[Henry]

I'm not sure what mokbull is saying but the clockwork universe model has been out of date for over 100 years, and that is well established, not just some hypothesis that is yet to be tested. Probability does play a role at the quantum level.

As for free will, I don't agree that that's at odds with determinism (either of the strict variety or a weaker version that allows for quantum weirdness). The concept of a choice that is not governed by the laws of physics is pretty meaningless. A choice based on our brain matter (or whatever) obeying those laws is still a choice. The laws are part of us, not some outside agency.

[Toby]

Given that time travel doesn't appear to be possible I'm not sure what difference it makes that we would have made the same choice every time if it were.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Given that time travel doesn't appear to be possible I'm not sure what difference it makes that we would have made the same choice every time if it were.

Exactly. We might have made different ones but we only have the opportunity for one.

[Disco]

So basically Jeff Goldblum was talking shit in Jurassic Park, as long as you know enough and water (and Laura Dern's hand) you can predict where the drop will run.

[QE Harold Flair]

Krauss, Italaussie and mates sort of touching on this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqTzvrWKA08

[Mazuuurk]

So basically Jeff Goldblum was talking shit in Jurassic Park, as long as you know enough and water (and Laura Dern's hand) you can predict where the drop will run.

Jeff Goldblum is God.

[Shindig]

I can't believe in something I don't understand. There could be a God in the biblical sense but that requires us to think of our already microscopic place in the universe as much, much smaller.

[Henry]

I can't believe in something I don't understand. There could be a God in the biblical sense but that requires us to think of our already microscopic place in the universe as much, much smaller.

"God in the biblical sense" is a tribal deity so I'm not sure where you get that from.

[Shindig]

No, he's the creator of all living things. I mean, it's right at the front. Like the first page. If you take our scale to be completely out of whack and the universe, you could conceivably imagine we're all some scientist's bell jar experiment.

[Spoonsky]

What's always strange to me is the fact that religion has been the modus operandi for thousands of years, and that atheism is relatively speaking an incredibly new phenomenon. It always seems like it should be the other way round.

I read something interesting a while ago that described secularization as the process of replacing religion with equivalent things that won't lead us to killing each other in massive wars. It posited that we've found replacements for all of the things religion provided - community, art, intellectual life - except for spirituality, which is basically absent in secular societies, to the detriment of their people. I found it quite compelling and basically agreed with it.

[Lewis]

Religion gets a bad press as far as wars go. For a long time it actually moderated it.

[QE Harold Flair]

What's always strange to me is the fact that religion has been the modus operandi for thousands of years, and that atheism is relatively speaking an incredibly new phenomenon. It always seems like it should be the other way round.

I read something interesting a while ago that described secularization as the process of replacing religion with equivalent things that won't lead us to killing each other in massive wars. It posited that we've found replacements for all of the things religion provided - community, art, intellectual life - except for spirituality, which is basically absent in secular societies, to the detriment of their people. I found it quite compelling and basically agreed with it.

Again, that depends how you define 'spirituality'.

[Reg]

I've heard spirituality defined as basically being generous and loving to other people, in both your thoughts and actions. That makes enough sense to me but you could also just call it compassion.

[Jimmy Floyd]

What's always strange to me is the fact that religion has been the modus operandi for thousands of years, and that atheism is relatively speaking an incredibly new phenomenon. It always seems like it should be the other way round.

Really? Religion basically fills gaps in our knowledge, which are less now than they once were. If you think of medieval people saying that comets were an omen from the Lord, that's a pretty sound call on their part because they have no way of having a fucking clue what a comet is or what causes it. Christ knows what cavemen must have thought. Not a lot, I suppose.

[Lewis]

I associate 'spirituality' with believing in ghosts and 'alternative medicine'.

[QE Harold Flair]

In the religious sense I think it's just a sense of awe, which they attribute to a higher power.

[Henry]

No, he's the creator of all living things. I mean, it's right at the front. Like the first page. If you take our scale to be completely out of whack and the universe, you could conceivably imagine we're all some scientist's bell jar experiment.

And how does that make us smaller in the grand scheme?

[Spammer]

I can see where mokbull is coming from, assuming I understand him properly.

If you take the rules of cause and effect to its logical conclusion then determinism is the only real answer. We have no choice at all, because literally everything is governed by the laws of Physics. People can bang on about the uncertainty principle and randomness on the quantum level but I'd hammer home that that is perceived randomness. The uncertainty we have about cause and effect on that level doesn't mean that it's random, it just means that we can't make sense of it and so it seems random to us. I don't have an opinion on it as such, but to say 'yeah but things are random on the quantum level' isn't the end of the debate by a long shot, if you ask me.

As for God, nah. One of my closest friends up here is my housemate who is massively religious and we've had a lot of really great conversations about it, and I can't help but feel that she largely believes because she had it put into her head by an early age by her parents, and because a lot of her close friends, sense of community and identity is wrapped up in Christianity and so to lose that would be too much hassle to bear thinking about. That's separate from simply believing in God, but most people's belief in God is wrapped up in this kind of thing so it's a relevant point. I think there's a significant number of people in those communities who don't really believe though, or who simply have never thought about it.

Jimmy's 'God' just seems to be a metaphor for the universe, and while the term can be used in a poetic sense it makes the question 'Do you believe in God' lose its meaning unless you define your terms.

In any case though, I think people can do what they want as long as they're nice and as long as they don't force their shit on other people. I would include children in the group 'other people' too, and so I completely disagree with state-funded faith schools. Kids should learn about different religions, but not be indoctrinated into them. Certainly not by the state anyway.

[Pepe]

I do love when non-physicists start talking about quantum mechanics.

[Henry]

People can bang on about the uncertainty principle and randomness on the quantum level but I'd hammer home that that is perceived randomness. The uncertainty we have about cause and effect on that level doesn't mean that it's random, it just means that we can't make sense of it and so it seems random to us.

That's wrong though. The uncertainty is a fundamental property of physics, not a limitation of our measurements. And again, that's well established, not a hokey theory.

[Lewis]

I do love when non-physicists start talking about quantum mechanics.

Now you know how Magic feels about all these 'engineers'.

[mugbull]

I do love when non-physicists start talking about quantum mechanics.

As if any physicist knows exactly how and why quantum superpositions work. I've heard the experiment about photons being fired off at the same time with no knowledge of each other and how their movement is perceptably random but it's not like there's any sort of agreement over that. Henry and Harold claiming there is only furthers my point, because it's Henry and Harold.

If there is randomness at a molecular level, that's astounding. If there is no randomness, that's astounding in its own right as well. Either answer would tell us something dramatic about our world.

Oh, and Toby, if I'm asked whether free will exists then the answer is no. But I don't think that's a meaningful question to ask.

[ItalAussie]

I can see where mokbull is coming from, assuming I understand him properly.

If you take the rules of cause and effect to its logical conclusion then determinism is the only real answer. We have no choice at all, because literally everything is governed by the laws of Physics. People can bang on about the uncertainty principle and randomness on the quantum level but I'd hammer home that that is perceived randomness. The uncertainty we have about cause and effect on that level doesn't mean that it's random, it just means that we can't make sense of it and so it seems random to us. I don't have an opinion on it as such, but to say 'yeah but things are random on the quantum level' isn't the end of the debate by a long shot, if you ask me.It's far from the end of the debate, mostly because quantum mechanics isn't actually that relevant to the discussion. But it should be pointed out that there does seem to be an intrinsicness to the random aspect of quantum mechanics. Things like lines of causality start to become fuzzy in a directional sense, and we're not even totally certain what things like "cause and effect" mean when you get to those scales. At some point, we're just trying to wrap 3+1 dimensional ideas around well-understood math that isn't really designed to function that way. It's not a question of understanding (we're pretty solid there) so much as interpretation (slightly trickier).


Jimmy's 'God' just seems to be a metaphor for the universe, and while the term can be used in a poetic sense it makes the question 'Do you believe in God' lose its meaning unless you define your terms.
Jimmy gets irritated by atheists (particularly the vocal ones), and will tie himself in contortions to avoid being classified as one.

[mugbull]

I think spirituality is just the search for knowledge and an openness of mind. Which for some people encompasses religion, but I think the moment you pigeonhole yourself into a "religion" you lose a bit of that open-mindedness, because at that point you subscribe to a certain set of beliefs

[QE Harold Flair]

As if any physicist knows exactly how and why quantum superpositions work. I've heard the experiment about photons being fired off at the same time with no knowledge of each other and how their movement is perceptably random but it's not like there's any sort of agreement over that. Henry and Harold claiming there is only furthers my point, because it's Henry and Harold.

They don't need to know how and why to know that they exist.

As Lawrence Krauss often says - there is no 'why' in science. When people say 'why' they really mean 'how'.

[Spammer]

That's wrong though. The uncertainty is a fundamental property of physics, not a limitation of our measurements. And again, that's well established, not a hokey theory.

No, the uncertainty itself is well established and universally agreed. The nature of the uncertainty isn't. It's the difference between epistemological and ontological uncertainty, and the only reason that the debate isn't raging is because it's universally agreed that we're probably never going to know the answer and there's not much point arguing as we've literally no idea either way. The uncertainty principle refers to our own uncertainty, but not (necessarily) that of the universe.

Edit: Ital suggests that the debate still is raging. Fair enough. I'm not part of those circles that tend to debate about it, so I wouldn't know.

ItalAussie: Do you think we'll ever know either way?

[ItalAussie]

As if any physicist knows exactly how and why quantum superpositions work. I've heard the experiment about photons being fired off at the same time with no knowledge of each other and how their movement is perceptably random but it's not like there's any sort of agreement over that. Henry and Harold claiming there is only furthers my point, because it's Henry and Harold.The double-slit experiment is well-known, and can be done in university labs easily enough. The position of a single photon can be shown experimentally to exist as a probabilistic wavefunction (and hence generating interference patterns) until you measure its state, at which point the wavefunction 'collapses' to a point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment


If there is randomness at a molecular level, that's astounding. If there is no randomness, that's astounding in its own right as well. Either answer would tell us something dramatic about our world.
The randomness is on a subatomic level, rather than a molecular level. And it is astonishing, although it was more astonishing in the 1910's, when we were only starting to understand it, rather than now, when it's well-understood enough to feature in any decent undergraduate curriculum.

[ItalAussie]

Edit: Ital suggests that the debate still is raging. Fair enough. I'm not part of those circles that tend to debate about it.
Don't misconstrue my words. There's not a "raging" debate among scientists ("this is what the math says happens, so this is what happens"). There was up until about the 1940s, at which point they all just accepted the Copenhagen Interpretation and largely moved on.

What we have now is just people trying to attach 'understandable' interpretations to it, which is a mug's game that doesn't really mean anything, given our brains largely evolved for the purposes of working out where the best bananas are. The only really meaningful 'interpretation' is that the math holds up.

[Toby]

Oh, and Toby, if I'm asked whether free will exists then the answer is no. But I don't think that's a meaningful question to ask.

Well get you.

[Lewis]

So the universe makes him boring?

[ItalAussie]

He appeared to me to be denying the existence of free will.

People get hung up on free will, but I actually hold that there's no difference at all between "free will" and "illusion of free will".

There's no possible way to differentiate between the two, either internally or externally. Hence, they there is absolutely no possible difference in their interaction between the world, and that means it's really just two names for the same concept. It's like how the number "3+1" is the same thing as the number "2x2". If two things have exactly the same set of properties, they're the same thing - the question is really one of semantics rather than substance.

[Spammer]

Don't misconstrue my words. There's not a "raging" debate among scientists ("this is what the math says happens, so this is what happens"). There was up until about the 1940s, at which point they all just accepted the Copenhagen Interpretation and largely moved on.

What we have now is just people trying to attach 'understandable' interpretations to it, which is a mug's game that doesn't really mean anything, given our brains largely evolved for the purposes of working out where the best bananas are. The only really meaningful 'interpretation' is that the math holds up.

It wasn't deliberate.

So is it genuine randomness or perceived randomness? I don't think I understand.

The math holds up that when x and y happen, z will happen. That's a flippant example, but is that basically it? They know what will happen, but don't understand what it means?

[QE Harold Flair]

http://i.imgur.com/yKW4Ly5.gif

[ItalAussie]

It wasn't deliberate.

So is it genuine randomness or perceived randomness? I don't think I understand.

The math holds up that when x and y happen, z will happen. That's a flippant example, but is that basically it? They know what will happen, but don't understand what it means?
it's genuine randomness. You can say that when x and y happens, there's a probability distribution (call it P[z] ) that z_1 will happen, or z_2 or z_3, etc. But that probability is intrinsic to the science. it's not just case of learning more about x and y, and how they produce z, and using that to make a more accurate decision about which z will happen.

Like, we can know everything there is to know about the photon we're shooting through the double-slit machine (x and y), and that will tell us what the probability of the photon position will be. And until we measure it, the probability is, in a sense, all that exists. But then you measure it and the wavefunction collapses, at which point z is decided according to the probability distribution. In a sense, P[z] can be calculated by knowing x and y, but there is intrinsic randomness to z, no matter how well we know what x and y are.

And this is the thing about physics. Eventually it just becomes math.

[Spammer]

it's genuine randomness. You can say that when x and y happens, there's a probability distribution (call it P[z] ) that z_1 will happen, or z_2 or z_3, etc. But that probability is intrinsic to the science. it's not just case of learning more about x and y, and how they produce z, and using that to make a more accurate decision about which z will happen.

Like, we can know everything there is to know about the photon we're shooting through the double-slit machine (x and y), and that will tell us what the probability of the photon position will be. And until we measure it, the probability is, in a sense, all that exists. But then you measure it and the wavefunction collapses, at which point z is decided according to the probability distribution. In a sense, P[z] can be calculated by knowing x and y, but there is intrinsic randomness to z, no matter how well we know what x and y are.

The genuine/perceived randomness debate sounds similar to your 'free will'/'illusion of free will' argument above, where you say it's the same thing because it's impossible to differentiate on any level between the two. Would you say that's right?

Edit: I'm aware i'm way over my head here with the detailed Physics/Maths stuff. I'm genuinely asking.

[Toby]

People get hung up on free will, but I actually hold that there's no difference at all between "free will" and "illusion of free will".

There's no possible way to differentiate between the two, either internally or externally. Hence, they there is absolutely no possible difference in their interaction between the world, and that means it's really just two names for the same concept. It's like how the number "3+1" is the same thing as the number "2x2". If two things have exactly the same set of properties, they're the same thing - the question is really one of semantics rather than substance.

I agree with all that. I just felt MokBull's post was going down a fairly pointless hypothetical, with the unprovable idea that if we were to run things over nothing would change. None of it really matters to the human understanding - if we believe we have free will (as we do), then for all intents and purposes we have free will. I don't see where the idea that we don't actually have any choice over anything leads other than to pointless nihilism, or me deciding to just let nature do it's thing and driving into the back of a car tomorrow instead of making the decision to brake.

[QE Harold Flair]

The type of believer that annoys me, and you come across these a lot, are the ones who say that you can't disprove God so it's just as likely he exists. Or that non-belief is a faith position just as much as religious belief. Nothing will ever penetrate the skuls of these people.

[ItalAussie]

The genuine/perceived randomness debate sounds similar to your 'free will'/'illusion of free will' argument above, where you say it's the same thing because it's impossible to differentiate on any level between the two. Would you say that's right?

Edit: I'm aware i'm way over my head here with the detailed Physics/Maths stuff. I'm genuinely asking.Don't worry - I know you're not trying to pick a fight, but just looking to understand. :)

It's not what you'd think of as a causal sequence, in the sense that x and y happen therefore a particular z happens, but we don't know the rules well enough to know which z is going to happen, and if we just understood the rules better, we'd be able to predict which z is going to happen. It's not like the particle is secretly in some state and we only find out which when we measure it. The particle actually exists as a probability wavefunction until the measurement is made. The physical nature of the photon itself is probabilistic (which is a slightly better term than random). In a sense, the probabilistic behaviour is a deterministic, as the wavefunction is uniquely and causally determined by x and y.

People feel uncomfortable with the idea of probabilistic laws, so they try to over-interpret it. But the answer is basically that the math says things can exist probabilistically on very small scales, so that's what they do. Our minds struggle to wrap themselves around probabilistic existence, because nothing in our sensory experience behaves that way, and that's what our brains evolved to process. But it kind of just is what it is.

[Spoonsky]

Really? Religion basically fills gaps in our knowledge, which are less now than they once were. If you think of medieval people saying that comets were an omen from the Lord, that's a pretty sound call on their part because they have no way of having a fucking clue what a comet is or what causes it. Christ knows what cavemen must have thought. Not a lot, I suppose.

No, it makes sense when you think about, but on an intuitive level as someone who grew up a nonbeliever it seems strange. All of the other major human conventions that have developed - clothing, language, buildings, families, even love - seem to have a much more obvious utility than assuaging curiosity or existential panic.

[mugbull]

I still hold that the Socratic philosophers in Athens were the single greatest contributor to the Dark Ages and the backwardness of the Christian West until the enlightenment.

EDIT: I could've sworn somebody had mentioned this. Seems irrelevant now

[QE Harold Flair]

The enlightenment which had to fight against religion.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Jimmy gets irritated by atheists (particularly the vocal ones), and will tie himself in contortions to avoid being classified as one.

I'm not intellectually irritated by them, I just think they're knobheads, as can be seen in this thread.

[Magic]

Sometimes life is so bad it almost leaves a man with no choice but to believe in a God.

In the name of the father, the holy spirit...

[John Arne]

I'm not intellectually irritated by them, I just think they're knobheads, as can be seen in this thread.

You've been fairly defensive when questioned about your beliefs, and fairly dismissive of people when they have asked you to clarify your points.

Edit: perhaps defensive is the wrong word. Lacking in clarity, maybe.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I made a very uncontroversial first post (Giggles agreed with it!) and then you started asking me about evolution like some nodding dog.

[Raoul Duke]

I'm atheist, and generally I find the level at which religious nonsense permeates society utterly bewildering. We (modern, intellectual, civilised societies) have developed pretty rigorous scientific processes around logic, experimentation and "proof" and things should by-and-large be assessed using these methods.

That we accept what is essentially prima facie insanity as an ok thing for actual adults to admit belief in is absurd. To me, it's basically a form of mild mental illness and should be treated as such.

Yes, we don't understand everything and it's unlikely we ever will. But jumping from there to 'oh it must be some magic geezer in the sky' is bonkers.

[John Arne]

I made a very uncontroversial first post (Giggles agreed with it!) and then you started asking me about evolution like some nodding dog.

I asked you if you believed in evolution, you dozy twat. Stop acting like a prick.

[Smiffy]

I did for a short time. I believe it was when the FMG(?) lot joined.

[Spammer]

I still hold that the Socratic philosophers in Athens were the single greatest contributor to the Dark Ages and the backwardness of the Christian West until the enlightenment.

EDIT: I could've sworn somebody had mentioned this. Seems irrelevant now

You're aware that the Dark Ages happened because the ancient texts were lost to most of the Western world, and that the enlightenment happened by and large because they were rediscovered? I guess they contributed with their absence in a bizarre kind of way, but otherwise I've no idea what you're talking about.

ItalAussie Yeah it just seems like a sign of our own lack of understanding to me. Can't help it :sorry:

[Giggles]

Jimmy went a little off track, but in fairness JA was just waiting for someone to pounce on.

[John Arne]

Jimmy went a little off track, but in fairness JA was just waiting for someone to pounce on.

I really wasn't. I asked legitimate questions when people offered their views.

[Jimmy Floyd]

You've seen me post on here for donkey's years, why would that post have led you to think I didn't 'believe in' evolution?

I've personally never met anyone who doesn't believe in it.

[mugbull]

You're aware that the Dark Ages happened because the ancient texts were lost to most of the Western world, and that the enlightenment happened by and large because they were rediscovered? I guess they contributed with their absence in a bizarre kind of way, but otherwise I've no idea what you're talking about.

ItalAussie Yeah it just seems like a sign of our own lack of understanding to me. Can't help it :sorry:

It's a commentary on dogma. Nobody dared challenge Plato's judgments on morality, or Aristotelian scientific claims, because those two (and Socrates) were revered as saints. Nobody gave a shit about Democritus or whatever. And yeah, that's probably because way more of Plato and Aristotle survived than did of Democritus, but the effect that had on Western thought was pretty dramatic.

[John Arne]

Moving on. One of my biggest concerns is people in power who believe categorically in God and the scriptures.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f_kZ9Ims-A


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BymuYDFoCT8

Some of his beliefs are absolutely frightening, and will inevitable affect his decision making.

[Henry]

You're aware that the Dark Ages happened because the ancient texts were lost to most of the Western world, and that the enlightenment happened by and large because they were rediscovered? I guess they contributed with their absence in a bizarre kind of way, but otherwise I've no idea what you're talking about.

That's not really true either. It might have been one factor.


ItalAussie Yeah it just seems like a sign of our own lack of understanding to me. Can't help it :sorry:

Read about the double-slit experiment. It's genuinely astonishing and never stops being so. The particle goes through both slits, until you force it to choose by measuring it as it does so. The uncertainty is part of nature.

[Spammer]

That's not really true either. It might have been one factor.

Ok, I might have overplayed it (obviously it's a bit more complicated), but it was a factor. The point I was making to him remains though, doesn't it.


Read about the double-slit experiment. It's genuinely astonishing and never stops being so. The particle goes through both slits, until you force it to choose by measuring it as it does so. The uncertainty is part of nature.

I know about the double-slit experiment. My point is that there might be more to it than we can ever perceive. That's simply it. It's an unknown unknown.

[Dquincy]

Moving on. One of my biggest concerns is people in power who believe categorically in God and the scriptures.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f_kZ9Ims-A


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BymuYDFoCT8

Some of his beliefs are absolutely frightening, and will inevitable affect his decision making.

But, do you think they take this approach to gain votes/support for the religious folk?

[John Arne]

For sure, yeah. But I think that most of them also believe everything they are saying.

[phonics]

Don't worry - I know you're not trying to pick a fight, but just looking to understand. :)

It's not what you'd think of as a causal sequence, in the sense that x and y happen therefore a particular z happens, but we don't know the rules well enough to know which z is going to happen, and if we just understood the rules better, we'd be able to predict which z is going to happen. It's not like the particle is secretly in some state and we only find out which when we measure it. The particle actually exists as a probability wavefunction until the measurement is made. The physical nature of the photon itself is probabilistic (which is a slightly better term than random). In a sense, the probabilistic behaviour is a deterministic, as the wavefunction is uniquely and causally determined by x and y.

People feel uncomfortable with the idea of probabilistic laws, so they try to over-interpret it. But the answer is basically that the math says things can exist probabilistically on very small scales, so that's what they do. Our minds struggle to wrap themselves around probabilistic existence, because nothing in our sensory experience behaves that way, and that's what our brains evolved to process. But it kind of just is what it is.

Have I misunderstood or is this basically Schrödingers Cat for particles? "It could be z1,2,3 or 4 but until we measure it / open the box, it cannot be known?

[Lewis]

'Some of his beliefs are absolutely frightening, and will inevitable affect his decision making', says man living in communist country.

[QE Harold Flair]

The poll needs more options. I don't get frustrated by most people who believe in God, just the ones who make obviously shit arguments for her existence.

[John Arne]

'Some of his beliefs are absolutely frightening, and will inevitable affect his decision making', says man living in communist country.

How do you mean?

[ItalAussie]

Have I misunderstood or is this basically Schrödingers Cat for particles? "It could be z1,2,3 or 4 but until we measure it / open the box, it cannot be known? Schrödingers Cat is about this very phenomenon in the Copenhagen interpretation. The poison is released depending on what state of radioactive decay a single subatomic particle is in, but until the particle is measured, it exists in a quantum superposition of all possible states. Ergo, the cat exists in a quantum superposition of being both dead and not dead.

Except Bohr noted that the very act of releasing the poison necessarily requires a measurement of the particle by a Geiger counter (hence collapsing the waveform), so the paradox is resolved with minimal fuss. There are other resolutions or ways of thinking about it as well, but I think most physicists agree that the waveform would be forced to collapse long before it can interact with anything on a macroscopic level.

[phonics]

I was with you right up till 'the waveform would be forced to collapse long before it can interact with anything on a macroscopic level'...

[Henry]

Decoherence, I think it's called.

Although that stuff bothers me as well. I'm not at home right now, and neither is anyone else there. Is the entire place in a variety of quantum superpositions? Can they be as such for me, but not for others who might be int he vicinity?

[ItalAussie]

I was with you right up till 'the waveform would be forced to collapse long before it can interact with anything on a macroscopic level'...
Until it is measured, the particle exists as a probability function in a superposition of all possible states. When it is measured, the waveform "collapses" into one of the possible states. Schrödinger reasoned that if there was a particle that may or may not have experienced radioactive decay, then it would exist in a quantum superposition of those two states. If the box therefore had a geiger counter and released the poison when the particle decayed, then the cat also necessarily existed in a quantum superposition of dead or alive.

Bohr argues that any interaction between the particle and the geiger counter has the effect of measuring the particle state, and therefore the waveform collapses from a quantum superposition of states into a single state before it can affect the cat. This seems like the most succinct explanation.

[Charlie]

I'll believe in something more, until someone can explain to me why anything exists.

[Reg]

I'll believe in something more, until someone can explain to me why anything exists.
That doesn't follow, though. Because why does/would "something more" exist?

[randomlegend]

"But whyyyyyyyyy?"

[GS]

There needs to be a distinction between believing in a deity and being religious. Many may incline towards a belief in the former without considering it to have any impact whatsoever on their day to day lives. Similarly, one can believe in a deity without considering any scripture or religious text to be a literal record of historical fact.

I'm a Christian but not a creationist. As far as I can see, the Old Testament reflects the best wisdom of its time. This doesn't mean that everything it says is acceptable or relevant today. It even contradicts itself at times - an interesting example is where Henry VIII cited Leviticus 20:21 as scriptural evidence of why his marriage to Catherine of Aragon should be dissolved and the papal dispensation set aside. Yet a reading of Deuteronomy 25:5 directly supports the opposite view. It can be frustrating whenever people cite the Bible to support their views against homosexuality, or adopt a similar "pick and choose" attitude to some of the laws therein. A literal reading in these contexts would, by a logical extension, require a literal reading of all Old Testament laws, thereby meaning we should still be stoning people to death for adultery.

Where one looks at the New Testament, these scriptures were written with a particular audience and in a particular religious and political context. The arguments in the years after the crucifixion focused on issues such as whether Christ's message should be preached to the Gentiles, the structure and governance of the church, whether circumcision was required, the role of the Sabbath. It was very much a movement trying to make sense of things in the context of first century Judaism, and the scriptures reflect this. For example, the Gospel of Matthew includes genealogies to support prophetic messages and also consistency cites "to fulfil what was said by the prophet" to make it relevant to first century readers familiar with existing scripture. The Gospel of John also differs significantly in tone and approach from the Synoptics.

Therefore, I don't believe they're unimpeachable. They disagree with each other and offer different views, based on the writer and their intended audience. The Gospels were written probably a generation or two after Christ's death (Mark being the earliest), and were probably based on second or third hand information. In my view, it's an attempt by the authors to record events as they understood them in the context of their own time. There's much wisdom to take from the Bible, particularly the Gospels. The Sermon on the Mount and the parables are examples which, even 2,000 years later, are remarkable for their continued relevancy today. This doesn't mean I believe everything happened exactly as its recorded.

On a separate point, I don't believe a politician should be basing their decisions on religious views - there should be a clear distinction to ensure that the state is able to legislate appropriately on issues which may be impacted by personal faith. Abortion is a key example. I am deeply, deeply uncomfortable with abortion. However, I do not believe it is not the state's place to legislate on this, or similar, issues. Gay marriage is another example. Marriage is a legal construct, and between two consenting adults there should be no impediment to that being recorded on a legal basis. Appropriate caveats should exist for churches to exempt themselves from holding such ceremonies. The principle of legislating secular laws for a secular society should be accepted.

A final point to make is the issue of the 'vocal minority' on each side of the debate. Given the context of debate on this forum, I'll focus on the "angry atheists" who go around berating people of faith - it's a terrible thing to try and take somebody's faith away from them and you shouldn't be doing it.

[Henry]

I actually agree with most of that (notably not with the last line).

[Spammer]

I've never gone out to take anyone's faith away, but respectful discussion of our viewpoints is a good thing, no?

It'd be bloody horrible to see if my housemate lost her faith. I dunno wtf she'd do with herself.

[Henry]

"Take their faith away" implies some sort of theft. If they change their mind, then they do so all by themselves. They aren't forced.

Obviously "berating" people isn't good, but sheltering them from other points of view isn't good either.

[Charlie]

That doesn't follow, though. Because why does/would "something more" exist?

Well why do we exist? Why do planets, space, atoms and energy exist? All those things do actually exist, so why would that rule out something more?

[QE Harold Flair]

Well why do we exist? Why do planets, space, atoms and energy exist? All those things do actually exist, so why would that rule out something more?

It doesn't 'rule it out'. There's just no evidence to make that claim. And if that something else did exist, you could ask the exact same 'why' question for eternity.

[mikem]

Henry

I don't want to presume to speak for GS but I think he is referring to two things. As Jimmy pointed out the original post did not really ask a genuine question. Instead it presented three possibilities for you to choose from:

A. Religious and believe literally, which was defined as lunacy.
B. Religious and don't believe literally, which was defined as stupid for not even being able to do it right.
C. Atheist and correct, obviously. As has been pointed out on every subsequent page, anything less is a form of mental illness.

And, when you don't believe any of those things there is no place for an honest dialogue because we have to have our sheltered views given a better option so we can choose for ourselves (the right thing this time).

Obviously, I'm religious. Sorry, mentally ill. Not to worry, it is genetic (Judaism, specifically American Reform). We don't proselytize or convert so it isn't contagious and I won't get any icky Jew goo on you.

If you want an honest answer to why someone would be religious in this day and age I'll answer the questions best I can, but I get preached at enough by evangelicals, I really don't care for the Hitchens / Dawkins crowd to define my religion for me and tell me I'm not being a Jew right because they read something somewhere and that is what I must therefore believe.

[John Arne]

I think you need to read the OP again. Those accusations are completely untrue.

It's fairly difficult to convey tone via writing, so read it again, but this time imagine me sitting at my work desk, staring into the sunset whilst twiddling a unlit pipe in my mouth.

[Henry]

Henry

I don't want to presume to speak for GS but I think he is referring to two things. As Jimmy pointed out the original post did not really ask a genuine question. Instead it presented three possibilities for you to choose from:

A. Religious and believe literally, which was defined as lunacy.
B. Religious and don't believe literally, which was defined as stupid for not even being able to do it right.
C. Atheist and correct, obviously. As has been pointed out on every subsequent page, anything less is a form of mental illness.

And, when you don't believe any of those things there is no place for an honest dialogue because we have to have our sheltered views given a better option so we can choose for ourselves (the right thing this time).

Obviously, I'm religious. Sorry, mentally ill. Not to worry, it is genetic (Judaism, specifically American Reform). We don't proselytize or convert so it isn't contagious and I won't get any icky Jew goo on you.

If you want an honest answer to why someone would be religious in this day and age I'll answer the questions best I can, but I get preached at enough by evangelicals, I really don't care for the Hitchens / Dawkins crowd to define my religion for me and tell me I'm not being a Jew right because they read something somewhere and that is what I must therefore believe.

I don't see the connection between any of this and my response to GS, but feel free to outline what and why you believe .

[mikem]

For the God question, which seems to imply some level of "isn't belief in God in some way equivalent to belief In a Big Sky Daddy?" and just out of place in the modern world?

I honestly can't see how God or belief in such has anything whatsoever to do with science / scientific method or anything else of that nature. Isn't a belief in God a bit silly in the modern age? It is hard to explain to people from a Christian background but in the actual practice of Judaism all of those cosmology questions are just not important. You are not defined as observant based on beliefs but on actions. I get questions like "Do Jews go / believe in heaven?" all the time and I just shrug and say "ask a rabbi .' These just are not questions we find important most likely because we are a tribal religion. All I really get is to be a Jew, and let's face it - I am a minority most everywhere and will get that anyway. I will still be considered different.

[mikem]

For JA's question "do you take Jewish scripture literally?"

No, except for the first sentence of the Hebrew version of Genisis, which is roughly "In the beginning, God created ET." Christians generally translate that as word, but it is literally an abbreviation for alphabet. Which means that everything following should be understood through the prism of language and all that entails. Unlike Orthodox Jews who believe the Torah and Talmud are the divine word directly transcribed Reform Jews believe it is the divinely inspired search by Isrealites to understand their place in the world, connection to God, and relationship to the nation of Isreal. Not the country but the classical sense, Jewish diaspora is probably a better term. The majority of orthodox who say they believe it literally really don't mean that in the same way as a fundamentalist Christian either. They believe the laws are literal but since the scripture is divine to derive understanding you need to read it in four different ways: plain text, for hints/allegory, comparatively, and for mystery. The last two are hard to define because they are in part defined by a the nature of ancient Hebrew - no vowels and things are written in verse.

[Lewis]

You're the official forum Jew now. Congratulations.

[mikem]

For Henry's "why would someone be religious?"

Morality. Not in the I am moral and you are not sense. My Judaism forces me to spend some time contemplating my actions and determining if I am treating my tribe, relationships, etc. properly. Being Reform I get to choose which of the mitzoh I follow and so I have to think and consider them. Like everyone, I'm terrible at it but in the fast paced modern world I like that something tells me to slow down and think about it. And then that I have to translate it to action.

For example, I have to do something for the nation of Israel and I personally believe in the two state solution. So I donate quite a bit to J-Street, which is the Jewish American lobby that promotes that concept. They are totally outgunned, but at least I know that when Cory Booker is deciding on the Iran deal he not only has evangelicals and Bibi supporters but also someone saying "look there are American Jews here saying you can vote for and they will support you." And for me that is a religious obligation. I'm not better, just given time to reflect and ask if I've done it enough and clearly you can get there through completely secular means.

[mikem]

Lewis

My mom would say that translates to "forum pain in the ass." I'm cool with that.

[Manc]

Is he the bald fella with tits?

[Disco]

No, Lewis is the autistic one from Hull.

[GS]

I actually agree with most of that (notably not with the last line).


"Take their faith away" implies some sort of theft. If they change their mind, then they do so all by themselves. They aren't forced.

Obviously "berating" people isn't good, but sheltering them from other points of view isn't good either.

No-one should be sheltered from a genuine discussion on the merits of faith in a spirit of goodwill. That last caveat is vital. Where you have arguments suggesting that people of faith are "delusional", or implications that to believe in a deity is "insupportable by evidence", it tends to become very nasty.

I fully accept that I cannot prove the existence of God, and I certainly cannot prove that Christ was God become man. Nor can people who lack religious conviction disprove the existence of God. The advance of science may, in years or decades ahead, enlighten us further. Until that time, one can say that "on the balance of probabilities, it is my view that" X or Y is more likely to have happened, but we simply cannot know for a certainty. Scientific evidence suggests the creation of the universe through the Big Bang. We cannot say for a certainty what existed before the Big Bang or why it happened. I would not denounce an atheist's argument which would say that it has nothing to do with a deity. I cannot disprove this point. All I can do is present a counter-argument which states my belief that a deity was involved - this doesn't mean I adhere rigidly to the "first cause" argument for creation as expounded by St Thomas Aquinas.

On the basis that we simply do not and cannot know, agnosticism is probably the "reasoned" position to take. What I find unpalatable is the firm entrenchment that certain "vocal" atheists exhibit for their belief in their own correctness. When I refer to "taking someone's faith", this means in the context of attacking and deliberately seeking to undermine the fundamental tenets of one's belief. That is a discussion absent goodwill and it is on issue of fundamental importance that goes to the very core of what it means "to be". It should never, ever be used as a football to score cheap points, nor should anyone - on either side - be aggressively asserting their belief in their own correctness over proponents of the opposite view.

[Pepe]

You're the official forum Jew now. Congratulations.

Spoonsky will be seething.

[Spammer]

I'd say we're all agnostic technically, as nobody can be sure. The thing that I find it hard to fathom is that when you look at it in context and realise that there have been millions of Gods believed in very candidly by people throughout history. No doubt religious beliefs tap into something very central to what we are as human beings as they've been a part of most known cultures in some way, but why one God over the other? It's usually pure circumstance of one's birth that can lead to someone believing in Christianity over Islam, or Hinduism over the Roman gods, and so on. I can't understand how one can be aware of this and disbelieve so many millions of Gods and then think that this God; this God (usually the one they happened to have been brought up into) is the one true God, and the others are all false. This one stumps me entirely.

[randomlegend]

I always think that too. It's kind of arrogant really.

[QE Harold Flair]

No-one should be sheltered from a genuine discussion on the merits of faith in a spirit of goodwill. That last caveat is vital. Where you have arguments suggesting that people of faith are "delusional", or implications that to believe in a deity is "insupportable by evidence", it tends to become very nasty.

But a 'delusion' is the exact term to use. I'm fairly certain you've lol'ed at scientologists and would have little problem referring to them as delusional. What's the difference?

[QE Harold Flair]

I'd say we're all agnostic technically, as nobody can be sure.

This just highlights the unnecessary deference we give religion. I do not say I am agnostic about fairies, do you?

[GS]

I'd say we're all agnostic technically, as nobody can be sure. The thing that I find it hard to fathom is that when you look at it in context and realise that there have been millions of Gods believed in very candidly by people throughout history. No doubt religious beliefs tap into something very central to what we are as human beings as they've been a part of most known cultures in some way, but why one God over the other? It's usually pure circumstance of one's birth that can lead to someone believing in Christianity over Islam, or Hinduism over the Roman gods, and so on. I can't understand how one can be aware of this and disbelieve so many millions of Gods and then think that this God; this God (usually the one they happened to have been brought up into) is the one true God, and the others are all false. This one stumps me entirely.

If I'd been born four miles across the city, I might well adhere to Roman Catholicism in preference to Protestantism. As it is, I reject doctrines such as the need for confession, the existence of purgatory, the intervention of saints, the power of relics, the basis of papal authority founded on Petrine Primacy (resulting from Matthew 16:18), of transubstantiation during the eucharist. This is my own personal interpretation of the parameters of my faith, but I also accept that many of these interpretations arise from my background (Church of Ireland) and therefore they could well be different if I'd been born elsewhere - or at a different point in history.

Part of the answer is your early beliefs tend to stay with you and help to create a sense of belonging and common purpose - this can make it very difficult to reject them in later life, particularly as it would require acknowledgement that you were fundamentally "wrong" or "misguided". Where other religions can be difficult to convert to (e.g. Judaism), Christianity isn't. However, conversion to, or conversion within, Christianity would require a wholesale rejection of previously-existing belief. Such a step usually arises from an intense, and long-lasting, spiritual journey. One of the more famous conversions of the nineteenth century was Cardinal Newman, and he wrote extensively about the intense difficulty he faced in finally rejecting the church he'd been a member of all his life. I suspect this is why many people don't seriously consider or question their core beliefs. That doesn't make it right, but it's nobody else's job to question it for them on their behalf.

So yes, background is a contributory factor. One of the key arguments for Christianity being the "true" religion, advanced during the Middle Ages, was the supposed conversion of the "whole world" (or Europe, anyway) to the religion, which was a miracle and therefore evidence that it was right. This is clearly not accurate. I believe the Abrahamic religions originated from a great revelation in the Mosaic age. Judaism, Christianity and Islam interpret the future path, post-revelation, differently from each other, but the fundamental belief of a deity stands. Man was given free will and is thus free to find a future path for themselves - this includes the varying interpretations of the deity which the three main Abrahamic religions exhibit.

In terms of interpreting Christ's ministry and the crucifixion, clearly something profound happened. The exact parameters of that are very difficult to define, and obviously your interpretation of this will depend on your own views. As I've mentioned previously, the Sermon on the Mount, the parables and the general core of Christ's teachings are remarkable, and they maintain their relevancy today. In a more narrow political context, first century Judaism placed significant focus on the Sabbath. The early Christian community moved their Sabbath day, a huge (and, in the context of the religious atmosphere of the time, a fairly shocking) step evidencing that they believed something 'game-changing' had happened. Then again, perhaps the religion itself would have struggled to grow further after the fourth century without the conversion of Constantine. Nobody knows what path would have been taken if the vision at the Milvian Bridge hadn't occurred. It's impossible to know the paths left untrodden here.

Whether you choose to believe the resurrection stories recounted in the Gospels, or the appearance of Christ to the apostles recorded in Acts, is up to you. To believe in the fundamental tenet of the document does not equate to blindly accepting every stated fact or scriptural interpretation included within the source. 1 Corinthians 15 is perhaps one of the best 'sources' for the impact of the resurrection on the community - St Paul writes as a first hand source of witnessing the risen Christ.

Anyway, in respect of being stumped, I suspect many people may not give too much thought to religion beyond accepting (or if not accepting, then not wholly rejecting) the fundamental tenets of their long-held faith i.e. for Christians - that God exists, Christ was God and that he was crucified and resurrected. To that, I would say that man has free will to interpret the revelation as he wants. If people interpret the revelation and its future path in a manner consistent with their background, for whatever reason, that is their choice.

[Lewis]

One (our) God over the others because where are those chumps now, and what have the surviving loser deities done for their followers? Nothing. Yet Judeo-Christian God (nobody wins three in a row) just so happens to rule over the best bits of the world, proving Himself Top Dog.

[mikem]

I'd say we're all agnostic technically, as nobody can be sure. The thing that I find it hard to fathom is that when you look at it in context and realise that there have been millions of Gods believed in very candidly by people throughout history. No doubt religious beliefs tap into something very central to what we are as human beings as they've been a part of most known cultures in some way, but why one God over the other? It's usually pure circumstance of one's birth that can lead to someone believing in Christianity over Islam, or Hinduism over the Roman gods, and so on. I can't understand how one can be aware of this and disbelieve so many millions of Gods and then think that this God; this God (usually the one they happened to have been brought up into) is the one true God, and the others are all false. This one stumps me entirely.

Because we are flawed humans with limited time and processing power. Sure, the ideal way would be to try every god / religion / form of study and do an examination and then choose. Who has the time? I don't go to a restaurant and have a taste of everything on the menu before deciding what to eat either. I'm married. My choice of a life partner is crucially important to my long term happiness and sanity. But there are millions of other women out there. Am I arrogant in thinking that I have made the right choice without trying them all?

Or a choice is a choice FOR something. It does not have to be a rejection of everything else. We are not computers. Even agnostics make a choice. You are unsure? Why have you not tried them all? It is not arrogance, it is simple humanity.

[Spoonsky]

Spoonsky will be seething.

It was a good run.

http://i.imgur.com/7jL8eU6.jpg

[GS]

But a 'delusion' is the exact term to use. I'm fairly certain you've lol'ed at scientologists and would have little problem referring to them as delusional. What's the difference?

A delusion is not the correct term to use because it suggests an inherent lack of respect for the opposing view. I accept your view of religion. It's not mine, but I don't believe it to be wholly illegitimate if you reject the concept of a deity. If you reject agnosticism in preference to a defined opinion either way, then that's your choice to do so. I accept that, in the same way you should accept that people may choose to go the other way. To accept the premise that your rejection of agnosticism for atheism (given you cannot prove it) is not unreasonable, it is therefore incumbent upon you to accept that the rejection of agnosticism for faith (given you cannot disprove it) is not unreasonable either.

It's a shame you feel incapable of extending the same level of respect to people who disagree with you, and their views certainly are not delusional. If you want to continue being deliberately provocative on the issue, it's your choice to be a cunt.

On the scientology issue, I would note the following points:

(i) The historical records for Christianity are reasonably extensive and derive from a range of first, second and third hand sources. They were recorded within living memory of the events, and can be placed in a defined historical period and as occurring in a defined place.

(ii) The narrative itself can also be placed in the context of the wider political events of the day, and mentions several 'real life' historical figures of whose existence we know from other sources e.g. Augustus, Pontius Pilate, Tiberius. Further, sources outside the scriptures make reference to the crucifixion as a historical event (see Josephus).

(iii) We can be reasonably sure, on the balance of probabilities, of the historical 'fact' that Christ existed as a man. One can certainly question whether he was also God, but the vast majority of scholars agree that he existed and that he preached in modern-day Israel / Palestine in the reign of Tiberius.

(iv) One can use other sources to verify certain references within the scriptures e.g. archaeological excavation, exegesis using contemporary sources or through visiting the tangible locations referred to in the texts e.g. the Temple Mount, the Mount of Olives. One can subject the material to some degree of historical scrutiny and exegesis.

(v) One can consider the initial years of Christianity in the context of first century Judaism, and its progression from earlier Mosaic scriptures. It comes in the context of a wider 'plain' of religious history, which again can be subjected to some degree of historical scrutiny and exegesis.

(vi) The core texts of Christianity, and the main Abrahamic religions, are matters of public record and are open for modern exegetes to continue their analysis of the material. Further, analysis of contemporary materials in the generation after Christ, and the decisions taken by the early Jewish converts to the faith, demonstrate that something hugely significant and profound happened at the time of the crucifixion, as outlined in a previous post. This is a material of historical record.

None of the above applies to scientology.

The key difference, therefore, is that Christianity can be viewed through the prism of the historical record. One would struggle to refute the historical fact of Jesus' ministry in Judea during the reign of Tiberius. Further, one can see a clear path from the revelation to Jesus' ministry to the crucifixion to the emergence of the Christian faith, its attempt to understand what happened, the development of doctrine etc. all the way up to the religion we have today.

[QE Harold Flair]

A delusion is not the correct term to use because it suggests an inherent lack of respect for the opposing view. I accept your view of religion. It's not mine, but I don't believe it to be wholly illegitimate if you reject the concept of a deity. If you reject agnosticism in preference to a defined opinion either way, then that's your choice to do so. I accept that, in the same way you should accept that people may choose to go the other way. To accept the premise that your rejection of agnosticism for atheism (given you cannot prove it) is not unreasonable, it is therefore incumbent upon you to accept that the rejection of agnosticism for faith (given you cannot disprove it) is not unreasonable either.

It's a shame you feel incapable of extending the same level of respect to people who disagree with you, and their views certainly are not delusional. If you want to continue being deliberately provocative on the issue, it's your choice to be a cunt.

On the scientology issue, I would note the following points:

(i) The historical records for Christianity are reasonably extensive and derive from a range of first, second and third hand sources. They were recorded within living memory of the events, and can be placed in a defined historical period and as occurring in a defined place.

(ii) The narrative itself can also be placed in the context of the wider political events of the day, and mentions several 'real life' historical figures of whose existence we know from other sources e.g. Augustus, Pontius Pilate, Tiberius. Further, sources outside the scriptures make reference to the crucifixion as a historical event (see Josephus).

(iii) We can be reasonably sure, on the balance of probabilities, of the historical 'fact' that Christ existed as a man. One can certainly question whether he was also God, but the vast majority of scholars agree that he existed and that he preached in modern-day Israel / Palestine in the reign of Tiberius.

(iv) One can use other sources to verify certain references within the scriptures e.g. archaeological excavation, exegesis using contemporary sources or through visiting the tangible locations referred to in the texts e.g. the Temple Mount, the Mount of Olives. One can subject the material to some degree of historical scrutiny and exegesis.

(v) One can consider the initial years of Christianity in the context of first century Judaism, and its progression from earlier Mosaic scriptures. It comes in the context of a wider 'plain' of religious history, which again can be subjected to some degree of historical scrutiny and exegesis.

(vi) The core texts of Christianity, and the main Abrahamic religions, are matters of public record and are open for modern exegetes to continue their analysis of the material. Further, analysis of contemporary materials in the generation after Christ, and the decisions taken by the early Jewish converts to the faith, demonstrate that something hugely significant and profound happened at the time of the crucifixion, as outlined in a previous post. This is a material of historical record.

None of the above applies to scientology.

The key difference, therefore, is that Christianity can be viewed through the prism of the historical record. One would struggle to refute the historical fact of Jesus' ministry in Judea during the reign of Tiberius. Further, one can see a clear path from the revelation to Jesus' ministry to the crucifixion to the emergence of the Christian faith, its attempt to understand what happened, the development of doctrine etc. all the way up to the religion we have today.

Yes, and I do not respect the view and I won't be pressured into doing so. Just as I do not feel I have to respect anyone's views on anything by default. Do you respect my political views? Oh and hardly any of Christianity comes from first hand sources.

Whether Jesus existed is entirely irrelevant. We know for certain Ron Hubbard existed and that he also made outlandish claims. It's just a numbers game, isn't it? You only afford Christianity respect because it's established and believed by a lot more people.

[GS]

Yes, and I do not respect the view and I won't be pressured into doing so. Just as I do not feel I have to respect anyone's views on anything by default. Do you respect my political views? Oh and hardly any of Christianity comes from first hand sources.

Whether Jesus existed is entirely irrelevant. We know for certain Ron Hubbard existed and that he also made outlandish claims. It's just a numbers game, isn't it? You only afford Christianity respect because it's established and believed by a lot more people.

If you refuse to offer a general level of respect to people's views on this issue, then everyone else is quite entitled to call you an intolerant bigoted cunt.

On the subject of first hand sources, several books of the New Testament could conceivably have been written by first hand sources. There is some dispute regarding the authorship of the Gospel of John and Revelations, but they may well have been written by the Apostle. Modern exegesis cannot preclude the possibility, and tends towards the idea that he probably is the author. They also contain several letters and epistles from St Paul. As outlined in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul documents those to whom Christ has appeared and includes himself - "he was seen of me also" (verse 8). If one reads the document solely within its historical parameters, it's making an explicit statement that demonstrate that the author writes as a first hand source. That said, the Synoptic Gospels are likely second or even third hand sources, probably originated from members of the early communities established by the apostles (e.g. St Peter in Rome, of which there is historical evidence).

On the subject of Jesus' existence, it is not irrelevant. One can place his ministry in a defined historical place and in a defined historical time period. It is not a matter of faith to consider Jesus as a historical figure - that is a matter for historical scholarship to determine. Few scholars contend the existence of the historical Jesus, and as mentioned previously there are sources outside the biblical canons which make reference to the crucifixion as a historical event. To ask questions of Jesus' existence as a man does not ask questions of faith - it asks questions of historicity. Therefore Jesus' existence is entirely relevant when compared to scientology, where no such historicity can be ascertained through accepted historical research methods and scholarship. This is why scientology is not afforded the same level of 'respect' by scholars - Hubbard writes of things which happened 75 million years ago, and which are wholly outside the field of historicity. It cannot be considered, tested, subjected to scrutiny in the manner that a text from an Abrahamic religion can be. It has nothing to do with "numbers", rather the complete absence of any ability to consider the texts in their historical parameters - or, as outlined before, historical documents reflecting the best wisdom of their time.

To conclude, therefore, Jesus' existence is entirely relevant. It's considered through historicity. Scientology can't be considered through this prism, hence the difference between the two.

The question of faith comes when you consider the divinity of Christ, or whether the resurrection was a historical fact. This is a wholly separate issue from the above. One can incline towards a belief that the texts in the New Testament recount historical facts, such as they were understood by the authors, without taking the next step and believing that the man whose historical 'story' they recount was also God. Nor should the misinterpretation or otherwise of these texts in past centuries be relevant in making an assessment in the modern day on the merits of the historical arguments themselves.

[QE Harold Flair]

Okay, so how much respect do you have for someone's view that the earth is flat? Respect isn't something that exists regardless of what someone believes. I don't seem to get all that much respect for my views, after all.

Again, Jesus existed. So what? So did other people claiming to be divine.

[GS]

Okay, so how much respect do you have for someone's view that the earth is flat?

Again, Jesus existed. So what? So did other people claiming to be divine.

None, since it can be scientifically proven to be incorrect.

On the latter, I'm not repeating myself. I think you've lost the argument here, and you know it.

[Boydy]

I always had you down as a Presbyterian, GS.

[QE Harold Flair]

None, since it can be scientifically proven to be incorrect.

On the latter, I'm not repeating myself. I think you've lost the argument here, and you know it.

Okay, how much do you respect the view of someone who believes that fairies are real?

How have I lost the argument? If I pretended to respect someone's views when I don't it would be far worse. You're tying yourselves in knots here trying to claim that Christianity is any more legitimate than Scientology. It isn't. It's just more established.

Still, in future I will demand that you respect my views.

[Charlie]

It doesn't 'rule it out'. There's just no evidence to make that claim. And if that something else did exist, you could ask the exact same 'why' question for eternity.

Yes, I am well aware.

[John Arne]

GS

A few blunt questions, if you don't mind (yes/no answers where possible)....

Do you believe in heaven and/or hell?
Do you believe the story of Adam and Eve?
Do you belief homosexuality is wrong?
Do you believe that Mother Theresa performed miracles?
Are you awaiting the second coming - do you think it will happen eventually?
Do you believe that any other Gods exist?

You don't have to answer any of these, of course.

[GS]

Okay, how much do you respect the view of someone who believes that fairies are real?

How have I lost the argument? If I pretended to respect someone's views when I don't it would be far worse. You're tying yourselves in knots here trying to claim that Christianity is any more legitimate than Scientology. It isn't. It's just more established.

Still, in future I will demand that you respect my views.

Christianity, and the other Abrahamic religions, are more legitimate than Scientology on the bases outlined above. You can continue denying the fundamental point that I've outlined regarding the historical nature of the Abrahamic faiths in comparison to a movement like scientology if you wish, but I'm not going to continue repeating myself on the matter.

One final point I will make before I let you talk to yourself is to state again that you do not possess unique and piercing insight into the issue. I cannot prove God's existence in the same that you cannot disprove it. You take the position you do based on your belief (or faith, if you will) that you are correct, but no more. There is overwhelming and conclusive scientific evidence to refute the doctrine of creationism (certainly in the context of Genesis and the young earth creationist movement), but there is, as yet, no scientific proof that allows us to conclude on the existence of a deity.

Therefore, you adopt your position on the existence of a deity (a separate issue from the wider religious movements based upon belief in the deity) without the necessary scientific foundation for your view. It is a position just as open to scrutiny as those who incline towards belief in a deity, whether that be as outlined in the Abrahamic religions or otherwise. You would do well to recognise this point, as your aggressive assertion of your own correctness is absent scientific foundation.

Unless it's against 'young earth creationists', at which point you're perfectly entitled to lol at their delusion given it can be scientifically torpedoed.


GS

A few blunt questions, if you don't mind (yes/no answers where possible)....

Do you believe in heaven and/or hell?
Do you believe the story of Adam and Eve?
Do you belief homosexuality is wrong?
Do you believe that Mother Theresa performed miracles?
Are you awaiting the second coming - do you think it will happen eventually?
Do you believe that any other Gods exist?

You don't have to answer any of these, of course.

On point 1 - I believe in life after death, but the exact nature or parameters of life after death is something I accept I cannot know. I would tend towards a belief that heaven, or its equivalent, is a place where you are the best of yourself. This doesn't mean you're sitting on a cloud somewhere like a figure in a Michelangelo painting. I don't believe in hell. I incline towards the universalist belief that all men will be reconciled to God, therefore there is no need for such a place. That said, I accept I cannot know the exact parameters of life after death so I suppose you could argue I adopt an agnostic view on that point.

On point 2 - I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve. It is allegory.

On point 3 - I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, and it's a huge shame that this issue remains a point of contention simply because it's one of the few biblical 'prohibitions' or 'condemnations' which remains acceptable to a minority in the modern era. As I said in my original post, adherence to this point requires, by logical extension, adherence to a range of other unpalatable beliefs which are no longer socially acceptable. Gay-bashing is, to some people, still acceptable, and that they find justification for it in the Old Testament whilst discreetly passing over the passages supporting slavery is unacceptable. I believe the scriptures' views on homosexuality are reflective of the views of the time of writing, no more.

On point 4 - I don't believe in the intervention of saints. It's one of the reasons I'm not Roman Catholic.

On point 5 - No, I don't.

On point 6 - No, I don't. I believe man learned of the deity through revelation in the Mosaic age. That precludes accepting the existence of other gods.

[John Arne]

GS I appreciate the candid answers. Some of them are mental, in my opinion, but fair enough.

[GS]

Which ones are those?

[QE Harold Flair]

Christianity, and the other Abrahamic religions, are more legitimate than Scientology on the bases outlined above. You can continue denying the fundamental point that I've outlined regarding the historical nature of the Abrahamic faiths in comparison to a movement like scientology if you wish, but I'm not going to continue repeating myself on the matter.

One final point I will make before I let you talk to yourself is to state again that you do not possess unique and piercing insight into the issue. I cannot prove God's existence in the same that you cannot disprove it. You take the position you do based on your belief (or faith, if you will) that you are correct, but no more. There is overwhelming and conclusive scientific evidence to refute the doctrine of creationism (certainly in the context of Genesis and the young earth creationist movement), but there is, as yet, no scientific proof that allows us to conclude on the existence of a deity.

Therefore, you adopt your position on the existence of a deity (a separate issue from the wider religious movements based upon belief in the deity) without the necessary scientific foundation for your view. It is a position just as open to scrutiny as those who incline towards belief in a deity, whether that be as outlined in the Abrahamic religions or otherwise. You would do well to recognise this point, as your aggressive assertion of your own correctness is absent scientific foundation.

Unless it's against 'young earth creationists', at which point you're perfectly entitled to lol at their delusion given it can be scientifically torpedoed.

Well you say it's more legitimate but I've yet to see a legitimate reason why. Christianity doesn't exist because 'Jesus existed'. His claim to be divine has no evidence above and beyond any cult which believes its leader is divine. I'm also talking to you, not 'myself'. You're the one writing essays to my short replies. Oh and you're not arguing simply for 'a deity', are you? You are using the bible, after all.

I don't claim to have unique insight into this. I'm open to evidence, are you? What would make you change your mind about the existence of God? I note how you ignored my point about those with fairies so I'll ask you that again - If someone said they believe in fairies, would you respect that view? You have to understand this isn't 'disrespect' anyt more so that your view of 'Allah' also being a myth. The realm of your God is exactly the same as fairies to me, and there is the same evidsence for both. You're really proving my point - you expect and demand special respect for your religious position. That strikes me as being because you can't defend it any rational way. Well, I don't have any respect for it. And I'm showing you respect by being honest with you about that.

[GS]

I'm writing essays to your short replies because it's a topic which merits in-depth discussion - it cannot be condensed into bite-sized chunks to cope with your limited attention span.

[QE Harold Flair]

But you claimed I was talking to myself? It's almost as if you don't want to be challenged on your beliefs.

[GS]

No, I said "One final point I will make before I let you talk to yourself" i.e. I have engaged you, but you will, henceforward, be talking to yourself. This isn't because I don't want to be challenged on my beliefs, having already been challenged on the issues and responded, rather because you're extremely boring and your debating style is not only anaemic but occasionally lurches into the realms of the truly enfeebled. You will no doubt claim some sort of ill-justified e-victory as you always do, but I think most fair-minded judges would say you have been thoroughly bested here. That said, if you find any relevant YouTube videos on the matter, please don't hesitate to put them up so we can all roundly ignore them.

[Toby]

On point 3 - I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, and it's a huge shame that this issue remains a point of contention simply because it's one of the few biblical 'prohibitions' or 'condemnations' which remains acceptable to a minority in the modern era. As I said in my original post, adherence to this point requires, by logical extension, adherence to a range of other unpalatable beliefs which are no longer socially acceptable. Gay-bashing is, to some people, still acceptable, and that they find justification for it in the Old Testament whilst discreetly passing over the passages supporting slavery is unacceptable. I believe the scriptures' views on homosexuality are reflective of the views of the time of writing, no more.


You've said previously that you think homosexual acts are sinful, do you still think that?

Not trying to be a dick, I'm just curious if your view has changed since I last saw you mention it.

[randomlegend]

I'm entirely with Harold in this specific point, to be honest.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, I said "One final point I will make before I let you talk to yourself" i.e. I have engaged you, but you will, henceforward, be talking to yourself. This isn't because I don't want to be challenged on my beliefs, having already been challenged on the issues and responded, rather because you're extremely boring and your debating style is not only anaemic but occasionally lurches into the realms of the truly enfeebled. You will no doubt claim some sort of ill-justified e-victory as you always do, but I think most fair-minded judges would say you have been thoroughly bested here. That said, if you find any relevant YouTube videos on the matter, please don't hesitate to put them up so we can all roundly ignore them.

I've no need to claim an e-victory when you concede such a clear e-own goal. It's painfully obvious why you won't answer the question I asked about someone who believes in fairies. You know it will directly contradict what you said earlier. Note the person making all the personal attacks here. Not me.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that people of deep faith are so defensive of it that merely challenging them on it is 'disrespectful'. Nothing I've said is actually disprespectful in itself, is it? If I said you're a cunt because you have a faith then fine. But I don't.

[GS]

You've said previously that you think homosexual acts are sinful, do you still think that?

Not trying to be a dick, I'm just curious if your view has changed since I last saw you mention it.

I don't believe I did state that. The only reference I can find is in the "Gay marriage" thread, where Pen asked:

Could you please tell me why refusing gay people is any less discriminating than refusing black people?

And my response in the context of why churches were against gay marriage but not marriage between non-whites was:

It's not sinful to be black. It's sinful to commit homosexual acts.

That's the difference.

That wasn't my saying I think they're sinful - rather highlighting the difference between the two and why the church is against "marriage" within one group (homosexuals) and not another (blacks). I was initially sceptical on gay marriage, but I did change my mind on the issue - largely because I've moved far more towards the need for a much clearer distinction between personal faith and the need to legislate for secular laws within a secular society.

[QE Harold Flair]

Bigoted views are acceptable if they're religious. And that's important.

It's good that you don't believe that, but the church is pretty influential.

[Toby]

I don't believe I did state that. The only reference I can find is in the "Gay marriage" thread, where Pen asked:

Could you please tell me why refusing gay people is any less discriminating than refusing black people?

And my response in the context of why churches were against gay marriage but not marriage between non-whites was:

It's not sinful to be black. It's sinful to commit homosexual acts.

That's the difference.

That wasn't my saying I think they're sinful - rather highlighting the difference between the two and why the church is against "marriage" within one group (homosexuals) and not another (blacks). I was initially sceptical on gay marriage, but I did change my mind on the issue - largely because I've moved far more towards the need for a much clearer distinction between personal faith and the need to legislate for secular laws within a secular society.

Okay, sorry if I've misrepresented you on that then. I did remember discussing gay marriage with you and specifically you being against, or at least uneasy with, gay couples adopting children, so I had in my mind that you had been against it. Should probably have looked for the thread but I assumed it was older than that and therefore gone.

[ScousePig]

Being surrounded by people who do and praying several times a day can be a little surreal.

[Spammer]

A mate of mine wrote an interesting (though long) article on the Bible and gays if anyone's interested. He talks about what the references to homosexuality were likely to mean in context. https://roymondous.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/1694/

[QE Harold Flair]

I wonder what gymnastics he uses to defend the advocation of slavery.

[Spammer]

I wonder what gymnastics he uses to defend the advocation of slavery.

Who? My guy? I don't think he really mentions slavery. The article is about the Bible and homosexuality.

[QE Harold Flair]

Ask him for me. Tell him it's Harold ftom TTH.

[Spammer]

He's an Atheist, so I don't know if it's relevant.

[QE Harold Flair]

Are you sure? Most atheists wouldn't go to great lengths to defend the obviously bigoted bible verses.

[Spammer]

Yeah but he used to be a Christian, knows a fuckton about the Bible and the historical context and knows a lot of people who use the Bible as a justification for being homophobic. The main aim was to reduce homophobia and he thought it'd be more fruitful to meet people half-way and talk about other Biblical interpretations, rather than just having a dig at everyone.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well yes, people can use bits they like for anything. Which is kind of the point about it being a completely redundant guide to anything.

It's great if he actually believes what he's saying rather than just trying to placate.

[Spammer]

....but with an understanding of the context behind it some people might be convinced, which is the point.

He does believe what he's saying. I've talked to him about it length.

[QE Harold Flair]

Who's understanding? Any time you ever debate with someone of faith you run into this 'context' argument any time it's something they something find hard to defend. It's very slippery and dishonest most of the time. There are certain passages which really stand alone, aren't there? The ten commandments, for example. The order of genocide, for example.

[Spammer]

His hope was that it might make some Christians look at it in a different way. That's it. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. Either way, he's had a go.

If you want to debate about it, you can always read the article and chat to him about it in the comments section.

[Henry]

I agree with a lot of what's been said, Harold's stupidity notwithstanding. Picking out some points though...


No-one should be sheltered from a genuine discussion on the merits of faith in a spirit of goodwill. That last caveat is vital. Where you have arguments suggesting that people of faith are "delusional", or implications that to believe in a deity is "insupportable by evidence", it tends to become very nasty.

Seeing as "insupportable by evidence" is basically the atheist position, that's pretty much the same thing. I think you can discuss that without being nasty, which I agree is counterproductive and unjustified.


On the basis that we simply do not and cannot know, agnosticism is probably the "reasoned" position to take.

I think that that's only consistent with solipsism, since we really cannot "know" anything in a philosophical sense. Weak atheism is the reasoned position otherwise.


What I find unpalatable is the firm entrenchment that certain "vocal" atheists exhibit for their belief in their own correctness. When I refer to "taking someone's faith", this means in the context of attacking and deliberately seeking to undermine the fundamental tenets of one's belief. That is a discussion absent goodwill and it is on issue of fundamental importance that goes to the very core of what it means "to be". It should never, ever be used as a football to score cheap points, nor should anyone - on either side - be aggressively asserting their belief in their own correctness over proponents of the opposite view.

And again I think you're conflating aggressiveness with making the argument at all - which will always tend to "undermine the fundamental tents", however it's put forth. If those tenets are undermined, and the person decides to change their views upon being exposed to others, what's wrong with that? The alternative is perpetual shelter from disagreement.


In terms of interpreting Christ's ministry and the crucifixion, clearly something profound happened.

The rest of your historical commentary is quite impressive, but you've said that twice and I wonder if you can elaborate. It's not "clear", since we can easily posit that the events surrounding Jesus and his execution were all quite banal and routine based on available evidence. Unless you refer to the mass movement that was created in the following decades as being profound in itself.


On point 2 - I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve. It is allegory.

In line with much of the rest of what you say, wouldn't it be easier to regard this as a primitive attempt at explanation by a pre-scientific culture, rather than as allegory, which implies some element of "truth"?


On point 5 - No, I don't.

Re: the second coming.

That's interesting. What is your eschatological view?

[QE Harold Flair]

Explain the 'stupidity' I have displayed. One quote will do.

Or is that just a baseless personal attack from the big man who bullies 13 year old boys?

[mikem]

Henry

I think you've pointed out the how the generic debate is subverted by people who just want to score points instead of having a discussion. And you are not doing that, so:

Where you may be "aggressive" is if you leave the discussion of faith purely in the the terms of a logical act, which is how you perceive it. But faith is an intentional going beyond, in the same way that an act of love is. When you ask people about their loved ones you get rational reasons but you also get all those generalities like "I just knew". Without that component of faith / choice, love becomes purely rational and almost sociopathic. Defining the debate in only how you see the issue leaves us nowhere to go and can be as aggressive as me saying "I have the capacity to love in this way. What makes you so flawed that you can't love right?" It comes down to deciding to approach the decision in two different ways.

Which is not to say that you can't love or I can't be rational. I choose to extend my ability to love to this realm of my life and you do not. Ted Cruz is odious because he chooses (or is capable of) such a limited realm of rationality, but so to is an atheist neo-nazi. And sociopaths and psychopaths can't love or process emotions correctly.

[Henry]

Where you may be "aggressive" is if you leave the discussion of faith purely in the the terms of a logical act, which is how you perceive it. But faith is an intentional going beyond, in the same way that an act of love is

I don't see that as a good analogy. There's a qualitative difference, in that while love may go beyond logic, religious belief requires a leap of logic.

I am interested however in your views, since I do appreciate the cultural, philosophical and moral influence that adherence to religious tradition can have. It sounds like you (in common with a lot of jews) run with that stuff and aren't that interested in the metaphysical or teleological questions? I mean, don't you care what lies after death?

[mikem]

I am saying we are using different criteria in how we choose. The act of love requires a leap - the leap of logic that it will be returned. What is the point of love that is not active or returned? Humans make lots of these decisions all the time and we all have various levels of comfort with it. I am comfortable extending it here (not consciously) and you are not. So we will never convince each other because we are not using the same inputs. For me that leap or trust is valuable as it lets me feel like I am actively participating. Judaism would likely be horrified by that answer but I'm just comparing it to how I make other decisions.

To your second question - not as anything other than idle curiosity. Maybe because we get a strong sense of identity now?

[QE Harold Flair]

Love in a non voluntary emotion. Quite different.

[GS]

I agree with a lot of what's been said, Harold's stupidity notwithstanding. Picking out some points though...

Seeing as "insupportable by evidence" is basically the atheist position, that's pretty much the same thing. I think you can discuss that without being nasty, which I agree is counterproductive and unjustified.

I think that that's only consistent with solipsism, since we really cannot "know" anything in a philosophical sense. Weak atheism is the reasoned position otherwise.

And again I think you're conflating aggressiveness with making the argument at all - which will always tend to "undermine the fundamental tents", however it's put forth. If those tenets are undermined, and the person decides to change their views upon being exposed to others, what's wrong with that? The alternative is perpetual shelter from disagreement.

The rest of your historical commentary is quite impressive, but you've said that twice and I wonder if you can elaborate. It's not "clear", since we can easily posit that the events surrounding Jesus and his execution were all quite banal and routine based on available evidence. Unless you refer to the mass movement that was created in the following decades as being profound in itself.

In line with much of the rest of what you say, wouldn't it be easier to regard this as a primitive attempt at explanation by a pre-scientific culture, rather than as allegory, which implies some element of "truth"?

Re: the second coming.

That's interesting. What is your eschatological view?

I think it depends on your reading of the sources and how far you accept the historical facts of the narrative contained therein. If you accept the events leading up to the crucifixion as being (mostly) accurately recounted as historical events, the key question one would have is what would merit Jesus being brought before the Sanhedrin. Where one considers this through the Judaism of the day, Jesus' preaching must have been of profound concern to the Jewish leadership to warrant the steps taken to suppress his ministry. A preacher wandering around Judea and telling parables, albeit with a growing following, would not have presented an 'existential threat'. Therefore, we can posit that his ministry was considered to be something 'out of the ordinary' which the Jewish leadership of the day believed required extraordinary steps to eliminate / suppress it.

Where one considers the events after the resurrection itself, you again have to consider the Judaism of the day. I touched on this point earlier, but the importance placed upon the Sabbath in first century Judaism, the early moves by the Christian church to change their day of the Sabbath to align with their 'new church' would have been considered outrageous by the Jewish leadership, as a rejection of long-standing Jewish orthodox views. That the early church undertook such a move suggests they believed something of a 'game changing' nature in Judaism had taken place (the early church in Jerusalem being, effectively, an offshoot of Judaism at the time - the wider church for the Gentiles only started to take root through the mission of Paul and later St Peter's establishment of the church in Rome).

Where one considers the missions of the apostles, it is not unreasonable to conclude that they 'must' have witnessed, or believed themselves to have witnessed, something of profound importance which was 'game changing' in the context of first century Judaism. I keep referring to 1 Corinthians 15, but I think it's quite important here in terms of this point:

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised. 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.

In essence, Paul is saying that to preach the resurrection without believing in it would be to bear false witness (again, first century Judaism and the Ten Commandments are relevant here). If Christ was not resurrected, then "is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" i.e. belief in it is absolutely fundamental to the early church (this seems overwhelmingly obvious in modern theology, but this epistle was written a single generation after the crucifixion and would therefore be absent of any later agreed doctrinal positions adopted by the church). Paul says he has witnessed the risen Christ - he writes as a first hand source, and he dedicates his life to spreading the message throughout the Mediterranean. There is no stronger evidence that St Paul witnessed something 'game changing'. The evidence which supports Peter's early ministry in Jerusalem and Antioch, and his later martyrdom in Rome, also suggests he had a similar missionary zeal. Other apostles and members of the early church (e.g. James the Just) can be similarly categorised.

Obviously you could expand on several of the above points to the nth degree of detail, but they are some examples of what I was referring to when I suggested that there 'clear' evidence of something profound and game changing which occurred, and which resulted in a significant re-thinking of Judaism at the time. Whether you make the leap to believe in the resurrection, or in the divinity of Jesus, is a separate issue I think. However, where one considers the historicity of the sources and places the events from Gethsemane through to, say, the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, there is a strong body of evidence that something 'significant' occurred in Judaism. That it evolved (and how it evolved) into the religion we have today is a separate issue.

On the point re: Adam and Eve, that's a perfectly fair interpretation and one I would have no problem accepting.

On the final point, I simply don't know. I can't claim to have fully settled all of this in my head either, so I may come to a more decided viewpoint in the future.

[Henry]

I think it depends on your reading of the sources and how far you accept the historical facts of the narrative contained therein.

Not very far, then...
I mean, the appearance before the Sanhedrin is probably invention. Pilate just probably signed a death warrant without bothering to look into it too much, as he would often have done, being the cunt that he was. But the political climate in which the gospels were being composed demanded that the Jewish authorities be blamed instead.


Where one considers the events after the resurrection itself, you again have to consider the Judaism of the day. I touched on this point earlier, but the importance placed upon the Sabbath in first century Judaism, the early moves by the Christian church to change their day of the Sabbath to align with their 'new church' would have been considered outrageous by the Jewish leadership, as a rejection of long-standing Jewish orthodox views. That the early church undertook such a move suggests they believed something of a 'game changing' nature in Judaism had taken place (the early church in Jerusalem being, effectively, an offshoot of Judaism at the time - the wider church for the Gentiles only started to take root through the mission of Paul and later St Peter's establishment of the church in Rome).

This is new to me. When did they change the day of the Sabbath (and what is the evidence that they did it at this point)?
If it was after the schism with Judaism then that's no biggie, but it is interesting if it happened beforehand.


Where one considers the missions of the apostles, it is not unreasonable to conclude that they 'must' have witnessed, or believed themselves to have witnessed, something of profound importance which was 'game changing' in the context of first century Judaism.

That's pretty much uncontestable, but religious fanatics who take their fanaticism very seriously are ten a penny unfortunately. I don't think you can conclude much about the content of their beliefs from that, and even less about the veracity of their beliefs.
Your quote is from Paul, so I'm not sure how it's connected. Being openly hostile toward the apostles, and not having met Jesus himself (at least not in an earthly sense), the "we" here could hardly be them. And of course his ubiquitous usage of the term "Christ" rather than "Jesus" (among other things) demonstrates that he relates to that figure in mystical terms rather than historical terms. He never shows that much interest in the historical Jesus.

The "something profound" that happened was a philosophical and historical innovation, certainly. We take proselytising, monotheistic, universal religion for granted, but this was novel, and therefore wildly successful. But I don't think you can conclude anything further.

[GS]

Not very far, then...
I mean, the appearance before the Sanhedrin is probably invention. Pilate just probably signed a death warrant without bothering to look into it too much, as he would often have done, being the cunt that he was. But the political climate in which the gospels were being composed demanded that the Jewish authorities be blamed instead.

This is new to me. When did they change the day of the Sabbath (and what is the evidence that they did it at this point)?
If it was after the schism with Judaism then that's no biggie, but it is interesting if it happened beforehand.

That's pretty much uncontestable, but religious fanatics who take their fanaticism very seriously are ten a penny unfortunately. I don't think you can conclude much about the content of their beliefs from that, and even less about the veracity of their beliefs.
Your quote is from Paul, so I'm not sure how it's connected. Being openly hostile toward the apostles, and not having met Jesus himself (at least not in an earthly sense), the "we" here could hardly be them. And of course his ubiquitous usage of the term "Christ" rather than "Jesus" (among other things) demonstrates that he relates to that figure in mystical terms rather than historical terms. He never shows that much interest in the historical Jesus.

The "something profound" that happened was a philosophical and historical innovation, certainly. We take proselytising, monotheistic, universal religion for granted, but this was novel, and therefore wildly successful. But I don't think you can conclude anything further.

My view would be that the appearance before the Sanhedrin isn't a wholly fabricated account. The Romans, broadly speaking, allowed Judaism insofar as it didn't threaten the secular power of the Empire. It was designated as a 'religio licit', and the Jewish authorities exercised authority over matters falling within religious parameters. If we accept the historical facts of the accusations against Christ (as outlined in the Gospel accounts), it's a matter which would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the religious authorities and not the Roman authorities. Therefore, the appearance before the Sanhedrin would be consistent with the expected legal process of a first century 'prosecution' of an accused person on the basis of contravening Jewish law.

On the second point, there are several references in the scriptures which refer to the first day of the week as the meeting time for early communities - these are 1 Corinthians 16: v1-2 (written circa AD50-55) and Acts 20: 7 (written circa AD80-90). There's also letters from early Christian leaders from the first century which refer to it, but these are probably within the latter quarter of the century. It's impossible to ascribe a specific timeframe to the transition, but it seems to have been well established by twenty years after the crucifixion. Given the importance placed on the Decalogue by Jewish communities at the time, it is simply not conceivable that it would have been issues of theological trivia which would have prompted such a change in observance of the Sabbath.

On your latter point, the reference I made previously to 1 Corinthians 15 is quite apt in this context. Paul must be placed in the context of first century Judaism and his own place therein as a first century Jew. In its simplest terms, he is preaching that God raised Christ. If they are preaching that God raised Christ and he hasn't done so, then they are "found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up". Similar to the above, "thou shalt not bear false witness" is one of the Ten Commandments outlined in Exodus. Therefore, early Jewish converts (in this instance, Paul) would not be preaching the resurrection of Christ without a conviction of its veracity given to bear false witness against God would be unthinkable.

In terms of what that conviction is founded on, that's up to people to decide individually. Whatever it was, it had a profound effect on a great number of people and it changed the course of history. You may not believe it was 'divine', but I would argue that you're on solid historical ground when you say something 'profound' happened.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, because people would never tell a lie.

[Henry]

It's a legitimate point to make that they wouldn't suffer persecution and death for a lie.

The persecution of Christians is probably overstated in the historical record, but it did exist, so at the very least, these people did believe what they were saying.

[Henry]

Therefore, the appearance before the Sanhedrin would be consistent with the expected legal process of a first century 'prosecution' of an accused person on the basis of contravening Jewish law.

Well, that's somewhat at odds with your earlier statement claiming that such an appearance would have been "extraordinary".


Given the importance placed on the Decalogue by Jewish communities at the time, it is simply not conceivable that it would have been issues of theological trivia which would have prompted such a change in observance of the Sabbath.

Okay, so let's say we attribute it to the belief in the resurrection among Pauline Christians (Corinthians and Acts both being from that perspective) who were already separating themselves from Judaism in important ways, by not requiring circumcision and so forth. What does that indicate other than a strong conviction?


Paul must be placed in the context of first century Judaism and his own place therein as a first century Jew.

I think this is the crux - I don't agree with this at all. Paul was anything but a regular Jew. He was a hellenised Jew who was trying to innovate and spread what was a mixture of Judaism, neo-Platonic and eastern mysticism to a bunch of gentiles. He had a hostile relationship with Jesus's actual followers, who were still behaving as Jews. Either way, again all we're establishing here is conviction.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's a legitimate point to make that they wouldn't suffer persecution and death for a lie.

The persecution of Christians is probably overstated in the historical record, but it did exist, so at the very least, these people did believe what they were saying.

More a delusion, then. Much like Muslims today will kill themselves, and others, for a similar delusion. It serves as no evidence of anything being true.

[Serj]

I think this is the crux - I don't agree with this at all. Paul was anything but a regular Jew. He was a hellenised Jew who was trying to innovate and spread what was a mixture of Judaism, neo-Platonic and eastern mysticism to a bunch of gentiles. He had a hostile relationship with Jesus's actual followers, who were still behaving as Jews. Either way, again all we're establishing here is conviction.

For what it's worth, this is exactly what the professor for fundamental theology at my university (Vienna) summed it up as being. Jesus and his circle, according to him, were something of a reform movement, but definitely stayed firmly within the parameters of contemporary Judaism, even after the crucifixion. The "profound" change only happened afterwards when Paul and consorts carried lots of other stuff into it and worked on it getting a bit more "mass appeal", aggrieving the original circle in the process.

[GS]

Well, that's somewhat at odds with your earlier statement claiming that such an appearance would have been "extraordinary".

Okay, so let's say we attribute it to the belief in the resurrection among Pauline Christians (Corinthians and Acts both being from that perspective) who were already separating themselves from Judaism in important ways, by not requiring circumcision and so forth. What does that indicate other than a strong conviction?

I think this is the crux - I don't agree with this at all. Paul was anything but a regular Jew. He was a hellenised Jew who was trying to innovate and spread what was a mixture of Judaism, neo-Platonic and eastern mysticism to a bunch of gentiles. He had a hostile relationship with Jesus's actual followers, who were still behaving as Jews. Either way, again all we're establishing here is conviction.

On the first point, such an appearance would only been 'extraordinary' because the 'movement' must have been doing something which was deemed to be sufficient serious as to warrant the intervention of the Jewish authorities i.e. it wasn't just a preacher from Galilee telling a few parables. I think the two points aren't related in this context.

On the second and third points, we're probably lacking a sufficient amount of material on the early church and a) when exactly certain innovations or transitions happened and b) which communities adopted them and when. To that end, your points certainly aren't unreasonable.


For what it's worth, this is exactly what the professor for fundamental theology at my university (Vienna) summed it up as being. Jesus and his circle, according to him, were something of a reform movement, but definitely stayed firmly within the parameters of contemporary Judaism, even after the crucifixion. The "profound" change only happened afterwards when Paul and consorts carried lots of other stuff into it and worked on it getting a bit more "mass appeal", aggrieving the original circle in the process.

As with Henners' point above, this certainly isn't an unreasonable point to make. I don't think it matters a great deal in terms of the wider faith, but it's certainly an interesting discussion when trying to understand the historicity of the early church.

[Bartholomert]

I think this poll/thread encapsulates most perfectly the underlying reasons for the downfall of Western Civilization. Sad. Whatever you may believe, the fact that the views of most individuals on the subject are voiced in a matter of fact yet apathetic way, despite the existence at the very least of compelling philosophical / rational reasons on both sides of the argument, underlines the failure of our secular leftist education system.

We'll see how you feel in twenty years, once your mortality becomes less theoretical.