Why Protestant and Jewish Families Rule the Earth

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I could post a picture of some woman with fantastic tits, and I'd still be ignored

Pics don't work today

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Why not just drop religion? Are people really too feeble-minded to appreciate this? Just let go of organised religion and see it for what it really is...

"We are a heap of meaningless carbon atoms. There is no greater purpose to our existence, and no greater purpose to our death. If we die, it makes no difference whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. We can try to invent our own meaning of life, but it'll be fickel in any case"

Now, think of all your acquaintances. And for each one, ask yourself: "will this one be happy with his life if he thinks so, yes/no". Count how many are a "no". Tada, you have the answer to your question

[Provost Harrison]

No one ever said the truth was the easy option...

[Elok]

Well, the truth is, religion ain't going anywhere. I'm pretty comfortable saying that. If you can't or won't see things from anybody else's point of view, there's going to be trouble no matter how objectively right you are.

[Provost Harrison]

I can see it from their perspective. Doesn't make it any less silly though

[Seeker]

"it makes no difference whatsoever in the grand scheme of things"

it's all about narrative and drama isn't it?

Why give a rat's ass about the 'grand scheme of things'? What is it anyway?

I have quite enough drama in my life without having to be a part of some silly grand cosmic narrative out of a comic book.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
No one ever said the truth was the easy option...

...which is why so many people don't want it.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah. Humans are stupid. Throw asteroids at them

[Elok]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I can see it from their perspective. Doesn't make it any less silly though

Why? Pascal's Wager and all that. I can't say that I'm at all unhappy being religious.

[Whaleboy]

The fact is that there is SUFFICIENT proof to BELIEVE that God exists.

Where? You're getting your necessary and sufficient conditions in a twist. If there was sufficient proof as to the existence of God, then such evidence would naturally deduce the existence of God. If there was necessary proof, then it is to say that "X evidence is necessary to the proposition "God", but insufficient on its own". So immediately, you are claiming that my statement is wrong and that there is rational evidence to believe in God. Ok, let's have a look."

Hes left plenty of signs for you- prophecy, miracles

. This is your evidence? It wouldn't stand up to the logical prowess of a kindergarten lynchmob! Prophecy... I would take Plato's Republic and the works of Homer as having more historical credibility than the bible due to their having been written in a shorter space of time, and subject to less of the stresses of lingual (and political) translation.

Miracles? Some examples please? I think the only one you could use without inviting a strait jacket would be the embattled creationist retreat to abiogenesis. This is what we call a "God in the gaps" argument that is rejected by rational Christians since it's likely to be swept out to much embarrasment by the ever rising tide of scientific knowledge.

He is under no obligation to prove Himself to some level of your own design or satisfaction

On the contrary, he very much is! If the proposition of God is to find agreement with me or any other rational men, and is to spare itself the best efforts of our lacerating wits, then it is absolutely obliged to prove itself to us. If God does exist and is as wonderful as your convoluted upbringing has lead you to believe, then surely he would have no problem in doing so. Of course, if he really cared about implemeting his laws, surely he would have either designed us to follow them (either wrong, or God is an appalling designer) or would have established his credibility to maximise the obediance to said laws.

After all, would not a God who takes so much trouble to tell us how to live, establish his credibility to make such a claim, particularly has he might be competing with idols, pantheons, and skeptical atheists such as myself? Regarding his existence, you might claim that the lack of evidence thereof is a test for us; a test of faith to see if we stick by his rules without knowing absolutely he is there? But then, why introduce the concept of Hell? It would contradict the idea that God wants as many of us as possible to follow his ways, if it is a test.

What exam body wants all of its students to get the highest grade? What would be the point?

as if you had any rightful place to be judge over Him

If I am wrong then I'll surely burn in hell, as someone such as myself who does good in the world but is atheist is morally inferior to a paedophile priest who believes in God . It is my response to Pascal's bet that I would rather live by the rigours of my own intellect than in fear of a fairy tale with no evidence. That denegrates the value of my own existence and undermines any goodness that I might perform in my life.

Now, I know that there is not a single line in the OT or NT in praise of intelligence, but yet we are intelligent creatures? Why would God continue to love us, after casting us out of Eden after eating the apple of knowledge, when we use our intelligence. This disconcordance between the human condition and the bible concludes with the biblical imperative "shut up, dont think, do as you are told". It's hardly a recipe for greating happiness in the world is it? Heil Herr Jesus!

Now, assuming then the moral obligation to believe He exists

So now I'm morally obliged to believe in the existence of God? You would need to extablish this moral obligation without resorting to God (that would be circular logic). I am willing to listen if you are able, and would like to see you try. I am particularly curious to see how one can be naturally morally obliged to believe in *anything* over anything else?

there are two major claims which pass a low threshold of crediiblity examination- namely the Holy Bible and the Quran

Really? I was taught that the older and more disparate/abstract a text, and the less cross-references to other documented/primary historical sources, the higher the threshold of credibility. Explain the incontravertable nature of the Bible as a historical or factual source if you would?

Christianity emerges the clear victor.

Why?

My family is Jewish, I was raised as a Jew and culturally, I still am Jewish. I find it odd that you would consider same shaky historical figure as greater evidence in favour of Christianity than Judaism. I would treat it as an extra avenue of attack for people like myself, a weakness Judaism does not have. To me, it all boils down to the prettyness of symbolism on your part.

the fact that the crucifixion is such an oddly incredible event and the even more amazing fact that as a story its been so successful

Crucifixion was a a pretty standard Roman punishment, was it not?

As a story, it's been incredibly successful yes, but does that contribute to its logical validity any more than, say, Shakespeare or the Teletubbies?

interiorly that you have committed mistakes and sins in the past that need God's forgiveness.

Interiorly I recognise that I have committed mistakes by judging the consequences of those actions and mentally placing myself, older and wiser, in those same situations and seeing what I'd have done differently. The only forgiveness I need for those mistakes is that of those that I might have hurt. Fortunately, they are few, and I am content with the thought that I have caused more happiness in the world than misery.

I need no God in order to sleep at night.

God doesn't need to give it to you nor does He care to.

How do you know, any more than I think otherwise? Regardless, refer to my previous response.

You are under a moral obligation to accept His word simply because there is sufficient evidence to believe it as the most rational moral alternative.

The most rational moral alternative would be G.E. Moore, J.S. Mill, Kant, Montaine, Buddha, or the intimate knowledge of myself and my own life that only I have.

He became great, and by becoming foolish and miserly He became strong and wise. He became everything that people didn't expect a Messiah would be like, to become exactly what they knew He must be like.

I think that the likes of Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa et al, who all fit that description, suffered more, became more wise, and did more good in the time of their lives than Jesus. Why give him any special attribute then?

The Bible is a consistent story of the redemption of humanity through Christ, from the dawn of the human race until the final day.

A book that is seemingly devoted to the denial of basic humanity seems an odd choice for a story of human redemption!

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Where? You're getting your necessary and sufficient conditions in a twist. If there was sufficient proof as to the existence of God, then such evidence would naturally deduce the existence of God. If there was necessary proof, then it is to say that "X evidence is necessary to the proposition "God", but insufficient on its own". So immediately, you are claiming that my statement is wrong and that there is rational evidence to believe in God. Ok, let's have a look."



. This is your evidence? It wouldn't stand up to the logical prowess of a kindergarten lynchmob! Prophecy... I would take Plato's Republic and the works of Homer as having more historical credibility than the bible due to their having been written in a shorter space of time, and subject to less of the stresses of lingual (and political) translation.

Miracles? Some examples please? I think the only one you could use without inviting a strait jacket would be the embattled creationist retreat to abiogenesis. This is what we call a "God in the gaps" argument that is rejected by rational Christians since it's likely to be swept out to much embarrasment by the ever rising tide of scientific knowledge.



On the contrary, he very much is! If the proposition of God is to find agreement with me or any other rational men, and is to spare itself the best efforts of our lacerating wits, then it is absolutely obliged to prove itself to us. If God does exist and is as wonderful as your convoluted upbringing has lead you to believe, then surely he would have no problem in doing so.

After all, would not a God who takes so much trouble to tell us how to live, establish his credibility to make such a claim, particularly has he might be competing with idols, pantheons, and skeptical atheists such as myself? Regarding his existence, you might claim that the lack of evidence thereof is a test for us; a test of faith to see if we stick by his rules without knowing absolutely he is there? But then, why introduce the concept of Hell?



If I am wrong then I'll surely burn in hell, as someone such as myself who does good in the world but is atheist is morally inferior to a paedophile priest who believes in God . It is my response to Pascal's bet that I would rather live by the rigours of my own intellect than in fear of a fairy tale with no evidence. That denegrates the value of my own existence and undermines any goodness that I might perform in my life.

Now, I know that there is not a single line in the OT or NT in praise of intelligence, but yet we are intelligent creatures? Why would God continue to love us, after casting us out of Eden after eating the apple of knowledge, when we use our intelligence. This disconcordance between the human condition and the bible concludes with the biblical imperative "shut up, dont think, do as you are told". It's hardly a recipe for greating happiness in the world is it? Heil Herr Jesus!



So now I'm morally obliged to believe in the existence of God? You would need to extablish this moral obligation without resorting to God (that would be circular logic). I am willing to listen if you are able, and would like to see you try. I am particularly curious to see how one can be naturally morally obliged to believe in *anything* over anything else?



Really? I was taught that the older and more disparate/abstract a text, and the less cross-references to other documented/primary historical sources, the higher the threshold of credibility. Explain the incontravertable nature of the Bible as a historical or factual source if you would?



Why?

My family is Jewish, I was raised as a Jew and culturally, I still am Jewish. I find it odd that you would consider same shaky historical figure as greater evidence in favour of Christianity than Judaism. I would treat it as an extra avenue of attack for people like myself, a weakness Judaism does not have. To me, it all boils down to the prettyness of symbolism on your part.



Crucifixion was a a pretty standard Roman punishment, was it not?

As a story, it's been incredibly successful yes, but does that contribute to its logical validity any more than, say, Shakespeare or the Teletubbies?



Interiorly I recognise that I have committed mistakes by judging the consequences of those actions and mentally placing myself, older and wiser, in those same situations and seeing what I'd have done differently. The only forgiveness I need for those mistakes is that of those that I might have hurt. Fortunately, they are few, and I am content with the thought that I have caused more happiness in the world than misery.

I need no God in order to sleep at night.



How do you know, any more than I think otherwise? Regardless, refer to my previous response.



The most rational moral alternative would be G.E. Moore, J.S. Mill, Kant, Montaine, Buddha, or the intimate knowledge of myself and my own life that only I have.



I think that the likes of Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa et al, who all fit that description, suffered more, became more wise, and did more good in the time of their lives than Jesus. Why give him any special attribute then?



A book that is seemingly devoted to the denial of basic humanity seems an odd choice for a story of human redemption!

As the scripture declares, Jews will often be the most obstinate against the Messiah. You seem to fulfill that quite well. But in the last days God will soften the heart of the Jew and they will convert in droves.

Look, you need to get over yourself and face the fact that without God you are a stupid little creature, as am I, as are we all. And no, face facts again, God does not have to prove Himself to your satisfaction. You admitted it yourself when you mentioned Pascal's Wager. All God has to give is sufficient evidence for you to make the leap of faith and believe in Him. I'd say all the fulfilled prophecies of your own jewish scriptures are more than enough of evidence. Christ as Messiah has fulfilled tons of them, and will fulfill the rest on the last day. Get with the program! He's your LORD! He's the King of the Jews! Without Him you are nothing! All of us are nothing!

[Provost Harrison]

I don't think you understand. Scripture is just words, writing, written with considerable bias may I add. Why should we care an iota about it?

[Provost Harrison]

Stupid little creature? Speak for yourself...see this is it isn't it? You are just incapable of comprehending the universe around you. It's not a matter of how significant or insignificant we are - it's just a fact that the universe is vast and we are in our own little corner of it. We are here, and we are valid...

[Whaleboy]

But in the last days God will soften the heart of the Jew and they will convert in droves.

Threatening people with "This is what will happen to you on Judgement day" is a pretty weak thing to say in a debate! And you know what, if you're right then maybe some day, after the fourth horseman my heart will soften and my intellect wither, and I shall bend my knee to a a concept of questionable moral virtue and harmful consequence.

But that day has not come yet. You are dealing with me and my words as I speak them now, not some fantasy as to what'll happen at the end of the world.

Look, you need to get over yourself and face the fact that without God you are a stupid little creature

For it to be a fact, you have to establish it. IMO, the stupid little creatures are those who spend their Sundays huddled together groaning that they're not worthy, and that they are pathetic sinners. It saddens me that in the 21st century, after decades of unimaginable suffering and untold misery, that we would still denegrate ourselves and not take pride in ourselves.

I do not need to be some profound cosmic force to live my life in dignity and happiness. One is more of a man for facing up to his world as it is, rather than what he fantasises it to be in order to make his small thoughts important.

And no, face facts again, God does not have to prove Himself to your satisfaction.

There's that "f" word again

You admitted it yourself when you mentioned Pascal's Wager. All God has to give is sufficient evidence for you to make the leap of faith and believe in Him

But you're telling me to make that leap of faith, in order to say so, you must explain why. The leap of faith itself is subjective and cannot be communicated, no more than I can communicate my experience of the colour "blue".

I'd say all the fulfilled prophecies of your own jewish scriptures are more than enough of evidence.

What prophecies, and how have they been fulfilled in ways that I can see today? You see, I and others can argue with Christ until the cows come home, and we can win at that, so you need to show me things that show these prophecies are true, in the same way that I can tell you that I have a glass of water on my desk.

Get with the program! He's your LORD! He's the King of the Jews! Without Him you are nothing! All of us are nothing!

I make my own destiny, my friend. I don't need a ficticious introverted carpenter and his invisible daddy to live my life.

If it makes you happy, hey that's great! Tell Santa, the tooth fairy and the boogyman I said hi!

[Elok]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What middle way? If you take your faith seriously, then you will be set aside from the world. You are partially right that there is less division between Christians and everyone else then we like to think, but the division still exists.

By middle way I mean "religious, and not a fundie nut." I think it's possible to be logical and religious. The "memetic disease" attitude most atheists seem to have is, in its own way, just as silly as Philo's hijacking of history and science. It's just another way to make oneself feel good by framing the opposition up as pure evil, neatly aligning one's own goals as the road to comparative utopia. Not all of them admit to it in so many words, but the attitude is there. Usually in the form of smug words about pink unicorns.

If they didn't have us as an enemy to stir themselves up over, I suspect they'd be as directionless as anyone else whose strongest beliefs are the negations of other beliefs. Philo's kind and the militant atheists have a perverted symbiotic relationship, each providing the other with an enemy to oppose and remind them of their own "virtue." Were either faction removed, the other would have to look in the mirror more often. Much like, after Washington and co. finally beat the British, they were faced with the far more arduous task of building a nation and keeping it together without the threat of war.

While the ideal Christian life may be "a thing apart," few of us reach that ideal. Just professing a belief in God doesn't instantly transform you into a perfect angel, and "in the world, not of the world" has been used too much to make us forget that fact. I think our first duty is to our own conduct. Also, being Orthodox, I think our ultimate goal is to work with God to redeem nature, not to vanish away in some Rapture and laugh at the suckers burning below. If sin made the world fallen, virtue can raise it back.