# Hey Der Trihs, over here **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 15, 2008, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926 "2008-11-15T23:48:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 34
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/661 "2008-11-23T05:04:29Z")
> [@Ro0sh](#): > > Couldn’t you read Auto’s aura again and try to see if he was lying? Since you read his aura earlier, so perhaps you’d have luck with that now, as sometimes you can tell when people are being untrue or deceptive? > > Or since he is no longer so trusting in you, did he suddenly develop a shield? I don’t know if he’s trusting me or not. He’s dropped out of this thread, so there’s no reason to pay attention to his aura anymore. And why would I want to? He’s one of the few people in this thread who’s actually been courteous to me. As for whether he’s lying or not…as already explained, I failed that part of the class. ☹ > [@Hamadryad](#): > > No, wait - the fact that I’m actually female will prove something or other about something that was “throwing **KGS** off” in his/her assessment or something. You watch. I’m watching…nothing seems to be happening yet. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/662 "2008-11-23T06:26:05Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > Are you serious?? Man, no wonder scientists are so negative-minded. > > When you think of it, most scientists are totally out of touch with society at large. They use confusing terminology like “falsify” when they want to prove something, or “theory” to describe fact. For instance, I’m positive that the Theory of Evolution would become more widely accepted if they merely changed the word “Theory” to something else!! That’s because you can never prove anything. Someone can always come up with an alternate explanation. You can, however, falsify things. As for evolution, there are plenty of facts - fossils, DNA, experimental results. But how to explain those facts? We are 99% like chimps - fact. (Or 95, same difference.) Are that similar because we evolved from a common ancestor, or because God randomly chose to make us that way? Theory. The reason good scientists are so “negative” is because they realize how easy it is to convince yourself of a finding, especially if the finding is earth shattering and will get you a Nobel Prize. That’s exactly when you need to really work hard at proving yourself wrong. If you fail, you might have something. If you succeed, you are disappointed, but at least don’t look like an idiot to your colleagues. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/663 "2008-11-23T07:42:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > . The big disconnect on this point is the special treatment of claims about gods that theists assume - which is why analogies like mine and like the IPU piss off theists so much. For the record, I like the IPU as a demonstration of epistemological principles. The proper theistic response, however, is “yes, I know that there’s no reason that an atheist would believe in God over Thor or the IPU, but my faith justifies my personal belief. I don’t have proof, I rely on faith.” I’d suggest that a ‘tighter’ and less offensive analogy on the issue of biblical authority would be something like “How can you tell the difference between a holy book which was written by people pretending to have communion with God from a holy book which was written by people who honestly thought that they were in communion with God, from a holy book that was written by people who were actually in communion with God?” > [@Voyager](#): > > The average religious person thinks that God listens but does not talk. Why? I’d agree that you’re partially right in terms of religious power structures. But I’m not aware of any sane people who claim that God communicates via words. Most claims are something along the lines of God communicating via circumstances, or intuition, or ‘spirit’, or what have you. I’d also argue that’s because those can be interpreted as divine (and cannot be falsified), while hearing voices is pretty much universally recognized as a sign of mental illness. > [@Voyager](#): > > However you must believe that God directly spoke to someone somewhere sometime, or else your religion is entirely secular and created by people. I don’t think that Reform Judaism is at all secular. > [@Voyager](#): > > So, assuming that you accept that God has directly spoken at some point, how do you identify true communications from God versus false ones? I think that without good solid evidence of true communication all claims of speaking with god are no more valid than ones for speaking with dogs. Well, yes and no. We can prove conclusively, for example, that canines do not possess the vocal cords, lips or tongue required to speak to human beings in any manner that humans would recognize as language. So that’s actively disproved. Claims of an amorphous, limitless, omnipotent extra-reality based entity whose existence or qualities can neither be confirmed nor falsified must, by definition, only be taken on faith. They’re not subject to the formal steps of proof and refutation, so scientifically/epistemo0logically they rate something like “unknown, indeterminate, meaningless” as opposed to the simple “false” that we’d assign to talking dogs. > [@Voyager](#): > > As for Son of Sam, my ancestors were brutally treated by Christians for nearly 2,000 years, some times on direct orders from those who supposedly were in close contact with God. If God, who creates morality, actually gave those orders it would have been tough on us. Clearly no one today thinks he did, but without some sort of secular moral filter we are quite unable to reject any command from God. Which is why, I’d argue, that most religions create God in their image, and not hte other way around. The KKK worships a God that hates Jews and blacks. The Jews worship a God that’s overly harsh on them all the damn time but only expects gentiles to follow the Noahide laws. Jew-hating Christians followed a God who wanted Jews converted at the point of the sword or burned at the stake if they refused, etc, etc, etc… Depending on the time, culture and place, a people’s ‘moral filters’ will determine how they construct God, and what they do or do not accept as coming from that God. > [@Voyager](#): > > Think about what would happen if certain passages were proven to be untrue. Which would destroy your belief? Coming from a tradition that looks at the Tanakh as a collection of ‘sacred stories’, then no I don’t see any of that destroying Reform Judaism as a faith. > [@Voyager](#): > > I’m not sure how many goddess believers actually believe. No one thinks the power of positive thinking is infallible, that I know. I know some New Agers channel and junk like that, but I’m unaware of any who claim to get inspiration directly or directly from deities. There are some. I had an ex girlfriend who believed that Bast was in communication with her. I’ve known a few others who would claim that they directly channel ‘power’ or ‘gnosis’ or what have you, directly from the godhead. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/664 "2008-11-23T09:51:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > As for evolution, there are plenty of facts - fossils, DNA, experimental results. But how to explain those facts? We are 99% like chimps - fact. (Or 95, same difference.) Are that similar because we evolved from a common ancestor, or because God randomly chose to make us that way? Theory. No need to preach to the choir, I’m totally behind evolution. You missed my point, though – people, in general, are stupid. Stupid and vain. They are too stupid to understand what “theory” actually means, they can’t recognize the logic supporting scientific theories, and worst of all, they are too vain to admit it. So they make up their own stupid shit, and tell their peers it’s the truth, and their peers believe it because they are equally stupid and vain. This is basic human nature – which means, scientists and skeptics are also stupid and vain. Only difference is, they are more cunning and eloquent about it. (As for we creatives and spiritualists – yes, we’re stupid too. But at least we’re not so vain. Doesn’t make us any better – we just don’t give a fuck, that’s all. 🆒) > [@Voyager](#): > > That’s because you can never prove anything. Someone can always come up with an alternate explanation. You can, however, falsify things. Funny…all this time, people have demanded that _I_ be the one to “prove” what I say…well, I guess hypocrisy is part of human nature, too. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/665 "2008-11-23T14:25:07Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > You mean like… this thread? Nah, so far it’s been more like the fizz of an explosive cord, with people spitting on it occasionally. I’m waiting for a _really_ big bang. 😛 p.s. Not that I think it will happen, **KGS** , but it would brighten a dull Sunday! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/666 "2008-11-23T14:41:36Z")
Behold my POWER I am post 666… Oh and hats off to KGS, you are officially to stupidest poster on the SDMB… ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/667 "2008-11-23T16:39:11Z")
> [@Autolycus](#): > > Well, I suppose if we count all religious and all ignorant, non-thinking people, then there are lots of things that make a talking dog look positively brilliant, so let’s scratch that statement of mine on account of careless hyperbole. > > I still hold it to be true for religious people with half a brain though. I’m Christian, so I’ll use my faith as an example. Here’s the difference between Christianity and somebody who thinks their dog talks to them: > > Christianity is a worldview that rests on a few principles. AFAIK, these first principles cannot be proven logically or scientifically. There are arguments that can be made, feelings to appeal to, and numerous anecdote type things, but yes indeedy-doody it boils down to faith, that nasty word. > > Here are what I consider the first principles of Christianity. > > 1. There is an omnipotent, omniscient God who loves us > 2. He created the world in order that we be close to him > 3. God is perfect love and perfect justice > 4. God, due to his nature, cannot tolerate imperfection > 5. We fucked up, we sinned, thus creating an infinitely large rift between us and God > 6. In order to reconcile love and justice, God sacrifices his Son on the cross. In doing so, he defeats death and sin. How this works is the central mystery of the Christian faith. > 7. Follow the life and teachings of Jesus, and you will become closer to God, the happy and natural state for humanity. > > Now, to an atheist, this all probably sounds as absurd as fuck, but one thing Christianity has is an organized, compact theological worldview. In theory, all Catholic teachings can be dervied from the above 7 things (probably missed a few but you get the point). On top of that, there’s thousands of years of tradition and interpretation of these derived teachings. A person can say that Jesus tells them to burn their family to a crisp, but he will be corrected by his community hopefully. (and let’s not get into the whole Abraham thing ok? That’s a whole other bag of worms) > > So, let’s look at the guy who thinks his dog tells him to burn things. What are his first principles? I don’t really see any. Basically, whatever his dog says, goes. He has no real systemized worldview, and certainly no tradition or community. > > As for the differences between Christianity, other religions, and other less established beliefs such as Wicca, the social argument does have a lot of merit. Christianity does get a free ride in many places where it shouldn’t. Still, that doesn’t mean that all religions are created equal. While to an atheist they are all obviously untrue, that doesn’t mean that different faith traditions differing first principles are all the same in their degrees of truth or untruth. > > It’s the same thing with crazy people. The man who believes his soap is caked with the ebola virus is much less insane than the woman who believes a tiny man lives in her nose. So, with regards to religion, while atheists might indeed think all faith is insane or at the very least highly irrational, I hope this post explained how many people can have differing opinions on the truthiness (;)) of Christians, Buddhists, Wiccans, aura healers, and talking dog worshippers. Although people are throwing around this dog worshipping idea rather irreverantly, and even insultingly… the [dog is one of the most important channels to God in Zoroastrianism](http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/dog33.html). In fact, I believe it was a Capital Offense to kill one in early times. But I’d say that by any meaningful sense of importance and intrinsic worth, a religion should be measured by its longevity and its precursion to and influence on following Religions. In this sense, I’d say dog worship and Zoroastrianism is a more relevant, credulous, and believable religious stance purely by ancient rite. “Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith.” -Mary Boyce. ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/668 "2008-11-23T17:47:03Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > “Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith.” > -Mary Boyce. Could I get a Cite/More information on that please? As of the Major religions, I’d never really heard that \*\*Zoroastrianism \*\*was the oldest. Then again, “revealed” might play a part in that definition. Could I get more information on that one please? ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/669 "2008-11-23T18:27:40Z")
> [@Ro0sh](#): > > Could I get a Cite/More information on that please? > As of the Major religions, I’d never really heard that \*\*Zoroastrianism \*\*was the oldest. Then again, “revealed” might play a part in that definition. > > Could I get more information on that one please? Yea, apparentyly that is a misquote… got it from some other website. Should read… “Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed credal religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith.” Here is the quote in its [original text](http://www.amazon.com/Zoroastrians-Religious-Beliefs-Practices-Library/dp/0415239036) Wikipedia on [Mary Boyce](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Boyce). ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/670 "2008-11-23T18:41:05Z")
Interesting. I’ve always heard that Hinduism was considered the oldest of the major world religions. (Though Mary Boyce doesn’t seem to mention it in her first page- then again, I’m not sure if she considered Hinduism to be a “revealed credal religion” as she doesn’t mention them really. It does appear that both came about at similar time periods though. Thanks for your cites. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/671 "2008-11-23T18:56:58Z")
> [@Ro0sh](#): > > Interesting. I’ve always heard that Hinduism was considered the oldest of the major world religions. (Though Mary Boyce doesn’t seem to mention it in her first page- then again, I’m not sure if she considered Hinduism to be a “revealed credal religion” as she doesn’t mention them really. It does appear that both came about at similar time periods though. > > Thanks for your cites. I believe Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion that worshiped a single deity as opposed to many gods demons and spirits. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/672 "2008-11-23T18:59:54Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > I believe Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion that worshiped a single deity as opposed to many gods demons and spirits. Interesting. How does it compare in antiquity to Judaism? ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/673 "2008-11-23T19:09:53Z")
I guess what I’m trying to say, **Autolycus** … is that some of the major tenants of your religion were founded by dog worshippers. It’s a fact. Your religious tenants are borrowed and lynchpinned in heritage from ancient dog communers. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/674 "2008-11-23T19:13:53Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Interesting. How does it compare in antiquity to Judaism? Depends. Some scholars dated it to 8000 BCE well before judiasm apparently many scholars are dating it much later now but when I was in college the 8000BCE date was discussed. But when I was in college we were still using BC not BCE, not that they are different just that I went to college a while ago. ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/675 "2008-11-23T19:46:37Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > I believe Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion that worshiped a single deity as opposed to many gods demons and spirits. Gah.:smack: [Hinduism can be considered to be Monotheistic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism), it’s just a common misconception to label it polytheistic! > [@](#): > > Monotheistic theology is an inherent part of Hinduism. Hinduism is not dry monotheism though, and is often characterized as monistic theism, panentheism, and transtheism by scholars, although often misunderstood as polytheism usually in the West for lack of understanding of the depth of philosophies. That one ALWAYS gets me… It’s so frustrating. Ah well, all I can do is point out the misconception. :shrug: Anyways back to your regular pitting. /hijack ---
**Author:** ![Autolycus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Autolycus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autolycus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/676 "2008-11-23T20:02:54Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > I guess what I’m trying to say, **Autolycus** … is that some of the major tenants of your religion were founded by dog worshippers. It’s a fact. Your religious tenants are borrowed and lynchpinned in heritage from ancient dog communers. Your revelation gives me paws. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/677 "2008-11-23T20:04:23Z")
> [@Autolycus](#): > > Your revelation gives me paws. 😃 I gotta admit, I chuckled. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/678 "2008-11-23T20:10:34Z")
> [@Ro0sh](#): > > Gah.:smack: > [Hinduism can be considered to be Monotheistic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism), it’s just a common misconception to label it polytheistic! > That one ALWAYS gets me… It’s so frustrating. Ah well, all I can do is point out the misconception. :shrug: Anyways back to your regular pitting. > /hijack Sorry it frustrates you so. The fact is there is no one Hinduism. The wiki article has some good information and may be a good starting place for you. > [@malthus](#): > > Interesting. How does it compare in antiquity to Judaism? One could question whether judaism was montheistic in it origins. The first commandment “Thou shall worship no other gods before me” kind of concedes that there are other gods. Also when moses went up to get the tablets the old testament explains that god got pissed off because the Israelites were worshiping Baal. Also there is the part in genesis where god says something like “Now they shall be as one of us” after eve eats the apple. Other more recent archeological evidence suggests a more polytheistic origin as well. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/679 "2008-11-23T20:35:00Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > One could question whether judaism was montheistic in it origins. The first commandment “Thou shall worship no other gods before me” kind of concedes that there are other gods. Also when moses went up to get the tablets the old testament explains that god got pissed off because the Israelites were worshiping Baal. Also there is the part in genesis where god says something like “Now they shall be as one of us” after eve eats the apple. Other more recent archeological evidence suggests a more polytheistic origin as well. It would not surprise me if Judaism emerged from a pre-existing polytheistic basis. Though personally I find other cites for the same theory more compelling - for example, in Genesis, where God is quoted as refering to himself in the plural: > [@](#): > > Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. Not reading Hebrew, I do not know if the original contains the plural “us”, or if this has significance (for example, it could be a type of royal “we”). It does seem to imply multiplicity at forst glance though. In another place, the “sons of god” mate with human women to produce demi-gods or heroes (Genesis 6): > [@](#): > > 2the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3Then the LORD said,(A) “My Spirit shall not abide in[a] man forever,(B) for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4The Nephilim\*\* were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. Which is awfully similar to some forms of Greek mythology - heroes having semi-divine origin. My guess would be that it emerges from a common ancestry, a sort of neolithic (or even older) proto-religion. Anthropologically, the “Chieftian” stage of cultural evolution is often marked by the “Chief” being viewed as semi-divine, or being able to trace his ancestry to a divinity - this passage seems to be a remnant of that. However, what we don’t know is how long ago proto-Judaism became more or less officially monotheistic - and I’m not familiar enough with Zoroastrianism to know to what extent _it_ is “monotheistic” (I was under the impression it was dualistic, having a “good god” and a “bad god”, but I could be wrong). ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/680 "2008-11-23T20:53:43Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > I guess what I’m trying to say, **Autolycus** … is that some of the major tenants of your religion were founded by dog worshippers. It’s a fact. Your religious tenants are borrowed and lynchpinned in heritage from ancient dog communers. Tenets. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926.md?page=35)