That’s not true according to the marketing department of the leading God brand. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” makes this very clear. There isn’t a commandment saying the wrong god is better than none. And I realize this was already argued at length earlier in the thread.
How is it better? You used Islam as an example in your OP. Do you have more evidence that Allah will be okay with me not believing He exists even though I follow the Koran than you do of the existence of a god that will punish me for pretending to believe in Him?
I am not an expert in Islam (although I did read the Quran ages ago). But I think that keeping the other requirements of the Quran aren’t contingent on believing in Allah.
I know of a legend that happened with Rabbi Elijah Kramer (he is “the” greatest Talmudic sage of the past few hundred years).
Make a long story short, he was in a bakery and a secular guy started to wolf down a bagel without washing his hands, which is illegal according to Jewish law.
So the sage told the secular guy, “How dare you eat without washing your hands?!.” So the guy said, “I don’t believe in God.” So Rabbi Kramer said, “Do you think God will forgive you for not washing your hands with that lame excuse you just gave me?”
According to the legend, the guy was scared out of his wits and he began following Jewish law.
That might be the stupidest story I’ve ever heard. A man who doesn’t believe in god wouldn’t care if a rabbi said god would be angry at him. That’s the point. What is that story supposed to prove? And since when do rabbis care if non-Jews follow Jewish law?
I do hope that when “the greatest Talmudic sage of the past few hundred years” told the tale, he didn’t make it sound as klunky and unlikely as you just did.
Nice anecdote, but it doesn’t answer my questions.
If you’re saying nowhere in the Quran does it say unbelievers aren’t allowed to follow the Quran, that’s irrelevant and doesn’t answer my questions. You’ve got a history in this thread of being difficult and dancing around questions. How about just answering the questions I asked you? Where’s your evidence?
Did you leave out something there? Like the Rabbi was packing a .44 magnum or something? Or he’s got this really wicked-ass scar on his face that goes across one of his eyes, which is all opaque but always seems to see everything?
Otherwise that story makes no sense.
My fundie relatives have all sorts of stories like that, only instead of a rabbi it’s a preacher and the sinner is usually a rock star, drug addict, or a scientist (you know, evildoers). None of the stories are true, and they’re all as utterly unconvincing to outsiders as yours, but I suppose they serve some purpose, comforting affirmations to reinforce belief structures under constant assault by, well, reality.
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
Unite humanity with a living new language.
Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
Balance personal rights with social duties.
Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
Be not a cancer on the Earth – leave room for nature – leave room for nature.
Those any good?
Assuming you could make this case, that would still be 500-800 years after the alleged Exodus, so that’s not very compelling. My whole point is that you can’t prove these beliefs existed before the Torah was written, so your whole premise of “an event witnessed by a nation” falls apart right there (not that it isn’t contradicted by plenty of other evidence as well).
Are you saying that it didn’t matter to you which religious tenets you followed when you picked your particular sect? Are you saying that you weren’t a believer when you started following biblical canons?
I don’t have to prove that people believed it at the time of Sinai. That’s not one of the elements of the Kuzari proof. The proof is merely that, like the Temple in Jerusalem, people today believe that these national events occurred, that we heard about them from our ancestors. Why do you assume that national history can be shafted that badly?
Sorry. I should have mentioned that it was a Jewish atheist.
I am a believer. I am using pascal’s wager to turn up the HEAT on you secularists, by arguing that even if you are right, you are wrong. Even if it’s 99% that no national miracles took place, you should still change your ways due to the 1% (of course, I vehemently hold that the reverse is true: that we can be 99% sure that national miracles did happen).
What people beloev is proof of nothing. The problem is that you can’t trace this beliefe back before the 8th Century, so it’s not corrceet to say that “they got it from their ancestors.” Mythical histories for cultural groups were common in the ancient world.
I have no idea what you even mean by “national history,” but people did npot have the same requirements or expectaions for history to be literal back then, and what they believed about their own ancestral histories usually had little to do with reality.
There is exactly the same non-zero chance for any other religion being true. How do you know which one to pick? Your chance of punishment is just as likely for rejecting atheism or tree worship as it is for rejecting Judaism.
The destruction of the WTC isn’t a national event? It wasn’t, and hasn’t since then, been witnessed by millions of people? It’s not simply a “behind the scenes” event. The evidence cited by truthers often depends on those very visuals; that the towers could only have fallen as they did, or only been damaged as they were, by some means other than the facts. The witness part is quite important to their claims - after all, the whole point is that we do not have access to behind the scenes stuff to know, that it is being covered up for some reason, and that the evidence (flawed as it is) can only come from precisely what everyone else has access to - video and practical evidence.
These two points do not mean the same thing. False means certainly untrue. Fallible means potentially flawed.
I am not starting with the assumption that the event is surely false. It may well be true. My starting position, in terms of truth, is that I don’t know. Nor am I starting with the assumption that your evidence is surely fallible; by my arguments, which do not rely upon the assumption that your evidence, or evidence such as it, is surely fallible, I have reached that conclusion (though of course I am open to new thoughts on the subject).
Not so. Evidence must be shown to be false through reasoning by its own merits, not by whether it is encompassed in some broad category.
I’m honestly unsure what my reaction to such events would be. It might be as you say; maybe i’d become a believer. I’m surprised you’re able to predict my thoughts better than I myself am, though. Am I so sadly predictable?
I’ve shown you two. The War of the Worlds false hysteria, and 9/11 conspiracies.
As I must point out again, all that is necessary to disprove a universal rule is one contradictory example. If the rule is that “All geese are white” a single black goose, even if among 1000 white geese, proves the rule wrong. You may, should you so care, change the rule to “Most geese are white”; but you still must change the rule. Likewise, in this case; your claim is based on a universal rule against which a single example would be enough to refute it. I have provided you with such examples.
That’s illogical. If no evidence were enough for me, then I would have no arguments and no opinions. By the very point that I am debating with you, I must have accepted some evidence, otherwise how would I be able to do so? How would I be able to use a computer to do so, having disbelieved all evidence to its existence?
We do, as you say, look around in order to evaluate evidence. Might I ask of you, then; was there ever a point at which you were almost convinced that you were wrong on this by some evidence? Certainly you hold a strong conviction now, but since hesitancy and uncertainty are the hallmarks of an open mind, could you provide me with examples of things which almost changed your mind on this issue?
Oh, and once again, i’d like to politely ask you to please not guess at my own motivations and opinions? I have done you the courtesy of not assuming your own mentality, and i’d very much appreciate it if you might show it back.
Then how about answering my question? I’ll repeat it.
How is it better? You used Islam as an example in your OP. Do you have more evidence that Allah will be okay with me not believing He exists even though I follow the Koran than you do of the existence of a god that will punish me for pretending to believe in Him?
Saying you’re not an expert in Islam doesn’t exempt you from answering the question. You used Islam as an example in your OP and this thread is now over 500 posts long. Answer the question and we’ll see if Pascal’s Wager holds up or not.
That doesn’t matter at all. It’s a ridiculous, unbelievable story. Atheists don’t believe in gods. Why would an atheist suddenly get religion just because a rabbi says “God doesn’t care that you don’t believe in him?” Nothing about that makes any sense. I understand this is a story believers tell each other, but this doesn’t even begin to hang together in terms of the way people think.
You’re failing.
And yet nobody here finds your argument even a little bit convincing. Have you stopped to think about why that is?
I am crazy busy these days. I will only be able to answer some of your points. I am very sorry.
-
X-ray: Allah commands that we believe in him. He also commands that we visit meccah. He predicts that if we ignore his commands we will burn, for each violation. Should we not at least visit mecca?
-
Revanent: You, as usual, are being extremely vague. You say “9/11 is a national event,” as if I disputed that! I said that whatever the truthers say happened behind the scenes – e.g., the rigging of the buildings – is NOT a national event. Then you go into a whole VAGUE and unspecific argument about what the truthers claim that “evidence depends on visuals” – which hasn’t a shred of meaning to me. The national event that took place was that the buildings fell down. Everyone agrees that the buildings fell down. Find me people who claim that the twin towers never existed, or that they fell down in the early 80s and you will have made a relevant argument.
-
Diogenes: Of course all cultures have myths. Please, however, show one culture who believed in a nationally experienced, heavily commemorated myth. One would suffice.
As the Talmud says, “Those without intelligence cannot diffrentiate.”
Nationally commemorated history = anything abele derer says is related to the Jews. Anything else will be disqualified for one reason or another.