Again this is a false category. Simply renaming types of evidence with multiple descriptors doesn’t allow you to shift the burden of proof. It doesn’t matter how you categorize it. It does not corroborate itself simply because you’ve put it under a new heading.
You skipped over mine and responded to later posts.
In case you don’t know, Judaism forces its adherents to convince themselves to perform God’s bidding for altruistic purposes. It demands that people act morally, and to ignore the fact that they will be rewarded for thieir effort.
Now, you are right. I may be fooling myself. I may be serving God for selfish reasons, and I may actually not care too much about morality. I may not be as tough and moral of a guy as my post implied. Agreed. (As the Rabbi of Kotzk once quipped, “I prefer sinners who know that they are sinners than saintly people who KNOW that they are saintly.”)
All I was asking in my post was to make sure that those who ignore pascal’s wager aren’t fooling themselves either. Indeed, it’s hard for me to understand why it would be inherently immoral for people to serve a tyranicall God (is it wrong to work for a boss who is a pain-in-the-butt? I don’t see why).
You may be right. It may be that they feel it to be immoral to listen to a tyranicall God (I would disagree with the point that God is evil; but even assuming that He is). But it also may be that they are lazy to quit their secular lives. All I was saying is, as you said to me: “Make sure that you aren’t fooling YOURSELF.”
All evidence is always put into categories. That’s the way we evaluate whether to trust evidence.
Furthermore, my category isn’t fine-tuned to my case. We find nationally-commemorated, nationally-experienced true events all over. So you can’t claim that I am inventing a category.
That being said, I agree that there are some gray areas. The Jews believed that there were about 2.5 million Jews in the wilderness. If you find me a myth which states that 2.4 million witnesses saw the gods, then I would surely have to back down.
What if a myth claims that 800,000 people saw the gods? That would be a gray area. What if a myth claims that 100,000 saw the gods? That, I believe, would no longer be a gray area since it is much, much lower (25 times lower) than the number of people that I am presenting.
As I said before, show me something close
It most certainly is not. We evaluate the reliability of purported evidence based on things like inherent characteristics, corroboration, replicability, etc. To the extent that categorization is used, it is simply for convenience. Categorization itself does not confer reliability.
Given that categorization is irrelevant, I’ll answer this anyway. Yes, I can claim you are inventing a category. No matter what category you create, there will naturally be objects that fit that category. Whether such objects can be found tells you nothing about the usefulness or validity of that category.
Whether anyone can show you anything is irrelevant. You’ve created a bag and put some objects in it. The fact that they are all objects in this bag does not transfer reliability or credibility or any other characteristic from one object to another.
Thus, assuming that your category of national myths or whatever has any validity at all, the fact that National Myth A has been supported by external evidence has absolutely zero bearing on whether National Myth B has any value as evidence. Each item must be independently validated.
You seem to have completely lost sight of who has the burden of proof here. Your “proof” is silly and unconvincing for a plethora of reasons which have been repeatedly explained. It’s of no consequence to us whether you yourself are convinced. You’re the one with the burden to prove it to us, and you haven’t come close meeting that burden so far.
I don’t know what this has to do with Pascal’s Wager anyway.
To maximize our chances of winning Pascal’s wages, we need to consider the following:
[ul]
[li]The number of religions is very large, and there is no rational way of assessing which one of them is the correct one.[/li][li]The variable we need to minimize is the maximum amount of divine wrath we will suffer from any one of the possible religions by our particular lifestyle choices. [/li][/ul]
The methodology would be simple: take a comprehensive dictionary of the various religions known to scholars.
Make a list of all the things considered to be sins that will land you in serious trouble in the afterlife - hell or the equivalent.
Then, simply avoid doing these things.
In the case where these laws are mutually exclusive - let’s say one religion says you should never eat pork, and another, hypothetical religion says you should never eat anything except pork if you wish to avoid ending up in hell - you chose to follow the most popular of the two religions, chose a middle path, or simply flip a coin.
With a little thought, you could probably find a way that would at least not break too many of the taboos of any particular deity. Some obvious things on the list:
[ul]
[li]Your diet should probably be vegetarian, and consist of vegetables not considered taboo anywhere. If, say, fish is permissible to all religions, so much better.[/li][li]Avoid any kind of violence, stimulants of any kind, or any kind of lying, stealing, cheating, infidelity and so forth. Only marry an adult partner of the opposite sex after completing some type of official vows of eternal fidelity.[/li][li]Believe in each and every god ever worshipped, on the condition that said god turns out to actually exist. This part is a little tricky, but people have believed stranger things. Perhaps you could believe in a divine being that could conceivably be an aspect of any god. Believing in a god who’s male, anthropomorphic, intangible and immensely wise and powerful might be a good compromise. They may forgive you for getting their name wrong if you get everything else pretty much right.[/li][li]Do not perform any rituals of any kind. The risk of offending a jealous deity by whoring after strange gods is too great.[/li][li]Never talk about religious doctrine except in the most general terms possible, so that you minimize the risk of committing heresy.[/li][li]Be ceaselessly kind and generous to your fellow man as this may well be in your favor at the day of judgement. Work hard for the happiness of your community and your family and try to maintain peaceful and productive relations with those outside.[/li][/ul]
I know that not all Jews believe the same things. What do you think will be the difference between your experiences in an afterlife and an atheist’s? I’m asking for a relevant reason.
Do you think that tyrannical and pain-in-the-butt are equivalent? That’s ridiculous. A fair comparison would be comparing a tyrannical god with a tyrannical boss.
I never said that to you but I will now. I’d bet the majority of atheists here in the U.S. have been brought up with religion and have abandoned it because of our skepticism and not because we’re too lazy. Make sure that you aren’t fooling yourself that atheists aren’t picking a religion out of a hat and following ridiculous rules out of a tiny chance that the god(s) of that religion actually exists because of laziness.
Why do so many religionists always assume that atheists don’t lead moral liives? My life is about as straight arrow as it gets. Traditional marriage, all kids conceived and born in wedlock, no infidelity in over 20 years. I pay my taxes, don’t break laws, don’t do drugs or gamble or drink to excess. I give to charity, and have often volunteered for it. What am I avoiding? If I was a believer it would cause no change in my lifestyle.
I will respond to your earlier points that you mentioned on sunday. I agree with you 100%. I beleive that you are a moral person. I believe that the argument that morality can only be rational only if one believes in God is false (many Jewish sources say the same: morality is independent of a belief in God).
That being said, I also agree with David Berlinski that the feeling of being **forced **to be moral can only exist if one believes in God. David argues that “atheism, in so far as it removes from the human context a brute sense of obligation based on fear - a brute sense of obligation based on fear - removes from the moral calculus a profound and powerful reason not to do evil. I think there is no escaping this…” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgZLImQvw4k&feature=related (this quoute is mentioned at 10:25 in 3/5)
So there is few reasons why you may reject the belief in God:1) You have already decided that God does not exist and you therefore have trouble changing your mind; 2) You abhore “a brute sense of obligation based on fear.”; 3) You are beholden to the groupthink that hovers over the atheistic intelligencia; 4) You are simply wrong, for no reason whatsoever.
I will talk about the other posts at a later time. Nice chatting (BTW, I apologize for this personal attack, and previous ones that I have issued against you. In truth, I think personal attacks has no place in important debates. In this post, I am merely responding to your question of why you ignore the evidence for God.)
Your entire post is based on this first premise, which is so laughably false. Of course some religions have more proof than others! Sit down and read Jewish, Muslim, and Christian apologetics – and then read voodoo proofs – and you will get a picture of what I am talking about.
Be very careful when reading Muslim proofs, BTW. I will tell you one proof that they mention – and it shows you how false their entire propaganda is.
They claim that Islam must be the true religion since Muhamed mentions the fact that the Egyptian Pharaoh survived being drowned in the Red Sea. Indeed, a mummy of Ramsees II – who is considered by some scholars to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus – has been found. How could Muhamed have known about this? How could he have known that the Pharaoh survived?
Answer: He copied it from the Jewish oral tradition. In at least two sources, the oral tradition claims that Pharaoh, while he was still at sea, he said “There is no God but the Israelite God,” and he was therefore saved. (He says that same exact quote in the Quran 10:91)
Now we go on the offensive - AGAINST ISLAM: Dear Muslim: How do you explain how the Jews knew that the Pharaoh survived? (I admit that this isn’t an attack against atheism, since they hold that there never was an Exodus at all. I am just showing you how nutty some muslim proofs are.)
abele derer, I’m already unhappy with the personal shots and failing logic that this thread is dumping on the board. Do not hijack this thread with irrelevant attacks on other religions–it will not help your case, (although it might encourage me to shut this mess down).
[ /Moderating ]
Instead of accusing me of “failing logic” (Isn’t that a personal attack?!) can you please point out where my logic has failed? Or are your logical abilities too dull for that task?
You’re new here aren’t ya? 
I did not accuse you of failing logic, but the thread. (You have certainly shared in that failed logic with your odd and utterly unsupported claim that legends and myths must be accepted as “real”–but only for one group in the world.) However, I am not interested in that “debate”; I am interested in you refraining from hijacking your own thread with irrelevant attacks on groups to which you do not belong.
And pointing out that an argument fails is hardly a “personal” attack. Broadly suggesting that my abilities are “too dull” is a personal attack.
Feel free to move on with your odd views of Myth and refrain from hijacking your thread with attacks on other groups; that is all I am saying.
[ /Moderating ]
Pascal’s Wager is not an argument for faith, it is an argument for piety. Piety can be an expression of faith which is recognizable to God Himself, since He knows its true nature. Because He knows, pretending to piety is absurdly useless, even intellectually, since it only works if God is dumb enough to fall for it. It might work on that portion of society that reveres the faith you pretend to with your approximation of piety, but even they have to be dumb enough not to examine your life as well as your dogma.
Be good, or at least try to be good. It’s a good idea, even if there is no God, and if God is, then either He is good, and He will appreciate your efforts, or He is evil, and you’re toast.
Tris
If you’re only good out of fear, you’re not really good.
Agreed. That’s why, when I give my tithes, I try to convince myself that I am not only doing it for the sake of not being burned, but also because it is the right thing to do.
Let me re-enunciate why my argument isn’t a failure of logic.
First, I never claimed that Jewish history is any “realer” than other groups. I am surprised that you imply that in your claim.
Second, you call my national history a myth, which implies that it is false. I will try to understand what you mean by that. Do you mean that any story which claims that a miracle happened is inherently mythological or false? If yes, why do you assume that miracles are per se false? Did an angel tell you that miraculous stories are per se false? Or do you say that based on faith – that you have an inner, spiritual feeling that miraculous stories are false? Do you have a spiritual faith that God doesn’t exist?
I don’t think you mean that. Rather, when you call the sinai history a myth you mean that – whether or not the story is true – there simply isn’t any evidence, or enough evidence, that the story happened. Without evidence, you have no reason to assume that it is true, just as you have no reason to assume that there is a flying teapot in space. There may very well be a flying teapot in space, it’s just that the evidence for it is lacking. There may very well have been a split sea, it’s just that there is no evidence for it.
Here is where I disagree with you. I claim that nationally-experienced, nationally-commemorated beliefs about a nations history is a form of evidence. Why would I say such a thing? Because I can point to true nationally-experiecned, nationally-commemorated beliefs about a nations history. The existence of a Temple in Jerusalem is an example of this. And I can provide you with many, many true nationally-experienced, nationally-commemorated events. This shows me that what I am presenting is evidence – what a nation believes about its history is evidence.
Now, I am sure you will respond, “Yes, it is evidence, but it is a very fallible form of evidence.”
My response: How do you know that it is a fallible form of evidence? Yes, it may be fallible. But it may also be infallible. How do you know that the evidence I am presenting is fallible?
Now, you will respond, “because the story you are presenting is about miracles!”
Like I said before, if you think that miracles are inherently impossible – that even evidence should be ignored when it points to miracles – you will have to tell me why.
Let me reiterate my point: I don’t care.
If you refrain from hijacking your own thread to bash other groups, I will stay out of this thread altogether.
Minor point:
I always use the word myth in the anthropological sense of a story a people employ to express a truth about their understanding of the world. It is irrelevant whether it is factually true, factually false, or containing both true and false elements.
I am not going to get into a discussion of your weird assessment of history over your popular definition of the word myth. Simply stick to the points you are attempting to make in this thread and leave me out of it.
[ /Modding ]