I realized after the correction that I had included the entirety of Shodan’s comments rather than just the ironic and humorous ending, “They tried to kill us, we’re still here…let’s eat.”
Didn’t mean to give the impression that I thought you’d be served lox and cream cheese on a bagel on Passover. I understand that wouldn’t happen.
I’ve never been to a seder. Passover…along with Good Friday…are observances I shy away from. Almost no way to get away from the religious aspects of those days.
I hope you get more than just bagels and lox at the funeral. There should be what my mother called Appetitzing - whitefish, sable, herring, all sorts of good stuff.
And be thankful that you live in NJ where you can get good bagels. In the Bay Area the best is only barely acceptable, and most places do rolls with a hole. As for bialys - fuhgeddaboutit.
It was ten years ago, but the deli in the Trump Plaza in Atlantic City had a very good whitefish salad.
I actually ran some seders for my kids long after I became an atheist. It is kind of like an atheist Christmas - you can know that the religious aspect is invalid, and still enjoy the ceremony. After all, how many other meals come with a users manual?
Yeah…most of those holidays can be enjoyed without deference to any gods. I thoroughly enjoy Christmas and Easter, in large part because of the food, but also because of the warm feelings of family and friends together. The god is not necessary…nor do I allow the undercurrent of the god to intrude on my fun and enjoyment of the holidays…and I am sure you do the same thing at the seders you mentioned.
In any case, Voyager, if you don’t mind, I’d like to use my response to your comment here to sum some things up. We seem to be winding down…and I had a wind up in mind. This is as good an opportunity as any.
I actually honor Jesus (more than many Christians I know) because I think he was on to something. My reading of his basic philosophy is that it is antithetical to the “philosophy” of the god of the Bible…just as the teachings of so many Jewish scholars over the ages has been antithetical to the “philosophy” of the god of the Bible. Jewish scholars have spent lots of time ‘splaining what the god meant with some of his proclamations and actions. Jesus effectively taught to do many things that the god he supposedly worshipped would have considered anathema. Love of enemies; turning the other cheek and being tolerant were not part of the life-style of the god.
I suspect that many Jewish and Christian scholars recognized that the early Hebrews who devised the law managed to include many ideas that really did more damage than good to the notion of “right and wrong.” Or at least, they recognized that adjustments and accommodations needed to be made in order for the thrust of the teachings to have meaning…and to be useful for humans to make a better life here on Earth.
The rationalizations and “explanations” of both Jewish and Christian scholars seem to want to direct the overall religion in the right direction…but the need to keep the godhead is overwhelming. (I think a result of irrational fear of the unknown.) And keeping that particular god in place as a loving, just god…is not an easy task.
That is why I have, over the years, directed threads like this one toward theists…asking why they would want this particular god (or more exactly, this particular description of a god) to be the god they want…or the description of the god they want.
It really doesn’t make sense.
As an agnostic, I can easily see why someone could come down on the side of “most likely there is a GOD”…just as I can easily see why some come down on the side of “most likely there are no gods.” On the theistic side of that equation, I have more trouble understanding the “and the GOD I think likely…is most likely a personal GOD”…but I can, by force of will, understand it nonetheless.
But accepting the god of the Bible as that god (except in the case of Jews simply doing so as part of a heritage rather than as a function of “belief” or religion) seems almost bizarre.
So here is where I ask:
If you are a theist…and you think it make more sense to assume there is a GOD…and that the GOD is a personal, loving, kind, just GOD…why on Earth would you choose the god of the Bible to be that GOD…to be the god you worship?
Why would you try to shoehorn that GOD into your notion of what GOD should be?
More an aside, but this speculation holds no water as a plausible explanation. Dictators hurt the powerful people of their land all the time; it’s practically a job requirement. Often it’s more than just harming their economic ambitions, it’s having them killed. Having little or no explanation for their actions no matter how bizarre or one that might make the dictator seem mentally unbalanced hasn’t been much of a problem. For instance Stalin having half of his officer corps shot in a bout of paranoia, having the intelligentsia and peasants switch occupations in the cultural revolution under Mao, or Pol Pot emptying the cities upon taking power and then proceeding to have 1/3 of the population killed. Caligula did suffer a little accident in the end but got away with almost no end of bizarre insanity during his rule.
I’ve not been to a Jewish funeral. I understand that the family buries the coffin. Death is a terrible tragedy in Judaism. I am a convert, my Mother a Christian. Mrs. Plant and I had a horrible time explaining that to her Minister when planning her funeral. He called us “unbelievers.”
I don’t know if death is more of a tragedy than for any other religion, or no religion at all. I don’t know what it is like believing in heaven and hell, but I never felt any excessive grief from believing that the dead were just dead, even when I was a believer.
The thing I was referring to actually was the ritual and celebration that comes with a funeral. Some people drink after a funeral, we eat. That provides closure far more than the funeral service or throwing dirt on the coffin. I don’t think pretending my mother was in heaven would have made any difference at all to me.
I was sixteen and a Christian when my Father died. It made a lot of difference.
One of her Catholic friends suggested to Mama that she pray to him.
I was a lot older and a Jew when Mama died. “Tragic” may be the wrong word; I was quoting Telushkin from Jewish Literacy. I can’t make a comparison. I think I am more different in my thoughts by age then and now than by religion.
Sarah Palin on a pogo stick I hate that homily. No. Claims demand proof. Unusual claims also require proof. If someone says Bigfoot exists, all I need is a body to examine, alive or dead, I do not need a novel written by Bigfoot with his picture on back flap saying he is worse recluse than Thomas Pynchon or J.D. Salinger.
As a believer I do not require any proof of God other than what God wants to present to me. And what God wants to present to me is so stunningly amazing a natural world as to preclude for me the possibility of non-existence, while at the same time utterly satisfying the atheist that he/she could not see it any other way.
Your hypothesis presupposes that human beings can understand anything and everything and that if there is a God he owes us an explanation, has defaulted and that you have the power to compel God to answer you.
And if there are no gods…so “nothing” is presented…you intend to presume “nothing” is what your god wants to present to you.
Do you see how illogical that is?
Not sure what you mean here…the sentence is not especially clear. But as an agnostic, I think I appreciate it. I have mentioned several times in conversations with atheists that “the evidence” (the stunningly amazing natural world) is so ambiguous no meaningful guess about the Reality can be made based on it.
No insult of any kind meant toward you theists or the atheists…just a statement of how I see things.
I’ll let Czarcasm reply to that…but I do not see the validity of your conclusion about his comment at all???
I suppose technically it is a syllogism rather than a hypothesis. If you rephrase it as an If->then it might be clearer.
If you don’t mean your posts to be subject to rational analysis it might be better to make it clear that you are using something else as the basis for your argument, as Bricker has done.
Yes, your belief in god requires no evidence, justification or even logic. However, if you wish for us to treat your belief as any more valid than a belief in fairies or Santa, you are going to have to do a little better. Personal don’t cut it either. That’s the difference. If someone says they believe in Bigfoot, they don’t need much, but if they say Bigfoot actually exists, then they need some evidence.
Anything here, not everything. If God does not explain anything about what he wants, either he is quite feeble in that he can’t, he designed us incompetently because we can’t understand, or he doesn’t care, in which case we can ignore him.
Notice how the easy questions get answered, but the pithy, embarrassing questions get answered by “you wouldn’t understand.”
Guys, I don’t care what you think about my belief. Now, if you are going to be rude about it, then I object. You are free to think and believe what you want. If you want to harbor the thought that I believe in Santa (I do) or fairies go ahead. I do ask you not to be rude about it. This particular thread being a debate about religious beliefs, there is plenty of leeway here to express that you think people who believe like I do are ignoring evidence, etc. I would point out that when belief/non-belief is not the subject of discussion, sudden and potentially rude proselytizing either theism or atheism is out of place.
You need to read what you wrote and what I quoted again. It certainly is a statement of what is and what isn’t. The statement itself is evidence, that’s why I quoted it. Nor did I say there was anything that you would accept as evidence that there is a God, or as you suppose, gods. Of course, you’re ignoring what you wrote actually being evidence of a hypothesis, is, under your grammatical structure, sufficient evidence for you to believe there are gods, since you state you would accept that. I gather that this bit of humor was unintentional, but I did find it amusing.
As someone who appreciates science, I am well aware that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. I didn’t claim there was. It is a matter of personal faith and how I see things. Science for me is a an analytic tool and very useful. Religious faith is more important with how I deal with people and view the world.
As much of what you think you grasp of what I was trying to convey, I think you got it. What God wants to present to me/us might very well be nothing.
As for the last part, assuming there was some kind of a deity, either as described by a religion or otherwise, why and what would compel that deity to morally owe us an explanation and require that deity to give it, other than our personal belief that we had a right to an explanation. Scripture gives us Job, which is pretty clear that we aren’t owed and explanation and couldn’t understand it anyway.
What makes it a given that we can understand everything? No one human being understands all human knowledge in its current state. And our current state of knowledge about the universe is such that someone would have to be very naive to believe that a human being could understand everything in it. Kant, Heisenberg, Russell and Godel have pretty much demonstrated that we cannot possibly know everything. You cannot possibly hope to understand things that are provably beyond human knowledge, much less everything.
For example. Russell and Whitehead set out to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. They could not do it despite two decades of effort. Not to say that someday somebody won’t be able to, but it fully appears to be impossible, and Godel explained why. (Note that I am just providing summaries of the summaries as I understand them and have had them explained to me, I don’t claim to understand these “proofs”.) Suppose quantum gravitation simply proves utterly beyond human comprehension? Or regular gravitation for that matter? Does that mean it is beyond any being’s comprehension? Smarter aliens? A possible Deity who/that invented it?
It used to be said that no one or only a handful of people understood general relativity and quantum mechanics. But nobody yet understands the underlying causes of these things. It is not inevitable that people will.
But my point was…if there is no god (one of the two possibilities)…there would be “nothing presented.” How would you be able to tell if the “nothing presented” is the result of a god unwilling to share…or simply the result of there being no gods?
Nothing that I can think of…but I have NEVER suggested any gods owe us anything…explanations included.
You had written: “As a believer I do not require any proof of God other than what God wants to present to me.”
My response went to that thought.
I was questioning how you would know if “nothing” came…if it was the result of a god not wanting to share more than nothing…or the result of no gods in existence.
I ask it again.
How would you know?
Very convenient…but besides the point.
If nothing in the way of explanation comes…how do you tell if it is because the deity you suppose exists does not want to present one…or if it is because the deity you suppose exists simply does not exist?
Let’s get to Santa Claus. When I was a very small child I believed that Santa Claus was a jolly old elf who lived at the North Pole and made and delivered gifts. Such is not the case. Once I found out it was adults, I spent several years not believing in Santa Claus because I was convinced that he did not exist. As I got older still, most of my friends continued to not believe in Santa Claus. Yet it became absolutely and abundantly obvious to me that Santa Claus existed. Every Christmas season I would be slapped in the face, over and over and over with his existence everywhere. There is a guy in a suit at the mall scaring small babies. Gifts are purchased, lights are strung, people get together for parties and some of us tell small children that there is a fat guy who lives at the North Pole, etc., to explain all the festivities. Yet no scientific expedition to the North Pole has ever turned up the evidence we seek. Not to say that submarine crews celebrating Christmas at the North Pole haven’t cracked wise in official dispatches as well as NORAD “spotting” the jolly old elf on radar. Now, there are some killjoys who will say that these are all lies, perhaps evil lies and maybe opine that this is damaging for kids. I say that it is bullshit that it is damaging for kids, and I say that all of it is great fun for all of us and has the potential to bring families together. (Some will point out that some family get togethers are evil, and I see their point.)
I can assure you that I personally am Santa Claus and that I have had a great time giving gifts to various children as Santa Claus with the name on the wrapper, and those kids (and adults) have all had a great time, and me too. Santa Claus is the artistic personification of what is going on.
My concept of God is something similar: the Deity is us treating each other lovingly in this world and our doing the very best we can in that regard. Saint Anselm’s proof was (and I summarize my own understanding again) that God is what you would have in your mind if it were possible for you to think of perfect good.
Now, I understand that atheists think all of this is useless, and that they can get there and do all that without God. Fair enough. I am enough of a “heretic” to accept that atheists are just as saved as I am. They don’t want faith, they don’t need faith and good for them.
But of all the atheists I know and associate with in real life and here on the SDMB, none of them reject treating people well. None of them are without some love for their fellow human beings. Just because they don’t want to express that thought by affirming belief in a deity does not mean that I reject that they love people in much the same way I do.
Um, I saw a proof for 1 + 1 = 2 in kindergarten. And I saw another one in my Discrete And Foundational Mathematics 2 class in college. (The latter was a fair bit more formal - but not all that much more complex, once you got done defining your number system and succession operators, anyway.)
I may be misunderstanding you, but I think it’s more likely that you’re misunderstanding Russel and Whitehead.
Another possibility is that God both exists and does not exist at the same time, you don’t know until you believe one or the other. If sub atomic particles can do it, why can’t God? And yes, it certainly is a possibility that I am utterly wrong and there simply is no God. Scientific evidence would argue for that. But my consideration of everything as a whole, which is not scientific, says that this is utterly wrong.
You wouldn’t. It would be faith alone. (Unless you are one of those people to whom God has presented some sort of personal proof that you personally found acceptable, such as a burning bush.)
First, let me repeat, there isn’t a scientific, testable explanation.
Let me turn it around: suppose for some reason, or rather cause, emotional or otherwise, you come to have faith in spite of the lack of evidence. How can you then say without lying that God doesn’t exist?
Suppose you find that you believe that despite there being no scientific evidence for God, and there being every bit of scientific evidence for there not being a God (a position I don’t subscribe to) that you are going to believe that there is a God anyway. For any number of possible reasons or combination. As far as you are concerned, there is a God.
I can assure you that that’s not what most people think that “Santa Claus” means, and that to the rest of us you haven’t proven that Santa Claus exists any more than if you pointed at Mount Rushmore and declared, “That’s Santa Claus - see, it exists!”
Is, or is not, your God a sentient entity that exists independent of human thought or emotion? And can good thoughts happen independent of your God? If your God extracted itself from my mind, would I immediately lose my will and become a raving sociopath?
If you’re going point at my cerebral cortex and declare that it’s God, I’m going to just dismiss you as much as if you were renaming Rushmore. If you’re going to tell me that I’m an evil sociopath that is having my will overwritten and negated by a puppetting diety who’s making me be nice, I will (somewhat offendedly) reject your completely unsupported opinion, and point out that there’s no sensible reason to think that my brain isn’t the source of my good thoughts, thankyouverymuch. And in either case I’m not going to think you’ve demonstrated that God as most people think of him exists.
You, of course, are free to believe what you like. But I’m not keen on the idea of you believing I’m incapable of being good without some external entity dragging me around by a leash.
