Yes, some of us are wrong. And I offer no proof that I am right. I was, for a while, tempted to feel smug. An affliction of my sin. But in my religion, we have this saying, “Jesus, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking on the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness… he humbled himself and became obedient to death…” Jesus is not smug, so neither can I be. If even God is obedient to his own laws, I can’t look down on those who aren’t. For example, I have a Grandpa who is very hostile to this gospel. He has berated me for my stupidity in accepting this belief. I love my Grandpa dearly, though. And the way I think of unbelievers is that they’re my Grandpa in younger clothes. I’m not better than him, the Bible says, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” I’m not better because I believe.
Also, why would God reveal himself to only a small segment of believers? I think he has revealed himself in more ways than we count. Romans 2:13 says, “It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous… INDEED WHEN GENTILES, WHO DO NOT HAVE THE LAW DO BY NATURE THINGS REQUIRED BY THE LAW, THEY ARE A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES… THEY SHOW THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW ARE WRITTEN ON THEIR HEARTS…” I am assuming here that your question is sprung out of fairness, like, “Why would God only save some people and leave others in darkness?” I don’t think any one person is in complete darkness. The Bible also says that God is not willing that any should perish. He doesn’t want anybody not to be saved…
As for other evidence beyond their word (the believers who claim to have witnessed these things written in the Bible–Is that who the “their” refers to?), I am not aware of much scientific physical evidence, but a good place to start, though, is the movie “The Search for the Real Mt. Sinai.” Bob Cornuke and Larry _______ find what they claim to be the Real Mt. Sinai, with footage of certain points of interest (the split rock at Horeb, 12 springs and 70 palms…). There is evidence out there, though it is hard to find, a fact that to an unbeliever might seem rather convenient, but since I am a believer, I find it rather inconvenient. I would love to have a shroud of turin to show you, a sign stating, “Jesus of Nazareth–King of the Jews”, an ark of the covenant… But there are a few things. Check out the movie.
What about beavers? Or, don’t you give them their dams?
Even inanimate things affect other things of whatever sort. Does that make them ‘gods?’ I think it must. But, what if all of these things animate or inanimate follow rules? Why not capitalize that and worship the “Rules” of nature. That’s what scientists do.
The question of God is the search among other things for the all-inclusive in any area. As a mathematician I must admit that, sometimes that can get pretty trivial, saying less and less about more and more.
The necessity of cooperation among the six billion or more gods brings up politics and morals. How do or should they treat each other individually, or en masse or via associations with more than one and less than all as members?
This vision of almost 7 billion ‘gods’ all doing their own thing is a semi-solipsist fantasy. They had better salute something superior to themselves or agree on some common principles (such as ‘rights’) or they may not even survive the next few years.
Religions, like it or not, have been the origin of constructive principles like “love your neighbor’ as yourself.” Of course, I don’t confuse utility with truth. Effective behavioral precepts need truth for their foundation. That’s why these discussions are so serious. They need serious people addressing them seriously.
But, the ravings of territorial, verbal, acquisitive, killer apes on the make are not likely to bring us anything other than ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ or Hobbes’ war of all against all. Intellectual pessimism or vapidity as is the almost universal rule in discussions of the ultimate in anything is not too hopeful a sign I admit. Maybe Big Daddy just will have to come down here again and set things right.
Great posts (and great username). Welcome to the SDMB; hope you stick around.
I don’t think that is what (most) scientists do. Or maybe you’re confusing the several definitions of worship:
As Shakespeare had a character say in Pericles IV iii, "If there be not a conscience to be used in every trade, we shall never prosper.” That includes physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers. If a quest for truth is not the foundation of math, physics and philosophy, the practitioners of these arts will never truly prosper, nor will their customers!
The first and third definitions you gave seem to roughly fit the respect that every good scientist gives to his pursuit of the truths of nature. The second definition seems to beg the question.
What then is worship? Try an operative definition, “to bow down to and serve them” from the prohibition of idolatry in the Ten Words (Decalogue). Passion or at least adequate motivation would seem to be necessary to any human action, science included. If scientists were ‘objective,’ they wouldn’t even be animals much lest humans!
Of course, we could quibble and say, that what scientists worship is the pursuit of truth not its codified formulation in Rules. Well, in that case, I’ll just have to revert to the truly profound, song lyrics, “You ain’t never caught a rabbit and you ain’t no friend of mine.” I’m sticking with those who actually catch their rabbits so we can worship them by stewing them and eating them.
All of you may be wrong. Or all of you may be right. I’m not attempting to debunk the validity of faith in any way shape or form. If we get into the nitty gritty details of each religion and ritual then we may come to blows over the particulars. But that would be point?
I only want to point out that it’s possible to have belief without specific dogma (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc…). But instead we largely have the named beliefs (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc…). This, to me, seems to be most problematic because it fosters an us vs. them mentality. I realise however, that it has to by the very nature of fundamentally different respective theological histories and practices. There is almost no escaping that.
But I also submit that there are some “enlightened” folks who admit that many roads do lead to Rome and one is no better than the other. And even those who decide not to believe, are no less whole or self realized or entitled to respect for their own choices.
Speaking for myself, as a devout atheist, it really puts me off to no end when I hear the words, “X” is THE light and THE way. It suggests a certain arrogance on the part of the speaker. Even though he/she may deny it.
Well, as long as they are all leading to Rome, I guess we should not have any problems. 
You’re right. I think much of it is a subconscious choice. In some eastern religions the goal is to raise our consciousness and make out subconscious choices concious ones.
If you change your mind about something because of new information and/or a new experience , might you call that a choice?
There are many reasons people cling to certain ideas. Many believers follow a family tradition. They were taught by their parents to believe certain things and subconsciously it may feel like betrayal to reject those “sacred” beliefs. There’s a variety of subconscious reasons for believers and non believers alike.
So, I agree, rational arguements probably won’t convince believers until something inside them changes and they are willing to surrender their current beliefs for new ones. The same goes for atheists. I do believe that reasonable rational argiuements might plant a seed that grows into a change of belief.
I don’t think this is quite what we do. It’s more like searching for the laws using every clue from observation and experiment, and when we catch them, strip them bare to examine and understand every part, to see how well they match our observations. And if they don’t match, the so called laws get abandoned without remorse, to allow us to look for laws and theories that better match the world.
Newton’s Laws were probably as close to holy writ as any - but they got revised and discarded as universal laws the moment it was shown they did not match reality.
It’s my scientific bent that made me abandon the Bible once it became clear when it got written and how.
You might want to read some more recent books on the archeology of the Bible, books written by scientists and not believers, books whose conclusions come from the evidence, not a preconceived desire. One question - a million Israelites were in the desert 40 years - yet not one campsite, one ounce of poop has ever been found. Odd, that.
So let me ask you: why is it possible that “all of us” may be wrong or right, but we can’t be some right and some wrong? You are telling me that you are right and I am wrong. You believe atheism is the right way–that it is true. Does that make you arrogant? I don’t think so. I think it means we disagree. If you think I’m wrong, it would be better to try and disprove me than to make certain assumptions about my character. When people disagree on things, it is sometimes possible, though not necessary, that one be correct and the other not.
And if I am arrogant in my belief that Jesus was speaking the truth when he said, “I and the Father are one,” I do apologize. Arrogance is not becoming a follower of Christ. But I am telling you what I have seen and heard.
So, I agree, rational arguements probably won’t convince believers until something inside them changes and they are willing to surrender their current beliefs for new ones. The same goes for atheists. I do believe that reasonable rational argiuements might plant a seed that grows into a change of belief.
Well said, cosmosdan
[/QUOTE]
One question - a million Israelites were in the desert 40 years - yet not one campsite, one ounce of poop has ever been found. Odd, that.
[/QUOTE]
I refer back to one of my previous posts. Please, watch the movie The Search for the Real Mt. Sinai, by Reel Productions. The premise is that the reason for lack of evidence for the story of the Israelites in the wilderness is that the traditional site (on the aptly named “Sinai Peninsula”) is not the Mt. Sinai of the Bible. The Bible states clearly that Mt. Sinai was in Arabia, and that God brought his people “out of Egypt”. But the Sinai Peninsula at that point in time was in fact governed by Egypt. As you probably know, the Red Sea ends in two points around the Sinai Peninsula, and it has long been claimed that the Israelites crossed the first point into the peninsula. But the archaelogists in the movie contest that the Israelites actually crossed the second point, and passed into Arabia. So they went their (now Saudi Arabia) and the documentary is all about what they find.
BTW, one of the men is a Christian, the other states that he is not. But even if they both were Christians, the evidence speaks for itself. The real encampment of the Israelites those forty years in the desert took place in Arabia. It’s a great movie.
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not judging. I’m separating (for the purposes of this discussion) along the lines of theism and atheism. Not the specific subsets of each. To that extent… some of us may be right, others wrong. More to the point, god may not care so we may all be either right or wrong.
I accept that the latter may ring true for you, as long as you realize and can freely admit that someone else may claim the same to be true on behalf of Allah or Budha or Zeus for that matter. So long as you are not so arrogant to believe that yours is the one true way. So long as you can freely admit that there is more than one way to exercise belief. So long as you can recognize the fact that an absence of faith does not diminish the worth of an individual.
Also, real quick, I’m looking on the back cover of my copy of that movie now, and it says you can order additional copies at www.monumentpictures.com
Yes, but only one road leads to Key West. Which proves nothing except that metaphors are limited.
I’ve always failed to see why people get offended by other people’s beliefs. I work in close company with an observant Muslim who thinks I’m hell-bound; it doesn’t bother me one iota.
ISTM that your just as dogmatic as any fundamentalist; it’s just that you’re believing dogmatically in relativism. If you insist that no one religion can be exclusively true, then YOU are claiming absolute knowledge… as if you were claiming that “all absolute statements are wrong, except this one.”
You are conflating two issues that are unrelated.
Beliving someone is wrong does not mean one thinks they have any less worth.
Crusades.
Well, you have set me straight! I will now erect temples to you and your wisdom, and my children will swear fealty to your likeness!
Sure, Jesus was “Just a man” like all those others, but he was a particular kind of man with a particular kind of experience that has touched many people. I don’t think this makes him superior to the others, nor do I think it means he didn’t ‘Save’ anyone. There is the idea of a particular ‘avatar’ Jesus being one manifestation of it, others are Mithras, Hermes Trismegistus, etc… It’s called the “Christos”. The basic idea is that when humanity’s karma gets all tangled up and knotted up then the avatar takes some of it upon himself and resolves it from a more objective state where he can see the solutions more clearly. This is the notion of being “Saved”. Your statement that there is no afterlife is completely unsupportable, and doesn’t even address the idea of an afterlife as it seems you haven’t particularly delved into the subject you are dismissing.
Einstein, Newton, and Ghandi were devout believers and some of the best quotes on the nature of Divinity one can find come from them.
Descartes believed that he proved the existence of a benevolent God.
Edison was a swindler who stole technology from many of his contemporaries, he was sort of the Bill Gates of his time. Ironically, the only atheist in your list of people of whom Jesus can be compared.
We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
Albert Einstein
All of Newton’s experiments were part of a divine pursuit on his part. In short he was an alchemist and astrologer.
The thing that the people you compared to Jesus have in common, share one thing in common with him as well, that their contributions to society changed the face of the world demonstrably. So my argument would be not so much that Jesus is divine in a way that they are not, merely that he keeps good company.
As for my opinion, personally. I think atheism is a form of retardation, and that there is a glass ceiling for atheists. That the smartest atheist is less intelligent than any person who is truly secure in their faith, as one who is secure in their faith can access the “God mind” and know anything they want at any given time. In otherwords it is not possible to become enlightened without a belief in God, as God is a fundamental part of the universe. It’s like trying to build an arch without the keystone. And for the record, I don’t think that proselytizing christians out on the street are truly secure in their faith, but unlike atheists they are on the path. Seek and ye shall find and all that.
Erek
No one religion can be true to the best of my knowledge. That is correct. Atheism is not necessarily the answer either. It’s just an alternative way of perceiving the life, the universe and everything. You don’t try and convince me that your’s is THE WAY and I won’t try to convince you that mine is. Belief, faith or lack there of, should be a quiet personal thing. Not a badge of honour or a morally superior pulpit.
By the way… we’re way off the OP here, aren’t we?
I originally started out defending certain forms of belief. How am I the atheism advocate now?