OT: The religion thead...

[EEVblog]

This is absolutely correct.  The god described by most religions cannot be explained rationally.

Correct. But they certainly DO think it's an entirely rational belief!

And I agree with most other folks here that belief in the gods described by most religions requires a faith.

And atheists simply refuse to accept such HUGE claims on faith. Just as you or anyone else would if I said I was capable of supernatural feats for example. You wouldn't believe me. Why?

Dave.

[Lightages]

This is a red herring, if anything.  Lack of rational basis for justifying an atheistic position leaves open the possibility for the existence of a god.  Well respected philosophers have demonstrated time and time again that it is, in fact, impossible to prove that god does not exist.  Just as it is impossibile to prove that god does exist.  So, philosphically speaking, the atheist is irrational.  Flame away 

So for any invention of anything, a person who did not think of this MUST provide a rational argument for not believing in it or they are then labelled as irrational? Huh? Really?

So you can say that there are tiny little pink horses  in the sky that have 10 billion watt leds in one eye and they hold on each others tails while floating in the sky. This arrangement makes all the stars in the sky, but when you look with a telescope the ponies always shrink just enough as you are looking so that you can't see them. And if anyone says this is true and I don't argue why I don't believe this, or any of the other infinite idiocies that one can propose, then I am the one who is irrational? Yeah right.

[vxp036000]

You guys have proven my point

[amspire]

I found this interview with Professor Robert Crotty very interesting.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/03/28/3465485.htm

He was a devout Catholic priest who became an academic around the early 60's. This was a time of the "3rd Revolution" which I gather was a scholastic look at the Bible by many priests to reevaluate the Bible in terms of scientific and historical evidence. This push was encouraged by Pope St Pius XII back in 1943 to make the teachings of the church more relevant in a modern world.

Robert Crotty worked for a while at the Vatican around 1963 and then in Jerusalem under many of the best religious scholars of the time.

The more he looked, the more he found that the Bible was not an infallible historical record. Rather it was a collection of stories with maybe a little historical truth. For example, if you take the Bible as a Historical fact, then when Joshua came to Jericho around 1400BC,  Jericho had been uninhabited and in ruins for well over a century, so Joshua could not have brought the walls down with one of the standard wall-collapsing trumpet tunes. It may be that the Exodus was a collection of stories over centuries rewritten as one single huge exodus.

Other things concerned him like different reports of the last words of Jesus on the cross and conflicting descriptions of the last supper. How could you take accounts as fact if they disagree?  The times of Jesus was a very complex time when many were looking desperately for a messiah well before Jesus came along, and the New Testament has to be read in this context.

Around  the end of the 60's, the doors were shut in the Catholic  Church on this kind of thinking - particularly if you were teaching religion - and it became Heresy for a priest to even suggest that the Bible was largely a collection of stories to teach people on how to live a good life instead of a flawless historical document written by an infallible God. This was around about the same time that a long and extensive investigation by the Catholic church had recommended strongly that the Birth Control rules were wrong and had to be changed. The Pope came out and said the rules were right all along and nothing would change.

The great 20th century Philosopher Wittgenstein said at the end of his "Tractatus" on Logic

6.54 My propositions elucidate by whoever understands me perceiving them in the end as nonsensical, when through them – upon them – over them, he has climbed out. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed out upon it.) He must overcome these propositions, then he sees the world rightly.

7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Note: Whereas means "Of what", thereof means "of that"

Wittgenstein was basically saying to learn, you often need someone who knows more to lead you along a path (or up a ladder), but at the end you have to throw away the support and see for your self. The truth is something you can only find through experience and not in just words.

I think this is true for all learning and it is really obvious in areas like sports. It is not as if every coach is a better runner, or better football player then the players they are coaching. The coach guides the player until they experience the higher performance level for themselves. They cannot get there reading a book.

Many of the religious leaders seem to think it is your duty to keep a strong white-knuckled grip on the ladder (the Bible or whatever), and to never let go so you can see for yourself.

To let go of the ladder is a sin. To put your own judgement ahead of the Bible is a sin.

To me, it is a responsibility.

Richard.

[EEVblog]

I found this interview with Professor Robert Crotty very interesting.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/03/28/3465485.htm

He was a devout Catholic priest who became an academic around the early 60's. This was a time of the "3rd Revolution" which I gather was a scholastic look at the Bible by many priests to reevaluate the Bible in terms of scientific and historical evidence. This push was encouraged by Pope St Pius XII back in 1943 to make the teachings of the church more relevant in a modern world.

Robert Crotty worked for a while at the Vatican around 1963 and then in Jerusalem under many of the best religious scholars of the time.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/03/28/3465485.htm

The more he looked, the more he found that the Bible was not an infallible historical record. Rather it was a collection of stories with maybe a little historical truth. For example, if you take the Bible as a Historical fact, then when Joshua came to Jericho around 1400BC,  Jericho had been uninhabited and in ruins for well over a century, so Joshua could not have brought the walls down with one of the standard wall-collapsing trumpet tunes. It may be that the Exodus was a collection of stories over centuries rewritten as one single huge exodus.

Here's the director of astronomy at the Vatican:
(yes, there is such a position!)
Bill Maher interview with Vatican Astronomer

Dave.

[rolycat]

Here's the director of astronomy at the Vatican:
(yes, there is such a position!)
Bill Maher interview with Vatican Astronomer

Dave.

Well, he was the director of astronomy at the Vatican - he was 'retired' in 2006 after a number of public disagreements with Pope Benedict.

He had the temerity to espouse the theory of evolution instead of endorsing Benedict's support for 'intelligent design'.

[G7PSK]

Monotheism goes back to the ancient Egyptians, I forget the date s but a king called Amen decided that there would be only one god as by then they had so many and the priests all had so much power he was at risk of getting sidelined. So he move the capital and created one god and he was either that god or that gods first representative, He was quickly overthrown by the priests and the other god brought back as there was to much money at stake for them not too. Modern Christianity still recognizes this King and god, every time they say a prayer-just think about it what do they say or chant at the end.     

[A Hellene]

Yes, and that would be Amenophis IV, who changed his name to Akhenaten during his reign.

In order to support their (Judaic) religion, some have even gone to the length of claiming that Akhenaten was the fictional Abrahamic Moses.


-George

[A Hellene]

Now, regarding the declaratory adverb amen, this indeclinable little word, it comes straight from the Homeric "e-men" sometimes pronounced "a-men," which predates Amenophis's era by more than a thousand years time.

This ancient little word survives today in the Modern Greek language as the widely used declaratory word "amé" which means truly, of course.


-George

[A Hellene]

I have just realised that my phrase, above, about the Homeric language predating Amenophis IV (who died in 1334 BCE) by more than a thousand years, might sound to be an exaggeration. Well, it is not!

According to the recearch of the Academic scholar Anna Tziropoyloy-Eystathioy, who published her work under the title "Homer, son of Telemachus of the Odysseus's family," Homer was the son of Telemachus and the grandson of Odysseus, with a plethora of evidence supporting this assertion that exist within the Homer's works, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Now, the conventional history dogmatically estimates that these works were written during the ninth century BCE; but this is far from the truth. Actually, Homer being the grandson of Odysseus, he wrote those works two generations time after the Trojan War, which, according to the conventional history, took place in 1280 BCE. Wrong, again!

The actual content (and the obvious omissions) of these works indicate that the conventional history estimations are absolutely wrong. For example, amongst other things, Homer absolutely ignores the Thera (Santorini) volcanic eruption that destroyed the Minoan civilization, which happened in 1620 BCE, even though he describes various events of lesser importance; so, Homer predated that event.
- How can Homer ignore The Dorian ?nvasion that happened in 1200 BCE?
- How can Homer ignore the name Aegean Sea?
- Why does he never use the term Hellenes instead of the terms Argives, Achaeans and Danaans?
- Why does he call Argos the Peloponnese?
Because he predated all these events and the renaming of those places! He lived before all those events.

Another possible argument could be that Homer might have lived before the ninth century BCE and his works survived through the spoken word. Well, it is practically impossible for plain, illiterate people to have memorised and passed these fine and long works throughout the generations because of:
- The extended geographical, historical and cultural information Homer contains about places he describes, as well as so many foreign names and localities.
- The deeper knowledge of the human body anatomy needed to accurately describe the various wounds in the battle.
- The extremely rich vocabulary and the wealth of the epithets and adjectives used.
- And, most importantly, the perfect dactylic hexameter of every one of those 15,692 + 12,110 lines the Iliad and the Odyssey are composed of.


Homer, also describes the island of Pharos (lighthouse) at Alexandria, Egypt, to be 160 Km away from the mainland. In the third century BCE, Alexander the Great found that very island to be only 1.3 Km away from the mainland and begun the construction of the famous Lighthouse of Alexandria (standing on a 140 m high tower --one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World) that was finished in 270 BCE. It is sure that since the ninth century BCE, the Nile could not have deposited the amounts of soil layer needed to cover a distance of 158 Km; so, what Homer witnessed was way before the ninth century BCE, the conventional history claims he lived.

Dr. Koutrouvelis, studying the constellations accurately described in Iliad, came to the conclusion that the Trojan War has probably begun in 3087 BCE and ended in 3077 BCE.

The scholar Mr. Raptis pointed out that there is a plethora of Proto-Pelasgian terms used in Homer's works, that were used before 3000 BCE and they were obsolete during the ninth century BCE.


Now, why would the conventional history (or those who control it) conceal the above?
Ah, that's easy! Because Homer's works would demolish the crumbly Abrahamic myths and doctrines, the validity of their version of cosmogony and history (you know: the 6,000 years old universe, Noah's Arc containing kangaroos, etc.!), the superiority of the Self-Chosen Ones (the special ones; not the everyday Jewish people) that is being sold to the public since the seventeenth century, the leading appearance and the superiority of the Phoenician alphabet (even though it did never have any vowels but only consonants) and literature (what was it, really? vouchers, pawn-tickets and receipts?) before any other ones in the world! Even though the respectable Hebrew scholar Joseph Yahuda published his lifelong work under the title "Hebrew is Greek (1982)" right before his book completely disappeared and him committing suicide, as the always truthful media informed us...


-George

[vxp036000]

Good read, A Hellene.  It's interesting to see a different perspective.  Conventional history is always written by the victors, and often a complete distortion of the truth.

[A Hellene]

Thank you!

Besides Churchill's History is written by the victors, there is Napoleon Bonaparte's aspect, according to which History is a set of lies agreed upon.


-George

[MikeK]

First, god was down on the ground, living among people.  Then people realized this was silly, so they moved god to a mountaintop.  Man went to the mountaintop and realized there are no gods there, so man moved god to the clouds.  Then man went into the clouds and found no god, so man moved god into...emotions.  Away from the prying eyes and hands of critical thinking!

[8086]

May I just point out that there seems to be confusion in general about atheism and antitheism.

Atheism is "without God"
Antitheism is "there is no God"

Vive la difference.

Also this video I think sums up the whole thing

[vxp036000]

In philosophy, we study theism, atheism, and agnosticism.  Theism is a belief that god exists.   If we accept the principle of causality, god must exist.  Atheism is the belief that there is no god.  This position is only rationally justifiable if we deny causality.  Agnosticism is the position that there may or may not be a god and is the only one of these three views that can be rationally justified without making any assumptions.

[8086]

Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

No, it's not. It's a lack of a belief in a god.

You can only claim it's belief that there is no god if you include your own further logical step in the definition, and you can't define it in that way.

[vxp036000]

Nope; straight out of my dictionary. 

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

This is also the same definition used in philosophy.  You are describing agnosticism.

No, it's not. It's a lack of a belief in a god.

You can only claim it's belief that there is no god if you include your own further logical step in the definition, and you can't define it in that way.

[8086]

Well, I wouldn't normally argue with a dictionary.

However, given the root of the actual word itself, despite the popular interpretation, the literal meaning is still "without god".

So there you are, I'm sure you'll go with the dictionary, but the word itself does not mean "there is no god".

[vxp036000]

I challenge you to find a single philosopher that uses your definition of atheism.  I spent quite some time studying the field and speaking with philosophers (i.e., PhD in philosophy).  Every single one of them uses the definition that I provided.  The origin of the term is irrelevant to the current meaning.

[IanB]

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

This is also the same definition used in philosophy.

You can't validly assert that. Neither the English language nor the study of philosophy permits such a narrow, unqualified and limited statement or definition of terms.

[G7PSK]

[vxp036000]

Completely wrong.  Show me philosphical text that uses a different definition of atheism.  I have plenty of counter-examples; the writings of Aquinas, Anselm, and even many modern day philosphers. 

In philosophy, we structure arguments beginning with A is defined as this, so B must logically follow.  You can call A and B anything you like, but the argument is still valid.  So, yes, atheism is irrational if we accept causality, theism is irrational if we deny causality, and agnosticism is the only justifiable position without making any assumptions about causality.

You can't validly assert that. Neither the English language nor the study of philosophy permits such a narrow, unqualified and limited statement or definition of terms.

[IanB]

In philosophy, we structure arguments...

You might stop using "we" like that. It's vastly too pompous.

[8086]

I challenge you to find a single philosopher that uses your definition of atheism.  I spent quite some time studying the field and speaking with philosophers (i.e., PhD in philosophy).  Every single one of them uses the definition that I provided.  The origin of the term is irrelevant to the current meaning.

I don't know any philosophers. I don't need to either, I'm not really concerned in how they use it.

The fact remains that the literal meaning of a word with the "a-" prefix means "not", or in this case, "without". The word is derived from the latin "atheos" which is "a" (without) "theos" (God).

Plus, why do we have the term "antitheist", then? Is it redundant now that these so-called philosophers use the term "atheist" incorrectly for their own purposes? Or is it perhaps the fault of arrogant "philosophers" that the word is defined in this way in the dictionary?

[vxp036000]

This is what happens when someone runs out of rational justification for their position.

You might stop using "we" like that. It's vastly too pompous.