Metro Jacksonville

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer.

"Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.

"Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.

"Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your
Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God
for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it?

That's the meaning we use to define the word. "In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title: God vs Science

Excellent read. I'll have to forward this. Thanks!!

Is this a joke....?

Because it's one of the sillier things I've ever read.

Quote from: ben says on February 09, 2012, 10:05:46 AM
Is this a joke....?

Because it's one of the sillier things I've ever read.

Explain.

I don't get it.

Semantics.  It's just playing with words.

Exactly, DW. 

I usually delete these messages when they pop into my inbox, but this one I actually read through and figured I could throw it up here for discussion.  I was intrigued and wanted to get some thoughts from others.

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

There's also a finite limit to heat, so by this same logic, we can now say there is no heat either. Since one cannot go any hotter than the hottest degree the universe is capable of reaching. There is such a thing as cold - it's a human sensation as is heat. The actual way the universe works is that the more energy in motion leads to the sensation of heat, and the less energy in motion/less atomic pressure usually leads to the sensation of cold. If we are only going to talk about energy in motion though, while divorcing human sensation than there is not hot or cold; thus again, by this students logic, he's making an illogical argument.

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

By this same logic we could simply say the whatever is sensory wise hotter is really the absence of cold. The mere fact everyone knows what the student means by cold, in a sensual relation, means cold does very much exist as a sensation; despite semantic word games, the sensation won't abate.

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it?

Or light is the absence of darkness. You can have black darkness, dusk darkness, etc. This doesn't get us anywhere. Again, by using darkness as that which is the absence of something still implies that the user and listener 'know' what the user means by darkness. Thus it has some level of epistemological substance.

That's the meaning we use to define the word. "In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

Vise verse, you'd be able to make light more bright than its finite limit.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

The professor had lots of premises, some were dualistic, and some were analytic, the student is also operating on an erroneous premise: that the professor only had one premise.
The Irony of this entire diatribe is that the student used scientific analysis to justify all his arguments: absolute zero, energy in a vacuum, degrees of photons, atomic pressure, etc. Whether or not science can explain a though doesn't lead us to any extraneous conclusions.

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

And again, we could see life as the opposite of death. If we are going to return to our acceptance of science, the universe was dead for 13.7billion years, and will be dead for mostly an infinite eternity, life is but a flicker in infinity; thus, life is the absence of death, the NORMAL state of gods affairs.

Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

Presto chango! Life is the absence of death.

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

Primates, not monkeys.

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

Yes he has. Himself. He's obviously not an identical copy of his mom or dad, thus he's an evolved/mutated version of their genome structure. That's all evolution is, change by degree. He's also probably been to a puppy mill, dog breeds have been multiplying, mutating, and evolving by the thousands over the century.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

Yes they have:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070712143300.htm  (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070712143300.htm)

Since this premise is factually false, all the conclusions leading from it are both not valid, nor sound, and can be wholly dismissed.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

Right, but science also has empirical, stable and demonstrable protocols of the brains capacities and casual relations, of which limb movement, speech, abstract thought, etc, all play a role. We can safely infer the brain from the evidence of limb movement, abstract thought, etc.

Also this same student has never seen absolute zero, nor true absence of photons (darkness), yet he's comfortable asserting their existence. Clearly this students epistemological foundations are scattered, and capricious, and used only to manipulate a pre-conceived truth, not reach logical conclusions, regardless of their emotional impact.


"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

It doesn't...

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

If this man is a university level philosophy professor, and he's floored by these arguments, he needs to be fired.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

Or the evidence of my linguistic capabilities, ability to abstract, reason, engage in human conversation, breathe, move, etc.

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

The professor never didn't accept that faith existed. If we actually want to go back to his premises - which by now have been so perverted this is a difficult task - he was quite convinced of faith, and wanted to shake students out of it.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

Or, presto chango, good is simply the absence of Satan. Since epistemologically we have no basis for consensus, and can merely whimsically assert, and deny, with no foundation, my presto chango move is as valid and sound as the students. 

Here's the real problem, when the student asserted what hot and cold were, light and darkness, he gave us empirical reference points. Now he offers us some terms, god, evil, etc, but gives us no frame of reference. If we are left with faith as the guide post of epistemological truth, than we are comfortable with arbitrary faith assertions. The students references to good and evil (that lack predicates) are as substantiated as anyone's references to Allah, Thor, and blork. Moreover, the student never rejected the claim of god being all powerful, this god can potentially stop what the student accepts is evil; he could create a cosmos devoid of evil entirely. We are still left pondering at the end of the day why he didn't? Is it because god is evil, ignorant, or doesn't exist?

So, while I did say: this is one of the silliest things I've ever read, I meant: this is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

And not to beat a dead horse, nor to come across as a cruel person, but the fact humans (the same humans that know how to build A-bombs, span bridges over seas, clone sheep, engineer cars and solar panels) can be swept over by such an immature and unsubstantiated "story" about "faith" is pretty laughable.

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

 ;D ;D ;D

You have waaaaayyyyy too much time on your hands today.  Thanks.  I appreciate you enlightening un-darkening me on the theories and it really warms un-colds my heart to know you feel so strongly about the subject. 

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 09, 2012, 01:00:36 PM
;D ;D ;D

You have waaaaayyyyy too much time on your hands today.  Thanks.  I appreciate you enlightening un-darkening me on the theories and it really warms un-colds my heart to know you feel so strongly about the subject.

It only took me five minutes to type that...you said you wanted feedback (meant nothing rude or dismissive).  ::)

(http://bladeordie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg)

It wasn't taken to be rude or dismissive.

I don't know you personally, but I can picture you going on that rant with a whole bunch of voice inflection and waving of arms maybe jumping up and down on a couch and such - it was pretty funny.

I have to fact check you, though,  ;)  I just don't have time this afternoon. 

Quote from: Lunican on February 09, 2012, 01:12:55 PM
(http://bladeordie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg)

;D

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 09, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
It wasn't taken to be rude or dismissive.

I don't know you personally, but I can picture you going on that rant with a whole bunch of voice inflection and waving of arms maybe jumping up and down on a couch and such - it was pretty funny.

I have to fact check you, though,  ;)  I just don't have time this afternoon. 

No problemo. And excuse me if I throw in a few other arm-swinging rants...  ::)

Also, I may add...

There are two fundamental issues here that render the concluding remarks as not sound (in the above-referenced "story").

1. Empirically science is used when convenient, as is faith. Faith and empiricism/science are the two epistemological tools the student uses when generating his argument. Both are starkly different. One relies on sensory perception, inductive argument, and repeatability, to reach probable conclusions. The other, faith, is first and foremost arbitrary. The student though does not believe it to be so arbitrary when he can ground some of his arbitrariness in empirical claims; rendering some probability to his initially arbitrary faith. When empirical claims begin to diverge with his faith though (like evolution), empiricism is no longer a valid tool for reaching epistemological truths. Thus, empiricism tells us truths; empiricism does not tell us truths, is contradictory. Thus any truth reached via empiricism, by his own standard, isn't a truth at all; simultainiously any truth he reaches without empiricism is at best arbitrary and less probable.

2. This is an entirely separate issue than 1, dealing more with ontology. Ontologically the student believes that which exist is that which can be substantiated in material limits. That which cannot is the absence of a material limit, is not a substance, but still notable ontologically. Thus there is notable darkness, but ontologically it exist as an absence; that is it has ideological existence as the absence of material light which is substantial. Therefore, we can only refer to, soundly, that which has material limits as substantial existence. This, as a modus operandi of a more advance epistemology (which the student didn't intend for it to be, but nevertheless it consequentially is his MO) is a more refined position than the stark and absurd contradictions of 1. However, it too fails to establish good/evil or the existence of a deity. First, because there is no material limit in relation to the existence or non existence of god, thus we cannot define an absense of a deity, without a substantial limit to a deity either. Of course if one is to apply a limit to a deity, one instantly concedes the deity is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Thus it isn't a deity. Second, when good and evil are used as signs of gods existence - which still has no substance since it has no material limit - we are still not clear on what the material limits of good or evil are either. Thus the entire ontological and epistemological framework that is implicit in the students metaphysics, while credible for light and darkness, necessitate the nonexistence of a deity, goodness, and evil, in his own metaphysical framework.

Quote from: ben says on February 09, 2012, 12:57:37 PM
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Yes, pretty close, although I don't call it a cop out.  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Hebrews 11:1"  Sounds crazy, doesn't it?  The substance of things that don't exist and are only hoped for?  The evidence of something we can't see?  We can't see the wind.  We can only see the evidence of the wind.  We can't physically see our Creator, we can only see and feel the evidence of His work in our lives or the lives of others.  God doesn't have to prove himself to you.  It's a leap of faith.  The evidence comes later to us. 

Thank you, Ben, for taking the time to unravel the word games and for doing it so well.

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on February 09, 2012, 01:58:50 PM

Quote from: ben says on February 09, 2012, 12:57:37 PM
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Yes, pretty close, although I don't call it a cop out.  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Hebrews 11:1"  Sounds crazy, doesn't it?  The substance of things that don't exist and are only hoped for?  The evidence of something we can't see?  We can't see the wind.  We can only see the evidence of the wind.  We can't physically see our Creator, we can only see and feel the evidence of His work in our lives or the lives of others.  God doesn't have to prove himself to you.  It's a leap of faith.  The evidence comes later to us.

On first glance, this isn't pretty close, not quite. it's spot on. Faith is what is what is hoped for. Again, what I hope for can be arbitrary when presented as an epistemological Truth. I hope for a deity, 72 virgins, a never ending pizza, or santa clause. To move from hope to existence, and to existence to Truth is the arbitrary position, in that it makes anything hoped for Truth; thus if anything can be true, nothing can be as well.

This is also backpedaling and an entire shift in ontology. First substance was that which had material limits...now substance is that which is hoped for without sense experience. How did we go from absolute zero, and full spectrum light as substance, to hope as substance. There's zero consistency here. I don't hope for absolute zero, or full spectrum light, but we initial gave them substance, now we don't?

Not to mention you're quoting a 2,000 year old book.

Quote from: ben says on February 09, 2012, 02:56:27 PM
Not to mention you're quoting a 2,000 year old book.

Not quite.  We'll have to wait at least 18 more years (give or take a few, but He was at least 30) before it can be considered 2,000 yrs. old.   ;)

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on February 09, 2012, 01:58:50 PM

Quote from: ben says on February 09, 2012, 12:57:37 PM
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Yes, pretty close, although I don't call it a cop out.  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Hebrews 11:1"  Sounds crazy, doesn't it?  The substance of things that don't exist and are only hoped for?  The evidence of something we can't see?  We can't see the wind.  We can only see the evidence of the wind.  We can't physically see our Creator, we can only see and feel the evidence of His work in our lives or the lives of others.  God doesn't have to prove himself to you.  It's a leap of faith.  The evidence comes later to us.

There's also the issue of saying god doesnt have to prove himself, yet doing a number of rhetorical philosophy 101 tricks to prove his existence, along with some science, along with a whole new concept of substance, followed by the admission that okay god doesnt have to prove himself. The mental gymnastics are staggering.

Why would you first believe something as True, and then await the evidence? Wouldn't it be more prudent to base belief on initial evidence?

I always learn something in these threads.  For those like me...  This is pretty long...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

QuoteEpistemology i/ɨˌpɪstɨˈmɒlədʒi/ (from Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistēmē), meaning "knowledge, science", and λόγος (logos), meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.[1][2] It addresses the questions:

What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
To what extent is it possible for a given subject or entity to be known?
How do we know what we know?
Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. Another perennial concern of the field is the possibility that there is very little or no knowledge at allâ€"skepticism. The field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge.

The term was introduced by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808â€"1864).[3]

Quote from: ben says on February 09, 2012, 03:30:57 PM

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on February 09, 2012, 01:58:50 PM

Quote from: ben says on February 09, 2012, 12:57:37 PM
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Yes, pretty close, although I don't call it a cop out.  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Hebrews 11:1"  Sounds crazy, doesn't it?  The substance of things that don't exist and are only hoped for?  The evidence of something we can't see?  We can't see the wind.  We can only see the evidence of the wind.  We can't physically see our Creator, we can only see and feel the evidence of His work in our lives or the lives of others.  God doesn't have to prove himself to you.  It's a leap of faith.  The evidence comes later to us.

There's also the issue of saying god doesn't have to prove himself, yet doing a number of rhetorical philosophy 101 tricks to prove his existence, along with some science, along with a whole new concept of substance, followed by the admission that okay god doesnt have to prove himself. The mental gymnastics are staggering.

Why would you first believe something as True, and then await the evidence? Wouldn't it be more prudent to base belief on initial evidence?

Ben... I find this discussion interesting.  May I frame it a bit differently?  You mention the need for evidence to base your belief on.  I might suggest the evidence is stronger for a god or "higher power" to exist than the evidence to the contrary.  Some of that evidence might include...

The existence of a book... at least partially historically correct with confirmed individuals and historical events.  Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Herod, Mohammad, and others did indeed exist.  They did say various things and various events did in fact happen.  Some of them are indeed unconfirmable... but many are.  I will admit some of that evidence may indeed be flimsy... but it is evidence nonetheless.

On the other hand... I am not sure there is evidence to the contrary.  In other words... where has anyone given any historically verifiable evidence that a god or higher power does not exist.  It seems to me certain things are simply unknowable.  Is there an afterlife?  We will never know.  All that is left is belief...

The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

You can't prove a negative.  See Russell's Teapot. 

Quote from: Bridges on February 10, 2012, 09:14:05 AM
The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

You can't prove a negative.  See Russell's Teapot. 

I have already suggested that there is quite possibly more proof in the pro than the con...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

QuoteRussell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872â€"1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God and has drawn some criticism for comparing the unfalsifiability of a teapot to God.

QuoteCounterarguments

Literary critic and novelist James Wood, without believing in God, says that belief in God "is a good deal more reasonable than belief in a teapot" because God is a "grand and big idea" which "is not analogically disproved by reference to celestial teapots or vacuum cleaners, which lack the necessary bigness and grandeur" and "because God cannot be reified, cannot be turned into a mere thing".[7]

Philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not.[8] He notes that all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity but because of its triviality, arguing that "When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist." [8]

Another counter-argument, advanced by philosopher Eric Reitan,[9] is that belief in God is different from belief in a teapot because teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable, and that given what we know about the physical world we have no good reason to think that belief in Russell's teapot is justified and at least some reason to think it not.[10]

BT, if you don't mind, I will get to the brunt of your argument in a moment. In the meantime, I must point out oddity in the following statement.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 10, 2012, 08:45:01 AM
The existence of a book... at least partially historically correct with confirmed individuals and historical events.  Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Herod, Mohammad, and others did indeed exist.  They did say various things and various events did in fact happen.  Some of them are indeed unconfirmable... but many are.  I will admit some of that evidence may indeed be flimsy... but it is evidence nonetheless.

Do you realize how many 'books' this standard would apply to? The Iliad/Odyssey? The Book of Mormon? Quran? Gore Vidal's Lincoln? Dostoevsky's Demons?

My point is: all of the above-referenced books are at least "partially historically correct," with "confirmed individuals and historical events." Moreover, they did say "various things and various events that did in fact happen."

The only thing the Bible has on those books? Time. (Wait, never mind, pretty sure Homer came first, among others).

Not to mention, do we really want to rely on a book that professes subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest, toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments, and obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites?

Seems like a risky book to follow.

Not to mention the downright eerie (and too coincidental, I may add) coincidences between Jesus Christ and Mirtha (600 B.C.)...

The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:


1)   Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

   
2)   He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

   
3)   Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

   
4)   The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."

   
5)   Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."

   
6)   Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).

   
7)   Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).

   
8)   In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.

   
9)   He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

   
10)   McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra").

   
11)   Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

   
12)   The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).

"I am a star which goes with thee and shines out of the depths." - Mithraic saying

"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." - Jesus, (Rev. 22:16)

Common' people...really?

Yes. Very nuanced counterarguments revolving around the teapot itself.  The main idea still stands.  If you claim something exists, and then the burden of proof is on you.  Not on someone else to prove it doesn't.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 10, 2012, 09:18:02 AM
I have already suggested that there is quite possibly more proof in the pro than the con...

You provided little, if any proof.  Your proof is that a book does exist, and that it is "at least partially historically correct."  There is serious debate over whether a lot of those people listed actually existed (as you even stated).  This is far from "proof", even according to you.  There again we are on the proof of existence.  Pointing back at the "book" is like defining a word with itself. 

You made a specious claim of proof, that even you question, and then claim you've laid more groundwork for pro than con.

I'm just pointing out, it doesn't work that way.

Quote from: ben says on February 10, 2012, 09:39:32 AM
BT, if you don't mind, I will get to the brunt of your argument in a moment. In the meantime, I must point out oddity in the following statement.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 10, 2012, 08:45:01 AM
The existence of a book... at least partially historically correct with confirmed individuals and historical events.  Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Herod, Mohammad, and others did indeed exist.  They did say various things and various events did in fact happen.  Some of them are indeed unconfirmable... but many are.  I will admit some of that evidence may indeed be flimsy... but it is evidence nonetheless.

Do you realize how many 'books' this standard would apply to? The Iliad/Odyssey? The Book of Mormon? Quran? Gore Vidal's Lincoln? Dostoevsky's Demons?

My point is: all of the above-referenced books are at least "partially historically correct," with "confirmed individuals and historical events." Moreover, they did say "various things and various events that did in fact happen."

The only thing the Bible has on those books? Time. (Wait, never mind, pretty sure Homer came first, among others).

Not to mention, do we really want to rely on a book that professes subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest, toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments, and obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites?

Seems like a risky book to follow.

Not to mention the downright eerie (and too coincidental, I may add) coincidences between Jesus Christ and Mirtha (600 B.C.)...

The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:


1)   Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

   
2)   He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

   
3)   Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

   
4)   The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."

   
5)   Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."

   
6)   Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).

   
7)   Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).

   
8)   In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.

   
9)   He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

   
10)   McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra").

   
11)   Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

   
12)   The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).

"I am a star which goes with thee and shines out of the depths." - Mithraic saying

"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." - Jesus, (Rev. 22:16)

Common' people...really?

Just to be clear... my particular stance or argument is for the sake of this discussion.  It is the responsibility of anyone to weigh the available evidence and come to a conclusion.  In virtually any argument where there is murky and sometimes unverifiable evidence you will get differing conclusions.  I am simply saying... while the evidence in the pro is indeed murky and sometimes unverifiable.  The same holds true for the con argument.  The evidence you show above are certainly facts to be considered... some apply more weight to them than others.

Quote from: Bridges on February 10, 2012, 09:44:42 AM
Yes. Very nuanced counterarguments revolving around the teapot itself.  The main idea still stands.  If you claim something exists, and then the burden of proof is on you.  Not on someone else to prove it doesn't.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 10, 2012, 09:18:02 AM
I have already suggested that there is quite possibly more proof in the pro than the con...

You provided little, if any proof.  Your proof is that a book does exist, and that it is "at least partially historically correct."  There is serious debate over whether a lot of those people listed actually existed (as you even stated).  This is far from "proof", even according to you.  There again we are on the proof of existence.  Pointing back at the "book" is like defining a word with itself. 

You made a specious claim of proof, that even you question, and then claim you've laid more groundwork for pro than con.

I'm just pointing out, it doesn't work that way.

Pretty much what I tried to say with: please decipher between the Bible, The Iliad, and Gore Vidal's Lincoln. Trying to figure out what BT offered as proof beyond "it's a book."

Quote from: ben says on February 10, 2012, 09:52:01 AM

Quote from: Bridges on February 10, 2012, 09:44:42 AM
Yes. Very nuanced counterarguments revolving around the teapot itself.  The main idea still stands.  If you claim something exists, and then the burden of proof is on you.  Not on someone else to prove it doesn't.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 10, 2012, 09:18:02 AM
I have already suggested that there is quite possibly more proof in the pro than the con...

You provided little, if any proof.  Your proof is that a book does exist, and that it is "at least partially historically correct."  There is serious debate over whether a lot of those people listed actually existed (as you even stated).  This is far from "proof", even according to you.  There again we are on the proof of existence.  Pointing back at the "book" is like defining a word with itself. 

You made a specious claim of proof, that even you question, and then claim you've laid more groundwork for pro than con.

I'm just pointing out, it doesn't work that way.

Pretty much what I tried to say with: please decipher between the Bible, The Iliad, and Gore Vidal's Lincoln. Trying to figure out what BT offered as proof beyond "it's a book."

What you are missing is... when you say...

QuoteIf you claim something exists, and then the burden of proof is on you.

The believer doesn't think so.  They have all the proof they need.  Others seem to need more.  The search for more proof is ongoing and it will likely never end.  I myself will keep an open mind on the subject... neither side has made a good argument pro or con and I patiently await enlightenment by any source... :)

Maybe one has the "god gene" and needs a higher power or one doesn't have the "god gene" and doesn't.  Reason and proof have nothing to do with your feelings then.

Quote from: Dog Walker on February 10, 2012, 10:14:25 AM
Maybe one has the "god gene" and needs a higher power or one doesn't have the "god gene" and doesn't.  Reason and proof have nothing to do with your feelings then.

In a past life, part of my job was to get people with a alcohol issues introduced to AA and attending AA meetings.  Having personally witnessed the wonders in the belief of a "higher power" there is little doubt in my mind that there is something there.  Few can dispute the efficacy of AA as a program to help addicts get their lives together.  You may see the use of a "higher power" as a crutch... but if it helps them walk... I am all for it...

If belief in a god helps people cope with life... why should it matter to anyone else.  I simply do not understand the need to deride and mock it.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 10, 2012, 10:07:53 AM
The believer doesn't think so.  They have all the proof they need.  Others seem to need more.  The search for more proof is ongoing and it will likely never end.  I myself will keep an open mind on the subject... neither side has made a good argument pro or con and I patiently await enlightenment by any source... :)

Right, and the "belief" argument is fine.  People just "believe" and that's their proof.  If that works for them ok.  But its not empirical data. 

You didn't go that route, and I was pointing out the problem there.  The problem comes in when those who believe start doing the, as Ben put it, "mental gymnastics" to make it seem like there is empirical evidence. 

If someone believes and they have "faith", that's the strongest argument they can make.  I don't understand why a person always feels so threatened by science in the realm of god.  We've already established that that person has faith.  If you have faith you have faith right?

I guess I've just always been fascinated with the notion that people deem faith "OK" with regards to religion, belief, afterlife, etc...

But when it comes to everything else in their life, they want evidence. Seems a tad hypocritical.

Quote from: Bridges on February 10, 2012, 10:26:38 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 10, 2012, 10:07:53 AM
The believer doesn't think so.  They have all the proof they need.  Others seem to need more.  The search for more proof is ongoing and it will likely never end.  I myself will keep an open mind on the subject... neither side has made a good argument pro or con and I patiently await enlightenment by any source... :)

Right, and the "belief" argument is fine.  People just "believe" and that's their proof.  If that works for them ok.  But its not empirical data. 

You didn't go that route, and I was pointing out the problem there.  The problem comes in when those who believe start doing the, as Ben put it, "mental gymnastics" to make it seem like there is empirical evidence. 

If someone believes and they have "faith", that's the strongest argument they can make.  I don't understand why a person always feels so threatened by science in the realm of god.  We've already established that that person has faith.  If you have faith you have faith right?

I understand what you are saying.  What I am saying is that for believers... they have all the empirical data they need.  There are historical figures... there are quotes from historical figures witnessed and passed down and eventually written.  The "belief" does not occur in a vacuum.  While you and I may dismiss that evidence as flimsy in court or in a philosophical argument... it is evidence nonetheless.  It is up to the person to determine its worthiness.  Very clearly there is a large segment of the words population that has decided that the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran contains more worthy evidence than Bertrand Russel and others.  Archaeologists, historians, physicists are still looking and will continue to look for more evidence both pro and con and I suspect this search will continue for a very long time.

Quote from: ben says on February 10, 2012, 10:45:45 AM
I guess I've just always been fascinated with the notion that people deem faith "OK" with regards to religion, belief, afterlife, etc...

But when it comes to everything else in their life, they want evidence. Seems a tad hypocritical.

We certainly are a diverse species... 8)

Quote from: ben says on February 10, 2012, 09:39:32 AM
BT, if you don't mind, I will get to the brunt of your argument in a moment. In the meantime, I must point out oddity in the following statement.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 10, 2012, 08:45:01 AM
The existence of a book... at least partially historically correct with confirmed individuals and historical events.  Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Herod, Mohammad, and others did indeed exist.  They did say various things and various events did in fact happen.  Some of them are indeed unconfirmable... but many are.  I will admit some of that evidence may indeed be flimsy... but it is evidence nonetheless.

Do you realize how many 'books' this standard would apply to? The Iliad/Odyssey? The Book of Mormon? Quran? Gore Vidal's Lincoln? Dostoevsky's Demons?

My point is: all of the above-referenced books are at least "partially historically correct," with "confirmed individuals and historical events." Moreover, they did say "various things and various events that did in fact happen."

The only thing the Bible has on those books? Time. (Wait, never mind, pretty sure Homer came first, among others).

Not to mention, do we really want to rely on a book that professes subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest, toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments, and obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites?

Seems like a risky book to follow.

Not to mention the downright eerie (and too coincidental, I may add) coincidences between Jesus Christ and Mirtha (600 B.C.)...

The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:


1)   Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

   
2)   He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

   
3)   Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

   
4)   The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."

   
5)   Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."

   
6)   Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).

   
7)   Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).

   
8)   In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.

   
9)   He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

   
10)   McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra").

   
11)   Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

   
12)   The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).

"I am a star which goes with thee and shines out of the depths." - Mithraic saying

"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." - Jesus, (Rev. 22:16)

Common' people...really?

All right, I have very little interest in this thread, but I'm going to respond to this post. I have a very similar argument every Christmas with a friend of mine, leading to some embarrassingly detailed discussions.

1. Neither Mithra nor Jesus were initially associated with December 25. Both were eventually tied to the date later due to its importance in the Roman Empire, being the festival of Sol Invictus and during the period of winter festivals. Source: Roger Beck, "Merkelbach's Mithras", 1987.

2. In Roman Mithraism, Mithra/Mithras is indeed a great teacher, after the fashion of very many other religious and historical figures. A great traveler, not so much, and he did not have 12 disciples (though he was associated with the 12 Zodiac signs). He is said to perform miracles - again, like very many other figures - but none that are all that similar to Jesus'. Source: Roger Beck, "Beck on Mithras" http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SIYTfTYrs1UC&pg=PA276&dq=ulansey+mithras+sol+luna&ei=IDHPSs-HNJPuygS3xdiGBg#v=onepage&q=ulansey%20mithras%20sol%20luna&f=false

3. Again in Roman Mithraism, Mithras was strongly associated with the lion, as well as various other animals, but not the lamb. And he wasn't called the "good shepherd".

4. This is correct, but again, we're talking about the Roman Mithraic mysteries, not ancient Persian religion. Context is important. See Roger Beck, "Beck on Mithras" http://books.google.com/books?id=SIYTfTYrs1UC&pg=PA83&dq=%22mithras%22%2Bbaptism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0EM1T_yHA4uftweRjbWtAg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22mithras%22%2Bbaptism&f=false

5.As above, this is correct, but talking about Roman Mithraism, not ancient Persian religion. And again, Mithra was not associated with December 25 in Persia.

6. Cumont's statements are largely correct, but his 1903 work is out of date. It somewhat conflates Persian Zoroastrian beliefs about Mithra with the later Roman mystery religion. It is true that both Zoroastrianism and Christianity had a "heaven" and an "underworld", but this construction is so widespread that some scholars believe it may be neurological. Christianity and Zoroastrianism are also alike in indicating that the good can go to heaven while the wicked go to the underworld, and both have a flood myth derived from much earlier middle eastern flood myths.

7. As with Cumont, Charles Biggs' 1886 statements are largely correct, but out of date.

8. I can't find any information about this image. Do you have a source?

9. This is bullshit. Neither the death nor resurrection of Mithras was part of either Zoroastrian or Roman Mithraic religion. The closest parallel is Mithras slaying the bull in a cave (the tauroctony); though he did not die himself. Source: Manfred Clauss, "The Roman Cult of Mithras", p. 74, http://books.google.com/books?id=m9z2e7o9MXUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mithras&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x041T9aUG82JtwegibiBBA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=cave&f=false

10. Yes, that does sound like something that would appear in that 19th-century encyclopedia.

11. Mithras may have had a special day in spring (ie for the torch raising ceremonies), but not specifically tied to Easter, which fell on different days depending on the various calculation systems used in early Christianity. Again, there was no "resurrection" motif for Mithras.

12. That statement comes from the 18th century Lutheran writer Johann Lorenz von Mosheim. While the Manicheans did have a good bit to say about both Mithra and Christ, I don't know that this was actually one of them.

So: it is true that Christianity had a number of similarities to Persian and Roman beliefs about Mithras, and it is possible that some practices, dates, symbols, etc. were indeed taken from Mithraism. But many of these "too coincidental coincidences" aren't really coincidences of any kind. I have no interest in the arguments for or against the existence of God, or who's moral and who's not. But if you're going to make a historical argument, do it correctly.

Quote from: ben says on February 09, 2012, 12:57:37 PM
And not to beat a dead horse, nor to come across as a cruel person, but the fact humans (the same humans that know how to build A-bombs, span bridges over seas, clone sheep, engineer cars and solar panels) can be swept over by such an immature and unsubstantiated "story" about "faith" is pretty laughable.

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Thanks...i needed that..its good to know im not the only one...lol...but we r in the bible belt.

Thanks Tacahale for the breakdown of the outline.

Thinking of faith as illogical and childish demeans all of humanity and negates every act of man, good and bad,  spiritual but especially, other than spiritual. Faith is belief in something/someone or whatever. It makes sense to question what is believed. It does not make sense to challenge the act of believing. We are believing people with lots of faith in many different areas of our life. It takes faith to live in the day to day. It's faith that our traffic laws will be mostly obliged and that powerless white lines, dashed or otherwise, will protect us from many accidents. It's faith that many of us put in another person when we chose to marry them. Faith, just in relation to human interaction and involvement with the the physical world is dynamic and amazing, I whole heartedly BELIEVE we would not be able to exist with out faith. I dare say, much of our technological advancements would cease to exist if teams of people did not have faith in their work.

Faith should be and is mostly evidentially based.

Google the first part of that "story" (the one that started this whole thread), and you will find tons of commentary on it around the web, including much analysis of the many fallacies and rhetorical tricks committed therein.

It's nice to see some of the main branches of philosophy being thrown around in this thread:

Epistemology: investigate the nature of knowledge, especially: the difference between mere belief, and knowledge
Metaphysics: investigates the nature of reality, what exists
Logic: investigates correct reasoning
Moral Philosophy: investigates the nature of moral judgments
Aesthetics: investigates the nature of art, beauty

I would be curious to know what any of you thinks is the difference between belief and knowledge?

In other words, is there a difference between believing something and knowing something? If yes, when does a belief truly qualify as knowledge? If you don't think there's a difference, consider this...is it important to you that your doctors, mechanics, and lawyers know things--or is it sufficient if they merely believe things?

Epistemology, baby. We investigate these kinds of questions. In depth. Anyway, if you're interested in philosophy, there are Philosophy slams (put on by JU & UNF), Philosophy departments at both JU & UNF, Philosophy topics at the First Coast Freethought Society about once a month...

Most intro to Philosophy courses will address some of the most enduring and most discussed arguments for and against the existence of God.

And by "argument", I do not mean talking loudly, repeating your points over and over again, or shutting discussions down by proclaiming "faith is enough!" or "That's just the way I feel" or "That's just the way I was raised".

Quote from: IamAmerican on February 10, 2012, 05:55:06 PM
I whole heartedly BELIEVE we would not be able to exist with out faith. I dare say, much of our technological advancements would cease to exist if teams of people did not have faith in their work.

Is faith in their work sufficient for you having faith in their work?

Or is something else required, in addition to faith / belief, for giving you (us!) confidence in the work of people who in many cases, hold our very safety and lives in their hands?

What is the difference between a doctor who claims she has faith that your heart will be okay, and a doctor who claims she knows it will be okay? Which gives you more confidence, as her patient? Why? What is the difference, that makes a difference, do you think?

Quote from: Purplebike on February 10, 2012, 09:12:37 PM
In other words, is there a difference between believing something and knowing something? If yes, when does a belief truly qualify as knowledge? If you don't think there's a difference, consider this...is it important to you that your doctors, mechanics, and lawyers know things--or is it sufficient if they merely believe things?

+1.

@PurpleBike:

"Is there a difference between belief and knowledge?"

My answer, belief is based on knowledge. It's knowledge that is the basis for belief. Without knowledge there is no such thing as faith/belief. So, yes, there is a difference. One is predicated on the development of the other. Or, one is the foundation (knowledge) and the other is the house(faith/belief) that is built upon that knowledge. Individual people(myself included) and societies at large(ours included) go through difficult times when faith/belief is at odds with "new found" knowledge. When "new" knowledge challenges current belief/faith it's difficult to digest and accept. Looking into the New Testament you see exactly that...you see belief structures challenged by "new" knowledge. For example, the need for circumcision as a gentile deciding to follow the very Jewish Jesus. The answer, according to Paul, those who insist on circumcision should go all the way and cut off their own d***s (yes, worded differently, that is literally - pun intended - in the bible).

"What is the difference between a doctor who claims she has faith that your heart will be okay, and a doctor who claims she knows it will be okay? Which gives you more confidence, as her patient? Why? What is the difference, that makes a difference, do you think?"

I see where your going with this and yes my first impulse is to say the doctor that "knows" gets more credibility. However, something like this is really a matter of context. To a high degree, my value on the doctor's assertion of knowing will highly depend on my level of faith in that person - based, of course, on my knowledge of that person. If I have a high level of faith in a doctor that "believes" XYZ prescription will work for me based on their knowledge and experience then it's just as credible.

is it important to you that your doctors, mechanics, and lawyers know things--or is it sufficient if they merely believe things?


Both are important...belief in things is essentially the basis of science and progression. The hypothesis in any scientific experiment is simply and explicitly stating "this is what I believe," Right? As I write about this I may actually  feel uncomfortable with any expert that is unable to bring their various points of knowledge together to fuel a belief and consequently bring about innovation.

Why does Faith (God) have to compete with science?  I feel that my love for one supports my love for the other.

My faith in God gives me a greater appreciation for science, visa versa.  IMO, faith and science go hand-in-hand.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 10, 2012, 10:24:59 AM
If belief in a god helps people cope with life... why should it matter to anyone else.  I simply do not understand the need to deride and mock it.

When looking at it from a God vs. Science perspective, I've definitely taken the side of science to an extent, asking for more evidence, information than what's been drilled into my head through countless private school chapel sessions and forced church outings.  I've venomously debated my parent's stance on faith and religion over many Sunday lunches, but i've actually had to lay off the debate lately due to my mother being diagnosed with the early stages of dimentia for the same reason in BT's quote. If it helps her cope, who am I to argue her position?

It seems to provide her some comfort.  It's just when people of faith go on the attack against scientific research, facts, etc. It's pretty hard to sit there and not fire back. If everyone could civilly disagree it would be fine, but we all want each other to believe what we believe.

The ultimate book to answer all of life's questions should have one page with 3 letters on it:

IDK

I don't think science and God are in competition. I think that battle comes into play when the people on either side feel threatened by the other. I view science as facts reported and the scientists, themselves, as "news" reporters. It's a very weird game we play when we assume that because there is understanding on a subject it somehow proves God's inexistence. The more I learn. The more I am in awe. So, if anything, thank you scientists and science for continually confirming my belief in God.

I also think it is unreasonable to not challenge belief structures simply because it helps someone "cope" ( with exception of course, such as the situation that David described). Seems silly to me. Part of our modern day society should be the search for veracity, in everything. I don't want to be in a position where I'm willing to let what I think to be erroneous exist in a peers life simply because it helps them cope...maybe.

And, the road goes both ways. I enjoyed watching the Ben Stiller's Expelled (I think that was what it was called). There is a reverse discrimination towards scientists that wish to explore God scientifically or even challenge modern day scientific facts.

The idea of a god is interesting.  One might contemplate the origin of the idea, and wonder who first thought of the idea of a god, and why they did so.  One might wonder if anyone throughout history has ever seen a god, or heard a god speak, or even “felt” the presence of a god.  Seeing?…. Hearing?… Probably not.  However, I suspect that some individuals have felt the presence of something which caused them to wonder if that feeling was a manifestation of a god. 

Forgive me for using the word “god” as I do.  For example, there is a significant difference between stating, “I doubt if anyone on this forum has ever seen a god”, and stating “I doubt if anyone on this forum has ever seen God”.  The latter use seems to be more of a matter of habit, but it also could suggest one’s belief in the existence of a god, whereas the former implies that the speaker does not wish to give weight to the claim that a god actually exists.

A child at first knows nothing of a god, nor would the child think of a god, but only is informed of the idea by some parent, nurse, or babysitter.  How did the babysitter become aware of the idea of a god?  Perhaps by his or her babysitter or grandparent?  The idea of a god is passed from generation to generation by individuals who have never seen or heard a god speak. 

Why does the idea of a god persist?  Current poles indicate that the majority of Americans believe that a god does exist.  Have any of these people seen or heard a god?  Were they too informed of a god by their babysitter, nurse, or a church propagandist?

If there is no clear evidence for the existence of a god, then one’s belief in a god’s existence must come not only from one’s need to believe it, but from the centuries old overwhelming momentum of belief, supported by televangelists, one’s friends and family members who believe, the many churches on the landscape, and the millions of books about a god, written by individuals who have never seen or heard a god.

The need for inner stability and strength is one reason why some individuals find themselves believing in a god.  After all, one can receive inner comfort and strength by one’s belief alone, without regard to the ultimate truth of it.   The actual existence of a god is of little consequence.  Only the belief is.  As one’s need to believe in a god increases, one’s confidence and conviction that a god exists increases. 

Just as one takes more of a drug as needed in order to feel more comfortable or to feel the pleasure of it, one can believe in a god with greater conviction and emotion in order to feel the comfort and pleasure of it.  Whereas the drug affects the physiology, which ultimately affects the mind, the belief in a god affects the mind directly, both having the effect of giving comfort and inner peace to the individual.   

Karl Marx...

QuoteThe foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man â€" state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.[

Quote from: stephendare on February 15, 2012, 08:29:55 AM
Incidentally, I am certainly not an athiest, just wanted to weigh in on the silly implication that athiesm is a secret code word for marxism.

There was no implication intended.  My quoting Marx was to illustrate its similarity to Rons posting immediately above mine.  I know you are not an atheist... just as you are well aware that I am not particularly religious.  I do find the discussion regarding the merits of each interesting... especially since there is very little evidence in support of either belief system...

What I find so funny is that people on this thread are calling for empirical evidence.  We have it.  People were eyewitnesses to it.  It just didn't happen in the age of TV, so some of us don't believe it.  It happened a couple of millennia ago, so we don't believe the eyewitnesses who recorded it.  These aren't people who were stupid.  By the time Jesus walked the earth, the pyramids had already stood for thousands of years.  Much of the knowledge of the ancient Middle East is lost to us, but that doesn't make what remains worthless.  And let's not forget the empirical evidence Christian believers find in their own lives after we take that leap of faith.  You don't believe in God?  Fine.  Don't.  Your decision.  It doesn't follow you are necessarily right, however, and those of us who do are stupid, blind or misled.  :-) 

Quote from: stephendare on February 15, 2012, 08:29:55 AM
Incidentally, I am certainly not an athiest, just wanted to weigh in on the silly implication that athiesm is a secret code word for marxism.

One of the great misconceptions of recent history.

Quote from: ronchamblin on February 15, 2012, 03:28:39 AM
The idea of a god is interesting.  One might contemplate the origin of the idea, and wonder who first thought of the idea of a god, and why they did so.  One might wonder if anyone throughout history has ever seen a god, or heard a god speak, or even “felt” the presence of a god.  Seeing?…. Hearing?… Probably not.  However, I suspect that some individuals have felt the presence of something which caused them to wonder if that feeling was a manifestation of a god. 

Forgive me for using the word “god” as I do.  For example, there is a significant difference between stating, “I doubt if anyone on this forum has ever seen a god”, and stating “I doubt if anyone on this forum has ever seen God”.  The latter use seems to be more of a matter of habit, but it also could suggest one’s belief in the existence of a god, whereas the former implies that the speaker does not wish to give weight to the claim that a god actually exists.

A child at first knows nothing of a god, nor would the child think of a god, but only is informed of the idea by some parent, nurse, or babysitter.  How did the babysitter become aware of the idea of a god?  Perhaps by his or her babysitter or grandparent?  The idea of a god is passed from generation to generation by individuals who have never seen or heard a god speak. 

Why does the idea of a god persist?  Current poles indicate that the majority of Americans believe that a god does exist.  Have any of these people seen or heard a god?  Were they too informed of a god by their babysitter, nurse, or a church propagandist?

If there is no clear evidence for the existence of a god, then one’s belief in a god’s existence must come not only from one’s need to believe it, but from the centuries old overwhelming momentum of belief, supported by televangelists, one’s friends and family members who believe, the many churches on the landscape, and the millions of books about a god, written by individuals who have never seen or heard a god.

The need for inner stability and strength is one reason why some individuals find themselves believing in a god.  After all, one can receive inner comfort and strength by one’s belief alone, without regard to the ultimate truth of it.   The actual existence of a god is of little consequence.  Only the belief is.  As one’s need to believe in a god increases, one’s confidence and conviction that a god exists increases. 

Just as one takes more of a drug as needed in order to feel more comfortable or to feel the pleasure of it, one can believe in a god with greater conviction and emotion in order to feel the comfort and pleasure of it.  Whereas the drug affects the physiology, which ultimately affects the mind, the belief in a god affects the mind directly, both having the effect of giving comfort and inner peace to the individual.   

Couldn't agree more, Ron. Interesting ideas you point out, the psychological basis for believing in a god in the first place. No doubt Native Americans, when hearing thunder or seeing snow, thought it was a sign from 'the gods'. What else would they believe? Who could fault them? I agree with you though that the idea just seems to perpetuate for no other reason besides indoctrination and conditioning. I always pose the question to my Christian friends: what separates you from a Muslim? Answer: different parents.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 15, 2012, 06:48:32 AM
Karl Marx...

QuoteThe foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man â€" state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.[

Also, BT, say what you will about Marxism (post-Marx political movements, and their respective "interpretations" of Marx), but if you actually read Marx's words and books, especially on Capital, I find that most people who despise the man would actually find themselves agreeing with most of what he said. Cover up the name "Marx" on the cover of the book, there is some genuinely fantastic material in there. People tend to mix of "what Marx said" with "what Marxists did"....for instance, a lot of people don't realize he didn't say a damn thing about communism or socialism or what it should all look like. His books were analysis, not a method/plan for change.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 15, 2012, 08:40:32 AM
especially since there is very little evidence in support of either belief system...

Not that you will (no offense, most people don't, they're long books), but try actually reading a Marx book (preferably Capital I) that isn't the Communist Manifesto. I find that republicans and democrats, atheists and zealots can all agree, the man was dead on with a lot of what he said. The problem is getting people to actually investigate, instead of going off anti-Marx(ist) schooling and internet searches. People have a huge problem separating Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin from Marx....

QuotePeople tend to mix of "what Marx said" with "what Marxists did"....

No doubt

Quote from Stephen Dare:

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Voltaire.
One of the most important philosophers of the Enlightenment Era that produced the Founding Fathers.

I "think" that this statement was first offered by Jean Meslier, the atheist priest, who died in 1733, having left three copies of a manuscript titled "Testament", within which was the quote above.  I do not at the moment have a copy of the "Testament", but will verify it later.  Voltaire of course, about the mid 1700's, extracted from Meslier's original work, and offered it as a version making Meslier seem as a deist.  Of course, he was an firm atheist.     

Very interesting, Ron. Good info.

Belief is something that shouldn't be mixed with science. Yes, they have followers on their own but for some, there could be a very thin line that would define one from the other.  I actually chose not to believe in anything as I grew up which makes you open to more things.

There are some who would choose not to take anything further but personally, I took this as a new challenge to let me be open to a world of more possibilities.

Quote from: amuard on March 15, 2012, 12:01:41 AM
Belief is something that shouldn't be mixed with science. Yes, they have followers on their own but for some, there could be a very thin line that would define one from the other.  I actually chose not to believe in anything as I grew up which makes you open to more things.

There are some who would choose not to take anything further but personally, I took this as a new challenge to let me be open to a world of more possibilities.

"Yes, they have followers on their own but for some, there could be a very thin line that would define one from the other."

I can't make sense of this..... and I'm sober.  ???

Quote from: ronchamblin on March 15, 2012, 03:23:23 AM

Quote from: amuard on March 15, 2012, 12:01:41 AM
Belief is something that shouldn't be mixed with science. Yes, they have followers on their own but for some, there could be a very thin line that would define one from the other.  I actually chose not to believe in anything as I grew up which makes you open to more things.

There are some who would choose not to take anything further but personally, I took this as a new challenge to let me be open to a world of more possibilities.

"Yes, they have followers on their own but for some, there could be a very thin line that would define one from the other."

I can't make sense of this..... and I'm sober.  ???

Agreed.