God exists

[zapatos]

Your response is an excellent example of what I am talking about.

 

In my previous post I stated that "I don't understand how theists can ignore the cold hard facts of science over an ancient text that has many glaring errors."

 

I then brought up the question of "Does God exist" and suggested it was outside the purview of science and could neither be proven nor disproven empirically, and if you did come up with an answer is was simply based on personal experience, education, etc.

 

I then concluded that I didn't understand how believers on one side of the debate (with no empirical evidence) could not accept that believers on the other side of the debate could reach a different conclusion (with the exact same lack of empirical evidence).

 

You then proceed to deride my post with ridiculous examples of Donald Duck, the implication that my post suggests the world could suddenly become an illusion, collapsing floors, human activity collapsing into paralysis, a moon made of green cheese, everyone but me a robot, and somehow finding in my post that I suggest you abandon scientific perspective and adopt mystical ways. Nowhere did I ask you to adopt the beliefs of the theists. I simply suggested trying to understand another's perspective before responding.

 

It seems to me you did not even read what I said. You just jumped into your boilerplate ridicule of theists.

 

You complain that scientists are unwiling to look at things from the perspective of theists. But the ordinary test for distinguishing truth from illusion is to subject things to an independent empirical test, and this is really the only clear, operationalized definition we have of testing something.

 

By all means, describe to me the independent empirical test to determine whether or not God exists.

[JillSwift]

But not all areas are covered by science. For example, 'Does God exist?'. Science has no business addressing that question since there is no way to test it. It is supernatural and outside the purview of science. However, based on a scientist's background and science's track record, many scientists come to the logical conclusion that God does not exist and are very comfortable in that position.

 

But of course they don't know God doesn't exist. How could they? But they take (what they believe to be) the indirect evidence around them, along with their experiences, background, and all the rest, and come to that conclusion. Very logical.

Did you mean, then, you were just going to stop arguing this with me? A method to shut me out?

 

The only way to take the "indirect evidence" as evidence for god is to make as a priori the decision that there is a god. That's to make a conclusion then find evidence to support it. This necessarily means to exclude evidence that isn't supportive. It's not logical in the least.

 

Also, you keep framing the atheistic argument as being gnostic, where the fact is the vast majority of atheist positions are agnostic. The actual answer to "Does god exist?" is "I don't actually know, given the nature of 'god', but there is no evidence to be found and no way to test so I stay with the null hypothesis".

 

As for the supernatural - here's the thing with that:

 

1. Assume there is a supernatural X, there are then two possibilities:

-- a. X can affect our world in some way

-- b. X can not effect our world in any way

2. If (a) is true, science can be brought to bear to test if X exists indirectly through its effects.

3. If (b) is true, then even if X does exist it is utterly irrelevant.

 

So long as it's claimed that god is not testable, then even if got exists it is irrelevant.

Edited April 16, 2011 by JillSwift

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

Guys, keep it civil and not personal. This is a debate forum, not a personal blog. You should be able to debate with - and answer to all the responses and not pick your audience.

[zapatos]

mooeypoo -- I believe the comment was made in jest.

 

Did you mean, then, you were just going to stop arguing this with me? A method to shut me out?

Er, um. Look! Behind you!!

 

Sorry, couldn't help but jump back in.

 

The only way to take the "indirect evidence" as evidence for god is to make as a priori the decision that there is a god. That's to make a conclusion then find evidence to support it. This necessarily means to exclude evidence that isn't supportive. It's not logical in the least.

I assume you could also say:

The only way to take the "indirect evidence" as evidence against god is to make as a priori the decision that there is no god. That's to make a conclusion then find evidence to support it. This necessarily means to exclude evidence that isn't supportive. It's not logical in the least.

 

But I don't think either side is taking the 'indirect evidence' as evidence. They are just trying to figure out what is going on with the information they have. Both the theist and atheist are in the same boat.

Also, you keep framing the atheistic argument as being gnostic, where the fact is the vast majority of atheist positions are agnostic. The actual answer to "Does god exist?" is "I don't actually know, given the nature of 'god', but there is no evidence to be found and no way to test so I stay with the null hypothesis".

Huh. I didn't know you could be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.

And do you mean to say that "The actual answer to "Does god exist?" is "I don't actually know..." if you are agnostic? Because I think if you are an atheist the answer is 'no'.

Also, I'm speaking in general terms. When I say 'atheist' or 'theist', etc. I do not mean to imply all or under all circumstances.

 

As for the supernatural - here's the thing with that:

 

1. Assume there is a supernatural X, there are then two possibilities:

-- a. X can affect our world in some way

-- b. X can not effect our world in any way

2. If (a) is true, science can be brought to bear to test if X exists indirectly through its effects.

3. If (b) is true, then even if X does exist it is utterly irrelevant.

Don't leave out the rest of the possibilities:

-- c. X can affect our world in some way but chooses not to

-- d. X can affect our world but only did so once (creation)

-- e. X can affect our world and does so but we do not recognize it as an act of X

-- f. ...

 

So long as it's claimed that god is not testable, then even if got exists it is irrelevant.

So long as it's claimed that god is not testable, then even if god does not exist it is irrelevant.

 

But again, I'm not arguing whether or not God exists. My position is simply that no matter where you stand, you have no empirical evidence to support your belief. And if you have no empirical evidence to support your position, I feel it is a bit arrogant to criticize someone else's position just because they arrived there with no empirical evidence.

[JillSwift]

mooeypoo -- I believe the comment was made in jest.

 

 

Er, um. Look! Behind you!!

 

Sorry, couldn't help but jump back in.

 

 

I assume you could also say:

The only way to take the "indirect evidence" as evidence against god is to make as a priori the decision that there is no god. That's to make a conclusion then find evidence to support it. This necessarily means to exclude evidence that isn't supportive. It's not logical in the least.

 

But I don't think either side is taking the 'indirect evidence' as evidence. They are just trying to figure out what is going on with the information they have. Both the theist and atheist are in the same boat.

 

Huh. I didn't know you could be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.

And do you mean to say that "The actual answer to "Does god exist?" is "I don't actually know..." if you are agnostic? Because I think if you are an atheist the answer is 'no'.

Also, I'm speaking in general terms. When I say 'atheist' or 'theist', etc. I do not mean to imply all or under all circumstances.

 

 

Don't leave out the rest of the possibilities:

-- c. X can affect our world in some way but chooses not to

-- d. X can affect our world but only did so once (creation)

-- e. X can affect our world and does so but we do not recognize it as an act of X

-- f. ...

 

 

So long as it's claimed that god is not testable, then even if god does not exist it is irrelevant.

 

But again, I'm not arguing whether or not God exists. My position is simply that no matter where you stand, you have no empirical evidence to support your belief. And if you have no empirical evidence to support your position, I feel it is a bit arrogant to criticize someone else's position just because they arrived there with no empirical evidence.

 

"Atheist" is about belief. Do I believe god exists? No.

"Gnosis" is about knowledge. Do I know god does not exist, no.

 

Thus I am an agnostic atheist.

 

"Agnostic" is not some middle position between theist and atheist. You can and do have agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, the are in fact the majority of both belief and non-belief.

 

The other possibilities are mere extensions of the primary two. I t boils down to: If it affects us, we can test it, if it does not it's irrelevant. Why it does or does not have effect isn't important. Save for "We don't recognize it as X", which is an odd one. If we can explain the effect with a natural cause... then it must not be X. If we can not explain the effect with a natural cause, then perhaps we need to postulate X. How can we otherwise not recognize X?

 

I'm hoping you now understand that It's not a black-n-white thing. Atheists generally don't hold that "God does not exist", rather they hold the null hypothesis. As in: "I don't believe in fairies, since there is no evidence they exist." as opposed to "Fairies do not exist, because that would contradict <some other demonstrable fact>."

 

I can criticize a belief in god because I see there's no reason to believe. I can not criticize a belief in god because I "know it's wrong" as I don't know that it is, I just know it's not evidenced.

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

modtip-snip

<ot type="spottedafreind">Hi Mooeypoo! == *hugs*</ot>

Edited April 16, 2011 by JillSwift

[zapatos]

I can criticize a belief in god because I see there's no reason to believe. I can not criticize a belief in god because I "know it's wrong" as I don't know that it is, I just know it's not evidenced.

Excellent! Nice explanation and very likely covers many of those I felt were being unreasonable.

[Marat]

Zapatos: I think my earlier post was an exact and highly technical response in terms of modern epistemology to your arguments, and I'm sorry you see them just as ridicule.

 

I'll try to redirect your attention to the essential point of the discussion as I see it by picking up on one of the statements in your last post. You said there: "My position is simply that no matter where you stand [on the issue of whether God exists or not], you have no empirical evidence to support your belief." I think this seriously misrepresents how knowledge, belief, and human thinking proceeds.

 

Imagine if I show you the Oersted experiment and explain to you why passing current electricity through a wire causes a magnetized bar to turn at a right angle to it. I demonstrate the effect and describe the cause as science always seeks to do -- by providing what is the simplest hypothesis possible to account for the empirical evidence actually observed. Now if you raise a doubt in response to that and say, "How do we know for certain that invisible fairies are not interfering with the phenomenon, so that even though the electrical current being turned on really causes the magnet to turn parallel to the current, that falsely seems not to be the case because the fairies turn it parallel outside our visual capacities to detect them," then I cannot empirically refute you. It seems that you have succeed in the statement I quoted from you above, that neither side -- neither Oersted nor you -- has empirical evidence to support its case about what current electricity really does to a nearby magnetized bar, since the action of the invisible fairies, whose presence and action are by definition beyond all empirical test, might always be producing some misleading interference which negates our empirical data.

 

But then you have to realize that you have started an infinite regress which will paralyze all thinking. For then if someone else counters that equally invisible angels always act to negate the actions of invisible fairies, we also lack all empirical evidence for refuting that hypothesis. Then someone else adds a mystical and untestable Santa Claus who secretly transforms what merely appear to be magnetized rods into plastic in a way that we cannot detect, so yet another layer of scepticism enters into our capacity for assessing this experiment, and so on.

 

But now we realize that if we admit that type of empirically undisciplined theorizing into our thinking, all thought collapses, since we can't even draw any reliable inferences from the very simple empirical evidence of the very simple Oersted result. Since it cannot be the case that all thinking has to be abandoned, it must rather be the case that empirically ungrounded thinking has to be deligitimated, since as this simple example has demonstrated, if we grant it any status it will act like a universal solvent which will dissolve all rationality.

 

So a God-hypothesis which 'merely' escapes our ability to support it by ordinary empirical evidence is not presumptively an unknown X-reality which our methods of proof cannot get at, having this status just because you can assign a name or a definition to it, but is rather the class of fantasy hypothesis which illegitimately seeks support on a type of evidence whose admission into thinking would undermine all rationality.

 

As an example consider this: Let X be the greatest number. Then X + 1 = X, since nothing can be larger than X, which was defined as the greatest number. So by subtraction of equals from equals, (X + 1) - X = X - X, so 1 = 0. How did we get this nonsensical result? By presumptively positing the existence of something, this X as the greatest number, merely because we could define it, yet without having any way to prove or construct it. The same problem arises from assuming that we have a God because we can define the concept, and then noting that the lack of empirical evidence by definition cannot disprove the existence of something so metaphysically transcendent as God. This illegitimately wraps God's presumptive existence into his definition, which cannot be done, since the existence is always a predicate outside of concepts which must await demonstration that they correspond to some real external thing before they can be said to exist. (cf. Kant, "Existence is not a predicate.")

 

The essential circularity of your position is that you are saying "Let there be an X such that X's existence cannot be tested. Therefore, the proposition, 'X exists,' can never be refuted." In this case you define your X as God, but why can't I come along and define a Y with this property who is an invisible fairy, a magical angel, or a talking rabbit named Mike? This shows that that whole way of proceeding by positing empty defintions as presumptive existents prior to any empirical evidence being presented to give them that presumptive existence is false. Nothing can become a presumptive existent able to defy disproof because it requires mystical standards of proof to challenge it unless we already have good empirical and ordinary reasons to posit the presumptive existent in the first place, which in the case of God, invisible fairies, mystical angels, and talking rabbits we do not.

[zapatos]

Zapatos: I think my earlier post was an exact and highly technical response in terms of modern epistemology to your arguments, and I'm sorry you see them just as ridicule.

No, my fault. I was arguing from an inferior position and did not realize it. Usually I recognize when I am in over my head and keep quiet.

 

After JillSwift got to the core of what I misunderstood, I went back to read your previous post and realized I was wrong to interpret it as I did.

 

I appreciate your, JillSwift's, and Edtharan's explanations.

[Marat]

A gentleman and a scholar! That combination is unfortunately getting rare in heated debates in this forum. Thanks, Zapatos. (Viva Zapatos!)

[keelanz]

ovcourse this whole post depends on one simple question.......what is the definition OF god

 

IMO all abrahamic gods are BS, fairy tales and metaphors but then again if we dont take any human definition of god then god can be anything and surely anything exists because its easier to comprehend than nothing which kinda makes us god.....

 

and please guys stop saying "him" and "his" because it just makes me want to shoot you in the face

 

much love =D

[zapatos]

ovcourse this whole post depends on one simple question.......what is the definition OF god

 

IMO all abrahamic gods are BS, fairy tales and metaphors but then again if we dont take any human definition of god then god can be anything and surely anything exists because its easier to comprehend than nothing which kinda makes us god.....

 

and please guys stop saying "him" and "his" because it just makes me want to shoot you in the face

 

much love =D

So in your view of the world it is more appropriate to call God 'BS', 'fairy tale', and 'metaphor' rather than to call God 'him'? To the point of suggesting violence against me? When all I was doing was using a commonly used pronoun when referencing him?

 

The word "God" is used without regard for meaning. In most formal religions the texts that talk about "God" use the male, singular term and follow it with pronouns "He, His, Him". Why?

 

Words only have meaning in contexts, not in the abstract. All of the major world religions came to us in the context of patriarchal cultures, and the texts themselves were all--or almost all--written by men.

 

In the biblical tradition, the Jewish and Christian writers wanted to avoid any suggestion that they were referring to some sort of fertility religion, and so they did not refer to God as a female, by and large. In the Christian tradition, God is called "Father" because it believed that God was indeed the father of Jesus, and Jesus taught his followers to address God as he had done, in the famous Lord's Prayer (see Matthew 6.9-13).

 

Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Protestant/2001/11/On-This-Shelf-Of-Rocks-I-Will-Build-My-Church.aspx#ixzz1KhHOPWAJ'>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Protestant/2001/11/On-This-Shelf-Of-Rocks-I-Will-Build-My-Church.aspx#ixzz1KhHOPWAJ

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Protestant/2001/11/On-This-Shelf-Of-Rocks-I-Will-Build-My-Church.aspx

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

You already know this, keelanz: Offensive remarks are NOT welcome in this forum. Please don't make us turn our friendly reminders to more permanent actions, and instead go read our rules and etiquette again. They are in effect in ALL forums, Religion and Philosophy included.

[A Tripolation]

IMO all abrahamic gods are BS, fairy tales and metaphors but then again if we dont take any human definition of god then god can be anything and surely anything exists because its easier to comprehend than nothing which kinda makes us god.....

 

and please guys stop saying "him" and "his" because it just makes me want to shoot you in the face

 

'Him' and 'His' are commonly accepted pronouns when discussing the Judeo-Christian God. Just so you know.

 

Also, read JillSwift's and Edtharan's posts, and try to model yourself after those. They are prime examples of how non-believers should post when discussing religion. Eloquent, logical, and non-offensive.

[Athena]

People say that God doesn't exist both scientifically and visually.

Let me conclude this:

Not everything can be visualized. Can you get the knowledge of the letter 'A' only by visualizing? Simply not. You need to have the knowledge how the word sounds.

Can you prove your father by visualizing? No, because you weren't even born at that time.

Can you prove a far country by visualizing? No, because the country can be beyond reach of eyes, but it actually exists.

Same is for God. He is beyond our material eyes and ears and all senses.

A lot of saints have seen him and they have attained bliss.

 

Something more-

What is nature?

Whatever we can't explain scientifically is what we call nature.

For ex- We know subatomic particles have no smell when taken individually. But when they combine in ratios of different number(as different elements) they form compounds with different smell. How can you get smell? This is termed as NATURE of electrons! Because this is unexplained.

There are countless examples of so called Nature.

GOD is what we call nature in science.

 

I very much like your explanations. As I understand democracy, a concept of God and morals is essential, however, I am opposed to religion. It is kind of odd that the holy books tell us God is unknowable, and then proceed to give us a mythology about God that depends on the supernatural, instead of avoiding superstition and staying with the knowable.

 

My understanding of morals is understanding cause and effect. You know the Greek question, is something bad because the gods say it is bad, or do the gods say it is bad, because it is bad? Eventually in their arguing of the gods, they conclude, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods are subject to it. For it is logically to give up the mythology of gods, but stay a concept of God that is what gives manifestation form. To know something is wrong if it causes more harm than good. This would be Socrates reasoning. Sure we might disagree on right and wrong, but if we spend enough time arguing, reason, is likely to bring to us to agreement. In this process of reasoning God is as the X factor in math. God is important to our ability to reason, and indeed can be an important part in our ability to love and experience happiness. What project into this God is what we get back.

 

'Him' and 'His' are commonly accepted pronouns when discussing the Judeo-Christian God. Just so you know.

 

Also, read JillSwift's and Edtharan's posts, and try to model yourself after those. They are prime examples of how non-believers should post when discussing religion. Eloquent, logical, and non-offensive.

 

I also take the short cut of referring to God as Him, but may be it would be helpful to stop doing this. And seriously, what is the logical of offending someone and then lecturing this person about not being offensive? Many of us would be happier if speaking of God as She were common. There is a big, big problem with having a male God, and if you are not aware of this, that means you are insensitive to the sexist issue.

[A Tripolation]

I also take the short cut of referring to God as Him, but may be it would be helpful to stop doing this. And seriously, what is the logical of offending someone and then lecturing this person about not being offensive?

 

Then take it up with the 40 authors of the books of the Bible that refer to God as "Him". And Jesus, who referred to him as "Father" when teaching the disciples how to pray. And how did I offend keelanz? I didn't say his statements were BS, didn't insult his grammar and punctuation skills, or say that I wanted to shoot him in the face. My post was completely polite.

 

Many of us would be happier if speaking of God as She were common. There is a big, big problem with having a male God, and if you are not aware of this, that means you are insensitive to the sexist issue.

 

...insensitive? More like I don't give a damn what gender He is, seeing as how i seriously doubt that an omnipotent deity identifies with genders like we do. If you want a female God, go make up your own denomination or sect of Christianity. And find Bible verses to support it (which will be impossible. Just so you know).

 

It is kind of odd that the holy books tell us God is unknowable, and then proceed to give us a mythology about God that depends on the supernatural, instead of avoiding superstition and staying with the knowable.

 

The New Testament repeatedly tells us that we can have a personal relationship with our Savior. How is that unknowable? Unless you're using it in the strictest sense.

Edited April 27, 2011 by A Tripolation

[Marat]

To debate about whether a logically self-contradictory (infintely good and powerful but still allows evil), mythological entity imagined by Bronze Age nomads is male or female, and to care deeply about this, seems preposterous. It's like becoming outraged over the nerve of someone who dares to say that Hercules wears a truss.

 

I had the misfortune the other day to read the feminist author Susan Okin's 1989 essay, "Justice as Fairness," which criticized the famous philosopher John Raws vociferously for his vicious sexism in constantly using the referent 'he' for persons of no identified gender in his 1973 book, 'A Theory of Justice.' Is Ms. Okin really so young that she is not aware that if you submitted a book to a publisher in 1973 using the female referent for people the manuscript would have been rejected as illiterate? The weird chic of using female referents for everything to prove that you are not sexist is an invention of the last decade or so, and before then it was unheard of. But this obsession with male or female forms of reference is really just the analog of the prudery of earlier generations which was so terrified of sex that it even covered table legs with cloths because of their analogy with the naked legs of women. Now today we are so terrified of sexism that the only way to get a journal article published is to write, 'The general was rescued by the fireman, after which she thanked her,' even if we don't actually know the genders of the actors involved in the story.

 

From the perspective of European languages, where it is obvious that the gender of reference is conventional and grammatical, and has absolutely nothing to do with biological sex, this current American obsession with using only female grammatical forms as though this could do anything real to help women is ridiculous. In German, for example, we have 'die Wache' (the (feminine) guard), 'der Gebaermutter,' (the (masculine) uterus), and 'das Maedchen' (the (neuter) young girl). So grammatical gender clearly has nothing to do with the actual gender of people, and the convention of proper English up until very recently, that the referent 'he' or 'him' is used for persons of unknown gender AND the deity, says absolutely nothing sexist; it is just a linguistic convention.

[A Tripolation]

To debate about whether a logically self-contradictory (infintely good and powerful but still allows evil), mythological entity imagined by Bronze Age nomads is male or female, and to care deeply about this, seems preposterous. It's like becoming outraged over the nerve of someone who dares to say that Hercules wears a truss.

 

Thank you.

[keelanz]

So in your view of the world it is more appropriate to call God 'BS', 'fairy tale', and 'metaphor' rather than to call God 'him'? To the point of suggesting violence against me? When all I was doing was using a commonly used pronoun when referencing him?

 

 

http://www.beliefnet...-My-Church.aspx

 

My post was more a reference of general ignorance than directly at you but take it as you will.

 

Yes most abrahamic gods are IMO BS, fairy tales and metaphors therefor i personally dont see much scientific proof of rising from the dead or turning water into wine so why should i take it as anything else? on another note abrahamic gods are always portrayed as the "good" and the "light" in the world so this can be added to that definition of god.

 

To be fair i was trying to get people away from the idea of god "being" as defined in most religions because if we do that then god would certainly exist, we just get to subjectively define what "it" is.

[rktpro]

My post was more a reference of general ignorance than directly at you but take it as you will.

 

Yes most abrahamic gods are IMO BS, fairy tales and metaphors therefor i personally dont see much scientific proof of rising from the dead or turning water into wine so why should i take it as anything else? on another note abrahamic gods are always portrayed as the "good" and the "light" in the world so this can be added to that definition of god.

 

To be fair i was trying to get people away from the idea of god "being" as defined in most religions because if we do that then god would certainly exist, we just get to subjectively define what "it" is.

 

This quote of yours seems to make out itself that either you have studied all religions yourself both theoretically and practically or you are yourself BIG AND BEST God so that you can always insult other Gods.

I doubt both.

 

To Everyone: Now please make this thread a dead one and start a new one. I respect your ideas, so should you . I am not asking to follow them like a saint.

Regards

|rktpro|

[Athena]

Then take it up with the 40 authors of the books of the Bible that refer to God as "Him". And Jesus, who referred to him as "Father" when teaching the disciples how to pray. And how did I offend keelanz? I didn't say his statements were BS, didn't insult his grammar and punctuation skills, or say that I wanted to shoot him in the face. My post was completely polite.

 

 

 

...insensitive? More like I don't give a damn what gender He is, seeing as how i seriously doubt that an omnipotent deity identifies with genders like we do. If you want a female God, go make up your own denomination or sect of Christianity. And find Bible verses to support it (which will be impossible. Just so you know).

 

 

 

The New Testament repeatedly tells us that we can have a personal relationship with our Savior. How is that unknowable? Unless you're using it in the strictest sense.

 

I wouldn't say you offended Keelanz, but as a female, I am saying in general this whole God is a man thing, is offensive. We can hope New Age means an end to the centuries of patriarchy that have oppressed women, and hope for a greater sensitivity to past wrongs.

 

Athena, my name sake, is a Greek goddess. She didn't give humans commandments like the God of Abraham, but taught them to govern themselves. She was Athens patron Goddess of Liberty, Justice and Defense, and we once knew her as The Statue of Liberty, holding a book for literacy and a torch for the enlightenment that follows being literate. Her other aspects are the Lady of Justice, who was in many court rooms, and carries the Sword of Justice and scales, because justice is balanced with compassion and wisdom. Also as the Spirit of America, who is in the mural of gods in the Capital Building. As the Spirit of America, she represents morale, that high spirited feeling that comes out of believing we are doing the right thing. I use the name Athena, because it is my life purpose to replace religious mythology with the mythology for democracy. Obviously this mythology was known in our past, but it has been forgotten, and it really irritates me that so many believe our nation achieved greatness because of Christianity, instead of because of democracy. This God issue is far more important then some realize, because of the political ramifications. The end of oppressing is one of the political ramifications, and why are you not aware and sensitive of this in this day and age? Sincerely, why isn't this better known and appreciated?

 

We had liberal education until 1958. Liberal education begins with literacy in Greek and Roman classics, but as our country progressed, it Americanized the lessons of the classics. Then in 1958 this education for good citizenship, and to make us a united and strong republic, was replaced by education for technology, leaving moral training to the church, and now we have a real mess! Only highly moral people can have liberty, and we have forgotten defending our liberty began with being highly moral. Anyway, I don't need to invent a Goddess. She is older than the first democracy. She is older than Jesus.

 

Yes, the bible does deify Jesus for some, and some argue this means Christianity is polytheism with at least 3 gods, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But then don't they also need to include Satan as one of the gods? There are also angels and demons. Others argue Jesus is God himself. Then the Muslims don't deify Jesus or Mohammed, and of course Jews do not deify Jesus. All this is mythology.

 

Marat. The God issue is very important because of political ramifications. Religious beliefs are not as harmless as believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Athena

[A Tripolation]

I wouldn't say you offended Keelanz, but as a female, I am saying in general this whole God is a man thing, is offensive. We can hope New Age means an end to the centuries of patriarchy that have oppressed women, and hope for a greater sensitivity to past wrongs.

 

I seriously can't possible see how God being identified as a male (when God is most likely genderless) offends you in any way.

 

The end of oppressing is one of the political ramifications, and why are you not aware and sensitive of this in this day and age? Sincerely, why isn't this better known and appreciated?

 

I had no idea women were being oppressed. Are you not allowed to vote? Do you not have your inalienable human rights?

 

Anyway, I don't need to invent a Goddess. She is older than the first democracy. She is older than Jesus.

 

Then why are you complaining?

 

Yes, the bible does deify Jesus for some, and some argue this means Christianity is polytheism with at least 3 gods, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

 

Those are people who do not understand the fact that Jesus is a human projection of God.

 

But then don't they also need to include Satan as one of the gods?

 

Satan is a fallen Archangel.

 

There are also angels and demons.

 

Who are Angels, and Fallen Angels, respectively.

 

Others argue Jesus is God himself.

 

He is. According to Christianity's interpretation of the Bible.

 

Then the Muslims don't deify Jesus or Mohammed, and of course Jews do not deify Jesus.

 

Of course they do not. They aren't Christians. That's a tautological truth.

 

All this is mythology.

 

Well right now, it's still religion. But thanks for being so condescending.

 

Seriously. What point are you trying to make? That women are oppressed because of Jesus or something?

[Athena]

To debate about whether a logically self-contradictory (infintely good and powerful but still allows evil), mythological entity imagined by Bronze Age nomads is male or female, and to care deeply about this, seems preposterous. It's like becoming outraged over the nerve of someone who dares to say that Hercules wears a truss.

 

I had the misfortune the other day to read the feminist author Susan Okin's 1989 essay, "Justice as Fairness," which criticized the famous philosopher John Raws vociferously for his vicious sexism in constantly using the referent 'he' for persons of no identified gender in his 1973 book, 'A Theory of Justice.' Is Ms. Okin really so young that she is not aware that if you submitted a book to a publisher in 1973 using the female referent for people the manuscript would have been rejected as illiterate? The weird chic of using female referents for everything to prove that you are not sexist is an invention of the last decade or so, and before then it was unheard of. But this obsession with male or female forms of reference is really just the analog of the prudery of earlier generations which was so terrified of sex that it even covered table legs with cloths because of their analogy with the naked legs of women. Now today we are so terrified of sexism that the only way to get a journal article published is to write, 'The general was rescued by the fireman, after which she thanked her,' even if we don't actually know the genders of the actors involved in the story.

 

From the perspective of European languages, where it is obvious that the gender of reference is conventional and grammatical, and has absolutely nothing to do with biological sex, this current American obsession with using only female grammatical forms as though this could do anything real to help women is ridiculous. In German, for example, we have 'die Wache' (the (feminine) guard), 'der Gebaermutter,' (the (masculine) uterus), and 'das Maedchen' (the (neuter) young girl). So grammatical gender clearly has nothing to do with the actual gender of people, and the convention of proper English up until very recently, that the referent 'he' or 'him' is used for persons of unknown gender AND the deity, says absolutely nothing sexist; it is just a linguistic convention.

 

 

If you were a woman over 50, you would not have made that argument. I remember well when women did women's work and automatically were paid less than men doing the same job. Women were as barred from some colleges and therefore some careers, as a book that didn't use the pronoun "He" would not be barred from being published. The first piece of literature I read, that didn't follow the rule was the New Woman magazine. We can not expect a man to know the huge emotional and pyscological impact of being forced into the passive and dependent role by patriarchy, and then the impact of reading "she" where always before it was only the word "he", but we can expect men to make a greater effort to understand and be sensitive to the importance of change.

 

I seriously can't possible see how God being identified as a male (when God is most likely genderless) offends you in any way.

 

 

 

I had no idea women were being oppressed. Are you not allowed to vote? Do you not have your inalienable human rights?

 

 

 

Then why are you complaining?

 

 

 

Those are people who do not understand the fact that Jesus is a human projection of God.

 

 

 

Satan is a fallen Archangel.

 

 

 

Who are Angels, and Fallen Angels, respectively.

 

 

 

He is. According to Christianity's interpretation of the Bible.

 

 

 

Of course they do not. They aren't Christians. That's a tautological truth.

 

 

 

Well right now, it's still religion. But thanks for being so condescending.

 

Seriously. What point are you trying to make? That women are oppressed because of Jesus or something?

 

 

If you can not be sensitive to the issue, I guess that is just something you can not do, like people who have color blindness can not see all the colors. There is a huge, huge social and political impact directly tied into the gender and belief of a God. The Old Testament says God of Abraham is a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God. This God is a role model for men, and it is the role model of an abusive man, backed by laws that were oppressive to women. Socrates would ask, is it good to be jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing? We have come to the conclusion that this is not a good role model for men, nor for raising children. We could even go on to argue, what relationship might this God have with war? The God of David is a war God.

 

This is where the importance of literacy comes in. We can learn of the common beliefs when the Hebrews came on the scene, and their possible connection with Sumer, and the impact of Egypt and Babylon and Zoroastrainism and Hellenism on religion. We can use our reason to realize the mythology.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Athena

[A Tripolation]

The Old Testament says God of Abraham is a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God. This God is a role model for men, and it is the role model of an abusive man, backed by laws that were oppressive to women.

 

I agree that, in the OT, women were oppressed. Almost treated like slaves. But guess what? It's 2011.

 

If you think that men are beating their wives because of God, then you're just making excuses for the trash that hits women.

Edited April 29, 2011 by A Tripolation

[Athena]

I agree that, in the OT, women were oppressed. Almost treated like slaves. But guess what? It's 2011.

 

If you think that men are beating their wives because of God, then you're just making excuses for the trash that hits women.

 

Communism turned against religion because of the oppressive forces of religion. To unify the US against communism, it added "One nation under God" to the Pledge of Alliance and put "In God we trust on its money". This killed any kind of intellectual discussion about communism, because people of God have nothing to gain by associating with Godless people. This political power game, using religion, deserves our attention. It goes on as Bush junior led us to war, associating the attack on Iraq with the "power and glory", and mobilizing the Christian Right so successful, he won the reelection.

 

Religion was very much a part of persecuting Jews, and later Christian guilt which lead to forcing the Arabs to accept Israel, and tolerating Israel's on going violations of the UN mandates, which then becomes the reason behind the 1970 oil embargo, and later the bombing of Iraq because Saddam backed the Palestinians in their struggle for land, against the Jewish immigrants who are consuming their land and water, effectively putting the Palestinians on reservations in the worst regions in the hills. War is good for religion and religion is good for war. I think you might be under estimating the impact religion has on us in the present.

 

Today, after centuries of repressing women, this is less of an issue, but not a dead issue. However, a still very alive issue is the religious persecution of homosexuals, and depending on the interpretation of the bible, can continue to inflame persecution of others as well. Some of my Christian friends, specifically the Jehovah Witnesses, are opposed to democracy, because the bible is a book of kings and slaves, not a book about democracy.

 

The biggest problem I have with the influence of religion in our culture is what it has done to education decisions. Only highly moral people can have liberty, but we dropped education for good moral judgement and left it to churches, when we implemented the 1958 National Defense Education Act. Now our nation is in a mess, and so many believe God and morals are defined by Christians, and no one else. However, Jews keep their foot in the door, with Easter programs about how they changed the world by giving the world the word of God and the Ten Commandments, as though the rest of humanity would not have an understanding of God and morals, had it not been for the Jews. Come on, there is a lot of mythology here, that we need to bring out into light. Please, give more thought to the points of the argument. And please, don't stop at the fact that the OT God is the model of an abusive husband, but is also a WAR GOD and is very strongly impacting us today.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Athena

[mooeypoo]

I agree that, in the OT, women were oppressed. Almost treated like slaves. But guess what? It's 2011.

 

If you think that men are beating their wives because of God, then you're just making excuses for the trash that hits women.

 

There still is a LOT of inequality in society, workplace and (surprise) in academia. No offense, trip, but since the current inequality is not as obvious as it was in the 50s, it's no wonder that men have a harder time seeing it, and I mean no offense to any men here. I'm simply saying that perhaps you need to see how things actually are from the female perspective. There's quite a lot of advancements made from the 50s, but it's way far from calling things equal.

 

I suggest, however, that we start a new thread about this, seeing as it's off topic from the current one.

 

 

Okay, I started the topic here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/56798-social-inequality-to-women-in-our-society/

 

Continue this discussion about women rights/inequality there. If you want, I'll transfer the last few posts htere too.