There are just so many problems with Orthodoxy that one often doesn't know where to start.
So if you, for some reason, had one chance to convince a believer to stop believing (why? beats me) what argument would you choose?
I guess I'm kind of wondering what the rational order of disbelief is. I mean if one had to completely deconstruct Orthodoxy "from scratch" where would one start? There are so many tantalizing issues.
Does one start from the top and talk about God, and the problem of evil?
Does one quote the rather cruel commandments that hopefully no benevolent God authored?
Does one cite the fact that God either lied through science or in the creation account?
Does one discuss critical Bible scholarship, the Ancient Near East, and archaeology?
Does one talk about the fact that humans wrote (or in this case spoke) the Torah She B'Al Peh?
Or does one just simply say "PROVE IT!"
Which skeptical discussions take logical precedence as the initial "underminers" of Orthodoxy and which ones only become meaningful after Orthodoxy has been rather thoroughly undermined? Some commenters said that my discussion about contradictions in the Torah (hmmm I need to finish that sometime) was not itself an underminer of Orthodoxy (because of TSBP apologetics etc.) but was rather something which one discusses only after having decided for other reasons that the Torah and Orthodoxy in general are not divine.
I dunno
What do y'all think?
If you had to explain it all to someone what would you start with and how would you proceed?
Posts
No New Post Today
1 day ago
48 comments:
I’ve had discussions like this, and it really doesn’t matter. Debate for long enough, and you get down to, “I believe because I do, and nothing you say can shake my emunah.” At best, you might get someone to admit that you have good kashas.
My favorite argument though is to point out that Christians and Muslims believe every bit as strongly in their religions as any frum Jew does in yiddishkeit, and hammer the point until the person recognizes that his/her beliefs aren’t special just because he/she happens to hold them. Sometimes it even works.
Why don't you write out all the different theories and see which arguments are the strongest?
>My favorite argument though is to point out that Christians and Muslims believe every bit as strongly in their religions as any frum Jew does in yiddishkeit
Ah how could I forget that - the old "Muslims daven with just as much kavanna as you" - yes I think that would be the most effective way of driving the point home.
But I have had people deny that non-Jews are as sincere as Jews so I guess it depends.
E-man,
It requires a lot of work and I would have to dedicate multiple posts to each subject. Eh... maybe one day but I have a short attention span when it comes to blogging
SH said- "Does one start from the top and talk about God, and the problem of evil?
Does one quote the rather cruel commandments that hopefully no benevolent God authored?
Does one cite the fact that God either lied through science or in the creation account?
Does one discuss critical Bible scholarship, the Ancient Near East, and archaeology?
Does one talk about the fact that humans wrote (or in this case spoke) the Torah She B'Al Peh?
Or does one just simply say "PROVE IT!""
The problem with all of these is that there are logical explanations for each one. There are counterarguments that can not be said to be worthless. Oh sure, you can claim the counterarguments are apalogetics, but they fit very nicely with everything in Judaism.
Let's be honest, there is no real proof one can offer to disprove Judaism. There are many questions a person can ask and there are answers. If you think the answers seem logical then you will believe in Judaism, if you think they are crap, for whatever reason, then you won't believe in Judaism or you will have an "out." To try and convince a believer based on any of these things is pointless because there is no real proof here.
Do you really think these claims are "proofs" that one can rely on to disprove something?
>Oh sure, you can claim the counterarguments are apalogetics, but they fit very nicely with everything in Judaism.
Agreed I've been trying to think of a good definition of apologetics (I know 'em when I see 'em?) and it is rather difficult to put one's finger on. Though I don't if I would say "fitting nicely" There is a suspicious abundance of "this really means this" and "this doesn't really mean that" in Judaism.
>If you think the answers seem logical then you will believe in Judaism, if you think they are crap, for whatever reason, then you won't believe in Judaism or you will have an "out."
It's not always about "having an out" but I think you described the process rather well. I heard the "answers", they sounded like a load of crap, I kept looking and eventually gave up.
>Do you really think these claims are "proofs" that one can rely on to disprove something?
Good question possibly not. It might all boil down to "PROVE IT".
Atheist: I do not believe in Judaism/God because there is no strong reason to believe in it in the first place.
Jew: Can you prove that?
Atheist: I do not made the claim that I know, I simply say that based on what we know there is no reason to believe in it.
Theist: So you have faith that you do not believe!
(After a few hours of conversation by the atheist destroying Judaism every argument at a time.)
Theist: I have faith.
Now, note the hypocrisy. The theist says the atheist must be faithful that there is no God but has no problem himself having faith to believe in God.
Shilton Hasechel the word apologetics means the act of defending a point of view. It only became a bad word for people like Dawkins who like to think they aren't giving a point of view. It's always for them the other guys.
Baruch Spinoza the atheist doesn't believe in God. If the atheist truly doesn't know, he's an agnostic. At best in the larger sense the word agnostic can incompass the word atheist but the word atheist means no belief in God. As for your example I see plenty of atheists demanding proof from theists but holding on to their own atheism even if it means ignoring all arguments to the contrary.
>Baruch Spinoza the atheist doesn't believe in God. If the atheist truly doesn't know, he's an agnostic.
Oh gimme a break I hate it when ppl say this. No atheist except the real dummies say "I'm certain beyond a doubt" etc. You're just playing semantics. The atheist doesn't have to prove anything s/he just needs to knock down theism. Once again God ain't the default.
>but holding on to their own atheism even if it means ignoring all arguments to the contrary.
Lol oh yes sooooooo many arguments proving God stupid atheists with their heads in the sand!
This is the best you can do?
>Does one start from the top and talk about God, and the problem of evil?
Read Daas Tvunos and Derech HasShem.
> Does one quote the rather cruel commandments that hopefully no benevolent God authored?
Read the story of Shaul and the Amalekites and then try to remember that our perspective is limited.
> Does one cite the fact that God either lied through science or in the creation account?
Read Silffkin!
> Does one discuss critical Bible scholarship, the Ancient Near East, and archaeology?
Read those books I told you about. You didn't, right?
> Does one talk about the fact that humans wrote (or in this case spoke) the Torah She B'Al Peh?
Prove it!
> Or does one just simply say "PROVE IT!"
No, the burden of proof is on those who which to break down the established system. Modern atheism is a new phenomenon. Why should the existing monotheistic system have to prove itself? Let atheism try.
> (After a few hours of conversation by the atheist destroying Judaism every argument at a time.)
Note that he actually skips any of the actual arguments but just assumes he'd be successful.
> My favorite argument though is to point out that Christians and Muslims believe every bit as strongly in their religions as any frum Jew does in yiddishkeit
But that's a completely different discussion. Chrisians and Muslims take for granted that there was a revelation at Sinai but that God changed his mind later once (Chrisians) or twice (Muslims) and choose a new people. So the arguments are about whether or not that happened and the proofs behind it, not whether God exists or not. It's just not comparable.
Really, your arguments get weaker with each post. Time to stop talking to the mirror and try some real people.
> Do you really think these claims are "proofs" that one can rely on to disprove something?
This was my point, too. Belief doesn’t rest on proofs, so poking holes in the “proofs” of Judaism doesn’t make any difference to the believer. At best you’ve asked some interesting kashas.
> Now, note the hypocrisy. The theist says the atheist must be faithful that there is no God but has no problem himself having faith to believe in God.
That’s because of the unspoken part of this argument: the theist has faith in God and thereby accesses all the virtues one could hope for, while the atheist has faith there is no God because his desire to live a prust, hedonistic life requires him to deny God’s existence.
> But that's a completely different discussion. Chrisians and Muslims take for granted that there was a revelation at Sinai but that God changed his mind later once (Chrisians) or twice (Muslims) and choose a new people.
Fine, that Hindus believe every bit as strongly in their religion as any frum Jew does in Yiddishkeit. I usually use Christians as an example because most frum Jews (those that work, anyway) know a few sincere Christians. Anyway, Sinia is not the important point for Christians, the crucifixion and resurrection are. The ultimate point is that I don’t believe in Judaism for the same reason frum Jews don’t believe in Christianity: I don’t see any reason why I should.
Garnel:
You reponded to "Does one start from the top and talk about God, and the problem of evil?" with the answer of "Read Daas Tvunos and Derech HasShem." I have read Derech Hashem - studied it in depth actually, and also completed it with a shiur given by a very learned and frum Rav. (I coincidentally became a skeptic during the course of the two year long shiur). While he gives a valiant attempt at addressing the question, he does not give even a remotely satisfying answer, in my humble opinion.
Many of us are getting sick and tired of the orthodox world making excuses for a supposed compassionate god in face of all the evil in the world. The we humans can't understand the ways of god is getting old. Shit happens and it hurts. Nothing we do changes that. Life is either random or god is evil.
Garnel nice to see you around again ;)
>This is the best you can do?
When I'm trying to prove my point to frummies I'll tell you. This was directed to skeptics who agree with me (duh!) Since about 90% (if the poll is any clue) of my readers are skeptics I'm not spending ALL of my time arguing with you, Lisa, RG, and E-man.
But no fear! As a treat for you I'm posting about Burden of Proof tonight! stay tuned my frummy friends!
Rabban Gamliel,
"Baruch Spinoza the atheist doesn't believe in God. If the atheist truly doesn't know, he's an agnostic. At best in the larger sense the word agnostic can incompass the word atheist but the word atheist means no belief in God. As for your example I see plenty of atheists demanding proof from theists but holding on to their own atheism even if it means ignoring all arguments to the contrary.":
Complete stupidity - what you say. By your reasoning everyone is agnostic to Santa Clause. Because we can never trully know if Santa Clause exists. The entire point is, God for me, is about just as ridiculous to the idea of Santa Clause for you. And you have no problem saying "I do not believe in Santa Clause". Likewise I have no problem saying "I do not believe in God". In fact, you have no problem saying "Santa Clause does not exist", likewise I have no problem saying "God does not exist". It really is that simple, I have no idea why you make it into a complicated statement.
Theists believe that God exists. Atheism=lack of theism, i.e. lack of belief that God exists, not certainty that God does not exist. But, again, this is all semantics.
On the OT, honestly, I don't see any reason to try to convince a believer not to believe. I'm satisfied if he refrains from bashing in children's skulls and the like. Also, I think Chabad is probably right on persuasion - you can only plant a seed and it will either grow or it won't, you can't push it.
As to which of your arguments works, well, I didn't say "oh, there are cruel things in the Bible, I don't believe anymore" but it was this one that opened the door, so to speak. It took me a year to see it through, though.
Here is the entry in the Britannica desktop encyclopedia on Atheism:
"Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings.
Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless."
So, yes it is semantics, but get the semantics right. Atheism has a definition behind it. If you self identify as an atheist, know what it means, no? Maybe you should call yourself agnostic instead if that is what you really mean.
"Shilton HaSechel said...
>Baruch Spinoza the atheist doesn't believe in God. If the atheist truly doesn't know, he's an agnostic.
Oh gimme a break I hate it when ppl say this. No atheist except the real dummies say "I'm certain beyond a doubt" etc. You're just playing semantics. The atheist doesn't have to prove anything s/he just needs to knock down theism. Once again God ain't the default."
Oh gimme a break. Let's say you are right and the dictionary is wrong. In order for one to not be certain he would have to say there is something or somethings that he has not knocked down in his own mind about theism. If at the same time one says there is no reason to believe in God one has no argument that he feels is left to make on behalf of belief in God. Therefore he is saying there is no God. If you really do not believe one or the other way but are unsure so you can disbelieve all you want and God can still exist. That would mean you missed out in logic. It doesn't help to say you don't know something or can't know something. Something either exists or doesn't. If you don't know or claim you can't know you are missing out in logic because it either does exist or not. If you claim to not know if there is a God then say what makes you still wonder if there is a God or stop claiming you are not making a positive statement. If you really think God may exist then you can't condemn those who say God may exist for saying so. If you say it is impossible to know if there is a God that too is a positive statement that is not the default either. Only not saying anything without claiming that that is the true stance one must take is the default, but big deal. That's just ignorance. Ignorance is always the default if you want to risk having an idea that is not the default.
">but holding on to their own atheism even if it means ignoring all arguments to the contrary.
Lol oh yes sooooooo many arguments proving God stupid atheists with their heads in the sand!"
Yes there lots of arguments with stupid atheists with their heads in the sand. I'll yet prove it (I'm not calling you stupid literally). You claim you are not making any claims and yet how many proofs do you have left that you think has not been overthrown? So if you feel there is no proof then you have made a positive claim. So on one hand you claim your mind is open to the possibility of God on the other hand you are saying there is no proof you will accept so your head is in the sand. You are contradicting yourself.
David said:
"Life is either random or god is evil."
SH- I thought only Orthodox people argued in dichotomies?
RG
>In order for one to not be certain he would have to say there is something or somethings that he has not knocked down in his own mind about theism.
What? Once again you assume theism need to be knocked down. No! the burden of proof is on theism.
>If at the same time one says there is no reason to believe in God one has no argument that he feels is left to make on behalf of belief in God.
Once again NO!I just haven't heard one yet. There could be a proof out there but I am yet to hear it. I don't deny the possibility that I will hear something knew and I never said I did. All I meant was the well known classical proofs of God fail either because they're rubbish or because they prove something but not God. Is there a wise man on a mountain somewhere who will bring a new proof? Could be but until you marshal such a proof its all faith.
>If you really do not believe one or the other way but are unsure so you can disbelieve all you want and God can still exist.
Duh! Who's saying otherwise? Once again God could exist (As well as fairies and magic) but I (and you) have no reason to justify that belief.
>If you really think God may exist then you can't condemn those who say God may exist for saying so.
Yes I can. The only reason I admit that God may exist is because ANYTHING could exist. Pink unicorns could exist!
>If you say it is impossible to know if there is a God that too is a positive statement that is not the default either.
Never said that.
>That's just ignorance.
Nu! so fill in my ignorance with your coherent and precise proofs for God, Judaism, and Orthodoxy - all ears.
>I thought only Orthodox people argued in dichotomies?
Nope they just have a special propensity towards them ;) (the problem is FALSE dichotomies not dichotomies in general)
"Baruch Spinoza said...
Rabban Gamliel,
"Baruch Spinoza the atheist doesn't believe in God. If the atheist truly doesn't know, he's an agnostic. At best in the larger sense the word agnostic can incompass the word atheist but the word atheist means no belief in God. As for your example I see plenty of atheists demanding proof from theists but holding on to their own atheism even if it means ignoring all arguments to the contrary.":
Complete stupidity - what you say. By your reasoning everyone is agnostic to Santa Clause. Because we can never trully know if Santa Clause exists. The entire point is, God for me, is about just as ridiculous to the idea of Santa Clause for you. And you have no problem saying "I do not believe in Santa Clause". Likewise I have no problem saying "I do not believe in God". In fact, you have no problem saying "Santa Clause does not exist", likewise I have no problem saying "God does not exist". It really is that simple, I have no idea why you make it into a complicated statement."
Well if I say there is no Santa Claus I am making a positive statement. Santa Claus' nonexistence is predicated not on an agnosticism but on arguments that his existence is impossible. Saying Santa Claus' existence is ridiculous to think about even though I can't prove his nonexistence to everyone's satisfaction is making a positive statement that he does not exist. The possibility that something exists means it is not ridiculous to believe in its existence but rather you don't know. You are confusing positive demonstration of an idea to everyone's satisfaction with making a statement in one's own mind. If they are the same thing nothing can be known because nothing can be demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. For instance all can be an illusion.
>> Or does one just simply say "PROVE IT!"
>No, the burden of proof is on those who which to break down the established system. Modern atheism is a new phenomenon. Why should the existing monotheistic system have to prove itself? Let atheism try.
Garnel, I'm sorry, but that is so incredibly wrong it's...it's...it's really, really ridiculously wrong. Witch doctors were an established system for a long time. Aristotelian science was an established system for a long time. Christianity is an established system. If you believe truth is all cultural and relative and feel-good, then ok--you have to prove that we should break down the existing power structure, man. Groovy. If you have any interest in actual truth, though, then he who makes the positive claim bears the burden of proof. You claim existence in God. You claim the Torah was dictated to Moshe by said God. These are positive claims. You bear the burden of proof for me to accept such a thing.
As a side note, Shilton, to me this is the most important point, in answer to the question in your post.
Shilton I'll reply to you later. Unfortunately I am busy learning computer troubleshooting now.
SH- "Nope they just have a special propensity towards them ;) (the problem is FALSE dichotomies not dichotomies in general)"
Sorry, i meant false dichotomies. What david said is CLEARLY a false dichotomy.
JG said "Garnel, I'm sorry, but that is so incredibly wrong it's...it's...it's really, really ridiculously wrong. Witch doctors were an established system for a long time. Aristotelian science was an established system for a long time. Christianity is an established system. If you believe truth is all cultural and relative and feel-good, then ok--you have to prove that we should break down the existing power structure, man. Groovy. If you have any interest in actual truth, though, then he who makes the positive claim bears the burden of proof."
Um, not sure if you knew this, but every single thing that has replaced these wrong systems have PROVEN themselves to be true before uprooting their predecessors. Aristotilian science was replaced by modern science BECAUSE modern science proved itself. Real doctors replaced witch doctors only very recently (if by witch doctors you mean people that offered cures that were not real cures) with the advent of real medicine where things like penicilin were PROVEN to work. So, if the entire world believed in a god or gods before you are born and you come along and say there is no god of any sort, who needs to prove what?
The correlation between a god and fairies is beyond ridiculous. Have people had a consensus on the belief in fairies? However, how did the entire world come to believe in a god? Did someone wake up 10000 years ago and say, you know what, there must be gods or a god. Where did this idea come from and why ave people always believed in it?
FOr example, let's say there is a reigning scientific idea, how neurotransmitters work. A new theory of how they work comes along. Does the old theory get thrown out, or does the new theory have to prove itself first? Ah, but the new theory is the right theory! That conclusion is only discovered after more advanced tools are created and we can see how the neurotransmitters work. But yes, new theories always have to be proven in order to uproot old theories, that is how everything works.
howeverr, people can question old theories and say they don;t make sense and therefore, I would rather say we don;t know than say the old theory is true. That claim makes a lot more sense.
> Santa Claus' nonexistence is predicated not on an agnosticism but on arguments that his existence is impossible.
Come on, RG--there are plenty of things you don't believe in simply because you don't have evidence for them--Loch Ness monster, bigfoot, etc. Those aren't positive claims you are making--you just don't accept that they exist. (I don't see how one can posit nonexistence, since nonexistence is not a thing that can exist.) Even with Santa Claus--if you met a guy who invited you on his reindeer sled and took you around the world in one night to give out presents, you might reconsider your belief in Santa Claus. That hasn't happened though.
Of course, there's a separate line of logical positivist argumentation that would say the entire concept of God is meaningless, but they specifically distinguished themselves from atheism.
Back to Garnel:
>Does one start from the top and talk about God, and the problem of evil?
>Read Daas Tvunos and Derech HasShem.
Read them. The problem of evil never was the big one for me, but I don't see why I would accept that the author knows what he's talking about.
>Read the story of Shaul and the Amalekites and then try to remember that our perspective is limited.
Again, you make a claim our perspective is limited, and don't back it up. I say the entire thing makes perfect sense if it was written by humans a long time ago using their tribal standards, and poof--no limitations on our perspective.
>Read Silffkin!
I've read Slifkin, and while I think the problems run deeper than you, I'll once more just note that rather than the kvetching, a much more parsimonious explanation is, it's a creation myth written by people. Torah-Science problem solved.
>Um, not sure if you knew this, but every single thing that has replaced these wrong systems have PROVEN themselves to be true before uprooting their predecessors.
Not at first. There were first philosophical treaties rejecting Aristotelian science in favor of inductive science (e.g., Francis Bacon). In any case, if you want a comparison, the materialist project in modern day has been quite successful.
But you also leave out Christianity. Let's say a Christian stood up and said, "Wait a minute, do you have any reason I should believe that Jesus performed these miracles and was the son of God?" Would Garnel tell them, "Christianity is your established system, so you have to prove Jesus wasn't." No, because the Christian guy doesn't have to prove his "new theory"--he just is not at all convinced of the old one.
What's established does not have to do with what is true.
>The correlation between a god and fairies is beyond ridiculous. Have people had a consensus on the belief in fairies?
They did on demons for a long time. Magic too. I don't think any culture started without a belief in magic and demons.
>Did someone wake up 10000 years ago and say, you know what, there must be gods or a god. Where did this idea come from and why ave people always believed in it?
Genetics, evolutionary psychology, group selection. Maybe it's just more advantageous for humans to believe in God (it creates group cohesion it deals with evil etc.)doesn't give it empirical reality though.
> Santa Claus' nonexistence is predicated not on an agnosticism but on arguments that his existence is impossible.
Really? Can you prove that his existence is impossible? Keep in mind that he’s a magic man with special powers that let him live undetected at the North Pole and travel around the world in a single night.
> nothing can be known because nothing can be demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. For instance all can be an illusion.
Yup. Nothing can be known with absolute certainty, and the universe may be an illusion. That we don’t know the answer to something is not a license to make stuff up. It just means that we don’t know. That we can’t know anything with 100% certainty is similarly not a license to claim whatever one prefers because it’s impossible to prove absolutely that it’s not true.
Actually, my response to Garnel's "established system" comment could have been simpler: have you ever read "The Emperor's New Clothes?"
As regards the scientific theory comparison, it's not really parallel. To make it parallel, imagine approaching a group of scientists and saying, "Hey, you guys have been accepting Theory X for all this time, but no one has every had any clear hypotheses, hypothesis testing, or experimental evidence for Theory X." Can you imagine they'd say, "Well, it's accepted, so prove your new theory before we relinquish the old one." That's not how positivism works.
"G*3 said...
> Santa Claus' nonexistence is predicated not on an agnosticism but on arguments that his existence is impossible.
Really? Can you prove that his existence is impossible? Keep in mind that he’s a magic man with special powers that let him live undetected at the North Pole and travel around the world in a single night."
Great so you hold out for the slight possibility of his existence while I risk being wrong by actually ruling him out.
"> nothing can be known because nothing can be demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. For instance all can be an illusion.
Yup. Nothing can be known with absolute certainty, and the universe may be an illusion. That we don’t know the answer to something is not a license to make stuff up."
I don't say I am making stuff up. Just because you feel that belief in God is making stuff up doesn't mean that is how others believe in God.
"It just means that we don’t know. That we can’t know anything with 100% certainty is similarly not a license to claim whatever one prefers because it’s impossible to prove absolutely that it’s not true."
Again your characterization, not mine. If you are open to the possibility of God's existence .000000000000000000000000000000001 so the difference is that you are saying God might exist and I am saying He does. So mocking a certainty by saying one should say it is a possibility doesn't deal with the real question, of God's existence. If you are saying we can know nothing but only argue probabilities so fine don't talk to me about reality because you even hold out for belief in what you mock because of probability in your eyes. Imagine people mocking others belief that you exist because they have little evidence of your existence. Well those who say you exist are still right and you yourself are open to believing in what you mock others for believing in.
RG, re Santa Claus you say: “Great so you hold out for the slight possibility of his existence while I risk being wrong by actually ruling him out.”
Re God’s existence you say: “If you are open to the possibility of God's existence .000000000000000000000000000000001 so the difference is that you are saying God might exist and I am saying He does.”
Why go one way on the slight possibility of Santa’s existence and the other way on the slight possibility of God’s existence? Why not be consistent and say either both exist or both don’t exist.
Reading the rest of your comment made me a little dizzy, but I’ll try responding anyway.
> So mocking a certainty by saying one should say it is a possibility doesn't deal with the real question, of God's existence.
God’s existence is not a certainty, it is a very remote possibility, about as likely as Santa’s existence.
> If you are saying we can know nothing but only argue probabilities so fine don't talk to me about reality
We can know nothing in the sense that I might just be a brain in a jar. However, once I assume as a useful premise that the world I experience has an objective reality, I can, within the framework of that assumption, try and determine whether something is likely to be true. That is, is it consistent with the rest of what I’m experiencing. That all of my experiences may be an illusion is beside the point.
Think of it as fans arguing over whether something in their favorite TV series makes sense. Sure, the whole thing is a made-up universe, but within the confines of that fictional universe, there are things that make sense and things that don’t.
> because you even hold out for belief in what you mock because of probability in your eyes.
I’m trying to figure out what you mean by this. If you mean that I think it’s possible that God exists, sure, anything is possible. Including Santa overseeing an army of toy-making elves at the North Pole.
> Imagine people mocking others belief that you exist because they have little evidence of your existence. Well those who say you exist are still right
Yes, my beliefs have no effect on whether or not God actually exists. So…? I don’t hold beliefs in order to influence reality. That’s ridiculous. I hold beliefs because I think they’re true. I think that there is no good reason to think that God exists.
> and you yourself are open to believing in what you mock others for believing in.
First of all, I try not to mock anyone. If you perceive questioning God’s existence as mocking, well… oh well.
Secondly, yes, if given evidence of God’s existence, I’ll admit I was wrong and change my beliefs accordingly. (Can you say the same?) I “mock” people not for believing in God per se, but for believing in things they have no good reason to believe. I have an much lower opinion of people who believe other claims on bad or no evidence, like homeopathy, or psychic abilities, or astrology, or chi, or Santa Claus…
I am psychic so......... just disproved that theory. Ever seen the movie Next with Nocholas Cage? That is based on my life. So G*3, any more theories?
Oh snap we've gone disqus! changes about to follow
Testing 1 2 3
Now we can tell who is talking to whom
Yay!
I want you all to make extensive use of the reply button so I can follow these convoluted discussions
testing again why is everything upside down?
I'd beg you to use philosophical encyclopedias when looking up philosophical topics. What does Brittanica say on materialism?
However, the first quoted line is correct. An atheist denies a belief in God. Denying a belief in God, however, is not, the same as denying the existence of God. I'd take agnosticism to mean roughly being caught between good arguments, believing there are good arguments for God's existence but also good arguments against it, and not knowing whether to believe or not. The atheist, on the other hand, knows that he does not believe. I'm not sure why an encyclopedia would think it is a good idea to include a discussion of theists in an entry on atheism, but oh well. Now, someone can say that they are convinced and certain that God does not exist, and they'd also be put into the atheist camp, and many atheists do believe that, but there is room in the term for those who don't.
For analyzing terms, by the way, the first step should be analyzing the term. We all know what a theist is, and an atheist is "not a theist."
Hmm, the only circumstances I can think of where you would really try to convince someone, is if they were really miserable living that life, and really wanted to leave, but their belief was holding them back. It does happen.
But even in that case, I don't think a heavy handed all out convincing attempt is in order, people have to come to their own conclusions. If you bombard them with it then it isn't theirs, and it isn't real either.
Being correct doesn't preclude brainwashing.
'twas merely a logical/theoretical question. I have no plans of preaching (yet)
You're going to hate this answer but here goes. There is no mathematical formula that will tell you what is the best most unrebuttable foolproof point. It's a very subjective thing, depends on the person, different ideas will resonate with different people depending on their own background, psychology, and circumstances.
For me, the internal inconsistencies were the most powerful point.
But as you said, some people spend years in yeshiva devoted to resolving the most inconsistent things, and in the most convoluted fashion. They wouldn't be at all impressed, unless you could somehow expose them to a new way of thinking.
It all varies.
The good part about internal inconsistencies, is that it doesn't require any knowledge of science and history. Since frum people tend to lack knowledge in those areas, those aren't a very effective way of convincing them.
The internal inconsistencies played a big part in my skepticism too. The proffered solutions were just.... corny. My problem is although I knew that I felt that the provided answers were corny kvetches how do I define that feeling.
Are apologetics/kvetches inherently corny or are they only corny because we don't believe in the first place? If the former then how do we define that corniness in words?
That's why I've been posting about the Burden of Proof because I'm finding it difficult to articulate the actual essence of internal inconsistencies.
Likewise, the morally outrageous stuff in the bible, is only going to affect an person with a relatively well developed ethical consciousness.
>is only going to affect an person with a relatively well developed ethical consciousness.
We're not supposed to have ethical consciousness. The Torah IS our ethical consciousness. I have to admit that I was never bothered by the immorality of the Bible till late into my skepticism (even the genocide) simply because I knew no other type of morality.
That's an interesting question. For me, the moral questions were probably the most influential in that they tormented me for years. I have to say that they provided the MOTIVATION to turn skeptic.
But they weren't enough until I was able to recognize the internal consistencies. I did have an ethical consciousness, but I didn't feel that it was valid.
So objectively the moral issues are actually a huge strike against Bible, but on a subjective level, its effectiveness hinges on the mental freedom of the reader to exercise their own judgement.
The final straw was comparison to other repressive faiths.
But once again, a person has to be ready for that. I read the exact same book a few years a part (about the psychological control exerted by a non-Jewish religious sect). The first time I read it, I gloated how superior Judaism was that that sect. Only a few years later could I intuitively recognize how so the same it was.
Begin with: Everday experience is no supernatural or miracles, so people who believee in such need to prove it.
OJ then tries gematria, Kuzari, kelemen, gottleib, etc: and you then explain why those arguments fail. You then use all the evidence against OJ you can find in the sciences and academic displines bible crit, archeology, history etc: that demonstrates falsehood of OJ. Then show immorality of torah.
A GREAT RESOURCE IS DAATEMET, Talkreason, Talkorigins
Convincing people of the falsehood of Cargo Cults is very very hard.
Post a Comment