Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

here is another Egyptian Tablet which mentions Israel.

And yet you decline to mention:

While alternative translations have been put forward, the majority of biblical archeologists translate a set of hieroglyphs on Line 27 as "Israel", such that it represents the first documented instance of the name Israel in the historical record,[2] and the only mention in Ancient Egypt.[3]

 

[dxld]

And yet you decline to mention:

Yes, a majority of Archaeologists translate that it says "Israel", which puts in favor that it says "Israel", not against.

 

[Imari]

Yes, a majority of Archaeologists translate that it says "Israel", which puts in favor that it says "Israel", not against.

Certainly, but that wasn't the point I highlighted.

Even taking it as given that the word is Israel, there is one and only one mention of Israel in all known Ancient Egyptian literature. And that reference does not include anything to do with slavery.

How is this evidence for your position that the Egyptians held Jewish slaves?

You seem to be missing a link.

Evidence for Jews in Egypt = check. No problems there.
Evidence for slaves in Egypt = check. There's some debate about the whole pyramids thing, but the Egyptians had slaves in one form or another.

What you're missing is evidence for overlap of the classes "Jews in Egypt" and "slaves in Egypt". I've seen nothing so far that would indicate that there was a significant group of people that could be described as "Jewish slaves in Egypt".


By way of illustration, consider the following:

I know there are Iraqis in Australia. I know there are strippers in Australia. Are there any Iraqi strippers in Australia? Possibly, but just knowing that there are Iraqis and strippers isn't enough, I need more information to know if there are any people who are both Iraqis and strippers.

 

[dxld]

By way of illustration, consider the following:

I know there are Iraqis in Australia. I know there are strippers in Australia. Are there any Iraqi strippers in Australia? Possibly, but just knowing that there are Iraqis and strippers isn't enough, I need more information to know if there are any people who are both Iraqis and strippers.

a papyrus now kept in the Brooklyn Museum labled Broooklyn 35,1446. Lists the names of Slaves, out of the 95 list, 48 of the Names were of Hebrew Origin, including the name of Shiprah, which was the name of a Hebrew midwife slave, this may be the same Shiprah who was also mentioned in the Bible.

here is an Illustration of the Papyrus,

a papyrus now kept in the Brooklyn Museum labled Broooklyn 35,1446. Lists the names of Slaves, out of the 95 list, 48 of the Names were of Hebrew Origin, including the name of Shiprah, who was a Hebrew midwife slave mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Imari]

a papyrus now kept in the Brooklyn Museum labled Broooklyn 35,1446. Lists the names of Slaves, out of the 95 list, 48 of the Names were of Hebrew Origin, including the name of Shiprah, which was the name of a Hebrew midwife slave, this may be the same Shiprah who was also mentioned in the Bible.

here is an Illustration of the Papyrus,

http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/3369/Historical_Papyrus_in_Five_Pieces

I see evidence that there are 45 names of Asiatic origin. From where are you getting the number of Hebrew names? Because it's not turning up in a Google Image search.

(P.S. You can just link us to wherever you're pulling this information from in the first place and post your conclusions, instead of trying to predigest it.)

 

[Mark T]

If you are convinced there is no GOD, then that is precisely what you shall have.
That is not a very wise choice, but you can have it that way, if you want.
Thats not GOD's preference, but he will honor it.

Sure, he'll honour it as it's so gracefully put in the following passages.

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

 

[Famine]

you asked me for proof of slaves, I gave you proof of slaves

Nope.

Scaff asked you for proof of Jewish slaves in Egypt and you gave garbled information that might have indicated the presence of Jews and then, from the predetermined endpoint of there being Jewish slaves, posited a process that connected the presence of Jews to there being Jewish slaves.

I merely pointed out that this was barely evidence and certainly not evidence of Jewish slaves you'd been asked for. For your next "evidence" of Jewish slaves, please ensure it is not only evidence, but of Jews who were slaves or slaves who were Jews.

 

[Dotini]

Sure, he'll honour it as it's so gracefully put in the following passages.

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

At this very hour, there is sectarian war raging across the middle east between Sunni and Shiite flavors of Islam. In Africa, genocide between Muslims and Christians seems inescapable. What the hell is wrong with these people?

 

[dxld]

Nope.

Scaff asked you for proof of Jewish slaves in Egypt and you gave garbled information that might have indicated the presence of Jews and then, from the predetermined endpoint of there being Jewish slaves, posited a process that connected the presence of Jews to there being Jewish slaves.

I merely pointed out that this was barely evidence and certainly not evidence of Jewish slaves you'd been asked for. For your next "evidence" of Jewish slaves, please ensure it is not only evidence, but of Jews who were slaves or slaves who were Jews.

didn't I just show it to you, the Papyrus??? Broooklyn 35,1446. It lists the names of 95 Slaves, 48 of who are Hebrew. What am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to go to the Brooklyn Museum, ask for a photo copy, then take 10 years out of my life to learn Ancient Egyptian and translate it for you? There is no point in me showing you something and you are afraid to look at it and do just a little bit of research yourself.

This is an informal discussion on an informal internet forum. I can't give you essays every day on Biblical Archaeology. I can only present you the evidence I dug up on the internet, and various college courses I have taken. I am only an armchair archaeologist.

A lot of this research I do on my free time. Maybe I will get back to you later, I've got better things to do with my life.

 

[BobK]

So you're alleging that there were over a million Jewish slaves in Egypt but the only evidence you can produce for Jewish slaves (not just Jews, not just slaves) is a document with a couple dozen names which maybe seem like they might be Hebrew? Really?

Maybe I will get back to you later, I've got better things to do with my life.

In other words you can't substantiate your claims, so you're running away. We see this time and time again in both this thread and the CvE thread.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/27/why-non-believers-need-rituals-too/

Is neo-paganism unacceptable to the hardcore rationalist?

To be socially viable, does atheism have to shed its image of dour grumpiness?

 

[Imari]

didn't I just show it to you, the Papyrus??? Broooklyn 35,1446. It lists the names of 95 Slaves, 48 of who are Hebrew. What am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to go to the Brooklyn Museum, ask for a photo copy, then take 10 years out of my life to learn Ancient Egyptian and translate it for you? There is no point in me showing you something and you are afraid to look at it and do just a little bit of research yourself.

This is an informal discussion on an informal internet forum. I can't give you essays every day on Biblical Archaeology. I can only present you the evidence I dug up on the internet, and various college courses I have taken. I am only an armchair archaeologist.

A lot of this research I do on my free time. Maybe I will get back to you later, I've got better things to do with my life.

You could provide a source for them being Hebrew names for a start. The Brooklyn site lists it as Asiatic names, and I found references on another forum to them being Semitic names but no source for that either.

Then you run into the problem that showing 50 Jewish slaves in Egypt proves basically nothing. I'd be surprised if there weren't at least 50 Jewish slaves in Egypt at some point or other. Hell, there's probably 50 Jewish slaves in Egypt right now.

What you actually need to do then is provide evidence that those 50 slaves were the tip of the iceberg, that there was actually a large group of Jewish slaves in Egypt. Even if you take millions as a bit of an exaggeration, the group has to be hundreds of thousands at least. The population of Egypt at the time was only ~3 million.

Simply looking at the Wikipedia page for the Exodus gives you an idea of the scale of the lack of evidence you'll need to surmount to make the Exodus seem even remotely plausible. There's evidence out there, but nothing that unequivocally points to the Exodus and a whole lot of HUGE gaps where you'd expect there to be at least something.

Best of luck to you, but I seriously doubt you can do from your armchair what learned archeologists haven't been able to do for decades.

 

[Famine]

didn't I just show it to you, the Papyrus??? Broooklyn 35,1446. It lists the names of 95 Slaves, 48 of who are Hebrew. What am I supposed to do?

Already answered for me:

You could provide a source for them being Hebrew names for a start. The Brooklyn site lists it as Asiatic names, and I found references on another forum to them being Semitic names but no source for that either.

Then you run into the problem that showing 50 Jewish slaves in Egypt proves basically nothing. I'd be surprised if there weren't at least 50 Jewish slaves in Egypt at some point or other. Hell, there's probably 50 Jewish slaves in Egypt right now.

What you actually need to do then is provide evidence that those 50 slaves were the tip of the iceberg, that there was actually a large group of Jewish slaves in Egypt. Even if you take millions as a bit of an exaggeration, the group has to be hundreds of thousands at least. The population of Egypt at the time was only ~3 million.

Simply looking at the Wikipedia page for the Exodus gives you an idea of the scale of the lack of evidence you'll need to surmount to make the Exodus seem even remotely plausible. There's evidence out there, but nothing that unequivocally points to the Exodus and a whole lot of HUGE gaps where you'd expect there to be at least something.

Best of luck to you, but I seriously doubt you can do from your armchair what learned archeologists haven't been able to do for decades.

You see, you've formed a belief about the slavery of the Jews in Egypt - leading up to the Biblical Exodus - that you already say you have to believe in order to consider yourself a Christian. This leads you to paste your beliefs over the evidence, interpreting it to fit the story and ignoring it where it doesn't, with leaps of faith conjecture (like the abandonment of el-Lahun, that you say could be attributed to the exodus - making it good enough for you to believe it is, to the exclusion of any other explanation) to fill in the blanks.

Bluntly, the evidence does not show what you believe it shows - but you believe it does, which is why we're subjected to these posts of "Here's a bit of evidence, conjecture, conjecture, conjecture, HEBREW SLAVES" and no actual evidence that the Egyptians held an entire ethnicity hostage for labour.

 

[KSaiyu]

Religion is dangerous. I used to think religion could influence actions positively but from what I've seen far too many people use it as something to hide behind. That's not to say I believe you can disprove God: by necessity any actions people can attribute to God/religion will not be able to be proven, otherwise it would take the faith out of the process. Nevertheless, it would be better for humanity if we relied more on our on faculties rather than what we've been taught to believe is true.

 

[Scaff]

The sources that I found these facts from said they were the houses of slaves who worked on the pyramids.

I've already linked to sources that now agree that these people were not slaves and were in the majority Egyptian.

Not only that, but the artifacts they found were Phoenician like pottery, Phoenecians do have links to the Hebrews especially in their Alphabet. The Town of Kahun also showed high evidence of a massive desertion of the town, which correlates to the Hebrew Exodus of slaves.

A massive desertion of 1 to 2 million people. Citation required in a big way.

Papyrus documents were also found containing a Will which were to transfer Slaves from a Parent to a Son. (A Will is proof of Slavery)

Citation required.

Look up the town of Kahun and the work of W.M Flinders Petrie and you will find more interesting facts.

I'm more than aware of his work (and his claims that the Egyptians were Caucasian), much of which has now been updated, and I have supplied sources on that you have ignored or dismissed (mainly because they don't fit the 'truth' you want.

Lets look at the Merenptah Stele, which you claim mentioned Israel, what you fail to mention is that this is the only mention in the entirety of ancient Egypt of Israel and more importantly that its not even agreed among historians that its even Israel its referring to. Not exactly conclusive fact.

We then have a list of names (under 100) that are not specifically Jewish and a long way short of the 1 to 2 million claimed.

Neither of these things come even close to supporting the claim of mass Jewish slavery in ancient Egypt or the Exodus.

 

[Imari]

I used to think religion could influence actions positively but from what I've seen far too many people use it as something to hide behind.

This is true of pretty much everything. I've seen people misuse science in the same way (Why hello, Al Gore!). People will mostly do what they want to do, and use whatever is to hand to justify themselves. They don't need religion for that, it's simply convenient.

 

[KSaiyu]

True, I should have said "could only influence".

 

[Dennisch]

What the hell is wrong with these people?

Religion.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So what you're saying is no, you won't share.

I just did.

It's not obvious to me how it can be true. Would you like to explain further?

Because there is nothing to say it isn't true.
So obviously it can be.

If we take what you say as correct, that God "wrote" the bible (through human agency, but still) and that it is literally true since he cannot lie, how do you resolve the contradictions?

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

There are parts of the bible that has conflicting statements where they cannot both be true, unless you're in some wacky alternate universe where Joseph has two fathers.

In your example for instance, Joseph is in the lineage of Jacob, so he begat him, just not directly.
You have a Father, Grandfather, Great Grandfather, so on and so forth.
Going back as long as you want, they all begat you.
Take any of them out of the picture and you don't exist.

No, he can't be wrong. You're AGAIN mixing up atheism and non-theism.

If I say "I don't know if there is a God", how can that be wrong? I mean, unless I met up with him for pizza the other day and I'm just lying about it, but you already accept that there's no objective evidence for God so it can't be that.

You are exactly right, in the respect, You don't know him.
That is not the same as, he doesn't exist.

Bzzt. You're assuming that he's there. Which from your standpoint is fine, but not for the decision making process of an atheist.

I'm not assuming anything.
I'm testifying that he does.

If it's in question whether there is a God (or gods) there or not, as there obviously is for many of us, the question is not whether to accept or decline. The question is "is there anyone actually there"? Only if the answer is yes does it make any sense to accept or decline.

I agree.
But again the answer is, yes he's there.

If the answer is maybe, then the answer is "well, I'll keep waiting until I see something that convinces me either way, otherwise I'm just wasting my time".

Well, I keep emphasizing the fact that it is a personal, individual and relational matter.
So, there is an element of pursuance on your part.
James 4:8 says, if you will draw near to GOD, he will draw near to you.

How you know this is, quite literally, beyond me.

Because as I said a while back, it is very similar to marriage.
At the point you decided you wanted her, there was only one question left.
Does she want you?
If she repeatedly and emphatically says no, she doesn't.
You have no choice but to honor the answer, and move on.

I am not convinced there is no God, nor I am convinced there is a God. As @Imari already said, I don't have it 'ass backwards' at all. When it comes to the question of 'Does God exist?', the answer 'I don't claim to know either way' cannot be wrong.

As far as just your determination, I agree.
But as far as the possible ramifications, of that position, I disagree.

My point was, you are an obvious participant in this life.
Therefore, regaurdless of your determination, any actual ramifications that go with that, you are subject too, just like everyone else.

My 5 year old nephew almost brought a tear to my eye the other day whilst playing with his Fisher Price Noah's Ark.
My family is largely irreligious, and hence my nephew has not received any direct religious instruction from us. He has, however, started to learn a bit about Christianity at school, thanks to visits from the local Christian ministry, which is a little disturbing but never mind. But given that he is too young to be expected to understand the implications of the story of the Ark, whenever he has asked us any questions about it, we have limited ourselves to telling him about the content of the story, and not our opinions about how true it is.
Anyway, bearing in mind that my nephew had no prompting whatsoever, he reliably informed us the other day that 'this couldn't happen'... somewhat bewildered, we asked him what he meant. He told us that it would be too dangerous to put all the animals on the same boat, because they would try to eat each other, and/or eat the people on the boat.
At this point, I caved in and asked him what he thought would happen if Noah tried to put dinosaurs on the Ark and he looked at me as if I was crazy...
So there you have it. My five year old nephew, who started school less than 6 months ago, has already figured something out that will doubtless bring him into direct conflict with our friendly local evangelicals. I find it positively amazing that a 5 year old child can deduce that there is a problem with the story of Ark, in spite of being told that story by his own family and now also in school.

Well you did say, he was your nephew, didn't you?
Anyway, with man, yes it is likely impossible.
But since it was GOD's plan to start with, I'm confident his influence and supervision were involved.
No biggy there.

 

[Imari]

I just did.

If that's your idea of sharing reasoning and experience, then I don't even know what to say.

All you've said is "I got Holy Spirit!" It tells someone who hasn't experienced this precisely nothing. You have a bunch of people here who haven't experienced this moment of revelation. This is your chance to enlighten them to what it was like, how it happened for you, and so on.

Nobody expects it to necessarily be the same for everyone, but you could at least start with the one experience that you do have first hand knowledge of and share.

Because there is nothing to say it isn't true.
So obviously it can be.

Something with logical contradictions cannot be true.

In your example for instance, Joseph is in the lineage of Jacob, so he begat him, just not directly.
You have a Father, Grandfather, Great Grandfather, so on and so forth.
Going back as long as you want, they all begat you.
Take any of them out of the picture and you don't exist.

Ah, I see the revisionist dictionary is back again.

And all the other contradictions?

You are exactly right, in the respect, You don't know him.
That is not the same as, he doesn't exist.

Congratulations on grasping a point. Maybe we're getting somewhere.

I'm not assuming anything.
I'm testifying that he does.

Wait, no we're not.

I agree.
But again the answer is, yes he's there.

Definitely not.


SCJ, you have absolutely no idea what we're talking about.

I'm beginning to doubt your ability to even comprehend simple viewpoints that do not revolve around the existence of God. It seems to be such a massive part of your worldview that you're literally unable to do without it, even as an exercise in empathising with other people.


Before you had your religious experience and were touched by the Holy Spirit or whatever, what were your beliefs?

 

[dxld]

Religion is dangerous. I used to think religion could influence actions positively but from what I've seen far too many people use it as something to hide behind. That's not to say I believe you can disprove God: by necessity any actions people can attribute to God/religion will not be able to be proven, otherwise it would take the faith out of the process. Nevertheless, it would be better for humanity if we relied more on our on faculties rather than what we've been taught to believe is true.

Religion is dangerous, But you know what else is dangerous? Art is dangerous! You know another field that is also dangerous ? Science. So is the field of Politics.

Art is important, people lead better lives with appreciation of art in at least one form. Art is as important as religion, or any of these other fields.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Sure, he'll honour it as it's so gracefully put in the following passages.

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

This is the Old Testament, under the law.
There was no other alternative during those times, to preserve a people from which the Messiah could come.

Religion is dangerous. I used to think religion could influence actions positively but from what I've seen far too many people use it as something to hide behind. That's not to say I believe you can disprove God: by necessity any actions people can attribute to God/religion will not be able to be proven, otherwise it would take the faith out of the process. Nevertheless, it would be better for humanity if we relied more on our on faculties rather than what we've been taught to believe is true.

Yes, Religion can be, has been, and still is dangerous.
On the other hand, it can be, has been, and still is very beneficial as well.
The Christmas season we just celebrated is a good example.
Faculties aren't enough, and never have been.
Evil is also one product of faculties, such as they are.

As I've said before, true Christianity is about relationship, as opposed to Religion.

 

[Famine]

Yes, Religion can be, has been, and still is dangerous.
On the other hand, it can be, has been, and still is very beneficial as well.
The Christmas season we just celebrated is a good example.

Of the former.

In fact it's a terrific example of just where your religion comes from. Christmas has nothing to do with the birth of Christ - it was just a conveniently large festival celebrated across the pagan lands of Europe for the Roman Empire to twin with their own deities (this happened a lot) as part of the Borg-like process of assimilating all cultures into theirs. Not that they were the first offenders in this regard - the Normans did it before them and the Saxons even before them.

So an innocent midwinter festival celebrated by agrarian societies became Yule and the Romans pasted their existing festival to Saturn (Saturnalia) over the top of it and, as the Roman Empire caught Christianity and Damasus I commissioned Saint Jerome to write the original Bible from the chosen books and from which all other Bibles derive (and that you reject as falsehood), it became the celebration of the birth of Christ.

 

[Dotini]

Science can offer people real hope (a cure for their disease, for example), while religious faith, in stark contrast, promises the world and delivers nothing (there is precisely zero evidence that praying works, for example). For me, a solitary piece of real hope will always be superior to an infinite supply of false hope.

Actually, there is evidence that positive thoughts, including meditation and prayer, produce more positive outcomes in a variety of circumstances than do thoughtlessness or negative thoughts.

At a time when a member of your family or community lies gravely stricken, it takes a stern, uncompromising and flint hearted man to insist that healing prayers, positive thoughts and loving emotions are false and worse than useless.

These thoughts occur to me as Michael Schumacher struggles for life with a brain injury, and many at GTP have expressed their prayers and best wishes for his recovery. If one's own child, sibling or parent were a victim (as one of mine currently is), it would extremely inappropriate to discourage them with the notion that the prayers and healing thoughts of others were false and hopeless. This sort of hardcore rationalism tips into cruelty and monstrosity.

As long as the face of atheism is one of dour grumpiness, atheism will never be socially acceptable.

As an agnostic and a rationalist, I try to keep a grip on my problems and shortcomings.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Religion is a completely unnecessary danger, there is nothing good that come from religion that can't be achieved without promoting such an unrealistic and non-productive way of thinking that can lead to people genuinely thinking that murder is a justified punishment for a large number of pathetic reasons, a lot of which aren't crimes.

 

[DK]

Christmas has nothing to do with the birth of Christ - it was just a conveniently large festival celebrated across the pagan lands of Europe for the Roman Empire to twin with their own deities (this happened a lot) as part of the Borg-like process of assimilating all cultures into theirs. Not that they were the first offenders in this regard - the Normans did it before them and the Saxons even before them.

Shouldn't that be "only offenders" rather than "first offenders"? I admit I know next to nothing about the Saxons and the Normans before they came to Britain.

 

[Famine]

Ah, by Normans I didn't mean the French people/1066 and all that. I meant the literal Norse Men from which the Normans got their name. Sorry, terminological inexactitude from me there.

 

[RalliArt/////]

Christmas became the celebration of the birth of Christ not because of Bible teachings.*
The Bible ignores Christmas because its not a Christian practice/doctrine. These pagan customs were given a false "Christian look", along with many others. A true Christian will not celebrate it.

(John 4:23, 24) God must be "worshiped with truth."

(2 Corinthians 6:14-18) "How can righteousness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness?"

(Matthew 15:6-9) ..."for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God."
*"They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."

 

[Touring Mars]

Actually, there is evidence that positive thoughts, including meditation and prayer, produce more positive outcomes in a variety of circumstances than do thoughtlessness or negative thoughts.

Perhaps I should have been more specific - I mean that there is no evidence that suggests that prayer is effective in influencing future events. You are talking about the potential benefits (either physical, psychological or perhaps even social) of the act of praying, whereas I'm talking about what is being prayed for. There may well be some evidence that shows that meditation/prayer etc. confers some benefits on the people who are praying - but there is no evidence that what one is praying for can be influenced in any way by prayer alone. If you have some evidence of that, I'd like to see it... and so would the Nobel committee, probably.

At a time when a member of your family or community lies gravely stricken, it takes a stern, uncompromising and flint hearted man to insist that healing prayers, positive thoughts and loving emotions are false and worse than useless.

These thoughts occur to me as Michael Schumacher struggles for life with a brain injury, and many at GTP have expressed their prayers and best wishes for his recovery. If one's own child, sibling or parent were a victim (as one of mine currently is), it would extremely inappropriate to discourage them with the notion that the prayers and healing thoughts of others were false and hopeless. This sort of hardcore rationalism tips into cruelty and monstrosity.

I agree that it would be churlish to point out the pointlessness of prayer to a desperate or greiving person, hence why I always refrain from doing so unless it is appropriate (such as in this discussion in this particular thread) or it was absolutely necessary. But that is just good manners.

Good manners notwithstanding, however, it doesn't mean that it is somehow wrong to point out the truth, which is that prayer has never been demonstrated to be effective, except maybe to make the person praying feel a bit better about the situation (as you have alluded to above), which is not a bad thing in most cases, but it can be.

I read an interesting post on a Christian forum recently that highlighted an important (and obvious) problem with the entire concept of prayer, and that was how prayer was unnecessary because God already has a plan for everyone that will be done, no matter what... in other words, if man's fate is predetermined, and God does indeed have a 'plan' for us all, then prayer is pointless. Even on its own terms, Christianity has a problem with the efficacy of prayer*, and that's before we have even considered it as a scientific issue.

(* at least when it comes to praying for a specific thing to happen, which is not what many theists view as the proper function of praying anyway.)

As long as the face of atheism is one of dour grumpiness, atheism will never be socially acceptable.

So long as atheism is portrayed in a negative light by those who wilfully misrepresent what atheism is, and refuse to accept that atheists are just as capable (if not considerably more capable) of moral behaviour, it may well be socially unacceptable.

You may call it 'dour grumpiness' if you like, but I reckon a good old-fashioned dose of reality can go a long way, especially in critical situations like a sick relative etc.. As I said in a previous post, a single piece of real hope is superior to an infinite supply of false hope. Medical science really can save lives - prayer cannot.

 

[dxld]

Christmas became the celebration of the birth of Christ not because of Bible teachings.*
The Bible ignores Christmas because its not a Christian practice/doctrine. These pagan customs were given a false "Christian look", along with many others. A true Christian will not celebrate it.

(John 4:23, 24) God must be "worshiped with truth."

(2 Corinthians 6:14-18) "How can righteousness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness?"

(Matthew 15:6-9) ..."for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God."
*"They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."

What about all the Christmas Songs that celebrate Christ? Their are millions of Christians who sing and celebrate with these songs during Christmas. The 3 Wise men who gave Gifts to the newborn King, gifts to a child, isn't this what we practice when we give gifts to Children?