We can barely get an accurate account of what went down last week with health care... doesn't bode well for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years ago.
A lot. Why, because they didn't know any better. One of his most loyal followers, Jeremiah Reynolds did ultimately form theories of his own, specifically looking towards the south pole, where he thought there was likely another great land to be discovered (in actuality, a select few sailors had already seen antartica in their quest to find more and more seals to trade, but as sailors and not scientists, their 'discovery" had yet to be made public and nobody really knew what you'd find going south). His fervor on this topic in turn had some pretty historical influence, including likely influencing the whole Moby Dick story, and more importantly, being the agitating force behind the US Ex. Ex., which formally discovered antartica and mapped much of the pacific ocean. sorry for the history lesson...i'm not entirely sure what the/your point was?
Ethics for secular humanists: <object width="446" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param> <param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/SamHarris_2010-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/SamHarris-2010.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=801&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right;year=2010;theme=bold_predictions_stern_warnings;theme=a_taste_of_ted2010;theme=unconventional_explanations;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;theme=new_on_ted_com;theme=is_there_a_god;event=TED2010;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/SamHarris_2010-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/SamHarris-2010.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=801&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right;year=2010;theme=bold_predictions_stern_warnings;theme=a_taste_of_ted2010;theme=unconventional_explanations;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;theme=new_on_ted_com;theme=is_there_a_god;event=TED2010;"></embed></object>
Hmmm in Genesis, it says that humans are created in the likeness of God, so God must look human, or more specifically a Man (not a woman, so take that all you of the fairer gender, although if you examine the Hebrew version, gender is not that clearly portrayed). However, since the King James version, or the new one that is being written by ultra conservatives, is obviously the definitive version, then God must = Man. God also appeared as a flaming bush to Moses in Exodus, which implies that: If man = God = flaming bush ,then ==> men = flaming bushes by transitivity. Since it is a well known fact that women are created from a rib of Adam, who is the definition of Man, then does that make women twigs?
Lots of people believe in luck, and its across many different cultures. Its common to see athletes or sports fans talk about rituals they do for luck. There is no rational basis for such practices, and yet people do it. The idea of luck is still quite pervasive today in Eastern cultures (India, China, Japan, etc.). So here is the question I'd like you to answer -- where did that belief come from? Why did it persist after many, many thousands of years of evolution? Why did the idea of luck crop up in many different, geographically-dispersed cultures? When you talk about religious practices "working" -- and apparently you believe they have worked -- what exactly do you mean? E.g. Does Hinduism "work", and if so why? Next, 500 years ago a person such as yourself may have argued that widespread belief in numerology -- the mysticism of numbers -- for almost all of recorded history indicated that it would not die off. Now, numerology is still believed by many people, but surely that belief has waned. So (1) why have people throughout the millennia believe in mysticism behind the numbers, and (2) what has contributed to the decline in this belief? Why is it a waste of time and resources just because its not based on something real? If a particular society follows a strict code of conduct because of their belief in God, they may consequentially become more productive and self-sustaining. Whether that God actually exists or not makes no difference -- it is the belief that matters. Here's another way to look at it. I may convince a child that Santa Claus exists, and as a result the child is much more well-behaved throughout the year. So the child does his chores, does his school-work promplty, keeps himself clean, etc. Does Santa Claus's actual existence on the North Pole change any of that? No -- it is the belief that keeps the child well-behaved. Also, you say that the widespread belief in gods means it must be based in something "real". But depending on which culture you look at, these gods have many different attributes. They aren't so much alike, it seems to me. So, what is the nature of this God you think must necessarily exist? I think there must be something that that was there "before" The Big Bang. What that is, I don't know, but our universe must have sprung up from that "something" in my mind. If that's what you mean by "God", then I think virtually everyone believe in it. Let's review the scientific method for a moment. From Wikipedia: [rquoter] Four essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions,interleavings, and orderings of the following: Characterizations (observations,definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry) Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject) Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory) Experiments (tests of all of the above) [/rquoter] A true scientific theory is one that goes through all the above phases. "The earth is flat" is not a scientific theory. It was an untested, unverified hypothesis, based solely on the simplistic observation that the ground appears flat (like a table). That wasn't a "reasonable" belief 500 years ago, considering that thousands of years prior Eratosthenes of Alexandria was able to experimentally deduce that the earth's surface was curved with nothing more than a few sticks, eyes, and brains. And it isn't so much about people making up things at random. The belief in mysticism isn't random, but it isn't reasonable either because it violates the principle that the best explanation of phenomena is one which does not require extraneous assumptions (Occam's Razor). Instead of trying to explain things in terms of what is already already well-tested, one invokes a spiritual entity. But the problem with that is it does not actually further our understanding, but merely shifts the mystery behind the phenomena to something else which is totally imagined/invented. That is not a reasonable process for advancing knowledge.
My point is that it's not a lot. Relative to the topic of course. The reason is that the phenomenon you're discussing has a key quality - the absurdity is inversely related to success (measured by number of followers). With that in mind, the complete lack of scientific evidence supporting the existence of God coupled with the enormous following is very interesting. It also inherently blasts a giant hole through the head of your argument - there are a handful of people in the history of earth who have been able to convince tens of billions of people of something with simple (to summarize your views) marketing. It is a task which, in itself, already assigns a huge chunk of credibility to the "founders" of religions. If it were so easy, we'd have a new one today, 1,500 years since the last major religion was born. Instead we have people who try to do so and end up with a meager number of followers at the most. This further strengthens my religious beliefs. Jesus PBUH currently has 3 billion believers on his hands, and tens of billions total easy. Even Islam with all the fudge ups of the people in control of it has managed to gather billions and billions. How many people was John Cleves Symmes able to round up? Peanuts,
You're right. It does beg the question. Maybe you should go and have a think about that. I'll give you a hint. The solution is not in dedicating your every move to making them the same. I know that non-religious people see a future with religion shrinking away based on your comment above. It's not happening though IMO. Well, not in the forseeable future. Here's another hint: there's nothing scientific that proves Islam and Christianity to not be true. There is, however, much scientific evidence to say that Hollow Earth theory is, at least scientifically, false. Your question, to me, indicates missing information but there are some who believe it must just be a sham. Why do you think Islam or Christianity have far more adherents (by proportion) than Hollow Earth theory?
I've thought plenty about it, and I think the three (Islam, Christianity, Hollow Earth theory) are equally absurd. However, it is not my burden to establish the validity of your beliefs. Religion has always been absurd, yet it has persisted. I see no reason why it would spontaneously "shrink away" now. I disagree. You see, only True Believers of the Hollow Earth are able to discover the wonder of its subterranean existence. It is only because scientists are so dense themselves that they cannot realize the divine truth of hollowness. Only God knows everything. Well this is a question the answer to which I couldn't even begin to approach on this medium. My inclination is that Islam and Christianity (which are, of course, very closely related) pertain to a much wider range of human experiences than Hollow Earth and therefore are more politically useful as means of social control. In Christianity's case--and this may apply to Islam, as well--it's coevlolution with capitalism has much to do with its ubiquity. There are probably many other factors, but I doubt the validity of their respective theologies is one of them.
You've basically said nothing. I'm slightly amusd though that you think Christianity and capitalism have co-evolved implying some sort of dependance maybe? That's funny. It would probably do you good to discuss that with non-American or non-Western European Christians. The capitalist leech has only latched onto Christianity in some places, incidentally, those are the places where Christianity is losing popularity. I'm not sure if one is a result of the other, but interesting nonetheless. Just for the sake of information, your argument is poorly constructed to a Muslim. ~ 1,500 years ago, it was said that Allah/God is outside the creation. So I don't expect to ever see wordly proof of God and if I could, then I would rethink my religious beliefs. God, according to my beliefs, can not be created, in any shape or form, and no part of Him could ever be created even by Himself. Hollow Earth theory is IN the creation so I expect that it should be scientifically verifiable as per the scientific theory. This is the difference for me and this is what leads me to believe that you don't know enough about Islam, and maybe other religions, to have a credible position. Admittedly, I'm no science whiz. But my issue with science isn't "What is Science and what does it entail?". Your issue with Islam, and maybe other religions, on the other hand, is "What is this religion and what does it entail?". To address that, please note that God being outside the creation is a key component of Islam, much like observable phenomena, for example, is a key component of science. So again, I absolutely need evidence for everything known to us in the creation. This means I don't even take the Prophet's reported sayings PBUH for granted. It's just that when it comes to God, the scientific theory is weak and inadequate. Which is understandable to me, but doesn't make it any less awesome in my eyes than it is to a scientist. It should be understandeable to you as well that, if the God I describe exists, then the scientific theory probably would not be able to prove His existence. Is that fair to say?
Yes, but I think that is true of all scientific claims. We can not prove the existence of gravity either. Theories can only be disproved, not proved. The reason we believe gravity isn't because it has been proven true, but rather because it describes a very wide range of phenomena with such accuracy (and with no known counter-examples) that it just seems overwhelmingly likely that it must be true. I am not familiar with Islam, but like scientific theories it may be possible to test its coherency to some extent. Does it make any questionable claims about the nature of our universe? When it is describing the nature of God, are there any contradictions? Do you find the need to selectively choose parts of your scriptures to believe in (i.e. the parts which make sense to you)? As to why Christianity and Islam has spread, I think it can be attributed partly to the strength of some of the ideas within, and partly to conquest and violent coercion.
your point is wrong. you've made up some kind of threshold meaning a lot in your head; a meaningless threshold mind you. The hole in the world theory not only had a lot of people agreeing with it (and yes, it was a lot...even if it doesn't pass your majority of the worlds population threshold or whatever other threshold you made up), it directly influenced a TON of history, including the historic US Ex. Ex. I think I've mentioned this already. As has been agreed upon by virtually everyone in this thread. The question of debate was is something true because a lot of people believe in it? Which the answer, clearly is no. Which led to the, "well, how often do people randomly make things up that?" - which the answer is, historically (and currently), all the time, and they make things up that greatly influence the world. No, completely the opposite. In fact, I picked a random obtuse moment of history you probably had no clue about just out of the blue. This says nothing about centuries of ignored science, for instance, under the influence of the Church. You ever heard of the legends of Prestor John, as another example. How about this...pick any year in the last 2,000 years and I can give you something that was widely believed or influencing at the time, despite limited actual knowledge of the believed "fact". Any year. This statement is lacking. First, it completely ignores the fact that there have been new religions, plenty of theme. From the offshoots of Christianity, of which there are many, to something as ridiculous as Scientology. I don't think I need to go into the history and beliefs of Scientology to note how ridiculous it is; yet it's grown tremendously. Moreover, the statement completely ignores the fact that over the last 1,500 years Christianity has aggressively and purposefully spread BY DESIGN. Perhaps the reason we haven't seen more religions is because the modern day Jesus Christ's of the world have been drowned out by a completely dominating and missionary based religion. Great, congratulations...you've managed to point out the Christianity is more popular the Scientology? Who said it wasn't? Here, let me refresh the argument for you. care to explain the existence of Scientology? It's not clear if you are trying to have an intelligent debate or trying to twist the debate to your advantage because you're in someway offended as a Christian?? Again, for the billionth time. Christianity - massively popular and highly followed? Yes. Interesting? Absolutely? Proof that God exists? Of course not. Evidence that people never randomly make things up? Hell no.
What? Are you a non-religious person? It doesn't sound like it, so I have no idea what you think they are seeing as a future? Moreover, even if you were, you wouldn't be representative of the whole. Speaking of randomly making things up - you've just completely randomly made up in your mind something you think other people believe. on the contrary, science has been used to disprove many previously believed facts of these religions. Upon doing so, these believed facts have been altered. What, the earth can't possible be only thousands of years old? "Well, when we say seven days you have to understand days weren't defined and one day could represent thousands of years"...blah, blah, blah.
Your little exercise in attempting to expose some ignorance on my part is amusing, but doesn't get you past the fact that you haven't demonstrated any valid reason why your religion is less absurd than Hollow Earth theory (PBUIt). It seems, though, that you have accidentally stumbled upon one of the key flaws in your thinking that prevents you from understanding my argument about equivalence. The belief that God is outside of Nature dates back much further than 1,500 years. It was a little less than 400 years ago, however, when Baruch Spinoza was excommunicated from the Amsterdam Jewish community for arguing that God and Nature are, in fact, identical. Spinoza basically argued that positing God outside of Nature (or "Creation") complicates, and thus confuses, the ideas of both. To understand God, however, one must free him/herself from confusion. Therefore, it is prima facie absurd to think of God outside of Nature. Now, you have to remember that this argument is coming from a man for whom gaining understanding of the world was the ultimate goal. I'm not sure if that ethic suits you or if you have some other motivating drive in your life. At the very least, Spinoza's argument places the burden of proving the intelligibility of a theistic conception squarely on the theist. The ball is in your court, my friend.
What is his argument? It sounds like he defines Nature as all that it is or can be, and therefore God must by definition be a part of it. OK, I can go with that, but I think this is more of a semantic distinction. Perhaps there are only certain things about nature that are discoverable or comprehensible to humans, and God some how stands outside of that.
