Atheist vs. Religious

[Leonid Rogozov]

I'd be interested to see of the research on that.

It's a bit old but I don't think much has changed:

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml

~76% believe in God which is a remarkable contrast to scientists.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[UCSFx2017]

This isn't the golden rule we're talking about here. The historical example I'm highlighting is infanticide, which is an entirely different moral quandary. The moral question is "why bother to care for an infant that will cost my family excessive resources and gain us nothing?" and before the Jews, the answer was universally "don't bother, just let the it die in the elements." It happens in the animal kingdom all the time, and it happened plenty throughout the course of human history.

It's perfectly logical to let the infant die if you don't have the resources to support it, so I can't say I blame any of the ancient societies for this practice. But if you look at history, the Jews were the first culture to prohibit this based on concept Imago Dei, and now it's a commonly held moral "instinct" in the western world. People try to explain it away with pop/evolutionary psychology, but there's a clear place in human history where this widely-accepted moral originated.

That's really interesting. Thanks.

 

[peteB]

This isn't the golden rule we're talking about here. The historical example I'm highlighting is infanticide, which is an entirely different moral quandary. The moral question is "why bother to care for an infant that will cost my family excessive resources and gain us nothing?" and before the Jews, the answer was universally "don't bother, just let the it die in the elements." It happens in the animal kingdom all the time, and it happened plenty throughout the course of human history.

It's perfectly logical to let the infant die if you don't have the resources to support it, so I can't say I blame any of the ancient societies for this practice. But if you look at history, the Jews were the first culture to prohibit this based on concept Imago Dei, and now it's a commonly held moral "instinct" in the western world. People try to explain it away with pop/evolutionary psychology, but there's a clear place in human history where this widely-accepted moral originated.

Actually I have been doing some reading on this, and I found that the ancient Egyptian religion forbade infanticide as well. This predates the Jews. Infanticide was almost non-existent in Egypt for that reason. There were exceptions made by certain pharaohs, but overall that was the case. Check out the books of Emily Teeter, if you're interested.

It is possible that this was also in earlier cultures in ancient history, but the further back we go the less clear the historical records are, for obvious reasons.

 

[Lokhtar]

This isn't the golden rule we're talking about here. The historical example I'm highlighting is infanticide, which is an entirely different moral quandary. The moral question is "why bother to care for an infant that will cost my family excessive resources and gain us nothing?" and before the Jews, the answer was universally "don't bother, just let the it die in the elements." It happens in the animal kingdom all the time, and it happened plenty throughout the course of human history.

It's perfectly logical to let the infant die if you don't have the resources to support it, so I can't say I blame any of the ancient societies for this practice. But if you look at history, the Jews were the first culture to prohibit this based on concept Imago Dei, and now it's a commonly held moral "instinct" in the western world. People try to explain it away with pop/evolutionary psychology, but there's a clear place in human history where this widely-accepted moral originated.

Egyptians and Greeks both considered infanticide to be unacceptable. But you can't have it one way - if you're going to claim a moral that you deem to be positive originated with a particular religion, you also need to take responsibility for the morals that were practices which we now secularly call barbaric....

You can't cherry pick.

 

[KinasePro]

Egyptians and Greeks both considered infanticide to be unacceptable. But you can't have it one way - if you're going to claim a moral that you deem to be positive originated with a particular religion, you also need to take responsibility for the morals that were practices which we now secularly call barbaric....

You can't cherry pick.

A) you're wrong about the the egyptians and greeks, infanticide was permissible and commonplace in those cultures prior to Jewish influence. Done discussing this, it's a well-known fact. Go read Bertrand Russell & Thomas Cahill.

B) Westerners clearly don't accept ancient Jewish law en bloc, but we were heavily influenced by it. No one in this thread has argued that Jewish law is entirely timeless and perfect, we're discussing it's influence on modern thought (you seem to enjoy moving the goal posts, however...). Call it cherry-picking if you like, but that's how our ideas of right and wrong came about-- selective influence from earlier cultures.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Egyptians and Greeks both considered infanticide to be unacceptable. But you can't have it one way - if you're going to claim a moral that you deem to be positive originated with a particular religion, you also need to take responsibility for the morals that were practices which we now secularly call barbaric....

You can't cherry pick.

what are you considering cherry picking here?

 

[peteB]

A) you're wrong about the the egyptians and greeks, infanticide was permissible and commonplace in those cultures prior to Jewish influence. Done discussing this, it's a well-known fact. Go read Bertrand Russell & Thomas Cahill.

It is by no means a 'well known fact'. Egyptian scholars have evidence that infanticide was prohibited by Ancient Egyptian religion prior to Jewish influence.

On another note, there is no such thing as '100% fact' when it comes to ancient history. We don't have perfect records from any ancient civilization. The further back you go the more you have to rely on less and less credible information. There are numerous cases where historians agreed on a fact only to have it challenged later on by other evidence and find that the source material was either false or misinterpreted. Also, none of us were there, including Russell and Cahill, who are also far more knowledgable about and biased towards Western civilization and the Judeo-christian tradition.

The idea that we can definitively say that no one before the Jews saw infanticide as a bad thing or appreciated the sanctity of human is extremely short-sighted and honestly arrogant and ridiculous. We simply don't have even close to the level of knowledge of ancient history required to do that.

The only thing we can probably say to some certainty is that the Jews did find issue with infanticide, but we cannot by any means say that no other civilization in thousands of years, including civilizations we know very little about, did not understand that concept. Not to mention that there is evidence from Ancient Egypt to the contrary.

/end argument

 

[KinasePro]

It is by no means a 'well known fact'. Egyptian scholars have evidence that infanticide was prohibited by Ancient Egyptian religion prior to Jewish influence.

"Have evidence for" is far different than the actual historical consensus. What's the quality of the evidence? Does it stand up to the historical method? We could play this game for days.

I've already referred this debate to resources from experts on the history of thought. That's the source of my information regarding the history of morals, and I will not bother to debate the credibility nobel laureates like Russell vs. SDNers. Decide for yourself where historical opinion lies, I've shown my bias & sources.

On another note, there is no such thing as '100% fact' when it comes to ancient history. We don't have perfect records from any ancient civilization.

I don't disagree with this comment, as it applies to all knowledge (again, see earlier parts of thread). But our best historical evidence shows the earliest opposition to infanticide in Judaism.

 

[peteB]

I've already referred this debate to resources from experts on the history of thought. That's the source of my information regarding the history of morals, and I will not bother to debate the credibility nobel laureates like Russell vs. SDNers. Decide for yourself where historical opinion lies, I've shown my bias & sources.

Ok, that's fine, but your sources are all Western historians who have a Western bias. I have not seen you refer to any historical experts who are not trained or heavily influenced by Western thought. The nobel prize, which you refer to, also has a heavily Western bias. It is also quite Eurocentric. When you're arguing about the history of morals in the world as a whole, you can't only quote experts in the history of Western thought and civilization. That's why I take issue with your assertion of undeniable fact.

I take history with a very large grain of salt- I don't care how reputed or how many awards a historian has received, or even how widely accepted the fact is. I am honestly very skeptical of anything I can't verify on my own, so that may be why I can't accept these historians' claims as 100% fact. The same is true for me with religion and science.

There is no point in continuing the argument as it is a question of faith at this point. You obviously have a lot of faith in these historians- possibly because they are telling you what you want to hear- and I and others here don't. We're not saying that we know better (at least I'm not); we're just not accepting their version of history as the absolute truth, just as many of us aren't accepting Christianity as absolute truth.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Ok, that's fine, but your sources are all Western historians who have a Western bias.

But you have provided no sources as counterpoints..... only stated the opposite and then attacked his sources for having some bias. Western bias? Is it that we write our history to make all non-americans baby killers? I mean... thats totally true of the French... but I thought we were talking about egypt?

Arent you the guy who demands evidence with every statement?

 

[KinasePro]

Ok, that's fine, but your sources are all Western historians who have a Western bias.

Every historian has a bias, eastern or western, and you obviously need to choose judiciously where you place your trust. I don't think I'm alone in admiring the works of Russell, and he's regarded as an even-keeled authority on Philosophy, not exclusively the Western flavor where he specializes.

There is no point in continuing the argument as it is a question of faith at this point. You obviously have a lot of faith in these historians- possibly because they are telling you what you want to hear- and I and others here don't. We're not saying that we know better (at least I'm not); we're just not accepting their version of history as the absolute truth, just as many of us aren't accepting Christianity as absolute truth.

That's fine, but there's no need to belittle my thoughts or present straw men (both examples in bold), because I disagree with you. You don't trust world expert consensus on the history of philosophy, which is your prerogative. But considering how much expert opinion you likely tolerate in your medical and undergraduate education, I'd argue that your approach to history is inconsistent with your approach to the rest of your education. But to each his own.

 

[Aviator97]

Atheist right here.

 

[peteB]

That's fine, but there's no need to belittle my thoughts or present straw men (both examples in bold), because I disagree with you. You don't trust world expert consensus on the history of philosophy, which is your prerogative. But considering how much expert opinion you likely tolerate in your medical and undergraduate education, I'd argue that your approach to history is inconsistent with your approach to the rest of your education. But to each his own.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to belittle your thoughts. That wasn't what I intended, and I'm sorry if it came off that way.

I don't think there really is a world expert consensus in the history of philosophy. Maybe the historians you read agree, but I have read many who don't- particularly eastern historians. The idea of consensus really depends on who you include and who you exclude.

As far as undergraduate and medical education goes, there's a difference between trusting expert opinion completely and tolerating it because you don't have anything better to work with. On the first day of school, our dean reminded us that "at least 50% of what you learn will be proven inaccurate eventually". I do believe that's true. I think we need to work with what we have, but we can't trust it completely. We have to be skeptical. If we weren't, we would still be bloodletting. We would still be practicing medicine based on humorism like the Ancient Greeks did. At the time these ideas were the "expert consensus". But they ended up being discredited completely.

There's a big difference in that medicine is testable and history is not. As a physician I can see for myself what treatments work and what don't. I don't have to rely completely on "expert" opinion. However, I can't time travel to ancient Rome and see what really happened. I also can't examine all the source documents and artifacts that historians work with and come to my own conclusions since I just don't have the time or training or access to those items to do that. I'm naturally going to trust something I can understand and verify on my own more than something I can't. I don't think that is at all inconsistent.

 

[peteB]

Western bias? Is it that we write our history to make all non-americans baby killers?

It's more that our version of world history is written with far more information about western civilization than any other- which makes sense because we know more and have more access to and understanding of our own civilization than others. It also gives our Western civilization the benefit of the doubt when it comes to deciding where things originated. Historians of the past have had a very Western oriented view when looking at the world. Many of them were frankly racist and ethnocentric. They wanted to support the idea of Western superiority. This is the history that has been passed down to us today, and these kinds of views are still found among historians. (this is undoubtedly true about eastern historians as well, they have their own biases too)

An example of this is the Aryan invasion theory of Ancient India, which is being debunked by DNA and archaeological evidence. This theory was mainly advanced by those Western historians who wanted to show that Indian language and culture actually originated in the West. I was taught this theory in high school as fact, and it is still being taught that way in our country, though there are mountains of evidence piling up to contradict it.

If you're interested you can read "Myth of Aryan Invasion of India" by Dr. David Frawley.

 

[SpecterGT260]

It's more that our version of world history is written with far more information about western civilization than any other-

but that holds literally no validity when we are talking about works directed specifically at other cultures.... yes, the scope of our written history is focused on western. That does not at all mean that a scholar putting together something specifically non-western is automatically wrong due to geography.

 

[peteB]

but that holds literally no validity when we are talking about works directed specifically at other cultures.... yes, the scope of our written history is focused on western. That does not at all mean that a scholar putting together something specifically non-western is automatically wrong due to geography.

I never said that any scholar is automatically wrong because of their geography. Honestly, all I said was to take history with a grain of salt. KinasePro is trusting a group of scholars completely. I don't think that is a wise thing to do, because all scholars have biases. I also pointed out evidence contrary to his point from an Egyptian scholar, but he is dismissing that evidence on the basis that the Western scholars are more trustworthy. I don't think they necessarily are, especially when it comes to knowledge outside their areas of expertise and geography. Bias in history is a real thing, as it is everywhere. That is why I never do trust any expert opinion 100%.

It is however true, and demonstrable, that many scholars of the West, when putting together works about other cultures, do so with "western tinted glasses". I have given one particular example of how Western scholars have done so with Indian history above. The issue of Western historians writing about other cultures with a mindset of Western superiority is real.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Of course it doesn't. I never said that any scholar is automatically wrong. All I said was to take history with a grain of salt. KinasePro is trusting a group of scholars completely. I don't think that is a wise thing to do, because all scholars have biases. I also pointed out evidence contrary to his point from an Egyptian scholar, but he is dismissing that evidence on the basis that the Western scholars are more trustworthy. I don't think they necessarily are, especially when it comes to knowledge outside their areas of expertise and geography.

well then what is the point in talking about any of this anyways? A group of trusted scholars says x, but now you say we just shouldnt trust it? The only logical extension of what you are saying is that we just all assume that history didn't happen.
Unless you have something reputable that contradicts him, I will go with the statements by the guys who are peer reviewed and held in high esteem. There is still hard evidence that goes into what those guys do as well. It may not be testable, but it doesn't really need to be either.

 

[peteB]

well then what is the point in talking about any of this anyways? A group of trusted scholars says x, but now you say we just shouldnt trust it? The only logical extension of what you are saying is that we just all assume that history didn't happen.
Unless you have something reputable that contradicts him, I will go with the statements by the guys who are peer reviewed and held in high esteem. There is still hard evidence that goes into what those guys do as well. It may not be testable, but it doesn't really need to be either.

Well what's reputable or not is up to you to decide. I contradicted his point with evidence from Emily Teeter, a respected figure in Egyptology. He didn't buy that because he trusts his sources more. That's fine with me. I just think that you should always be open to the idea that anything you believe could be wrong, no matter who the information comes from. You will never see me saying that another point of view is completely impossible, the way he did.

If you think the only logical conclusion is to pretend history didn't happen, you didn't get my point at all. You see things as black and white. I realize that there's a gray area. I have some level of trust for these experts, but on the other hand, I am also open to the possibility that they are completely wrong. Unfortunately that's the nature of knowledge in the world. We have no way of knowing if anything is completely true. It's really really important that we keep an open mind though, because that's the only way we will find mistakes. If we just blindly accept what some expert says because of how many awards he's gotten or how esteemed he is, then we'll never be able to realize that what he's saying may be pure garbage.

That's also why verifiable and testable evidence means a lot more to me than anything else. I don't think it's a good idea to put too much faith in anything you can't test at all. I personally don't put too much faith in any history, especially ancient history. It's fun to read and think about, but I'm not going to use that information to make decisions about my life. I really don't think you can trust too much any human being who claims to be able to fully understand what a piece of stone from 3000 years ago meant, and then tries to derive an entire story of life in that time from a bunch of fragments of pots and vases, no matter how many peers he can get to agree with him.

 

[SpecterGT260]

If you think the only logical conclusion is to pretend history didn't happen, you didn't get my point at all. You see things as black and white. I realize that there's a gray area. .

uh.... REALLY? that has not been what I have seen from your post history.

I didnt see the counterpoint you gave. It looked to me like you just said "nuh-uh!" and then set about discrediting his source. If you had a tangible publication that said different that is another matter.

However, "what is reputable" isn't necessarily up to you or me. This is what impact factor attempts to do for us. Consensus vote is a reasonable way to assess validity and reputation.

 

[peteB]

However, "what is reputable" isn't necessarily up to you or me. This is what impact factor attempts to do for us. Consensus vote is a reasonable way to assess validity and reputation.

uh, no it's not. if you get a group of people who are all equally deluded or lacking important pieces of evidence or knowledge, then you'll get a consensus vote- doesn't mean it's true. I don't trust consensus votes. If you really want me to, I can find a huge list of consensus votes from experts that turned out to be false. Want to start with the consensus about the world being flat? What about scientific racism?

I'm sorry but when it comes to trust, I trust what I can see and verify myself. Even that, I'm not so sure. Thing is, we just can't be. That's how the universe is. Anything outside of what I can verify is not as trustworthy to me, especially not a group of people today trying to tell me they know what happened thousands of years ago by looking at fragments of vases. Doesn't matter what kind of consensus they can reach. Anyone who thinks they can be completely sure about anything in ancient history is frankly wrong.

Also doesn't mean I'm going to completely dismiss every expert opinion. I take these opinions and think about them, and if it's possible for me to test them, I do so.

Edit: And as far as my post history, you're probably referring to my insistence on sticking to precise definitions of words. That has nothing to do with this. That's an issue of communicating properly.

 

[SpecterGT260]

uh, no it's not. if you get a group of people who are all equally deluded or lacking important pieces of evidence or knowledge, then you'll get a consensus vote- doesn't mean it's true. I don't trust consensus votes. If you really want me to, I can find a huge list of consensus votes from experts that turned out to be false. Want to start with the consensus about the world being flat?

I'm sorry but when it comes to trust, I trust what I can see and verify myself. Even that, I'm not so sure. Thing is, we just can't be. That's how the universe is. Anything outside of what I can verify is not as trustworthy to me, especially not a group of people today trying to tell me they know what happened thousands of years ago by looking at fragments of vases. Doesn't matter what kind of consensus they can reach. Anyone who thinks they can be completely sure about anything is frankly wrong.

then provide a better method rather than nitpicking everything that is offered. Consensus vote IS what happens with current literature. yes, if you get enough loonies together you can skew the validity of it. But that isn't what I was describing and I think you know that.

Ever heard of "the exception the proves the rule"? You looking that hard for ways to break what is being said is a good example of that.

To the last part.... this is why I said the only rational end point for you is to reject any and all history. If you want to reject it because it isnt AS trustworthy as something else, be my guest. You only demonstrate how unaware you are of the level of interpretation within the "hard sciences" as well. So much of our current wealth of knowledge is hanging on a very small statement of "probably". I am failing to see what your point is here.... By all reasonable accounts that have been provided, infanticide happened in ancient egypt. The one guy who says otherwise also discounts all forms of history on the basis that they can't say with 100% certainty and somehow thinks that this translates into seeing shades of grey.

 

[SpecterGT260]

IIRC you also got after a resident because you didnt think any statement had meaning unless it was supported by succinct data.

 

[peteB]

To the last part.... this is why I said the only rational end point for you is to reject any and all history. If you want to reject it because it isnt AS trustworthy as something else, be my guest. You only demonstrate how unaware you are of the level of interpretation within the "hard sciences" as well. So much of our current wealth of knowledge is hanging on a very small statement of "probably". I am failing to see what your point is here.... By all reasonable accounts that have been provided, infanticide happened in ancient egypt. The one guy who says otherwise also discounts all forms of history on the basis that they can't say with 100% certainty and somehow thinks that this translates into seeing shades of grey.

There's a difference between rejecting and completely accepting. Again- you're thinking of thinks in black and white terms. I am totally aware of how much interpretation is in the hard sciences too. Realize that I don't accept anything in any science or literature 100%. My point was that you guys are accepting the most highly regarded scholar as complete fact. If you read Kinase's post you'll see that. I said, yes, he might be right, but I don't trust him completely. I don't trust anyone completely. That's not the same as rejecting everything. The shade of grey is between complete faith and complete rejection.

And I did do exactly what you said. I brought up a respected expert in Egyptology who has evidence to prove that infanticide did not happen in Ancient Egypt. I trust an Egyptologist more about issues regarding Egypt than anyone else because that's her area of expertise. It's even on Wikipedia:

In Egyptian households, at all social levels, children of both sexes were valued and there is no evidence of infanticide.[15] The religion of the Ancient Egyptians forbade infanticide and during the Greco-Roman period they rescued abandoned babies from manure heaps, a common method of infanticide by Greeks or Romans, and were allowed to either adopt them as foundlings or raise them as slaves, often giving them names such as "copro -" to memorialise their rescue.[16] Strabo considered it a peculiarity of the Egyptians that every child must be reared.[17] Diodorus indicates infanticide was a punishable offence.

Just because I can't completely trust any historian I must reject everything in history? That makes no sense what you just said there. All I said was that you have to always keep in mind that every statement any historian or scientist puts out has that "probably" attached to it. Don't tell me you know 100% for sure because you don't. I'm the one who understands the "probably". The guy you're backing up is the one who is 100% sure that what his favorite historian said is true.

The only options aren't either complete faith or complete rejection. There's this other possibility which is "maybe". And that's what I operate on when it comes to history. If you think that means I am completely discounting all forms of history, you don't get it.

 

[SpecterGT260]

There's a difference between rejecting and completely accepting. Again- you're thinking of thinks in black and white terms. I am totally aware of how much interpretation is in the hard sciences too. Realize that I don't accept anything in any science or literature 100%. My point was that you guys are accepting the most highly regarded scholar as complete fact. If you read Kinase's post you'll see that. I said, yes, he might be right, but I don't trust him completely. I don't trust anyone completely. That's not the same as rejecting everything. The shade of grey is between complete faith and complete rejection.

And I did do exactly what you said. I brought up a respected expert in Egyptology who has evidence to prove that infanticide did not happen in Ancient Egypt. I trust an Egyptologist more about issues regarding Egypt than anyone else because that's her area of expertise. It's even on Wikipedia:

In Egyptian households, at all social levels, children of both sexes were valued and there is no evidence of infanticide.[15] The religion of the Ancient Egyptians forbade infanticide and during the Greco-Roman period they rescued abandoned babies from manure heaps, a common method of infanticide by Greeks or Romans, and were allowed to either adopt them as foundlings or raise them as slaves, often giving them names such as "copro -" to memorialise their rescue.[16] Strabo considered it a peculiarity of the Egyptians that every child must be reared.[17] Diodorus indicates infanticide was a punishable offence.

Just because I can't completely trust any historian I must reject everything in history? That makes no sense what you just said there. All I said was that you have to always keep in mind that every statement any historian or scientist puts out has that "probably" attached to it. Don't tell me you know 100% for sure because you don't. I'm the one who understands the "probably". The guy you're backing up is the one who is 100% sure that what his favorite historian said is true.

The only options aren't either complete faith or complete rejection. There's this other possibility which is "maybe". And that's what I operate on when it comes to history. If you think that means I am completely discounting all forms of history, you don't get it.

You're missing the point. If we want to discuss anything on the matter we need to land somewhere. Accept certain things as factual unless otherwise shown false. That isn't being black and white. I wasn't saying you reject all history, I was trying to demonstrate to you the uselessness of that argument.

 

[peteB]

You're missing the point. If we want to discuss anything on the matter we need to land somewhere. Accept certain things as factual unless otherwise shown false. That isn't being black and white. I wasn't saying you reject all history, I was trying to demonstrate to you the uselessness of that argument.

Again, we don't have to label things as either True or False. We can discuss possibilities that have various levels of truth. Everything is false unless proven true to you. The world just doesn't work like that. You have a binary view of things. I don't. I assign truth values to things that can be anywhere along the spectrum of truth. Rarely do things ever get a 0% or a 100% on the truth scale. That is a limitation we have as human beings. You work with everything being 0% or 100% or nothing. That's just not reality. It's easier to think that way, but it's not real. It's just a very simplistic way of thinking. The only being capable of deciding True or False with perfect accuracy on anything is God himself, if he even exists.

You don't have to accept something as true unless otherwise shown false. You can accept things as somewhat true until shown that other things are likely more true.

 

[SpecterGT260]

.

You don't have to accept something as true unless otherwise shown false. You can accept things as somewhat true until shown that other things are likely more true.

I in no way said this. However sometimes you do have to assume something is true or false for the sake of further discussion. You can understand that there are probabilities attached. But you are nit picking a point.. to what end exactly? It appears like you are trying to show false something I didn't say at the moment

If you have a counter point that is sourced, use that. Your own point has gotten completely swamped in this other nonsense as it has in at least 2 other threads I've seen you in. You are going off on western bias and leading us down a ridiculous rabbit hole, somehow convinced that we are accepting without question the message in there (which is ironic given how steadfast you are in that thought....) when the only point that needed to be made was "here is a source that says otherwise, point refuted, moving on". Instead here we are talking about shades of grey when the only point I was making is:

-dude wants to make a point built off of a published piece of research. It doesn't do anyone any good at all to spend time spinning wheels going (and get really nasally when you say this) "well they cant 100% say for sure for certain that it happened that way", an approach in discussion that can ONLY result in everyone just staring blankly at each other because there is never a point in which to appropriately move forward. I don't feel like propagating error in a theology discussion. We have "stuff we know is true", "stuff we know is false", and "that could go either way". Use some logic and just fit the pieces where they seem to go best in the interest of moving this train wreck ahead

 

[peteB]

I in no way said this. However sometimes you do have to assume something is true or false for the sake of further discussion. You can understand that there are probabilities attached. But you are nit picking a point.. to what end exactly? It appears like you are trying to show false something I didn't say at the moment

If you have a counter point that is sourced, use that. Your own point has gotten completely swamped in this other nonsense as it has in at least 2 other threads I've seen you in.

You're the one that keeps picking at the stuff other than my point and that's why I keep having to explain it. I have a counter point that was sourced in the thread. I've read Egyptologists that argue with evidence that infanticide did not happen in Egypt, with some minor exceptions due to idiosyncracies of certain Pharoahs, and that it was not allowed in the Ancient Egyptian religion. If you want to learn more about it, you can read the author I mentioned, or check the wikipedia article I quoted and read the sources listed. Do I trust Egyptologists who have dedicated their whole lives to studying Ancient Egypt when it comes to the history of Egypt more than Thomas Cahill? Sure do.

The only other point I made, which is incredibly simple, is that you should always be skeptical about any expert opinion, especially when it comes to something like history where our knowledge is very very limited. The truth values on statements in ancient history are in the low 20s, if even that. I don't really believe that the Jews were the first to consider human life sacred. I've already pointed out evidence in this thread that shows that the ancient Indians also considered human life to be part of God and thus sacred (the concept of Atman from the Rig Veda) and the evidence above regarding infanticide in Ancient Egypt.

If you want to disregard all that evidence, you have the right to, just as I have the right to trust this evidence more than yours. If you're saying Jews had this concept, I agree with that. They did. But saying that Jews had it before anyone else did? Jews were the first ever to respect human life and not commit infanticide? That's really hard for me to believe given what I've read, and given the fact that your source isn't an expert in every other civilization to know what they did and didn't have, and the fact that our knowledge of many ancient civilizations is scarce and often non-existant. That is an incredibly lofty claim for anyone to make. I agree that there is evidence that the Jews had these ideas. But to say that no one else before them did, is just not believable to me. No one knows all of ancient history well enough to make that statement. There could be some civilization that existed that left no record for us whatsoever that held the same beliefs. How can you prove to me that that didn't happen? You can't. But you can prove what you have evidence to show, and that is OK with me. But lack of evidence is not evidence.

 

[SpecterGT260]

If you want to disregard all that evidence, you have the right to, just as I have the right to trust this evidence more than yours.

see..... It really confuses and concerns me that you think this is in any way an appropriate thing to say

I'm down with your source I said it got washed away because of your nitpicking (see the quote here for reference). We are all primed and ready to move ahead with this... unless you would like to tell me that I am being black and white and disregarding evidence again. We can do that a few more times if you need to....

 

[911 Turbo]

Why the hell are there so many religious medical students....

 

[Guero]

Always wondered this--I know most scientists are atheists, wondering how med students compare.

Thanks for including Agnostic. I'm surprised we're such a minority... I mean, when it comes to empiricism, I'd rather not accept the null outright.

 

[peteB]

Thanks for including Agnostic. I'm surprised we're such a minority... I mean, when it comes to empiricism, I'd rather not accept the null outright.

I think there are a lot of people out there who are 'borderline' agnostic, but not agnostic enough to put themselves in the agnostic category in a poll.

 

[Guero]

I think there are a lot of people out there who are 'borderline' agnostic, but not agnostic enough to put themselves in the agnostic category in a poll.

Good point.

 

[KinasePro]

Maybe the historians you read agree, but I have read many who don't- particularly eastern historians. The idea of consensus really depends on who you include and who you exclude.

Who are some of the many that you have read? I see the Hindu author you posted, but I'm curious if you have any prolific historians of Russell's caliber. Would be interested to read them.

There's a big difference in that medicine is testable and history is not. As a physician I can see for myself what treatments work and what don't. I don't have to rely completely on "expert" opinion. However, I can't time travel to ancient Rome and see what really happened. I also can't examine all the source documents and artifacts that historians work with and come to my own conclusions since I just don't have the time or training or access to those items to do that. I'm naturally going to trust something I can understand and verify on my own more than something I can't. I don't think that is at all inconsistent.

What you're learning is widely-accepted interpretations of empirical observations and data sets. Sure, you could go back to the primary data of Framingham study to verify that HTN leads to increased stroke risk, but you could also go back to Plato's original manuscripts to see that the ancient greeks were happy to use infanticide as population control. In both cases, the practical scenario boils down to us relying on expert opinion as a shortcut for doing the footwork ourselves. Neither of us have the time, energy, or resources to dig through the primary historical (or scientific) evidence for the topic we study, so we rely on expert opinion. Not sure why history should be treated different than medicine in your view, as they are both constructs based on empirical evidence, except history inevitably requires a more subjective analysis.

Also, you continue to offer the straw man argument that I take Bertrand Russell's word as gospel, when in actuality I'm merely stating that his opinion reflects a historical consensus among major scholars. Straw men arguments are the refuge for those without valid points, it's probably a good idea to avoid those altogether and represent opposing viewpoints accurately in these discussions.

Apart from some wikipedia articles and a far less objective Hindu author, you haven't offered a legitimate source opposing his views on infanticide, so my original assertion stands. I would be interested to read reliable & objective viewpoints that run counter to Russell's opinions, though. (He's an atheist, so I naturally consider him more objective than both Cahill and Frawley, though Cahill generally agrees with Russell)

If you're interested you can read "Myth of Aryan Invasion of India" by Dr. David Frawley.

It is however true, and demonstrable, that many scholars of the West, when putting together works about other cultures, do so with "western tinted glasses". I have given one particular example of how Western scholars have done so with Indian history above.

I notice that you're using a Hindu's allegedly-biased perspective on the history of thought to counter Russell's allegedly-biased western views on the history of thought... You see how this is futile? The best we can do is identify historical authorities, hear their arguments, and judge for ourselves who is objective and accurate. I offer Russell as my most reliable source on the matter, what are your sources that we can use to decide for ourselves?

 

[peteB]

Who are some of the many that you have read? I see the Hindu author you posted, but I'm curious if you have any prolific historians of Russell's caliber. Would be interested to read them.



What you're learning is widely-accepted interpretations of empirical observations and data sets. Sure, you could go back to the primary data of Framingham study to verify that HTN leads to increased stroke risk, but you could also go back to Plato's original manuscripts to see that the ancient greeks were happy to use infanticide as population control. In both cases, the practical scenario boils down to us relying on expert opinion as a shortcut for doing the footwork ourselves. Neither of us have the time, energy, or resources to dig through the primary historical (or scientific) evidence for the topic we study, so we rely on expert opinion. Not sure why history should be treated different than medicine in your view, as they are both constructs based on empirical evidence, except history inevitably requires a more subjective analysis.

Also, you continue to offer the straw man argument that I take Bertrand Russell's word as gospel, when in actuality I'm merely stating that his opinion reflects a historical consensus among major scholars. Straw men arguments are the refuge for those without valid points, it's probably a good idea to avoid those altogether and represent opposing viewpoints accurately in these discussions.

Apart from some wikipedia articles and a far less objective Hindu author, you haven't offered a legitimate source opposing his views on infanticide, so my original assertion stands. I would be interested to read reliable & objective viewpoints that run counter to Russell's opinions, though. (He's an atheist, so I naturally consider him more objective than both Cahill and Frawley, though Cahill generally agrees with Russell)





I notice that you're using a Hindu's allegedly-biased perspective on the history of thought to counter Russell's allegedly-biased western views on the history of thought... You see how this is futile? The best we can do is identify historical authorities, hear their arguments, and judge for ourselves who is objective and accurate. I offer Russell as my most reliable source on the matter, what are your sources that we can use to decide for ourselves?

Well, first of all you have forgotten the Egyptologists I mentioned who also contradicted Russell by referencing egyptian religious writings that prohibit infanticide. I don't care how prolific Russell is, when it comes to the history of Ancient Egypt, I trust an expert who has dedicated his/her life to studying Egypt over anyone else.

Secondly, David Frawley's myth of Aryan Invasion is actually supported by mountains of scientific evidence from genetic studies, as well as archaeological findings. The articles are online and you're welcome to search for them if you want to.

Most importantly, I find it very hard to believe that any human being knows enough about thousands of years of ancient history to be able to definitively rule out the possibility that any culture anywhere considered human life sacred/prohibited infanticide before the Jews. The probability of someone being able to make that statement given how little we have in the way of records and history from these civilizations, and how many civilizations may have existed that we don't even know about, is very very very small. That is the main reason why I honestly don't believe it.

Do I believe that the Jews prohibited infanticide? Absolutely. That argument is easy to prove. Do I believe that they were definitely the first and no one in the thousands of years of human civilization before them had that same idea? No, I don't, and I don't think any person on earth could credibly make that argument.

I am going to end my argument here. I've made my points and my opinion very clear throughout this thread, and there is really nothing more for me to add, nor do I have the time to argue any further. Arguing about which sources are more trustworthy is an exercise in futility given the highly subjective nature of the interpretation of history.

 

[Kaputt]

You guys aren't letting this thread die?

 

[peteB]

You guys aren't letting this thread die?

I am, I'm done arguing. Like I said, I made my points very clear and I have no more to add.

Kinase, for some reason, is fighting tooth and nail to prove that his (and ironically my) religious tradition (Judeo-Christian) was the first to consider human life sacred. Was it the first? I don't know, and I don't believe that anyone can say that. In fact, I've found evidence to the contrary. But more importantly, why does it matter that it was the first? Now that I think about it, it's a really silly argument. Who cares who was first? Most people don't. It doesn't matter.. but someone desperately seeking to prove the superiority of his religious tradition for some reason would. Which is funny because religion isn't supposed to be a competition.

 

[Kaputt]

I am, I'm done arguing. Like I said, I made my points very clear and I have no more to add.

Kinase, for some reason, is fighting tooth and nail to prove that his (and ironically my) religious tradition (Judeo-Christian) was the first to consider human life sacred. Was it the first? I don't know, and I don't believe that anyone can say that. In fact, I've found evidence to the contrary. But more importantly, why does it matter that it was the first? Now that I think about it, it's a really silly argument. Who cares who was first? Most people don't. It doesn't matter.. but someone desperately seeking to prove the superiority of his religious tradition for some reason would. Which is funny because religion isn't supposed to be a competition.

I agree with you. As long as Homo sapiens have existed, there has been evidence of ritualistic burial, which is direct evidence of treating life as sacred. But at any rate, you're right, it doesn't matter because that's a poor argument in favor of Christianity.

 

[KinasePro]

Well, first of all you have forgotten the Egyptologists I mentioned who also contradicted Russell by referencing egyptian religious writings that prohibit infanticide. I don't care how prolific Russell is, when it comes to the history of Ancient Egypt, I trust an expert who has dedicated his/her life to studying Egypt over anyone else.

Where's the synopsis? Is there a book you can point us to, or was this a google/wikipedia sort of thing?

Secondly, David Frawley's myth of Aryan Invasion is actually supported by mountains of scientific evidence from genetic studies, as well as archaeological findings. The articles are online and you're welcome to search for them if you want to.

So the reasons to reject Bertrand Russell are web articles (which your readers must find themselves, by the way) and a likely biased Hindu historian? What does this have to do with infanticide? It's just seems odd to object to bias, when the only substance to your objection is a different biased person + undisclosed web articles.

Kinase, for some reason, is fighting tooth and nail to prove that his (and ironically my) religious tradition (Judeo-Christian) was the first to consider human life sacred.

Straw man. Where in this thread did I try to prove that? I'm saying it's the prevailing historical opinion, providing my source, and letting readers decide.

Was it the first? I don't know, and I don't believe that anyone can say that. In fact, I've found evidence to the contrary. But more importantly, why does it matter that it was the first? Now that I think about it, it's a really silly argument. Who cares who was first? Most people don't. It doesn't matter..

If you look back to the conversation that was occurring, we were discussing how ideas of right and wrong come about. So naturally this is an important and relevant historical anecdote.

but someone desperately seeking to prove the superiority of his religious tradition for some reason would. Which is funny because religion isn't supposed to be a competition.

Yet another straw man argument. Why waste your time debating arguments that no one is making? I've said plenty in this thread that I don't intend to convince anyone of anything, and a person's choice of religion is deeply personal and not worth debating on SDN.

I agree that this thread should die, but I have to set the record straight when so many straw men are being presented.

 

[CaptainSSO]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wZVCD_4MB4M

This is relevant to the thread. This is a play written by Cormac McCarthy, called The Sunset Limited. It was made for HBO and directed by Tommy Lee Jones, starring only him and Samuel L. Jackson. I thought it was excellent--Cormac McCarthy is one of my favorite authors. He was not directly involved in its production, but he wrote the play, and I think Tommy Lee Jones nailed it. It's only about an hour long.

 

[sinuous sausage]

You guys aren't letting this thread die?

resurrected, like the Christ

 

[sinuous sausage]

I was sitting there at the stoplight the other day (best place for thinkin') when I realized that I truly (truly!) don't know, and only that I might believe there to be a God, but also that I came to this realization on my own. If anything, religious demagogues had slowed my approach to any sort of understanding granted me by experience. Human authority can't impose belief, and it only breeds resentment in the end. I think atheism is totally legit and I begrudge no man who subscribes to it. Let God speak to the these individuals as He may. A-mothertrucking-men!

 

[sinuous sausage]

Why the push to end this thread? It's great reading

 

[Guero]

Why the push to end this thread? It's great reading

+1

Let the debate continue.

 

[UCSFx2017]

Nah, the absolute truth debate is handled pretty easily.

Is there an absolute truth?

No.

So it's absolutely true there's no absolute truth?

Damn.

Mind = blown

 

[SpecterGT260]

I was sitting there at the stoplight the other day (best place for thinkin') when I realized that I truly (truly!) don't know, and only that I might believe there to be a God, but also that I came to this realization on my own. If anything, religious demagogues had slowed my approach to any sort of understanding granted me by experience. Human authority can't impose belief, and it only breeds resentment in the end. I think atheism is totally legit and I begrudge no man who subscribes to it. Let God speak to the these individuals as He may. A-mothertrucking-men!

You're the worst kind of people.... the ones who sit at the light for too long after it changes to green..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[Solus]

I think there are a lot of people out there who are 'borderline' agnostic, but not agnostic enough to put themselves in the agnostic category in a poll.

I selected atheist for this precise reason.

 

[famousbanker]

Obviously sarcasm but I think that picture is quite interesting. Waterfall empties into a single spring which further empties into many rivers or streams.
It wasn't the physical waterfall that turned Collins into a Christian. The waterfall is most likely a picture of the process that their Triune God (God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one; 1^3 = 1) went through. The waterfall symbolizes the Father as the source. God the Father is outside of time and seeks a counterpart like the way a man seeks a wife. Or more allegorically, the way God's creation Adam sought the making of Eve as his wife and counterpart. Note God's quote, "It is not good for man to be alone." Well then its probable that God is also not happy with being alone.
With this goal in mind, the Triune God enters time as Jesus, a morally perfect God-man. The spring that is sourced from the waterfall symbolizes Jesus. Jesus lives this perfect human life and dies on the cross and thereby saves humanity from their sinful nature, not just their sins.
But saving this group of people was not the only purpose of Jesus' death. It was through this death, that Jesus also "became a life-giving Spirit." Not in a transitive or modal sense but as a process. This Spirit is able to enter man and transform the once sinful man into a replication of Jesus' humanity and from the inside-out [Spirit -> Soul -> and eventually the physical body]. This Spirit entering the spirit of men, which each man possesses, is symbolized by the many rivers or streams sourced from the spring.
These people's souls are spiritually transformed to the moral equivalent of Jesus' perfect humanity via extensive life-long Bible reading, prayer, and experience. They do this until they die and hopefully they are completely transformed before they die. If their souls are transformed into a perfect humanity through these steps, their souls are saved and they become a constituent of the New Jerusalem, mentioned in Revelations, which is supposedly the Bride of God. The same counterpart that God in eternity sought after before the creation of man. It's an interesting love story. What exactly happens in eternity? Nobody I've asked really knows. Some say it's everlasting enjoyment or bliss. But then I'd ask, what's the point of everlasting bliss? What's the point of anything including eternity?

What doesn't make sense to me is how we, as in our souls, are supposed to find meaning and value in our lives through the Christian religion when it expects us to lose our soul life by losing and transforming our soul to match the humanity of Christ. To me this losing of the soul-life is almost the equivalent of not existing in the first place. Maybe we aren't meant to seek meaning and value in our lives. I don't understand what the ultimate Christian reward is. How is it less vain than the view of atheists who believe their only purpose is evolution's purpose which is to just procreate?

Interesting picture of the trinity. I have heard it described as the triple point of water and as an equilateral triangle. All are just analogies and all are inadequate in some degree of describing the triune God who is infinite.

You do not understand the reward? You would choose annihilation over eternal bliss?

Your statements seem to indicate that you believe a Christian to be someone who has thoughtfully considered various religions and chosen Christianity. That is false. No man can choose. If a professing Christian believes they have chosen, those souls are the ones who are the most hopelessly lost.
• So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy (Romans 9:16)
• You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. (John 15:16)
• For it is by his grace that we have been saved through faith, and this faith was not from you, but it is the gift of God, (Ephesians 2:8)

The true Christian does not construct a pallatable image of Christ to fit their personal paradigms of morality. The elect have been granted true, redeeming faith. They did not choose it through analysis of Christian doctrines--> "Lest any man should boast" (re:Ephesians 2:9)

 

[KinasePro]

Your statements seem to indicate that you believe a Christian to be someone who has thoughtfully considered various religions and chosen Christianity. That is false. No man can choose. If a professing Christian believes they have chosen, those souls are the ones who are the most hopelessly lost.
...

The true Christian does not construct a pallatable image of Christ to fit their personal paradigms of morality. The elect have been granted true, redeeming faith.

Easy there, John Calvin. The vast majority of Christendom disagrees with your ideas here, so try to paint with less-broad strokes when representing Christian belief.

 

[famousbanker]

Easy there, John Calvin. The vast majority of Christendom disagrees with your ideas here, so try to paint with less-broad strokes when representing Christian belief.

Truth is not defined by what I believe, what you believe, and especially what the evangelical majority believes:


21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-23)

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (2 Peter 2:1-3)

The Bible defines truth. My desire is not to offend, but to follow the command of my savior which is to speak the gospel. My hope is that all will recognize their absolute depravity and incapability to provide a defense against God's wrath. If this occurs it is certainly not from any persuasive ability or logical reasoning I present, but the spirit being awakened in them. Why do you think the scriptures say you must be "born again"? These analogies suggest we are entirely powerless to initiate our own regeneration. We did not choose to be made physically alive and we did not choose to be born—it is something that happened to us.

A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. (Ezek. 36:26–27)

Truly, truly , I say to you unless one is born of water and the Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:5-8)

 

[famousbanker]

Actually the people who started rejecting judeo christian philosophy brought more lasting moral truths into our lives (eg the enlightenment).

I find it hilarious that you think your morals come from the Bible. If they did, what's considered moral by a majority of Christians wouldn't keep changing every generation. The truth is, society decides for itself what's moral and then looks for justification for those beliefs in their holy books. And what do you know, they tend to find it.

A good video highlighting the universal moral law (discussed by Paul in Romans Ch 1 & 2) which condemns all mankind.

http://www.180movie.com/