Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Debate about Faith

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 12:56:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have some questions for religious people. Do you base your religious beliefs purely on faith? To some, faith is belief without evidence or with insufficient evidence. To others faith is really trust because of past experience with God. The second definition is really based on evidence. What is faith to you?

Most of us base many of our beliefs on legitimate sources alone without direct evidence. We believe in atoms because we have faith in the scientists who reported the experiments that show atoms exist. If your form of faith is like that, then you need to show that your sources are legitimate. If you can show that your faith is earned, your faith is actually evidence-based.

If your religious beliefs are based on direct evidence, then how important is direct evidence to your beliefs? If the evidence were to be shown to lack validity, would you change your beliefs?

Is faith based on no evidence valid? Is faith based on earned trust valid?
Volkskorps
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 1:20:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Basing our belief on atoms because we have faith in scientists is very legitimate. Scientists could all observe something, study it, and come to the same answer and form a consensus. Every scientific consensus could be observed by anyone if given the chance and skills. Religion is different. Religious leaders do not come to the same answer and cannot form a consensus, their ideas are observable and testable. Faith based on earned trust is valid for science and things that are objective, but not religion.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 2:15:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 12:56:00 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
I have some questions for religious people. Do you base your religious beliefs purely on faith?
NO. It's based on a combination of evidence & trust.

To some, faith is belief without evidence or with insufficient evidence. To others faith is really trust because of past experience with God. The second definition is really based on evidence. What is faith to you?
The 2nd one isn't really faith.

Most of us base many of our beliefs on legitimate sources alone without direct evidence. We believe in atoms because we have faith in the scientists who reported the experiments that show atoms exist. If your form of faith is like that, then you need to show that your sources are legitimate. If you can show that your faith is earned, your faith is actually evidence-based.
It's not faith, it's called rational trust. Why do people trust scientists?
Why is a Scientist more trustworthy than clergy, parents ,family, friends, etc.

If your religious beliefs are based on direct evidence, then how important is direct evidence to your beliefs? If the evidence were to be shown to lack validity, would you change your beliefs?
It's not either or, there are levels of belief / certainty. The weaker the evidence gets the more agnostic / less sure, I get. Since coming to DDO, I've gotten more agnostic (i.e. less certain). No matter what, I don't think I'll go past being agnostic. but I don't know for sure.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 2:58:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 1:20:45 PM, Volkskorps wrote:
Basing our belief on atoms because we have faith in scientists is very legitimate. Scientists could all observe something, study it, and come to the same answer and form a consensus. Every scientific consensus could be observed by anyone if given the chance and skills. Religion is different. Religious leaders do not come to the same answer and cannot form a consensus, their ideas are observable and testable. Faith based on earned trust is valid for science and things that are objective, but not religion.

Most Christians don't necessarily have religious faith in their leaders, just in the bible.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 3:31:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 2:15:07 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 12:56:00 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
I have some questions for religious people. Do you base your religious beliefs purely on faith?
NO. It's based on a combination of evidence & trust.

To some, faith is belief without evidence or with insufficient evidence. To others faith is really trust because of past experience with God. The second definition is really based on evidence. What is faith to you?
The 2nd one isn't really faith.

Most of us base many of our beliefs on legitimate sources alone without direct evidence. We believe in atoms because we have faith in the scientists who reported the experiments that show atoms exist. If your form of faith is like that, then you need to show that your sources are legitimate. If you can show that your faith is earned, your faith is actually evidence-based.
It's not faith, it's called rational trust. Why do people trust scientists?
Why is a Scientist more trustworthy than clergy, parents ,family, friends, etc.

A scientists is only more trustworthy than these people when it comes to science.

If your religious beliefs are based on direct evidence, then how important is direct evidence to your beliefs? If the evidence were to be shown to lack validity, would you change your beliefs?
It's not either or, there are levels of belief / certainty. The weaker the evidence gets the more agnostic / less sure, I get. Since coming to DDO, I've gotten more agnostic (i.e. less certain). No matter what, I don't think I'll go past being agnostic. but I don't know for sure.

It seems to me that:
1: Your religious beliefs are based on a combination of faith and evidence.
2: Evidence is very important for how much you believe what you do.
3: You view faith as trust but not as trust that has been earned.

Am I right about what you think, especially point 3? What proportion of your beliefs are faith and what is evidence generally when it comes to religion?

I hope don't come across as interrogating you. I just want to be sure I understand your point of view.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 4:20:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 12:56:00 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
I have some questions for religious people. Do you base your religious beliefs purely on faith? To some, faith is belief without evidence or with insufficient evidence. To others faith is really trust because of past experience with God. The second definition is really based on evidence. What is faith to you?

Most of us base many of our beliefs on legitimate sources alone without direct evidence. We believe in atoms because we have faith in the scientists who reported the experiments that show atoms exist. If your form of faith is like that, then you need to show that your sources are legitimate. If you can show that your faith is earned, your faith is actually evidence-based.

If your religious beliefs are based on direct evidence, then how important is direct evidence to your beliefs? If the evidence were to be shown to lack validity, would you change your beliefs?

Is faith based on no evidence valid? Is faith based on earned trust valid?

Personal, direct revelation.

So I do not judge those who have not received it.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 6:43:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 4:20:18 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 11/22/2012 12:56:00 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
I have some questions for religious people. Do you base your religious beliefs purely on faith? To some, faith is belief without evidence or with insufficient evidence. To others faith is really trust because of past experience with God. The second definition is really based on evidence. What is faith to you?

Most of us base many of our beliefs on legitimate sources alone without direct evidence. We believe in atoms because we have faith in the scientists who reported the experiments that show atoms exist. If your form of faith is like that, then you need to show that your sources are legitimate. If you can show that your faith is earned, your faith is actually evidence-based.

If your religious beliefs are based on direct evidence, then how important is direct evidence to your beliefs? If the evidence were to be shown to lack validity, would you change your beliefs?

Is faith based on no evidence valid? Is faith based on earned trust valid?

Personal, direct revelation.

So I do not judge those who have not received it.

So your belief is based on evidence not faith.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 7:30:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 3:31:04 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 2:15:07 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 12:56:00 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
I have some questions for religious people. Do you base your religious beliefs purely on faith?
NO. It's based on a combination of evidence & trust.

To some, faith is belief without evidence or with insufficient evidence. To others faith is really trust because of past experience with God. The second definition is really based on evidence. What is faith to you?
The 2nd one isn't really faith.

Most of us base many of our beliefs on legitimate sources alone without direct evidence. We believe in atoms because we have faith in the scientists who reported the experiments that show atoms exist. If your form of faith is like that, then you need to show that your sources are legitimate. If you can show that your faith is earned, your faith is actually evidence-based.
It's not faith, it's called rational trust. Why do people trust scientists?
Why is a Scientist more trustworthy than clergy, parents ,family, friends, etc.

A scientists is only more trustworthy than these people when it comes to science.

If your religious beliefs are based on direct evidence, then how important is direct evidence to your beliefs? If the evidence were to be shown to lack validity, would you change your beliefs?
It's not either or, there are levels of belief / certainty. The weaker the evidence gets the more agnostic / less sure, I get. Since coming to DDO, I've gotten more agnostic (i.e. less certain). No matter what, I don't think I'll go past being agnostic. but I don't know for sure.

It seems to me that:
1: Your religious beliefs are based on a combination of faith and evidence.
2: Evidence is very important for how much you believe what you do.
3: You view faith as trust but not as trust that has been earned.

Am I right about what you think, especially point 3? What proportion of your beliefs are faith and what is evidence generally when it comes to religion?

I hope don't come across as interrogating you. I just want to be sure I understand your point of view.

LOL. it's totally fine. As I was reading your analysis it reminded me of aptitude/personality tests.

The 1st 2 you nailed, the last one is a little more difficult.
Faith is a very vague word usually associated with belief without evidence.
Faith is really a Christian concept I think, I usually substitute the word faith with trust
I guess I'm not %100 sure what you mean by "You view faith as trust".
I don't really view "faith" at all it's not in my lexicon.
I have evidence and trust.

With regard faith being earned. Again it's a matter of degree (not just trust / no trust), and it depends on tons of subconscious factors.
The main factor is past experience.
It's not the kind of thing you can put a # on.

"What proportion of your beliefs are faith"

Not the kind of thing I can put #s on.

"what is evidence generally when it comes to religion?"

Well there are tons of arguments proving god.
Non of them struck me as undeniable truth.
but they are significant.

Then there is evidence for my religion specifically:
Which I have several books on.
I'll try to outline some of the arguments in the next post.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 7:32:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Evidence for Judaism , support for the divinity of the old testament/ Torah

1) Why do we believe anything that we believe?

Almost all that we believe come from:
a) 1st hand knowledge.
b) Hearing from someone reliable that you trust.
Being that (almost) no one today has 1st hand knowledge, most believers believe because that"s what those they trust told them.

This is not as irrational as it may sound. Most of what we know we know from others; news, history, science, nutrition, etc. We don't need to do the testing or research to believe the facts. We can and do know by listening to those we trust.

As a Jew, I & millions of other Jews have a direct link, parent to child, & teacher to student, for thousands of years, going back to the revelation of god at Mount Sinai.
Everyone tells their children and students about the event at Sinai. This has been going on for thousands of years.
Here is one such chain http://www.simpletoremember.com...

It's more than that though; all other religions are started by a revelation to a few people, think Mohammad, Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith Jr., Guy Ballard, etc.
(See http://www.simpletoremember.com...)
Judaism is the only religion that was started with a national revelation.

Why is this significant?

If the religion is started by a revelation to one person there are 3 possibilities:
a) He lied
b) He is psychotic
c) He is legitimit

When a religion is based on a national revelation, the 1st 2 possibilities are eliminated.

Thus we are left with possibility #3 which is that the revelation is legitimate.

How could Judaism have gotten started any other way?
A person can convince others that he had a personal vision, but one can"t convince a large group of people, that they (i.e. the people) had a collective experience, if it never really happened.

You can see this argument in extended form at:
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://ohr.edu...

This is one of many arguments for Judaism.

2) Then there are bible codes, I know a lot of people, even believing Jews don't like them, and I agree some are far fetched. But some of them are just too incredible.

Here is one of the most famous ones:

Everyone is familiar with the Purim story / the book of ester. In which a Jewish woman saves the Jewish people from annihilation. At the end of the story the 10 sons of Haman (the antagonist) are hung. In listing the names there are 3 letters that are written small according to tradition, no reason is given for this tradition, see http://kad.biblecommenter.com... Esther 9:7-10.

In 1946, 10 high ranking Nazis were hanged.
The Small letters are ת, שׁ, and ז, Rabbi Weissmandl pointed out that if you combine the three small letters together they form the word תשז, which in the accepted Hebrew notation for year numbers (using Gematria) corresponds to the Jewish year [5]707 Anno Mundi,[61] which is the Jewish year that the 10 Nazi leaders were executed (October 16, 1946 corresponds to Tishrei 21, 5707, the day known as Hoshanna Rabba, the day of severe judgments for the nations of the world, according to the Jewish calendar). http://en.wikipedia.org...

This is where Wikipedia ends, but there is more.
Originally there were 23 on trial, 11 were sentenced to hanging.
A few hours before the hanging, G"ring committed suicide, reducing the final # to 10.

If that's not enough, here's the really freaky part:
Julius Streicher, was one of those who were hanged. Let me quote for you a description of the hanging from an eye witness:

Kingsbury Smith. "Nuremberg News Article Oct. 16, 1946 " The Execution of Nazi War Criminals". University of Missouri-Kansas City.

"Julius Streicher made his melodramatic appearance at 2:12 a.m.

While his manacles were being removed and his bare hands bound, this ugly, dwarfish little man, wearing a threadbare suit and a well-worn bluish shirt buttoned to the neck but without a tie (he was notorious during his days of power for his flashy dress), glanced at the three wooden scaffolds rising menacingly in front of him. Then he glanced around the room, his eyes resting momentarily upon the small group of witnesses. By this time, his hands were tied securely behind his back. Two guards, one on each arm, directed him to Number One gallows on the left of the entrance. He walked steadily the six feet to the first wooden step but his face was twitching.

As the guards stopped him at the bottom of the steps for identification formality he uttered his piercing scream: 'Heil Hitler!'

The shriek sent a shiver down my back.

As its echo died away an American colonel standing by the steps said sharply, 'Ask the man his name.' In response to the interpreter's query Streicher shouted, 'You know my name well.'

The interpreter repeated his request and the condemned man yelled, 'Julius Streicher.'

As he reached the platform, Streicher cried out, 'Now it goes to God.' He was pushed the last two steps to the mortal spot beneath the hangman's rope. The rope was being held back against a wooden rail by the hangman.

Streicher was swung suddenly to face the witnesses and glared at them. Suddenly he screamed, 'Purim Fest 1946.' [Purim is a Jewish holiday celebrated in the spring, commemorating the execution of Haman, ancient persecutor of the Jews described in the Old Testament.]" "
http://en.wikipedia.org...

That is something I cannot ignore.

Here's another one:
This one is found in Benjamin Blech's "If god is good why is the world so bad?":

The author was in conversation with a mystic (BTW, most mystics, if not all, are fake, especially the ones who claim to be mystics, a real mystic would not reveal that he is a mystic. this is not the point thou.)

The mystic mentioned that he has a tradition that every verse in the bible corresponds to the years of history. Every major event of all time will have some illusion to it, direct or indirect.

The state of Israel was declared in 1948 which according to the Jewish calendar corresponds to the year 5,708.
Do you know what the 5,708th verse is?
Deuteronomy 30:3:
"Then the LORD your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you."

It was amazing to, good to be true, writes Blech. Perhaps it was just a remarkable coincident one of those accidents that are more entertaining than instructive. But it was certainly intriguing: The one verse that speaks of return to the land after centuries of exile is actually the very same # Biblical sentence as the year in which this unlikely event occurred!
The author then asked this man if so it should also work for the holocaust.
The man responded with a smile, "Try it yourself".
Counting the verses backward the verses corresponding to the years of the holocaust were
Those describing the punishment that would befall the Jews, for failure to serve god.
%100 Conclusive proof?
Maybe not. But it cannot be ignored, & should be taken into account.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 7:33:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
3) Fulfilled prophesy regarding the Jewish people, with quotes to show the realization of these prophesies.

Survival of the Jew: I would like to open with a quote from mark twain in his work entitled "Concerning the Jew":
"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in the world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?"
We see from these quotes the impressive eternity of the Jew. This has been foretold in the bible Genesis 17:7, Malachi 3:6, Leviticus 5:18, Jeremiah 5:18.

The "Jews will/should be a light unto the nations" was foretold in Isaiah 42:6 end, ibid.60:3 genesis 12:2, 3.
For the next quotes I give credit to simpletoremember.com:
"I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations ... They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe..."
- John Adams, Second President of the United States
(From a letter to F. A. Van der Kemp [Feb. 16, 1808] Pennsylvania Historical Society)
"If we were forced to choose just one, there would be no way to deny that Judaism is the most important intellectual development in human history."
- David Gelernter, Yale University Professor
"Some people like the Jews, and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question, the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has appeared in the world."
- Winston Churchill - Prime Minister of Great Britain
The "Jews will/should be a light unto the nations" was foretold in Isaiah 42:6 end, ibid.60:3 genesis 12:2, 3.

Next is the correlation between fertility of the land of Israel and its inhabiting of the Jews.
Again I quote mark twain I don't have space to quote it in its entirety so the reader is encouraged to look it up "Innocent Abroad or the new pilgrim's progress", vol.2 pp.216-359. Mark Twain wrights of the desolation and unsuitability of the holy land. As we see today the land of Israel is now an agricultural land following the return of the Jews. The sources for this prophesy are Leviticus 26:32, 33 duteronamy29:21, 22 Jerimia9:10 Ezekiel33:28, 29 all predict the desolation of the land. The return is predicted in Deuteronomy 30:3-5 and its following inhabiting and fertilization in Ezekiel36:8-11. We see here the prediction and realization of the Jews miraculous return followed by the lands mysterious revitalization.
There are other examples. See what professor Gottlieb considers to be the prime example: http://ohr.edu...

4) Then there is archaeological evidence:
http://ohr.edu...
5) & finally the argument from Jewish survival:
http://ohr.edu...

This one is kind of unconventional, converts. Orthodox Judaism is not easy, especially for people that didn't grow up with it.
Yet there are intelligent (PhD's&prof.) & successful people who come to the conclusion that this is the truth. That strengthens my conviction
Even with all the arguments in the world, I realize I may be bias. the Atheists,Christians, & Moslem's think they have evidence too, who's to say I'm right. When some one from the outside, with no ulterior motive or bias, concludes that this is the truth,& is willing to change his whole life for it, it gives me conviction
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 7:53:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 7:30:55 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 3:31:04 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 2:15:07 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 12:56:00 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
I have some questions for religious people. Do you base your religious beliefs purely on faith?
NO. It's based on a combination of evidence & trust.

To some, faith is belief without evidence or with insufficient evidence. To others faith is really trust because of past experience with God. The second definition is really based on evidence. What is faith to you?
The 2nd one isn't really faith.

Most of us base many of our beliefs on legitimate sources alone without direct evidence. We believe in atoms because we have faith in the scientists who reported the experiments that show atoms exist. If your form of faith is like that, then you need to show that your sources are legitimate. If you can show that your faith is earned, your faith is actually evidence-based.
It's not faith, it's called rational trust. Why do people trust scientists?
Why is a Scientist more trustworthy than clergy, parents ,family, friends, etc.

A scientists is only more trustworthy than these people when it comes to science.

If your religious beliefs are based on direct evidence, then how important is direct evidence to your beliefs? If the evidence were to be shown to lack validity, would you change your beliefs?
It's not either or, there are levels of belief / certainty. The weaker the evidence gets the more agnostic / less sure, I get. Since coming to DDO, I've gotten more agnostic (i.e. less certain). No matter what, I don't think I'll go past being agnostic. but I don't know for sure.

It seems to me that:
1: Your religious beliefs are based on a combination of faith and evidence.
2: Evidence is very important for how much you believe what you do.
3: You view faith as trust but not as trust that has been earned.

Am I right about what you think, especially point 3? What proportion of your beliefs are faith and what is evidence generally when it comes to religion?

I hope don't come across as interrogating you. I just want to be sure I understand your point of view.

LOL. it's totally fine. As I was reading your analysis it reminded me of aptitude/personality tests.

The 1st 2 you nailed, the last one is a little more difficult.
Faith is a very vague word usually associated with belief without evidence.
Faith is really a Christian concept I think, I usually substitute the word faith with trust
I guess I'm not %100 sure what you mean by "You view faith as trust".
I don't really view "faith" at all it's not in my lexicon.
I have evidence and trust.

With regard faith being earned. Again it's a matter of degree (not just trust / no trust), and it depends on tons of subconscious factors.
The main factor is past experience.
It's not the kind of thing you can put a # on.


"What proportion of your beliefs are faith"

Not the kind of thing I can put #s on.

"what is evidence generally when it comes to religion?"

Well there are tons of arguments proving god.
Non of them struck me as undeniable truth.
but they are significant.

Then there is evidence for my religion specifically:
Which I have several books on.
I'll try to outline some of the arguments in the next post.

Before I discuss your evidence with you, I noticed that you beliefs are based on some sort of evidence. Some of this evidence seems to be earned trust. I have no problem with this way of thinking.

However I do have one question. If all your religious experiences never happened or were explained naturalistically, and all the evidences of Judaism were shown to be totally lacking, would you still believe?
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 8:05:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 7:32:10 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
Evidence for Judaism , support for the divinity of the old testament/ Torah


1) Why do we believe anything that we believe?

Almost all that we believe come from:
a) 1st hand knowledge.
b) Hearing from someone reliable that you trust.
Being that (almost) no one today has 1st hand knowledge, most believers believe because that"s what those they trust told them.

This is not as irrational as it may sound. Most of what we know we know from others; news, history, science, nutrition, etc. We don't need to do the testing or research to believe the facts. We can and do know by listening to those we trust.

As a Jew, I & millions of other Jews have a direct link, parent to child, & teacher to student, for thousands of years, going back to the revelation of god at Mount Sinai.
Everyone tells their children and students about the event at Sinai. This has been going on for thousands of years.
Here is one such chain http://www.simpletoremember.com...

It's more than that though; all other religions are started by a revelation to a few people, think Mohammad, Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith Jr., Guy Ballard, etc.
(See http://www.simpletoremember.com...)
Judaism is the only religion that was started with a national revelation.

Why is this significant?

If the religion is started by a revelation to one person there are 3 possibilities:
a) He lied
b) He is psychotic
c) He is legitimit

When a religion is based on a national revelation, the 1st 2 possibilities are eliminated.

Thus we are left with possibility #3 which is that the revelation is legitimate.

How could Judaism have gotten started any other way?
A person can convince others that he had a personal vision, but one can"t convince a large group of people, that they (i.e. the people) had a collective experience, if it never really happened.

You can see this argument in extended form at:
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://ohr.edu...

This is one of many arguments for Judaism.

Maybe there is a 4th option. Maybe the events are based on different events that are much less supernatural, but over time legends formed. This happened for the Greeks. The Greeks have many myths about different heros who did supernatural acts in front of many people.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 8:31:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 8:05:22 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 7:32:10 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
Evidence for Judaism , support for the divinity of the old testament/ Torah


1) Why do we believe anything that we believe?

Almost all that we believe come from:
a) 1st hand knowledge.
b) Hearing from someone reliable that you trust.
Being that (almost) no one today has 1st hand knowledge, most believers believe because that"s what those they trust told them.

This is not as irrational as it may sound. Most of what we know we know from others; news, history, science, nutrition, etc. We don't need to do the testing or research to believe the facts. We can and do know by listening to those we trust.

As a Jew, I & millions of other Jews have a direct link, parent to child, & teacher to student, for thousands of years, going back to the revelation of god at Mount Sinai.
Everyone tells their children and students about the event at Sinai. This has been going on for thousands of years.
Here is one such chain http://www.simpletoremember.com...

It's more than that though; all other religions are started by a revelation to a few people, think Mohammad, Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith Jr., Guy Ballard, etc.
(See http://www.simpletoremember.com...)
Judaism is the only religion that was started with a national revelation.

Why is this significant?

If the religion is started by a revelation to one person there are 3 possibilities:
a) He lied
b) He is psychotic
c) He is legitimate

When a religion is based on a national revelation, the 1st 2 possibilities are eliminated.

Thus we are left with possibility #3 which is that the revelation is legitimate.

How could Judaism have gotten started any other way?
A person can convince others that he had a personal vision, but one can"t convince a large group of people, that they (i.e. the people) had a collective experience, if it never really happened.

You can see this argument in extended form at:
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://ohr.edu...

This is one of many arguments for Judaism.

Maybe there is a 4th option. Maybe the events are based on different events that are much less supernatural, but over time legends formed. This happened for the Greeks. The Greeks have many myths about different heroes who did supernatural acts in front of many people.

Very impressive. I didn't think of such a possibility for a while, & you just came up with it right away. Did you by any chance take a comparative religions Source?
You are right this is why the argument is not perfect.

But there is an answer.

Before answering, could you give me an example of a Greek myth where a person did super natural acts in public.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 8:47:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 8:31:02 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:05:22 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 7:32:10 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
Evidence for Judaism , support for the divinity of the old testament/ Torah


1) Why do we believe anything that we believe?

Almost all that we believe come from:
a) 1st hand knowledge.
b) Hearing from someone reliable that you trust.
Being that (almost) no one today has 1st hand knowledge, most believers believe because that"s what those they trust told them.

This is not as irrational as it may sound. Most of what we know we know from others; news, history, science, nutrition, etc. We don't need to do the testing or research to believe the facts. We can and do know by listening to those we trust.

As a Jew, I & millions of other Jews have a direct link, parent to child, & teacher to student, for thousands of years, going back to the revelation of god at Mount Sinai.
Everyone tells their children and students about the event at Sinai. This has been going on for thousands of years.
Here is one such chain http://www.simpletoremember.com...

It's more than that though; all other religions are started by a revelation to a few people, think Mohammad, Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith Jr., Guy Ballard, etc.
(See http://www.simpletoremember.com...)
Judaism is the only religion that was started with a national revelation.

Why is this significant?

If the religion is started by a revelation to one person there are 3 possibilities:
a) He lied
b) He is psychotic
c) He is legitimate

When a religion is based on a national revelation, the 1st 2 possibilities are eliminated.

Thus we are left with possibility #3 which is that the revelation is legitimate.

How could Judaism have gotten started any other way?
A person can convince others that he had a personal vision, but one can"t convince a large group of people, that they (i.e. the people) had a collective experience, if it never really happened.

You can see this argument in extended form at:
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://ohr.edu...

This is one of many arguments for Judaism.

Maybe there is a 4th option. Maybe the events are based on different events that are much less supernatural, but over time legends formed. This happened for the Greeks. The Greeks have many myths about different heroes who did supernatural acts in front of many people.

Very impressive. I didn't think of such a possibility for a while, & you just came up with it right away. Did you by any chance take a comparative religions Source?
You are right this is why the argument is not perfect.

But there is an answer.

Before answering, could you give me an example of a Greek myth where a person did super natural acts in public.

I have never taken a comparative religions course but I have compared a lot of religions.

Actually, I think I have a better example. Jesus. He did plenty of stuff in public.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 9:05:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 8:47:16 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:31:02 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:05:22 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 7:32:10 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
Evidence for Judaism , support for the divinity of the old testament/ Torah


1) Why do we believe anything that we believe?

Almost all that we believe come from:
a) 1st hand knowledge.
b) Hearing from someone reliable that you trust.
Being that (almost) no one today has 1st hand knowledge, most believers believe because that"s what those they trust told them.

This is not as irrational as it may sound. Most of what we know we know from others; news, history, science, nutrition, etc. We don't need to do the testing or research to believe the facts. We can and do know by listening to those we trust.

As a Jew, I & millions of other Jews have a direct link, parent to child, & teacher to student, for thousands of years, going back to the revelation of god at Mount Sinai.
Everyone tells their children and students about the event at Sinai. This has been going on for thousands of years.
Here is one such chain http://www.simpletoremember.com...

It's more than that though; all other religions are started by a revelation to a few people, think Mohammad, Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith Jr., Guy Ballard, etc.
(See http://www.simpletoremember.com...)
Judaism is the only religion that was started with a national revelation.

Why is this significant?

If the religion is started by a revelation to one person there are 3 possibilities:
a) He lied
b) He is psychotic
c) He is legitimate

When a religion is based on a national revelation, the 1st 2 possibilities are eliminated.

Thus we are left with possibility #3 which is that the revelation is legitimate.

How could Judaism have gotten started any other way?
A person can convince others that he had a personal vision, but one can"t convince a large group of people, that they (i.e. the people) had a collective experience, if it never really happened.

You can see this argument in extended form at:
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://ohr.edu...

This is one of many arguments for Judaism.

Maybe there is a 4th option. Maybe the events are based on different events that are much less supernatural, but over time legends formed. This happened for the Greeks. The Greeks have many myths about different heroes who did supernatural acts in front of many people.

Very impressive. I didn't think of such a possibility for a while, & you just came up with it right away. Did you by any chance take a comparative religions Source?
You are right this is why the argument is not perfect.

But there is an answer.

Before answering, could you give me an example of a Greek myth where a person did super natural acts in public.

I have never taken a comparative religions course but I have compared a lot of religions.

Actually, I think I have a better example. Jesus. He did plenty of stuff in public.

Here's 1 difference. In the case of Jesus, one (/ a few) person told group "A" that Jesus did a miracle in front of group "B". Group "B" had no way of verifying so it is conceivable that they'd believe him. In the case of national revelation to the Jews it was all one group. You can't convince a group of people that they experienced something they did not.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 9:44:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 9:05:42 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:47:16 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:31:02 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:05:22 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 7:32:10 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
Evidence for Judaism , support for the divinity of the old testament/ Torah


1) Why do we believe anything that we believe?

Almost all that we believe come from:
a) 1st hand knowledge.
b) Hearing from someone reliable that you trust.
Being that (almost) no one today has 1st hand knowledge, most believers believe because that"s what those they trust told them.

This is not as irrational as it may sound. Most of what we know we know from others; news, history, science, nutrition, etc. We don't need to do the testing or research to believe the facts. We can and do know by listening to those we trust.

As a Jew, I & millions of other Jews have a direct link, parent to child, & teacher to student, for thousands of years, going back to the revelation of god at Mount Sinai.
Everyone tells their children and students about the event at Sinai. This has been going on for thousands of years.
Here is one such chain http://www.simpletoremember.com...

It's more than that though; all other religions are started by a revelation to a few people, think Mohammad, Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith Jr., Guy Ballard, etc.
(See http://www.simpletoremember.com...)
Judaism is the only religion that was started with a national revelation.

Why is this significant?

If the religion is started by a revelation to one person there are 3 possibilities:
a) He lied
b) He is psychotic
c) He is legitimate

When a religion is based on a national revelation, the 1st 2 possibilities are eliminated.

Thus we are left with possibility #3 which is that the revelation is legitimate.

How could Judaism have gotten started any other way?
A person can convince others that he had a personal vision, but one can"t convince a large group of people, that they (i.e. the people) had a collective experience, if it never really happened.

You can see this argument in extended form at:
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://ohr.edu...

This is one of many arguments for Judaism.

Maybe there is a 4th option. Maybe the events are based on different events that are much less supernatural, but over time legends formed. This happened for the Greeks. The Greeks have many myths about different heroes who did supernatural acts in front of many people.

Very impressive. I didn't think of such a possibility for a while, & you just came up with it right away. Did you by any chance take a comparative religions Source?
You are right this is why the argument is not perfect.

But there is an answer.

Before answering, could you give me an example of a Greek myth where a person did super natural acts in public.

I have never taken a comparative religions course but I have compared a lot of religions.

Actually, I think I have a better example. Jesus. He did plenty of stuff in public.

Here's 1 difference. In the case of Jesus, one (/ a few) person told group "A" that Jesus did a miracle in front of group "B". Group "B" had no way of verifying so it is conceivable that they'd believe him. In the case of national revelation to the Jews it was all one group. You can't convince a group of people that they experienced something they did not.

Here is a basic problem with this kind of argument. We don't know how much of the story is true. Many historians even doubted the exodus even happened. Even if it did happen, and lets say that nothing supernatural happened. Don't you think that supernatural legends might have been started that spread? If we are talking about word of mouth, then it is easy for myths to grow up and spread especially if the myth is about something that happened a long time ago.

The game telephone is an interesting game that illustrates the point I am making.
http://www.ehow.com...
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 9:59:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 9:44:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 9:05:42 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:47:16 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:31:02 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:05:22 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 7:32:10 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
Evidence for Judaism , support for the divinity of the old testament/ Torah


1) Why do we believe anything that we believe?

Almost all that we believe come from:
a) 1st hand knowledge.
b) Hearing from someone reliable that you trust.
Being that (almost) no one today has 1st hand knowledge, most believers believe because that"s what those they trust told them.

This is not as irrational as it may sound. Most of what we know we know from others; news, history, science, nutrition, etc. We don't need to do the testing or research to believe the facts. We can and do know by listening to those we trust.

As a Jew, I & millions of other Jews have a direct link, parent to child, & teacher to student, for thousands of years, going back to the revelation of god at Mount Sinai.
Everyone tells their children and students about the event at Sinai. This has been going on for thousands of years.
Here is one such chain http://www.simpletoremember.com...

It's more than that though; all other religions are started by a revelation to a few people, think Mohammad, Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith Jr., Guy Ballard, etc.
(See http://www.simpletoremember.com...)
Judaism is the only religion that was started with a national revelation.

Why is this significant?

If the religion is started by a revelation to one person there are 3 possibilities:
a) He lied
b) He is psychotic
c) He is legitimate

When a religion is based on a national revelation, the 1st 2 possibilities are eliminated.

Thus we are left with possibility #3 which is that the revelation is legitimate.

How could Judaism have gotten started any other way?
A person can convince others that he had a personal vision, but one can"t convince a large group of people, that they (i.e. the people) had a collective experience, if it never really happened.

You can see this argument in extended form at:
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://ohr.edu...

This is one of many arguments for Judaism.

Maybe there is a 4th option. Maybe the events are based on different events that are much less supernatural, but over time legends formed. This happened for the Greeks. The Greeks have many myths about different heroes who did supernatural acts in front of many people.

Very impressive. I didn't think of such a possibility for a while, & you just came up with it right away. Did you by any chance take a comparative religions Source?
You are right this is why the argument is not perfect.

But there is an answer.

Before answering, could you give me an example of a Greek myth where a person did super natural acts in public.

I have never taken a comparative religions course but I have compared a lot of religions.

Actually, I think I have a better example. Jesus. He did plenty of stuff in public.

Here's 1 difference. In the case of Jesus, one (/ a few) person told group "A" that Jesus did a miracle in front of group "B". Group "B" had no way of verifying so it is conceivable that they'd believe him. In the case of national revelation to the Jews it was all one group. You can't convince a group of people that they experienced something they did not.

Here is a basic problem with this kind of argument. We don't know how much of the story is true. Many historians even doubted the exodus even happened. Even if it did happen, and lets say that nothing supernatural happened. Don't you think that supernatural legends might have been started that spread? If we are talking about word of mouth, then it is easy for myths to grow up and spread especially if the myth is about something that happened a long time ago.

The game telephone is an interesting game that illustrates the point I am making.
http://www.ehow.com...

There are a few reasons telephone works so well including;
a) you can only say it once.
b)the message and it's accurate transmission are really not important.
c)It's usually done at parties in a less than serious atmosphere.
d)it's one word not a message.

All these factors are not factors in the transmission we are discussing.

Another answer is if mass revelations were easy/simple/probable/natural myths,they would be more common, it would have happened more than one time in history.
(Even if it made sense that it should be a natural occurrence, it happening only once is a red flag)
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 10:01:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry I didn't look at the link, the game telephone that I know is a bit different.

I'll read it now.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 10:07:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Going through the rules will tell us what makes this game work:

1)complicated story

2)child

3)whisper

All these are not factors in the national revelation.

additional points include;

a)It's a game

b) getting it right is not important, and quite the contrary not hearing it correctly is the point of the game.

c)It can only be said once.

d) it's to one person at a time. If you give many people a message it's less likely to get mixed up as it travels.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 10:17:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 2:58:49 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
Most Christians don't necessarily have religious faith in their leaders, just in the bible.

Most Christians have never even read the Bible. Most atheists, agnostics, humanists, and secularists know more about the Bible than most Christians.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 10:28:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 9:59:35 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 9:44:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 9:05:42 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:47:16 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:31:02 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:05:22 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 7:32:10 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
Evidence for Judaism , support for the divinity of the old testament/ Torah


1) Why do we believe anything that we believe?

Almost all that we believe come from:
a) 1st hand knowledge.
b) Hearing from someone reliable that you trust.
Being that (almost) no one today has 1st hand knowledge, most believers believe because that"s what those they trust told them.

This is not as irrational as it may sound. Most of what we know we know from others; news, history, science, nutrition, etc. We don't need to do the testing or research to believe the facts. We can and do know by listening to those we trust.

As a Jew, I & millions of other Jews have a direct link, parent to child, & teacher to student, for thousands of years, going back to the revelation of god at Mount Sinai.
Everyone tells their children and students about the event at Sinai. This has been going on for thousands of years.
Here is one such chain http://www.simpletoremember.com...

It's more than that though; all other religions are started by a revelation to a few people, think Mohammad, Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith Jr., Guy Ballard, etc.
(See http://www.simpletoremember.com...)
Judaism is the only religion that was started with a national revelation.

Why is this significant?

If the religion is started by a revelation to one person there are 3 possibilities:
a) He lied
b) He is psychotic
c) He is legitimate

When a religion is based on a national revelation, the 1st 2 possibilities are eliminated.

Thus we are left with possibility #3 which is that the revelation is legitimate.

How could Judaism have gotten started any other way?
A person can convince others that he had a personal vision, but one can"t convince a large group of people, that they (i.e. the people) had a collective experience, if it never really happened.

You can see this argument in extended form at:
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://ohr.edu...

This is one of many arguments for Judaism.

Maybe there is a 4th option. Maybe the events are based on different events that are much less supernatural, but over time legends formed. This happened for the Greeks. The Greeks have many myths about different heroes who did supernatural acts in front of many people.

Very impressive. I didn't think of such a possibility for a while, & you just came up with it right away. Did you by any chance take a comparative religions Source?
You are right this is why the argument is not perfect.

But there is an answer.

Before answering, could you give me an example of a Greek myth where a person did super natural acts in public.

I have never taken a comparative religions course but I have compared a lot of religions.

Actually, I think I have a better example. Jesus. He did plenty of stuff in public.

Here's 1 difference. In the case of Jesus, one (/ a few) person told group "A" that Jesus did a miracle in front of group "B". Group "B" had no way of verifying so it is conceivable that they'd believe him. In the case of national revelation to the Jews it was all one group. You can't convince a group of people that they experienced something they did not.

Here is a basic problem with this kind of argument. We don't know how much of the story is true. Many historians even doubted the exodus even happened. Even if it did happen, and lets say that nothing supernatural happened. Don't you think that supernatural legends might have been started that spread? If we are talking about word of mouth, then it is easy for myths to grow up and spread especially if the myth is about something that happened a long time ago.

The game telephone is an interesting game that illustrates the point I am making.
http://www.ehow.com...

There are a few reasons telephone works so well including;
a) you can only say it once.
b)the message and it's accurate transmission are really not important.
c)It's usually done at parties in a less than serious atmosphere.
d)it's one word not a message.

All these factors are not factors in the transmission we are discussing.


Another answer is if mass revelations were easy/simple/probable/natural myths,they would be more common, it would have happened more than one time in history.
(Even if it made sense that it should be a natural occurrence, it happening only once is a red flag)
http://www.simpletoremember.com...

I don't necessarily know they only happened once in history. This event is only a mass revelation if it turns out to be true.

Another point is there is an average loss of information over each generation. Even with some writing in a culture, stuff slowly gets forgotten generation by generation. Compare how much we know about Rome to how much there is to Rome in real life. We have forgotten entire battles, almost certainly entire civilizations.

Think about it, if important pieces of information are being forgotten, then this may change how we see related events which depended on that information. So time has a way of making our knowledge of the past inaccurate.

Another fact, is that we think about the past and try to figure stuff out about it. If we are losing information about the past, and are losing an accurate perspective on events, then when we try to deduce other things that happened in this past, this incorrect information just creates incorrect deductions. Also, if our deductions are wrong, then we may add incorrect information to the past.

If a culture is highly religious, some people may have fake revelations about what happened in the past. This also adds incorrect information. People may also lie about the past. E.g. Joseph Smith and the book of mormon. This is even worse when these stories are made up by religious leaders.

Early populations were often superstitious, highly uneducated, and not well versed in rational or critical thinking. Think about the middle ages and witch claims. If someone were to make up a claim about the past, and uncritical thinkers were to accept these claims, then these legends spread.

So myths are generated when people make stuff up about the past.
Incorrect theories are made about the past.
Symbolic stories are made about the past.

These take root when an uneducated population accepts this information without critical thinking, or misinterpret the information.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 10:41:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 10:28:47 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 9:59:35 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 9:44:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 9:05:42 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:47:16 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:31:02 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:05:22 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 7:32:10 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
Evidence for Judaism , support for the divinity of the old testament/ Torah


1) Why do we believe anything that we believe?

Almost all that we believe come from:
a) 1st hand knowledge.
b) Hearing from someone reliable that you trust.
Being that (almost) no one today has 1st hand knowledge, most believers believe because that"s what those they trust told them.

This is not as irrational as it may sound. Most of what we know we know from others; news, history, science, nutrition, etc. We don't need to do the testing or research to believe the facts. We can and do know by listening to those we trust.

As a Jew, I & millions of other Jews have a direct link, parent to child, & teacher to student, for thousands of years, going back to the revelation of god at Mount Sinai.
Everyone tells their children and students about the event at Sinai. This has been going on for thousands of years.
Here is one such chain http://www.simpletoremember.com...

It's more than that though; all other religions are started by a revelation to a few people, think Mohammad, Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith Jr., Guy Ballard, etc.
(See http://www.simpletoremember.com...)
Judaism is the only religion that was started with a national revelation.

Why is this significant?

If the religion is started by a revelation to one person there are 3 possibilities:
a) He lied
b) He is psychotic
c) He is legitimate

When a religion is based on a national revelation, the 1st 2 possibilities are eliminated.

Thus we are left with possibility #3 which is that the revelation is legitimate.

How could Judaism have gotten started any other way?
A person can convince others that he had a personal vision, but one can"t convince a large group of people, that they (i.e. the people) had a collective experience, if it never really happened.

You can see this argument in extended form at:
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://ohr.edu...

This is one of many arguments for Judaism.

Maybe there is a 4th option. Maybe the events are based on different events that are much less supernatural, but over time legends formed. This happened for the Greeks. The Greeks have many myths about different heroes who did supernatural acts in front of many people.

Very impressive. I didn't think of such a possibility for a while, & you just came up with it right away. Did you by any chance take a comparative religions Source?
You are right this is why the argument is not perfect.

But there is an answer.

Before answering, could you give me an example of a Greek myth where a person did super natural acts in public.

I have never taken a comparative religions course but I have compared a lot of religions.

Actually, I think I have a better example. Jesus. He did plenty of stuff in public.

Here's 1 difference. In the case of Jesus, one (/ a few) person told group "A" that Jesus did a miracle in front of group "B". Group "B" had no way of verifying so it is conceivable that they'd believe him. In the case of national revelation to the Jews it was all one group. You can't convince a group of people that they experienced something they did not.

Here is a basic problem with this kind of argument. We don't know how much of the story is true. Many historians even doubted the exodus even happened. Even if it did happen, and lets say that nothing supernatural happened. Don't you think that supernatural legends might have been started that spread? If we are talking about word of mouth, then it is easy for myths to grow up and spread especially if the myth is about something that happened a long time ago.

The game telephone is an interesting game that illustrates the point I am making.
http://www.ehow.com...

There are a few reasons telephone works so well including;
a) you can only say it once.
b)the message and it's accurate transmission are really not important.
c)It's usually done at parties in a less than serious atmosphere.
d)it's one word not a message.

All these factors are not factors in the transmission we are discussing.


Another answer is if mass revelations were easy/simple/probable/natural myths,they would be more common, it would have happened more than one time in history.
(Even if it made sense that it should be a natural occurrence, it happening only once is a red flag)
http://www.simpletoremember.com...

I don't necessarily know they only happened once in history. This event is only a mass revelation if it turns out to be true.

Okay. Sorry your right, I phrased it wrong. It's the claim that it is unique.

If this was a natural thing for religions to start this way there would be more than one.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 10:47:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Another point is there is an average loss of information over each generation. Even with some writing in a culture, stuff slowly gets forgotten generation by generation. Compare how much we know about Rome to how much there is to Rome in real life. We have forgotten entire battles, almost certainly entire civilizations.

Think about it, if important pieces of information are being forgotten, then this may change how we see related events which depended on that information. So time has a way of making our knowledge of the past inaccurate.

1)Your forgetting that there are no more people today that can trace themselves back to the Romans. The roman culture is gone. & with it their history.

2) We can't compare details of a cultures history to its single most important event.
There are a lot of things we don't know about the Jews from 1000's of years ago, but major events, that change the culture, don't get lost easily.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 10:57:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If a culture is highly religious, some people may have fake revelations about what happened in the past. This also adds incorrect information. People may also lie about the past. E.g. Joseph Smith and the book of mormon. This is even worse when these stories are made up by religious leaders.

That's the whole point of this argument. The argument shows that the very nature of the claim is not conducive to being made up.
Joseph Smith & Every other religion started with 1 man "getting a revelation" & getting a lot of people to believe him.
It's not a coincedent that they all started this way. They all started this way because you can't convince a group of people that they had a revelation. It is plausible to convince people that you had a private revelation.
This is based on Apple wight theorm:
(a) People are gullible and will believe anything, even claims that demand painful or suicidal observances; (b) as long as the claim cannot be checked.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 10:59:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 10:07:24 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
Going through the rules will tell us what makes this game work:

1)complicated story

2)child

3)whisper

All these are not factors in the national revelation.

additional points include;

a)It's a game

b) getting it right is not important, and quite the contrary not hearing it correctly is the point of the game.

c)It can only be said once.

d) it's to one person at a time. If you give many people a message it's less likely to get mixed up as it travels.

I will be a little behind on responding to your posts at this time but I will get there. On this point, you are right. I will drop the telephone example.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 11:10:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 10:17:21 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/22/2012 2:58:49 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
Most Christians don't necessarily have religious faith in their leaders, just in the bible.

Most Christians have never even read the Bible. Most atheists, agnostics, humanists, and secularists know more about the Bible than most Christians.

That doesn't sound right, this idea that most Christians have not read the bible? Source?

And how do you know secular people know more about the bible than Christians? We are not the ones who go to church.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 11:17:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Early populations were often superstitious, highly uneducated, and not well versed in rational or critical thinking. Think about the middle ages and witch claims. If someone were to make up a claim about the past, and uncritical thinkers were to accept these claims, then these legends spread.

So myths are generated when people make stuff up about the past.
Incorrect theories are made about the past.
Symbolic stories are made about the past.

These take root when an uneducated population accepts this information without critical thinking, or misinterpret the information

That's the beauty of the argument. No education or sophistication needed.
It simply is not plausible to convince a nation that they themselves experienced something that they didn't experience. No matter how gullible, superstitious, uneducated they are. You can't tell them that THEY PERSONALY experienced something that they didn't. I suppose it is possible. But, it's extremely unlikely.

Now I think your your touching on another point here, and that is;
Maybe the people who were 1st told the story were told that it happened many generations ago. This is called "past theory".
The answer to this I heard from R' Kelemen.
Very basically the problem is who could have been the one who "reminded the people" of this "lost tradition" & when could it have happened?
Basically if it happened that some one claimed that the tradition was lost and he was "bringing it back, this would be a huge event in our history, and this person would be exalted as one of the greatest who ever lived.
We would have in our history. But we don't.
I'll try to find you a link for this.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 11:18:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 10:41:05 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 10:28:47 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 9:59:35 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 9:44:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 9:05:42 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:47:16 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:31:02 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:05:22 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 11/22/2012 7:32:10 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
Evidence for Judaism , support for the divinity of the old testament/ Torah


1) Why do we believe anything that we believe?

Almost all that we believe come from:
a) 1st hand knowledge.
b) Hearing from someone reliable that you trust.
Being that (almost) no one today has 1st hand knowledge, most believers believe because that"s what those they trust told them.

This is not as irrational as it may sound. Most of what we know we know from others; news, history, science, nutrition, etc. We don't need to do the testing or research to believe the facts. We can and do know by listening to those we trust.

As a Jew, I & millions of other Jews have a direct link, parent to child, & teacher to student, for thousands of years, going back to the revelation of god at Mount Sinai.
Everyone tells their children and students about the event at Sinai. This has been going on for thousands of years.
Here is one such chain http://www.simpletoremember.com...

It's more than that though; all other religions are started by a revelation to a few people, think Mohammad, Jesus, Paul, Joseph Smith Jr., Guy Ballard, etc.
(See http://www.simpletoremember.com...)
Judaism is the only religion that was started with a national revelation.

Why is this significant?

If the religion is started by a revelation to one person there are 3 possibilities:
a) He lied
b) He is psychotic
c) He is legitimate

When a religion is based on a national revelation, the 1st 2 possibilities are eliminated.

Thus we are left with possibility #3 which is that the revelation is legitimate.

How could Judaism have gotten started any other way?
A person can convince others that he had a personal vision, but one can"t convince a large group of people, that they (i.e. the people) had a collective experience, if it never really happened.

You can see this argument in extended form at:
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://ohr.edu...

This is one of many arguments for Judaism.

Maybe there is a 4th option. Maybe the events are based on different events that are much less supernatural, but over time legends formed. This happened for the Greeks. The Greeks have many myths about different heroes who did supernatural acts in front of many people.

Very impressive. I didn't think of such a possibility for a while, & you just came up with it right away. Did you by any chance take a comparative religions Source?
You are right this is why the argument is not perfect.

But there is an answer.

Before answering, could you give me an example of a Greek myth where a person did super natural acts in public.

I have never taken a comparative religions course but I have compared a lot of religions.

Actually, I think I have a better example. Jesus. He did plenty of stuff in public.

Here's 1 difference. In the case of Jesus, one (/ a few) person told group "A" that Jesus did a miracle in front of group "B". Group "B" had no way of verifying so it is conceivable that they'd believe him. In the case of national revelation to the Jews it was all one group. You can't convince a group of people that they experienced something they did not.

Here is a basic problem with this kind of argument. We don't know how much of the story is true. Many historians even doubted the exodus even happened. Even if it did happen, and lets say that nothing supernatural happened. Don't you think that supernatural legends might have been started that spread? If we are talking about word of mouth, then it is easy for myths to grow up and spread especially if the myth is about something that happened a long time ago.

The game telephone is an interesting game that illustrates the point I am making.
http://www.ehow.com...

There are a few reasons telephone works so well including;
a) you can only say it once.
b)the message and it's accurate transmission are really not important.
c)It's usually done at parties in a less than serious atmosphere.
d)it's one word not a message.

All these factors are not factors in the transmission we are discussing.


Another answer is if mass revelations were easy/simple/probable/natural myths,they would be more common, it would have happened more than one time in history.
(Even if it made sense that it should be a natural occurrence, it happening only once is a red flag)
http://www.simpletoremember.com...

I don't necessarily know they only happened once in history. This event is only a mass revelation if it turns out to be true.

Okay. Sorry your right, I phrased it wrong. It's the claim that it is unique.

If this was a natural thing for religions to start this way there would be more than one.

Well, how can you assume that this is the only mass revelation just because you are not aware of any other examples? Personally, I probably don't know even 1% about all the religions in the world. I can't even name 1% them.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 11:21:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 11:17:41 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
Early populations were often superstitious, highly uneducated, and not well versed in rational or critical thinking. Think about the middle ages and witch claims. If someone were to make up a claim about the past, and uncritical thinkers were to accept these claims, then these legends spread.

So myths are generated when people make stuff up about the past.
Incorrect theories are made about the past.
Symbolic stories are made about the past.

These take root when an uneducated population accepts this information without critical thinking, or misinterpret the information

That's the beauty of the argument. No education or sophistication needed.
It simply is not plausible to convince a nation that they themselves experienced something that they didn't experience. No matter how gullible, superstitious, uneducated they are. You can't tell them that THEY PERSONALY experienced something that they didn't. I suppose it is possible. But, it's extremely unlikely.

Now I think your your touching on another point here, and that is;
Maybe the people who were 1st told the story were told that it happened many generations ago. This is called "past theory".
The answer to this I heard from R' Kelemen.
Very basically the problem is who could have been the one who "reminded the people" of this "lost tradition" & when could it have happened?
Basically if it happened that some one claimed that the tradition was lost and he was "bringing it back, this would be a huge event in our history, and this person would be exalted as one of the greatest who ever lived.
We would have in our history. But we don't.
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 11:25:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 4:20:18 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 11/22/2012 12:56:00 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
I have some questions for religious people. Do you base your religious beliefs purely on faith? To some, faith is belief without evidence or with insufficient evidence. To others faith is really trust because of past experience with God. The second definition is really based on evidence. What is faith to you?

Most of us base many of our beliefs on legitimate sources alone without direct evidence. We believe in atoms because we have faith in the scientists who reported the experiments that show atoms exist. If your form of faith is like that, then you need to show that your sources are legitimate. If you can show that your faith is earned, your faith is actually evidence-based.

If your religious beliefs are based on direct evidence, then how important is direct evidence to your beliefs? If the evidence were to be shown to lack validity, would you change your beliefs?

Is faith based on no evidence valid? Is faith based on earned trust valid?

Personal, direct revelation.

So I do not judge those who have not received it.

Sort of reminds me of my gangster friends, back when I was a teenager, who used to brag about stuff they never did just to invoke respect and envy out of other people.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.