Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Jehovah's Witnesses

2012-11-23T20:38:45Z

Jaban: /* Membership */ grammar

Jehovah's Witnesses are a fundamentalist Christian denomination best known for door-to-door evangelism, distribution of religious literature such as The Watchtower magazines, and their refusal to accept blood transfusions.

The religion's organization report over 7,000,000 members worldwide, and over 18,000,000 attendees at their annual Memorial ceremony. [http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/worldwide_report.htm] Third-party reports estimate the number to be 30-60% higher than reported by the religion.

Jehovah's Witnesses use their own translation of the [[Bible]], the [[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]].

== Blood ==

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood is a sacred representation of life and that God forbids its use for purposes other than atonement for sin (sacrifice). They have thus forbidden their followers from eating meat from which the blood has not been drained, food products containing blood, and from receiving blood transfusions, regardless of its medical necessity and of the consequences to their life or health.

Specifically, they are directly forbidden from willingly accepting a transfusion of stored whole blood, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma, on penalty of excommunication and the threat of God's disfavor. Preoperative extraction followed by postoperative re-transfusion of their own blood is also disallowed, though certain intraoperative re-transfusion procedures (such as salvage) are allowed. Organ and bone marrow transplants are discouraged as well, though the final decision is left to the individual. Those choosing to follow discouraged actions are often informally ostracized.

They are directed to follow their own personal conscience in deciding to use other components of blood, or other products derived from or produced in blood (such as antivenins).

One of the controversial aspects of their refusal to accept blood transfusions is in that, against the advice of their doctors and surgeons, they often hold their critically ill minor children to the same rule, who are themselves not mature enough to decide to follow the belief willfully.

== Holidays ==

Most holidays are of either religious or political origin, which Witnesses consider idolatrous worship of either a false god or the state, respectively. Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses do not observe any secular or religious holidays or celebrations, save wedding anniversaries.

Jehovah's Witnesses also have one religious celebration they do observe: the memorial of Christ's death.

====The Memorial====

The memorial of Christ's death, known as "The Memorial", is the only celebration officially endorsed by the church and observed by followers. This celebration is their version of the Last Supper.

Their practice of it involves a scripted sermon about the significance of Christ's sacrificing himself, and the importance of carrying on the tradition. This sermon is almost identical every year. It concludes with wine and unleavened bread being passed around the audience. Most members (99.9%) simply pass the bread and wine on to the person sitting beside them, but a few who feel they are anointed by God to act as rulers eat and drink them.

====Birthdays====

Birthdays are viewed as a form of idolatry, and the common American custom (getting really drunk at your friends' expense, which is great) contrary to scriptural principles. The celebration of birthdays is therefore expressly disallowed.

However, what a ''celebration'' consists of is not explicitly defined by the Jehovah's Witness organization. Some members do celebrate birthdays surreptitiously.

====Christmas====

Christmas is considered by Witnesses to be a celebration of mostly pagan origin, observed on a date and in a way that coincides with (and they believe is rooted in) several pagan rituals.

These beliefs are coupled with their belief that birthday celebrations are idolatrous anyway, so they do not celebrate Christmas and generally consider it one of the more abhorrent holidays.

Belief in the pagan origin of Christmas customs and questioning the celebration date is not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. At least some of the customs thereof are factually pagan [pagan in the sense that they have non-Christian roots], and Christmas as a whole seems to be the evolution of the winter festivals and practices of several cultures and religions. Many post-reformation Christian movements condemn Christmas as an un-Christian holiday.

====Wedding Anniversaries====

It is perfectly acceptable for Witnesses to celebrate wedding anniversaries. The idolatrous aspects of admiring and giving gifts to someone on the yearly anniversary of their birth do not apply to admiring and giving gifts to a married couple on the yearly anniversary of their wedding.

== Disfellowshipping ==

The practice of "disfellowshipping", more commonly known as excommunication or shunning, is used by Jehovah's Witnesses to punish those who break the rules of the religion and fail to convince congregation elders that they have repented. Church members are prohibited with associating with disfellowshipped people, and in many situations even members of their immediate family. They can speak to disfellowshipped family members who live in the home or when conducting necessary family business.

Continuing to associate with a disfellowshipped person is itself a basis for disfellowshipping, though this is rarely the actual penalty. In the case of a family member, one would more likely be excluded from leadership positions and certain church activities.

An exception can be made where regularly speaking with the disfellowshipped person cannot be avoided, such as between married couples, for the care of children, and for business contracts and partnerships.

=== Disassociation ===

Those who renounce their membership with the church are "disassociated." This is basically equivalent to disfellowshipping, except that it is not due to breaking any rules, and is initiated by the member himself.

Disassociation occurs when a person specifically renounces his membership, either by formally informing the congregation elders of his/her decision or by participating in the services/rituals of another Christian denomination or non-Christian religion.

== Membership ==

It is difficult to assess actual membership among Jehovah's Witnesses, as their organizing body reports neither officiated members nor church attendance. Instead, they report:

* The peak number of members who submit a report on their evangelism efforts, tabulated monthly.
* Combined attendance at their annual memorial ceremony.
* Combined peak attendance at their annual three-day convention.

The latter two do not reflect membership, as attendance of both includes casual visitors, one-time visitors, and unbaptized children of Jehovah's Witnesses who attend with their parents. Ministry campaigns are carried out for a few weeks before the event in an attempt to invite as many new people as possible.

The first is not an exact representation of actual membership, as it excludes those who attend services, consider themselves members, but who do not participate in evangelism efforts. It excludes even officiated members who do not evangelize. But given that better information is not reported, it may be considered the best representation available.

In reporting religious affiliation, government censuses, pew surveys, and statistical abstracts usually rely on self-identification. As such, they include children and others not recognized as members by the church, and thus find the number of Witnesses to be 30-60% higher than reported by the religion itself. But as they are collected the same way regardless of religion, these reports may be considered accurate for comparing one religion to another.

== Controversies ==

====Cult Practices====
A [[cult]] is popularly defined as an individual or organization which employs intensive methods to control behavior, thinking, and emotions of its followers. Included in these methods are isolating the group from standard social interaction and limiting the information available to the group.

While this can apply to many religious groups to some degree, it is not commonly applied to call a religion a cult unless the behavioral control results in harm to the members.

An example of this type of behavioral control within the Jehovah's Witness religion is requiring members isolate themselves from social interactions outside the religion, and then excommunicating ones who do not follow their tenets. The harm caused by this isolation is in that subsequent excommunication causes an almost total collapse of that person's social support structure.

Another example of harm is in their policy forbidding blood transfusions, and their limiting and misrepresenting information about them. This policy has often resulted in the death of the member or a member's child who refused to have (or was prevented from having) a transfusion.

Due to these methods of control being employed and the result sometimes being harm to the members, some consider the Jehovah's Witness religion to be a cult. The [http://www.ex-cult.org/ Ex-Cult Resource Center] considers the Jehovah's Witnesses a cult and has material on them.

====Racial prejudice====
During the early [[20th Century]] Jehovah’s Witnesses saw black people as inferior. Black people it was believed had the curse of [[Ham]] in their hearts and were fit to be servants. Black people could get spiritual benefits by staying meek and accepting their inferior status. Black people were not encouraged to feel good about being black, rather they should hope to become white. As a special blessing black Jehovah’s Witnesses might become white through God’s intervention. Black people were uneducated and therefore would not benefit from the tracts and reading material supplied to white congregations.

Prejudice is much less evident in the 21st century, though few black people have reached the highest administrative levels of the church. [http://www.freeminds.org/history/blacks.htm]

==External links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/beliefs/beliefs.shtml The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and how they differ from mainstream Christianity.]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/ Jehovah's Witnesses at a glance]

{{Christianity}}
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Religions]]

User talk:Bdwilson

2012-10-24T07:28:20Z

Jaban: /* Minor edits */ new section

{{Welcome}}
Have you studied the [[wikipedia:Multiverse|Muliverse]]? [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 23:43, 5 October 2011 (CDT)

== Minor edits ==

Friendly reminder: it was probably just a mistake, but for future reference, marking an edit as "minor" means that you have not added to, taken away from, or changed the meaning of the text. Correcting a spelling mistake or even rewording for clarification are examples of minor edits. Completely rewriting several paragraphs... not so much :-)

--[[User:Jaban|jaban]] 02:28, 24 October 2012 (CDT)

User:Jaban

2012-10-24T07:20:20Z

Jaban: /* Copyright Release */

My given name, Jaban, is derived from the name of the king of Hazor, who commanded the iron chariots. This website struck a chord with me immediately, as it highlighted the irony of what my parents had named me. It was a sort of coup de grâce for religion.

= Life and religion =

I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. From the age of 20, I worked toward the goal of becoming a full-time preacher, studying the New World Translation (The Bible, as edited by Jehovah's Witnesses) and other pseudo-scientific sources to more effectively argue my point to non-believers.

I was fairly ineffective as a preacher, as I honestly attempted to understand why my opponent thought what he did (at least sometimes) and correct it, instead of simply dismissing those who made valid points. Invariably, I eventually started to recognize various inconsistencies in the teachings of my church.

=== Why I Believed ===

I was raised with the belief from when I was born. But I also have the best reason I think anyone could have for believing...

When I was sixteen, I got very sick. I eventually ended up in the hospital, and was diagnosed (by real doctors) with stage IV Ewing sarcoma. It was a very aggressive cancer in a late stage, and a tumor was wrapped around my spine such that they couldn't operate on it. An oncologist from a hospital nearby was asked to come in to give a second opinion - he came in, talked to the doctors, redid the CT scans and blood tests, and confirmed the diagnosis.

Without immediate chemotherapy I wouldn't survive more than a few days. Even with it, they expected I'd only extend my life to a few weeks (5% survival was 8 weeks; it's far higher nowadays). I could go home and spend some time with family, or stay in the hospital and perhaps be one of the lucky ones. My parents and I decided to try treatment.

I prayed that night, of course. I promised that if I lived through treatment, I'd spend the rest of my life doing whatever I could to spread the word.

The next morning, after several friends had a chance to come say goodbye, I was sent to a hospital better equipped to deal with aggressive treatment of children. At that hospital, the doctors monitored my temperature, did a few blood tests, hooked up an IV, but didn't do anything major. The next day they did a short CT scan and hooked up another IV (it was blood thinners), but still no cancer treatment. On my third day there, my mom finally got in touch with the doctor in charge of my case and asked when I was starting chemotherapy.

The answer was, "why would Jaban need chemotherapy? He doesn't have cancer."

The nurse at the first hospital didn't send my chart along with me. They did some tests because I had been sent there in an ambulance as if it were urgent, but they didn't have a clue what they were looking for. They had determined the first day that I had a blood clot in my leg (thus the CT scan) and that the flu had caused an infection in my blood and spine. Both were caused by serious, chronic conditions, one of which had only been published a month before, but neither was life-threatening. Some blood thinners and antibiotics and I'd be home in a few days.

So there we are. An aggressive cancerous tumor in my spine, and a confirming second diagnosis made by a more qualified doctor. It wasn't a self-diagnosis, it wasn't a quasi-qualified doctor making a common misdiagnosis, and it wasn't cured by medicine but attributed to God. I wasn't likely to live whether I got treatment or not. I asked God to let me live, and the next morning I didn't have cancer anymore.

So I believed.

:{|border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"
|'''To those who would try to convince me with their own story:'''
My experience is more convincing than any other faith healing story I've heard, and I no longer consider it evidence enough to believe. You can imagine how I feel about the story of God healing your back pain.
|}

=== The Path to Disbelief ===

My doubt about their divine inspiration started with the church's regulation of Internet use, which in my view was driven by a fear of technology and of the unknown (I had been using the Internet long before they learned about it; I knew their claims against it were baseless). As I looked into inconsistencies further, the pseudo-scientific information I had been fed was slowly corrected, from the history of my own church, to the history of the Bible's authorship and compilation, to how scientific investigation is done, to the profound explanatory power of the Theory of Evolution.

So their baseless fear and misunderstanding of technology (and subsequent regulation of it) led me to question them, which led me to other sources of information, and resulted in my eventual dismissal of religion as a whole. So, in the end, them acting on their fear of technology led to exactly what they feared the technology itself would lead to. Sweet irony.

=== The breaking point ===

At about the age of 25, when I no longer believed in the divine inspiration of of the church's leaders and teachings, but still thought religious belief useful, I started to realize that the method of teaching was very manipulative.

Potential recruits seemed very susceptible to having their questions "changed", in that the answer was delayed until the teacher had manipulated them into thinking their question was something else. A straw man, of sorts. Convince the person that they asked a different question than they did, and answer that one instead. This wouldn't work on everyone, but it worked on the type of people they wanted to recruit.

I also saw that the teachers themselves did not (usually) realize they were doing it. Instead, the books produced by Jehovah's Witnesses for studying with non-members are written as such. They are designed to present information in a particular order, often over the course of several months, to accomplish it. Preachers are taught to avoid answering certain things until they come to the chapter that answers it.

With some consideration, I concluded that this could only have been intentional. And, in short order, I came to realize how intellectually dishonest the religious organization was, and how destructive their method of teaching was to otherwise honest inquiry.

This realization is what eventually led me to finally end my involvement with the church.

= My beliefs today =

Seeing that is an important part of who I am now.

I am an atheist, and have become somewhat of a pessimistic skeptic (I try to avoid denialism, but it's sometimes a fine line). I outright disbelieve any claims of supernatural intervention, and am highly skeptical of seemingly unfounded claims and positions (refer to the "Baloney Detection Kit") regarding nutrition and health, alternative medicine, some environmentalist movements, even skepticism itself.

=== Beliefs on the supernatural ===

I am an agnostic atheist, in much the same way Richard Dawkins describes. I cannot remain intellectually honest and say that I know with certainty that there is no god. But I also can't say that I know with certainty that I do not live in the Matrix or that the sky is blue or that there are no flying reindeer. But to the degree that I do not believe the infinite number of other possible things I have absolutely no reason to believe, I do not believe there exists anything supernatural.

I base my acceptance of supernatural claims on the famous words of Tim Minchin: "Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic."

In fact, I might even say that I believe in the supernatural slightly less so than many other possibilities, because the supernatural ideas come with a historical baggage. We know approximately where the idea of Yahweh came from and how it has changed throughout history. Gods 'exist' only due to the history of belief in different gods. I think that makes their actual existence '''less''' plausible.

=== Basis in practicality ===

I see many arguments fail to move forward due to a lack of distinction between absolute and practical certainty. So I'd like to make that distinction here.

Practical certainty is when an idea fits into a logical model which does not also allow the acceptance of ideas which, if accepted, would necessarily falsify the body of more rigidly tested ideas. In other words, one can say he is certain of an idea, for practical purposes, if it does not require he accept any other ideas known to be untrue.

The failure, then, is when one creates an imprecise logical model to allow the acceptance of an idea, and does not test the model thoroughly enough to see if it requires the acceptance of contrary ideas.

Here is an example:

{{Comment-box1|text=First, let's state some ideas.

* Mordor is a real place.
* Marduk created humanity from the blood of Kingsu, as servants of the gods.
* Yahweh created the first man from dirt, and the first woman from a rib.
* Homeopathic solutions have a medicinal effect greater than that of a placebo.
* Santa Claus delivers gifts on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.
* Jesus walked on water.
* Poseidon causes hurricanes.
* A future discovery could correctly conclude that supernatural phenomenon exist.

If one accepts that Jesus walked on water, the logic used must necessarily be imprecise enough to allow him to also accept that there are flying reindeer. And accepting that would be a rejection of the existing knowledge that flying reindeer were invented in an 1823 poem by Clement Moore. Not to mention that both would falsify the entire body of observations and theories in physics and biology, in turn allowing him to also accept the Marduk-blood idea, the Yahweh-dirt idea, and the Poseidon-hurricane idea.

So any logical model which would allow the acceptance of any of these ideas, if applied honestly to the others, would require (or allow) their acceptance too - at least some of them - plus the rejection of a huge body of existing observation.

Keep in mind that I am speaking practically. Theoretically, one ''could'' create a logical model which allows for Jesus to walk on water but which is not so imprecise that one could also use it to accept that Poseidon causes hurricanes. But given the history of failed attempts, there is no reason to think anyone ever will.
}}

If someone argues that I cannot possibly '''know''' that Jesus didn't walk on water, I concede. They mean for knowledge to entail absolute certainty. All I have is practical certainty: if I accept that he did walk on water, my logical model would allow the acceptance of all claims, including conflicting ones. It is much more practical to reject the claim that he did.

I remind my opponent that his definition renders the word "know" meaningless. We might just as well stop using it and come up with a new word. Also, he should recognize that conceding that an idea is not an absolute does not put it on level ground with the contrary idea. Accepting that my "knowledge" of the non-existence of flying reindeer is a practical certainty only, not an absolute one, does not mean that is just as valid to believe that they do exist.

That may be why it's difficult for fundamentalists to change their view on any aspect of their religious belief:
* They see practical certainty as equivalent to uncertainty. If the contrary opinion cannot be proven to an absolute certainty (which is impossible), then it is viewed as equally valid to any opinion.
* Their definition of certainty requires that, if they reject the idea that Jesus walked on water, they must reassess everything they believe.

So there you are. My two cents.

= Copyright Release =

All contributions made solely by me (e.g images I post) are dedicated to the [http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ public domain] with no rights reserved. Moral rights granted me by the Canadian Copyright Act are waived. They may be used for any purpose, without condition or limitation. No attribution is required.

Jehovah's Witnesses

2012-05-22T00:16:38Z

Jaban: /* Disassociation */ sp

Jehovah's Witnesses are a fundamentalist Christian denomination best known for door-to-door evangelism, distribution of religious literature such as The Watchtower magazines, and their refusal to accept blood transfusions.

The religion's organization report over 7,000,000 members worldwide, and over 18,000,000 attendees at their annual Memorial ceremony. [http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/worldwide_report.htm] Third-party reports estimate the number to be 30-60% higher than reported by the religion.

Jehovah's Witnesses use their own translation of the [[Bible]], the [[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]].

== Blood ==

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood is a sacred representation of life and that God forbids its use for purposes other than atonement for sin (sacrifice). They have thus forbidden their followers from eating meat from which the blood has not been drained, food products containing blood, and from receiving blood transfusions, regardless of its medical necessity and of the consequences to their life or health.

Specifically, they are directly forbidden from willingly accepting a transfusion of stored whole blood, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma, on penalty of excommunication and the threat of God's disfavor. Preoperative extraction followed by postoperative re-transfusion of their own blood is also disallowed, though certain intraoperative re-transfusion procedures (such as salvage) are allowed. Organ and bone marrow transplants are discouraged as well, though the final decision is left to the individual. Those choosing to follow discouraged actions are often informally ostracized.

They are directed to follow their own personal conscience in deciding to use other components of blood, or other products derived from or produced in blood (such as antivenins).

One of the controversial aspects of their refusal to accept blood transfusions is in that, against the advice of their doctors and surgeons, they often hold their critically ill minor children to the same rule, who are themselves not mature enough to decide to follow the belief willfully.

== Holidays ==

Most holidays are of either religious or political origin, which Witnesses consider idolatrous worship of either a false god or the state, respectively. Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses do not observe any secular or religious holidays or celebrations, save wedding anniversaries.

Jehovah's Witnesses also have one religious celebration they do observe: the memorial of Christ's death.

====The Memorial====

The memorial of Christ's death, known as "The Memorial", is the only celebration officially endorsed by the church and observed by followers. This celebration is their version of the Last Supper.

Their practice of it involves a scripted sermon about the significance of Christ's sacrificing himself, and the importance of carrying on the tradition. This sermon is almost identical every year. It concludes with wine and unleavened bread being passed around the audience. Most members (99.9%) simply pass the bread and wine on to the person sitting beside them, but a few who feel they are anointed by God to act as rulers eat and drink them.

====Birthdays====

Birthdays are viewed as a form of idolatry, and the common American custom (getting really drunk at your friends' expense, which is great) contrary to scriptural principles. The celebration of birthdays is therefore expressly disallowed.

However, what a ''celebration'' consists of is not explicitly defined by the Jehovah's Witness organization. Some members do celebrate birthdays surreptitiously.

====Christmas====

Christmas is considered by Witnesses to be a celebration of mostly pagan origin, observed on a date and in a way that coincides with (and they believe is rooted in) several pagan rituals.

These beliefs are coupled with their belief that birthday celebrations are idolatrous anyway, so they do not celebrate Christmas and generally consider it one of the more abhorrent holidays.

Belief in the pagan origin of Christmas customs and questioning the celebration date is not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. At least some of the customs thereof are factually pagan [pagan in the sense that they have non-Christian roots], and Christmas as a whole seems to be the evolution of the winter festivals and practices of several cultures and religions. Many post-reformation Christian movements condemn Christmas as an un-Christian holiday.

====Wedding Anniversaries====

It is perfectly acceptable for Witnesses to celebrate wedding anniversaries. The idolatrous aspects of admiring and giving gifts to someone on the yearly anniversary of their birth do not apply to admiring and giving gifts to a married couple on the yearly anniversary of their wedding.

== Disfellowshipping ==

The practice of "disfellowshipping", more commonly known as excommunication or shunning, is used by Jehovah's Witnesses to punish those who break the rules of the religion and fail to convince congregation elders that they have repented. Church members are prohibited with associating with disfellowshipped people, even members of their immediate family.

Continuing to associate with a disfellowshipped person is itself a basis for disfellowshipping, though this is rarely the actual penalty. In the case of a family member, one would more likely be excluded from leadership positions and certain church activities.

An exception can be made where regularly speaking with the disfellowshipped person cannot be avoided, such as between married couples, for the care of children, and for business contracts and partnerships.

=== Disassociation ===

Those who renounce their membership with the church are "disassociated." This is basically equivalent to disfellowshipping, except that it is not due to breaking any rules, and is initiated by the member himself.

Disassociation only occurs when a person specifically renounces his membership, not if he simply stops attending church services.

== Membership ==

It is difficult to assess actual membership among Jehovah's Witnesses, as their organizing body reports neither officiated members nor church attendance. Instead, they report:

* The peak number of members who submit a report on their evangelism efforts, tabulated monthly.
* Combined attendance at their annual memorial ceremony.
* Combined peak attendance at their annual three-day convention.

The latter two do not reflect membership, as attendance of both includes casual and one-time visitors. Ministry campaigns are carried out for a few weeks before the event in an attempt to invite as many new people as possible.

The first is not an exact representation of actual membership, as it excludes those who attend services, consider themselves members, but who do not participate in evangelism efforts. It excludes even officiated members who do not evangelize. But given that better information is not reported, it may be considered the best representation available.

In reporting religious affiliation, government censuses, pew surveys, and statistical abstracts usually rely on self-identification. As such, they include children and others not recognized as members by the church, and thus find the number of Witnesses to be 30-60% higher than reported by the religion itself. But as they are collected the same way regardless of religion, these reports may be considered accurate for comparing one religion to another.

== Controversies ==

====Cult Practices====
A [[cult]] is popularly defined as an individual or organization which employs intensive methods to control behavior, thinking, and emotions of its followers. Included in these methods are isolating the group from standard social interaction and limiting the information available to the group.

While this can apply to many religious groups to some degree, it is not commonly applied to call a religion a cult unless the behavioral control results in harm to the members.

An example of this type of behavioral control within the Jehovah's Witness religion is requiring members isolate themselves from social interactions outside the religion, and then excommunicating ones who do not follow their tenets. The harm caused by this isolation is in that subsequent excommunication causes an almost total collapse of that person's social support structure.

Another example of harm is in their policy forbidding blood transfusions, and their limiting and misrepresenting information about them. This policy has often resulted in the death of the member or a member's child who refused to have (or was prevented from having) a transfusion.

Due to these methods of control being employed and the result sometimes being harm to the members, some consider the Jehovah's Witness religion to be a cult. The [http://www.ex-cult.org/ Ex-Cult Resource Center] considers the Jehovah's Witnesses a cult and has material on them.

====Racial prejudice====
During the early [[20th Century]] Jehovah’s Witnesses saw black people as inferior. Black people it was believed had the curse of [[Ham]] in their hearts and were fit to be servants. Black people could get spiritual benefits by staying meek and accepting their inferior status. Black people were not encouraged to feel good about being black, rather they should hope to become white. As a special blessing black Jehovah’s Witnesses might become white through God’s intervention. Black people were uneducated and therefore would not benefit from the tracts and reading material supplied to white congregations.

Prejudice is much less evident in the 21st century, though few black people have reached the highest administrative levels of the church. [http://www.freeminds.org/history/blacks.htm]

==External links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/beliefs/beliefs.shtml The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and how they differ from mainstream Christianity.]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/ Jehovah's Witnesses at a glance]

{{Christianity}}
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Religions]]

Jehovah's Witnesses

2012-05-22T00:16:21Z

Jaban: /* Disfellowshipping */ Reword and detail

Jehovah's Witnesses are a fundamentalist Christian denomination best known for door-to-door evangelism, distribution of religious literature such as The Watchtower magazines, and their refusal to accept blood transfusions.

The religion's organization report over 7,000,000 members worldwide, and over 18,000,000 attendees at their annual Memorial ceremony. [http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/worldwide_report.htm] Third-party reports estimate the number to be 30-60% higher than reported by the religion.

Jehovah's Witnesses use their own translation of the [[Bible]], the [[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]].

== Blood ==

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood is a sacred representation of life and that God forbids its use for purposes other than atonement for sin (sacrifice). They have thus forbidden their followers from eating meat from which the blood has not been drained, food products containing blood, and from receiving blood transfusions, regardless of its medical necessity and of the consequences to their life or health.

Specifically, they are directly forbidden from willingly accepting a transfusion of stored whole blood, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma, on penalty of excommunication and the threat of God's disfavor. Preoperative extraction followed by postoperative re-transfusion of their own blood is also disallowed, though certain intraoperative re-transfusion procedures (such as salvage) are allowed. Organ and bone marrow transplants are discouraged as well, though the final decision is left to the individual. Those choosing to follow discouraged actions are often informally ostracized.

They are directed to follow their own personal conscience in deciding to use other components of blood, or other products derived from or produced in blood (such as antivenins).

One of the controversial aspects of their refusal to accept blood transfusions is in that, against the advice of their doctors and surgeons, they often hold their critically ill minor children to the same rule, who are themselves not mature enough to decide to follow the belief willfully.

== Holidays ==

Most holidays are of either religious or political origin, which Witnesses consider idolatrous worship of either a false god or the state, respectively. Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses do not observe any secular or religious holidays or celebrations, save wedding anniversaries.

Jehovah's Witnesses also have one religious celebration they do observe: the memorial of Christ's death.

====The Memorial====

The memorial of Christ's death, known as "The Memorial", is the only celebration officially endorsed by the church and observed by followers. This celebration is their version of the Last Supper.

Their practice of it involves a scripted sermon about the significance of Christ's sacrificing himself, and the importance of carrying on the tradition. This sermon is almost identical every year. It concludes with wine and unleavened bread being passed around the audience. Most members (99.9%) simply pass the bread and wine on to the person sitting beside them, but a few who feel they are anointed by God to act as rulers eat and drink them.

====Birthdays====

Birthdays are viewed as a form of idolatry, and the common American custom (getting really drunk at your friends' expense, which is great) contrary to scriptural principles. The celebration of birthdays is therefore expressly disallowed.

However, what a ''celebration'' consists of is not explicitly defined by the Jehovah's Witness organization. Some members do celebrate birthdays surreptitiously.

====Christmas====

Christmas is considered by Witnesses to be a celebration of mostly pagan origin, observed on a date and in a way that coincides with (and they believe is rooted in) several pagan rituals.

These beliefs are coupled with their belief that birthday celebrations are idolatrous anyway, so they do not celebrate Christmas and generally consider it one of the more abhorrent holidays.

Belief in the pagan origin of Christmas customs and questioning the celebration date is not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. At least some of the customs thereof are factually pagan [pagan in the sense that they have non-Christian roots], and Christmas as a whole seems to be the evolution of the winter festivals and practices of several cultures and religions. Many post-reformation Christian movements condemn Christmas as an un-Christian holiday.

====Wedding Anniversaries====

It is perfectly acceptable for Witnesses to celebrate wedding anniversaries. The idolatrous aspects of admiring and giving gifts to someone on the yearly anniversary of their birth do not apply to admiring and giving gifts to a married couple on the yearly anniversary of their wedding.

== Disfellowshipping ==

The practice of "disfellowshipping", more commonly known as excommunication or shunning, is used by Jehovah's Witnesses to punish those who break the rules of the religion and fail to convince congregation elders that they have repented. Church members are prohibited with associating with disfellowshipped people, even members of their immediate family.

Continuing to associate with a disfellowshipped person is itself a basis for disfellowshipping, though this is rarely the actual penalty. In the case of a family member, one would more likely be excluded from leadership positions and certain church activities.

An exception can be made where regularly speaking with the disfellowshipped person cannot be avoided, such as between married couples, for the care of children, and for business contracts and partnerships.

=== Disassociation ===

Those who renounce their membership with the church are "disassociated." This is basically equivalent to disfellowshipping, except that it is not due to breaking any rules, and is initiated by the member himself.

Disassociation only occurs when a person specifically renounce his membership, not if he simply stops attending church services.

== Membership ==

It is difficult to assess actual membership among Jehovah's Witnesses, as their organizing body reports neither officiated members nor church attendance. Instead, they report:

* The peak number of members who submit a report on their evangelism efforts, tabulated monthly.
* Combined attendance at their annual memorial ceremony.
* Combined peak attendance at their annual three-day convention.

The latter two do not reflect membership, as attendance of both includes casual and one-time visitors. Ministry campaigns are carried out for a few weeks before the event in an attempt to invite as many new people as possible.

The first is not an exact representation of actual membership, as it excludes those who attend services, consider themselves members, but who do not participate in evangelism efforts. It excludes even officiated members who do not evangelize. But given that better information is not reported, it may be considered the best representation available.

In reporting religious affiliation, government censuses, pew surveys, and statistical abstracts usually rely on self-identification. As such, they include children and others not recognized as members by the church, and thus find the number of Witnesses to be 30-60% higher than reported by the religion itself. But as they are collected the same way regardless of religion, these reports may be considered accurate for comparing one religion to another.

== Controversies ==

====Cult Practices====
A [[cult]] is popularly defined as an individual or organization which employs intensive methods to control behavior, thinking, and emotions of its followers. Included in these methods are isolating the group from standard social interaction and limiting the information available to the group.

While this can apply to many religious groups to some degree, it is not commonly applied to call a religion a cult unless the behavioral control results in harm to the members.

An example of this type of behavioral control within the Jehovah's Witness religion is requiring members isolate themselves from social interactions outside the religion, and then excommunicating ones who do not follow their tenets. The harm caused by this isolation is in that subsequent excommunication causes an almost total collapse of that person's social support structure.

Another example of harm is in their policy forbidding blood transfusions, and their limiting and misrepresenting information about them. This policy has often resulted in the death of the member or a member's child who refused to have (or was prevented from having) a transfusion.

Due to these methods of control being employed and the result sometimes being harm to the members, some consider the Jehovah's Witness religion to be a cult. The [http://www.ex-cult.org/ Ex-Cult Resource Center] considers the Jehovah's Witnesses a cult and has material on them.

====Racial prejudice====
During the early [[20th Century]] Jehovah’s Witnesses saw black people as inferior. Black people it was believed had the curse of [[Ham]] in their hearts and were fit to be servants. Black people could get spiritual benefits by staying meek and accepting their inferior status. Black people were not encouraged to feel good about being black, rather they should hope to become white. As a special blessing black Jehovah’s Witnesses might become white through God’s intervention. Black people were uneducated and therefore would not benefit from the tracts and reading material supplied to white congregations.

Prejudice is much less evident in the 21st century, though few black people have reached the highest administrative levels of the church. [http://www.freeminds.org/history/blacks.htm]

==External links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/beliefs/beliefs.shtml The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and how they differ from mainstream Christianity.]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/ Jehovah's Witnesses at a glance]

{{Christianity}}
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Religions]]

Jehovah's Witnesses

2012-05-21T23:31:19Z

Jaban: Change section title to reflect what JWs call it

Jehovah's Witnesses are a fundamentalist Christian denomination best known for door-to-door evangelism, distribution of religious literature such as The Watchtower magazines, and their refusal to accept blood transfusions.

The religion's organization report over 7,000,000 members worldwide, and over 18,000,000 attendees at their annual Memorial ceremony. [http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/worldwide_report.htm] Third-party reports estimate the number to be 30-60% higher than reported by the religion.

Jehovah's Witnesses use their own translation of the [[Bible]], the [[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]].

== Blood ==

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood is a sacred representation of life and that God forbids its use for purposes other than atonement for sin (sacrifice). They have thus forbidden their followers from eating meat from which the blood has not been drained, food products containing blood, and from receiving blood transfusions, regardless of its medical necessity and of the consequences to their life or health.

Specifically, they are directly forbidden from willingly accepting a transfusion of stored whole blood, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma, on penalty of excommunication and the threat of God's disfavor. Preoperative extraction followed by postoperative re-transfusion of their own blood is also disallowed, though certain intraoperative re-transfusion procedures (such as salvage) are allowed. Organ and bone marrow transplants are discouraged as well, though the final decision is left to the individual. Those choosing to follow discouraged actions are often informally ostracized.

They are directed to follow their own personal conscience in deciding to use other components of blood, or other products derived from or produced in blood (such as antivenins).

One of the controversial aspects of their refusal to accept blood transfusions is in that, against the advice of their doctors and surgeons, they often hold their critically ill minor children to the same rule, who are themselves not mature enough to decide to follow the belief willfully.

== Holidays ==

Most holidays are of either religious or political origin, which Witnesses consider idolatrous worship of either a false god or the state, respectively. Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses do not observe any secular or religious holidays or celebrations, save wedding anniversaries.

Jehovah's Witnesses also have one religious celebration they do observe: the memorial of Christ's death.

====The Memorial====

The memorial of Christ's death, known as "The Memorial", is the only celebration officially endorsed by the church and observed by followers. This celebration is their version of the Last Supper.

Their practice of it involves a scripted sermon about the significance of Christ's sacrificing himself, and the importance of carrying on the tradition. This sermon is almost identical every year. It concludes with wine and unleavened bread being passed around the audience. Most members (99.9%) simply pass the bread and wine on to the person sitting beside them, but a few who feel they are anointed by God to act as rulers eat and drink them.

====Birthdays====

Birthdays are viewed as a form of idolatry, and the common American custom (getting really drunk at your friends' expense, which is great) contrary to scriptural principles. The celebration of birthdays is therefore expressly disallowed.

However, what a ''celebration'' consists of is not explicitly defined by the Jehovah's Witness organization. Some members do celebrate birthdays surreptitiously.

====Christmas====

Christmas is considered by Witnesses to be a celebration of mostly pagan origin, observed on a date and in a way that coincides with (and they believe is rooted in) several pagan rituals.

These beliefs are coupled with their belief that birthday celebrations are idolatrous anyway, so they do not celebrate Christmas and generally consider it one of the more abhorrent holidays.

Belief in the pagan origin of Christmas customs and questioning the celebration date is not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. At least some of the customs thereof are factually pagan [pagan in the sense that they have non-Christian roots], and Christmas as a whole seems to be the evolution of the winter festivals and practices of several cultures and religions. Many post-reformation Christian movements condemn Christmas as an un-Christian holiday.

====Wedding Anniversaries====

It is perfectly acceptable for Witnesses to celebrate wedding anniversaries. The idolatrous aspects of admiring and giving gifts to someone on the yearly anniversary of their birth do not apply to admiring and giving gifts to a married couple on the yearly anniversary of their wedding.

== Disfellowshipping ==

The practice of excommunication, known among Witnesses as "disfellowshipping" and to some as "shunning", is used as punishment for breaking the tenets of the religion.

Members are prohibited from speaking to excommunicated members of the church, even when the outcast person is a member of their immediate family. Speaking regularly to an excommunicated person is itself a basis for excommunication, though more often (especially in the case of family) the penalty is exclusion from holding leadership positions and from some church activities.

Some exceptions are allowed where regularly speaking with the excommunicated person is required for other reasons, such as between married couples, for the care of minor children, child visitation and financial support, and for shared financial ventures and businesses.

Though an exception is made for existing business ties, the church discourages continuing such ties except as required by law.

== Membership ==

It is difficult to assess actual membership among Jehovah's Witnesses, as their organizing body reports neither officiated members nor church attendance. Instead, they report:

* The peak number of members who submit a report on their evangelism efforts, tabulated monthly.
* Combined attendance at their annual memorial ceremony.
* Combined peak attendance at their annual three-day convention.

The latter two do not reflect membership, as attendance of both includes casual and one-time visitors. Ministry campaigns are carried out for a few weeks before the event in an attempt to invite as many new people as possible.

The first is not an exact representation of actual membership, as it excludes those who attend services, consider themselves members, but who do not participate in evangelism efforts. It excludes even officiated members who do not evangelize. But given that better information is not reported, it may be considered the best representation available.

In reporting religious affiliation, government censuses, pew surveys, and statistical abstracts usually rely on self-identification. As such, they include children and others not recognized as members by the church, and thus find the number of Witnesses to be 30-60% higher than reported by the religion itself. But as they are collected the same way regardless of religion, these reports may be considered accurate for comparing one religion to another.

== Controversies ==

====Cult Practices====
A [[cult]] is popularly defined as an individual or organization which employs intensive methods to control behavior, thinking, and emotions of its followers. Included in these methods are isolating the group from standard social interaction and limiting the information available to the group.

While this can apply to many religious groups to some degree, it is not commonly applied to call a religion a cult unless the behavioral control results in harm to the members.

An example of this type of behavioral control within the Jehovah's Witness religion is requiring members isolate themselves from social interactions outside the religion, and then excommunicating ones who do not follow their tenets. The harm caused by this isolation is in that subsequent excommunication causes an almost total collapse of that person's social support structure.

Another example of harm is in their policy forbidding blood transfusions, and their limiting and misrepresenting information about them. This policy has often resulted in the death of the member or a member's child who refused to have (or was prevented from having) a transfusion.

Due to these methods of control being employed and the result sometimes being harm to the members, some consider the Jehovah's Witness religion to be a cult. The [http://www.ex-cult.org/ Ex-Cult Resource Center] considers the Jehovah's Witnesses a cult and has material on them.

====Racial prejudice====
During the early [[20th Century]] Jehovah’s Witnesses saw black people as inferior. Black people it was believed had the curse of [[Ham]] in their hearts and were fit to be servants. Black people could get spiritual benefits by staying meek and accepting their inferior status. Black people were not encouraged to feel good about being black, rather they should hope to become white. As a special blessing black Jehovah’s Witnesses might become white through God’s intervention. Black people were uneducated and therefore would not benefit from the tracts and reading material supplied to white congregations.

Prejudice is much less evident in the 21st century, though few black people have reached the highest administrative levels of the church. [http://www.freeminds.org/history/blacks.htm]

==External links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/beliefs/beliefs.shtml The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and how they differ from mainstream Christianity.]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/ Jehovah's Witnesses at a glance]

{{Christianity}}
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Religions]]

Talk:List of predicted dates for the end of the world

2012-05-21T22:28:52Z

Jaban: /* Major and minor predictions */

== Major and minor predictions ==

Not all predictions are equal. There ought to be some way of distinguishing widely-reported or -believed predictions (like [[Harold Camping]]'s), from the rantings of some disregarded street preacher. Perhaps a star before the date or something? Anyone got any suggestions? --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:58, 18 February 2012 (CST)
:I'd suggest sectioning this page by the church / religious group that the prediction was under the banner of, thus pretty much cutting out the lone wolf predictions that barely anyone knew about. And I suspect the majority of people reading and editing the list are only really interested in one particular religious group anyway, so that'd be easier to follow. --[[User:Jaban|jaban]] 17:28, 21 May 2012 (CDT)

== <nowiki>[citation needed]</nowiki> ==

Ideally, all of these predictions should be accompanied by references. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 15:05, 18 May 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Stem cell research

2011-11-25T05:59:16Z

Jaban:

I've made some edits to this article but I'm not at all sure that the "tone" is right.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 12:16, 24 November 2011 (CST)
:Same reason I haven't edited it. It seems more like a rant than an honest presentation of the controversy (which, I might add, is not necessarily a religious-versus-nonreligious controversy). --[[User:Jaban|jaban]] 23:59, 24 November 2011 (CST)

Are you a good person?

2011-07-24T13:28:47Z

Jaban: /* Counter-apologetics */ Remove unsupported and nonsensical c-a.

In discussing the necessity of accepting [[God]] and/or [[Jesus]], [[apologist]]s will often pose the question, "'''Are you a good person?'''" The idea is to sow the seeds of doubt in the listener's mind by using the [[Ten Commandments]] and play on the fear of eternal damnation to make belief in God more attractive. (See also [[Pascal's Wager]].)

One version of the argument, as used by [[Ray Comfort]] for example, goes something like this:
* '''Apologist:''' Do you think you are a good person?
** '''Unbeliever:''' (Does not matter whether they answer yes or no or anything in-between, or even point out the errors in the question or present their own views on how to identify a good/bad person)
* '''Apologist:''' Well, let's find out if you are a good person. Have you ever told a lie?
** '''Unbeliever:''' Well yes, everybody has at some point...
* '''Ap:''' What are you called if you tell a lie?
** '''Un:''' A liar.
* '''Ap:''' Have you ever stolen anything, regardless of its value?
** '''Un:''' A little thing when I was young.
* '''Ap:''' What do you call a person who steals?
** '''Un:''' A thief.
* '''Ap:''' Jesus said that anybody who looked at a women in lust is guilty of adultery in his heart. Have you ever looked at a woman with lust?
** '''Un:''' Well, yeah.
* '''Ap:''' Have you ever used God's name in vain?
** '''Un:''' Yes.
* '''Ap:''' You've taken the name of the God who gave you life as a cuss word and that's called blasphemy.
* '''Ap:''' So, by your own admission, you are a lying, thieving, adulterous, blasphemer, and when [[Jesus]] comes again on judgment day, how do you think he's going to treat you? Would you go to heaven or hell?
* '''Ap:''' Now imagine you are in a court standing before the judge. You plead with the judge to have mercy and you point out that you have done many good things in your life, but since he is a righteous judge and you have violated the law, he must punish you. You are found guilty, but then suddenly a man you do not know walks in, approaches the judge and pays your fine. That is what Jesus Christ did for you. He died on the cross, and paid the fine for your sins.

The Apologist may include the following analogy,

* '''Ap:''' If you were flying on a plane and knew it was going to crash and you had a parachute under your seat? What would you do?
** '''Un:''' Put it on.
* '''Ap:''' You wouldn't just believe in it, you'd put your trust in it.
* '''Ap:''' Jesus is that parachute.

The Apologist will then usually proceed to mention how Jesus, in his mercy and love, will forgive us sinners and let us into heaven anyway if we glorify him.

The apologist's goal of the "Have you ever told a lie?" question of this argument is to get the person to call themselves a liar. Should the mark not answer "liar" when the apologist asks the mark "What does that make you?", perhaps answering with "human", or "normal", etc., the apologist will counter with "If I told many lies, what would you call me?", and this usually draws out the word "liar" from the mark.

The lying part is supposedly connected to the 9th commandment; thou shalt not bear false witness. It should also be noted that [[Ray Comfort]] has no problem with lying should it suit his purposes. He has 'born false witness' against evolution and atheism on countless occasions knowing that what he was saying to be false.

==Different Version of the Ten Commandments==
Another, substantially different version of the Ten Commandments appears in {{bible|Exodus 34:12-26}}. This latter version is believed by scholars to predate the other two. It is explicitly labeled as "the Ten Commandments" (in {{bible|Exodus 34:28}}), whereas the better known version is not:
# Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
# For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
# Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
# The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
# All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
# Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
# And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
# Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
# The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
# Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

These are the original Ten Commandments, the only ones written in stone. As you can see, none of them say anything about lying, thievery, adultery, and such. The Commandments in Exodus 20 God simply spoke of them, but did not call them the "Ten Commandments" nor did he write them down in stone. Apologists dishonestly cherry-pick which version of the Commandments to fit their agenda without providing proper information.

==Counter-apologetics==
* ''Have you ever told a lie in your life?'' Yes. ''What does that make you?'' Ray Comfort.
* Have you ever told the truth in your life? Yes? Then you're a truth-teller. God loves truth-tellers... Have you ever told a lie? You have? Wow, you really are honest!
* Being imperfect isn't the same as being [[evil]].
* The Commandment "Thou shall not lie" '''is not there. Period.''' Thou shall not lie is completely incorrect. The correct Commandment is that "thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor." That is, you shall not produce false testimony against your neighbor. Bearing false witness actually has to do with property and dealing in the courts, not just simply lying about someone else.
** It should be noted that the bible does, in fact, condemn liars in Revelations 21:8. But it doesn't do so in the ten commandments.
* ''I once stole some candy as a kid.'' "What do you call someone who steals?" ''A thief.'' Actually, in Christian doctrine called Age of Accountability. It is not explicit in the Bible, but it is implicit and explains even though a child is born in sin, they really cannot be held accountable for their sin. Nice try Ray.
* Do not take God's name in vain is not simply cursing or shouting "Oh my God" or "OMG." There are verses that explain what counts as blasphemy that Ray Comfort does not tell you. Taking the Lord God's name in vain actually has more to do with false promises and oaths, or more specifically false promises and oaths that have not been kept in the name of Yahweh. See the Oxford Bible commentary and the Jewish Study Bible.
* "Adultery" in the Bible did not depend on the man's marital status, but the woman's. Bloodline was reckoned through the male. "To adulterate" means to introduce a foreign substance into something, thus adultery meant corrupting another man's bloodline by having sex with another man's wife.
* All humans perform acts in their lifetimes that could be described as bad, good and every shade of gray in between. The truth is, one action does not define an individual's entire character. Furthermore, this act of "spot judgment" is the very thing the [[Bible]] prohibits [[Christian]]s from doing to others in {{bible|Matthew 7:1-5}}, {{bible|Mark 4:24}} and {{bible|Luke 6:37-42}}.
* The argument relies on drawing an equivalence between minor imperfections and grave crimes: shoplifting a piece of candy from a store when one was a child is equivalent to robbing a bank as an adult. Because the crime (sin) is against an infinite God, it demands an infinite punishment, regardless of the severity.
* The words "liar", "thief", etc. apply to those who lie or steal habitually or more than average, or in reference to a specific instance that negatively affected the speaker. To apply the word "liar" to all who have ever lied would not only render the word meaningless, but is a dishonest use of words.
* In the book of Genesis, Jacob steals from his brother, lies to his father, and is continually rewarded by god.
* Jesus himself in Mark 11:2-4, Matt 21:2-3, and Luke 19:30-31, Jesus instructs two of his disciples to go into a village - perhaps Bethany. They were to locate a colt tied up near the entrance, and to return with it. If someone stopped them they were to explain that the Lord had need of it. Otherwise, they were simply to steal the colt without paying for it or obtaining permission. Thus, Jesus would be guilty of thievery.
* Taking the Lord's name in vain to mean cursing is a mistranslation of the [[3rd commandment]]. The more proper translation (seen in many better translations) is takes the name of God in a false oath, or in a vain oath. It is a prohibition against swearing to God falsely, effectively turning the third commandment into grounds on which a trustworthy contract could be made.
* Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a misinterpretation of the [[9th commandment]]. Most ancient systems of justice were "guilty until proven innocent". After an accusation was made, one would be asked to prove his or her innocence or be punished for the presumed act. If a person could prove their innocence, their accuser would be guilty of false witness and might be put to death. The act of accusing a person of a crime was a more serious one in the past than it is today with our "innocent until proven guilty" standard; the closest analogy would be filing a false police report, rather than simply lying.
* Looking at a woman in lust is a thought crime. Lust isn't a conscious action, and one is to be punished for human nature.
* The argument is a poor one to use on [[atheist]]s since they don't believe that any gods exist and so don't give the opinions and judgments of purported gods any weight at all.
* An honest person would not answer if he or she was a "good person" as it is an subjective opinion. It would be similar to asking, "Are you a handsome person?" or "Are you an intelligent person?"
* "What are you called if you tell a lie?" "Well, since everybody lies at some point, I suppose I would be called a human being."
* "Have you ever looked at a woman with lust?" Think about what this commandment is saying: "God has to punish you because the sex drive ''He'' put in you is working properly", which makes absolutely no logical sense. Another rebuttal could be: "Of course I did. If I didn't, I wouldn't have wanted to marry her. How long would the human race surive if people didn't want have sex with each other?"
* Given the choice between a certain death by plane crash and using a parachute that might save one's life, the rational decision would be to use the parachute. What one believes about the parachute is irrelevant. If someone did not know what a parachute was, then they wouldn't believe it would be useful. Knowledge is always superior to blind faith.
* A country in which a person was tortured for the rest of their life for a single lie or a thought-crime would be considered absolutely barbaric. A God who uses this sort of penal system is just as barbaric, yet the believers twist their logic and their sense of morality to assume that he is perfect and therefore so is his system. They might argue that he must punish us because he is so perfect and he can't stand one sin. But this makes no sense. A grownup is more civilized than a child, and this doesn't give him reason to punish children more severely. If your teacher is a mathematical genius, that's no reason for her to give you stricter marks than if she was just an average teacher.
* Brainwashing works by first lowering a person's self-esteem, and then raising them back up. Which is what is done here: make the unbeliever feel guilty and small, then bring out the good news of how Jesus will forgive him anyway. Some sects can use similar tactics to lure unsuspecting people in: Give them a personality test, the results of which supposedly show how completely messed up the person is, then say "Fortunately, we can help you."
* The biblical God is also guilty of lying (told Abraham that he had to kill Issac, made it appear that Lazarus was dead, etc.), stealing (at least by proxy... See pretty much all of the Book of Joshua), adultery (um... Mary anyone? anyone?) and even murder (everybody really, but of course specifically Canaanites, Amorites, et.al.). Pretty tough for a "Just Judge" to sentence someone to eternal punishment for sins he himself is guilty of... right?
* Often, people who use this mantra are basing this on the idea that God will judge one based on the ten commandments. Yet they never ask: "Have you ever worked on a sunday?" Most likely, few of them would consider the latter immoral.

==See also==
* [[Ray Comfort]], who often uses this argument has has a problem with the truth himself.

[[Category:Arguments]]

Talk:Would someone die for what they knew was a lie?

2011-07-23T15:22:16Z

Jaban: Old title was more apt

== Title, "for what they knew was" ==
The bulk of the argument addresses the fact that most people who die to uphold something which isn't true don't realize it isn't true. This new title indicates the argument only addresses those who do know it's true, and die anyway.

The old title was more apt.

--[[User:Jaban|jaban]] 10:22, 23 July 2011 (CDT)

Deepity

2011-07-11T04:34:14Z

Jaban: /* Example */ clarity

'''Deepity''' is a term coined by philosopher [[Daniel Dennett]], to describe a proposition that can be read as being either true and trivial, or untrue but would be amazing if it were true.

== Definition ==
In his talk, ''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ#t=30m15s The Evolution of Confusion]'', given at the AAI 2009 conference, Dennett described a deepity as follows:

{{Quote|A ''deepity'' is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true.}}

== Example ==

Dennett gives the statement "love is just a word" as an example of a deepity.

Read literally, this is true: the word "love" is the written (and spoken) representation of the emotion it is meant to describe, and thus "love" is merely a word. But, by definition, this is true of every word. So if the statement is read this way, it is trivial and uninteresting.

But if the statement were read to mean that the emotion described by the word "love" is itself just a word, that statement would be profound if it were true. But what we call "love" is a complex emotional state which involves more than a simple descriptive label. Under this reading, the statement isn't true.

So the statement is not profound. It appears to be profound only because readers attribute the profoundness of the second reading (under which the statement is false) to the truth of the first reading (where it is trivial).

A deepity, therefore, is a statement which lacks any actual profoundness, but due to this problem appears profound.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Deepity

2011-07-11T04:29:14Z

Jaban: /* Definition */ add tie-in, section

'''Deepity''' is a term coined by philosopher [[Daniel Dennett]], to describe a proposition that can be read as being either true and trivial, or untrue but would be amazing if it were true.

== Definition ==
In his talk, ''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ#t=30m15s The Evolution of Confusion]'', given at the AAI 2009 conference, Dennett described a deepity as follows:

{{Quote|A ''deepity'' is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true.}}

== Example ==

Dennett gives the statement "love is just a word" as an example of a deepity.

Read literally, this is true: the word "love" is the written (and spoken) representation of the emotion it is meant to describe, and thus "love" is merely a word. But, by definition, this is true of every word. So if the statement is read this way, it is trivial and uninteresting.

But if the statement were read to mean that the emotion described by the word "love" is itself just a word, that statement would be profound if it were true. But it isn't true.

So the statement is not profound. It appears to be profound only because readers attribute the profoundness of the second reading (under which the statement is false) to the truth of the first reading (where it is trivial).

A deepity, therefore, is a statement which lacks any actual profoundness, but due to this problem appears profound.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Deepity

2011-07-11T04:13:01Z

Jaban: /* Definition */ rewrite example, fix formatting

'''Deepity''' is a term coined by philosopher [[Daniel Dennett]], to describe a proposition that can be read as being either true and trivial, or untrue but would be amazing if it were true.

== Definition ==
In his talk, ''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ#t=30m15s The Evolution of Confusion]'', given at the AAI 2009 conference, Dennett described a deepity as follows:

{{Quote|A ''deepity'' is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true.}}

He gives the statement "love is just a word" as an example of a deepity.

Read literally, this is true: the word "love" is the written (and spoken) representation of the emotion it is meant to describe, and thus "love" is merely a word. But, by definition, this is true of every word. So if the statement is read this way, it is trivial and uninteresting.

But if the statement were read to mean that the emotion described by the word "love" is itself just a word, that statement would be profound if it were true. But it isn't true.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Abortion

2011-06-14T18:50:39Z

Jaban: add Canada to the list, and fix some grammar

Abortion is the medical practice of terminating a pregnancy. Abortion is allowed by law in many Western nations, including nominally Christian nations such as Canada and the United Kingdom.

People who believe that abortion is acceptable are described as "Pro-Choice" - choice in this case referring to the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Those who believe that abortion is unacceptable are described as "Pro-Life." Religious belief and a pro-life attitude commonly go together, but one by no means implies the other. The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of political framing.

In modern times abortion is a surgical procedure, but the ancients had their forms of abortion as well. In ancient Greece, for example, the practice was to have the pregnant woman drink a poison that would force her to have a miscarriage.

{{Stub}}

Richard Dawkins

2011-06-14T15:20:14Z

Jaban: reword slightly to accommodate removed sentence

'''Richard Dawkins''' is a British zoologist, formerly the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of [[Science]] at Oxford University. He is also a very outspoken [[atheist]].

Much of his popular published work is on [[zoology]], [[biology]] and [[evolution]]. His 2006 work, ''[[The God Delusion]]'' is concerned primarily with [[religion]], [[belief]] and the effects it has had, on society, and why such should be considered anathema to those who value life.

Dawkins is well-known for his outspokenness against religion. He is famous for his opinion that labeling children with the religion of their parents is tantamount to child abuse, and for comparing the spread of religious beliefs to the spread of viruses.

Dawkins coined the term "[[meme]]" to describe how ideas (notably, religious belief) are spread and evolve using mechanisms similar to those of biological evolution.

Along with [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Christopher Hitchens]], Dawkins participated in a two hour round-table discussion entitled the [[The Four Horsemen]].

==Publications==
* ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', Oxford University Press, 1976. ISBN 0-19-929115-2
* ''[[The Extended Phenotype]]'', Oxford University Press, 1982. ISBN 0-19-288051-9
* ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]'', W. W. Norton & Company, 1986. ISBN 0-393-31570-3
* ''[[River Out of Eden]]'', Basic Books, 1995. ISBN 0-465-06990-8
* ''[[Climbing Mount Improbable]]'', W. W. Norton & Company, 1996. ISBN 0-393-31682-3
* ''[[Unweaving the Rainbow]]'', Houghton Mifflin, 1998. ISBN 0-618-05673-4
* ''[[A Devil's Chaplain]]'', Houghton Mifflin, 2003. ISBN 0-618-48539-2
* ''[[The Ancestor's Tale]]'', Houghton Mifflin, 2004. ISBN 0-618-61916-X
* ''[[The God Delusion]]'', Houghton Mifflin, 2006. ISBN 0-618-68000-4
* ''[[The Greatest Show on Earth]]'', Transworld, 2009. ISBN 0-593-06173-X
* ''[[The Magic of Reality]]'', 2011. ISBN 978-1-439192818

==Documentaries==
* [[Root of all evil|Root of all Evil?]], 2006
* [[The Enemies of Reason]], 2007
* [[The Genius of Charles Darwin]], 2008
* [[Faith School Menace?]], 2011

==See also==
*[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]]

==External links==
* [http://richarddawkins.net/home Richard Dawkins' web site]
* [http://richarddawkins.net/foundation The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]
* [http://www.reitstoen.com/dawkins.php Richard Dawkins multimedia archive]
* [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/CV.pdf Richard Dawkins' curriculum vitae]
* [http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet The official channel at YouTube]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD0WbP0Q0Oc The Atheism Tapes (1/3) - Richard Dawkins]

{{Science}}
{{Atheism}}

[[Category:People|Dawkins, Richard]]
[[Category:Atheists|Dawkins, Richard]]
[[Category:Scientists|Dawkins, Richard]]

Demon

2011-04-13T20:27:13Z

Jaban: spelling

{{religion-stub}}
In [[Christian]] mythology, a '''demon''' is an angel who has fallen from [[grace]] along with [[Satan]]. Demons are inherently [[evil]] and frequently plague humanity under the command of [[the Devil]].

Demons are often seen as agents of the Devil set out to test the [[faith]] of people. However, given that demons themselves are proof of the Devil's existence and therefore the existence of [[Hell]], one has to question the effect any "test of faith" caused by demons appearing. The fact that demons also seem to appear almost exclusively before people who already believe in their existence would seem to reduce their efficiency in this regard even further.

==Demonic possession==
Demons are supposedly able to enter and take control of a human or animal in a process called ''possession''. The [[Catholic Church]] uses the ritual of [[exorcism]] to expel demons from the victims they possess. Many [[Protestant]] denominations also have rituals or rites to cast out demons, though most of these are considerably less formal or complicated than the Catholic version of the same procedure.

Demon possession used to be a common explanation for those who suffer from neurological disorders such as [[epilepsy]] or [[schizophrenia]].

The reason god would create angels with the ability to invade human bodies and control them is not explained in the [[Bible]].

[[Category:Mythology]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Euthyphro dilemma

2011-04-11T16:02:02Z

Jaban: /* The dilemma */ Correct double links

The '''Euthyphro dilemma''' is found in [[Wikipedia:Plato|Plato]]'s ''[[Wikipedia:Euthyphro|Euthyphro]]'' dialogue, in which [[Wikipedia:Socrates|Socrates]] asks the question, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In layman's terms this would be, "Is that which is [[good]] commanded by [[God]] because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?"

==The dilemma==

It is common amongst [[Christian]]s to claim that God's [[omnibenevolence]] necessitates the goodness of his actions and commands, a view called "Divine Command Theory". The Euthyphro dilemma is one demonstration of an incompatibility between the perfection of God and his commands. For one, Divine Command theory claims that [[morality]] is meaningless unless it is derived from God yet fails to answer who made God moral and whether his moral commands could be considered objective rather than arbitrary.

Put in the context of Divine Command Theory, the Euthyphro Dilemma results in two unpalatable conclusions:

1) God is not the greatest, as he must call upon a standard of good greater than himself.
2) God's commands are arbitrary, grounded on his whims, and thus could be commands that we ourselves find morally abhorrent.

The first conclusion results in the view that God cannot change what is right and wrong. Killing and stealing are inherently bad, so God, being inherently good, cannot command them. Yet if right and wrong are inherent to the action, regardless of God's decree, then God has nothing to do with the process. God doesn't set moral standards; he follows them, and is therefore only indirectly related to moral commands.

The second conclusion shows that God is free to decide what is good, and it is good by virtue of his decree. If this is the case, then God has no higher standard to answer to, and therefore his will may be seen as genuinely arbitrary. Although God once decreed that [[murder]] and [[theft]] are morally wrong, he might have declared the opposite just as easily, so then murder and theft would be right.

Another way to state the argument is in the form of a constructive dilemma:

I. Is something good because God commands it so or does God command it so because it is good?

II. If something is good because the God commands that it is so, then what is morally reprehensible to us can be good.

III. If God commands that it is good because it is good, then the good is greater than God.

IV. So, either the good is arbitrary or good is greater than God.

Much atheist literature has borrowed from the Euthyphro dilemma, even when not referring to it by name. For instance, [[Bertrand Russell]] wrote:
{{quote-source|The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good.|''[[Why I Am Not a Christian]]''}}

==Counter-apologetics==

===False dilemma===
There are several responses possible against the Euthyphro dilemma, but the sharpest criticism it falls under is that it is a false dilemma (i.e., commits the Bifurcation fallacy by presenting only two alternatives when there are actually more than two). The two cases presented are that (i) God commands something because it is good, and that (ii) something is good because God commands it. In the first instance, moral order is grounded ''outside'' God; in the second instance, moral order is grounded in God's ''arbitrary'' fiat.

The Bifurcation fallacy is proved by the existence of a third alternative, which it fails to present or account for; namely, (iii) that moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. In this case God's commands are not ''arbitrary''; they are, rather, an expression consistent with his essential nature. Under this view, "God is good" is not a moral valuation (God has goodness) but an ontological statement (God is goodness); as a logical consequence, good is that which conforms to the nature and will of God, while evil is a privative term or that which does not conform to the nature and will of God.

This supplies the reason behind why "an all-loving God would never command evil." Under the Euthyphro bifurcation, the Christian theist has no reason to believe that God would never command evil on the one horn, or that God will not change his mind about what is evil on the other. However, under the third alternative the Christian theist does have good reason for his belief, that God commanding evil would amount to a logical contradiction: God wills what he does not will, an empty nonsense statement.

===God would never command immoral acts===

Firstly, God ''does'' command rape and murder several times in the [[Old Testament]]. For example, in {{Bible|Numbers 31:1-54}} God commands Moses and his army to "Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." The army comes back with 32,000 virgins after doing God's will.

The Qur'an, chapter 4 (An-Nisa), verse 34: “ Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Secondly, saying that God would never command [[evil]] in itself shows that God gets his morals from an outside source. If God would never command rape and murder because they're evil then where did he get the determination that they were evil?

This counter-apologetic contains certain risks, however, which a canny apologist may exploit. The theist may contend, sincerely or otherwise, that yes, because God commanded all of the ostensibly immoral acts contained within both Old and New Testament, they are therefore good. The theist can then shift the burden of proof to the counterapologist and demand that he or she justify why such acts are objectively ''immoral'', opening the door to endless picayune objections, diversions, and moving of the goalposts.

===God's nature===

The claim that God would not command evil because it goes against God's nature does not actually change the problem, but only reorganizes it. The question might then be reasonably asked, "Where does God's nature come from?" Did God create it himself? If so then God's whims are still behind what he considers right and wrong, and the dilemma still applies. If, on the other hand, God did not create his own nature, then either someone else created it (in which case the dilemma applies to the creator of God's nature) or the morality contained in God's nature is inherent in some way (in which case God is not truly the author of right and wrong).

Michael Martin has argued that theistic objections to the dilemma solve nothing, because it can easily be reformulated in terms of God's character: "Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character?" The structure of this modified dilemma is exactly the same as before, and it appears to be if anything harder to escape.

If we identify the ultimate standard for goodness with God's nature, then it seems we are identifying it with certain of God's properties (e.g., being loving, being just). If so, then the dilemma resurfaces: is God good because he has those properties, or are those properties good because God has them?

===God provides a standard to emulate===
In ''[http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/euthyphro.html The Euthyphro Argument: A Philosophical Dinosaur]'', Rabbi Moshe Averick argues that the entire Euthyphro dilemma is the philosophical equivalent of an optical illusion. It applies only to the pagan "gods" of the ancient Greeks and the civilizations that surrounded them. In Jewish theology "good" means attaching oneself to the only reality that has actual existence; namely God himself. In other words, God commands humans to "love their neighbor" not because it is "good" but because it will bring the created human into a relationship with the actual and eternal being of God.
In Rabbi Averick's own words from his book, ''Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist'' (reprinted with permission of Tradition and Reason Press, 2011, pg. 208)
'''The Euthyphro Argument Crumbles'''
In the context of Jewish theology (and I would imagine, most monotheistic theologies), the Euth. Argument breaks down completely:
- Is “loving your neighbor” good because God commands it? – Obviously not, that would make it arbitrary.
- Does God command “love your neighbor” because it is good?
No, it is neither of these. God commands us to love our neighbors so that we can choose to have a relationship with him, so that we can attach ourselves to his infinite and actual being; God himself is THE good.
If this infinite being we call God actually exists, we have a real standard to determing a meaningful concep ot moral truths. The standard is closeness to God, and the actual absolute existence which is his being. This is what the Psalmist means when he proclaims, "To me closenes ot God ''Italic text''is''Italic text'' good" (Psalms 73:28). On the other hand, if this God does not exite, we are left with nothing but 100% subjective human tastes, iopinions, and socail mores.
'''Who has greater Moral Authority: The Incredible Hulk or Zeus?'''
The Euthyphro Argument as a challenge to Monotheism is nothing more than philosophical smoke and mirrors. The only reason it has some superficial appeal at all is because the word “gods” is used, giving the impression of some authority above human beings. Plato’s original argument, of course, involved the pagan gods of Greece. In fact, pagan gods have no more moral authority, nor moral credibility, than mortal humans. A pagan god is simply a human being projected to a large scale. He’s just bigger, stronger, lives longer, and can even throw a few lightning bolts when needed. Pagan gods are no different than The Incredible Hulk, The Flash, or Superman (who as the old TV show told us had “powers far beyond those of mortal men!”).
Formulating the Euthyphro Argument using pagan gods is exactly the same thing as saying: Does The Incredible Hulk command it because it is good, or is it good because The Incredible Hulk commands it? The moral proclamations of The Incredible Hulk, have no more or less significance, than the moral proclamations of Zeus, Mick Jagger, Jerry Seinfeld, Oprah Winfrey, or for that matter, any of the approximately 6,000,000,000 individuals living on this planet.
When stated this way, it becomes obvious how misguided and mistaken the whole argument was to begin with. What did you expect? Of course, pagan gods, superheroes, rock superstars, Jewish comedians, and even wildly successful talk show hosts – just like everyone else - can only tell us their totally subjective views on morality, or manufacture it arbitrarily.
Not so, the God of Abraham, the One God. The God of Monotheism is not a human being projected on a large scale. He is above time and space. He is above the physical. He is even above the spiritual. He created the spiritual. He is, as Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg has put it, “so totally and completely other than we are.” With the existence of the One God, greatness, goodness, meaning, and morality lie in front of us. They are within our grasp if we choose them. Without God, in the utterly empty void of the atheistic world, we are left with nothing but bleak despair, as expressed by the American novelist T.C. Boyle:

'' I am an atheist and a nihilist…I believe in nothing. And it causes me tremendous despair and heartbreak…there is nothing between us and the naked howling face of the universe. Nothing."''

===Can you be good without God?===

The issue of [[secular morality]] is a complex topic and is further explored in the related article.

==External link==

* [http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html Full text of the ''Euthyphro'' dialogue] by Plato
* [http://www.beretta-online.com/articles/philosophy/new_euthyphro.pdf Apologetic essay entitled "A New Euthyphro"] by New Zealand Christian philosopher Glenn Peoples
* ''[http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/euthyphro.html The Euthyphro Argument: A Philosophical Dinosaur]'' by Rabbi Moshe Averick
* [http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/euthyphro_dilemma/]

{{Arguments against god}}

[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Deductive arguments]]

Talk:Angel

2011-04-07T05:38:15Z

Jaban: angel ranking

== Angel ranking ==
Should we perhaps make a separate category for the different rankings of the “levels” of Angel (for lack of a better term). Like Cherubim, Seraphim, and the others that are mentioned in Jewish texts?
--[[User:MasterSivers|MasterSivers]] 19:29, 5 April 2011 (CDT)
:I see no reason not to. Go ahead :-) --[[User:Jaban|jaban]] 00:38, 7 April 2011 (CDT)

Earth

2011-04-05T19:44:35Z

Jaban: corrections and updates

{{wikipedia}}
'''Earth''' is the third planet from the [[Sun]] in our solar system. It is the only planet — or, indeed, the only ''place'' in the universe — that we know harbors [[life]].

[[Scientist]]s estimate the [[age of the Earth]] to be approximately 4.54 [[billion]] years. This is roughly one third of the estimated [[age of the universe]], 13.75 billion years.

These scientifically-validated estimates contradict the view of [[Young Earth creationist]]s, who date the creation of the [[universe]] by the [[Christian]] [[God]] to 5,700 to 10,000 years ago. They base their estimate on a literal interpretation of the book of [[Genesis]], and develop a rationale to suit their chosen date (for example, they may develop a rationale to show why they chose the date of creation calculated from the Septuagint versus the one calculated from the Masoretic text).

In some [[religion]]s the Earth is worshiped as a deity.

==Center of the Universe==
It was previously thought that the Earth was at the center of the universe. From a person on Earth, they would see the stars and planets moving. Naturally, being the young humans, they assumed that the Earth was at the center of the universe and everything moved around it. This formed the basis of the Catholic church believing that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo theorized later on that the Earth was not at the center of the universe, but was revolving around the Sun. The scientists who did support this position were attacked and prosecuted by the Christian Church.

In the late 1900's and the early 2,000's, the [[Pope]] officially recognized that the Earth was revolving around the sun and regretted how they have acted against Galileo and other scientists.

==Young Earth Creationism==
As afore mentioned there are Christians who hold the belief that the world is 6,000 years old. They gain this belief, allegedly, through scripture. Christians who hold this belief assert that scripture is infallible. They then take the geneologies in Genesis 5 and 11, from Adam to Abraham, and get a number of roughly 1946 years. They then add this number to 2,000 B.C. This latter number is the well accepted date of Abraham's life and times. From here they get roughly 4,000 B.C. as thus being the time when Abraham was created and therein the world. The only way this works, however, is if there is a literal 24 hour 6 day creation.

Cf: Newman, Robert C. and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr. Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth. Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1977.

There are many Christians, however, that see the problems between science and the young earth creationist view and have re-evaluated their exegesis of Genesis 1. They have derived that because of Genre, Accommodation, Hebrew language and understanding of Cosmogony, the Genesis 1 account was never meant to give an account of when creation was created, merely that it was. They thus find no problem in asserting that scripture is infallible and that the world is not 6,000 years old but 4.6 billion as science suggests. These individuals are called Old Earth, or Progressive Creationists.

Cf:Phillips, Perry G. “Are The Days of Genesis Longer Than 24 Hours? The Bible Says, “Yes!” IBRI Research Report #40 (1991).

Ross, Hugh. Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing Group, 1994.

Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

==See also==
* [[Gaia]]
* [[Moon]]
* [[Mother Earth]]

[[Category:Science]]

Earth

2011-04-05T19:24:22Z

Jaban: formatting

{{wikipedia}}
'''Earth''' is the third planet from the [[Sun]] in our solar system. It is the only planet — or, indeed, the only ''place'' in the universe — that we know harbors [[life]].

[[Scientist]]s estimate the [[age of the Earth]] to be approximately 4.57 [[billion]] years. This is roughly one third of the estimated [[age of the universe]], 13.7 billion years. These estimates directly contradict the views of [[young earth creationist]]s that the [[universe]] (including Earth and its life) was created by [[God]] 6,000 to 10,000 years ago in accordance with the book of [[Genesis]].

In some [[religion]]s the Earth is worshiped as a deity.

==Center of the Universe==
It was previously thought that the Earth was at the center of the universe. From a person on Earth, they would see the stars and planets moving. Naturally, being the young humans, they assumed that the Earth was at the center of the universe and everything moved around it. This formed the basis of the Catholic church believing that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo theorized later on that the Earth was not at the center of the universe, but was revolving around the Sun. The scientists who did support this position were attacked and prosecuted by the Christian Church.

In the late 1900's and the early 2,000's, the [[Pope]] officially recognized that the Earth was revolving around the sun and regretted how they have acted against Galileo and other scientists.

==Young Earth Creationism==
As afore mentioned there are Christians who hold the belief that the world is 6,000 years old. They gain this belief, allegedly, through scripture. Christians who hold this belief assert that scripture is infallible. They then take the geneologies in Genesis 5 and 11, from Adam to Abraham, and get a number of roughly 1946 years. They then add this number to 2,000 B.C. This latter number is the well accepted date of Abraham's life and times. From here they get roughly 4,000 B.C. as thus being the time when Abraham was created and therein the world. The only way this works, however, is if there is a literal 24 hour 6 day creation.

Cf: Newman, Robert C. and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr. Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth. Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1977.

There are many Christians, however, that see the problems between science and the young earth creationist view and have re-evaluated their exegesis of Genesis 1. They have derived that because of Genre, Accommodation, Hebrew language and understanding of Cosmogony, the Genesis 1 account was never meant to give an account of when creation was created, merely that it was. They thus find no problem in asserting that scripture is infallible and that the world is not 6,000 years old but 4.6 billion as science suggests. These individuals are called Old Earth, or Progressive Creationists.

Cf:Phillips, Perry G. “Are The Days of Genesis Longer Than 24 Hours? The Bible Says, “Yes!” IBRI Research Report #40 (1991).

Ross, Hugh. Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing Group, 1994.

Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

==See also==
* [[Gaia]]
* [[Moon]]
* [[Mother Earth]]

[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Mythicism

2011-03-26T18:21:41Z

Jaban: Contemporary evidence?

Just now I made one minor change which I believe is in line with the intent of this article as previously written. (Adding of "no" so it now reads "There is no contemporary evidence of Jesus".) There are two other parts of this that confuse me, however: The section "Burden is on those who say there is a historical Jesus" content does not appear to support the main point nor does the counter-apologetics section. I am willing to try to improve these but am new here and don't want trash somebody else's work if I am missing a point, so will hold off for a bit. Also I am just learning this wiki stuff so not sure if this is the right way/place to raise the question. -DaveL

27 March Y8 comment: I undid my edit described above because after reading another page created by Tatarize (Argument from Evidence), it appeared to me that the omission of the word "no" from "There is contemporary evidence of Jesus" was deliberate. I now think the intent in both topics is to present what I will call a Socratic dialogue, where a counter-apologetic position is stated, then the apologetic response is stated (in this case that there is contemporary evidence for Jesus) and then this is refuted. Since I am new here and I had only intended to fix up what I thought was an inadvertent omission, I decided it would be best to undo it. The fact that Sans Deity has now restored the "no" suggest to me that at a minimum this Socratic dialogue approach is not the standard here or widely understood. It does not appear in the help pages so far as I can tell (although while looking for it I found the guidance on whether edits are minor and I now understand that since I changed the meaning it was not a minor edit, and will bear this in mind going forward). I think some discussion is in order on whether there was a "Socratic dialogue" intent originally and if so should it be standard, etc. I think this discussion is needed because 1) There appears to be more topics in this format, 2) They will only get more confusing if they have a mixed point of view. I was planning to start a thread about it on the wiki discussion board when I saw there is already one started by Tatarize, and then I noticed that Sans Deity had put the "no" back. This would seem to confirm that further discussion is warranted here. So unless somebody else responds here I think I will put something on the board about it when I get some time. -DaveL

== Clarity ==

Sometimes my clarity leaves much to be desired. It's a counter apologetics wiki. It's hard to counter the apologetics if you don't point out the apologetics in the first place. I haven't seen any clear indication of a generally accepted format. [[User:Tatarize|Tatarize]] 18:12, 15 October 2008 (CDT)

== Contemporary evidence? ==

The gospel accounts were likely modified to better agree with one another, and parts of the are of questionable authorship.

We don't know whether or not the Tacitus account was drawn from contemporary sources.

We don't lack contemporary evidence. We have poor contemporary evidence.

My take is this:

While we cannot establish the truth of the story as a whole, we can establish that (a) the Christian movement happened, (b) many of its leaders were executed, and (c) followers believed that the founder had been executed.

Our poor contemporary evidence is not enough to establish that three Babylonians gave him perfume and money because they saw a UFO, that he had an especially convincing travelling magic show, that he had exactly twelve friends (well, eleven), or that he fed some West Bank settlers with genetically modified catfish.

But the fact of his existence and martyrdom are not extraordinary, and should not require the same level of rigorous proof. I think what we have is evidence enough to indicate the founder of a popular religious and political movement existed and was executed, despite the later embellishments.

--[[User:Jaban|jaban]] 13:21, 26 March 2011 (CDT)

Mythicism

2011-03-26T08:38:38Z

Jaban: /* contemporary evidence for Jesus */ Removed the Gospels. They may be partially of questionable authorship, but that doesn't exclude them as contemporary accounts

'''Mythicism''' is the general position that [[Jesus]] was not a historical person but a [[legend]] and that the [[gospel]]s were therefore written as a work of fiction. Much the same as [[Wikipedia:William Tell|William Tell]], [[Wikipedia:Paul Bunyan|Paul Bunyan]], [[Wikipedia:Robin Hood|Robin Hood]] and [[Wikipedia:King Arthur|King Arthur]] are generally considered non-historical, mythicists argue that Jesus should added to the list. The reasons for mythicism is typically an [[argument from silence]] and the parallels to other known myths.

==Argument==
* There is no contemporary evidence such that Jesus existed.
* The story of Jesus resembles the stories of other generally fictional characters.
* The onus is on those individuals who claim there was a historical Jesus to back up this positive claim.
** One should not believe in a historical Jesus.

===There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus===
* [[Paul the Apostle]] (Paul of Tarsus)
** Paul never claimed to have met Jesus in person - he claimed to have received instruction from the resurrected Jesus in a vision. His conversion happened after Jesus had already died.
** How convenient that Paul should have a vision and become the new church leader, subsequently introducing many rules of his own, given that up until that point he had been working to undermine the Christian movement.
* Christian [[apocrypha]]
** Stories about the stories do not qualify as historical evidence, any more than additional books about Superman prove the existence of Superman.
* [[Josephus]]
** There are good reasons to assume the relevant passages in Josephus are a forgery.
* [[Tacitus]]
** In reporting on the execution of Jesus, Tacitus provides no evidence he was doing any more than echoing the story as it was told by early Christians. Tacitus was not himself a contemporary to Jesus, and gives no indication he drew his information from those who were.
* [[Suetonius]]: ''As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome''
** Chrestus is a common Jewish name, not one specially reserved for Jesus alone. Given the reference was made 20 years after Jesus is said to have died, the passage in unlikely specifically in reference to him.
* [[Pliny the Younger]]: ''Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.''
** The passage refers to Christians being annoying rather than a historical Jesus.
* Many early Christians died for their beliefs, and they wouldn't die for a lie.
** Their willingness to die shows that they believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed Jesus was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder were invented.
** If they did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct.

===The story of Jesus resembles other myths===
* Those stories are invented by the devil.
* A lot of parallels are stretches.
** For example [[Horus]] is said to be born of a virgin, when he was born (in one telling of the story) of Hathor and the reassembled body of Osiris.
* Joseph Campbell's ''[[Hero With a Thousand Faces]]'' showed a general outline for myths, even without the myths being inter-related. A notable amount of the argument for mythicism is that the early Christians stole the God ideas from other groups rather than invented them outright. This is not necessarily the case.

===The burden is on those who argue there is a historical Jesus===
* It is generally accepted that there is a historical Jesus.
* The places in the Gospels exist.
**Homer's Odyssey describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. If in the future, archaeologists travel to the once-was New york City and discover comics off Spiderman, does that mean Spider-man was a historical person?

==Criticisms==
* Mythicism is a fringe position.

==Counter-apologetics==
* In the weak form — "we shouldn't believe in a historical Jesus or actively disbelieve the proposition" — it is hard to argue that a character should be accepted as due to the lack of good evidence of historicity. Keeping this in mind, it becomes progressively harder to accept a divine one if there doesn't exist the grounds for a historical one.
* Even experts have to give evidence for their beliefs, their opinions are based more on assumption and tradition than a thorough survey of the evidence.
* Nonetheless, there are still scholars that are mythicists such as theologians Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Thompson, and Tom Harpur, as well as historians Bruno Bauer, Edwin Johnson, and Bertrand Russell
[[Category:Jesus]]

Mythicism

2011-03-26T08:34:21Z

Jaban: /* Contemporary evidence for Jesus */ Fix Paul, and add new comment

'''Mythicism''' is the general position that [[Jesus]] was not a historical person but a [[legend]] and that the [[gospel]]s were therefore written as a work of fiction. Much the same as [[Wikipedia:William Tell|William Tell]], [[Wikipedia:Paul Bunyan|Paul Bunyan]], [[Wikipedia:Robin Hood|Robin Hood]] and [[Wikipedia:King Arthur|King Arthur]] are generally considered non-historical, mythicists argue that Jesus should added to the list. The reasons for mythicism is typically an [[argument from silence]] and the parallels to other known myths.

==Argument==
* There is no contemporary evidence such that Jesus existed.
* The story of Jesus resembles the stories of other generally fictional characters.
* The onus is on those individuals who claim there was a historical Jesus to back up this positive claim.
** One should not believe in a historical Jesus.

===There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus===
* The [[Gospels]]
** Four text copied from each other, [[Mark]] perhaps having been written as fiction and the source of the story itself[http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#2]. We do not know who the gospel writers are, but none of them claim to be eye-witnesses and are each written in the third person.
* [[Paul the Apostle]] (Paul of Tarsus)
** Paul never claimed to have met Jesus in person - he claimed to have received instruction from the resurrected Jesus in a vision. His conversion happened after Jesus had already died.
** How convenient that Paul should have a vision and become the new church leader, subsequently introducing many rules of his own, given that up until that point he had been working to undermine the Christian movement.
* Christian [[apocrypha]]
** Stories about the stories do not qualify as historical evidence, any more than additional books about Superman prove the existence of Superman.
* [[Josephus]]
** There are good reasons to assume the relevant passages in Josephus are a forgery.
* [[Tacitus]]
** In reporting on the execution of Jesus, Tacitus provides no evidence he was doing any more than echoing the story as it was told by early Christians. Tacitus was not himself a contemporary to Jesus, and gives no indication he drew his information from those who were.
* [[Suetonius]]: ''As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome''
** Chrestus is a common Jewish name, not one specially reserved for Jesus alone. Given the reference was made 20 years after Jesus is said to have died, the passage in unlikely specifically in reference to him.
* [[Pliny the Younger]]: ''Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.''
** The passage refers to Christians being annoying rather than a historical Jesus.
* Many early Christians died for their beliefs, and they wouldn't die for a lie.
** Their willingness to die shows that they believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed Jesus was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder were invented.
** If they did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct.

===The story of Jesus resembles other myths===
* Those stories are invented by the devil.
* A lot of parallels are stretches.
** For example [[Horus]] is said to be born of a virgin, when he was born (in one telling of the story) of Hathor and the reassembled body of Osiris.
* Joseph Campbell's ''[[Hero With a Thousand Faces]]'' showed a general outline for myths, even without the myths being inter-related. A notable amount of the argument for mythicism is that the early Christians stole the God ideas from other groups rather than invented them outright. This is not necessarily the case.

===The burden is on those who argue there is a historical Jesus===
* It is generally accepted that there is a historical Jesus.
* The places in the Gospels exist.
**Homer's Odyssey describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. If in the future, archaeologists travel to the once-was New york City and discover comics off Spiderman, does that mean Spider-man was a historical person?

==Criticisms==
* Mythicism is a fringe position.

==Counter-apologetics==
* In the weak form — "we shouldn't believe in a historical Jesus or actively disbelieve the proposition" — it is hard to argue that a character should be accepted as due to the lack of good evidence of historicity. Keeping this in mind, it becomes progressively harder to accept a divine one if there doesn't exist the grounds for a historical one.
* Even experts have to give evidence for their beliefs, their opinions are based more on assumption and tradition than a thorough survey of the evidence.
* Nonetheless, there are still scholars that are mythicists such as theologians Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Thompson, and Tom Harpur, as well as historians Bruno Bauer, Edwin Johnson, and Bertrand Russell
[[Category:Jesus]]

Mythicism

2011-03-26T08:05:51Z

Jaban: /* There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus */

'''Mythicism''' is the general position that [[Jesus]] was not a historical person but a [[legend]] and that the [[gospel]]s were therefore written as a work of fiction. Much the same as [[Wikipedia:William Tell|William Tell]], [[Wikipedia:Paul Bunyan|Paul Bunyan]], [[Wikipedia:Robin Hood|Robin Hood]] and [[Wikipedia:King Arthur|King Arthur]] are generally considered non-historical, mythicists argue that Jesus should added to the list. The reasons for mythicism is typically an [[argument from silence]] and the parallels to other known myths.

==Argument==
* There is no contemporary evidence such that Jesus existed.
* The story of Jesus resembles the stories of other generally fictional characters.
* The onus is on those individuals who claim there was a historical Jesus to back up this positive claim.
** One should not believe in a historical Jesus.

===There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus===
* The [[Gospels]]
** Four text copied from each other, [[Mark]] perhaps having been written as fiction and the source of the story itself[http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#2]. We do not know who the gospel writers are, but none of them claim to be eye-witnesses and are each written in the third person.
* The writings of Paul
** Paul may have been writing about a divine figure rather than a historical one. Even if not, Paul never met Jesus. All he did was hear a voice and see a light. Without any other evidence the claim is problematic at best and ridiculous at worst. If Christians accept this, then they should accept the stories of Joseph Smith and Mohammad.
* Christian [[apocrypha]]
** Stories about the stories do not qualify as historical evidence, any more than additional books about Superman prove the existence of Superman.
* [[Josephus]]
** There are good reasons to assume the relevant passages in Josephus are a forgery.
* [[Tacitus]]
** In reporting on the execution of Jesus, Tacitus provides no evidence he was doing any more than echoing the story as it was told by early Christians. Tacitus was not himself a contemporary to Jesus, and gives no indication he drew his information from those who were.
* [[Suetonius]]: ''As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome''
** Chrestus is a common Jewish name, not one specially reserved for Jesus alone. Given the reference was made 20 years after Jesus is said to have died, the passage in unlikely specifically in reference to him.
* [[Pliny the Younger]]: ''Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.''
** The passage refers to Christians being annoying rather than a historical Jesus.
* Many early Christians died for their beliefs, and they wouldn't die for a lie.
** Their willingness to die shows that they believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed Jesus was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder were invented.
** If they did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct.

===The story of Jesus resembles other myths===
* Those stories are invented by the devil.
* A lot of parallels are stretches.
** For example [[Horus]] is said to be born of a virgin, when he was born (in one telling of the story) of Hathor and the reassembled body of Osiris.
* Joseph Campbell's ''[[Hero With a Thousand Faces]]'' showed a general outline for myths, even without the myths being inter-related. A notable amount of the argument for mythicism is that the early Christians stole the God ideas from other groups rather than invented them outright. This is not necessarily the case.

===The burden is on those who argue there is a historical Jesus===
* It is generally accepted that there is a historical Jesus.
* The places in the Gospels exist.
**Homer's Odyssey describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. If in the future, archaeologists travel to the once-was New york City and discover comics off Spiderman, does that mean Spider-man was a historical person?

==Criticisms==
* Mythicism is a fringe position.

==Counter-apologetics==
* In the weak form — "we shouldn't believe in a historical Jesus or actively disbelieve the proposition" — it is hard to argue that a character should be accepted as due to the lack of good evidence of historicity. Keeping this in mind, it becomes progressively harder to accept a divine one if there doesn't exist the grounds for a historical one.
* Even experts have to give evidence for their beliefs, their opinions are based more on assumption and tradition than a thorough survey of the evidence.
* Nonetheless, there are still scholars that are mythicists such as theologians Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Thompson, and Tom Harpur, as well as historians Bruno Bauer, Edwin Johnson, and Bertrand Russell
[[Category:Jesus]]

Mythicism

2011-03-26T07:41:38Z

Jaban: /* contemporary evidence for Jesus */ fixed incorrect info

'''Mythicism''' is the general position that [[Jesus]] was not a historical person but a [[legend]] and that the [[gospel]]s were therefore written as a work of fiction. Much the same as [[Wikipedia:William Tell|William Tell]], [[Wikipedia:Paul Bunyan|Paul Bunyan]], [[Wikipedia:Robin Hood|Robin Hood]] and [[Wikipedia:King Arthur|King Arthur]] are generally considered non-historical, mythicists argue that Jesus should added to the list. The reasons for mythicism is typically an [[argument from silence]] and the parallels to other known myths.

==Argument==
* There is no contemporary evidence such that Jesus existed.
* The story of Jesus resembles the stories of other generally fictional characters.
* The onus is on those individuals who claim there was a historical Jesus to back up this positive claim.
** One should not believe in a historical Jesus.

===There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus===
* The [[Gospels]]
** Four text copied from each other, [[Mark]] perhaps having been written as fiction and the source of the story itself[http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#2]. We do not know who the gospel writers are, but none of them claim to be eye-witnesses and are each written in the third person.
* The writings of Paul
** Paul may have been writing about a divine figure rather than a historical one. Even if not, Paul never met Jesus. All he did was hear a voice and see a light. Without any other evidence the claim is problematic at best and ridiculous at worst. If Christians accept this, then they should accept the stories of Joseph Smith and Mohammad.
* Christian [[apocrypha]]
** Stories about the stories do not qualify as historical evidence, any more than additional books about Superman prove the existence of Superman.
* [[Josephus]]
** There are good reasons to assume the relevant passages in Josephus are a forgery.
* [[Tacitus]]
** In reporting on the execution of Jesus, Tacitus provides no evidence he was doing any more than echoing the story as it was told by early Christians. Tacitus was not himself a contemporary to Jesus, and gives no indication he drew his information from those who were.
* [[Suetonius]]: ''As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome''
** Chrestus is a common Jewish name, not one specially reserved for Jesus alone. Given the reference was made 20 years after Jesus is said to have died, the passage in unlikely specifically in reference to him.
* [[Pliny the Younger]]: ''Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.''
** The passage refers to Christians being annoying rather than a historical Jesus.
* Many early Christians (who may have known a historical Jesus) died for their beliefs, and they wouldn't die for a lie.
** The above passage of [[Pliny the Younger]] suggests that they start worshiping Roman gods and cursing Christ, long before giving their lives.

===The story of Jesus resembles other myths===
* Those stories are invented by the devil.
* A lot of parallels are stretches.
** For example [[Horus]] is said to be born of a virgin, when he was born (in one telling of the story) of Hathor and the reassembled body of Osiris.
* Joseph Campbell's ''[[Hero With a Thousand Faces]]'' showed a general outline for myths, even without the myths being inter-related. A notable amount of the argument for mythicism is that the early Christians stole the God ideas from other groups rather than invented them outright. This is not necessarily the case.

===The burden is on those who argue there is a historical Jesus===
* It is generally accepted that there is a historical Jesus.
* The places in the Gospels exist.
**Homer's Odyssey describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. If in the future, archaeologists travel to the once-was New york City and discover comics off Spiderman, does that mean Spider-man was a historical person?

==Criticisms==
* Mythicism is a fringe position.

==Counter-apologetics==
* In the weak form — "we shouldn't believe in a historical Jesus or actively disbelieve the proposition" — it is hard to argue that a character should be accepted as due to the lack of good evidence of historicity. Keeping this in mind, it becomes progressively harder to accept a divine one if there doesn't exist the grounds for a historical one.
* Even experts have to give evidence for their beliefs, their opinions are based more on assumption and tradition than a thorough survey of the evidence.
* Nonetheless, there are still scholars that are mythicists such as theologians Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Thompson, and Tom Harpur, as well as historians Bruno Bauer, Edwin Johnson, and Bertrand Russell
[[Category:Jesus]]

Mythicism

2011-03-26T07:32:35Z

Jaban: /* Contemporary evidence for Jesus */ correct Tacitus comment

'''Mythicism''' is the general position that [[Jesus]] was not a historical person but a [[legend]] and that the [[gospel]]s were therefore written as a work of fiction. Much the same as [[Wikipedia:William Tell|William Tell]], [[Wikipedia:Paul Bunyan|Paul Bunyan]], [[Wikipedia:Robin Hood|Robin Hood]] and [[Wikipedia:King Arthur|King Arthur]] are generally considered non-historical, mythicists argue that Jesus should added to the list. The reasons for mythicism is typically an [[argument from silence]] and the parallels to other known myths.

==Argument==
* There is no contemporary evidence such that Jesus existed.
* The story of Jesus resembles the stories of other generally fictional characters.
* The onus is on those individuals who claim there was a historical Jesus to back up this positive claim.
** One should not believe in a historical Jesus.

===There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus===
* The [[Gospels]]
** Four text copied from each other, [[Mark]] perhaps having been written as fiction and the source of the story itself[http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#2]. We do not know who the gospel writers are, but none of them claim to be eye-witnesses and are each written in the third person.
* The writings of Paul
** Paul may have been writing about a divine figure rather than a historical one. Even if not, Paul never met Jesus. All he did was hear a voice and see a light. Without any other evidence the claim is problematic at best and ridiculous at worst. If Christians accept this, then they should accept the stories of Joseph Smith and Mohammad.
* Christian [[apocrypha]]
** Stories about the stories do not qualify as historical evidence, any more than additional books about Superman prove the existence of Superman.
* [[Josephus]]
** There are good reasons to assume the relevant passages in Josephus are a forgery.
* [[Tacitus]]
** In reporting on the execution of Jesus, Tacitus provides no evidence he was doing any more than echoing the story as it was told by early Christians. Tacitus was not himself a contemporary to Jesus, and gives no indication he drew his information from those who were.
* [[Suetonius]]: ''As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome''
** Chrestus is a Jewish word meaning good or useful. The reference is about events 20 years after Jesus is said to have died. The passage might just be referring to Christians.
* [[Pliny the Younger]]: ''Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.''
** The passage refers to Christians being annoying rather than a historical Jesus.
* Many early Christians (who may have known a historical Jesus) died for their beliefs, and they wouldn't die for a lie.
** The above passage of [[Pliny the Younger]] suggests that they start worshiping Roman gods and cursing Christ, long before giving their lives.

===The story of Jesus resembles other myths===
* Those stories are invented by the devil.
* A lot of parallels are stretches.
** For example [[Horus]] is said to be born of a virgin, when he was born (in one telling of the story) of Hathor and the reassembled body of Osiris.
* Joseph Campbell's ''[[Hero With a Thousand Faces]]'' showed a general outline for myths, even without the myths being inter-related. A notable amount of the argument for mythicism is that the early Christians stole the God ideas from other groups rather than invented them outright. This is not necessarily the case.

===The burden is on those who argue there is a historical Jesus===
* It is generally accepted that there is a historical Jesus.
* The places in the Gospels exist.
**Homer's Odyssey describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. If in the future, archaeologists travel to the once-was New york City and discover comics off Spiderman, does that mean Spider-man was a historical person?

==Criticisms==
* Mythicism is a fringe position.

==Counter-apologetics==
* In the weak form — "we shouldn't believe in a historical Jesus or actively disbelieve the proposition" — it is hard to argue that a character should be accepted as due to the lack of good evidence of historicity. Keeping this in mind, it becomes progressively harder to accept a divine one if there doesn't exist the grounds for a historical one.
* Even experts have to give evidence for their beliefs, their opinions are based more on assumption and tradition than a thorough survey of the evidence.
* Nonetheless, there are still scholars that are mythicists such as theologians Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Thompson, and Tom Harpur, as well as historians Bruno Bauer, Edwin Johnson, and Bertrand Russell
[[Category:Jesus]]

Tacitus

2011-03-26T07:27:20Z

Jaban: /* Conclusion */ fixed a mistake in wording that was misleading

'''Publius Cornelius Tacitus''' was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. His books provide a contemporary history of the Roman Empire beginning with the death of Caesar Augustus in AD 14 and ending with the death of emperor Domitian in AD 96.

His work ''Annals'' is important to many Christian scholars, as Tacitus provides an account of the persecution of early Christians by Nero, in which he seemingly confirms some of the events recorded in the [[gospels]].

== Annals ==

The final work of Tacitus was ''Ab excessu divi Augusti'', dubbed ''[[Annals]]'', written circa AD 117. It is a collection of sixteen books covering the history of Roman emperors starting at the death of Caesar Augustus (AD 14) and ending with the death of Nero (AD 68). The books cover the reigns of Caesars Tiberius (AD 14-37), Caligula (37-41), Claudius (41-54), and Nero (54-68). The focus is mainly on Tiberius and Nero, as some of the books have not been found.

Book 15 of ''Annals'' provides this account of the persecution of Christians (Annals, 15.44):

:Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. '''Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus''', and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

:Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

In this passage, Tacitus is making reference to a fire that burned a large portion of Rome in AD 64. In an attempt to quell the rumor that he had started it, Nero blamed the fire on Christians dissidents, and subsequently arrested, tortured, and executed Christians en masse (though it was clearly Tacitus' opinion that Nero simply disliked Christians; the fire was just an excuse).

To modern Christians this passage is important because, in their opinion:
# Tacitus provides a non-canonical, contemporary account confirming the historicity of Christ.
# He confirms the story of Christ's crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

== Criticism ==
Most of the criticism of the passage in Annals surrounds what the passage proves. There is no scholarly consensus on the issue. The passage is accepted by some scholars as evidence for Jesus' existence, whereas others dismiss it as Tacitus simply repeating the story as Christians told it.

:* '''Independent investigation.''' In ''The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus, The Founder of Christianity'' R. T. France writes "[there is no] reason to believe that Tacitus bases this on independent information - it is what Christians would be saying in Rome in the early second century." In this and his book ''Evidence for Jesus'', France concludes that Tacitus' reference to Jesus was likely echoing the story being spread by Christians at the time, not something he investigated and sourced independently.

:* '''Lacking information.''' In his book ''Jesus'', Charles Guignebert states that "so long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus was simply repeating the story as it was being told], the passage remains quite worthless." Without more information, which we don't currently have, the passage proves nothing (it can't be used as evidence for or against).

:* '''Sourced from Roman archives.''' In ''Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide'', Thiessen and Merz argue that if the source had been an official Roman archive, one would expect him to have referred to Pilate as a prefect instead of as a procurator (he was not a procurator). They thus conclude that the information Tacitus gives about Jesus was not copied from an official source.

:* '''Opposing viewpoints:'''
:** Thiessen and Merz (above), while stating that Tacitus provides few details the source of which is unclear, conclude that there was a Jew named Christus who Pilate had executed, and he began a religious movement which was widespread during Nero's reign.
:** Bart D. Ehrman writes, "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign." (''The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings'')

The writings of Tacitus can be considered as either non-Canonical confirmation or as useless, depending on whether the scholar thinks Tacitus exercised due diligence in investigating the story before writing the passage.

Given that we are lacking key information, and that the passage itself provides very little detail, a determination about Tacitus' diligence in investigating it cannot be made. Any statement which assumes he did exercise due diligence (i.e. that what he said was based on fact) is speculative.

==== Implication to Christianity ====

If we accept that Annals is evidence enough that Jesus existed, the following points are made:
:* There was a Jew named Jesus who founded a religious movement
:* He was ordered executed by a Roman prefect named Pilate
:* His martyrdom is likely what fueled the growth of the movement

However, we have not made the points that:
:* The man had magic powers
:* The Biblical account is factual
:* The Bible is a reliable historical source
:* What people believe today is true

== Conclusion ==

To someone looking for confirmation of the Biblical account, ''Annals'' may be used as non-canonical evidence. After all, ''someone'' did found the Christian movement, we might as well call this person Christ (or Jesus), and it's not a stretch to believe that the leader of such a movement may have been executed by a Roman prefect named Pilate, especially considering that Nero (and, by extension, the Roman Empire) openly persecuted Christians not long afterwards.

However, to someone who is reading Annals without specifically looking for confirmation, the account is, as Guignebert said, "quite worthless." The information provided shows only that early Christians believed such, not that that belief was factual. How much of the story is based on fact versus myth is not answered by Tacitus' writings.

Non-canonical evidence, even if thousands of definitive sources existed, would not prove anything other than that a revolutionary Jewish preacher started a religious movement which, after it had been adapted to include Greek values, became wildly successful. It would not be evidence that any of the extraordinary or supernatural claims of the resulting religion are true.

Talk:Tacitus

2011-03-23T21:55:32Z

Jaban: /* Completing the page */

== Completing the page ==

:in a recent debate with a christian:

:"How do we know Jesus existed? Because Christianity exists, if He didn´t exist it seems ridiculous that people like Peter and the other apostles :would talk about and die for someone who didn´t exist. ''The writings of Tacitus also seem to confirm the existence of a man called Jesus."''

:can someone build this page up with apologetics and counter apologetics?
:-[[Conor147]]

::This is going to sound rude, but it's not meant to be. Is there a reason you couldn't do it? If you're worried about formatting, you can look at other pages and see how they do it. I hadn't done any real wiki editing before I got here. If you don't know the topic, then you can research it, and work at the page, little by little if needed. It's a great opportunity to learn. I don't always know the topics of the pages I work on before I came across them. I understand that time can be a limiting factor, but you don't have to do it all at once.
::--[[User:Jt|jt]] 11:47, 7 March 2011 (CST)

::: i live in britain, scotland specifically. religion here isnt a big deal to anyone apart from muslims who make up 2% of the population. christians are laughed at for being "funny in the head". atheists that are atheists because they care, and not because they dont give a shit, are laughed at for taking it seriously at all. as a result, my first exposure to religion was on the internet. ive never read the bible (but ive read the qur'an), of the hundreds/thousands of people i know, none are christians (but i know some muslims), and i have a very poor understanding of christian theology on the whole. i really dont care about who tacitus or josephus or matthew, mark, luke or john were, and probably wont ever come across them again in my life apart from in the context of christian apologetics from christian fundie fucktards on the internet. any time i have at my disposal is spent on my degree, pretty much. apart from wanting to be able to have a response to christians that say "tacitus proves jesus existed", i dont give a flying fuck about who he was and dont want to waste any of my limited number of neurons on learning about him. in order to make this article to a reasonable standard i would have to spend tens of hours learning about bullshit, time which i dont have and wont for years, in all likelihood. normally id be willing to invest some time in learning. but this guy is boring, uninteresting and largely irrelevant, just like christianity nowadays. id rather spend my time learning something worthwhile. just an honest, rushed "rant". anyone have a grounding in christian theology, specifically this tacitus guy?
:::--[[User:Conor147|Conor147]] 13:07, 7 March 2011 (CST)

:::: looks really good. looking back at my rant, it seems a bit excessive. sorry if i came across as a douche. seriously though, i dont know a single christian :/
::::--[[User:Conor147|Conor147]] 17:19, 10 March 2011 (CST)

:::::No problem. I'm still going to add the criticism. But, honestly, it's hard to criticize anything but what people read into it (i.e. even if Tacitus' statement were accepted as evidence that Jesus existed, and it can be to a limited degree, that does not lend any weight to the Biblical story about Jesus being magic).
:::::--[[User:Jaban|jaban]] 03:24, 13 March 2011 (CDT)

:::::There we go. I might add more later, or reword some stuff. But that'll do for now.

:::::As an aside, I want to mention that while Tacitus doesn't '''prove''' Jesus existed, he does reflect the popular belief of Christians at the time... the fact that a lot of people believed there had been a martyr is generally acceptable evidence that there was. It's not concrete proof, but it's good enough in most cases, considering how little we have to go on. From what I read, about half of the scholars do accept this account as non-canonical evidence for his existence (mind you, about half of the scholars are Christian, too, and there's a fairly strong correlation between the the two).

:::::If you're arguing against a Christian who's trying to show there's non-canonical evidence that Jesus was real, I'd recommend the argument be against the extraordinary claims this is used to support. As in, "Yeah, perhaps he did. So what?" The fact there's a guy in New York named Peter Parker does not prove Spiderman is real.

:::::--[[User:Jaban|jaban]] 16:55, 23 March 2011 (CDT)

Tacitus

2011-03-23T21:31:55Z

Jaban: /* Criticism */

'''Publius Cornelius Tacitus''' was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. His books provide a contemporary history of the Roman Empire beginning with the death of Caesar Augustus in AD 14 and ending with the death of emperor Domitian in AD 96.

His work ''Annals'' is important to many Christian scholars, as Tacitus provides an account of the persecution of early Christians by Nero, in which he seemingly confirms some of the events recorded in the [[gospels]].

== Annals ==

The final work of Tacitus was ''Ab excessu divi Augusti'', dubbed ''[[Annals]]'', written circa AD 117. It is a collection of sixteen books covering the history of Roman emperors starting at the death of Caesar Augustus (AD 14) and ending with the death of Nero (AD 68). The books cover the reigns of Caesars Tiberius (AD 14-37), Caligula (37-41), Claudius (41-54), and Nero (54-68). The focus is mainly on Tiberius and Nero, as some of the books have not been found.

Book 15 of ''Annals'' provides this account of the persecution of Christians (Annals, 15.44):

:Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. '''Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus''', and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

:Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

In this passage, Tacitus is making reference to a fire that burned a large portion of Rome in AD 64. In an attempt to quell the rumor that he had started it, Nero blamed the fire on Christians dissidents, and subsequently arrested, tortured, and executed Christians en masse (though it was clearly Tacitus' opinion that Nero simply disliked Christians; the fire was just an excuse).

To modern Christians this passage is important because, in their opinion:
# Tacitus provides a non-canonical, contemporary account confirming the historicity of Christ.
# He confirms the story of Christ's crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

== Criticism ==
Most of the criticism of the passage in Annals surrounds what the passage proves. There is no scholarly consensus on the issue. The passage is accepted by some scholars as evidence for Jesus' existence, whereas others dismiss it as Tacitus simply repeating the story as Christians told it.

:* '''Independent investigation.''' In ''The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus, The Founder of Christianity'' R. T. France writes "[there is no] reason to believe that Tacitus bases this on independent information - it is what Christians would be saying in Rome in the early second century." In this and his book ''Evidence for Jesus'', France concludes that Tacitus' reference to Jesus was likely echoing the story being spread by Christians at the time, not something he investigated and sourced independently.

:* '''Lacking information.''' In his book ''Jesus'', Charles Guignebert states that "so long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus was simply repeating the story as it was being told], the passage remains quite worthless." Without more information, which we don't currently have, the passage proves nothing (it can't be used as evidence for or against).

:* '''Sourced from Roman archives.''' In ''Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide'', Thiessen and Merz argue that if the source had been an official Roman archive, one would expect him to have referred to Pilate as a prefect instead of as a procurator (he was not a procurator). They thus conclude that the information Tacitus gives about Jesus was not copied from an official source.

:* '''Opposing viewpoints:'''
:** Thiessen and Merz (above), while stating that Tacitus provides few details the source of which is unclear, conclude that there was a Jew named Christus who Pilate had executed, and he began a religious movement which was widespread during Nero's reign.
:** Bart D. Ehrman writes, "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign." (''The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings'')

The writings of Tacitus can be considered as either non-Canonical confirmation or as useless, depending on whether the scholar thinks Tacitus exercised due diligence in investigating the story before writing the passage.

Given that we are lacking key information, and that the passage itself provides very little detail, a determination about Tacitus' diligence in investigating it cannot be made. Any statement which assumes he did exercise due diligence (i.e. that what he said was based on fact) is speculative.

==== Implication to Christianity ====

If we accept that Annals is evidence enough that Jesus existed, the following points are made:
:* There was a Jew named Jesus who founded a religious movement
:* He was ordered executed by a Roman prefect named Pilate
:* His martyrdom is likely what fueled the growth of the movement

However, we have not made the points that:
:* The man had magic powers
:* The Biblical account is factual
:* The Bible is a reliable historical source
:* What people believe today is true

== Conclusion ==

To someone looking for confirmation of the Biblical account, ''Annals'' may be used as non-canonical evidence. After all, ''someone'' did found the Christian movement, we might as well call this person Christ (or Jesus), and it's not a stretch to believe that the leader of such a movement may have been executed by a Roman prefect named Pilate, especially considering that Nero openly persecuted Christians at the time.

However, to someone who is reading Annals without specifically looking for confirmation, the account is, as Guignebert said, "quite worthless." The information provided shows only that early Christians believed such, not that that belief was factual. How much of the story is based on fact versus myth is not answered by Tacitus' writings.

Non-canonical evidence, even if thousands of definitive sources existed, would not prove anything other than that a revolutionary Jewish preacher started a religious movement which, after it had been adapted to include Greek values, became wildly successful. It would not be evidence that any of the extraordinary or supernatural claims of the resulting religion are true.

Talk:Tacitus

2011-03-13T08:24:32Z

Jaban:

User talk:BronzeDome

2011-03-10T08:03:48Z

Jaban: original ideas

=== Original ideas ===

The copyright note at the bottom of the site says that all content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

This basically means that people can use, share, adapt, and retransmit content you generate for pretty much any purpose, so long as they attribute the original to you and also share it/their adaptation under a similar license.

It's pretty impossible to restrict the content any further than that. Wikis work on the fact that once you post something, everyone else is free to adapt it. The wiki couldn't operate if they had to keep track of which contributions are restricted in different ways (even the way Wikipedia does with images is fairly complicated if an adaptation were made).

Tacitus

2011-03-10T04:18:51Z

Jaban: /* Annals */ spelling

Tacitus

2011-03-09T23:31:25Z

Jaban: Full redo. Criticism to come.

Talk:Atheists believe that everything is an accident

2011-02-27T21:44:27Z

Jaban:

=="Accident" infers lack of intent, which requires a mind==
To whoever re-wrote my original article, I do commend the person on expanding on the idea and adding more points, but I think he/she missed my point. My point was that an "accident" requires a mind. Without minds, then there are no accidents or intents. Therefore an atheist doesn't believe that "everything is an accident". Something that happens without a thought is neither an accident or intentional.

The person wrote
+ ----
- ///Using the word "accident" implies that the phenomenon in question otherwise shouldn't happen//// +
- But using the word accident implies a sentient being with a thought that did something which was not planned. A phenomenon would not be an accident or intentional. Try to think of an accident that can happen without a mind. Whatever your answer is would not be an "accident". It would be an event which happened due to other factors and probability.
--Raby760
:I read that, and I didn't include it because it didn't make any sense to me. What does a mind have to do with accidents? You claim there's a connection, but I don't see it.

:That being said, I'm not opposed to integrating that take on it too.

:[[User:Jt|jt]] 14:45, 27 February 2011 (CST)

::The dichotomy is "Results from a sentient mind" vs "results not from a sentient mind". Accidents and intents fall under the "results from a sentient mind".

::If I'm wrong, then we shouldn't include it. But I don't think that I'm wrong on this one. It's just a definition of terms. Before updating the post, think about what I'm saying. Take as much time as you need.
::--Raby760

:::I see some dictionary definitions which support the intent clause, but not all of them do. I agree that if that's what the theists mean by 'accident', then it's nonsensical to accuse the atheist. The thing is, I seriously doubt they're saying:
:::* "What, you think all this came about without any intention?"
:::I think they're saying:
:::* "This is so unlikely to have happened ''by chance'' (which is one of the definitions), that you're a fool to believe it"

:::I'll probably address both definitions. May as well.

:::[[User:Jt|jt]] 14:58, 27 February 2011 (CST)

::::I'd focus on the idea of showing that accidents/intents require a mind. Phenomenas which occur without a sentient's intervention cannot be an accident/intended.

::::For example:
::::-From an atheist's point of view, The direction of movement of the Andromeda galaxy is neither accidental or intentional.
::::-From a religious point of view, believing that there's a god/sentient-mind, then Andromeda can be "intended" to collide with the Milky Way or that god/sentient mind could have made an "accident".

::::Another example:

::::A leaf got blown off of a tree from the wind. Since the wind doesn't think, then the wind couldn't have intended for it. And since the wind can't have an intent, then it can't make an accident either.

::::But if I had a sheet of paper on the desk and I walked by it, thereby causing the air flow to blow the paper off of the table, and it was not my intent to do so, then it was an accident.

::::--Raby760

:::::I understand that take on intention:accident, but I don't see a point in making it the primary focus.

:::::I get that intention is the primary understanding of "accident", but I doubt that's how they're using it. Otherwise, the discussion would be like this:

:::::* Theist: Do you believe in a entity that intentionally creates the universe?
:::::* Atheist: No, I'm an atheist.
:::::* Theist: You don't believe that the universe was created intentionally?
:::::* Atheist: ... Again, I'm an atheist. I don't think there's any being to intentionally do anything on the topic.

:::::It's possible, but it's more likely they'd be addressing the probabilities of events, not whether there's intention or not. Intention is part of it, but once god is removed from the equation, so is the aspect of intention. They think that without the intended purposeful guidance of an entity, the likeliness of these events happening on their own is nearly impossible - and that's what they're asking - if we ''really'' believe that these nearly impossible events happened.

:::::Asking whether we believe an event happened "by accident" is equivalent to asking whether it happened by "chance".

:::::[[User:Jt|jt]] 15:32, 27 February 2011 (CST)

: I agree that the word "accident" infers that there is a mind involved.
: However, when an apologist says "accident", I think he means to convey that he thinks we believe everything came into being through a series of random events, each of which was so unlikely as to render the complete series impossibly unlikely (or, at least, less likely than their particular reading of bronze age Jewish myths being true).
: In my opinion, this is the primary point that needs to be addressed.
: However, I wouldn't be against including a subsection on how their choice of words infers the existence of some sort of being.
: Also, Raby760, please sign your comments on talk pages. And everyone ought to take a look at the formatting for replies, so we can all tell who's replying to what point.
: --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 13:43, 27 February 2011 (PST)

Yahweh

2011-02-05T21:42:38Z

Jaban: /* The Tetragrammaton */ edit for clarity

[[Image:God.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Yahweh, as depicted by Michelangelo.]]
'''Yahweh''', also known as '''Jehovah''' and '''YHWH''' (or '''JHWH'''), is the notional [[god]] of the [[Bible]] — "notional" because the text fails to present a consistent or coherent picture of the nature, characteristics, abilities or utterances of this deity such as would encourage one to acknowledge that a single real entity is being described. This situation no doubt results from the fact that the Bible is a [[post-hoc]] assemblage of texts from a number of different eras and [[mythic traditions]], in some of which the male creator-god is [[omniscient]], invisible, non-physical and [[all-powerful]], while in others he is fallible, visible, requires food, can be heard walking, has limited power, and so on.

==The Tetragrammaton==

The [[Tetragrammaton]] is four Hebrew letters representing the name of the god of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, namely יהוה (YHWH). The Hebrew text does not make clear the correct use of vowel points in the name, and, as such, the correct historical pronunciation it not known.

According to Jewish tradition, the name is sacred and not to be said aloud in casual speech, reading, or even in prayer. The name is instead substituted with one of several titles.

Different vowel points are added to the Tetragrammaton to indicate the title being substituted in, and its pronunciation. For example, the Masoretic Hebrew text has the name written as יְהֹוָה (YHWH with the vowels from "Adonai" added) and as יֱהֹוִה (with the vowels from "Elohim" added) to indicate the reader should substitute the name with "Adonai" or "Elohim", respectively.

Note that the vowels from appropriate titles are added to allow for vocalization of the ''title'' in reference to God. They are not the "correct" pronunciation of the name itself, which remains unknown.

==References in popular culture==

*A comedy skit in ''[[The Life of Brian]]'' revolves around numerous characters repeatedly saying "Jehovah" and being [[stoned]] to death for [[blasphemy]].

[[Category:Deities]]

Banana argument

2011-02-05T21:33:50Z

Jaban: /* External links */ remove spam

The '''banana argument''' is a variation on the [[argument from design]], saying that some things are the way they are because they were designed especially for our pleasure and comfort.

==Background information==
This argument was presented by [[Ray Comfort]] as "the atheist's worst nightmare" in the ''[[Way of the Master]]'' episode entitled "[[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)|The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism]]".

==Argument==
===Way of the Master Version===
[[Image:Raybanana.jpg|thumb|right|Ray Comfort with a banana]]
[[Ray Comfort]] on ''[[Way of the Master]]'':
{{Quote|It's my theory of where the soda can may have come from. Billions of years ago, there was a big bang in space. Nobody knows what caused the big bang, it just happened. And from this bang issued this huge rock, on top of the rock was found a sweet, brown bubbly substance. And over millions of years, aluminum crept up the side, formed itself with a can and a lid and then a tab. And then millions of years later, red paint, blue paint, white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words '12 fluid ounces - Do not litter'.}}
{{Quote|You're saying, 'What are you doing, you're insulting my intellect' - and so I am. Because we know, if the can is made there must be a maker. If it's designed there must be a designer. To believe the soda can happened by chance is to move into an intellectual-free zone... is to have an echo when you think... is to have brain liposuction}}
{{Quote|Behold, the atheists' nightmare. Now if you study a well-made banana, you'll find, on the far side, there are 3 ridges. On the close side, two ridges. If you get your hand ready to grip a banana, you'll find on the far side there are three grooves, on the close side, two grooves. The banana and the hand are perfectly made, one for the other. You'll find the maker of the banana, Almighty God, has made it with a non-slip surface. It has outward indicators of inward contents - green, too early - yellow, just right - black, too late. Now if you go to the top of the banana, you'll find, as with the soda can makers have placed a tab at the top, so God has placed a tab at the top. When you pull the tab, the contents don't squirt in your face. You'll find a wrapper which is biodegradable, has perforations. Notice how gracefully it sits over the human hand. Notice it has a point at the top for ease of entry. It's just the right shape for the human mouth. It's chewy, easy to digest and its even curved toward the face to make the whole process so much easier. Seriously, Kirk, the whole of creation testifies to the genius of God's creation.}}

===List Version===
Note that the banana:
# Is shaped for the human hand
# Has a non-slip surface
# Has outward indicators of inward content:
#: Green - not ripe enough
#: Yellow - just right for eating
#: Black - too ripe
# Has a tab for easy removal of its wrapper
# Is perforated on the wrapper for easy peeling
# Has a biodegradable wrapper
# Is shaped for the human mouth
# Is pleasing to the taste buds
# Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy

The conclusion: obviously the banana was designed by "Almighty God" for the benefit of human beings.

===Syllogism===
::p1. We know that a soda can is obviously designed
::p2. Bananas superficially appear similar to soda cans
::c1. The banana is designed
::c2. The designer is God

==Counter arguments==
===Straw man fallacy: The soda can===
In telling the audience certain design features of a soda can, Comfort creates a [[straw man]] in his description of the evolutionary process. A soda can lacks the major mechanisms of evolution:

* A soda can does not have a process of self-replication, and thus its traits cannot be inherited by its children (and, by extension, its children cannot have variations of those traits). Development of inheritable traits is ''the'' process which brings about the the change in biological organisms.
* Inheritable traits are positive or negative based on their impact on an organism's ability to survive and propagate successfully. Even if a soda can had inheritable traits and a process of self-replication, the idea that they would form aluminium sides or the words "12 Fluid Ounces - Do Not Litter" is not consistent with [[natural selection]]. Those things are matters of human convenience, not things which impact the survival of a species.

Soda cans are indeed designed. And while there may (arguably) be some superficial similarities between soda cans and evolved organisms such as bananas, soda cans lack the mechanisms which would enable evolution. They are thus not analogous to bananas (or other evolved organisms) for the purpose of his argument against evolution.

The current design of soda cans was not the initial design. For example, beverage cans did not always have a tab to open them - they required a "church key" to punch a hole in the top. The first tab-opening cans opened outward, leaving a sharp metal tab for the user to dispose of. Cans haven't always been made of aluminum - earlier versions were steel, which was far heavier to transport, and far harder to machine. The lip and bottom of the can have been specifically designed to function within automated soda machines. Even designed products have gone through an extensive re-design process akin to biological evolution, with the designer keeping desirable and eliminating undesirable traits.

===Argument from design: The banana===
Even if one agrees that bananas have some features which are convenient to humans and other animals, the argument that bananas must have a designer is an [[argument from design]]. It '''assumes''' that natural features which have a superficial resemblance to designed features indicate that the object has been designed.

As the theory of evolution specifically provides an alternative means by which resemblance to design could be achieved naturally, assuming that resemblance to design indicates design makes the argument circular. There is no argument against the theory itself.

===Special pleading: The banana is designed===
Whether or not the banana even has design features is arguable:

* Bananas, along with most foods people eat, have been domesticated and bred to have the features we like. We only keep and reproduce banana trees which grow bananas exactly the size and shape that we want, and destroy the rest.
*:[[Wikipedia:Banana|Natural bananas]] are much smaller and are full of cherry-pit sized seeds.
*:This was possible due to ''variation under domestication''. Ironically enough, the title of the very first chapter in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' published 150 years ago. Domestication works exactly the same as the natural evolutionary process, except rather than a ''natural selection'' criteria, the domestication selection criteria is what best suits the animal or plant breeders purposes. He or she controls the hereditary outcomes of genetic linage by controlling which male and female of the species mate.
*:Cultivated bananas are [[Wikipedia:Parthenocarpy |parthenocarpic]], which means they have been selectively bred to the point where they are sterile and unable to produce viable seeds. This means that they can no longer propagate without human intervention such as [[Wikipedia:grafting |grafting]].
* Despite their supposed "perfect design", most animals don't eat bananas. Macaques may love the convenience of bananas, but they are probably not so excited about the crocodile's most convenient food source.
* Bananas come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Comfort is careful to say "if you study a '''well-made''' banana..." Well, yes, if you only pick up rocks that fit perfectly in your hand, you will notice that all the rocks you have fit perfectly in your hand. If you look at bananas in general, they do not fit Comfort's description.
** Many species of banana are perfectly edible, yet look completely different.
** Some species of banana look nearly identical, yet are inedible or barely edible.
** Many species of bananas do not have the ripeness "indicator" Comfort describes.
* Bananas don't grow in most areas of the world. Except through modern supply chain, bananas would not be conveniently obtainable by most people.
* Even if bananas were the perfect food, most plants are not. There's no obvious indication (other than vicarious experience) that blueberries are edible but moonseed are deadly.

And, finally, even if the argument supported the existence of a banana designer, it wouldn't show that the designer is supernatural, or that it is Comfort's god.

==Other counter arguments==
* Even if the argument showed that bananas were designed, it would not prove that there is only one designer; maybe millions of banana designers participated.
* Even if the argument showed that there once was a banana designer, it wouldn't prove that the banana designer still exists.
* The argument provides no good reasons to suppose that a naturalistic, non-design explanation for bananas is improbable, let alone impossible.
* The list of features above smacks of [[cherry picking]] to devise a good example. Given the range of variation in fruits and vegetables, the enormous number of possible combinations of their attributes, and the fact that the foods we eat are almost by definition the ones "most suited" for our consumption, it would be extremely improbable that no fruit or vegetable would seem "especially well-suited" for our use.
* The fact that a banana fits perfectly in our hand might say more about the [[evolution]] of hands than it does about bananas. The human hand is very versatile, able to change shape enough to hold a tiny pebble or a large tree branch. Lots of things not designed for our enjoyment also fit in our hands.
* The number of objects in the universe that are inedible and even dangerous to humans far outweighs the number of objects that are tasty. Is this evidence of a malevolent designer, or none at all? Were the poisonous berries "designed" to kill us?
* Humans evolved to be able to eat naturally-occurring foods. From this perspective, the argument sounds a bit like [[Douglas Adams]]' analogy of a puddle thinking that the hole it's in was designed to fit it perfectly.
* More animals than humans eat bananas (especially naturally occurring bananas). Perhaps bananas were created for monkeys and humans just knew a good thing when they saw it.
* Humans eat all kinds of food and not all of it is easy to get at. The [[wikipedia:coconut|coconut]] is also enjoyed by humans and yet, apart from having a non-slip surface (like almost all natural objects) and tasting good (like most foods humans eat), it holds none of the other properties of the banana. A [[wikipedia:cow|cow]], whose meat some might say is far more delicious than a banana, is fairly difficult to hold in the hand when in its natural form. Like many other foods, cows also require special preparation before eating, otherwise some dangerous diseases can result. The diseases, by the way, come from bacteria that theists would also say were created by God.
* Some humans are allergic to bananas, casting doubt on the premise that bananas or humans are designed one for the other.
* This is not an argument for Christianity. If it were designed, the banana could have been designed by Odin, Zeus or any other deity.
* The "Tab" which is used to peel off the skin is in fact what connects a Banana to the bunch. Indeed, many primates don't even use it to peel off the skin, instead peeling from the bottom up.

==Additional notes==
Ray Comfort in episode #103 of the [[Hellbound Alleee]] show, conceded that this is a bad argument due to the human domestication of the banana.

He has since recanted in somewhat of a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k notpology], that the argument is still valid as it was God who gave us the ability to domesticate said plants and animals, and furthermore that he no longer uses the banana argument solely because atheists have maliciously removed the argument from its proper context, a segment in which Comfort compares evolution to the [[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)#Arguments|spontaneous natural formation of a Coke can]] over millions of years.

[[image:wildbanana.jpg|thumb|A wild banana, 'as god created'. The ones we have today are the result of centuries of artificial selection by man.]]

==Links==
===See also===
[[Argument from design]]
[[Ray Comfort]]

===External links===
* [http://youtube.com/watch?v=Of90cKxSeuw Banana argument video clip] – As presented by Ray Comfort on youtube
* [http://hellboundalleee.blogspot.com/2006/05/ray-comfort-concedes-banana-argument.html Comfort conceded the banana argument] - Hellbound Alleee announcement of Comfort conceding the argument
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k Rays Banana Notpology] – Rays retraction of original Hellbound Aleee conceding of argument
* [http://ecclesia.org/truth/atheist.html The banana argument in written form] - Presented completely without intentional irony (poe's law)

===Reference===
* [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8362370429542569287# Way of the Master s1e07] – Comforts Way of the Master series episode ''The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism''

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Teleological arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments from design]]

Yahweh

2011-02-05T21:28:48Z

Jaban: /* The Tetragrammaton */ correct previous edit, plus to add info to explain

[[Image:God.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Yahweh, as depicted by Michelangelo.]]
'''Yahweh''', also known as '''Jehovah''' and '''YHWH''' (or '''JHWH'''), is the notional [[god]] of the [[Bible]] — "notional" because the text fails to present a consistent or coherent picture of the nature, characteristics, abilities or utterances of this deity such as would encourage one to acknowledge that a single real entity is being described. This situation no doubt results from the fact that the Bible is a [[post-hoc]] assemblage of texts from a number of different eras and [[mythic traditions]], in some of which the male creator-god is [[omniscient]], invisible, non-physical and [[all-powerful]], while in others he is fallible, visible, requires food, can be heard walking, has limited power, and so on.

==The Tetragrammaton==

The [[Tetragrammaton]] is four Hebrew letters representing the name of the god of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, namely יהוה (YHWH). The Hebrew text does not make clear the correct use of vowel points in the name, and, as such, the correct historical pronunciation it not known.

According to Jewish tradition, the name is sacred and not to be said aloud in casual speech, reading, or even in prayer. The name is instead substituted with one of several titles.

Different vowel points are added to the Tetragrammaton to indicate the title being substituted in, and its pronunciation. For example, the Masoretic Hebrew text has the name written as יְהֹוָה (YHWH with the vowels from "Adonai") and יֱהֹוִה (with the vowels from "Elohim"), among others.

Note that the vowels from appropriate titles are added to allow for pronunciation of the ''title'' in reference to God. They are not the "correct" pronunciation of the name itself (which is unknown).

==References in popular culture==

*A comedy skit in ''[[The Life of Brian]]'' revolves around numerous characters repeatedly saying "Jehovah" and being [[stoned]] to death for [[blasphemy]].

[[Category:Deities]]

Theodicy

2010-12-16T08:22:37Z

Jaban: re-redo

{{religion-stub}}

A '''theodicy''' is an attempt to defend [[God]]'s goodness in view of the existence of [[evil]]. They are common to monotheistic religions based on the Abrahamic tradition, namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as these all suffer from the [[problem of evil]].

In short, the problem of evil occurs when specific attributes are ascribed to God:

# Omniscience (all-knowing)
# Omnipotence (all-powerful)
# Omnibenevolence (infinite goodness)

Given these three attributes, God should know evil things will happen, have the power to prevent them, and the desire and will to prevent them. Since evil things happen nonetheless, it must be assumed that god lacks one of these three attributes.

A theodicy attempts to explain how God can retain these attributes despite the existence of evil.

Theodicy is not found in all theistic beliefs, as not all theistic traditions ascribe the same attributes to God. Some polytheistic religions, for example, do not ascribe any god the quality of omnipotence. If a god does not have the power to prevent evil, then the dilemma is avoided in his case.

== Common Theodicies ==

St. Augustine's Theodicy: Blame it on the Fall from Eden

St. Irenaeus's Theodicy: Evil serves a purpose.

==See also==
* [[Problem of evil]]

[[Category:Religion]]

Reification

2010-12-03T18:58:45Z

Jaban: general editing

'''Reification''' is to take an abstract concept or idea to be a tangible entity. The word is derived from the Latin ''res'' (a thing) and ''facere'' (to make), literally translated as "thing-making."

Reification is often used when an abstract concept is intended metaphorically. Reification of a concept is not fallacious in this sense, unless the metaphor is taken literally to support an argument.

== Reification Fallacy ==
In informal logic, a reification fallacy occurs when one of the arguments in a syllogism reifies a concept, and the conclusion refers to the reified concept. This is a special case of [[equivocation]], because a word is being interpreted in a different way from what it actually means.

For example:
# Justice is blind
# Judges represent justice
# Therefore, judges should be blind

In this case, blindness is attributed to justice metaphorically, intended to mean that justice should be administered objectively. But instead, this argument relies on ''justice'' being reified - that is, it is taken literally to support the conclusion that judges should lack eyesight.

This is a common fallacy among deists/theists when they affirm things like:
# Life is a gift
# A gift is something that has to be given by someone
# Therefore, someone must have given us life

The statement that "life is a gift", though itself arguable, is intended metaphorically to mean that life should be treated as special, and cherished. But this argument reifies life, as if it were ''literally'' a gift. It has been attributed the properties of a physical gift, which can be given from one person to another.

Note that the reverse argument is also possible. One who has endured a challenging life might argue that if there were a God, life is a gift from Him, and thus as a gift his life should have been better. Ergo, there must be no God. This argument also involves the reification of life.

== Pathetic Fallacy ==
This is a specific type of reification where an abstract idea is reified by anthropomorphizing it, and then a conclusion is drawn based on its new human properties.

For example:
# We are mistreating Nature
# There has been an increased number of natural disasters in the past years
# Conclusion: Nature is retaliating for our mistreatment

The conclusion that nature is taking revenge for our mistreatment automatically gives the abstract concept of nature characteristics exclusive to humans (wanting to take revenge).

Talk:You just want to sin

2010-11-04T02:17:45Z

Jaban: The Bible endorses what Christians call sin - Write something about it?

==The Bible endorses what Christians call sin==
I'm brand new here, so sorry if my etiquette is wrong.
Would not another reaction to "You just want to sin" be something along the lines of "The Christian bible advocates rape, murder, child abuse, slavery, genocide, and theft. I would judge these to be sins whether a religious book described them as such or not. If I wanted to sin, I would join a church." Scorsi914

:Why don't you write a section about questioning what it means to sin, and then connecting their own definition of sin with what their holy book endorses. I'd try to come up with a little more organized a response than just a quick retort. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 21:17, 3 November 2010 (CDT)

Supernatural

2010-10-24T18:40:16Z

Jaban: /* Responses */ gr

'''Supernatural''' (and/or '''paranormal''') typically refers to claims of phenomena which are not bound to natural laws or observability. Because of this, [[science]] cannot and does not attempt to explain these phenomena, as they are untestable and cannot substantiate [[evidence]].

==Examples==
*[[God]]/god/gods
*[[Ghost]]s
*[[Prayer]]
*[[Extra sensory perception|ESP]]
*[[Divining]]
*[[Magic]]

==Responses==
Throughout human history, there have been many claims of supernatural events or supernatural abilities. None of these claims have ever been demonstrated to be true.

Often times, claims are hoaxes, and are debunked ([[James Randi]] exposing [[Uri Geller]], for example[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo]).

In other cases, claims are simply not [[falsifiable]], and testing them has no purpose. For example, prayer. If one prays for X, and X happens, they can attribute this to whatever figure they prayed to. However, if X does not happen, it is often rationalized by stating "it wasn't ready to happen yet" or "this means I'm focused incorrectly, and don't need it." With these rationalizations, prayer is not falsifiable, and becomes indistinguishable from coincidence or chance. Often times, one can replace the figure they prayed to with any other thing (for example, a brick or carton of milk [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI]), and the "argument" for prayer now "demonstrates" a completely different thing.

Often, people who believe in one form of paranormal activity will not believe in others. Thus, a devoutly religious person may regard ESP or witchcraft as nonsense. This is a very useful fact to keep in mind when debating the issue: if they can understand why they don't believe those claims, they can better query their own beliefs.

[[Category:Metaphysics]]

Supernatural

2010-10-24T18:39:54Z

Jaban: /* Responses */ spelling and grammar

'''Supernatural''' (and/or '''paranormal''') typically refers to claims of phenomena which are not bound to natural laws or observability. Because of this, [[science]] cannot and does not attempt to explain these phenomena, as they are untestable and cannot substantiate [[evidence]].

==Examples==
*[[God]]/god/gods
*[[Ghost]]s
*[[Prayer]]
*[[Extra sensory perception|ESP]]
*[[Divining]]
*[[Magic]]

==Responses==
Throughout human history, there have been many claims of supernatural events or supernatural abilities. None of these claims have ever been demonstrated to to be true.

Often times, claims are hoaxes, and are debunked ([[James Randi]] exposing [[Uri Geller]], for example[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo]).

In other cases, claims are simply not [[falsifiable]], and testing them has no purpose. For example, prayer. If one prays for X, and X happens, they can attribute this to whatever figure they prayed to. However, if X does not happen, it is often rationalized by stating "it wasn't ready to happen yet" or "this means I'm focused incorrectly, and don't need it." With these rationalizations, prayer is not falsifiable, and becomes indistinguishable from coincidence or chance. Often times, one can replace the figure they prayed to with any other thing (for example, a brick or carton of milk [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI]), and the "argument" for prayer now "demonstrates" a completely different thing.

Often, people who believe in one form of paranormal activity will not believe in others. Thus, a devoutly religious person may regard ESP or witchcraft as nonsense. This is a very useful fact to keep in mind when debating the issue: if they can understand why they don't believe those claims, they can better query their own beliefs.

[[Category:Metaphysics]]

Stoning

2010-10-14T19:03:11Z

Jaban: Revert spam by Janet19

{{wikipedia}}
In early [[Bible]] history, '''stoning''' was the [[Israelite]] method of executing those found guilty of the most serious offenses against the law. A crowd would gather around the offender and throw stones until he or she [[died]].

The condemned individual was restrained by some means, ranging from being thrown before the stoning from an elevation of some sort that caused incapacitating injury, to being tied to a post (or simply "hog-tied" hand-to-foot), to being buried with just the head and shoulders left above ground, to just being surrounded by a large crowd of stone throwers in an enclosed area.

Unlike most other forms of [[capital punishment]], stoning had no specific executioner. {{Bible|Leviticus 24:16}} says:
:''"Anyone who [[blasphemy|blasphemes]] the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death."''
This idea of what might be called "[[Wikipedia:Diffusion of responsibility|diffused responsibility]]" can be seen in the more modern practice of [[Wikipedia:execution by firing squad|execution by firing squad]], in which responsibility for the actual death is distributed among several people, thus enabling each to consider their individual role less [[ethical]]ly or emotionally troubling.

==Examples of stoning offenses==
{{bible|Deuteronomy 21:18-21}} contains one of the most outrageous examples of a stoning offense in the [[Old Testament]]:
: "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

==Modern proponents of stoning==

[[Christian]] [[dominionist]]s are in favor of bringing back stoning as a capital punishment.

Stoning is still practiced in some [[Islamic]] countries, such as [[Wikipedia:Iran|Iran]] and [[Wikipedia:Nigeria|Nigeria]].

==External links==
* [http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20031128.htm Daily Bible Study: Stoning]
* [http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1483247.htm "Iranian adulteress faces death by stoning"], Australian Broadcasting Corporation, October 16, 2005.
* [http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/2056/69/ "Iran: Five women sentenced to death by stoning in past twelve months"], NCRI, July, 28, 2006.
* [http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1410598.htm "Nigerian man sentenced to stoning for gay sex"], Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Society]]

Talk:Shifting the burden of proof

2010-10-12T18:24:07Z

Jaban: answer positive claim question

== Positive Claim ==
on 7 January 2009 was this sentence deleted:

"However, if a strong atheist makes the positive claim that no gods exist, then he or she has the burden of proving this claim. "

why?

and isn´t "A theist is someone who claims that there is a god." a bit incorrect?

I would propose something like the following:

"A (gnostic) theist who claims that there is a god has the burden of proof. An (gnostic) atheist who claims that there is no god has the burden of proof too. While the Agnostic theist/atheist would not claim anything in the first place, so they don´t have the burden of proof in a discussion"

But maybe I am just missing the point here, because I don´t understand what the "positive claim" means??? (I am german and basicly only understand the word positive and claim but not the combination)

:A "positive claim" in this context is an assertion. Whether someone is saying that god does exist or that god does not exist, he is making an assertion.

:I think it's important to note that the philosophic burden of proof is on the person whose position is contrary to what has already been established (i.e. conventional wisdom). In a debate setting, who has the higher burden of proof depends on the audience, not on the position taken.

:Of course, in a debate setting, both sides have to take a positive position or it won't be much of a debate.

:I have no opinion on your proposed change. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 13:24, 12 October 2010 (CDT)

Talk:3rd commandment

2010-09-28T09:58:08Z

Jaban: /* Defining the word "vain" */

Removed the following line:
''*The [[Pledge of Allegiance]] asks that millions of school children rote recite the pledge "under God" in vain. If taken to mean that you shouldn't say "God" pointlessly then US law requires breaking the 3rd commandment.''
US law does not require anyone to recite the pledge of allegiance - Jehovah's Witnesses, the Amish, Atheists, and various other groups refrain from reciting the pledge. (Incidentally, 4 USC 4 states that while in uniform, american servicemen are not to recite the pledge. The justification for this is that the pledge can conflict with the oath of enlistment/oath of office, which states that a soldier's allegiance is to the constitution, the president, and the officers appointed over him, not the flag, the republic, or god.) [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 13:08, 2 March 2009 (CST)

== Defining the word "vain" ==

The meaning of the word in Hebrew (la'shav; falsehood) is a fair bit clearer than that of the English translation (vain). The traditional view of this commandment is mentioned in the article.

Raising an objection over the meaning of the word doesn't create a real dilemma. There are several perfectly reasonable answers to that question - or at least ones that would satisfy the believer that he had answered it. It would be far more useful to ask why they take that commandment to mean ''[whatever their religion says]'', when the Hebrew text clearly meant that we shouldn't swear a statement in God's name if it is or could be false. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 04:53, 28 September 2010 (CDT)

Tree of knowledge

2010-09-28T09:54:23Z

Jaban: sp

The '''Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil''' is, according to the [[Bible]], a tree that God placed in the center of the [[Garden of Eden]]. Eating its fruit gave one knowledge of [[good]] and [[evil]]. This is contrasted with the idea that [[Adam and Eve]] were created without such knowledge. The problems associated with the tree are discussed along with [[original sin]].

The Tree is often described as an apple tree, and so apples are often used as symbols as sin or temptation. The original myth, however, makes no reference to what specific fruit grew on the tree.

[[Category:Bible]]

Talk:3rd commandment

2010-09-28T09:53:03Z

Jaban: /* Defining the word "vain" */ forgot to sign

Removed the following line:
''*The [[Pledge of Allegiance]] asks that millions of school children rote recite the pledge "under God" in vain. If taken to mean that you shouldn't say "God" pointlessly then US law requires breaking the 3rd commandment.''
US law does not require anyone to recite the pledge of allegiance - Jehovah's Witnesses, the Amish, Atheists, and various other groups refrain from reciting the pledge. (Incidentally, 4 USC 4 states that while in uniform, american servicemen are not to recite the pledge. The justification for this is that the pledge can conflict with the oath of enlistment/oath of office, which states that a soldier's allegiance is to the constitution, the president, and the officers appointed over him, not the flag, the republic, or god.) [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 13:08, 2 March 2009 (CST)

== Defining the word "vain" ==

The meaning of the word in Hebrew (la'shav; falsehood) is a fair bit clearer than that of the English translation (vain). The traditional view of this commandment is mentioned in the article.

Raising an objection over the meaning of the word doesn't create a real dilemma. There are several perfectly reasonable answers to that question. It would be far more useful to ask why they take that commandment to mean ''[whatever their religion says]'', when the Hebrew text clearly meant that we shouldn't swear a statement in God's name if it is or could be false?--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 04:53, 28 September 2010 (CDT)

Talk:3rd commandment

2010-09-28T09:52:37Z

Jaban: Defining the word "vain"

Removed the following line:
''*The [[Pledge of Allegiance]] asks that millions of school children rote recite the pledge "under God" in vain. If taken to mean that you shouldn't say "God" pointlessly then US law requires breaking the 3rd commandment.''
US law does not require anyone to recite the pledge of allegiance - Jehovah's Witnesses, the Amish, Atheists, and various other groups refrain from reciting the pledge. (Incidentally, 4 USC 4 states that while in uniform, american servicemen are not to recite the pledge. The justification for this is that the pledge can conflict with the oath of enlistment/oath of office, which states that a soldier's allegiance is to the constitution, the president, and the officers appointed over him, not the flag, the republic, or god.) [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 13:08, 2 March 2009 (CST)

== Defining the word "vain" ==

The meaning of the word in Hebrew (la'shav; falsehood) is a fair bit clearer than that of the English translation (vain). The traditional view of this commandment is mentioned in the article.

Raising an objection over the meaning of the word doesn't create a real dilemma. There are several perfectly reasonable answers to that question. It would be far more useful to ask why they take that commandment to mean ''[whatever their religion says]'', when the Hebrew text clearly meant that we shouldn't swear a statement in God's name if it is or could be false?

Talk:Arguments against the existence of god

2010-08-17T07:52:59Z

Jaban: /* Strong Atheism vs. Agnosticism Argument */

Shoudn't we mention the purpose of these arguments? Why do atheists argue God's non-existence and get involved in debates even when they are not challenged by believers? --Wissam hemadeh
:Go ahead. Keep these two things in mind:
:* A direct challenge by a believer is not the only thing that warrants a debate. Lobbying a political candidate for legal reform that would favour a particular religious belief is a challenge to debate that belief and the basis on which it stands.
:* Some people argue for entertainment :)
: --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 14:44, 3 March 2010 (CST)

Where did all the arguments go? There was a long list of arguments on this page.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 13:31, 27 June 2010 (CDT)

== Consider these arguments against God's existence ==

Ultimate 747 Gambit

Evolution

Modal Ontological Argument against God

Scientific Mistakes in Bible/qur'an

Immoralities in Bible/Qur'an

Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God

Kalam argument for atheists

argument from poor design

There are much more. I'll be getting at you some time soon. Anyway, some of these are found nn iron chariots wiki, just search. I don't know how to transfer them to this category.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/

--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:09, 6 March 2010 (CST)

Also, an outstanding book to read by Michael Martin: Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/672_reg_print.html

--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:16, 6 March 2010 (CST)

== Universal Negatives ==

There are some issues under the heading "Aren't universal negatives impossible to prove?". Although it is true that they can be proven by showing that they contradict logic or are inherently meaningless concepts, the rest of the article is pretty well wrong. For example, the case give is the phlogiston. Although scientists have found something that does what a phlogiston was supposed to do, they have merely demonstrated a lack of both evidence and necessity for the phlogiston theory. Occams razor would therefore lead us to believe it does not exist. This, however, does NOT provide EVIDENCE that the phlogiston does not exist, nor does it prove that it does not exist. It merely demonstrates a LACK of evidence for the positive assertion, rather than providing evidence for the negative. Occam's razor, while being a valid tool when considering what position to take or what belief is most probable, does NOT constitute evidence; it instead operates on a lack of evidence.

Along the same lines, the argument that "This is how we can know that such things as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Abimonable Snowman, etc. do not exist" is also fallacious. We do NOT know that such things do not exist and we have no evidence that they do not exist. All we have is a lack of evidence that they do exist. The fact that many instances have been shownn to be frauds does not operate as evidence for the assertion that they do not exist. The fact operates as a counter to positive evidence that they do exist, but cannot itself operate as evidence.

Suggested reading: Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

~~Jeremie Choquette, Physics Student at McMaster University

== Strong Atheism vs. Agnosticism Argument ==

Is this section regarding the existence of a particular God, or a man-made religion based God? Or is it refuting the entire possibility of a God?

The argument against agnosticism is flawed.

The Atheist Writer Claims: If one lacks understanding or is incapable of such high comprehension--as animals cannot put 2&2 together beyond their basic instincts as we humans can do--then how can they argue the original point in the first place--that there may or may not be a God?

My Agnostic Perspective: Because I know the gas tank either contains fuel, or does not--but unsure of which without checking the gauge, then which answer is defaulted? Neither until further variables are found (such as checking the gauge). At our current level of logical understanding, either a God exists, or a God does not; thus, without proof from either viewpoint, one cannot pick a side.

Also, consider the logical fallacy, Ad Ignorantium: "The absence of evidence is not evidence."

Consider also how people view strangers. A stranger is neither good, nor bad necessarily (merely assumed bad in pursuit of being safer than sorry). An agnostic stands neutral, claiming it is impossible to know whether a God exists or not based on the given circumstances. Further, science cannot directly prove, but only theorize on how the universe and life was created--which is not much better than faith given its position in the scientific method.

Atheist: No proof that God exists. This inhibits an open mind.

Agnostic: No proof that God ''doesn't'' exist*. Thus, the possibility is kept open.

*Given the findings based on science, it is not enough to convince me that the universe came into any existence based on any other particular means. While science may find an approach to the universe being created outside of the realm of time (stripping the "beginnings," and the "ends"), both intelligent design and scientific theories are all just that--theories.
--Lennybird

:Please sign your talk comments. The icon is second from the right, above the comment box.

:Your definitions of atheist and agnostic are mistaken. They are not part of a three-level system of belief (theism, agnosticism, atheism), they address different questions.
:* Theism/atheism addresses the question of belief.
:* Gnosticism/agnosticism addresses the question of knowledge.
:One need not necessarily claim knowledge that no gods exist to hold the belief that there are none. I think you'll find that most of us are stating our disbelief, not making a claim to knowledge.

::I apologize, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly. First, if atheists question belief, isn't atheism in itself a belief? Perhaps this is why I'm agnostic, but how can one formulate a belief or notion based on no claim or backing from knowledge--or evidence?

::Or are you saying that agnosticism and atheism are incomparable?
::--[[User:Lennybird|Lennybird]] 10:44, 4 August 2010 (CDT)

:::The second one. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. Maybe these tables will clear it up:
:::How it's being presented:
:::{| border="1"
|-
! colspan="2" | Do you believe?
|-
! Yes
| Theist
|-
! I don't know
| Agnostic
|-
! No
| Atheist
|}

:::But that is a sort of straw man made up by Christians. Theism and gnosticism are two separate questions:

:::{| border="1"
|-
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" |
! colspan="2" | Do you believe?
|-
! Yes
! Anything other than yes
|-
! rowspan="2" | Do you know?
! Yes
| Gnostic theist
| Gnostic atheist
|-
! Anything other than yes
| Agnostic theist
| Agnostic atheist
|}

:::So if someone asks "do you believe?", theism is when you say yes. Atheism isn't necessarily when you say no, it's when you don't say yes. And gnosticism is a different question.

:::To confuse the matter further, there are also levels of certainty in both belief and knowledge. "I don't believe in god" and "I believe there is no god" are two distinct positions of belief, but neither necessarily makes one a gnostic or agnostic. But I'm not going to go into that on this talk page - there's a whole article on it here somewhere.
:::--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 02:46, 17 August 2010 (CDT)

:I'd also like to respond to the quote...
:It's not true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Sure it is. It's not '''''proof''''' of absence, but it is '''''evidence'''''. I'll admit that it's fair to say that the absence of evidence alone is not sufficient justification to reject an idea. But you make it sound like that's all we have to go on, and that's simply not true.
:--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 23:50, 2 August 2010 (CDT)

::I can agree with that; absence of evidence is not proof of the absence, but absence of evidence is some degree of evidence based on our current knowledge. Couldn't one theorize that God just doesn't want to be found, and this could be entirely discredited as evidence? In any case, it's insufficient evidence alone. You mention that this isn't all we have to go on, what else is there? As far as I understand, atheists rely on the absence of evidence to justify their position, I haven't heard other arguments.

::Couldn't I merely say that there is an absence of evidence that God doesn't exist? I suppose we have to define what amount of evidence is substantial enough.
::--[[User:Lennybird|Lennybird]] 10:38, 4 August 2010 (CDT)

:::You could, but then I could say that there is an equally valid absence of evidence that Thor isn't real. If the same logic could apply to an infinite number of invented claims, we generally place the burden of proof on those who make the claim.

:::I don't want to write a ten-page article on a talk page about justifications for not believing. Plenty of others have done that - you just have to look. I hope you're okay with just a short list with no explanation:
:::* The consistent replacement of unjustified supernatural explanations about the operation of the natural world with observationally verified natural explanations.
:::* The lack of a specific description of any god's interaction with the natural world, other than those interactions which have been being consistently replaced with natural explanations.
:::* Religion's tendency to explain the world using the worst science available, along with the tendency of credulous believers to think it is the best science available.
:::* The evolution of supernatural explanations to fit with the changing zeitgeist. If any of it were true, supernatural explanations should not have to be adapted to suit peoples' changing beliefs.
:::* The failure of religion to improve its own understanding of the natural world.
:::* The failure, under the simplest scrutiny, of any sufficiently precise definition of a god.
:::* The geographical and societal positioning of various belief systems.
:::* The failure of believers to provide any justification for belief in '''their''' god. What they commonly claim as justification is a holy book which provides justification (albeit poor) for belief in a vastly different god from the one they believe in.
:::* The historical baggage associated with belief in any god.
::::E.g. By what right do you claim your god is the same god Moses worshiped, if the actions and opinions you attribute to your god are vastly different from those Moses wrote about his? If you claim the history as justification, then the difference between the historical beliefs and your beliefs do matter.
:::* The vested interest leaders of religions have, and have always had, in placating those paying their bills, as lacking as their answers to profound questions might be when placed under scrutiny.
:::I might add more to this list later, or provide clarification. But I don't have a lot of time.
:::--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 02:46, 17 August 2010 (CDT)

Talk:Arguments against the existence of god

2010-08-17T07:46:23Z

Jaban: /* Strong Atheism vs. Agnosticism Argument */

Shoudn't we mention the purpose of these arguments? Why do atheists argue God's non-existence and get involved in debates even when they are not challenged by believers? --Wissam hemadeh
:Go ahead. Keep these two things in mind:
:* A direct challenge by a believer is not the only thing that warrants a debate. Lobbying a political candidate for legal reform that would favour a particular religious belief is a challenge to debate that belief and the basis on which it stands.
:* Some people argue for entertainment :)
: --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 14:44, 3 March 2010 (CST)

Where did all the arguments go? There was a long list of arguments on this page.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 13:31, 27 June 2010 (CDT)

== Consider these arguments against God's existence ==

Ultimate 747 Gambit

Evolution

Modal Ontological Argument against God

Scientific Mistakes in Bible/qur'an

Immoralities in Bible/Qur'an

Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God

Kalam argument for atheists

argument from poor design

There are much more. I'll be getting at you some time soon. Anyway, some of these are found nn iron chariots wiki, just search. I don't know how to transfer them to this category.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/

--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:09, 6 March 2010 (CST)

Also, an outstanding book to read by Michael Martin: Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/672_reg_print.html

--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:16, 6 March 2010 (CST)

== Universal Negatives ==

There are some issues under the heading "Aren't universal negatives impossible to prove?". Although it is true that they can be proven by showing that they contradict logic or are inherently meaningless concepts, the rest of the article is pretty well wrong. For example, the case give is the phlogiston. Although scientists have found something that does what a phlogiston was supposed to do, they have merely demonstrated a lack of both evidence and necessity for the phlogiston theory. Occams razor would therefore lead us to believe it does not exist. This, however, does NOT provide EVIDENCE that the phlogiston does not exist, nor does it prove that it does not exist. It merely demonstrates a LACK of evidence for the positive assertion, rather than providing evidence for the negative. Occam's razor, while being a valid tool when considering what position to take or what belief is most probable, does NOT constitute evidence; it instead operates on a lack of evidence.

Along the same lines, the argument that "This is how we can know that such things as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Abimonable Snowman, etc. do not exist" is also fallacious. We do NOT know that such things do not exist and we have no evidence that they do not exist. All we have is a lack of evidence that they do exist. The fact that many instances have been shownn to be frauds does not operate as evidence for the assertion that they do not exist. The fact operates as a counter to positive evidence that they do exist, but cannot itself operate as evidence.

Suggested reading: Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

~~Jeremie Choquette, Physics Student at McMaster University

== Strong Atheism vs. Agnosticism Argument ==

Is this section regarding the existence of a particular God, or a man-made religion based God? Or is it refuting the entire possibility of a God?

The argument against agnosticism is flawed.

The Atheist Writer Claims: If one lacks understanding or is incapable of such high comprehension--as animals cannot put 2&2 together beyond their basic instincts as we humans can do--then how can they argue the original point in the first place--that there may or may not be a God?

My Agnostic Perspective: Because I know the gas tank either contains fuel, or does not--but unsure of which without checking the gauge, then which answer is defaulted? Neither until further variables are found (such as checking the gauge). At our current level of logical understanding, either a God exists, or a God does not; thus, without proof from either viewpoint, one cannot pick a side.

Also, consider the logical fallacy, Ad Ignorantium: "The absence of evidence is not evidence."

Consider also how people view strangers. A stranger is neither good, nor bad necessarily (merely assumed bad in pursuit of being safer than sorry). An agnostic stands neutral, claiming it is impossible to know whether a God exists or not based on the given circumstances. Further, science cannot directly prove, but only theorize on how the universe and life was created--which is not much better than faith given its position in the scientific method.

Atheist: No proof that God exists. This inhibits an open mind.

Agnostic: No proof that God ''doesn't'' exist*. Thus, the possibility is kept open.

*Given the findings based on science, it is not enough to convince me that the universe came into any existence based on any other particular means. While science may find an approach to the universe being created outside of the realm of time (stripping the "beginnings," and the "ends"), both intelligent design and scientific theories are all just that--theories.
--Lennybird

:Please sign your talk comments. The icon is second from the right, above the comment box.

:Your definitions of atheist and agnostic are mistaken. They are not part of a three-level system of belief (theism, agnosticism, atheism), they address different questions.
:* Theism/atheism addresses the question of belief.
:* Gnosticism/agnosticism addresses the question of knowledge.
:One need not necessarily claim knowledge that no gods exist to hold the belief that there are none. I think you'll find that most of us are stating our disbelief, not making a claim to knowledge.

::I apologize, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly. First, if atheists question belief, isn't atheism in itself a belief? Perhaps this is why I'm agnostic, but how can one formulate a belief or notion based on no claim or backing from knowledge--or evidence?

::Or are you saying that agnosticism and atheism are incomparable?
::--[[User:Lennybird|Lennybird]] 10:44, 4 August 2010 (CDT)

:::The second one. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. Maybe these tables will clear it up:
:::How it's being presented:
:::{| border="1"
|-
! colspan="2" | Do you believe?
|-
! Yes
| Theist
|-
! I don't know
| Agnostic
|-
! No
| Atheist
|}

:::But that is a sort of straw man made up by Christians. Theism and gnosticism are two separate questions:

:::{| border="1"
|-
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" |
! colspan="2" | Do you believe?
|-
! Yes
! Anything other than yes
|-
! rowspan="2" | Do you know?
! Yes
| Gnostic theist
| Gnostic atheist
|-
! Anything other than yes
| Agnostic theist
| Agnostic atheist
|}

:::So if someone asks "do you believe?", theism is when you say yes. Atheism isn't necessarily when you say no, it's when you don't say yes. And gnosticism is a different question.

:::To confuse the matter further, there are also levels of certainty in both belief and knowledge. "I don't believe in god" and "I believe there is no god" are two distinct positions of belief, but neither necessarily makes one a gnostic or agnostic. But I'm not going to go into that on this talk page - there's a whole article on it here somewhere.
:::--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 02:46, 17 August 2010 (CDT)

:I'd also like to respond to the quote...
:It's not true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Sure it is. It's not '''''proof''''' of absence, but it is '''''evidence'''''. I'll admit that it's fair to say that the absence of evidence alone is not sufficient justification to reject an idea. But you make it sound like that's all we have to go on, and that's simply not true.
:--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 23:50, 2 August 2010 (CDT)

::I can agree with that; absence of evidence is not proof of the absence, but absence of evidence is some degree of evidence based on our current knowledge. Couldn't one theorize that God just doesn't want to be found, and this could be entirely discredited as evidence? In any case, it's insufficient evidence alone. You mention that this isn't all we have to go on, what else is there? As far as I understand, atheists rely on the absence of evidence to justify their position, I haven't heard other arguments.

::Couldn't I merely say that there is an absence of evidence that God doesn't exist? I suppose we have to define what amount of evidence is substantial enough.
::--[[User:Lennybird|Lennybird]] 10:38, 4 August 2010 (CDT)

:::You could, but then I could say that there is an equally valid absence of evidence that Thor isn't real. If the same logic could apply to an infinite number of invented claims, we generally place the burden of proof on those who make the claim.

:::I don't want to write a ten-page article on a talk page about justifications for not believing. Plenty of others have done that - you just have to look. I hope you're okay with just a short list with no explanation:
:::* The consistent replacement of unjustified supernatural explanations about the operation of the natural world with observationally verified natural explanations.
:::* The lack of a specific description of any god's interaction with the natural world, other than those interactions which have been being consistently replaced with natural explanations.
:::* Religion's tendency to explain the world using the worst science available, along with the tendency of credulous believers to think it is the best science available.
:::* The evolution of supernatural explanations to fit with the changing zeitgeist. If any of it were true, supernatural explanations should not have to be adapted to suit peoples' changing beliefs.
:::* The failure of religion to improve its own understanding of the natural world.
:::* The failure, under the simplest scrutiny, of any sufficiently precise definition of a god.
:::* The geographical and societal positioning of various belief systems.
:::* The failure of believers to provide any justification for belief in '''their''' god. What they commonly claim as justification is a holy book which provides justification (albeit poor) for belief in a vastly different god from the one they believe in.
:::* The historical baggage associated with belief in any god.
::::E.g. By what right do you claim your god is the same god Moses worshiped, if the actions and opinions you attribute to your god are vastly different from those Moses wrote about his? If you claim the history as justification, then the difference between the historical beliefs and your beliefs do matter.
:::I might add more to this list later, or provide clarification. But I don't have a lot of time.
:::--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 02:46, 17 August 2010 (CDT)

User:Jaban

2010-08-10T21:15:57Z

Jaban: /* Why I Believed */ more

My given name, Jaban, is derived from the name of the king of Hazor, who commanded the iron chariots. This website struck a chord with me immediately, as it highlighted the irony of what my parents had named me. It was a sort of coup de grâce for religion.

= Life and religion =

I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. From the age of 20, I worked toward the goal of becoming a full-time preacher, studying the New World Translation (The Bible, as edited by Jehovah's Witnesses) and other pseudo-scientific sources to more effectively argue my point to non-believers.

I was fairly ineffective as a preacher, as I honestly attempted to understand why my opponent thought what he did (at least sometimes) and correct it, instead of simply dismissing those who made valid points. Invariably, I eventually started to recognize various inconsistencies in the teachings of my church.

=== Why I Believed ===

I was raised with the belief from when I was born. But I also have the best reason I think anyone could have for believing...

When I was sixteen, I got very sick. I eventually ended up in the hospital, and was diagnosed (by real doctors) with stage IV Ewing sarcoma. It was a very aggressive cancer in a late stage, and a tumor was wrapped around my spine such that they couldn't operate on it. An oncologist from a hospital nearby was asked to come in to give a second opinion - he came in, talked to the doctors, redid the CT scans and blood tests, and confirmed the diagnosis.

Without immediate chemotherapy I wouldn't survive more than a few days. Even with it, they expected I'd only extend my life to a few weeks (5% survival was 8 weeks; it's far higher nowadays). I could go home and spend some time with family, or stay in the hospital and perhaps be one of the lucky ones. My parents and I decided to try treatment.

I prayed that night, of course. I promised that if I lived through treatment, I'd spend the rest of my life doing whatever I could to spread the word.

The next morning, after several friends had a chance to come say goodbye, I was sent to a hospital better equipped to deal with aggressive treatment of children. At that hospital, the doctors monitored my temperature, did a few blood tests, hooked up an IV, but didn't do anything major. The next day they did a short CT scan and hooked up another IV (it was blood thinners), but still no cancer treatment. On my third day there, my mom finally got in touch with the doctor in charge of my case and asked when I was starting chemotherapy.

The answer was, "why would Jaban need chemotherapy? He doesn't have cancer."

The nurse at the first hospital didn't send my chart along with me. They did some tests because I had been sent there in an ambulance as if it were urgent, but they didn't have a clue what they were looking for. They had determined the first day that I had a blood clot in my leg (thus the CT scan) and that the flu had caused an infection in my blood and spine. Both were caused by serious, chronic conditions, one of which had only been published a month before, but neither was life-threatening. Some blood thinners and antibiotics and I'd be home in a few days.

So there we are. An aggressive cancerous tumor in my spine, and a confirming second diagnosis made by a more qualified doctor. It wasn't a self-diagnosis, it wasn't a quasi-qualified doctor making a common misdiagnosis, and it wasn't cured by medicine but attributed to God. I wasn't likely to live whether I got treatment or not. I asked God to let me live, and the next morning I didn't have cancer anymore.

So I believed.

:{|border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"
|'''To those who would try to convince me with their own story:'''
My experience is more convincing than any other faith healing story I've heard, and I no longer consider it evidence enough to believe. You can imagine how I feel about the story of God healing your back pain.
|}

=== The Path to Disbelief ===

My doubt about their divine inspiration started with the church's regulation of Internet use, which in my view was driven by a fear of technology and of the unknown (I had been using the Internet long before they learned about it; I knew their claims against it were baseless). As I looked into inconsistencies further, the pseudo-scientific information I had been fed was slowly corrected, from the history of my own church, to the history of the Bible's authorship and compilation, to how scientific investigation is done, to the profound explanatory power of the Theory of Evolution.

So their baseless fear and misunderstanding of technology (and subsequent regulation of it) led me to question them, which led me to other sources of information, and resulted in my eventual dismissal of religion as a whole. So, in the end, them acting on their fear of technology led to exactly what they feared the technology itself would lead to. Sweet irony.

=== The breaking point ===

At about the age of 25, when I no longer believed in the divine inspiration of of the church's leaders and teachings, but still thought religious belief useful, I started to realize that the method of teaching was very manipulative.

Potential recruits seemed very susceptible to having their questions "changed", in that the answer was delayed until the teacher had manipulated them into thinking their question was something else. A straw man, of sorts. Convince the person that they asked a different question than they did, and answer that one instead. This wouldn't work on everyone, but it worked on the type of people they wanted to recruit.

I also saw that the teachers themselves did not (usually) realize they were doing it. Instead, the books produced by Jehovah's Witnesses for studying with non-members are written as such. They are designed to present information in a particular order, often over the course of several months, to accomplish it. Preachers are taught to avoid answering certain things until they come to the chapter that answers it.

With some consideration, I concluded that this could only have been intentional. And, in short order, I came to realize how intellectually dishonest the religious organization was, and how destructive their method of teaching was to otherwise honest inquiry.

This realization is what eventually led me to finally end my involvement with the church.

= My beliefs today =

Seeing that is an important part of who I am now.

I am an atheist, and have become somewhat of a pessimistic skeptic (I try to avoid denialism, but it's sometimes a fine line). I outright disbelieve any claims of supernatural intervention, and am highly skeptical of seemingly unfounded claims and positions (refer to the "Baloney Detection Kit") regarding nutrition and health, alternative medicine, some environmentalist movements, even skepticism itself.

=== Beliefs on the supernatural ===

I am an agnostic atheist, in much the same way Richard Dawkins describes. I cannot remain intellectually honest and say that I know with certainty that there is no god. But I also can't say that I know with certainty that I do not live in the Matrix or that the sky is blue or that there are no flying reindeer. But to the degree that I do not believe the infinite number of other possible things I have absolutely no reason to believe, I do not believe there exists anything supernatural.

I base my acceptance of supernatural claims on the famous words of Tim Minchin: "Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic."

In fact, I might even say that I believe in the supernatural slightly less so than many other possibilities, because the supernatural ideas come with a historical baggage. We know approximately where the idea of Yahweh came from and how it has changed throughout history. Gods 'exist' only due to the history of belief in different gods. I think that makes their actual existence '''less''' plausible.

=== Basis in practicality ===

I see many arguments fail to move forward due to a lack of distinction between absolute and practical certainty. So I'd like to make that distinction here.

Practical certainty is when an idea fits into a logical model which does not also allow the acceptance of ideas which, if accepted, would necessarily falsify the body of more rigidly tested ideas. In other words, one can say he is certain of an idea, for practical purposes, if it does not require he accept any other ideas known to be untrue.

The failure, then, is when one creates an imprecise logical model to allow the acceptance of an idea, and does not test the model thoroughly enough to see if it requires the acceptance of contrary ideas.

Here is an example:

{{Comment-box1|text=First, let's state some ideas.

* Mordor is a real place.
* Marduk created humanity from the blood of Kingsu, as servants of the gods.
* Yahweh created the first man from dirt, and the first woman from a rib.
* Homeopathic solutions have a medicinal effect greater than that of a placebo.
* Santa Claus delivers gifts on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.
* Jesus walked on water.
* Poseidon causes hurricanes.
* A future discovery could correctly conclude that supernatural phenomenon exist.

If one accepts that Jesus walked on water, the logic used must necessarily be imprecise enough to allow him to also accept that there are flying reindeer. And accepting that would be a rejection of the existing knowledge that flying reindeer were invented in an 1823 poem by Clement Moore. Not to mention that both would falsify the entire body of observations and theories in physics and biology, in turn allowing him to also accept the Marduk-blood idea, the Yahweh-dirt idea, and the Poseidon-hurricane idea.

So any logical model which would allow the acceptance of any of these ideas, if applied honestly to the others, would require (or allow) their acceptance too - at least some of them - plus the rejection of a huge body of existing observation.

Keep in mind that I am speaking practically. Theoretically, one ''could'' create a logical model which allows for Jesus to walk on water but which is not so imprecise that one could also use it to accept that Poseidon causes hurricanes. But given the history of failed attempts, there is no reason to think anyone ever will.
}}

If someone argues that I cannot possibly '''know''' that Jesus didn't walk on water, I concede. They mean for knowledge to entail absolute certainty. All I have is practical certainty: if I accept that he did walk on water, my logical model would allow the acceptance of all claims, including conflicting ones. It is much more practical to reject the claim that he did.

I remind my opponent that his definition renders the word "know" meaningless. We might just as well stop using it and come up with a new word. Also, he should recognize that conceding that an idea is not an absolute does not put it on level ground with the contrary idea. Accepting that my "knowledge" of the non-existence of flying reindeer is a practical certainty only, not an absolute one, does not mean that is just as valid to believe that they do exist.

That may be why it's difficult for fundamentalists to change their view on any aspect of their religious belief:
* They see practical certainty as equivalent to uncertainty. If the contrary opinion cannot be proven to an absolute certainty (which is impossible), then it is viewed as equally valid to any opinion.
* Their definition of certainty requires that, if they reject the idea that Jesus walked on water, they must reassess everything they believe.

So there you are. My two cents.

= Copyright Release =

All contributions made solely by me (e.g images I post, if I ever do) are dedicated to the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ public domain] before they are published to Iron Chariots. Moral rights granted me by the Canadian Copyright Act are waived. They may be used for any purpose, without condition or limitation. No attribution is required.

Keep in mind that when content is in the public domain, you cannot pretend it's yours and put your own copyright notice on it.