Is there a God? If there is, does Sklansky believe in Him?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually if one studies Revelations they would find it quite interesting, and much more complex than astrology.

[/ QUOTE ]

More complicated BS, no thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you make dogmatic statements without sufficient thought or research behind them, quite ignorant no?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is your point that G-d must exist because people have found ways in which current events might have been predicted by revelations?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your point that it is illogical to believe in religion from an eschatoligcal point of view, and also illogical to believe in religion from a historical point of view (like txag007), therefore it's illogical to believe in religion at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer my question first.

[/ QUOTE ]

A. No, it's "food for thought".

I await your answer to my question.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Using the same "rigorous" methodology, I could prove that the number 12 is evil and that the smartest person that will ever live will be born on September 26, 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

I await to see this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll be waiting a very long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can't back up your bold statements?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's such an arbitrary point that it's laughable.

Maybe you'll use the nifty rhetorical technique that I misinterpreted you (because you were intitially vague), or better yet, that you Revelations predicted I would respond this way!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, why would the Book of Revelations concern itself with you specifically?

[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldn't. You miss my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get your point I just think the comparison is incredibly weak and ignorant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even serious religious scholars are a bit embarrassed by Revelations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget the Catholic church dismiss it as holding no eschatological basis, and that it only serves as an insight to the lives of Christians under Nero.

Also Ahmed Deedat, now deceased Muslim apologist dismissed the book as a "dream", to which considering his impact on the Muslim community many Muslims would agree with him I would think.

And Martin Luther placed the book in the appendix of the German bible, and apparently wasn't fond of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

TY for the additional info.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Kind of hard to laugh at it when Evangelic Protestants and the Bush administration take it seriously and base foreign policy upon it though. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

One must always be wary of people in positions of power.

I also can't find any proof that the Bush administration takes the book seriously and bases foreign policy on it.

Although I did find mention of Bush saying he was a Christian and telling America "angels" were on the side of the US in the fight between good and evil.

Did you mean that?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's more. There was New York Times Magazine article about much of his presidential decision-making. There are a number of articles about how he rewards his evangelical protestant base. I'd dig some up, but I consider unlikley you'd read them. Many articles out there...

[/ QUOTE ]

You assume I am ignorant.

It is of no revelation that Bush and his right wing republican conservatives would pander to the large Christian base the U.S has.

Many people throughout history have used the popular religion of their day to keep support in powerful places, without themselves actually having any interest in it apart from lip service and/or PR opportunities.

So your comment that Bush uses the Book of Revelations specifically in his foreign policy is yet to be verified.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If SOLLOG, Delmart Vreeland, Revelations, Umberto Eco, Grant Morrison, Dan Brown, and Nostradamus all made a bunch of predictions about how the world would end as predicted by the Mayan calender in 2012, which one would be correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

The book of Revelations doesn't state the year in which the world would end specifically IIRC, are you sure you have read it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a joke. Absurdist hyperbole lost on you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't give up your day job.

Cheers,
SDM

[benkahuna]

Sometimes it takes little thought to determine whether a particular endeavor is worth my time. A bunch of vague predictions, whether "more complicated" than astrology or not has the same problem for me as astrology. It's vague and too easy to fit situations to predictions and therefore has no value except for making stuff up. You can easily create the appearance of prescience. Might as well be a fiction novel. I'd rather read Umberto Eco or Thomas Pynchon. If you deem that ignorant, so be it.

My point was that the superficial relationship between real world events and those vaguely mentioned in revelations in not a compelling case that G-d exists.

I was drawing a parrallel. There exists undisciplined work in numerology in which people contrive truth where they want to see it by using numbers to prove conclusions rather than collecting evidence to lead them to conclusions. This action is similar to the form fitting in which one takes modern events and uses them to suggest the prescient nature of revelations. My statement was flippantly sarcastic, not bold.

My incredibly weak/ignorant point (according to you) was an inside joke, but also a logical extension about the predictive power of revelations. If it can predict every significant world event with accuracy, perhaps it can even predict that I would be writing this post. Absurdist.

I assume what you have indicated to be true. I assume there are written works that you have not read that I have because you are not aware there existing works indicating certain facts.

Some "food for thought" about Bush and Revelations:

Reverend Blessit, Bush's guide
Revelations in the context of Bush
The language of Revelations in policy statements
Certainty in Faith, Bush is never wrong

Whether he's a true believer or not, he's following an evangelist's agenda. Guy's been talking "crusade" and "good" and "evil" since some of his earliest post 9/11 speeches. Word is, he's a believer, not just pandering. His interest in a cultural showdown in the Middle East along with no hesitation toward launching wars seems pretty consistent with Revelations to me... I think he may believe he's catalyzing the events described in the Book. That may not verify Bush uses Revelations in his policies, I'm making the case that above evidence (and his known foreign policy action) does just that.


What it basically comes down to is this. You appear to take revelations very seriously as a meaningful work. I consider it an almost psychotic treatise predicting all manner of strange things, vague enough that it would sound prescient some time in the distant future from when it was written. It's a joke and I have treated it as such except as regards its impact on US foreign policy.

Charles B. Sanford's book The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson described the Book of Revelations as ". . . merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

I agree.

[xniNja]

No, you lost. Had you been paying attention the last month, using your silly "logic" with tagx007 is a lose-lose.

[benkahuna]

Heh. If only I'd known. I just wandered in here recently.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes it takes little thought to determine whether a particular endeavor is worth my time. A bunch of vague predictions, whether "more complicated" than astrology or not has the same problem for me as astrology. It's vague and too easy to fit situations to predictions and therefore has no value except for making stuff up. You can easily create the appearance of prescience. Might as well be a fiction novel. I'd rather read Umberto Eco or Thomas Pynchon. If you deem that ignorant, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody is ignorant in one way or another, and that's fine. In reality, life is too short and there is too much information for us to digest. We choose to be ignorant about many things in life, because we want to actually enjoy life.

For us to know everything humanly possible we would have to lock ourselves away and systematically go from A to Z covering the most minute and trivial things to the big issues.

In the end we would be old and weary, and still chained to our desks catching up on the new information brought to light while we have been reading the old.

Nobody would (or should) do this.

So we only concentrate on the things we deem important for us, the rest falls by the wayside.

My point was that for things we have taken no interest in studying, we should not be dogmatic about. Actually I don't believe anybody should be dogmatic about any subject regardless of the time involved in studying as I believe "truth" at best is 99%, seldom is anything 100% certain when dealing with complex issues.

[ QUOTE ]

My point was that the superficial relationship between real world events and those vaguely mentioned in revelations in not a compelling case that G-d exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prophecy, which is what the Book of Revelations is intended to be by it's author, is perhaps the only evidence of a God.

You ask anybody of any religion today why they believe and you'll get a bunch of different answers. Some buy it based on emotions, others because it is a family tradition, and others because they have had a profound experience they believe has shown them the way.

Are these good reasons to take up a religious belief?

Complex question.

Regarding emotions, as you have said before, religion makes people happier. Some people need religion in their life, it fills a void or helps them through life, good for them.

Tradition I believe is a mixed bag. On the one hand it is good to keep family traditions and a sense of identity, Judaism (as you would know) is a good example of this. On the other hand I don't believe that worshipping a God because your father did and 'that's what we believe' is adequate. I believe each man should evaluate for himself what he will choose to believe or disbelief based on his own choices and not parental programming.

As for 'profound experiences', the subject is hairy at the best of times and highly subjective. It could be linked to the emotional need for religion or could be something else. I don't know but I am err on the side of skepticism. Because of the personal nature of these 'profound experiences' it raises the issue of "why you, not me?" and why God would choose you to have this very personal experience to make you believe and not me.

I'm not saying it's untrue because of this, but I believe it's easier to swallow the concept that a universal God would send a universal message to a universal world and not selectively choose those few he wished.

But, that's my belief, and some Calvinists here would argue against me citing the doctrine of predestination, and also a case could be made by some that God does operate selectively with the example being that he chose the Jews in Genesis to be 'his people'.

This is just another example of an issue where 100% truth being known isn't possible I believe, and at best after much research you can say you think you are 99% sure but you still can't be certain, therefore you can't be dogmatic IMHO.

[ QUOTE ]

I was drawing a parrallel. There exists undisciplined work in numerology in which people contrive truth where they want to see it by using numbers to prove conclusions rather than collecting evidence to lead them to conclusions. This action is similar to the form fitting in which one takes modern events and uses them to suggest the prescient nature of revelations. My statement was flippantly sarcastic, not bold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look I partially agree. I'm skeptical about books like "The Bible Code" where apparently "JFK Assassinated" and "9/11" etc are actually in the Old Testament etc etc.

I'm not saying I know about the subject because I don't, and it may be true (anything may be true, however slim) but my reason doesn't buy it and I choose not to investigate that and remain ignorant about it.

But I don't believe anyone can place Revelations side by side with that. Revelations draws upon many things in the Old Testament (such as Daniel) and the New, and unlike the codes which skeptically one could say one could find in any book, Revelations has a 'burden' if you will, to be consistent with the respective canons it claims to complete.

It is for this reason that many apocalyptic literature was rejected as being non-canonical because they were not on par with the rest of the canon, and you can read and compare many of these works online.

[ QUOTE ]

My incredibly weak/ignorant point (according to you) was an inside joke, but also a logical extension about the predictive power of revelations. If it can predict every significant world event with accuracy, perhaps it can even predict that I would be writing this post. Absurdist.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is putting it in the same boat with "Bible Code" etc as discussed before, and anybody who has read Revelations would know it doesn't seem to care about the JFK assassination and Princess Diana's death etc etc.

I understand what you are saying by saying that people can read anything into anything, but Revelations goes beyond one book and draws on many texts as I've mentioned before in the OT and NT and many of the places are in actual existence.

[ QUOTE ]

I assume what you have indicated to be true. I assume there are written works that you have not read that I have because you are not aware there existing works indicating certain facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ofcourse, this is why I try my best never to be dogmatic about things.

[ QUOTE ]

Some "food for thought" about Bush and Revelations:

Reverend Blessit, Bush's guide

[/ QUOTE ]

This url only mentions Revelations once (verse 3:20) and it is regarding salvation and not prophecy.

[ QUOTE ]

Revelations in the context of Bush

[/ QUOTE ]

I really enjoyed this article. I thought it was very well written, so much so in fact that it was a breath of fresh air from alot of the articles that are written by "unknowns" on the net who don't write as well or objectively.

Again though the only mention of it really relating to Bush is this line:

[ QUOTE ]

Luther in no way detected the Holy Spirit in it. But Bush, committed to an Armageddon-like war between the forces of good and those of evil, no doubt sees forces of good throughout this scripture, which may speak to him directly. We should all study this particular weapon, if only to better understand the minds of the president and his dead-ender followers.

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC Bush hasn't actually quoted from Revelation in one of his speeches but even if he did its moot because one person's interpretation is one person's interpetation, and without admittance that the book is the impetus for the Iraq war (doubtful) one cannot say it is his direct influence for the 'good/evil' debarcle, though if he is a Christian it may play a role in his mind. (He and his father had similar goals Iraq and War)

[ QUOTE ]

The language of Revelations in policy statements

[/ QUOTE ]

Similar as the above article and what I have said in previous posts, again no clear quoting from the book, more of the "good/evil" speech which you would a president to brand a certain group of people to keep him popular and patriotism "up". (Don't let me start with FOX News)

[ QUOTE ]

Certainty in Faith, Bush is never wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

This article I didn't have to time to read as time is running out for me in regards to work commitments but I did a search and didn't find "revelations" mentioned but did see some God and Jesus mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]

Whether he's a true believer or not, he's following an evangelist's agenda. Guy's been talking "crusade" and "good" and "evil" since some of his earliest post 9/11 speeches. Word is, he's a believer, not just pandering. His interest in a cultural showdown in the Middle East along with no hesitation toward launching wars seems pretty consistent with Revelations to me... I think he may believe he's catalyzing the events described in the Book. That may not verify Bush uses Revelations in his policies, I'm making the case that above evidence (and his known foreign policy action) does just that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you here, but that still shouldn't discredit the book.

Bush's history is surrounded by controversy, from his early days to Florida, to pursuing the same war his father pursued when he was in office.

It is important to remember the book was around before Bush, and despite him believing he is taking a part in the prophecy (of which he may or may not) one man's alleged following of the book is no reason to denounce it.

[ QUOTE ]

What it basically comes down to is this. You appear to take revelations very seriously as a meaningful work. I consider it an almost psychotic treatise predicting all manner of strange things, vague enough that it would sound prescient some time in the distant future from when it was written. It's a joke and I have treated it as such except as regards its impact on US foreign policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep an open mind about it in the least and believe it requires further study. You may believe it is a joke, but you don't know it's a joke, and things brings me back to what I've been saying all along about the truth and dogmaticism.

[ QUOTE ]

Charles B. Sanford's book The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson described the Book of Revelations as ". . . merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

But who knows?

Cheers,
SDM

[benkahuna]

Wow, I can't believe I've gotten to where I am now from where we started, but I agree with you about everything you've said. Reasonable, open-minded, avoiding being dogmatic, all the things I value in opinions. I was not aware how much Revelations drew from and was consistent with earlier Books of the Bible canon. It's a tricky decision how to consider Revelations vis a vis its later political influence. On the one hand, people seem to do a lot of what they want to do and find some way to justify it so blaming their supposed inspiration amounts to scapegoating. On the other hand, certain works seem to have a negative influence on the world despite good intentions and being of decent quality because the works have a tendency to be misinterpreted or exploitatively applied.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] You've actually got me seriously considering reading the work in its entirety and not just snippets and analysis to get a good idea.

[David Sklansky]

AS far as I'm concerned his speech vindicates my position.

1. He is on he outer edges of eminent physicians.

2. He is making an acceptance speech where it is incumbant on him to accentuate the religious side of his thinking.

Yet in spite of that:

3. His reasons for being religious are almost EXACTlY the same as the three reasons I have already given for wondering about some sort of greater being ie. The Big Bang, Quantum Weirdness and Human Consciousness. Perhaps some of you have not read those posts of mine.

4. He states that GOOD WORKS is the most impotant aspect of religion. Only Jews seem to fully agree.

5. He says:

I am content to be one of the multitude of Christians who do not care much about the doctrine of the Trinity or the historical truth of the gospels. Both as a scientist and as a religious person, I am accustomed to living with uncertainty.

Any of the religious people on this forum except for maybe RJT should not point to this guy as agreeing with them. He's closer to me without a doubt.

[IronUnkind]

Since I have been careful to protect my hole cards (my specific religious beliefs) thusfar, you can infer that I reference Dyson because my views are consistent with his position.

It should like to point out that although Dyson expresses uncertainty about specific doctrines, it does not mean that he rejects them as improbable (as you have). If NotReady, or PairTheBoard want to claim a kinship with Dyson, then, it doesn't strike me as bad form because Dyson does not caution against a belief in orthodox teaching (though he rightly chastises creationists).

I do understand that I may be taking his use of the word "uncertainty" too literally, and that he might, in fact, be skeptical of certain doctrines (e.g the trinity). But that is not what he says here.

Dyson does speak somewhat specifically about good works. But his emphasis is pragmatic rather than soteriological. Protestantism's position on faith/works, then, does not contradict Dyson's comments because in orthodox teaching, grace acts as a catalyst for good works.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
"My best reason for unbelief is that I simply do not feel it. It's belief, it's faith-based (whether belief or non-belief) and it doesn't have to make any rational sense. I'm still agnostic, but that's just to remain open-minded and rational, like a good scientist."

Have you considered and rejected the evidence for Christianity (or any other religion for that matter)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider the claim "god exists" to be neither true nor false, but rather arbitrary. It's premature to ask for "evidence" of something that has no coherent definition. Every definition of god that I'm aware of is either incoherent, or to the extent that it can be comprehended, self-contradictory.

Thus I'm an atheist because the claim "god exists" is epistemologically vacuous, i.e. it's quite meaningless. It's as if nothing has been claimed at all.

[RJT]

This is kind of where I was going with my stats on elite scientists and their religious (or lack of ) views. If we narrow the group down to the elite scientists, we must then study what they believe (or think). Also, in my final post under the stats, I ask, does Sklanskyism work with any random group chosen , e.g. farmers or truck drivers? If we found it holds then, it should be valid in a group of elite theologians.

Once we have the two fields of science and religion narrowed down to the elite, we would then be able to have a serious discussion regarding some of their thoughts. With our hypothetical group of elite scientists and theologians we would really have some fun and start the filtering process. *

This too gets into what I was thinking about for another post. I’ll just post it here.

I was about to ask:

It is my understanding from reading stuff here that most physicists, for example, are interested in exploring the “hows” of the universe. How does it work?

Even if they “miraculously” found the key to unlock the door and walked into the room filled with the knowledge how it all works, they would not necessarily have discovered the “why”.

My next post was going to ask if any are interested in the “whys”? It seems at least some are.

I will have to start googling some of their thoughts. Guess I’ll start with Hawking (1 Because David S. mentioned him and I don't really know any others and 2 Because he has such a cool name "Stephen Hawking", ala Alec Bergh on Seinfeld, and with a few others mentioned in the forum)and go from there.

* Personally, I think Christianity - not to limit it to nor exclude it from other ideas - would still be left after the filtering. It would most probably take on an entirely different look than how most view it today. I do think that the essence of Christianity (and a chance Jesus, too) would survive. (Pair the Board mentions a different way some are looking at Christianity when he talks about liberal Christianity. Of course, this is only within the religious community. His particular example is too whacked out for me - not to say wrong, although I think them wrong - but I give him credit for exploring such notions.)