!rant

Just wondering, how many programmer's are religious?

I mean, the only imaginary friend a dev needs is his/her rubber duck. :D

Haha I agree... but now im worried that people are gonna be mad...

@KingDorito I say letem'

Well, there is a good probability we live in a simulation anyways... :)

@WerewolfCustoms Yep, that hypothesis has high probability. That might also mean we have no free will and our lives are deterministic :O

Well, we're probably just someones AI school project anyways. And yes, our existence is pointless.

@WerewolfCustoms What if we're an AI's AI school project though... and now we're writing AI - gasp. AI-ception

Does being agnostic count? ^^

@Krokoklemme Well what do you mean by agnostic. Technically every Atheist is agnostic, because there is always technically a chance. I mean technically everything has a probability, but it's not practical to not be able to make definitive statements about anything.
So I'm theologically agnostic insofar as i'm agnostic about santa claus.

@penguin of course there's a chance, that's why I consider myself agnostic. Atheists and religious people usually don't care about probabilities, they're convinced with their respective opinion

Atheists for example keep saying: no, there definitely is no god

Religious people say: yes, there is

I say: who the fuck knows?

@Krokoklemme I consider myself an Atheist because there is absolutely no supporting evidence. This lowers the probability greatly making it equivalent in probability to Russel's teapot. So if I can affirmatively claim that there is no teapot orbiting earth, or there is no spaghetti monster, then I can also claim there is no god. But technically I would still have to be agnostic about all those things, or in fact everything.

I only pray to the gradle gods

Alright, I will take the leap of faith(pun) that people won't hate on me :P

I am a Christian with a pre-deterministic world view. Also none of this cuddles crap. God is a God! If he wants to use a little fucker like me, who am I to say no?

Bracing for hate impact! ;)

@owithg Why would anyone hate on you :)
So when you say "pre-deterministic world view" I take it you mean everything is determined and there is no such thing as free will correct?
What makes you believe in God?

@penguin Just laughing at religion and politics usually being the biggest causes of fights :)

I believe, because in my mind there has to be a start to existence. And a start needs something to start it. So, I can't see a big bang without first having something exist to create the big bang.

Also,on a more personal less logical way, it restricts my moral options which I like. I have a thing about rules and limits being good, but if there is no god, why can't I do anything? Why not murder if I think I can get away with it? Haha

@owithg "I believe, because in my mind there has to be a start to existence. And a start needs something to start it." Quantum mechanics shows us that nothing is a lot more complicated then what most people think of nothing. And in fact, something can come from nothing. Here is a good short summary: https://youtube.com/watch/...
But even if you take that argument as truth, taht doesn't mean that a God started anything. All we could objectively say is that we don't know.

The thing about morals and such we could go into, but it doesn't say anything objective as to evidence for a gods existence - so I don't think it's necessary. All I'll say to it, is that the reason we don't go around murdering anyone is because we are not evolutionarily programmed to - else we would have gone extinct a long time ago.

@owithg well, you *could* get away with murder fairly easy :P

BTW: I share your view of a predetermined world. Seems just logical to me, considering the rule of cause and effect

@penguin well, I was more meaning that what created the nothing? I know it sounds like bullshit, but I would argue even a perfect vacuum has existence, which counts as something. Which had to have a starting my mind.

I was more arguing that it isn't proof, but I believe to structure my morals. Like, if I was freely allowed to murder people if I could get away with it, I would constantly be aware of the option. Not that I would use it, but logically there wouldn't be a reason not to. So I stopgap that logical hole with God. This is more of, "I believe because it makes it easier" haha

@Krokoklemme haha so believing in God restricts me from robbing people or cooking meth, which if there is none I don't see why I shouldn't if it gets me ahead? Theory of course, I don't dream of murdering :P

Pre-deterministic seems so correct. Might be the programmer in me, but everything seems like it is just a function with a million variables to take into account.

I come from a Christian background and i keep most teachings. Wouldn't call myself Christian exactly, but I do believe there is a God. I don't believe in the whole pre-determinism thing, as we as humans never cease to make squares out of triangles and He did give us free will to do what we want, whatever it may be. I do however believe that we do all have a calling that we could fulfill if we try hard enough. I'm very aware of the illlgical nature of religion, but i choose to believe and unlike many nuts, i respect other religions and the lack thereof--after all, we're still just all human

@owithg So, if you understand the video.. it explains (although not at all in depth) that something can come from real nothing / absolute Null (a vacuum, no space, no time).

It isn't beneficial to our species to murder each other. This is why you wouldn't murder other people. Also if you are in a group order will naturally arise. This is because the very basic components that make up our morals are genetically programmed. This does not mean that we are not capable of doing terrible things, but that a god isn't necessary for morality.
Even without my explanation though, it isn't evidence for a god. All you could objectively say is that you don't know why people are moral.

But do you have any objective evidence for god that you believe withstands the scientific method?

Does the flying spaghetti monster count?

@penguin Sorry, I am at work so I can't watch the video.

For the morals, I don't use it for an argument for others to believe in God, more like a benefit of believing in God. I disagree morals are hard coded, because groups of people can do horrible things without any sense of wrongdoing. I think it is purely cultural.

Your question for solid proof is a bit hard haha. If I had it, we wouldnt be arguing quite as much. I can say that I don't buy the argument for macro evolution(I don't), but that is countering a specific argument not proving God...

The trend I'm seeing here is that ya'll are believing that there is a god because you can't comprehend that our current existence could be possible without one, rather than relying on evidence to construct your beliefs.
Don't you think your ability to understand the universe could be limited? And because of that what seems logical to you could be incorrect?

@Ganther321 It's a real thing :D

@penguin sure, I could be wrong. But I could be right, correct? If you want pure logic my favorite is the consequences square. If I don't believe and I am right, woo! If I don't believe and I am wrong, shit! Possible hellfire! If I do believe and I am right, I win! If I don't believe and I am wrong, damn! :P

@owithg Well, if you don't have any evidence and still believe, then there's not much point to the conversation. What i'd tell you in that believing in what you believe seems logical is a fallacy. That the earth is round not flat is a good example of reality contradicting what seems reasonable.

If you accept that micro evolution occurs, then you defacto accept that macro evolution occurs. Because all macro evolution is, is a lot of micro evolution.

@owithg But that is a logical fallacy. Russels teapot is a good example.

@penguin I disagree with the evolution statement. I am saying that I there is a negative impact trying to change species, so animals would specialize exclusively.

To the no evidence claim, what I was meaning is, what I see as evidence you won't because we both have world views. I say life itself is proof of God. The "breath of God." The spark. I am making an assumption, but I would bet that you disagree?

That wasn't meant to be hostile, if it came across that way :)

@owithg No worries.
The thing is, that evidence is objective not subjective.
Evidence is comprised of knowledge derived from the scientific method.

To be clear, species evolve in both negative and positive directions. The reasons why species seem to improve over time, is that the poorer equipped die off in favor of the better equipped.
Micro evolution is just a mutation and macro evolution is just a lot of mutations

@owithg If i may ask, which religion do you believe in?

Alahu Akbar buuuuuuuuuum

Praise Kek 🐸🐸

@penguin I think that is the basis of our disagreement. I view evidence as reality seen through our personal lenses.

For example, the world was viewed as flat by observation. It worked for their science, but then we realized it wasn't. Both times they thought they were right, and both times it was the same planet.

Or physics. It was considered mostly figured out until Einstein came around.

With evolution, my issues are with things changing dramatically, even slowly. New species would require slowly changing environments that I feel would just kill out the species instead.

Unfortunately the stuff we are arguing about now is impossible to "prove", since I cant observe a fish become a lizard.

@penguin I am a non-denominational Christian. I would say maybe... Paulite if it existed? Haha :)

@owithg Well if you view evidence as that, then evidence must have no meaning to you. That is not the english definition of evidence.

There is no doubt that physics has flaws and get stuff wrong. The reason that we use it is that it's the best we've got and we are always learning more.
Physics was revolutionized by Einstein, but it was never assumed we figured physics out. science is an endless journey.
That may be your opinion on evolution, but all I can say to you is again that what may seem logical to you may not be reality and it is better to say I don't know then to assume things.

Well I too was once religious. I was raised in a very christian household in fact.
Can I ask you why don't you believe in Thor?

I am religious

@penguin I was a little confused by your statement. If science is always grinding onwards, and we are always updating our views, doesn't that mean that what we are claiming could all be changed? For example, tomorrow we could find evidence disproving evolution completely? All I am suggesting is skepticism. :)

Yeah, I chose the Christian God for 3 illogical reasons. 1. I grew up in it. 2. My God can kick death's ass. 3. It makes the most sense to me, in that it doesn't try to explain gods suddenly existing. If something has to be permanent, shouldn't it be God?

I don't believe in Thor, because if he was real yet can die, isn't my god stronger? :P

I freely admit my choice of God isn't logical. But I see evidence that there is a god of some sort. I always go back to whatever life is itself. Nothing seems to create it, just pass it on.

@qbalsdon Well do you believe in Thor, if not, why not?

It's pretty much a subjective topic. Doesn't matter either way to me really. If you code, and you're not too much of a cunt - you're in my good books.

@owithg Well the thing is that everything is a probability. Evolution could be wrong, but it's very improbable due to the massive amount of supporting evidence and the complete lack of nonsupporting evidence. 2+2=4 could also be wrong, but all the evidence points to it being right.
Science is imperfect, but it is the most objective truth we can attain. And if something is not objective, it's not a truth.

You seem to on the one hand be saying that you know religion is illogical, but on the other hand jutifying your belief with your personal subjective "evidence".
Do you agree with me that your personal evidence is not objective?

@ragnarr023 I find that discriminatory towards cunts :D

@penguin And that's a good thing :D

@penguin so I believe the question was more about how many are religious, not about who can convince who their dick is bigger.

I am not going to share my precious beliefs, which my religion calls pearls, in a character limited text based space where there is clearly a lot of mocking going on. I honestly thought the devRant community was better than that, but obviously when it comes to religion, haters gonna hate whether you're a Dev or not.

I also know that by this point I've painted a target on my own back, and while I was trying to avoid it, I'd rather do it with my own terrible ideas about social media evangelism than misrepresent my beliefs.

@penguin I agree that my experiences are not evidence towards God, and they are not objective.

About evolution, what I am trying to say is I find fault with it. I don't necessarily have a replacement, but I find the science as a theory with not enough supporting evidence. I disagree with what you consider supporting evidence. I am not saying that one of us is stupid or anything, I just view it in a different way.
In my opinion if evolution was true and took millions or billions of years for species to change, enough of each evolutionary steps would be found with miniscule differences. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but it is my understanding you are happy with the granularity of the fossil records.

2+2=4 seems more like a human construct to me, because we are saying a symbol when doubled equals another symbol.

My issue is that everything is relative, so it is hard or impossible to point to really objective evidence

@qbalsdon I am not trying to target you, but I don't think my debate with @penguin is hostile. We could have stopped at any time and I am having fun. I believe he would respect my request if I said I was uncomfortable and just to drop it, or if I stopped responding.

Hope your week is great and please don't judge DevRant by us arguing :)

@owithg Let's be honest, having a group chat on religion is going to get heated because people are people and that's that.

I will be the first to admit I probably get very sensitive quickly, bit I guess that comes from being in a "statistical minority" where my personal beliefs have been so twitsed by the culture that to untangle them by typing short texts is virtually impossible and therefore understandably frustrating.

I (still) like the devRant community, because people have respect for each other and show genuine care for the issues that Devs face. As a fellow human being, all I ask is not to be so easily dismissed or mocked because of my faith.

With that said, people have their right to mock, and my God predicted the mocking and so I have failed in not being prepared. So I would ask for all of your forgiveness. I hope you all have a good day

@owithg I don't really want to go into evolution because it's a whole different very complex kettle of fish. All I'll say though is, do you agree that if something (i.e how we came to be) is unknown, that it is more logical to say I don't know, then to claim it's because of something for which there is no objective evidence?
Another example would be is it logical to say I don't know why MH307 crashed in the sea, or to say santa flew up the plane in his sled and broke off the planes wings and that's why it crashed into the sea?

Numbers and math are a human construct. I meant it in the way that we accept that something is true because there is so much objective evidence supporting it and no incompatible evidence.
Aka. 2+2=4 is very probable and 2+2=3 is very improbable.

@owithg I'm not sure what you mean by everything is relative, but everything is a probability. The difference is though, that just because everything is a probability, doesn't mean that everything has is equal.
If there is a 99.99999876% probability that an apple is red vs a probility of 0.00000000001 that it's pink, then I'll go the the red apple anyday.

@qbalsdon Me and @owithg are having a totally civil discussion. I'm not here to have an argument, but it's nice to talk with someone else civilly about different ideas :)

@penguin What I meant by relative is, if something is moving is space and we are on opposite sides of it I can say it is red and you can say it is blue. Which is correct? We both are.

So saying that "objective evidence" can be different based on where we are, how we are moving, other things like that.

I agree saying I don't know is more accurate in a lot of situations. I accept that. But I have seen enough personal evidence to say that I believe it is more likely than not for the existence of God. Sorry that isnt concrete, but how can I get you to feel what I felt, or experience what I experienced? :) You could see a near miss for a car accident, I could see God saving my ass as I got distracted.

I don't believe in religion as much as i believe in a relationship with the maker

but count me in

@qbalsdon If you felt mocked at all during this rant, I am truly sorry. We didn't mean any offense :)

I'm Jewish.

@tristen23 If you don't mind me asking, how Orthodox?

@owithg I'm a reconstructionist.

@penguin

Fucking cunts.

@tristen23 interesting, I will have to look it up. Thanks :)

I'm agnostic but the prejudice that presumptuous people assume that comes with it pissess me off.

It's really a personal thing, unless it's institutionalised. The moment it's institutionalised, it becomes perverted.

Any whom. Yeah.

@ragnarr023 Can you explain what you mean by "prejudice of presumptive people"? Do you mean prejudice against agnostics by people presuming things about you?

Not me.

Hail Hydra!

@owithg I'm not sure what you mean exactly with the opposite sides example. Do you mean like a superposition - like schrodingers cat?
Or could you maybe give me another example..

Of course I can never know what you've felt and experienced. I do know however how I felt when I believed close calls and such were the hand of god. So I have a general idea.
In you're example with the near car accident miss though, Is it really more reasonable though to say god did it instead of I don't know?

@owithg
Kind of bleak worded, sorry about that. I have been recovering from a server crash that kept me up for 60 hours.

I meant like "ah you think you're better than everyone because you're agnostic" "you must be intolerant" etc.

I fucking hate being catagorised.

But hey. Fuck this discussion. Let's code.

@qbasic16

Hail Hydra!

I love your conversation but the main problem of the majority of humans is that they want someone else to solve their problems. God, politicians, leaders. The second main problem is that they want to belong to groups. Political, soccer fans etc. The lower their income the stronger the above values become.

Too many. But I guess St. Ignucious is fine.

All children are born without religion, it is taught (or forced upon them) that is the only way it can continue, by brainwashing. It is a form of child abuse in my opinion. It was forced upon me from birth with the ridiculous fear of god drummed in to me. I was an Adult before I realised that it was all bull shit. I read the book "the God Delusion" by Richard Dawkings. This undid all the damage inflicted on me. I am happily atheist, and shall continue to be. I do respect people of faith, but I do wish they would at least consider that they have been manipulated.

@penguin I was meaning red and blue shifting, where the light waves are closer together or farther apart from moving objects. It can change the color of objects to the observer based on position of the observer. Like how a siren changes pitch as it approaches, then moves past.

Yes, saying that it was chance I didn't wreck is an option too. :)

@ragnarr023 I get it :) no judgement here. Get some sleep though!

@deadpool88 fair enough :) So would you say you believe there (is a|are) god(s) that don't care, or do you not believe in a supernatural power? Or a third option? :)

I'm definitely 95% atheist, 5% agnostic

I'm Jewish. I think it meshes well with engineering. There is a strong culture of challenging assumptions, asking questions, and making things work whatever the situation. And, of course, taking on the world, and surviving and contributing.

@chaimleib If you don't mind me asking, what denomination are you? I don't know if that is the right word for the Jewish faith.

I don't really like the labels among Jews. I just try to be as Jewish as I can be.

@chaimleib Works for me :)

@owithg Oh like the doppler effect. Ok, I get it now. But I don't understand how that influences the objectivity.
The light for an observer that sees red vs and observer that sees blue is because they are seeing a different wavelength of light. So both are objectively correct, even though they come to different conclusions. But they're not coming to two different conclusions about the of the color of the object, only the color that they're seeing... so i don't understand what the relative part that contradicts objectivity is...

I'm not very religious, but I do enjoy a nice ritual every so often.

@penguin Both people are observing the same event, and coming to completely different conclusions. Both are correct from their perspective. This seems to me to point to science being less right vs wrong, and more about opinion and less objective fact.

I'm Catholic, but I'm not in the habit of lecturing everyone about it.

@owithg "Both are correct from their perspective" But no, if they are coming to conclusions about the "event", then at least one (possibly both depending on their positions) of them are wrong.

If they are coming to conclusions about the colors that are reaching their eyes, then they're both correct - but that no longer has anything to do with the color of the event...

@penguin Right, but what I am trying to say is that all of our science is these observations of the event. We see the red object moving, and we either say it is red, or we say it is the color it should be if we account for red shifting. But we do not actually "know" what color it is.

Going back to our favorite argument point, let's look at evolution. We can't experience it in a recordable way. Someone look at the current species and fossil records, and see a connection all possibility coming from one creature. I look at them and see them being too different. We both are observing the same information. We are just on different sides of it. I see blue, you see red. Maybe you see more truth than me, but my point is, we are working from imperfect observations.

I hope my logic is clear :P Sorry if I am not making sense.

@owithg Well there is a record called the fossil record.
Anyway with regards to evolution you and me could look at something and come up with different points of view and both views would have about equal weight. That's true.
But we're not biologists. I'm a dev not a biologist, so I'm not qualified to give any meaningful outlook on the incredibly complex parameters at play relating to a fossil, so I'll listen to the qualified people. And the scientific community has a very clear concensus that the evolution did occur and and what species fossils belong to.

@owithg I think that logic is only legitimate when both points of view of the observers have equal probability.
But very few things have equal probability.. pretty much only superpositions.

@penguin I personally view it a little differently. I like to think I am as smart(as in, I can reason as well. Not as much knowledge) as the next person. And science has made mistakes, so I am willing to challenge the consensus if I find flaws.

For example, scientific consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe. But we now believe it to be false.

@owithg But do you really think you have enough information to make that judgment?
I would never claim to be able to make a better determination than a biologist if a fossil is a reptile or a bird.
Sure, consensus doesn't have to be true, however I think that so many informed minds in that field coming to a single conclusion is quite compelling.
Back in the days of the flat earth and the solar system etc. science wasn't free as it is today. Science had to conform to the opinion of the catholic church so any consensus didn't mean much.

@penguin This is going to be a bit conspiracy theorist, but I don't see any difference in science. It is no longer the Catholic Church, but I do think that science is a political game.

Anyways, it was fun debating with you :) I need to crash so I can get some sleep before work tomorrow. Have a great night wherever you are :)

@owithg The thing is not what I believe, but what other people believe. If I'd say I believe in a tyrannosaurus God, EVERYONE would laugh, not because it is funny, but because I'm just one person with this belief. If I'd chose a god that already being manifested no one would even care to say anything. It's the norm for someone to SHARE common beliefs, and that's dangerous. I'm agnostic

@penguin The reason Jews know anything about G-d is the Torah. Unlike all other faiths, in which only a select cabal or even a single person spread word of a vision and gathered followers, the Torah describes a single, mass revelation at Sinai of G-d Himself to an entire nation, millions strong. Why? Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No one was there at the beginning of the universe. But more than two million men, women and children all directly heard the Voice of G-d when He gave us the Torah. He told us that we would be few in number and scattered among the nations; yet He promised us that He would not abandon us, that He would judge those who persecuted us, and that He would bring us back to our land. That extraordinary promise, which only G-d could fulfill, has stood strong over the millennia of our many exiles, where other nations rose and fell, and is still being fulfilled today.

This evidence is not easily waved aside.

@chaimleib "He promised us that he wouldn't abandon us". So where the Fuck was he during the holocaust?

@helloworld That's where we argue with G-d, and we're not going to let Him off the hook. I won't pretend to understand it.

What I do know is that this question is not new. We had the same question at the Inquisition, at the expulsion from England, at the pogroms, at the destruction of the First and Second Temples. And we survived.

Why others died, I don't know. And if I justified G-d, what would that accomplish? That I feel ok about all this? Is that even what He wants?

He told us that He wants this world to be a Divine garden, at peace. If we, His children, feel any pain when we see the opposite, how must our Father feel? He doesn't just feel it. He feels it infinitely. How could He do that to Himself?

In the future, we know that our fast days mourning these disasters will be transformed into celebration. No one knows how. But until G-d makes things right, and He will, we're going to kvetch about it. He hasn't finished fulfilling His promises yet.

@chaimleib Hmm, it may be too late for you. But seriously try at least open your mind, the level of delusion is quite frightening for me. Good luck my friend.

@helloworld But that is also exactly why religion is such a powerful control mechanism.

@helloworld If I had no evidence, I'd agree that this is a delusion. But Sinai still stands. It might be possible to brainwash a few. But the more people are involved, the harder it is to get everyone on board. Especially people who love debate as much as the Jews. If "two Jews, three opinions," what about two million?

But there is not a word against Sinai. No record of any underground splinter group that denied that revelation. The Jews tested G-d and provoked Him over and over again, about water, about the manna, about meat, about the Canaanites. But not about Sinai.

How even to start a conspiracy like this? Try to gather a group of two million people and get them to agree that they all heard the Voice of G-d at the same time? Or that their ancestors did, and somehow never told their kids (and then, in a self-effacing moment, make sure they all forget *you* ever told them about this)? Who would even attempt this, when starting small is so much easier and more profitable?

@chaimleib yes, it must be true. Look, it takes 1 person to create a story that 2 million people witnessed this, pass that story on to illiterate and uneducated people, the story spreads and then turns to fact as it is eventually written down. Much the same way as the bible was written, based on stories passed down (Chinese whispers). Earliest written texts of the bible were written 100 years after the death of Jesus. It's quite ridiculous to presume as fact. You really need to open your mind just a little (or not).

@helloworld What you have said applies to the New Testament, but not to the Jewish Scriptures. Those texts are much older, and have not changed. Cross-comparisons between new and ancient Torah scrolls of Jewish communities as far apart as Yemen, Morocco and Germany have shown that the texts have not diverged, except in a handful of vowel carrier letters, none of which affect the meaning of the word.

@chaimleib We don't have 2 million people saying they were there, we have ONE story saying 2 million people were there.

Second, you create a false dichotomy 'Either it happened as written or 2 million people hallucinated or made it up.' There are many other possibilities. Like , the story got changed and exaggerated as it got passed down. Or, those who disagreed with the story and denied it happened got killed. There was a lot of 'stoning' in those Torah laws.

So we should believe what the story says, because the story says it must be believable?

We don't have eyewitness accounts. All we have is one book, written after the fact. It might not have been written until hundreds of years after the oral traditions began, when there was noone left to 'fact check' the story.
Or, and this comes before any other possibilities, the Torah is simply a fable. The burden of proof lies with you.

@penguin Ok, let's consider the small start, that the revelation was to a manageably small group, and that at some point, the story got changed.

You have a few difficulties with the small start theory.
1) The closer to the proposed event, the closer the witnesses, and the harder it would be to fake the numbers.
2) The farther from the event, the more descendants you'd have to convince at once.

Suppose someone were to say that your ancestors all heard G-d speak. Not someone in Tibet. Your ancestors. That immediately raises questions: Why didn't I hear about this before? Why haven't any of my friends heard of it from their parents? So that would fail.

So a sudden change doesn't work, but what about a gradual, natural evolution? Well, if it's so natural, the ball is in your court. Show me a parallel. Has there ever been another nation that claims to have heard G-d speak, and lived to bear witness to it?

@penguin that was exactly my point only you put it more eloquently. You can never get anyone who has been born into it (religion) to think any different. It is engraved on their brain and they have a programmed argument for any rational or logical or scientific challenge. They need to ask themselves and open their closed minds to the possibility that they are wrong.

@chaimleib Your Sinai Argument suffers from having only a single source witness, without any confirmation from outside sources.

So before we start talking about the story itself, we first have to examine whether we should even be taking it seriously or not.
Firstly, The Sinai revelation suffers from having only a single source. There are no outside sources that mention it.

The Sinai revelation has the same weakness as the claims of Christianity and Islam - that Jesus or Muhammed ( Who were both solitary men who came with a message for the people, handed down from God himself) in that there is no external source and therefore no external evidence for the revelation at Sinai.
We can therefore state with high probability that Judaism is nothing more than yet another theistic belief lacking in any usable evidence.

@chaimleib The Bible does indeed contain external evidence for certain events - such as the battle of Sennacherib in Jerusalem. The external evidence for said event is in the form of recordings on Assyrian tablets. We need to keep in mind, however, that the Bible is a collection of texts so while we can say with good probability that the Sennachrib siege did take place, that does not lend any legitimacy to any of the other claims the bible makes.
Anyway, there is no such external evidence for the Sinai revelation.
So essentially we are left with that we are supposed to believe that the story is true, because the story says it's true - which is clearly illogical.

@helloworld Yeah, I agree mostly. I don't think anyone who is born into it is incapable of change.
I was born into a pretty bad religious cult, was totally brainwashed and indoctrinated was well as everyone around me and somehow I was able to become an Atheist.
I do think though that a religious person is incapable of change unless they are able to honestly make the conscious decision that their beliefs need to conform to reality instead of reality conforming to their beliefs.
BTW I completely agree with you that indoctrination of a child is abuse and it should probably be a crime...
I also read the god delusion and it was one of the biggest factors causing me to transition from an agnostic to an atheist. ty dawkins :D

@penguin I am curious, what would you consider indoctrination? Any religious talk? Just wondering :)

@owithg No, you can talk about religion around kids, but teaching a kid only one religion or anything that tells a child they have to (or even should) believe in this one religion is indoctrination.
Kids aren't capable of making those kind of decisions for themselves.

@penguin A story of such a national revelation, but with no cultural history, would never be believed. Whom could you sell it to?

The Torah was accepted in all generations because the culture had a history of it, or witnesses who agreed with it. The thing is that the Torah always had this context of people verifying it. If the book is the lock, the people are the key. If that context ever conflicted or didn't exist, you'd have a people without context accepting a book that explicitly makes this context the core of everything. At this scale of an event, that's totally implausible.

To fabricate this story, either suddenly or gradually, you'd have to deal the problem of a missing context. All other faiths, whatever their age, deal with this problem by limiting the revelation to one person, or to a tiny group. But the Torah's story is different, because the problem never existed. The context of the entire people existed from the very beginning.

By the way, guys, I'm enjoying this a lot. I actually was not born as a Jew. I was attracted to it because I was allowed to ask anything, and I loved the debates of the Talmud. I bear no ill will against any of you, since the Torah teaches that G-d created each of you with a purpose, and He doesn't command Gentiles to become Jewish. The mission of each Jew is to perform the 613 commandments of the Torah; the mission of each Gentile is to observe the 7 laws of Noah. They are mutually compatible. If I have offended you so far, please ignore me.

@penguin You asked for external verification. I direct you to the Christians and the Muslims. When their faiths began, they could have easily completely ignored the Jews. Instead, they acknowledged our Torah, and that G-d spoke to us. In fact, they even made Jews a core part of their theology, saying that G-d chose us, and then, much later, abandoned us and chose them (even though the Torah explicitly says that G-d will never exchange us for another people, but you'd have to ask them about that). But why bring in Jews at all? Why treat Moses and all those other Jews as actual prophets? It's because they could see that Jews were a special people even then, thousands of years ago, and that our Book was special (in both faiths, we are known as the People of the Book).

This is quite astounding considering the subsequent history of how they dealt with us, but nevertheless true. They both based their faiths on ours.

If you would like to read about what I have said, as the Torah says it, feel free to read Moses' address in Deuteronomy chapters 4 and 5.

@chaimleib Sorry it took a while to reply, I've been very busy :)

Your assumption that the relvelation would not be belived unless it happened or had "cultural history" is an large assumption to just make without any supporting evidence.
I'm not sure what you mean by missing context. Context is just the setting of an event...

As you stated above, islam and christianity are just forks of judaism, so that is not an external source. Both of those religions are founded in judaism.
Secondly and hypothetically even if they were completely seperate religions and thought judaism sounded legit, that is not what is meant by an external source.
An external source would be a segregated source that recorded the same happenings at the event, before being influenced from the first or other source(s).

@chaimleib On a seperate note..
Even if you do believe your god exists, why would you ever want to follow such a evil figure that commited such a wealth of atrocities.
God quencing questioning:
"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)"
Killing nonvelievers:
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)"
and the list goes on and on.. not to mention all the genocide god tried (and failed) to commit.
It is estimated god killed 25 million people in the old testament alone. Satan on the other hand is estimated to have killed 60 people. Satan sure sounds a hell of a lot less evil.

@penguin As you mentioned, context is the setting of an event, but I had more in mind than just the physical stage of the event. By context, I was including the gestalt of the audience. I include their personal memories, education, values, and analytical abilities; the same factors on the scale of their society; and their ability to cross-check against and be affected by that society, should they stray too far from the norm.

The existence and importance of this form of context is natural and obvious. It explains, for example, why different nations have resisted or accepted changes to new forms of government. It also explains the formation of many different faiths, as well as the explosive growth of atheism over the past century.

The unifying principle is that a social change will be sustained only if its social context supports it. Obviously, if there is a glaring incompatibility, such as a huge cataclysmic event missing from personal and collective memory, the change cannot stick.

@penguin The verses you quoted are out of context. If you would read more than what your atheist teachers have shown you, you would find innumerable positive concepts in the Torah. To wit: equality in a court of law, with no favor to the rich and powerful; the prohibition against bribery; the obligation of each individual to take care of those less fortunate; honoring parents and elders; social rehabilitation of those unable to repay their theft; the obligation to free captives; the obligation to ensure literacy for all, regardless their social status; love for one's fellow, and the prohibitions against taking revenge and against bearing a grudge. Not to mention the Ten Commandments, which revolutionized ethics forever.

It's hard to imagine where the world would be without these contributions.

@penguin Regarding capital crimes, consider a parallel: Why are astronauts not allowed to smoke? How is it any different from smoking in the privacy of your own house? The difference is deeper than meets the eye. One, the spacecraft doesn't belong to the astronaut. If he burns the spacecraft, his personal monetary loss is minimal compared to the astronomical loss of the craft's owner. Two, he is answerable to the tens of thousands of people who worked to put him in space, and for sabotaging the mission. Three, the dangers of smoking to the astronaut himself are many times magnified in space versus on the ground. There are tanks of oxygen and rocket fuel. Air circulation spreads the fire. And he cannot simply run outside to escape a fire. Even without an accident, the pollution clogs the air filters, jeopardizing the life support system. Ash could impair the eyesight of critical personnel.

In the analog, you are here for a delicate mission. You jeopardize it at your own risk.

BTW, the Satan and the Angel of Death are one and the same. By last count, I believe he's killed a few more than sixty.

@chaimleib i hope one day you will open your eyes and ears. This God stuff you have been fed and nurtured on has truly closed your mind. Please accept the possibility that this doesn't prove God and look at it again with that premise.

@chaimleib Satan, God and the Angel of death DO NOT EXIST!!!!!!

@KingDorito Actually you can. Read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkings. He mentions the parable of the celestial teapot by Russel Bertrand, which actually explains beautifully why you can.

@penguin If any fantastic story about any large group could be started by a single person, and passed down as fact throughout history as you suggest, we would have reason to doubt any and all events we have ever heard of. How do we know, for example, that the Library of Alexandria was ever built? That the Boston Massacre ever happened? That Nobunaga conquered Japan? We never demanded these events be proven by external witnesses before we accepted them as history. All we require is that the account be consistent with the rest of known history, and that there be a few witnesses whose accounts agree. Lacking witnesses to counter these, practice is to accept that account as fact.

As far as history goes, the single event of Sinai is the among the most-witnessed events (firsthand) in all history. Only the largest natural disasters have matched it so far.

The reason atheists question it so vociferously is that they have decided a priori that G-d cannot exist. That sounds delusional to me.

Between the agnostic and atheist outlooks, the agnostic outlook is more logical. It allows for the possibility of some event showing the existence of G-d at any time or place.

In contrast, the atheist has faith that no evidence ever has appeared or ever will: for all time, past, present and future; and for all space. This is an illogical faith, because it is impossible for any human to attain such infinite data.

Sinai, however, changes the playing field. While it is impossible to prove a negative existence, it is not impossible to prove a positive existence. A single observation of that existence is sufficient, and this Sinai provides, in the form of direct, "naked-eye" observation.

This is why I cannot be atheist, but logically can only be agnostic or accept existence of some god. And this is why I have decided, between those last two choices, as I have, and in particular, in favor of the G-d Who took my ancestors out of Egypt and gave us the Torah at Sinai.

@chaimleib I'm still not sure what you're referring to by context exactly. Stories have context all the time - it's nothing out of the ordinary.

Yes, of course, all the terrible parts are just taken out of context, but all the good parts aren't :D . I've heard and lived this way of thinking before. Really what it is, is not accepting that your beliefs need to conform to reality. If you want a truth, you can't just dismiss all the parts you don't like.
You then go on the mention the good parts, as if it cancels out the bad. This is a logical fallacy. Is Hamas good just because they provide some social benefits? Is it ok for someone to commit murder because they give a lot to charity?

@chaimleib The Ten commandments certaintly didn't revolutionize morals. Let's go through them.
1. " I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" - What a waste of a commandment.
2. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me": Neutral.
3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain": Immoral, kills freedom of speech, freedom of thought - the foundations of free society.
4. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy": Immoral - Control mechanism to ensure the people remain brainwashed.
5. "Honour thy father and thy mother": Moral but nothing special. Every culture has this.
6. "Thou shalt not kill" - That's a duh in any culture.
7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" - Same in every culture.
8. "Thou shalt not steal" - Nothing new again..
9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" - All cultures think lying is generally bad.
10. "Thou shalt not covet": Undesired in all cultures.

@chaimleib I never stated that judaism was started by a single person for one.
Secondly widely spread idiotic beliefs are nothing unsual.
You keep saying the event at Sinai was largely witnessed as evidence - Says your book. There is not a single smidgin of evidence. Don't you see that you're using circular reasoning?
"The reason atheists question it so vociferously is that they have decided a priori that G-d cannot exist." - This is a perfect example of theists wanting their reality to conform to their beliefs whereas atheists want their beliefs to conform to reality.

All Atheists are technically agnostic because technically everything is a probability. But since the probabilty of theism is so low - we can say god doesn't exist just like we can say santa claus doesn't exist.

@chaimleib
"the atheist has faith that no evidence ever has appeared or ever will" - This is a bit mind baffling. Firstly faith is a belief in something for which there is not proof, so "faith that no evidence ever has appeared" is self explanatorily an illogical statement.
Secondly no Atheist says evidence for anything will never appear. Call me when it does, but until then there's no reason to believe the wheel was invented by a pink unicorn from madagascar.

@helloworld Out of interest..
What led you to leave religion and how old were you when you did?
Did you go through an agnostic spell where you wanted to be believe somewhat in god just in case out of fear of going to hell?

@penguin yes, it took absolutely ages before I could say openly and confidently "There is no such thing as God". It was a big deal for me. I was force fed the catholic faith as a child, it was taught as if it were fact, i was baptised, communion, confirmation. I guess when I was in my teens I began to not pay much heed, but still programmed into me about the fear of God. The whole thing just gradually unravels as you get older and wiser. I did go through the agnostic phase for some time, and thought nothing of it. I think I was in my late 30's when I read 'The God Delusion'. It was a most magnificent feeling, every possible reason to hold on to God was destroyed, it was like 'i'd seen the light'. I pass on this wisdom to my son so that he can grow up free of this bull shit. There is no proof, there never will be any proof, there is no son of God, there will be no second coming as there was no first. There was no virgin birth, no wise men, no resurrection. https://youtu.be/rs_pnCsLciQ

@penguin regarding the impact of the Ten Commandments: It is only possible to say that the Decalogue is commonplace today because Christianity took it from the Torah spread it throughout the world. Before that transformation, under the prevailing pagan societies, ethics were, wholly unfamiliar to our sensibilities. For example, as recently as a few decades ago, there still existed tribes of cannibals in the islands of the Pacific, and it was missionaries who stopped the practice. Human sacrifice was famously practiced in Central and South America until the arrival of Christianity. In pre-Roman Europe, ancient Egypt and Canaan, children often did not know who their fathers were due to wife-swapping rituals and orgies in worship of the gods of fertility. Kings and judges were purchasable all around, and the law could be bent at will for personal gain, provided deep enough pockets.

The refinement of these cultures is directly creditable to the influence of Torah.

To be clear, I do not mean to condone the duplicitous and brutal means of the old Christians and Muslims, whose motives have been summarized by the tongue-in-cheek phrase, "God, Glory and Gold, but mostly Gold."

The "genocide," however, is something the Torah must justify. I'm referring to the unique commands to wipe out the seven nations of ancient Canaan, and at their head, Amalek. Fortunately, modern Jews have no involvement in this beyond philosophy, and these commandments are no longer in force in their simple sense, since identifying the descendants of those nations is no longer possible.

I do not completely understand the commands themselves, but I'll share what I know. The Torah tells us that these peoples were steeped in sexual immorality, and it was not because of our righteousness that we conquered them, but because of their wickedness. Also, each individual of the enemy could save himself by surrendering and accepting the Seven Laws of Noah, or by fleeing (Deut. 20:10).

the algo sent me back in time to demand season 2

I have my own custom religion subclassed from christianity overriding some methods