The Most Astounding Fact (Neil DeGrasse Tyson)

[Griffin NoName]

Same joke in Jewish.

there is the old joke about the fellow, who was quite a devout believer, who was stranded on an island, all alone.  

Now, he comes from a strong tradition of hard work-- so during his stay of many years on the island, he was busy building all sorts of things to make his life a wee bit more comfortable:  a house to live in, a barn for the foodstuffs he gardened, a shed for the tools he'd made, and of course... a synagogue to worship in.

"There is my house, much improved from my first effort.  Over there, is the barn, and there is the workshop."  he pointed out each construction. "And over there are my two synagogues."

"Why have you built two synagogues?"

"Well," pointing at one of the buildings "That's the synagogue I go to" pointing at the other synagogue "and that's the synagogue I don't go to".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are all religious jokes essentially the same?

[Swatopluk]

Japan unintentionally conducted a long term experiment in that area.
After the unification being a Christian became a capital offence and the state tried to stamp out the last trace of Christian belief (that campaign included the infamous mandatory stomping of the crucifix) while at the same time isolating the country. When the country got reopened centuries later it turned out that there were still Japanese Christians around that had kept the faith alive. But comparision between their practices and 'real' catholics outside Japan showed that it had become a game of Chinese Whispers. The latin hymns had turned into gibberish etc.
But there can be no doubt that these people firmly believed to have stayed with the one true faith. One would not risk to be slowly tortured to death together will all the extended family if one had any doubt about that.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I had forgotten about that-- yes, without the continuous mix and re-mix of idea-memes, an isolated version will drift into a completely unrecognizable Something Else.

For me? 

That was the last straw in an already-broken pile of straws:  if there were really anything to the idea of supernatural guidance?  No drifting would be possible.   All faiths would, over time, through divine guidance, drift towards the same place... right?   Right.

Ergo-- none have any (divine influence at all).

[Opsa]

It becomes -again- a discussion about definitions, be it the meaning of the word 'god' or the meaning of the word 'atheist' and 'agnostic' which are clearly derived from the first, and as every person has a different opinion of what 'god' means, the definitions of 'agnostic' and 'atheist' are also many, which is another of the reason for my discomfort with the word, the word is loaded and loosely defined, and because without a clear definition there is no clear way to discuss the subject.
---
IMO opinion the word should simply be avoided and use more succinct definitions, that will avoid bad feelings (considering the loaded nature of the subject).

Personally I am convinced that an OOO type of deity is simply incompatible with the universe as we know it and under that definition I am a hard atheist.
I consider the possibility that a very powerful being or beings may or not exist and may or not influence our universe in which case I would define myself as agnostic about their existence.

*Rumble*

I wonder, Bob, if you're disagreement isn't with religion in general? Is that any different than rejecting anyone's concept of god?

[Griffin NoName]

But comparision between their practices and 'real' catholics outside Japan showed that it had become a game of Chinese Whispers. The latin hymns had turned into gibberish etc.

Hmmmm. Not sure this constitutes proof. Judaism has stayed virtually unchanged even where isolated stetls etc. Admitted customs like the Passover supper would consist of custom of chicken in one place, fish in another, but the worship and laws have stayed identical. eg. practices amongst Ethiopian Jews will be the same as ours in England. (I saw many Ethiopean Jews when I was in Israel, greatly to my surprise as I did not know there were any). Perhaps this is in part because we have had the laws and customs written down throughout the ages, but cannot be entirely that as some aspects are only passed on by following what others do when a child. While the practices of the Chassidim strike me as nuts, I have always recognized them as normal as well  decoded, that means the pratcice is normal, but nuts to actually do it

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Completely unchanged?

[Swatopluk]

Drat, your interposting killed my long post.

OK, here a short version:

Jews:
never fully isolated
Practice in a language they knew
Holy texts could be kept and could be replaced after the occasional book burning
Their neighbours (Christians, to a  degree Muslims) had a faith based on the same sources as theirs, so
they had to memorize mainly the differences not the whole thing
Judaism had a long traddition

Japanese Christians:
fully isolated
Practice in Latin the knowledge of which quickly disappeared
Holy texts could not be kept and were irreplacable
Christianity was something alien and relatively new, there was nothing similar in their neighbour's faith or practice

[Griffin NoName]

Completely unchanged?

Very interesting. Nothing to suggest that their pratcices, that they do do,  have any differences, but no evidence that they do all practices. Genetic evidence fasinating. Males but not females, whereas females normally bloodline. Sort of invalidates this as the Cohen streak is preserved via the male Y chromosone. Hmm. Can I work this into my essay?

Ok, Swato, they are different, but still interesting.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I wonder, Bob, if you're disagreement isn't with religion in general? Is that any different than rejecting anyone's concept of god?

Well, I rather enjoy ritual for ritual's sake-- I'm human enough to recognize that there is a certain satisfaction at performing a ritual as it was done 1000's of times previously, by those who came before.

And that part of religion, I had no problem with-- so long as the ritual was recognized as ritual, and there was no pretense that it was a mandated from god thing-- for they had no basis in reality for making such a claim.

I suppose I expect a god to make it's self known, or else not care if it's ignored (for a failure to make known).  And that is my biggest beef with religion (the failure of god(s) to prove they exist).

[Griffin NoName]

.............
I suppose I expect a god to make it's self known, or else not care if it's ignored (for a failure to make known).  And that is my biggest beef with religion (the failure of god(s) to prove they exist).

The religious would not agree that He/She does not make he/erself known.... think of the flowers and bees and other miracles. 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

.............
I suppose I expect a god to make it's self known, or else not care if it's ignored (for a failure to make known).  And that is my biggest beef with religion (the failure of god(s) to prove they exist).

The religious would not agree that He/She does not make he/erself known.... think of the flowers and bees and other miracles. 

They have such low standards for a creator to jump over... I expect actual godly things from ... an actual...  god.

[Opsa]

But why would something as huje as a god jump through a hoop to try to prove itself to little us?

Does god have to be manipulated in order to exist?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

That is a two way avenue, if he is that big to care for us insignificant beings, why should we care about him/her/it?

[Aggie]

The same reason humans care for anything, practically speaking... personal benefit.

I don't exclude loving your family, helping those in need and being kind to your friends from the realm of things that are done from personal gain; it's just that they're win-win instead of win-lose.  Acts like these, I suspect, are quite enough to bring the kind of satisfaction and meaning to one's life that some people (including myself) look to 'god' for.

Actually, being able to consistently act to my highest standards of what I think a human being should be is why I'm so god-focused.  I honestly don't think I am able to do it on my own.  However, I think it's acting to this kind of a standard is what gets one 'close to god' (again, there's no reason to bring god into this if you don't need it).  It's not a start here -> get there kind of thing...  a compassionate and virtuous life is the goal and the method of 'getting' God (for me) and striving for God is the focus-point that encourages me to live a compassionate and virtuous life.

But then again, I haven't really seen God as a being, you know, like a sentient thing, since I was a little child. I am comfortable with the statement 'God is' but not with the statement 'God exists'.  God doesn't exist, as I understand it, but we are now getting firmly into semantics.  


_{On the third hand, if one cares to follow my 'Best Possible God' line of thinking and throw in a heaping handful of Pratchett's Small Gods theology, maybe it matters to God that we as a species develop a better idea of God than the currently dominant ones.  He sounds pretty cranky, if you believe the majority consensus. It's no fun being cranky all the time, especially when that dratted scientific rationalism has stripped out all the powers of smiting.  What's a god gotta do to get a lightning bolt around here, anyways?}

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

 What's a god gotta do to get a lightning bolt around here, anyways?

It shouldn't be that hard to steer wind currents to create the right amount of cloud ionization. What kind of god can't bump a couple of clouds together?