Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Martinus]

I really think that having Marty on a side invalidates that side.

Troll.

[Neil]

There is no "proof" of God and the afterlife, but there is evidence.  The Bible, prayer, various reported miracles, etc.

Neither the Bible nor prayer are actually evidence, although the miracles certainly would be.

[Martinus]

There is no "proof" of God and the afterlife, but there is evidence.  The Bible, prayer, various reported miracles, etc.

Neither the Bible nor prayer are actually evidence, although the miracles certainly would be.

Yup. Bible and prayer are assertions. It's as much of "evidence" as Matrix is an evidence of my statement about malicious robots.

[Pat]

If you argue from ignorance don't make any positive claims.

The only positive claim I have made is about what I believe.

Do you not care whether what you believe to be true corresponds with that which is true?

Of course I do.   

But if that is important to you, why then believe things to be true when nothing points to them being true? I can understand "God did it" when we knew nothing about the world, and looked for answers, but now that we have scientific explanations for (almost) all the wondrous things we encounter in the world, and we have great secular literature infinitely wiser and more relevant to our lives today than these texts written so long ago, what is the reason? When the world works as we'd expect it to work without a god? I can understand a starving peasant asking himself the meaning of his life and be comforted by knowing that he will go to heaven after death, but nowadays most of us in the western world, at least those participating in this discussion, have pretty good lives that aren't just meaningless suffering. We can waste our time doing stuff we like, such as play games and debate stuff on the internet. And we have the freedom to believe whatever we want to believe in, instead of having to trust and believe an authority (which hasn't always been the case throughout human history). Why anyone would have this freedom and choose to give it away I don't understand.

Among my friends I only have a few religious people (and I'm not sure if they go to church on a regular basis), all the other people I know get by just fine without believing in him. And they're not hyper-rational people in any way, they're just normal people who just so happens hasn't been brought up believing in god.

I just don't share the incredibly misanthropic view of human nature presented by some people in this thread, which more or less amounts to that people can't be trusted to think for themselves. We have heard arguments such as: Without God there is only nihilism. We have also heard arguments of utility: That it is good that the people believe in God.

Well, I disagree. I don't think human beings are bad creatures that have to be made good by religion, who would live meaningless lives if there is no religion to give them meaning.

Indeed, if you believe this, and therefore lie to people, so that people are good for reasons that are not true, and do receive their meaning from things that are not true, then it becomes very easy for them to say "these things are not true, therefore everything is indeed permissible" or "these things are not true, therefore my life does indeed not have meaning". Whereas if you just told them the truth from the beginning they'd do just fine without having to believe these things. (And, as always, if no one point out that the coloured water is placebo, no real cure will ever be found.)

It is true that human history has been full of evil deeds and terrible suffering. Can one not say, then, that the human existance is indeed by nature evil and pointless? But this is where my earlier malthusian argument comes into place. Even if you do not agree with my malthusian explanation, you will have noticed the world around you is no longer as it were, and that there is a big difference between the world you read about in your books and what the world is now.

[dps]

lack of punishment of the jews for the transgressions of the covenants

I'd say that the Jews have been punished plenty.

[Viking]

lack of punishment of the jews for the transgressions of the covenants

I'd say that the Jews have been punished plenty.

The Sodom of Tel Aviv hasn't been destroyed.

[Barrister]

Is there any evidence you could show me?  I dunno - what do you have?  I'll certainly consider it. 

That isn't answering the question.

I don't know how to answer such a hypothetical.  Is there any evidence that could convince me there is no God?  I don't know - is there?  All I can say is that I'll consider any and all evidence.

[Barrister]

Regarding the evidence for god. You say there is evidence, yet you don't present any of it as proof of your faith. You just claim faith. No "this is why I believe". You don't even have a nice non-falsifiable personal experience.

Because, quite frankly, I don't feel like you taking a big wet shit over whatever I might say about a deeply held conviction.

[Barrister]

There is no "proof" of God and the afterlife, but there is evidence.  The Bible, prayer, various reported miracles, etc.

Neither the Bible nor prayer are actually evidence, although the miracles certainly would be.

Of course it's evidence.  It's a book written a short time after the events it describes.  It's better evidence than a lot of other ancient writing, such as, oh, Herodotus, yet we rarely question those ancient histories.

Whether you find it compelling evidence or not is up to you, but the Bible is clearly some of the most important evidence of Jesus that we have,

[Neil]

There is no "proof" of God and the afterlife, but there is evidence.  The Bible, prayer, various reported miracles, etc.

Neither the Bible nor prayer are actually evidence, although the miracles certainly would be.

Of course it's evidence.  It's a book written a short time after the events it describes.  It's better evidence than a lot of other ancient writing, such as, oh, Herodotus, yet we rarely question those ancient histories.

Whether you find it compelling evidence or not is up to you, but the Bible is clearly some of the most important evidence of Jesus that we have,

Evidence of Jesus and evidence of gods or afterlives are entirely different things.

Herodotus makes less reference to the supernatural, and is thus superior.

[Viking]

Because, quite frankly, I don't feel like you taking a big wet shit over whatever I might say about a deeply held conviction.

Welcome to languish

[The Minsky Moment]

Interesting. Maybe you're right. It is true that this is a minority viewpoint, but it is also true that a majority of Islam research in the west receives funding from the arab world. There are also many other reasons of human psychology one can imagine would, for an Islamic scholar, discourage critical inquiry into the history of early Islam.

I'll suspend judgement until I have done some more reading on the subject.

What would be a more fruitful area of inquiry is looking into the authenticity of individual traditions about Muhammad.
The likelihood that he was entirely a ficticious person is slim; but the likelihood that his true life and deeds are not exactly as tradition claims is far greater.  Indeed, the very reason scholars started writing down hadith in the first place was from a recognition that questionable material had found its way into the oral accounts.

[Valmy]

It's better evidence than a lot of other ancient writing, such as, oh, Herodotus, yet we rarely question those ancient histories.

....we don't?

[The Minsky Moment]

As for this, from a while back: You only call it a deliberate scam because it was invented recently enough for there to be evidence it was invented. Had it been invented a long time ago you'd be talking about how we need to respect scientology because a lot of people believe in it.

Scientology is bunk but L. Ron Hubbard was a real person.  Similarly Joseph Smith and Brigham Young actually existed.

[The Minsky Moment]

I wouldn't go and ascribe value to the various sources of western thought. Levantine Religion, Greek Philosophy and Roman Law are all fundamental contributors to western thought. We don't get our philosophy without all three.

Hence I would ascribe value to all three.