can you proove there isn't a deity?

[AmbiguousGuy]

I had a university professor (anthropology) who lived there for many years.
That was one of the most interesting classes I've ever taken. Oh, the stories he told!

According to him, his "adopted" father was a witch on trial for murder, much like what you've described here. I wish I could better remember the details, as it was completely fascinating.

If you haven't read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, you should. Everyone should. One of the best, most-enlightening books I've encountered.

Diamond's anecdotes from New Guinea were great.

 

[Ingledsva]

What women has authored a single bookin the bible?

Actually there has been speculation that at least one book in the "accepted" Bible was written by a woman.

However, you have to remember that it is collected texts, by a patriarchal group. They destroyed what they didn't like, or want in it.



*

 

[outhouse]

Actually there has been speculation that at least one book in the "accepted" Bible was written by a woman.

However, you have to remember that it is collected texts, by a patriarchal group. They destroyed what they didn't like, or want in it.



*

Well understood.


I dont think a single book canonized can be attributed.

On the other side of the coin, in early christianity women played a very import role suppressed by churches. before churches when it was practiced in the home "pater familias" women would have played a significant role in christianities origins

 

[Sonofason]

well because this is about proving there is no deity (or god if you will), not to assure people there might be a deity or god. :bow:

Well then you are wasting your time. The existence of God cannot be disproved.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well then you are wasting your time. The existence of God cannot be disproved.

I reckon we agree on this!! :yes:

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I reckon we agree on this!! :yes:

I do as well. The concept of a deity can neither be proven nor disproven, because it is untestable. Both sides are simply theories, and until we find a way to test the existence of a deity through experimentation, both sides will remain theories. But with that being said. I do not agree with those who ascribe man-made dogmatism and superstition to said deity.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hey bud...(1Robin)
I know we have vastly different views on the world, but I've generally enjoyed our debates in any case. We're talking completely past each other here though. I'll try and rehash the broad concepts I'm talking about. If you have the time and inclination to re-read my PNG threads based on this, it would be great. If not, I understand. Suffice to say I'm not trying to infer much about Christianity specifically AT ALL. Just belief in a more general sense.

1) I underestimated the population. It's up around 7 million, now. Numbers of Christians sits at roughly 6.6 million. If you discount people who claim dual religions, and make them choose a single primary religion, it drops to around 6 million. Not massively important, just a clarification. It's overwhelmingly Christian.

2) Sorcery killings are a problem. But sorcery related beliefs actually ARE the norm. The following is an interesting articles, for it's own sake;

Despite Legal Moves, PNG’s Terrifying Witchcraft Killings Look Set to Continue | TIME.com

3) My point is that belief perpetuates belief. In that, I think, we agree, based on your comment that 'belief dies hard'.

4) I am ABSOLUTELY NOT claiming that Christians believe in witchcraft, or whatever else. I'm not even trying to draw parallels between belief in the supernatural. To my mind, it's a value-laden argument, and would be a separate topic anyway. I would make the point, though, that the sophistication of belief has increased over time. Christianity is a more sophisticated belief system than sanguma (PNG witchcraft), for example. And Christian belief today is more sophisticated than Christian belief at the turn of the first Millennium, in my opinion. Not sure how you see that.

5) PNG people claiming supernatural experiences are not the least bit compelling to me. There are certain Christian claims which are of more interest, mainly due to the larger scale and less easily explainable nature to them.

However, the point I am trying to make is that the experience of any individual on the planet is largely explained by them via the focus of their pre-existing belief structure. For me, PNG is an accessible and sizeable experiment in this hypothesis.

Further, belief begats belief. There is a critical mass required for belief to be considered normal. In PNG, a person is more likely to be born, and believe in both sanguma and the divine nature of Jesus Christ more than anywhere else on the planet, despite these beliefs being completely contradictory, as this is, in fact, the norm.

And finally, where a belief is held, experiences supporting that belief will follow. A nation of Christians will experience Jesus/Mary/God. A nation of Islamists won't.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I had a university professor (anthropology) who lived there for many years.
That was one of the most interesting classes I've ever taken. Oh, the stories he told!

Yeah. One of the things I'm really thankful for is that my girlfriend of the time (wife now) managed to come up for 3 weeks in the middle of my time there. Everyone finds my stories from there interesting, but I think she's the one that knows, absolutely, that I'm not exaggerating. If anything, I find myself glossing over things to make the stories more believable in some cases...lol

According to him, his "adopted" father was a witch on trial for murder, much like what you've described here. I wish I could better remember the details, as it was completely fascinating.

Yep. Witchcraft itself is a crime currently under review. The whole reason I went there was how unique it was. Was offered jobs in London, Kenya and PNG out of Uni, and chose PNG since it was closer to home, paid better, and was probably the most unique. Never regretted the decision, but spent the time equal parts fascinated, scared and incredulous.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well then you are wasting your time. The existence of God cannot be disproved.

Well, it can, or inasmuch as any matter of fact can be "proved" or "disproved" (given that proof generally pertains to a formal system, as in mathematics or logic)... Belief in God, however, is generally a belief which carries a significant emotional attachment, is often held without/despite evidence, and is occasionally even praised if it can be held in the face of contradicting evidence (e.g. Paul, Tertullian, etc.)- so just because it can be shown that theism is false doesn't mean many theists are likely to recognize or accept this. Belief in God is often like belief in the fundamental goodness of a loved one- one can be faced with fairly incontrovertible evidence that a loved one committed a heinous crime, and nevertheless maintain one's faith in the loved one's innocence, just as many theists can look compelling evidence or arguments for the falsity/incoherence of theism in the face and nevertheless maintain their religious beliefs.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well then you are wasting your time. The existence of God cannot be disproved.

Anything can be proven, and nothing can be proven... depending on whether 'to prove' requires an indirect object.

AmbigGuy can disprove God.

But AmbigGuy cannot disprove God to Sonofason.

 

[1robin]

Actually there has been speculation that at least one book in the "accepted" Bible was written by a woman.

However, you have to remember that it is collected texts, by a patriarchal group. They destroyed what they didn't like, or want in it.



*

I am using your post to make the comment. It applies to more than yours. What does the sex of the Bible's authors have to do with anything?

 

[1robin]

Actually they did, and still do, mistreat Indians and people of "color." Alaskan Indians were also mistreated in the same way.

I am an Indian (Cherokee). There were enough atrocities on both sides of Americas colonization to fill books. I do argue more of it was against whites than against Indians, but that is certainly debatable. However most of the advancement and improvement was European. The Alaskan's have rights to things that most American citizens do not. Whatever wrongs they suffered have been more than compensated for by America at large.

They seized children from villages, and put them in government/Christian run schools, where they were forced to give up their native names and go by "Christian" names, were forced to go to Christian church, and were beaten if they kept anything considered "pagan." Those beatings included anyone speaking their native language.

Let me ask you something. Let's pretend there is no God and they were wasting their time in those schools as far as theology goes. Being that they were given an education they would not have had, had access to learning, medicine, economic prosperity, etc... that they would not have had. What exactly is the bog problem here? Even if a child is forcibly removed from ignorance he is still enlightened. Are you claiming that primitive beliefs even if they produce far more misery, suffering, ignorance, and poverty have some sacred right to never be trespassed upon. I have never understood why a culture would fight a far more advanced one to the point of death to save ignorance and backwardness. I actually do understand it, but it is not an honorable or rational dichotomy and not one that should be defended. I am speaking in general here. I am sure that many bad things were done to the Alaskans by Christians, but as reality shows they general are far better off in general.

Just three years ago I personally heard a Christian telling a woman from the local Tlingit Tribe, that they should gather their totems, rattles, and dancing masks, etc, and burn them because they were evil and of the devil.

If Christianity is true that is exactly what should be done. The only issue is whether it is true, not whether if true that would be unjustified. Trying to save people from the most horrible fate possible is noble if true. It is diabolical if false. IOW the issue is always is it true not what should be done if true. Should I not tell savages to get polio shots, to stop cutting each others hearts out, to study math and science instead of shamanistic practices? I would start to question anything directly forced but a suggestion hurts no one and may help many.

There is actually a move up here to take back Alaska from the US Government because of illegal things done to seize it and to make it a state. They actually stopped natives from voting on statehood, because they knew there would be more of them voting against, then outsiders voting for.

Good luck.

You know the Victor/History clause. Much fudged history. Even after the Windtalkers movie, most people don't know that there were Alaska native Windtalkers. Or that "No enemy landed on American soil." They landed here in Alaska up in the islands, and natives up there fought them. A lot of people died up there.

Do you mean that the victors write the history? The only meaningful battles in that area were at the extreme west end of the Aleutian islands and it was fought by American regular army soldiers. To what are you referring to? One of the most interesting shows I have seen lately was the Alaskan salmon wars. I would never have guessed there were salmon pirates before watching it. I know about the windtalkers but do not know the purpose for which you mentioned them. All societies have good events they participated in. Even Hitler's Germany had many good points. ( I am not suggesting Alaskans have bad points equivalent to Nazism). I am saying while they may have suffered at times for the Christian (actually it would more accurately be European) occupation. In the long run they are far better off because of it. My tribe was one of the few that did no significant wrongs and were the most mistreated without cause yet we are better off in general. It is a complex issue. The most famous Indian/European conflicts were against the horse tribes of the Midwest. None of them had any claim to any land. They came from Alaska through Canada and killed all the peaceful Indian tribes that actually had the land and took it. The Sioux are probably the most famous. They then got mad when another culture showed up who do the same thing but was better at it. That is hypocrisy at it's finest, and no Sioux offered any tribe millions for the land. They killed the tribes off and took it without any debate or offer.


In summary:
1. The Europeans did many wrongs against natives in N America.
2. The natives in N America however are far better off for those events even including the wrongs they suffered.
3. I do not know about Alaska but in the lower 48 it is my conclusion far more wrongs were done to whites than by whites. The whites were just more capable at war and so probably killed more in numbers.
4. War is the sum of all evils but it is a terrible defense to suggest very ignorant and backwards ways are universally justifiable in themselves. The Aztecs were not right because they believed they were. Cultures do not have immunity for their culture. Ignorance is not good even if it comes clothed in sacred language. I hate wrong and love right even if it is a Christian who was wrong and the Inca who was right.

I'm not talking anything supernatural. This is my Grandmother's simplified version on how to go through life.

For the statement to be meaningful then the supernatural must be acknowledged. You can't logically believe that the statement is meaningful and there exists no transcendent source for what it claims. Like I said if you have no God your claims might be right but are right by accident and do not have an explanation for their being right.

 

[1robin]

Hey bud...(1Robin)
I know we have vastly different views on the world, but I've generally enjoyed our debates in any case. We're talking completely past each other here though. I'll try and rehash the broad concepts I'm talking about. If you have the time and inclination to re-read my PNG threads based on this, it would be great. If not, I understand. Suffice to say I'm not trying to infer much about Christianity specifically AT ALL. Just belief in a more general sense.

Hello Lewis. I have to run a lab and debate Cortez, European expansionism, and moral foundations all at the same time so I do not know if I can get to that thread or not. I am willing to grant that you are telling the truth about what you have access to. I will grant that in PNG there are 2 million approx. Christians and you may personally know a few hundred (to be generous), that claim both Biblical supernatural experience and non-biblical supernatural experiences. MY point was that a few hundred people in an area where ignorance and primitive superstitions abound this is exactly what I would expect. It does not have any effect on the credibility of billions of Christians who make Biblical supernatural claims exclusively. There will be a small fringe group that will adopt any belief and make any claim. Nothing new or meaningful there. When 1/3 of the Earths population claim the same thing then things get very serious.

1) I underestimated the population. It's up around 7 million, now. Numbers of Christians sits at roughly 6.6 million. If you discount people who claim dual religions, and make them choose a single primary religion, it drops to around 6 million. Not massively important, just a clarification. It's overwhelmingly Christian.

The general percentage of Christians to population is 1 in 3. That would put the Christian population at approx. 3 million. I will grant that outright. The relevant issue is how many you know personally that make supernatural claims of two self contradictory types. That number can't be more than a few hundred at best. It would take numbers in the tens millions to have any effect, however.

2) Sorcery killings are a problem. But sorcery related beliefs actually ARE the norm. The following is an interesting articles, for it's own sake;

Despite Legal Moves, PNG’s Terrifying Witchcraft Killings Look Set to Continue | TIME.com

I can agree that that is bad, unchristian, and should be terminated. I can't grant that has any impact on the veracity of Christianity as a whole.

3) My point is that belief perpetuates belief. In that, I think, we agree, based on your comment that 'belief dies hard'.

That is not a function of theology. It is a function of applying sacred labels and importance to ignorant superstitions. You cannot extrapolate from a slight exception to an overwhelming rule. I can grant whatever you sincerely claim as true and it has no impact on what I claimed. This is also a fallacy. Even if 99% of beliefs were known to be wrong that has no effect on the 100th claim. Each must be evaluated independently.

4) I am ABSOLUTELY NOT claiming that Christians believe in witchcraft, or whatever else. I'm not even trying to draw parallels between belief in the supernatural. To my mind, it's a value-laden argument, and would be a separate topic anyway. I would make the point, though, that the sophistication of belief has increased over time. Christianity is a more sophisticated belief system than sanguma (PNG witchcraft), for example. And Christian belief today is more sophisticated than Christian belief at the turn of the first Millennium, in my opinion. Not sure how you see that.

I agree with the first half. You are right Christianity is a sophisticated belief. It is the most sophisticated and complex theological proposition in human history. It has been so for 3800 years. 2000 for it's own doctrines and 1800 for Judaism's. I do not understand the relevance in our context however.

5) PNG people claiming supernatural experiences are not the least bit compelling to me. There are certain Christian claims which are of more interest, mainly due to the larger scale and less easily explainable nature to them.

That is my point. 1% of a specific population that claims X has been experienced is not meaningful. 35% of the total population that claims y has been experienced is very meaningful. This was my entire point.

However, the point I am trying to make is that the experience of any individual on the planet is largely explained by them via the focus of their pre-existing belief structure. For me, PNG is an accessible and sizeable experiment in this hypothesis.

They can be, but many tikes they are not. For instance no one in Israel had any expectation of a dyeing and arising messiah. That took even the apostles by surprise. They adopted beliefs their doctrines contradicted. This is in a way hostile testimony and is far more reliable than what you describe (advantageous or sympathetic testimony). Christianity is full of beliefs the people who had them were hostile to before they were experienced (myself included).

Further, belief begats belief. There is a critical mass required for belief to be considered normal. In PNG, a person is more likely to be born, and believe in both sanguma and the divine nature of Jesus Christ more than anywhere else on the planet, despite these beliefs being completely contradictory, as this is, in fact, the norm.

I will make it even more prevalent. I think life begets belief. That does not prove that all beliefs are wrong. This is a genetic fallacy.

And finally, where a belief is held, experiences supporting that belief will follow. A nation of Christians will experience Jesus/Mary/God. A nation of Islamists won't.

Christianity is full of experiences that contradicted belief. I will agree that wishful thinking is certainly a factor even in Christianity but Christianity more than any other posits beliefs that are inconvenient, not desired, and not expected. I can really expand on this if you wish.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you haven't read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, you should. Everyone should. One of the best, most-enlightening books I've encountered.

Diamond's anecdotes from New Guinea were great.

That was one of our prescribed readings for that class. It was a while back though, and I'm probably due to read through it again. Great book!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That was one of our prescribed readings for that class. It was a while back though, and I'm probably due to read through it again. Great book!

When I started it, I assumed that I didn't have any really large stuff to learn about the development of modern civilization, but I was wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah. One of the things I'm really thankful for is that my girlfriend of the time (wife now) managed to come up for 3 weeks in the middle of my time there. Everyone finds my stories from there interesting, but I think she's the one that knows, absolutely, that I'm not exaggerating. If anything, I find myself glossing over things to make the stories more believable in some cases...lol

LOL I can see that for sure!

The first thing our professor said to us on the first day of class was something like: "My adopted father is a witch doctor on trial for putting a hex on a child that resulted in her death as an adult. If he is found guilty he will be burned alive."
And then all our jaws dropped to the floor.

Yep. Witchcraft itself is a crime currently under review. The whole reason I went there was how unique it was. Was offered jobs in London, Kenya and PNG out of Uni, and chose PNG since it was closer to home, paid better, and was probably the most unique. Never regretted the decision, but spent the time equal parts fascinated, scared and incredulous.

It just blows my mind that this kind of thing is going on in this day and age. It’s utterly fascinating and I have to say, rather creepy. I have no doubt that living there would have been rather scary. I mean, what do you do if someone accuses you of witchcraft?!

Good choice though. London seems like a bore next to Papua New Guinea.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When I started it, I assumed that I didn't have any really large stuff to learn about the development of modern civilization, but I was wrong.

LOL I made the same assumption and was swiftly proven wrong.

Now you've got me all excited about reading it again!

 

[Ingledsva]

Actually there has been speculation that at least one book in the "accepted" Bible was written by a woman.

However, you have to remember that it is collected texts, by a patriarchal group. They destroyed what they didn't like, or want in it.

I am using your post to make the comment. It applies to more than yours. What does the sex of the Bible's authors have to do with anything?

First - I was answering a post.


However - to answer you - the books were chosen by patriarchal men. And are therefore not even necessarily the correct of the choices. They had a bias.


And of course women have been treated like crap for thousands of years because of patriarchal ideas, religious, or otherwise.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

WOW! You all need to read this one.!

Actually they did, and still do, mistreat Indians and people of "color." Alaskan Indians were also mistreated in the same way.

I am an Indian (Cherokee). There were enough atrocities on both sides of Americas colonization to fill books. I do argue more of it was against whites than against Indians, but that is certainly debatable. However most of the advancement and improvement was European. The Alaskan's have rights to things that most American citizens do not. Whatever wrongs they suffered have been more than compensated for by America at large.

Wow! Just Wow! I can't believe you said that. The reality is that the indigenous people had every right to try and save their culture, and land, and to fight off the invaders.


Which Alaska rights are you referring to?

They seized children from villages, and put them in government/Christian run schools, where they were forced to give up their native names and go by "Christian" names, were forced to go to Christian church, and were beaten if they kept anything considered "pagan." Those beatings included anyone speaking their native language.

Let me ask you something. Let's pretend there is no God and they were wasting their time in those schools as far as theology goes. Being that they were given an education they would not have had, had access to learning, medicine, economic prosperity, etc... that they would not have had. What exactly is the bog problem here? Even if a child is forcibly removed from ignorance he is still enlightened. Are you claiming that primitive beliefs even if they produce far more misery, suffering, ignorance, and poverty have some sacred right to never be trespassed upon. I have never understood why a culture would fight a far more advanced one to the point of death to save ignorance and backwardness. I actually do understand it, but it is not an honorable or rational dichotomy and not one that should be defended. I am speaking in general here. I am sure that many bad things were done to the Alaskans by Christians, but as reality shows they general are far better off in general.

The idea that killing people and stealing their children, and land, is necessary to advancement - is absolutely ridiculous, and horrendous.

Just three years ago I personally heard a Christian telling a woman from the local Tlingit Tribe, that they should gather their totems, rattles, and dancing masks, etc, and burn them because they were evil and of the devil.

If Christianity is true that is exactly what should be done. The only issue is whether it is true, not whether if true that would be unjustified. Trying to save people from the most horrible fate possible is noble if true. It is diabolical if false. IOW the issue is always is it true not what should be done if true. Should I not tell savages to get polio shots, to stop cutting each others hearts out, to study math and science instead of shamanistic practices? I would start to question anything directly forced but a suggestion hurts no one and may help many.

Good luck.

They were not savages. And there is nothing that makes it OK for Christians or others to take away a people's culture, or murder the people, and take their children, and land.

Totem poles and masks are not evil. That idea is just stupid. Totems are story poles. For instance there is one in Sitka with Abraham Lincoln in his top hat, carved on top. They carved him into the story when told about him freeing slaves.

However, other people's religions are NOT EVIL!

I get quite a kick out of the irony of people saying they are stopping "savages" from things like "cutting hearts out," - when they are using their own "godly" savagery of torture, rape, and murder.

Also - Shamanistic practices - led us to medicine and science.

You know the Victor/History clause. Much fudged history. Even after the Windtalkers movie, most people don't know that there were Alaska native Windtalkers. Or that "No enemy landed on American soil." They landed here in Alaska up in the islands, and natives up there fought them. A lot of people died up there.

Do you mean that the victors write the history? The only meaningful battles in that area were at the extreme west end of the Aleutian islands and it was fought by American regular army soldiers. To what are you referring to? One of the most interesting shows I have seen lately was the Alaskan salmon wars. I would never have guessed there were salmon pirates before watching it. I know about the windtalkers but do not know the purpose for which you mentioned them. All societies have good events they participated in. Even Hitler's Germany had many good points. ( I am not suggesting Alaskans have bad points equivalent to Nazism). I am saying while they may have suffered at times for the Christian (actually it would more accurately be European) occupation. In the long run they are far better off because of it. My tribe was one of the few that did no significant wrongs and were the most mistreated without cause yet we are better off in general. It is a complex issue. The most famous Indian/European conflicts were against the horse tribes of the Midwest. None of them had any claim to any land. They came from Alaska through Canada and killed all the peaceful Indian tribes that actually had the land and took it. The Sioux are probably the most famous. They then got mad when another culture showed up who do the same thing but was better at it. That is hypocrisy at it's finest, and no Sioux offered any tribe millions for the land. They killed the tribes off and took it without any debate or offer.

I mean exactly what I said. The victors always fudge history to make themselves look better.

Alaska natives did fight the Japanese up there.


To imply that tribes fighting with other tribes, is somehow different then the European tribes fighting with each other, - and that this somehow makes it OK to slaughter them, and take their land, and force the Christian religion on them, is just wrong.

In summary:
1. The Europeans did many wrongs against natives in N America.
2. The natives in N America however are far better off for those events even including the wrongs they suffered.

That is a matter of opinion. indigenous Tribes have never really recovered. They have been, and continue to be, mistreated and made second class citizens; and now many drown their problems with alcohol and drugs.

3. I do not know about Alaska but in the lower 48 it is my conclusion far more wrongs were done to whites than by whites. The whites were just more capable at war and so probably killed more in numbers.


MY! MY! MY!

4. War is the sum of all evils but it is a terrible defense to suggest very ignorant and backwards ways are universally justifiable in themselves. The Aztecs were not right because they believed they were. Cultures do not have immunity for their culture. Ignorance is not good even if it comes clothed in sacred language. I hate wrong and love right even if it is a Christian who was wrong and the Inca who was right.

I'm not talking anything supernatural. This is my Grandmother's simplified version on how to go through life.

For the statement to be meaningful then the supernatural must be acknowledged. You can't logically believe that the statement is meaningful and there exists no transcendent source for what it claims. Like I said if you have no God your claims might be right but are right by accident and do not have an explanation for their being right.

Dude, - YOU are the one that believes in invisible Gods and magic, - not me.


She was talking about normal human interaction.

If you do good, people will notice, they will be drawn to you, and they will in turn help you when needed.

Do bad, and they will also see this, and avoid you unless bad themselves. And when you need help - your actions will bite you in the butt, by none coming to your aid, or the police nabbing your butt.

No magic.

She also said, "Birds of a feather flock together."

And she didn't mean magical flying.


*

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It just blows my mind that this kind of thing is going on in this day and age. It’s utterly fascinating and I have to say, rather creepy. I have no doubt that living there would have been rather scary. I mean, what do you do if someone accuses you of witchcraft?!

It was scary at times, and I had a few incidents which were more than merely scary, but I wasn't too scared of being accused of witchcraft. Being a man, and being white meant I was pretty much immune to that. I had a slight concern over being an atheist, more than anything else.
But in truth it was simple, plain old armed robbery that was the biggest threat.

And I got to do some seriously cool stuff up there too. The fishing, and the wreck diving alone were amazing. Hunting was good too. I'm not a hunter, but during tornado season we were cutoff from any shops, and so literally lived on rice and canned meat (mackerel and bully beef). So finding stuff to supliment that with was very important.