My Forbidden Fruit Challenge

[Moral Orel]

Anyone else remember the Jeopardy scene in White Men Can't Jump that has Rosie Perez identifying the "quince" as the fruit in the garden?

Behold! The fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil!

​

 

[keith99]

Does it say it was an apple?

Nope. But it might have been. The only thing we are sure of is it was not a Southern Watermelon. We know this because Eve repented of her act.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think the Apostles were the best example. If one was simply asked to accept a belief, it should prove easy to abandon under threat. After all, when Christ was arrested, they scattered for the most part. Peter denied him in fear of being associated with Christ.

But see, that's the point I bring up. There was no evidence that anyone was coming to hurt the Jim Jones cult, but they believed it strongly enough anyways that in the face of death they chose death.

But if you stand afar off and wait and ask for someone to "prove" things to you, then I'm not really sure how to respond. What proof is ever enough? If someone were to perform something miraculous in front of a skeptical observer, that person could claim sleight of hand, technology, hallucination, or who knows what.

I've asked God to make Himself real to me. He never answered. As far as what proof is enough, sure, a card trick isn't going to cut it. But it's easy enough to imagine things that aren't possible by any natural means we could come close to explaining. Even if it could only be proved that there was a being massively more powerful and intelligent than us, that would be something, and definitely a step in the right direction. I've never understood why God hides so well instead of being out in the open for everyone to see. That's a whole other thread though.

But no one was ever really convinced by proof. Having witnessed miracles wasn't enough to keep the Apostles from abandoning or denying Christ in the face of His arrest and trial. It wasn't enough to convince to religious Jewish leaders who opposed Him.

Thomas was convinced by proof. And if Jesus appeared in my living room right now with that same evidence, I would be a believer too. I don't think there are many who honestly wouldn't either.

 

[keith99]

There are lots of differences, and I agree with the ones you've listed. But the core of what gives people the power to accept martyrdom, as opposed to it being inflicted on unwilling participants, is belief.

Christians believed it was okay to be martyred because they aren't tethered to this world, the Jim Jones cult believed they should be fearful of remaining alive, the Heaven's Gate cult believed they would be happier in the afterlife (which is still kind of part of the Christian belief system), and jihadists believe they should be angry and violent, and again, that they will receive a blessed afterlife.

Whether those beliefs are positive or negative, I don't see as being relevant. The point is that the beliefs are unfounded and unsupported by evidence.

There was no evidence that the government was coming to torture the Jim Jones cult other than Jim Jones' claims. There was no evidence aliens were going to pick up the Heaven's Gate cult if they killed themselves other than their leader's claims. There is no evidence that jihadists will receive a pleasant afterlife for doing their evil deeds other than their leaders' claims (I'm not even sure that "64 virgins" thing is in the Quran).

It is their beliefs, right or wrong, good or bad, that give them the motivation and personal fortitude to martyr themselves or to allow themselves to be martyred. Whether a religion is built on fear or love doesn't matter when it comes to motivating people to do something drastic.

It seems the 72 Virgins are NOT from the Quran but rather from the Hadith. If we say the Quran corresponds to the Bible then then Hadith would roughly be the sayings of Church Fathers (Literally it is reports of things The Prophet said or did).

That it is not at all clear becomes obvious when it gets reported as 40, 64 or 72 and then the characteristics of said virgins vary widely (and perhaps are mutually exclusive on some points).

But is it any surprise? We know Christian preachers are often at the least careless with regards to Scripture and at the worst flat out lie regarding it. Should we expect so much more from Islam?

 

[Moral Orel]

Did scientists at one time think it was true that Nebraska man was our ancestor?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that Pluto was our 9th planet?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that Thalidomide was a prenatal wonder drug?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that it was safe to party aboard the Deepwater Horizon?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that we were going to run out of food by 2050?

Do scientists think it is true that Genesis 1 is a myth?

Do scientists think it is true that the Jews were never in Egypt?

Do scientists think it is true that Jesus was an ape?

Do scientists think it is true that there is no such thing as original sin?

Do scientists think it is true that the Bible teaches geocentrism?

Do scientists think it is true that the early Jews were ignorant bronze age goat herding desert nomads?

Do scientists think it is true that the Jews invaded an area they called "the Promised Land" and committed genocide?

Do scientists think it is true that a person martyred for writing one of the books of the Bible is just as honorable as a Muslim who hijacks an airliner and flies it into a skyscraper?

Do scientists think it is true that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never existed?

Do scientists think it is true that the Gospels are fiction because they were written after the fact?

Do scientists think it is true that verbal plenary inspiration is a made-up doctrine by those who are desperate to believe in the authenticity of the Bible?

Do scientists think it is true that it took 186,000 years for the first light of SN1987A to reach us?

Do scientists think it is true that U283 decays one atom at a time, as opposed to all at once, like an ice cube?

Do scientists think it is true that O HOLY NIGHT carries just as much evidentiary weight as O NANHE SE FARISHTE?

Do scientists believe it is true that the Bhagavad-Gita has as much authority as the Bible?

Do scientists believe it is true that a "child in the womb" is a misnomer?

Do scientists believe it is true that prayer is ineffectual?

Do scientists believe it is true that a search for intelligent life in the universe with radiotelescopes is a viable endeavor; while the belief in angels is a sign of mental problems?

Do scientists believe it is true that the Bible teaches a flat Earth?

Do scientists believe it is true that the Bible teaches the Earth is locked in space (immoveable)?

Do scientists believe it is true that the Jews used bronze, instead of brass?

Do scientists believe it is true that the NIV is more accurate than the KJV?

Do scientists believe that it is true that correcting their mistakes is taking something that is right and making it more right; while Christians run on the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY?

Do scientists believe it is true that a Christian who questions their work has no right to use a computer?

Do scientists believe it is true that a person who doesn't believe in evolution is a hypocrite if he goes to the doctor?

Do scientists believe it is true that ...

I bet there isn't a crow within twenty miles of this post.

 

[Moral Orel]

That it is not at all clear becomes obvious when it gets reported as 40, 64 or 72 and then the characteristics of said virgins vary widely (and perhaps are mutually exclusive on some points).

I heard that all the virgins are male Trekkies. That's why they have so many of them to give out.

 

[keith99]

I heard that all the virgins are male Trekkies. That's why they have so many of them to give out.

I believe the politically correct term is Trekkers!

 

[CrystalDragon]

I believe the politically correct term is Trekkers!

I use Trekkie to describe myself personally, never was fond of Trekker tbh.

 

[keith99]

I use Trekkie to describe myself personally, never was fond of Trekker tbh.

Well some Trekkies are secure and some are not.

I prefer written SF over film or TV. But then what do I know, I'm only an egg.

 

[Kylie]

Well if Genesis 1 is an allegory, I'd like to know what this tree represents if not science.

Maybe God wanted to keep us uninformed and ignorant, the better to keep us obedient. It's been used plenty of times - if you want to keep people under your control, limit their access to information.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe God wanted to keep us uninformed and ignorant,

Of what?

 

[Kylie]

Of what?

Knowledge of good and evil.

Come on, I thought you knew the Bible...

 

[David_M]

What's the difference? They believed in something so strongly that they not only died for it, they killed their own children for it. Seems like a show of greater faith than simply dying yourself. Martyrdom is evidence that strongly held beliefs can push you to do drastic things. It isn't evidence that you have good evidence to have such strongly held beliefs. Jonestown isn't even the only suicide cult.

Lets face it, Martyrdom is not unique to Christians, happens in Buddhism etc. So it can't be used as any argument for the truth value of any one religion, its just a simple fact that humans are willing to die for their beliefs and that includes ideologies other than religion.

 

[David_M]

Why? so you can deny it out of hand?

Here you go:

The Bible, martyrs, churches, holidays, time divided into BC/AD, churches and other edifices, hymns, carols and other songs, bumper stickers, slogans, organizations, debates, testimonies and anecdotes, symbols (is there one on your flag?) and other iconography.

Well done, you have just established that Christianity has no greater claim to validity that Islam, Judaism or Hinduism (just to go with the largest of today's religions).

And it is not evidence of the existence of any God, as I suspect you well realise, its evidence of the existence of opinion and belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well done, you have just established that Christianity has no greater claim to validity that Islam, Judaism or Hinduism (just to go with the largest of today's religions).

Well done, you have just thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[David_M]

Did scientists at one time think it was true that Nebraska man was our ancestor?

No the consenus view of scientists in the field was always that it wasn't.

As a general point it needs saying that the term "scientist" is so broad as to be meaningless. If its way out of someones field then someone's answer on a scientific subject might be "I don't know".

Did scientists at one time think it was true that Pluto was our 9th planet?

It was the 9th known planet at one time according to the definition of the word "planet". That definition changed so now its classified as a dwarf planet.

Thats just the facts.

Did scientists at one time think it was true that Thalidomide was a prenatal wonder drug?

No they didn't and I'm sure that you have been told the facts about this before. It was and remains and effective anti-nausea drug (among other uses) the company that marketed it just didn't know it was unsafe for pregnant women as there was no requirement to specifically test for that scenario at the time. You do realise that Thalidomide is still used and is still very effective?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that it was safe to party aboard the Deepwater Horizon?

What? This makes no sense. You should be asking about engineers and oil-rig workers. And possibly cost-cutting executives.

Did scientists at one time think it was true that we were going to run out of food by 2050?

No. You once again fail to comprehend the difference between facts, hypothesis and theories and that science uses parameters to make determinations.

At a pretty basic level what those scientists are saying is that if population growth stays the same but food production only rises at the current rate then by 2050 many millions of people will go hungry and be at risk of starvation (out of the projected 9.2 billion population).

Its a stunning claim isn't it, that more people means more food is needed and that if food production can't keep up with growing demand then people will go hungry. How could those crazy scientists believe such things?

Do scientists think it is true that Genesis 1 is a myth?

Some do, some don't.

Do scientists think it is true that the Jews were never in Egypt?

See above. But a silly question as its not asking anything specific.

Do scientists think it is true that Jesus was an ape?

Some do, some don't.

In fact that is the answer to most of the rest of your "questions" that are specifically about a scientific subject so I will only address some of the most ridiculous.

For the majority of general ones the correct answer in most cases is "Some People do and somed on't, and all sorts of people are on both side, atheists, Christians, Muslims etc).

Do scientists think it is true that it took 186,000 years for the first light of SN1987A to reach us?

Thats how long it does take (approximately) and the reason we know that is pretty simple maths.

Do scientists think it is true that U283 decays one atom at a time, as opposed to all at once, like an ice cube?

Do you still fail to comprehend half lives? Sad.

Well, yes Uranium does decay one atom that is just a simple fact but of course if you have a large sample you get a lot of atoms decaying individually. Just as its also a simple fact that an ice cube does not melt all at once its melts over time.

Do scientists believe it is true that prayer is ineffectual?

Some do and some don't. But feel free to provide some solid evidence that it is effective (beyond offering comfort).

 

[AV1611VET]

No the consenus view of scientists in the field was always that it wasn't.

Even though he had his own place in Linnaeus' tree (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii)?

It was the 9th known planet at one time according to the definition of the word "planet".

In other words: YES?

That definition changed so now its classified as a dwarf planet.

QV please: Pluto

And possibly cost-cutting executives.

Not one cost-cutting executive was a scientist?

Right ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

Some do and some don't.
...
Some do and some don't.
...
Some do and some don't.

You'd make a good PR man.

 

[Kylie]

Well done, you have just thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

No he hasn't.

He's shown that the very things that you think show that Christianity is real can be found in many other religions. ANd yet you think they are only support for a religion if that religion is yours.

In other words, you are cherry picking.

Naughty boy, stop it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I just read this in another thread:
How many of you theistic evolutionists agree with this?

Not a theistic evolutionist, but it makes sense... Religion, as a tool of social control, needs ignorance to flourish; God of the gaps, and all that. Science is a threat to the status quo.

 

[super animator]

Not a theistic evolutionist, but it makes sense... Religion, as a tool of social control, needs ignorance to flourish; God of the gaps, and all that. Science is a threat to the status quo.

And when religion is insufficient use ideology.