Religous debates and questions

Carly Castle wrote:"... to quote Weezer." it is a dummy pronoun

hee hee -- much better Carly!

Eldorion wrote:...And you're accusing me of a lack of a intellectual rigor?

I did fix things up though once I knew!

Eldorion wrote:I have no idea why the idea of having a firmly held personal belief about something you don't know for sure is so hard to accept.

Yes. If you hold firmly to your belief, then you are an atheist after all. But if you have doubt, you become an agnostic. I'm not trying to insult anyone, just being rigourous.

Eldorion wrote:...Frankly, the comparison of "knowledge of ones steering wheel" and "knowledge of the great spiritual mysteries of the universe" is so far-fetched that I'm at a loss as to what more to say in response to it.

It's like I was using the 'fairy' thing but for good and not evil!

Eldorion wrote:... I would think it obvious why it is much easier to have certain knowledge of the former than of the latter. If you don't believe that agnosticism and atheism can overlap, well, I know I can't change your mind, but you're not making a convincing case. You keep throwing around the term "intellectual rigor" but I don't see what's rigorous about lumping people with widely divergent opinions together into categories based on uncommon definitions of everyday terms.

How dare you! I thought I might have been spelling rigor wrong, but must you out me on a public forum!

Anyway, you can't be both an atheist and an agnostic. They are mutually exclusive terms.


I gotta take my daughter in to town - but I'll be back, Eldorion .. .I'll be back!

Orwell wrote:Yes. If you hold firmly to your belief, then you are an atheist after all. But if you have doubt, you become an agnostic. I'm not trying to insult anyone, just being rigourous.

Anyway, you can't be both an atheist and an agnostic. They are mutually exclusive terms.

I feel differently, for reasons I've expressed several times already. I think we might have to agree to disagree on this one.

How dare you! I thought I might have been spelling rigor wrong, but must you out me on a public forum!

Nah, it's just one of the many differences between American and British/Commonwealth English. As far as I know rigour is the correct form in Australia.

I gotta take my daughter in to town - but I'll be back, Eldorion .. .I'll be back!

I may not be online when you get back, but I shall return!

Orwell I am struggling to see exactly what it is is bothering you. Is it that Dawkins is not 100% atheist only 99% and has the cheek to say so?

I dont see how a person can be either 100% certain there is a God or 100% there is not in view of the complete lack of observable evidence.
Dawkins is a scientist and even in science an apparent lack of evidence is not confirmation that a thing does not exist- as sometimes it tunrs out everyone was just looking in the wrong place, or they were looking in the right place but misinterpreting the data.

If Dawkins were 100% certain he would be no worse than a fundementalist religous nut who knows God exists 100%. And I think that is what is really annoying you.
You like to call Dawkins a fundementalist and accuse of him of being equal to religous fundementalists, just on the opposite end of the scale. And here he is in his own words saying he is not that.
So rather than drop your accusation he is a fundementalist you call into question the very notion that you can be both an atheist and leave room for error. Even though this is quite obviously the only conclusion applying the scientific method to the question of God can result in with our current levels of knowledge.

Eldorion wrote:I feel differently, for reasons I've expressed several times already. I think we might have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's your intellectual side I wish to engage, not your feelings!

Eldorion wrote:[Nah, it's just one of the many differences between American and British/Commonwealth English. As far as I know rigour is the correct form in Australia.

The irony is I don't think I used 'rigor" or 'rigour' anywhere, just 'rigourous'. I might be wrong though.

Eldorion wrote:I may not be online when you get back, but I shall return!

Never mind. I'll carry on in your absence!


Eldo: "I do believe in fairies in the garden. I do! "

Orwell: "Come on, Eldo. First you say you're an atheist and now you believe in fairies? "

Eldo: "But if you say you don't believe in fairies, doesn't that suggest 'fairies' DO exist, except you don't believe in them? "

Orwell: "What you're saying is, if fairies don't exist, how can one NOT believe in them? I mean, how can one NOT believe in something that DOESN'T exist in the first place?"

Eldo: "Exactly!"

Orwell""What a pretty peckle of pickled peccadillos that is! "

Eldo: "Darn right!"

Orwell: "So, let me get this straight. If God (or gods) never existed, why would people have started believing in them in the first place?"

Eldo: "Unles we created them in the first place, I s'pose..."

Orwell: "And if we created them then they MUST exist."

Eldo: "They do - in that sense."

Orwell: "Either they DO or they DON"T, Eldo. Your rigor may be getting a little.. well... fluid again..."

Eldo: "I'm not sure 'fluid' and 'rigor' can co-exist. At least, not according to the inherent logic of this last bit of conversation?"

Orwell: "I rest my case, young man! "

Eldo: "Oh Orwell, you're right. A penny has dropped inside me. I know the washing of a changed heart because of your wisdom."

Orwell: "No need to thank me (profusely). It's all in a day's work for Super Agnostic! "


Actually, I'm looking forward to you getting back, Eldo. The real you puts up a better fight than your stand in does...

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Orwell I am struggling to see exactly what it is is bothering you. Is it that Dawkins isnt not 100% atheist only 99% and has the cheek to say so?

You can't be 99% pregnant - or 1% for that matter! Do I have to go over the WHOLE thing again?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I dont see how a person can be either 100% certain there is a God or 100% there is not in view of the complete lack of observable evidence.
Dawkins is a scientist and even in science an apparent lack of evidence is not confirmation that a thing does not exist- as sometimes it tunrs out everyone was just looking in the wrong place, or they were looking in the right place but misinterpreting the data.

The point is, when Richard calls himself an atheist, he is speaking of his religion (his 'belief' system). When he says he's an agnostic, he IS what he says he is. He can't logically be a small percentile 'agnostic' or 'atheistic', just like he (or his wife) can be a small percentile pregnant.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:If Dawkins were 100% certain he would be no worse than a fundementalist religious nut who knows God exists 100%.

He is not a Fundamentalist atheist because he is not a (true) atheist at all. If you have no doubt when you say gods don't exist, then you're an atheist (and a Fundamentalist). So, Richard is right when he says he's not a Fundamentalist. But he just makes a fundamental error when he calls himself an atheist.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And I think that is what is really annoying you.

Not in the least annoyed. He has a right to his illogical stand point.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You like to call Dawkins a fundementalist and accuse of him of being equal to religous fundementalists, just on the opposite end of the scale. And here he is in his own words saying he is not that.

As usual, you miss my point. (I must start using crayon drawings to explain things, I see! )

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So rather than drop your accusation he is a fundementalist you call into question the very notion that you can be both an atheist and leave room for error. Even though this is quite obviously the only conclusion applying the scientific method to the question of God can result in with our current levels of knowledge.

You seem to have totally misunderstood the drift of my original hypothesis. Bless you!

Orwell wrote:

I have a 1994 Toyota sedan and it has a steering wheel.

Are you absolutely certain it's a 1994, Orwell?

I never take these things for granted when I'm buying replacement parts. You can never be sure when they decided to change model years on any given production line, or who may have later done an engine swap.

Call me an automotive agnostic if you will.

Good points as usual, David. And, yet, it's a steering wheel for all that! I assure you I am in no ways being agnostic in saying it. But if you think my reply is some kind of invitation to start an existentialist type argument, it's not! And I 'know' it's not!


I popped off to drop off my son in town. I've made two trips this morning, and it is an excellent example of why I think one should keep one's wife 100% un-pregnant.

In my defence, I didn't realise those cute little buggers would become more time consuming over time, and more expensive in all manner of ways as they grew older!

Orwell wrote:Actually, I'm looking forward to you getting back, Eldo. The real you puts up a better fight than your stand in does...

I'd like to continue, but I'm afraid I share Petty's puzzlement about what the sticking point in Dawkins' argument is for you. You said in your response to Petty that:

He is not a Fundamentalist atheist because he is not a (true) atheist at all. If you have no doubt when you say gods don't exist, then you're an atheist (and a Fundamentalist). So, Richard is right when he says he's not a Fundamentalist. But he just makes a fundamental error when he calls himself an atheist.

Assuming I understand you correctly (and since it's you that could be a very big assumption), I disagree with your fundamental assumption about religious belief. I don't think that you have to be 100% certain that God does or does not exist to be able to use the term atheist or theist to describe yourself. I don't think that's what the word means, and I know that's not how it's used (not always, at least). I'm not sure why you deny the existence of a middle ground between absolutely certain "fundamentalism" and pure agnosticism. As a result I'm left not being sure how else I can state my position without just being repetitive.

Eldorion wrote:Assuming I understand you correctly (and since it's you that could be a very big assumption), I disagree with your fundamental assumption about religious belief. I don't think that you have to be 100% certain that God does or does not exist to be able to use the term atheist or theist to describe yourself. I don't think that's what the word means, and I know that's not how it's used (not always, at least). I'm not sure why you deny the existence of a middle ground between absolutely certain "fundamentalism" and pure agnosticism. As a result I'm left not being sure how else I can state my position without just being repetitive.

Here are my two theories:

(1) Dawkins believes (to a point) that gods don't exist, he's just not sure enough to say so 'absolutely', so he is a quasi*-atheist, which kind of people Eldo and Petty believe exist, Dawkins being one of them (oh really? )

(2) Dawkins 'knows' he doesn't 'know' if gods exist (agnosticism), he just 'believes' gods don't exist (see Orwell's Theory 1).

Oh it's the Midgard Serpent all over again - we ended up where we started!



* quasi = "resembling; seeming; virtual..." In the example above, a 99 percenter, maybe?

Eldorion wrote:I'm not sure why you deny the existence of a middle ground between absolutely certain "fundamentalism" and pure agnosticism. As a result I'm left not being sure how else I can state my position without just being repetitive.

(1) Agnosticism: There is NO middle ground. One thinks one knows, or one don't. If one don't, one's agnostic, if one does, see number (2);

(2) Fundamentalism: You 'know' you 'know'.

(3) Eldo and Petty: "We half think we know"? That middle ground is surely a delusional bit of intellectual real estate, is it not, my friends?

I'm not really sure what the difference between your two theories is. It just seems like two ways of saying the same basic thing (i.e., Dawkins doesn't believe that God exists but he recognizes that he can't know for sure).

(1) Agnosticism: There is NO middle ground. One thinks one knows, or one don't. If one don't, one's agnostic, if one does, see number (2);

(2) Fundamentalism: You 'know' you 'know'.

(3) Eldo and Petty: "We half think we know"? That middle ground is surely a delusional bit of intellectual real estate, is it not, my friends?

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

I'll try again....

Belief systems:

(1) God/s exist;

(2) God/s don't exist;

(3) I don't know (for sure) either way.

Now, put each of the following three words next to the most appropriate entry above: Agnosticism, Atheism, Deism. (No, none of them can be used twice! )

You're making a category mistake by including the third option with the first two. If you want a chart, you should have one for people's beliefs about God and another for how strongly they feel about it. Or just use Dawkins' scale, which addresses both atheism/theism and agnosticism in a sensible and consistent way.

Also, when did we start talking about deism?

Sorry to interupt your heated debate but Ive been meaning to finish this and post it for days now!

Part 3- Ur in the time of Abraham.

The OT puts Abraham at 2018bce. Now its unlikely (although not impossible) this date is 100% correct, but its probably in the right area give or take a hundred years. Certainly there is nothing in Abraham's story which makes it impossible.

But what was Ur like at this time? Well the date for Abraham is a controversial time period for Ur, depending which side of the dating divivde you place Abrahams birth he was either born in the last days of UR II Empire, or he was born at the start of what would become Ur's greatest period of influence and power UrIII under the Akkadian King Ur-Nammu. Ur would go on to be his capital city of an Empire that took control of the entire region and became the centralised seat of governmenn for it. It would also see the building of a massive ziggurat.
Ur's main gods remained the same however with the chief God being the moon god and his female consort.

Of Abraham himself there is no direct evidence- his name so far has not appeared on any tablet or shrine. And the only contemporary stories we know about him are the few scattered in religous texts that are many thousand of years apart from the events.
So do we know anything of Abraham? Well his character that has survived is that of 'Father of All Nations'- he came to represent rightousness and faith in God, even, or especially when the physical facts seem to contradict it- such as the barreness of his aged wife despite God saying he would father nations. Abraham continued to believe this would be the case depite 'knowing' she was too old to bear children. And of course his faith was literally born out.
There is also a tale from the Talmud that describes an event supposedly from his childhood.
His father made idols of the many gods of Summer and in particular he made prominant idols of Ur's moon god and goddess.
One day Abrahams father left him in charge of the shop only to come back and find that all the statues but one were smashed- only a massive statue of the moon god remained. When asked what had happened Abraham told his father that the big statue had smashed all the other ones up.
His father angrily replied, "Idols do not get up and walk about. They do not smash things up. They do not eat nor breath."
To which Abraham replied "Then why worship them?"
And got a clip round the ear for cheek- (that last bit is not included in the Talmud but its probably what happened!)

Christianity has a harder time than Judiasm at dealing with the fact their own history records that their ancestors worshipped more than one God. Judiasm can avoid the issue less as large parts of the OT, up to and beyond the time of David and Solomon, deals with historical periods when people fell away from the one God idea and turned to other Gods.
Christianity would prefer to present the idea that from the begining there was only One God and it just took people a bit longer to realise which was real and which was fake.

For either religion its an uncomfortable truth that stories like the above try to make sense off.
Much of the Abraham story at heart is wrestling with this problem- how can the father of nations, the founder of a one God religion follow more than one God himself?
And the answer is of course because when he lived the idea of one god seemed preposterous and no one had even thought of it yet, but those who recorded his story where at the other end of history and could see the result of what Abraham began and fitted it into their story of the one God.

Certainly it would be useful to know for certain when Abraham lived. If he was alive during the end of the UrII period his leaving the city may have been necessitated by a change of regime rather than choice. If he was born after the beginings of Ur III is harder to see why he would leave at all as the city not only prospered under its Kingly patronage but blossomed as a religous centre.

History rarily records the little people, Joe Bloggs that made pots and went to the pub twice a week then died, and its unlikely Abraham was a little person or history would not have remembered him at all.
For what it is worth my own gut feeling is that he was a priest of the Moon God of Ur in the years leading up to the end of UrII and left the city as a direct result of the change of regime that occured.

I would like to go on a short diversion to tell you a story at this point- the same story twice in fact.
It concerns a woman who should be remebered as a great historical figure but sadly, as with many women in history, has been largely forgotten about. Its unlikey you will ever have heard of her.
Her name was Enheduanna, and as far as we know, amongst other things, she was the first female author ever. And this in short is the tale she wrote-

She praises the Goddess Inanna before switching to a first person style in which she speaks of her misery at the hands of a person called Lugal-ane. She was a priestess and this Lugal-ane had forced her from her sanctionary and barred her from performing her sacred duties at Ur fopr the Moon God Nannar.
This cuts her off from direct access to the Moon God so she appeals directly instead to Inanna to challenge the decision and also seeks help from the great god An. Inanna backs her but cannot directly solve the dilemma so Enheduanna turns to An. The Great God An decides in her favour and hears her plea,Lugal-ane is forced to back down and she is restored to her place as Priestess in the sanctionary at the moon-temple in Ur.

What is interesting about this is we know quite a lot of the history now of what this tale is recording.
Enheduanna we know quite a bit about- she was a famous author- she wrote the most challenging Sumerian litearature ever composed known as Nin-me-sara (from which the above tale derives). She was the editor of the Summerian Temply Hymns and after her lifetime her written works were the base for the scribal schools of the entire region for centuries to come. The development of language, of reciording events and much else would bever have come about without her influence and genius.

But what her poem really tells us is how people saw things. Here is a modern historical account of her story-

She was appointed an en-priestess (consort to a God) by Sargon. This was seen by many in Ur and the southern cities as direct interference in their religous sphere. The southern cities rebelled against the Akkadian govenrment, a revolt led by a man called Lugal-ane. He directly challenged her right to be the en-priestess and cast her out of the temple in Ur.
For aid she turned to the city of Akkad (whose goddess was Inaana) and got support there, but not enough.
After an incredibly brave but foolhardy attempt under threats from Lugal-ane she attempted to return to her temple at Ur but was thwarted. So she turned to the city of Ururk- the most politically powerful city in the land and home to the Great God An. Backed by the authorities and priesthhod of Uruk Lugal-ane could not prevent her returning and taking up her post.
In turn all this fed into the events which saw the establishment of the new regime under Ur III.

As you can see both versions of the story are essentially the same- but the difference is in perception. A modern eye can read the tale as a political power play involving the authorities in the major cities of the region.
But the people of the time saw it as playing through the actions of Gods- its to Inanna and An she appeals and deals with directly and who support her in the story, not the priesthoods or authorities of those cities.

It is worth bearing in mind therefore when dealing with biblical accounts from this period that the same thinking applies- when Abraham leaves Ur taking his God with him this could refer to literally taking a stone representation of his God with him, or to taking the entire preisthhood.

So who did Abraham take with him when heleft. Which God? It cannot have been the one God of later biblical texts as he did not exist yet in that form.
Well Ur's main deities were its Moon God and Goddess. And there is evidence to support the contention that the early God of the Hebrew religion was in fact a Moon God.
Perhaps th emost obvious connection surving today is in the symbol of Islam- which is a crescent moon and the star Venus. Both part of the worship at Ur of the moon god and of Sin, the later name used for the moon-god. Venus was th esymbol of Innana (later called Ishtar). So there is good reason to believe that the Gods of Abraham were indeed the two main deities of his home city.

At the time of Abraham the nmoon God had not one but two main centres- Ur of course was on eof them- the other was at the city of Harran- which is where Abraham moved to when he left Ur.

Worship of a moon god seems to have followed Abraham and his descendants around- it can be found later in Babylon and even in Cannan where a major excavation in the 1950's unearhted idols and statues of the moon god and Goddess.

So what we have his a man born in one of the great cities of his time. A centre for learning and religion and dedicated to the moon god and his consort.
Abraham then moved to Harran- another city famed for its connection to the moon God and consort.
I thnk it is highly likely that thje rreligion Abraham would take withhim from Summeria to Egypt and eventually to Caanan was that of the moon God.

So next up, what God did next. Why Abraham left for Cannan. And how God got a makeover.

Eldorion wrote:You're making a category mistake by including the third option with the first two. If you want a chart, you should have one for people's beliefs about God and another for how strongly they feel about it. Or just use Dawkins' scale, which addresses both atheism/theism and agnosticism in a sensible and consistent way.

Also, when did we start talking about deism?

I am doing the exact opposite of having a chart, Eldo. There are three choices. No middle grounds, nor triangular graphs neither! You must either confront the facts or leave the field defeated. Make a deciion. Are you an agnostic, a theist or an atheist. You cannot sit on the fence as no fence exists between these three concepts! The stubborness of youth! At least Petty was wise enough to run away from a fight he finally realised he couldn't win, for logic itself waas against him!

You sure love your ancient mythohistory, Petty.

I love reading your essays on the Biblical era Petty, I find them fascinating. Your theories are of course quite unorthodox, so I'm curious if there are any books or scholarly articles that explore these ideas or if they're of your own invention. Either way, I look forward to reading more of them!

Orwell wrote:I am doing the exact opposite of having a chart, Eldo. There are three choices. No middle grounds, nor triangular graphs neither! You must either confront the facts or leave the field defeated. Make a deciion. Are you an agnostic, a theist or an atheist. You cannot sit on the fence as no fence exists between these three concepts! The stubborness of youth! At least Petty was wise enough to run away from a fight he finally realised he couldn't win, for logic itself waas against him!

I'll try another tact.

Do the words atheist, agnostic or theist actually truly apply to anyone? And is it just as silly for Dawkins as it is for Pope Benedict to label himself?

I doubt anyone is rigourous enough to meet your demanding standards, so the answer would have to be no.

I have to say Eldo I dont think of my own theories as unothordox. I just try to piece together the evidence.
For this piece I am drawing on the OT and other religous texts and a few histroical works (the foremost in this case being 'Mesopotamia The Invention of the City' by Gwendolyn Leick. A dry read but full of good solid well researched information).
As well of course as general net based researches.

On the occasions I do go out on a limb (such as my belief Abraham should be placed at the end of the UrII period not the start of UrIII I do say its my gut feeling).

I am glad you enjoy the read however, makes it worth doing if if it gives people someothing to chew over.
But I like context, I am a firm believer you can't hope to get anywhere near the truth of a thing without knowledge of the context it occured in- and its context that mainly interest me in debates on early religous matters.
I am curious however as to which bits you think are unorthodox?

Hey! Pope Benedict is probably 99% the beliver and 1% the non-believer (with the view that no one can be 100% sure, surely? ) So he is - by Eldo and Petty's reckoning at least - a Catholic-agnostic, just as Dawkins is an atheist-agnostic! There! We can all agree now!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I am curious however as to which bits you think are unorthodox?

Almost makes me want to read the aricles again, Petty. Unorthodox, you say? How about putting them in the one document and sending them to me? I could then read them when I'm not on the computer, which time I prefer to use in destroying your pathetic arguments on all things, as you know.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I am curious however as to which bits you think are unorthodox?

I meant unorthodox by the standards of what you learn in Sunday School (in America, at least). I don't follow Biblical scholarship although now that I think about it I'm sure there are plenty of people who try to give a more or less secular explanation of the Old Testament. It's just not something I've heard a lot of. Stuff like frank acknowledgements that the Old Testament implies the existence of other gods (that's one of the few I did already know, though).