(March 19, 2018 at 11:52 am)vorlon13 Wrote:

(March 19, 2018 at 11:31 am)emjay Wrote: I'm talking about more immediately than that... not about how Christianity has developed over time, but in the face of witnessing an awe-inspiring miracle... to then figuratively the next day go out and start worshiping something else doesn't make much sense.

What was it they found so uninspiring with the plagues Moses had inflicted on Egypt ??

Egypt was a shithole anyhow, (hence their desire to leave) and the plagues weren't that much of an incremental deterioration in the conditions there ??

Well, obviously I'm no expert, but imo if there was an exodus... and to whatever extent it was... then it's something that has been exaggerated into legend over time; favourable tides become the sea parting, and natural events and coincidences, centring around the rivers, become all the plagues etc.

---

(March 19, 2018 at 12:12 pm)Khemikal Wrote: IDK, is it?  The christers insist that the religion they follow is the religion of those eyewitnesses.  Hell, one of them is supposed to have denied his god how many times at the seminal moment?

It's a fiction that christianity branched, at the outset, btw.  That it started as a monolith that then flung out into subsects.  It began "branched"..and the early history of the church is the history of attempting to establish a christian monolith.  To smash the bull and kill the worshipers.  There were no witnesses to these events, which never occurred.  Just a bunch of pagans dancing around bovine peen from the outset until one group had killed or suppressed the others effectively, appropriating their literature or traditions as it suited.  

They failed, obviously..and christianty remains as fractious and idolatrous today as it ever was.

I'm still talking about actual eye-witnesses, not what people believe about eye-witnesses. But fair point on the second... that would be another example of what I meant... of unrealistically ignoring awe-inspiring miracles, but in that case, from the New Testament. Anyway, I wasn't saying I believe it happened, just saying that if it was taken at face value, those were the problems I had with it.

What I'm trying to highlight is that if we -did- take it at face value all we see is that the miracles of "christ" were no more compelling to the "christians" than yahwehs miracles were to the hebrews.  They both immediately set about fashioning some object of worship other than god.  

Even in everyday life..how often do we see someone born again...someone who believes they witnessed some life altering miracle..fall right back into their previous patterns of behavior - or never change them in the first place? It seems like this would be silly, or unrealistic..but in actually -we're- silly and unrealistic, this is something we do. The overall context is the religious.. a demographic already inclined to the silly and unrealistic...and in that light it's not even remarkable for it's silliness. Just more of the same.

So. . . you're saying dumb people believe dumb stuff, and there are a lot of dumb people?

(March 19, 2018 at 10:30 am)SteveII Wrote: It stands to reason there is only one correct concept of God. It also stands to reason that if the redemption of mankind through Christs is the single most important event in the history of the world, groundwork for that has to be laid for centuries or more. Concepts have to be understood and critical mass has to be built. This kind of continues in my comments below.

It is obvious that we are somehow wired to believe in God/higher power/supernatural/purpose/destiny etc. I think it is in this general context that William James is referring. When talking about Christians and the phrase "feel the presence" of God, you are no longer talking about a generic feeling--you are talking about the result of a personal relationship with the God through the Holy Spirit. This seems to be a logical progression from general to specific.

This progression also begins to deal with arguments about the Hiddenness of God. A typical atheist argument is that God would make a better case for himself. But isn't that just something akin to: God is hidden from me, therefore God is hidden from everybody, therefore God doesn't exist?

The “believing in holy texts before believing in God” thing was not meant as a jibe. It was a genuine observation. And it represents the heart of my problem with religions claiming a universal God. And my problem addresses the "scripture before God" thing. It seems like many theists assume God’s intention and essence are accurately portrayed in their scriptures, and that, using the scriptures, they can make definite statements about God’s nature. But what if (assuming they can do this) they might still make misstatements about the reality of God? What if they only know part of the story. This much is suggested by Christian scripture itself.

The Book of Job 38:2-5 Wrote:“Who is this that obscures my plans
   with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
   I will question you,
   and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
   Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

As an atheist, this verse has been tossed in my face a couple times. But remember: God isn’t addressing an atheist here. He’s addressing a theist. Job, a theist, has presumed knowledge of God that he does not have. If Job, a righteous man, is guilty of making presumptions about God, then how guilty might any other believer be? Just because you have read a book about God that your fellow believers hold in high esteem, does this mean that you won’t make assumptions about God that are not in error? Job made errors in his assumptions. Isn't it possible that you are prone to the same foibles as Job?

I am going to present the case for the pluralistic hypothesis here. Of course, I’m an atheist, not a pluralist—but that doesn’t matter because I’m merely adopting the position to argue against the plausibility of a universal God who is only accurately described in the scriptures of a single culture.

I’ll start with a list of assumptions. I’m sure you are going to challenge some of them, so I’ve numbered them to make your task easier.

1) God exists.
2) God is a universal figure, not just the tribal god of the Israelites.
3) God is too vast a being for any human intellect to comprehend completely.
4) It is possible for a believer (no matter how devout or righteous) to make false assumptions about God.
5) God revealed himself to the authors of the Old Testament.
6) It is possible that (while they reported a genuine divine experience), the authors of the OT might have left some aspects of God undisclosed.
7) It is possible that (while they reported a genuine divine experience), the authors of the OT might have made false assumptions about God.

I expect pushback on #7. I expect no pushback on item #1. For the stuff in between, maybe. I’m going to defend #7 a bit before I proceed. To begin this defense, I’m going to differentiate it from the assumption that the Bible says anything erroneous about God. Even one who adopts the position of Biblical inerrancy might still accept #7. Look at the image below.


The image can be interpreted in two ways. You will either see a duck or a rabbit. Let’s say that you see the duck. You can make many statements about the image of the duck that are factually correct. For instance, you can say that its beak points to the left, that its eye is in X proportion to the rest of its head, etc. Any number of statements you make about the image of the duck can be true. Just because you haven’t said anything about the image of the rabbit, doesn’t mean that you’ve made false statements concerning the image in general.

Now consider a different individual who sees the image of the rabbit instead. He might make statements about the proportion of the rabbit’s ears along with a slew of other observations that seem irrelevant to one who is only considering the image of the duck. Both interpreters of the image might assume that they are speaking of two completely different things, even though both of them make factually correct statements about the same image.

I think you are prone to accept assumption #6. If not, I’m sure I’ll hear about it. But if so, you must conclude that two completely different interpretations of a single phenomenon may both be factually accurate (at least hypothetically).

This is why I brought up James’s argument about "the unseen" in my previous post. Personally, I reject James’s assertion here. But, most theists find it a good argument—so much so, in fact, that they often present it in their case against atheism. A theist could go two ways with James’s argument.

Either:
1) Perception of God via an intuitive or emotional sense is possible.

OR

2) It isn’t.

You’ve already admitted to #1, so let’s see what follows from it:
Either:

1) Only Jews and Christians from a single segment of world history were allowed communion with God.

OR

2) Others from different cultures were allowed communion with God.

Again, as an inclusivist, you’ve already said you accept #2, but you may have some additional counterarguments to thrust at this particular either/or, so feel free. But assuming you accept #2, then:
Either:
1) Nothing written down by non-Jews is factually accurate about God.
OR
2) Non-Jews might have written down factually accurate statements about God.
Accepting #2 leads to pluralism. The pluralistic hypothesis likens God to the rabbit/duck image. Some people see a rabbit. Others see a duck. But all refer to a single entity when they produce statements about God.

Revelation 22:13 Wrote:I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Bhagavad Gita 7:7-10 Wrote:7. There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Arjuna! All this is strung on Me as clusters of gems on a string.
8. I am the wetness in water, O Arjuna! I am the light in the moon and the sun; I am the syllable Om in all the Vedas, sound in ether, and virility in men.
9. I am the sweet fragrance in earth and the brilliance in fire, the life in all beings; and I am austerity in ascetics.
10. Know Me, O Arjuna, as the eternal seed of all beings; I am the intelligence of the intelligent; the splendour of the splendid objects am I!

No shit..one of my favorite lines in magic book..lol

Quote: Brace yourself like a man;
   I will question you,
   and you shall answer me.

This is a test that the faithful..in large part...will fail.

"Own your shit."

What do you predict the counterargument is going to be?

Oh who knows...but who knows what the counterargument is supposed to be for all the spineless pieces of shit who appear before christ and can't brace themselves "like a man"...either....eh?

For better or for worse..if I find myself there..I can at least do that.  We've got a full raft of assholes today who wont even own their shit.  They tell us "this is gods position, not mine" and that they "love the sinner but hate the sin".

Bullshit, man the fuck up as god commanded. It doesn't sound, to me, like he's super into submissive or passive men. He prefers em butch. I have a sneaking suspicion that he's a real fairy queen. Spent a few billion years doing his hair before he made Adam..and only created Eve after he wasn't enough for the guy....huh?

(March 19, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Khemikal Wrote: What I'm trying to highlight is that if we -did- take it at face value all we see is that the miracles of "christ" were no more compelling to the "christians" than yahwehs miracles were to the hebrews.  They both immediately set about fashioning some object of worship other than god.  

Even in everyday life..how often do we see someone born again...someone who believes they witnessed some life altering miracle..fall right back into their previous patterns of behavior - or never change them in the first place? It seems like this would be silly, or unrealistic..but in actually -we're- silly and unrealistic, this is something we do. The overall context is the religious.. a demographic already inclined to the silly and unrealistic...and in that light it's not even remarkable for it's silliness. Just more of the same.

Sorry for the slow reply, but I just didn't know what to say because I still don't really understand what you're saying. I'm not sure I agree with you on the second point; I think plenty of people who have experienced what they perceive to be miracles... such as NDE's... are profoundly moved by it in life changing ways; so I don't understand what point you're trying to make; that people take things for granted... or people are fickle... or what? Some, sure, many, maybe... but not all; granted once an experience becomes past tense ie a memory then it loses some of its impact and becomes more abstract/objective to think about... and in that sense could just become another thought among many about a religion... ie become more mundane/taken for granted, but nonetheless I do think if I saw the Red Sea part before my very eyes, that I wouldn't be quick to forget it. By saying it's something we all do, are you saying that you would?

(March 19, 2018 at 11:17 pm)emjay Wrote: I'm not sure I agree with you on the second point; I think plenty of people who have experienced what they perceive to be miracles... such as NDE's... are profoundly moved by it in life changing ways;

Oh, is that why the worlds changed so drastically on the backs of these experiences?  Never the same day, from one to the next. 

Or..you know...untold people were born again and never once did it threaten their previously held orthodoxy. 

Quote:so I don't understand what point you're trying to make; that people take things for granted... or people are fickle... or what? Some, sure, many, maybe... but not all; granted once an experience becomes past tense ie a memory then it loses some of its impact and becomes more abstract/objective to think about... and in that sense could just become another thought among many about a religion... ie become more mundane/taken for granted, but nonetheless I do think if I saw the Red Sea part before my very eyes, that I wouldn't be quick to forget it. By saying it's something we all do, are you saying that you would?

That people are silly..and so saying "It sounds silly that people would do x" as though this argued against people doing x is..itself, silly. The golden calf story. Silly..sure...something that people do..also..sure. The mythical hebes did it, the purportedly historical christians did it..and people still do it today. I;ve had people literally cower under me for protection and the very next day seen them decrying the great satan.

I..personally, wouldn't be so foolish as to imagine that god parted the sea for me...... if it parted..but I also wouldn't be surprised in the least when people carved out a bull and threw a party on the other side. Imagining that theres a problem with these stories on -those- grounds is imagining something about people which we know to be untrue. That they're rational actors who make dry and explicable decisions in response to external stimuli.

(March 19, 2018 at 11:21 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(March 19, 2018 at 11:17 pm)emjay Wrote: I'm not sure I agree with you on the second point; I think plenty of people who have experienced what they perceive to be miracles... such as NDE's... are profoundly moved by it in life changing ways;

Oh, is that why the worlds changed so drastically on the backs of these experiences?  Never the same day, from one to the next.

This is gonna take a long time isn't it? I'm only talking about individual's own personal perceptions here... for instance, with NDE's losing the fear of death etc.

Quote:Or..you know...untold people were born again and never once did it threaten their previously held orthodoxy. 

By born again I assume you mean as in 'born again Christians'? Yes I do see your point... as in God happens to agree with everything they think?

Quote:

Quote:so I don't understand what point you're trying to make; that people take things for granted... or people are fickle... or what? Some, sure, many, maybe... but not all; granted once an experience becomes past tense ie a memory then it loses some of its impact and becomes more abstract/objective to think about... and in that sense could just become another thought among many about a religion... ie become more mundane/taken for granted, but nonetheless I do think if I saw the Red Sea part before my very eyes, that I wouldn't be quick to forget it. By saying it's something we all do, are you saying that you would?

That people are silly..and so saying "It sounds silly that people would do x" as though this argued against people doing x is..itself, silly. The golden calf story. Silly..sure...something that people do..also..sure. The mythical hebes did it, the purportedly historical christians did it..and people still do it today. I;ve had people literally cower under me for protection and the very next day seen them decrying the great satan.

Look, I do get what you're saying... especially with your cowering example which finally illustrates to me exactly what you're talking about But nonetheless I don't believe that to be the case all the time... can we just compromise here? I see what you're saying in principle, and agree with a lot of it in principle, but without ever having either witnessed a miracle or been in the line of fire, I don't know how I would react, only how I think I would.

Quote:I..personally, wouldn't be so foolish as to imagine that god parted the sea for me...... if it parted..but I also wouldn't be surprised in the least when people carved out a bull and threw a party on the other side. Imagining that theres a problem with these stories on -those- grounds is imagining something about people which we know to be untrue. That they're rational actors who make dry and explicable decisions in response to external stimuli.

Well, as I said, can we just agree to compromise on that? I wasn't thinking of it necessarily being a dry and rational reaction... more like awe. So can we just compromise?; you (seem to) think people always react that way, I think they sometimes do. I understand what you're saying in principle, so is that enough?