(September 11, 2013 at 10:04 am)pocaracas Wrote: How did they fare in the middle-east?
And India?
And China?
Anywhere in the world, where the europeans didn't overtake the indigenous population?

Pretty well in the middle east - Islam claims Abrahamic origin too, you know. not so well in India, and it's only now catching up in China. Not sure what your point is, though, as you didn't address the issue of god's purposes. You can't assess the effectiveness of a message without knowing the purposes of the sender. Reply All gets to more people than just Reply, but if your response was only intended for the one person, Reply All is not optimal.

(September 11, 2013 at 10:14 am)John V Wrote:

(September 11, 2013 at 10:04 am)pocaracas Wrote: How did they fare in the middle-east?
And India?
And China?
Anywhere in the world, where the europeans didn't overtake the indigenous population?

Pretty well in the middle east - Islam claims Abrahamic origin too, you know. not so well in India, and it's only now catching up in China. Not sure what your point is, though, as you didn't address the issue of god's purposes. You can't assess the effectiveness of a message without knowing the purposes of the sender. Reply All gets to more people than just Reply, but if your response was only intended for the one person, Reply All is not optimal.

Why would any god choose to pass its message to a handful of people, in a specific geographic location, instead of... everyone, everywhere?
You'd think that would get EVERYONE's attention, huh?

(September 11, 2013 at 10:16 am)pocaracas Wrote: Why would any god choose to pass its message to a handful of people, in a specific geographic location, instead of... everyone, everywhere?
You'd think that would get EVERYONE's attention, huh?

Did you miss the whole bit about Israel being a chosen people?

BTW, if you have a point, just make it. We may be in agreement. Paul says straight out that, since the world in its wisdom rejected god, he decided to reach people through the foolishness of preaching. If you're point is that the methods seem foolish, you're preaching to the choir.

(September 11, 2013 at 10:31 am)John V Wrote:

(September 11, 2013 at 10:16 am)pocaracas Wrote: Why would any god choose to pass its message to a handful of people, in a specific geographic location, instead of... everyone, everywhere?
You'd think that would get EVERYONE's attention, huh?

Did you miss the whole bit about Israel being a chosen people?

BTW, if you have a point, just make it. We may be in agreement. Paul says straight out that, since the world in its wisdom rejected god, he decided to reach people through the foolishness of preaching. If you're point is that the methods seem foolish, you're preaching to the choir.

haha.. well, the methods do seem foolish...

But I was going first to point something out:
In other parts of the world, such as India and China (or even in places where their religion has died such as Egypt or Mesopotamia)... other revelations from other alleged gods followed... pretty much, the same methodology.
What happened, there?
.A screw up from the messenger? A misinterpretation of a flawed method of passing a message? ---- Can't be, Israel was the chosen people, right?
.Other divinities passing their messages? ---- It is claimed that the god of Israel did warn people not to worship other gods before him... it's almost like there are others!

.Or can we just lump all of them together and see all these methodologies as simple manifestations of psychological disorders (or flat out lies, made up stories and events) accompanied by the ability to convince other people of such events?

(September 11, 2013 at 10:45 am)pocaracas Wrote: haha.. well, the methods do seem foolish...

But I was going first to point something out:
In other parts of the world, such as India and China (or even in places where their religion has died such as Egypt or Mesopotamia)... other revelations from other alleged gods followed... pretty much, the same methodology.
What happened, there?
.A screw up from the messenger? A misinterpretation of a flawed method of passing a message? ---- Can't be, Israel was the chosen people, right?
.Other divinities passing their messages? ---- It is claimed that the god of Israel did warn people not to worship other gods before him... it's almost like there are others!

A Biblical case can be made that there are demons which have been considered gods.

Quote:.Or can we just lump all of them together and see all these methodologies as simple manifestations of psychological disorders (or flat out lies, made up stories and events) accompanied by the ability to convince other people of such events?

You can do whatever you like, but lumping them all together seems simplistic to me. Even if you don't accept any as genuine, with the ubiquity of religion I'd think you'd consider some sort of evolutionary psychology explanation. Another explanation is that some stories which were initially intended as fiction took on legendary status over time. Was Homer claiming divine revelation in his works, or just writing stories which took hold? We don't really know.

(September 11, 2013 at 11:10 am)John V Wrote:

(September 11, 2013 at 10:45 am)pocaracas Wrote: haha.. well, the methods do seem foolish...

But I was going first to point something out:
In other parts of the world, such as India and China (or even in places where their religion has died such as Egypt or Mesopotamia)... other revelations from other alleged gods followed... pretty much, the same methodology.
What happened, there?
.A screw up from the messenger? A misinterpretation of a flawed method of passing a message? ---- Can't be, Israel was the chosen people, right?
.Other divinities passing their messages? ---- It is claimed that the god of Israel did warn people not to worship other gods before him... it's almost like there are others!

A Biblical case can be made that there are demons which have been considered gods.

Quote:.Or can we just lump all of them together and see all these methodologies as simple manifestations of psychological disorders (or flat out lies, made up stories and events) accompanied by the ability to convince other people of such events?

You can do whatever you like, but lumping them all together seems simplistic to me. Even if you don't accept any as genuine, with the ubiquity of religion I'd think you'd consider some sort of evolutionary psychology explanation. Another explanation is that some stories which were initially intended as fiction took on legendary status over time. Was Homer claiming divine revelation in his works, or just writing stories which took hold? We don't really know.

Indeed we don't know...
So why accept any of them at all?

(September 11, 2013 at 11:29 am)pocaracas Wrote: Indeed we don't know...
So why accept any of them at all?

Off the top of my head:

In general:
- the first cause argument
- the argument from design
- evolutionary considerations - i.e., even if none are true, they seem to have value to humans
- hope and comfort

Regarding Christianity:
- for the NT at least we have better information regarding the messengers. Absent an a priori rejection of god, the messengers seem sincere, sane, and lacking self-interest. That's not enough to necessitate belief, but it's more than many other religions can say.
- the Bible's take on mankind agrees with my observations of myself and others.

(September 11, 2013 at 11:44 am)John V Wrote:

(September 11, 2013 at 11:29 am)pocaracas Wrote: Indeed we don't know...
So why accept any of them at all?

Off the top of my head:

In general:
- the first cause argument

Debatable

(September 11, 2013 at 11:44 am)John V Wrote: - the argument from design

Debatable

(September 11, 2013 at 11:44 am)John V Wrote: - evolutionary considerations - i.e., even if none are true, they seem to have value to humans
- hope and comfort

Agreed

(September 11, 2013 at 11:44 am)John V Wrote: Regarding Christianity:
- for the NT at least we have better information regarding the messengers. Absent an a priori rejection of god, the messengers seem sincere, sane, and lacking self-interest. That's not enough to necessitate belief, but it's more than many other religions can say.

Some of those messengers do seem like fictional characters, don't they?

(September 11, 2013 at 11:44 am)John V Wrote: - the Bible's take on mankind agrees with my observations of myself and others.

I'd wager that most religions have a take on mankind that agrees with the way people are... could it be that they all looked at how people are and then wrote it down?

(September 11, 2013 at 12:01 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Debatable
Debatable

Sure. While I personally find them convincing, I haven't said that everyone else should, too.

(September 11, 2013 at 11:44 am)John V Wrote: Some of those messengers do seem like fictional characters, don't they?

Not to me.

(September 11, 2013 at 11:44 am)John V Wrote: - the Bible's take on mankind agrees with my observations of myself and others.

Quote:I'd wager that most religions have a take on mankind that agrees with the way people are...

Debatable.

Quote:could it be that they all looked at how people are and then wrote it down?

If there are others as accurate as the Bible, then from my POV that's obviously what they did.

(September 11, 2013 at 8:38 am)John V Wrote: Not necessarily. Considering pollution, global warming, etc., the world might be better off with far fewer of us, or none at all.

Quite possibly, but this is a bit of a non sequitur given the topic at hand.

Quote:Again, the point is that desires do not necessarily generate rights. Here you acknowledge that yourself.

Yes, absolutely. It's a more complex issue than just desires; there's a weighing of the pros and cons of those desires, their impacts on the broader group, and a host of other issues.

Quote:Such as people who desire things which you want to forbid. You claim happiness as a basis for rights, but only when you agree with the things that make people happy. Therefore, ad hoc.

You're misunderstanding: I'm claiming happiness as one of many bases for rights. It's the preferred state for human beings, because we understand it as a positive reaction to stimuli in our environment, or from other people, so it informs some of what our rights should be, but it's in no way the totality of them.

For example, that happiness needs to be consistent and spread out; it might cause an individual great happiness to see another come to harm, but we understand that an individual's right to happiness doesn't override the right of the safety of another. We know this because rights need to be applied consistently over an entire community, and allowing people to harm others for their own happiness will be overall detrimental to the cohesion of the group, and its ability to live and function, both as a whole and as a collection of constituent members. So, we don't allow it; in this way, we curtail individual happiness for the sake of providing the best possible lifestyle for the entire group.

But the pursuit of happiness among a subset of activities that are harmless to those around us are perfectly okay; I have my rights to free association, free speech and free expression because they allow me to better obtain personal happiness the way I want to, within given mutually agreed upon limits.

Quote:Changes. Again, saying that society is correcting itself implies that there is an objectively ideal state of society. You haven't shown that.

Not at all; I'm implying that there's a progressive state of improvement that can be made. Nothing will ever be perfect, but there are certain choices that can be made, even far reaching ones, that are objectively good or bad; abolishing slavery for one, since that was directly curtailing the freedoms, in a number of harmful ways, of people just like you or I.

That said, not all changes are the right ones, nor is the best possible answer clear from the outset; that's why we make these mistakes that need correcting in the first place. But that doesn't mean there isn't an objectively best path that can be taken.

Quote:Considering that there's always a war somewhere or other, and science is continually inventing better ways for us to kill each other, yes, you do need to explain these things.

Well, okay: the presence of death and killing does not preclude the idea that, generally speaking, life is the preferred option. It's why, for example, in those wars, soldiers are equipped with body armor and weapons that make them better at killing others more efficiently, and why having your entire army die is considered a failure state in warfare.

Life is preferable to death in that life is the single objectively confirmable existence that we have, and being so we should preserve it. Pain is not preferable because it's a sense perception specifically designed to warn us about potential bodily damage, and bodily damage is bad. These are simple concepts.

Quote:Sure, slave owners don't want to be slaves themselves. So what? Look at nature. There are plenty of species in which the stronger take more than their equal share of food, mates, etc.

Yes, but part of the evolutionary advantage that allowed humans to become the dominant species on the planet is our ability to cooperate, our natural altruism and empathy toward one another- within limits, of course- that allows us to accomplish more.

Quote:And even to the extent that you are correct, the principle only applies within the group. We wage war on outsiders if it's in our interest. Biblically the slaves were mostly outsiders.

Your mistake is in assuming that one can only belong to one group. There's two: there's your community group, and there's the larger human group that we all belong to. Granted, occasionally our membership to the former conflicts with our membership of the latter, but nobody in their right mind actually wants war to happen. Even the most gung ho military types are gun ho about their own victory, not necessarily the many deaths that come along with them.

And I have to ask, if this idea of outsiders being fair game is a compelling one to you, would you be okay with slavery in your country, so long as those slaves where foreign? If not, why not?

The answer to the latter question will also be a part of the reason why your objection is nonsensical.

Quote:That may be your ideal. Some people are less risk-averse.

Yes, but if I'd just gone with my usual response, which is that empathy and altruism also play a role in this equation, you would have dismissed my post as subjective. Instead, I went with the rational reason why equality is useful... well, one of them. Another is that cooperation is sort of how we've come as far as we have, as a species.

Quote:It's neither true nor untrue. It's opinion.

Okay, fine.

Quote:If you had been born into a slave-owning family, do you think you'd feel exactly as you do about slavery now?

I don't know. I'd like to think I would, but I honestly couldn't say. You are dodging my question, though.