(March 27, 2015 at 11:00 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: The thing about the Abrahamic faiths that puzzled me was how unconvincing god was supposed to be to people to which it had actually shown its power to.

It's a running theme throughout the Bible. If we go by the interpretation that the Genesis serpent is the devil, he seems so unimpressed by god that he decides to turn humanity away from him, and turns out to have a surprisingly easy time of it.

Serpent: You can't eat any of the fruit?
Eve: Just the one from this tree. God says we'll die if we do.
Serpent: God's a liar, you'll actually level up if you eat it.
Eve: *greedily stuffs her face*

Adam: So Eve, what's going on?
Eve: Eating forbidden fruit. Want some?
Adam: *greedily stuffs his face*

When Moses is sent to impress the Pharaoh with the power of god, the Egyptian king turns to his sorcerers and they start working some magic as well. Even when god smacks them so hard that even the sorcerers give up, Pharaoh quickly gets over it and chases the freed slaves and doesn't stop until god drops a whole sea on his army.

Having seen all this, the Israelites recognize that their god is one serious heavy-hitter and they follow his plan and enjoy endless prosperity... haha, no: they almost immediately start bitching at him and moaning about how much better they had it when they were slaving for Egypt. God actually made freedom from slavery seem like the worst alternative.

It continues into the NT, where many Jews are so underwhelmed by Jesus' miracles that a group of them even accuse him of being an agent of Beelzebub. Considering that they were watching him perform actual miracles, wouldn't that imply that they'd seen this act before, from people claiming to represent other gods? Even the disciples didn't seem to know what to make of him from time to time, as if watching him cure the blind and raise the dead didn't merit anything more than "what else ya got?"

It's in stark contrast to the present day, where a smudge on a kitchen window "looks like Jesus" and draws wide-eyed travelers who drop to their knees in reverence to the Great Moldy Image Of God Himself! Where were these guys when Jesus was turning water to wine and feeding thousands out of a handbag?

(March 27, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 11:00 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: The thing about the Abrahamic faiths that puzzled me was how unconvincing god was supposed to be to people to which it had actually shown its power to.

It's a running theme throughout the Bible. If we go by the interpretation that the Genesis serpent is the devil, he seems so unimpressed by god that he decides to turn humanity away from him, and turns out to have a surprisingly easy time of it.

Serpent: You can't eat any of the fruit?
Eve: Just the one from this tree. God says we'll die if we do.
Serpent: God's a liar, you'll actually level up if you eat it.
Eve: *greedily stuffs her face*

Adam: So Eve, what's going on?
Eve: Eating forbidden fruit. Want some?
Adam: *greedily stuffs his face*

When Moses is sent to impress the Pharaoh with the power of god, the Egyptian king turns to his sorcerers and they start working some magic as well. Even when god smacks them so hard that even the sorcerers give up, Pharaoh quickly gets over it and chases the freed slaves and doesn't stop until god drops a whole sea on his army.

Having seen all this, the Israelites recognize that their god is one serious heavy-hitter and they follow his plan and enjoy endless prosperity... haha, no: they almost immediately start bitching at him and moaning about how much better they had it when they were slaving for Egypt. God actually made freedom from slavery seem like the worst alternative.

It continues into the NT, where many Jews are so underwhelmed by Jesus' miracles that a group of them even accuse him of being an agent of Beelzebub. Considering that they were watching him perform actual miracles, wouldn't that imply that they'd seen this act before, from people claiming to represent other gods? Even the disciples didn't seem to know what to make of him from time to time, as if watching him cure the blind and raise the dead didn't merit anything more than "what else ya got?"

It's in stark contrast to the present day, where a smudge on a kitchen window "looks like Jesus" and draws wide-eyed travelers who drop to their knees in reverence to the Great Moldy Image Of God Himself! Where were these guys when Jesus was turning water to wine and feeding thousands out of a handbag?

See you get me.

What does Drich find it so hard?

(March 27, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ...the kind of effort you want me to undermines the whole point of the exercise Drich was proposing. Do you seriously think that a test to demonstrate god's existence, that requires one to already believe god exists and buy into the entire religion, is at all a cogent proposition? That's idiotic.

I think you're kinda missing the point. You have not been moved by intellectual arguments for the existence of God, which was my path, but apparently not yours, and frankly not that of many other believers. Okay. I can accept that. Drich proposes another equally valid path which is to experience first hand a relationship with the Divine Ruler of the Cosmos.

Here's a little allegory for you.

A peasant approaches the castle guard and says he wants to see the King to assure himself that he is under the King's protection. The guard replies, "Sure, but you must first remove your muddy shoes, because the King has many fine rugs."
To which the peasant says, "But my shoes aren't that dirty and are actually pretty clean compared to other people's."
The guard says no and adds, "If you saw how beautiful the rugs are then you'd understand."
"If you first show me the rugs then I will know if removing my shoes is a reasonable request?" asks the peasant.
"It doesn't work that way." says the guard. "You can only see the rugs from the inside and for that you must take off your shoes. That's just one of the King's rules."
"Why should I have to submit to the King's rules if I cannot see for myself why the rules are necessary."
"Because he's the King. If you want to meet the King it will be on his terms, not yours."
The peasant leaves. "Who needs a King?" he says.

(March 27, 2015 at 2:14 pm)Mezmo! Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ...the kind of effort you want me to undermines the whole point of the exercise Drich was proposing. Do you seriously think that a test to demonstrate god's existence, that requires one to already believe god exists and buy into the entire religion, is at all a cogent proposition? That's idiotic.

I think you're kinda missing the point. You have not been moved by intellectual arguments for the existence of God, which was my path, but apparently not yours, and frankly not that of many other believers. Okay. I can accept that. Drich proposes another equally valid path which is to experience first hand a relationship with the Divine Ruler of the Cosmos.

Here's a little allegory for you.

A peasant approaches the castle guard and says he wants to see the King to assure himself that he is under the King's protection. The guard replies, "Sure, but you must first remove your muddy shoes, because the King has many fine rugs."
To which the peasant says, "But my shoes aren't that dirty and are actually pretty clean compared to other people's."
The guard says no and adds, "If you saw how beautiful the rugs are then you'd understand."
"If you first show me the rugs then I will know if removing my shoes is a reasonable request?" asks the peasant.
"It doesn't work that way." says the guard. "You can only see the rugs from the inside and for that you must take off your shoes. That's just one of the King's rules."
"Why should I have to submit to the King's rules if I cannot see for myself why the rules are necessary."
"Because he's the King. If you want to meet the King it will be on his terms, not yours."
The peasant leaves. "Who needs a King?" he says.

Apply this simple logic.
If were were created by god who created god and why.
Because a being like god or any other sort of being could have not existed forever without he or she or even it being created.

(March 27, 2015 at 2:14 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: I think you're kinda missing the point. You have not been moved by intellectual arguments for the existence of God, which was my path, but apparently not yours, and frankly not that of many other believers. Okay. I can accept that. Drich proposes another equally valid path which is to experience first hand a relationship with the Divine Ruler of the Cosmos.

Drich's test was offered in the context of showing that god is scientifically falsifiable. Did you read the discussion at all?

Quote:Here's a little allegory for you.

A peasant approaches the castle guard and says he wants to see the King to assure himself that he is under the King's protection. The guard replies, "Sure, but you must first remove your muddy shoes, because the King has many fine rugs."
To which the peasant says, "But my shoes aren't that dirty and are actually pretty clean compared to other people's."
The guard says no and adds, "If you saw how beautiful the rugs are then you'd understand."
"If you first show me the rugs then I will know if removing my shoes is a reasonable request?" asks the peasant.
"It doesn't work that way." says the guard. "You can only see the rugs from the inside and for that you must take off your shoes. That's just one of the King's rules."
"Why should I have to submit to the King's rules if I cannot see for myself why the rules are necessary."
"Because he's the King. If you want to meet the King it will be on his terms, not yours."
The peasant leaves. "Who needs a King?" he says.

Now add in that the castle isn't visible to anybody but the guard, that the land the peasant is from is historically a democracy, that nobody has ever seen the king, and that the guard is demanding that one must be committed to literally seeing the king even if the throne room is empty before he'll let you in to see the king, and then you'd have a more accurate allegory.

A more apt one would be that the guard is standing outside a normal house in modern day America, insisting that the king of America is behind the door. The visitor is just wishing to check these claims, and through the windows he can only see a normal guy sitting in his house. The guard tells him that he can totally check to see if the guy is really the king of America, but before he can be let in to do so he must first believe with all his heart that the man inside is indeed the king. After all, why should you be allowed to check to see if he really is the king, if you won't believe that he's the king before you check?

(March 27, 2015 at 11:29 am)Esquilax Wrote: It amazes me that you can be so profoundly dishonest.

Doesn't surprise me at all

---

(March 27, 2015 at 2:14 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: Here's a little allegory for you.

Stopped reading right there.

If you guys have no evidence for your claims, then quit. You know the only thing that will sway us is evidence yet you keep wasting out time. Evidence or shut the fuck up.

(March 27, 2015 at 3:16 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: You know the only thing that will sway us is evidence yet you keep wasting out time. Evidence or shut the fuck up.

Drich and I have pointed you in a direction you can go to find the evidence. It's not our fault if you're too busy making excuses for not being willing to undertake the journey.

(March 27, 2015 at 6:20 pm)Mezmo! Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 3:16 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: You know the only thing that will sway us is evidence yet you keep wasting out time. Evidence or shut the fuck up.

Drich and I have pointed you in a direction you can go to find the evidence. It's not our fault if you're too busy making excuses for not being willing to undertake the journey.

Because its literally a fucking waste of time. We are atheists for a reason.
There is more truth in reality than there is in a shitty old book written by primitive men.

(March 27, 2015 at 6:20 pm)Mezmo! Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 3:16 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: You know the only thing that will sway us is evidence yet you keep wasting out time. Evidence or shut the fuck up.

Drich and I have pointed you in a direction you can go to find the evidence. It's not our fault if you're too busy making excuses for not being willing to undertake the journey.

No, you haven't. All you've done is repeat over and over again "Believe and you'll believe."

Besides, it's not my fucking job to go and find the evidence that supports your claim. Quit shifting the burden.

(March 27, 2015 at 7:04 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: All you've done is repeat over and over again "Believe and you'll believe."

If you lift weights you'll get stronger. Don't believe me? Try it.