Uprooting believers.

[The Grand Nudger]

If salvaging the narrative is a measure of distancing ones self from what is contained in the narrative.....then we're already well on the way to discarding the narrative.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Key word here is "narrative".

[Golbez]

9:00 of the first? Where he says he looks up at it as a clear and simple source of truth? If it was the word of god, wouldn't it be true? Would It partake in Its only book as a fiction writer instead?

How about the examination of the Bible that strongly suggests that it's primarily written by 5 people, with distinct styles, for their own political and historically relevant purposes, which included multiple polytheist references? Is that too wooden?

But fair. I appreciate you having taken a look. I accept that if he can't reach you, I sure can't. Although the full series is much more thorough, and I suspect he still could.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, Chad, I think you'll find that you yourself have set a limit upon how much action you're going to allow to be put on the narrative. I assume you don't subscribe to mormonism....an action on the narrative that falls after your own. A more up-to-date revelation. Though clearly you're okay with the action applied slightly earlier by Swedenborg.

The modern throng of resurgent literalists we see aside...there's been a long history of considering the narrative as increasingly metaphoric - with the one golden rule, it seems, being not to call "god" metaphor. Clearly, I don't have any barrier like this, but you can appreciate a comparison to pandora's box, can you not?

[Tonus]

How about the examination of the Bible that strongly suggests that it's primarily written by 5 people, with distinct styles, for their own political and historically relevant purposes, which included multiple polytheist references? Is that too wooden?

I don't think it's five people, as in five individuals. I think it's a reference to five sources-- groups who were pushing a certain agenda. The priestly source (P) was looking to reinforce the influence of their class, or caste, by making god more concerned with rituals and ceremony. The Yahwist source (J) seemed more concerned with reinforcing the monotheistic reverence of the God of Armies and may have been more concerned with religion's influence on behavior and nationalist/ethnic support. And so on. There may have been dozens upon dozens of writers, for all we know.

It really is too bad that we may never find earlier writings than we have, so that we might better trace the way the teachings grew and changed and how they were finally mashed together into what we call the old testament now.

[Golbez]

I really do think the argument is being made for five individual writers, and certainly "Evid3nc3" states as much at 5:40. Of the 6 points put forth, "dialect", "smooth narrative flow", "connections to other books," and "political motives" could speak to either individual authors or a group of authors.

But I think "terminology" and "consistent content" points to individual authors. I think it's unlikely that multiple people are writing each section with such cohesion and consistency, unless they took extra efforts to emulate a style of just one voice. Not to say that those 5 individual people couldn't be drawing off of a group for their inspirations though. Could have been a group project with only one literate person heading it, or something like that for each case.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I assume you don't subscribe to mormonism....an action on the narrative that falls after your own. A more up-to-date revelation. Though clearly you're okay with the action applied slightly earlier by Swedenborg.

Mormonism has some interesting parallels with Swedenborg. I have nothing wrong with people deeply exploring the depths of their own traditions. Sure you can shop around, but once you find something compelling I say mine it for all its worth. For me I like the Enlightenment perspective since it combines that reason + revelation dialectic that I feel is important for balanced thinking.

[Mystical]

There was no need to refer to the crusades or some christian eating lions (on this note I agree with Min..it's a shame there aren't more of these lions around today...and we ought to invest in some).

Agreed. I did search for a visual for the idea of the Church of England, but alas I didn't know it was actually called the Church of England
In any case, apparently America has more lions in captivity than live in the wild, so.. we sort've do have the lions
Problem is, they're owned by fundies. FML

[Tex]

What I think would be a fantastic atheistic project would be to survey religious people to ask them aside from their belief that it's true, what reasons they believe in religion. Obviously, surveys have inherent dangers with the wording of questions, and the legitimacy of the answers, especially for polemic topics. But I think it would be useful in any case. Hopefully, the survey would produce at least a handful of "secondary" reasons that people have faith, that the atheistic debates don't address. Or maybe hundreds of reasons, which are sorted based on frequency reported or significance or something. Then an atheist think tank could produce a report on how to counter these top 5/10 additional fears. I think these are really the barriers that hold people back, and if you could allay/comfort/address those, they would come tumbling down.

Obviously the survey and the think tank are the processes/institutions I think might be beyond the reach of this forum that I alluded to in the other post. Are there any admins that have connections to such organizations? Or is this purely a conglomeration of generally like-minded individuals? Suppose a survey couldn't be conducted by an organization like PPP, etc. Can you guys think of any other work-arounds? Any other thoughts/suggestion? Cheers.

I think you'll find most Christians know nothing about what they believe. They'll contradict themselves and then say that the contradictions aren't a problem. Then, even if they say they have no reasons for believing what they do, I doubt they'll have a problem with the lack of knowledge they have. They'll write that off.

Technically, the Christians would be in the right for remaining in Christianity. They might not have evidence themselves, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence out there. The problem is that those same Christians won't think in that manner. Instead, they'll use a false reason: faith is blind. That is not in the bible. That is never said by a church father. That wasn't even popularized until way after the Protestant Reformation. I hate that saying.

[Golbez]

I agree with what you say, but find myself a little confused by what you put down for your religious views. I wonder if you'd have any interest in listening to an atheist's thorough position on Christianity from a formerly strongly Christian belief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSy1-Q_BE...0A&index=1

Opening video is 2 minutes. Full series is ~3.5 hours. Fantastically well written and produced, in my opinion. Most of the series looks graphically more like the 3rd video rather than the first two of his confession/intro. Well worth the time and effort, if you're open about our position.


Edit - So when the video becomes embedded, it seems like the link is changed when you click to view the video through Youtube. It separates from the playlist. So this is a link to that playlist as well.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A