Why Would God Hide?

[Cyberman]

That's what I mean - the clock itself wouldn't register the time; merely happen to agree with it. Similarly with the bible - I don't go around killing and stealing and whatever, but not because the bible tells me not to. The book simply happens to coincide with my personal morality on those points. The points of disagreement far, far outweigh the points of accord, and any such agreement is largely accidental.

[naimless]

Basically, I'm trying to make an appeal that you evaluate your definition of hearsay, that you don't apply a criticism to religion that you wouldn't apply to any other area of your belief system, and that you consider the logic of your argument.

It's known as ECREE. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary must be the evidence supporting it. We wouldn't accept the same standard of evidence for the name of the third slave to the left of the pharoah, for instance, as we would for claims that that slave rose from the dead and roamed Egypt prophesying the events of the New Testament.

One could also then argue though, regarding the belief of god, that it is more extraordinary for one of the human species to be an atheist. Indeed complete and total rejection of spiritual experience is an anomaly in the grand scheme of human experience. An extraordinary claim.

[FatAndFaithless]

It's known as ECREE. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary must be the evidence supporting it. We wouldn't accept the same standard of evidence for the name of the third slave to the left of the pharoah, for instance, as we would for claims that that slave rose from the dead and roamed Egypt prophesying the events of the New Testament.

One could also then argue though, regarding the belief of god, that it is more extraordinary for one of the human species to be an atheist. Indeed complete and total rejection of spiritual experience is an anomaly in the grand scheme of human experience. An extraordinary claim.

Ugh..no. Atheism isn't a "total rejection of spiritual experience" (though 'spiritual' is such a vague word it may as well be meaningless), it's literally just not having a belief in God, that's it. There are no claims. One could technically argue what you've posited, but that person would be horribly wrong.

[naimless]

One could also then argue though, regarding the belief of god, that it is more extraordinary for one of the human species to be an atheist. Indeed complete and total rejection of spiritual experience is an anomaly in the grand scheme of human experience. An extraordinary claim.

Ugh..no. Atheism isn't a "total rejection of spiritual experience" (though 'spiritual' is such a vague word it may as well be meaningless), it's literally just not having a belief in God, that's it. There are no claims. One could technically argue what you've posited, but that person would be horribly wrong.

Trust in faithless to not see the forest for the trees.

Fine then, fuckit. It is an extraordinary claim for a human to not have a degree of belief in a deity of some description.

Whatever the fuck way you want to phrase it fuckface. Post wasn't even aimed at your cunflaps.

It was simply a hypothetical intellectually stimulating ponder with the good honourable gentleman Stimbo.

[FatAndFaithless]

Ugh..no. Atheism isn't a "total rejection of spiritual experience" (though 'spiritual' is such a vague word it may as well be meaningless), it's literally just not having a belief in God, that's it. There are no claims. One could technically argue what you've posited, but that person would be horribly wrong.

It is an extraordinary claim for a human to not have a degree of belief in a deity of some description.

(removing all the other stuff)

Nno, you've still got it wrong. Someone not believing in a deity isn't a claim, it's literally the opposite, it's simply that they don't accept the claims about the deity. There is no claim being made.

[StealthySkeptic]

Ugh..no. Atheism isn't a "total rejection of spiritual experience" (though 'spiritual' is such a vague word it may as well be meaningless), it's literally just not having a belief in God, that's it. There are no claims. One could technically argue what you've posited, but that person would be horribly wrong.

Trust in faithless to not see the forest for the trees.

Fine then, fuckit. It is an extraordinary claim for a human to not have a degree of belief in a deity of some description.

Whatever the fuck way you want to phrase it fuckface. Post wasn't even aimed at your cunflaps.

It was simply a hypothetical intellectually stimulating ponder with the good honourable gentleman Stimbo.

[Cyberman]

One could also then argue though, regarding the belief of god, that it is more extraordinary for one of the human species to be an atheist. Indeed complete and total rejection of spiritual experience is an anomaly in the grand scheme of human experience. An extraordinary claim.

Even were that true, it would be an argument that would itself require supporting.

The way the game is set up is that we have a system - from the larger Universe right down to our place in it - which apparently operates all by itself under physical and other laws that are known and understood (or at the very least knowable). Along comes a theist asserting an extra layer of complexity not evident or implied by the system under analysis. Here's a perfect illustration of the point:



Which is 'more real' in this picture - the black partial circles, or the white square projected by our perception and which vanishes completely when investigated?

[Minimalist]

Given that all historical accounts are by definition hearsay, why would you accept the hearsay of some historical accounts but not others?

Because some are corroborated by other, independent, writers or have archaeological evidence to support them.

Neither of those apply to your bible.

Otherwise, I surely agree that much of ancient "history" is anything but in the sense that we define "history" today.

For example:

2 Now a man of the tribe of Levi married a Levite woman, 2 and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. When she saw that he was a fine child, she hid him for three months. 3 But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket[a] for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile. 4 His sister stood at a distance to see what would happen to him.

5 Then Pharaoh’s daughter went down to the Nile to bathe, and her attendants were walking along the riverbank. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her female slave to get it. 6 She opened it and saw the baby. He was crying, and she felt sorry for him. “This is one of the Hebrew babies,” she said.

Ex. 2

SARGON, the powerful king, King of Agade, am I.

My mother was of low degree, my father I did not know.

The brother of my father dwelt in the mountain.

My city was Azupirani, situate on the bank of the Euphrates.

(My) humble mother conceived me; in secret she brought me forth.

She placed me in a basket-boat of rushes; with pitch she closed my door.

She gave me over to the river which did not (rise) over me.

The river bore me along; to Akki, the irrigator, it carried me.

Akki, the irrigator in the * * * brought me to land.

Akki, the irrigator, reared me as his own son.

Legend of Sargon From a 7th century BCE tablet

But the Fates had, I believe, already decreed the origin of this great city and the foundation of the mightiest empire under heaven. The Vestal was forcibly violated and gave birth to twins. She named Mars as their father, either because she really believed it, or because the fault might appear less heinous if a deity were the cause of it. But neither gods nor men sheltered her or her babes from the king's cruelty; the priestess was thrown into prison, the boys were ordered to be thrown into the river. By a heaven-sent chance it happened that the Tiber was then overflowing its banks, and stretches of standing water prevented any approach to the main channel. Those who were carrying the children expected that this stagnant water would be sufficient to drown them, so under the impression that they were carrying out the king's orders they exposed the boys at the nearest point of the overflow, where the Ficus Ruminalis (said to have been formerly called Romularis) now stands. The locality was then a wild solitude. The tradition goes on to say that after the floating cradle in which the boys had been exposed had been left by the retreating water on dry land, a thirsty she-wolf from the surrounding hills, attracted by the crying of the children, came to them, gave them her teats to suck and was so gentle towards them that the king's flock-master found her licking the boys with her tongue. According to the story, his name was Faustulus. He took the children to his hut and gave them to his wife Larentia to bring up.

Titus Livius, The Early History of Rome

All three are horseshit. But I bet you think the first one is "real."

[naimless]

It is an extraordinary claim for a human to not have a degree of belief in a deity of some description.

(removing all the other stuff)

Nno, you've still got it wrong. Someone not believing in a deity isn't a claim, it's literally the opposite, it's simply that they don't accept the claims about the deity. There is no claim being made.

If you look at a species such as monkeys objectively and see that the majority of monkeys experience eating bananas and then a minority of monkeys don't experience eating bananas it is an extraordinary claim to say that the majority of monkeys do not experience eating bananas.

Similarly if you look at humans objectively, it is an extraordinary claim to say that the majority of humans don't experience some form of deity.

It does not matter if I subjectively experience bananas or deities, or not. The majority of monkeys and humans experience them, respectively. Therefore a claim to have found god for a human is not that extraordinary, objectively speaking. It is like a monkey claiming to have found a banana.

Whether I think the monkey has actually found a banana, or if the banana exists or not, is not relevant.

[StealthySkeptic]

(removing all the other stuff)

Nno, you've still got it wrong. Someone not believing in a deity isn't a claim, it's literally the opposite, it's simply that they don't accept the claims about the deity. There is no claim being made.

If you look at a species such as monkeys objectively and see that the majority of monkeys experience eating bananas and then a minority of monkeys don't experience eating bananas it is an extraordinary claim to say that the majority of monkeys do not experience eating bananas.

Similarly if you look at humans objectively, it is an extraordinary claim to say that the majority of humans don't experience some form of deity.

It does not matter if I subjectively experience bananas or deities, or not. The majority of monkeys and humans experience them, respectively. Therefore a claim to have found god for a human is not that extraordinary, objectively speaking. It is like a monkey claiming to have found a banana.

Whether I think the monkey has actually found a banana, or if the banana exists or not, is not relevant.

Where you're wrong is that the majority of people CLAIM to have experiences with a deity, but that claim should not be taken at face value.