Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
March 31, 2015 at 9:47 am (This post was last modified: March 31, 2015 at 9:48 am by Delicate.)
(March 20, 2015 at 7:43 pm)pocaracas Wrote:
(March 20, 2015 at 7:26 pm)Delicate Wrote: Well, for one, "the Bible" is not a singular book, but a collection of several works spanning around 1500 years. There's an incredible amount of cultural/temporal diversity between the various works, despite the fact that the authors all believed in Yahweh.
This is the main problem with it...
The people who wrote it, had no knowledge of any god.... they had no foresight, no insight, nothing tangible... they believed.
Like people believe nowadays, so did they believe back then.
Unless, they knew it was a con...
(March 30, 2015 at 5:58 pm)pocaracas Wrote:
(March 30, 2015 at 1:23 am)Delicate Wrote: It doesn't look like anyone will get there, frankly. You're on your own on that little island.
wow... I thought you'd gone...
I'll be nice, now... I'm in that mood...
Let's see how it went.... first, you said:
(March 20, 2015 at 7:26 pm)Delicate Wrote: Well, for one, "the Bible" is not a singular book, but a collection of several works spanning around 1500 years. There's an incredible amount of cultural/temporal diversity between the various works, despite the fact that the authors all believed in Yahweh.
my bold.
To which I replied, agreeing with you:
(March 20, 2015 at 7:43 pm)pocaracas Wrote: The people who wrote it, had no knowledge of any god.... they had no foresight, no insight, nothing tangible... they believed.
Like people believe nowadays, so did they believe back then.
Unless, they knew it was a con...
And you replied with
(March 21, 2015 at 1:34 pm)Delicate Wrote: That's an assload of speculation on your part isn't it?
For all we know, they might really have had these supernatural experiences. Maybe it was drugs. Maybe there really was a God. Maybe it was aliens. Maybe it was supernatural demons/spirits pretending to be God.
It's very hard for me to believe that these longsuffering Israelite peasants wandering through the desert had the time and inclination to make up, memorize, and indoctrinate others into their beliefs if they knew it was all false.
That's a lot of wasted effort that could have gone into farming or hunting or what-not.
Why the hostility?... I was agreeing with you!!
However, I just kept with the speculation... you were enjoying it so much, I figured, what the heck?...
(March 21, 2015 at 2:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote: They were between at least two great theist civilizations: Egypt and Mesopotamia. Their greater work was coming up with something that people would identify with, while not identifying with the neighbors.
For all we know, the writers of the Bible (OT and NT) were people like all people that we know of that are alive today.... and like all these people, they were very human and very flawed and had their beliefs, their ulterior motives, their way of living.
The likelihood of they having access to some supernatural event is similar to the likelihood of people nowadays having access to such an event... negligible.
I consider it FAR FAR more speculative the possibility that they did have experience of some actual supernatural event.
We know humans will say anything to con others... and we know humans are easily conned by someone cunning enough.
We do not know that supernatural events occur.
See? I'm still agreeing with your initial premise: they believed it.
And you went on analyzing the very real human psychology of today:
(March 21, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Delicate Wrote: Even today, people, who are very flawed and human hardly have time to manufacture grand myths and struggle to live in accordance to them.
I mean, most of the myths I hear concocted are designed to serve some person's interests. David Koresh, or Charles Manson. Most religions don't have such a feature.
And I gave you some perspective on the same human psychology of old:
(March 21, 2015 at 2:58 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Right.... back then, the rulers used a previously established religion to strengthen their hold on the people.... nowadays, the pre-existing religions already have too strong a hold on the people (and there are many more people) for new cults to grow enough.... also, "Separation of church and state" tends to help.
And then, you accused me of
(March 21, 2015 at 3:02 pm)Delicate Wrote: It doesn't worry you, the ad hoc nature of your explanations?
To which I gave you even more questions
(March 21, 2015 at 3:57 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Doesn't it worry you that there are more than one religion?
That there is more than one belief?
That there is more than one deity in recorded history?
If any one deity is real, how would it allow others? why?
If it made itself known to some people, why wouldn't it make itself known to other people? Why would it rely on the faulty human transmission method? Why would it allow that method to incubate the astonishing diversity of beliefs we know of, today?
My explanations are based on human psychology, politics, power hunger, population control...
Any theist explanation is based on woo and hearsay.
Considering we have no access to the actual origin of the woo, we have to rely on some sort of probabilities...
Which strikes you as more reliable? woo or psychology?
If my attempt at explaining the religious devotion we see today and see recorded in historic records is ad hoc and, hence, likely false, then those first questions must arise. Assuming that one religion is portraying reality, then whence cometh the other religions?
This is when your delicate brain failed you terribly...
(March 21, 2015 at 7:20 pm)Delicate Wrote: I'm not worried by religious pluralism or pluralism of any sort. To me it's the same as aesthetic and musical diversity. Linguistic diversity and other forms of cultural diversity.
But I don't think you can avoid the ad hocness of your explanations by asking me a different question. Your explanations are ad hoc, and this weakness of theirs remains, right?
Accusations to distract from the heart of the matter... almost as if you missed my previous point...
It was also when I explained further
(March 21, 2015 at 8:01 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Forgive me, milady.... I was mistaken as to the meaning of "ad hoc"....
Now that I've taken the time to instruct myself, I must kindly disagree.
My explanation is far from ad hoc.
It flows from our slim knowledge of how life was back then and our present knowledge of human psychology.... and takes a few hints from today's missing divine.
Nothing ad hoc about it as it is quite applicable to any civilization. Many strategies have been devised, throughout the years... centuries, or even millennia, in order to keep a substantial number of people living together without them becoming a violent mess.
Religion has the merit of being one of the best methods yet found... If it was minimally thought out at the start or if it evolved into the control mechanism it became, I cannot tell.... there is no record of it... or, if there is, it hasn't been brought to my attention. And, if there ever was such evidence, it would stand to reason that the people in control and possession of it would be very interested in having it destroyed.
But the themes in the various cults do seem to have suffered some form of path from a simpler, more nature-oriented version (such as can be found in animism and shamanism) to the widely known present-day transcendental one.
I gave you more psychology...
And what did you do?
(March 22, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Delicate Wrote: Milady? I get the whole fedora atheist reference, but I'm a dude.
What actual research have you done to look into the issue? I mean besides just making up your theory?
Ask me where psychology comes from...
And I gave you a few psychology sources, thinking it would be enough...
but nooooo.... Just couldn't use that noggin... So I just gave up and went the easy way of insult.
I certainly admire the effort. Here's where it went wrong to begin with:
(March 20, 2015 at 7:43 pm)pocaracas Wrote:
(March 20, 2015 at 7:26 pm)Delicate Wrote: Well, for one, "the Bible" is not a singular book, but a collection of several works spanning around 1500 years. There's an incredible amount of cultural/temporal diversity between the various works, despite the fact that the authors all believed in Yahweh.
This is the main problem with it...
The people who wrote it, had no knowledge of any god.... they had no foresight, no insight, nothing tangible... they believed.
Like people believe nowadays, so did they believe back then.
Unless, they knew it was a con...
Your mistake: You have no basis for your claim that the people had no knowledge of any god.
Girl, hide that wall of text!!
Oh, sorry... not a girl... why do I have that stuck in my head?
(March 31, 2015 at 9:47 am)Delicate Wrote:
(March 20, 2015 at 7:43 pm)pocaracas Wrote: This is the main problem with it...
The people who wrote it, had no knowledge of any god.... they had no foresight, no insight, nothing tangible... they believed.
Like people believe nowadays, so did they believe back then.
Unless, they knew it was a con...
(March 30, 2015 at 5:58 pm)pocaracas Wrote: wow... I thought you'd gone...
I'll be nice, now... I'm in that mood...
Let's see how it went.... first, you said:
my bold.
To which I replied, agreeing with you:
And you replied with
Why the hostility?... I was agreeing with you!!
However, I just kept with the speculation... you were enjoying it so much, I figured, what the heck?...
See? I'm still agreeing with your initial premise: they believed it.
And you went on analyzing the very real human psychology of today:
And I gave you some perspective on the same human psychology of old:
And then, you accused me of
To which I gave you even more questions
If my attempt at explaining the religious devotion we see today and see recorded in historic records is ad hoc and, hence, likely false, then those first questions must arise. Assuming that one religion is portraying reality, then whence cometh the other religions?
This is when your delicate brain failed you terribly...
Accusations to distract from the heart of the matter... almost as if you missed my previous point...
It was also when I explained further
I gave you more psychology...
And what did you do?
Ask me where psychology comes from...
And I gave you a few psychology sources, thinking it would be enough...
but nooooo.... Just couldn't use that noggin... So I just gave up and went the easy way of insult.
I certainly admire the effort. Here's where it went wrong to begin with:
(March 20, 2015 at 7:43 pm)pocaracas Wrote: This is the main problem with it...
The people who wrote it, had no knowledge of any god.... they had no foresight, no insight, nothing tangible... they believed.
Like people believe nowadays, so did they believe back then.
Unless, they knew it was a con...
Your mistake: You have no basis for your claim that the people had no knowledge of any god.
That you made up.
I followed your lead...
You said they believed. If they believe, then they didn't know.
"I believe my wife is faithful to me.... however, I don't know it... she may not be, for all I know..."
Or are you going to tell me that knowledge is nothing more that "justified true belief" and, since knowledge is belief, then, when you said that they believed, it really meant that they knew and had a true justification for that knowledge?
Or, as I assume, did they have as much justification as people nowadays have?
