-
You sicken me, you lying scumbag. Why must I waste my life sharing a planet with lousy shits like you? Because make no mistake, every second, every minute, every hour, every day, every week, every year, spent in the same universe as you IS wasted. And wasted through no fault of my own, but ENTIRELY through your fault. You loathsome piece of vomit.
- O Yes they are not a hate group! they don't have an ideology? Who but a hate group ideologue would get so bent out of shape by the mere argument that one should know what one criticizes? This busienss of saying "Theology is stupid I don't need to know about it because I all I need to know is that belief in God is stupid" is just circular reasoning. It's the justification of ignorance.It's a refusal to think.
- 7:14 AM
- Brap Gronk said...
-
Part 1: Here is how I look at the Courtier’s Reply. Let’s go back in time to when the only part of today’s Bible that existed was the Pentateuch. (If that’s not the general consensus on which books were written first, feel free to substitute whatever book or books were written first in place of “Pentateuch.”) If a person of that era is presented with the Pentateuch and told it is the word of God, inspired by God, or whatever, that person can decide whether to believe it or not.
So, why would this person believe the Pentateuch is the word of God? One reason might be because this person already believes in one or more false gods who are allegedly responsible for various natural occurrences, so a story about a one true God, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, seems quite plausible. I hope we can agree that accepting the Pentateuch base on that line of reasoning is less than great, since it’s based on false beliefs. Another reason this person might believe the Pentateuch is the word of God is because he has been searching for answers to explain the natural world around him, and he thinks there must be a supreme being who is in charge of it all and created everything. In my opinion that line of reasoning is similar to the first reason, since those false gods were created for the same reason, to partially or wholly explain the natural world. It doesn’t seem much different than God of the Gaps, since at that time it was all gaps. (No need to shoot down God of the Gaps for me. I’ll remove that last sentence so we can move on.)
Are there any other reasons a person of that era might believe the Pentateuch is the word of God, based on the evidence available at the time? I don’t know.
On the other hand, why might our ancient person not believe the Pentateuch is the word of God? There could be any number of reasons to reject it, such as being generally skeptical of anything or anyone, having a dislike for authority, etc. These reasons are not based on any evaluation of the Pentateuch but are instead personality traits, so no need to consider those as being valid. But why might he reject the Pentateuch based on the available evidence? I can think of a few things he might say:
- This is just some oral history you people finally decided to write down. Why should I believe it came from a god?
- How convenient of you to write a story about how God has selected you as his chosen people and promised you some land. I wish I had thought of that first.
- This God character really cares about the minutiae of our lives, doesn’t he? There are so many rules in there that I’m more inclined to think this is an attempt to justify enforcement of your rules of behavior, not God’s rules.
- Your stories about God seem to stress rewards for those who obey him and nasty consequences for those who do not. Since I can’t verify this god of yours really did any of these nasty things to those who allegedly deserved it, this looks like a bunch of empty threats intended to make me fearful of not obeying your god.
These seem like reasonable objections to me, and I think it’s safe to say that if a group of people today came up with a story about how their god has selected them as his chosen people, promised them some land in rural Montana, and gave them a bunch of reasonable rules to live by, they wouldn’t be taken very seriously by anyone of any religious belief.
So I am suggesting we consider only the Pentateuch, and any theology based solely on the Pentateuch, when evaluating whether or not the Pentateuch was divinely inspired. Feel free to call it the Ancient Courtier’s Reply. If that’s considered unfair, keep in mind that that’s all our ancient person had to go on, too. No Jesus, no resurrection, no atonement. The Ancient Courtier cannot tell our ancient non-believer to wait because it will all make sense in a few hundred years after God sends his son to Earth. - 10:51 AM
- Brap Gronk said...
-
Part 2 of 2: Another objection to the Pentateuch our ancient person would not have made, which we can make today, is based on the current level of scientific knowledge. Critics of the (Ancient) Courtier’s Reply will immediately say that if they can’t use the rest of the Bible and its theology to support the Pentateuch, atheists can’t use scientific knowledge that was not available at the time the Pentateuch was written. The difference, however, is that the scientific basis for rejecting the Pentateuch as being divinely inspired was true back when the Pentateuch was written, it just wasn’t known at the time. The remainder of the Bible, however, was not written until later, and many of the events certainly didn’t happen until later.
My position is this: An ancient person had no rational reason for believing the Pentateuch was divinely inspired, based on what we know today about the prevalent belief in false gods at that time. That’s a hurdle most Atheists can’t get over, which is why they say any theology about the rest of the Bible isn’t worth considering. The foundation is incredibly weak, and the ancient people who believed in this weak foundation built quite a large house on it. The Courtier keeps pointing out how wonderful the windows and doors are, and how beautiful the house looks from a distance. But the Atheists don’t care about the windows, the doors, or how it looks from across the street, because they have no faith in the foundation.
How does such a large, beautiful house get built on such a weak foundation? One contributing factor is groupthink. Once a group of people start believing in something, they tend to notice things which confirm their beliefs, and it’s difficult for a person in the group to stand up and say the beliefs of the group are wrong. The tale of the Emperor’s new clothes illustrates groupthink very well. Unfortunately, groupthink can go off in a really bad direction, and one need not look further than the crusades or the prosecution of witches to confirm that. If groupthink can go off in such a bad direction as the crusades, isn’t it plausible that groupthink could have gone off in an apparently good direction, building upon the weak foundation of the Pentateuch, adding more and more “goodness” to support that position, to the point where the Bible and theology exist today? Is it unreasonable to inspect the foundation with today’s knowledge? The rest of the house cannot support the foundation, no matter how well-constructed it is. - 10:51 AM
- Metacrock said...
-
Because I think you should read things you criticize? that's such an unfair demand!
- 1:16 PM
- Metacrock said... from porter above:
-
You sicken me, you lying scumbag. Why must I waste my life sharing a planet with lousy shits like you? Because make no mistake, every second, every minute, every hour, every day, every week, every year, spent in the same universe as you IS wasted. And wasted through no fault of my own, but ENTIRELY through your fault. You loathsome piece of vomit.
I said people should try to understand things they criticize. why is that so terribly horrible? becasue you are filled with hate agaisnt religious people aren't you? why? because God wont let stick your dick where you want to sitck, right? so you hate me because I don't hate on your behalf.
you must be one of the most selfish idiot an puriel little cretins int he universe. - 1:29 PM
- Metacrock said...
-
Brap Gronk
Meta to Brap
>>>No offense man but your ideas about how religion came to be and why people believe in it, why they believe sacred texts are totally out of date and have nothing to dow tih modern ideas about religion.
You are also acting like the whole of the Christian tradition is about the Bible, that's very old fashioned and silly and just plain wrong.
You also seem to be ignoring what the courtier's reply is about. It's basically saying "hate and ridicule things you don't know about." Or rather it says "religion is so stupid you don't have to learn about it or know what you say when you criticize it because it' just so dumb don't even bother thinking you might be wrong if you totally despise it.
That's so obviously ignorant. it's just nothing more than a lynch mob mentality.
This just really proves that atheism is a hate group. - 1:34 PM
- Metacrock said...
-
for Brap Gronk part 2:
the foundation of religious belief is not holy writ, or a text. The bible is not the basis of Christianity. The basis of religious belief is the sense of the numinous. That is so well proved and so well documented in a practical sense it really proves the existence of God. It's so clearly proved that atheist have to destroy man's knowledge of it as I'm sure they will try to do.
they are already trying to ridicule the studies out of existence before they have read any.
Don't think I'm think that's anything against your intelligence or your knowledge. nO it's not your fault that think this way, how could anyone not think that way without special training in theology since the fudnies are the religious voice we hear in the media and the fundies worship the bible.
No way to get another impression unless you really study a broad field of philosophy religion, history of religions, mythology, psychology religion and theology. The only programs where you can get all that are in liberal seminaries. - 1:43 PM
- Brap Gronk said...
-
"The basis of religious belief is the sense of the numinous. That is so well proved and so well documented in a practical sense it really proves the existence of God."
Does the sense of the numinous ever lead people to believe in false gods? Has it in the past? How does one tell the difference between a false god (one who does not exist) and one who practices divine hiddenness?
If we gathered a group of children who believed in Santa Claus, and over the years they compiled evidence of his existence, including their requests (prayers) to Santa Claus being answered on a semi-regular basis, how likely are we to believe in Santa Claus because of their sense of numinous?
I would agree that religions came about because of people believing in, or wanting to believe in, a supreme being, an afterlife, etc. I'm not suggesting the first Jew went around with a copy of the Pentateuch trying to convert people to Judaism. However, if the Bible is divinely inspired (inerrant or not), and the Pentateuch, as far as we know today, was the first part to be written, shouldn't there have been a rational reason for people to believe it was divinely inspired at the time? How else does a religion gain followers, other than by parents indoctrinating their children at a young age?
To move things forward a bit chronologically, would there have been a logical, rational reason for someone living in the first century BC to convert to Judaism if he was not raised as a Jew? - 5:44 PM
- Metacrock said...
-
Does the sense of the numinous ever lead people to believe in false gods? Has it in the past? How does one tell the difference between a false god (one who does not exist) and one who practices divine hiddenness?
Meta: no it does not. Experience of God is beyond words and beyond understanding. All human verbiage about God is based upon loading that experience into cultural constructs. That's the only way to talk about them. In that sense they are all false even Christianity if you literalize the metaphors. If you understand that these constructs that gestures which point to a reality beyond themselves then it can't be false.
Jesus is the exception because he was not a cultural construct, but he still had to speak in cultural constructs to communicate with us.
Paul tells us God is working in all cultures, Acts 17:21-29. By what the Bible seems to say elsewhere we would normally think of the Greeks as evil, sataic, but Paul says the worshiped the true God, they just didn't know what to call him.
The false aspects come from literilzing the cultural constructs. - 6:39 AM
- Metacrock said...
-
BGIf we gathered a group of children who believed in Santa Claus, and over the years they compiled evidence of his existence, including their requests (prayers) to Santa Claus being answered on a semi-regular basis, how likely are we to believe in Santa Claus because of their sense of numinous?
Meta:no one can bring back a dead father from realm beyond the styx by writing a letter to santa. no one can make an incurable patent live by the power of a letter to santa. Santa is given life by adults who think it's cute to keep the illusion going. But those adults cannot heal an incurable illness or raise form the dead to fool a child.
analogies are not proof.
I would agree that religions came about because of people believing in, or wanting to believe in, a supreme being, an afterlife, etc.
circular reasoning. why do they want that? You have to account for mystical consciousness and the sense of the numinous which is as old as the hills. The caveman Bulgarian give evidence of belief in after life, why? Because they sense the numinous, not because they had a preconceived notion of a God thousands of years before Humans talked about Gods.
We can trace the appearance of gods on the human stage of history, we cannot find the origins of the numinous which go all the way back to before we were human.
BG
I'm not suggesting the first Jew went around with a copy of the Pentateuch trying to convert people to Judaism. However, if the Bible is divinely inspired (inerrant or not), and the Pentateuch, as far as we know today, was the first part to be written, shouldn't there have been a rational reason for people to believe it was divinely inspired at the time? How else does a religion gain followers, other than by parents indoctrinating their children at a young age?
Meta no what I was trying to tell you before. you do not have an adequate understanding of how the Bible came to be or it's role in the Christian tradition.
I'm going to do a main blog post on this for next week. - 6:46 AM
- Metacrock said...
-
BGTo move things forward a bit chronologically, would there have been a logical, rational reason for someone living in the first century BC to convert to Judaism if he was not raised as a Jew?
Meta You are trying to assume what the televangelists and fundies say is really Christianity. If you not in the club you are going to hell the only way for people to be saved before Jesus day was to become Jews. That is a false assumption.
People before Jesus' day did not have to become Jews to avoid hell. People in our day don't have to become Christians to avoid hell. Hell is just a metaphor for spiritual death and God is working in all cultures (Acts 17-21-29) and anyone who follows the moral law on the heart is following Jesus defacto (Romans 2:6-14) It's not a matter of everyone goes to hell but members of the club.
The reason to be in the tradition (the Christian tradition) is to know God, not to avoid hell. - 6:51 AM
- Metacrock said...
-
After saying that a bunch of people are going to say "m a universalist." I am not a universalist. I am a liberal.
read my essay on Salvation and other faiths - 6:54 AM
- Brap Gronk said...
-
Meta, is this part of your argument for the existence of God:
God exists because people have believed in, or sensed, his existence for as long as humans have existed. The best explanation for this sense of the numinous is that God exists. - 8:25 PM
- Kristen said...
-
Derek, for Pete's sake! Where did all that hatred for someone you don't even know, come from? There must be some reason why this upsets you so much-- you're reaction is entiretly out of proportion to Metacrocks' post.
Brap Gronk, the reason you think the foundation is weak is that you don't understand the foundation. You might attempt to actually look at things outside your own box, before judging them from within your box.
The Courtier's Reply says, "Your ideas don't fit in my box and I'm not in the least bit interested in climbing out of my box. From in here I can't see what the fuss is all about-- therefore, you're making a fuss over nothing." - 10:01 PM
- Metacrock said...
-
Brap Gronk said...
Meta, is this part of your argument for the existence of God:
God exists because people have believed in, or sensed, his existence for as long as humans have existed. The best explanation for this sense of the numinous is that God exists.
Not exact. without understanding how it's used it sounds stupid but let's consider how its used.
(1) how it's not used: that is not the turning point of the argument that proves the rationality of belief (don't forget I don't have to prove that God exists, my task is to prove that belief is rational).
(2) the turning point that prove rationailty is the outcome of having the experince.
(3)so how is this used: It's the link between the feeling (numinous, Utter dependence, peak experience or whatever) and its' identification with the divine. That doesn't prove God exists, it tells us why these experiences are associated with God.
It's just if I report that I saw a do do bird. you say "what makes you think the bird you say is a do do bird?" Because it fits the description. "how do you know the description is accurate?" Because this is the same description people have always given for the bird.
what would ever prove something? Your problem is you are so hung up on answerintg any proofs that you can't stop adn ask yourself what would be a rational reason to believe something?
don't fall back on the mistaken idea that belief in God requires big amazing miracles no one can deny that's an atheist straw man argument. - 8:46 AM
- Brap Gronk said...
-
Kristen said: "the reason you think the foundation is weak is that you don't understand the foundation."
I realize that, which is why I am asking questions. I now understand the foundation of Christianity extends beyond (is earlier than) the Pentateuch.
If the foundation of Scientology is simply some of L. Ron Hubbard's writings, we don't need much Scientologist theology (if there is such a thing) to consider that a weak foundation. I suspect the apologists for Scientology have plenty to say beyond L. Ron Hubbard's writings, and when the Protestants, Muslims, Catholics and Mormons say it's a big fuss over nothing and don't bother to listen to it, the Scientologists might say those people don't understand the foundation and they are using the Courtier's Reply. (I doubt there is any comparison between the evidence presented to support Scientology and the evidence presented to support Christianity, so no equality is implied there.) - 6:42 PM
- Brap Gronk said...
-
Meta wrote: "(don't forget I don't have to prove that God exists, my task is to prove that belief is rational)."
I'm all ears, waiting for some rationality.
"2) the turning point that prove rationailty is the outcome of having the experince."
Assuming you are not saying correlation proves causation, what are you saying there? I know some people feel better and have good things happen to them when they believe in God, and I think there are studies that have quantified some of those effects. But I think the most we can logically conclude from such studies is that belief in a supreme being has been beneficial for more individuals than nonbelief has been. I'm even ok saying "belief" is the cause of those effects if you want to go that far, but that does nothing to determine the validity of the belief. Once again, if children who believe in Santa Claus get more presents than those who don't believe in Santa Claus . . .
"(3)so how is this used: It's the link between the feeling (numinous, Utter dependence, peak experience or whatever) and its' identification with the divine. That doesn't prove God exists, it tells us why these experiences are associated with God."
Then I'll revise my guess regarding part of your argument for the existence of God. How's this:
The sense of the numinous that humans have had as long as (or almost as long as) humans have existed is universal. It is universal in the sense that it has similar characteristics across time, culture, geography, language, age, etc. The best explanation for this universality of the sense of the numinous throughout human history is the divine (God).
"what would ever prove something?"
Repeatable, predictable, observable, verifiable results of experimentation seems like a good start.
"Your problem is you are so hung up on answerintg any proofs that you can't stop adn ask yourself what would be a rational reason to believe something?"
I'm not asking for a logical proof (deduction) of God's existence. Some inductive reasoning based on empirical evidence might be a good step toward rationality, though. Ignoring the ability of the human mind to convince itself something is true and to maintain that position, even when presented with overwhelming evidence (even video evidence) that contradicts it, seems a bit irrational.
"don't fall back on the mistaken idea that belief in God requires big amazing miracles no one can deny that's an atheist straw man argument."
I don't need a big amazing miracle to believe in God, although I cannot with certainty say what would convince me. But I can definitely state with certainty that without some convincing evidence of the supernatural interacting with the natural world, now or in the past, even a teeny tiny bit, I'm unlikely to consider it.
Some apologists like to say science cannot detect the supernatural, to which I say it can detect when things don't fit with our current knowledge of the natural world. If we consider the barrier between the natural and the supernatural to be a wall, science can detect where something goes through the wall and where it comes back. If it goes through and comes back in the same spot (divine hiddenness), I think it's more likely that it never crossed the wall at all. - 6:44 PM
- Metacrock said...
-
I suspect the apologists for Scientology have plenty to say beyond L. Ron Hubbard's writings,
I wouldn't bet on it. We can distinguish between valid religions and cults and scams.
I have a friend who was into Scientology at one time. He says its' a cult and a scam.
surely a being from your advanced world understands that argument from analogy and guilt by association are fallacious right? So if one group is bad that doesn't' make all religious groups bad, right?
I'll answer your other comments at greater length tomorrow. - 7:06 PM
- Metacrock said...
-
Meta wrote: "(don't forget I don't have to prove that God exists, my task is to prove that belief is rational)."
BG:
I'm all ears, waiting for some rationality.
Meta:
"2) the turning point that prove rationailty is the outcome of having the experince."
BG
Assuming you are not saying correlation proves causation, what are you saying there?
Meta: The rationality of belief is demonstrated by the effect of the experience of God's presence, or whatever you want to term religious experience. It's not an argument about causation because it's not a proof of God's existence, remember? all it has to show is that belief is rationally warranted. The rational warrant for belief is the effect of the experience.
BG
I know some people feel better and have good things happen to them when they believe in God, and I think there are studies that have quantified some of those effects. But I think the most we can logically conclude from such studies is that belief in a supreme being has been beneficial for more individuals than nonbelief has been.
Meta: wrong!
(1) don't reduce the effects with faint words like "feel better." These clinical and scientific analysis demonstrating dramatic and transfomrative effects.
(2) you can't argue that belief makes you feel better because these are dramatic experiences of sort that involve raising the level of consciousness through sensation of a presence and unity in the world that indicates the awareness of the divine. These experiences are not beliefs that make you feel better,they are often the reason one begins to believe. Not just feeling better but total life transformation.
read this link on the effects
this one states the argument in a somewhat more formal way and offers more evidence.
BG
I'm even ok saying "belief" is the cause of those effects if you want to go that far,
Meta: disproved by the fact that for many the experience is the cause of the belief not vice verse
BG
but that does nothing to determine the validity of the belief. Once again, if children who believe in Santa Claus get more presents than those who don't believe in Santa Claus . . .
Meta:children don't experience the presence of Santa.
you are arguing from analogy and your analogy is a bad one becasue it doesn't apply. Sensing the numinous or hte presence of God is very different from being told you parents about santa, totally different things.
I'll put up a major blog article on this soon, but first I want to deal some other things you raised.
I'll deal with the rest of your comments tomorrow.
you can come to my message boards too you know for more extended discussion.
doxa forums - 7:18 PM
- Metacrock said...
-
"(3)so how is this used: It's the link between the feeling (numinous, Utter dependence, peak experience or whatever) and its' identification with the divine. That doesn't prove God exists, it tells us why these experiences are associated with God."
BG
Then I'll revise my guess regarding part of your argument for the existence of God. How's this:
The sense of the numinous that humans have had as long as (or almost as long as) humans have existed is universal. It is universal in the sense that it has similar characteristics across time, culture, geography, language, age, etc. The best explanation for this universality of the sense of the numinous throughout human history is the divine (God).
meta: that's good. It's a rational warrant for belief becasue it' the best explanation for it.
"what would ever prove something?"
BG
Repeatable, predictable, observable, verifiable results of experimentation seems like a good start.
the M scale provides that. Since it was verified through over a dozen studies in about that many cultures. The M scale is a means of determining one has had a valid mystical experience. For this reason it's also the best way to make a definition of what that is. It's validated because the numbers bear out the theories of W.T. Stace who drew up his theories from the writings of the world's major mystics. So the mystic's experiences are verified in that their experiences are echoed in the experiences of people around the world.
Meta"Your problem is you are so hung up on answerintg any proofs that you can't stop adn ask yourself what would be a rational reason to believe something?"
BG
I'm not asking for a logical proof (deduction) of God's existence. Some inductive reasoning based on empirical evidence might be a good step toward rationality, though.
Meta ok fair enough I think I just provided that. - 7:26 PM
- Metacrock said...
-
BGIgnoring the ability of the human mind to convince itself something is true and to maintain that position, even when presented with overwhelming evidence (even video evidence) that contradicts it, seems a bit irrational.
say BG you keep putting the cart before the horse. For a lot of these guys the experience came first, so the experience is not being determined by the belief but the belief by the experience.
that's how it was for me btw.
Meta"don't fall back on the mistaken idea that belief in God requires big amazing miracles no one can deny that's an atheist straw man argument."
BG
I don't need a big amazing miracle to believe in God, although I cannot with certainty say what would convince me. But I can definitely state with certainty that without some convincing evidence of the supernatural interacting with the natural world, now or in the past, even a teeny tiny bit, I'm unlikely to consider it.
why do you say that? where do you get the concept of a Super natural?? why would you associate it with God?
here's an article I did some time ago (2006) what is the supernatural?
GB
Some apologists like to say science cannot detect the supernatural, to which I say it can detect when things don't fit with our current knowledge of the natural world. If we consider the barrier between the natural and the supernatural to be a wall, science can detect where something goes through the wall and where it comes back. If it goes through and comes back in the same spot (divine hiddenness), I think it's more likely that it never crossed the wall at all.
meta please read the link I think you will see you have the wrong end of the stick. the concept of supernatural is not understand by atheist, or aliens from other planets, nor most Christians for that matter.
that article will tell you what the super natural is. this one shows you empirical evidence of the SN - 7:33 PM
- Kristen said...
-
Brap Gronk said:
"Repeatable, predictable, observable, verifiable results of experimentation seems like a good start."
Metacrock spoke of the M-scale as a verifer of religious experience. But I suspect that won't be good enough for you because your words above show that you're stuck in your box. You can't prove someone loves you through "repeatable, predictable, observable, verifiable results of experimentation." You can't understand a piece of artwork, or a poem, through "repeatable, predictable, observable, verifiable results of experimentation." You can't even prove you exist through "repeatable, predictable, observable, verifiable results of experimentation."
If your only tool is a hammer, everything is going to look like a nail. Science is your hammer. Lay it down for a minute and see that there are things in the world that have nothing to do with being nails. - 11:03 PM
- Metacrock said...
-
If your only tool is a hammer, everything is going to look like a nail. Science is your hammer. Lay it down for a minute and see that there are things in the world that have nothing to do with being nails.
that's good. I like that. You are right Kristen. We don't have to replicable scientific standards to know phenomenologically verifiable apprehensions.
The M scale does mean that testing the validity of RE fits the criteria he laid out for scientific verification. But it doesn't have to be there for every aspect of belief. It works for verification of that experience, it doesn't have to available for verification of God's existence.
God is not a scientific question. So we can have the scientific criteria for things that fit scientific questions and we can have experience for God. - 7:08 AM
- Brap Gronk said...
-
Thanks for the dialog and the links, Meta. I see there's a new posting on your blog I might be interested in, too. I have a bit of reading to do, and unlike Mr. Porter I enjoy reading viewpoints from the other side, so I'll probably lay low for awhile. But to borrow a line from the Governator: "I'll be bach."
- 7:42 AM
- Metacrock said...
-
Thanks for the dialog and the links, Meta. I see there's a new posting on your blog I might be interested in, too. I have a bit of reading to do, and unlike Mr. Porter I enjoy reading viewpoints from the other side, so I'll probably lay low for awhile. But to borrow a line from the Governator: "I'll be bach."
OK Brap, thanks. you are always welcome. Don't forget my message board.
I'm going to respond to of your comments in the main section so keep a look out for that. - 8:22 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment