Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on May 13, 2020, 09:27:13 AM
-
I recently saw a clip of antitheist 'comedian' Ricky Gervais on the Stephen Colbert Show using the I believe in one less God' schtick. When he said it he made that 'laugh now' facial gesture at the audience.
But the question is this....who is his audience since to a theist the statement is a) obvious and b) an unsophisticated and indeed ignorant statement about religion and comparative religion?
Atheists though get moist about it so I would move that Gervais is playing to the gallery and making a horse laugh argument which as it seems passes as fair comment in the whacky world of Celebrity Atheism.
If any atheists here 'get it' would they please inform us how this is a 'devastating argument which reduces monotheists to gibbering wrecks' and atheists to gibbering post orgasmic wrecks.
-
I recently saw a clip of antitheist 'comedian' Ricky Gervais on the Stephen Colbert Show using the I believe in one less God' schtick. When he said it he made that 'laugh now' facial gesture at the audience.
But the question is this....who is his audience since to a theist the statement is a) obvious and b) an unsophisticated and indeed ignorant statement about religion and comparative religion?
Atheists though get moist about it so I would move that Gervais is playing to the gallery and making a horse laugh argument which as it seems passes as fair comment in the whacky world of Celebrity Atheism.
If any atheists here 'get it' would they please inform us how this is a 'devastating argument which reduces monotheists to gibbering wrecks' and atheists to gibbering post orgasmic wrecks.
The main point isn't, of course, that if there are 'n' purported gods that I do not believe in n and you don't believe in n-1. That is the starting point.
The really point about this 'schtick' as you call it is to challenge the theist on why he or she does no believe in the n-1 gods, yet somehow criticises the atheist for not believing in n - and often (as you regularly do) demands that atheists provide proof for the non-existence of god. If that is reasonable then you also need to provide proof for the non existence of Thor, Odin, Vishnu etc etc.
The point is, Vlad, that in relation to Thor, Odin, Vishnu and thousands of other purported gods you act in exactly the same manner as atheists. You choose not to believe in their existence due lack of any credible evidence that they exist. Further you'd (rightly) reject any notion that you have the onus of proof in relation to your lack of belief in Thor, Odin, Vishnu and thousands of other purported gods, placing the onus of proof on those who make a positive claim for their existence. So if those arguments are OK for n-1 gods for you they are just as valid for n gods for an atheist.
That's the point.
There is also the further obvious point that when a theist challenges an atheist for not believing in god (often in a higher-than-though and patronising manner) the response should be 'which one' and for mono-theists the point is that except for one god ... well ... neither do you.
-
The main point isn't, of course, that if there are 'n' purported gods that I do not believe in n and you don't believe in n-1. That is the starting point.
The really point about this 'schtick' as you call it is to challenge the theist on why he or she does no believe in the n-1 gods, yet somehow criticises the atheist for not believing in n - and often (as you regularly do) demands that atheists provide proof for the non-existence of god. If that is reasonable then you also need to provide proof for the non existence of Thor, Odin, Vishnu etc etc.
The point is, Vlad, that in relation to Thor, Odin, Vishnu and thousands of other purported gods you act in exactly the same manner as atheists. You choose not to believe in their existence due lack of any credible evidence that they exist. Further you'd (rightly) reject any notion that you have the onus of proof in relation to your lack of belief in Thor, Odin, Vishnu and thousands of other purported gods, placing the onus of proof on those who make a positive claim for their existence. So if those arguments are OK for n-1 gods for you they are just as valid for n gods for an atheist.
That's the point.
After my opening post tipping atheists potentially contributing here that the 'one less god' schtick might very well be treated by monotheists as obvious and lacking theological sophistication....Professor Davey immediately offers an explanation which is a) obvious and b) lacks theological sophistication.
-
After my opening post tipping atheists potentially contributing here that the 'one less god' schtick might very well be treated by monotheists as obvious and lacking theological sophistication....Professor Davey immediately offers an explanation which is a) obvious and b) lacks theological sophistication.
So why don't you believe in Thor or Vishnu?
-
After my opening post tipping atheists potentially contributing here that the 'one less god' schtick might very well be treated by monotheists as obvious and lacking theological sophistication....Professor Davey immediately offers an explanation which is a) obvious and b) lacks theological sophistication.
An example of "theological sophistication" would be what, exactly?
-
An example of "theological sophistication" would be what, exactly?
Well for a start the atheist using the 'schtick' equates his disbelief in any with the reasons a monotheism has chosen to stick with the divine but a certain iteration of the divine. Secondly where as monotheists have differing views on theology they all believe in one God rather than zero gods.
Thirdly theists are able to see elements of divinity in other faiths.
A reading of say, Lewis's journey to Christianity sees other iterations of the divine distinguished by Lewis as being overlaid by different levels of mythology. In Lewis he finds the divine expressed in both Baldur and Krishna but they are signs on the way to Christ.
And finally and predictably the atheist just digitally disbelieves in all of this divinity stuff and sees his own simplistic take on the issue as definitive...….on the grounds no doubt that it is 'obvious'.
-
Well for a start the atheist using the 'schtick' equates his disbelief in any with the reasons a monotheism has chosen to stick with the divine but a certain iteration of the divine. Secondly where as monotheists have differing views on theology they all believe in one God rather than zero gods.
Thirdly theists are able to see elements of divinity in other faiths.
A reading of say, Lewis's journey to Christianity sees other iterations of the divine distinguished by Lewis as being overlaid by different levels of mythology. In Lewis he finds the divine expressed in both Baldur and Krishna but they are signs on the way to Christ.
And finally and predictably the atheist just digitally disbelieves in all of this divinity stuff and sees his own simplistic take on the issue as definitive...….on the grounds no doubt that it is 'obvious'.
So why don't you believe in Thor or Vishnu?
-
So why don't you believe in Thor or Vishnu?
Too much obvious local mythos to be a helpful, useful comprehensive picture of the greatness of the divine.
Why don't you believe in them?
-
Well for a start the atheist using the 'schtick' equates his disbelief in any with the reasons a monotheism has chosen to stick with the divine but a certain iteration of the divine. Secondly where as monotheists have differing views on theology they all believe in one God rather than zero gods.
Thirdly theists are able to see elements of divinity in other faiths.
A reading of say, Lewis's journey to Christianity sees other iterations of the divine distinguished by Lewis as being overlaid by different levels of mythology. In Lewis he finds the divine expressed in both Baldur and Krishna but they are signs on the way to Christ.
And finally and predictably the atheist just digitally disbelieves in all of this divinity stuff and sees his own simplistic take on the issue as definitive...….on the grounds no doubt that it is 'obvious'.
It would appear 'theological sophistication' is using words that one does not appear to understand to create something that is meaningless
-
It would appear 'theological sophistication' is using words that one does not appear to understand to create something that is meaningless
Sad to see a reasonable intellect as yours reach such a low level of debate.
-
Too much obvious local mythos to be a helpful, useful comprehensive picture of the greatness of the divine.
Why don't you believe in them?
What does that even mean?
I don't currently believe in them, as they have not provided sufficient evidence to convince me.
Do you not believe in them for a different reason?
-
Sad to see a reasonable intellect as yours reach such a low level of debate.
Sorry......it's not even debate.
-
What does that even mean?
I don't currently believe in them, as they have not provided sufficient evidence to convince me.
Do you not believe in them for a different reason?
Yes....I have expressed reasons for not believing in them. You just talk about being convinced and about sufficient reasons to belief.
-
After my opening post tipping atheists potentially contributing here that the 'one less god' schtick might very well be treated by monotheists as obvious and lacking theological sophistication....Professor Davey immediately offers an explanation which is a) obvious and b) lacks theological sophistication.
What's 'theological sophistication'? You have nothing, you make elaborate excuses for why you have nothing, and then claim a degree in not being able to not disprove there is nothing (sometimes with hymns). Theology is the Emperor's New Clothes of learning - there's nothing really there.
O.
-
Yes....I have expressed reasons for not believing in them. You just talk about being convinced and about sufficient reasons to belief.
You posted some word salad, but you did not explain why you do not believe in them.
Why don't you believe in Thor?
-
You posted some word salad, but you did not explain why you do not believe in them.
Why don't you believe in Thor?
Answered. If you cannot get your head round it then it just emphasises the difference between atheism and theism.
Insufficient reasons to belief does not answer the question of why you disbelieve. Why do you start with disbelief?
-
Sad to see a reasonable intellect as yours reach such a low level of debate.
Your post wasn't debateable. It was vacuous.
-
Answered. If you cannot get your head round it then it just emphasises the difference between atheism and theism.
Insufficient reasons to belief does not answer the question of why you disbelieve. Why do you start with disbelief?
You have avoided and not answered. You just posted meaningless words thinking it was a deepity.
I will answer your question. The time to believe anything is when there is sufficient evidence to convince you. The default position is to not believe.
-
OK Be Rational lets not beat about the bush. As a child you would have believed all sorts of things but then you would have come to disbelief in them. This would involve reason. Not insufficient reason so stop bullshitting and give us straight the reasons you disbelieve. I have given a reason for disbelieve you?....haven't.
-
Answered. If you cannot get your head round it then it just emphasises the difference between atheism and theism.
Insufficient reasons to belief does not answer the question of why you disbelieve. Why do you start with disbelief?
I've not heard of god, so I don't believe. Someone says 'there's a god', and I say 'where' and he says 'oh, i have insufficient evidence' so I still don't believe... it's not a difficult path.
In the absence of any evidence, I have no awareness of the concept in order to even consider it, let alone believe. Then you introduce the concept, and I await sufficient grounds to upgrade my world view - that's still not happened.
O.
-
OK Be Rational lets not beat about the bush. As a child you would have believed all sorts of things but then you would have come to disbelief in them. This would involve reason. Not insufficient reason so stop bullshitting and give us straight the reasons you disbelieve. I have given a reason for disbelieve you?....haven't.
When I was born I believed nothing. Then I believed what my parents told me as this is an efficient way to not die.
As you grow some people learn to question.
In the words of Matt Dillahunty "I want to believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible".
That means that I am sceptical and need convincing non fallacious reason and evidence to conclude that something is likely to be true.
That's why I do not believe in your god, nor Thor and Vishnu.
Why don't you believe in them?
-
Your post wasn't debateable. It was vacuous.
Then sadly, I have to announce my membership to the apparently increasing roll of the ''Sadly Nearly Sane has descended into talking wank''club.
-
Well for a start the atheist using the 'schtick' equates his disbelief in any with the reasons a monotheism has chosen to stick with the divine but a certain iteration of the divine. Secondly where as monotheists have differing views on theology they all believe in one God rather than zero gods.
No you are missing the point and turning it back around to why you believe in the one god.
The whole point of this argument is to challenge theists (including monotheists) to focus on the reasons why they do not believe in n-1 (for monotheists) or n-x (for multi theists) gods rather than why they believe in 1 or x gods.
-
When I was born I believed nothing.
Completely irrelevant. You stop believing for reasons. The ''insufficient reason'' schtick comes later after exposure to the likes of Dillahunty.
-
Completely irrelevant. You stop believing for reasons. The ''insufficient reason'' schtick comes later after exposure to the likes of Dillahunty.
What if you never started believing in the first place?
-
No you are missing the point and turning it back around to why you believe in the one god.
The whole point of this argument is to challenge theists (including monotheists) to focus on the reasons why they do not believe in n-1 (for monotheists) or n-x (for multi theists) gods rather than why they believe in 1 or x gods.
Which is why I mention Lewis who outlines his reasons for disregarding Baldur and Krishna as the final expressions or most comprehensive representations of divinity. Theists have gone through that process. What you are saying is the aim of atheists in 'educating' and 'challenging' theists is both therefore ignorant of the theist experience and inadequate.
That some gods are obviously wrong therefore all are, I have noted, is not a very good argument but it seems to be where you are heading in your argument.
-
I recently saw a clip of antitheist 'comedian' Ricky Gervais on the Stephen Colbert Show using the I believe in one less God' schtick. When he said it he made that 'laugh now' facial gesture at the audience.
I can't see the appeal of Gervais myself, either. In particular, for me the most irritating thing about this argument is that if the entire point is that you can count how many gods you do or don't believe in then surely it should be 'you just believe in one god fewer' not 'one god less' ... so irritating!
But the question is this....who is his audience since to a theist the statement is a) obvious and b) an unsophisticated and indeed ignorant statement about religion and comparative religion?
As a rhetorical device, the question is for everyone; the purpose is to get them to think about why they believe what they believe. For theists it's about them realising that their 'special' belief in a god is exactly the same as the special belief that other people have for their god that is so easily dismissed in your devotion to yours. For atheists it's about realising that they are closer to most believers than they probably realise.
Atheists though get moist about it so I would move that Gervais is playing to the gallery and making a horse laugh argument which as it seems passes as fair comment in the whacky world of Celebrity Atheism.
'Atheists get moist about it'? You're probably hanging around with the wrong atheists, then. Maybe you should try hanging around with some good old-fashioned anti-theists, then - I hear Jimmy Carr has an opening.
If any atheists here 'get it' would they please inform us how this is a 'devastating argument which reduces monotheists to gibbering wrecks' and atheists to gibbering post orgasmic wrecks.
I wasn't aware anyone though it was a 'devastating argument' - as an 'atheist argument' it's a cute rhetorical device to try to get believers to realise that their chosen belief system is exactly as valid as anyone else's, but it's not a standalone argument. As a social device, it's a way of showing that we aren't all that different, regardless of whether we believe in just one of the hundreds of possible gods or none of them. Probably doesn't work on the Shintoists or Hindus, though, they have way more than (n-1) gods to start with...
O.
-
What if you never started believing in the first place?
Then we are either talking about intellectual /experiential vacuum or starting with disbelief.
-
Then we are either talking about intellectual /experiential vacuum or starting with disbelief.
Of course you start with disbelief!
Did you start with a belief in Thor?
-
Of course you start with disbelief!
Then the question for many atheists is how they started to believe and the reasons for then disbelieving what they believed in.
It sounds like you regressed to a baby state.
-
Then the question for many atheists is how they started to believe and the reasons for then disbelieving what they believed in.
It sounds like you regressed to a baby state.
I didn't believe in Father Christmas, until as a credulous child someone showed me the presents he'd brought to my house; then I believed. Then, when more information became available and I matured enough to analyse it dispassionately, I realised that MAGIC WASN'T REAL, and suddenly the more prosaic explanation for it all became apparent.
It sounds like regression, yes, but it's really about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
O.
-
I didn't believe in Father Christmas, until as a credulous child someone showed me the presents he'd brought to my house; then I believed. Then, when more information became available and I matured enough to analyse it dispassionately, I realised that MAGIC WASN'T REAL, and suddenly the more prosaic explanation for it all became apparent.
It sounds like regression, yes, but it's really about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
O.
Ah, a reason for disbelief. How refreshing.
-
Then we are either talking about intellectual /experiential vacuum or starting with disbelief.
Why does not having an involvement in religion imply an "intellectual/experiential vacuum"? After all, it is quite possible to learn about religion(s) without having had any active involvement as a participant.
I never started to belief nor began from a position of disbelief.
-
Ah, a reason for disbelief. How refreshing.
Not exactly, more of a reason to see that the justification for belief was unfounded, and a revertion to the default position of non-belief.
I don't believe in pixies because I've never seen sufficient evidence of them.
I don't believe in Thor because, despite the films, I've not seen sufficient evidence.
I don't believe in the Christian god because I've not seen sufficient evidence.
I don't believe in Santa because, although I was credulous once, I realise now that the evidence was insufficient.
Disbelief is the natural state, belief requires evidence, and for that evidence to be examined.
O.
-
Not exactly, more of a reason to see that the justification for belief was unfounded, and a revertion to the default position of non-belief.
I don't believe in pixies because I've never seen sufficient evidence of them.
I don't believe in Thor because, despite the films, I've not seen sufficient evidence.
I don't believe in the Christian god because I've not seen sufficient evidence.
I don't believe in Santa because, although I was credulous once, I realise now that the evidence was insufficient.
Disbelief is the natural state, belief requires evidence, and for that evidence to be examined.
O.
But isn't disbelief believing there aren't pixies, there isn't Thor, There isn't the Christian god and there isn't Santa so to me this 'insufficient evidence for' is a bit of a slight hint of a dodge avoiding what you are really trying to say for whatever reason.
-
But isn't disbelief believing there aren't pixies, there isn't Thor, There isn't the Christian god and there isn't Santa so to me this 'insufficient evidence for' is a bit of a slight hint of a dodge avoiding what you are really trying to say for whatever reason.
Disbelief could be believing there aren't pixies, or it could be not believing there are pixies. I started off not even being aware of the concept of pixies, and I've never gone through a place of believing there were pixies to arrive at the current position of not believing there are pixies. Given a specific definition of pixies that made sense I might be able to take a strong position on disbelieving that particular idea of pixies, but given that there are a range of interpretations of pixie I just await sufficient evidence to change my position and continue about my life.
O.
-
Disbelief could be believing there aren't pixies, or it could be not believing there are pixies. I started off not even being aware of the concept of pixies, and I've never gone through a place of believing there were pixies to arrive at the current position of not believing there are pixies. Given a specific definition of pixies that made sense I might be able to take a strong position on disbelieving that particular idea of pixies, but given that there are a range of interpretations of pixie I just await sufficient evidence to change my position and continue about my life.
O.
Mmmmm, I wonder then how Santa managed to slip through your Siegfried line of never believed.
-
That some gods are obviously wrong ...
In what way are some gods obviously wrong Vlad - which ones, and why. Please make sure that you aren't using confirmation bias by assuming the ones that are obviously wrong are just the ones you've already decided not to believe in. Also please recognise that you spend hours on this site claiming that gods may work outside of the natural and therefore may not produce evidence in the natural world. So how do you know that a god you claim to be obviously wrong isn't just really good at hiding and not being detectable by natural means (as you claim for your god).
-
Mmmmm, I wonder then how Santa managed to slip through your Siegfried line of never believed.
Probably because it was 'sold' to me by people I trusted - my parents - backed up by pretty much every information outlet available to me as a child at the time in the form of nurseries/schools and the media, in a way that the others weren't.
O.
-
In what way are some gods obviously wrong Vlad
Do I mean wrong? Dunno, probably.
Wrong enough for disbelief to come easy.
For example the ease of ascending Mount Olympus and not finding the Gods feasting means that we cannot really take a literal view of the greek pantheon.
-
Do I mean wrong? Dunno, probably.
Wrong enough for disbelief to come easy.
For example the ease of ascending Mount Olympus and not finding the Gods feasting means that we cannot really take a literal view of the greek pantheon.
That was just a metaphor, didn't you hear? That's 'Theology', that is.
O.
-
Probably because it was 'sold' to me by people I trusted - my parents - backed up by pretty much every information outlet available to me as a child at the time in the form of nurseries/schools and the media, in a way that the others weren't.
O.
Yeah but I'm sorry but i'm finding what I see as your presentation of your self as a savvy prodigy proto atheist youth a bit unconvincing. I think that all have instances of things they believed in confronted with reasons not to believe it any more.
-
Do I mean wrong? Dunno, probably.
Wrong enough for disbelief to come easy.
For example the ease of ascending Mount Olympus and not finding the Gods feasting means that we cannot really take a literal view of the greek pantheon.
But they could just make themselves invisible to human eyes and detection by natural means when anyone looks. Apparently your god is everywhere so you don't even need to go to Greece, yet there seems to be no evidence of the sort.
I think your god falls foul of the same problem with all sorts of claims in the bible just as risible if considered form a 'literal view'.
I think 'wrong enough for disbelief to come easy' simply means confirmation bias as to plenty of others your god is similarly just as 'wrong enough for disbelief to come easy' - in other words, implausible claims and no evidence.
-
But they could just make themselves invisible to human eyes and detection by natural means when anyone looks. Apparently your god is everywhere so you don't even need to go to Greece, yet there seems to be no evidence of the sort.
I think your god falls foul of the same problem with all sorts of claims in the bible just as risible if considered form a 'literal view'.
I think 'wrong enough for disbelief to come easy' simply means confirmation bias as to plenty of others your god is similarly just as 'wrong enough for disbelief to come easy' - in other words, implausible claims and no evidence.
Modern atheisms tragedy and that of all you little wizards running about servicing it is that it is largely based on an extreme literalistic take on the bible but that just takes us back to the charge that many atheists are a) obvious b) take an unsophisticated view of that they are against.
-
Modern atheisms tragedy and that of all you little wizards running about servicing it is that it is largely based on an extreme literalistic take on the bible but that just takes us back to the charge that may atheists are a) obvious b) take an unsophisticated view of that they are against.
Thanks for the complete non-answer Vlad.
Please explain why:
1. A literal view of the Greek gods (e.g. hanging around on Mt Olympus) is obviously wrong but a literal view of you god isn't obviously wrong (parting Red Seas and countless other implausible claims). And if you can't (or won't)
2. Why you should adopt a literal position in respect to claims of Greek god but not for your god. Or
3. Why you seem content to accept that your god is fantastic at hiding - so is undetectable by physical methods etc, yet the Greek gods are unable to do the self same thing, so may be standing right behind you but you'd never know.
-
Yeah but I'm sorry but i'm finding what I see as your presentation of your self as a savvy prodigy proto atheist youth a bit unconvincing. I think that all have instances of things they believed in confronted with reasons not to believe it any more.
You just need to have faith in me, surely? Which bit about that is not believable? That I believed in Santa once but don't now? Or that I came from a not particularly religiously observant family so wasn't immersed in religion the way I was in the Father Christmas myth?
O.
-
You just need to have faith in me, surely? Which bit about that is not believable? That I believed in Santa once but don't now? Or that I came from a not particularly religiously observant family so wasn't immersed in religion the way I was in the Father Christmas myth?
O.
Yes but even if you didn't you must have come across religion for the first time. What was it that that made you conscious of your disbelief and conscious of the reasons why some people believed and you didn't ……..in short when did you discover you were somehow speshul?
-
Yes but even if you didn't you must have come across religion for the first time. What was it that that made you conscious of your disbelief and conscious of the reasons why some people believed and you didn't ……..in short when did you discover you were somehow speshul?
I think the interesting element of the Santa - don't believe, believe, don't belief arc is that we only come to believe in Santa (for a while) because we are taught to do so and our cultural heritage support that learned belief. No tiny baby inherently believes in Santa and no child growing up in a culture where Santa is never a thing (not even thought of) would come to believe in Santa organically. We are dealing entirely with learned belief, driven by societal norms.
And so it is with theism too - strange how people in the UK tend to gravitate toward belief in the gods that their parents believe in and is culturally appropriate - while in India people will do the same, meaning that the christian god tends to be the most popular learned belief in the UK, while in India it it the hindu gods etc.
-
I think the interesting element of the Santa - don't believe, believe, don't belief arc is that we only come to believe in Santa (for a while) because we are taught to do so and our cultural heritage support that learned belief. No tiny baby inherently believes in Santa and no child growing up in a culture where Santa is never a thing (not even thought of) would come to believe in Santa organically. We are dealing entirely with learned belief, driven by societal norms.
And so it is with theism too - strange how people in the UK tend to gravitate toward belief in the gods that their parents believe in and is culturally appropriate - while in India people will do the same, meaning that the christian god tends to be the most popular learned belief in the UK, while in India it it the hindu gods etc.
I think that segues quite nicely into where, then did the first societal norm cultural belief come from.
-
I think that segues quite nicely into where, then did the first societal norm cultural belief come from.
I've yet to see any of the religionists that post on this forum post any viable evidence that supports their belief they're always on about, including you Vlad.
Oh yes Vlad, why do you always always go around in ever decreasing circles just because you haven't got an answer? You remind me of the typical politician when asked about the weather answers with something like how do we find the answer to the problem of night time low flying aircraft in Guatemala keeping the residents awake?
Yes that kind of not answering is ridiculous!
ippy.
-
I've yet to see any of the religionists that post on this forum post any viable evidence that supports their belief they're always on about, including you Vlad.
Oh yes Vlad, why do you always always go around in ever decreasing circles just because you haven't got an answer? You remind me of the typical politician when asked about the weather answers with something like how do we find the answer to the problem of night time low flying aircraft in Guatemala keeping the residents awake?
Yes that kind of not answering is ridiculous!
ippy.
Ippy I'm struggling to see what your post has to do with how the first human culturally conditioned social norm belief came about.
You see the problem here is that eventually cultural societal norms have to ultimately lead back to something that cannot be described as a culturally conditioned societal norm.
-
Yes but even if you didn't you must have come across religion for the first time. What was it that that made you conscious of your disbelief and conscious of the reasons why some people believed and you didn't ……..in short when did you discover you were somehow speshul?
I'm not special - maybe, by the time I encountered someone peddling religious myths, I'd already started to think critically for myself? I don't know, I don't remember when I first came across it, I just don't remember there being a time when I considered it a serious suggestion.
O.
-
I think that segues quite nicely into where, then did the first societal norm cultural belief come from.
As a consequence of the evolutionary benefits of human higher conscious neurobiology and a highly developed social structure, which is evolutionarily essential for animals that take many years to develop to the point of independence.
So humans have a highly inquisitive nature (as this is evolutionarily advantageous) - hence arises the god of the gaps. Things early human societies did not understand so not unreasonably (although wrongly) ascribed to some great power, i.e. a god.
Secondly highly developed social structures require rules and customs to make them run and to perpetuate them from generation to generation. Again a 'god' which agrees with the social norms of the group is great to create. It helps keep the minions in check (these aren't our rules, they are god's rule and you know what he does when he's angry - yup you remember that earthquake last week), and also allows a sense of belonging to develop - we have the one true god on our side, that tribe over there doesn't - we are better, safer, more worthy than they are - stick with us. And the structures and societal norms are perpetuated via customs and rituals - and so begins religion.
-
Ippy I'm struggling to see what your post has to do with how the first human culturally conditioned social norm belief came about.
You see the problem here is that eventually cultural societal norms have to ultimately lead back to something that cannot be described as a culturally conditioned societal norm.
Like I said in my last post, just after that post I see you've posted
a collection of meaningless words, thanks Vlad for making my point for me.
ippy.
-
I think the interesting element of the Santa - don't believe, believe, don't belief arc is that we only come to believe in Santa (for a while) because we are taught to do so and our cultural heritage support that learned belief. No tiny baby inherently believes in Santa and no child growing up in a culture where Santa is never a thing (not even thought of) would come to believe in Santa organically. We are dealing entirely with learned belief, driven by societal norms.
And so it is with theism too - strange how people in the UK tend to gravitate toward belief in the gods that their parents believe in and is culturally appropriate - while in India people will do the same, meaning that the christian god tends to be the most popular learned belief in the UK, while in India it it the hindu gods etc.
To go a step further - as far as I am aware no-one every comes to believe in a religion unless they have encountered that religion and/or its believers. And this is the key point - if a religion were 'true' outside the confines of its believers, then surely someone who has never encountered or learned about that religion could come to believe it - but it never happens.
If christianity (or islam or hinduism) is true then why wouldn't a remote tribe in the Amazon or Australia, who have never encountered christianity (or islam or hinduism) or its believers come to believe through direct divine revelation. But they never do - these people only start to become christians (or muslims or hindus) once they have been taught about it and what it means by other people.
-
To go a step further - as far as I am aware no-one every comes to believe in a religion unless they have encountered that religion and/or its believers. And this is the key point - if a religion were 'true' outside the confines of its believers, then surely someone who has never encountered or learned about that religion could come to believe it - but it never happens.
If christianity (or islam or hinduism) is true then why wouldn't a remote tribe in the Amazon or Australia, who have never encountered christianity (or islam or hinduism) or its believers come to believe through direct divine revelation. But they never do - these people only start to become christians (or muslims or hindus) once they have been taught about it and what it means by other people.
I think this 'local religion' bit is overplayed. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism are world religions which have persisted long after any political entity which may have carried them has ceased to exist.
Also atheists hardly ever seem to extend the theory to their own cultural manifestations e.g secularism, cultural apatheism and atheistic communism.
-
I'm not special - maybe, by the time I encountered someone peddling religious myths, I'd already started to think critically for myself? I don't know, I don't remember when I first came across it, I just don't remember there being a time when I considered it a serious suggestion.
But you said your upbringing was in a context where it was never taken seriously.
-
I think this 'local religion' bit is overplayed. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism are world religions which have persisted long after any political entity which may of carried them has ceased to exist.
No - you are missing the point.
Of course Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism have been carried by believers from one place to another and those believer have often attempted to convert the people they have found either through persuasion or force.
My point is that, as far as I know, no-one has ever become a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu etc without being made aware of that religion from another human source. If these religions are about divine revelation, that wouldn't need to be the case - the Christian god could make himself known to a remote tribe in the Amazon and teach them that Jesus is his son etc etc (just as the bible suggests the christian god did to many people in biblical time) - so you'd get a tribe that independently became christians (muslims, hindu etc). But it never happens.
-
Also atheists hardly ever seem to extend the theory to their own cultural manifestations e.g secularism, cultural apatheism and atheistic communism.
I cannot speak for all of those 'isms (as some I don't even understand) but actually there is evidence that societies espousing secularism have arisen completely independently of each other - so there is clear evidence that secular societies arose in antiquity in India, China and Greece/Rome who would have no connection with each other, nor a link back to a common source. As far as I am aware there is no equivalent examples of major religions independently springing up with no connection to each other or a link to a common believer community.
I think it is also the case that communist communities have sprung up all over the place and throughout time independently.
But that isn't really the point as none of the examples you use claim divine intervention, so would either arise because they are inherently obvious, or through transmission by people. Religions that claim to be based on divine intervention should be able to arise spontaneously throughout the world and independently of any transmission by people (because of the claimed divine intervention) - yet they never so. They always arise only once with further promulgation always linked to transmission by humans.
-
But you said your upbringing was in a context where it was never taken seriously.
Right? I'm not sure how that makes me 'special', I'm sure there are a number of people in a similar situation.
O.
-
I cannot speak for all of those 'isms (as some I don't even understand)
Don't worry, neither does Vlad.
He thinks that by categorising some argument as belonging to an -ism and then ridiculing the -ism in some unrelated way, he has refuted the argument.
-
No - you are missing the point.
Perhaps then you shouldn’t be suggesting cultural conditioning at the same time.
Of course Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism have been carried by believers from one place to another and those believer have often attempted to convert the people they have found either through persuasion or force.
My point is that, as far as I know, no-one has ever become a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu etc without being made aware of that religion from another human source. If these religions are about divine revelation, that wouldn't need to be the case - the Christian god could make himself known to a remote tribe in the Amazon and teach them that Jesus is his son etc etc (just as the bible suggests the christian god did to many people in biblical time) - so you'd get a tribe that independently became christians (muslims, hindu etc). But it never happens.
I think the evangelising by religions and the market place in religions is about ways of handling natural feelings, impulses, leanings and thinking. I think atheists of the evangelical variety think they are in this market place. Some recognise that actually atheism doesn’t have enough for a stall at market and so then work to discredit basically,those impulses and thoughts. By thoughts impulses and feelings I’m thinking of those beyond the empirisphere of scientism.
-
Don't worry, neither does Vlad.
He thinks that by categorising some argument as belonging to an -ism and then ridiculing the -ism in some unrelated way, he has refuted the argument.
I think you are projecting your own approach of confusing ridicule with disagreement there Jeremy.
-
I think the evangelising by religions and the market place in religions is about ways of handling natural feelings, impulses, leanings and thinking. I think atheists of the evangelical variety think they are in this market place. Some recognise that actually atheism doesn’t have enough for a stall at market and so then work to discredit basically,those impulses and thoughts. By thoughts impulses and feelings I’m thinking of those beyond the empirisphere of scientism.
As so often I have no idea what you mean Vlad and why this is a response to my comment.
Let me be perhaps a little clearer.
The bible (and sacred texts of other religions) is full of instances where god directly communicates a message with people on earth. So if god is capable of doing this and, using christianity as an example, why (having sent his son to earth to live, die and be resurrected) wouldn't he directly communicate this to peoples all over the earth. Why wouldn't a remote aboriginal tribe living in 1stC in what we now know as Australia receive a message directly from god about Jesus. Or a remote tribe in the Amazon. So that when western people finally made contact centuries later those tribes would have strange inscriptions of a man on a plank of wood whom they called jesse to yessu or something close to Jesus.
But is never happened for christianity nor any other religion, to my knowledge. A particular religion never springs up independently in more than one place. It is only transferred by people. If god can communicate with people (presumably all people wherever they are) why wouldn't he do it directly. Why would he leave it to random chance that people with a directly connection to that religion might stumble across a new tribe 1500 years later.
-
As so often I have no idea what you mean Vlad and why this is a response to my comment.
Let me be perhaps a little clearer.
The bible (and sacred texts of other religions) is full of instances where god directly communicates a message with people on earth. So if god is capable of doing this and, using christianity as an example, why (having sent his son to earth to live, die and be resurrected) wouldn't he directly communicate this to peoples all over the earth. Why wouldn't a remote aboriginal tribe living in 1stC in what we now know as Australia receive a message directly from god about Jesus. Or a remote tribe in the Amazon. So that when western people finally made contact centuries later those tribes would have strange inscriptions of a man on a plank of wood whom they called jesse to yessu or something close to Jesus.
But is never happened for christianity nor any other religion, to my knowledge. A particular religion never springs up independently in more than one place. It is only transferred by people. If god can communicate with people (presumably all people wherever they are) why wouldn't he do it directly. Why would he leave it to random chance that people with a directly connection to that religion might stumble across a new tribe 1500 years later.
Firstly are Amazonian tribes people religious or non religious?
If religious so much much for the default of atheism.
I don’t know many tribesmen who are unreached by global society but I expect nobody does or knows of there religion.
As I said missionary and evangelical activity of the religions is a bit more than just a theological debate.
In Christianity Jesus commission is to make disciples.
In terms of God convincing people extra culturally in the way you think God should do it. The closest I know is of a chap with know Spanish who was convicted by the Holy Spirit during a Spanish language sermon and became a Christian.
-
Firstly are Amazonian tribes people religious or non religious?
If religious so much much for the default of atheism.
I don’t know many tribesmen who are unreached by global society but I expect nobody does or knows of there religion.
As I said missionary and evangelical activity of the religions is a bit more than just a theological debate.
In Christianity Jesus commission is to make disciples.
In terms of God convincing people extra culturally in the way you think God should do it. The closest I know is of a chap with know Spanish who was convicted by the Holy Spirit during a Spanish language sermon and became a Christian.
Again failing to answer the question.
It matters not whether the Amazonian tribes are religious or not, the point is why would they not have received the message of christianity (or hinduism, islam etc etc) directly from god, rather than having to rely on transmission via people. In the bible god seems perfectly capable of communicating directly, so why did he fail to transmit his 'word' directly to the Amazonian people etc.
As far as I'm aware no religion has ever arisen more than once, independently in different places. If the messages contained in religions come from god (who can communicate directly) that is very, very strange. Or we can, of course, come to the most obvious conclusion - that religions (and their gods) are created by people and therefore can only be transmitted by people as there is no god to transmit the message directly.
-
Again failing to answer the question.
It matters not whether the Amazonian tribes are religious or not, the point is why would they not have received the message of christianity (or hinduism, islam etc etc) directly from god, rather than having to rely on transmission via people. In the bible god seems perfectly capable of communicating directly, so why did he fail to transmit his 'word' directly to the Amazonian people etc.
As far as I'm aware no religion has ever arisen more than once, independently in different places. If the messages contained in religions come from god (who can communicate directly) that is very, very strange. Or we can, of course, come to the most obvious conclusion - that religions (and their gods) are created by people and therefore can only be transmitted by people as there is no god to transmit the message directly.
I don’t see the relevance of what you are saying to the validity of the religions.
These are world religions adhered to for the first time by people irrespective of culture because they chime with something existential. When they get the religion it is the crystallisation of their life experience although as a Christian I would say this is more down to God himself than philosophy, doctrine or practice. It is in Christianity at least the recovery of sight seeing through the glass darkly as it were. It is a recovery rather than additional.
For you this all seems a dealbreaker
-
I don’t see the relevance of what you are saying to the validity of the religions.
These are world religions adhered to for the first time by people irrespective of culture because they chime with something existential. When they get the religion it is the crystallisation of their life experience although as a Christian I would say this is more down to God himself than philosophy, doctrine or practice. It is in Christianity at least the recovery of sight seeing through the glass darkly as it were. It is a recovery rather than additional.
For you this all seems a dealbreaker
Weird how these 'world religions' only ever seem to be transmitted to new believers, who've never previously encounter the religion, via other people - never via god directly. It is almost as if god doesn't actually exist ;)
Let's imagine there is life on another planet of equal intelligence etc to humans - if god is omnipresent then they are just as much his 'creation' as humans are. Why would god wait to communicate his message until humans develop to technology to communicate with those people. Why doesn't he just tell them directly. He seems to be constantly chatting to folk in the bible - why is he so reticent to chat to folk directly in other parts of the world who hadn't yet encountered judeo-christianity - why does he wait for current believers to find them to transmit his message.
-
Weird how these 'world religions' only ever seem to be transmitted to new believers via other people - never via god. It is almost as if god doesn't actually exist ;)
Let's imagine there is life on another planet of equal intelligence etc to humans - if god is omnipresent then they are just as much his 'creation' as humans are. Why would god wait to communicate his message until humans develop to technology to communicate with those people. Why doesn't he just tell them directly. He seems to be constantly chatting to folk in the bible - why is he so reticent to chat to folk directly in other parts of the world (or other worlds) - why does he wait for current believers to find them to transmit his message.
The idea of a unitary God or supreme being has cropped up independently a lot.
As has aim sure has that The divine is a kind of pantheon or that nature is divine.
-
The idea of a unitary God or supreme being has cropped up independently a lot.
As has aim sure has that The divine is a kind of pantheon or that nature is divine.
That's not what I am asking. I've previously indicated why I think different cultures and societies may independently have come up with the idea of a god - both from 'god of the gaps' and to cement social cohesion/rules and us/them dominance. See reply 52.
I'm not talking about societies coming up with the notion of god - I'm talking about religions. Most religions claim they are both true and divinely inspired - so if the latter why can't god directly teach remote people's about that religion - why is transmission solely vie humans. Why has no christian missionary stumbled across a previously unconnected tribe and discovered they already know about Jesus. Never happens, but is should do if these religions are divinely inspired as the divine could just as easily inspire a remote tribe with the 'truth' of this religion.
-
Weird how these 'world religions' only ever seem to be transmitted to new believers, who've never previously encounter the religion, via other people - never via god directly. It is almost as if god doesn't actually exist
But certainly with Christianity. Religion results because of encounter and response. That is encounter with God. Not mere intellectual assent and then obviously you have to respond directly to God rather than mere intellectual response. That’s what we mean by the term the presence of God.
-
That's not what I am asking. I've previously indicated why I think different cultures and societies may independently have come up with the idea of a god - both from 'god of the gaps' and to cement social cohesion/rules and us/them dominance.
Simplistic, superior, patronising and ignorant.
-
Simplistic, superior, patronising and ignorant.
So you clearly have no argument against my points, which are pretty standard anthropology explanations for the emergence of religions amongst early human societies.
-
So you clearly have no argument against my points, which are pretty standard anthropology explanations for the emergence of religions amongst early human societies.
They are your theses. We can either start with you justifying them or me critiquing them.
-
They are your theses. We can either start with you justifying them or me critiquing them.
I did in reply 52 - to repeat (in response to question as to where belief in god and religion may have come from):
'As a consequence of the evolutionary benefits of human higher conscious neurobiology and a highly developed social structure, which is evolutionarily essential for animals that take many years to develop to the point of independence.
So humans have a highly inquisitive nature (as this is evolutionarily advantageous) - hence arises the god of the gaps. Things early human societies did not understand so not unreasonably (although wrongly) ascribed to some great power, i.e. a god.
Secondly highly developed social structures require rules and customs to make them run and to perpetuate them from generation to generation. Again a 'god' which agrees with the social norms of the group is great to create. It helps keep the minions in check (these aren't our rules, they are god's rule and you know what he does when he's angry - yup you remember that earthquake last week), and also allows a sense of belonging to develop - we have the one true god on our side, that tribe over there doesn't - we are better, safer, more worthy than they are - stick with us. And the structures and societal norms are perpetuated via customs and rituals - and so begins religion.'
-
That's not what I am asking. I've previously indicated why I think different cultures and societies may independently have come up with the idea of a god - both from 'god of the gaps' and to cement social cohesion/rules and us/them dominance. See reply 52.
I'm not talking about societies coming up with the notion of god - I'm talking about religions. Most religions claim they are both true and divinely inspired - so if the latter why can't god directly teach remote people's about that religion - why is transmission solely vie humans. Why has no christian missionary stumbled across a previously unconnected tribe and discovered they already know about Jesus. Never happens, but is should do if these religions are divinely inspired as the divine could just as easily inspire a remote tribe with the 'truth' of this religion.
Reminds me of the Catholics they seem to be prone to having visions of various religious figures etc, but you never hear of a catholic having a vision of Mohamed or anything remotely connected to the Islamic religion or any other religion, funny that?
This certainly fits in with this post of yours Proff.
Oh yes and by the way you'll never make any progress with Vlad, he just keeps on changing the subject when faced with another one of the many questions he knows he can't answer, even then he still doesn't answer anything with a somewhere near relevant comment, you always end up chasing your tail when attempting to have a sensible exchange with Vlad, no matter what direction you chose to come at him from.
Regards Proff, ippy.
-
Reminds me of the Catholics they seem to be prone to having visions of various religious figures etc, but you never hear of a catholic having a vision of Mohamed or anything remotely connected to the Islamic religion or any other religion, funny that?
That's right - but even more so as I guess in this context most catholics would be aware that islam and Mohamed exist, yet they still don't have visions of Mohamed and vice versa.
I'm going further - if god can talk directly to people, then surely he can talk directly to any person. And if this god is the christian god and sent his son ... etc etc etc, why on earth wouldn't he have directly told 1stC tribes in the Amazon of this fantastic 'good news' so that when this tribe is 'found' by western explorers they already know the story of Jesus. But of course it never happens - Christianity and other religions are only ever transmitted by people, never directly by god.
-
I did in reply 52 - to repeat (in response to question as to where belief in god and religion may have come from):
'As a consequence of the evolutionary benefits of human higher conscious neurobiology and a highly developed social structure, which is evolutionarily essential for animals that take many years to develop to the point of independence.
So humans have a highly inquisitive nature (as this is evolutionarily advantageous) - hence arises the god of the gaps. Things early human societies did not understand so not unreasonably (although wrongly) ascribed to some great power, i.e. a god.
Secondly highly developed social structures require rules and customs to make them run and to perpetuate them from generation to generation. Again a 'god' which agrees with the social norms of the group is great to create. It helps keep the minions in check (these aren't our rules, they are god's rule and you know what he does when he's angry - yup you remember that earthquake last week), and also allows a sense of belonging to develop - we have the one true god on our side, that tribe over there doesn't - we are better, safer, more worthy than they are - stick with us. And the structures and societal norms are perpetuated via customs and rituals - and so begins religion.'
Religion is not restricted to being a failed science since natural forces are sanctified within paganism and panentheistic ideas so The accusation of God of the gaps is misplaced. That is also so in the idea of God as creator.
In terms of being a means of keeping order and preserving societies........is that a)always true and b) always a bad thing. Religion can and does challenge societies, cultures, regimes and hegemonies. Rather than existing to preserve these it actually survives them instead
-
Religion is not restricted to being a failed science since natural forces are sanctified within paganism and panentheistic ideas so The accusation of God of the gaps is misplaced. That is also so in the idea of God as creator.
In terms of being a means of keeping order and preserving societies........is that a)always true and b) always a bad thing. Religion can and does challenge societies, cultures, regimes and hegemonies. Rather than existing to preserve these it actually survives them instead
Until or unless theists can actually come up with evidence that god actually exists then I think better to expend our energy trying to understand the reasons why societies have come to develop the notion of god and religions.
-
Until or unless theists can actually come up with evidence that god actually exists then I think better to expend our energy trying to understand the reasons why societies have come to develop the notion of god and religions.
Since religions survive societies and can be cross cultural that would suggest that they are not just a function of society or a tool of a society. That challenges the ultimate efficacy of a societal explanation of them.
Better bet might be anthropology and neurology but then again.
-
Since religions survive societies and can be cross cultural that would suggest that they are not just a function of society or a tool of a society. That challenges the ultimate efficacy of a societal explanation of them.
Do they? i think the basic tenets of human societies are much more enduring than any individual religion.
Better bet might be anthropology and neurology but then again.
Which is what I was doing.
-
That's right - but even more so as I guess in this context most catholics would be aware that islam and Mohamed exist, yet they still don't have visions of Mohamed and vice versa.
I'm going further - if god can talk directly to people, then surely he can talk directly to any person. And if this god is the christian god and sent his son ... etc etc etc, why on earth wouldn't he have directly told 1stC tribes in the Amazon of this fantastic 'good news' so that when this tribe is 'found' by western explorers they already know the story of Jesus. But of course it never happens - Christianity and other religions are only ever transmitted by people, never directly by god.
Well yes and we don't need to look for the evidence, can you imagine the world wide furore in and on every single minutest part of the media if viable evidence was found for any one of the various religions?
Or perhaps whichever one found or had the necessary evidence might want to keep it to themselves?
Regards Proff, ippy.
-
Well yes and we don't need to look for the evidence, can you imagine the world wide furore in and on every single minutest part of the media if viable evidence was found for any one of the various religions?
I suppose your thinking in terms of finding God’s toenail or something.
What’s to stop any evidence being attributed to an alien.
-
I suppose your thinking in terms of finding God’s toenail or something.
What’s to stop any evidence being attributed to an alien.
You must know I didn't specify anything in particular only viable evidence, why do you think there is any way around viable evidence, when there isn't?
Vladolocks!
-
Weird how these 'world religions' only ever seem to be transmitted to new believers, who've never previously encounter the religion, via other people - never via god directly. It is almost as if god doesn't actually exist ;)
Let's imagine there is life on another planet of equal intelligence etc to humans - if god is omnipresent then they are just as much his 'creation' as humans are. Why would god wait to communicate his message until humans develop to technology to communicate with those people. Why doesn't he just tell them directly. He seems to be constantly chatting to folk in the bible - why is he so reticent to chat to folk directly in other parts of the world who hadn't yet encountered judeo-christianity - why does he wait for current believers to find them to transmit his message.
Let's think this through a little more and from the perspective of uncontacted tribes - e.g. in the Amazon, who may have not encountered outside societies until the last few decades and will have no knowledge of the existence of christianity or the christian god. Given that christianity seems based on accepting Jesus for salvation it seems a bit unfair on countless generations of this tribe over 2000 years who haven't had the opportunity to accept Jesus, as they've never known of his existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples
Let's also make an assumption that the christian god exists - what on earth is he playing at! Why has he failed to reveal himself to these people for 2000 years. Well here are some options:
1. He has stopped being chatty - in other words directly engaging with people. Well sure the level of direct chattiness seems to peak in the old testament, but perhaps declines in the new testament (except through the extreme direct chattiness of Jesus). But this doesn't really cut it as over those centuries there are countless claimed encounters with god, Jesus, Mary etc so why not to these uncontacted people?
2. He has revealed himself but these people failed to recognise who he is - well firstly the christian encounters seem pretty explicit so why not these encounters. Also why would god make it so tricky to recognise himself.
3. He has revealed himself but does so differently depending on the audience - so to christians reveals himself as Jesus, but to Hindus as Vishnu, to Amazonians as a jaguar etc. Well this would all be very PC and culturally appropriate but there are two problems for christians. First this would mean god is just a follower, rather than a leader - merely aligning himself with eh cultural norm - being a fervent Arsenal fan when on the Holloway Road, but the most earnest Toon fan when in Newcastle. That doesn't sound very god like. But more significantly if all gods are just the same god revealed differently then that means the notion of Jesus is no more important than any of the other revealed forms - Jesus is only important to his judeo-christian identity and no more important than his jaguar identity to the Amazonian people. So there is no universal importance of Jesus.
4. God only reveals himself to some people - he has favourites. Well this fits with the original jewish notion of god but doesn't align with the christian god being the god of everyone. Also doesn't seem very beneficent if he only allow some people to gain the knowledge necessary for salvation.
5. The christian god doesn't like traveling so stays close to Mediterranean/Europe - doesn't seem very god-like. And while he seems absent from everywhere else until christians get there he seems happy to travel to, and reveal himself to people in far flung parts of the world once christians have been there and told the locals about the christian god and asked/forced them to worship him.
Frankly none of these possible scenarios, if the christian god exists as suggested, seem very plausible.
-
Let's think this through a little more and from the perspective of uncontacted tribes
How can you get into the perspective of someone who hasn't been contacted.
Can someone who drinks bottled water really effectively do this?
-
How can you get into the perspective of someone who hasn't been contacted.
Can someone who drinks bottled water really effectively do this?
Classic Vlad diversionary tactic.
Now address the question - which is effectively about why the christian god, if he exists, would fail to make meaningful contact with loads of people throughout the world for centuries. Which of my explanations is most plausible or palatable to you - none seems particularly palatable if you a christian who believes that the christian god is the one true god, is all powerful, the god of everyone, is a loving god and that salvation is only possible through Jesus.
-
If these uncontacted South American tribes needed information...…
…….couldn't they get it on Amazon?
-
If these uncontacted South American tribes needed information...…
…….couldn't they get it on Amazon?
Oh look .... squirrel
Diversionary evasion noted.
Now address the issue please.
-
Classic Vlad diversionary tactic.
Now address the question - which is effectively about why the christian god, if he exists, would fail to make meaningful contact with loads of people throughout the world for centuries. Which of my explanations is most plausible or palatable to you - none seems particularly palatable if you a christian who believes that the christian god is the one true god, is all powerful, the god of everyone, is a loving god and that salvation is only possible through Jesus.
I don’t agree that God has failed to make meaningful contact with loads of people. I don’t agree with your designation of him as the Christian god.
What you mean by meaningful contact is your opinion. Your argument is very much along the lines of ''if God existed he would........'' (complete as applicable to your own opinions)
If there is evasion it’s you not facing up to uncontacted people having a spiritual aspect to themselves and their societies rather than a much vaunted default atheism.
What we should also remember is that the Christian declaration is that God dealt meaningfully with people before Jesus' mission which is a ''one of'' mission but good for all people.
-
Let's think this through a little more and from the perspective of uncontacted tribes - e.g. in the Amazon, who may have not encountered outside societies until the last few decades and will have no knowledge of the existence of christianity or the christian god. Given that christianity seems based on accepting Jesus for salvation it seems a bit unfair on countless generations of this tribe over 2000 years who haven't had the opportunity to accept Jesus, as they've never known of his existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples
Let's also make an assumption that the christian god exists - what on earth is he playing at! Why has he failed to reveal himself to these people for 2000 years. Well here are some options:
1. He has stopped being chatty - in other words directly engaging with people. Well sure the level of direct chattiness seems to peak in the old testament, but perhaps declines in the new testament (except through the extreme direct chattiness of Jesus). But this doesn't really cut it as over those centuries there are countless claimed encounters with god, Jesus, Mary etc so why not to these uncontacted people?
If one goes with your understanding of acceptance of Christ I think you have to follow the logic of that namely if one actually hasn't had the opportunity to properly accept Christ then by the same token one hasn't actually had the opportunity to properly reject Christ.
I would argue that there are fewer encounters portrayed in the OT than you are making out.
The paragraph you write can therefore be described as mocking caricature.
2. He has revealed himself but these people failed to recognise who he is
My sympathies are more with this interpretation since there are those who don't fail to finally recognise him when exposed to the Gospel - well firstly the christian encounters seem pretty explicit so why not these encounters. Also why would god make it so tricky to recognise himself.
again since some finally do recognise him as their ultimate goal the answer may lie with the person or society in question.
3. He has revealed himself but does so differently depending on the audience - so to christians reveals himself as Jesus, but to Hindus as Vishnu, to Amazonians as a jaguar etc. Well this would all be very PC and culturally appropriate but there are two problems for christians. First this would mean god is just a follower, rather than a leader - merely aligning himself with eh cultural norm - being a fervent Arsenal fan when on the Holloway Road, but the most earnest Toon fan when in Newcastle. That doesn't sound very god like. But more significantly if all gods are just the same god revealed differently then that means the notion of Jesus is no more important than any of the other revealed forms - Jesus is only important to his judeo-christian identity and no more important than his jaguar identity to the Amazonian people. So there is no universal importance of Jesus.
I think it might be a question of interpretation. Do Hindus view Krishna like Christians view Jesus? Not sure on that one.
4. God only reveals himself to some people - he has favourites. Well this fits with the original jewish notion of god but doesn't align with the christian god being the god of everyone. Also doesn't seem very beneficent if he only allow some people to gain the knowledge necessary for salvation.
5. The christian god doesn't like traveling so stays close to Mediterranean/Europe - doesn't seem very god-like. And while he seems absent from everywhere else until christians get there he seems happy to travel to, and reveal himself to people in far flung parts of the world once christians have been there and told the locals about the christian god and asked/forced them to worship him.
Again a bit of a caricature.
Intriguing passages in NT about Jesus and judgment.
All recognise him at judgment as Lord but some cannot place where they have met him and why he welcomes them.
-
You must know I didn't specify anything in particular?
Well hopefully you'll get round to it one day.
-
I don’t agree that God has failed to make meaningful contact with loads of people.
Really what about the approx. 40 generations of people living from the time of Jesus through to about 1300 in the Americas, in Australia and the Pacific, in South East Asia, in sub-Saharan Africa. These people had no interaction with christians coming from Europe etc and when those people eventually arrived had no knowledge of what christianity. Seem to me that the christian god pretty effectively failed to make meaningful contact with all those people.
-
Really
Yes.
-
Really what about the approx. 40 generations of people living from the time of Jesus through to about 1300 in the Americas, in Australia and the Pacific, in South East Asia, in sub-Saharan Africa.
What about the people God was having meaningful contact with in the bible prior to Christ?
-
What about the people God was having meaningful contact with in the bible prior to Christ?
When in a hole, best to stop digging.
I was talking about all the people he hadn't made meaningful contact with, not those he had. And of course people in the Americas, in Australia and the Pacific, in South East Asia, in sub-Saharan Africa had no meaningful contact with the judeo-christian god from the team those peoples emerged tens of thousands of years ago through to the point when christian missionaries made contact from about 1300 onwards.
So that is probably most people throughout most of history.
-
When in a hole, best to stop digging.
I was talking about all the people he hadn't made meaningful contact with, not those he had. And of course people in the Americas, in Australia and the Pacific, in South East Asia, in sub-Saharan Africa had no meaningful contact with the judeo-christian god from the team those peoples emerged tens of thousands of years ago through to the point when christian missionaries made contact from about 1300 onwards.
So that is probably most people throughout most of history.
I'm not in a hole. The take out message from the OT theology is that God was having meaningful contact with people before Jesus arrives in history. This includes Monotheists of differing stripes, Henotheists who believed Yahweh was one of many Gods and Egyptians who had a pantheon.
So this blows your thesis somewhat.
-
I think you are projecting your own approach of confusing ridicule with disagreement there Jeremy.
Don't think so. I don't use long words ending in "ism" that I don't understand.
-
I don’t agree that God has failed to make meaningful contact with loads of people. I don’t agree with your designation of him as the Christian god.
How do you explain then how Hindus have a completely different religion to you. If it's the same god making contact with you and them, Wouldn't your perceptions of what God is like be similar? Wouldn't your religions be similar?
-
I'm not in a hole.
Yes you are.
The take out message from the OT theology is that God was having meaningful contact with people before Jesus arrives in history. This includes Monotheists of differing stripes, Henotheists who believed Yahweh was one of many Gods and Egyptians who had a pantheon.
So this blows your thesis somewhat.
Why did some people have a pantheon and some only have one god? If God is real (or gods are real) shouldn't the various religions at least agree on how many there are?
Also, how come the Jews didn't notice that God has a head shaped like that of an elephant (or conversely, why did Hindus falsely believe that one of their gods had a head shaped like that of an elephant)?
With all the billions of people who ever lived, only one small geographically focused group of people came up with the concept of Christianity without hearing it from other people who were already Christians.
-
Well hopefully you'll get round to it one day.
Arr the well known Vladonion misquote, If I had written:
'You must know I didn't specify anything in particular?'
You might have had a point, but the thing is Vlad I wrote:
'I didn't specify anything in particular only viable evidence?'
Wouldn't misrepresentation be a sin in your silly and narrow religious believing world?
Yet another load of Vladollocks!
-
How do you explain then how Hindus have a completely different religion to you. If it's the same god making contact with you and them, Wouldn't your perceptions of what God is like be similar? Wouldn't your religions be similar?
If Hinduism is completely different from anything it is atheism. In my opinion, in that respect, represents God/the divine one up on atheism. The trouble with your post is your use of hyperbole.
-
I'm not in a hole. The take out message from the OT theology is that God was having meaningful contact with people before Jesus arrives in history. This includes Monotheists of differing stripes, Henotheists who believed Yahweh was one of many Gods and Egyptians who had a pantheon.
So this blows your thesis somewhat.
Yes you are and getting deeper by the minute.
We are talking about all the people that the judo-christian god didn't have meaningful contact with not those he did. And by you own admission in the OT the number of people with no meaningful contact with the judo-christian god is vast - all those in any part of the world except for a tiny area around the eastern Mediterranean. So that includes people living in sub-Saharan Africa, all peoples in the Americas, Australasia plus northern and western Europe plus virtually all of Asia.
And of course the OT suggests that the judo-christian god only started getting chatty with anyone in about 4000 BC - by working through the generations. But people have been around 5-7 million years. So that's an awful lot of time, an awful lot of places and an awful lot of people that the judo-christian god didn't have meaningful contact with.
-
Agreed, and that would include the Pirahã tribe of course, who don't seem to have had any god at all. perhaps He forgot these because He just wasn't clued up enough on the world that He had created.
-
If Hinduism is completely different from anything it is atheism. In my opinion, in that respect, represents God/the divine one up on atheism. The trouble with your post is your use of hyperbole.
Evasion noted.
-
If Hinduism is completely different from anything it is atheism. In my opinion, in that respect, represents God/the divine one up on atheism. The trouble with your post is your use of hyperbole.
So is it Christianity that got the number of gods wrong or Hinduism?
-
Yes you are.Why did some people have a pantheon and some only have one god? If God is real (or gods are real) shouldn't the various religions at least agree on how many there are?
Also, how come the Jews didn't notice that God has a head shaped like that of an elephant (or conversely, why did Hindus falsely believe that one of their gods had a head shaped like that of an elephant)?
With all the billions of people who ever lived, only one small geographically focused group of people came up with the concept of Christianity without hearing it from other people who were already Christians.
Religions with Pantheons are fairly anthropomorphising to the point where the Gods never seem to reach any great philosophical stature, in my opinion. Certainly the behaviour in the members of the larger pantheon religions namely the Greco roman, early hindu, and northern European pantheons get up to very many human shenanigans, war, lust, gluttony, feasting, sin and political maneuvering etc.
The trouble is that many who held different religions exodused from this board although
Sriram might be your man to ask.
-
Yes you are and getting deeper by the minute.
We are talking about all the people that the judo-christian god didn't have meaningful contact with not those he did. And by you own admission in the OT the number of people with no meaningful contact with the judo-christian god is vast - all those in any part of the world except for a tiny area around the eastern Mediterranean. So that includes people living in sub-Saharan Africa, all peoples in the Americas, Australasia plus northern and western Europe plus virtually all of Asia.
And of course the OT suggests that the judo-christian god only started getting chatty with anyone in about 4000 BC - by working through the generations. But people have been around 5-7 million years. So that's an awful lot of time, an awful lot of places and an awful lot of people that the judo-christian god didn't have meaningful contact with.
I'm not in a hole at all. Your argument hinges on your definition of meaningful and religion and gods all of which are the take of a secular person from a secular perspective.
I haven't admitted to God not having meaningful contact with non-judeo Christians at all. But then you do seem to be seeing everything through modern secularly tinted specs.
An example being the appearance of God just a few thousand years ago.
That is not my take on God and yours is obviously based well and truly in atheism.
I think you are wrong, as I said, to take a view religions solely in terms of being an emergent function of societies since societies have come and gone but religions remain after them.
-
So is it Christianity that got the number of gods wrong or Hinduism?
Again why don't you ask Sriram about Hinduism.
-
Again why don't you ask Sriram about Hinduism.
It’s a public forum. He’s free to answer the question too.
If your god is real, why is it that of all the people in India, none of them believed in him until Christians arrived and started proselytising Christianity?
-
It’s a public forum. He’s free to answer the question too.
If your god is real, why is it that of all the people in India, none of them believed in him until Christians arrived and started proselytising Christianity?
Don't you think it a bit odd demanding answers of a Christian regarding the Hindu experience while avoiding asking someone who is presumably of that persuasion and certainly has more experience in that direction than I do? I certainly think it's odd.
Do you think Indians were proselytised ( I feel you tried to make that sound like bad thing) or did some possibly convert through their own volition?
-
I'm not in a hole at all.
Yes you are - a massive one.
Your argument hinges on your definition of meaningful ...
Gaining knowledge of the judeo-christian god and christianity (i.e. Jesus) directly through divine intervention without the need for this knowledge to be passed on to the individual from another person.
-
An example being the appearance of God just a few thousand years ago.
On the assumption that this is true, very few people found out about this directly - i.e. direct interaction with Jesus - virtually everyone found out through interactions with other humans.
Let's look at the resurrection - christians think this to be perhaps the most remarkable thing ever to have happened. Why didn't god tell people all around the world when it happened, including people in the americas, australia etc, etc. He could have sent angels - he seemed to be comfortable to do this when Jesus was born - e.g. to Shepherds - sending them a very clear message about something remarkable that had just happened. So why not communicate in the same way to tell people across the world directly about the resurrection?
-
Yes you are - a massive one.
Gaining knowledge of the judeo-christian god and christianity (i.e. Jesus) directly through divine intervention without the need for this knowledge to be passed on to the individual from another person.
Gaining spiritual knowledge of God is through experience of God. I think you are confusing intellectual knowledge with spiritual knowledge. People spiritually accept God because of their spiritual experience. When they here the Gospel they are often ready to make their spiritual decision. Intellectual knowledge or even assent is no substitute to this.
I don't see how you can say people haven't encountered God prior to encountering the Gospel from a secular, sociological perspective that discounts the spiritual aspect of religion and God speaking meaningfully to monotheists of differing stripes, henotheists, and people with pantheons in the OT and the NT.
And that's before the fact that none of this is really atheist argument. How, for instance do you think your argument that god has not spoken meaningfully to uncontacted people is different from your argument that God has not spoken meaningfully to anyone?
-
Gaining spiritual knowledge of God is through experience of God. I think you are confusing intellectual knowledge with spiritual knowledge. People spiritually accept God because of their spiritual experience. When they here the Gospel they are often ready to make their spiritual decision. Intellectual knowledge or even assent is no substitute to this.
That is actually the whole point - the spiritual knowledge, as you call it is effectively what I am describing as direct meaningful contact. How many people have come to 'know' the judeo-christian god or Jesus without first gaining knowledge of the purported existence of the judeo-christian god or Jesus via other people. The answer is zero.
So why exactly is god failing to engage people in spiritual knowledge (using your term) unless they've already gained intellectual knowledge of the purported existence of the judeo-christian god or Jesus through transmission of that knowledge via people. Surely god could simply skip that incredible slow and unreliable human-requiring step and engage with people all around the whole who have no 'intellectual' knowledge directly - yet he never does.
Weird eh - leads back to my 5 possible explanations as to why he is so shy at interacting except with people who already have found out about christianity from people. Now those five explanations are based on an assumption that the judeo-christian god actually exists. But we can broaden this, not to make that assumption - this leads to a sixth and by far the most plausible explanation - the judeo-christian god does not actually exist except as a creation of people.
-
On the assumption that this is true, very few people found out about this directly - i.e. direct interaction with Jesus - virtually everyone found out through interactions with other humans.
That only a few had direct interaction is down to God incarnating as a person. Yes a lot of people have the full history due to interactions with other humans. But to argue that Christianity arises through that is incorrect. For instance you have probably received the Gospel and the intellectual and historical details and yet Christianity does not seem to have appeared in you. The point being that there must be more going on that you seem to be discounting.
Let's look at the resurrection - christians think this to be perhaps the most remarkable thing ever to have happened. Why didn't god tell people all around the world when it happened, including people in the americas, australia etc, etc. He could have sent angels - he seemed to be comfortable to do this when Jesus was born - e.g. to Shepherds - sending them a very clear message about something remarkable that had just happened. So why not communicate in the same way to tell people across the world directly about the resurrection?
People believe in the resurrection rather than merely know of it because they encounter Christ. Again because of god's action in incarnating as a person only a few are going to experience the physical resurrection, empirically and historically at first hand.
How is being told by angels not second hand. If you are going to say god should have told people by angelic messenger just after the resurrection you may as well go onto the question of why there aren't angels telling people all the time.....To this we can say how do we know people aren't contacted this way?, who'd believe it?, would we get preoccupied with angels rather than Christ.
Again how does this theological point of view(what God should have done) sit with your atheist point of view that God has told no one anything?
-
That is actually the whole point - the spiritual knowledge, as you call it is effectively what I am describing as direct meaningful contact. How many people have come to 'know' the judeo-christian god or Jesus without first gaining knowledge of the purported existence of the judeo-christian god or Jesus via other people. The answer is zero.
So why exactly is god failing to engage people in spiritual knowledge (using your term) unless they've already gained intellectual knowledge of the purported existence of the judeo-christian god or Jesus through transmission of that knowledge via people. Surely god could simply skip that incredible slow and unreliable human-requiring step and engage with people all around the whole who have no 'intellectual' knowledge directly - yet he never does.
Weird eh - leads back to my 5 possible explanations as to why he is so shy at interacting except with people who already have found out about christianity from people. Now those five explanations are based on an assumption that the judeo-christian god actually exists. But we can broaden this, not to make that assumption - this leads to a sixth and by far the most plausible explanation - the judeo-christian god does not actually exist except as a creation of people.
I disagree that god is failing to communicate meaningful spiritual knowledge to non Christians and that that is erroneously derived from a secular and sociological view which discounts accounts of God's interactions with non Christians in the Old and New Testaments and fails to explain it's own self defeating content and concern on the matter of salvation. Namely that uncontacted tribes are immediately condemned for not accepting the message where the flipside of that is if they are not able to accept fully by the same token, they are not able to reject fully.
-
Too much obvious local mythos to be a helpful, useful comprehensive picture of the greatness of the divine.
Why don't you believe in them?
So why don't you believe in Thor or Vishnu? I do!
-
So why don't you believe in Thor or Vishnu? I do!
In the light of platonic philosophy they represent too much obvious local mythos to offer a helpful, useful comprehensive picture of the greatness of the divine.
Have you encountered Thor and Vishnu?
-
In the light of platonic philosophy they represent too much obvious local mythos to offer a helpful, useful comprehensive picture of the greatness of the divine.
Have you encountered Thor and Vishnu?
The Biblical god is no more credible than Thor and Vishnu.
-
The Biblical god is no more credible than Thor and Vishnu.
I disagree.
If there was a Nobel prize in asserting without giving reasons or justifications you would have won it.
-
I disagree.
If there was a Nobel prize in asserting without giving reasons or justifications you would have won it.
You have never provided any reasons or justifications, which make any sense.
-
You have never provided any reasons or justifications, which make any sense.
But at least I provide rather than withhold like you which frankly is rude and indicative of being up one's own arse.
-
But at least I provide rather than withhold like you which frankly is rude and indicative of being up one's own arse.
It is those who state something, which is much less than credible to be factual, to provide verifiable evidence to justify their claim, something you have never done to support the existence of the Biblical god.
-
It is those who state something, which is much less than credible to be factual, to provide verifiable evidence to justify their claim, something you have never done to support the existence of the Biblical god.
If you think I'm going to respond to you think again.
-
If you think I'm going to respond to you think again.
But you have just responded by saying that, you silly man! ::) There is nothing else you can say as you cannot provide any evidence to substantiate the existence of god.
-
There is nothing else you can say as you cannot provide any evidence to substantiate the existence of god.
There is nothing else I can say as the depth and range of your ignorance paralyses discussion.
-
There is nothing else I can say as the depth and range of your ignorance paralyses discussion.
Ignorance about what?
-
Don't you think it a bit odd demanding answers of a Christian regarding the Hindu experience while avoiding asking someone who is presumably of that persuasion and certainly has more experience in that direction than I do? I certainly think it's odd.
I'm not asking you about the Hindu experience. I'm asking you why literally no Indian had any clue that Christianity existed before Christians arrived to tell them about it. If it's all the same god, why did they have no idea about original sin? Conversely, why did the Christian pantheon not include a god remotely like Ganesha?
The answer is because religions are not inspired by God but are human inventions. That's why they only propagate via human interaction.
Do you think Indians were proselytised ( I feel you tried to make that sound like bad thing) or did some possibly convert through their own volition?
Proselytisation is a bad thing. It's the process of telling people that they've got the wrong gods and they need to start worshipping different gods, sometimes literally on pain of death.
-
I disagree.
If there was a Nobel prize in asserting without giving reasons or justifications you would have won it.
Wow. There's a spectacular lack of self awareness.
-
I disagree.
If there was a Nobel prize in asserting without giving reasons or justifications you would have won it.
No doubt presented by the previous winner....you!
-
But at least I provide rather than withhold like you which frankly is rude and indicative of being up one's own arse.
Hark at the pot calling the kettle black!
But, then again, it was ever thus!
-
"One god fewer". Grammar, dear boy, grammar.