Quite alright; I'm not insulted.
Excellent. As to the rest of that omitted, each of us have more to our stories than we think about once we've had enough time to begin to compile our own essential dogma, adherent or heathen. I like to see how much of that underbelly I can find and how it might inform the rest.
What I have found, though, is that claims to knowledge of [God's] existence such as holy texts have a predisposition to cause harm to other human beings in one way or another, and this is of course not exclusive to Christianity.
I think that's no more objectively true than what could be said about any secular doctrine. That was a bit of my point of distinguishing between what some do with power, the flag they wrap that in, and what the rank and file adherent receives from and does with his faith.
On the OT point, I'll touch on it answering your more (if to my mind insufficiently) particular point.
...The majority of humanity was indoctrinated to believe a certain way.
And how does that differ with any set of values or beliefs from your end of it? You didn't originate a humanist, godless doctrine. Sure, an idea begins in one place and is popularly dispersed and valued (or not) over time. Okay. That's how it's done. The why of that is the real question.
That does not mean those beliefs are true, rationale, or justified.
No, of course not. The arguments themselves and the experience does or fails to do that, respectively--though I'd say their survival over centuries speaks to something serious being involved and worth consideration.
Not only that, but religion earned itself a place of unwarranted respect throughout the world at the point of sword and threats of pain and death for failure to conform.
Unwanted by whom? Unwarranted by what standard? And that those ideas have survived and prospered well without anything like that sort of coercion speaks to something else worth seriously considering.
I would imagine, and justifiably so, that most of the people here were raised to be Christians...
I think there's truth in that. We tend to see things through the lens we have and understand. Interview witnesses to any real event and you'll get varying narrations, conflicting even, depending on where they stand in relation. And yet there is a central truth. Moreover, within that central truth there is an actual and literal one. The job is to figure which account, if any, contains what part of it.
In any event my conclusions are based upon observations, research, and logic.
I think that's true of most people who engage the subject, but we're all hamstrung by something. Still, it's a worthy mission statement.
Your objection is noted, but [God] being a proper noun is just your opinion.
Well, no, it isn't. You can speak of some (inferring the general) god or gods, but when you say God it's referencing a specific entity, real or not. So you can speak of the Roman god Mars or one god among many gods, or just a god as concept, but when you say, "We'll make it, God willing," you go from the general to a specific naming for a concept/being that stands alone. The reality is of no moment to the point. You aren't paying homage by following the rule. But you're going to do something in a bit that tells me however you've rationalized it, this is just a bad habit born of antipathy. I'll remind you when we get there.
...Logical arguments for the existence of god tend to engage in fallacious logic of on sort or another I find.
You'd have to give me the example. Not all arguments of any sort are equal. And the existence of a number of poor arguments is undone by a single good one, so even given a tendency that I don't credit it wouldn't matter overly much. If every kid in class but one fails to properly add one plus one math remains untarnished.
As for the witness of countless people, there are witnesses of countless people for every religion, not just Christianity
Right. I didn't narrow it. Most of humanity over the course of its existence has given witness to a belief in the experience and reality of God. That's a powerful theistic foundation to begin with.
The witness of Muslims is no more and no less compelling than that of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, or for the existence of the cyclops from Odysseus.
I don't think that's true and no one who follows any of those would either.
The real question is whether anyone is right or not. Not all witness is equal or courts would be tied up forever. Also tying in what isn't actually witnessed or even offered as that into the mix doesn't help you in terms of advancing your part as an objective examination. Just so, Lovecraft isn't gospel.
Which tends to be anecdotal at best, and more proves that people can convince themselves to believe anything more than it proves that [God] exists.
Objectively, all you can do is note the tendency. Are men trying to convince themselves or are they recognizing something true through their various lenses is the question raised where you, looking through your lens, only see an answer.
I'll agree with this, but point out that subjective experience and relationship with god is more an engagement in confirmation bias.
All we can say is that it is or it isn't, that certainly we are all influenced by metamethodological predispositions, but not from whence those arrive.
...One of the big appeals of religion is answer to the unanswerable, and comfort from fear. People naturally fear death, and religion offers a hope to assuage that fear. This certainly isn't the only appeal, but it is a major one.
I don't think most people walk around thinking about death. I'd agree that it's a comfort when one does, but I suspect the strength of religion is found in the living of life, in the context it offers. For me it's that and relation. We are, when viewed historically, creatures of value and meaning, of purpose. We seek and argue over it endlessly. Couple that seeming nature with a survival impulse and belief would seem to be the thing we're born for and that context made to make us happiest.
Then the question becomes why that is. The faithful have one answer, those without, another.
...Faith is for some reason seen unjustifiably as necessarily virtuous.
It's unavoidable. You're a creature of faith as well. Who determines your unjustifiably or even virtue and how?
...Believing in something without evidence to its truthfulness is the cause of a lot of negative attitudes and behaviors; this is a demonstrable fact.
I don't believe it is. I think it's an assumption made to look like one. That is, there is inarguably evidence and people/adherents are satisfied by what satisfies on the point, there being no empirical standard to advance and meet that can manage it.
And nowhere more so than in the case of those that empower and/or enrich themselves at the expense of others than in the name of [God]. While it is true that there are other philosophical underpinnings for doing so, these are generally rare, while doing so with "[God] on your side" is the rule, not the exception.
I think that's unsupportable. You could roll the whole of religious motivated slaughter into the shadow of what the three gentlemen I noted gave us from their godless context.
Regarding a discussion of hell.
At your service, though it would probably be better off as a thread than another link in this particular chain, don't you think?
It's an honest assessment of what Christendom teaches. You painting it as an emotional or juvenile attack doesn't detract from the veracity of the claim, and is entirely unfounded.
It's not unfounded at all. Let's literally look at your characterization.
We are all sinners destined for hell,
A solid beginning and true from a doctrinal point, but here's where you take it off the rails and merit my criticism:
and we deserve it cause god says so,
That's sophomoric both in grammar and substance. It explains nothing, only paints God as a vaguely parental tyrant. The old "Because I said so" doesn't begin to meet what we are actually told about sin and consequence, about reconciliation and grace and you either know it or have no business speaking to it. In either case your treatment warranted the response.
Regarding God's perfection.
If this were true, in his omnipotence [God] would have demonstrated his truth, morality and character in a much more efficient manner, and the holy texts of the major faiths would not be fraught with so much contradiction, ambiguity, and calls for violence.
That's problematic as a criticism. What I mean is this, either there is or isn't a perfect being. God. If the proposition is true then you aren't in a position to judge what His means would or wouldn't be over time. It's illogical to attempt to do so.
Also, I'm not actually arguing for every text, for the Koran or the Vedas/Upanishads, Book of Mormon and so on, though I've read all or some of each. I believe, as Lewis and Tolkien, in the true Christian myth reflected in them.
...[God] as described in the bible is far from perfect.
See, the Bible is also a proper noun. And that settles the one point for me, whether you realize what's going on or it's a subconscious bubbling up I don't know. And God is actually described sufficiently to imply perfection. We'll touch on it as we go along I think. AMR (an accomplished theologian around these parts) did a fine job of that. I may refer you to it when I have time to bump his elbow. I think it would be helpful.
...Man is imperfect, I will concede, but not necessarily willfully.
In his moral actions? Absolutely. We do things on a daily basis that we understand are wrong. We speed, breaking the law, we may lust or curse or hate, envy, entertain notions that if acted upon would be inarguably wrong or even illegal. And it may be our imperfection that gives rise to this, but the same mechanism by which we resist sin in the one moment is established in every moment, so our separation from the good and Holy is willful and our judgment just, to put it succinctly.
If anything, observation of human behavior demonstrates that people strive to be the best in many respect, though not always and not everyone.
I don't think observation sustains it or we'd have a remarkably different world...I think most of us want to live in peace and would like to be our best selves as an idea, work toward self improvement. But I don't see that as the same thing. Life is a good piece of exercise equipment covered in clothes. I think that's a more accurate assessment of what we idealize and what we tend to do.
...It was not just of [God] to punish the children for the crimes of parents to the third and fourth generations. This is not justice at all.
Now you're snipping out of a larger context. The same OT (do atheists even realize there's a NT?
) also contains:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16
Part of the problem is that you aren't, even within the OT context, actually considering the fuller text.
'You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 'You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
What we're talking about is those generations who have followed their fathers into a rejection of God. And in the next breath it distinguishes between those who continue in that and how God is to those who love Him. Your problem was too narrow a contextual consideration.
I rather enjoy talking to you. We may not agree, but you at least are a reasonable adult about things.
Thank you. I'm enjoying our conversation and I don't see any reason to be anything else about it. I don't care much for people who drag the Holy into the dirt on either side of the question.
:cheers:
