are you an atheist?

ilx lols at david lynch??

The thread title does indeed promise a discussion of belief in diety. I'm not expressing any shock over that, Phil. So, what does a belief in diety imply, beyond a the simple fact of a belief in diety? Anything? My beef, such as it is, revolves around the answers to that question, as given in the prior 1570-and-change posts.

But you may feel free to answer that question, if you wish, so as to clarify your position.

lol deity

concise

It doesn't *necessarily* imply anything at all. It also doesn't just exist in a vacuum. Does that help?

xp well you did type "diety" like four times.

diety worms

diety? horrors!

This was linked from the Michael Robbins thread but could be relevant here as well:

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/book-reviews/he-who

Sample quote:

The central folly of scientism is the assumption that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a question for science--whose proper field is, after all, "something"--or, even more perniciously, that it isn't a question worth bothering about, isn't really a question at all.

Don't think science reckons it's not worth bothering with by any means. Science just realises we are far far far off having the theoretical tools or intellectual framework to properly deal with that question.

imho part of what establishes those theoretical tools + intellectual frameworks have historically been theology + discourses w/ infinity

I don't get this part at all (Robbins quoting Hart in the quoted paragraph):

Here he is on Dawkins’s vacuous concept of the “meme”:

'Genetic materials are propagated by physical transactions because they themselves are physical realities; at their level, no conscious acts need be present. Whatever else “memes” might be, however, if such things really did exist, they would most definitely be composed of intentional content and would exist only as objects of mental representation. They would not therefore be metaphorically “selected” by nature, in the way the units of biological evolution are said to be, but would literally be chosen (even if often a little passively) by a conscious mind.'

What’s astonishing isn’t that Dawkins can’t see that the meme is merely a metaphor, but that he doesn’t realize it’s a metaphor that presumes intelligent design.

How does he manage to bring intelligent design into it? I don't see the argument at all.

I think they've conflated intentionality w/ intelligent design.

this sentence makes me smile - A badger cannot understand differential equations, but that tells us something about badgers, not equations. - but I think it's wrong

Alien vs Badgers
Et tu, Bruce Lee?
I'll chop your socks into suey
said Woody to Soon-Yi
Game over, man, game over.

A+

I think the main thing frustrating me lately is how in debates about religion, Christians love to trot out that their beliefs cannot be disproven. An obvious point, to be sure, but a large part of the reason it is so is because they themselves have purposefully made it that way!

They'll tout the Bible as God-breathed (citing scripture from I think Timothy?), then when you point out some of the more serious discrepencies, such as the multiple ways Judas dies, differing accounts of the Crucifixion, etc, they always have some meta-explanation for it that they themselves invented. Many sects of Judaism were apocalyptic in nature around the time the religions split, and many Early Christians believed that the End Times were near in their lifetime. When the end times didn't come, the story changed - oh, he's coming back LATER! This "generation" will not pass didn't mean the literal generation! It meant the Jewish race (no matter that the Hebrew word used did not translate to "race" but "generation"). Or the other explanation - 1 minute to God is like a thousand years, etc, etc.

The other thing that bugs me is I have yet to see a good Christian explanation of why Jesus is indeed the Messiah, as he does not meet the definition as defined in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The ancient Jews did not define the coming Messiah as a "suffering figure", the word actually meant "anointed one". He was supposed to be a great military leader that was supposed to overthrow Rome and return it to the Jews, and Jesus was an insurrectionist that was easily stifled and killed by the Romans. He was supposed to be a descendent of David which he technically could not have been as he was, according to Christians, not Joseph's natural born son. He was supposed to build the Third Temple and usher in an era of World Peace. Didn't happen and I always see the latter skirted around in discussions.

The common response I see that 'proves' he met the criteria of Messiah is Psalms and Isaiah. But most Old Testament scholars have pointed out the passage of "piercing hands and feet" is based on a mistranslation of the original Hebrew, which was "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet". Isaiah was not referring to Jesus but the Jewish people. And most Biblical scholars contend that Psalms was a generic collection of Jewish folks describing their persecution, not a reference to a coming Messiah.

It seems airtight enough that I can only assume most of the people I talk to don't know about it, but some of the apologia crowd seems to have skirted the issue by saying "oh that other stuff? He'll do that the second time around.". Again, circular by their OWN DESIGN. We can't disprove it because it is continually redefined.

Oi...I think I'm reading too much about this lately.

no you're exactly right. "you can't disprove this thing that inherently unable to be proven, therefore it's true". people who use bad logic aren't logical enough to be aware of their own bad logic, it's maddening.

a good Christian explanation of why Jesus is indeed the Messiah

in terms of the OT, there isn't one. which is why Jews aren't Christians.

Why exactly is it maddening? What precedent causes you to expect something different?

when you see something clearly, can see why something is flawed or not, yet someone you're discussing it with is simply incapable of seeing the flaws...maddening. this is different from me wanting someone else to see things MY way; it's that they are incapable of following the logical paths that lead merely to the contemplation of "my way".

xp

Why exactly is it maddening?

The absence of logic as a methodology removes a particularly solid underpinning for successful communication between individuals, and a failure to communicate to another person what is extremely clear to you is a rich source of frustration. As you point out, it is illogical to try to adjust the thinking of someone who is incapable of understanding you, so it is wiser to adjust one's own expectations, which strategy is entirely in one's own power.

The contradictions and inconsistencies are entirely compatible with a conception of all-powerful omnipotent deity, who must be able to partake in both 'good' and 'bad' and a 'good/bad' sort of Schrodinger's cat-style duality. If you are yearning for logical consistency or insist on the value of narrative above all else then you are reading the Bible wrong, and have much in common with Creationists.

^^ This at least shows an understanding of what logical consistency is and an informed idea of where it is most applicable. I think Granny Dainger can appreciate a difference between a response of this nature and the sort of response that maddens him.

yep absolutely. Which is why I say I don't wish or expect all to arrive at the same conclusion as me ("my way"). There are good, logically sound ways to arrive at a belief in a supernatural creator; it's poorly thought-out, deeply flawed ones which show a near total lack of critical thinking skills that are maddening.

I would kinda hope that an allpowerful supernatural deity could give rise to a book about itself that wasn't so prone to misinterpretation/misuse by its most special creations though.

Well the fluidity of the meaning is essential, otherwise we'd all be fundamentalists.

which gets at the meat of things...there's no 1 thing that "disproves" God or Allah etc...there's 1000s of little "hey wait a minute here" things that should make a person with good critical thinking skills be very very doubtful.

what's wrong with fundamentalists? why are they "wrong"?

think it might be that you view fundamentalists how I view vast majority of the religious

Probably because its impossibly hard to think critically about something you've genuinely come to believe is infinitely infallible, at least to any meaningful degree.

chicken/egg tho innit? I know plenty of people raised in very religious households, Catholic school and all that, yet at some point the "hey wait a minute here"s mounted up to the point where they're no longer believers.

Most vehement anti-Christians I know where raised in pretty religious households. Yet at some point they probably smoked a cigarette too.

They may even have cussed or listened to a rock n roll record album.

Being that there exist a number of sects within Christianity (and in regards to the Old Testament, also the Jewish faith) who all read the Bible a different way, I challenge the idea that there is a "right" way to read it, but moving on...

Nowhere did I describe how I read the Bible - my overarching point is that many Christians I have debated or seen in debate often fall back on the tired "get out of jail free" card of "You can't disprove what I believe!", disingenuously painting this inability of disproof as an attribute, when in reality, this inability to disprove is due to the circular nature of the faith itself, and the constant redefining of beliefs when things don't pan out as expected. Namely, many of them start out with the thesis that "Christianity is real", and shift their beliefs around that, rather than starting at neutral. Which to be fair, is to be expected with many of them, as pointed out above, for various reasons. However, there is nothing impressive about shooting an arrow and drawing a bullseye around it after the fact.

I think Biblical inerrancy is laughable and silly but I also think using it's error-prone nature as the singular source of disbelief in said religion is oversimplifying things. My reasons for being a nonbeliever were simple - I was a young Christian that for years tried to seek out this all-powerful deity. I was not the naive type that thought a bearded glowing figure would show up in my living room in an Elvis costume and say "whassup dogg". But most Christians I know would say things like "I FELT THE HOLY SPIRIT TODAY" or all kinds of physical phenomena that they attributed to an outside lifeforce. However, after years of trying, I felt and found nothing other than that which was in my own brain. So I gave up, and in addition, grew to dislike what was being taught and the central thesis of the faith itself. Recently, I have been revisiting my beliefs through extensive reading, but my opinion has merely softened, yet not changed (though my animosity at organized religion has certainly grown in recent years).

Moreso, I think while one can say contradictions don't 'disprove' the existence of a God, specific reliability errors in the Bible certain cast some doubt on the existence of THAT PARTICULAR version of God, or at least many of the key components shared by most of the believers of the faith. Inerrantists reflect only a portion of believers, but even more liberal Christians still believe Jesus was the Messiah, and that Heaven and Hell are real, even if they accept that large portions of the tome were written by man and are imperfect.

However, the discrepencies in the Hebrew definition of what a Messiah was and who Jesus was, simply put, do not make sense. It suggests that the God of the Old Testament said to his Chosen People, "Hey peeps, this is how things are, if any other false idols show up and tell you otherwise, please tell them to sod off", and then when Jesus did exactly that and was thusly seen as a heretic by the Jews, they were rebuked for following the instruction he himself gave them. Many Early Christians actually believed that the God of the Old and New Testament were two distinct and differing deities, the first being an 'evil' God that Jesus and the New Testament God rescued them from. (None of these made it into the canon, of course).

Could there be some kind of supreme deity? Yeah sure. But I think there probably is not. And I base that not on technicalities in a book but based on the fact that the world itself appears to be operating at random as if there is nothing behind the scenes to my eyes.

xxxxxxpost

so then I think tsorobodo's last point only applies to people who aren't very good critical thinkers to begin with.

xpost I did have a creepy dream at age 11 tho where I bribed God with a quarter and it started floating into the air

"there is nothing impressive about shooting an arrow and drawing a bullseye around it after the fact."

did you come up with this or is it a common saying? like it

common saying - I found it on a Rabbi's website while reading.

So is there room in here for any non-mainstream Christian "THAT PARTICULAR version of God" or is that too far outside the atheist bullseye?

always felt that if you're gonna pick n choose aspects of Xianity you can get down with, why not just go 1 step further, leave it all behind and create your own god that makes 100% sense to you

You sound like Jesus LOL

People pick n choose from everything in life, not just Xianity. Why not give it all up and live in a cave? Worked for the Buddha.

yes but a vegetarian who occasionaly eats a burger is a lil different, don't you think? "I am the One True Way"...yeah ok JC I hear ya but Imma modify your shit a lil to suit my tastes, no biggie, we all pick n choose in life.

I guess you could call me one of them but at the same time that's not how it actually worked out for me (and I'm sure many others). Raised as a pentecostal Christian. Parents are pastors(brother was recently ordained. Lost my faith 5 years ago at 18. But as I experienced it at the time it wasn't a result of my chipping away at the blatant fallacies (though I no doubt was constantly doing so) I simply felt that whatever feeling it was that told me I had a relationship with god was steadily waning and the study groups, christian camps, anointing/worship services etc. I used to re-up were just making things worse.

Essentially as far as I can tell (trying to piece together what my thoughts were or meant I assume will be an ongoing process for a while yet) The logic came afterwards and throughout the whole ordeal remained obscured by whatever "feeling" I'd been fighting to hold on to.

Its hard to comprehend the extents to which many religious people define themselves according to their beliefs so when atheists see the simple trains of thought and wonder why religious it's generally because they're not considering the kind of rejection of self that actually entails.

God wasn't a decision I arrived at logically (if it was a decision I made at all) so for a younger me and I'd assume most religious people there's no frame of reference within which you can begin to question god that does not preclude your notion of the existence of god and all the baggage that comes with that.

Many Early Christians actually believed that the God of the Old and New Testament were two distinct and differing deities, the first being an 'evil' God that Jesus and the New Testament God rescued them from. (None of these made it into the canon, of course).

I find these gnostic/nag hammadi texts absolutely fascinating. The idea that our world has been hidden from the benevolent creator god of the universe by a corrupted idiot god seems so much more likely than the standard Xtian theology that actually won out.

xp

I'd be down with a deity that told us to enjoy what he created for us instead of giving a bunch of rigid constraining rules and threats of punishment under the false guise of "freewill". but even then I wouldn't just blindly believe in it.

The problem with picking and choosing depends on how one arrives at deciding what to accept and discard. For those that believe certain sections that are considered literal by Fundies are actually allegories, and do so because of the content of the writing, fair play to them.

For those who want to be Fundies and tattoo the Leviticus verse against homosexuality on their arm whilst ignoring the verse that decries tattoos themselves simply cuz tats are cool, fuck that.

It cuts both ways too. The Universalists of the Christian sect have an appealing belief system that everybody eventually goes to Heaven (not too different than the Jewish Gehenna where one is purified first there before ascending, except Universalists are more hippydippy and newagey), except it kind of defeats the purpose of Heaven...and it's a little offputting to think of Hitler dancing around up there (I'm guessing his purification would take longer). Plus their argument is thinly defined, relying too much on presumptuous textual critiques.

I guess what I'm saying is the only God I would worship would be the type I'd see at an Iron Maiden concert so....

I find these gnostic/nag hammadi texts absolutely fascinating. The idea that our world has been hidden from the benevolent creator god of the universe by a corrupted idiot god seems so much more likely than the standard Xtian theology that actually won out.

xp

― How dare you tarnish the reputation of Turturro's yodel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, March 5, 2014 3:14 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, I get a lot more enjoyment from reading the non-canonical or gnostic texts. some of them are obviously rubbish but even then they are entertaining.

Neanderthal I think you're just basically describing the debate or internal validation technique of "moving the goalposts", which is always interesting to me because no matter what religious affiliation the theist subscribes to they are all suddenly arguing as deists when they do this in a debate.

Which I think is your point, right? Any focus on discrepancies in religious text is met with "Well if we took everything literally we'd be fundamentalists, let me interest you in a cosmic point too philosophical for science to touch currently instead".