|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 24, 2019 11:18:15 GMT
Reasons 1, 2 and 3 are fine because faith is not a disease, neither is it "illogical" because it can be efficient to simply follow what authorities say. It can save the time, resources and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over. How much better reason 4 might be depends on the quality of the experience. Atheists are not more logical than anyone else, they just think they are. They tend to read at a rather elementary level of understanding and that makes religion difficult for them because it requires a much higher level of reading and art. What is an example of literature that you think the lower level of reading leads to atheism. Any particular passages that you think the atheist has misinterpreted because of his elementary level of reading and lack of "art?"
The most obvious and often mentioned one is creation in "six days." Elsewhere scriptures mention that a thousand years is like a day to God.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 24, 2019 14:58:07 GMT
What is an example of literature that you think the lower level of reading leads to atheism. Any particular passages that you think the atheist has misinterpreted because of his elementary level of reading and lack of "art?"
The most obvious and often mentioned one is creation in "six days." Elsewhere scriptures mention that a thousand years is like a day to God. I have known of that hypothesis for a while...that the term "day" in Genesis probably didn't mean a literal 24-hr day because of some other scripture (Psalms and 2 Peter) that says a thousand years is like a day to God. But that second scripture can't be taken literally either if one is to accept the philosopher's description of God that he is timeless, so it too, seems to be a figure of speech to mean that God exists in a state where days and years we think of don't mean the same thing to him.
Is there some actual reason to associate the term day in Genesis with the term day used in the Psalm and then again in 2 Peter? This site suggests the two terms are NOT synonymous.
creation.com/2-peter-38-one-day-is-like-a-thousand-years
And, these people at creation.com are not atheists.
I could well imagine that the person/people who wrote Genesis might've meant some obscure meaning to the term "day" that meant long period of time. But, I have no reason to because I could also well believe they really did think God just created the whole world in 6 literal days. Why would they think otherwise? Why should we think they should've thought otherwise just because NOW some scientists think evidence suggests the earth and the universe as a whole is billions of years old?
Regardless...it would not change my view that I am not convinced that God exists. So in that case, I feel I haven't been reading the Bible at some elementary level and that that level of reading led to me not thinking God exists.
Do you have another example?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 24, 2019 21:12:09 GMT
The most obvious and often mentioned one is creation in "six days." Elsewhere scriptures mention that a thousand years is like a day to God. I have known of that hypothesis for a while...that the term "day" in Genesis probably didn't mean a literal 24-hr day because of some other scripture (Psalms and 2 Peter) that says a thousand years is like a day to God. But that second scripture can't be taken literally either if one is to accept the philosopher's description of God that he is timeless, so it too, seems to be a figure of speech to mean that God exists in a state where days and years we think of don't mean the same thing to him.
Is there some actual reason to associate the term day in Genesis with the term day used in the Psalm and then again in 2 Peter? This site suggests the two terms are NOT synonymous.
creation.com/2-peter-38-one-day-is-like-a-thousand-years
And, these people at creation.com are not atheists.
I could well imagine that the person/people who wrote Genesis might've meant some obscure meaning to the term "day" that meant long period of time. But, I have no reason to because I could also well believe they really did think God just created the whole world in 6 literal days. Why would they think otherwise? Why should we think they should've thought otherwise just because NOW some scientists think evidence suggests the earth and the universe as a whole is billions of years old?
Regardless...it would not change my view that I am not convinced that God exists. So in that case, I feel I haven't been reading the Bible at some elementary level and that that level of reading led to me not thinking God exists.
Do you have another example?
You say it isn't you, and maybe I believe it isn't you, but it is a lot of atheists. They can't get over the concept of the old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. That image is not what religious people believe. That image is just an accommodation to children and retarded adults who are not capable of dealing with higher abstractions.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 25, 2019 8:51:39 GMT
I have known of that hypothesis for a while...that the term "day" in Genesis probably didn't mean a literal 24-hr day because of some other scripture (Psalms and 2 Peter) that says a thousand years is like a day to God. But that second scripture can't be taken literally either if one is to accept the philosopher's description of God that he is timeless, so it too, seems to be a figure of speech to mean that God exists in a state where days and years we think of don't mean the same thing to him.
Is there some actual reason to associate the term day in Genesis with the term day used in the Psalm and then again in 2 Peter? This site suggests the two terms are NOT synonymous.
creation.com/2-peter-38-one-day-is-like-a-thousand-years
And, these people at creation.com are not atheists.
I could well imagine that the person/people who wrote Genesis might've meant some obscure meaning to the term "day" that meant long period of time. But, I have no reason to because I could also well believe they really did think God just created the whole world in 6 literal days. Why would they think otherwise? Why should we think they should've thought otherwise just because NOW some scientists think evidence suggests the earth and the universe as a whole is billions of years old?
Regardless...it would not change my view that I am not convinced that God exists. So in that case, I feel I haven't been reading the Bible at some elementary level and that that level of reading led to me not thinking God exists.
Do you have another example?
You say it isn't you, and maybe I believe it isn't you, but it is a lot of atheists. They can't get over the concept of the old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. That image is not what religious people believe. That image is just an accommodation to children and retarded adults who are not capable of dealing with higher abstractions. Do you think you will ever see God? If so, what DO you think he'll look like?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 25, 2019 10:07:01 GMT
You say it isn't you, and maybe I believe it isn't you, but it is a lot of atheists. They can't get over the concept of the old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. That image is not what religious people believe. That image is just an accommodation to children and retarded adults who are not capable of dealing with higher abstractions. Do you think you will ever see God? If so, what DO you think he'll look like? There are several different concepts that people mean when they use the word "god." The most widely recognized is the "ethical system" in Judaism. Dictionaries often define a "god" as an individual's or group's "supreme" concern or being, which would include things like money, military prowess, physical attractiveness, science or other mundane things. Some poor souls might make a "god" out of tobacco. In that sense everyone has a god even if it is spontaneity. Many Jews might be fairly described as having an ethical code and behavior as the supreme thing to them. In science the term of choice is "supernatural" and simply means anything that apparently defies the understanding of nature as currently cataloged. The relationship can be different. Sometimes the unknown is not so much honored as pursued in hope of making it known. In Catholicism there is the concept the Beatific Vision, which Wikipedia might describe better than I can. Perhaps one of the several Catholics on this board might have helpful information. Whether they admit it or not the god of many people is the "surcease of sorrow" that of course was a concern long before Edgar Allan Poe put it in those words. In chapter 11 of the Baghavad Gita, "The Universal Form," Krishna "reveals" to the devotee Arjuna the many and varied incarnations possible. It requires a special dispensation of some sort since like the Beatific Vision it is beyond human perception otherwise. Suppose a blind person tried to understand the concept of "green." It is not really possible without an improvement in the equipment. A word often employed to describe god is "love," but that word is usually as difficult to define and any other choice in these matters. The word might be used far more than it is understood.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 25, 2019 11:04:19 GMT
Do you think you will ever see God? If so, what DO you think he'll look like? "[Lots of interesting things, but none that answer the question...]" Do you think you will ever see God as anything that resembles a visible object? IE, if you say, "I see God as love," then it's more of a metaphor, right? But is that it...God is a metaphor?
Many Christians describe an after death judgment where they'll stand before God/Jesus and be judged.
Do you think these people are reading the Bible at an elementary level...talking about "appearing" and "standing" before God to be judged?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 25, 2019 11:29:38 GMT
"[Lots of interesting things, but none that answer the question...]" Do you think you will ever see God as anything that resembles a visible object? IE, if you say, "I see God as love," then it's more of a metaphor, right? But is that it...God is a metaphor?
Many Christians describe an after death judgment where they'll stand before God/Jesus and be judged.
Do you think these people are reading the Bible at an elementary level...talking about "appearing" and "standing" before God to be judged?
I have no idea exactly what goes on inside other people's heads. I did mention that Judaism is basically an "ethical system" as often understood and practiced. I'm sorry for the lack of details, but it does imply a sort of judgement. I suspect your expectations are not realistic. It is difficult and might be impossible to explain what any god is in terms of everyday items like bricks, animals or people (elementary things). If you were blind I would have extreme difficulty explaining the concept of green to you. This is not really a failing on my part.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 25, 2019 13:57:18 GMT
Do you think you will ever see God as anything that resembles a visible object? IE, if you say, "I see God as love," then it's more of a metaphor, right? But is that it...God is a metaphor?
Many Christians describe an after death judgment where they'll stand before God/Jesus and be judged.
Do you think these people are reading the Bible at an elementary level...talking about "appearing" and "standing" before God to be judged?
I have no idea exactly what goes on inside other people's heads. I did mention that Judaism is basically an "ethical system" as often understood and practiced. I'm sorry for the lack of details, but it does imply a sort of judgement. I suspect your expectations are not realistic. It is difficult and might be impossible to explain what any god is in terms of everyday items like bricks, animals or people (elementary things). If you were blind I would have extreme difficulty explaining the concept of green to you. This is not really a failing on my part. I didn't imply it was a failing on your part.
What do you think my expectations are regarding an omnipotent God...why should any expectations be "unrealistic."
What are your expectations for God and why do you have those expectations.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 25, 2019 15:04:43 GMT
I have known of that hypothesis for a while...that the term "day" in Genesis probably didn't mean a literal 24-hr day because of some other scripture (Psalms and 2 Peter) that says a thousand years is like a day to God. But that second scripture can't be taken literally either if one is to accept the philosopher's description of God that he is timeless, so it too, seems to be a figure of speech to mean that God exists in a state where days and years we think of don't mean the same thing to him.
Is there some actual reason to associate the term day in Genesis with the term day used in the Psalm and then again in 2 Peter? This site suggests the two terms are NOT synonymous.
creation.com/2-peter-38-one-day-is-like-a-thousand-years
And, these people at creation.com are not atheists.
I could well imagine that the person/people who wrote Genesis might've meant some obscure meaning to the term "day" that meant long period of time. But, I have no reason to because I could also well believe they really did think God just created the whole world in 6 literal days. Why would they think otherwise? Why should we think they should've thought otherwise just because NOW some scientists think evidence suggests the earth and the universe as a whole is billions of years old?
Regardless...it would not change my view that I am not convinced that God exists. So in that case, I feel I haven't been reading the Bible at some elementary level and that that level of reading led to me not thinking God exists.
Do you have another example?
You say it isn't you, and maybe I believe it isn't you, but it is a lot of atheists. They can't get over the concept of the old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. That image is not what religious people believe. That image is just an accommodation to children and retarded adults who are not capable of dealing with higher abstractions. What? Are you saying the Sistine Chapel ceiling is targeted at children and retarded adults?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2019 20:03:53 GMT
So unlike most Christian apologists who generally argue under Reason 2 or less commonly under Reason 3, she actually argues for atheism up to the point where one can no longer be an atheist which is when one has a personal communication with God. Note that she doesn't argue that one ought to believe because people claim to have had religious experiences (such reasoning would fall under the first 3 reasons which she rejects). She doesn't even argue that having a religious experience of your own means that logically the transcendent must exist. All she argues is when you have one, you will find it impossible to be an atheist, even if all logic suggests you ought to be. Your belief is therefore justified by the impossibility of denying it. True believers like herself (she had a religious experience at the age of 28) therefore have more in common with atheists than the vast majority of theists - both true believers and atheists have justified beliefs, while the other theists have unjustified beliefs. Oddly therefore one could completely accept her argument while still being justified in one's atheism. Any thoughts on this? I think she gives too much weight to personal religious experiences. Humans are fallible creatures, and it's entirely possible to have an experience that does not map to reality. It's also possible to have an experience that does map to reality, but to misinterpret or misremember it. If you understand and accept this, then it is possible to have a personal experience and reject it.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 25, 2019 20:12:07 GMT
Humans are fallible creatures, and it's entirely possible to have an experience that does not map to reality. I think she would accept that. Her point is more even if someone who has had the experience accepts your argument as theoretically sound, they won't be able to believe it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2019 21:10:29 GMT
Humans are fallible creatures, and it's entirely possible to have an experience that does not map to reality. I think she would accept that. Her point is more even if someone who has had the experience accepts your argument as theoretically sound, they won't be able to believe it. And she's wrong. It is entirely possible to believe that one has had a false experience, misremembered it, or misunderstood it.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 25, 2019 21:43:29 GMT
I think she would accept that. Her point is more even if someone who has had the experience accepts your argument as theoretically sound, they won't be able to believe it. And she's wrong. It is entirely possible to believe that one has had a false experience, misremembered it, or misunderstood it. Apparently she thought if you had the kind of experience she had then you could not doubt it. It's kind of an unassailable argument in a way as if someone were to say they had that kind of experience and did doubt it she could simply say that it couldn't have been the same kind of experience then. Doesn't really get her anywhere though I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2019 21:55:55 GMT
And she's wrong. It is entirely possible to believe that one has had a false experience, misremembered it, or misunderstood it. Apparently she thought if you had the kind of experience she had then you could not doubt it. It's kind of an unassailable argument in a way as if someone were to say they had that kind of experience and did doubt it she could simply say that it couldn't have been the same kind of experience then. Doesn't really get her anywhere though I guess. It's not an argument at all; it's an assertion, and a demonstrably false one. People dismiss experiences they've had all the time. She can claim that the experience she had was one which cannot be denied, and anybody who had such an experience would be converted. But it's absolutely as valid to say otherwise, that the experience was convincing to her only because she has a low threshold for being convinced, and that every other person who had an identical experience would simply brush it off. There is exactly as much evidence for both propositions... zero. Accepting her claim also does interesting (and potentially damaging) things to theism. For one, if we assume that god can and does grant experiences to people which are of such a nature that is literally impossible to deny them, then how does that square with god's alleged love of free will? god is literally compelling people to become theists in ways that are impossible for them to resist! And the obvious question is - why doesn't everybody have these experiences? We're to believe that god compels some people to become believers by granting them these undeniable experiences... but others are just left to muddle through? What sense does that make? Especially if one is of the belief that god denies these people their experiences all their lives, and then casts them into hell at the end of it all for not believing in him - when he's the one that refused to grant them the undeniable experiences that he granted to other people which would have turned them into believers! It's absolutely nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 25, 2019 23:07:07 GMT
And she's wrong. It is entirely possible to believe that one has had a false experience, misremembered it, or misunderstood it. Apparently she thought if you had the kind of experience she had then you could not doubt it. It's kind of an unassailable argument in a way as if someone were to say they had that kind of experience and did doubt it she could simply say that it couldn't have been the same kind of experience then. Doesn't really get her anywhere though I guess. It is usual, at this point in an argument about such experiences that theists ( and possibly Ms Weil ) bring up phenomena such as NDE's 'visions' and such experiences as our own Erjenious believes happened to him where he felt that he went to Hell and then came back, presumably back from the dead or in a different realm at least. In his case he admitted that he was febrile at the time and this is a common attribution to febrile hallucinations ( ie the brain goes through some extraneous consciousness caused by fever, just as NDEs are caused by altered oxygen CO2 levels and the working of other chemicals on a brain in physical distress) SOME people even take hallucinatory drugs in an attempt t 'see' some inner or universal truth. Yet others such as Ms Weil may suffer from a delusion that they are indeed 'special' or chosen and apart from other people....see Graham's views on this above, with which I concur.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 26, 2019 6:32:41 GMT
You say it isn't you, and maybe I believe it isn't you, but it is a lot of atheists. They can't get over the concept of the old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. That image is not what religious people believe. That image is just an accommodation to children and retarded adults who are not capable of dealing with higher abstractions. What? Are you saying the Sistine Chapel ceiling is targeted at children and retarded adults? <image from Sistine Chapel> There's a lot going on in the world that doesn't fit your oppressively simple outlook. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is more than just an image of God. The opera La bohème is more that just a story about poor people. There might be a simplification of this or that going on in art whether text, painting, music, sculpture or other media, but other things are there as well. It does happen often that art operates on more than one level. News text is typically suited to very young readers (shorter sentences, shorter paragraphs, more commas, no colorful adjectives) despite the fact that there can be very subtle implications as well that only much more mature, educated and experienced people will be able to notice.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 26, 2019 7:08:13 GMT
I have no idea exactly what goes on inside other people's heads. I did mention that Judaism is basically an "ethical system" as often understood and practiced. I'm sorry for the lack of details, but it does imply a sort of judgement. I suspect your expectations are not realistic. It is difficult and might be impossible to explain what any god is in terms of everyday items like bricks, animals or people (elementary things). If you were blind I would have extreme difficulty explaining the concept of green to you. This is not really a failing on my part. I didn't imply it was a failing on your part.
What do you think my expectations are regarding an omnipotent God...why should any expectations be "unrealistic."
What are your expectations for God and why do you have those expectations.
Discussions about any "god" are fraught with uncertainties. It has been compared to explaining the color green to a blind person. There is no "literal" way to do that. If you can see green at all then I can quite "literally" inform you that the leaves on some particular tree at some particular time are green. Otherwise we are left with more poetic attempts at communication. There might be less than perfect analogies available. You might (!) be dissatisfied with the explanation, such as it is, that I can offer. I do not "expect," I already know that there are things beyond the plain sight and hearing of human eyes and ears. There are things unknown. We are left to speculate and perhaps on a good day surmise some of the details, but a full picture can be most difficult to obtain. Many "Christians" have a habit of assuming their certainty about those things is more justified than it actually is. There are indeed certainties in science, but there are many things quite beyond such science to explain. It is normal to be uncomfortable with uncertainty and many Christians choose not to face uncertainty or pretend to be more certain than they can justify. Atheists and fundamentalists are much alike that way. Atheists often claim to know the age of the Earth with more certainty than fundamentalists, but they are all fooling themselves and no one else. No one really knows exactly how old the Earth is. I do not know exactly how old the Earth is and I do not "expect" any god to tell me any time soon. This is my point. Atheists and fundamentalists are "plainspoken" in the perjorative sense of that term. They are low ranking soldiers or "grunts" who believe they or their leaders know more than is actually the case. They read at an elementary level and often misread it all.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 26, 2019 14:49:20 GMT
What? Are you saying the Sistine Chapel ceiling is targeted at children and retarded adults? <image from Sistine Chapel> There's a lot going on in the world that doesn't fit your oppressively simple outlook. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is more than just an image of God. The opera La bohème is more that just a story about poor people. There might be a simplification of this or that going on in art whether text, painting, music, sculpture or other media, but other things are there as well. It does happen often that art operates on more than one level. News text is typically suited to very young readers (shorter sentences, shorter paragraphs, more commas, no colorful adjectives) despite the fact that there can be very subtle implications as well that only much more mature, educated and experienced people will be able to notice. That's some pretty nice spinning to try to distance my example of Renaissance art of an " image of the old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds" from your assertion that the " concept of the old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds" is held only by simpletons.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 26, 2019 21:30:53 GMT
There's a lot going on in the world that doesn't fit your oppressively simple outlook. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is more than just an image of God. The opera La bohème is more that just a story about poor people. There might be a simplification of this or that going on in art whether text, painting, music, sculpture or other media, but other things are there as well. It does happen often that art operates on more than one level. News text is typically suited to very young readers (shorter sentences, shorter paragraphs, more commas, no colorful adjectives) despite the fact that there can be very subtle implications as well that only much more mature, educated and experienced people will be able to notice. That's some pretty nice spinning to try to distance my example of Renaissance art of an " image of the old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds" from your assertion that the " concept of the old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds" is held only by simpletons. I did not say the concept was held only by simpletons. I said it was an accommodation to children. That means it was not the work of children, but the work of adults, who by the way can be capable of higher art as well. Mine is not the "spin" as you put it, yours is. I will grant though that you might not be genuinely aware that's what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 26, 2019 22:25:25 GMT
I didn't imply it was a failing on your part.
What do you think my expectations are regarding an omnipotent God...why should any expectations be "unrealistic."
What are your expectations for God and why do you have those expectations.
Discussions about any "god" are fraught with uncertainties. It has been compared to explaining the color green to a blind person. There is no "literal" way to do that. If you can see green at all then I can quite "literally" inform you that the leaves on some particular tree at some particular time are green. Otherwise we are left with more poetic attempts at communication. There might be less than perfect analogies available. You might (!) be dissatisfied with the explanation, such as it is, that I can offer. I do not "expect," I already know that there are things beyond the plain sight and hearing of human eyes and ears. There are things unknown. We are left to speculate and perhaps on a good day surmise some of the details, but a full picture can be most difficult to obtain. Many "Christians" have a habit of assuming their certainty about those things is more justified than it actually is. There are indeed certainties in science, but there are many things quite beyond such science to explain. It is normal to be uncomfortable with uncertainty and many Christians choose not to face uncertainty or pretend to be more certain than they can justify. Atheists and fundamentalists are much alike that way. Atheists often claim to know the age of the Earth with more certainty than fundamentalists, but they are all fooling themselves and no one else. No one really knows exactly how old the Earth is. I do not know exactly how old the Earth is and I do not "expect" any god to tell me any time soon. This is my point. Atheists and fundamentalists are "plainspoken" in the perjorative sense of that term. They are low ranking soldiers or "grunts" who believe they or their leaders know more than is actually the case. They read at an elementary level and often misread it all. Ok, then what are you speculations about God's appearance since that was one of your criticisms.
"Atheists" don't claim to know the age of the earth...that is they don't claim to know it with any more certainty than those in the fields of Physics, geology and cosmology suggest. Even some theists believe those scientists are probably on to something and agree the earth is likely ancient. As an atheist but not an expert in the fields of science that apply to ascertaining the age of the earth, I accept with a grain of salt, so to speak, any assertions about the age of the earth. I have no basis to say they are wrong, but I am also well aware that scientific conclusions are often found to be off with new information/calculations, so I recognize that the info provided at sites such as this, while possibly right, might also be wrong.
|
|