tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143444398686195516.post6004441674284150032..comments2023-04-15T09:45:24.185-05:00Comments on Millenarian Iconoclasm: Nonbelief In A NutshellDark Starhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04356850749159919331noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143444398686195516.post-19027191868359001862011-11-19T20:58:07.019-06:002011-11-19T20:58:07.019-06:00As long as there are David Kato's, Dick Butto...As long as there are David Kato's, Dick Button's, Harvey Milk's, Tennessee Williams', Steven Charles', Thomas Moore's, ... and Christian groups who are attacking women's rights, gay rights, legalization, sex education, science eduction, ... then I will be in the debate :)Dark Starhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04356850749159919331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143444398686195516.post-35263277372386042872011-11-19T18:31:17.822-06:002011-11-19T18:31:17.822-06:00I didn't say it was MORE likely, I merely give...I didn't say it was MORE likely, I merely give it as a suspicious possibility (based on the story reading exactly like a magicians trick) incidental to my point - which is that, according to the Bible itself, God didn't really have a problem demonstrating his existence.<br /><br />I could give you 100 different ways such a feat could be accomplished by trickery and I bet Penn & Teller could give you 1000.<br /><br />Given the 30,000+ sects of Christianity I can't hope to smash them all with one hammer. If someone wants to subscribe to the "babies are better off dead" theory then we have the next discussion.Dark Starhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04356850749159919331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143444398686195516.post-27471792001564694142011-11-19T18:13:58.480-06:002011-11-19T18:13:58.480-06:00Speaking of philosophic debates!
I wouldn't p...Speaking of philosophic debates!<br /><br />I wouldn't presume to try to convince anybody. I didn't post any evidence or even any strongly held feelings. For the sake of intellectual discourse (about religion? laffo) I offer the minimally crazy view that if there is a God, perhaps he's not quite as hell bent on hell... bending... as we've always supposed him to be.Callbursthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09365390577137226285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143444398686195516.post-69647535776505970262011-11-19T18:06:51.143-06:002011-11-19T18:06:51.143-06:00That would be an interesting argument to present t...That would be an interesting argument to present to somebody who professed strict literalism or infallibility of the Bible. I find it interesting that you'd find it more likely that Elijah had access to large quantities of pure phosphorous, potassium, or sodium (which somehow failed to ignite when touched by the blood of the bull) than that the whole thing simply never happened ;)<br /><br />I've read the Bible, but certainly wouldn't consider myself a learn'd scholar. I don't think I'd be qualified to talk about anthropology of Palestine or pre-Vatican II theology. However, if one permits the idea that God, who refers to himself as the Father, has regard for those he calls his children, it stands to reason that perhaps the immediate fate of 500 sliced Baalic prophets is not to be poked in the eye with a pitchfork for all eternity. <br /><br />"But what about all the stuff in the Bible about fire and endless torment?" Yeah I'm not sure, but I don't think the Bible is infallible or intended for perfectly literal interpretation. <br /><br />My point is just that I don't think I accept the claim that the acceptance of the Abrahamic God is automatically submission to the murderous whims of some jealous tyrant. <br /><br />But this opens up another can of nastiness- which Abrahamic God? Surely the guy who said "turn the other cheek" is not same one who destroyed the house of Saul because he didn't kill absolutely EVERYTHING he could? <br /><br />Here is where the difference may, perhaps, be irreconcilable. Your claim is that God, or the arraignment of superstitions surrounding the god-myth, requires unquestioned fealty before any sort of moral uprightness. To the extent, even, that God would require the slaughter of infants. I think some Christians would refer to a belief that God has purpose in all his actions, and that death isn't such a huge deal in the view of eternity. So even if the claim that God wants all dissidents dead is true (and could it be) there's no reason to suppose that death is the worst thing that could happen to them.<br /><br />What's frustrating for either side of this argument is that it hinges on whether or not there is a God in the first place, and what he does with the souls of men. Without any ability to prove either side conclusively (it's just about impossible to prove a negative, about as much so as it is impossible to prove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being who doesn't want to have his existence proven) it's a philosophic debate.Callbursthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09365390577137226285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143444398686195516.post-30926463957085932352011-11-19T12:49:43.516-06:002011-11-19T12:49:43.516-06:00"God seems intent on not being tangibly prove..."God seems intent on not being tangibly proven" - that's why I bring out 1 King 18 :) Have you read it? Elijah confronts Ahab and challenges him to prove Ba'al is a real God, the challenge is to sacrifice a bull and have each prophet pray to their respective god and see which one answers the prayer and alights the Bull's flesh on fire. The priests of Ba'al try and fail (duh), so Elijah cleverly says ok look, I'll up the stakes for myself and soak my Bull flesh with water and voilà Elijah's Bull lights up light Christmas. Sound like an old magicians trick yet? Note how Elijah doesn't stick to the original challenge, he modifies it for himself making it appear even more difficult (classic redirection) but which actually allows him some trickery - for example, perhaps he knew of sodium or something similar that would react with the water. Such a trick may have even not been known except as an Alchemical well-kept secret at that time. We don't know for certain - it's not like they would ADMIT to it in the text - but it sure smells like fish to me. And then, of course, Elijah orders the 500 or so priests of Ba'al murdered - because that's just what God wants. Now imagine if we had the same scenario today? I challenge any Christian denomination to sacrifice a Bull and then pray and have their god light the flesh on fire (under the watchful eye of JREF or some similar group). And if they fail, would it then be the righteous and glorious thing to do if we murdered every priest of that denomination as a false priest? That would seemingly be the Christian thing to do, we would be doing God a favor. Is that the morality we propose to follow? Do you think any Christian's have enough faith to stand up for that challenge if it meant their death upon failure? Why can't we demand this level of proof? If it was good enough for Elijah, it should be good enough for us. Doesn't Jesus say that "Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 18:19 ~ Douay-Rheims)? What better way to get two Christians to agree than having their life at risk of forfeit?Dark Starhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04356850749159919331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143444398686195516.post-427408421744343002011-11-19T12:47:07.490-06:002011-11-19T12:47:07.490-06:00I do make numerous specific claims that could be i...I do make numerous specific claims that could be in error and there are ample apologetics on all of these issues that could potentially change my position in light of new information - I'm trying to bring a large number of arguments together in one location so someone could see a bigger picture forming. And it's not at all clear to me that most Christians understand the seriousness of the atrocities described in the Bible.<br /><br />I absolutely agree with you that you don't need religion to commit murder. I've written about that elsewhere (the real issues are things like tribalism and authoritarianism) and I need to incorporate it here. I think that section is one of the more 'unfocused' bits. However, the bit about "god's stamp of approval on genocide" comes Directly from the Bible, not the actions of the Catholic Church - the later actions of the Church only serve to reinforce the argument that this propensity for violence didn't go away with the New Testament; the violent interpretation is thus best explained as the original intent (I also argue that the destruction of early dissenting evidence obfuscates the facts which doesn't shine a favorable light on the Christian branch that survived those times). I mention there the Arian's, if you don't know their history you'll have to read up on it but basically they believed "the Son has a beginning", resulting in them being hunted down, slaughtered and virtually all of their writing destroyed.<br /><br />"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment" — Edict by Emperor Constantine<br /><br />What I hope a Christian might take away from this is that the message of the Bible is that god hates people who don't do what he commands of them, he wants them DEAD, and he will happily command soldiers to slice open suckling infants to achieve that goal. And I want Christian's who read this to understand that this really is the god they are accepting. If that doesn't square with their idea of god then perhaps they will begin to questions the foundations of their beliefs.<br /><br />Good feedback, thanks. I'll work to improve the text based on your comments, in the meantime hopefully this will help clarify some of the points.<br /><br />(cont)Dark Starhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04356850749159919331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143444398686195516.post-20788502899227072482011-11-19T05:46:07.400-06:002011-11-19T05:46:07.400-06:00I don't think most rational Christians (and th...I don't think most rational Christians (and there's another argument) would try to disprove it. Like you said, the inconvenient thing about theology is the God seems intent on not being tangibly proven. As for hyper-offense, generally anything written in blue font on black background past 10 PM feels pretty acidic. Also, it feels weird to try to "disprove" it because this is a belief. Or, in this case, a nonbelief. I know that the scientific, literary, and theological world would spit on me citing Kevin Smith, but, "You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. People die for it. People kill for it."<br /><br />I did appreciate the bit about moral relativism. It seems that there's not a terribly solidified code of morality from book to book in the Bible. Or sometimes even in the same book. <br /><br />Something I kind of get annoyed about, as a matter of personal preference, is when people cite offenses of the Catholic church as proof of God's stamp of approval on genocide or gross crimes against humanity, and therefore evidence of an amoral God. If we even dabble in the idea that God existed during the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition, where is the evidence that he was involved? Further, and somewhat apart, I'm not sure that any pope had more blood on his hands than Stalin or Mao or Kim. You can be a murderer with or without religion.Callbursthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09365390577137226285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143444398686195516.post-34672062941843049932011-11-18T23:09:54.698-06:002011-11-18T23:09:54.698-06:00Honestly, I think I'll be lucky if anyone else...Honestly, I think I'll be lucky if anyone else every actually reads it. But generally I put pages up here for topics that come up frequently so I can just link someone to my position. So it will probably most be Christians with whom I am in a discussion with and they go "but morality proves god; your morality is baseless".<br /><br />So basically I want to attack the objective morality claims, and expose what the morality we're actually talking about really involves and why I reject it (and why that rejection is reasonable - as the usual counter offer is that the historicity of the Bible account is unquestionable).<br /><br />One area I know I need to expound on (I've covered it elsewhere but need to incorporate that here) is why the 'religious methodology' is flawed.<br /><br />If you want to see the entire context of where these discussions & arguments came from:<br /><br />http://sententias.org/2011/11/08/new-atheisms-cancer-and-eventual-cause-of-death-monologue/<br /><br />There is much more there than I have posted here.<br /><br />I really appreciate your comment & feedback. I absolutely agree with most of what you said.<br /><br />I'll have to think about the tone, I tend to be fairly acerbic - and I actually think I'm ok with that - it's not by accident. Defensive can mean more engaged in my experience. I want people to be engaged enough to want to try disprove me - but not so offended that they just blow it off. And no one piece of writing is going to "do it" for every person. I also think that as I flesh out the text the tone will naturally soften.Dark Starhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04356850749159919331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143444398686195516.post-14619377977023324912011-11-18T18:52:57.035-06:002011-11-18T18:52:57.035-06:00Depending on your intended audience and purpose, m...Depending on your intended audience and purpose, my comments would change. If this is to be persuasive, it does come across as an attack, which, while a legitimate form of persuasion, usually causes the one you're trying to persuade to become defensive. If it is to be something along the lines of a credo, then a little more time spend on explaining the reasoning or results of the reasoning behind your choices (for example, I am amoral because morality tends to be black and white, one or the other without regard to the situation. I prefer to operate under an honour code, which allows consideration of the entire situation rather than just an action and takes into account that because one action is proper in one situation does not mean it is proper in another.) If it is to be informative, the tone is unfocused.<br /><br />As you did say this was a rough draft, unfocused is to be expected. I think you have valid points and some of them would do well to be expanded (there are several points where you mention something and move quickly onto the next thing) but which would be best to expand would depend partially on what your ultimate purpose is. You do say it is a statement of why you have chosen not to follow a religious belief system, but that doesn't fully define its target or purpose. Defining those would make it easier to improve.hColleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01330505412423334442noreply@blogger.com