Sweet Spot between Atheism and Theism

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

Hard to respond to you Judge...

Evidently.

Andrew66 wrote

Is it because I don't restrict my thoughts to within your narrow way of thinking?

I'm the one who mentions a multiplicity of gods and yet I am the one who gets accused of narrow thinking?!?!

Andrew66 wrote

I suppose whether we would benefit from salvation would depend on the God's rules.

Right, and as we've covered before; woe betide anyone who goes against those god's rules.
You can go ahead and play Pascal's wager but since most versions of "gods" demand belief in themselves and usually to the exlusion of or in preferences to all other "gods," you're back at square one in terms of infinite losses because odds are you've picked the wrong god.

You claim two ways around this problem (known in theological circles as the Argument From Inconsistent Revelations / Avoiding The Wrong Hell Problem):
1.) You appeal to a kind of Deism where some "god" re-directs the mail so it's all ok just so long as you believe in something.
2.) The so-caled "evidence" of jeebus.

But here's the rub: All versions of god/s claim some sort of such "evidence" and some of it very similar to that upon whoich you base your belief in jeebus. In fact there are numerous chirst-like figures in history that share the key story elements of their birth being prophecised, being born of a virgin, leading a ministry for about 30 years, dying by crucifixion / sacrifice and being resurrected a few days later.

What I'm essentially saying is that your betting on jeebus for this work around is not really any better than a bet than a bet on Mithras, Odin, Zeus, Mars, Thor, Quezoacotl, Amun-Ra etc.

Prove to me that none of these or any other gods exist and you might have an argument but until then...

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

Evidently.


I'm the one who mentions a multiplicity of gods and yet I am the one who gets accused of narrow thinking?!?!

Right, and as we've covered before; woe betide anyone who goes against those god's rules.
You can go ahead and play Pascal's wager but since most versions of "gods" demand belief in themselves and usually to the exlusion of or in preferences to all other "gods," you're back at square one in terms of infinite losses because odds are you've picked the wrong god.

You claim two ways around this problem (known in theological circles as the Argument From Inconsistent Revelations / Avoiding The Wrong Hell Problem):
1.) You appeal to a kind of Deism where some "god" re-directs the mail so it's all ok just so long as you believe in something.
2.) The so-caled "evidence" of jeebus.

But here's the rub: All versions of god/s claim some sort of such "evidence" and some of it very similar to that upon whoich you base your belief in jeebus. In fact there are numerous chirst-like figures in history that share the key story elements of their birth being prophecised, being born of a virgin, leading a ministry for about 30 years, dying by crucifixion / sacrifice and being resurrected a few days later.

What I'm essentially saying is that your betting on jeebus for this work around is not really any better than a bet than a bet on Mithras, Odin, Zeus, Mars, Thor, Quezoacotl, Amun-Ra etc.

Prove to me that none of these or any other gods exist and you might have an argument but until then...

Thank you Judge
You've clearly read and gave consideration to my reply.

1) Yes I am not so much "appealing to", but rather placing my hope in the concept that God can redirect the mail. Yes, a form of Deism whereby whatever God (of infinite choices) exist, he will not significantly penalize a follower for getting God's name incorrect.
I realize that is against most religions dogmatic view point.
However, even as a child I always thought it highly unlikely that a Fair and Just God would automatically sentence 1 billion people to hell, with the only reason being that they grew up and was institutionalized in a "wrong" faith. I
note importantly that even William Lane Craig, actually agrees. I saw a utube video where Craig debated an Islamic scholar about whether Jesus is God. At closing statements William Craig stated also that he "hoped" for the sake of the Muslims, that the Christian God would forgive them for their mistaken beliefs about Jesus.

2) In playing Pascals wager the way its "meant to be played" (where belief in the correct Deity is everything), I place my bet on Jesus. This is largely because of the existing historic evidence to his life, death and Resurrection (hence an attested miracle supporting the faith). I hear you concern that there are competitor candidates to Jesus with similar stories- however most of those you site were presented as myths (whereby Jesus's life is presented as non fiction), and none have achieved even close to the extreme global impact factor on civilization as Jesus did. Don't you think if God existed, the story about him on Earth would carry the biggest impact factor. ?

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

Thank you Judge...

You're welcome.

Andrew66 wrote

Don't you think if God existed, the story about him on Earth would carry the biggest impact factor. ?

The far reach of the jesus myth is more an accident of history arriving and spreading as it did through centuries of conquest and oppression of other religions by stronger forces such as the Romans amongst others. The advent of the printing press explains the global reach rather thanwhether the story is true or not. In fact a similar communications revolution could be argued to be occurring now with the advent of islamism and the internet / social media spreading extremist ideolgy far and wide.

Something is not true just becasue many people believe it.

Also if god existed I find it odd that "he" supposedly made everything then waited about 14 million years before humans arrived before then telling a bunch of iron-age desert-dwelling goat herders to respect worship only him and 7 other commandments, torturing them frequently with plagues and slaughter of first borns etc. then deciding to split himself into a mortal version of himself for about 30 years in order that he could sacrifice himself to himself before rising to himself in heaven and then not being seen for the next 2000+ years.

There is much that is odd and non-sensical about your religion.

[Smellyoldgit]

Judge, I'll see your 14 million & raise you 14 billion - just for dramatic effect of course!
I suspect Androol's hope gene is not yet free enough to grasp much of what you say, and he'll cling to the wreckage of his sinking ship till it drags him under. ..... how sad.

[The Judge]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Judge, I'll see your 14 million & raise you 14 billion - just for dramatic effect of course!
I suspect Androol's hope gene is not yet free enough to grasp much of what you say, and he'll cling to the wreckage of his sinking ship till it drags him under. ..... how sad.

LOL that's what I meant, cheers Smelly

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

[Incoherent rambling]

What the fuck are you talking about, dumbass?

Want to give that post another go in English?

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

The far reach of the jesus myth is more an accident of history arriving and spreading as it did through centuries of conquest and oppression of other religions by stronger forces such as the Romans amongst others.

By "accident of history" (which presumes shear random luck) - I would suggest rather a set of events prompting an extra-ordinarily powerful meme. A witnessed nonfiction story which had components that when expressed (verbal or written) had uniquely incredible staying power and survivability from generation to generation.

It would only make sense that an alleged God would prompt events which would provide such an incredibly resilient meme - so the message would have extra-ordinary staying power - and impact factor.

I don't think a mere "accident of history" had anything to do with it.

The Judge wrote

Something is not true just becasue many people believe it.

Note: Spelling error - becasue should be "because".

Of course this is correct (argument ad populatum).

However this does not change the point that if a higher power wanted to cause events to generate a story - the story would have the kind of attributes required to achieve a great "far reach" as you put it. It is frankly astonishing that the Jesus "myth" as you put it now as 2. 5 billion believers.

I should add, something is not necessarily not true, just because many people believe it. More often than not in fact, consensus opinions do coincide with the truth.

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

By "accident of history" (which presumes shear random luck) - I would suggest rather a set of events prompting an extra-ordinarily powerful meme.

"Memes" derive their power not only through the message / symbolism therein but also depending on the mode of transmission.

All other things being equal the spreading of civilisations and the development of e.g. the printing press would have happened as they did in history. However these events were largely independant of religions and so this is what I mean by "accident of history:" Christianity just happened to be poised in the right era in human history to hitch a lift off new technology and spread even further (helped along by well-intentioned "missionaries" of course). Both the message and a way of transmitting it is what gives a "meme" its power / spread. You may argue that "god" engineered all of that as well but if so then that was a really laborious, arse-about-face and long and drawn out way of doing it.

If "god" really existed and wanted followers he'd appear to everyone, probably at regular intervals like a true parent checking up on the kids. For an omnimax deity this would be simple, easy and much less confusing for all...buuuuuuuut this is exactly what we don't see happening which lends weight to the suggestion that "god" probably isn't there.

Andrew66 wrote

More often than not in fact, consensus opinions do coincide with the truth.

This is true in science because of evidence. Not in anthing else. Evidence can be interpreted in a finite number of ways and those with a better understanding of the scientific method and how to handle statistics can argue more effectively to form a consensus opinion. The same cannot be said of belief system.

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

If "god" really existed and wanted followers he'd appear to everyone, probably at regular intervals like a true parent checking up on the kids.

How can you be so sure?
Sometimes Parents leave their children alone, to face the world and figure things out themselves, it is character building. This is exactly what we do see.

The Judge wrote

This is true in science because of evidence. Not in anthing else. Evidence can be interpreted in a finite number of ways and those with a better understanding of the scientific method and how to handle statistics can argue more effectively to form a consensus opinion. The same cannot be said of belief system.

Popular consensus also suggests truth where the evidence is from witnessed testimony (not just from science) - that's why we have juries.

The Resurrection account of Jesus is witnessed testimony which testifies to the truth of Christianity. Of all the faiths, Christianity has the greatest belief and support.

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

How can you be so sure?
Sometimes Parents leave their children alone, to face the world and figure things out themselves, it is character building. This is exactly what we do see.

But a good parent lets their children know they are there and protects them from harm. A good parent is seen by their children. This is exactly what does not happen: We do not see "god" appearing at all to check up on us at all...ever and last time I checked there was a shit ton of suffering and death in the world so "he" is not exactly protecting everyone either. If he exists he's a shitty parent, or more likely he just doesn't exist at all.

Andrew66 wrote

Popular consensus also suggests truth where the evidence is from witnessed testimony (not just from science) - that's why we have juries.

This is not a good example of what constitutes "truth" I'm afraid and we can get into why if you wish but that would be a whole different thread.

Any religious person talking about thir faith wrote

The account of X is witnessed testimony which testifies to the truth of X. Of all the faiths, X has the greatest belief and support.

Pardon the paraphrasing (I do not wish to be accused of quote mining) but if your argument were true you could convince any person of a different faith and of no faith easily...yet you haven't and you cannot. Perhaps it's time to start asking yourself why this is.

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

But a good parent lets their children know they are there and protects them from harm. A good parent is seen by their children. This is exactly what does not happen: We do not see "god" appearing at all to check up on us at all...ever and last time I checked there was a shit ton of suffering and death in the world so "he" is not exactly protecting everyone either. If he exists he's a shitty parent, or more likely he just doesn't exist at all.

Many Christians say they can "feel" the presence of God. Some have had experiences where the have "seen" the Lord (E.G. My Father had he believed a visitation when he was young). In terms of offering help and interaction, have you not heard the all too common phrase "Praise the Lord, my prayers have been answered!".

The Judge wrote

This is not a good example of what constitutes "truth"

I only said that it tends to "suggest" truth.

The Judge wrote

Pardon the paraphrasing (I do not wish to be accused of quote mining) but if your argument were true you could convince any person of a different faith and of no faith easily...yet you haven't and you cannot. Perhaps it's time to start asking yourself why this is.

Not necessarily. Given any number of people, more have shown to gravitate to Christianity vs. any other religion. This fact says nothing at all about how easy a disbeliever would turn.

[Kinich Ahau]

Elvis lives! My father had he believed a visitation when he was young.

[Kinich Ahau]

I know someone else who had Elvis appear to him from behind the counter of a McDonalds. He even said "thank ya very much". Truly some are blessed.

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

Many Christians say they can "feel" the presence of God.

So did these people yet no "gods" required for those experiences to have occurred.
Also "feeling" is not the same as seeing.

Andrew66 wrote

Besides Some have had experiences where the have "seen" the Lord

Any number of biases could have resulting in them believing they'd seen something from trauma to psychosis to hypnogogic hallucinations to the power of suggestion etc. etc.
The real issue here is if there is a "god" why is "he" only appearing infrequently and to a select few individuals? As I said before it'd be so easy for him to dispell any myths and bolster faith in "him" if he just appeared regularly to "his" children en masse so everyone could see "him" all at the same time. Despite how easy this must be for an omnimax deity we do not see this forcing the rational amongst us to rightly doubt "his" existance.

Andrew66 wrote

... have you not heard the all too common phrase "Praise the Lord, my prayers have been answered!"

Yes and I pity the person who says something like this every single time I hear it whilst thinking of their simple confirmation bias.

Andrew66 wrote

Not necessarily. Given any number of people, more have shown to gravitate to Christianity vs. any other religion. This fact says nothing at all about how easy a disbeliever would turn.

Indeed and part of the reason you cannot convert people is because religious belief is a complex thing but neither does this constitute any proof that your religion is right merely because it has more followers.

[Andrew66]

Hi Judge

It seems our conversation is taking on its own life.

With regards to God not being overtly "present" like our parents are, we could go on and on on this. For example I could say God has created a world were most people have loving parents, and if no parents God has created a world with orphanages, and if no orphanages God has created a world with many charities to help orphans, and for those few children who starve to death God welcomes them into the kingdom, to be hugged upon arrival by Jesus.

With regards to the subject matter of this thread, it seems you agree that "hope" constitutes a bare minimal level of faith or belief. That is cool, I'm pleased you agree.

1) If belief in "Jesus is the risen Lord" is a salvation requirement, then I argue that merely hoping in this will get a person into heaven.

2) If belief in God as the trinity is required, then hope for this will get you into heaven.

3) If belief in just a God (broadly Creator) is required, and God doesn't mind that a follower gets his name wrong, then one can hope for that.

Advantageously, one can hope for points 1 through 3 simultaneously - maximizing success by Pascal's wager. Of course if God is picky about getting his name and story right, then I've argued Christianity is the best bet.

As I said earlier, at the risk of sounding arrogant I feel that Pascal's wager requires amendment to be played from the Christian perspective. There must also be a renouncing of sin, or baptism - a commitment to love they neighbor also with "belief". As James the brother of Jesus said, without works faith is empty.

But I also question Christian doctrine, is belief that Jesus is God etc, really a taught salvation requirement from scripture? Jesus did not say so. The Church said so, and the writers of the Gospel suggest "belief" in Jesus is important. But again, what if it is belief in Jesus's teachings, rather than status?

You've stated Judge that the scriptures are clear with regards to salvation requirements. I suggested to you they are not, but you did not reply.