Switch Theme:

Something for us non believers to mull over  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
[DCM]
.







What exactly are non-believers mulling over from this 'revelation' anyway?
   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





 Frazzled wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
What? Thats not coherent. Restate please.


OK. If you believe in a deity, you're not an atheist. It doesn't matter if that deity is meant to be in the sky, another dimension, or playing video games in a palace.

A society that believes that their leader is a deity cannot be accurately called atheistic.


Not seeing where North Korea PR has called him a deity. I could be wrong. I don't listen to NK NPR.


Juche is no longer just an ideology, but a full-fledged religion that worships Kim Il Sung as god, and his son, Kim Jong Il as the son of god.


Generally, it starts with the father, Kim II Sung, and then goes on as basically that as he's god, his son is god, and any children he has are gods.
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

 Alpharius wrote:
What exactly are non-believers mulling over from this 'revelation' anyway?

Feth-all as far as I'm concerned.

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
Kid_Kyoto






Probably work

 Alpharius wrote:
What exactly are non-believers mulling over from this 'revelation' anyway?


I'm still trying to figure that one out myself. I didn't think that the concept of trying to rationalize phenomena referenced in ancient texts using modern science was really a new one.

Assume all my mathhammer comes from here: https://github.com/daed/mathhammer 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

I guess the novelty is that sort of thing is usually done by misguided religious people rather than misguided atheists.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/23 17:58:15


   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Alpharius wrote:
What exactly are non-believers mulling over from this 'revelation' anyway?


I think the takeaway is that Eldar jetbikes are going to destroy 40k.

Oh wait...wrong forum
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

This sounds more like conjecture than science.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Lying requires conveying factually incorrect information while being aware you are doing so with intent to deceive. There is plenty plausible space that could account for claims of hearing god speak other than the one making the claim being a liar, or actually hearing god speak.There are plenty of experiences that account for coming to have sincere belief in that claim even ifwe actively assume that belief is false, or that the events that led to developing that belief did not actually occur.

"Hallucination", "Dream", "Coping Mechanism" are all viable explanations to account for the belief if you want to discount the supernatural entirely. We've as much basis for them as "Liar" I'm not sure how in the absence of the actual voice of god "Liar" is the obvious explanation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/23 18:34:45


 
   
Made in ca
Powerful Spawning Champion





Shred City.

Cool read, actually.
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Chongara wrote:
Lying requires conveying factually incorrect information while being aware you are doing so with intent to deceive. There is plenty plausible space that could account for claims of hearing god speak other than the one making the claim being a liar, or actually hearing god speak.There are plenty of experiences that account for coming to have sincere belief in that claim even ifwe actively assume that belief is false, or that the events that led to developing that belief did not actually occur.

"Hallucination", "Dream", "Coping Mechanism" are all viable explanations to account for the belief if you want to discount the supernatural entirely. We've as much basis for them as "Liar" I'm not sure how in the absence of the actual voice of god "Liar" is the obvious explanation.


I am being picky here, but in this case, the one making the claim of hearing God speak is not really in play. What we have is an ancient author who is writing about an alleged experience undergone not by himself, but by someone else. We are not presented with any claims made by the subject of the story, Paul, because he is not the author of the book. We are dealing with claims made by the author of the book, who is writing in the third person.

1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”

Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”

6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”

Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/23 19:19:59


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

 Medium of Death wrote:
1. What is the ultimate goal of Atheism?

2. What succour does science give to the common man?

3. It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.


1. Nothing. Most are just individuals, going about their own lives, minding their own business. I haven't met many Evangelical Atheists.
2. Nothing. But Bourbon helps.
3. Bologna. It's not just for sandwiches. One of the most compassionate, "Won't Somebody Think of the Children" people I know is an atheist.

 Alpharius wrote:
What exactly are non-believers mulling over from this 'revelation' anyway?


Nothing.

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 jasper76 wrote:
We are dealing with claims made by the author of the book, who is writing in the third person.
That doesn't really change the analysis. As I mentioned, the claim remains a belief: namely Luke (or whoever) believed Paul saw a light and believed it meant God spoke to Paul.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/23 19:28:03


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 jasper76 wrote:
 Chongara wrote:
Lying requires conveying factually incorrect information while being aware you are doing so with intent to deceive. There is plenty plausible space that could account for claims of hearing god speak other than the one making the claim being a liar, or actually hearing god speak.There are plenty of experiences that account for coming to have sincere belief in that claim even ifwe actively assume that belief is false, or that the events that led to developing that belief did not actually occur.

"Hallucination", "Dream", "Coping Mechanism" are all viable explanations to account for the belief if you want to discount the supernatural entirely. We've as much basis for them as "Liar" I'm not sure how in the absence of the actual voice of god "Liar" is the obvious explanation.


I am being picky here, but in this case, the one making the claim of hearing God speak is not really in play. What we have is an ancient author who is writing about an alleged experience undergone not by himself, but by someone else. We are not presented with any claims made by the subject of the story, Paul, because he is not the author of the book. We are dealing with claims made by the author of the book, who is writing in the third person.


It's even harder to claim him a liar since the bar he needs to pass to be honest without being intentionally fictional is "He heard and/or read this story once somewhere, and believed it was true".

EDIT: And that's a very low bar. We're talking like limbo world-record low bars.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/23 19:35:20


 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Manchu wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
We are dealing with claims made by the author of the book, who is writing in the third person.
That doesn't really change the analysis. As I mentioned, the claim remains a belief: namely Luke (or whoever) believed Paul saw a light and believed it meant God spoke to Paul.


I'd add a minor correction as follows:

the claim remains something that a third person wrote: namely Luke (or whoever) wrote that Paul saw a light and wrote that it meant God spoke to Paul.

We do not have a window into the mind of the author to know if he actually believed it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Chongara wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
 Chongara wrote:
Lying requires conveying factually incorrect information while being aware you are doing so with intent to deceive. There is plenty plausible space that could account for claims of hearing god speak other than the one making the claim being a liar, or actually hearing god speak.There are plenty of experiences that account for coming to have sincere belief in that claim even ifwe actively assume that belief is false, or that the events that led to developing that belief did not actually occur.

"Hallucination", "Dream", "Coping Mechanism" are all viable explanations to account for the belief if you want to discount the supernatural entirely. We've as much basis for them as "Liar" I'm not sure how in the absence of the actual voice of god "Liar" is the obvious explanation.


I am being picky here, but in this case, the one making the claim of hearing God speak is not really in play. What we have is an ancient author who is writing about an alleged experience undergone not by himself, but by someone else. We are not presented with any claims made by the subject of the story, Paul, because he is not the author of the book. We are dealing with claims made by the author of the book, who is writing in the third person.


It's even harder to claim him a liar since the bar he needs to pass to be honest without being intentionally fictional is "He heard and/or read this story once somewhere, and believed it was true".

EDIT: And that's a very low bar. We're talking like limbo world-record low bars.


I don't claim to know if the author really believed in what he wrote or what.

In my original point, I probably shouldn't have used the word "fiction".

Really what I meant was that the simplest explanation for the story of the Road to Damascus is that it is factually untrue. Because otherwise, we have to assume many things, for which we have no compelling evidence, are true:

- There is a deity
- This deity is communicates with humans
- This deity is Jesus
etc.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/04/23 19:46:37


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 jasper76 wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
We are dealing with claims made by the author of the book, who is writing in the third person.
That doesn't really change the analysis. As I mentioned, the claim remains a belief: namely Luke (or whoever) believed Paul saw a light and believed it meant God spoke to Paul.


I'd add a minor correction as follows:

the claim remains a something that a third person wrote: namely Luke (or whoever) wrote that Paul saw a light and wrote that it meant God spoke to Paul.

We do not have a window into the mind of the author to know if he actually believed it.


None of that requires, implies or even makes it likely either of them were lying. There are just to many other plausible alternatives even if you dismiss the legitimacy of their narratives as presented entirely.


Really what I meant was that the simplest explanation for the story of the Road to Damascus is that it is factually untrue. Because otherwise, we have to assume many things, for which we have no compelling evidence, are true:

- There is a deity
- This deity is interested in communicating with humans
- This deity is Jesus
etc.


OK Great. You've pointed out a difference between Christians and non-Christians is the willingness to take those assumptions on matter of faith rather than hard evidence. Good for you. This is total revelation and we super-duper need this big long discussion to come to THOSE conclusions. Good job. You should have a party.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/23 19:49:51


 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




As I said with an edit to my last psot, I didnt mean to state that I have special knowledge into the intention of the author, or of whoever told thee author this story, and the word "fiction" on my part was a poor choice of words.

Really all I mean is that the simplest explanation for this story is that it is factually untrue.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 jasper76 wrote:
We do not have a window into the mind of the author to know if he actually believed it.
What in the world is your point here? Acts was composed for believers by a believer to confirm their faith. Luke (or whoever composed the Gospel of Luke and Acts) prefaced his work thusly:
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/23 19:47:10


   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Manchu wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
We do not have a window into the mind of the author to know if he actually believed it.
What in the world is your point here? Acts was composed for a believer by believers to confirm their faith. Luke (or whoever composed the Gospel of Luke and Acts) prefaced his work thusly:
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.


My original point was, it is more likely that the story of the Road to Damascas is just a fatcually untrue story, than that the story was at least loosely true and was inspired by a meteoric fireball, as the author of the article in the OP hypotheisizes.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 jasper76 wrote:
Really what I meant was that the simplest explanation for the story of the Road to Damascus is that it is factually untrue.
Your argument boils down to you not believing in God. That does not prove that the simplest explanation for any portion of Acts is that it is not factually true.

   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Manchu wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
Really what I meant was that the simplest explanation for the story of the Road to Damascus is that it is factually untrue.
Your argument boils down to you not believing in God. That does not prove that the simplest explanation for any portion of Acts is that it is not factually true.


It requires the least assumptions, and all the assumptions required to make the story factually true are extraordinary. Occam's Razor.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/23 19:52:58


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 jasper76 wrote:
My original point was, it is more likely that the story of the Road to Damascas is just a fatcually untrue story, than that the story was at least loosely true and was inspired by a meteoric fireball, as the author of the article in the OP hypotheisizes.
(a) Nothing about the story is true at all.

(b) Paul did see something and it could have been a meteor.

In fact, really it is even more simple:

(a) not only did Paul see nothing, he did not even exist

(b) Paul existed and saw something

These are equally simple/complex. More importantly, they are equally speculative.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/23 19:54:13


   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Manchu wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
My original point was, it is more likely that the story of the Road to Damascas is just a fatcually untrue story, than that the story was at least loosely true and was inspired by a meteoric fireball, as the author of the article in the OP hypotheisizes.
(a) Nothing about the story is true at all.

(b) Paul did see something and it could have been a meteor.

These are equally simple/complex. More importantly, they are equally speculative.


(a) The supernatural elements, if not the enirety, of the story of the Road to Damascus are not true.

(b) Paul was engulfed in light and spoken to by a deity.

These are not equally simple or complex explanations.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/23 19:56:49


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 jasper76 wrote:
These are not equally simple or complex explanations.
They are also not the explanations at issue.

Luke and Paul believed God spoke to Paul. You do not. Each position has an equal number of assumptions: the God of their faith is real on one hand and the God of their faith is not real on the other.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/23 19:59:48


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 jasper76 wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
Really what I meant was that the simplest explanation for the story of the Road to Damascus is that it is factually untrue.
Your argument boils down to you not believing in God. That does not prove that the simplest explanation for any portion of Acts is that it is not factually true.


It requires the least assumptions, and all the assumptions required to make the story factually true are extraordinary. Occam's Razor.


The idea that "Some guy named Paul thought he saw something this one time and then attributed it to the word of god" doesn't require all that many assumptions. In fact it seems entirely plausible to me. In fact I could probably find someone in america right now making similar claims. There is nothing extraordinary about the story at all, at least from where I'm standing

.In fact the only thing that could make the story extraordinary is if you believe it truly was the word of god. Otherwise it's just kind of a run of the mill claim people make all the time.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Chongara wrote:
In fact the only thing that could make the story extraordinary is if you believe it truly was the word of god.
This is a good point; rephrased in a non-religious sense, we can say the only remarkable thing about Luke's story is that so many people believe and have believed that God spoke to Paul whereas far, far fewer people believe that God spoke to just about anyone else.

   
Made in us
Kid_Kyoto






Probably work

 Manchu wrote:
This is a good point; rephrased in a non-religious sense, we can say the only remarkable thing about Luke's story is that so many people believe and have believed that God spoke to Paul whereas far, far fewer people believe that God spoke to just about anyone else.


That this is the case would probably make for a pretty interesting psychology study in and of itself.

Assume all my mathhammer comes from here: https://github.com/daed/mathhammer 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

I think it has more to do with history than psychology, honestly.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Manchu wrote:
I think it has more to do with history than psychology, honestly.


Yeah. That horse left the barn over 1000 years ago. The story has too much momentum for any such study to be meaningful now. People believe it because it's a part of the canon they were raised to believe, or that they took up after a striking personal experience. Any insight as the ability for Luke and/or Paul to seem credible and build up that momentum for the story would have had to happened in their own time.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

I can tell you that I believe the story exactly because it is part of the larger tradition of Christianity. I would not believe a similar story told to me by my friend about his professor or something.

   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Manchu wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
These are not equally simple or complex explanations.
They are also not the explanations at issue.

Luke and Paul believed God spoke to Paul. You do not. Each position has an equal number of assumptions: the God of their faith is real on one hand and the God of their faith is not real on the other.


The idea that a particular deity does not exist is not an assumption so much as a default position (you presumably hold this position for every other deity you do not recognize as existing).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Chongara wrote:

The idea that "Some guy named Paul thought he saw something this one time and then attributed it to the word of god" doesn't require all that many assumptions. In fact it seems entirely plausible to me. In fact I could probably find someone in america right now making similar claims.


I agree with all of this. However, the story of the Road to Damascus in the Acts of the Apostles is not summarized by "Some guy named Paul thought he saw something this one time and then attributed it to the word of god".

Rather, it is as follows:

Acts 9

1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”

Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”

6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”

Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/23 20:36:36


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: