Introducing the Hunter process.

Highjohn wrote:Now for where I went wrong.

1. I allow myself to sidetrack into an argument about Christian(and other religions) theology. Not entirely my fault. But I made the initial post and should have locked down what I was discussing immediately as soon as the discussion went off track. Which is entirely my fault.

2. I brought real life examples to illustrate my point. Perfectly fine. But this is religion. Eggshells are easier to walk on. Again should have locked down what I was trying to reference and jumped ship the moment this got off course.

3. RFC's own experience with atheists contradict what I know of atheists. Therefore what he said about atheism was justified by the information he had. So he was as correct as he could be. I wasn't here, but RFC was entirely justified in what he posted.

I would add only that I didn't accuse you of arrogance. I simply pointed out that when either side in a discussion like this uses some of those eggshell-crushing words, that side had better be prepared for the other side to reciprocate. I declined your, ah . . . invitation to alter what I had said; I never questioned your right to disagree with it, and I certainly didn't intend to take on a lecturing tone, far less a hectoring one.

Individuals' beliefs and the reasons we hold them are, by their very nature, deeply personal and deeply subjective things. Do I believe that my own belief structure is correct? Certainly I do, or I wouldn't hold it. Do I believe that my judgment is perfect and infallible in all ways? I wish! Would I be happier if you and everyone else in the entire world shared my religious beliefs? Well, if I think my beliefs are the correct ones and that by sharing them everyone in the world would be granted everlasting life in the presence of a loving God, I certainly ought to be happier if everyone shared them. Does that give me some sort of right to dictate that others share those beliefs? Frankly, the God in whom I believe would be really, really pissed off with me if I tried to compel others to at least give voice service to his existence and will. And ultimately (and this is not intended to be in any way condescending or dismissive of your beliefs), from where I sit, what matters to me isn't whether or not you believe in God but whether or not God believes in you. There's a reason Maikel Staynair says that God never walks away from anyone but that we are always free to walk away from him. And the fact that you may not believe in God doesn't change the fact that from where I sit, you are one of his children anyway and that I am just as deeply obligated to love you and wish for your happiness and wellbeing as I am to feel that way about any other Christian, or my wife, or my own children. Mind you, I've been known to be an ornery cuss who probably disappoints God upon occasion, but that doesn't change the rules, mate!

Highjohn, I used the term arrogance not hypocrite.

First, you called Christianity, Judaism, and Islam "pseudo monotheisms" because of the belief in angels. IE "fake monotheism".

You continued to hold that position even after you were informed that followers of those religions don't worship Angels.

The arrogance was that you continued to claim that we were wrong. IE that we didn't really know our own religions.

Now part of the problem may be the definition of a "god".

To Christians, Jews and IIRC Muslims, the definition of a god is a being worthy of worship, not just a very powerful being.

To polytheists, there are many beings worthy of worship even if an individual polytheist only worships one of the gods he believes exists. As I said before, a worshiper of Zeus would believe that Athena was a being worthy of worship.

Now, if you talked to a Catholic and told him that he worshiped the Virgin Mary, he would justly be insulted.

This definition of "what is a god" appears to be the problem.

Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that only God is worthy of worship. While they believe in Angels, they also don't believe Angels are worthy of worship.

I await your response.

Highjohn wrote:RFC, First I asked you to consider more appropriate phrasing in the future and stated how I thought it implied things which were wrong which you might or might not believe. The way it was written it did imply a moral judgment. Which is what I asked you to consider changing in the future.

runsforcelery wrote:No, I'm not wrong about atheism in the anthropological sense. I will wager that from the very first moment the very first proto-human saw fire, he ascribed it to some mysterious power which he could not understand.

Yes, we'll I an make guesses about what the first sentient being thought when it saw fire too, and there just as valid as your speculations. However, as I stated until then he was 'believer' regardless of what he thought later. Also when he tried to convince another of this supernatural idea he had, you really think that some didn't say "No your wrong"? You really think every said "Yes, magic makes total sense"? Every time there has been some claim(any claim supernatural or natural) there have been people who don't believe it. I see no reason to make a special case for claims about god.


With regards to your and Drak's accusations of arrogance. Please state what you think I did incorrectly.

I gave the example of the trinity. Some people disagreed with that. Which is fine since it varies wildly between denominations.

I gave the example of angels. Being with godlike powers, but who aren't called gods. In Safehold angels are creating things, see the lists of what they are angles 'of'.

I did the same thing with saints in Catholicism and then later elaborated on the specific practices with regards to saints, which I believed to be evidence for my point.

Also Drak. Please reread carefully what I've said before making accusations of hypocrisy. I never claimed greater knowledge of what you or anyone else believed. I stated that you where using a word wrong and gave examples to back that. I did not say, you need to now call angels gods or that you need to call God(note the capital G) something else because god doesn't fit. I said The Church of God Awaiting is a polytheistic religion. It just calls its gods something else, like the Judaic religions do. Again not saying you need to call them gods, just that you where applying the word incorrectly.

Drak
Your still wrong about henotheism. Try looking at earlier Judaism. I've listened to lectures by people(Who work in the field unlike me or I presume you), who argue that early Judaism was henotheistic. They just felt that only one god, their god, was worthy of worship.

Also, Allah, prior to Muhammad was supposedly, Yahweh. Note: Allah, means god. It is just used the same way God with a capital G is used.

SWM
Earliest atheist:
First: Buddhism can be an atheistic religion. Not always though, but Buddhism is extremely old. So you might consider that.

Second: Socrates, was executed for teaching 'atheism' among other things. Of course he might not have existed so moving on.

Third: Celsus was the author of the first comprehensive argument against Christianity. It should be noted that he might not have been an atheist, only partial point here.

Fourth: Jinasena, a ninth century Jain teacher who wrote Mahapurana.

Five: Diagoras of Melos 5th century BCE.

Sixth: Al-Maʿarri 11th century BCE.

Seventh:ABu al-Hasan Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Ishaq alRawandf 9th century 'former' Islamic scholar. Called Muhammad liar.

Eighth: Abu Nuwas, declared he was an unbeliever inside a mosque. When dragged to the authorities, he was asked to spit on picture of the prophet Mani(Different religion). He then did them one better and vomited on the painting. The authorities let him go with realizing they had an atheist.


There are more but the list is getting long. You are partially right though as before modern times most 'non-believers' were deists, not atheists. Widespread atheism(Also including disbelief in anything supernatural) is relatively modern.

SWM, if you do want to know more I suggest Atheism for Dummies.

Still arrogant. Good Bye.

Highjohn wrote:Drak
Your still wrong about henotheism. Try looking at earlier Judaism. I've listened to lectures by people(Who work in the field unlike me or I presume you), who argue that early Judaism was henotheistic. They just felt that only one god, their god, was worthy of worship.

Also, Allah, prior to Muhammad was supposedly, Yahweh. Note: Allah, means god. It is just used the same way God with a capital G is used.

SWM
Earliest atheist:
First: Buddhism can be an atheistic religion. Not always though, but Buddhism is extremely old. So you might consider that.

Second: Socrates, was executed for teaching 'atheism' among other things. Of course he might not have existed so moving on.

Third: Celsus was the author of the first comprehensive argument against Christianity. It should be noted that he might not have been an atheist, only partial point here.

Fourth: Jinasena, a ninth century Jain teacher who wrote Mahapurana.

Five: Diagoras of Melos 5th century BCE.

Sixth: Al-Maʿarri 11th century BCE.

Seventh:ABu al-Hasan Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Ishaq alRawandf 9th century 'former' Islamic scholar. Called Muhammad liar.

Eighth: Abu Nuwas, declared he was an unbeliever inside a mosque. When dragged to the authorities, he was asked to spit on picture of the prophet Mani(Different religion). He then did them one better and vomited on the painting. The authorities let him go with realizing they had an atheist.


There are more but the list is getting long. You are partially right though as before modern times most 'non-believers' were deists, not atheists. Widespread atheism(Also including disbelief in anything supernatural) is relatively modern.

SWM, if you do want to know more I suggest Atheism for Dummies.

DrakBibliophile wrote:Highjohn, I used the term arrogance not hypocrite.

You accused me of doing something while being telling others not to do it. You used he definition of hypocrisy instead of the word.

DrakBibliophile wrote:You get upset when David Weber makes a mistake about "how atheists think" but have the gall to tell Religious People that they are wrong about "how they view their own Faith".

Sorry, we know what our beliefs are and you have shown that you don't but claim that you know better about those beliefs than we do.

Definition of God: We'll if you want to use bad definition fine. Your not hurting anyone in this case.

However I have a question for you to consider.
Lets say I believed that there existed an all powerful, all knowing being who created the universe and humans in particular. Who hated humans and after we did would resurrect us in a place of eternal torment(Hell). I would find this being utterly unworthy of worship. Is this being a god, if it exists?

Before anyone gets upset about the preceding question. I would like to say I am not saying any believes in this god. This is entirely hypothetical.

Highjohn wrote:
Definition of God: We'll if you want to use bad definition fine. Your not hurting anyone in this case.

However I have a question for you to consider.
Lets say I believed that there existed an all powerful, all knowing being who created the universe and humans in particular. Who hated humans and after we did would resurrect us in a place of eternal torment(Hell). I would find this being utterly unworthy of worship. Is this being a god, if it exists?

Before anyone gets upset about the preceding question. I would like to say I am not saying any believes in this god. This is entirely hypothetical.

You really don't understand what salvation and damnation is do you? This post exposes your ignorance.

Scratching my head trying to figure out how a thread that started about possibly developing titanium morphed into a heated debate about religion.

PeterZ wrote:
You really don't understand what salvation and damnation is do you? This post exposes your ignorance.

No, salvation, no damnation. This is a hypothetical about the definition of a god. The go in the hypothetical has the same(general, very general) power as the Christian god. But is evil. In the hypothetical you believe this god exists, but do not worship him. Because he is evil.

There is no salvation and no damnation in the hypothetical. Just an evil being that will torture you forever after death. Just because. This has nothing to do with any god anyone believes in. Except for the definition of a god. So please don't be a dick over an imagined insult when I clearly stated this has nothing to do with anything anyone believes accept a definition.

Oh and if you a still think I was referencing someone's actual beliefs. Please look at the fact that I didn't mention heaven(salvation) and would have to if I was posing a question about the Christian god, since I know of no denomination that believes there is no heaven.

Drak was right. That's 2 on my list.

Highjohn wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
You really don't understand what salvation and damnation is do you? This post exposes your ignorance.

No, salvation, no damnation. This is a hypothetical about the definition of a god. The go in the hypothetical has the same(general, very general) power as the Christian god. But is evil. In the hypothetical you believe this god exists, but do not worship him. Because he is evil.

There is no salvation and no damnation in the hypothetical. Just an evil being that will torture you forever after death. Just because. This has nothing to do with any god anyone believes in. Except for the definition of a god. So please don't be a dick over an imagined insult when I clearly stated this has nothing to do with anything anyone believes accept a definition.

Oh and if you a still think I was referencing someone's actual beliefs. Please look at the fact that I didn't mention heaven(salvation) and would have to if I was posing a question about the Christian god, since I know of no denomination that believes there is no heaven.

PeterZ wrote:Drak was right. That's 2 on my list.

Highjohn wrote:No, salvation, no damnation. This is a hypothetical about the definition of a god. The go in the hypothetical has the same(general, very general) power as the Christian god. But is evil. In the hypothetical you believe this god exists, but do not worship him. Because he is evil.

There is no salvation and no damnation in the hypothetical. Just an evil being that will torture you forever after death. Just because. This has nothing to do with any god anyone believes in. Except for the definition of a god. So please don't be a dick over an imagined insult when I clearly stated this has nothing to do with anything anyone believes accept a definition.

Oh and if you a still think I was referencing someone's actual beliefs. Please look at the fact that I didn't mention heaven(salvation) and would have to if I was posing a question about the Christian god, since I know of no denomination that believes there is no heaven.

Guys, can we cool it a little bit? I don't agree with Highjohn's position, but I think part of the problem here is that everyone on both sides seems to feel his own personal ox is being gored.

Drak and Peter, I don't personally agree with Highjohn's definitions of who and what different groups of Christians believe. I'm a Methodist, but I was raised High Church Episcopalian back when it really was Catholic Lite, so I sort of straddle the Protestant/Catholic divide, and I absolutely agree that Catholics do not worship saints or angels or the Virgin Mary. I also agree that neither bunch of us worship three different Gods at the same time, and that we do worship the God of Abraham. However, I would also point out that for people who do not share our beliefs and/or were not raised in them, the distinctions which are crystal clear and vitally important to us can get kinda blurry. I have friends who are Muslim who are every bit as devout as I am but who insist --- politely but stubbornly --- that you cannot subdivide God which is obviously what Christians do no matter how hard they argue that they aren't doing it at all. They are genuinely puzzled and unable to comprehend how we could possibly think the way we do, despite the numerous times all of us have explained to the others where they're wrong. It's just part of the fundamental baggage we carry with us because of our belief systems.

I don't think that Highjohns was trying to be arrogant or dismissive in the hypothetical evil god he was postulating, and he was very careful from the beginning to say that it was a purely hypothetical instance concocted purely for the purpose of illustrating the point he was trying to make. I also think that it's obvious we are not going to change his mind about the existence of God and that he isn't going to change ours any more than Kemal is going to convince me to convert to Islam or than I'm going to get him to come to communion next Sunday. Doesn't mean he and I aren't friends or that we can't respect one another's beliefs, though, and we are always very careful to discuss the differences in our religious beliefs, not to quarrel over them. I'd love to convert him, and I'm pretty sure he'd love to convert me, not to count some sort of religious coup but because we each love the other and want to see him finding the right path to God. We realize we don't agree on which of those is the right path, but in the meantime, we're both just concentrating on understanding the other fellow as well as we can. Don't think he'd get along as well with one of the hardcore fundamentalist hell-and-damnation sects hellbent on making everybody conform to their beliefs (whatever their beliefs might be) and picketing military funerals to protest gay rights, but then neither would I. I'm pretty darned sure I wouldn't get along with an Islamic fundamentalist, either, and I know Kemal wouldn't.

My point is that proselytizing is one thing, discussion is another, and condemnation is something else again. For that matter, pretty much all of the Epistles (and most of the bits in red type in the Gospels, guys) suggest that condemnation of those who disagree with you is not on the list of approved Christian activities. I'd just like everyone to back away, put down your guns for a moment, and assume that the fellow on the other side might actually be a sincere and decent person who may not agree with you, may even express himself in ways that sting and seem clumsy or even boorish, but who may also have no intention of deliberately stepping on anyone.

Unless someone jumps down my throat and assails my right to hold whatever beliefs I hold or engages in what is clearly religion baiting --- in either direction, guys --- then I'm pretty much cool with his right to express whatever thought or belief he wants to express. Hey, he may be wrong, as far as I'm concerned, but it's entirely possibly for someone to just be wrong. I think we get into an awful lot of trouble if we assume that anyone who's wrong must be willfully dishonest or "the enemy" just because we believe he's wrong.