Introducing the Hunter process.

Highjohn wrote:RFC.

Your wrong about atheism. technically everyone who was alive before someone came up with the idea of god was an atheist.(Note I'm not saying all gods are fictional here, just that at some point all known religious did not exist, so someone must have had the made them up(maybe they were insane, or a con artist) or they had a divine revelation, like Saul is supposed to have had). However that is not really of any interest, I am an a-universe-creating-pink-polka-doted-turtle, but who cares. However as soon as someone said there was a god, someone said "I don't see this god of yours". Just because most people in a society did say the saw the god doesn't mean that there weren't people who didn't. You don't need science for that.

Also please rephrase this in the future:

runsforcelery wrote:Atheism seems to me to result from a rejection of supernatural and divine forces because those forces are seen as having failed to accomplish what the proto-atheist views as their function, purpose, or responsibilities.

It implies that most atheists are atheists because they think god has failed them. This is in fact not true. Most atheist are atheist because they don't see evidence of a god. They might also be pissed off at what that god is supposed to have done but that isn't why they think the god didn't do that.

Most atheists are not 'angry at god' they don't think go exists. Yes there are some atheists who are atheists because of exactly that, but they are rare, not the majority

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. Completely leaving aside whether or not God or those supernatural forces actually exist, every emerging society/civilization/tribal culture with which I am familiar ascribed the things it could not understand to supernatural and/or divine beings or forces. I am defining atheism as a disbelief in those beings or forces and arguing that it arises from a culture which is able to find other explanations for those events, occurrences and processes it could not previously account for. I speak here of the emergence of atheism qua atheism, not of any given individual who may have embraced atheism.

And I do not choose to modify the paragraph you quoted. "Indict" is not always a moral judgment. If you have always been an atheist, you cannot "indict" something in which you do not believe in the judicial sense of charging it with having failed in a moral obligation to you. You can, however --- and atheists do --- point out the many ways in which any truly divine being who might hypothetically existed has failed to manifest himself to you, failed to offer laboratory evidence of his existence, failed to discharge what they would consider to be the minimum moral obligations of such a being, etc. In that sense, in the sense of Christian apologia, for example, an atheist does, indeed, "indict" God. Nor does the use of the verb "indict" say anything at all about anger. It simply says that "this being or thing you theists call 'God' has never manifested to me, nor have I seen any evidence that it exists, because if it did exist, it would have done X, Y, or Z."

This is a case in which any term anyone cares to use can quickly become a loaded one. I have to agree with Drak to some extent, however. You have cheerfully and consistently rattled of what theists believe in, expressing yourself in your own terms, which is your right. It does not necessarily make you correct, but neither does it necessarily make you incorrect, and philosophically and morally you have every right to make your arguments as seems most accurate to you. As do I, and as does Drak. I have no way of knowing if you personally awoke one day with your atheism fully formed --- sprung (you should pardon the phrase) as Athena from the brow of Zeus --- or it you reached that view after actual long and careful study of opposing belief structures. Speaking as someone who, Like C.S. Lewis had his atheistic moments and who has looked at this question very carefully from both sides, however, I stand by my analysis of the emergence of atheism as a belief structure.

As for anger, the existence of God (or gods) is a question which it behooves all of us to approach with the awareness that it is a highly emotionally charged issue for many. I can't say whether or not it is in your own case. Anger -- or at least a sense that they have been failed or somehow "swindled" by people who told them they should believe in God --- is, however, a very active part of what seem to me to be the majority of the individual atheists with whom I have discussed the nature of belief. In fact, I personally know at least two atheists (both friends of mine) who wax positively rabid on the subject. I've known both of the people I have in mind for years and our friendship is close, but they regard anyone --- except me, for some reason --- who argues in favor of the existence of God, even if the anyone in question is not attempting to proselytize then in any way, as backward, medieval peasants who want to burn witches on the village green and who should be stamped out before they lure any right-thinking soul into a cultist village and feed them poisoned Kool-Aid. I don't say that this would reflect your own attitude, nor do I have any desire to tread on your beliefs or your sensitivities. I do, however, reserve the right to define what I understand in my own terms just as you do using your own terms. And if you wish to define what theists do/do not believe, then you had better be prepared for them to reciprocate.

I see your point but I disagree.

Polytheists believe in several gods while perhaps worshiping only a few of them. A polytheist worshiper of Zeus wouldn't consider Athena not worthy of worship.

Monotheists may believe in Angels and Saints but Angels and Saints aren't viewed as "little gods". (IE worthy of worship.)

Now there some evidence that Zeus/Jupiter may have been "moving" from the "king of the gods" to the "Supreme/Most Important God".

Some may argue that God started out that way. It does appear that Allah, prior to Muhammad, was just the "Supreme God" of the Arabs not the Only God.

Still to tell us that because Angels and Saints are part of our beliefs that we aren't real Monotheists is somewhat arrogant.

JimHacker wrote:

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.

While perhaps badly worded, Highjohn does have a point that technically from an athropological perspective, rather than examining one's own religion internally, monotheism vs polytheism can get rather complicated.

Highjohn wrote:RFC.

Your wrong about atheism. technically everyone who was alive before someone came up with the idea of god was an atheist.(Note I'm not saying all gods are fictional here, just that at some point all known religious did not exist, so someone must have had the made them up(maybe they were insane, or a con artist) or they had a divine revelation, like Saul is supposed to have had). However that is not really of any interest, I am an a-universe-creating-pink-polka-doted-turtle, but who cares. However as soon as someone said there was a god, someone said "I don't see this god of yours". Just because most people in a society did say the saw the god doesn't mean that there weren't people who didn't. You don't need science for that.

Have you any evidence for this belief? Because all of the evidence that I have seen is that atheism is a fairly recent concept in human history, just as RFC says. The available evidence suggests that early civilizations had universal belief in gods, and that it goes back to prehistory.

JimHacker wrote:

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.

While perhaps badly worded, Highjohn does have a point that technically from an athropological perspective, rather than examining one's own religion internally, monotheism vs polytheism can get rather complicated.

That's both true and inaccurate. Or, perhaps, beside the point. People can define things in absolute, excruciating detail and with the utmost precision. It's just that nobody else shares the same precision. You don't seriously expect us to let our understanding of that get in the way of a good, rip-roaring quarrel do you?

On a more serious note, the problem is that every single word in every single human language comes freighted and packed with all manner of background assumptions and shades of meaning. We can't help that because that level of semantics is inherent in the very act of communicating at all. What you believe and how you believe it colors the very act of describing and understanding, and an awful lot of them time, your underlying assumptions are so deeply buried in your word choices that you may not have a clue they're there or that other people might misconstrue them. Or be angered by them, in many cases. After all, they are self-evidently true and accurate, are they not? An honest person would not have used them in the first place if he didn't believe they were true and accurate.

runsforcelery wrote:
Wow! Did this topic ever swerve!

Yeah, and seeing Highjohn and Drak's replies - apparently straight into a minefield!

Hey!! I'm not that bad!!! (I hope )

MWadwell wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:
Wow! Did this topic ever swerve!

Yeah, and seeing Highjohn and Drak's replies - apparently straight into a minefield!

runsforcelery wrote:

JimHacker wrote:While perhaps badly worded, Highjohn does have a point that technically from an athropological perspective, rather than examining one's own religion internally, monotheism vs polytheism can get rather complicated.

That's both true and inaccurate. Or, perhaps, beside the point. People can define things in absolute, excruciating detail and with the utmost precision. It's just that nobody else shares the same precision. You don't seriously expect us to let our understanding of that get in the way of a good, rip-roaring quarrel do you?

On a more serious note, the problem is that every single word in every single human language comes freighted and packed with all manner of background assumptions and shades of meaning. We can't help that because that level of semantics is inherent in the very act of communicating at all. What you believe and how you believe it colors the very act of describing and understanding, and an awful lot of them time, your underlying assumptions are so deeply buried in your word choices that you may not have a clue they're there or that other people might misconstrue them. Or be angered by them, in many cases. After all, they are self-evidently true and accurate, are they not? An honest person would not have used them in the first place if he didn't believe they were true and accurate.

Why am i, all the sudden, getting flashbacks to reading about Papa O'Neal getting a lecture on the Theory of Communication in 'Honor of the Clan' by John Ringo

RFC

Thanks for the long post on Langhorne's motivation and what God's plan means to Safeholdians. While you have never covered the theology of the Plan in such detail, it has been fairly clear that people on Safehold see obedience to the will of God as taught by the Archangels as leading to the best kind of life here and God's reward after death. This isn't a surprise since Langhorne clearly used a basically Judeo Christian framework for religion on Safehold and the idea of great rewards for the faithful in the life to come is a fairly fundamental part of Christianity. Ordinary church members and clergy clearly believe the Writ's commands and proscriptions are for their good rather than being arbitrary. Which is why so many are so fierce in their loyalty to mother church. Heresy threatens their wellbeing and that of their children in this world and the next as well as the good of society because God really does know what is best for his children.

Hope your wife is continuing to recover well.

runsforcelery wrote:
Wow! Did this topic ever swerve!

I, however, can swerve with the best of them. So . . . .

snip

Now, I don’t want to go into this next point to deeply, because of . . . well, for reasons of my own. However, I will remind you that the entire Book of Schueler was added to the Writ after Shan-wei’s “Fall.” That is, it was not a part of the “operator’s manual” until after Langhorne himself was dead, courtesy of Pei Kau-yung’s vest pocket nuke. Now, one might — might, I say — conclude from this that the surviving members of the command crew decided to make Pei Shan-wei’s fate and the destruction of the Alexandria Enclave a “teachable moment” for Safehold. In other words, all of the bloody penalties for violating Jwo-jeng’s proscriptions on advanced technology were added after Shan-wei’s “horrible example” of the consequences of violating them — that is, the destruction she had wreaked on God's plan — and were used to underscore the fact that “even an archangel” could be corrupted into disobeying God’s will. Shan-wei didn’t represent merely Lucifer’s rebellion against God in the names of pride and personal ambition; she also represented Adam and Eve’s rebellion in reaching for the approved of the Tree of Knowledge. She became, in effect, an essential element of the Church of God Awaiting’s theology, but she was not originally a part of that theology as visualized by Langhorne. It is entirely possible that the absence of a personification of evil and the temptation to disobey God’s rules would have constituted a much more immediate fatal flaw in Langhorne’s original plan, although obviously no one will ever know whether or not that was the case.

So those are the main reasons why Langhorne felt it was necessary to incorporate a “God’s plan” element into his original theology and an explanation of at least some of the ways that the destruction of Alexandria and the War Against the Fallen reshaped and modified that theology. I hope this isn’t too rambling and that it may help a bit with understanding Langhorne’s original purpose and at least some of the ways that his original purpose and plan were rather brutally modified after his own death.

I extrapolated on this argument several books ago. The crux was that since Shanwei rebelled it proved Archangels were subject to error and corruption. It follows that the Writ in general but the Book of Sheuler in particular was also not perfect. If some intermediate Theological "fix" was needed to bide time, this argument might be used promote the importance of the individual's relationship with God over the authority of the CoGA.

The threads of the story don't appear to require this "fix". However, even should Merlin or Mikel find themselves arguing against and "archangel" in person. That argument has weight. God's plan is for each of the souls on Safehold to follow. Each individual is different and requires an individually tailored plan to shape him/her best. Even if the overall "plan" is the blueprint God presented mankind, each individual engineer must bring that blueprint to life in his/her own life.

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.