How Atheists Help to Perpetuate God Belief

[Tony]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Do you think the typical Christian would have a more specific entity in mind if you used, or suggested they use the term "Yahweh" or "Yhwh" instead of "God"?

Not in mind, but in effect, it would force a specific entity on them.

Quote:

Do you think using any of those terms helps perpetuate god belief in some way that using any other of the terms might not?

I've already said that I disagree with the OP that atheists perpetuate belief in god by not using "Yahweh".

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Magyar

I am not a scientist nor do I play one on tv, but I think anyone with some basic understanding of human psychology and evolution can very easily explain this.

The primary uniqueness of the human brain, as we best understand it, is our ability to reason - whether it's projecting into the future, or project ourselves into the place of another. The basic fundimental requirement for all of these things is to recognize patterns. This ability allowed us as primitives to see how prey moved from place to place and recognize that if x then y. This helped us hunt and survive. This trait is what allows us to do things like make tools, plant crops etc. It became such an overwhelming priority in the developement of the human brain that our brains developed a prejudice towards seeing/recognizing/developing patterns. Sometimes even when they aren't there.
This is why kids see bunnies in the clouds, or monsters in the shadows in the bedroom.
This desire to create patterns, coupled with our fear (flight or fight base instincts) in the human brain is so overwhelming that we're far more excepting of even ridiculious patterns like bunnies in the clouds or imaginary gods then to accept not knowing which frightens us.

Other human beings, those with more predatory natures, recognized this as well as the power and advantage they could gain by expoiting this combo of desire for paterns and fear and created religion. And now we're at the point where we have people spending their lives persuing these rediculious notions and calling it "study" and "worthwhile life persuit".

Oh and this is not an evolutionary benefit per se but rather an example of how evolution is really a neutral thing. If it helps the species survive it thrives but it does NOT mean that it's a good thing. THe "god" belief is a BAD side affect of something that helped our species survive.

This is not something which only religion does. Once this is accepted as true, then progress can be made and a real alternative attempted.

This is The Problem. The predatory natures which advantage themselves without regard for the bigger reality.
Tell me that this is merely a religious activity and make me wonder what it is you are occupying your life doing...

Because the predator will use the magic of illusion (sleight of hand) to point at 'the problem' with one hand while dipping the other hand into the pockets of the now distracted...

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by marksman

I have discussed the Babylonian and Sumerian origins of Jewish myth with many rabbis and I've never encountered anybody who said it was "anti Judaic" or "antisemitic" to suggest that Judaism evolved from Sumerian or Babylonian myths. In fact, most of the more liberal rabbis readily acknowledge that Judaism emerged from Sumerian/Babylonian culture, and even cite Abraham's origins in the East as being consistent with that statement.

I've had similar experiences with priests. The line of argument typically is "That's what the primative peoples could understand. God revieled Himself gradually, as our understanding grew. The changes in religion reflect that evolution due to divine revelation."

Originally Posted by Piscivore

I think what you aren't understanding here is that the academic "Yhwh" with which you are familiar has no bearing whatsoever on the god or even the "yhwh" of American Christians.

Yup. There are two Christian religions: the theological one and the lay one.

Originally Posted by Tony

Not in mind, but in effect, it would force a specific entity on them.

No more so than requiring a child to use their mother's full name in place of "Mom". There's no difference to your average Christian.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

If we type "god", we're accused of being flagrantly disrespectful. If we type "God", we're accused of only discussing Yhwh.

.

Try typing GOD and see what happens...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=238274

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by truethat

Like I said, you like to use dictionary lines to do your thinking. Being Christian is not that cut and dry. Your inability to understand the vagaries of atheism speaks to a very narrow minded way of thinking. So sorry about that. But you are wrong and you don't understand. I'm not derailing yet another thread because of your constant trolling. Be well.

The "vagaries of atheism" don't exist the way you seem to believe they do. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. A couple of people's bizarre sense of being persecuted because they definitively fit the characteristics of atheism, but have their panties in a wad about the word itself, isn't going to change the dictionary or the common use of the term. You need to start in an entierly different place to do that. And your insistence that a descriptive term is necessarily a label is a straw man.

It's much the same as your notion about the distinction between "Yhwh" and "God". When used in everyday conversation with Christians, upper-case-G God is the one they believe in. There are likely as many variations on the specifics of that god as there are Christians. The correct way to find out exactly what they mean by the word is to ask them, one conversation at a time. Suggesting we/they change the word God to the word Yhwh is just plain silly. It introduces an additional layer of ambiguity rather than removing one. You still have to ask them exactly which characteristics they attribute to their god before (if) a meaningful conversation can be had.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by truethat

....The problem with using the term God instead of Yhwh is very apparent to me, but not always to other atheists. I urge you all to help change this paradigm.

Stop arguing about God when you are really arguing about Yhwh. Yhwh is a character in the OT Torah Pentateuch that has been proven to NOT EXIST. He is a character in a story.....

You sound like a theist who has found some particular thing he/she thinks proves something but that doesn't actually prove a thing.

So you discovered in a particular religious text some little flaw that proves no god exists. An analogy would be the evolution deniers that believe they discovered the flaw in evolution theory in someone's probability hypothesis that not enough time has passed for evolution to work.

There are hundreds of flaws in the Bible and I'm guessing in the Torah and the Koran that prove the claims are impossible. The Bible has the Moon wrong claiming it is a night light and missing the fact it reflects light. Adam and Eve, the germ theory, cruelty while claiming love, you name it: the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, all clearly nothing more than books of myths.


Why bother looking for some flaw that disproves it all? I agree, atheists perpetuate god beliefs when they excuse them with NOMa and apply a double standard confronting 'woo' but tiptoeing around god beliefs.

Follow the evidence to the conclusion, all gods are mythical beings. You don't need to prove there are no gods. You don't need to make a special effort to leave the door open because some new evidence might be found in the future. We don't have a similar door open because Hogwarts might exist. We identify Harry Potter as a fictional being. The evidence leads us to that conclusion. Done. The scientific process is still intact without special mention we didn't prove Hogwarts doesn't exist because we haven't looked in every corner of the Universe.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by truethat

Seriously. I quit three weeks (or so) in. It was a daunting thing to quit. Columbia University is quite prestigious. I had received a nice chunk of change towards my education and didn't want to give it up. But, I ultimately walked out.

Hang on, you went to Seminary (for free) as an atheist to learn about people's beliefs then quit when you learned the god in whom you didn't believe in the first place, isn't real?

Quote:

Stop using the word God when you are discussing Yhwh.

Well, to be fair YHWH isn't an English word and isn't pronounceable in English any more than Mxyzptlk.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by truethat

That's their problem not mine. The paradigm needs to shift.

I've said before that we need to shift from saying "I don't believe in God" to

"Oh wow, you believe in god? Which god do you believe in?"

IMO this is how we perpetuate God belief.

Isn't the bolded sentence, in itself, falling into the normal habit of English usage that you want people to avoid?

No one would say: "Oh wow, you believe in fairy? Which fairy do you believe in? Tinkerbell? The Tooth Fairy?"

Usage of the singular without an article implies a capital G ("Oh wow, you believe in God?") with an assumption that both people know which god is being referred to.

For the paradigm shift that I think you're wanting, the conversation would need to go:

"I believe in God."

[deliberately missing the capital] "You believe in a god? Which god do you believe in?"

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

The premise has nothing to do with its existence being unbelievable. That is not required for the argument.

I also see it as a fortuitous side benefit, since it also points out how strange and arbitrary god-beliefs seem to someone who isn't immersed in them.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Use the words that people understand if your objective is effective communication.

And if you are intelligent, don't use derogatory remarks about the way people use words or don't use 'English' properly...if you are unclear then ask. If you get the gist, go with that.

If you just want to belittle someone, and tell them they should go learn English before mingling with the big boys and girls...and laugh among yourselves and congratulate each other for yet another fine performance then the use of effective communication has not been exampled.

Not saying it happens in this forum, but you'd be surprised at how many people use their intelligence this way....'tis rife in some message boards...

[marksman]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I've had similar experiences with priests. The line of argument typically is "That's what the primative peoples could understand. God revieled Himself gradually, as our understanding grew. The changes in religion reflect that evolution due to divine revelation."

Yep. Some rabbis gave me that line. Most rabbis just shrugged and said "It's a metaphor. So they used the metaphors already available to them."

Of course, when you start with the premise that the Bible doesn't have to be literally true, you don't get all that flustered when people point out the inconsistencies.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by truethat

What I do care about is the distinction in the United States, in the way the bible is used to shape law in this country and oppress people.

Take Christians out of that equation. Pretend Jesus comes and grabs the lot and takes them away.
Do you really believe that this will herald in and era of non-suppression? That oppression will vanish?

Laws are not shaped by peoples beliefs. Peoples beliefs are used by the predators. Remove the people who believe and the predators will still remain.

The Bible is just another prop the predators use. If the believers no longer exist in this realm or in USA, and the bible outlawed, the predators have other props to work with.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Weeeellllll....This is kind of subtle. If I say "Do you realize it's raining?", it better be in fact raining or at some level it could be argued that I am lying. But if I ask, "Do you believe it's raining?", I am not presupposing that it is raining.

If someone were to say to me "God will punish you", I can only respond "No he won't," and in so saying, I have sort of accepted that god is a real entity. Otherwise, I need to say "First, there is no god, and if there is I don't believe in it, and second I don't need punishing". Too cumbersome.

This technique is used by salesmen, politicians, and charismatic preachers as a device for convincing the mark that he should believe as the speaker. I don't think Yogi and BooBoo are good counterexamples, at least not for me.

Check out Paul Grice, the linguist.

..

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

The average person in the pew WILL NOT BE IMPACTED BY THIS, because THEY DON'T CARE. They weren't impacted by all the innumerable other theological paradigm shifts, and they won't be impacted by this one. Don't believe me? Pick any theological issue and ask a random Catholic about it on their way home from religious services. I'd bet a six pack of Guiness their answer won't be what the theologians say it is, and I'd be amazed if it was even close. I've met innumerable Roman Catholics who don't know what transsubstantiation is, for example.

Poignant and worthy of investigation.

Understanding this can help build a solution. sure it is a kind of hypocrisy on the believers part, but also shows a humanity which religion is taking advantage of...not just religion, but the LOSE systems altogether.

The average person is interested in survival and is educated so that the darker side of self interest develops at the expense of the charitable aspect of human nature.

This education has to do with maintaining an ancient system which uses every prop and device enabling it to be the predator supreme over all the Earth.

A pointless goal...quite adolescent...

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Take Christians out of that equation. Pretend Jesus comes and grabs the lot and takes them away.
Do you really believe that this will herald in and era of non-suppression? That oppression will vanish?

Laws are not shaped by peoples beliefs. Peoples beliefs are used by the predators. Remove the people who believe and the predators will still remain.

The Bible is just another prop the predators use. If the believers no longer exist in this realm or in USA, and the bible outlawed, the predators have other props to work with.

I actually agree with this. There is no abuse, no horror, no outrage one can find perpetrated in the name of god or religion that one cannot find being done for some other excuse.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by marksman

The way you write this indicates you don't regard antisemitism as racist and prejudiced... I'm sure (or I hope) that's not what you intended.

I don't get why one race is allowed to be seen to be so different from any other that it gets special treatment.
Surely any kind of hatred toward any human being or culture is racist and part of the problem?

Perhaps the problem stems from how history shows a homeless culture integrating with others and often becoming the directors through using intelligent manipulation even at the expense of the original culture who often have become or are treated as secondary citizens and thus are resentful and - as Hitler proved, easily enticed into rage against that perceived problem?

Not the ideal 'solution' as history shows.

This practice (Integrate and Dominate) is a primary criticism with Atheist against Christians regarding their God...the commands of bloodthirsty nature aimed at cultures in opposition to 'The One True God' but obviously those practices are reported in the OT which comes from the homeless People chosen by that God to represent Him.

So is the criticism directed only at Christians even fair? Does the law of antisemitism protect the original culture from the brunt of sometimes very hate propelled remarks?

Or is it merely hidden? For surely when those hateful type Atheists are making such remarks, they are having to include the source culture of the same - believing in and working for this supposed evil God?

So a law which is all encompassing where there is no tolerance for any cultural hatred or even verbal abuse would be a step in a better direction?

I think so.

[marksman]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Perhaps the problem stems from how history shows a homeless culture integrating with others and often becoming the directors through using intelligent manipulation even at the expense of the original culture who often have become or are treated as secondary citizens and thus are resentful and - as Hitler proved, easily enticed into rage against that perceived problem?

Um... what?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Surely any kind of hatred toward any human being or culture is racist and part of the problem?

Not really. Racism is a specific TYPE of hatred. Equating it with hatred as such is simply wrong.

Quote:

The average person is interested in survival and is educated so that the darker side of self interest develops at the expense of the charitable aspect of human nature.

The view that self interest is evil is not universal. I'm an Objectivist, for example--I consider self interest a requirement for life.

Besides, you missed my point entirely. It's not about predation, or self interest, or the rest--it's simply that the average believer isn't a theologian, and arguments that work against theologians won't work against the average believer.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I don't get why one race is allowed to be seen to be so different from any other that is gets special treatment.

Ask the anti-semites the reason for the "special treatment". The historical record documents a much greater degree of anti-semitism than, say, anti-crackerism or anti-Germanism.

Quote:

Perhaps the problem stems from how history shows a homeless culture integrating with others and often becoming the directors through using intelligent manipulation even at the expense of the original culture who often have become or are treated as secondary citizens and thus are resentful...

Except, as none of that is factual, "perhaps" not.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by marksman

I have discussed the Babylonian and Sumerian origins of Jewish myth with many rabbis and I've never encountered anybody who said it was "anti Judaic" or "antisemitic" to suggest that Judaism evolved from Sumerian or Babylonian myths. In fact, most of the more liberal rabbis readily acknowledge that Judaism emerged from Sumerian/Babylonian culture, and even cite Abraham's origins in the East as being consistent with that statement.

I imagine only the most rigid radical members of Judaism would be offended at the suggestion that Judaism closely resembles Sumerian or Ugaritic texts. Do you have any support for the idea that discussing the Ugaritic texts is considered antisemitic?

The way you write this indicates you don't regard antisemitism as racist and prejudiced... I'm sure (or I hope) that's not what you intended.

Also, the idea that Judaism may have evolved from polytheistic roots was suggested to me in Sunday School. (I am Jewish.) I wouldn't have found that suggestion shocking at all. Anybody who reads the Torah in the original Hebrew should not find such a conclusion to be shocking.

The woman who was teaching the class used this term and it was the first time I had heard it as well. But I'm glad you posted that it is very well known about the origins of Yhwh.

Originally Posted by Pup

Isn't the bolded sentence, in itself, falling into the normal habit of English usage that you want people to avoid?

No one would say: "Oh wow, you believe in fairy? Which fairy do you believe in? Tinkerbell? The Tooth Fairy?"

Usage of the singular without an article implies a capital G ("Oh wow, you believe in God?") with an assumption that both people know which god is being referred to.

For the paradigm shift that I think you're wanting, the conversation would need to go:

"I believe in God."

[deliberately missing the capital] "You believe in a god? Which god do you believe in?"

Exactly! True, you could go over the way that I am writing things. People have been playing a "I know you are but what am I!" game in this thread as is the typical "Hey here's a chance to bash a poster that annoyed me in another thread" game that happens on here.

So any mistake I am making I can concede. However I am trying to push for the same general ideology of Yhwh as Zeus. IOW just one more god in a long line of pantheons. It is my observation and opinion that by not referring to Yhwh as Yhwh when we are discussing Yhwh, we lend a sort of credibility to the God ideology. I've watched it happen numerous times on this site over the years. It's happening right now.

Originally Posted by marksman

Yep. Some rabbis gave me that line. Most rabbis just shrugged and said "It's a metaphor. So they used the metaphors already available to them."

Of course, when you start with the premise that the Bible doesn't have to be literally true, you don't get all that flustered when people point out the inconsistencies.

Sure that's pretty much what they did in Columbia. But if it's going to be "it's a metaphor" then it takes the wind out of their sails and the concept of God also becomes a metaphor.

Also, in the most simplistic of reasons, most Christians I know get uncomfortable in the discussion when you continually refer to their god as Yhwh. They know it's an accurate name, but they get wierded out at constantly referring to their god in this manner. There's something much more transcendent about calling "him" God.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by truethat

It is my observation and opinion that by not referring to Yhwh as Yhwh when we are discussing Yhwh, we lend a sort of credibility to the God ideology.

And when people disagree with you you simply say "You just don't get it", as if that were an argument.

Care to address the specific points raised against you, or are you going to hide behind the Victim Card?

Quote:

Also, in the most simplistic of reasons, most Christians I know get uncomfortable in the discussion when you continually refer to their god as Yhwh. They know it's an accurate name, but they get wierded out at constantly referring to their god in this manner.

Really? You mean referring to their deity in terms other than those commonly used by that religion makes that religion feel weird? If your goal is to make them uncomfortable, call their deity Allah--it's just as defensible a term (after all, Christians in Arab-speaking nations use that term in place of God).

You know little about Christianity for someone who went to a seminary. Are you completely unaware of the fact that most Christians view Yhwh as the JEWISH name for God? It's wrong, historically, but your insistance on calling their deity by a different name has the practical consequence of making it seem like you're not paying attention, or that you expect them to agree with a whole other religion.

Before you preach to us how we should talk to people, why don't you go out and talk to some of the average believers? I think you'll find it very eye-opening.

Quote:

There's something much more transcendent about calling "him" God.

I have a grandfather that I've always called by an altered version of the German word for "grandfather". Never called him "Grandpa X" when talking to him, and only used the term when talking about him with people that I've just met. It still feels weird to call him "Grandpa"--Grandpa refers to the OTHER grandfather I have, not this one.

It's exactly the same with the Christians and you calling their deity by a different name. They're uncomfortable not because of transcendent feelings, but because you're being intentionally provocative and violating the norms of that culture, at least from their perspective. They don't use the term, though they acknowledge the validity of it (mostly), and it's just WEIRD when someone insists on using it--for PRECISELY the same reason it feels weird for me to use a term for my grandfather that I've never used, despite it being perfectly accurate.

[truethat]

Points for you too Dinwar. I mean you seriously posted this and thought this was a useful response in doing what exactly? Kicking me right good? Slamming to the mat? It's a ridiculous insulting personal attack pretty much based on you having no clue what I am talking about. So two points to you. You win, you got me.

What ever LOL


I do want them to feel uncomfortable. Why this is hard for you to understand boggles my mind but I'm not going to repeat it yet again.

[Dinwar]

Quote:

I mean you seriously posted this and thought this was a useful response in doing what exactly? Kicking me right good? Slamming to the mat?

No. I'm trying to get you to understand those you're opposing. Until you do that, you have no hope of convincing them of anything.

Quote:

It's a ridiculous insulting personal attack pretty much based on you having no clue what I am talking about.

I may have written a bit harshly, but I've said nothing that I haven't backed up with evidence, and my criticisms were about your methods, not you. This is nothing more than more evasion on your part--when presented with specific, concrete criticisms you simply dodge them, rather than addressing them, apparently. At the very least, that's all you've done with my criticisms.

Quote:

You win, you got me.

So you understand that in order to speak to someone you need them to understand what you're saying?

Quote:

I do want them to feel uncomfortable. Why this is hard for you to understand boggles my mind

I understand perfectly well what you're trying to do. I'm pointing out why you're failing, and why you necessarily MUST fail. You don't understand the mindset of the people you're talking to--as evidenced by the fact that you misinterpret the very discomfort you hope to achieve. Without understanding the opposition you cannot win, period. That was known when Sun Tzu was writing books, and it holds true now.

If you want to make them uncomfortable, have fun--but understand that shuts down conversations, makes you look like a jerk or a fool, and isn't usually all that effective. If you make them uncomfortable and then misinterpret why they're uncomfortable you'll never get even that far.

[truethat]

The conversation should be shut down. We live in world where atheists spend countless hours debating the existence of a character in a mythology. Can you not see the inherent stupidity in such actions?

The other pet peeve I have is when people position evolution against creationism. What nonsense is this argument? Why is it even being had?


By engaging in the dialogue and debate we perpetuate that there's a validity there. And Dinway please stop making your comments about me personally. You don't know ship about me and in fact I'm so comfortable discussing religious beliefs with Christians that I've been accused on this site of being an apologist.

If you wanted to make a legitimate statement you'd stop talking about ME and address the comments.

Why do we not want Christians to feel "uncomfortable' when discussing a made up belief system? They should feel uncomfortable. We want them to stop it so instead of enabling them we need to get real.

Ex. If someone is homophobic or racist and makes a statement that is based on a stereotype, by not saying something, we perpetuate the belief. Many times people won't say something because they don't want to embarrass the person. This is the same thing.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by truethat

If you wanted to make a legitimate statement you'd stop talking about ME and address the comments.

I have been. In fact, I've specifically been quoting your comments that I've been responding to. You simply don't want to understand who you're opposing, and therefore are doomed to failure. Using a legitimate but uncommon name to cause discomfort is PETTY, and does nothing to further any cause--particularly if you refuse to understand why it makes them uncomfortable in the first place (your explanation is, as I've pointed out numerous times, wrong). It's the equivalent of drawing a mustach on a billboard and claiming it's a protest.

Quote:

The other pet peeve I have is when people position evolution against creationism. What nonsense is this argument? Why is it even being had?

For me, it's personal--when someone says "geologists are liars" they're calling ME a liar, MY WIFE a liar, MY FRIENDS--people who I rely on for survival, and I mean that as "if they weren't there I'd be dead"--liars. And they can't even be bothered to do their basic research. But there's more to it than that: our entire agricultural industry, medical infrastructure, etc. are built on evolution. The USSR is the only industrial nation I know that abandoned the theory. They went from exporting grain to rampent starvation in less than a generation. PEOPLE DIED because they abandoned evolutionary theory. That, to me, is worth opposing. And if we don't oppose it, it becomes law.

[Dinwar]

Let me ask a simple question that'll make my perspective a whole lot more clear: Do you want to change minds, or merely make people feel uncomfortable for a few minutes?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by truethat

Points for you too Dinwar. I mean you seriously posted this and thought this was a useful response in doing what exactly? Kicking me right good? Slamming to the mat? It's a ridiculous insulting personal attack pretty much based on you having no clue what I am talking about. So two points to you. You win, you got me.

Oh, boo firkin hoo. Dinwar's response was quite useful. It could have even been useful to you if you would objectively consider it instead of just complaining about being picked on. Take responsibility for your own failure instead of blaming other people. That way you'll learn why you've failed and you'll be less likely to make those same mistakes next time. As long as you argue from the position that your failure is righteous and that other people's considered responses are just more pickin' on you, you're not likely to make any progress at all.

Quote:

I do want them to feel uncomfortable. Why this is hard for you to understand boggles my mind but I'm not going to repeat it yet again.

So you're into trolling the Christians, eh? For a little bit at the top of the thread you seemed to want to facilitate more effective communication. Guess we can write that off as a lie. And you still haven't even broached the subject of how atheists help to perpetuate god belief by using words Christians understand instead of using words to intentionally try to piss them off.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Not really. Racism is a specific TYPE of hatred. Equating it with hatred as such is simply wrong.

No it is not. What is wrong is equating one type of racism as being worse than any other type of racism.
It is the same with abuse. To equate one type of abuse as worse than any other is plain wrong, and one of the main reasons for the problems which exist in the world.

Hate is Hate.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

The view that self interest is evil is not universal. I'm an Objectivist, for example--I consider self interest a requirement for life.

Your only requirement for life is equal with every other individuals. Predator behavior as in taking advantage of others for personal gain has nothing to do with self interest as a requirement for life.
Requirement for lifestyle yes - requirement for life no way, not today.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Besides, you missed my point entirely. It's not about predation, or self interest, or the rest--it's simply that the average believer isn't a theologian, and arguments that work against theologians won't work against the average believer.

Nor do arguments for the right to practice being predator for the sake of self interest and life style work against those who are the average victims of those practices.

Intelligence needs to smarten up - for too long it has been used as a predator tool against the less intelligent.

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Ask the anti-semites the reason for the "special treatment". The historical record documents a much greater degree of anti-semitism than, say, anti-crackerism or anti-Germanism.

Except, as none of that is factual, "perhaps" not.

If you are saying that the Bible story of the Israeli race is not factual, and that the people appeared to have no homeland and were on a specific mission as a chosen people bringing with them a message regarding the 'One True God' to the Tribes of the Earth is not fact, then who started the story?

If you are saying that the Jews were not habitually able to prosper within the cultures which gave them residence, and take advantage of that system, and the rewards money brings to those who succeed in that system, you are not being truthful.


We know that eventually Israel managed to possess land and that they didn't hold it for that long - the Romans confiscated it. Brute force being one way in which land can be confiscated. Not being able to pay back a loan is another.
Both are actions of predators.

[Rufo]

I believe I understand and somewhat sympathize with the OP's suggestion, but I think the reasoning seems flawed. Not having studied theology I know substantially less about the subject, but I have two main issues with this.

First, don't many Christians, Jews and Muslims essentially accept that historically, YHWH was worshipped along with other gods, but believe these gods were "false"? Wouldn't they be inclined to accept that these gods were called his brothers and fathers, but that those who said that were misguided and in the end, truth (YHWH as the only God) won out? Since they already have an alternative interpretation of the narrative your suggestion is pushing onto them, will this really work to discredit their faith?

Second, as far as I understand it, atheists calling something they believe to be a delusion by the name its believers use seems like the way a therapist would go about talking to a clinically insane person about their delusions. If you met someone who believed in a character who was undeniably a reworked, updated version of Winnie the Pooh, but called him "Bear", would you really insist on referring to that character as "Winnie the Pooh", especially when he bore limited resemblence to A.A. Milne's creation?

[marksman]

Originally Posted by truethat

The woman who was teaching the class used this term and it was the first time I had heard it as well. But I'm glad you posted that it is very well known about the origins of Yhwh.

Someone at Columbia was teaching that it was antisemitic to propose that the Torah borrowed heavily from Sumerian myth? What year was this?

Quote:

But if it's going to be "it's a metaphor" then it takes the wind out of their sails and the concept of God also becomes a metaphor.

Out of whose sails? I doubt that the rabbis I spoke with felt that acknowledging that Torah often speaks metaphorically is suching the wind out of anybody's sails.

Quote:

Also, in the most simplistic of reasons, most Christians I know get uncomfortable in the discussion when you continually refer to their god as Yhwh. They know it's an accurate name, but they get wierded out at constantly referring to their god in this manner. There's something much more transcendent about calling "him" God.

Well, I imagine lots of Jewish and Christian people are uncomfortable using "YHWH" because of the commandment prohibiting the use of YHWH's name in vain. Also, we don't know what vowels are supposed to go into the four letters -- of even if the consonants themselves are supposed to be spoken in the same sounds elsewhere. So the use of YHWH is going to be very awkward at least, and offensive to some.

[Dinwar]

Quote:

No it is not. What is wrong is equating one type of racism as being worse than any other type of racism.

You're talking morally. I was talking factually. Racism can include hatred, but only for specific reasons. Hatred for other reasons is not, by definition, racism. If I hate you because I view your culture as inferior, it's not racism--it's something else. It's only racism if I hate you because of your RACE.

Quote:

It is the same with abuse. To equate one type of abuse as worse than any other is plain wrong,

I never said one type of hate was worse than another; I merely stated the fact that if it doesn't involve race it's not racism. That says nothing about how moral or immoral anything is.

From my perspective, you appear to be saying that no matter how I get killed, it's being shot--even if I'm stabbed with a knife. I'm saying that if someone stabs me I don't want the police looking for a pistol.

Quote:

Intelligence needs to smarten up - for too long it has been used as a predator tool against the less intelligent.

You're obviously using this argument as a jumping-off point for some pet issue of yours not related to this discussion. I'm gonna go ahead and not participate in that anymore. I'd recommend starting a new thread about this pet issue if I were you.

Originally Posted by Rufo

First, don't many Christians, Jews and Muslims essentially accept that historically, YHWH was worshipped along with other gods, but believe these gods were "false"?

Like I said, most think that their deity only slowly revealed itself to humanity. They use the example of a parent teaching a child: you start with simple, basic lessons, and as you learn more you get more complex lessons. Sometimes they seem to contradict the earlier lessons, but then you realize that the earlier ones were just something to wrap your head around until you had developed the skills to understand the real lessons. It's a perfectly valid pedagogical method, and widely used, so it makes perfect sense that a deity would use such a method for us to a believer.

Quote:

Second, as far as I understand it, atheists calling something they believe to be a delusion by the name its believers use seems like the way a therapist would go about talking to a clinically insane person about their delusions.

In geology we call sediment that's all one grain size well sorted. In engineering it's called poorly graded. Both mean the same thing--the stuff's all the same size. But if you walk up to an engineer and say "The sand at the foundation site is well sorted, so we'll need to dig the foundation deeper" they're going to look at you like you're from Mars (believe me, I've done it). They're two terms that mean the same thing, but one is more useful in the particular context.

It's all about deciding what your goal is. If your goal is to merely make them uncomfortable, do whatever you want--and I mean literally, do ANYTHING you want, it's all the same. If your goal is to convince them of anything, you have to speak the same language, more or less by definition.

Originally Posted by marksman

Out of whose sails? I doubt that the rabbis I spoke with felt that acknowledging that Torah often speaks metaphorically is suching the wind out of anybody's sails.

In the Middle Ages there was an entire school of monastic thought that argued that the Bible was never intended to be taken as literally true. It was merely intended to inspire holy thinking--and as long as it did that it was completely irrelevant if the story or verse was factual or not.

[crimresearch]

Wow. Someone sure did put a big old hole in the side of that ox... or was it a calf?
It's kind of hard to tell with all that glare...

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Rufo

I believe I understand and somewhat sympathize with the OP's suggestion, but I think the reasoning seems flawed. Not having studied theology I know substantially less about the subject, but I have two main issues with this.

First, don't many Christians, Jews and Muslims essentially accept that historically, YHWH was worshipped along with other gods, but believe these gods were "false"? Wouldn't they be inclined to accept that these gods were called his brothers and fathers, but that those who said that were misguided and in the end, truth (YHWH as the only God) won out? Since they already have an alternative interpretation of the narrative your suggestion is pushing onto them, will this really work to discredit their faith?

Second, as far as I understand it, atheists calling something they believe to be a delusion by the name its believers use seems like the way a therapist would go about talking to a clinically insane person about their delusions. If you met someone who believed in a character who was undeniably a reworked, updated version of Winnie the Pooh, but called him "Bear", would you really insist on referring to that character as "Winnie the Pooh", especially when he bore limited resemblence to A.A. Milne's creation?

I believe that most people don't understand the narrative and the way it's born out. The difference between a delusion and reality is often related to taboo.

For example you don't worry that discussing Zeus will somehow play into their delusion do you? By discussing Yhwh as just one of many it takes away some of the power that is held over influencing fence sitters. I think that is more my aim. I don't want to convince someone who is wrapped up in delusion. But I can tell already that there are several people who are surprised to read about the Ugaritic texts and had never heard this before. I know I hadn't before I got to seminary even though I had done a ton of research in my thesis.

I had even used the documentary hypothesis in my thesis but knew nothing about the Ugaritic texts. So it's more about public consciousness and making sure people know the truth about Yhwh.

We can debate the existence of the mysterious unknown god, but stick a fork in Yhwh.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

<SNIP>

In the Middle Ages there was an entire school of monastic thought that argued that the Bible was never intended to be taken as literally true. It was merely intended to inspire holy thinking--and as long as it did that it was completely irrelevant if the story or verse was factual or not.

Ahh yes... The 'Thomisthesteamenginic tradition'.

Lots of heavy breathing and all that heysachistic rigamarole... Just causes the people to move about needlessly.

[Dinwar]

Quote:

For example you don't worry that discussing Zeus will somehow play into their delusion do you?

Depends on the situation. If the guy had a Tesla coil, yeah, I'd be a tad concerned.

Quote:

By discussing Yhwh as just one of many it takes away some of the power that is held over influencing fence sitters.

Why? In what way will changing a single word in a sentence influence anything in any thinking person? Everyone who's got enough brain cells to form a synapse already knows that Yhwh is one deity that humans have had throughout history. They also know that God refers to monotheistic gods--typically those that the theist in the conversation believes in. So you may as well replace Yhwh with Gargleplex; at least Gargleplex has novelty value.

Unless you merely want to influence people who DON'T think about these things. But then, what's the value in that?

Quote:

I had even used the documentary hypothesis in my thesis but knew nothing about the Ugaritic texts. So it's more about public consciousness and making sure people know the truth about Yhwh.

Okay, see, replacing God with Yhwh in conversations to make people more aware of a specific document you find important is something like punching people in the back of the skull to make them aware of blind people--it'll upset a lot of people, and no one will know what the devil you're talking about.

How about instead of all that, you simply talk about the Ugaritic texts? It'll raise consciousness of the issue, get your point across, and people will actually listen! Some may even be convinced!! The only downside is that you don't get to make people uncomfortable without bothering to understand why they're uncomfortable, but I'd say that's a small price to pay.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Ahh yes... The 'Thomisthesteamenginic tradition'.

Lots of heavy breathing and all that heysachistic rigamarole... Just causes the people to move about needlessly.

HERETIC! Everyone KNOWS the Thomisthetankinic is the TRUE mystical monastic tradition! Sweaty men lifting heavy things.......Mmm.......

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Depends on the situation. If the guy had a Tesla coil, yeah, I'd be a tad concerned.

Why? In what way will changing a single word in a sentence influence anything in any thinking person? Everyone who's got enough brain cells to form a synapse already knows that Yhwh is one deity that humans have had throughout history. They also know that God refers to monotheistic gods--typically those that the theist in the conversation believes in. So you may as well replace Yhwh with Gargleplex; at least Gargleplex has novelty value.

Unless you merely want to influence people who DON'T think about these things. But then, what's the value in that?

Okay, see, replacing God with Yhwh in conversations to make people more aware of a specific document you find important is something like punching people in the back of the skull to make them aware of blind people--it'll upset a lot of people, and no one will know what the devil you're talking about.

How about instead of all that, you simply talk about the Ugaritic texts? It'll raise consciousness of the issue, get your point across, and people will actually listen! Some may even be convinced!! The only downside is that you don't get to make people uncomfortable without bothering to understand why they're uncomfortable, but I'd say that's a small price to pay.

Appealing to stupidity as a reason not to do something. Awesomeness. Right up there with using a dictionary as a basis for understanding concepts. LOL.

Um I want people to learn and if they don't know about it and it upsets them oh well.

You want me to politely keep my mouth shut so as not to rock the boat. Then you wonder why I ignore most of your comments.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

HERETIC! Everyone KNOWS the Thomisthetankinic is the TRUE mystical monastic tradition! Sweaty men lifting heavy things.......Mmm.......

The Holy Roman Catholic Church did away with that through the use of reason in the 13th Century.

No. Wait. That's not correct. They did it by killing every Cathar and their friends, children, wives and chattels (or 500,000 of them anyway) in the Name of the Holy Blood of Jesus Christ in the early 13th Century.

Arnaud Amaury's command at Béziers "Kill them all. God will know his own".

See: http://www.cathar.info/ if you have not heard of this before.

The Pope may have apologized to Galileo but he has a lot more to apologize for.

[Kopji]

I dunno truethat. I find myself wanting to agree with you but can't get beyond thinking this is something of a strawman.

Yahweh is a more primitive notion of God, so if can disprove that, the larger idea of God crumbles? I just don't see why it follows logically. The best we might prove is that Yahweh represents a flawed view of a larger concept of deity.

Well, Christians teach that. Why not just say that the mythology of Yahweh only represents a fragment of deity that was fully revealed in the idea of a messianic Christ? As atheists we can spend all day disproving Yahweh, but isn't that missing the point of Christianity, Islam, Bahai, or Mormonism - the need for a new concept of deity?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Kopji

I dunno truethat. I find myself wanting to agree with you but can't get beyond thinking this is something of a strawman.

Yahweh is a more primitive notion of God, so if can disprove that, the larger idea of God crumbles? I just don't see why it follows logically. The best we might prove is that Yahweh represents a flawed view of a larger concept of deity.

Well, Christians teach that. Why not just say that the mythology of Yahweh only represents a fragment of deity that was fully revealed in the idea of a messianic Christ? As atheists we can spend all day disproving Yahweh, but isn't that missing the point of Christianity, Islam, Bahai, or Mormonism - the need for a new concept of deity?

I'm not saying that at all.

The new concept issue is also valid and an important point.

However laws enacted in this land are not as problematic if we are dealing with a vague Deist form of God.

Instead we are dealing with an archaic 2000 year old tradition that needs to be put to rest. Since many people are leaning away from these old fashioned religions, we live in a time where we could quickly move forward in eliminating Biblical religious influence.

For example there are many Christians that support Gay marriage. There are many Christians that hate the idea of churches etc.

The longer we take to out Yhwh and settle that mythology, the longer we will wait for progress.

Once JCI beliefs are toppled I think it will be easier for people to see the reality of God, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.