With all due respect to Hobbes, man is a social creature. We tend to not like living lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. That’s why we look to construct governments and religions and other “common powers to keep people in awe” in the first place.
Clearly, I’m under some kind of divine curse
That’s been our experience with large societies. Does anyone know what the small isolated tribes in the Amazon have wrt laws/governments/religions? Would be interesting if they have all that but on a smaller scale than larger societies, vs a totally different approach
Or, there’s ten books in the room, all describing different types of people purportedly visiting the room in the past, and their stories are conflicting. And having no knowledge as to the provenance or veracity of these books, the two people start fervently believing the stories in different books from each other.
And one had a dream of being visited by a figure from one book, and the other had a dream of being visited by a figure from the other.
Fair enough. And would these be regarded as historical events?
Wouldn’t it make their marriage null and void if it was never consummated? And wouldn’t make Jesus the most famous bastard in history?
Passover is meant to be historical, although it probably isn’t.
Yes. Religious people often like to argue for a vague creator entity and then feel like once they’ve made a case for that, somehow they’ve made a case for their specific god. Like, essentially, “there’s an inherent beauty to nature, and there are things we don’t understand, and something had to create all of reality, therefore I believe there must be some sort of God out there”
And then they turn around and make this HUUUUUUUUUUGE leap, and say “therefore I believe God is named Todd, he sent his prophet Jimmy, here are his rules, he wants you to wear blue hats on Tuesday and green hats on Friday, no one will be allowed to touch tomatoes, and you must kill anyone who has funny ears”
The leap between “I don’t think there’s a god” and “I think there’s something out there we don’t understand that might be a god-like creature” is much smaller than “I think there’s something out there beyond our understanding, therefore I believe this religion with this specific belief about god” - the former is open minded and vague and based on philosophical reasoning about reality, the latter is specific and arbitrary and creates a detailed belief system based on no evidence at all.
But when arguing, religious people tend to treat these as the same thing. They think that if they can somehow argue for the vague there-must-be-something God, they somehow demonstrate their specific Oh I know all about this God he wants us to wear blue hats on Tuesday idea. I see this all the time in theological debates and somehow no one ever calls it out even though it’s this huge gaping hole in logic.
As much as Christmas is.
Heretic!! Green hats are for Tuesday, and Red hats are for Friday!
But which part of Scriptures drives their beliefs? I’ve seen theists both support and condemn SSM based on different sections of the Bible. Back before the Civil War churches both supported and condemned slavery based on the Bible. Cultural norms determine which sections count.
I’ve asked those who don’t believe in an inerrant Bible for a rational means of determining which sections to accept and which sections to consider either not the word of God or symbolic, and have never gotten a decent answer.
But they sure say their morals are based on Scripture.
That’s easy.
The ones they like are the word of God. The ones they don’t like are just symbolic.
Yes, they have a bible verse they can point to to justify their morals, no matter what they may be.
Ah, but they never say that. It’s more God meant these parts, but not those parts. And they have the only reliable version of the Bible with the parts that count highlighted by the Holy Highlighter which only they can see.
Yes, that sometimes happens. But it also sometimes happens that people say “I’m an atheist because I found this one specific teaching of the church I grew up in to be ridiculous.”
I suppose that maybe there’s someone out there like that, maybe. Eh, there’s a whole lot of non-believers out there, it’s probable you could nutpick one that matches your description.
Now, there are plenty of atheists who were first turned off of believing in a god because they grew up being taught ridiculous things by their church, but that’s not where it ended. It wasn’t “one specific teaching” and it’s not the only reason they are an atheist.
This is opposed to actual professions of faith, from both clergy and congregant, than they see evidence of the presence of god in trees or birds or rainbows. And not just any or a god, they see evidence for their god.
Your hypothetical atheist that was turned off by a specific teaching is outnumbered significantly by believers who not only claim to believe in a god, but a specific god with specific attributes and specific laws he wants us to follow.
I once heard it expressed as “to someone who thinks that elves cause rain, every time it rains is proof of elves”.
Or maybe the book is Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the worst one in the series
While there I’ve heard Jews debate whether a miracle actually took place on Hanukkah, the battle of the Macabees against the Assyrians is (so far as I know) universally regarded as a verifiable historical event.
ETA
Last time I checked, King Ahashveros was a verified historical figure. There is no proof of Queen Esther or Mordechai. But, historians generally think ‘So one of the Persian king’s wives was involved in a minor intrigue- sounds plausible’
Sometimes? The majority of professional Christian apologists, that I’m aware of, use that argument.
I’m really curious how your second sentence is in any way a response to that fact.