The problem is that monavis made a concrete statement, and thus is responsible for backing it up. We don’t have to prove that God influenced the writers; monavis has to show us the proof that God didn’t. Neither “proof” is meaningfully possible.
But it isn’t the totality of the evidence; it’s only a survey of recent centuries on one planet.
Look, I don’t believe in God. I think monavis is right: all holy books and sacred writings are of human origin, purely and solely. The evidence suggests this. But when monavis uses the word “proof” this is a bridge too far.
It is the same with you and me, It is more than evidence that you and I are writing on The Great Debates, we are human. I could say I was inspired by God to write this, some could believe it was God, but in truth God didn’t inspire me to write. Of course if Psalm 81 or 82 is correct than indeed anything written by a human could be inspired by God even bad literature. At least any Jewish person could be , because that would mean they are gods!
Some say Genesis was written by Moses. The other writers were human as well, No one denies that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Peter were human. The bishops that decided what was of God, and they were humans. That is proven. So it is just belief in their words that it came to them by a God. Why don’t they think that Muhammad ,who claimed to have an angel sent to him by God to write the Koran? Is that just evidence? Or was Muhammad not human?
When you use examples like fairies or unicorns there is clearly an implied “and that’s just ridiculous” smugness and mocking that goes witrh it. I suggest that any legitimate point is lost and overshadowed by that implication.
If people want to mock religion and belief that’s there privilage. If making a valid point is the goal there are better ways.
And I think the problem is that if any supernatural entity other than God was the claimed influence the question would never come up in the first place. If ghosts, pixies, faeries, etc. were the claimed influence I don’t think anyone would bother with this argument.
They are using a ridiculous argument, like ‘so many people believe in god, so it must be true’. In response comes an IPU-like argument to show how ridiculous the argument is.
I compare it to other current religions that they don’t believe in, or point out the different beliefs within Chsitianity. Since they believe thier own faith is valid, it creates a certain obligation to to give some level of respect to other religions that they think are wrong. Since they dismiss other religions and/or even other Christians, they can better understand how others view thier opinion about God.
FTR I think it’s important for believers to come to the understanding that their faith is really just a personal opinion. I think it’s important to clarify the lines between belief {opinion} and what the facts are. Often the issue at hand has to bo with the intangibles of morality, justice, equality, and it is there I think we need to work toward a common language of principles that hopefully doesn’t include mocking and smug superiority.
You’re incorrect. I get it, and don’t agree that it serves any useful purpose other than whatever venting benifit comes from mocking.
You’re using broad generalities that I rarely if ever hear in person to person discussions. However, if you want to point out to someone, and have them actually grasp the point, “a belief isn’t made true simply because it’s popular” you can say it directly without the implied “and you’re stupid for thinking that”
I think the point you’re missing is not that we’re just trying to mock them. The point is that there is JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE of the existence of unicorns or leprechauns or fairies as there is for their god. I can’t even think of a more on-point comparison to really demonstrate that fact.
I’m not missing anything. I understand the technical point. My question is who is you’re trying to communicate this point to, and do you sincerely want them to grasp it? If you do then there are more effective ways.
If you really can’t think of any then maybe it’s not me who’s missing the point.
What do you mean by “more effective”? Do you have some way of making them grasp the point that they have no more evidence for their beliefs than others have for their beliefs that works?
I believe I already mentioned one. IMO, it’s not an instant thing that happns in one conversation. MAking persistant solid reasonable points over a period of time can eventualy have an effect. I think if the overall public dialogue becomes less antagonistic it works better over time.
You don’t have to respect certain individual beliefs to offer repsect to the person as a fellow human and recognize thier right to hold those beliefs.
Ironically, this is a method often used in speareding the gospel. Someone plants a seed and then just lets it sit, waiting for another to nuture it. I think that holds true for ideas and gradually dispersing myths with the repitition of varifiable facts. Some of those myths are about non believers.
One essential foundation is recognizing that nobody really knows if God exists or not , or if some part of us continues on after our bodies fail. That being the case, simple belief or non belief seem to be on equal footing in that neither can demonstrate that thier personal belief is true.
I know a smidgen of history, and I don’t think Christianity was spread primarily by “planting seeds and letting them sit, waiting for others to nurture them”. It was a bit more intense and a lot more violent than that, making any perceived insult about being compared to the IPU look rather silly.
I’m speaking of modern day western Christianity. I assumed that’s what we were talking about. It’s a biblical reference often repeated in discussions about effective wtinessing.
And I’m talking about how Christianity got to be strong enough for this “seed” business to partially work in some places-by burning the seeds planted by others. It works once you get into a position of strength, but not so much otherwise, because if it did work from a position of weakness the major religions would lose the thin veneer of polite society and get back to business as it was in the bad old days. Atheists don’t have the advantage that most Christian sects do-an hour or so of unopposed indoctrination every week.
Wait a minute. How exactly did Christianty go from a relatively small regional belief to being so dominant. Didn’t they have to start from a position of weakness?
As far as what they would go back to, I refer you to the south park episode about two warring atheist groups. Humanity , whether believer or not, is capable of some horrendous things in the name of control and power.
Fortunately mankind in general has matured some and I think plenty of believers would rebel against those who promoted forced obedience or some kind of nationalized church.
I’ve been to a few churches myself and plenty of that hour of indoctrination is spent on teaching people to be kind and compassionette to others and to improve your personal chracter. It’s a long way from being always “we’re right and everyone else is wrong”