Best Answer Ever

[John Gauger]

This is quite possibly the best answer ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

It pretty well eviscerates Pascal's Wager. It's the usual criticism, I guess: the fact that we're talking about the Christian god is the sheerest accident, as Dawkins puts it. We don't seriously consider all of the extinct divinities in our masturbatory hypotheticals, so why should I be afraid the god that happens to dominate the land of my birth?

[A HERETIC I AM]

1. If you've never seen the whole thing, here's the entire hour and forty seven minute session...

of Dawkins at Randolph-Macon Womans College in Lynchburg, VA., in October of 2006. This lecture was heavily attended by students of nearby Liberty University, Jerry Falwells bullshit school. The student asking the question in your clip was most likely one of those students.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8033327978006186584&q=dawkins+at+liberty+university&ei=gPhmSLTPOJ2mrAK466TgDQ

Well worth the watch.

[hyphenate]

2. Amen!

And throw in an Hallelujah as well. :)

I think that's why I hate the fundies so much: their sheer hubris that their god is greater than all the others. Arthur C. Clarke (perhaps you've heard of him?) wrote a story called "The Nine Billion Names of God" in which the characters believe that once all the names of "God" have been discovered, that the universe will come to an end.

I know the story was based completely on earth, but it does give pause to wonder how many other intelligent beings across the whole universe have their own gods as well--I firmly believe we cannot possibly be alone among the stars--and how few of them might be carbon-based humanoids.

I doubt that we will know even the basic truth in my lifetime, but I am also firmly convinced that the more we know, the less the chances of a god even remotely similar to the Xian god will be. If people on the religious wrong could just give up their petty intolerances and embraced the diversity of our home planet, I think that's when our souls will finally begin to believe in the wonders they believe now belong to a "god."

[puerco-bellies]

3. I remember reading that story as a kid.

The last paragraph was one of the most memorable of any science fiction story I've read.

[ironbark]

4. It's a good answer to a poor question

“…the fact that we're talking about the Christian god is the sheerest accident, as Dawkins puts it. We don't seriously consider all of the extinct divinities in our masturbatory hypotheticals, so why should I be afraid the god that happens to dominate the land of my birth?”

1/ Why confine the discussion to the assumption “we're talking about the Christian god”?
1a/ Why assume the god of Christianity is not (as well as being the god of Judaism) also the god of Islam?
1b/ What happens when you continue this broadened investigation to include the possibility that the ‘People of the Book’ (Jadaism, Christianity, Islam) may extend further to include other major living religious traditions.? (The notion of ‘Progressive Revelation’)

“We don't seriously consider all of the extinct divinities….”

Well…I do…and hold the consideration of the “extinct divinities” to be essential to the process of investigation.
ie Why did the (often dominant and State sponsored) religions of the day fall to struggling, persecuted, rank outsiders like Christianity and Islam?
What (if anything) did the “extinct divinities”/religions have in common?
What did the surviving faiths have in common? (Looks to me that a core common factor is that they all shared strong emphasis on ‘The Golden Rule’).
Most importantly it needs be asked- What do the various religious traditions say (comparatively) about working out right/wrong/true/false in regard religions.

When asked by his twelve buddies (paraphrasing)- “Jerusalem is drowning in prophets…how the hell are we supposed to work out true prophets from false”? the criteria the carpenter gave was (paraphrasing)- “By their fruits shall ye know them…the tree that brings forth good fruit will endure…fruitless trees will be hewn down and cast on the fire (“extinct divinities”).

So….the NT criteria can be read as- 'If it has brought forth fruit and endured it is from God'………Which immediately confronts Christian cosmology with- Why then has God not hewn down Islam and cast it on the fire?

“….why should I be afraid the god that happens to dominate the land of my birth?”

You shouldn’t…shouldn’t “be afraid” and shouldn’t be confined to the exclusive consideration of just the dominant local religious paradigm.

Perhaps the student might have done better to ask- "Do you think that in a thousand years (or two or three) there will be schools, welfare services and hospitals funded by believers in the Jhu Jhu (?) god or the Great Spaghetti Monster" ?

[edhopper]

5. Actually,

what Christianity and Islam have in common that they became the religion of ruling powers and were spread at the point of the sword. Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire with Helen and Constantine. And though Islamic countries were more tolerant at times it was also a religion spread by conquerers.
The Mayans and Aztecs didn't convert due to the superiority of the philosophy of Christianity. They were subjugated.
Judaism is not an "inferior" religion to the other two, it just didn't have a state to force it on people.

[ironbark]

11. Ahhhhhh Yes………..” the point of the sword”

Nobody else was employing “point of the sword” at the time/s….all conquest was conducted by reason and debate….the Great Kahn ‘argued’ his way across the world and the world went pear shaped when Christianity and Islam introduced
” the point of the sword”.
Bastards.
They brought nothing but military conquest and death and destruction…no civilizing aspects whatsoever…no improvement and nothing that people wished to hold and preserve. Even when the territory was conquered and the sword put down the citizens clung to the imposed religion through fear the sword would be taken up again….didn’t they….?

This is the history of the Christian conquest of Europe and the Moslem conquest of the Middle East…all sword, all blood and guts, all fear and imposition and force and subjugation….isn’t it?

The Vikings?.......Got the shit kicked out of them by the savage Christians.
The Britons and Huns? Nancy boys who could not endure Christian ferocity.
The peaceful Bedouin tribes? The gentle Persians and the harmless Turks? All subjugated by the savage and ruthless Moslems who stormed in like no other and forced and held religious conversion at ” the point of the sword”.

Go anywhere in the Christian or Moslem world today and you can still see it in their eyes- held captive to religion by ” the point of the sword”.

“The Mayans and Aztecs” ? Oh yes……..that was a Christian Missionary expedition motivated only by the desire to free the indigenous inhabitants of the evils of possessing gold. It was prompted in and conducted by exclusively Christian principles by men thoroughly steeped in a Christian mindset. The Mayans and Astecs (being completly unfamiliar with warfare and conquest) didn't stand a chance against Bishop Cortez and his Ninja Monks.

And when the “point of sword” yoke of enforced Christian conversion slackened the indigenous peoples went straight back to crystal healing blood sacrifice…..cos it was better…more spiritual.

Nice doing history with you.

Oh....and thanks for pulling me up on "Judaism is not an "inferior" religion to the other two"
I can't imagine how I came up with that idea...but you put it in quotation marks so it must be mine and reflective of my stated pov.

[edhopper]

14. I was mainly replying to this line.

"Why did the (often dominant and State sponsored) religions of the day fall to struggling, persecuted, rank outsiders like Christianity and Islam?"

Christianity and Islam were not struggling persecuted, rank outsiders when they spread. They were the state religion spread by powerful, conquering states.
That is history, disregard all you want to and believe they are somehow simply superior, but I don't see the facts that way.
You really seriously don't think the Central American people were subjugated and forced into Christianity? Please read some history.
I bring up Judaism since it is still a small religion with no more than 15 million followers, under your criteria it must not have the philosophical strength to win converts.

[cosmik debris]

6. That's one theory. but not the only one.

You say, if I may paraphrase, religious competition is "survival of the fittest" or, in a market analogy, the best product corners the market.

A couple of problems with that theory are that a lot of people don't buy the best product on the market, and a lot of religions survive even though they are not fit (and vice versa--see Shakers).

So when I propose an alternate theory it must accommodate these problems.

And here is that theory:

People are gullible.

That theory passes the Occam's Razor test. It is more probable than your theory because it does account for the two problems I pointed out.

Remember, theories must account for ALL of the evidence. Yours doesn't. Mine does.

[ironbark]

8. Gullibility Theory?

One born every minute?
The Market is as full of ‘marks’ (as the Bible is “full of” injunctions to kill people ;-)?

Fascinating that the absence of faith in god is now extended to all humanity. ;-)

Your “paraphrasing” of the proposition put is at best assumption and at worst straw man…I said nothing about "survival of the fittest" (which implies strongest/fastest) but rather pointed out that the weakest and most vulnerable/threatened religions have often come to the fore.

“…in a market analogy, the best product corners the market.
A couple of problems with that theory are that a lot of people don't buy the best product on the market,…”

People do not always buy “the best product” because it is often too expensive/distant/unfamiliar and a cheaper brand is often more practical/serviceable.
But here (comparative religion) the question may have more to do with- “Is it a genuine (god made) product or a man fake”?

When a potential consumer enters the marketplace he is often well advised to do some research before buying or rejecting any product…ie the “Shakers” are a denomination or sect of Christianity, an off shoot of the Protestant branch. Christianity is a religion…the Shakers are not, they are a subset/sect of a religion.

Which raises the next consideration in your humble theory that claims to “account for ALL of the evidence” ;-) Religions may not only be organic and evolving (producing offshoot products- ‘Shakers’)…they may also be sequential and come with ‘Use By’ or ‘Best Before’ dates stamped on them. But having accounted for “ALL of the evidence” you already knew this and presented a Shaker cake baked with Christian flour (after Use By) as an unfit religion in and of itself.
Buyer beware…..check the label.
So much for your “two problems” and the blunt razor you purchased and applied.

The theory of Progressive Revelation takes into consideration that humanity (evolving in stages just as a child develops) would require guidance/instruction suitable to that particular stage.
Your theory that accounts for “for ALL of the evidence” is that “People are gullible”? (Always have been? Always will be?)
What a noble and incite full theory that is… it denies ANY evidence of humanities common sense capacity to recognise and preserve that which they find to be good, nutritious and fruitful. It omits any possibility of “Fooling some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time” and reduces all religion embracing humanity down to mere gullible ‘marks’.

Market research Cosmic…most people don’t buy Religious vehicles because they are the most fuel efficient transport from earth to god….most people buy the religion of their parents/community because it is near at hand, familiar, free and gives them a sense of belonging, unity, meaning and purpose. It feeds a hunger and makes them part of a narrative.

Like it or not the thousands of other market tested mechanisms (Philosophy, Political ideology, Scientific narrative and/or force of arms) have not proven as effective over the long term in unifying large groups of people and holding the market. People continue to use the religious product in large numbers.

Perhaps “People are gullible” will prove to be an attractive advertising catch phrase for a new unifying product/cosmology/narrative……but I doubt it.

[cosmik debris]

13. I can't keep up.

It is obvious that I did not understand your first theory. And now you have moved on the the "progressive revelation" theory.

I don't know where you are going next, but I'll let you get there by yourself.

[ironbark]

15. Can’t hack the pace?

Struggling to keep up?

Perhaps try reading what is/was actualy said-

“And now you have moved on the the "progressive revelation" theory.” Cosmic

The "progressive revelation" theory.” was right there in my first post (4#)-

“…the possibility that the ‘People of the Book’ (Jadaism, Christianity, Islam) may extend further to include other major living religious traditions.? (The notion of ‘Progressive Revelation’)”

It is the first and only theory I have put forward and all other points raised have been aspects of it.
I have not now “moved on” to it….it was and remains remains the only 'theory' I have put on the table.

“It is obvious that I did not understand your first theory”. Cosmic

And equally obvious you still do not understand it was the only theory put forward.
(Not as sophisticated and deep as “People are gullible” …..but hell, I was in a hurry ;-)

Now on the false assertion that I have shifted ground, “moved or” or will be “going next” to realms unknown you abandon the field and flee leaving my pov untouched and yours a tattered outcome of “obvious that I did not understand”

In the spirit of the board I wave you fond farewell….bask in the warm glow of the still smouldering proposition- “theories must account for ALL of the evidence” and will treasure always your premature and unwarrented “Yours doesn't. Mine does” victory dance ;-)

[cosmik debris]

16. To the best of my understanding

You still fail the Occam's razor test.

And the business of not understanding, well, that was just a self-effacing way of saying that you are not worth my time.

From my perspective, your whole argument starts with the notion that god is a proven fact and then tries to explain all the anomalies that your assumption creates.

But then, like I said, you are not worth my time.

[John Gauger]

18. He does, however,

pass the "batshit crazy" test.

[cosmik debris]

19. Yep, but I have heard it all before

It was dreadfully boring the first ten times, and it never gains credibility no matter how many times it is repeated.:boring: yawn.

[ironbark]

20. Standard atheist fare….ad hom no substance

“He does, however, pass the "batshit crazy" test.”

Ok….let’s apply the O razor to the "batshit crazy" test.” and cut to the substance/guts of the post your responding to-

Cosmic to me-
“your whole argument starts with the notion that god is a proven fact”

You wanna back that and deem me crazy?
My posts and propositions >at no point< contain/claim/state/suggest or infer that “god is a proven fact”.
My posts/arguments do not “start” with that notion, do not encompass that notion nor conclude with that notion.

The expression of the notion “god is a proven fact” is Cosmic’s and Cosmic’s alone. It stands as the most recent in a string of false/disingenuous straw man extraperlations that have already been met with the invitation to “try reading”.

So go for it….deem me as having failed the "batshit crazy" test” and do so justifiably just as soon as you/Cosmic/anybody can find the post/argument from me that states (or even infers) “that god is a proven fact”.

Until then the gallery may speculate about the intellectual integrity and sanity of those who are dogmatically certain there is no god at the same time reporting the existence of text (“god is a proven fact”) that cannot be seen/ found or evidenced.

[John Gauger]

21. No no no,

I said you pass the batshit crazy test. Passing it means you're batshit crazy.

[ironbark]

22. Yeah Yeah Yeah

I got it the first time….I’m batshit crazy….you can’t say how or why in relation to my pov but I’m batshit crazy.
I’m mortified.
Cut to the quick.
Devastated by the acid wit.
God it hurt.
“Ouch”.
Did I say ‘Ouch’ earlier?
I meant to.
I was stung to the core.

And to bitch slap me right into the ground Cosmic “Yawned” and tore apart my “notion that god is a proven fact” and you bore such eloquent witness to his insightful rebuttal of my batshit crazy proven fact of god.....I just shat myself in the face of such ferocious reason.


Dam you guys are tough…real intellectual and ethical tigers.

Did I say Ouch?

[cosmik debris]

25. But who cares.

You haven't brought anything new to the table, and your snark is not even mildly amusing.

[Random_Australian]

27. In complete honesty, I'm going to have to say that "people are gullible"

without a very good and precise definition of gullible, isn't a good hypothesis because it doesn't really confer much information; for instance, if one was asked to explain newtonian gravity in some detail, you could tell them quite a bit about what will happen if you are given an initial mass distribution.

However, "people are gullible" doesn't really tell me what will happen if I have a group with a given set of characteristic distributions.

I'd also say that literally saying 'survival of those who survive' will be true, but no more than that.

[John Gauger]

7. I don't think you understood the question.

The young lady asking the question was a student form Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. She was asking Dawkins to consider that he might burn in hell. And Dawkins told her why he isn't afraid of her god - he finds her god just as laughable as all the other gods throughout history. I have no idea what any of what you said has to do with that.

[ironbark]

9. That I understood the question

(and all you subsequently advise as to its origin and intent) is reflected in having deemed it “poor”, ignored its narrow intent, and sought to broaden the parameters of consideration.

That you did not understand broader parameters of consideration is reflected in “no idea what any of what you said has to do with that”.
I was responding to Dawkins answer and the OP commentary not the girls question.

[John Gauger]

10. I still have no idea what you are talking about.

Are you asking me to consider the existence of Islam's god, or Hinduism's, or the existence of the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea? If you really are seriously entertaining the possibility of the existence of the Great Juju at the bottom the sea, then there really isn't anything else that I can say to you. Those beliefs are laughably absurd. I don't waste my time debating or debunking ideas that don't pass the laugh test.

[ironbark]

12. no

[John Gauger]

17. Well, since you aren't willing to explain your ideas

it is evident that you don't think your opinion is important. I must agree.

[ironbark]

23. Ok…What (specifically) requires further explanation?

The notion/theory of Progressive Revelation?

A Google will bring up an overview from various sources- UU, Christian, Hindu, Baha’i....or a personal elaboration of the proposition.

Further validation of the examination of “extinct divinities” (failed religions) in comparison to living religious traditions?
Need an overview of basic Comparative Religion practice?

You nominate/specify and I’ll answer, I’ll elaborate and I’ll explain my pov.

I’ll even do so when it comes back bastardized and falsified as “god is a proven fact” or some other straw man speculation about “seriously entertaining the possibility of the existence of the Great Juju at the bottom the sea”.
I’ll even do so when all the respondent has got to offer is a “yawn” or lame “batshit crazy” ad hom.



Your ball.

[uberllama42]

24. I'm familar with the notion of Progressive Revelation

I've never discussed it with an adherent of Baha'i, so maybe my understanding is shallow. But I have always wondered why, if each prophet is delivering a piece of God's truth, why does that truth so often include a compulsion to do violence on God's other children, that is, adherents of previous revelations?

If Moses was a Manifestation and an advance toward a more perfect truth, why would he advocate war against others, who presumably had a lower order of the same truth in the form of their Babylonian deities? If all the world's religions were part of the same religion, why is there not more harmony between the different groups? Specifically, shouldn't other religions be universally considered "Peoples of the Book"? Shouldn't we see at least a little bit more lip service about treating non-believers with respect?

If religion is seen as a natural phenomenon (that is, no supernatural agents are at work), there is at least one solid possible explanation of this. Sticking with the example of Moses, he was the leader of a vulnerable group of people in a hostile world, and the claim that they were the Chosen People and that God was looking out for them was a defense mechanism. Even better (i.e. more plausible), Moses might be a later invention intended to promote unity and nationalism in Hebrew society. His story helped that nation through various ordeals, promoting cohesion and stability. Memetically, that idea has an advantage over competitor memes. It is more likely to be replicated in the population that devised it, and that group is more likely to remain intact due to the meme's presence.

None of that posits or relies on the existence of God, which is an advantage over the Progressive Revelation hypothesis. Note that I am not saying you personally are assuming that God exists. But Progressive Revelation does posit a God, which makes it less parsimonious than my amateur explanation of the origins of Judaism. I think mine is better, rough as it is. YMMV.

[ironbark]

26. Progressive Revelation........

“…I have always wondered why, if each prophet is delivering a piece of God's truth, why does that truth so often include a compulsion to do violence on God's other children, that is, adherents of previous revelations?”

As far as I can see there is nothing in any of the scriptures of the worlds major living religious traditions that recommends or encourages violence towards “adherents of previous revelations”. On the contrary the entire scriptural thrust is towards tolerance and respect and the edict/law “thou shalt not kill”. The only scriptural exceptions I am aware of are Old Testament edicts against particular peoples/nations….but there is no teaching, no scriptural “compulsion to do violence” within any major faith against another.

There may well be an innate ‘human’ (or animal nature) “compulsion to do violence” but as far as I can see the scriptures of all faiths centre on curbing that inclination. That said….I have no hesitation in ceding that the churches and adherents of various faiths have used and abused religion to perform profound violence without any scriptural foundation for doing so .

“If Moses was a Manifestation and an advance toward a more perfect truth, why would he advocate war against others, who presumably had a lower order of the same truth in the form of their Babylonian deities?”

As I understand the Progressive Revelation pov the growth of humanity is comparable to the stages of development of a child and the god/parental rules/laws change in accord with the ‘age’. Chaotic Antisocial Babylonian toddlers
who worship golden calves and stick knives in toasters get smacked for doing so.
Subsequent age appropriate Christianity and Islam supersede prior social injunctions and become increasingly tolerant.


“If all the world's religions were part of the same religion, why is there not more harmony between the different groups?”

From the Baha’is and others I have spoken to >that< (harmony) is what this post adolescent age of humanity is supposed to be about….the recognition that all the major living religions are ‘One Faith’ and all the world ‘One People’.
I first encountered the Baha’is when working with refugees. At the time I was reading about William Miller (Millerites-Adventists) and Millers expectation that Christ would return in 1844- the year they called ‘The Great Disappointment’ because nobody floated down on a cloud.
Then I run into the Baha’is who claim the Messianic return predicted in (and common to) all major faiths was fulfilled in 1844.

What I find to be most entertaining/perplexing is that the Evangelicals (with roots in Adventism) have the Baha’is in the cross hairs as the Antichrist…and the Baha’is (the newest major faith) advocate that “If religion is not a source of harmony and unity it is best abandoned).
We may ‘live in interesting times’ ;-)


“Specifically, shouldn't other religions be universally considered "Peoples of the Book"?

The Progressive Revelation theory is that the major living religions are indeed all
"Peoples of the Book"-There is the global indigenous/animist religious bedrock then successively- Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian (sequence?), Judaism, Christianity, Islam, (Baha’i/other?). Confucius is deemed a ‘moral philosopher’ and not a recipient of a revelation and Shinto is an extension of animist tradition.
All the myriad other Zeus’s, Apollo’s, Thor’s, Mithra’s are deemed man made and consequently dead faiths (no significant following). All the contemporary Bagwans and Si Baba’s are predicted to follow suit.

“Moses might be a later invention….”

He could be…I have difficulty with historical claims regarding the Christian period let alone anything that preceded it so I tend to be less interested in the OT and older faiths whose scripture and history are obscured by time.


“None of that posits or relies on the existence of God, which is an advantage over the Progressive Revelation hypothesis.”

LOL ;-) I think I’ll pass that one on to the next Baha’i I encounter- “The problem with the Progressive Revelation hypothesis is that it has a god revealing stuff progressively”
;-)

“Note that I am not saying you personally are assuming that God exists”.

Thank you….sincerely……I believe that’s a first.
Evoke the fruits of Islam around here and you’re a Moslem, raise Progressive Revelation and your deemed to have presented the “notion that god is a proven fact”.
Your disinclination towards assumption based misrepresentation is much appreciated.

“But Progressive Revelation does posit a God….”

Yup…it does….and raises some questions/issues that I find both interesting and perplexing….not the least of which is the ‘stepping stone’ aspect of the worlds major faiths ie- Each major faith isolated in time, never a Jesus and Mohammed as contemporaries, not even over a ten thousand year period of recorded history.
It strikes me as a suspicious anomaly that is not reflected in other realms of human endeavour.

Thanks for responding to the issue/pov raised.

[uberllama42]

28. Thanks for the info

That's interesting. I should read up on that a little more.