@LeeWoofenden "Faith" without good works is not faith. You are persistently showing that you just do not understand what Protestants actually believe and teach.

@LeeWoofenden Sorry for the delay. I was spending some time with the family. This sounds nice and all, but the fact is the risk is far too great. If the child continues to live, sure they might reach their potential and they might become a Christian. But 7/8th of the world is not Christian. The chances are very small.

Using words like "risk", even if it involves "eternal misery" instead of having your flesh burned forever and ever, is still infinitely terrible and something nobody should think "hopefully my child doesn't have to go through that even thought i could stop it right now".

If we have the means to insure the child will live in eternal bliss (and the only other choice is eternal misery or having flesh burned forever), and we refuse to give the child this gift, we are as horrible of a monster as what you call the Calvinist god. Jeremiah 9:24

@LeeWoofenden James and Paul are talking about two different episodes in Abraham's life. Paul is talking about Genesis 15, when Abraham trust God's promises to him, and it was credited to him as righteousness. James is talking about Genesis 22 when Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac justified him, by which I would take it to mean that his righteousness was demonstrated. Disagree with that if you want, but there's nothing in Genesis 15 about Abraham's faithfulness or obedience to God's law!

@anonymouswho So what's the alternative? You didn't answer me before. There is no way for a child to enter into heaven?

Or just that there is no hell?

@LeeWoofenden What is the "faithfulness in action" in Genesis 15:1-6?

@anonymouswho By that logic, we should kill all of our children now before they grow up. The risk of their becoming criminals or junkies or insane is just too great.

@curiousdannii "Faith alone" is not faith. By continuing to use that term, you show that you do not understand what the Bible actually believes and teaches.

@curiousdannii Genesis 15 is not an isolated story. It takes place within the flow of Abraham's life--a life in which Abraham faithfully did everything God asked him to do. In that very chapter, Abraham asks for assurance that what God is telling him is true. God tells him to do something, which he does, even though he doesn't understand why. And it is when Abraham does what God asks him to do that God is able to give him the assurance he desires.

@curiousdannii James also explicitly ties Genesis 15 to Genesis 22, when he quotes the same verse that Paul quotes, and says that Genesis 22 fulfills what was said in Genesis 15. The Bible is not a series if isolated incidents. It is a fabric of interwoven stories. You can't isolate one part of the Bible from another, and expect to understand it correctly.

@anonymouswho And once again, I reject the idea that only Christians can be saved--as does the Bible. See: Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven? And see also: Do Atheists Go to Heaven?

@anonymouswho If God and the afterlife were as Protestants, and especially Calvinists, describe them, then you would have an excellent point. But both God and the afterlife are very different than Protestants, and traditional Christians generally, believe.

@Joshua I don't know what you mean. No one is saying that faith doesn't matter at all.

@LeeWoofenden Yes, it was fulfilled, some 20 years later. The only command in Genesis 15:1-6 is to not fear.

@LeeWoofenden Abraham does obey God's instructions for the sacrifices and covenant which occur later in the chapter, but the belief and accounting of righteousness occur before that.

@curiousdannii You're ignoring the rest of the chapter, from verse 7 onward.

@curiousdannii And all of the rest of the things Abraham did in faithfulness to the Lord come before that. You can't isolate Genesis 15:1-6 from the entire rest of the Bible, nor can you isolate it from the rest of Abraham's life.

James makes it very clear that it was because Abraham acted that his faith--or better, faithfulness--was reckoned as righteousness. You can't isolate Genesis 15 and 22, and Romans 4, from James 2.

And as is characteristic of Abraham, we see him being faithful to God right in chapter 15. That was his character. And that's why his faithfulness was reckoned to him as righteousness.

You can't isolate Genesis 15:6 from the entire rest of Abraham's story, as if that verse just hangs there in its own separate world, apart from everything Abraham did and everything Abraham was.

You seem to want everything to be "alone," including particular verses in the Bible.

@LeeWoofenden I don't know what you mean. No one is saying that work doesn't matter at all.

@Joshua I truly don't know what you mean by what you were saying.

But I've gtg now.

@LeeWoofenden All I did was mirror your own statements from the opposite perspective. If you truly cannot understand it then this simply shows you are unable at this time to understand the opposing perspective on this topic. One could even say you don't even fully understand your own if you are not able to recognize its reversal.

@LeeWoofenden I'm not ignoring the rest of the chapter, I'm reading it as the sequence of events it describes

@Joshua What's your point? You talked about legalism, that faith doesn't matter at all . . . . I really have no idea what point you're trying to make.

@curiousdannii Then Genesis 15:6, too, has to be read in the sequence of that chapter and of the previous chapters, and of Abraham's life and character as a whole. You can't just read that one verse, and a few verses about it in Paul, and ignore everything else around it, and everything else said about it. Paul's statement also takes into account the context, and Abraham's character.

@anonymouswho These are the three from the New Testament. Gehannah (The place where they burned the bodies), Hades (The Greek underworld, in mythology, is an otherworld where souls go after death, and is the original Greek idea of afterlife.), and Tartaroō (The place of punishment)

And you are correct about the Eon. For the Goto goes to what is said. Lets call it partial predestination.

Perhaps you'll find interest in this translation of the first commandment.

"no don’t˙he was˙to your˙goes to˙others˙on˙surface" (Exodus 20:3 Decoded Mechanical)

@LeeWoofenden Are you talking about how he was to put laughter to death?

@LeeWoofenden You said "Antinomianism has dogged Protestantism from the very beginning precisely because you can't say a person is justified by faith alone without people hearing that as meaning that works don't matter at all." I turned it to try and offer some perspective. Which clearly is still pointless.

When one can't even recognize their own words perhaps they've spoken too much.

@Joshua My own words? I didn't say anything about legalism, or about faith not mattering at all. If you have a point, you're going to have to make it.

@Decrypted The account in Genesis 22, yes.

@LeeWoofenden Do you know about the two sets of laws?

"who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2Co 3:6 NASB)

@LeeWoofenden I'm not ignoring everything else. It should not be controversial to interpret that passage as indicating that Abram was considered righteous because of his trust in God's promises.

@curiousdannii The alternative is that there is no hell. I understand there are probably about a hundred verses going through your head that seem to say otherwise. However, once we come to realize that hell is so illogical, irrational, unscriptural, and evil, we are forced to bow before God with the utmost reverence, fear, joy, and love.

Not because some bible verse says we are supposed to, but because we know that He has deceived the entire world (just like He said He would do), and He is going to show the entire world that He is righteous, full of lovingkindness, and His mercy endures forever.

@LeeWoofenden Yes, although it's stupid (I can't think of a better term), by that logic we should kill all children immediately. It is absolutely the most merciful thing that we could do if we know that their death from this meaningless life will ensure them eternal bliss- especially since the alternative is eternal misery. When logic ends in something this stupid and terrible, then it's time to move on from this nonsense.

I read your article "Is there really a hell? What is it like?" Although interesting, I found it lacking in Scriptural support. I know everyone says that, but there is literally not a single verse quoted whatsoever. I also find it lacking in logic (although no where near the idea of baby flesh burning forever). You said men will continously succeed and fail over and over forever and ever? Does hell progessivly get worst as forever continues on?

Like is year one trillion any worst than year 850? What if two men come together and realize they can be even more selfish and successful if they work together? And then another man joins them. And by year 1,405,849 all men realize that if they work together, they can have all they desire? Or does God not allow them to learn from their mistakes? If this is so, how do they succeed again after they fail the first time?

If faith alone does save you.Why is Satan not saved?

What is faith alone?

Some fascinating research: pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050

Interesting stuff

@Aigle Read through these comments or anything written by a Christian. They will probably say things like "This is what the word of God says....", but instead of seeing "Romans" or "1 Corinthians", replace it with "Paul". The only time the word of God appears in Scripture is when the Hebrew says "thus says YHVH". Even the writers of Scripture talk about "the word of YHVH". Think about it.

Why would Yeshua come to reveal the word of God to us, if another was needed to reveal what Yeshua meant? Yeshua is quite capable of teaching us. Read Ezekiel 14, especially verse 9. And Deauteronomy 13. If you can accept it, even though you might not fully know what it means, stand back and marvel at what YHVH has done. Then ask Him, because His son promised He would answer all our questions.

What????

@Decrypted Yes. I refer to that passage to show that the apostles were aware that there is a spiritual meaning behind the literal meaning. Jesus taught his disciples the same thing in the story about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6:22-71, especially when he said to them:

> It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63)

To those who could think only materialistically, it sounded like cannibalism--and that scared them away. But to those who could think spiritually, it had a very different meaning. It is ironic that some branches of Christianity still think that he was speaking literally, and that the elements of the Eucharist become Christ's literal flesh and blood when they are blessed by the priest. The church still thinks materialistically.

For my take on John 6:22-71, see: Eat My Flesh, Drink My Blood.

@curiousdannii What's controversial is interpreting the passage as indicating that Abram was considered righteous because of his trust alone in God's promise. It's adding that "alone" that causes it to be non-biblical and false.

@anonymouswho Not every article on my blog is intended to establish the biblical basis of something. Establishing the biblical basis for just about any description of the afterlife would be very difficult, since the Bible really doesn't provide much in the way of description. The conclusions one draws will depend largely on whether one read's the Bible literalistically or reads it as having deeper, metaphorical and spiritual meaning.

That article is based on the latter. No literal hellfire. No literal worms. If you read the Bible's language about hell literally, then you get into all of the horrific stuff that you object to. And as you say, that is not something a merciful God would do.

@anonymouswho I'm not even talking about eternal hell. I'm saying that by your logic, we should kill all of our children immediately to ensure that they don't grow up to be criminals, druggies, or insane as adults in this world. And I don't think that would be a very good idea.

@anonymouswho But looking to the spiritual world, what I'm saying is that traditional conceptions of hell are wrong. Hell is not eternal misery. Yes, there is misery in hell. But that misery alternates with some pleasure at being able to do some of the evil things that the evil spirits in hell enjoy doing. What I'm saying is that some people freely choose hell because they enjoy it more than they enjoy heaven. And those people are the only ones who remain in hell.

@anonymouswho It's not that God doesn't allow them to learn from their mistakes. It's that they don't consider them to be mistakes. If they stab someone, they don't feel sorry about it afterwards. They wish they could have stabbed him a few more times. The people in hell have no conscience. They have destroyed their conscience. So they do not learn from their mistakes if by that you mean realizing that what they did was wrong, and no longer doing it for that reason.

What they do learn is that if they do something evil, they will inevitably feel the consequences, which will be pain and suffering for themselves. So over time they tend to gradually do less evil, or do it in a more moderated way, in order to avoid the punishment and pain that follows. So rather than getting more virulent, the devils in hell tend to get less virulent over time.

But they never entirely cease doing the sorts of evil things they love precisely because those are the things they love to do. Without doing them, they would have no pleasure in life whatsoever.

All of this is how God keeps the evil spirits in hell from falling into still worse evils. So no, they don't get worse. But they don't really get better either. They simply moderate their behavior over time in order to avoid the worst consequences. They are held in check only by fear of punishment. Not at the hands of God, but at the hands of their fellow evil spirits.

@anonymouswho As far as working together, the evil spirits in hell do band together to accomplish things they can't accomplish alone. But like bands of thieves, once they get their loot, or achieve the power they were seeking, they generally turn on one another, and their alliance falls apart. Nothing in hell is really stable. Alliances are temporary and ever-shifting.

@fredsbend Yes. Fascinating stuff. Looks like China is the biggest question mark.

@Aigle look at Genesis 49:27 "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil." Now compare to Philippians 3:4-6, where Paul is boasting about how he has more confidence in his flesh than other men, and that he is from the tribe of Benjamin.

At first, Saul set out to kill God's people. Afterwards, he spoke to God's people and divided them. There are over 10,000 denominations, and every one of them are arguing about Paul's letters. When they read something Yeshua says, they say "Yes, but the word of God also says blah blah blah whatever Paul said, so therefor Jesus really meant this". Why not say "Paul said this, but Yeshua said that, therefore Paul really meant this"?

For two reasons. One, it's impossible to reconcile Paul's word with Yeshua's, and two, men despise the word of God but they love all the Greek philosophical nonsense that Paul talks about.

@LeeWoofenden probably mostly due to the culture of lies and misinformation. The Chinese love to exaggerate everything.

@LeeWoofenden I don't follow. If we let a baby live, and they grow up to have a meaningless life, die and then rot in the ground...what makes them any different than anyone else living their meaningless lives? If God is in fact going to resurrect anyone to live forever, then He is going to resurrect everyone to live forever. Perhaps the sinners go to this place you describe, but eventually they will learn and they will return to YHVH.

Aionios does not mean "forever" or "everlasting". Surely you know this. That might mean that nobody will live forever, or it might mean believers live forever and unbelievers go to your 'succeed and fail' world, but after aionios (unto the ages), they will learn and be forgiven. "For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." Isaiah 57:16.

It's the fear of death that causes us to irrationally think that anyone is going to suffer any sort of misery or pain (whether constant or not) forever and ever. Because if aionios doesn't mean forever, then Jesus didn't promise you "everlasting life". But he did promise you aionios life, and this is one of the things he said about it "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it." Luke 17:33

Besides that, everything you wrote sounds like an awesome sci-fi story (which is a billion times better than the horror story of Christianity), but I see no Scriptural evidence for it.

@fredsbend Misinformation, yes, but also lack of information. Plus, we really don't know what's going to happen to China politically in the next four decades. I doubt they'll be able to sustain one-party rule that long. Not unless they want their economy to go backwards. And an awful lot of Chinese are starting to feel what it's like to have some measure of prosperity.

@anonymouswho I would suggest that that's because you're reading the scriptures through overly literalistic and materialistic eyes. Also, in OT times there was hardly even a conception of an afterlife at all, whereas in NT times the idea of the afterlife was still developing. Humanity was only just starting to rise up from the highly physical-minded era represented by most of the OT narrative.

God can reveal only so much to people whose minds are focused on the physical. Deeper things have to be cloaked in parable and metaphor.

Having said that, you are, of course, free to believe what you wish about the afterlife.

There are also gospel statements that suggest an eternal hell, such as:

> And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell, [Gehenna] where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched. (Mark 9:47-48, italics added)

@anonymouswho Not everyone who doesn't believe in an afterlife thinks this life is meaningless. For example, even today many religious Jews do not believe in an afterlife. They believe that this lifetime has meaning, and that we pass it on to our children and grandchildren as a legacy. And they believe that those whose lives are evil have brought curse, condemnation, and meaninglessness on themselves in this life.

In secular society there are also people who believe in survival of the fittest among humans as well as animals. They believe that the weak and unfit should be allowed to die, as they would in nature, in order to strengthen the human species as a whole. Granted, this is a small minority of the people. But from a purely material and biological perspective, it's hard to argue that they're wrong.

@fredsbend Wow, the overview is so long, and then I get to the bottom and see that there are 19 pages altogether. Yeah, no. :P (I know most of them would be tables of data.)

@Decrypted I'm not really sure what your translation means. Maybe if you could provide an interpretation. I might be missing something, but why do you translate elohim as "Go To"? Also, I don't believe in Tartarus. Why would the Israelite Apostle of the

Jewish Yeshua talk about a pagan place that the Titans went to? God has no need to use pagan philosophy or mythical stories to explain Himself.

@LeeWoofenden If I was looking at the bible through literalistic eyes, I would believe in an eternal torture chamber called Gehennah. If the Scriptures do not provide hardly a conception of the afterlife, then why should we concern ourselves with it? If Yeshua wrote about this life and what the son of man must experience now, then why do we even need to worry about what will happen after we die. We are given aionios life right now!

To worry about will happen after we die seems like the most miserable and meaningless thing of all. Once we drop the fear of death, we can fear YHVH- and that is the beginning of wisdom.

@El'endiaStarman I only read half of the overview, if it makes you feel better.

@fredsbend I read maybe 70%. :P

@anonymouswho I don't fear death. In fact, I look forward to it. But I've still got a lot of work to do here first. For my own attitude about death, you might be interested in "When Death is a Celebration," which I wrote not long after my parents died.

@anonymouswho But I do agree that the focus of the Bible is not on the afterlife, but on what we do here on earth. I view our time on earth as an internship preparing us for eternal life, very much the way out nine months in the womb is a time of development preparing us for life in the world.

The Bible doesn't focus on the afterlife, or provide any detailed description of it, because it's concerned with motivating and guiding us to do what we're meant to do with this life, which essentially is to make our choice between good and evil, and to develop into a mature, loving, thoughtful, and service-oriented human being.

@LeeWoofenden Make that our nine months in the womb . . . .

@El'endiaStarman I read the whole overview. Except the acknowledgments. ;-)

Obviously, it's a massive study.

And a fascinating one.

@fredsbend For one thing, it looks like the reports of religion's demise are much exaggerated. Atheism and agnosticism aren't set to take over any time soon.

@LeeWoofenden That's mostly due to them already having small numbers and having fewer children per couple, generally, than the religious. If you troll the "evangelical atheism" forums you'll find plenty of people noting that it is a losing battle as long as the religious keep having as many kids as they are having.

The report mentions India, for example, and they will remain roughly the same percentage Hindu. However, if quality of life increases, they'll probably start having less children, as is common when countries develop into prosperity as western countries did.

This would likely decrease the percentage of Hindus in India over the next 50 years, but I doubt the report makes this allowance, or even can. Who can tell if India will develop in that way? They may not at all.

@fredsbend Predicting the future is always a risky business.

@fredsbend Some variation of "be fruitful and multiply" is common in the various religions of humanity. So I don't think those religious folks are going to stop procreating any time soon.

Even having fewer children as prosperity rises still means having children.

@fredsbend Meanwhile, if those evangelical atheists want to keep up, they'd better get busy! ;-)

@LeeWoofenden Yes, that's true, but if you look into the issue, you'll see again and again, that as prosperity rises, children per woman decreases. Some have even suggested that the correlation is causative, where women once convinced of better lives ahead, see large numbers of children as a hindrance.

And they would probably be right. A family with two or three kids is probably a lot easier to care for than a family of six.

@LeeWoofenden The atheists will never attempt to "out-breed" the religious. Instead, they hope to use legislation mostly. Keep religion out of the schools, remove tax exemptions, etc.

I personally think that it could swing hard one way or the other, at least in the USA. The upcoming generation, millennials and younger, are increasingly disinterested in religion. However, in the USA's past, there's been this sort of odd pendulum with religious belief. They start to lose faith about every fourth generation, then come back hard with a "revival". We saw this with the first and second Great Awakening.

We also saw this partly just after WWII, but it was more about creating an identity that opposed communism, which was, at the time, inherently atheist.

That kind of thinking still persists today, somewhat, but typically only in people over 45 years old, in my experience.

Meanwhile, millennials seem far more capable of separating their religion and politics, as evidenced in their recent support for Bernie Sanders (largely socialist in his policies).

So where to atheists fit in? Currently, I think their hardest battle is nearly behind them: Convincing believers that they aren't evil, horrible people.

Sadly, I think it's mostly behind them because those who think that are dying off and the following generation doesn't believe that.

The next steps would be to keep pressing in legislation, especially in education. Neo-atheists' most common complaint, in my experience, is that children are "indoctrinated" and never truly allowed to grow up then decide for themselves.

@fredsbend Not necessarily sad. It commonly takes a new generation to adopt new perspectives.

For example, Dawkins in The God Delusion urged more than once that all atheists strongly oppose language and the perception that there is such a thing as "religious child". For example, is someone says "What a good Catholic boy", you are to immediately challenge the notion that the boy believes anything of his own reasoning and is actually indoctrinated by the beliefs of his parents.

@LeeWoofenden But things can quickly sway in one morning. For example, the stark difference in opinions on Islam pre- and post- 9/11.

@fredsbend So he would oppose calling any minor an atheist, also, because that is merely due to indoctrination by the beliefs of his or her parents?

@LeeWoofenden Yes, I believe so. He seemed to strongly favor that no child should have any religious training until they are older. He didn't specifically talk about this, but I would guess somewhere around 15 is fine.

@fredsbend Unrealistic. Besides, a lack of religious training is tantamount to training. Perhaps we shouldn't allow any scientific training before adulthood, either. Let 'em decide when they're adults.

Heck, let's just not train 'em at all.

I can see where he's coming from on one angle, but on another, I believe that people can be reasoned out of any indoctrination, though I must admit that it has been very hard in my experience.

@fredsbend People aren't actually reasoned out of beliefs. It's based on emotional considerations.

And that includes atheism.

@LeeWoofenden I see your point, but at the same time I know Dawkins would quickly point out the difference between the empirical data that supports science and the total lack of it that supports any given religious belief.

You weren't reasoned out of Christianity. You were angry and disappointed at God for not appearing to you, so you rejected him.

@LeeWoofenden Maybe, but I don't think that's universally true.

@LeeWoofenden Sort of. I personally think that I would have eventually turned anyway.

Might have taken a decade or two longer, but I think it would have eventually happened.

@fredsbend There is plenty of empirical data supporting religion. It's just that none of it is scientific data. All religion is based on experience, just as all science is based on experience. It's just a matter of what sort of experience you're willing to give credence to.

@fredsbend But it still wouldn't be because you'd been reasoned out of Christianity.

@LeeWoofenden Like I said, it's not my argument. But as far as public education goes, there's no way we can pick any religious studies over any others for our children without it being arbitrary in principle. There's no way to reason one religion as more true than another.

I personally believe that sometimes we don't ask the right question. "Is it true?" is perhaps not the right question.

I think that we should begin asking "Is it better for society if we were all X religion?"

@fredsbend One of my main objections to government schools is the lack of any spiritual component to the education. It lops the branches off the human psyche, and leaves only the trunk.

@fredsbend Well, if that were the question, then it would be best for 'em all to be Swedenborgian. :-)

@LeeWoofenden I favor broad-stroke religious studies, but in an academic sense, so they won't be praying, but they'll be reading many religious texts, the histories, doing exegesis, analysis, and comparing.

@LeeWoofenden Ha!

@fredsbend That would certainly be better than nothing. But religion is not properly an academic subject. It is best to learn about religion from the faithful, not from academics who regard it as a specimen.

@LeeWoofenden I think one of the largest problems with Christians in the USA is that they are utterly unaware of the vast differences in beliefs just in their own religion. You can see this evidenced in some of the questions we get sometimes.

@LeeWoofenden Dawkins would argue that it cannot be a proper subject at all. An argument I found provocative, but could not seem to get behind.

@fredsbend I actually did take a comparative religions class in my public high school. It covered everything except Christianity and Judaism. The town was a largely Jewish town, with a Christian minority.

@fredsbend Dawkins is a dogmatic atheist. What would you expect?

@LeeWoofenden Why did it avoid those? Our whole society is shaped around Christianity.

@fredsbend Because teaching about the local religions would be controversial, especially in a public school.

@LeeWoofenden I know people say that, but I don't really think so. Have you read any of his (religious) stuff?

Some public schools have also had a "Bible as literature" class. I don't know how common that is, though.

@fredsbend What religious stuff has Dawkins written?

@LeeWoofenden See, that's the controversy I'm talking about. It does seem like indoctrination to me if you won't even let your kids learn about other, varying beliefs. These are the people that believe "questions can be dangerous".

@LeeWoofenden His books that comment on religion. The God Delusion for example would be one. Not to be confused with his more scientific/Biology books, like The Selfish Gene.

@fredsbend Well, we learned about Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, and several other religions.

This is good to hear.

So apparently the people of that town, at any rate, weren't threatened by their teenagers learning about other religions.

I went to a charter school 7th and 8th grade, and a comparative religion class was required for 9th or 10th graders, I think. They studied the Five majors: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism. Unfortunately, I switched schools in 9th grade.

@fredsbend I haven't actually read any of Dawkins's books. Only excerpts here and there. Which I didn't find particularly enlightened, so it really didn't entice me to read his books.

Atheism is excellent for breaking down fundamentalist religion for people who think rationally. But fundamentalist religion is the bottom of the religious totem pole anyway, and deserves to be broken down.

The only reason I would read Dawkins's books is to find out what these new atheists find so compelling.

@LeeWoofenden I'm still wondering ...

@fredsbend Right. When scientists think they are qualified to analyze religion, they only show their lack of real understanding of the subject.

The few things of Dawkins that I've read, I've generally just thought he was rather ignorant about religion.

Personally, I leave science to the scientists. And I think scientists should leave religion to those who have made it their life work, just as scientists have made science their life work.

@LeeWoofenden Well, it's not that I think he doesn't understand religion enough, though it was lacking a bit. It's more that he seems to lack the hard analysis that is common in proper philosophical writings. He would gloss over things sometimes, leaving me with questions instead of answers. That strikes me as an amateur mistake, or at least a careless one.

Perhaps the issue is that he assumes too much of his audience sometimes.

You've got to put in your 10,000 hours no matter what the subject.

@fredsbend Well, the real problem is that he's a materialist. You can't take religion seriously if you don't think that its subject is real.

Plus, you need those 10,000 hours . . . .

You really can't become an expert on everything.

@LeeWoofenden Since you're bringing it up a second time, he challenged the notion that anybody can be proficient in "religion". Basically, he said "what, other than work in some educational institution, makes one a qualified religious practitioner?" Like I said, I thought it was a provocative challenge, but I feel like it's missing something.

If I tried to write a book about biology, I'd look like a fool.

@fredsbend I've spent a significant percentage of my waking hours for the last 40 years learning about my religion. And it has been my profession for the last twenty years. That means I've put in the time to become proficient at it.

@LeeWoofenden He often accuses people like you of the problem with Russel's Teapot.

Really, he just doesn't think religion is a valid subject because religion deals with God and spirit, which he doesn't believe exist.

Especially God, which is the core of religion.

@LeeWoofenden I don't think you've answered the question. I can put in my life's work to understanding anything, whether nonsense or not, but that doesn't legitimize me or the subject.

@fredsbend Russell's Teapot suffers from looking at things from a materialistic perspective. Those engaged in spirit aren't worried about scientific proof, or even of proof at all. It's irrelevant to religious inquiry and understanding.

@LeeWoofenden I know you apparently don't have this issue, but I cannot blame him for saying, "well why is god and everything he does so undetectable? It doesn't seem like a fair game."

@LeeWoofenden Dawkins clearly would disagree. And I do too.

@fredsbend If someone has spent a lifetime studying astrology, even though I think it's bunk, I would at least respect that they know the subject far better than I do. If I had a question about astrology, that's who I'd ask.

It is a problem, and it is distinctly a problem that theists should solve. Indeed, must solve if they posit to be intellectually honest people.

@fredsbend But what he's really asking is, "Why is God so scientifically undetectable." His assumption is that science is the proper avenue for gaining all legitimate knowledge.

@LeeWoofenden A question about the subject is far different than a question about how to practice the subject.

And priest, ministers, et. al claim to be experts in the practice of their religion.

@fredsbend I might want to know how astrology is practiced, even if I myself have no interest whatsoever in practicing it.

"But what on earth is that even based on?"

@fredsbend What problem are you talking about?

@LeeWoofenden That's no different that what we do here. That is still an academic question.

@LeeWoofenden Teapot

@fredsbend C.SE is not a religious site. I thought you knew that! :-P

@fredsbend No. It's a problem materialists think we should solve.

@LeeWoofenden Yes, but you aren't making your point.

But the very fact that they think it's a problem is why they are not religious, and won't be as long as they stick to that mindset.

If you want proof of God and spirit, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Especially if you require material, scientific proof.

@LeeWoofenden We are at an impasse, as we both already knew. I believe that things we cannot perceive are not worth our time. Until we can perceive them, they are nothing, literally. Nothing exists until we see it. This is a philosophy who's name escapes me at the moment.

Really, it's no skin off my back if materialists want to be materialists.

@fredsbend Do you mean perceive or see? The two are not the same.

I have no need to "prove" to materialists that there is a God.

@fredsbend Besides, plenty of people see God and see spiritual things. They just don't see them with their physical eyes.

@LeeWoofenden Most atheists would probably just accuse you of making a convenient theology. Ultimately, you're no different. To resolve the cognitive dissonance, you've simply decided that there's something called "spiritual realm" where all the stuff you believe that we cannot see is true. It's like walking through a wardrobe into Narnia.

However, if you don't believe there are any eyes other than our physical eyes, you won't accept anything they say they've seen with their spiritual eyes.

@fredsbend And why should I care what "most atheists" think?

@LeeWoofenden I certainly don't mean literally see.

@LeeWoofenden No one says you should care.

@fredsbend It's not as though there's some "default truth," and atheists have it.

The "default truth" is nothingness.

Their beliefs are beliefs just as everyone else's are. I see no particular reason why I should think they have any superior claim to the truth than anyone else.

If it's never been seen, it might as well never have existed, even if it does indeed exist.

@fredsbend All of existence says otherwise.

@LeeWoofenden I don't think you understand ...

@fredsbend According to religious people, God and spirit have been seen. It's just that materialists don't believe it.

To quote Swedenborg:

@LeeWoofenden We've been over what you believe here, and you already know that I think you are grossly mistaken.

> I realize that many people will say it is not possible for anyone to talk with spirits and angels while still living in the physical body. Some will say I am hallucinating, and some will say I am writing these things just to get a following. Others will make other objections. But none of this discourages me, because I have seen, I have heard, and I have felt. (Secrets of Heaven #68, italics added)

@fredsbend Sure. But that really only affects you. It doesn't affect me.

@LeeWoofenden When I was born, I knew nothing. I wasn't even conscious. Not until my first memory was I truly capably of deciding what is truth. And these memories became more and more. They compounded on each other. Through experience, I gathered in truth. I learned of gravity, long before I knew the word. I learned of anger and feelings, long before they were explained to me. And being able to compound my memories with others' leads to great discovery of truth.

The default state was nothingness. I might as well have not existed. It would have made no difference. But learning, the capacity to experience and remember it, makes me live. That makes me conscious. And it is through that were I can learn truth. Beyond that, if I never perceive it, it may as well have never existed, even if it does indeed exist.

@fredsbend You may not have consciously known anything before you were born. But your psyche was already being formed while you were still in utero. And your later ability to learn things consciously was being built while you were still unconscious.

That all presupposes something out there that was forming you so that you could become conscious and learn.

@LeeWoofenden I'm talking philosophically, not biologically.

@LeeWoofenden There is only one presupposition: that what I perceive is truly perceived.

@fredsbend But we are not philosophical beings. We are, at minimum, biological beings.

Seriously, Lee. I think you're being obtuse.

@fredsbend And I'm sure you're well aware that that presupposition can be and has been challenged.

@fredsbend Animals don't learn truth. Does that mean they're not alive, and don't exist?

@LeeWoofenden I perceived it. I experienced it. The supposition does not include that the items of the experience are real.

@fredsbend So a person who's clinically insane is just as reliable in his or her perceptions as a person who is normal and stable mentally?

@LeeWoofenden They do, but their own philosophical understanding of truth is at the default. There's some evidence that this is not true of some animals, but certainly is true for most.

What you're really arguing for is philosophical idealism, which doesn't require a material universe to exist at all.

@LeeWoofenden Again, obtuse.

And then what happens to all of Dawkins's certainty?

They know truth as they experience it. They are clearly experiencing something different than the rest of us, that's why we call them crazy.

@fredsbend Do we have any real basis for considering them crazy?

@fredsbend I don't think there's any evidence that any animals have any philosophical understanding at all. Perhaps a few of the most intelligent animals have a vague sense of self-awareness. But that's hard to assess, because we have to make them do human-like things in order for them to express it. And then we've influenced the experiment.

@LeeWoofenden Only in that they are dissonant. They don't match the majority of us. In fact, they usually don't match anybody else. Is it possible that they are the only person ever who's not crazy and the rest of us are perceiving a collective craziness? Yes, possible, and believable to the crazy person, but really not believable to the rest of us.

@fredsbend So everything is entirely relative? It sounds like you're saying there actually is no truth.

Truth is what the main body of humans considers to be truth.

@LeeWoofenden Yes, like I said evidence. Apes for example seem on par with four-year-olds, but at the same time seem to have no concept of self. They don't seem to use the word 'I' when they sign.

Ditto "normalcy."

@fredsbend So if they have no self-awareness, can they really be said to have any philosophical understanding, or even any conscious ability to think?

@LeeWoofenden No, truth certainly does exist, but all that matters to us is what we can perceive. There's no reason to believe what cannot be perceived.

They seem to operate entirely or almost entirely on instinct and on response to stimuli.

@LeeWoofenden I don't know. Maybe they have some, maybe they don't. I'm far more interested in human interests ...

@fredsbend But do you think we have the ability to accurately perceive what the truth is?

@LeeWoofenden That's not even important. Whether what we perceive is accurate or not is irrelevant to what we actually do perceive.

@fredsbend Lower animals, at any rate, seem to have no interest in anything other than their material environment, their social setting, and so on. They are primarily focused on eating, reproducing, and so on.

They don't seem to even have the capability of thinking about such things as God and spirit.

@fredsbend So if what we perceive is not at all what's out there, that simply doesn't matter?

The same can be said of children.

For me, my life began when I was about 2 or 3 years old, at the commitment of my first memory.

@fredsbend Yes. Children are still developing. We don't get our full human capabilities all at once. They take time to develop.

@fredsbend No, your conscious life began then. But you already had nine months in the womb and two or three years out of the womb in which you as an individual were developing. And everything that happened from 2 or 3 onward was built on the foundation of what happened before that, back to the moment of your conception.

You didn't just suddenly flash into existence at 2 or 3 years old.

And it was a valuable one. I hit my head really hard. I learned the truth that hitting your head creates a kind of experience that I find undesirable. Hence, my first step in understanding the truth of pain, dizziness, and eventually, head trauma and death via physical damage to the body.

@fredsbend Well, that explains a lot! :-P

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)

@LeeWoofenden I didn't say that. But as far as I'm concerned, I might as well have. The actual truth about me before that moment is largely irrelevant.

How it relates to people around me who were alive then is somewhat important, but not really, especially now that it's been decades since then.

@LeeWoofenden Again, I'm speaking philosophically. You're either missing this or thinking you'll prove some kind of point by focusing on the biology.

@fredsbend No, it's highly relevant. Because you were being formed physically and emotionally before you were formed intellectually. And your intellectual development was dependent upon that physical and emotional foundation.

I accept it as truth that I existed before that moment. The experiences of others leads me to believe that this is the only reasonable explanation of what was before my personal big bang (pun intended).

@fredsbend There is a common misconception that our intellect is independent of our emotions. It's simply not so.

Dawkins has emotional reasons for believing what he does, just like the rest of us.

And so do you.

@LeeWoofenden It's not a misconception that I have. But again, I'm not talking biologically. I accept currently biological understandings as truth, and further as truths that apply to me.

@fredsbend Your personal big bang was not when you became consciously aware, but when you were conceived.

@fredsbend Philosophy doesn't exist independently of biological reality.

Okay, I'm going to go now. You are either intentionally ignoring the philosophical aspect that I'm trying to discuss and share with you or you are totally missing it and I'm not in the mood to repeat myself a fourth time.

If, as materialists commonly believe, thinking takes place in the brain, and the brain is a biological entity, then philosophy is founded in and takes place in biological systems.

@fredsbend I'm reading what you're saying, but I don't really know what point you're trying to make.

You seem to be arguing that for all practical purposes, only what you perceive to be real is real. If so, that's a somewhat strange argument for an atheist to be making.