Atheist Frendly Q&A

If this is judged inappropriate for this thread, ignore it, but I do have an honest question about theism.First, a short background for the context of the question, and I ask for the reader's indulgence. I was raised in a Baptist home and went to a Baptist church as a child. I was fully indoctrinated. Sorry, but I can't think of a better word.Due to reading the Thor character from Marvel Comics, at about age 12 I got interested in mythology. I read Norse to start, soon branching out to Greek, Egyptian, and everything I could get my hands on. The thing that struck me was how all the stories were so similar, both among what I the different myths I had read and to the religion I was a member of.I read further, and the similarities kept adding up. I came to the conclusion that these stories were ones that people needed to hear, and they dressed them up with local flavor. Imagine my surprise when I discovered Joseph Campbell some time later.So, my question is this: since all the myths of the world tell fundamentally the same stories. What exactly leads one to the conclusion that one is the truth and all the others are not? What is it that makes one better then all the others when the same basic lessons are taught?My opinion is that it can only be that people embrace what they are raised to believe and never really question it. Is it something else? I really don't understand.

You are of course correct and your approach reasonable. One cannot possibly deny that.I can understand theists of your type, Jar. The ones that baffle me are the ones who do adamantly insist on one set of myths as true. It may just be simple ignorance. They may just be unaware of the facts about myth and it's worldwide commonalities, so their dogmatic approach is understandable.But there must be some who are, on at least some level, aware of the commonality of myth and the lessons it teaches yet still maintain belief in one system exclusively. I had hoped for a reply from a believer such as that.Still, thank you for your insightful reply.

An appeal to self defense as a rationale for an act of a god is inane. If your god exists and is as you think he is, it is impossible for him to engage in an act of self defense, since he can in no way be threatened. Yes, he really should, if he exists. Might you give some suggestion as to when he is going to start?

I was looking at the meaning of self defense. You, it seems, are not. Defending your child, while an essential act should the need arise and one that rightly rouses the most benevolent of people to unparralelled levels of ferocity, is not self defense.Self defense... defense of the self. A god, by your definition (which I must admit is inferred) is incapable of personal danger and so is inherently incapable of an act of self defense. Defense of others or property is not self defense.

Are we to understand that you are, at least to some extent, a believer in the Manichean heresy?The character "Satan" is powerful enough in his own right to actually threaten your god? Wouldn't that make "God" something less then omnipotent?The myth you quote is more one of putting down a rebellion so as to maintain control rather then an act of self defense. If Satan had confronted God with some weapon or capacity to injure or kill God and God did a number on his attacker, that would be self defense. Can you see the difference.SELF defense is the term. Not just defense.

Call it circular all you want. It isn't. You made a mistake and won't admit it. Also, I couldn't care less what your book of myth says. Hide behind it if you will.

Sorry. If you're going to make a positive assertion like that, I'm going to have to ask for some proof or ask you to withdraw it. Saying "I believe God exists" is one thing. This is another. That's interesting. Do you not believe in free will? So, the Lord works in mysterious ways, does he? That's neat and simple. Isn't it nice how that stops questions from being asked?

Yes, you were. The sort of attitude where one accepts things like "god works in mysterious ways" stops believers from asking questions of themselves and theior religious "leaders", not of self reflection directed at the sky.It's just on of many nice, easy "built ins" in Christianity to prevent questioning.

The arrogance of this is amazing. It's utterly astounding.We are incapable of understanding your half answers and deceptions because we are "foolish" and not of a sufficiently spiritual nature?Bullshit. You propose a viewpoint, others show problems with it, and it's not that you could be wrong, it must be a problem with the other person? No. You're just incapable of admitting an error, as others have commented and you have repeatedly shown. You say that now, of course. This is the kind of deception I was refferring to. Now that the paucity of reason in your position has been revealed, you say that you never meant to debate in the first place. Why did you post it here, then? You are only claiming this now as some sort of half-ass face saving maneuver.

The level that you choose to debate to is the level when your position is being revealed in it's weakness. Then you run, call it circular, or otherwise withdraw. It isn't that you never meant to debate, it's that you can't allow yourself to loose. This is just another example.What does John 3:16 mean to me? It is a poetic wording of the gift brought by Christ, which is the exact same gift brought by all the dying and resurrecting gods from Baldur on down. The knowledge that death is part of life and not to be feared. All myth does nothing more then teaching by metaphor what it means to be human and what it takes to be human. It is about making the vital transition in life to what has been called "oneness with the absolute", where one realizes that the divine lives in us all and is at once the most precious, common, and unrecognized of things. In other words, to die is to be human and there is no finer thing to be. The problem with literal belief such as yours is that it can often obscure the real value and meaning of myth.I suppose this will be a dead end, because you are incapable of questioning your literal belief and you will either declare this circular or foolish and run away. Life as a follower is very easy. Welcome to it.

You offer them up here at a debate forum and then don't want them questioned? Curious. I question mine all the time. That is how one grows. You should give it a try. Yes. Anytime you are confronted with something that casts doubt on your pedantic, literalist worldview and would cause a reasonable person to question themselves, you find some excuse to withdraw by... Yes. That's how. It really isn't.

And that is your problem. Belief in a thing without question is never good. Close-mindedness is not a virtue. The fact that you are so secure not asking why and simply following that you can only laugh at those who think, learn and question is very, very sad.

I have in all other instances of reprimand by the admins agreed with their estimation of my behavior. Additionally, Jar is one of the two theists on this board I deem reasonable (Phat is the other). In this case, I cannot.I was pointing out PG's refusal to discuss his beliefs when requested and that it is bad for an individual to fail to critically consider their beliefs. I stand by my position and reaffirm that it was something that needed to be said to PG. It was in no way an "ambush"Take what action you see fit, Oh Admins. I know this isn't my board.