All the different categories of atheism such as weak, strong, agnostic - has always been a little confusing to me. Hopefully H_Loves_C responds. That is if he is even subscribed to you and is aware of this post. I tried to message him but he only allows messages if you are on his friends list.

@LSP1 - 

He knows that I was looking over his posts; I plan on commenting on each of the pages regardless of whether or not he chooses to respond simply because I find their contents interesting.

Hey, you're back! I didn't know you'd come back.

@mr_jargon - 

Where would you recommend that I read a developed position on the "non-object" idea? I guess I'd like to know why exactly Zeus or a magical unicorn can't be non-objects? Are there not sophisticated pagan thinkers out there?

I'm trying very hard not to be perplexed by the "Israel misunderstood God" idea. I could have sworn communication was like way up there on the priority list for healthy relationships. I think it might actually be like number one. Is that just a "human opinion?" lol, sorry. Little things I might be able to understand as they might not be worth correcting...but genocide? Wow. That's way off the charts. It seems the passive conservative scholars are backing out of one problem and into another that's basically just as bad. Is this the Duddley Do-Right deity theory? Yikes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there are that many less excuses for divinely mandated genocide out there in the world...but it seems even the "hyperboyle" is a bit reckless given the wide audience who doesn't have the same ANE decoder ring you might have. I guess I'm skeptical because typically when these "get out of atheist arguments free" cards come through the pipeline, the details are avoided. If we laid out the "plot" of the OT in regards to how genocide factored in, it seems likely the "hyperboyle" theory wouldn't make a lot of sense across the board. I can understand pulling your (hormah?=total annihilation, right?) punch on a few random verses that merely overstate how bad Israel effed their Shiite up, but then there's such a variety of such things going on that seem to have integral effects such as that whole Psalm on lamenting about they "didn't really" dash babies against the rocks.

It just seems like something sentimental a theologian says and then no one looks up and everyone just assumes that covers it and then they feel free to avoid the OT the rest of the year. I could be wrong. Perhaps someone out there has taken the time to lay out a meaningful case in detail. I guess I'd have to go assemble a huge case to go over each item (and the context)one by one to see how far mere exaggeration gets a good God off the hook. I appreciate the cultural taste for hyperbole to an extent, but I don't have high hopes. I mean, in that other article you asked my opinion on, they basically disowned like 90% of what Israel did under God's apparent command as though God only had his pure and holy little toe in the OT. I don't know where you think this bit on genocide is really going or how that all works together. Have they finished that EO translation/patristic commentary on the OT yet? I'd like to get a copy.

These are just my initial impressions and the relative goal post for the apparent "excuse" to be viable from what some might consider a "realistic" perspective. That mega-post can wait for another day.

ARU

Where would you recommend that I read a developed position on the "non-object" idea? I guess I'd like to know why exactly Zeus or a magical unicorn can't be non-objects? Are there not sophisticated pagan thinkers out there?

I don't understand your question.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there are that many less excuses for divinely mandated genocide out there in the world...but it seems even the "hyperbole" is a bit reckless given the wide audience who doesn't have the same ANE decoder ring you might have.

Someone might hurt themselves because they take Jesus' command to amputate body parts that cause one to sin literally, but I do not believe that is the meaning of his words properly understood nor did his original audience understood him in that way. The Bible torn from its proper doctrinal context and ecclesial tradition can be an extremely dangerous book, and history has only vindicated this judgment.

ARU alluded to something like a detailed analysis of the violent strand of the OT and possible understandings of it.  It just so happens that Greg Boyd is doing something of a series on the very topic over at his blog, so if you want to take a look here is what he has done so far:

Divinely Inspired Infanticide and Genocide?
What's at stake in trying to explain the violent God of the Old Testament?
Violent strand of the Old Testament and our picture of God
Old Testament violence and Christian behavior Could the Old Testament warriors have been mistaken?
A defense of Eller's thesis
Critique of Eller's thesis
Craigie and the problem of war in the Old Testament
Revealing the horror of war: review of Craige part II

These are blog posts, so they are short and quite readable. 

I am not sure that H_Loves_C is really worth your time. He got irrationally upset at JB_fidei_defensor despite JB being an extremely thorough and thoughful interlocuter.  Just warning--I don't really see productivity in the conversation ahead. 

nice to see you posting again!

@H_loves_C - 

Questions: Can you prove that solipsism & blob theory are true-false with conclusive sensory evidence? Why affirm/reject their truth if their coherence, explanatory power and simplicity is equal to or greater than their alternatives? How do you know if any theoretical construct created to make sense of sensible appearance corresponds to reality without begging the question? How can one restrict knowledge to sensory appearances without blocking epistemic access to the truth of the theoretical-metaphyical principles that render them intelligible?

@H_loves_C - 

I neither need nor desire any of those things, but since the material on your site seems to presuppose that theist/religious=stupid and that anyone with a basic grasp of conceptual matters would accept your system of thinking, I thought I'd toss out a few questions in order to ascertain where exactly you're at.

..I told you ...

@StrokeofThought - 

It was fun while it lasted.  He certainly talked a big game over there; I'm sure I'll be able to find another dialogue partner.

@mr_jargon - 

My question seemed pretty straight forward, but perhaps only in my mind. I was wondering how you make a categorical distinction between Yahweh and Zeus as though the Bible or the Iliad really brings out all the fine philosophical nuances. If I were a sophisticated pagan, I might just steal the concept and slap it on Zeus or whatever supergod came before him.

@StrokeofThought - 

Thanks, dude. I'll have to check those out.

@mr_jargon - "Can you prove that solipsism & blob theory are true-false with conclusive sensory evidence? Why affirm/reject their truth if their coherence, explanatory power and simplicity is equal to or greater than their alternatives? How do you know if any theoretical construct created to make sense of sensible appearance corresponds to reality without begging the question? How can one restrict knowledge to sensory appearances without blocking epistemic access to the truth of the theoretical-metaphyical principles that render them intelligible?"

That befuddles more than anything else of this I'm trying to understand!!

That befuddles more than anything else of this I'm trying to understand!!

It could have probably been written more clearly. I was simultaneously attempting to ascertain his philosophical positions and setup an argument. I wrote a post breaking it down in simpler terms but it was deleted. I'll try to put something together in the near future to explain what I was attempting to get at in full.

@StrokeofThought - As usual, I'm the bad guy. Not that I care one bit what you think. But, mr_jargon, like I said on my entry, proceeded in a rather shady and reprehensible manner. But, I guess that's cool because you are in agreement with him that there is some magic man in the sky. Talk about bias and prejudice.

Not that I really care for an answer, either. But, mr_jargon's last few comments seem to be aiming at undermining the idea that ANYTHING can be known, period. That may be, but I have to wonder how a god fits there. If EVERYTHING is doubtful and shaky and uncertain, even science, then believing in a supernatural, completely undetectable (except via personal experience. - i.e. self-delusion), magical entity seems the absolute least  likely thing anyone would believe, ever, given that very same notion of doubting everything.  I'm not saying science is infallible, or that even ANY of its facts are set in stone and 100% factual (they are not), but, damn! A friend of mine recently said something that has become kind of a mantra for me. He said, and I paraphrase, "Science and any discipline that attempts to understand our world is NOT about having 100% certainty, or gathering unchangeable facts. That is unattainable. It is about at least making our best attempt at being less and less wrong as time goes by."  Isn't that beautiful? It made the hairs on my arm stand on end.

Have a good one.

@H_loves_C - 

But, mr_jargon's last few comments seem to be aiming at undermining the idea that ANYTHING can be known, period.

I asked for an account of what constitutes knowledge, what its necessary conditions are and what role sensation and rational judgment play in truth-acquisition. Also, the question of science's fallibility-infallibility is not yet relevant to this discussion. My claim was (1) that the necessarily theory-laden nature of "evidence" makes placing absolutely all stock on sensation self-destructive and (2) that many of our most fundamental, commonsense beliefs about the world, upon which science is built, conflict with the most consistent & logically possible application of Occam's Razor available. That is why philosophers of the Indian Buddhist tradition find many of our 'mundane givens' completely out of whack.

@Agnostics_R_Us - 

I was wondering how you make a categorical distinction between Yahweh and Zeus as though the Bible or the Iliad really brings out all the fine philosophical nuances. If I were a sophisticated pagan, I might just steal the concept and slap it on Zeus or whatever supergod came before him.

This was the primary point of contention in early ecclesiastical history (especially in the first and second centuries.) The Greek demythologization of Homer's tales was already well underway for quite some time before the Church came on the scene; the 'meaning' of the texts was reduced to the contents of the interpreter's speculative metaphysical framework, be it monistic or pluralistic.

It's obvious that Jews and Christians could not employ these dialectical tools on the Hebrew Scriptures, at least not without fixed boundaries, because the religions are based on historical events. However, both Jewish and Christian exegetes were aware of the fact a bare literalism applied to Scripture also led to absurd conclusions, and this is exactly what many elements of Mormon theology are.

On the basis of apostolic testimony, the Church engaged the Jewish Scriptures but within a predetermined doctrinal context that provided definitive answers only to some questions of meaning and methodology. The inseparability of text and community in former times virtually guaranteed that those intent on studying the divine texts held to contain divine symbols were also undergoing a process of instruction and spiritual formation.

In Acts 2, St. Peter makes the claim that certain events have 'fulfilled' a prophecy made in the book of Joel; now someone might assume this conclusion rests on a mere claim to authorial intent and that there exists some (self-evident) objective criteria for establishing it, but I do not believe that this is the case in this instance.

@mr_jargon - 

"Generally speaking, Christians (both Augustinian and non-Augustinian) would deny that God belongs in the category of contingently existing material objects (magic elves, unicorns, Zeus),"

If I'm missing the answer to my question that was perhaps off the mark, I apologize. To reformulate the question and use the rhetoric you used, "Why must Zeus (for instance) belong to the category of contingently existing material objects?" If I just don't get it, dude, I'm sorry. I don't understand why the history of interpretation (while interesting in and of itself) means much to what a neopagan might say today.

ARU

@Agnostics_R_Us - 

If I'm missing the answer to my question that was perhaps off the mark, I apologize.

No, I misinterpreted your question, and my answer had absolutely nothing to it; I'll leave it up for whoever is interested in that sort of thing.

To reformulate the question and use the rhetoric you used, "Why must Zeus (for instance) belong to the category of contingently existing material objects?"

The first and most obvious reason is that according to Homer's narrative Zeus had parents. He is extraordinary human figure who derives and depends on other pre-existent objects for his existence. I don't know how else to answer the question.

@mr_jargon - 

That's true about Zeus, and I think his lineage can be traced back to the 5th elemental "Chaos," but the moral of the story is "having parents" is certainly something that can be metaphorized away if it is perceived to come to inappropriate conclusions. Who knows how neopagans spin the motif today and how "literally" they take the Illiad as a divine textbook? And who knows, perhaps they're on the same page with Homer, but any sophisticated religious philosopher of today can claim 20/20 hindsight and get at some deeper meaning they've come up with themselves. We can move the goal post back to the appropriate member of the pantheon or we could even claim the entire pantheon is an extension of Chaos' non-objectness. We can ask lots of crazy questions about the divine dynamics of either paradigm and get equally speculative answers. I don't see how any of this is particularly helpful. I heard Peter Kreft blow off Greek mythology in a radio debate with Sam Harris by claiming we can just take a flashlight up Mt. Olympus and see if there are any gods up there. Which sophisticated religious thinkers are going to be claiming "not my religion" in that event? I'm all for hypothetical thinking that starts with any givens (just for fun), but inevitably you have to connect it to reality with some really good reasons or it was just a nice thought experiment. And in that regard any level of religious sophistication, it seems, is equally meaningless as it is with your brutish Bible thumbing fundamentalist.

As for me on this metaphysical playing field, I'm looking for something that is actually explaining something that needs explaining (is necessary), isn't utilizing unreliable methods (virtually all religious methodologies), embraces the findings of our best methods (science), continues them by extension (from the things we are most sure of), doesn't come back and create unnecessary problems in the ballpark of what we do know (like the problem of evil, for instance), is actually solving the problem(s) it purports to solve, isn't introducing new unresolvable problems on top of that, is discernibly simple and elegant in formulation (as in it isn't an arbitrary "42" kind of answer), properly justifies where and when we can stop asking questions (like, "well, why is that?"), and utilizes the fewest ad hoc assumptions to complete the general picture of "brute fact" reality. That's my "ultimate explanation" goal post run down (at least as much as I can brainstorm at the moment) and all the versions of theism that I know of fail on all counts (as I see it, at least). It is much easier to build from scratch a grand sketch that fits this criteria explicitly than it is to try to force fit the contents of our most influential religions (east or west), in my opinion. I would hope that this list would stand as is, but if not, each item can be unpacked and defended well enough. At least this can be the heads up on what I expect, from my perspective, in the long run and the "framework," if you will, on how I judge metaphysical claims. If we do not adopt it, or something very much like it, we are as a consequence in the proverbial free floating "la la land" where anything goes.

BTW, I really do love my "Mikitokos" picture. Thanks for being a sport and letting me use it. I even replaced all the greek/latin(?) characters with the appropriate Star Wars glyphs. Star Wars will always be in my "spiritual canon."

ARU

@Agnostics_R_Us - 

Many of the theological-exgetical moves I make with the OT were made by reputable Jewish interpreters and are in fact older than Christianity itself; so I see myself in this respect as following established precedent rather than creating some ad hoc solution to deal with an unexpected problem. I actually appreciate Sam Harris within the realm of cultural criticism, but not outside that sphere.

I really do love my "Mikitokos" picture. Thanks for being a sport and letting me use it.

I really don't like it, but I'm committed to maintaining intellectual open borders here and so if you want to identify yourself with a defaced Christian symbol for whatever reason, then I won't stop you.

PS: I'll dedicate a post to discussion of your methodology, should be interesting.

@mr_jargon - 

I don't know all the details as to how such an interpretation plays out, and I am a little skeptical, but merely having a precedence doesn't necessarily make it a "not ad hoc" one.

And I'll stop using the Miditokos pic, if that is your persistent interpretation.

ARU

@Agnostics_R_Us - 

merely having a precedence doesn't necessarily make it a "not ad hoc" one.

This is correct.

And I'll stop using the Miditokos pic, if that is your persistent interpretation.

Thanks. Of course, on your blog I cannot tell you how to arrange the furniture.