Claims and Stories

[Zzyzx]

.
Religions, perhaps all of the thousands of religions, make claims of knowledge about supernatural entities and events. Many (or most or all) also tell stories about their favorite gods.

When clerics / preachers / prophets / promoters repeat the claims and stories to the public, some will believe (take their word for it) " particularly if told to children or to people who are downtrodden for some reason or situation.

The claims and stories are repeated in frequent, often weekly, reinforcement meetings as well as study groups (organized to study the stories), retreats, summer camps, revivals, etc. Being told to a willing, receptive audience the reception is expected to be positive. People seem to enjoy telling each other stories and discussing commonly held beliefs.

When dissension arises concerning the claims and stories, groups simply split into two or more " telling different versions of the same things. Tens of thousands of Christian denominations are the result of such splitting. Over time the different versions result in VERY diverse teachings that still claim the umbrella of Christianity.

Religionists appear to believe the claims and stories (at least to some extent). They often attempt to convince others to join in the beliefs " either to convert from other factions / religions or to convert from non-belief.

Proselytizing (or spreading the word) may encounter strong opposition from people who base decisions on verifiable evidence. Response from religionists is often to double down and tell more stories and make more claims (and repeat) as though that would become convincing.

When Take my word for it (or his or this book), or threats and promises (for after you die), or emotional testimonials " religionists have nothing more to offer (and typically move on to softer targets / more receptive audience).

Question for debate: Why should anyone believe the claims and tales of any religion?

[bluegreenearth]

...
Didn't you just try to counter the claim -- with a comment about several Presbyterian denominations being one? ...

I think it is interesting, if location makes denomination. That would mean that also atheism has many denominations, as many as there is countries that have atheists. I think it is ridiculous, but if that is how people think, so be it.

Since atheism is not a worldview but simply a single position regarding a single claim about the existence of God, there could never be atheist denominations. Now, if you want to reference something like secular humanism, I'd be willing to consider where it might be possible to form different "denominations" from that worldview.

[benchwarmer]

...
If you think all Presbyterian churches are exactly the same, please provide some evidence of this rather than just assuming things.

Ok, I think that is too far off topic.

How is this off topic? You brought up the doubt about the number of denominations and when presented with information, you started assuming things which don't align with what's really going on.

I can agree that there is more than one denomination, the exact number doesnt really matter in this case.

Ok, but it seemed to matter to you not long ago. You didn't appear to think there were thousands of denominations and now that we have provided you with all kinds of info and ways to research it yourself now it doesn't matter?

It is interesting why there is so many denominations, when the teachings of Jesus are one. Christian meant originally a disciple of Jesus. If people are truly Christian, they should be loyal to Jesus and his teachings. Then there would be only one Christian group. But apparently many Christian really like more of their own doctrines than words of Jesus, which is quite sad ...

I totally agree with you and that was a point I previously made. The fact that there are thousands of disagreeing denominations should be a red flag for any believer. In other words, how do they KNOW they have chosen the correct one to follow? Why is it so easy for many, many well meaning Christians to fracture into so many groups when there is supposed to be a Holy Spirit guiding things?

If all these Christians can't even agree among themselves about their theology, how do they expect to convince the rest of us who are very aware of all these issues?

[bluegreenearth]

Why is it so easy for many, many well meaning Christians to fracture into so many groups when there is supposed to be a Holy Spirit guiding things?

Let's attempt to answer this question by pretending every Christian is genuinely being guided by the Holy Spirit as they claim. After all, from their Christian worldview, who are we to question the authenticity of their personal experiences with the Holy Spirit?

If every Christian's experience of the Holy Spirit is actually the work of God intervening in their freewill decision-making process in order to guide them towards a particular interpretation of the Scriptures, then God must have a logical reason for leading different Christians to different theologies. Because the Christian God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, dividing Christianity into multiple denominations as a consequence of the Holy Spirit's personal interventions must be part of his deliberate design and perfect plan for the good of humanity. Any perceived difficulties which seem to emerge from the existence of multiple competing Christian denominations must be the fault of man's sinful nature detracting from the actual benefits which are produced by this divinely diverse arrangement.

So, where is the good to be found here?

Since none of the competing Christian theological perspectives can be falsified on account of each being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, the various denominations must encourage their members to worship alongside those Christians who believe they have been led by the Holy Spirit to support different theological interpretations of the Scriptures. Logic dictates this must be God's intention or the Holy Spirit would have otherwise guided every Christian towards the exact same interpretation of the Scriptures. Furthermore, God most likely requires the different denominations to cooperate with and support each other despite their different theologies because this is the only way to achieve a harmonious outcome that is consistent with the omnibenevolent nature of the Christian God.

One way harmony can be achieved is by reminding Christians that God artfully created humanity to be diverse and has a customized plan for each unique individual. As such, the Holy Spirit is the tool God uses for guiding individual Christians to an interpretation of the scriptures that compels them to adopt a theological perspective which will best serve in maximizing each Christian's well-being. As long as all Christian beliefs align with the central message of Christianity, there is enough interpretive flexibility in the scriptures for God to accommodate the spiritual needs of a his diverse Christian community.

Of course, I have no justifiable reason to believe my analysis above is anything more than just make-believe. However, if Christians can make it work for themselves and become less dogmatic in their beliefs as a result, they can have it free of charge. They can even claim the perspective was provided by the Holy Spirit if they want. For all I know, maybe it was?

[1213]

How is this off topic? You brought up the doubt about the number of denominations and when presented with information, you started assuming things which don't align with what's really going on.

I hoped there would have been simple list of all the denominations. But for the actual topic in here it doesnt really matter are there 2 or more denominations. The point Zzyzx has, would be as valid even if only 2 denominations.

Ok, but it seemed to matter to you not long ago. You didn't appear to think there were thousands of denominations and now that we have provided you with all kinds of info and ways to research it yourself now it doesn't matter?

It doesnt matter for the original post of this debate.

I totally agree with you and that was a point I previously made. The fact that there are thousands of disagreeing denominations should be a red flag for any believer. In other words, how do they KNOW they have chosen the correct one to follow?

In this I think it would be good to first know what the real differences are. Obviously, if for example you would choose Presbyterian Church, you would pick one that is in your country, which would make it lot easier for you and apparently it would reduce significantly the real choices. But even after that there could be many choices.

One common thing of all them is that they pick some scriptures from the Bible and then form a religion around their favorite sentences. If you would really be interested on choosing, I think none of them is really good, because they are only part of the whole thing.

Bible tells that Christian means a disciple of Jesus. And a disciple of Jesus is a person who remains in the teachings of Jesus. None of the denominations seem to do that really. So, they are not really Christian. That would reduce your options to any of the pseudo Christian denomination that are basically equally bad, or to you could just be directly a disciple of Jesus, a real Christian, and live by his teachings that are in the Bible. No need for middlemen to mix straight words of Jesus.

Why is it so easy for many, many well meaning Christians to fracture into so many groups when there is supposed to be a Holy Spirit guiding things?

I think the big problem is that Christians are not faithful/loyal to Jesus. And the question is, why, why they want to be disciples of Jesus, but dont keep his words. And for that there can be many reasons. It can be easier to just take some parts of the teachings and reject those that one doesnt like. I dont think the problem is with Holy Spirit, when it is people who dont want to hear and receive what Jesus said. For some reason people seem to love more their own doctrines than Jesus words.

If all these Christians can't even agree among themselves about their theology, how do they expect to convince the rest of us who are very aware of all these issues?

I think nice thing is that the theology is what Jesus said, for disciples of Jesus. It is what it is. The problem is that people dont want to accept it wholly, which leads to denominations that pick just some parts of the whole matter for themselves. But it doesnt mean that it is somehow vague or changing or that there would be many versions. What the Bible tells is clear and there is the one message not many messages to choose.

So, actually they all have the same problem, how to convince others that the few scriptures they choose are correct and the rest of the Bible is invalid. And obviously there is no good reason why only part of the Bible is correct. This is why, if you would genuinely want to choose Christianity, I would recommend choosing to follow Jesus. Luther, Pope, or any other person is not Jesus and I think it would be wiser to follow Jesus rather than them.

[CalvinsBulldog]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Apologies for coming in late and turning the clock back. I've only just got here.

Religions, perhaps all of the thousands of religions, make claims of knowledge about supernatural entities and events. Many (or most or all) also tell stories about their favorite gods.

I wish atheists would at least make an effort to write without loaded terms like "favourite gods".

Yes, religions make knowledge claims. In common with virtually every single organised group of humankind. Including scientists, as it happens, who have made a great many knowledge claims over the past two-hundred years. Many of those claims have been shown to be demonstrably false.

When clerics / preachers / prophets / promoters repeat the claims and stories to the public, some will believe (take their word for it) " particularly if told to children or to people who are downtrodden for some reason or situation.

Sounds like the way climate change is taught.

The claims and stories are repeated in frequent, often weekly, reinforcement meetings as well as study groups (organized to study the stories), retreats, summer camps, revivals, etc. Being told to a willing, receptive audience the reception is expected to be positive. People seem to enjoy telling each other stories and discussing commonly held beliefs.

As if this is isolated only to religions. Political groups, scientific groups, social groups, interest groups, shooting clubs, and so on all get together on a schedule and plan activities together.

When dissension arises concerning the claims and stories, groups simply split into two or more " telling different versions of the same things. Tens of thousands of Christian denominations are the result of such splitting. Over time the different versions result in VERY diverse teachings that still claim the umbrella of Christianity.

This is a very simplistic argument. Even assuming there were tens of thousands of distinct Christian denominations, most of those denominations hold core beliefs in common. How many denominations deny that Christ rose from the dead? Practically nil. How many denominations deny that the Bible is authoritative, or that God exists, or that Jesus is the moral exemplar for humanity? Practically nil.

There is a high level of agreement between denominations, but even if there was not, I have never underestood why atheists with scientific pretentions think this is a bad thing. Science is advanced through conflict and debate. There are different schools of thought that often emerge from an originator (e.g. Freudian and Jungian schools). There are differences of emphasis, methodology, and approach within the scientific world, even though scientists generally agree on a core of common ideas.

Why should religion be any different? If anything, the process whereby denominations have disagreed, debated, split, divided should be regarded as a good thing, prevening too much groupthink, doctrine by fiat, or authoritarianism without argumentation.

Its funny how atheists like to criticise the church of the middle ages for being powerful and dominating, with dissent forbidden. It's the full atheistic fantasy of aggressive, stupid Christianity with Galileo as the poster boy. Yet, down the road, when denominations are exposed to forces other than raw authority where doctrines must compete or die, this is also seen to be a bad thing. Is suffocating orthodoxy a good thing? Or is diversity and contest a good thing? It is either one or the other. Not both. Whether you are talking about science or religion (or academia or politics).

Religionists appear to believe the claims and stories (at least to some extent). They often attempt to convince others to join in the beliefs " either to convert from other factions / religions or to convert from non-belief.

As if this does not happen with any belief system. For goodness sake, we've just had Extinction Rebellion protests around the world for the last week or so. All trying to convince people to agree with their story of an imminent fireball earth. More than a few atheists have preached on this forum trying to convince people to their viewpoint.

Proselytizing (or spreading the word) may encounter strong opposition from people who base decisions on verifiable evidence. Response from religionists is often to double down and tell more stories and make more claims (and repeat) as though that would become convincing.

Where are you getting this just-so story from? It ain't from history, that's for sure.

Persecution does not usually generate new revelation or fresh claims - otherwise, what's the point of the suffering? Persecution usually cements the conviction and dedication of believers to the message they believe is authentically from the source and not novel. For goodness sake, the Reformers (who lost their jobs, were exiled, nearly executed, and experienced savage persecution) cited extensively from the Church Fathers who lived and died 1200 years before them. Why? To show that their beliefs were not an innovation.

When Take my word for it (or his or this book), or threats and promises (for after you die), or emotional testimonials " religionists have nothing more to offer (and typically move on to softer targets / more receptive audience).

Ironic, since this entire fantasy is "take my word for it".

Question for debate: Why should anyone believe the claims and tales of any religion?

What a loaded question. Man, you can practically see the letters warping on the screen from the weight placed upon them.

What you have described in such an impartial and not-self-serving way or anything, is no different from the internally self-confirming processes that can occur within any closed group. Look it up. There's been some excellent work that shows that political groups on social media tend to radicalise their participants. It happens in groups that are not overtly religious, like political parties. I don't think the Soviet communists perpetuated themselves without following something similar to the trend you outlined here. It can happen in rather benign groups, too.

Finishing up with the statement, "Why should anyone believe" is just silly and is really borderline polemic. Tell you what. Let me fire off a post where I poison the well for a good several paragraphs with self-serving tales of murderous scientists, peer review failures, hoaxes like Piltdown that became orthodoxy, Adolf Eichmann, nuclear disasters, radiation sickness in Tokyo, internal divisions, vicious competition for government funding, and finish off by saying, "So why should anyone believe scientists..."

The rhetorical well is practically glowing green at this stage.

[Tcg]

I wish atheists would at least make an effort to write without loaded terms like "favourite gods".

That could be accomplished quite easily if theists stopped testifying of their "favourite gods." In fact, if theists abandoned their belief in gods, both terms, atheist and theist, would become meaningless.

Until then, "favourite gods" will remain meaningful in that theists will continue to brag about theirs.


Tcg

[CalvinsBulldog]

[Replying to post 26 by Tcg]

That could be accomplished quite easily if theists stopped testifying of their "favourite gods."

Monotheists only posit that there is one God. The term "favourite gods" does not even make an intellectually honest effort to represent the viewpoints of religionists fairly (other than Hindus and some Buddhists, but even they would probably object to having a "favourite god"). Heck, even if you disagree with theists, surely it is possible to summon up enough intellectually fortitude to at least represent their beliefs fairly. Otherwise you're knocking down fields of strawmen.

I don't know. Maybe in your world deliberately misrepresenting other people's beliefs in order to make a sarcastic point is morally acceptable. I find it distasteful and your defence of it speaks volumes.

In fact, if theists abandoned their belief in gods, both terms, atheist and theist, would become meaningless.

Have you opted to become the forum clown? I'm asking in all seriousness. The above statement is about as silly as your earlier insistence that expressing disinterest in something means that someone is actually interested in it.

Try this one: if atheists abandoned their disbelief and accepted the reality of God, then terms atheist and theist would become meaningless. If omnivorous humans abandoned their belief that eating meat is acceptable, then terms like vegetarian and vegan would become meaningless. If Republicans abandoned their ways and became Democrats, then terms like Republican and Democrat would become meaningless.

It's a monumental truism that if you eliminate categories of things, then terms to describe those things become redundant. But, of course we're dealing with the real world here. These categories exist, and the terms to describe them exist, and it behooves an intellectually honest person to use them accurately.

Until then, "favourite gods" will remain meaningful in that theists will continue to brag about theirs.

Then let's all say goodbye to proper handling of categories and categorical terms. Bye-bye categories. Bye-bye categorical terms...

So, essentially, you maintain it is OK to misrepresent people's beliefs because terms would not exist if certain categories just... disappeared?

[Zzyzx]

.

Monotheists only posit that there is one God.

Correction: Theists (mono and otherwise) posit thousands of gods worshiped, loved, feared, and fought over by humans. No one of them has been shown to be the one god (or God for those who have chosen a favorite).

The term "favourite gods" does not even make an intellectually honest effort to represent the viewpoints of religionists fairly

Intellectual honesty would recognize that if someone refers to a particular god, they ARE identifying their favorite among the thousands proposed.

No group of worshipers has a trademark or patent on god. Take a number and stand in line. Dont pretend to be anything special by virtue of which god you (generic term) worship.

[Tcg]

.
Correction: Theists (mono and otherwise) posit thousands of gods worshiped, loved, feared, and fought over by humans. No one of them has been shown to be the one god (or God for those who have chosen a favorite).

Godchecker.com is great resource for those looking for a favorite.

• Welcome to Godchecker
  We have more Gods than you can shake a stick at.
  
  Our legendary mythology encyclopedia now includes nearly four thousand weird and wonderful Gods, Supreme Beings, Demons, Spirits and Fabulous Beasts from all over the world. Explore ancient legends and folklore, and discover Gods of everything from Fertility to Fluff with Godchecker...
  
  https://www.godchecker.com/

It even includes this option:

• Yahweh
  Jewish God of Creation
  Also known as JAHWEH
  The one and only Lord God of the Old Testament...

Tcg

[CalvinsBulldog]

[Replying to post 28 by Zzyzx]

Correction: Theists (mono and otherwise) posit thousands of gods worshiped, loved, feared, and fought over by humans. No one of them has been shown to be the one god (or God for those who have chosen a favorite).

I referred to monotheists. Monotheists believe in one God. It's part of the term itself, dude. Mono = one. Are you seriously contesting this?

While the term theist is often applied to anyone who believes in one deity or more, you need to understand that monotheists are a HUGE subcategory of theists. In fact, the largest subcategory of theists. Most (if not all) of the theists on this forum would fall into this category as monotheists.

So why are you pretending that theists have "favourite gods" when that does not accurately or honestly represent the overwhelming majority of theists?

Intellectual honesty would recognize that if someone refers to a particular god, they ARE identifying their favorite among the thousands proposed.

That's not honest. That's actually dishonest. You are now apparently doubling-down on an irrational premise because you got caught with your pants around your ankles. Monotheists do not believe there are any other gods but one. How can you have a "favourite" from a collection that includes a single item for goodness sake?

I mean, if you own one car, say a BMW, do you say, "Of the BMW's I own, this one is my favourite!" Or if you have found a shiny silver dollar do you say, "Of the one shiny silver dollar I have in my collection, this one is my favourite?" That's pure silliness that doesn't even try to handle categories properly, much less words. You cannot have a "favourite" from a collection of one. Even a child knows that.

I don't believe in the reality of Thor, Odin, or Zeus. That's because I am a monotheist. I believe in one God. I deal with God - regardless of whether I "favour" him or not - because there is no other. And if you have done any amount of homework you should know that many people who believed in God did not necessarily love or like him. Martin Luther was angry with God and resented him prior to his reading of the Epistle to the Romans. C. S. Lewis described himself as "the most dejected convert in all of England" on the night he first prayed to God.

This is the fundamental problem with atheists like yourself: they are so busy bombastically pooh-poohing religionists that they do not see that the committed believer is in the same situation as the committed scientist. Just as a scientist must follow what he decides is evidence - what he sees down the microscope, for instance - whether he likes the evidence or not, so too does a believing religionist. A genuine believer must follow what he believes to be true, even if it leads him in directions he does not favour. Like worshipping a God he finds perplexing or even strange.

So even apart from the incoherent use of categories that posits the nonsense of having a "favourite god" in a collection of one, it is not even experientially true that monotheists (or even theists) necessarily like God. They are driven by what they believe to be true, and so they follow what they decide is evidence, even if they do not like it.

No group of worshipers has a trademark or patent on god. Take a number and stand in line. Dont pretend to be anything special by virtue of which god you (generic term) worship.

Ugh. This is childish. Indeed, I've never seen you write a line on this forum without going out of your way to be condescending like this.

Let me reiterate: if you want to be intellectually honest, then you need to fairly and accurately represent other people's beliefs. That's a no brainer. That's non-negotiable. Anyone who has a tuppenceworth of integrity would accept that.

The mark of a true intellectual is to be fair to one's opponents. We may not agree with someone, but an intelligent pereson is capable of at least presenting their views meaningfully and fairly so that they are not bulldozing a whole field of strawmen.

Saying that monotheists - the largest subcategory of theists by far - have "favourite gods" is just condescending agitprop. It's not intelligent and it's not accurate, and it does not meaningfully present the perspectives of theism.