Theists don't ask questions

[Blastcat]

Hi

I ask a lot of questions.. and SOMETIMES ( but not always ) get answers.

One of the reasons that I do ask a lot of questions, is that I don't actually learn anything new by proselytizing atheism. I do that a bit, of course, I think it's important that people get to know an atheist and what he thinks about the "big questions" and so on, but I am ALSO here to learn what OTHER people think.

So, the questions.

It just occurred to me that I RARELY get any questions from the theists.
Isn't that odd?

____________

Question for debate:

• 
  
  Why is it that theists don't seem very curious as to what outsiders to their beliefs think?
  
  

____________

[Aardvark]

[Replying to post 1 by Blastcat]
Why question the security of one's nest when one has
parents/guardians/teachers/elders/priests/...
to address such questions?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 96 by theophile]



[center]GOD, the incredibly crazy evil psychopath wants us to question him, go ahead, if you dare[/center]

Job 40:4- 5

Job faces God and admits to a LOT of ignorance.

Yes, he does. Job questioned God, so God turns the tables and questions him ("I will question you, and you will answer me...")

Right.


Job questioned God, and LOOK what happened to him, kiddies !!

And these are very obviously rhetorical questions, as Job can only say: "I don't know, so I won't pretend to know."

But there is a reason for God doing this.

Ok.. someone is going to tell me "the mind of God".
From my point of view, of course, god is insane. So, whatever reason he has would also be crazy.

Be patient with me here, as it's a little complex and requires the context of the rest of the book.

Take your time.
Use a lot of quotes.

Why don't we take a LOOK at this story?

Notably, we need to recognize that the book of Job is a consolation.

Hmmm I never thought of like that.
I thought it was "torture of a worshiper to prove a point to some minion of God".

Job is demonstrably and rightfully upset.

I agree.

He's been tortured, and I think some of family ( kids? ) were murdered.
And after all of that, Job seems rational, and still a good man.

God, crazy and evil.

He thinks himself nothing due to his treatment.

That's because God is crazy and evil, and Job is right and good.

He has lost faith in his status as a human being (he sits in the ashes / garbage heap and many times calls himself this, i.e. "dust and ashes" to use the biblical language for human insignificance).

That's what horrible torture does to a person.
It really does "break him down".

Fun story, isn't it?

The friends explicitly come to console him (and clearly fail as Job repeatedly attests).

AH.. there's the attempted consolation by his FRIENDS.
I guess some of his friends were angry, too.

His friends weren't crazy or evil. God, yes.

I think we can assume God comes to do the same, or at least see what happens if we read God in that light, i.e. as coming to console Job about "dust and ashes."

Well, go ahead and assume it if you like.
I'll go by what the story says, instead.

The god who just had Job tortured, humiliated, and had members of his family murdered, ( I think it was the kids? ) gives Job a long chastising speech.


This god is not only evil, but insanely evil.

So the question is, does God respond to Job's feeling of insignificance and need for consolation by blowing Job away, in what can only be described as a dick move and putting salt on the wound? Or, to my point, does God uplift Job, and truly demonstrate what we would all expect God to do and be?...

UPLIFT JOB?

You mean by way of torture?

God goes on and on and on rubbing it in ( AFTER ALL OF THAT TORTURE ) that Job doesn't know as much as God. Yeah.. that's not very "gracious". But coming from the person who is responsible for all of that horrible torture, it's not really surprising, either. In Job, we have a psychopathic and possibly quite psychotic God.

I think the whole point is.. "No matter what torture I put you through, what's real important here is that you love and obey me."

To me, that's disgusting.

My view: God uses a risky strategy. And it takes 2 speeches to pull it off (another famous question is why does God speak twice when, to your point, Job admits his smallness in 40:5? Is this a triple-dick move or, to my point, is something more going on?...)

If only I could read between the lines and know the mind of God. I can't even be BOTHERED to guess. I will leave that to the theologians.

This is the way that I see the Job story:

1. I consider it a myth.
2. I consider it a myth that is quite POSSIBLY used to challenge people to come up with ways to think about moral issues and the like. Or, to come up with SOMETHING clever.
3. So, people come up with LOTS of clever things.
4. The story itself is completely disgusting, and has an evil psycho god who cannot read minds, and who seems to need to prove something to someone by torturing a man he calls good.
5. One thing about this god, though, he insists on being worshiped, no matter what.
6. If I really wanted to, could I come up with great rationalizations and theories about this story? You BETCHA I could. Do I care?.. not too much, no. Do your care? I have to wonder about that. In this thread, if you haven't noticed, I ask if Christians have ANY curiosity about what outsiders to their faith think. But as you might have noticed, I do have a few ideas.. maybe I should write an essay about the Job story from my skeptical agnostic outsider's point of view. Maybe point out how the god in the story is very much like Jame Gumb, AKA "Buffalo Bill" in the Silence of the Lambs.
7. LOOK what happens when people question God, kiddies ! You don't want to end up like Job, do ya?

As God makes clear, in his first words, Job darkens God's plans for him.

God tortures the sad sack MERCILESSLY, ( pardon me.. he has his henchman take care of that ) and then accuses Job of darkening God's plan.

PSYCHO alert.
In the movies, we usually hear something like this:

DUM DUM DUMMMMMMMMM

Here comes Johnny the God!!!

Job's view of his status as a human being, i.e. that he is nothing and destined for the ash heap, is wrong.

Yeah, maybe Job was wrong about all of that horrible torture that was going on. God sure fooled HIM, right?

Good joke, God !!!

Keep people guessing, the ignorant fools !!


Torture or love, love or torture.. Love IS torture, one never KNOWS what God's gonna do, does one?

God tries to argue this to Job by demonstrating Job's ignorance on many other things divine.

Yup.

For some reason, after all of that horrible torture, God feels that it's a great time to remind Job that God knows more than Job does. Because, that might have been the POINT of all of that horrible torture. To prove that God knows more than Job.

Torture is a great way to get people to pay ATTENTION, don't you think?

In other words, God employs the risky strategy of consoling Job of his low opinion of himself by demonstrating his ignorance.

Yeah, because we all know that after being tortured, nothing consoles a person more than being told how ignorant he really is.

NO.

God is acting like an evil psycho.. The kinds we see in movies like "Silence of the lambs."


Evil, crazy, completely without remorse of empathy. This god is the worst case scenario from our worst nightmares.


RUN AND HIDE, CHILDREN !!!!
Here comes God.

Basically, "If you don't know these things Job, how could you possibly know that you are nothing in My eyes, and that your destiny is ashes?"...

Yeah, if Job was REALLY nothing in the eyes of the Lord, the Lord would NOT have had him tortured, nor have a lot of his family murdered. God cared a LITTLE, don't you think?

I also think that it would have been WAY WAY better for Job to not HAVE this monster care about him. I really do think that Job might not have really needed all that horrible torture.

NOR the "consolation" of being told how ignorant he is.

NOR the "consolation" from the GUY WHO HAD HIM TORTURED, which, all by itself IS another horrible torture.


This god is a disgusting moral monster.

( Which, I think, Christians worship )

So the first speech demonstrates Job's ignorance, but it also should serve to uplift Job if he can catch the drift of it.

WOW.. uplift Job.

No, I really can't see it that way, sorry.
I'm completely opposed to the use of torture for ANY reason.

You might say: "But what about terrorists?" ... ok, that's a little different. If we torture terrorists, its because WE CANNOT KNOW THEIR MINDS... and we need information TO SAVE MANY OTHER LIVES. God isn't restricted like that. If he wanted to know Job's mind, he could have simply READ his mind. ( unless you are saying that God can't really read minds )

God NEVER had to resort to torture at all.. IF God can read people's minds.

The god in Job is NOT OMNISCIENT, STUPID, EVIL, and quite possibly INSANE in the worst way imaginable. Christians worship this god.

God moves from talking about how the earth was created and stuff like that to the workings of animals -- even animals that Job has domesticated and knows the ways of.

God gives Job a boring speech. Now, he sounds like Trump.
It's written poetically, though.

Lots of people admire Job for the poetry.
The CONTENT, however is completely disgusting.

It's more like a horror story than anything else.
You know, like "The Silence of the lambs". Horror stories are so very popular, aren't they? Well, in this story, Job is getting tortured almost to death and has his family killed by an evil god who wants to have Job LOVE and OBEY him.

What a Nightmare on Elm street THAT is.

But clearly the first speech fails. It only, to your point, reconfirms Job's view of himself: that he is nothing. Dust and ashes. The risky strategy fails.

The god is an idiot or crazy if actual consolation was his intent.

No longer is God demonstrating Job's ignorance but rather he is comparing Job to magnificent creatures of dust and ashes: Behemoth and Leviathan. God does so, again, risking that Job will catch the drift and be uplifted by the comparison (versus feeling even smaller yet!). Key words make it clear that God's point is to uplift:

"Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you..."

These words put Job side by side with Behemoth (and Leviathan). Both creatures of God. Both made from dust. Both magnificent creatures that nobody can withstand.

Next time, please cite the passage, and mention where I can find the passage.

I am NOT a Bible scholar, my friend.

Where does it use the word : "Magnificent" to describe Job?
Could you quote where it says that?

A behemoth is big.. might be another monster.... God compares Job to a big monster?

(Note: With this Job gets it. See 42:6.

You won't find this in standard English translations, but a totally viable rendering of this highly ambiguous final speech from Job is essentially "I recant, and am consoled about dust and ashes..." Thus God succeeds, Job is consoled, and once again is standing tall and upright as a human being as he was in the beginning.)

Yeah, I get it that your translation isn't "standard":


Job 42:6 (KJ21)

6 Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.�

Job really really really gets it.
After all of what he went through, Job ABHORS himself.

Great job on Job, God.
Job will STILL do everything you say, even AFTER all of that horrible torture you put him through. Great "uplifting".

God is criminally INSANE...

All fits together perfectly. The moral of the story is that we should question God. That is what it means to be Israel ("wrestles with" God...).

I question "God's" sanity in this story. I wouldn't give a plug nickle for that this character says is true. I'd just want to get as far away as I could and hide in FEAR.

But since God can't seem to read my mind, I can always pretend if he catches up with me. THEN I'll pretend to love him VERY MUCH indeed.

Not going to mess with a monster like THAT.

Question a god like that? Are you KIDDING ME?

ANYTHING HE TELLS ME is GOLD, buddy... Even if he wants to TORTURE me, I have to say "I'm ok with that", because, as we all know, God can think up WORSE for me.

So, keep smiling at the monster like a good little boy and BEHAVE.

Now.. YOU go ask him questions. YOU first, ok?
I sure wont today.

[Aardvark]

[Replying to post 96 by theophile]

"Job is a consolation." - I agree.

"Life is suffering" =
'The First Noble Truth' of Buddha,
'Christ Crucified'
The hemlock of Socrates...

The consolation of knowing
one is not alone
is a mystic feeling
a "road less traveled" [M.Scott-Peck].

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 90 by Willum]

HectorB, you are applying an academic standard of "you can't prove a negative," to reality.
Of course you can prove a negative, you just can't do it academically.

How do you define proof? What would you consider to be academical?
You see if it's just a matter of getting the same results enough times on a test, then you open up the definition of proof which will not just benefit the scientific authority, but also the theistic. If you narrow the definition you can question either or any authority. But if you stand too alone with your "proof" you are likely to be labeled as delusional or worse as having mental illness Not that these labels might mean much in fact I can prove they are not always scientific, but I hope you get my point.

I don't want to argue about unicorns or winged dragons, the probability that they exist or that we find out they do in our life time is so small that it's not a very interesting argument. I think we best start at baby step, we have yet to prove its possible for humans to live on Mars for example

In the same way we can disprove God.

That makes no sense at all. Can you prove that there is no micro-organisms using the same methods as you can prove there are no blue humans?

There is nothing which suggest that there is any relation between God and Unicorns at all, so the comparison is ridiculous.

By that account I should be able to prove that the evolution theory has no merit simply by proving that devolution does, and that wont be hard.

God is perfect.
Even something perfect is not perfect from all perspectives, therefore God doesn't exist.

That's quite a presumptuous argument. Are you the authority on what is perfect and what isn't? How would you know the least bit about perfection?
For something to be something, it has to be so objectively. If it is just so subjectively then the idea only exist in the mind and not in reality.

Can you prove what perfection is objectively?

God is love.
Love is an emotion found in humanity. God is not inside people, therefore God don't exist.

Forgive me, but that one was even worse than the last. So because love is found in humans, it can not be found elsewhere? Well if that is so then its impossible for the evolution theory to be true. How do you draw these ridiculous conclusions?

What you state there is no better than me saying. If I have love or intelligence in me, then no one else can have love or intelligence? What!

If humans and animals can have love as a emotion why on earth would God not be able to? I am amazed this argument can make sense to you, you have seemed so intelligent in everything you have said up to this point, I am bewildered that this comes from you. How can this make sense to anyone?

God is all powerful.
If anything was all powerful, it must be able to do anything, therefore have infinite power. That means it must be more powerful than the Sun, for instance. We can see the Sun, we can't see God, therefore...

No no Willum...please stop these, what are you talking about?
What does seeing the sun have to do with ANYONE's power?
If God created the Sun and has power over it why would he not want the Sun to exist? We depend on it! Are you aware of how big the universe is? For it doesn't sound like it.

Can you really tell me that you could be convinced to be wrong, just by going to a place in the universe where you can not see the sun?

What you put up against each other here has no relation whatsoever.

I could make as much sense saying mosquito suck mans blood, man is bloodless and so mosquito is more powerful than man....

You get the idea.

Yeah I get the idea

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 100 by Zzyzx]

Again, my concern is that your are stereotyping apologists. Yes, there are plenty of unreflective ones who do just what you say. But there are also many fine reflective ones who are open to others. It just depends on the particular individual. Again, the same is true for atheists: There are many unreflective ones and then again there are many other reflective ones. That may not be obvious to some people because they bury themselves in their own world, go on what an acquaintance has said, or something they experienced in their upbringing, or what they found surfing the net, digging up random websites managed by self-styled, wholly unqualified apologists. However, if you and broader yourself, read what are sometimes called the "great books," the major thinkers, it is a wholly different story.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

Oops. Your post shows a major misconception of what an ad hominem argument is and also ends up a bit of an ad hominem argument itself. Ad hominem arguments are simply attacks on the character of one's opponents. I'm interested in qualifications, not character. However, if the subject matter under discussion is the individual's credibility or competence, then it is not an ad hominem argument to criticize his or her credentials and qualifications. Pragmatic decision-making demands we do the latter. Saying that you are going to see a real doctor rather than listen to your neighbor's opinion about your health condition is not at all an ad hominem attack on your neighbor; it is simply sound reasoning.

[Zzyzx]

.

Again, my concern is that your are stereotyping apologists.

Okay HH, I agree that post #100 appears that way (unintentionally). Let's add 'many' before Apologists in my statement post #100

Yes, there are plenty of unreflective ones who do just what you say. But there are also many fine reflective ones who are open to others.

It seems as though the unreflective outnumber reflective here in debate (estimating 10:1?) as well as here in the Bible Belt.

The 'unreflective' posts ARE the face of religion being presented here in large measure – with threads being viewed hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of times by readers who are likely forming or modifying their own theistic position.

Many posts, particularly the more fanatical, would seem to disgrace Christianity by insisting that ancient tales take precedence over modern knowledge (such as defending the geocentric solar system, worldwide flood accounting for sedimentary strata and petroleum deposits, the Earth stopping rotation for hours, etc – attempting to match biblical tales.

Those posts are challenged by Non-Theists – but very seldom by reflective Theists.

It just depends on the particular individual. Again, the same is true for atheists: There are many unreflective ones and then again there are many other reflective ones.

That is covered by addition of 'many' as mentioned above.

That may not be obvious to some people because they bury themselves in their own world, go on what an acquaintance has said, or something they experienced in their upbringing, or what they found surfing the net, digging up random websites managed by self-styled, wholly unqualified apologists.

What an apt description of the vast majority of posts presented by Apologists in these debates. There ARE notable exceptions – by what I refer to as 'Thinking Theists' – a rare-ish pleasure around here.

Someone long ago said, 'No more challenge than beating up your little sister'.

However, if you and broader yourself, read what are sometimes called the "great books," the major thinkers, it is a wholly different story.

Those great thinking authors don't debate here. We deal with what we have . . .

As you are aware, I encourage 'Reflective (or Thinking) Theists' to make strong posts and present a more balanced picture of Christianity (or whatever religion they represent).

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Yes, unfortunately that I appears to be the case here, along with the fact there is a great deal of unreflective atheism.

No, the great figures aren't around here. However, reading their works enormously helps you develop better insights and also debating tactics, by the way.

[Zzyzx]

.
Hi HH,

Yes, unfortunately that I appears to be the case here, along with the fact there is a great deal of unreflective atheism.

Perhaps great 'reflection' is not required by 'I don't believe god tales' – when promoters of religion cannot / will not / have not presented anything more substantial than unverifiable tales, testimonials, opinions, and conjectures (ancient or modern).

Religions in general (4000 worldwide) can present unverifiable tales, testimonials, opinions, and conjectures (ancient or modern). Why should one of them be any more, or less, convincing than others?

No, the great figures aren't around here. However, reading their works enormously helps you develop better insights and also debating tactics, by the way.

I, for one, do not rely on debate tactics and my 'insights' are largely 'home grown' though somewhat influenced by reading the works of 'great thinkers'.

Neither seem to have produced major disadvantages for me in debate.

I readily acknowledge that Apologists have the more difficult position to defend in these debates. I would not attempt to defend a position that relied upon taking someone's unverifiable word (such as Bible tales and personal testimonials about emotions and psychological episodes).

To date, no one has even attempted to dispute my theistic position (as stated in signature) with anything more than 'You'll be sorry after you die'.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to hoghead1]

Well, you certainly have raised some important points. However, I'd rather stick with the OP, which asks why theists aren't more curious about what outsiders think and why a particular group member is not getting asked enough questions. Again, my point is let's not stereotype theists. We are speaking only about the sample here. Out there, in the real world, there are plenty of reflective theists engaged in all kinds of of rich interfaith and interreligious dialogues. So I think some important qualifiers were missed in the OP.

In this forum, debating tactics are a major issue. Many don't know how to debate effectively, which is why a number are on the banned list. So I certainly would not underestimate studying debate strategies. I know that if I were the poster of the OP, I would be carefully reviewing my strategy to see what I could do to help draw in more theists to paying attention to me and asking me questions.

"Homespun" is OK for this forum, where things are kept low key, not real in-depth. But, believe me, if you want in the big time, to swim with the sharks, you'll need far more than "homespun."