Quote from ddunbar:
As it says, many are called few are chosen.
Or...
Take the parable of the soils for instance. 4 seeds, only one went on to bear fruit.
Not saying Christians are to be "perfect." Just saying that the doctrines many blindly embrace are anything but Christian.
Except, for the parable to have a more accurate mathematical reflection, it would be something like 400 seeds, with only one bearing fruit... or some other shockingly lopsided number. If the holy ghost is a selective fellow, 25% of candidates seems reasonable; one quarter of one percent does not. (Unless you're a gnostic.)
I respect your measured responses to my occasionally acerbic jabs.
The problem with the typical defenses of religion, though, is that they are generally non-falsifiable.
That is to say, the old standbys can parry away virtually every case. No matter how much venality or banality or insanity is pointed out, it can all be written off somehow.
This isn't necessarily a problem for the person doing the explaining. But it is a problem for those doing the listening.
(And to be fair, the non-falsifiable dilemma is not restricted to religious debate.)
This is why I suggest that arguments should be vetted based on their quality, as well as their logical possibility. Plenty of idiotic things are conceivable. Plenty of loopy possibilities
might be true, but that doesn't mean they
are true.
We tend to forget about quality when we get into the minutia of what is conceivable and what isn't. For example, even if all the objections can be waved off, one could argue that God runs a pretty crappy railroad.
If you were the divine creator, and you elected to share your divine truth with men, would you be happy to see it hijacked by the likes of Benny Hinn and Pat Robertson? Would you stand by while idiots and fools disparaged your name at every turn, dragging it through the mud and worse?
Would you encourage the proliferation of awful sermons in your name? Would you happily accept praises and worship songs with all the tact and taste of a dayglo Elvis painting?
As for the book you delivered... would you write it in such a way as to deliberately sow confusion far and wide? Would you make everything about it as muddled as it can possibly be, so that every theological topic under the sun becomes a matter of heated debate?
Would you hold an irrational grudge against intelligent people... punishing them for the brains that you bestowed? Would you put easter eggs in the fossil record to intentionally throw them off track? Would you punish commitment to logical rigor with a one way ticket to hell?
Would you set up an eternal reward system that doesn't actually reward merit... but pays off cowardice and complacency all the time?
What about that SMITE key on your keyboard? Would you really never hit it with gusto? You wouldn't at least knock Benny Hinn's jet out of the sky as he flies it under your nose?
And what about the ridiculous inconsistency of miracles? On the one hand you can't let your power be known because that would ruin the test... but on the other hand you supposedly dole out miraculous happenings like crackerjacks, and the more fervent of your followers see iron-clad evidence of your existence every week. How does this all work?
Okay, enough of that. There is plenty more that can be said... the point is that, apart from what is conceivable and what can be waved away, there are real quality issues at stake.
Those who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster can wave away all the standard objections too. The Church of the FSM in fact argues that their views are just as believable, conceivable and legitimate as those of any other religion. And they have a point, do they not?