I don't understand how wanting to talk about any of that would be best initiated by a poll.

As far as I’m concerned you may as well ask the same question about Winnie The Pooh. That is not to belittle the message only to make the content accessible rather than taken as a literal interpretation of some ‘other’ figure. Winnie The Pooh has a relevant message and The Bible contains many relevant messages.

Personally I find many arguments from atheists about literal interpretations to be just as ridiculous as believers who claim the existence of this undoubtedly abstract idea which is ‘felt’ in human existence to some degree or another.

Mythological stories are powerful because they rely on the listener for their interpretation. The art of interpretation is something people should attempt to hone when listening knowing they are prone to misrepresenting and misunderstanding in equal measure.

Oh, , voting definitely not mandatory.
It's just running an argument about proselytizers/indoctrinators.

, story-telling is great.
This is more about the proselytizers/indoctrinators out there.
I guess it's implicit in the argument.

You're invited to argue pro et contra.

This is more about the proselytizers/indoctrinators out there. — jorndoe

Out there, not on this forum. No preaching allowed here. So this is kind of a one-sided argument and will remain so. I’d also say ‘Yahwah thumpers’ is a less than respectful manner to address anyone. There are levels of belief and many religious types don’t take a dogmatic approach - those that do take a dogmatic approach are usually beyond the limits of this forum and its rules of exchange.

I can only suggest you offer up your own view on this matter (the opening post) and then see if thre is anything to discuss. Otherwise I fear this will stop before it gets started.

thumpers’ is a less than respectful manner — I like sushi

Removed.

I can only suggest you offer up your own view — I like sushi

No. Nothing here is about me. It's about the argument in the opening post. Could in principle have been posted by anyone. Poster irrelevant to post. (As an aside, I typically don't vote on a poll I've posted, this one included.)

Consider it an intellectual exercise if you will. (y)

There is an unaccounted-for option, albeit uncommon

I can’t make head nor tail of this. If you cannot offer your own response, as example, to the ‘questions’ (whatever they are?) then I’ve nothing more to offer.

I can’t make head nor tail of this — I like sushi

Hm it's simple enough, isn't it?

• the Biblical Yahweh is only known from manmade scriptures
• Yahweh has not authorized Christians to speak on His behalf
... 5 more items ...
Then:
Opinions, arguments, pro et contra, ...?

That's really all it's about. Discussing the argument. How does it fare? Implications? ... (anything of relevance here on the forum)

Unless I misunderstood your comment?

If you were thinking of

There is an unaccounted-for option, albeit uncommon

then it was really just that I'd found an objection to the argument, though maybe not generally applicable.
But that wasn't intended as the purpose of the opening post.

offer your own response — I like sushi

I suppose you can just take my response to be

proselytizers and indoctrinators are conducting unwarranted business ⌖ — jorndoe

1. Everyone doesn't know Yahweh
2. If everyone doesn't know Yahweh then either Yahweh is fictional or Yahweh doesn't wish everyone to know of him
So,
3. Either Yahweh is fictional or Yahweh doesn't wish everyone to know of him
4. If either Yahweh is fictional or Yahweh doesn't wish that everyone know of him then proselytizing is unwarranted
So,
5. Proselytizing is unwarranted

I think premise 2 is questionable because there may be reasons other than Yahweh not wishing to be known by everyone that there are people who don't know Yahweh. For instance he may want to "expose" himself ( :smile: ) in a phased manner. This idea isn't improbable for we do it with children by deferring the talk about the birds and bees to the "right" time.

Also, what about the concept of secret teachings which I'm familiar with from Tibetan buddhism? There is a requirement that must be met before God reveals himself/herself and it must be that some of us fail to fulfill it.

:joke:

I think you are looking for the religious section.

there may be reasons other than Yahweh not wishing to be known by everyone that there are people who don't know Yahweh. For instance he may want to "expose" himself ( :smile: ) in a phased manner. This idea isn't improbable for we do it with children by deferring the talk about the birds and bees to the "right" time. — TheMadFool

Right.
John Chau might have raised such a reason when going on a preaching mission to the Sentinelese.
I think there is tension with ...
• Yahweh has not authorized Christians to speak on His behalf (nor had Indian authorities in this case)
• Yahweh has chosen that maintaining ignorance (of Him) is the right thing to do, and hence wants that
Furthermore, wouldn't you expect Yahweh to know (much) better than preachers...?

Also, what about the concept of secret teachings which I'm familiar with from Tibetan buddhism? There is a requirement that must be met before God reveals himself/herself and it must be that some of us fail to fulfill it. — TheMadFool

There could be exceptions to the argument in that.
I know a Shaivist mystic; in their faith, there are some select mystics that are "privileged" and can (allegedly) communicate with Shiva; others (unprivileged) may then learn from them, indirectly.
In some ways, this sort of privilege is like what the Protestants abandoned when parting ways with the Catholics.
Secret and/or esoteric and/or special teachings may fall outside the opening post.
The likes of panpsychism and Spinozism certainly does.

Thanks for participating. (y) :)

There's (at least) a 4^th (logical) option in the 3^rd bullet in the opening post: Yahweh cares not (apathetic, indifferent)
Seems uncommon, though, and more characteristic of non-descript unassuming deism.

By the way, this opening post is somewhat related to an older one:
Preacher, why should anyone take your word for it?

Christians believe Yahweh is Jesus Christ. If he doesn't exist then what difference does it make if Christians are misrepresenting him. Noah Harrari believes human's rise to dominance is based on us believing in fictions that enable us to have millions work together instead of just 200 Apes. Apes work together in groups of less than 200. Noah says the structure of an ant colony is very fragile even though they work together in groups of 1000s.

I believe there is a substantial chance my chosen religion is the correct religion.

I think god is a bit like that irritating teacher that tries to get the kids to find out shit for themselves instead of just telling them the right answers. "work in teams, boys and girls, learn to cooperate experiment and share."

I think god is a bit like that irritating teacher — unenlightened

The great thing about God is that nobody can prove He does not exist.

The great thing about God is that nobody can prove He does not exist. — ovdtogt

There's not much that anyone can prove does not exist. And it's one of the least important or interesting things about God. If you believe in proof, do you need to believe in the existence of proof? Can you prove that proof does or does not exist? What does it even mean?

There's not much that anyone can prove does not exist. — unenlightened

There is not much (if anything) that anyone wants to prove does not exist. The fact that we can't prove an anthropomorphic God does not exist, makes this powerful 'hypothesis'. so persistent and has allowed it to dominate western culture for centuries.

I think your argument entails some inconsistencies and false dichotomies.
To demonstrate this, I will attempt to restructure your argument into a common argument form to show that a couple of its premises are not sound, or are at least objectionable.

To begin, I will assess your first two antecedents:

1. The Biblical Yahweh is only known from manmade scriptures
2. Yahweh has not authorized Christians to speak on His behalf

While it can be argued that the nature of the Biblical scriptures are more nuanced than a simple "manmade" designation (i.e., Spirit-inspired or similarly authoritative), I will grant, for the sake of ease, the position that the scriptures are basically manmade.

Concerning (2), there needs to be more clarification on the meaning of "authorization" in this statement. For example, a strong and clear case can be made from the Bible that Yahweh as indeed authorized Christians to speak on his behalf regarding the reiteration of the gospel. Consider the famous "great commission" from Matthew 28:19-20: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Special attention should be given to Jesus' command to "teach" in this passage.

The type of prohibition that it seems you are more likely referring to is one of additional or overriding revelation. The Bible does seem clear that, after the New Testament revelation, none can be officially added. Consider this stark passage from Revelation 22:18: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." Thus, based on these passages and the many others that they represent, it seems reasonable to redefine your statement (2) as follows:

2. Yahweh has not authorized anyone to effectively change the current state of Biblical revelation; the canon is closed.

Now, to assess your premises, I will do some slight organizing for ease of discussion and address your first suggestion - that "everyone would" know God if he so desired. I think the following is a charitable reformulation of your argument into modus tollens:

3. If Yahweh wanted everyone to know Him (and the truth of Him in particular), then everyone would.

4. It's not the case that everyone knows Him (there were/are devout adherents claiming to know different deities instead, people never having heard of Yahweh, and nonresistant nonbelievers)

5. Therefore, it stands to reason that Yahweh does not want everyone to know Him. (3,4, MT).

Concerning premise (3), there seems to be a variety of assumptions packed into the conclusion that "everyone would" know God. Clarifying questions arise regarding the nature of knowing; what does it mean that "God wants everyone to know him", and how would this divine desire logically play out? Philosophical debates regarding free will and omniscience come to mind. The concept of "God" normatively entails the other "omni's" as well, including omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Thus, if God is omniscient, is free will possible? If so, can God be perfectly good and violate our free will? Does our ability to "know" him fall within our willpower? If this is the case, then perhaps it is possible for God (entailing all of the "omni's") to desire that all know him while only some succeed in doing so. All of these philosophical questions aside, there still remains the need to qualify "knowing."

Distinctions are made within the Bible that speak to the nuances of human knowing in light of God's desire.
Consider the following passages:

Romans 1:20: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So [all] are without excuse."

Psalm 19:1-4:
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above[a] proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.

1 Timothy 2:4: "[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

John 12:48: "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day."

From these passages, a case can be made that God has indeed provided all with some semblance of guaranteed knowledge of him, be it explicit or secondary. However, even while establishing God's desire for all to "come to the knowledge of the truth", it appears that some will remain unknowing - perhaps by nature of free will.

While debates about God's compatibility with free will are beyond the scope of this post, I will simply hint at the reasonable possibility of free will and posit an objection to your premise (3) based on the Biblical evidence above for the reasonable compatibility of God's desire with a qualified sense of knowing.

Before I formulate this revision, however, I will briefly note that perhaps your use of "knowing" conveys a more salvific meaning rather than mere intellectual understanding? If this is the case - that your argument gravitates toward the idea that if God wanted everyone to know him (in a relational and salvific sense) then he would assure everyone's "salvation", then I will just say that this is an entirely different debate. However, this may not be your intention at all, and with that in mind, I will continue on with a discussion of "knowing" as understood in the more intellectual/evidential sense (pertaining more to debates regarding God's "hiddenness").

Returning to the discussion regarding premise (3), my reformulation works out as follows:

6. If Yahweh wanted everyone to know Him (and the truth of Him in particular), then he would provide enough universal knowledge for him to be known.

4. It is the case that Yahweh has provided enough universal knowledge for him to be known without an apparent violation of free will.

5. Therefore, it stands to reason that Yahweh does indeed want everyone to know Him. (3,4, MP).

Well argued, C S Stewart, and good to have some educated apologists here.

I want to add a footnote however. The name ‘Yahweh’ is a corruption of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, which was spelled totally with consonants and therefore was unpronounceable. This was intentional, to preserve the understanding of the unknowable nature of the divine, who could not be brought within the ambit of ordinary speech. Normally, the name ‘Elohim’ was used. I say this because to invoke the name in the service of polemics does verge on blasphemy (although the concept is only meaningful to the believer of course.)

It seems natural that "teach" and "preach" rhyme but there's a fundamental difference which may be relevant to this discussion. A teacher usually, not always, has something we think we might need. A preacher, on the other hand, has something s/he thinks we might need. People look for teachers but preachers look for people.

I dont think people need permission from others to make an argument for or against something. If people want to make an argument for the existence of something, then define it in such a way that EVERYONE can see.

If you can't define it in a way that EVERYONE can see, and part of your argument is that everyone comes to realize its existence in their own way, then that would be the best reason for them to NOT argue for the existence of that thing - to not make positive assertions that it exists in some objective sense. It would be subjective and not objective. There is no good reason to assert the existence of the subjective as if it were objective.

We don't use language to make subjective assertions. We make objective assertions with language-use - assertions that others can see and verify when they look. If others can't see and verify when they look, then what is the point in saying anything about it?

Hello, jorndoe! I want to address the first couple of points you make before I get to the main thrust of your argument. You say the Biblical YHWH is only known from manmade scriptures. This is not necessarily disproof for the existence of YHWH. Firstly, the written record of YHWH was originally passed down as an oral history by the Jews, and this was based on what was believed to be the real, historical experiences of their ancestors (several story beats of which are proven to correspond and are corroborated by third-party histories). No one today was alive to know Abraham Lincoln, and I only know of him by either a) the written historical record/monuments or b) oral history passed to me by teachers trained to pass this knowledge down. There are several stories about Lincoln that have been passed down over the years that may or may not be true that have been incorporated into the narrative of his life because, let’s be honest, most of us like a little flair in our history textbooks, but that does not make Lincoln’s existence any more or less likely. Incorporate the fact that verses like 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claim that the Bible is directly inspired by God (some translations read “God-breathed”), and the fact that human hands got the Bible down on paper does not immediately cause a problem (and more argument is needed for it to do so). As for your second point, this seems outright false. In the Hebrew Bible, there are many, many individuals who are authorized by God to speak on God’s behalf. Moses, the judges, pick-a-prophet: you have lots of choices. In the Greek Bible, Jesus himself (if one believes him to have the authority of God, which I do) says in Matthew 28:19-20 to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations,” which is a direct call for Christians to speak on God’s behalf to others.

The second point more closely ties into the main thrust of your argument, which appears to be a rather novel usage of the divine hiddenness argument, albeit tangentially. I have not included your added statements about the possibility of YHWH being fictional since I think that goes to the traditional divine hiddenness argument, and I am more interested in addressing the implication you draw from that argument. I think your argument has this form:

1. Either YHWH wants everyone to know the truth of Him, or YHWH has chosen that remaining hidden is the right thing to do.
2. If YHWH wants everyone to know the truth of Him, then everyone would.
3. Not everyone knows the truth of YHWH.
4. YHWH does not want everyone to know the truth of Him. (2, 3 MT)
5. YHWH has chosen that remaining hidden is the right thing to do. (1, 4 DS)
6. If YHWH has chosen that remaining hidden is the right thing to do, then YHWH wants to remain hidden.
7. YHWH wants to remain hidden. (5, 6 MP)
8. If YHWH wants to remain hidden, then proselytizers are violating YHWH’s will.
9. Proselytizers are violating YHWH’s will. (7, 8 MP)

This is an interesting implication to draw from the divine hiddenness argument, but I disagree with your argument. I have several objections, but I realize this post has already gotten quite long so I will address my most promising object and then leave this thread to further discussion before chiming in again. I object to premise 1 as a false dichotomy. It is quite possible that YHWH wants everyone to know the truth of Him but has very good reasons for remaining hidden. Michael J. Murray provides just one of the many responses to the divine hiddenness argument by making a soul-making defense for hiddenness, wherein humans would be unable to develop significant moral characters if they knew the truth of God for certain because the fear of Hell and promise of Heaven would be confirmed and therefore coerce most people into obeying God’s commands, effectively robbing them of free will (which is a great good, many theists will argue). It is very possible for a being to have a certain want and yet still chose the best course of action as something else. A parent may WANT to make a child happy by giving them a cupcake whenever the child asks, but the parent may (hopefully) choose to make the child abstain from cupcakes altogether because the sugar would be extremely bad for them. YHWH may want us to know Him, but He can choose another alternative if it is what would be best for us in the long run. Premise 1 is a false choice. YHWH can do both.

There's not much that anyone can prove does not exist. And it's one of the least important or interesting things about God. — unenlightened

:clap:

A preacher, on the other hand, has something s/he thinks we might need. People look for teachers but preachers look for people. — TheMadFool

And the proof of this is that school is always voluntary, whereas if you don't send your kids to church, you get arrested and/or fined.

Just to clarify, the opening post is about authentic legitimacy of preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers), not so much about whether Yahweh is real or not.
Yahweh, Ahura Mazda, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, or Allah may or may not be real; there's no particular assumption either way.

Thanks for the comments.

Matthew 28:19-20 — CS Stewart

2 Timothy 3:16-17 — philrelstudent

Matthew 28:19-20 — philrelstudent

Having scriptures self-legitimize/authenticate/authorize/certify doesn't quite work (especially not if there already are ultimate authorities around).

Perhaps NortonLifeLock (formerly Symantec/VeriSign) and other Internet certificate companies can be used as an analogy of sorts? Anyone can call up such a companies and get details about their certificate offers. For something important, such certificates are needed/expected, whereas someone running ad hoc Internet services out of their basement may just use self-signed certificates.

While on the topic of importance, there's a fairly obvious disproportionality between the (asserted) importance of messages from deities, and their delivery. Muhammad had private sessions with Gabriel in a cave, receiving messages from Allah, some 1400 years ago. The messages are supposedly the most important for all mankind. ("And your eternal soul is at stake.") If so, then we're talking deception, otherwise, well, maybe just deceptive.

It's not all that difficult to come up with a scenario that "matches" what we see (regardless of what we see, i.e. counter-example immunization). Say, Shiva wants to stay out of sight for any reason, and wants to rely entirely on humans for more or less everything. Yet, this is no different from supposing Earth being a game board, where some number of superbeings "plant" their respective scriptures, and observe and push a bit here and there, in a sort of Kafkaesque manner. (Incidentally, a Stargate Atlantis episode just came to mind.) :) This again renders authentic legitimacy a problem.

1. Either YHWH wants everyone to know the truth of Him, or YHWH has chosen that remaining hidden is the right thing to do. — philrelstudent

Note, the opening post and this subsequent comment gives:

3. if Yahweh wanted everyone to know Him (and the truth of Him in particular), then everyone would;
or Yahweh has chosen that maintaining ignorance (of Him) is the right thing to do, and hence wants that;
or Yahweh cares not (apathetic, indifferent);
or Yahweh is a fictional character in scriptures

In the case of the Christian (Biblical) Yahweh, the two latter are rejected right away.

Some related inquiries, exemplifying the topic of the opening post:

<sub>Did Yahweh inform you (the preacher) about Him and the importance of the Bible, or did other (fallible) humans?

Are we to peruse the supermarket of religions? "Pentecostalism is crazy. But those Jains over there are nice. I'll take that one." If it was readily admitted that we're talking just faith, with consequently proportional moderation, then inquiries like the opening post would largely fade off. That's not the case in the real world, however. And here advertisers have academic apologists helping sales (while helping their own sales as well of course).

The truth of the matter is a different ballgame. Whether some sort of polytheism monotheism deism or whatever, the truth of the matter has no dependency on peoples' (diverse) faiths, heck, no dependency on the universe (they say). No manner of belief one way or other can change the truth of the matter. Faith does not entail truth.

Denote any superbeing deity there may be with G (examples given prior):
1. G is the all-powerful authority (and originator of divine messages)
2. only G can confirm/authorize that you (the preacher) speak on their behalf
3. G could easily confirm/authenticate that you speak on their behalf
4. G has not confirmed that you speak on their behalf
Thus, why would anyone take the diverse preachers' words for it all?</sub>

Anyway, as far as I can tell, skepticism (of the elaborate religions in particular) is warranted.
This accords with evidence, and is both reasonable, rational, and honest.

_{Animated map shows how religion spread around the world (2m:35s youtube)
World's Largest Religion Groups by Population 1945 - 2019 (2m:48s youtube)}

You say the Biblical YHWH is only known from manmade scriptures. This is not necessarily disproof for the existence of YHWH. — philrelstudent

Right. Per my comment a bit earlier, this stuff is more about the preachers. (Apologies for any confusion on that.)

Compare this list (Wikipedia) with the history of the various elaborate religions (the youtube animations have some rough overviews). If memory serves, the Mormons' claim that Jesus visited the Americas has been thrown in the bin a few times over. Otherwise, that might comprise more significant evidence. If Allah (perhaps via Gabriel) had spread "The Word" through the Americas and Australia, then we'd have more significant evidence. Why would the Pre-Columbian Americans and the Aboriginal Australians (have) take(n) Muslim da'is word for it?

Let me just run this by you folk:

the Biblical Yahweh is only known from manmade scriptures — jorndoe

Er, where is the evidence for that?

Curiously, Scripture is chock full of people who knew Yahweh without the aid of manmade scriptures. And so are the stories of the saints, up to contemporary people.

This first bullet of your argument ran into a huge brick wall for me, so I would like to know more about your justification for it before proceeding.

Is this a question about law? If so moderate proselytising is warranted in most countries where human rights are respected AFAIK.

I think people should be free to try to persuade others of anything at all, as long as they don't do it in an overly coercive or abusive way. And they obediently fuck off when told to.

I think preaching is as warranted as it is effective. The more effective and convincing the preaching, the more people that would be willing to listen, simple as that.

Doesn't matter if it's truthful or not, since god can't be proven to exist or not exist, it's a matter of belief, in the end.