Splarnst

That's about the most banal statement I've ever read.

Splarnst

First, the difference between theists and atheists is not simply whether they perceive God like the difference between a person with and without the ability to hear. People switch groups. I was once a theist. There are theists who were once atheists. It only makes sense if you're suggesting one can lose the ability to perceive God, which I suppose, you might.

Second, another problem is that the analogy only appeals to people who already agree with you. Music really exists. Whether God exists is the point of contention between atheists and theists. I may as well offer an analogy using the Tooth Fairy which appeals only to people who agree with me. It gets us nowhere.

Third, it focuses on the wrong thing. Atheists don't dispute that theists can feel inspired by a text, that it can convey a message or stir up an emotion. We're disputing the source of it. With your music analogy, it would be closer to say the sounds we all hear and kinda have rhythm have a source from a person (theist perspective) or from something else (atheist perspective).

Gawen

Yes and no. To a person that has been deaf his entire life, he has no frame of reference to 'music' let alone 'sound' (assume he also cannot feel vibration in most circumstances). He may be able to see written music, notes and all, but it would be meaningless to him. He may be able to watch people dance and performers performing, but it's useless to him.
Now try to explain to him that SOME music is inspired by a god. That THIS sheet of music was written by Harry and the OTHER sheet was written by god through Sue.

Splarnst

I fail to see how that addresses my point about how the analogy was biased towards one side by choosing something that everyone agrees exists (music) and how it could be biased the other way by using something nobody (over the age of 10) thinks exists (Tooth Fairy).

I think you're making the analogy worse. An atheist can read an allegedly inspired text and feel "inspired" to exactly the same degree a theist can. The difference is the significance we attach that potential feeling. A deaf person can't hear music. An atheist can read the bible.

GenesisNemesis

icardfacepalm:

And there are plenty of people who claim that without Satan there would not be atheists, without any evidence whatsoever.

Gawen

So...a person has to have the correct senses running in order to deduce that some thing, made by another person, is inspired by a god?

Keith&Co.

But how?
When God describes a flat Earth in Scripture is that because he's limited by the beliefs of the person taking the dictation?
When he dictates the rules for keeping slaves, is that an endorsement of slavery or is he unable to make slavery illegal because of the culture the OT authors lived in?

I mean, my aunt used to use the Tarot and told me that the spirits spoke to me through the symbology. It said it was more likely that my brain saw patterns and associated it with meaning that was already in my head.
She said, "Uh huh! You got it!"

How do we tell how much 'inspired' writing actually comes from a divine source and how much is couched in terms that the author needs?
How do we tell how much meaning is lost because it has to be couched in mortal terms?