Religion

[Immanuel Can]

And if I assert being an Atheist but you are TELLING me that I'm a co-religious believer when I LACK belief, you are inappropriately ignoring what the atheist means.

Enlighten me. What do you think the term "Atheist" means?

In particular, do you think it means someone who knows something, or knows nothing?

And do you think he's speaking for himself alone, or making a universal truth claim?

Which way is it?

Are you at least not a 'relative' atheist of some other theism?

No, because Atheist means "no God(s). The one thing that, say a Muslim and I would agree upon is that there is a Creator. That would not be a point either of us would dispute to the other. But what we would dispute is the specific character and nature of God.

I gave an excellent challenge to you...

Actually, I found its wording a bit hard to comprehend. But if you'll reword, I'm happy to try to address it.

You are either an Atheist or,....you are an aatheist (negation of the negation of theism). I put the reversed irrational burden on you. Try it on. Why do you NOT believe in non-non-God? Do you disbelieve in Non-existing-God? If you doubt Non-existing-God,why can't you feel its non-presence everywhere?

No, that's not helping. I still can't see what you're asking. Double negatives produce a positive. So you'd be asking, "Why do you not believe in God?" But I do believe in God. So that doesn't make any sense.

You're going to have to clarify.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

My choice to be non-anonymous is distinct.

But I'm suggesting it's not wise, and possibly not fair to your associates. You do have a right to expose yourself to the internet; I would suggest you have no right to expose all those associated with you to the vagaries of whoever is out there.

However, that will remain up to you.

If you are so God-loving, then that supreme power you claim you believe in would suffice to be not NEEDING YOUR POWER of persuasion when you think it is as some 'genetic' factor known by us without a need for others to convey.

Again, I confess that I find this hard to interpret.

Something, you say, is a "genetic factor"? And "others" are involved here somehow? And God would "suffice to be not needing" something? If you reword, I'll be happy to try to speak to your concern.

I think you are stalling of choking here. YOU assume that God is a fact by default to which we all 'know' or you wouldn't think it odd for the atheist to be the default position. That is, you assume we are born uniquely knowing your 'god' and that the atheist is just REBELLING against this as some genetic truth.

I'm saying that if this being IS our default, why would it create us to KNOW it while having the potential to resist it if it is so powerful?

No, I can't make any sense out of this either.

Could you maybe be brief, and just ask one clear question with no odd subordinations or unconventional syntax? I want to be fair to whatever you're trying to say.

[Immanuel Can]

Seems a bit excessive. There are only a handful of raging idiots who will describe themselves as simply "human beings"*, humans will typically say "i'm Hungarian" or "I'm an accountant". that does not in any way show that the label "human" was invented by ferrets or fish, nor that it is a dismissive collective term.

When one points to a distinction, it's important to distinguish the important feature in question.

So, for example, if the question is, "What species built the pyramids?" The answer, "Human beings" is a perfectly good one. But it would be no good if the question were, "Who built the pyramids?" Then, you would need a finer distinction. The answer "A human being" would be useless. The answer, "The Egyptians" would be better. But more precise distinctions would still need to be made, if the question was, "Which specific persons physically built the pyramids?"

My suggestion is that "religion" is not a fine enough term to make a meaningful distinction among things that are substantially different, and that these distinctions are very important to rational discussion.

[FlashDangerpants]

Seems a bit excessive. There are only a handful of raging idiots who will describe themselves as simply "human beings"*, humans will typically say "i'm Hungarian" or "I'm an accountant". that does not in any way show that the label "human" was invented by ferrets or fish, nor that it is a dismissive collective term.

When one points to a distinction, it's important to distinguish the important feature in question.

So, for example, if the question is, "What species built the pyramids?" The answer, "Human beings" is a perfectly good one. But it would be no good if the question were, "Who built the pyramids?" Then, you would need a finer distinction. The answer "A human being" would be useless. The answer, "The Egyptians" would be better. But more precise distinctions would still need to be made, if the question was, "Which specific persons physically built the pyramids?"

My suggestion is that "religion" is not a fine enough term to make a meaningful distinction among things that are substantially different, and that these distinctions are very important to rational discussion.

What sorts of people believe in gods? Religious people.
Who believes in Frija the goddess of wisdom? Vikings.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

I wrote that it's not possible to be completely objective. I now add that it's not even desirable even were it possible.

Then why did you say that we should "try" to be it, "as much as possible"? Are you ordinarily given to advising that which you think impossible?

Cannot you understand relativity?

I admit that my own stance is European Western enlightenment.

Which version? Positivism? Materialism? Idealism? Modernism? Postmodernism? Existentialism? Classical Liberalism? Marxism? Post-Liberalism? Nihilism? Pragmatism?

But you offer a confused list of theories of existence, methods, and political philosophies. Western European Enlightenment is based upon reason and to date they lead to a revolution in thought that began with Einstein and has influenced the entire world (Including Henry Quirk and other Americans and Australians too).Western European Enlightenment has also influenced you, Immanuel, and that is why you strive so desperately against it.

You've told me what you think you're "not." But you haven't told me what you are.

How long have you got?

Humanists not only have the courage of their convictions, they also tend towards utilitarianism at the political level and ordinary human kindness at the personal level.

Oh? You regard yourself as a Humanist, then? It took an awful lot of talking to get you to own it. Utilitarianism is question-begging, of course. The critiques of it are old and well-rehearsed. As for "ordinary human kindness," I find it odd that you are pro-abortion as well.

Nobody is "pro-abortion " ! Humanism is one of my affiliations.

You, Immanuel, reason. That is what you do on this board. Posit your Godhead as much as you will you cannot deny that He gave you reason.

I'm a big fan of reason. I wouldn't dream of "denying" it. But there is no "uniquely reasonable" ideology -- and Secular Humanism certainly isn't it. That's easy enough to show, even on Secular Humanism's own terms. It has no rational way to legitimate its own highest values, so it falls at the first hurdle, rationally speaking.

Some people reason better than others. Your own view that revealed religion is true lacks historical perspective. Please be informed that at one time everyone in the Western world believed in revealed religion. That age of faith is now over except for its death throes that are at their most obnoxious among the extreme right in politics, and arguably worst with Daesh .The Sultan of Brunei is pretty bad too!

[Immanuel Can]

What sorts of people believe in gods? Religious people.

Not true.

"Religious" is not just used to cover polytheists, but theists as well, and often other non-god religions, like Buddhism. Depending on how one defines it, even Atheism is a candidate, since it's a) an opinion about god/Gods, and b) a belief. Worse still, Atheism is even a gratuitous belief, one that does not rely on evidence...so it might well fall below the level of "religion" to the level of mere "superstition" or "propaganda."

Would that thought make Atheists happy? Maybe not. But it points to the need to define the term precisely. One thing is clear: it's not a term that people within a "religious" tradition like to use of themselves, anymore than Atheists want to own it.

The word has an etymological history. It began as a general quasi-Christian term. Later, "religion" became a colonialist term. Nowadays, it is, in fact, an Atheist pejorative term. But it's not a precise or helpful term, except to those who are attempting to bundle up and dismiss all "religions" in one go. We should dump it.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

I wrote that it's not possible to be completely objective. I now add that it's not even desirable even were it possible.

Then why did you say that we should "try" to be it, "as much as possible"? Are you ordinarily given to advising that which you think impossible?

Cannot you understand relativity?

I don't think you're using that term accurately. "Relativity" is not "subjectivity," nor is it "impossibility."

Western European Enlightenment is based upon reason

Myth, I'm afraid.

There is, and has been, no one "Western European Enlightenment" episteme. There are a bunch of conflicting ones, some of which I listed for you. But maybe you can tell me somebody who you're thinking of when you use the term, so I know which ideology or philosophy you're actually thinking is "Western European" and "Enlightenment."

How long have you got?

Just give me the label you're happy to own.

Nobody is "pro-abortion " !

Sure they are. Nobody's "anti-choice" in a general way. And nobody's "anti-life" in a general way. The issue that both sides care about is only one: abortion. One side is against it, and the other side is pro-abortion.

Some people reason better than others.

That's true.

[FlashDangerpants]

What sorts of people believe in gods? Religious people.

Not true.

"Religious" is not just used to cover polytheists, but theists as well, and often other non-god religions, like Buddhism. Depending on how one defines it, even Atheism is a candidate, since it's a) an opinion about god/Gods, and b) a belief. Worse still, Atheism is even a gratuitous belief, one that does not rely on evidence...so it might well fall below the level of "religion" to the level of mere "superstition" or "propaganda."

Would that thought make Atheists happy? Maybe not. But it points to the need to define the term precisely. One thing is clear: it's not a term that people within a "religious" tradition like to use of themselves, anymore than Atheists want to own it.

The word has an etymological history. It began as a general quasi-Christian term. Later, "religion" became a colonialist term. Nowadays, it is, in fact, an Atheist pejorative term. But it's not a precise or helpful term, except to those who are attempting to bundle up and dismiss all "religions" in one go. We should dump it.

That's some really desperate sophist contortions you are tying yourself up in there.

We use general terms to collate multiple similar but distinct things on a daily basis. Baked goods is a category whch contains bread and cakes and many other things for instance, I don't argue with you that I want to go to the bread shop not the baker.

Religion is just another category which contains many distinct things. The fact you are trying to lure me into some nonsense argument about whether atheism is inside or outside the category demonstrates that the category is used because it is useful and it contains stuff.

Sexuality is also a category, it contains hetero and homo and all sorts of others, there's even one for people who have sex with cars. You can probably find somebody to argue about whether asexuality is a form of sexuality or somehow beyond that category entirely, but it's a moot point for ideologues to argue over, it can clearly be seen as both according to whoever is describing it.

If you really feel that 'religion' is an emotionally loaded term that has to be discarded, you will only have to find a new word for it as the one we have alredy serves a purpose and describes a thing.

[Scott Mayers]

I gave an excellent challenge to you: IF the Atheist is so 'evil', AND we lack a belief in the delusions you want us to default some faith in, then WHY wouldn't it be MORE rational of an Atheist to PRETEND not to be 'atheist' but rather some religiously devout thinker imposing wisdom behind the perfect safety of anonymity? IF YOU are the true believer you think is so virtuous, there would be no need for you to hide as you do. If you are so God-loving, then that supreme power you claim you believe in would suffice to be not NEEDING YOUR POWER of persuasion when you think it is as some 'genetic' factor known by us without a need for others to convey.

Mate, I'm an atheist, and even I can see that you are losing your shit like a madman here. None of that challenge makes any sense at all, the word "excellent" has never been asked to work so hard in all of history.

?
Immanuel Can, as many religious people, think of atheism as a unique position that is not a mere restatement of a default of ignorance about gods, but a form of 'anti-religion'. That is, they assume that being atheist is an intentional counterpart OF religion such that it is the work of their own God's counter offender, or their "Devil". They assume we sincerely believe that their supreme being exists but that we are deviant tricksters of their own anti-god's servants of evil.

And so to show this rationale is amiss, I am proposing that IF TRUE, then the ultimate sincere evil would then be the atheistic demon pretending to be a servant of their superior God. So, if the atheist is actually powerfully deviant, he would be one who fakes BEING the devout religious believer of their God.

Thus, the reasonable question to Immanuel Can is to prove that he himself is NOT one of these most deviant 'atheists' of his own interpretation of what I am. [I won't speak of you as I don't know you. For all I know you too could be religious and intending to feign a position of the ABSURD atheist of his intent on playing the scarecrow. I HAVE discovered this possibility as real too!]

[Immanuel Can]

Religion is just another category which contains many distinct things.

This is exactly what I'm saying...too many things, and with no distinction being made among them.

...the category is used because it is useful and it contains stuff.

Not really. It's used because the people who use it are ignorant of any possible value to making distinctions. It's like the category "Orientals": a vaguely insulting and insultingly vague collective noun that has utility only to cultivating prejudicial thinking.

It's really not informative. It's like the category you use to advocate for it, "stuff": such a vague collective noun fails to differentiate in any meaningful way. Essentially, it merely clouds judgment, instead of clarifying.

Even experts in the secular study of "religion" can't make up their collective minds what the right way to distinguish a "religion" really is. If you look at the literature, you'll see that's true. So it's not just my say-so, it's the reality.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, as many religious people, think of atheism as a unique position...

Not at all. It's not unique, not focused, and not even coherent, I would say.

But I invited you to fill out my knowledge of your particular kind of "Atheism" with reference to two questions:

1. Does your kind of Atheism involve a claim to know nothing, or to know something about the existence-of-God question?

2. Do you wish to assert your claim only personally and privately, or as a universal, on behalf of others? In other words, do you want to say, "I don't believe in God," or "You all shouldn't believe in God"?

[Univalence]

By "futurology" which I said is interpretative, I meant forecasting. I don't understand what stochastics has to do with interpretation.

Stochastics/forecasting - they mean broadly the same thing. Prediction in the face of uncertainty.

So, IF one were to be omniscient (e.g can perfectly predict the future) then the outcome which represents our maximum human utility at some point in future is 'God'.

The guiding light in the darkness.
Utopia. Heaven. Shangri-La. End of human suffering. All that jazz.

[Univalence]

You've forgotten a few details. Let me fill them in for you.

Include that the "entity" fulfilled precisely over 300 prophecies made about him, many including things the "entity" himself could not have plausibly pre-arranged, like the place and circumstances of his own birth, say.

Time travel. No law of physics forbids it. So - we are still in the domain of epistemic superiority.

And let's say he never claimed of himself, "I am an alien," but rather, "I am the Son of God." And let's say the entity did all the things you attribute to him, and on top of it was acclaimed as the greatest moral teacher who ever lived. And as a capper, let's say he did one final miracle -- verifiably dying and rising again from the dead...and let's say the "entity" continued afterward for a couple of millennia to work with an empower a group of people who followed him...

Would you, then, think I had a good reason to prefer one hypothesis over the other?

None whatsoever. You don't seem to grasp epistemology very well. None of the things you mention above strike me as violations of the laws of physics.

That I can't resurrect myself from the dead means just that - I don't know how. It doesn't mean it's impossible.

And if not, then what additional sign would the "entity" have to perform in order to convince you?

Spawn another universe.

[Scott Mayers]

And if I assert being an Atheist but you are TELLING me that I'm a co-religious believer when I LACK belief, you are inappropriately ignoring what the atheist means.

Enlighten me. What do you think the term "Atheist" means?

In particular, do you think it means someone who knows something, or knows nothing?

And do you think he's speaking for himself alone, or making a universal truth claim?

Which way is it?

BOTH! Some are agnostic athiests and others are gnostic atheist. I begun 'agnostic' when I recognized that I didn't know whether a god or gods existed or could be ruled out. I now KNOW that you CAN rule out religious beings upon learning how to reason. While we may not be able to turn over every rock in every corner of the universe to rule out extant gods, this is true of every god of every religion. Most atheists are agnostic. But this implies they ARE on the fence with respect to denying the existence of a sincere interpretation of some god. But when you learn that the very meaning of this being is itself not meaningful or that it begs something of its origins or of the multitude of all other religion's gods, you can become atheist AND gnostic (certain).

The traditional distinction assigning one as either (1) for, (2)against, or (3)undecided (agnostic), is incomplete without recognizing that you CAN be decisively non-agnostic about being atheist.

You mentioned how you think 'religion' is a word made up by atheists. The word 'religion' doesn't need atheists to be meaningful. All that is required is for some other God-belief system that disagrees or differs with some presumed single God-belief system, to exist. So the existence of say both Muslims and Christianity suffice for 'religion' to be useful in the language. They both share the qualities of speaking of some after-life reality with respect to ourselves and is what the origin of the word's etymology of religion is.

The word "atheist" BY the religious groups will treat anyone NOT of their own group as 'relatively atheist' if, as you think, atheism is some form of 'positive' belief. An "agnostic" to you is one who is capable of being convinced of your particular beliefs because you interpret everyone as necessarily having a post-life belief with certainty but that that agnostic is just claiming uncertainty to which. I have no question about whether there is or is not life after death. There could be. But then you can define that possibility (if actually possible), as PART of the extension of life. That is, if you still live in some other world, you are STILL 'alive'.

Your mistake (if sincere) is that there is no such thing as (4), decided (gnostic) atheists, because you do not believe that the atheist can be proven to be mistaken by reasoning and be 'corrected' to become theist again. You don't believe that the 'atheist' is actually sincere on the basis of assuming we REQUIRE existence if and only if your god exists. The reality is that the term itself is just describing one who has no position OF whether life exists beyond physical death and the claimed beings that are supposedly beyond the physical realm that determine our world.

I refuse to be defined BY the religious as though there certainly IS some reality that I can personally KNOW prior to even having the capacity to KNOW what is beyond my physical existence. I could be proven wrong. But NOT by some person IN THIS LIFE! That's the difference. You are human and so may have some potential sincere experiences of which makes you eligible to know of your particular 'God'. But there is no direct means for me to even be expected to default to what YOU claim is true by your own powers of perception without me being able to experience it for myself. Thus, even IF you were sincerely correct about your particular religion, you can't expect me or others to presume YOUR experience as true by default with the expectation that I be the one to require being respectful of your own beliefs without my own self-respect. Why is it not possible for you to be presumed in error without you merely being some forceful dictator expecting me to be subservient to YOUR beliefs with priority?

Are you at least not a 'relative' atheist of some other theism?

No, because Atheist means "no God(s). The one thing that, say a Muslim and I would agree upon is that there is a Creator. That would not be a point either of us would dispute to the other. But what we would dispute is the specific character and nature of God.

But you complained that the atheist created the term 'religion'? If you "have an absence of belief of any religion", it is only incidental that you have "no belief in Gods". But this doesn't necessarily mean that all atheists ASSERT that there is NO God or gods. So among atheists, I differ in that I happen to ALSO believe that there is no gods with my own position: Gnostic Atheism. You just don't LIKE this extension of division among us because you prefer to assume ALL atheists as asserting a proposition of "denying your particular God" so that you can assert us as having a discriminate prejudice that places the burden upon us rather than YOU to provide evidence of your beliefs as true of us all. And you then interpret the "agnostic" as just those who are 'naive' but capable of conversion in your 'positive thinking' belief that you CAN correct the error.

Some of us are neither capable of being converted (as you want your own people to believe is always possible) nor to be an enemy of yours. I am offended by how you presume that I require being your enemy when I claim being atheist or to be the one who is being deviant. For the atheist, you don't require being of these restrictions. But it PROVES that you require this -- being either naive or deviant -- because this is precisely WHAT you see us as being in the eyes of your religion's God: you are either FOR you or against you, or at LEAST, 'undecided'.

Actually, I found its wording a bit hard to comprehend. But if you'll reword, I'm happy to try to address it.

You are either an Atheist or,....you are an aatheist (negation of the negation of theism). I put the reversed irrational burden on you. Try it on. Why do you NOT believe in non-non-God? Do you disbelieve in Non-existing-God? If you doubt Non-existing-God,why can't you feel its non-presence everywhere?

No, that's not helping. I still can't see what you're asking. Double negatives produce a positive. So you'd be asking, "Why do you not believe in God?" But I do believe in God. So that doesn't make any sense.

That is the point: I'm showing you that your position of belief can be interpreted as a DENIAL of Atheism versus being 'agnostic' of us. As such, I'm showing you that you are an ANTI-atheist, not merely a neutral NON-atheist, unlike the atheist in general who CAN be non-theist when they are atheist. I used the double negation to suggest that if YOU think it is ME who requires disproving your God in order to be sincere, I am demanding that you require disproving my non-belief as being the anti-believer (someone with a mere vendetta against the religious person). In other words, I can throw the same presumption of deviancy against YOU that you expect I am and require lifting every rock in the Universe to prove that the atheist isn't correct in their position.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

My choice to be non-anonymous is distinct.

But I'm suggesting it's not wise, and possibly not fair to your associates. You do have a right to expose yourself to the internet; I would suggest you have no right to expose all those associated with you to the vagaries of whoever is out there.

However, that will remain up to you.

IF your God is true, it shouldn't matter because his supreme power to correct is beyond human control when your God gave us 'free will'. When I am non-anonymous, I take care to protect the integrity of others I know by choosing NOT to speak of them. But my OWN behavior's affect upon others is irrelevant. What I don't get is why I am not fearful of what my others think of me, yet YOU do unless you are being insincere to your actual claim to have faith in God as Nature itself?

I understand anonymity. I disagree with those who utilize it deceptively by the prudes who claim to be so self-righteous. If you are so 'correct' about your beliefs, you should be the 'good' follower of your God and have nothing to hide because you'd know that your God would protect you for the 'free will' He has granted ALL people.

I should have more fear to be concerned about given I don't HAVE some belief that nature will protect me through some power beyond me. If I am deviant, I, as all other atheists, should have more to fear to speak openly knowing that the greater than 95% of people are supposedly religious. I know that if I am in court and opt out of "swearing to the Bible", that I automatically place myself at greater risk of most juries simply for the fact that most, like yourself, presume it implies that I AM NOT compelled to be honest. Why would I be so risky in a real world that I know would do me harm for being honest unless I was actually SINCERE about my claim of BEING 'atheist'?

Again, I confess that I find this hard to interpret.

Something, you say, is a "genetic factor"? And "others" are involved here somehow? And God would "suffice to be not needing" something? If you reword, I'll be happy to try to speak to your concern.

I think you are stalling of choking here. YOU assume that God is a fact by default to which we all 'know' or you wouldn't think it odd for the atheist to be the default position. That is, you assume we are born uniquely knowing your 'god' and that the atheist is just REBELLING against this as some genetic truth.

I'm saying that if this being IS our default, why would it create us to KNOW it while having the potential to resist it if it is so powerful?

No, I can't make any sense out of this either.

Could you maybe be brief, and just ask one clear question with no odd subordinations or unconventional syntax? I want to be fair to whatever you're trying to say.

Just read over a few times. I don't like to leave loose ends when I argue and so require the detail. I'm not in a hurry for an response. I don't KNOW your own background's "convention" and so can say the same of you about my own means of communicating. I WAS being brief to summarily ask you to prove that you aren't the devious atheist pretending to be devoutly religious for some unknown purpose? You evaded this challenge.

[uwot]

Mr Can, for all his 'rational' bluster, cannot understand the difference between:
I don't believe god exists.
And:
I believe god doesn't exist.
The most charitable explanation is that he is simply too stupid. More likely though, is that he is dishonest to himself, because unless he can maintain that atheism is a positive claim, his entire rant about "Atheism" being "irrational" is meaningless.

[Univalence]

Not all "alternatives" are genuine. "Alternatives" are only as valuable as their rational and moral credentials.

Hardly. Alternatives are only as valuable as they lead to different conclusions/consequences.
Different conclusions/consequences that can be empirically verified.

The two hypothesis I have presented you with are equifinal.
They produce the same consequences/conclusions.

They are functionally identical. Empirically indistinguishable.

Mathematics is analytic, not synthetic.

Incorrect. There are deductive mathematical objects (analytic) and inductive mathematical objects (synthetic).
There is the concept of composition. Which is far more familiar to programmers than to mathematicians - none the less.

Composition is constructive. Synthetic not analytic.

Once we understand the fundamental mathematical meanings, then there is no debating their consequences. Once you know what a "2" is and what a "4", you cannot debate "2 + 2 = 4."

This has nothing to do with mathematics. You are making an argument for determinism Stochastics is mathematics. Stochastics is not deterministic.

Mathematics does not require our approval in order to be right.

Mathematics is nothing more than the logical consequences of axioms. Humans choose the axioms.

True, but not importantly true. It's a fundamental of rational thought.

Any quantum physicist will disagree with you. You have some preferred notion of 'rationality'.
It's an axiom you have CHOSEN.

Question of existence are not like that: a thing exists, or it does not. There are no threshold states there.

Observe. You have chosen a Boolean ontology. It produces black-and-white thinking.
I have chosen a probabilistic ontology. It produces nuanced thinking.

So you want your hypothesis to "inform" you of something that doesn't actually "explain"?

I have no use for explanations.
I have use for predictions.

Mathematics.

Appeal to authority.

A causal chain cannot be infinite, but requires some absolute inception point. Whatever that absolute inception point is, it has to be a necessary entity.

You are so stuck into the foundational mode of thought that you are unable to think without axioms.
Be those actual, mathematical axioms, or something you call 'God'.

So your argument there is that what He said was a lie, but in net effect it worked out?

This is a non-sensical statement. To a pragmatist - the truth is what works.
Or rather - if it doesn't work it's not true.

We do have a name for people who knowingly say things that are actually false, and do so in order to produce a desired effect...just not a name one ought to give the greatest moral teacher.

Ahhh. So that's what bothers you? Lying for the greater good.

Conundrum eh? If Jesus did, in fact, "lie" does that undermine any of his achievements? Not in my book.
That simply suggests that he understood the human condition enough to work around it.

If Jesus was a super-intelligent alien on a mission to bootstrap moral progress on this planet and he told fairy tails and performed cheap parlour tricks to impress the man-apes... Well - he didn't get caught.