So many people go to church today because their mama did it and mama made them do it. and the reason mama did it was because grandma did it and she made mama do it.
On the other hand there are people who grow up in a Muslim or a Budhist family. Then they have some kind of experience that convinces them that Christianity is the way to go.
I am curious to know how many people are Christian because they actually sat down and looked at all the information, thought about it, and were convinced to believe the dogma vs how many people are Christians because they are repeating what their parents did without ever asking about the authenticity of what they believe.
My atypical example:
My parents weren't religious. My father was irreligious in general. My mother was and remains, minimally religious. My mother, not my father, took me to church a very few times, as a child. It introduced me to the concept of religion (beyond what I gleaned from the general culture and Biblical themed movies). We never read the Bible at home, though we had several. I only read two books of the Bible as a child, Genesis and Revelations, especially Genesis. I had communion in church one time as child, but that time I experienced a numinous feeling afterward (something Carl Jung sought, but didn't receive). As a teen I had a general curiosity about religion, not limited to Christianity, but covering many religions. Also as a teen, I had been brought into the Gnostic religion called Freemasonry by my grandparents. So as I entered adulthood, I only had a limited experience with religion, and it was mostly self-directed, out of curiosity. I had never been made to do anything, but I had been introduced to it by adults, who lived examples of adult behavior. Subsequent influence started when I got married ... as an adult, and under the stimulus but not compulsion of my wife, my self-direction increased exponentially, and continues post-divorce into senior-hood.
Christianity remains of interest, but I see myself as marginally Jewish, and am interested in all religions, as part of my general interest in all anthropology and psychology.
Quote from: fencerider on January 07, 2017, 01:14:33 AM
I am curious to know how many people are Christian because they actually sat down and looked at all the information
very few. The vast majority of xians have never read the babble. This can easily be proven at any time by quoting a babble verse of some disgust to which the ignorant will reply angrily, "the bible does NOT say that, show me where". To which my standard reply is , "just as I thought".
Most converts are made because of emotional needs. They convert because they like what they hear. They want a community to make them feel like they belong. They feel guilty, and religion helps them to feel forgiven. Some may even be attracted to the idea of being told what to think, because trying to find your own answers takes time, energy, and effort. Christians do like to cling to arguments of logic, but only when they support the belief they already have. They do not check the validity of those arguments. Even if their logic is ripped apart by skeptics, they will continue to use it again and again. You need look no further than this forum to see that it is true. How often have you heard this argument, and how often have you seen them admit they were wrong?
"Atheists know that God is real. They're only atheists because they like to sin."
Quote from: fencerider on January 07, 2017, 01:14:33 AM
So many people go to church today because their mama did it and mama made them do it. and the reason mama did it was because grandma did it and she made mama do it.
On the other hand there are people who grow up in a Muslim or a Budhist family. Then they have some kind of experience that convinces them that Christianity is the way to go.
I am curious to know how many people are Christian because they actually sat down and looked at all the information, thought about it, and were convinced to believe the dogma vs how many people are Christians because they are repeating what their parents did without ever asking about the authenticity of what they believe.
Don't forget the huge amount of fear that figures into religion. Fear of the unknown, fear that god will hurt them, fear that the devil will hurt, fear of death so cover their bases with a religion, and oh so many other ways to let fear push you into 'belief'. And all religious leaders use fear first and foremost in their messages.
I think that the people leaning against their own faith do so, because they find their emotionally based convictions lacking; I bet you've heard them more than a dozen times: "I feel God in my heart" or "I saw a 'miracle', my cough magically disappeared" or some equally obtuse and unreasonable so-called evidence for their faith. The ones that come here to AF, I reckon, don't really believe in that stuff, because of the cognitive dissonance that follows from thinking that way. If you feel anything, it's experiential emotion way too often doesn't correlate to what other people experience and how they find how the world 'works'. And to mention 'miracles', way too often it is just happenstance variables at play - an event without the variables known - i.e. hidden/unknown variables. This is just the evidence side of things.
Socially, we often feel a need for an in-group, we have evolved socially and in groups, so this often gets fulfilled by a church or whatever congregation religious people follow and adhere to. Which leads to group-think and outside-the-box thinking is not tolerated.
It comes down to Type-2 Errors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors#Type_II_error) in judgement, IMO (this is the "Better safe than sorry" argument). If we, somehow, evolved for a natural detection mechanism to detect Type 2 errors, then I'll bet 100 Internets that we wouldn't have religion at all, except for fringe cases of beliefs.
Case being, we believe because we're inclined to give Agency to stuff that is immaterial and just shit that happens naturally without no Agent behind it. That our parents and/or immediate environment have faith is just a matter of circumstance, nothing to add/detract to its truth value.
Quote from: aitm on January 07, 2017, 01:20:49 PM
very few. The vast majority of xians have never read the babble. This can easily be proven at any time by quoting a babble verse of some disgust to which the ignorant will reply angrily, "the bible does NOT say that, show me where". To which my standard reply is , "just as I thought".
My favorite thing is to take a Bible verse but replace God with Allah and claim it's from the Quran. They get very upset.
You'd think people who dedicate their lives to spreading this stuff would have at least given it a read.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 07, 2017, 07:06:26 PM
My favorite thing is to take a Bible verse but replace God with Allah and claim it's from the Quran. They get very upset.
You'd think people who dedicate their lives to spreading this stuff would have at least given it a read.
I like that. I had not thought of it. I'll have to give it a try. :)
Quote from: fencerider on January 07, 2017, 01:14:33 AM
So many people go to church today because their mama did it and mama made them do it. and the reason mama did it was because grandma did it and she made mama do it.
On the other hand there are people who grow up in a Muslim or a Budhist family. Then they have some kind of experience that convinces them that Christianity is the way to go.
I am curious to know how many people are Christian because they actually sat down and looked at all the information, thought about it, and were convinced to believe the dogma vs how many people are Christians because they are repeating what their parents did without ever asking about the authenticity of what they believe.
That is exactly how I got my current beliefs, but I don't think my story is exactly what you're looking for.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 07, 2017, 02:29:33 PM
Don't forget the huge amount of fear that figures into religion. Fear of the unknown, fear that god will hurt them, fear that the devil will hurt, fear of death so cover their bases with a religion, and oh so many other ways to let fear push you into 'belief'. And all religious leaders use fear first and foremost in their messages.
No they don't
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 07, 2017, 07:06:26 PM
My favorite thing is to take a Bible verse but replace God with Allah and claim it's from the Quran. They get very upset.
You'd think people who dedicate their lives to spreading this stuff would have at least given it a read.
No, I actually interchange the word Allah with GOD when I read the Quran.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 10, 2017, 11:16:33 PM
No, I actually interchange the word Allah with GOD when I read the Quran.
I mean, Allah just means god in Arabic, so I don't see what the big fuss about this is about.
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 10, 2017, 11:31:18 PM
I mean, Allah just means god in Arabic, so I don't see what the big fuss about this is about.
Most Christian's are seemingly oblivious to the fact that the two faiths reference all the same things, including GOD.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 10, 2017, 11:33:10 PM
Most Christian's are seemingly oblivious to the fact that the two faiths reference all the same things, including GOD.
I don't know about that, I've read the Quran, it talks about killing the pagans and believers of other religions a bit more.
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 10, 2017, 11:37:37 PM
I don't know about that, I've read the Quran, it talks about killing the pagans and believers of other religions a bit more.
But ultimately goes back to being merciful in all things.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 10, 2017, 11:42:48 PM
But ultimately goes back to being merciful in all things.
I wouldn't even say that. Based off of things that I've read from you I can tell that you are a Christian, I do hope you realize that it talks about killing Christians, Jews and pretty much all non-believers quite a bit. But yeah, if you ignore like, 40% of the book at best, I guess it can talk about love sometimes?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 10, 2017, 11:15:25 PM
No they don't
Causation? People fear. People are religious, so religion reinforces fear? I would agree that is a simplistic over generalization. For some people in their own life, they tied fear with religion ... and it isn't uncommon. In the Soviet Union, atheists were fearful, and not because of religion. Religion was how they resisted fear.
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 10, 2017, 11:46:43 PM
I wouldn't even say that. Based off of things that I've read from you I can tell that you are a Christian, I do hope you realize that it talks about killing Christians, Jews and pretty much all non-believers quite a bit. But yeah, if you ignore like, 40% of the book at best, I guess it can talk about love sometimes?
No religion is all mercy and no justice. Some people think that the NT has no wrath. Islam is very wrathful ... with some mercy. The mercy of these Abrahamic gods is this ... you do what their god says, and their god won't burn you for all eternity. And not burning for all eternity, is merciful. And any Abrahamic god is magnanimous ... in the sense that lightning doesn't come out of the sky every time you sin ... because their god is waiting for you to turn your life around.
Buddhism and Hinduism have hells too, multiple levels like in Dante's Inferno ... only with reincarnation. The idea of divine punishment goes back to New Kingdom Egypt and the Book of the Dead. So pretty much, for most of history, religion has been fear inducing, but not just that. So in Islam, Allah is called merciful. In Buddhism, the Buddha is called compassionate.
Even Santa Clause keeps track if you are naughty or nice ;-) For some people, the only believable god is one that gives gold stars for mere participation. A kindergarten teacher god ... the god of Eden, but without expelling Adam and Eve ... a god where there is no sin and no punishment for sin. BTW, I don't accept that model of god myself, the kindergarten god or the school bully god. My god is right here, right now ... for better or worse ... hence I call myself a mystic.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 10, 2017, 11:58:26 PM
Yes they do--all of them--100%.
No...They don't.
As if you have witnessed every religious leader ever.
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 10, 2017, 11:46:43 PM
I wouldn't even say that. Based off of things that I've read from you I can tell that you are a Christian, I do hope you realize that it talks about killing Christians, Jews and pretty much all non-believers quite a bit. But yeah, if you ignore like, 40% of the book at best, I guess it can talk about love sometimes?
Quote any verse out of the Quran and I can show you how it goes back, ultimately, to mercy, as GOD is merciful.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 11, 2017, 06:35:06 AM
No...They don't.
As if you have witnessed every religious leader ever.
Anyway, don't fear the religious leaders, fear the religious followers ;-) Or gird up your loins, and stop being fearful. Nothing worse will happen to you today, besides a horrible death ... so face it and man up!
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 11, 2017, 06:36:33 AM
Quote any verse out of the Quran and I can show you how it goes back, ultimately, to mercy, as GOD is merciful.
People here aren't interested in apologetic ... just their own polemic.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 11, 2017, 06:36:33 AM
Quote any verse out of the Quran and I can show you how it goes back, ultimately, to mercy, as GOD is merciful.
But if I do that, you'll pull something out of your ass that won't make any sense whatsoever. So logic would dictate that I shouldn't do that because you're trying your best to spout out your bullshit that you think has some sort of intellectual integrity.
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 11, 2017, 07:24:28 AM
But if I do that, you'll pull something out of your ass that won't make any sense whatsoever. So logic would dictate that I shouldn't do that because you're trying your best to spout out your bullshit that you think has some sort of intellectual integrity.
No friend. I give my word that I will try my best to show my claim with the Quran and or any other scented text I have have mentioned here.
The texts you speak of would be taken out of context where as mine would be not only intact within their own but too expounded upon with seemingly wholly different books from seemingly wholly different faiths.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 11, 2017, 06:36:33 AM
Quote any verse out of the Quran and I can show you how it goes back, ultimately, to mercy, as GOD is merciful.
How can that be when god does not even exist? Except as a fiction in your head.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 10, 2017, 11:33:10 PM
Most Christian's are seemingly oblivious to the fact that the two faiths reference all the same things, including GOD.
Well, that's what I thought at one time, but I also have to admit that the motives of the Christian god and Allah aren't actually identical in the Bible and the Quran. But it is possible to think they are identical descriptions if you use a lot of license to ignore the discrepancies and focus on the similarities. But I'm quite sure we are talking about two different god's here, and the disparity between the two is even bigger than the disparity between the Catholic god and the Baptist god.
Also, if you meld the words of the scriptures with common Chrstian tropes invented without Biblical support, you can select concepts of both gods that make them appear identical.
I remember a radio evangelist (I get a kick out of listening to these guys while I drive sometimes) who said he had a conversation with a Muslim the other day (this was just after 9-11 so the evangelist was really fired up). Apparently, the Muslim said, "But we actually both worship the same god," which only added more fuel to the minister's flaming anger. And according to the sermon, he proceeded to take the dumb ass Muslim to the wood shed to give him a proper whoopin' as all Muslims deserve, where he clearly delineated the differences between their two gods, and left the Muslim quivering in his boots.
Of course this was a sermon, and late Saturday night, the evangelist probably realized he better get his ass in gear and come up with a topic for the next day's broadcast. Who knows if he even had a conversation with a Muslim just "the other day" or not? Who cares? He just need a topic to get all "self righteous for God," and demonstrate to his flock how they should get fired up too. In other words, it was most likely just a sermon that fell out of his brain because he needed to talk for an hour. But it's great fun listening to these guys with their evangelical accent an autocratic delivery.
Here's a scene from one of my favorite but obscure British comedies, Cold Comfort Farm, where sinners attend the a service at the Church of Quivering Brethren, so called because the minister verbally beats the shit out of them and tells them it's too late, and no matter what they do, they will burn in Hell, which leaves them quivering. And they keep coming back to church every week just to quiver in the futility of their horrible destiny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5evsxRdkJw
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 11, 2017, 07:24:28 AM
But if I do that, you'll pull something out of your ass that won't make any sense whatsoever. So logic would dictate that I shouldn't do that because you're trying your best to spout out your bullshit that you think has some sort of intellectual integrity.
The problem with scriptural interpretation ... it has four levels, not just one.
Most people are satisfied with the first level, the literal, out of context level. Ignorant religious and usually better informed atheists, take this approach. They are usually countering religious literalists, so they operate on that level. The second level is context ... context with the rest of scripture. Still literal, but you can't take a verse out of context, you can't proof-text. The third level is cultural ... what does this scripture mean, in terms of the original language and culture that it came out of. Here we have to rely on analogy and creative reconstruction of societies that don't exist anymore. Current society may or may not be a guide to this. Bedouin are not far culturally from Muhammad ... but most Christians are culturally alien relative to Jewish Messianics in the early Roman Empire. The fourth level is spiritual ... what does this mean in terms of your personal relationship with the supernatural. Most people never get past the first level, and that is to be expected ... in something that requires single minded attention to tree and forest.
Quote from: Baruch on January 11, 2017, 12:48:15 PM
The problem with scriptural interpretation ... it has four levels, not just one.
Most people are satisfied with the first level, the literal, out of context level. Ignorant religious and usually better informed atheists, take this approach. They are usually countering religious literalists, so they operate on that level. The second level is context ... context with the rest of scripture. Still literal, but you can't take a verse out of context, you can't proof-text. The third level is cultural ... what does this scripture mean, in terms of the original language and culture that it came out of. Here we have to rely on analogy and creative reconstruction of societies that don't exist anymore. Current society may or may not be a guide to this. Bedouin are not far culturally from Muhammad ... but most Christians are culturally alien relative to Jewish Messianics in the early Roman Empire. The fourth level is spiritual ... what does this mean in terms of your personal relationship with the supernatural. Most people never get past the first level, and that is to be expected ... in something that requires single minded attention to tree and forest.
So when did reading a book straight forward start becoming reading something out of context. I didn't your comment's first sentence and then jump around the rest of your paragraph. If you think that jumping around a book outside the author's intent, which would be reading it straight from front to back, then you're reading the book wrong.
It's kind of like looking at a seeing all the evidence for a murderer who has been proven guilty, and then looking only at the evidence that the murderer gave for him not killing and saying that he did nothing wrong because the defendant had nothing to say.
Quote from: SGOS on January 11, 2017, 09:56:49 AM
Well, that's what I thought at one time, but I also have to admit that the motives of the Christian god and Allah aren't actually identical in the Bible and the Quran. But it is possible to think they are identical descriptions if you use a lot of license to ignore the discrepancies and focus on the similarities. But I'm quite sure we are talking about two different god's here, and the disparity between the two is even bigger than the disparity between the Catholic god and the Baptist god.
Also, if you meld the words of the scriptures with common Chrstian tropes invented without Biblical support, you can select concepts of both gods that make them appear identical.
I remember a radio evangelist (I get a kick out of listening to these guys while I drive sometimes) who said he had a conversation with a Muslim the other day (this was just after 9-11 so the evangelist was really fired up). Apparently, the Muslim said, "But we actually both worship the same god," which only added more fuel to the minister's flaming anger. And according to the sermon, he proceeded to take the dumb ass Muslim to the wood shed to give him a proper whoopin' as all Muslims deserve, where he clearly delineated the differences between their two gods, and left the Muslim quivering in his boots.
Of course this was a sermon, and late Saturday night, the evangelist probably realized he better get his ass in gear and come up with a topic for the next day's broadcast. Who knows if he even had a conversation with a Muslim just "the other day" or not? Who cares? He just need a topic to get all "self righteous for God," and demonstrate to his flock how they should get fired up too. In other words, it was most likely just a sermon that fell out of his brain because he needed to talk for an hour. But it's great fun listening to these guys with their evangelical accent an autocratic delivery.
Even the Bible is inconsistent in its descriptions of God. Sometimes he's described as being all-powerful, but elsewhere he's afraid of people with iron chariots. Sometimes he's said to never change, but Moses managed to change God's mind when he said he would destroy the Hebrews. He's described as being a God of mercy in some places, and a consuming fire of wrath in others. Sometimes he punishes people for the sins of their ancestors, and other times he does not punish the sons for the sins of the father. The Bible's God has no consistent qualities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 11, 2017, 09:27:49 AM
How can that be when god does not even exist? Except as a fiction in your head.
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-god-does-not-exist-and-dirac-is-his-prophet-wolfgang-paul-79-6-0661.jpg)
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 11, 2017, 04:00:48 PM
So when did reading a book straight forward start becoming reading something out of context. I didn't your comment's first sentence and then jump around the rest of your paragraph. If you think that jumping around a book outside the author's intent, which would be reading it straight from front to back, then you're reading the book wrong.
It's kind of like looking at a seeing all the evidence for a murderer who has been proven guilty, and then looking only at the evidence that the murderer gave for him not killing and saying that he did nothing wrong because the defendant had nothing to say.
I hear you Journey. But reading religious texts is not like reading a novel or history book. Take the bible for instance. The bible did not fall to the earth complete. It was cobbled together over time from many many different writings. The bible was put together to further the views of whichever group it was that put the version of that text you are now reading. There are more than one version of the bible, with each version being different. With the NT, for example, if one were to take the KJV and arrange it in chronological order, the first 'books' would be Paul's writings. The order of the synoptics would be Mark first, followed by Matt, Luke/Acts, then John. Reading in this order gives one a different picture of Jesus than reading ti in the traditional manner. There are many ways to tackle religious texts. But it still leads one to think it is still a fiction.
I mean, unless you were someone like pops, who doesn't know how to take the biggest book of pranks as the biggest book of pranks.
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 11, 2017, 06:36:11 PM
I mean, unless you were someone like pops, who doesn't know how to take the biggest book of pranks as the biggest book of pranks.
Kosher pranks, on Gentiles ... get it right ...
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 11, 2017, 09:27:49 AM
How can that be when god does not even exist? Except as a fiction in your head.
Whoever you think George Washington was ... is just a fiction in your head. My head holds a different fiction of him. Only Plato knows the Eternal Forms ... thru his magical Greek organ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp61Yrj5lTA
Quote from: Baruch on January 11, 2017, 07:42:04 PM
Kosher pranks, on Gentiles ... get it right ...
Sorry, how unsanitary of me
Quote from: SGOS on January 11, 2017, 10:06:27 AM
Here's a scene from one of my favorite but obscure British comedies, Cold Comfort Farm, where sinners attend the a service at the Church of Quivering Brethren, so called because the minister verbally beats the shit out of them and tells them it's too late, and no matter what they do, they will burn in Hell, which leaves them quivering. And they keep coming back to church every week just to quiver in the futility of their horrible destiny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5evsxRdkJw
Making fun of Quakers (Friends) and Shakers? How cruel to an oppressed minority group, you big meanie! The Shakers are actually extinct .. it is safest to slander extinct religious groups, like Sumerian worshippers of Enki ... no fear of lawsuits!
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 11, 2017, 04:00:48 PM
So when did reading a book straight forward start becoming reading something out of context. I didn't your comment's first sentence and then jump around the rest of your paragraph. If you think that jumping around a book outside the author's intent, which would be reading it straight from front to back, then you're reading the book wrong.
It's kind of like looking at a seeing all the evidence for a murderer who has been proven guilty, and then looking only at the evidence that the murderer gave for him not killing and saying that he did nothing wrong because the defendant had nothing to say.
Sorry ... i will comment to the big boys next time ;-) Is that how you read books? Maybe if you educated yourself in literary criticism first.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 11, 2017, 04:41:30 PM
Even the Bible is inconsistent in its descriptions of God. Sometimes he's described as being all-powerful, but elsewhere he's afraid of people with iron chariots. Sometimes he's said to never change, but Moses managed to change God's mind when he said he would destroy the Hebrews. He's described as being a God of mercy in some places, and a consuming fire of wrath in others. Sometimes he punishes people for the sins of their ancestors, and other times he does not punish the sons for the sins of the father. The Bible's God has no consistent qualities.
Yes, and the US statutory code is perfectly consistent too. The Bible is an anthology of Jewish literature. Do you try to go read Elie Wiesel's "Night" for legal guidance? Or are you just indifferent to Jewish literature ... I don't mind if you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_(book)
Quote from: Baruch on January 11, 2017, 07:46:58 PM
Sorry ... i will comment to the big boys next time ;-) Is that how you read books? Maybe if you educated yourself in literary criticism first.
Man I just love being a stupid kid. Yes, that's how I'd read a work of fiction.
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 11, 2017, 07:53:11 PM
Man I just love being a stupid kid. Yes, that's how I'd read a work of fiction.
Keep reading ... eventually you might want to understand the author better, or the original audience of the book/play. Why do people write at all?
Quote from: Baruch on January 11, 2017, 07:56:17 PM
Keep reading ... eventually you might want to understand the author better, or the original audience of the book/play. Why do people write at all?
Okay, I'm going to go read Ender's Game from the the first chapter now, and then I'm going to skip 5 and read chapter 6, and then I'll skip then end, I'll understand the entire book. That makes a lot of sense.
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 11, 2017, 08:00:21 PM
Okay, I'm going to go read Ender's Game from the the first chapter now, and then I'm going to skip 5 and read chapter 6, and then I'll skip then end, I'll understand the entire book. That makes a lot of sense.
I always read the last chapter first or second. Only losers don't cheat ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on January 11, 2017, 08:02:30 PM
I always read the last chapter first or second. Only losers don't cheat ;-)
I do like reading the last page first. By the way, your method of reading makes no sense whatsoever, I do not see how that would be beneficial to the reader at all.
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 11, 2017, 08:05:54 PM
I do like reading the last page first. By the way, your method of reading makes no sense whatsoever, I do not see how that would be beneficial to the reader at all.
You are making an unwarranted assumption .. that I am trying to benefit anyone. Maybe I am to modest to try to save the world from Lucky Charms cereal.
Quote from: Baruch on January 11, 2017, 08:10:55 PM
You are making an unwarranted assumption .. that I am trying to benefit anyone. Maybe I am to modest to try to save the world from Lucky Charms cereal.
What I mean is, how would that be beneficial to you or anyone that would read a book like that?
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 11, 2017, 08:14:03 PM
What I mean is, how would that be beneficial to you or anyone that would read a book like that?
What is the benefit of cheating? Sometimes the only good part of a book is its conclusion.
Quote from: Baruch on January 11, 2017, 08:20:55 PM
What is the benefit of cheating? Sometimes the only good part of a book is its conclusion.
That's true, but it's also sometimes important to know the stuff before the ending, otherwise we wouldn't write the whole book because it would be a waste.
Quote from: Baruch on January 11, 2017, 07:43:21 PM
Whoever you think George Washington was ... is just a fiction in your head. My head holds a different fiction of him. Only Plato knows the Eternal Forms ... thru his magical Greek organ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp61Yrj5lTA
That should read 'cereal killer'.
Quote from: Baruch on January 11, 2017, 07:50:07 PM
Yes, and the US statutory code is perfectly consistent too. The Bible is an anthology of Jewish literature. Do you try to go read Elie Wiesel's "Night" for legal guidance? Or are you just indifferent to Jewish literature ... I don't mind if you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_(book)
The US statutory code and Wiesel's "Night" were not claimed to be divinely inspired works written for the purpose of teaching people about the one, true, unchanging god. The inconsistencies of the Bible are evidence that the writers were making stuff up, that their concepts of God evolved over time to suit their changing standards, and cast serious doubt on its authority to teach on the nature of God. The Bible is already known to be historically false and morally abhorrent. If it can't even give a consistent image of God, what personal use is there for the Bible? The pages don't even make good toilet paper.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 11, 2017, 11:00:18 PM
The US statutory code and Wiesel's "Night" were not claimed to be divinely inspired works written for the purpose of teaching people about the one, true, unchanging god. The inconsistencies of the Bible are evidence that the writers were making stuff up, that their concepts of God evolved over time to suit their changing standards, and cast serious doubt on its authority to teach on the nature of God. The Bible is already known to be historically false and morally abhorrent. If it can't even give a consistent image of God, what personal use is there for the Bible? The pages don't even make good toilet paper.
Well it is OK of course, to hate clergy, laity and church/synagogue/mosque. But I wouldn't be surprised if "Night" wasn't taught in some synagogues. BTW - most synagogues wouldn't teach the Bible as anything but traditional, not as divinely inspired. Liturgy is dominant in synagogue. Orthodox synagogues would of course claim the Tanakh as divinely inspired, but again liturgy is dominant. In the case of Islam, since they don't count the Bible as a predecessor (though it is) ... the Quran/Hadith evolved rather quickly over about 100 years ... though they also deny (being orthodox) that it evolved at all. Islam was the first Abrahamic religion to move to bibliolatry. It is well known, except to the ignorant, that Judaism evolved over many centuries, and so has Christianity. Also the Church traditionally doesn't take the Bible as its foundation, that is a recent Protestant invention of only 500 years ago (they borrowed it from Islam). Orthodox Christianity takes its traditions as authoritative, same as Judaism.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds to paraphrase Oscar Wilde. A consistent painting would be a single color, with no figures. If it was also SJW neutral, it would have to be all black as well. MRA would be all white ;-) Your real beef is hatred of any authority? I despise authority too ... and I don't take any book as scripture. Like Pops says ... real religion is having a personal encounter with G-d ala Jacob, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad. People actually do that all the time, the fictional biographies are illustrative, if confusing. Encountering G-d is no fun, but can be cathartic, as it was for Pops. Of course catharsis is woo, just as is everything else about ape men.
History and biography are false too, not just fairy tales. Why do you accept official biographers and official historians and official journalists as authoritative? You find things morally abhorrent ... well I do too sometimes ... but then I remember that I am a naked ape, not a child of G-d. Just another zoo animal, not as attractive as an ibex.
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2017, 06:43:51 AM
Well it is OK of course, to hate clergy, laity and church/synagogue/mosque.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds to paraphrase Oscar Wilde. A consistent painting would be a single color, with no figures.
Like Pops says ... real religion is having a personal encounter with G-d ala Jacob, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad. People actually do that all the time, the fictional biographies are illustrative, if confusing. Encountering G-d is no fun, but can be cathartic, as it was for Pops. Of course catharsis is woo, just as is everything else about ape men.
History and biography are false too, not just fairy tales. Why do you accept official biographers and official historians and official journalists as authoritative?
4 things, Baruch.............................
---------------------I don't hate either clergy, laity or church. I hate---despise--the hierarchy that grows up around religious precepts. The hierarchy is people with real life people, of course. But take away that rigid hierarchy and the death and destruction surrounding organized religion would dissipate; at least for the most part. There can be good (and bad) clergy; and good and bad lay people--but that should be determined on an individual basis. The church I see as only the physical meeting place and is what it is--a building. For the most part, individual spiritual seeking is not good or bad, but is simply another way to try and explore not only the physical world, but our emotional selves. It will very seldom lead to violence; but if it did, it would be fairly easy to control. Throw a hierarchy into the mix and it will eventually lead to death and destruction as the natural result of its growth.
------I give no authority to Oscar Wilde, and I find consistency to be the cornerstone of logical and rational thought and behavior. The trick, of course, is to realize that being consistent can be good or bad. One has to find out what works for oneself and then repeat it. I find finding a consistent routine helpful in my personal life. I don't mind being in a 'rut'. In my past professional life it was all about being consistent--my students knew what to expect from me and therefore had no problems with my classroom rules--because I was consistent in enforcing those rules. For me, I use my consistent routine as a base that frees my mind for other things rather than reinventing the wheel each day. And I also find that I can then much more easily change that routine. Being consistent does not mean being blind. It simply gives one a base to operate from. A consistent painting would not be a single color; that would be constant. Consistent and constant are not the same--at least for me. Constant is done all the time the very same way. A constant painting would be one color. A consistent painting would be one in which the painter followed a certain set of precepts or steps or ideas. A Monet type painting would be consistent with the methods Monet used, not a single color.
--------------A personal encounter with god. Since god is a fiction, I suppose an actual encounter with that god would be an episode of mental illness. Self delusion at best. Catharsis may be the result, and if so, that would be fortunate for that individual. But that is all it is--a personal reaction to a psychotic episode. And I would not label that 'woo' or magic; only that our minds do things we do not understand--some good and some bad. (and yes, those are just labels, for what is good and bad is problematic and individual)
------History and biography is not false; or it does not necessarily follow that they are. What all history and biography is is biased. As hard as a historian may try and follow the facts, he/she cannot help but insert their own bias into that work. But, since we understand that, we can factor our, or try to, that bias. No historical researcher basis their work on just one source. The diligent researcher evaluates each source to determine what biases are shown and then, in his/her final product blends those together into his own work. That's why history books come with bibliographies.
Yes, some histories are intentionally false. But those are fairly easy to detect. Pretty much the same for a biography. Just because the person writes about themselves does not mean the selected memories are correct or not invented. That's the historians job--figure out what is most likely correct and what is not. So, do I give historians 'authority'? Yes, in that I give them credit for the fact they researched a topic and is much more familiar with a certain topic or event. But that recognition is not blind--but consistent with good historical research methods.
It seems to me Baruch that your own personal psychotic event leads you to believe there is a god. You have met him/her/it. I would suggest that that is only valid for you, and you alone. Yet you use that psychotic event as something that was physically real--and use that as a club to beat the rest of over the head with--after all we are just naked apes so what could we possibly understand??!! I get a sense of smugness coming from you in that you know the reality of it all; and we poor naked apes (yes, I know you include yourself in that group) just can not possibly (or even refuse to try and see) see or comprehend. You know, Baruch, that I deeply admire your intellectual insight and the way you can get to the heart of the matter quickly. I like and appreciate your sense of humor. But in this area I am befuddled by your thinking.
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2017, 06:43:51 AM
Well it is OK of course, to hate clergy, laity and church/synagogue/mosque. But I wouldn't be surprised if "Night" wasn't taught in some synagogues. BTW - most synagogues wouldn't teach the Bible as anything but traditional, not as divinely inspired. Liturgy is dominant in synagogue. Orthodox synagogues would of course claim the Tanakh as divinely inspired, but again liturgy is dominant. In the case of Islam, since they don't count the Bible as a predecessor (though it is) ... the Quran/Hadith evolved rather quickly over about 100 years ... though they also deny (being orthodox) that it evolved at all. Islam was the first Abrahamic religion to move to bibliolatry. It is well known, except to the ignorant, that Judaism evolved over many centuries, and so has Christianity. Also the Church traditionally doesn't take the Bible as its foundation, that is a recent Protestant invention of only 500 years ago (they borrowed it from Islam). Orthodox Christianity takes its traditions as authoritative, same as Judaism.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds to paraphrase Oscar Wilde. A consistent painting would be a single color, with no figures. If it was also SJW neutral, it would have to be all black as well. MRA would be all white ;-) Your real beef is hatred of any authority? I despise authority too ... and I don't take any book as scripture. Like Pops says ... real religion is having a personal encounter with G-d ala Jacob, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad. People actually do that all the time, the fictional biographies are illustrative, if confusing. Encountering G-d is no fun, but can be cathartic, as it was for Pops. Of course catharsis is woo, just as is everything else about ape men.
History and biography are false too, not just fairy tales. Why do you accept official biographers and official historians and official journalists as authoritative? You find things morally abhorrent ... well I do too sometimes ... but then I remember that I am a naked ape, not a child of G-d. Just another zoo animal, not as attractive as an ibex.
You didn't answer my question. What personal use does the Bible have if it cannot teach us about the nature of God? Or do you think that G-d has multiple personality disorder?
I don't hate authority. I do hate the Christian religions and Islam because they try to keep society stuck in the dark ages in terms of morality, technological and medical development, and science. They promote hate against out-groups by spreading false narratives, such as Hitler being an atheist or homosexuals being child molesters.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 12, 2017, 11:12:25 AM
You didn't answer my question. What personal use does the Bible have if it cannot teach us about the nature of God? Or do you think that G-d has multiple personality disorder?
I don't hate authority. I do hate the Christian religions and Islam because they try to keep society stuck in the dark ages in terms of morality, technological and medical development, and science. They promote hate against out-groups by spreading false narratives, such as Hitler being an atheist or homosexuals being child molesters.
So you are an authoritarian? I wouldn't have thought so. Yes, religion can be non-Progressive ... but Marxism will take care of that, or some other more libertarian techno-utopia. I try not to be a moralist, or I would condemn everyone ;-(
The Bible only teaches some people, the nature of G-d, not everyone. Some people at least think, they have a personal encounter with a god in a book. I don't agree with that either. Most theists have incompetent theology ... one form being bibliolatry. And no, I won't describe the Bible as some SJW tract. Nietzsche thought that the Bible was very much a "slave ideology" aka SJW book ... but he might be wrong about that. In his time, there was a lot of Social Gospel going on vis the poor ... the the secular version was called Socialism. Some were Christian Socialists, others were Democratic Socialist (aka secular). He despised all of that, because it held down the creative ubermenschen.
Personally, I am not a strict monotheist ... and that certainly comes up in my past use of Multiple Personality disorder to describe G-d. The Bible does reflect my POV fairly well, but it is just a book. The clincher is my observation of myself and other people. People are infinitely more important than any book, in terms of knowing human reality ... though I am a book lover.
Quote from: Baruch on January 11, 2017, 07:56:17 PM
Why do people write at all?
ummm...because it's there? :headscratch:
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2017, 12:47:49 PM
So you are an authoritarian? I wouldn't have thought so. Yes, religion can be non-Progressive ... but Marxism will take care of that, or some other more libertarian techno-utopia. I try not to be a moralist, or I would condemn everyone ;-(
We need some bourgeoisie here, that would be fun.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 12, 2017, 04:25:41 PM
ummm...because it's there? :headscratch:
Only if it is a diary about climbing a mountain ;-)
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 12, 2017, 07:26:27 PM
We need some bourgeoisie here, that would be fun.
Middle class women, as in Madame Bovary ... are the basis for bourgeoisie. Not many of those here. Bourgeoisie men are simply men under the thumb of a bourgeoisie wife. Been there, done that. Mostly heretics and revolutionaries here.
windershins did you actually sit down to look at the evidence of the Christian god and find it to be credible? you are welcome to share your reasoning even though it isnt part of the original question.
I am not even close to an expert on this subject, but I was told by an Egyptian national that the god of the Bible and the god of the Quran are not the same entity. He did not offer an explanation
Quote from: fencerider on January 14, 2017, 02:34:18 AM
windershins did you actually sit down to look at the evidence of the Christian god and find it to be credible? you are welcome to share your reasoning even though it isnt part of the original question.
I am not even close to an expert on this subject, but I was told by an Egyptian national that the god of the Bible and the god of the Quran are not the same entity. He did not offer an explanation
Hopefully widershins will see this and answer you.
Your Egyptian made a simple answer to a complex question. The answer depends on ideology and psychology. He/she is both right and wrong. If he/she is a real Egyptian, they should be worshipping Amun-Ra or Thoth. Thoth is my favorite Egyptian myth. I like animals, so animal headed deities are cool. Thoth is the god of writing and alchemy and is the scribe for the Last Judgement (in Judaism it is Elijah, in Christianity it is Jesus).
Thank you Baruch, I had not seen it.
I sat down to look at the evidence of the Christian God and found it to be the opposite of credible. I talked to 3 people of competing faiths all at the same time (not simultaneously). Each one spent so much of their effort showing me how the other two were wrong and defending themselves from the other two that not one of them ever got around to telling me how they were right. It made it clear as a bell that each and every one of them was fully capable of making the Bible say anything they wanted, condemning anything they didn't like and justifying anything they wanted to. By the end of it the entire experience was more of a train wreck of petty bickering (through me. They never directly talked) than anything I would consider to be "Christ-like". Each participant would smile a sly smile as they showed me in the Bible how the other wasn't doing it right.
I found the entire experience really rather pathetic in the end. It was after that experience that I moved from agnostic and searching to atheist and decided. That was the point after which I began requiring real evidence to even consider the possibility that any deities were more than mere fairy tales. Since then I have heard many claim of such evidence, and the claimant usually thinks he or she has something special, but they all seem to be variants of the same few tired arguments which really don't prove shit to anyone who doesn't already believe.
As for your Egyptian friend, this is a common way for people to set themselves up as more important than they are. I had my Jehovah's Witness friend tell me the same thing, that they god the Jehovah's Witnesses worship was not the same one other Christians worshiped. In his head, this made sense even though their Bibles were translated from the same parchments, they both told the same stories with the same characters, they were both the "God of Abraham", they both had a savior-son named Jesus... It's just a way to make them feel special, to pretend they're more important in the religious world than anyone else.
Quote from: widdershins on January 16, 2017, 05:57:54 PMAs for your Egyptian friend, this is a common way for people to set themselves up as more important than they are. I had my Jehovah's Witness friend tell me the same thing, that they god the Jehovah's Witnesses worship was not the same one other Christians worshiped. In his head, this made sense even though their Bibles were translated from the same parchments, they both told the same stories with the same characters, they were both the "God of Abraham", they both had a savior-son named Jesus... It's just a way to make them feel special, to pretend they're more important in the religious world than anyone else.
No one person's god is the same as another person's god. Each Judeo-Christian theist has a unique god, who just happens to have the same moral values they have. They
know which stories are literal, and which things their gods said and didn't mean. They're all experts on their own gods because they created their gods.
Quote from: SGOS on January 11, 2017, 09:56:49 AM
Well, that's what I thought at one time, but I also have to admit that the motives of the Christian god and Allah aren't actually identical in the Bible and the Quran. But it is possible to think they are identical descriptions if you use a lot of license to ignore the discrepancies and focus on the similarities. But I'm quite sure we are talking about two different god's here, and the disparity between the two is even bigger than the disparity between the Catholic god and the Baptist god.
Also, if you meld the words of the scriptures with common Chrstian tropes invented without Biblical support, you can select concepts of both gods that make them appear identical.
I remember a radio evangelist (I get a kick out of listening to these guys while I drive sometimes) who said he had a conversation with a Muslim the other day (this was just after 9-11 so the evangelist was really fired up). Apparently, the Muslim said, "But we actually both worship the same god," which only added more fuel to the minister's flaming anger. And according to the sermon, he proceeded to take the dumb ass Muslim to the wood shed to give him a proper whoopin' as all Muslims deserve, where he clearly delineated the differences between their two gods, and left the Muslim quivering in his boots.
Of course this was a sermon, and late Saturday night, the evangelist probably realized he better get his ass in gear and come up with a topic for the next day's broadcast. Who knows if he even had a conversation with a Muslim just "the other day" or not? Who cares? He just need a topic to get all "self righteous for God," and demonstrate to his flock how they should get fired up too. In other words, it was most likely just a sermon that fell out of his brain because he needed to talk for an hour. But it's great fun listening to these guys with their evangelical accent an autocratic delivery.
Haughty misdirection is sickening, especially when perpetrated by ones self.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 12, 2017, 10:35:38 AM
4 things, Baruch.............................
---------------------I don't hate either clergy, laity or church. I hate---despise--the hierarchy that grows up around religious precepts. The hierarchy is people with real life people, of course. But take away that rigid hierarchy and the death and destruction surrounding organized religion would dissipate; at least for the most part. There can be good (and bad) clergy; and good and bad lay people--but that should be determined on an individual basis. The church I see as only the physical meeting place and is what it is--a building. For the most part, individual spiritual seeking is not good or bad, but is simply another way to try and explore not only the physical world, but our emotional selves. It will very seldom lead to violence; but if it did, it would be fairly easy to control. Throw a hierarchy into the mix and it will eventually lead to death and destruction as the natural result of its growth.
------I give no authority to Oscar Wilde, and I find consistency to be the cornerstone of logical and rational thought and behavior. The trick, of course, is to realize that being consistent can be good or bad. One has to find out what works for oneself and then repeat it. I find finding a consistent routine helpful in my personal life. I don't mind being in a 'rut'. In my past professional life it was all about being consistent--my students knew what to expect from me and therefore had no problems with my classroom rules--because I was consistent in enforcing those rules. For me, I use my consistent routine as a base that frees my mind for other things rather than reinventing the wheel each day. And I also find that I can then much more easily change that routine. Being consistent does not mean being blind. It simply gives one a base to operate from. A consistent painting would not be a single color; that would be constant. Consistent and constant are not the same--at least for me. Constant is done all the time the very same way. A constant painting would be one color. A consistent painting would be one in which the painter followed a certain set of precepts or steps or ideas. A Monet type painting would be consistent with the methods Monet used, not a single color.
--------------A personal encounter with god. Since god is a fiction, I suppose an actual encounter with that god would be an episode of mental illness. Self delusion at best. Catharsis may be the result, and if so, that would be fortunate for that individual. But that is all it is--a personal reaction to a psychotic episode. And I would not label that 'woo' or magic; only that our minds do things we do not understand--some good and some bad. (and yes, those are just labels, for what is good and bad is problematic and individual)
------History and biography is not false; or it does not necessarily follow that they are. What all history and biography is is biased. As hard as a historian may try and follow the facts, he/she cannot help but insert their own bias into that work. But, since we understand that, we can factor our, or try to, that bias. No historical researcher basis their work on just one source. The diligent researcher evaluates each source to determine what biases are shown and then, in his/her final product blends those together into his own work. That's why history books come with bibliographies.
Yes, some histories are intentionally false. But those are fairly easy to detect. Pretty much the same for a biography. Just because the person writes about themselves does not mean the selected memories are correct or not invented. That's the historians job--figure out what is most likely correct and what is not. So, do I give historians 'authority'? Yes, in that I give them credit for the fact they researched a topic and is much more familiar with a certain topic or event. But that recognition is not blind--but consistent with good historical research methods.
It seems to me Baruch that your own personal psychotic event leads you to believe there is a god. You have met him/her/it. I would suggest that that is only valid for you, and you alone. Yet you use that psychotic event as something that was physically real--and use that as a club to beat the rest of over the head with--after all we are just naked apes so what could we possibly understand??!! I get a sense of smugness coming from you in that you know the reality of it all; and we poor naked apes (yes, I know you include yourself in that group) just can not possibly (or even refuse to try and see) see or comprehend. You know, Baruch, that I deeply admire your intellectual insight and the way you can get to the heart of the matter quickly. I like and appreciate your sense of humor. But in this area I am befuddled by your thinking.
Again you openly label things you don't understand as "a psychotic episode". How does one assume a conclusion based on lack of understanding and then go on to act as if they are actually confirming a truth?
Your points about heirarcy (however you spell it) where very welcome. Your assumptions and open, admitted arguments from ignorance aren't really helpful though
peace
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 12, 2017, 11:12:25 AM
You didn't answer my question. What personal use does the Bible have if it cannot teach us about the nature of God? Or do you think that G-d has multiple personality disorder?
I don't hate authority. I do hate the Christian religions and Islam because they try to keep society stuck in the dark ages in terms of morality, technological and medical development, and science. They promote hate against out-groups by spreading false narratives, such as Hitler being an atheist or homosexuals being child molesters.
Men's best attempts to accurately describe the nature of GOD should be expected to be somewhat varied, especially in reference to a reaction towards different people at different times.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 16, 2017, 11:36:33 PM
Again you openly label things you don't understand as "a psychotic episode". How does one assume a conclusion based on lack of understanding and then go on to act as if they are actually confirming a truth?
Your points about heirarcy (however you spell it) where very welcome. Your assumptions and open, admitted arguments from ignorance aren't really helpful though
peace
I know MikeCL longer than anyone here, he invited me here. He has some bitterness he is working out, you can see this in the tenor of some of his responses. I am not offended, because I have a low opinion of monkey people and I admit to being one myself. Chattering and poo throwing.
Mike - Seeing things different from person X, is not proof that we are psychotic, or that person X is psychotic. Please study the relevant medical literature. My experience of G-d isn't even paranormal, let alone like a hallucination. You have an image of what that would be like, and are naturally projecting on me ;-)
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 16, 2017, 11:39:02 PM
Men's best attempts to accurately describe the nature of GOD should be expected to be somewhat varied, especially in reference to a reaction towards different people at different times.
Somewhat varied? We're not talking about God's favorite color. The Bible has major contradictions when describing God. Does he change? How powerful is he? How much value does he put in human life? Does he desire sacrifice? Does he want people to go to Hell? Depending on where in the Bible you look, you can find a completely different answer to all of these questions. And when you claim that every religion worships the same god, you're left with even less consistency. You cannot logically draw any kinds of conclusions from religious texts.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 16, 2017, 11:36:33 PM
Again you openly label things you don't understand as "a psychotic episode". How does one assume a conclusion based on lack of understanding and then go on to act as if they are actually confirming a truth?
Your points about heirarcy (however you spell it) where very welcome. Your assumptions and open, admitted arguments from ignorance aren't really helpful though
peace
Okay, Pops, if you say so. But can you--or anybody--give me some evidence to show that your psychotic episode was other than that; that some actual evidence for any god exists??????
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 17, 2017, 12:20:36 PM
Okay, Pops, if you say so. But can you--or anybody--give me some evidence to show that your psychotic episode was other than that; that some actual evidence for any god exists??????
Why don't you show evidence that it was a psychotic episode then we can draw conclusions from there instead of baseless assertions?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 17, 2017, 12:48:50 PM
Why don't you show evidence that it was a psychotic episode then we can draw conclusions from there instead of baseless assertions?
I think the jargon is getting in the way. Let me define what I mean by 'psychotic'. I don't mean crazy. I don't even necessarily mean bad. I mean something that happened to you in your own mind. An event that was very different and jarring--whether pleasant or unpleasant, calming or chaotic--but unique to you. It would be an event that was not physical or material--like a god materializing in your living room or back yard. It is an event that happened in your mind and to you. You don't like the word 'psychotic', so how about something like 'transcendent'? I get the impression that it was for you.
In any case, how does that constitute proof for me that god exists???? When I ask theists why they think god exists, one of the reasons the y state is something like your transcendent story--a happening that was personal to them and unique to them. That is not proof for me--can be for the theist I suppose, that is still totally personal.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 17, 2017, 02:25:52 PM
I think the jargon is getting in the way. Let me define what I mean by 'psychotic'. I don't mean crazy. I don't even necessarily mean bad. I mean something that happened to you in your own mind. An event that was very different and jarring--whether pleasant or unpleasant, calming or chaotic--but unique to you. It would be an event that was not physical or material--like a god materializing in your living room or back yard. It is an event that happened in your mind and to you. You don't like the word 'psychotic', so how about something like 'transcendent'? I get the impression that it was for you.
In any case, how does that constitute proof for me that god exists???? When I ask theists why they think god exists, one of the reasons the y state is something like your transcendent story--a happening that was personal to them and unique to them. That is not proof for me--can be for the theist I suppose, that is still totally personal.
It is still a baseless assertion on your part, and I'm not expecting you to take my words for evidence of the existence of anything whatsoever.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 17, 2017, 03:25:15 PM
It is still a baseless assertion on your part, and I'm not expecting you to take my words for evidence of the existence of anything whatsoever.
How is it baseless??? I basing this on what you have reported to us. Well, I see--that does make it baseless, since you have based your belief in a fictional god on a fiction that happened to you. If it is not a fiction then give me so proof that it wasn't--any proof will do. But you can't, for it is all fiction. Or set me straight...................
in Behaviorism, once a popular form of psychology in the US ... since conscious states aren't shared, they can't be objective. So objective psychology can't be concerned with consciousness. And I agree, even if I am not a Behaviorist (I am a depth psychology person). So for Pops, in so far as we are talking psychology, you may have a particular POV (as I do) or had a particular experience (we all do) ... but for a Behaviorist, there is no use talking about it. I think this is where MikeCL is coming from ;-) Depth psychology was started by Freud, and he was a secularized Jewish exorcist ... so we can see why some folks shy away from this.
Quote from: fencerider on January 14, 2017, 02:34:18 AM
I am not even close to an expert on this subject, but I was told by an Egyptian national that the god of the Bible and the god of the Quran are not the same entity. He did not offer an explanation
Why then would Christians, Jews and Muslims all be considered "people of the book"? The God of Abraham is the God of all 3 religions. So if it existed it would, indeed, be the same entity.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 17, 2017, 05:54:03 PM
Why then would Christians, Jews and Muslims all be considered "people of the book"? The God of Abraham is the God of all 3 religions. So if it existed it would, indeed, be the same entity.
Metaphorical family feud. Jews (originally) and Arabs are both Semites. Muslims originally were Arabs. Christians are (metaphorically) considered to be Edomites in Jewish theology. Muslims are (literally for Arabs and metaphorically for the rest) considered to be Ishmaeites. Jews are Jacobites (not Scottish though). This is derived from the notion that Christianity is a Hellenistic Jewish heresy ... which it in fact is. Muslims of course consider that Jews and Christians are heretics, because to them, Abraham was the first Muslim (which he was). Of course Abraham, Moses, Jesus are all fictional people. Christians consider Jews to be heretics, because the Messiah came, but the Jews rejected him (maybe because he was speaking a Greek dialect?).
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2017, 05:42:17 PM
in Behaviorism, once a popular form of psychology in the US ... since conscious states aren't shared, they can't be objective. So objective psychology can't be concerned with consciousness. And I agree, even if I am not a Behaviorist (I am a depth psychology person). So for Pops, in so far as we are talking psychology, you may have a particular POV (as I do) or had a particular experience (we all do) ... but for a Behaviorist, there is no use talking about it. I think this is where MikeCL is coming from ;-) Depth psychology was started by Freud, and he was a secularized Jewish exorcist ... so we can see why some folks shy away from this.
Don't know about the jargon. I've not studied much psychology, but what you said, Baruch, seems about right. I cannot get into another person's head and see what they are thinking or have experienced. So, to have had a 'transcendence' type of experience and expect me to take your word for it, is pretty silly. That can not in any way be considered proof of god or anything else. To say that god is spiritual and only spiritual is dishonest, at best. If your god created the material universe and the only way it can communicate is via the mind, then that god is ineffectual, at best--and 100% sure to be a fiction.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 17, 2017, 05:32:47 PM
How is it baseless??? I basing this on what you have reported to us. Well, I see--that does make it baseless, since you have based your belief in a fictional god on a fiction that happened to you. If it is not a fiction then give me so proof that it wasn't--any proof will do. But you can't, for it is all fiction. Or set me straight...................
Are you deaf or dumb?
I AM NOT ATTEMPTING TO PROVE ANYTHING TO ANYONE FOR THEM.
So if you where to see a bolt of lightning or a shooting star and had no recording of it whatsoever would I be justified in saying you imagined it?
If you claim a thing changed your life that you cannot reproduce because it wasnt of your production to begin with, then I would be justified in saying it was merely a trick of the brain? If so then how? How is that accurate? What evidence supports your claim that it was an episode caused by myself, all while oblivious to myself and seeming to come wholly from an outside source?
You are talking out of your ass.
Not only do I not expect any to take my word for evidence, but I have repeatedly stated as much.
Not only are you assuming based on ignorance, but you have repeatedly shown as much and not a bit more
Since I'm not trying to prove the existence of GOD from personal testimony then perhaps you could actually support your claims...But I know you can't because they are utterly falitious.
peace
If you were sitting in your living room and a god appeared, you may believe that constitutes proof of that god's existence, but it wouldn't be proof for very many other people. If however there just happened to be a video camera in your living room and it just happened to be recording when the god showed up, you would have proof of a god's existence that most people would accept. Of course there would still be skeptical people like mike asking if the video is a hoax.
If the god of the Bible and the god of the Quran are one and the same, Christians and Muslims should join up with each other. I would love to see someone put the Bible and the Quran together in the same book ;-). Talk about a blood sport.
What we know for sure is that both the Quran and the Bible were written on the back side of a hot desert. Maybe some good old boy was sittin out in the sun long enough to have a psychological event. Then because nobody was around to tell him to put a hat on he started writing down all this stuff that became "the book"
Quote from: fencerider on January 17, 2017, 11:03:09 PM
If you were sitting in your living room and a god appeared, you may believe that constitutes proof of that god's existence, but it wouldn't be proof for very many other people. If however there just happened to be a video camera in your living room and it just happened to be recording when the god showed up, you would have proof of a god's existence that most people would accept. Of course there would still be skeptical people like mike asking if the video is a hoax.
If the god of the Bible and the god of the Quran are one and the same, Christians and Muslims should join up with each other. I would love to see someone put the Bible and the Quran together in the same book ;-). Talk about a blood sport.
What we know for sure is that both the Quran and the Bible were written on the back side of a hot desert. Maybe some good old boy was sittin out in the sun long enough to have a psychological event. Then because nobody was around to tell him to put a hat on he started writing down all this stuff that became "the book"
Difference between a demigod and a god. A demigod could be photographed, a god could not be. Demigods are humans, and yes, we can be photographed. However I would contend that any miracle can't be photographed, because properly understood, it is subjective, not objective. Only what is natural can be photographed, the supernatural cannot be.
Of course the god of the OT and that of the Quran are similar, they are both Semitic chieftains. Jesus isn't that ... Jesus is both Jewish and non-Jewish at the same time. Jesus vs Allah would be like they Monkey King against the General of the Jade Emperor. The resurrection of Jesus, is actually comical, like the Monkey King.
The resurrection is of a spiritual sort and pertains to all of GOD's will which Christ is was and will be in my opinion
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 17, 2017, 08:59:38 PM
Are you deaf or dumb?
I AM NOT ATTEMPTING TO PROVE ANYTHING TO ANYONE FOR THEM.
So if you where to see a bolt of lightning or a shooting star and had no recording of it whatsoever would I be justified in saying you imagined it?
If you claim a thing changed your life that you cannot reproduce because it wasnt of your production to begin with, then I would be justified in saying it was merely a trick of the brain? If so then how? How is that accurate? What evidence supports your claim that it was an episode caused by myself, all while oblivious to myself and seeming to come wholly from an outside source?
You are talking out of your ass.
Not only do I not expect any to take my word for evidence, but I have repeatedly stated as much.
Not only are you assuming based on ignorance, but you have repeatedly shown as much and not a bit more
Since I'm not trying to prove the existence of GOD from personal testimony then perhaps you could actually support your claims...But I know you can't because they are utterly falitious.
peace
My, my my............I must have gotten to mr. christ-like. So much for convictions. But that is typical of the average theist; their god is in charge, that is until they get pissed, then the devil takes over! :)))) You keep injecting god into everything, including your own transcendence, so how can you say you aren't trying to prove god? And if not, why not. I contend that it is all a fiction. You have to have a god in your life apparently before you can act 'right' (whatever that means) and you have created a fiction to provide you with a god. Really, there isn't anything wrong with that--except it isn't necessary. If you want to act 'right' then act 'right'. I try to do that and I don't need a god looking over my shoulder or living in my head to do it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 18, 2017, 09:09:43 AM
My, my my............I must have gotten to mr. christ-like. So much for convictions. But that is typical of the average theist; their god is in charge, that is until they get pissed, then the devil takes over! :)))) You keep injecting god into everything, including your own transcendence, so how can you say you aren't trying to prove god? And if not, why not. I contend that it is all a fiction. You have to have a god in your life apparently before you can act 'right' (whatever that means) and you have created a fiction to provide you with a god. Really, there isn't anything wrong with that--except it isn't necessary. If you want to act 'right' then act 'right'. I try to do that and I don't need a god looking over my shoulder or living in my head to do it.
There you go assuming things again. Keep making unverifiable claims all while accusing me of such....that's what you do
peace
Gods have been created down through the history of mankind, and were believed in with enthusiasm for long durations until they fell out of fashion. During these eras, people came to realize that previous god's were false, concocted out of the imaginations of more primitive societies. The current god in fashion was always believed to be the real god, wholly true with actual evidence to support its existence.
The gods in fashion at this time in man's history, the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and the more recent New Age creations, also have in common with the ancient gods the qualities of imagined evidence to support them. In fact, all evidence which supports them can only be imagined, because all of the evidence, even in the best cases, cannot be verified. And much of it can be proven to be false outright.
Therefore, the evidence and the ancient gods themselves have to be IMAGINARY. I can say "The evidence and the resulting gods have to be imaginary" with confidence, because without credible evidence that can be demonstrated and passed on in the form of verified knowledge, the imagination is the only place where any transient god can exist.
By definition, it follows that all the gods now fallen from fashion are imaginary, since their existence is wholly dependent on imagination. And since the gods currently in fashion share that quality with the ancient gods, they too have to be imaginary.
But during the period where a specific god is favored, few people realize the shared qualities. They believe the new gods are the real gods, and that mankind has finally got it right (except for that part that gets it wrong). When the current gods of fashion fall from favor, they will be added to the anthologies of mythology and lore. And they will be clearly viewed as imaginary concoctions of more primitive men.
In my opinion.
in my opinion. any real god now existing should have realized that people are forgetting about that god's existence and should be coming to check in, sort of set the record straight.
Quote from: fencerider on January 20, 2017, 01:34:46 AM
in my opinion. any real god now existing should have realized that people are forgetting about that god's existence and should be coming to check in, sort of set the record straight.
Exactly the Muslim point of view regarding Muhammad and weekly/daily worship. Catholics used to go to mass 7 days a week, not once a week. Reinforcement of habit ;-)
I was born and raised in the Bible Belt, here in NC. My mom gave her heart to God a few years before I was born. My dad always believed there was a God, but refused to accept Him in his life.
I was raised in church, every Sunday, Sunday night, and Wednesday night I was sitting in the pew. I was sick of it, so when I left out on my own, I left church and God behind. I had a sin party for about 20 years. But my mother never stopped praying for me, and I thank God for a faithful and God fearing mother.
After 2 divorces and going nowhere in life, I decided to go to church with my mom one Sunday. My mom took my hand and prayed for me before we left for church. Something happened to me at that service, and I knew I was on the wrong path. I decided I would give God a chance, He couldn't mess it up anymore than I had.
I began to study the scripture in our small Baptist church, and for the first time in my life, I got it. I began to understand the spiritual side of the scripture, and not just the history which I had learned so many years before. I began to understand the words of Christ in their true meaning, I actually began to understand what the Apostle Paul was trying to convey. The scripture was interpreting scripture. It came like a flood, and all those Bible stories began to take on a different meaning. All the pieces were falling together. I realized, it's all true. The things I couldn't understand, but heard others speak of, was being revealed to me.
That's how it happens, for a period of time it seems there could be no God. Then He sends light through His word that sometimes blows me away. Slowly but surly God makes His presence known, He does by opening His word to our level of understanding. If you don't believe me, read the word of God, asking Him to open your understanding. Weeks may pass and little happens, but if you are serious, and God knows, it will begin to happen.
How do I know it's God and not satan? Scripture always interprets scripture, the light He gives will always and without exception agree with His word to your understanding.
If you're not serious about finding the truth of God, you're wasting your time. Only the serious will find Him, though He is within reach of us all.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 10:27:02 PM
I was born and raised in the Bible Belt, here in NC. My mom gave her heart to God a few years before I was born. My dad always believed there was a God, but refused to accept Him in his life.
I was raised in church, every Sunday, Sunday night, and Wednesday night I was sitting in the pew. I was sick of it, so when I left out on my own, I left church and God behind. I had a sin party for about 20 years. But my mother never stopped praying for me, and I thank God for a faithful and God fearing mother.
After 2 divorces and going nowhere in life, I decided to go to church with my mom one Sunday. My mom took my hand and prayed for me before we left for church. Something happened to me at that service, and I knew I was on the wrong path. I decided I would give God a chance, He couldn't mess it up anymore than I had.
I began to study the scripture in our small Baptist church, and for the first time in my life, I got it. I began to understand the spiritual side of the scripture, and not just the history which I had learned so many years before. I began to understand the words of Christ in their true meaning, I actually began to understand what the Apostle Paul was trying to convey. The scripture was interpreting scripture. It came like a flood, and all those Bible stories began to take on a different meaning. All the pieces were falling together. I realized, it's all true. The things I couldn't understand, but heard others speak of, was being revealed to me.
That's how it happens, for a period of time it seems there could be no God. Then He sends light through His word that sometimes blows me away. Slowly but surly God makes His presence known, He does by opening His word to our level of understanding. If you don't believe me, read the word of God, asking Him to open your understanding. Weeks may pass and little happens, but if you are serious, and God knows, it will begin to happen.
How do I know it's God and not satan? Scripture always interprets scripture, the light He gives will always and without exception agree with His word to your understanding.
If you're not serious about finding the truth of God, you're wasting your time. Only the serious will find Him, though He is within reach of us all.
Very interesting story--thanks for sharing. That is more than most theists share.
Look, for some reason you theist types seem to thing I don't believe in god because I'm lazy. Or have some need to 'sin' (whatever that means). I have had a long history of 'searching' for god. It started while I was in grade school in Alabama--went to a Southern Baptist and Assembly of God church. When I moved to Oregon, I no longer attended any church but did read about religion and spirituality. In HS and college I sought within organized religion only sparsely, but took several classes dealing with religion and philosophy. Did not do much searching until my divorce and then started searching anew. My new wife and I attended a local Unity Church and was with them for over 10 yrs. I became so involved that I was on the church board for 5 yrs serving as both vp and president for a year each. During this time I read the bible cover to cover and tried to see the spiritual side of it. Discussed it with anybody who would listen. I came to the conclusion that the bible is a collection of writings selected from possibly around 100 distinct writings. The bible has been crafted to reflect the political views and aims of those who crafted it. As you may realize, there is no 'the bible', but a vast array of many. The more I sought to establish a personal relationship with god and to learn to pray correctly, the more I realized that god does not exist--and praying is simply a form of self-talk. Thru dedicated studies I have realized that the bible is simply man made and god a fiction. So, you see, dedicated research and deep personal searching does not a christian make all the time. I see the biggest difference between our two stories is that you were weaned on god. My parents did not do that--if I went, I went on my own. And I am thankful that they allowed me to make up my own mind. Yours is not a new or unusual story--if one is raised in the church the tendency is that in later life one returns to it. It familiar and comforting. That does not mean it is actual or factual (god).
Fellow North Carolinian and ardent Christian. What are the odds? :P
Just so you guys know, that's a pretty typical story around here. Religious family (plus or minus some doubts), frequent if not routine church services, strong religious convictions (give or take a rebellious, "sinful" phase), and wonderfully mind-bending idioms like "scripture always interprets scripture".
These are the people I'm bumping elbows with daily and discussing political issues with when they come up. Just visualize that day in and day out for decades. And now you know why I come here.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 27, 2017, 10:53:55 PM
Very interesting story--thanks for sharing. That is more than most theists share.
Look, for some reason you theist types seem to thing I don't believe in god because I'm lazy. Or have some need to 'sin' (whatever that means). I have had a long history of 'searching' for god. It started while I was in grade school in Alabama--went to a Southern Baptist and Assembly of God church. When I moved to Oregon, I no longer attended any church but did read about religion and spirituality. In HS and college I sought within organized religion only sparsely, but took several classes dealing with religion and philosophy. Did not do much searching until my divorce and then started searching anew. My new wife and I attended a local Unity Church and was with them for over 10 yrs. I became so involved that I was on the church board for 5 yrs serving as both vp and president for a year each. During this time I read the bible cover to cover and tried to see the spiritual side of it. Discussed it with anybody who would listen. I came to the conclusion that the bible is a collection of writings selected from possibly around 100 distinct writings. The bible has been crafted to reflect the political views and aims of those who crafted it. As you may realize, there is no 'the bible', but a vast array of many. The more I sought to establish a personal relationship with god and to learn to pray correctly, the more I realized that god does not exist--and praying is simply a form of self-talk. Thru dedicated studies I have realized that the bible is simply man made and god a fiction. So, you see, dedicated research and deep personal searching does not a christian make all the time. I see the biggest difference between our two stories is that you were weaned on god. My parents did not do that--if I went, I went on my own. And I am thankful that they allowed me to make up my own mind. Yours is not a new or unusual story--if one is raised in the church the tendency is that in later life one returns to it. It familiar and comforting. That does not mean it is actual or factual (god).
\
It just so happens that the scripture says:
Proverbs 22:6
"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Ok, I was lucky in that I was raised in a God-fearing church. You were not so lucky. But that's no reason to cop out, or feel sorry for yourself. I also know that you didn't search out God with all your heart because you would have found Him. You went about it carelessly, let's just be honest here.
Now you want to do the exact same thing i did, blame God for the failures in your life. Oh, I know how it goes, I've been there! How could a God who says He loves me so much allow all this to happen to me?
You failed at life and will continue to fail at life because you left behind your shield and protection, the Word of God. You have the free will to continue on that path to destruction if you like, but I chose a different direction, I swallowed my pride and gave God the wheel.
God didn't create the problems in your life and He didn't desert you, you deserted Him by not following His path for success. And rest assured, there is no successful life without God. You are to blame, not God.
God specializes in the impossible! He can turn it all around and give you back the desires of your heart. Most of all He will give you peace from the grind of life, and you will recover with a love for God to replace the hate.
God has made promises to rescue the perishing, you can believe it or not believe it. That will decide your fate. He turned my hell here on earth to peace and joy, He can do the same for you.
I can show you how to find that peace, but you will have to be dead serious with God.
Oh boy, starting with the "you are a failure, not my deity" stuff. Imma go get my popcorn.
"I can show you how to find that peace, but you will have to be dead serious with God." ... no you cannot. Check your privilege. You can only share yourself, you can't share G-d. And sorry, Jesus himself says he doesn't bring peace, but a sword that separates family member from family member. He has started a blaze on the Earth, the Earth is kindling, and once it is a fire that won't go out, he goes. If you are at peace, good for you. But beware of finding a G-d that looks like yourself, or what you want to find. Continue to seek ... finding G-d is only the beginning, and it doesn't stop in a book, or even start there. It is a station on an infinite path. We are on a caravan thru a terrible desert, no person can find their way alone, but don't mistake a mirage for even an oasis, let alone your destination.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 28, 2017, 12:09:04 AM
\
Now you want to do the exact same thing i did, blame God for the failures in your life. Oh, I know how it goes, I've been there! How could a God who says He loves me so much allow all this to happen to me?
You could not be further from the truth. In fact, you are even farther than I can convey. I don't believe in god; I know that god is a fiction. So how could I blame a fiction for anything--good or bad--in my life or with the rest of the world????? You, and every other theist like you, just cannot get over the idea that I don't believe? You believe that I know there is a god and am rejecting that god; that is not it at all. You are so deeply invested in the idea that there MUST be a god that you simply cannot get beyond that concept. Nothing will change that for you since it is a purely emotional concept for you one that cannot be swayed by facts and critical thinking (for that is of the devil). So, your default setting is god is--period. My default is that there is no god; I see not one shred of empirical evidence to lead me to believe in a god(s)---but if any is shown to me, I too, will become a believer. Can you show me one 'fact' that would establish there is a god?
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 28, 2017, 08:46:39 AM
You could not be further from the truth. In fact, you are even farther than I can convey. I don't believe in god; I know that god is a fiction. So how could I blame a fiction for anything--good or bad--in my life or with the rest of the world????? You, and every other theist like you, just cannot get over the idea that I don't believe? You believe that I know there is a god and am rejecting that god; that is not it at all. You are so deeply invested in the idea that there MUST be a god that you simply cannot get beyond that concept. Nothing will change that for you since it is a purely emotional concept for you one that cannot be swayed by facts and critical thinking (for that is of the devil). So, your default setting is god is--period. My default is that there is no god; I see not one shred of empirical evidence to lead me to believe in a god(s)---but if any is shown to me, I too, will become a believer. Can you show me one 'fact' that would establish there is a god?
The Bible is the worlds oldest history book. It spans from the beginning of known time to the predictions of future events before us.
Show me one sentence of recorded history in this book that scientists and archeologists have PROVEN to be incorrect.
There are many things in scripture that haven't been found yet, what I want is pure evidence that the Book has lied about history.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 28, 2017, 12:22:41 PM
The Bible is the worlds oldest history book. It spans from the beginning of known time to the predictions of future events before us.
Show me one sentence of recorded history in this book that scientists and archeologists have PROVEN to be incorrect.
There are many things in scripture that haven't been found yet, what I want is pure evidence that the Book has lied about history.
This is supposed to be your argument about a fictional god. You give me any verse you want from your bible and I'll comment on that.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 28, 2017, 12:28:52 PM
This is supposed to be your argument about a fictional god. You give me any verse you want from your bible and I'll comment on that.
How about you give me documented proof that any historical event, place, or person, recorded in the Holy Bible is false.
There are over 1600 pages in my Bible, surly you can find one sentence that bears an outright lie.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 28, 2017, 12:45:54 PMHow about you give me documented proof that any historical event, place, or person, recorded in the Holy Bible is false.
Betcha can't prove a negative!
(What am I supposed to do here, get documented proof that Jesus didn't walk on water or that demons didn't fly out a man and into a pig??)
QuoteThere are over 1600 pages in my Bible, surly you can find one sentence that bears an outright lie.
That one's actually way more easy. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205:5&version=KJV
Boom goes the dynamite.
Malichai 3:6 ? Bring the tithe into the story house and I will give you a blessing so big you don't have space for it.
Been there. Done that. 3 years later.... still waiting
Quote from: Heisreal on January 28, 2017, 12:22:41 PM
The Bible is the worlds oldest history book. It spans from the beginning of known time to the predictions of future events before us.
Show me one sentence of recorded history in this book that scientists and archeologists have PROVEN to be incorrect.
There are many things in scripture that haven't been found yet, what I want is pure evidence that the Book has lied about history.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 28, 2017, 12:45:54 PM
How about you give me documented proof that any historical event, place, or person, recorded in the Holy Bible is false.
There are over 1600 pages in my Bible, surly you can find one sentence that bears an outright lie.
Well, Sparky, you are the one claiming the Bible is true and likely claim it is inerrant. Accordingly, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 28, 2017, 01:13:22 PM
Betcha can't prove a negative!
That's ones actually way more easy. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205:5&version=KJV
Boom goes the dynamite.
I assume you can prove Adam didn't live 930 years? If you can, you must be a God yourself!
Did you know that God created man to live forever in the flesh? That's the purpose of the resurrection, for mans soul and spirit to return to the flesh and live forever. Our bodies will be like that of Christ after His resurrection. Of course, you don't believe the Bible. That's also why the first generation of man lived so long, but sin brought forth death, both physical and spiritual.
After the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, God began to shave the years off mans life. By the the time of King David, mans average lifespan was in the 70's, and has been for about 3000 years now.
Quote from: sdelsolray on January 28, 2017, 01:19:23 PM
Well, Sparky, you are the one claiming the Bible is true and likely claim it is inerrant. Accordingly, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that.
No, no, no! You say the Bible is a lie, this is your chance to prove it! You can end this long running debate right now.
Show me the lie in the Bible!!!
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 10:27:02 PM
I was born and raised in the Bible Belt, here in NC.
Lucky Saudi Arabia wasn't your birthplace, or you'd likely have become a Muslim - then how would you ever get to heaven!?
Quote from: Heisreal on January 28, 2017, 12:22:41 PM
The Bible is the worlds oldest history book. It spans from the beginning of known time to the predictions of future events before us.
Show me one sentence of recorded history in this book that scientists and archeologists have PROVEN to be incorrect.
There are many things in scripture that haven't been found yet, what I want is pure evidence that the Book has lied about history.
I don't have much time, so all I can do now is point you in the right direction. It's up to you what you do with it:
Failed Bible Prophecies (http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/prophecies.htm)
Quote from: Heisreal on January 28, 2017, 12:22:41 PM
The Bible is the worlds oldest history book. It spans from the beginning of known time to the predictions of future events before us.
Show me one sentence of recorded history in this book that scientists and archeologists have PROVEN to be incorrect.
There are many things in scripture that haven't been found yet, what I want is pure evidence that the Book has lied about history.
History is always a lie ... secular or sacred. Pure propaganda.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 28, 2017, 01:35:44 PM
No, no, no! You say the Bible is a lie, this is your chance to prove it! You can end this long running debate right now.
Show me the lie in the Bible!!!
I said no such thing. Turn off your programmed response machine. Of course, your hyperbole is quite entertaining, but only for a few posts, then it will become boring.
Try again. Here, I'll repeat what I said before you went all infanttile:
"Well, Sparky, you are the one claiming the Bible is true and likely claim it is inerrant. Accordingly, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that."Provide your evidence, not your selfish and empty beliefs.
Quote from: Baruch on January 28, 2017, 06:07:09 PM
History is always a lie ... secular or sacred. Pure propaganda.
Quite profound. Do you have evidence to support your claim that "history is always a lie" (your words). Of course you don't. Care to retract?
Quote from: Heisreal on January 27, 2017, 10:27:02 PMIf you're not serious about finding the truth of God, you're wasting your time. Only the serious will find Him, though He is within reach of us all.
Bullshit. My first 25 years of my life were spent seeking God. I fully devoted myself at around the age of 18. Despite my life getting continually harder from that point on, I continued in my faith, believing that the hardships I faced were to help me grow. Instead, my faith grew more and more weak as time went on, and it became increasingly obvious that there was no god looking out for me, and no one listening to my prayers. Your god is unreachable, most likely because he doesn't exist.
Quote from: sdelsolray on January 28, 2017, 06:09:45 PM
Quite profound. Do you have evidence to support your claim that "history is always a lie" (your words). Of course you don't. Care to retract?
I never retract ... except if I misspoke ... in that I didn't clearly say what I meant, and did it in an inappropriate fashion. Nobody, needs to deny who they are and what they think or feel. And it is out of that ... that I post.
If you can cross-examine some historical person, who is still alive ... you still have all the problems that police have interrogating a witness. All you get is that witness X claimed such and such happened to them or they witnessed such and such ... if it is factual or not is debatable. If the witness is dead (as is usually the case) all you have is made up stories. People make up stories all the time, it is how we apply meaning to our own lives and label the lives of others favorably or unfavorably. And this is fiction, your own identity is a fiction (the one you apply to yourself and the one that is applied to you) ... but it serves a psychological and social purpose to think that something is true (in the conventional sense). Now I love history, because I love stories, but I don't love them because I think they are true. Truth isn't ... that George Washington did or did not chop down a cherry tree as a child, and then when caught, didn't lie to his father. That story was created by Bishop Weames as a patriotic fable, in early America, to help describe, no less than Mark Train did about Tom Sawyer ... what it means to be an American. The stories in the Bible aren't journalism, they are stories to be told by Jews to other Jews, to reinforce what Jews think it means to be Jewish. American stories are no different.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 28, 2017, 01:31:44 PMI assume you can prove Adam didn't live 930 years? If you can, you must be a God yourself!
I know you've had your posting restricted due to being a troll/idiot, but I'd just like to say that this right here is proof positive that your "challenge" to point out a lie in the Bible was completely insincere.
Religion has so robbed you of rationality that you're willing to claim that it's plausible for someone to live to be 930 years old (newsflash: that's not plausible) and demanding me to prove it wrong, a demand that you know is beyond my capability (I also can't prove that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, but that doesn't make it a plausible claim)
Once again, this is a naked attempt at shifting the burden of proof because you know that you can't support any of these claims and therefore insist that the skeptic has to prove it wrong, which would either be impossible or would require godlike powers on my part. Sorry to disappoint you there.
You've exhibited an unreasonable level of credulity towards your religion and put up impossible hurdles to advance any sort of skepticism. This is dishonest. And I know it's dishonest because I guarantee you that if I challenged the claim that Mohammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse, you wouldn't retort that I have to prove that he didn't.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/IOCXHPvn3WErm/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Baruch on January 28, 2017, 06:28:57 PM
I never retract ... except if I misspoke ... in that I didn't clearly say what I meant, and did it in an inappropriate fashion. Nobody, needs to deny who they are and what they think or feel. And it is out of that ... that I post.
If you can cross-examine some historical person, who is still alive ... you still have all the problems that police have interrogating a witness. All you get is that witness X claimed such and such happened to them or they witnessed such and such ... if it is factual or not is debatable. If the witness is dead (as is usually the case) all you have is made up stories. People make up stories all the time, it is how we apply meaning to our own lives and label the lives of others favorably or unfavorably. And this is fiction, your own identity is a fiction (the one you apply to yourself and the one that is applied to you) ... but it serves a psychological and social purpose to think that something is true (in the conventional sense). Now I love history, because I love stories, but I don't love them because I think they are true. Truth isn't ... that George Washington did or did not chop down a cherry tree as a child, and then when caught, didn't lie to his father. That story was created by Bishop Weames as a patriotic fable, in early America, to help describe, no less than Mark Train did about Tom Sawyer ... what it means to be an American. The stories in the Bible aren't journalism, they are stories to be told by Jews to other Jews, to reinforce what Jews think it means to be Jewish. American stories are no different.
Please demonstrate how the
fact that
historical Post #105 above was posted on this forum at 03:09:45 PM is a lie.
Quote from: sdelsolray on January 28, 2017, 06:36:59 PM
Please demonstrate how the fact that historical Post #105 above was posted on this forum at 03:09:45 PM is a lie.
Lie doesn't equal falsehood. Truth doesn't equal fact. Don't confuse nouns. Lie and Truth have to do with personal intention. It may be a fact ... that the post was X on X date/time. A fact isn't true or false. If you were to state that X was on X date/time and you knew it wasn't a fact, then you are lying. Otherwise you are telling the truth ... though often enough, people are mistaken, not lying. In fact, the vast majority of statements by the vast majority of people are mistaken ... they simply are unaware. So a true believer that says Jesus did X ... isn't lying, if they are sincere. If they know that Jesus didn't do X ... and still claim it, then they are lying.
So you aren't lying ... as far as I care to investigate. But we can always bring out the bright light and the rubber truncheon if you are into that ;-0
Quote from: Heisreal on January 28, 2017, 12:45:54 PM
How about you give me documented proof that any historical event, place, or person, recorded in the Holy Bible is false.
There are over 1600 pages in my Bible, surly you can find one sentence that bears an outright lie.
Moses is not an actual person. I think there are several sentences in the bible that are supposed to have been penned by him.
Also, can you point out where the so called 10 commandments can be found?
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 28, 2017, 07:54:42 PM
Moses is not an actual person. I think there are several sentences in the bible that are supposed to have been penned by him.
Also, can you point out where the so called 10 commandments can be found?
Correct, Moses is a Jewish fiction ... one of many fables we created, mostly for ourselves. It was never intended that Gentiles would take it up. It would be like a Russian reading Tom Sawyer, and be so fascinated by it, that he wouldn't read any Russian literature, just read Tom Sawyer.
Quote from: Baruch on January 28, 2017, 06:41:28 PM
Lie doesn't equal falsehood. Truth doesn't equal fact. Don't confuse nouns. Lie and Truth have to do with personal intention. It may be a fact ... that the post was X on X date/time. A fact isn't true or false. If you were to state that X was on X date/time and you knew it wasn't a fact, then you are lying. Otherwise you are telling the truth ... though often enough, people are mistaken, not lying. In fact, the vast majority of statements by the vast majority of people are mistaken ... they simply are unaware. So a true believer that says Jesus did X ... isn't lying, if they are sincere. If they know that Jesus didn't do X ... and still claim it, then they are lying.
So you aren't lying ... as far as I care to investigate. But we can always bring out the bright light and the rubber truncheon if you are into that ;-0
You can't even retract your hyperbolic statement, which is restated again below.
Quote from: Baruch
"History is always a lie ... secular or sacred. Pure propaganda."
You are a pretentious coward.
You can use whatever language you like (ad hominem) and you can misuse English (most of us do). But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
So a sincere Muslim, Christian etc .. isn't lying. They are mistaken (in most cases). A sincere secularist isn't lying. Most believers are ignorant of their own religion. Most people are ignorant of the sea of propaganda they swim in. Seculars usually have a better grasp of objective reality. But history isn't a Star Date entry by Capt Kirk. Star Trek isn't real. There isn't some big videotape camera somewhere recording the objective facts, let alone the truth, that historians have special Platonic organs to consult from. Hi(story) is anything but objective aka it is fiction. I argue this with the most historian oriented guy here "Gawdzilla Sama" (though we agree on some narratives, we disagree on others). So in this case, it wasn't hyperbole ... you can take whatever red/blue pill you want. I prefer one flavor of propaganda over another, because of my individual psychology ... I see no reason to get angry over it. Any more than I will be offended if you prefer French food over Japanese.
Quote from: Journey_To_Mars on January 10, 2017, 11:31:18 PM
I mean, Allah just means god in Arabic, so I don't see what the big fuss about this is about.
Eh, no. Ilah is god in Arabic. Allah is a name of a god, like Zeus, Thor, etc.
The sahada says
Ä Ê¾ilÄha ʾillÄ-llÄh, muḥammadur-rasÅ«lu-llÄhYou are told a lie.
Just like the lie that Allah is also the god of the Christians and the Jews.
That Islam is an Abrahamic faith. That we all pray to the same god.
All lies to fool the infidel.
And the infidels want to be fooled.
The origin of Allah. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_as_Moon-god)
Pagan Origins of Islam (https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Pagan_Origins_of_Islam)
The pagan sources of Islam (http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/pagansources.htm)
None of the pagan / muslim rituals were ever practiced by Jews or Christians.
All rituals practised by Muslim today are of pagan origins and hundreds of years before Muhammad's Islam.
He kept those to attract new converts.
See also Jahilliyyah (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyyah)
(https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/nq130802.gif?w=630&h=203-)
Quote from: fencerider on January 07, 2017, 01:14:33 AM
So many people go to church today because their mama did it and mama made them do it. and the reason mama did it was because grandma did it and she made mama do it.
On the other hand there are people who grow up in a Muslim or a Budhist family. Then they have some kind of experience that convinces them that Christianity is the way to go.
I am curious to know how many people are Christian because they actually sat down and looked at all the information, thought about it, and were convinced to believe the dogma vs how many people are Christians because they are repeating what their parents did without ever asking about the authenticity of what they believe.
It is elitist to denigrate the common experience of religion. People are rational beings and their actions are driven by rational criteria, even if they are taught a certain way the faith is still confirmed to them through experience. People raised in a religious home can have a spiritual experience that grounds their faith in the realm of experience, the realm of the rational. Many people have similar religious views to their parents. But like science, which is continually reconfirmed through experimentation, the evidence of faith is reconfirmed through spirituality. People have experiences that confirm the teachings that they have received. These experiences are sufficiently powerful to shape the destinies of nations, as they have for thousands of years. Religious faith is much more nuanced and deep then mere childhood indoctrination.
Quote from: joseph_ on January 30, 2017, 08:19:27 PM
It is elitist to denigrate the common experience of religion. People are rational beings and their actions are driven by rational criteria, even if they are taught a certain way the faith is still confirmed to them through experience. People raised in a religious home can have a spiritual experience that grounds their faith in the realm of experience, the realm of the rational. Many people have similar religious views to their parents. But like science, which is continually reconfirmed through experimentation, the evidence of faith is reconfirmed through spirituality. People have experiences that confirm the teachings that they have received. These experiences are sufficiently powerful to shape the destinies of nations, as they have for thousands of years. Religious faith is much more nuanced and deep then mere childhood indoctrination.
Well, I'll give you this. You at least have a better vocabulary than most Christians who come here. To a certain extent, people are motivated by rationality, such as with the drive to avoid cognitive dissonance. However, people are much more motivated by emotion. If you expect me to believe that Christianity is driven by rationality, you're going to have to give some seriously strong arguments and scientific data, because everything in my experience with the religion says otherwise. Would a religion of rational people claim that the earth is 6000 years old because some ancient book says so?
Faith itself is by nature irrational. It accepts something as fact when lacking evidence of its validity, even denying evidence to the contrary. That is why the Bible says that Christians are supposed to live "by faith, not by sight;" because no experiences in the natural world, which can be perceived with any of the human senses, support belief in God. You cannot see, touch, hear, taste, or smell God. But according to many Christians, they can "feel his presence." That is emotion.
And that is why i am not a Christian, I see G-d by sight, not by heart.
Quote from: joseph_ on January 30, 2017, 08:19:27 PM
It is elitist to denigrate the common experience of religion.
In what way is asking the question that people have religion because of habit or because of facts supported belief denigrating. I didn't say everyone does it out of habit. I asked how many.
Quote from: joseph_ on January 30, 2017, 08:19:27 PMIt is elitist to denigrate the common experience of religion.
Ummm...this "denigration" comes from the rich and famous all the way down to the lowliest street bum, so calling it elitist is risible. Also, elitism typically refers to a social elite - a small group of people holding (typically inherited) positions of privilege and power. You know, just putting a bad word in front of something you don't like doesn't make it bad, especially if there's no logical connection between the two things.
QuotePeople are rational beings and their actions are driven by rational criteria
?? Have you ever met any people?
Quoteeven if they are taught a certain way the faith is still confirmed to them through experience.
Yes, they are taught a certain way. And surprise surprise, a large chunk of 'em not only believe it as adults, but try to sell it to anyone who will listen. Adherents of the one true religion, every last one of them. What are the odds?
QuotePeople raised in a religious home can have a spiritual experience that grounds their faith in the realm of experience, the realm of the rational.
Yep, like that time Francis Collins saw a frozen waterfall. I forget how that was connected to Jesus, but it must've been, because that's the guy he started worshiping shortly thereafter.
QuoteMany people have similar religious views to their parents.
And why do think that's the case?
QuoteBut like science, which is continually reconfirmed through experimentation, the evidence of faith is reconfirmed through spirituality.
The big difference here is that with science, new facts are discovered and theories are refined or discarded. With religion, it's not so much new facts as someone had some strange experience which they think is a sign from a god or prophet or angel, typically but not always confirming beliefs they already have. The two are not comparable.
QuoteThese experiences are sufficiently powerful to shape the destinies of nations, as they have for thousands of years.
Lots of things shape the destinies of nations. A potato famine changed the destinies of nations. Some archduke getting shot changed the destinies of nations. A few boats making landfall changed the destinies of nations a great many times. So what?
QuoteReligious faith is much more nuanced and deep then mere childhood indoctrination.
Well, duh. There's more to cults than just drinking the spirit juice, too.
Quote from: joseph_ on January 30, 2017, 08:19:27 PM
the evidence of faith is reconfirmed through spirituality
The evidence of a belief in unconfirmed event is reconfirmed through living a life of faith.
I perceive a circular argument in there somewhere
Quote from: joseph_ on January 30, 2017, 08:19:27 PM
Religious faith is much more nuanced and deep then mere childhood indoctrination.
For some people, but not for everyone.
Quote from: Baruch on January 28, 2017, 07:57:57 PM
Moses is a Jewish fiction ... one of many fables we created
wow. Didn't know there wasn't ever a dude named Moses. So what is Jewish culture based off of? Why would the Jews be telling each other about Moses. Oh wait don't tell me. The dvd player wasn't invented yet, so people had to tell stories for entertainment.
Quote from: fencerider on January 30, 2017, 11:38:02 PM
The evidence of a belief in unconfirmed event is reconfirmed through living a life of faith.
I perceive a circular argument in there somewhere
For some people, but not for everyone.
All good theological arguments are circular ... which is to say, tautological ... what you would expect for talk about a perfect being ;-) A pointless argument, one that starts with axioms that are assumed, and which has a never ending supply of dull theorems ... is contingent. The third argument is self-contradictory. Those are the theological arguments made by the Devil ;-) Usually atheists avoid all argument, by rejecting all axioms. ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on January 30, 2017, 10:20:54 PM
And that is why i am not a Christian, I see G-d by sight, not by heart.
I don't really care a flying fig if you are christian or not. All religious beliefs are equally insane to me. Your religious belief exists and that is really all I need to know about you.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:45:27 AM
I don't really care a flying fig if you are christian or not. All religious beliefs are equally insane to me. Your religious belief exists and that is really all I need to know about you.
I am shameless about my insanity. Get with the dementia already!
To me, better my casual unconcern than your reasoned insanity. ;)
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 01:04:37 PM
To me, better my casual unconcern than your reasoned insanity. ;)
One has to know when to leave well enough alone ;-) Being concerned about every little thing ... makes an SJW.
We should meet sometime. Are you ever near Cincinnati?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 01:40:49 PM
We should meet sometime. Are you ever near Cincinnati?
Sorry, but I stay away from ancient Roman Republican dictators ;-)
So, you were intrigued, then disillusioned. You want to punch me in the face now? ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 01:40:49 PM
We should meet sometime. Are you ever near Cincinnati?
Cincinnati--I heard the chili is good--is it???
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 31, 2017, 06:33:38 PM
Cincinnati--I heard the chili is good--is it???
It is near Bengal-desh
Quote from: joseph_ on January 30, 2017, 08:19:27 PM
People are rational beings
No, they're not - "people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals." If people were rational the world wouldn't be
2 1/2 minutes from midnight on the doomsday clock. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/01/26/the-doomsday-clock-just-moved-again-its-now-two-and-a-half-minutes-to-midnight/?utm_term=.c1b27d893580)
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 31, 2017, 06:47:09 PM
No, they're not - "people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals." If people were rational the world wouldn't be 2 1/2 minutes from midnight on the doomsday clock. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/01/26/the-doomsday-clock-just-moved-again-its-now-two-and-a-half-minutes-to-midnight/?utm_term=.c1b27d893580)
Zaphod Beeblebrox wasn't impressed by ape men, but he did have an ape girl friend ;-)
I don't know how this fits into the original question, but I know a man who grew up Catholic and, after a lot of research and thought, decided that the Catholic Church was wrong and switched to the one true religion, Jehovah's Witness.
Quote from: Heisreal on January 28, 2017, 12:22:41 PM
The Bible is the worlds oldest history book. It spans from the beginning of known time to the predictions of future events before us.
Show me one sentence of recorded history in this book that scientists and archeologists have PROVEN to be incorrect.
There are many things in scripture that haven't been found yet, what I want is pure evidence that the Book has lied about history.
what is this guy talking about? Clearly he has never crawled out from under his rock until just now. The bible the oldest history book LMAO!
So I take it you're a creationist? because if not what you said makes no sense. There is lots of evidence that the bible got it wrong on a lot of subjects. I can't list them because there's too many and I'm too lazy to spend that kind of time doing it. So name something infallible in the bible so we can dismiss it for the garbage it is.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 31, 2017, 06:33:38 PM
Cincinnati--I heard the chili is good--is it???
No. The chili is poor and adding 5-way stuff to it only makes it worse. Imagine all flavors in your mouth at the same time. Blah!
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 04:49:46 AM
No. The chili is poor and adding 5-way stuff to it only makes it worse. Imagine all flavors in your mouth at the same time. Blah!
I guess I heard wrong. But that's okay, I'll just keep eating my own version.
What you like is what you like. I visited Cincinnati once and 5 way was hideious. LOL!
Quote from: widdershins on February 02, 2017, 12:31:51 PM
I don't know how this fits into the original question, but I know a man who grew up Catholic and, after a lot of research and thought, decided that the Catholic Church was wrong and switched to the one true religion, Jehovah's Witness.
It fits perfectly the original question. I guess the propaganda-machine of JW is better than old faithful Roman
Quote from: fencerider on February 05, 2017, 05:11:50 PM
It fits perfectly the original question. I guess the propaganda-machine of JW is better than old faithful Roman
From the frying pan into the fire...