The Christian god doesn't answer prayers, doesn't keep promises written in the Bible, doesn't have any house or temple on earth, has no communication with the people of earth. The Bible has many errors (some would also say lies) in it. In short the more places we look for a Christian god, the more the lack of evidence suggests that god doesn't exist. So why do people keep believing that god is real?
You stole my tagline. :angryfinger:
yes inspired by Zorn.... and some of Drew's argument in goddidit vs naturedidit
Quote from: fencerider on March 06, 2017, 08:00:32 PM
The Christian god doesn't answer prayers, doesn't keep promises written in the Bible, doesn't have any house or temple on earth, has no communication with the people of earth. The Bible has many errors (some would also say lies) in it. In short the more places we look for a Christian god, the more the lack of evidence suggests that god doesn't exist. So why do people keep believing that god is real?
Philosophical momentum. They were taught to believe in it without question, to actively reject questioning it in any meaningful way, so they believe in it without question and never seriously test their beliefs. It's not without reason that the Jesuits say if you give them the boy they will give you the man.
Quote from: trdsf on March 07, 2017, 12:15:15 AM
Philosophical momentum. They were taught to believe in it without question, to actively reject questioning it in any meaningful way, so they believe in it without question and never seriously test their beliefs. It's not without reason that the Jesuits say if you give them the boy they will give you the man.
It is called, for better or worse, acculturation and socialization. Since people usually are political and religious, both of those figure in. For various reasons, the Matrix fails however. The Roman Catholic Church was a particularly effective Matrix (a Latin word related to "mother" ... so what have you got against Mother?).
People want to believe, to have faith, because they feel it makes them better for having that belief.
They can be logical in all other aspects of life, yet when it comes to that religious belief they forego with logic in order to feel more comfortable with whatever it was that drove them to that belief.
Quote from: Sorginak on March 07, 2017, 05:53:26 PM
People want to believe, to have faith, because they feel it makes them better for having that belief.
They can be logical in all other aspects of life, yet when it comes to that religious belief they forego with logic in order to feel more comfortable with whatever it was that drove them to that belief.
Psychology is complicated. Humans aren't Binars.
Quote from: Baruch on March 07, 2017, 07:16:06 PM
Psychology is complicated. Humans aren't Binars.
There are humans who dress up in funny costumes, paint there faces, yell and scream at football games as if this will help the team win. It does appear they are having fun though.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 07, 2017, 11:33:20 PM
There are humans who dress up in funny costumes, paint there faces, yell and scream at football games as if this will help the team win. It does appear they are having fun though.
To spend multiple decades among humans, as a human ... and not have fun ... Sad (quoting Trump). I hope you are having fun, Drew ... I know I am.
Quote from: fencerider on March 07, 2017, 12:00:16 AM
yes inspired by Zorn.... and some of Drew's argument in goddidit vs naturedidit
Drew made an
argument? I must have missed that, among all the unsupported assertions.
If God exists, why does he pretend not to exist? That riddle is what it boils down to, for me.
A while back, I posted an invitation to my website, on another forum, for the expressed purpose of getting some opinions about my poetry. No one seemed to be able to get beyond the website's first sentence: "If God exists, why does he pretend not to exist?"
A lot of people stated their opinion, but only two engaged me in a lengthy debate. Both were Bible-quoting Christians, but one of them took an unusual position: whereas is is typical for someone to dispute the premise, this guy accepted the premise, and instead tried to give justifications for the contention, that God does, in fact, pretend not to exist(it's for our own good).
The other guy decided he hadn't been an effective witness of his faith, so he went and deleted all of his posts, leaving half the thread unreadable.
If you knew, what I knew, that you and I are demigods ... then you would realize G-d isn't hiding at all.
If you knew what I know, that you and I are just a pattern...then you would remember, God is a squiggle, that glows yellow. The Devil is the same squiggle, glowing green. They were shown to me, as a child, and I was chastised, for thinking that they were one and the same. I don't have a clue what to do with that memory.
Quote from: fencerider on March 06, 2017, 08:00:32 PM
So why do people keep believing that god is real?
People are more emotional, than rational. They want ready-made answers for their questions and concerns. They don't want to think too hard about it. They want to know the origin of life without waiting for the research. They want to know what happens, if anything, after death, so they can somehow be prepared for it. They want control over their own lives. They want control over others. They want help in desperation. They want to make a safer, better world. They want to live forever.
A God, seems like he could solve all those problems. Hence the desire to believe.
Indoctrination molds the psyche, making the concept seem to be innate.
Inordinate elevation of the importance of faith, numbs their natural skepticism, and renders them more amenable to self deception.
Then the convoluted pseudo-reasoning of apologists, reinforces a believer's delusion, making it difficult for most people to distinguish between a sound conclusion, and a rationalized defense of their preconceptions.
And of course, in our culture, everybody believes it, so it must be true.
Finally, demonizing the very thought, that what you've been taught is in error, frightens many people away, either consciously or subconsciously.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 08, 2017, 04:23:10 PM
If you knew what I know, that you and I are just a pattern...then you would remember, God is a squiggle, that glows yellow. The Devil is the same squiggle, glowing green. They were shown to me, as a child, and I was chastised, for thinking that they were one and the same. I don't have a clue what to do with that memory.
You could always projectile vomit pea soup and say bad words at a Catholic priest ;-)
Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 07, 2017, 11:33:20 PM
There are humans who dress up in funny costumes, paint there faces, yell and scream at football games as if this will help the team win. It does appear they are having fun though.
Life is a lot like football - as long as you have fun, it doesn't matter who wins.
Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2017, 06:26:27 AM
If you knew, what I knew, that you and I are demigods ... then you would realize G-d isn't hiding at all.
He's hiding up your ass, I guess...
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 08, 2017, 07:19:38 PM
He's hiding up your ass, I guess...
If G-d is proctologist for one ... G-d is proctologist for all. Bend over and cough please ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 08, 2017, 07:17:57 PM
Life is a lot like football - as long as you have fun, it doesn't matter who wins.
Tell that to people who live in Texas or Alabama!! ;))))
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 08, 2017, 10:59:18 PM
Tell that to people who live in Texas or Alabama!! ;))))
I was going to say Ohio and Michigan, but yeah. I mean, I
hate football, but I'm annually riveted to the OSU/UofM game. Now
that might be a miracle!
Quote from: trdsf on March 08, 2017, 11:19:45 PM
I was going to say Ohio and Michigan, but yeah. I mean, I hate football, but I'm annually riveted to the OSU/UofM game. Now that might be a miracle!
Yeah, there are places in the north that echo the south in being fanatical about football. I love football and always have; but more the pro style. But I hate what it has become. In colleges it is the be-all--end-all. In colleges it should be a game played by students--the players. In pro ball, the showboating is ruining the game for me. These are supposed to be pros who should act like it. Scoring a touchdown is what you are paid for. I love the way Jimmy Brown did it. Score a TD and give the ball to the ref; get up and return to the huddle every time you are tackled. Be a pro--act like it!
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 09, 2017, 11:42:54 AM
Yeah, there are places in the north that echo the south in being fanatical about football. I love football and always have; but more the pro style. But I hate what it has become. In colleges it is the be-all--end-all. In colleges it should be a game played by students--the players. In pro ball, the showboating is ruining the game for me. These are supposed to be pros who should act like it. Scoring a touchdown is what you are paid for. I love the way Jimmy Brown did it. Score a TD and give the ball to the ref; get up and return to the huddle every time you are tackled. Be a pro--act like it!
The only interest I have in the pro game will occur if (not even going to add 'and when') the Browns ever make the Superbowl. I don't even really care about the football part of the OSU/UofM rivalry. It's pretty much strictly about just beating Michigan at every opportunity. :)
The only sport I watch, believe it or not, is golf. I appreciate a game where the guy on top of the money list is there because he played, on average, better than everyone else, not because he has a sharp agent to cut him a multi-year deal. And it is also the only game I can think of where not only are players expected to call fouls on themselves, they actually
do.
Quote from: trdsf on March 09, 2017, 03:32:51 PM
The only interest I have in the pro game will occur if (not even going to add 'and when') the Browns ever make the Superbowl. I don't even really care about the football part of the OSU/UofM rivalry. It's pretty much strictly about just beating Michigan at every opportunity. :)
The only sport I watch, believe it or not, is golf. I appreciate a game where the guy on top of the money list is there because he played, on average, better than everyone else, not because he has a sharp agent to cut him a multi-year deal. And it is also the only game I can think of where not only are players expected to call fouls on themselves, they actually do.
I have had a mild interest in golf; played a little when I was younger and enjoyed it. I find that I'm watching sports less and less. Not sure why. But I also find I'm getting into (or staying actually) rpg and strategy games more on the computer. I also like baseball simulations since I can replay different seasons with different teams.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 09, 2017, 06:44:03 PM
I have had a mild interest in golf; played a little when I was younger and enjoyed it. I find that I'm watching sports less and less. Not sure why. But I also find I'm getting into (or staying actually) rpg and strategy games more on the computer. I also like baseball simulations since I can replay different seasons with different teams.
I still play strategy games on the computer ... I destroy the Romans any time I can, even if only in cyber-space ;-)
Quote from: trdsf
The only interest I have in the pro game will occur if (not even going to add 'and when') the Browns ever make the Superbowl.
So...never then.
Quote from: trdsfI don't even really care about the football part of the OSU/UofM rivalry. It's pretty much strictly about just beating Michigan at every opportunity. :)
Michigan is of the Devil! Go Spartans!
Quote from: trdsfThe only sport I watch, believe it or not, is golf. I appreciate a game where the guy on top of the money list is there because he played, on average, better than everyone else, not because he has a sharp agent to cut him a multi-year deal.
I enjoy watching golf, on occasion. But I like it, in much the same way that I like watching Texas Hold-Em': both seem to me a nearly equal mix, of skill and chance.
Quote from: trdsfAnd it is also the only game I can think of where not only are players expected to call fouls on themselves, they actually do.
That's true, but it's not like they could avoid a penalty, if they didn't. Someone is always counting their strokes.
Something something WhyWon'tGodHealAmputees.com (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/).
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 09, 2017, 11:16:44 PM
Something something WhyWon'tGodHealAmputees.com (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/).
"missing limb" syndrome happens .... but I don't consider that healing. I have seen film of amputees getting along without limbs or more ... and I see miraculous healing in that ... something beyond what I could do ... I would probably rather kill myself than continue. Depends on what you mean by "healing". The scoffers always demand a miracle, of their choosing ... knowing they aren't going to see it. Is this to convince other people? Or just themselves. You exist, you aren't just random atoms (even if G-d is no watchmaker).
Quote from: Baruch on March 10, 2017, 06:09:22 AM
"missing limb" syndrome happens .... but I don't consider that healing. I have seen film of amputees getting along without limbs or more ... and I see miraculous healing in that ... something beyond what I could do ... I would probably rather kill myself than continue. Depends on what you mean by "healing". The scoffers always demand a miracle, of their choosing ... knowing they aren't going to see it. Is this to convince other people? Or just themselves. You exist, you aren't just random atoms (even if G-d is no watchmaker).
I see you subscribe to the convenient Bruce Almighty definition of "miracle."
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 09, 2017, 11:16:44 PM
Something something WhyWon'tGodHealAmputees.com (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/).
Yes with a little gem like that who needs a smoking gun?
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 10, 2017, 11:15:32 AM
I see you subscribe to the convenient Bruce Almighty definition of "miracle."
Would you describe "American" as male, dark haired, from Krypton, wears spandex, fights bad guys .... neither would I. Why not? Definition of words isn't neutral, it is rhetorical at the gut level, no prisoners taken. If you control the language, you control how people think. I don't let others make me their verbal bitch.
That and Morgan Freeman is much better at playing G-d, than G-d. Morgan isn't an asshole.
Quote from: Baruch on March 10, 2017, 02:21:35 PM
Definition of words isn't neutral, it is rhetorical at the gut level, no prisoners taken. If you control the language, you control how people think. I don't let others make me their verbal bitch.
Unconventional definitions of words are fine, as long as everyone in the discussion is using the same definition. Which is where the problem lies. When using a special definition, anything you might say is subject to semantic misunderstanding. This is compounded on internet forums, where newcomers to a discussion may not have read all the posts on that thread, and assume you are using a common definition.
Quote from: Baruch on March 10, 2017, 02:21:35 PM
Would you describe "American" as male, dark haired, from Krypton, wears spandex, fights bad guys .... neither would I. Why not? Definition of words isn't neutral, it is rhetorical at the gut level, no prisoners taken. If you control the language, you control how people think. I don't let others make me their verbal bitch.
That and Morgan Freeman is much better at playing G-d, than G-d. Morgan isn't an asshole.
If God is like Morgan Freeman's version, he might as well not exist. All he does is fix lights, give super powers to random people, play pranks on the few people he directly communicates with, make excuses for not doing anything to help anyone, and telling other people to do his job. If God is just one of the bros he's not any more remarkable than any other bro. But then you think we're both demigods, so godship really isn't anything special in your view anyway.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn link=topic=11392.msg1170119#msg1 70119 date=1489175642
Unconventional definitions of words are fine, as long as everyone in the discussion is using the same definition. Which is where the problem lies. When using a special definition, anything you might say is subject to semantic misunderstanding. This is compounded on internet forums, where newcomers to a discussion may not have read all the posts on that thread, and assume you are using a common definition.
We can only have the same definitions, if we are the same person. And per Heraclitus, the same person doesn't have the same definition, over time. How can people "discover" what definition I am using today ... if it is different than yesterday ... yes, reading all 12000 posts of mine might give a clue, but then you need the context to understand those. Once a person has been some place for awhile ... they are no longer the salt boy, they have become a sea, if not an ocean. We have semantic misunderstandings? Well then that requires friendly conversation, not argument over Funk & Wagnalls.
See, we don't agree on even what a conversation is. If it is rhetoric, then you can you can tear my polymorphic definitions from my cold dead lips.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 10, 2017, 06:23:23 PM
If God is like Morgan Freeman's version, he might as well not exist. All he does is fix lights, give super powers to random people, play pranks on the few people he directly communicates with, make excuses for not doing anything to help anyone, and telling other people to do his job. If God is just one of the bros he's not any more remarkable than any other bro. But then you think we're both demigods, so godship really isn't anything special in your view anyway.
Your definition of G-d ... like many others here ... "something that will make me crap my pants, like going over the top of the first tall rise in the roller coaster". Everyone defines things, for their own purpose. I don't dispute your choice of purpose, only your apparent lack of self awareness. You are aware of how much bull shit there is, but like almost everyone, you can't smell your own. And why should you?
I became aware, after many decades ... that I didn't have to accept anyone's definition for anything, not even the dictionaries. I found out that dictionary writers famously (at least for Voltaire) have agendas. Today with out totalitarian global society, it is a political agenda. Of course "pop culture" is a source of common meaning .. but we all know that our lives have turned into crappy reality TV, right?
With me it is a Zen thing. At first a mountain was just a mountain. Then a mountain was no longer a mountain. Eventually a mountain was just a mountain, but no longer the same mountain. As a theist humanist by choice, I have to ... have to define things in terms of humanity. And it has to be a humanity that isn't materialist. Materialist humanity satisfies the agenda of Capitalism and Communism. After many decades, I have rejected Winston Smith's fate.
In the course of my personal development, I didn't have to end up as a theist, or even Jewish. I have had lots of "alternative ending novella" choices to make, and I ain't done until I'm done. Your personal development is different (as it has to be). We are just chatting away, being the monkeys we are. There are so many people, and the choices we make are exponentially greater than the number of people at any given time, it is a wonder we can even chat at all.
For a naturalist, being in nature (minus tourists) is a wonder. i get that too. For me being among people, and being a person (I have yet to be a redwood tree) is a wonder. And yes ... people are irritating. I am a clam who won't clam up ... don't mind the pearl I am making here ;-) I choose to accept people as they are (with much effort) ... I project my irritation on G-d (like the patient does to Freud). Of course my G-d is going to be Jewish in that case ;-)
I find that a deeper atheism, comes from a deeper misanthropy. And I get the misanthropy, I have that condition too. Mine drives me to heresy, not atheism. One can make all the epistemological arguments one likes, and people love to argue. But it is mere shadow boxing. Unless I am a person, conversing with another person, not an agenda arguing with different agenda ... then I have run aground in the shallows.
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2017, 05:13:18 AM
We can only have the same definitions, if we are the same person. And per Heraclitus, the same person doesn't have the same definition, over time. How can people "discover" what definition I am using today ... if it is different than yesterday ... yes, reading all 12000 posts of mine might give a clue, but then you need the context to understand those. Once a person has been some place for awhile ... they are no longer the salt boy, they have become a sea, if not an ocean. We have semantic misunderstandings? Well then that requires friendly conversation, not argument over Funk & Wagnalls.
See, we don't agree on even what a conversation is. If it is rhetoric, then you can you can tear my polymorphic definitions from my cold dead lips.
De Doo Doo Doo, De Da Da Da...
If I say to someone, "Quit Barukin' me," they might be inclined to think I mean, simply, "Quit taking me to task, over pedantic minutia," when I might instead mean, "Quit exploiting the ambiguities of language, for your own amusement," or in some instances, I might mean, "Quit changing the subject of a thread, and pretending it's a natural tangent."
They are all legitimate definitions, it just depends on context.
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2017, 05:13:18 AMWe can only have the same definitions, if we are the same person.
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2017, 05:23:19 AM
Your definition of G-d ... like many others here ...
(http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/reading-ikea-intructions-big-lebowski-confused.gif)
I skipped over it too Zorn. I meant to go down that path. If there is no available evidence of a Christian god because he wants to pretend he doesn't exist, then why is he pretending? Or if the Christian god doesn't want us to know that he exists why should he bother us at all or be making rules for us?
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2017, 05:23:19 AM
Your definition of G-d ... I didn't have to accept
Do we have a standard definition of god on this website?
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 11, 2017, 10:02:49 AM
De Doo Doo Doo, De Da Da Da...
If I say to someone, "Quit Barukin' me," they might be inclined to think I mean, simply, "Quit taking me to task, over pedantic minutia," when I might instead mean, "Quit exploiting the ambiguities of language, for your own amusement," or in some instances, I might mean, "Quit changing the subject of a thread, and pretending it's a natural tangent."
They are all legitimate definitions, it just depends on context.
Seven billion different contexts ... so Bill Clinton was right ... what does "is" mean?
Quote from: fencerider on March 11, 2017, 02:25:29 PM
I skipped over it too Zorn. I meant to go down that path. If there is no available evidence of a Christian god because he wants to pretend he doesn't exist, then why is he pretending? Or if the Christian god doesn't want us to know that he exists why should he bother us at all or be making rules for us?
Do we have a standard definition of god on this website?
In a word ... "No" - Dick Cheney ... man of laconic brevity. People like to argue from their own authority, except for when they want to fall back on another authority, like the assholes who wrote the dictionary being quoted. Either you know yourself, for yourself, what a word means (Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland) or you are speaking gibberish (using words as magic, given that they have no empirical content for you). So if I used the word "manatee" but didn't know what that was ... you might not realize that I am speaking gibberish, because it is a legitimate word in the dictionary. Complicated metaphysical words (like exist) are used that way, all the time. That is why philosophers bother to think about them, because even they don't know what they are talking about most of the time. Another example ... people who talk about economics, frequently use jargon, that they don't understand, to sound impressive. Similarly all the equations which have no real connection with reality (because of the massive assumptions required to justify them). Out of a thousand professional economists, only 12 predicted the 2008 contraction ... and many of them were just guessing and got lucky.
If the common definition of a word, doesn't mean what I need that word to say, then it is usually incumbent upon me, to find another word.
Quote from: fencerider on March 11, 2017, 02:25:29 PM
I skipped over it too Zorn. I meant to go down that path. If there is no available evidence of a Christian god because he wants to pretend he doesn't exist, then why is he pretending? Or if the Christian god doesn't want us to know that he exists why should he bother us at all or be making rules for us?
Good questions for a Christian, but I don't think there are any around here lately.
Here's an interesting bit about the problem of divine hiddenness:
What Divine Hiddenness Reveals, or How Weak Theistic Evidence is Strong Atheistic Proof (2008) (https://infidels.org/library/modern/john_schellenberg/hidden.html)
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 11, 2017, 04:30:02 PM
If the common definition of a word, doesn't mean what I need that word to say, then it is usually incumbent upon me, to find another word.
Noah Webster is your Pope.
I like Sisson's Word and Expression Locator - it's got all the best words...
Quote from: Baruch
Noah Webster is your Pope.
Loki is yours...or do you spell it L-ki ?
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 11, 2017, 07:09:25 PM
Loki is yours...or do you spell it L-ki ?
Just keep the Hulk off me, and we will get along just fine ...
HULK SMASH! You already got clobbered.
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2017, 05:23:19 AMYour definition of G-d ... like many others here ... "something that will make me crap my pants, like going over the top of the first tall rise in the roller coaster".
Actually, a god to me is a spiritual being with significant power. Some mythical gods have realms of power, such as fertility. Sometimes they demand worship in exchange for favors. Or in the Christian God's case, worship in exchange for not being tortured for an eternity. Basically, a god is someone with significance in the real world. If a god does little more than observe, like the Holy Clapper, I couldn't really care less.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 12, 2017, 04:03:14 PM
Actually, a god to me is a spiritual being with significant power. Some mythical gods have realms of power, such as fertility. Sometimes they demand worship in exchange for favors. Or in the Christian God's case, worship in exchange for not being tortured for an eternity. Basically, a god is someone with significance in the real world. If a god does little more than observe, like the Holy Clapper, I couldn't really care less.
You never heard of ... clap on ... clap off? That is both practical and powerful. And yes, I hope, if you made your own children, that the goat you sacrificed had no blemish ... though covering up its zits with Clearasil is OK.
If anyone is still interested in the original topic, here's a poem that I wrote on the subject(best when read in a tone that is dripping with sarcasm):
"Impotent Omnipotent"
Solomon Zorn
God saw the workman, who fell in the chipper,
His thoughts are with the meat pile's family.
God hears the prayers, of children with cancer,
But he just lacks a medical degree.
God has such love for the faithful devoted,
To have them near, he let them crash their bus.
God stayed his hand, as a fact'ry exploded,
It's all part of his plan, you have to trust.
God knew beforehand, the planes' destinations,
The day the world watched the towers fall.
God can't be bothered with terror prevention,
When busy with the outcomes of football.
It was September after all...
God works his miracles, worship him for it,
And don't forget to pray for his assistance.
God is all-powerful, dare not ignore it,
For God is only faking nonexistence.
zorn your attempt at poetry is kinda funny. just dont quit the day job yet. You got the rhyme part down, now you gotta work on the rhythm part. (let me think about it.... maybe give yu a more poetic version of the same song)
Maybe he pretends to not exist just to see how many zaney ideas we come up with. maybe he wants to see who dares to say he doesn't exist so he can smash em like a bug (god of tuff-luv)
Quote from: fencerider on March 14, 2017, 12:04:59 AM
zorn your attempt at poetry is kinda funny. just dont quit the day job yet. You got the rhyme part down, now you gotta work on the rhythm part. (let me think about it.... maybe give yu a more poetic version of the same song)
It's not a song, it's a poem. The structure of the rhythm is a little unusual, but it is consistent:
God saw the workman, who fell in the chipper,
His thoughts are with the meat pile's family.
God hears the prayers, of children with cancer,
But he just lacks a medical degree.
The meter of the first line, matches the meter of the third line. The meter of the second line, matches the meter of the fourth. The offset structure, is intended to force a pause between lines.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 08, 2017, 04:57:08 PM
People are more emotional, than rational. They want ready-made answers for their questions and concerns. They don't want to think too hard about it. They want to know the origin of life without waiting for the research. They want to know what happens, if anything, after death, so they can somehow be prepared for it. They want control over their own lives. They want control over others. They want help in desperation. They want to make a safer, better world. They want to live forever.
A God, seems like he could solve all those problems. Hence the desire to believe.
Indoctrination molds the psyche, making the concept seem to be innate.
Inordinate elevation of the importance of faith, numbs their natural skepticism, and renders them more amenable to self deception.
Then the convoluted pseudo-reasoning of apologists, reinforces a believer's delusion, making it difficult for most people to distinguish between a sound conclusion, and a rationalized defense of their preconceptions.
And of course, in our culture, everybody believes it, so it must be true.
Finally, demonizing the very thought, that what you've been taught is in error, frightens many people away, either consciously or subconsciously.
I sometimes think God is Santa Claus for adults. And yeah, that's trite and cliche, but I think it is true. Or sometimes, Dad. Some people need more guidance and reassurance than others.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 14, 2017, 09:39:07 AM
It's not a song, it's a poem. The structure of the rhythm is a little unusual, but it is consistent:
God saw the workman, who fell in the chipper,
His thoughts are with the meat pile's family.
God hears the prayers, of children with cancer,
But he just lacks a medical degree.
The meter of the first line, matches the meter of the third line. The meter of the second line, matches the meter of the fourth. The offset structure, is intended to force a pause between lines.
I am not a fan of poetry. I do like some of it, tho. Like Gibran and McKuen--not all but most. And Dr. Suess. But it seems to me that poetry is like beauty--in the eye of the beholder. And you, Zorn, are in the category of McKuen or Suess--like some of your work and not others. And I found that I liked quite a bit of Ferlinghetti--and I sort of place you with him.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 14, 2017, 11:03:05 AM
I am not a fan of poetry. I do like some of it, tho. Like Gibran and McKuen--not all but most. And Dr. Suess. But it seems to me that poetry is like beauty--in the eye of the beholder. And you, Zorn, are in the category of McKuen or Suess--like some of your work and not others. And I found that I liked quite a bit of Ferlinghetti--and I sort of place you with him.
Thanks...I think.
To be honest, I'm not that big of a poetry fan, myself. If it doesn't have a theme, that resonates with me, and doesn't state it, in a way that strikes me as clever or profound, then I get bored with it.
I looked up Ferlinghetti. He writes free-verse, which is quite different from the poems I write. A free-verse writer can write all day long, and never have to go back and make a correction. The poems I write, are meticulously structured(not that that means they're any good), and it can take several days just to perfect a few stanzas. I've been known to opine, that free-verse isn't really the same thing, as poetry.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 14, 2017, 01:21:29 PM
Thanks...I think.
To be honest, I'm not that big of a poetry fan, myself. If it doesn't have a theme, that resonates with me, and doesn't state it, in a way that strikes me as clever or profound, then I get bored with it.
I looked up Ferlinghetti. He writes free-verse, which is quite different from the poems I write. A free-verse writer can write all day long, and never have to go back and make a correction. The poems I write, are meticulously structured(not that that means they're any good), and it can take several days just to perfect a few stanzas. I've been known to opine, that free-verse isn't really the same thing, as poetry.
Yeah, it was a complement. I don't know enough about poetry to put you or any other poet, into a category. I know of two categories for me--like or dislike. At least I will usually take the time to read you. :))
Shakespeare has been referred to as a poet. I don't see it. I just sounds like some guy writing in a now defunct style. But old literature was never really my thing. Other than that, I think Shakespeare did spin a good yarn from time to time.
A few years ago, I was visiting some friends, and one of the things we did was go to a performance of Julius Caesar. It seems fashionable today to present Shakespeare's plays in a modern format. You know; Make it interesting by rewriting Romeo and Juliet as high school students from the Bronx. Some of the plays are timeless and lend themselves to modern problems, so I get it, but it's been done more times than necessary.
So the Julius Caesar we saw was done in as a martial arts presentation. While some actor was blabbering out Shakespeare's lines, others positioned artistically about the stage were striking fierce karate poses, and I'm thinking, "Is there no end to the ways to fuck up Shakespeare? How much longer do I have to sit here?" I had visions of the original Globe Theater with drunken theater goers throwing rotten garbage at the actors. But I resisted, and eventually the play ended. Without commenting or soliciting any reactions from my hosts, they apologized for the poor choice of entertainment on the way home.
Read the Star Wars stories done Shakespeare style. The opposite of your example. Six books by Jan Doescher. I like it for the language.
Quote from: SGOS on March 14, 2017, 02:35:44 PM
Shakespeare has been referred to as a poet. I don't see it. I just sounds like some guy writing in a now defunct style. But old literature was never really my thing. Other than that, I think Shakespeare did spin a good yarn from time to time.
A few years ago, I was visiting some friends, and one of the things we did was go to a performance of Julius Caesar. It seems fashionable today to present Shakespeare's plays in a modern format. You know; Make it interesting by rewriting Romeo and Juliet as high school students from the Bronx. Some of the plays are timeless and lend themselves to modern problems, so I get it, but it's been done more times than necessary.
So the Julius Caesar we saw was done in as a martial arts presentation. While some actor was blabbering out Shakespeare's lines, others positioned artistically about the stage were striking fierce karate poses, and I'm thinking, "Is there no end to the ways to fuck up Shakespeare? How much longer do I have to sit here?" I had visions of the original Globe Theater with drunken theater goers throwing rotten garbage at the actors. But I resisted, and eventually the play ended. Without commenting or soliciting any reactions from my hosts, they apologized for the poor choice of entertainment on the way home.
One would have to ask Shakespeare. But I do admire West Side Story.
Quote from: SGOS on March 14, 2017, 02:35:44 PM
Shakespeare has been referred to as a poet. I don't see it. I just sounds like some guy writing in a now defunct style. But old literature was never really my thing. Other than that, I think Shakespeare did spin a good yarn from time to time.
A few years ago, I was visiting some friends, and one of the things we did was go to a performance of Julius Caesar. It seems fashionable today to present Shakespeare's plays in a modern format. You know; Make it interesting by rewriting Romeo and Juliet as high school students from the Bronx. Some of the plays are timeless and lend themselves to modern problems, so I get it, but it's been done more times than necessary.
So the Julius Caesar we saw was done in as a martial arts presentation. While some actor was blabbering out Shakespeare's lines, others positioned artistically about the stage were striking fierce karate poses, and I'm thinking, "Is there no end to the ways to fuck up Shakespeare? How much longer do I have to sit here?" I had visions of the original Globe Theater with drunken theater goers throwing rotten garbage at the actors. But I resisted, and eventually the play ended. Without commenting or soliciting any reactions from my hosts, they apologized for the poor choice of entertainment on the way home.
All things considered, I think I would prefer a wuxia version of Julius Caesar to a production as written. My favorite adaptations of Shakespeare are
Forbidden Planet (of
The Tempest) and
Strange Brew (as an inside-out
Hamlet) -- I am a reasonably intelligent and literate man, but I simply do not find Shakespeare accessible in the original.
One might consider that Shakespeare was a master at creating new phrases.
From what I've gathered, God hides from us similar to a mother hiding from its developing fetus or how white light hides from the rainbow. The only part of God we directly interact with is it's field nature....which is perfectly still.
God is the border conditions of the universe. Please forgive the absence at your BBQ.
god is merely the father figure you no longer have or want to have or have never had. The first tag line of religion is to let god take control, don't worry god has it taken care of, give your concerns to god....replace god with dad and you have your childhood all over again...unless of course your father was of the particular kind that preferred a more priestly approach....
There is no Father without a Mother.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 23, 2017, 01:05:11 PM
God hides from us similar to a mother hiding from its developing fetus or how white light hides from the rainbow. The only part of God we directly interact with is it's field nature....which is perfectly still. God is the border conditions of the universe.
God always sounds more authentic with a poetic description.
Quote from: SGOS on April 23, 2017, 03:13:43 PM
God always sounds more authentic with a poetic description.
Poetry is true speech ... prose is simply bad poetry ;-)
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 23, 2017, 01:05:11 PM
From what I've gathered, God hides from us similar to a mother hiding from its developing fetus or how white light hides from the rainbow. The only part of God we directly interact with is it's field nature....which is perfectly still.
God is the border conditions of the universe. Please forgive the absence at your BBQ.
It is beginning to sound like to me that your god is simply was is. Nature. Your god does not seem to think or reason or even create on its own; it is just there and stuff happens within it, well, naturally. Your god does not seem to plan or even know what its creation is doing or will do. So, why call it god?
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 23, 2017, 05:07:24 PM
It is beginning to sound like to me that your god is simply was is. Nature. Your god does not seem to think or reason or even create on its own; it is just there and stuff happens within it, well, naturally. Your god does not seem to plan or even know what its creation is doing or will do. So, why call it god?
Because it literally rules all phenomenon, internal or external. I don't really speculate on its subject or self-conscious nature.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 23, 2017, 06:58:09 PM
Because it literally rules all phenomenon, internal or external. I don't really speculate on its subject or self-conscious nature.
Sentient beings are its spotty subject or self-conscious nature. We are the mind of G-d ... as a vast multiple personality, with the personalities interacting in complex ways. The problem with the word "nature" is that it is a fig leaf as much as "G-d" is. A personality can't deny the existence of personality, without self contradiction. Not that this bothered Buddha. Buddha wasn't a logician, though later Mahayana in one school, tried to make Buddhism logical. And that logic was way beyond the Greek version.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 23, 2017, 05:07:24 PM
It is beginning to sound like to me that your god is simply was is. Nature. Your god does not seem to think or reason or even create on its own; it is just there and stuff happens within it, well, naturally. Your god does not seem to plan or even know what its creation is doing or will do. So, why call it god?
We are the instrumentality of G-d ... we are G-d's means of creating, in the small. The Creation as a whole, was never created, it is ... just as you said. My "is" is personal, not impersonal. I don't think atoms are the ultimate reality ... people are. Atomic stuff is part of the physicality of human and non-human reality. Are my fingernails all of me, are there 20 of me?
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 23, 2017, 06:58:09 PM
Because it literally rules all phenomenon, internal or external. I don't really speculate on its subject or self-conscious nature.
One can make the claim of physical laws as well. So, for you, god is not viewing your every action and thought but is just the overall creator of this universe--and all others. I can accept that much more easily than the god who not only is the creator of the universe, but of a code of conduct as well, who issued it and then disappeared (or appears only to the very faithful) and rules who will and will not exist in heaven. Your god could easily be called nature. But why call your god 'god'? Seems that that will automatically attract the dislike of the traditional theist.
Quote from: Baruch on April 23, 2017, 07:49:17 PM
We are the instrumentality of G-d ... we are G-d's means of creating, in the small. The Creation as a whole, was never created, it is ... just as you said. My "is" is personal, not impersonal. I don't think atoms are the ultimate reality ... people are. Atomic stuff is part of the physicality of human and non-human reality. Are my fingernails all of me, are there 20 of me?
So, for you god is too lazy to create everything? He doesn't have enough time??? And for you people are the ultimate expression of god? We are the pinnacle??? As for your fingernails, I've never seen them, so I don't know.
what we really need is Thor's hammer. One good whack on the multiverse and it will crack enough for all 20 Baruchs to fall out in the same place....
so far the best way I can understand Ananta Shesha's description of god is to just call it the primordial ether Ananta Shesha"god is an infinite, formless, unified state of matter"
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 23, 2017, 08:03:22 PM
So, for you god is too lazy to create everything? He doesn't have enough time??? And for you people are the ultimate expression of god? We are the pinnacle??? As for your fingernails, I've never seen them, so I don't know.
No creation, no Creator. Time is an illusion ... no creation without time. So ... G-d doesn't create because G-d doesn't have the time ;-)
Yes, a human is far superior to an atom ... even superior to a paramecium ... though aitm denies that.
Quote from: Baruch on April 24, 2017, 12:32:17 AM
No creation, no Creator. Time is an illusion ... no creation without time. So ... G-d doesn't create because G-d doesn't have the time ;-)
Yes, a human is far superior to an atom ... even superior to a paramecium ... though aitm denies that.
After 'No creation, no Creator. ', you lost me. God does not create because god is a fiction--he/she was invented by man. I suppose one could say that humans are superior to an atom. But what does that mean? Seems a bit nonsensical to me. And an atom, currently, is not defined as life. I don't see any lifeform as being superior to another--just different. And I'm not saying that all life is equal or should even exist. And I'm not saying I don't kill other lifeforms--I do. All of us do, for we have no choice. We kill, at the very least, life within our own bodies and on our bodies every minute of every day. Even if we kill ourselves we would then still be killing the organisms that have a symbiotic relationship with us. Anyway, labeling one life form as superior or inferior does little to add to our understanding of our very real physical world.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 24, 2017, 10:29:00 AM
After 'No creation, no Creator. ', you lost me. God does not create because god is a fiction--he/she was invented by man. I suppose one could say that humans are superior to an atom. But what does that mean? Seems a bit nonsensical to me. And an atom, currently, is not defined as life. I don't see any lifeform as being superior to another--just different. And I'm not saying that all life is equal or should even exist. And I'm not saying I don't kill other lifeforms--I do. All of us do, for we have no choice. We kill, at the very least, life within our own bodies and on our bodies every minute of every day. Even if we kill ourselves we would then still be killing the organisms that have a symbiotic relationship with us. Anyway, labeling one life form as superior or inferior does little to add to our understanding of our very real physical world.
Man creates .. but not ex nihilo. That would be a straw man argument often used. In Genesis, G-d doesn't create ex nihilo either. Our creation is the rearrangement of existing things ... but more importantly, new ideas. Are ideas made up of atoms? Oh ... ideas are just activities of atoms. Is atomic activity sponsored by the YMCA? Do atoms get much exercise ;-) Physical scientists understand very little ... about as much physics as the Pope understands ;-) In olden times there was a hierarchy of worship ... god worship, demigod worship and hero worship. Science as a cultural phenomena ... is a form of hero worship. Our old poster Joe was "in love" with Einstein, but denied love to Feynman. If you don't think you are superior, then just use drugs to stop your immune system. Bacteria of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your antibodies!
Compare a pebble to the Great Pyramid. Both are made of stone, and the pebble formed naturally, no Pharaoh involved. So the pebble is the equal of the Great Pyramid, to you? We macro-fauna are superior to micro-fauna ... at least in size and complexity.
Quote from: Baruch on April 24, 2017, 12:32:06 PM
Man creates .. but not ex nihilo. That would be a straw man argument often used. In Genesis, G-d doesn't create ex nihilo either. Our creation is the rearrangement of existing things ... but more importantly, new ideas. Are ideas made up of atoms? Oh ... ideas are just activities of atoms. Is atomic activity sponsored by the YMCA? Do atoms get much exercise ;-) Physical scientists understand very little ... about as much physics as the Pope understands ;-) In olden times there was a hierarchy of worship ... god worship, demigod worship and hero worship. Science as a cultural phenomena ... is a form of hero worship. Our old poster Joe was "in love" with Einstein, but denied love to Feynman. If you don't think you are superior, then just use drugs to stop your immune system. Bacteria of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your antibodies!
Compare a pebble to the Great Pyramid. Both are made of stone, and the pebble formed naturally, no Pharaoh involved. So the pebble is the equal of the Great Pyramid, to you? We macro-fauna are superior to micro-fauna ... at least in size and complexity.
What is 'is'?--posed by my favorite philosopher. :)) It all depends upon what 'superior' means to you. I don't care what it says in Genesis; it is clearly a fiction and has no bearing on reality. I don't go to my Red Ryder comics to defend some philosophy or other. I see--physical scientists don't understand anything while theistic ones do. Right.
As for the bacteria within me, that is a double edge sword. Not all bacteria are equal. Some my body needs to work at its best. Others will make me sick. So, I do my best to suppress the bad ones and support the good ones. Am I superior to either kind? I don't really care; I am more important to me, that I can say. Are they superior to me? What does that mean? I'm sure most of them perform their natural function more efficiently than I; so does than make them superior? I matters not if they or I am the most superior; that has no impact upon my life.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 24, 2017, 02:20:22 PM
What is 'is'?--posed by my favorite philosopher. :)) It all depends upon what 'superior' means to you. I don't care what it says in Genesis; it is clearly a fiction and has no bearing on reality. I don't go to my Red Ryder comics to defend some philosophy or other. I see--physical scientists don't understand anything while theistic ones do. Right.
As for the bacteria within me, that is a double edge sword. Not all bacteria are equal. Some my body needs to work at its best. Others will make me sick. So, I do my best to suppress the bad ones and support the good ones. Am I superior to either kind? I don't really care; I am more important to me, that I can say. Are they superior to me? What does that mean? I'm sure most of them perform their natural function more efficiently than I; so does than make them superior? I matters not if they or I am the most superior; that has no impact upon my life.
"I don't go to my Red Ryder comics to defend some philosophy or other." ... you might be missing out ;-) And no, scientists are geeks, only nerds understand, geeks don't get anything other than their own geekness. Geeks understand only that there is no understanding. Geeks think they are cool in black ... nerds wear colors.
Quote from: Baruch on April 24, 2017, 07:15:24 PM
"I don't go to my Red Ryder comics to defend some philosophy or other." ... you might be missing out ;-) And no, scientists are geeks, only nerds understand, geeks don't get anything other than their own geekness. Geeks understand only that there is no understanding. Geeks think they are cool in black ... nerds wear colors.
You may be right, Baruch (see how much easier that is when all the keys are labeled and easy to read??) Little Beaver does spew forth with line after line of philosophy!
The easiest way to deal with people like Baruch is to just ignore them. I've done that for some months and it gets easier every day. I knew people like him in the workplace and in the neighborhood. When you learn to ignore THEM, everyone else's posts are much more clear.
Cavebear ... groupthink and confirmation bias. But then you learned that in the bowls of the government ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on June 14, 2017, 12:53:16 PM
Cavebear ... groupthink and confirmation bias. But then you leaned that in the bowls of the government ;-)
Or maybe the Super-bowls of government...
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/a-tweet-damn-the-nfl-been-around-longer-than-our-3633156.png)
Government is more like Tidy-Bowl than Super-Bowl ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DC_M2VgfVA ... that is the President in the WH yacht ;-))
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 24, 2017, 10:29:00 AM
I don't see any lifeform as being superior to another
There are millions of missionaries and crusaders that would disagree... and maybe even be disappointed in you
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 23, 2017, 02:50:54 PM
There is no Father without a Mother.
That's nice.
There is a reason religion consider women as worthy as camels donkeys and the occasional ox. A protective father has the edge over a protective mother. Hey, talk to god bout it.
Quote from: fencerider on June 17, 2017, 12:37:47 PM
There are millions of missionaries and crusaders that would disagree... and maybe even be disappointed in you
My gut bacteria worship me as a god, constantly living in fear of The Great Enema!
Quote from: fencerider on June 17, 2017, 12:37:47 PM
There are millions of missionaries and crusaders that would disagree... and maybe even be disappointed in you
Yes, they would be disappointed in me---and that's what I aim for. :)
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 17, 2017, 04:10:34 PM
Yes, they would be disappointed in me---and that's what I aim for. :)
I'm with you on that. It is vaguely reassuring that "millions of missionaries and crusaders that would disagree" with me.