News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Conviction or Repetition

Started by fencerider, January 07, 2017, 01:14:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

#60
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).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

widdershins

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.
This sentence is a lie...

Blackleaf

#62
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.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

popsthebuilder

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.

popsthebuilder

#64
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

popsthebuilder

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.

Baruch

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 ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Blackleaf

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.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Mike Cl

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??????
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

popsthebuilder

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?

Mike Cl

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. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

popsthebuilder

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.

Mike Cl

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...................
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

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.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman