|
Author
|
Topic: Identifying false religions.
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Stop Evading The Question
But of course any God we can discuss actually started right there, they are human constructs. It can't be any other way. We are limited to what a human can see, think, understand, and a GOD by definition would be far beyond anything we can imagine. Yet we are still human, and so we try to create caricatures, ikons, images, concepts to best outline what we as a people imagine GOD to be. This is why the very early God of Genesis 2 is so very man like while the God of Genesis 1 is entirely different.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 157 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 8:22 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Stop Evading The Question
If GOD exists, then GOD exists regardless of any evidence or belief that GOD does not exist.
If GOD does not exist, then GOD does not exist regardless of any evidence or belief that GOD does exist. That takes care of GOD.
However, it still leaves Gods and gods. If there really is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then that GOD is further from a human than a human is from slime mold. A human has about as much a likelihood of knowing or understanding that GOD as slime mold has of knowing or understanding a human. As a human, all we can do is imagine some approximation of what a real GOD might be, we create our Gods.
But why rationally should we pursue the human invention of god any more avidly than we would pursue any other blatant product of human imagination? Good thing I don't suggest that you should pursue such subjects then. Some people do. It is of course irrelevant whether you do or not. BUT...despite the fact that we cannot identify or determine if there is or is not a GOD, we can look at individual beliefs, at the Gods created and being marketed, and decide whether we believe they might be a reasonable icon and even if it happened to turn out that the caricature was really a GOD, whether that God is worthy of worship or should be opposed.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 170 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2010 2:33 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Stop Evading The Question
Straggler writes: If GOD exists, then GOD exists regardless of any evidence or belief that GOD does not exist. If GOD does not exist, then GOD does not exist regardless of any evidence or belief that GOD does exist. If Kermit the frog exists, then Kermit the frog exists regardless of any evidence or belief that Kermit the frog does not exist. If Kermit the frog does not exist, then Kermit the frog does not exist regardless of any evidence or belief that Kermit the frog does exist.
Jar writes: That takes care of GOD. Only in so far as it takes care of absolutely anything one applies this statement to. It could be equally applied to anything from Santa Claus to raspberry jam via the Matrix and the Higgs Boson. Okay.
Straggler writes: If there really is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then that GOD is further from a human than a human is from slime mold. A human has about as much a likelihood of knowing or understanding that GOD as slime mold has of knowing or understanding a human. And if this god is both immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable then, as you previously wholeheartedly agreed, it is necessarily the case that this concept originated as a product of human imagination. How could it be otherwise? I fail to see what difference adding the additional attributes of being vastly superior and unimaginable to ones imagined concept makes to this logical conclusion? I don't remember agreeing to those conditions, however you seem to miss the distinction between GOD and god. Too bad. I'm also not at all sure what logical conclusion you might be referring to. Fortunately, what you fail to see is irrelevant and unimportant.
Straggler writes: BUT...despite the fact that we cannot identify or determine if there is or is not a GOD, we can look at individual beliefs, at the Gods created and being marketed, and decide whether we believe they might be a reasonable icon and even if it happened to turn out that the caricature was really a GOD, whether that God is worthy of worship or should be opposed. Why worship or oppose any concept that we know must have been made-up? Read all I write.
jar writes: BUT...despite the fact that we cannot identify or determine if there is or is not a GOD, we can look at individual beliefs, at the Gods created and being marketed, and decide whether we believe they might be a reasonable icon and even if it happened to turn out that the caricature was really a GOD, whether that God is worthy of worship or should be opposed. First, note the underlined part. The reason to worship or oppose become important in two situations, one, the underlined parts above, but a secondary reason is the topic of this thread, it is a way to possibly identify false religions.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 174 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 2:18 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Straggler writes: You seem here to be accepting of the idea that any concept which is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable must have arisen as a product of human imagination. No? Please read what I write. Humans are limited, there are things which we can imagine but there are also limits to both our imagination and to our ability to describe. Any God (note only the first letter capitalized) will be a product of our imagination and limited to what we can imagine, understand or describe. That does not imply that there might be some entity GOD (note all upper case).
Straggler writes: If both god and GOD are immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable I fail to see what distinction is necessary in this context? Both are necessarily products of the internal workings of the human mind. How can it possibly be otherwise? Utter nonsense. The fact that we are unable to understand or even describe something does not imply that that entity does not exist. Now if I laid claim that I could describe, understand, know or actually commune with GOD you might have something.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 177 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 3:26 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Why do you think labeling your concept of God with the attribute "unimaginable" and writing it in upper case makes any difference to this? Because I defined it as making a difference.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 179 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 3:58 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 185 of 479 (568732)
07-14-2010 12:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 183 by Straggler
07-14-2010 11:15 AM
|
|
Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Straggler writes: However your concept of GOD - This immaterial and undetectable "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" - is necessarily a product of your own internal mind. Huh? Or it might actually exist.
Straggler writes: Why worship or oppose any concept that we know must have been made-up? Please read what I write. Beliefs whether factual or fantasy effect how people behave.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 183 by Straggler, posted 07-14-2010 11:15 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 187 of 479 (568756)
07-14-2010 6:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 186 by Rahvin
07-14-2010 6:42 PM
|
|
Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
HUH? Is there anything in there other than 'The issue is simply that "it might be true" is not ever good enough for anything, ever' that I should disagree with?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 186 by Rahvin, posted 07-14-2010 6:42 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Because I believe in many things that might be true?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 188 by Phage0070, posted 07-17-2010 5:50 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
"Phage0070" writes: So your argument in favor of that behavior which was reasonably argued as being unacceptable, is that it is OK because you already do it? That would certainly be an acceptable argument for me since I have not seen any reasonable argument that believing in something that simply might be true is unacceptable. After all I've believed many times someone was in love with me, that I would like a particular pair of socks, that I really do want desert before the main course and found all those acceptable.
"Phage0070" writes: That seems to imply the premise that you cannot be wrong, and I find no reason to accept that. Nonsense. There are even things I believed to be true that I later found out were not true. The socks itched, the young lady did not love me and after I finished desert I did not enjoy the main course as much as I expected.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 190 by Phage0070, posted 07-17-2010 7:46 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Belief
Phage0070 writes: Believing someone is in love with you simply because it *might* be true, without any other reason, isn't OK. Why? Ever have a crush on another person?
Phage0070 writes: So when Rahvin says that something potentially being true is not alone an acceptable reason to believe anything, your response is that you are comfortable with a decision-making process that yields more incorrect conclusions that Rahvin is prepared to accept. Huh? I am comfortable with the system that I use. I don't try to tell someone else what to believe. There is a difference between 'belief' and 'conclusion or knowledge'. I don't 'believe' in gravity, it is a conclusion forced on me by overwhelming evidence. But this topic revolves around "Identifying false religions." I believe there is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen. That is a belief and I can present NO evidence in support of that belief. It might be true and I happen to believe that it is true. Now to identifying false religions. First, all the evidence I have found seems to show that all religions, including the one I happen to belong to, are very likely false. So if I can see that my very own religion is likely false, how can I in honesty subscribe to it? Because humans are limited. A religion is at best a human creation, the closest we can come to imagining the unimaginable. It is very likely not accurate, complete, correct but it is at best, the best we can do. Does that mean that all religions are created equal? Well, no. A religion that denies 'conclusions' is definitely false. Those Christians for example that oppose Evolution or believe there really was a Noahic Flood are just plain wrong. There is overwhelming evidence that such beliefs are just plain incorrect. Then there could be a religion that believes in an evil god, like the god so many Christians seem to try to market. That is a different issue. There, even if the god they try to market did turn out to be true, it is a god that should be opposed.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 192 by Phage0070, posted 07-17-2010 8:06 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Belief
I don't think anyone claimed you were uncomfortable with your belief system, the claim is that you should be. LOL. Okay. Whatever. I really don't much care what others assert.
Now, if you are confident that a god exists but cannot *present* evidence it does not mean that you came to your decision without evidence whatsoever. I'm actually pretty sure that no evidence is even possible as long as we live.
My question to you is what convinced you that a god exists at all, rather than simply delusion? HUH? I said above that it is just a belief not a conclusion. What ever might have convinced me is simply personal, of no value to anyone else.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 194 by Phage0070, posted 07-18-2010 2:25 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Belief
Again, you are drawing distinctions between beliefs and conclusions that I don't think you have adequately explained, and are not implied through the regular use of the language. Okay, but that is your problem, not mine.
For me, belief in something that I have no evidence (even personal evidence) is true is lunacy. I might just as well believe anything and everything is true. Okay. I have absolutely no problem with you feeling that way.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by Phage0070, posted 07-18-2010 2:38 PM | | Phage0070 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 200 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2010 5:31 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 201 of 479 (568893)
07-18-2010 5:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
07-18-2010 5:31 PM
|
|
Re: Is it just me?
Almost a one for one correspondence it seems.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 200 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2010 5:31 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 207 of 479 (568964)
07-19-2010 10:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 206 by bluegenes
07-19-2010 10:02 AM
|
|
Re: Analogy?!!!
bluegenes writes: Someone who accepts the theory that all animals are born from other animals as a strong theory, but does not accept the theory that all supernatural beings are born of the human imagination as a strong theory, is someone who is being inconsistent and irrational. Okay. That is a fair statement. What is the problem with being inconsistent and irrational at times?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by bluegenes, posted 07-19-2010 10:02 AM | | bluegenes has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 210 of 479 (568974)
07-19-2010 10:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 209 by bluegenes
07-19-2010 10:40 AM
|
|
Re: Analogy?!!!
On the other hand, it could be argued, on observation, that the less inconsistency and irrationality there is in human cultures, the better off the people are in those cultures. Perhaps, but I doubt that it could be argued successfully. Often it is essential to be inconsistent. That is how advances are made. Within the topic though, it is necessary IMHO to understand that Gods and gods that we discuss are limited by the human imagination. That does not preclude though the very existence or reality of some GOD that is beyond our limited imagination.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by bluegenes, posted 07-19-2010 10:40 AM | | bluegenes has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2