That's fair. But it's also a good reason to trim the concept from their inexact approximation. The Bible specifically tells falsehoods about God, and those falsehoods are believed.
In the Beginning...
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
That's fair. But it's also a good reason to trim the concept from their inexact approximation. The Bible specifically tells falsehoods about God, and those falsehoods are believed.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I didn't say, "you have to have faith". I said you do have faith. When you stated the list of things which would be sufficient for you to accept whatever you were supposed to accept, you expressed faith in a number of things. The question is not one of faith, but of demanding a sign. You decreed a sign sufficient for your sensibilities. Implicit was a challenge.
Enough of that. People have been raised from the dead, but it is not sufficient.
I have not found this to be so.
J
I wouldnt realy call these a falshoods but simply some kind of an obsolete truths becouse they may had good justfication thousands of years ago(just like our views are bound to lose quite a bit of its justification in the future). Also the fact that we are struggling with recognising some of these dogmas as something we have progressed beyond would seem to show we need to develop more plasticity in our thinking.
Lexicus
Deity
It is most unsurprising that a god concocted by violent, patriarchal people would behave like a violent patriarch.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Sorry guys, busy times for castle warpus Esq. etc. Not much time for internetting, I've had to abandon all conversations on this forum for now but I have some time to reply to some stuff
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, though. It's basically on the level of hearsay, if not lower.
It shouldn't be discarded as it could hint at actual evidence being available. It could be BS, or it couldn't, we have no idea. It's worth investigating to determine if you can find actual evidence or not. Only then, if you haven't found any actual evidence, can you discard the hearsay/anecdote, or at least throw it in the "maybe check again at some point in the future when we have better technology or can do studies we couldn't do before or whatever" pile. Maybe it will end up being true, maybe not. We have no idea. It's anecdotal, it doesn't help us understand reality any better. But it could lead to it, if we keep at it!
So it shouldn't be necessarily discarded but it should definitely not be accepted. Only accept things that have been verified.
His assumption is a lot more than that, his assumption is that all that exists is God. That's a lot more specific than what you said, and unfortunately all it is is an assumption - one that can't even be tested.
We have no way of knowing whether his assumption is true or not. It's in the hearsay pile. Actually, I suppose I would put it more in the "thought experiment" pile.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, though. It's basically on the level of hearsay, if not lower.
It shouldn't be discarded as it could hint at actual evidence being available. It could be BS, or it couldn't, we have no idea. It's worth investigating to determine if you can find actual evidence or not. Only then, if you haven't found any actual evidence, can you discard the hearsay/anecdote, or at least throw it in the "maybe check again at some point in the future when we have better technology or can do studies we couldn't do before or whatever" pile. Maybe it will end up being true, maybe not. We have no idea. It's anecdotal, it doesn't help us understand reality any better. But it could lead to it, if we keep at it!
So it shouldn't be necessarily discarded but it should definitely not be accepted. Only accept things that have been verified.
His assumption is a lot more than that, his assumption is that all that exists is God. That's a lot more specific than what you said, and unfortunately all it is is an assumption - one that can't even be tested.
We have no way of knowing whether his assumption is true or not. It's in the hearsay pile. Actually, I suppose I would put it more in the "thought experiment" pile.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
It's a cheat definition. If you do that, it loses meaning. asdf;j32ts is beyond comprehension too and you should follow the code of conduct written by people because of what it says about asdf;j32ts. Ordinarily, one would need a reason to reject asdf;j32ts and accept God. What is that reason, aside "lots of people said so"?
What differences in the world do you expect to see if you woke up tomorrow with confirmation that God isn't real, doesn't exist in any sense of the word? Contrast your answer with waking up and finding that gravity doesn't exist, or that the speed of sound is halved.
If we're talking about something incomprehensible and unknowable then there's no reason to arbitrarily favor any one incomprehensible, non-testable conclusion over another from an absolutely enormous space of possible incomprehensible/unknowable possibilities.
Show some examples of this happening, with controlled conditions.
While you have every right to ask this the occult isnt an area of my main interest not to speak of an expertiese. To my knowledge it takes much more effort to develop at least some of these powers then it takes to get an university degree and some special predispositions may be required. Also these forces are occult(hidden) for a very good reason.
Well, 'obsolete truths' are ones where there was a useful effort in moving the ball forwards, but we learn later that they're obsolete. Newtonian physics would be a good example.
It becomes a falsehood when there's a lack of moving the ball forwards with new information, though. There are entire apologetics devoted to why God is allowed to torture the Egyptian peasants, and they distract from the truth.
Berzerker
Deity
These creation myths dont describe how the world was originally formed, they describe events that happened after the world had formed - events transforming a dark, water world to one with land and life.
The proto-Earth got reconstructive surgery around 4 bya... Thats why so many of our myths - like the Enuma Elish - describe the carving up of a primordial world to create Heaven and Earth. Other myths add in the notion of a sky father impregnating the waters, or a lotus upon the waters (Egyptian).
In the norse myth Ymir formed at Ginnungapap, the primordial void or abyss, where heat and ice met - an apt description of the snow line where the solar wind pushed water vapor to the freezing point at the asteroid belt.
Lexicus
Deity
The Moon isn't shiny.
Berzerker
Deity
is it bright?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Do it yourself. Get a quiet place, find your center and record your thoughts. Do this regularly for a couple of months and you might have something to contribute.
Was almost held back in 7th grade. Spent too much time talking to girls late at night. Sometimes never showed up at all during the day.
J
The reason you don't follow that logic seems to be you employ a highly personal version of logic. Water changed into wine - or it didn't. There is no in between here.
That would be the Christian interpretation. But Jesus wasn't a Christian: he was a Jew and never preached to gentiles. So I'm not sure how you can conclude from that that 'Jesus would clearly disagree'. The indications are rather pointing in the opposite direction.
Sure there may be a different approach but thats not what has been discussed here. If you want to do so I suggest you do that openly.
Please dont waste my time. I have given you my rationale in my first answer which you are welcome to challenge but not to ignore. I am not interested in playing some rhetoric games.
No. The sun is bright and the moon reflects the sun. The moon is not a light, and therefore Genesis is wrong. Fundamentalists can not accept the idea that Genesis is wrong so then they start resorting to reinterpreting the words to twist and contort it right again, but the problem is that this only convinces other Fundamentalists.
I think everybody suffers from a bias to a degree.
I dont think its fair to strictly apply intellectual mind-set to a religious mind of thousands of years ago becouse in its sense even sun is not a light becouse whatever light it has its only becouse of God. Its like taking some poetry and tearing it to pieces with logic pointing out it flaws and proclaiming the supremacy of an intellect - well you just missed the whole poetic significance.
Here's the thing; I agree with this statement. With caveats. I think that the Jesus of the time clearly thought that God was the god of the Jews. But I think the vibe of Jesus was that he would pivot once he learned more about the god of the Jews.
Jesus worshiped a god that murdered people with a Flood. But if he knew what we knew now, he'd be quite against the idea. He'd want people to worship the truest version of God they new about, not some false variant.
I agree that everyone has biases. Talking about bias is changing the subject. Saying that the light of the sun comes from God is also changing the subject. The sun does not reflect God's "light". The sun generates light through the process of burning and consuming its own fuel. Whether "god" created the sun and moon is irrelevant to my point. The sun is literally a ball of boiling burning gas and molten material, and fire, generating its own light, and thus it is a light. The moon is a cold dead rock that can only reflect the suns light, and therefore it is not a light. Therefore, when Genesis claims that the moon is a light, Genesis is wrong.
Pointing out that Genesis is "poetry" is just making my point. Again, I don't precisely agree, as I think that the author of Genesis intended it as a literal accounting of how the universe was created, however, even assuming that it was always intended as poetry, mythology, metaphor, whatever, rather than a literal account... that just further makes my point that it is not accurate. It is just a story... like "The three little pigs, or "The Iliad", or "T'was the Night before Christmas"... and as such, should be given no more credence or authority as "truth" then those stories. And if it was originally intended as literal, but we now know better, and can appreciate it as poetry (this is my view) then fine. If its poetry, let it be poetry, no more no less.
Similar threads
