Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Khatru on February 12, 2016, 09:09:01 PM
-
That's what the man in "Cool Hand Luke" said
I guess that's one of the problems with the god of the Bible; he's an appallingly bad communicator.
The CEO of any company needs to communicate effectively with his people. If a company is in a mess and people aren't getting the message then the buck stops with the CEO.
Why should an omniscient god be wholly exonerated of blame when he fails to ensure that his message is clearly understood? You've only got to look at the numerous different bibles that are out there to see that whatever the Bible god thinks, he doesn't seem too perturbed about the confused message he's sending out. Factor that in with thousands of different Christian denominations, sects and cults, all sure that their particular interpretation of whatever bible they choose to read is the true belief and you have a recipe for confusion.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq7xhYuuqCs
-
That's what the man in "Cool Hand Luke" said
I guess that's one of the problems with the god of the Bible; he's an appallingly bad communicator.
The CEO of any company needs to communicate effectively with his people. If a company is in a mess and people aren't getting the message then the buck stops with the CEO.
Why should an omniscient god be wholly exonerated of blame when he fails to ensure that his message is clearly understood? You've only got to look at the numerous different bibles that are out there to see that whatever the Bible god thinks, he doesn't seem too perturbed about the confused message he's sending out. Factor that in with thousands of different Christian denominations, sects and cults, all sure that their particular interpretation of whatever bible they choose to read is the true belief and you have a recipe for confusion.
If the organisation is very large with several levels... the CEO will communicate only with the senior management and expect the communication to get passed on down through various levels. That's what the sages, saints, prophets and others are probably doing.
-
That's what the man in "Cool Hand Luke" said
I guess that's one of the problems with the god of the Bible; he's an appallingly bad communicator.
The CEO of any company needs to communicate effectively with his people. If a company is in a mess and people aren't getting the message then the buck stops with the CEO.
Why should an omniscient god be wholly exonerated of blame when he fails to ensure that his message is clearly understood? You've only got to look at the numerous different bibles that are out there to see that whatever the Bible god thinks, he doesn't seem too perturbed about the confused message he's sending out. Factor that in with thousands of different Christian denominations, sects and cults, all sure that their particular interpretation of whatever bible they choose to read is the true belief and you have a recipe for confusion.
Who said Gods message is not clearly understood?
Your post and content is a load of rubbish and there is absolutely no proof of the false accusation or knowledge in the bible to support it.
There is no confused message. Can you please list the THOUSANDS (PLURAL) NOT singular of Christian denominations, sects and cults and different interpretations.
You can't as they don't exist. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it.
Your writings are starting to become familiar just a matter of time....
What we really have here is a failure to be able to tell and smell the bull sh*t being posted by the poster themselves.
I suppose there is so many false stories put about by atheists that they cannot tell what is really atheist bull sh*t they have created and the truth in the bible.
-
That's what the man in "Cool Hand Luke" said
I guess that's one of the problems with the god of the Bible; he's an appallingly bad communicator.
The CEO of any company needs to communicate effectively with his people. If a company is in a mess and people aren't getting the message then the buck stops with the CEO.
Why should an omniscient god be wholly exonerated of blame when he fails to ensure that his message is clearly understood? You've only got to look at the numerous different bibles that are out there to see that whatever the Bible god thinks, he doesn't seem too perturbed about the confused message he's sending out. Factor that in with thousands of different Christian denominations, sects and cults, all sure that their particular interpretation of whatever bible they choose to read is the true belief and you have a recipe for confusion.
If the deity exists why doesn't it communicate in person with ALL humans, so they can see, hear and touch him?
-
That's what the man in "Cool Hand Luke" said
I guess that's one of the problems with the god of the Bible; he's an appallingly bad communicator.
The CEO of any company needs to communicate effectively with his people. If a company is in a mess and people aren't getting the message then the buck stops with the CEO.
Why should an omniscient god be wholly exonerated of blame when he fails to ensure that his message is clearly understood? You've only got to look at the numerous different bibles that are out there to see that whatever the Bible god thinks, he doesn't seem too perturbed about the confused message he's sending out. Factor that in with thousands of different Christian denominations, sects and cults, all sure that their particular interpretation of whatever bible they choose to read is the true belief and you have a recipe for confusion.
But surely when you have many people obviously scrabbling around clutching at any excuse not to turn to God
....philosophically, ontologically, morally, culturally, everywhichway and for just the protection of the ego it's a bit of a giveaway that these people are actually haunted by a God they SAY they do not believe.
Indeed the approach you are using now actually confirms the argument for an objective morality since you are appealing to a greater morality and to borrow a bit of Anselm here I would have to say ....and that Lord, is you.
Your problem as far as I see it is to bowdlerise God and the Bible to fit your argument.
You accuse Christians of not facing up to somethings in the bible while you are guilty of not facing up to the entirety of it.
Finally one would have to ask if God is a fairy tale for you why are you so passionate?
-
The deficiency of your amateur (very amateur) psychology is transparent, Vlad.
You mistake passion for the ability to demolish the woeful arguments put forward for the existence of gods - which, let's face it, is done here on a daily basis.
-
The deficiency of your amateur (very amateur) psychology is transparent, Vlad.
You mistake passion for the ability to demolish the woeful arguments put forward for the existence of gods - which, let's face it, is done here on a daily basis.
As I pointed out to you merely summoning up an alternative idea is NOT demolition.
But that isn't the point which is the desperate way you and others scrabble about looking for loopholes and clutching at straws...the most entertaining of which was Outrider on uncaused cause.
-
As I pointed out to you merely summoning up an alternative idea is NOT demolition.
Showing an argument to be logically flawed (i.e. a bad argument) or to show that it has absolutely no evidence whatever in its support is, though.
-
The deficiency of your amateur (very amateur) psychology is transparent, Vlad.
So transparent, I suppose, that the assertion of it's transparency needs no justification?
-
Showing an argument to be logically flawed (i.e. a bad argument) or to show that it has absolutely no evidence whatever in its support is, though.
I'm sorry but you merely sweat the small stuff here just to turd polish the big problems with the antitheist argument.
The circularity of materialism, The arbitrary nature of naturalism, scientism, the confusion of methodology and philosophy, the simultaneous denunciation of the immorality of God and advocacy of moral irrealism, Outriders alternative to uncaused cause, the just is ism of Russell and Dawkins....which leads us to question what actual arguments HAVE been shown to be incorrect by people like yourself.
-
Shakes,
It's not for me to tell you what to do, but I would suggest that troll feeding is a pointless exercise. No matter how many times you explain why 2+ 4 ≠ 5, you'll be met with a stream of "oh so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then" straw men; diversionary tactics and failures to respond to any arguments that have actually been made; accusations of behaviours that are actually those of the troll himself; going quiet for a bit and then reappearing to repeat the original mistakes and fallacious arguments; launching incomprehensibly mangled sentences; and, as his final resort, personal abuse.
Me, I've given up feeding the resident troll's maw of dull incomprehension and deep dishonesty - it's your call though.
-
Who said Gods message is not clearly understood?
Pretty much anybody who isn't an idiot. You only have to look at the number of different Christian denominations to realise that.
-
Shakes,
It's not for me to tell you what to do, but I would suggest that troll feeding is a pointless exercise. No matter how many times you explain why 2+ 4 ≠ 5, you'll be met with a stream of "oh so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then" straw men; diversionary tactics and failures to respond to any arguments that have actually been made; accusations of behaviours that are actually those of the troll himself; going quiet for a bit and then reappearing to repeat the original mistakes and fallacious arguments; launching incomprehensibly mangled sentences; and, as his final resort, personal abuse.
Me, I've given up feeding the resident troll's maw of dull incomprehension and deep dishonesty - it's your call though.
Goodness, gracious me.....Excommunicated!!!
-
Dear Khatru,
Not Gods failure it is the staff he employs.
The "core value" of the company is Love, but we seem to have to much "blue sky thinking", in "going forward" staff must at all times remember to "touch base" which is Love.
As the man says in the GodFather 3 movie, "all our ships must sail in the same direction" to "get the ball rolling" we must at all times remember to "drill down" to our "core value" Love.
When staff consult the "company manual" they must avoid the "strategic staircase" and "focus on" our "core value".
Dear Staff,
The Commander in Chief would just like to remind staff of the importance of the Two Greatest commandments, this is your "core mission" he would also like to remind you that "staff appraisals" are on going, come Judgement day "end of year evaluation" you really don't want to be behind TW in the queue.
Gonnagle.
-
Shakes,
It's not for me to tell you what to do, but I would suggest that troll feeding is a pointless exercise. No matter how many times you explain why 2+ 4 ≠ 5, you'll be met with a stream of "oh so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then" straw men; diversionary tactics and failures to respond to any arguments that have actually been made; accusations of behaviours that are actually those of the troll himself; going quiet for a bit and then reappearing to repeat the original mistakes and fallacious arguments; launching incomprehensibly mangled sentences; and, as his final resort, personal abuse.
Me, I've given up feeding the resident troll's maw of dull incomprehension and deep dishonesty - it's your call though.
And that's another thing...why should Hillside come on here, ad hom, someone he says he is ignoring to derail this thread?
More evidence of God avoidance?
-
Who said Gods message is not clearly understood?
Your post and content is a load of rubbish and there is absolutely no proof of the false accusation or knowledge in the bible to support it.
I see. You're going to tell me that you are fully understanding of your deity of choice and his message.
Care to have a go at interpreting these scriptures oh knowledgeable one...
[1] "Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." - Ezekiel 23:19-20
[2] "His breasts are full of milk." - Job 21:24
[3] "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." - Deuteronomy 25:11-12
[4]“And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." - Ezekiel 4:12
[5]“The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers.”- Ezekiel 5:10
[6]“As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.”- Proverbs 26:11
[7]“Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.”- Mal.2:3
Why so much preoccupation with coprophilia, human cannibalism, gynecomastia, and the like?
And what's all this interest in donkey dongs and horse cum. O holy! holy! holy!
There is no confused message. Can you please list the THOUSANDS (PLURAL) NOT singular of Christian denominations, sects and cults and different interpretations.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm
-
But surely when you have many people obviously scrabbling around clutching at any excuse not to turn to God
....philosophically, ontologically, morally, culturally, everywhichway and for just the protection of the ego it's a bit of a giveaway that these people are actually haunted by a God they SAY they do not believe.
Indeed the approach you are using now actually confirms the argument for an objective morality since you are appealing to a greater morality and to borrow a bit of Anselm here I would have to say ....and that Lord, is you.
Your problem as far as I see it is to bowdlerise God and the Bible to fit your argument.
You accuse Christians of not facing up to somethings in the bible while you are guilty of not facing up to the entirety of it.
Finally one would have to ask if God is a fairy tale for you why are you so passionate?
If the god of the Bible meant for his message to be understood then that same evidence suggests he's failed.
Otherwise we wouldn't have so many different Christian denominations and sects each claiming to be right at the expense of the others.
Then of course, we have the mixed messages in the Bible itself - sure there are good things in there but it's not short of primitive barbarisms either.
Nietzsche questioned the goodness of an omniscient, omnipotent god who doesn't even make sure that his creatures understand his intention. This god who allows doubts to persist for thousands of years. Nietzsche went on to liken the god of the Bible to a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs and gestures when some sort of danger is present.
I hear that Jesus Christ is the son of the supreme cosmic mega being and he was sent to suffer and die in some sort of weird sado-masochistic manner in order for the cosmic mega being to forgive us.
The communication is so poor that we have to take on trust a miraculous event that was supposedly witnessed by hundreds if not thousands of people that included cameos by prophets like Elijah and Moses went unrecorded. Virtually no historical documentation whatsoever, not a single scrap of papyrus, no drawings on buildings by the faithful, nothing.
And we are apparently wagering an eternity in paradise or hell on this poor communication because the benevolent deity that chose to broadcast his message so obliquely will be angry at us if we conclude that the story is an embellishment or a fabrication since it should be abundantly clear that it is in fact, a fact.
Poor communication indeed.
The very fact that "belief" is demanded as a means of "salvation" is itself a clue that what is really going on here is psychology of the same form that is used by chain letters to propagate themselves. Also true to form as in all good chain letters there are also the dire threats of ignoring the 'offer'.
-
I see. You're going to tell me that you are fully understanding of your deity of choice and his message.
Care to have a go at interpreting these scriptures oh knowledgeable one...
[1] "Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." - Ezekiel 23:19-20
[2] "His breasts are full of milk." - Job 21:24
[3] "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." - Deuteronomy 25:11-12
[4]“And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." - Ezekiel 4:12
[5]“The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers.”- Ezekiel 5:10
[6]“As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.”- Proverbs 26:11
[7]“Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.”- Mal.2:3
Why so much preoccupation with coprophilia, human cannibalism, gynecomastia, and the like?
And what's all this interest in donkey dongs and horse cum. O holy! holy! holy!
You must remember that Sassy is "God's" personal friend and envoy. She always knows best! ;)
-
You must remember that Sassy is "God's" personal friend and envoy. She always knows best! ;)
She must be my late mother-in-law's clone! ;D ;D ;D
-
There is no confused message. Can you please list the THOUSANDS (PLURAL) NOT singular of Christian denominations, sects and cults and different interpretations.
Here is a list of 5157 DENOMINATIONS from the Protestant arm of Christianity alone.
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/DENOMS.php
You can't
Just did.
as they don't exist.
They do exist.
You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it.
Now you know it and everyone who reads it knows it also.
-
If the deity exists why doesn't it communicate in person with ALL humans, so they can see, hear and touch him?
Well, there are things like Bibles and churches, pastors and scholars. Then there is pray and other Christians. Or are you suggesting that the only way anyone - deity or otherwise - can communicate in person is by accompanying each human being 24/7?
-
Well, there are things like Bibles and churches, pastors and scholars. Then there is pray and other Christians. Or are you suggesting that the only way anyone - deity or otherwise - can communicate in person is by accompanying each human being 24/7?
If the deity exists it should communicate directly, NOT using the middle man who makes up their own thoughts about what the deity is supposed to be saying! ::)
-
Finally one would have to ask if God is a fairy tale for you why are you so passionate?
Sorry, I missed this bit....
Gods, plural. I make no distinction between the Bible god nor the Dreamtime Snake of the Australian Aborigines.
Passionate?
When we unbelievers build our own churches of unbelief all over the country, you can come and talk about passion.
When unbelievers have atheistic inscriptions on national monuments, we can talk about passion.
When unbelievers leave atheistic books in hotel rooms, we can talk about passion.
When the statute book provides for atheist assemblies at schools, we can talk about passion.
Best to keep religion in your homes, churches, temples and mosques where it belongs.
-
Best to keep religion in your homes, churches, temples and mosques where it belongs.
When atheists are able to keep their atheism in their homes and meeting places like this, we'll keep our religion in the places you mention, Khatru.
-
Well, there are things like Bibles and churches, pastors and scholars. Then there is pray and other Christians.
So, in short, things that look exactly and precisely like the work of other human beings with no actual gods involved.
-
So, in short, things that look exactly and precisely like the work of other human beings with no actual gods involved.
Bull's eye!
-
When atheists are able to keep their atheism in their homes and meeting places like this, we'll keep our religion in the places you mention, Khatru.
You really think you lot will be able to do that, will you?
I thought it was your group whose book said that you have a great commission to go out and tell all the world about your beliefs with the intention of converting them to your way of thinking?
-
If the deity exists it should communicate directly, NOT using the middle man who makes up their own thoughts about what the deity is supposed to be saying! ::)
Floo, if I read a book, I take lessons and ideas from it that are different to what you would take out of it. We've both had different experiences so have different issues to deal with. As for communicating directly, how would you expect a deity to this?
-
Floo, if I read a book, I take lessons and ideas from it that are different to what you would take out of it. We've both had different experiences so have different issues to deal with. As for communicating directly, how would you expect a deity to this?
Wouldn't an omnipotent deity know?
-
You really think you lot will be able to do that, will you?
Shakes, since I can't see you and yours keeping your 'religion' within your homes and out of places like this, I'm not expecting to have to do what I suggested.
-
Shakes, since I can't see you and yours keeping your 'religion' within your homes and out of places like this, I'm not expecting to have to do what I suggested.
I don't have a religion, either with or without quotation marks.
-
Wouldn't an omnipotent deity know?
And how does that relate to the post you quoted? I asked Floo to tell us how she would expect to be communicated with. Last time she tried this track, she listed a number of ways which, iirc, Anchorman, pointed out to her that God already uses.
-
And how does that relate to the post you quoted? I asked Floo to tell us how she would expect to be communicated with.
Because while a fallible human being working always with limited information couldn't be expected to know, an omnimax god of the traditional sort definitely would.
Last time she tried this track, she listed a number of ways which, iirc, Anchorman, pointed out to her that God already uses.
... in Anchorman's opinion, since that's merely a belief.
-
I don't have a religion, either with or without quotation marks.
Sorry to disappoint you Shakes, but you follow a particular understanding of life - so you have a religion. You just prefer not to admit it.
-
Sorry to disappoint you Shakes, but you follow a particular understanding of life - so you have a religion.
So you've just defined "following a particular understanding of life" as a religion, or rather, vice versa. On that view, a political allegiance is a religion. Is this the sort of violence that you really want to do to the English language? Do the fine people at the OED know about this?
You just prefer not to admit it.
I make a point of not admitting things that are not true.
-
If the deity exists it should communicate directly, NOT using the middle man who makes up their own thoughts about what the deity is supposed to be saying! ::)
Absolutely. A good communicator would talk to us regularly and lead by example. Instead humanity is left in the hands of Satan while the Bible god promises to return at some random future time, wreak havoc in earth and judge its people with fire.
-
Well, there are things like Bibles and churches, pastors and scholars. Then there is pray and other Christians. Or are you suggesting that the only way anyone - deity or otherwise - can communicate in person is by accompanying each human being 24/7?
Why not?
We're told that thenBible god is omnipotent. It would be easier for him to do that, than it is for us to blink.
-
Well, there are things like Bibles and churches, pastors and scholars. Then there is pray and other Christians. Or are you suggesting that the only way anyone - deity or otherwise - can communicate in person is by accompanying each human being 24/7?
Whoops!
I forgot to mention that your god will be with you for eternity in heaven, won't he?
Why can't he do that now?
-
Dear Khatru,
Not Gods failure it is the staff he employs.
Gonnagle.
A bit like what Sepp Blatter claims then. Perhaps He should dismiss Himself for incompetence. ;) :D
-
If the god of the Bible meant for his message to be understood then that same evidence suggests he's failed.
Otherwise we wouldn't have so many different Christian denominations and sects each claiming to be right at the expense of the others.
Then of course, we have the mixed messages in the Bible itself - sure there are good things in there but it's not short of primitive barbarisms either.
Nietzsche questioned the goodness of an omniscient, omnipotent god who doesn't even make sure that his creatures understand his intention. This god who allows doubts to persist for thousands of years. Nietzsche went on to liken the god of the Bible to a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs and gestures when some sort of danger is present.
I hear that Jesus Christ is the son of the supreme cosmic mega being and he was sent to suffer and die in some sort of weird sado-masochistic manner in order for the cosmic mega being to forgive us.
The communication is so poor that we have to take on trust a miraculous event that was supposedly witnessed by hundreds if not thousands of people that included cameos by prophets like Elijah and Moses went unrecorded. Virtually no historical documentation whatsoever, not a single scrap of papyrus, no drawings on buildings by the faithful, nothing.
And we are apparently wagering an eternity in paradise or hell on this poor communication because the benevolent deity that chose to broadcast his message so obliquely will be angry at us if we conclude that the story is an embellishment or a fabrication since it should be abundantly clear that it is in fact, a fact.
Poor communication indeed.
The very fact that "belief" is demanded as a means of "salvation" is itself a clue that what is really going on here is psychology of the same form that is used by chain letters to propagate themselves. Also true to form as in all good chain letters there are also the dire threats of ignoring the 'offer'.
Denominations are really the same thing but with different emphases.
Sects I move don't have a set of doctrines which consistently back up the Trinitarian premise.
The notion that all denominations are saying the others are wrong is exaggerated and often downright wrong itself.
Sects bowdlerise scripture in much the same way as an antitheist does.
The bible does have mixed messages since it is a collection of books and comes in many genres and points of view.
Talk of a supreme mega being is a bit passe isn't it......HHGTTG went out with flared trousers didn't it. Declaring Douglas Adams 'hip' is a bit like Cliff Richard representing Christian youth until well into his forties.
We all know God's intention is for us to encounter him........I'm afraid antitheists come across as fleeing from that eventuality.
-
Talk of a supreme mega being is a bit passe isn't it.....
Well yes exactly, and has been for an awfully long time. But that's what you lot think of as God, isn't it? Or if not, what is it you reckon you praise and worship?
-
Well yes exactly, and has been for an awfully long time. But that's what you lot think of as God, isn't it? Or if not, what is it you reckon you praise and worship?
''Supreme mega being'' is straight out of the bumper book of Marvel.......I suppose that makes me one of the X men.
-
''Supreme mega being'' is straight out of the bumper book of Marvel.......I suppose that makes me one of the X men.
Hmmmm, lovely.
So what do your lot think God actually is, then?
-
Floo, if I read a book, I take lessons and ideas from it that are different to what you would take out of it. We've both had different experiences so have different issues to deal with. As for communicating directly, how would you expect a deity to this?
If it exists it should appear in person to the whole world in a way which was undeniable to anyone. Surely that task would be easy peasy to an omnipotent god, which is supposed to have created the whole universe!
-
If it exists it should appear in person to the whole world in a way which was undeniable to anyone. Surely that task would be easy peasy to an omnipotent god, which is supposed to have created the whole universe!
In formal terms this is known as the Divine Hiddenness Argument, and like all such arguments is unanswerable.
-
Well yes exactly, and has been for an awfully long time. But that's what you lot think of as God, isn't it? Or if not, what is it you reckon you praise and worship?
The problem with a 'supreme mega being' concept is that such a being would be impersonal, and distant (a bit like the Muslim's Allah or the Hindu's Brahma). For the Jew and the Christian, God is personal and present. That's where the analogy falls down, Shakes.
-
The problem with a 'supreme mega being' concept is that such a being would be impersonal, and distant (a bit like the Muslim's Allah or the Hindu's Brahma). For the Jew and the Christian, God is personal and present. That's where the analogy falls down, Shakes.
No it doesn't fall down at all. Why would such a being be impersonal and distant?
-
Why not?
Khat, if a national ruler wants to deal with another national ruler, does s/he always travel to meet them face2face? No, national rulers have ambassadors who act on their behalf. This is exactly what the Great Commission in Matthew 28 is all about. Jesus appoints ambassadors to act on his behalf, an appointment that wasn't for a generation only, but for all time. He, in the nature of the Holy Spirit, is therefore present and at work in the world today.
-
No it doesn't fall down at all. Why would such a being be impersonal and distant?
The concept comes from modern comics and always is. Are you seeking to reinvent the concept?
-
Khat, if a national ruler wants to deal with another national ruler, does s/he always travel to meet them face2face? No, national rulers have ambassadors who act on their behalf. This is exactly what the Great Commission in Matthew 28 is all about. Jesus appoints ambassadors to act on his behalf, an appointment that wasn't for a generation only, but for all time. He, in the nature of the Holy Spirit, is therefore present and at work in the world today.
But there are actual rulers who can be seen and known in the first place. Your scenario falls apart on two counts; firstly, nothing in it requires anything other than flesh and blood human beings with a particular set of beliefs (Occam's Razor), and secondly, the assumption of a god making its message known via human beings is unfalsifiable because of the first point. There is no means of distinguishing between scenario 1 (God + human beings) and scenario 2 (no God, just human beings with beliefs). It can't be tested; there is no methodology (surprise surprise!) to ascertain its truth or falsity.
-
Hope,
Khat, if a national ruler wants to deal with another national ruler, does s/he always travel to meet them face2face? No, national rulers have ambassadors who act on their behalf. This is exactly what the Great Commission in Matthew 28 is all about. Jesus appoints ambassadors to act on his behalf, an appointment that wasn't for a generation only, but for all time.
Do you not think that if national rulers weren't bound by the laws of physics they'd pop up simultaneously all over the shop to make their case?
He, in the nature of the Holy Spirit, is therefore present and at work in the world today.
Hope fallacy No. 7: non sequitur. That various people may have evangelised over the generations does not make a "Holy Spirit" exist, or Jesus "present".
-
But there are actual rulers who can be seen and known in the first place. Your scenario falls apart on two counts; firstly, nothing in it requires anything other than flesh and blood human beings with a particular set of beliefs (Occam's Razor), and secondly, the assumption of a god making its message known via human beings is unfalsifiable because of the first point. There is no means of distinguishing between scenario 1 (God + human beings) and scenario 2 (no God, just human beings with beliefs). It can't be tested; there is no methodology (surprise surprise!) to ascertain its truth or falsity.
And your scenario falls down because there is documentary evidence of a person who was both human and God, who set the ball rolling. I appreciate that you want not to believe in said person because it plays havoc with your reliance on science but until you prove categorically, other than merely questioning the idea, that Jesus wasn't God and all that that involves, that documentary evidence stands as a testament to the lack of the Occam's Razor argument, and hence the rest of your argument.
-
Pretty much anybody who isn't an idiot. You only have to look at the number of different Christian denominations to realise that.
The Christian is message is:-
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
It is never a denomination and never has been any person does not have to be an idiot/intelligent to understand that.
So tell me why you don't understand it, and why the person to whom my original post was written to did not understand it.
Then you know and everyone else that God is always right and you are always proved wrong.
-
Hope,
Do you not think that if national rulers weren't bound by the laws of physics they'd pop up simultaneously all over the shop to make their case?
Why would they?
Hope fallacy No. 7: non sequitur. That various people may have evangelised over the generations does not make a "Holy Spirit" exist, or Jesus "present".
I'd agree, hence its not a fallacy; sadly, the situation can be that people think that they have understood the Gospels and gone out to preach when they haven't. The New Testament is full of references to such people, and we see cults and other groups doing the same today. However, its not the people who make the Holy Spirit 'exist' or Jesus 'present'. Those situations pre-exist the people.
-
And your scenario falls down because there is documentary evidence of a person who was both human and God, who set the ball rolling.
No there isn't.
I appreciate that you want not to believe in said person because it plays havoc with your reliance on science but until you prove categorically, other than merely questioning the idea, that Jesus wasn't God and all that that involves, that documentary evidence stands as a testament to the lack of the Occam's Razor argument, and hence the rest of your argument.
Been a while since the negative proof fallacy you adore so much had an airing.
-
The problem with a 'supreme mega being' concept is that such a being would be impersonal, and distant (a bit like the Muslim's Allah or the Hindu's Brahma). For the Jew and the Christian, God is personal and present. That's where the analogy falls down, Shakes.
Excellent point.
-
No there isn't.Been a while since the negative proof fallacy you adore so much had an airing.
But saying that Jesus wasn't god is a cast iron assertion.
Just like saying ''Churchill wasn't Attlee''.
On what grounds do we say that.
Secondly Jesus wasn't God asks the question ''what was he?''
-
Excellent point.
If you think it's excellent, perhaps you'll be the one to step up and explain why such a being would necessarily be distant and impersonal, as stated by Hope.
I did ask him but he seems not to have seen the question.
-
But saying that Jesus wasn't god is a cast iron assertion.
And not one I've made. I was simply pointing out that Hope's assertion of documentary evidence of a person who was both human and god is flatly false; no such documentary evidence exists. To be accurate he could and should have said that there is documentary evidence to the effect that someone believed they were a god and was believed to be so by others. By introducing the concept of belief Hope's factually untrue statement is thus turned into a factually true one.
Just like saying ''Churchill wasn't Attlee''.
Hopeless analogy (pun intended). The law of identity states that a thing such as a Churchill can't be a not-Churchill thing such as Attlee at the same time because in the technical lingo to be a Churchill or an Attlee is an essential and not a particular. Particulars operate differently to essentials - there's no contradiction between the essential of being a Churchill and the particular of being a cigar smoker, for example. (A particular because Churchill was a cigar smoker but might not have been). To be male is an essential; to be a guitar player is a particular - for me to be male and female at the same time would be contradictory, but it's not a contradiction for me to be a man and a guitarist.
According to some Christian beliefs however (depends who you ask - you get a different version each time) Jesus could be both human and God simultaneously.
Secondly Jesus wasn't God asks the question ''what was he?''
Referring to Geza Vermes, yesterday Rhiannon put it very well - an apocalyptic Jewish preacher who appeared to believe that the end of the world was nigh and who had what he believed to be a mission.
-
If you think it's excellent, perhaps you'll be the one to step up and explain why such a being would necessarily be distant and impersonal, as stated by Hope.
I did ask him but he seems not to have seen the question.
Because a mega being is usually villainous and uncaring in the comics.......which is another disparaging reason you guys use the term.
-
Because a mega being is usually villainous and uncaring in the comics.......which is another disparaging reason you guys use the term.
This is simply a dodge. Nobody has raised the subject of comics but Hope and you. Can you explain why a supreme mega being must necessarily be distant and impersonal, as per Hope's assertion, or can you not?
-
The problem with a 'supreme mega being' concept is that such a being would be impersonal, and distant (a bit like the Muslim's Allah or the Hindu's Brahma). For the Jew and the Christian, God is personal and present. That's where the analogy falls down, Shakes.
I guess that's because have saddled him/her/it with all-too-human frailties of anger, love, hate, jealousy, remorse, etc which are displayed when the being interacts with his/her/its own creation.
If there really is one (or more) cosmic mega beings, they are likely to be way beyond those emotions.
-
This is simply a dodge. Nobody has raised the subject of comics but you. Can you explain why a supreme mega being must necessarily be distant and impersonal, as per Hope's assertion, or can you not?
I think since you introduced the phrase supreme mega being and do not like either Hope's or my interpretation of it. Perhaps you can state what you mean by it and how the phrase adds anything to the phrase supreme being.
-
Hope,
And your scenario falls down because there is documentary evidence of a person who was both human and God, who set the ball rolling.
Hope fallacy No. 9: that a book makes a claim does not make it evidence for the truth of the claim.
I appreciate that you want not to believe in said person because it plays havoc with your reliance on science but until you prove categorically, other than merely questioning the idea, that Jesus wasn't God and all that that involves,...
Hope fallacy No. 6: the negative proof fallacy. It's the job of the proponent to demonstrate his claim, not the job of others to disprove it. You really are fond of this one aren't you.
...that documentary evidence stands as a testament to the lack of the Occam's Razor argument, and hence the rest of your argument.
Hope fallacy No. 13: the straw man. Occam's razor says that the option requiring the fewest assumptions should be the preferred one. You assume that bible accounts are "evidence", so your whole position fails Occam's razor in any case.
Looks like you've scored a fallacy hat trick!
-
I think since you introduced the phrase supreme mega being
I didn't - I was merely following somebody else's usage of the phrase. Yours, actually, in #40.
and do not like either Hope's or my interpretation of it. Perhaps you can state what you mean by it and how the phrase adds anything to the phrase supreme being.
Ah, you can't answer, then. I knew we'd get there eventually - just glad I haven't wasted too much time.
-
Hope,
Why would they?
Precisely to avoid the risk of miscommunication, contradiction, omission etc that the use of emissaries entails, as indeed we see from the bewildering mish-mash of efforts from those who evanagelise for your and for other gods.
I'd agree, hence its not a fallacy;
It's a fallacy because you expressed it using the form the fallacy takes. That's what non sequitur means: you'd need to lose the "therefore" to get you off the hook.
...sadly, the situation can be that people think that they have understood the Gospels and gone out to preach when they haven't. The New Testament is full of references to such people, and we see cults and other groups doing the same today.
Hope fallacy No. 17: the "no true Scotsman". You're knocking 'em out of the park this morning!
However, its not the people who make the Holy Spirit 'exist' or Jesus 'present'. Those situations pre-exist the people.
Hope fallacy No. 3: argument by assertion. What makes you think that "those situations" exist at all?
-
And your scenario falls down because there is documentary evidence of a person who was both human and God, who set the ball rolling.
Please explain how you know (as in having knowledge) that this 'documentary evidence' you refer to doesn't include mistakes or lies.
Unless you can do this then your 'documentary evidence' is indistinguishable from fiction.
-
Hope fallacy No. 6: the negative proof fallacy. It's the job of the proponent to demonstrate his claim, not the job of others to disprove it. You really are fond of this one aren't you.
Hope and NPF
Sitting in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G ... :D
-
According to some Christian beliefs however (depends who you ask - you get a different version each time) Jesus could be both human and God simultaneously.Referring to Geza Vermes, yesterday Rhiannon put it very well - an apocalyptic Jewish preacher who appeared to believe that the end of the world was nigh and who had what he believed to be a mission.
So none of that Jesus Myth nonsense for you then...Good man.
I didn't know you were familiar enough with Vermes to be going around referring to him as a geezer.
-
No there isn't.
There is documentary evidence, Shakes; I appreciate that you don't accept that evidence, but it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Been a while since the negative proof fallacy you adore so much had an airing.
Not really, there have been several people here who have used it in recent hours, even when I've not been on the board. Remember that whilst someone has to prove evidence they provide for an assertion, that holds true for whatever the assertion. Arguing that 'science has disproved faith', or that "there is documentary evidence to the effect that someone believed they were a god and was believed to be so by others" without providing the evidence for such arguments means that these folk are equally guilty of the negative proof fallacy.
-
There is documentary evidence, Shakes; I appreciate that you don't accept that evidence, but it doesn't mean it isn't there.
It doesn't exist. Remember that your assertion in #52 was:
... there is documentary evidence of a person who was both human and God
No such evidence exists. To be correct what you should have said was what I put in #59: that there is documentary evidence of a person who believed himself to be a god and was believed to be so by others. As I put it in #59 the addition of the concept of belief makes this is a completely unexceptional statement and is factually true. Your assertion wasn't. This is documentary evidence of the same kind as Cronus eating his six children (which I notice you are studiously ignoring). There is absolutely no documentary evidence of any kind whatever, anywhere, supporting the existence of any gods; there is a very great deal of documentary evidence relating to human beliefs about various gods, but 'exists' and 'is believed to exist' are not synonymous. There is a difference between those two statements inherent in the concept of belief that you appear not to understand, wilfully or otherwise, and until the penny drops I suspect that you'll continue to make the same error.
Not really, there have been several people here who have used it in recent hours, even when I've not been on the board.
Point them out.
Remember that whilst someone has to prove evidence they provide for an assertion
Except when you do it, it seems.
that holds true for whatever the assertion. Arguing that 'science has disproved faith',
Which is not a claim I've made, so a straw man fallacy again on your part.
or that "there is documentary evidence to the effect that someone believed they were a god and was believed to be so by others" without providing the evidence for such arguments means that these folk are equally guilty of the negative proof fallacy.
I'd have thought that one was too obvious to need to be stated, but evidently I forgot who I'm dealing with. The New Testament, of course.
-
Hope,
There is documentary evidence, Shakes; I appreciate that you don't accept that evidence, but it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Hope fallacy No. 7 redux: reification. That something is written in a book does not make it evidence for the claims the book makes. Other tests are needed for that.
Not really, there have been several people here who have used it in recent hours, even when I've not been on the board.
Yes really, and Hope fallacy No. 13: the tu quoque. That others may have committed a logical fallacy doesn't get you off the hook of using it too.
Remember that whilst someone has to prove evidence they provide for an assertion, that holds true for whatever the assertion. Arguing that 'science has disproved faith',...
Hope fallacy No. 23: the straw man. No-one does argue that.
...or that "there is documentary evidence to the effect that someone believed they were a god and was believed to be so by others" without providing the evidence for such arguments means that these folk are equally guilty of the negative proof fallacy.
Hope fallacy No. 9: assertion. If someone says in a book, "I really believe X" there's no particular reason not to believe him. When though the thing he believes is a miracle story/leprechauns/whatever then the onus is on him (or the person who argues that he was correct in his belief) to make a coherent argument to that effect. That's why you're the only one here who's attempted (yet again) the negative proof fallacy.
A challenge for you: why not at least try to make an argument that doesn't rely on one or several logical fallacies? You never know - the attempt at least might do you some good for your future efforts.
-
That something is written in a book does not make it evidence for the claims the book makes.
but nor does the opposite apply
Other tests are needed for that.
And there are plenty of those, which because of your understanding of life aren't acceptable to you. It doesn't mean that they are unacceptable.
Yes really, and Hope fallacy No. 13: the tu quoque. That others may have committed a logical fallacy doesn't get you off the hook of using it too.
I agree, but as I'm not making those same logical fallacies, it doesn't apply.
Hope fallacy No. 23: the straw man. No-one does argue that.
Sorry, but I've heard it used by a number of high-profile people on your side of the debate over the years, so the straw man accusation is on you, not me.
Hope fallacy No. 9: assertion. If someone says in a book, "I really believe X" there's no particular reason not to believe him. When though the thing he believes is a miracle story/leprechauns/whatever then the onus is on him (or the person who argues that he was correct in his belief) to make a coherent argument to that effect. That's why you're the only one here who's attempted (yet again) the negative proof fallacy.
good to see you trying to avoid the natural consequences of your assertion. You made an assertion, so where is the evidence to back it up.
A challenge for you: why not at least try to make an argument that doesn't rely on one or several logical fallacies? You never know - the attempt at least might do you some good for your future efforts.
Sorry, Shakes, but just because you believe the argument to be relying on logical fallacies, doesn't mean - as you say earlier in the post - that it does.
-
That was bluehillside you were replying to, not me ::)
And to state that an argument is replete with logical fallacies entails being able to correctly identify such fallacies, which many here can do and many others - you included - cannot.
-
That was bluehillside you were replying to, not me ::)
Apologies, I lost track of the poster. My bad.
And to state that an argument is replete with logical fallacies entails being able to correctly identify such fallacies, which many here can do and many others - you included - cannot.
Well, since you regularly incorrectly identify such fallacies, by claiming their existence when they aren't there, not only is your argument moot, you and others seem too keen to identify fallacies than debate the issue.
-
Well, since you regularly incorrectly identify such fallacies, by claiming their existence when they aren't there
Provide an example of this.
You won't, of course.
-
Well, since you regularly incorrectly identify such fallacies, by claiming their existence when they aren't there, not only is your argument moot, you and others seem too keen to identify fallacies than debate the issue.
Don't be daft, again - that your 'arguments' (for want of a better term) are all inherently and demonstrably fallacious removes the debate aspect since all that can be done is to point out your repeated use of fallacies. Produce a non-fallacious argument for your God/Christianity and perhaps then there would be something to debate: this is unlikely though, in that every 'argument' you've made to date has been fallacious in one way or another.
-
Provide an example of this.
#55, part 2
-
#55, part 2
... which is a correct identification of the negative proof fallacy, therefore not an example of what I asked for at all.
-
Hopeless analogy (pun intended).
Pity you got the wrong poster, Shakes ;)
-
Pity you got the wrong poster, Shakes ;)
I didn't. It was a deliberate pun, which is a form of humour, which itself is a linguistic contrivance intended to elicit the sensation of merriment in the audi ... oh never mind.
-
There goes old Shaker with his poopourri again. And he's sold a can to Gordon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKLnhuzh9uY
-
Hope,
but nor does the opposite apply
Yes it does. If a book makes a truth claim about a past event then the book alone tells us nothing about the truthfulness or otherwise of that claim. The most that can be said is, “that’s a truth claim made in a book”. To determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the claim you need some means of testing the claim.
And there are plenty of those, which because of your understanding of life aren't acceptable to you. It doesn't mean that they are unacceptable.
Yes it does if you want those claims to be accepted as true for other people too. That’s why, for example, biblical miracles stories aren’t taught as facts in science or history lessons.
I agree, but as I'm not making those same logical fallacies, it doesn't apply.
Then your memory fails you. In response to having one of your fallacies pointed out to you (the negative proof fallacy) your reply was that others have done it too. Whether or not they have says nothing though to your (frequent) use of it.
Sorry, but I've heard it used by a number of high-profile people on your side of the debate over the years, so the straw man accusation is on you, not me.
No you haven’t. If you think that you have, then cite an example of it. You can’t just assert your way out of a straw man.
good to see you trying to avoid the natural consequences of your assertion. You made an assertion, so where is the evidence to back it up.
What assertion?
Sorry, Shakes, but just because you believe the argument to be relying on logical fallacies, doesn't mean - as you say earlier in the post - that it does.
That’s true – it’s not just my “belief" though that makes your arguments fallacious. What does make them fallacious however is that they precisely follow the structures of the various fallacies on which you rely. When you demand that others disprove your claims, that’s the negative proof fallacy; when you attack an argument that no-one makes, that’s the straw man fallacy; when you defend your use of a fallacy by suggesting that others do it too, that’s the tu quoque fallacy, when you…etc etc
And that’s your problem: you don’t seem even to be aware of what logical fallacies are, so you use them repeatedly. And the problem with that is that fallacious arguments are always wrong. If you seriously care about making a cogent argument then you need grasp this simple point and (finally) attempt an argument that does not rely on logical fallacies.
Go on, you know you want to don’t you.
Don’t you?
-
Why not?
We're told that thenBible god is omnipotent. It would be easier for him to do that, than it is for us to blink.
Khat, Floo has asked this question on a number of occasions (in fact she's done threads very like this, but with slightly different title wording, on a number of occasions). If, as you say, it is thought that he is omnipotent, why should he not choose to use human beings to talk to other human beings about him? Are you saying that you would believe in God if he was to appear in front of you and explain everything to you? If so, how would you know that it was God and not just some idea conjured up by a fevered mind?
-
Khat, Floo has asked this question on a number of occasions (in fact she's done threads very like this, but with slightly different title wording, on a number of occasions). If, as you say, it is thought that he is omnipotent, why should he not choose to use human beings to talk to other human beings about him? Are you saying that you would believe in God if he was to appear in front of you and explain everything to you? If so, how would you know that it was God and not just some idea conjured up by a fevered mind?
And how do you know that "God" is not just some idea conjured up by a fevered mind?
-
Don't be daft, again - that your 'arguments' (for want of a better term) are all inherently and demonstrably fallacious removes the debate aspect since all that can be done is to point out your repeated use of fallacies. Produce a non-fallacious argument for your God/Christianity and perhaps then there would be something to debate: this is unlikely though, in that every 'argument' you've made to date has been fallacious in one way or another.
This post is mostly assertion.
You are again running rampant with your accusations of fallacy without demonstration.
-
Provide an example of this.
You won't, of course.
That,s right turn it on it,s head.
It,s up to those clawing fallacy to demonstrate it.
-
That,s right turn it on it,s head.
It,s up to those clawing fallacy to demonstrate it.
Not so! It's up to those claiming "God" to demonstrate him.
-
This post is mostly assertion.
You are again running rampant with your accusations of fallacy without demonstration.
Not so - in recent times both Hope and Alan Burns have given us repeated demonstrations of fallacies. I wouldn't be surprised if some of their posts didn't find their way into some future textbook for philosophy students as being glowing examples of the fallacy genre.
-
This post is mostly assertion.
You are again running rampant with your accusations of fallacy without demonstration.
It's less demonstration than identification - that's to say, knowing what a particular fallacy is, recognising it as such when encountered and pointing it out. This is done on an almost daily basis here - I do it; Gordon does it; bluehillside does it, plenty more.
It would be fantastic if we didn't need to do this, but no matter how many times one or other of these failures of reasoning are pointed out, the serial offenders just keep on using them. They seemingly can't help themselves. Whether it's some sort of intellectual blindfold that prevents them from taking an explanation on board, or pride, or sheer apathy, I really don't know. There has to be some reason for it.
-
And how do you know that "God" is not just some idea conjured up by a fevered mind?
Well, this would require huge swathes of the human species to have been suffering from 'fevered brain' syndrome for centuries, if not millennia. So, it's a rather simplistic explanation, not worthy of your normal level of debate, Len. I realise that some here believe that we are evolving ever-more advanced brains, that will cause such a belief to become obsolete. Is there any evidence that this is so?
-
Well, this would require huge swathes of the human species to have been suffering from 'fevered brain' syndrome for centuries, if not millennia.
Not at all. It only needs that founders of each religion to invent their gods ... all the rest will simply be caught up by the idea and follow.
So, it's a rather simplistic explanation, not worthy of your normal level of debate, Len.
As you would have seen if you were honest with yourself it was nothing of the kind.
I realise that some here believe that we are evolving ever-more advanced brains, that will cause such a belief to become obsolete. Is there any evidence that this is so?
It's not that we are evolving more advanced brains, it's just that our knowledge of how things work is increasing steadily, and will eventually see the demise of gods.
-
Dear Khatru,
Not Gods failure it is the staff he employs.
The "core value" of the company is Love, but we seem to have to much "blue sky thinking", in "going forward" staff must at all times remember to "touch base" which is Love.
As the man says in the GodFather 3 movie, "all our ships must sail in the same direction" to "get the ball rolling" we must at all times remember to "drill down" to our "core value" Love.
When staff consult the "company manual" they must avoid the "strategic staircase" and "focus on" our "core value".
Dear Staff,
The Commander in Chief would just like to remind staff of the importance of the Two Greatest commandments, this is your "core mission" he would also like to remind you that "staff appraisals" are on going, come Judgement day "end of year evaluation" you really don't want to be behind TW in the queue.
Gonnagle.
👍🏻
-
Hope,
Well, this would require huge swathes of the human species to have been suffering from 'fevered brain' syndrome for centuries, if not millennia. So, it's a rather simplistic explanation, not worthy of your normal level of debate, Len.
Hope fallacy No. 17: the argumetum ad populum. And no, all it would require is a predisposition to pattern seeking and the workings of memetics. I'd have though that the beliefs in the bewildering multiplicity of gods in which you do not believe would have told you that.
I realise that some here believe that we are evolving ever-more advanced brains,...
Hope fallacy No. 11 - the straw man. "More advanced" and differently adapted are not the same thing.
... that will cause such a belief to become obsolete. Is there any evidence that this is so?
Hope fallacy No. 11 redux. It's not "more advanced brains" but more robust reasoning, and yes - among more educated countries we see a correlation between higher literacy, living longer, greater happiness etc and reduced religiosity. Whether it'll ever become "obsolete" is hard to say, though encouragingly there are examples of large cultural change happening remarkably quickly these days - the treatment of homosexuality for example.
Incidentally, as you ignored my last post should I take it that you intend to continue to rely on logical fallacies for your position or will you try to avoid them in future only you lack the grace to tell us so?
-
Not so! It's up to those claiming "God" to demonstrate him.
That is true however you seem to be suffering from a fallacy concerning burden of proof namely thinking that being an atheist lifts having to prove ANYTHING.
-
That is true however you seem to be suffering from a fallacy concerning burden of proof namely thinking that being an atheist lifts having to prove ANYTHING.
I have no idea what you mean here. An atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in gods. How does that oblige him to prove anything?
-
That is true however you seem to be suffering from a fallacy concerning burden of proof namely thinking that being an atheist lifts having to prove ANYTHING.
Given that being an atheist entails only a refusal to accept the religionist assertions about God without evidence, that's pretty much a true statement.
By the way, I don't demand proof of God, I only demand evidence.
-
Hope,
Yes it does. If a book makes a truth claim about a past event then the book alone tells us nothing about the truthfulness or otherwise of that claim. The most that can be said is, “that’s a truth claim made in a book”. To determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the claim you need some means of testing the claim.
And that means would be science wouldn't it ?
But then science determining all truth values is scientism isn't it.....which cannot be determined scientifically.
You may demonstrate by philosophical argument that only science determines truth but that argument is circular and cannot be falsified.
No wonder your pin up boy Sean Carroll wants falsifiability retired from the world of science.
-
I have no idea what you mean here. An atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in gods. How does that oblige him to prove anything?
Prove any number of mere assertions you have made about believers then. Prove the materialism on which your drivellings are obviously based.
-
Given that being an atheist entails only a refusal to accept the religionist assertions about God without evidence, that's pretty much a true statement.
By the way, I don't demand proof of God, I only demand evidence.
Yes and we all know what sort of evidence......and that makes you doctrinaire.
-
Prove any number of mere assertions you have made about believers then. Prove the materialism on which your drivellings are obviously based.
Floundering about in the bottom of the barrel will get you nowhere, my friend! :)
-
Yes and we all know what sort of evidence......and that makes you doctrinaire.
No it makes me rational.
-
Yes and we all know what sort of evidence......and that makes you doctrinaire.
Your use of "we all know" is just self-delusion. The majority of people here are less woolly minded than you.
-
Well, this would require huge swathes of the human species to have been suffering from 'fevered brain' syndrome for centuries, if not millennia.
I read what Len said as paraphrasing, to imply that religious belief has always been an indication of the inability of people to understand stuff and so reach for the divine as an explanation.
If so, then I'd agree with Len, since it is obvious from what goes on here today in this wee Forum that fallacious reasoning is still as alive and kicking as it was in historical times, when fallacious arguments from the likes of ignorance and personal incredulity seem like the ideal conditions for the growth of religions in times and cultures when people were both more credulous in religious terms and less educated than today.
Then add in the influence of organised religions had on power and politics over the centuries, such as Christianity from the times of Theodosius, and you can see not so much 'fevered brains' but organised religion as a means social control, so we also get fallacious arguments from authority, tradition and ad populum added to the mix
I realise that some here believe that we are evolving ever-more advanced brains, that will cause such a belief to become obsolete. Is there any evidence that this is so?
Since I don't recall anyone making this 'ever-more advanced brains' argument here we have another fallacy: the straw man.
It should be quite obvious, looking at the decline in religiosity in the likes of the UK over recent decades, that with better education and the reducing influence of organised religion on general society - to the extent that it is now feasible to live without any religious involvement or influence, and with just the easily ignored background noise of them pleading how important they are as they slowly disappear - that people today are simply more free to, and are better able to, think critically about religion - and many are rejecting it, as the numbers show.
-
I think what we have here is people wanting to be more knowledgable and right than other people.
-
No it makes me rational.
No it doesn't. Be rational has a claim to what you are alluding to but I don't think you have.
-
I think what we have here is people wanting to be more knowledgable and right than other people.
What an utterly pointless statement.
I certainly hope to be more knowledgeable than ignorant people of whom there is sadly a surfeit in the World. I'd also like to be more right than people who are wrong.
If you don't aspire to be knowledgeable and right, there is something wrong with you IMO.
-
No it doesn't. Be rational has a claim to what you are alluding to but I don't think you have.
Believing stuff based on evidence is more rational than not.
-
Your use of "we all know" is just self-delusion. The majority of people here are less woolly minded than you.
And on the Mighty Assertatron at the Bradford Alhambra......Leonard James...............Vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalencia,dum dee dum dee dah de dah de dah dee Daah Da.................Valencia...........
-
Believing stuff based on evidence is more rational than not.
There is no evidence though for your materialism. If you think philosophical materialism is the next logical step from methodological materialism you are sadly mistaken.
-
Khat, Floo has asked this question on a number of occasions (in fact she's done threads very like this, but with slightly different title wording, on a number of occasions). If, as you say, it is thought that he is omnipotent, why should he not choose to use human beings to talk to other human beings about him? Are you saying that you would believe in God if he was to appear in front of you and explain everything to you? If so, how would you know that it was God and not just some idea conjured up by a fevered mind?
Is that a question you ask fellow believers?
If someone tells you they" heard the voice of God last night", do you question their mind's hold on reality? If someone announces they have found "God" is your first reaction always one of scepticism?
Do you also believe that a fevered mind is why there are billions of people all over the world who worship a different god to the one you have chosen?
I'm 58 now and never in my life have I experienced a fevered mind. While not impossible, I'd say that the likelihood of me doing so is pretty remote. It doesn't say much for religion if your first response is that someone's encounter with the supreme cosmic mega being is just be the workings of a brain that's lost its anchor to reality. I guess questioning a person's sanity is what you do when you know their statements are ludicrous.
Yes, imagination is great. We can make up lies at will and cannot be dis-proven. "A talking goldfinch just flew out of my bible and landed on my knee. We carried on quite a conversation for 10 or so minutes."
I decided to give the bible another go so I opened it at a random page.
I was absolutely gobsmacked when a great crested newt suddenly appeared and fell into my lap.
I then had a truly inspirational conversation with the newt, who informed me that he was speaking on behalf of the Lord of Hosts and that I had been chosen to hear his new message.
As a believer, you have to seriously consider that I am 100% truthful in what I say.
-
There is no evidence though for your materialism.
"Materialsim" is just a label that you have applied to my position because you think it makes you look clever.
I ask for evidence simply because it is the only way to assign a provisional truth value to some phenomenon.
If you think philosophical materialism is the next logical step from methodological materialism you are sadly mistaken.
I don't give a monkeys for your jargonising. It's just an indication that your tank is empty.
-
It should be quite obvious, looking at the decline in religiosity in the likes of the UK over recent decades, that with better education and the reducing influence of organised religion on general society - to the extent that it is now feasible to live without any religious involvement or influence, and with just the easily ignored background noise of them pleading how important they are as they slowly disappear - that people today are simply more free to, and are better able to, think critically about religion - and many are rejecting it, as the numbers show.
Education education education
Education is the single most devastating response to religion and venereal disease. Where there is better education there are less of these two problems.
-
Education education education
Education is the single most devastating response to religion and venereal disease. Where there is better education there are less of these two problems.
Khatru has said here what others think.......of religion in epidemiological terms.
That's just Stalinist......or worse.
Khatru....I think there has been a flaw in your education somewhere along the line.
-
"Materialsim" is just a label that you have applied to my position because you think it makes you look clever.
OK call it naturalism then...........but in my view that is worse because it is definitionally anti-god from the get go.
-
"Materialsim" is just a label that you have applied to my position because you think it makes you look clever.
I don't give a monkeys for your jargonising. It's just an indication that your tank is empty.
Your argument can't even be said to have been flushed down the bowl since it never even got that far up the pipe.
-
Education education education
Education is the single most devastating response to religion and venereal disease.
I expect you said that for applause. You wanted to get the clap from your antitheist supporters.
-
OK call it naturalism then...........but in my view that is worse because it is definitionally anti-god from the get go.
It's non-god, not anti-god.
Still, for you I suppose that's the same thing.
-
And that means would be science wouldn't it ?
Name something else that can do the job.
-
What an utterly pointless statement.
I certainly hope to be more knowledgeable than ignorant people of whom there is sadly a surfeit in the World. I'd also like to be more right than people who are wrong.
If you don't aspire to be knowledgeable and right, there is something wrong with you IMO.
::)
No, it's why you are part of the problem.
One true wayism, arrogance, the sense of superiority etc.
Must be a facet of human nature.
It's not just confined to the religious, that attitude.
-
Name something else that can do the job.
What, name something else that can do science?......How about science........don't display such twattism in future.
-
What, name something else that can do science?......
No. Name something else other than science that can consistently give us accurate, reliable, testable, shareable, repeatable knowledge of reality.
-
No. Name something else other than science that can consistently give us accurate, reliable, testable, shareable, repeatable knowledge of reality.
Science gives us accurate, reliable, testable, shareable, repeatable and falsifiable knowledge of matter-energy Shaker........matter-energy are constantly revised (by science) arbitrary definitions......how can that be defined therefore as reality?
-
Shakes,
Well, I did warn you about troll-boy's tactics a few posts back...the barrage of dull incomprehension and dishonesty you've had is all too typical I'm afraid. Suffice it to say that the materialism schtick is a piece of deep misunderstanding that he's had corrected by me and by others dozens of times now, but he's so invested in it that he clings to it nonetheless as a man clings to a plutonium parachute.
Be nice if t-b or anyone else for that matter would ever finally turn his attention finally to suggesting a method to distinguish his faith claims from just guessing about stuff but, as we know all too well by now, that's a door that'll remain forever locked.
Ah well.
-
Shakes,
Well, I did warn you about troll-boy's tactics a few posts back...the barrage of dull incomprehension and dishonesty you've had is all too typical I'm afraid. Suffice it to say that the materialism schtick is a piece of deep misunderstanding that he's had corrected by me and by others dozens of times now, but he's so invested in it that he clings to it nonetheless as a man clings to a plutonium parachute.
Be nice if t-b or anyone else for that matter would ever finally turn his attention finally to suggesting a method to distinguish his faith claims from just guessing about stuff but, as we know all too well by now, that's a door that'll remain forever locked.
Ah well.
I know bluey, I know all about it - I know that nearly all the time it's like using a rocking chair (it gives you something to do for a while but you won't get anywhere) but I enjoy the practice!
-
::)
No, it's why you are part of the problem.
This is you trying to shut me up with ad hominems, I suppose.
One true wayism, arrogance, the sense of superiority etc.
Wouldn't you rather be right than wrong? Wouldn't you rather be knowledgeable than ignorant?
-
Shakes,
Well, I did warn you about troll-boy's tactics a few posts back...the barrage of dull incomprehension and dishonesty you've had is all too typical I'm afraid. Suffice it to say that the materialism schtick is a piece of deep misunderstanding that he's had corrected by me and by others dozens of times now, but he's so invested in it that he clings to it nonetheless as a man clings to a plutonium parachute.
Be nice if t-b or anyone else for that matter would ever finally turn his attention finally to suggesting a method to distinguish his faith claims from just guessing about stuff but, as we know all too well by now, that's a door that'll remain forever locked.
Ah well.
I'm sorry when you say distinguishable from guessing do you mean.....from your point of view or from my point of view?
If the former why should your point of view take presidence over my word about what I experience?
Do you mean Guessing to come up with a provisional answer based from factual knowledge about the material world?
Why should knowledge of God be based on something material? That is merely scientism isn't it and scientism is most definitely an act of faith without scientific evidence.
-
This is you trying to shut me up with ad hominems, I suppose.
Wouldn't you rather be right than wrong? Wouldn't you rather be knowledgeable than ignorant?
No, not really. ( shut u up)
It's just you are so sure you are right and everyone else is a cretin, that sometimes the attitude shows.
So many ignorant things have been done by people who firmly believed they were right and knowledgable. ( not aimed at you).
I don't think being knowledgable and thinking you are right all the time sit comfortably together.
;)
I think you can be overexposed to people who know they are right and think they are more knowledgable.
Sometimes I think being right all the time is overrated.
We all have our individual perspectives after all.
-
I expect you said that for applause. You wanted to get the clap from your antitheist supporters.
Nope
I said it to rile you.
Looks like I succeeded.
-
If the former why should your point of view take presidence over my word about what I experience?
What you experience?
Aren't you the lucky one?
The supreme cosmic mega being has picked you out.
Care to share with us what he said to you?
-
Khatru,
What you experience?
Aren't you the lucky one?
The supreme cosmic mega being has picked you out.
Care to share with us what he said to you?
The winner of next Saturday's 4.30 at Kempton Park would be handy. Oddly though these supposedly divine visitations never seem to convey anything, you know, useful - like a cure for childhood cancers for example. One might almost think that those who think a universe-creating deity had been in touch were wilfully avoiding the various alternative (though much less personally thrilling) explanations for the episode.
And yet each of them possessed of the notion that only his was the real god will dismiss the claims of the others while demanding to be taken seriously himself without one iota of an effort to explain he's right and the rest are wrong...
...which is all jolly japes and all that, except over these years some of these bozos have used their "it's true for you too" presumption to hurt a lot of people with their beliefs. It's a kicker innit?
-
Khatru,
The winner of next Saturday's 4.30 at Kempton Park would be handy. Oddly though these supposedly divine visitations never seem to convey anything, you know, useful - like a cure for childhood cancers for example. One might almost think that those who think a universe-creating deity had been in touch were wilfully avoiding the various alternative (though much less personally thrilling) explanations for the episode.
And yet each of them possessed of the notion that only his was the real god will dismiss the claims of the others while demanding to be taken seriously himself without one iota of an effort to explain he's right and the rest are wrong...
...which is all jolly japes and all that, except over these years some of these bozos have used their "it's true for you too" presumption to hurt a lot of people with their beliefs. It's a kicker innit?
There are times when think that even the most pious of believers sometimes contemplate all the good things they would do if they had the powers their god does.
Question is: Do they then wonder why their god hasn't done any of those good things?
-
Nope
I said it to rile you.
Looks like I succeeded.
That's typical of you..............Pure rile.
-
Khatru,
There are times when think that even the most pious of believers sometimes contemplate all the good things they would do if they had the powers their god does.
Question is: Do they then wonder why their god hasn't done any of those good things?
I think they do - or rather that those who did their thinking for them way back when did. That's why they have this whole ontology of "Satan", "free will", "original sin", "fall from grace" etc to explain away the contradictions in the notion of a god of the omnis. It's infantile (and infantilising) I think - imputing causal agencies for natural phenomena, much as I would offer to smack the branch that had "hit" my children when they were toddlers - yet presumably the people who espouse it here are adults. Arrested development perhaps? Who knows.
I think too that it signifies a lack of curiosity - if I woke up one morning convinced that I'd had a visit from a god I'd think, "wow - that's a strong feeling. I wonder what the various explanations for it could be, and how I should go about investigating them" whereas all-too-often here we see people just flatly assert "it was God" and moreover decide that it's the same god as the one they just happen to be most culturally acclimatised to, just as different peoples at different times have done with the gods most proximate to them.
Funny old world innit?
-
So none of that Jesus Myth nonsense for you then...Good man.
I didn't know you were familiar enough with Vermes to be going around referring to him as a geezer.
It's quite astonishing that you need to be reminded of the many options when you cited the trite old C.S. Lewis line "If he wasn't God then what" (and of course Lewis came up with only two other pathetic options). Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders have done sterling work to argue for another option, and the seeds of such arguments go back at least to Schweitzer. In fact, of course, they are present clearly in the gospels themselves. The disciples on the road to Emmaus express this simple view, before a mass of Christian mythologizing got to work.
There are of course other options which you ought to know about. The fact that mainstream Christianity has asserted the Trinitarian view is neither here nor there.
And any other Christians who glibly want to state "Jesus said he was God" is likely to make me break out into a string of expletives likely to cause BA to burst a blood vessel, were he to be looking in.
-
Khatru,
I think they do - or rather that those who did their thinking for them way back when' did. That's why they have this whole ontology of "Satan", "free will", "original sin", "fall from grace" etc to explain away the contradictions in the notion of a god of the omnis. It's infantile (and infantilising) I think - imputing causal agencies for natural phenomena, much as I would offer to smack the branch that had "hit" my children when they were toddlers - yet presumably the people who espouse it here are adults. Arrested development perhaps? Who knows.
I think too that it signifies a lack of curiosity - if I woke up one morning convinced that I'd had a visit from a god I'd think, "wow - that's a strong feeling. I wonder what the various explanations for it could be, and how I should go about investigating them" whereas all-too-often here we see people just flatly assert "it was God" and moreover decide that it's the same god as the one they just happen to be most culturally acclimatised to, just as different peoples at different times have done with the gods most proximate to them.
Funny old world innit?
A bit of a caricature of conversion here.
You give the impression that good antitheists are having their cocoa going up the wooden stairs to Bedfordshire and waking up as converts.
You just have to read available accounts that this isn't usually the case.
Many Christians weigh up the arguments and most have subsequent doubts through whic the insufficiency of your kind of take becomes apparent.
Caricature believers and caricature conversions.
-
You just have to read available accounts that this isn't usually the case.
Many Christians weigh up the arguments and most have subsequent doubts through whic the insufficiency of your kind of take becomes apparent.
Caricature believers and caricature conversions.
In my experience it very often is nowadays, even though there is a vast amount of critical literature at hand to allow the convert to weigh up the nature of his/her conversion. Generally the emotional impact of the conversion experience holds sway, and confirmation bias (sustained by checking out a few salient scriptures that seem to pertain to the experience) does the rest.
St Augustine's conversion does not particularly impress me (just to pick one famous one). He was already a believer in things spiritual. Part of his conversion seemed to depend upon hearing a child singing "tolle, lege" (pick up and read) which urged him to open the Bible at a point where he felt the coincidence of the selected verse was guiding him into ultimate truth.
I wonder what would have happened if he'd opened up to "My brother Esau is an hairy man, but I am a smooth man".
-
wonder what would have happened if he'd opened up to "My brother Esau is an hairy man, but I am a smooth man".
He'd have become a bald Christian, and all his statues would have looked like Kojak 😉🌹
🍭🍭🍭🍭🍭
-
It my experience if very often is nowadays, even though there is a vast amount of critical literature at hand to allow the convert to weigh up the nature of his/her conversion. Generally the emotional impact of the conversion experience holds sway, and confirmation bias (sustained by checking out a few salient scriptures that seem to pertain to the experience) does the rest.
St Augustine's conversion does not particularly impress me (just to pick one famous one). He was already a believer in things spiritual. Part of his conversion seemed to depend upon hearing a child singing "tolle, lege" (pick up and read) which urged him to open the Bible at a point where he felt the coincidence of the selected verse was guiding him into ultimate truth.
I wonder what would have happened if he'd opened up to "My brother Esau is an hairy man, but I am a smooth man".
Confirmation bias plagues us all.
You aren't impressed by Augustines conversion but reading what you put this is on the grounds of it not being dramatic enough.
Hillside hypothesis what conversion might be like and how he would treat an encounter with God. He says nothing about the challenge of being in the presence of the holy So there is for me something missing from his account. I'm not sure though whether his search for alternatives wouldn't just be a search for loopholes or escape on the other hand I'm pretty sure God wouldn't disapprove of honest doubt about things since other conversion accounts attest to wilderness periods...I'm thinking of Bunyan here.
-
Many Christians weigh up the arguments and most have subsequent doubts
Hardly surprising.
Do they check out all of the many myths and belief systems to see which one has the best miracles, ethics, etc before making their choice of ju-ju?
I suspect not.
Why would they have subsequent doubts?
I guess it's because the supreme cosmic mega being didn't do a particularly good job in communicating his message; which, coincidentally, brings us back to the original post in this thread.
-
It's just you are so sure you are right and everyone else is a cretin, that sometimes the attitude shows.
I could say the same for you.
-
Hardly surprising.
Do they check out all of the many myths and belief systems to see which one has the best miracles, ethics, etc before making their choice of ju-ju?
I suspect not.
Why would they have subsequent doubts?
I guess it's because the supreme cosmic mega being didn't do a particularly good job in communicating his message; which, coincidentally, brings us back to the original post in this thread.
Well obviously given your description of religion you have done no such survey before alighting on a brainless anti theism.
Had you done so you would have seen they offer different things.
Very few to my view go as far as Christianity both in its theology or anthropology.
-
Well obviously given your description of religion you have done no such survey before alighting on a brainless anti theism.
Had you done so you would have seen they offer different things.
Very few to my view go as far as Christianity both in its theology or anthropology.
OK, I promise to try and take you seriously. Even though you make it hard by insisting you've had personal revelation(s) from the supreme cosmic mega being(s).
Just remember "I feel him in my heart" is not valid data.
-
OK, I promise to try and take you seriously. Even though you make it hard by insisting you've had personal revelation(s) from the supreme cosmic mega being(s).
Just remember "I feel him in my heart" is not valid data.
First of all. You asked about what makes Christianity superior to what you described as myths and legends.
I can answer that straight away by saying it is more philosophically productive.
In fact it is more philosophically productive than the scientist from which your arguments spring from.
-
First of all. You asked about what makes Christianity superior to what you described as myths and legends.
I can answer that straight away by saying it is more philosophically productive.
Can you give some examples please.
-
Can you give some examples please.
Certainly the influence on political, ethical and scientific philosophy.
-
Certainly the influence on political, ethical and scientific philosophy.
How has Christianity influenced any of these? Please give examples.
-
How has Christianity influenced any of these? Please give examples.
Politically the idea of equality, antislavery , civil rights, scientific the idea that the universe is rational as created through a rational logos. Ethically, the concept of loving ones neighbour.
-
Politically the idea of equality, antislavery , civil rights,
None of those political idea have anything to do with Christianity. Slavery was abolished a mere 1,500 years after Christianity became widespread, civil rights a mere 1,700 years after Christianity became widespread and equality hasn't really happened yet. In fact many Christians are actively fighting against equality.
scientific the idea that the universe is rational
That is not a Christian idea
as created through a rational logos.
That is not a scientific idea.
Ethically, the concept of loving ones neighbour.
I'll give you that one.
-
I'll give you that one.
... although the ethical precept known as the Golden Rule long predates Christianity, of course.
Slavery was actively and explicitly supported by some Christians while being opposed by some others.
A significant number of Christians seemed to be against equality when it came to marriage equality for gay people.
... and anybody who seriously thinks we live in a rational, dependable universe needs to bone up on some quantum mechanics, fast. The earliest scientists worthy of the name were the pagan polytheistic (or atheistic, in some cases) Greeks.
-
None of those political idea have anything to do with Christianity. Slavery was abolished a mere 1,500 years after Christianity became widespread, civil rights a mere 1,700 years after Christianity became widespread and equality hasn't really happened yet. In fact many Christians are actively fighting against equality.
That is not a Christian ideaThat is not a scientific idea.
I'll give you that one.
Science as originally carried out in the west was highly influenced by faith in a rational God creating and underwriting a dependable universe.
-
Science as originally carried out in the west was highly influenced by faith in a rational God creating and underwriting a dependable universe.
Will some scientist please tell me that is no longer true! Such a thought is horrifying.
-
Len,
Will some scientist please tell me that is no longer true! Such a thought is horrifying.
Relax - it never has been. It would be more accurate to say something like scientific discovery has often come out of societies that were religious in nature - the great flowering of knowledge from the early Islamic world for example, but the charge sheet of dogmatic religious belief crushing rationalist/scientific endeavour is every bit as long (and some would argue much longer). It's not much of a claim in any case as all societies historically were religious of one stripe or another so not until the 19th century were there secular societies to point to for comparison purposes. And when you do that of course you find that pretty much all worthwhile scientific advances have come from secular societies and virtually none from religious ones.
Which isn't surprising really. After all, if you think you have all the answers because they're written in a "holy" book, then what need is there of looking for answers in the natural world? Worse yet, if you want to do that anyway then you're dissing the holy book - heretic!
Incidentally, even if there was an argument to show us to be further along the road of science because of religion rather than further back (just think - we'd all be flying to work on jet packs by now but for the deadening hand of religious dogma!) that would say the square root of diddly squat about the truth or otherwise of the supernatural claims those religions make.
-
... although the ethical precept known as the Golden Rule long predates Christianity, of course.
Absolutely!
The Golden Rule deals with ethical goodness on a reciprocal basis and you'll see it manifested in numerous religions in many different words. Jesus mentions it in the NT although he was far from being the first. I think the Jains or Hindus beat Jesus to this by a few thousand years.
I'm confident there will be no arguments that wishing no harm or suffering on others is understandably a good thing. Yet harm is exactly what the Bible god wishes on people and he expects his followers to obey him and break the Golden Rule.
Seems to me that the merit of any religion isn't so much about what someone believes but more about what they do. In other words, it's all about how they treat their fellow human beings. Extending the same good treatment to other people that you'd expect to receive from them has to be a major, if not, the highest, point of human ethics.
I know there are different types of Christian and I'm yet to know what particular denomination Vlad belongs to. Maybe it's the one where you make it on faith and belief in Jesus rather than your deeds.
With that in mind, let's look at the god of the Bible: the main condition for us to get our pass for heaven is not about treating our fellow humans decently and respectfully. Oh no, the Golden Rule doesn't matter to God. All that matters to him is that we love Jesus more than anyone else and with every fibre of our being.
I'll rephrase it slightly: the NT tells us that the main condition for getting into heaven is not that we observe the Golden Rule. Instead, it's that we love Jesus, and to God, that's more important than following the Golden Rule. It's not nice to harm your fellow humans but as long as you end up loving Jesus with all your heart then you'll be ok for heaven. I guess some believers must like the idea of spending eternity with such a vain egotistical deity.
-
Khatru,
Well of course you are the typical atheist making things up about scripture. Like I said you are very late to this rodeo. Christian will be held to account for our actions.
Just to school you,
"But I say unto you, That EVERY idle word that men shall speak, They shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36
And read Romans chapter 3
-
Khatru,
Well of course you are the typical atheist making things up about scripture. Like I said you are very late to this rodeo. Christian will be held to account for our actions.
Just to school you,
"But I say unto you, That EVERY idle word that men shall speak, They shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36
I will be held accountable for my actions?
Ah, you must be one of those believers who claims we are not judged by our faith in Jesus.
Now then, care to tell me what it is that you say I am making up about biblical scripture?
And read Romans chapter 3
Romans chapter 3?
All men shall refrain from sniffing the ladies seats outside the synagogue?
Sorry, I was in Red Dwarf mode.
-
I could say the same for you.
I lack the " one true wayism" that you have.
;)
-
I will be held accountable for my actions?
Ah, you must be one of those believers who claims we are not judged by our faith in Jesus.
Now then, care to tell me what it is that you say I am making up about biblical scripture?
Romans chapter 3?
All men shall refrain from sniffing the ladies seats outside the synagogue?
Sorry, I was in Red Dwarf mode.
You said
"Seems to me that the merit of any religion isn't so much about what someone believes but more about what they do. In other words, it's all about how they treat their fellow human beings. Extending the same good treatment to other people that you'd expect to receive from them has to be a major, if not, the highest, point of human ethics. "
If you believe and live up to that, I can't see there is an issue. ( what's to judge badly about those sort of actions ?)
I agree with what you have written above. Actions do speak louder than words ( or in this case, beliefs)
:)
-
Science as originally carried out in the west was highly influenced by faith in a rational God creating and underwriting a dependable universe.
Will some scientist please tell me that is no longer true! Such a thought is horrifying.Len,
Relax - it never has been....................... scientific discovery has often come out of societies that were religious in nature - the great flowering of knowledge from the early Islamic world for example,....................... all societies historically were religious of one stripe or another so not until the 19th century were there secular societies to point to for comparison purposes............................pretty much all worthwhile scientific advances have come from secular societies and virtually none from religious ones.
Only you are trying to parallel the 19th century secularism with 20th century secularism. Religion was still rife i'm afraid and of course you are leaving out the likes of James Clerk Maxwell.
That you have demonstrably blown out ,Hillside is clear. What is worse is that now you have claimed the good things for secular society you are bound to have them take responsibility for the bad things.....but I'm sure you will handwave that and declare that our grasp of secular society is wrong.
I have emphasised the rookie inconsistencies and contradiction in your post.
-
Len,
Relax - it never has been. It would be more accurate to say something like scientific discovery has often come out of societies that were religious in nature - the great flowering of knowledge from the early Islamic world for example, but the charge sheet of dogmatic religious belief crushing rationalist/scientific endeavour is every bit as long (and some would argue much longer). It's not much of a claim in any case as all societies historically were religious of one stripe or another so not until the 19th century were there secular societies to point to for comparison purposes. And when you do that of course you find that pretty much all worthwhile scientific advances have come from secular societies and virtually none from religious ones.
Which isn't surprising really. After all, if you think you have all the answers because they're written in a "holy" book, then what need is there of looking for answers in the natural world? Worse yet, if you want to do that anyway then you're dissing the holy book - heretic!
Incidentally, even if there was an argument to show us to be further along the road of science because of religion rather than further back (just think - we'd all be flying to work on jet packs by now but for the deadening hand of religious dogma!) that would say the square root of diddly squat about the truth or otherwise of the supernatural claims those religions make.
Thanks, man! It seems reassuringly clear that the scientific approach to discovering the truth about everything by studying the physical universe is to be preferred over the guessed and non-evidenced claims of religion.
-
Len,
Relax - it never has been. It would be more accurate to say something like scientific discovery has often come out of societies that were religious in nature - the great flowering of knowledge from the early Islamic world for example, but the charge sheet of dogmatic religious belief crushing rationalist/scientific endeavour is every bit as long (and some would argue much longer). It's not much of a claim in any case as all societies historically were religious of one stripe or another so not until the 19th century were there secular societies to point to for comparison purposes. And when you do that of course you find that pretty much all worthwhile scientific advances have come from secular societies and virtually none from religious ones.
Which isn't surprising really. After all, if you think you have all the answers because they're written in a "holy" book, then what need is there of looking for answers in the natural world?
Oh No not the minority representing the whole again Hillside.
I've emphasised your contradictions again.
What about James Clerk Maxwell?
If you are saying that secular societies are strong on scientific knowledge, achievement and understanding.....isn't it a tad embarrassing having Leonard pleading for a scientist and worse still grovelling to people he thinks are more scientific than he as happened with Nearly Sane seemingly nigh extorting a recantation of Len's free will belief.
All this of course is my humble opinion.
-
Thanks, man! It seems reassuringly clear that the scientific approach to discovering the truth about everything by studying the physical universe is to be preferred over the guessed and non-evidenced claims of religion.
That kind of treats religion as failed science. Not surprising if science is your religion.
Are those who want a scientist on hand to reassure them that the religious no longer do science.............still at the Shamanic stage?
It is no good recanting to a scientist with the admission that there is no free will until a scientist has demonstrated that scientifically................Neurology having made great steps not being sufficient.
IMHO.
-
That kind of treats religion as failed science. Not surprising if science is your religion.
Religion never was nor ever will be science ... despite the fact that some scientists are religious.
-
Religion never was nor ever will be science ... despite the fact that some scientists are religious.
Exactly!
-
Religion never was nor ever will be science ... despite the fact that some scientists are religious.
I think some was, early medicine for example.
Many people took potions to have religious visions.
It was considered necessary to remove the veil.
It passed for science when they knew less.
Just because they got it wrong didn't mean it wasn't science.
It's just science changes, over time with new discoveries.
I think it is only recently we have separated religion and science.
-
I think it is only recently we have separated religion and science.
Hm. Sort of correct in a way, not so much in another. Half a millennium BB (Before Brian) some of the brightest Greeks (Thales, Diagoros, Hippocrates and so on) were employing what we would now recognise as the, or perhaps a, scientific method. By today's standards they didn't have all the elements of it in place by any means but arguably the most important ones - empirical observation, experiment and especially methodological naturalism - certainly were.
In the West, for not very clear reasons, this died out for a long time as the real advances in science, technology, mathematics etc. shifted to the Muslim world, then in many places quite notably liberal and free-thinking, comparatively speaking. It's only when Europe gets to the early modern period (Bacon, etc.) that we see the rise of the sort of science for which we would use the term today.
-
I think some was, early medicine for example.
Many people took potions to have religious visions.
It was considered necessary to remove the veil.
It passed for science when they knew less.
Just because they got it wrong didn't mean it wasn't science.
It's just science changes, over time with new discoveries.
I think it is only recently we have separated religion and science.
I don't agree, although I can see why you think so. They took medicine because it produced a desired result. They ate because they were hungry and eating made them feel better, etc., but that is hardly science. Surely science would be trying to find out WHY/HOW it produced the result.
-
Religion never was nor ever will be science ... despite the fact that some scientists are religious.
Religion never was nor ever will be the instructions on a bottle of Brobat toilet cleaner.......despite the fact that some users of Brobat are religious.
-
That's what the man in "Cool Hand Luke" said
I guess that's one of the problems with the god of the Bible; he's an appallingly bad communicator.
Rather man is a bad receptor when it comes to receiving God and his truth.
When men receive God and Christ the changes are spiritually changing and life becomes better all around.
The CEO of any company needs to communicate effectively with his people. If a company is in a mess and people aren't getting the message then the buck stops with the CEO.
How does the CEO become responsible if the people who are trained cannot and do not do their jobs.
Incompetence is not the fault of the CEO. Personal managers and others the company employ below him have to be at fault.
The wages of sin is something you earn and it is death. The free gift of God is eternal life because you cannot earn it.
CEO is not a good similie to God and mankind. Which defines the lack in your knowledge and understanding of God and Christianity.
Why should an omniscient god be wholly exonerated of blame when he fails to ensure that his message is clearly understood?
God made his message clear and simple.
John 3:16 and Acts 10:35-46.
Man has sinned and is to die. But through Christ the free gift is eternal life. God so loved us...
He did not fail. You understand what that says but you don't want it.
So God not failed to make his message understood. You and others like you fail to accept it, because clearly he gives you the ability to choose. That choice makes it clear you don't want it. And choose not to have it.
You've only got to look at the numerous different bibles that are out there to see that whatever the Bible god thinks, he doesn't seem too perturbed about the confused message he's sending out. Factor that in with thousands of different Christian denominations, sects and cults, all sure that their particular interpretation of whatever bible they choose to read is the true belief and you have a recipe for confusion.
You only have to know the contents of those bibles to know that God has not sent any different or confused message,
The truth has always come to man by the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
The Prophets spoke according to the leading of the Spirit. The Lord Jesus spoke according to the Spirit.
"My words are SPIRIT AND they are LIFE." We see the disciples spoke according to the Holy Spirit.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
Jesus in John 4.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
You see how the truth destroys your myth and mis-representational thinking that the different bibles are somehow a reflection on God. When in truth the bible whatever version will have the same words of Christ in and more importantly the OT the scriptures Christ referred to which show true believers have the word of God within them.
What we really have here is a failure to understand Gods word by you, fullstop....
-
I see. You're going to tell me that you are fully understanding of your deity of choice and his message.
Care to have a go at interpreting these scriptures oh knowledgeable one...
[1] "Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." - Ezekiel 23:19-20
This has to be an example using a parable above regarding Samaria and Jerusalem.
Rather it's people than the cities. To do wrong and to do it with excess.
Israel, Gods chosen people often committed idolatry with false Gods. Something you would have understood had you known the biblical history in the bible.
The kjv19 Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt.
20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
A paramour is a lover, and often a secret one you're not married to.
I am sure you preferred your own explicit form of the verses.
But they were not written to shock but to relate the idolatry and adultery of Gods people to foreign gods and nations.
[2] "His breasts are full of milk." - Job 21:24
[3] "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." - Deuteronomy 25:11-12
[4]“And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." - Ezekiel 4:12
[5]“The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers.”- Ezekiel 5:10
[6]“As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.”- Proverbs 26:11
[7]“Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.”- Mal.2:3
Why so much preoccupation with coprophilia, human cannibalism, gynecomastia, and the like?
And what's all this interest in donkey dongs and horse cum. O holy! holy! holy!
The rest really is a reflection of your own debase thoughts towards the bible and it's contents.
It reflects lack of knowledge and lack of understanding.
Shall any teach God knowledge? seeing he judgeth those that are high.
23 One dieth in his full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet.
24 His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow.
Why not try studying the bible instead of trolling internet sites for verses which you think you can alarm others with or shock.
So far it only proves your lack of knowledge and understanding in the matters of the Bible and the true God.
-
Sass's usual regurgitation of Biblical rot.
-
Here is a list of 5157 DENOMINATIONS from the Protestant arm of Christianity alone.
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/DENOMS.php
Just did.
They do exist.
Now you know it and everyone who reads it knows it also.
Have you anything logically or intellectually interesting to say which doesn't expound on your ignorance of both Christianity and the bible? You need to go over your post. It makes you look stupid.
-
Have you anything logically or intellectually interesting to say which doesn't expound on your ignorance of both Christianity and the bible? You need to go over your post. It makes you look stupid.
Is that how you admit that you were wrong Sass?
You need to go over your post.
It makes you look - really stupid.
-
Rather man is a bad receptor when it comes to receiving God and his truth.
When men receive God and Christ the changes are spiritually changing and life becomes better all around.
How does the CEO become responsible if the people who are trained cannot and do not do their jobs.
Incompetence is not the fault of the CEO. Personal managers and others the company employ below him have to be at fault.
The wages of sin is something you earn and it is death. The free gift of God is eternal life because you cannot earn it.
CEO is not a good similie to God and mankind. Which defines the lack in your knowledge and understanding of God and Christianity.
God made his message clear and simple.
John 3:16 and Acts 10:35-46.
Man has sinned and is to die. But through Christ the free gift is eternal life. God so loved us...
He did not fail. You understand what that says but you don't want it.
So God not failed to make his message understood. You and others like you fail to accept it, because clearly he gives you the ability to choose. That choice makes it clear you don't want it. And choose not to have it.
You only have to know the contents of those bibles to know that God has not sent any different or confused message,
The truth has always come to man by the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
The Prophets spoke according to the leading of the Spirit. The Lord Jesus spoke according to the Spirit.
"My words are SPIRIT AND they are LIFE." We see the disciples spoke according to the Holy Spirit.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
Jesus in John 4.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
You see how the truth destroys your myth and mis-representational thinking that the different bibles are somehow a reflection on God. When in truth the bible whatever version will have the same words of Christ in and more importantly the OT the scriptures Christ referred to which show true believers have the word of God within them.
What we really have here is a failure to understand Gods word by you, fullstop....
Actually, what we have is an Old Testament a New Testament, I don't know how many different bibles and thousands of different Christian denominations, sects and cults.
You're saying you can whittle all of that down to a defining three word phrase "turn or burn".
You closed your mind. You stopped wondering and bought into a dogma that allows no deviation from what is taught in church. No thinking needed. When you buy into religion, you turn off the light that says, "if there is no prove that something exists, it is reasonable to doubt any claims put forth for the faith".
Darkness rules your mind.
-
Have you anything logically or intellectually interesting to say which doesn't expound on your ignorance of both Christianity and the bible? You need to go over your post. It makes you look stupid.
It's plain to see that you find the facts disconcerting.
-
How does the CEO become responsible if the people who are trained cannot and do not do their jobs.
Incompetence is not the fault of the CEO. Personal managers and others the company employ below him have to be at fault.
So that would be Jesus and his disciples at fault then!
-
If you as an employee breach data protection, the ceo is still considered at fault and could end up being sentenced. Both of you can be sentenced.
It's why companies are so particular about it.
In the same way, if God hardens people's hearts or dishes them out a life that doesn't work in his favour, then some of the responsibility for the end result, is going to be his.
IMO anyway.
-
So that would be Jesus and his disciples at fault then!
Thinking about it, I guess it was all pretty tense at that last supper. What with Jesus comparing the wine to his blood and the bread to his flesh.
I bet nobody touched the meatballs.
-
Thinking about it, I guess it was all pretty tense at that last supper. What with Jesus comparing the wine to his blood and the bread to his flesh.
I bet nobody touched the meatballs.
They opted for the faggots instead ;)
-
They opted for the faggots instead ;)
I wonder if they were laced with piss-pudding.
-
Is that how you admit that you were wrong Sass?
You need to go over your post.
It makes you look - really stupid.
Thanks for confirming to everyone I am right and you are clutching at straws.
Tut! tut! tut!
-
Thanks for confirming to everyone I am right and you are clutching at straws.
Tut! tut! tut!
Not "everyone", Sass. As far as I am concerned ST is right and you are wrong.
-
Not "everyone", Sass. As far as I am concerned ST is right and you are wrong.
While yet again, Sass fails to answer the point in question.
Thus proving the points I made in an earlier post:
What is it with believers and their reluctance to answer questions?
Unlike the believers, I think most unbelievers will always try to answer a question posed by another person, regardless of the question, or indeed, who is posing it.
Will we always answer it to complete satisfaction?
Sometimes we will, sometimes not at all and sometimes never. However, as a believer, I for one really dislike walking away from a question without at least trying to answer it. Seems that this is a personal standard shared by many unbelievers and not-so-many believers. It's a good quality.
Sure, we can be seen as arrogant at times; even forceful in our pursuit of accountability. Unlike believers, we have no problem being scrutinised and we are also able to elucidate in a way that can be understood by anyone willing to apply the same effort at understanding that we place ourselves out there to be scrutinised.
What I notice with theists is they like to jut the chin out and challenge. However, try asking them a question that requires them to inspect what they think and you'll find they will try to shift the point of discussion to some sort of "only I can understand it" slant.
So, it's rare you run across an atheist that won't put themselves up to be picked apart or explain why they think as they do.
If it can be understood by one, it can by all, no desire or faith required.
-
Thanks for confirming to everyone I am right and you are clutching at straws.
Tut! tut! tut!
Everyone?
Lets see.....
Not "everyone", Sass. As far as I am concerned ST is right and you are wrong.
Thanks for confirming Sass, that you are talking out of your arse!
Tisk tisk tisk! ;D
-
It's plain to see that you find the facts disconcerting.
They are not facts... Denominations are not the religion. Christianity is the religion.
The Roman Catholic Church... Christian.
Mormon Church... Christian.
You see, even thinking that way... they are not different religions they are just different leaders and founders.
But the truth is that there is ONLY one Christian true Church.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
So you were wrong... because the tenets of faith are what Christ says here.
That the true worshippers worship in Spirit and Truth.
Christ the Truth and the Spirit being the one true sign of being a Christian. You must receive Christ and be born of the Spirit.
You show time and time again (along with the others ignorant to truth) that you have no basic knowledge of understanding when it comes to the bible, God or true Christian worshippers.
-
So that would be Jesus and his disciples at fault then!
Do you see his disciples around today?
Did Jesus not say...
"Go away, I never knew you." Read the bible and then discuss. Till you do you will continue to make the same errors you are making here.
-
Some people add insult to their own injury. At the end of this conversation there would be the old get out card.
" We were just trying to wind Sassy up."
So instead of the heckling and unfounded stupid remarks let us put them to the test.
BRING BIBLICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ALL YOU HAVE SAID IN OT AND NT AND USE THE WORDS OF CHRIST HIMSELF TO DO IT.
Now we see who is the ridiculously ignorant atheist posters now.
Like it is ever going to happen.... they are incompetent of doing what is asked.
In future guys... keep away from subjects you are not qualified to discuss.
-
Do you see his disciples around today?
Did Jesus not say...
"Go away, I never knew you." Read the bible and then discuss. Till you do you will continue to make the same errors you are making here.
Sass, if Jesus was around today he might use that phrase where you are concerned! Your nonsense certainly isn't doing the faith any favours whatsoever. Instead of looking for faults in others, maybe you should clean up your own act first, THINK ON!
-
Sass, if Jesus was around today he might use that phrase where you are concerned! Your nonsense certainly isn't doing the faith any favours whatsoever. Instead of looking for faults in others, maybe you should clean up your own act first, THINK ON!
He might well, do, Floo. Conversely, he might use the other famous phrase from that passage to you!! How would that go down with you?
-
You closed your mind. You stopped wondering and bought into a dogma that allows no deviation from what is taught in church. No thinking needed. When you buy into religion, you turn off the light that says, "if there is no prove that something exists, it is reasonable to doubt any claims put forth for the faith".
Darkness rules your mind.
Khat, I studied the 3 main sciences to 'o'-level, and Physics and Maths (+ English) to 'A'-levels. Whilst I grew up in a Christan family, I didn't become a Christian until just shy of my 18th birthday. For most of my teenage years,, I looked pretty seriously into both Hinduism and Buddhsm and even flirted with atheism. The reason I didn't choose any of them is that - as far as I could seem none of them answered the real questions I had about life and the purpose of ife. In other words, 'when I bought into' Christianity properly, I wasn't turning off a light, I was stating that I believed that these other routes to 'enlightenment' were dead-ends. As I have studied and lived amongst people of yet other belief systems - be that Marxism, Islam, Jainism, materialism or Sikhism (to name but 5) I have found that whilst they may go some way to the light - all of them come up short in some way or another.
I accept that I've probably picked the route that, to me, seems to provide more answers to the questions I've had and will continue to have - but also allows me to have those questions. For me, science, massively important though it is, simply doesn't acknowledge many of the big questions about life; its purpose, its value, its raison d'etre.
-
Thinking about it, I guess it was all pretty tense at that last supper. What with Jesus comparing the wine to his blood and the bread to his flesh.
I doubt there was any more tension than there would have been at any Passover meal, Khat. After all, the Jews had been celebrating this event for several centuries by the time of this particular event. All Jesus was doing was pointing out that, whilst historically, the sacrifice had been lambs, henseforth the sacrifice would be God himself.
I bet nobody touched the meatballs.
Traditionally, the meat would have been lamb and often, I'm told, boiled rather than roasted.
-
Do you see his disciples around today?
You miss the point, but then that is not a surprise!
-
They are not facts... Denominations are not the religion. Christianity is the religion.
Mormon Church... Christian.
That is interesting, I'm not sure that many of your fellow believers on here would agree with you though. :-\
eg 2Corrie
Why is this even on the Christian thread :o anyone here break bread with the Mormons ?
eg Oh My Word
So because they mention Jesus Christ, they are Christian. That's too funny, and very stunted.
Now get educated.
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbnew.aspx?pageid=8589952801
http://www.bible-truth.org/arelds.htm
If you actually compared the Jesus of the Bible to the Jesus of the Mormon church you wouldn't make such stunted mistakes, Shaker. Even their dead prophet Hinckley admitted that their Christ is not the same Christ as mine.
eg Hope
the problem with all these references is that Mormonism does not regard Jesus as one with God. It regards him as a human being.
Are they all wrong?
-
No. There are rights and wrongs in all, in the sense that there are errors, not ''moral wrongness''. That is because we are humans trying to make sense.
Perhaps if we stopped striving (difficult!), we may have insights.