On The Misuse Of The Term God.

[Jack Knave]

...
So you see no animal or partial animal forms in any of the Hindu gods? No hint of some vestige past forms of such creatures?

You may be right, sir. I know little about Hinduism.

Can we go back to your "This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism."? Would you clarify something for me, please? Are you claiming that Judaism was a development of animism and/or polytheism? I have no problem if Abraham, say, was originally a polytheist. Genesis says that Yahweh spoke to him and led him from his home city to Canaan. That doesn't sound like a development from polytheism. I'm wondering if I have understood you correctly.

I'm talking more in terms of anthropology and psychology here, how man develops. Primitive tribes have gods and spirits and more cultivated and civilised societies of the past gradually moved from fewer Gods to just one God.

The Abraham story is just that, a story, which can be explained in archetypal psychological terms. Many people feel led to some new cause or horizon it's what got us out of the trees to our present modern situation.

[Jack Knave]

What about the "Christian idea of the soul"?

What about it? How does this follow on from the chat about angels?

I don't know. It was you who mentioned it first in the post I was replying to.

I may have asked if angels had souls like mankind. I see angels isn't one of your scholarly subjects so perhaps we should drop the subject.

[Alien]

...
So you see no animal or partial animal forms in any of the Hindu gods? No hint of some vestige past forms of such creatures?

You may be right, sir. I know little about Hinduism.

Can we go back to your "This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism."? Would you clarify something for me, please? Are you claiming that Judaism was a development of animism and/or polytheism? I have no problem if Abraham, say, was originally a polytheist. Genesis says that Yahweh spoke to him and led him from his home city to Canaan. That doesn't sound like a development from polytheism. I'm wondering if I have understood you correctly.

I'm talking more in terms of anthropology and psychology here, how man develops. Primitive tribes have gods and spirits and more cultivated and civilised societies of the past gradually moved from fewer Gods to just one God.

OK, so you are not claiming that the monotheism of a formerly animist group is a development from that animism (as in at least partly the cause of that monotheism) any more, say, than me being a former atheist and now a Christian does not mean that my Christian faith is a "development" of atheism?

The Abraham story is just that, a story, which can be explained in archetypal psychological terms. Many people feel led to some new cause or horizon it's what got us out of the trees to our present modern situation.

OK, that is a positive claim that it is "just a story". Would you care to back that up?

[Alien]

What about the "Christian idea of the soul"?

What about it? How does this follow on from the chat about angels?

I don't know. It was you who mentioned it first in the post I was replying to.

I may have asked if angels had souls like mankind. I see angels isn't one of your scholarly subjects so perhaps we should drop the subject.

Agreed.

[Jack Knave]

I'm talking more in terms of anthropology and psychology here, how man develops. Primitive tribes have gods and spirits and more cultivated and civilised societies of the past gradually moved from fewer Gods to just one God.

OK, so you are not claiming that the monotheism of a formerly animist group is a development from that animism (as in at least partly the cause of that monotheism) any more, say, than me being a former atheist and now a Christian does not mean that my Christian faith is a "development" of atheism?

Well no. That is exactly what I'm saying that animism is the ground from which monotheism has eventually grown, as in the way we have evolve from fish and so on. Though they may not look the same one is a developmental product of the latter.

The explanation for this would be one in psychological terms which, from what you have said in the past of your understanding of psychology and human nature, is why I have not included it here. Essentially it is how our consciousness has become more integrated and less fragmentary; a process every human goes through as they grow up from infancy. So at first we see things as individual, unconnected  events and units but gradually as we become more conscious we see the whole integrated picture, or as much as possible. So with the gods and spirits, which are projected into the natural world around us as life forces that animate these various units of nature. But over the eons mankind has seen how our world is connected and so these gods have been melded and reduced in number until we are left with one. Add in a heavy does of intellectual musings and hey presto our religions today.

The Abraham story is just that, a story, which can be explained in archetypal psychological terms. Many people feel led to some new cause or horizon it's what got us out of the trees to our present modern situation.

OK, that is a positive claim that it is "just a story". Would you care to back that up?

So what do you think a story is? Something not true or factual as an event. And an event can only be true if it is known to be true, all else is just speculation or for our amusement, and we base our lives, or should do so, on what we know to be true from experience. That is the only thing we can be sure of.

[Alien]

I'm talking more in terms of anthropology and psychology here, how man develops. Primitive tribes have gods and spirits and more cultivated and civilised societies of the past gradually moved from fewer Gods to just one God.

OK, so you are not claiming that the monotheism of a formerly animist group is a development from that animism (as in at least partly the cause of that monotheism) any more, say, than me being a former atheist and now a Christian does not mean that my Christian faith is a "development" of atheism?

Well no. That is exactly what I'm saying that animism is the ground from which monotheism has eventually grown, as in the way we have evolve from fish and so on. Though they may not look the same one is a developmental product of the latter.

The explanation for this would be one in psychological terms which, from what you have said in the past of your understanding of psychology and human nature, is why I have not included it here. Essentially it is how our consciousness has become more integrated and less fragmentary; a process every human goes through as they grow up from infancy. So at first we see things as individual, unconnected  events and units but gradually as we become more conscious we see the whole integrated picture, or as much as possible. So with the gods and spirits, which are projected into the natural world around us as life forces that animate these various units of nature. But over the eons mankind has seen how our world is connected and so these gods have been melded and reduced in number until we are left with one. Add in a heavy does of intellectual musings and hey presto our religions today.

Or God revealed himself to Abraham.

The Abraham story is just that, a story, which can be explained in archetypal psychological terms. Many people feel led to some new cause or horizon it's what got us out of the trees to our present modern situation.

OK, that is a positive claim that it is "just a story". Would you care to back that up?

So what do you think a story is? Something not true or factual as an event. And an event can only be true if it is known to be true, all else is just speculation or for our amusement, and we base our lives, or should do so, on what we know to be true from experience. That is the only thing we can be sure of.

"And an event can only be true if it is known to be true..."? That is incorrect. Why on earth do you think it to be the case? That is post-modernism gone mad. Did you mean what you wrote there?

I'd be interested to know if any atheists here, apart from JK, think his claim is correct. Anyone?

[Jack Knave]

I'm talking more in terms of anthropology and psychology here, how man develops. Primitive tribes have gods and spirits and more cultivated and civilised societies of the past gradually moved from fewer Gods to just one God.

OK, so you are not claiming that the monotheism of a formerly animist group is a development from that animism (as in at least partly the cause of that monotheism) any more, say, than me being a former atheist and now a Christian does not mean that my Christian faith is a "development" of atheism?

Well no. That is exactly what I'm saying that animism is the ground from which monotheism has eventually grown, as in the way we have evolve from fish and so on. Though they may not look the same one is a developmental product of the latter.

The explanation for this would be one in psychological terms which, from what you have said in the past of your understanding of psychology and human nature, is why I have not included it here. Essentially it is how our consciousness has become more integrated and less fragmentary; a process every human goes through as they grow up from infancy. So at first we see things as individual, unconnected  events and units but gradually as we become more conscious we see the whole integrated picture, or as much as possible. So with the gods and spirits, which are projected into the natural world around us as life forces that animate these various units of nature. But over the eons mankind has seen how our world is connected and so these gods have been melded and reduced in number until we are left with one. Add in a heavy does of intellectual musings and hey presto our religions today.

Or God revealed himself to Abraham.

You know my reply to that and every other atheists' reply. You don't know that, all you have is a story that is as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars. And you can't prove that God exists, or that anything along those lines is a plausible and verifiable entity.

The Abraham story is just that, a story, which can be explained in archetypal psychological terms. Many people feel led to some new cause or horizon it's what got us out of the trees to our present modern situation.

OK, that is a positive claim that it is "just a story". Would you care to back that up?

So what do you think a story is? Something not true or factual as an event. And an event can only be true if it is known to be true, all else is just speculation or for our amusement, and we base our lives, or should do so, on what we know to be true from experience. That is the only thing we can be sure of.

"And an event can only be true if it is known to be true..."? That is incorrect. Why on earth do you think it to be the case? That is post-modernism gone mad. Did you mean what you wrote there?

I'd be interested to know if any atheists here, apart from JK, think his claim is correct. Anyone?

Yes I did mean that. Anything else is based on trust and that often implies some level of loyalty and confirmation bias. This is more associated with culture and social acceptance than true facts.

Some event may be true independent of someone's personal verification but for them they can never know for sure (100%) that that event actual took place, even if it took place in their life time. Once we get into events that occurred before we were born, especially before things like film and photography, then we are dealing totally with stories and very suspect may be's.

[Alien]

...
Or God revealed himself to Abraham.

You know my reply to that and every other atheists' reply. You don't know that, all you have is a story that is as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars. And you can't prove that God exists, or that anything along those lines is a plausible and verifiable entity.

It is your assertion that it is "as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars." That is rather silly. Harry Potter and Star Wars are meant to be fiction. The authors never intended them to be understood as anything other than that. You may think that the evidence for the account is insufficient, but you have not given any reason, apart from this mis-comparison, why the account in Genesis about Abraham can't be true.

So what do you think a story is? Something not true or factual as an event. And an event can only be true if it is known to be true, all else is just speculation or for our amusement, and we base our lives, or should do so, on what we know to be true from experience. That is the only thing we can be sure of.

"And an event can only be true if it is known to be true..."? That is incorrect. Why on earth do you think it to be the case? That is post-modernism gone mad. Did you mean what you wrote there?

I'd be interested to know if any atheists here, apart from JK, think his claim is correct. Anyone?

Yes I did mean that. Anything else is based on trust and that often implies some level of loyalty and confirmation bias. This is more associated with culture and social acceptance than true facts.

Some event may be true independent of someone's personal verification but for them they can never know for sure (100%) that that event actual took place, even if it took place in their life time. Once we get into events that occurred before we were born, especially before things like film and photography, then we are dealing totally with stories and very suspect may be's.

Yes, I understand some of the problems with knowing something is true or even coming to the conclusion that something is probably true, but that is not what you claimed above (and which you confirmed you actually meant). You said that an event can only be true if it is known to be true. That would mean that our present knowledge makes something happen in the past.

[floo]

Whilst we realise the Harry Potter stories are meant to be fiction, not only are they a much better read than the Bible, they are probably more credible, certainly no less, imo!

[jeremyp]

Why do you think Abraham was mythical

It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.

[jeremyp]

Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.

So Hindus are just refined animists? Have you pointed this out to any Hindus? What was their response? Did they agree with you?

In what way would Hindus not liking the idea that their religion evolved from animism have any bearing on that idea's truth or falsehood?

[Alien]

Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.

So Hindus are just refined animists? Have you pointed this out to any Hindus? What was their response? Did they agree with you?

In what way would Hindus not liking the idea that their religion evolved from animism have any bearing on that idea's truth or falsehood?

None. Why do you ask?

[jeremyp]

Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.

So Hindus are just refined animists? Have you pointed this out to any Hindus? What was their response? Did they agree with you?

In what way would Hindus not liking the idea that their religion evolved from animism have any bearing on that idea's truth or falsehood?

None. Why do you ask?

Why did you bring up the point then?

[Alien]

Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.

So Hindus are just refined animists? Have you pointed this out to any Hindus? What was their response? Did they agree with you?

In what way would Hindus not liking the idea that their religion evolved from animism have any bearing on that idea's truth or falsehood?

None. Why do you ask?

Why did you bring up the point then?

I thought they might have some arguments against the suggestion. I wasn't interested what they liked.

You may have not noticed, but I have told Jack Knave that I don't have enough knowledge of Hinduism to continue (sensibly) with any discussion on Hinduism.

[Jack Knave]

...
Or God revealed himself to Abraham.

You know my reply to that and every other atheists' reply. You don't know that, all you have is a story that is as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars. And you can't prove that God exists, or that anything along those lines is a plausible and verifiable entity.

It is your assertion that it is "as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars." That is rather silly. Harry Potter and Star Wars are meant to be fiction. The authors never intended them to be understood as anything other than that. You may think that the evidence for the account is insufficient, but you have not given any reason, apart from this mis-comparison, why the account in Genesis about Abraham can't be true.

The evidence for the account is non-existent. All you have is a story, just like Harry Potter. What else, independent of that written account, do you have to back it up? And your claim on it is just an assertion. And how do you know that the intention of the author was for it to be nothing more than a story?

I see I got no to claim that you can't prove the existence of your God.
 

Yes I did mean that. Anything else is based on trust and that often implies some level of loyalty and confirmation bias. This is more associated with culture and social acceptance than true facts.

Some event may be true independent of someone's personal verification but for them they can never know for sure (100%) that that event actual took place, even if it took place in their life time. Once we get into events that occurred before we were born, especially before things like film and photography, then we are dealing totally with stories and very suspect may be's.

Yes, I understand some of the problems with knowing something is true or even coming to the conclusion that something is probably true, but that is not what you claimed above (and which you confirmed you actually meant). You said that an event can only be true if it is known to be true. That would mean that our present knowledge makes something happen in the past.

Ok let me put it this way, though I did clarify this point above.

An event can only be true for a given individual if it is known to be true by that individual by having first hand experience of that event i.e. an eye witness.

For someone to conduct their lives by some moral rules and fundamental principles they have to know first hand that those aspects are true from personal experience. I raise this because people are basing their lives on a book written 2000 years ago, and more, and haven't a hope in hell of knowing if it is correct or not. In the end it is what we know to be true and factual personally that can only guide our lives. Taking on whole heartily some ancient system they have no way of validating is foolishness.

[Alien]

Why do you think Abraham was mythical

It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.

"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?

[Alien]

...
Or God revealed himself to Abraham.

You know my reply to that and every other atheists' reply. You don't know that, all you have is a story that is as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars. And you can't prove that God exists, or that anything along those lines is a plausible and verifiable entity.

It is your assertion that it is "as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars." That is rather silly. Harry Potter and Star Wars are meant to be fiction. The authors never intended them to be understood as anything other than that. You may think that the evidence for the account is insufficient, but you have not given any reason, apart from this mis-comparison, why the account in Genesis about Abraham can't be true.

The evidence for the account is non-existent.

Actually, that is incorrect. There is some evidence in that it seems to fit with our knowledge of that society, is an ancient account itself (as in it was written close enough to perhaps have authentic sources) and the Son of God is recorded as believing it.

All you have is a story, just like Harry Potter.

No, that is incorrect. Harry Potter was only intended as fiction. Even if the accounts of Abraham are incorrect, they were not intended as fiction. Keep up.

What else, independent of that written account, do you have to back it up? And your claim on it is just an assertion.

See above.

And how do you know that the intention of the author was for it to be nothing more than a story?

That is the genre it is. It is how it has always been accepted right back to way back when. Do you have any evidence that it should be understood as "just a story"?

I see I got no to claim that you can't prove the existence of your God.

Do you mean that I have accepted that I cannot prove the existence of God? Do you think I can prove to you that I exist?

Yes I did mean that. Anything else is based on trust and that often implies some level of loyalty and confirmation bias. This is more associated with culture and social acceptance than true facts.

Some event may be true independent of someone's personal verification but for them they can never know for sure (100%) that that event actual took place, even if it took place in their life time. Once we get into events that occurred before we were born, especially before things like film and photography, then we are dealing totally with stories and very suspect may be's.

Yes, I understand some of the problems with knowing something is true or even coming to the conclusion that something is probably true, but that is not what you claimed above (and which you confirmed you actually meant). You said that an event can only be true if it is known to be true. That would mean that our present knowledge makes something happen in the past.

Ok let me put it this way, though I did clarify this point above.

An event can only be true for a given individual 

"True for an individual" is postmodernist claptrap. Something is either true, not true or partly true. "True for me" people need their brains tested.

if it is known to be true by that individual by having first hand experience of that event i.e. an eye witness.

Complete cobblers. You are saying here that you only know stuff to be true which you yourself have witnessed. Utter tosh. You don't live your life that way so please don't come up with such rubbish.

For someone to conduct their lives by some moral rules and fundamental principles they have to know first hand that those aspects are true from personal experience. I raise this because people are basing their lives on a book written 2000 years ago, and more, and haven't a hope in hell of knowing if it is correct or not. In the end it is what we know to be true and factual personally that can only guide our lives. Taking on whole heartily some ancient system they have no way of validating is foolishness.

Largely incorrect. Firstly, Christians do use their brains and do question why the bible says stuff. It is part of ensuring we understand it correctly. Secondly, we don't just base our morality on a book, but rather on what the Son of God says. If Jesus truly is the Son of God and the NT accounts of what he said and did are correct, then that is our authority. We have not just picked up a book and thought "I'll base my life on this book even though I don't know why it says stuff". We are guided above all by a person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If he truly is that then we can trust him.

[floo]

There is no evidence Jesus was anymore than human like the rest of us. Even if he did say the things he is quoted as saying it still doesn't mean they were true, just rather arrogant!

If the guy was some sort of deity why wasn't it obvious to all, which clearly it wasn't, not even his own family?

[BashfulAnthony]

There is no evidence Jesus was anymore than human like the rest of us. Even if he did say the things he is quoted as saying it still doesn't mean they were true, just rather arrogant!

If the guy was some sort of deity why wasn't it obvious to all, which clearly it wasn't, not even his own family?

His brother, James became head of the early Church, in case you didn't
 know, and you rarely know any facts.

Why is it arrogant to ask people to love and forgive?  I know you won't answer, because you never debate, you merely assert.

[jakswan]

Why do you think Abraham was mythical

It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.

"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?

A DVD, god couldn't magic one up? Water into wine easy, modern electronics, too tricky!

[Outrider]

"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?

That's rather the point, isn't it. Yes, it does mean 'we have no evidence that it's anything more than just a story', and until and unless we do it's perfectly fair to say 'it's just a story', to take what's meaningful from it as a lesson, as we do with any literature or decent story, and move on.

O.

[Alien]

Why do you think Abraham was mythical

It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.

"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?

A DVD, god couldn't magic one up? Water into wine easy, modern electronics, too tricky!

How about creating a whole universe? Can you do that?

[Alien]

"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?

That's rather the point, isn't it. Yes, it does mean 'we have no evidence that it's anything more than just a story', and until and unless we do it's perfectly fair to say 'it's just a story', to take what's meaningful from it as a lesson, as we do with any literature or decent story, and move on.

O.

So you would not expect any direct evidence then.

What if you had something which was evidence? Would you then ask what evidence is there that that evidence is true?

Personally, I am not fussed on this. I can see no reason to bring up Abraham as evidence that God exists and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and so on. I work the other direction. If the Son of God really did believe that Abraham existed then that's good enough for me.  The crux there then is whether Jesus was and is the Son of God and whether he did believe Abraham existed.

[jakswan]

Why do you think Abraham was mythical

It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.

"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?

A DVD, god couldn't magic one up? Water into wine easy, modern electronics, too tricky!

How about creating a whole universe? Can you do that?

So your evidence for Abraham is the universe?

[jakswan]

If the Son of God really did believe that Abraham existed then that's good enough for me.  The crux there then is whether Jesus was and is the Son of God and whether he did believe Abraham existed.

If a god exists, if that is then the Christian god, if that god had a 'son' and was actually Jesus, if that god and his son could be trusted and if that son actually believed Abraham existed and could be trusted then it be good enough for me.