Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know. I don't discern Jesus as God - I just can't relate to the concept of it as you have described it or the concept of the Trinity or the concept of Jesus dying on the cross to redeem everyone's sins. As I said for me it doesn't make sense and it is not a story I can relate to but it clearly makes sense to you. I think I had a more emotional reaction to the narrative when the story was presented in Narnia with a lion etc but with a man in Nazareth - not seeing anything more than a man.

The feeling of lack of connection and not buying into that concept emotionally or intellectually - is that what you mean by "feelings and urges to bail out or draw back". Don't you feel the same way about Allah and Prophet Mohamed? Are you saying you discern Allah?
 No - it just was not a deal-breaker.

I was attracted by some of the verses in the Quran - the bluntness in the way it presented human psychology, motivations, strengths and weaknesses but also intertwined with poetic imagery and the combination of bluntness and poetry in the Quran about Allah. There was both a simplicity and complexity to it - as it seemed to be ok to just say things were a mystery and unknowable but if you wanted to think more deeply there were metaphors and analysis. Reminded me of English A'Level analysis. It also helped that its adherents that I encountered seemed to have a strong family bond, were fun and were very hospitable

The doctrine in Islam is that Prophet Mohamed is human, not divine, and he lived a human life and died a human death and he is not to be worshipped, but people can see examples from his words and actions. So his words and actions need to be relatable and human and cover many different kinds of scenarios that ordinary people might encounter - poverty, hunger, hostility, religious persecution, threats of war, having to negotiate for peace, offers of bribes, threats to life, exile, insults, compromise, religious practices, marital and family life, discord, sexual attraction, giving charity, business dealings, contracts, commerce etc.

Obviously many things might not be so relatable in 21st century Britain, but there is a lot that is, and the practices of other cultures can be fascinating and can help me to see British cultural norms in a different perspective and my British culture also influences my interpretation of Islam.

I have to compare any drawing back from God with my experience of drawing back from God in Christ. I remain rather unmoved, unchallenged and yes undisturbed by Islam spiritually and intellectually although it covers much of the same philosophical ground. The word of God incarnated as a human to me is a more comprehensive event than the manifestation as a book.

What you say about your chief prophet resembles what they call the Great man theory of History...... not big on that I'm afraid. Do you think in a sense you went looking for that kind of man? I'm not a great reverer and certainly wouldn't treat a man as a superman without experiencing the divine element.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have to compare any drawing back from God with my experience of drawing back from God in Christ. I remain rather unmoved, unchallenged and yes undisturbed by Islam spiritually and intellectually although it covers much of the same philosophical ground. The word of God incarnated as a human to me is a more comprehensive event than the manifestation as a book.

What you say about your chief prophet resembles what they call the Great man theory of History...... not big on that I'm afraid. Do you think in a sense you went looking for that kind of man? I'm not a great reverer and certainly wouldn't treat a man as a superman without experiencing the divine element.

I do not really feel any particularly deep emotional connection to Prophet Mohamed - sure some of the stories are moving - and there are some things to respect or admire. The stories and examples from his life can be thought-provoking. I find the concept of a supernatural entity much more interesting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do not really feel any particularly deep emotional connection to Prophet Mohamed - sure some of the stories are moving - and there are some things to respect or admire. The stories and examples from his life can be thought-provoking. I find the concept of a supernatural entity much more interesting.

Yes like you, I too find that rather compelling.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have to compare any drawing back from God with my experience of drawing back from God in Christ.

I was not sure what you meant by this.

I remain rather unmoved, unchallenged and yes undisturbed by Islam spiritually and intellectually although it covers much of the same philosophical ground. The word of God incarnated as a human to me is a more comprehensive event than the manifestation as a book.

Fair enough. I prefer books.

What you say about your chief prophet resembles what they call the Great man theory of History...... not big on that I'm afraid. Do you think in a sense you went looking for that kind of man? I'm not a great reverer and certainly wouldn't treat a man as a superman without experiencing the divine element.

I forgot to say (though you probably already know) that Muslims as part of their faith revere/ respect Jesus as a Prophet like Mohamed. But both are considered human and therefore fallible. I too am not into revering people either or books particularly but I can connect with the words.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have to compare any drawing back from God with my experience of drawing back from God in Christ.

Vlad fallacy of the day: reification.

People don’t “draw back from God” or from “God in Christ”. What they actually draw back from (ie, reject) is the crap arguments used to justify the claim that there’s a god at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I forgot to say (though you probably already know) that Muslims as part of their faith revere/ respect Jesus as a Prophet like Mohamed.

Just out of interest, if you reject the woo apects of your faith (and presumably of Vlad’s faith too), why do you refer to either as a prophet?     

[Stranger]

Well, a good old God dodge betrays a God detector. Being prepared to dump the principle of sufficient reason, dump cause and effect (effectively the raison d'etre of science) prepared to argue from an unobserved and therefore unevidenced part of the universe thus overturning your own evidential standards, suggesting everything is contingent and floating an infinite regress thus multiplying entities beyond necessity to the max looks like a mad scramble for the door to dodge God.

You really do live in a little fantasy world all of your own. Not only do you still not get the burden of proof, and therefore are totally misunderstanding the positions others are taking, but your god doesn't address any of the problems raised about why things exist and are as they are. It just amounts to "it's magic, innt?".

You haven't even begun to explain how your god would have "sufficient reason", you've just asserted it ("because it's magic, innit?"). Accusing others of suggesting it might not apply is pure hypocrisy. That's why I kept asking you to justify the concept of a necessary entity and, because you couldn't, why you then cut the feet off your own 'argument' by defining it in a totally different sense to that which would be required to make your excuse for an argument make even the slightest bit of sense.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Just out of interest, if you reject the woo apects of your faith (and presumably of Vlad’s faith too), why do you refer to either as a prophet?   

I'm not sure I do reject all the woo aspects of my faith. The supernatural is woo and I don't reject that. I am also happy to go along with the faith position that Mohamed was a prophet and the Qu'ran is a message - that's woo.

I just meant that compared to other Muslims I have spoken to I appear not to be filled with the kind of emotions of love, admiration etc they seem to have for Prophet Mohamed. From my perspective the man has been dead since 632 AD (https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/founder-of-islam-dies) so for me there is a limit to how much of a connection I can have from the stories. But many other Muslims seem to profess love and reverence for him.

[ekim]

(1) My interpretation is that he is challenging his listeners to think about the connections they are making without thinking. If Jesus was, to the audience, so Good they had to talk about it, might they not have made the connection between Jesus and God and not fully realised it?

(2) Also do you realise he is saying no one is good except God? How do you .....and they..... feel about that?

(3) If he is Good, then he is God......... if he isn't good, then who can be?

(1)I think Gabriella's comment answers well your opening words to that sentence "there are so many different interpretations available of Islamic or Christian doctrines depending on the individual tastes of the person holding that faith position."  The problems associated with organised religions is that there are those motivated by power politics who seek to assert that their interpretation is the only valid one and various methods of indoctrination are put in place to stamp out dissent.

(2)Firstly we don't really know whether Jesus did say that, particularly as Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic.  It may have been the author of Mark's Gospel's interpretation of his words.  My view is that as I do not possess absolute qualities I cannot judge what is absolutely good, I can only work towards detaching from those egocentric elements which may prevent me from discovering it.

(3)I suspect that he was somebody who tried to lead people away from the organised religion of the time into a more individualised path, was declared a heretic and suffered the consequences.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I'm not sure I do reject all the woo aspects of my faith. The supernatural is woo and I don't reject that. I am also happy to go along with the faith position that Mohamed was a prophet and the Qu'ran is a message - that's woo.

I just meant that compared to other Muslims I have spoken to I appear not to be filled with the kind of emotions of love, admiration etc they seem to have for Prophet Mohamed. From my perspective the man has been dead since 632 AD (https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/founder-of-islam-dies) so for me there is a limit to how much of a connection I can have from the stories. But many other Muslims seem to profess love and reverence for him.

Ah, OK thanks - so you go further than thinking Mohammed (and Jesus) was just a charismatic mortal with interesting things into the notion that he also had supernatural powers of foretelling the future. As you might expect I find that odd given that there's no way to investigate or validate that claim, but I guess that's the personal faith part right?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

NTtS,

You really do live in a little fantasy world all of your own. Not only do you still not get the burden of proof, and therefore are totally misunderstanding the positions others are taking, but your god doesn't address any of the problems raised about why things exist and are as they are. It just amounts to "it's magic, innt?".

You haven't even begun to explain how your god would have "sufficient reason", you've just asserted it ("because it's magic, innit?"). Accusing others of suggesting it might not apply is pure hypocrisy. That's why I kept asking you to justify the concept of a necessary entity and, because you couldn't, why you then cut the feet off your own 'argument' by defining it in a totally different sense to that which would be required to make your excuse for an argument make even the slightest bit of sense

Quite so. Just to add that even Vlad (and clerics generally I think) realise that "it's magic innit" is a bit too on the nose, so they prefer the euphemism "mystery" instead. It means the same thing though - the abandonment of even the attempt at argument.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Vlad fallacy of the day: reification.

People don’t “draw back from God” or from “God in Christ”. What they actually draw back from (ie, reject) is the crap arguments used to justify the claim that there’s a god at all.

Draw back from crap ideas to crap ideas contingency without necessity, using the principle of sufficient reason to try to debunk the principle of sufficient reason, infinite regress and the multiplying of entities beyond necessity to the max, appealing to the unevidenced part of the universe while waxing sanctimoniously about evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

Draw back from crap ideas to crap ideas contingency without necessity, using the principle of sufficient reason to try to debunk the principle of sufficient reason, infinite regress and the multiplying of entities beyond necessity to the max, appealing to the unevidenced part of the universe while waxing sanctimoniously about evidence.

Parklife

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was not sure what you meant by this. Fair enough. I prefer books.
I forgot to say (though you probably already know) that Muslims as part of their faith revere/ respect Jesus as a Prophet like Mohamed. But both are considered human and therefore fallible. I too am not into revering people either or books particularly but I can connect with the words.

What I mean to say is I realised I was dodging God and have consciously dodged God. So surrendering to God for me is hardly a preference but rather an admission of need.

I am well aware that Mohammed never referred to himself as God. I know that Jesus suggests that he himself is but there is biblical evidence that he is recognised as such by others.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Ah, OK thanks - so you go further than thinking Mohammed (and Jesus) was just a charismatic mortal with interesting things into the notion that he also had supernatural powers of foretelling the future.

I hadn't really thought about prophecies except in passing. I had a quick Google and it seems the Qu'ran has a couple of prophecies but nothing that sounded interesting. There is a description of what will supposedly happen after the world ends but I don't take the description literally - I assume it is trying to convey an idea and generate certain feelings through imagery.

I guess I call him Prophet Mohammed because that's what everyone else calls him so it's just a title and differentiates him from  the millions of Muslims called Mohammed/ Muhammad/ Mohamed etc who are named after him. In the Quran he is referred to as a messenger and the Qu'ran is the message so in the context he is seen as a mouthpiece and his revelations or the verses he recites are not considered to be his composition. If he made any prophecies when he wasn't being a mouthpiece i.e. if there are prophecies made by him that are not verses of the Quran I don't know much about them so either they can't have been very important or I wasn't paying attention.

Also, once you start looking at what he may or may not have said that is not in the Qu'ran there can be disputes amongst Muslims about whether he actually said it and in what context and how should it be interpreted (this is starting to sound like something out of a Discworld novel)

As you might expect I find that odd given that there's no way to investigate or validate that claim, but I guess that's the personal faith part right?

I find believing in prophecies odd too for much the same reason, which is probably why I know nothing about any prophecies as I haven't looked into it. I guess there is a limit to how much woo I am comfortable with.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What I mean to say is I realised I was dodging God and have consciously dodged God. So surrendering to God for me is hardly a preference but rather an admission of need.

What exactly did you do that you see as "dodging God"?

I remember dodging going to the temple with my parents when I was a kid because I found it boring and I wanted to watch TV so I would invent some excuse. As an adult I have dodged praying my 5 times a day prayers many times because I procrastinate or couldn't be bothered.

But I don't ever remember dodging God either as an atheist or as a Muslim. As an atheist the concept of God sounded nonsensical so I didn't believe in it. What feelings did you have that made you think you were dodging as opposed to that you didn't believe in a supernatural concept?

When I was an atheist I remember being about 16 and wandering into a pitch black cemetery in Boston, USA around midnight for a dare after a few drinks, and I wasn't worried about ghosts or dead people coming out of graves - I was worried about drugged up muggers and winos who might decide to attack me. I would have been fine back then with having a go on a Ouija board, walking under ladders etc. Now I am no longer an atheist, I am still fine to walk under ladders, go into cemeteries without worrying about ghosts etc but I believe in God. When you say "dodging" it sounds like a conscious act but for me belief does not feel like a conscious act. So am interested to know what you used to do that you describe as dodging God.

[Stranger]

Draw back from crap ideas to crap ideas contingency without necessity...

Says the guy who, when asked to justify necessity in the context of a supposed philosophical argument, immediately fell back to a justification for something that made no sense at all in that context.

...using the principle of sufficient reason to try to debunk the principle of sufficient reason...

Says the guy who can't provide sufficient reason for his god-claims.

...infinite regress and the multiplying of entities beyond necessity to the max, appealing to the unevidenced part of the universe while waxing sanctimoniously about evidence.

Says the guy can't get his head around the burden of proof and totally misunderstands the logic of what is going on.

You've gotta laugh.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Draw back from crap ideas to crap ideas contingency without necessity, using the principle of sufficient reason to try to debunk the principle of sufficient reason, infinite regress and the multiplying of entities beyond necessity to the max, appealing to the unevidenced part of the universe while waxing sanctimoniously about evidence.

So now you’ve critiqued your own straw man version of an argument that no-one has made, now’s your chance finally to address the many falsifications you’ve actually been given.   

Where would you like to start – your most recent fallacy of reification? Your abject failure to grasp even the principle of shifting the burden of proof? Your near pathological reliance on straw manning? You have plenty of screw ups to go at.

Good luck!     

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I hadn't really thought about prophecies except in passing. I had a quick Google and it seems the Qu'ran has a couple of prophecies but nothing that sounded interesting. There is a description of what will supposedly happen after the world ends but I don't take the description literally - I assume it is trying to convey an idea and generate certain feelings through imagery.

I guess I call him Prophet Mohammed because that's what everyone else calls him so it's just a title and differentiates him from  the millions of Muslims called Mohammed/ Muhammad/ Mohamed etc who are named after him. In the Quran he is referred to as a messenger and the Qu'ran is the message so in the context he is seen as a mouthpiece and his revelations or the verses he recites are not considered to be his composition. If he made any prophecies when he wasn't being a mouthpiece i.e. if there are prophecies made by him that are not verses of the Quran I don't know much about them so either they can't have been very important or I wasn't paying attention.

Also, once you start looking at what he may or may not have said that is not in the Qu'ran there can be disputes amongst Muslims about whether he actually said it and in what context and how should it be interpreted (this is starting to sound like something out of a Discworld novel)

I find believing in prophecies odd too for much the same reason, which is probably why I know nothing about any prophecies as I haven't looked into it. I guess there is a limit to how much woo I am comfortable with.

Well fine, but the title “prophet” is more than just an honorific isn’t it? Surely to be a prophet one must be in the prophecy business, no? You know, with a direct line to a deity on whose behalf the prophet passes on messages, tells you the winner of the 4.30 at Kempton Park etc? This seems a pretty fundamental difference to me from a mere mortal with some interesting things to say as it requires buying wholesale an explanatory model of the universe outwith anything we can explain with reason or evidence.

Of course folks are entirely free to believe anything they wish about this kind of thing (provided of course they don’t expect their opinions to be specially privileged, to be taught as facts to children, to be immune from criticism or ridicule etc.) but it still seems to me an odd position to adopt by people possessed of reasoning abilities. Ah well...         

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Well fine, but the title “prophet” is more than just an honorific isn’t it? Surely to be a prophet one must be in the prophecy business, no? You know, with a direct line to a deity on whose behalf the prophet passes on messages, tells you the winner of the 4.30 at Kempton Park etc?

Direct line to deity - yes - as in mouthpiece for said deity rather than a hotline to contact the deity at will; passing on messages from deity - yes; predicting future events such as the winner of a race - not really come across this about Prophet Mohamed so am assuming predicting the future is not a major requirement in the Arabic words 'nabi' or 'rasul', which have been translated into English as 'Prophet'.

This seems a pretty fundamental difference to me from a mere mortal with some interesting things to say as it requires buying wholesale an explanatory model of the universe outwith anything we can explain with reason or evidence.

The Qu'ran (the message) has some poetic stuff to say about the universe but I would not say it was contained an explanatory model of the universe. After Prophet Mohamed died there were various Muslim scientists in the 8th century onwards who investigated and developed ideas relating to astronomy and maths. I don't think they used the Quran as a reference book for any science-based investigations.

Of course folks are entirely free to believe anything they wish about this kind of thing (provided of course they don’t expect their opinions to be specially privileged, to be taught as facts to children, to be immune from criticism or ridicule etc.) but it still seems to me an odd position to adopt by people possessed of reasoning abilities. Ah well...         

No doubt it does seem odd to an atheist. That's fine - I think it would be boring if we all thought the same way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What exactly did you do that you see as "dodging God"?

Refusal to get into a serious discussion about religion, Rather being condescending and sarcastic toward to religious people I considered as automatically odd and weird, Turning tv and radio programmes about religion off although that was a trait I picked up from my parents. Patronising all bookshops apart from, yes you'ved guessed it christian bookshops was my kind of life modus. When I became aware of God's real presence and his call I tried to blot it out but couldn't eventually in all honesty.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Refusal to get into a serious discussion about religion, Rather being condescending and sarcastic toward to religious people I considered as automatically odd and weird, Turning tv and radio programmes about religion off although that was a trait I picked up from my parents. Patronising all bookshops apart from, yes you'ved guessed it christian bookshops was my kind of life modus. When I became aware of God's real presence and his call I tried to blot it out but couldn't eventually in all honesty.

What do you consider as a serious discussion?

Forums are not really the place for polite and affirming conversations but we seem to have had many impolite serious discussions on here. If you post on an online debate forum, isn't there an expectation for someone else to robustly challenge your view?

If we make a positive claim on a debate forum that God exists or God is a delusion, presumably we would expect people to ask why we believe that. And in any ensuing discussion, people who don't share a particular belief in/ agree with the positive claim made would say it sounds nonsensical and ask for evidence to support the claim. I agree that ad homs are pointless but asking for evidence is fair.

I remember in the threads about Meghan and Harry I said they were skipping town and heading to the US to not just make money but to have more control over their money and activities without being told what to do or say by palace officials. I was asked for evidence that their actions were motivated by money to further their ambitions rather than because they were craving privacy - I did not have any and I could not be bothered to justify my opinion by writing an analysis on those two. I was just giving my opinion on how I read the situation from the various media reports. I did not mind that people dismissed my opinions as I did not have any evidence for them. Now it turns out that they had been in talks with various streaming companies and were keen to sign on the dotted line sooner rather than later, which they couldn't do while being working royals in London.

I personally don't see that it's particularly out of place on a debate forum for some posters to challenge claims with ridicule or condescension, if the points made are thought-provoking and not ad homs. It's nicer if ridicule and condescension are not involved and probably more effective but everyone's different and if it's a poster's online personality to ridicule at the end of the day it's online - any time people are finding it too frustrating or have had enough they can leave for a while and come back later.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you consider as a serious discussion?

Forums are not really the place for polite and affirming conversations but we seem to have had many impolite serious discussions on here. If you post on an online debate forum, isn't there an expectation for someone else to robustly challenge your view?

If we make a positive claim on a debate forum that God exists or God is a delusion, presumably we would expect people to ask why we believe that. And in any ensuing discussion, people who don't share a particular belief in/ agree with the positive claim made would say it sounds nonsensical and ask for evidence to support the claim. I agree that ad homs are pointless but asking for evidence is fair.

I remember in the threads about Meghan and Harry I said they were skipping town and heading to the US to not just make money but to have more control over their money and activities without being told what to do or say by palace officials. I was asked for evidence that their actions were motivated by money to further their ambitions rather than because they were craving privacy - I did not have any and I could not be bothered to justify my opinion by writing an analysis on those two. I was just giving my opinion on how I read the situation from the various media reports. I did not mind that people dismissed my opinions as I did not have any evidence for them. Now it turns out that they had been in talks with various streaming companies and were keen to sign on the dotted line sooner rather than later, which they couldn't do while being working royals in London.

I personally don't see that it's particularly out of place on a debate forum for some posters to challenge claims with ridicule or condescension, if the points made are thought-provoking and not ad homs. It's nicer if ridicule and condescension are not involved and probably more effective but everyone's different and if it's a poster's online personality to ridicule at the end of the day it's online - any time people are finding it too frustrating or have had enough they can leave for a while and come back later.

I thought you wanted to know about my God dodging rather that for me to set up a piece from you about what you think about God dodging. That said, the only real beef I have is your notion that this forum is primarily for debate it isn’t I mean that might be the idea, It has become the home of the Ad hom, a hang for antitheists, propaganda, a home for the posse and the pack, people who operate on the “OI, nutter” principle.......and those are just it’s good points.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I thought you wanted to know about my God dodging rather that for me to set up a piece from you about what you think about God dodging. That said, the only real beef I have is your notion that this forum is primarily for debate it isn’t I mean that might be the idea, It has become the home of the Ad hom, a hang for antitheists, propaganda, a home for the posse and the pack, people who operate on the “OI, nutter” principle.......and those are just it’s good points.

Actually it’s more a home for people who use reason and argument to investigate your claims and assertions, and thereby find them wanting. Accusing others of not wanting a “serious” discussion is beyond ironic given your endless ducking and diving, but nonetheless it’s still within you gift finally to try at east to engage with the arguments you’re given rather than ignore or misrepresent them.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actually it’s more a home for people who use reason and argument to investigate your claims and assertions, and thereby find them wanting. Accusing others of not wanting a “serious” discussion is beyond ironic given your endless ducking and diving, but nonetheless it’s still within you gift finally to try at east to engage with the arguments you’re given rather than ignore or misrepresent them.   

See what I mean about propaganda..