Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

I do. That's why I actually read the scriptures, wynn, something you've never done. This is why the contradictory scriptures necessarily necessarily invalidate one or both.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because those "POVs" all belong to an alleged God, purporting itself to be unassailable truth, and many are contradictory. Objective truths cannot contradict each other.

It's pretty simple. It's the fact that these texts claim to be the word of God that raises this problem.

No idea what you're going on about, but there's nothing "magically" contradictory and irreconcilable about various faiths and scriptures. They are just contradictory and irreconcilable.

It still doesn't make any sense, or seem to fit whatsoever into the topic.

It isn't, for me. It's a problem for you, since you believe at least one of these scriptures to be true.

Not having any use for it doesn't mean I haven't read any of them. I'm familiar with the work of plenty of apologists.

However, it is ironic that you're trying to invalidate my argument through the false claim that I've never read any apologetics when you repeatedly say you don't need to read Dawkins et al to have an understanding of their arguments.

Of course it does. A bunch of people who want something to be true can doubtless find a way to make it be so. Those 9/11 Truthers have built themselves quite a little unreality, too.

Apples and oranges. Rubbing one's temples isn't contradictory to the principles of aspirin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

deleted

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're just being daft.

You're working out of an equivocation, decontextualizing.
E.g. From the Russian perspective, what a Russian spy does is a matter of homeland security, and is not considered theft. From the American perspective, what the Russian spy does is theft. If the spy works well, the Russians award him. If the Americans get him, they punish him.
From the American perspective, what an American spy does is a matter of homeland security, and is not considered theft. From the Russian perspective, what the American spy does is theft. If the spy works well, the Americans award him. If the Russians get him, they punish him.

Those who perceive something as theft, punish it or at least believe it should be punished somehow.
That is the principle.

Of course they do. They give people directions on what to eat, and whom to associate with or not.

As has been done.

Hinduism and Islam are two different cultures, even as Hindus and Muslims are living in the same neighborhood.

Actually, it seems to me that what you want is that I would be as upset, as outraged about some things as you are.

I've given you an example of a fundamentalist decontextualizing a scriptural claim.

 

So you actually believe that scriptures are the Word of God?

Only in the mind of a fundie.

 

No, you're trying to change the definition of it to suit your argument. A spy steals information. It's theft, it's just that under the circumstances the thief is sponsored by the state and actually rewarded for his efforts. That's a fact, you can't say it's something else just because it destroys your argument.

Try to be honest for once in your life. Please.

Non-sequitur much?

What practical purpose do these directions serve, wynn?

Yeah, I know. Are you really this lost?

You're still not explaining why these two cultures have contradictory claims.

No, I want you to be as versed in some things as I am. I'd like you to have read one of these texts you have endless opinions on. It would make things easier if you actually knew what you were talking about.

No you haven't. Jesus does say that he's the one and only way. He does not say he's the only way for certain Jews, and he claims that his kingdom will rule the world. Though it's a local myth at heart, it makes universal claims. Again, (sigh) this is something I wouldn't have to explain to you if you'd crack open a bible once or twice.

 

There are various philosophies, it's no surprise that yours and mine don't match very closely. If yours happens to be more popular, and that is arguable, that doesn't mean yours is better.

But don't you mean it in the derogatory way? Everyone has always died like that and do you mean that you know how not to?

A metanym is kinda like a euphemism. Neither can change the the nature of the thing being referred to.

Let's try to focus on just our discourse right now, if I may ask. I still think the metanym is not very different from a euphemism and the thing being referred doesn't get changed through the use of the figure of speech.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do things to help it.

Getting near the edge of polite discourse there, and I appreciate how you have been trying to use some care.

I recently saw that there was an article on how to rattle the other party in an argument. The very idea the article proposed is dishonest. Ideas should stand on their own without badgering.

It turns out that such a type of supernatural universe that you're supporting just happens to do what parents are classically said to do and that is to let their children go through hard times to come out better. So the concept of the parent has been applied to god anthropomorphically, though there are probably people out there who say it is the other way around.

It has commonly been proposed that there can't be pleasure with out suffering to compare it to. That view lacks vision, IMO.

We are needy people, so why not. That's better than a hurtful god. If there are beings out there with divine powers, why not keep our actions from hurting others. It's a big universe with plenty of playground room for everyone.

 

If you knew a god who would be your friend and always be kind to you, wouldn't you accept? It was a hypothetical example. I have heard of atheists saying they would.

 

If I knew a god who was an asshole and a jerk I would still have to accept. God is whatever god is... Fortunately for us, there is no evidence of a good or a bad god.

 

okay

i can go along with that.

It's okay as a venting mechanism. It's good to get mad at things instead of people.

You still haven't convinced me that God shouldn't stop suffering. That God that doesn't (stop suffering), isn't God, so our views on God stay unreconciled.

Okay, if there is a God, why let our parents brainwash us with Abrahamic theology, especially if they knew no better. They were doing the best they knew and had no one else to tell them otherwise. Why does the idea of god have to be so gimmicky?

 

You really wouldn't want a truly good god to exist, one that would stop suffering and that would always make you happy? I'm not saying that one exists, though.

 

In medicine the delivery of medicine is dedicated by the physical circumstances of the patient. Comparing this to choosing a method of prayer and particular god as circumstances warrant is ludicrous.

Abstract thinking and even moral philosophy seems to be an emergent quality in living species. It is in itself not related to the existense of a god.

IMO, the general belief that religion is a good influence on the civilization of mankind is based on a concept of an Imaginary causality named God who has some special plans for us. I find it presumptive and arrogant, and clearly results in conflict in the real world, as has been evident for the past several thousand years of religious strife and wars and terrorism in the name of a (fill in blank) god or deity.

I amnot saying that the finely honed practice of the major religions are not influential in society and civilization, I am saying that I find that dangerous.

 

much like there are a host of POV's governing the treatment of headaches ... all of which become contradictory when one is bereft of an idea of what the goal is

no more than words about the treatment of headaches is a problem ....

well it is magical since you are yet to explain how various POV suddenly render all POV incorrect in a manner that isn't absurd

why?
You don't think headaches exist as an objective truth?

Oh I see the problem now.

You think that all scriptures are untrue.

Thats kind of like thinking all explanations on the treatment are headaches are not true .... good luck with that one

but i have come within 10ft of Dawkins you see. I mean its not like I go around saying there are no arguments for reductionist views attempted to being used as a framework for a moral barometer or given the numerous POV's on the subject that (in and off itself) some how renders all such POV's incorrect. ... You on the other hand ....

the irony is that we are seeing nothing but big wads of a similar determination in your own posts

For as long as one is cognizant of how a headache exists as an objective phenomena and what the goal of treatment is, sure .

 

Its more that you are suggesting a take on reality that doesn't really address its self-imposed limitations ... much less how on how it could possibly deal with issues outside of its purview ... hence the whole suggestion of an absence of "discourse"

I am saying it is more a consequence of attitude ... and it goes back to your suggestion that you are ultimately unaffected by any issue of an omni-max god

on the contrary, at least with the case of empiricism, metonymic cognitive processes are how one refers to a thing

I just mentioned how I already discussed this JamesR and I can't really see the point in reposting it since its only a page or two down in the same thread (I even linked it in my previous reply).

From hearing you talk about euphemisms, it appears you didn't read it.

If however you have some problem with that, let me know and I will copy/paste it .

It means that you can do nothing to help

So you are trying to say that a personal omnimax god would have a more credible existence if he simply threw everyone in a universe that worked purely to chance and accident and had no mechanism to deliver consequences in accordance with an individual's actions?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

thats simply the baggage of dualistic existence (which is part of the baggage accrued from having an attitude that sees one relegated to materialistic existence in the first place)... the irony is that the pursuit of pleasure in a dualistic existence often simply orbits around the avoidance of pain - so I am happy if I am rich because it means I have escaped the suffering of being poor, etc etc

The only reason that one is justified in going through the school of hard knocks is if they weren't that wise to begin with ... and as a further detail, the more thorough one is in adhering to the curriculum of such a school, teh more it can be said that they are steadfast in their ignorance

needy or greedy?

already explained how facilitating the growth of someone without negative consequences is simply a greater hurt

or even better, why not create something like a great big virtual reality machine where individuals can adopt temporary identities to fulfill whatever desire they want, but the environment of the machine ensures suitable consequences are accrued for such acts. That way they can develop the capacity to manage their own independent free will without ever really damaging anything or getting damaged themselves. Of course it would require that the participants really think "this is me" for the system to work, so an element of illusion would have to be infused into the consciousness of such participants.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So IOW the knowledge of what the goal of knowledge is enables one to surmount the otherwise obvious discrepancies between one POV and another

Your opinions of god aside, abstract thinking is undoubtedly the most powerful and distinguishing features of humans and its unbecoming for you to play it off as something secondary or inferior

I think its particularly presumptive te al to think that the political apparatus responsible for conflict would some how magically be rendered dysfunctional in the absence of religion

Still not clear how your opinions on religion have anything to do with most of what we (atheist or theist - it doesn't matter) find important not being qualified by the field of physics.

IOW its striking me as kind of absurd for you to have suddenly said that something is inferior because its not a sub-discipline or whatever of physics

 

In this case you have substituted a diagnosis of a physical disease with a diagnosis of demonic possession. Prayer does not cure a physical disease.

Just because man has the ability for abstract thought does not prove anything but that we can "imagine" a "wholeness, for which the name god has been grandfathered in for millenia. This does not make it true!

I did not dismiss the emergence of abstract thinking as inferior. I merely said it was not an unusual or special evolutionary phenomenon in nature. Many animals exhibit the ability for abstract thought. And IMO, it is hubris to believe we are the only creatures in the universe capable of abstract thought.
The problem starts when this ability is ascribed as a peculiar human gift from god, because that statement has no scientific standing. Santa Claus does not bring presents in the middle of the night either.

Does the world change when we dismiss the FSM? I am saying that the political apparatus will become dysfunctional as an arm of Theism. The US Constitution specifically addresses this in the "establishment clause".

I would suggest you read my posts more carefully. If I suggested anything is inferior as a tool in science, it is religion. It is not founded on falsifiable premises or empirical data and in general dismisses as "unimportant" everything science has discovered where it conflicts with scripture.
You seem to forget that science is an evolving discipline. Theism is at an evolutionary dead end. It served its purpose and may now be relegated to the realm of mythology as all other gods have been relegated to mythology, one by one.

 

duplicate

 

Are the limitations self-imposed or just the way things are. if a philosophy has answers to a problem area, that's not necessarily better that one with no good answer. It depends on if no answer is better than a not-so-good one.

I mean what can I say? If there's no omnimax god in my life I'm reluctant to try to say otherwise.

The cognitive processes might vary, but the thing remains the same? I'm afraid this is going to boil down to each person saying the other sees things wrong.

Figures of speech are a language quirk. I'm still wondering how a figure of speech can have some type of supernatural aspect or what, and this is after I read your post to JamesR.

I just read it and metonymy doesn't click for me in any supernatural way.

It's cool now, i read it. Thanks for offering.

I'm not sure if that is completely true. New ways may be discoverable.

Not that but such a god would do about the opposite of that except pain and suffering wouldn't exist. There wouldn't be a need for consequences and no one would get hurt in the first place.

Our existence is what it is though. However, maybe there a triistc existence. 1 Joy-pleasure 2 sadness-pain 3 contentment. Even this triistic one doesn't require the supernatural or belief in it.

Many people live in a community where they get bussed to the school of hard knocks, though. They don't have much say in the matter.

Everyone is needy. That involves the food, clothing, shelter stuff. Some people cross the line to greedy and miss how they have crossed it, while others cross it more intentionally.

That could be explained as an anthropomorphic projection onto the idea of god, too.

I think that is one possible future to provide lives for all the people on the planet and at the same time drastically reduce their ecological impact. The participants would think it is real like the most realistic of dreams seem so real. Not the vivid type of dreams, but the ones that are totally out of the sleeper's control. The difference is the people don't wake up, so the illusion persists. Another difference is that dreams seem crazy and make little sense while the virtual reality thing seems real.

 

It sounds like you want us to act as if empiricism can evidence an explicit description, in spite of any reasonable argument for to even hope to be capable of it

actually at the moment I am simply problematizing your claims that there is no evidence for god, when what you really should be saying is that god, or indeed any explicit description, lies beyond empirical investigation