Are we made in God's image?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Apr 23, 2020.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Agree with the above and much of what you say elsewhere.
    And yes, I have and do go out to ridicule him and as a extreme effort, also whoever he refers to as God.
    But [as I believe I said to you elsewhere] I also do not necessarilly go out of my way to ridicule religion and/or any creator in general, rather I am just inclined to ridicule those that go out of there way to ridicule science. I praised Toroko a few weeks ago for being honest and admitting that it is only faith. My respect for him is immense, not because it reflects badly on creationism and God, and not because it seemingly puts science in a victorious position, but simply because it is the truth. It can never be a victory for science, until science is able to explain reasonably the details of how and why the BB evolved, and how and why Abiogenesis took hold on at least one planet among many trillions. While that in itself does not affect the deservedly high standard of science, on forums such as this, open to all and sundry, every Tom, Dick, Harry, Jan and even the odd Tiassa and paddoboy, I believe that when he lies, and/or redefines words, he needs to be brought to account for it.
    OK, he near exclusively posts in the religious forum...good, that is a feather in his cap, still the overall constitution of the forum, is that of the scientific methodology.
    Worth noting too Tiassa, my interactions with Jan, have only been over the last few months...I pretty sure I have not crossed swords with him to any great degree before that.
    And personally due to past issues, I don't need to, appear to just stick with the forum status quo. I say what I believe and what I think...that generally aligns with mainstream scientific thinking, but certainly can depart from the forum status quo on political, social and human issues and subjects.
    We had two other mods from the past, both who I respected a lot...Kittamaru and Trippy. Do we need more mods? Perhaps. Who would I pick? Janus probably, for one...maybe wegs for another. Reasons? Both seem honest in their general approaches, and while wegs may not be that cosmologically gifted, Janus most certainly is.
    Anyway enough of my rant.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I certainly don't consider Jan dangerous.
    Sorry for the delay in completing my reply.
    If there are times if I seem agitated it really is not Jan causing me to be so but perhaps there are times where it may seem he annoys me...however I am not doubt managing other issues.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    The unfortunate thing is these folk into christianity see these old gods as you know old gods..they have no idea they're simply know no better.. just as primitive, just as silly etc... what I can not get..they can see there are thousands of gods each had a following where each follower would tell you..yes this is The one and only true you beat god...ok .. so why the f..k can't you see you are just another mug...yours ain't no differe t you ding bat...but they are so thick they just don't get your 10% to the myth ... I guess it's good to know that u see you there are millions of sheep to sheer...that's my problem as I feel pity ra5hervthan to jump in andcrob them blind.
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I was sidetracked before I could edit.
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    If we were made in gods image how come we are not invisible?
    Michael 345 likes this.
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Alex Alex Alex how many times do you require it to be explained to you


    Oh I see what you are getting at

    Let me have a cup of thinking fluid, coffee, and get back to you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Edit - Got it (amazing what coffee can do). All you need is a bit of logic soooooo
    • we are made in the image of god
    • note logic says the image is not god
    • ie are not god, just a image
    • now we take the image and
    • take away all the bits which do not look like invisible god and
    • volia you now have a better image
    • which is still not god
    • just a better depiction
    • ie invisible AND non existent

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: May 9, 2020
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    He must have been a handsome devil..oops.. er a handsome entity. Can you guess how long ago the original was taken?
    Last edited: May 9, 2020
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Seriously I agree

    I brought home a preacher man once

    He was amazed just how many photos of myself I had in my bedroom

    Asked why so many photos of myself around

    Had no answer when I replied they are all gods image

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Looks a bit like the Renaissance art era

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Brief note, and a story. The brief note is simply that it's not really that simple. As to what that means? Well ....


    Once upon a time, there was a crackpot. Big deal, it happens. In the Sciforums context, sure, sometimes these people need to be brought to account for their actions. And there is, of course, an abstract question of what that means.

    So, one day, the member is a bit out of hand. A moderator issues a thread ban. The member protests the thread ban, and after discussion with staff, it is lifted, and the member is told to not make the staff regret that move.

    But, well, you know how things go around here. It didn't take long.

    The member was issued an infraction, and okay, you've seen the notes that come with them. And the member was reminded that he was warned about the conduct, but complained, anyway, after the two-week ban ended, so James went back and fiddled with his infraction points in order to shorten the burden hanging over the crackpot's behavior. He went on to say he would be taking the matter up with the moderators concerned, but he certainly didn't inquire with his staff before undermining them. Had he asked us at the time, we would have pointed to the discussions we were having among ourselves. But he didn't; nor did he care, because that wasn't the point. And that was a while ago, so whatever, but as these things go, sure, they affect other decisions moderators make.

    And, yes, I do think about that story whenever I see you and others tromping down to the Fringe subfora to bawl about tinfoil and potsherds.

    The staff tried reeling it in; the pushback was not subtle. People cry and complain about the potsherds, but in some way, that conduct is viewed as somehow necessary to the Sciforums experience. And I get it; without that one in Fringe, or a handful in Religion, certain people would read like angry bigots bellowing in an empty room.


    Compared to fortean potsherds, or religious wingnuts, or tinfoil conspiracists grifting their way through the world of flesh and blood, our clutch of believers aren't necessarily the dangerous folk you and others rail against.

    One way to look at it is to consider our religious advocates, and wonder at who or what isn't present among "theistic" advocacy at Sciforums. And part of what we're missing is a range of religious grifters, and more often than not the atheistic response to them is to accuse misrepresentation of sources, distortion of facts, &c. And, yes, this is problematic behavior. But what, such as it is, do we do about it? There are options short of simply banning them, but those require effort and at least half a clue what one is doing. Besides, banning them was never really the problem; that sort of prospect is most often presented as a problematic potential for accidentally suppressing political views when holding people to account per rational discourse. And if you ask what political views, it's, like, five years later and I still don't know because they never have been enumerated.

    But it's not because atheists have the bases so well covered, or that we have banned all those religious evangelists, that this valence of grifter doesn't bother. Rather, atheistic representation in our community has turfed out their grift, which is in itself quite an accomplishment, though not necessarily one to be proud of. Marketplace majority described as a prevailing interest of supremacism and grift, is not an achievement to boast about. But, really, at this point, fallacious misrepresentation and supremacism are an atheistic holding in our Religion subforum. A more genuine student or scholar of religion and faith might eschew the opportunity of ministry because it is rejected by policy, or because it's clear that only some circusmtance outside that evangelist's power will alter the field to make discourse possible.

    And something goes here about this one former atheist, but never mind.

    Trying to discuss standards for dealing with misrepresentation of sources has, historically, been a problematic endeavor. When it comes to lying, redefining, and other misrepresentations and manipulations, the danger of a consistent standard by which people are brought to account is that it applies to everyone, i.e., including atheists.


    Nor is this all digresssion: The current thread, for instance, is intended to filter out responses the topic poster just doesn't seem to be up to dealing with. Comparatively, the thread seeks to impose particular boundaries to what the discourse is allowed to consider. The topic post tries to box in what the question can mean, according to a standard James R already believes is wrong. And if we follow this thread back to its own referred genesis↗, we see the problem: There is the proposition to, "discuss whether the various definitions are reasonable, and if necessary we can dig down to find out what is and is not encompassed by each definition"; comparing the current thread to the other, we find that what the topic post intends to filter out is, according to James R's disdain↗:

    ... not a very useful definition because it does not separate God from anything else. We can't meaningfully discuss what such a God would want, whether the God is conscious, what the God can do, or whatever, because the boring answers are: everything, yes and no, and whatever all things can do.

    So here we are. We need the phrase, "made in God's image", to have explicit meaning, while explicitly precluding other considerations.

    If we read the bible, say, then we are told that God created human beings in his own image. But that doesn't sound much like this abstract whatever-it-may-be that is needed to start the universe going.

    And note his own article of faith, about, "this abstract whatever-it-may-be that is needed to start the universe going". That is his own construction and insistence, that God "is needed to start the universe going". Compared to what he doesn't want to discuss, the object of his consideration—

    Do you believe that God made us in his image? If so, what does that mean? How is your God like a human being? What attributes of God are reflected in us?


    —is rather quite constricted, and if we consider the prospect of discussing what is reasonable and the judgment of very earthly and particular articles of faith, it does stand out—

    Does this God relate to the abstracted kind of God we tend to hear about from the kinds of theists who are careful to make sure that their God, as they define it, is always a God of the Gaps, used to fill in only what we don't know from science, but otherwise compatible with its findings?

    —that among the criteria is an historically fallacious application of an old theological discussion.

    What we end up with is a call for people James R already believes are wrong, that he can judge according to his own criteria, to submit themselves for his fallacious judgment. And that other part of the discussion he doesn't really know how to deal with needs to stay out.

    The contrast makes its own point: Only bring him what he thinks he already knows how to refute. He is focused on the God he needs, not what the ostensible believers will bring.

    So if "theists" aren't rushing to line up for a swig from James' poisoned well, we might pause to wonder why they would or not. Complain all you want about Jan Ardena, but whatever else, he has figured something out about the atheistic presentation at Sciforums: It is easy enough, given the casual, confident, and oft-ignorant atheistic presentation, to find within the requisite argumentative structure a station that atheistic advocates don't understand, and then just sit there, smirking. And just because this is Sciforums, there is also the question of making a point of giving him a hill to hold in order for atheists to mount a charge. And we should note, my earlier assessment↗, to wonder who gives a damn if he can hold a particular hill, overlooked the point that Jan was gfted that hill, which he can best hold by simply staying put and letting his atheistic contracult charge.

    Indeed, the wise teacher would know to let them run up the hill until they fall back down. Sometimes there is nothing else to be done.

    To the other, if you're wondering about the phrase, wise teacher, well, right.

    But this is Sciforums, and the cult of Jan is extraordinary. It's one thing to worry about grifters and would-be gurus. It's another to raise up an idol.

    Over the years, the excuses are myriad, but the result is the same: This lying and other problematic behavior that you feel must be brought to account is a requisite part of the Sciforums experience.

    There are some interesting themes about the results thereof. But the sight of atheists—or anyone else, as such, generally, but this moment of ours is somewhat particular—reacting and responding as they have been seems to be part of the point.
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'll tell you one thing Tiassa, it is 100% painfully obvious that the trolls, like the one I'm dealing with now, are adding 100 fold to the content of this forum at the expense of the quality. That obviously also applied with Jan.
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    the content word should be quantity.
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    We should note that compared to Jan's history, those infractions are what they are. The infraction for trolling, however, is dubious for being issued in clear self-interest. The infraction for lying is fuzzy inasmuch as the specific lie in that post isn't apparent compared to anything else he says. We saw a similar incident, last year, involving another member who wasn't really behaving out of type for himself, even compared to time in which his behavior was even specifically defended; the difference was that the member went and pissed on someone's pet peeve, whereas before, shared overlapping political sympathies of some sort might have motivated someone's defense of the member's conduct. Meanwhile, a prior infraction for trolling is what it is, but also subject to questions of self-interest.

    It's not that I'm going to object to dealing with any one member through policy channels, but citing those particular infractions as you have isn't really worth much.
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps however the context demanded my response...further I don't know that fuzzy is the best description of Jan's lie or lies, at least in my view..lieing is like being pregnant it is very much an "either or proposition".
    Michael 345 likes this.
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Hey, James, I thought we should probaly talk about this: Go back and look at your post. And then look at the next thing you quoted.

    Do it.

    Here, let's do it, together.

    So, as we see, you say I'm not even discussing the thread question. Then you quote me discussing the thread question.

    This kind of grotesque behavior isn't new, James. And there is a fascinating question: Why do you lie like that, James? Especially when it's so damn obvious?

    Here, go back and look at my post↑:

    Word games.

    It's your turn: Define, "transcendental". It makes a difference as to whether or not those two statements are pretty much the same.

    Another difference, James, is that the first much more apparently leads to a definition of God that you disdain for being harder to judge because it isn't as particular, or easy and condemn, as you need. There's a reason why Jan would be surprised to hear that definition comes from a theist. And the thing is, within the bounds of what passes muster for argument, as such, all he really needs to do is pay attention.

    After all, what if he's wrong? What if there's something he missed along the way? Okay, I suppose that would make your word game even more ridiculous than it already is, but that's the thing, he's gambling on what he thinks he already knows. He paid attention to something; the question about his line would seem to be if he missed anything along the way.

    But he's challenging the word game underpinning your pretense.

    Oh, and, by the way, "tinkering alien computer programmer creating a virtual world on a whim", would not, as such, qualify as God. So we come back to the question of what you think you know, to the one, and word games, to the other.

    Think of it this way, James: What you don't want to discuss is the point you raise in general. What you do want to discuss is your religious—e.g. biblical—demands. When challenged, you play a word game that points right back to what you don't want to discuss.

    Now, complain all you want about theists, or even Jan, Jan, Jan. Been there, heard that, even done some of it. After this long, I would have otherwise expected people capable of coping with the fact of evangelists like Jan Ardena, and maybe even to have learned a thing or three about how to deal with him.

    (Boldface accent added)

    So, the boldface sections in the excerpt above all pertain to your topic post.

    And how do you respond?

    You've been at this routine for years, James. What, do you want to pretend it's not a cheap act, that all this time you just haven't been able to figure it out? Bullshit, we get it: It's not what you want to hear, so it doesn't make sense to you, so you just complain I'm not even discussing the thread question.

    It's not that I'm not discussing it. It's just that I'm not saying whatever it is you want to hear.

    Seriously, it's not even funny. Lay off the grotesquerie. To the one, it's sick. To the other, it's wasteful. To the beeblebrox, after all this time, you're still pretty bad at it.

    To reiterate what I told you a couple months ago↗:

    • It's never been clear why you behave this way, but it is, I assure you, disruptive. It wasn't just a potshot, last year↗, when I said that an interesting thing about knowing you better is that it's actually hard to do. I didn't call you duplicitous and manipulative and petty, to the point clownish self-defeat, just to zing you or hurt your feelings, or even to feel better about myself. It's really hard to talk to you about anything, James. And, sure, part of it is that you always seem to be playing to the audience instead of dealing with the discussion before you, but what you don't remember, and don't seem to know, really are disruptive.​

    And think about the fact that this is pretty much just one part of your gaslit evasion. At least the rest won't need six posts to clean up.


    No, your word games. They're your comparative phrases↑, subject to your own definition. Moreover, "Those look pretty much the same to me," you assert, "only the second one makes an additional assumption about the nature of the cause." Those are your terms. You claim one of the definitions comes from a self-declared theist, but we cannot know what that person meant by "transcendental", because the source is apparently unavailable. As the comparison is, by your own words—("look pretty much the same")—your own, how you define, "transcendental", becomes important.

    Which part?

    Ah. That makes perfect sense.

    Your go-fish attitude isn't surprising, especially since you're wrong↗.

    James, you've described yourself as an educator, before. I am very well aware that you do, in fact, know how to read. So, y'know, no. As you skipped over, he's gambling on something he thinks he knows. All he needed to do was pay attention to what you posted and parse the difference. The big risk would be overlooking something else, presuming it existed. He's not gambling on the definition; he's gambling on you—he thinks he knows what you're doing.

    You still don't get it.

    More to our immediate purpose, no, you're complaining about a particular definition of God, and no, within that definition, the example—"tinkering alien computer programmer creating a virtual world on a whim"—does not fit.

    Actually, the topic post is much more specific, and more exclusionary than that.

    Well, the effort you went to in order to constrain the discussion to general dysfunction does stand out.

    The constraint to your idea of what the Bible says is your own demand.


    I mean, come on, James, really.

    Of course it's over your head. Fine, I believe you. The performance is just that convincing.

    Still, that's how you deal with Jan Ardena. Learn.

    Oh, right.

    Maybe you should read through the thread about what people know about what they pretend to discuss. Here, try #201↑. You'll find your answer there, in an example of how to deal with Jan Ardena.

    So, yeah, like I said, I believe you; the performance is just that convincing.

    Many atheists, including some of ours, here, pretend themselves smarter than religious people. Many religious people, as we have seen even here, over the years, presume themselves more virtuous than atheists. For the evangelical, a pretense of virtue is inherent, even prerequisite, to witness and ministry. And if I don't bother chasing after whatever Jan's definition↗ of evangelization actually is, well, that, too, is woven into the point. Very few of his rabbit holes are worth the kaleidoscope tumble.
  20. pluto2 Banned Valued Senior Member

    God very very probably does not exist and is a made-up concept.

    The fact is that this world is way too brutal, unforgiving and scary for there to be anything even remotely resembling a God.

    People probably invented religion because some people just can't deal with the finality of death and that they won't be able to see their family and loved ones anymore after they die.

    The fact is that after death nothing happens to us and we all return to a state like that before we were born and our consciousness will be gone forever.
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Yes. It isn't just the theists, that's one of the ways I might define it as well.

    It isn't necessary to conceive of God in an 'Abrahamic' manner, derived from ancient Hebrew mythology. It isn't necessary to base everything on the Bible. Atheists needn't always be crypto-Christians (Muslims or Jews), and agnostics even less so.

    Yes, very true. The God of natural theology is basically whatever it is that performs certain metaphysical functions. Many people probably find that kind of God difficult to relate to emotionally. It isn't clear why one would worship it, for example.

    So there's part of the answer to your question right there. People will tend to bestow their concept of the divine with qualities that they find emotionally resonant. And that might be a big part of the motivation for imagining God as a person. People are instinctively primed by their evolutionary history to be able to relate emotionally to people. We are, by our nature, social animals.

    Maybe. The philosophical theologians would probably point to the fact that whatever the reason is for the universe being orderly and rational (something that physics just assumes as a-priori) must itself be at least equally rational.

    Human beings are able to use language, able to reason in abstractions, able to comprehend mathematics. So in that sense we seem to have something in common not only with the universe, but (arguably) with whatever the universe's Source is. (Yes, I know that you want to argue with that, and you might actually be right. I'm just trying to explain how philosophical theology conceives of it.) Maimonides emphasized this one and I think that Aquinas did as well. It was very big in Christian and Islamic Neoplatonism and in medieval philosophy.

    Another big part of it is the idea that human beings have some sense of right and wrong. Our sense of right and wrong is imperfect certainly, and easily defeated. That defective sense of right and wrong many Christians would attribute to the mythical Fall. But if we really want to think of God as Good, and if humans really do have some intuitive appreciation for good, then there's arguably another image.
    Last edited: May 15, 2020
  22. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Looks like Yahweh.

  23. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    At a minimum, a creator is defined as agency. Agency, or free will, is very much involved in human concerns. I guess if you don't believe that humans have agency, you might not see that human-like attribute in a creator, even in a deistic demiurge. Even your use of the word "whim" is descriptive of free will.

    Most Christians that I'm aware of understand that God has no human body and thus its image is its perception of its own mind. Knowledge of good and evil was a necessary step that brought man closer to God and out of oblivious "harmony" with nature. And just because science is a methodology that can only tackle certain types of questions doesn't mean its gaps are, what, exploited by believers? God of the gaps is a rather nonsense ad hominem when many of the earliest scientific discoveries came from priests and the devout, directly because they believed God created an orderly and comprehensible world. If God exists, it created the laws of physics. That would make any so called "gaps" intentional. Again, illustrating free will.

Share This Page