Short List

lightgigantic said:
actually the point is that you don't have any problems with the variety of approaches to depicting trees (even if you have to go so far as to declare something, like a car, as a grossly inaccurate depiction of a tree) ...in fact I would even hazard to guess that you are capable of discussing which depictions of trees are more "real" than others (and I would also hazard that this discussion would revolve around your current cultural/sensory strong/weak points)

So in short, there is absolutely no substance to your argument that a variety of approaches (from a variety of peoples) to a subject (that even goes to the extent of saying which claims are more real than others .. or even which ones are grossly inaccurate and false) renders the analysis questionable
Click to expand...

In at least one sense, it does, though: when the person performing the analysis is holding a fatalist (or nihilist, relativist) stance.

It seems inherent in that stance that one cannot just shake it off, sometimes not even for the sake of argument, what to speak in any more permanent sense.

A fatalist will wonder "If God is good, as the theists say, then why am I so confused about God and about what various people say about God?" and conclude "It must be that God is not good, or doesn't even exist, and people are actually just making stuff up when they talk about God."


And I agree - If God is good, omnibenevolent, why then do some of us have so much confusion about God?
If God is omnibenevolent, why didn't He simply equip us with wisdom and truth about Himself to begin with?
If God is omnibenevolent, then why are so many people stuck in what seems like a permanent dark night of the soul?
 
Syne said:
Incredulity is nothing more than a form of argument from ignorance. So not, itself, a strong argument.
Click to expand...

When it comes to matters of some personal beliefs, incredulity might be a strong argument, though.

For example, if a man has doubts whether the woman he is in love with, truly loves him back, his incredulity will importantly affect the course of their relationship (it can even end it).


If belief in God would be a matter similar to believing whether there is a table in the room next door, then the usual argument from incredulity would indeed be fallacious.

But when it comes to things such as interpersonal relationships (and belief in God is often conceived of as a matter of a relationship between two persons), incredulity will have a different impact.
In relationships, if one party isn't willing to meet the other half way, there is a number of experiences they won't have, a number of things that won't be realized. For example, if one party witholds any expression of affection until they are sure that the other party has affection for them, the relationship between them will be stifled; if both do that, there will be none at all.


Syne said:
There is always such a thing as a best approximation. For the given time and culture, such best approximations have no higher truth. If it did, then that better approximation would be the accepted truth. This mirrors the development of science. You do not abandon one approximation until a better one if found, and it is expected that you will have a whole pantheon of such approximations over time.
Click to expand...

But to even bring in the concept of approximation, we'd need to know what it is that something is supposedly approximate to.

If we don't know that something that we are supposedly approximating, we cannot speak of approximating it at all.

So if we don't know God, how can we make any claims as to this or that religious concept being an approximation of God?
 
Saturnine Pariah said:
By that logic then there should only be monotheistic religions and NO polytheistic religions at all. Each culture has a creator god or king of the gods, now use your head for this, if a GOD is KING or SUPERIOR to ALL the other GODS,(which would be a paradox or contradiction how could an entity that is a god in the first place be considered inferior or superior to other deities) why wouldn’t that GOD simply take on with reasonability the tasks of the whole cast of secondary gods that are delegated to a particular phenomenon. The repertoire that I’d expect you to rebuttal with is the ever complicated subject of perception. Each one is single personification, for an abstract ideal; each one is implanted with human or natural traits as a means to give false meaning to randomness. The tale of Persephone, the Epics of Gilgamesh, Dreamtime by the Aborigines, need I go on? All are a means to try and understand certain phenomenon and put some illusion of control in a rather random, strange, scary world.
Click to expand...

I think you are conflating several issues here: one are the issues of the versatility of conceptions of God; another are the issues of the origin and purpose of organized religion; another one are issues of development of personal religiosity.
For the purpose of discussion and understanding, it would be fitting not to conflate them.

Also, you seem to simultaneously believe (or at least hold for the sake of argument) all the different religious notions.
So in order to discredit Christianity, you hold to Islam; to discredit Islam, you hold to Christianity; etc. etc.
That is kind of confused.



Saturnine Pariah said:
By that logic then there should only be monotheistic religions and NO polytheistic religions at all. Each culture has a creator god or king of the gods, now use your head for this, if a GOD is KING or SUPERIOR to ALL the other GODS,(which would be a paradox or contradiction how could an entity that is a god in the first place be considered inferior or superior to other deities) why wouldn’t that GOD simply take on with reasonability the tasks of the whole cast of secondary gods that are delegated to a particular phenomenon.
Click to expand...

A similar situation to polytheism is when, in worldly terms, a person answers to a committee, and not to a singular person. In a company, this can be a quality manager or a consultant who doesn't have a single boss, but answers to the board of directors, so the board of directors is his boss, even if not in the form of a singular person. This relationship simply comes from being that kind of quality manager or consultant.

Similarly, in some polytheistic conception, a person answers to a multitude of gods.


Saturnine Pariah said:
You can talk about perception all you want Wynn you can talk about it until the cows come home. But perceptions of the earth, the universe and our very origins have come and gone. Some still exist under the conveniently made and untouchable area of the "supernatural" while others were proven dead wrong.
Click to expand...

That "proven dead wrong" is still just a perception.
 
lightgigantic said:
Its the nature of existing here that we all have problems.
The only sliding scale is how one deals with it (which usually falls back to an analysis of cause and effect - IOW adhyatmic (my problems) , adhibautic (you and every other living entity giving me problems) and adhidaivic (problems of physical existence) are filtered through issues of attachment/aversion which at the end of the day make me concur "who's fault it really is"
Click to expand...

So then you concluded (or have simply believed so from the beginning?) that issues of proof of God etc. are not your problem to solve, so you don't trouble yourself with them?


When people call you names, or when you hear a loud, unpleasant noise, do you say to yourself "An unpleasant sound has made contact with the ear" -?
And when people throw stones at you, or when you stub your toe, do you say to yourself "An unpleasant touch has made contact with the skin" -?
When you have doubts about your spiritual path, do you say to yourself "Oh, I am a being living in kali yuga, experiencing the effects of kali yuga" -?

And the cumulative effect of such analyses over the years is that you are now quite sure of your spiritual path?


Succintly, in Buddhism they say that the beginning of wisdom is to know what one's duties are, and what are not one's duties.

I suppose that if a person somehow knows that figuring out matters of proof of God is not their duty, that probably frees up a lot of energy and attention that they can wisely devote to what they somehow believe are indeed their duties.


What do you believe are in fact your problems? And how have you come to discern this?
 
wynn said:
That "proven dead wrong" is still just a perception.
Click to expand...
Is the earth the center of the physical universe? Is the Earth flat? Are the other planets in our solar system made of simply "heavenly light". Are we the most important species or the only intelligent life in the galaxy? "Perception" as you constantly egg on about CHANGES in the field of science. Anyone, even you can say that the earth, Terra Firma is an oblong sphere-roid that orbits a star, not a flat planet that has the other celestial bodies orbit us. The other planets are made of solid matter or gaseous matter not “light” as it was “perceived” in ancient times by the Catholic Church. We are not the most important or supreme species on this single rock, we may think we are but we are as consequential to this biosphere’s history as the dinosaurs or the supersized anthropoids that evolved in the carboniferous era. We are but a tiny fraction of a fraction in terms of geological history in comparison to all the multitudes of far more successful species on this planet. How about the medical advances in the change of perceptions of what really causes diseases? Was it evil spirits or demons? Or better yet an imbalance in four fictitious fluids in the body? Those certainly were the “perceptions” of those times but now we KNOW that disease are caused by genetics, viruses, bacteria, neurology, or a error in our biomechanics, etc.
 
View attachment 5758
Here is an example of perception for you Wynn. I'll take the one of the women who we know for certain existed and through her work helped us to understand our world a little better. I'll take the "perceptions" that have moutains of evidence to support them, rather than "perceptions" that are based on the "supernatural"
 
Well yes, it is a mockery of the perception argument for gods. Why wouldn't I thank him? This atheist and Rav himself can identify the symbolism behind the image as one of mockery of the theist’s "perception" of their gods. I would imagine that even a non-atheist like you can see the symbolism behind it. It is a rather simple but humorous rebuttal against the classical theist argument of "well you can't prove that god Z doesn't exist" it simply makes that argument have less credibility. The same can be said for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Tea Kettle. However in the reverse the argument can work in favor against the existence or creditability of gods. If you type in "Pink Unicorn" into a search engine what are your results? Don't even add the Inivisble part to the search just put in "Pink Unicorn" and come back to me with the top three results.
 
Rav said:
Not the invisible pink unicorn in particular. Just an illustration demonstrating how the progressive addition of detail doesn't necessarily make something any more real.
Click to expand...
Guess you ignored that quote by Rav then didn't you light?:shrug:
 
Saturnine Pariah said:
Huitzilopohctl
Quetzalcoatl
Tezcamtlipoca
Camaxtli
Chalichiuhtlicue
Jade Skirt
Tlaloc
Xipe totect
Xochizuetzal
Anshar
Anu
Apsu
Damkina
Ea
Enli
Kingu
Kishar
Marduk
Mummu
Nintu
Shamash
Sin
Tiamat
Anta
Athirat
Athtart
Baal
El
Mot
Shapsu
Yam
Yarikh
Alator
Albiorix
Belenus
Borvo
Bres
Brigantia
Brigit
Ceridwen
Cernvnnos
Epona
Esus
Latobivs
Leaus
Lugh
Maponus
Meab
Morrigan
Neholonnia
Nerthus
Nvada
Saitada
Bixia yuanjin
Guanyin
Heng-o
Mu-oong
Nugua
Pangu
Shangdi
Si-wang-mu
Tianhow
Yen-lo-wong
Yu-huong
Anubis
Bastet
Bes
Keb
Hathor
Horus
Neith
Isis
Nephthys
Nut
Osiris
Ra
Set
Shu
Tefnut
Apollo
Ares
Dionysus
Hermes
Hephaestus
Poseidon
Zeus
Aphrodite
Athena
Demeter
Hera
Ascelpius
Heracles
Hestia
Persephone
Hades
Brahma
Ganasha
Gavri
Hanvman
Kortikeya
Krishna
Lakshmi
Parvat
Rama
Sarasvat
Shiva
Surya
Vishnu
Amateras
Hoderi
Hotei
Hoor
Izanami
Izanas
Kagutsuchi
Okuninushi
Suganoh
Tsukiyo mi no mikoto
Ukemochi
Uzume
Ah Puch
Chac
King Ahav
Kukulcan
Ix Chel
Ixtab
Andvari
Balder
Forest
Freya
Freyr
Frigg
Hod
Loki
Nanna
Njord
Odin
Thor
Tyr
Copia
Porus
Volumnus
Agenor
Strenia
Fessonina
Terminus
Palatva
Salus
Castar
Pollux
Partunus
Consus
Tarpeia
Lareanty
Libitina
Napnia
Genita-manu
Discordia
Verminus
Febris
Mefitis
Scabies
Janus
Pavor
Volupia
Verplaca
Pullar
Stimula
Caca
Naerio
Flora
Edesia
Pomona
Fomax
Bibesia
Ar
Ninhursas
Enlil
Enki
Nanna
Inannag
Utu
Ninlil
Bacchus
Mars
Mercury
Neptune
Jupiter
Vulcan
Venus
Minerva
Diana
Ceres
Juno
Aesculapius
Hercules
Vesta
Proserpine
Pluto
Yahweh
Allah
God Almighty
Just a short list of man-made gods
Click to expand...

I received a divine message from who we would identify as Jesus. King angel. I believe we are the gods.
 
Saturnine Pariah said:
Well yes, it is a mockery of the perception argument for gods. Why wouldn't I thank him? This atheist and Rav himself can identify the symbolism behind the image as one of mockery of the theist’s "perception" of their gods. I would imagine that even a non-atheist like you can see the symbolism behind it. It is a rather simple but humorous rebuttal against the classical theist argument of "well you can't prove that god Z doesn't exist" it simply makes that argument have less credibility. The same can be said for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Tea Kettle. However in the reverse the argument can work in favor against the existence or creditability of gods. If you type in "Pink Unicorn" into a search engine what are your results? Don't even add the Inivisble part to the search just put in "Pink Unicorn" and come back to me with the top three results.
Click to expand...

Given the God nature, you can not prove God is not there. Im interested in God nature, not invisible tea pots.
 
kx000 said:
I received a divine message from who we would identify as Jesus. King angel. I believe we are the gods.
Click to expand...
Validate that you heard a "divine" message. Also that interpretation of these strange voices in your head as the voice of an ancient cosmic, Jewish, carpenter, magician, zombie who was nailed to a piece of wood, died was put into a cave and was dead for three days then somehow rose from the dead? Seems Legitimate. If we are the gods why would there be a need for a "King" of angles? Seems like you are following more of a Buddhist mentality than that of a Christian one.
 
kx000 said:
Given the God nature, you can not prove God is not there. Im interested in God nature, not invisible tea pots.
Click to expand...
Given the Nature of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn you cannot prove them not to be there. Same...fucking... argument, Kx000, the same fucking argument.
 
Saturnine Pariah said:
Is the earth the center of the physical universe? Is the Earth flat? Are the other planets in our solar system made of simply "heavenly light". Are we the most important species or the only intelligent life in the galaxy? "Perception" as you constantly egg on about CHANGES in the field of science. Anyone, even you can say that the earth, Terra Firma is an oblong sphere-roid that orbits a star, not a flat planet that has the other celestial bodies orbit us. The other planets are made of solid matter or gaseous matter not “light” as it was “perceived” in ancient times by the Catholic Church. We are not the most important or supreme species on this single rock, we may think we are but we are as consequential to this biosphere’s history as the dinosaurs or the supersized anthropoids that evolved in the carboniferous era. We are but a tiny fraction of a fraction in terms of geological history in comparison to all the multitudes of far more successful species on this planet. How about the medical advances in the change of perceptions of what really causes diseases? Was it evil spirits or demons? Or better yet an imbalance in four fictitious fluids in the body? Those certainly were the “perceptions” of those times but now we KNOW that disease are caused by genetics, viruses, bacteria, neurology, or a error in our biomechanics, etc.
Click to expand...

And how does any of that matter to an actual person's sense that life is worth living?


Saturnine Pariah said:
View attachment 5758
Here is an example of perception for you Wynn. I'll take the one of the women who we know for certain existed and through her work helped us to understand our world a little better. I'll take the "perceptions" that have moutains of evidence to support them, rather than "perceptions" that are based on the "supernatural"
Click to expand...

So?
Does having some idea about the workings of atoms somehow help you sleep at night? Does it pay the bills? Does it make you look forward to get up in the morning?
 
Saturnine Pariah said:
Validate that you heard a "divine" message.
Click to expand...

And why would he have to validate it?

Arguably, you yourself would need to be divine to begin with, if you were to discern whether something else is divine or not.

So if you are not divine, it's silly of you to request others to validate something that you are in no position to discern.

:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top