To monotheists: Put yourself in our shoes

[lightgigantic]

Kat

“
its not clear why you bring up the issue of belief
”
Your scripture quotation is a religious belief and something not verifiable through reason.

is that your belief or can you offer a reasonable argument in your favour?

“
for instance if I believe that food can satisfy my hunger, it may inspire me to eat food, but if I nonetheless don't eat, I remain hungry
”
IOW a verifiable cause and effect relationship determined by reason thinking.

yes, that's the general idea

“
It seems you are trying to assert that coming into contact with god bears no tangible result - to do that you will need to provide some sort of premise
”
Oh dear, you cannot be serious. There is no known verifiable record of anyone ever coming into contact with a god so I do not see any onus for me to reference a subsequent potential without the claimants establishing that basic preliminary stage first.

well until you offer some premise that can nullify the numerous claims/philosophical writings made in theism, you simply have an opinion.

As for the preliminary stage/s - you have never encountered a normative or prescriptive description in scripture?

“
are you trying to argue that faith (or inductive knowledge) has no part to play in the progress towards direct perception?
”
Religious faith is not logical induction. That is a serious error on your part and raises even more doubt with your arguments.

generally rules for a coherent argument is that when a person gives an opinion they also give a premise

As for direct perception: I assume you use this term to mean a way that a god can communicate with a human mind but where the normal sensory perception is bypassed.

no

I am arguing that empiricism only has authority on things we can control - for instance your belief that the president of america actually exists is technically not an empirical claim (unless you have seen him in person - which is unlikely since I doubt you could get past the first of his 1008 secretaries/body guards)
the only way you get to see the president in person is if he agrees to see you (which tends to indicate you have to cultivate some sort of friendly or subservient relationship before hand) - empiricism (in the classical sense) will not help you

This is but another unverifiable religious faith based belief. Such ideas are worthless without reasoned support and should be dismissed by everyone until the propagators conduct due diligence in showing proof.

perhaps you can indicate how one can indicate proof to persons who are unqualified

“
independently tested by persons who have or have not attained certain previously determined standards?
”
Reason doesn’t require commitment to a previous standard.

so its reasonable to expect a janitor to perform the job a forensic scientist?

This is true now as it was at the time of Aristotle and before. If facts are appropriately established and presented then reason can be used to reach an effective conclusion or in the event of inappropriate or the absence of facts the question would remain open. Even a school child who if appropriately instructed in the use of reasoned thought can reach conclusions on matters of advanced physics if the facts are appropriately presented.

I thought we were discussing testing the truth or a claim rather than discussing testing the logic of a claim?
which one are you discussing precisely?

“

yes - but given that there are prescriptive or normative descriptions available in science and that the claims of science are validated/invalidated by persons who have fulfilled such requirements, why do you assert that the prescriptive/normative descriptions of religion are not essential to validating/invalidating the claims of religion?
”
But these are not the same thing. Scientific knowledge is built upon previously established knowledge, and continues to grow, for example, the relationship of cause and effect is an essential ingredient.

the same happens with religion - the only difference is that the peer reviewing takes place over longer periods with religion

Religious claims are built on previous religious claims, none of which have ever been verified.

on what basis do you say that they have never been verified?
It seems you are simply indicating the opinions of persons who are outside of the methodology.
Kind of like saying "the claims of advanced physics have never been verified by carpenters"

The religious claims of today are as worthless as their original baseless foundation. Your insistence that both institutions use standards as a justification for truth in religion is simply illogical.

all you have done is tagged your opinion with the phrase "because it is illogical"
OK you have repeated your opinion of religion maybe two dozen times already - yes I know you think it is worthless - yes I know you think it is baseless -
now I think we are ready to hear some premises

“
“ The claims made for water can be personally and independently verified and tested, ”

once again, tested by who exactly?
persons who have or have not fulfilled the established criteria of validation/invalidation?
”
They could of course try it on a relative and if there is a positive response then they could try it for themselves.  In every case where a choice can be made reason is a determining factor for making appropriate decisions. Reason is the ultimate authority even a god would need to answer to reason. I think perhaps you are missing the distinction between methods used for the determination of knowledge and the users of knowledge. In the case of the school child earlier he/she could appreciate the detailed photographs of the lunar surface without having to understand the technology and science used to permit such knowledge to become available. The knowledge is real, and there should be no doubt.

photographs don't lie?

Contrast that with religious claims where such assertions of godhood existence have no history of knowledge establishment.

some libraries have literally miles of books to suggest otherwise

“
“ there is no such equivalent for gods. ”

generally the only people who say statements like that are persons who have never seriously studied world religions
”
It is good that we are not generalizing then. You should also realize that many people who have studied world religions do indeed reach conclusions that a truthful basis for religious is in fact entirely absent.

actually persons who (seriously) study world religion (regardless of whether they are atheistic or theistic) make it their business to draw up uniform qualities for defining the essence of god or religion - the fact that I can't think of a single one who behaves in the way that you suggest seems to indicate that you have never seriously studied world religions - still, I could be wrong, so feel free to offer an example for your opinion

“
persons educated in the field disagree
for instance "god as the most moral entity", "god as the most powerful entity" ,etc etc
”
People educated in the field of non-reasoned thinking should hardly be considered in any way credible.

maybe you should put some energy into presenting why it is that a person who studies these things is irrational - all you have given so far is something like "they are irrational because they are irrational and the evidence is that they are irrational - this is a fact"
:shrug:

And those last statements/assertion are hardly objective, are they?

its starting to get frustrating - everytime we start examining how a claim can be rational you interject "but just see it is not truthful" and when we start examining how a claim can be truthful you interject "but just see it is not rational"
we can go round and round like this for practically eternity if you want
alternatively we can discuss what it means to be truthful and what it means to be rational
what do you want to do?

“
and lo and behold, some similarities crop up, despite vast differences of time, geography, culture and language
”
Funny that isn’t it? I wonder perhaps if you have noticed that humans throughout the world tend to have similar limitations for reasoned thought. It follows then that they will all tend to make un-reasoned conjectures about explanations for things that have yet to be explained. And because they were all thinking in isolation of each other the result is the thousands of religions and superstitions we now see. If of course there was only one truth and one god who directly communicated with peoples throughout the world then we would reason that we should see a significant degree of homogeneity for religious belief. The fact that we do not lends credence to the non existence of such a deity or deities.

this is a classic example of what I mentioned in the previous paragraph

“
“ These are all very SUBJECTIVE ideas and are clearly not objective in any way. ”
the only thing that appears subjective is your distorted comprehension of religion
”
It seems a pity that you cannot see the essential difference between an objective description and a subjective description.

on the contrary, it is a pity we cannot discuss it all since all you offer is a circular argument of "That is not true because it is not rational because it is not true because it is not rational etc etc" with zero premises

“
try researching the word "godhead"
”
I think you missed the point here regarding the Abrahamic reference: It doesn’t makes sense that different religions have very different dogma and definitions for the characteristics of their deity and then for someone to claim they are really all the same. The concept is oxymoronic.

first of all I didn't claim they were the same
I claimed they were similar
for instance "Abrahamic God"
the "abrahamic" is the different thing
"God" is the same thing

secondly, einstein's physics is vastly different from Newtons, yet they are both used to calculate the same thing - (notice how I challenged the rationality of your claim by providing a premise/example)

“
for a starter the word "abrahamic god" means god as understood by Abraham
kind of like "Newtonian physics" means physics as understood by Newton (as opposed to , say, physics as understood by Einstein)
”
That doesn’t support your case. Science built on and used Newtonian physics, whereas Christianity and Islam, for example, widely diverged.

really?
most scholars would say that islam and christianity are both built on the same foundation - thats why they are both termed "abrahamic"

Either Jesus is a part of or is God or is simply a prophet as the Muslims claim. Both versions cannot be true.

you mean its kind of like the idea in physics that matter is either a wave or a particle since both versions cannot be true?

But I see you have started to become vindictive towards me so this will be my last post in this debate.

vindictive - no
but maybe a little frustrated at your lack of coherent arguments ....

 

[greenberg]

There is no logic in your statement. Even the kind of logic that commited athiests worship.

If you claim something about me, then this is true about me, right ...

 

[greenberg]

But as far as Christianity goes, my desire for true happiness doesn't matter. I might as well forget about it.

Does Jesus echo this Christian understanding?

I could not say I know Jesus. What the Bible says can be interpreted to echo almost anything, depending on who is interpreting what passage or for what purpose and in combination with what other passage.

I didn't know the book of Mormon was classed as scripture.
Did you form any understanding of it?
If you did, then use some of that understanding in the context of the bible and qu'ran.
...
Then I take it you have investigated the claims of bhagavad gita?
What are the results of your investigation?

What do you mean?

But see below -

So "believing" is not the issue here, you want to know God. Right?

I'm not sure what the difference would be, really. For as long as I can remember, I could not figure out how I could possibly recognize whether I believe in God or not, or whether I know God or not. What experience or feeling or what in me would I have to look at in order to be able to recognize whether I believe in God or not.

To other people, they said it was the simplest thing. "Just look into your heart" or "Deep down inside, you'll know" - but those phrases are completely useless to me. I don't know which part of me is my "heart" (other than my physical heart, but there doesn't seem to be anything there that I could recognize as evidence for whether I believe in God or not), or what "deep down inside" refers to.

Have you followed in the path of those souls (in scriptures) that have come to that position? Or do you just flat-out demand an audience?

I'll put it this way: No matter what I did, someone -who declared to believe in God- always said I was wrong and that my quest was not genuine.

People like Adstar, Photizo here (so you get an idea), or my relatives and "friends", or people at church. Always someone who tells me "You did it wrong, this is not the right god that you think you believe in, you're wrong".

I can't even say whether I followed anything what the people in the scriptures did, because some person is sure to have an objection against me and call me dishonest, a liar or deluded. Either way, if they are right, then I am not the one to speak of whether I followed anything what the people in the scriptures did. Because I cannot refute those people who call me dishonest, a liar or deluded, as their claims are such that anything I would say would prove them right.
And if I truly am dishonest, a liar or deluded, then there is nothing I could do about it, because everything I do would be just another act of dishonesty, lying or delusion, thus worthless.

You are the one who set the limits of competance.

?
In my experience, there is always someone who says that they have it right, and I am wrong, and that because I am wrong, I can't know I am wrong, therefore, I should listen to them.

I really don't understand your fixation on "christianity" or "other people".

Try to put yourself in my shoes.

To me, religion and believing in God has always been something that has to do with other people and what other people say and do. Something I was supposed to live up to. Something over which I have no saying, and other people are the ones to decide whether I am right or wrong, genuine or not.
Going to church or to meetings (both religious and non-) has always been like going in front of a firing squad. It is just a matter of time before a bullet hits.
And as far as any association with religion goes, there doesn't seem to be any way out of that for me.


I can't express in words how much suffering and agony the quest for God has caused me and still does. I can understand how someone who is on a quest for God can take a gun and kill themselves and others.

I wish theists would understand what it is they are asking of me, of people. Of course they blame it all on us and take our agony to mean that their statements about God and religion are true.

The idea that one scirpture is right and the others are wrong, are, IMO, atheistic (in the real sense, not designer), and owe their allegience to man (albeit in the name of God).

Tell that to Christians, for example.

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

I could not say I know Jesus. What the Bible says can be interpreted to echo almost anything, depending on who is interpreting what passage or for what purpose and in combination with what other passage.

Any peice of literature can be interpreted to mean anything.
I guess that's where you have to use your intelligence.

What do you mean?

Aren't you obliged to investigate the Bhagavad Gita, as it makes a claim?

I'm not sure what the difference would be, really.

You are not prepared to believe in God, so you must want to KNOW that God is real. Right?

For as long as I can remember, I could not figure out how I could possibly recognize whether I believe in God or not, or whether I know God or not.

What is there to figure? You've made the decision which is you cannot "bring yourself" to the position of belief.

What experience or feeling or what in me would I have to look at in order to be able to recognize whether I believe in God or not.

What makes you think there is a feeling attached to "belief" in God?
I take it you believe the sun will rise tomorrow, can you explain what feeling you have that recognises this belief?

To other people, they said it was the simplest thing. "Just look into your heart" or "Deep down inside, you'll know" - but those phrases are completely useless to me.
I don't know which part of me is my "heart" (other than my physical heart, but there doesn't seem to be anything there that I could recognize as evidence for whether I believe in God or not), or what "deep down inside" refers to.

Then that type of understanding isn't for you, at least initially, it was the same for me.

I'll put it this way: No matter what I did, someone -who declared to believe in God- always said I was wrong and that my quest was not genuine.

What did you do exactly?

People like Adstar, Photizo here (so you get an idea), or my relatives and "friends", or people at church. Always someone who tells me "You did it wrong, this is not the right god that you think you believe in, you're wrong".

Same as above.

I can't even say whether I followed anything what the people in the scriptures did, because some person is sure to have an objection against me and call me dishonest, a liar or deluded.

Suppose people started saying your present questioning and inquiry is dishonest, and you are really an atheist who enjoys playing games. Would you take that as seriously as you do their other accusations?

In my experience, there is always someone who says that they have it right, and I am wrong, and that because I am wrong, I can't know I am wrong, therefore, I should listen to them.

Would you surrender to them, and do exactly as they say in order to understand that which you seemingly yearn?

Try to put yourself in my shoes.

To me, religion and believing in God has always been something that has to do with other people and what other people say and do. Something I was supposed to live up to. Something over which I have no saying, and other people are the ones to decide whether I am right or wrong, genuine or not.
Going to church or to meetings (both religious and non-) has always been like going in front of a firing squad. It is just a matter of time before a bullet hits.
And as far as any association with religion goes, there doesn't seem to be any way out of that for me.

How old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

I can't express in words how much suffering and agony the quest for God has caused me and still does. I can understand how someone who is on a quest for God can take a gun and kill themselves and others.

Why do you believe they are on a quest for God, yet you don't even approach a scripture yet alone believe or understand who and what God is?

I wish theists would understand what it is they are asking of me, of people. Of course they blame it all on us and take our agony to mean that their statements about God and religion are true.

Can you give an example of what you mean from sciforums?

Tell that to Christians, for example.

Why?

Jan.

 

[answers]

Actually you could make it even more complicated because you got Christian: or Mormon or Jehovahs Witness etc... All these sub catagories. Its all very confusing and most people hold to one belief and deny and don't look into any others. So to be John Smith looking for the truth you pretty much got no chance in this society which has opened everyone up to so many options. The bible teaches that God chooses you to be saved. Really you got no hope of finding the truth unless God takes you out of the mess of false religions and points you in the right direction.

You could say God must be an aweful God if he only chooses some. But really why should he choose any? We aren't that special, God doesn't need us, we aren't that nice most the time, and some people are just plain evil. Look at what man kind has achieved. Two world wars, polluting the planet that he made, making nuclear bombs and blowing parts of it up. If you gave someone a new car and they treated it like we have treated the planet then you would be pissed off. You gotta give God credit for saving any of us really. I know I don't deserve it. You just gotta be thankful that he loves us that much he is willing to save some. But athiests and people in general don't like believing they are at someone elses mercy, people are proud and want to believe they are the makers of their own destiny, that they don't need anyone else. The truth is your not all that, and you need God. Until you realize that, you are blind to all truth.

 

[nova900]

Really you got no hope of finding the truth unless God takes you out of the mess of false religions and points you in the right direction.

.

It's comforting to see you know the mind of God so well

So....which is the true religion...baptist,anglican,episcopolian,lutheran,catholic,etc,etc,etc??

 

[greenberg]

Any peice of literature can be interpreted to mean anything.
I guess that's where you have to use your intelligence.

Or a huge ego.

Aren't you obliged to investigate the Bhagavad Gita, as it makes a claim?

At first, I would think yes. But seeing that numerous texts and people want me to investigate their claims, I am bewildered as to what to do. There definitely is not enough time and energy in a lifetime to do that.

You are not prepared to believe in God, so you must want to KNOW that God is real. Right?

I suppose so.

What is there to figure? You've made the decision which is you cannot "bring yourself" to the position of belief.

I have not made such a decision.
That one cannot bring oneself to the position of belief -without compromising one's integrity in the course of doing so- is a conclusion of an argument. I am prone to accept that conclusion because I don't see how it can be refuted.

What experience or feeling or what in me would I have to look at in order to be able to recognize whether I believe in God or not.

What makes you think there is a feeling attached to "belief" in God?

There has to be something in a person's psyche or body by which one can recognize whether one believes in God or not. Otherwise, "I believe in God" is an empty claim, a mere combination of words.

I take it you believe the sun will rise tomorrow, can you explain what feeling you have that recognises this belief?

This is a thought I am pretty sure of, that's how it feels. Also, there is no opposing claim present in my mind, like "The sun will not rise tomorrow".
With God, I can find both "I believe in God" as well as "I don't believe in God" - following eachother in quick succession. It is not like just one or the other would be present in my mind, such as with "The sun will rise tomorrow".

I'll put it this way: No matter what I did, someone -who declared to believe in God- always said I was wrong and that my quest was not genuine.

What did you do exactly?

Went to church, prayed regularly, studied the Bible, spoke about God when asked, made an effort to be good to people.

Suppose people started saying your present questioning and inquiry is dishonest, and you are really an atheist who enjoys playing games. Would you take that as seriously as you do their other accusations?

At first, I would surely be hurt seeing someone would think that way of me.
But after all this quest, I think this is actually what is slowly happening - I am becoming less sensitive to what other people say, don't take them so seriously anymore. Although this could be because I have simply become numb from the struggle.

In my experience, there is always someone who says that they have it right, and I am wrong, and that because I am wrong, I can't know I am wrong, therefore, I should listen to them.

Would you surrender to them, and do exactly as they say in order to understand that which you seemingly yearn?

The thing is - I am pulled in a hundred directions.
I surrender to one - another pulls. I surrender to that - some other one pulls. And so it goes. It would be comical if there weren't so much suffeirng involved.

Try to put yourself in my shoes.

If you know God and believe in God, then I cannot put myself in your shoes.
You are the one who is saved, who knows the truth, who is free from hell.
Why should you have any trouble that would request that anyone put themselves in your shoes?
You want me to have compassion for your superiority?

How old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

Mid-thirties.

Why do you believe they are on a quest for God, yet you don't even approach a scripture yet alone believe or understand who and what God is?

They say they are on a quest for God. Should I doubt them, think they lie, or hold them to my understanding of issues presumably related to God?

I wish theists would understand what it is they are asking of me, of people. Of course they blame it all on us and take our agony to mean that their statements about God and religion are true.

Can you give an example of what you mean from sciforums?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1658226&postcount=33
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1658299&postcount=37
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1614370&postcount=71
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1660657&postcount=48
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1661889&postcount=23

Tell that to Christians, for example.

Why?

So you can see for yourself that at least some of them will tell you that the BG is not the word of God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Or a huge ego.

That too, but they are easy to spot.

At first, I would think yes. But seeing that numerous texts and people want me to investigate their claims, I am bewildered as to what to do. There definitely is not enough time and energy in a lifetime to do that.

Then you are not serious.

I have not made such a decision.
That one cannot bring oneself to the position of belief -without compromising one's integrity in the course of doing so- is a conclusion of an argument. I am prone to accept that conclusion because I don't see how it can be refuted.

Then where is the structure of your argument, preferably devoid of he says she says.

There has to be something in a person's psyche or body by which one can recognize whether one believes in God or not. Otherwise, "I believe in God" is an empty claim, a mere combination of words.

If you already think you know, then why ask?

This is a thought I am pretty sure of, that's how it feels.

How does a thought feel?

Also, there is no opposing claim present in my mind, like "The sun will not rise tomorrow".

Still not letting on how you feel

With God, I can find both "I believe in God" as well as "I don't believe in God" - following eachother in quick succession. It is not like just one or the other would be present in my mind, such as with "The sun will rise tomorrow".

You've changed the subject.
How does it FEEL to believe the sun will rise tomorrow?

What did you do exactly?

Went to church, prayed regularly, studied the Bible, spoke about God when asked, made an effort to be good to people.

What did you gain from studying the bible?

At first, I would surely be hurt seeing someone would think that way of me.
But after all this quest, I think this is actually what is slowly happening - I am becoming less sensitive to what other people say, don't take them so seriously anymore. Although this could be because I have simply become numb from the struggle.

Try another path, one that suits your state of mind.

The thing is - I am pulled in a hundred directions.
I surrender to one - another pulls. I surrender to that - some other one pulls. And so it goes. It would be comical if there weren't so much suffeirng involved.

Same as above.

Try to put yourself in my shoes.

If you know God and believe in God, then I cannot put myself in your shoes.

Sorry that was a statement you made, which I didn't delete.

You are the one who is saved, who knows the truth, who is free from hell.

Says who?

Why should you have any trouble that would request that anyone put themselves in your shoes?
You want me to have compassion for your superiority?

You have me mixed up with someone else, or maybe my mistake gave you a reason to make stuff up.
If you want to know stuff about someone, ask them, don't harbour pre-concieved ideas, if an honest discussion is your intent.

Mid-thirties.

I'm surprised you still rely on hearsay to direct you in life, maybe its time to re-evaluate.

They say they are on a quest for God. Should I doubt them, think they lie, or hold them to my understanding of issues presumably related to God?

Don't say anything until you have some idea of what you're talking about. That goes for anything.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...6&postcount=33
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...9&postcount=37
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...0&postcount=71
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...7&postcount=48
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...9&postcount=23

Sounds like they're trying to help you.

So you can see for yourself that at least some of them will tell you that the BG is not the word of God.

And of what use is that information to me?

Jan.

 

[greenberg]

I have not made such a decision.
That one cannot bring oneself to the position of belief -without compromising one's integrity in the course of doing so- is a conclusion of an argument. I am prone to accept that conclusion because I don't see how it can be refuted.

Then where is the structure of your argument, preferably devoid of he says she says.

In order to believe, one needs to have some reliable evidence for that:
external (objective) evidence and internal evidence (one's own thoughts, feelings, tissues), and the two sorts of evidence need to be in accord.

The two seem to be in accord to some extent naturally, hence we can effortlessly believe things like that the sun will rise tomorrow: there is the sun and there are the claims of other people (external evidence) and there is our own memory and our own conclusions (internal evidence).

But this is not so for all things. For many things, there is only external evidence, but there is a lack of internal evidence.
In those cases, to bring oneself to the position of belief would mean to force the two kinds of evidence, to tweak them, to possibly make them up, and most of all, to be very selective in what one admits as evidence and what one doesn't - because usually, there is all sorts of evidence that can be interpreted in many ways. But doing such compromises one's integrity. The result of compromised integrity is that one does not respect the beliefs one has, so one is reluctant to act on them.

You've changed the subject.
How does it FEEL to believe the sun will rise tomorrow?

I said - There has to be something in a person's psyche or body by which one can recognize whether one believes in God or not. Otherwise, "I believe in God" is an empty claim, a mere combination of words.
It wasn't solely about feeling. It was about "something", some point of reference in oneself, be that feeling, thought, tissue, something about one's self that by examining, one could determine whether one knows or believes in God, or not.

What did you gain from studying the bible?

What I gained - positive? Nothing positive really, except for one point: Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.
Meaning, one should not answer anything with a Yes, but ... or a No, but .... Which, in my opinion, is a rather high, but good standard. One should know for sure, or say nothing. But it is also a standard according to which I cannot accept the Bible as my guide to life, as I have many yes-but's and no-but's when it comes to many of its doctrines. In a way, I suppose I'm not actually doing anything against what the Bible says, though.
Jesus should give me credit for that!

You are the one who is saved, who knows the truth, who is free from hell.

Says who?

This is what believing in God does, right? This is at least what I have come to understand under "believing in God" after readings scriptures and listening to people.
I apologize if I am wrong in this case about you.

I'm surprised you still rely on hearsay to direct you in life, maybe its time to re-evaluate.

I know it sounds childish. But years back, seeing how people were angry with me if I didn't believe them, I decided "Allright, I will believe them. No questions asked, no doubts. Believe everyone and everything. See what happens." Look where it lead to: misery and confusion.

It is my opinion now that many people simply are not ready to be believed, what they say is often not such that one could simply take seriously. Many people don't really respect what they say, don't respect themselves or me. Many don't really care about themselves, about their message, about me.

This is my preliminary conclusion of the exercize to believe everyone and everything.
Despite this rational-sounding conclusion, I am very distraught that things are this way in this world.

I know that if I had something which I knew would be precious and worthy, I would not throw around with it mindlessly and carelessly as if it were dirt.

Don't say anything until you have some idea of what you're talking about. That goes for anything.

Some people will then hate me for my silence and be angry with me, accuse me of hypocrisy, a hidden agenda and such.
It has already happened.

So you can see for yourself that at least some of them will tell you that the BG is not the word of God.

And of what use is that information to me?

It could help to put yourself in my shoes, and in the shoes of many other people. But perhaps such is not your motivation anyway.