Rather, it seems you had some symptoms of scrupulosity - a problem that Catholicism has addressed early on, but which, even among Catholics, isn't always adequately dealt with.
Who come first the theist or the atheist
- Thread starter arauca
- Start date
Rather, it seems you had some symptoms of scrupulosity - a problem that Catholicism has addressed early on, but which, even among Catholics, isn't always adequately dealt with.
You mean religion has induced psychological problems?
Oh, so you agree with me now.
Excuse me, I need to go randomize the pantry.
I feel a pang of guilt for believing you were in complete denial.
Quality; I laughed (west country accent) . . .
'even Catholics' has a bite to it...
wynn is too scrupulous to debate me...
How is religious trauma 'adequately dealt with'...?
elte
Valued Senior Member
It doesn't matter anyway because there is no evidence of divine power behind any religion I have ever seen practiced. I can't blame people for wishing there was, and I can relate to the desire, but it is one of those wishes never seen to actually get fulfilled.
Interesting, the clarity in this. "Desire" and "wishing" bring to mind the "faith" and "hope" that religion advocates. No one would dispute the genuineness of these modes of being, whether in the mind of a theist or an atheist.
elte
Valued Senior Member
I really appreciate that. That is well said about hope because we all need hope in order to carry on in life. Sadly, I see people motivated by a hope of future reward that so apparently has no way of being fulfilled. But like my friend who took his life, realizing it might be too much to bear.
The waste of potential by so many people spending so much effort to believe religion adds to the sad situation. We have unusual mental ability with respect to other animals, yet so many people are afraid to think freely. Overall it results in a massive human setback.
Maybe humanity could strive for a new type of honesty and instead of worrying about theism and atheism, just acknowledge the universal human need for hope. That could be simple and nondogmatic enough to enhance mental freedom and free up large scale human potential.
On the contrary its a convenient double bind while making the pretense of being reasonable
The only way god can be evidenced is personal revelation <-> anyone who talks of personal revelation of god is imagining it
how would everyday interaction confirm that she is in fact your biological mother?
What precisely are the consequences of acknowledging god that are so great that require you to relegate all claims to imagination then?
how do physical things get shown to you precisely?
elte
Valued Senior Member
So everyone keep it to themselves.
The effect of her acting like my mother is what matters most.
Conflict between religions, including warfare.
the five senses
I think its becoming increasingly clear you are talking less and less about issues ofg knowledge surrounding god and talking more a and more simply about you straight forward disbelief of the subject
which says absolutely nothing about her biological status
My point is simply that direct perception as the sole means for evidencing claims is not only false but renders practical existence absurd
I think you have to explain why belief in god necessarily translates into conflict and violence ...especially when over 99.999% of the world's religious communities are not engaged as such ...
already shown how that doesn't happen - like your biological mother or the age of the moon (or even the moon for that matter) ... and in fact i bet you can't even explain how you called upon the authority of the five senses to conclude that religious belief translates as warfare
:shrug:
elte
Valued Senior Member
Lightgigantic, the point is
knowledge should be tested. Otherwise it's value remains unknown. Given a choice between knowledge with known value and unknown value, people logically choose that which has known value. If I know someone else has tested it by using their 5 senses, which they must essentially do, then that is good enough. But it has been tested or I don't call it truth.
Talking about absurdity, I can do the same to your stand. I bet you won't jump from a ten story building if I tell you that you can flap your arms and fly.
knowledge should be tested. Otherwise it's value remains unknown. Given a choice between knowledge with known value and unknown value, people logically choose that which has known value. If I know someone else has tested it by using their 5 senses, which they must essentially do, then that is good enough. But it has been tested or I don't call it truth.
Talking about absurdity, I can do the same to your stand. I bet you won't jump from a ten story building if I tell you that you can flap your arms and fly.
tested by who or what becomes the important detail - for instance discrediting temperature because it fails the test with a tape measure isn't the smart move
I can guarantee that whatever known value you are utilizing to discredit the question of god is on par with your inability to validate god
But you have quite specifically disregarded that when the mention of revelation of god comes up - this a moot point
what to speak of testing, if you are prepared to discredit it at the mere beginning of communication, all you are simply talking about is your ideological biasBut it has been tested or I don't call it truth.
:shrug:
Probably because I can cite better authorities on the subject ... and I can do this without the requirement that all you speak on the subject is imagination too
Last edited:
@AID-
The definition of a Dead Language is one tat is static and does not change, not one that is no longer in common use.
Hebrew exists today, and wile it was static, or dead, for a while it is now a developing language. It is also the Language of te Nation State of Israel today.
Your argument against my knowledge by the way is self defeating. If “Dead Language” meant that it was longer the dominant language in a region, then there would be no confusion over the meaning of words. The same is True of actual dead Languages.
Also, Alexander the Great did not actually drive out the Hebrew speakers not did his successors, and those who spoke it and its derivative Aramaic continued to live in Palestine well into the Roman Empire. Further, not all Apocryphal books were written in Greek, and some Scholars say none of them were. We know, for instance, that Sirach was originally in Hebrew and now possess extant Hebrew manuscripts of it. The same is True of Tobit or Judith. Even the Maccabees were Likely Hebrew originally.
Actually it does, because unlike in English the verb tense determines the actual way we see the object being referred to. Hebrew Grammar is not the same vas English Grammar. Like Russian or Arabic, the Verb determines the parameters of the subject.
Er, if it was a Dead Language this would mean it was Static and the rules of Grammar would not actually Change. This means we would have pre-existing Grammar Rules that simply never change.
Besides, we have the word Elohim used to refer to specific individuals when it can’ possibly be referring to a plural, like Ba’al or Ashterah. The trouble with your argument is that you want it to be True and the Early Elohimist Camp to have been Polytheists and won’t critically examine this argument. You need it to much. However, the facts do not really support your claim. Elohim is not a universal Plural, and as with all Hebrew words the Verb determines how it is to be Read.
But you didn’t render it moot, you just declared it moot based on shotty reasoning and unsubstantiated nonsense.
Again, in the Hebrew Language, the Verb always determines if the object is singular or plural. This is True of all words in Hebrew.
Its like in English when we have words like Sheep. We know its one sheep if the sentence goes “ The sheep was on the hill”.\, and we know its two or more sheep if its “The sheep were n the hill”.
Its really the same basic idea except in Hebrew this happens with all Nouns. Al of them are dependant upon the Verb to determine how they were meant to be read. Saying the Singular Noun is a problem for me is therefre insane. Its not a problem for me, it’s a problem for you since you are still ignoring the actual fact that in Hebrew the Verb determines the plurality or singularity of the object. You can’t honestly say the readers of the text were polytheists when you ignore this fact.
Then again, ou also claim I can’t know fr sre what the text means as it’s a Dead Language. If that is True, then neither can you. How do you know the original Authors were Polytheists f you can’t be sure Elohim was meant to be read as a plural as it’s a Dead Language?
Unless you admit that we can read and understand it, your whole argument becomes a joke.
Again, you are saying something is absolutely True, but offer no evidence. Why should I accept this assertion presented with no Evidence? Especially in light of the fact that you are ignoring the very real evidence that disproves the textual claim you made?
You’ve just proven my point about you. This is not about reality and examining evidence, its about slamming Christianity. I mean, come on, “Christian Mythology”? Or worse, “three headed god”? You are ust trying to insult the object you wish to castigate.
By he way, the Trinity was developed out of a need to reconcile the Doctrine that Jesus is God yet also spoke to God. It doesn’t the into Canaanite Polytheism at al. Its not a vestige of anything.
Except that al your doing here is saying “No, I am right and this happened” and acting like that proves me wrong.
However, I’ve really managed to remain focused only on the Elohim text itself. Its still a singular and can’t be rendered plural, because of the verb. You can’t say “Elohim is plural so it’s the gods” because that’s just stupidity. If you are getting that basic fact wrong, and yet refuse to even consider that its wrong and demand we al accept its right, how s it that we should accept anything else you say about the origins of Religion? Its not like you care about the facts.
No, I am disproving our claims. Your whole claim rests on Elohim being plural, but I‘ve shown that its not always Plural. That means your specific claim that Elohim means the gods and the “First creation account” is polytheistic is also wrong. Elohim in Genesis 1 is Singular, not plural. It can’t be Plural due to the verb tense.
If you are wrong about this, what else are you wrong about? If You won’t admit you are wring and demand we accept our Argument, then you aren’t being Rational or Scientific but rather Dogmatic.
No, we are hearing you proclaim your personal opinion on how Religions emerged that rest on either faulty assessment of Linguistics or sheer bald faced assertions backed by no evidence at all.
If we were examining evidence you’d have already apologised and dripped the Elohim means the gods rubbish long ago. All Evidence supports it as a singular in the Creation Account.
Just saying tour claims are Truth and evidence doesn’t make them so, and you shouldn’t try to dismiss evidence hat disproves your claims simply because you prefer your argument.
The Bible itself affirms Polytheism in Caanan. What we are discussing is if the First Chapter of Genesis was meant to be read as Polytheistic. Its clearly not, as the verb tense makes plain. I don’t really think you understand that point. It doesn’t matter that Polytheism existed n Caanan, it doesn’t prove the Biblical Texts have Polyteistic rots or that the Genesis Creation Account is Polytheistic.
I never claimed Polytheism never existed n Canaan, I claimed that Elohim is not Universally Plural. Its not. The verb tense makes it singular. Its really not related to Gilgamesh or any other text in the general region. You can’t prove that Genesis 1 was meant ot be read “the gods” because of some other tablet written hundreds of miles away in a different Time was Polytheistic.
Er, the Serpent in Eden did not represent Chaos…
And, its still irrelevant. Linguistically the Creation Narrative is still referign to Elohim singularly, not as a Plurality.
Did Frank Boas claim to know Hebrew and also claim that Elohim is not always meant tobe Plural? Because if he didn’;t this is still meaningless t my point.
So, FrNK Boas said it, I believe it, that settles it.
We should ignore any other Anthropologist who cokes along, because Frank Boas was 100% Right and can’t be wrong.
Of course we also have to accept all cultures were identical and no deviated from the curse, that its predetermined. We have no real evidence of that. Frank Boas did not live amongst every “Primitive people” to ever exist.
This is a false equivocation.
By the way, Frank Boas died in 1942, don‘t you think tat you should read a Modern Anthropology book?
This is one f the biggest problems with the Internet Atheist community, oftentimes we see outdated scholarship presented as if its current. Who next? Maybe we should discuss H.G. Wells idea that Negroes and other lesser races should be eventually replaced by the superior whites? Or lets discuss how Nature needs to be dominated by man and cultivated for his use and how Wildlands need to be tamed? Both of those were contemporary ideas still current when Boas lived.
The conclusion is not valid. You use outdated scholarship and jump to a lot of conclusions. How does the Assyrian or Babylonian Polytheism prove tat the specific Hebrews that wrote Genesis Chapter 1 were polytheistic? Why do we assume that because the surrounding Cultures were that Israel had to be?
This is like assuming that a Nation, surrounded by Communist Nations, must itself be Communist. We know this was not True in the Clad War though. In fact, I can prove by this same Logic that America’s Founding Fathers were al Monarchists, because al Political Thinkers except a handful by the Time of the American Revolution were and most Nations on Earth were Monarchies.
The only real evidence you presented was the use of the plural word Elohim, which according to you should be Translated “the gods”, but its is Grammatically incorrect since the Verb is Singular. Please don’t say this is my problem, its your problem. You have to explain away the Singular Verb, I don’t. I accept that Elohim was Singular n the passage. You are te one making the assertion that its plural and that Biblical Translators deliberately hide the Truth. What evidence do you have to back this up?
But that doesn’t prove that your claims are wrong. Also, the idea that Science and Religion are opposites is false too.
Here is the problem, Your claim is demonstrate false. Elohim is not always meant to be a Plural. You can’t prove it was meant to be a Plural by looking at some other Cultures texts. That I not Science.
I spent three years actually learning Hebrew and then proceeded to gain a Masters degree n Theological Studies and have extensively studied the beliefs of several Faiths, even Historical ones.
I also just got here.
You still haven’t proven that Elohim was meant to bhe plural, “the gds”, in Genesis 1.
I only really discussed one point. Elohim is not always meant to be plural. I provided evidence by citing times when known individuals are referred to as Elohim and it cant mean “the gods”. I noted that in Hebrew the Verb determines if a word is Plural or Singular, and Grammatical Plurals aren’t always plural n meaning and that context is important in understanding the Text. That I hard evidence that our specific claim about the word Elohim and the text of Genesis is wrong.
The definition of a Dead Language is one tat is static and does not change, not one that is no longer in common use.
Hebrew exists today, and wile it was static, or dead, for a while it is now a developing language. It is also the Language of te Nation State of Israel today.
Your argument against my knowledge by the way is self defeating. If “Dead Language” meant that it was longer the dominant language in a region, then there would be no confusion over the meaning of words. The same is True of actual dead Languages.
Also, Alexander the Great did not actually drive out the Hebrew speakers not did his successors, and those who spoke it and its derivative Aramaic continued to live in Palestine well into the Roman Empire. Further, not all Apocryphal books were written in Greek, and some Scholars say none of them were. We know, for instance, that Sirach was originally in Hebrew and now possess extant Hebrew manuscripts of it. The same is True of Tobit or Judith. Even the Maccabees were Likely Hebrew originally.
Actually it does, because unlike in English the verb tense determines the actual way we see the object being referred to. Hebrew Grammar is not the same vas English Grammar. Like Russian or Arabic, the Verb determines the parameters of the subject.
Er, if it was a Dead Language this would mean it was Static and the rules of Grammar would not actually Change. This means we would have pre-existing Grammar Rules that simply never change.
Besides, we have the word Elohim used to refer to specific individuals when it can’ possibly be referring to a plural, like Ba’al or Ashterah. The trouble with your argument is that you want it to be True and the Early Elohimist Camp to have been Polytheists and won’t critically examine this argument. You need it to much. However, the facts do not really support your claim. Elohim is not a universal Plural, and as with all Hebrew words the Verb determines how it is to be Read.
But you didn’t render it moot, you just declared it moot based on shotty reasoning and unsubstantiated nonsense.
Again, in the Hebrew Language, the Verb always determines if the object is singular or plural. This is True of all words in Hebrew.
Its like in English when we have words like Sheep. We know its one sheep if the sentence goes “ The sheep was on the hill”.\, and we know its two or more sheep if its “The sheep were n the hill”.
Its really the same basic idea except in Hebrew this happens with all Nouns. Al of them are dependant upon the Verb to determine how they were meant to be read. Saying the Singular Noun is a problem for me is therefre insane. Its not a problem for me, it’s a problem for you since you are still ignoring the actual fact that in Hebrew the Verb determines the plurality or singularity of the object. You can’t honestly say the readers of the text were polytheists when you ignore this fact.
Then again, ou also claim I can’t know fr sre what the text means as it’s a Dead Language. If that is True, then neither can you. How do you know the original Authors were Polytheists f you can’t be sure Elohim was meant to be read as a plural as it’s a Dead Language?
Unless you admit that we can read and understand it, your whole argument becomes a joke.
Again, you are saying something is absolutely True, but offer no evidence. Why should I accept this assertion presented with no Evidence? Especially in light of the fact that you are ignoring the very real evidence that disproves the textual claim you made?
You’ve just proven my point about you. This is not about reality and examining evidence, its about slamming Christianity. I mean, come on, “Christian Mythology”? Or worse, “three headed god”? You are ust trying to insult the object you wish to castigate.
By he way, the Trinity was developed out of a need to reconcile the Doctrine that Jesus is God yet also spoke to God. It doesn’t the into Canaanite Polytheism at al. Its not a vestige of anything.
Except that al your doing here is saying “No, I am right and this happened” and acting like that proves me wrong.
However, I’ve really managed to remain focused only on the Elohim text itself. Its still a singular and can’t be rendered plural, because of the verb. You can’t say “Elohim is plural so it’s the gods” because that’s just stupidity. If you are getting that basic fact wrong, and yet refuse to even consider that its wrong and demand we al accept its right, how s it that we should accept anything else you say about the origins of Religion? Its not like you care about the facts.
No, I am disproving our claims. Your whole claim rests on Elohim being plural, but I‘ve shown that its not always Plural. That means your specific claim that Elohim means the gods and the “First creation account” is polytheistic is also wrong. Elohim in Genesis 1 is Singular, not plural. It can’t be Plural due to the verb tense.
If you are wrong about this, what else are you wrong about? If You won’t admit you are wring and demand we accept our Argument, then you aren’t being Rational or Scientific but rather Dogmatic.
No, we are hearing you proclaim your personal opinion on how Religions emerged that rest on either faulty assessment of Linguistics or sheer bald faced assertions backed by no evidence at all.
If we were examining evidence you’d have already apologised and dripped the Elohim means the gods rubbish long ago. All Evidence supports it as a singular in the Creation Account.
Just saying tour claims are Truth and evidence doesn’t make them so, and you shouldn’t try to dismiss evidence hat disproves your claims simply because you prefer your argument.
No, they aren’t. I haven’t gone into dental as I really want this addressed properly but, what you do with them is say, “See, these guys who lived n the same general region were polytheistic so the other guys must have been to”. That is frankly idiocy.
The Bible itself affirms Polytheism in Caanan. What we are discussing is if the First Chapter of Genesis was meant to be read as Polytheistic. Its clearly not, as the verb tense makes plain. I don’t really think you understand that point. It doesn’t matter that Polytheism existed n Caanan, it doesn’t prove the Biblical Texts have Polyteistic rots or that the Genesis Creation Account is Polytheistic.
I never claimed Polytheism never existed n Canaan, I claimed that Elohim is not Universally Plural. Its not. The verb tense makes it singular. Its really not related to Gilgamesh or any other text in the general region. You can’t prove that Genesis 1 was meant ot be read “the gods” because of some other tablet written hundreds of miles away in a different Time was Polytheistic.
Er, the Serpent in Eden did not represent Chaos…
And, its still irrelevant. Linguistically the Creation Narrative is still referign to Elohim singularly, not as a Plurality.
Did Frank Boas claim to know Hebrew and also claim that Elohim is not always meant tobe Plural? Because if he didn’;t this is still meaningless t my point.
So, FrNK Boas said it, I believe it, that settles it.
We should ignore any other Anthropologist who cokes along, because Frank Boas was 100% Right and can’t be wrong.
Of course we also have to accept all cultures were identical and no deviated from the curse, that its predetermined. We have no real evidence of that. Frank Boas did not live amongst every “Primitive people” to ever exist.
This is a false equivocation.
By the way, Frank Boas died in 1942, don‘t you think tat you should read a Modern Anthropology book?
This is one f the biggest problems with the Internet Atheist community, oftentimes we see outdated scholarship presented as if its current. Who next? Maybe we should discuss H.G. Wells idea that Negroes and other lesser races should be eventually replaced by the superior whites? Or lets discuss how Nature needs to be dominated by man and cultivated for his use and how Wildlands need to be tamed? Both of those were contemporary ideas still current when Boas lived.
The conclusion is not valid. You use outdated scholarship and jump to a lot of conclusions. How does the Assyrian or Babylonian Polytheism prove tat the specific Hebrews that wrote Genesis Chapter 1 were polytheistic? Why do we assume that because the surrounding Cultures were that Israel had to be?
This is like assuming that a Nation, surrounded by Communist Nations, must itself be Communist. We know this was not True in the Clad War though. In fact, I can prove by this same Logic that America’s Founding Fathers were al Monarchists, because al Political Thinkers except a handful by the Time of the American Revolution were and most Nations on Earth were Monarchies.
The only real evidence you presented was the use of the plural word Elohim, which according to you should be Translated “the gods”, but its is Grammatically incorrect since the Verb is Singular. Please don’t say this is my problem, its your problem. You have to explain away the Singular Verb, I don’t. I accept that Elohim was Singular n the passage. You are te one making the assertion that its plural and that Biblical Translators deliberately hide the Truth. What evidence do you have to back this up?
But that doesn’t prove that your claims are wrong. Also, the idea that Science and Religion are opposites is false too.
Here is the problem, Your claim is demonstrate false. Elohim is not always meant to be a Plural. You can’t prove it was meant to be a Plural by looking at some other Cultures texts. That I not Science.
I spent three years actually learning Hebrew and then proceeded to gain a Masters degree n Theological Studies and have extensively studied the beliefs of several Faiths, even Historical ones.
I also just got here.
You still haven’t proven that Elohim was meant to bhe plural, “the gds”, in Genesis 1.
I only really discussed one point. Elohim is not always meant to be plural. I provided evidence by citing times when known individuals are referred to as Elohim and it cant mean “the gods”. I noted that in Hebrew the Verb determines if a word is Plural or Singular, and Grammatical Plurals aren’t always plural n meaning and that context is important in understanding the Text. That I hard evidence that our specific claim about the word Elohim and the text of Genesis is wrong.
Last edited:
elte
Valued Senior Member
OK, so what tool are you going to test for god? It can't be with regard to the brain because then you have to show what is happening. For example, ESP can't be legitimized. MRI scans looking for a god-center in the brain don't help either. Those more likely have evolved to do imagining of things like god.
Well if something can't be validated, it's not worth as much as things known more certain to be true.
It's not moot. Revelation as you think of it, and as a researcher disclosing results of testing aren't the same. Yeah, both are, technically speaking, revelation, but they don't really mean the same thing.
No, there are tools that are accepted as legitimate for testing purposes. I don't have to do the tests myself so long as I am familiar with how cause and effect are determined.
How much experience in the scientific method do they have?
Last edited:
I'm a little more optimistic that there are many theists who share many of the ideals you ascribe to yourself, who are more likely to convene interfaith ecumenical councils in order to seek common ground and to be more productive towards practical goals such as addressing global misery.
On the other hand, it's hard to imagine the inroads the world might have traveled if the mob religion of the last few decades had not aroused so much counterproductive activism, with such blunt force trauma onto the collective psyche of the nonreligious and those of the above group as well.
Then you are simply taking scientific findings on faith.
The way you've set this up, as LG already noted, is that even if there would be proof of God, you wouldn't acknowledge it and instead write it off as imagination.
This is hardly reasonable.
As for hoping for the future reward: this seems to little to do with religion, but much to do with the conviction that there is only this one lifetime for action and that things pertaining to the body and material goods are all there is to life.
Hope for what?
Last edited: