Author Topic: OT: The religion thead...  (Read 315669 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vxp036000

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 167
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #150 on: May 19, 2012, 12:35:12 am »
What iamwhoiam is saying, is that we can define god such that god is everything good, moral, compassionate, etc.  From this definition, it is relatively straightforward to demonstrate that god exists.  In fact, there are some very convincing philosophical arguments that follow this line of reasoning.  Furthermore, if the principle of causality is accepted, then god must exist.  Anyone familiar with the science of philosophy will recognize this.  No one is arguing that this god is in any way, shape, or form similar to the god of most organized religions.  I think it is even more interesting that god may exist without relying on any sort of faith; logic alone leads to the existence of this god.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 12:40:35 am by vxp036000 »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37740
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #151 on: May 19, 2012, 12:54:29 am »
What iamwhoiam is saying, is that we can define god such that god is everything good, moral, compassionate, etc.  From this definition, it is relatively straightforward to demonstrate that god exists.  In fact, there are some very convincing philosophical arguments that follow this line of reasoning.  Furthermore, if the principle of causality is accepted, then god must exist.  Anyone familiar with the science of philosophy will recognize this.  No one is arguing that this god is in any way, shape, or form similar to the god of most organized religions.  I think it is even more interesting that god may exist without relying on any sort of faith; logic alone leads to the existence of this god.

In that case you can replace the word god with unicorn, zeitgeist, or anything silly you like.
Relabelling something, or giving a bunch of ideas a collective term does not change the fact that you are still talking about those ideas and not the object/word you just made up to label it.
Let's not confuse the issue. We all know very well that iamwhoiam means the christian religious god as per the bible, and you likely just insulted him by saying that's not what he means!  ;D

Dave.
 

Offline A Hellene

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 602
  • Country: gr
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #152 on: May 19, 2012, 01:05:48 am »
This will be some food for thought (and for further research) for our readers that have invested in the Abrahamic Religions and have questions that their religion cannot or will not ever answer.


I have a wonderful book in my possession, called "Antignosis, the Crutches of Capitalism" (anti-gnosis means anti-knowledge) and written by Lily Zographou, a charismatic scholar that was so unconventional she is called The Dark Goddess Hecate of Greek Literature. Unfortunately, this book exists only in Greek (and I think in German) and its author is dead. Fortunately, this book can be found online. Fortunately, because the historical, archeological, sociological and political research put in this book is compelling and overwhelming.

This book analyses the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found in the caves of Qumran in the land of Palestine during 1947-1956, and shows how the Jews were facing extinction in the progressive conditions of those times, due to Hellenisation that begun with Alexander the Great. At some point in time, the priesthood of Judaism manipulated Judeo-Christianity, through which Capitalism was created taking the place of Feudalism. Bottom line is that the Dead Sea Scrolls are not helpful all that for Judaism or Christianity (nor for Islam), since in their presence the Abrahamic Myths are demolished. The Scrolls do exist and prove that at least the Old Testament existed, or at least parts of it, in the time of Jesus.

Thanks to The Dead Sea Scrolls, we also learn the whereabouts of Jesus during his age of 12 to 30, something that the Church still refuses to reveal, and what he really was: Jesus was a high ranking member of one the four sects of Judaism called the Essenes that had their own militia, the members of the other sect called the Zealots. The other two sects were the powerful and hypocritical Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Jesus being a high ranking Essene, also explains why he was highly educated, even though he was born to a carpenter family. Jesus, or "Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef" as he was actually called in his times, meaning "Excellent Joshua, son of Josef" ("Rabbi" was a title of honor and ownership, meaning "Excellent" or "Great" until the end of the first century CE; after that it was used as a title for the priests of Judaism).


Now, regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are not an imaginary entity. They can be seen and be read even online. The Sectarian manuscripts reveal a whole lot about the turbulent times in Palestine of that era. In particular they give us a lot of information about the background of Jesus, his extra-biblical life and his ideological beliefs. He was part of the Essenes, a primitive social, communal group that believed in the collective property, production and decision taking. (By the way, does this remind of Communism/Socialism, that was introduced by Haim Mardochai Kissel, a son of a Rabbi, widely known as Karl Marx?) For decades, the Essenes were organising a peaceful revolution (as opposed to the many low-class revolutions of the time, that were violent) against the conservatism and autocracy of the Jewish priests and ruling class, and Jesus was one of their leaders. They were destroyed when the Pharisees paid the Romans to kill and enslave every each one of them.


-George
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 01:10:39 am by A Hellene »
Hi! This is George; and I am three and a half years old!
(This was one of my latest realisations, now in my early fifties!...)
 

Offline rolycat

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1101
  • Country: gb
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #153 on: May 19, 2012, 01:27:58 am »
What iamwhoiam is saying, is that we can define god such that god is everything good, moral, compassionate, etc.  From this definition, it is relatively straightforward to demonstrate that god exists.  In fact, there are some very convincing philosophical arguments that follow this line of reasoning.  Furthermore, if the principle of causality is accepted, then god must exist.  Anyone familiar with the science of philosophy will recognize this.  No one is arguing that this god is in any way, shape, or form similar to the god of most organized religions.  I think it is even more interesting that god may exist without relying on any sort of faith; logic alone leads to the existence of this god.

In that case you can replace the word god with unicorn, zeitgeist, or anything silly you like.
Relabelling something, or giving a bunch of ideas a collective term does not change the fact that you are still talking about those ideas and not the object/word you just made up to label it.
Let's not confuse the issue. We all know very well that iamwhoiam means the christian religious god as per the bible, and you likely just insulted him by saying that's not what he means!  ;D

Dave.

I'm inoffendable :)

No, he didn't offend me; he makes sense.

No, he doesn't. As soon as you use the 'god' word for that purpose you are associating real concepts with a mythical being - you may not be 'arguing' that overtly, but the history of religion makes that argument for you, and consequently looks like another devious attempt to subvert rationality to religious dogma.

Incidentally, iamwhoiam (that name reminds me irresistibly of Popeye), is the faint air of sanctimony which pervades your posts part of your mission to infuriate this community of rationalists into irrationality?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 01:31:15 am by rolycat »
 

Offline vxp036000

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 167
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #154 on: May 19, 2012, 01:39:42 am »
So you disagree that god is everything good, moral, compassionate...?  God is typically defined as the supreme being; this supreme being is the definition I gave.  You can certainly disagree with that definition, but this is the definition used by philosophers.  And I think I already demonstrated that there is nothing mythical or illogical about this thing we call god.  Any other definition that you come up with is rather arbitrary and meaningless.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 01:45:17 am by vxp036000 »
 

Offline rolycat

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1101
  • Country: gb
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #155 on: May 19, 2012, 01:49:51 am »
So you disagree that god is everything good, moral, compassionate...?  God is typically defined as the supreme being; this supreme being is the definition I gave.  You can certainly disagree with that definition, but this is the definition used by philosophers.  And I think I already demonstrated that there is nothing mythical or illogical about this thing we call god.  Any other definition that you come up with is rather arbitrary and meaningless.

Yes, I absolutely disagree. And I suspect that the only 'philosophers' who use that definition are theologians.

Nor did you demonstrate anything of the kind. Since I don't believe there is a god, any definition of such a hypothetical entity is bound to be arbitrary.


 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11640
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #156 on: May 19, 2012, 01:52:35 am »
It is trolling when it has nothing to do with the orignal thread it was posted in, has nothing to do with the reason of existence of this forum, and is initiated by a person who uses the name of the mythical being you want to promote. I do not call this trolling based on my refusal to believe in fantasies. And don't use the word "conviction" for what I do NOT believe. Look the word up if you want to make any kind of argument. I am opposed to convictions. I want only truth and fact.
You can say what you want, believe what you want. I only believe what is evident, not what I wish were true.

It is trolling when it has nothing to do with the orignal thread it was posted in,
funny thing is the thread split started before me in the original thread.. somehow i got the 'honor' to be the split point ...

to be frank and justice. the real rootcause of this is not iamwhoiam, not free_electron, not a_hellene, but me, by drawing the word g.o.d into the forum, thats the real root cause of the troll. so if its considered a troll than i'am sorry, its not intended. as said, you believe what you believe, i believe what i believe we should respect each other. i do understand why people believe in god, and "i think" i also do understand why people dont believe. the common thing is... there is no "scientific" proof. the different thing is we do you dont. people get into war when they differentiate and separate themself from other, thats how human cognition works afterall, by differentiating in order to recognize (or reject) ;)

so, if someone mention the word "god", i believe there's no further need to elaborate or relate. for agnostics and athiests, just consider it as imaginary element, act as reference point / anchor for theists to carry on with their job. thats what theists hold and hope for in doing something, its the driving force. but it can result a good and bad things as already proven in the society (militants, politicians, terorrism), the same thing with science (nuclear power and bio weapon etc).

but as well to be frank as i'm a theist basing on a holy book. we are encouraged / make responsible to spread the word in the book, but dont misunderstood. what we are trying is to spread the truth, the word on how "the way of life", the morality etc, and again, things we are still unable to comprehend/sense (the so called mythical thing), but not killing and raping virgin. about the god threat and 72 virgins in heaven thing, i cannot help it, but its true, thats what written in the book, so if the book lies, then i lie (but i dont think so). so, with my previous posts i think i've done my duty, as said i wont force anything, just trying to do what i'm asked (responsible) to do. "I swear by time, Men are in great loss, except who keep advising on truth and patient" - God, surah Al-Asy Quran" - and again, the book is claimed to be written by God, not man. and no man has claimed of writing it.

so to avoid another deviation, let me re-emphasize. there's no further need to feed the troll when someone mention the word "god" alone, except... if he's trying to impose one nonsensical idea (on your opinion) on you, then you have the right to defend. thanks.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 02:09:48 am by Mechatrommer »
Nature: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness (Stephen L. Talbott): Its now indisputable that... organisms “expertise” contextualizes its genome, and its nonsense to say that these powers are under the control of the genome being contextualized - Barbara McClintock
 

Offline vxp036000

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 167
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #157 on: May 19, 2012, 01:58:23 am »
Umm, every atheistic philosopher will agree with my definition of god.  What were you saying again?  I suggest you read a little more about the arguments for and against the existence of god before making a statement like this.  All arguments against the existence of god use the definition I gave.  Yes, I will agree that there are strong arguments against the existence of god, but you're taking completely the wrong approach  ;D  Hint: it has to do with causality.

So you disagree that god is everything good, moral, compassionate...?  God is typically defined as the supreme being; this supreme being is the definition I gave.  You can certainly disagree with that definition, but this is the definition used by philosophers.  And I think I already demonstrated that there is nothing mythical or illogical about this thing we call god.  Any other definition that you come up with is rather arbitrary and meaningless.

Yes, I absolutely disagree. And I suspect that the only 'philosophers' who use that definition are theologians.

Nor did you demonstrate anything of the kind. Since I don't believe there is a god, any definition of such a hypothetical entity is bound to be arbitrary.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 02:04:25 am by vxp036000 »
 

Offline rolycat

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1101
  • Country: gb
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #158 on: May 19, 2012, 02:05:02 am »


No, he doesn't. As soon as you use the 'god' word for that purpose you are associating real concepts with a mythical being - you may not be 'arguing' that overtly, but the history of religion makes that argument for you, and consequently looks like another devious attempt to subvert rationality to religious dogma.

Incidentally, iamwhoiam (that name reminds me irresistibly of Popeye), is the faint air of sanctimony which pervades your posts part of your mission to infuriate this community of rationalists into irrationality?

You've hit the nail ON THE HEAD! God is not conformed to "rationality" - he is God. If you're testing him with human knowledge and "science",  squeezing him into a nice cozy shape that fits into your box, and then putting him on the shelf, that tells me you don't know God, or his heart.


 If the way to happiness is to abandon rational thought, we might as well all stick electrodes in the pleasure centres of our brains and turn the dial up to maximum.

I prefer having a functioning brain, thank you.





 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11640
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #159 on: May 19, 2012, 02:14:12 am »
For the sake of peace, I hereby suggest this thread be closed.
why? the only reason a person ask to close this thread is because of emotional. are you going to make war if this thread is proceeded? ;) whats your teaching said? to hate people who have different idea as your? to disrespect them. if really you are not offended, then why ask to close this thread? i treat this thread as informative thread, esp to understand more about people from the other side. living in a cave forever is not good for human sake! ;) :P
edit: just an advice. you dont need to quote a very long biblical sripture in this forum. nobody is going to read that i believe. and remember, you are dealing with "people of science" here. not "please trust my lord without scientific proof" person. so statement like "trust your lord with your heart" will not make it any better, except worst. aaaand... if you dont like a thread... dont click it! and "hope with your heart and faith" that the admin or mods will lock or close it ;)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 02:21:27 am by Mechatrommer »
Nature: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness (Stephen L. Talbott): Its now indisputable that... organisms “expertise” contextualizes its genome, and its nonsense to say that these powers are under the control of the genome being contextualized - Barbara McClintock
 

Offline vxp036000

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 167
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #160 on: May 19, 2012, 02:17:49 am »
I always found it somewhat entertaining that a lot of atheists are completely clueless when it comes to rationalizing their choice; not unlike many of their religious counterparts.  I've spent considerable time studying the philosophical arguments on both sides and found them to be very educational.
 

Offline rolycat

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1101
  • Country: gb
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #161 on: May 19, 2012, 02:36:31 am »
Umm, every atheistic philosopher will agree with my definition of god.  What were you saying again?  I suggest you read a little more about the arguments for and against the existence of god before making a statement like this.  All arguments against the existence of god use the definition I gave.  Yes, I will agree that there are strong arguments against the existence of god, but you're taking completely the wrong approach  ;D  Hint: it has to do with causality.


I have noticed in your comments on the education thread that you have a tendency to condescend to those who don't agree with you - I am aware of causality, and its relevance to your argument.

However, your statements of 'fact' begin with a supposition - you said 'We can define god as everything good, moral, etc'. It may be a useful philosophical construct, but there's nothing absolute or inevitable about such a definition - the god of the Old Testament is frequently anything but good, moral or compassionate.
 

Offline vxp036000

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 167
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #162 on: May 19, 2012, 02:45:47 am »
I will state it again, to be perfectly clear.  I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion; I am simply using the commonly accepted philosophical definition.  So do not put words in my mouth.
 

Offline rolycat

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1101
  • Country: gb
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #163 on: May 19, 2012, 02:53:36 am »
I will state it again, to be perfectly clear.  I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion; I am simply using the commonly accepted philosophical definition.  So do not put words in my mouth.

Wouldn't dream of it, old boy - in case you hadn't noticed I was quoting your own words. You are using a definition of god, not the definition, and I was simply pointing that out.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37740
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #164 on: May 19, 2012, 02:59:34 am »
Yes, I absolutely disagree. And I suspect that the only 'philosophers' who use that definition are theologians.

Spot on.
And iamwhoiam just gave an example of that when he quoted from the christian bible!
iamwhoiam is clearly talking about the god of the christian bible, not of any philosophical concept called god.
vxp036000's argument is a complete red herring.

Once you establish the fact the we are talking about "god" of the christian bible (or whatever monotheistic religion for that matter), then it is clear we are not talking about god as a philosophical concept.
If god "loves us" as iamwhoiam says, then it is completely illogical to imply that god is just the philosophical concept of love. Love cannot love itself.

Dave.
 

Offline IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11891
  • Country: us
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #165 on: May 19, 2012, 03:02:57 am »
I will state it again, to be perfectly clear.  I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion; I am simply using the commonly accepted philosophical definition.  So do not put words in my mouth.

Absolutely, a definition of god exists as you have presented it. But the existence of a definition says nothing about the existence of the thing defined.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 03:05:11 am by IanB »
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4314
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #166 on: May 19, 2012, 03:04:37 am »
I always found it somewhat entertaining that a lot of atheists are completely clueless when it comes to rationalizing their choice; not unlike many of their religious counterparts.  I've spent considerable time studying the philosophical arguments on both sides and found them to be very educational.

One only needs to rationalize something that is not rational. Seeing as atheists do not make up wild stories and fantasies nor believe in wild stories nor fantasies, there is nothing to rationalize!
 

Offline vxp036000

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 167
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #167 on: May 19, 2012, 03:06:45 am »
Fair enough.  Suppose I clarify my definition a bit and restrict it to the following: god is all the goodness we observe in this world.  Now will you say that god doesn't exist?

I will state it again, to be perfectly clear.  I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion; I am simply using the commonly accepted philosophical definition.  So do not put words in my mouth.

Absolutely, the definition of god exists as you have presented it. But the existence of a definition says nothing about the existence of the thing defined.
 

Offline vxp036000

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 167
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #168 on: May 19, 2012, 03:13:36 am »
This is a red herring, if anything.  Lack of rational basis for justifying an atheistic position leaves open the possibility for the existence of a god.  Well respected philosophers have demonstrated time and time again that it is, in fact, impossible to prove that god does not exist.  Just as it is impossibile to prove that god does exist.  So, philosphically speaking, the atheist is irrational.  Flame away  ;D


One only needs to rationalize something that is not rational. Seeing as atheists do not make up wild stories and fantasies nor believe in wild stories nor fantasies, there is nothing to rationalize!
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 03:15:50 am by vxp036000 »
 

Offline IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11891
  • Country: us
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #169 on: May 19, 2012, 03:26:43 am »
Fair enough.  Suppose I clarify my definition a bit and restrict it to the following: god is all the goodness we observe in this world.  Now will you say that god doesn't exist?

Of course. Goodness is a quality, but the kind of god discussed in this thread is an actor. You are not talking about what everyone else is talking about.
 

Offline vxp036000

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 167
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #170 on: May 19, 2012, 03:28:48 am »
This is absolutely correct.  The god described by most religions cannot be explained rationally.  And I agree with most other folks here that belief in the gods described by most religions requires a faith.


Of course. Goodness is a quality, but the kind of god discussed in this thread is an actor. You are not talking about what everyone else is talking about.
 

Offline BravoV

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7547
  • Country: 00
  • +++ ATH1
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #171 on: May 19, 2012, 03:51:52 am »
God is not conformed to "rationality" - he is God. If you're testing him with human knowledge and "science",  squeezing him into a nice cozy shape that fits into your box, and then putting him on the shelf, that tells me you don't know God, or his heart.

Proverbs 3:
Quote
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not unto your own understanding.

This is the common situation when discussions like this happened all the time, c'mon, don't you think this is strange ?

For believers, its God created human with a special gift which is the special brain that differs so much with other species on this earth, and yet human should not use this special brain for reasoning, logical thinking etc..etc to question about his existence, kind of paradox isn't it ?

It is always ended up .... don't use your brain to question when it comes to god, just believe and have faith and follow his wishes. This is no difference than say the  salmon fish that have "faith and believe" that they will reached salmon's nirvana as promised by their god by swimming uphill against the river stream to reach the so called final resting ground.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 03:53:40 am by BravoV »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37740
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #172 on: May 19, 2012, 03:56:38 am »
I always found it somewhat entertaining that a lot of atheists are completely clueless when it comes to rationalizing their choice; not unlike many of their religious counterparts.  I've spent considerable time studying the philosophical arguments on both sides and found them to be very educational.

Believing is god is not a philosophical argument to an athesist, it's got nothing to do with it.
I don't believe in unicorns because there is no evidence for them, therefore I am a-unicorn.
I don't believe in a god or gods because there is no evidence for them, therefore I am an a-theist.

Dave.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37740
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #173 on: May 19, 2012, 04:02:01 am »
Fair enough.  Suppose I clarify my definition a bit and restrict it to the following: god is all the goodness we observe in this world.  Now will you say that god doesn't exist?

Absolute classic straw man!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Most people who whip out the straw man at least have the decency to make it not as obvious and a lot more relevant  :P
Of course goodness exists. It was good of me to set up this forum for your strawman use  :D

Dave.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37740
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #174 on: May 19, 2012, 04:04:32 am »
I will state it again, to be perfectly clear.  I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion.

Everyone else here is, that's what this thread is about.
Please start a new thread if you want to talk about something else.

Dave.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf