• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

God enthusiasm

Skeptic Ginger said:
Sorry but you lost me here.

What do you think of the conclusion: the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion all gods are human fictional inventions?
Click to expand...

I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Point #2 in my post was an attempt tp explain what I think is the evidence: that humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize and see sentient agency even where it doesn't exist, so that's why they like to imagine gods.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
...What does bother me, however, is when I say the evidence supports the conclusion that all gods are fictional human inventions, I get accused of some kind of offensive wrongdoing. Other than that, I don't think blind spots make one not a skeptic.
Click to expand...
I can find nothing in your post to substantially disagree with. :)

Pup said:
What are "skeptical tools"? I'd say common sense, knowledge of mental illness and various lesser human biases, and that kind of thing, are skeptical tools just as much as experimentation, physical evidence, and so forth.

If a real, living, literal neighbor told me he had the infamous invisible dragon in his garage, I could apply those kinds of skeptical tools and form a fairly solid opinion about whether there really was a kind of dragon in his garage.
Click to expand...
Like I said, up to and including the scientific method. You could apply some skeptical tools to this claim, but you couldn't do science with it.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
God really loves people and won't let the true love be prostituted. This is why it's primarily used to bestow touch downs. No exploitation is allowed of God's true love.
Click to expand...

Yay. A true believer. :)

Notre-Dame-touchdown-jesus.jpg
 
My current theory is that God and love are synonymous and are all that exist. While I, of course, am skeptical of all of my theories, I haven't found anything that absolutely refutes this one.
 
River said:
I believe one day religions will be looked at as one of the largest hoaxes of all time.
Click to expand...

Religion essentially is the idea of reconnecting to whatever created us. To me, the greatest human fantasy is that we are disconnected from the whatever-that-is in the first place. Much of religion derives from that "Ur-Fantasy", and is evidence for the power of our imagination.
 
BobR said:
My current theory is that God and love are synonymous and are all that exist. While I, of course, am skeptical of all of my theories, I haven't found anything that absolutely refutes this one.
Click to expand...

What do you think could possibly 'absolutely refute' it ?
 
BobR said:
My current theory is that God and love are synonymous and are all that exist. While I, of course, am skeptical of all of my theories, I haven't found anything that absolutely refutes this one.
Click to expand...

Then making love is the highest form of worship?
 
BobR said:
My current theory is that God and love are synonymous and are all that exist. While I, of course, am skeptical of all of my theories, I haven't found anything that absolutely refutes this one.
Click to expand...

Well, that eliminates the god of the bible from being the god you're talking about. Because, as we've all heard at countless weddings, Paul tells us: "love is never jealous." But, the god of the bible is a self-declared jealous god. Ergo, according to the bible, god is not synonymous with love.
 
Religion was born of need, and has never brought anything but more need to the table. When you formalize a belief, you need a priesthood; before long, you find you need a bible to codify it, and then a sword to enforce it. Recognizing the innate need is one thing; attending to it as if it's its own separate creature that needs feeding is to make a monster of it.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
Religion was born of need, and has never brought anything but more need to the table. When you formalize a belief, you need a priesthood; before long, you find you need a bible, and then a sword to enforce it. Recognizing the innate need is one thing; attending to it as if it's its own separate creature that needs feeding it to make a monster of it.
Click to expand...

Nicely put. The wolf you feed. The creed you heed.
 
jond said:
Well, that eliminates the god of the bible from being the god you're talking about. Because, as we've all heard at countless weddings, Paul tells us: "love is never jealous." But, the god of the bible is a self-declared jealous god. Ergo, according to the bible, god is not synonymous with love.
Click to expand...

I think you'd probably need to actually read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments before you can form an intelligent statement about it.

What you have done is make a blanket statement without really learning your source. The "jealous God" part comes from the Old Testament, and essentially makes the then popular concept of polytheism to be considered as wrong. Pointing to the need to only worship one God instead of many. At this time "one God" was a completely new concept.

The other part you mention about "love" comes from the New Testament, you know the other book of the Bible modern Christians use because of Jesus and stuff. There is a staggering difference in the teachings of the 2 books. Many of the teachings of the Old Testament were reversed in the New.

Divorce would be one example of reversed teachings. Moses said a man that was not happy with his wife could simply write her a bill of divorce, put it in her hand and send her from his home. Later, in the book of Mark we find: "What God has joined together let no man put asunder".

The New Testament does seem to be largely about love and understanding of God likely designed to attract followers. The Old Testament seems to point to the fear of God to retain followers. "Worship God or else" kinda stuff. Of course one must take into account the people during that time period were likely far more primitive. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I think you'd probably need to actually read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments before you can form an intelligent statement about it.

What you have done is make a blanket statement without really learning your source. The "jealous God" part comes from the Old Testament, and essentially makes the then popular concept of polytheism to be considered as wrong. Pointing to the need to only worship one God instead of many. At this time "one God" was a completely new concept.

The other part you mention about "love" comes from the New Testament, you know the other book of the Bible modern Christians use because of Jesus and stuff. There is a staggering difference in the teachings of the 2 books. Many of the teachings of the Old Testament were reversed in the New.

Divorce would be one example of reversed teachings. Moses said a man that was not happy with his wife could simply write her a bill of divorce, put it in her hand and send her from his home. Later, in the book of Mark we find: "What God has joined together let no man put asunder".

The New Testament does seem to be largely about love and understanding of God likely designed to attract followers. The Old Testament seems to point to the fear of God to retain followers. "Worship God or else" kinda stuff. Of course one must take into account the people during that time period were likely far more primitive. Chris B.
Click to expand...

Jesus claims to be saving a place at his father's house. Who is that father if not the jealous god of the Old Testament?
 
jond said:
Jesus claims to be saving a place at his father's house. Who is that father if not the jealous god of the Old Testament?
Click to expand...

That's the trick. The teachings of Jesus now portrayed God as a loving God. Instead of jealous and vengeful as in the Old Testament. He "changed" the game. Now Heaven was not only reserved for the Hebrews, but it was for everyone who believed. And all "God" really wanted was return of his love for the people.

The people had changed (become more civilized for lack of a better descriptor) and therefore they needed a new improved outlook on religion. At the time of the Old Testament, they needed to be fearful of God to keep Mosaic Law in mind. As time passed and the people learned to live by and follow the law by choice Jesus pops in and changes things up a bit, quite a bit.

In effect even though the same supreme being, God is now portrayed as being completely different in the New Testament. Chris B.
 
turingtest said:
Yep; a badly collated body of fictions.
Click to expand...

jond said:
Much more accurate, yes.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. The Bible is a good source of study for military battle strategies. Some of the battles portrayed in the Old Testament are verified in the other culture's side of the time as well.

One example that I can think of is the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians. It's discussed in 2 Kings 19 in detail. Verse 35 is the clincher. The Assyrians lost 185,000 troops in one night. Effectively ending the siege.

Regardless of the reason of their defeat, the battle is discussed on Assyrian clay tablets from the period. So a cross reference of the Hebrew culture with the Assyrian culture on the other side of the battle check out. In effect, it happened.

Now that doesn't mean every miracle in the Old and New Testaments are not open for interpretation, but it is a good indication that the book is an accurate account of events. (Though some interpretations of those events may seem more miraculous to the faithful). "Pillars of fire" were likely just a tornado etc. Chris B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom