Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 54

Thread: The Idea of Religion

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    4,449
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Lightbulb The Idea of Religion

    People talk like religion is just choosing whatever you want, but that's such a postmodern relativist view. We can't have many gods any more, so we try to have many Gods. And if anything that's even more laughable.

    And if there is a such thing as truth, which there is, there must be evidence for it.

    Person: I wonder what color the sky is? Maybe this is just the bong I'm smoking, but I can't tell, man.
    Me: The sky by all appearances seems to be blue.
    Person: That's just like, your opinion, man. Anyways, you just really like the color blue. I think the sky is red with green polka dots. I mean, there are lots of skies that are all sorts of colors, and maybe the sky isn't always up, maybe it's down, or sideways! But my sky is red with green polka dots and made of speckled plastic. You're just a blue supremacist who likes blue too much.
    Me: No, I'm just answering your question that the sky appears to be blue. You're the one who asked. I'm not even trying to make you think the sky is blue, I just said it appears to be blue to me.
    Person: Stop trying to convert me to blue-sky-ism you blue-sky-ist! I don't want your proselytizing!

    Discussions of religion always seem to be framed completely wrong. People want to make God become The Idea of God, but before that, The Idea of God was the Devil anyways. Bleh.

  2. #2
    Kardashev Scale Blade Runner 2017 2049 Bunny BunnyFairyWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Macroverse MtBattle ScholarsGarden RealMadridLive SuperNexus InfinitiesUltimate AllSpectraEverywhere
    TIM
    WiredforBattleShingo
    Posts
    3,247
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ya I mean, the layers to unmask and decode in the reality to imagination labyrinth goes on a long chain of logical paradoxes and unknown factors Bunny jumping from points to axioms.

    But I do believe in a higher purpose, a higher destiny, in a higher meaning, and if we keep our eyes and hearts open, we inevitably piece together the clues and puzzle boxes to arrive at solutions that show the true power of magic and astonishment.

    So being loving, hearing our songs of delight, and banishing the ghost of determinism to evade reality and flow out into the Tao can be revolutionary and heroic.
    https://sabrinacasey.webstarts.com/9systemswishes
    https://sabrinacasey.webstarts.com/evolvedraichu
    Pokemon is somewhere fun over the Rainbow emblazoned by the Power of 4ever. The clouds soar and the island escalates a Lugia petal dance tempest blizzarding shiny Ash. Evanescence sparkles glistening auroras of mirth and high frequency channels embarking with the winds of new beginnings. This magical adventure turns on at the dawn of time in 2000. Ceremony and enchantment dazzle the world with colors galore. Mania and extravagance shape shift and transform into the greatest show on earth, the evolution of Pokemon
    Something has arrived. That threatens to throw everything terribly out of balance. When it comes, will you accept your destiny? And when it’s your chance to be a hero, will you rise to the challenge? This year, discover how 1 person can make all the difference! Pokemon the Movie 2000 The Power of 1

  3. #3
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,361
    Mentioned
    445 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I find religious people don't have a coherent complete description of "God", other than being for example a creator and/or paternal figure. The Christians if they depict their God basically draw theirs like the Romans drew Jupiter/Zeus (or Jesus after Mercury/Apollo or Cesare Borgia), or they don't draw it at all due to iconoclasm and/or not having any idea about what "God" is.

    Sometimes I feel bad for asking questions to religious people, even if they should be straightforward to answer. As Jon Stewart said: “Religion - It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.”

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    4,449
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I find religious people don't have a coherent complete description of "God", other than being for example a creator and/or paternal figure. The Christians if they depict their God basically draw theirs like the Romans drew Jupiter/Zeus (or Jesus after Mercury/Apollo or Cesare Borgia), or they don't draw it at all due to iconoclasm and/or not having any idea about what "God" is.

    Sometimes I feel bad for asking questions to religious people, even if they should be straightforward to answer. As Jon Stewart said: “Religion - It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.”
    That all seems true, but it also all seems like evidence of Sturgeon's Law in action rather than evidence against God and every kind of religious belief system in existence. After all, they can't all be true when they contradict each other, and if most people are bad that will also be reflected in most religions said people follow.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    Posts
    116
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's a proof that ancient people enjoy fantasy too

  6. #6
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,361
    Mentioned
    445 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    That all seems true, but it also all seems like evidence of Sturgeon's Law in action rather than evidence against God and every kind of religious belief system in existence. After all, they can't all be true when they contradict each other, and if most people are bad that will also be reflected in most religions said people follow.
    When a religious person says you are doing something contrary to their religion, all you have to say is "You don't know "God"."

  7. #7
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    And if there is a such thing as truth, which there is, there must be evidence for it..
    No... you can obviously lack evidence of something that actually occurred or is true, there is not always evidence available.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    We can't have many gods any more, so we try to have many Gods.
    No... Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe in the same Abrahamic God, the conversation in the chat box has nothing to do with many-gods. What the religions disagree on is the essential nature of God. They also disagree on which traditions to follow..
    Your many-gods argument should really be a many-traditions argument.
    Traditions are not all inspired the same, some traditions are derived from beliefs about God, some of them are social, some are practical, alot of them are just inherited by one culture from another... it's pretty common that traditions even are misinterpreted or confusingly mixed with other traditions, when their original meaning or purpose is long forgotten...
    For example.... many Catholic traditions are actually taken from Paganism, but many are also taken from the apostle Paul.
    And the reality is that the Bible was translated across 6 different languages and the text changed radically throughout. It's also 60 some odd different books from different authors, not even all originally written in the same language.
    So this requires more thought than you've given it, but yes, there are traditions that are arbitrary and can be ignored.
    Last edited by DogOfDanger; 08-07-2022 at 11:46 AM.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    4,449
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    When a religious person says you are doing something contrary to their religion, all you have to say is "You don't know "God"."
    They would probably also disagree with me in many cases, but at least that would be entertaining. And honestly, it probably is true that it's contrary to their religion. Lots of things can be contrary to lots of different religions. Unless what they believe is what I believe too (I doubt it) I don't have to care. I probably don't have to care about their subjective beliefs as subjective, either, because they are probably terrible people, however, it's still good to try not to be too petty even if like many people here and like me, you feel maybe sort of traumatized by certain religious beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    No... you can obviously lack evidence of something that actually occurred or is true, there is not always evidence available.
    It's possible to lack it, but it still exists, which is why, when talking about the Infinite, you go and look. The stakes are infinite, like Pascal's Wager but without the heresy (heresy = to choose, as if you can just choose what you believe because you feel like it. Now you know the origin of the word heresy if you didn't! Heresy is literally anathema to the idea there is a such thing as truth, that's why it's a big deal.)

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    No... Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe in the same Abrahamic God, the conversation in the chat box has nothing to do with many-gods. What the religions disagree on is the essential nature of God. They also disagree on which traditions to follow..
    Your many-gods argument should really be a many-traditions argument.
    Traditions are not all inspired the same, some traditions are derived from beliefs about God, some of them are social, some are practical, alot of them are just inherited by one culture from another... it's pretty common that traditions even are misinterpreted or confusingly mixed with other traditions, when their original meaning or purpose is long forgotten...
    For example.... many Catholic traditions are actually taken from Paganism, but many are also taken from the apostle Paul.
    And the reality is that the Bible was translated across 6 different languages and the text changed radically throughout. It's also 60 some odd different books from different authors, not even all originally written in the same language.
    So this requires more thought than you've given it, but yes, there are traditions that are arbitrary and can be ignored.
    Well, if I describe a blue bird and you describe a red dog we are clearly not describing the same thing. Hence, many-Gods seems like a good description of postmodern religion to me. Most people can't believe in blatant polytheism any more, so they believe in many-truths rather than many-gods. As if Truth weren't just a synonym for God and many-truths for many-gods.

  9. #9
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    It's possible to lack it, but it still exists, which is why, when talking about the Infinite, you go and look. The stakes are infinite, like Pascal's Wager but without the heresy (heresy = to choose, as if you can just choose what you believe because you feel like it. Now you know the origin of the word heresy if you didn't! Heresy is literally anathema to the idea there is a such thing as truth, that's why it's a big deal.)
    And I'm not looking...? You haven't even begun to demonstrate that.
    Besides, this is technically wrong, if by evidence you mean something empirical... For example, how could you ever find empirical evidence for something that transcends the universe? It's technically impossible.
    And how can you find empirical evidence of what someone is thinking?
    But my arguments are based in evidence, the history of many of these traditions is, in certain places, very well documented.
    And if by evidence you mean "reason"... I've given all sorts of reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    Well, if I describe a blue bird and you describe a red dog we are clearly not describing the same thing. Hence, many-Gods seems like a good description of postmodern religion to me. Most people can't believe in blatant polytheism any more, so they believe in many-truths rather than many-gods. As if Truth weren't just a synonym for God and many-truths for many-gods.
    I don't see how any of this applies to our conversation, it is just totally disconnected from anything I've said or what we discussed in the chat.
    Except for the last part... we're not discussing many-truths, we're discussing the many things that are true. But what you're doing is reducing the conversation to something extremely simple where you don't have to deal with any of the detail of information, you can just say... "the red dog and the blue bird say so" and be done with it.
    So ironically.... you are avoiding this search for truth you keep going on about.
    Last edited by DogOfDanger; 08-07-2022 at 01:00 PM.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    4,449
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    And I'm not looking...? You haven't even begun to demonstrate that.
    Besides, this is technically wrong, if by evidence you mean something empirical... For example, how could you ever find empirical evidence for something that transcends the universe? It's technically impossible.
    And how can you find empirical evidence of what someone is thinking?
    But my arguments are based in evidence, the history of many of these traditions is, in certain places, very well documented.
    And if by evidence you mean "reason"... I've given all sorts of reasons.



    I don't see how any of this applies to our conversation, it is just totally disconnected from anything I've said or what we discussed in the chat.
    Except for the last part... we're not discussing many-truths, we're discussing the many things that are true. But what you're doing is reducing the conversation to something extremely simple where you don't have to deal with any of the detail of information, you can just say... "the red dog and the blue bird say so" and be done with it.
    So ironically.... you are avoiding this search for truth you keep going on about.

    The evidence that's normally given for religions is all the miracles as well as the historical (including natural-historical) record. So there is evidence. Whether you think that evidence is good enough is a different issue.

    Also, do you really think that all the major religions worship the same God? Not even every Protestant denomination worships the same God as each other.

  11. #11
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    The evidence that's normally given for religions is all the miracles as well as the historical (including natural-historical) record. So there is evidence. Whether you think that evidence is good enough is a different issue.

    I don't know why you're mentioning this. I've claimed that many religious traditions are cultural inheritances, rooted in confusion, and can be ignored. I haven't said anything about Gods existence or the lack thereof. Though I will say... every religious book has its miracles, so miracles can't possibly be the reason for believing in a religion. Infact you really have to convince yourself that the miracles did infact occur in most cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    Also, do you really think that all the major religions worship the same God? Not even every Protestant denomination worships the same God as each other.
    They've identified God and his essential nature differently, but they all agree on the metaphysics of it - that there is one and no other before him, that he accounts for the events documented in the old testament, and so on. So yes I'd say they worship the same God but have a different idea of the nature of God.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    4,449
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    I don't know why you're mentioning this. I've claimed that many religious traditions are cultural inheritances, rooted in confusion, and can be ignored. I haven't said anything about Gods existence or the lack thereof. Though I will say... every religious book has its miracles, so miracles can't possibly be the reason for believing in a religion. Infact you really have to convince yourself that the miracles did infact occur in most cases.


    They've identified God and his essential nature differently, but they all agree on the metaphysics of it - that there is one and no other before him, that he accounts for the events documented in the old testament, and so on. So yes I'd say they worship the same God but have a different idea of the nature of God.
    While it's true miracles are not sufficient, they are usually necessary. It's more of a metanarrative thing, but the miracles tend to be the main narrative points. For example, when Moses and one of Pharoah's magicians faced off they were doing basically the same thing appearance-wise, but the narrative recontextualizes Moses as getting help from God and Pharoah's magician as either just being a charlatan or someone using demons. The infamous unforgivable sin of the New Testament also has everything to do with context, since the Pharisees accused Jesus of driving out demons with Satan's power rather than God's. Maimonides recapitulates that argument later, that not all miracles are themselves evidence of religion, which is true, but the narrative points are the real evidence and that is what the Pharisees denied to Jesus which could not be forgiven since, if you believe the Christian narrative, the Pharisees knew everything prophecied in the Old Testament thoroughly, they were just in denial when they saw Jesus so they could continue being sinful.

    How can every religion that believes that be said to be worshipping the same God? Even Satanists believe that, they just think Satan is the real God and the God of the Bible is a usurper.

  13. #13
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    How can every religion that believes that be said to be worshipping the same God? Even Satanists believe that
    No, Satanists actually do not believe what I described. They don't consider their God to be the God of the old testament, for starters. But their beliefs are much more compatible with Pagan polytheism... Satanists usually consider their own will to be much more important than worshipping a divine entity. Many Satanists consider Satan to just be a figure of rebellion and nothing more. There's not really cogent agreement amongst Satanists as to what their beliefs are, but this idea that there is one and no other before God is just about the antithesis of Satanism.

    I don't know what is being debated at this point, so unless there's something more you have to say... adios.
    Last edited by DogOfDanger; 08-07-2022 at 07:17 PM.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    4,449
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    No, Satanists actually do not believe what I described. They don't consider their God to be the God of the old testament, for starters. But their beliefs are much more compatible with Pagan polytheism... Satanists usually consider their own will to be much more important than worshipping a divine entity. Many Satanists consider Satan to just be a figure of rebellion and nothing more. There's not really cogent agreement amongst Satanists as to what their beliefs are, but this idea that there is one and no other before God is just about the antithesis of Satanism.

    I don't know what is being debated at this point, so unless there's something more you have to say... adios.
    I mean theistic Satanism, not the Temple of Satan or Church of Satan and not polytheistic demonolatry. There are groups like Joy of Satan who think of Satan as being a real monotheistic god who is the true god unlike the Old Testament God in their worldview, as well as many forms of Gnosticism and Luciferianism. They believe there is one god (in their worldview, Satan) who is responsible for the events of the Old Testament, they just disagree on who it is.

    And if they disagree on who it is, how am I supposed to take it for granted that every mainline Protestant who casually says "God in the Old Testament is mean, I think Jesus is different and better and replaced all the Old Testament stuff," is worshipping the same God in any real sense?

  15. #15
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    I mean theistic Satanism, not the Temple of Satan or Church of Satan and not polytheistic demonolatry. There are groups like Joy of Satan who think of Satan as being a real monotheistic god who is the true god unlike the Old Testament God in their worldview, as well as many forms of Gnosticism and Luciferianism. They believe there is one god (in their worldview, Satan) who is responsible for the events of the Old Testament, they just disagree on who it is.
    Well, if they genuinely believe in the God of the old testament, but just believe that God is infact Satan ... and they aren't just trying to be controversial - than yes they have very greatly misinterpreted the nature of God in the old testament. TBH I don't see how that belief even makes sense, God in the old testament literally did things like destroy Sodom & Gomorrah, it sounds like something a person would say just to be controversial, but who knows.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    And if they disagree on who it is, how am I supposed to take it for granted that every mainline Protestant who casually says "God in the Old Testament is mean, I think Jesus is different and better and replaced all the Old Testament stuff," is worshipping the same God in any real sense?
    You'd just say that they have misinterpreted the nature of their God. What I'm saying is they aren't worshipping an actual different God.
    It's very similar to ... feeling a certain way about a person you think you know, but don't actually know very well. Then when you get to know them better... you change your opinion of them. What I'm saying is that they are and always were the same person, it is just that your perception of them was off. The person is not defined by your own belief about them, the person exists independently of you. There are not multiple people involved.
    This is good, it means the religious people are all at least looking in the same direction. To see eye to eye they just have to understand what they're looking at.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    4,449
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    Well, if they genuinely believe in the God of the old testament, but just believe that God is infact Satan ... and they aren't just trying to be controversial - than yes they have very greatly misinterpreted the nature of God in the old testament. TBH I don't see how that belief even makes sense, God in the old testament literally did things like destroy Sodom & Gomorrah, it sounds like something a person would say just to be controversial, but who knows.


    You'd just say that they have misinterpreted the nature of their God. What I'm saying is they aren't worshipping an actual different God.
    It's very similar to ... feeling a certain way about a person you think you know, but don't actually know very well. Then when you get to know them better... you change your opinion of them. What I'm saying is that they are and always were the same person, it is just that your perception of them was off. The person is not defined by your own belief about them, the person exists independently of you. There are not multiple people involved.
    This is good, it means the religious people are all at least looking in the same direction. To see eye to eye they just have to understand what they're looking at.
    I don't think your metaphor is right. I think if someone has a different idea of God they get a different God. For example, let's say person A is trying to call their friend, but they dialed the wrong number. The result isn't they talk to a different interpretation of their friend, the result is they talk to an entirely different person. The attributes people give to God are like the numbers, but if there's a separate being that has the attributes they use to describe God but who's not God, then they basically got someone else instead of God. For example, if someone tries to dial God by asking for a trinity, but God is completely one and undivided and the only trinities in existence are like Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva from Hinduism and the Maiden, Mother, and Crone from Wicca they could get either of those two but not God. If one person thinks God does both good and evil and another thinks God does only good then someone trying to talk to a "Lord" by either of those descriptions could get different beings.

    The argument that different Abrahamic religions all worship the same God doesn't even work in postmodernism. For example, let's say I read a novel about a boy with a lightning bolt scar whose parents died sacrificing himself and he finds out he's a wizard and is taken off to a secret magic school in Scotland. This book is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and no amount of "all fantasy books come from the same source" will make it The Hobbit.

  17. #17
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    I don't think your metaphor is right. I think if someone has a different idea of God they get a different God. For example, let's say person A is trying to call their friend, but they dialed the wrong number. The result isn't they talk to a different interpretation of their friend, the result is they talk to an entirely different person. The attributes people give to God are like the numbers, but if there's a separate being that has the attributes they use to describe God but who's not God, then they basically got someone else instead of God. For example, if someone tries to dial God by asking for a trinity, but God is completely one and undivided and the only trinities in existence are like Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva from Hinduism and the Maiden, Mother, and Crone from Wicca they could get either of those two but not God. If one person thinks God does both good and evil and another thinks God does only good then someone trying to talk to a "Lord" by either of those descriptions could get different beings.
    This is basically an anti-realist way of thinking about God. In other words God is not an objective thing, God is not real, God is defined by your belief. If you believe a certain God exists.... vuala it exists, belief defines existence. Problem is this makes no consideration of whether the thing you are dialing into actually exists in reality. If God does not exist in reality then there is really no point in any of this, it's all just smoke and mirrors, figments of our imagination. This is really the problem with polytheism - it's fun and interesting to consider the ideas of these different Gods, but we don't believe they exist in reality, we are aware we defined them all in our minds and we're just entertaining ourselves.
    These Hindu Gods all have different metaphysics, and they fit together within the polytheistic tree, the Abrahamic God is not like that... it's monotheistic. It can't accommodate this pluralism you are referring to, not without somehow altering its metaphysics (and in the process altering its definition and its nature). Belief in the Abrahamic God is different from belief in polytheistic Gods in that it is presumed that the Abrahamic God really exists. You could say that monotheism attempts to end the anti-realism of polytheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    The argument that different Abrahamic religions all worship the same God doesn't even work in postmodernism. For example, let's say I read a novel about a boy with a lightning bolt scar whose parents died sacrificing himself and he finds out he's a wizard and is taken off to a secret magic school in Scotland. This book is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and no amount of "all fantasy books come from the same source" will make it The Hobbit.
    This is really a bad analogy, because the Abrahamic religions share the same old testament books, but the Hobbit & Harry Potter have nothing to do with one another. So really it's just a completely irrelevant analogy. Muslims even consider Jesus a prophet.
    Last edited by DogOfDanger; 08-08-2022 at 04:11 AM.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    4,449
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    This is basically an anti-realist way of thinking about God. In other words God is not an objective thing, God is not real, God is defined by your belief. If you believe a certain God exists.... vuala it exists, belief defines existence. Problem is this makes no consideration of whether the thing you are dialing into actually exists in reality. If God does not exist in reality then there is really no point in any of this, it's all just smoke and mirrors, figments of our imagination. This is really the problem with polytheism - it's fun and interesting to consider the ideas of these different Gods, but we don't believe they exist in reality, we are aware we defined them all in our minds and we're just entertaining ourselves.
    These Hindu Gods all have different metaphysics, and they fit together within the polytheistic tree, the Abrahamic God is not like that... it's monotheistic. It can't accommodate this pluralism you are referring to, not without somehow altering its metaphysics (and in the process altering its definition and its nature). Belief in the Abrahamic God is different from belief in polytheistic Gods in that it is presumed that the Abrahamic God really exists. You could say that monotheism attempts to end the anti-realism of polytheism.


    This is really a bad analogy, because the Abrahamic religions share the same old testament books, but the Hobbit & Harry Potter have nothing to do with one another. So really it's just a completely irrelevant analogy. Muslims even consider Jesus a prophet.
    That's not anti-realist or polytheist. Assume God is real and there is only one. Now fill in the "other beings" as being demons or evil spirits who match those descriptions, or maybe even good spirits. For example, many Jews consider God the author of evil, but many Christians consider God the author of good only. In the Christian view, if a Jew called on an author of good and evil that could not be God, it would have to the Devil or some demon, while if a Christian called on an author of good only, maybe that's some kind of angel or something.

    Muslims consider Jesus the Messiah, just not "God the Son." Likewise, if anyone calls on "God the Son," that cannot be either the Messiah of Rabbinic Judaism or even the Jesus of Islam. However, "Jesus the Messiah" could return either the Jesus of Christianity or the Jesus of Islam but not the Messiah of Rabbinic Judaism.

  19. #19
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    That's not anti-realist or polytheist. Assume God is real and there is only one. Now fill in the "other beings" as being demons or evil spirits who match those descriptions, or maybe even good spirits. For example, many Jews consider God the author of evil, but many Christians consider God the author of good only. In the Christian view, if a Jew called on an author of good and evil that could not be God, it would have to the Devil or some demon, while if a Christian called on an author of good only, maybe that's some kind of angel or something.
    All you've done is stated, again, that the perception is identifying a different being. I'm saying there's no reason to assume it's a different being, because it could be a misinterpretation of God instead, that is my point. Why do you assume it is a different being? I'm saying you just kind of casually come up with these new beings in your mind. Any different perception is a new being. This is anti-realist... sure I could call any idea I have about anything that resembles a God, or about the nature of God, a being, but what is the justification for this?
    What if the idea isn't coherent...? Like it's a wrong idea. Does it still reference an actual being? How can an actual real being be identified by a thought that isn't logically coherent?
    At this point we're just repeating the same thing, I don't think we're getting anywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    Muslims consider Jesus the Messiah, just not "God the Son." Likewise, if anyone calls on "God the Son," that cannot be either the Messiah of Rabbinic Judaism or even the Jesus of Islam. However, "Jesus the Messiah" could return either the Jesus of Christianity or the Jesus of Islam but not the Messiah of Rabbinic Judaism.
    Again it's the same argument.

    I don't think this is going anywhere, I've already made the case...
    Carry onward

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    4,449
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    All you've done is stated, again, that it's a different being. I'm saying there's no reason to assume it's a different being, because it could be a misinterpretation of God instead, that is my point. Why do you assume it is a different being? I'm saying you just kind of casually come up with these new beings in your mind. Any different perception is a new being. This is anti-realist... sure I could call any idea I have about anything that resembles a God, or about the nature of God, a being, but what is the justification for this?
    At this point we're just repeating the same thing, I don't think we're getting anywhere.


    Again it's the same argument.

    I don't think this is going anywhere, I've already made the case...
    Carry onward
    You are making an anti-realistic argument and you can't see how. The Devil is a real being in even the most hippie-dippy interpretations of the Abrahamic religions. They don't like to talk about the Devil, but he's still there. Same with all the demons and what have you. Also angels, though angels are not usually out to deceive anyone. If you can't see why the default realist interpretation in Abrahamic religions is to assume that, at minimum, people who are following beliefs that are ridicuously contradictory to yours have been misled by the Devil and are therefore not worshipping the same God, you are putting forth an antirealist argument: "OK religious kiddies, get along now!" But you can't see that the reason they don't is exemplified in the very texts. And not necessarily completely invalid if you believe someone else is trying to worship evil incarnate and bring Hell itself to Earth and you're looking to regain Paradise. The real argument is always, what is this person in particular saying? Are they saying that love rules or that fear rules? And you're saying that's the exact thing that doesn't matter, only the superficial formalities matter, as if religious people didn't understand the substance of their own religions.

  21. #21
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Northern Japan
    TIM
    IEI-(C?) 4w3 so/sx
    Posts
    924
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm philosophically an agnostic, but I practice polytheism. I think if a god exists it's more likely that there are multiple. I also think that capital "G" God makes more sense as an archetype than as an actual entity. Also to anyone who is interested in polytheism, I recommend the YouTuber, Ocean Keltoi

    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  22. #22
    The Crucified Space Sheriff godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    H 964 sp/sx
    Posts
    571
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat View Post
    I'm philosophically an agnostic, but I practice polytheism. I think if a god exists it's more likely that there are multiple. I also think that capital "G" God makes more sense as an archetype than as an actual entity. Also to anyone who is interested in polytheism, I recommend the YouTuber, Ocean Keltoi

    Your choice of words is very interesting ! I like that formula ! Religion is indeed for the most part closer to a philosophy of life than an absolute truth. I think that the more religious people tend to adhere to that point of view the more tolerant they are in regards to other beliefs or philosophies of life.
    Unfortunately, It is my understanding that religious people who take everything literally without any "lateral thinking" or openness to metaphorical interpretations are those who are the most at risk to fall into fanaticism and intolerance.

  23. #23
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If God does not literally exist then the whole thing is just a charade and a complete waste of time. You may as well dress up as the Easter bunny and call yourself the Easter bunny at that point.

  24. #24
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    15,880
    Mentioned
    1504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    If God does not literally exist then the whole thing is just a charade and a complete waste of time. You may as well dress up as the Easter bunny and call yourself the Easter bunny at that point.
    Dressing up as the Easter Bunny might not have universal appeal.

    It would probably be more useful to find some other reason to justify our existence.

  25. #25
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    You are making an anti-realistic argument and you can't see how.
    You aren't using this term correctly, you're using it here interchangeably with the word "wrong". Anti-realism is a philosophy which considers that there are no normative facts. That's not the same as a claim being wrong. An example of anti-realism is considering that different thoughts about the Abrahamic God a person has implies some different Gods actual existence. At that point you've stopped considering the Abrahamic Gods objective existence, these many Gods existence is justified by thought alone. For example, you pointed to the miracles in the bible earlier as evidence of Gods existence - there are no miracles, or any such evidence, for these other monotheistic Gods existence. Even the concept of them is incoherent, you need to switch to polytheism to make this argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    The Devil is a real being in even the most hippie-dippy interpretations of the Abrahamic religions. They don't like to talk about the Devil, but he's still there. Same with all the demons and what have you. Also angels, though angels are not usually out to deceive anyone. If you can't see why the default realist interpretation in Abrahamic religions is to assume that, at minimum, people who are following beliefs that are ridicuously contradictory to yours have been misled by the Devil and are therefore not worshipping the same God,
    You would simply say they were misled by the Devil into misperceiving God and worshipping God incorrectly. Your conclusion does not follow, nothing in this paragraph - the devil existing, demons existing, etc. - implies that a person so misled is worshipping a different God, or that there are a multitude of monotheistic Gods.
    You could benefit from a better, more historically accurate understanding of the term "Devil", what it means and where it came from, but that's another matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    you are putting forth an antirealist argument: "OK religious kiddies, get along now!" But you can't see that the reason they don't is exemplified in the very texts.
    This has nothing to do with our conversation... the claim that God is being misperceived in no way undermines the notion of a true and accurate perception.
    This is just a neurotic misinterpretation of our conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    And not necessarily completely invalid if you believe someone else is trying to worship evil incarnate and bring Hell itself to Earth and you're looking to regain Paradise.
    Even the slightest misapprehension of fundamental ideas can have giant consequences, this again has nothing to do with our argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    The real argument is always, what is this person in particular saying? Are they saying that love rules or that fear rules? And you're saying that's the exact thing that doesn't matter, only the superficial formalities matter, as if religious people didn't understand the substance of their own religions.
    I have never said anything of the sort. Again, misperception does not undermine the notion of a true, accurate perception, I don't know why you would conclude this, it is just nonsense.
    You know, even theologically your point is nonsense - it is well understood the Jews worshipped God throughout the old testament, but did so incorrectly. That is stated plainly in the New Testament.

    Carry onward!
    Last edited by DogOfDanger; 08-28-2022 at 12:59 AM.

  26. #26
    The Crucified Space Sheriff godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    H 964 sp/sx
    Posts
    571
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    We all live in the Matrix. This is not a reason to ignore that only a handful of people can handle the truth of its existence.




    •  

  27. #27
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No man, you live in a TV... life is a giant TV. It's a video game where we are being controlled by ourselves in it. I am an RPG character named Cloud in reality. You want to ignore the truth about it fine, most are too weak to handle the red pill anyway.

  28. #28
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    It would probably be more useful to find some other reason to justify our existence.
    Well you can try by starting with our physical existence, but I don't think you're gona make alot of progress here. You'll probably just run into the infinite first cause problem and... at some point give up trying to explain it.

  29. #29
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    15,880
    Mentioned
    1504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    Well you can try by starting with our physical existence, but I don't think you're gona make alot of progress here. You'll probably just run into the infinite first cause problem and... at some point give up trying to explain it.
    Personally, I've settled on "making kids" as my purpose in life, which seems slightly better to me than "pass the butter."

  30. #30
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Personally, I've settled on "making kids" as my purpose in life, which seems slightly better to me than "pass the butter."
    TBH the human race is so detached from nature, and society is so maladaptive, that humanity is probably devolving.

  31. #31
    Moderator two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    TIM
    jiminette bishopette
    Posts
    1,591
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My opinion on this is that there are several perspectives that you can choose in life. One perspective is to see that there is God, but you can also opt not to do that. Though there are always consequences so it's wise to choose based on your priorities. For me, I just jump from one perspective to another because life ends up getting boring if there are no romantic elements to it and I would surely believe in miracles if that means it will save my ass from unhappiness. The perspective that there is God, that there is light and that I can also reflect god's grace and be a magician is very romantic and it makes me get inspired to do boring things atm. So why not get into that zone. Why would I see things bleakly if I can always imagine things. I mean being naturally myself I can juggle lots and lots of perspectives anyway. It's like there is God today but I can see there is no God too at the same time. Sometimes I think I have servitors. The problem would only show up when I start to be a crusader and force a view to anybody who is not prepared to join the path with me and see the things the way I see them. But I'm too detached for that. They should come up with their own view of life. No spoon-feeding, also I don't want responsibilities in general. Plus my potential followers might get annoyed at me because my views change multiple times in a day.

    Religion and spirituality is kinda annoying to argue about in general because it's not like other things where you can get to the logic or provide proof. If it's the latter then we can talk properly. This is just in a different realm completely and it's mostly personal so why would I even care about how you see God or not. The thing is we only attach label to things to explain what we experience then we just kinda roll with it. It's kinda comical to fight about something when you know that you and the other person are not even on the same bubble/context.

  32. #32
    DogOfDanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't entirely agree but you get a thumbs up for being amusing..

  33. #33
    adage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Posts
    711
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The idea behind all religions is supposed to be love, it's the idea people have of love and how to reach it that differ.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    4,449
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Dressing up as the Easter Bunny might not have universal appeal.

    It would probably be more useful to find some other reason to justify our existence.
    God would have universal appeal, however, it would be much worse for someone to dress up as God.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    4,449
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by two View Post
    My opinion on this is that there are several perspectives that you can choose in life. One perspective is to see that there is God, but you can also opt not to do that. Though there are always consequences so it's wise to choose based on your priorities. For me, I just jump from one perspective to another because life ends up getting boring if there are no romantic elements to it and I would surely believe in miracles if that means it will save my ass from unhappiness. The perspective that there is God, that there is light and that I can also reflect god's grace and be a magician is very romantic and it makes me get inspired to do boring things atm. So why not get into that zone. Why would I see things bleakly if I can always imagine things. I mean being naturally myself I can juggle lots and lots of perspectives anyway. It's like there is God today but I can see there is no God too at the same time. Sometimes I think I have servitors. The problem would only show up when I start to be a crusader and force a view to anybody who is not prepared to join the path with me and see the things the way I see them. But I'm too detached for that. They should come up with their own view of life. No spoon-feeding, also I don't want responsibilities in general. Plus my potential followers might get annoyed at me because my views change multiple times in a day.

    Religion and spirituality is kinda annoying to argue about in general because it's not like other things where you can get to the logic or provide proof. If it's the latter then we can talk properly. This is just in a different realm completely and it's mostly personal so why would I even care about how you see God or not. The thing is we only attach label to things to explain what we experience then we just kinda roll with it. It's kinda comical to fight about something when you know that you and the other person are not even on the same bubble/context.
    If only you knew how pitiful your magic, your illusions, were compared to Truth and how much that "different realm completely" was what mattered.

  36. #36
    Moderator two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    TIM
    jiminette bishopette
    Posts
    1,591
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    If only you knew how pitiful your magic, your illusions, were compared to Truth and how much that "different realm completely" was what mattered.
    I get my light right from the source

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    4,449
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by two View Post
    I get my light right from the source
    You know Lucifer isn't really an angel, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be said, "Satan appears as an angel of light," it would be said "Satan is an angel of light but he's bad."

  38. #38
    Ari Lady Lioness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    USA
    TIM
    ESI-SE
    Posts
    3,272
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I believe it's impossible for the concept of God to be real in the way it is presented in present day Christianity. This is why: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

    It pretty much points out a contradiction that cannot be rectified. I think Satan is just a scapegoat.


    sᴏᴄɪᴏɴɪᴄs
    ESI-SE (CREATIVE)


    ᴀᴛᴛɪᴛᴜᴅɪɴᴀʟ ᴘsʏᴄʜᴇ
    EVFL


    ᴇɴɴᴇᴀsᴄᴀᴍ
    8w9 ᔆˣ/ᔆᵒ

    ᴅᴜᴍʙ ᴀsғ ᴢᴏᴅɪᴀᴄ
    ARIES

    What's your confirmation bias?

  39. #39
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,361
    Mentioned
    445 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DogOfDanger View Post
    If God does not literally exist then the whole thing is just a charade and a complete waste of time. You may as well dress up as the Easter bunny and call yourself the Easter bunny at that point.
    The same is true if "God" has no measurable effect on the universe.

  40. #40
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,361
    Mentioned
    445 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    You know Lucifer isn't really an angel, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be said, "Satan appears as an angel of light," it would be said "Satan is an angel of light but he's bad."
    Angels weren't really developed as a coherent and fleshed out concept in Judaism, and passages change in meaning over time. Lucifer probably wasn't even been regarded as Satan when "he" was first mentioned: it was a label attached to a/the king of the Babylonians, the enemies of the Jews at the time (at least in popular memory). No metaphorical Babylon either.

    Many modern Christians like to say that Lucifer is the morning star, and that Jesus is the evening star (even though the morning and evening stars are the same object - Venus) - and that of course Jesus is the correct one.

    In Jewish tradition, Satan was actually the loyal servant of God who played the devil's advocate (which has a somewhat different meaning in popular culture now of course - tending to mean a defence of the devil, rather than scrutinising God): who made sure God was fair and faithful to its people.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •