A question for fans of the god myth.

[Random]

Hm. I don't follow what you're saying, then.

Par example, the story of Jesus Christ has non-historical myth-bound elements mixed with events that actually occured and based upon a man who actually lived in this (our) timeline: the poetry that evokes GOD-awareness is thus locked into the hidden thematic message. This is what the Bible is supposed to do to the reader (subject): it fails only when orthodox literalism creates interpretative chaos. Thus as the Bible is neither completely myth nor completely historic, it is intellectually dishonest to ignore the many facets of its (God's) story as told that transcend the parameters of "fact" and "fiction" simultaneously, becoming a Third Thing or something else entirely.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Have you thought of learning English as a second language? Just a thought.

 

[Random]

Have you thought of learning English as a second language? Just a thought.

Heya Pete: do you mean me, or..?

 

[Mister Emu]

While his belief is incorrect (an assumption based on our best evidence) his perspective was true: he existed in a flat-earth world.

His perspective was false. The world is not flat, no matter your level of intelligence, no matter your scientific understanding, no matter how you view the world, it is not flat.

it is not incorrect from his perspective.

Perspective doesn't matter to an objective truth. Either the Earth is round or it isn't. One perspective in incorrect. One perspective is not the truth.

But for the religious to claim they have absolute knowledge of what the "truth" really is leads me to question reasoning and judgment. Instead of "I know the truth", how about "I think I know the truth"? This subtle adjustment in language would go a long way to extinguish the air of religious arrogance that is so ever present.

Some people, such as myself, however have experiencal evidence that is proof, for them.

I can't say I think I know the truth(religiously) any more than I can say I think I know I am sitting in a chair typing at a computer. If either one were incorrect, I, personally, would have absolutley no valid way of determining anything, as I would be 100% insane

 

[Scuba Pete]

Re read your post 101. It's not very readable. It sounds wonderfully complex, but it's hard to follow.

 

[Random]

Re read your post 101. It's not very readable. It sounds wonderfully complex, but it's hard to follow.

Sorry, I repeatedly find myself trying to dumb things down for general consumption on an internet forum but sometimes fail miserably. Apologies: it made perfect sense to me that's all I can say.

 

[LogDog]

Some people, such as myself, however have experiencal evidence that is proof, for them.

I can't say I think I know the truth(religiously) any more than I can say I think I know I am sitting in a chair typing at a computer. If either one were incorrect, I, personally, would have absolutley no valid way of determining anything, as I would be 100% insane

I'd be interested to learn more about your personal experience. From your point of view, what about it constitutes evidence of proof? Could there be any other explanation for your experience that you're overlooking?

 

[UnTheist]

I'd be interested to learn more about your personal experience. From your point of view, what about it constitutes evidence of proof? Could there be any other explanation for your experience that you're overlooking?

It was an experience with God. That's evidence to him. I don't even know why you're trying to disprove his religion

 

[LogDog]

It was an experience with God. That's evidence to him. I don't even know why you're trying to disprove his religion

Skeptics will inquire. His religion will probably never be disproved but it can be questioned and debated. Maybe "secular humanist" isn't the most appropriate descriptor for your position on religion?

Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:

Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method - Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

 

[UnTheist]

Skeptics will inquire. His religion will probably never be disproved but it can be questioned and debated. Maybe "secular humanist" isn't the most appropriate descriptor for your position on religion?

Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:

Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method - Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

You arguing with him won't stop him from believing. My view is my view, not his. I have no interest in disproving his beliefs

 

[logician]

Freeing oneself from god myths is the first step towards real knowledge and freethought.

 

[LogDog]

You arguing with him won't stop him from believing. My view is my view, not his. I have no interest in disproving his beliefs

He hasn't even replied to my post. Take two steps back and a couple deep breaths. Everything is going to be just fine. I promise.

 

[UnTheist]

He hasn't even replied to my post. Take two steps back and a couple deep breaths. Everything is going to be just fine. I promise.

What are you talking about? I know he hasn't replied. I was just stating my point that your way of logic will not convince him.

 

[LogDog]

What are you talking about? I know he hasn't replied. I was just stating my point that your way of logic will not convince him.

I haven't tried to convince him of anything. He's the one making the assertion that he "knows the truth". I'm questioning him on how he came into this knowledge and whether or not he's considered other explanations for his experience.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Freeing oneself from god myths is the first step towards real knowledge and freethought.

What about those who don't have a holy book to look to for behavior? Personally, I don't have a "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" in any book to live by. I have my own morals, my own code of ethics, which is shared by some other faiths, to an extent. And define what is "real knowledge." "Real" knowledge comes and goes, and changes with the ages. What used to be "real," past knowledges, both ancient and modern, have come and went. We used to be certain the earth was flat. A man was imprisoned for saying the earth is not the center of the universe. We still don't really know if thier is life on other planets or not. Real knowledge now is that thier is no cure for AIDS. That might not be "real" next year, or even next month.

 

[UnTheist]

I haven't tried to convince him of anything. He's the one making the assertion that he "knows the truth". I'm questioning him on how he came into this knowledge and whether or not he's considered other explanations for his experience.

His version of truth is all that matters to him. Unless you can figure out another explanation for his experience, there is no reason to even question. I am sure he is aware of people like you getting on his back about his beliefs.

 

[LogDog]

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes

We must question.

 

[UnTheist]

We must question.

I have already concluded my beliefs. If you want to question, go ahead.

 

[LogDog]

I have already concluded my beliefs. If you want to question, go ahead.

Dear PaWz,

Thank you for allowing me to continue questioning what I find to be incredible claims. I greatly appreciate your kind gesture.

-LogDog

 

[logician]

What about those who don't have a holy book to look to for behavior? Personally, I don't have a "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" in any book to live by. I have my own morals, my own code of ethics, which is shared by some other faiths, to an extent. And define what is "real knowledge." "Real" knowledge comes and goes, and changes with the ages. What used to be "real," past knowledges, both ancient and modern, have come and went. We used to be certain the earth was flat. A man was imprisoned for saying the earth is not the center of the universe. We still don't really know if thier is life on other planets or not. Real knowledge now is that thier is no cure for AIDS. That might not be "real" next year, or even next month.

All scientific theories are tested and rejected if evidence is found that counters the theory. "Real" knowledge is that constant, never-ending search for the truth in all disciplines, free from the fetters of the prejudice and bias of religion, or any philosophy that rejects the scientific process.