Blaspheming The Holy Spirit!

[thau]

These claims are so numerous that were I to waste my time disproving each, a human lifetime would be insufficient. So given the plethora of such claims, Ill wait on you (or someone else) to provide the evidence that all the documented previous failings of the various alleged crying icons and divine figure sightings do not apply before I bother taking a deeper look at it; but people making these claims do have a tendency not to attempt to demonstrate that prior failings of similar claims in the past do not apply to their own claim.

What “reasons” you offer for not having interest in Akita or Zeitoun --- what a convenient way to escape a challenge.

Ok, I will go and search out those “thousands” of fake crying statues you say are out there and see if they are all proven frauds. I highly, highly doubt your numbers but I can see why you say that --- because it sounds impressive and you need some kind of material to bolster your case, which is a verdict in search of evidence.

So what if there are a few misguided zealots who put up a couple of tricked up weeping icons, so what? Is that all it takes for you to say “therefore, they all must be fake?” You sure make the devil’s work light if that is all it takes for you to walk away from miracles. I know better now what Jesus meant when He said “an evil age is eager for a sign, but no sign will be given that except that of Jonah.” Too many hardened hearts now unable to see.

 

[McBell]

Not exactly sure what you are saying, but this isn't a numbers game is it?

How many "hits" are needed to establish a deity is my question. (see post above)

You have turned it into a numbers game.
Problem is that the only way the numbers add up to your favour is to ignore the numbers you dislike.

 

[thau]

You have turned it into a numbers game.

I have? Please explain?

Problem is that the only way the numbers add up to your favour is to ignore the numbers you dislike.

Again, I am confused?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

snip

I think perhaps you have misunderstood the basis of my comment, maybe I poorly phrased it so allow me to rephrase it:

There have existed thousands perhaps tens of thousands of such claims (every year sees many new such). In the past due to their visual impact there was a profound need to find an explanation and even skeptics recognized this to the extent that some skeptical (not cynical) people devoted significant time and energy to investigating such claims - investigating the scene in detail, interviewing every eyewitness and so forth. Now naturally this is a costly and time intensive endeavor but it was done anyway (indeed sometimes they were even invited to do so by those making the claims, because they truly believed that their claim was real and that were an investigation unable to determine the reason for such a phenomenon then it could be claimed to be verified to be supernatural - an inaccurate assumption but popular) and yet from the examinations there very quickly appeared to be a limited number of frequently recurring causes of such experiences. Indeed it was to the extent that further such examinations were considered to have negligible importance due to the ability to predict the likely reasons for the experience of the alleged claim (of weeping statue/of figure spotting/etc) and thus not worth the amount of time and money they were devoting to it.

My point was this, if someone demonstrated that a claim of such a phenomenon does not exhibit any of the identified recurring flaws, then it might be worth looking into - without having done that, there is little point to waste my time looking into any particular one of literally thousands of such cases where all seem to have very similar failings.

 

[McBell]

I have? Please explain?

You flat out ignore the examples that show you are flat out wrong, cannot present anything to support your claim other than "it has not been proven false" and ignore the fact that "you cannot prove it false" does not even count as evidence that it it what you claim it is.

Again, I am confused?

Looks like you are.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Why do these need to be called supernatural at all? And what makes you automatically assume that if they were natural, they are inaccurately perceived?

I missed this one earlier, my apologies.

I don't have any reason at all to believe they are; indeed that was my very point. It is entirely possible (indeed overwhelmingly probable) that this is part of the natural laws of existence, the question then becomes about the potential natural causes of such events; typically in such cases it has been a result of the conditions in which the events occurred (and the people involved) - that could for example indicate current human scientific awareness of the degree to which condensation is affected by various surfaces is insufficient, or it could indicate that through the power of their expectations that the sensory perception of individuals was actually being manipulated prior to conscious awareness of the sensory data, or the degree to which the individuals were influenced by group conformity and the asch effect etc; there is a wealth of potential natural causes (and indeed if you look at the spoiler I placed in #116 you can see there are many ways for a phenomenon to be observed, it could be misperceived, the laws of nature misunderstood and so forth), including agency - someone might be attempting to defraud people, or to provide hope to the faithful, or some alien intelligence might be deciding to mess with people etc.

The astounding breadth of possible natural causes provides a far more intellectually sound basis to make claims based on limited assumptions without positing the existence of a supernatural aspect to reality, particularly since it can provide the explanation of such phenomenon.

 

[Shermana]

Do you personally believe that every atheist or non-monotheist is doing so out of rebelliousness or stubbornness? Does this really seem plausible to you?

"If that's the idea", well, then it is pretty obviously incorrect. An omniscient God would know as much.

As for myself, I was pretty devastated when I lost my faith in the existence of God. It was heartbreaking. I tried to regain it, but could not. It had nothing to do with my ego, but everything to do with the inability to believe something for which there was no adequate evidence.

Perhaps the issue is that your idea of "Evidence" is based on something you place undue faith in. You think the solar system and the life system within the Earth can result as a matter of chance, and I believe that is something the "Fool" who "Says there is no god" would believe.

But this goes back to the age-long attempt to ask Atheists to define what kind of "Evidence" they'd accept for the idea of a Creator. It usually ends up getting nowhere asking for such an example.

So yes, saying there is "no evidence" for a god, in my opinion at least, is an act of rebelliousness, of which a full philosophical explanation would be beyond the scope of this thread.

The God of the Jewish people (as recorded in the Tanakh), the Christian God, and the Muslim God all seem to be pretty clear that they, and they alone, must be worshiped.

By the Israelites according to the Torah, and those living within their borders. This is a difficult subject also best fit for another thread.

Worshiping any god, even polytheistic ones, would be evidence of a humbleness of spirit, dontcha think? So, if saving us from our egos is the reason behind God's demand for worship, then wouldn't worshiping anything but ourselves serve that purpose? That doesn't seem to be how God feels about it.

Part of why I believe the gentile nations were meant to bow before the regional archon.

Ignorance, or inability to understand, is not the same thing as a bloated ego, and could just as easily account for this.

"Inability" to understand? What makes one unable to understand the idea that the life we experience would necessitate a creator? Rather, it would take an extreme amount of understanding astronomical theory to even believe the possibility that the solar system could fit together without a creator, and those theories are filled with holes. I see it as a willful, stubborn rebellion, regardless of how its dressed up as, and I believe that's also the Jewish position in the Talmud, but I cannot say for sure.

Methods of worship are largely culturally based. You absorb, as a child, how one is supposed to worship. If you are born into a culture in which physical signs of worship are not performed or are not emphasized, then that is likely how you will worship too. Again, nothing to do with ego.

I believe every culture worldwide has had a concept of bowing and sacrificing. From the Americas to the Asians and the Africans in between.

For instance, Muslims believe in prostration for prayer. Catholics often will kneel. Most Protestants will simply close their eyes and fold their hands. Is one being more pious than the other? Are the Protestants and Catholics being more egotistical than the Muslims for not knowing they should be prostrate?

Kneeling and prostrating are both methods nonetheless, whether one is more correct or not is a minor detail, the fact is that they are displaying a physical sign of submission. I DO Believe that there is something to arrogance and ego in the Protestant belief even beyond that of the Orthodox church but that's an entirely different subject best for another thread.

If someone believes in a Creator-God but does not believe that this God desires worship, how is that egotistical? Think of the deists, for instance.

The idea that the Creator would just walk away and not want a sign of submission from its creation in the Deist method, is in my opinion, a form of lack of humility and wanting to be free from the Master.

Notice too, how you worded your response above: "This could be seen as a sin of haughtiness..." I do not doubt that some people could perceive it in such a way, but it does not follow that their perception is an accurate depiction of reality.

Everyone is working with perception. This is basically an attempt to make an assertion upon an age long question of Epistmyology of personal reality versus Empirical objective reality.

How so? You asked, "Why would anyone refuse to bow down and show a physical sign of allegiance to the Grand Overlord and Overseer of Cosmic Justice?"

There may be reasons, but I believe each of those reasons is based on something we will be judged by which have an objective ruling to answer to.

It is a valid response, then, to point out that "bowing down" and "physical signs of allegience" are not the sole forms of worship, or expressions of submission to a higher power.

Throughout history, there are few if any ways of showing "Worship" (and the meaning of such in ancient languages is purely to bow down physically), the concept of this changing is extremely recent. Do you see how that applies?

 

[Sleeppy]

I missed this one earlier, my apologies.

I don't have any reason at all to believe they are; indeed that was my very point. It is entirely possible (indeed overwhelmingly probable) that this is part of the natural laws of existence, the question then becomes about the potential natural causes of such events; typically in such cases it has been a result of the conditions in which the events occurred (and the people involved) - that could for example indicate current human scientific awareness of the degree to which condensation is affected by various surfaces is insufficient, or it could indicate that through the power of their expectations that the sensory perception of individuals was actually being manipulated prior to conscious awareness of the sensory data, or the degree to which the individuals were influenced by group conformity and the asch effect etc; there is a wealth of potential natural causes (and indeed if you look at the spoiler I placed in #116 you can see there are many ways for a phenomenon to be observed, it could be misperceived, the laws of nature misunderstood and so forth), including agency - someone might be attempting to defraud people, or to provide hope to the faithful, or some alien intelligence might be deciding to mess with people etc.

The astounding breadth of possible natural causes provides a far more intellectually sound basis to make claims based on limited assumptions without positing the existence of a supernatural aspect to reality, particularly since it can provide the explanation of such phenomenon.

Recognising that there are natural causes for all things shouldn't necessarily diminish the accuracy of a mass-perception.

But, the only thing we should even consider in regard to these events, is outcome. What occurs after these perceptions take place? All other evidence is gone or tampered with, naturally.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

The fact that there are likely natural causes does not necessarily mean that perception was the point of failure, there are many alternatives, for example a flawed understanding of the natural laws (there was a time when where we saw ships sail out of sight it was natural to assume they had fallen off the face of the earth because of our flawed comprehension of the world). By no means do I equate believing something phenomenal to have occurred means that a person MUST have seen it incorrectly; there a number of other potential factors, the potential for a faulty perception (or recollection) is only one avenue we ought to consider, other relevant factors include limited information access (for example the observer simply may have been aware of some causal factor, like thinking you are alone in a room and having a cup moved by a hidden friend while your back is turned) or limited awareness of the natural laws. There is so very much we as a species are ignorant of, let alone we as individuals - to move immediately to the assumption that the only cause is that of faulty sensory perception of phenomenon or faulty recollection of the event is unwarranted.

 

[Shermana]

Leibniz was simply too ignorant of science such as astronomy (understandably so, he and newton were contemporaries so it is no surprise that he had not yet recognised that planetary movements could be moved by gravity and instead had to posit angels who did so) and relied too heavily on Aristotle's four causes in particular that everything has purpose. Newton was unfortunately never able to develop a worldview that did not incorporate his existing theological positions which prevented an objective comprehension of theology.

Of the three only Spinoza's has even the slightest potential merit (and even there his assertion that substance has thought is unsupported at best). But assuming a Spinozist frame of existence it is difficult to suggest that even under such a (unreliable) premise that the idea of blasphemy even has meaning, let alone should be punished. Since all substance is god, how can the thought or action of substance be considered blasphemy against itself.

edit:

Spoiler: What Evidence? Depends.

I forgot to add with regard to the evidence, it would depend very heavily on the type of 'atheist' you are referring to - I take it not to Buddhists and the like but rather to those who do not believe in a supernatural dimension, in which case there exist a wealth of natural god concepts that could be considered legitimate depending on the individual's beliefs and could therefore be considered 'naturalistic' theists. I assume you mean individuals who do not believe in a supernatural dimension (theist and atheists alike) and are not naturalistic theists, so that you are referring to strictly naturalistic atheists.

For myself as a rather adamant naturalist - I do not believe there is any evidence you could present that would convince me of a supernatural dimension - any such evidence that would suggest as much would be more likely to be considered suspect or indicate my comprehension of the natural order was inaccurate or else that my reasoning had become flawed. But for the existence of natural 'god(s)' I recognize these as a possibility subject to their specific definitions and the evidence that could convince me of their existence would depend on the definition thereof. There may well be some discrete natural entity or phenomenon with achievements (such as having created planets or life etc) or abilities (such as the ability to provide to an individual an afterlife or resurrection etc) that are commonly made as supernatural claims but could instead have natural causes, in which case what we consider godlike really does depend on our understanding of science at the time with what constitutes the naturalistic frame of reference (the laws of nature, what is and is not possible etc). Indeed scientific discoveries have provided us with capabilities that our forebears would have considered godlike and that demonstrates the possibility that other beings might exist with capacities that dwarf our own and we could consider such beings akin to naturalistic gods depending on how we define the term.

Just to note, this would make an excellent subject of discussion, on what constitutes "evidence" (an oft, almost ever-eluded question) and would be accepted as such in the first place (i.e. are Atheists asking for something they would never accept in the first place which I believe is a form of the "Begging the question" fallacy), and what modern discoveries have in any way put the old (and new) well-educated Theist philosophers to be shown in error. For an appropriate thread.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Been there, done that. It gets boring after awhile. Blasphemy is handy as a way to sever emotional and psychological ties with that which is blasphemed but there's not much of a reason to continually keep doing it since by blaspheming, you're paying it attention and giving it energy. I'm at the point where I'd rather ignore Christianity and Islam.

 

[Father Heathen]

The idea that the Creator would just walk away and not want a sign of submission from its creation in the Deist method, is in my opinion, a form of lack of humility and wanting to be free from the Master.

There would be no "separation" from an infinite, immanent, all encompassing entity or force regardless of someone's beliefs, desires, or even awareness.

Attributing petty emotions and fragile ego to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity/force shows a lack of humility as it attempts to lower "god" down to man's level. The infantile desire for ego gratification would be far, far, far beneath such a being.

 

[Shermana]

Attributing petty emotions and fragile ego to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity/force shows a lack of humility as it attempts to lower "god" down to man's level. The infantile desire for ego gratification would be far, far, far beneath such a being.

Why would that be? What makes it a "fragile ego" exactly? If your son betrayed you, and you got mad, say because another Father offered him better toys, is that a 'Fragile ego"? Is that "infantile"? Is it infantile and fragile if your wife or gf betrays you and you get mad? Why deny the Creator the same concept of emotive response and feeling that we have? I see nothing infantile about that.

Rather, I see something infantile in trying to discard this concept of emotions and personal attachments from the Creator.

 

[McBell]

Why would that be? What makes it a "fragile ego" exactly? If your son betrayed you, and you got mad, say because another Father offered him better toys, is that a 'Fragile ego"? Is that "infantile"? Is it infantile and fragile if your wife or gf betrays you and you get mad? Why deny the Creator the same concept of emotive response and feeling that we have? I see nothing infantile about that.

Rather, I see something infantile in trying to discard this concept of emotions and personal attachments from the Creator.

That is just so cute, comparing us mere mortal humans to the all knowing, all loving, all just, all powerful, omni-being you call god.


Doesn't help you, but it is oh so cute anyway.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why would that be? What makes it a "fragile ego" exactly? If your son betrayed you, and you got mad, say because another Father offered him better toys, is that a 'Fragile ego"? Is that "infantile"? Is it infantile and fragile if your wife or gf betrays you and you get mad? Why deny the Creator the same concept of emotive response and feeling that we have? I see nothing infantile about that.

Because there might be a slight difference between a limited, imperfect human and a supreme being? There are some things that are understandable and acceptable about we humans and our behavior, but wouldn't you think that a supreme being might be held to a significantly higher standard? After all, we corporeal lifeforms don't possess infinite levels of intelligence, wisdom, understanding, and compassion, now do we? Why would such a being need it's toes sucked? Or find it necessary to torture people for eternity for failing to suck said toes? Does that really make sense? Does it really?

Rather, I see something infantile in trying to discard this concept of emotions and personal attachments from the Creator.

Yes, it's infantile to think that a supreme being might actually transcend our primitive primate thought patterns and behaviors.

 

[Shermana]

Why don't you try actually addressing what I said instead of a strawman. Unless of course that strawman is completely necessary for your rhetoric.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why don't you try actually addressing what I said instead of a strawman. Unless of course that strawman is completely necessary for your rhetoric.

How exactly is it a straw man? What did I miss or misunderstand? Elaborate. I reread your post and still believe I've addressed everything succinctly.

 

[Shermana]

How exactly is it a straw man? What did I miss or misunderstand? Elaborate. I reread your post and still believe I've addressed everything succinctly.

Whatever. Your comparison is not even close to being on cue to the example I described, but have it your way. If you think its infantile to assume that God has the same feelings a dejected Father or betrayed husband might have, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

But I don't see what being a "SUPREME BEING" has to do with it. We are made in his image. For some reason, feelings and righteous indignation are somehow unworthy of such? I fail to see how. Simply asserting that "Because he's the Supreme Being" doesn't really work.

If anything, it would be unworthy of him to NOT feel such righteous indignation.

 

[Mycroft]

Its a bit hard to curse or blaspheme someone who doesn't exist.:unicorn:

And if it did exist, surely it wouldn't care?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And if it did exist, surely it wouldn't care?

A local, tribal god might care if it were blasphemed -- for political reasons -- but I agree that a transcendent, cosmic God wouldn't be concerned with it.