Is it fair to call belief in YHWH an illusion?

[MaddLlama]

See I think views like this can lead to unnecessary animosity. In my opinion, a person's stance on God has nothing to do with their intellectual capacity, their morals, their personality, how much I "like" them, and just overall how "good" of a person they are. Just because I find someone's belief in the God of Abraham as delusional as someone who believes in Zeus, does not mean that I am insulting them.

I agree. Actually, I am more insulted by the suggestion that monotheism makes perfect sense, but anyone who believes in multiple Gods must be quackers.

 

[Willamena]

What about belief in Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Attahualpa, or all the other gods? Is it fair to compare belief in YHWH to belief in Zeus?

The "illusion" is the belief that reality as we know it is reality. Everything, to us, is appearances. If "God" is no more than an image of God then it too is a part of that illusion. If it's something more, then it's not - it's unknown/unknowable.

"Belief" itself is not the illusion, but a wholehearted trust in the "truth" of it that determines our participation in the illusion.

If someone believes in something that is, in your opinion, imaginary, is that person necessarily unintelligent or childish?

No. We all believe in things that are imaginary, to some degree.

When, if ever, is it fair to consider another person's belief an illusion?

When they participate.

 

[Willamena]

I think it's fair to compare the beliefs, but I think it's also fair that someone who believes in God might be offended. I guess I can only imagine telling someone that their belief in God is an "illusion" if I were intending to insult them.

But if they know the truth of that, then they can hardly be insulted by it.

 

[Angelfire]

Sam Harris has an interesting argument about the similarities between theists and atheists ("atheists" simply believe in one less god). From Harris's interview with TruthDig last year:

OUCH.

 

[MaddLlama]

OUCH.

*nod* The truth often hurts.

 

[Ronald]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles
What about belief in Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Attahualpa, or all the other gods? Is it fair to compare belief in YHWH to belief in Zeus?

Shalom Mr Spinkles, here we go again. LOL
Back in 2004-2005 we had a similar conversation. No god is real until one has his eyes opened or one convincies himself there is a god. I was 50 yrs old when my eyes were opened, I had been my own god for many of those years. Even though I knew I was not "All Powerfull", I did however think I controled my part of the universe, however small it was it was under my control.(in my mind) That changed when I got into a situation in which I had to admit I was not god, I had no power over the events and I needed something much more powerfull than myself. Well I searched and found my God, ------- Y H V H , he opened my eyes, now the fate of this world is in his capable hands.

I am sure this is insufficiant to prove he - Y H V H - is any different from other folks god. I repeat myself, it is God who calls us, he doesn't interfere in your life until you call upon him. You haven't come to close to that point, apparently!

Good to talk with you again.

Shalom

 

[Mister_T]

Don't confuse what is credible with what is true, though

I said the same thing in the middle of that discussion Sharon.

Supernatural events such as ghosts have been consistently reported throughout history. Leprechauns, Thor and Zeus have not. The ghost phenomenom is more credible (which does not translate to it actually being true).

I think I need to make myself clear on one point: I have never said that anybody else's experience was an illusion in their mind. Just because I don't believe it, doesn't make it a fact.

Funny how I wasn't quoted on that though.....

 

[MaddLlama]

Why are ghosts more "credible"? Because there are more cases of alleged hauntings and ghost activity than people claiming Zeus performed some sort of miracle?

 

[Random]

Yahweh means the sound your breath makes. If Yahweh dies, that means you are not breathing anymore and are yourself dead.

In certain mystical trance-states one can be heard to breath in yah and exhale weh, rhythmically. Since the connexion of breath to Spirit and soul is as old as the concept of God Himself, it is not too intellectually taxing to derive a belief in an external being or GOD who's name is Yahweh, right? As in, we praise His holy name with our very breaths, etc? Understandable...

However, if only it were that simple. I have explained this before and no-one listened, but the Yahweh experience is linked to the Fear of GOD, or rather more specifically Fear of the Higher Intelligence that the mind percieves. But there may as well be no division in it @ all, as the person who percieves the Higher Intelligence is one and the same as the Higher Intelligence itself. It is the GODself one is experiencing, and Yahweh is the name of the GoDSelf. It is more complicated still when one considers an internal realiztion of deity against an exoteric belief in one.

In any case, to answer the OP question, NO: one cannot treat Yahweh the same as Zeus, Thor, Odin etc...the difference is sublime, perhaps, but all -encompassing.

 

[Mister_T]

Why are ghosts more "credible"? Because there are more cases of alleged hauntings and ghost activity than people claiming Zeus performed some sort of miracle?

Ghosts have been consistently reported throughout history where as Zeus has not. That would make it a more credible story, no?

 

[MaddLlama]

Ghosts have been consistently reported throughout history where as Zeus has not. That would make it a more credible story, no?

More people have seen a Jackalope, and Bigfoot than a unicorn, so does that mean that Bigfoot and the Jackalope are more credible?

Zeus was also believed to be the creator of rain, storms, and the "gatherer of clouds". Surely more people have experienced such weather than seen ghosts, so Zeus must be more credible?

 

[Mister_T]

More people have seen a Jackalope, and Bigfoot than a unicorn, so does that mean that Bigfoot and the Jackalope are more credible?

Yes.

Zeus was also believed to be the creator of rain, storms, and the "gatherer of clouds". Surely more people have experienced such weather than seen ghosts, so Zeus must be more credible?

Do we have any documentation (preferably recent) from witnesses actually seeing Zeus doing such things?

Because we certainly have such documentation for ghosts.

 

[MaddLlama]

Do we have any documentation (preferably recent) from witnesses actually seeing Zeus doing such things?

Because we certainly have such documentation for ghosts.

Has it ever been conclusively proved that all of those instances were the direct result of ghosts, and all other mundane explanations ruled out?

Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it's true, or even more likely to be true. Lots of Christians believe in a literal, global flood, despite a glaring lack of evidence for such an event, and just think of how well Home Alone did.

Religion, and belief in the supernatural is more closely related to opinion than fact, and just because I like coffee ice cream doesn't mean it's deliciousness is less credible because most people don't agree with me. All it means is that fewer people like coffee ice cream. So what?

 

[Mister_T]

Has it ever been conclusively proved that all of those instances were the direct result of ghosts, and all other mundane explanations ruled out?

There have been "unexplained" instances that been concluded after investigation, to be the result of the phenomenom known as "ghosts," yes.

Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it's true, or even more likely to be true. Lots of Christians believe in a literal, global flood, despite a glaring lack of evidence for such an event, and just think of how well Home Alone did.

Religion, and belief in the supernatural is more closely related to opinion than fact, and just because I like coffee ice cream doesn't mean it's deliciousness is less credible because most people don't agree with me. All it means is that fewer people like coffee ice cream. So what?

A lot of people believe in evolution, yet those same people have no qualms telling creationists that what they believe is a "myth." What's the reasoning behind that: The theory is credible. And when someone challeges that theory with statements such as "evolution and creation are both myths," the evolutionists defend their beliefs from such a claim.

Both are examples of someone debunking a subjectively, false claim. So what? People aren't allowed to do that?

 

[MaddLlama]

My issue is that your reasoning behind believing that only religions with several million followers are credible is severely lacking.

 

[Mister_T]

My issue is that your reasoning behind believing that only religions with several million followers are credible is severely lacking.

I don't remember saying that any beliefs were not credible. I do remember saying that they were more credible than others. Let's not twist my words.

And that's not my reasoning.......My reasoning is consistency of testimony, encounters, etc. It doesn't matter if it's seven million or seven hundred: If it's been consistently reported throughout history, to me it is a more credible story.

 

[MaddLlama]

I don't remember saying that any beliefs were not credible. I do remember saying that they were more credible than others. Let's not twist my words.

And that's not my reasoning.......My reasoning is consistency of testimony, encounters, etc. It doesn't matter if it's seven million or seven hundred: If it's been consistently reported throughout history, to me it is a more credible story.

Had Christianity not spread to Europe, the same events would have been explained as intervention from Gods like Zeus and Hera, rather than the Christian one. The fact that they are attributed to him is a product of history, rather than a credit to his actual existence.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, it certainly is a great way to shut down discussion. It certainly comes without saying that many non-theist think this, but what it could possibly bring to a discussion is beyond me. What's accomplished by it?

 

[doppelganger]

What's wrong with illusions? Humans are inspired by all kinds of art, aren't we? Why is religion being regarding as a product of creative imagination considered as derogatory by either "side" in a debate?

 

[Quiddity]

Had Christianity not spread to Europe, the same events would have been explained as intervention from Gods like Zeus and Hera, rather than the Christian one. The fact that they are attributed to him is a product of history, rather than a credit to his actual existence.

But it didn't happen that way and that is part of the argument. Paganism had just as much (if not more) of an opportunity to do what Christianity did, but it didn't. We must ask why? But that would probably lead us into a tangent...