Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

[Trailblazer]

But if I cognitively think through things and decide I know leprechauns exist, will you find my “knowledge” valid? You’ll agree it’s nonsense, right?

Right, because I know that leprechauns do not exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer

You gave this an optimistic frubal.

I have a terrible time interpreting the "Optimistic" one. If you care to elaborate I would love to know what you were trying to convey. I often feel folks use it somewhat sarcastically, synonymous with "In your dreams", "Yeah, when pigs fly", that sort of thing.

If you don't wish to comment further, no problem. I just am always left scratching my head when I see it used.

What I meant to convey is that you are optimistic, meaning you have a mental attitude characterized by hope and confidence, if you think that religion is evidence of human nature.

No, it is not sarcasm, synonymous with "In your dreams", "Yeah, when pigs fly", that sort of thing. I would consider that rude and I don't ever want to be rude, so I try not to even think that way. Everyone has a right to their own opinions and we can all learn from each other.

 

[Trailblazer]

There have been non-scriptural religious beliefs all around the globe for many millennia before the stories in the Tanakh began to be written down, compiled and curated. Indeed, the first stories of the Tanakh are modified forms from the polytheistic foundations of what would become monotheistic Judaism. Your fictional concept of a single entity did not exist for most of human existence. From Animism to the varied pantheons found across cultures, all having evolved from our earliest, newly verbal forebearers. Forbearers struggling to understand the world around them and desperate to find some means to control the uncontrollable. This is the crucible that started the ball rolling, the application of human imagination to fill in the unknown.

Well, I have never been a student of religions so I don't know much about the older religions, except that they exist. Most people don't believe me when I tell them that I never even read one page of the Bible until about 12 years ago. I just never had the interest or a reason to read the Bible until I started posting om forums and conversing with Christians.

Much of what I now know I learned on forums, by reading posts. I read lots of posts of atheists who seem to be well-versed in religion. Some time back I recall a survey that was taken and it showed that atheists generally know more about religion than most believers.

Yes, I know that monotheism emerged after polytheistic religions, but I don't know much about the polytheistic religions.

 

[Watchmen]

Right, because I know that leprechauns do not exist.

Yep. And I know god does not exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Real" compared to what? "Exist" in what ways? There is nothing strait forward about any of this.

It is for everybody else using those terms. For you to, I submit. You're just being desengenous again.
Once again, I won't insult your intelligence by playing along this silly game of yours and pretend you are actually serious about this "argument".

Great minds have been pondering these questions for eons. And the precision of their answers depended on the specificity of their questions.

Here's a question for your "great mind".
When a christian says that "god exists", do you think that christian means that god exists merely as a character in a book or a concept in a mind, like Darth Vader exists?
When a christian asks "do you believe god exists", do you think that that type of "existence" is what said christian is referring to?

Just who are you trying to fool here?

You aren't in charge of what the word means. Sorry. And I'm not averse to the complexity involved in investigating it. So when the discussion goes over your head, because you don't like the complexity of it, that's not my fault.

Nothing here goes over my head. I'm just trying to figure out if you are actually serious or just trolling.
I'm sorry, but I can not take your "argument" here seriously. And I doubt anyone else in this thread can. At this point I just wonder how serious you actually are about it.

Fools always think they understand things that they don't understand. It's because when they're confronted with something they don't understand, they fight it and dismiss it instead of trying to understand it. They aren't interested in learning anything, only in protecting the pretense that they already know everything they need to.

I understand it very well.
Again, just wondering how serious you actually are with this nonsense.

Yes, yes.... Jawhe "exists" as a character in a book, as a concept in the minds of people, in exactly the same way as Darth Vader exists as a character in a book and movie and as a concept in the minds of people familiar with said story.

Can we now move on from this sillyness?
Let's see your answer to this question: when a christian says that they believe a god exists, do you think "as a character in a book" is what they actually mean? Do you actually think such a christian will agree that their god exists in the same way Darth Vader and fairies exist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Then let me ask you a clarifying question:

If you were a juror, in a murder case with capital punishment as a possible punishment, would you accept the kind of "evidence, which makes it reasonable, justified and evidence-based" as sufficient to condemn another human being to death? Or might you ask for something just a little more concrete, more epestemically JTB ("justified, true belief")? Remember, in such a jury trial, you -- all by yourself -- might well have another person's life within your hands.

I would ask for something concrete in a murder case with capital punishment as a possible punishment, but to expect the evidence for the existence of God to be the same as the evidence in a court of law is to commit the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Idiom, Meaning & Origin

There's no false equivalence here.

For your belief in god you rely on believing anecdotes and claims of people ("messengers").
He's just asking you if that type of evidence would be sufficient for you to convict someone in a trial if a "guilty" charge would result in execution.

Sounds like you are dodging. Seems obvious why.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hope I am not repeating myself, but.......


Bigfoot is real.

Is that "real" like @PureX means?
Or "real" like the rest of the world means?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right, because I know that leprechauns do not exist.

Ow?

How do you know that?

Remember: you don't know it if you can't show it.
So this would mean that you can actually demonstrate the non-existence of leprechauns?

Fascinating. Please, elaborate.

 

[joelr]

I’m sorry… I really don’t think I have to address this at all since I used myself as an example.

Like I said, you don't have to answer but you accused a lot of people of not being interested in digging and I believe you also do not dig.

Feel free to say that if you so want to. I’m not offended

Well, it's a judgment, many times over. They don't care, they don't want to dig deeper, they dislike themselves, they like darkness, they blame God, denying God is potentially blaming God.
Sweeping generalizations and judgments.

Denying God isn't because someone blames God. that is an apologetic fiction that almost has never happened. Do you deny Lord Krishna because of something horrible that happened? That's it, you definitely believe in Lord Krishna, because obviously he's real, but something horrible caused you to hate and blame him. Ahhh, that explains it.

No. You find the story to be a myth. That's it. Same with Yahweh.

Yes… there is a full spectrum of opinions.

It's not an opinion. It's the early renditions of Deuteronomy in Hebrew all agree that El was the supreme and Yahweh was in the pantheon.
Since you are digging this is covered in- Oxford University Press, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Isreal's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Mark Smith.

That passage reads originally:

When Elyon most high apportioned the nations
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the divine sons;
for Yahweh's portion was his people,
Jacob )Israel) his allotted share

Again… I fully understand that there is a full spectrum of position. There are even those who continue to support a flat earth. No bone to pick here for me

Full spectrum of position has nothing to do with digging for knowledge. It has to do with evidence. We know the earth isn't flat, that isn't something that will improve our understanding in a forward direction.
What digging means in this context is finding out information and what is likely true. You don't have to reach the same conclusion but understanding what evidence exists.

I think that cuts both ways. I’m sure we both study and come to our conclusions. I support your right to have a different viewpoint.

No it doesn't. Christian scholarship (as I demonstrated) and historical scholarship are all 100% in this direction.
Hellenism was first, it was then in Christianity. It doesn't cut both ways. You call for non-believers to dig for information and now you are coming up with vague generalizations and hand waving historical facts.
If I have missed a historian in the field who has scholarly work demonstrating the Greek connection is all nonsense I would be interested. But I have never seen such a thing.
David Latwa's new book Lesus Deus is about the Greek connection to Jesus
Richard Millers work is similar.
James Tabor and J.Z. Smith also work in this area. I mentioned Klause, an older work that is standard reading. The Christian

Encyclopaedia Biblica, which I posted a small bit from. All are in agreement.

I guess Justin Martyr has a defense in Dialogues With Trypho. He said the reason Jesus is so much like the Greek deities is because the devil made those to fool future christians. I guess the devil has the power to see the future. All those Greek religious people in Mystery religions thought they found salvation in their savior and would get their soul back to it's home in the afterlife. But it was just the devil. Bummer.

I disagree with most of these positions biblically.

Based on what evidence? Disagree with what? That the Hebrew cosmology wasn't what was said? That Hellenism wasn't what is claimed?
That Paul wasn't claiming the physical body didn't rise but rather a transfiguration or spirit body?

You don't think that this is generally true in Christian theology? And all scholars and even
Encyclopaedia Biblica is wrong?

Material world/body is a prison of the soul

Humans are immortal souls, fallen into the darkness of the lower world

Death sets the soul free

No human history, just a cycle of birth, death, rebirth

Immortality is inherent for all humans

Salvation is escape to Heaven, the true home of the immortal soul

Humans are fallen and misplaced

Death is a stripping of the body so the soul can be free

Death is a liberating friend to be welcomed

I am sure you have a point to all of this, though I’m not clear at what exactly your point is other than you believe the message has changed over the millenniums.

This exact summary is the changes specifically from OT beliefs to when Hellenistic ideas were imported into the NT.
The 2nd list is a theology founded in Greek Hellenistic religions around 300 BC and also made it's way into the NT and modern Christian belief.

This is part of the work Dr Tabor does, which you said you disagreed with but now say you know the message changed, so that is confusing.
But it changed when Hellenism became popular and Greeks occupied Israel.

i disagree with your interpretation. If I make a speed limit of 25, I created a transgressor of that law, I did it all. If you splice it and dice it, though, I really didn’t “create” the transgressor. It was the law that created the opportunity for someone that transgresses, but it is the transgressor that did it himself/herself.

What are you talking about? What interpretation? This isn't a law? Yahweh said he creates evil and he creates darkness?
The Hebrew word means - misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness, he created it.

Was there a different point here? Or did you want to discuss scripture?

We are discussing scripture no?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Kingdom Imaginary ThingsClass Imaginary living thingsGenus GodsSpecies Dominant GodsSub-species YHWH, Vishnu, Great Spirit, Rainbow Serpent (&c)Genus CrittersSpecies CryptidsSub-species Bigfoot Unicorn Nessie (&c)Sub-species Fairy Leprechaun (&c)Genus Sentient ObjectsSpecies Wishing Wells (&c &c)

Cute.

Now would this Kingdom fall under Archaea, Bacteria, or Eukarya?

 

[blü 2]

Cute.

Now would this Kingdom fall under Archaea, Bacteria, or Eukarya?

Good point.

Yes, before you can have imaginary beings, you have to have imaginations, so it's not accurate to call it a domain.

So it would be part of the Eukariotes.

And it might be a phylum rather than a kingdom, under the Animalia. Or even lower down the scale.

But love will find a way.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Good point.

Yes, before you can have imaginary beings, you have to have imaginations, so it's not accurate to call it a domain.

So it would be part of the Eukariotes.

And it might be a phylum rather than a kingdom, under the Animalia. Or even lower down the scale.

But love will find a way.

If someone's god is the sun, the moon, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, that would complicate this even further, yes?

 

[PureX]

Without imagination there is no conceiving of alternatives. And if there is not conceiving of alternatives there is no awareness of any other possibilities. Everything could only ever be what it is. It could not occur to us that it could be otherwise. Or that we could change anything for the better. There would be no science, not art, no philosophy, no religion. No questions to ponder. No evidence to consider. No conclusion to be drawn, and no choices to make.

Imagination is the cognitive engine that drives all human comprehension. Without it we would literally still be bands of naked primates living in the forests. No language, no tools, no order that wasn't written into our genetic code.

And yet some of you here seem to want to dismiss and disparage human imagination as being silly and useless and even dishonest, just because you don't like that it has generated the possibility of God. How incredibly childish and short-sighted.

 

[MikeF]

Well, I have never been a student of religions so I don't know much about the older religions, except that they exist. Most people don't believe me when I tell them that I never even read one page of the Bible until about 12 years ago. I just never had the interest or a reason to read the Bible until I started posting om forums and conversing with Christians.

Much of what I now know I learned on forums, by reading posts. I read lots of posts of atheists who seem to be well-versed in religion. Some time back I recall a survey that was taken and it showed that atheists generally know more about religion than most believers.

Yes, I know that monotheism emerged after polytheistic religions, but I don't know much about the polytheistic religions.

These are the kind of questions that niggle at me and beg for resolution. Why are there different beliefs and why have those beliefs changed over time?

You made this unequivocal assertion:

Religion is the evidence for God.

Which just struck me as completely incongruous with what we know. Primarily that religion has been around a lot longer than the idea of "God" has. The one constant through this evolution of religious belief are human beings themselves. This is why I suggest to you that religions are evidence of, and speak to the nature of this constant, human beings themselves.

 

[ratiocinator]

And yet some of you here seem to want to dismiss and disparage human imagination as being silly and useless and even dishonest, just because you don't like that it has generated the possibility of God. How incredibly childish and short-sighted.

Who has done anything remotely like that?

The point here is that things that are imagined are not necessarily the same as things that are real. Imagination is real and important but you simply can't pretend that things imagined are the same as things that are objectively real.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Primarily that religion has been around a lot longer than the idea of "God" has. The one constant through this evolution of religious belief are human beings themselves. This is why I suggest to you that religions are evidence of, and speak to the nature of this constant, human beings themselves.

I agree with this. And the ubiquity of religion, across every culture throughout human history, suggests to me a deep human need to connect with something greater and more powerful than our finite selves. The satisfaction of this yearning, I would suggest, is at the root of all religious experience.

 

[MikeF]

Without imagination there is no conceiving of alternatives. And if there is not conceiving of alternatives there is no awareness of any other possibilities. Everything could only ever be what it is. It could not occur to us that it could be otherwise. Or that we could change anything for the better. There would be no science, not art, no philosophy, no religion. No questions to ponder. No evidence to consider. No conclusion to be drawn, and no choices to make.

Imagination is the cognitive engine that drives all human comprehension. Without it we would literally still be bands of naked primates living in the forests. No language, no tools, no order that wasn't written into our genetic code.

And yet some of you here seem to want to dismiss and disparage human imagination as being silly and useless and even dishonest, just because you don't like that it has generated the possibility of God. How incredibly childish and short-sighted.

I would say that your foundational premise here is false, namely, that acknowledging objective reality and clearly demarcating between which of our abstract thoughts correspond to objective reality and which do not will eliminate imagination entirely. This is simply not true.

 

[Koldo]

I agree with this. And the ubiquity of religion, across every culture throughout human history, suggests to me a deep human need to connect with something greater and more powerful than our finite selves. The satisfaction of this yearning, I would suggest, is at the root of all religious experience.

I don't really think this is the case. I don't see people in general yearning for a connection with something greater and more powerful than ourselves. I see people yearning for peace, achievements, money, answers, love, purpose, companionship... And God has been historically posited as someone that can grant all of that.

 

[blü 2]

If someone's god is the sun, the moon, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, that would complicate this even further, yes?

All gods I can think of offhand are taken to be conscious, even Morpheus. So if you like Ra, or Apollo Helios, or Lugh, and so on, you think of the sun as having moods, intentions, purposes, powers ─ or so I'd expect. Likewise the 'conscious' idea would attach to the FSM.

Objects with magical powers ─ wands, wishing wells, potions, rabbit's foots (sp?), four-leaf clovers, aren't take to be conscious as a rule (though I think the Harry Potter wands were said to be capable of empathy, and of recognizing a particular owner, which might or might not count).

 

[MikeF]

I agree with this. And the ubiquity of religion, across every culture throughout human history, suggests to me a deep human need to connect with something greater and more powerful than our finite selves. The satisfaction of this yearning, I would suggest, is at the root of all religious experience.

I would agree that there are those who feel a deep need to connect with something greater and more powerful than themselves. The next step would be to ask and answer, if possible, why.