• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You have to be careful here :)

If you believe this to be true, then you ought to look at all religions as being equally valid. (Which I know you don't :D)
I said: Logic cannot be used to prove that a religion is true, since religion is not subject to proof.

Why would that mean that all religions are equally valid?
They are either valid (meaning true in the eyes of God) or not, even though that cannot be proven.
So depending on your subjective opinion religions can be either valid or invalid, which seems rather irrational.
Since we can never prove that a religion is true what else can we have except a subjective opinion?
Why does that seem irrational to you?
How do you go about concluding that ancient Greek religion is wrong?
I do not conclude it is wrong, I believe it is wrong, based upon my beliefs of what a true religion is.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Why would that mean that all religions are equally valid?
They are either valid (meaning true in the eyes of God) or not, even though that cannot be proven.
Because the criteria by which you deem one valid and one invalid is based on a subjective opinion regardless of the content within said religion. For instance, in Norse mythology, it is said that Earth was created from the body of a giant. There is no chance on Earth that it could be true, therefore we can use logic to say that it is so far from reality and what can be proven that we can conclude that it is extremely unlikely.

But if what you say is that this is not possible, then Norse mythology ought to be treated as being just as valid as other religions, because then it is just a subjective opinion. This is basically what an atheist would do. We treat all religions as that due to the lack of evidence for any of them.

You reach the conclusion you do because you write ("meaning true in the eyes of God"). Which we have discussed many times before :D This is simply making an unjustified conclusion to reach another. This is circular reasoning, which is a fallacy.

Since we can never prove that a religion is true what else can we have except a subjective opinion?
Why does that seem irrational to you?
We can't 100% prove anything. Yet as above we can reach a point where something is so unlikely to be true that it is "foolish" to assume it is. When too many things keep piling up that don't match up with reality.

I do not conclude it is wrong, I believe it is wrong, based upon my beliefs of what a true religion is.
And that is fair enough, but it is not a rational position when there is nothing to back it up.

It is basically like me asking you to choose between A and B, and telling you that one of them is bad. There is no logical reason for you to assume that A is more likely to be bad than B.

The only way you can make a rational decision is if I tell you that B is bad, as long as I don't do that, you ought to treat them equally.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Because the criteria by which you deem one valid and one invalid is based on a subjective opinion regardless of the content within said religion.
Yes, I have a subjective opinion, but no, I do not deem the religions valid regardless of the content within said religion.
For instance, in Norse mythology, it is said that Earth was created from the body of a giant. There is no chance on Earth that it could be true, therefore we can use logic to say that it is so far from reality and what can be proven that we can conclude that it is extremely unlikely.

But if what you say is that this is not possible, then Norse mythology ought to be treated as being just as valid as other religions, because then it is just a subjective opinion. This is basically what an atheist would do. We treat all religions as that due to the lack of evidence for any of them.
Yes, I said that since we can never prove that a religion is true all we can have is a subjective opinion, but no, I do not think all religions ought to be treated as being just as valid as other religions. I think we need to look at the content of the religion to determine if it true. As you said, we can use logic to say that it is so far from reality and what can be proven that we can conclude that it is extremely unlikely.

One criterion by which a Baha'i would judge a religion is if it is contradicted by what is known through science. If a religion contradicts science we consider it mere superstition. That lands a lot of Christian beliefs in the dog house, but since we consider the teachings of Jesus to be true, and since we believe that Jesus was a Messenger of God, we consider Christianity to be a true religion from God.
You reach the conclusion you do because you write ("meaning true in the eyes of God"). Which we have discussed many times before :D This is simply making an unjustified conclusion to reach another. This is circular reasoning, which is a fallacy.
I was not concluding anything. All I was saying is that a religion is valid (meaning true) only if that religion came from God. Conversely, if the religion did not come from God that means it was created by man and as such it is not a true religion.

But since we cannot know with proof which religions came from God we cannot conclude anything definitively. All we can do is look at the content of the religions and form an opinion.
We can't 100% prove anything. Yet as above we can reach a point where something is so unlikely to be true that it is "foolish" to assume it is. When too many things keep piling up that don't match up with reality.
I fully agree. If a religion is contradicted by what we know of reality I do not consider that a true religion, although parts of that religion might be true, such as in the case of Christianity.
And that is fair enough, but it is not a rational position when there is nothing to back it up.

It is basically like me asking you to choose between A and B, and telling you that one of them is bad. There is no logical reason for you to assume that A is more likely to be bad than B.

The only way you can make a rational decision is if I tell you that B is bad, as long as I don't do that, you ought to treat them equally.
I understand that from your viewpoint you are looking at all religions that claim to be religions or are called religions by other people
By that criterion you might consider Scientology a religion, but I don't consider it a religion.

I think there has to be a set of criteria by which to decide if a religion is a true religion. My minimum criteria are as follows:

1. It was revealed by God
2. It was revealed through a Messenger/Prophet
3. There are scriptures associated with it
4. it is widely recognized as a religion regardless of its size

Of course, 1 and 2 are not subject to proof, all we do is hold an opinion.
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
As you said, we can use logic to say that it is so far from reality and what can be proven that we can conclude that it is extremely unlikely.
And the only way to do that is by analyzing the content or claims made. Which was what I tried to demonstrate with the A vs B example. You need some sort of content about these to decide which is most likely to be whatever. And then apply the use of logic and reasoning to decide.

Again, I was just reacting to what you wrote that this wasn't possible. Because it backfires for you to make such a claim given the conclusion you reach :)

One criterion by which a Baha'i would judge a religion is if it is contradicted by what is known through science. If a religion contradicts science we consider it mere superstition. That lands a lot of Christian beliefs in the dog house, but since we consider the teachings of Jesus to be true, and since we believe that Jesus was a Messenger of God, we consider Christianity to be a true religion from God.
I think this demonstrates it well. Because this reasoning doesn't work. God/Jesus themselves contradict science, which would make the Bahai religion invalid by your own standards.

Claims made by religions that contradict science don't make them less of a religion. It is a key foundation in all religions as they often deal with supernatural explanations that contradict science. The most accurate you could say in my opinion is simply that the religion in question got that wrong or at least hasn't demonstrated that it is true.

I was not concluding anything. All I was saying is that a religion is valid (meaning true) only if that religion came from God. Conversely, if the religion did not come from God that means it was created by man and as such it is not a true religion.
But this is going to end in a circular fallacy because your starting point is that God is real, which is required for you to even conclude that a given religion is true or not. Obviously, as a Bahai you reach the conclusion that it is true, because of Baha'u'llah, claiming to have communicated with God. And since he claims that and you believe it to be true, it loops back to the starting point. So you have a perfect circle. If you didn't do this you wouldn't be a Bahai. If you didn't believe that he got it from God, why would you then be a Bahai?

I understand that from your viewpoint you are looking at all religions that claim to be religions or are called religions by other people
By that criterion you might consider Scientology a religion, but I don't consider it a religion.
I wouldn't call Scientology a religion because it is well-known that it is made up by a human. No different than claiming that Lord of the Rings is a religion.

I think there has to be a set of criteria by which to decide if a religion is a true religion. My minimum criteria are as follows:

1. It was revealed by God
2. It was revealed through a Messenger/Prophet
3. There are scriptures associated with it
4. it is widely recognized as a religion regardless of its size

Of course, 1 and 2 are not subject to proof, all we do is hold an opinion.
It's an interesting topic, I'm not sure what is required for something to be called a religion compared to a cult, except the number of members.

1. It requires a supernatural force, there are religions with spirits etc. where im not sure if they have gods like we see them or if they are more bound to nature. Yet they are still religions I would say.
2. It has to have been considered revealed, I agree with that.
3. No I don't agree with that, remember Judaism, Islam etc. were shared mouth-to-mouth long before being written down which was done much later. Hardly anyone could read/write back then and making scriptures was expensive and took a long time to do.
4. That is true, again what makes the difference between a cult and a religion, is primarily the size. But again I don't know how these are differentiated.
 
Last edited:

F1fan

Veteran Member
Has it not occurred to you that one reason so many religions exist with different details is because all religion emerges out of human experiences with the world around them and environments and conditions are different in different places and historical eras?
Of course. Religions are cultural expressions of an evolving human species. I don't presume the assumptions are true.
And that this also better explains why certain globally common human experiences (e.g., experiences of Sun, Moon, and nature just in general) are the most common and widespread objects of worship?
My approach is fact based, so while adhererents believe what they do, I do not. Ritual is important to humans, but it obviously learned behavior, and meaning is readily adopted.
Nah, you'd rather just crap on religion and theism. Carry on and ignore me as usual.
Is this a comment that is supposed to suggest higher consciousness and wisdom?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
And the only way to do that is by analyzing the content or claims made. Which was what I tried to demonstrate with the A vs B example. You need some sort of content about these to decide which is most likely to be whatever. And then apply the use of logic and reasoning to decide.

Again, I was just reacting to what you wrote that this wasn't possible. Because it backfires for you to make such a claim given the conclusion you reach :)


I think this demonstrates it well. Because this reasoning doesn't work. God/Jesus themselves contradict science, which would make the Bahai religion invalid by your own standards.

Claims made by religions that contradict science don't make them less of a religion. It is a key foundation in all religions as they often deal with supernatural explanations that contradict science. The most accurate you could say in my opinion is simply that the religion in question got that wrong or at least hasn't demonstrated that it is true.


But this is going to end in a circular fallacy because your starting point is that God is real, which is required for you to even conclude that a given religion is true or not. Obviously, as a Bahai you reach the conclusion that it is true, because of Baha'u'llah, claiming to have communicated with God. And since he claims that and you believe it to be true, it loops back to the starting point. So you have a perfect circle. If you didn't do this you wouldn't be a Bahai. If you didn't believe that he got it from God, why would you then be a Bahai?


I wouldn't call Scientology a religion because it is well-known that it is made up by a human. No different than claiming that Lord of the Rings is a religion.


It's an interesting topic, I'm not sure what is required for something to be called a religion compared to a cult, except the number of members.

1. It requires a supernatural force, there are religions with spirits etc. where im not sure if they have gods like we see them or if they are more bound to nature. Yet they are still religions I would say.
2. It has to have been considered revealed, I agree with that.
3. No I don't agree with that, remember Judaism, Islam etc. were shared mouth-to-mouth long before being written down which was done much later. Hardly anyone could read/write back then and making scriptures was expensive and took a long time to do.
4. That is true, again what makes the difference between a cult and a religion, is primarily the size. But again I don't know how these are differentiated.
I'm also curious about the difference
if any between religion and superstition.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
This is a classic case of false equivalence, comparing apples and oranges. To compare the type of evidence needed for a court case to the type of evidence needed for to know that God exists is completely illogical because you are comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.

I don't see how it would be different. In both cases you have claim of which you are trying to decide if it is true or not.
In both cases you have mere anecdotes to decide on its truth value.
How is it different? Just claiming it is different is not enough.


Evidence for God can never be the same kind of evidence needed at a murder trial.

Why?

Yes, the evidence for God's existence is Messengers of God, but that evidence is not anecdotal or based upon their claims.
Then what is it based on, if not merely what the supposed "messengers" claim?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Are you saying there aren’t a lot of people that aren’t interested in digging? I think if you took an offense, you have to figure out why it offended you.

If you were to tell me, “You haven’t dug into Satanism” it would be true and I wouldn’t be offended in the least. If you were to say “Most people haven’t dug into Satanism”, it probably would be true and I also wouldn’t be offended.

No you are saying non-believers are not interested in digging to find out what is true regarding their beliefs, among several other assumptions like they are mad at a God they don't believe in (however that even works?)






All in context of my signature. Aren’t there people who love darkness more than light? How many people are entrenched in the human-trafficking business… don’t they like darkness more than light? How about those who massacred 1200 innocent people in Israel, don’t they love darkness more than light?

To be fair, there are certainly there are those who seek the light and love the light.
Your statement isn't talking about terrorists, you are now deflecting with a strawman. You were talking about atheists who make the comparison of belief in God to other supernatural and unknown beings. Then began a laundry list of beliefs you think they have.







You will have to quote me where I said that. If I did, I need to know the context.
Someone asked the question:
"So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?"

Your answer first assumed it wasn't honest - "Personally, I believe it is a matter of the heart since it “could” be an honest attempt to understand but by and large, it isn’t."

Then commented:
"Of course there is the catchall phrase of Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns and Spaghetti Monster because they really don’t care and don’t really want to delve deeper. Perhaps because they won’t like what they would see in themselves if they looked? Perhaps because they love darkness more than having their lives in the light? Perhaps because of horrible things that have happened in their lives and they blame God by denying HIs existence?"

??? Above please.
It's related to your statement above. You do really believe in Lord Krishna but because bad things happened to you you blame him. Obviously you don't and it's a ridiculous thing to claim to know about you. It's as ridiculous as the claims you made about atheists.







OK… you are free to process it that way.
So you don't find Krishna to be a myth, you also believe in Krishna?


Great digging! Yes… people come to different conclusions as they try to interpret the Word of God. (As per my signature). If one approaches it with a foundation of “Polytheistic Background” - that is what you will se. If we approach with the foundation of “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” - we will come to a different conclusion

No historian is interpreting the "word of God" with a polytheistic background. They are interpreting evidence as best as can be, without any bias.
Deuteronomy was edited as polytheism became less popular, the passage I wrote was from an early variant when they were still comfortable with a pantheon of deities.
The conclusion comes when you look at all of the evidence, you are admitting a bias towards one outcome. When scripture was written monotheism was more popular, which it speaks about in scripture. It took many centuries for that to spread to all of the people.









There has always been an effort to delegitimize the value of the Word of God. I understand that.
No, this has nothing to do with that. This is historical studies, nothing about any word of God. The aim is an accurate representation of history.
You would first have to demonstrate any God to have a field of scholarship want to do anything like that.



The existence of the TaNaKh goes way before the Greek era. The New Testament is based on the non-Hellenistic TaNaKh. What happens is people superimpose the “Hellenistic approach” to try to devalue the message.
Wrong, completely wrong. There is no Hellenism in the Tanakh. The baptism in the NT, communal meal, savior deity, fallen soul that must return to heaven through a savior son/daughter of the Supreme God, all Hellenism. There was no people heaven in the OT except the one alive person who was taken there.
So clearly this is another area of your own religion you know nothing about?

Even a major Christian apologetic work admits this?

Encyclopaedia Biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible -

We must conclude with the following guarded thesis. There is in the circle of ideas in the NT, in addition to what is new, and what is taken over from Judaism, much that is Greek ; but whether this is adopted directly from the Greek or borrowed from the Alexandrians, who indeed aimed at a complete fusion of Hellenism and Judaism, is, in the most important cases, not to be determined ; and primitive Christianity as a whole stands considerably nearer to the Hebrew world than to the Greek.



The Relationship between Hellenistic Mystery Religions and Early Christianity: A Case Study using Baptism and Eucharist
Jennifer Uzzell
vFebruary 2009


Even allowing for these caveats, it is clear that substantial ideological and ritual similarities did exist. In fact they were sufficiently obvious to the early Christian apologists that they felt obliged to offer some explanation for them, particularly since, to their embarrassment, it was clear that the Mystery rituals predated their own. The most common explanation, offered by many Christian apologists including Firmicus Maternus, Tertullian and Justin Martyr, was that demons had deliberately prefigured Christian sacraments in order to lead people astray.


Baptism has been widely compared with initiation into the Mystery cults. In many of the Mysteries purification through ritual bathing was required as a prerequisite for initiation.





It is interesting to note that the early Christian writer Tertullian (c. 160-225CE) would not have agreed with this appraisal. Not only did he believe that certain of the Mysteries practiced baptism, but also that they did so in hope of attaining forgiveness of sins and a new birth. This was so striking a similarity that it clearly demanded some form of explanation. Not surprisingly, demonic imitation was the culprit.

Dying/rising demigods


In Pagan Hellenistic and Near Eastern thought, the motif of a “Dying and Rising God” existed for millennia before Christ and there had been stories of divine beings questing into the underworld and returning transformed in some way.
Eucharist.

-Perhaps the clearest point of contact between the Mysteries and Christian Eucharist, and one of which the Church Fathers were painfully conscious, lay in a sacramental meal of bread or cakes and wine mixed with water in which initiates to the cult of Mithras participated.

 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
The Hellenistic influence did create variations like Gnosticism (and others) which was rejected in the NT. - But the message is not a “Hellenistic” message as the Church preached from the non-Hellenistic TaNaKh.
Gnosticism is not Hellenism. Hellenism is what is in the NT, and is not in the OT.

"In this religion the common people, the poor and the needy, directly attain a more profound and personal relation to the deity. The believer loses his individual consciousness in enthusiasm and receives the divinity into himself. In moments of orgiastic ecstasy he experiences the ultimate goal of his existence, abiding fellowship with the god, who, as redeemer and savior will free him through death from the finiteness, the suffering, and the exigencies of the earthly life. Orphism sets forth this religious experience in a mystic theology which exerts a strong influence upon Pindar and Empedocles, for example, and which suggested to Plato his magnificent treatise on the dest of the soul.


According to Posidonius the soul has a heavenly origin. It is an offshoot from the fiery breath of God held captive in the prison-house of the body through birth into the earthly world, but destined for return to its higher home. Only he who in life preserves the divine part from defilement will ascend after death above the lower spheres and rise to the divine source. Our reverence for the starry heaven above us and for the wonders of the cosmos proves the human soul's relation to the heavenly world, and this mystical consciousness of likeness with the divine begets an other-worldly ideal of life.


From the second century A.D. on we possess rich source materials regarding the mystery cults and the profusion of new religious developments which grow out of the syncretism of the time. These sources acquaint us with the prevailing religious tendencies of antiquity in its declining period. Purification and rebirth, mystical union of the believer with the deity and the hope of bliss in the future world, revelation and charismatic endowment which essentially constitute redemption-these are the motives dominating the rites, sacraments, faith, and teaching of this syncretism. As enjoined in the liturgy of the Phrygian mysteries.


wThe relationship of Christianity to Hellenism appears closer in the Ephesian letter. Here Christ is the supreme power of the entire spirit-world, exalting believers above the bondage of the inferior spirits into his upper kingdom (1: 18-22). Christians must struggle with these spirits, among whom the sKoopoipdrope6 (astral spirits) are named. In like manner from the second century on Christ is more frequently extolled as a deliverer from the power of fate.' When Ignatius regards Christ's work as the communication of ryv^oaR and &0c9apria, and the Eucharist as food of immortality, he, like the author of the Fourth Gospel, shows the influence of Greek mysticism. Irenaeus' realistic doctrine of redemption also has, in common with Greek mysticism, the fundamental notions of deification, abolition of death, imperishability, and knowledge.

HELLENISTIC IDEAS OF SALVATION IN THE LIGHT OF ANCIENT ANTHROPOLOGY


PAUL WENDLAND
University of Gattingen, Germany











Acts 14:8–18; 17:18–34; 19:23–41 - demonstrate a rejection of Helenistic religions.
priest of Zeus are not related to Hellenistic religions. That is Classical Greek religions. Hellenism started around 300BCE and was introduced to Hebrew people during the invasion, 167 BCE. All nations that were occupied by these Greeks had a similar transformation in their local religions. A supreme God has a son/daughter demigod who through a passion, death and resurrection passed personal salvation onto the followers. Salvation was entry into an afterlife for the soul.

In the OT, the afterlife is sleeping in the dirt. Later one awaited the resurrection of the body. Hellenistic resurrection is of a spirit and was used by Paul for Jesus and is part of the religion.

Classical Greek - Aristotle, pre 300 BCE


Hellenistic Greek - Alexander the Great 328 BCE

Christianity was formed in the center of Hellenism.

Antioch on the Orontes

The city was also the main center of Hellenistic Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period. Antioch was part of the pentarchy and was called "the cradle of Christianity" as a result of its longevity and the pivotal role that it played in the emergence of early Christianity.[5] The Christian New Testament asserts that the name "Christian" first emerged in Antioch.[6]

speaking of Acts -

Antioch, Hellenism.


As Dr Tabor points out,
The New Testament comes out of a wholly different milieu. First, it is part and parcel of the broad changes in religious thought that we know as "Hellenization."It is characterized by a vast and expanded dualistic cosmos, an emphasis on immortality and personal salvation,i.e.,one scaping this world fo ra better heavenly life. At the same time, and to be more specific,it is absolutely and completely dominated by an apocalyptic world view of things, whereby all will be soon resolved by the decisive intervention of God, the End of the Age, the last greatJudgment, and the eternalKingdom of God. In addition, the Christology that develops, even in the first century, is thoroughly"Hellenistic," with Jesus the human transformed into the pre-existent, divine, Son of God, who sits at the right hand of God and is Lord of the cosmos.The whole complex of ideas about multiple levels of heavens, fate, angels, demons, miracles and magic abound.It is as if all the questions that the HebrewBible only begins to explore - questions about theodicy, justice, human purpose, history, death, sin - are all suddenly answered with a loud and resounding " Yes ! " There is little, if any struggle left . There are few haunting questions, and no genuine tragedy or meaningless suffering.All is guaranteed it will shortly be worked out.
Of course, various attempts are made to reinterpret this early Christianity for our time. usually in terms of ethics or some exis -
tential core of truth . But early Christianity rests on two essential points, both of which resist easy demythologozation: it is a religious movement built on apoctalyptic view of history and an evaluation of Jesus as a Hellenistic deity, i.e., a pre-existent divine Savior God in whom all ultimate meaning rests. If thes eare unacceptable in the modem world, or incompatible with the fundamental Hebrew view of things, then the whole system becomes difficult, if not superfluous.
James Tabor
Reflections on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament

 
Last edited:

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So I think a valid question you could ask yourself is how does a supernatural God differ from a supernatural unicorn? What is God capable of that the unicorn isn't?

I'm not seeing this as a valid question at all, really. If the realm of imagination is only bound by our ability to imagine, how can one compare two imagined things that can be imagined in an almost infinite number of ways? This make absolutely no sense to me.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I do not believe I know that leprechauns do not exist. I do not believe that leprechauns exist.
I really don't know what your position on leprechauns is any more. I once thought I did, but you've added so many sentences like those above since. Too bad you haven't made a single, clear statement of your position. Here's mine: I don't believe leprechauns exist because I have no reason to think that they are more than fictional creatures imagined by mankind, but lacking a way to demonstrate that they don't exist, I remain agnostic, that is, I do not say that they don't exist either. I live as if they don't exist without knowing that with certitude.

And though you object to the comparison of gods and leprechauns, nevertheless, that's also my position regarding gods and for the exact same reasons.
that doesn't mean there is no difference between God and leprechauns.
There are no relevant differences. The similarities, however, are relevant.
There is nothing that you recognize as evidence for God.
There is nothing in nature that suggests an intelligent designer prior to the advent of intelligent animal life on earth. What might do that? Falsification of the theory of evolution. Observing irreducible complexity in biological systems. A revelation that no human being could have written. These are the kinds of things that make one look for an intelligent designer, but not filaments of clusters of galaxies of solar systems made of the elements and their subatomic particles passively obeying the laws of physics.

And here's the rub. Even that is not compelling evidence for supernaturalism or a god, just transhuman power and intelligence that themselves arose naturally through abiogenesis and evolution long before the same was found on earth.
My reasons do justify a different standard for God belief than the standards used to convict a criminal in a court of law.
Can God show up in a court of law and stand on trial?
No, but that's not a reason to set aside critical scrutiny. Suppose the same were true for a human defendant - he couldn't be tried except in absentia. No problem. That can happen, and the same set of laws would apply.
a decent person would want to know if God exists.
Why? It doesn't matter to me, and most people consider me decent. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't be interested in a correct answer if one were available, but it's not, and even if it were, nothing at all would change in my life because of that knowledge except that I would stop calling myself an atheist if the answer were yes, there is or was a god out there somewhere. I wouldn't start talking to it if it weren't present. I still wouldn't believe any human being telling me that they know how this god wants me to live. I wouldn't start congregating with others who knew the same. It would similar to learning that there is life on a moon or planet that isn't earth. "Cool. Exo-life exists. What's for lunch?"
Believers believe in God based upon both reason and faith, because they have evidence but they need faith to believe since God cannot be proven to exist. I've just described a justified belief.
No, you've described an unjustified belief. I don't expect to be able to explain why to you if I haven't yet, and I obviously haven't. That "they need faith to believe" tells you that belief isn't justified, meaning the sound conclusion of a valid argument. It also tells one that the evidence cited doesn't justify the conclusion.
The evidence I cite perfectly connects to my conclusions.
By your rogue logic, perhaps, but not according to the generally accepted rules of interpreting evidence. And if what you just said were correct, then there's be no faith involved and your conclusions would be justified. That's why this is an either-or (MECE) situation. All beliefs are either justified by the standard method or believed by faith. That's it. All beliefs are one or the other, and none are both or neither. You've invented a third position, one that's both because you point to some evidence and claim that it got you part of the way to your conclusion, but that's just more faith, not a third category.

You quoted, "An either-or fallacy occurs when someone claims there are only two possible options or sides in an argument when there are actually more." Yes, that correct, but that doesn't apply here. There are either-or situations in life, and this is one of them. You'd need to demonstrate that this isn't one of them. All you've done is incorrectly claimed that an idea believed by faith is more justified if you point to something and say that that was your evidence, but it doesn't connect to your conclusion without that leap of faith.
Atheists are famous for fallacies. I learned all about fallacies because I kept having to look up all the fallacies that atheists commit.
With all due respect, I don't recall you ever correctly citing a fallacy in another poster's words. You haven't with me, and you never will. I have given a straw man response to a comment I misread, but that's not a logical error.
That is just another one of your biased personal opinions
That was in response to, "any amount of faith in an argument invalidates the argument and makes its conclusion unsound and belief in it unjustified." That is a fact. That you don't know it doesn't change that. And because it's correct, you cannot falsify it. The best you can do is like what you've done here - dismissal with a wave of the hand.

I also don't know whether you agree that you bring your own rules to the process - what I've called rogue logic. Your last comment above is an example. I've mentioned it to you a few times before (the following are all to you), but oddly, it hasn't garnered a comment in response, so I can't tell whether you agree and consider your private form of reasoning original to you and valid anyway, or whether you disagree and believe that you conform to the same rules as skilled logicians:

1701951799711.png
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I could not have said that better myself.
Logic cannot be used to prove that a religion is true, since religion is not subject to proof.

You failed to complete the thought expressed in the second sentence:

"Logic cannot be used to prove that a religion is true, since religion is not subject to proof because it is myth."

I am not trying to make a logical argument for progressive revelation.
Logic cannot be used to prove that a religious belief is true, since religious beliefs are not subject to logical proof.

Again, not subject to logic because they are stories of myth that have been passed down and evolved over millennia.
This would be the logical conclusion that can be drawn.

Yes, it is a belief, and as a belief it can either be true or false. A belief is not false simply because it cannot be proven to be true.

A belief is false if it can be proven to be false, however. It should also be logically clear to you that not everything that can be imagined is possible.

Let's do a thought experiment:

I can imagine a 400lbs pig flying through the air without any external aids. Would it be a true statement to say that such a flying pig is possible? If you say that it is not possible, why is it not possible?
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If a religion is contradicted by what we know of reality I do not consider that a true religion ...

I find this statement simply fascinating given your stated religious beliefs. This goes directly to my suggested thought experiment in my previous post. Which imagined religious entity does not contradict what is know of reality. None.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I’m not sure which part of all of these you want to go over. This forum isn’t set for making a thesis.

Ancient Hebrew view, in death you lie as dust in the earth. In Persian period we begin to see an end times resurrection, bodily resurrection. Daniel and Isaiah. There are individual passages but I have to re-look at some stuff, the entire basic theology is a Jewish version of Hellenism, J.Z. Smith explains it well (a PhD who specializes in Hellenism and it's influence)





Changes that religions began taking from Hellenistic religions (this describes Judaism to Christianity exactly) - how many times is salvation mentioned.
-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.



-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.


-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.


-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme

-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.

-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)



-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century





- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.




-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.



-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)



-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)




- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries




Hellenistic religion - Beliefs, practices, and institutions






NT uses Hellenistic ideas,


Mark12:25 ...when they raise from the dead, no marriage, they are like angels in heaven


Luke 20:36 they are equal to angels


Corinthians 15:51-54. in death we shall be changed, perishable nature becomes imperishable, mortal becomes immortal (not the Hebrew view)


Luke 20:34-38, death body is like or above angels, no marriage, no death



Genesis 3 - death is never a friend






Adam is made of dust. He returns to dust.
Again, interpretation. didn’t I give you the example of a speed limit?





Which had nothing to do with the point. If God created a speed limit than there would be a sin in going over it. But that isn't what is said. He literally says he creates evil and darkness. It didn't exist.


The Hebrew word means - misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness, he created it.


Babies with cancer are not punished from a sin, they are ill. Because this God created misery.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I'm not seeing this as a valid question at all, really. If the realm of imagination is only bound by our ability to imagine, how can one compare two imagined things that can be imagined in an almost infinite number of ways? This make absolutely no sense to me.
That is the issue.

If you have nothing to compare how would you do it?

We can compare two God(s) perfectly fine, let's say Odin vs God, and look at the differences, but this is only in regards to their classification as God(s). But simply because we have decided that this is the case doesn't magically make them more real than a unicorn with supernatural abilities if the only difference is that we simply haven't assigned the God classification to it.

Anyone could claim to have been contacted by God(s), nothing prevents anyone from making such a claim and simply assigning whatever attributes to it they see fit. And no one would be able to disprove it. Simply concluding that this person is lying doesn't seem valid, there needs to be more to it than that. You might choose to not believe it.

So you could essentially ask the same question, what can God do that makes him more likely to be true than Odin? None of these attributes can be demonstrated to be true, just as you couldn't do it with a supernatural unicorn with godlike abilities.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Anyone could claim to have been contacted by God(s), nothing prevents anyone from making such a claim and simply assigning whatever attributes to it they see fit. And no one would be able to disprove it.

This would be where I disagree. Given our current understanding of reality today, we cannot seriously entertain the notion that such entities are even possible. We combine this with our factual understanding of both human psychology and the documented history of these kinds of beliefs, and we can disprove it to the very same degree to which we can disprove anything.

So you could essentially ask the same question, what can God do that makes him more likely to be true than Odin? None of these attributes can be demonstrated to be true, just as you couldn't do it with a supernatural unicorn with godlike abilities.

Again, you cannot ask this question in any serious regard if you are talking about truths that correspond and conform to real things that exist independently of abstract human thought. It can be a valid question in a discussion involving an abstract artificial construction of reality in which you establish the possibility of entities with non-real characteristics. But for such a question to be useful or have value, everyone involved in the discussion has to agree on the boundaries, characteristics, and properties of the artificially constructed reality and all that it is said to contain. In discussions involving the real world, in reality, however, no one has a say in determining the boundaries, characteristics, or properties of the real world and all that it contains. Any truth claim in this realm is bound to these pre-existing conditions, unalterable by, nor subject to, one's imagination.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
What Messengers claim is a revelation from God.
Messengers claim revelations from Gods, yet these can't be verified. And given the extraordinary claims they are, they can't be taken seriously.
There are no Facts about God and there never will be, because Facts require proof, and these never was and never will be any proof that God exists...
As such it logically follows that there is no proof that God ever sent any Messenger.
That Messengers of God exist is a belief, not a Fact.
Then how can you claim to KNOW a God exists? You don't seem to understand the words you use because you acknowledge there are no facts that a God exists, but then claim to know a God exists. You can't have it both ways.
I never said I was special or that I can reason better and more accurately than all other critical thinkers in the world.
I reason differently, that's all.
There is no different way to reason. You either reason properly or you aren't reasoning. Reasoning (logic) follows rules, and it allows a narrow lane of thinking. Some evidence can be interpreted differently, but not that it is true and factual. You often claim untrue "evidence" is valid when it isn't, namely that messengers are reputable and valid in what they claim.
I do not claim to be rational but I believe I am rational, just as you believe you are rational. Whether or not a person is rational or not is a matter of personal opinion.
Rational is demonstrated by your thinking process and your conclusions. As you must be aware of you face a lot of criticism for your thinking and conclusions. You do make rational statements sometimes, but you aren't consistent.
As atheists see it no theist can show their beliefs are rational.
Because to be rational you need a valid argument via valid evidence. Theists are at a disadvantage of having no valid evidence for the conclusions and beliefs they hold. They aren't owed anything, these are the rules.
As believers see it no atheist can show our beliefs are irrational.
That would be due to bias for their beliefs.
Whether or not a belief is rational or not is a matter of personal opinion.
False, it is explained over and over that reasoned and rational statements need to be based on valid evidence and follow logic. Being rational is a narrow lane, and it is demonstrable. Irrational statements are easily exposed by experienced minds.
No, no theist can prove that their beliefs are true, just as no atheist can prove that our beliefs are false, since religious beliefs are not subject to proof. They are simply a matter of personal opinion.
As in the definition you use, proof means evidence. Theists lack evidence. If they decide to debate their religious beliefs in a diverse forum then they had better be prepared for critique.
No, I do not admit that there isn't the evidence that is required since religion is the evidence that is required to believe in God.
You want some kind of evidence that does not exist, and you will never find it since it does not exist.
Yet you claim to know a God exists. See how inconsistent your thinking is?
I never said that what Messengers reveal is factual. It cannot be factual since it can never be proven to have come from God.
Of course we should not assume the Messengers are correct.
Yet you have stated that what messengers claim is the basis for why you believe a God exists, or even know a God exists.
Regarding your requirement for some 'standard level of evidence', it is not logical to expect to have any evidence for God unless God provides that evidence, so if God does not provide the kind of evidence you require the logical thing is not to believe in God.
It's not my standard, it is the logical/debate standard that is even applied in law. We either recognize and value this standard, and apply it, or we don't.
That is what YOU see.
What I see is see the mistakes of atheists who work hard to maintain their framework, especially in defense against criticism.
Feel free to challenge anyone on mistakes they make. This is a dubious claim on your part when you make such obvious errors yourself, and refuse to learn and adjust.
 
Top