Just Believe

[YoursTrue]

Assuming the instructions actually came from a God, and not humans. Pay attention to many of those instructions that we modern folks would consider crimes against humanity and criminal. Kinda fishy that God would make those kinds of moral errors, don't you think?


Moses isn't thought to have been a real person. And the books attributed to this character aren't considered to be from one person, or a Moses. We need to examine all this from a more factual approach rather than from the various religious assumptions.

Many people think Moses was a real person. It hardly makes sense to believe anything in the Bible if Moses was not a real person. (It's too detailed in the description from Moses onward to think he was not a 'real person.')

 

[blü 2]

There is no "objectivity", for us.

Of course there is ─ not perfect, but maximizable.

That's a conceptual illusion that you've bought into.

Your dogged pessimism on the point is belied by your actions, this conversation, for example. You claim reality is unknowable while employing reality to achieve what you want to achieve. You function effectively in, and make informed judgments about, the world, and you're capable of maximizing your objectivity, and applauding when science does the same (since objectivity isn't an element of religion).

The truth is simply what is.

The truth is simply a quality of statements that accurately accord with external reality, the world external to the self.

 

[F1fan]

Awareness is useless, and therefor pointless without cognition.

Essentially the same thing.

And anyway, there can be no awareness of 'nothing'. The awareness must be of something, and something requires recognition. And that is conceptual.

I'm not sure if you mean what you think you mean. If you look at a dog, and can verify it exists because your senses are reliable and you are mentally stable, that sensory data is impulses that your nervous system sends to the part of your brain that interprets these signals, and your brain creates a picture of the dog. The actual dog isn't in your brain, but a picture of it is. It's not really conceptional as it is representational. But you can recall looking at the dog at a later time and that representation/memory is an abstraction. You can call that conceptual.

You have to know it's 'something'. And 'something' is a concept.

The Tooth Fairy is a concept. Can we know it? But is your best friend a concept that you know. Or is the friend more than just a concept?

Conceptualization doesn't require words. It results from comparing and contrasting experiential information sets. To be aware of it raining we will have already determined that the incoming sensory information comports with a whole array of remembered past experienced sensory information. As well as the extrapolations and probabilities they generated in our minds. We will instantly compare and contrast all this past information with the current information and determine what the current information "is" and what it "means" to us. It's all part of the same cognitive process. Perception IS conception.

I'm still not sure it is what you think it is. I am suspicious that you are using this as a way to imply that since gods are conceptual, and perception is conceptual that we can perceive God. Is that what you are working towards here with this line of argument?

Science calls it "energy", but we have no idea what energy 'is', really. Or from whence it originates. It's a mystery. But we know that from it, and from the 'rules' that govern it's expression, everything that exists comes to exist as it does.

You sound less passionate about your religious beliefs. But you love picking the scab of mystery with hopes to have some small crack to shoe horn your God into if the opportunity arises.

 

[F1fan]

I was looking at a book about insects. Fascinating things, those little things. Rather complicated as well.

I take your complete evasion of my comments to post this distraction is a way to admit your error?

 

[F1fan]

Many people think Moses was a real person.

And how of these are committed to taking the Bible stories literally for their personal meaning?

It hardly makes sense to believe anything in the Bible if Moses was not a real person. (It's too detailed in the description from Moses onward to think he was not a 'real person.')

And there is the risk of believers being more objective and honest about the history of the Bible. Believers can't afford the risk of knowing the truth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but I do believe that the "floodgates of the heavens" were opened and rain poured down for 40 days and 40 nights. That's a long time, considering how much damage is done now on the earth in a much, much shorter time. .. God can do anything He wants to sustain what He wants when He wants to.

Where has all that water that covered the highest of mountains go after the flood, back to heaven? Sure, you can make your imaginary God to do anything you want. But in spite of prayers by billions of Christians he cannot end wars or eradicate Covid-19. You do have a funny God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many people think Moses was a real person. It hardly makes sense to believe anything in the Bible if Moses was not a real person. (It's too detailed in the description from Moses onward to think he was not a 'real person.')

You could say that exact same about literally any of the main characters in any big story.
Luke Skywalker.
Harry Potter.
Frodo.
Vito Corleone.
Xavier, aka Professor X.
Clark Kent.
Peter Parker.
Don Diego de la Vega.


Each of these have massive amounts of detailed lore.
Much more detailed then any character in the bible, in fact.

Driving your logic home, all of these should be regarded as "real".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That may well be that the sun is a fairly typical main sequence star," but--the Bible says that star differs from star in glory. And, I believe the Bible's word when it says we as part of the human race, can live forever. So with that in mind, there are two things here: one is the inherent desire of most people to keep living, and another is that the Bible says Adam & Eve were designed to live forever, but blew that chance. Now if, let's say, we were not hoping to enjoy life forever (whatever parts there are to enjoy, and there are many), we would, in essence be like chimpanzees and rabbits. I hesitate to say animals because so many insist we humans are part of the animal kingdom. I disagree, but then, who am I? Someone who keeps learning and wants to keep living, knowing, however, I may die.
Now here's a question, while it may seem irrelevant, I don't think so. I was listening to one of Gustav Mahler's Symphonies. Perhaps you've heard of Mahler. I like most of his music. Some of it, in my humble opinion, is very beautiful. But Mahler had a morbid fear of dying. Why is that, do you think? Many of us have that fear from the time we realize death is in the picture, usually we recognize that at a young age. I remember when I first feared death. I was about 6 years old. And while I believe what the Bible says, I still don't want to die.
But the question really is: do chimps and rabbits live with that fear from an early age? (I don't think so...plus they don't write music for orchestras. )

What makes you think other animals don't fear death, pain and suffering?
When there's danger, do they not run and panic?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now the fact that he declared himself to be agnostic is interesting...because he allowed for the possibility of God.

Every atheist I personally know, allows for that possibility to.
I allow for the possibility of any and all things you can come up with.

That's what makes me open-minded.
Now for the mere "possibility" to turn into something that is "very likely correct", that requires proper evidence and demonstration. It's called meeting the burden of proof.

So'll happily allow for the possibility of graviton fairies, "demon theory of disease" requiring exorcisms instead of meds, creation magic instead of natural evolution, etc etc etc.

But for those possibilities to actually become acceptable, you're going to have to justify them with a just a tiny bit more then "this iron age book written by superstitious goat herders, says so"



So what about you? Do you allow for the possibility of "no-god"?
It sounds like you don't.

 

[danieldemol]

But the question really is: do chimps and rabbits live with that fear from an early age? (I don't think so...plus they don't write music for orchestras. )

There are evolutionary niches, naturally all animals don't share the same niches, for example you can't run as fast as a cheetah or lift as much as an elephant can, so too there are some things that most humans can do such as extrapolate future events which other animals can't do.

And if being capable of composing music for orchestras means you are capable of living forever (which is pretty much a non-sequitur) then it is pretty clear that most humans can't compose orchestra and thus following that line of reasoning most humans are not fit for eternal life just like other animals that can't compose orchestra if that's your criteria for eternity.

In my opinion.

 

[PureX]

The truth is simply a quality of statements that accurately accord with external reality, the world external to the self.

You are defining truth as functionality. But functionality is not truth. It is only a part of the truth, and a partial truth is nearly always going to be deceiving. By wrongly conflating truth with functionality, you only serve to enhance that deceit.

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure if you mean what you think you mean. If you look at a dog, and can verify it exists because your senses are reliable and you are mentally stable, that sensory data is impulses that your nervous system sends to the part of your brain that interprets these signals, and your brain creates a picture of the dog. The actual dog isn't in your brain, but a picture of it is. It's not really conceptional as it is representational. But you can recall looking at the dog at a later time and that representation/memory is an abstraction. You can call that conceptual.

There is no "actual dog". There is only external phenomena triggering our nervous system to send signals to our brain. By comparing and contrasting those signals with each other, and with other remembered sets of signals, our brains "identify" the many various sets of signals it receives. And then determines if they represent danger, value, and so on. This is called 'cognition'. Cognition is both perception AND conceptualization. The "dog" doesn't come into being until the incoming information is conceptualized and labeled as such. The external phenomena is there prior to it being identified and conceptualized in our brain as a "dog", but the "dog" is a conceptualization of that external phenomena, not the phenomena, itself.

This is what many of us fail to grasp: that existence is just phenomena. WE divide that phenomena into internal and external, this or that, controllable and uncontrollable, requiring our action, or not. And so on.

The Tooth Fairy is a concept. Can we know it? But is your best friend a concept that you know. Or is the friend more than just a concept?

What does it mean to "know" something? Does it mean to identify some perceived phenomenon, conceptualize it, label it, and evaluate it, so as to respond to it effectively? The Tooth Fairy is a concept we've been introduced to that is so far (for most of us) absent a phenomenon. A best friend is a concept attached to a multiplex of phenomenological experiences that most of us have had. So we "know" more about the best friend than we "know" about the Tooth Fairy. But "knowing" is an 'inside job', so to speak. It's something that happens in our mind, not in the world.

I'm still not sure it is what you think it is. I am suspicious that you are using this as a way to imply that since gods are conceptual, and perception is conceptual that we can perceive God. Is that what you are working towards here with this line of argument?

God is a concept that we've been given by our culture that we may or may not have found phenomenological accord with. Claiming that it does or does not "exist" is no more than proclaiming that one has or has not identified phenomenological accordance with the concept as they currently hold it. And the 'debate' is really just bantering about what the concept is, and whether or not it has phenomenological accordance. And in the end, these will always be individually and subjectively determined.

You sound less passionate about your religious beliefs. But you love picking the scab of mystery with hopes to have some small crack to shoe horn your God into if the opportunity arises.

I am not religious, and I do not "believe in" any gods. I am simply pointing out the irrational nonsense I see being offered routinely, here, in the form of atheism and scientism.

 

[blü 2]

You are defining truth as functionality. But functionality is not truth. It is only a part of the truth, and a partial truth is nearly always going to be deceiving. By wrongly conflating truth with functionality, you only serve to enhance that deceit.

Functionality demonstrates our ability to deal with the world external to the self, whether to explore and seek to explain it as reasoned enquiry, including science, does, or to exploit it, as we do every time we buy dinner.

Our subjectivity, in other words, is not the utter barrier you propose. simply an aspect of how we relate to the real world which we can take steps to mitigate.

The functionality of religion appears to relate only to the communal and personal psychology of the participants. No supernatural aspect can be shown, let alone exploited.

 

[F1fan]

There is no "actual dog". There is only external phenomena ....

So you dismiss an actual dog, but acknowledge there is an external phenomenon? How is this not a contradiction? That our senses are precise enough to know it's a dog and not a horse is suffincient to acknowledge this external phenomenon is something specific. You can even recognize the dog as your neighbor's beagle, and not some random dog.

...triggering our nervous system to send signals to our brain. By comparing and contrasting those signals with each other, and with other remembered sets of signals, our brains "identify" the many various sets of signals it receives. And then determines if they represent danger, value, and so on. This is called 'cognition'. Cognition is both perception AND conceptualization. The "dog" doesn't come into being until the incoming information is conceptualized and labeled as such. The external phenomena is there prior to it being identified and conceptualized in our brain as a "dog", but the "dog" is a conceptualization of that external phenomena, not the phenomena, itself.

OK, you seem to be thinking of how humans perceive the environment in an excessively subjective approach, and one that negates how the brain can understand objective realities. How you say "The "dog" doesn't come into being until the incoming information" is not accurate to an experienced mind that understands there's objective reality that the self is part of, and has to navigate to live. This might be true to a child or animal, but not experienced humans. We experienced humans know that if we see some random dog for the first time that this dog has existed prior to our seeing it, right? It did not pop into existence suddenly through our brain processing sensory data.

I suspect your angle here is to negate how we humans can acknowledge and understand the environment objectively. Theists prefer the ambiguous and mysterious nature of perception. oddly this doesn't help the believer because it makes perception less reliable, and thus the beliefs about God and a supernatural are that much more flawed and unlikely.

This is what many of us fail to grasp: that existence is just phenomena. WE divide that phenomena into internal and external, this or that, controllable and uncontrollable, requiring our action, or not. And so on.

The only "internal and external phenomenon" is how medicine deals with the skin, hair, etc. and the internal organs. What you seem to be referring to is objective reality and how we humans can perceive it, whether we do it poorly or accurately. I find it odd how many theists prefer the illusions of how humans comprehend reality versus a more objective alternative. Studies indicate they is not a deliberate behavior, but one that is learned and becomes habitual, and like any comforting habit gets reinforced and defended.

What does it mean to "know" something? Does it mean to identify some perceived phenomenon, conceptualize it, label it, and evaluate it, so as to respond to it effectively? The Tooth Fairy is a concept we've been introduced to that is so far (for most of us) absent a phenomenon.

And how different are god concepts? Does the word "god" correspond to anything more real than the TF?

A best friend is a concept attached to a multiplex of phenomenological experiences that most of us have had. So we "know" more about the best friend than we "know" about the Tooth Fairy. But "knowing" is an 'inside job', so to speak. It's something that happens in our mind, not in the world.

But in any case a "best friend" can be verified as existing outside the imagination, yes? If your friend is driving you both to an event it's not your imagination operating the car, right? Or is your whole experience in question? Does the Tooth Fairy ever do anything? Do gods ever do anything?

God is a concept that we've been given by our culture that we may or may not have found phenomenological accord with. Claiming that it does or does not "exist" is no more than proclaiming that one has or has not identified phenomenological accordance with the concept as they currently hold it. And the 'debate' is really just bantering about what the concept is, and whether or not it has phenomenological accordance. And in the end, these will always be individually and subjectively determined.

We can't say Santa Claus does not exist. But we have tools and rules that guides us to NOT automatically accept and believe concepts, even if popular. Whether a person has this skill is a huge question because children tend to be indoctrinated into religious belief before they are at a age to understand logic/reasoning, and by the time they are it is too late, they are indoctrinated. Parents detach kids from their emotional ties to Santa, the TF and the Easter Bunny when they are young enough to move past the attachment. But not gods or religious concepts. These are promoted and reinforced. Only a fraction have the mind to think beyond the absurdity of these ideas.

I am not religious, and I do not "believe in" any gods. I am simply pointing out the irrational nonsense I see being offered routinely, here, in the form of atheism and scientism.

And you are doing it in a way that is typical with theists. Why is that? I'm an atheist. Blu is an atheist. So you are an atheist, too? Why are you not agreeing with the more objective understand of things if you are not a theist as well?

 

[PureX]

So you dismiss an actual dog, but acknowledge there is an external phenomenon? How is this not a contradiction?

I am pointing out that what we refer to as "a dog" is a phenomenological conceptualization. It is an idea. That's what human cognition is: sensual impulses becoming ideas.

That our senses are precise enough to know it's a dog and not a horse is suffincient to acknowledge this external phenomenon is something specific.

Our senses don't "know" anything. They simply convert external phenomena into various kinds of internal impulses. The brain then compares and contrasts those impulses with past experiential impulse information to determine what they represent, and how to respond. We don't see "a dog". We see light and color patterns that we then determine to be "a dog".

OK, you seem to be thinking of how humans perceive the environment in an excessively subjective approach, and one that negates how the brain can understand objective realities.

The brain has no access to what you call "objective reality". It is trapped behind the 'firewall' of very limited human sensory and cognitive mechanics. The truth is 'what is', and yet we humans have no direct access to 'what is'. So we have no direct access to truth. We can only presume and extrapolate 'what is' from the limited impulses it generates in our bodies via the limited, binary intellectual process of our thinking brains. This "objective reality" that you think you can know is just another idea (conceptualization) in your mind. Same as all the others.

I'm an atheist. Blu is an atheist. So you are an atheist, too? Why are you not agreeing with the more objective understand of things if you are not a theist as well?

I am an agnostic theist. I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of gods because I do not possess the capacity necessary to make such a determination. But I can choose to hope and trust in the idea of an extant 'God' even though I can't know it to be so. And I can base that choice on the value of the results of having made such a decision, rather than on prior evidence that I don't have. .

Atheists "believe in" an objective reality that they have no direct access to or knowledge of (they just think they do, because they "truly believe" what they believe in). Yet they object to theists believing in a God that they have no direct access to or knowledge of (though they often think they do because they "truly believe" what they believe in). I neither believe nor disbelieve, BECAUSE I have no direct access or knowledge of 'what is' (truth). All I can do is speculate, and then choose to either trust in my speculations, or not to.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.......How do you know that? Where is it written that Jesus was very well educated in the old Hebrew Scriptures?.....

Luke 2:42; Luke 2:46-47

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Bible teaches that Jesus was God incarnate. No one has seen the Father but they have seen the Son.
Jesus accepted being worshipped as God. That would be blasphemy for a mere man.

Who did Jesus instruct to worship at John 4:23-24 but his God
Right, No man has seen the Father, but people saw His Son.
No one can see God at any time according to John 1:18.
People saw Jesus. People saw Jesus and lived - 1 John 4:12; Exodus 33:20.
Because people saw Jesus and lived thus proves Jesus is Not the Father.
Gabriel told Mary her Son would be Son of the Most High, Not God the Son.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

......Faith just means trust in something. I put faith I'll get to work but it's blind to think I'd get there without gas. So I need to put the effort.
It's faith cause you don't know the outcome,.......................)

Faith /confidence /trust in something.
Faith /confidence /trust and do know the outcome.
The powers that be will be saying, " Peace and Security..." (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3)
That will prove to be the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

............... But in spite of prayers by billions of Christians he cannot end wars or eradicate Covid-19. You do have a funny God.

Prayers by billions of 'so-called Christians' ( the fake 'weed/tares ' ) Jesus forewarned about.
It is mankind who can Not end wars, that is why God will have Jesus step in - Psalms 46:9.
The 'sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth' will rid the Earth of the wicked - Isaiah 11:3-4; Rev. 19:14-15
Jesus forewarned us that there would be pestilence at Luke 21:11.
C-19 helps prove Jesus' words to be true.
Besides all the global troubles, the good news of God's Kingdom (Daniel 2:44) is proclaimed earth wide.
So, coupled with world troubles the declaring about God's Kingdom is Now done on a vast international scale as never before in history - Matthew 24:14; Acts of the Apostles 1:8 - just as Jesus said it would be done is now done.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

..............And there is the risk of believers being more objective and honest about the history of the Bible. Believers can't afford the risk of knowing the truth.

History of the Bible, or history of the Bible writers who where all Asians.
The current degraded ideas with its effect on people is a reason why there is an increase in immorality among more young or younger people. I find the Bible foretold that long before Muslim, Hindu and 'so-called Christian' religions at 2 Timothy 3:1-3,13.
Please note that those described conditions prevail today despite today's continuous learning efforts.
So, the Bible helps people understand truth that most people never learn or want to learn.
I find the Bible discusses common problems that are of concern to all peoples today.
To me it is non-believers that can't afford the risk of knowing the truth.