To fahrvegnugen

by Farkel 22 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  Here's the subject. Fava beans (with a nice Chianti)

  LOL, fav, note: change name to Hannibal. (j/k)

  Farkel,

  damn it man. i went and made a reply to you in the other thread, and then you come here and make a new one. don't make me chase you. lol.

  listen,

  i agree with FMZ that i was surprised too. and yet, i'm not glad about it.

  you say to a newbie:

  Take a deep breath and a fresh piece of blank paper and make your decision without the blinders of the Bible, the dubs and the other psychos who tell us what we should believe and what we shouldn't believe. We have freedom of thought and freedom of choice and that is inalienable (God/Source/Creator-given and therefore no one on this planet can take it away from us)

  and yet for yourself that:

  It's the one's who have already concluded that they have figured everything out who have proved to be the most destructive idiots in history.

  so, you have an implicit assertion that there is a creator/source based on the wonders of nature, and then you say that:

  I don't know, but I know I have much to learn.

  how does this work? how can you start with a blank piece of paper (assuming you personally did as you advised fav) and still come out with a god/source/creator having done it all? is it by coincidence alone that you have ended up at the same basic assumption of all the destructive idiots in history that did not want to see nature for what it was (or could not), and still retain the mantle of not knowing anything / being open minded?

  you assert in the last thread, and then again in this one, that there is a creator who has not "given up" on us.

  by what special knowledge do you know that there is a creator?

  TS

  ps - my favorite pizza toppings are ham and pinapple.
• 

  Pole

  Farkel wrote:
  

  Take a deep breath and a fresh piece of blank paper and make your decision without the blinders of the Bible, the dubs and the other psychos who tell us what we should believe and what we shouldn't believe. We have freedom of thought and freedom of choice and that is inalienable (God/Source/Creator-given and therefore no one on this planet can take it away from us)

  In reply to fahrvegnugen's post:
  

  When you look honestly at biblical texts in the light of their historical setting, it eventually becomes apparent that they are the product of the time and place where they originated. They are not "inspired of god" but simply human products filled with all the tell-tale signs of human manufacture. Later when I attended a college course on comparative religious studies, I was amazed to see the parallels to this in the world's major religions. If you investigate the origins of all these religions, the stories of how they were founded never quite jibe with the historical facts. They are all the product of man, rather than any divinity.

  I think fahrvegnugen's point is that his study of the Bible was what lead him to him to do some comparative religious studies and conclude that the role of anthropomorphisms in religions ad religious thinking in general in ubiquitous. In other words, all religions have something in common: they are full of anthropomorphisms and metaphors, and therefore it is fair to say that they are "a product of man rather than divinity" with a reasonable amount of certainty. BTW, they are not necessarily a "conscious product" with every doctrinal detail carefully debated by a religious governing body. Rather, they reflect the common traits of human cognition and subconsciousness.

  God is a father, we are his children. Gods dwell in light, demons dwell in darkness. Knowledge is light, living in sin is darkness. The reason these "explanations" are so similar throughout religions is because all religious thinking is so thoroughly anthropomorphic. Not only religions are anthropomorphic but religious thinking in general. And yet these anthropomorphisms are presented as Absolute truth by each and every religion.

  If this is more or less what fahrvegnugen is saying, then I wholeheartedly agree.

  If Farkel was to actualy verbalize his beliefs in a "Creator" in a less mystical way, he'd end up with a bunch of silly metaphors based on the same mechanism as the Bible metaphors. The content would be different, but it would all come down to an attempt to explain "the spiritual" in terms of "the material". And so would end up any human attempting to rewrite the book of Genesis using it's basic methodology (appeal to the Supernatural). If I'm wrong prove me wrong.

  Of course religious thinkers tend to come up with theories which are just as difficult to refute for their contemporaries as it is currently possible. They use their access to scientific theories to obfuscate their metaphors as much as possible. Hence, you have modern creationists and their "biotic messages" carried by viruses.

  Saying that all "religion is a snare and a racket" is insufficient. Most people starting new bs religions began by rejecting all other religions as inferior. We need positive evidence which cannot be classified as anthropomorphism and which holds water in a decent number of contexts.

  End of the post.

  Pole
• 

  kwintestal

  Farkel, I personally agree with you on this subject. I'd like to share something out of a book I'm currently reading based on the writings of Paramhansa Yogananda called "God is for everyone" pg. 40:

  Man imagines himself capable of comprehending all things witht the intellect alone. In this presumption he is like a little child whom St. Augustien, the great Christian theologian, beheld on a beach.
  The child was trying to empty the sea by filling his little bucket with sea water, then emptying it repeatedly onto the sand. According to legend, St. Augustine asked the child, "Isn't it foolish to try to empty the sea with that little bucket?" The child gazed up at him calmly and replied, "And isn't it foolish to try to empty the sea of divine wisdom with the 'bucket' of your little mind?" Having said those words, the child vanished!

  I have to run, but I'll try to make more of a comment on this in a few hours.

  Kwin
• 

  Pole

  Just to clarify my position:
  If there is some supernatural being(s), then:
  1) We have no relatively collective way of knowing that. Well, at least I haven't heard of one.
  2) The "psychology" of this being must be totally different from human psychology. For instance, this supreme being does not share the moral standards of most humans or it is incapable of taking actions which should not be a problem for the Creator of the universe.
  3) Because both the psychology and the ontology of this being (if it happens to exist in some unknown form) are beyond our comprehension it makes absolutely no sense to make up silly metaphors like this one:
  

  The child was trying to empty the sea by filling his little bucket with sea water, then emptying it repeatedly onto the sand. According to legend, St. Augustine asked the child, "Isn't it foolish to try to empty the sea with that little bucket?" The child gazed up at him calmly and replied, "And isn't it foolish to try to empty the sea of divine wisdom with the 'bucket' of your little mind?" Having said those words, the child vanished!

  
  Nice rhetorics, but how does it confirm the ontological status of God again? It's just another attempt to anthropomorphisize (nice word, huh?) the problem whose nature is said to be superhuman.
  Pole
• 

  cruzanheart

  Britney Spears wears a bra?

  Nina
• 

  Farkel

  Many thanks for your thoughtful replies, folks. I prefer sausage and pepperoni myself!

  : you assert in the last thread, and then again in this one, that there is a creator who has not "given up" on us.

  :by what special knowledge do you know that there is a creator?

  I have no special knowledge and said so and you were correct in stating I made an assertion. I provided no facts as there are none to provide with regards to a benign Creator or not. On the otherhand, no atheist can present a single fact to provide that a Creator doesn't exist. If one cannot even understand the nature of a Creator (if a Creator does exist), then it is impossible to use even empirical evidence to prove/disprove that existence, let along any hard facts.

  I stated my person opinion, but even if I was an atheist and was proven wrong in some sort of afterlife, any halfway decent God would forgive me, I believe.

  Farkel
• 

  stillajwexelder

  I am well-educated but I learn something new everyday - and if I do not I am dissappointed. I try to have an open mind
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  I stated my person opinion, but even if I was an atheist and was proven wrong in some sort of afterlife, any halfway decent God would forgive me, I believe.

  yes, i agree. Pascal's Wager reversed. i like it.

  TS
• 

  Pole

  Farkel,
  

  On the otherhand, no atheist can present a single fact to provide that a Creator doesn't exist.

  
  Can you imagine such "a fact"? Honestly, I wonder what would it take to make such an argument? Similarily, how do you prove that Santa doesn't exist? Well, you normally show people the history of the belief, how it developed, and how the many things that people believe about him are mutually exclusive and out of keeping with reality. There is no other way to "prove" Santa Claus doesn't exist. But I might still argue that having explained the history of the Santa Claus tradition you haven't provided a single "fact" which conclusively proves he doesn't exist. Unless I believ Santa literally lives in Rovaniemi, Lapland and you take me there, walk around and conclude: "See, no real Santa! That's a fact".
  The problem is that you can't take me to "the place" where God supposedly lives. Damn, "place" is another anthropomorphism.
  Of course it's still possible to believe a Creator exists, but I think we can only express our opinions on the matter in terms of probabilities and inferences. Having honestly considered all the pros and cons, I believe God doesn't exist. And it's not a 50% probaility - that's where I usually ask people to be honest.
  Pole
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  Fava beans (with a nice Chianti)

  LMFAO!

  God.

  Sheesh, my belief of god has gone away and come back with ideas that I never, ever thought I'd think possible. Complete with psychic/spiritual experiences to reinforce what I have come to believe... which is that I don't "know" Jack, and there is so much more out there to explore and experience, that to try to shove it in a box and call it "god" and "creation" or "evolution" is limiting my thinking.

  Of any out-of-the-box term, I like agnostic. There probably is a god-head-source to the universe, but I know I'm definitely not it. But I am a part of "it".

  That's about as deep as I want to go today. I'm too tired to get any deeper and when I do, I just get bogged down.