Will The Real God Please Stand Up?

I READ AQND STUDIED MY WAY TO MY BELIEF. YOU CAN'T TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHY THEY BELIUEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

jar writes: Again, you are ignoring all the vast body that refutes your position, of watching normal Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus of India 100-200 years ago that stopped and prayed at every shrine along the Grand Trunk regardless of what God or Religion the shrine was dedicated to. You are ignoring the Taoist traditions that redily adopted and recognized most any religion; of the Native American "powwows" where different tribes gathered and told their own tales of religion and origins and the other nations paying attention and saying "that's interesting"; of the modern Ecumenical Movement, of the Romanization of the Greek religions as well as the Christian practice of adopting and re-purposing most any celebration from Christmas to Easter to Passover to Pentecost.

And yet they were still Buddists and Toists and Muslims and Hindus and Christians and believe what they believe.

Religions have never been monolithic and have all evolved and changed over time.

Religions are what mankind makes them. Some change some don't.

But it's irrelevant to the point. Almost exclusively you will believe what your society/parents/time believes.

Faith writes: I READ AQND STUDIED MY WAY TO MY BELIEF.

Self-education is not reliable. You study what interests you, not what you need to know. Confirmation bias is a huge danger.

I didn't know ANYTHING about religion so I read EVERYTHING. I read about Hinduism, I read the gurus, I read about Buddhism, I was sure I'd become one or the other, I read about various occultic practices, and I practiced some occultic oracles, I read about many cults, I read Rosicrucianism, I read Theosophy, I read Gnosticism, I learned how to make astrological charts because it's part of some of those things including Hinduism and some friends had taken me for a truly astonishing personal astrological reading. In all this I believed in "God" but certainly belived in the supernatural at least. I read quite a bit of Roman Catholicism, I thought I'd become a Catholic, I read some of the early Chuch Fathers, Augustine, Athanasius, it took me a LONG time to get to the Protestants, and I did not like Martin Luther at all. And I did not like Jerry Falwell. C. S. Lewis was interesting though and I read quite a few of his books. I don't remember what finally convinced me for sure. NO I DID NOT START OUT WITH ANY INCLINATION TOWARD ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION, CERTAINLY NOT TOWARD THE PROTESTANTISM I NOW EMBRACE. EVERYBODY NEEDS TO STOP THINKING THEY KNOW BETTER THAN I DO HOW I BECAMNE A BELIEVER.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: NO I DID NOT START OUT WITH ANY INCLINATION TOWARD ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION....

The way confirmation bias works is you don't know it's happening.

Faith writes: EVERYBODY NEEDS TO STOP THINKING THEY KNOW BETTER THAN I DO HOW I BECAMNE A BELIEVER.

Jesus said:

quote:

---

Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

---

You're the worst judge of your own biases, not the best.

Well if you don't know it's happening then allow me to suggest that you are swimming in confirmation bias with every word you utter, and so is everybody else here. Why pick on me because I'm a Christian? Bevcause of YOUR confirmation bias. None of you has yet szaid one true thing about this subject. Bunch of prejudiced know-nothings.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: Well if you don't know it's happening then allow me to suggest that you are swimming in confirmation bias with every word you utter, and so is everybody else here. Why pick on me because I'm a Christian? Bevcause of YOUR confirmation bias. None of you has yet szaid one true thing about this subject. Bunch of prejudiced know-nothings.

Everybody has confirmation bias and predudices. But some have at least attempted to minimise their effects. Science is specifically designed to reduce bias to as low a point as is possible. But you regularly and openly admit to extreme bias. You say that when a fact contradicts your beliefs, it's the fact that is wrong.

There's no worse/better example. Your thinking is motivated towards your belief.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Faith writes: ... allow me to suggest that you are swimming in confirmation bias with every word you utter, and so is everybody else here.

That's definitely true. We're all susceptible to confirmation bias as well as a host of other weaknesses. The difference is that we correct each other. If I'm wrong about something, there's no shortage of people on this forum who will point it out, whether we're on the same "side" or not. You, on the other hand, revel in being alone in your thinking. That's a cesspool for confirmation bias to grow in.

Faith writes: Why pick on me because I'm a Christian?

I pick on you because you're wrong.

Right, I'm wrong about my own history. OK so you must be wrong about yours. Nothing you've ever said about yourself is true. You weren't raised Christian, you just imagined it, you were really raised to believe what you now believe or you wouldn't believe it because that's how it is. Nobody ever learns anything new, you can't change your beliefs, you could read hundreds of books and just believe what you already believed, even though you didn't know you believed it, because of confirmation bias because you WANT to believe w3hat you already believe even though you didn't know you believed it. Right. There's certainly no point in going to school because nobody can learn anything anyway.

Yes, in my mid to late forties I learned the Truth and where anything contradicts it I know it is wrong. Before I learned the Truth I believed all the same false stuff you all believe about evolution.

Faith writes: Right, I'm wrong about my own history. OK so you must be wrong about yours. Nothing you've ever said about yourself is true. You weren't raised Christian, you just imagined it, you were really raised to believe what you now believe or you wouldn't believe it because that's how it is

I'm certainly open to correction. As I mentioned, we correct each other here whether we're on the same "side" or not. For example, I've certainly crossed swords with Tangle before but we're telling you the same thing here. Maybe you should consider the possibility that you're not omniscient.

Faith writes: Yes, in my mid to late forties I learned the Truth and where anything contradicts it I know it is wrong. Before I learned the Truth I believed all the same false stuff you all believe about evolution.

You've pleaded guilty, I rest my case

dwise1 writes: The benefit of working with spiritual questions is not confirming what you had started out believing in the first place (far from it!), but rather in how it leads you to grow spiritually. The goal is not to find answers, but rather in asking the right questions and then trying to work towards answers even though you can never actually find those answers. To question is the answer.

Lets present 5 different possible Deities and the nature of each.

Ringo? You first.

Phat writes: Lets present 5 different possible Deities and the nature of each. Ringo? You first.

Um... okay.

I would start with a "deity" that is in fact a race of deities, because I don't see any particular reason to limit them to one individual. Their capabilities (technology) would be more advanced than ours but not necessarily by much. "Why" they might meddle in human affairs is uncertain. Why they might hide from us is even more mysterious.

First, for the sake of those who might wonder what you're quoting from me, that is from my Message 397 in another topic, Who Made God?.

Lets present 5 different possible Deities and the nature of each.

I don't think you quite understood.

The gods are projections of people's psychologies: their hopes, their hatreds, their wishes for power, their need to justify their prejudices, their need to diminish their guilt by being punished (eg, superego or the "parent tape" of transactional analysis), etc.

It's not really that you dream up new gods and create their mythologies, unless you are a writer of religious sci-fi (eg, Roger Zelazny, "American Gods graphic novel and series on STARZ). But even then, you would do the same thing as everybody else: you would take the gods whom others have already created along with their mythologies and play with them, transforming them into whatever you need to tell the story you want to tell. After all, consider the very broad spectrum covered by the multitude of different versions of YHWH (whose name should probably be changed to "Legion", because he is so many).

If you have a low RWA score ("right-wing authoritarian" scale that Bob Altemeyer used -- The Authoritarians), then you will gravitate to a benevolent god who wants you to help victims of disaster. If you have a high RWA score (a characteristic of which is to blame victims and seek to punish them), then you would gravitate toward an angry vengeful Punisher god. If you have a privileged life (eg, rich, powerful, King James I of England), then your god would have ensured that you were born to that position which is yours by Divine Right. If you are a racist, then your god will condone and justify your racism -- the same if you are a slave owner.

In other words, the gods we create tell us far more about ourselves than about those gods.

So instead of "let's dream up some gods to discuss", why not ask more basic questions about the gods? Like what purpose they serve. What the gods we choose say about us. How we should think about the gods. How the gods should affect how we live our lives and treat one another. Even whether the gods should affect how we live our lives and treat one another.

Otherwise, using your approach would be as meaningful as arguing whether Kirk or Picard was the better starship captain.