Can the persons of the Trinity disagree with each other? — GRWelsh

:grin: Well, they seemed to, on the cross, when Jesus is supposed to have exclaimed,
"Father, why hast thou forsaken me?"

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Perhaps it should be renamed/diagnosed by those who study psychiatry, as the schizophrenic trinity.

In a very very simple nutshell, I do not believe that something came from nothing. It is the greatest absurdity imaginable (if one can even imagine nothingness). All of my other worldviews are then built upon that. — Watchmaker

Good Morning! Well, afternoon here!
We broadly agree on that, as I hold the opinion that such a 'state' as 'nothing' does not ( nor ever has had) an existent. I currently favour an eternally cyclical or possibly an oscillating universe but there is currently no strongly convincing evidence for either. There is some, such as Roger Penrose's hawking points, but there are other possible explanations for those, as suggested by folks like Alan Guth.
For me, God posits are as credible as the stories of Hans Christian Anderson, Marvel/DC comics etc by comparison.

I agree that we cant make much progress, whilst you remain convinced that a god exists and I don't.
I simply request that you don't completely abandon your ability to be a skeptical enquirer/scrutineer when it comes to god.
Does it directly communicate with you in a personally very convincing way, regularly, repeatedly?
If not, why not? if it is your benevolent creator?

Again, I don't believe in any of this, and we have lots of evidence for all the bad things religions have done, but it has plenty of value for believers. — Manuel

"The opium of the masses" makes them junkies and perpetually keeps them down-and-out, dog-eat-dog ... A 'sacramental' vicious cycle. — 180 Proof

I have an alcoholic neighbour who is a Christian, who gets angry with his god at times ( when shit happens in his life) and he goes on a bender, and becomes a problem for the locals.
He has had a dark past and a lot of jail time. He said to me once that it's only god and 'drink' that keeps him alive.

God fantasies play that role in many lives but there are far better ways to go. God and 'drink' are quick but bad solutions in the long term, they are synthetic highs, they are FAKE.
So although I agree that theism/religion can help stabilise many unstable humans, it achieves this in the same way as substance abuse, imo.
A junkie will tell you, accurately, that drugs make him/her/hesh, feel freakin fantastic!
A Christian speaking in tongues, writhing on the ground in 'faith' ecstacy, 'feeling the spirit' inside them, at an evanhellical preacher show/spectacle, no doubt feel a similar high to a junkie.

The trouble is that its a SYNTHETIC HIGH, just like god. A natural high is soooooooo much healthier. 180 proof says it quite succinctly with the words I underlined from his above quote. @Darkneos is soooooooo correct with:

It served its purpose for a time but now needs to be let go. — Darkneos

I'd be glad to see religion phase out over time, at least then you'd be able to reason with folks better. — Darkneos

People seem to forget that religion is the reason LGBT people, who merely just exist, fear for their lives and rights. — Darkneos

They invent the problem and sell the solution. — Darkneos

I know that without Christianity my childhood could have been spared soooo much grief and many others too. — Darkneos

Your grandmother must have been a 'tour de force.'

PS Germany is our soul mate and historic partner who manifests our present more than our historical past. — Athena

I can't see that at all. Perhaps I would have fought with them/for them against the Romans, but that's about it.
As a Scot, I see little to admire regarding the Saxons or/and the Angles, that hailed from that place and along with the Norman French, eventually formed England. Prussia was quite an ugly civilisation as was WWI and WW2 Germany. Almost as ugly a grouping as the Spartans imo.

I know you probably will easily see through such as:

I'll have to read up on that. I wasn't aware of that. — Hanover

Alexander the butcher, Julius Caesar the butcher, Napoleon the butcher, and more modern butchers such as Stalin. Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and the current wannabee butchers such as Trump, Putin et al, have and still do employ religion, to move towards their narcissistic, autocratic, totalitarian wet dreams but not exclusively.

So many people rely on duped followers for the status, power and wealth they have been able to amass.
Becoming a religious authority is one way to become very rich and very powerful and once you have established your 'holy', 'sacred' and downright pernicious 'god buildings and structure,' they can become an 'empire' that lasts at least a thousand years, just like the organisation that inherited the legacy of the Roman empire, ie, Vatican City, in, no surprise, Rome!
The rise of theosophist horrors such as scientology, demonstrate how the system works, from inception to rich and powerful.
Yes, they will (or at least would like to) kill/destroy anyone who they think threatens their wealth, power and position. Religion is not the only such pernicious structure but it's certainly in the top 5 of the most dangerous threats to human freedom and human progress imo.

Religion is about control, that seems to be the nutshell here. — Darkneos

:clap: Absolutely! and often it's about malicious and evil control. I don't blame any god for that as
1. There is no evidence that they exist and 2. If they do exist, they, or it, seems to have no ability to control the bad behaviour of horrible theists such as Kent Hovind and Ken Ham and sooooooo many others, in those 'in the name of god' factories, who have duped their followers out of millions and became rich themselves.

You words are very familiar and I have heard them, or similar, many times before, especially from people who have managed to free themselves from such 'follower' style rhetoric.
Those who profit greatly from religion will be very happy to read your post.

I really don't know, and all I can do is self report what I feel. — Watchmaker

All I know is that there is a being who exists and was not created. — Watchmaker

These statements seem to contradict. What evidence do you have that this being exists? You claim to KNOW, but you have not evidenced HOW you know.
As Mr Dillahunty often says in mocking mimicry of theists. 'I know that I know that I know that god is real.'
When you make such a claim, then you have the burden of proof or else the flying spaghetti monster is just as REAL as your god, for all those who claim to know that they know that they know........
I might make the same claim against the existence of god, but at least I have the compelling evidence of divine hiddenness on my side, and all of the scientific evidence that shows that the biblical story of creation is utter tosh.

and myself being a mere mortal with limited ability to comprehend such transcendent truths — Watchmaker

Follow your own logic, if you as a mere mortal have limited ability to comprehend, then you DONT KNOW "that there is a being who exists and was not created," You might have been totally duped, fooled, conned into following the dictates of those who wish to use you to promote their BS and enhance their status, power and personal wealth. They promise you great reward, AFTER YOU ARE DEAD!!!!! :lol: :halo:

There is a mind that is self existent, eternal. That much I know for certain — Watchmaker

What evidence do you have that this is true?

God's Word is a light unto my path and a lamp unto my feet, and right now, the only place that is illuminated and where I feel safe is underneath the Shadow of His Wings. — Watchmaker

You can walk on paths lit up by electric light and carry a torch and have shoes on your feet with lights built into them. Having lots of people with you as you walk on unfamiliar paths may make you feel safer under their protection. Can you not see how you seem to crave superhero protection as you imagineer these dark paths you have to walk. There is nothing to fear but fear itself. Blind people deal with darkness every day without any help from gods. Darkness is as beautiful as light.
Touch, taste, smell, and audio are easily as beautiful as light. Your theism sounds stifling to me, it's restrictive, shallow and turns you into a subservient child waiting for its masters directives.
I hope you don't give any religious groups too much of your hard earned money or your valuable time.
If you do, then all I can say is that, the door towards theism does swing both ways and you can exit permanently as well as enter.

I say capitalism is morally correct — Hanover

you are morally corrupt. — Hanover

That's a good enough summary of the 'dispute' between us, that you mentioned.
I say capitalism is vile and that you are the immoral one.
Your viewpoints merely reinforce my total opposition to them.
Thank you for the exchange.

I also have had a range of personal measurement of discussions, I have had on TPF.
I have had fruitful and fruitless discussions, often with the same person from thread to thread.
The one here, between us, was inert in it's significance.
I always take care, I am sure you do to.

Sure, reduction to a panto style exchange of 'oh no you didn't and oh yes I did,' is quite common in any discussion between human beings anywhere, from global meetings between world leaders, to two strangers on TPF, to discussions with your nearest and dearest. I rarely get exasperated by such, as it comes with the territory.

I know the story of Lilith from a Neil Gaiman comic book actually. Adam rejected her because he witnessed all her innards coming together and was grossed out by it. — Watchmaker

I don't know if that was something from the comic book you referred to but Adam did not reject Lilith, yahweh/jehovah did that because she would not let Adam take the dominant position during sex.
She would not allow penetration whilst she lay underneath Adam, she would take a position on top of Adam. She is considered a hero by many feminists, for her defiance of god and its demand that she be subservient to Adam.
The second interesting part of the fable is that god turned her into a snake and that was the snake that spoke and tempted Eve etc.

Keep probing sir!
Keep asking the type of questions you are asking.

That they are the same? I've never looked into this nor have I ever been compelled to wonder. There may or may not be some truth there, I don't really know. — Watchmaker

Yes they are the same BUT are you not then compelled to find out more about what is known regarding the origin story of Yahweh? If that is the god you actually assign as YOUR creator and YOUR leader and that which YOU are willing to invest something as potentially all consuming and very powerful as WORSHIP. Should you not be able to explain, why Yahweh went from a minor Mesopotamian/Levant deity, to become the main monotheistic, Abrahamic, god of the Christians, YOUR chosen god! Why was his wife/consort/sacred feminine, Asherah dropped by Christianity? For example.
Do you know about Adams first wife, Lilith? Made by Jehovah, from the same clay/mud that Adam was?

If I declare moral realism, where is this moral realm?
— Hanover

Buggered if I know. — Tom Storm

Well, the 'moral realm' (I prefer 'moral landscape' as 'realm' can invoke images of monarchy,) certainly exists in human aspiration and legacy and is at its most useful imo, when it acts as a guide towards tasking/compelling, personal aspiration, to be benevolent towards other humans, other lifeforms, and the environments/ecology they each depend on.

:up: :clap:

No. The point here is to learn to not make assumptions when people make statements about their beliefs. — Noble Dust

Fine, and the counter point is be as crystal clear and honest when you make statements about your beliefs of you will be misinterpreted, which is YOUR fault if you are unable to explain you belief sufficiently, to the average, reasonable, lay person.
As Einstein stated: “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

I didn't say that bad government excuses bad religion. — Noble Dust

You did offer both with the implication of comparison.

It's like saying the existence of 'rape and torture' are more tolerable because murder exists. I assume you are familiar with '2 wrongs don't make a right.'
— universeness

No it's not. You are indeed putting words in my mouth. — Noble Dust

It seems that you and @Paine have different opinions on exactly what words I am 'putting in your mouth.'

OK, and should they decide to enslave those of a different tribe, then that's moral? — Hanover

Not according to any moral code I would support, how about you? — universeness

And upon what basis don't you support it — Hanover

My humanity and my empathy towards my fellow humans and my support of standards such as the golden rule.

and upon what criteria would I be wrong not to agree with you. — Hanover

The judgement of your fellows who hopefully would label you a selfish, nasty individualist who only cares about himself and you would also be wrong, imo, as the result could be that you are more ostracised from your community.

This just shows an inability to understand how to reason through the use of a hypothetical. It is logically irrelevant that the hypothetical hasn't occurred. — Hanover

Hypothetical projections can be useful, especially in leading edge science when 'brain storming.'
Hypotheticals on the issue of human morality are almost utterly useless. Judgement on a case by case basis is the best approach imo. REAL every day experience and REAL every day events require REAL application of a moral code, based on a secular approach, applied by a completely non-theistic judiciary.
A religious judiciary is utterly vile. Would you like to be judged based on biblical or sharia codes?

This is really just more of your inability to abstract. I'm saying that that your elevation of humanity to special status makes it logically indistinct from what the religious do with God. — Hanover

No, you seem to have a complete blind spot here. Matt Dillahunty often starts his call-in show on Jimmy Snow's youtube channel, 'The line,' by asking theists to call in and explain what is is they believe and why they believe it. YOU mostly avoid offering ANY worthwhile detail, regarding these questions. You just skirt around the edges, obfuscating and holding up shiney's in the hope of misdirecting others.
There is a very clear difference in the status that secular humans assign humanity and the status theist's such as yourself assign humanity. I don't employ terms such as 'holy' and 'sacred,' YOU DO. You know exactly the different status YOU assign to YOURSELF as a theist.

If you have no supernatural basis for the holiness you decree for humanity, why did you choose humanity over plants? — Hanover

This doesn't follow. Why couldn't the plan be we are created perfect and will die perfect? — Hanover

The two quotes above CLEARLY reveal the status YOU covet for humanity, or more accurately, YOURSELF. This is the arrogant delusion your theism burdens you with. You should free yourself of this nonsense and ugly measure of what it means to be a 'godly human.' Then you can OWN your OWN awe and wonder of being alive and experiencing the world as a mentally free thinker.

Why don't you explain the details of your theism? What do you believe, regarding the supernatural and the esoteric, why do you believe such and what is your best evidence to support such?
If you don't want to discuss the details of your theism the all that is left, is the spectacle of reading your word and concept contortions, as you continue to skirt around the issue, using well worn philosophical shiney's

Humans are significant, yes and they are much more important than money, or property or the personal ego and demands of those who insist that they are superior,
— universeness

Why? — Hanover

Again, another shiney!! You only ask why, to the content of my above quote to be obtuse.
Do you value your children more that your money, your property, your material possessions or your ego?
Your children are humans, yes? Would you accept any other humans claim that your children are inferior because they are not, say, moslems? If you do feel that way about your children, do you not extent that to the children of other humans and other humans themselves? Do you need conformation from your god, that you are being moral, if you value your children in this way or can the conformation of secular humanists such as myself, replace any need you have for supernatural conformation (which you will never receive anyway!)?

Capitalism seems to work, but I don't know that I'd call it intrinsically cooperative. This just seems your idiosyncratic view of morality — Hanover

Yeah, especially for the nefarious elite! and those who wish to become one of them. Capitalism certainly does not work, at all, for the vast majority of the currently over 8 billion stakeholders on this planet.

Maybe you should put that rather naive statement to those who work with such offenders every day.
— universeness
They cooperate with rapists so the rapists can get their lot of raping in and the non-rapists can get a little of what they want? I thought we locked rapists up without concern for their wishes. — Hanover

Sorry but some of your responses are just absolutely absurd and perhaps even sinister.

when the thesis Hitchen's was opposing is not being argued for here. — Paine

What??? :rofl:
Mr Dust posted:
" I think the notion that religion is inherently bad because of the suffering it has caused is misguided
— Noble Dust"
Christopher Hitchens spent most of his adult life debating others based on his insistence that ALL religion IS inherently bad Mr Dust IS INDEED arguing against that position, as the quote above CLEARLY indicates. My label of 'nonsense' towards your complaint stands.

Christ on a hand truck — Paine

Ok? but what the hell is a hand truck?

who made you the arbiter of what is gained or lost by others choosing not to discuss some things? — Paine

I was not arbitrating, If you don't want to discuss something on a discission site then don't post words beginning with 'I am a ...' Common sense really!

At this point, you are putting words in other people's mouths and then arguing with those words. — Paine

Nonsense.

OK, and should they decide to enslave those of a different tribe, then that's moral? — Hanover

Not according to any moral code I would support, how about you?

What about those you imprison? How does that promote their well being? — Hanover

This would be achieved on a case by case basis. Assistance with mental heath and physical addiction etc, should be well supported in all prison systems. Rehabilitation should also be a main goal, but there is no perfect justice system as there is no perfect anything. God is only ever used by the criminal mind, to excuse and even justify bad behaviour.

Absolute morality doesn't imply that you don't judge on a case by case basis. It says for a specified event, it is immoral every time you evaluate it. That is, either Pol Pot (or Hitler or the rapist next door) is immoral or he isn't, regardless of who is the judge. If he is judged by all the world as moral, then all the world is wrong. Do you disagree? — Hanover

You offer 'invalid' scenarios. There is no such state as absolute morality. The morality of a particular action of Pol Pot, Hitler or a rapist has never been judged by 'all the world'. I would judge the known acts of such people to be immoral yes. Most people would. Your point that they would be immoral even if every person in existence declared their actions moral is a nonsense question as such a state of affairs has never happened and never will.

That which is holy is set apart from all else as having special significance. — Hanover

No it's more than that, it's a supernatural significance which has NEVER been demonstrated as having an existent.

Since your position is secular humanism and not secular botanism I assume you're holding that humans are of ultimate significance. If not, why do they get named in your theory? — Hanover

Secular humanism is not a theory it is a day to day human practice. You are too quick to jump to absolutes such as 'ultimate.' Humans are significant, yes and they are much more important than money, or property or the personal ego and demands of those who insist that they are superior, including those who see 'god' status as their true calling. Secular humanism is socialist and irreligious in mission and somewhat ignostic towards theism imo.

Because cooperation isn't an ethical theory. — Hanover

No it's more important, it's a powerful survival instinct.

You don't cooperate with rapists, for example. — Hanover

Maybe you should put that rather naive statement to those who work with such offenders every day.

How is it meaningless if you just defined it? — Hanover

Braflabin infleuentic. I just defined the term! Does it have meaning to you?

How is your personal happiness relevant to this question? Are you trying to prove to me that a belief in God isn't necessary for happiness, as if someone argued otherwise? — Hanover

You've got a few choices here with your secular humanism: — Hanover

(3) accept the nihilism inherent in the position. — Hanover

The two quotes above should make my reasons for commenting on my personal happiness, crystal clear.

If I simply state that I'm no longer religious, the onus is not on me to elaborate on what that means. If you misinterpret it, that's your mistake. — Noble Dust

Yes, the onus IS on you to explain further, or else any discussion regarding your irreligious but still theist status, terminates, and you neither gain nor lose so why be a member of a discussion website?

I think consciousness is a universal state in the process of evolving which has it's genesis in a single, supreme, intelligent and ineffable source. — Noble Dust

How can such be evolving if you have already declared it supreme?
I assume this intelligence you type about is not omniscient, otherwise, again, how can it 'evolve' further.

We're all connected to this source; all life forms are. — Noble Dust

What is the mechanism by which this connection you speak of functions?
Where do you suggest this source is located?
If you declare this source ineffable, then how can you make any comment as to it's existence?

But this is nothing like the god of Christianity; it more closely resembles a Hindu conception. — Noble Dust

In what sense? Which Hindu concept are you referring to? The concept of Brahma? Vishnu? Shiva?

I agree. But emotion also clouds judgement. I'm of course speaking from experience. — Noble Dust

It can do sure, if you can't control it.

I think the notion that religion is inherently bad because of the suffering it has caused is misguided — Noble Dust

I disagree, as at its most fundamental level, it robs a human of their independence and forever leaves them a permanently scrutinised child, forever penitent to a master of pure imagination.
Christopher Hitchens put it best.
"Once we assume a creator and a plan, it makes humans objects of a cruel experiment whereby we are created to be sick and commanded to be well.”

Governments arguably cause as much or more harm, but no one is calling for the abolishment of government, or at least not for the most part. — Noble Dust

Bad government yes and we fight that to, and the existence of bad government, does not in any way excuse the pernicious affects of religion. It's like saying the existence of 'rape and torture' are more tolerable because murder exists. I assume you are familiar with '2 wrongs don't make a right.'

If you want to start a new thread titled 'What is YOUR BEST defence for belief in god?'
— universeness

I have zero interest in doing this. :smile: — Noble Dust

It's often healthy to test your rationality against dissenters but it's of course, YOUR choice.

Isn't using "truth" the way you did also old and tired? — BC

What's your point? Are you asking me to confirm whether I think your statement quoted above, is true or not true? Which answer would suit the purpose you had in mind most, when you authored the sentence?

Thanks for the link Frank. Yes, the info I had was that Jehovah was a mistranslation of Yahweh but the language details, and vocalisations discussed, in the link you provided offer much more detail.
There seems to be no doubt, that the Christian god, traces back to a pantheon of early gods, and that remains quite problematic for Christians to fully account for imo.

There is nothing particularly unique about Yahweh, in comparison with other characters from the same pantheon.
This adds to the folklore and mythic elements of the 'word of Yahweh,' as being nothing more than the word of it's scriptwriters. There are so many such god descriptions, that the Christian writings, Islamic writings and all 'word of god' claims, become no more reliable as 'the revealed word of our creator,' than the stories and characters in modern Marvel or DC comics. It REALLY IS as valid to claim that Odin or Zeus is the one true god that created our universe and everything in it, as it is to claim it was Yahweh or Allah!
We cannot build the future of the human race on such utter nonsense!

Hello again Watchmaker! You need NO heavy background of study in this area to just offer your pov.
Having a look at any cited links can also help build the knowledge both of us have.
Your viewpoints are as valid as anyone else's on TPF, so, have at it. The theist pov is essential to the discussion!

My theism requires a creator. That's it. With it comes the power to create. From it, derives purpose, meaning, and a basis for morality missing in secular humanism. — Hanover

There is no basis of morality missing from secular humanism. Humans can cooperate and agree on a moral code to live by on a small tribal basis or a global basis. We need no book of fairy stories on which to base a moral code on. We can establish a moral code based on a goal of providing well-being for all stakeholders. Is your required creator a supernatural mind? or could it be a mindless singularity?

You cannot have an absolute morality without something anchoring it beyond human reason, which means murder is wrong unless I think it's not. — Hanover

There is no such a state as an absolute morality. Murder is judged on a case by case basis.
You need no 'anchor' other that a willingness to cooperate with others in common cause, as the alternative is permanent war and m.a.d, and that is against out basic survival instincts.
Certainly no god shaped anchor required.

It also establishes humanity as holy, sacred, and separated from all else — Hanover

Now who is employing special pleading? I do agree that humans seem to be the most able creature we know of when it comes to demonstrating meaning, purpose, cause, legacy etc, etc but words like 'holy,' and 'sacred' are absurd and irrational. I wonder if your use of such words will gain you a accusation of being overly emotional from @Noble Dust? Consistency is important, don't you agree?

Those sorts of designations aren't scientific but just muddle a definition of God as being that ideal good that advances humanity's meaning and purpose so you can avoid admitting to theism. — Hanover

No you are correct, such designations are certainly not scientific, but they are also not as benign as you seem to wish to flavour them. Is your concept of 'holy' and 'sacred,' ideals, that YOU personally covet or aspire to? How do these terms manifest in your daily life? and in what way are they different from my aspiration to be 'humanist'/benevolent in my dealings with other humans on a cooperative basis?
What do you conceive that your god shaped anchor offers you, that the godless me cannot match?

You've got a few choices here with your secular humanism: (1) accept a subjective morality but chase the elusive idea that your there are universal subjective truths (which there aren't), (2) use secular terms to appease yourself that you're not actually a theist, or (3) accept the nihilism inherent in the position. — Hanover

I can make little sense of your first point as the term 'universal subjective truth' is meaningless to me.
A subjective truth that applies everywhere in the universe????
Your point 2 is completely absurd and your point 3 invokes a non-existent state that I do not experience, in my day to day life. No matter how much you wish I was nihilistic, without your god anchor, I will simply go on demonstrating that I am enjoying life, immensely, and I need no notion of a supernatural carer, to BE who and what I am. I own me, I don't assign my life to the gift of some esoteric, scrutineer, who seems utterly unable to make it's existence an irrefutable fact, very very probably, because it has no existent.

I've never understood how there could be a son without a mother. — Watchmaker

Just out of interest, what do you think of this:
Between the tenth century BC and the beginning of their Babylonian exile in 586 BC, polytheism was normal throughout Israel. Worship solely of Yahweh became established only after the exile, and possibly, only as late as the time of the Maccabees (2nd century BC). That is when monotheism became universal among the Jews. Some biblical scholars believe that Asherah at one time was worshipped as the consort of Yahweh, the national god of Israel.

Asherah is posited as the consort of many gods and is proposed to have had 77 or 88 sons.
She is a sacred feminine who is proposed as consort to:

El (Ugaritic religion)
Baal (Canaanite religion)
Elkunirsa (Hittite religion)
Yahweh (Israelite religion)
Amurru (Amorite religion)
Anu (Akkadian religion)
'Amm (Qatabanian religion)
Assur (Assyrian religion)

Yahweh is, of course, proposed to be the same god as the Christian Jehovah.
What is your understanding of the proposed connections between Yahweh and Jehovah?

(& JWST) — 180 Proof

I have loved watching all the stuff about the unexpectedly large galaxies formed at distances of just 500 million or less light years after the big bang. They simply should not be there. Many astrophysicists seem to be distancing themselves from the big bang singularity as the beginning story alone. Many seem to be moving towards an oscillating or cyclical model. This should probably be in the JWST thread!
I watched another youtube vid last night, of prominent scientists explaining why Craig's Kalam is total BS and one about these galaxies found by the JWST. I was surprised at how many times prominent scientists made the comment 'not many of us still consider the big band theory sound.'

Because I believe in the existence of God.
— Hanover

Which one?
— universeness

You are being obtuse, there. — BC

Not at all. You would not want me to misinterpret or make any more assumptions about which god @Hanover is convinced exists, merely based on the two words, 'theist' and 'Jewish.'
Should I also assume what he believes its main attributes are and what he supposes are the main functions it provides in his life?
Are you deliberately trying to get @Noble Dust to moan at me even more about my 'assumptions?' :scream:

As much as we'd like to think so, religion hasn't yet outlived its utility because the atavistic emotional need for 'invisible support' still remain for so many in so many places. — 180 Proof

I know, but still, it's important to help push it towards being totally and permanently archived.
People everywhere would greatly benefit from supporting scientific endeavour towards improving human longevity and robustness, rather that waste time and money on hoping for supernatural intervention, while they are still alive or after they are dead. If you wanna live a lot longer or you want your progeny to have that option, then send your money and support to science, don't give it to religious authorities, so they don't have to actually produce anything of value to survive, thrive and (as the top evanhellicals do,) live luxurious lifestyles that their duped followers fully fund.

Is 'Truth' truth to everyone in the same way? If you have found a little, some, or all of 'the truth' have you found it not only for yourself, but for everybody else? I don't believe everyone has their own truth about the cosmos. But the truth in one person's circumstance may not be true in a different set of circumstances. — BC

These are old tired points about the nature of truth and objective and subjective truth, based on perceived reference frames. The annoying issue regarding that tedious debate, is that theists present their theism as deserving of a high credence level for its status as 'true,' much more so, than I expect from people when it comes to accepting my exclamations of what I consider to be deserving of the label 'true.' Theists have almost no compelling evidence AT ALL for their claims, yet you are complaining to me about my claims of what is true or not true. I find that quite misdirected.

You believe that you know the truth that the god Hanover claims does not exist. (It's probably considered rude in polite society to inform people that their deities do not exist. It's similar (in terms of etiquette) to informing dinner guests that after the revolution we'll take all their property away from them. It might be true, but not very polite. — BC

I don't consider TPF debates to be akin to, or comparable with, a polite dinner party environment.
If it was as tedious as that, then I would not bother to post here at all.

Scholars of religion have noted that, while Europeans think they are the world's opinion leaders, on religious matters they are outliers. — BC

Which scholars are you citing here? Provide example published statements from 'respected' sources, that make such dumb statements about a continent of over 700 million people.

How big an army does the secular humanist movement have? — BC

Getting bigger every day! How many atheist/ secular humanist groups would you like me to list.
Would you not prefer to research this yourself or are you already aware of the current rise and rise of secular humanism in the USA and Europe?

What he was doing for the first 29 years or so nobody knows — BC

There is 'The Infancy Gospel of Thomas.'. This 2nd century document presents Jesus the youth as a rather nasty little demonic character imo.

"The text describes the life of the child Jesus from the age of five to age twelve, with fanciful, and sometimes malevolent, supernatural events. He is presented as a precocious child who starts his education early. The stories cover how the young Incarnation of God matures and learns to use his powers for good and how those around him first respond in fear and later with admiration. One of the episodes involves Jesus making clay birds, which he then proceeds to bring to life, an act also attributed to Jesus in Quran 5:110, and in a medieval Jewish work known as Toledot Yeshu, although Jesus's age at the time of the event is not specified in either account. In another episode, a child disperses water that Jesus has collected. Jesus kills this first child, when at age one he curses a boy, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse. Later, Jesus kills another child via curse when the child apparently accidentally bumps into Jesus, throws a stone at Jesus, or punches Jesus (depending on the translation).

When Joseph and Mary's neighbours complain, they are miraculously struck blind by Jesus. Jesus then starts receiving lessons, but arrogantly tries to teach the teacher, instead, upsetting the teacher who suspects supernatural origins. Jesus is amused by this suspicion, which he confirms, and revokes all his earlier apparent cruelty. Subsequently, he resurrects a friend who is killed when he falls from a roof, and heals another who cuts his foot with an axe."

His admonishments to turn the other cheek. love your enemies, and render unto Caesar what is Caesars were all in the context of his role — BC

Like @Hanover, I am fairly convinced that the biblical Jesus did not exist, as a real historical individual. I think he is a satire, a parody and a combinatorial of many rebel Jewish leaders, mostly from the Sicarii.
The words put in his characterised mouth, are from authors in support of or in appeasement of, Roman rule.
All the 'Jesus' quotes I mentioned are attempts to get rebellious jews to stop rebelling.

Your assumption that Hanover was a Christian because he's a theist is similar to the assumption about me you made in the shoutbox that I'm no longer a theist because I said I'm no longer religious. I am a theist, although I avoid declaring so because of the inevitable misunderstandings this leads to. — Noble Dust

If you play stealth then it seems to me that misunderstanding becomes more likely.

Happy to elaborate. — Noble Dust

Please do.

These blanket assumptions you made betray a lack of critical analysis of this issue, I think. Your arguments, while intelligent, are very emotional. — Noble Dust

Any assumption I make is easily corrected by an honest interlocuter.
Making an assumption and stating it, can often result in obtaining clarification, even if reluctantly revealed.

I think. Your arguments, while intelligent, are very emotional. — Noble Dust

Emotion is a very important part of what it is to be human, I make no apologies for displaying passion, when I type about what I think of the world I experience. At least I do my best (at least in my opinion), to justify my emotions with rational support.

But it's important, if you want to better understand religion, to become aware of ones biases and emotional positions and how they affect your perception of the issue. If you do this, your experience of exploring this will be greatly enhanced. That's all I was trying to get at in the shoutbox. — Noble Dust

Well, that comes across as an honourable intention, and I accept your claim that it is so.
In the same way, I hope you accept that my critique of the doctrine and practices of organised religions and of generalised or personal theism and/or theosophism is not 'knee-jerk,' or based on some neophyte level understanding of its current impact on everyday human lives, or the effects such has had, on the human experience, since any hominid species started to wonder wtf this existence was all about.
One of our best practices is our ability to question everything. I am sure you agree.
I remain a skeptic. If god has no ability or will to reveal itself then it either does not exist or it is a complete f***wit who thinks remaining divinely hidden, has a value.
Such a god would be a moron and of zero value to humans. Any human who does not agree, is completely free to defend this god using any actual evidence they have or can imagineer.

If you want to start a new thread titled 'What is YOUR BEST defence for belief in god?' I would certainly contribute. If you want to try to do so in this thread, then I am also very willing to respond to your points.

Which truth do you believe in? — Hanover

I think I have made my beliefs quite clear in my postings. Perhaps you should be more forthcoming in the details of your theism, unless you are scared that the details of your theism may come across to others as too irrational.

Different Jews have different definitions. — Hanover

Yeah, different Jews ARE indeed, different people.

If you posit special significance for humanity, you're not concerning yourself with truth. You're just lying to yourself for some pragmatic reason. — Hanover

If you don't value my ability to discern what is credible to me and what is not, then why do you assume that I should credit your ability to discern or recognise a lie?
Do you know of another species that can affect its surroundings in the way humans can?
Does your god demonstrate meaning and cause and purpose to you in the same way or more so than humans demonstrate to you every day?
What is the strongest example of evidence you have that PROVES your god exists?

Need some shut eye guys n gals. It's almost two thirty am here!

I was saying whatever the story is meant to mean doesn't remotely matter. — Tom Storm

Ok, but as I know you agree, regardless of the intentions of the authors of such fables, the net affect on real human lives can be freaking awful, when such stories are preached as factual events with moral dictates and consequences, that all humans must comply with.

Because I believe in the existence of God. — Hanover

Which one?

Why don't you become a theist so that you'll have an underlying reason to promote humanity? — Hanover

Two main reasons. The truth is important to me, and my secular humanism needs no supernatural input to function. I find this functionality, to be very useful, based on my 99.999% conviction level that your god does not exist.

I'm fairly certain the majority of protestants in the US are trinitarians, though some protestant denominations are not. — wonderer1

Yes, I am sure that is pretty accurate. My experience of protestants is Glasgow bound, and was never important to me, even though my father told me I was one???? My knowledge perhaps extends a little into the rest of Scotland, as I know a fair amount about the Scottish reformation, and its main players, like John Knox etc. I know that many Scottish/Glaswegian 'Proddys,' would say that god, his son and the ghostie were all separate. It was only the 'tims' (catholics), that said they were all the same thing. That was just what I heard/experienced in the companies I was in. In the Glasgow pubs of my youth. It may well not have been official Church of Scotland doctrine.


I forgot to add, I am a fan of Bart Ehrman and watch him regularly on YouTube.

The sacrifice has never made much sense. In a similar vein, it's hard to understand Matthew 4:1-11. Here Jesus is tempted by Satan, who offers Jesus all the kingdoms and riches of the world - “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.” Pretty stupid temptation if Jesus is God, who created all things. What's this god supposed to do with some buildings and loot? Or, is Jesus just a guy and his 'son of God' title an honorarium? If so, the temptation makes more sense. Or, does none of it remotely matter? I'm in this camp. — Tom Storm

There are so many examples like this. The way god treated Job in the OT is also barbaric and illogical.
I think it's very important to challenge all theistic claims Tom. YES! it does remotely matter. It REALLY matters, as global politics and many many politicians in positions of power, influence, and authority, are either very personally motivated by, and are invested in, some religious doctrine, that directs what policies they will support and endorse, no matter how much they deny such influence, OR they continue to use religion as a weapon, or as part of the means by which they become an established 'tour de force,' which quickly becomes nefarious, does terrible damage to a population and becomes damn difficult to remove. Putin and Trump being ideal examples.

I don't know whether it was intentional or not, but you spelled "evangelicals" as "evanhellicals. I like that. I'll use it. — BC

I have made that particular spelling mistake, since I heard about horrors like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Bakker, and current horrors such as Kent Hovind and his vile son Eric, Ken Ham, all the evanhellicals, that have appeared and still appear on horror shows like 'God TV' etc.
I like to keep a sharp eye on such nefarious groups.

It isn't uniquely 'Christian' as the same thing is happening in Turkey (Islam) and India (Hindu) or even Burma (Bhuddist). There is a right-ward shift in several unrelated religions. — BC

I agree, but I think the reason why, is that they are under attack from a growing global secular humanist movement and they are more and more desperate, to hold on to their main traditional places of power and influence, whilst also trying to establish new ones, anywhere in the world where there are poor and mostly uneducated masses.

I am pretty sure the number of dis-believers, non-believers, and believers-in-name-only is a lot higher than 7%. — BC

Things are improving even more in places like the UK, where for the first time in recorded history, there are more brits who consider themselves non-religious, compared to the number who consider themselves religious.

From Wiki:
Religion in the United Kingdom (2018 research)

None (52%)
Church of England (13.7%)
Catholic Church (8.7%)
Other Christian (13.2%)
Islam (6.7%)
Other religions (3.6%)
Not stated (2.1%)

Where does trinitarian doctrine stand in Protestantis? — BC

Afaik, protestants do not believe in the trinity.

"Being atheist means never having to say you're Lutheran." Name of a past long-running improv show in Minneapolis. The title was worth the show. — BC

:up:

For me, the strongest push toward socialism came from my reading of the NT and OT. I still counted myself a believer when I was being pushed, and the pushing continued after I concluded I didn't believing," I used to say that Protestant Christianity was my operating system. (It's a metaphor.) Whether I still believed or not, I couldn't delete it. — BC

I met some socialist believers in my early days, as a member of the 'young socialists' in Glasgow, who were affiliated to the Labour party and the co-operative labour party. I had a few debates with them (over many a beer) when they suggested Jesus was a socialist. I remember their annoyance when I responded with 'well if he was a socialist, he was a cowardly one with his:
Turn the other cheek
Love thine enemies
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars
If a Roman soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles.
Etc.
Bullshit! I would then quote clause 4:
"To secure for the workers, by hand or by brain, the fruits of their industry and full control over the means of production, distribution and exchange."
I would also quote 'Governance of, for and by the people NOT god or gods!'
Sometimes I would even get a wee round of applause from the atheist socialists in the group.
Overall however, the atheist and theist socialists, got along quite well.
I am still very much a socialist and a secular humanist but I no longer believe in party politics.

A thousand times I said I was Jewish as well. — Hanover

Being Jewish does not mean you follow Judaism and the words in the Torah and Talmud, does it?
I know atheists who still call themselves Jewish.