Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).

[Revelation In Space]

LOL

You know, you don't have to be obtuse to be an atheist. Look at Ricky Gervais. You see that parallel with woke and science minded atheist ideologues? Ironic?

For the impatient go to 0:44

Another one, who once seemed atheist. Comments on the myopic atheist social warrior.

For the impatient go to 3:00

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The word you're looking for is "dismissive".

 

[Revelation In Space]

The word you're looking for is "dismissive".

They always go out of their way to be dismissive. I think the word is obtuse.

 

[billvon]

It isn't two separate stories. Just because you read it was and want really bad to believe it doesn't change that. Likewise, if I were doing the same.

It is. Two different authors. Two different words for God ("Yaweh" vs "Elohim.") Two different structures (verse vs prose.) Two different sequences of events. Two different base images (land arising from water vs dry land being suddenly irrigated by water.) Those are facts that are easily verified if you care.

It's an interesting subject; it is unfortunate that your blind belief renders you incapable of rational evaluation of the subject.

 

[Revelation In Space]

It is. Two different authors. Two different words for God ("Yaweh" vs "Elohim.") Two different structures (verse vs prose.) Two different sequences of events. Two different base images (land arising from water vs dry land being suddenly irrigated by water.) Those are facts that are easily verified if you care.

It's an interesting subject; it is unfortunate that your blind belief renders you incapable of rational evaluation of the subject.

It isn't an interesting subject, it's stupid. The Documentary theory is about as bad as you get when it comes to criticism of the Bible. It's like saying my posts are conducted by different authors because sometimes I use Jehovah and Sometimes I use God. Or because sometimes I write bad, short science fiction stories and sometimes I write long complicated theological excursions.

The Documentary theory is easily proven false with one Hebrew word. Pim.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And almost all provenance is questionable, the material was wildly mongrelized.

 

[Pinball1970]

It isn't an interesting subject, it's stupid.

Of course it is, there are many active threads and you are participating in some of the them.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Of course it is, there are many active threads and you are participating in some of the them.

AND: The proponent is responsible for responding to questions about the accuracy of their claims.

 

[Hapsburg]

Faith is not a response to that, it's a dodge. We've had several thousand years for such proof to be found and so far, nada.

Mystical experience.

You can make decent arguments, like those of Plato and Aristotle, but they depend on certain going-in assumptions of rationalism. Assumptions which were critiqued by the empiricists and German Idealists in the late 18th century. It's going to depend to some extent on your philosophical underpinning.

So, since we're going on subjectivity anyway, my beliefs are mainly built on my personal, mystical experiences, and my efforts to hold those experiences to scrutiny, self-criticism, discernment, and-- if possible --reference to others' experiences.

 

[billvon]

It isn't an interesting subject, it's stupid.

That is called "the argument from ignorance." If you don't know much about the topic, you can certainly claim it's boring. The same way someone who does not understand physics - and indeed actively denies it - might call spaceflight boring.

It's like saying my posts are conducted by different authors because sometimes I use Jehovah and Sometimes I use God.

If you heard two people who sounded similar talking in a recording, and one person always referred to god as Allah, and spoke with a Middle Eastern accent - but the other always referred to god as The Lord, and had a Southern US accent - would you conclude that they were actually one person who believed in one religion?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Mystical experience.

You can make decent arguments, like those of Plato and Aristotle, but they depend on certain going-in assumptions of rationalism. Assumptions which were critiqued by the empiricists and German Idealists in the late 18th century. It's going to depend to some extent on your philosophical underpinning.

So, since we're going on subjectivity anyway, my beliefs are mainly built on my personal, mystical experiences, and my efforts to hold those experiences to scrutiny, self-criticism, discernment, and-- if possible --reference to others' experiences.

So how do you know you are sane?

 

[James R]

Revelation In Space is no longer with us, but I can't resist pointing out the stupidity of arguing that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are somehow compatible accounts.

RIS's contention was that both Genesis accounts are compatible with the idea that God created cattle before he created Adam. Helpfully, billvon posted some snippets from Genesis 2. Let's start with the assumption that RIS's contention is correct and read Genesis 2, to see where that leads us.

Genesis 2:

"The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

At some time, God formed man. Okay. We don't know whether this was before or after the cattle yet.

"And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them."

Now, remember we're working with RIS's hypothesis that God created the cattle before man here. It follows that RIS would have us believe that the Lord God is saying the above pre-emptively. To paraphrase the Lord God:

"I don't think it's good that man (whom I haven't created yet) should be alone. So, I think I'm going to create some cattle and birds and things to keep man company. Ooh! I have thought of a good name - 'man' - for this creature I haven't created yet, but which I know will be lonely without some cows to keep him company.

Wow! It's great to be omniscient! It's great to be me! I know I will create 'man' in the future, just as soon as I'm done with the cattle and the birds, and I also know that 'man' will be lonely without the cattle. Since I'm so great and I know this pre-emptively, I'm going to go about things in the reverse order, because - you know - I I love to do things in mysterious ways and this will confuse the hell out of these 'men' who come along in a few millennia to try to puzzle me out."

I mean, I guess it's possible. But it requires that one assumes that God is perverse and wants to toy with this 'man' thing he chose to create, rather than just make the order of events clear in His most Holy Revelation to his Creation.

And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field."

This makes sense if we accept the assumption that God planned this whole sequence of events out backwards. Knowing that 'man' would be doing the naming after God created him and knowing that 'man' would be lonely and want to name things, God made sure to create the things in advance of creating the lonely man. Then, sure enough, Adam named the cow just as God had foreseen/foreplanned that he would. (And free will be damned, by the way. Adam never had any real choice - just the illusion that he could name things as he wished.)

What's most fascinating about this tortured reading of Genesis is the lengths that apologists will go to try to fit all the square pegs into the round holes. Anything but admit what the scholarship actually shows: that the two Genesis stories were written by different authors at different times and so are inconsistent.

Notice how RIS simply dismissed the scholarship as unworthy of his attention. Because finding the truth of the matter was never his aim. He only sought, at best, to shoe-horn in any rationalisation for his belief system that might, at a large stretch, possibly plug one of the glaring holes in the narrative. Of course, different rationalisations are required to plug the many other holes. The end result, once you start down that path, is that you end up in a hopeless tangle of mutually-inconsistent rationalisations. You end up buried under a mountain of nonsense that you've built up around yourself in an attempt to protect you from applying common sense or reasonable skepticism.

 

[Hapsburg]

So how do you know you are sane?

Well, like I said: discernment, self-criticism, and comparing my experiences to external referents. If I were insane, inasmuch as that's a useful term at all, I'd probably not be able to do that. People operating under delusions often experience a kind of "dream logic", where completely incongruent things make perfect sense. By contrast, I know the strange experiences I've had are strange, that's why I hold them to scrutiny.

But more to the point, I've never exhibited symptoms of mental illness.

 

[Pinball1970]

Well, like I said: discernment, self-criticism, and comparing my experiences to external referents

That is the best way. I think it was Feynman who said, " The easiest person to fool is yourself."
I would also add, "If you want to be fooled."

Or to put it more kindly, " If you really want something to be true."

So as a kid your options are, die at some point and that's it forever OR, die and go an exist forever in a beautiful place with gran and grandad waiting for you.

Option two was more appealing to me as a kid and held off my niggling doubts and questions.

Until my "self" said, "you ain't fooling me no longer PROVE it to me!" I could not do that or even come close.
Worse, the questions and doubts proliferated as I got older and the explanations became less and less believable.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, like I said: discernment, self-criticism, and comparing my experiences to external referents. If I were insane, inasmuch as that's a useful term at all, I'd probably not be able to do that. People operating under delusions often experience a kind of "dream logic", where completely incongruent things make perfect sense. By contrast, I know the strange experiences I've had are strange, that's why I hold them to scrutiny.

But more to the point, I've never exhibited symptoms of mental illness.

You know them all?

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, like I said: discernment, self-criticism, and comparing my experiences to external referents. If I were insane, inasmuch as that's a useful term at all, I'd probably not be able to do that

People with mental illnesses are not necessarily broadly affected.

Have you never heard the expression "I may be insane but I'm not stupid."?

. People operating under delusions often experience a kind of "dream logic", where completely incongruent things make perfect sense.

Keyword: often

Not everyone, not every time.

By contrast, I know the strange experiences I've had are strange, that's why I hold them to scrutiny.

Generally, people who have hallucinations or paranormal experiences know they are very strange, and are, like you, convinced that they experience is real.

But more to the point, I've never exhibited symptoms of mental illness.

That's circular reasoning.
Having mystical experiences (or possibly hallucinations) - could be regarded as a sign of mental imbalance.

You can't have a highly unusual personal, subjective experience and expect to be able to judge its objectivity as distinct from a delusion.

In other words: you are describing yourself in exactly the same way many* other people who have had paranormal, mystical or highly unusual experiences do: "I am sure what I experienced was real. And: I'm sure I'm sane."

* not all, but many: enough that it's typical and common

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As I understand it when DSM I was first being compiled "belief in supernatural and/or religious figures" was included. Major hissy fits. erupted.


*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual I

 

[bearer_of_truth]

I propose evidence which suggest the truth about the existence of the Holy Spirit. This evidence would be admissible in a court of law.

The photographs that I will be presenting are of the Holy Spirit and some of His works. These photographs and videos have been a mystery to mankind for decades. The Holy Ghost is highly misunderstood in the world. Many have seen Him, but few have recognized Him. He is erroneously known as paranormal orbs, spirit orbs, angel orbs, and ghost orbs. Some people who have not seen orbs with their naked eyes believe them to be photographic anomalies. To understand the Holy Spirit, we must consult scripture. I will be using both the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible to support my argument.

Identifying the Holy Spirit

This is a photograph of the Holy Spirit descending like a dove as He did during the baptism of Jesus.

Here is a photograph of the Holy Spirit motionless.

Below is a painting of the Apostle Saint Andrew with the Holy Spirit upon Him.

The Halo is found in scripture as the Holy Spirit alighting and remaining upon Jesus.​

The Spirit of God and the Spirit are both one and the same Holy Spirit.

Mathew 3:16. When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.

John 1:32. John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.”

The center photograph above is of the Holy Spirit in His spiritual bodily form.

Luke 3:22. And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”

The Holy Spirit alighting and remaining upon Jesus appeared as a Halo.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, so you'll go to jail for fraud in the name of God. Got it.

 

[sculptor]

I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of god.

-----------------and
perhaps that is true of every sane person.