As children it's just an imaginary friend

[Sweet~T]

And he isn't very friendly.

So what is the cause for our global mental illness?

[Zzyzx]

.

But good sir, Sincerely, all of you, rethink insulting my intelligence for I hold the collective knowledge to disprove all your so called truths. With an IQ (not an accurate measure) close to that of Einstein.

Those who overestimate their own knowledge and intelligence often do not fare well in debate. It would not surprise me if Cnorman could spot you twenty points and still come out ahead.

I was there when they created the Christ. I mean the first one, the Sumerian son of the Sun who died for our indecency and resurected three days later.

Of course you were there thousands of years ago.

People with such notions pass through here occasionally. They are prominently noted in the list of the banned.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 9 by Sweet~T]

In point of fact, I was responding to NENB and not you -- and my post was not ambiguous on the matter. Only he was quoted (and there was virtually nothing of yours in this thread to quote anyway). But thanks for displaying your failure to understand that simple and obvious fact at the outset.

On the issue of "stolen concepts" -- I gather you missed this post of mine in another subforum:

I've posted on this many times. Very few Jews are Biblical literalists.

If you'll take a look at The Jewish Study Bible, which is rather commonly found in the homes of Jewish laypeople as well as rabbis, you'll find in the Introduction and appendices a pretty thorough discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis, which speaks of the Torah -- traditionally written by Moses, you know -- as being the aggregation and redaction of at least four major sources which antedate it (the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Priestly source, and the Deuteronomist -- popularly known as J, E, P and D), along with several minor sources. It also notes the literary debt that many of the Torah's narratives owe to documents from other ancient civilizations, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Ugaritic manuscripts, the Enuma elish, the Atrahasis, and more. It's funny how others like to tell us of these things in the belief that we don't already know.... Jews are rather famous for being scholars, you know. That applies to Biblical scholarship as well.

The Jewish attitude toward the Scriptures is rather different from the Christian. We take the text as it is, and discuss and speak of the narratives as if they were literally true -- while remaining perfectly aware they they most probably aren't. I have often spoken of an incident in my Torah study class, long ago: We were discussing the Akeidah, that is, the near-sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, when a lady asked, "But did this really happen?" Several people, including the rabbi and myself, turned to her and asked in unison, "What difference does that make?"

Indeed: What difference? Even if it were conclusively and irrefutably proven that no real event remotely resembling that tale ever occurred -- well, the story would remain, still to be discussed and argued over, just as it is today.

As I've said so very often: The Hebrew Bible is not "the Word of God," nor is it literal historical reporting, nor is it a scientific treatise. It is the collected ancient literature of the Jewish people, the beginning of a conversation among ourselves that continues to this day.

But don't let me disturb your faith in your allegedly gynormous IQ and in your deep and comprehensive knowledge of all pertinent matters, including, apparently, how and what others think. No doubt you are an inveterate and highly reliable mind-reader as well as a genius.

In any case -- thanks for proving my point about views based on stereotypes and total contempt. Have a nice evening.

(I see little point in continuing with this member, myself; but others, feel free.)

[Sweet~T]

Not concerned. In fact I'm laughing. For the first time in many year friend thank you.

I was merely quarrelsome because I read a post relaying that my question had no basis.

As though I care if you continue with me? Internet forum? Who give a flying fart in a hurricane. Ha!

Plus I believe everyone has a high I.Q for all is measures is one's ability to learn, not how much they have already learned.

And no. In practical debate, my point is still valid, as thebelief in something that isn't provably real is the highest form of insanity. So go ahead,spot twenty ponts and you still lose.

Woul we call a man sane who believes in a boogie living in the dark pf hos closet? Would we call a man sane for believing inan invisible person is talking to them?

Is a man considered sane when that invisible man claims to be God, and orders all those who lqck belief must die?
The answer to all three is no.
Straight like that essay.

And no, because I have a life, I don't troll this forum reading every post ever posted so no, cnorman never read your dealy. And being banned would not bug me one bit, easily find another way to kill ten minutes when I'm bored.

And the whole I was there when they created the christ,is not only obvious sarcasm, but also blatant euphimism. So have fun with ignorance.

Plus never claimed to possess esp. Dumb fucks.

well not dumb, easily agitated into ignorance. But daddy always told me you'll get nowhere arguing witb a jew,so with that I offer farewell.

And advice.

Open your eyes to a broader sectrum of thinking beyond secular religion. Maybe create your own. Who knows maybe in two thousand years we'll be praying to the great cnorman who was verbally crucified,and rose three days later to turn into a bunny and poop eggs into trees,but only after being born and bestowing mankind with the gift of inherent blatant judgement.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 9 by Sweet~T]

In point of fact, I was responding to NENB and not you -- and my post was not ambiguous on the matter. Only he was quoted (and there was virtually nothing of yours in this thread to quote anyway). But thanks for displaying your failure to understand that simple and obvious fact at the outset.

On the issue of "stolen concepts" -- I gather you missed this post of mine in another subforum:

I've posted on this many times. Very few Jews are Biblical literalists.

If you'll take a look at The Jewish Study Bible, which is rather commonly found in the homes of Jewish laypeople as well as rabbis, you'll find in the Introduction and appendices a pretty thorough discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis, which speaks of the Torah -- traditionally written by Moses, you know -- as being the aggregation and redaction of at least four major sources which antedate it (the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Priestly source, and the Deuteronomist -- popularly known as J, E, P and D), along with several minor sources. It also notes the literary debt that many of the Torah's narratives owe to documents from other ancient civilizations, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Ugaritic manuscripts, the Enuma elish, the Atrahasis, and more. It's funny how others like to tell us of these things in the belief that we don't already know.... Jews are rather famous for being scholars, you know. That applies to Biblical scholarship as well.

The Jewish attitude toward the Scriptures is rather different from the Christian. We take the text as it is, and discuss and speak of the narratives as if they were literally true -- while remaining perfectly aware they they most probably aren't. I have often spoken of an incident in my Torah study class, long ago: We were discussing the Akeidah, that is, the near-sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, when a lady asked, "But did this really happen?" Several people, including the rabbi and myself, turned to her and asked in unison, "What difference does that make?"

Indeed: What difference? Even if it were conclusively and irrefutably proven that no real event remotely resembling that tale ever occurred -- well, the story would remain, still to be discussed and argued over, just as it is today.

As I've said so very often: The Hebrew Bible is not "the Word of God," nor is it literal historical reporting, nor is it a scientific treatise. It is the collected ancient literature of the Jewish people, the beginning of a conversation among ourselves that continues to this day.

But don't let me disturb your faith in your allegedly gynormous IQ and in your deep and comprehensive knowledge of all pertinent matters, including, apparently, how and what others think. No doubt you are an inveterate and highly reliable mind-reader as well as a genius.

In any case -- thanks for proving my point about views based on stereotypes and total contempt. Have a nice evening.

(I see little point in continuing with this member, myself; but others, feel free.)

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making personal comments about a poster...even if he has, first, made personal comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[no evidence no belief]

And he isn't very friendly.

So what is the cause for our global mental illness?

Begging the question. First, establish your premise as a given; that theists are crazy, and that God 'isn't very friendly' as described by those who actually believe in God.

Can we agree that if I drowned a bunch of puppies, it would be reasonable to say that I wasn't very friendly to puppies?

Can we agree that if I drowned a bunch of pregnant women, it would be reasonable to say that I wasn't very friendly to pregnant women?

Great flood. Case closed.

The horror and revulsion and perverted madness of God's subsequent actions doesn't even matter. The Great Flood alone, the systematic genocide of EVERY LIVING ORGANISM IN THE WORLD except for Noah and his ilk, is sufficient to irrefutably conclude that God is not very friendly.

Now, with regards to theists being crazy:

Craziness is defined as "a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior"

1) Theists believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, flying horses, and flying reindeer.
2) These things are not real
3) Therefore theists are crazy

It's really not a hard argument to make.

Theists have perfectly normal perception when it comes to paying their taxes, taking the bus, making a sandwich. But when it comes to their theism they just stop having a normal perception of reality.

It will take me no effort at all to persuade you that penis-enlargement pills are a fraud, but if I have to convince you that several of the animals mentioned in the BoM did NOT exist in the Americas before Columbus, nor did several tools, that DNA testing shows native americans have no genetic connections to Jews but rather to northern asiatic people, that no lingustic connection to ancient egyptian or Hebrew exists, but rather to Siberian languages, that native americans did NOT have a 7 day week, that no ruins were ever found of the wondrous cities that were used for centuries, you'd just be impossible to persuade.

It doesn't matter how completely and irrefutably the empirical claims of your faith are debunked, you do not see it.

Theists are in "a state of mind that prevents normal perception". It couldn't be more obvious. It is extremely easy for me to convince Muslims, Scientologists, Hindus etc that your beliefs are patently false, and to convince you that their beliefs are patently false, but when it comes to your OWN preexisting beliefs, the same arguments you use to conclude scientology and islam are false cease to carry weight.

So, now that the two premises of the OP have been established to be true, that the fairy tale of God clearly depicts an unfriendly deity, and that theism in most cases is a state of mind that prevents normal perception, lets address the question the OP asks. Why?

The answer, in my opinion, is this: Fear of death, fear of the unknown, mental laziness whereby the brain finds a comfortable falsehood preferable to an uncomfortable truth.

Well said.
However, most everyone believes in something - god, ghosts, love-at-first-sight, Santa, magic undies, etc. The difference seems to be how those believers interact with those beliefs.

I don't know what you mean by that. The difference is that some beliefs are justified by logic and evidence, and others aren't.

[no evidence no belief]

Point well taken. I misspoke. I should have qualified my statement.

Allow me to rephrase.

People who believe that things which are demonstrably untrue are true, are not necessarily crazy. Indeed they could be completely rational in all other ways, BUT, the belief that something demonstrably untrue is true is a "crazy" belief as defined by any dictionary.

For example, if you believe that the earth is flat (not in the bronze age, but today in the presence of all the evidence), then you are holding a crazy belief. You could be absolutely functional and rational in all other ways, but that belief is CRAZY.

So, although I apologize for phrasing it poorly to begin with, I stand by this statement: Any person who believes that something which is demonstrably untrue is true, is holding a crazy belief in his/her head

Now, I understand that most liberal Jews read the Bible with the same attitude that I read Shakespeare or Azimov. They don't think that Moses ACTUALLY existed, just like I don't believe that Hari Seldon actually exists, and yet we both draw inspiration from the idea of such an individual.

I guess that, beyond my failure to properly phrase my ideas earlier, our disagreement may lie in the definition of the word theist.

If you google "define: theism", this is what you get:

"Theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe."

If you take the Bible stories as allegory, myth or literary musing, folklore or metaphor, and do not believe in a specific sense, in a personal, present and active god active in the governance and organization of the universe, then you're not a theist.

You cannot be a theist, without believing in a manifest deity of some sort. Now, that is believing that something demonstrably untrue is true. Sorry.

That is not like saying that all muslims are terrorists, blacks are criminals and atheists are amoral. It's like saying that all muslims consider Allah the one true god and mohammed the prophet, that all blacks (except albinos) have more melanin than whites, that all atheists disbelieve in Gods.

1) All theists believe in a God that manifests itself in a measurable way
2) God does not manifest itself in a measurable way
3) Therefore theists believe that something which is demonstrably not true, is true.

If your definition of "theist" involves the absence of belief in a God that manifests itself in some kind of way, and that therefore somebody who enjoys the traditions of Judaism, or dressing up to go to church and sing nice songs, is technically a theist, then I totally understand how my previous post seems utterly bigoted and outrageous. By that definition, you're absolutely right. If one does NOT believe in a manifest God despite the absence of manifestation, and enjoys reading the Bible much like I enjoy watching "the office", and enjoys going to church like I enjoy going to a strip-club, then there's absolutely nothing intrinsically irrational about theism.

Of course, if your definition of theism is so far removed from the dictionary definition, you will have to excuse those of us who go by the language that society has collectively agreed on, and not take it personally when statements which make perfect sense by conventional definitions, sound bigoted when your personal definitions of words are used.



And just as an aside, I'm glad that you and many moderate Jews and Christians don't take the commandments to murder, rape and enslave literally, nor do you take the talking donkeys or virgin birth stories literally. I share your position that the Bible is just a work of literature. I also agree that, historically, it's a very important work of literature. But, let's face it, it's a pretty horrible book. I mean, if a modern author tried to publish today a book which, through allegory, metaphor and symbolism, tried to send the clear message that sexism, rape, slavery, infanticide, genocide, torture are totally kosher, nobody would buy it, even if the book contained the occasional and contextually-contradicted admonition against murder or theft.

Can we agree that if I drowned a bunch of puppies, it would be reasonable to say that I wasn't very friendly to puppies?

Can we agree that if I drowned a bunch of pregnant women, it would be reasonable to say that I wasn't very friendly to pregnant women?

Great flood. Case closed.

How about if said drownings were part of a work of literature which was written from a point of view, and with an intended meaning, that was entirely different from that assumed by those who approach it with an a priori attitude of total contempt, and who dismiss any other understanding of it without even attempted justification?

Now, with regards to theists being crazy:

Craziness is defined as "a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior"

1) Theists believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, flying horses, and flying reindeer.

Really? "Theists," without qualification, which clearly and inarguably means ALL theists?

NO "theists" believe in or understand the concepts of myth, literary allegory, folktale, or metaphor?

Would you care to defend that claim?

It's really not a hard argument to make.

If one isn't ashamed of going to the grossest possible stereotype and smearing everyone in a very broad category with it -- no, it's not.

Whether or not that argument holds any water is rather another question.

So, now that the two premises of the OP have been established to be true...

Talk about begging the question.... I've never seen it done more explicitly than this.

Stuffing a very great many words in the mouths of a very great many others, and stuffing a very great many beliefs in their heads as well -- then claiming that those two arguments have been "established to be true"....

Well, suffice it to say that that "argument" is neither factual nor logical, and therefore hardly persuasive in debate.

The answer, in my opinion, is this: Fear of death, fear of the unknown, mental laziness whereby the brain finds a comfortable falsehood preferable to an uncomfortable truth.

Except that Judaism (to cite only one one example) has no formal teaching about a life after death, and that death remains an unknown to us -- and that Jews are more heavily represented, in proportion to our numbers, in the hard sciences and the legal profession than any other people in the world, both of which rather require clear perceptions, a command of logic, and uncompromising critical thought -- and that both of those facts have been true for centuries. Not even all CHRISTIANS fit these astonishingly shallow and pejorative stereotypes; I should know. For the first fifty years of my life, I was one of them, and even served as a minister in a moderately liberal denomination.

Sorry. It's hard to take pontifical pronouncements like these, so obviously based on little more than blatant prejudice and open contempt, seriously. Characterizing ALL THEISTS as "crazy," stupid, fearful, mentally lazy, etc., etc., based on the fact that the most dogmatic and literal fundamentalists sometimes are -- and I say "sometimes" because those descriptors do not ALWAYS fit even THEM -- is no more intellectually respectable, fair, or accurate than characterizing ALL MUSLIMS as violent terrorists or ALL BLACKS as drug-addicted criminals.

Or ALL ATHEISTS as murderous libertines and consciously immoral, selfish, hedonistic brutes, for that matter.

Do you call yourself a "liberal"? If so, you should be ashamed of yourself. What other group would you malign en masse because of the excesses of only a PART of it?

Do you call yourself "logical"? You aren't. You are exhibiting the logical fallacy of a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, or "destroying the exception" -- one of the thirteen original logical fallacies first identified by Aristotle himself.

I don't often bother with threads like this one, based on the egregious error that all "THEISTS" (again, how I hate that word) are the intellectual and moral equivalent of Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, or Fred Phelps. There are dozens, if not hundreds of such threads, and I have better things to do. But every now and then -- I just feel compelled to point out the intellectual barrenness and the objective inaccuracy of these simplistic and frankly rather vicious stereotypes, and these (I suspect, and more than suspect) conscious and willful "misunderstandings" and "oversimplifications."

I most often speak for modern Jews, but I have known more than a few conservative Christians (and MANY liberal ones) who knew a talking ass from a hole in the ground. Knock it off. If you mean "fundamentalists," say "fundamentalists." "THEISTS" does not have the same meaning; and you MUST know that, if you are one-one-hundredth as intelligent and active on this forum as you appear to be.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 15 by no evidence no belief]

However, most everyone believes in something - god, ghosts, love-at-first-sight, Santa, magic undies, etc. The difference seems to be how those believers interact with those beliefs.

I don't know what you mean by that. The difference is that some beliefs are justified by logic and evidence, and others aren't.

Surely anyone can believe in anything they want regards off evidence, logic or fact. How one deals with said belief is a point of consideration: if you believe in ghosts (for example - you can put anything in place of ghosts) that's great. But if you try to force everyone to believe in ghosts, that's not so great.

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 15 by no evidence no belief]

However, most everyone believes in something - god, ghosts, love-at-first-sight, Santa, magic undies, etc. The difference seems to be how those believers interact with those beliefs.

I don't know what you mean by that. The difference is that some beliefs are justified by logic and evidence, and others aren't.

Surely anyone can believe in anything they want regards off evidence, logic or fact. How one deals with said belief is a point of consideration: if you believe in ghosts (for example - you can put anything in place of ghosts) that's great. But if you try to force everyone to believe in ghosts, that's not so great.

I agree with you that it's very bad when people try to force others to believe in their imaginary friends.

But I disagree with you that it's "great" when people believe in imaginary friends. In my opinion it's never good to believe in things which are not true.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 15 by no evidence no belief]

However, most everyone believes in something - god, ghosts, love-at-first-sight, Santa, magic undies, etc. The difference seems to be how those believers interact with those beliefs.

I don't know what you mean by that. The difference is that some beliefs are justified by logic and evidence, and others aren't.

Surely anyone can believe in anything they want regards off evidence, logic or fact. How one deals with said belief is a point of consideration: if you believe in ghosts (for example - you can put anything in place of ghosts) that's great. But if you try to force everyone to believe in ghosts, that's not so great.

I agree with you that it's very bad when people try to force others to believe in their imaginary friends.

But I disagree with you that it's "great" when people believe in imaginary friends. In my opinion it's never good to believe in things which are not true.

A few questions:

1. How do you know that what you know is true above and beyond what anybody else knows? (actually, substitute 'believe' for 'know,' if you prefer).

2. You are saying that is 'never good to believe in things which are not true.' What do you suggest doing about it, if others believe something you think is not true?

3. Define what is meant by 'force,' in 'force others to believe in their imaginary friends.'

[connermt]

[Replying to post 18 by no evidence no belief]

But I disagree with you that it's "great" when people believe in imaginary friends. In my opinion it's never good to believe in things which are not true.

To clarify, my use of 'great' here doesn't mean 'wonderful to their benefit' but more so 'good - I don't care what you believe'.
Sorry - should have been less vague