Pretending to know

[Zzyzx]

Many people here in debate, in churches, and elsewhere CLAIM to know about invisible, undetectable, supernatural 'gods'. They often gather together on Sunday (or Saturday or Wednesday or in between) to tell each other stories about 'gods'.

God believers evidently learn what they 'know' by reading ancient religion-promoting literature written by people of uncertain identity claiming to know about 'gods'. The 'enlightened' may also claim to have psychological 'experiences' with 'gods or spirits' (perhaps 'holy'). Based on that 'evidence' they pontificate about their favorite 'god or gods'.

Would any person of sound mind claim to know about aliens after reading stories about such things, listening to lectures by proponents, and dreaming or emoting about encountering 'aliens'?

Would any person of sound mind claim to know about gods after reading stories about such things, listening to lectures by proponents, and dreaming or emoting about encountering 'gods'?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #1]

While it may be an issue of not having a sound mind in some cases, it is my unqualified assessment that most people who endorse these unfalsifiable claims are in good mental health but lack a reliable epistemology.

[Miles]

.

Where religious faith is of utmost importance often a belief will transmogrify itself into the certainty that undergirds knowledge. Therefore god becomes a satisfying compatriot because he is an absolute "known," affirmed by his fabricated existence.

..................................................................................

.

[RJG]

Religious belief goes from the sublime to the ridiculous, some of which is abusive and dangerous. Whilst some believers find comfort in their faith even if it is lacking in credibility, other are scared not to take on board a faith in case lack of belief has serious consequences after death.

[DavidLeon]

Many people here in debate, in churches, and elsewhere CLAIM to know about invisible, undetectable, supernatural 'gods'. They often gather together on Sunday (or Saturday or Wednesday or in between) to tell each other stories about 'gods'.

You mean like you're doing now, here?

God believers evidently learn what they 'know' by reading ancient religion-promoting literature written by people of uncertain identity claiming to know about 'gods'.

Oh, now I see the difference.

The 'enlightened' may also claim to have psychological 'experiences' with 'gods or spirits' (perhaps 'holy'). Based on that 'evidence' they pontificate about their favorite 'god or gods'.

Could you define spirits, holy, and gods. In your own words, please. But, in all fairness 'enlightened' people are everywhere. One of the Jehovah's Witnesses presidents had a sign on his desk that said something to the effect that nuts were everywhere and they had their share of nuts. Perhaps the appeal is that faith based systems leave such room for interpenetration. That appeal seems to be something the critic shares in common with the nut.

Would any person of sound mind claim to know about aliens after reading stories about such things, listening to lectures by proponents, and dreaming or emoting about encountering 'aliens'?

Would any person of sound mind claim to know about gods after reading stories about such things, listening to lectures by proponents, and dreaming or emoting about encountering 'gods'?

Why on earth not. It worked for evolution.

[DavidLeon]

.

Where religious faith is of utmost importance often a belief will transmogrify itself into the certainty that undergirds knowledge. Therefore god becomes a satisfying compatriot because he is an absolute "known," affirmed by his fabricated existence.

I can't think of any religion where that was the case. I can certainly think of one where it wasn't the case. Shintoism.

[bluegreenearth]

Would any person of sound mind claim to know about aliens after reading stories about such things, listening to lectures by proponents, and dreaming or emoting about encountering 'aliens'?

Would any person of sound mind claim to know about gods after reading stories about such things, listening to lectures by proponents, and dreaming or emoting about encountering 'gods'?

Why on earth not. It worked for evolution.

Are you referring to the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection which is inferred from the fact of evolution? The difference between the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and a theistic belief is that a scientific theory is potentially falsifiable but survives every test designed to try and disprove it while theistic claims are unfalsifiable.

[Zzyzx]

Could you define spirits, holy, and gods. In your own words, please.

Of course, under the condition that you provide your definitions in your own words.

Gods = any of the thousands of invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, and fought over by humans. Gods are typically credited (absent verifiable evidence) to influence human lives and proposed 'afterlives'. They are often depicted in humanoid form with human emotions (love, hate, jealousy, vindictiveness, vengefulness, etc) and with super human capabilities (up to and including omnipotence, omniscience, and universe creation).

Gods have not been demonstrated to exist outside human imagination; however, many individuals and groups become very emotionally attached to the 'gods' popular in their culture and create or perpetuate folklore and mythology (telling each other tales about their favorite 'gods').

Spirits = 1) any of the thousands (or more) of invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities proposed by humans to account for cause-and-effect relationships that they do understand, 2) non-physical parts of a person that some propose transcends death, 3) alcoholic beverage (unlike the previous two, can be demonstrated to exist)

Holy = 1) anything proposed to be devoted to 'gods' and religions, 2) anything revered by a group, 3) 'sacred'

Okay, your turn.

[DavidLeon]

Could you define spirits, holy, and gods. In your own words, please.

Of course, under the condition that you provide your definitions in your own words.

Gods = any of the thousands of invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, and fought over by humans. Gods are typically credited (absent verifiable evidence) to influence human lives and proposed 'afterlives'. They are often depicted in humanoid form with human emotions (love, hate, jealousy, vindictiveness, vengefulness, etc) and with super human capabilities (up to and including omnipotence, omniscience, and universe creation).

Gods have not been demonstrated to exist outside human imagination; however, many individuals and groups become very emotionally attached to the 'gods' popular in their culture and create or perpetuate folklore and mythology (telling each other tales about their favorite 'gods').

Spirits = 1) any of the thousands (or more) of invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities proposed by humans to account for cause-and-effect relationships that they do understand, 2) non-physical parts of a person that some propose transcends death, 3) alcoholic beverage (unlike the previous two, can be demonstrated to exist)

Holy = 1) anything proposed to be devoted to 'gods' and religions, 2) anything revered by a group, 3) 'sacred'

Okay, your turn.

Your OP and your definitions indicate to me that there are two possible motives for your position. One of them is valid and the other isn't. To me. The valid motivation is that you want an argument. You can call it debate if you wish. The invalid motivation is that you intend to establish with any more certainty than the faithful position that there are supernatural gods that there isn't any.

My definitions are, of gods: anything or anyone venerated; of spirits in context with this discussion, supernatural beings; of holy the same as your definition.

[DavidLeon]

Are you referring to the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection which is inferred from the fact of evolution? The difference between the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and a theistic belief is that a scientific theory is potentially falsifiable but survives every test designed to try and disprove it while theistic claims are unfalsifiable.

Very well. My definition of evolution in context in this discussion is one biblical kind becoming another.

If I make an extraordinary claim of God in faith it has nothing to do with scientific methodology. If you make the extraordinary claim that a lizard became a bird or a monkey became a man that's another story.