[W:1396] Questions that atheists are afraid to answer

[tecoyah]

Faith and begorra, laddies and lasses, ’tis is a fine question!

Hopefully not to "Muddled" for direct answers.

 

[devildavid]

I agree with each of these statements. That Mortie must really be wonderful.

I did not think it possible — until today, until it came up here — that a dog could be one’s spiritual teacher. That is if I have taken ‘guru’ in the right sense.

David, Lursa, do you think that you might seek apprenticeship under the worthy tutelage of this sweet & adorable doggie?

I think you are the one in desperate need of Mortie's wise counsel.

 

[devildavid]

Okay....I'll try again with more direct questions.
Why is the Christian Yahweh more believable than the other thousands of Gods?
How is a Book so clearly edited and written by Men (council of Nicea) considered to be written by God?

Can't wait to see how she dances around these.

 

[tecoyah]

Can't wait to see how she dances around these.

It will be very interesting but I find any direct answer quite unlikely.....that was basically the point she is trying to rebut but will instead solidify.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Why is the Christian Yahweh more believable than the other thousands of Gods?

My answer would be ‘through analysis of effect’ and also what has been done by men and culture, specifically in Europe, is relation to both God (as an assertion of a ‘real thing’) and also to ‘the idea of God’ which is, quite often, what ‘God’ in fact means to many people.

You are asking me, in my case, and me personally, how I have thought this through, and that would be the beginning of my answer.

But it is not at all impossible for me to encounter as it were the theology of other religions — in this case I would refer to the so-called Personality of God in the Bhagavad-Gita — and to understand, to grasp, to be capable of entertaining, that ‘truth’ and also meaning and value of important sort is expressed there.

So in fact, in my own argumentation, I do at times and I have referred to the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita (On the Divine and the Demonic Natures) in order to make a point relevant to a) Christian understanding of God (or God’s will if you wish) and b) a potentially universal notion about God in the sense of overarching metaphysical order that pervades this Reality, this plane of existence.

In my own case, though I regard the Vedic revelation as valid and relevant (from which is derived your chosen religious and philosophical — your explanatory — path of Buddhism (you have said you are a Buddhist) — I see, I discern, that the Christian revelation seems more potent, more condenced, more imperative, and thus the force of the *commands* (the mandates, which is a Christian notion) became more powerfully transformative in a social and cultural sense then in the historical Indian cultural setting.

My further argument about *why I believe* is evidenced by my own sense of my own internal processes. However, this is subjective territory. But the essence is here: By being made to understand how profoundly *sin* (and thus the demonic) had come to bear on me as a person, as a girl and as a woman, and then having come into the ‘presence of God’ through my own prayer and willingness, it is as a result of *being made to see* which is really *having been made to feel* the degree of my own fall and descent, that through this process I have grown and changed.

That is the most important *area of proof* for me. I hang a great deal on that hook, as it were.

How is a Book so clearly edited and written by Men (council of Nicea) considered to be written by God?

This is a quite simple question to answer. The books of the Bible are not understood as having been written, literally, by the pen of God, but through ‘inspiration’. You know that the term ‘inspire’ is from a cognate of the Latin word for ‘breath’ and you likely know that in Greek the word is pneuma. Breath and spirit are conflated.

And there you have the notion of The Holy Spirit. That is to say, ‘the breath of God’ which is, of course, a metaphor. The reference is, of course, to what I have referred to often as ‘the angelical world’. And the notion comes from our ‘former metaphysics’ which is being replaced by a New Metaphysical System (that of scientism and materialism).

 

[Alizia Tyler]

It will be very interesting but I find any direct answer quite unlikely.....that was basically the point she is trying to rebut but will instead solidify.

Would the Enlightened Mortie answer more directly?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I think you are the one in desperate need of Mortie's wise counsel.

I want you to know that just this AM I made direct spiritual contact with Mortie!

(I cut out the middleman however . . . It’s the Protestant in me I guess!)

I am now under the discipleship of a rascal terrier!

The irony is multilayered and multivalent . . .

 

[Alizia Tyler]

But the essence is here: By being made to understand how profoundly *sin* (and thus the demonic) had come to bear on me as a person, as a girl and as a woman, and then having come into the ‘presence of God’ through my own prayer and willingness, it is as a result of *being made to see* which is really *having been made to feel* the degree of my own fall and descent, that through this process I have grown and changed.

I have just telepathically run all this by Mortie the Adorable and HE HAS VERIFIED ALL THIS AS TRUE AS RAIN.

What a Guru he is! This is a Red Letter Day for me! And for all of us, given our expressed feelings for Mortie.

 

[tecoyah]

My answer would be ‘through analysis of effect’ and also what has been done by men and culture, specifically in Europe, is relation to both God (as an assertion of a ‘real thing’) and also to ‘the idea of God’ which is, quite often, what ‘God’ in fact means to many people.

You are asking me, in my case, and me personally, how I have thought this through, and that would be the beginning of my answer.

But it is not at all impossible for me to encounter as it were the theology of other religions — in this case I would refer to the so-called Personality of God in the Bhagavad-Gita — and to understand, to grasp, to be capable of entertaining, that ‘truth’ and also meaning and value of important sort is expressed there.

So in fact, in my own argumentation, I do at times and I have referred to the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita (On the Divine and the Demonic Natures) in order to make a point relevant to a) Christian understanding of God (or God’s will if you wish) and b) a potentially universal notion about God in the sense of overarching metaphysical order that pervades this Reality, this plane of existence.

In my own case, though I regard the Vedic revelation as valid and relevant (from which is derived your chosen religious and philosophical — your explanatory — path of Buddhism (you have said you are a Buddhist) — I see, I discern, that the Christian revelation seems more potent, more condenced, more imperative, and thus the force of the *commands* (the mandates, which is a Christian notion) became more powerfully transformative in a social and cultural sense then in the historical Indian cultural setting.

My further argument about *why I believe* is evidenced by my own sense of my own internal processes. However, this is subjective territory. But the essence is here: By being made to understand how profoundly *sin* (and thus the demonic) had come to bear on me as a person, as a girl and as a woman, and then having come into the ‘presence of God’ through my own prayer and willingness, it is as a result of *being made to see* which is really *having been made to feel* the degree of my own fall and descent, that through this process I have grown and changed.

That is the most important *area of proof* for me. I hang a great deal on that hook, as it were.


This is a quite simple question to answer. The books of the Bible are not understood as having been written, literally, by the pen of God, but through ‘inspiration’. You know that the term ‘inspire’ is from a cognate of the Latin word for ‘breath’ and you likely know that in Greek the word is pneuma. Breath and spirit are conflated.

And there you have the notion of The Holy Spirit. That is to say, ‘the breath of God’ which is, of course, a metaphor. The reference is, of course, to what I have referred to often as ‘the angelical world’. And the notion comes from our ‘former metaphysics’ which is being replaced by a New Metaphysical System (that of scientism and materialism).

So in essence the not so wordy answer would be that Yahweh is the Real God out of thousands because you chose it to be. This is a great answer and I appreciate the honest answer as It is the first time a Christian admitted it to me. That the Bible(s) are "Inspired" vs. Gods word is also refreshing to hear from a Christian and leaves us with the obvious conclusion in this:

God is a manmade Construct.

 

[devildavid]

I want you to know that just this AM I made direct spiritual contact with Mortie!

(I cut out the middleman however . . . It’s the Protestant in me I guess!)

I am now under the discipleship of a rascal terrier!

The irony is multilayered and multivalent . . .

Mortie only offers counsel in person.

 

[devildavid]

So in essence the not so wordy answer would be that Yahweh is the Real God out of thousands because you chose it to be. This is a great answer and I appreciate the honest answer as It is the first time a Christian admitted it to me. That the Bible(s) are "Inspired" vs. Gods word is also refreshing to hear from a Christian and leaves us with the obvious conclusion in this:

God is a manmade Construct.

She did not disappoint. Convolution is her way. I am sure she will disagree with the conclusion you drew from another meandering post that never really gets to a succinct answer.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

So in essence the not so wordy answer would be that Yahweh is the Real God out of thousands because you chose it to be. This is a great answer and I appreciate the honest answer as It is the first time a Christian admitted it to me. That the Bible(s) are "Inspired" vs. Gods word is also refreshing to hear from a Christian and leaves us with the obvious conclusion in this:

God is a manmade Construct.

But Mortie is not a manmade construct! He is a Dog with real wisdom and taste and culture. Enlightened as you so presciently noted. He directed me to this.

Mortie the Adorable Doggie Guru has clearly indicated that the phrase Jesus you are my soul has some special meaning that must be examined. When I asked for clarification he refused further answer. And he nipped me!

I don't know what this means. Oh! he's a Rascal alright.

In further news: No, what you have done is to rephrase what I said and bent it to be what you wish to say. But yes, in a sense you are right: If a person makes a conscious choice to believe as real (or important) a given God -- which certainly involves how that god is conceived and defined -- it will be because of some level of choice.

Concsiousness is constructive, yes. And so yes there is an element of 'creative act'. But that does not mean that what is conceived is invented. And there is the difference.

I do not know if I can shed more light here Tecoyah. May I suggest sending your questions direct to Mortie the Adorable? May his wisdom guide you!

 

[tecoyah]

She did not disappoint. Convolution is her way. I am sure she will disagree with the conclusion you drew from another meandering post that never really gets to a succinct answer.

This is certainly a possibility, but I believe she has trapped herself into accepting my conclusion by typing her own words. I asked for clear and concise answers because by doing so it absolutely MUST end in what I stated.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

This is certainly a possibility, but I believe she has trapped herself into accepting my conclusion by typing her own words. I asked for clear and concise answers because by doing so it absolutely MUST end in what I stated.

That is not at all true. But it is very much what you assert is true and want to be true. For this reason I often refer to 'acts of the will' and 'the will' (what we decide, what we enforce, and why we do this) is very much part of the equation here.

And by introducing 'the will that insists' we have entered the psychological territory that I refer to often.

I believe she has trapped herself into accepting my conclusion by typing her own words

This is also an example of underhanded, bad-faith discourse. I did not say what you say I say.

So here is where 'bad-faith' enters the discussion. And at this point -- if history is an indicator -- things *go south* from this point on.

Thus in my view *atheism* as it plays out here, among you-plural and as it is *operated* is simply a set of assertions that are made. And they are upheld by the will. Any alternative to the conclusion of the will is shot down. It does not matter if the presented reasoning is good or bad: the will predetermines the answer, the conclusion. And the conclusion is the a priori.

And this is done by a group and in a group-setting.

It becomes ludic (a game) at this point.

How can I be certain of all of this!? Because Mortie the Enlightened Rascal has verified what I say telepathically.

 

[tecoyah]

But Mortie is not a manmade construct! He is a Dog with real wisdom and taste and culture. Enlightened as you so presciently noted. He directed me to this.

Mortie the Adorable Doggie Guru has clearly indicated that the phrase Jesus you are my soul has some special meaning that must be examined. When I asked for clarification he refused further answer. And he nipped me!

I don't know what this means. Oh! he's a Rascal alright.

In further news: No, what you have done is to rephrase what I said and bent it to be what you wish to say. But yes, in a sense you are right: If a person makes a conscious choice to believe as real (or important) a given God -- which certainly involves how that god is conceived and defined -- it will be because of some level of choice.

Concsiousness is constructive, yes. And so yes there is an element of 'creative act'. But that does not mean that what is conceived is invented. And there is the difference.

I do not know if I can shed more light here Tecoyah. May I suggest sending your questions direct to Mortie the Adorable? May his wisdom guide you!

The derail attempt is noted and I am not in need of further light from you as you have beautifully shown the path. What you typed required "Rephrasing" due to the length of comment and far to wordy, roundabout you produced but as everyone can read for themselves my filtered version as an accurate interpretation of it. The "Creative Act" comment is absolute verification of this so please just quit while your behind instead of digging a deeper hole. There is nothing wrong with the position you have shown but it cannot be claimed as truth beyond yourself.

 

[tecoyah]

That is not at all true. But it is very much what you assert is true and want to be true. .........snip..........

I would point out that this statement is a more accurate assessment of YOUR position than mine.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

The derail attempt is noted and I am not in need of further light from you as you have beautifully shown the path.

An example of an 'assertion of the will'.

What you typed required "Rephrasing" due to the length of comment and far to wordy, roundabout you produced but as everyone can read for themselves my filtered version as an accurate interpretation of it.

This is pure bad-faith. You asked me to tell you how I conceived my faith to operate. I wrote out clearly, directly, and also sincerely what I thought on the matter. You argument against it is not based on anything I actually said -- you do not comment on the most important elements -- but you assert it is invalid because it is 'wordy'.

Then you refer to what 'everyone can read' hoping, planning really, that others her will jump in with their affirmations. Thus it becomes an absurd, underhanded an non-genuine non-discussion. By definition bad-faith.

The "Creative Act" comment is absolute verification of this so please just quit while your behind instead of digging a deeper hole. There is nothing wrong with the position you have shown but it cannot be claimed as truth beyond yourself.

No, it is not. All conception of any sort is 'man-made'. It occurs in the psyche of man. But the world that is perceived and conceived actually exists, so conceptions and ideas are reflective. A big difference. A crucial difference.

You want what I say to be 'absolute verification' and your will is set on this.

It is further evidence of genuine bad-faith to then tell me to *quit while I am ahead* and this tactic, this turn, is in the same vein as Lursa's argument. I suggest to you that one one hand you are not serious here (in respect to the topic of how man conceived God) and you also operate in blatant bad-faith.

Yet you are right in a way that the higher truths are all of them 'metaphysical truths' that cannot be verified, at least not in the same way that the billing temperature of water at seal-level, can be verified. This points to the difference between two epistemes to use Michel Foucault's term, and the very different domains which each one pertains to. All meaning and all value is metaphysical in this sense.

 

[tecoyah]

An example of an 'assertion of the will'.


This is pure bad-faith. You asked me to tell you how I conceived my faith to operate. I wrote out clearly, directly, and also sincerely what I thought on the matter. You argument against it is not based on anything I actually said -- you do not comment on the most important elements -- but you assert it is invalid because it is 'wordy'.

Then you refer to what 'everyone can read' hoping, planning really, that others her will jump in with their affirmations. Thus it becomes an absurd, underhanded an non-genuine non-discussion. By definition bad-faith.


No, it is not. All conception of any sort is 'man-made'. It occurs in the psyche of man. But the world that is perceived and conceived actually exists, so conceptions and ideas are reflective. A big difference. A crucial difference.

You want what I say to be 'absolute verification' and your will is set on this.

It is further evidence of genuine bad-faith to then tell me to *quit while I am ahead* and this tactic, this turn, is in the same vein as Lursa's argument. I suggest to you that one one hand you are not serious here (in respect to the topic of how man conceived God) and you also operate in blatant bad-faith.

Yet you are right in a way that the higher truths are all of them 'metaphysical truths' that cannot be verified, at least not in the same way that the billing temperature of water at seal-level, can be verified. This points to the difference between two epistemes to use Michel Foucault's term, and the very different domains which each one pertains to. All meaning and all value is metaphysical in this sense.

Very well then, let us return to the actual discussion. We left it here:

"
So in essence the not so wordy answer would be that Yahweh is the Real God out of thousands because you chose it to be. This is a great answer and I appreciate the honest answer as It is the first time a Christian admitted it to me. That the Bible(s) are "Inspired" vs. Gods word is also refreshing to hear from a Christian and leaves us with the obvious conclusion in this:

God is a manmade Construct. "

So, please then explain in succinct commentary where this is an inaccurate interpretation of your earlier text.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I would point out that this statement is a more accurate assessment of YOUR position than mine.

I believe I understand why you say this, but I have not ever negated that man is a perceiving instrument, inhibited by being an instrument, by being a consciousness housed in or ensconced in a body, relying on an imperfect, and often distorting, machinery as it were. But this is actually to the point: everything about man takes place in, is received in, his consciousness -- the perception-tool that is biological and situated in matter.

But the conceiving mind has always been conceived as different. And so the issue revolves around 'consciousness' and also 'mind'. But it goes further into questions about what 'psyche' is, and what psyche does in this world.

I acknowledge that you and I (and numerous on this thread) are deeply involved in epistemological conflicts. And I also acknowledge that these conflicts play out, in considerable drama, all around us today, and indeed that they have a history within Occidental culture.

I do not believe that I came here with any desire nor even a need to 'prove' anything to you-plural. I am much more interested in what goes on in our world as a result of these *metaphysical shifts*. And the case that I make, similar to my suggestion that God can be known indirectly through the 'productions' I refer to (and for example what Mortie the Adorable Enlightened Rascal suggested to all of us with the reference to the (beautiful) Bach cantata), so the result of subtracting 'higher metaphysical orders' from man's conceived world results in descent and (in my opinion) degradation.

A world was built, a world falls apart.

I argue on two levels: one, the actual loss or severing from the metaphysical connection, similar to electrical unplugging, and two the loss of connection on all the secondary levels: the undermining of European civilization and, as I suggested earlier, Nietzsche's prescient predictions about what the results would be: the advance of nihilism as a disease, as it seems to be.

So what I conclude here so far (though I suppose there might be some exceptions) is to observe people who look to me like they are captured both by nihilistic currents and caught as well in postmodern currents that, as I say, have their own direction. So the problem is multivalent.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

So, please then explain in succinct commentary where this is an inaccurate interpretation of your earlier text.

I already covered that ground. Did you not read? Or were you not able to understand how I did answer that?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

That the Bible(s) are "Inspired" vs. Gods word

There is no versus. It was always said that the Bible contains God's Word that came to man through inspiration. Is this new information to you?

This just in from Mortie the Adorable Rascal:

God Spake: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee Mortie! and before thou camest forth out of the dog-womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a true adorable, enlightened doggie-prophet unto the nations!"

Then said Mortie, "Ah, Lord God! behold, I cannot speak: for I am but a puppy."

But the Lord said unto me, Say not, I am a puppy: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt bark!

Is any of this getting clearer, Tecoyah?

 

[Peter King]

Though I can. God is life.

But that is a view based on your faith, not on facts. Because for that reasoning god is also death, mass murder, war crimes, disease, covid, etc. etc. etc.

You describe the feeling in your heart, rather than something objective verifiable.

 

[tecoyah]

There is no versus. It was always said that the Bible contains God's Word that came to man through inspiration. Is this new information to you?

This just in from Mortie the Adorable Rascal:

Is any of this getting clearer, Tecoyah?

It is very clear and becomes more so with every word you type...As stated and you just affirmed"
"God Is A Man Made Construct."
You can further attempt to muddy the waters but that is in essence what you have said....repeatedly. It is also all I was trying to get you (plural) to admit.
We seem to be done here...I thank you.

 

[stevecanuck]

Here I would suggest that you investigate a bit further. I admit that some atheists, you perhaps, do not develop the ‘doctrine’ I refer to. That is an omission on your part, I think. If you do not you will eventually have to.

As it happens, and as an atheistic posture becomes more common, it necessarily accretes to it ‘doctrine’. Why? Because it must necessarily be explanatory. It has to explain little things and then bigger things.

Okay, I stopped reading here. All you've done is strung a group of words together to say nothing.

Parsing that mess is simply NOT worth my time. Life to too short.

I'm out.

 

[soylentgreen]

This italicized sentence is (literally) 100% false. (Some of the non-italicized portion is semi-true).

So everything that follows from this false assertion is *defective* and compromised.

We can’t merely insist that something is true because we wish it were.

So, now we have to examine that ‘insisting will’. That moves into complex and also fraught cultural territory..

You really do not bother to think outside of your own space. Your superstition is relevant to you and other theists. And there it ends. Wishing something was true is what you are doing every time you insist there is a god.

Examine your own need for a god.

You are a dishonest debater. Making claims of how good christianity has been for society while desperately ignoring any question that demonstrates the damage christianity has done. Again I ask you to be honest and deal with the question instead of ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

So again the question, please explain sherlocks insistence that god wants men to be misogynistic to women.