Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

[Malintent]

With this, I can wholeheartedly agree.

I find that one cannot do this with religion driving their actions and words, at least not those that have been written down and called the 'Abrahamic religions', which only lead you away from 'good conscious'.

For some reason your findings are off.

Have you researched the Bahia? What about the Druze? Also, do you read core scripture, or base your findings off of the actions of those claiming to be followers of Abrahamic Faith?

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Neither of us have read the core scripture, unless you can read ancient dead languages and understand the local cultural meanings of the original writing style. So, we can only go on the word of those that have translated and re-translated, and re-wrote, bound and published, edited, and manipulated those texts to be in the 'modern' form they are now. But those.... those I read.

Truly, one can only measure the value of a religion on the works that it's writings inspire... the works of those that claim to follow the religion (before rejecting the 'claim' of an individual, please review the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy). In review of the works of those people, I judge these religions to be vapid, dishonest, inconsistent, and mostly evil (even though evil people are capable of deeds that benefit others despite being evil deeds, such as killing and torturing in the name of preserving a belief).

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sounds pretty arbitrary to me. Why bother with either the Bible or Quran. They're just companion piece to the Torah. And why stop there? Abrahamic religious texts and doctrine is a reworking of the Enuma Elish. As far as I can tell the Enuma Elish is way more core than any Abrahamic text (using your definition).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enûma_Eliš

As far as I can tell your guide to which texts are core is just whatever religion has won the popularity context. I'm sorry, but popularity is rarely a good guide of what is true. You don't need to read much science for that to become apparent.

Popularity? Really?

Popularity has nothing to do with it at all. How popular is Zoroastrianism? What about Jainism?

I converse with a broad spectrum of people, none of which care for my opinions or insight too much. Let's just say I'm not popular, and couldn't care less. Further, my own Faith has absolutely nothing to do with any other individual, or their opinion of it.

So basically "core" is whatever you think is core. How isn't that No True Scotsman?

I don't understand what metric you use for determining which sacred texts are core and which are outliers?

 

[DrZoidberg]

For some reason your findings are off.

Have you researched the Bahia? What about the Druze? Also, do you read core scripture, or base your findings off of the actions of those claiming to be followers of Abrahamic Faith?

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Neither of us have read the core scripture, unless you can read ancient dead languages and understand the local cultural meanings of the original writing style. So, we can only go on the word of those that have translated and re-translated, and re-wrote, bound and published, edited, and manipulated those texts to be in the 'modern' form they are now. But those.... those I read.

Truly, one can only measure the value of a religion on the works that it's writings inspire... the works of those that claim to follow the religion (before rejecting the 'claim' of an individual, please review the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy). In review of the works of those people, I judge these religions to be vapid, dishonest, inconsistent, and mostly evil (even though evil people are capable of deeds that benefit others despite being evil deeds, such as killing and torturing in the name of preserving a belief).

Don't stop there. All religions that are based on scripture evolved from religions without writing. Those religions theology are lost today. But they're way more core than any today surviving religion. That's an impossible problem to solve.

I always start giggling when I read about Martin Luthers Ad Fontes. Such a fucking retarded idea. Basically a way to kill your own religion in one swift stroke. I have more respect for Catholicism. They acknowledge it's all hand waving and stick to a dead gibberish language nobody understands any longer. I love the symbolism of that.

 

[4321lynx]

I don't know about that. I think it's quite healthy to explore one's deepest desires. For most of that, that requires a lot of work. It's certainly been the case for me. An ever ongoing project. I can understand how it can be psychologically beneficial to project those onto something external.

Let me pose a question to you, how isn't God simply a projection of your deepest desires? How can you know it isn't?

That's close to what I have thought is the principle for people's belief in gods. It is a powerful ego affirmation for them to "know" that there is an infinitely superior intelligence that not only cares about them personally but who holds the same opinions, biases, hatreds they do plus this being eases their fear of death by promising eternal bliss because the believer is such a wonderful person.

Or maybe, to be more humble, not a wonderful but a faithful person, fallible but full of faith. Even if that faith is of the person's own (?unique?) creation, as seems to be the case with popsthebuilder.
Faith created after being

an atheist for twenty years,

and how many more years of thought, study, meditation, reading of scriptures? That takes years, I suppose. Or was it a sudden flash of insight?
Precipitated by what? A death? An illness? An accident? A war? A nothing? Or a subconcious feeling that years pass (at least those 20 atheist years), so one is that much nearer death, and that this life "must mean something", something more than just passing on of genes to the next generation?
So we would be back to fear as a cause of faith, religion, belief, and what-have-you. Fear of the unknown, fear perhaps quite unconcious or "subconcious", and fear often denied vehemently or humbly.
I am not a clairvoyant so I cannot tell what the motivation is, and I certainly do not expect any confessions.

An atheistic peace to all.

lynx

 

[Malintent]

Pops,
When yo ucome to an Atheist forum to discuss religion there is something you must grant to us Atheists... and that is that we speak of what we do not believe in being real, as if it were real... we grant you the existence of a god character for the purpose of continuing discussion, not because we entertain the existence of something we have already determined to not exist, but for the convenience of discourse.
At the same time, we must grant to you that the god you come to speak to us about is one that you believe exists, and believe others SHOULD believe exists (else why talk about it)...

Therefore, when you 'backpedal' your way out of the popular religious memes and dogma after they are decimated by our arguments, or shown to be poor examples of good moral foundation, and fall back to a position of "well, I have my OWN idea of some vague god thing".. you are kind of backing out of the entire discussion.

Any idiot can just make up any set of characteristics of any kind of sky daddy character that they want.. why should anyone care about your made up version of some poorly defined non-god?

this is what Jews say about the entire New Testament... "Any asshole can write a sequel"

 

[popsthebuilder]

That's close to what I have thought is the principle for people's belief in gods. It is a powerful ego affirmation for them to "know" that there is an infinitely superior intelligence that not only cares about them personally but who holds the same opinions, biases, hatreds they do plus this being eases their fear of death by promising eternal bliss because the believer is such a wonderful person.

Or maybe, to be more humble, not a wonderful but a faithful person, fallible but full of faith. Even if that faith is of the person's own (?unique?) creation, as seems to be the case with popsthebuilder.
Faith created after being

an atheist for twenty years,

and how many more years of thought, study, meditation, reading of scriptures? That takes years, I suppose. Or was it a sudden flash of insight?
Precipitated by what? A death? An illness? An accident? A war? A nothing? Or a subconcious feeling that years pass (at least those 20 atheist years), so one is that much nearer death, and that this life "must mean something", something more than just passing on of genes to the next generation?
So we would be back to fear as a cause of faith, religion, belief, and what-have-you. Fear of the unknown, fear perhaps quite unconcious or "subconcious", and fear often denied vehemently or humbly.
I am not a clairvoyant so I cannot tell what the motivation is, and I certainly do not expect any confessions.

An atheistic peace to all.

lynx

I don't generally go into detail on how I came t be faithful into GOD. Most disregard it as delusion. Sorta long story short; I was saved by grace through hope and need.

After initial salvation it took me approx. 5 years to actually start researching "religions".

Fear, nor reward are of any worth or motivational value to me whatsoever.

I will gladly go into any detail you wish.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Pops,
When yo ucome to an Atheist forum to discuss religion there is something you must grant to us Atheists... and that is that we speak of what we do not believe in being real, as if it were real... we grant you the existence of a god character for the purpose of continuing discussion, not because we entertain the existence of something we have already determined to not exist, but for the convenience of discourse.
At the same time, we must grant to you that the god you come to speak to us about is one that you believe exists, and believe others SHOULD believe exists (else why talk about it)...

Therefore, when you 'backpedal' your way out of the popular religious memes and dogma after they are decimated by our arguments, or shown to be poor examples of good moral foundation, and fall back to a position of "well, I have my OWN idea of some vague god thing".. you are kind of backing out of the entire discussion.

Any idiot can just make up any set of characteristics of any kind of sky daddy character that they want.. why should anyone care about your made up version of some poorly defined non-god?

this is what Jews say about the entire New Testament... "Any asshole can write a sequel"

When did I crawfish at all?

The whole time I have stood by the Qur'an and bible and still do. The whole time I have said that credence of faith or God shouldn't be based on the flawed actions of greedy men.

There is no name for my Faith technically.

You could consider me Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindi, Anabaptist, universal reconsiliationist, or whatever. It is irrelevant.

Nothing has changed.

The Qur'an and bible are similar in historical recount, morals, and GOD.

Please clear up your accusations, as I am somewhat confused as to why or how you can justify them.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Neither of us have read the core scripture, unless you can read ancient dead languages and understand the local cultural meanings of the original writing style. So, we can only go on the word of those that have translated and re-translated, and re-wrote, bound and published, edited, and manipulated those texts to be in the 'modern' form they are now. But those.... those I read.

Truly, one can only measure the value of a religion on the works that it's writings inspire... the works of those that claim to follow the religion (before rejecting the 'claim' of an individual, please review the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy). In review of the works of those people, I judge these religions to be vapid, dishonest, inconsistent, and mostly evil (even though evil people are capable of deeds that benefit others despite being evil deeds, such as killing and torturing in the name of preserving a belief).

Don't stop there. All religions that are based on scripture evolved from religions without writing. Those religions theology are lost today. But they're way more core than any today surviving religion. That's an impossible problem to solve.

I always start giggling when I read about Martin Luthers Ad Fontes. Such a fucking retarded idea. Basically a way to kill your own religion in one swift stroke. I have more respect for Catholicism. They acknowledge it's all hand waving and stick to a dead gibberish language nobody understands any longer. I love the symbolism of that.

Faith in GOD should be based not only on scripture, and most definitely not on tradition, but also by what weighs on ones heart through the conscience. This is highly variable and subjective in itself and should be filtered through innermost honesty with self and attempted relinquishment of desires of the physical self and material plane.

The peaceful core writings of ancient faith in the One Creator GOD, including the Torah are a means to the way to do this and provide verification, guidance, motivation, revelation, and other things.

You seem to be saying that the writings have been manipulated or altered to which I say; God's will shines through to those who it wills. And it wills all.

Selfless conscience, utter lack of bias through conscious honesty with self on all levels.

We all have a conscience, every one of us. Truth can be veiled in many fashions, even on an inner level. When you can identify it within, you can often spot it elsewhere too. You focus on the things that can be portrayed negatively within the text for your motives. But what are your motives, and why? Can you see that utter global peace has the potential to bring about awesome positive change, technological advancement, and prosperous equality? Can you not understand that most will fight for what they believe, and many will kill? Can you not see that attempted eradication of religion Will bring about terror and death? There is ultimately a singular positive creative force behind existence. It formed us with grand potential in one of two directions. Either way, it will end by the means it was formed, but it would be a terrible shame if we as existence never even partially met our potential for life, due to our own greed.

Oops...I'm done ranting.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

Faith in GOD should be based not only on scripture, and most definitely not on tradition, but also by what weighs on ones heart through the conscience.

None of these things actually test whether a belief is justified, that it does indeed have a sound foundation in evidence. Scripture may be unreliable, tradition reinforced through repetition yet never tested, and conscience shaped and formed by desire or fear.

Faith itself being a belief held without verifiable, testable, falsifiable evidence. Which makes faith a poor tool for sorting fact from fiction.


"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)

 

[popsthebuilder]

Faith in GOD should be based not only on scripture, and most definitely not on tradition, but also by what weighs on ones heart through the conscience.

None of these things actually test whether a belief is justified, that it does indeed have a sound foundation in evidence. Scripture may be unreliable, tradition reinforced through repetition yet never tested, and conscience shaped and formed by desire or fear.

Faith itself being a belief held without verifiable, testable, falsifiable evidence. Which makes faith a poor tool for sorting fact from fiction.


"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)

I didn't list it to justify it to a third party. Ones Faith, is there own. I cannot, and will not claim to have the capacity to make any a believer. That is between the individual and God.

And no, a selfless conscience leaves fear and reward out of the equation.

If you want proof of God you must attain it for yourself by God's will. The things I mentioned are parts of that realization.

Hope, for me personally seems to have been a big step, or part. I was still actively atheist, but came to realize through much testing and attempts at change that I myself, regardless of will and determination, could not achieve what I so desperately needed. I vaguely recall (sometime prior to revelation) humbly admitting that I was in dire need of help, and that though I didn't believe in GOD at the time, through need, humility, and acceptance of stance, I sincerely implored to a thing I didn't believe in to aid me in my plight. This can be seen as hope in despair, and seems to be one of the main things that set up salvation or revelation for me personally.

I had no pride at the time. Absolutely no greed or want for self of a material nature, and was too cowardice to end my life.
I did want to change my life for the sake of my children though.

So I had an inkling of hope. Was saved. And then had Faith based on what. had been shown. So, though the standard definition in religious terms is believing in what isn't readily observable; initially my Faith was a byproduct of the revelation and mercy I personally witnessed. My Faith in one creator GOD has been without waver ever since.

Not to be confused with my own personal direction. Though I am not without sin on some level to this day, my Faith is still verified and strengthened nearly daily.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't generally go into detail on how I came t be faithful into GOD. Most disregard it as delusion. Sorta long story short; I was saved by grace through hope and need.

After initial salvation it took me approx. 5 years to actually start researching "religions".

Fear, nor reward are of any worth or motivational value to me whatsoever.

I will gladly go into any detail you wish.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

This IMHO is the first interesting thing you've said so far. I'd like to hear more about your journey to faith.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Faith in GOD should be based not only on scripture

I still don't understand your qualification for what scripture counts and what is core? What is the difference between what we today call holy scripture and any fictional book? Both are fictional and full of moral lessons. What is the difference regarding your stance toward them?

, and most definitely not on tradition,

As far as I can tell your only qualification for what holy books count as core is tradition. Is that not so?

but also by what weighs on ones heart through the conscience. This is highly variable and subjective in itself and should be filtered through innermost honesty with self and attempted relinquishment of desires of the physical self and material plane.

= word sallad. What I take from this is that if you feel a lot about something that makes it genuine and real. Did I get that right?

The peaceful core writings of ancient faith in the One Creator GOD, including the Torah are a means to the way to do this and provide verification, guidance, motivation, revelation, and other things.

Well... the Torah is a polytheistic text. You can trace the evolution from polytheism to monotheism in the Torah. Which is interesting but contradicts this claim. It is interesting that when Judaism tried to agree on which of all the Torahs to treat as canon (in 50 BC there was a shit load, most lost to history) they went with the oldest, which is also the most self contradictory and one that really makes no sense (if the God described is monotheistic). Have you never reflected on the first commandment? It assumes other gods exist. There's a reason for this.

The Enuma Elish is the Torah without the henotheism. Apart from name changes (Babylonian names changed to Jewish equivalents) it's almost the exact same text. But unashamedly polytheistic. How do you explain that?

You seem to be saying that the writings have been manipulated or altered to which I say; God's will shines through to those who it wills. And it wills all.

No manipulation is necessary. If you know anything about the challenges of pre-printing press copying you know how prone to error scribes are. Even the best scribes screwed up several times each book. Over a couple of generations the texts evolve every which way. Most scribes were illiterate. They just copied the pretty pictures/symbols. Now and again a literate scribe would try to correct the mistakes/incomprehensible gibberish into something that made sense changing the original meaning. Ancient texts evolved rapidly. So far we've been able to find about 300 000 distinct versions of the Bible pre-dating AD 300. The Torah has even more and weirder versions. And keep in mind that most "heretic" holy texts have been hunted down and systematically destroyed. We have for example not a single surviving Ebionite Bible. But we know that the first 200 years that was half to a quarter of every practising Christian. And we know from Pauls criticism of them that their Bible diverged from the Alexandrian canon (the modern canon) significantly. But we have only a superficial understanding of how it diverged. The 300 000 surviving known variants are obviously the tip of the ice berg. These are of course just as much core as the surviving modern Bibles.

Selfless conscience, utter lack of bias through conscious honesty with self on all levels.

= word sallad. Does this mean anything? Or is it just words you like saying?

We all have a conscience, every one of us. Truth can be veiled in many fashions, even on an inner level. When you can identify it within, you can often spot it elsewhere too. You focus on the things that can be portrayed negatively within the text for your motives. But what are your motives, and why? Can you see that utter global peace has the potential to bring about awesome positive change, technological advancement, and prosperous equality? Can you not understand that most will fight for what they believe, and many will kill? Can you not see that attempted eradication of religion Will bring about terror and death?

This all makes perfect sense to me. This why art exists. This is the reason I've read all surviving holy texts in the world. I love holy scripture. I've learnt plenty from studying it. But also found a lot of bullshit.

There is ultimately a singular positive creative force behind existence.

But then you go and say something like this. How did you reach this conclusion? One word of warning, I'm expecting a incoherent word sallad. If that's your choice of strategy for explaining yourself I wouldn't bother.

It formed us with grand potential in one of two directions. Either way, it will end by the means it was formed, but it would be a terrible shame if we as existence never even partially met our potential for life, due to our own greed.

This is also something I've taken away from reading holy texts. The letting go of ego. Which is genuine good advice for life. So I agree.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I still don't understand your qualification for what scripture counts and what is core? What is the difference between what we today call holy scripture and any fictional book? Both are fictional and full of moral lessons. What is the difference regarding your stance toward them?

, and most definitely not on tradition,

As far as I can tell your only qualification for what holy books count as core is tradition. Is that not so?

but also by what weighs on ones heart through the conscience. This is highly variable and subjective in itself and should be filtered through innermost honesty with self and attempted relinquishment of desires of the physical self and material plane.

= word sallad. What I take from this is that if you feel a lot about something that makes it genuine and real. Did I get that right?

The peaceful core writings of ancient faith in the One Creator GOD, including the Torah are a means to the way to do this and provide verification, guidance, motivation, revelation, and other things.

Well... the Torah is a polytheistic text. You can trace the evolution from polytheism to monotheism in the Torah. Which is interesting but contradicts this claim. It is interesting that when Judaism tried to agree on which of all the Torahs to treat as canon (in 50 BC there was a shit load, most lost to history) they went with the oldest, which is also the most self contradictory and one that really makes no sense (if the God described is monotheistic). Have you never reflected on the first commandment? It assumes other gods exist. There's a reason for this.

The Enuma Elish is the Torah without the henotheism. Apart from name changes (Babylonian names changed to Jewish equivalents) it's almost the exact same text. But unashamedly polytheistic. How do you explain that?

You seem to be saying that the writings have been manipulated or altered to which I say; God's will shines through to those who it wills. And it wills all.

No manipulation is necessary. If you know anything about the challenges of pre-printing press copying you know how prone to error scribes are. Even the best scribes screwed up several times each book. Over a couple of generations the texts evolve every which way. Most scribes were illiterate. They just copied the pretty pictures/symbols. Now and again a literate scribe would try to correct the mistakes/incomprehensible gibberish into something that made sense changing the original meaning. Ancient texts evolved rapidly. So far we've been able to find about 300 000 distinct versions of the Bible pre-dating AD 300. The Torah has even more and weirder versions. And keep in mind that most "heretic" holy texts have been hunted down and systematically destroyed. We have for example not a single surviving Ebionite Bible. But we know that the first 200 years that was half to a quarter of every practising Christian. And we know from Pauls criticism of them that their Bible diverged from the Alexandrian canon (the modern canon) significantly. But we have only a superficial understanding of how it diverged. The 300 000 surviving known variants are obviously the tip of the ice berg. These are of course just as much core as the surviving modern Bibles.

Selfless conscience, utter lack of bias through conscious honesty with self on all levels.

= word sallad. Does this mean anything? Or is it just words you like saying?

We all have a conscience, every one of us. Truth can be veiled in many fashions, even on an inner level. When you can identify it within, you can often spot it elsewhere too. You focus on the things that can be portrayed negatively within the text for your motives. But what are your motives, and why? Can you see that utter global peace has the potential to bring about awesome positive change, technological advancement, and prosperous equality? Can you not understand that most will fight for what they believe, and many will kill? Can you not see that attempted eradication of religion Will bring about terror and death?

This all makes perfect sense to me. This why art exists. This is the reason I've read all surviving holy texts in the world. I love holy scripture. I've learnt plenty from studying it. But also found a lot of bullshit.

There is ultimately a singular positive creative force behind existence.

But then you go and say something like this. How did you reach this conclusion? One word of warning, I'm expecting a incoherent word sallad. If that's your choice of strategy for explaining yourself I wouldn't bother.

It formed us with grand potential in one of two directions. Either way, it will end by the means it was formed, but it would be a terrible shame if we as existence never even partially met our potential for life, due to our own greed.

This is also something I've taken away from reading holy texts. The letting go of ego. Which is genuine good advice for life. So I agree.

You seem to be actively searching for what I refute as GOD or of GOD. You seem to want me to denounce polytheism for whatever reason. So I will explain it as best I can from my perspective. To say that GOD is the only force at play is false to me. It is one thing to acknowledge such, and another wholly to worship it. One can think that there are multiple gods or forces or demons or angels or saints or spirits, dragons, ghosts, entities...whatever, as long as they understand that all is ultimately subsidiary to the One Creator GOD.

I don't deny lesser beings as we are all less than the creative force that ultimately formed us with such potential and uniqueness. I most certainly don't deny negative forces as they are observable on nearly all levels. Again, having an in-depth knowledge of such based on personal experience and observation is in no way synonymous with following such.

Discernment is needed on an inner level, and through it one would have the capacity to discern on an outer level. No, it's not word salad. You must be capable of utter truthfulness with self before you can even attempt to rightly discern ancient scriptures or the motives of others.

I have yet to find a faith that denies a singular creative force. Even Buddhism and Hinduism ultimately acknowledge such. Again from my personal experience, it isn't really denying that other forces or entities exist, but understanding which is beneficial. And beneficial would of course refer to the benefit of others in general as opposed to self.

I guess I sorta narrow it all down to a duality. Yet at the same time believe wholly that all happens for a reason. Negativity is for us to learn from as is repeated history.

You mentioned feelings. And yes the selfless conscience is based in emotion, as emotional response, much like pain receptors or nerves are a system in place to direct us in a manner which is most beneficial to continued existence. People act like you must either think, or be emotional. This is flawed. They work together much better than separate, much more efficient. I one has no emotional tie to a thing whatsoever then that thing is literally of no significance to that person.
It indeed is a value system.
Again separation, or detachment from personal want is needed here so that bias is minimized.

Sorry it's so vague. Try asking singular questions, and specify what you want me to go into detail about and I will try.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You seem to be actively searching for what I refute as GOD or of GOD. You seem to want me to denounce polytheism for whatever reason. So I will explain it as best I can from my perspective. To say that GOD is the only force at play is false to me. It is one thing to acknowledge such, and another wholly to worship it. One can think that there are multiple gods or forces or demons or angels or saints or spirits, dragons, ghosts, entities...whatever, as long as they understand that all is ultimately subsidiary to the One Creator GOD.

Word sallad. You've just put pretty words next to each other.

I suspect this is, what I like to refer to as, "potentially deep". This is a person having heard or read something written by somebody truly deep and wise but misunderstood what is said fundamentally and just coming away with "powerful" words which by themselves are meaningless.

I don't want you to do anything. I'm just asking questions in order to ferret out what it is you truly believe... if anything.

If god is a metaphor (ie doesn't really exist) then all the worlds holy texts work just fine. But as soon as you swerve into actual belief, as in there's a physical manifestation of God as some sort of agent that is active in the world, then suddenly your arguments are weak. A real God can be tested for. We should be able to set some sort of experiment to prove Gods existence. God goes from being a philosophical tool to becoming a scientific hypothesis.

I don't deny lesser beings as we are all less than the creative force that ultimately formed us with such potential and uniqueness. I most certainly don't deny negative forces as they are observable on nearly all levels. Again, having an in-depth knowledge of such based on personal experience and observation is in no way synonymous with following such.

Discernment is needed on an inner level, and through it one would have the capacity to discern on an outer level. No, it's not word salad. You must be capable of utter truthfulness with self before you can even attempt to rightly discern ancient scriptures or the motives of others.

So basically you have to have experienced to truly know? And as long as I deny this force I cannot see? Only a believer can see the world as it really is?

I have yet to find a faith that denies a singular creative force. Even Buddhism and Hinduism ultimately acknowledge such. Again from my personal experience, it isn't really denying that other forces or entities exist, but understanding which is beneficial. And beneficial would of course refer to the benefit of others in general as opposed to self.

Are you aware that the expression "creative force" is vague? As long as it is vague it doesn't mean anything, and as long as it is devoid of meaning it doesn't matter who or what denies it or doesn't? If you're talking about a force that actually created the world then stop reading holy books. Read books on science. Holy books can't tell you about science. Sacred religious texts can only tell you about the human condition and about psychological healing.

I guess I sorta narrow it all down to a duality. Yet at the same time believe wholly that all happens for a reason. Negativity is for us to learn from as is repeated history.

So children dying of preventable diseases happens for a reason? Birth defects... for a reason? Random and weird events... for a reason? My sister recently died. The most beautiful selfless, intelligent and sweet woman ever. Never hurt a fly. Just died randomly after a prolonged and painful sickness for no apparent reason at all. Died for a reason? Are you fucking kidding me? She even led a healthy lifestyle. Died surrounded by people who love her. I hate that belief. That's probably the most cruel belief out there. It's a belief of somebody, not only on the run from reality, but a person utterly and completely devoid of emotions. Maybe something for you to work on? You know... getting some feelings.

You mentioned feelings. And yes the selfless conscience is based in emotion, as emotional response, much like pain receptors or nerves are a system in place to direct us in a manner which is most beneficial to continued existence. People act like you must either think, or be emotional. This is flawed. They work together much better than separate, much more efficient. I one has no emotional tie to a thing whatsoever then that thing is literally of no significance to that person.
It indeed is a value system.
Again separation, or detachment from personal want is needed here so that bias is minimized.

I think I understand. It sounds to me like you're on the run from your own emotions. I want to have emotional ties to people. I think emotions are good to have and good to express. I think it's important to both have distance and ability to feel. To be able to be in both mental states simultaneously.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Word sallad. You've just put pretty words next to each other.

I suspect this is, what I like to refer to as, "potentially deep". This is a person having heard or read something written by somebody truly deep and wise but misunderstood what is said fundamentally and just coming away with "powerful" words which by themselves are meaningless.

I don't want you to do anything. I'm just asking questions in order to ferret out what it is you truly believe... if anything.

If god is a metaphor (ie doesn't really exist) then all the worlds holy texts work just fine. But as soon as you swerve into actual belief, as in there's a physical manifestation of God as some sort of agent that is active in the world, then suddenly your arguments are weak. A real God can be tested for. We should be able to set some sort of experiment to prove Gods existence. God goes from being a philosophical tool to becoming a scientific hypothesis.

I don't deny lesser beings as we are all less than the creative force that ultimately formed us with such potential and uniqueness. I most certainly don't deny negative forces as they are observable on nearly all levels. Again, having an in-depth knowledge of such based on personal experience and observation is in no way synonymous with following such.

Discernment is needed on an inner level, and through it one would have the capacity to discern on an outer level. No, it's not word salad. You must be capable of utter truthfulness with self before you can even attempt to rightly discern ancient scriptures or the motives of others.

So basically you have to have experienced to truly know? And as long as I deny this force I cannot see? Only a believer can see the world as it really is?

I have yet to find a faith that denies a singular creative force. Even Buddhism and Hinduism ultimately acknowledge such. Again from my personal experience, it isn't really denying that other forces or entities exist, but understanding which is beneficial. And beneficial would of course refer to the benefit of others in general as opposed to self.

Are you aware that the expression "creative force" is vague? As long as it is vague it doesn't mean anything, and as long as it is devoid of meaning it doesn't matter who or what denies it or doesn't? If you're talking about a force that actually created the world then stop reading holy books. Read books on science. Holy books can't tell you about science. Sacred religious texts can only tell you about the human condition and about psychological healing.

I guess I sorta narrow it all down to a duality. Yet at the same time believe wholly that all happens for a reason. Negativity is for us to learn from as is repeated history.

So children dying of preventable diseases happens for a reason? Birth defects... for a reason? Random and weird events... for a reason? My sister recently died. The most beautiful selfless, intelligent and sweet woman ever. Never hurt a fly. Just died randomly after a prolonged and painful sickness for no apparent reason at all. Died for a reason? Are you fucking kidding me? She even led a healthy lifestyle. Died surrounded by people who love her. I hate that belief. That's probably the most cruel belief out there. It's a belief of somebody, not only on the run from reality, but a person utterly and completely devoid of emotions. Maybe something for you to work on? You know... getting some feelings.

You mentioned feelings. And yes the selfless conscience is based in emotion, as emotional response, much like pain receptors or nerves are a system in place to direct us in a manner which is most beneficial to continued existence. People act like you must either think, or be emotional. This is flawed. They work together much better than separate, much more efficient. I one has no emotional tie to a thing whatsoever then that thing is literally of no significance to that person.
It indeed is a value system.
Again separation, or detachment from personal want is needed here so that bias is minimized.

I think I understand. It sounds to me like you're on the run from your own emotions. I want to have emotional ties to people. I think emotions are good to have and good to express. I think it's important to both have distance and ability to feel. To be able to be in both mental states simultaneously.

No apparently you don't understand much of anything I say. You make absolutely no sense and are all over the map attempting to debunk my Faith. Good luck with that. If your sister died then she's dead. It's part of life.

I'm not running from anything at all. I just got through talking about the significance of emotion not the lack of it.

Collect your thoughts and try speaking without bs passive aggressive wishy washy beat around the bush nonsense. Or continue being inconsistent. Your right either way. If you don't believe everything happens for a reason then that's your business.

Hey, I've got an idea; why don't we get. Back on topic instead of you prodding me for information just to attempt to discredit me somehow.

You really have no clue what you are talking about and it is very clear. You may have read some scripture but you sure didn't comprehend much of it. It's a waste of time and energy to read things with preconceived bias.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's a waste of time and energy to read things with preconceived bias.

LOL

 

[Underseer]

I've read both the Bible and the Quran (several translations). When comparing them I used a variety of metrics and I couldn't find any relative difference. They might as well have been the same book.

As it turns out, it wasn't just my opinion. Here's a textual analysis where simple word counts and expressions have simply been tallied.


http://odintext.com/blog/textanalysisbible2of3/

Whatever argument you have for relative moral merits of Islam vs Christianity you've got to find that difference some place else than their religious texts.

The more you know

Of course there are differences.

For example, in the Bible, Jesus caused an earthquake that mysteriously is not mentioned any place other than the Bible. The Koran on the other hand insists that Mohammed split the moon in two, but we can't find any evidence of that either. Also, Mohammed flew a winged horse into outer space and discouraged the killing of "trees with green leaves" while Jesus merrily committed tree-icide during a bizarre tantrum over figs. See? There are differences!

Oh, I forgot to mention that when Jesus flew into outer space, he didn't need a flying horse at all. He flew into outer space using his own superpowers. That's another critical difference between Christianity and Islam.

 

[DBT]

None of these things actually test whether a belief is justified, that it does indeed have a sound foundation in evidence. Scripture may be unreliable, tradition reinforced through repetition yet never tested, and conscience shaped and formed by desire or fear.

Faith itself being a belief held without verifiable, testable, falsifiable evidence. Which makes faith a poor tool for sorting fact from fiction.


"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)

I didn't list it to justify it to a third party. Ones Faith, is there own. I cannot, and will not claim to have the capacity to make any a believer. That is between the individual and God.

There lies the problem.

Had you taken the trouble to understand what I said you'd know that Hindus also have their 'own faith' as do Jews, Christians, Muslims and practically everyone else that forms a conviction of truth on the basis of faith.

So using basic logic, if what a Christian believes is true then Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and the rest are wrong. They cannot all be right.

If Judaism is true, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and the rest are wrong.

Given the collection of incompatible, contradictory faith based beliefs, they are probably all wrong.

The nature of faith is that it cannot be verified, tested or falsified, the person believes for personal reasons regardless of an absence of evidence to justify their belief, their faith.


Of course, each and every one, the Hindu, the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim will claim justification, will say 'yes, I do have evidence' but upon examination it is not verifiable evidence at all, only affirmation through scripture or subjective experience.

But no matter how energetically each believer asserts the truth of their own beliefs, logically, faith is contradictory, they cannot all be right. They, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc, cannot all be right.

If one is right, the rest must be wrong...or all of them are wrong.

That is why faith is an extremely poor tool for sorting fact from fiction.

 

[popsthebuilder]

DBT,

Why are different cultures a problem? Secondly; why conform your personal opinion to the flawed preconceptions of people whom you think are wrong in the first place.

Brahman, Allah, Yahweh, and God the Father are all simply different names given to the same One Creator GOD. You mention contradiction based on the different faiths but neglect to even attempt to list any. I'll make it easy for you; through their scriptures, they don't contradict one another. Of course this excludes any later additions to said scripture. Often the greed and fear of man are cause for division and atrocity, however based on the core scriptures of the faiths you mentioned, neither fear not greed has any place whatsoever in Faith.

You bring up a good point, and did so in a leveled mutually respectful way. Thank you for that. I really do look forward to discussing this further with you, and hope that you wish to delve into this direction of thought further.

With humility,
Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

DBT,
Brahman, Allah, Yahweh, and God the Father are all simply different names given to the same One Creator GOD. You mention contradiction based on the different faiths but neglect to even attempt to list any.

The concept of Brahma is nothing like Yahweh the God of the bible. Jews reject Jesus as the prophesied Messiah, Muslims claim that Jesus is a prophet, Christians claim that he is the Son of God, and so on. These are contradictions. They can't all be true. Either one is right and the rest are wrong or all are wrong.

This has nothing to do with 'culture' or cultural diversity, but what is true and what is false.

In this regard, faith has an extremely poor record of sorting fact from fiction.

That is the point you dance around.