Why Don't People Believe?

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

hue-man,

My brother-in-law is a psychologist, but no talent for it runs in my veins. So, I can't challenge you as practitioner to practitioner. But I do have another clarification question.

I could take your description to say that "belief" is a random variation of the children about the parental mean. Would that be your conclusion, or do you think the change occurs due to free will?

I'm saying that a person's beliefs are influenced by both nature and nurture, but that nurture is the more influential factor. The influence of the parents and the peers matter equally throughout a child's development. Parents are more influential in the early childhood. Peers are more influential in late childhood. I'm not so sure where I stand on free will as of yet, but we can say that personal desire or volition ultimately decides what the person does or does not choose to believe in.

2 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

I'm saying that a person's beliefs are influenced by both nature and nurture, but that nurture is the more influential factor. The influence of the parents and the peers matter equally throughout a child's development. Parents are more influential in the early childhood. Peers are more influential in late childhood. I'm not so sure where I stand on free will as of yet, but we can say that personal desire or volition ultimately decides what the person does or does not choose to believe in.

The nature versus nurture argument is traditionally employed when humanity is assumed to be tabula rasa at birth. I agree a person's beliefs are influenced by both nature and nurture, with the clarification that in arguments when humanity is proposed to have a nature, the nurture is simply the organizational function of nature. In the assumption that the nature of humanity is to form an operational living relationship with the unknownable (after death, unseen creatures etc...) the nurture i.e. religion is that nature's organizational function as it interelates with environment. Like the the human need to create art or the human'snatural acquisition of language, the actual form religion takes is arbitrary. Its only necessity is to satify the original natural need. This is not to say that nurture is not innovative, just not inherently creative.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil;58088 wrote:

... revealing how little [LWSleeth] knows about atheism or agnosticism. For those who haven't looked, atheists don't deny the possibility - they just don't believe.

EXCEPT . . . the quote of mine you offered said nothing about denying the possibility. If you are going to refute me, make sure that you represent me properly. I said:

Quote:

. . . in this thread I will point out what I see as seven major reasoning flaws atheists and agnostics often make in reasoning against the possibility of God (emphasis added)

As you can see, I did NOT mention denying anything, and I also did not say ALL atheists or ALL agnostics. I simply said that the arguments I was going to list are "often" asserted. Now, how you can infer how "little know about atheism or agnosticism" from that I'd like to hear.

[QUOTE=Khethil;58088]For those who haven't looked, atheists don't deny the possibility - they just don't believe. Agnostics don't deny the possibility, they just don't claim to know. This is a popular misconception; that if one doesn't believe, then they must deny the possibility.[/QUOTE]

That's hilarious. I've debated atheists for years, and a great many (most) definitely do deny the possibility. You can't discuss real, living atheists in terms of some ideal definition. In fact, if you insist, I will show you atheists at this site who effectively or outright deny the existence of God. Most "believers," from theists and atheists to political conservatives and liberals, already have made up their minds. Believers' claims of still being open is very often merely a debating tactic used to make themselves and their opinions appear unbiased.

[QUOTE=Khethil;58088]Its yet another example of two-dimensional thinking. Among people, theology systems are complex and shaded - not "there must be" -or- "there isn't" black and white.[/QUOTE]

Two dimensional thinking eh? If you'd read the OP of my thread you would have seen I had nothing to say about theology systems. I was talking about reasoning arguments, and why they are fallacious.

But if you asked me my opinion on spirituality, I'd say it doesn't matter what people think, believe, or theorize if it isn't based on personal experience. That common phrase about (experientially-unsupported) opinions resembling a certain portion of human anatomy is one I totally agree with.

Only people who experience what they speak about have an inkling of credibility, IMHO.

0 Replies

@Resha Caner,

Essentially the subject matter of the thread is dependent on the Nature vs. Nurture argument, and dependent as well on what this perceived challenge ("vs.") is between the two notions.

Do we have Nature nurture and also do we have Nurture act as nature; that is to say, whether we take a belief as something natural in itself, or if we take belief as something which is neither for or against nature, but rather the subject of the belief itself giving the capacity to actually transcend this Nature and create a second nature itself which is neither nature nor nurture, but something Divine (sic.)

Expanding this argument further, the question of this thread, which I understand to be "Why one does not believe" (or the converse for that matter) cannot be answered across the lines here; or in other words, it is not plausible for one to give a sound explanation, a 'why' - and 'why' meaning here not a demonstration but rather a sensible explanation which will resonate within the discourse of the (non)-believer. The reason is quite simple though, were it not a 'logical'. The reason not to believe is that there is simply nothing to believe in. However, this subject of belief itself, i.e. the actual process and imagery; the notions and implications of the belief itself, do not exist. This does not, however, imply that God (or יהוה, take your pick) does not exist, but rather the appeal for belief, or the reach of God himself; the element of God within the world is not felt at the subjective level. What this means, however, is necessarily only understood to those that actually do believe; as the alleged and necessitated feeling itself, the cause for belief, is not a logical and rational process but a sensory and perhaps even a transcendental one.

However the problem with this explanation is that it depends on logical and psychical states and not on given axioms or hypotheses in respect to the Target of the belief. By Target, I mean to negate the aforementioned definition of belief which actually necessitates a disbelief and a denial in the object of the belief, as the object here is external and secondary in the sense of it being a Person believing in Something but the belief itself is the state of union between these two object. Thus on the one hand you have this disparity between the Believer and the Object of belief, and then on the other hand you have the union (which again necessarily negates this, since the union presupposes the object not being separate but engulfing and all-encompassing; whereas the act of belief itself implies things that were separate prior to this union - and will be when this belief is not felt, which means any reference to this object as being different, i.e. as being external to the self). On the other hand it is seen that the nature of this very belief precludes this disparity; hence for the religious and for the believing, there must be various states of belief and disbelief, of active belief and inactive belief, of faith, trust etc. - all of which are often defined in religious texts as actually corresponding roughly to the explanations and reasonings mentioned above.

However it is now understood as to the reason of the non-belief, both in terms of the religious and the irreligious, despite the fact that the actual reasoning e.g. the Divine perspective is entirely antithetical within both but can still be reconciled with the nature vs. nurture argument as per my first paragraph. For the Religious there is the nurture which transcends and compliments nature. This is of course not natural and does not abide by the laws of nature and is therefore not natural and does not conform to it. But such a perspective is only taken from a nature-centric point of view. However to the religious the Nature itself is only secondary and is the medium of this dualistic state of belief and disbelief hence the non-belief becomes as unnatural to the religious as the unnatural becomes irreligious to the irreligious; a notion which negates personal experience and radiates an aura of the abnormal (in the derogatory sense).

In the end we are left with the question of "Why?"; as the suffixes are neutralized in opposition and equivalence to each other. However, this "Why" duplicates itself into a "How", a "logical" demonstration for the non-believers, and a simple silent expression of astonishment on the part of the believers, equivalent to the actual belief itself.

1 Reply

@Baal,

Baal:
That was the fanciest way to say 'people believe or don't because they do or don't' that could be concieved.

cheers,
Russ

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

Your comments and notes are appreciated, Resha Caner. Let me first say that your understanding (deduction) is correct--I do reason that the god-models which humans have published, they created.

As for the matter of not believing in any particular god-model, some aspects and factors have been discussed in above posts. Some, I would posit, are not nearly as pertinent as others, and thus we might readily discover that priorities would come into play. I would like to continue on this line of though, as it is applicable towards the YHWH model (in particular, the Jewish model) with the aim in mind to elucidate one point in the understand of why some don't believe in the external reality of that god-model.

Baal wrote:

. . . God (or YHWH, take your pick)

(transliteration mine)

While we could admit to a choice, it is clearly more accurate and less confusing to acknowledge and use the English "God" (as opposed to 'god') in the exact sense of YHWH--both are being used as proper nouns (the exact prescribed personal name).

When, in Christendom at large, we ask someone if they believe in "God," we are (unless otherwise determined by contextual setting) asking if that person believes in either the YHWH model, or the YHWH/Christian trinity model. If we wanted to ask if they believed in Krishina, we'd use that proper noun to distinguish the model. If asking if they believed in the Muslem model, we'd probably use "Allah;" the Egyptian model "Ra" and that trinity; the Cannanite model "Baal" or "Dagon" or another, and so on and so forth.

Therefore, Resha Caner, it is clear enough that we will find clear and distinct enough markers which separate the description/prescriptions of these several gods. We have photos and personally written works and a number of accurate enough comtempory third-person, historical accounts to know of and believe enough of what is reported to assert that Abraham Lincoln was an external reality; a human male of a certain office, stature, personality and intellect.

We do not firstly have such data for, say, YHWH (or the others). We only have the data base which describes/prescribes YHWH from which to build a mental image (knowledge) upon which to attach the emotional state of belief on.

For example, Resha Caner, you seem to have ascribed a masculine sex to YHWH. We could ask 'why?' and would soon enough see that it is because the original describers/prescribers had done so. You have asserted that YHWH is omnipresent. We could ask where the information for that conclusion is, and it is very clear that eventually it would have to lead to a reference in the database which describes/prescribes that model--the Bible (because we will not find the exact model in the Quran, nor in the Bhavadagita, Nihongi, nor the myths of the Hopi Native Americans).

It is most obvious that we first have to have information to believe in a being or state. Further more, if said being or state is asserted to be immaterial (of a non-physical nature) we will naturally have to circumstantial evidence to support any such claims--as we can only see what is physical or of material activity.

It is also most true, and should always be kept in mind, that the world level of empirical knowledge of thousands of years ago, or areas of much less education even today, does not have the room nor the base upon which to reason as such; for the most part. Thus the authors of the Torah would have had room for fanciful creation just as that (those?) of the tales of Gilsmesh (sp?) had had.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

I'm saying that a person's beliefs are influenced by both nature and nurture, but that nurture is the more influential factor. The influence of the parents and the peers matter equally throughout a child's development. Parents are more influential in the early childhood. Peers are more influential in late childhood. I'm not so sure where I stand on free will as of yet, but we can say that personal desire or volition ultimately decides what the person does or does not choose to believe in.

I guess we need to have a free will discussion, then. Without it, I don't see much difference between nature and nurture. Your view would make them both physical processes. That puts you on a slippery slope. If they are just physical processes, we can control them. We should optimize them. The next step is social darwinism, and then eugenics.

How do you avoid that slide?

---------- Post added at 09:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------

KaseiJin wrote:

we will find clear and distinct enough markers which separate the description/prescriptions of these several gods. We have photos and personally written works and a number of accurate enough comtempory third-person, historical accounts to know of and believe enough of what is reported to assert that Abraham Lincoln was an external reality; a human male of a certain office, stature, personality and intellect.

There is always some level of doubt - even in historical evidence. I picked Lincoln for a reason, and it is fortuitous that you mentioned photographic evidence. There are two photos of Lincoln that are in dispute as to whether they are actually Lincoln. Given that, one could try to build a case that Lincoln did not exist - that there is no Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. In Lincoln's case, I doubt anyone would succeed, but people do try.

As you reach further back into history, the case becomes easier. For example, there is no photographic evidence for the existence of Washington. The evidence gets even thinner for Julius Caesar. And, by the time you get to the most ancient of Pharohs in Egypt, some historians move to the other side and claim they are only myth. I've spoken in other threads of the historical spectrum that moves from "historical" to "heroic" to "mythical". The same debate occurs over the historicity of Jesus.

KaseiJin wrote:

We do not firstly have such data for, say, YHWH (or the others). We only have the data base which describes/prescribes YHWH from which to build a mental image (knowledge) upon which to attach the emotional state of belief on.

This is not correct. We do have evidence - the Bible. This is a common misunderstanding about how history works. For one of my history classes I wrote a paper on the flu pandemic of WWI. In that paper, I used poetry and a fictional book by Thomas Wolfe (Look Homeward Angel). It is evidence of attitudes of the period toward influenza. I needed corroborating evidence to build the strength of my case, but those fictional works are still evidence. In the same way, the Bible is evidence, but it is sometimes uncorroborated.

As archaeological evidence continues to accumulate, the Bible is corroborated more and more. Some geologists have even excavated the supposed sites of Sodom and Gomorrah. If I recall, they have found evidence of a cataclysmic event. What's funny is that secular geologists claim the evidence refutes the Sodom story, while religious geologists claim the evidence supports the Sodom story. That is the question I'm driving at: when people are looking at the same thing, why do they draw different conclusions?

I realize that some faith traditions see their sacred writings as only allegorical. Some try to do the same with the Bible, but the claim has always been that the Bible is also historical. And, accumulating evidence continues to support that.

KaseiJin wrote:

For example, Resha Caner, you seem to have ascribed a masculine sex to YHWH.

That is more an anomaly of language than anything else. Jesus was obviously male, and so the masculine article is very appropriate in that case. When referring to the spiritual manifestations of God, however, English is a bit too vague. In the Hebrew, I believe articles imply a "royal we". Some people use "it" to refer to the Holy Spirit, and some people use "she" to emphasize that God embodies both feminine and masculine (in God, the Father) properties.

2 Replies

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

I guess we need to have a free will discussion, then. Without it, I don't see much difference between nature and nurture. Your view would make them both physical processes. That puts you on a slippery slope. If they are just physical processes, we can control them. We should optimize them. The next step is social darwinism, and then eugenics.

How do you avoid that slide?

Can you first define free will, as you see the concept?

1 Reply

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

Can you first define free will, as you see the concept?

I can try. My concise definition would be something like: the ability to create an abstract version of a situation, perceive the choices implied by the abstraction, and then make a choice and attempt to implement it.

The "classes" of objects then, go from inanimate to animate to sentient.

The example I often use to explain that goes as follows. Imagine a hill. The inanimate object would be a ball. Placed on the hill, it will always roll down hill. We can imagine a change in the physics, such as a strong gust of wind that blows uphill, but short of that, the ball will always roll down hill.

Now, however, take a dog. The dog is "animate". It can walk up hill or down hill without the help of wind. But what would motivate it to walk uphill? Suppose I place food at the top of hill. Instinct now motivates (or animates) the dog to walk uphill. (In the case of my dog, it would mistake the dirt for food and walk uphill to eat dirt, but that's another issue - stupid dogs).

One could argue that the food constitutes a change in physics, but there is an important distinction. Introducing wind to move the ball uphill is a change in mechanics. Adding food to animate the dog does not force the dog to walk uphill. If it is full from another meal, or if it is tired from a fun day of romping about the field, the dog may choose to delay its trek uphill until conditions are more suitable. The ball makes no such choice.

But adding a human reveals yet another behavior. The human abstracts further possibiities. The human wants to know how and why food was placed at the top of the hill. Will that food source continue into the future? Is it possible the "placer of the food" could be convinced to place it at the bottom of the hill so the walk is easier? Would it be more advisable to cultivate a field and grow food so one is independent of the "placer of the food"? There is no indication that the dog makes these considerations, and it is these abstractions that become the linch pin to free will and that distinguish it from instinct.

I have even thought a bit on what physical aspect could give humans the ability to make these abstractions. I haven't gotten far with it, but I have studied the "decision science" used by computer programmers. I think they still lack an important ingredient, namely the problem raised by Godel incompleteness. In order to make an abstraction of 4 dimensions (3 physical + 1 temporal), the mind must have at least one extra dimension. This allows people to step outside the system they are studying. So, we are not bound to the limitations of traditional mechanics.

1 Reply

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

I can try. My concise definition would be something like: the ability to create an abstract version of a situation, perceive the choices implied by the abstraction, and then make a choice and attempt to implement it.

The "classes" of objects then, go from inanimate to animate to sentient.

The example I often use to explain that goes as follows. Imagine a hill. The inanimate object would be a ball. Placed on the hill, it will always roll down hill. We can imagine a change in the physics, such as a strong gust of wind that blows uphill, but short of that, the ball will always roll down hill.

Now, however, take a dog. The dog is "animate". It can walk up hill or down hill without the help of wind. But what would motivate it to walk uphill? Suppose I place food at the top of hill. Instinct now motivates (or animates) the dog to walk uphill. (In the case of my dog, it would mistake the dirt for food and walk uphill to eat dirt, but that's another issue - stupid dogs).

One could argue that the food constitutes a change in physics, but there is an important distinction. Introducing wind to move the ball uphill is a change in mechanics. Adding food to animate the dog does not force the dog to walk uphill. If it is full from another meal, or if it is tired from a fun day of romping about the field, the dog may choose to delay its trek uphill until conditions are more suitable. The ball makes no such choice.

But adding a human reveals yet another behavior. The human abstracts further possibiities. The human wants to know how and why food was placed at the top of the hill. Will that food source continue into the future? Is it possible the "placer of the food" could be convinced to place it at the bottom of the hill so the walk is easier? Would it be more advisable to cultivate a field and grow food so one is independent of the "placer of the food"? There is no indication that the dog makes these considerations, and it is these abstractions that become the linch pin to free will and that distinguish it from instinct.

I have even thought a bit on what physical aspect could give humans the ability to make these abstractions. I haven't gotten far with it, but I have studied the "decision science" used by computer programmers. I think they still lack an important ingredient, namely the problem raised by Godel incompleteness. In order to make an abstraction of 4 dimensions (3 physical + 1 temporal), the mind must have at least one extra dimension. This allows people to step outside the system they are studying. So, we are not bound to the limitations of traditional mechanics.

But is not the human being's ability to further consider choices and abstractions the instinct of the human animal? The human animal's ability for abstract reasoning is second to none, but is that not the instinct or nature of the human animal? I'm not saying this as an argument against free will - just some food for thought.

What if it's true that the human brain makes decisions before the person is conscious of the decision being made?

1 Reply

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

But is not the human being's ability to further consider choices and abstractions the instinct of the human animal? The human animal's ability for abstract reasoning is second to none, but is that not the instinct or nature of the human animal? I'm not saying this as an argument against free will - just some food for thought.

I won't pretend I've answered the free will question. But I really like this model. So many things fall elegantly into place.

Given what I've said so far, my answer would be: it depends. In other words, the degree of free will would vary from person to person. It is not a binary yes/no answer, but a spectrum. Before I say too much about that, I'd have to ask what you know of the Godel Incompleteness Theorum - not necessarily the details of the math, but the concept. There is a nice, readable summary by Ernest Nagel and James Newman called "Godel's Proof".

My brief summary would be that it is impossible to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for any system. An even simpler version is that Godel mathematically proved the "liar's paradox", which is stated as "This sentence is false." But, this only applies if one remains within the system. If you can step outside the system, the rules change. I'm not saying I'm making an explicit application of Godel. Instead, I'm trying to draw a parallel analogy. I'm saying that anything that is completely within our 4-dimensional world cannot have free will. But if one can step outside the 4D world, one can have free will within the 4D world.

Suppose that means "mind" is a 5th dimension through it's ability to be abstract. Though it has free will in 4D, it would be restricted to the "instincts" available to 5D. The mind is finite, and that has its limitations. But, maybe someone gains a 6D ability, and surpasses the 5D limititations. You can see how that could go on ad infinitum.

And, yeah (sigh), it might sound a little nutty. But I like it.

1 Reply

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

I won't pretend I've answered the free will question. But I really like this model. So many things fall elegantly into place.

Given what I've said so far, my answer would be: it depends. In other words, the degree of free will would vary from person to person. It is not a binary yes/no answer, but a spectrum. Before I say too much about that, I'd have to ask what you know of the Godel Incompleteness Theorum - not necessarily the details of the math, but the concept. There is a nice, readable summary by Ernest Nagel and James Newman called "Godel's Proof".

My brief summary would be that it is impossible to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for any system. An even simpler version is that Godel mathematically proved the "liar's paradox", which is stated as "This sentence is false." But, this only applies if one remains within the system. If you can step outside the system, the rules change. I'm not saying I'm making an explicit application of Godel. Instead, I'm trying to draw a parallel analogy. I'm saying that anything that is completely within our 4-dimensional world cannot have free will. But if one can step outside the 4D world, one can have free will within the 4D world.

Suppose that means "mind" is a 5th dimension through it's ability to be abstract. Though it has free will in 4D, it would be restricted to the "instincts" available to 5D. The mind is finite, and that has its limitations. But, maybe someone gains a 6D ability, and surpasses the 5D limititations. You can see how that could go on ad infinitum.

And, yeah (sigh), it might sound a little nutty. But I like it.

OK, I have to be honest here. That doesn't sound a little nutty. That sounds really nutty. You may like the idea, but we can't find the truth if we are worried about appeasement alone.

The mind is a holistic word that we use for the functions of the brain. The brain is 3 dimensional (or 4 dimensional?). Let's hypothetically say that the mind can surpass the 3 dimensions (or 4 dimensions). How and in what way could that explain the conscious control over decision making?

I will need to know if we have conscious control over the decisions we make until I can come to a conclusion on free will. If we do not have conscious control over our decisions, then the concept will have to be logically reconceptualized, or discarded.

1 Reply

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

OK, I have to be honest here. That doesn't sound a little nutty. That sounds really nutty. You may like the idea, but we can't find the truth if we are worried about appeasement alone.

The mind is a holistic word that we use for the functions of the brain. The brain is 3 dimensional (or 4 dimensional?). Let's hypothetically say that the mind can surpass the 3 dimensions (or 4 dimensions). How and in what way could that explain the conscious control over decision making?

I will need to know if we have conscious control over the decisions we make until I can come to a conclusion on free will. If we do not have conscious control over our decisions, then the concept will have to be logically reconceptualized, or discarded.

Agreed. And the consequence of extrapolating what I said is that we can't know if we have conscious control over our decisions. The only way we could "know" is if God told us. My intuition says we do. But that's all I've got to offer ... unless you'd like to buy a

Resha Caner wrote:

turbo encabulator

1 Reply

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

Agreed. And the consequence of extrapolating what I said is that we can't know if we have conscious control over our decisions. The only way we could "know" is if God told us. My intuition says we do. But that's all I've got to offer ... unless you'd like to buy a

Well I know that God wont tell us because God doesn't exist. We can know, or at least have an idea, that we have conscious control over our decisions with the use of neuroscience. Research into the conscious control over decisions is being done right now. I have to look into the recent studies and see if they've come to a conclusion yet.

1 Reply

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

There is always some level of doubt - even in historical evidence. . .

Yes, I do not see how anyone could deny the truth of what you are saying about how the validity (or strength of factuality) weakens as we go back into past history. I mean, I recall with a much higher degree of accuracy how I spent my evening on April 12th, than on March 12th.

Also, as you have well noted, there will always be the conspiricy mongers out there, the urban myth-like talltale spinners--for that reason we must always make every effort to investigate as fully as possible, and reach for as reasonable a understanding as possible.

Resha Caner wrote:

. We do have evidence - the Bible. This is a common misunderstanding about how history works. . .

It appears that you have missed some detail, and I'll take responsibility for that--since I didn't spell it out quite so clearly. When I had used the term "data base" in the sentence, "We only have the data base which describes/prescribes YHWH . . .," I had been pointing to the Jewish religious belief-system's writings (especially) and then to later Christian writings--some of these two groups of which became what we today call the Bible. This collection of writings in aggregate--both canonical and non-canonical--amount to a database.

The point I had been making, spelled out a little more, would be of a flow of though along the lines of the following:

[INDENT]One would be very, very hard pressed (to put it most mildly) to argue that in the year 100 CE, we would have been able to find a person living on the earth who would have been able to describe/prescribe the specific details in aggregate which amount to the god-model which is the present Islamic model--Allah (which also is actually is misuse of the word...it too basically means 'god'). It would be most true that once that database had been composed, we would have knowledge of that specific described/prescribed being.

Likewise, in the year 100 BCE, we would not have been able to find a person living on earth who would have been able to describe/prescribe the specific details in aggregate which amount to the god-model held by post second century mainstay Christianity.

In the year 2000 BCE, we would not have been able to find a person living on earth who would have been able to describe/prescribe the specific details in aggregate which amount to the god-model held by post Second Temple Period mainstay Judaism.

The reason for this far more correct and demonstratable understanding is that the data bases had not come into existence at the time mentioned in each example above. There is not a single person living on the world today who has not been born into a state wherein they have to potential to recieve information from or about the closed edition of collected writings which is the Bible of today. This is clearly not the case for the world of even 50 CE !
[/INDENT]Of course the Hebrew writings have a lot of verifiable historical content in them, as do the first century Christian writings, nevertheless those works have verifiable mishistory as well. By 'mishistory,' I mean history which can be verified as not having been actual external history. By 'external,' I mean that which is external to one's brain--a real event or occurance outside of mere imagination or misremembering.

It is most clear, therefore, that the basline reason as to why you had applied a masculine sex to YHWH is because the original describers/prescribers did. Hebrew is quite clear on sexual declaration. The Hebrew 'elohim' is more likely simply plural of majesty, but may have other imports in one line of argument in two places--both in Genesis.

Any degree of linguistical usage today, will never replace the more (and most) accurately understood intention to communicate by the original hand of all ancient texts. No author of any Jewish based (Christian included) text would have ever held the concept of YHWY as being anything other than a male being--it was very much a patriarchial social structure in which that god-model had been composed.

As archaeological evidence continues to accumulate, the Bible is corroborated more and more. Some geologists have even excavated the supposed sites of Sodom and Gomorrah. If I recall, they have found evidence of a cataclysmic event. What's funny is that secular geologists claim the evidence refutes the Sodom story, while religious geologists claim the evidence supports the Sodom story. That is the question I'm driving at: when people are looking at the same thing, why do they draw different conclusions?

I realize that some faith traditions see their sacred writings as only allegorical. Some try to do the same with the Bible, but the claim has always been that the Bible is also historical. And, accumulating evidence continues to support that.

What we again arrive at, is the much more secure understanding that information will have had to have been recieved to know of something so as to believe in it. Where did the authors of the several textual lines of Genesis, for example, recieve their information from? They describe/prescribe a god-model--YHWH--which can be tested, has been tested (by time especially), and which has not fairly enough held up to that testing. This fact is enough to be able to set aside the information as being misinformation, is it not?

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

Well I know that God wont tell us because God doesn't exist.

I guess we have both stated our beliefs.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ----------

KaseiJin wrote:

They describe/prescribe a god-model--YHWH--which can be tested, has been tested (by time especially), and which has not fairly enough held up to that testing. This fact is enough to be able to set aside the information as being misinformation, is it not?

This will take us off track, but if you'd like to air where you think the Bible falls short, let's get it out of the way.

0 Replies

@Resha Caner,

How does the Bible fall short??? How about as the proverbial mixed message... Any thing you want to take from the Bible can be justified...It always bets on the winners, so the poor little Jews, David against Goliath always used their heads, and kept their heads, and no matter how often the stuck it in the Philistines, killing all they could with the jawbone of an ass, tieing firbrands onto the tails of foxes and letting them run in the corn, and giving god the credit for all... I mean, if any people wanted to profess perfect peace with all nations and at the same time set their criminals loose on another population; is there not justification???

0 Replies

@Resha Caner,

I will chime right in with you, Resha Caner; if we were to go into 'why the Bible falls short' on this thread, it would be far too much embedding to allow most to see through it all. Of course, this could exactly go towards any explanation as to why, for example, the Quran falls short, the Ramayana falls short, or the Triptika falls short.

I must apologize in being late in opening a thread for that very purpose (have been busy + procrastinating) yet have all the more reason to do so now.

How it would apply towards this thread, would be to show how it is that one would not believe in YHWH, or in 'spiritual definitions/descriptions/prescriptions' given in the Jewish based religious belief-systems' texts. There is a clear and definite reason why some do not believe, and the data base has a major role in it.

You seem to have a pretty good outlay there, Fido. Of course, while there are many more things that could be presented, don't forget about the absent-mindedness of YHWH in having forgotten that he had basically forced Adam towards beastality, when he later forbade it--according to what is written, that is.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin wrote:

I will chime right in with you, Resha Caner; if we were to go into 'why the Bible falls short' on this thread, it would be far too much embedding to allow most to see through it all. Of course, this could exactly go towards any explanation as to why, for example, the Quran falls short, the Ramayana falls short, or the Triptika falls short.

I must apologize in being late in opening a thread for that very purpose (have been busy + procrastinating) yet have all the more reason to do so now.

How it would apply towards this thread, would be to show how it is that one would not believe in YHWH, or in 'spiritual definitions/descriptions/prescriptions' given in the Jewish based religious belief-systems' texts. There is a clear and definite reason why some do not believe, and the data base has a major role in it.

You seem to have a pretty good outlay there, Fido. Of course, while there are many more things that could be presented, don't forget about the absent-mindedness of YHWH in having forgotten that he had basically forced Adam towards beastality, when he later forbade it--according to what is written, that is.

And we all forget that according to our religion that all will be held accountable for the life of animals, according to the covenant with Noah..

.There is also the trend in Judaism following the return from Babylon to attack prophesy, which resulted in the line, and I forget off hand the chapter, where the former prophet is to be taken and have his hand pierced, and if anyone should ask, say that I am an earthling man, and this is an injury recieved in the home of my friends... It might well be argued, in my opinion that no group was as dangerous to the establishment religion as the prophets thrown up from the countryside who recognized in the wealth and power of a single city the cause of the poverty and helplessness of the entire people...

The thing is, that unless you write a book so general as to be useless you cannot address the moral turpitude of a single people and the whole world...You have to do one or the other...The success of Islam is that it did not attack the morals of the people, but let their community morals work, while giving them an excuse: Islam, to show mercy and understanding to others... Christianity is limited for the opposite reason, that it supports power everywhere before justice, and wrecks the local customs that made justice possible...The church supports law because law brings peace and order... Since justice is not a goal, more peace, and more order are required until the very process of achieving it takes too much of the national production and so the society fails...If you have law, you have crime, and the more law you have the more crime until to have law the whole society must be a police state; and we are getting there..

0 Replies

Why Don't People Believe?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know