I don’t think you know what the word *theory *actually means.
I’ve never been sure what comments like this are supposed to mean , or what point is being made other than, “I peronally find belief in God to be silly”
Are you stating that the Apostles, the writers of the Bible are not or were not humans? I was under the impression that when I was in Venice years ago they had the Body of Mark in the Cathedral. Some say Peter was crucified upside down at his request. It has been even stated that David was a human being and wrote the psalms. What proof is there that, that is true, we do know what is written was of humans, just because they or someone else says God spoke to them doesn’t mean it is true, any more than if an Angel was sent by God to Muhammad .
Then how should one respond to “You can’t prove God didn’t do such and such!” type statements?
It is indeed typical of believers to completely miss the point of this excersise.
I don’t know exactly why this is, as if they just can not grasp the concept of their beleifs being put on the same level as other beliefs.
It just doesn’t register.
Because everybody knows those other beliefs are silly, mine isn’t.
I’d say, that’s true, and you have zero evidence he did, so that’s leaves us as two people with two opinions.
Do you believe (or know)The writers were not human, It is known fact that the writers were humans, and I stated in another response today that the writers were just Humans, so our BELIEFS are what some human or humans said, wrote or taught of God. There are even people on this board that make claims that God directs them personally, they have a different idea or beliefs than you or I, so then why is God telling them different things, why did the early Bishops of the church decide what was of God and what was not! Were they human or not!
I do have respect for you and have no quarrel with your beliefs, but belief is a personal thing and to me since humans can make up things and they still do, to me it is like some Christians do not believe RC’s are not Christian, yet they use the Book the early Bishops declared to be the word of God. The Bishops were humans too and I state that that is proof.
Zero evidence? I can prove the existence of people, and I can show that they are capable of thinking, and I can show that they are capable of transferring those thoughts to paper via the act of writing.
edited to add: It seems as if one possibility isn’t based on zero evidence. If someone put forth that he was told by the ghost of Jerry Lewis to write a comedy, would you say that it was just another person with an opinion and give it equal validity?
I’m not a believer, but IMO remarks like that are not comparing two beliefs that are on equal footing.
Would you say , “I believe there is probably life on other planets” is equal to belief Leprechauns created all the gold?
Were the writers Human? If they were indeed human then that is proof. The belief that God told them anything is a matter of belief in the humans and their writings. If one chooses to believe it came from God that is belief in the writer or people who taught it.
Why is it people can accept that Muhammad was a human, and believe an angel dictated a book to him that is contrary to the Christian Bible in many ways, and why is it different than the writings of the apostles, other teaching or writings isn’t it possible that God’s angel really dictated a Book to Muhammad as well as the OT and NT?
I cannot see how one can say God inspired anything written or taught one thing, then taught something different, why would a being that knows all things even before they happen, not inspire some of Jesus teachings by some of his own apostles, then send an Angel to dictate something different later on?
Would you say that “every sunday a dead prophet becomes a cookie and people eat the cookie as if it were his flesh they were eating”
is equal to the belief Leprechauns created all the gold?
Woah, slow down. I never said or suggested that both parties had zero evidence. I was assuming both accept that it was indeed men who put hand to paper and physically wrote the words. The question is were they influenced , or inspired by God.
I’ve had lot’s of discussions about the nature of inspiration, spiritual of just creativity in writing or anything. Many creative people get the feeling of tapping into a source. We still talk about having a muse, or channeling this one or that one. Few people worry about proving it, or defining the details of how it works.
Is there a ritual involving leprechauns?
My point is that the nature of God belief is about other perennial questions. Who are we exactly, what is the nature of consciousness, is there some existence after this physical life. The question of life on other planets is somewhat related.
So, I don’t see any real comparison between the perennial foundation of God belief and questions about Leprechauns , Unicorns or flying spegetti monsters.
God wouldn’t.
The Bahi, who have there own prophet, believe that all the major prophets were messengers of the same God. They compare God’s inspiration to the same light shining through different lamps. The source light can be exactly the same but what it filters through changes how it appears to those seeing it.
That is a total non sequitur.
What does the presence of rituals have to do with anything?
Leprechauns deal with the perennial question of where all the gold comes from.
You are still falling victim to the idea that christianity has somehow more truthyness than the belief in Dionysos. Dionysos had awesome rituals by the way.
It is on the same level!!
And because christians just can’t grasp this, that they are *not * automatically granted respect for their beliefs, that the comparisons get sillier and sillier.
They just do not comprehend that we view them the same as people they themselves view as silly.
Nothing, why did you bring one up?
So you’re going to mock that point rather than address it?
I’m not falling victim to anything and neither said or implied any such thing.
I disagree. IMO, dealing with the foundation of the religious questions which are both philosophic and reality based, is more useful and accurate than simply mocking. If mocking is your preference so be it.
I certainly think believers of any kind need to understand that thier opinion is just that, and doesn’t deserve any extra weight or respect because it’s thier faith. I constantly tell them that in the public forum they need to come with facts and solid reasoning , and a common language of principles.
That said, we are not just cold fact calculating beings. There are principles involved that are more of a personal nature and somewhat subjective. I don’t think we get to dismiss someone’s principles simply because they are a believer, and personally, I don’t see mocking them as all that useful.
Right! And when they answer “But this is what I and millions believe, therefore it must be true”
You answer: “Millions believed in Zeus, does that make him true?”
then they answer: “Are you calling my religion silly?!!?!!”
Right! And when they answer “Haha! You cannot prove my belief is not true. So there, gotcha!”
You answer: “I cannot disprove Leprechauns, does that make them true?”
then they answer: “Huh, why are you mocking my religion ?!”
cosmosdan, there seems to be a huge disconnect with believers of modern extant religions in that their belief in their modern extant religion has exactly the same evidence behind it as every other folk legend and “mythology” of past cultures does. THAT is the point of the leprechaun/unicorn/fairy remark, as a class. Christianity has exactly as much evidence for its ultimate truthfulness as the ancient Greek mystery cults do. It just happens to be more popular today than the ancient Greek mystery cults are.
If you would stick to saying that everything we have read was proven to have been written by a human, you would still not be accurate, but I would probably ignore your comments. However, you insist on framing your claim that everything that we read has come from humans and cannot have come from a god. This is a claim that we have proof that their ideas originated with them and not with a god. You might be correct that that is what has happened, but you have no proof of that. You are simply trying to give more weight to your belief by claiming that we have “proof” of something in the same way that those who claim that their word is more important because (a) god gave them that word.
And why you keep dragging in comments about my beliefs to this discussion, I have no idea. I have not expressed any beliefs. I have simply noted the error in your assertion, which you insist on repeating without actually providing any evidence.