Why we are born to believe in God

[Beorn]

http://theaffirmationspot.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/christian_girl_praying.jpg



Humans are programmed to believe in God because it gives them a better chance of survival, researchers claim.
A study into the way children's brains develop suggests that during the process of evolution those with religious tendencies began to benefit from their beliefs - possibly by working in groups to ensure the future of their community.
The findings of Bruce Hood, professor of developmental psychology at Bristol University, suggest that magical and supernatural beliefs are hardwired into our brains from birth, and that religions are therefore tapping into a powerful psychological force.


His work is supported by other researchers who have found evidence linking religious feelings and experience to particular regions of the brain.
They suggest people are programmed to receive a feeling of spirituality from electrical activity in these areas.
The findings challenge atheists such as Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, who has long argued that religious beliefs result from poor education and childhood 'indoctrination'.
Professor Hood believes it is futile to try to get people to abandon their beliefs because these come from such a 'fundamental level'.

'Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works,' he said.
'As they grow up they overlay these beliefs with more rational approaches but the tendency to illogical supernatural beliefs remains as religion.'
The professor, who will present his findings at the British Science Association's annual meeting this week, sees organised religion as just part of a spectrum of supernatural beliefs.

In one study he found even ardent atheists balked at the idea of accepting an organ transplant from a murderer, because of a superstitious belief that an individual's personality could be stored in his or her organs.
To reinforce his point, Professor Hood produced a blue cardigan during a lecture and invited the audience to put it on, for a £10 reward. This prompted a sea of raised hands to volunteer.
He then said that the notorious murderer Fred West wore the cardigan, causing most to put their hand down.
Although it was merely a stunt - the cardigan was not West's - the professor said this showed that even the most rational of people can be irrationally made to feel uncomfortable.

Another experiment involved asking subjects to cut up a treasured photograph. When his team then measured their sweat production - which is what lie-detector tests monitor - there was a jump in the reading. This did not occur when destroying an object of less sentimental significance.
'This shows how superstition is hardwired into our brains,' he added.
The Rev Michael Reiss, professor of science education at London University's Institute of Education and an Anglican priest, said he saw no reason why such research should undermine religious belief. 'We are evolved creatures and the whole point about humanity is that we are rooted in the natural world.'


Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.html)

[Jägerstaffel]

Not believe in God, believe in supernatural and fantasies.

Helps us cope with reality.

[Skandi]

Not believe in God, believe in supernatural and fantasies.

Helps us cope with reality.

Which is what the God is

[Jägerstaffel]

Which is what the God is

The point being, it's not GOD especially, it is ALL supernatural fantasies.

Not all human societies believed in gods, but they all believed in the supernatural.

[Skandi]

yes or use a version of Science to replace it.

[Jägerstaffel]

yes or use a version of Science to replace it.

Nonsense.

[Skandi]

No. what I would call "militant atheists" like Dawkins have simply replaced religion with science. A straight swap.

[Jägerstaffel]

No. what I would call "militant atheists" like Dawkins have simply replaced religion with science. A straight swap.

The difference being that science is not a religion, a dogma, a mythological belief system, a moral code to structure one's life, a culture to identify with, or something that a reasonable person puts faith (irrational belief) into.

[Skandi]

The difference being that science is not a religion, a dogma, a mythological belief system, a moral code to structure one's life, a culture to identify with, or something that a reasonable person puts faith (irrational belief) into.

Actually I think many people use it as just that. You can put faith into something that IS true as well as something that is not.

[Jägerstaffel]

Actually I think many people use it as just that. You can put faith into something that IS true as well as something that is not.

On the flipside, I think most people don't.

But it's hard to measure that kind of thing.

The point I make about science though, is that it's not some church or organization with the One True Path, it's something that has no real leadership - no membership, no dogma and no undeniable truth. It constantly seeks to correct, verify and clarify itself.

Maybe what you're saying is that there are those that follow science without question. I'll accept that. But the business of science itself? Hardly a religion.

[Jägerstaffel]

This topic is derailing the thread though.

I still believe the reason our brains are wired to believe in fantasy is to explain away the things we do not understand and have trouble comprehending.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Prayer and meditation are so obviously beneficial for groups and individuals.

I cannot live without meditation (I try and fail sometimes) and I believe that there is a unified field of consciousness that we can all tap into and relate from.

Sometimes I just find it easier to call this 'God' so that more people can relate to it.

Is there something wrong with that?

[Lutiferre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo

[Poltergeist]

Nonsense.

Humans are not programmed to anything, neither to believe in God, nor to disbelieve in God.

A new superstitious creed of genetic determinism is equally cherished by many materialistic atheists and fundamentalist Christians, as it seems. Spiritual brethren...

One cherry picks something from tons of "researches" which fits his own already preconceived belief or notion and dwells upon it, triumphantly proclaiming that... [insert here any nonsense you like)

Never mind that several prominent top geneticists, like Richard Strohman (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/07/17_strohman.shtml), strongly warned against naive genetic determinism and putting too much faith in genes, which would be (according to some) supposed to disclose everything about the human nature.

Any idea that denies free will is rubbish.

[Liffrea]

Humans are programmed to believe in God because it gives them a better chance of survival, researchers claim.
A study into the way children's brains develop suggests that during the process of evolution those with religious tendencies began to benefit from their beliefs - possibly by working in groups to ensure the future of their community.

You don’t need belief in “supernatural” entities to more effectively organise societies, by that assumption belief in God(s) started the agricultural and industrial revolution.

Creating a God figure for simple survival and organisation seems absurd to me.

[Jägerstaffel]

Creating a God figure for simple survival and organisation seems absurd to me.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I'd say that those who can comfortably say what you just said would not feel so comfortable saying it in the Dark Ages (or better yet, the Stone Age) when our knowledge of the world was very limited.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Jägerzen
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

How so?

Evolution doesn’t waste energy, since there is no real reason I can see for spiritual belief to have come about through evolution, it doesn’t add to human survival, I don’t see it as answerable by that theory. If we look back 50,000 years or more before the “revolution” that saw humans develop symbolism we find a species that had managed to survive as well as begin to develop primitive technology.


I'd say that those who can comfortably say what you just said would not feel so comfortable saying it in the Dark Ages (or better yet, the Stone Age) when our knowledge of the world was very limited.

That doesn’t really have anything to do with the point, there is a difference between spiritual belief as a hard wired evolutionary trait, as this study suggests but fails to prove in my opinion, and religious organisation, you don’t need a God for social organisation, ask the Communists.

Also superstition and spiritualism are two different things. A man can come to God(s) through reason doesn’t mean he bows down every time there’s a bolt of lightning now does it?

[Jägerstaffel]

How so?

Evolution doesn’t waste energy, since there is no real reason I can see for spiritual belief to have come about through evolution, it doesn’t add to human survival, I don’t see it as answerable by that theory. If we look back 50,000 years or more before the “revolution” that saw humans develop symbolism we find a species that had managed to survive as well as begin to develop primitive technology.

I believe it makes it easier to cope with the harsh reality of death, for instance. It may not be something that added to human survival in antiquity, but it may have perhaps made life more bearable and less bewildering.

The same way our brains sometimes trick us into believing that there is something lurking in the darkness when we are out at night. It's not the most rational thought, but it's a left-over from a time when it was relevant in our lives to keep an eye out for big hulking animals that might dine on us. This fear did surely increase the survival rate for our ancestors, but why do we still fear it? Some things linger.



That doesn’t really have anything to do with the point, there is a difference between spiritual belief as a hard wired evolutionary trait, as this study suggests but fails to prove in my opinion, and religious organisation, you don’t need a God for social organisation, ask the Communists.

Also superstition and spiritualism are two different things. A man can come to God(s) through reason doesn’t mean he bows down every time there’s a bolt of lightning now does it?

At no point did I mention social organisation. It affected the individual and allowed the individual to cope. It did not encourage the individual to form a working society. I imagine this hard-wired evolutionary trait developed before we had large social structures in our lives.

And yes, superstition and spiritualism are two very different things but they are two different answers to the same questions that plague certain folks.

[Lutiferre]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
And we could explain any behaviour or lack thereof with evolutionary psychology or genetic determinism if we wanted to, that including the rejection of Christianity. The truth, of course, is that it isn't that simple. There are many complex factors involved in it. To say that this vague grasp after easy evolutionary explanations has any bearing on it's truth value is to commit the genetic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy).

[Jägerstaffel]

There are many complex factors involved in it.

I guess I just don't see the fallacy in my thinking.

I don't think it's jumping to a false conclusion to say that the signs point to the supernatural being a coping mechanism.

[Lutiferre]

I guess I just don't see the fallacy in my thinking.

I don't think it's jumping to a false conclusion to say that the signs point to the supernatural being a coping mechanism.
That's not my point. The point is that any belief has complex social, empirical, personal, teleological, rational, emotional, spiritual, and existential components and factors influencing the genesis of the belief, and that all of these factors can be valid to it's truth value, according to the epistemology one subscribes to.

But whether it has a genetic, psychological or evolutionary explanation is irrelevant to the fact that the belief along with it's components and critical factors actually exists and is capable of evaluation between truth and falsity, a matter that completely disregards the genetic origin of the belief, since any belief can be explained genetically or psychologically if so desired, since no belief is exempt from human psychology and genetics - even the belief that any belief can be explained genetically or psychologically.

[Jägerstaffel]

Doesn't prove that I'm wrong either, though. :)

I'll admit that it's likely a bit more complex than JUST being a coping mechanism though.

[Amapola]

I suppose that the atheistic neurociencists, not admitting the existance of God nor man as a being endowed with a spiritual soul, are compelled to a particular interpretation of the facts that trascends matter: they have to explain the religious experiences and the mystic state as mere brain activity. Likewise, neurobiology created God. I wonder why admitting just matter as the only reality being the possite regarded as non-scientific while numerous facts related to evolution and brain activity (..) still need to be experimentally proven.

[Cato]

I am God and only I, of course, know what I mean. Others will see that as a statement blasphemy or of megalomania, but I know that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. :)

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Jägerzen
I believe it makes it easier to cope with the harsh reality of death, for instance. It may not be something that added to human survival in antiquity, but it may have perhaps made life more bearable and less bewildering.

Belief in “supernatural” entities does not necessitate belief in an afterlife, they are two different phenomenon.

Besides evidence suggest that recognition of mortality and suffering are not exclusively human traits, as far as I know there no animal based religions, which brings us back to the point why would human consciousness develop to the point where recognition of mortality went beyond the day to day reality of it to one where humans actively developed “afterlife” scenarios?

As I wrote above, evolution doesn’t waste energy, there is no logical reason for that level of awareness to develop in the human mind for purposes of mere survival and procreation.


The same way our brains sometimes trick us into believing that there is something lurking in the darkness when we are out at night. It's not the most rational thought, but it's a left-over from a time when it was relevant in our lives to keep an eye out for big hulking animals that might dine on us. This fear did surely increase the survival rate for our ancestors, but why do we still fear it? Some things linger.

There is a difference between basic emotions conditioned by pain and pleasure, which again isn’t exclusive to humans, and higher forms of emotion that are, seemingly, linked to human reason.


At no point did I mention social organisation.

No, but the article does, that’s what we’re discussing……


It affected the individual and allowed the individual to cope. It did not encourage the individual to form a working society. I imagine this hard-wired evolutionary trait developed before we had large social structures in our lives.

Well that’s exactly the point, the level of sophistication in human society and the range of activities that society engages in, many if not most beyond mere survival and many with no bearing on survival at all, doesn’t seem explainable by evolutionary theory.


And yes, superstition and spiritualism are two very different things but they are two different answers to the same questions that plague certain folks.

Personally I disagree on that.

[Cato]

I am God and only I, of course, know what I mean. Others will see that as a statement blasphemy or of megalomania, but I know that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. :)

If a person could be persuaded on this principle as he ought, that we are all first children of Zeus, and that Zeus is the Father of Gods and Men, I think that he would never conceive a single abject or ignoble thought about himself.

Now if the emperor were to adopt you, there would be no bearing your haughty looks: so will you not be elated on knowing yourself to be the Son of Zeus?"

Epictetus, What Should We Conclude From The Principle That God Is The Father of Mankind?

It is abject and ignoble to conceive of thoughts that deny the existence of God. It is also abject and ignoble to have a mistaken, incorrect view of God- such as the belief in the incarnation in Christianity or the belief in avatara in Hinduism (God is One, at rest and motionless, so to speak, and is not a being of flesh-and-blood).

What the Christians apply to a single man, or the Hindus to their various deities like Krishna, I apply to the entire human race- but knowing that you are God in the sense that you are God's offspring (for is the child not an image of its parent?) is what, to me, is one of the most important lessons of the old Greek phrase to know thyself. Everything else is utterly base and false and worthy only to be hated and scorned with the utmost opprobrium.

This secret teaching is not so secret, but is hated by people who want to place a dividing line between God and the human race. To Christians, it is only their Jesus who is the unique offspring of God, the logos incarnate. I say that the entire, aware human race is the word made flesh. To the Muslims, it is "submit." God doesn't want us to submit, but to arise and, so to speak, become like the demigods of the myths- and surpass them.

I possess no hateful beliefs of God. Contrarily, I have high hopes for the human race because my optimism for the one goes hand-in-hand with my belief in the other.

[Lutiferre]

This secret teaching is not so secret, but is hated by people who want to place a dividing line between God and the human race.
We Christians don't want to divide God and humanity. We want humanity to accept it's destiny in transcendence, unity with God; but we recognise that there is a dividing line, per nature and essence, between the merely profane and animal, and the transcendent. However, this dividing line is not an evil; it is the object of humanity to be the mediator between the two worlds that the line does divide. We are the intersection of the corporeal and spiritual.


To Christians, it is only their Jesus who is the unique offspring of God, the logos incarnate.
Jesus is not just the "unique offspring of God". And we do believe we, humans, are unique offspring of God.

I say that the entire, aware human race is the word made flesh.
Well, then you demonstrate your tremendous ignorance of what Christians mean with the Word. You could've said just as well, the Spirit made flesh, or the Father made flesh. But you didn't.

[Cato]

Well, then you demonstrate your tremendous ignorance of what Christians mean with the Word. You could've said just as well, the Spirit made flesh, or the Father made flesh. But you didn't.

Didn't Foxy ask you not to be so patronizing in another thread? You're not doing your religion any good with your arrogant disputations and "corrections" of the "unsaved."

:rolleyes:

[Lutiferre]

Didn't Foxy ask you not to be so patronizing in another thread? You're not doing your religion any good with your arrogant disputations and "corrections" of the "unsaved."

:rolleyes:
I don't make an assumption that you are "unsaved", since I, unlike you claim, am not God ;)

[Cato]

I don't make an assumption that you are "unsaved", since I, unlike you claim, am not God ;)

You fail to grasp the meaning of my statement, apparently even with the emendation of the second post with the comment by Epictetus. I commune with the God within, something that you cannot, it seems, grasp or comprehend.

Your lengthy, often sarcastic and patronizing, corrections of others, "correcting" them with Christian dogma, are only annoying other posters. This is called trolling, intentional or not. People come here to have networking exchanges: political, intellectual, philosophical, just for fun, etc. They are not to be brow-beaten and annoyed by posters with an agenda, as you seem to have since you seem to be only attracted to forums where God, Jesus and Christianity will be discussed.

Please bear this mind and respect the wishes of other posters who don't wanted to be treated like ignoramuses or simpletons. I don't like it. It's rude and, if it's done frequently, it pisses me off- quite a bit.

[Lutiferre]

You fail to grasp the meaning of my statement, apparently even with the emendation of the second post with the comment by Epictetus. I commune with the God within, something that you cannot, it seems, grasp or comprehend.
No, that wasn't my point.. I wasn't being serious or attentive to any subtle philosophical points, just joking.


Your lengthy, often sarcastic and patronizing, corrections of others, "correcting" them with Christian dogma, are only annoying other posters. This is called trolling, intentional or not. People come here to have networking exchanges: political, intellectual, philosophical, just for fun, etc. They are not to be brow-beaten and annoyed by posters with an agenda, as you seem to have since you seem to be only attracted to forums where God, Jesus and Christianity will be discussed.
Well, not only. But it seems it comes up almost constantly, something I didn't expect when I joined this forum. And then I can't but go into the debate.


Please bear this mind and respect the wishes of other posters who don't wanted to be treated like ignoramuses or simpletons. I don't like it. It's rude and, if it's done frequently, it pisses me off- quite a bit.
I apologise for that. It reflects how I react to the constant attacks on Christianity here.

[Cato]

No, that wasn't my point.. I wasn't being serious or attentive to any subtle philosophical points, just joking.

Well, not only. But it seems it comes up almost constantly, something I didn't expect when I joined this forum. And then I can't but go into the debate.

I apologise for that. It reflects how I react to the constant attacks on Christianity here.

There's debating and then browbeating. I've done enough of both to know which is which, and I try to avoid the latter since I want to give people the same measure of consideration that they, I hope, will give to me.

That's to be expected, especially when there are many people trying to move away from Christianity and its attendant worldview. I have attacked it and criticized it (in the areas where I find it deficient), but I've also defended it when the need has arisen. I merely dislike it when people adopt a tone of intellectual superiority and superior religiosity over others- this is a trend that I see often enough, in atheists, in Christians, in Muslims or whomever. Internet forums are like chatrooms, and much of what he type very often reflects who we are in everyday life. I don't want to disparage people's religions, but criticizing them shouldn't be disallowed- even to the point of being cordially contentious. There are Christians, pagans, heathens, atheists, agnostics and others on this forum and not all of us will agree or even want to agree.

[Lutiferre]

I merely dislike it when people adopt a tone of intellectual superiority and superior religiosity over others- this is a trend that I see often enough, in atheists, in Christians, in Muslims or whomever.
I wouldn't pretend to either possessing superior religiosity or intellectuality than others, even though what I affirm to be the truth is something else than what others do.

On the other hand, I think that is the case for everyone, that we will always make some corrections, if even in our mind, of others, because of assuming a truth about some subject which is more valid than some opinion we deem less valid - like, for instance, "assuming superiority" like you mention, which is something you deem as undesirable.

[Cato]

I only claim to speak for myself; if someone else happens to agree with what I say, good for them. If not, my worldview isn't going to collapse. While I have a desire to speak the truth as I see it, I don't consider myself to be a fit teacher of any kind of complex, logical doctrine. Let that be fodder for the doctors of religion and philosophy- most people don't want or care for complex metaphysics to begin with, so I try to approach such questions from the vantage point of the everyman, or a well-read everyman. :)

Philosophy is my religion, but not the stale philosophy of modern academics, nor the speculating philosophy of the disciples of Plato. I much more prefer the practical, moral philosophy of the Cynics and Stoics- practical and moral philosophy that can be learned and lived by anyone without resort to syllogisms, sacred geometry and such. This sort of philosophy is for everyone. I don't regard scriptural religion in this light, simply because the interpretations of the books, whatever they are (from the Bible to Confucius' proverbs) are often serious points of contention and the authorship of said books is equally contentious.

[Lutiferre]

I only claim to speak for myself; if someone else happens to agree with what I say, good for them. If not, my worldview isn't going to collapse.
Obviously not, since you don't change it just because someone disagrees; and neither is mine going to collapse if someone disagrees.


While I have a desire to speak the truth as I see it, I don't consider myself to be a fit teacher of any kind of complex, logical doctrine.
Nor do I.


Philosophy is my religion, but not the stale philosophy of modern academics, nor the speculating philosophy of the disciples of Plato. I much more prefer the practical, moral philosophy of the Cynics and Stoics- practical and moral philosophy that can be learned and lived by anyone without resort to syllogisms, sacred geometry and such. This sort of philosophy is for everyone. I don't regard scriptural religion in this light, simply because the interpretations of the books, whatever they are (from the Bible to Confucius' proverbs) are often serious points of contention and the authorship of said books is equally contentious.
Well, that may be so in "Sola Scriptura" sectism, but in orthodox Christianity, the Bible is part of Tradition, and Tradition includes also the light in which the Bible is understood and interpreted. It is a unitive whole.

[Cato]

Sola Scriptura comes forth that the Bible is sole source of authority for a Christian to live by, with the rest being commentary (to remodify a statement by Hillel a bit) or, at best, having to conform to the Bible's authority. But this implies, by necessity, that there exists a specific corps of interpreters- the doctors of religion.

The authority of what I believe in rests in the self, internal dialogue, inner meditation and such. This goes to the heart of being in control of what oneself can control, opinions, actions and the like. Externals like Bibles, religious doctrines and associated commentaries simply go back to what I said a couple of posts ago about "complex metaphysics" which I rightly regard as nonsense. I'll read Heraclitus or Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, ruminate on what I read, but none of that is in the category of "words to live by." The philosophers offer appraisals and ask questions rather than giving concrete explanations- at least the philosophers that I prefer to read. I avoid Plato and his derivatives, although I've got a certain fancy for Plotinus, simply because of the fact that their complex doctrines are fit only for the inner initiate (you might say). I was caught up in the mysteries a few weeks ago, but that interest died down quickly enough. There can be no mystery with religion or philosophy; how can people live the good life when their core beliefs are at odds? This is another unhelpful situation that I see with various opinions and interpretations of religious books. The mass of commentary creates an indistinct and confused impression in the mind.

I'll say that it's better to teach openly than to conceal what you know, but I also can't deny that it's also foolish to speak of sacred things with scoffers or people who'll misinterpret what you really want to say. What I believe in can be learned by anyone, but the reality of the situation is that not everyone has a heart or mind to want to learn philosophy.

[Karaten]

Yes, it was most likely an evolutionary adaption, it's nothing surprising, considering how long religion has been around.

Basically, it's a crutch, in a sense. People NEED to believe in something to survive, because that's how our ancestors did. Thus, people grew to need religion for a reason.

Like cheese, humans made themselves stand out with their ability to eat it up all through the ages.

[Cato]

Basically, it's a crutch, in a sense. People NEED to believe in something to survive, because that's how our ancestors did. Thus, people grew to need religion for a reason.

This itself is true to form and also an irony. Your statement (that people need a religion or some sort of belief system like the lame need a crutch) is also a belief-based statement.

;)

[Karaten]

This itself is true to form and also an irony. Your statement (that people need a religion or some sort of belief system like the lame need a crutch) is also a belief-based statement.

;)

No ad libbing in my quotations!

I never said it didn't apply to me in some minor degree.

Though, I could show evidence for my conclusion.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Karaten
People NEED to believe in something to survive, because that's how our ancestors did. Thus, people grew to need religion for a reason.

Which still brings you back to the point that humans went to extraordinary lengths to create “fictional” beings and scenarios, now I know of no evolutionary scientist who could answer why that is nor why, under certain conditions, humans can access other states of mind containing a vast array of improbable beings and scenarios (read accounts of shamanic trances from across the globe to see just how closely related these are).

In southern France and Spain “primitive” man went to great trouble to paint elaborate and bizarre creatures on cave walls, why?

They don’t serve any evolutionary purpose, and because of that using evolutionary science to describe spiritual belief is just foolish, unless evolution can explain why belief in “supernatural” entities aids human survival, and so far they have not, then evolution (which is very good at what it shows) has no real place in explaining metaphysical concepts.

[Karaten]

Which still brings you back to the point that humans went to extraordinary lengths to create “fictional” beings and scenarios, now I know of no evolutionary scientist who could answer why that is nor why, under certain conditions, humans can access other states of mind containing a vast array of improbable beings and scenarios (read accounts of shamanic trances from across the globe to see just how closely related these are).

In southern France and Spain “primitive” man went to great trouble to paint elaborate and bizarre creatures on cave walls, why?

They don’t serve any evolutionary purpose, and because of that using evolutionary science to describe spiritual belief is just foolish, unless evolution can explain why belief in “supernatural” entities aids human survival, and so far they have not, then evolution (which is very good at what it shows) has no real place in explaining metaphysical concepts.

Evolution, Darwinism, and Natural Selection all have a place for spirituality. Consider the motivation to act.

Depending which kind you mean, of course. If you mean on the mass scale, we can think of a hierarchy of priority within the mind. For example, if you're about to lose a cookie as opposed to your daughter, you'd probably act for the daughter, and probably put more effort into it. As such, if you say this world is just small facet of our existence, and there is in fact something much higher, then most likely, the person is going to act for the higher one, and with more passion at that.

Now, if you mean on a personal level, then I point you to my explanation of the spirit, being a intellectual analysis of our emotion.

Many people come to a point in their lives where they ask, "Why? Why should I go on? What gives life meaning?" Quite simply, religion is the answer to them, because we grew through the times, learning to need that meaning to survive.

Metaphysical could also be a means to explain that which cannot be explained. That being, like me, humans cannot stand to not know something, thus, they create answers.

There's many reasons for humans to create religion, and spirituality as a whole. None of these, however, make it true.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Karaten
Evolution, Darwinism, and Natural Selection all have a place for spirituality.

They don’t that’s my point….

I have seen reasonable studies attempt to explain religion I have never yet seen a study that has explained why humans have beliefs in “supernatural” entities to begin with.

For example some people have postulated that early human religion has it’s origin in experimentation with narcotics of various kinds, if you study the Vedas you will read of a substance called soma being used to bring on various religious trances. If you study northern European lore you read of how Odin acquired mead from Suttung (the mead of inspiration, which in a shamanic sense allowed Odin to acquire access to other levels of consciousness).

All well and good but that still leaves you with the first point why do these images exist within the human mind? This isn’t a parochial, it’s a universal, you can read of shamanic experiences from northern Europe to Australia from the Amazon to China, humans have the ability to enter trance like states and access other levels of reality. It also seems to have only appeared some 50,000 years ago. Why? Evidence suggest that humans have been anatomically “modern” for 200,000 years or so, yet 50,000 years ago we suddenly developed a depth of symbolic interpretation of the world around us that led to religion and art.

There are, as I see it, only two possibilities.

Possibility one, it is an internal phenomenon; humans have evolved this ability over time.

Possibility two, it’s an external phenomenon, divine inspiration, trans-dimensional, space aliens mucking around with human DNA etc.

If we accept possibility one then we have to, going by the theory of evolution, ask in what way accessing “imaginary” realms populated by “supernatural” entities aids human survival, especially when often these “realms” or depths of consciousness can only be accessed by deep trance states, which seemingly would leave the human animal more open to attack as well as remove it from work within the community.

So far I know of no theory that has answered that question.

Possibility two needs no explanation it stands as it is, for my money it’s more logical to assume two than one, even though option one is potentially more interesting, if proven, than one.

Interesting subject isn't it?

[Karaten]

They don’t that’s my point….

I have seen reasonable studies attempt to explain religion I have never yet seen a study that has explained why humans have beliefs in “supernatural” entities to begin with.

For example some people have postulated that early human religion has it’s origin in experimentation with narcotics of various kinds, if you study the Vedas you will read of a substance called soma being used to bring on various religious trances. If you study northern European lore you read of how Odin acquired mead from Suttung (the mead of inspiration, which in a shamanic sense allowed Odin to acquire access to other levels of consciousness).

All well and good but that still leaves you with the first point why do these images exist within the human mind? This isn’t a parochial, it’s a universal, you can read of shamanic experiences from northern Europe to Australia from the Amazon to China, humans have the ability to enter trance like states and access other levels of reality. It also seems to have only appeared some 50,000 years ago. Why? Evidence suggest that humans have been anatomically “modern” for 200,000 years or so, yet 50,000 years ago we suddenly developed a depth of symbolic interpretation of the world around us that led to religion and art.

There are, as I see it, only two possibilities.

Possibility one, it is an internal phenomenon; humans have evolved this ability over time.

Possibility two, it’s an external phenomenon, divine inspiration, trans-dimensional, space aliens mucking around with human DNA etc.

If we accept possibility one then we have to, going by the theory of evolution, ask in what way accessing “imaginary” realms populated by “supernatural” entities aids human survival, especially when often these “realms” or depths of consciousness can only be accessed by deep trance states, which seemingly would leave the human animal more open to attack as well as remove it from work within the community.

So far I know of no theory that has answered that question.

Possibility two needs no explanation it stands as it is, for my money it’s more logical to assume two than one, even though option one is potentially more interesting, if proven, than one.

Interesting subject isn't it?

Oh, you meant hallucinations.

This goes with my fourth explanation, that being, if something can't be explained, it must be explained on a spiritual level.

People do drugs, and hallucinate. The only ones who believe these chemical reactions hold any spiritual meaning are the uninformed and undeveloped societies that don't even understand what chemicals are in their "magical elixirs" that allow them to get in touch with the "spirit world" or whatever you want to call it.

Would you like an explanation of how drugs work? That isn't an evolutionary issue, that's not even a social issue, drug reactions are chemical, and since people from those times didn't know what drugs were, nor why they affected you, they made up stories to explain it.

[Lutiferre]

Sola Scriptura comes forth that the Bible is sole source of authority for a Christian to live by, with the rest being commentary (to remodify a statement by Hillel a bit) or, at best, having to conform to the Bible's authority. But this implies, by necessity, that there exists a specific corps of interpreters- the doctors of religion.
Well, no, it doesn't. The last time I checked, protestants reject the doctors and saints of Christianity.

[Loki]

Well, no, it doesn't. The last time I checked, protestants reject the doctors and saints of Christianity.

They don't reject them, just don't idolize them like you guys.

[Lutiferre]

They don't reject them, just don't idolize them like you guys.
You are right. Protestants still rely on the Church for every orthodox Christian doctrine they have preserved. But they still reject whatever they want, and it might amount to 90% of everything.

[Loki]

You are right. Protestants still rely on the Church for every orthodox Christian doctrine they have preserved. But they still reject whatever they want, and it might amount to 90% of everything.

That's because a lot of unnecessary rituals and habits have been accumulated over the centuries, that have nothing at all to do with Biblical Christianity. Consider it a purification process.

[Lutiferre]

That's because a lot of unnecessary rituals and habits have been accumulated over the centuries, that have nothing at all to do with Biblical Christianity. Consider it a purification process.
Judaism of Jesus time and kind (Essenic, as opposed to Pharasaic), had rite and tradition just as well.

[Loki]

Judaism of Jesus time and kind (Essenic, as opposed to Pharasaic), had rite and tradition just as well.

And there you have it -- the true roots of Christianity.

[Lutiferre]

And there you have it -- the true roots of Christianity.
Uh, yes, the "true" roots of Christianity is in Jesus, a Galilean who was most likely an Essene who were, by the way, the traditionalist Israelities of their day, who sticked to the ancient faith, in rites, customs and tradition, rather than adhere to the new Pharasaic sect which came to predominate, and was highly affected by foreign influences.

[Loki]

Uh, yes, the "true" roots of Christianity is in Jesus, a Galilean who was most likely an Essene who were, by the way, the traditionalist Israelities of their day, who sticked to the ancient faith, in rites, customs and tradition, rather than adhere to the new Pharasaic sect which came to predominate, and was highly affected by foreign influences.

The irony of the matter is that Jesus never intended to found a world religion -- and he didn't. Christian theology is essentially Pauline, and deviates quite a bit from the teachings of Jesus.

[Lutiferre]

The irony of the matter is that Jesus never intended to found a world religion -- and he didn't. Christian theology is essentially Pauline, and deviates quite a bit from the teachings of Jesus.
And yet that is exactly what he affirms in all the Gospels by preaching to the gentiles when the carnal children of Israel rejected him, by removing the barrier between gentile and Jew (not what goes in the mouth....), in the final "go and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" from his lips, tied in with what we know to be the oldest traditions of the Jesus-sayings that scholars believe corresponds to the deposit of the Q-source. Whatever you say is built ultimately on speculations that have no basis in historical exegesis and research, since whatever you know is from the same sources in which he makes known the universal reach of his mission, and hence, you are just using selective bias.

[Loki]

And yet that is exactly what he affirms in all the Gospels by preaching to the gentiles when the carnal children of Israel rejected him, by removing the barrier between gentile and Jew (not what goes in the mouth....), in the final "go and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" from his lips, tied in with what we know to be the oldest traditions of the Jesus-sayings that scholars believe corresponds to the deposit of the Q-source. Whatever you say is built ultimately on speculations that have no basis in historical exegesis and research, since whatever you know is from the same sources in which he makes known the universal reach of his mission, and hence, you are just using selective bias.

So essentially, God had a "plan B". When Israel rejected Jesus, God shrugged off Jesus' failure and invested in Paul instead -- which was a real success.

[Lutiferre]

So essentially, God had a "plan B". When Israel rejected Jesus, God shrugged off Jesus' failure and invested in Paul instead -- which was a real success.
Israel didn't reject Jesus. The carnal children of Israel did, that is, the Pharisees. Not all of them (e.g. the Apostles). Israel is Gods people, the Church, so we are the Israel. And he didnt just "invest in Paul", but the other Apostles as well, most notably Peter, whose writings survived into the canon.

[Loki]

Israel didn't reject Jesus. The carnal children of Israel did, that is, the Pharisees. Not all of them (e.g. the Apostles). Israel is Gods people, the Church, so we are the Israel. And he didnt just "invest in Paul", but the other Apostles as well, most notably Peter, whose writings survived into the canon.

There is not a single instance in the Torah where Israel is perceived as a spiritual body of people, instead of ethnic. This perception is entirely New Testamentic (and even not in its entirety; there are contradictions), and thus heretical to original teachings from Yahweh.

[Frigga]

Well, not only. But it seems it comes up almost constantly, something I didn't expect when I joined this forum. And then I can't but go into the debate.

We didn't really all that much until you joined. The forum is an ever growing organism, and is influnenced by its members. We have had our debates, but they're not usually this long winded and drawn out. If you are upset at what the members have said, then maybe you should look at your own contributions. There have been times that you were wrong, and you refused to concede that the other was right, and then gracefully decline to argue the point further. If you feel that we are attacking your beliefs, then maybe we are out of frustration towards its most stauch defender, even if that defender is debating finer points of ancient philosophical ideas that one else knows about or understands, ad nauseum. :wink

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Karaten
Oh, you meant hallucinations.

People do drugs, and hallucinate.

Would you like an explanation of how drugs work? That isn't an evolutionary issue, that's not even a social issue, drug reactions are chemical, and since people from those times didn't know what drugs were, nor why they affected you, they made up stories to explain it.

Right, so you have, correctly, pointed out that certain substances bring on certain reactions in the human brain, I would like to add here as well that the use of narcotics isn’t the only means of attaining altered states of consciousness, those who meditate on a regular basis (me for one) and those who have managed to achieve deep states of trance (never managed that yet) have also experienced visualisations and experiences, so chemical stimuli isn’t necessary, although I have been told (never tried it myself you see) that it is easier.

We still come back to the same point, chemical reactions in and of themselves, are not responsible for the experiences users have, they are a stimulus, not a source of, so we still need to understand why particular images are locked into the human mind that can only be accessed via altered states of consciousness (drug induced or not).

I still stand by my previous statement that evolutionary theory does not explain this phenomenon.

[Lutiferre]

There is not a single instance in the Torah where Israel is perceived as a spiritual body of people, instead of ethnic. This perception is entirely New Testamentic (and even not in its entirety; there are contradictions), and thus heretical to original teachings from Yahweh.
Israel was a spiritual name from the start. How can you come with such ignorant remarks, do you even know it's meaning or origin? Israel itself contains the name of God (El); the Hebrew form is "yisra'el", meaning "he that striveth with God", which is the name given to Jacob by God in Genesis 32:28. Israel is thus a convental name given by God in the Torah. It is inherently spiritual.

[Lutiferre]

We didn't really all that much until you joined.
Apparently not, since before I came, anti-Christian remarks were just accepted and an integrated part of the forums rhetoric, which went unnoticed and uncommented with no objections.

[Loki]

Israel was a spiritual name from the start. How can you come with such ignorant remarks, do you even know it's meaning or origin? Israel itself contains the name of God (El); the Hebrew form is "yisra'el", meaning "he that striveth with God", which is the name given to Jacob by God in Genesis 32:28. Israel is thus a convental name given by God in the Torah. It is inherently spiritual.

Can you please do some research before you make your posts? "Israel" was the name given to Jacob and his literal descendants. It's an ethnic group; a tribe, like any other -- and consisted of 12 tribes in antiquity, the twelve sons of Jacob.

[Loki]

Apparently not, since before I came, anti-Christian remarks were just accepted and an integrated part of the forums rhetoric, which went unnoticed and uncommented with no objections.

We don't object to any anti-remarks here. This is not the Vatican or Mecca. Everything can be discussed.

[Lutiferre]

Can you please do some research before you make your posts? "Israel" was the name given to Jacob and his literal descendants. It's an ethnic group; a tribe, like any other -- and consisted of 12 tribes in antiquity, the twelve sons of Jacob.
It was first of all the name given to Jacob, and his descendants; but still a covenental name, "he that striveth with God", a name which is without doubt spiritual. A covenant means an agreement which both parts maintain. As soon as the spiritual leaders of Jacobs descendants no longer strived with God, they were no longer Israel because they broke the covenant.

[Frigga]

Apparently not, since before I came, anti-Christian remarks were just accepted and an integrated part of the forums rhetoric, which went unnoticed and uncommented with no objections.

That's not really true. If that was the case, then all of the Christian members would have left in disgust. They haven't. Obviously they're not quite as offended as you think that they should be. :wink

[Lutiferre]

That's not really true. If that was the case, then all of the Christian members would have left in disgust. They haven't. Obviously they're not quite as offended as you think that they should be. :wink
Left in disgust, or just answered with silence, and perhaps, they were even convinced by it. Which is why it was necessary for me to voice a response. I didn't come here and create threads after all (I've created 0 threads), I responded to the attitude against Christianity, the threads and posts and comments which already were here.

[Loki]

It was first of all the name given to Jacob, and his descendants; but still a covenental name, "he that striveth with God", a name which is without doubt spiritual. A covenant means an agreement which both parts maintain. As soon as the spiritual leaders of Jacobs descendants no longer strived with God, they were no longer Israel because they broke the covenant.

The only reference to such a thing is in Hosea, and its interpretation vague. Countless of other verses in the OT tell of God never forsaking Israel as his nation, and there is never a divergence from the literal, physical interpretation.

If what you say is true, then the Israelites must have ceased being Israelites when they were rebellious or worshipped other Gods, like Baal -- which they did at points in time. However, what you say is purely New Testamentic interpretation, which was created to make the religion of Christianity grow among other nations, since the Jews rejected it.

[Lutiferre]

The only reference to such a thing is in Hosea, and its interpretation vague. Countless of other verses in the OT tell of God never forsaking Israel as his nation, and there is never a divergence from the literal, physical interpretation.
You speak of the literal interpretation. But the word is literally spiritual.


If what you say is true, then the Israelites must have ceased being Israelites when they were rebellious or worshipped other Gods, like Baal -- which they did at points in time.
They didn't cease to be Israel as a nation, as a whole, because some people fell out of the true path of Israel. After all, Israel was retained, because God had promised to guide it's spiritual leadership. You fail to see that the covenant included promise of guidance and help from Gods side.

[Loki]

You speak of the literal interpretation. But the word is literally spiritual.

They didn't cease to be Israel as a nation, as a whole, because some people fell out of the true path of Israel. After all, Israel was retained, because God had promised to guide it's spiritual leadership. You fail to see that the covenant included promise of guidance and help from Gods side.

There is just no way of debating with a hard-headed Christian. Why? Because if something doesn't make sense anymore, it gets "spiritualized". There is no way of confronting a point of view that is so slippery as to morphe into something else whenever it is cornered.

[Lutiferre]

There is just no way of debating with a hard-headed Christian. Why? Because if something doesn't make sense anymore, it gets "spiritualized".
Well, gee. The Torah is a spiritual book, about the spiritual relationship between God and Israel, and Israel is a spiritual word with word God (isra'EL) in it. Christianity, too, is a religion which is spiritual.

There is no way of confronting a point of view that is so slippery as to morphe into something else whenever it is cornered.
It's far from slippery, but is quite firm, unable to be twisted and turned into faulty ideas like your own.

[Ulf]

I didn't believe in god until I went to church as a child and was told to believe in god.

[Lutiferre]

I didn't believe in god until I went to church as a child and was told to believe in god.
And I didn't believe "I exist" until I was told to believe this sentence, because the meaning of it is true.

Likewise, even before we are told about the word "God", we do have a personal sense of reality which includes the intuition we later come to acknowledge in spirituality and religion, but is simply unarticulated and unspecified.

[Psychonaut]

And I didn't believe "I exist" until I was told to

That's easily the most retarded (or blatantly disingenuous) thing I've read all day.

[Ulf]

And I didn't believe "I exist" until I was told to believe this sentence, because the meaning of it is true.

Likewise, even before we are told about the word "God", we do have a personal sense of reality which includes the intuition we later come to acknowledge in spirituality and religion, but is simply unarticulated and unspecified.

I feel the same way about Santa. Once those presents started showing up I was like, holy shit, we don't even have a chimney!

[Lutiferre]

That's easily the most retarded (or blatantly disingenuous) thing I've read all day.
Then you are misinterpreting it, since what I am saying no one can deny is true. We sense and know, and have intuitions, before we are able to interpret them into specific concepts and ideas, before we are able to express them in language.

[Karaten]

Then you are misinterpreting it, since what I am saying no one can deny is true. We sense and know, and have intuitions, before we are able to interpret them into specific concepts and ideas, before we are able to express them in language.

The denial of existence is just this concept, existence itself is something we don't even need to consider, only fools even bother. As, even if what we call existence isn't truly existence, quite simply, it doesn't matter. We give definition to word on the scale of society, there is no meaning to words beyond what humans give them. The stars did not align in just the way so Joe would be named Joe, nor that a car would be an automobile. Rather, existence is the label we give to where we are now, and to deny it, and brandish a definition of existence in some other sense is ridiculous.

This long, probably boring to most people, paragraph would not even be necessary if people didn't get the inclination to get "creative" with reality and decide that in some outlandish way, where we are doesn't really exist. It's quite frustrating, it's boring, and it's just plain old.

That being, I don't need faith to believe in this existence, this existence does not need faith to exist within us, therefore, I don't see the point of your comparison.

[Karaten]

Right, so you have, correctly, pointed out that certain substances bring on certain reactions in the human brain, I would like to add here as well that the use of narcotics isn’t the only means of attaining altered states of consciousness, those who meditate on a regular basis (me for one) and those who have managed to achieve deep states of trance (never managed that yet) have also experienced visualisations and experiences, so chemical stimuli isn’t necessary, although I have been told (never tried it myself you see) that it is easier.

We still come back to the same point, chemical reactions in and of themselves, are not responsible for the experiences users have, they are a stimulus, not a source of, so we still need to understand why particular images are locked into the human mind that can only be accessed via altered states of consciousness (drug induced or not).

I still stand by my previous statement that evolutionary theory does not explain this phenomenon.

When people hallucinate, they're not images of things you could never see before, it could mixture of things, a manipulation of things, and sometimes a distortion of color. The things "locked away" are not things that have not already been experienced in some form.

But you're right, evolution had no place for people poisoning themselves like morons.

[Lutiferre]

Then you are misinterpreting it, since what I am saying no one can deny is true. We sense and know, and have intuitions, before we are able to interpret them into specific concepts and ideas, before we are able to express them in language.
By the way, this applies not only to infants, but also to our consciousness as developed human beings. The way it applies to infants is that, it is irrelevant to speak of whether we belived in God before we were "told to believe in God", because when were told to, what we were told were specifications, interpretations and articulations and conceptualities that could have never been possible before a certain stage of mental maturity. But that needs not imply that the "unconscious mass" of mind that existed before that stage of maturity, didn't already have some seeds of intuition that instigated the later specifications and conceptualisations and articulations of knowledge and sensation that we develop according to cultural customs of language and religion, which decides the specific routes it take.

[Lutiferre]

That being, I don't need faith to believe in this existence, this existence does not need faith to exist within us
This wasn't the point at all. But now that you have to take this question up, then I will correct you. Our existence does not need any evidence to be affirmed, but it does need faith. We only know that anything exists or is real, including our own awareness of it, as a self-evident and incorrigible awareness. This is what we call faith, because it is self-evident and hence, not inferred from any other belief or evidence, and the same kind of awareness applies to those who believe in God.


therefore, I don't see the point of your comparison.
The point of my comparison was more about the human psyche and cognition than anything else.

[Karaten]

By the way, this applies not only to infants, but also to our consciousness as developed human beings. The way it applies to infants is that, it is irrelevant to speak of whether we belived in God before we were "told to believe in God", because when were told to, what we were told were specifications, interpretations and articulations and conceptualities that could have never been possible before a certain stage of mental maturity. But that needs not imply that the "unconscious mass" of mind that existed before that stage of maturity, didn't already have some seeds of intuition that instigated the later specifications and conceptualisations and articulations of knowledge and sensation that we develop according to cultural customs of language and religion, which decides the specific routes it take.

These are misinterpretations reality, and do not define it. We can say the same about Greek mythology, though now we could easily go to the top of Mt.Olympus and find nothing. This is just a rehash of the point of the article, and points me back to my previous statement, that, because we developed to desire that meaning, does not mean that whatever ideas we come across are true.

[Lutiferre]

These are misinterpretations reality, and do not define it. We can say the same about Greek mythology, though now we could easily go to the top of Mt.Olympus and find nothing. This is just a rehash of the point of the article, and points me back to my previous statement, that, because we developed to desire that meaning, does not mean that whatever ideas we come across are true.
The subtle point you missed is bold here.

But that needs not imply that the "unconscious mass" of mind that existed before that stage of maturity, didn't already have some seeds of intuition that instigated the later specifications and conceptualisations and articulations of knowledge and sensation that we develop according to cultural customs of language and religion, which decides the specific routes it take.

[Lutiferre]

These are misinterpretations reality, and do not define it
The way we know reality is not that our experience defines it, but that we approach it through our experience with the one premise which is the real itself. Existentially speaking, the problem of the real is eternal for all ages, and religion is the way we apprehend this problem. As for religions, it becomes absurd to say they are "misinterpretations", in this way.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Karaten
The things "locked away" are not things that have not already been experienced in some form.

I would beg to disagree on that, if you study shamanic accounts of experiences they purport to have had when in altered states of consciousness you will understand why I have a great deal of difficulty believing these things are normally attainable or experienced in normal states of consciousness!:eek:

Other than that I don’t think we’re really going to get much further with this topic of debate. Maybe science will one day explain it, mythology and science are far closer than most people realise, but we'll wait and see.

[Frigga]

Left in disgust, or just answered with silence, and perhaps, they were even convinced by it. Which is why it was necessary for me to voice a response. I didn't come here and create threads after all (I've created 0 threads), I responded to the attitude against Christianity, the threads and posts and comments which already were here.

Hm, well it I find it sort of odd that you feel qualified to speak for all of the Christians on the board. I think that we're a pretty outspoken community, and doubt that the ones who were offended would suffer in silence as you suggest. I am quite surprised at the zealous nature of your salvation of the affronted members. I am certain that they all greatly appreciate all of those hours spent in their defense telling us how we are all wrong in our estimations of Christianity. :wink

I am also suprised at your blatant anti pagan and anti atheist arguments. They are peppered with such wisdom that we have been unable to grasp because our collective life experinces just pale in comparison to your own. I so enjoy being patronized by a young of the sagacious age of seventeen. :wink

[Lutiferre]

Hm, well it I find it sort of odd that you feel qualified to speak for all of the Christians on the board.
What I do pretend to do is speak to all Christians on the board. I can't speak for all Christians on the board, nor do I pretend to do.


I am also suprised at your blatant anti pagan and anti atheist arguments. They are peppered with such wisdom that we have been unable to grasp because our collective life experinces just pale in comparison to your own. I so enjoy being patronized by a young of the sagacious age of seventeen. :wink
I am so sorry, you are right. Everything I said is false and my experience is invalidated, by the fact that you have a greater quantity of experience than me.


I think that we're a pretty outspoken community, and doubt that the ones who were offended would suffer in silence as you suggest.
What is relevant is that understandably the Christians didn't strive to take the initative to comment on or correct on it when Christianity is attacked, because the forum happens to be thoroughly anti-Christian. Whether they are "offended" is irrelevant. I can hardly be offended either, when Christianity is attacked and blasphemed here, since it is so common and since I have seen it so much. What I can do is respond to such attacks.


I am quite surprised at the zealous nature of your salvation of the affronted members. I am certain that they all greatly appreciate all of those hours spent in their defense telling us how we are all wrong in our estimations of Christianity. :wink
Maybe they do, or maybe not. I don't care. My stay here, in spite of, yes, even because of the anti-Christian atmosphere, has greatly strengthened my faith. Why? Because I see how poor the quality is of the opposition the average member here offers against Christianity.

[Frigga]

What I do pretend to do is speak to all Christians on the board. I can't speak for all Christians on the board, nor do I pretend to do.

It sure didn't seem that way in all of your 400+ posts in, oh, two and half weeks? :wink


I am so sorry, you are right. Everything I said is false and my experience is invalidated, by the fact that you have a greater quantity of experience than me.

I'm so glad that you see the light! :wink


What is relevant is that understandably the Christians didn't strive to take the initative to comment on or correct on it when Christianity is attacked, because the forum happens to be thoroughly anti-Christian. Whether they are "offended" is irrelevant. I can hardly be offended either, when Christianity is attacked and blasphemed here, since it is so common and since I have seen it so much. What I can do is respond to such attacks.

If our forum was so thoroughly "anti-Christian", why do we have a whole forum devoted to Christianity? Why do we have so many very valuable members who are openly Christian and not afraid of offering that little piece of information. And, how is it that you feel that we are maligning Christianity? We're not Inquisitioning you and burning you at the stake. We're not out mutilating you for your beliefs. We're not running after you with pitchforks and torches. We're just having a calm discussion. :wink


Maybe they do, or maybe not. I don't care. My stay here, in spite of, yes, even because of the anti-Christian atmosphere, has greatly strengthened my faith.

Glad to be of service me dear. :wink



Why? Because I see how poor the quality is of the opposition the average member here offers against Christianity.

Thank you for the great compliment that you have paid to my intellect, and the intelligence of every member of the forum that argues against you! :) Just because we disagree with your beliefs, I am so comforted to know that we are just stupid and it's really not our fault! :) Thank you again Lutiferre for showing me my great gaping lack of knowledge, and how much I really need to learn to be a good Heathen worthy of opposing Christianity! I don't know what I would do without your guidance! I wouldn't be surprised if everyone else is thankful as well. :wink

[Karaten]

The subtle point you missed is bold here.

But that needs not imply that the "unconscious mass" of mind that existed before that stage of maturity, didn't already have some seeds of intuition that instigated the later specifications and conceptualisations and articulations of knowledge and sensation that we develop according to cultural customs of language and religion, which decides the specific routes it take.

Why is your point subtle?


The way we know reality is not that our experience defines it, but that we approach it through our experience with the one premise which is the real itself. Existentially speaking, the problem of the real is eternal for all ages, and religion is the way we apprehend this problem. As for religions, it becomes absurd to say they are "misinterpretations", in this way.

You're so typical it's sickening. Listen, the world is not subjective to experience, experience is defined by reality. Reality is absolute, in it's base form, and you cannot simply brandish titles upon it and expect to be true of absolute certainty.

Typically, you can't think beyond yourself, and you think reality simply isn't anything else, but you're wrong. You can numb your senses entirely, but you are still there. It's surprising the lack of mental maturity in peoples of all ages, so willing to believe in Santa, so wrapped up in a ideology of fairness within ideology that all must be faith.

I can tell you this, so you can begin to come back to reality, and out of your self induced trance of conflict defined through democracy, or perhaps affinity, if tomorrow, everyone stopped believing religion, if everyone denied the existence of your god, he would cease to influence. If everyone denied the existence of reality, existence of where we are, it would make no difference, reality would still influence, whether we believed or not.

People who deny reality are still bound to it, people who deny god are not.

Reality does not rely on belief to exist, it does not matter how much you want to believe you can justify saying the moon is there because Beeboop the god of silver gave it to us as a gift, and then can justify it by stating "Well, reality is belief too!", it's still a falsity. It's still ridiculous, and your point is still lost on anyone who doesn't take one small bite of philosophy and go on a rampage.

[Lutiferre]

You're so typical it's sickening. Listen, the world is not subjective to experience
And that's not what I said it is. I could assume you were having reading problems, but maybe the more likely explanation is that you are unwilling to actually consider the content and substance of my post.


I can tell you this, so you can begin to come back to reality, and out of your self induced trance of arbitration, if tomorrow, everyone stopped believing religion, if everyone denied the existence of your god, he would cease to influence.
I believe reality is itself an expression of deity, so no; since anything at all would be real, Gods influence would be manifest.


If everyone denied the existence of reality, existence of where we are, it would make no difference, reality would still influence, whether we believed or not.
It would make a difference, since the person who denies the existence of reality is part of reality, and hence, there would be a difference in that reality from if he didn't. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with what I said, which was about how we know what is real is real, which is constantly self-evident and not an inferred belief, just like God.


People who deny reality are still bound to it, people who deny god are not.
A restatement of your atheist metaphysics; a worthless sentence. My response? Oh yes they are.


Reality does not rely on belief to exist
Again, an obvious truth, which is based on the incorrigible and self-evident awareness we have of reality, which is faith, not evidence. The same is the case for God, and the case for both is that they don't rely on belief to exist.

"Well, reality is belief too!", it's still a falsity. It's still ridiculous, and your point is still lost on anyone who doesn't take one small bite of philosophy and go on a rampage.
Interesting, because I never said that "reality is belief". That must be one of your own beliefs.

[Lutiferre]

I'm so glad that you see the light! :winkI could give you examples of people your age and older than you who believe the same things as I do. But their age and experience wouldn't make you change your opinion one bit, so that argument is not genuine. It's hypocrisy to pretend all it depends on is my age and experience. If I said something that precisely suited you, you would surely praise how experienced and I clever I am for my age.


If our forum was so thoroughly "anti-Christian", why do we have a whole forum devoted to Christianity?
I am talking about the sentiments and attitudes of the content of the forum and the members. Not about where there is a section about Christianity.

And, how is it that you feel that we are maligning Christianity? We're not Inquisitioning you and burning you at the stake. We're not out mutilating you for your beliefs. We're not running after you with pitchforks and torches. We're just having a calm discussion. :wink
Now we are. But without someone willing to go into a discussion (me), it was not even a discussion, just a restatement of the same anti-Christian rhetoric.

[Psychonaut]

Listen, the world is not subjective to experience, experience is defined by reality. Reality is absolute, in it's base form, and you cannot simply brandish titles upon it and expect to be true of absolute certainty.

Bingo! :thumbs up

Noetic states stemming from exercises in phenomenological reduction do not necessarily provide answers which we can extrapolate to the world (in the phenomenological sense) as a whole. The recognition of this as a fallacy is why we don't see modern phenomenologists like Husserl or Merleau-Ponty repeating Bishop Berkeley's mistakes.

[Karaten]

And that's not what I said it is. I could assume you were having reading problems, but maybe the more likely explanation is that you are unwilling to actually consider the content and substance of my post.

I believe reality is itself an expression of deity, so no; since anything at all would be real, Gods influence would be manifest.

It would make a difference, since the person who denies the existence of reality is part of reality, and hence, there would be a difference in that reality from if he didn't. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with what I said, which was about how we know what is real is real, which is constantly self-evident and not an inferred belief, just like God.

A restatement of your atheist metaphysics; a worthless sentence. My response? Oh yes they are.

Again, an obvious truth, which is based on the incorrigible and self-evident awareness we have of reality, which is faith, not evidence. The same is the case for God, and the case for both is that they don't rely on belief to exist.

Interesting, because I never said that "reality is belief". That must be one of your own beliefs.

Oh, I was trying to look at your belief system from an intellectual standpoint, in which you use logic to come to your conclusion, which clearly isn't the case.

I somehow had the ideology that you were several steps ahead of your fellow Christians, when in fact, you are quite far behind.

Okay, we will begin with the basics, which will then lead to you falling into having to eat your previous words and returning to my posts earlier on.

How do you know god is as absolute as reality?

[Lutiferre]

Noetic states stemming from exercises in phenomenological reduction do not necessarily provide answers which we can extrapolate to the world (in the phenomenological sense) as a whole. The recognition of this as a fallacy is why we don't see modern phenomenologists like Husserl or Merleau-Ponty repeating Bishop Berkeley's mistakes.
Which is interesting for another debate, but irrelevant for this one since I never made any naive-realist claim.

[Karaten]

Disregard that, I didn't see the "naive" part.

[Frigga]

I could give you examples of people your age and older than you who believe the same things as I do. But their age and experience wouldn't make you change your opinion one bit, so that argument is not genuine. It's hypocrisy to pretend all it depends on is my age and experience. If I said something that precisely suited you, you would surely praise how experienced and I clever I am for my age.

It's not what you know Lutiferre, it's how you say it. You're able to attract more bees with honey than with vinegar. You have a distinctly patronizing attitude tis all.


I am talking about the sentiments and attitudes of the content of the forum and the members. Not about where there is a section about Christianity.

Well, the ones you are thinking of are not representative of the whole forum now are they? They're only a part. I can't help it if you feel like everyone on the forum is out to malign your religion. :coffee:


Now we are. But without someone willing to go into a discussion (me), it was not even a discussion, just a restatement of the same anti-Christian rhetoric.

We are now?! We have your permission to? Oh goodie! :yippee I'm so happy to hear that.

:rolleyes:

I think that we are quite capable of being able to have a discussion without the graciousness of your presence. You are contributing to the already ongoing dicussions. Thought that I'd clarify that for ya! :wink

[Lutiferre]

Oh, I was trying to look at your belief system from an intellectual standpoint, in which you use logic to come to your conclusion, which clearly isn't the case.
What are you talking about? You didn't look at my actual beliefs, but made extremely inaccurate characterisations and distortions of my words into fallacious ideas.


How do you know god is as absolute as reality?
So now you resort to asking me to answer your fallacious questions, because your tactic of distorting my previous words failed. But you fail again. God is not as "absolute as reality", another mischaracterisation of my words which shows that you haven't understood any of my words.

[Karaten]

What are you talking about? You didn't look at my actual beliefs, but made extremely inaccurate characterisations and distortions of my words into fallacious ideas.

I explained why I did that.



So now you resort to asking me to answer your fallacious questions, because your tactic of distorting my previous words failed. But you fail again. God is not as "absolute as reality", another mischaracterisation of my words which shows that you haven't understood any of my words.

Then you admit that he is a basis of faith, thus, needs to be believed, that cannot be shown to exist, and cannot in any way be proven without the basis of the simple ideology.

I've understood your words, I wonder if you understand them.

Now, tell me, with this premise, how can you compare Gods absolutiveness to that of reality?

[Lutiferre]

Then you admit that he is a basis of faith, thus, needs to be believed, that cannot be shown to exist, and cannot in any way be proven without the basis of the simple ideology.
And yet again you resort to planting words in my mouth which are certainly not inferrable from the sentence they pretend to be the consequence of.

[Loki]

I'm going to try and ignore Lutiferre's Sigurdian elaborations for a while, and focus on the main article.



The findings of Bruce Hood, professor of developmental psychology at Bristol University, suggest that magical and supernatural beliefs are hardwired into our brains from birth, and that religions are therefore tapping into a powerful psychological force.


I've been saying this for a long time, and also posted about it a while ago (on Skadi?). Since virtually all 'indigenous' ethnic groups on earth have some sort of superstition, animism or ancestral worship going, it is my view that humans have evolved to contain a 'spiritual' aspect in the brain within the brain functions. This 'device' also allows humans to have 'spiritual experiences', and make it real for them.

This is one way of explaining spiritual and religious experiences, which are in effect dramatizations of the mind about the individual's particular religion (i.e. superstition). Even structured, modern religions like Christianity and Islam can also be viewed as superstitions.

[Lutiferre]

The problem, Karaten, lies in your atheist question-begging, which blinds your sight for what a Christian viewpoint is, which is necessary for at least understanding and discussing the viewpoint of a Christian.

God is not "as absolute as reality", because that sentence begs the question that God is not real. But as a Christian, I affirm that God is real; God is the absolutely absolute ground of all reality, and hence, it is not a question of which degree of reality he has compared to what you consider reality, but that he is critical for any reality ad extra at all.

Also, you still haven't managed to grasp what I originally meant with how we know God or any reality at all. I will repeat my own words, because they accurately show how your mischaracterisations fail to apprehend my point.

Our existence does not need any evidence to be affirmed, but it does need faith. We only know that anything exists or is real, including our own awareness of it, as a self-evident and incorrigible awareness. This is what we call faith, because it is self-evident and hence, not inferred from any other belief or evidence, and the same kind of awareness applies to those who believe in God.

Nowhere do I pretend that reality is not absolute; I believe reality is absolute reality. Nowhere do I pretend that reality "is belief"; reality is not faith, it is absolute, but faith is the prerequisite to knowing that reality is reality.

[Lutiferre]

Even structured, modern religions like Christianity and Islam can also be viewed as superstitions.
As indeed, anything can. As indeed, anything is a superstition, which doesn't conform to absolute skepticism, absolute nihilism, so absolute that it even denies the reality of solipsisms positive account of the actually existing mind.

[Loki]

... faith is the prerequisite to knowing that reality is reality.

Precisely! For a believer, that is. It is this 'blind' adherence to the faith principle, which is illogical by the way, that leads people to believe in all sorts of nonsense, and yet believe it is truly real.

This is the point: Without faith, God does not exist. He only exists to believers.

[Lutiferre]

Precisely! For a believer, that is.
Not so. For anyone.


It is this 'blind' adherence to the faith principle, which is illogical by the way, that leads people to believe in all sorts of nonsense, and yet believe it is truly real.
It does not. I defined faith, not as a leap into the darkness, but as the foundation for all else - the foundational knowledge which is self-evident and needs not be inferred from any other belief.


This is the point: Without faith, God does not exist. He only exists to believers.
A restatement of your atheism. A redundant utterance.

[Loki]

As indeed, anything can. As indeed, anything is a superstition, which doesn't conform to absolute skepticism, absolute nihilism, so absolute that it even denies the reality of solipsisms positive account of the actually existing mind.

No, now you are deliberately trying to deceive by going to extreme absurdities in order to invalidate my statement. But it doesn't matter, any reasonable reader of this thread will realise it.

My keyboard and computer screen are not superstitions, they really exist. Yet most religions, like Christianity, Islam and others, are founded on superstitions that were not real events. It is not possible for a female human being to conceive a child "by the Holy Ghost", or for someone to rise from the dead after three days in a tomb. These are superstitions.

[Lutiferre]

No, now you are deliberately trying to deceive by going to extreme absurdities in order to invalidate my statement.
No. I am pointing out the truth that anything might be attacked as a superstition which doesn't conform to absolute skeptic nihilism. And there are advocates of such an absolute skeptic nihilism.


My keyboard and computer screen are not superstitions, they really exist.
And yet that is your assertion, which relies ultimately on the faith that your sense-data represents an actually existing reality rather than not doing so. If it does not, then that is predicating one less positive statement about reality, and thus, is that much closer to agnosticism.


Yet most religions, like Christianity, Islam and others, are founded on superstitions that were not real events
Another statement of faith, another reassertion of your atheism.

It is not possible for a female human being to conceive a child "by the Holy Ghost", or for someone to rise from the dead after three days in a tomb. These are superstitions.
Another reassertion of your atheism, how very informative of your atheism you are today, Loki.

I bet you stay up all night writing on the walls "I am an atheist, I am an atheist, I am an atheist, I am ..."

[Loki]

And yet that is your assertion, which relies ultimately on the faith that your sense-data represents an actually existing reality rather than not doing so. If it does not, then that is predicating one less positive statement about reality, and thus, is that much closer to agnosticism.


How can you go through life without being able to distinguish reality from superstition? I can only remark that it may be a cognitive malfunction. Here are some basic examples:

Reality:

The chair I currently sit on
The bottle I am drinking water from right now
The curtains on my windows. They really exist.

Superstition:

The Tooth Fairy
The Flat Earth (as opposed to a spherical one)
Creation of the earth in 7 days
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Tarzan of the Apes
The Virgin Birth

[Karaten]

And yet again you resort to planting words in my mouth which are certainly not inferrable from the sentence they pretend to be the consequence of.

Please answer the question.


The problem, Karaten, lies in your atheist question-begging, which blinds your sight for what a Christian viewpoint is, which is necessary for at least understanding and discussing the viewpoint of a Christian.

I'm sorry. Still, if you're confident about your religion, you should be able to answer all of them, instead of completely avoiding and going back to "you don't understand me."




God is not "as absolute as reality",
There is no degrees of absolution, either something is, or it isn't. That is how absolution is understood.


because that sentence begs the question that God is not real. But as a Christian, I affirm that God is real; God is the absolutely absolute ground of all reality, and hence, it is not a question of which degree of reality he has compared to what you consider reality, but that he is critical for any reality ad extra at all.

Then you adhere to subjectiveism, and you adhere to the ideology that because you believe it ,it is true, correct? "I am Christian, I believe this, therefore it is fact." Maybe you don't know that you're saying this, but this is exactly what you're saying. You can't simply have belief, you must have a way to channel that belief to others, if you're going to state them in an argument. "I believe this, so your statement is false." It's worse than an ad hominem because at least an ad hominem makes an effort to sound reasonable.



Also, you still haven't managed to grasp what I originally meant with how we know God or any reality at all. I will repeat my own words, because they accurately show how your mischaracterisations fail to apprehend my point.

Our existence does not need any evidence to be affirmed, but it does need faith. We only know that anything exists or is real, including our own awareness of it, as a self-evident and incorrigible awareness. This is what we call faith, because it is self-evident and hence, not inferred from any other belief or evidence, and the same kind of awareness applies to those who believe in God.

Nowhere do I pretend that reality is not absolute; I believe reality is absolute reality. Nowhere do I pretend that reality "is belief"; reality is not faith, it is absolute, but faith is the prerequisite to knowing that reality is reality.

The only reason that is true is because the question of realities falsity was brought up, with a ridiculous notion, and thus, "faith" within something evident as well as absolute, absolute, not in ideology, but in effect, in influence, and therefore, does not need to rely on faith. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The existence of reality is assumed, is rational, and is known. The notion that it is not is a conflict to common perception, to common understanding, and to everything that constructs the basis of all we know and come to know. As such, this is the lack of god. The existence of god defies what we know, defies rational thought, thus, would be the polar opposite of declaring reality.

Now, tell me finally, how can something have a varying degree of absolution?

PLEASE UNDERSTAND your own words, and make sure they relay what you want to say before accusing me of not understanding, because my analysis follows your words exact to their definition.

[Lutiferre]

How can you go through life without being able to distinguish reality from superstition?
I can distinguish between them, given my foundational belief in Christianity. But I realise this distinction is not a matter of evidence, since it goes before any evidence to the very roots of that evidence (as sense-data, for instance). I realise where the sound reason comes from and where it doesn't come from.

[Lutiferre]

There is no degrees of absolution, either something is, or it isn't. That is how absolution is understood.
And nothing I said contradicts it.


Then you adhere to subjectiveism, and you adhere to the ideology that because you believe it ,it is true, correct?
No. Not correct. Not what I said.


"I am Christian, I believe this, therefore it is fact." Maybe you don't know that you're saying this, but this is exactly what you're saying.
And maybe you don't know you are saying this, but this is exactly what you are saying: "I am wrong". No, doesn't work that way. Straw-man.

[Loki]

I can distinguish between them, given my foundational belief in Christianity. But I realise this distinction is not a matter of evidence, since it goes before any evidence to the very roots of that evidence (as sense-data, for instance). I realise where the sound reason comes from and where it doesn't come from.

How do you know the computer in front of you exists? Did you have to pray about it first, or what? Or is it a matter of faith?

I don't need any faith to logically deduct that you are either using a computer, or an internet-enabled electronic device. It is a fact, there is no chance at all that you are using telepathy to post your messages here.

[Lutiferre]

How do you know the computer in front of you exists? Did you have to pray about it first, or what? Or is it a matter of faith?
Again your statements reveal your ignroance about epistemology. You are so immersed in your (sound) assumptions about reality, which are necessary to make sense out of it, that you don't realise you have any. You don't realise that there is nothing in experience of the world itself which mandates realism over solipsism, since any evidence taken for the actual existence of things comes from the very sense-data which solipsism equally accounts for.


I don't need any faith to logically deduct that you are either using a computer, or an internet-enabled electronic device. It is a fact, there is no chance at all that you are using telepathy to post your messages here.
Yes, you do. You cannot by pure rationality have any such generalised knowledge. It's a fallacy of assuming the universal validity of inductive reasoning without proper skepticism. And yet we need to put our faith in that induction and in common sense because it usually works that way, but we cannot rationally know that it will beforehand.

[Karaten]

And nothing I said contradicts it.


Is English your primary language? Do you realize that "God isn't AS absolute" implies a varying degree of absolution?



No. Not correct. Not what I said.

Then restate what you said, instead of just saying it's not what you said.



And maybe you don't know you are saying this, but this is exactly what you are saying: "I am wrong". No, doesn't work that way. Straw-man.
Pot meet kettle?

You've been doing that this whole time, saying something that adheres to one ideology, then stating it's not that.

"Now, I believe blacks are scum and less than whites, but I'm certainly not racist!"

Get off it, you can't define yourself, your actions define you, your words define your ideology, not what you want to put upon yourself.

I should point you back to my earlier post, because it debunks every single thing you have stated.

[Karaten]

Again your statements reveal your ignroance about epistemology. You are so immersed in your (sound) assumptions about reality, which are necessary to make sense out of it, that you don't realise you have any. You don't realise that there is nothing in experience of the world itself which mandates realism over solipsism, since any evidence taken for the actual existence of things comes from the very sense-data which solipsism equally accounts for.

Yes, you do. You cannot by pure rationality have any such generalised knowledge. It's a fallacy of assuming the universal validity of inductive reasoning without proper skepticism. And yet we need to put our faith in that induction and in common sense because it usually works that way, but we cannot rationally know that it will beforehand.

Then why do you adhere to Christianity and not Nihilism?

[Lutiferre]

Is English your primary language? Do you realize that "God isn't AS absolute" implies a varying degree of absolution? You obviously haven't read my response. I rejected the entire idea of measuring absoluteness in degrees long before you accuse me of doing exactly what you started by doing.


God is not "as absolute as reality", because that sentence begs the question that God is not real. But as a Christian, I affirm that God is real; God is the absolutely absolute ground of all reality, and hence, it is not a question of which degree of reality he has compared to what you consider reality, but that he is critical for any reality ad extra at all.


Then restate what you said, instead of just saying it's not what you said.
I have no need to restate it just because you keep distorting my words.


You've been doing that this whole time, saying something that adheres to one ideology, then stating it's not that.
No. It's you who keep trying to twist my words into various fallacies that have nothing to do with what I actually said.

[Lutiferre]

Then why do you adhere to Christianity and not Nihilism?
Neither of us adheres to absolute skeptic nihilism and agnosticism so the question is irrelevant as an inquistitory one. Why I adhere to Christianity? Because I have the epistemic justification necessary to do so in that it has been revealed to me as the truth. While you don't have any such justification for your non-nihilism. In that, I have adequate epistemic justification where you don't, which enables me to be warranted in rejecting nihilism, while your lack of the same means that you have no such warrant.

[Puddle of Mudd]

Not so. For anyone.

A restatement of your atheism. A redundant utterance.




Another statement of faith, another reassertion of your atheism.

Another reassertion of your atheism, how very informative of your atheism you are today, Loki.

I bet you stay up all night writing on the walls "I am an atheist, I am an atheist, I am an atheist, I am ..."

These are just empty replies, you may as well be leaving blank spaces for they constitute nothing in the way of a rebuttal.

[Lutiferre]

These are just empty replies, you may as well be leaving blank spaces for they constitute nothing in the way of a rebuttal.
Empty replies to empty statements.

[Ulf]

Odin told me Christianity was wrong and said that His Way was the True Way.

[Lutiferre]

These are just empty replies, you may as well be leaving blank spaces for they constitute nothing in the way of a rebuttal.
By the way, you again repeat the question-begging of Loki and others, by pretending that a statement such as "It is not possible for a female human being to conceive a child "by the Holy Ghost", or for someone to rise from the dead after three days in a tomb. These are superstitions." has any evidential value whatsoever and needs to be refuted. It does not. It's a redunant restatement of presuppositions which proves only that the person who uttered them is not a Christian.

[Psychonaut]

Odin told me Christianity was wrong and said that His Way was the True Way.

...and that's basically how Christianity justifies its assumed absolute place over every other religion. :nod

[Puddle of Mudd]

Empty replies to empty statements.

In that case they should provide no difficulty in countering. Apparently not so...

[Murphy]

In that case they should provide no difficulty in countering. Apparently not so...

I'm sorry hen, but you obviously haven't understood a word that Lutierre has typed out. Don't worry though, you don't seem to be alone.

Regards,
Eóin.

[Karaten]

By the way, you again repeat the question-begging of Loki and others, by pretending that a statement such as "It is not possible for a female human being to conceive a child "by the Holy Ghost", or for someone to rise from the dead after three days in a tomb. These are superstitions." has any evidential value whatsoever and needs to be refuted. It does not. It's a redunant restatement of presuppositions which proves only that the person who uttered them is not a Christian.

You rely way too much on labels, labels are simply constructs of humans so we don't have to explain things in full detail each time we reference them.

[Karaten]

God is not "as absolute as reality", because that sentence begs the question that God is not real. But as a Christian, I affirm that God is real; God is the absolutely absolute ground of all reality, and hence, it is not a question of which degree of reality he has compared to what you consider reality, but that he is critical for any reality ad extra at all.

How do you know this?

And please, answer the question. Mind not that I'm atheist, don't look at the word next to "Religion" in my profile, just look at the question, and answer it.

[Karaten]

I'm sorry hen, but you obviously haven't understood a word that Lutierre has typed out. Don't worry though, you don't seem to be alone.

Regards,
Eóin.

Every argument he has brought up has been shot down, with either "That's just because you're atheist." Or "You don't understand what I'm saying" as a response.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you reference epistemology, Lutierre, being a man of faith and sticking to it.

[Lutiferre]

...and that's basically how Christianity justifies its assumed absolute place over every other religion. :nod
It isn't. That is the rational self-coherence of Christianity: two contradictory claims can't both be true. A coherence which is lacking in various pagan forms of worship, making them irrational.

Odin told me Christianity was wrong and said that His Way was the True Way.
And you assume that I accept that any belief which fulfills the criteria of proper basicality as expounded in classical foundationalism exhausts all possible and valid criteria for proper basicality. Yet they are not all that is available; a sea of relevant possible criteria are. The criterium of epistemic possibility is relevant. Christianity is an epistemic possibility insofar as my claim is self-coherent with the worldview it espouses (God has revealed himself to me), and the worldview it espouses is generally self-coherent; and it's epistemic possibility is suggested by the fact that we have evidence in favour of it, which may not finally prove it, but does suggest it is epistemically possible (e.g. the evidence in favour of historical Christianity, it's historical coherence, and the natural arguments in favour of monotheism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monotheism/#5) rather than polytheism, given the incoherence of polytheism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monotheism/#5)).

On the other hand, I don't believe yours is. The sense in which Odin and other pagan gods are gods is not contradictory or even comparable to Christian doctrine, and if it is, is not self-coherent, and hence, it does not follow that Christianity is untrue or wrong, and I would say it is not coherent. It is therefore incoherent that Odin claims that Christianity is wrong, when Odin is not a god in the sense the Christian God is, and not even omniscient in such a manner to be actually competent to infallibly tell you so.

[Lutiferre]

Every argument he has brought up has been shot down, with either "That's just because you're atheist." Or "You don't understand what I'm saying" as a response.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you reference epistemology, Lutierre, being a man of faith and sticking to it.
Epistemology is exactly about what we know and how we know it, and it is easily demonstrable that faith, in the relevant sense that I have defined it, is necessary for common sense (induction, the world will exist tomorrow, etc).

[Loki]

It isn't. That is the rational self-coherence of Christianity: two contradictory claims can't both be true. A coherence which is lacking in various pagan forms of worship, making them irrational.


Are you suggesting that the Bible is a coherent and rational piece of literature?

[Lutiferre]

Are you suggesting that the Bible is a coherent and rational piece of literature?
Yes. I have answered your objections to the bible in other threads, and I have yet to see a refutation of the systematic refutations of the SAB that I have linked you to.

[Loki]

Yes. I have answered your objections to the bible in other threads, and I have yet to see a refutation of the systematic refutations of the SAB that I have linked you to.

Your 'systematic refutations' have been inadequate, unfortunately, and most of them did not refute anything.

[Lutiferre]

Your 'systematic refutations' have been inadequate, unfortunately, and most of them did not refute anything.
I have yet to see a demonstration of that claim.

[Ulf]

Odin is the Most High God. Your god can not be greater or higher or more powerful. Why subject yourself to an inferior jew-god?

Also, I know you've put yourself quite high up on that pedestal, but you needn't be so verbose.

[Karaten]

Epistemology is exactly about what we know and how we know it, and it is easily demonstrable that faith, in the relevant sense that I have defined it, is necessary for common sense (induction, the world will exist tomorrow, etc).

It's also a belief of humility and an understanding of how little you actually know.

[Lutiferre]

Odin is the Most High God. Your god can not be greater or higher or more powerful.
Apparently the actual people of Odin (that is, not you) disagreed, since Harald Blåtand converted to Christianity.

As to the rest, you fail to meet the real objections which would point toward the inevitable fact that Odin is not an epistemic possibility due to the incoherence (e.g. arbitrary duplication of gods, obvious parts of paganism in the relationships between the gods where Odin is neither omniscient, omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, giving no analogical base for rationality, the fact that pagans never truly did recognise the mutual exclusion of contradictions) nonhistoricity (it was never truly a part of that same pagan belief system to claim that Odin was ever an actually existing person, something which makes it a completely different claim which is not an epistemic possibility of relevance in the same regard as Christianity is with it's immersion into history) and lack of evidential suggestion of the fundamental fact of the worldview of the paganism he is a part of (polytheism rather than monotheism).

[Loki]

I have yet to see a demonstration of that claim.

Such a demonstration would be futile, since you would never admit to anything being wrong with the Bible, even if solid proof had been presented.

[Lutiferre]

It's also a belief of humility and an understanding of how little you actually know.
I do believe we know unendingly less than the omniscient One. But that doesn't mean we know absolutely nothing, or that our practical knowledge as we exercise it every day, doesn't fundamentally speaking rely on faith.

[Lutiferre]

Such a demonstration would be futile, since you would never admit to anything being wrong with the Bible, even if solid proof had been presented.
Good excuse. And the demonstration remains non-existing.

Of course, it's futile to argue with someone who advocates the SAB, the same SAB which, for instance, conflates eternal punishment and temporal punishment and claims that there has been made a contradiction by taking quotes out of context referring to either one of these very different things.

[Mrs Ulf]

The harder you search the less you will know. Call upon it in whichever name you wish. It is my singular experience, means nothing to another.

You may never see through my eyes, think with my mind. Find your own comfort in the depths of the eternity. Take from it what you get, don't expect anything more than you've received.

I see no point in degrading another persons singular chance, or choice in the life they get. If this is the only chance we get, arguing over their beliefs is an insult. Let them view this world in the way they choose.

In time this will all mean nothing.

[Psychonaut]

...obvious parts of paganism in the relationships between the gods where Odin is neither omniscient, omnipotent nor omnibenevolent...

Wow, I thought that most serious Christian theologies had given up on trying to rectify the inconsistencies between the three omnis. Not only is the triple omni not a specific point of doctrine in the Bible (you can certainly infer it, and just about anything else you wish, from a text to large and ponderous), but the theodical problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy) inherent in taking all three at once is insurmountable without taking very large liberties with one's logic.

[Lutiferre]

Apparently the actual people of Odin (that is, not you) disagreed, since Harald Blåtand converted to Christianity.

As to the rest, you fail to meet the real objections which would point toward the inevitable fact that Odin is not an epistemic possibility due to the incoherence (e.g. arbitrary duplication of gods, obvious parts of paganism in the relationships between the gods where Odin is neither omniscient, omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, giving no analogical base for rationality, the fact that pagans never truly did recognise the mutual exclusion of contradictions) nonhistoricity (it was never truly a part of that same pagan belief system to claim that Odin was ever an actually existing person, something which makes it a completely different claim which is not an epistemic possibility of relevance in the same regard as Christianity is with it's immersion into history) and lack of evidential suggestion of the fundamental fact of the worldview of the paganism he is a part of (polytheism rather than monotheism).

I failed to mention, of course, that a corporeal God like Odin is not transcendent, which is relevant to the coherence of the doctrine of divinity in it, which only shows that in paganism, the gods are not God in the sense the God of the Christians is, and hence, not omnipotent, omniscient nor omnibenevolent, all of which is necessary for the infallibility of the Christian revelation, and shows why the pagan "revelation" cannot be so (e.g. a non-omniscient, non-benevolent, non-omnipotent God is not good nor all knowing, so there is plenty of chance that he would lie and misinform). It certainly can neither be said of Odin that he is transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, and therefore, he is not an epistemic possibility as a defeater of the Christian revelation.

[Lutiferre]

Wow, I thought that most serious Christian theologies had given up on trying to rectify the inconsistencies between the three omnis. Not only is the triple omni not a specific point of doctrine in the Bible (you can certainly infer it, and just about anything else you wish, from a text to large and ponderous), but the theodical problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy) inherent in taking all three at once is insurmountable without taking very large liberties with one's logic.
Obviously you are underinformed then. Read Alvin Plantingas response to theodicy in particular.

[Psychonaut]

I failed to mention, of course, that a corporeal God like Odin is not transcendent

Going by the dictionary definition of the term (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporeal), I know of no Heathen, either on this board or in real life, who would consider any of our Gods to be corporeal. You're using your favorite "tactic" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) again. :rolleyes2:

[Frigga]

.....omnibenevolent......

Uhm, I think that this is a stretch based on Biblical writings wouldn't you say? Omni means always, and there are specific passages in the Bible that speak of God's wrath, and not His benevolence, which means that He is not always benevolent. :lightbul:

[Lutiferre]

Uhm, I think that this is a stretch based on Biblical writings wouldn't you say? Omni means always, and there are specific passages in the Bible that speak of God's wrath, and not His benevolence, which means that He is not always benevolent. :lightbul:
His wrath is born out of his care for his children, which is benevolent. There would be no wrath if there was no love.

[Lutiferre]

Going by the dictionary definition of the term (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporeal), I know of no Heathen, either on this board or in real life, who would consider any of our Gods to be corporeal. You're using your favorite "tactic" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) again. :rolleyes2:
I can't say what you neo-heathens consider them exactly, but it doesn't make a big difference to me, other than render neo-heathenism incoherent.

[Karaten]

I failed to mention, of course, that a corporeal God like Odin is not transcendent, which is relevant to the coherence of the doctrine of divinity in it, which only shows that in paganism, the gods are not God in the sense the God of the Christians is, and hence, not omnipotent, omniscient nor omnibenevolent, all of which is necessary for the infallibility of the Christian revelation, and shows why the pagan "revelation" cannot be so (e.g. a non-omniscient, non-benevolent, non-omnipotent God is not good nor all knowing, so there is plenty of chance that he would lie and misinform). It certainly can neither be said of Odin that he is transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, and therefore, he is not an epistemic possibility as a defeater of the Christian revelation.

My God has a ray gun that kills Gods.

[Psychonaut]

I can't say what you neo-heathens consider them exactly

Exactly. You know absolutely nothing about what we believe or what we do. Since you've finally admitted this, please cease making sweeping statements about our beliefs since you're obviously not well studied on the subject.

[Lutiferre]

Exactly. You know absolutely nothing about what we believe or what we do. Since you've finally admitted this, please cease making sweeping statements about our beliefs since you're obviously not well studied on the subject.
Because it's irrelevant to what the actual Germanic heathens believed and did in the course of the evolution of Germanic mythology.

[Lutiferre]

My God has a ray gun that kills Gods.
And I have a nuclear bomb.

[Puddle of Mudd]

My God has a ray gun that kills Gods.

Yeah.....well my god is edible and delicious. So NAH!

[Psychonaut]

Because it's irrelevant to what the actual Germanic heathens believed and did in the course of the evolution of Germanic mythology.

...more things which it is painfully apparent that you have but the most superficial understanding of. My request stands.

[Karaten]

And I have a nuclear bomb.

My god is cockroach.

[Ulf]

Yeah.....well my god is edible and delicious. So NAH!

Well, so is the Christian god. I think they eat their cracker-god in church or something weird.

Praise the saltine!

[Lutiferre]

...more things which it is painfully apparent that you have but the most superficial understanding of. My request stands.
My knowledge of Germanic mythology suffices to establish the other things I said, even if you remove the criticism of corporeality, which I do believe still stands, even if the decadent mythology of neo-heathens denies it.

[Mrs Ulf]

Mmm hmm, I'm gonna repost this. Because religious debates are soooooooooo pointless. Plus your all hell bent on nit picking the most ridiculous shit.

It is only when we are insecure in our own beliefs that we feel the need to disprove others.

[Puddle of Mudd]

Well, so is the Christian god. I think they eat their cracker-god in church or something weird.

Praise the saltine!

Strangely enough, that's what a black guy I knew once called their god as well...

[Karaten]

Mmm hmm, I'm gonna repost this. Because religious debates are soooooooooo pointless. Plus your all hell bent on nit picking the most ridiculous shit.

It is only when we are insecure in our own beliefs that we feel the need to disprove others.

Actually. I'm quite secure in my beliefs, I just care about truth, which you subjectivists probably aren't even aware exists.

[Mrs Ulf]

Actually. I'm quite secure in my beliefs, I just care about truth, which you subjectivists probably aren't even aware exists.

Apparently you aren't. If you were secure enough in your belief of your existence then you wouldn't feel a need to incite a debate to prove yourself right.

Its not about being true, or right. Its about finding your own path. Its a waste of time to prove to others your path is right, because it is your own path.

[Karaten]

Apparently you aren't. If you were secure enough in your belief of your existence then you wouldn't feel a need to incite a debate to prove yourself right.

Its not about being true, or right. Its about finding your own path. Its a waste of time to prove to others your path is right, because it is your own path.

Typical human mindset.

I have said nothing about paths, nor have I been inclined to prove mine right.

Reality is not dictated by what you want it to be, no matter how much you wish for that. Reality is what it is.

[Ulf]

nor have I been inclined to prove mine right.

So what were all those posts back there about?

It's not just about trying to prove yours right, but also trying to just prove others wrong. Things like this become tiring after a time because of the fact that we'll probably just never know. So there is really no need for it. You atheists are so hell-bent (pardon the expression) on proving god false that you seem to forget the futility of it.

[Mrs Ulf]

Typical human mindset.

I have said nothing about paths, nor have I been inclined to prove mine right.

Reality is not dictated by what you want it to be, no matter how much you wish for that. Reality is what it is.

You have chosen a path, be it religious or not. Your reality is completely different from everyone else reality.

A post of no substance. You pretend as if you are on top of the world with your meaningless words. You can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk.

You are as a human inclined to prove your reality to be true. It makes life more meaningful.

My point was that it is a waste of time to debate this. You can not turn anyone who is not already on your side, nor can I do the same. I will not say your choice is wrong because to do so would in turn make me wrong in my own beliefs.

[Karaten]

So what were all those posts back there about?

It's not just about trying to prove yours right, but also trying to just prove others wrong. Things like this become tiring after a time because of the fact that we'll probably just never know. So there is really no need for it. You atheists are so hell-bent (pardon the expression) on proving god false that you seem to forget the futility of it.

I haven't been trying to prove god as non-existent, but simply the ridiculousness of the people who believe in him and their reasons for doing so.

It's alright, you can hate me. Anyone who goes against the accepted way is hated, but I really am out for what's best.

And yes, I certainly should be out to debunk religion, when the president out saying "God bless America" in his speeches, when they pass laws that hold back progress on religious bounds, you people think that other's beliefs don't affect you in a democracy? In a republic? In a system where people have a voice? I'm sure you didn't consider that, the ability to believe within faith, and accept it, makes you a pawn. Makes you a fool, and it makes everyone suffer.


You have chosen a path, be it religious or not. Your reality is completely different from everyone else reality.

A post of no substance. You pretend as if you are on top of the world with your meaningless words. You can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk.

You are as a human inclined to prove your reality to be true. It makes life more meaningful.

My point was that it is a waste of time to debate this. You can not turn anyone who is not already on your side, nor can I do the same. I will not say your choice is wrong because to do so would in turn make me wrong in my own beliefs.

Both you and your husband must be quite insecure to sit here and try to prove your point.

You give up quite easily, without even trying. It's an endless battle, as all existence is.

[Mrs Ulf]

Both you and your husband must be quite insecure to sit here and try to prove your point.

You give up quite easily, without even trying. It's an endless battle, as all existence is.

LOL, you should learn to read what is posted. I've been proving that this whole time.

[Ulf]

I haven't been trying to prove god as non-existent, but simply the ridiculousness of the people who believe in him and their reasons for doing so.

It's alright, you can hate me. Anyone who goes against the accepted way is hated, but I really am out for what's best.

And yes, I certainly should be out to debunk religion, when the president out saying "God bless America" in his speeches, when they pass laws that hold back progress on religious bounds, you people think that other's beliefs don't affect you in a democracy? In a republic? In a system where people have a voice? I'm sure you didn't consider that, the ability to believe within faith, and accept it, makes you a pawn. Makes you a fool, and it makes everyone suffer.

These things don't really factor into the debate at hand. I don't hate you. I admire your convictions and desire to stand up for them. If you wish for a world free from politics with religion then want in one hand and shit in the other.

I agree there should be NO religion in politics, but in a democracy that is not possible. Religion is a near and dear thing to people and they will vote for those who hold their religious ideals. This is democracy, accept it. What is needed is a better form of government. Democracy is not the best.

That said, trying to convince every religious person of the ridiculousness of their beliefs will not win you any supporters from their camp, quite the opposite in fact.


Both you and your husband must be quite insecure to sit here and try to prove your point.

You give up quite easily, without even trying. It's an endless battle, as all existence is.

Perhaps, but we're only human. We're not so much trying to prove ourselves right, as we are trying to at least show you where we're coming from. Some form of mutual understanding, agreeing to disagree but maybe work together?

[SuuT]

In the end, there are only two ways to deal with any Absolutist.

[Nodens]

In the end, there are only two ways to deal with any Absolutist.

I count three...

[Lutiferre]

In the end, there are only two ways to deal with any Absolutist.
And that statement is not at all absolutist.

[Damião de Góis]

I actually didn't have any chance to decide for myself, my parents gave me a catholic education from a very early age. At that age i never questioned anything, i just did what my parents told me.

[Lutiferre]

I actually didn't have any chance to decide for myself, my parents gave me a catholic education from a very early age. At that age i never questioned anything, i just did what my parents told me.
I didn't have the chance to decide for myself either, when my parents taught me not to drool over other people.

[Poltergeist]

I actually didn't have any chance to decide for myself, my parents gave me a catholic education from a very early age. At that age i never questioned anything, i just did what my parents told me.

Plenty of such cases, in the opposite sense as well.


I didn't have the chance to decide for myself either, when my parents taught me not to drool over other people.

Now that's pretty lame and shallow comment and you know it.

[Lutiferre]

Now that's pretty lame and shallow comment and you know it.
It may seem so, but there is still a point with it.

[SuuT]

And that statement is not at all absolutist.

Correct. Any problem that resolves and renders two or more possibilities equal to one another in scope and application cannot be, for those reasons, Absolute even though both resolutions are equally, and absolutely true.

Similarly, the Oneness of (G)od resolves at a disjuncture: Clutering divine attributes into a singularity, whilst logically feasible, doesn't answer to or unpack the axioms assumed to be true of such an endeavor. Indeed, within the structure of any argument whose truth value precludes an omniform divine nature with mutually exclusive attributes lies the very axioms that render the assertion, "(G)od is One" vacuously true (i.e. only 'true' in virtue of logical structuring). Therefore, (G)od cannot be One lest we redefine 'One-ness' in, itself, a fallacious way. Ergo, it is likely - and logically consistent - to say, "where there is one god, there is another" (granting that at least one god Is/has Being). Polytheism is logically postulated as such, and is easier to defend, as the (G)od resolution is, ultimately, irresolute in so far as truth value which is predicated on form, and form alone, is not the ultimate arbiter of truth.

[Lutiferre]

Correct. Any problem that resolves and renders two or more possibilities equal to one another in scope and application cannot be, for those reasons, Absolute even though both resolutions are equally, and absolutely true.
It is absolute. You didn't say that "I am open to an endless multiplicity of unspecified and diverse ways of dealing with an absolutist", you said "in the end, there are only two ways to deal with any Absolutist".


Similarly, the Oneness of (G)od resolves at a disjuncture: Clutering divine attributes into a singularity, whilst logically feasible, doesn't answer to or unpack the axioms assumed to be true of such an endeavor. Indeed, within the structure of any argument whose truth value precludes an omniform divine nature with mutually exclusive attributes lies the very axioms that render the assertion, "(G)od is One" vacuously true (i.e. only 'true' in virtue of logical structuring).You obviously don't know what divine simplicity is or means.


Therefore, (G)od cannot be One lest we redefine 'One-ness' in, itself, a fallacious way.
To the contrary, God can only be one. The reasons why? Read below.

Ergo, it is likely - and logically consistent - to say, "where there is one god, there is another" (granting that at least one god Is/has Being). Polytheism is logically postulated as such, and is easier to defend, as the (G)od resolution is, ultimately, irresolute in so far as truth value which is predicated on form, and form alone, is not the ultimate arbiter of truth.
Despite your sudden elevation of verbosity, you haven't actually presented an argument.

Here are some reasons from the article on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explaining why monotheism is an epistemic possibility and polytheism is not.


Two Arguments from God's Sovereignty

The Argument from Causal Order

One of the most popular arguments for monotheism is drawn from the world's unity. If there were several designers who acted independently or at cross-purposes, we would expect to find evidence of this in their handiwork — one set of laws obtaining at one time or place, for example, and a different set of laws obtaining at a different time or place. We observe nothing of the sort, however. On the contrary, the unity of the world, the fact that it exhibits a uniform structure, that it is a single cosmos, strongly suggests some sort of unity in its cause — that there is either a single designer, or several designers acting cooperatively, perhaps under the direction of one of their number.

This evidence does not force us to conclude that there is only one designer, and the ablest proponents of the argument have recognized this. Thus, William Paley asserts that the argument proves only “a unity of counsel” or (if there are subordinate agents) “a presiding” or “controlling will” (Paley 52). Nevertheless, in the absence of compelling reasons for postulating the existence of two or more cooperating designers, considerations of simplicity suggest that we ought to posit only one designer. It isn't clear that there are any. Some have thought that the existence of evil and apparent disorder is best explained by postulating conflicts between two or more opposed powers. Whether this is true or not, evil and apparent disorder provides no reason for preferring the hypothesis of several cooperating designers to the hypothesis of a single designer. That is, having once decided that natural good and natural evil are consequences of the operation of a single system of laws, and that their cause must therefore be unitary, the existence of evil and apparent disorder is to longer relevant to the question of monotheism (although it may be relevant to the question of the goodness of the cause).

A posteriori arguments of this type can't be used to show that there can be only one god, however — that monotheism is conceptually required by the theist's concept of divinity. A more powerful argument from God's sovereignty remedies this deficiency.

An Argument from God's “Total Causality”

John Duns Scotus offers several proofs of God's unicity in his Ordinatio. Scotus's fourth proof is based on the theistic intuition that God is the complete or total cause of everything else. His argument is roughly this:

1. Necessarily, if anything is a god, its creative volition is the necessary and sufficient causal condition of every other concrete object.

Suppose, then, that

2. Contingent beings exist and there are two gods.

It follows that

3. Each is the necessary and sufficient causal condition of the set of contingent beings. (From 1 and 2.)

Therefore,

4. The first is a sufficient causal condition of the set of contingent beings. (From 3.)

Hence,

5. The second is not a necessary causal condition of the set of contingent beings. (From 4.)

Again,

6. The first is a necessary causal condition of the set of contingent beings. (From 3.)

So

7. The second is not a sufficient causal condition of the existence of the set of contingent beings. (From 6.)

Therefore,

8. The second is neither a necessary nor a sufficient causal condition of the set of contingent beings. (From 5 and 7.)

A similar argument will show that

9. The first is neither a necessary nor a sufficient causal condition of the existence of the set of contingent beings.

It follows that

10. Neither god is either a necessary or a sufficient condition of the existence of the set of contingent beings. (From 8 and 9.)

Hence,

11. If contingent beings existed and there were two gods, each would be a necessary and sufficient causal condition of the existence of the set of contingent beings and neither would be a necessary and sufficient causal condition of the existence of the set of contingent beings. (From 2 through 10.)

But since

12. The consequent of 11 is impossible,
13. Its antecedent is impossible. (From 11 and 12. If p entails q, and q is impossible, then p is impossible.)

Thus,

14. It is impossible that contingent beings exist and there are two gods. (From 13.)

Therefore,

15. If contingent beings exist, there cannot be two gods. (From 14.) (Scotus: 87)

Scotus's argument is firmly rooted in the theistic intuition that God's creative volition is the necessary and sufficient causal condition of everything that exists outside him. But as it stands it suffers from two weaknesses.

First, the argument doesn't show that God is necessarily unique but only that if contingent beings exist, only one God exists. The second, and more serious, difficulty arises from the fact that there are at least two relevant senses of “sufficient causal condition.”

Striking a match is a causally sufficient condition of the match's ignition in a standard sense since, under normal conditions, if one strikes the match, it will ignite. Many other conditions are causally necessary for this event to occur, however — the presence of oxygen, the match's not being wet, and the like. But in a stronger sense, x is a causally sufficient condition of y if and only if given x alone, y exists or occurs. And in that sense, striking the match is not causally sufficient for the match's ignition since other conditions are needed as well.

The problem with Scotus's argument, then, is this. The inferences from 4 to 5, and from 6 to 7, are valid only upon the assumption that if a cause is sufficient to produce an effect no other cause is a necessary condition of that effect. But this is true only if a causally sufficient condition is such that it alone suffices to produce its effect, that is, if it is causally sufficient in the strong sense. If “causally sufficient condition” is taken in the strong sense, however, there are reasons to believe that the argument's first premise is false. Suppose, for example, that Abel would exist if and only if Adam and Eve were to freely copulate, and Adam and Eve would freely copulate if and only if God were to create them. By creating Adam and Eve, God brings about Abel's existence. Furthermore, given the truth of the relevant subjunctive conditionals, there is a clear sense in which God's doing so is not only a necessary but also a sufficient causal condition of Abel's existence. For if God creates Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve will beget Abel. It isn't sufficient in the strong sense, however, because God's creating Adam and Eve won't, all by itself, ensure Abel's existence. For that to occur, Adam and Eve's free decision to copulate is also needed. Theistic intuitions clearly support the claim that it is necessarily true that God's creative volitions are a causally sufficient condition of the existence of every other concrete object in at least a weak sense. It is less clear that they support the claim that it is necessarily true that God's creative volitions are a causally sufficient condition of the existence of every other concrete object in the strong sense. (Theists with robust views of human freedom, for example, will deny that they are.)

The problem, in short is this. In order to be valid, “sufficient causal condition” must be used in the same sense throughout the argument. If “causally sufficient condition” is taken in the weak sense, however, then the inferences from 4 to 5, and from 6 to 7, are illegitimate. Yet if “casually sufficient condition” is taken in the strong sense, there are reasons to believe that its first premise is false. In either case, the argument is unsound.

Both defects can be remedied, though. Even theists with robust views of human freedom would presumably endorse
1*. Necessarily, if any x is God, then for every concrete object distinct from x, the activity of x is a causally necessary condition for its existence, and if there are in fact one or more contingent beings distinct from x, then the activity of x is causally sufficient (in the strong sense) for the existence of at least one of them.

(1*) is sufficient to yield our conclusion. For if the first god is a causally necessary condition of the existence of every other concrete object, then the second god is not a causally sufficient condition (in the strong sense) of the existence of any contingent being. Similarly, if the first god is a causally sufficient condition (in the strong sense) of the existence of at least one contingent being, then the second is god is not a necessary condition of the existence of at least one concrete object that is distinct from itself. And, of course, similar conclusions are true of the second god.

Moreover, if God is a necessary being as many theists believe (that is, if God exists and is God in every possible world), then the argument's first defect can be remedied as well, since the mere possibility of the existence of contingent beings will be sufficient to establish God's necessary unicity. For consider the following argument:
1*. Necessarily, if any x is God, then for every concrete object distinct from x, the activity of x is a causally necessary condition for its existence, and if there are in fact one or more contingent beings distinct from x, then the activity of x is causally sufficient (in the strong sense) for the existence of at least one of them.

Suppose, then, that

16. There are two gods and contingent beings are possible.

It follows that

17. There is a possible world, w, in which contingent beings exist (from 16), and that, because each god is necessary,
18. Both gods exist in w. (From 16.)

Hence,

19. Each god is a necessary causal condition of the existence of each contingent being in w, and each god is the sufficient causal condition (in the strong sense) of the existence of at least one contingent being in w. (From 1*, 17, and 18.)

But,

20. It is impossible that each god is a necessary causal condition of the existence of each contingent being in w, and each god is the sufficient causal condition (in the strong sense) of at least one contingent being in w. (For, as we have seen, if one god is a necessary causal condition of the existence of each contingent being in w, the other is not the sufficient causal condition [in the strong sense] of any of them.)

Hence,

21. It is impossible that there are two gods and contingent beings are possible, that is, it is necessarily true that if contingent beings are possible, it is false that there are two gods. (From 1* through 20. If a proposition [e.g., 16] together with one or more necessary truths [e.g., 1*] entails another [e.g., 19], and the second is impossible, the first is impossible.)

But,

22. It is logically possible that contingent beings exist. (For they do exist.)

Hence,

23. It is necessarily true that it is logically possible that contingent beings exist. (From 22. What is possible is necessarily possible.)

Therefore,

24. It is necessarily false that there are two gods. (From 21, 23, and the principle that if one proposition entails another and the first is necessarily true, then the second is necessarily true.)

An Argument from Omnipotence

Al-Ghazali argues that there can't be two gods, for “were there two gods and one of them resolved on a course of action, the second would be either obliged to aid him and [sic] thereby demonstrating that he was a subordinate being and not an all-powerful god, or would be able to oppose and resist thereby demonstrating that he was the all-powerful and the first weak and deficient, not an all-powerful god.” (Ghazali: 40) Ghazali's intuition is sound but his argument can be more carefully formulated as follows:

1. Necessarily, it is possible for the wills of distinct persons to conflict. (The possibility of conflict seems included in the concept of a fully distinct person.)

Therefore,

2. Necessarily, if there are two distinct, essentially omnipotent persons, their wills can conflict. (From 1. Something has a property like omnipotence essentially if and only if it has that property in every logically possible world in which it exists.)
3. It is necessarily false that the wills of two omnipotent persons conflict.

Therefore,

4. It is necessarily false that the wills of two essentially omnipotent persons can conflict. (From 3. If there is a possible world in which their wills can conflict, then, necessarily, there is a possible world in which both are omnipotent and their wills do conflict.)

Therefore,

5. It is impossible for there to be two distinct, essentially omnipotent, persons. (From 2 and 4.)

It follows that if, as most theists believe,

6. It is necessarily true that omnipotence is an essential attribute of God,

then

7. It is impossible for there to be two gods. (From 5 and 6.)

Premise 3 is proved in this way:

8. Necessarily, if the will of an omnipotent person conflicts with another person's will, the latter's will is thwarted by the former's (since, if it were not, the omnipotent person would not be omnipotent.)
9. Necessarily, if a person's will is thwarted by another's will, then that person is not omnipotent.

Therefore,

10. Necessarily, if there were two omnipotent persons and their wills conflicted, then (since each of their wills would be thwarted) neither would be omnipotent. (From 8 and 9.)
11. It is impossible for there to be two omnipotent persons neither of whom are omnipotent.

Therefore,

12. It is impossible for the wills of two omnipotent persons to conflict. (From 10 and 11.)

Hence,

3. It is necessarily false that the wills of two omnipotent persons conflict. (From 12.)

Four of the argument's five premises (namely, 6, 8, 9, and 11) are fairly noncontroversial. Premise 1 has been doubted, however. Thomas V. Morris has suggested that, for persons to be distinct, all that is needed is the possibility that their wills differ. Suppose for example, that it is impossible for x to will A and for y to will not-A (and vice versa) but that it is possible for x to will A and for y to neither will A nor will not-A (and vice versa). Their wills could thus differ although they could not conflict.

Is this sufficient to ensure distinctness of persons, though? It is not clear that it is. If I somehow cannot will anything that is opposed to what some other person wills, my selfhood or identity as a separate person appears endangered. And if the impossibility is not merely contingent but logical or metaphysical, the threat to my independent identity seems even greater.

But this aside, it is doubtful that the wills of two essentially omnipotent beings, at least, could differ in the manner Morris suggests. For suppose they can. Then, where x and y are both essentially omnipotent, and s is some contingent state of affairs that is within the range of omnipotence, x can make y impotent with respect to s (and vice versa). For even though it is intrinsically possible for y to determine whether or not s will occur, x, merely by willing s, makes it impossible for y to will not-s. That is, x, as it were, takes power over s out of y's hands. Whether or not s occurs, in other words, is no longer up to y. Yet surely, if y is essentially omnipotent, and s is within the range of its power (as it must be if y is essentially omnipotent), no contingent circumstance of this sort could make it impotent with respect to s. (For a similar argument see Scotus's seventh proof of unicity. [Scotus: 90-1])

Premise 1 thus emerges unscathed. Since the proof is valid and its other premises appear unexceptionable, the argument from omnipotence seems sound.

An Argument from the Demand for Total Devotion

According to William of Ockham, “God” can be understood in two ways. By “God” one may mean “something more noble and more perfect than anything else besides him,” or one might mean “that than which nothing is more noble and more perfect.” If God is understood in the first way, then there can be only one god. For consider the following argument:

1. Necessarily, if any being is God, it is more perfect than any other being.

Therefore,

2. Necessarily, if there were two distinct beings and each were God, the first would be more perfect than the second and the second would be more perfect than the first. (From 1.)

But

3. It is impossible for there to be two beings each of which is more perfect than the other.

Therefore,

4. It is impossible for there to be two gods. (From 2 and 3.)

But if God is understood in the second way, Ockham thinks that it cannot be shown that there is only one god. For it isn't clear that there couldn't be two equally perfect beings, each of whom was such that no actual or possible being surpassed it (Ockham: 139-40).

Even if Ockham is right about this, it does seem impossible that there be two gods. For it appears to be a conceptual truth that God is unsurpassable. If he is, then, if there were two gods each would be unsurpassable. But there can't be two unsurpassable beings each of which is God. For part of what it means to call something “God” is that it is an appropriate object of total devotion and unconditional commitment. If there were two unsurpassable beings, however, our devotion and commitment should be divided between them. (As Scotus says, if there were two infinite goods, “an orderly will … could not be perfectly satisfied with but one infinite good” [Scotus: 87].) Since they are equally perfect, it would be inappropriate to be totally devoted or unconditionally committed to either one of them. But if it would, then neither of them would be God. So if it is a conceptual truth that God is unsurpassable, he must be unique.

An appeal to unsurpassability isn't really necessary, however, since God's uniqueness follows directly from his being an appropriate object of total devotion and unconditional commitment. For consider the following argument:

5. God is, by definition, a being worthy of worship (that is, of total devotion and unconditional commitment).

Therefore,

6. Necessarily, if there were two gods, there would be two beings each of which was worthy of worship. (From 5.)

If so, then

7. Necessarily, if there were two gods both of them ought to be worshiped. (From 6. Cf. the inference from “x is worthy of admiration” to “everyone ought to admire x.”)

But

8. Necessarily, if we ought to worship both of these gods, then we can worship both of them. (“Ought” implies “can;” we are only obligated to do what we are able to do.)

Hence,

9. Necessarily, if there were two gods, we could be totally devoted and unconditionally committed to the first, and totally devoted and unconditionally committed to the second. (From 7, 8, and the definition of “worship.”)

However,

10. It is impossible to be totally devoted and unconditionally committed to each of two distinct beings.

Therefore,

11. It is impossible for there to be two gods. (From 9 and 10.)

There are at least two possible problems with this argument, however. First, the inference from 6 to 7 might seem suspect. For if “ought” does imply “can,” and it is impossible to be totally devoted and unconditionally committed to each of two distinct beings (as 10 says), then we aren't under any obligation to do so. The truth of 10 implies the falsity of 7.

Matters aren't so simple, however. “I ought to return John's gun” (since I promised to return it) and “I ought not to return John's gun” (since he is no longer in his right mind) do not entail “I can both return the gun and not return it.” So why think that if I ought to worship the first god and I ought to worship the second, I ought to worship both of them? Because the two cases are dissimilar. In the first, neither obligation is indefeasible; each can, in principle, be trumped by other stronger obligations. While I indeed have prima facie obligations both to return the gun and to not return it, the only actual obligation I have in the circumstances that were described is the obligation to not return the gun. Because “I ought to return the gun and I ought not to return the gun (that is, I have a prima facie obligation to return it and a prima facie obligation to not return it)” does not entail “I have an actual obligation both to return and to not return the gun,” there is no reason to infer that I can do both. By contrast, both of the obligations referred to in 7 are indefeasible. (Their indefeasibility appears to be part of the very concept of divine worship; part of what it means to be God is to be such that no other obligation can take precedence over our obligation to be totally devoted and unconditionally committed to him.) Both are therefore actual, and not merely prima facie, obligations. Now even though one can have a prima facie obligation to do something one is unable to do, it is doubtful that one can have an actual obligation to do something one can't do. That I am obligated to worship both deities thus seems to entail that I can worship both deities. The inference from 6 to 7 seems sound.

Another possible problem concerns the truth of 10. Thus, Thomas Morris has objected that one could be unconditionally committed to each of two distinct beings provided that their wills were necessarily harmonious. For if their wills were necessarily harmonious, they could not require of us conflicting acts. This objection should be discounted, however, because the wills of distinct persons are necessarily opposable. (See discussion in section 5 above.)

It is perhaps less obvious why devotion can't be divided between two beings. But the best answer is probably this. The sort of devotion appropriate to God involves centering one's life in God, and while one can center one's life in x-and-y, one can't center one's life in x and also center one's life in y. The devotion that God requires appears, then, to be inherently indivisible.

In sum, neither of the two problems presents an unsurmountable difficulty for the argument from total devotion.

An Argument from God's Simplicity

God is often thought to be simple in the sense that each of God's real properties is identical with each of his other real properties, and with his being or nature. For example, God's knowledge is identical with his power, and both are identical with his being. Just as “the teacher of Plato” and “the husband of Xanthippe” don't mean the same yet refer to the same individual (namely, Socrates), so “the wisdom of God” and “the power of God” have different meanings but refer to the same thing (namely, the infinitely perfect divine life or activity). If God is simple, however, it seems that there can be only one god.

For consider the following argument. Suppose that there are two simple beings, x and y. x has the property of simplicity, S, and whatever property, P, suffices for identity with x. And because x is simple, S=P. But y, too has S. y must therefore have P as well and, hence, y=x (Leftow: 199-200).

Notice, however, that God's simplicity is a second-order property, that is, a property of God's first-order properties such as wisdom, power, goodness, and the like. The doctrine of simplicity may entail that God's (real) first-order properties are identical. But does it entail that all of God's (real) second-order properties are identical with his (real) first order properties (and thus that God's simplicity is identical with whatever first-order properties suffice for identity with God)? It isn't clear that they are. Since simplicity and other divine second-order properties supervene on his first-order properties, the latter entail the former; nothing could instantiate each of God's (real) first-order properties without instantiating such properties as simplicity. But the converse may not be true. For couldn't a thing be simple in the defined sense (namely, having all its first-order real properties identical with each other and with its being) without having the divine properties? (Numbers might be an example.) If it could, then simplicity is not identical with the real first-order properties that suffice to make God God.

We needn't suppose that God's second-order properties are identical with his first-order properties to mount an argument from simplicity, however. Suppose that God is simple in the sense that, for any two of his first-order properties, P and Q, either P is identical with Q or P is logically equivalent to Q (that is, it is impossible for him to possess P without possessing Q, and vice versa). Let us also suppose that there are two gods. If both are God, then both possess the first-order properties essential to divinity. Call these D. If the two differ, each possesses at least one first-order property which the other lacks. Suppose, for example, that the first possesses a first-order property, H, and the second possesses its complement, non-H. Since each is God, each is simple. Hence, either H is identical with D and non-H is identical with D, or H is logically equivalent to D and non-H is logically equivalent to D. Therefore, either H is identical with non-H or H is logically equivalent to non-H. But this is incoherent and, even if it were not, the possession of H and non-H could not be used to distinguish the two, since either H and non-H are the same property or H and non-H are logically equivalent properties. It therefore seems that if God is simple, there can't be two gods.

There are at least two problems with this argument, though. First, the doctrine of divine simplicity is highly controversial — not all theists accept it. Second, even if the doctrine is accepted, the most that may be required is that God's essential (real) properties are either identical with each other or equivalent to each other. God also appears to have (real) contingent properties, however, and, if he does, these properties can't be identical with or equivalent to his essential properties. For consider the property of being the ultimate cause of my existence or the property of knowing that I am the author of this entry. Since acting and knowing are paradigmatic cases of real properties, being the ultimate cause of my existence or knowing that I am the author of this entry would seem to be real properties of God. (Pace Thomas Aquinas and others who implausibly insist that they aren't even though God really has them, that is, even though God really does stand in these relations to me.) But they are also contingent properties of God, since there are possible worlds in which God exists and doesn't create me, and possible worlds in which God exists but doesn't know that I am the author of this entry (because, for example, I never write it). Since God has his essential properties in every possible world in which he exists and does not have his contingent properties in every possible world in which he exists, his contingent properties can't be identical with, or equivalent to, his essential properties. It follows that if H and non-H are real but contingent properties of two divine beings, they are neither identical with nor equivalent to D. The argument from simplicity thus fails because it leaves open the possibility that two gods could be distinguished by a difference in their real contingent properties.

An Argument from God's Perfection

John of Damascus argued that because God is perfect, he is necessarily unique. The only way in which one god could be distinguished from another would be by coming “short of perfection in goodness, or power, or wisdom, or time, or place,” but in that case “he would not be God” (John of Damascus: 173). Aquinas offers a similar argument: If there were several gods, there would be several perfect beings but “if none of these perfect beings lacks some perfection,” and if none of them has “any admixture of imperfection … ., nothing will be given in which to distinguish the perfect beings from one another” (Aquinas: 158).

Arguments like this make two assumptions. The first is that properties can be exhaustively divided into three classes. The first class is the class of imperfections, that is, limitations (my inability to run a two minute mile, for instance) or privations (for example, blindness or sin — properties that imply defects, some deviation from the standards appropriate for evaluating beings of the kind in question). The second is the class of mixed perfections, that is, good-making properties that entail some limitation (for example, being human or being corporeal) or privation (repentance, for instance). The third class is that of pure perfections — perfections that entail no limitation or privation (for example, being, goodness, love, knowledge, power, unity, or independence). The second assumption is that God possesses all and only pure perfections. With these assumptions in place, the argument works. Two gods couldn't be distinguished by a difference in their pure perfections since both gods have all of them. And they couldn't be distinguished by a difference in their other properties because they haven't any.

Unfortunately, both assumptions seem false. For God appears to possess some properties which are neither imperfections, mixed perfections, nor pure perfections. If he does, then some properties belong to none of our three classes, and not all of God's properties are pure perfections.

The property of being the ultimate cause of my existence appears to be an example. The property isn't a (pure) perfection but, rather, a contingent expression of a (pure) perfection, namely, the exercise of creative power. (God is perhaps better or more splendid for exercising creative power, but he is not better or more splendid for having created me.) But neither is it a limitation or privation (though it is not, of course, a full or complete expression of the relevant divine perfection). Nor does it appear to be a mixed perfection. God's instantiating a possible world containing me precludes his instantiating possible worlds which lack this interesting feature but entails no inherent limitation or defect in his creative abilities. At least one real property, then, is neither an imperfection, mixed perfection, or pure perfection; and at least one of God's real properties isn't a pure perfection. Both of the assumptions on which the argument is based are thus false.

The argument from divine perfection, like the argument from God's simplicity, fails because God appears to possess some of his real properties contingently. Yet the question remains, could two gods be distinguished on the basis of a difference in their contingent properties? It is doubtful that the contingent properties we have discussed will serve our purpose. “Knowing that Jones exists” would (in a world containing Jones) be a property of any omniscient being existing in that world. And “Creates Smith” would (in a world containing Smith) be a property of any creator of that world. Perhaps all of God's real but contingent properties are expressions of his perfect knowledge, goodness, and creative power. And perhaps it is impossible for two gods to exhibit different expressions of this in the same possible world: In any possible world, w, two omniscient beings would know the same things; being supremely good their appreciations and valuations of the things in w would presumably be identical; and each would be the creative ground of everything else that exists in w. If all of God's real but contingent properties are expressions of his pure perfections and if, for any possible world, two gods couldn't exhibit different expressions of those perfections in that world, then no possible world contains two gods.

Furthermore, if there are individual essences, two individuals, x and y, couldn't differ only in their contingent properties. (I is an individual essence of x if and only if x has I in every possible world in which it exists and, for any individual, y, and any possible world, w, if y has I in w, y in w is identical with x.) For suppose they did. Then their essential properties would be the same. A being's individual essence is an essential property of it, however. Hence, if x and y had the same essential properties, they would also have to have the same individual essence. But, in that case, x and y wouldn't be two individuals contrary to our supposition. And if no two beings can differ only with respect to their contingent properties, two gods can't either. (For a sophisticated version of an argument of this type see Zagzebski 1989.)

Could two gods be distinguished by a difference in their essential properties, however? (The doctrine of simplicity may entail that they can't but — as noted above — the doctrine of simplicity is controversial.) Each god would obviously have to have all the properties essential to divinity (omniscience, omnipotence, perfect goodness, and the like). But could they be differentiated by essential properties peculiar to each? Could, in other words, the first god have an essential property which the second god lacks, or vice versa? Zagzebski (1989) thinks that it can't. Human beings are distinguished in virtue of their having different individual essences, and human rational beings and angelic rational beings are distinguished in virtue of their possessing the properties essential to humanity and to angelhood, respectively. But no individual human (way of being human) exhausts the fullness of humanity (the many ways of being human), and neither humanity nor angelhood exhaust the fullness of rationality (the many different ways of being rational). Being divine, on the other hand, entails being “wholly” or “perfectly” divine, that is, being everything a divine being could possibly be. So “two divine beings” could not differ “in an essential property” in the way in which individual human beings, or human beings and angelic beings, can. (Zagzebski 1989: 10-11)

Is this argument entirely compelling, though? Arguably, it is impossible for any individual to exemplify all the possible ways of being human or all of the possible ways of being rational. So why assume that it is possible for a being to exemplify all the possible ways of being divine? Why think, in other words, that there aren't different and mutually exclusive ways of exemplifying divinity — being Allah as depicted in the Quran, for example, or being the triune God of Christianity, or the Vishnu of the Shri Vaishnavas? (For more on some of these possibilities see section 7 below.) Or again, suppose that the relevant differentiating property is having a certain emotional or mental temper — Yahweh's as depicted in the Hebrew Bible, say, or Krishna's as depicted in the Bhagavata Purana. Suppose further that neither of these emotional or mental tempers is better or more worshipful than the other. Isn't it an open question, at least, whether either of these emotional or mental tempers is essential to divinity although they may be essential to being Yahweh or being Krishna, respectively? If they aren't, then it is by no means clear that any being can exhaust the fullness of divinity.

While the arguments we have discussed in the last two sections are impressive, they hinge on claims that would not be accepted by all theists — that God is simple, for example, or that there are real individual essences, or that any wholly or perfectly divine being exhausts the fullness of divinity. By contrast, the three arguments that we will examine next are firmly rooted in attributes which almost all theists ascribe to God — his universal sovereignty, omnipotence, and demand for total devotion — and are thus more compelling.

[SuuT]

lol....

[Psychonaut]

lol....

Indeed. In the scope of every polytheistic theology I can think of, all of those arguments would be considered to be straw men of some variety as they all presuppose that polytheistic conceptions of the nature of deity, the relationship to a deity and that deity's relation to the world is identical, or even similar, to those of the monotheists.

[Lutiferre]

Indeed. In the scope of every polytheistic theology I can think of, all of those arguments would be considered to be straw men of some variety as they all presuppose that polytheistic conceptions of the nature of deity, the relationship to a deity and that deity's relation to the world is identical, or even similar, to those of the monotheists.Maybe in the highly philosophical notions of polytheism, but that is easily explained by the fact that they often approach monotheistic notions.

[Psychonaut]

that is easily explained by the fact that they often approach monotheistic notions.

No. Take a look at the multifarious Hindu theologies some time. Many of them were developed before monotheism had even been conceived, yet none of them come close to approximating any of the Middle Eastern systems. Systems developing in atmospheres that are free of the overarching need for absolute unity have shown them selves to develop in ways that completely bypass this theological peculiarity and the logical problems implicit in it.

[Lutiferre]

No. Take a look at the multifarious Hindu theologies some time. Many of them were developed before monotheism had even been conceived, yet none of them come close to approximating any of the Middle Eastern systems. Systems developing in atmospheres that are free of the overarching need for absolute unity have shown them selves to develop in ways that completely bypass this theological peculiarity and the logical problems implicit in it.
The only way to circumvent the critiques in that article, is in the end, to posite gods that are either monotheistic "aspects of the same god", or gods that are not god in the same sense that a monotheistic God is.

[Psychonaut]

or gods that are not god in the same sense that a monotheistic God is.

:lightbul:

It's finally starting to sink in! Polytheistic conceptions of what the Gods are are quite different from those of monotheism.

[Cato]

:lightbul:

It's finally starting to sink in! Polytheistic conceptions of what the Gods are are quite different from those of monotheism.

Or the polytheistic conception of the Monad is quite different than the idea of a monotheistic God.

[Psychonaut]

Or the polytheistic conception of the Monad is quite different than the idea of a monotheistic God.

Although I do find Monism to be quite problematic (I used to be a Monist ;)), it is entirely different from monotheism.

[Cato]

Although I do find Monism to be quite problematic (I used to be a Monist ;)), it is entirely different from monotheism.

For one, I find it easier to accept the existence of lesser deities that emanate from a single, supreme God or divine source. The existence of multiple independent deities raises the question of conflicting divine wills, which I find to be incompatible with my idea of divine providence and a well-ordered world.

[Lutiferre]

:lightbul:

It's finally starting to sink in! Polytheistic conceptions of what the Gods are are quite different from those of monotheism.
Actually, they are not at all god from a monotheistic perspective.

Although I do find Monism to be quite problematic (I used to be a Monist ;)), it is entirely different from monotheism.
It's different, but it's comparable in it's focus on the primacy of the One.

For one, I find it easier to accept the existence of lesser deities that emanate from a single, supreme God or divine source. The existence of multiple independent deities raises the question of conflicting divine wills, which I find to be incompatible with my idea of divine providence and a well-ordered world.
Which looks, to me, like a lesser form of monotheism.

[Psychonaut]

For one, I find it easier to accept the existence of lesser deities that emanate from a single, supreme God or divine source. The existence of multiple independent deities raises the question of conflicting divine wills, which I find to be incompatible with my idea of divine providence and a well-ordered world.

My biggest problems with Monism lie in the way in which monistic systems tend to originate. For example...

[Caution: Use of phenomenological terminology begins here ;)]

The kind of Monism that you find in Advaita Vedānta is, IMO, a great example of what happens when a particular state of consciousness is reached and the internal experience is then wrongly transformed into an external experience. The state of meditation that a Yogi reaches called Dhyāna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhyana) is when all normal intentionalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality) have been subsumed into one. Similarly, the Buddhist Nirvāṇa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana), could be described as a state in which the Ur-Doxa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxa) of world belief has been removed to allow consciousness to temporarily exist free from any intentionalities. Both of these states are (I assume, since I've only achieved the first) valuable experiences in and of themselves, but the psychological data culled from experiencing them does not translate into cosmological data.

[Lutiferre]

but the psychological data culled from experiencing them does not translate into cosmological data.
Though we are a part of the cosmos, and so, it's reasonable to think our minds can at least be analogous to the world outside it.

[Cato]

Which looks, to me, like a lesser form of monotheism.

It depends upon what you mean by monotheism. I don't have any attachment to the Abrahamic religions, so I don't really feel that it's a requirement to consider my conception of the supreme divine source to be the Abrahamic deity. Since you're a Christian, by default you'd probably think of the Bible's God as the source of divinity, but I don't. Not every use of the word "God" defaults to Judeo-Christianity or a generic monotheism.

[Psychonaut]

Though we are a part of the cosmos, and so, it's reasonable to think our minds can at least be analogous to the world outside it.

Interpreting data set A as if it applied to data set B without having discovered anything in B that would independently lead you there is bad logic. There are all kinds of fascinating mental states that can be achieved through meditation and other methods, but to interpret those noetic experiences as revealing a universal truth that applies not only to all psyches but to the cosmos as a whole is a gigantic logical leap.

[Lutiferre]

Interpreting data set A as if it applied to data set B without having discovered anything in B that would independently lead you there
We can only ever discover states in our own mind, though. We have to believe that it represents the independent the reality that it seems to do, we cannot know it from the data itself, since we only know the outside world through mental states.

[Lutiferre]

It depends upon what you mean by monotheism. I don't have any attachment to the Abrahamic religions, so I don't really feel that it's a requirement to consider my conception of the supreme divine source to be the Abrahamic deity. Since you're a Christian, by default you'd probably think of the Bible's God as the source of divinity, but I don't. Not every use of the word "God" defaults to Judeo-Christianity or a generic monotheism.
Though the word "God" originates in the Christianisation of Germanic peoples (gud in Danish). It's not a word, so far as I know, that was used for pagan deities.

[Cato]

Though the word "God" originates in the Christianisation of Germanic peoples (gud in Danish). It's not a word, so far as I know, that was used for pagan deities.

What exactly do you mean? That somehow the Judeo-Christian deity is the sole and exvlusive ecipient of the English world God? :confused:

[Psychonaut]

We can only ever discover states in our own mind, though. We have to believe that it represents the independent the reality that it seems to do, we cannot know it from the data itself, since we only know the outside world through mental states.

Many schools of contemporary philosophy have moved far beyond this kind of 17th century epistemological solipsism. I'd recommend picking up an introductory text to Phenomenology.

[Lutiferre]

Many schools of contemporary philosophy have moved far beyond this kind of 17th century epistemological solipsism. I'd recommend picking up an introductory text to Phenomenology.
I'm not a solipsist. In fact, what I was saying is just as much an argument for phenomenological approach.

What exactly do you mean? That somehow the Judeo-Christian deity is the sole and exvlusive ecipient of the English world God? :confused:
No. My point was that, the word "god" has always had different connotations and a different religious context than the ways of thinking about pagan deities used before it. Not that we can't use it as we like, though.

And no, I didn't imply you had to be a Christian just to be a monotheist. Just that in my view, your viewpoint is more monotheistic than polytheistic.

[Psychonaut]

In fact, what I was saying is just as much an argument for phenomenological approach.

No. The one of the greatest advantages in Husserl's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husserl) method is that it allows us to free ourselves from the kind of Cartesian wall between the self and world that posts like this assume:


We can only ever discover states in our own mind, though. We have to believe that it represents the independent the reality that it seems to do, we cannot know it from the data itself, since we only know the outside world through mental states.

[Lutiferre]

No. The one of the greatest advantages in Husserl's method is that it allows us to free ourselves from the kind of Cartesian wall between the self and world that posts like this assume:Well, my post was only a reductio ad absurdum of skepticism about the minds ability to reflect truth about the world analogously, not a statement that I believe in solipsism.

[Psychonaut]

Well, my post was only a reductio ad absurdum of skepticism about the minds ability to reflect truth about the world analogously, not a statement that I believe in solipsism.

My apologies, your use of the first person ("We can only ever...") led me to believe you were relaying an idea you actually held.

[SuuT]

Indeed. In the scope of every polytheistic theology I can think of, all of those arguments would be considered to be straw men of some variety as they all presuppose that polytheistic conceptions of the nature of deity, the relationship to a deity and that deity's relation to the world is identical, or even similar, to those of the monotheists.

One almost can't blame montheists: they have a thousand years of philosophical layering to their onion (arguably more, yes), and the only thing that can come from getting to the core again is tears.

That 1000 years of Theological and Theosophical rumination can be rendered nearly defenseless in the stroke of a paragraph doesn't sit well either; often not even registering in the mind of the Believer as something that has occured demonstratively because it's very scope almost removes their self-hood. In this way, I think that the Abrahamic monotheisms are mind poisons - arresting otherwise organic develpments in the human intellect, spirit and psyche.

While the human 'need' to be in-touch with the godhead may be satiated in the Abrahamic faiths, it is at the expense of far far too much of the rest of the Human Condition.

[Cato]

I'm not a solipsist. In fact, what I was saying is just as much an argument for phenomenological approach.

No. My point was that, the word "god" has always had different connotations and a different religious context than the ways of thinking about pagan deities used before it. Not that we can't use it as we like, though.

And no, I didn't imply you had to be a Christian just to be a monotheist. Just that in my view, your viewpoint is more monotheistic than polytheistic.

I personally feel that my beliefs are more authentic of the more developed forms of ancient polytheism than the many modern neopagan "recreations" that exist today. I just don't happen to see the overdeity as being personal, this is a task for the divine emanations to fulfill. The lesser deities cannot act outside of their nature, which is actually the all-encompassing nature of the the Father. Supposedly, Athena was the firstborn of the second generation of Olympians, but the story of Athena, wisdom, being born from the head of the Father doesn't really need a lot of elaboration.

[Lutiferre]

I personally feel that my beliefs are more authentic of the more developed forms of ancient polytheism than the many modern neopagan "recreations" that exist today. I just don't happen to see the overdeity as being personal, this is a task for the divine emanations to fulfill. The lesser deities cannot act outside of their nature, which is actually the all-encompassing nature of the the Father. Supposedly, Athena was the firstborn of the second generation of Olympians, but the story of Athena, wisdom, being born from the head of the Father doesn't really need a lot of elaboration.
Though in many polytheistic mythologies, we seem to see conflicts between the Gods which imply that there is no true God, no omnipotent or omniscient being that cannot be fooled by other gods or in some way be less than powerful, and further, far from an omnibenevolent being who by default doesn't lie and whose revelation it's even worth to trust.

[SuuT]

Though the word "God" originates in the Christianisation of Germanic peoples (gud in Danish). It's not a word, so far as I know, that was used for pagan deities.

Guð was and is the eminating spirit that inheres the area around a burial mound or pyre in Heathenry; whereas ǫ́ss would be an indirect reference to an actual diety, e.g. "This or that god/ǫ́ss has deluded me".

[Lutiferre]

Guð was and is the eminating spirit that inheres the area around a burial mound or pyre in Heathenry; whereas ǫ́ss would be an indirect reference to an actual diety, e.g. "This or that god/ǫ́ss has deluded me".
I thought so. Perhaps the word God as deity has something to do with the ressurection of Jesus, then.

[Cato]

Though in many polytheistic mythologies, we seem to see conflicts between the Gods which imply that there is no true God, no omnipotent or omniscient being that cannot be fooled by other gods or in some way be less than powerful, and further, far from an omnibenevolent being who by default doesn't lie and whose revelation it's even worth to trust.

A lot of what survives isn't really representative of an official canon but is merely representative of collections of myths from different geographic areas. So, the myth that Athena was the daughter of Zeus comes from one tradition and the myth that she was the daughter of Poseidon comes from another. Then there's the trend that the Greeks and Romans had of identifying their own deities with those of other nations that were similar in character and behavior- such as Phoenician Melkart being seen as a local aspect of Greco-Roman Hercules or Caesar's identification of a deity that is usually thought to be (W)Odin with Mercury.

Within my respective personal belief system, I mainly identify three divinities to create a sort of personal trinity: Zeus (the cosmic God/Father, sovereign ruling principles blahblah) and Athena (logoic Goddess, guardian spirit, androgynous male/female principle, heroism, industriousness, etc.), and the self's inner divinity. Of these, the middle divinity is the most important personally to me, even though I recognize that Zeus is the God of Gods, and not really a Father per se. Athena connects the supreme with the mundane. In one of the stories, the story of the conception and birth of Bacchus I think, Zeus' true form is that of the thunderbolt. Heraclitus' fragments state that lightning rules all, which I take to mean the cosmic fire, or active energetic principle, of the Stoics. In this way, Zeus is properly androgynous- a true cosmic being in the sense that he permeates and animates all with his energy (lightning).

The one attempt to create a sort of pagan church was during the reign of emperor Julian, and that effort was doomed to failure. I can't glom onto every fanciful notion of polytheism, since I'm really not a hard polytheist. I could, if I so chose, add more deities to my personal pantheon, but that'd just fall into the error that I see at the heart of polytheism in general, that too many deities merely creates confusion and disorder. I merely have the supreme (Zeus), the specific (Athena) and the generic (self) as deities to worship.

[Lutiferre]

A lot of what survives isn't really representative of an official canon but is merely representative of collections of myths from different geographic areas. So, the myth that Athena was the daughter of Zeus comes from one tradition and the myth that she was the daughter of Poseidon comes from another. Then there's the trend that the Greeks and Romans had of identifying their own deities with those of other nations that were similar in character and behavior- such as Phoenician Melkart being seen as a local aspect of Greco-Roman Hercules or Caesar's identification of a deity that is usually thought to be (W)Odin with Mercury.

Within my respective personal belief system, I mainly identify three divinities to create a sort of personal trinity: Zeus (the cosmic God/Father, sovereign ruling principles blahblah) and Athena (logoic Goddess, guardian spirit, androgynous male/female principle, heroism, industriousness, etc.), and the self's inner divinity. Of these, the middle divinity is the most important personally to me, even though I recognize that Zeus is the God of Gods, and not really a Father per se. Athena connects the supreme with the mundane. In one of the stories, the story of the conception and birth of Bacchus I think, Zeus' true form is that of the thunderbolt. Heraclitus' fragments state that lightning rules all, which I take to mean the cosmic fire, or active energetic principle, of the Stoics. In this way, Zeus is properly androgynous- a true cosmic being in the sense that he permeates and animates all with his energy (lightning).

The one attempt to create a sort of pagan church was during the reign of emperor Julian, and that effort was doomed to failure. I can't glom onto every fanciful notion of polytheism, since I'm really not a hard polytheist.
Which only goes to show, to me, that it's largely a matter of cherrypicking for any self-proclaimed "Pagan" nowadays, and that the resulting belief is probably as far removed from what most pagans believed, or rather practiced, as it gets.

[SuuT]

I thought so. Perhaps the word God as deity has something to do with the ressurection of Jesus, then.

And now you also know that the word god doesn't "[originate] in the Christianisation of Germanic peoples" but is yet another of myriad of loan words and concepetual relations pre-dating Christianity and its reorganisational activities.:thumb001::wink

[Cato]

Which only goes to show, to me, that it's largely a matter of cherrypicking for any self-proclaimed "Pagan" nowadays, and that the resulting belief is probably as far removed from what most pagans believed as it gets.

In the end, any belief system amounts to cherrypicking what you choose to believe. At some point, I'd love to set down a formal creedo with more explicit ideas, but this merely enters into an area that I'm mistrustful of: dogmatizing what one believes. However, intuitive, personal ideas and formal statements of belief aren't the same things imo.

[Lutiferre]

And now you also know that the word god doesn't "[originate] in the Christianisation of Germanic peoples" but is yet another of myriad of loan words and concepetual relations pre-dating Christianity and its reorganisational activities.:thumb001::wink
I already knew the word was from a Germanic root. You misread me. I said the word god as referring to deity originates in the Christianisation of Germanics.

[Lutiferre]

In the end, any belief system amounts to cherrypicking what you choose to believe.
Well, no, that wasn't how the pagan mythology evolved, and it wasn't how pagan belief and practice was carried out for most pagans. It's how it has become today with the highly personalised and individual beliefs.

[SuuT]

I already knew the word was from a Germanic root. You misread me. I said the word god as referring to deity originates in the Christianisation of Germanics.

Not just the word, but also the conceptual relation to animus/ǫ́ss and spiritu/guð as they were understood by Germanic Heathens for (perhaps) thousands of years prior to Christianity and its reorganisational activities. :thumb001::wink

You're more Heathen than you know, Lutiferre.:)

[Lutiferre]

Not just the word, but also the conceptual relation to animus/ǫ́ss and spiritu/guð as they were understood by Germanic Heathens for (perhaps) thousands of years prior to Christianity and its reorganisational activities. :thumb001::wink
But it wasn't used in the same way before as after.

It is irrelevant, anyway, because even if it did mean exactly the same before, which it didn't, it would not make a Christian "pagan", anymore than it would in other languages like New Testament Greek or in the Latin Vulgate. In all the cases, the language has been Christianised and the necessary modifications has been made so that it makes sense in a Christian context.

[Cato]

Well, no, that wasn't how the pagan mythology evolved, and it wasn't how pagan belief and practice was carried out for most pagans. It's how it has become today with the highly personalised and individual beliefs.

Most but not all pagans, which is how I tend to view myself in relation to the larger mob of pagans and semi-pagans. I'm firmly convinced in the existence of a single source of divine blessedness and an not independent cavalcade of Gods, Goddesses, demigods, spirits, etc. In feel that I'm an echo of a more introspective form of pagan belief, that of the animus mundi, or God. At the same time, I also don't find it contradictory to meditate on the existence of lesser deities, the gods. I don't see it as a case of God versus the gods, since all parts of the whole must work together.

[SuuT]

Including the more and the less introspective.

[Cato]

Introspection is a vital component to my beliefs; I accept no external form of authority, so I can't accept a belief in a deity that issues commands that I cannot, via self-dialogue, come to accept. Self-mastery means literally that, I am my own master, existing within a wider world, but my own master nonetheless and owing explanation to no God for my actions and beliefs.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
Which only goes to show, to me, that it's largely a matter of cherrypicking for any self-proclaimed "Pagan" nowadays, and that the resulting belief is probably as far removed from what most pagans believed, or rather practiced, as it gets.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, no faith has a monopoly on truth, and if we look at the development of Germanic beliefs we see progression in ideas over time and also influence from outside, it would seem idiotic to me to attempt to “recreate” an old belief system we don’t live in that world anymore, we have moved on, grow, adapt, occasionally adopt, or die, there is no other option.

As an Odinist I find much within related IE traditions, and also common themes outside, which allow me a greater depth of understanding than I would have if I restricted myself purely to the Edda.

Am I really doing anything that my pre-Christian ancestors wouldn’t have done? Personally I think not.

[Lutiferre]

Most but not all pagans, which is how I tend to view myself in relation to the larger mob of pagans and semi-pagans. I'm firmly convinced in the existence of a single source of divine blessedness and an not independent cavalcade of Gods, Goddesses, demigods, spirits, etc. In feel that I'm an echo of a more introspective form of pagan belief, that of the animus mundi, or God. At the same time, I also don't find it contradictory to meditate on the existence of lesser deities, the gods. I don't see it as a case of God versus the gods, since all parts of the whole must work together.
Your beliefs are very interesting, and I am not saying what I do because I have something against it.

Introspection is a vital component to my beliefs; I accept no external form of authority, so I can't accept a belief in a deity that issues commands that I cannot, via self-dialogue, come to accept.
Yes, but you cannot deny that you accept an outside source for your beliefs in the Greek mythology, even if you have personalised it so highly that it would be unrecognisable for the very pagans in whom the mythology itself evolved.

[Lutiferre]

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, no faith has a monopoly on truth, and if we look at the development of Germanic beliefs we see progression in ideas over time and also influence from outside, it would seem idiotic to me to attempt to “recreate” an old belief system we don’t live in that world anymore, we have moved on, grow, adapt, occasionally adopt, or die, there is no other option.
Because Germanic mythology is not concerned with a high awareness and priority of truth, which even as Nietzsche would have agreed, is a Christian mindset.


Am I really doing anything that my pre-Christian ancestors wouldn’t have done? Personally I think not.
Well, you are doing something they wouldn't have done, and things they would find alien, since what they did, not only Harald Blåtand in Denmark, but also all the other Germanic pagan leaders independently of each other, was accept and convert to Christianity.

[SuuT]

Introspection is a vital component to my beliefs; I accept no external form of authority, so I can't accept a belief in a deity that issues commands that I cannot, via self-dialogue, come to accept. Self-mastery means literally that, I am my own master, existing within a wider world, but my own master nonetheless and owing explanation to no God for my actions and beliefs.

I was poking at the implication that the animus mundi as "an echo of a more introspective form of pagan belief" - which you believe yourself to be - is more introspective than tipping that whole scale on its head. You don't have to feel compelled to answer or anything; I'm just always intrigued with things like that when they are made as passing statements.:D

[SuuT]

Because Germanic mythology is not concerned with a high awareness and priority of truth

lol. Germanic mythology is the archetypal, heirachical and representative understanding of truth as it is understood by Heathens. And Nietzsche only acknowledged the Christian conception of truth in the most pejorative way.

[Cato]

Your beliefs are very interesting, and I am not saying what I do because I have something against it.

Yes, but you cannot deny that you accept an outside source for your beliefs in the Greek mythology, even if you have personalised it so highly that it would be unrecognisable for the very pagans in whom the mythology itself evolved.

I can't deny this, and I've wondered at the strange irony of this. On the one hand, I accept no external form of authority except my own, yet this individual authority must be subordinate to the authority of nature and of God. The Greco-Roman trappings that my beliefs follow seem to come from my earliest childhood and I can distinctly remember feeling pulled towards the Olympians as far back as I can remember.

I don't think I discovered my beliefs, but rather rediscovered them. Given that I consider the soul to be the true self, I can only conclude that, after having had a physical existence begin and end at some point in the classical Greco-Roman period, my immortal soul re-entered the physical world to further its work. What is this work? To enrich the source of all and to further evolve doctrines that have been interrupted and fallen into obscurity.

[Lutiferre]

lol. Germanic mythology is the archetypal, heirachical and representative understanding of truth as it is understood by Heathens.
Indeed. And Christianity does share some elements of it's understanding of truth with mythology, since Christianity is a religion which understands the world equally much through mythological truth. But Christianity also has philosophical truth, in a sense that was impossible within the confine of folk paganism.

And Nietzsche only acknowledged the Christian conception of truth in the most pejorative way.
Of course. And I would say Nietzsche underestimated what Christianity and pagan mythologies have in common, since I believe both see the incredible importance of truth in myth, in stories and parables. But he was hinting at something which is also true, which is that Christianity unified a more philosophical notion of truth with that mythological understanding of it.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
Because Germanic mythology is not concerned with a high awareness and priority of truth,

You know I find that pretty ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as…..


Well, you are doing something they wouldn't have done, and things they would find alien, since what they did, not only Harald Blåtand in Denmark, but also all the other Germanic pagan leaders independently of each other, was accept and convert to Christianity.

So you’re saying the Germanic people’s had a static belief system from the Neolithic onwards?

That they all hopped and skipped to the nearest stream for baptism merrily abandoning their previous beliefs just like that?

That those previous had no influence on how Christianity developed in northern Europe?

[Lutiferre]

So you’re saying the Germanic people’s had a static belief system from the Neolithic onwards?

That they all hoped and skipped to the nearest stream for baptism merrily abandoning their previous beliefs just like that?

That those previous had no influence on how Christianity developed in northern Europe?
i've said nothing of the sort, and elsewhere, I've said things to the opposite effect.

[SuuT]

Indeed. And Christianity does share some elements of it's understanding of truth with mythology, since Christianity is a religion which understands the world equally much through mythological truth. But Christianity also has philosophical truth, in a sense that was impossible within the confine of folk paganism.

This is an easy thing to say about oral traditions; but, is false on the face of it unless one take a very narrow minded understanding of what philosophy is. You are, in effect, saying that Folk Paganism had/has no love of wisdom that went/goes shared and discussed as a means to reach truth, enhance beauty and strive towards goodness. Even your quantifications and qualifications are Christian.


Of course. And I would say Nietzsche underestimated what Christianity and pagan mythologies have in common, since I believe both see the incredible importance of truth in myth, in stories and parables. But he was hinting at something which is also true, which is that Christianity unified a more philosophical notion of truth with that mythological understanding of it.

I don't want to get in a battle of wits with you on Nietzsche - you're unarmed.

[Lutiferre]

This is an easy thing to say about oral traditions; but, is false on the face of it unless one take a very narrow minded understanding of what philosophy is. You are, in effect, saying that Folk Paganism had/has no love of wisdom that went/goes shared and discussed as a means to reach truth, enhance beauty and strive towards goodness. Even your quantifications and qualifications are Christian.
No, I didn't say that, but I do believe there was a great schism between the approach and spirit of the philosophers of pagan times and the general beliefs of pagan times, which didn't remain in Christian times with the distinct unity in Christian philosophy and Christian belief.

[Liffrea]

My point is that if a modern day Odinist chooses to study other systems of belief to highlight or complement his own lore then how is that different from the fact that Germanic belief from the Neolithic, and right through the Christian period, because we can’t really say that the indigenous beliefs died out nor that they had a negligible affect on Christianity in northern Europe, progressed, adapted and also adopted outside beliefs?

The religion practised by a 10th century Icelander would have been different from that of a 5th century Anglian or a 1st century Cherusci. Who in their right minds would claim that 21st century Odinism would have stayed static if Christianity hadn’t arrived in northern Europe? No religion is “pure”.

[Lutiferre]

My point is that if a modern day Odinist chooses to study other systems of belief to highlight or complement his own lore then how is that different from the fact that Germanic belief from the Neolithic, and right through the Christian period, because we can’t really say that the indigenous beliefs died out nor that they had a negligible affect on Christianity in northern Europe, progressed, adapted and also adopted outside beliefs?

The religion practised by a 10th century Icelander would have been different from that of a 5th century Anglian or a 1st century Cherusci. Who in their right minds would claim that 21st century Odinism would have stayed static if Christianity hadn’t arrived in northern Europe? No religion is “pure”.
I never said it would. Just like the pagans didn't stick to pagan beliefs, but converted to Christianity. If you accept change, then you may as well accept this change. It's you who are going against the change that occured long ago, just like a Neolithic pagan could have gone against the change that would spawn Germanic mythology and Germanic culture in synthesis between the imported Indo-European and native culture.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
I never said it would. Just like the pagans didn't stick to pagan beliefs, but converted to Christianity.

A Christianity that altered in its very process of absorbing northern European Paganism, Germanic Christianity itself was a synthesis….


If you accept change, then you may as well accept this change.

You want me to accept change? Done.


It's you who are going against the change that occured long ago, just like a Neolithic pagan could have gone against the change that would spawn Germanic mythology and Germanic culture in synthesis between the imported Indo-European and native culture.

I’m not going against the change my friend, Christianity has long been in free fall in England with a dwindling number of committed practitioners, and an increasing number of people looking for answers elsewhere…….

Perhaps I’m more accepting of change that you are?

The point is I accept change and growth as natural, you seemingly do as well, yes?

[Lutiferre]

A Christianity that altered in its very process of absorbing northern European Paganism, Germanic Christianity itself was a synthesis….



You want me to accept change? Done.



I’m not going against the change my friend, Christianity has long been in free fall in England with a dwindling number of committed practitioners, and an increasing number of people looking for answers elsewhere…….

Perhaps I’m more accepting of change that you are?

The point is I accept change and growth as natural, you seemingly do as well, yes?

Yet our culture didn't change overnight, and our culture, even where it is more secular-humanistic, has forever the imprint of Christianity on it. Even in the case of neo-pagans.

Now, I never said you had to accept it, I was simply following your own (absurd) line of argument.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
I was simply following your own (absurd) line of argument.

I’ve noticed you have a fondness for the word absurd, is that for use when the fallacy of your “reasoning” is exposed?


Now, I never said you had to accept it,

Now, perhaps you can justify this statement?

[Lutiferre]

I’ve noticed you have a fondness for the word absurd, is that for use when the fallacy of your “reasoning” is exposed?



Now, perhaps you can justify this statement?
You fail to understand what a reductio ad absurdum is, and why it doesn't imply that I agree with the conclusion. The point is always that the conclusion is just that, absurd.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
You fail to understand what a reductio ad absurdum is, and why it doesn't imply that I agree with the conclusion.

Sure that isn’t reductio ad ridiculum?

Seems to me you’re setting up a reverse strawman if you’re claiming that your statements aren’t meant to be taken as your position.

[Lutiferre]

Sure that isn’t reductio ad ridiculum?

Seems to me you’re setting up a reverse strawman if you’re claiming that your statements aren’t meant to be taken as your position.
Or maybe a reverse reverse reverse strawman. Or maybe not.

[Cato]

I was poking at the implication that the animus mundi as "an echo of a more introspective form of pagan belief" - which you believe yourself to be - is more introspective than tipping that whole scale on its head. You don't have to feel compelled to answer or anything; I'm just always intrigued with things like that when they are made as passing statements.:D

It's a bit of an irony, which I've come to accept as normal. The only thing certain in life that there's great uncertainty about such topics as God, but I'm trying my best with what I have available to me: my five senses, my intuition, etc. In other words, only external perceptions guide me rather than external revelations, yet I'm also, ironically, in pursuit of beliefs that are literally Greek to me.

That the world-soul, or God, exists and that I consider myself to be a part of/extension of it, is a given to me. Not being attached to Judeo-Christianity, although I'm familiar with the belief systems, I prefer to consider "alternate" belief systems such as a personal cosmology that's grounded in ancient, classical thoughtforms. I literally believe in the immortality of the soul (rather than in bodily resurrection), so discussions of eternal life, to me, will always default to the soul- which is a constituent part of the world-soul.