XPost: alt.agnosticism, talk.atheism, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.philosophy
From: prohumanist@gr8mail.com
samuelbhatch@gmail.com wrote ...
>
>Santolina chamaecyparissus
>wrote ...
>>
>> "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
>> wrote ...
>> >
>> > Probably, the first instinctive reaction to
>> > that would be that it depends on what
>> > one is being asked to believe in.
>>
>> My first reaction is no, I don't believe in believing. That sounds
>> more like a politician's stance than any kind of sensible intellectual
>> position.
No, a politician would likely perceive
the question as being a reference to
believing in believing in the christian
God, and as such, would say 'Yes'.
Religion isn't something shied away
from by most politicians these days,
as pollsters instruct them to pull those
religious strings for votes.
>>
>> > Certainly, very few believe in Zeus these
>> > days.
>>
>> > The Hindu panoply of Gods, probably
>> > there are hundreds of millions of believers
>> > in India, but small numbers in the rest of
>> > the world.
>>
>> > The God called Allah, really big in many
>> > areas of the Middle East, in Indonesia, and
>> > in assorted other areas of the world visited
>> > by Islamic proselytizers.
>>
>> > The God called God, along with his son called
>> > Christ Jesus, varying degrees of belief and a
>> > wide assortment of religions in many areas of
>> > the world.
>>
>> > So, needless to say, a lot of people believe
>> > in believing in a particular version (or versions)
>> > of a particular Super Being, but much less so
>> > or not at all when it comes to believing in ver-
>> > sions apart from their own or when it comes to
>> > believing in a Super Being or Super Beings only
>> > -if- it/they were to evidence itself/themselves in
>> > an indisputable manner, in the natural world, in
>> > the present day, freed from second-hand story-
>> > telling which goes by the name 'hearsay', or which
>> > is best characterized as 'myth'.
>>
>> Could you maybe explain what you mean by believing in
>> believing vs. believing?
People who believe in believing are
happy when they hear that someone
believes, regardless of what is be-
lieved in. Let's say someone says
"I believe Gods are myths." Truly,
if someone believes in believing,
voila, happiness regarding that.
Needless to say, there's really not
very many who truly believe in be-
lieving. For those who do, primacy
is belief regardless of verity, facts,
consequences.
>>
>> > In essence, everything believed in by religious
>> > folks is 'hearsay', and myth, passed down tales
>> > from a very superstitious age of ignorance in
>> > which inventing Gods and God tales was quite
>> > a creative enterprise for many.
>>
>> Many think that they have had a genuine religious experience.
Inarguably, they have experiences. But as
for magic beings and magic places, just
a reminder, not one single individual has
*ever*, in the entirety of human history,
come up with *any* evidence whatsoever
that magic beings and magic places exist.
None.
Claims do not a God create, they simply
titillate.
The most severely impacted?
Children, and gullible adults, most of
whom were brainwashed as children and
who are continuing to be brainwashed
as adults, by politicians, by our govern-
ment's God-spins, by so-called patriotic
songs with God in them, by family, by
financial pressures, by God on money,
by religions.
>>
>> > Conclusion
>>
>> > Any God worth following would not depend on
>> > handed-down storytelling -and- would not de-
>> > pend on claims and promises easily concocted
>> > by humans, but instead, would be evident, real,
>> > as substantial as is this computer I'm entering
>> > this post on.
>>
>> How is this a conclusion from the above?
If humans made God up, there'd be
no God to show for it. If God really
existed, and wasn't shy, there'd be
a God, for real, not just in human
imagination. Humans wouldn't de-
pend on humans for God info, they'd
depend on God.
If God really existed, belief wouldn't
be required, it would be obvious, un-
less God *wanted* humans to doubt
and disbelieve.
If God wanted humans to doubt and
disbelieve, then why all the commo-
tion by believers over that which God
made obvious by not doing a (pardon
for the following) Goddamn thing?
If God wanted followers, God wouldn't
hide, wouldn't disappear, wouldn't avoid
responsibility, wouldn't harm, wouldn't
kill, wouldn't torture, wouldn't depend
on humans to talk for it and to write con-
tradictory things about it.
Obviously, God is a human creation,
a power trip of fantasy, a generational
brainwash routine, and it's about time
that folks stopped bowing, praying,
and worshipping based on human
claims, and instead, expected that
if God is real, it reveal itself, for real,
not via individuals spouting about God
as being real.
God, the ultimate power trip, the ulti-
mate falsehood, the ultimate human
concoction, in imagination, but as for
reality, God is and always has been
impotent. Humans and nature, on the
other hand, there's where the real
power exists, for better or worse.
As for other beings in the universe,
were we to stumble upon them some
day, or were they to stumble upon
us, not likely that the result would be
mutually beneficial, but then again,
it could be.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Anyone got any Gods like that to offer?
>>
>> > Until anyone does, religious stories and seduc-
>> > tive promises (and threats) are empty of sub-
>> > stance, loaded with unsubstantiated claims, and
>> > unbelievable.
>>
>> > Calls to have faith, only made because bounte-
>> > ous evidence exists that religious tales are
>> > simply make believe.
>>
>> > In human imagination, however, calls to have
>> > faith are very powerful due to religious seduc-
>> > tions (the primary one being a pleasant immor-
>> > tality), and its buddy, religious threats.
>>
>> > Of note, religions can encourage actions which
>> > can be beneficial to humankind in some ways,
>> > but unfortunately, they can also encourage
>> > actions which can be harmful to humankind in
>> > many ways, so harmful that the benefit and the
>> > promises aren't worth it.
>>
>> > Let's stop with the claims and the promises (and
>> > threats), and instead, let's only follow a God that
>> > can lead without human intervention.
>>
>> More or less agree, though I would not use the rhetorical device of
>> following the God that ought to be followed, I would chuck the
>> nonsensical concept altogether.
>
>Santolina said:
>"My first reaction is no, I don't believe in believing."
>
>That is a contradictory statement. You start by stating you believe,
>and end by stating that belief doesn't exist. The 'don't' applies to
>the subject 'believing', but you still used the 'believe' verb, which
>means you do indeed believe in belief after all.
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
