Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

[Greatest I am]

a parent worth his salt will sacrifice himself to preserve his child

I agree with this.

The Jesus myth is showing that your god is not even up to par morally with humans as he sent the son to die instead of stepping up himself. What a p****. Right?

Regards
DL

er, I'm not christian, so the myth means nuthin' to me, but...

as I understand it: the father, the son, the holy ghost are all the same person, so: when the son offered himself up, the father and holy ghost offered themselves up as well

I am well aware of the really stupid Trinity concept. I ignore it because scriptures show that the three are not equal.

What do you think of the fact that Yahweh was an androgynous god to the Jews?

What happened to the feminine side of Yahweh?

That had to go for Christians to maintain their misogyny against women. Bastards.

As to the triplets dying together, a blood sacrifice that does not stay dead is hardly a sacrifice, is it?

I know you are not Christian but they never reply to that comment.

I guess they aree but do not want to say so.

Regards
DL

[Dontaskme]

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:13 pm
I'm denying your claim that there is no evidence for God.

Immanuel - Are you aware that you can only claim evidence for your own personal God. You cannot deny what someone else claims. Is that clear to you?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:13 pm
I'm denying your claim that there is no evidence for God.

Are you aware that you can only claim evidence for your own personal God.

No, I am not "aware" of such a thing, for the very simple reason that it isn't true.

[Dontaskme]

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:13 pm
I'm denying your claim that there is no evidence for God.

Are you aware that you can only claim evidence for your own personal God.

No, I am not "aware" of such a thing, for the very simple reason that it isn't true.

Explain how it is possible for you to deny another persons claim that there is no evidence for God?

[Immanuel Can]

Explain how it is possible for you to deny another persons claim that there is no evidence for God?

Very, very easily. All one has to find is one single piece of evidence for God, and it becomes absolutely untrue to say "there is no evidence for God." It's just that easy.

[Dontaskme]

Explain how it is possible for you to deny another persons claim that there is no evidence for God?

Very, very easily. All one has to find is one single piece of evidence for God, and it becomes absolutely untrue to say "there is no evidence for God." It's just that easy.

I haven't found a single piece of evidence for God myself.

Have you personally found the evidence for God?

[Immanuel Can]

I haven't found a single piece of evidence for God myself.

Have you personally found the evidence for God?

Of course.

There are primarily two kinds of such evidences. One is the sort of rational, scientific, empirical, historical kind of evidence, and there are lots of those. But the second is a personal kind of evidence...the kind of evidence one only can have by being in a relationship or connection with God, and experiencing what it means to live with Him in view. That kind of evidence is not available to anyone who is not having the experience of it.

So which is it you want? Do you want the rational, scientific, empirical, mathematical, historical, moral etc. kind of evidence, or are you speaking of your inexperience (thus far, I trust) with personal contact with God? Which one are you feeling the lack of?

[Dontaskme]

I haven't found a single piece of evidence for God myself.

Have you personally found the evidence for God?

Of course.

There are primarily two kinds of such evidences. One is the sort of rational, scientific, empirical, historical kind of evidence, and there are lots of those.

So you are here referring to some information you have as being evidence for God?

But the second is a personal kind of evidence...the kind of evidence one only can have by being in a relationship or connection with God, and experiencing what it means to live with Him in view. That kind of evidence is not available to anyone who is not having the experience of it.

And so this evidence according to you there, must be your own personal experiencing of God as evidence of God.
A kind of evidence that until one has personally experienced this evidence it will not be available to them.

And yet when I said to you earlier... (Are you aware that you can only claim evidence for your own personal God )
You replied ( No, I am not "aware" of such a thing, for the very simple reason that it isn't true. )

So which is it you want? Do you want the rational, scientific, empirical, mathematical, historical, moral etc. kind of evidence, or are you speaking of your inexperience (thus far, I trust) with personal contact with God? Which one are you feeling the lack of?

Ah, there's that personal evidence of God again, the one that you claim isn't true.

Anyhow, I'm sure you'll correct my lack of understanding of this evidence for God....please do continue..

I used to believe in God too, even while really knowing there is no evidence for my belief, I was like a child, just make-believing into existence whatever my imagination could muster.

[Immanuel Can]

So you are here referring to some information you have as being evidence for God?

That's one kind of evidence.

But the second is a personal kind of evidence...the kind of evidence one only can have by being in a relationship or connection with God, and experiencing what it means to live with Him in view. That kind of evidence is not available to anyone who is not having the experience of it.

And so this evidence according to you there, must be your own personal experiencing of God as evidence of God.
A kind of evidence that until one has personally experienced this evidence it will not be available to them.

That's right. And that's why it's difficult to invoke, at least as a pre-faith kind of evidence.

So we've got two types: empirical evidences, and personal evidences. The latter, if anything, are more compelling to the experiencer than the former are, but are not so easy to provide to somebody who doesn't have the experience.

And yet when I said to you earlier... (Are you aware that you can only claim evidence for your own personal God )
You replied ( No, I am not "aware" of such a thing, for the very simple reason that it isn't true. )

That's because there are empirical, public evidences as well. Personal experience is only one of the two.

I used to believe in God too, even while really knowing there is no evidence for my belief, I was like a child, just make-believing into existence whatever my imagination could muster.

Then I think you were believing in imagination itself, not in God.

But how did you come to think there could not possibly be evidence for your belief? It is indeed child-like for a person to believe that "I don't know" can be casually translated into "Therefore, it doesn't exist," and "Therefore, nobody else can know either." The latter two don't follow at all from the former observation, obviously.

But a child is not to know that. Adults, however, should.

[Dontaskme]

Then I think you were believing in imagination itself, not in God.

I remember imagining I had a house full of animals that I would talk to and pretend to feed them.
I would also pretend to live in a big castle with many rooms.
I would also imagine dark scary creepy things would be trying to kill me while I slept in my bed at night.
I used to believe if I swallowed certain things I shouldn't have, they would kill me, and I remember feeling afraid while waiting to die because I was so convinced that a swallowed piece of rubber from the end of my chewed pencil would indeed kill me.
I never once thought about a God though, not once.

But how did you come to think there could not possibly be evidence for your belief?

Because I didn't live in a castle, and I didn't have a house full of animals, and I didn't die when I swallowed a piece of rubber, nor did I die when the creepy scary dark shadows would engulf my bed sheets one night. That's why.

It is indeed child-like for a person to believe that "I don't know" can be casually translated into "Therefore, it doesn't exist," and "Therefore, nobody else can know either." The latter two don't follow at all from the former observation, obviously.

But a child is not to know that. Adults, however, should.

All I'm saying to you, is that I do not know of any evidence for a God. I understand the word God as having meaning like the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

But I personally cannot comprehend a supreme being, creator and a ruler of the universe as existing. The idea just doesn't make any sense to me, not anymore. Although I have tried and tried to make sense of the word God...but in the end I just had to let the idea go when my commonsense, rationale, and intelliegnce completely engulfed all of my confusions, snuffing them out for good. An Intelligence was always fighting to take a more powerful position in my head, an intelliegnce that battled constantly, until it finally took over my delusional God beliefs by knocking some proper sense into me.
I bought a bible and read in genesis that people lived 800 to 1000 years, and I was like ok, that's weird, am I supposed to understand this.
I also read that humans may be hybrids of the annunaki gods who come not from earth, but came to earth to implant their dna into us. And then I thought, that's weird, am I supposed to understand this. I do however believe that the Bible stories were written in a time when scientific discoveries had not yet evolved enough to be able to properly understand not only ourselves as humans but the world in which we lived. The bible is mostly written by humans, using their own thoughts about what they regarded as the human condition.

I also understand that once a person holds fast in their faith of their believed God - then there is no counter force or voice on earth that could ever change their mind, because their dedication to their beloved is unbreakable, and unshakable, in the sense, that according to the believer, their God is forever impossible to be ever proven not to exist.

.

[Immanuel Can]

I never once thought about a God though, not once.

Well, you are now, it seems.

But how did you come to think there could not possibly be evidence for your belief?

Because I didn't live in a castle, and I didn't have a house full of animals, and I didn't die when I swallowed a piece of rubber, nor did I die when the creepy scary dark shadows would engulf my bed sheets one night. That's why.

Well, just because fictitious beliefs happen does not imply other beliefs are all fictitious. So that would be a jump in logic, for sure.

All I'm saying to you, is that I do not know of any evidence for a God.

I get that. And I do not know of any evidence for the existence of Boston. But I could, and I should, perhaps.

I also understand that once a person holds fast in their faith of their believed God - then there is no counter force or voice on earth that could ever change their mind, because their dedication to their beloved is unbreakable, and unshakable, in the sense, that according to the believer, their God is forever impossible to be ever proven not to exist.

That's one interpretation of what's happening. The other is that they might have found something, and once they understood that it's actually true, they didn't simply abandon it because somebody came along to question it. Truth is like that: when people discover it, they don't easily revert to delusion.

I wonder which case you suppose...

[Dontaskme]

I also understand that once a person holds fast in their faith of their believed God - then there is no counter force or voice on earth that could ever change their mind, because their dedication to their beloved is unbreakable, and unshakable, in the sense, that according to the believer, their God is forever impossible to be ever proven not to exist.

That's one interpretation of what's happening.

There is only one making the interpretion of what is happening. So any interpretation of what's happening will only be true for the one making it.

The other is that they might have found something, and once they understood that it's actually true, they didn't simply abandon it because somebody came along to question it. Truth is like that: when people discover it, they don't easily revert to delusion.

I wonder which case you suppose...

The other interpretation you mention can only belong to the one making it. And so that one making it may believe they have found something that they can understand to be true without question or doubt from any other source other than their own direct source. So then I suppose truth is like that...simply because a truth claim belonging to someone who believes strongly enough that it is their true, is obviously going to cling to it, for dear life and defend it at all cost.
And is what I said earlier to you, when I mentioned to you that you can only know your own truth. You cannot show your God truth to others, or expect them to take it on as their own, what will always be someone elses truth.

We're all in the same boat here, we are each and every one of us only privy to our own truths. It's no good trying to convince others that what they are certain of as their own found truth, to be anything like someone elses truth. In fact, there would be no argument to make over your own found truth, would there? your own truth wouldn't need to be argued at all, since once you've found your truth, you are never going to be turned from it anyway, so why even bother to talk about it at all with other people?

Anyone who claims they have found the truth is very much on their own with that truth.

André Gide — 'Trust those who seek the truth but doubt those who say they have found it.'

Truth claims are a belief, nothing more than a cultish behavior. It's an action of knowing, knowledge, a story, that's all. Prior to knowledge which is unique to the human mind, there is just everything and nothing, devoid of any story attached to it.

[Immanuel Can]

...any interpretation of what's happening will only be true for the one making it.

That's actually the definition of a delusion -- a thing which only one person thinks is "true."

The other is that they might have found something, and once they understood that it's actually true, they didn't simply abandon it because somebody came along to question it. Truth is like that: when people discover it, they don't easily revert to delusion.

I wonder which case you suppose...

The other interpretation you mention can only belong to the one making it.

Oh, not at all. Truth is very public. Everyone has a right to it. Unfortunately for some, everybody also has a right to refuse it.

[Dontaskme]

...any interpretation of what's happening will only be true for the one making it.

That's actually the definition of a delusion -- a thing which only one person thinks is "true."

The other is that they might have found something, and once they understood that it's actually true, they didn't simply abandon it because somebody came along to question it. Truth is like that: when people discover it, they don't easily revert to delusion.

I wonder which case you suppose...

The other interpretation you mention can only belong to the one making it.

Oh, not at all. Truth is very public. Everyone has a right to it. Unfortunately for some, everybody also has a right to refuse it.

The only truth is there isn't any truth.

I see you are still stuck with the belief in delusion.

[Immanuel Can]

The only truth is there isn't any truth.

That's obviously self-contradictory.

If it's true, that "there isn't any truth," then that claim can't possibly be true either...which means it's false. But if it's false, then it's false again.

So either way, that claim is false. There is no other possibility.