Have it your way. I was trying to show you that I’m willing to hear you out. Excessively confrontational? Please. I’ve been called a liar and criticized by multiple people. I think you can understand that I would respond to them, and respond in kind to how I’m being treated. There is a general hostility to my views which is clear from the kind of responses I’m getting, not from you, but in general.
Most posters tend to leap on poor or weak arguments.
For instance your irrational claim that you conceded a deity could be possible, because you didn’t know what was or was not possible.
As I pointed out, not knowing that something is impossible does not mean it is rationally possible? This is quite a common error in reasoning we’ve seen many people make, especially theists, it’s based on a known common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
You also made a statement that an archaic claim was falsifiable because people claimed to witness it, but I remain dubious, as beyond the subjective claims there is nothing that can be scrutinised.
Of course pinpointed out the claim, like all claims, carried a burden of proof, and since it was an extraordinary claim then the bar for sufficient objective evidence would be corresponding high. Thus I would and do disbelieve the claim, however I find the assertion the claim is false is also unsupported by sufficient objective evidence, and thus must also treat the claim as an agnostic.
I hear you. You’re not being hostile, and I appreciate it.
It would be useful if we knew who you were addressing. There are a number of ways to achieve this.
- Quote specific text.
The best method IMHO, as it can also lend credence to your response.
-
Pin the poster’s username in your response like this @JoelInbody.
-
Or just hit the respond icon at the bottom right of the post you’re answering.
I suspect it was aimed at me, so I’ll respond as if that’s the case. Perhaps now you could address the points I raised in an earlier post, that you said at the time you’d consider and answer in due course?
I didn’t press you as I can see it’s difficult when multiple posters are responding to one poster.
Different posters have different styles, some more laid back than others, if you stick around you’ll get used to certain regulars, and find the best way to engage with them.
However rest assured no one’s posts are spared critical scrutiny here, best not to take it personally.
@Sheldon, I thought it was showing that I was replying to you (not aimed at you, it’s a response). I’ll watch for that in the future.
I’ll retract what I said about gods being possible. I admit that I don’t know what is possible or not when it comes to entities like that. I have no evidence for their existence, at the very least.
I would rather not get back into my arguments that early Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Chinese elites knew the gods they claimed to feast were deliberate frauds. I am convinced that they did from a close reading of texts which they left behind, in which they profess witnessing fantastical happenings in temple shrines, things which never happened. I think it’s best if we let that discussion end.
Do you even know what an atheist is?
Atheists don’t believe in any kind of deity. It is the rejection of belief towards the existence of any and all deities. It’s not just God’s existence we reject. It’s all the other deities too. They don’t exist. They can’t exist.
That’s like saying Santa Claus and Leprechauns are real. You don’t need science to tell you that they don’t exist. It’s just common sense.
If you believe in a higher power, that is your desperation and denial to continue your existence that is speaking and crying out. You need to accept that one day, you will die and that will be it. You don’t remember when you didn’t exist before. You don’t remember being conceived by your parents
It will be the same after for you when you die. Do not worry. There isn’t an afterlife. Religion is a work of fiction for those that want to believe in life after death.
Yup. Explained it more than once to theists and/or agnostics.
Perhaps this helps… a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
A claim is made about the existence of god/deity. I lack belief (or confidence) in the claim until sufficient demonstrable evidence is presented on par with the claim.
I lack “belief” (or confidence in claims) for all sorts of things, ranging from, as you mentioned leprechauns to Nigerian Princes needing money.
Even with sufficient evidences my confidence level may rise or lower depending on new information (regarding sciences or such…say, court cases).
I do not make a claim though that no deity exists, however I certainly haven’t been presented with evidence that one does. Black Swan fallacy
1 Like
See… two claims.
There is no afterlife? Really? Can you back that claim? I’m just reading an assertion.
And your claim for the reason religion “exists”. Sounds simplistic, and again - back this assertion. Otherwise your assertions mean nothing more than that of theists.
Arrogant and lazy. I would argue that “common” refers to occurring, found, or done often; prevalent. Common sense favors theism.
@MrDawn Are you talking to me? Yes, I know what an atheist is, I am one. I reject the existence of all gods, not just the Christian one. Don’t talk to me like I’m like an idiot.
No. I was talking to OP, Phoenix.
1 Like
Both of those drugs are known to cause hallucinations.
There is absolutely no indication that @MrDawn was addressing you. Again and again it seems you have these chips on your shoulder. It would be a lot easier and nicer to have a conversation with you if you could remove those.
If you actually thought that post from @MrDawn was direct at you; you might be an idiot. But I don’t think so. I think you are going out of your way to try to start fights, so you jumped on what @MrDawn said, hoping it was directed at you; IMO.
No. I’m feeling attacked and I made an assumption.
As to your point about hallucinations: from what I read of the linked articles, there is no indication these either marijuana or opium were used in feasting rituals for gods. Descriptions of those feasting rituals which survive do not describe them being used, and describe statues performing actions they cannot have performed, even in hallucination, e.g., walking across the room, eating or drinking, etc. Even if drugs were used, drugs wear off, and when the drug wore off, a person would see for themselves that the food and drink had not been sampled by the statue. This would likely cause them to doubt the hallucination, or at least would present competing evidence which would clash with the hallucination.
Descriptions of statue-gods from surviving texts do not sound like hallucinations. Let me provide you with two, both from ancient Egypt:
…the high priest of Amun-Ra, King of the Gods, repeated to [the god: ‘A message about Thebes], thy city.’ Then the god nodded with his head… [The high priest said:] “…[give?] honor to me, life, prosperity, health, and many good things in Thebes, thy city… [break]… and thou shalt give them to me.’ Then nodded the god… [The high priest spoke again, and] the god nodded his head exceedingly, saying, ‘A space of 20 years is that which Amun-Ra, king of gods, gives to thee’ (Breasted 1906, vol. 4: 303-304).
The same high priests claimed that statues of Amun-Ra also spoke and moved, actions which cannot be attributed to mistakes or wishful thinking. Consider Trial by Oracle, which describes a statue of Amun-Ra deciding a criminal case around 1000BCE. It says in part:
On this day in the House of Amun-Ra, king of gods, on the sixth day of the month, appeared the august god, the lord of gods, Amun-Ra, king of the gods… on the silver pavement of the House of Amon… The great god condemned the scribes, inspectors, and administrators because of the act of frauds which they had committed… The high priest of Amun-Ra… came before this god. This god saluted violently. He placed two tablets of writing before the great god… The great god took the writing [which said not to punish the fraud] (Breasted 1906, vol. 4: 327-328)
How can a hallucination pick up a tablet? How can a hallucination move a statue across a room? The answer is they can’t. I would also expect other indicators of hallucinations to be described, such as distorted vision, strange colors, etc. I am not saying hallucinations is not a viable hypothesis. It is. I am saying that that hypothesis is harder for me to accept than lies because descriptions like these do not sound like hallucinations.
Just a question… not an attack Is the august god, Amun-Ra? And if so why use the word “appear”, especially if as a statue this god was always present? Could it be they thought the “statue” representation could be possessed? OR only “special” priests were allowed to serve (ones who saw spirits, say schizophrenic) … or yes some lied (as some today do).
1 Like
Don’t worry; captain strawman will likely interpret it as an attack, since it isn’t 100% supportive.
1 Like
Yes, the idea is that the statue was actively possessed during the ceremonies. It normally was lifeless, at least, that’s what other texts suggest. Let me quote a few wall inscriptions from temples to make my point:
“The bread well baked for your ka [i.e., the goddess Hathor], your soul attracted by its scent, the exhalation of its warmth is for your nose” (Cauville 2012: 70)
“Oh Soker [a falcon god], come to this thy bread…” (Eaton 2013: 110).
Egyptian priests would then supposedly summon the heavenly god into the earthly statue during the ceremonies. In Mesopotamian, the ideas seems to have somewhat different. The statues were continually alive, rather than summoned temporarily.
To your point about schizophrenia, which is valid. Egyptian priests were bureaucrats who were appointed by pharaohs because they held other positions in his bureaucracy, i.e., lawyers, scribes, etc. They were permitted into the shrine for that reason, not because of any personal charisma.
@Nyarlathotep My aren’t we hostile. Captain Strawman?
No and you’re correct as it is an assertion. I’ve given no evidence.
If I were to debate evidence to you about why I dont think God exists. I’d have to go about my awakening as an atheist and why I chose that path for myself.
We’d have to look at plotholes in the Bible. The evidence I can present is that most religious books have plotholes and need men to speak for their all great and powerful deities.
Then we could sit and compare Genesis to Anthropology and why the book of Genesis doesn’t add up. For one Anthropology has forensic evidence supporting the fact that there were other species of humans that the Bible and the religion rejects the existence of.
For example:
- The Egyptians made no mention of Moses’s existence.
- If there was a world wide flood, where did the water come from and where did it go?
- Noah’s Ark is laughably flawed and obviously a bs plot device.
- In general a lot of what is mentioned in the Bible doesn’t match with historical facts none what so ever.
- There’s no dinosaurs in the bible. But Christian’s claim there are and that the bible just calls them beasts.
- There’s no mention of the territory disputes between Neanderthals and Homo Sapians. That’s because Forensic Anthropology contradicts everything in the book of Genesis. Anthropology wins. It gives a physical form of evidence.
The bible is just some s**t rag a bunch of ignorant and naive, misogynist, and dull men made claiming there is an existence of a deity and that everyone has to follow their rules. It gives none. So I made my assertion that it wasn’t real because even children story books make mention of unicorns and elves.
So on and so forth.
Yes, I am hostile towards you. As far as I can tell, I’m the only one. So if you are going to shit on people, perhaps you should aim it at me, instead of the other users.
