Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:All monotheistic faiths (that i am aware of) are following the same entity. They are all mans interpretation of God in their own culture.

So you agree that there could just as well be a pantheon of 'gods'?

No not really. It would rather disappoint me...wouldnt they all be fighting one another for domination? In which case, the fight would have well and truly been won aeons ago...?

attofishpi wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:All monotheistic faiths (that i am aware of) are following the same entity. They are all mans interpretation of God in their own culture.

So you agree that there could just as well be a pantheon of 'gods'?

No not really. It would rather disappoint me...wouldnt they all be fighting one another for domination? In which case, the fight would have well and truly been won aeons ago...?

It would explain why the universe is so full of strife and chaos.
Whose to say that one would win out?

attofishpi wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:All monotheistic faiths (that i am aware of) are following the same entity. They are all mans interpretation of God in their own culture.

So you agree that there could just as well be a pantheon of 'gods'?

No not really. It would rather disappoint me...wouldnt they all be fighting one another for domination? In which case, the fight would have well and truly been won aeons ago...?

It was won by a war-god, Jahweh. Note how his followers have been butchering each other for centuries? He loves them for it!

attofishpi wrote:[

WE ALL BELIEVE SOMETHING...if ANY of you disagree, then you better fast find a frickin dictionary that defines the word 'BELIEF' differently.

So my 'belief' that Goldilocks and the Three Bears are fictional characters is now equivalent to a religious faith, is it?

Thundril wrote:... <snip>
So you agree that there could just as well be a pantheon of 'gods'?

No not really. It would rather disappoint me...wouldnt they all be fighting one another for domination? In which case, the fight would have well and truly been won aeons ago...?[/quote]
It was won by a war-god, Jahweh. Note how his followers have been butchering each other for centuries? He loves them for it![/quote]

Ridiculous! That is a direct contradiction of Scripture that holds that jahoowahoo is the one and only.
You should at least get you made-up stories right.

The story says (I think) that Jahoover was a war god, that the brothers Moses and Aaron were priests of this war-god, and that their sister Miriam was a priestess of someone else. (summat to do with golden bullocks, apparently. Of course, written Hebrew lacking unambiguous vowel symbols, this might be one letter out.)
Anyhoo, after jahoopla led them erratically on a forty-year journey across about 150 mile of desert, Miriam suggested paying some attention to the other gods. That's when Moses came up with his writ-in-stone rule about not having any other gods before Yahweh. And Scripture never writes the names of any of these other gods, for that reason.
There is a nasty little sequel to this.
Miriam is struck with a disfiguring disease. Aaaron asks his god why Miriam was struck, and not Aaron himself, who had committed the same offense. The four-lettered one says
'When a man spits in his daughter's face, is she not shamed for seven days?'
Lovely character, ain't he?

Thundril wrote:The story says (I think) that Jahoover was a war god, that the brothers Moses and Aaron were priests of this war-god, and that their sister Miriam was a priestess of someone else. (summat to do with golden bullocks, apparently. Of course, written Hebrew lacking unambiguous vowel symbols, this might be one letter out.)
Anyhoo, after jahoopla led them erratically on a forty-year journey across about 150 mile of desert, Miriam suggested paying some attention to the other gods. That's when Moses came up with his writ-in-stone rule about not having any other gods before Yahweh. And Scripture never writes the names of any of these other gods, for that reason.
There is a nasty little sequel to this.
Miriam is struck with a disfiguring disease. Aaaron asks his god why Miriam was struck, and not Aaron himself, who had committed the same offense. The four-lettered one says
'When a man spits in his daughter's face, is she not shamed for seven days?'
Lovely character, ain't he?

You can dig yourself into your own hole - you don't need my help.

In reading the various questions and their responses, I find myself asking: What is the source or origin of belief, any belief?

In turn, that questions causes me to ask: Is it possible to believe anything in the absence of knowledge?

zimmer80203` wrote:In reading the various questions and their responses, I find myself asking: What is the source or origin of belief, any belief?

Receipt of anything like 'evidence' generates something like belief. (I think!)

zimmer80203` wrote:In turn, that questions causes me to ask: Is it possible to believe anything in the absence of knowledge?

If my previous statement is at all valid, then belief is a kind of precursor. Knowledge (or something firm enough for the thinker to assign it as knowledge) develops as belief is supported by more 'evidence'. So it would seem that belief does indeed exist before, and therefore in the absence of, knowledge.
It's a wobbly sort of distinction, but it's my best guess at the relationship between the two, on the basis of what I guess 'most people' would mean by the terms.
Roughly, as the 'evidence' piles up, you get suspicion, then belief, then knowledge.

Roughly, as the 'evidence' piles up, you get suspicion, then belief, then knowledge.

I thought it was data, knowledge, evidence + knowledge=belief.

Speaking of thought, can one think In the absence of any knowledge?

zimmer80203` wrote:

Speaking of thought, can one think In the absence of any knowledge?

I don't know. but I wouldn't have thought so

zimmer80203` wrote:In reading the various questions and their responses, I find myself asking: What is the source or origin of belief, any belief?

In turn, that questions causes me to ask: Is it possible to believe anything in the absence of knowledge?

Does a cat have 'knowledge'. Surely you don' have knowledge unless you have to concept of knowledge.
It might be true to say a cat can think - but this does not involve knowledge.
I think there are realms of thinking, that do not access knowledge as we understand it, that we engaged in all the time.
But that would depend on what you mean by knowledge.

Thundril wrote:The story says (I think) that Jahoover was a war god, that the brothers Moses and Aaron were priests of this war-god, and that their sister Miriam was a priestess of someone else. (summat to do with golden bullocks, apparently. Of course, written Hebrew lacking unambiguous vowel symbols, this might be one letter out.)
Anyhoo, after jahoopla led them erratically on a forty-year journey across about 150 mile of desert, Miriam suggested paying some attention to the other gods. That's when Moses came up with his writ-in-stone rule about not having any other gods before Yahweh. And Scripture never writes the names of any of these other gods, for that reason.
There is a nasty little sequel to this.
Miriam is struck with a disfiguring disease. Aaaron asks his god why Miriam was struck, and not Aaron himself, who had committed the same offense. The four-lettered one says
'When a man spits in his daughter's face, is she not shamed for seven days?'
Lovely character, ain't he?

Yeah...as bollocks as that is. A whole lot of stupidity has been born of literal undertakings...

I dont buy bull (bible) I dont just accept. I see intelligence and rational under-standing therein. Wisdom.

If only our middle eastern friends were wise enough to create such a convoluted tale...i think not...that story was created by, something? someone? far more pro_found.

attofishpi wrote:...
If only our middle eastern friends were wise enough to create such a convoluted tale...i think not...that story was created by, something? someone? far more pro_found.

I thought it was created by our middle-eastern friends?

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:...
If only our middle eastern friends were wise enough to create such a convoluted tale...i think not...that story was created by, something? someone? far more pro_found.

I thought it was created by our middle-eastern friends?

Ha..yeah.. and there is the short sighted 3dimensional ..at a push 4...comprehension of our shared reality.