the "manmade" God.

[theculturewarrior]

Actually, I was just thinking of conducting our correspondence in that way. I really don't see why you can't provide sources in this thread.

I'll answer your questions later. I've got work to get done.

[theculturewarrior]

Just one last thought...I never said that I could prove the sky didn't exist, but that any proof that it does exist at some point rests on faith. I would need from you a proof that the sky exists, before I can deconstruct it or demonstrate that its first princibles are taken on faith.

Happy hunting!

[theculturewarrior]

Why do you remind me of a certain history professor, Melchisedec?

[Jaime]

And with Simon as your avatar, I read all your comments with a british accent.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Apr 10 2005, 10:39 PM'] Just one last thought...I never said that I could prove the sky didn't exist, but that any proof that it does exist at some point rests on faith. I would need from you a proof that the sky exists, before I can deconstruct it or demonstrate that its first princibles are taken on faith.

Happy hunting! [/quote]
Sources you say, here are just a few things that you can dig up and check out yourself:

A massive source for information is:

[url="http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml"]http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml[/url]

Books that discuss pagan myths and the similarities to christianity in my collection:

ancient pagan and modern christian symbolism by tomas inman
christianity before christ by john jackson
Worlds saviors by charles vail
The jesus mysteries by timothy freke
forgery and christianity by joseph wheless

If you want a more concise source list, its going to take me a couple of days and will span a couple of pages. This doesn't include all my various encyclopedias on myths and gods. If you want my email, just let me know.

I forgot to address your challenge... in next post I shall.

Edited April 11, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Apr 10 2005, 10:39 PM'] I would need from you a proof that the sky exists, before I can deconstruct it or demonstrate that its first princibles are taken on faith.
[/quote]
You've basicly made an argument out of ignorance.

[i]Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.[/i]

Now you asserted to me that you can use reason to deconstruct my reality , and relegate it to a faith based worldview. I asked you, to reason away the sky for me. Now you have asked me to prove that the sky exists first.

[i]The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise[/i]

The burden of proof lies in your corner since you made the assertion. I can say, prove to me that elves do not live in the center of the moon. Can you disprove this? You see where this leads us. Now the sky is a proven thing, and you have the burdern of reasoning the sky away. So I am listening. But like I had mentioned before, our discussion would be more better suited as a private correspondence , than to digress this thread further.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 11 2005, 08:54 AM'] And with Simon as your avatar, I read all your comments with a british accent.

[/quote]
safe

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 11 2005, 10:41 AM'] You've basicly made an argument out of ignorance.

[i]Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.[/i]

Now you asserted to me that you can use reason to deconstruct  my reality , and relegate it to a faith based worldview.  I asked you, to reason away the sky for me. Now you have asked me to prove that the sky exists first. 

[i]The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise[/i]

The burden of proof lies in your corner since you made the assertion. I can say, prove to me that elves do not live in the center of the moon. Can you disprove this?  You see where this leads us.  Now the sky is a proven thing, and you have the burdern of reasoning the sky away. So I am listening. But like I had mentioned before, our discussion would be more better suited as a private correspondence , than to digress this thread further. [/quote]
I haven't asserted that I could reason away the sky for you. You're putting words in my mouth. I also haven't asserted that I could replace it with a "faith-based worldview." When did I say that?

What I said was that any philosophical proof that reality is real that uses reason alone has been deconstructed a thousand times. You want me to prove that the sky isn't real. I never said it wasn't. I was talking about [b]proofs having been disproved.[/b]

For that, I will provide you with a bibliography on the history of philosophy and the failure of pure reason.

Good enough?

[Melchisedec]

sure

[theculturewarrior]

In the meanwhile...

How do you know that the sky is real?

[theculturewarrior]

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [url="http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm"]http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm[/url]

[quote]The project of the Critique of Pure Reason is also challenging because in the analysis of the mind's transcendental contributions to experience we must employ the mind, the only tool we have, to investigate the mind. We must use the faculties of knowledge to determine the limits of knowledge, so Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is both a critique that takes pure reason as its subject matter, and a critique that is conducted by pure reason.

[/quote]

[theculturewarrior]

[url="http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm"]http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm[/url]

[theculturewarrior]

I forgot to say...more to come.

That's quite a book list!

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Apr 11 2005, 03:47 PM'] From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [url="http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm"]http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm[/url]

[/quote]
Great stuff! A friend of mine had also suggested kant, but I'm still working my way up to him.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Apr 11 2005, 03:30 PM'] In the meanwhile...

How do you know that the sky is real? [/quote]
...

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Apr 11 2005, 03:30 PM'] In the meanwhile...

How do you know that the sky is real? [/quote]
So my question to you, then, is this: How do you deal with those of us who do believe that it's possible that there is no such thing as 'reality' and that the sky could be a figment of our collective imaginations? I don't take it on faith that the sky (or whatever) is real, but I don't believe that my life would be altered one mote if it were proven illusory. It simply [i]does not matter[/i] whether it is real or not.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Apr 9 2005, 02:54 PM'] Melchisedec asked the question, "Can God exist without man?"

My answer, taken on faith, is that God has existed without man, but since God is True God, and True Man, theoretically, there has to be at least one Man.

The question at hand is who made who, God, or man?

Matters of faith have the quality of unfalsifiability. They can neither be proved or disproved scientifically. Prophecies have the quality of self-fulfillment, as do prayers. People of faith often cling to their faith when faced with evidence to the contrary.

The thing is, religion isn't the only thing taken on faith. That I am truly alive and that what I sense is real are matters I take on faith, and matters that have been challenged by secular philosophers, matters with the qualities of unfalsifiability, and to my experience, "self-fulfullment."

It would seem that man cannot escape the qualities that are inherent in any worldview, to greater or lesser extents. My question is, why?

Why is man a religious being? Why is faith also an "inherent" quality in man, along with goodness? Where does it come from? That men die celibate for something or Someone they literally can't see or hear strikes me as an evolutionary defect, unless there is a God.

More to come. [/quote]
Obviously I believe that man created god(s/dess/desses) instead of the other way around. Older myths are more directly relational to those questions which were unanswered/able. Christianity's beliefs are neither new nor unique. Nor are its stories -- and don't get me wrong here, I have no problem with story adaptation, Shakespeare is one of my favorite authors. The problem is with christianity's belief that it's first at all of this and best because it has lasted a long time. Anyway, you really want to know what I think, read my sig.

[Socrates]

As I have said before, Christianity's claims (when looked at closely) are (or were) new and unique.

It is the only religion claiming its Founder, a particular historical figure, was in fact God Himself.

True, other religions have myths with somewhat similar themes, but they take place in a vague mythic time, and do not concren a particular person in a particular time and place who eyewitnesses have seen, etc, ("In the reign of the Emperor Caesar Augustus.)

ONe must also remember that Judaism's monotheism was unique among the peoples of that time - almost all other surrounding religions worshipped a multitude of gods. Judaism claimed there was only one God, and that no others should be worshipped.

You need to give some specific examples of what Christianity supposedly "stole" from other religions.

[Jaime]

I'm sure that Mel (shortening the name a bit to not cause typos. no offense) could offer a bunch of examples that appear to be "borrowed" from another religion.

In fact, so could I and every theologian here.

Creation story
Ten Commandments
Virgin Birth
Darth Vader being the father of Luke Skywalker

But I digress.

Are there similarities? You bet! There are universal truths to all cultures. Take death for example. There are three components to dealing with death that every single culture on earth abide by

There is a public viewing of the corpse
There is disposal of the body
There is a ceremony that incorporates a greater belief.

Doesn't matter what the culture is, these three things are a part of the ritual.

The question boils down to "How does a finite human comprehend what he perceives to be infinite?"

There lies the crux. One can argue that to resolve the unresolvable, man creates God. One can also argue that God is trying to connect to humanity to help us understand what cannot be comprehended fully.

There are similarities that cannot be explained through plagiarism. It is literally impossible for the Israelites to borrow from the Mayans. Yet there are similarities. Because there are similarities, that can strengthen the argument that God is indeed working through all cultures and not just one.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 12 2005, 12:11 PM'] As I have said before, Christianity's claims (when looked at closely) are (or were) new and unique.

It is the only religion claiming its Founder, a particular historical figure, was in fact God Himself. [/quote]
Should I assume that you mean Jesus here? Because this statement simply doesn't make sense. What do you mean by "founder"? And how does christianity's "founder" differ from judaism's?

[quote]True, other religions have myths with somewhat similar themes, but they take place in a vague mythic time, and do not concren a particular person in a particular time and place who eyewitnesses have seen, etc, ("In the reign of the Emperor Caesar Augustus.)[/quote]

Just because a work incorporates real people doesn't make it non-fiction. Nor does that validate its uniqueness.

[quote]ONe must also remember that Judaism's monotheism was unique among the peoples of that time - almost all other surrounding religions worshipped a multitude of gods.  Judaism claimed there was only one God, and that no others should be worshipped.[/quote]

Zoroastrianism was also presumptively unique at its time. And?

[quote]You need to give some specific examples of what Christianity supposedly "stole" from other religions.[/quote]

Who said christianity stole from other religions? And, I believe that Melchisedec gave a list of books above that deal with themes in christianity that appear elsewhere.

Edited April 12, 2005 by burnsspivey