And religious people dispute each other around the nature of God, for example. — Coben

Yes, but you do not see historians killing each other over their views the way the religious do.

It sounds like you are comparing current historians in Western countries - especially when they are not challenging things like capitalism, where the peers may be just as biased, as one example - with religious writers further back in history. — Coben

Historians tend to report what they think are facts and may speak of the conditions they see arising from political systems, but they do not usually debate the various forms.

I do not see religious bias as the same as the bias historians have. One is based on nothing whie the other is based on facts.

And further are not so important as say scripture. — Coben

Scriptures are not important at all to intelligent people who are not raised outside of a religion. They see them as myths. Some will have a worthy message and some will just be garbage.

If scriptures were important, even to the religious, the religions would not keep changing the wording of the already plagiarized or forged documentation.

And then you classify the religious writers, it seems, as intentionally justifying what they consider immoral and unethical. — Coben

Sure. They try and fail, as indicated by the shrinking numbers ot theists.

Or if you are saying they argue for their own version of ethics and you disagree with it, that's not really in the same category as what you are saying about historians. — Coben

What I disagree with is religions hiding behind a supernatural shield which kill debate and is like arguing with brain dead children.

Historians are way more honest and way less hypocritical.

Regards
DL

Ok.

Belief is the problem.

I'm probably going around in circles here so humor me.

Technically we all are: that is what time is (a circle) so I'm with you regardless.

What name would you give to the message of your OP and all that you've said?

"Belief"?

I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from here.

You've offered us another word, "knowing" which, if I understand you, is better than "belief", the issue here.

This makes sense to me only when you qualified "knowing" with "what NOT to believe". Am I following you?

Yes - knowing who/what/where/why/when/how *not* to "believe" which demands use of the conscience. I find that whereas "knowing" demands use of the conscience, "believing" demands not the conscience because one does not necessarily question what one "believers" especially if they are "bound to believe" which is technically a 'satanic' state.

However, you don't want us NOT to believe what you're saying here. You want us to believe you.

No... I don't want anyone believing what I'm saying, or me, or in me at all. I do not wish for anyone to "believe" anything but rather ask themselves the question(s) to/for themselves and see if they can see it for themselves. I would rather a person look by themselves, see for themselves, and walk away independent without relying on a "belief" in anyone or anything whatsoever.

It is not about who is right or wrong, it is about what is right or wrong. People who focus on individuals rather than the things that are imparted is related to what is at the core of idol worship. If something anyone says is true, that it is actually true (if it is) is what makes it true, not who said it.

For example I find Christianity and Islam to be fundamentally idolatrous - they both utilize a "mercy upon mankind" male central figure that serves as a model for living unto adherents of the respective ideologies. I understand this as idol worship, and I understand that "believers" who "believe" in these figures (not to mention spill blood over them) are idol worshipers (if even unknowing they are) and are fundamentally "bound to believe". However that does not mean all of the teachings associated to Jesus are untrue or lies: there is much that can be understood without adopting the idol of Jesus.

My question doesn't hurt your position. I think you've made your case as far as I'm concerned. I just want to know the word, if not "belief", you use to describe what it is that you've discovered and wish to convey to us.

I'm still not entirely understanding what you are looking for in terms of this word. Can you try to clarify?

I don't want to bother you anymore. I'm satisfied with how much I understood.

I read the other thread you started asking for a logical perspetive for what you've been saying. If I think of anything I'll post :up:

idol worshipers — A Gnostic Agnostic

The idol house is as the mosque, a shrine.
And chime of striking bells service divine;
Gueber’s belt, church and rosary and cross,
Each is in truth of worshiping a sign.

I don’t much mind what Idol they adore,
Nor what structures all the more they implore;
But, when they state it all as truth and fact,
This misleads, at best, and’s dishonest more!

The ancients found themselves here of nowhere,
Yet to fathom earth, fire, water, and air,
Asking why life was not square, as unfair,
So invented the Bad Role Model’s Care.

They looked unto their calamities,
Their powerful rulers and enemies,
Toward their olden family structure’s way,
Of strict father, and mother with no say.

The Christian concept of reward and punishment
Handed out by an omnipotent, omniscient God,
Is derivative of the family experience,
The child and parent, a conception of our world.

This Father Notion they based on themselves,
As the best answer that was ever delved:
The demanding Male Mind who was called ‘God’,
An idea for some to this day, well trod.

Answers were needed for them to persist:
They extended the Notion with more myths
And legends into lore layered upon,
Inventing all the scrolls of scripture on.

‘God’ brought both fear and comfort in those days,
Making people better through fearsome ways,
Although worse for some—the unchosen tribes,
Protecting their notions, as taught by scribes.

A wasteland of superstition plod,
Instantiates a meaning for ‘God’.
Emotion e’er sets up a firm blockade
When thoughts fired more build a stockade.

A hundred trillion stars and countless shores
Were built to light their universal nights explored;
Forty million other lower species too, the All-Might
Placed about our world, merely for their delight!

A trillion lights shine through, of depths of the deep,
Stars afire, with us the souls from their keep.
Man oft spouts the ‘truth’ of a Creator,
As did proto-men, near the equator.

Scrolled into scripture, ‘God’ brought rapture,
Enough for sad hearts to wholly capture;
Yet, there can’t be First Complexity’s shove,
As there wasn’t such to make the Thing of.

There were various modifications,
Yet the Creator concept remained one;
But natural understandings progressed,
Leaping ahead of the dogmatical rest.

Thousands of years came to pass, in stories,
But then we solved much of the mystery,
Irrefutable now, as gone beyond—
Utterly not of God’s magical wand.

The basis is forever, no creation—
Energy being the primest potion,
And Entirety is seen that it can be
No way but than it is, eternally.

Claims of Revelation in Genesis
Of all of Nature’s species made, as is,
Have been demolished, obliterated,
By evolution and data liberated.

Nature finds no requirement for a ‘God’,
Growth naturally forming in the sod.
The organic ‘comes of the mud and slime,
Formed within billions of years of sweet time.

I just read gnostic agnostic as basically two words that mean the same thing — Gnostic Christian Bishop

A surprising decision on your part. :gasp: The prefix "a-" means not or without. The implication seems to be that any word you choose can be converted to its approximate opposite by adding the "A-" prefix. So I don't think they are "two words that mean the same thing"! I can't understand how you would. :chin:

Yes, but you do not see historians killing each other over their views the way the religious do. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The countries who follow different historians send the experts to do the killing, for example. And the experts are not the historians, but the soldiers. Of course, some of the soldiers may be historians, but that's not there are sent to kill. So the lay historians, politicians, working from discordant histories, go to war.

Historians tend to report what they think are facts and may speak of the conditions they see arising from political systems, but they do not usually debate the various forms.

I do not see religious bias as the same as the bias historians have. One is based on nothing whie the other is based on facts. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

based on purported facts. And since you see religions as false per se, well, of course you don't see them as based on facts, unless they are interpreted in the way you, as the particular kind of gnostic you are think they should be.

And further are not so important as say scripture.
— Coben

Scriptures are not important at all to intelligent people who are not raised outside of a religion. They see them as myths. Some will have a worthy message and some will just be garbage. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I know you think this. But that was not my point. My point was to say that what religious people say in lay exchanges is not as important as scripture. I'm not a fan of the various scriptures, but that's neither here nor there.

And then you classify the religious writers, it seems, as intentionally justifying what they consider immoral and unethical.
— Coben

Sure. They try and fail, as indicated by the shrinking numbers ot theists. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Try and fail is different from intentionally trying to mislead. Further there is not a shrinking number of theists, there is shrinking percentage of theists.

What I disagree with is religions hiding behind a supernatural shield which kill debate and is like arguing with brain dead children. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

This slid away from the issue the issue what you quoted from me was focused on.

Huxley combined the Greek prefix a-, meaning "not," with gnostos, "known." It can be used as a noun or adjective, and it can also refer to uncertainty about questions other than the existence of God: "Some philosophers remain agnostic as to whether people have free will."

I can't understand how you would — Pattern-chaser

I am French and think analogically.

Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers so as to not become idol worshipers and agnostics are also on the fence/seekers, as they seek the ultimate answers just as we do.

I do not see much of a difference as agnostic and Gnostics do about the same thing and hold many of the same beliefs. We are closer to agnostics than we are to other religions that are idol worshipers.

Being a self educated Frenchman, I do not usually argue the meaning of English words with an English guy.

Regards
DL

based on purported facts. — Coben

Yes, like a supernatural realm that somehow do not match the supernatural realm of other religions and are demonstrably myths.

Regards
DL

You presented it as simple and binary. It's not. One day you'll learn to concede points, or you won't. It doesn't come off as strong, it comes off as if you admit anything, yout think you'll lose. You wouldn't lose, but you'll never know that as long as you play the narcissism game. The scriptures have all sorts of mismatches, but the mystics and masters between religions, they share a lot. Even the Abrahamic ones. Me, I don't like the Abrahamic traditions, though there are pieces in there that I do. But despite my distaste for those religions, I can still see that there are religious people, who believe in what you are calling the supernatural, who share a lot, despite coming from the different traditions. And then, there people with quite radically different experiences from you, regular ones, some that can be controlled. Not myths. One of the things that was often horrific about the Abrahamic religious was their righteous wrath. If only your version of gnoticism had kept you free of that. Then the binary thinking and oversimplification and lying to us, you could let go. Sometimes the ends don't justify the means.

IOWs, I got you and you did not like it.
The sin of misguided pride.

What lie are you referring to?

Show it or be seen as a liar yourself for accusing without showing what you accuse of.

Regards
DL

The lie is first you present historians' works as based on fact, religious works as based on made up stuff in a binary presentation. I point out how it is not so binary, that historians lie, historians can be confused, historians publish books that disagree with other historian's books, and so on. At no point can you admit that your first presentation of the issue was not correct. This happens with regularity. You are a polemicist. I think you're polemics are damaging because they do not present things as they are. You often present false dilemmas. You do move on and modify your statements, but only as if you have not contradicted yourself. Perhaps, I say perhaps, you were confused when you first presented the issue in binary terms. But now you know it is not binary, that just because a historian wrote something it need not be based on facts. Still the original falsehood still stands, sitting there earlier in the thread. Even if it was not a lie at first, now it is a lie, since you cannot qualify it, concede anything. This has happened repeatedly. You appeal to authority quoting ancients on how to read scripture. When it is pointed out that at least some of these same ancients believed in supernatural entities, you still go on and use them when responding to others. The appeal to authority is a lie, because you are arguing that the ancients believed in your take on supernatural entities, and use as examples people who I have shown you actually did believe in them. This is a lie because now you know that while they said something that fit your interpretation of scripture as metaphorical, they actually also believed in supernatural entities. You cannot seem to admit mistakes, even, and have elsewhere referred to your apotheosis. This, it seems to me, has led to a functional narcissism online. I have no idea how you behave in face to face contexts, but online. And what's the problem with this? well, your presentation of things in binary terms, even when something is easily demonstrated to be more nuanced means that you add to an aggressive split. An us/them unnuanced splitting of people. And then of course it is the presentation of falsehoods. I think that is damaging and anti-gnostic. And those who you might learn with the most all see this pattern. What you see in the religious, you live out.

What you see in the religious, you live out. — Coben

Indeed.

My religion says that it is not only my duty to try to grow my religion, but that it is also my duty to fight evil.

I do more of the latter because few want to become adherents to any religion given the garbage mainstream religions and all the harm that they continue to do to society with their foul homophobic and misogynous teachings, not to mention calling their evil gods good.

If you ever want to try to stick to the issues, instead of speaking about me, I am here for you.

I like to keep this following in mind.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

BTW, you are mostly off the mark, and if you are going to be that far off on your critique, next time get the G D quotes or shut the fuck up.

Regards
DL

But why focus on the person at all? Would not the more sound one be whoever is last to resolve to personal attacks? I understand arguments are made by people, and some people are sound in their arguments, some are unsound, but why not put whatever "energy" there is into just undermining the argument itself, and if this is easily done, find a way to get others looking in the direction that they might need to look to see where they are themselves in conflict. Perhaps this is wisdom, and if so, I am lacking myself (though not entirely... patience is a virtue, but not at the expense of ones own sanity) because I hardly have patience with people who attack people instead of ideas. I know people who identify with their own idea/belief (which I think is a problem that needs to be addressed globally) feel personally undermined when the idea/belief is undermined, but this is (perhaps) precisely why people like me exist: IDGAF who calls who what, or who is right who is wrong, I care about knowing what is true and/or untrue insofar as it comes to knowing what not to "believe".

But SERIOUSLY (only half) I argue that the entire state of "being offended" is indicating "idol worship". Surely someone who elevates their own personal feelings above all other peoples' and/or matters they govern or are governed by (given the immensity of the cosmos) is... very focus-on-the-personish. I know the expression ad hominem exists to denote this, but I choose focus-on-the-personish because that is exactly what idolatrous religious institutions do: focus-on-the-person. Which model man will it be for you, Jesus or Muhammad? Whose character appeals to you? See how they are dressed by the scholars - exemplary idols for all of humanity, for all of time.

Some "beliefs" have immense gravity to them - the same some idol worshipers have immense gravity to themselves that they identify with their "belief" so much that even a slight utterance against their male-central-figure preacher-turned-genocidal-warlord idol sets them off into "offense" mode wherein there is enmity and sin knocking on the door. Who elaborates their pride such that ones enmity grows into desire to cause pain - to spill blood, of even ones own brother!

I find enmity and desire to spill blood the elaboration of evil itself and the various "beliefs" one has to justify it. And there you will find the man-gods who favor sending imitable idols to the world to show humans how to obey live.

Wake one, wake all - the problem is "belief". I am doing my best not to sound "mean" or whatever, but if people stopped worshiping books and idols, peace would actually be a real possibility, Presently, it is not because a "problem" is trying to impose itself as the "solution" to problems it itself is manufacturing (first tragically by accident due to an insane man, over time on purpose) to justify itself as the "superior" 'state' which is actually the *real* root/seed of fascist Nazism and hatred/genocide of non-Muslims/Jews. But I can't mention the "belief"-based religio-political ideology directly because they are fascists and kill people who undermine their 'state' which happens to be based on "belief" which happens to be not a virtue.

My religion says that it is not only my duty to try to grow my religion, but that it is also my duty to fight evil. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Dear @Gnostic Christian Bishop, there is a Great Evil destroying our homes, our livelihoods and ourselves. This Great Evil is humans. Please fight them for us, and kill them all if you can. Amen. :monkey: :monkey: :monkey:

there is a Great Evil destroying our homes, our livelihoods and ourselves. This Great Evil is humans. Please fight them for us, and kill them all if you can. Amen. — Pattern-chaser

Stupid is as stupid writes.

Regards
DL

There is an alternative to "belief". It is to "know". — A Gnostic Agnostic

???

Knowledge is a qualified type of belief: it's belief for which we have some justification and which we judge to be true.

Knowledge is a qualified type of belief: it's belief for which we have some justification and which we judge to be true. — Terrapin Station

I can live with this description.

Why the question marks?

You seem to understand and agree with what I put.

Regards
DL

because knowledge is not an alternative to belief - according to what he said - but a subset of beliefs, a subset rigorously arrived at, however the individual epistemologist, which each of us are in our own way, defines 'rigorously'.

In fact, I'd argue there is no difference between believing religious scripture and historical accounts. — Tzeentch

That's a patently absurd claim. And bringing up examples of false historical accounts doesn't support it.

epistemologist — Coben

Are you swearing at me?

I am French and cant even pronounce that without slapping myself with my own tongue; tabarnac de calisse.

Pardon my swearing. ;-)

Being barely educated is a bitch.

Let's KIS.

Faith, something based on nothing concrete.
Belief, something based on something but not proven. Close to " I think so and think it true.
Knowledge, something based on facts that are provable.

I have faith that my thing will grow longer before I die.
I believe this passionately based on my desire and bio feedback science
I know it will not happen because there is no evidence for such a thing and I am already too long for most women.

Regards
DL

If you think it's so absurd, you probably haven't deliberated upon the subject enough.

If you think it's so absurd, you probably haven't deliberated upon the subject enough. — Tzeentch

No, it's because I have the required critical thinking skills, whereas you do not. There's an obvious difference between believing, say, Matthew 14:22-33, about Jesus walking on water, and believing historical accounts about prisoners being locked in a dark chamber for several days in Block 11 of Auschwitz concentration camp. And that's just one example of many. Your statement is false, and obviously so.

epistemologist
— Coben

Are you swearing at me?

I am French and cant even pronounce that without slapping myself with my own tongue; tabarnac de calisse. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

epistemology = épistémologie
epistemologist = épistémologiste

My guess is most native English language philosophers would understand the French pronouciation, so should you be cornered on the street in a discussion of knowledge, just go with the French version and no one will complain.

Faith, something based on nothing concrete.
Belief, something based on something but not proven. Close to " I think so and think it true.
Knowledge, something based on facts that are provable. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You could break it down like this. The problem with 'facts' is that what fallible humans consider 'facts' can change. The problem with provable, is that proofs are restricted to closed systems, like math, say. Empirical knowledge cannot be proven. Though one can be incredibly confident in some of it. Even in science, things that seemed proven turned out not to be true.

But you can decide, of course, since you are an épistémologiste, as we all are, that this is how you break things down and define them. I don't think it's the best way, me also being an épistémologiste with his own experiences and take.

Alors, vous êtes Québécois. J'ai vécu de belles expériences en provenance du Vermont, dérapant par-dessus la frontière. On entend dire que les gens vont être prétentieux, mais j'ai toujours été traité si merveilleusement.

If the difference is so obvious, please show it to me.

As far as I am concerned, in both cases one is reading words and choosing to believe them or not.

Stupid is as stupid writes. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Indeed. :up: Well done for getting this far! :smile:

My religion says that it is [...] my duty [...] to fight evil. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Humans are consistently evil toward every other living thing in the world, and also to the world itself. [And very often to other humans too.] Now it's time to practice what you preach....

If the difference is so obvious, please show it to me.

As far as I am concerned, in both cases one is reading words and choosing to believe them or not. — Tzeentch

First of all, beliefs aren't chosen. I don't know why this category error is so prevalent.

Secondly, the obvious difference between believing the one compared to believing the other consists in how gullible you are. The religious text is about an implausible supernatural event, and the historical account is of a plausible natural event. You'd have to be really gullible to believe the former, whereas the latter is reasonable to believe.

Why the question marks? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Because knowing isn't an alternative to belief, it's a qualified type of belief.

First of all, beliefs aren't chosen. — S

I disagree, but this is a different topic.

Secondly, the obvious difference between believing the one compared to believing the other consists in how gullible you are. The religious text is about an implausible supernatural event, and the historical account is of a plausible natural event. You'd have to be really gullible to believe the former, whereas the latter is reasonable to believe. — S

Well, this is a mess.

Firstly, gullible, plausible, reasonable, are all subjective terms and cannot form the objective distinction you seek to make, unless further specified.

Secondly, not all theists are gullible. Similarly, atheists are not necessarily not gullible. Similarly, not all religious texts are implausible (i.e. a man named Jesus probably existed), and not all historical accounts are plausible (i.e. Herodotus's claim that the Persians numbered over two million at Thermopylae).

Your statement is an ill-disguised "They are stupid and we are smart!", and this will not do.

You must not be very good at logic, because you don't seem to understand that it only takes a single counterexample to refute your original claim. That you can present examples that are consistent with your claim is of no logical relevance in this context.

And only an idiot would dispute that it's gullible to believe that Jesus walked on water. Are you an idiot? Serious question.

Also, you've committed the unforgivable of sin of using "i.e." when you should have used "e.g.".

it only takes a single counterexample to refute your original claim. — S

I'm still waiting.

And do come with something tangible rather than insults and opinions.