Voltaire and God
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Mason 22
Verified User
Sure I knew there was a Bible,but I didn't care I was busy fucking up my life and hanging around South Toledo!
I leaning everything about Passover ,the first ,how it related to Jesus the Last Supper and the Harvest of the Earth at the end of this age. Then I started reading.
Mason 22
Verified User
The Holy Spirit is YHWH in Spirit Form.
YHWH was a Caananite storm god. Just one among an entire pantheon of gods. Even took his own chief god’s woman, Ashera, for his own.
Sometime after the exile, he morphed into the head god. Not the only god, but the only god to worship.
“Thou shall have no other gods before me”.
That’s why there are usages of the plural in the creation myth. “We will make man in our image”.
Best to know your origins.
Mason 22
Verified User
There's only one God
I love hearing stories about people who somehow grew up in the West and never heard of Jesus or had a clue the concept existed. If true it would be a miracle.
Actually, you have 3 in the Trinity. Pushing the envelope on polytheism there. Odd, how that Trinity thing took several hundred years to come into existence.
YHWH was merely the one god who won out to become the Hebrew god, then the Christian god.
There was nothing you could not have learned if you had read the Bible...or siimply stayed awake during normal discussions.
I am asking: How do you know your "interactions" with this Holy Spirit are not just self delusions?
Lemme give you a hint: YOU DO NOT KNOW THEY ARE NOT SELF DELUSIONS.
By the way, I am not saying there is no Holy Spirit...or that this Holy Spirit has not contacted you. That has nothing to do with my question.
That's because you play on one team and cannot bear to have anything about your team challenged.
I'm not on any team, my interest is a balanced approach to the history, theology, and philosophy of human intellectual history, which includes religion.
And I can guarantee you, if you drop your team affiliations, all religions and philosophies have their flaws as well as their redeeming attributes.
I have criticized Protestants, and I have also noted the redeeming qualities of the Protestant Reformation.
I have no vested interest in Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam. In the grand scheme of things, I have attempted to be balanced about them all, bringing a historical perspective to the fray.
Imagine if he was an atheist and you had to attack his position!
You seem aggressively "agnostic" but you can't discuss your agnosticism.
But your hatred of atheists is clear.
^^^ This statement is by a person who relentlessly equates agnostics with people who are aren't sure whether or not the tooth fairy really exists.
Are you going to start screaming at me in ALL CAPS again, Perry PhD?
Why don't you ask the unrepentant atheist Niftyniblick if I hate his atheism?
You seem to 'hate' everyone who is not 100% in agreement with you.
It fascinates me how you can so widely miss the point. Especially given your clear intellect. Hmmm.
But, again, I will try to explain it to you in SIMPLE language even you can understand:
1. You apply AGNOSTICISM to ONE unevidenced claim.
2. You do NOT apply AGNOSTICISM to ALL unevidenced claims.
You only allow your own version of atheism to be acceptable. Nifty clearly comports with your definition.
You see, you confuse YOURSELF with God. Your definition is not controlling on all. Just because you don't understand atheism does not mean you get to define it wholesale.
(It is even more ironic given how you lose your shit anytime someone tries to define your position for you. But I guess it's OK per your "morality" to demand others treat you in a way you don't treat them).
That seems to be a common thread on this forum.
Thanks for your tacit agreement that you were the instigator of insult and hostility by your agnosticism-tooth fairy obsession
Your never ending complaint has been addressed ad nauseum and addressed numerous times.
The tooth fairy and leprechauns are totally superfluous to all of our realities, and do not provide answers or explanations to any ontological or metaphysical questions we have.
They have absolutely zero value or relevance in any discussion of ontology. They are completely and utterly superfluous.
We do not know thr cause of the universe, the origin of life, the purpose of human beings, or the origin of the physical laws, rational organization, and universal mathmatical properties of the universe.
Science doesn't have the answers.
Religions claim they do --> it is supposedly attributable to a universal author, an eternal logos, a Tao, a universal spirit, or a rational organizing principle. But even in best case scenario, they are probably only giving allegories which are only faint and partial truths of ultimate reality.
Now please tell me if you are going to spend another two years making this tooth fairy argument over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Because in that case I need to book mark this post to refer you back to.
Last edited:
Don't even bother, Cypress. This guy is a phony...maybe a troll.
The true natue of the REALITY of existence is in question. We do not know if existsence as we humans perceive it has always been and always will be...or if it was created (or caused to be created) by some external thing. Sensible, reasonable, intelligent, sane people are agnostic on that question.
In order to make his "atheism" seem reasonable he wants to suggest that in order to be "consistent", one must be agnostic about things like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy also. (I suppose also about teapots circling Jupiter, Spagetti monsters and invisible whatevers whereever.) He gives no decent reason why the consistency is important. Fact is, if there is an inconsistent school...it is the one that uses "atheism" as a descriptor.
Atheists are like theists...wedded to their guesses (BELIEFS) and they require it of themselves to defend their positon no matter how silly or unreasonable the effort becomes.
He often mentions he doesn't want to destroy any beliefs of the theists with whom he interacts. I doubt he really means that. Mostly he wants to pretend that all the people with whom he interacts are small people with little intelligence...unworthy of his great knowledg. But the idea is a good one. I certainly do not want to break a relgious person's spirit. (I also do not want them inapropiately interfering with our freedoms in the name of their gods.) And I also do not want to break the belief driven spirit of atheists like him.
Engage him on this issue if you must, but it is going nowhere. And be careful you do not accidentally crack his belief system and injure his spirit.
Again, this dishonest "tacit agreement" thing is in your imagination. Please stop lying about my position.
Your only response has been that santa has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. And I've addressed that. Again, it is an effectively meaningless placeholder God. But I will certainly grant it makes sense to be agnostic about things like that.
I'm just hoping to see what the limits of your agnosticism are and so far you have tried to hide from that question.
Until you let me know what your limits on your agnosticism I will have little choice. Clearly you have a "special bucket" for God. Your God is an empty placeholder to account for your wonder and awe at the universe's existence. It carries no explanatory value nor does it provide any real insight into anything in the universe. But since it is completely unevidenced and possibly unfalsifiable it has no real value.
I understand (and have said so about a billion times now) that it is fine to be agnostic about that. Just curious how you GENERALIZE your agnosticism and why you seem hell-bent to deny atheists the right to be honest about their position.
I'm still curious, though, why you think YOU get to tell everyone what they truly believe or think but you get pissed when people do it to you.
I know the "golden rule" is something you've stumbled across in your readings. Maybe you should try generalizing it to real life.
Ahhhh, the old "troll" gambit. Are you BidenPresident? Anytime someone tries to talk to you you start screaming "TROOOOOOOLLLLL" and then tell me to kill myself?
If you don't want to be consistent with your philosophy that's OK. It's a weakness of your position but I understand it. You haven't really thought much about it.
Ironic. It's almost like all those words I wrote didn't click with you. Were they too large? Too complex a set of concepts?
Ahhh, now the bullshitter is going to start telling me what I believe. I love it! It's like talking to Creationists.
You aren't smart enough.
You still reaching out to me.
Okay...but you then gotta answer the question, Have you seen Pulp Fiction?
Or suggest another area we can discuss...one that you are able to deal with.
No, addressing your gross mischaracterization and personal attacks.
You and Cypress feel free to bitch about me like two meangirls if you like, but expect that I will respond from time to time.