Believers' Inferences About God's Beliefs Are Uniquely Egocentric

[Guest FaithDefender619]

1. Define what you mean by "real" scholar.

 

2. How do you know I haven't? And if I were a betting man I would wager that the only things you studied are those things that fit into your own world view. And considering you align yourself with people such as Bishop Spong it really wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

 

3. Wait are you talking about me or you? Because this is the exactly what you are doing. If I don't agree with your so called research into religion and its origins then they are wrong and not worthy of your time to dialogue. What false assumptions did I make, I simply asked that facts and arguments be discussed before we start calling people stupid for not accepting ways of thinking.

 

Which is to say that others don't have credentials greater than yours that would completely disagree with you? You are a very proud hypocrite.

 

1. I've already defined that if you were paying attention.

 

2. HA! That is kind of hard to do sitting in a classroom at a university. You can't study only what fits your own world view in a uni setting. Of course, outside the uni setting, I associated with many people like Bishop Spong. After all I was an Episcopalian for several years of my adult life. I also studied under them outside the uni setting to become a license lay minister.

 

By the same token, I could accuse you of doing the same thing, given you are a Fundie. If it doesn't fit the Fundie world view than it isn't valid.

 

3. Actually, you started that from the get go, not I. Right from the start, since none of us agree with you, you have stated how wrong we are in many Fundamngelical ways.

 

Nope. They just have to have credentials they can show. I seriously doubt you do, but you have been hypocritical right from the start and projecting greatly on others. There hasn't been a debate here, because you haven't done a thing to debate anyone. This whole thread, since you entered it, has not been a debate, but rather a Fundamngelical jumping in, pointing fingers, and stating that we are wrong, etc etc. We have only returned the favour since you jumped in and started out without actual debate.

 

And no, the majority of Biblical Scholars do NOT believe in Biblical literalism. Only apologists believe in biblical literalism and they aren't scholars.

 

1. Yes those who agree with your stance.

 

2. What makes you think that.

 

3. My first post was

"Is this any different than atheist who set their moral compass on what they believe is right? Or is that something that even comes up in discussion?"

 

Now lets see you twist and contort that one to me pointing fingers and saying people are wrong? This was my origianl question and it turned not a bash the christian

fest.

 

But then again as long as we define scholar as anybody who believes what you believe then thats fine. And what about the apologist who actually are scholars they

don't count because well hey they are christian.

[Mriana]

1. Yes those who agree with your stance.

 

No that is not what I said. You assume that, but that is not what I said. I do not agree with everything Spong or Cupitt says or any other scholar that has influenced me. You are putting words into my posts that I did not say.

 

2. What makes you think that.

 

How can a State University be completely and totally my world view, esp when I studied Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Shinto, and other religions and philosophies, besides Xianity. That is an ignorant assumption make that a classroom setting completely supports my world view.

 

3. My first post was

"Is this any different than atheist who set their moral compass on what they believe is right? Or is that something that even comes up in discussion?"

 

Now lets see you twist and contort that one to me pointing fingers and saying people are wrong? This was my origianl question and it turned not a bash the christian

fest.

 

But then again as long as we define scholar as anybody who believes what you believe then thats fine. And what about the apologist who actually are scholars they

don't count because well hey they are christian.

 

You can't see any confrontation in what you said? Amazing and no, I never once said a scholar was anyone who believes what I believe. Spong, as well as other scholars, don't all believe what I believe. Spong has a god concept. I do not. Spong is a Xian humanist. I am just a humanist, which is a bit different. Once again, you are making big assumption in an effort to argue and even convince others to side with your POV and not debating anything. Accusations is not debating. Projecting is not debating either- ie disagreeing with everyone on the board and then accusing them of disagreeing because of this or that. Trying to force people to agree with you is not debating either. Again, you jumped onto a board and imposed your views, without a care in the world of what sort of board it is as long you end up converting others. We've been there done that and don't care to do it again.

[qec]

Whoa duuuuudddddeeeessss. Fourteen friggin' pages, man this troll is towering over the toll bridge!

[Mriana]

Whoa duuuuudddddeeeessss. Fourteen friggin' pages, man this troll is towering over the toll bridge!

 

I know and he hasn't even addressed the original article that this thread was suppose to be about. He has successfully derailed this thread to something it never was to begin with and at the same time, unknowingly, gave support to the original article.

[qec]

Whoa duuuuudddddeeeessss. Fourteen friggin' pages, man this troll is towering over the toll bridge!

 

I know and he hasn't even addressed the original article that this thread was suppose to be about. He has successfully derailed this thread to something it never was to begin with and at the same time, unknowingly, gave support to the original article.

 

Yeah, he's scoring major feel good brownie parts with the Jesus part of his brain. You know, the part that is him but he just can't see it. Such a sad state watching Xtians worship themselves, it really is.

[Mriana]

Whoa duuuuudddddeeeessss. Fourteen friggin' pages, man this troll is towering over the toll bridge!

 

I know and he hasn't even addressed the original article that this thread was suppose to be about. He has successfully derailed this thread to something it never was to begin with and at the same time, unknowingly, gave support to the original article.

 

Yeah, he's scoring major feel good brownie parts with the Jesus part of his brain. You know, the part that is him but he just can't see it. Such a sad state watching Xtians worship themselves, it really is.

 

Oh yes, I'm sure the neuro-chemicals are really going in his brain. This is Wednesday night, so I'm sure he getting a LOT of external stimuli to stir up all the chemicals in his brain.

[godlessgrrl]

I love that the behavior of the resident troll has only served to confirm and support the study findings given in the OP.

 

There's so much irony in this thread, it's a wonder it doesn't rust.

[Mriana]

There's so much irony in this thread, it's a wonder it doesn't rust.

 

That was good.

[Ouroboros]

1. Yes those who agree with your stance.

 

2. What makes you think that.

 

3. My first post was

"Is this any different than atheist who set their moral compass on what they believe is right? Or is that something that even comes up in discussion?"

 

Now lets see you twist and contort that one to me pointing fingers and saying people are wrong? This was my origianl question and it turned not a bash the christian

fest.

 

But then again as long as we define scholar as anybody who believes what you believe then thats fine. And what about the apologist who actually are scholars they

don't count because well hey they are christian.

Enough derailing the thread. You're just going to each and every topic and just take it off track. Enough of that already.

[Mriana]

Thank you, HanSolo. It would be nice to stay on topic for a change. I don't think the original post was discussed much in this thread and I find it a bit irritating. All we got was a fine example of the original topic.

[Ouroboros]

You're welcome dear.

 

FD is a very annoying person, and he doesn't understand how detrimental his behavior is for his religion. He just creates more antipathy.

[qec]

You're welcome dear.

 

FD is a very annoying person, and he doesn't understand how detrimental his behavior is for his religion. He just creates more antipathy.

 

 

Actually, The Witness was strong with this one!! I think I am converting to Christianity now.... Hey FD where you at mang? You got a convert, get your ass back in here.

[NotBlinded]

Sounds to me like it's Xians that put themselves in god's place, not atheists.

[Mriana]

You're welcome dear.

 

FD is a very annoying person, and he doesn't understand how detrimental his behavior is for his religion. He just creates more antipathy.

 

I agree- very annoying and very detrimental.

[Ouroboros]

I agree- very annoying and very detrimental.

It's been quite quiet now for a while. I wonder if he left?

[qec]

Sounds to me like it's Xians that put themselves in god's place, not atheists.

 

I would make that statement more concise and say that, for all practical purposes, Xians on the level of social constructs are God and it's just some giant self fulfilling prophecy; so if god disproves of gays, then Xians make political goals that will discriminate against gays because God doesn't approve, if god disproves of porn then Xians will make political goals that will strive to ban porn, if God disproves of drugs then Xians will enforce make and enforce political goals that tend to ban drug use, etc. In the end they don't really mistake what they want for what God wants, what they want IS what God wants, just like they said, because they as a social construct are "God" but they just can't see that because their minds are divided. An argument can be made that on lesser political issues or implementation of bigger political issues, they are "God" as individuals too.

 

This applies to the left wing as well as the right wing, not just one or the other. The left wing believe that "God" wants gays to have the same rights as others, therefore they work towards a self fulfilling prophecy on the political level to enact laws fulfilling "God's Will" which is really just a fancy way of saying their will just like in the case of the Xians on the right. There's no evidence that I have seen to suggest that "God" is anything more than the politico-moral diktats of the social construct that speaks in it's own name using "God" (a smokescreen for what the social group really wants).

[ContraBardus]

He probably left, but maybe, just maybe he's reading? He certainly didn't do much of that while he was posting.

 

I seriously doubt that is the case. He probably got sick of us making sense and annoying him by not being irrational and ran off, but I guess there's a distant possibility that he might be trying to learn something. Maybe, probably not, doubtful, who am I kidding, but maybe.

 

There's a lot to catch up on, and he was given quite a few references outside of the threads as well.

 

If he's not careful, his brain will get full and he'll have to clear up space to make any additions.

 

Unfortunately, I think his personal records retention clerk gave 'God' and 'Jesus' great big 'Keep Indefinitely' tabs, so he'll probably throw out something useful instead if he does.

 

He seems like the type who would toss out 'eat', 'jerk off', and 'use a toilet' if it would save him enough room to keep 'God' and 'Jesus' around.

[Mriana]

Hopefully he is reading. If not, well then he left.

[Neon Genesis]

All we got was a fine example of the original topic.

What disturbs me about all this is when FD says that he would murder a baby if God told him to, according to this research, does FD really believe that? This is one reason why I respect deism more than most of the theist religions because deists don't claim to speak for God.

[Guest I Love Dog]

Is this any different than atheist who set their moral compass on what they believe is right? Or is that something that even comes up in discussion?

Yes, because atheists are not claiming some other being that nobody knows if they exists and has never met agrees with them on everything.

 

But that isn't EGO centric. We are saying that a being outside of ourselves and higher sets the rules. Atheist say I set the rules. Thatis FAR FAR more dangerous and ego centric.

 

Why don't you shut the f up about your comment about atheists saying "I set the rules"? It's a big heap of rubbish that you spout throughout this forum.

 

Atheists rules are set by the society in which they live, same as anybody else. Atheists morals are an amazingly high level above that of theists, particularly Christians, who typically break every "rule" that their god has set them every day of their lives. Their reasoning is that they only need to repent and they are forgiven. Atheists don't have that avenue, therefore don't break the rules at will like Christians do.

 

I have a Christian friend who is one of the most pious people you could wish to meet. He is a preacher and teacher of religion and he is a follower of the bible and as such he hates homosexuals, he is racist, hates anyone who comes from a non-Christian country, hates people with disabilities and thinks they should be killed at birth, he hates women's rights, etc. etc. I keep hoping that he'll dump Christianity in the dumpster, where it belongs.

[Mriana]

All we got was a fine example of the original topic.

What disturbs me about all this is when FD says that he would murder a baby if God told him to, according to this research, does FD really believe that? This is one reason why I respect deism more than most of the theist religions because deists don't claim to speak for God.

 

I'm with you on that and also find it very disturbing.