The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator.

[guillaumeb]

I understand the need for a human-centered idea that humans are at the pinnacle of existence, the lords and masters of the universe. Such an insular, human-centered belief, for belief it is, is to be expected.

It is similar to a child's belief that her/his parents are the best and smartest parents in the world.

And we all share a desire to believe that our own thoughts are the best thoughts, and are motivated by the best of desires.

But we cannot create in the sense of how the Creator created all of existence. Yes, scientists can create life forms by modifying existing material, and artists can create works of art, but such acts are at best a pale imitation of the creation exhibited by the Creator when that initial spark was provided.

This creative impulse is a reflection of the idea that we are created in the image and likeness of the Creator.

[Fix The Stupid]

1. How old is the earth? Inquiring minds want to know.. n/t

[guillaumeb]

2. Perhaps you responded to another post?

Interesting, if completely off topic.

[ExciteBike66]

4. We cannot ask you how old the "creator's" creation is? nt

[guillaumeb]

7. I am happy that you enjoyed and agreed with the post.

[TexasProgresive]

17. I believe that the universe began about 14-15 billion years ago

I believe our solar system began about 5 billion years and the Earth 3.5 t0 4.5 billion years ago. Guess what? I still believe in God as the creator. I don't take the creation stories in the Bible as scientific fact. They teach a lesson in a way that the people of that time could understand. Solo Scriptura is just a lazy way of believing.

[trotsky]

18. That's nice.

A few hundred million Christians disagree with you, and they're actually calling the policy shots in the USA today.

So while it's tempting to dismiss the literal creationist viewpoint, I think we need to take it very seriously.

[ExciteBike66]

21. Your position is very common, thank goodness

Many Christians do accept scientific conclusions that rebut biblical teachings.

1.) As trotsky already pointed out, there are many who do not.

2.) My own response is to ask whether anything else in the Bible can be taken seriously? If you open the door to reading the Bible non-literally, what does that do to your belief in other concepts contained therein? Did the miracles of Jesus actually happen?

[Voltaire2]

25. better yet was this jesus guy a man-god? Did it actually die and un-die?

These are core tenets of christianity, you more or less have to have a literal belief in them. But in this forum getting anyone to clearly state that they adhere to those two bits of nonsense is nearly impossible.

[guillaumeb]

49. Did "it" die?

Incorrect usage of the proper pronoun. For that alone you received a failing grade.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

59. Did you just assume god's gender?

Not cool, dude. Not cool.

[guillaumeb]

60. Jesus was an historical figure.

Unless you possess some secret knowledge, your usage was incorrect.

Interesting attempt.

Would you refer to Thomas Jefferson as it, or as he?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

61. Reading is FUNdamental.

"better yet was this jesus guy a man-god? Did it actually die and un-die?" The "it" is referring to the possibility that Jesus was a "man-god." Hence, it.

[guillaumeb]

64. Nice try.

Really, it was a nice try.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

66. So a "man-god" is a he?

Why would that be? Would a centaur be a he or an it?

[Voltaire2]

75. Oh centaurs are clearly male.

Impressively so.

But this universe sparker deity, which we were lectured explicitly we are not in the literal image of, why would it have a gender?

[tonedevil]

69. Do historical figures...

require proof?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

88. Do you have proof Jesus was actually a historical figure?

Because that isn't as solid a most would have us believe.

[tonedevil]

97. I was asking...

because as near as I can tell the rules according to the OP are that if it is a religious assertion there is no need to provide proof. For my part I am unaware of any reason to think of Jesus of the Bible as a historic person.

[Voltaire2]

72. I have no idea what the gender of your imaginary deity is.

Last edited Wed Jan 24, 2018, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Or if it has a gender. Why would it?

[Voltaire2]

76. Also note that you have yet again avoided affirming

your belief in the core tenets of your religion. You are way past three.

[brooklynite]

48. If the Bible creation story is false, then Adam and Eve didn't exist...

If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then there was no Fall...

If there was no Fall, then there was no Original Sin...

If there was no Original Sin, then there was no need for Substitutionary Atonement by Jesus...

If there was no need for Substitutionary Atonement by Jesus, then.....why do you need religion?

[guillaumeb]

50. Define metaphor.

Your argument rests on, and demands, a literal interpretation.

[brooklynite]

54. If all of your religion is metaphor, then my question stands...

[guillaumeb]

56. Humans have apparently always had religion.

Is it a need? I would argue that yes, it is a need, or one aspect of a need.

[uriel1972]

74. The human 'need' for religion...

does not mean that the object of the religion is real. In fact it would make the object of the religion more unlikely.

[guillaumeb]

101. I am missing how you arrived at your conclusion.

[uriel1972]

106. Well look at it this way...

if you will: Confirmation Bias, seeing what you really, really, want to see.

If I really wanted something to be true, I would go out of my way to be extremely suspiscious of things that pointed to that conclusion because I am aware of confirmation bias. Most people throughout history seem not to be so cautious.

This compulsion to see patterns and assign intent and agency to natural places, events and forces makes it easy for people to say that's God or God's handiwork when it is nothing but blind chance and physical forces working together.

Occam's razer can be formulated as: do not invent entities where none are needed.

[guillaumeb]

108. Being aware of confirmation bias, as you say you are,

does not insure that you will not be affected by it on an unconscious level.

As to the razor, blind chance and happenstance are 2 invented explanations/entities that are used, that must be used, to define the non-theistic position.

[brooklynite]

79. Funny; Ive never needed it; and you havent shown why you do.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

90. Source for that?

Because I call bullshit. And before you do the expected "do you have proof they haven't?," you are the one making a pretty bold claim that you know what humans did from the moment they showed up on the evolutionary scale. So, you are the one that needs to prove the first humans had religion. Which I'm pretty sure you can't do. Which brings us full around to calling bullshit on your claim. Source?

[trotsky]

93. No, they haven't.

That is a false claim.

[MineralMan]

96. I'm not sure that is apparent at all.

You claim it to be so, but records of human religious belief are very sketchy beyond a point in fairly recent history. There's a lot of speculation in your "apparent" information.

Now, it may be that humans have always needed something to explain what cannot be explained at a glance. It may be than humans have imagined some sort of supernatural force that lies behind what they do not understand. It may even be that they imagined deities of one sort or another to be behind all that.

However, none of that is evidence of there actually being such forces, deities or other causal entities. We do know that humans are capable of imagining things that are not present, though. So, it's easy to see how humans could have imagined their own deities to handle those explanations. Maybe that volcano has a god inside of it. Or that tree. I mean something makes the volcano spit lava and rocks. What could it be? Why does that tree grow? Maybe it has a god inside of it.

Who knows? I'm certain that I do not, and that you do not, either. You are willing and able to believe that some sort of supernatural entity exists without any evidence of that. I am neither able nor willing to believe that without evidence. That, Guillaume, is the essential difference between us.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

89. So god is a metaphor. Cool. So you're an atheist.

Guess we aren't all that different.

[Lordquinton]

92. Nah, it's all a house of cards

But our whole culture has been moulded by original sin.

How nice of you to blow off the opression of women with your tierd literalist claim.

[ExciteBike66]

3. My eyes rolled so far I could see my "pale reflection of the Creator"...

"It is similar to a child's belief that her/his parents are the best and smartest parents in the world."

And yet when I point out how the belief in the "creator" is similar to a child's belief in Santa Clause, I am told that I am being condescending...

[guillaumeb]

5. I am happy that you enjoyed and agreed with the post

[ExciteBike66]

10. Oh gill, I did enjoy it.

But of course I do not agree!

If we were created in the image of the creator we would all have white beards, ruddy cheeks, and wear red velvet suits with black belts and white trim!

[trotsky]

6. "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator."

That is an unsupported claim.

You have absolutely no idea if it's true.

The rest of your post is therefore unsupported nonsense.

Thanks for playing.

[guillaumeb]

8. I am happy that you enjoyed and agreed with the post.

[trotsky]

9. And I am not surprised you're overplaying a new tactic for shutting down discussion.

You keep being an awesome Christian, gil. You are a great example for your faith.

[guillaumeb]

11. You also are an excellent example.

And thank you for your well reasoned responses.

[trotsky]

12. Thank you for accepting that your statement is unsupported.

Have a great day, gil. Hope you gets lots of time to think about what your behavior says about your religion. Would Jesus approve?

[DetlefK]

15. There there. Now that's mean.

[trotsky]

16. Ah yes, my mistake.

I forgot that religious claims are special and don't need to be supported to be on par with knowledge-based claims.

Please forgive me!

[malchickiwick]

13. Whose human mind? Gandhi's or Hitler's??

The human mind is capable of extreme depravity; do you suggest that said creator is at least that depraved, if not more so?

[MineralMan]

30. Well, Guy's deity is reported to have once

killed all living things on the planet, except for one family and some animals. So, yes, I guess the deity is capable of extreme depravity. That's not surprising, since that deity is the invention of human minds, which can conceive of such depraved behavior.

Now, I'll be called a literalist and be told that Noah's flood is not something that actually happened. See, some stuff in the Bible is simply metaphorical. However, our OP cannot or will not tell you which stuff is real and which metaphor. Nor will he tell you which stuff he believes actually happened as recorded.

I say he will not, because he has refused many, many requests that he do so.

[malchickiwick]

83. And the Noah story is just of many in which the God of Abraham shows his depravity.

According to the Old Testament he ordered Canaan be ethnically cleansed:
In Joshua 6:20-21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.”
In Deuteronomy 2:32-35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children.
In Deuteronomy 3:3-7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of Bashan.
In Numbers 31 -18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war.
In 1 Samuel 15:1-9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites – men, women, children, infants, and their cattle – for something the Amalekites’ ancestors had done 400 years earlier.
In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.
In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant.

I could continue...

[guillaumeb]

51. Nothing in the post suggests this.

Perhaps you needed this to be a part of the post?

[malchickiwick]

82. Yes it does. You titled your post: The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator.

I pointed out that human minds come along a wide continuum, from benevolence to depravity, so to speak. I drew the logical conclusion from your premise to conclude that you are postulating a god whose mind similarly runs that continuum, and thus includes a depraved side. Please show me where I messed up.

[guillaumeb]

98. The reflection is a pale reflection of divine sentience.

Not an exact duplicate.

[DetlefK]

14. You trash-talk antropocentrism and the next second you preach it as gospel.

Where does this idea that there even is a creator, as a person, come from?

It comes from the human witnessing the act of creation at other persons. Without the act of creation as done by artists and craftsmen and as witnessed by others, there wouldn't even be the idea that such a person as a supernatural creator even exists.

The "superintelligent creator" is a reflection of the intelligent creation that we see in our human works.

Where else would the idea of a supernatural creator even come from? Before we can worship God, we must have the idea that there IS a God.

[guillaumeb]

52. Not true at all.

I suggested that human creation, and human intelligence, is a pale imitation of the Creator.

[DetlefK]

84. In what way?

"Imitation" means that there is a connection. However there is no connection between me building a piece of art and a hypothetical creator creating the universe. I'm not imitating him.

And the concept of "Intelligent Design" also contradicts your point:
We are guessing the hypothetical existence of an intelligent supernatural creator by deducting from the actual existence of intelligent natural creators.

[Voltaire2]

19. Who let the straw dog out?

I understand the need for a human-centered idea that humans are at the pinnacle of existence.

Who here has made that claim?

[ExciteBike66]

22. I hope that Guil is just claiming some believe humans are the pinnacle on Earth.

All evidence points to us being the top dog on our planet.

I don't think anyone could possibly claim we are the apex universe-wide though. There totally could be aliens who are more advanced than we are.

[Voltaire2]

23. It is generally abrahamic theists who make that claim.

i.e. christians, muslims, jews. And these are also the same people who claim that we are created "in the image of" some god or other who they also claim created the entire universe, although that latter claim is recent as the original claim was that the mighty god created earth and the heavenly sphere around it and dutifully watched over its little experiment.

So I just wonder who the op is arguing against? I mean obviously he is arguing against himself as nobody here has made that claim, but does he know that? Does he realize that the thesis he sets up there is a classic theological thesis?

[ExciteBike66]

26. Guil seems like a knowledgeable guy to me, so I bet he does know this is a classic argument.

Which just makes this whole post even more confusing to me. Add to that the annoying cut-and-paste responses, and it gets downright bizarre.

You know what it might be? He might have just written off Trotsky and me as folks who are not worth his time arguing with, and that might be why we got the silly responses.

[trotsky]

35. The reason why we're "written off" is because we don't accept canned responses.

The usual answers that shut the Sunday School kids up don't work. Gil's pretty smart, but he can't defend his religious ideas or church on a higher level than the nebulous "you can't prove I'm wrong" silliness.

[guillaumeb]

57. Interesting response.

I am following MM's pattern of insisting that only responses that address the actual post must be considered. So your literalist vs. non-literalist question must be ignored.

[ExciteBike66]

85. And here I was afraid I would not be getting an explanation from you!

Me of little faith...

[Mariana]

63. He also posts as if he considers all of us identical and interchangeable

and to have a Borg-like common mind. So you see, because MineralMan said something to Gil, Gil posts to you as if you said that thing to him. You and MineralMan (along with several others here) are one and the same to him, and it doesn't much signify which of you actually said what to whom. Gil has therefore dehumanized you.

[MineralMan]

95. And yet, here I am in this thread, reading about myself from another DUer's

point of view. That other DUer does not seem to make a distinction between members of the "choir," as he puts it.

Perhaps, he needs a better description. I'm the tall, bearded bass-baritone in the back row on the far right, as you look at the choir. If necessary, I can fill in as a tenor, but my range only goes up to the G above the staff, so...

Some are puzzled about why an atheistic bass-baritone sings in the choir at all. Well, see, I really like music, and am glad to have a chance to sing with such a talented group.

I sing in the choir, but I am not the choir. The choir is not me, either. Each member is a talented vocalist on his or her own.

[trotsky]

28. It's interesting to dwell on that thought, though.

What if we *are* the most advanced lifeforms in the universe at the moment? The Fermi Paradox suggests we might be.

Kind of sobering to think about. Are conditions to support life so rare, and so hard to maintain, that this is the only place in the universe where it has had a foothold long enough for intelligence and self-awareness to develop?

[Voltaire2]

33. The qualifier there "at the moment" is why it isn't really a paradox.

On two levels: first it is entirely likely that tech civs are both rare and second that they are brief. So our observational window is limited to systems close enough for us to observe in the short time we have been looking, and those systems have to have had a tech civ operational in that same window from their end.

[trotsky]

41. Which is also sad too, essentially implying that our civilization is similarly doomed.

Might as well enjoy the time we have.

[Voltaire2]

45. yes, especially as we now know that planets are very common

so that part of the Drake equation has moved from guesstimate to observational data. We still don't have any data on how common any life is. Any tech civ would likely face the same environmental pressures we are facing, perhaps meeting these challenges is just too much.

[MineralMan]

31. I believe he's riffing off my post about man creating deities using the mind.

I didn't claim that anything real is created, of course, like planets, animals, etc. Just deities. They have no real existence, so they can be created easily with some thought. Viz: Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The problem appears to be that I stopped replying to the OP in the thread I started, due to my policy of only posting one reply to that poster in any subthread.

[Voltaire2]

36. Unfortunately the deities we create in our heads are all too real.

It is our ability to transform abstractions into social realities that makes idiocy like religion (or on the secular side fascism, leninism objectivism etc) so dangerous.

[MineralMan]

43. In keeping with the tradition of starting new threads, willy-nilly:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218268181

[Bradshaw3]

77. I have had the same experience

I don't have a policy of replying just once in a sub-thread to that poster but I do have a policy of ending discussions where the poster is not debating in good faith. Hence the new thread the next day attempting to continue the discussion I abandoned. I didn't bite.

[guillaumeb]

53. Have you read any of the recent posts here?

Anything about human intelligence and such?

2 clues.

[Voltaire2]

71. Links.

Please provide links to a claim that “humans are at the pinnacle of existence”.

Thanks.

[MineralMan]

73. I have. Nothing much there having to do

with human intelligence and reason.

[Act_of_Reparation]

81. You mean the posts claiming humans are inspired by God?

Because that sounds to me like the person saying that is making the argument that humans are somehow special. Unless, of course, that person also believes the divine likewise showers, say, e. coli and cockroaches with its magical gifts, too.

[Voltaire2]

20. "that initial spark" - exactly what spark was that and how did your gods provide it?

[MineralMan]

32. They struck two pieces of flint together, I think.

[Voltaire2]

37. I was hoping the op would take another stab at astro-physics.

It certainly was amusing last time.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. Lol.

No.

[trotsky]

27. And your creator's mind is a pale reflection of my UberCreator.

I understand your need for a Creator-centered idea that your creator is the pinnacle of existence, the lord and master of the universe. Such an insular, creator-centered belief, for belief it is, is to be expected.

It is similar to a child's belief that her/his parents are the best and smartest parents in the world.

And we all share a desire to believe that our own thoughts are the best thoughts, and are motivated by the best of desires.

But your creator cannot create in the sense of how the UberCreator created your creator, and through it, all of existence. Yes, your creator can create life forms, but such acts are at best a pale imitation of the creation exhibited by the UberCreator who makes all creators and from whom infinite universes can arise.

This ultimate creative impulse is a reflection of the idea that your creator was created in the image and likeness of the UberCreator.

[Eko]

39. LOL!!

That was the perfect response, thanks for perking up my day!

[trotsky]

46. You are welcome! n/t

[Freethinker65]

58. Ha! Thanks.

[Bradshaw3]

80. I'll see your UberCreator

and raise you my Flying Spaghetti Monster. The real deity. How do I know this? Because I believe it.

[trotsky]

87. R'amen! n/t

[CrispyQ]

29. "...exhibited by the Creator when that initial spark was provided."

Who created the creator? The way we sense time, linearly, with a beginning & end, I think makes the need for a creator a very human thing.

[trotsky]

42. Ah but you see I already answered that!

The UberCreator!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=268154

[eppur_se_muova]

34. I always thought it was the other way around ...

after all, Man created God in his own image. Warts and all.

[Voltaire2]

38. the greek gods were much better

they looked just like us only huge and they enjoyed messing with us and were not all "it's just metaphor" or "zeus works in mysterious ways" or some other palpable bullshit to explain away hideous nonsense.

[Act_of_Reparation]

44. The Greek gods didn't even expect you to worship them.

You don't have to worship Poseidon. You don't even have to like Poseidon. Just make damn sure you burn a sacrifice to Poseidon before getting on the goddamned boat.

[CrispyQ]

40. Man created God to control woman.

They even co-opted the birth process & pulled woman from a rib in man's side.

[guillaumeb]

55. God inspired man.

Man often anthropomorphizes god, or gods, but that is another story.

[tonedevil]

62. Is this one of those...

there isn't any proof thingys?

[guillaumeb]

65. We are speaking of religion, in the religion group.

Faith does not require proof. Nor for that matter does atheism.

[tonedevil]

67. You did say...

specifically that God inspired man was that supposed to be meaningful?

[guillaumeb]

68. It is a statement of belief, and opinion.

So yes, it is meaningful as much as any statement of belief and opinion is meaningful. It may not be meaningful to you personally, and I understand that.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

91. Like giving god a gender?

[AtheistCrusader]

47. I just came here to raise my voice in opposition to this tripe, lest you assume I enjoyed and agree

with the post.

Scratch that, I enjoy tripe in soup. Therefore, your post is much less than tripe. I leave it to your imagination.

[cornball 24]

70. Guillaumeb, as always, thank you for your uplifting and inspirational post.

In reading the responses, I am reminded of the words of Augustine. I paraphrase-Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.

[TwistOneUp]

78. And your mind...

Is a pale reflection of common sense.

[edhopper]

86. It is statements like this

from reasonable, non-fundamentalist believers. Who mostly accept science and facts.
That make me more assured in my atheism.

It isn't the arguments of the literalist, which are easy to reject.

It is those that try to use logic and more reasoned tone that make me realize how any religious idea does not hold true.

[guillaumeb]

99. Apparently you convinced yourself.

Congratulations.

[edhopper]

104. No

your arguments have convinced me.

Or should I say the weakness of your arguments.

[Lordquinton]

94. Interesting hypothesis

How can we test it?

Without proof it's all just your opinion and a pretty grandiose one at that.

[guillaumeb]

100. Atheism is also an interesting and unprovable idea.

[Lordquinton]

105. What you say is not even possible

since Atheism is the default stance. Atheism has nothing to prove, it's just telling theism to prove their claims.

[guillaumeb]

107. Of course.

I understand that this is your belief. Or position, if you prefer.

[Lordquinton]

109. Then you don't understand

Someday you might actually understand.

[wasupaloopa]

102. I am not so sure there is a creator so I cannot agree with you

[guillaumeb]

103. I understand.

If I were in your position, I would not agree either.

But as a believer, this represents my view on the matter.