Jack,

Thanks for a reasoned reply. Rest assured that I won't hold your feet to a fire.

It is not unreasonable to use at least some of the teachings attributed to Jesus as a "moral compass". Thomas Jefferson would probably agree with you (since he emphasized the teachings and removed references to supernaturalism).

Yes, thousands of "gods" are proposed (and/or feared, loved, worshiped) by humans. Anyone who is interested can Google the term "List of gods" to learn their names and something about the religions that worship them.


Heck no. None of the gods have made contact with me.

Some people claim to know quite a bit about gods after reading a book written by humans telling of their opinions about gods OR listening to lectures by self-selected "priests" who claim special knowledge or connections.


The term "actual" was added to discourage discussion of "spiritual" existence (whatever that may be taken to mean)


Those who are interested in discussing the influence of "gods" on dogs or plants or whatever are welcome to start a thread on that topic.


Exactly how is human intellectual limitation "verifiable evidence of that almighty?"

Do you propose that a favorite god has superior abilities? Based on what evidence?


I agree that dead bodies will not discuss gods.

"Sin, god, giver of life, temple of god, god's will, and soul" are religious concepts that are binding ONLY upon those who accept the beliefs. Many do not.

Consideration of the effect upon "those left behind" is valid for anyone IF that is a factor.

Five pages into this thread and no one has even attempted to answer the OP question "Who or what is god?"

Perhaps, as I suspect, few (if any) have a reasonable answer.

If a preacher named Jesus (or similar) lived 2000 years ago is that evidence that 1) he was divine, 2) a creator exists

Darwin started a learning process --�� 150 years ago. Modern thinking and theories are far advanced.

Compare that to the advances in aeronautics since the Wright brothers (100 years ago).

Although no one knows what any of the proposed "gods" might want, many claim to have such knowledge after reading a book by unknown ancient promoters of religion who claimed they knew or listening to lectures by people who claim to know (after reading the same book).

"Play nicely with each other" may be good advice (most of the time) but organized religions typically go far beyond that with instructions and commandments and proclaiming a wide variety of things as "sin."

It seems almost inherent in organized religions to inflict their beliefs on others by force of law. "Love one another" may not be objectionable, but "You must do this and not do that" based on religious preferences and opinions is objectionable to many.

The bible is an accumulation of writings by many unidentified people describing events and conversations that they cannot be shown to have witnessed. Those writings were made decades or generations after the supposed events and the writers' sources of information are unknown. Three hundred years after Jesus died committees of churchmen under the direction of Roman emperors decided what was to be included in a "unifying document" (to reduce disagreements within the church) that became known as the bible. They selected material that suited the purposes of the emperors and themselves, rejecting documents having different viewpoints. The religion became the official religion of the Roman empire.

The Old Testament is taken directly from the Jewish Torah but is interpreted by Christians differently than by Jews. The New Testament was added and Jesus was introduced as the messiah promised by Judaism (but not accepted by Jews as such). Jesus was evidently a preacher (Jewish rabbi) who gained a following for a short time before being executed for sedition (rebelling against Roman rule and against Jewish Temple priests).

After Jesus died his followers created a splinter group religion (contrary to what Jesus is said to have wanted), claimed that he came back to life and then went away, and told stories about him performing "miracles" (that were not reported anywhere but in the religious writings – and cannot be shown to be true). It is claimed that the storied miracles and resurrection proved that Jesus was divine. Not everyone agrees.

Many regard the bible as the word of god – although it was written, edited, transcribed, and repeatedly revised by humans telling their opinions and stories about god. The thousands of Christian sects, denominations, cults, splinter groups do not agree about which version of the bible to use or about how it is to be interpreted (but all seem convinced they alone are right).

There is some good advice in the bible and some terrible advice, some useful rules for living and some rules that are irrational, some wisdom and some ignorance, some stories about love and compassion and many stories about killing and warfare (even genocide).

I was coupled for over ten years with a Chinese-American woman. Although raised in Chinatown culture, she rejected Asian males because (in her words) "They are either effeminate or are trying to be macho, not much in between" and "They think they are better than women." Recognizing that I was neither extreme and was respectful of women, she was not at all timid about developing a relationship.

Ethnicity was not ever a factor in our relationship and I see no reason it should be in any relationship.

A preacher, perhaps named Jesus, was executed for sedition two thousand years ago. Some claim that he came back to life, deified him and started a new religion in his name.

They may have been right. They may have been wrong.

Many confuse their personal beliefs and emotions with knowledge -- but have difficulty demonstrating knowledge or truth beyond testimonials, folklore, legends, etc.

I have not met in person anyone from this site, but did meet three women through a different site. The first was at least ten years older and much larger than her profile photo (which she still uses two years later), another was a complete flake with an attention span measured in seconds, the third was as appealing as profile indicated but was involved in a previous relationship.

A common religionist complaint / excuse: "I show evidence supporting religion but you do not accept testimonials and religious stories (etc) as truth"

Reply: "You do not accept such things either when they are presented as evidence favoring competing 'gods', so excluding what neither of us accepts, what do you have to offer?"

@FunkyFranky --�� Thank you . . . I think . . . (just kidding. Thank you sincerely)

Since childhood (which is a long time ago now) I have asked "impertinent questions", was often irreverent, refused to accept pat answers, and find amusement in being told to believe that fanciful tales are actually true. That attitude resulted in an invitation to leave Catholic school.

My motivation in posting here is to encourage people to THINK, to examine what they are told, and to question "authority." I absolutely do not care what anyone chooses to believe and do not wish to covert or de-convert anyone regarding anything (except willful ignorance).

Your attraction to the threads very likely reflects a willingness to think. Many are not comfortable doing that about anything except what they already believe. Most dismiss or condemn out-of-hand that which conflicts with their beliefs and opinions.

Religionists occasionally accuse me of being unwilling to think (when I do not accept their stories and claims). If that happens I invite them to "make your case and I will give it careful consideration and a detailed response." Their reaction is typically something along the line "You won't accept testimonials and ancient tales (etc) as truth" and I reply "Neither will you if they are presented as evidence favoring competing 'gods', so excluding what neither of us accepts, what do you have to offer?"

Religionists often take the position, "Since nothing can be known to be absolutely true, others should accept my favored stories and claims as truthful even though evidence is weak or lacking."

Of course, religionists also frequently say, "Don't believe what is claimed by competing religions because what they say is false."

Is that rational when "evidence" is similar?

Verification does NOT mean absolute assurance of truth. Nothing of human origin is incapable of error ("infallible") or known to be absolutely free of error ("inerrant").

Most people appear to use some level of verification and reasoning to decide what to accept as truthful; however, "acceptance level" varies greatly and is often inconsistently applied.

Independent testing by several disconnected sources may be doubted or dismissed by the same person who accepts folklore or testimonial as truthful.



Actually, the definition eliminates the most untrustworthy, least reliable sources of "information." Any person or group can make up a story and give testimonials that it is absolute truth. Folklore and legend can present as truth claims that supernatural entities perform feats beyond human capabilities. Delusions and hallucinations are not unknown or uncommon, etc.

Given our choice, would we be likely to trust an important decision to information from legends and fables OR carefully conducted experiments?

Rather than requiring a personal visit, I would accept a convergence of evidence of the existence of a "god" presented by wide ranging sources. For instance (example), if reports from many nations claimed that one of the "gods" had visited world leaders individually and simultaneously to tell them to stop making war, I would conclude that such events had actually happened (though granting a small possibility otherwise).

On the other hand, I would not be equally inclined to accept as truthful a claim by a single group that such a visitation has occurred to them.

Does that make sense? If it does, the same can be applied to claims by religious groups that a "god" visited them and/or gave instructions.

Many religious proponents seem to accept opinion, belief, emotion, conjecture, testimonial, psychotic experience, folklore, legend, fable, fiction and fantasy as evidence of the existence of their favorite "god" while condemning as false all competing "god beliefs" based on the same level of "evidence."

If (since) evidence supporting one god belief is comparable to evidence supporting competing god beliefs, on what basis can one be identified as truthful and others as false?

I actually read profiles to filter out those that emphasize (or in some cases mention) areas in which we are NOT compatible. The first thing is location. If she is hundreds or miles away (or perhaps on a different continent) the hurdles seem all but insurmountable.

If our interests and values appear to be quite different, why bother? If she is looking for traits that I do not possess, there isn't any reason to waste her time or mine.

A pretty picture isn't enough.

Much of scholarly (not just scientific) investigation attempts to avoid depending on "trust" by replacing it with verification.

When a scholar claims to have discovered or learned something they expect to be challenged to demonstrate what they say is truthful and accurate AND to provide the means by which others can duplicate their discovery or learning. That which cannot be verified is regarded as questionable (at best).

A recent example of the process: When researchers claimed to have produced "cold fusion" their results could not be demonstrated or duplicated by others, leading to the conclusion that cold fusion had not been produced. Was it mistake or was it fraud? That really matters less than that it was not accepted as truthful and accurate.

Outside the scientific world, it is not uncommon for what has been presented as the work of a great artist is shown to be fraudulent.

In both these examples, trust without verification would have produced false conclusions.

"Just trust me" may be applicable in some cases (particularly between people who are well known to each other) or in situations of little importance. However, as importance increases "trust" becomes more hazardous.

For instance, few of us would be gullible enough to buy real estate just trusting an unknown seller's claim that they own it and that there are no liens or judgments or disputes of the title. Instead, we hire an attorney or title company to "search the title" and verify the claim (or discover discrepancies).

It seems ironic, therefore, that requests for verification of claims and stories about supernatural entities are dismissed and replaced by "just believe."

Is the matter of which, if any, of the thousands of religions to follow NOT important enough to make sure one is following the right path? Is it wise to simply accept whatever is popular in one's culture and assume that it is the right one?

As the originator of the statement, no such assumption was made.

What other forms of verification would you (generic term) accept to indicate that one of the less popular "gods" was "the real one"?



Agreed. A person can be satisfied with statements from trusted people.

However, when or if they attempt to convince others, some form of verification may be necessary (particularly if the parties are not known to one another -- or if the matter is of great importance).

There are examples of fatherhood being misidentified (deliberately or otherwise) by trusted sources -- though motherhood is seldom open to doubt.



If it is important, DNA can be tested independently and anonymously by several or many labs -- thereby reducing to approximately zero the chance of dishonesty or error.



Agreed, granting of trust is a personal decision.



There is a possibility that even they could be mistaken or misleading (to themselves or others).



Exactly.

And, when matters become of critical or extreme importance sources of information and verification are typically very carefully examined / questioned / checked, etc.

How important is the matter of which, if any, gods to worship?

Can anyone dispute the following statement?

"Any of the thousands of proposed 'gods' MAY actually exist, and if so MAY influence human lives (and proposed 'afterlives'); however, verifiable evidence showing which, if any, are real is lacking."

"Verifiable evidence" as used here indicates information more substantial than opinion, belief, emotion, conjecture, testimonial, psychotic experience, folklore, legend, fable, fiction and fantasy – information that any interested person can use to determine truth and accuracy of claims and stories.

Agree. Don't send credit card or banking information either.

And, don't become overly emotionally invested without checking (and meeting in person)