Is God a projection of our thoughts only?

[PeterL]

Excellent analogy, thanks; I've never seen a blue whale either!

I have pictures of blue whales. I have also been to the museum and seen the skeleton of one. I have seen videos of them and I know that Whalewatch in Kaikoura runs boats out to see them when they pass NZ.

When the same level of evidence is presented for god/s, I'll start believing they exist as well.

I love that analogy - it's pretty common, but as you see, it places the onus of evidence onto theists.

Then you should start believing that the Gods and the Goddesses exist, because the evidence is on the same level as the evidence for te existence of Blue Whales.

This is when we start applying a little intelligence to the situation and goes back to why I have stressed the "one, true god" point.

If I believe all of the people who claim to have a relationship with this one god chappie, I find a terrible conundrum - there is more than one god! Which group do I believe?

The matter of "the one true god" is very different from the matter of actual Gods and Goddesses. I was raised to believe in that one true god, but now I believe in a large number of Gods and Goddesses. Remember that the chief god of the Hebrews was just one of the gods of the Canaanites.

When anecdotal evidence conflicts, you ignore it. Have you ever studied eyewitness testimony? I used to run security courses for bank staff at risk of armed robbery. They were told that they would be tested on their observation skills. An armed robber would then burst in and spend 4-5 minutes in full view of the audience.

Each staff member then went away and filled in a form describing this person they had been watching for several minutes.

There was no consistency at all, and even things like the colour of his clothing was never better then a 40% success rate.

We don't covict people of crime on hearsay evidence, and I'm certainly most uncomfortable with it when it pertains to something I cannot see, hear or touch and for which not one single piece of physical evidence has ever been presented.

WHen evidence is incnsistant, we weigh the sources. People are regularly convicted on hearsay evidence. Such evidence is ofte given as part of a larger case. There are some people who can look at a scene for a fw seconds and describe everything there in detail, while other people wouldn't recognise anything.

This I disagree with completely.

As above, if anecdotal evidence is removed, there is none at all.

Theists cannot even agree on where their sky-daddy chap was buried! The event of his resurrection is the single defining moment of christianity, yet nobody can say with certainty where it happened. The shroud from Turin has been proven fake and it's known that many alleged miracles - holy fire, levitating host and the like, are actually simple parlour tricks.

You can believe whatever you want to, but please keep in mind that different people place different weights on different kinds of evidence.

Nobody claims they don't exist. What's in doubt is their godliness. Do some people really believe wine is a god?

If you don't believe that the Earth is a Goddess, that's your business. It's a matter of definitions, and similarly with Bacchus.

[The Atheist]

Then you should start believing that the Gods and the Goddesses exist, because the evidence is on the same level as the evidence for te existence of Blue Whales.

Oh. Can you please direct me to the skeleton of Jesus or other physical evidence which is the standard of that for blue whales? DNA would be helpful as well.

The matter of "the one true god" is very different from the matter of actual Gods and Goddesses. I was raised to believe in that one true god, but now I believe in a large number of Gods and Goddesses. Remember that the chief god of the Hebrews was just one of the gods of the Canaanites.

Each to their own - I'm quite happy for you to have that belief. What the Canaanites are alleged to have believed has no more relevance than Australian Aborigines believing the earth is actually a rainbow serpent.

WHen evidence is incnsistant, we weigh the sources. People are regularly convicted on hearsay evidence.

That is incorrect.

Anecdotal evidence may be used to add to other evidence, but convictions on anecdotal/hearsay evidence alone are unknown in modern western justice.

It's a matter of definitions, and similarly with Bacchus.

That's why I asked.

You appeared to be stating that wine is a god. Is that correct? I'm not arguing whether you're right or not, just seeking clarification of your views.

[PeterL]

Oh. Can you please direct me to the skeleton of Jesus or other physical evidence which is the standard of that for blue whales? DNA would be helpful as well.

Jesus is completely irrelevant, unless you are interested in prophets. The Goddess is right under your feet.

That is incorrect.

Anecdotal evidence may be used to add to other evidence, but convictions on anecdotal/hearsay evidence alone are unknown in modern western justice.

You are mistaken. When the evidence, bith documentary and anecdotal, is inconsistent, one weighs the evidence. If you personally do otherwise, that's your business. Judicial actions are another matter, but people are convicted every day based on lies, anecdotes, etc., but that is not what the present discussion is about.

You appeared to be stating that wine is a god. Is that correct? I'm not arguing whether you're right or not, just seeking clarification of your views.

Yes, Bacchus is wine, and Bacchus is a God. Do you have a problem with that?

[MarkBastable]

Yes, Bacchus is wine, and Bacchus is a God. Do you have a problem with that?

Hands up anyone here who doesn't have a problem with that, except as a literary conceit. So - to be clear - please say 'hic' if you think that Bacchus is a god. (That's a very satisfying two-language pun, by the way.)

[PeterL]

Hands up anyone here who doesn't have a problem with that, except as a literary conceit. So - to be clear - please say 'hic' if you think that Bacchus is a god. (That's a very satisfying two-language pun, by the way.)

Bacchus is a God - note the initial capital. Small 'g' gods are a dime a hundred, but there are only some dozens of capital 'g' Gods.

[MarkBastable]

Very few hands up so far.

Perhaps it would help if we had some context. What are some of the other capital-G Gods?

[Scheherazade]

Very few hands up so far.

Perhaps it would help if we had some context. What are some of the other capital-G Gods?

Godzilla?

[PeterL]

Very few hands up so far.

Perhaps it would help if we had some context. What are some of the other capital-G Gods?

Dyeus Pater (AKA Zeus, AKA Jupiter), Poseidon, Aphrodite, Dhergom Mater (AKA Demeter), Aries, Yemos, Mannus, Perkwúno, Gouwinda, Ekwamedha, Pauson, Ba'al, Moloch, El, Ishtar, and so on.

[MarkBastable]

There will now be a period of silence while we all contemplate how to respond to that.

[dafydd manton]

It's the "and so on" that bothers me. I believe the Hindu faith has millions of gods/Gods. Do they get a capital? And what about in Hebrew, which has no capitals?

[PeterL]

It's the "and so on" that bothers me. I believe the Hindu faith has millions of gods/Gods. Do they get a capital? And what about in Hebrew, which has no capitals?

Some of the Hindu Gods are proper ones, but most re alternative terms or just stories. I gave up trying to figure them out pretty quickly, because many of the so-called gods were warriors from the period when the Hindus were invading India.

The Hebrews were Canaanites, so you will find their Gods listed with the other Canaanite gods and Goddesses.

[dafydd manton]

Some of the Hindu Gods are proper ones, but most re alternative terms or just stories. I gave up trying to figure them out pretty quickly, because many of the so-called gods were warriors from the period when the Hindus were invading India.

The Hebrews were Canaanites, so you will find their Gods listed with the other Canaanite gods and Goddesses.

Not quite. The faithful Hebrews were NOT Canaanites, far from it. They were exclusively monotheistic, and the name of their God was well recorded. Admittedly, many turned away from him, and followed gods such as Chemosh, Malcam, Baal and so forth, all of which only get a capital in English because they are proper nouns.

[PeterL]

There will now be a period of silence while we all contemplate how to respond to that.

If you are interested, I convey blessings, carry messages, perform weddings, funerals, and other such events in the nameof whichever God of Goddess you prefer. I do common worship services if asked politely and paid liberally, but I prefer to avoid such things.

[The Atheist]

Jesus is completely irrelevant, unless you are interested in prophets. The Goddess is right under your feet.

There's a planet under my feet. I have severe doubts as to its godliness, however, although it may depend on how you measure what is a god. Your interpretation seems to be pretty loose:

Yes, Bacchus is wine, and Bacchus is a God. Do you have a problem with that?

A problem with you believing it? Not at all.

A problem with believing it myself? Yes indeed; I think it's sillier than the Cottingley Fairies.

[PeterL]

There's a planet under my feet. I have severe doubts as to its godliness, however, although it may depend on how you measure what is a god. Your interpretation seems to be pretty loose:

My interpretation isn't as loose as the definition of people who say that someone who claimed to be a seeker of divine truth was actually a gos, even after he denied it.

A problem with you believing it? Not at all.

A problem with believing it myself? Yes indeed; I think it's sillier than the Cottingley Fairies.

Everyone believes what he, or she, wants to believe. Wine is a better god than most. At least wine will do something for you, even if you are not a believer.