transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 956
Likes: 307
|
Post by transfuged on Apr 18, 2024 21:27:38 GMT
He says it’s okay to kill the people who pray to another god. Now, what is the ground on the record for this ? The often angry and jealous God of the OT has a record of ordering, or instigating the killing, rape and disfigurement of those He disapproves. But this fact and of the related concept of Command Theory (the idea that things are justified and moral no matter what, if God wants it) have been done to death here of late. Aw, you should know me by now. Always looking for authoritative references. From who’s got biding power. Not ”god”. Good general background, missing specific details.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2024 21:30:06 GMT
So you're saying he would continue to exist. Looks like we agree again. How unfortunate. Well you did ask. To use your favourite tautological form of argument, if we say that God exists then He exists if we say so and thus it must be correct. Thank you for the sarcasm btw. No, if God exists then he exists regardless of whether anyone believes it, full stop. Whether or not he really does exist is irrelevant to that statement. I'm glad you recognized the sarcasm, otherwise you might have concluded that I agree with you when you say it's unfortunate when we agree.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 19, 2024 10:04:26 GMT
Well you did ask. To use your favourite tautological form of argument, if we say that God exists then He exists if we say so and thus it must be correct. Thank you for the sarcasm btw. No, if God exists then he exists regardless of whether anyone believes it, full stop. Whether or not he really does exist is irrelevant to that statement. Indeed; and I am only glad that you appreciate my irony above finally accept that a tautology, whilst strictly true as an argument, is not necessarily correct and indeed can be irrelevant to reality. Looks like we agree again. That something exists whether we believe it or not is one of your trivial and obvious points (although perhaps you have forgotten that quantum mechanics strongly suggests that reality doesn't exist in a definitive state independent of observation.) And my main point is, still, that if this assumed God existed with all His vanity intact, and was no longer given the adulation He craved then, boy, would He likely be pissed. In fact He'd probably have to drown us all again lol.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 19, 2024 10:36:43 GMT
The often angry and jealous God of the OT has a record of ordering, or instigating the killing, rape and disfigurement of those He disapproves. But this fact and of the related concept of Command Theory (the idea that things are justified and moral no matter what, if God wants it) have been done to death here of late. Aw, you should know me by now. Always looking for authoritative references. From who’s got biding power. Not ”god”. Good general background, missing specific details.Starting at His best with the supposed Genesis flood, we then have God next apparently resolving to destroy the cities Sodom and Gomorrah, then later after killing first-borns, drowning the Pharaoh's army in the red sea, Likewise God later destroys Korah and a group of men rebelling against Moses and Aaron by dropping then into the Earth. Some Israelites commit harlotry with women in Moab, and sacrifice to their gods. Now God is angered, orders executions and sends a plague. God orders Moses to "Harass the Midianites, and smite them", and so the Israelites war against Midian, and "slew every male". They take captive the women and children, and take all cattle, flocks and goods as loot, and burn all cities and camps. Deuteronomy 2:31–37 records the complete extermination of the people ruled by Sihon king of Heshbon. Similar treatment, at Yahweh's alleged command naturally , was given to the people under Og king of Bashan. Moses also recounts how angry God destroyed the followers of Baal-Peor, and threatens to destroy the Israelites if they return to idolatry. Deuteronomy 20 helpfully mandates that if peace is refused, cities far away must be sieged and all males put to the sword; "women, children, livestock, and whatever else is in the city — all its spoil" — may be taken as plunder and kept (implying rape). Any city within the specified inheritance are to be completely exterminated: "…you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you…" exempting, er, only fruit trees.. Because of the orders to completely destroy the enemy on such occasions, many scholars have, reasonably enough, characterized these as others have, as divine commands to commit genocide. We might also include the story of the Amalekites and the battle of Jericho not forgetting characters like Phinehas (Num. 25), Elijah (1 kg. 18:39–40; 2 kg. 1), and Elisha (2 kg. 2:23–25; 9) also killed, ordered killing, participated in killing and foretold killing, all in the name of God. Today no doubt they would be flying planes into buildings. And so on and so forth. The Bible is your 'authoritative reference'. But now I am bored with relaying all these things which you ought to know about already. Since I don't want to rehash recent arguments I will leave it there, but you might wish to know that philosophers generally have not taken kindly to Command Theory, ultimately a form of special pleading, and something which leads apologists into uncomfortable moral positions. I hope it helps. But, as you say, I know you by now..
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2024 10:54:07 GMT
No, if God exists then he exists regardless of whether anyone believes it, full stop. Whether or not he really does exist is irrelevant to that statement. Indeed and I am only glad that you appreciate my irony above finally accept that a tautology, whilst true as an argument, is not necessarily correct and can be irrelevant to reality. Looks like we agree again. Call it what you will, but it is necessarily correct. And you’re projecting, Mr. QED.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 19, 2024 11:02:47 GMT
Indeed and I am only glad that you appreciate my irony above finally accept that a tautology, whilst true as an argument, is not necessarily correct and can be irrelevant to reality. Looks like we agree again. Call it what you will, but it is necessarily correct. 'Necessarily correct' and yet 'irrelevant to reality'? Got it lol. I think you again confuse a 'true' argument (which it is) with the different meaning of 'correct' as to supposed reality - which besides (as you admit) being irrelevant, is something also quickly shown up by any contradiction. But, as I have carefully explained this difference before, I shan't bother again any more. p.s. looks like you missed my expansion on this point written before I saw your reply.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2024 11:12:42 GMT
No, if God exists then he exists regardless of whether anyone believes it, full stop. Whether or not he really does exist is irrelevant to that statement. Indeed; and I am only glad that you appreciate my irony above finally accept that a tautology, whilst strictly true as an argument, is not necessarily correct and indeed can be irrelevant to reality. Looks like we agree again. That something exists whether we believe it or not is one of your trivial and obvious points (although perhaps you have forgotten that quantum mechanics strongly suggests that reality doesn't exist in a definitive state independent of observation.) And my main point is, still, that if this assumed God existed with all His vanity intact, and was no longer given the adulation He craved then, boy, would He likely be pissed. In fact He'd probably have to drown us all again lol. It wasn’t so much a point as it was a rebuttal to a post that said God would cease to exist if everyone stopped believing he did. Your main point is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 19, 2024 11:23:21 GMT
It wasn’t so much a point as it was a rebuttal to a post that said God would cease to exist if everyone stopped believing he did. Your main point is irrelevant. No, it was an independent point. Fictious or not, a vain god we would expect to hate to be ignored. Or to put it tautologically (which I know you prefer) If a god which is vain hates to be ignored, a vain god ignored would hate it. It must be true. Here's another: if a god does not exist in the first place it would still not exist whether we believed in him or not, and whether we believe in him or not a god which does not exist still would not. It must be true (and correct according to you) I told you I saw how it works... Again: that something exists whether we believe it or not is not one of your deeper and more profound observations.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 19, 2024 11:25:03 GMT
as·sume /əˈso͞om/ verb 1. suppose to be the case, without proof
One might suppose that when an atheist posits an argument regarding how God might react to a given situation, he could be said to be engaging in an assumption as in the first dictionary definition of the word. He isn't stating that God is real, he's making an observation on how this supposed being might react to a given situation, based on what we know about him through literary sources. You know, sort of how one might make an assumption as to how Sherlock Holmes might react to the claims of a California Psychic. We know Holmes is a fictional character (well, most of us do), we're just toying around with the notion of how he'd behave or react in this set of circumstances if he were real. Reading over this recent succession of posts, I can't but come away with the feeling that Admin has some trouble with this concept. To make the assumption of God's reaction to a particular event is to concede, apparently to him, that God is therefore real. Must add an extra dimension of frisson to his readings of works of fiction, if that's the case.
OTH, it could simply be another demonstration of the old "ass, u, me" thing, in which case we must not only watch our adverbs when we send them out to play, but our verbs as well.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 19, 2024 11:31:34 GMT
as·sume /əˈso͞om/ verb 1. suppose to be the case, without proof To make the assumption of God's reaction to a particular event is to concede, apparently to him, that God is therefore real. Must add an extra dimension of frisson to his readings of works of fiction, if that's the case. Yes I had an example of that a while back from him in another discussion. It was quickly abandoned as a line when the obvious was explained: ie that one can discuss the motivation of Macbeth in seeking the crown of Scotland without believing he is real.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2024 11:55:54 GMT
It wasn’t so much a point as it was a rebuttal to a post that said God would cease to exist if everyone stopped believing he did. Your main point is irrelevant. No, it was an independent point. Fictious or not, a vain god we would expect to hate to be ignored. Or to put it tautologically (which I know you prefer) If a god which is vain hates to be ignored, a vain god ignored would hate it. It must be true. Here's another: if a god does not exist in the first place it would still not exist whether we believed in him or not, and whether we believe in him or not a god which does not exist still would not. It must be true (and correct according to you) I told you I saw how it works... Again: that something exists whether we believe it or not is not one of your deeper and more profound observations. Again: It was a rebuttal. Independent, irrelevant, potato, potahto.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2024 12:10:13 GMT
Reading over this recent succession of posts, I can't but come away with the feeling that Admin has some trouble with this concept. To make the assumption of God's reaction to a particular event is to concede, apparently to him, that God is therefore real. I have no clue where you’re getting that from. I never said, implied, or even thought that.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 19, 2024 12:53:30 GMT
No, it was an independent point. Fictious or not, a vain god we would expect to hate to be ignored. Or to put it tautologically (which I know you prefer) If a god which is vain hates to be ignored, a vain god ignored would hate it. It must be true. Here's another: if a god does not exist in the first place it would still not exist whether we believed in him or not, and whether we believe in him or not a god which does not exist still would not. It must be true (and correct according to you) I told you I saw how it works... Again: that something exists whether we believe it or not is not one of your deeper and more profound observations. Again: It was a rebuttal. Independent, irrelevant, potato, potahto. And again: saying that a vain god would not like the absence of appreciation is hardly a rebuttal to anything. Sorry about that. But isn't it about time you got back to the Wager discussion? Or is this more time of yours to waste?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2024 12:59:24 GMT
Again: It was a rebuttal. Independent, irrelevant, potato, potahto. Saying that a vain god would not like the absence of appreciation is hardly a rebuttal to your brilliant insight that something can exist whether not we believe in it - to which I agreed. Sorry about that. And isn't it about time you got back to the Wager. Or is this more time of yours to waste? Saying that existence doesn’t depend on belief is a rebuttal to the claim that it does. If that claim is irrelevant to the OP, then take it up with the one who made it. (Hint: He’s the same one who started this thread.)
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 19, 2024 13:05:16 GMT
Saying that a vain god would not like the absence of appreciation is hardly a rebuttal to your brilliant insight that something can exist whether not we believe in it - to which I agreed. Sorry about that. And isn't it about time you got back to the Wager. Or is this more time of yours to waste? Saying that existence doesn’t depend on belief is a rebuttal to the claim that it does. Indeed; and so we agree again. If only I had ever been addressing those who argue otherwise and not making a separate point about the vanity of the Almighty, and getting your admission that the tautological arguments you favour (memorably 'if God is all powerful He can do absolutely anything' etc) were "irrelevant" to reality eh? If the claim proves so then be sure I will just put it down to you as a believer having time to waste. One drawback of the wager, you will remember..
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2024 13:14:30 GMT
Saying that existence doesn’t depend on belief is a rebuttal to the claim that it does. Indeed; and so we agree again. If only I had ever been addressing those who argue otherwise and not making a separate point about the vanity of the Almighty, and getting your admission that the tautological arguments you favour were "irrelevant" eh? If the claim proves so then I will just put it down to you having time to waste. Despite my efforts, you’re still confused… Rodney said God would cease to exist if nobody believed he existed. I said he’s wrong. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 19, 2024 13:16:10 GMT
Indeed; and so we agree again. If only I had ever been addressing those who argue otherwise and not making a separate point about the vanity of the Almighty, and getting your admission that the tautological arguments you favour were "irrelevant" eh? If the claim proves so then I will just put it down to you having time to waste. Despite my efforts, you’re still confused… Rodney said God would cease to exist if nobody believed he existed. I said he’s wrong. Hope that helps. I am not confused, my insightful friend, since I agreed with you on this point. Remember? I will stop wasting time now, but as a believer what you do with yours through all these tit-for-tats of course is entirely up to you. It sort of proves one detrimental effect the Wager has on believers though, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Apr 19, 2024 13:42:54 GMT
A God cannot survive as a memory. They need love, admiration, worship, as humans need food. If, for example, all Jehovah's Witnesses were to suddenly drop dead, then Jehovah, himself, would cease to exist. Think of it: Zeus, Thor, Poseidon, are no longer alive. They have been relegated to the history books. You ever read Small Gods by Terry Pratchett? It has a lot of fun with this concept. What I said was inspired by a quote from Star Trek, Season 2, Episode 2, "Who Mourns for Adonias?" in which Apollo states:
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 19, 2024 15:47:19 GMT
What I said was inspired by a quote from Star Trek, Season 2, Episode 2, "Who Mourns for Adonias?" in which Apollo states: "No, not as you understand it. We're immortal, we gods. But the Earth changed. Your fathers changed. They turned away until we were only memories. A god cannot survive as a memory. We need love, admiration, worship, as you need food". Have you seen the unofficial sequel to that original episode, called Pilgrim to Eternity, which elaborates the notion you picked up on? Its part of the marvellous homage series ' Star Trek Continues' and can be highly recommended: www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G-ziTBAkbQ Ultimately on this reacquaintance with the god Kirk eventually surmises that the true source of Apollo's power may be in the act of sacrifice itself, which Apollo (played by the original actor) admits his race had never considered in all their centuries of forced worship from humans. In regards to your claim back in the thread (" If ... all Jehovah's Witnesses were to suddenly drop dead, then Jehovah, himself, would cease to exist" and attacks on it, it can be argued that, for anyone who ceases to believe in a god then it stops existing for them. To put it another way, in the case of JWs, even if God has never existed, He did at least for those of that persuasion. Admin's defence of a presumed objective reality 'if God exists then He does, whatever' is just an unstated denial of Relativism (the idea that valuations in a domain are relative to the perspective of an observer or the context in which they are assessed. i.e. that there's no absolute truth, only the truths that a particular individual or culture happen to believe.) For relativists then, the Wager is meaningless, since the truth of God's existence might merely depend on who and where you are, which is yet another objection to it. Admin does not have appeared to considered this. Personally, I should say I think Relativism applies more easily to some areas of knowledge than others and clashes uncomfortably with empiricism. Although for me at least if something lacks evidence or the prospect of falsification and apparently has no spatiality or temporality, why then it might as well not exist.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2024 23:46:05 GMT
Despite my efforts, you’re still confused… Rodney said God would cease to exist if nobody believed he existed. I said he’s wrong. Hope that helps. I am not confused, my insightful friend, since I agreed with you on this point. Remember? I will stop wasting time now, but as a believer what you do with yours through all these tit-for-tats of course is entirely up to you. It sort of proves one detrimental effect the Wager has on believers though, doesn't it? It was a simple point, one that you agreed with and rightly called it obvious. Everything else is just more of your irrelevant, convoluted bullshit and not worthy of response.
|
|