Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why did we stop inventing gods?
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 106 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 136 of 203 (791053)
09-09-2016 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Greatest I am
09-09-2016 10:04 AM


Re: Human Responsibility vs Gods Responsibility
The greatest I am writes:
Is it helping people to tell them they should honor a genocidal son murdering god who tells us to venerate life while he kills instead of cures those he thinks defective?
Christ said He was the, "I am" and they tried to stone Him for it, He was saying He was God incarnate, He also said He laid down His life of His own accord.
This absurd play of making God the Father the bad cop and Christ the good cop, is based on ignorance of Christianity. God is always a union, His will is always the same. "I and the Father are one".
Your perverted, twisted SPIN coupled with the heavy buz-word epithets "genocidal" and "murdering", is just that, and nothing more. For if God kills, as He has the right to, as He is not a man, then it is not "murder" or "genocide" for that would presume anthropomorphism, as though God has sinful, human motives. A laughably obtuse argument given the bible defines God as totally righteous, meaning it can only follow that His motives are righteous even if the effect SEEMS unrighteous from a limited human scope.
Why don't you actually create some reasonings rather than constantly relying on question-begging-epithets? Notice you don't have to prove any of these claims, like your claim God is a murderer? You just state some shocking emotive words, and think your case is then proven.
Try using your brain, and actually argue your case instead of just using epithets in place of arguments.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Greatest I am, posted 09-09-2016 10:04 AM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Greatest I am, posted 09-10-2016 11:49 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 106 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 137 of 203 (791054)
09-09-2016 2:51 PM


Why did we stop inventing gods? This is an inclusive statement "we". Your reasoning is based on generalisation, guilt-by-assocation, and group reasoning, etc... as though "we" are all guilty. Note the, "we", but in fact that presumes the whole group "humans" are guilty when in fact it was perhaps only comparatively few humans which invented some of the false gods which seem to certainly only be invented to fill gaps.
Which ones? We can only dismiss them reasonably. Logically, the fact we know lots of gods are very probably invented, because of mutual exclusions, obviously means we can't know if all gods are invented.
Where is the argument that proves the assumption that God is invented?
Are you dead because victims of world war 2 are dead? For example, if I invent a god right now for you and call him Zor, god of thunder, will that mean that all of the intelligent design and intelligibility in the universe, now doesn't exist? For all you know, it can only exist because God created it.
Obviously humans can invent concepts and fictional gods, easily, by invention, but that does not address the issue of whether God exists or not, otherwise ultimately that is the genetic fallacy by presumption;
The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[2] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits..............."You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice."
There are numerous motives explaining why people choose to wear wedding rings, but it would be a logical fallacy to presume those who continue the tradition are promoting sexism.
Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia
Even if people did invent gods, this tells us nothing of His existence for we are only looking at SOURCES. In the same way it would be like me arguing that Darwin was a racist, so we have to deny evolution-theory, which would be absurd, for that would not affect the veracity of a theory. obviously if evolution was true, then it would precede Darwin. Obviously if God does exist, His existence would precede the invention of false gods.
Is this the best you have? Because right now Khan, I'm "LAUGHING at the superior intellect." - Admiral Kirk, - The Wrath Of Khan.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Tangle, posted 09-09-2016 3:28 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 140 by ringo, posted 09-10-2016 11:44 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 138 of 203 (791056)
09-09-2016 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by mike the wiz
09-09-2016 2:51 PM


MtW writes:
Even if people did invent gods, this tells us nothing of His existence
Well, it tells us that people invent gods doesn't it? So knowing that there are thousands and thousands of gods, most of which are long forgotten, it asks the question of YOUR god. What's so special about yours? If I did 1000 purchases on eBay all of which turned out to be a rip-off, how reasonable is it believe the next one would be legit? Particularly as you have absolutely no more evidence than the guy who believed in the thunder god.
In the same way it would be like me arguing that Darwin was a racist, so we have to deny evolution-theory, which would be absurd,
Er yes, it would be absurd. And irrelevant.
Obviously if God does exist, His existence would precede the invention of false gods.
Which is, of course, also irrelevant.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2016 2:51 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 386 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 139 of 203 (791096)
09-10-2016 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by mike the wiz
09-09-2016 2:32 PM


mike the wiz
So much hate in a post, I have not seen in a while.
You must be a Christian.
"your opinion God is "immoral" is a matter of opinion."
Absolutely right.
Care to put your opinion and subjective views against mine?
We cannot prove one way or the other if god is real but should be able to analyse the morality the bible tries to sell.
Two particular tenets that I highlight for their immorality is Jesus' no-divorce policy as well as the substitutionary atonement policy that his Father uses.
Care to engage and put your hate to good use for my side as I pin your moral ears back?
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2016 2:32 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 140 of 203 (791097)
09-10-2016 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by mike the wiz
09-09-2016 2:51 PM


mike the wiz writes:
Even if people did invent gods, this tells us nothing of His existence for we are only looking at SOURCES. In the same way it would be like me arguing that Darwin was a racist, so we have to deny evolution-theory, which would be absurd, for that would not affect the veracity of a theory. obviously if evolution was true, then it would precede Darwin. Obviously if God does exist, His existence would precede the invention of false gods.
The difference is that the theory of evolution can be tested.
Even if Darwin had been a fictional character and The origin of Species had been a fictional book, the theory of evolution has been thoroughly tested and confirmed.
If the concept of God could be tested, there wouldn't be thousands of competing concepts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2016 2:51 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Phat, posted 09-11-2016 8:01 AM ringo has replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 386 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 141 of 203 (791098)
09-10-2016 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by mike the wiz
09-09-2016 2:35 PM


Re: Human Responsibility vs Gods Responsibility
mike the wiz
" He also said He laid down His life of His own accord."
1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
Being chosen is not the same as volunteering and even if he did volunteer, which you can only believe if you ignore the sermon on the mount where Jesus clearly states he is doing the will of god and not his own, substitutionary atonement is still an immoral practice.
Care to debate the morality?
If so.
Human sacrifice is evil and God demanding one and accepting one is evil.
Those trying to profit from that evil are evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.
Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong — say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.
Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?
In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.
Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong — you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?
For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant — of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.
If you do not wish to engage then take your hate filled heart and go away.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2016 2:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 09-11-2016 8:04 AM Greatest I am has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18450
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 142 of 203 (791120)
09-11-2016 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by ringo
09-10-2016 11:44 AM


Big Guy please report to the lab...
ringo writes:
If the concept of God could be tested, there wouldn't be thousands of competing concepts.
Very true.
One sticking point in our arguments is the idea that evidence is required.
How do we gather evidence for God? The only evidence we have is that believers claim that God is evident. In other words, belief is our only evidence.
And you want tests, as if we can ask Him to come down for a moment....oh wait...He already has!

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by ringo, posted 09-10-2016 11:44 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Greatest I am, posted 09-11-2016 11:06 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 09-11-2016 2:28 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 147 by Diomedes, posted 09-12-2016 3:39 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18450
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 143 of 203 (791121)
09-11-2016 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Greatest I am
09-10-2016 11:49 AM


Re: Human Responsibility vs Gods Responsibility
GIA writes:
Human sacrifice is evil and God demanding one and accepting one is evil.
Why is it evil to provide the sacrifice?
And how can someone who believes that we are the only gods there will ever be even try in the same breath to indict God?
You may say you are not indicting God (since you don't believe in Him) but rather organized religion. So I think I understand your argument and passion.
Here is a question for you: If you believe that we are the only gods there will ever be, would you not also say that we are the only devils there will ever be?
If so, how do we become a unified and peaceful world? How do we get rid of the devil within us?
Edited by Phat, : added features

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Greatest I am, posted 09-10-2016 11:49 AM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Greatest I am, posted 09-11-2016 11:22 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 386 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 144 of 203 (791129)
09-11-2016 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Phat
09-11-2016 8:01 AM


Re: Big Guy please report to the lab...
Phat
"In other words, belief is our only evidence."
Belief is evidence of nothing but that belief.
Faith without facts is for fools.
------
"And you want tests, as if we can ask Him to come down for a moment....oh wait...He already has!"
A teacher sometimes has to repeat his lesson for some students who did not quite get it.
Your god, instead of doing so just sends the less bright in the class to everlasting punishment and torture in hell.
Do you think that is what a loving god or teacher should do?
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Phat, posted 09-11-2016 8:01 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 386 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 145 of 203 (791130)
09-11-2016 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Phat
09-11-2016 8:04 AM


Re: Human Responsibility vs Gods Responsibility
Phat
"Why is it evil to provide the sacrifice?"
Because of, ---- Though shalt not murder.
Further, justice prefers to punish the guilty and not the innocent while substitutionary atonement/sacrifice punishes the innocent instead of the guilty.
---------
"And how can someone who believes that we are the only gods there will ever be even try in the same breath to indict God?"
I do so because I have tested the principles involved.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
You too likely tested the principles.
Tell us, do you think it is good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty?
-------
"Here is a question for you: If you believe that we are the only gods there will ever be, would you not also say that we are the only devils there will ever be?
Yes.
"If so, how do we become a unified and peaceful world? How do we get rid of the devil within us?"
We cannot. All we can do is ignore our evil tendencies or reduce the harm that they do.
We must sin, in the sense that we are evolving creatures who must do good by cooperating and must also do evil be competing and creating victims to those competitions.
We have to create victims and all we can do is try to make their victimhood as painless as possible.
If you can take competition out of us we would likely go extinct as we could not have the fittest rise to the top and the least fit go extinct.
To gain the unified and peaceful world we all seek, the world, as Jesus said, would have to elect ourselves a new god. God here is a world leader and a one world government.
Both Christianity and Islam seek a one world government, under their own version of god, and that is what all the conflicts stem from. IMO of course.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 09-11-2016 8:04 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 146 of 203 (791132)
09-11-2016 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Phat
09-11-2016 8:01 AM


Re: Big Guy please report to the lab...
Phat writes:
How do we gather evidence for God?
Remember Crashfrog? His test for milk in the fridge was to look in the fridge. If you don't find any, you don't have any.
So, if God is supposed to be everywhere, why can't we find Him anywhere?
Phat writes:
The only evidence we have is that believers claim that God is evident. In other words, belief is our only evidence.
Then why should we believe the Christians' claims? Why not the Hindus or the pastafarians? Clearly the claims are not objective, therefore they are not evidence.
Phat writes:
And you want tests, as if we can ask Him to come down for a moment....
Yes. Of course. Obviously.
A hiding god is no different from a non-existent god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Phat, posted 09-11-2016 8:01 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by 1.61803, posted 09-12-2016 3:52 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 147 of 203 (791197)
09-12-2016 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Phat
09-11-2016 8:01 AM


Re: Big Guy please report to the lab...
One sticking point in our arguments is the idea that evidence is required.
How do we gather evidence for God? The only evidence we have is that believers claim that God is evident. In other words, belief is our only evidence.
It technically isn't a 'sticking point'. The need for evidence is a common concept in any sort of cogent discussion.
Regarding god, there are actual experiments one can perform and many have been performed. Even if god might be not discernible, his effect should be something that is testable.
Consider the claims of prayer actually 'working'. This should be something that is testable. And experiments have been performed along those lines. You can read about those here:
Efficacy of prayer - Wikipedia
The conclusions that were drawn indicated "no discernible effect" on the efficacy of prayer.
Similar studies along the lines of 'Noetics', which has now been categorized as junk science, attempted to quantify the 'soul'. And these experiments yielded nothing as well.
And finally, consider one of the most common concepts, especially in Christian faith: miracles or miraculous claims. Once again, this is something that has a supposed affect on the surroundings or individuals. Yet once again, when experiments are created around these claims, they also yield no discernible results. This brings up one of the common thought points from non-believers: why won't god cure amputees? Many times in the medical field, when people recover from grave sickness or injury, it is considered a 'miracle'. Yet certain types of injury that is more absolute: a spinal injury or an amputation seem to never be cured. Why? The answer is simple: because miracles don't actually exist and the claims that the do always revolve around scenarios that could simply occur without divine intervention. Or are the result of medical science solving the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Phat, posted 09-11-2016 8:01 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1616 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 148 of 203 (791198)
09-12-2016 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by ringo
09-11-2016 2:28 PM


Re: Big Guy please report to the lab...
Jar writes:
Remember Crashfrog? His test for milk in the fridge was to look in the fridge. If you don't find any, you don't have any.
::::::::::::::::FFTOPIC:::::::::::::::::
I wonder what ever did happen to Crashfrog???

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 09-11-2016 2:28 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2016 11:20 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18450
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 149 of 203 (791204)
09-12-2016 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by jar
09-08-2016 8:32 AM


The GOD Whom Jesus Markets
jar writes:
The intent of the story tellers and the folk marketing Christianity today are entirely different.
Apart from the snake oil salesmen and telemarketing evangelists---whom many of us can see through---what was it that persuaded you that the rest of mainstream Protestantism--the Baptists, Assembly Of God, even Lutheran and Nazarene were also marketing differently than you believe?
My intent is not to market a God since I am very very sure that any God I can imagine or worship is totally different from GOD if GOD exists.
What about Jesus? Lets examine the GOD whom Jesus markets. Do you believe that GOD as you understand Him/Her/It is vastly different from the Father God that Jesus marketed..according to the Gospels?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 09-08-2016 8:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 09-12-2016 5:21 PM Phat has replied
 Message 155 by ringo, posted 09-13-2016 11:50 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 150 of 203 (791205)
09-12-2016 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Phat
09-12-2016 5:08 PM


Re: The GOD Whom Jesus Markets
Phat writes:
jar writes:
The intent of the story tellers and the folk marketing Christianity today are entirely different.
Apart from the snake oil salesmen and telemarketing evangelists---whom many of us can see through---what was it that persuaded you that the rest of mainstream Protestantism--the Baptists, Assembly Of God, even Lutheran and Nazarene were also marketing differently than you believe?
Your question has nothing to do with what you quoted my saying. I'm saying the folk marketing Christianity today have an entirely different intent than the folk that wrote the stories. In fact most of the story tellers almost certainly had no intent to ever say anything about Jesus or Christianity. The reason I say that is I actually read what was written.
Phat writes:
jar writes:
My intent is not to market a God since I am very very sure that any God I can imagine or worship is totally different from GOD if GOD exists.
What about Jesus? Lets examine the GOD whom Jesus markets. Do you believe that GOD as you understand Him/Her/It is vastly different from the Father God that Jesus marketed..according to the Gospels?
I have no idea what God Jesus marketed or even a clue related to that. Jesus marketed a behavioral belief set rather than some God.
Edited by jar, : behavioral belief

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Phat, posted 09-12-2016 5:08 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Phat, posted 09-12-2016 6:04 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024