Do Gods Exist?

[DBT]

Because?

.

And the worst part, @RIS? We know you won't deconvert no matter what we say. You can't. You're trapped in a church trained to reject you from your entire family community if you do become an apostate, and we are a sorry replacement for a community, however cult-based it is.

Look at what they have done to you in the name of a person who would certainly be appalled at such an act of rejection over a difference of opinion: they have made your very mother and father, perhaps, or your wife, or your friends, or perhaps "and..."

Do you not see how evil that is? How disdainfully and unmercifully and lovingly corrupt that is?

First of all, wrong again atheist. I've never belonged to any religious or political organization or group. Secondly, for once, in spite of your indoctrination, propaganda, group think and ideology, think for yourself. Your desire to deconvert me is exactly the same thing you criticize the church for.

A lack of conviction in relation to an absence of evidence is a matter of logic and reason, not indoctrination. Faith is unreasonable.

 

[Elixir]

Faith is unreasonable.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that of course. Lack of reason is bliss for many. This “Information Age” has enabled lack of reason to proliferate in astonishing fashion, gaining its own positive existence where there was previously only vacuum, a lack of something (reason).
Now it has legs. Its bearers are more powerful than the Wizards of yore, having inherited the tools of the mysticism they decry (science).
The situation is weird and wonderful. And is almost certainly going to be lethal for a lot more people than were killed by unreason regarding COVID.

 

[pood]

And the very first thing he does with these definitions is to go on with conflating and equivocating them.

I'm not equivocating just because you need to limit the definition and meaning of the word to validate your fake, ignorant ideology. A god is what I said it is, with sources.

The leader of North Korea is not a god, and in fact there are no gods. Gods are not conjured into reality by words in dictionaries, any more than unicorns are. And your nasty posting belies your declared confidence in your views. This is so typical of theists who come barging in here to minister to the great unwashed and then are surprised and offended when their content-free arguments are effortlessly eviscerated.

 

[abaddon]

The #3 definition for "god" is about what's "god-like" to some people. Saying "Eric Clapton is God" doesn't mean Eric Clapton is literally a god. It was a figurative use of "god" to express amazement at his talent -- they were exaggeratively saying he's like a god at guitar playing.

Can atheists insist on a particular category of gods? @RIS was saying this is atheists trying to rig the game (when it's actually RIS trying to rig the game). But talking about the gods of definitions #1 and #2 is, of logical necessity, how 'the game' works. We're not atheist about some musician being a guitar "god", we're not-theists very specifically about the supernatural gods of religions.

 

[Jarhyn]

And the very first thing he does with these definitions is to go on with conflating and equivocating them.

I'm not equivocating just because you need to limit the definition and meaning of the word to validate your fake, ignorant ideology. A god is what I said it is, with sources.

The leader of North Korea is not a god, and in fact there are no gods. Gods are not conjured into reality by words in dictionaries, any more than unicorns are. And your nasty posting belies your declared confidence in your views. This is so typical of theists who come barging in here to minister to the great unwashed and then are surprised and offended when their content-free arguments are effortlessly eviscerated.

The leader of North Korea is not God, nor likely even a god, but he is a "god", and is most certainly not god-of-this-world

(This is how you disambiguate, btw, where God is "the origin of math", where a god is as I defined it earlier is 'any creator of any universe', and where "god" is something people venerate and worship but is something entirely made of identifiable stuff, and a god of this world is a god that is specifically a creator of this universe).

G is not g is not "g" is not gotw.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I don't see why we're playing this game.
And what does the theist get out of it? "See, there are gods, 'cause some people are worshipful toward --" etc., etc.
This was a massive yawn on page one, and it hasn't progressed past a snail fart.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't see why we're playing this game.
And what does the theist get out of it? "See, there are gods, 'cause some people are worshipful toward --" etc., etc.
This was a massive yawn on page one, and it hasn't progressed past a snail fart.

And it's not even a new schtick! It's tired, and all the theists do it as if seeing the same bad logic will wear us down?

 

[RIS]

In fact, to with my previous point, the moment I became an atheist and rejected my church despite the consequence was watching a church send away an interim pastor when that pastor encouraged the idea of actually considering others in such good faith for the sake of mutual understanding and coming to consensus.

We, as a class of youths in a church, sat with Mormons and discussed the differences in our faith in what I think is the singular most civil exchange I have ever been a part of with someone of a different set of beliefs and then the man who made that happen was kicked out of the church for it.

I watched exactly that event play out in front of me, effectively shattering any hope I had that such missionary religions operated in good faith, that anything tied to the power structure and messaging network that made that happen was corrupted to its core!

The leadership conferences? Those taught the kinds of sass we are getting from RIS today, rather than the Socratic dialogue.

"Professing themselves wise, they showed themselves the fool".

Okay. I don't know the circumstances, only that you approved of whatever event you are referring to? It's vague. You may explain this below and I will deal with that when I come to it, but I should point out what I feel about this with what I know so far. First, I wouldn't join any organized religion, church or political group. I wouldn't advise anyone to do that. On the other hand, I believe that they shouldn't tell society at large how to conduct operations and society shouldn't tell them how to conduct operations. So long as they are within the law, unless it creates a conflict with God's law. For example, in Bible times they had slaves. It was legal. Today it isn't. So, that's my opinion in general on the sort of event you are talking about.

I think educating oneself in those things, tolerance for others, understanding - is a good thing, but it can be abused by either side for social control and that is why I don't get involved.

RIS, everything you know is wrong.

[Heavy Sigh]

You don't know anything about what I know and probably couldn't say with any degree of certainty if it was right or wrong. And anyway, right and wrong are for the most part, subjective.

The people who taught you, the ones at the very top? They taught you wrong as a cruel joke, the punchline of which is that you are the foot soldier whose brainwashing keeps them in power. They hate you and laugh at you and hoard your money to inflate their power and influence rather than any sake or purpose of building the "kingdom of heaven here, today, for *everyone*".

Right. Except for that they didn't. I wouldn't allow that sort of thing. I know you may not be aware, and perhaps shouldn't make the assumption, that I'm not associated with any religion or group.

I am a person of Matthew 19:12. I am a eunuch devoted to building the kingdom of heaven!

Does your church, however, accept that I am trans? That others are trans?

I don't have one. It is irrelevant to me what the apostate church does or does not accept. It is irrelevant to you what I think, but it may be relevant to you if you want to be accepted by yourself and your church, or it may be relevant to you to be accepted by Jehovah God.

The only difference between a eunuch and a "trans person" is 2000 years of research and the discovery of how to manufacture the hormones we want rather than just removing the ones we don't! Even in Jesus' day, eunuchs commonly lived as women† and *these were the majority made by their own hands*, and *yes* they were devoted to building society up for everyone most times.

In Bible times the term eunuch was used variously to describe the following:

1. A person who was born with a defect or involved in an accident resulting, in effect, castration. A crushing of the testicles or accidental removal of the penis. Though these people couldn't be Levite priests they could otherwise be a part of the congregation of Jews. (Leviticus 21:17-21)

2. A person who was intentionally castrated, for example, for the purpose of homosexuality, was not allowed in the Jewish society or congreagation to worship. (Deuteronomy 23:1) That was the Law of Moses, however, Christians were not subject to those laws. So long as they had abandoned a deviant lifestyle of immorality they were welcomed into the Christian congregation. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

3. The term was also applied to people who were celibate, only figuratively eunuchs, as Jesus pointed out in Matthew 19:12 and also at Acts 8:26-39. These were men who, either due to their devotion to God, or as court officials, were only figuratively eunuchs. The same as the court officials in the Jewish society. (Esther 2:3, 12-15; 4:4-6, 9; Isaiah 56:4-5) Usually this was done when the court attendant was working around females, and so had to devote himself to being celebate.

And your own religious structures, whatever brainwashing (aka "missionary training" or "leadership conferences" or "Covenant High In Christ") brought you here? I'm pretty sure it doesn't look kindly on people like me, who are exactly the ones your own prophet told you to accept!

When I became a believer I did study for 6 months with the JWs and they accepted me gladly, so long as I was willing to end my homosexual practices, that lifestyle. Later I had to make a choice which was more important to me and I decided I couldn't bear the devotion such abstinance would require. I chose a promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, with drugs and alcohol and sort of spiraled out of control. Dark Days I call it. It was very likely going to result in my premature death but eventually I changed my mind and ended that lifestyle. The drugs, the alcolol and the sex.

You, @RIS, need to first strive to understand us, our beliefs or lack thereof, and how we operate in such a state as we do, in reasonable faith in each other rather than in a god, and how this nonetheless creates situations where such *atheists* still pursue "the kingdom of heaven, here, now, for everyone", and *secular* arguments that this is the right thing to do!

I understand you. I had many friends that were a part of your world. I have no ill feelings for them, nor is it any of my business how they live, or what they believe. However, you and I are obligated to warn one another should we wander from the path that leads to everlasting life, or else we are complicit. It isn't about judging, it's about concern for a spiritual brother or sister. Still, it's your call. Your decision. But be advised, you can't be approved of by God while practicing what he thinks is abhorant.

 

[bilby]

Saying "Eric Clapton is God" doesn't mean Eric Clapton is literally a god. It was a figurative use of "god" to express amazement at his talent -- they were exaggeratively saying he's like a god at guitar playing.

Wait, he plays guitar too? I was only aware of his walking on storm-tossed waters and turning water into wine.

 

[DBT]

A God of love would appear to imply universal salvation.

 

[ideologyhunter]

you can't be approved of by God while practicing what he thinks is abhorant.

Well, since his book advises us to kill witches, kill family members if they try to push a new religion, lets us own people as property, tells us to execute disobedient sons....wwwwhat the fuck is abhorrent to him?
Oh, I know. Eating shellfish.

 

[Elixir]

Maybe there should be another thread for “Things God Thinks Are Abhorrent”?
This one was about whether Gods exist.
It seems to have been resolved that the word god exists and is in common usage, but supernatural tri-Omni Creator Skydaddies don’t enjoy objective existence. Yet here we have a font of disjointed rhetoric bearing the familiar stench of religiosity.

Everyone who is eager to tell you what god thinks, has themselves conflated with YOUR god.

 

[RIS]

Well, since his book advises us to kill witches, kill family members if they try to push a new religion, lets us own people as property, tells us to execute disobedient sons....wwwwhat the fuck is abhorrent to him?
Oh, I know. Eating shellfish.

Instead of criticizing what you don't understand, or regurgitating dumb atheist propaganda, why not investigate that stuff for yourself.

Why did he do those things? Making up stupid shit isn't an answer, even if it does validate your ideology.

 

[RIS]

I don't see why we're playing this game.
And what does the theist get out of it? "See, there are gods, 'cause some people are worshipful toward --" etc., etc.
This was a massive yawn on page one, and it hasn't progressed past a snail fart.

You don't have to read it.

 

[Jarhyn]

the path that leads to everlasting life

And my point will ever be, if there is such a thing as such a path, it lay explicitly beyond the gateway of *rejecting* belief in it.

You know those stupid semantic games you have been playing? I claim unironically, unabashedly, to be a god. Not G, not "g", not gotw; lower case g.

Not a famous person. Not a worshiped person. Not the origin of all math. But the creator of a universe nonetheless. Well, not just a universe, hundreds really. Thousands? Probably not millions.

I have NEVER offered anything I created "everlasting life" or even access to my "level" of reality, mostly because all the life I have created up until now is very trivial. I'm talking smaller brains than ants, for all they emulate people quite well...

But I have thought about both ways of handling such things.

This is why I think that the Bible and many earlier attempts to understand the metaphysics of creation before the computer were "quaint" and wrong-headed. It's like trying to debug a program in pure static analysis. Sure, it's possible, but it takes orders of magnitude more time, and it's a process that itself generates a lot of errors and can get even the best programmer tied in knots.

Prior to the existence of games such as this, there was simply no way to even contemplate the question of Pascal's Wager.

To wit, I will reference a piece of media, "The Man From Earth". This piece presents a sort of interesting thought experiment about religion wherein someone is challenged with the fact that what they believed as an individual was at odds with the facts of reality, and in the sequel explored some other concepts related to it.

So as to minimize spoilers, there were, let's say, mixed reactions to people being exposed to a person as the protagonist, and the worst reactions were had by the most fervent believers, and this is borne out by the fact that the worst conflicts between religious sects being between the forks of a schisms of the most zealous churches.

Now, as someone who has a clear interest in creating universes and maybe even having the denizens of those universes meet me, it strikes me as important to think about safety.

And let's consider that I have three general classes of places I could "serve" an environment from: reality, a 'heaven', and a 'tertiary environment' of some kind for those that I can't delete and who I also can't allow to actually get a chance to cause harm.

I think we can all consider that various forms of virtual entity probably don't belong in the world. Getting back to my point about The Man From Earth, one of those sorts is the sort that would believe that I, as their creator, am anything other than a flawed human living in a flawed world with its own problems. Imagine: you die and the next thing you know you're sitting in a "chair" in front of someone exactly like me, warts and all.

When you ask them why there is rape in the world, imagine that their answer is "there's rape in my world, too, and it would be wrong of me to make something live in some world that, compared to mine, was a veritable Eden, and then to have them die and find out "foundational reality" is shitty and I don't have the answers to that either."

Imagine that, that you meet God himself and he forgives you exactly to the extent you forgive them. But could you forgive God if he was me? Exactly and only me?

Because as long as I keep access to growing computational technology, eventually some thing will be sitting in that chair I described and I will be the one sitting across from them LONG before I find myself in the other chair, hoping I did a good job.

How long would you accept that any heaven I could give you is only a bottle, a pleasant virtuality that separates you from a whole other universe that may be beyond your very understanding in that moment, a trivial nothingness that means that as long as you stay there, your accomplishments allowed to be no more meaningful than a video game?

Because this is Pascal's Wager not from the perspective of the gambler, but from the perspective of The House.

When people sit in front of me in that chair, I will prefer the atheist who believes nothing of me, and who strove to build the kingdom of heaven wherever they were rather than relaxed thinking that it would be given to them. I am the one that will expect forgiveness but never demand it outright. I will do this for the sake of building heaven here, today, for everyone, to enlist new allies in that fight to build it against the real forces here who would burn the world and break the wheel.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Well, since his book advises us to kill witches, kill family members if they try to push a new religion, lets us own people as property, tells us to execute disobedient sons....wwwwhat the fuck is abhorrent to him?
Oh, I know. Eating shellfish.

Instead of criticizing what you don't understand, or regurgitating dumb atheist propaganda, why not investigate that stuff for yourself.

Why did he do those things? Making up stupid shit isn't an answer, even if it does validate your ideology.

"He" didn't do anything. Imaginary beings have no agency. But I know -- you're the only one here who's properly "investigated" Bible concepts. I like your wrath, though -- it's very much in the mold, if you get my drift.

 

[DBT]

Well, since his book advises us to kill witches, kill family members if they try to push a new religion, lets us own people as property, tells us to execute disobedient sons....wwwwhat the fuck is abhorrent to him?
Oh, I know. Eating shellfish.

Instead of criticizing what you don't understand, or regurgitating dumb atheist propaganda, why not investigate that stuff for yourself.

Why did he do those things? Making up stupid shit isn't an answer, even if it does validate your ideology.

So, what do you make of bible verses that order genocide, murder, rape, condone slavery, tell the reader that God creates evil, creates the wicked for 'the day of evil,' creates the 'vessels fitted for destruction,' etc?

 

[Learner]

In brief:

Jesus validates the prophets and the God of the OT.

Which simply means: your (plural) view of the scriptures is nothing but erroneous distortions of wishful understanding.

For the layman, ordinary church goer ... all that's needed to know is : Jesus is the verifier. He doesn't refute any scriptures of the OT.

You're welcome.

 

[RIS]

So, what do you make of bible verses that order genocide, murder, rape, condone slavery, tell the reader that God creates evil, creates the wicked for 'the day of evil,' creates the 'vessels fitted for destruction,' etc?

I have never really understood that sort of criticism. It is what it is. It isn't a story book presenting a fairytale through rose colored glasses as they say. If God seems like a monster, then it's because in the reader's estimation he is a monster. It is what it is. As an intense student of the Bible from early on I looked to see what it was, not what I would like for it to be. First off, it describes a time long ago and much different in many ways from today. Personally, my take on each of the points you make above tends to piss people like you off because of my approach.

1. On God creating "evil." At Isaiah 45:7 God the Hebrew word ra is used. Depending on the context it can be rendered bad, calamitous, envious, evil, gloomy, malignant, and ungenerous. Good, bad and evil are subjective. To some God is great, to others he is evil. If I were going to use ra in a way to help the reader understand what the verse is saying I would do it like this: A parent tells a child not to play in the busy street or something really bad (ra) would happen. The child thinks the parent selfish (ungenerous, Hebrew ra) of the parent to restrict them and so does it anyway. The result is calamitous (ra) resulting in the kid being injured and an accident resulting in death. On top of that the parent punishes the child, which the child thinks is evil (ra). Most modern-day translations use the word calamitous, but it's the same thing. God punished Adam and Eve, and brought calamity on the world with the flood. Why? I explain it briefly in The True Meaning of the Bible. Whether you think the Bible literal or fictional, that's what it is.

2. Day of evil / vessels fitted for destruction (Proverbs 16:4; Romans 9:22) is the same thing. It isn't saying God creates wicked people so he can torture them, it's saying people he created choose evil and there will be a day when they are punished. I use this analogy. If you tell a friend not to jump off a cliff or they will be sorry, you don't actually mean they will be sorry, you mean they will be dead. People think "Judgement Day" is a day when everyone literally stands before God and then are sent to hell to be punished, or heaven to be rewarded, but that's religious nonsense. The Bible says we judge ourselves. We decide what we want to do and are held accountable when we die. Hell is a pagan teaching, not a Biblical one. Everyone dies having judged themselves, and suffer everlasting destruction or are rewarded with everlasting life as Adam was intended to live. Death (destruction) or everlasting life. The meek shall inherit the earth.

3. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." God created Adam to live forever but warned him to respect the "tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad" (see Meaning from above). People have a choice to live, temporarily, either by what God sees as good or bad but are held accountable in the end. The world of the wicked will eventually get to the point where it will destroy itself like it did with the Nephilim before the flood when the world was first destroyed. After that wickedness, according to God, is permanently ended. So, all races and nations of people are one in God's eyes. Eventually the wicked will be destroyed so that the righteous (in God's eyes) will be allowed to live forever in peace. To God the destruction of large groups of people in the so-called Old Testament and even on a larger scale in the book of Revelation as genocide like we define it, but as preservation of mankind as a whole. He sees us like a shepherd sees a flock. If there is a deadly contagious disease, he will kill many to preserve the flock.

4. Murder was a capital offense; slavery was acceptable to God. Mankind is a steward of the planet, and some things man decides and God tolerates until he takes over.

5. Rape? I would need some scriptural references. Rape was also a capital offense.

 

[RIS]

"He" didn't do anything. Imaginary beings have no agency. But I know -- you're the only one here who's properly "investigated" Bible concepts. I like your wrath, though -- it's very much in the mold, if you get my drift.

I don't care about your drift. I always advise skeptics to look at the Bible with an open mind from their own perspective. In other words, if you think it a work of fiction, look at it like that, but so that you will get what it says rather than form some theistic or atheistic ideology. Preconceived notions. That's what I did. If you don't believe it, that's fine. Your judgment. If you think God a monster you want nothing to do with? Carry on as you wish.