Do theists sort of think that belieiving in god makes god real?

[ruby sparks]

what is cancer? How do you get it - when some do and some don't?

Cancer is the god-thingy's creation, just like the common cold or any other disease. You get it because you, or Adam/Eve, have disobeyed said god-thingy. Even if you have popped out of mum's tummy just a few weeks earlier.

Well it may improve your chances a little better perhaps if you built a faraday cage thingy against all those microwaves ... stop smoking ... drop the sugar... cut down on this and that ... you know the score ...although be it today in the "modern civilised technological advanced" age.

Eat you greens my parents used to say!
(so to speak)

Humans do not have the power to prevent cancer, or earthquakes, or lots of things........

I'm now imagining you in a hospital ward in front of a suffering and dying child, saying she should have eaten her greens.

 

[James Brown]

you don't read that God told Abraham that if didn't sacrifice his child then God will destroy him, destroy both, cause earthquakes, or whatever.

Perhaps not. But Jehovah did praise and reward Abraham for going through with it. It certainly seems like Abraham made the correct choice with his free will. Too bad there's no way to know what Jehovah would have done if Abraham had refused to think about committing murder.

 

[Hermit]

what is cancer? How do you get it - when some do and some don't?

Cancer is the god-thingy's creation, just like the common cold or any other disease. You get it because you, or Adam/Eve, have disobeyed said god-thingy. Even if you have popped out of mum's tummy just a few weeks earlier.

Well it may improve your chances a little better perhaps if you built a faraday cage thingy against all those microwaves ... stop smoking ... drop the sugar...chemical pop soda.. cut down on this and that ... you know the score ...although be it today in the "modern civilised technological advanced" age.

Eat you greens my parents used to say!
(so to speak)

Straight out victim blaming. Brilliant idea. It doesn't let the alleged creator of everything off the hook for having created an environment - earthquakes and tsunamis being but two of its thousands of fatal aspects - that kill humans indiscriminately in the first place, though, does it?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What this gentleman never understood is that God never forced Abraham to do it. You won't read a single word of God saying, "if you vote for Trump I will make your children to be born white with blond hair"... errr.. excuse me... I just got out of topic... lets try again, you don't read that God told Abraham that if didn't sacrifice his child then God will destroy him, destroy both, cause earthquakes, or whatever.

That's hilarious.
This is the same God that fucked Job over and every one of his friends told him he had to have done something to deserve it. Disobeyed God's wishes in some way, thus all his misfortune made sense.

No, you're right, Abraham was not completely without choice to obey God, but still, God DID ask for the sacrifice. It wasn't Abraham's original idea.
This is a mealy-mouthed effort to weasel God out of responsibility for Abraham's act...

 

[Learner]

As I said as according to scripture God is not directly intervening as God did back then. In Genesis it shows and explains HE was "regretful" when Man was created after man began doing evil things, turning his back on God for lesser entities etc... The earth was "originally" the garden paradise. The rest you know of - Adam and sin and so forth.
The question really ...I would have thought myself is: Would God (When HE intervenes) rectify the variety of catastrophies in its forms from natural-forces to man. The scripture says "YES". A new Heaven and earth - without the catastrophies no memories of pain or sorrow!

I'm not even sure you can reasonably say that scriptures say god isn't intervening. Even in the NT he is just about to intervene, and what were Jesus' miracles if not interventions either allowed by or coming from god? What you probably mean is that god is, apparently, not intervening nowadays, during your lifetime, and I do wonder if you are consistent in this and never see god as intervening when something good happens. Do you ever say 'thank god' or pray, for example? If so, why pray to a non-intervening god? Even if you don't, it's extremely common, so your response here that bad things (unrelated to human responsibility) happen because god isn't in an 'intervening phase' seems at the very least to be somewhat unusual.

I am saying, not "intervening" like before as during the biblical times. No witnessing today big in-your-face miracles AFTER Jesus as you mention in the underlined. There's still interactions.. God would be sending angelic-commandos on reconnaissance throwiing "spanners in the works" perhaps, so we don't keep trying to open doors for the dark forces ... keeping them at bay or preventing us destroying ourselves completely or something like it (for use of excitng phrasing for effect). Not forgetting He has and will be sending signs (written scripture) etc.

But prayer yes.. to get to God from now on is ONLY through Jesus as it says in the NT. The emphasis is strong with the teachings of Jesus that for those to follow especially it is for the faith. Individually for each person.

I hope you can at least appreciate why it doesn't seem like a convincing response to atheists, who, not entirely unreasonably, think that you are essentially rationalising something that you simply already believe in, namely a loving god, even though there is a great deal, perhaps especially in the scriptures, to contradict that, for those not so inclined to overlook the obvious contradictions. There is not so much of a contradiction when it comes to most modern christians that I have met, who by and large seem to be a decent bunch, with exceptions. But that's true of atheists too. Or almost any designated group.

Who's overlooking what? Some may do because of how to explain in naturalistic terms that atheists are so good at. Everyone makes explainations to the seemingly "contradictions" thinking theirs is in the right context. That will always be debateable stating the obvious..as evident on this thread.

 

[ruby sparks]

Everyone makes explainations to the seemingly "contradictions" thinking theirs is in the right context.

What contradictions does naturalism involve?

You can add that to the growing list of questions I consider you (in the case of several other questions at least) to be avoiding addressing properly.

Which is ok. I know I'd try to avoid addressing them properly if I was you.


Ok so I need to go get some work done. I'm going to temporarily go god-like.

As in not interacting with you.

 

[Learner]

Well it may improve your chances a little better perhaps if you built a faraday cage thingy against all those microwaves ... stop smoking ... drop the sugar...chemical pop soda.. cut down on this and that ... you know the score ...although be it today in the "modern civilised technological advanced" age.

Eat you greens my parents used to say!
(so to speak)

Straight out victim blaming. Brilliant idea. It doesn't let the alleged creator of everything off the hook for having created an environment - earthquakes and tsunamis being but two of its thousands of fatal aspects - that kill humans indiscriminately in the first place, though, does it?

Is this the old atheist moral and emotional argument technique again?

 

[Learner]

Everyone makes explainations to the seemingly "contradictions" thinking theirs is in the right context.

What contradictions does naturalism involve?

You can add that to the growing list of questions I consider you (in the case of several other questions at least) to be avoiding addressing properly.

Which is ok. I know I'd try to avoid addressing them properly if I was you.


Ok so I need to go get some work done. I'm going to temporarily go god-like.

As in not interacting with you.

Me also ... . (Naturalism context clarification needed).
Ok catchup later when you're available.

 

[James Brown]

No, you're right, Abraham was not completely without choice to obey God, but still, God DID ask for the sacrifice. It wasn't Abraham's original idea.

Divine entrapment, is what it is. Immoral when a cop does it, but just fine when God does it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, you're right, Abraham was not completely without choice to obey God, but still, God DID ask for the sacrifice. It wasn't Abraham's original idea.

Divine entrapment, is what it is. Immoral when a cop does it, but just fine when God does it.

Also, you gotta notice that Abraham didn't question whether or not it was God directing him.

I mean, if the Commodore had ever entered my missile control center and given me an order, I'd have obeyed it. Probably.
If he ordered something that I thought was rational or even slightly irrational but within expected parameters for an admiral. "Show me you assigned target package for the coming patrol!" I'd do that. "Explain the fourth general order!" I'd try. "Clean that deckplate!" Yep.

If he ordered me to shoot the rover, however, I'd question him. Because it's not my understanding that the Commodore of my squadron would, or could, order a summary execution. not without at least a little paperwork, anyway.

Abraham did not say, 'I didn't think I worshiped a god would ask this sort of shit. Maybe this is Satan, tempting me.' Or the ghost of my mother in law, fucking with me.' Or even, 'Golly, gee, God-guy, I guess that's a deal breaker.'

 

[funinspace]

No, you're right, Abraham was not completely without choice to obey God, but still, God DID ask for the sacrifice. It wasn't Abraham's original idea.

Divine entrapment, is what it is. Immoral when a cop does it, but just fine when God does it.

Why the cop didn't make her suck his dick. She had a choice: suck his dick; or be arrested for resisting arrest, of course after a good fondling for weapons...

 

[Hermit]

Well it may improve your chances a little better perhaps if you built a faraday cage thingy against all those microwaves ... stop smoking ... drop the sugar...chemical pop soda.. cut down on this and that ... you know the score ...although be it today in the "modern civilised technological advanced" age.

Eat you greens my parents used to say!
(so to speak)

Straight out victim blaming. Brilliant idea. It doesn't let the alleged creator of everything off the hook for having created an environment - earthquakes and tsunamis being but two of its thousands of fatal aspects - that kill humans indiscriminately in the first place, though, does it?

Is this the old atheist moral and emotional argument technique again?

It is indeed. If there were a god that created an environment in which a quarter million humans can be killed without warning within around a couple of hours, moral outrage is an appropriate reaction, as is disgust when confronted with victim-blaming.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Sure... right...

You will compare the wise laws accredited to God with whatever a schizophrenic psychopath might say.

Apparently your reasonable thoughts have escaped from your brain.

That wasn't exactly what I was getting at but sure, why not? All part of your god's creation so are you going to speak on its behalf - I don't hear it saying a whole lot (but then I don't hear voices in my head) - and explain how/why its invalid?

You better ask that question to Angry Flof, he seems to be an expert about species setting right their antennas....

I'm not really sure what to make of that but it looks like a bit of a cop-out.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm not really sure what to make of that but it looks like a bit of a cop-out.

he could not refute The Floof elsewhere, so mocked her by strawman.
For some reason, he chose to extend the metaphr here for further strawmocking.

Maybe not a classic copout, but certainly ducking the issue for yeet another ad hominem.

 

[Learner]

Is this the old atheist moral and emotional argument technique again?

It is indeed. If there were a god that created an environment in which a quarter million humans can be killed without warning within around a couple of hours, moral outrage is an appropriate reaction, as is disgust when confronted with victim-blaming.

I don't believe (from theist POV) the current systematic environment was always on auto-pilot ...steerless against disasters or potential dangers.

But if we are using the moral standards and ethics of human beings like the notion "We are more moral than God" etc.. , Aren't we then also morally Evil (without God) - using one example for instance, the excerpt below?":

"The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history. The total number of deaths caused by or associated with its wars has been estimated at 187m , the equivalent of more than 10% of the world's population in 1913. Taken as having begun in 1914, it was a century of almost unbroken war, with few and brief periods without organised armed conflict somewhere. It was dominated by world wars: that is to say, by wars between territorial states or alliances of states. "

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/feb/23/artsandhumanities.highereducation
(*note: This publication was from 2002)

 

[Hermit]

Is this the old atheist moral and emotional argument technique again?

It is indeed. If there were a god that created an environment in which a quarter million humans can be killed without warning within around a couple of hours, moral outrage is an appropriate reaction, as is disgust when confronted with victim-blaming.

I don't believe (from theist POV) the current systematic environment was always on auto-pilot ...steerless against disasters or potential dangers.

But if we are using the moral standards and ethics of human beings like the notion "We are more moral than God" etc.. , Aren't we then also morally Evil (without God) - using one example for instance, the excerpt below?":

"The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history. The total number of deaths caused by or associated with its wars has been estimated at 187m , the equivalent of more than 10% of the world's population in 1913. Taken as having begun in 1914, it was a century of almost unbroken war, with few and brief periods without organised armed conflict somewhere. It was dominated by world wars: that is to say, by wars between territorial states or alliances of states. "

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/feb/23/artsandhumanities.highereducation
(*note: This publication was from 2002)

I don't know what you mean to imply with your first sentence. Now to the rest of your post:

Firstly, nobody claims "we are more moral than god".

Secondly, the tu quoque does not work. Assuming for the sake of the argument that we are more murderous than god, it does not absolve god from the crime of creating forces and conditions that repeatedly kill humans indiscriminately and on a massive scale.

Thirdly, pre-20th century civilisations were in fact way more violent and spent much more time and effort to kill each other than those of the 20th century. They also found more reasons to kill. The crime of being an old woman who owned a black cat, being a vagrant or having stolen half a loaf of bread would be enough. The pre 20th century violent death rate would have been way higher than that of the 20th, had older civilisations been in possession of weapons of mass destruction. As it was, they lacked the technology to kill 80,000 humans with a single bomb.

Fourthly, you neglected to mention the spot where Hobsbawm pointed to the contrast between the first half of the 20th century and the second. The average rate of war deaths from 1945 onwards was in fact lower than the average rate between 1600 and 1900 and roughly on par with that between 1400 and 1600, at which time muskets could be fired at a rate of about one shot per minute and cannon balls were not explosive.

 

[bilby]

I don't believe (from theist POV) the current systematic environment was always on auto-pilot ...steerless against disasters or potential dangers.

But if we are using the moral standards and ethics of human beings like the notion "We are more moral than God" etc.. , Aren't we then also morally Evil (without God) - using one example for instance, the excerpt below?":

"The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history. The total number of deaths caused by or associated with its wars has been estimated at 187m , the equivalent of more than 10% of the world's population in 1913. Taken as having begun in 1914, it was a century of almost unbroken war, with few and brief periods without organised armed conflict somewhere. It was dominated by world wars: that is to say, by wars between territorial states or alliances of states. "

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/feb/23/artsandhumanities.highereducation
(*note: This publication was from 2002)

I don't know what you mean to imply with your first sentence. Now to the rest of your post:

Firstly, nobody claims "we are more moral than god".

Secondly, the tu quoque does not work. Assuming for the sake of the argument that we are more murderous than god, it does not absolve god from the crime of creating forces and conditions that repeatedly kill humans indiscriminately and on a massive scale.

Thirdly, pre-20th century civilisations were in fact way more violent and spent much more time and effort to kill each other than those of the 20th century. They also found more reasons to kill. The crime of being an old woman who owned a black cat, being a vagrant or having stolen half a loaf of bread would be enough. The pre 20th century violent death rate would have been way higher than that of the 20th, had older civilisations been in possession of weapons of mass destruction. As it was, they lacked the technology to kill 80,000 humans with a single bomb.

Fourthly, you neglected to mention the spot where Hobsbawm pointed to the contrast between the first half of the 20th century and the second. The average rate of war deaths from 1945 onwards was in fact lower than the average rate between 1600 and 1900 and roughly on par with that between 1400 and 1600, at which time muskets could be fired at a rate of about one shot per minute and cannon balls were not explosive.

Indeed if we take the 20th century as starting in 1914 as suggested, then only the first third (1914-1947) is particularly violent. The second trimester (1947-1980) was no more violent than the preceding centuries; And the third (1980-2013) was one of the most peaceful periods in all of human history.

People got away with being belligerent until the introduction of industrialised warfare. It took just one generation of that for them to grow up, and realise that when wars have the potential to directly affect the families of those who started them even if they win, it's necessary to find another way to resolve conflicts.

 

[James Brown]

Faced with the ceaseless stream of news about war, crime, and terrorism, one could easily think we live in the most violent age ever seen. Yet as New York Times bestselling author Steven Pinker shows in this startling and engaging new work, just the opposite is true: violence has been diminishing for millennia and we may be living in the most peaceful time in our species's existence. For most of history, war, slavery, infanticide, child abuse, assassinations, pogroms, gruesome punishments, deadly quarrels, and genocide were ordinary features of life. But today, Pinker shows (with the help of more than a hundred graphs and maps) all these forms of violence have dwindled and are widely condemned. How has this happened?

Amazon link

 

[Learner]

I don't know what you mean to imply with your first sentence. Now to the rest of your post:

Within the context of the "theology" (which I thought you were debating with). God (imo) is leaving man to his own devices (by his wishes)breaking the covenants agreed upon therefore:dodging natural events if and when we can - going it alone.

Firstly, nobody claims "we are more moral than god".

Perhaps not your particular claim but it has been often said (if not actually claimed) generally in debates and on many threads.

Secondly, the tu quoque does not work. Assuming for the sake of the argument that we are more murderous than god, it does not absolve god from the crime of creating forces and conditions that repeatedly kill humans indiscriminately and on a massive scale.

Thats the difference, how you see it ... you like to call it a crime! God said HE regrets creating man because of what we have become as with my first reply (context of the "theology") we turned our backs to HIM so He no longer intervenes directly.

Thirdly, pre-20th century civilisations were in fact way more violent and spent much more time and effort to kill each other than those of the 20th century. They also found more reasons to kill. The crime of being an old woman who owned a black cat, being a vagrant or having stolen half a loaf of bread would be enough. The pre 20th century violent death rate would have been way higher than that of the 20th, had older civilisations been in possession of weapons of mass destruction. As it was, they lacked the technology to kill 80,000 humans with a single bomb.

Do you actually believe we are that much more civilized today because we're ALL using the "Golden Rule"? Not all weapons go bang some clink like chains. Although ordinary people (without weapons) that struggle more so have more humility and give more when having less.

Fourthly, you neglected to mention the spot where Hobsbawm pointed to the contrast between the first half of the 20th century and the second. The average rate of war deaths from 1945 onwards was in fact lower than the average rate between 1600 and 1900 and roughly on par with that between 1400 and 1600, at which time muskets could be fired at a rate of about one shot per minute and cannon balls were not explosive.

I left the link there for anyone to read if they were interested.

We've improved greatly our ability in the last few centuries as with the 20th century to cleverly negotiate, make allies with self interest, posessess territories ,properties and financial wealth with the same self-important causes (more or less extend empires and kingdoms.) Everyone is supicious it seems of his neibours across borders in the interest of .... (take your pick in history)

(brb)

 

[Hermit]

Within the context of the "theology" (which I thought you were debating with). God (imo) is leaving man to his own devices (by his wishes)breaking the covenants agreed upon therefore:dodging natural events if and when we can - going it alone.



Perhaps not your particular claim but it has been often said (if not actually claimed) generally in debates and on many threads.

Secondly, the tu quoque does not work. Assuming for the sake of the argument that we are more murderous than god, it does not absolve god from the crime of creating forces and conditions that repeatedly kill humans indiscriminately and on a massive scale.

Thats the difference, how you see it ... you like to call it a crime! God said HE regrets creating man because of what we have become as with my first reply (context of the "theology") we turned our backs to HIM so He no longer intervenes directly.

Thirdly, pre-20th century civilisations were in fact way more violent and spent much more time and effort to kill each other than those of the 20th century. They also found more reasons to kill. The crime of being an old woman who owned a black cat, being a vagrant or having stolen half a loaf of bread would be enough. The pre 20th century violent death rate would have been way higher than that of the 20th, had older civilisations been in possession of weapons of mass destruction. As it was, they lacked the technology to kill 80,000 humans with a single bomb.

Do you actually believe we are that much more civilized today because we're ALL using the "Golden Rule"? Not all weapons go bang some clink like chains. Although ordinary people (without weapons) that struggle more so have more humility and give more when having less.

Fourthly, you neglected to mention the spot where Hobsbawm pointed to the contrast between the first half of the 20th century and the second. The average rate of war deaths from 1945 onwards was in fact lower than the average rate between 1600 and 1900 and roughly on par with that between 1400 and 1600, at which time muskets could be fired at a rate of about one shot per minute and cannon balls were not explosive.

I left the link there for anyone to read if they were interested.

We've improved greatly our ability in the last few centuries as with the 20th century to cleverly negotiate, make allies with self interest, posessess territories ,properties and financial wealth with the same self-important causes (more or less extend empires and kingdoms.) Everyone is supicious it seems of his neibours across borders in the interest of .... (take your pick in history)

Trust you to seize on peripheral issues while ignoring the central ones every. fucking. time. Your constant evasions make any discussion with you like trying to knit fog.