What if . . .

[Jarhyn]

None of you can

I literally posted a thread to you where I absolutely did define what I wasn't going to believe existed, in fact right in context with things that I know exist. I posted resources you could use to understand the exact nature, as experienced through a well told story.

Only you can cure this ignorance, and only by setting aside this pride you have and accepting humility and maybe enjoying a bit of animation. Except season 1 episode 2 with the surgical worse-than-murder scene.

The show explores gods, under every disparate kind. Please just watch Pantheon before you continue thinking about this with weak-sauce eyes. It's on Netflix. It's really easy to get ahold of and pour through your eyes holes, and then maybe we can have a mature conversation about gods.

 

[pood]

Like Unknown Soldier you continue to try and paint atheists and theists as the same. A form of Christian apologetics.

Piss on Unknown Soldier.

I just want you to define the thing you dogmatically claim doesn't exist.

We don’t “dogmatically claim” your Jehovah doesn’t exist. We simply point out that it’s an unevidenced absurdity. And we have defined god for you, many times.

And you can't. None of you can. You're afraid of your own ideology.

See above, and my own definition given a couple of posts up.

There are atheists, those who reject gods, and who have various briefs.

You mean like spiderman briefs? As opposed to boxers. I understand that people all have their individual preferences, but I - uh. What?!

Perhaps you could read the little thingy under Steve’s user name, though I suspect you have already done so. Rudeness, callousness and bitterness are characteristics of many theists, unfortunately.

Do you understand?

I thought I did but you threw me off with the skivvies reference.

Ditto. You know perfectly well what he meant.

As someojne who does not believe in any gods, your what ifs are meaningless.

I'm not asking you to believe in it, just define it.

Been there, done that. Yawn. Got anything else in your pauperish back of tricks?

 

[Jarhyn]

I hate this BTW. Like, this is not the definitions thread, this is the Pascal's Wager thread. I was hoping to discuss Pascal's Wager here.

I'll repeat the invitation, and say if you want to get back on topic, indulge me. Maybe you learn something and maybe the folks around here enjoy the show, and come to like you more.

I will not reject you unless you keep being like this, consistently pretending you know better than people who are half a lifetime past the questions you seem to feel are important.

I think you are the one who doesn't know what a god is.

I think you are the one who does not know "what if".

I want to help you answer those questions, Ideally in a way that doesn't even conflict with the vast majority of "gospel Christianity", and possibly even helps you understand Jesus a little bit better.

 

[steve_bank]

Hmmm what happened to not taking god's name in vein?

Nothing. God isn't a name, it's a title, like Lord or King.

Ya gotta love those 'bible believing' Christians who ignore the moral dictates of bible and especially Jesus.

I'll say it again. I'm not a Christian and I loath religion. The Bible and the bullshit you think are "Bible Believing Christian moral dictates" aren't.

And yet you say you are a “biblical believer.” Unless you are again playing fast and loose with words and definitions, perhaps, for example, to claim you only mean “I believe the bible exists.” But in that case, it’s not a belief, it’s a fact — the bible definitely exists.

I think you are a Jehovah’s Witness. That means you are not a Christian, but you are most definitely a theist, and believe that Jehovah is a literal supernatural God, not a triune God, and that Jesus was some sort of intercessionary angel, not the son of Jehovah.

If you are a JW, why not just come out and say it, and defend your absurd beliefs?

If you are not, then come clean what exactly your beliefs are, what it means to be a “biblical believer” and yet loath religion.

I have hi on ignore and will not see a reply, but nicely written.

 

[DBT]

There is a contradiction between OT and NT theology on the nature of God. The JW's appear to lean towards the former.

 

[steve_bank]

The Christian response I have heard.

The Old Testament was Moses and the 10 Commandments, and Mosaic Law ie Leviticus. The old t6etamnt or covenant with god.

Jesus ended the old tenement or covenant and began a 'new testament or covenant with god. That view di9ssmisses things like dietary requirements. It was no longer about Jews, it was about the whole of humanity.

 

[DBT]

That doesn't really address the differences in theology or the status of Jesus as part of the godhead or a messenger. Plus the words attributed to Jesus have him say that he had not come to abolish the law.

 

[DLH]

I hate this BTW. Like, this is not the definitions thread, this is the Pascal's Wager thread. I was hoping to discuss Pascal's Wager here.

I never said anything about Pascal's Wager.

 

[Bronzeage]

This kind of question always reminds me of a George Bernard Shaw anecdote. After he had given a talk to a women's club, he was mingling with the audience and one said, "Weren't people in the past silly for thinking the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth." Shaw replied, "Yes, but imagine what it would look like if it did."

If one believes there is an all powerful creator of the Universe this is what it looks like. If one doesn't believe in an all powerful creator, it still looks exactly the same.

During the Pandemic, I got a copy of Emily Wilson's translation of the Iliad. I highly recommend it. It's full of incidents where A God intervenes in human affairs, either for or against a particular person. A hero trips and his adversary escapes, or he trips and gets a spear in the back. This is the sort of thing that happens in battles, but whether Athena caught his ankle or he just wasn't looking where he stepped, it looks exactly the same.

One thing of which I am certain, if the existence of God, or multiple Gods were proven, it would not greatly affect human behavior. We can look back on fairly recent times when the reality of God was pretty much an accepted fact and see people act pretty much the same then, as now.

So the question is not whether there is a Jehovah, but what difference would it make?

 

[aupmanyav]

So the question is not whether there is a Jehovah, but what difference would it make?

Arguments against Ishvara's existence:

Samkhya - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[steve_bank]

That doesn't really address the differences in theology or the status of Jesus as part of the godhead or a messenger. Plus the words attributed to Jesus have him say that he had not come to abolish the law.

Of course, Christianity has little to do with what is in the old or new testament.
\
The Chinese menu religion, pick and choose from the bible.

 

[Jarhyn]

I hate this BTW. Like, this is not the definitions thread, this is the Pascal's Wager thread. I was hoping to discuss Pascal's Wager here.

I never said anything about Pascal's Wager.

1. What if Jehovah doesn't literally exist?
2. What if Jehovah does literally exist?

This is Pascal's Wager. It sets up a logic game specifically targeted at the only scenario that it matters: death, and afterlife concerns.

As it is demarcated at the end of the OP, and the thread title is "what if" that makes it about Pascal's Wager.

So, I would like to play a different game with you: what if a god of a form I suggest exists instead.

 

[DLH]

This is Pascal's Wager. It sets up a logic game specifically targeted at the only scenario that it matters: death, and afterlife concerns.

As it is demarcated at the end of the OP, and the thread title is "what if" that makes it about Pascal's Wager.

So, I would like to play a different game with you: what if a god of a form I suggest exists instead.

It's nothing to do with death or the afterlife. It's a hypothetical question intended to establish what would atheists AND theists do if it was discovered, without a doubt, that Jehovah God existed. It confronts the two sides with their ideology. The theist with their doctrinal pagan influence and nationalism, the atheist with their atheism. Would the theist continue with their theology and would the atheist continue with their atheism. Atheism being defined as being without gods rather than disbelief or lack of belief.

 

[Elixir]

It's nothing to do with death or the afterlife. It's a hypothetical question intended to establish what would atheists AND theists do if it was discovered, without a doubt, that Jehovah God existed.

If it was discovered without a doubt there would be no doubt.
For instance, if it were discovered without a doubt that Jehovah God did not exist, nobody would believe in the existence of a Jehovah God. Because there would be no doubt that Jehovah God didn’t exist.

If, OTOH it was discovered without a doubt that Jehovah God existed then nobody would believe in the non-existence of Jehovah God, because there would be no doubt.
See how that works?

It’s abysmally STUPID to ever suppose that there is no doubt about anything.
And there’s no doubt about that.

 

[DLH]

What if Santa Claus doesn’t literally exist?

What if Santa Claus does literally exist?

Discuss!

For me everything would remain the same. I don't celebrate Christmas.

Even when I was very young my parents never presented Santa Claus as anything other than a joke. When I was young, I kept quiet when my friends believed. I didn't pretend like he existed but I didn't try to convince them he didn't. We celebrated Christmas without him. When I was a teenager, about 10 years before I became a believer I stopped because I thought it was just silly and a nusience.

 

[DLH]

Again you are the one identifying as a bible believer, unless you are being dishonest.

Nope. That's what I am.

And that comes around to your writing a book on an atheist turned Christian and looking for material.

Nope. Not doing that. I'm not writing a book. I was writing a story in which an atheist remains an atheist his entire life. In fact he dies as an atheist. Never becomes a theist.

Yo0u could be honest and clearly sate what you believe and what your purpose is here.

Yup. Done that. You can't really present reality to an idiotic narcissistic ideologue. Or at least you shouldn't waste your time doing so.

In any case tis it p0nless, a new addition to my ignore list. You are just not interesting enough to engage with.

Good. Then you won't mind ignoring me? Two down, what? Seven to go? The objective for me is to get the usual dogmatic propagandists to ignore me so I can publish my own perspective without the nusiance. For our intrepid readers.

 

[DLH]

Never argue with gurus. They have the third eye.

Tits. I'm not a guru but I do have three tits.

 

[DLH]

We’ve done it.

Where?

A non-existent, fictional entity endowed with great imaginary powers.

Endowed meaning provided with, given, presumably by the people who created him or those who subsequently followed him. Since these creators of the aforementioned god couldn't have actually believed in him, they were atheists. Atheists created this god and either then or later endowed him with imaginary powers.

Figurative Gods, like Jimi Hendrix, are not literal but figurative gods, metaphors, figures of speech and exaggeration. All this has been explained to you many times.

Sorry. I always question stupid things that are believed. Like, this, for example. If God was created by atheists as mentioned above, wouldn't they all be figurative? If the first God mentioned was figurative, how would it differ from the second?

One can’t hate nonexistent entities, though once can certainly oppose and fight back against those who try to impose their nitwit beliefs on society at large.

I hate Stewie and Brian on Family Guy. They are nonexistent. And again, if the atheists created this nonexistent entity who are the nitwits who imposed the nonsense in the first place are now fighting back against it? It was allegedly created to control people but now you want to take it back - I presume for the same reason.

Calling people here narcissistic ideologues is probably a rules violation, I should think, and in any case, wholly inaccurate

Like calling people here nitwits? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Sound familiar?

They just need something or someone to hate and fear.

Sounds like that would be you.

I neither need to or do hate or fear atheists.

Tell us about the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Typical religious people. They removed the pagan nonsense from Christian teachings only to replace them with other nonsense, like their false prophecies on the end of the world, their quasi-priestly class the 144,000, 1914, bans against higher education, neutrality, vaccinations, organ transplants and blood transfusions. They also have amassed an impressive wealth through questionable practice like investments in things they insist their dupped followers into abstaining from.

It's sort of like macroevolution, fat dietary recommendations, AIDS and Covid are to science. Bullshit to make money. They did also have a voluntary force of researchers who were unusually, but not entirely without confirmation bias. I use it over any other, traditional data source.

 

[DLH]

If it was discovered without a doubt there would be no doubt.

Correct. The hypothetic scenario I present considers the question of Jehovah's existence or non-existence without a doubt.

For instance, if it were discovered without a doubt that Jehovah God did not exist, nobody would believe in the existence of a Jehovah God. Because there would be no doubt that Jehovah God didn’t exist.

Correct.

If, OTOH it was discovered without a doubt that Jehovah God existed then nobody would believe in the non-existence of Jehovah God, because there would be no doubt.
See how that works?

You picked up on that, did you? Very impressive. That's the question. It isn't a question of believing, the hypothetical removes belief.

It’s abysmally STUPID to ever suppose that there is no doubt about anything.
And there’s no doubt about that.

Excellent. Gravity. 2+2=4. I'm sure there would be doubt just as there is currently, believe it or not, no pun intended, doubt the earth is flat. But in this hypothetical there is no doubt of the theist that Jehovah doesn't exist and of the atheist that he does. What the questions do is, as explained, remove the ideology.

Would the theist abandon their tradition, their dogma, which has been fucked up since Constantine, as pagan chief, pontifex maximus, their champion and would the atheist with their uninformed sociopolitical frustration accept or reject the God of their discontent once there was "no doubt" he existed?

 

[DLH]

Dogmatic claims are those made in the absence of evidence.

Just for fun . . . .

Oxford
Dogmatic: inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

Science: the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Truth: a fact or belief that is accepted as true.