Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: floo on November 13, 2017, 11:19:55 AM
-
If it was conclusively proven beyond all shadow of doubt that god exists, would the non believers on this forum worship it?
I don't believe anyone or anything should be worshipped, including god.
-
What kind of god? Which one?
I'm not big on the concept of worship either, unless it involves Christina Trevanion anyway.
-
What kind of god? Which one?
I'm not big on the concept of worship either, unless it involves Christina Trevanion anyway.
I was thinking of the Christian god as its concept is the one with which I am most familiar.
Why on earth would you wish to worship an expert on antiques?
-
I was thinking of the Christian god as its concept is the one with which I am most familiar.
In which case, certainly not. Unambiguous demonstration of its existence demands acknowledgement, not worship.
Why on earth would you wish to worship an expert on antiques?
Because I've seen her :o
-
In which case, certainly not. Unambiguous demonstration of its existence demands acknowledgement, not worship.
Because I've seen her :o
So you have seen her, so what, I don't get it?
-
Floo,
If it was conclusively proven beyond all shadow of doubt that god exists, would the non believers on this forum worship it?
I don't believe anyone or anything should be worshipped, including god.
Something I've never understood is why, if you think there to be the god whose character is the best that could possibly be, he'd want to be worshipped. Isn't worship something third world despots demand or at least appreciate?
Seems to me to be a fairly obvious projection by those who feel the need to worship something onto a god who therefore expects it.
-
If it was conclusively proven beyond all shadow of doubt that god exists, would the non believers on this forum worship it?
I don't believe anyone or anything should be worshipped, including god.
If that were the case I would accept that god existed - but that is different to worship. That would depend entirely firstly on whether that god expected worship and secondly on whether that god deserved worship.
-
So you have seen her, so what, I don't get it?
why am I not surprised !!!
-
What kind of god? Which one?
I'm not big on the concept of worship either, unless it involves Christina Trevanion anyway.
have you put her on the list? ;)
-
If it was conclusively proven beyond all shadow of doubt that god exists, would the non believers on this forum worship it?
I don't believe anyone or anything should be worshipped, including god.
if the ''creator of the universe'' were to show its self , I would accept it . However worship is a different matter .
-
If that were the case I would accept that god existed - but that is different to worship. That would depend entirely firstly on whether that god expected worship and secondly on whether that god deserved worship.
Would a god that expected worship deserve it? (Note to be honest, I am struggling with what 'worship' never mind 'god' amounts to)
-
If that were the case I would accept that god existed -
That's very magnanimous of you.
-
That's very magnanimous of you.
who put you in charge of judging ?
-
Walter,
who put you in charge of judging ?
God?
He probably gets a special hat and a clip board and everything.
-
Floo,
Something I've never understood is why, if you think there to be the god whose character is the best that could possibly be, he'd want to be worshipped. Isn't worship something third world despots demand or at least appreciate?
Seems to me to be a fairly obvious projection by those who feel the need to worship something onto a god who therefore expects it.
There would be something very wrong with a human or deity who expects to be worshipped.
-
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
-
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Sleep tight, mind the bugs don't bite.
-
Walter,
God?
He probably gets a special hat and a clip board and everything.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Floo,
Sleep tight, mind the bugs don't bite.
To be fair though, that's the closest he's come to an actual argument since he's been here.
Pity really. For all I know he may actually have something interesting to say, but so far he's shaping up as your standard smash and grab merchant - post something, get challenged on it, disappear.
Oh well.
-
There would be something very wrong with a human or deity who expects to be worshipped.
As David Hume put it, it certainly manifests a very human attribute - a restless appetite for applause.
-
As David Hume put it, it certainly manifests a very human attribute - a restless appetite for applause.
It would creep me out if anyone worshipped me, fortunately that is as likely to happen as it is for me to sprout wings! ;D
-
Walter,
God?
He probably gets a special hat and a clip board and everything.
Pair of trousers with a stripe down each side? Best red.
ippy
-
It would creep me out if anyone worshipped me, fortunately that is as likely to happen as it is for me to sprout wings! ;D
You do get used to it Floo ::) ::) ::)
ippy
-
Pair of trousers with a stripe down each side? Best red.
ippy
doubles up as a carpark attendant at weekends ;D ;D ;D
-
Walter,
doubles up as a carpark attendant at weekends
Can you imagine Vlad the car park attendant?
VtCPA: “So, you think parking sideways across two spaces is correct do you?”
Me: “Er, that’s not what I did at all. Look, here’s a CCTV image that shows I was exactly between the lines.”
VtCPA: “Mere turd polishing. Now then, you do realise that using the half hour free option is a philosophical statement don’t you?
How do you defend that then smartarse?”
Me: “Um, it’s no such thing. I was just nipping to the corner shop for a box of liquorice allsorts. Where’s the philosophy in that?”
VtCPA: “Pah! I used to think they were allsorts too before I gained my detailed knowledge of confectionary manufacture. They’re actually treats made of scotch mist and unicorn tears you schmuck…”
Me: “So how does your detailed knowledge of confectionary tell you that exactly?”
VtCAP: Silence
Me: "Hello?"
VtCPA: "Category f***!"
etc
-
Walter,
Can you imagine Vlad the car park attendant?
VtCPA: “So, you think parking sideways across two spaces is correct do you?”
Me: “Er, that’s not what I did at all. Look, here’s a CCTV image that shows I was exactly between the lines.”
VtCPA: “Mere turd polishing. Now then, you do realise that using the half hour free option is a philosophical statement don’t you?
How do you defend that then smartarse?”
Me: “Um, it’s no such thing. I was just nipping to the corner shop for a box of liquorice allsorts. Where’s the philosophy in that?”
VtCPA: “Pah! I used to think they were allsorts too before I gained my detailed knowledge of confectionary manufacture. They’re actually treats made of scotch mist and unicorn tears you schmuck…”
Me: “So how does your detailed knowledge of confectionary tell you that exactly?”
VtCAP: Silence
Me: "Hello?"
VtCPA: "Category f***!"
etc
a red nose day sketch ? fabulous ;D ;D ;D
laughable if it weren't true :( :( :(
-
Walter,
Can you imagine Vlad the car park attendant?
VtCPA: “So, you think parking sideways across two spaces is correct do you?”
Me: “Er, that’s not what I did at all. Look, here’s a CCTV image that shows I was exactly between the lines.”
VtCPA: “Mere turd polishing. Now then, you do realise that using the half hour free option is a philosophical statement don’t you?
How do you defend that then smartarse?”
Me: “Um, it’s no such thing. I was just nipping to the corner shop for a box of liquorice allsorts. Where’s the philosophy in that?”
VtCPA: “Pah! I used to think they were allsorts too before I gained my detailed knowledge of confectionary manufacture. They’re actually treats made of scotch mist and unicorn tears you schmuck…”
Me: “So how does your detailed knowledge of confectionary tell you that exactly?”
VtCAP: Silence
Me: "Hello?"
VtCPA: "Category f***!"
etc
Very good apart from the last sixteen lines.
-
Very good apart from the last sixteen lines.
Category fuck.
-
Category fuck.
OK Seb but went rapidly downhill in the last line.
-
Floo,
To be fair though, that's the closest he's come to an actual argument since he's been here.
Pity really. For all I know he may actually have something interesting to say, but so far he's shaping up as your standard smash and grab merchant - post something, get challenged on it, disappear.
Oh well.
I answered your adolescent sarcasm about omnipotence much more fully than it deserved, two or three times, but you were determined not to understand what I was saying, so I gave up.
-
I answered your adolescent sarcasm about omnipotence much more fully than it deserved, two or three times, but you were determined not to understand what I was saying, so I gave up.
c'mon Sailor Boy , that's not like you ::)
-
OK Seb but went rapidly downhill in the last line.
At least it had some altitude. Yours started in the Mariana Trench!
-
At least it had some altitude.
It certainly looks as though you were high when you wrote it.
-
It certainly looks as though you were high when you wrote it.
I'm always high.
Don't you be judging people's life choices though!
-
L’Eau,
I answered your adolescent sarcasm about omnipotence much more fully than it deserved, two or three times, but you were determined not to understand what I was saying, so I gave up.
Except of course none of that’s – ooh, what’s the word I’m trying to think of here? Oh yeah, true.
What actually happened was that you posited a notion that allows a space for “God” to co-exist with “evil” by suggesting that one of the “omnis” – omnipotence – was only theoretically rather than actually true.
I explained to you (neither adolescently nor sarcastically) that you’d fallen foul of two logical fallacies. First, the fallacy of special pleading: you took a specific claim (omnipotence) and diluted it to “theoretical” while ignoring the problem that you’d thereby fundamentally re-defined what “omnipotence” actually means.
Second, the fallacy of arbitrariness. You picked one of the omnis (apparently at random) to dilute, when you could equally have done the same with any of the others (or with a combination of them) and also created a space for evil to hide in.
Since then you’ve been entirely unwilling or unable to address the problems you’ve given yourself, preferring instead first silence and now insult.
Look, it’s simple enough. If you’re feeling upset that a cherished notion has been undone but so out of your depth that you can’t process it just say so. There are people here who readily will help you with the basics of how logic and argument work, and moreover you’ll be better equipped to deal with the world once you do grasp it.
Your actual response though does you no credit.
Coda: As this relates to a different discussion and it's not fair to derail this one, I'll post it on the Omnipotence thread too.
-
And I've given it a much fuller and more polite answer than it deserves there.
-
And I've given it a much fuller and more polite answer than it deserves there.
You polite? ;D
-
You polite? ;D
Not very, but a damn sight politer than British Home Stores' patronising, self-satisfied bollocks deserved.
-
L'Eau,
And I've given it a much fuller and more polite answer than it deserves there.
That's not true.
-
L'Eau,
That's not true.
Mmm seems like a matter of opinion rather than one of truth?
-
L'Eau,
Not very, but a damn sight politer than British Home Stores' patronising, self-satisfied bollocks deserved.
And nor's that.
Your response to calmly expressed reason and logic that undoes you is anger. By his words you shall know him and all that...
-
NS,
Mmm seems like a matter of opinion rather than one of truth?
I made no claim to objectivity there but, either way, I'd have thought the differences in content and tone between L'Eau's posts and mine speak for themselves.
-
NS,
I made no claim to objectivity there but, either way, I'd have thought the differences in content and tone between L'Eau's posts and mine speak for themselves.
You said it wasn't true. Is that not a claim to objectivity?
-
NS,
You said it wasn't true. Is that not a claim to objectivity?
I love my wife too. Is that?
You seem to want to pick an argument for no good reason. If L'Eau thinks a post containing reasoned argument deserves the reply he gave it, that's a matter for him. Others I think may disagree.
-
NS,
I love my wife too. Is that?
You seem to want to pick an argument for no good reason. If L'Eau thinks a post containing reasoned argument deserves the reply he gave it, that's a matter for him. Others I think may disagree.
Poisoning the well? Really?
Is it a truth viable statement?
-
If god existed I’d been seeking relationship, not worship.
-
Would a god that expected worship deserve it? (Note to be honest, I am struggling with what 'worship' never mind 'god' amounts to)
Possibly - point I was making in an offhand way is that too many theists have a very narrow impression of what a god (where he/she/it to actually exist) would be like. Effectively to superimpose a version of common purported gods that somehow require or expect worship.
To an extent that seems deeply anthropomorphic - effectively to impose on gods very human characteristics of needing acknowledgement. Why would an omnipotent god expect worship from people. It is a bit like thinking that humans expect worship from ants. It is bizarre. In effect what this is doing is turning things on their head - the very notion that a god would require us humans to worship it means that to an extent we humans are important in the eyes (again being anthropomorphic) of that god. It speaks to the notion of a god created by humans. Humans create a god and need to be important in the eyes of that created god, as it makes us feel important ourselves.
-
That's very magnanimous of you.
I am simply being truthful.