Philosophy Now Forum

Vor wrote:Bill Maher sums up the atheistic movement to rid the world of any mention of God like this:

We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justified crazies.

Speaking of the revealed religions, like Christianity and Islam, no argument.

Speaking of other religions that are not revealed and do not promote idol worship, then an argument can be made in favor as those would be more like a religion of seekers and not idol worshipers. They seek the best way and admit to not having found it yet.

One of the biblical Jesus' made that distinction himself by asking us to seek God and never saying to seek him as God. Christians seem to have missed that message and chose idol worship instead.

Regards
DL

attofishpi wrote:[
I am part of mankind thus today, yesterday and for the past 18 years.

Ask him why he is bothering with you when there are starving children who he could better serve.

Let us know the answer.

Regards
DL[/quote]
There is no Him or Hymn there is only the onset of entropy and its up to a brotherhood of man to bring about equality, not the backbone of a result of said entropy.[/quote]

A re-read helped understanding and yes, it is all up to mankind.

Regards
DL

Hobby: Please refer to the answers I made above.

Please don't try to pretend that you have answered the point I am making, Hobby, because the record is there for everyone to see that you have done no such thing. Let's go back to here:

Hobby: I'm not pretending to "know" anything.

You have claimed that all the promises ascribed to God are false and I think that is a knowledge claim. Perhaps you'd like to change it now?

mickthinks wrote:Hobby: What is "god"

For now, I just mean the entity (or entities) that priests and their followers believe in and call "God".

Hobby: What promises does God make?

I don't know which religious promises come from God.

And so you are mute - or ought to be.

where you are in ignorance, you cannot speak.
What I can say is this;" There is not set of promises from priests that are coherent and in agreement. There is only a confusion of different gods and different promises."
I have no reason to think that 'god' is meaningful. The evidence for the existence of god relies solely on the words of this that claim to be his messengers; priests, vicars, imams, acolytes,. These so-called 'promises' are incoherent and by the law of non contradiction are false.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

mickthinks wrote:Hobby: What is "god"

For now, I just mean the entity (or entities) that priests and their followers believe in and call "God".

Hobby: What promises does God make?

I don't know which religious promises come from God.

And so you are mute - or ought to be.

where you are in ignorance, you cannot speak.
What I can say is this;" There is not set of promises from priests that are coherent and in agreement.

I do not agree completely. I see one promise that they all share and is coherent.

To make God happy, give me some money.

Regards
DL

Hobbes' Choice wrote:These so-called 'promises' are incoherent and by the law of non contradiction are false.

You just failed Logic 101, dude. Assuming by "incoherent" you meant "contradictory" (not quite the same thing, but nuances like that are probably lost on you), you are trying to argue that:-

• Let R be a set of propositions; if ∃ p,q ∈ R|p¬~q , then ∀r ∈ R, ~r.
  (ie. if a set of propositions contains contradictions then all its propostions are false)

I believe everyone, including you yourself will be able to spot the glaring error you are making there.

Which leaves you back here:

Hobby: I'm not pretending to "know" anything.

You have claimed that all the promises ascribed to God are false and I think that is a knowledge claim. Perhaps you'd like to change it now?

mickthinks wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:These so-called 'promises' are incoherent and by the law of non contradiction are false.

You just failed Logic 101, dude. Assuming by "incoherent" you meant "contradictory" (not quite the same thing, but nuances like that are probably lost on you), you are trying to argue that:-

• Let R be a set of propositions; if ∃ p,q ∈ R|p¬~q , then ∀r ∈ R, ~r.
  (ie. if a set of propositions contains contradictions then all its propostions are false)

I believe everyone, including you yourself will be able to spot the glaring error you are making there.

Which leaves you back here:

Hobby: I'm not pretending to "know" anything.

You have claimed that all the promises ascribed to God are false and I think that is a knowledge claim. Perhaps you'd like to change it now?

No. I would not. You have offered nothing to the discussion. Run along now, your mummy told me she needs to wipe your botty.

Hobby: I'm not pretending to "know" anything.
Mick: You have claimed that all the promises ascribed to God are false and I think that is a knowledge claim. Perhaps you'd like to change it now?
Hobby: No. I would not.

Then in the interests of being consistent, I guess you are retracting your initial denial here. You do claim to have some knowledge about the ontological status of God.


Run along now, your mummy told me she needs to wipe your botty.
Oh dear! How old are you, Hobby? You are behaving as if you were still in Kindergarten.

mickthinks wrote:Hobby: I'm not pretending to "know" anything.
Mick: You have claimed that all the promises ascribed to God are false and I think that is a knowledge claim. Perhaps you'd like to change it now?
Hobby: No. I would not.

Then in the interests of being consistent, I guess you are retracting your initial denial here. You do claim to have some knowledge about the ontological status of God.

What do you mean "GOD"?
Since 'god" has no ontological status, and all promises claimed to be "made by god" are evidently and palpably made by man, my statement if rock solid.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Love, fear, trust, the Bible? Current trends would be another possibility.

What do you think?

PhilX

The relating of a relation relating to itself.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Love, fear, trust, the Bible? Current trends would be another possibility.

What do you think?

PhilX

The relating of a relation relating to itself.

Jesus fucking H.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 57731.html

Scientists find a link between low intelligence and acceptance of 'pseudo-profound bulls***'
Those who are impressed by wise-sounding quotes are also more likely to believe in conspiracy theories and the paranormal

THIS IS YOU, you twat.

You have no idea what I mean by that Hobbes. Better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to say something and remove all doubt.

The Inglorious One wrote:You have no idea what I mean by that Hobbes. Better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to say something and remove all doubt.

What is really funny here is that YOU don't know what the fuck you mean by that.

I think we are confusing ontology with epistemology. There is no self contradiction in saying that God exists. * However,it is not resolved that God actually exists.
For example, if I say that unicorns have horns, I am not contradicting myself. If unicorns actually exist is an ontological question. It is easy to confuse epistemology with ontology.
* However, there is a contradiction if part of God's definition is to be ethical.Either God is not all powerful or God is not ethical. He cannot be both.

raw_thought wrote:I think we are confusing ontology with epistemology. There is no self contradiction in saying that God exists. * However,it is not resolved that God actually exists.
For example, if I say that unicorns have horns, I am not contradicting myself. If unicorns actually exist is an ontological question. It is easy to confuse epistemology with ontology.
* However, there is a contradiction if part of God's definition is to be ethical.Either God is not all powerful or God is not ethical. He cannot be both.

And here's where you are confusing the two. The contradiction between god not being ethical and god being all-powerful is an empirical observation based on the existence of evil and suffering.
However it is also a reflection on your personal understanding of what is not ethical. An all powerful god is perfectly capable of thinking evil and suffering is perfectly ethical.