Perfectly evil God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Nov 9, 2016.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    How ever you emphasise it, the fallacy remains.
    Such a convincing rebuttal, Jan. I am in awe at your loquatiousness. So how am I a liar? First show me how I am wrong, and then show me where I have intentionally offered up a falsehood? Can you do that for me, Jan?
    Don't be pedantic, Jan: I have clearly used "say" and "say in one's heart" synonymously here.
    If that is what I do you could perhaps argue your case. But since it isn't, I guess it's just another irrelevant comment by you.
    Where am I spreading anything, Jan? I am merely pointing out to Alex that you have fallaciously adopted a particular quote, and have provided reasoning. Where is the corruption? Show that it is corrupted.
    I am doing no such thing, Jan. You may want to reread what I have actually said - and it is only that your use of the quote is fallacious, with rationale behind that claim. But if you feel the need to make more shit up to justify your position...
    Hey ho.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I have been thinking about the quote and realised that irrespective of who you maybe it is a fact that your heart cant say anything...your heart can not speak nor can your heart think...your heart pumps blood that is its function.

    So yet again we have folk hanging on the words of some ancient author but the author is talking to use the quote typifies the problem of how some folk think they quote wisdom but all they do is continue the nonsense first laid down by the original un educated ignorant author.

    No one can say anything in their heart .... throw that quote out Jan it is stupid and meaningless and to use it has the prospect that it will be you who is considered the fool.
    Neither of us want that.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    the real evil god to us Humans is enlil . the root of all abrahamic religions .
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Surely the funniest thing is that Jan uses the quote as if it has any value whatsoever.
    Quoting something from scripture that already assumes the existence of God, and is there to promote that belief, is one thing, but to then believe that the quote has any value to someone who doesn't hold the a priori belief required to give it value... that takes a special kind of unthinking.

    As Hemmingway once wrote: "All thinking men are atheists."
    This adds as much weight to the debate as the quote Jan defaults to.
  8. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Some theists become atheists. Some of them very similar to Jan.

  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Because you view it as a denigration, doesn't mean it is.
    I accept that we're most of us fools, in some regard, or have been fools in the past, and learnt from it.

    It's not the lack of belief, that makes atheist's fools, it's the manner in which some of them hold it.
    They blatantly deny, and reject God, in plain sight, and act as though no one can see it. In order to do that, you have to really convince yourself
    that your position is correct. That's what is meant by ''say in their hearts''.

    It is the notion that God does not exist, that makes one the fool.
    Show how it could be that one who says in their heart that there is no God, could not be a fool?


    What does actions have to do with it?
    You are a fool to convince yourself that there is no God. That is the point of the text.

    IOW, put your fingers in your ears, and shout LA LA LA..., at the top of your voice, so you don't have to change your position.

  10. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Ignoring that this change is already an argument against the God you first described...
    If God isn't perfectly evil, then what is the argument against God being neutral?

    If God is neutral, wouldn't the same argument about free will and the satisfaction of the omnipotent be true?
    In that case, wouldn't the Problem of Good/Evil be moot?
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Good and evil do not exist

    They are CONCEPTS

    CONCEPTS do not have physicality ie non existent

    Being non existent allows concepts to be all things to all people

    "The was a good deed you did to that person, stopping him from committing suicide"

    "That was a evil deed you did to that person, stopping him from committing suicide"

    It was good from the view of one who did not know of the person's suffering pain from a disease

    It was evil from the view of one who did know of the person's suffering pain from a disease

    No idea if the good deed person would change mind, fairly moot anyway

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Xelasnave.1947 and Vociferous like this.
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Your intention is clear when you use it, Jan. You can deny it all you wish. You know. I know.
    And thus you put them down each time you use the quote. You don't do it to explain anything, simply to denigrate. If it was by way of explanation you wouldn't have had to provide justification here. But instead you quote it as though it is in itself an explanation, or justification. And to treat the person you are debating against in such a manner is to denigrate them.
    Yet you have used it repeatedly when discussing with those who do not hold to such a notion (e.g. the weak atheist). Try again.
    Simple, show the person that there is undeniably a God, without the reliance on an a priori assumption that God Is. Do that and do so in a manner that is beyond doubt, and only foolish people would disagree and say otherwise. If you can not do that then you don't get to call them a fool, even in the modern understanding of the word (as opposed to how intended in the quote as used).
    No, it's not. That is your simplistic interpretation of the quote because you have taken it out of context. As explained.
    You use the quote for effect, Jan, and that effect is to denigrate the person you're debating against. Despite using it out of context. And despite it being in and of itself not an argument but merely an opinion. And despite it being part of your general circular reasoning.
    An unconvincing argument is unconvincing, Jan, no matter how often it is used, how loudly it is shouted. So here's a thought, Jan: try actually offering one (an argument) rather than just repeating the same quote?
  13. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    He doesn't give a rats ass either way, that's why Jesus is a safe bet. Do you have to believe in him? I don't think so, I would think there are many people who haven't really studied Jesus but follow his commandment naturally. So no, God doesn't waste time on individuals, blame everything on karma, which is to say, blame yourself, your tribe or your parents actions that have affected your life.
    Vociferous likes this.

Share This Page