What does God want?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Omnipotent but just doesn't know how to handle money and the beer foam head paddle, lordie me/Heard only did that trick with wine
To hard to get the foam head correct with beer
No doubt your beliefs require you to invoke the "true scotsman " argument in order to dismiss what atheists performed under the guise of communism.
You don't have to be careful about anything, as long as if your reliance is upon scripture that you acknowledge that you are only referring to the theistic view of God.
As for Deists, they still (afaik) understand God to be the source of all, but they reach their understanding and belief through reason alone, not through scripture and/or revelation.
One might reach the deistic belief through simply reasoning that everything has a cause... thus there must (according to their argument) be an original cause.
Voila.
No scriptures needed.
I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it is plausible that some might consider it convincing.
But, if you simply dismiss all other notions of God than your own, than that presented within scripture, you are indeed insulting Deists, and by extension anyone else who happens to hold a belief different to your own.
You insult one person for not holding your particular belief and you insult them all.
I get that you are speaking from the theistic view of God.
But not everyone shares your belief.
And you asserting your belief does not make it true, nor right.
So you think it's okay to shit all over someone else's belief simply because of their rarity value?
Such a civilised view you have.
All I'm asking is for you to appreciate and acknowledge that when you speak about God, as anything other than the cause of all, you are speaking about the theistic understanding/belief of God.
Can you do that, please?
Crucify in the literal sense, or metaphorical?
Believers have been persecuted by non-believers in the past, and undoubtedly still are.
In North Korea, an officially secular country, Christians (per wiki, at least) are among the most persecuted Christians in the world, with 200,000 missing since the mid 1950s.
Maybe not literally crucified, though.
I realize you may have a vested interest in maintaining there is no middle ground between fanatical adherence to one's faith at the expense at any and all others, and, a type of uncritical, unphilosophical, new age-like abidance to all approaches to faith being as equally meritous as one another, (maintaing the choice within religion to such a false, albeit popular, dichotomy helps empower atheism as a philosophical, critical person's approach), but, there is a big difference between taking a shit on someone and simply opening all claims to critical analysis.
If you want to talk of deists who bypass the book of God so completely as to not even address it for something as rudimentary as defining "God" as "the creator of everything", you are clearly consulting your imagination as opposed to something other than our world with its past 500 or so years of history. The fact that you have to pretend to be such a deist in order to have a position to offer your mock offense makes it blatantly obvious you are just searching for a means to an end rather than indicating any position that any one conceivably holds (much less, is offended by for asserting their foundation for such a term).
If you seriously wish to champion the cause for victims of people taking unrighteous dumps on the beliefs of others on this forum, it seems strange that you have to wrangle out such a bizarre religious stance, that even wiki would struggle to authenticate, in order to cry foul, when you have likes of several posters on this site who trollishly meander around religious topics with the intellectual fortitude of someone on heavy prescription medication.
Last edited:
Technically not crucification. Hammers, plastic bags, bullets, or whatever tools to maim, torture and kill happened to be on hand at the time ... but also metaphorically too.
I recall one anecdote where Stalin was in the countryside at night time and was curious about a particular constellation. An advisor brought forth that an expert astronomer resided nearby who may be able to satisfy Stalin's curiousity. Thinking it would be pleasant to discuss the night's sky with such a man, Stalin sent for him to be fetched. Seeing several high profile government cars pull up to his driveway at night, the astronomer committed suicide by jumping out the window. Apparently he was under the impression he was going to be tortured and purged.
I don't think even theists predominantly went around crucifying people. It was more something the Romans did, and even then, I think they picked up the trend from someone else.
If you want to talk of championing the cause of domestic persecution, I think the Khmer Rouge get the gold medal. They removed about 25% of their population of millions from the ecosystem within the short space of a few years.
Sure, and you would do well to follow the latter and not the former.
Insistence in adherence to your own belief, whether that be one as large as belief in God itself, or a smaller belief such that scripture is the source of understanding of God, is to be disrespectful to holders of other beliefs.
Challenge them by all means.
Don't just ride roughshod over them and refuse to acknowledge where your belief starts and theirs end.
Or, perhaps, a dictionary, where one can understand God to mean "creator of the universe" etc?
I don't deny that God has a meaning to theists that is found in scriptures.
But that is irrelevant to what people believe.
And if people do not believe in scriptures or revelation it is insulting to insist that they use it to garner an understanding of the God that they believe in rather than the God that you believe in.
I'm sorry that you don't see the principle of it.
I have made no such pretence to deism.
I'm not.
I hold no such belief in God, whether the one that reveals Himself or the version that doesn't.
And you are right, I am using it as a means to an end: hopefully getting you to see how insulting you are being to not just Deists but anyone who doesn't share your particular belief.
As said, you dump on one and you dump on them all.
It's a matter of the principle.
What Jan Ardena gets up to is up to him.
I don't see his posts any more, so can't comment.
As for others, you're right, many do, but thanks to the likes of you they rarely get away with it unchallenged.
And rightly so.
But if all you think is that it should be a case of "if they can, why can't I" then you are no better than them, and worse no better than Jan Ardena.
Two wrongs a right doesn't make.
But I've said enough.
Either you will or you won't.
That choice is yours.
I guess you missed the whole "false dichotomy" thing, and who's party it stands to benefit . . .
...or maybe you didn't, which would also explain why you don't directly address this point.
On the contrary, looking at where it starts and ends forms part of the analysis. For instance, promoting Deism that doesn't hold God as the creator is but the start of a series of interesting qs on exactly what point it is starting on. Of course if we actually had a deist before us posing such a stance, we could put those qs before them. Instead we have a contrite atheist advocating on the behalf of a religious aporoach so outre that it can't even be authenticated by wiki.
Go figure ...
I am not sure how this helps authenticate this imaginary position of a theoretical deist who appears to occupy no position outside of your rhetorical argument.
And I guess if you want to be completely uncritical about what people believe, all problems end right there. Unfortunately we are yet to see such restraint even in your own behaviour ... so once again, go figure ...
If the problem lies at the core of defining God as a creator, its not clear how they would identify as a deist, much less have a position to contribute to the OP.
The principle is that you secure an advantage as an atheist if you can argue from the point that all religious jargon is a meaningless postmodern jumble.
Its not about deism or your advocacy for a religious minority.
Its about brownie points for atheism.
I know.
That has why I have harping on about the mental gymnastics you have to perform in order to manufacture a position to voice mock offense. Where are these deists taking offense at the suggestion that God is the creator? Only in your mind, apparently.
The ends you are trying to achieve is simply to relegate theism to a false dichotomy of absurd extremes. In such an environment, where critical thought is prohibited except by those who's extreme fanatacism cripple not only their intelligence but restraint, you create the perfect false dichotomy where the only ones "allowed" to be critical are the atheists .... and of course its just a mere coincidence you are actually an atheist yourself, charading as a non-existant deist just so you have a soap box to cry foul from.
Well, whenever the day arrives when you are willing to lead by example and renounce all critical analysis of belief, perhaps others may take your words seriously .... or alternatively you might find yourself in a one-membered social movement of foolishness.
On the contrary, when and where you decide to take a dump, that is up to you.
Or in your case, is it because your dumping is righteous?
We can still see yours though. Need I remind you, insistence in adherence to your own view, whether it range from a lack of belief in God, or a belief in God, is to be disrespectful to holders of other beliefs.I don't see his posts any more, so can't comment.
Challenge them by all means.
Don't just ride roughshod over them and refuse to acknowledge where your belief starts and theirs end.
If you are so sensitive as to construe Deists taking offense at the notion of identifying God as the creator, it just renders your silence on 95% of the religious threads you participate in as deafening .... what to speak of the numerous occassions where you unceremoniously take a dump on other people's views for the sake of establishing your own.
The standard of behaviour you are advocating is so flawed that you cannot even point to its example in yourself.
There was no point to address, other than you accepting that there is a difference between dumping on other's belief (as you were doing) and simply being critical.
The previous part was simply irrelevant as I hold no such vested interest.
Fine, you're back-peddling into claims that you were analysing critically and not simply dumping on the deist belief.
No problem.
Stick to actually doing that from the outset and all will be well.
Eh?
Which brand of Deism do you think doesn't hold God as the creator, exactly?
It would be if it had any bearing on their belief.
It's not the belief per se, but you dumping on it that I have issue with.
As stated, and which you seem to have ignored, I simply picked up on your treatment of the deist view to help with the principle of the issue.
But you, for some reason, still seem to think that a minority belief can be dumped on without consideration.
You do know what Deists believe, I assume?
Maybe you don't.
Might explain why you are so willing to fundamentally ignore their position other than to dump on it.
I'm all for being critical.
But there is a difference, as you have advocate above, between criticially analysing and simply dumping on them.
What problem would they have in defining God as creator of all?
It is, after all, what they believe.
If that's what you think then you are as blinkered as I hoped you wouldn't be.
In this you seem to be no better than Jan Ardena in seeing everything as a war between theism and atheism.
My issue is simply with you riding roughshod over another's belief while at the same time insisting that others not do the same to yours.
The issue is not one of atheism v theism, belief v non-belief, but simply in not being inconsistent.
What on earth are you going on about???
Who said anything about them taking offense at the suggestion that God is the creator?
It's what they believe!
Good grief, you are ridiculous.
This is not about theism, atheism, or even deism for that matter.
So let me be clear: you ride roughshod over someone else's beliefs, expect to be called out.
The fact that you're trying to turn this into some atheist agenda on my part is bordering on the paranoid.
I have also told you before: I am not a deist.
I am not charading as a deist.
One does not need to dress up as something in order to defend it, even when there are none to defend themselves.
Or do you think it's okay to dump on someone else's belief if that person isn't around?
If you have issue that I have called you out and not the countless other people, well, perhaps you should feel honoured.
But there is no atheist agenda, I assure you, simply a desire for you to adhere to your own ideals.
Perhaps you may try to listen to what has actually been said?
Or perhaps you really are that blinkered in your perspective?
If I ever dump on someone else's belief, feel free to point it out to me.
I do try not to.
I couldn't agree more.
Call me out when I do otherwise, just as I am doing to you now.
Again... eh???
Where have I said they take offense at what they believe in?
Feel free to point any out where I have done so.
I'm advocating not dumping on other people's belief.
Do you think that's a good idea, or not?
If you do, all I ask is that you don't do it.
If you don't think you have done, then we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
If you realise/accept that you have done, then let's just move on, okay?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I hope you dont mean me..well of course you must.
The subject requires little input from the likes of me ... all you talk about is a non event presented on an unsupported and fanciful premise and before the subject is elevated past fairey tale status perhaps you should offer a fact that allows us wonder if there is any truth to be found in theist camp.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Nevertheless theists have managed to run up a huge tally of killings which proves there is no God.☺
I have no figures in support but I have an impression many humans have been killed by other humans under some form of god delussion.
Also killing of theists by atheists perhaps could be explained as push back in some cases...what else could it be ... anyways just because atheists may have killed a few people does that make them bad people...of course not.
Alex
Actually I was not, but I don't want to drop names.
You have to recognize two things:
1) no such "definition" of God exists in the particular scriptures you regard as "scripture" - roundabout allusions and suggestions exist, mostly metaphorical.
2) the God that is alluded to in that scripture - that particular one - is a particular God. That God has a variety of attributes whose combination is unique and characteristic, and does not stand for the entire concept of deity or occupy the range of theism. Many theists disbelieve in that God.
God is a Judge. He is non-interventionist (He does nothing) which is why there is pain in the world.
Which god are you referring to?
The first human whose name is, "God."
Human, God, kind of a contradiction of terms don't you think?
No. THAT'S HIS NAME! IT'S WHAT HE CALLS HIMSELF!! IT ISN'T A TITLE. IF YOU ASK HIM HIS NAME HE WILL SAY, "God." After he's finished crying his little lungs out.
So who was this talking baby that called itself God?