The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
It was, and I'm not your honey.
God's purpose
- Thread starter Thor 2
- Start date
It was, and I'm not your honey.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Is it even worth noting that a very notable portion of the English speaking world claims to be Christian, so that it is exceedingly likely that any given English speaker would have had at least one run in with Christians? Or that the JREF, from which this forum effectively and fairly recently came, is based and was mostly publicized in a country with a very high percentage of people who claim to be Christians? logger made a truly shocking statement about the group of people that he's dealing with, did he not? Either way, he has a good point about not letting other people determine his eternity. That, of course, is rightfully in the noodly appendages of the FSM.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You're the only one obsessed with threads -- especially with moderating this one.
You claim one must believe in God in order to debate motives attributed to him. If you are prepared to accept that your claim has value outside this thread, then you must believe there exists a situation where Christians aim to drive public policy according to their belief in God's purpose. Your claim amounts to disenfranchising nonbelievers from the debate of a policy to which they would be subject.
This is a rebuttal technique known as reductio ad absurdum. I have shown that your claim, carried to its logical extent, would result in absurdity. Your utter unwillingness to deal with that rebuttal, and your instigating claim, on their merits tells me everything I need to know. You are far more interested in making sure you never have to face uncomfortable truths than you are in debating their validity.
Why and to who? Because I compared God to the Bank of America or the Bank of America to God? Given that I do believe in the existence of the Bank of America I apologize to them, and humbly beseech them to not charge me anymore late fees. Boy- those are damn large sums!
Thor 2
Philosopher
It is my belief that there are billions of god entities, one or more in the head of every believer, and that is the only place they have an existence.
The idea that god, or gods, have some kind of purpose I think is a fundamental weakness in theological belief. Look at the way the theists on this thread are dancing around the question with really giving any answers.
I am certain she did not intend to offend you. It is an Southern affectation, like, "Bless your little heart!"
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
They may not express it distinctly in those terms. In Mormonism, for example, it's called the "plan of salvation," and it involves faithful Mormons actually becoming gods and goddesses and presiding over their own planets or galaxies or whatever. That would shock Baptists, for example. Because their concept of God's purpose involves a certain formulation of marriage, they have displayed an interest in passing laws forbidding marriage to people who don't fit the plan.
Deists -- not strictly Christians -- talk about "divine providence."
Jews (at least the ones I know) tend to speak more about "God's will" than any sort of long-term purpose. Not that they have given up on a Messiah, but they seem less concerned about that than about navigating the here and now.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Actually, I have said repeatedly that I find it pointless, and you appear to be suffering under the misapprehension that people who are claiming not to believe in god are actually discussing the subject. You are quite incorrect.
Say, there is that "public policy" derail again. That seems to be your go to! Solid.
Every time you misrepresent my argument, I'll take a drink, and every time you raise "public policy" as an excuse for well... everything? I'll take a drink.
Public policy! DRINK!
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
That's certainly one way to conceptualize it. I guess I'm less poetic about it. I think God is an invention of believers, who attribute to him whatever purpose mimics theirs, and justifies it by invocation (allegation, more like it) of divine right or privilege. "God's purpose is X, which happens to validate my socio-political position, and if you can't understand or accept it then it's only because God is just so much more awesome than you."
I'd go even farther and state that it's fairly arrogant to suppose that a God who, it is claimed, created a whole vast universe is so intimately interested in what a bunch of pseudo-apes do within the film of Earth's biosphere for the tiniest blip of existence. It seems to have more to do with validating the special status of the believers -- God's chosen people -- that about a credible theology.
The dancing has taken the customary form of meta-debate, arguing over what's acceptable argumentation and where and how it should be made. You can usually tell the side that knows it has no case by how much they try to manipulate the debate so that uncomfortable topics are avoided.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And I have repeatedly made points. You seem unable to answer them.
For which you have no answer. I have mentioned it as a case where nonbelievers would have a legitimate right in debating purposes attributed to God, and it's not just a hypothetical case. That would seem to fly in the face of your insinuation that only believers can do that.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Evasion noted.
Despite your desperate desire to reduce this discussion to a straightforward recitation of your personal beliefs, it remains true that God's alleged purpose is still hotly debated among his followers, and exists ever only as their second-hand attributions. It also remains true that a belief in God is not required to discuss mere attributions. And it remains further true that this is not just an academic point, and that some believers indeed cite God's insinuated purpose as a justification for public policy; would you have nonbelievers forbidden to respond?
Yes you want to dismiss this as a derail. But it is far from it. If you agree that nonbelievers would have the right to dispute public policy ostensibly founded on expressions of God's will and purpose, then that same justification applies here. There is no blanket restriction on a discussion of God's will.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
DRINK!
My insinuation is that many non-believers are not doing what you are claiming they are doing. Your public policy "point" is an all purpose derail, heck after I pointed it out, you claimed that someone was doing it elsewhere, which is clearly an all purpose make the thread anything one wishes card.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
Well I'd love to but it be like trying to write a turn offs list for Superman's Ashley Madison account.
I seriously doubt that. If they were born without the proper brain chemistry/physiology/anatomy (etc.) and that has been examined and recorded I am quite logically certain no changes will occur by magic or other sleight of religious hand and the person will continue as a psycho/sociopath until the end of his/her days UNLESS a treatment for such is discovered and found to work perfectly for at least some persons (or even all).
Nothing recently or previously posted that I have seen indicates otherwise, though if you have available research demonstrating and clearly explicating such exists and has been peer reviewed and externally verified please so inform me (though I expect news sources around the world would beat you to it if true/possible!!! I would be very happy indeed to find you able to find such evidence but I do not think that will happen.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I am claiming that a variety of responses are possible, and that a proper consideration of the question must include all responses. You wish to predispose the discussion by eliminating those who question the existence of your God. I have shown how such a belief is not necessary since all the statements in evidence are merely attributions. When the premise that God doesn't exist is allowed, the attributions -- including yours -- take on a different character.
You are patently unable to deal with that mode of discussion. Hence you -- and only you -- want it corralled to a topic safe for your beliefs and their attendant circular arguments.
Yet somehow you haven't reported it for moderation as off-topic. Nor can you reconcile your "derail!" accusation with the OP's interpretation of his own intent -- which you simply reject flatly. Rather than see whether it really is off-topic, you're arguing the relevance rhetorically. Your concern is not so much for the purity of the thread as it is for the survival of your belief. Having to concede that nonbelievers may legitimately debate your beliefs, up to and including questioning their premises, would mean that your circular arguments suddenly have no toehold.
Nonsense. I explained exactly how my rebuttal works. Far from being an all-purpose derail, it is a direct counterexample to your insinuation:
As I said, I think you refuse to discuss the public policy point on its merits because it's a counterexample that persuades you to admit that nonbelievers can have a legitimate opinion regarding the will of God, up to and including whether such a God actually exists.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
We are god, there is purpose - evolution is the medium we are working within...it is unknown that 'one day humans will be gone' and all good purpose is essentially 'divine'.
Actually it is - the only important difference is that in ShS there are actual persons holding/threatening you that you may wind up bonding with whereas in religion you are bonding with a non-existing "hostage taker/saver" who is nothing more than a thought representing fears and worries you want to no longer have/be free of.
Lothian
should be banned
I read in a book once that God's purpose is to kill everyone apart from 144,000 circumcised male virgins at which point there will be a huge party where Jesus will come quickly.
Huh? How could you possibly know that? Most Brits will never have discussed religion with anyone once they've left primary school at 11 years old. The only discussions about religion I ever have with christians are on this forum.