Bill Maher comedian & religion

[Yazata]

But returning to the wider question posed by Bells and others: saying that God is wrong, as Jan Ardena points out, is absurd. It is God that not only is the Law, but as such defines logic as well as good and evil. Please do not misunderstand. Good is not good because merely God says. Nor is logic logical, or two plus two four just because He decrees it. These things simply are, and any one over three years old knows so.

God can't be wrong because he is the law, but he isn't wrong simply because he makes the law is a contradiction.

That suggests a conundrum that Plato portrays Socrates asking about in his 'Euthyphro' dialogue. Philosophers of religion have referred to it as the 'Euthyphro problem' ever since.

If the gods (or God) command something, are they commanding it because it's good, or is it good because they command it?

The first alternative suggests that good and evil exist in their own right, independently of the will of God. The second alternative seems to reduce good and evil to an arbitrary expression of will.

 

[iceaura]

He is the very definition and origin of goodness, and for you or I, an animate clay vessel, a monkey with the gift of speech, to come along and say He is wrong is just laughable.

I'm not sure how one can arrive honestly at the assessment that some particular God is the origin of goodness, always merciful, etc, while describing the assessment that he is the origin of great evil, commits horrible atrocities, etc, as impossible or absurd - "laughable" - by the very nature of the person so assessing.

How is one person's human nature competent in that matter, and another's not?

There are quite a few assertions of that oddly conflicted appearance here - such as the one by the apparently unironically avatared Jam Ardena, that God cannot commit murder because the soul is eternal and he only kills the body on purpose, whereas humans can commit murder because although the soul is eternal they kill the body on purpose.

The question of whether those doing God's will can commit murder is then up for grabs, btw - yet another reason to stay alert when living next to true believers in such Deities.

Bill Maher is sometimes shallow and smart-Alec, a common failing in professional comedians for some reason, but if one cannot respond to his simple and apparently accurate observations of common fact (if the Noachian flood was unleashed on purpose, it was an act of genocide) without appealing to invisible and unknowable mysteries one nevertheless claims to see and know, maybe shallow and smart-Alec is where the reality is.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That suggests a conundrum that Plato portrays Socrates asking about in his 'Euthyphro' dialogue. Philosophers of religion have referred to it as the 'Euthyphro problem' ever since.

If the gods (or God) command something, are they commanding it because it's good, or is it good because they command it?

The first alternative suggests that good and evil exist in their own right, independently of the will of God. The second alternative seems to reduce good and evil to an arbitrary expression of will.

From my understanding of what Arne Saknussemm said, there is no conundrum. God IS. Period.
Equating God with human beings, and using that as an argument to make Maher's point, is not only a complete waste of time, but completely absurd. ''God'' is either the Supreme Being, or He isn't (regardless of existence or not).
jan.

 

[Enmos]

'God'' is either the Supreme Being, or He isn't (regardless of existence or not).

Well, which is it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

iceaura,

I'm not sure how one can arrive honestly at the assessment that some particular God is the origin of goodness, always merciful, etc, while describing the assessment that he is the origin of great evil, commits horrible atrocities, etc, as impossible or absurd - "laughable" - by the very nature of the person so assessing.

The description and assessment of so-called atrocities is dependant on ones point of view. From God's point of view, this field of energy is something like our understand of avatars operating within a cyber world, aloof from the the actual controllers. No one really dies, only the suit/body. Which by the very laws of nature has to die.

There are quite a few assertions of that oddly conflicted appearance here - such as the one by the apparently unironically avatared Jam Ardena, that God cannot commit murder because the soul is eternal and he only kills the body on purpose, whereas humans can commit murder because although the soul is eternal they kill the body on purpose.

''Jam Ardena''! LOL!

''Murder'' is an act. Right?
Murder is defined by the intention of the murderer. Right?
God cannot ''murder'' because He knows that the soul never dies. Right? Or, in other words it is a ''pointless endevour'', like pretending to be surprised at a surprised birthday party intended for you, which was organised by you. Can you see how that is a waste of time?
A murderer at the very least intends to do away with his/her victim. He/she is unaware that the body he/she has just killed, is NOT the person. It's in the same category of ignorance as, stabbing, shooting, or drowning the clothes of someone you hate, thinking that you have just killed them.

The question of whether those doing God's will can commit murder is then up for grabs, btw - yet another reason to stay alert when living next to true believers in such Deities.

I would be very wary of someone who claims to act on behalf of God's will. It is amazingly egotistical, therefore atheistic.

Bill Maher is sometimes shallow and smart-Alec, a common failing in professional comedians for some reason, but if one cannot respond to his simple and apparently accurate observations of common fact (if the Noachian flood was unleashed on purpose, it was an act of genocide) without appealing to invisible and unknowable mysteries one nevertheless claims to see and know, maybe shallow and smart-Alec is where the reality is.

It's not a fact. It's a cheap shot based on a poor fund of knowledge and ignorance of the subject matter, with a strong desire to lead people away from spirituality, straight into the arms of materialism. Materialism ultimately ends in death, because it can only deal with death. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and there is nothing. Materialism in a nutshell.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well, which is it?

Good question!

jan.

 

[Enmos]

It is amazingly egotistical, therefore atheistic.

Substantiate.

 

[Enmos]

Good question!

jan.

I apologize.. that was childish.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Substantiate.

Just to clarify. I didn't say it was atheism.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I apologize.. that was childish.

It's still a good question, which can only be answered by individual who asked it (ultimately).

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

I also wanted to say that many people who haven't read the Bible thoroughly and often, miss that Divine punishment is always ALWAYS tempered with Divine mercy.

Like an abusive husband. You know, if God wasn't such an asshole in the first place, we wouldn't need his mercy so much.

 

[Balerion]

The description and assessment of so-called atrocities is dependant on ones point of view. From God's point of view, this field of energy is something like our understand of avatars operating within a cyber world, aloof from the the actual controllers. No one really dies, only the suit/body. Which by the very laws of nature has to die.

Except that was not the context given in the flood myth. You can't defend God's near-genocide via some conception of the spiritual realm you've invented yourself ir stolen from another mythology. No more than you can defend yourself in a US court via French law.

''Jam Ardena''! LOL!

I like it. You are now Jam.

''Murder'' is an act. Right?
Murder is defined by the intention of the murderer. Right?
God cannot ''murder'' because He knows that the soul never dies. Right?

You're just moving the goalposts, and it won't help you. You're arguing that because the soul never dies, God did not kill anyone. But if that's the case, then there is no such thing as murder, at least for believers. I mean, following this argument to its natural conclusion, Jam, you could kill anyone and say you've done no wrong.

Of course, anyone who has actually read Genesis can attest that the object of the flood was to destroy the world. There was no mercy for the people who died--and died they did, by drowning, which is one of the most agonizing ways to die. Look, I get that the idea of such a cruel god scares you, but...well, tough. If you believe in the God of Abraham, you believe in one awful son of a bitch.

Or, in other words it is a ''pointless endevour'', like pretending to be surprised at a surprised birthday party intended for you, which was organised by you. Can you see how that is a waste of time?

So God was just wasting his time when he flooded the earth? Lol! Why did he do it, then?

A murderer at the very least intends to do away with his/her victim. He/she is unaware that the body he/she has just killed, is NOT the person. It's in the same category of ignorance as, stabbing, shooting, or drowning the clothes of someone you hate, thinking that you have just killed them.

Wow, this is about the most idiotic thing I've read today, and given that I've read Bells and Arne today, that's saying something. So, by your logic, a person who believes the soul never dies can simply kill a person with no moral ramification. Interesting. But, if that's the case, why is killing considered wrong by God?

I would be very wary of someone who claims to act on behalf of God's will. It is amazingly egotistical, therefore atheistic.

Lol! Says the guy claiming to know the inner workings of God!

jam.

Fixed.

 

[spidergoat]

The flood of Noah, did not happen quickly. It did not blind sided everyone. One interpretation is there were 120 years before the flood. The people of the earth had time to prepare, but had become too unnatural to read the natural signs. Why would God wait so long between warning and the event? One theory is this was a natural disaster with signs appearing.

As an analogy, say manmade global warming was real and not liberal mythology. Say in 25 years there will be a major global disaster. All Gore is warning us all to repent but nobody listens and billions die. Is it Al Gore's fault or those who did not listen?

Bill Maher is a clown since he missed the entire point of the 120 year warning. Natural selecting was in effect and unnatural was not chosen. Having two of all the animals, would require natural people with animal magnetism, not those who are unnatural. Even the animals would read the signs of the time and be willing to allow predictor and prey to escape together.

You are confusing God with Noah. Al Gore is not God, but in this analogy he might be Noah. Besides, the natural disasters are already happening. It's just hard to distinguish them due to our usual levels of rape and pillaging of the natural world.

 

[Spellbound]

...and this too...



The thing is, before man there were no thoughts of God, or even a concept of God. But along comes man and after that God is spoken into existence. Strange how that works, huh?

Yes. It is a recursive relationship.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

So you were speaking metaphorically? Why?



You're contradicting yourself. God can't be wrong because he is the law, but he isn't wrong simply because he makes the law is a contradiction.



According to sciforums rules, you will need to support this extraoridnary claim with extraordinary evidence, or face a ban.

Anyway, you can't seem to keep your story straight. You claim God is inherently good, yet freely admit that we are not capable of understanding his motives. You say he is not wrong because he makes the rules, then say the fact that he makes the rules does not mean he is automatically right.

You seem confused.

Okay. I'll try again. I wasn't speaking metaphorically although I was doing something very much like it. I was quoting Saint Paul who was speaking metaphorically. And why was he doing that? Well, I suppose he was making a point, teaching a lesson, as teachers and preachers do. What's the problem?

I can't understand where you see a contradiction here -

Balerion wrote : "You're contradicting yourself. God can't be wrong because he is the law, but he isn't wrong simply because he makes the law is a contradiction."

I never said God can't be wrong in so any words, although you are correct. He cannot be wrong. And when I say God is the Law, I don't mean like Marshall Matt Dillon in Dodge City. I mean that the whole God concept is one in the same as the concept of scientific laws and laws of what is right and wrong. Do you understand now? God isn't a big old man with a long white beard. I don't even know if He claims personhood. His avatar Christ is a person, but God the Father or The Holy Spirit as a person (or a dove) is just a construct. A metaphor again, but ah, I forget, you are uncomfortable with metaphors. Anyway, I never said anything like,"God can't be wrong because he is the law, but he isn't wrong simply because he makes the law is a contradiction." I don't know where you got this from.

Balerion: "Anyway, you can't seem to keep your story straight. You claim God is inherently good, yet freely admit that we are not capable of understanding his motives. You say he is not wrong because he makes the rules, then say the fact that he makes the rules does not mean he is automatically right."

Again you have misunderstood and made your own assumptions. First it isn't that God is 'inherently' good, whatever you mean by inherently. It is the 'God' is just another word for pure goodness and righteousness. Can you see the difference? Even though you are a non-believer you seem to picture God as a person. He isn't and yet He is, and so much more than a person. But you probably think I'm contradicting myself again...

All I ever meant is that for us, mere uncles to monkeys, to say that God is illogical, irrational or just plain wrong is to saw the tree branch we are sitting on on out from beneath us. You can't say that logic is illogical. it must be that you haven't fully understood it. You haven't got the big picture.

So if The Lord decided to wipe out mankind with a worldwide flood it isn't because he's an angry old white beard who has taken offense. It is that humanity has behaved improperly and as certainly as two and two makes four, or you sit on a hot stove and get burned there will be karmic consequences to straying from the dharma, the law.

Now if God chose to instruct his prophets to write all this up as the Noah and the Ark story, well, don't ask if it could really happen. It matters not one whit if that story and others like it are literally true. What matters is what lesson is to be drawn from it. And the lesson isn't that disrespecting Big Daddy in the Sky pisses Him off. No, it is that if you do wrong there will be negative consequences. That's all. But, you knew that, didn't you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

Except that was not the context given in the flood myth. You can't defend God's near-genocide via some conception of the spiritual realm you've invented yourself ir stolen from another mythology. No more than you can defend yourself in a US court via French law.

LOL!
I'm afraid spirituality kinda goes with the territory.

I like it. You are now Jam.

If your happy Balerion, then I'm happy. For when you smile, the whole world smiles with you.

''Murder'' is an act. Right?
Murder is defined by the intention of the murderer. Right?
God cannot ''murder'' because He knows that the soul never dies. Right?

You're just moving the goalposts, and it won't help you. You're arguing that because the soul never dies, God did not kill anyone. But if that's the case, then there is no such thing as murder, at least for believers. I mean, following this argument to its natural conclusion, Jam, you could kill anyone and say you've done no wrong.

No I'm not. It is impossible to murder someone that doesn't die. In full knowledge of this there would be no point in even thinking about it let alone try it. But for someone with no knowledge of that, fully believing that if he kills this person, that is the end, then murder amounts to premeditating to end that person's life.

Of course, anyone who has actually read Genesis can attest that the object of the flood was to destroy the world. There was no mercy for the people who died--and died they did, by drowning, which is one of the most agonizing ways to die. Look, I get that the idea of such a cruel god scares you, but...well, tough. If you believe in the God of Abraham, you believe in one awful son of a bitch.

I don't look at it like that, but I get where you're coming from. I think you make the mistake of airbrushing every characteristic of God, out, because you don't agree with it, to the point of where God, is just another bloke.

So God was just wasting his time when he flooded the earth? Lol! Why did he do it, then?

The earth became overrun with evil. Apparently to the point where it pervaded every thought and action.
It sounds like life had become so depraved, that there was no hope for liberation.

A murderer at the very least intends to do away with his/her victim. He/she is unaware that the body he/she has just killed, is NOT the person. It's in the same category of ignorance as, stabbing, shooting, or drowning the clothes of someone you hate, thinking that you have just killed them.

Wow, this is about the most idiotic thing I've read today, and given that I've read Bells and Arne today, that's saying something. So, by your logic, a person who believes the soul never dies can simply kill a person with no moral ramification. Interesting. But, if that's the case, why is killing considered wrong by God?

God didn't say that killing is wrong. He said ''thou shalt not kill''.

Lol! Says the guy claiming to know the inner workings of God!

I don't claim to know anything.
It's all in the scripture. So if you're claiming that a scripture reveals God to be a murderer, an absurd claim, then you must use ALL the characteristics, and actions of God, in that scripture, to decide whether or not your claim has any merit. Otherwise you can just say what you like. Which is where you't at.


jam.

 

[Balerion]

Okay. I'll try again. I wasn't speaking metaphorically although I was doing something very much like it. I was quoting Saint Paul who was speaking metaphorically. And why was he doing that? Well, I suppose he was making a point, teaching a lesson, as teachers and preachers do. What's the problem?

So then the original rebuttal stands: we are not clay. We are not inanimate material. We are beings capable of reason and moral understanding. The idea that we are unable to fathom God's ideas seems to be born from apologetics.

I can't understand where you see a contradiction here -

I never said God can't be wrong in so any words, although you are correct. He cannot be wrong. And when I say God is the Law, I don't mean like Marshall Matt Dillon in Dodge City. I mean that the whole God concept is one in the same as the concept of scientific laws and laws of what is right and wrong. Do you understand now? God isn't a big old man with a long white beard. I don't even know if He claims personhood. His avatar Christ is a person, but God the Father or The Holy Spirit as a person (or a dove) is just a construct. A metaphor again, but ah, I forget, you are uncomfortable with metaphors. Anyway, I never said anything like,"God can't be wrong because he is the law, but he isn't wrong simply because he makes the law is a contradiction." I don't know where you got this from.

It's almost exactly what you said. You said his decrees alone do not make him good, presumably because he is inherently good--something you've confirmed in this post, despite the word "inherently" being a word too big and scary for you to understand.

Again you have misunderstood and made your own assumptions. First it isn't that God is 'inherently' good, whatever you mean by inherently. It is the 'God' is just another word for pure goodness and righteousness. Can you see the difference? Even though you are a non-believer you seem to picture God as a person. He isn't and yet He is, and so much more than a person. But you probably think I'm contradicting myself again...

Well, i don't just think you're contradicting yourself, I know you are. "He isn't and yet he is" is a contradiction. You are apparently using them as a smoke screen.

All I ever meant is that for us, mere uncles to monkeys, to say that God is illogical, irrational or just plain wrong is to saw the tree branch we are sitting on on out from beneath us. You can't say that logic is illogical. it must be that you haven't fully understood it. You haven't got the big picture.

Where does this idea come from? How do you reach the conclusion that God is pure goodness?

So if The Lord decided to wipe out mankind with a worldwide flood it isn't because he's an angry old white beard who has taken offense. It is that humanity has behaved improperly and as certainly as two and two makes four, or you sit on a hot stove and get burned there will be karmic consequences to straying from the dharma, the law.

Except he portrays himself as angry--and jealous--at various times throughout the stories. He also takes ownership of his decisions--and yes, he considers them decisions--without retreating behind a faux-logical asserion that he has no say in the matter, that his acts are essentially automatic. You seem to be a bit of a Pantheist in this respect, but I assume it's a rhetorical position more than anything.

Now if God chose to instruct his prophets to write all this up as the Noah and the Ark story, well, don't ask if it could really happen. It matters not one whit if that story and others like it are literally true. What matters is what lesson is to be drawn from it. And the lesson isn't that disrespecting Big Daddy in the Sky pisses Him off. No, it is that if you do wrong there will be negative consequences. That's all. But, you knew that, didn't you?

You realize those are essentially the same thing, don't you? If he created the rules, and he enforces the rules, then he is the ultimate arbiter.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion,

*doffs hat* Jam.

LOL!
I'm afraid spirituality kinda goes with the territory.

Lol! That doesn't mean you can just substitute any old spirituality you want as rationale for the actions of a specific god.

Is this already over your head, Jam? Let me know if we need to slow down.

No I'm not. It is impossible to murder someone that doesn't die. In full knowledge of this there would be no point in even thinking about it let alone try it. But for someone with no knowledge of that, fully believing that if he kills this person, that is the end, then murder amounts to premeditating to end that person's life.

So then murder does not exist for a Christian, correct? A Christian can kill anyone without remorse, since they know the soul lives on, correct?

I don't look at it like that, but I get where you're coming from. I think you make the mistake of airbrushing every characteristic of God, out, because you don't agree with it, to the point of where God, is just another bloke.

No, I simply see the myth for what it is. And I understand that being the creator does not mean that one can so whatever they choose without moral repercussion.

The earth became overrun with evil. Apparently to the point where it pervaded every thought and action.
It sounds like life had become so depraved, that there was no hope for liberation.

There's no scriptual evidence to support that claim, but it doesn't matter because it didn't happen. Flood stories were popular, as you can imagine (we still have people who claim modern floods and other disasters are the work of God) and that particular one was stolen from Gilgamesh.

Seriously, how is that not a problem for you? Do you just ignore it? Do you pretend archaeology is the work of the Devil?

God didn't say that killing is wrong. He said ''thou shalt not kill''.

The difference being...?

I don't claim to know anything.
It's all in the scripture. So if you're claiming that a scripture reveals God to be a murderer, an absurd claim, then you must use ALL the characteristics, and actions of God, in that scripture, to decide whether or not your claim has any merit. Otherwise you can just say what you like. Which is where you't at.

I do use all characteristics. You're the one who doesn't, trying to dance around the issue of his brutality and cruelty.

 

[Kittamaru]

The difference being...?

Simple - the difference being authority. There is an air of authority about God (the whole creating the universe thing kinda went to His head I guess) and He figures He, as the one that created life, should be the end-all be-all judge as to when life should end.

Sort of like how we, as a society, disdain the idea of murder, yet we have the death penalty... some people are simply incapable of being reformed and are too dangerous to let out into society...

 

[Balerion]

Simple - the difference being authority. There is an air of authority about God (the whole creating the universe thing kinda went to His head I guess) and He figures He, as the one that created life, should be the end-all be-all judge as to when life should end.

That doesn't mean killing isn't wrong, though that's a better explanation than Jam would have mustered. Of course, being the creator does not logically justify his actions.

Sort of like how we, as a society, disdain the idea of murder, yet we have the death penalty... some people are simply incapable of being reformed and are too dangerous to let out into society...

That still means we think killing is wrong, though. We just have nuance, wheras God does not.