Bill Maher comedian & religion

[Kittamaru]

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.

So... you are saying that, if indeed God did create the universe and everything within it, and has overseen it since time immortal, that He wouldn't have the implied right to say that removing any sort of life from what boils down to His sandbox is His domain and His alone?

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

Uh... huh... right. Again, it comes down to an authority thing. Granted, even in our own petty minds we have trouble grasping the difference between a justified killing and a random murder at times, but I'm pretty sure the implied authority of the One who created it all would, or should, give Him the power to decide if Earth needs to have the "reset" button pressed.

 

[Balerion]

So... you are saying that, if indeed God did create the universe and everything within it, and has overseen it since time immortal, that He wouldn't have the implied right to say that removing any sort of life from what boils down to His sandbox is His domain and His alone?

I didn't say anything about rights. I don't even know how rights would come into play, since there is no one for him to appeal to. Anyway, I was talking about the problem of claiming God is immune to questions of moral choice. I haven't heard a good argument for why godhood would absolve him of this.

Uh... huh... right. Again, it comes down to an authority thing. Granted, even in our own petty minds we have trouble grasping the difference between a justified killing and a random murder at times

Do we? That's one i haven't heard before. Can you provide some context for this?

but I'm pretty sure the implied authority of the One who created it all would, or should, give Him the power to decide if Earth needs to have the "reset" button pressed.

Uh, no one is questioning the ABILITY of this mythological being to take lives. The question, as I've stated several times, is in the assertion that God has no moral accountability. Why is something okay when he does it, but not when others do it?

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

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.

The first is correct. However, why insist God still goes around commanding anything? We all tend to think of God as the white-bearded fellow on an onyx and gold throne, but is this really anymore than a comic-book rendition of what He (It) is really like?

And none of us know what God really is. When Moses asked Him to tell him His name, The Lord answers (and I suppose with a cosmic shrug), "I am what I am". This isn't any sort of answer at all. It's is more a refusal to be labelled or named, and perhaps we have found another instance of something even 'God' (a mere nickname) can't do.

Think about it. Here is a being that exists outside of the universes, the multiverses, time and space, and some piddling little primate that's eighty years old and still doesn't know what to do with his life except eat flat bread and sleep with his wife, says 'How are you called?' Why isn't this remembered as the stupidest question ever asked?

How is He called? Who dares to call Him?

Ring ring. Hey, Yahweh. We're having a barbecue later. What do you say? Wanna join us? Can you bring nachos and dip?

 

[Balerion]

The first is correct. However, why insist God still goes around commanding anything?

I agree. We'd all be better off if we stopped pretending we had a celestial skydaddy telling us how to live our lives. Unfortunately, many people seem to believe this.

We all tend to think of God as the white-bearded fellow on an onyx and gold throne, but is this really anymore than a comic-book rendition of what He (It) is really like?

Well, the idea that God bears a resemblance to man comes from interpretation of the "created in his image" part from scripture. That he is viewed as a king on a thone has to do with the imagery and language of the scripture. It's very much of its time and place, in other words.

And none of us know what God really is.

You just said you did. I mean, i get it, you're going to duck the question because you can't answer it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop asking it.

When Moses asked Him to tell him His name, The Lord answers (and I suppose with a cosmic shrug), "I am what I am". This isn't any sort of answer at all. It's is more a refusal to be labelled or named, and perhaps we have found another instance of something even 'God' (a mere nickname) can't do.

I think It's evidence of God being man-made. And God is not a nickname. God says his name is God. (It's actually YHWH, which is understood as Yahweh, who first belonged to a pantheon of Midian gods and eventually replaced El as the leader of the Israelite pantheon. And then, eventually, became the only god)

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

No mate. I am sure I never said I know what God really is. I see that you are not interested in any serious discussion; you just like to constantly egg everyone on in order to get attention. Why else would a non-believer constantly haunt a religion sub-forum? I liked it better when you said you would put me on your ignore list. I am now adding you to mine. Good day to you.

 

[Balerion]

No mate. I am sure I never said I know what God really is.

Oh, so now you've taken to lying! Wow, that went bad fsst.

Well, just so you know that I know you're full of it: You said God is a "construct," you said God "is but isn't [a person,] and so much more." You said God is "a word for pure goodness and righteousness."

If your faith is so fragile you need to pretend I have an agenda, fine. Whatever helps you sleep at night. But pretending I can't read? That's just rude.

:shrug:

see that you are not interested in any serious discussion; you just like to constantly egg everyone on in order to get attention. Why else would a non-believer constantly haunt a religion sub-forum? I liked it better when you said you would put me on your ignore list. I am now adding you to mine. Good day to you.

Ah yes, run and hide when the questions get too difficult. How very theistic of you. Anyway, I've heard this from you before. Talk to you later!

 

[Syzygys]

Only a human being is capable of ''murder''...

My apologies about the schemantics. Maher should have used the word extermination to describe god's act so you wouldn't complain about dictionary differences.

Anyhow, I am too old to debate theists...

 

[Kittamaru]

I didn't say anything about rights. I don't even know how rights would come into play, since there is no one for him to appeal to. Anyway, I was talking about the problem of claiming God is immune to questions of moral choice. I haven't heard a good argument for why godhood would absolve him of this.

Do we? That's one i haven't heard before. Can you provide some context for this?

Just ask anyone who has gone off to war... or who was forced to end the life of a home invader in protection of their family. That is something that sticks with you.

Uh, no one is questioning the ABILITY of this mythological being to take lives. The question, as I've stated several times, is in the assertion that God has no moral accountability. Why is something okay when he does it, but not when others do it?

From a moral standpoint? It would be the fact that He is the ultimate judge, the beginning and the end, alpha and omega. In theory, He would know your every thought and move before you make it, and thus He would know if you were "evil" or not.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

From a moral standpoint? It would be the fact that He is the ultimate judge, the beginning and the end, alpha and omega. In theory, He would know your every thought and move before you make it, and thus He would know if you were "evil" or not.

Then... didnt God know who woud be evil even befor he put his creation plan into action.???

 

[Enmos]

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

jan.

No, but:

"It is amazingly egotistical, therefore atheistic."
Therefore: They are amazingly egotistical people, therefore atheistic people.

Can you substatiate your claim that atheistic equals amazingly egoistical?

 

[Balerion]

Just ask anyone who has gone off to war... or who was forced to end the life of a home invader in protection of their family. That is something that sticks with you.

What does this have to do with humans having trouble distinguishing between justified killing and random murder? I mean, there are genuine and legitimate differences of opinion as to what constitutes "justified killing." I certainly wouldn't label that as humans having difficulty grasping the difference.

From a moral standpoint? It would be the fact that He is the ultimate judge, the beginning and the end, alpha and omega.

This doesn't answer the question. What about his position means that all moral reasoning becomes invalid? You have to understand, your quote here is the philosophical equivalent of "God did it." I need more than that if I'm to understand.

In theory, He would know your every thought and move before you make it, and thus He would know if you were "evil" or not.

I...don't know what this has to do with anything. Of course, it does raise interesting corllaries, such as if God allows evil to happen when he has foreknowledge, why is he not morally culpable, but I need an answer to the first question before we go there.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

*doffs hat* Jam.

???

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

''Any old spirituality''? ''Specific god''? I have no idea what ur talking about. Maybe you should read what is actually being talked about, then try again. Or failing that you explain what you mean.

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

Well... yes!

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?

Technically speaking, yes. A Christian, like anyone else, can kill without remorse. My point is, if someone knows that the soul cannot be killed, then they would even think about killing anyone, let alone carry it out. Not even in self-defence. That's the level of knowing I'm referring to.

No, I simply see the myth for what it is.

I'm happy for you.

And I understand that being the creator does not mean that one can so whatever they choose without moral repercussion.

You ''understand'' that do you?
Can you please explain what ''being the creator'' means? Also what does such a post entail?

There's no scriptual evidence to support that claim, but it doesn't matter because it didn't happen.

If by ''scriptural evidence'' you mean that it (the scripture) does not make the same claim, then you're wrong...''The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

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.

Who stole it?

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

How is what not a problem?
The work of the Devil? Lol!

The difference being...?

The difference between what? If God said that killing is wrong, then quote me the scripture. Until then we'll go off what was said/written.

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

Even in your disbelief, you are unable to accept God' characterisations. And the reason you don't is to give yourself a reason to be an atheist. You know that the moment you start to look into it properly, you're going to believe it.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, but:

"It is amazingly egotistical, therefore atheistic."
Therefore: They are amazingly egotistical people, therefore atheistic people.

Can you substatiate your claim that atheistic equals amazingly egoistical?

Maybe I worded that wrong.
The level of ego that it would take for someone to truly believe they are God, is amazing (IMO anyways), but it is atheistic. Meaning that it is devoid of God, and belief in God.

jan.

 

[Enmos]

Maybe I worded that wrong.
The level of ego that it would take for someone to truly believe they are God, is amazing (IMO anyways), but it is atheistic. Meaning that it is devoid of God, and belief in God.

jan.

That's like accusing a catholic of not being a muslim. While it is true, not being a muslim is not the cause of the catholic being a catholic.

Anyhow, I don't think I agree it is atheistic in the first place. I don't see how you can believe to be God without believing that God exists...

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's like accusing a catholic of not being a muslim. While it is true, not being a muslim is not the cause of the catholic being a catholic.

Anyhow, I don't think I agree it is atheistic in the first place. I don't see how you can believe to be God without believing that God exists...

It's quite simple really. You might just not want to believe in Him, and act accordingly. We don't believe or not believe in things purely because they exist or not.

jan.

Edit: Apologies I misread your query.

One can accept the character of God as a way to view themselves. For that they don't have to believe in God, only accept the character as an identity for themselves. Jim Jones is a classic example.

 

[Enmos]

It's quite simple really. You might just not want to believe in Him, and act accordingly. We don't believe or not believe in things purely because they exist or not.

jan.

Do you believe that Jan Ardena exists?

 

[Enmos]

Edit: Apologies I misread your query.

One can accept the character of God as a way to view themselves. For that they don't have to believe in God, only accept the character as an identity for themselves. Jim Jones is a classic example.

Fair enough.
But still. If they equate the character of God with their own identity, given that they believe they themselves exist, they must believe in God. I don't think it matters that they are God in their own mind.

 

[elte]

Then... didnt God know who woud be evil even befor he put his creation plan into action.???

Could be that God died before life on earth began. It could explain how the general way life here works is so evil. We have a big struggle trying to overcome that evil.

 

[spidergoat]

Maybe I worded that wrong.
The level of ego that it would take for someone to truly believe they are God, is amazing (IMO anyways), but it is atheistic. Meaning that it is devoid of God, and belief in God.

jan.

If someone believes they are God, that is by definition theistic. If they believe a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is God, then they believe in God. And I would be theistic to, with respect to their God, since I can see that the sandwich exists.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Then... didnt God know who woud be evil even befor he put his creation plan into action.???

Could be that God died before life on earth began. It could explain how the general way life here works is so evil. We have a big struggle trying to overcome that evil.

If God is the creater... an died before he created life on earth... then the seed for evil came from God an id say odds are... we are beter off that God is dead.!!!