Whom would a God hate more?
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Why vote I'm an atheist, there's no such thing as god, so there's no god to hate anything, it's all in theist's imagination! 
AS is logically imposible for a god to be love! God is love, is one of the most stupid shit theists have ever come up with, totally derailing the value of love, and our emotional value to love.
AS is logically imposible for a god to be love! God is love, is one of the most stupid shit theists have ever come up with, totally derailing the value of love, and our emotional value to love.
well there is the idea that even the atheists have a material world to operate out of to fulfill their desires .... so god does not actually hate anyone - if a person thinks that god hates anyone they are more than likely projecting their own shortcomings on god
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Emotion is the basis for Aesthetics.
Check with Aristotle, but God is allowed to have Aesthetic Sensibilities.
There is no correct answer*.
God is an idea.
The intent of the idea is to bond the tribe.
The ontological status of such a being is absolutely irrelevent.
The only relevance is that the tribe believes the same thing, such that they are bonded as one unit and provided the motivation of "something larger than themselves".
Uh hmm.
........ so .......
*The answer depends on what the "person of godular authority" for each tribe would give, and the answer reveals some information about their psychology. Technically, the answer would be "correct" in terms of their belief, but of highly questionable ontological relevance.
God is an idea.
The intent of the idea is to bond the tribe.
The ontological status of such a being is absolutely irrelevent.
The only relevance is that the tribe believes the same thing, such that they are bonded as one unit and provided the motivation of "something larger than themselves".
Uh hmm.
........ so .......
*The answer depends on what the "person of godular authority" for each tribe would give, and the answer reveals some information about their psychology. Technically, the answer would be "correct" in terms of their belief, but of highly questionable ontological relevance.
Just because there are social ramifications of religion doesn't mean that god is a social construction - there are also social ramifications of science - does that mean that there is no objective source in science either?
This is not saying that god is a social construction?
It's saying that "god" as in "the ontological existence of god" is irrelevant to the social impact of the belief in god.
It says nothing at all of "god itself".
In other words, regardless of the accuracy of the belief "in reality" - what matters to the humans/society, etc.; is how people feel about it, and how they relate to one another in its wake.
Last edited:
I have - you seem to be saying that because there are social importances given to god that god is obviously a social construct, or that the notion of god being an objective phenomena is of no relevance - the problem is that if the social importances of god actually developed from the objective perception of god, while the same social phenomenas might exist, it says nothing about how god might respond to these social phenomenas - in other words he could view persons being properly religious and improperly religious and act accordingly, which would certainly take him out of the realm of subjective whim apparently created by his worhippers.
Last edited:
Hopefully my edit clarifies this a bit.
I would further add that I have serious difficulty resisting the notion that one would be a scumbag to answer the original question posed by the thread, for to me - if one professes a belief in such a deity, speaking for it would be the highest form of irreverence, and thus - entirely repugnant.
- but in certain moments of clarity, I can resist it, as in those moments I can see that it's not of kindness to judge. And with no threat presented, judgement is unwarranted.
- but in certain moments of clarity, I can resist it, as in those moments I can see that it's not of kindness to judge. And with no threat presented, judgement is unwarranted.
it doesn't
According to the major religions, he does. Of course it is possible they are wrong...
Now again, I know the limitations and unanswerability of my OP, I meant it more as a conversation starter. The question also should be put to theists, obviously, just to make them think for a while when they are talking about their only and true god.
So supposed there is a god and that he behaves the way how he is described by the major religions, he should be pissed by people who sign up for other gods.
Why? Because it is just bad for business...
According to the major religions, he does. Of course it is possible they are wrong...
Now again, I know the limitations and unanswerability of my OP, I meant it more as a conversation starter. The question also should be put to theists, obviously, just to make them think for a while when they are talking about their only and true god.
So supposed there is a god and that he behaves the way how he is described by the major religions, he should be pissed by people who sign up for other gods.
Why? Because it is just bad for business...
im an atheist.
So supposed there is a god and that he behaves the way how he is described by the major religions, he should be pissed by people who sign up for other gods.
Why? Because it is just bad for business...
why would it be bad for business? What does god stand to lose?
PaladinGirl02
Registered Member
Neither. I don't believe that God hates anyone.
Strange that he would order this, then:
"Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)
"Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)