Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Uwot was wrong.

I can see this being quoted out of context.

Sorry about that.

sthitapragya wrote: He wants to dish out punishment to us but he has no clue how his God is going to achieve this.

Au contraire. What I "want" is for you to have the best outcome. I have no interest in your punishment -- nor does God, actually.

‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. (Ezekiel 33:11)

But either way, it is you who will choose what will come for you.

My wish is that you to have a chance to escape the prospect it would seem you are currently choosing. But you tell me you won't listen to reason, logic or evidence. You tell me there's not philosophy to be done here. And you deny that there are any real answers to be found. But I can't convince you without using those tools of thought you tell me you're unwilling to recognize as relevant at all here.

You're wrong, of course; something will happen, whether you and I believe it will or not. That much is certain for us both.

So there's no way forward except this:

Read the Book of Revelation, esp. 20:11-15 and you'll know what is going to happen. It's not up to me: it's between you and God where you stand on that.

Make your choice now. Live and die with it. Face the consequences. That's what we all do.

Quoting the Bible to someone who thinks the Bible is a load of rubbish seems like a rather pointless thing to do.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: He wants to dish out punishment to us but he has no clue how his God is going to achieve this.

Au contraire. What I "want" is for you to have the best outcome. I have no interest in your punishment -- nor does God, actually.

Tell me this. Either the soul is more powerful or the brain. If the brain is more powerful (unlikely), it controls your actions and then all the sin is committed by the brain and not the soul so the soul is innocent.

If the soul is more powerful and controls the brain, then it was pre-programmed to sin and the brain can do nothing about it. In which case, God designed the soul to do bad things so that it could be punished at the end of the life of the body.

If the soul is supposed to use the brain and body to learn something, then it is still the soul in charge of the body. It might reject suggestions of the brain or accept them. The brain has no control over the body and its actions. In this case, again the soul is pre-programmed to commit sin so that God can punish it at the end of the body's life.

We can safely assume that the brain is definitely not more powerful than the soul. So it means that your God had already decided which souls to punish and which not to and pre-programmed the souls to act accordingly. The bodies are just acting out the wishes of the soul. The only thing to look forward to is the punishment at the end of it. Sounds like a sadist having a field day to me. The sad part is, you have no control over your actions. So whatever you do, you will do what your soul commands you because your God has pre-programmed it to do so.

There goes your free will.

This is not a God.

This a kid that likes to skewer flies on a needle and watch them slowly die.

Immanuel Can wrote:‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. (Ezekiel 33:11)

But either way, it is you who will choose what will come for you.

This is religious jargon and not philosophy at all. Actually it is childish crap so I will ignore it.

Immanuel Can wrote:My wish is that you to have a chance to escape the prospect it would seem you are currently choosing. But you tell me you won't listen to reason, logic or evidence. You tell me there's not philosophy to be done here. And you deny that there are any real answers to be found. But I can't convince you without using those tools of thought you tell me you're unwilling to recognize as relevant at all here.

Seriously? Logic and reason? dead bodies coming alive so that God can punish them after pre-programming a soul to sin so that he can punish it? That is logic an reason? That is medieval superstition. Stone age thinking.

Immanuel Can wrote:Read the Book of Revelation, esp. 20:11-15 and you'll know what is going to happen. It's not up to me: it's between you and God where you stand on that.

Make your choice now. Live and die with it. Face the consequences. That's what we all do.

Again. Threats by a God who is more powerful than me and can do whatever he wants to me. What cowards you guys are. I say stand up to him. Tell him to set you free from his bondage. Fear of torture keeps you bound to him. This is no loving God. He is hell bent on punishing you come what may.

Oh and if this is your idea of philosophy, then I feel sad for you.

I told you before. Stop getting personal and telling me your God will judge me. It will only make me insult you and your God. Stop this now or I will only make it worse. And your God will definitely send you to hell for inciting me to insult him after warning you. Twice. I don't think he will appreciate your role in making me insult him.

I already have a god I don't believe in. Don't insult him by saying yours is more powerful. I like the dude though I don't believe in him. You insult my god, I will insult yours.

sthitapragya wrote:You insult my god, I will insult yours... I don't think he will appreciate your role in making me insult him.

You are right about this: God would not want me to incite you to blasphemy. In fact, that's a game-ender, because instead of helping you I would be hurting you, multiplying your culpability, if I allowed that to happen. So I will not.

By your word, I will conclude and remove myself from the equation. You may have your war directly with God, and you don't need me for that.

However, I will do you one last favour: IF you want to know any more, read Dinesh D'Souza's book, "What's So Great About Christianity." If you want, you can also read an equivalent book on Atheism, such as Dawkins' "The God Delusion." Compare the arguments.

Then YOU decide what's true.

So long.

Immanuel Can wrote: and you don't need me for that.

I have a feeling he doesn't need you for anything else, either.

However, I will do you one last favour

Couldn't you do us all one and stop spouting nonsense?

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:You insult my god, I will insult yours... I don't think he will appreciate your role in making me insult him.

You are right about this: God would not want me to incite you to blasphemy. In fact, that's a game-ender, because instead of helping you I would be hurting you, multiplying your culpability, if I allowed that to happen. So I will not.

By your word, I will conclude and remove myself from the equation. You may have your war directly with God, and you don't need me for that.

However, I will do you one last favour: IF you want to know any more, read Dinesh D'Souza's book, "What's So Great About Christianity." If you want, you can also read an equivalent book on Atheism, such as Dawkins' "The God Delusion." Compare the arguments.

Then YOU decide what's true.

So long.

I will still maintain that if your God is going to judge me, then you and I will be together, because your God seems to be looking for the slightest excuse to punish. This is a god that kills first born children just to make a point. So he will get you for just looking at a chicken too long. And you have already abetted in blasphemy so you are toast. Like toasted black.

So you better hope that if there is any judging to be done, then it be a Hindu God, otherwise we are both screwed.

Harbal wrote:Quoting the Bible to someone who thinks the Bible is a load of rubbish seems like a rather pointless thing to do.

Au contraire. You might quite rightly point out that my opinion will not make the Bible true. Agreed. But his disbelief will not make it false. Either way, it is what it is. That's called reality.

But he is owed the right to hear what it says. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear," said Jesus Christ. So my job is done. Whether or not he uses his ears to hear is strictly between him and God. I have no say in that matter.

To your satisfaction, no doubt, I'm out of that equation and out of the conversation.

Immanuel Can wrote: Au contraire. You might quite rightly point out that my opinion will not make the Bible true. Agreed. But his disbelief will not make it false. Either way, it is what it is. That's called reality.

No contraire, what makes it false is the fact that it was written by primitives in a time when people knew no better.

But he is owed the right to hear what it says.

There are countless religious and spiritual texts, why should the Bible be taken more seriously than all the rest? I think you mean that you think you have the right to make him aware of it more than he has the right to hear it. What about his right to remain oblivious of it? Is it your place to take that away from him?

So my job is done.

That implies you've done something useful, au contraire.

I have no say in that matter.

Yet that hasn't stopped you from saying anything, unfortunately.

I'm out of that equation and out of the conversation.

I'm sure you'll find another equation and conversation in which to practice your sanctimony.

Harbal wrote:Quoting the Bible to someone who thinks the Bible is a load of rubbish seems like a rather pointless thing to do.

Aye.

Harbal wrote:No contraire, what makes it false is the fact that it was written by primitives in a time when people knew no better.

Not so. Ad hominem. Either way, it's surely irrelevant that he was "primitive." He was either right or wrong: it's that simple. Modern beliefs aren't always true either...and if they are, it's never just because they're modern. That's merely incidental.

Or perhaps you're intending to suggest what philosophers call "the Genetic Fallacy." It's the assumption that how a thing came to be (assuming your "just so" story were correct) would have some relevance in arbitrating its truth value. It would not. If a primitive man happened, by accident say, to believe the Sun will come up in the morning because it "rises," and in fact, it comes up because the world turns, that would not make his expectation of the reappearance of the Sun untrue.

Reality always wins: the only question ever is, "What is reality?"

Harbal wrote:

But he is owed the right to hear what it says.

There are countless religious and spiritual texts, why should the Bible be taken more seriously than all the rest?

It shouldn't, I would suggest -- unless it happens actually to be the self-revelation of God, and the others are not. Then only the truth should be taken seriously, in that regard.

Again, reality always wins.

I think you mean that you think you have the right to make him aware of it more than he has the right to hear it.

Well, I'm going to go with Jesus Christ on that question. It's He who said it, after all.

What about his right to remain oblivious of it? Is it your place to take that away from him?

I'm unaware of any person's special right to remain permanently unaware of reality. I sincerely doubt there is any rational justification for such a right. But hey, maybe you can show it.

That implies you've done something useful, au contraire.

We shall see.

Again, reality always wins.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Harbal wrote:No contraire, what makes it false is the fact that it was written by primitives in a time when people knew no better.

Not so. Ad hominem. Either way, it's surely irrelevant that he was "primitive." He was either right or wrong: it's that simple. Modern beliefs aren't always true either...and if they are, it's never just because they're modern. That's merely incidental.

Or perhaps you're intending to suggest what philosophers call "the Genetic Fallacy." It's the assumption that how a thing came to be (assuming your "just so" story were correct) would have some relevance in arbitrating its truth value. It would not. If a primitive man happened, by accident say, to believe the Sun will come up in the morning because it "rises," and in fact, it comes up because the world turns, that would not make his expectation of the reappearance of the Sun untrue.

Reality always wins: the only question ever is, "What is reality?"

Harbal wrote:

But he is owed the right to hear what it says.

There are countless religious and spiritual texts, why should the Bible be taken more seriously than all the rest?

It shouldn't, I would suggest -- unless it happens actually to be the self-revelation of God, and the others are not. Then only the truth should be taken seriously, in that regard.

Again, reality always wins.

I think you mean that you think you have the right to make him aware of it more than he has the right to hear it.

Well, I'm going to go with Jesus Christ on that question. It's He who said it, after all.

What about his right to remain oblivious of it? Is it your place to take that away from him?

I'm unaware of any person's special right to remain permanently unaware of reality. I sincerely doubt there is any rational justification for such a right. But hey, maybe you can show it.

That implies you've done something useful, au contraire.

We shall see.

Again, reality always wins.

You deceitful spawn of Satan! I only responded to your last post because you gave the deliberate impression that you weren't coming back. Be gone with you.

Harbal wrote:You deceitful spawn of Satan! I only responded to your last post because you gave the deliberate impression that you weren't coming back. Be gone with you.

Oh, I didn't say I was done speaking with YOU. No, no...

But I suppose I understand: I hear Yorkshireman can't stand to be "one-upped."

Just ask Monty Python.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHFZBUTA4k

Immanuel Can wrote: But I suppose I understand: I hear Yorkshireman can't stand to be "one-upped."

The list of things a Yorkshireman can't stand is considerably long.

Just ask Monty Python.

Monty Python? Don't talk to me about Monty Python. When I was a lad I had to make do with Benny Hill, Monty Python would have been luxury to me.

Harbal wrote: Monty Python? Don't talk to me about Monty Python. When I was a lad I had to make do with Benny Hill, Monty Python would have been luxury to me.

200 of us, living in a shoebox, in the middle of the freeway...