Claire Khaw
I am actually saying even if God does not actually exist, the idea of the Abrahamic God is nevertheless divine.
AP [A Person]
Because you can imagine something, it doesn't become divine --- except in your imagination.
Claire Khaw
But what could be more divine than the Abrahamic God assuming the Abrahamic God exists?
AP
'Assuming God exists' is what is problematic -- if you imagine that God exists then, by definition, your imaginary God is going to be divine since the word 'divine' means to be God-like. So if God exists, ergo he is divine.
Claire Khaw
But there are other deities besides the Abrahamic God. However, since the Abrahamic God is the most powerful deity conceivable, He must be the most divine of all deities. It really is as simple as that. How would you define divine though?
AP
I've just given a definition of divine; it means to be like a god. This is the dictionary definition. If you imagine a god, then the god is divine. If you're saying that God 'is the most divine of all deities' then you're ranking God along with other gods. You probably mean that you're imagining the most powerful god you can think of.
Claire Khaw
To be divine is to be superior to being merely human. We are mortal, therefore divine beings are immortal.
However, the Greeks have muddied the waters because Greek myths are full of semi-divine beings who are the illegitimate offspring of Zeus. We get the idea though: if humans are mortal, divinities are immortal.
Basically, a divine being can be whatever mortals cannot be ie never die, or at least survive longer than humans who have imagined them.
Since the Abrahamic God is more powerful than any of deities conceivable, I think it is safe to assume that He is most divine. He is still worshipped while deities such as Zeus are not.
The next question to consider is whether He exists.
Since it cannot be established conclusively whether He exists, we should take a teleological approach to God and ask ourselves the purpose for which God was created, if He was created.
Every man-made invention was created for a purpose. Once we learn the purpose of God, we will understand His nature more.
Religion comes from the Latin "religare" which means "to bind" society.
The five world religions support patriarchy ie marriage and family values.
Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers, matriarchy that of unmarried mothers who casually conceived and parented their illegitimate offspring.
All advanced civilisations are patriarchies.
All primitive, declining, extinct or soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.
The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents.
The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents.
Britain is a matriarchy. In fact the entire West is a matriarchy were all men are lower in status than the immoral unmarried mother, and this includes POTUS.
Because of "globohomo" illegitimacy rates are rising worldwide.
Illegitimacy is the consequence, considered a mortal sin by Christians, who have forgotten all about this. Indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself is a bastard.
When the news was announced, nobody in Britain batted an eyelid, nobody cared.
But then Christianity is kaput.
Are we now agreed that Christianity is kaput?
Is the Catholic Church fighting globohomo? It is more known for its paedophiliac priests and Pope Francis saying "Who am I to judge?" when asked about gay priests in the Catholic Church that would have been treated as sex offenders in the Bible and the Koran.
I assume that we are all agreed that Christianity is kaput.
Since Christianity is kaput, the question to be asked is if Western nations need to find a replacement for failed Christianity.
If so, what should be its replacement?
AP
Beneath all the rubbish you have just posted -- the political propaganda --your underlying logic is at fault. If I try and point this out to you, you'll only go on evading the point by posting more propaganda. Only one or two sentences out of what you've posted is indicative of these logical flaws, but any further attempt to discuss this will just lead to more of your copy-and-pasted nonsense, so I'll leave the discussion there.
Claire Khaw
How is my logic at fault?
Which of my sentences are "indicative of these logical flaws"?
What have I said above is "propaganda"?
AP
It's all copy-and-pasted political propaganda. You're not sticking to the discussion about the reality -- or otherwise -- of God. It's not worth going into it all again because we've done it all before and you have no idea how to stick to the point.
Claire Khaw
I am asking you for further and better particulars of your claim that what I have posted is "political propaganda".
What I am saying that the *idea* of God most definitely exists and that should be enough to be getting on with.
How am I not sticking to the point when I am asking you to make out your accusations?
AP
You're asking now but only after dropping a lot of irrelevant crap about patriarchy and single mothers into the conversation.
Claire Khaw
Are you denying that all the five world religions are about protecting the patriarchy and this must mean shaming sluts?
You do know that the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy is marriage, don't you? If you don't practise marriage you are in fact a matriarchy.
AP
None of that is relevant to a conversation about whether or not God exists and what constitutes divinity. You're talking about the *uses* that organised religion can be put to. We have covered this ground many times before. I know what your *political* views are on all these matters, so there is no point in filling the thread with all your cut-and-pasted stuff just for my benefit.
Claire Khaw
Divinity consists of being immortal, infallible, supreme, omniscient, omnipotent and eternal - what mortals know they cannot be.
AP
Yes, but you're spouting dogma, and if you do that you're not really asking serious questions about how we can know whether God exists or not.
Claire Khaw
I have already said as an agnostic we cannot know if God actually exists, but what we can be certain of is that the *concept* of God exists, and that is enough for the purposes of having faith. I have not said anything dogmatic.
AP
The word 'concept' only means 'thought' or 'idea'. Being able to *conceptualise* something is not really sufficient to give it an independent existence. For example, you could conceptualise the Loch Ness Monster but it doesn't mean it's there. And if you're saying 'I have a *concept* of the Loch Ness Monster and that's enough for me', this is absurd. But that's basically what you're saying about God.
Claire Khaw
It cannot be denied that beliefs can change our behaviour.
AP
You can't 'prove' the existence of God in any religion, not just Christianity. You can infer God's existence as Descartes probably tries to do (Baruch Solomon?). But participation in a religion is a social act -- it brings benefits which seem self-evident to those who take part. Christianity has become bad at telling people not to become single mothers etc, so from an authoritarian point of view it's not very effective these days. Islam -- which Claire prefers -- is much better at ordering people around. On the other hand, those who do still value Christianity probably do so for other reasons.
Claire Khaw
I have said that the *concept* of the Abrahamic God cannot be denied.What do you think is the purpose of religion?
AP
I'm not playing that game, Claire. You can refer to your copy-and-pasted comments above for the set-piece answers to your set-piece questions.
https://m.facebook.com/questions.php?question_id=2864941283527752
I am actually saying even if God does not actually exist, the idea of the Abrahamic God is nevertheless divine.
AP [A Person]
Because you can imagine something, it doesn't become divine --- except in your imagination.
Claire Khaw
But what could be more divine than the Abrahamic God assuming the Abrahamic God exists?
AP
'Assuming God exists' is what is problematic -- if you imagine that God exists then, by definition, your imaginary God is going to be divine since the word 'divine' means to be God-like. So if God exists, ergo he is divine.
Claire Khaw
But there are other deities besides the Abrahamic God. However, since the Abrahamic God is the most powerful deity conceivable, He must be the most divine of all deities. It really is as simple as that. How would you define divine though?
AP
I've just given a definition of divine; it means to be like a god. This is the dictionary definition. If you imagine a god, then the god is divine. If you're saying that God 'is the most divine of all deities' then you're ranking God along with other gods. You probably mean that you're imagining the most powerful god you can think of.
Claire Khaw
To be divine is to be superior to being merely human. We are mortal, therefore divine beings are immortal.
However, the Greeks have muddied the waters because Greek myths are full of semi-divine beings who are the illegitimate offspring of Zeus. We get the idea though: if humans are mortal, divinities are immortal.
Basically, a divine being can be whatever mortals cannot be ie never die, or at least survive longer than humans who have imagined them.
Since the Abrahamic God is more powerful than any of deities conceivable, I think it is safe to assume that He is most divine. He is still worshipped while deities such as Zeus are not.
The next question to consider is whether He exists.
Since it cannot be established conclusively whether He exists, we should take a teleological approach to God and ask ourselves the purpose for which God was created, if He was created.
Every man-made invention was created for a purpose. Once we learn the purpose of God, we will understand His nature more.
Religion comes from the Latin "religare" which means "to bind" society.
The five world religions support patriarchy ie marriage and family values.
Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers, matriarchy that of unmarried mothers who casually conceived and parented their illegitimate offspring.
All advanced civilisations are patriarchies.
All primitive, declining, extinct or soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.
The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents.
The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents.
Britain is a matriarchy. In fact the entire West is a matriarchy were all men are lower in status than the immoral unmarried mother, and this includes POTUS.
Because of "globohomo" illegitimacy rates are rising worldwide.
Illegitimacy is the consequence, considered a mortal sin by Christians, who have forgotten all about this. Indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself is a bastard.
When the news was announced, nobody in Britain batted an eyelid, nobody cared.
But then Christianity is kaput.
Are we now agreed that Christianity is kaput?
Is the Catholic Church fighting globohomo? It is more known for its paedophiliac priests and Pope Francis saying "Who am I to judge?" when asked about gay priests in the Catholic Church that would have been treated as sex offenders in the Bible and the Koran.
I assume that we are all agreed that Christianity is kaput.
Since Christianity is kaput, the question to be asked is if Western nations need to find a replacement for failed Christianity.
If so, what should be its replacement?
AP
Beneath all the rubbish you have just posted -- the political propaganda --your underlying logic is at fault. If I try and point this out to you, you'll only go on evading the point by posting more propaganda. Only one or two sentences out of what you've posted is indicative of these logical flaws, but any further attempt to discuss this will just lead to more of your copy-and-pasted nonsense, so I'll leave the discussion there.
Claire Khaw
How is my logic at fault?
Which of my sentences are "indicative of these logical flaws"?
What have I said above is "propaganda"?
AP
It's all copy-and-pasted political propaganda. You're not sticking to the discussion about the reality -- or otherwise -- of God. It's not worth going into it all again because we've done it all before and you have no idea how to stick to the point.
Claire Khaw
I am asking you for further and better particulars of your claim that what I have posted is "political propaganda".
What I am saying that the *idea* of God most definitely exists and that should be enough to be getting on with.
How am I not sticking to the point when I am asking you to make out your accusations?
AP
You're asking now but only after dropping a lot of irrelevant crap about patriarchy and single mothers into the conversation.
Claire Khaw
Are you denying that all the five world religions are about protecting the patriarchy and this must mean shaming sluts?
You do know that the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy is marriage, don't you? If you don't practise marriage you are in fact a matriarchy.
AP
None of that is relevant to a conversation about whether or not God exists and what constitutes divinity. You're talking about the *uses* that organised religion can be put to. We have covered this ground many times before. I know what your *political* views are on all these matters, so there is no point in filling the thread with all your cut-and-pasted stuff just for my benefit.
Claire Khaw
Divinity consists of being immortal, infallible, supreme, omniscient, omnipotent and eternal - what mortals know they cannot be.
AP
Yes, but you're spouting dogma, and if you do that you're not really asking serious questions about how we can know whether God exists or not.
Claire Khaw
I have already said as an agnostic we cannot know if God actually exists, but what we can be certain of is that the *concept* of God exists, and that is enough for the purposes of having faith. I have not said anything dogmatic.
AP
The word 'concept' only means 'thought' or 'idea'. Being able to *conceptualise* something is not really sufficient to give it an independent existence. For example, you could conceptualise the Loch Ness Monster but it doesn't mean it's there. And if you're saying 'I have a *concept* of the Loch Ness Monster and that's enough for me', this is absurd. But that's basically what you're saying about God.
Claire Khaw
It cannot be denied that beliefs can change our behaviour.
AP
You can't 'prove' the existence of God in any religion, not just Christianity. You can infer God's existence as Descartes probably tries to do (Baruch Solomon?). But participation in a religion is a social act -- it brings benefits which seem self-evident to those who take part. Christianity has become bad at telling people not to become single mothers etc, so from an authoritarian point of view it's not very effective these days. Islam -- which Claire prefers -- is much better at ordering people around. On the other hand, those who do still value Christianity probably do so for other reasons.
Claire Khaw
I have said that the *concept* of the Abrahamic God cannot be denied.What do you think is the purpose of religion?
AP
I'm not playing that game, Claire. You can refer to your copy-and-pasted comments above for the set-piece answers to your set-piece questions.
https://m.facebook.com/questions.php?question_id=2864941283527752
21 comments:
The Greeks like Socrates and Plato even conceptualised the Good as the highest of all from which all logic and design are derived.
You cannot compare the concept of God with the Loch Ness monster for the latter is not conceptualised as a being outside of time and space who created everything, resembles nothing in time and space nor has a place in time and space, no, the loch ness monster is the direct opposite of what God is. It is as dumb as the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument.
AP does not admit that Christianity is dead but does have a point that you Claire digress too much.
What have I digressed from? I am basically saying that theocracy is the only way to restore and protect the patriarchy and AP is basically saying he is not interested because he doesn't want to become a married father. Men like him are a big part of the problem, I have decided. We have known each other for quite a while and it is just not believable that he is even now pretending not to know what I mean.
Patriarchy is not about contempt towards sexual hedonism nor about the promotion of marriage between men and women but about men controlling women and limiting their rights to choose. I want neither gender ruling over me except God alone.
Patriarchy describes a society which promotes patriarchal moral values, which are about promoting marriage and family values. Everything about feminism undermines marriage and family values. If feminists disagree, or want to justify this, they are invited to do so.
Patriarchal moral values would be special privilege for men to rule over women to tell them what to do and how to live their lives whilst matriarchy would be vice versa.
The problem with feminism is that it is too broad and gets divided into opposing groups.
All you're saying is God is a rather posh concept and the Loch Ness Monster is a fairly simple concept. But the point being made -- as far as I understand it -- is that just because something can be conceptualised this is not an indication that it actually exists. It's therefore a meaningless test to say that 'it exists as concept'.
How would you define patriarchy? I define patriarchy as a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers. If you disagree, let me hear your better definition.
It is not meaningless to say God exists as a concept since even lies are told for a purpose, are they not?
Are you familiar with the concept of the Noble Lie?
Lots of lonely children have invisible friends.
Do you know what happens to these lonely children who have invisible friends?
But the noble lie is still a lie. That's why it's called a 'lie'. You're only saying it might be *useful* to say something is true. Not that it's actually true.
In any case, the point is an illogical one. To know whether it's true or not you would need to be godlike -- i.e not human. If you're human you have no way of knowing whether god exists or not, because it would exist outside of your ability to perceive it.
It is true that God's existence can neither be conclusively proven nor disproven.
It is true that lies if believed in can influence behaviour.
It is true that the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy is marriage and family values.
It is true that AP refuses to support patriarchy because he is not a married father. He has no investment in the next generation and is more invested in going to his grave without being seen to lose the argument to me than in speaking the truth: that he has lost the argument.
It is true that AP thinks that by using the tactic disengaging, he can claim to himself and others that he has not lost the argument.
It is true that AP is more anxious to be seen not to agree with me that a one party theocracy is the way forward than to be speaking the truth: that Christianity is kaput because it does not even maintain minimum standards of morality. If he agrees with me that Christianity is kaput, he knows the next question is whether it should be replaced, and by what, knowing that I will say Secular Koranism and knowing that there is no better and bigger idea around as a solution to the ills of Western government.
To say so would mean he will be shunned by his political associates who are also morally compromised cowards, hypocrites and liars.
Lots of things can influence behaviour. It means that if you think something is true, it will alter the way you act. If you thought the Loch Ness Monster existed you wouldn't take a boat out on the Loch. If you thought god would punish you for sin you wouldn't sin. Both can be completely imaginary.
It is true that slut-shaming Secular Koranism if implemented would restore the patriarchy.
I'm an 'unmarried father,' and I would reinstate 'the patriarchy' without a qualm.
I wonder if 'patriarchal societies' did in fact exist prior to 'Christian marriage' as we have understood it over many centuries.
I define patriarchy as a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers.
The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents
The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents
Pre-Christian societies -- like the ancient Greeks and Romans -- tended to be fairly patriarchal, I think. There are some examples of matriarchies, but not many.
All advanced societies are patriarchies.
All primitive, declining, extinct or soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.
Civilisations rise in patriarchy and decline in matriarchy.
When Rome declined, the Romans had the excuse of Muhammad not yet having been born for not converting to Islam. We do not have that excuse.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/fallofrome_article_01.shtml
What was the argument meant to be about though? Whether God exists or not, or whether Islam is better than Christianity? If you don't define what the parameters of an argument is, you can't really decide whether someone has 'won' it or not.
The argument was ostensibly about the definition of divinity, after I said - but not in so many words - that the concept of the Abrahamic God is a divine even if it could be a noble lie.
AP absolutely refuses to answer my question of what he thinks religion is for.
It seems he thinks it is a some kind of family heirloom and I have yet to impress on him that it is more like an essential piece of equipment such as a boiler, which has to be replaced if it is irreparable to make way for the new.
It seems he absolutely refuses to discuss this at all. By disengaging, he is behaving exactly like a liberal and it is well known that the liberal establishment employs this tactic on us all the time. First, they say we are wrong, evil and stupid and leave it at that knowing that they can silence, censor and ignore us.
It is now clear where his loyalties ultimately lie, and it is not on the side of truth, patriarchy, marriage or family values. I find this cowardice surprising and disappointing and wonder if he really feels no shame.
But surely such a 'purist' manifesto is bound to end in disappointment. I think such a society as 'the perfect patriarchy' could only be created via eugenics.
Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.
Post a Comment