PsiCop

How? Don't just SAY it's "irrelevant," EXPLAIN how it's irrelevant.

I'm sure you did, but unfortunately, that isn't how I'd intended the page to be read. The fault for that is mine, of course, but I've corrected the error.

Woops! Illogic warning! I'm not an Abrahamic-God "hater." I can't be, I consider him a fictional construct. I can no more "hate" the Abrahamic God than I can "hate" Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or Bilbo Baggins.

Actually the essay now reads exactly the way I'd intended it to read. It concludes that if the universe had been created by any omnipotent being, said being CANNOT logically be anything OTHER than malevolent. If that isn't clear to you, now, after I fixed it up, then you're in denial (as they say in the pop-psych world) and beyond help.

As an Agnostic I have rationally concluded that NO ONE ... neither I, nor you, nor any of the Bible authors, Church Fathers, Hebrew prophets, clergy, preachers ... NO ONE ... can "know" anything about God. All any of us can do, is to suppose, guess, hope, wish, etc.

What I can do, however, is address common beliefs about the JCI God and show that he cannot logically be what JCI believers claim him to be. I have done that. It's up to YOU either to acknowledge the logical absurdity of your own beliefs, or refute the logic I've offered.

In other words ... instead of bellyaching that I dare to question the benevolence of your deity, get to work and refute that conclusion. Or admit that you either cannot or will not do so.

The ball of argumentation is now in YOUR court. Do NOT continue to complain that I cannot offer my own initial argument ... I have already done so, without regard to your objection. So address it, or not. The choice to do so is YOURS and YOURS ALONE.

romansh

So I take it you don't like Bilbo Baggins either?
Because I quite like him really, even though he is fictional .....

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

PsiCop

Uh, like, no, what I said was that I could not hate Bilbo Baggins.

Back to the topic ... please either refute the malevolence of the Abrahamic God, or admit that you either cannot or will not do so.

The ball, as I've stated earlier, is in YOUR court. The choice to refute my reasoning, is YOURS. You can either take up the gauntlet and meet the challenge, or not.

Which is it? Have you the courage of your convictions, or not?

romansh

1) your topic is with AB not me ... I don't actually care about theistic gods.

2) my point was you said that you could not hate Bilbo Baggins, a fictional character. The inference being you could not hate (or have any emotion towards) fictional characters. Is this true?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

PsiCop

The word "hate" is a loaded term, and is used expressly for that purpose. Unfortunately for those who use it, I can "hate" things but still understand them. When fundies deride people as "haters of God," what they are doing is dismissing what people say as being based on the emotion of "hate."

This is the propaganda technique known as "emotionalizing." It is not used only by religious apologists, either. It's a very common tactic. For instance, criticizing something a presidential candidate said or did, is likely to win you an accusation of "hating" that candidate, by his/her partisans. But your critique does not, really, mean that you "hate" him/her; and even if you did, it doesn't mean your critique has no veracity.

Emotionalizing is based on an erroneous presumption, that one cannot think rationally about something one dislikes. It really is not true that "hating" something doesn't mean one can't arrive at logical conclusions about it. Rational, intellectual matters do not automatically lose veracity because of one's emotion. One can study and learn things one has no liking for and be able to reach valid conclusions about them.

(Of course, one could be driven by "hatred" to make an invalid point about something ... the emotion makes one mistake an invalid argument for a valid one. In the end, an argument stands or falls on its own merit, and its veracity or lack thereof does not change based on the emotions of the person making it.)

The idea that nothing I say can about the JCI God can be valid, because I "hate" the JCI God, is simply preposterous. First, I don't "hate" the JCI God, but second, even if I did, it's totally irrelevant to my argument.

As for the "love" or "hate" anyone feels toward a fictional character, this emotion is, in the end, expended on a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. It doesn't go any further than that.

So no, I cannot "love" Bilbo Baggins in the way that I can "love" another person. That would be silly. Nor can I "hate" the Abrahamic God in the way that I might "hate" some other despicable person.

The bottom line is that dismissing my conclusions about the Abrahamic God is a transparent propaganda technique that I refuse to permit to be used. Exploring the matter further only obfuscates the issue by granting an appearance of validity to this technique.

It needs to stop. Propaganda techniques like emotionalizing must not be permitted ... not by me, or you, or anyone.

romansh

Psi, Thanks ... passionately (and more importantly, logically) expressed.

I agree with you, if we have an emotion for or against, it should not cloud the argument.

By the way, rereading AB's post I don't think he was disagreeing with you ... other than we (don't) have a clue when it comes to talking about god(s).

all the best

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

AB517

I was not bellyaching.
I was saying I liked your paper actually.

If you told me not to vote for a candidate because they are a mean, spiteful, nasty person I would think that you are being emotional. I would then render your opinion of the candidate irrelevant because it may be based on emotion and not logic.

Nice try with the double dog dare you approach. Kind of shallow though.
I love the part with "Illogical Warning" … very cute.

You want a fight, pick on somebody else.