Bio not provided
@logosmann I don't know what you are smoking but... You're very wrong here. There are countless writings about Alexander from the period when he lived across many cultures. There are works and decrees that were built in his name, and his tomb was a tourist destination for centuries. We have found archaeological evidence of several of the battles his army fought with the Persians. There were coins minted with his likeness and his name on them during his reign, etc, etc.
Jesus by contrast was written about by Paul and then in the gospels at least 30 years after his alleged death. What little is supposedly chronicled of his life, there's a large gap between early childhood and his 30s. Not even a story record of what he did during his teens and early 20s.
And all of this ignores the simple fact that someone existing does not make them a God. The Pharohs were gods to their people. Their tombs and monuments still exist, even their mortal bodies are preserved for us thousands of years later. If existing and claiming to be a god are all that is required to be a God then you must accept Ramses as your lord and savior. Or how about Charles Manson? He claims to be God, no? How do you _know_ he's not? What if you're just like the romans and jews, persecuting the second coming?
So not only are you factually wrong on historical data but you're also making an illogical leap of inference between a person having lived and a person being god incarnate. Word it as pompously as you like, that isn't logic.
2 years, 5 months ago on The Dreadful Dangers of Learning to Think: A Cautionary Tale – By Jane Douglas
@logosmann Ah the nit-picker. The last line of defense for one completely lacking an argument. Let's flip your 'logic' back on you. You say that her reasoning that 'even if god is real, she wants nothing to do with him.' is not a reasonable position because she'd side with her children over arbitrary hate?
Cancer exists. I want nothing to do with it. The mafia is real. I want nothing to do with it. Both seem pretty valid and reasonable. If something is toxic, there's no reason to be near it.
Okay, I'm sure you'll try to argue that god isn't toxic but we're talking about christianity here so let's work through this.
A) God doesn't exist.
B) God exists.
1) God is love.
2) God has an arbitrary set of rules.
For A: Then the only thing that matters is how you treat others during your life. You live, you die, that's it. If you're a decent person, your memory lives on in the hearts of others and it's about the best you can ask for.
B1 is much the same as A. A loving god has to accept that people will make mistakes and not everyone follows the same path but as long as you try to be a decent person and treat yourself and others with respect, you're likely golden regardless of whether God is Jesus, Rama, Buddha, or whatever.
B2 is the fundamentalist God. The one who expects everyone to follow a very specific set of rules. Of course, most people follow what their parents taught them as children so Hindus or Jews or Muslims or Baptists or Mormons or somebody is doing it wrong and going to suffer eternal torment for things that were out of their control. For much of human history, they might not even have known of the 'right way'(TM) I'm with Jane. If that God exists, I wouldn't want to worship him. It's no different from bowing to a mafia don. Any decent person would stand in defiance against such a petty and small tyrant. It also seems incredibly unlikely that such a being would be responsible for creation of the entire universe.
Oh, and speaking of the universe while we're on logic fallacies, let's talk about the 'divine watchmaker' nonsense. For just a moment, let's suppose the universe is so vast and complex that it requires a sentience to create it. Okay. Can you spot the flaw in that 'reasoning'? No? Let's apply some basic logic? What do we know?
1) Universe is too complex to exist without an intelligence behind it.
2) Universe must have been created ergo universe is a subset of creator intelligence.
And therefore: God is too complex to have spontaneously popping into being and must therefore have been created by something.
Rut Roh! That means God isn't the supreme entity! Meta God must have created God... And Meta Meta God must have created Meta God, and so on. So you god isn't that great really. There's an infinite number of even more impressive gods that were each created by a slightly better God. For all practical purposes, we can factor out god entirely since if God must exist at every set depth for the 'divine watchmaker' to tick, then he can be removed from the equation entirely as he is nothing more than a placeholder.
Now, I understand if you can't argue these points, you'll be inclined to instead focus on the tone of my comment, labeling it condescending or something, but it's not really much different from the tone you used in response to Jane and anyhow, if you did that, you'd have to concede that you'd descended into rhetoric instead of a logical debate. You may also chose to bicker my entry point contending that her point was not 'logical' per your selective criteria and therefore I am off base in responding to you and try to use this as a means to not debate my points, instead declaring I cannot read or whatever other dismissive you chose. This would be cowardly but it is a reasonable point. It would however also be rather tedious and repetitive. You already nitpicked her story without providing any reasonable defense for your position and it positively reeks of someone who is scared and trying to muddy the waters.