Why did God do Satan’s bidding?

[Cyberman]

Slightly topic-adjacent but related: the people who judge their god as good have had to use their own innate moral standards to do so, yet they are usually the same people who then say that all morality comes from their god. Doublethink in the true 1984 sense.

[Greatest I am]

So you think it moral to yake back what you give someone.

Xmas must be some fun at you house friend. Yuk.

Seriously? That's your response? Why even bother?

Just to show how you think it ok for God to claw back his gift while you think a human doing so is wrong.

You are applying a double standard showing that your morals are compromised by your religion.

Why did you bother to show us all your type of hipocricy?

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

So God, as king of all creation, is the one who has authority to determine who has what rights. Thanks!

Thank you again for your testimony Mr. Wyatt.

No, I'm having fun right here watching you dance around the cognitive dissonance caused by fact that humans take liberties with lesser species, yet you charge god with evil for doing the same.

Textbook appeal to hypocrisy. Right after I took the time to explain it for you. It wouldn't matter if you had shown this (which you haven't...we haven't had that conversation) - you'll still have to address the issue...and if you plan to handle it as you did above...well....

The right of kings, or more aptly tyrants, to rule isn't something recognized by myself - or the country I live in. Should I add this to the list of things you're A-OK with? Human Property and Kingship? Bravo.

So, animal rights activists are just as compelling in their position that people who eat meat, kill pests, etc. are wrong, as you charge God with being wrong.

I suppose god cares about you charge as much as the people in a FIve Guys care about PETA.

Like I said, start a thread. None of this will excuse your god.

Yes, it matters.

No, it doesn't.

Again, when you make a claim of consistency, pointing out your inconsistency is not fallacious.


Yes, as your positions are hypocritical and mine aren't, and you made a specific claim of consistency.

Which wouldn't matter even if it -were- true.

No, I think that showing lack of consistency refutes your claim of consistency. As you said:


Considering the supermarket, we apparently haven't determined that life is a right which originates in sentience. So, who are you to protest if god also denies men that right?

Staggering amount of ignorance in this particular post. We actually -have- determined that animals have rights, those rights are all justified by the sentience of the animals in questions, and specifically designed to address them. They are also specifically designed to consider the relationship we have with livestock...and unless your god is going to die and heaven around him crumble without fresh human souls (that would be fantastic, btw).....then you haven't even found any similarity between the two. If you'd like to start a thread about this I'll help you shed any quaint assumptions you've made about animals and their rights. Not that any of this has any bearing on your god or my position. If human beings were outright monsters it wouldn't excuse your god. If you need me to explain what an appeal to hypocrisy is again, just say so.

See above. Apparently the rights which originate in sentience are few and trivial, if there are any at all.

I saw ignorance above. All rights begin with and originate from sentience, but clearly we don't feel that all sentient things have any given right (felons in this country, for example, lose their "right to keep and bear arms"). I'm starting to see why this whole god and creation business appeals to you. An actual discussion about rights and their justification is just too much to bear. If it were any more complicated, heads might explode

Which claim is that, and how do you know I felt a compulsion to make it?

Do you often make claims about a god without any compulsion to do so? That would be troubling. So, we've gone from the shit and run - to deflection- to feigned indignation about claims? I have an idea of what might have you wrapped in knots though. My wondering whether or not -you- feel that human property or the right of kings to rule has noting to do with the criticisms of this concept of god I've seen offered. Even so, if you'd like to defend your own consistency attempting to do so by pointing out what you feel to be inconsistency in any of my positions (more aptly what you've imagined them to be) is -still- an appeal to hypocrisy. If you need me to be a monster that's fine. For this discussion assume that I am, assume that I'm a tyrant that owns human beings and takes delight in cruelly killing animals for fun- a merciless little pedant that denies all other creatures the rights he hoards for himself. Now that we're done with that, and you have nothing left to bitch about on my end...care to explain why you're god isn't the same? Care to elaborate on your own position re: human property and the right of kings to rule?

[John V]

Textbook appeal to hypocrisy.

Incorrect. Once you make a claim of consistency, inconsistency is a legitimate issue, as noted repeatedly.

The right of kings, or more aptly tyrants, to rule isn't something recognized by myself - or the country I live in.

That you listed kings in your reply indicates that you would recognize a king's authority to grant or withhold rights.

Staggering amount of ignorance in this particular post. We actually -have- determined that animals have rights, those rights are all justified by the sentience of the animals in questions, and specifically designed to address them.

Ants are sentient, but I can kill them. People are sentient, but God can kill them.

I saw ignorance above. All rights begin with and originate from sentience, but clearly we don't feel that all sentient things have any given right (felons in this country, for example, lose their "right to keep and bear arms").

God views us as criminals, and so can limit our rights.

[Angrboda]

As I lay slumbering, it occurred to me that perhaps John's views rest upon a misapplication of the law of the excluded middle, the belief that the refutation of Rhythm's views validates his own. It is in this context that such an appeal to hypocrisy would at least be plausible. It ignores the possibility that neither John nor Rhythm have the right of it, and that there may be another view which is correct. I agree that John's appeal to hypocrisy is fallacious, but perhaps it's fallacious on other grounds than simply misunderstanding the fallacy, or not grasping that the absence of a positive account of God's rights is not ameliorated by anything other than a successful positive account of those rights.

[The Grand Nudger]

Incorrect. Once you make a claim of consistency, inconsistency is a legitimate issue, as noted repeatedly.

Note it as repeatedly as you like, it will be an appeal to hypocrisy the 10007th time - just as it was the 1st time

That you listed kings in your reply indicates that you would recognize a king's authority to grant or withhold rights.

LOL, no John, it doesn't.... but some do (I try to be accommodating). Are you one of those people?

Ants are sentient, but I can kill them. People are sentient, but God can kill them.

You certainly can, and if we grant you your fairy tales god is similarly capable of offing people....but that doesn't mean that he should, that he has the right-even if he has the ability-(no more than it means that we should, or that we have the right). This ignores an ability to claim or excersize a "right" in error, as is so recently evidenced in the history of the US (hello Mr. Wyatt). Mentioning that people kill ants, btw, appeal to hypocrisy..yet again. Back to the drawing board.

(you're really shitting all over rights as they may apply to non-human species btw, it's embarrassing)

God views us as criminals, and so can limit our rights.

To properly apply this analogy you'd have to first establish god, then establish the authority of god, then god would have to establish that a crime had been committed...then (since you like the analogy) we'd have to be judged by a jury of our peers, finally, god would have to sentence us in a manner commensurate the crime committed and of course...this is all up for appeal ad infinitum.

No dice.

I really appreciate how far we've strayed from Job, largely because you were incapable of painting god as "the good guy" in the narrative.

@Apo. If John knew what my views on animals rights were - the area he thinks he has some ground to claim- he may be able to refute them. Since he doesn't, he can't. Not that it would matter if he could. My own views on the rights of animals could very well be in error, and he's certainly free to create that thread. I've invited him to do so maybe twice now. Unfortunately, my being wrong won't make god right as you noted. He absolutely has misunderstood the fallacy (but at this point-who cares-he clearly isn't going to stop... lol). What I find immensely more interesting is that he doesn't seem to realize that my questioning him about whether or not -he- consistently applies those propositions he would excuse his god with are a separate issue. Gotta get an interesting side convo going in these little exchanges, because the god well runs dry quick. Know what I mean? This convo (like a similar one I had with Drich recently) isn't interesting because of any fairy John want's to blather on about, but because it gives me a window into his own willingness to disregard human beings as casually as dew drips from leaves.

[Undeceived]

You say we cannot judge God yet you judge that he should be loved.

Then we should rephrase. God is the standard. If I endeavored to call him evil, I would merely be saying I happen to dislike how he treats me. If I call him good, or worth loving, I like how he treats me. As you can see, even with subjective morality I can decide God is good. But the question is, does God treat you at all? You believe he doesn’t, so you can’t judge. I believe he does, so I can at the very least make a subjective judgment. A Christian believes an objective judgment can be made by the Holy Spirit inside of us. As Jesus says in John 14:26, “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”

[Greatest I am]

You say we cannot judge God yet you judge that he should be loved.

Then we should rephrase. God is the standard. If I endeavored to call him evil, I would merely be saying I happen to dislike how he treats me. If I call him good, or worth loving, I like how he treats me. As you can see, even with subjective morality I can decide God is good. But the question is, does God treat you at all? You believe he doesn’t, so you can’t judge. I believe he does, so I can at the very least make a subjective judgment. A Christian believes an objective judgment can be made by the Holy Spirit inside of us. As Jesus says in John 14:26, “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”

Quite the standard you have then. A genocidal son murdreing prick.

You go ahead and love that abomination all you like. Hell awaits you.

Regards
DL

[John V]

As I lay slumbering, it occurred to me that perhaps John's views rest upon a misapplication of the law of the excluded middle, the belief that the refutation of Rhythm's views validates his own.

Nope.

It is in this context that such an appeal to hypocrisy would at least be plausible. It ignores the possibility that neither John nor Rhythm have the right of it, and that there may be another view which is correct.

I've previously noted that views on rights boil down to opinion. There is no "correct" view.

I agree that John's appeal to hypocrisy is fallacious,

Er, when a person makes a claim that they apply a principle consistently, how would you go about refuting it? Isn't pointing out inconsistency the most logical approach?

but perhaps it's fallacious on other grounds than simply misunderstanding the fallacy, or not grasping that the absence of a positive account of God's rights is not ameliorated by anything other than a successful positive account of those rights.

Who determines whether the positive account is successful, and on what basis must the judge? Again, this is opinion, and none of us can prove our case. Rhythm agreed that it's opinion, and claimed that he applies his opinions on rights consistently.

[KichigaiNeko]

Seems like the bottom line is that this xtian god is ineffectual against this satan thingy.

Ahhh childish fantasies!!