Comment: A Reply

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: God is our creation. (see in situ)

A Reply

"Man created god. If you believe that what you describe as god exists in fact, then I am the one who will be asking you if you are delusional unfortunately."

Well now, this really is the distinction, and ultimately the antithesis between us.

"The Idea of god is not empty and meaningless, it is actually very powerful because it plays on the fears of mankind and has been used for thousands of years to explain what was unexplainable and it has been a political tool to justify the power of kings and religions."

Yes, it has indeed. But that does not mean that God is merely an idea of man's creation. God may exist or may not exist. What man has done with the 'idea of God's existence' is something apart from the question of whether God truly exists. But I'm curious, is there something wrong with playing on human fears or a strong man hijacking superstitions to consolidate his control over others? Is that something that ought not to exist? Is there some absolute moral law that all these little gods are obligated to?

"God is certainly not an ordinary man. I will never elevate one man to the status of being god because that would place everyone else under the power of that man"

So, what's wrong with that? Just because you cannot be trusted to have god like power over everyone else, doesn't mean that someone else couldn't be trusted with such power. If there is an all powerful, all wise and loving personage, what's wrong with everyone being subordinate to him? Furthermore, if no such being exists, what's wrong with a bunch of little gods on two legs snatching all the gusto they can in their three score and ten? Again, is there some obligation on all these little gods not to behave this way? If so, where does this obligation come from?

You say that you do not pray to any man, then turn clean around and say, "I pray to myself."

Umm, are you an alien, or a man like the rest of us (meaning man in a generic sense of humanity, male and female)?

"...you seem to be waking up in my opinion."
How nice.

"We can be 'ordinary, unimpressive and destined to be extinguished people' OR we can chose to be gods."

I see, and you have made this choice. Now tell us what difference it makes to your ordinary, unimpressive and very temporary life.

"Apparently they still do not because they still fall for the eternal afterlife in some sort of heaven or hell belief(witch contradicts your "destined to be extinguished people" common knowledge claim)"

Well, some distinctions are in order. Certainly Christians believe in an afterlife. As for them, our present condition is indeed temporary and will be extinguished. But this does not apply to many others who do not believe in an afterlife.

"you seem to believe that most people think they are ordinary witch is surprising for people who think a god under the mainstream concept created them, and the use of the word unimpressive spits in the face of a supposed creation by that creator of everything."

Well if I had known we would be having further discussions, I may have drawn even more distinctions. One of the issues here hangs on the word 'ordinary'. If God created all mankind, then being created by God is an ordinary condition. The extraordinary man is the one uncreated, which is perfectly compatible with a Christian perspective. 'Ordinary' is not an insult, only a descriptor. On the other hand, the word 'unimpressive' was for your benefit only. I personally do not find the mass of mankind, believer or not, unimpressive. But without the presupposition of God's existence, I would find mankind to be even less than unimpressive. Mankind would be a herd of chemical sacks. But you make a good point. If man is created in the image of God, then unimpressive he is not. Now why do you believe in human worth and dignity? Is there something innate within man that carries worth beyond the merely physical?