Fight between the gods

[Viker]

but in mythology there are also evil gods, evil god doesn't care to kick some ones ***.

Yes. Gnosticism deals in detail with this.

 

[JustGeorge]

This looks like one of those "my daddy can beat up your daddy" kindergarten level threads in the making. I'll stick around long enough to find out then leave when the crayons start flying.

Maybe if we eat all the crayons before they start throwing them, we can prevent a catastrophe..

(I didn't get any breakfast this morning.)

 

[Viker]

but in mythology there are also evil gods, evil god doesn't care to kick some ones ***.

Your premise is in a fight between gods if one loses the loser is not a god. So was it a fight between two gods or a fight between a god and some poor lesser being?

 

[Aupmanyav]

it's very much logical, one cannot be god and defeated.

It is a wide world and people see things in various ways. There is a story in Hinduism of a virtuous woman, Anusuya, wife of Sage Agastya. She is considered one of the five most virtuous women in Indian mythology. Agastya was the first Aryan sage that crossed Vindhya mountains to go to South India (that is a sort of dividing line in the middle of India).

So once the three major Gods of Hinduism (Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma) came to test Anusuya. Anusuya welcomed them and offered them milk. But the Gods said that they do not want cow's milk, they want milk from her breast. Anusuya said 'no problem', and with the power of her virtues changed the three Gods into suckling infants and feed them milk from her breast. When the three Gods did not return, their spouses, Goddesses in their own right, Mother Laxmi, Mother Parvati and Mother Brahmani, started the search, finally arriving at Sage Agastya's hermitage. But they could in no way turn the three into their usual form. They had to request Mother Anusuya to do that.

The message of the story is that by virtues, even the Gods can be defeated. Anusuya temples are found all over India, though she is not considered a Goddess.
anusuya temple - Google Search

 

[paradox]

Most ardent monotheists pay little attention to polytheism and refute anything they bring up anyways.

if it's easily refuted then they need to work on their theology and apologetics.

The message of the story is that by virtues, even the Gods can be defeated.

according to your story, if gods can be defeated by virtue, doesn't his mean such gods are not perfect?

 

[Viker]

if it's easily refuted then they need to work on their theology and apologetics

It's only easier to refute something that you already object to. Most western theology is an exercise in confirmation bias. It's why I reject it. Confirmation bias is bull crap. I want beef and potatoes. Got any beef and potatoes?

 

[questfortruth]

Just exactly how is God going to help us with war if the pious keep making wars?

the satan is god. Jesus is God. 2 gods

 

[questfortruth]

fight between a god and some poor lesser being?

satan is false god,

 

[F1fan]

Tell that to my friends.

I did. And they have yet to demonstrate otherwise despite their ongoing protests.

And I do note the difference between knowing and believing. Our theist friends believe their gods exist, they cannot explain how it is any sort of true knowledge. And they might know what their religions claim, but this doesn't imply that what the religions say is true.

 

[Spirit of Light]

the satan is god. Jesus is God. 2 gods

Wasn't Satan an fallen Angel ?
What is Satan?
This is a being according to Christianity and Islam that seduces believers to go into sin. Initially, Satan was an angel of God who rebelled against Him. Satan is also associated with the first sin committed by humankind in the Garden of Eden.

 

[Viker]

satan is false god,

Which one? There are quite a few satans out there.

 

[F1fan]

I don't understand that sentence. Can you rephrase it.

You posted:

"There are no rational or objective minds known to exist."

So if none of us have rational minds, and none of us is capable of being objective, then none of us can claim to make true statements via reliable and skilled thinking. How do we determine a true claim or statement from false if we have no rational mind?

We observe people making valid conclusions based on evidence quite often. We see juries make rational decisions. We see friends and family make rational decisions, like if they have a health problem they make a doctor appointment. We see valid arguments based on facts. We reveal false claims because they lack evidence. We also see people making all sorts of irrational decisions, like if you are on a diet and decide to buy cookies at the store, and then eat the box of cookies over a weekend.

Obviously we can determine rational thought and decisions from irrational. We can know what it means to think objectively, and that means to follow evidence as it exists, and the self-awareness to recognize bias the self might have. Having a bias does not mean the person applies it if their conclusions happens to be in line with a bias. If facts don't support a claim the bias is irrelevant, there is no evidence, period. Science relies on recognizing bias and the method teaches ways to avoid bias. The person of integrity wants to recognize and eliminate bias, and focus on what the evidence and data suggests.

No it doesn't, any more than your claim means religion doesn't exist.

I never made any claim that religion doesn't exist. Nor did I claim that gods don't exist.

I said there are no gods known to exist outside of human imagination.

I welcome anyone to show me I'm wrong. Demonstrate a god of any type exists independently of human thought. The theists in this discussion have avoided this challenge like its poison ivy.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Would application of the Law of noncontradiction - Wikipedia
cause the gods battle with each other?
It is the great weapon of Man: logic.
One equipped with logic is safe in religious realm.

My theologians say: if two gods are in perfect love to each other, it is one God. Love unites. Because god is spirit, notion of things.

There is only one God. A God of Love who has come to us in many names.

Then there are the God's men make of the One God and the many Names of God.

So any battle, is only the battle between the feeble minds of men.

Regards Tony

 

[questfortruth]

fallen Angel

False Policemen is not Policemen.
False egg (plastic egg) - is not Egg.
Fallen Angel is FALSE angel.

 

[Spirit of Light]

False Policemen is not Policemen.
False egg (plastic egg) - is not Egg.
Fallen Angel is FALSE angel.

But you called Satan an false God. Angels are not God or gods, they are a lesser being than God.

 

[Viker]

False Policemen is not Policemen.
False egg (plastic egg) - is not Egg.
Fallen Angel is FALSE angel.

So, we would agree that Satan is not a false god?

 

[Viker]

So any battle, is only the battle between the feeble minds of men

Totally and utterly agree.

 

[Quagmire]

You posted:

"There are no rational or objective minds known to exist."

So if none of us have rational minds, and none of us is capable of being objective, then none of us can claim to make true statements via reliable and skilled thinking.

Not true. "Skilled" or "reliable" arent synonyms for "rational" or "objective". And when it comes down to it, we can make any claims we like.

How do we determine a true claim or statement from false if we have no rational mind?

We pretty much just have to wing it with the equipment we have. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not.

We observe people making valid conclusions based on evidence quite often.

That's a subjective opinion.

We see juries make rational decisions.

Also subjective.

We see friends and family make rational decisions, like if they have a health problem they make a doctor appointment.

Suuuuuuuubjective.

We see valid arguments based on facts.

Whether or not something is valid is also subjective.

We reveal false claims because they lack evidence.

You can't make any determinations about whether or not a claim is false based on lack of evidence (not if you're trying to be rational and objective). You actually need evidence to the contrary to do that.

We also see people making all sorts of irrational decisions, like if you are on a diet and decide to buy cookies at the store, and then eat the box of cookies over a weekend.

Obviously we can determine rational thought and decisions from irrational.

We think we can anyway.

We can know what it means to think objectively,

Which isn't to say we can ever accomplish it. We can know what it means to see the future or read someone's mind or leap tall buildings in a single bound . . .

. . . and that means to follow evidence as it exists, and the self-awareness to recognize bias the self might have.

To what degree? And to what degree would we need to be able to accomplish these things in order to be able to claim objectivity?
The criteria for those determinations would still be completely subjective.

Having a bias does not mean the person applies it if their conclusions happens to be in line with a bias. If facts don't support a claim the bias is irrelevant, there is no evidence, period.
Science relies on recognizing bias and the method teaches ways to avoid bias. The person of integrity wants to recognize and eliminate bias,

Which is a noble goal, and one that wouldn't be necessary if our minds are innately rational or objective.

focus
and on what the evidence and data suggests.

I never made any claim that religion doesn't exist.

Nobody said you did.

Nor did I claim that gods don't exist.

I said there are no gods known to exist outside of human imagination.

Yes I saw that. And my point was that no rational or objective mind exists outside of subjective human opinion.

I welcome anyone to show me I'm wrong. Demonstrate a god of any type exists independently of human thought.

The theists in this discussion have avoided this challenge like its poison ivy.

Maybe they're just trying to stay on topic.

 

[ppp]

then you should really read the OP where you'll find a link to wikipedia explaining what is the law of non-contradiction.
and when you do this, construct a reply about gods in relation to the law of non-contradiction.

I've read it. The article agrees with what I said.

The law of non contradiction just says that the situation cannot be both what it is, and not what it is, at the same time, and in the same respect. There's nothing about multiple gods that breaks the law of non-contradiction.

Have you read it?

 

[Sheldon]

Would application of the Law of noncontradiction - Wikipedia
cause the gods battle with each other?
It is the great weapon of Man: logic.
One equipped with logic is safe in religious realm.

My theologians say: if two gods are in perfect love to each other, it is one God. Love unites. Because god is spirit, notion of things.

You've used another of your relentless begging the question fallacies, by simply assuming there is a deity in your argument for a deity.