Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

All we “know� about the Satan character is from the POV of Bible writers – who claim that “he� is inferior to “God� (and presumably Jesus).

Since Bible writers and promoters have a vested interest in glorifying their favorite God(s) they could be expected to bad-mouth / demean / discredit the competition.

Since there is no assurance that there is only one “god� (or three-in-one for Christendom), the opposition might be one (or more) of the thousands of proposed gods. In fact, the only “evidence� for any of them consists of unverified tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, beliefs.

Thus, is there any sound reason that “Satan� could not be one of the other proposed gods and be equal in “power� to the Bible God?

“The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

Perhaps “Satan� isn't really the “bad guy� he is made out to be by promoters of the Bible God. Maybe “he� is another one of the “gods� and is equal to the Bible God and/or Jesus – and no more bad or good (or real or unreal) than they are.

It does not seem as though God and/or Jesus are able to defeat or eliminate Satan. Wonder why?

[JLB32168]

All of these debates are conducted with the knowledge (by most) that existence of supernatural deities cannot be conclusively proved. If Theists could provide even strong, credible, verifiable evidence – short of conclusive proof – there would be little or no need for debate.

And one apparently thinks that asking the question “What if Satan were just another God� is conducive to furthering the point that conclusive evidence for deities doesn’t exist.

. . . whatever blows a person's kilt up I guess.

Astute readers may understand . . .

Astute readers understand that asking is Satan is another deity is a rather silly way of making the point that conclusive evidence for deities doesn’t exist – as if theists don’t know this already.

This sub-forum does NOT preclude the POSSIBILITY of deities existing.

Right – so questions on Satan being another deity are the best way to argue that conclusive evidence for deities doesn’t exist.

This Non-Theist asks questions to illustrate (for benefit of readers) the many defects in claims, stories and statements from Christian theology.

And you think that asking if Satan is another deity accomplishes this.

Gotcha.

I’m done.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 69 by Zzyzx]


"This Non-Theist asks questions to illustrate (for benefit of readers) the many defects in claims, stories and statements from Christian theology. "

This reader has not seen any intelligent arguments from Non-Theists.

Their problem is that they think they know it all which gives feeling of superiority.
The language used is also rather primitive- dead man fly into the sky.. you can't
have an intelligent argument with that.

[Zzyzx]

.

All of these debates are conducted with the knowledge (by most) that existence of supernatural deities cannot be conclusively proved. If Theists could provide even strong, credible, verifiable evidence – short of conclusive proof – there would be little or no need for debate.

And one apparently thinks that asking the question “What if Satan were just another God� is conducive to furthering the point that conclusive evidence for deities doesn’t exist.

The current topic is one of 1461 that I have posted – intended to demonstrate the many defects in claims, stories and statements from Christian theology

Astute readers may understand . . .

Astute readers understand that asking is Satan is another deity is a rather silly way of making the point that conclusive evidence for deities doesn’t exist – as if theists don’t know this already.

Read again “intended to demonstrate the many defects in claims, stories and statements from Christian theology�

This sub-forum does NOT preclude the POSSIBILITY of deities existing.

Right – so questions on Satan being another deity are the best way to argue that conclusive evidence for deities doesn’t exist.

Read again “intended to demonstrate the many defects in claims, stories and statements from Christian theology�

This Non-Theist asks questions to illustrate (for benefit of readers) the many defects in claims, stories and statements from Christian theology.

And you think that asking if Satan is another deity accomplishes this.

Read again “intended to demonstrate the many defects in claims, stories and statements from Christian theology�

I’m done.

Whatever blows a person's kilt up I guess.

Thanks for the dance.

[Zzyzx]

.

This Non-Theist asks questions to illustrate (for benefit of readers) the many defects in claims, stories and statements from Christian theology.

This reader has not seen any intelligent arguments from Non-Theists.

Opinion and grandiose blanket statement noted. Many seem to disagree (as consulting site statistics verifies).

Their problem is that they think they know it all which gives feeling of superiority.

Another grandiose blanket statement.

Notice that this Non-Theist and many others make no claim or implication of “know it all� but instead challenge those who DO claim to KNOW about one of the thousands of proposed invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities.

The language used is also rather primitive- dead man fly into the sky.. you can't
have an intelligent argument with that.

Feel free to start a thread on the topic of formerly dead people coming back to life and “ascending� into the sky (using whatever words you prefer) – and see if you can make an “intelligent argument� in support.

Is "this ancient book says so" an intelligent argument? Is "it hasn't been shown to be impossible" an intelligent argument? Is there ANYTHING else to be offered which might constitute an intelligent argument?

[JLB32168]

The current topic is one of 1461 that I have posted – intended to demonstrate the many defects in claims, stories and statements from Christian theology.

Can you articulate one defect in claims, stories, and statements from Christian theology that I’ve made – other than “You can’t prove that your beliefs are true,� which doesn’t seem to be a very compelling argument?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 63 by JLB32168]

The Satan character in stories who is variously described.

I’ll make this easy. If we cannot conclusively prove the existence of God, which you know, then why do you ask if Satan is just another god? That simply makes no sense whatsoever.

If at first we don't succeed, try, try again. It makes sense. Try this:

1. I agree that we don't have any evidence or knowledge about the genesis of Yahweh.
2. We have no evidence or knowledge about the genesis of Satan, either.
3. They are both characters to be found in an old book.
4. People are quite free to interpret stories and characters in books as they see fit. ( literary criticism )

What purpose do the rest of your questions serve since they are founded in the question of Satan being a competing deity when deities cannot be conclusively proved to exist?

Same purpose as Christians talking about their god. We are merely speculating.

I must admit that this specific board’s existence doesn’t make sense since all questions about theology presuppose the possibility of a deity existing. If one cannot allow that then why do skeptics/atheists ask questions on Christian theology?

We don't have to believe what we study. You might have heard of "Literature" and literary criticism. I read a lot of fantasy/science fiction, and not once have I believed the stories are true.

The argumentation of most skeptics on this board here follows thus:

• Party “Skepticâ€� says, “The personified characters in stories are variously described. Is there anything to affirm that the wolf isn't one of the archetypes from other fairy tales?

There might be.. I haven't made the study. We COULD make it, though.. a simple Google search is a place to start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Red_Riding_Hood

But I am not at all convinced that you accurately portray the skeptic view. It seems more like you made it all up yourself.

[JLB32168]

Monta: This reader has not seen any intelligent arguments from Non-Theists.
Zz:Opinion and grandiose blanket statement noted. Many seem to disagree (as consulting site statistics verifies).

Thus far the only arguments from Non-theists I’ve seen are:

• A) “There is no conclusive evidence that the supernatural exists,â€� which is most often erroneously stated as “there is no evidence that the supernatural exists.â€�
  B) “Lots of people make claims to the supernatural,� which must mean “All claims should be rejected.�
  C) “Belief in X is just stilly fairy tales,� which is an appeal to ridicule.
  D) “Science has proved that the miracles of the Bible are impossible,� which is false because Science doesn’t make claims to supernatural events since supernatural events cannot be measured using scientific methods, which only deal with natural methods.

You’re free to clarify if I’ve missed any Zzz.

M, you can do the same as well.

Monta: Their problem is that they think they know it all which gives feeling of superiority.
Zz: Another grandiose blanket statement.

Well, people who consistently paint others as silly for believing children’s fairy tales are implicitly saying, “I’m an adult with critical thinking skills – unlike you who are an adult in years only and have more in common with children.�

Feel free to start a thread on the topic of formerly dead people coming back to life and “ascending� into the sky (using whatever words you prefer) – and see if you can make an “intelligent argument� in support.

I think the issue is with the treatment of the belief. “Dead men fly into the sky� is a rather impolite and uncivil way to refer to a belief that someone else dearly holds. It reminds me of an atheist friend of my wife’s who on Easter Sunday wrote “Happy Zombie Jesus Day� on her Facebook wall. It’s rude, dismissive, not a little infantile, and only puts forward face of “I’m a real a$$et on this board.� No one wants to discuss anything with such a person.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 75 by JLB32168]

The current topic is one of 1461 that I have posted – intended to demonstrate the many defects in claims, stories and statements from Christian theology.

Can you articulate one defect in claims, stories, and statements from Christian theology that I’ve made – other than “You can’t prove that your beliefs are true,� which doesn’t seem to be a very compelling argument?

If someone makes a truth claim, and cannot PROVE it to be true, pointing out that sad fact isn't an argument but a conclusion to a rather obvious tautology:

1. Person A wins the debate by proving that X is true.
2. Person A does not prove that X is true.
3. Therefore, person A does not win ( loses ) the debate.

If someone wants to prove that X is true.... and offers no evidence to support the claim that X is true.... that person has FAILED to prove that X is true.

Pointing it out is rather redundant. The person making the unsupported claim shot himself in the foot.

Pointing it out is just another way of saying "You lose".

[JLB32168]

If someone makes a truth claim, and cannot PROVE it to be true, pointing out that sad fact isn't an argument but a conclusion to a rather obvious tautology.

Why do you cite my words and say, “If someone makes a truth claim??� What claim of truth did I make???

Why can you not debate what I actually say??

Why must you fabricate arguments, falsely attribute those fabrications to me, and then rebut your fabrication?

Do you have redundancies in place so that should you correctly represent an argument that I make that would be able to call upon to misrepresent my argument at a later time?

But I am not at all convinced that you accurately portray the skeptic view. It seems more like you made it all up yourself.

I stand by my statement.

• Party “Skepticâ€�: “Was the Wolf morally wrong to eat Grandmother and then attempt to eat LRRHood?â€�
  
  Party “A�: “No, the Wolf committed no crime/moral failing. Animals don’t have moral agency; therefore, they can’t be faulted with moral failures. Also, wolves have evolved to be carnivores to survive and we don’t fault organisms with moral errors when they are doing according to their nature to survive. Lastly, LRRHood and the Woodsmen were actually in the wrong because they killed a wolf for doing that which a wolf does, which is akin to punishing the blind student for failing to copy down the information on the board.�
  
  Party “Skeptic�: “The personified characters in stories are variously described. Is there anything to affirm that the wolf isn't one of the archetypes from other fairy tales? The tale of LLRHood has no copyright on animals as representations of evil. Do you have any Substantiation? Verification? that any of the characters in this story you’ve cited actually exist?�

The skeptic hasn’t addressed “Party A�’s at all. Instead he has used it to beat a dead horse, namely, that Party A can’t prove that LRRHood, the wolf, grandma, or the woodsman even exists (as if this is news to Party A.)

It’s a stupid response or even reason to initially ask the question.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 65 by JLB32168]

And who says that the Bible authors wrote about the Satan character accurately, or that the character can't be interpreted in a different way than some Christians do?

So let’s just speculate ad nauseam. Maybe Satan was a flower. Is there any evidence that the writers wrote about him inaccurately or is the evidence that they did found in “it’s possible they did�? I’ll concede that the possibility exists. I just don’t see the value of that argument – certainly not in moving objective third parties to consider Zz’s point as compelling.

I agree that it's possible to interpret Satan as a flower. Might be very interesting, too.
The point about this is that literary criticism allows for that kind of thing AS LONG as it has what we call "internal consistency".

Humans create flowers... it's an interesting idea that some flower called "Satan" previously considered beautiful comes to be thought of as a "weed" in our heavenly garden. Makes sense to me.

Now that we call it a weed, let's pull it out.

Your opinions are not facts.

And again we have the Captain Obvious statements. Did you know that the temperature of the sun is hot on any given day?

I'm so sorry to have to point out that what we may IMAGINE isn't necessarily REAL over and over again. I know it's obvious. But Christians DO take their Bible stories as literally true, don't they?... Not my fault. Calling me "Captain Obvious" isn't going to change the fact.

I'm pointing out a fact. Opinions are not facts.
Lets not make the mistake.

Call me whatever name you choose.

We don't dismiss the scriptures, we dismiss that it could be "authoritative" about gods.

What is authoritative about gods, pray expound?

I'd say nothing.
I'd say certainly NOT the Bible.
But we aren't saying that the Bible is bunk. We are saying to take what the Bible says as proof for what the Bible says is bunk.

I'm not sure you understand the distinction.

The wolf's morality in the story is completely irrelevant to the reality of the story.

I’m not discussing the reality of the story and I think it would be a stupid discussion anyway. Why discuss it at all if we have to establish its reality first before moving onto the question?

That's why I said the wolf's morality as portrayed in the story was completely irrelevant to the question of it's genesis as a character and it's existence in reality.

We can't prove that the story is true. We have pretty good evidence that humans invented it. That's just like the Bible. And once we give up the unsupported notion that the Bible stories ARE all literally true, then we can also start considering other possibilities about how the stories were created. Maybe a long time ago, Satan WAS a rival tribal god to Yahweh.

The point is.. we don't know about where the idea of Satan comes from, really. Nor do we know where the idea of Yahweh comes from either. A long time ago, surely. Desert nomadic tribes... probably.

Why ask theological questions if the discussion must first begin with establishing that the Theos exists? That’s beyond idiotic.

We aren't.
We are speculating on the genesis of the characters in a book.

Why must every immediate rebuttal from a skeptic be one calling into question God’s existence or a reminder that the things being asked about him might be fairy tales? Can no skeptic contribute an original thought outside of that one?

Of course we can and do.

You are needlessly over-generalizing. In questioning the nature of the Satan character, we are not saying that we have to prove God exists. We are doing what is known as "literary criticism". It's just that atheists don't take the Bible as literally true the way that some Christians do.

To atheists, the Bible reads more like a book of myths and legends from a particular culture, that can and is interpreted in multiple and creative ways.

A rogue wolf who wants to eat children . . .

This is another example of completely missing the point!

Perhaps you can clarify your point then.

I’m not going to entertain your points on the wolf since it’s just a fairy tale and you can’t prove he exists. Does that sound familiar? It should.

Well, I'm sorry, but you brought up the Little Red Ridding Hood.
Drop it if you want.

I have no idea why you introduced the Tu quoque into this discussion.

I could imagine that's because you don't understand the concept or how I explained why it applied to you. You gave an almost perfect example of the fallacy.

It just makes you wrong.
Some people care about things like that.