It’s a wordplay, it’s true. It’s the necessary precondition for a discussion: to use the same definition for words.
It only becomes necessary when it’s all you have. Taking ones words, understanding what one meant and then arguing that actually there’s a slight difference in semantics is a misdirection and I’d like to ignore it going forward.
Is the ability to make a squared circle necessary for a God to be worthy of worship?
That’s a strawman.
I don’t need a squared circle. I want children that don’t die of cancer. I want leaders that don’t bomb countries for personal gain and ambition. I want women not being raped at night. I want brown people treated with the same respect I get. I want a planet that is not on fire.
A god that tolerates suffering is all too human and I reject it.
Let me ask you this way: in a world where evil is caused and solved by people, what is the role of a god? Why should I want a god if I still have to solve these problems myself?
It only becomes necessary when it’s all you have. Taking ones words, understanding what one meant and then arguing that actually there’s a slight difference in semantics is a misdirection and I’d like to ignore it going forward.
That’s a strawman.
I don’t need a squared circle. I want children that don’t die of cancer. I want leaders that don’t bomb countries for personal gain and ambition. I want women not being raped at night. I want brown people treated with the same respect I get. I want a planet that is not on fire.
A god that tolerates suffering is all too human and I reject it.
Let me ask you this way: in a world where evil is caused and solved by people, what is the role of a god? Why should I want a god if I still have to solve these problems myself?