Is the following sentence grammatically correct and does it make any sense?
"Humans made god to live in pieces and not peace."
It was posted by some atheist in response to this quote:
"God made us to live in peace and not pieces."
Questions on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange are expected to relate to English language and usage within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.
I would say it is grammatical and how much sense it makes depends on your interpretation of it.
means, to me, that humans invented gods to reinforce living in separate groups that maintain non-peaceful relations with other groups. It's not the clearest way to say that but it does closely match the original sound-bite.
Edit: My original interpretation was incorrect. See Comments by Colin Fine and Benjol, plus the answer posted by Mr. Shiny and New.
The confusion regarding these two sentences revolves around the phrase to live in pieces, which must be interpreted based on context. This phrase exists implicitly in the original sentence, and explicitly in the atheist's response.
I originally though that to live in pieces really meant to die, used in contrast to living in peace. Colin Fine pointed out that it probably means to live in disparate groups, and I agree.
The first part of the original sentence makes sense on its own: God made us to live in peace. The second part makes some sacrifices in order to keep the quote short and to make use of the rhyming between peace and piece. The fragment not in pieces is missing both subject and verb, which implies that they should be borrowed from the first part of the sentence:
This sentence conveys two ideas:
The sentence written by the atheist is intended to contradict the meaning of the original sentence using the same basic structure, but flipping some of the parts. Following the same logic as above, his response should be interpreted as follows:
I think it makes sense, but it would be easier to understand if we added "for them", like this:
Some languages such as Galician have a form of the infinitive called the conjugated infinitive, in which an infinitive (such as "to live") can be modified to point to a specific person and number; it would look something like this:
English does not have that kind of construction and instead needs to add a couple of words to the infinitive "to live" as in my example above to achieve the same effect.
Whether or not the sentence is understandable when eliding those two words is another matter.
I would propose that the original writer is talking about God (of a monotheistic religion). Answering from a Christian view point, this sentence would mean:
Now, I am not going to debate the statement here. But it will give trhe necessary context for the interpretation of the answer
Men, in the opinion of the atheist most probably
The sentence itself is grammatically correct, but hard to interpret without context. Which is OK.
It's just somebody trying to sound clever; not really worth analysing. "God" should have a capital "G" though.