Atheists, smarter than religious people

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

If you are you saying "The LORD is good." (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT) & "The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies!" (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT) does not dictate expectations of your Christian god, I would find your position dubious.

Your citation is of a passage directed particularly against Nineveh. Are you saying God's judgement against Nineveh was incorrect?

Perhaps you should offer him counsel from time to time.

It would be a very peculiar argument to make indeed, that those scriptural quotations were not indicative of expectations of your Christian god.

Not that I have not seen you make very peculiar arguments!

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:

You may recall that he also referred to himself as "I am that I am........

Would that be BP or AP (after Popeye or before Popeye)?

Actually, Popeye's words are 'I yam what I yam.' Which, as you know, is what it is.

Chumly wrote:

. . . Even by your standards, you're pilling the straw-men awfully high! I challenge you to argue your anthropomorphic providential Christian god can choose any other path but the one that is most moral!

Define 'most moral'.

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

If you are you saying "The LORD is good." (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT) & "The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies!" (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT) does not dictate expectations of your Christian god, I would find your position dubious.

Your citation is of a passage directed particularly against Nineveh. Are you saying God's judgement against Nineveh was incorrect?

Perhaps you should offer him counsel from time to time.

It would be a very peculiar argument to make indeed, that those scriptural quotations were not indicative of expectations of your Christian god.

Not that I have not seen you make very peculiar arguments!

Are you expecting me to apologize for God's actions against sinners?

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

I challenge you to argue your anthropomorphic providential Christian god can choose any other path but the one that is most moral!

Define 'most moral'.

For you that would be the singular path of your anthropomorphic providential Christian god.

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

I challenge you to argue your anthropomorphic providential Christian god can choose any other path but the one that is most moral!

Define 'most moral'.

For you that would be the singular path of your anthropomorphic providential Christian god.

real life wrote:

Do you agree that the path that the God of the Bible follows is the 'most moral'? I'd wager not.

Yes I do, within the context an anthropomorphic providential Christian god it is his only choice. Do you agree?

real life wrote:

Then, how can you, as a relativist, say that ANYTHING is 'more moral' or 'less moral' than another?

Your question makes no sense as I answered yes, but I should point out I abide by ethics not morals, you appear confused about the difference!

real life wrote:

That being the case, upon what basis does a relativist criticize ANYBODY'S moral standard?

What precisely do you claim is the case?

real life wrote:

Relativists consider ALL moral standards equally valid, do they not?

Since I am not all relativists I have no idea, you would have to actually ask all relativists. However I can tell you that you have yet to make any case for the existence of morality within the context of your anthropomorphic providential Christian god.

real life wrote:

(Except of course for the moral standards of those naughty absolutists. THAT moral standard is COMPLETELY invalid, right?)

Quite the flight of fancy with your straw men!

real life wrote:

(What a double standard. Do you not see the self contradictory nature of your relativism? No, probably you do not.

Given that you have provided zero evidence for the existence of morality within the context of an anthropomorphic providential Christian god, your claim of a "self contradictory nature" is quite empty.

blah.. .

real life wrote:

Do you agree that the path that the God of the Bible follows is the 'most moral'? I'd wager not.

Yes I do, within the context an anthropomorphic providential Christian god it is his only choice. Do you agree? . . .blah . . Since I am not all relativists I have no idea, you would have to actually ask all relativists. However I can tell you that you have yet to make any case for the existence of morality within the context of your anthropomorphic providential Christian god.

real life wrote:

(Except of course for the moral standards of those naughty absolutists. THAT moral standard is COMPLETELY invalid, right?)

Quite the flight of fancy with your straw men! . . .blah, etc . . . Given that you have provided zero evidence for the existence of morality within the context of an anthropomorphic providential Christian god, your claim of a "self contradictory nature" is quite empty.

Chumly wrote:

blah.. .

real life wrote:

Do you agree that the path that the God of the Bible follows is the 'most moral'? I'd wager not.

Yes I do, within the context an anthropomorphic providential Christian god it is his only choice. Do you agree? . . .blah . . Since I am not all relativists I have no idea, you would have to actually ask all relativists. However I can tell you that you have yet to make any case for the existence of morality within the context of your anthropomorphic providential Christian god.

real life wrote:

(Except of course for the moral standards of those naughty absolutists. THAT moral standard is COMPLETELY invalid, right?)

Quite the flight of fancy with your straw men! . . .blah, etc . . . Given that you have provided zero evidence for the existence of morality within the context of an anthropomorphic providential Christian god, your claim of a "self contradictory nature" is quite empty.

Chumly, you assail us with your recondite word smorgasbord of esoteric flotsam. God is not anthropomorphic and there exists no such entity as a 'christian' god, considering the fact that Jehovah is the God of all, including those who deny his existence. Jehovah is completely able to work out his purpose to have the earth inhabited with humans who live forever. He cannot lie. And as to whether or not he is a God of love, consider that he has promised to give all who have lived and died without knowing him a chance to choose that life for themselves. After a person has lived for a thousand years or so, I leave it up to you to decide whether a person will bless God for his life or curse him for his few short years of distress.

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

blah.. .

real life wrote:

Do you agree that the path that the God of the Bible follows is the 'most moral'? I'd wager not.

Yes I do, within the context an anthropomorphic providential Christian god it is his only choice. Do you agree? . . .blah . . Since I am not all relativists I have no idea, you would have to actually ask all relativists. However I can tell you that you have yet to make any case for the existence of morality within the context of your anthropomorphic providential Christian god.

real life wrote:

(Except of course for the moral standards of those naughty absolutists. THAT moral standard is COMPLETELY invalid, right?)

Quite the flight of fancy with your straw men! . . .blah, etc . . . Given that you have provided zero evidence for the existence of morality within the context of an anthropomorphic providential Christian god, your claim of a "self contradictory nature" is quite empty.

Chumly, you assail us with your recondite word smorgasbord of esoteric flotsam. God is not anthropomorphic and there exists no such entity as a 'christian' god, considering the fact that Jehovah is the God of all, including those who deny his existence. Jehovah is completely able to work out his purpose to have the earth inhabited with humans who live forever. He cannot lie. And as to whether or not he is a God of love, consider that he has promised to give all who have lived and died without knowing him a chance to choose that life for themselves. After a person has lived for a thousand years or so, I leave it up to you to decide whether a person will bless God for his life or curse him for his few short years of distress.

Ah, the Neo the Confident has told us what the Christian god must be, despite the facts. Give a listen to Steven Nadler in the second half of Session 5, Beyond Belief Once you have listened, let me know, and we'll see how well your claims hold up under scrutiny.

No such "entity" as an anthropomorphic providential Christian god you say? This is going to be fun!

No such "entity" as an anthropomorphic providential Christian god you say? This is going to be fun!

Defend the words "angry" and "jealous", which are both scripturally ascribed to your anthropomorphic providential Christian* god.

You claim "there exists no such entity as a Christian god". I agree with you in point of fact, but in theological terms, nope. Thus I challenge you: whose god do you presume it to be if not the god of the Christians, the god of the Aztecs perhaps?

You trip over yourself by asserting there is no Christian god.

As an unsurprising aside, I find it predictably amusing that real life ascribes free will to his APCG* yet by the same token asserts that his APCG* can only follow one path, the being the one most moral. Free will for his APCG* my foot! I assume you will continue to dodge this same challenge as per your APCG* as posed to you prior.

. . . Explain how jehovah is the god (or goddess) of the Aztecs please.

You claim your APCG has no anthropomorphistic character, but again dodge my challenge to defend the words "angry" and "jealous", which are both scripturally ascribed to your APCG, and clearly illuminate an anthropomorphistic character. . .

You can well claim that your APCG, is "the God of all intelligent life" but according to the Aztecs it wouldn't be, thus you have not made your case that Jehovah is the god of the Aztecs. The Aztec's main god was Huitzilopochtli the sun god.

As discussed, you can claim your beliefs in a Christian deity as you see fit, but that does not change the fact that both anger and jealousy are characteristics of humans particularly. As discussed both words are scripturally ascribed to your APCG, and clearly illuminate an anthropomorphistic character. Unless you are going to claim your perfect god is servile to human emotions? You would need to be able to rationalize your perfect APCG succumbing to imperfect human emotions. If you can't then your perfect god clearly has an imperfect anthropomorphistic character, unless of course you can rationalize that anger and jealousy are perfect. If you think you can rationalize that anger and jealousy are perfect be my guest.

Why skip over the argument that your APCG lacks free will due to the singular path he must take?

The Aztecs did not know the name of their creator. Neither have the majority of those who have lived. Actually, I did say it was a claim and did not attempt to prove it.

If someone were to threaten your wife, would you not be angry? If your wife were to show improper affection to someone else, would you not be jealous? In what way would those emotions be imperfect?

You continue to place your own definitions on god and expect me to defend them.

Aztec Creation Story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mother of the Aztec creation story was called "Coatlique", the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes. She was created in the image of the unknown, decorated with skulls, snakes, and lacerated hands. There are no cracks in her body and she is a perfect monolith (a totality of intensity and self-containment, yet her features were sqaure and decapitated).

Coatlique was first impregnated by an obsidian knife and gave birth to Coyolxanuhqui, goddess of the moon, and to a group of male offspring, who became the stars. Then one day Coatlique found a ball of feathers, which she tucked into her bosom. Whe she looked for it later, it was gone, at which time she realized that she was again pregnant. Her children, the moon and stars did not believe her story. Ashamed of their mother, they resolved to kill her. A goddess could only give birth once, to the original litter of divinity and no more. During the time that they were plotting her demise, Coatlicue gave birth to the fiery god of war, Huitzilopochtli. With the help of a fire serpent, he destroyed his brothers and sister, murdering them in a rage. He beheaded Coyolxauhqui and threw her body into a deep gorge in a mountain, where it lies dismembered forever.

The natural cosmos of the Indians was born of catastrophe. The heavens literally crumbled to pieces. The earth mother fell and was fertilized, while her children were torn apart by fratricide and them scattered and disjointed throughout the universe.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ometecuhlti and his wife Omecihuatl created all life in the world.
Their sons:
Xipe Totec - The Lord of the Springtime
Huitzilopochtli - the Sun god
Quetzalcoatl - the Plumed Serpent
Tezcatlipoca - the god of Night and Sorcery.
Coatlicue - She of the Serpent Skirt.

neologist wrote:

The Aztecs did not know the name of their creator. Neither have the majority of those who have lived. Actually, I did say it was a claim and did not attempt to prove it.

Since your claim is wholly without foundation, it has the equivalent merit of saying that the Aztecs went to Kentucky Fried Chicken on Tuesdays for the two for one special.

neologist wrote:

If someone were to threaten your wife, would you not be angry? If your wife were to show improper affection to someone else, would you not be jealous? In what way would those emotions be imperfect?

Ok then, are you claiming the emotions anger and jealousy to be perfect?

neologist wrote:

You continue to place your own definitions on god and expect me to defend them.

Nope I don't, you continue to dodge the thologiclcal fault inherent in your APCG having free will.