Atheists, smarter than religious people

cicerone imposter wrote:

The basis for faith and religion today is essentially grounded on the belief that life and our environment is a mystery with no human answers. . .

That is a comfortable position.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

You don't get it. I am not claiming anything about what the Aztecs did or did not do or believe. My assertion is equivalent to saying that the Island of Great Britain existed whether or not the Aztecs knew of it. By the same token, IF Jehovah is indeed God (and I realize that to an obstreperous person as yourself, that is a big IF. ), Then he is the God of all whether they recognize him or not.

You are incorrect that I do not understand you, however there is a much smaller "big IF" for a Sun god and a much larger "big IF" for your god. Why? Because there is actual pragmatic evidence for the Sun, none for your god. Unless of course you are going to argue that your god is the natural world and not separate and apart from it, which is an absurd contradiction as per Christian theology.

neologist wrote:

He has free will according to the definition of his name.

OK, can your god choose a path that is less than most moral? If not your god does not have free will.

neologist wrote:

How about using the words perfectly appropriate in some circumstances?

Why would anger and jealousy be "perfectly appropriate" to your perfect supreme being? Do you believe your perfect supreme being would have need for the human emotions of anger and jealousy? Do you believe the human emotions of anger and jealousy are perfect?

If your god expresses the human emotions of anger and jealousy that would make those human emotions perfect, or it would make your god imperfect. Which is it Neo?

I would expect you to understand that the human emotions of anger and jealousy are tantamount to the human emotion of hate. Does your god hate, Neo? Is hate "perfectly appropriate" for a perfect supreme being?

0 Replies

I find it most difficult to answer one who cannot understand why I might hate evil, be angry over injustice, jealously guard my loved ones and be thankful for these God given, perfectly appropriate emotions.

It may be true that some may apply these emotions inappropriately, but that is another matter.

I'm turning off the notify feature for awhile. This has become tedious.

0 Replies

As you know quite well I was not talking about your emotions nor anyone else's emotions; but for your perfect god to have human emotions is clearly anthropomorphic.

It's not only patently false but wholly immaterial to claim I don't understand human emotions. Always a pleasure chatting with you.

0 Replies

Chumly, you know by now that I essentially agree with your general orientation, a least more than I do with that of Neogist. But do consider the following: You say to Neo,
"OK, can your god choose a path that is less than most moral? If not your god does not have free will."
Could it not be said, logically, if falsely, that WHATEVER the Christian god chooses to do or does, it is BY DEFINITION moral. He does not HAVE free will; he IS freedom and morality by virtue of His nature and its absoluteness.
That's a bunch of presumptuous crap, I know. But what is your answer.

0 Replies

That's precisely the problem with trying to reconcile god's morality to man's. God can kill at will, but it's against god's law for man to kill.

Crap is right!

0 Replies

JLNobody,
Your argument relies on the assumption that god can take any path, and while true in "principle" in "practice" I would counter by asking what is the likelihood of all paths being equally moral in the eyes of god? I suggest that likelihood is zero. It seems to me that any other answer would infer an infinite number of equally moral universes simultaneously.

So the question becomes: does god create the most moral path by default of his actions, or does god select from an infinite number of paths of potential levels of morality and select the highest?

You could argue we have a semantic problem, because as mere peons, any choice by god must by default be the one most moral, but the same cannot be automatically said that any choice as contemplated in the eyes of god, must by default be the one most moral.

I know it's a load of anthropomorphic hubris AKA crap!

CI,
Right you are, the whole thing is utterly bizarre, but it just cracks me up sometimes!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's precisely the problem with trying to reconcile god's morality to man's. God can kill at will, but it's against god's law for man to kill.

Crap is right!

Actually, It's against God's law for man to commit murder.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

JLNobody,
Your argument relies on the assumption that god can take any path, and while true in "principle" in "practice" I would counter by asking what is the likelihood of all paths being equally moral in the eyes of god? I suggest that likelihood is zero. It seems to me that any other answer would infer an infinite number of equally moral universes simultaneously.

So the question becomes: does god create the most moral path by default of his actions, or does god select from an infinite number of paths of potential levels of morality and select the highest?

You could argue we have a semantic problem, because as mere peons, any choice by god must by default be the one most moral, but the same cannot be automatically said that any choice as contemplated in the eyes of god, must by default be the one most moral.

I know it's a load of anthropomorphic hubris AKA crap!

CI,
Right you are, the whole thing is utterly bizarre, but it just cracks me up sometimes!

What you have forgotten is what I have often told you (or was it Frank?). God programmed the first humans with his perfect standard of morality. Its called conscience. The only choice they had was whether or not they would accept his preinstalled guidance system or seek to define good and bad (morality) for themselves. They chose the latter when they joined Satan in his rebellion. We now face choosing from the many paths to which you refer or trying to discern God's will and conform our lives to it. 'Taint easy, but we get credit for trying.

0 Replies

neo wrote: Actually, It's against God's law for man to commit murder.

But it's okay for god to commit murder by the world flood. FYI: All babies of innocent of any sin.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

neo wrote: Actually, It's against God's law for man to commit murder.

But it's okay for god to commit murder by the world flood. FYI: All babies of innocent of any sin.

And bashing little children against rocks and killing them; great fun; Psalm 137.

If God does it it's wonderful.

If we do it it's murder.

0 Replies

yes, Chumly, well put: anthropomorphic hubris. But what else can we do? Every statement we make about the unknown will rest on what we think we know (our deepest most tacit ontologicacl presuppositions). Everything I hear about what God thinks sounds like (from the Christian perspective) theological arrogance or "blasphemy." I have no idea of what a God (an omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent being) could be about any more than an ant can assess my motivations.

Xingu. You made my point: if God does it to babies it is, by virtue of every definition of God, virtuous. If we do it, it's immoral, by virtue (no pun intended) of our culturally constituted morality.

0 Replies

JLN wrote:

I have no idea of what a God (an omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent being) could be about any more than an ant can assess my motivations.

Well, seeing as god is omnicient, omnipresent and omnipotent I think it would be reasonable to assume that, as far as god is concerned, everything that is within our power to do is ok.

Why would such a creature create beings that could kill eachother if he had aversions agaist them doing so? Kind of goes against the omnis...

Now, he did make it impossible for us to jump sixty feet straight up, so I guess that's a no-no.

0 Replies

Good, the no-nos would be only those things we CAN'T do, not something we SHOULD'NT do (natural physics rather than supernatural morality).

0 Replies

Yes, that's what I mean. If we're not supposed to be doing it then it's not possible for us to do it. After all, if a perfect god made a perfect creation you'd think it would be foolproof.

This doesn't mean that I disregard morality. I just don't see the need to dress it up in supernatural guises and create mystical beings that it may pour forth from.

0 Replies

Right, morality is human creation and should be appreciated as such.

0 Replies

They dress it up in supernatural guises, because that includes "hell."
Doesn't seem to have decreased sins much, but believers continue to believe.

0 Replies

hehe... Another thing I don't get. To spend a life in preparation to an afterlife no one knows if even exists... I find that a bit strange...

0 Replies

It is strange to many of us who do not have religion as a guiding principle for our lives. I believe it's one of the human weakness to believe there is something superior to humans, and to believe in a after-life. I also believe that religion is an accident of birth; most children follow the religion of their parents. To believe one's own religion is the "true" religion seems to me the height of haughtiness.

0 Replies

Agreed. But when you say that it's one of the human weaknesses to believe there is something superior to humans I feel the urge to interject that it is equally a human weakness to believe that there is nothing superior to humans.
I don't believe in the christian god, but I do not know that humans are the most advanced beings in the whole universe either...

0 Replies

Atheists, smarter than religious people

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know