Hypothetical question for my fellow atheists

[Hawkins]

Sooo...God's just too smart for us? How does his being super duper smart negate his ignoring his own moral code?

Yes. You are not smart enough to figure out the baseline used for moral code.

To humans we base our moral code on physical bodies. It is thus immoral to have someone harmed or killed physically.

God bases His moral code on souls. So it's immoral not to maximize the souls saved. So if the Canaanites are not killed, His gospel won't reach today's humans to save their souls. He simply removed what are dead (Canaanites are dead using soul as the baseline for measurement) to facilitate the saving of human souls.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sooo...God's just too smart for us? How does his being super duper smart negate his ignoring his own moral code?

Yes. You are not smart enough to figure out the baseline used for moral code.

To humans we base our moral code on physical bodies. It is thus immoral to have someone harmed or killed physically.

God bases His moral code on souls. So it's immoral not to maximize the souls saved. So if the Canaanites are not killed, His gospel won't reach today's humans to save their souls. He simply removed what are dead (Canaanites are dead using soul as the baseline for measurement) to facilitate the saving of human souls.

Haha, what a bunch of stupid, hilarious garbage you just made up, there.

 

[Hawkins]

Rainbows are not an illusion. The only illusion I can see in this thread is proof and evidence. What proof/evidence do you have before you know for a fact that black holes exist? You have none!!!

What proof/evidence do you have for what you yourself just did yesterday (or however a year ago). Again, you have none. Does it mean that everything you said about your past is a lie?

The truth is, for whatever you did in your past basically has no proof nor evidence. That's the nature of what history is! We thus we have to rely on putting faith in accounts of human witnessing in order to reach your past. That's the only way. We get to know what your past is if there are human accounts of testimonies recording about your past for us to believe with faith.

 

[Hawkins]

Haha, what a bunch of stupid, hilarious garbage you just made up, there.

The real garbage is your comment here which contains not even a single argument!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Rainbows are not an illusion. The only illusion I can see in this thread is proof and evidence. What proof/evidence do you have before you know for a fact that black holes exist? You have none!!!

What proof/evidence do you have for what you yourself just did yesterday (or however a year ago). Again, you have none. Does it mean that everything you said about your past is a lie?

The truth is, for whatever you did in your past basically has no proof nor evidence. That's the nature of what history is! We thus we have to rely on putting faith in accounts of human witnessing in order to reach your past. That's the only way. We get to know what your past is if there are human accounts of testimonies recording about your past for us to put our faith in.

Rainbows are, indeed, an illusion. You guys get an "F" on the 8th grade science quiz for today.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Haha, what a bunch of stupid, hilarious garbage you just made up, there.

The real garbage is your comment here which contains not even a single argument!

No argument is required, as I was not responding to an argument. You made authoritative declarations without a shred of evidence. No evidence is therefore required to refute them. That should tell you how worthless you garbage was.... in that saying "nuh-uh" is exactly as valid as your steaming pile.

 

[Hawkins]

Rainbows are, indeed, an illusion. You guys get an "F" on the 8th grade science quiz for today.

You are such a dick. Rainbow are not an illusion. It is a physics effect caused by deflection of light. At least we don't call that an illusion in science.

 

[Hawkins]

No argument is required, as I was not responding to an argument. You made authoritative declarations without a shred of evidence. No evidence is therefore required to refute them. That should tell you how worthless you garbage was.... in that saying "nuh-uh" is exactly as valid as your steaming pile.

We have no argument because you lack one. All you can do is to troll. You are incapable of doing better.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Rainbows are, indeed, an illusion. You guys get an "F" on the 8th grade science quiz for today.

You are such a dick. Rainbow are not an illusion. It is a physics effect caused by deflection of light. At least we don't call that an illusion in science.

Rainbows are, in fact, an illusion, as they fool the brain into thinking it is looking at an object which exists at a certain distance. You can complain all you like, but you are simply wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No argument is required, as I was not responding to an argument. You made authoritative declarations without a shred of evidence. No evidence is therefore required to refute them. That should tell you how worthless you garbage was.... in that saying "nuh-uh" is exactly as valid as your steaming pile.

We have no argument because you lack one. All you can do is to troll. You are incapable of doing better.

You have no argument, either. You simply have a string of authoritative statements (your premises) that you just made up, and which you assert as true. no argument is required to counter a word you said.

 

[Hawkins]

Rainbows are, indeed, an illusion. You guys get an "F" on the 8th grade science quiz for today.

You are such a dick. Rainbow are not an illusion. It is a physics effect caused by deflection of light. At least we don't call that an illusion in science.

Rainbows are, in fact, an illusion, as they fool the brain into thinking it is looking at an object which exists at a certain distance. You can complain all you like, but you are simply wrong.

We don't call that an illusion generally speaking, as long as we have an scientific explanation of how it is caused by the effect of light!

 

[Hawkins]

You have no argument, either. You simply have a string of authoritative statements (your premises) that you just made up, and which you assert as true. no argument is required to counter a word you said.

My arguments are very well presented.

God doesn't base His morality on physical bodies as we do. What's wrong with this argument?

God bases His morality on souls instead of bodies. This is a valid argument.


You don't have the evidence of what you did yesterday. This is yet another valid argument.

You are just too dumb to notice. I pointed it for you and yet all you can do is trolling.

 

[RWNJ]

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

I did look into it. And your own admission is that the dancing sun is no different than a rainbow. There is nothing miraculous about a rainbow. It is nothing more than an optical illusion.

I mean, you can back this up, and begin with the appearance of the Virgin Mary". It's rather important to note that the "appearance" occurred with small children - impressionable, and highly imaginative. Tell me, do you remember the Salem Witch trials? It started much the same way. Young, impressionable, imaginative children all claiming to have had very similar circumstances. As the trials continued it became socially important to have "experienced" the terrors of the "Witch". Suggestibility, combined with peer pressure, and before long you have hysteria over witchcraft that wasn't happening. There are many cases in history of this same type of shared imagined experience.

As for the dancing sun, itself, it was nothing more than an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God. It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.

Sorry to disappoint. There are very few, if any, "miracles", outside of the Bible, which is highly suspect, that have ever happened throughout history, that do not have perfectly rational explanations. I'm sorry that I wasn't wowed by your dancing sun, but it really wasn't all that remarkable.

Since when is a rainbow an optical illusion? You know something about color bands, based on wavelength, thru a medium that seems to have escaped scientists for centuries?

Apparently you don't know what an optical illusion is...

Nor do you .... if you are so scientifically naive to claim that a rainbow is an optical illusion, I'm afraid we have nothing to discuss.

it is an optical illusion created by wave lengths of light passing through droplets of water.

An optical illusion is when someone sees something that isn't really there. A rainbow is real. It is the result of water droplets bending light and separating the colors. So it is not an illusion. It is real.

 

[Syriusly]

That too is an illusion.

The empirical results are an illusion, eh? fascinating. Are you going to start waving a pocketwatch, and then ask me for $100?

i haven't seen any empirical results- all I have seen is your unsubstantiated claims- less substantial than even an illusion.

That's because you have not looked. I invite you to do so.

Your invitation is as ethereal as your claims.

I don't think you understand what the word "ethereal" means, as that was not a appropriate use of the word. Again, I invite you to go look at some of the science on this issue.... the lab trials, on human beings...

Ethereal :lacking material substance :immaterial, intangible

 

[Syriusly]

I did look into it. And your own admission is that the dancing sun is no different than a rainbow. There is nothing miraculous about a rainbow. It is nothing more than an optical illusion.

I mean, you can back this up, and begin with the appearance of the Virgin Mary". It's rather important to note that the "appearance" occurred with small children - impressionable, and highly imaginative. Tell me, do you remember the Salem Witch trials? It started much the same way. Young, impressionable, imaginative children all claiming to have had very similar circumstances. As the trials continued it became socially important to have "experienced" the terrors of the "Witch". Suggestibility, combined with peer pressure, and before long you have hysteria over witchcraft that wasn't happening. There are many cases in history of this same type of shared imagined experience.

As for the dancing sun, itself, it was nothing more than an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God. It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.

Sorry to disappoint. There are very few, if any, "miracles", outside of the Bible, which is highly suspect, that have ever happened throughout history, that do not have perfectly rational explanations. I'm sorry that I wasn't wowed by your dancing sun, but it really wasn't all that remarkable.

Since when is a rainbow an optical illusion? You know something about color bands, based on wavelength, thru a medium that seems to have escaped scientists for centuries?

Apparently you don't know what an optical illusion is...

Nor do you .... if you are so scientifically naive to claim that a rainbow is an optical illusion, I'm afraid we have nothing to discuss.

it is an optical illusion created by wave lengths of light passing through droplets of water.

An optical illusion is when someone sees something that isn't really there. A rainbow is real. It is the result of water droplets bending light and separating the colors. So it is not an illusion. It is real.

rainbow

A rainbow is an optical illusion—it does not actually exist in a specific spot in the sky. The appearance of a rainbow depends on where you're standing and where the sun (or other source of light) is shining.

 

[Czernobog]

It is, but there is one perspective of god (again this all written/handed down through spoken word by men) without the ambassador of god/god himself (which would be jesus according to Christianity) then there is another perspective of god after the ambassador figure.

See, herein lies the problem with your contention. You refer to the Old Testament as, "one perspective of god ... without the ambassador of god/god himself," Except that's not true. In fact the record of the Old Testament is that the people very much had a perspective of God through God, himself. Unless you are suggesting that the Old Testament is untrue, then throughout the Old testament God made direct, personal appearance to the people of the Old Testament, and gave direct, unambiguous commands to the people of the Old Testament. So, your claim that the people of the Old Testament were muddling along without a direct perspective of God is demonstrably untrue.

If there is the Christian god, why else would it feel the need to send down himself in human form and travel and do a lot of teaching? Unless that god had felt that something got lost in translation through its prophets and following generations. Both testaments state the unmatched goodness, wisdom, purity, holiness, whatever of god...

Except they don't. That is the point. There are various psalms, and writings purporting this nature of God, but in nearly every instance of God's actual interactions with the people of the Old Testament this is not the nature that he (God) exhibits. I, again, refer you to 1 Sam. 15:3. This was a direct interaction between Man, and God. Either that, or you are suggesting that Samuel intentionally lied when he said the He had a direct conversation with God.

so if the Christian god was prove, and ipso facto the Bible as well, you’d sill have the problem that then this god is indeed morally superior, good, loving, holy, wise, pure and whatever other positive adjective you want to insert, to a much more superior degree than anything you could ever imagine...which would most certainly mean that you’re idea of morality is obviously wrong.

Again, no you wouldn't. Because the actual actions, and commands of the Old Testament God does not bear out the propaganda written about the Old Testament God.

 

[Czernobog]

Two problems. First, one's moral principles are utterly useless, if they abandon them the moment it becomes uncomfortable, or even dangerous, to not do so. As someone once said, "Someone who will not stand for something, will stand for anything," We either have moral principles, or we don't. Jim's Rules #4: The only thing I have that is truly mine is my integrity. No one can take that from me; I can only choose to give it away. A corollary to that rule is that once given away, it is extremely difficult to get back. So, yeah. Even under threat of Hell, I would stand by my principles.

Second, The defence you are giving God is the Nixon defence: "When I do it, that makes it okay,"; "....not bound by its own creation...". See, I have a problem with that. If you are not bound by your own rules, then why the fuck should I be? After all, the Bible presents God as a leader. Shepard, "lead us not...", over, and over, he is presented as a leader to be respected, and admired. Sorry. Not if he is a leader who thinks he is above the very morals to which he will hold me accountable.

No you misinterpret my point there (with your second point). Considering how much you do not know compared to an all powerful creator. How would you know that the decision he made was wrong (remember time does not exist in that realm), so I couldn’t even venture to suppose that a god flooded the earth, and it was for a good reason that we cannot fathom...but that’d be the best reason I could give you. I could go with the farmer and the pigeon scenario, where there are pigeons who are hanging around a farmhouse for the little bit of warmth it provides, a farmer sees them and knows that they’ll freeze to death when the temp drops crazy low at night, so he opens the door to his barn for them, for them to stay and survive the night. They don’t go in BC they can’t put 2 and 2 together. He then tries to leave food by the barn door to bait them, they don’t go, BC they want to stay by the little bit of warmth that’s been keeping them alive thus far. So he tries to chase and herd them into the barn, they fly away and scatter, he throws stuff at them, but nothing he does can make the pigeons understand that he’s trying to help them and save their lives inside the barn. So wouldn’t it seem pretty silly of the pigeons to claim their morality is superior to that of the farmers, and characterize this farmer as a dickhead chasing them away from the warmth (or as pigeons would think, predator we need to escape from). Which is kind of what you are doing in this hypo, even if the Christian god was proven, that god is loving, and fatherly, and sees and knows all, and knows what’s best for us, even though we are clueless to know what that means...according to the Christian bible.

Okay. Now you're presenting the "God works in mysterious ways" defence. That isn't sufficient. That is just claiming that the means justify the ends; they don't. Ever. Once you claim they do, then you can justify any of a number of atrocities in the name of "the greater good". And your justification for God even goes a step further. It is, "I know something you don't". Yes, I snapped your baby's neck. But you can't be angry with me, or demand that I justify my actions, because "I know something you don't", and I am not under any obligation to tell you what that something is.

That's absurd.

Again you misrepresent the argument, this isn’t a god works in mysterious way argument, it is the disparaging levels knowledge between us and a theoretical god can’t even be compared. A.I. at one point will have an IQ of 10,000, that will make our smartest look like children...god would make that A.I. Look like children. Your talking about trying to debate morality to the thing that created everything, and thinking you could win, even though that thing gave you the free will to debate it on purpose...the hubris is incredible. It would be just as incredible if you’d try to debate the AI with a 10,000 IQ. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE BRAINPOWER. You’re better off debating aliens on FTL travel...

Sooo...God's just too smart for us? How does his being super duper smart negate his ignoring his own moral code?

Ok what is his moral code then haha? Go ahead and attempt throw it out there. We can’t even settle on our own moral code, and there are a bijillion different denominations of churches and variants of Christianity our there, all looking for that same answer.

Huh. so it is your contention that the Bible does not set forth an explicit expected code of conduct, pout forth from God himself?

 

[Czernobog]

Sooo...God's just too smart for us? How does his being super duper smart negate his ignoring his own moral code?

Yes. You are not smart enough to figure out the baseline used for moral code.

To humans we base our moral code on physical bodies. It is thus immoral to have someone harmed or killed physically.

God bases His moral code on souls. So it's immoral not to maximize the souls saved. So if the Canaanites are not killed, His gospel won't reach today's humans to save their souls. He simply removed what are dead (Canaanites are dead using soul as the baseline for measurement) to facilitate the saving of human souls.

So...because he's so smart, he isn't constrained by the very moral code he set forth for us. And are you actually suggesting that the Canaanites were less human than the Jews, and didn't possess a (living) soul? REALLY?!?!? You know who else made a value judgement like that? I'll give you a hint: he said it about the Jews...

 

[Czernobog]

Sooo...God's just too smart for us? How does his being super duper smart negate his ignoring his own moral code?

Yes. You are not smart enough to figure out the baseline used for moral code.

To humans we base our moral code on physical bodies. It is thus immoral to have someone harmed or killed physically.

God bases His moral code on souls. So it's immoral not to maximize the souls saved. So if the Canaanites are not killed, His gospel won't reach today's humans to save their souls. He simply removed what are dead (Canaanites are dead using soul as the baseline for measurement) to facilitate the saving of human souls.

Haha, what a bunch of stupid, hilarious garbage you just made up, there.

Except it wasn't hilarious. It was appalling. He just made the case that a particular race of people was "less than human", and didn't possess a soul. That was disturbingly close to the very arguments used to justify slavery until the 19th century, as well as the atrocities committed against the Jews.

I don't find that funny. I find it appalling.

 

[Czernobog]

Rainbows are not an illusion.

Yeah, well, science disagrees with you. So, there's that.