Hypothetical question for my fellow atheists

[Crixus]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

See? As I pointed out before, you have come to no conclusion on the matter and you are insecuin “your beliefs”. You also have a huge with what you perceive as a “Christian version” of what ever? What if it was the Muslim version? Hell, what if the Greeks had it right? By your very statments on “atheism “ you are at best agnostic, most likely a closet Christian.

 

[Czernobog]

LOL! You're adorable. Now that you realise you can't justify it, you just excuse it because "it was a different time," For a guy who is not a Christian, you certainly sped a lot of time acting an an apologist for them.

There is no need for anyone to defend God for what people do to each other.

Except when they do it because God commanded them to. Either that, or the people who claim God commanded them to are liars. If the latter is true, then the Bible is meaningless. Or rather, it is no more significant than the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, the Q'uran, or any other book of fairy tales, and fables.

I'll let what you just posted sink in to your own head for a while....

Yeah. Meant what I said.

Terrific, but do you see any of the implications of your clueless musings?

Take some more time.

Yeah. The implication is that Christianity isn't special. That like all religious texts, the bible is just a book written by men. And there's nothing clueless about it.

 

[Czernobog]

No. I really wouldn't. Genocide is genocide. Either you stand against that, or you don't. And if you suddenly just shut up, and get on board, because you're afraid of the consequences, then you don't.

So if it meant suffering forever it would be worth it. Ok

Yeah. Either something is wrong, or it isn't.

That's the problem. We THINK we know what is right or wrong, but do we really?
Would you consider a moral code universally where WE are not the center of it?

Where does the Bible present any moral laws that do not involve us? Does the Bible offer a single command that we care not the centre of? Your post is absurd. Of course all morality centres on how WE behave, because we know of no other reasoning beings in the universe. Incidentally, even if we did, it would still be about us. Because morality is individual. it is personal. That is the point of morality; it is a code of rules that dictate how I treat you, or the world around me.

The moral code is made by the creator, the one you hate

The moral code is made the the creator, for whom there is no evidence? And which moral code? The one in the bible? The Q'uran? The Etta? The Bhagavad Gita? You see there are many religious moral codes, and practically none of them are in agreement. So, which one was it that was written by the creator, for which there is no evidence?

 

[Czernobog]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

See? As I pointed out before, you have come to no conclusion on the matter and you are insecuin “your beliefs”. You also have a huge with what you perceive as a “Christian version” of what ever? What if it was the Muslim version? Hell, what if the Greeks had it right? By your very statments on “atheism “ you are at best agnostic, most likely a closet Christian.

Sure. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[hobelim]

There is no need for anyone to defend God for what people do to each other.

Except when they do it because God commanded them to. Either that, or the people who claim God commanded them to are liars. If the latter is true, then the Bible is meaningless. Or rather, it is no more significant than the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, the Q'uran, or any other book of fairy tales, and fables.

I'll let what you just posted sink in to your own head for a while....

Yeah. Meant what I said.

Terrific, but do you see any of the implications of your clueless musings?

Take some more time.

Yeah. The implication is that Christianity isn't special. That like all religious texts, the bible is just a book written by men. And there's nothing clueless about it.

Two Questions for Atheists

 

[hobelim]

There is no need for anyone to defend God for what people do to each other.

Except when they do it because God commanded them to. Either that, or the people who claim God commanded them to are liars. If the latter is true, then the Bible is meaningless. Or rather, it is no more significant than the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, the Q'uran, or any other book of fairy tales, and fables.

I'll let what you just posted sink in to your own head for a while....

Yeah. Meant what I said.

Terrific, but do you see any of the implications of your clueless musings?

Take some more time.

Yeah. The implication is that Christianity isn't special. That like all religious texts, the bible is just a book written by men. And there's nothing clueless about it.

The implication is that whatever Samuel commanded Saul and whatever Saul did or did't do has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

Christians claim to believe in God as revealed by Jesus, even if they never understood a word that he said. They already know that half the story hasn't been told and look forward to the time when all the truth will be revealed.

Second, what is clueless is your dismissing the teachings of the past because they are like fairy tales and fables written by men without having the sense to learn what they are about.

If they were all so dumb, how is it that their teachings remain above your grasp?

What is the implication of that fact?

 

[Bonzi]

So if it meant suffering forever it would be worth it. Ok

Yeah. Either something is wrong, or it isn't.

That's the problem. We THINK we know what is right or wrong, but do we really?
Would you consider a moral code universally where WE are not the center of it?

Where does the Bible present any moral laws that do not involve us? Does the Bible offer a single command that we care not the centre of? Your post is absurd. Of course all morality centres on how WE behave, because we know of no other reasoning beings in the universe. Incidentally, even if we did, it would still be about us. Because morality is individual. it is personal. That is the point of morality; it is a code of rules that dictate how I treat you, or the world around me.

The moral code is made by the creator, the one you hate

The moral code is made the the creator, for whom there is no evidence? And which moral code? The one in the bible? The Q'uran? The Etta? The Bhagavad Gita? You see there are many religious moral codes, and practically none of them are in agreement. So, which one was it that was written by the creator, for which there is no evidence?

Your opening question was what if God (Creator) revealed Himself to us. Well, since he's the creator, he establishes the moral code. Ever think most of us may be wrong?

 

[RWNJ]

Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven

No one will reign in Hell. Even the Devil will be there against his will. He will not have any power in Hell. No one will. So I would gladly serve my Creator.

Good for you.

I for one won't bow to a bloodthirsty god like the one in the bible

Why do you think He's bloodthirsty? Can you point to one massacre where they didn't deserve it?

 

[Czernobog]

Yeah. Either something is wrong, or it isn't.

That's the problem. We THINK we know what is right or wrong, but do we really?
Would you consider a moral code universally where WE are not the center of it?

Where does the Bible present any moral laws that do not involve us? Does the Bible offer a single command that we care not the centre of? Your post is absurd. Of course all morality centres on how WE behave, because we know of no other reasoning beings in the universe. Incidentally, even if we did, it would still be about us. Because morality is individual. it is personal. That is the point of morality; it is a code of rules that dictate how I treat you, or the world around me.

The moral code is made by the creator, the one you hate

The moral code is made the the creator, for whom there is no evidence? And which moral code? The one in the bible? The Q'uran? The Etta? The Bhagavad Gita? You see there are many religious moral codes, and practically none of them are in agreement. So, which one was it that was written by the creator, for which there is no evidence?

Your opening question was what if God (Creator) revealed Himself to us. Well, since he's the creator, he establishes the moral code. Ever think most of us may be wrong?

Except, following your line of thought, part of that moral code the Creator created is Do. Not. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code. As for "most of us are wrong", I would ask, in what way? We got the code wrong? How? Do not murder seems pretty rational to me. Genocide? Not so much.

 

[Czernobog]

Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven

No one will reign in Hell. Even the Devil will be there against his will. He will not have any power in Hell. No one will. So I would gladly serve my Creator.

Good for you.

I for one won't bow to a bloodthirsty god like the one in the bible

Why do you think He's bloodthirsty? Can you point to one massacre where they didn't deserve it?

What did infants, and babies do to deserve death?

 

[Czernobog]

Except when they do it because God commanded them to. Either that, or the people who claim God commanded them to are liars. If the latter is true, then the Bible is meaningless. Or rather, it is no more significant than the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, the Q'uran, or any other book of fairy tales, and fables.

I'll let what you just posted sink in to your own head for a while....

Yeah. Meant what I said.

Terrific, but do you see any of the implications of your clueless musings?

Take some more time.

Yeah. The implication is that Christianity isn't special. That like all religious texts, the bible is just a book written by men. And there's nothing clueless about it.

The implication is that whatever Samuel commanded Saul and whatever Saul did or did't do has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

Christians claim to believe in God as revealed by Jesus, even if they never understood a word that he said. They already know that half the story hasn't been told and look forward to the time when all the truth will be revealed.

Second, what is clueless is your dismissing the teachings of the past because they are like fairy tales and fables written by men without having the sense to learn what they are about.

If they were all so dumb, how is it that their teachings remain above your grasp?

What is the implication of that fact?

Now you're back to dismissing half of the Bible. You keep going around in these same circles. Either Justify the actions of the God of the bible, or find a way to dismiss those parts of the bible that contradict the God of love and inclusion that I want to spin.

I mean, that's fine, just don't pretend that it is rational. Either the bible is the bible - all of it - and it is all part of the same story, or it isn't. Either God commanded genocide, or he didn't. Either the bible is a reliable source of information, or it isn't. You can't insist that it is a reliable source of information, and, in the next breath say, "Buuut, parts of it don't count,"

If the Old testament "doesn't count", cut it out. Stop producing the bible using it. And, while you're at it, quit having preachers preach from it.

 

[Bonzi]

That's the problem. We THINK we know what is right or wrong, but do we really?
Would you consider a moral code universally where WE are not the center of it?

Where does the Bible present any moral laws that do not involve us? Does the Bible offer a single command that we care not the centre of? Your post is absurd. Of course all morality centres on how WE behave, because we know of no other reasoning beings in the universe. Incidentally, even if we did, it would still be about us. Because morality is individual. it is personal. That is the point of morality; it is a code of rules that dictate how I treat you, or the world around me.

The moral code is made by the creator, the one you hate

The moral code is made the the creator, for whom there is no evidence? And which moral code? The one in the bible? The Q'uran? The Etta? The Bhagavad Gita? You see there are many religious moral codes, and practically none of them are in agreement. So, which one was it that was written by the creator, for which there is no evidence?

Your opening question was what if God (Creator) revealed Himself to us. Well, since he's the creator, he establishes the moral code. Ever think most of us may be wrong?

Except, following your line of thought, part of that moral code the Creator created is Do. Not. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code. As for "most of us are wrong", I would ask, in what way? We got the code wrong? How? Do not murder seems pretty rational to me. Genocide? Not so much.

Unless it is moral for the Creator only

 

[Czernobog]

Where does the Bible present any moral laws that do not involve us? Does the Bible offer a single command that we care not the centre of? Your post is absurd. Of course all morality centres on how WE behave, because we know of no other reasoning beings in the universe. Incidentally, even if we did, it would still be about us. Because morality is individual. it is personal. That is the point of morality; it is a code of rules that dictate how I treat you, or the world around me.

The moral code is made by the creator, the one you hate

The moral code is made the the creator, for whom there is no evidence? And which moral code? The one in the bible? The Q'uran? The Etta? The Bhagavad Gita? You see there are many religious moral codes, and practically none of them are in agreement. So, which one was it that was written by the creator, for which there is no evidence?

Your opening question was what if God (Creator) revealed Himself to us. Well, since he's the creator, he establishes the moral code. Ever think most of us may be wrong?

Except, following your line of thought, part of that moral code the Creator created is Do. Not. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code. As for "most of us are wrong", I would ask, in what way? We got the code wrong? How? Do not murder seems pretty rational to me. Genocide? Not so much.

Unless it is moral for the Creator only

Then the Creaor is not moral. Why would you willingly look for, and worship a creator whose number one command is "Do as I say, not as I do,"? Even a 10-year-old child recognises the hypocrisy of that kind of reasoning.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's the problem. We THINK we know what is right or wrong, but do we really?
Would you consider a moral code universally where WE are not the center of it?

Where does the Bible present any moral laws that do not involve us? Does the Bible offer a single command that we care not the centre of? Your post is absurd. Of course all morality centres on how WE behave, because we know of no other reasoning beings in the universe. Incidentally, even if we did, it would still be about us. Because morality is individual. it is personal. That is the point of morality; it is a code of rules that dictate how I treat you, or the world around me.

The moral code is made by the creator, the one you hate

The moral code is made the the creator, for whom there is no evidence? And which moral code? The one in the bible? The Q'uran? The Etta? The Bhagavad Gita? You see there are many religious moral codes, and practically none of them are in agreement. So, which one was it that was written by the creator, for which there is no evidence?

Your opening question was what if God (Creator) revealed Himself to us. Well, since he's the creator, he establishes the moral code. Ever think most of us may be wrong?

Except, following your line of thought, part of that moral code the Creator created is Do. Not. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code. As for "most of us are wrong", I would ask, in what way? We got the code wrong? How? Do not murder seems pretty rational to me. Genocide? Not so much.

God kills whenever the mood strikes him

 

[BreezeWood]

Can't really knock too much in the New Testament aside from things like "only though me can people go to heaven"

So does that mean all non chistians aren't in heaven?

It means that unless you conform to his teaching about how to correctly understand and comply with the teaching in the law you cannot have the experience of eternal life in the realm of God, the kingdom of Heaven, on earth which is the reward promised for doing it.

There is no other way for you to have an exalted experience of life on earth without purifying and refining your own mind according to the instruction of the law as revealed by Jesus.

.

There is no other way for you to have an exalted experience of life on earth without purifying and refining your own mind according to the instruction of the law as revealed by Jesus.

any person that purifies their mind and frees their spirit will be judged if such a tribunal exists however they accomplish the feat - never reading a desert religion book might be the best way to begin.

 

[hobelim]

. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code

In scripture the subject of the command to not murder is not about homicide. It is a command to not mislead others into defying the commands of God to live a holy life which results in the death promised for failure to comply.

Thats what Jesus meant by saying that Satan was a murderer from the beginning. It was a reference to the talking serpent who screwed up Adam and Eves experience of life causing their death and expulsion from paradise where God is and there are trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eye and good to eat, including the tree of life.

 

[Bonzi]

The moral code is made by the creator, the one you hate

The moral code is made the the creator, for whom there is no evidence? And which moral code? The one in the bible? The Q'uran? The Etta? The Bhagavad Gita? You see there are many religious moral codes, and practically none of them are in agreement. So, which one was it that was written by the creator, for which there is no evidence?

Your opening question was what if God (Creator) revealed Himself to us. Well, since he's the creator, he establishes the moral code. Ever think most of us may be wrong?

Except, following your line of thought, part of that moral code the Creator created is Do. Not. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code. As for "most of us are wrong", I would ask, in what way? We got the code wrong? How? Do not murder seems pretty rational to me. Genocide? Not so much.

Unless it is moral for the Creator only

Then the Creaor is not moral. Why would you willingly look for, and worship a creator whose number one command is "Dos as I say, not as I do,"?

If the assumption that God is perfect it must follow

If God is not perfect then each individual gets to determine what morality is for his/herself

 

[Bonzi]

Where does the Bible present any moral laws that do not involve us? Does the Bible offer a single command that we care not the centre of? Your post is absurd. Of course all morality centres on how WE behave, because we know of no other reasoning beings in the universe. Incidentally, even if we did, it would still be about us. Because morality is individual. it is personal. That is the point of morality; it is a code of rules that dictate how I treat you, or the world around me.

The moral code is made by the creator, the one you hate

The moral code is made the the creator, for whom there is no evidence? And which moral code? The one in the bible? The Q'uran? The Etta? The Bhagavad Gita? You see there are many religious moral codes, and practically none of them are in agreement. So, which one was it that was written by the creator, for which there is no evidence?

Your opening question was what if God (Creator) revealed Himself to us. Well, since he's the creator, he establishes the moral code. Ever think most of us may be wrong?

Except, following your line of thought, part of that moral code the Creator created is Do. Not. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code. As for "most of us are wrong", I would ask, in what way? We got the code wrong? How? Do not murder seems pretty rational to me. Genocide? Not so much.

God kills whenever the mood strikes him

Meh. We are insignificant, our value of ourselves and our lives is very much exaggerated

 

[Czernobog]

. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code

In scripture the subject of the command to not murder is not about homicide. It is a command to not mislead others into defying the commands of God to live a holy life which results in the death promised for failure to comply.

Thats what Jesus meant by saying that Satan was a murderer from the beginning. It was a reference to the talking serpent who screwed up Adam and Eves experience of life causing their death and expulsion from paradise where God is and there are trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eye and good to eat, including the tree of life.

You see, this is why discussing the Bible with you is useless. According to you, nothing means what it means. Murder doesn't mean murder. Dog doesn't really mean dog. I'm just waiting for you to tell me that "babies, and infants" really meant "those who are still new to the army".

 

[Czernobog]

The moral code is made the the creator, for whom there is no evidence? And which moral code? The one in the bible? The Q'uran? The Etta? The Bhagavad Gita? You see there are many religious moral codes, and practically none of them are in agreement. So, which one was it that was written by the creator, for which there is no evidence?

Your opening question was what if God (Creator) revealed Himself to us. Well, since he's the creator, he establishes the moral code. Ever think most of us may be wrong?

Except, following your line of thought, part of that moral code the Creator created is Do. Not. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code. As for "most of us are wrong", I would ask, in what way? We got the code wrong? How? Do not murder seems pretty rational to me. Genocide? Not so much.

Unless it is moral for the Creator only

Then the Creaor is not moral. Why would you willingly look for, and worship a creator whose number one command is "Dos as I say, not as I do,"?

If the assumption that God is perfect it must follow

If God is not perfect then each individual gets to determine what morality is for his/herself

And that is the problem. How can a perfect creator create such an obviously flawed moral code, as one that starts , and ends with "Do as I say, not as I do,"?