And then God dissapeared in a puff of logic.

[Condog]

So you don't let the subject of your worship do things to you? I thought the whole idea of worship was that you do what they say.

I must have a different definition of worship. For me, it's adoration, not subjectivity to command.

Ah, okay. I have no problem with that.

That analogy is ridiculous in the first place. Why would God ask someone to be a rapist.

That's not the point. No one knows why God would do that. The point is, if he did ask someone to be a rapist, who are they to defy the will of God?

[yungerkid]

@condog: then we are debating the *possibility*? and you acknowledge that God would *never* do something (truly) morally objectionable (seeing as He is the creator of morality)? because if you operate on that premise, then there's really no reason to even consider that possibility. why consider the possibility of God being immoral if you know that it's never going to happen?

[Condog]

@condog: then we are debating the *possibility*? and you acknowledge that God would *never* do something (truly) morally objectionable (seeing as He is the creator of morality)? because if you operate on that premise, then there's really no reason to even consider that possibility. why consider the possibility of God being immoral if you know that it's never going to happen?

I never acknowledged that, I am not operating on that premise, you are putting words in my mouth.

But lets consider that argument. You say God is "the creator of morality". If this is so, then surely it would be God who decides what morality is, what constitutes immorality, and whether or not to test that morality? And you say that you "know that is is never going to happen". I thought God was beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals. Who are you to presume you know Gods reasoning, how God thinks and how he deals with his concept of morality? Maybe if God created morality, then he is both moral and immoral.

[yungerkid]

God is not beyond our comprehension. our physical mortality has nothing to do with our mental acuity. God may not even be beyond logic, i'm not sure. but i know He's beyond morality. but while He can do whatever He wants, the likelihood that He will do something immoral is almost 0, if not 0.

by the way, God has already created morality. why would He change it? also the current morality is inherent in human nature. He would have to alter human nature to change morality. and i don't think He would do that. although it is possible.

"who are you to presume to know God's reasoning?"

are you saying that God discourages free thought? He absolutely does not! we are who we are! and God's reasoning is the same reasoning that we use. there is nothing mystical or unknowable about it. He just knows everything, so He can come to perfectly precise decisions. we don't, so we can't come to perfect conclusions. but that does not take away our right to question or learn about God, His teachings, or His morality.

[otters]

@condog: then we are debating the *possibility*? and you acknowledge that God would *never* do something (truly) morally objectionable (seeing as He is the creator of morality)? because if you operate on that premise, then there's really no reason to even consider that possibility. why consider the possibility of God being immoral if you know that it's never going to happen?

I never acknowledged that, I am not operating on that premise, you are putting words in my mouth.

But lets consider that argument. You say God is "the creator of morality". If this is so, then surely it would be God who decides what morality is, what constitutes immorality, and whether or not to test that morality? And you say that you "know that is is never going to happen". I thought God was beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals. Who are you to presume you know Gods reasoning, how God thinks and how he deals with his concept of morality? Maybe if God created morality, then he is both moral and immoral.

That's a little odd.

No, he's moral. He's not immoral. He -is- morality.

Okay, Condog, for all practical purposes, God isn't going to do that. It's rather pointless to argue on an impossible issue. It's essentially debating whether everything is made of cats. Or as yungerkid said, on whether everything will suddenly turn into a cat of the same shape and mass. It has a ridiculously low probability, and is therefore useless to debate.

[yungerkid]

incluye said everything i wanted to say. except i will clarify the last statement. it is like debating what would happen if every object currently made of metal turned into a cat of the same mass. it has an extremely low probability of happening, could happen for a variety of reasons that we can only speculate about, and is a total waste of time to talk about.

[Sithmaster]

I think at first, there would be riots, an increase in terrorism (religious nuts trying to kill the infidels who "killed" their God), etc.


But, then people would calm down, and people would start working on, and giving money to things. Things that would help people, not force them to join a religion. Although, there will always be people who believe in some higher being, even if they don't spend their life praising, they would still probably believe (at least somewhere "deep down").


Note: I'm not saying there would be world peace, I'm just saying that people might get along with one another better

[Eiturlyf]

If proof would come that God didn't exist, I'd be living happily ever after just like I am now.

[Sithmaster]

If proof would come that God didn't exist, I'd be living happily ever after just like I am now.

QFE

[otters]

If proof would come that God didn't exist, I'd be living happily ever after just like I am now.

QFE

BWAMCA

[Sithmaster]

BWAMCA

???

[handofgod]

Who's seen that South Park episode where Mr/Mrs Garrison and his/her lover dream of a future without religion? And when that finally happens in the far future there is no religion, and there are still wars between different societies of atheists.

So, yah.

[Condog]

Who's seen that South Park episode where Mr/Mrs Garrison and his/her lover dream of a future without religion? And when that finally happens in the far future there is no religion, and there are still wars between different societies of atheists.

So, yah.

That doesn't really apply to this situation. They weren't fighting about different atheist ideals, they were fighting over the name for the atheist group as a whole. Personally I agree with the sea otters - Allied Atheist Allegiance. I mean c'mon, it has three A's.

[scythe]

Who's seen that South Park episode where Mr/Mrs Garrison and his/her lover dream of a future without religion? And when that finally happens in the far future there is no religion, and there are still wars between different societies of atheists.

So, yah.

The point of that episode isn't that atheism will or will not end conflict, it was that while religion may be outdated, you don't have to be a jerk about it.

Oh come on. You laughed, and you know it.

User was banned for this post.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

>_>

[Sithmaster]

wow, Twist got banned for a post? what did he say (in general)?


also, I thought the point of that South Park episode was that changing the future can make an Atheist Utopia.

[Tanner]

wow, Twist got banned for a post? what did he say (in general)?

He disagreed with Suki. Let it be known that Tsukatu is a real... User was banned for this post.

[Twistkill]

Actually, I quoted scythe's post and said "User was banned for this post." because he was making fun of Suki's tendency to be overzealous in religious debates. What I should have done was add the line to the end of scythe's post... in fact, lemme do that now. Because I can. And because mommy told me to.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I'm not a blue independent clause...

[otters]

I'm not a blue independent clause...

That's what /she/ said.