Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'm talking about the Christian god, by the way. Please keep this discussion civilised and sophisticated, thank you. I'm very curious as to what you all think.

This question doesn't make much sense. What do you mean above humans? You mean better than humans? And are you referring to his laws that we can understand, or assuming we won't understand most of them, or assuming that we are judging god's morals as they pertain to our own rationality? There's a lot of variables that need to be included for this discussion to go somewhere.

If we're limiting this to the Christian God, the answer would be that his morality is perfect - which humans aren't - but that, presumably, his morals are understandable to humans. At least as they apply to this plane of existence. That's basically what the Bible is.

As psmith said, there's some disambiguation that needs to take place, but that's my answer to what I see as the likeliest interpretation of your question.

Let's break this down.


Originally posted by psmith81992 This question doesn't make much sense. What do you mean above humans? You mean better than humans?
I think that's quite obvious, even so much that you managed to deduce the meaning.

And are you referring to his laws that we can understand, or assuming we won't understand most of them, or assuming that we are judging god's morals as they pertain to our own rationality? There's a lot of variables that need to be included for this discussion to go somewhere.
Our moral is based on God's moral and vise versa, according to the Bible.

So that's the starting point.

Originally posted by Digi
If we're limiting this to the Christian God, the answer would be that his morality is perfect - which humans aren't - but that, presumably, his morals are understandable to humans. At least as they apply to this plane of existence. That's basically what the Bible is.

As psmith said, there's some disambiguation that needs to take place, but that's my answer to what I see as the likeliest interpretation of your question.
You think that killing children is morally perfect?

No, but I'm not Christian. I was approaching the question hypothetically, as a Christian might answer it.

Just as a Christian might respond to your most recent question by saying that there's context to a lot of Biblical stories that you're leaving out by stating your question in such blunt terms. I personally wouldn't try to run philosophical circles to find an acceptable moral justification for every story in the Bible, but it's certainly possible to do, especially with stories that are more metaphoric than literal (depends on the section of the Bible, and the particular sect doing the interpreting).

You sure make a convincing imitation of a Christian , then.

Christians can make attempts at justifying God's actions but in the process they'll end up looking bad.

I'll ask you to put on your Christian thinking hat again and answer this:
You said that killing children ( it's actually babies ) is not morally perfect, but already stated that god is morally perfect. So thus forth killing babies is morally right. How do Christians justify this?

It's either morally perfect, thus anyone that kills babies is so too.

Or it's morally bad, thus God is not perfect.

Everyone justifies actions, you're just excluding the religious.

perfection is maintaining balance
having good and evil

if god is a divine or perfect being then should he not be capable of both good and evil in the sense of morals?

The term "perfection" is a subjective term relative to a criteria.

For example "perfect good" would not have any evil in it.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
You sure make a convincing imitation of a Christian , then.

Christians can make attempts at justifying God's actions but in the process they'll end up looking bad.

I'll ask you to put on your Christian thinking hat again and answer this:
You said that killing children ( it's actually babies ) is not morally perfect, but already stated that god is morally perfect. So thus forth killing babies is morally right. How do Christians justify this?

It's either morally perfect, thus anyone that kills babies is so too.

Or it's morally bad, thus God is not perfect.

There are a couple ways around this that maintain their beliefs. One would be to say that you're creating a false dichotomy. With the prospect of heaven - which the babies undoubtedly enter upon death - we could say that it's no great evil for God to kill them as part of His plan.

Another would be to look into the story itself you're referring to. I'm versed in the Bible, but hardly an expert, so I don't know the exact story you're alluding to here. But it's likely that it's from the Old Testament, given the killing shenanigans. The God of the New Testament isn't quite so volatile, on average. And, depending on the Christian sect, chances are decent that they see this story as metaphoric, not literal. Therefore, the "moral" could be about obedience to God, or faith in His judgement, or any number of things. The justification would be that you're missing the point of the story, and taking it out of context. For example, to many (most?) Christians, Noah's Ark is a story about the dangers of turning from God; not about God killing most of the population of Earth, which they (rightly) understand didn't literally happen.

You could take this one step further and bring in historical setting. God's Word is perfect, but Man's interpretation of that Word isn't. And that includes the scribes of the Bible, whose culture would have accepted a lot more as moral than we might today. So many stories should be viewed through the cultural prism of the time they were written. There's a reason "Biblical Scholar" is a career. This stuff is rarely simple.

I'm an atheist, btw. But I enjoy wearing other hats. I don't think we can truly be secure in our beliefs until we actually understand other opinions. And it also helps when discussing ideas, because if I disagree with another's viewpoint, it won't be for superficial reasons. Too many people believe reasonable things for ridiculous reasons, or dismiss ridiculous ideas for shallow, inadequate reasons.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
You sure make a convincing imitation of a Christian , then.

Other abrahamic religions will defend "christian" positions very often and many philosophies share common grounds with them awesr

Originally posted by Digi
There are a couple ways around this that maintain their beliefs. One would be to say that you're creating a false dichotomy. With the prospect of heaven - which the babies undoubtedly enter upon death - we could say that it's no great evil for God to kill them as part of His plan .

Take a closer look at your argument. Where discussing if God's moral is above humans. Would it be ethical or morally right to kill children? If I recall they go to Limbo if they die without being baptised. But even if they didn't go to Limbo , they still have to go through pain and suffering in order to die.
In any other scenario, this would be considered torture and murder. On par with the holocaust atrocities.

Regardless, though. Even if they did get a spot on Earth after Armageddon, that would still go against your desired outcome.
If those new born children get a free pass then what of the people that have to struggle and maintain their faith for years. Is it morally right to let them cut in line while the rest wait in line? I don't think that's very moral.

Originally posted by Digi
Another would be to look into the story itself you're referring to. I'm versed in the Bible, but hardly an expert, so I don't know the exact story you're alluding to here. But it's likely that it's from the Old Testament, given the killing shenanigans. The God of the New Testament isn't quite so volatile, on average. And, depending on the Christian sect, chances are decent that they see this story as metaphoric, not literal. Therefore, the "moral" could be about obedience to God, or faith in His judgement, or any number of things. The justification would be that you're missing the point of the story, and taking it out of context. For example, to many (most?) Christians, Noah's Ark is a story about the dangers of turning from God; not about God killing most of the population of Earth, which they (rightly) understand didn't literally happen.
And some Christians believe that god is not Jesus and some do. And some believe that the virgin Mary was god. And some believe that Jesus didn't exist, etc. You get the point?
I'm debating based on what is meant to be literal and what is not. And for the most part what is metaphoric isn't hard to tell apart.


Originally posted by Digi You could take this one step further and bring in historical setting. God's Word is perfect, but Man's interpretation of that Word isn't. And that includes the scribes of the Bible, whose culture would have accepted a lot more as moral than we might today. So many stories should be viewed through the cultural prism of the time they were written. There's a reason "Biblical Scholar" is a career. This stuff is rarely simple.
In such a case at best based on implications, you concede that god is not omnipotent because he can't adequately express his message or can't choose a more adequate scribe.
At worse for you concede that god is man made.

But let's take a look at the first part, if the word of god isn't adequately passed on to humans than that either limits God's power or he intentionally makes it hard to understand. In such a case he's ( like said before) not omnipotent or he likes to leave humans suffer.
Which proves that god isn't morally superior now humans.

Your argument lost all credibility towards the end of that paragraph.

You could make an argument that morals don't need to be about suffering, we live in a society that is sh_t scared of pain. Should we undermine all creation to pain, so pain rules us forever, because we are scared of it?

Human morals don't really sound like all that to be honest.

Morals as WE know it? God is not a very good person. Good people don't manipulate others, kill vast amounts of people, nuke cities with meteorites and kill innocents for merely look back(Lot's wife), and all that jazz. But if I point this out people will say I am bashing religion.

So you see the excuse here is that he's God and thus is on a higher level and can totally have some higher view of morals or what right and wrong is and all that stuff.

That's not an excuse, that's what the atheists use as justification to denounce god. Saying God isn't a good personal from your perspective has very little meaning.

It's always a little weird debating with someone that you actually agree with. But I enjoy playing a challenging devil's advocate (or God's advocate, in this case).

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
Take a closer look at your argument. Where discussing if God's moral is above humans. Would it be ethical or morally right to kill children? If I recall they go to Limbo if they die without being baptised. But even if they didn't go to Limbo , they still have to go through pain and suffering in order to die.
In any other scenario, this would be considered torture and murder. On par with the holocaust atrocities.

Regardless, though. Even if they did get a spot on Earth after Armageddon, that would still go against your desired outcome.
If those new born children get a free pass then what of the people that have to struggle and maintain their faith for years. Is it morally right to let them cut in line while the rest wait in line? I don't think that's very moral.

Nor do I. I don't necessarily have a concrete answer to this; I think you make a valid point. Limbo is a bit of a murky territory, though, literally and figuratively. I can assure you that you could talk to a LOT of priests from various sects and they'd tell you that the babies were heaven-bound. They'd also likely disagree that there's anything wrong with "cutting the line." They'd probably frame tests of faith and having to maintain that faith for years as a great privilege, not a burden or unfair treatment.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
And some Christians believe that god is not Jesus and some do. And some believe that the virgin Mary was god. And some believe that Jesus didn't exist, etc. You get the point?
I'm debating based on what is meant to be literal and what is not. And for the most part what is metaphoric isn't hard to tell apart.

See, this is kind of the point though, isn't it? Those who believe the entire Bible is literal have deeper issues with their critical thinking. For the rest, it's easy to pass off atrocity as either metaphoric, or part of the Old Testament that was overwritten by Jesus's teachings.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
In such a case at best based on implications, you concede that god is not omnipotent because he can't adequately express his message or can't choose a more adequate scribe.
At worse for you concede that god is man made.

But let's take a look at the first part, if the word of god isn't adequately passed on to humans than that either limits God's power or he intentionally makes it hard to understand. In such a case he's ( like said before) not omnipotent or he likes to leave humans suffer.
Which proves that god isn't morally superior now humans.

A decent point, and I'd agree. Were I a deity and I was in charge of damning souls for eternity, I'd be sure to be a bit more clear.

But the response is that for morality to mean anything for humans, we have to be given some element of choice. If belief in God required no faith, it would strip that belief of its power.

...

The point isn't which of our arguments are right/wrong. The point is, hopefully you can see how slippery these debates become, and how hard it is to pin down hypocrisy when such an ingrained system of justification exists not just on an individual level but an institutional one as well. Usually I prefer to come at religious worldviews from a bit more empirical angle. Trying to argue the Bible's veracity and morality becomes incredibly murky in a hurry.

One of my personal heroes, Penn Jillette, is fond of saying that the quickest way to leave Christianity and/or become an atheist is to really sit down and read the Bible. Iirc, he claims he reads it once a year. It's an amusing line, one which I'm in general agreement with, so I do think you have something with your line of thinking. It's just hard to convince Christians of that.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That's not an excuse, that's what the atheists use as justification to denounce god. Saying God isn't a good personal from your perspective has very little meaning.

You know thinking about it I agree with you on this. My perspective does have very little meaning. So lets say I can't judge God, I say that is fair. So we can't say he is good or bad. So I guess all I can do is list his "accomplishments" from the bible.

The list would include murder on a scale higher then any human being has ever wrought.

Originally posted by Digi One of my personal heroes, Penn Jillette, is fond of saying that the quickest way to leave Christianity and/or become an atheist is to really sit down and read the Bible. Iirc, he claims he reads it once a year. It's an amusing line, one which I'm in general agreement with, so I do think you have something with your line of thinking. It's just hard to convince Christians of that.

Funny enough yeah I love Penn too. Penn and Tell Bullsh*t was an awesome show. I had a similar experience as him in terms of how you turn someone into an atheist. I didn't specifically choose to sit down and read the bible though, it was forced upon me due to being forced to go to Catholic School as a kid and in high school. We had the religion class with the bible readings and you'd be assigned a certain passage and then you'd have to read it out loud and in class and discuss, etc, etc. Every year it would be different parts of the bible.

Then you have the stations of the cross thing we'd do in church where they'd put up the big images and force the kids to go around to each one, etc. Every 2 years the school had a "Passion Play" which was basically just what it sounds like, a play about Jesus and him being crucified and all that. To which again...we were not given a choice and were forced to do this.

Originally posted by Surtur
Funny enough yeah I love Penn too. Penn and Tell Bullsh*t was an awesome show. I had a similar experience as him in terms of how you turn someone into an atheist. I didn't specifically choose to sit down and read the bible though, it was forced upon me due to being forced to go to Catholic School as a kid and in high school. We had the religion class with the bible readings and you'd be assigned a certain passage and then you'd have to read it out loud and in class and discuss, etc, etc. Every year it would be different parts of the bible.

Then you have the stations of the cross thing we'd do in church where they'd put up the big images and force the kids to go around to each one, etc. Every 2 years the school had a "Passion Play" which was basically just what it sounds like, a play about Jesus and him being crucified and all that. To which again...we were not given a choice and were forced to do this.

Lol. This perspective is hilarious to me, because I went through a lot of the same stuff, but I loved a lot of it. Hell, I was Jesus once or twice in the Passion play. It wasn't a school thing, though; we'd literally act it out on...I think it would've been Good Friday...at all the masses that took place that day.

One year, the lady in charge of the play and the guy playing Pontius Pilate got into a big fight, and he stormed out in between masses, presumably not to return. I had played Pilate the previous year, and a friend of mine, who had just entered the seminary but was back in town for the weekend, had played Jesus that year as well. I called him up and switched to Pilate to make it work. I felt somewhat heroic. Good times.

Originally posted by Surtur
You know thinking about it I agree with you on this. My perspective does have very little meaning. So lets say I can't judge God, I say that is fair. So we can't say he is good or bad. So I guess all I can do is list his "accomplishments" from the bible.

The list would include murder on a scale higher then any human being has ever wrought. Sure, and as an omnipotent being, he has his reasons.

Originally posted by Digi
Lol. This perspective is hilarious to me, because I went through a lot of the same stuff, but I loved a lot of it. Hell, I was Jesus once or twice in the Passion play. It wasn't a school thing, though; we'd literally act it out on...I think it would've been Good Friday...at all the masses that took place that day.

One year, the lady in charge of the play and the guy playing Pontius Pilate got into a big fight, and he stormed out in between masses, presumably not to return. I had played Pilate the previous year, and a friend of mine, who had just entered the seminary but was back in town for the weekend, had played Jesus that year as well. I called him up and switched to Pilate to make it work. I felt somewhat heroic. Good times.

Well I won't say it was all not fun. I mean, school wasn't 100% dreadful. For me it was just the forced church going stuff.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Sure, and as an omnipotent being, he has his reasons.

Correct, I am sure he does have his reasons for murdering massive amounts of people.

Originally posted by Surtur
Correct, I am sure he does have his reasons for murdering massive amounts of people.

Yup.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well I won't say it was all not fun. I mean, school wasn't 100% dreadful. For me it was just the forced church going stuff.

Well sure, some of it was monotony. But I even enjoyed a lot of the ritual stuff that bored most kids.

I enjoy telling people who know me fairly well that I was seriously thinking of becoming a priest at one point. It's so wholly incongruent with my present day personality that they have trouble believing it. But like, I still know large chunks of the Catholic mass in Latin. Freaked my gf at one point with it. She told me she thought I was trying to summon an Elder God or Satan or something. Was a lovely prank.

Originally posted by Surtur
Morals as WE know it? God is not a very good person. Good people don't manipulate others, kill vast amounts of people, nuke cities with meteorites and kill innocents for merely look back(Lot's wife), and all that jazz. But if I point this out people will say I am bashing religion.

Lot's wife made her choice ahah

Originally posted by Surtur
So you see the excuse here is that he's God and thus is on a higher level and can totally have some higher view of morals or what right and wrong is and all that stuff.

Again, we breed animals to eat them, and only a handful of humans are even bothered by that. How good are human morals anyways? When an abstract powerful being acts "wrong", at least he has the assumed power to undo death and give bliss.

When we hurt people. We. Can't. Do. Shit.

But let's hang to our moral superiority

Animals aren't thinking intelligent beings the way humans are. Especially the ones we tend to eat. So we can just scratch that right off.

I also never said we were morally superior. See, a person would be saying they are morally superior if they said "I'm just on a higher level, your morals don't apply to me". It is not moral superiority in a topic about God to bring up the common defenses of his actions. When I go out and specifically create topics just to bash "God" then maybe we can talk about me acting morally superior, but it makes no sense to suggest that merely because I'm bringing up the oh so often used defenses brought up whenever these *multiple* atrocities are mentioned.

But that's just the problem here. You keep referring to them as "atrocities" without any kind of context. So you ARE using your rationale to bash God.

Originally posted by psmith81992
But that's just the problem here. You keep referring to them as "atrocities" without any kind of context. So you ARE using your rationale to bash God.

But uh, people know the context. God thought everyone save a few was wicked, so he murdered them all with a flood. Or we could go with the other one of God thought everyone in a city was wicked so he murdered them all via meteors. I tend to just think coming a few people short of total genocide is the worst of the two. I'm kind of tending to assume anyone getting involved in a discussion about the biblical God has some basic knowledge of the biblical God.

Unless you meant instead of giving context of why he did what he did I wasn't naming a specific atrocity?

Originally posted by Surtur
But uh, people know the context. God thought everyone save a few was wicked, so he murdered them all with a flood. I'm kind of tending to assume anyone getting involved in a discussion about the biblical God has some basic knowledge of the biblical God. Did you delve further into the context or did you stop with God killing everyone except noah and his family?

But what further do I need to dwell? Do people not know the story? What other context do you feel there is besides "God thought most people were evil and thus murderized them" ?

If you have some context that makes it not an atrocity, I am all ears. Just so we are clear though, the people being evil doesn't make it any less of an atrocity.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
I'm talking about the Christian god, by the way. Please keep this discussion civilised and sophisticated, thank you. I'm very curious as to what you all think.

I don't believe in the Christian God so I do not think that his morals are above human morals (in fact I think that Christian morals are also just a different set of human morals)

If it was proven (which I don't think is possible) that a Christian God exists, that created us, etc. I would still not view his morals to be superior to other morals, I would just view such a being as another, albeit very powerful, opinion regarding morals.

Originally posted by Surtur
But what further do I need to dwell? Do people not know the story? What other context do you feel there is besides "God thought most people were evil and thus murderized them" ?

If you have some context that makes it not an atrocity, I am all ears. Just so we are clear though, the people being evil doesn't make it any less of an atrocity.

According to you, but you have to go into the context of these stories and see if there's something more than "people were killed", otherwise you're not talking about an omnipotent being. You really can't have it both ways.


I would very much doubt that if a Christian God was proven to exist, you wouldn't change your stance here.

You just dodged my question though: what context makes it not an atrocity according to you? You felt the need to talk about the context so that should mean you have some as yet unmentioned context of the situation that goes beyond "God thought most of the people he is responsible for creating were evil, thus murdered them".

Originally posted by Surtur
You just dodged my question though: what context makes it not an atrocity according to you?

I don't have the time to post the explanation of the flood, I'll do it when I get home. But it's rational when you read through it.

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15807/why-did-god-create-the-great-flood
http://answersfromthebook.org/2009/10/07/why-did-god-send-the-flood/
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090418221957AA1UR8o
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-killing.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=260

These were just the quickest links I can find. I think the last one is what you're looking for.


That's an overly simplistic view of looking at the event in question. Furthermore, you haven't really gone beyond "God killed people and babies". That's not context, that's nothing. That's an incredibly basic understanding of the great flood.

Edit: Also was just browsing through this, thought it was a good read:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/can_god_kill_the_innocent.html

Originally posted by psmith81992
I would very much doubt that if a Christian God was proven to exist, you wouldn't change your stance here.

Why do you think that? Like so many of the things he wants from us seem so unjust to me. And I'm a pretty rebellious person, and since he's all knowing anyways, there isn't even a point in faking ones disapproval.

The Christian deity is definitely sub-moral in much that he is purported to have done, i.e., the outright murder of King David's infant son, etc., and in the New Testament his smiting of Ananias and Sapphira. As Carl Jung in his devastating critique of Yahweh said, although YHVH is supposed to be omniscient, he is too poorly developed to consult that omniscience, and hence commits all kinds of crimes, sins, and moral faux pas.

Abrahamic deities are vengeful, jealous, and insecure.

There is nothing moral about any of it. In fact the word itself is ridiculous

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't have the time to post the explanation of the flood, I'll do it when I get home. But it's rational when you read through it.

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15807/why-did-god-create-the-great-flood
http://answersfromthebook.org/2009/10/07/why-did-god-send-the-flood/
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090418221957AA1UR8o
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-killing.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=260

These were just the quickest links I can find. I think the last one is what you're looking for.


That's an overly simplistic view of looking at the event in question. Furthermore, you haven't really gone beyond "God killed people and babies". That's not context, that's nothing. That's an incredibly basic understanding of the great flood.

Edit: Also was just browsing through this, thought it was a good read:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/can_god_kill_the_innocent.html

Man you realize you just gave me a ton of reading. Just looking at the outline of the link you said is what I'm looking for..has stuff like "physical life is not all there is" . So essentially saying since there is a heaven killing kids isn't that bad. Then it says nonsense like atheists can't make moral judgements. Then it says atheists have no moral qualms about killing children. Then it basically concludes with "humans can't kill because they don't know the consequences" so come on.

You realize this basically just adds up to "God can do whatever he wants because he is omnipotent".

Because I'm sure if God existed, you'd know factually there is something all powerful around you and that if he does something or wants something, it is for a reason.


Yes, God can because he is omnipotent but he DOES have reasons. I stated the last link or two because it was an interesting discussion. As for the black and white "Why", it's the other 4. I don't agree that atheists can't make moral judgments, but any conversation about atheists being more moral than the religious is just hysterical.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Because I'm sure if God existed, you'd know factually there is something all powerful around you and that if he does something or wants something, it is for a reason.

I don't think immoral behaviour lacks reason though. Just morality. So if he wants me to do something, he may have a reason, but I may still view it as unjust.

Originally posted by Surtur
Animals aren't thinking intelligent beings the way humans are. Especially the ones we tend to eat. So we can just scratch that right off.

That's a cop out and you know it. If you define morals exclusively about how humans behave, then obviously human morals will seem like a decent standard for you. The question from the thread is rigged.


Originally posted by Surtur
I also never said we were morally superior. See, a person would be saying they are morally superior if they said "I'm just on a higher level, your morals don't apply to me". It is not moral superiority in a topic about God to bring up the common defenses of his actions. When I go out and specifically create topics just to bash "God" then maybe we can talk about me acting morally superior, but it makes no sense to suggest that merely because I'm bringing up the oh so often used defenses brought up whenever these *multiple* atrocities are mentioned.

Our morality only makes sense because of our physical limitations, our relationship with death and our interactivity with each other. Morals don't exist in a timeless vacuum and certainly don't make much sense to an entity such as God.

I did not read the question of the thread as "let's assume God is human" and then "let's expect that human to be beyond humanity", because that claim would make no sense.

Can we agree that there is no inherent morality in regards to atheism or is this still very much debatable? It sounds like I'm taking the position of moral absolutism.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Can we agree that there is no inherent morality in regards to atheism or is this still very much debatable? It sounds like I'm taking the position of moral absolutism.

While I agree, there's no inherent morality in regards to theism either though...

Originally posted by Bardock42
While I agree, there's no inherent morality in regards to theism either though...
Hmmm. Not sure I agree with that, meanwhile reading this:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=7374

I'm not sure how objective morals can be argued without a god. I spent post after post asking Ush for an example of an objective moral and still have yet to get one.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not sure how objective morals can be argued without a god. I spent post after post asking Ush for an example of an objective moral and still have yet to get one.

Well, i think he gave some as far as he can go. As someone who doesn't believe that objective morals exist, I don't think he can ever actually give a sufficient one, but neither can you, imo...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, i think he gave some as far as he can go. As someone who doesn't believe that objective morals exist, I don't think he can ever actually give a sufficient one, but neither can you, imo...

The ten commandments are considered "objective", and each commandment has tens of thousands of cases to rectify "what if" scenarios.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The ten commandments are considered "objective", and each commandment has tens of thousands of cases to rectify "what if" scenarios.

Yeah, and most atheist moral objectivists will say that something like "do not kill" (again with the thousands of what if scenarios) is an objective rule.

To me both the claim it is a natural objective law and a god's law hold the same merit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, and most atheist moral objectivists will say that something like "do not kill" (again with the thousands of what if scenarios) is an objective rule.

To me both the claim it is a natural objective law and a god's law hold the same merit.

It's do not murder, not do not kill. And that's clearly not an objective rule. I'm not arguing in favor of moral relativism in the absence of theism but you couldn't get an atheist to argue in terms of something "objective". Was hitler objectively evil? Was Stalin, Pot, Mao, etc?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Was hitler objectively evil? Was Stalin, Pot, Mao, etc?

Not in my opinion, but definitely in many other atheists who subscribe to objective morality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not in my opinion, but definitely in many other atheists who subscribe to objective morality.

But that's the problem, without a higher being passing down the laws, there can't be objective morality as far as I understand. Some atheists might subscribe to the idea but there were many hitler/stalin supporters, dilluting the idea of objectivity. I personally believe that it's possible to have objectivity without a higher being, but mainly because I think the concept of moral relativism is stupid.

Or let me put it to you this way. Without a higher being, I don't believe in objective morals on a macro level, only when you take things on a case by case basis do I believe any kind of objectivity can exist.

And the way I see it there can't be objective morality with a higher being passing down laws either.

There were lots of christian supporting Hitler and Stalin as well, there being an objective morality wouldn't mean that anyone follows it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And the way I see it there can't be objective morality with a higher being passing down laws either.

There were lots of christian supporting Hitler and Stalin as well, there being an objective morality wouldn't mean that anyone follows it.

But those supporting Hitler and Stalin would support them under what guise of religious law? It simply means they are wrong.

Originally posted by psmith81992
But those supporting Hitler and Stalin would support them under what guise of religious law? It simply means they are wrong.

The same can be said of them being wrong about the categorical imperative. About utilitarianism. About literally any philosophical and non-theistic moral stance in history...

Originally posted by Bardock42
The same can be said of them being wrong about the categorical imperative. About utilitarianism. About literally any philosophical and non-theistic moral stance in history...

I don't get it, on one side you have an omnipotent being telling you what is wrong and right, on the other side you have people not agreeing on anything objectively. How are those two things identical?

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't get it, on one side you have an omnipotent being telling you what is wrong and right, on the other side you have people not agreeing on anything objectively. How are those two things identical?

I can just phrase that the other way around.

On the one side you have people not agreeing on what some God said on the other you have natural moral laws in the fabric of existence....

If you truly believe that there are natural moral laws that apply objectively to everyone that's really just the same as believing an omnipotent God made laws.

The problem is this topic is about morality, thus we can only judge it by the morality we know. In which God is a mass murderer, a manipulator, and a whole bunch of other stuff. So the topic itself is flawed, we can only judge morality as WE know it. So it makes no sense to go the route of "dude is above morality because power". At least it makes no sense in a topic trying to talk about morality.

I also have more or less the same view as Bardock. Power doesn't mean shit to me, I don't care how powerful someone is, it doesn't put them above anything. If you act like a dick you are a dick, no matter if you are all powerful or not. You don't get to cop out shitty behavior with "I can create a universe so shit don't apply to me". A spade is a spade, no matter *what* they can do.

You also flat out don't get to give rules to other people and say "doesn't apply to me because power". Practice what you preach or don't F'ing preach.

Except god isn't going to be on our level if hes all knowing and perfect. Logic dictates that unless he tells you a why, explicitly or implicitly, you won't understand it. Calling god names because he and his reasons exist beyond us, makes you look childish. So is saying "practice what you preach" because thats some human construct. Ive had every "why" answered and even now I'm not a 100% believer but I have a lot more comfidence in that than human agenda.

But he's not perfect though. Perfect people do not rain down fire and brimstone for any reason save to save their own life.

Since again, we can only go by our definition of perfect, and a mass murderer isn't perfect. A guy who kills people for breaking arbitrary rules isn't perfect. Doesn't matter if he can create a universe, we go by the morals we have, and by our own morals God isn't perfect or good.

Again keyword is by our own morals. Otherwise topic is pointless, we can't debate some other "higher level" of morals here, we debate what we know.

The fact that he is perfect and all knowing and we are not disqualifies you for giving reasons for his imperfection, because you deem it wrong and I'm not sure you've done due diligence on bible explanations. Again I stress that we cannot understand a perfect being and can only speculate on his actions. However, I think one has to be well versed biblically to argue your points.

Also simply claiming God's laws are arbitrary is nothing but a simple opinion. I don't think theyre arbitrary at all, im fact just the opposite.

Originally posted by Surtur
The problem is this topic is about morality, thus we can only judge it by the morality we know. In which God is a mass murderer, a manipulator, and a whole bunch of other stuff. So the topic itself is flawed, we can only judge morality as WE know it. So it makes no sense to go the route of "dude is above morality because power". At least it makes no sense in a topic trying to talk about morality.

It's also flawed because we can judge God in the good/bad things that are humanly possible but it's absurd to judge him on what is humanly impossible. The second part is essential to actually accept him as a God at all. So yeah, all in all the debate is horribly muddled.


Originally posted by Surtur
I also have more or less the same view as Bardock. Power doesn't mean shit to me, I don't care how powerful someone is, it doesn't put them above anything. If you act like a dick you are a dick, no matter if you are all powerful or not. You don't get to cop out shitty behavior with "I can create a universe so shit don't apply to me". A spade is a spade, no matter *what* they can do.

Again, is only sensible not to vow your head simply because of conventional power or influence.

I'd like to add that the religious reverence towards God (in the omnipotent dreator sense, I'm not targeting the christian God specifically in this argument) is more about the nature of said power than the sheer quantity of its influence. God is not only someone who influences the universe, he makes literal truth. Being against such being is essentially being against the universe itself including yourself. But of course we are allowed to be self-destructive and self-hating, our "souls" (word chosen to fit the narrative of religion) are capable of existing in contradiction and denial. If you can't deny the evidence of reality, you are not truly alive. This, again, in a religious take on the subject.

Originally posted by Surtur
You also flat out don't get to give rules to other people and say "doesn't apply to me because power".

I agree. But as we spoke about animals earlier, there are also rules that are fundamental to our nature. For us to be able to even follow the rules that apply to God, we'd need to be gods ourselves.

@Surtur: I'm not trying to argue about anything in particular here, I'm citing your comments because I found them appealing and inspired the comments above. Which is why I join these discussions after all

Then it is a ridiculous argument bentley. You either subscribe to the idea of god and him being all powerful all knowing, or you don't. What you cann do is subscribe to the former and yet judge him based on human merits.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Then it is a ridiculous argument bentley. You either subscribe to the idea of god and him being all powerful all knowing, or you don't. What you cann do is subscribe to the former and yet judge him based on human merits.

That's the point I was trying to make. If we want to judge God with human morality, then we have to make him human for all practical proposes. But that beats the point of him being God to begin with.

If we reduce the christian God to these conditions, it's fair to say he wouldn't be the christian God at all (obviously you can replace christian by jewish, muslim etc.).

Yup that is what i have always argued and guys like Ush disagreed.

Originally posted by Digi
Nor do I. I don't necessarily have a concrete answer to this; I think you make a valid point. Limbo is a bit of a murky territory, though, literally and figuratively. I can assure you that you could talk to a LOT of priests from various sects and they'd tell you that the babies were heaven-bound. They'd also likely disagree that there's anything wrong with "cutting the line." They'd probably frame tests of faith and having to maintain that faith for years as a great privilege, not a burden or unfair treatment.
If maintaining faith was a privilege then it would be something enjoyable and easy. But faith is one of the hardest things you have to maintain when being slapped around by facts. I doubt that would be an argument made by a priest.

Originally posted by Digi
See, this is kind of the point though, isn't it? Those who believe the entire Bible is literal have deeper issues with their critical thinking. For the rest, it's easy to pass off atrocity as either metaphoric, or part of the Old Testament that was overwritten by Jesus's teachings.
I agree, but which one is worse? The person that is too naive ( or you can call it stupid) or the person that knows the bible is a lie but still follow the bible?

Either or, both are equally bad.



Originally posted by Digi
A decent point, and I'd agree. Were I a deity and I was in charge of damning souls for eternity, I'd be sure to be a bit more clear.

But the response is that for morality to mean anything for humans, we have to be given some element of choice. If belief in God required no faith, it would strip that belief of its power.
You already debunked this point, mate. How does one even begin to believe in god and his teachings if not even Christians know what he wants ( what in the bible is literal and what is metaphoric).
So even if a Christian believes in god and the bible, he might still be doing wrong because that's not the particular version god wants/wanted.



Originally posted by Digi

The point isn't which of our arguments are right/wrong. The point is, hopefully you can see how slippery these debates become, and how hard it is to pin down hypocrisy when such an ingrained system of justification exists not just on an individual level but an institutional one as well. Usually I prefer to come at religious worldviews from a bit more empirical angle. Trying to argue the Bible's veracity and morality becomes incredibly murky in a hurry.

One of my personal heroes, Penn Jillette, is fond of saying that the quickest way to leave Christianity and/or become an atheist is to really sit down and read the Bible. Iirc, he claims he reads it once a year. It's an amusing line, one which I'm in general agreement with, so I do think you have something with your line of thinking. It's just hard to convince Christians of that.

I completely agree. There is no use in arguing with someone that bases his belief in rejecting reason.

Originally posted by Surtur Originally posted by psmith81992
Correct, I am sure he does have his reasons for murdering massive amounts of people. Yup.

I'm also arguing with this other person on MVC on this exact topic and he pretty much is self destroying; like our pal PSmith is doing right now.

I asked him ( MVC poster) if he would kill innocent civilians if god commanded it in his sleep and he said he would be willing but not sure if he could do it.
If gods morality is reflected in his herd then I think it's clear the question would be: Is gods' morality above (insert insane dictators name here)

The only one that's destroying himself is the one comparing a biblical account of God destroying first born to the holocaust.


What a dumb question. If an all powerful being would tell you to kill "innocent civilians", they're probably not innocent. I like the way you phrase "innocent" civilians though, as if God is going to tell you that they're innocent but kill them anyways. Your hypotheticals are really funny.


Ones that follow their bible or are educated on their bible? Yea what a notion.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't have the time to post the explanation of the flood, I'll do it when I get home. But it's rational when you read through it.


These were just the quickest links I can find. I think the last one is what you're looking for.


That's an overly simplistic view of looking at the event in question. Furthermore, you haven't really gone beyond "God killed people and babies". That's not context, that's nothing. That's an incredibly basic understanding of the great flood.

Edit: Also was just browsing through this, thought it was a good read:


This is what your first link had to say about the topic:

" closed as not constructive by Alypius, Narnian, El'endia Starman♦ May 1 '13 at 16:36

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance."


" There is no such thing as "probably innocent". The fallen nature of all humans since Adam means that we are guilty and deserving of condemnation from the womb on.That God could wipe out all humanity in the way he did helps us understands God's disposition towards sin and gives us a reference point for man's sinful nature. The NT echoes this as it affirms that there are NONE righteous on their own apart from God's intervention. The pre-flood people of earth are used as a reminder of this and the flood stands of a warning of the future judgement we will all face."


I guess these type of Christians are more common than I expected.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The only one that's destroying himself is the one comparing a biblical account of God destroying first born to the holocaust.
Lol, mkay.

Originally posted by psmith81992
What a dumb question. If an all powerful being would tell you to kill "innocent civilians", they're probably not innocent. I like the way you phrase "innocent" civilians though, as if God is going to tell you that they're innocent but kill them anyways. Your hypotheticals are really funny.
I don't belief god cares if he kills innocents. Let's make this easy. For this debates purpose, please state what an innocent person is like if they even exist in your mind.

I asked my fellow MVCer if he would be willing to kill "innocent" civilians and he said he would. Whether the question was loaded is not my problem, as a devoted Christian he answered the question, lmao.

They might be funny, but they end up making you look silly.

You're the one that mentioned innocents. And your belief is irrelevant to this discussion. For instance, I don't believe God kills innocents.. So?


Judging by your responses, I'm making you look silly, but I digress.



Wonderful, so it's a game of "I'm going to read the passages, not attach any context to it or get an explanation for the passage (each passage has dozens), then I'm going to claim that we know god's morality". Congratulations, you're making yourself look worse with each subsequent post.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're the one that mentioned innocents. And your belief is irrelevant to this discussion. For instance, I don't believe God kills innocents.. So?
Well, I was going to make the point that babies are innocent but it seems like you don't agree with that.

Just briefly state what you think an innocent person would be like, for this threads purpose.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Wonderful, so it's a game of "I'm going to read the passages, not attach any context to it or get an explanation for the passage (each passage has dozens), then I'm going to claim that we know god's morality". Congratulations, you're making yourself look worse with each subsequent post.
The context is what it quoted. And I had a web address on that quote but I'm unable to post website links because I'm new.

Context: God tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge, they do so God tells them they are like him in the regard of knowing good from bad.

I understand this makes your case very difficult hence your complaining about no context being involved.

I'm not saying this is God's reasoning but you DO realize that the God we describe knows what everybody is going to do until they die, right? So babies are innocent as far as you understand.


That isn't context. You're essentially taking something you call context (it isn't), not delving deeper into any of it, then saying "god sucks". I realize going deeper into everything you criticize is going to kill your argument so I understand why you don't do it.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The fact that he is perfect and all knowing and we are not disqualifies you for giving reasons for his imperfection, because you deem it wrong and I'm not sure you've done due diligence on bible explanations. Again I stress that we cannot understand a perfect being and can only speculate on his actions. However, I think one has to be well versed biblically to argue your points.

Also simply claiming God's laws are arbitrary is nothing but a simple opinion. I don't think theyre arbitrary at all, im fact just the opposite.

It doesn't disqualify me because I do not espouse to a might makes right mentality.

I do not espouse to a thought of "super powerful beings are just so much better then me I can't even comprehend them".

If God was perfect the dude would of never created anything with flaws to begin with, so out go the floods, out go the meteorites, they wouldn't be needed.

Frankly, I don't care if God can wiggle his pinky and create a universe. Dude is still a dick if he acts like a dick. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it must be a murderous deity.

Of course you don't espouse to the thought because you have the same misplaced arrogance as Ush. If you're judging god by your standards then he is no longer god.

The question ultimately boils down to what kind off God you believe in. I firmly believe in a God, but because of the homophobia, misogyny, geocentric dogmas, etc. of the bible, I can only believe that the bible, Koran, etc. is a flawed interpretation of Him. So is the Abrahamic God morally flawless? Absolutely not. But more than likely, the Abrahamic God is not the real God, just one of many man-made interpretations.

So I believe God is perfect, but it is humans interpretation of Him that is incorrect. I don't think we have a religion yet that worships the real God.

Unless you understand why there's 'homophobia' and the likes in the bible, it's hard to comment. It makes sense in the Torah as to why such things are forbidden or abominations. People that don't agree with it either don't understand the laws or don't believe in God so that doesn't really matter as they are entitled to those beliefs. But yes obviously a human interpretation of an infallible being is still going to be fallible.

Again, that is based on the assumption that the Abrahamic God is the real one.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
I'm talking about the Christian god, by the way. Please keep this discussion civilised and sophisticated, thank you. I'm very curious as to what you all think.

The Christian god was created by humans. Therefore god's morals are human in origin.

God's morals are equal with humans morals.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Christian god was created by humans. Therefore god's morals are human in origin.

God's morals are equal with humans morals.

While your reasoning makes sense, I'd have to mention that fictional characters don't necessarily have the same morals than their creators. You could make a violent counter-argument such as this: "When non-human morals are interpreted by humans, they become human morals", but I don't think that assumption makes much sense for different reasons.

But maybe we are using a different meaning for the word "morals"?

Originally posted by Bentley
While your reasoning makes sense, I'd have to mention that fictional characters don't necessarily have the same morals than their creators. You could make a violent counter-argument such as this: "When non-human morals are interpreted by humans, they become human morals", but I don't think that assumption makes much sense for different reasons.

But maybe we are using a different meaning for the word "morals"?

True fictional Characters can have morals that are different then what is considered to be human morality. For example, the god of the old testament has a morality that would get a human arrested for mass murder.

Back in the day being a mass murderer could also make you into a national mythical hero

Originally posted by Bentley
Back in the day being a mass murderer could also make you into a national mythical hero

That seems to support my argument.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That seems to support my argument.

Depends on what your point was (other than lightly poking christian posters ). I think we've agreed before that human morality is a thing that changes over time.

Prove the Christian God was created by humans. There, your entire argument just fell apart.

Prove the Abrahamic God is the real God and not a flawed man made interpretation.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Prove the Abrahamic God is the real God and not a flawed man made interpretation.

Cant shift the burden of proof on me right after i said that. This entire discussion is has been about an omnipotent being, which negates the idea of man creating him since man is fallible. Furthermore, asking me to prove a negative is amusing.

But you seem certain the Abrahamic God is the true interpretation. This thread is about whether God is infallible, but we are only using the Yahweh interpretation as a reference, as though it is impossible that it's not the real interpretation of Him.


If we're only arguing about the Abrahamic God and no possible ones, then the thread title should just be "Is the Christian God morally perfect?", because we aren't talking about the objectively real God, just the Abrabamic interpretation of Him. It's foolish to automatically assume the Christian God is absolutely 100% the real one and not one of many flawed interpretations.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Prove the Christian God was created by humans. There, your entire argument just fell apart.

The god of the bible comes from the bible, of course. Most of the bible is fiction, and that means the god of the bible is also fiction.

I suppose you want me to prove that the bible is fiction. Well here is a good start:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Lets take it from the beginning: The bible states that the Earth and universe was created in 6 days, however, we now know that the universe evolved over a very long time. Over 13 billion years ago, the universe changed to create the big bang which was nether big nor a bang. The Earth itself is over 4 1/2 billion years old. Therefore the story of Genesis is just a story and not fact. That also means that the god of Genesis is also fictional. The rest of the bible simply follows Genesis.

Calling the bible fiction begs proof. Saying the bible is fiction because pf the 6 day discrepancy means you have a child's understanding of the bible. The days aren't considered 24 hour days. There goes your argument again. Please have something substantial next time, not something coming from an adolescent.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Calling the bible fiction begs proof. Saying the bible is fiction because pf the 6 day discrepancy means you have a child's understanding of the bible. The days aren't considered 24 hour days. There goes your argument again. Please have something substantial next time, not something coming from an adolescent.

I don't know why you are so hostel. Perhaps its because my argument has more merit then you wish to admit.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know why you are so hostel. Perhaps its because my argument has more merit then you wish to admit. Your argument has zero merit. Your reasoning sounds like its the very first time you argued this in your life.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Your argument has zero merit. Your reasoning sounds like its the very first time you argued this in your life.

Why should I believe you?

My reasoning is perfectly sound.

Superman is in a comic called, Superman. The comic that superman is in is fiction, therefore, Superman is fiction.

So, if the god of the bible is part of a fictional story, then that god is also fiction.

We can tell that the bible is fiction by looking at its content and comparing it to what science knows today. Without a shadow of a doubt, the bible is mostly fictional. Therefore the god of the bible is also fictional. That means any morals attributed to god, are really a reflection of human morals.

IDK WTF everyone is getting riled up about. Of course the great God Zeus and the 12 Olympians are morally perfect. Blessed be to our true Gods, since based on Star's argument, we can't prove they don't exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why should I believe you?

My reasoning is perfectly sound.

Superman is in a comic called, Superman. The comic that superman is in is fiction, therefore, Superman is fiction.

So, if the god of the bible is part of a fictional story, then that god is also fiction.

We can tell that the bible is fiction by looking at its content and comparing it to what science knows today. Without a shadow of a doubt, the bible is mostly fictional. Therefore the god of the bible is also fictional. That means any morals attributed to god, are really a reflection of human morals. Simply saying your reasoning is sound and then claiming god is fictional because he didn't create the world in 6 days is absurd.

I'm consistently making you look bad and then you post something even dumber. God knowing everything doesn't negate free will, because WE don't know all. Therefore we have free will or the illusion of free will. I mean it's cute that you keep trying but it just keeps getting dumber and dumber.

Dealing with simple minded atheists is simple.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Simply saying your reasoning is sound and then claiming god is fictional because he didn't create the world in 6 days is absurd.

You really don't contribute to the conversation.

If we are talking about the man made god of the bible, then it is not absurd.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You really don't contribute to the conversation.

If we are talking about the man made god of the bible, then it is not absurd. I contribute much more than you, who says "god is man made because I say he is." This conversation went south the minute you entered it and nobody really took the other guy seriously.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I contribute much more than you, who says "god is man made because I say he is." This conversation went south the minute you entered it and nobody really took the other guy seriously.

All I have read was trolling from you. That does not contribute.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All I have read was trolling from you. That does not contribute. Uhuh. And all we heard from you is "god is man made, prove he isn't. " Amusing but contributing zero. I'm having an easy enough time with the other guy, you don't even present an argument.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Uhuh. And all we heard from you is "god is man made, prove he isn't. " Amusing but contributing zero. I'm having an easy enough time with the other guy, you don't even present an argument.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
I'm talking about the Christian god, by the way. Please keep this discussion civilised and sophisticated, thank you. I'm very curious as to what you all think.

I was asked my opinion.

I also never asked you to prove anything. I think it would be too much to ask of you.

Sense my comments where for Van Hohenheim, go troll someone else. You are not worth my time.

@ Van Hohenheim

To get back on topic, I believe that the morals of the god of the bible are derived from human morals.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was asked my opinion.

I also never asked you to prove anything. I think it would be too much to ask of you.

Sense my comments where for Van Hohenheim, go troll someone else. You are not worth my time.

@ Van Hohenheim

To get back on topic, I believe that the morals of the god of the bible are derived from human morals. Your arguments are getting destroyed, you're trolling and then accusing me of trolling. Furthermore, you DID ask me to prove it. Therefore, reported for trolling and stupidity.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Your arguments are getting destroyed, you're trolling and then accusing me of trolling. Furthermore, you DID ask me to prove it. Therefore, reported for trolling and stupidity.

Just because you say something does not mean it is true. I never asked you to prove anything, and I checked.

If you stop trolling and just contribute to the conversation, then this will not happen to you. This is really all about you, after all.

This is not an argument. I had one, you don't. Therefore it is you who is trolling.

End of conversation.

Originally posted by psmith81992
This is not an argument. I had one, you don't. Therefore it is you who is trolling.

End of conversation.

Whhhhattt?!

This isn't an argument? You had one and I don't????

What in the world are you talking about? (don't answer that question, I don't really want to know)

I just got on here and gave my opinion, and then got attacked by you over and over again. I don't even know what your opinion is.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Whhhhattt?!

This isn't an argument? You had one and I don't????

What in the world are you talking about? (don't answer that question, I don't really want to know)

I just got on here and gave my opinion, and then got attacked by you over and over again. I don't even know what you argument is.

Truly a great show. Moving on

Originally posted by psmith81992
Truly a great show. Moving on

You should apologies to me for being such a turd.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm consistently making you look bad and then you post something even dumber. God knowing everything doesn't negate free will, because WE don't know all. Therefore we have free will or the illusion of free will. I mean it's cute that you keep trying but it just keeps getting dumber and dumber.

Dealing with simple minded atheists is simple.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if we know (keeping in mind the bible), our actions determine whether we will come back to life or not (going by the standards you gave).

Standard:

Originally posted by psmith81992
"I'm not saying this is God's reasoning but you DO realize that the God we describe knows what everybody is going to do until they die, right? So babies are innocent as far as you understand."

And as you already conceded it doesn't matter if a baby is innocent at birth because god knows if he will be a bad person when he grows up.

So in fact, nobody has free will because god already knows the outcome, there is no point in continuing to do something that has already been predetermined if the outcome can't be changed.

And thanks for ignoring the other part of my argument that completely destroyed your argument.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if we know (keeping in mind the bible), our actions determine whether we will come back to life or not (going by the standards you gave).

Standard:

Originally posted by psmith81992
"I'm not saying this is God's reasoning but you DO realize that the God we describe knows what everybody is going to do until they die, right? So babies are innocent as far as you understand."

And as you already conceded it doesn't matter if a baby is innocent at birth because god knows if he will be a bad person when he grows up.

So in fact, nobody has free will because god already knows the outcome, there is no point in continuing to do something that has already been predetermined if the outcome can't be changed.

And thanks for ignoring the other part of my argument that completely destroyed your argument.

You assuming God having Omniscience, means that takes free will out of the possibilities.

Its called non interventionism.

Try to come up with a more thought out post before you open your mouth and say stupid things.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You should apologies to me for being such a turd.
Let him cool off, he is irritated by the fact that we're destroying his illusion.

Anyway to address your post:

"@ Van Hohenheim

To get back on topic, I believe that the morals of the god of the bible are derived from human morals. "

Yes, this is the most I would grant in favor of god as of now.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You assuming God having Omniscience, means that takes free will out of the possibilities.

Its called non interventionism.

Try to come up with a more thought out post before you open your mouth and say stupid things.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
Let him cool off, he is irritated by the fact that we're destroying his illusion.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You assuming God having Omniscience, means that takes free will out of the possibilities.

Its called non interventionism.

Try to come up with a more thought out post before you open your mouth and say stupid things.
You didn't understand my point then. Go back and re-read it.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
You didn't understand my point then. Go back and re-read it.

Another failed troll post. If you jump off a bridge, you are predetermined to die.

Give it a shot.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Another failed troll post. If you jump off a bridge, you are predetermined to die.

Give it a shot.
How are you this dumb?
Have I inflicted this much damage to you in just a few days, to the point where you encourage me to kill myself.

You're quite petty. Once you learn how to properly read, feel free to actually make a point.

Look at you taking text on a screen so literally, another "Im liberal, Im offended."

I already proved you wrong.

This was predetermined.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Look at you taking text on a screen so literally, another "Im liberal, Im offended."

I already proved you wrong.

This was predetermined.
How old are you, mate?

How old are you whirly?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How old are you whirly?
Mkay, I think he's said enough. We can all judge his intelligence by now and he's not worth much.

@Psmith: Do address my whole post, not just parts of it.

CA, Whirly.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
Let him cool off, he is irritated by the fact that we're destroying his illusion.

Anyway to address your post:

"@ Van Hohenheim

To get back on topic, I believe that the morals of the god of the bible are derived from human morals. "

Yes, this is the most I would grant in favor of god as of now. Poor guy's argument is getting dissected to the point of desperate rationalization.

Time-Immemorial and psmith81992, you are both just trolling this thread. If you have nothing to add, then go away.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Time-Immemorial and psmith81992, you are both just trolling this thread. If you have nothing to add, then go away.

How dare you tell me to go away.

No you!

He calls anyone who destroys his arguments a troll.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How dare you tell me to go away.

No you!

Calling every new person a whirly is getting old.

I only call whirly, whirly, when he shows up.

Originally posted by psmith81992
He calls anyone who destroys his arguments a troll.

You should say your sorry for the way you treated me.

Anyone can read back and see how you attacked me from the very start. You never said anything constructive.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I only call whirly, whirly, when he shows up.

How do you know this is whirly? I don't think it is, and he was a friend of mine before he got banned.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You should say your sorry for the way you treated me.

Anyone can read back and see how you attacked me from the very start. You never said anything constructive. Except destroyed your childish argument.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Except destroyed your childish argument.

At what point does acting like a troll destroy someone argument?

All you did was say prove it, and when I did you got all upset. Then the troll came out.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
At what point does acting like a troll destroy someone argument?

All you did was say prove it, and when I did you got all upset. Then the troll came out.



so sad

Again, why are we under the assumption that the Abrahamic God isn't just a flawed interpretation of the real one, just as many myths were.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Now you're just crying.

You still can't contribute?

So, you answer the question of the thread. Oh, you can't.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You still can't contribute?

So, you answer the question of the thread. Oh, you can't. As usual, I rest my case. Run along now

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know this is whirly? I don't think it is, and he was a friend of mine before he got banned.

I don't imagine you being friends with such a whiny *****.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I don't imagine you being friends with such a whiny *****.

Well I'm friends with you.

Originally posted by psmith81992
As usual, I rest my case. Run along now

I don't see how this is relevant. I still believe that the god of the bible is man-mad. Your tolling hasn't convinced me otherwise.

Actually, It make me glad I'm not a Christian.

You should work on that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't see how this is relevant. I still believe that the god of the bible is man-mad. Your tolling hasn't convinced me otherwise.

Actually, It make me glad I'm not a Christian.

You should work on that.

Nobody cares. You should work on learning how to formulate an argument.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Nobody cares. You should work on learning how to formulate an argument. Will you just leave me alone and stop trolling me?

If you continue to troll me, I will report you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Will you just leave me alone and stop trolling me?

If you continue to troll me, I will report you. You've already been reported, so that would make no sense. Stop responding to me and then crying to leave you alone.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You've already been reported, so that would make no sense. Stop responding to me and then crying to leave you alone.

It's this kind of garbage that I'm talking about.

All you have to do is stop trolling me. If you have too, put me on ignore.

I still believe that the bible is mostly fiction, and therefore the god of the bible is also fiction.

If you have a problem with that, then show me how I am wrong.

Instead, here is what you do:

Originally posted by psmith81992
Prove the Christian God was created by humans. There, your entire argument just fell apart.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Calling the bible fiction begs proof. Saying the bible is fiction because pf the 6 day discrepancy means you have a child's understanding of the bible. The days aren't considered 24 hour days. There goes your argument again. Please have something substantial next time, not something coming from an adolescent.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Your argument has zero merit. Your reasoning sounds like its the very first time you argued this in your life.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Simply saying your reasoning is sound and then claiming god is fictional because he didn't create the world in 6 days is absurd.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I contribute much more than you, who says "god is man made because I say he is." This conversation went south the minute you entered it and nobody really took the other guy seriously.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Your arguments are getting destroyed, you're trolling and then accusing me of trolling. Furthermore, you DID ask me to prove it. Therefore, reported for trolling and stupidity.

Originally posted by psmith81992
This is not an argument. I had one, you don't. Therefore it is you who is trolling.

End of conversation.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Truly a great show. Moving on

Originally posted by psmith81992
Except destroyed your childish argument.

Originally posted by psmith81992
As usual, I rest my case. Run along now

Originally posted by psmith81992
Nobody cares. You should work on learning how to formulate an argument.

Just being telling someone they are wrong and being condescending is not debating, it is trolling.

Next time I will report you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's this kind of garbage that I'm talking about.

All you have to do is stop trolling me. If you have too, put me on ignore.

I still believe that the bible is mostly fiction, and therefore the god of the bible is also fiction.

If you have a problem with that, then show me how I am wrong.

Instead, here is what you do:





Like I said, you've already been reported. Stop responding to me and move along.

















Just being telling someone they are wrong and being condescending is not debating, it is trolling.

Next time I will report you.

Alright, thread closed due to the hostility it is breeding. There was a lot of zero-value posting here done just to aggravate others. If that carries on in other threads I will give warnings.