If you were God, what would you do.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If you were God, what would you do.

Now, before I give you my example. I am not interested in what you claim your God would do. I am interested in YOUR OWN personal opinion as to what YOU would do if you had the powers of God.

I do not want to hear excuses for your God or talk about your God. I don't want to hear about him or his plan. I strictly want your opinion of what you would do IF IT WERE YOU.

A simple yes or no will suffice to the following EXAMPLE.

Would you allow or watch a baby drowned to death in water? YES OR NO.

I know what your answer should be. But I want to hear it from the theists who are willing to respond.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Were I a god, I am not

Were I a god, I am not entirely certain that I would have invented drowning in the first place.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:Were I

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Were I a god, I am not entirely certain that I would have invented drowning in the first place.

WTF? You are not sure? Not even when it comes to a baby?

I could see you know creating the universe and life.

Streakygod pondering and creating,"Let me see. Stars...good.......(wont mention galxies, I'll let the humans figure that one out later). Plants......check......animals.....check.....Humans and babies......exelent......Humn, but how should I allow them to die? Ok, natural death, war, famine, disease. Oh, and I may or may not allow babies to drowned in water."

You're not certain? THEY'RE JUST BABIES!

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
quick question

Quick question Brian...

 

Would there be any other gods in existence as well?

(i mean, as a god i would know, but this is your dodiddle here)

 

edit; OH! and do i gain anything as a god, from peons worship?

edit again; do i have fundimental control of my peons soul/spirit/whatever (if it exists ;-p)

What Would Kharn Do?


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I would play with my boobs

I would play with my boobs all day (hey, I'm a guy ... what did you expect?)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Quick

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Quick question Brian...

 

Would there be any other gods in existence as well?

(i mean, as a god i would know, but this is your dodiddle here)

Stick to the original parameters please. And if you are an atheist, you already know, don't spoil it for the theists. I prefer theists to tackle this one.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
grrrr

But the existence of other gods would COMPLETELY change my answer >.>


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:But

The Doomed Soul wrote:

But the existence of other gods would COMPLETELY change my answer >.>

Then start another thread. This is my puppy here.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
pfff

a simple "No, no other gods but you" would have sufficed...

 

As solo, supreme dictator of all... i would create existence of everything just for my own amusement

I would help and hinder as i see fit, kill and create at will, build and destroy... for my own entertainment...

 

I would pit groupings of people against one another solely to see what happens within the realm of possiblity

(since im not the noobish god of abe... i can see all possibilities, i just dont know which WILL happen without a doubt... mainly to keep my own sanity >.&gtEye-wink

 

I'll wont say much more, as its obvious what type of god i am ^_^

but...

I would NEVER.... NEVER let lesser beings know of my existence

ever...

What Would Kharn Do?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:a

The Doomed Soul wrote:

a simple "No, no other gods but you" would have sufficed...

 

As solo, supreme dictator of all... i would create existence of everything just for my own amusement

I would help and hinder as i see fit, kill and create at will, build and destroy... for my own entertainment...

 

I would pit groupings of people against one another solely to see what happens within the realm of possiblity

(since im not the noobish god of abe... i can see all possibilities, i just dont know which WILL happen without a doubt... mainly to keep my own sanity >.&gtEye-wink

 

I'll wont say much more, as its obvious what type of god i am ^_^

but...

I would NEVER.... NEVER let lesser beings know of my existence

ever...

Damn it, you wont let me have my thread will you? We cant have the theists reading the last page of the novel, it spoils the ending.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
oops

i uh... didnt see a theist only sign, thought it was open to all knuckle-heads

want me to delete anything?

 

(and did i win a cookie? ^_^ )

What Would Kharn Do?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:i

The Doomed Soul wrote:

i uh... didnt see a theist only sign, thought it was open to all knuckle-heads

want me to delete anything?

 

(and did i win a cookie? ^_^ )

Take your cookie and go. If you show your face in this thread again, I will send you to bed without supper. WILL YOU PLEASE let the theists take a stab at it. No, don't delete anything btw. I think there will still be theists willing to dance around the obvious.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
If I were God, death,

If I were God, death, drowning and tragedy would be my creations thus the meaning (if any) purpose (if any) and consequence (if any) of those things would be mine also to dictate. I would also be the creator of babies, and of water and again, the meaning purpose and consequence of those things would also be mine to dictate.

If I were God, I would have an entirely different perception to a human of the matter of a baby drowning in water. I would not see the event coloured by human expectations, I would see it coloured by a deities expectations. I would see drowning as the thing I had created it to be, and death as the thing I had created it to be. Human beliefs about death and death itself are different creations, each providing a unique aspect to my one creation as a whole. One would not outweigh the other. I would allow death and subvert death at my own discretion given my extensive knowledge and understanding, not at the discretion of beliefs based upon limited knowledge within my creation.

What this answer means, explicitly, is sometimes (probably) I would allow it, sometimes (probably) I wouldn't, I would intervene. As god, moreover, I could quite well choose to do both in the same instance, save the baby and leave the baby at once, as God I could make both outcomes exist equally. (and leave it to the humans experiencing life and death to choose, on some level, which one they want to live out).

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:If I were God,

Eloise wrote:

If I were God, death, drowning and tragedy would be my creations thus the meaning (if any) purpose (if any) and consequence (if any) of those things would be mine also to dictate. I would also be the creator of babies, and of water and again, the meaning purpose and consequence of those things would also be mine to dictate.

If I were God, I would have an entirely different perception to a human of the matter of a baby drowning in water. I would not see the event coloured by human expectations, I would see it coloured by a deities expectations. I would see drowning as the thing I had created it to be, and death as the thing I had created it to be. Human beliefs about death and death itself are different creations, each providing a unique aspect to my one creation as a whole. One would not outweigh the other. I would allow death and subvert death at my own discretion given my extensive knowledge and understanding, not at the discretion of beliefs based upon limited knowledge within my creation.

What this answer means, explicitly, is sometimes (probably) I would allow it, sometimes (probably) I wouldn't, I would intervene.

That was a convoluted way of saying, "We cant understand God because we are not God"

And again, if you read the OP I am NOT interested in what you think God would do. I am asking YOU what YOU would do.

Quote:
What this answer means, explicitly, is sometimes (probably) I would allow it, sometimes (probably) I wouldn't, I would intervene.

This the only part of your response speaks  to "what would I do". But, my response to this is the same as I have for Losingstreak's response. WTF?

Sometimes you would and sometimes you wouldn't? So a baby is a prop for you to use at your discretion? What would that baby have done in it's short life for you to allow it to suffer? Why not just "poof" make it disappear without the suffering?

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Eloise

Brian37 wrote:

Eloise wrote:

If I were God, death, drowning and tragedy would be my creations thus the meaning (if any) purpose (if any) and consequence (if any) of those things would be mine also to dictate. I would also be the creator of babies, and of water and again, the meaning purpose and consequence of those things would also be mine to dictate.

If I were God, I would have an entirely different perception to a human of the matter of a baby drowning in water. I would not see the event coloured by human expectations, I would see it coloured by a deities expectations. I would see drowning as the thing I had created it to be, and death as the thing I had created it to be. Human beliefs about death and death itself are different creations, each providing a unique aspect to my one creation as a whole. One would not outweigh the other. I would allow death and subvert death at my own discretion given my extensive knowledge and understanding, not at the discretion of beliefs based upon limited knowledge within my creation.

What this answer means, explicitly, is sometimes (probably) I would allow it, sometimes (probably) I wouldn't, I would intervene.

That was a convoluted way of saying, "We cant understand God because we are not God"

And again, if you read the OP I am NOT interested in what you think God would do. I am asking YOU what YOU would do.

Yes, but you make the point in your question that I am choosing what to do, with the powers of God. If I am God, then I am privy to all of the above and I am entitled to make my decision within that framework. What humans do not understand about my godly point of view does not make my point of view anything that humans claim to understand.

 

Quote:

Quote:
What this answer means, explicitly, is sometimes (probably) I would allow it, sometimes (probably) I wouldn't, I would intervene.

This the only part of your response speaks  to "what would I do".

Actually all my post speaks to your question, really, but I added this because I could see it would require clarification.

Quote:

But, my response to this is the same as I have for Losingstreak's response. WTF?

Sometimes you would and sometimes you wouldn't? So a baby is a prop for you to use at your discretion?

I am God. Everything is a prop which I can use at my discretion. As God I am quite capable of using everything as a prop at my discretion, AND everything not you as a prop at your discretion, AND everything not Eloise as a prop at her discretion. I can do this because I am God.

Quote:

What would that baby have done in it's short life for you to allow it to suffer? Why not just "poof" make it disappear without the suffering?

The baby that drowns is not being punished, that is a human construct around death. Death is my prop, it's not what you say it is it's what I say it is because I am God, you see? As God, because I created everything, death is like choosing a colour for my living room wall. And moreover if death is blue, life is green I'm God I can choose blue and green for the same wall.  Humans experience one wall, but there are two, And since I am God and know them both, I can also paint them both a different colour.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:WTF? You are

Brian37 wrote:

WTF? You are not sure? Not even when it comes to a baby?

Well, to be fair, you've presented a rather large question. Before I could even answer I would have to decide if the question even applied. As a deity, I might choose to make things very, very different then what you see today. Drowning, water, or even babies might not exist in whatever it is I decide to create. To expect me to answer a "simple" question right off the bat seems a bit demanding to me.

Quote:
I could see you know creating the universe and life.

Streakygod pondering and creating,"Let me see. Stars...good.......(wont mention galxies, I'll let the humans figure that one out later). Plants......check......animals.....check.....Humans and babies......exelent......Humn, but how should I allow them to die? Ok, natural death, war, famine, disease. Oh, and I may or may not allow babies to drowned in water."

You're not certain? THEY'RE JUST BABIES!

Again, you presume that I would invent a universe similar to the one we live in. You don't mention galaxies, but who says I'll even create stars? Who says I would want life, let alone human life, to exist as part of my creation?

Furthermore, I don't consider death to be a necessarily "negative" event, so I don't see babies drowning to be particularly sad. And as a deity, I should suppose I would find it even less saddening: if I had created an afterlife, then they would just move on to that, and if I hadn't, then the drowning of the infant would be, on the scale that I exist, no more meaningful than the death of an 89 year old philosopher who touched the lives of millions, or the assassination of a worldwide political leader.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
If I was "the great eye in

Drowning baby question: No. Death happens.  

If I was "the great eye in the sky," I would do a couple of things right off the bat.

Presuming I was given the powers of God after the original God had them, I would explore the entirety of existence. In short, I would go everywhere and see everything. But, perhaps, I wouldn't even need to travel anywhere because I could quite possibly just perceive everything immediately. Ah, even if I could just perceive, I would still want to go around and experience everything there is.

After that, I would attempt to do whatever God does. I can't really imagine what he does now, but I would do whatever it is God would do. However, I think I would do away with the requirement of people to worship me if they wanted to be in my favor. I think that I would leave the option up to them, without consequence. It sounds like I am painting a different picture of Christianity (slightly) because I am trying to do just that.

I've always wished that the Christian story didn't require us to have so much riding on this life, a mere speck in the scope of existence. Why is so much riding on such a short period of time? If I were God, I would not make the life we are currently living the only shot. I would remove the "shot." If I were God, why couldn't I make it so all of my creations (however I created them) would be in at least a semi-positive or free-to-do-your-desire environment? I don't know, I am just considering a type of utopia that God would be the head of. Something like Plato's ideal society but with modern conceptions of human rights and liberties. Bah. Just saying that sounds like utter nonsense.

So this question has been fun, but I am beginning to feel silly. Essentially, If I were God, things would be different in the eternal scope of things; this life would not be the one shot.

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote:Drowning baby

jread wrote:

Drowning baby question: No. Death happens.  

If I was "the great eye in the sky," I would do a couple of things right off the bat.

Presuming I was given the powers of God after the original God had them, I would explore the entirety of existence. In short, I would go everywhere and see everything. But, perhaps, I wouldn't even need to travel anywhere because I could quite possibly just perceive everything immediately. Ah, even if I could just perceive, I would still want to go around and experience everything there is.

After that, I would attempt to do whatever God does. I can't really imagine what he does now, but I would do whatever it is God would do. However, I think I would do away with the requirement of people to worship me if they wanted to be in my favor. I think that I would leave the option up to them, without consequence. It sounds like I am painting a different picture of Christianity (slightly) because I am trying to do just that.

I've always wished that the Christian story didn't require us to have so much riding on this life, a mere speck in the scope of existence. Why is so much riding on such a short period of time? If I were God, I would not make the life we are currently living the only shot. I would remove the "shot." If I were God, why couldn't I make it so all of my creations (however I created them) would be in at least a semi-positive or free-to-do-your-desire environment? I don't know, I am just considering a type of utopia that God would be the head of. Something like Plato's ideal society but with modern conceptions of human rights and liberties. Bah. Just saying that sounds like utter nonsense.

So this question has been fun, but I am beginning to feel silly. Essentially, If I were God, things would be different in the eternal scope of things; this life would not be the one shot.

 

 Ask a simple question.

Ok guys, here, since you don't want to I'll do it for you.

Your answer should be "NO I would not allow babies to drowned  if I were God."

How come I can answer with that response and you cant? It's not that you cant answer with that, it is that you wont answer with that, because you know that babies suffer in reality from all sorts of things and you dont want  face that you buy the claim that a deity who watches and allows this. If you are not embarrassed that you believe such a claim, you should be.

You don't want to see your deity claim in a bad light, that is why you make excuses for it.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jread

Brian37 wrote:

 Ask a simple question.

Ok guys, here, since you don't want to I'll do it for you.

Your answer should be "NO I would not allow babies to drowned  if I were God."

That's my answer as of having human powers, as a human to not allow babies to drown with all the power I have and all the knowledge I have is the best I can do. 

What I have tried to explain in my post is that having God powers I would do far far more than I can do as a human. Death and life would not be opposed to each other, babies that died would also live, people that saw death would also see life, I would make this, no matter how impossible it seems to you, as real as the nose on your face. If I was God, I Could.

I would not take death and suffering away from the creation, if anything I would add to the creation, more potential, more risk and more experience. As I fathom unlimited god like power, I would add, not subtract from the boundaries of creation. As God I have unlimited power to give the baby infinitely more than a tragic death without ever taking the death away from it or anyone else and so I would.

Quote:

How come I can answer with that response and you cant?

The only reason, Brian, is that you are granting me the hypothetical omnipotence of God to respond with, with the omnipotence of God I would do more than prevent death in a world that needs death to remain viable, I would shake up the whole foundation of the process, I would make death nothing, and add to entire worlds to life. 

Quote:

It's not that you cant answer with that, it is that you wont answer with that, because you know that babies suffer in reality from all sorts of things and you dont want  face that you buy the claim that a deity who watches and allows this.

Oh No, Brian, I definitely do buy that a deity sees and allows suffering and death. But who are we to take the high ground? We humans do the same. With our beliefs and understanding about death and suffering I would have to say it's got to be worse for us, since it is to us that death and suffering are ultimate, bad, and irreversible. to God they are, as you pointed out earlier, merely a prop in a large production.  

As it means so much to us to avoid suffering then it falls to us to prevent it, whether you believe in god or not, it is the same. Why should we care if in God's reality a baby lives and dies and death is nothing? in OUR reality we percieve suffering and in our reality we deem ourselves to do something to prevent it.

So in short, if I was God, I would wield all my power and extend the world beyond death the baby would never have to die or experience death, but its death would remain a real event. And as a human I would wield all my power and save the baby. It's a matter of how much power I have to use, not how much compassion I have for the baby.

Quote:

If you are not embarrassed that you believe such a claim, you should be.

I'm not embarrassed.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I'd be a hell of a lot nicer

I'd be a hell of a lot nicer than the Abrahamic God dude. He was a prick!!


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Ask a simple

Brian37 wrote:

 Ask a simple question.

Ok guys, here, since you don't want to I'll do it for you.

Your answer should be "NO I would not allow babies to drowned  if I were God."

How come I can answer with that response and you cant? It's not that you cant answer with that, it is that you wont answer with that, because you know that babies suffer in reality from all sorts of things and you dont want  face that you buy the claim that a deity who watches and allows this. If you are not embarrassed that you believe such a claim, you should be.

You don't want to see your deity claim in a bad light, that is why you make excuses for it.

If I had known you were going to pull this bullshit, then I wouldn't have even read this topic. But since it's too late for that, I'd have to kindly ask you just who the fuck you think you are to answer a question for me. Just because you are unable to examine issues from a larger perspective than your very own doesn't mean the rest of us have the same deficiency.

If this is your idea of what suffices for a passable argument, then I would suggest you stick to your "poetry."


Milkshake89
Milkshake89's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-08-18
User is offlineOffline
I'd like to have statistics

I'd like to have statistics for how many babies drown per year !


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Your answer

Brian37 wrote:
Your answer should be "NO I would not allow babies to drowned  if I were God."

I agree.  Now the question is, "Should God do away with water, or babies?"

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Brian37

totus_tuus wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Your answer should be "NO I would not allow babies to drowned  if I were God."

I agree.  Now the question is, "Should God do away with water, or babies?"

How about God teaching the parents that the kid is worth having instead of planting the idea in some that they should kill it so it can go to heaven in an innocent state (after having a proper baptism, of course)?

Why does your God dig watching people die/killing people anyway?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Why not make people able to

Why not make people able to breathe water as well as air?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That's my answer as of

Quote:
That's my answer as of having human powers,

And that SHOULD be your answer if you were an all powerful God too. Otherwise I cannot nor will I call you moral.

Again, we have excuses because we are limited. BUT if I WERE unlimited in my power there is no way at all that kind of suffering would ever take place. So, since you claim we don't know then what is God's excuse?

"I have a plan"

"I can do what I want"

"Your mind is too puny to understand"

Excuses that is all they are.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:So, since you

Brian37 wrote:

So, since you claim we don't know then what is God's excuse?

"I have a plan"

"I can do what I want"

"Your mind is too puny to understand"

Excuses that is all they are.

 

and such pitiful HUMAN constructs at that >.>

 

What Would Kharn Do?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Brian37

totus_tuus wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Your answer should be "NO I would not allow babies to drowned  if I were God."

I agree.  Now the question is, "Should God do away with water, or babies?"

Thank you for leaving yourself wide open. This is too easy.

What kind of mental gymnastics are you doing to yourself to convince you that a magical sky daddy can "poof" do away with babies"? Or water for that matter.

Hey, since you are such a fan of "POOF "

"Poof",the magic sky daddy

Lived by the sea

And frolicked in the babies deaths

In a land called "Fantasy".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:That's

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
That's my answer as of having human powers,

And that SHOULD be your answer if you were an all powerful God too. Otherwise I cannot nor will I call you moral.

Why should an all powerful being, that can do anything and created everything, act out of fear of one of it's own creations? What is so moral about God acting as though it believes that death is final and suffering is irrevocable? That makes no sense. If you were God would you opt to have a big chunk of your creation be mysterious and frightening to you? Why would you do that? and why would that be moral to do that?

Quote:

Again, we have excuses because we are limited. BUT if I WERE unlimited in my power there is no way at all that kind of suffering would ever take place.

I want you to explain why, if you were all powerful, you would reject suffering? If you had power over everything including suffering and death, what cause would you have to reject those things off hand. 

This is not an excuse about humans being limited, and I have never even once claimed that humans cannot fathom the mind of God. If you read back carefully you will see I have referred to human limitations as volition. I have referred to what humans do believe about death and suffering, not what they are limited to believing. Our limits of understanding need not be any different from the any perspective of a God we can imagine, the thing is that they are, and whilesoever they are they are our limitations alone to (within) consider our moral choices. If we want to think as though we were God we can and I have. You asked me to think as God and I did.

 

 

 

Quote:

So, since you claim we don't know then what is God's excuse?

"I have a plan"

"I can do what I want"

"Your mind is too puny to understand"

Excuses that is all they are.

 

 

God doesn't need an excuse if he has done nothing wrong. The issue here is the yardstick by which we judge right and wrong. To retiterate, frame human suffering and death on earth in the context of boundless eternity. Is it wrong?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Right and wrong are

Right and wrong are intrinsically subjective, to the individual first, and to society at large in so far as there exists such a strongly interacting and inter-dependent group of individuals.

Of course the idea of an omnipotent being, especially one envisaged as actually being responsible for the most fundamental aspects of reality, is utterly absurd and indefensible, and to base morality on the whims of such an entity is to reduce the idea to a travesty of real ethics, as shown by some of the responses here. Such a 'morality' would be a purely legalistic system with less justice and fairness than in many of the nastier authoritarian regimes we see on Earth.

What's wrong with 'suffering'? By definition it is bad, and can only be justified in finite and moderate amounts if it serves to lead to or allow changes of behaviour that lead to more positive outcomes that overwhelmingly compensate for a short amount of unpleasantness, like the intense pain of a dental procedure relieving a chronic agony.

What possible greater 'good' could the suffering of us mortals serve that would 'justify' an entity, even a finite but 'superior' (in power) entity, alien race, for example? The Theist argument for 'morality' reduces to an endorsement of the idea of 'Might makes Right'. It puts us in the position of domestic food animals, whose killing is justified to feed us. There is absolutely no logical reason why power defines 'good'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Why should an all

Quote:
Why should an all powerful being, that can do anything and created everything, act out of fear of one of it's own creations?

Indeed and my point exactly.

If as you say "God answers to no one" then this is NOT a being I would worship or bow to.

We in civil society do NOT bow to dictators. We query and inquire and decide for ourselves, but what we DON'T DO is bow to a dictator.

And again, is if what you claim would be fact(as if). Then anyone who cant or is unwilling to give me a valid explanation will not garner from me any position change, even your claimed God.

If such a being can "Poof" make the universe, then it should be capable of giving me a reason why a baby would die a slow painful death of drowning.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3703
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
If I were God I would

If I were God I would destroy all of creation ( without inflicting any pain upon the created beings ) and then I would destroy myself so that nothing remained ...absolutely nothing ......just beautiful, beautiful....NOTHING

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


Blank (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
In reply to the initial

In reply to the initial post:

This is foolish, not to mention that it is simply suppose to trap believers, a rather cruel thing to do from my perspective.

However, as much as I understand my faith I shall respond in the most appropriate way that I am capable.

Simply put, I am a human being and as such I am incapable of ever having the powers of God, thus your question cannot be answered.  To answer it would be to answer it as a human being without the powers of God, and my answer then would be that I would run into the water and save the baby.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:How about God

jcgadfly wrote:
How about God teaching the parents that the kid is worth having instead of planting the idea in some that they should kill it so it can go to heaven in an innocent state (after having a proper baptism, of course)?

Just as fucked up as Josef and Magda Goebbels poisoning their kids because of their belief in the futility of an existence without Hitlerian National Socialism.  What about the the many more numerous instances of parents raising their children just fine?

Quote:
Why does your God dig watching people die/killing people anyway?
Quote:

I don't believe that He does.  It is the nature of man (of all living things, actually) to die.

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Why not

MattShizzle wrote:
Why not make people able to breathe water as well as air?

Yeah, good idea, and we could be faster than speeding bullets and stronger than speeding locomotives and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound and...

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Well, gee - wouldn't getting

Well, gee - wouldn't getting rid of suffering be better than keeping it, yet torturing eternally anyone who doesn't believe in the Biblical god without evidence? Face it - if you weren't deluded by religion you would understand the god of the Buybull is a real piece of shit.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


albedo_00
albedo_00's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
You're still talking about

You're still talking about this? The baby is drowning, for crying out loud! Do something! C'mon use your godly powers, any of you! Do we have to do everything ourselves?! Aw, screw it! *takes off shoes and swims towards the baby*

Goddamn god. Just goes to show you can't rely on any deity.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

If I were God I would destroy all of creation ( without inflicting any pain upon the created beings ) and then I would destroy myself so that nothing remained ...absolutely nothing ......just beautiful, beautiful....NOTHING

 

Now that was truly beautiful. Yeah, destroy everything, make a monument to non-existence.

PS. Thank you for reminding me of FF6, now that's a cool game.

Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Right and

BobSpence1 wrote:

Right and wrong are intrinsically subjective, to the individual first, and to society at large in so far as there exists such a strongly interacting and inter-dependent group of individuals.

Of course the idea of an omnipotent being, especially one envisaged as actually being responsible for the most fundamental aspects of reality, is utterly absurd and indefensible, and to base morality on the whims of such an entity is to reduce the idea to a travesty of real ethics, as shown by some of the responses here. Such a 'morality' would be a purely legalistic system with less justice and fairness than in many of the nastier authoritarian regimes we see on Earth.

I agree that my responses tender dangerous ground, Bob. But, that dangerous ground is the ground of a hypothetical God figure, not of a human in the decision framework of our apparent reality. I'm not in any way espousing that anyone should or could logically justify a human size response on those grounds and morality is a human size response. 

I would like to clarify that what I am saying does not reduce to endorsing a 'might is right' policy because I am talking about the powers that one exercises in response to a situation not the power that one possesses. I'm not saying that having might makes a God right to not do what a human would do, but rather I am asking what makes it right to have great might and use it as though you had much less than that? 

Say there was, for arguments sake a strong man who can lift a tonne of weight in one go and he comes across a person who trapped is under a tonne of weight. He can lift a whole tonne at once, therefore he would chooses to do so. On the other hand say my limit of lifting is 50 kilos at a time then if I came across the trapped person would find a way to lift 50 kilos at a time to save them. Which one of us is doing the wrong thing?

Then lets mix it up a bit and say the tonne of weight which we need to move is not a single block, but instead many smaller blocks which can't be lifted together. The strong man is now no longer able to lift the weight faster than me, and he must lift it one block at a time. He does not possess the power to lift the whole tonne at once, so it is right for him to move it bit by bit. And say instead that I am at the time operating a machine which can safely lift the whole tonne of blocks in one go, now I am the possessor of the massive power, knowing that I can only lift 50 kilos at a time by hand, would I choose to lift by hand or use the earthmover to save the trapped person?

And so the question originally posed, if you were God would you allow a baby to die by drowning, applies in this way. With the power to fight death in a meaningful way by chipping away at it little bit by little bit, that is what you choose to do. With the power to lift death up as though it were light and toss it aside as though it were nothing, you would choose to do that.

bobspence wrote:

What's wrong with 'suffering'? By definition it is bad, and can only be justified in finite and moderate amounts if it serves to lead to or allow changes of behaviour that lead to more positive outcomes that overwhelmingly compensate for a short amount of unpleasantness, like the intense pain of a dental procedure relieving a chronic agony.

Now you say that suffering, is by definition, bad and should only be allowed in finite amounts with overwhelmingly balancing consequences. But on a boundless scale you cannot see that being true of suffering within our finite lives? How?

Quote:

What possible greater 'good' could the suffering of us mortals serve that would 'justify' an entity, even a finite but 'superior' (in power) entity, alien race, for example?

 

My Theodicy is simple, the greater good of suffering and death is it existing, as opposed to not existing. On a boundless scale, like that of a proposed eternal spirit, it is an option. Better to have, than not.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Now, before I

Brian37 wrote:

Now, before I give you my example. I am not interested in what you claim your God would do. I am interested in YOUR OWN personal opinion as to what YOU would do if you had the powers of God.

I'll answer that second.

Quote:

A simple yes or no will suffice to the following EXAMPLE.

Would you allow or watch a baby drowned to death in water? YES OR NO.

Yes.

 

If I were God, I would make a universe that operated mechanistically under consistent physical laws, make damn sure sentient races evolved, and then spend quite a large amount of time and effort personally and carefully creating completely fucked up religions that are very close to one another, but mutually exclusive, on each and every world where intelligent life evolved.

Furthermore, I'd make sure that by the use of a single, mind-bogglingly simple cipher, every holy text in existence in every language on every planet could be found to say 'SUCKERS!!!!'

That's what I'd do. Because I know me well enough to know that if I had the power of God... I'd be a total fucking prick about it. Smiling

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


TheHermit
TheHermit's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Because I know me

BMcD wrote:

Because I know me well enough to know that if I had the power of God... I'd be a total fucking prick about it. Smiling

This reminds me of something, actually.

Have you ever played any "god games"?  You know, where you are given total control over virtual people?  The Sims, Black & White, Roller Coaster Tycoon, etc.  Sure, you play it straight for a little while.  Get everyone where they need to be.  Get things running smoothly.  Watch as it gets bigger and better.  And so on.

For a little while.

Before you know it you're forcing people to take a swim in the pool, then remove all the ladders so they drown.  You set people's houses on fire to watch them run around.  You send airplanes crashing into the countryside, earthquakes to strike, monsters to attack, and generally just lay the whole thing to waste for nothing more than your own amusement.

I think these games are the closest things to proof that we have that omnipotence and benevolence are mutually exclusive.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:My Theodicy is simple,

Quote:
My Theodicy is simple, the greater good of suffering and death is it existing, as opposed to not existing.

WTF?

What "greater good" is there to a baby swallowing water and having their lungs fill to the point of asphixiation(sp)?

Again, if you ARE all powerful YOU DON'T HAVE TO ALLOW IT.

"We wouldn't understand" is a cop out and an utterance in ignorance.

My point in this question is to show the broken concept of "all powerful" and  that of "all loving".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:My

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
My Theodicy is simple, the greater good of suffering and death is it existing, as opposed to not existing.

WTF?

What "greater good" is there to a baby swallowing water and having their lungs fill to the point of asphixiation(sp)?

the answer to your third question is - Asphyxiation, your spelling is pretty much right so no worries.

To your second question, the greater good from a theological point of view is easy to understand, but you will probably find it insulting to your sensibilities. Let the set of events that one can use to fill an eternity as any form of life accessible to a "soul" be set A, and the elements of the set include event (daab) drowning as a baby. Now be god presenting this set to it's creation, and as you have requested, withholding the element (daab). Is it right and moral for you to do so? If so, why?

Quote:

Again, if you ARE all powerful YOU DON'T HAVE TO ALLOW IT.

Agreed, but at the same time, if you are all powerful, you do not have to disallow it either. As an all powerful being you can choose to allow it as part of a package of infinitely combining elements over an infinite span of existence which you have granted freely to your creation.

Quote:

"We wouldn't understand" is a cop out and an utterance in ignorance.

To reiterate reiteration. We would understand. None of this is beyond our comprehension.

 

Quote:

My point in this question is to show the broken concept of "all powerful" and  that of "all loving".

I will disagree here that an all loving god is irreconcilable with our reality. Our reality is irreconcilable with a morally loving god that created humans into finite lives in which the sole and ultimate purpose is to discover and worship him through organised and dogmatic religion, but not an ALL loving god. Our reality is irreconcilable with a purely good people loving god, but not an ALL loving god. Our reality is irreconcilable with a god that loves what you think is good and hates what you think isn't good, but not an all loving god.  Unless the set of all has come somehow to exclude certain things because people deem those things bad, then an all loving god is perfectly reconcilable with a world in which one's concept of bad exists.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:jcgadfly

totus_tuus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
How about God teaching the parents that the kid is worth having instead of planting the idea in some that they should kill it so it can go to heaven in an innocent state (after having a proper baptism, of course)?

Just as fucked up as Josef and Magda Goebbels poisoning their kids because of their belief in the futility of an existence without Hitlerian National Socialism.  What about the the many more numerous instances of parents raising their children just fine?

Quote:
Why does your God dig watching people die/killing people anyway?
Quote:

I don't believe that He does.  It is the nature of man (of all living things, actually) to die.

 

There are parents raisig their kids great,'tis true. Is that due to or in spite of the propaganda of how great heaven is and how people should strive to get themselves and their loved ones there ASAP?

According to your Bible, who created the nature of man and all living things? Even if you say death became because man sinned, sin happened because God rigged the test, giving man no other options. And what did the other living things do to offend God? Are they just collateral damage?

The nature of man also doesn't explain deaths from natural disasters that God created (some claim as punishment for sin). It looks to me like God just gets satisfaction from killing and watching people die. Not as much as some of his followers perhaps, but some satisfaction nonetheless.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
If I had all the powers of

If I had all the powers of God I would still be an atheist.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Agreed, but at the

Quote:
Agreed, but at the same time, if you are all powerful, you do not have to disallow it either.

I guess we are going round robin here.

Ok, so here are God's "choices". Which is a paradox in and of itself. But that is for another thread.

1. Allow babies to drowned.

2. Never have babies drowned.

Your constant explanation has been, "We are not God".

Which is not my point. My point is that if I were God it would not happen EVER!

Further more,  if God choses to allow it, why the heck wouldn't you, or anyone for that matter DEMAND an explanation.

Why should I blindly worship or follow someone, even a human, without question? Blindly following a person, celebrity, politician, political party or god, is a great way to end up in a cluster F.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:Brian37

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 Ask a simple question.

Ok guys, here, since you don't want to I'll do it for you.

Your answer should be "NO I would not allow babies to drowned  if I were God."

How come I can answer with that response and you cant? It's not that you cant answer with that, it is that you wont answer with that, because you know that babies suffer in reality from all sorts of things and you dont want  face that you buy the claim that a deity who watches and allows this. If you are not embarrassed that you believe such a claim, you should be.

You don't want to see your deity claim in a bad light, that is why you make excuses for it.

If I had known you were going to pull this bullshit, then I wouldn't have even read this topic. But since it's too late for that, I'd have to kindly ask you just who the fuck you think you are to answer a question for me. Just because you are unable to examine issues from a larger perspective than your very own doesn't mean the rest of us have the same deficiency.

If this is your idea of what suffices for a passable argument, then I would suggest you stick to your "poetry."

If you READ the post you quoted that was not AIMED at YOU.

It was actually aimed at all the attempts in this thread to answer.

The reason you are getting angry is that your cognitive dissidence kicked in. Your ego won't let you consider the absurdity of your claim.

Even the worst in our society in prison despise criminals who harm children and babies. No one in their right mind would hire a baby sitter who knowingly participates in the harm of, or would stand by and watch while a baby is harmed.

My point in all this is that, AS YOU GOD BELIEVERS CLAIM, that 'if" there is a valid explanation, I have yet to hear it and it would be stupid of me to buy the claim blindly, ESPECIALLY in these types of cases.

And you further disappoint me by using a petty ad homin unrelated to this topic. Now, if we are going to go tit for tat, remember, you swung first.

Yea, you can trash my "poetry" all you want, I could care less. At least my poetry has evidence for it's existence.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Brian37

Eloise wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
My Theodicy is simple, the greater good of suffering and death is it existing, as opposed to not existing.

WTF?

What "greater good" is there to a baby swallowing water and having their lungs fill to the point of asphixiation(sp)?

the answer to your third question is - Asphyxiation, your spelling is pretty much right so no worries.

To your second question, the greater good from a theological point of view is easy to understand, but you will probably find it insulting to your sensibilities. Let the set of events that one can use to fill an eternity as any form of life accessible to a "soul" be set A, and the elements of the set include event (daab) drowning as a baby. Now be god presenting this set to it's creation, and as you have requested, withholding the element (daab). Is it right and moral for you to do so? If so, why?

Quote:

Again, if you ARE all powerful YOU DON'T HAVE TO ALLOW IT.

Agreed, but at the same time, if you are all powerful, you do not have to disallow it either. As an all powerful being you can choose to allow it as part of a package of infinitely combining elements over an infinite span of existence which you have granted freely to your creation.

Quote:

"We wouldn't understand" is a cop out and an utterance in ignorance.

To reiterate reiteration. We would understand. None of this is beyond our comprehension.

 

Quote:

My point in this question is to show the broken concept of "all powerful" and  that of "all loving".

I will disagree here that an all loving god is irreconcilable with our reality. Our reality is irreconcilable with a morally loving god that created humans into finite lives in which the sole and ultimate purpose is to discover and worship him through organised and dogmatic religion, but not an ALL loving god. Our reality is irreconcilable with a purely good people loving god, but not an ALL loving god. Our reality is irreconcilable with a god that loves what you think is good and hates what you think isn't good, but not an all loving god.  Unless the set of all has come somehow to exclude certain things because people deem those things bad, then an all loving god is perfectly reconcilable with a world in which one's concept of bad exists.

Quote:
To reiterate reiteration. We would understand. None of this is beyond our comprehension.

And to reiterate reiteration myself. WE DON'T UNDERSTAND, and your claimed sky daddy supposedly has the KEY to understanding and wont clue us in(actually more like CANT because he is imaginary), and somehow you feel he owes us no explanation.

FINE, don't expect me to kiss his ass then. I like my explanations with a little meat on them before I change a position.

All you seem to be doing is making excuses to hold a position.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
I would create life for

I would create life for shits and giggles, show myself and my supreme power over all life to be worshiped as a proper God should be. Cause conflict and war, with periods of peace and orgies all to my name, which I would have the pick of the most beautiful of my creations to make demi-gods (all which could not challenge my power of course). Basically one of the roman/greek gods, my kinda life, wine, women and fun. Sticking out tongue


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If you READ

Brian37 wrote:

If you READ the post you quoted that was not AIMED at YOU.

It was actually aimed at all the attempts in this thread to answer.

Which means it was aimed at my answer as well. I don't see how it doesn't apply to me. You were saying?

Quote:
The reason you are getting angry is that your cognitive dissidence kicked in. Your ego won't let you consider the absurdity of your claim.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No, I'm sorry. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've seen on this forum from an atheist in at least a month. The reason why I am angry is because I deluded myself into believing that you actually were interested in discussing the issue. Had I read all of the posts in the topic before I posted, I would have seen that you were deliberately trying to set a trap. Which is beyond fucking low. You might as well call yourself the Kirk Cameron of atheists.

Quote:
Even the worst in our society in prison despise criminals who harm children and babies. No one in their right mind would hire a baby sitter who knowingly participates in the harm of, or would stand by and watch while a baby is harmed.

Completely irrelevant. I don't think you could have brought up a more irrelevant point that actually mentioned babies.

Quote:
My point in all this is that, AS YOU GOD BELIEVERS CLAIM, that 'if" there is a valid explanation, I have yet to hear it and it would be stupid of me to buy the claim blindly, ESPECIALLY in these types of cases.

What claim?

Quote:
And you further disappoint me by using a petty ad homin unrelated to this topic. Now, if we are going to go tit for tat, remember, you swung first.

Yea, you can trash my "poetry" all you want, I could care less. At least my poetry has evidence for it's existence.

Ooh, I'm shaking. Big scary Brian is going to get his big guns out? You're fucking pathetic, man. Your pathetic attempt at some sort of twisted and severely brainfucked Socratic irony is a testament to that.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:Brian37

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

If you READ the post you quoted that was not AIMED at YOU.

It was actually aimed at all the attempts in this thread to answer.

Which means it was aimed at my answer as well. I don't see how it doesn't apply to me. You were saying?

Quote:
The reason you are getting angry is that your cognitive dissidence kicked in. Your ego won't let you consider the absurdity of your claim.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No, I'm sorry. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've seen on this forum from an atheist in at least a month. The reason why I am angry is because I deluded myself into believing that you actually were interested in discussing the issue. Had I read all of the posts in the topic before I posted, I would have seen that you were deliberately trying to set a trap. Which is beyond fucking low. You might as well call yourself the Kirk Cameron of atheists.

Quote:
Even the worst in our society in prison despise criminals who harm children and babies. No one in their right mind would hire a baby sitter who knowingly participates in the harm of, or would stand by and watch while a baby is harmed.

Completely irrelevant. I don't think you could have brought up a more irrelevant point that actually mentioned babies.

Quote:
My point in all this is that, AS YOU GOD BELIEVERS CLAIM, that 'if" there is a valid explanation, I have yet to hear it and it would be stupid of me to buy the claim blindly, ESPECIALLY in these types of cases.

What claim?

Quote:
And you further disappoint me by using a petty ad homin unrelated to this topic. Now, if we are going to go tit for tat, remember, you swung first.

Yea, you can trash my "poetry" all you want, I could care less. At least my poetry has evidence for it's existence.

Ooh, I'm shaking. Big scary Brian is going to get his big guns out? You're fucking pathetic, man. Your pathetic attempt at some sort of twisted and severely brainfucked Socratic irony is a testament to that.

Me scary?......No......If anything is the stupidest  claim  ever made in the history of the internet is calling me scary.

No, I am not scary in the least. What IS scary to me is that people make claims about invisible friends and insist on spreading it without evidence.

So when you and your ilk can get Hidie Clume to  have sex with me..... When you and your ilk can "poof" in a nanosecond, reconstitute a decapitated human head, and if you can get your beloved claim to make a Lamborginni fart itself out of my ass. Then you will have successfully convinced me that I am so scary as to deny magic.

I don't expect you to be scared of me at all. I DO expect anyone selling a product to me, to provide valid evidence as to WHY I should adapt their position. You so far, have not. Not my problem.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Agreed,

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Agreed, but at the same time, if you are all powerful, you do not have to disallow it either.

I guess we are going round robin here.

Ok, so here are God's "choices". Which is a paradox in and of itself. But that is for another thread.

1. Allow babies to drowned.

2. Never have babies drowned.

Your constant explanation has been, "We are not God".

Well, really, my constant explanation is that God can do better than prevent a baby drowning and supposing that with a god power I did do more then intervening on the drowning would be redundant.

Quote:

Which is not my point. My point is that if I were God it would not happen EVER!

I do see that your point is that you would not allow drowning, or any suffering at all that is to your senses unnecessary and cruel. I understand that.

Quote:

Further more,  if God choses to allow it, why the heck wouldn't you, or anyone for that matter DEMAND an explanation.

Now you're talking, Brian! Of course you would demand an explanation and you would want that explanation to be satisfactorily tangible to you as a human. That is not too much to ask of an omnipotent God at all. If it is, and do take note that I think it's not, then screw God, of course. 

 

Quote:

Why should I blindly worship or follow someone, even a human, without question? Blindly following a person, celebrity, politician, political party or god, is a great way to end up in a cluster F.

LOL, don't ask me, you should know by now I don't endorse that.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com