Braggadocio Atheists

[Lestat]

One thing I don't understand is how any atheist can claim it wouldn't matter to him one bit even if the Christian God were proven to exist. I mean, an eternal non-existence Vs. an eternal hell HAS to matter somewhat, doesn't it?

I do understand their point... Maybe they have issues with the way the Christian God works and determined this is not a God they would want to worship. Ok. But I think people should be careful when choosing their words and phrases. Whether this God existed or not, WOULD matter. And if He does exist...

What makes you so sure we are in a position to judge such a God? It's His universe. We are mortals who cannot perceive or know of the whole picture.

Again, my only point is that we should be more careful in what we say. 100% certain there is no heaven. 100% certain God does not exist. 100% certain that if the Christian God DID exist, it wouldn't matter one bit to us. These don't seem like intelligent things to say if one is thinking rationally.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
These don't seem like intelligent things to say if one is thinking rationally.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are not. Neither was criticising the regime under Stalin or whoever. Some people did and some lost their life doing it. I guess there are different ways to be for different people.

[amirite]

Some people just want to be seen as raging against the machine

If God exists and came down to me I'd bow down and offer to buy him a drink.

[Prodigy54321]

I thought we all admitted a long time ago that if a god were proven to exist, then not worshiping him based on morals or what not (not giving enough evidence, etc, punishing gay people, anything you disagree with) is all crap...this god would be the only definite on morals, not you "gut" feelings or human decency, but this god alone, and thus no reason to still reject him....

Rejecting God (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3439346&page=)

It was the first post that I was st straight on...oh good times

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether this God existed or not, WOULD matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

only about as much as the possible consequences of the devil being the supreme ruler.

[Lestat]

I missed that thread. Thanks for the link.

That's kind of what I'm getting at. What is or isn't moral would be only according to God. And that's the way it is, whether we like it or not.

[Lestat]

I don't consider Stalin the same. You can measure your morals compared to another man's morals, but you can't compare your sense of righteousness to God's if He exists.

[Lestat]

I don't understand. I'm talking about those who say it wouldn't matter if it were proven that the Christian God were the supreme ruler.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand. I'm talking about those who say it wouldn't matter if it were proven that the Christian God were the supreme ruler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, i understand. But my point is that every possibility, regarding what we consequentially experience at death, matters. However, within our finite lives, certain ones (possibilities) must matter more than others. A benevolent god is about as likely as an evil god, so they pretty much cancel off in terms of what practically matters.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider Stalin the same. You can measure your morals compared to another man's morals, but you can't compare your sense of righteousness to God's if He exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely, hence my position. Whereas Stalin was very bad, god would be infinitely bad, at least as he is represented by most believers and the bible. Just my opinion, based on what I see and experience. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Zeno]

Certum est quia impossibile est. -Tertullian

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Certum est quia impossibile est. -Tertullian

[/ QUOTE ]

The perfect (and probably first) argument in support of double talk. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I missed that thread. Thanks for the link.

That's kind of what I'm getting at. What is or isn't moral would be only according to God. And that's the way it is, whether we like it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a different thing. Of course it makes a difference if it turns out that god exists but it doesn't mean it can dictate morality, that depends on the nature of what it created.

If it created us with our own morality (as would appear to be the case) then what is moral is a matter for each of us.

chez

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]


What makes you so sure we are in a position to judge such a God? It's His universe. We are mortals who cannot perceive or know of the whole picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless, if a God creates me with the ability to judge and form ethical/moral opinions based on the inputs of his creation, then how can I help but use this capacity?

This is always a silly question to me: Who are we to judge God? We are creatures capable of reason, that's who. If God wanted another blind sheep, then He should have made me one.

I don't think there's anything wrong with believing that if the God described in the Bible exists, I believe it is my duty to fight Him not worship Him. Just like I have no problem with a lion that wants to rip the head of the zookeeper off--it's his zoo, right?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
This is always a silly question to me: Who are we to judge God? We are creatures capable of reason, that's who.

[/ QUOTE ]

The human capacity to reason is infinitesimal compared to what’s required for the task.

Consider why you would insist upon being judged by your peers, and take it from there.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The human capacity to reason is infinitesimal compared to what’s required for the task.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what any god gave us, so best to make use of it.

The rest of your post is pointless unless you realise that the first bit is wrong.

chez

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is always a silly question to me: Who are we to judge God? We are creatures capable of reason, that's who.

[/ QUOTE ]

The human capacity to reason is infinitesimal compared to what’s required for the task.

Consider why you would insist upon being judged by your peers, and take it from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not arguing whether we would be capable of making a fair assessment, just that we are capable of making an assessment. As for being judged by others, I already am, every day. So are you.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The human capacity to reason is infinitesimal compared to what’s required for the task.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what any god gave us, so best to make use of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Making the best use of anything requires an understanding of its limitations.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The human capacity to reason is infinitesimal compared to what’s required for the task.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what any god gave us, so best to make use of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Making the best use of anything requires an understanding of its limitations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, perhaps you could explain how we understand its limitations.

chez

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought we all admitted a long time ago that if a god were proven to exist, then not worshiping him based on morals or what not (not giving enough evidence, etc, punishing gay people, anything you disagree with) is all crap...this god would be the only definite on morals, not you "gut" feelings or human decency, but this god alone, and thus no reason to still reject him....

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not agree with this at all.

In fact, this whole line of thinking is flawed. If you believe that a creator (of this universe) must be by definition "good" (or moral), then you can just as easily surmise that this creator is "evil" -- the words have no meaning other than "that which is of the creator." Without a comparison nor the capacity to make such a comparison, who are you to say whether that which is of the xcreator is even worthy of worship? In the end, all you have to go on is your own reason to weigh the situation. And again, the only alternatives are "obey blindly" or "don't obey blindly."

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The human capacity to reason is infinitesimal compared to what’s required for the task.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what any god gave us, so best to make use of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Making the best use of anything requires an understanding of its limitations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, perhaps you could explain how we understand its limitations.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean by testing them, but second-guessing God’s design or motivation is absurd on its face.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The human capacity to reason is infinitesimal compared to what’s required for the task.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what any god gave us, so best to make use of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Making the best use of anything requires an understanding of its limitations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, perhaps you could explain how we understand its limitations.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean by testing them, but second-guessing God’s design or motivation is absurd on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, thats why I don't second guess it but use the rational and moral gifts provided.

Why would anyone go against that?

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The human capacity to reason is infinitesimal compared to what’s required for the task.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what any god gave us, so best to make use of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
After that, you can fly to Paris by flapping your arms.

Making the best use of anything requires an understanding of its limitations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, perhaps you could explain how we understand its limitations.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean by testing them, but second-guessing God’s design or motivation is absurd on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, thats why I don't second guess it but use the rational and moral gifts provided.

[/ QUOTE ]

After that, you can try flying to Paris by flapping your arms.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The human capacity to reason is infinitesimal compared to what’s required for the task.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what any god gave us, so best to make use of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Making the best use of anything requires an understanding of its limitations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, perhaps you could explain how we understand its limitations.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean by testing them, but second-guessing God’s design or motivation is absurd on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be absurd for a lab monkey to second-guess the director of a research lab? Whatever your position, the answer to this question should be the same whether you replace lab monkey with man, and director with God.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The human capacity to reason is infinitesimal compared to what’s required for the task.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what any god gave us, so best to make use of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
After that, you can fly to Paris by flapping your arms.

Making the best use of anything requires an understanding of its limitations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, perhaps you could explain how we understand its limitations.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean by testing them, but second-guessing God’s design or motivation is absurd on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, thats why I don't second guess it but use the rational and moral gifts provided.

[/ QUOTE ]

After that, you can try flying to Paris by flapping your arms.

[/ QUOTE ]
Paris France or Paris Texas?

chez

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The human capacity to reason is infinitesimal compared to what’s required for the task.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what any god gave us, so best to make use of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
After that, you can fly to Paris by flapping your arms.

Making the best use of anything requires an understanding of its limitations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, perhaps you could explain how we understand its limitations.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean by testing them, but second-guessing God’s design or motivation is absurd on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, thats why I don't second guess it but use the rational and moral gifts provided.

[/ QUOTE ]

After that, you can try flying to Paris by flapping your arms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why flap your arms? Using our rational faculties, man has developed means to fly to Paris at 600 mph all while sipping a drink and watching a movie. Bet that would have seemed ludicrously fanciful 1000 years ago.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Would it be absurd for a lab monkey to second-guess the director of a research lab? Whatever your position, the answer to this question should be the same whether you replace lab monkey with man, and director with God.

[/ QUOTE ]

The lab director did not create the monkey, so the analogy fails.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The human capacity to reason is infinitesimal compared to what’s required for the task.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what any god gave us, so best to make use of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
After that, you can fly to Paris by flapping your arms.

Making the best use of anything requires an understanding of its limitations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, perhaps you could explain how we understand its limitations.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean by testing them, but second-guessing God’s design or motivation is absurd on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, thats why I don't second guess it but use the rational and moral gifts provided.

[/ QUOTE ]

After that, you can try flying to Paris by flapping your arms.

[/ QUOTE ]
Paris France or Paris Texas?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Plaster of Paris.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would it be absurd for a lab monkey to second-guess the director of a research lab? Whatever your position, the answer to this question should be the same whether you replace lab monkey with man, and director with God.

[/ QUOTE ]

The lab director did not create the monkey, so the analogy fails.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nonsense. The lab director set the whole lab in motion and could have raised the monkey from an embryo, or even genetically selecting the traits or cloning -- thus, for all practical purposes creating the monkey as his personal creature. God, if he exists, may have done the same thing with available parts from beyond our universe, thus making the analogy very close.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Why flap your arms? Using our rational faculties, man has developed means to fly to Paris at 600 mph all while sipping a drink and watching a movie. Bet that would have seemed ludicrously fanciful 1000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

And so man has means of coming to terms with God, but pretending to stand in judgment isn’t one of them.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would it be absurd for a lab monkey to second-guess the director of a research lab? Whatever your position, the answer to this question should be the same whether you replace lab monkey with man, and director with God.

[/ QUOTE ]

The lab director did not create the monkey, so the analogy fails.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nonsense. The lab director set the whole lab in motion and could have raised the monkey from an embryo, or even genetically selecting the traits or cloning -- thus, for all practical purposes creating the monkey as his personal creature. God, if he exists, may have done the same thing with available parts from beyond our universe, thus making the analogy very close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there were no monkeys around before the lab director?

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
And so man has means of coming to terms with God, but pretending to stand in judgment isn’t one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can stand in judgement quite easily, so I am afraid you are wrong. Of course, my judgement may be wrong, but I can easily stand in judgement.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And so man has means of coming to terms with God, but pretending to stand in judgment isn’t one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can stand in judgement quite easily, so I am afraid you are wrong. Of course, my judgement may be wrong, but I can easily stand in judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

God will not appear in the dock for you, I think.

And beware the shoe being on the other foot.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">This is always a silly question to me: Who are we to judge God? We are creatures capable of reason, that's who. </font>

Do you think we have ultimate reason? Do you not acknowledge there might be a higher reason? We reason up to our ability. A dog reasons, a monkey reasons, we reason. There is no evidence that reason stops with us.

<font color="blue">I believe it is my duty to fight Him not worship Him. Just like I have no problem with a lion that wants to rip the head of the zookeeper off--it's his zoo, right? </font>

I felt a similar rebellion in military school, until I figured out you can either go with the program or lead a very miserable existence. And years later, I realized all the things I thought were stupid were really for my own good.

Keep in my mind, I'm an atheist, so I doubt you'll ever have your opportunity to show your rebellious courage on judgement day. I just don't see how you can choose an eternity of suffering over one of bliss if that's the way it is. If you ever do meet your maker and come face to face with the eternal nightmare which the bible portrays as hell, I suspect even a tough guy like you might change his tune.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">This is always a silly question to me: Who are we to judge God? We are creatures capable of reason, that's who. </font>

Do you think we have ultimate reason? Do you not acknowledge there might be a higher reason? We reason up to our ability. A dog reasons, a monkey reasons, we reason. There is no evidence that reason stops with us.

I have made no claims on ultimate reason, only that I have a capacity to reason, even if limited. Given that my capacity to reason is all I have to go on, that's what I have to use -- just like I can't ask a dog to think like a man.

<font color="blue">I believe it is my duty to fight Him not worship Him. Just like I have no problem with a lion that wants to rip the head of the zookeeper off--it's his zoo, right? </font>

I felt a similar rebellion in military school, until I figured out you can either go with the program or lead a very miserable existence. And years later, I realized all the things I thought were stupid were really for my own good.

I don't see my views as rebellious. It's all semantics, because I can just as easily say I "go with the program" of my personal convictions rather than rebel internally.


Keep in my mind, I'm an atheist, so I doubt you'll ever have your opportunity to show your rebellious courage on judgement day. I just don't see how you can choose an eternity of suffering over one of bliss if that's the way it is.

You wouldn't ever know that's the way it is, though, until it's too late. I could have irrefutable proof that God exists, but still believe that I am the one who is closer to the truth rather than those who wrote the Bible, and thus I could potentially be more satisfied adhering to my own convictions even if it meant death or pain. I am not saying that I think God is "evil" if he exists, just that his mere existence does not mean that I must worship him just because he has the power to send me to hell.

If you ever do meet your maker and come face to face with the eternal nightmare which the bible portrays as hell, I suspect even a tough guy like you might change his tune.

[b]I am not tough nor claim to be. Maybe I would change my tune, maybe I wouldn't. Are those Jews who stood up to the Nazi to be considered fools or heroes compared to those who "changed their tune" and assisted in the concentration camps, knowing that they would face pain and death if they refused but a better existence if they accepted? The question is not all that different to your own hypothetical--after all, that was just "the way it is" back then.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

It seems to me you are saying that if you were in Hitler's army, you would have opted for execution rather than go to war. And if you were a detainee in one of the concentration camps, you'd have allowed yourself and family to be killed, rather than smile at a Nazi if it would save all your lives. Is this an accurate description of you?

It's admirable. Unfortunately, few people have the stamina or wherewithall to adhere to a principle under extreme duress. The tendency is to conform.

And my bigger point is that you don't even know it's so bad. It might seem bad to you right now, but you don't know everything there is to know. There could be so much more to this universe, that the things you refuse to worship God over now could turn out to be trivial in the scheme of things.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me you are saying that if you were in Hitler's army, you would have opted for execution rather than go to war. And if you were a detainee in one of the concentration camps, you'd have allowed yourself and family to be killed, rather than smile at a Nazi if it would all your lives. Is this an accurate description of you?

It's admirable. Unfortunately, few people have the stamina or wherewithall to adhere to a principle under extreme duress. The tendency is to conform.

And my bigger point is that you don't even know it's so bad. It might seem bad to you right now, but you don't know everything there is to know. There could be so much more to this universe, that the things you refuse to worship God over now could turn out to be trivial in the scheme of things.

[/ QUOTE ]
WSe've done the first point before. We can chose how to act and may well obey god/hitler through cowardice but we cant stop feeling something is morally repugnant by an act of will. Pretending may work with hitler but presumably not with god.

The big point is correct but no reason not to be guided by our morals.

chez

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me you are saying that if you were in Hitler's army, you would have opted for execution rather than go to war. And if you were a detainee in one of the concentration camps, you'd have allowed yourself and family to be killed, rather than smile at a Nazi if it would save all your lives. Is this an accurate description of you?

No.

It's admirable. Unfortunately, few people have the stamina or wherewithall to adhere to a principle under extreme duress. The tendency is to conform.

Tendency to conform and 'should conform' are two different things. Your claim seems to be that if God exists, an atheist should go along with the program and worship that God.

And my bigger point is that you don't even know it's so bad. It might seem bad to you right now, but you don't know everything there is to know. There could be so much more to this universe, that the things you refuse to worship God over now could turn out to be trivial in the scheme of things.

[b]Possibly. But again, if I can't act on what I believe to know, how do you expect me to act on what I surely don't know?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I have made no claims on ultimate reason, only that I have a capacity to reason, even if limited. Given that my capacity to reason is all I have to go on, that's what I have to use -- just like I can't ask a dog to think like a man. </font>

I don't understand. If you acknowledge that your reason might be limited, then how can you be confident enough to know you're making the right judgement when it comes to God? By your own admission, there could be an entire universe of things you don't understand and are not able to take into consideration. So how can you be secure enough to risk suffering for all of eternity in hell?

Btw- I realize I am coming dangerously close to describing Pascal's wager here. I do disagree with any such wager (at least I think I do). /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I have made no claims on ultimate reason, only that I have a capacity to reason, even if limited. Given that my capacity to reason is all I have to go on, that's what I have to use -- just like I can't ask a dog to think like a man. </font>

I don't understand. If you acknowledge that your reason might be limited, then how can you be confident enough to know you're making the right judgement when it comes to God? By your own admission, there could be an entire universe of things you don't understand and are not able to take into consideration. So how can you be secure enough to risk suffering for all of eternity in hell?

Btw- I realize I am coming dangerously close to describing Pascal's wager here. I do disagree with any such wage (at least I think I do). /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
The problems the same whichever way you go, trust your moral guide or some other, make your judgements or not. No way to know which is right BUT (big BUT) if you stick to what you believe is right then no benevelent god could hold it against you, even if you're wrong.

chez

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I have made no claims on ultimate reason, only that I have a capacity to reason, even if limited. Given that my capacity to reason is all I have to go on, that's what I have to use -- just like I can't ask a dog to think like a man. </font>

I don't understand. If you acknowledge that your reason might be limited, then how can you be confident enough to know you're making the right judgement when it comes to God?

I'm not.

By your own admission, there could be an entire universe of things you don't understand and are not able to take into consideration. So how can you be secure enough to risk suffering for all of eternity in hell?

The same way you can be secure enough at this very moment to admit you are an atheist and reject Christianity--you are making the exact same choice.


Btw- I realize I am coming dangerously close to describing Pascal's wager here. I do disagree with any such wage (at least I think I do). /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[b]You are getting close to the point where we dig up old Lestat posts to rebut Lestat. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">You are getting close to the point where we dig up old Lestat posts to rebut Lestat. </font>

-LOL Now that's funny... Touche!

My last nit is that I don't think my rejecting Christianity is quite the same. I have no reason to believe in Christianity. However, what I'm talking about here is receiving PROOF I am wrong! Now I have to at least consider changing my tune. My main point of the post is that it certinaly would MATTER to me! I just think it's a little too hard core to imply that it wouldn't in the least.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">You are getting close to the point where we dig up old Lestat posts to rebut Lestat. </font>

-LOL Now that's funny... Touche!

My last nit is that I don't think my rejecting Christianity is quite the same. I have no reason to believe in Christianity. However, what I'm talking about here is receiving PROOF I am wrong! Now I have to at least consider changing my tune. My main point of the post is that it certinaly would MATTER to me! I just think it's a little too hard core to imply that it wouldn't in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Note that I didn't say it wouldn't matter in the least--I was actually arguing against the claim that my personal convictions or beliefs would no longer matter in the least, even when faced with proof of God's existence. I totally agree that proof of God's existence would be a huge new piece of data to add to the equation.


EDIT: Just to clarify, the following statement was written as a hypothetical--I see nothing inherently wrong with the statement, not necessarily that the statement represents my beliefs.

"I don't think there's anything wrong with believing that if the God described in the Bible exists, I believe it is my duty to fight Him not worship Him."

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Paris France or Paris Texas?


[/ QUOTE ]

Paris, Kentucky (http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&amp;q=Paris,+KY)

and while you're there, you may wish to visit nearby Versailles (http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&amp;q=Versailles,+KY) (pronounced ver-sails 'round here).

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paris France or Paris Texas?


[/ QUOTE ]

Paris, Kentucky (http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&amp;q=Paris,+KY)

and while you're there, you may wish to visit nearby Versailles (http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&amp;q=Versailles,+KY) (pronounced ver-sails 'round here).

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not funny, my arms are so tired.

chez

[Eidal]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I don't understand is how any atheist can claim it wouldn't matter to him one bit even if the Christian God were proven to exist. I mean, an eternal non-existence Vs. an eternal hell HAS to matter somewhat, doesn't it?

Again, my only point is that we should be more careful in what we say. 100% certain there is no heaven. 100% certain God does not exist. 100% certain that if the Christian God DID exist, it wouldn't matter one bit to us. These don't seem like intelligent things to say if one is thinking rationally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat,

I believe that, like any person, many atheists get caught up in the passion of what they are trying to express and perhaps misrepresent their positions.

I think if you hear an atheist hold forth on the general spiel regarding the atrocities of the Old Testament and how they would be incapable of worshipping such a deity, you should recognize what they are truly expressing is their disgust at the character of the deity.

Any rational human; regardless of prior belief system, would immediately choose eternal bliss over eternal suffering if they were given the choice and also full knowledge of what each choice entails. Its possible that without knowing what "eternal bliss" actually means, some atheists WOULD actually opt for the "oblivion" version of Hell. From my subjective perspective, however, that would go against the definition of rational.
[ QUOTE ]

What makes you so sure we are in a position to judge such a God? It's His universe. We are mortals who cannot perceive or know of the whole picture.


[/ QUOTE ]

For this, I have two thoughts...

A) Given the definition of God (omniscient, omnipotent, and all-knowing), and our human limitations, there is absolutely no way for me to discern between God and merely a very advanced race who for some reason is inclined to trick me. In other words, the Judaic God is defined in a way that we cannot test for (to verify if it is indeed God), and we will never be able to test for. It seems airtight logic to me that because I cannot 100 percent declare the entity before me as whom I implicitly OUGHT to follow, then I'm free of any silly man-made stipulations such as : ("He made you, so you OUGHT to follow him.") or ("God is defined as all-good, therefore he IS all-good.").

Instead, if an entity appeared before me and declared itself to be the Alpha and the Omega and for some reason wanted a relationship with me, then I would appraise it much as I would any relationship with any other entity in my life... using my reason. I may be left with a definition of said entity looking something like this:

A) It is possible that this thing is eternal...
B) It seems to have limitless power...
C) After explaining its goals and what it wants from me, I see how its goals and my goals converge...

therefore

D) I will honor a relationship with this entity, and if it wants me to call it God, then that can't hurt.

If it told me that a few thousand years ago it created a copy of Himself and then sacrificed that copy TO Himself in order to appease a blood debt that He came up... for doing things that He already knew we would do...

Well, then I'd think that entity is really damn powerful but absolutely loony.

I'd still choose eternal bliss though =P

EDIT: I'm not an expert on the Old Testament, however, I am aware of some passages describing how A/E gained the knowledge of good and evil (by eating of a tree). If we're using the Judaic/Xtian God as defined by the Bible, then naturally we're also accepting that, as the Bible says, we possess the ability to discern between good/evil. So, it stands to follow, that IF the Christian God existed and manifested Himself, then all people, everywhere would be compelled to recognize Him as the epitome of Good (because thats also how He is defined).

The problem is that we don't have a manifest God to study, we have an old book written by humans to study, and its up to the individual to read those stories and decide for themselves how to judge how the character of that deity is portrayed.

I could write many more paragraphs about how intangible of a concept Good/Evil actually is, and point out that Good is actually interchangeable with "as God is" yet thats rather sidetracked and I think its fair enough to stay within the frame of Christian theology for this post and treat Good/Evil as objective measures.