Abour rejecting God
 

I posted this before, but now I decided to post an OP.
This is strongly related to the thread lestat made about agreeing with Txaq.
This is also related to the thread Sklansky made about handicapping debaters.

If the christian God is proved true, then we should change our morality, we shouldnt go " bah, screw God he has a lot of explaining to do"
The thing is that God is much, much, much more likely to be right than us on whats right and wrong. In this particular debate: God vs you- on morality
The chances that you are right on that debate is exactly a nice round figure.
As a logical person you should blindly follow what God has to say about morality, should you be absolutely certain of his existence, instead of questioning him.
note that even in a chess debate between kramnik and you, you shouldnt blindly follow him, you should understand that he is most likely to be correct in which move its better but you have to keep in mind that he could be blundering. God ,unlike humans ,doesnt blunder.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that God is much, much, much more likely to be right than us on whats right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thouhgt the whole point was that God got to DEFINE what was right and wrong. So it's not a question of who's right: God makes the rules.

That's what has been claimed in the other threads anwyay.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

If the God of Islam is right then....
If Zeus is right then....
If Vishnu is right then...
I could go on listing hundreds of names here.

If ANY one of the hundreds (thousands?) of Gods that man has or does currently worship is proven true then a lot of things change.

What Christians don't seem to understand is that their conception of God is no closer to being proven true then Vishnu, Loki, Odin, Zeus, Zoraster, etc.

Even if it turns out there is a God meaning a creator... he can still be illogical and imperfect. ie... Christians like to say he's all powerful, perfect, etc. EVEN if we knew there was a God, he would not have to be perfect in any sense.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

Of course God DEFINES morality , so it doenst make sense to reject God becuase of the way he treats gay or whatever.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course God DEFINES morality , so it doenst make sense to reject God becuase of the way he treats gay or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it makes sense to reject God because there is absolutely no reason to believe that he exists.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

If there is consense on atheist that we should blindly accept what the God that is proven right has to say about morality, then my post is kinda meanignless.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

<font color="blue">The thing is that God is much, much, much more likely to be right than us on whats right and wrong. </font>

How can there be anything less than 100% chance that He is more likely to be right? It's His ball, His game, His reality.

Of course, I think there should be differing definitions of "god". I used the Christian God just as an example. However, many times (usually?), when I talk about a god it is not the omnipotent/omnisentient being most people are thinking of. Whatever chance there is that this god exists, the probability for a Christian God is many, many times lower.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
If there is consense on atheist that we should blindly accept what the God that is proven right has to say about morality, then my post is kinda meanignless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have to come to the conclusion that this god is, by definition, "right" about everything..

I don't believe that this is possible

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

I already admitted my OP had that flaw.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

But that is basically the situation. A world with God is so fundamentally different from a world without God that concepts like morality can't be transferred.